Subject: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 19 May 2001 11:52:52 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if POD- The 1863 Draft Riots get even more out of control and result in some perceived sabotage of the war effort. It does not change the outcome by 1865. But it does effect political perceptions, and stigmatize the Irish as dangerous copperheads. Postwar congresses, designing the package of measures designed to strengthen GOP control, support immigration restriction. A quota much lower than 1850s peak immigration is set, and the quota is apportioned on the basis of national origin based on the 1840 census, or 1850 census. The goal is to keep the WASP proportion of the voting public as large as possible, in the belief that in most states they are more loyal to the GOP. With the south returning to the Union, and the abolition of the 3/5ths rule, it will have greater representation than ever in Washington. To counter this, the GOP wants to take every possible step to keep the north an undivided bastion of support for itself. Immigrant groups are identified with disloyalty in wartime as the Germans were in WWI. The fear is a united Democrat south and a divided north, with Irish voters tipping some eastern states towards the Democrats. The idea is to keep the north solidly Republican and the South at least partially Republican. If President Johnson vetoes the law it may be more out of reflexive opposition to GOP proposals than out of sincere conviction. His constituency is, after all, more border state redneck than urban Irish. It might be one of the few things he lets slip by. He might figure it will benefit his southern constituency by slowing the increase of northern population and therefore House seats. If he does veto the measure successfully throughout his term, it is passed early in the Grant Administration. Perhaps this TL is altered enough that Johnson isn?t on the ticket in the first place, which has plenty of butterfly effects but not ones that are likely to disrupt the general flow of the scenario. The Effect- Immigration declines overall as the quota is decreased. The Irish and Germans still fill their portions of the quota and people of those ethnic backgrounds do grow in proportion to the native-born for awhile anyway because of higher birthrates. Compared to OTL, by 1900, the proportion of Germans in the US is much lower than Anglo-Saxons, or even Irish, ironically, because Germans wre the bulk of the newcomers from 1860 to 1880 in OTL and ,maybe even from 1880 to 1900. The 1865 Quota system constitutes de facto exclusion of the Chinese if the base year is set before 1848-thus rendering a specific Chinese exclusion act later unneccesary. If the base year is from a later date before 1860, the Chinese Quota will still be so small that Chinese exclusion does not become an issue. Totally excluded, except for special categories like professors, students, clergy and architects, are Japanese and many East and Southern European nationalities. The Italian and Russian quotas are extremely miniscule. Japanese immigration to the US does not become a major bilateral issue, as it was never a prospect in the first place. If anything, the Japanese might be given some portion of the Chinese quota during the many decades when Japan is regarded as a more important country. Norwegians, Danes and Swedes also come in smaller numbers than in OTL. The Great Plains and Rockies are settled a bit more slowly with fewer Central European immigrants available. Texas may retain a more southern character. More of the west will initially be settled as cattle pasture rather than farmland or sheep pasture, and the era of the cowbuy lasts longer. [Pretty much because cattle was the Anglo-Saxon specialty, while farming and dairy was the German.] Eventually more and more arable land will be brough under cultivation. There is still substantial labor unrest in the late 1870s and Federal troops are pulled from the South. There is still a limited Exoduster movement of southern blacks toward Kansas and the west. More land is available for freedmen to take, but in the short-run, their capital situation isn?t much improved so the increase in black farmers in the west is marginal. Northern industries begin recruiting freedmen for labor, and the northward movement gathers steam so to speak throughout the 1880s. First, those Freedmen with the poorest economic prospects head north, those who can afford it prefer the farming life. Then as economic conditions and harassment worsen in the south in the 1890s, the migration rate more than doubles. Many of the people who move north and do well enough, save up and move west eventually to farm, so that by 1900 the nonwhite population of the Plains states is 3 or 4 times greater than OTL, although decidedly still a minority. Migration causes resentment among working class whites in the north in urban areas.. However, pro-business middle-class Republicans who live in high-priced neighborhoods, suburbs or small towns are delighted to have blacks who are ready to act as strikebreakers and vote Republican. Both the racist and mildly pro-Labor bent of the Democratic Party in the north, is reinforced in the north. The Freedmen?s right to vote in the north is protected by business interest and both Freemen and wealthier whites continue to vote for the party of Lincoln for decades. Some Democratic officeholders try to include southern newcomers, white and black, in their big tent in northern cities. This succeeds in some cities, but the national trend is for Democrats to go with racist demagoguery and intimidation, and for freedmen to vote for the party of Lincoln. There?s plenty of race rioting in the north in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. In some states the northward black migration is resented enough that a complete Jim Crow system is enacted. This only works for any length of time in Indiana or Illinois. Remember in OTL, when large-scale black migration northward occurred, no northern states replicated the Jim Crow system in toto. I don?t see any reason why this should change, especially with memories of the civil war being in the more recent past. Southern whites also migrate northward and westward looking for jobs as the sharecropping economy begins to decline. They go in smaller numbers than blacks, and tend to get back into farming as quickly as they can. By the end of the 1890s a couple trends are in effect. Black out-migration from the south eases pressure on the sharecropping system in the south. The cotton glut is less severe. Fewer whites are rendered landless in the first place as the labor supply diminishes in the south. In several places the labor shortage causes more former plantation land to go back to swamp or woodland as its hard to clear. Laborers of both races can command higher wages in the south. Labor shortages put a higher premium. Labor shortages put a higher premium on labor-saving technology, and state policies encourage its development. By 1900, black out-migration from the south has been so substantial that a majority of the nation?s blacks live in the north or midwest, and nonwhites make up no more than 15% of the population of any southern state. That is in contrast to OTL, where the black proportion of the population in the south is much smaller than this. The labor vacuum in the north from 1880 to 1920 causes an almost audible giant sucking sound. The diminished proportions of nonwhites makes race-based appeals a less promising avenue of political advancement in the south compared to OTL. Many Democratic politicians go for more populist appeals. Southern voters are also more supportive of public education than in OTL. This influences the Democratic Party nationally, so that Grover Cleveland types may not be nominated. However, the Republicans may also be a bit more competitive in the south. Southern, mostly black migrants are first stuck in cheap company housing and overcrowded slums in the cities. They do not get into established residential neighborhoods. Housing discrimination is the norm. In the industrial and metropolitan areas of the northeast and midwest, migrants often live in squatter communities. Much of the land is still undeveloped enough even in these regions that newcomers can build housing on woodland or marginal farmland. Those blacks who are best off, factory foremen, successful retailers, etc. are the first ones who can afford land and construction materials outside of slums and company housing. Starting in the 1890s and continuing for many decades, this process causes many counties in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, northern Ohio, northern Illinois and the San Francisco Bay area to become majority ?minority?. After 1900, despite redistricting shenanigans, this starts to be reflected in the House of Reps and in State legislatures. By 1900 ?urban? Republicans start to flex their muscles in a progressive direction. Nonwhite politicians start picking up House seats and Mayoral positions in many smaller cities in the industrial parts of the country. In 1912, the first black mayor of Philadelphia is elected. The next year, the same thing happens in Chicago. It?s the black nalog of the election of Fiorello LaGuardia in OTL around this time. AS MAJOR LEAGUE SPORTS EMERGE AROUND THE turn of the century, they become integrated relatively quickly, particularly because black athletes do well in the first olympics of 1896 or in 1900 or 1904. Even if the AFL remains discriminatory for a long time, after 1910 or so they will begin to coordinate strike actions with minority unions. By the late 20s in Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, San Francisco, Baltimore, Hartford and Detroit, minorities dominate the civil sector and police departments. In Ne York and Boston the Irish still dominate those areas. Many nationalities with low quotas: Italians, Poles, Russians, Japanese, settle in Canada around the tur of the century. Canada is the biggest pathway for people of those ethnic groups to the US, legal and illegal, although most who move to Canada stay in Canada. Americans call illegals Great Lakes wetbacks. Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Seattle, Buffalo, Chicago and most of all Detroit are where those groups have the biggest impact on the cities? character culturally and politically. Americans associate authentic pizza with Detroit, not New York, same goes for kosher food. The demographic trends in the industrial states are increased by two factors, the higher minority birthrates, and white flight which occurs for several decades when minorities begin to make enough money to buy homes in established neighborhoods. Although for several reasons the country is not as racist in this 1920 as in OTL?s, other factors spur black advancement even more. They come to be the majority in some wealthy and populous states, and they?ve secured the right ot political participation in their new homes outside the south. Woodrow Wilson, if he?s born and grows up with the same atitudes,, cannot be public with them and still expect to be a successful politician in New Jersey for example. A film like Birth of a Nation would not be well-received in this TL?s 1919. Studios frankly might not give a damn about making ?Gone with the Wind? into a feature film. I don?t know when, in this TL, women would get the vote. I don?t know when or if prohibition of alcohol would be adopted. If it was adopted, the urban gangster niche would be filled mostly by blacks, probably southern-born. Assuming immigration restrictions are never lifted, whites would be only 70% of the US population by 1990, or 65%. Meanwhile, there are serious effects on the rest of the world. If there is a situation that causes the US to grant citizenship to Puerto Ricans, they come in such numbers that the island is fairly depopulated and they have better employment opportunities and become more geographically spread compared to OTL. Other impacts. With better economic advancement of blacks, there may be a longer period of more genuine ?separate but equal? social lives, supported by elites in both races. There also may be more substantial intra-black disputes between lighter and darker-skinned blacks. Probably the earlier black politicians would be lighter. Also, for a decade or more before blacks get elected to major positions in the north, there may be white politicians, WASP or even Irish, who cater to primarily black constituencies, which is how things worked with many immigrant groups. Here?s one off-the-wall variant- What if something similar to the 1964 immigration reform is tried between 1905 and 1910. Perhaps it is partially based on the principle of family unification, and supported by some people who wan more white people in the country, and Irish or German descended politicians who think it will mainly help their ethnic kin. The result is likely to be as unexpected as the immigration reform of 1964. Southern and East Europeans, and possibly Chinese and Japanese, who have tiny footholds, will bring in large numbers through family reunification. Native-born whites and blacks alike will have some anxieties about the newcomers, although blacks will probably not be any more anti-Asian than anti-Italian. