So say that the CSA manages to survive and establish its independence, how would the Confederate government and society treat foreign immigration to the Confederacy? Would they attempt to keep out all immigrants? Accept ones that applied to their white supremacist values, and likely only Protestants. The only catholic region in the nation would probably remain Lousiana.
How would a victorious Confederacy treat immigration?
- Thread starter Enigmajones
- Start date
I don't want to get too far into the weeds on this, but the southern states had far, far fewer immigrants seeking to settle there immediately prior to the Civil War compared to the northern states. This was mostly due to the northern state's economic system and political policies (pro-homesteading, industrialization, etc.) being far more attractive to newly arrived immigrants. Why would a post-war Southern economy that remains based on slavery and plantation-system agriculture suddenly be attractive to immigrants? Seems to me that the CSA wouldn't need too close a door that not many were trying to get through. As for the presence of Catholics in the CSA, south Texas and pockets of Florida were majority Catholic while in Louisiana Catholics were concentrated nearer New Orleans (and Charleston [or was it Savanah?] had the 3rd largest Jewish population for US cities circa 1860).
Well if its attractive enough it might anyhow. I can even think off a book I read where a couple Irish patriots fought for the Confederates regardless of the sense it made. So if money is being made, Im not saying it would be the greatest attractor of people but if say New Orleans attracted an immigrant (for instance Italian) in real life, why would that not attract people anyhow.
I mean people might ask why Chinese would immigrate to the American West when you see the treatment they received, but they still did. The point would be that eventually they will have to agree to Manumission and when that happens, will they want to be paying for black labor? Bringing in acceptable settlers who could be more in line with the Confederate elites might be the last act of keeping the country white. If slavery remains, how much of the population would be indentured in say 1900? If slavery ends and the money is there they may have some similarity to White Australia, you know the whole "We're All Whites" argument.
I mean people might ask why Chinese would immigrate to the American West when you see the treatment they received, but they still did. The point would be that eventually they will have to agree to Manumission and when that happens, will they want to be paying for black labor? Bringing in acceptable settlers who could be more in line with the Confederate elites might be the last act of keeping the country white. If slavery remains, how much of the population would be indentured in say 1900? If slavery ends and the money is there they may have some similarity to White Australia, you know the whole "We're All Whites" argument.
This depends on the political situation and coalitions of an independent Confederacy. The planter elites were relatively "cosmopolitan" and at least tolerated Catholics and even Jews (see Judah P Benjamin) as fellow whites so if an independent CSA remains dominated by them, they would welcome white immigration of any background as a way to increase the white population especially of skilled workers especially considering they wouldn't get much compared to the US. By contrast, if non-planter whites were to prevail politically you would see the South evolve in a more nativist Protestant direction. IOTL, it was these middle class and redneck types from the upland areas of the South who filled the ranks of the Second Klan (which crucially aimed its bigotry not just at blacks but also Catholics and Jews) and pushed policies such as Prohibition that emphasized Protestant identity. This map of the 1928 US Presidential election is instructive. Notice the Republican Hoover's breakthrough in stretches of the inland/upland South against the Democrat Al Smith:
The CSA already had large populations of Catholics and Jews. Charleston even had largest Jewish population in the U.S. at the time.
I doubt they would be banned as long as they were White and supported whatever Jim Crow type system would arise. Due to the lack of industrialization, I doubt there would be significant enough amounts of immigration to really warrant laws against it.
I doubt they would be banned as long as they were White and supported whatever Jim Crow type system would arise. Due to the lack of industrialization, I doubt there would be significant enough amounts of immigration to really warrant laws against it.
Last edited:
Immigration would not be a big issue as immigrants are likely to remain a small portion of the Confederate population. With a large unskilled labour force, the country is unlike to attract immigrants in greater numbers than it did in OTL. The region is likely to be a net exporter of white and black labour to the north. As things stood, by 1910 Texas and Florida had immigrant population comprised mostly of migrant labourers that were mainly temporary migrants. Unlike the north, the south might continue to sponsor more open borders so as to alleviate labour shortages.
