Are there really more Americans of German ancestry than English ancestry?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does that include Ireland as a part of Britain during that time period?

I was very specific about using 'Britain' rather than 'UK' for that reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bless

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course a lot doesn't actually show up in ancestry figures either; consider the role of the Cornish pasty as a symbol of American-Finnish identity in the Upper Peninsula...

[opebo]

The only reason I even mention or reveal the non-English half of my ancestry is that it is French - as far as I can think of that's the only one which would actually be (at least potentially) better than English.  If it were anything else I'd keep it to myself and just say 'English' or 'American'. 

[jimrtex]

People are more likely to know about German ancestry than about English ancestry. It is far easier to identify with the most recent immigrants -- especially if those define your culture.

Until I took genealogy seriously and started examining records I thought that I was more German than anything else with much Irish ancestry. Many of the "Germans" are really Swiss, and the "Irish" are Scots-Irish. The English and Welsh parts are bigger than I thought -- a majority. Maternal grandparents that I thought were completely  German as were about half English.

I was looking at the 1890 Census, and at that time over half of the people in many states were either foreign born or of foreign parentage, but this dropped dramatically as one went further south, and was under 1% in North Carolina.   This meant that there had been almost no immigration into North Carolina for close to a century.  Some of the respondents in 1890 would have been in their 60s and 70s, born in the 1820s, with parents born around 1800.

Going forward to 2010, you have people who are at least 8th or 9th generation with no immigrant ancestors, if they limited themselves to North Carolinians.  That would mean that each immigrant ancestor would be at most a 1/256 contribution.  Most would not have even contributed to the genetic ancestry.

If someone happened to have a French Huguenot name, they might identify as French ancestry, but even then there is likely to have so much intermarriage that it is essentially meaningless.

In 1890, 11.5 million were native-born of foreign parentage, and 9.0 million were foreign born, the ration of which indicates the relative recency of the immigration boom beginning in the 1840s.

Another interesting item was that 13% of the Utah population was of English birth in 1890, 6 years before statehood.  I had always thought that the reason that Utah has such a high level of English ancestry was that they had more genealogical awareness.  But they actually did have a high level of English immigration.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, the Mormons recruited very heavily in parts of the UK.

[King of Kensington]

It's also because colonial English ancestry is less common than one would expect. After the initial settlement of New England, Virginia, etc. in the 1600s, the UK heavily discouraged emigration from England in the 1700s because the government preferred to keep the population at home. Most immigration then was Scots-Irish, German, or African-American.

It's well established that people of English ancestry were the largest group in colonial America by far.  Scots-Irish were the second largest and Germans were less than 10% with half in Pennsylvania, where they constituted a third of the population.

[King of Kensington]

I was looking at the 1890 Census, and at that time over half of the people in many states were either foreign born or of foreign parentage, but this dropped dramatically as one went further south, and was under 1% in North Carolina.   This meant that there had been almost no immigration into North Carolina for close to a century.

Yes, the South had practically no immigration in the 19th century and its white population was overwhelmingly of English, Scottish or Scots-Irish stock. 

In 1900, there were 8 million Americans either born in Germany or the children of immigrants from Germany.  That figure doesn't count the third-generation (which would have been significant given it took after in the 1840s), Volga Germans from or Americans of colonial German stock.  Adding them in all probably would yield a population of about 15 million at most, about 20% of the population of 76 million.

There were 67 million white Americans in 1900, 25 million of foreign stock.  It's reasonable to assume that half of white Americans were of colonial stock.   Probably 20 million were of primarily English ancestry, then there were 2.2 million 1st and 2nd generation English immigrants and 1.6 million "other" (non-French) Canadians (many of whom were English), and we have throw in the grandchildren too.

So English ancestry in 1900 must have been around 25 million, the same as "self-reported" English ancestry today. 

I don't see how German could have surpassed English after 1900.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see how German could have surpassed English after 1900.

Thing is, we see English as so indistinguishable from American that if there is any other ancestry, that's the one that will be mentioned.  It's sort of like sandwiches.  Does anyone ever bother to mention their sandwich uses white bread?

[jimrtex]

In 1890 not only was there a huge difference in the concentration of foreign stock among states, but in the distribution, between native born of foreign parentage and foreign born.

In States like Kansas, Missouri, and Indiana with 27%, 25%, and 20% foreign stock (among the white population), the ratio of native born of foreign parentage : foreign born was around 2:1.   This would indicate a combination of die-off of foreign born; more mixed foreign-native marriages; and perhaps secondary migration of the native born offspring.  In the States with high foreign stock such as Massachusetts 56%, New York 57%, Michigan 55%, the ratio was closer to 1:1, suggesting more recent immigration, so there was less chance to reproduce, and the original immigrants were still living.