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:31:50 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Rob wrote: > > POD- The 1863 Draft Riots get even more out of control and result in > some perceived sabotage of the war effort. It does not change the > outcome by 1865. > > [deletia] I did a timeline in narrative format involving immigration restrictions applied in the 1850's. You can read the North American segment at http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/tpanoram.html (Follow the links.) I assumed that the United States' population would be significantly more WASP than OTL. I also assumed that industrialization would proceed more-or-less as OTL, perhaps with a higher birth rate on the part of white rural residents. Northern industrial areas attracted Southern whites, not southern blacks, partly because Northern industrialists didn't want to 'contaminate' their areas, mostly because Southern landowners wanted a black peasantry. (Hence, an overwhelmingly non-white Deep South.) Over the 20th century, the southwestern United States attracted substantial Mexican immigration as it was transformed into a modern industrial/agricultural complex. These Mexican immigrants intermarried with local Hispanics to create a near-majority population across the area, and a majority in New Mexico and parts of California and Texas. By the 1960's and 1970's, of course, the United States' numerous racial and linguistic problems came home to roost. -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 03:46:12 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> I don't see this in light of the 150,000 Irishmen who served in the Union army. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 00:39:41 -0500 From: Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote: > >I don't see this in light of the 150,000 Irishmen who served in the Union army. > The POD is more Irish resistance to the war. Without the Irish carrying guns to battle, there would be a greater need for a very obvious source of manpower, so more black troops in the Army earlier. Probably fighting in battles of some import. Thomas Wentworth Higginson supporter of John Brown, who OTL wrote a memoir of commanding a black regiment, has more adventure to put in his book, and it becomes a hot seller not just in Boston but New York and Philly too. Unfortunaely his campaigns on behalf of the freedmen prevent him from finding the time to write an article on poetry that compelled Emily Dickinson to send him her works. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:38:39 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Rob wrote: > POD- The 1863 Draft Riots get even more out of control and result in > some perceived sabotage of the war effort. It does not change the > outcome by 1865. Interesting POD. You could also have similar riots by Italian or Irish Catholics in places like Chicago. If having the Draft Riots get even more out of control doesn't do it, you could always have Lincoln's assassin be Irish Catholic. > But it does effect political perceptions, and stigmatize the Irish as > dangerous copperheads. Postwar congresses, designing the package of > measures designed to strengthen GOP control, support immigration > restriction. A quota much lower than 1850s peak immigration is set, > and the quota is apportioned on the basis of national origin based on > the 1840 census, or 1850 census. The goal is to keep the WASP > proportion of the voting public as large as possible, in the belief > that in most states they are more loyal to the GOP. With the south > returning to the Union, and the abolition of the 3/5ths rule, it will > have greater representation than ever in Washington. To counter this, > the GOP wants to take every possible step to keep the north an > undivided bastion of support for itself. Immigrant groups are > identified with disloyalty in wartime as the Germans were in WWI. The > fear is a united Democrat south and a divided north, with Irish voters > tipping some eastern states towards the Democrats. The idea is to > keep the north solidly Republican and the South at least partially > Republican. OK, limiting immigration and basing in on national origin is plausible. I believe that the 'Northern European' or Germanic immigrants will be allowed in. Not the Irish or Southern European. And of course you could have Congress rule that the Irish and Southern Europeans are not white, and therefore they cannot become citizens after immigration. Now that's something that I think could very well happen, with some scary results. > The Effect- Immigration declines overall as the quota is decreased. > The Irish and Germans still fill their portions of the quota and > people of those ethnic backgrounds do grow in proportion to the > native-born for awhile anyway because of higher birthrates. Compared > to OTL, by 1900, the proportion of Germans in the US is much lower > than Anglo-Saxons, or even Irish, ironically, because Germans wre the > bulk of the newcomers from 1860 to 1880 in OTL and ,maybe even from > 1880 to 1900. The 1865 Quota system constitutes de facto exclusion of > the Chinese if the base year is set before 1848-thus rendering a > specific Chinese exclusion act later unneccesary. If the base year is > from a later date before 1860, the Chinese Quota will still be so > small that Chinese exclusion does not become an issue. Totally > excluded, except for special categories like professors, students, > clergy and architects, are Japanese and many East and Southern > European nationalities. The Italian and Russian quotas are extremely > miniscule. Japanese immigration to the US does not become a major > bilateral issue, as it was never a prospect in the first place. If > anything, the Japanese might be given some portion of the Chinese > quota during the many decades when Japan is regarded as a more > important country. Norwegians, Danes and Swedes also come in smaller > numbers than in OTL. I don't see the backlash against Germans. 1 out of 4 Union soldiers were of German heritage, first or second generation. President TR said that the three greatest waves of immigration to America were the Pilgrims, the Dutch in NY, and the German 48ers. The German 48ers are what helped Lincoln defeated Douglas in the Midwest, and win the election. Also doesn't fit in with the WASP idea, because Germans are fellow Anglo-Saxon tribes. Keep out the Irish, the Eastern and Southern Europeans. And any non-Europeans. But I think a serious consideration will be ruling many formerly White groups as non-White. This was done with the Irish for a while, just continue it longer. > The Great Plains and Rockies are settled a bit more slowly with fewer > Central European immigrants available. Texas may retain a more > southern character. More of the west will initially be settled as > cattle pasture rather than farmland or sheep pasture, and the era of > the cowbuy lasts longer. [Pretty much because cattle was the > Anglo-Saxon specialty, while farming and dairy was the German.] > Eventually more and more arable land will be brough under cultivation. Texas had some large amounts of German settlement even before the Civil War. I have no evidence to the opposite of your estimation of cattle as an Anglo-Saxon specialty. But what about sheep? England was good for wool, Washington and other Virginians experimented with wool, and look at New Zealand and Australia. I could certainly see ranching winning out over farmland, but why not also sheep? And of course you still have the transcontinental RR that stimulates settlement. > Northern industries begin recruiting freedmen for labor, and the > northward movement gathers steam so to speak throughout the 1880s. > First, those Freedmen with the poorest economic prospects head north, > those who can afford it prefer the farming life. Then as economic > conditions and harassment worsen in the south in the 1890s, the > migration rate more than doubles. Many of the people who move north > and do well enough, save up and move west eventually to farm, so that > by 1900 the nonwhite population of the Plains states is 3 or 4 times > greater than OTL, although decidedly still a minority. Here we depart. There was a high amount of labor opposition to using freedmen for labor in America, just as high as the opposition to using Chinese for labor in the West Coast. It doesn't matter if there is a labor shortage, it has to do with ego. A poor White laborer doesn't want to know that he is valued the same as a poor Black or Asian. He may be able to handle the horrid wages, but at least he is proud of being White. Finding non-Whites working along side him just is too much for him to handle. The labor movement will become rather nationalist and WASP following this. And very violent. Look at California for example, the Progressives in that state were those supporting Anti-Chinese laws. I don't see how you can get a majority in a Northern state that will prevent Anti-Black laws being passed. > Migration causes resentment among working class whites in the north in > urban areas.. However, pro-business middle-class Republicans who live > in high-priced neighborhoods, suburbs or small towns are delighted to > have blacks who are ready to act as strikebreakers and vote > Republican. Both the racist and mildly pro-Labor bent of the > Democratic Party in the north, is reinforced in the north. The > Freedmen?s right to vote in the north is protected by business > interest and both Freemen and wealthier whites continue to vote for > the party of Lincoln for decades. Some Democratic officeholders try > to include southern newcomers, white and black, in their big tent in > northern cities. This succeeds in some cities, but the national trend > is for Democrats to go with racist demagoguery and intimidation, and > for freedmen to vote for the party of Lincoln. There?s plenty of race > rioting in the north in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. There is a problem here. Just having the Upper Class and the Freedmen won't win you the elections. Were the Chinese and the Upper Class able to stop the Anti-Chinese laws in California? > In some states the northward black migration is resented enough that a > complete Jim Crow system is enacted. This only works for any length > of time in Indiana or Illinois. Remember in OTL, when large-scale > black migration northward occurred, no northern states replicated the > Jim Crow system in toto. I don?t see any reason why this should > change, especially with memories of the civil war being in the more > recent past. Wrong. Jim Crow didn't grow in the North because the black population was rather small. Your POD using the Irish draft riots in 1863. What was another cause of them? The use of black strikebreakers against Irish longshoremen. The East St. Louis riot of 1917? Chicago riot of 1919? The Northern whites didn't like blacks, just as much as the Southern whites. Oregon, very far North, had a state constitution that excluded blacks from entering the state. "Besides, is not America for the Whites?"-- Walt Whitman. Also remember that Wallace won 11.81% of the vote in Ohio, 11.45% in Indiana, 10.04% in Michigan, and 9.12% in New Jersey. Impressive for candidate running in the color blind North. > Southern whites also migrate northward and westward looking for jobs > as the sharecropping economy begins to decline. They go in smaller > numbers than blacks, and tend to get back into farming as quickly as > they can. By the end of the 1890s a couple trends are in effect. > Black out-migration from the south eases pressure on the sharecropping > system in the south. The cotton glut is less severe. Fewer whites > are rendered landless in the first place as the labor supply > diminishes in the south. In several places the labor shortage causes > more former plantation land to go back to swamp or woodland as its > hard to clear. Laborers of both races can command higher wages in the > south. Labor shortages put a higher premium. Labor shortages put a > higher premium on labor-saving technology, and state policies > encourage its development. You are ignoring the causes of Populism. First, the deflation of the dollar. That will happen in OTL, so you still have one of the root causes of Populism. Two, the system in place so that Farmers were always in debt. Three, the railroad companies and the like charging such high fees for transportation. Populism still happens, the Bourbons react and rig the elections to keep themselves in power, industry is seen as bad and resisted. > By 1900, black out-migration from the south has been so substantial > that a majority of the nation?s blacks live in the north or midwest, > and nonwhites make up no more than 15% of the population of any > southern state. That is in contrast to OTL, where the black > proportion of the population in the south is much smaller than this. > The labor vacuum in the north from 1880 to 1920 causes an almost > audible giant sucking sound. Nearly impossible. You focus on economic forces and ignore the fact that white labor will not allow this to happen without a great amount of resistance. They won in California in OTL, what makes the Yankees so special that they aren't racist in your TL? In OTL, blacks make up a large percent of the South. I am not satisfied that you've explained their migration well enough. Whites in the North will fight tooth and nail to prevent the migration, and I see them winning like they won in California. > Southern, mostly black migrants are first stuck in cheap company > housing and overcrowded slums in the cities. They do not get into > established residential neighborhoods. Housing discrimination is the > norm. In the industrial and metropolitan areas of the northeast and > midwest, migrants often live in squatter communities. Much of the > land is still undeveloped enough even in these regions that newcomers > can build housing on woodland or marginal farmland. Those blacks who > are best off, factory foremen, successful retailers, etc. are the > first ones who can afford land and construction materials outside of > slums and company housing. Starting in the 1890s and continuing for > many decades, this process causes many counties in Pennsylvania, New > Jersey, northern Ohio, northern Illinois and the San Francisco Bay > area to become majority ?minority?. After 1900, despite redistricting > shenanigans, this starts to be reflected in the House of Reps and in > State legislatures. OK, this is implausible. California hated Chinese, what is the difference when you are having blacks come in and take jobs? The same for all the other areas you listed. Populism in OTL was the reaction of the poor Whites to bad economic conditions they saw all around them. There was another movement in America called Progressivism. People like TR and other politicians. Who do you think were the ones pushing for limiting immigration, keeping non-Whites out of jobs, and the like? The Progressives. Your TL will see a powerful backlash against the Freedmen, resulting in a Progressive movement that is strong as, if not stronger, than the Populism movement in the South. And as you said, the North wants a unified front. Very quickly it will learn not to mess with the idea of using Freedmen in the factories. > By 1900 ?urban? Republicans start to flex their muscles in a > progressive direction. Nonwhite politicians start picking up House > seats and Mayoral positions in many smaller cities in the industrial > parts of the country. In 1912, the first black mayor of Philadelphia > is elected. The next year, the same thing happens in Chicago. It?s > the black nalog of the election of Fiorello LaGuardia in OTL around > this time. AS MAJOR LEAGUE SPORTS EMERGE AROUND THE turn of the > century, they become integrated relatively quickly, particularly > because black athletes do well in the first olympics of 1896 or in > 1900 or 1904. Wait a second. Progressive direction in 1900 usually mean eugenics, white superiority, and the like. Your time line started off with a good POD, but it has gone out of control now. I am giving up. Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 19 May 2001 20:34:40 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 A couple very important points Logan: 1. I don't see the Republicans formally making the white non-white distinction as part of the immigration reform. In other words, they will not be in the business of reclassiffying Irish or southern Europeans as non-white. However, if you applied the 1921 or 1924 style immigration quota, based on national origin, the effect would be somewhat anti-German, whether intended or not. Also, in 1865 there is not going to be specific quota aimed at Southern or Eastern Europeans. Why not? There were hardly any people from those countries in the US at the time. For the same reason, if the POD is the 1860s, you couldn't get together enough Italian Americans to participate in an identifiably Italian-American riot. 2. Everything you said about labor resentment of black migrants northward during this hypothetical 1880-1920 timeframe, was true of the labor reaction to black migration in OTL 1920-1960, which was massive. Still, blacks gained political representation and importance in the north that they didn't have in the south. The real racial problems of the north did not stop blacks from moving northward when they had economic incentive to do so, and did not stop the rest of the country from considering the South to be particularly reactionary about race issues in OTL. What makes the north more racist from 1880-1920 in ATL than it was in 1920-1960 in OTL? Besides how responsive were governments to labor at the turn of the century anyway? I see your analogy with the Chinese, but business interests would see much more at stake over the issue of black labor than they ever did with the Chinese, who were simply less numerous. [Suppose you're right for a minute, and labor resistance effectively stops the northward migration of blacks. Does this cause earlier industrialization of the Sunbelt, with Capital moving towards the Labor instead of vice versa?] 3. Logan, you know massive black migration from south to north happened for most of the 20th century in OTL, if the forces you are talking about are so decisive, how could this have happened? 4. Part of the extra increment of black political power in this TL comes from their being a bigger share of the total population. If you have prolonged immigration restrictions, this result is inevitable. Its multiplied by the fact that WASP Americans from the 1860-1960 timeframe, tended to have smaller families than southern and eastern European immigrants, at least in the northern states. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 00:46:01 -0500 From: Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) wrote: >A couple very important points Logan: > >1. I don't see the Republicans formally making the white non-white >distinction as part of the immigration reform. In other words, they >will not be in the business of reclassiffying Irish or southern >Europeans as non-white. >However, if you applied the 1921 or 1924 style immigration quota, >based on national origin, the effect would be somewhat anti-German, >whether intended or not. The Germans can make a pretty legit argue that they were "Good Americans" if they candeliver votes for the Republicans (who lives in Wisconsin?) there'd be accomodations. > >Also, in 1865 there is not going to be specific quota aimed at >Southern or Eastern Europeans. Why not? There were hardly any people >from those countries in the US at the time. Being Catholic like the Irish would probably be good enough. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:12:46 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 actionstrip@... wrote: > raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) wrote: > >A couple very important points Logan: > > > >1. I don't see the Republicans formally making the white non-white > >distinction as part of the immigration reform. In other words, they > >will not be in the business of reclassiffying Irish or southern > >Europeans as non-white. > >However, if you applied the 1921 or 1924 style immigration quota, > >based on national origin, the effect would be somewhat anti-German, > >whether intended or not. > > The Germans can make a pretty legit argue that they were "Good Americans" > if they candeliver votes for the Republicans (who lives in Wisconsin?) there'd > be accomodations. One historian has analyzed the vote and concludes that without the German 48ers voting for Lincoln, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa would have gone to Douglas. Something like 1 voter in every 20 switching would have done it. You also need look were Republican support was strongest in the Mid-West, almost always in the German settlers. Settlers who were native to America, and even German settlers who had came before the 48ers, were Democratic Voters. Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 08:43:23 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 wrote in message news:<3b075a19@spamkiller>... > raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) wrote: > >A couple very important points Logan: > > > >1. I don't see the Republicans formally making the white non-white > >distinction as part of the immigration reform. In other words, they > >will not be in the business of reclassiffying Irish or southern > >Europeans as non-white. > >However, if you applied the 1921 or 1924 style immigration quota, > >based on national origin, the effect would be somewhat anti-German, > >whether intended or not. > > The Germans can make a pretty legit argue that they were "Good Americans" > if they candeliver votes for the Republicans (who lives in Wisconsin?) there'd > be accomodations. > #### I thought of a way that might make a German exemption possible. The exemption is not for Germans, but immigrants who declare the intention to homestead, and who can pay the application fees and such to participate, are allowed to enter the country beyond the nominal quota. That changes some of the elements of my scenario with regard to the American West, which resembles OTL more than in my first post. However, it still excludes lots of Irish people, and creates a very different urban landscape and unskilled labor market compared to OTL.- What do you think of that twist, Logan, actionstrip? ##### > > > >Also, in 1865 there is not going to be specific quota aimed at > >Southern or Eastern Europeans. Why not? There were hardly any people > >from those countries in the US at the time. > > Being Catholic like the Irish would probably be good enough. #### I still don't buy a blatant religious test. However, simply using the 1850 or 1840 census as a basis, [like the 1920s immigration laws used the 1890 census] effectively ensures that there will basically be no more than a tiny colony of Italians and people from the Russian Empire. In 1865 Catholioc in America was pretty much synonomous with Irish, Italians and Jews were basically not on the radar screen.#### Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 23:28:30 -0500 From: Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) wrote: > wrote in message news:<3b075a19@spamkiller>... >> raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) wrote: >> >A couple very important points Logan: >> > >> >1. I don't see the Republicans formally making the white non-white >> >distinction as part of the immigration reform. In other words, they >> >will not be in the business of reclassiffying Irish or southern >> >Europeans as non-white. >> >However, if you applied the 1921 or 1924 style immigration quota, >> >based on national origin, the effect would be somewhat anti-German, >> >whether intended or not. >> >> The Germans can make a pretty legit argue that they were "Good Americans" >> if they candeliver votes for the Republicans (who lives in Wisconsin?) there'd >> be accomodations. >> > >#### I thought of a way that might make a German exemption possible. >The exemption is not for Germans, but immigrants who declare the >intention to homestead, and who can pay the application fees and such >to participate, are allowed to enter the country beyond the nominal >quota. That changes some of the elements of my scenario with regard >to the American West, which resembles OTL more than in my first post. >However, it still excludes lots of Irish people, and creates a very >different urban landscape and unskilled labor market compared to OTL.- > >What do you think of that twist, Logan, actionstrip? I see what you're trying to do, let the blacks take up the labor slack left by the abscence of the huddled masses, neat approach. I think the most likely way for the Germans, and Scandinavians (who IIRC tended Republican) to get an exemption is for it to get explicitly written into a law. >I still don't buy a blatant religious test. Catholics weren't really popular at that time. I can't see how the other Catholic nationalities won't suffer by association with the "traitorous Irish". The law prob wouldn't include any explicit religious test (kinda unconstituional doncha think?) I can see the laws regarding southern and eastern Europeans using a formula similiar to the 1924 law that you mentioned. Still a good chance for the former slaves grandkids to get a leg up. But hey, could I be completely missing something? Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 16:50:47 GMT From: morerights4me@aol.com (Agrarianist) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >#### I thought of a way that might make a German exemption possible. >The exemption is not for Germans, but immigrants who declare the >intention to homestead, and who can pay the application fees and such >to participate, are allowed to enter the country beyond the nominal >quota. That changes some of the elements of my scenario with regard >to the American West, which resembles OTL more than in my first post. >However, it still excludes lots of Irish people, and creates a very >different urban landscape and unskilled labor market compared to OTL.- > >What do you think of that twist, Logan, actionstrip? >##### I did not know there was an application fee for the homestead, just claim the land as yours and work it. I still say that classifing Irish, Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans as non-white would be something plausible. That means they cannot become US citizens if they immigrated, but their children can be. Then, places limits on immigration that are rather made up. They favor German and British immigration, and I guess some Scandinavian. But if Homesteading had fees and the like, that might work. >#### I still don't buy a blatant religious test. However, simply >using the 1850 or 1840 census as a basis, [like the 1920s immigration >laws used the 1890 census] effectively ensures that there will >basically be no more than a tiny colony of Italians and people from >the Russian Empire. In 1865 Catholioc in America was pretty much >synonomous with Irish, Italians and Jews were basically not on the >radar screen.#### Italians, as I said, made up 100,000 people in NYC, and that's just NYC. About 50,000 Jews immigrated to America int he 1850s. Can't find figures on the Irish though, oddly enough. BTW, New E-mail Adress. This is Logan. Agrarianist "Men did not make the earth. . . . It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is the individual property. . . . Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 16:16:27 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 morerights4me@aol.com (Agrarianist) wrote in message news:<20010520125047.19811.00000430@ng-mb1.aol.com>... > >#### I thought of a way that might make a German exemption possible. > >The exemption is not for Germans, but immigrants who declare the > >intention to homestead, and who can pay the application fees and such > >to participate, are allowed to enter the country beyond the nominal > >quota. That changes some of the elements of my scenario with regard > >to the American West, which resembles OTL more than in my first post. > >However, it still excludes lots of Irish people, and creates a very > >different urban landscape and unskilled labor market compared to OTL.