With the exception of Texas and Florida, most of the ex-Confederate states had very few immigrants between 1860 and 1990. Looking at the 1910 census, there were a total of 454,821 foreign-born individuals in the former confederacy, comprising 2% of the total population (compared with 25.8% of the northeast).
Of the immigrants in the ex-Confederacy in 1910, over half lived in Texas. Interestingly, 125,000 of Texas's foreign-born or 56.3% were born in Mexico, most being agricultural workers. Similarly, in Florida 42% of the foreign-born we're from Cuba and the West Indies mostly working in agriculture.
Percentage Foreign Born Population in 1910
Texas 6.2%
Florida 5.6%
Louisiana 3.2%
Virginia 1.3%
Arkansas 1.1%
All of the other ex-Confederate states had less than 1% of their population born abroad.
Unlike the Northeast, the Midwest or the West, most immigrants were not concentrated in urban areas. Only New Orleans, Tampa and Memphis had more than 5,000 foreign-born in 1910. New Orleans had 26,000 or 7.7% of it's population, Tampa with its 10,800 was unique insofar as 28% of the city was foreign-born. Memphis with it's 6,500 immigrants was the next largest immigrant city in the old Confederacy, but they were a mere 5% of the city's population. In Atlanta and Nashville only 2.9% and 2.7% of the population were immigrants by contrast.
By the standards of large immigrant countries,the ex-Confederacy would rank low on the list, far below the US and Canada. It would also have a far smaller foreign-born population in 1910 when compared to Argentina, Southern Brazil, Uruguay or Cuba. It ranks below Chile even where 4% were born abroad in 1907, but above Mexico where 0.8% were immigrants in 1910.
With the exception of Texas and Florida, most of the ex-Confederate states had very few immigrants between 1860 and 1990. Looking at the 1910 census, there were a total of 454,821 foreign-born individuals in the former confederacy, comprising 2% of the total population (compared with 25.8% of the northeast).
Of the immigrants in the ex-Confederacy in 1910, over half lived in Texas. Interestingly, 125,000 of Texas's foreign-born or 56.3% were born in Mexico, most being agricultural workers. Similarly, in Florida 42% of the foreign-born we're from Cuba and the West Indies mostly working in agriculture.
Percentage Foreign Born Population in 1910
Texas 6.2%
Florida 5.6%
Louisiana 3.2%
Virginia 1.3%
Arkansas 1.1%
All of the other ex-Confederate states had less than 1% of their population born abroad.
Unlike the Northeast, the Midwest or the West, most immigrants were not concentrated in urban areas. Only New Orleans, Tampa and Memphis had more than 5,000 foreign-born in 1910. New Orleans had 26,000 or 7.7% of it's population, Tampa with its 10,800 was unique insofar as 28% of the city was foreign-born. Memphis with it's 6,500 immigrants was the next largest immigrant city in the old Confederacy, but they were a mere 5% of the city's population. In Atlanta and Nashville only 2.9% and 2.7% of the population were immigrants by contrast.
By the standards of large immigrant countries,the ex-Confederacy would rank low on the list, far below the US and Canada. It would also have a far smaller foreign-born population in 1910 when compared to Argentina, Southern Brazil, Uruguay or Cuba. It ranks below Chile even where 4% were born abroad in 1907, but above Mexico where 0.8% were immigrants in 1910.
A good many northern residents had this exact view regarding preferred immigrants.
But.... in the end, the northern population was willing to tolerate Catholic immigrants when labor was needed and the preferred WASPs were no longer coming. My guess is that the CSA would be no different.
Last edited:
The southern aristocracy was at least by 19th century standards religiously tolerant. The poor to middle class whites who became the real political power in the South after Reconstruction were less tolerant in that area and with a dead economy didn't want to share jobs.
How open to immigration they would likely have been tied to economic reality at a given moment.
How open to immigration they would likely have been tied to economic reality at a given moment.