While Southern States had low percentages of foreign stock, their cities typically had much higher concentrations (cities in 1890 were the 124 cities with populations greater than 25,000, North Carolina and Mississippi had no such cities).

Virginia 2.6%, Richmond 11.5%
South Carolina 1.4%, Charleston 14.3%
Georgia 1.7%, Savannah 20.6%, Augusta 9.6%, Atlanta 7.2%
Kentucky 9.8%, Louisville 43.1%
Tennessee 3.0%, Memphis 20.4%, Nashville 13.1%, Chattanooga 11.0%
Alabama 2.4%, Mobile 23.2%, Birmingham 13.5%
Louisiana 12.9%, New Orleans 45.0%
Texas 15.0%, Galveston 48.0%, Houston 25.0%, Dallas 21.1%
Arkansas 3.3%, Little Rock 18.4%

[bgwah]

My most recent immigrant ancestor was from England.

[jimrtex]

These are the 1890 Census figures for foreign stock (with one or more parents from the country, or foreign born).   The foreign stock represented 33% of the white population, so just short of 30% of the total population of almost 63 million.  The countries represented in the table represent about 90% of the foreign stock.

The first number is the number of persons of foreign parentage or foreign birth of the given country.  That is, 7.13 million of German descent or about 11% of the population.  The next four numbers are the percentage of that population that were of (1) mixed foreign parentage (eg German and Irish); (2) native born, one parent foreign and the other native; (3) native born, both parents foreign born from the same country; (4) and foreign born.

Persons of mixed foreign parentage are double counted in the first column.   That is, the numbers for Germany and Ireland include 46,000 persons who have one parent born in Germany and one parent born in Ireland.  There are around 900,000 total persons.

Persons are foreign born, but of mixed foreign parentage, are included in both the 1st column and the 4th column.  It was too complicated for me to try to sort that out.   The numbers of foreign born of mixed foreign parentage are not inconsiderable for some groups.   For example, of those who had one parent born in Scotland and the other in Canada, slightly over half were foreign born, likely in Canada.  About 1/5 of those who had one parent born in England and the other Ireland, were foreign born, perhaps in Liverpool.


Country   ForSt  Mx  1P  2P  FB
Germany   7.13M   4  15  42  39
Ireland   5.78M   7  14  41  38
England   2.27M  15  26  22  38
Canada(E) 1.16M  19  34  16  31
Sweden    0.78M   7   5  28  61
Scotland  0.72M  19  20  19  37
Norway    0.63M   6   7  38  49
Canada(F) 0.54M   4  12  29  54
France    0.34M  25  23  20  32
Russia    0.27M   5   2  26  66
Italy     0.26M   3   5  21  71
Wales     0.26M  15  19  29  37
Denmark   0.24M  12   7  27  53
Bohemia   0.22M   4   4  40  51


These numbers suggest that the ancestry reported in the modern census is not inaccurate, particularly if the instructions which suggest that it is the ancestry that one identifies with.  

None of the persons in the 1890 Census are alive today.   There will be a few children of the very youngest in 1890 alive today though at least 80.  But the foreign born tend to be older than the population in general since the typical age of immigration is 15 to 30.  So if a typical foreign born person in 1890 was 35, the typical person filling out a census form in 2010 is 4 or 5 generations removed.  An ancestor from the 1890 represents around 5% of their ancestral heritage.  If the family lived in an ethnic enclave, the identity might last a couple of more generations.   If the family lived in the West, there would be less ethnic association, or one based on name.   Unless your paternal Grandma Smith told you of her mother-in-laws background, you might assume the Smiths were English.  But there is at least some chance of an authentic connection to the ancestral country.

Among the 60% of the population of native birth and native parentage it is somewhat less likely to have any real connection.  Some of these will be little different than in the above table.  A brother born in Cork in 1847, will have little difference in background from his brother born in Boston in 1850.  One would show up among the 38% foreign born Irish, while the other would be among the 41% native born with two Irish parents.

Among their children, cousins who lived in the same neighborhood, one might be native born of native-born parents and not listed in the table, but other might be native born of foreign-born parents.

So while some of the native-born of native-parentage population in 1890 will have an ancestry derived from post 1840s immigration from Germany and post-famine Ireland, most will not.  