- > > > >What do you think of that twist, Logan, actionstrip? > >##### > > I did not know there was an application fee for the homestead, just claim > the land as yours and work it. #### Check out Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States". He was pointing out that the Homestead Act was not overly progressive because it involved an application fee as a means test of whether you had the resources to try to farm. The land was free, but the cost of implements was a barrier to unskilled laborers becoming homesteaders, at least in the Plains. The application fee only put it further beyond the reach of most laborers. #### I still say that classifing Irish, Southern > Europeans and Eastern Europeans as non-white would be something plausible. > That means they cannot become US citizens if they immigrated, but their > children can be. Then, places limits on immigration that are rather made up. > They favor German and British immigration, and I guess some Scandinavian. > But if Homesteading had fees and the like, that might work. > > >#### I still don't buy a blatant religious test. However, simply > >using the 1850 or 1840 census as a basis, [like the 1920s immigration > >laws used the 1890 census] effectively ensures that there will > >basically be no more than a tiny colony of Italians and people from > >the Russian Empire. In 1865 Catholioc in America was pretty much > >synonomous with Irish, Italians and Jews were basically not on the > >radar screen.#### > > Italians, as I said, made up 100,000 people in NYC, and that's just NYC. > About 50,000 Jews immigrated to America int he 1850s. Can't find figures on > the Irish though, oddly enough. #### What's your source on the Italian-American population? That's an interesting fact. What was the total population of New York at this time? The vast majority of Italian-Americans did come to the US from 1890 or even 1895 to 1920, correct? Your figure for the Jews I can buy. The 1850s brought a big wave of German, mostly reform, Jews. When more Orthodox, Yiddish speaking Jews came in the 1890s and later, they got a more negative reaction. #### > > BTW, New E-mail Adress. This is Logan. > Agrarianist > "Men did not make the earth. . . . It is the value of the improvement only, and > not the earth itself, that is the individual property. . . . Every proprietor > owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." Funny, I thought you were Michael Lind, What's the economic effect if your predictions based on my POD are right? Labor scarcity in the north helps local whites and blacks there economically. Labor resistance prevents a black northward migration earlier than in OTL. Capital does not move to south earlier than OTL, despite higher labor costs in the north. I imagine the net effect would be a smaller US GDP, but a higher per capita GDP. And possibly even more investment in labor-saving technology in the north compared to OTL? Whaddiya think? Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:28:21 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Rob wrote: > > Italians, as I said, made up 100,000 people in NYC, and that's just NYC. > > About 50,000 Jews immigrated to America int he 1850s. Can't find figures on > > the Irish though, oddly enough. > > #### > What's your source on the Italian-American population? That's an > interesting fact. What was the total population of New York at this > time? The vast majority of Italian-Americans did come to the US from > 1890 or even 1895 to 1920, correct? > Your figure for the Jews I can buy. The 1850s brought a big wave of > German, mostly reform, Jews. When more Orthodox, Yiddish speaking > Jews came in the 1890s and later, they got a more negative reaction. Italian figure comes from Microsoft Encarta, don't think that is too objectable. Not sure on where you could get the total population of NY, or NYC. Census data I'm sure. You are correct on the Jewish fact, many of which were the 48ers. Good old 48ers. ::grin:: Your TL will stop the Yiddish speakers, improving the WASP opinion of the Jews even more. Yes? > > BTW, New E-mail Adress. This is Logan. > > Agrarianist > > "Men did not make the earth. . . . It is the value of the improvement only, and > > not the earth itself, that is the individual property. . . . Every proprietor > > owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." > > Funny, I thought you were Michael Lind, Huh? BTW, how new are you to SHWI? I've used Agrarianist, or Neo-Agrarianist for some time. Hoped most people would recognize the sig. As you may notice, I'm back to the infi.net address right now. Infi.net went down for a bit today. > What's the economic effect if your predictions based on my POD are > right? Well let us see what you predict first. > Labor scarcity in the north helps local whites and blacks there > economically. > Labor resistance prevents a black northward migration earlier than in > OTL. On labor scarcity. This was something that the country faced in OTL, limiting immigration wouldn't effect it that much. My opinion is that with the lower population from less immigration, demand will be down. Yes? Let me tell a short story. Back when the sun never set on the British Empire, Prince Albert returned to England from a tour of the empire. A member of the reception committee welcoming the Prince on his return asked how His Highness had enjoyed the beautiful open spaces and vast wilderness of Canada. The Prince replied that he hated it. "There was so much free land," he said, that "I couldn't find a man to shine my boots." So the labor scarcity, IMHO, is relative. The reason is that America has always appeared to have a scarcity of labor is the fact we have a large abundance of natural resources. We've always had more land and more natural resources than people to use it all. Well, at least until the past 50 years or so. So you still have a labor scarcity comparable to OTL. But no immigration. What to do? Black migration won't work. So why not white? The South has been ruined, why not? Didn't a lot of the Detroit Auto workers come from Appalachia? > Capital does not move to south earlier than OTL, despite higher labor > costs in the north. Capital stays put, labor from the South in the form of poor whites moves North. Bourbons are actually stronger in the South. The poor whites in the Mountains were usually those who would give rise to the Populists, the whites who lived next to the blacks always voted for the Conservative, Anti-Black candidate. Empty out the Mountains, and all you have left are the people who were living next to the Blacks. OR, you could have the areas where the blacks are strong provide the poor white labor, with the poor whites in the Mountains staying put. That is certainly a possibility to. That would help Populism along. > I imagine the net effect would be a smaller US GDP, but a higher per > capita GDP. > And possibly even more investment in labor-saving technology in the > north compared to OTL? Interesting thought. > Whaddiya think? I like this TL, I just didn't think that were things were ending up were right. Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:13:38 -0400 From: Old Toby Organization: The University of Michigan Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Logan Ferree wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > > > Italians, as I said, made up 100,000 people in NYC, and that's just NYC. > > > About 50,000 Jews immigrated to America int he 1850s. Can't find figures on > > > the Irish though, oddly enough. > > > > #### > > What's your source on the Italian-American population? That's an > > interesting fact. What was the total population of New York at this > > time? The vast majority of Italian-Americans did come to the US from > > 1890 or even 1895 to 1920, correct? > > Your figure for the Jews I can buy. The 1850s brought a big wave of > > German, mostly reform, Jews. When more Orthodox, Yiddish speaking > > Jews came in the 1890s and later, they got a more negative reaction. > > Italian figure comes from Microsoft Encarta, don't think that is too objectable. Not sure on where you > could get the total population of NY, or NYC. Odd, The Historical US Census Data website (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/) records only 6,972 persons born in Italy in America in 1870, a clear majority (4,660) in California. No figure for New York. In 1880, the California Italians have disappeared, but there are only 24,035 in the US, 15,113 in New York. In 1890, there are 181,117 Italians in America: 64,141 in New York, 24,662 in Pennsylvania, 15,495 in California, 12,989 in New Jersey. In 1900, there are 459,153: 182,248 in New York. In 1910, there are 1,284,621: 472,192 in New York In 1920, there are 1,606,169: 545,173 in New York In 1930, there are 1,712,168, 629,322 in New York In 1940, there are 1,618,580, 584,075 in New York In 1950, the figures fall sharply: 718,086 total, 99,730 in New York, with California, Massachusetts, and Michigan all having more than New York. In 1960 the descriptor changes from "NO. WHITE PERSONS BORN IN ITALY" to "NO. PERSONS OF FOREIGN STOCK REPORTING ITALY AS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN" a description that, IIRC includes the children and grandchildren of immigrants. At any rate, the numbers are way up: 4,510,304 in the US, 1,476,933 in New York (on top again). Old Toby Least Known Dog on the Net Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 09:52:39 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Rob wrote: > A couple very important points Logan: > > 1. I don't see the Republicans formally making the white non-white > distinction as part of the immigration reform. In other words, they > will not be in the business of reclassiffying Irish or southern > Europeans as non-white. > However, if you applied the 1921 or 1924 style immigration quota, > based on national origin, the effect would be somewhat anti-German, > whether intended or not. In OTL the Indians were classified as non-white until they won a court case (I think Supreme court) to get the classification of white in the 1930. The Government has changed its mind on what is white and what isn't. In the 1860 census, the white population was classified as "native," "foreign" or "Irish." Germans would not be a group that is targeted, which is one problem with your WI. About 1 in 4 Union soldiers were German, and they helped Lincoln win the election. Another figure says 1 in 3. Not only that, but the Republicans recognize that without the German vote the Mid-West has a high chance of swinging to the Democrats. > Also, in 1865 there is not going to be specific quota aimed at > Southern or Eastern Europeans. Why not? There were hardly any people > from those countries in the US at the time. For the same reason, if > the POD is the 1860s, you couldn't get together enough Italian > Americans to participate in an identifiably Italian-American riot. There were 100,000 Italian Americans in NYC at the time. So I assume if you counted outside NYC, you'd get even more. The Irish had 500,000 total in America. So the Italians would still come, maybe not as much as the Irish but they would still come. Other major immigrant groups were the Germans who had fled to America following the 1848 Revolutions. Their votes in the Mid-West helped elect Lincoln, a fact he knew and caused him to attempt to secure the German-Republican relations stronger. Think of people like Carl Schurz. > 2. Everything you said about labor resentment of black migrants > northward during this hypothetical 1880-1920 timeframe, was true of > the labor reaction to black migration in OTL 1920-1960, which was > massive. Still, blacks gained political representation and importance > in the north that they didn't have in the south. You are having it happen earlier than the 1920-1960 time-frame. And IIRC, you also had the rise of the KKK, the production of Birth of a Nation, a time period in which many politicians were members of the KKK, and more during OTL's migration. What really helped the cause of the Black in America? The Cold War, De-colonization, and the like. Where were some of the most violent anti-intergration riots? Places like Boston. We've freed the slaves, the public doesn't see a reason why to treat them as equal. They are better than before, isn't that enough? Detroit, a city with a large Black population, almost elected a mayor who was openly pro-KKK. At a time were the Populists in the South will be working on mending fences with the Blacks, the Progressives in the North will be fighting tooth and nail to prevent blacks from taking jobs. > The real racial problems of the north did not stop blacks from moving > northward when they had economic incentive to do so, and did not stop > the rest of the country from considering the South to be particularly > reactionary about race issues in OTL. What makes the north more > racist from 1880-1920 in ATL than it was in 1920-1960 in OTL? I'm just saying that the North was racist in the 1920 to 1960 period. Indiana politics in the 1920s were dominated by the Klan, the same will happen in this TL because of the earlier migration. You say that the North gave the blacks more representation. Only after Supreme Court decisions and huge riots. Wisconsin was forced to allow black suffrage by a Court case, the people had repeatedly resisted black suffrage at the voting booth. Don't forget the Supreme Court case of 1883 either. Or the Separate But Equal case. The American courts, just not the South, did not like blacks. > Besides how responsive were governments to labor at the turn of the > century anyway? I see your analogy with the Chinese, but business > interests would see much more at stake over the issue of black labor > than they ever did with the Chinese, who were simply less numerous. OK, I give you that perhaps because the blacks are more numerous, and already here, the situation is different. Perhaps. The government was actually semi-responsive to labor, at least they worried about loosing the white vote by appearing to negro-friendly. That is the key here, the token gesture to labor. We don't do anything else for you, but at least the law will make sure that you can be proud that you are white. It kept labor in line by fear too, because there was always the threat that black labor, or the Chinese, or some other group could be pulled in to lower wages and break strikes. > [Suppose you're right for a minute, and labor resistance effectively > stops the northward migration of blacks. Does this cause earlier > industrialization of the Sunbelt, with Capital moving towards the > Labor instead of vice versa?] First, I'd like to talk about the mulatto elite in the North. Pre-Civil War, the Black