Foreign born by state, 1860 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2024, 06:20:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Foreign born by state, 1860 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Foreign born by state, 1860  (Read 1232 times)
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:22:23 PM »



The states are shaded according to the percentage of the population in each that consisted of foreign born right before the Civil War, according to the 1860 US census.  

In descending order from darkest to lightest green:

30% or higher=darkest green  
25-29%
20-24%
15-19%
10-14%
5-9%
0-4%=lightest green

Not yet a state=gray

Virginia and West Virginia are the same color since they were one state.

Thoughts?  What sticks out to you?

If I'm reading the map rightly, it looks like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and California all have higher percentage foreign born than New York does.  Which isn't so shocking, given that New York had millions living in the state at the time and those three states had only a few hundred thousand.  I'm guessing this is also somewhat of an indicator of the difference between the large German and Scandinavian immigrant waves, which went further inland into the frontier for farms and land, versus the largely Irish immigration that settled in the urban areas in the Mid Atlantic and lower New England states, though there was a significant population of that group in California.

I must admit, I am a little surprised at how light green Maine and New Hampshire are at this point in time, especially compared to Vermont.  Though I guess when you consider the ties between Vermont and parts of Canada, maybe not so much.  They've always had a substantial French Canadian population, if my memory serves me correctly.

Texas and Louisiana kind of stick out like sore thumbs in the South, for obvious reasons.  I'm guessing if one was a Catholic immigrant who happened to be south of Mason-Dixon Louisiana was preferable to other states due to it's roots and Texas had it's fair share of Mexicans and other groups.

And then of course we get to the elephant in the room: the South.  Very little industry at the time (outside of the urban areas), slavery dominated economy (emphasis, as this put many free farmers at a disadvantage), highly elitist hierarchy (especially so in the Carolinas and Virginia) that limited voting rights and other issues, and just in general was not an attractive destination for many immigrants.

I might comment more, but I'll just leave saying a map says a thousand words.  This one does so, quite appropriately.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 13 queries.