And completely making up a number, perhaps 50% or more, were primarily English ancestry, with the rest Scots, Scotch-Irish, Welsh, German, Irish, and bits of other groups such as Dutch, French Huguenot.  That is another 20 million of English ancestry that is not included in the table.

[morgieb]

Another theory - Independence meant that most English immigrants moved to Australia, New Zealand or Canada, so therefore most American English have been here since the 1700's.

[King of Kensington]

So while some of the native-born of native-parentage population in 1890 will have an ancestry derived from post 1840s immigration from Germany and post-famine Ireland, most will not.

Yes, most in 1890 would have been captured in the "foreign stock" question. 

[King of Kensington]

I've never seen any data that Scots-Irish outnumber English in the South, but it seems very trendy these days to claim Southern whites are actually Celts and contrast "Celtic" Southerners to "Anglo-Saxon" Yankees.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've never seen any data that Scots-Irish outnumber English in the South, but it seems very trendy these days to claim Southern whites are actually Celts and contrast "Celtic" Southerners to "Anglo-Saxon" Yankees.

Let's not forget that it was also trendy pre-Civil War in the south for Southerners to claim descent from Norman conquerors while asserting Northerners came from conquered Anglo-Saxons.

[jimrtex]

I've never seen any data that Scots-Irish outnumber English in the South, but it seems very trendy these days to claim Southern whites are actually Celts and contrast "Celtic" Southerners to "Anglo-Saxon" Yankees.

They possibly do in the inland south, but probably include a lot of northern English.  Hoosier is supposedly a word in the Cumberland dialect.

[Benj]

I've never seen any data that Scots-Irish outnumber English in the South, but it seems very trendy these days to claim Southern whites are actually Celts and contrast "Celtic" Southerners to "Anglo-Saxon" Yankees.

Let's not forget that it was also trendy pre-Civil War in the south for Southerners to claim descent from Norman conquerors while asserting Northerners came from conquered Anglo-Saxons.

Are we talking English Civil War, or what? Because that's just ridiculous.

[King of Kensington]

A lot of the literature on the topic is just silly.  Southerners must be Celts because they're "fighters" not "cold and reserved" like Anglo-Saxons/Yankees.  The 1790 census and 1980 census certainly don't show Scots-Irish outnumbering English.

For some reason in the US "English" also seems to imply elite status even though it includes plenty of Kentucky coal miners and Maine lobstermen.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've never seen any data that Scots-Irish outnumber English in the South, but it seems very trendy these days to claim Southern whites are actually Celts and contrast "Celtic" Southerners to "Anglo-Saxon" Yankees.

Let's not forget that it was also trendy pre-Civil War in the south for Southerners to claim descent from Norman conquerors while asserting Northerners came from conquered Anglo-Saxons.

Are we talking English Civil War, or what? Because that's just ridiculous.

No pre-American Civil War, and yes it is ridiculous.

[King of Kensington]

Anyone have foreign born and foreign stock populations at the state level for either 1890 or 1900?  It would be interesting to look at Pennsylvania and the Midwestern states. 

[jimrtex]

Anyone have foreign born and foreign stock populations at the state level for either 1890 or 1900?  It would be interesting to look at Pennsylvania and the Midwestern states. 

ME 23%, NH 32%, VT 31%, MA 56%, RI 58%, CT 50%
NY 57%, NJ 48%, PA 36%
OH 34%, IN 20%, IL 49%, MI 55%, WI 74%
MN 75%, IA 44%, MO 25%
ND 79%, SD 60%, NE 42%, KS 27%
DE 18%, MD 24%, VA 3%, WV 8%, NC 1%, SC 2%, GA 2%, FL 11%
KY 10%, TN 3%, AL 3%, MS 2%
LA 13%, TX 15%, OK 11%, AR 3%
MT 56%, WY 48% CO 40%, NM 15%
AZ 55%, UT 66%, NV 59%, ID 47%
WA 45%, OR 34%, CA 57%

[King of Kensington]

Is this 1890 or 1900?  Anything by country of origin?  (I can only find country of birth not the 2nd generation but I'm pretty sure in the case of the Germans for example the lower Midwest communities like Cincinnati and St. Louis were older than upper Midwest communities like Milwaukee.)

[jimrtex]

Is this 1890 or 1900?  Anything by country of origin?  (I can only find country of birth not the 2nd generation but I'm pretty sure in the case of the Germans for example the lower Midwest communities like Cincinnati and St. Louis were older than upper Midwest communities like Milwaukee.)