Last edited:
It depends on how the war goes and the immediate aftermath. In the antebellum south New Orleans the population of foreign born individuals as New York City, it was just a far smaller city.
Except that the South didn't "need labor", they had a labor force in place whose population was growing, and which was already dominant over their white underclass, that being slaves. The North's economy grew much faster, and it had the ever-present release valve of westward expansion, which drove the homestead movement, and even to some extent anti-slavery/containment ideas among northerners, both rich and poor. The south doesn't.
Very true. And with out a need for labor, my guess is that a victorious post war South was not going to see a large influx of immigrants.
For most of the 20th century the south exported people with some 20 million white and 8 million black southerners leaving the region for other states between 1900 and 1980. It is often overlooked that the surplus of cheap labour in the south also included millions of poor whites.
When foreign immigrants did arrive in the region, their numbers were small, with the ex-Confederate states receiving a mere 2.5% of all US immigrants between 1899 and 1910.
With the exceptions of Mexican and West Indian immigrants to Texas and Florida respectively, immigrants to the region often engaged in trade or commerce, often becoming peddlers, butchers, bankers, grocers, tailors, hatters, shoemakers etc. Notable amongst this group were Eastern European Jews. According to the Jewish Year Book their numbers in the ex-Confederacy reached 191,113 by 1927. Jewish merchants played an important role in the region founding department stores such as Neiman Marcus in Dallas or Rich's in Atlanta.
When foreign immigrants did arrive in the region, their numbers were small, with the ex-Confederate states receiving a mere 2.5% of all US immigrants between 1899 and 1910.
With the exceptions of Mexican and West Indian immigrants to Texas and Florida respectively, immigrants to the region often engaged in trade or commerce, often becoming peddlers, butchers, bankers, grocers, tailors, hatters, shoemakers etc. Notable amongst this group were Eastern European Jews. According to the Jewish Year Book their numbers in the ex-Confederacy reached 191,113 by 1927. Jewish merchants played an important role in the region founding department stores such as Neiman Marcus in Dallas or Rich's in Atlanta.
Last edited:
They may promote europian immigration to shore up thier demographic control even if they end slavery (they would probably look like a eternal apartide south africa or Jim Crow south without pressure from the north to desegregate.) A possible interesting knock on effect is since they are less secure demographically they may be more inclusive of europians that where considered undesirable for the period (Irish, hispanic ect) since they don't have the luxury of playing racial games like deciding which europian groups are "really white/white enough".
The economy was dead in the South after the Civil War. As a region it was stuck in an economic depression for about a century after the war. People left mainly due to that simple fact.
If the economy was not dead and instead was surging, they would need more labor not less. There was a regional divide on that topic OTL with the Cotton States preferring a restoration of the slave trade and the northern South preferring just about any other solution then that.
Last edited:
I think a century of depression is a huge exaggeration, where does that claim come from?
The south's economic backwardness seems to have already been entrenched by 1860. By that year the United States had over 4 million immigrants, with a mere 238,000 in what would become the Confederate States. Despite being home to 29% of the US population, those states had under 6% of all immigrants in 1860. Of those, over half lived in Louisiana and Texas.
The Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas in particular seemed to attract very few immigrants after colonization or initial settlement. These states seemed to have been far less economically dynamic than the Northeast or Midwest.
The Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas in particular seemed to attract very few immigrants after colonization or initial settlement. These states seemed to have been far less economically dynamic than the Northeast or Midwest.
Oh, in real terms its not true given they had ups and downs on the basis of where the economy ended up in 1865.
My overall point is true though that it took a century for the region to get to an economic baseline that one might call a real recovery where things were going forward, and the economy was diversifying.
Closer to home my grandfather served in the deep South in the 1950s and he said it was an economic wasteland there with a population that still very much hated Yankees.
Last edited:
Good stats. Hard to argue with this reality. Even if they wanted to promote immigration, the fact of the matter is that Atlanta and Birmingham are always going to be less appealing destinations for Europeans than Pittsburgh and Cleveland due to the climate.