1890 This was the first census tabulated with Hollerith cards, and they had fun gathering statistics on all kinds of different combinations of parents.

Percentages are relative to entire population.

ME 23%, Can(E) 7%, Can(F) 6%
NH 32%, Can(F) 13%, Ire 9%
VT 31%, Can(F) 9%, Ire 9%, Can(E) 6%
MA 56%, Ire 27%, Can(F) 7%, Can(E) 6%, Eng 5%
RI 58%, Ire 26%, Can(F) 10%, Eng 9%
CT 50%, Ire 25%, Ger 7%, Eng 5%

NY 57%, Ire 20%, Ger 18%
NJ 48%, Ire 17%, Ger 16%, Eng 6%
PA 36%, Ire 12%, Ger 11%
DE 18%, Ire 9%
MD 24%, Ger 14%, Ire 5%

OH 34%, Ger 18%, Ire 6%
IN 20%, Ger 12%
IL 49%, Ger 21%, Ire 9%
MI 55%, Ger 15%, Can(E) 9%, Eng 6%, Ire 6%
WI 74%, Ger 37%, Nor 8%, Ire 7%, Oth 5%
MN 75%, Ger 21%, Nor 15%, Swe 12%, Ire 7%
IA 44%, Ger 17%, Ire 7%
MO 25%, Ger 14%

ND 79%, Nor 26%, Ger 11%, Can(E) 9%, Ire 5%
SD 61%, Ger 14%, Nor 12%, Ire 9%
NE 42%, Ger 15%
KS 27%, Ger 9%

KY 10%, Ger 6%
TX 15%, Ger 6%, Oth 5%

MT 56%, Ire 13%, Ger 9%, Eng 9%
WY 48%, Eng 10%, Ire 9%, Ger 7%
CO 40%, Ger 8%, Ire 8%, Eng 7%
NM 15%, Oth 7%
AZ 55%, Oth 34%
UT 66%, Eng 28%, Den 10%, Swe 5%
NV 59%, Ire 16%, Eng 10%, Ger 8%
ID 46%, Eng 11%, Ire 6%, Ger 5%
WA 45%, Ger 9%, Ire 6%, Eng 6%
OR 34%, Ger 10%
CA 57%, Ire 14%, Ger 12%, Oth 7%, Eng 7%

[Franknburger]

These are the 1890 Census figures for foreign stock (with one or more parents from the country, or foreign born).   The foreign stock represented 33% of the white population, so just short of 30% of the total population of almost 63 million.  The countries represented in the table represent about 90% of the foreign stock.

[..]

And completely making up a number, perhaps 50% or more, were primarily English ancestry, with the rest Scots, Scotch-Irish, Welsh, German, Irish, and bits of other groups such as Dutch, French Huguenot.  That is another 20 million of English ancestry that is not included in the table.

A few technical notes to this otherwise excellent post:
a.) A good part (probably more than half) of what is being listed as "Dansih" should have come from Schleswig-Holstein, which became German after the 1864 German-Danish war.

b.) Due to restrictive Danish emigration laws towards the US (they preferred people emigrating to their own overseas colonies, especially the Virgin Islands), it was quite common to emigrate via foreign, especially Dutch and British ports. As such, some of the Dutch / British born immigrants may in fact have their parents been originating from Schleswig-Holstein / Denmark. But we are probably talking minor numbers here.

c.) Early German immigration into North America tends to be underestimated. When Nieuw Amsterdam (now New York) was established, the Netherlands were still part of the German Empire (they gained formal independence in 1648). There are widely varying estimates about how many of the early "Dutch" settlers were in fact (north) German, ranging somewhere between ten and thirty-five per cent (I personally, after having looked a bit into available documentation on early settlers, tend towards the lower end). In any case, even after the British takeover, New York remained a favourite target of North German immigration, and a research of early 18th century New York address books  (I unfortunately don't find the online source anymore)  put the share of ethnic Germans at around 25%.

d.) The same applies to New Sweden on the Lower Delaware River. At the time of its foundation, at the height of the War of Thirty Years, Sweden controlled most of northern and central Germany, and the establishment of the colony was on the agenda of the 1634 German Federal Council meeting in Frankfurt/ Main. Some 10-15% of the original settlers came from Northern Germany. To which extent emigration continued after the British takeover is unknown to me. In any case, it should be considered that a good part of Northern Germany was Swedish between the mid-17th century and the Napoleonic Wars.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I prefer to answer "German" for my primary ancestry rather than "English" or "Irish", even though I have all three (in addition to Swiss, French, and Luxemburger. )