population in the North wasn't very large, but I'd say they were more than 100 times better off than in the South. They were dark-skinned Jews, in a way. Small in number (one of the key things) and often taking small jobs such as barbers and caterers for the upper-class. The Southern elite had their slaves, well the Northern elite had their mulatto elite which work serve them in various minor roles. Up North, the blacks were often literate, well educated, and well mannered. Then came the Great Migration, the movement of Southern blacks up North. That with the higher amounts of immigration coming ruined everything. With the huge wave of Blacks, who were often uneducated and showed all the characteristics of being a people who had evolved to suit slavery, the Northern whites just say Black people, not Black people from the South and Black people who had Lived in the North for a long time. The race line hardened between White and Black. Then you had the huge waves of immigration, and so the classical Italian barber replaced the Black barber in the cities. Too much of anything ruins things. Without the Great Migration, the Black in the North would be better off. He'd be viewed, as I said, as a dark Jew. A small class of people who are respectable because of their intelligence and dedication to hard work. With the demographics changing, Asian immigrants in modern day have often been compared to the Jewish people. Hard working individuals that stress moving ahead in the work based on academic means. Hispanics are the Irish of the day, too many of them, rude, chaotic, a danger to America. You mean Capital from the Northern businessmen moving South? No, I don't see that. I see the North still being industrialized. The South did have much lower wages though throughout history. But the people with the Capital were from the North, and viewed the South as a colony to produce raw materials, not anything else. You seem to see a higher demand for labor than I do. I see the Great Migration as a result of WWI and WWII, not the natural forces of economics. The war took away men, and labor was needed. With reduced immigration, you do have a smaller labor supply but also a smaller market for goods. You could get your Great Migration the same time as OTL, with WWI. But by then who knows what has changed. > 3. Logan, you know massive black migration from south to north > happened for most of the 20th century in OTL, if the forces you are > talking about are so decisive, how could this have happened? I don't see the same demand that you do, so the forces that attempted to block the migration would be able to stop it. Have it happen during WWI, and I find no fault. But I doubt that a POD in 1863 will keep things the way they are in OTL. With Elections that were so close, such as Tilden, I don't know what might happen in this TL. > 4. Part of the extra increment of black political power in this TL > comes from > their being a bigger share of the total population. If you have > prolonged immigration restrictions, this result is inevitable. Its > multiplied by the fact that WASP Americans from the 1860-1960 > timeframe, tended to have smaller families than southern and eastern > European immigrants, at least in the northern states. Correct there in the breeding. I see the black getting a degree of political power in the North without the Great Migration and the amount of immigration from OTL. We had Jewish politicians up north, did we not? I could see a few Blacks, those who had been free for generations and well educated. It has to do with the appearance of the Blacks. Without the Great Migration, they still look like a good class of hard working individuals. And most importantly, too small to be a threat. With the Great Migration, they look like a cancer that is reproducing and threatening the American way of life. In the South, politics as usual. With butterflies you could easily change the Populist movement. It started off as friendly to Blacks, but eventually the Southern Cycle took over. Many people who start out as very progressive in the South, appealing to the Black voters, end up being taken over by the Bourbons and becoming very racists. Wallace and Watson are my best examples. With a few butterflies, this could change. Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 08:39:12 -0700 From: maurer@itam.mx (Noel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Logan Ferree wrote in message news:<3B07CC27.A1BF6781@roanoke.infi.net>... > There were 100,000 Italian Americans in NYC at the time. So I assume > if you counted outside NYC, you'd get even more. The Irish had 500,000 > total in America. So the Italians would still come, maybe not as much as ---No there weren't. Where did you get that idea from? CUMULATIVE GROSS immigration from ALL of southern and eastern Europe didn't reach 100,000 people by 1860. > the Irish but they would still come. Other major immigrant groups were > the Germans who had fled to America following the 1848 Revolutions. Their > votes in the Mid-West helped elect Lincoln, a fact he knew and caused him > to attempt to secure the German-Republican relations stronger. Think of > people like Carl Schurz. ---Yeah... that's one of the reasons why restrictionism is a political non-starter in the 1860s. It's still an interesting POD. Might make the "Rainbow France" scenario a lot more plausible. Somebody should combine 'em and think about the net effects on history of a bigger France and a smaller United States. > > The real racial problems of the north did not stop blacks from moving > > northward when they had economic incentive to do so, and did not stop > > the rest of the country from considering the South to be particularly > > reactionary about race issues in OTL. What makes the north more > > racist from 1880-1920 in ATL than it was in 1920-1960 in OTL? > > I'm just saying that the North was racist in the 1920 to 1960 period. > Indiana politics in the 1920s were dominated by the Klan, the same will > happen in this TL because of the earlier migration. You say that the > North gave the blacks more representation. Only after Supreme Court > decisions and huge riots. Wisconsin was forced to allow black suffrage by > a Court case, the people had repeatedly resisted black suffrage at the > voting booth. Don't forget the Supreme Court case of 1883 either. Or the > Separate But Equal case. The American courts, just not the South, did not > like blacks. ---You lost me, Logan. It doesn't seem like you answered the question. Absent European immigration, blacks are headed north in massive numbers, and no amount of fence-mending or union-activism is going to stop them. The reference you want (sorry, folks) is William Collins, "When the Tide Turned: Immigration and the Delay of the Great Migration," Journal of Economic History, September 1997. More speculatively, you're also going to get labor recruitment gangs fanning out across Mexico and the Caribbean, but that probably won't have as big an impact. Mexicans were remarkably immobile before 1900. > > [Suppose you're right for a minute, and labor resistance effectively > > stops the northward migration of blacks. Does this cause earlier > > industrialization of the Sunbelt, with Capital moving towards the > > Labor instead of vice versa?] (snip unlikely hypotheses about northern attitudes) > You mean Capital from the Northern businessmen moving South? No, I > don't see that. I see the North still being industrialized. The South > did have much lower wages though throughout history. But the people with > the Capital were from the North, and viewed the South as a colony to > produce raw materials, not anything else. You seem to see a higher demand > for labor than I do. I see the Great Migration as a result of WWI and > WWII, not the natural forces of economics. The war took away men, and > labor was needed. With reduced immigration, you do have a smaller labor > supply but also a smaller market for goods. You could get your Great > Migration the same time as OTL, with WWI. But by then who knows what has > changed. ---Parse your statement. It's about economics. That said, the evidence is quite strong that the North-South wage differential would have sucked Southerners (white and black) out in massive numbers without mass immigration. It certainly did in the 1920s. No immigration. Southerners move North earlier and in massive numbers. Racial resentments and problems start earlier. They may, or may not, therefore be resolved earlier. But I don't care, because in this timeline I'm French, so why bother about the U.S. and its mysterious racial problems? We're the world's superpower and shining light of liberty anyway... Vive la republique! Best, Noel Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:18:29 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Noel wrote: > > Logan Ferree wrote in message news:<3B07CC27.A1BF6781@roanoke.infi.net>... > > > There were 100,000 Italian Americans in NYC at the time. So I assume > > if you counted outside NYC, you'd get even more. The Irish had 500,000 > > total in America. So the Italians would still come, maybe not as much as > > ---No there weren't. Where did you get that > idea from? CUMULATIVE GROSS immigration from > ALL of southern and eastern Europe didn't reach > 100,000 people by 1860. > > > the Irish but they would still come. Other major immigrant groups were > > the Germans who had fled to America following the 1848 Revolutions. Their > > votes in the Mid-West helped elect Lincoln, a fact he knew and caused him > > to attempt to secure the German-Republican relations stronger. Think of > > people like Carl Schurz. > > ---Yeah... that's one of the reasons why restrictionism > is a political non-starter in the 1860s. > > It's still an interesting POD. Might make the "Rainbow > France" scenario a lot more plausible. Somebody should > combine 'em and think about the net effects on history > of a bigger France and a smaller United States. I did that. Check out http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/tpaguide.html, in particular http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/migrations.html, http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/tpanoram.html, http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/tpasouam.html, and http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/2ndorlki.html. > [deletia] > > Best, > > Noel -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:40:47 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Noel wrote: > Logan Ferree wrote in message news:<3B07CC27.A1BF6781@roanoke.infi.net>... > > > There were 100,000 Italian Americans in NYC at the time. So I assume > > if you counted outside NYC, you'd get even more. The Irish had 500,000 > > total in America. So the Italians would still come, maybe not as much as > > ---No there weren't. Where did you get that > idea from? CUMULATIVE GROSS immigration from > ALL of southern and eastern Europe didn't reach > 100,000 people by 1860. ::Turns red in shame.:: That 100,000 should be a 10,000. Oh dear I hate those 0's. > > > The real racial problems of the north did not stop blacks from moving > > > northward when they had economic incentive to do so, and did not stop > > > the rest of the country from considering the South to be particularly > > > reactionary about race issues in OTL. What makes the north more > > > racist from 1880-1920 in ATL than it was in 1920-1960 in OTL? > > > > I'm just saying that the North was racist in the 1920 to 1960 period. > > Indiana politics in the 1920s were dominated by the Klan, the same will > > happen in this TL because of the earlier migration. You say that the > > North gave the blacks more representation. Only after Supreme Court > > decisions and huge riots. Wisconsin was forced to allow black suffrage by > > a Court case, the people had repeatedly resisted black suffrage at the > > voting booth. Don't forget the Supreme Court case of 1883 either. Or the > > Separate But Equal case. The American courts, just not the South, did not > > like blacks. > > ---You lost me, Logan. It doesn't seem like you > answered the question. Absent European immigration, > blacks are headed north in massive numbers, and no > amount of fence-mending or union-activism is going > to stop them. I'm saying that the peaceful scenario that the TL present was false. The idea that they will be getting along seems implausible to me. You will have labor unions add anti-Black laws to their lists of demands, and things will get very violent. The Business owners could have been able to prevent attacks on themselves, but how good will they be at preventing attacks on Blacks. Lynchings and the like. I don't see the demand for labor that would bring in the blacks, and I do see business generally being smart and trying to bring in White labor. But if the black labor does happen, I see the North being just as racist as the South in OTL. The Progressive idea of Eugenics will preach against Black and White coupling. Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 16:29:13 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 maurer@itam.mx (Noel) wrote in message news:<3ac469c0.0105210739.c520b7c@posting.google.com>... > Logan Ferree wrote in message news:<3B07CC27.A1BF6781@roanoke.infi.net>... > > > There were 100,000 Italian Americans in NYC at the time. So I assume > > if you counted outside NYC, you'd get even more. The Irish had 500,000 > > total in America. So the Italians would still come, maybe not as much as > > ---No there weren't. Where did you get that > idea from? CUMULATIVE GROSS immigration from > ALL of southern and eastern Europe didn't reach > 100,000 people by 1860. That's about what I thought. > [snip] > ---You lost me, Logan. It doesn't seem like you > answered the question. Absent European immigration, > blacks are headed north in massive numbers, and no > amount of fence-mending or union-activism is going > to stop them. > > The reference you want (sorry, folks) is William > Collins, "When the Tide Turned: Immigration and > the Delay of the Great Migration," Journal of > Economic History, September 1997. > [thanks for the reference. I think overall, race relations in the northern US are vastly under-studied compared to the Deep South, especially in the timeframe between the Civil War and the late 60s] > More speculatively, you're also going to get labor > recruitment gangs fanning out across Mexico and > the Caribbean, but that probably won't have as > big an impact. Mexicans were remarkably immobile > before 1900. > [Interesting and true. Obviously the Mexicans were immobile when the main immigration path was for American to move to Mexican Texas and California. If you see my initial long post, I speculate that if Puerto Rico is annexed and if we have a major war requiring manpower, causing them to get citizenship, the island is virtually depopulated by migration to the mainland. Puerto Ricans, or maybe with butterfly effects, Cubans, spread to alot more parts of the country in this labor-scarce US, and have much better employment prospects] > > > [Suppose you're right for a minute, and labor resistance effectively > > > stops the northward migration of blacks. Does this cause earlier > > > industrialization of the Sunbelt, with Capital moving towards the > > > Labor instead of vice versa?] > > (snip unlikely hypotheses about northern attitudes) > [Whose unlikely hypothesis, mine or Logan's, I'm sure we both presented several.] > > You mean Capital from the Northern businessmen moving South? No, I > > don't see that. I see the North still being industrialized. The South > > did have much lower wages though throughout history. But the people with > > the Capital were from the North, and viewed the South as a colony to > > produce raw materials, not anything else. You seem to see a higher demand > > for labor than I do. I see the Great Migration as a result of WWI and > > WWII, not the natural forces of economics. The war took away men, and > > labor was needed. With reduced immigration, you do have a smaller labor > > supply but also a smaller market for goods. You could get your Great > > Migration the same time as OTL, with WWI. But by then who knows what has > > changed. > > ---Parse your statement. It's about economics. > > That said, the evidence is quite strong that the > North-South wage differential would have sucked > Southerners (white and black) out in massive > numbers without mass immigration. It certainly > did in the 1920s. > > No immigration. Southerners move North earlier > and in massive numbers. Racial resentments and > problems start earlier. They may, or may not, > therefore be resolved earlier. But I don't care, > because in this timeline I'm French, so why bother > about the U.S. and its mysterious racial problems? > We're the world's superpower and shining light of > liberty anyway... Vive la republique! > [clever][ > Best, > > Noel Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:21:07 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Logan Ferree wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > > A couple very important points Logan: > > > > 1. I don't see the Republicans formally making the white non-white > > distinction as part of the immigration reform. In other words, they > > will not be in the business of reclassiffying Irish or southern > > Europeans as non-white. > > However, if you applied the 1921 or 1924 style immigration quota, > > based on national origin, the effect would be somewhat anti-German, > > whether intended or not. > > In OTL the Indians were classified as non-white until they won a court > case (I think Supreme court) to get the classification of white in the > 1930. The Government has changed its mind on what is white and what > isn't. In the 1860 census, the white population was classified as > "native," "foreign" or "Irish." Germans would not be a group that is > targeted, which is one problem with your WI. About 1 in 4 Union soldiers > were German, and they helped Lincoln win the election. Another figure > says 1 in 3. Not only that, but the Republicans recognize that without > the German vote the Mid-West has a high chance of swinging to the > Democrats. > > > Also, in 1865 there is not going to be specific quota aimed at > > Southern or Eastern Europeans. Why not? There were hardly any people > > from those countries in the US at the time. For the same reason, if > > the POD is the 1860s, you couldn't get together enough Italian > > Americans to participate in an identifiably Italian-American riot. > > There were 100,000 Italian Americans in NYC at the time. So I assume > if you counted outside NYC, you'd get even more. The Irish had 500,000 > total in America. So the Italians would still come, maybe not as much as > the Irish but they would still come. Other major immigrant groups were > the Germans who had fled to America following the 1848 Revolutions. Their > votes in the Mid-West helped elect Lincoln, a fact he knew and caused him > to attempt to secure the German-Republican relations stronger. Think of > people like Carl Schurz. > > > 2. Everything you said about labor resentment of black migrants > > northward during this hypothetical 1880-1920 timeframe, was true of > > the labor reaction to black migration in OTL 1920-1960, which was > > massive. Still, blacks gained political representation and importance > > in the north that they didn't have in the south. > > You are having it happen earlier than the 1920-1960 time-frame. And > IIRC, you also had the rise of the KKK, the production of Birth of a > Nation, a time period in which many politicians were members of the KKK, > and more during OTL's migration. What really helped the cause of the > Black in America? The Cold War, De-colonization, and the like. Where > were some of the most violent anti-intergration riots? Places like > Boston. We've freed the slaves, the public doesn't see a reason why to > treat them as equal. They are better than before, isn't that enough? > Detroit, a city with a large Black population, almost elected a mayor who > was openly pro-KKK. At a time were the Populists in the South will be > working on mending fences with the Blacks, the Progressives in the North > will be fighting tooth and nail to prevent blacks from taking jobs. > > > The real racial problems of the north did not stop blacks from moving > > northward when they had economic incentive to do so, and did not stop > > the rest of the country from considering the South to be particularly > > reactionary about race issues in OTL. What makes the north more > > racist from 1880-1920 in ATL than it was in 1920-1960 in OTL? > > I'm just saying that the North was racist in the 1920 to 1960 period. > Indiana politics in the 1920s were dominated by the Klan, the same will > happen in this TL because of the earlier migration. You say that the > North gave the blacks more representation. Only after Supreme Court > decisions and huge riots. Wisconsin was forced to allow black suffrage by > a Court case, the people had repeatedly resisted black suffrage at the > voting booth. Don't forget the Supreme Court case of 1883 either. Or the > Separate But Equal case. The American courts, just not the South, did not > like blacks. > > > Besides how responsive were governments to labor at the turn of the > > century anyway? I see your analogy with the Chinese, but business > > interests would see much more at stake over the issue of black labor > > than they ever did with the Chinese, who were simply less numerous. > > OK, I give you that perhaps because the blacks are more numerous, and > already here, the situation is different. Perhaps. The government was > actually semi-responsive to labor, at least they worried about loosing the > white vote by appearing to negro-friendly. That is the key here, the > token gesture to labor. We don't do anything else for you, but at least > the law will make sure that you can be proud that you are white. It kept > labor in line by fear too, because there was always the threat that black > labor, or the Chinese, or some other group could be pulled in to lower > wages and break strikes. > > > [Suppose you're right for a minute, and labor resistance effectively > > stops the northward migration of blacks. Does this cause earlier > > industrialization of the Sunbelt, with Capital moving towards the > > Labor instead of vice versa?] > > First, I'd like to talk about the mulatto elite in the North. > Pre-Civil War, the Black population in the North wasn't very large, but > I'd say they were more than 100 times better off than in the South. They > were dark-skinned Jews, in a way. Small in number (one of the key things) > and often taking small jobs such as barbers and caterers for the > upper-class. The Southern elite had their slaves, well the Northern elite > had their mulatto elite which work serve them in various minor roles. Up > North, the blacks were often literate, well educated, and well mannered. > Then came the Great Migration, the movement of Southern blacks up > North. That with the higher amounts of immigration coming ruined > everything. With the huge wave of Blacks, who were often uneducated and > showed all the characteristics of being a people who had evolved to suit > slavery, the Northern whites just say Black people, not Black people from > the South and Black people who had Lived in the North for a long time. > The race line hardened between White and Black. Then you had the huge > waves of immigration, and so the classical Italian barber replaced the > Black barber in the cities. > Too much of anything ruins things. Without the Great Migration, the > Black in the North would be better off. He'd be viewed, as I said, as a > dark Jew. A small class of people who are respectable because of their > intelligence and dedication to hard work. With the demographics changing, > Asian immigrants in modern day have often been compared to the Jewish > people. Hard working individuals that stress moving ahead in the work > based on academic means. Hispanics are the Irish of the day, too many of > them, rude, chaotic, a danger to America. That mulatto elite in the North survived to this ay, and formed the nucleus of the modern African-American middle class in the North. Like present-day West Indian (Jamaican, Barbadian, Trinidadian, Guyanese) immigrants, Northern mulattos prior to the Great Migration were seen as distinct from the vast majority of African-Americans; their cultural differences allowed them to strive for social equality without whites seeing the Northern mulattos as part of the same aggregate that included illiterate Southern sharecroppers. Without the Great Migrations, Northern mulattos would continued to be seen as a distinct group, but the lives of the vast majority of Southern blacks would be far worse. Slums were a move up from the peasantry, and the KKK wasn't nearly as active in Harlem as in, oh, the Mississippi Delta. > [deletia] > > Logan Ferree -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 21:12:14 GMT From: coyu@aol.com (Coyu) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Randy McDonald wrote: >That mulatto elite in the North survived to this ay, and formed the >nucleus of the modern African-American middle class in the North. Um. 'Mulatto' elite? That term generally refers to people of mixed African and European ancestry, and of course a large fraction of the US population that can trace its ancestry back to colonial times is of mixed race. There were light-skinned and dark-skinned members of the northern Negro elite, and something of a caste system based on skin color -- the paper bag test and all that. Quite a diversity in origin, too: the border states, the North, the Caribbean, and even Africa itself. Much less from the South than you might think. The term 'mulatto' is also inaccurate for the times, since in the 19th century it generally referred to a person directly half-white, half-black. (And it's kind of offensive today, but I figure y'all are using it in historical context.) Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:39:27 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Coyu wrote: > The term 'mulatto' is also inaccurate for the times, since in the 19th > century it generally referred to a person directly half-white, half-black. In a world that uses the "on drop of black blood test" what does half-white and half-black really mean? Bob Kolker Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:05:02 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Robert J. Kolker wrote: > > Coyu wrote: > > > The term 'mulatto' is also inaccurate for the times, since in the 19th > > century it generally referred to a person directly half-white, half-black. > > In a world that uses the "on drop of black blood test" what does half-white > and half-black really mean? The world doesn't. Historically, the United States has been the exception that proves the rule. > Bob Kolker -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 13:45:47 -0700 From: maurer@itam.mx (Noel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:<3B08398F.EB50E0B6@mediaone.net>... > Coyu wrote: > > > The term 'mulatto' is also inaccurate for the times, since in the 19th > > century it generally referred to a person directly half-white, half-black. > > In a world that uses the "on drop of black blood test" what does half-white > and half-black really mean? ---More proof that you've been living in a cave since 1956. All the best, Noel, who understands exactly what "half-white and half-black" means in a modern American context Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:48:54 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Noel wrote: > Noel, who understands exactly what "half-white > and half-black" means in a modern American context Then perhaps you will share this with me. I have not the foggiest notion of what "half white half black" means. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:25:57 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Noel wrote: > "Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:<3B08398F.EB50E0B6@mediaone.net>... > > Coyu wrote: > > > > > The term 'mulatto' is also inaccurate for the times, since in the 19th > > > century it generally referred to a person directly half-white, half-black. > > > > In a world that uses the "on drop of black blood test" what does half-white > > and half-black really mean? > > ---More proof that you've been living in a > cave since 1956. Actually, doesn't the government still act under the "one drop of blood test?" Isn't that all I need to qualify as African-American, some distance African ancestor? Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:43:08 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Logan Ferree wrote: > > Actually, doesn't the government still act under the "one drop of blood test?" No. > Isn't that all I need to qualify as African-American, some distance African > ancestor? Nope. My great-grandfather was "black" -- octoroon, if you want to be precise. But I couldn't plausibly claim to be "African American" (and no, I haven't tried). Doug M. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:34:14 -0400 From: Old Toby Organization: The University of Michigan Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Logan Ferree wrote: > > Noel wrote: > > > "Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:<3B08398F.EB50E0B6@mediaone.net>... > > > Coyu wrote: > > > > > > > The term 'mulatto' is also inaccurate for the times, since in the 19th > > > > century it generally referred to a person directly half-white, half-black. > > > > > > In a world that uses the "on drop of black blood test" what does half-white > > > and half-black really mean? > > > > ---More proof that you've been living in a > > cave since 1956. > > Actually, doesn't the government still act under the "one drop of blood test?" Isn't that all I need > to qualify as African-American, some distance African ancestor? Everybody has some distant African ancestor (I think that's what you were trying to say). The government doesn't actually put out qualifications for being "African-American", the Census and government forms let you decide which category you belong to. Old Toby Least Known Dog on the Net Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:02:06 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Old Toby wrote: > > Actually, doesn't the government still act under the "one drop of blood test?" Isn't that all I need > > to qualify as African-American, some distance African ancestor? > > Everybody has some distant African ancestor (I think that's > what you were trying to say). Actually I was attacking the current affirmative action system, which will allow a Blonde Hair, Blue Eyed person living in Minnesota to call himself African-American, and get all the perks, because he somehow can claim that he is 10% black. > The government doesn't actually put out qualifications for > being "African-American", the Census and government forms > let you decide which category you belong to. Interesting. I just finished taking my State Tests for School, I was really tempted to put down Native America. I was born in New Jersey, isn't that Native enough? Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:48:14 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Coyu wrote: > Randy McDonald wrote: > > >That mulatto elite in the North survived to this ay, and formed the > >nucleus of the modern African-American middle class in the North. > > Um. 'Mulatto' elite? That term generally refers to people of mixed > African and European ancestry, and of course a large fraction > of the US population that can trace its ancestry back to > colonial times is of mixed race. In this situtation, the term Mulatto elite refers to Black people who are serving white people. They cross over. They are not Black barbers that cater to Blacks, they are Black barbers that cater to Whites. Hence the term Mulatto Elite. Or that's what my history book used. Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:18:20 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Coyu wrote: > > Randy McDonald wrote: > > >That mulatto elite in the North survived to this ay, and formed the > >nucleus of the modern African-American middle class in the North. > > Um. 'Mulatto' elite? That term generally refers to people of mixed > African and European ancestry, and of course a large fraction > of the US population that can trace its ancestry back to > colonial times is of mixed race. > > There were light-skinned and dark-skinned members of the northern > Negro elite, and something of a caste system based on skin > color -- the paper bag test and all that. Quite a diversity in origin, > too: the border states, the North, the Caribbean, and even Africa > itself. Much less from the South than you might think. > > The term 'mulatto' is also inaccurate for the times, since in the 19th > century it generally referred to a person directly half-white, half-black. > > (And it's kind of offensive today, but I figure y'all are using it in > historical > context.) OK. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on the North's 19th century racial categories. I wasn't quite sure how congruent they were with those in the contemporary South or the modern North. -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 02:03:40 GMT From: coyu@aol.com (Coyu) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Randy McDonald wrote: >OK. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on the North's 19th century >racial categories. I wasn't quite sure how congruent they were with >those in the contemporary South or the modern North. No problem. Slightly tangential... I was looking into the origins of the main figures of the Harlem Renaissance, and it's kind of interesting: Langston Hughes -- born in Joplin, MO; grew up in Lawrence, KS Zora Neale Hurston -- born in AL, raised in FL Countee Cullen -- raised in NYC Claude McKay -- Jamaica Jean Toomer -- Washington, DC James Weldon Johnson -- born in Jacksonville, FL of Bahamanian parents Charles W. Chesnutt -- Cleveland, OH Paul Lawrence Dunbar -- Dayton, OH Nella Larsen -- born in Chicago, of a West Indian father and Danish mother George Schuyler -- upstate NY I suppose I could add: W.E.B. DuBois -- Great Barrington, MA Booker T. Washington -- born near Roanoke, VA, grew up in WV George Washington Carver -- rural MO Marcus Garvey -- Jamaica There is a real lack of any names coming from the old Confederate cotton slave belt, though many of the above did live there for a time. Even Zora Neale Hurston is something of an exception; her family moved to the only black-run township in Florida. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 02:07:26 GMT From: congyoglas@aol.comgentboss (President Chester A. Arthur) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline >From: coyu@aol.com (Coyu) >Date: Sun, May 20, 2001 9:03 PM >Message-id: <20010520220340.19357.00000567@ng-fj1.aol.com> > >Randy McDonald wrote: > >>OK. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on the North's 19th century >>racial categories. I wasn't quite sure how congruent they were with >>those in the contemporary South or the modern North. > >No problem. > >Slightly tangential... I was looking into the origins of the main figures >of the Harlem Renaissance, and it's kind of interesting: > >Langston Hughes -- born in Joplin, MO; grew up in Lawrence, KS >Zora Neale Hurston -- born in AL, raised in FL >Countee Cullen -- raised in NYC >Claude McKay -- Jamaica >Jean Toomer -- Washington, DC >James Weldon Johnson -- born in Jacksonville, FL of Bahamanian parents >Charles W. Chesnutt -- Cleveland, OH >Paul Lawrence Dunbar -- Dayton, OH >Nella Larsen -- born in Chicago, of a West Indian father and Danish mother >George Schuyler -- upstate NY > >I suppose I could add: > >W.E.B. DuBois -- Great Barrington, MA >Booker T. Washington -- born near Roanoke, VA, grew up in WV >George Washington Carver -- rural MO >Marcus Garvey -- Jamaica > >There is a real lack of any names coming from the old Confederate >cotton slave belt, though many of the above did live there >for a time. > >Even Zora Neale Hurston is something of an exception; her family >moved to the only black-run township in Florida. And even today, we've the first-generation? Jamaican Colin Powell, or Bahamian Sydney Poitier. President Chester A. Arthur, the anti-Rutherford Hayes Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 03:05:05 GMT From: coyu@aol.com (Coyu) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Chet Arthur wrote: >>There is a real lack of any names coming from the old Confederate >>cotton slave belt, though many of the above did live there >>for a time. >> >>Even Zora Neale Hurston is something of an exception; her family >>moved to the only black-run township in Florida. > >And even today, we've the first-generation? Jamaican Colin Powell, or >Bahamian Sydney Poitier. Far far less than it used to be. Take North Caroline -- Romare Bearden, Thelonious Monk, Nina Simone, right off the top of my head. Out of a black population of 3-plus million, that's three world-class talents. There are plenty of European regions that don't do so well; and I am sure there are more names that will come to me after I hit 'send'. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:34:06 +0100 From: philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) Organization: Comuno Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 20 May 2001 21:12:14 GMT, Coyu wrote: > >The term 'mulatto' is also inaccurate for the times, since in the 19th >century it generally referred to a person directly half-white, half-black. > >(And it's kind of offensive today, but I figure y'all are using it in >historical context.) OK, so what's a non-offensive word for people who are (roughly) half white half black? "Mixed race" doesn't do it, as it is less specific. -- *****[ Phil Hunt ***** philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]***** Pstream class library for C++: a Parsing Stream library that facilitates writing lexical analysers and other programs that parse data files. Available on an open source license from Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:54:52 GMT From: Jamie McDonell Organization: @Home Network Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 phil hunt wrote: <> How about mestizo? Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:53:26 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Now that's far off. This is what the British used in the Carribean. Negro, Mulatto (White-Negro), Quadroon (White-Mulato), Mustee (White-Quadroon) Mustiphini (White-Mustee), Quintroon (White-Mustiphini), and Octroon (White-Quintroon.) So we have this. 1 Generation- 50% Black, or 1 Half. Mulatto 2 Generations- 25% Black, or 1 Fourth. Quadroon. 3 Generations- 12.5% Black, or 1 Eighth. Mustee. 4 Generations- 6.25% Black, or 1/16. Quintroon. 5 Generations- 3.125% Black, or 1/32. Octroon. After this, if I am reading this correctly, the child whould be considered White. This seems to only apply to the children of White Men and Black Women. The Children of White Women and Black Men were often viewed in a much harsher light. And this is just White-Black. You have White-Native, Black-Native, and all the cross overs. Very confusing. Logan Ferree Jamie McDonell wrote: > phil hunt wrote: < (roughly) half white half black? "Mixed race" doesn't do it, as it is > less specific.>> > > How about mestizo? Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 13:43:18 -0700 From: maurer@itam.mx (Noel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Jamie McDonell wrote in message news:<3B093B3A.52CBB90F@home.com>... > phil hunt wrote: < (roughly) half white half black? "Mixed race" doesn't do it, as it is > less specific.>> > > How about mestizo? ---That has a specific meaning in Mexico, where it refers to a monolingual Spanish-speaker with some degree of indigenous ancestry. "Ladino" is used in southern Mexico and Central America, but unlike "mestizo," "ladino" is a racially- loaded word. The Mexican meaning of "mestizo" is familiar to many Americans, especially in the southwest. There is no non-offensive word for the concept. Nor do most Americans feel the lack of such a word. There are all sorts of reasons for that, most of which say rather hopeful things about American society in the early 21st century. But that's just my opinion. Noel Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 13:58:35 -0400 From: James D Thompson Organization: I Realize these Views are Unpopular, but I've Never been One to Court Popularity Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Logan Ferree wrote: > > It kept labor in line by fear too, because there was always the threat > that black labor, or the Chinese, or some other group could be pulled > in to lower wages and break strikes. It was more than a threat. It wasn't uncommon for Southern blacks to be recruited by company bosses for northern factory jobs, only for them to learn after the fact that they were being used as strike replacements. David Thompson, and they weren't allowed to just walk off either... -- Any minute now, I expect the villagers to mob my house with pitch forks and torches. Fortunately for me, Mac isn't all that bright, so they'll probably mob the neighbors. -Podkayne Fries, 5-10-01 Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 08:54:00 +1200 From: Gareth Wilson Organization: University of Canterbury Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Great scenario, Rob. One of the few plausible ways to improve race relations. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gareth Wilson Christchurch New Zealand ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:55:21 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 I just love inverted Marxism. Economics will solve everything naturally. Men are good, they don't become racist when they see people who they think are inferior working next to them. Too bad the world doesn't work that way. Logan Ferree Gareth Wilson wrote: > Great scenario, Rob. One of the few plausible ways to improve race > relations. > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gareth Wilson > Christchurch > New Zealand > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 09:33:08 +1200 From: Gareth Wilson Organization: University of Canterbury Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Logan Ferree wrote: > I just love inverted Marxism. Economics will solve everything > naturally. Men are good, they don't become racist when they see people > who they think are inferior working next to them. Too bad the world > doesn't work that way. It's not economics, it's politics. Racism declines because it gets in the way of political empire-building. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gareth Wilson Christchurch New Zealand ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 19 May 2001 20:46:48 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Gareth Wilson wrote in message news:<3B06E694.D2835075@ext.canterbury.ac.nz>... > Logan Ferree wrote: > > > I just love inverted Marxism. Economics will solve everything > > naturally. Men are good, they don't become racist when they see people > > who they think are inferior working next to them. Too bad the world > > doesn't work that way. > > It's not economics, it's politics. Racism declines because it gets in the > way of political empire-building. Exactly the point- Blacks have more political and economic power because of the changed labor market. There will still be plenty of racism to go around, but it's between groups who are not separated by as much of a power gap. One mystery we have to solve, is what happened to make white people, who rioted by going into majority black neighborhoods and burning them as late as 1942, utterly afraid to do so by the late 60s [in the urban north0. Something happened that changed the white reflex from fight to flight. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:03:43 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Rob wrote: > Exactly the point- > > Blacks have more political and economic power because of the changed > labor market. > There will still be plenty of racism to go around, but it's between > groups who are not separated by as much of a power gap. I think that is the point. The main foe of the Black working in the factory is the White working next to him. That's more dangerous than if the enemy was a White who was over in Europe after finishing his time at Princeton. The Rich White might pass laws, but the Poor White will kill him. > One mystery we have to solve, is what happened to make white people, > who rioted by going into majority black neighborhoods and burning them > as late as 1942, utterly afraid to do so by the late 60s [in the urban > north0. Something happened that changed the white reflex from fight > to flight. They were not utterly afraid to do so by the late 60s. Don't forget about the riots by blacks in various Northern cities in the 1966 and 1967 summers. Didn't Wallace appeal to people in the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt? Are not people in the working class still racist, is that not how the Welfare Queen speech as able to appeal to Americans across the Nation? Mostly what happened, IMHO, is the government finally got involved. And this was mostly due to such things as the Cold War and fear that if we don't do something now, MLK will be preaching Communism later. So now we battle politically between the poor white and the poor non-white. Blacks still think that the Whites are out to get them, and Whites still think that Blacks are a danger to society, part of the moral decay of America. That is a generalization, there are exceptions are both sides. Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 20 May 2001 16:01:57 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 > > One mystery we have to solve, is what happened to make white people, > > who rioted by going into majority black neighborhoods and burning them > > as late as 1942, utterly afraid to do so by the late 60s [in the urban > > north0. Something happened that changed the white reflex from fight > > to flight. > > They were not utterly afraid to do so by the late 60s. Don't forget > about the riots by blacks in various Northern cities in the 1966 and 1967 > summers. Didn't Wallace appeal to people in the Rust Belt and the Bible > Belt? Are not people in the working class still racist, is that not how > the Welfare Queen speech as able to appeal to Americans across the Nation? > Mostly what happened, IMHO, is the government finally got involved. And > this was mostly due to such things as the Cold War and fear that if we > don't do something now, MLK will be preaching Communism later. So now we > battle politically between the poor white and the poor non-white. Blacks > still think that the Whites are out to get them, and Whites still think > that Blacks are a danger to society, part of the moral decay of America. > That is a generalization, there are exceptions are both sides. > > Logan Ferree You're missing the critical difference dude. Race riots before the 60s meant white people going into the heart of black neighborhoods and destroying property and killing people. After Watts 1965, race riots meant black people burning up their own neighorhoods. Certainly white mob attacks on blacks have continued since then, Howard Beach, Bensonhurst, the stuff in Boston over busing. However, these attacks were on people moving into the traditionally white neighborhoods, and the victims were usually massively outnumbered. Generally, the whites who actually go into black neighborhoods these days with violent intent are police. White working-class people, despite their racism, did not fight effectively to prevent black demographic takeover of major sections of metropolitan territory. Instead of fighting, or after fighting, they left. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 13:50:52 -0700 From: maurer@itam.mx (Noel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) wrote in message news:<990316a2.0105201501.2f59964b@posting.google.com>... > > > One mystery we have to solve, is what happened to make white people, > > > who rioted by going into majority black neighborhoods and burning them > > > as late as 1942, utterly afraid to do so by the late 60s [in the urban > > > north0. Something happened that changed the white reflex from fight > > > to flight. ---People got richer. It became easier to move out to Levittown than throw rocks at the newcomers. > You're missing the critical difference dude. Race riots before the > 60s meant white people going into the heart of black neighborhoods and > destroying property and killing people. After Watts 1965, race riots > meant black people burning up their own neighorhoods. Certainly white > mob attacks on blacks have continued since then, Howard Beach, > Bensonhurst, the stuff in Boston over busing. However, these attacks > were on people moving into the traditionally white neighborhoods, and > the victims were usually massively outnumbered. Generally, the whites > who actually go into black neighborhoods these days with violent > intent are police. ---Word! But to get back to the point, an earlier Great Migration will probably trigger some mind-bogglingly nasty riots, quite a bit worse than OTL. Noel Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:29:33 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 Noel wrote: > But to get back to the point, an earlier Great > Migration will probably trigger some mind-bogglingly > nasty riots, quite a bit worse than OTL. Which is basically what I was saying. One opinion has the Blacks winning out in the end. They stomach the lynchings, and all the other things. They put up with being murdered, with everything aimed at them from the people working right next to them. Somehow, someway, they are able to win. I, OTOH, see this resulting in Black flight from White fight. The AH's Progressive movement works to ban Black labor, and also in a token jesture the Business Owners pull out the Blacks but often bring them back to break strikes and the like. Is it that implausible? Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 17:48:08 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 Logan Ferree wrote in message news:<3B0988BD.6E8EA43A@roanoke.infi.net>... > Noel wrote: > > > But to get back to the point, an earlier Great > > Migration will probably trigger some mind-bogglingly > > nasty riots, quite a bit worse than OTL. > > Which is basically what I was saying. One opinion has the Blacks winning > out in the end. They stomach the lynchings, and all the other things. They > put up with being murdered, with everything aimed at them from the people > working right next to them. Somehow, someway, they are able to win. I, OTOH, > see this resulting in Black flight from White fight. The AH's Progressive > movement works to ban Black labor, and also in a token jesture the Business > Owners pull out the Blacks but often bring them back to break strikes and the > like. Is it that implausible? > > Logan Ferree It's got some plausibility. And I know you were saying I was over-estimating labor demand, or I suppose uncer-estimating the consumer impact of immigrants, but were you also thinking along the lines of randy, that possibly white southerners might migrate north in large numbers? Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:52:04 -0400 From: Logan Ferree Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 Rob wrote: > > Which is basically what I was saying. One opinion has the Blacks winning > > out in the end. They stomach the lynchings, and all the other things. They > > put up with being murdered, with everything aimed at them from the people > > working right next to them. Somehow, someway, they are able to win. I, OTOH, > > see this resulting in Black flight from White fight. The AH's Progressive > > movement works to ban Black labor, and also in a token jesture the Business > > Owners pull out the Blacks but often bring them back to break strikes and the > > like. Is it that implausible? > > > > Logan Ferree > > It's got some plausibility. And I know you were saying I was > over-estimating labor demand, or I suppose uncer-estimating the > consumer impact of immigrants, > but were you also thinking along the lines of randy, that possibly > white southerners might migrate north in large numbers? White Southerners could migrate north if there is a demand for labor. As I mentioned in another post, I remember reading in my Appalachian Pride unit in English Class about Whites from Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia moving to Detroit, Chicago, and other Industrial centers because jobs were in demand there. Could be wrong though. Logan Ferree Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 21 May 2001 21:49:13 -0700 From: raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 Here's some potential cultural history aspects of this timeline, that probably apply no matter how the "Great Migration" works out: 1. The Civil War is more remembered, and in partisan manner, in the northern and western United States. Here's why: There's exceptions, but generally in OTL US its the south that's more obsessed with the US Civil War. This is probably because of several factors: 1. Battlefields being present there. 2. Less economic development than in the north over the 100 years after the war, encouraging a focus on past glories. 3. The loser having more of a chip on his shoulder. However, a 4th factor may be important- The more far-reaching "personnel" turn-over in the north and midwest compared to the south. With not so many new people coming in, Civil War memories stayed more culturally relavant in the south. By contrast, the Civil War meant little to immigrants from Poland or Italy who came decades after the Civil War to be the predominant elements of the white population in Massachussets or New Jersey. With fewer new people, or the newcomers coming from regions that did experience the Civil War, interest and feelings remain strong throughout the country. 2. If there is an earlier "great migration", the emergence of hate groups in the north is probable. [although purely ad hoc mobs are a possibility] However, if the height of the migration is the 1880s or 1890s, these groups will not use Confederate or Klan imagery, as memories of the Civil War are still fresh, and pro-southern revisionism did not become dominant until about Woodrow Wilson's time. The emergence of the Klan as we know it nationwide was related to black migration to the north, the addition of anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism to its ideology, the popularity of Birth of Nation, revisionist Civil War history, and the adaptation of slick new advertising and franchising techniques. These elements won't be there in the 1880s or 1890s, although other practical causes of conflict will be. 3. If you have mostly white southern migration to the north, "divide and rule" strategies against labor are much less successful. Possibly you have something resembling the British or Australian Labor Party in the northern United States. 4. How is the temperance movement, women's suffrage and prohibition affected in this more firmly Protestant nation? On the one hand, Protestants were the supporters of these movements while Catholics resisted, but, much of the motive behind anti-alcohol legislation might have been precisely to stick it to the Catholic newcomers. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 22 May 2001 08:34:40 -0700 From: maurer@itam.mx (Noel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 raharris1973@my-deja.com (Rob) wrote in message news:<990316a2.0105212049.712b7d4f@posting.google.com>... > Here's some potential cultural history aspects of this timeline, that > probably apply no matter how the "Great Migration" works out: > > 1. The Civil War is more remembered, and in partisan manner, in the > northern and western United States. > Here's why: > There's exceptions, but generally in OTL US its the south that's more > obsessed with the US Civil War. This is probably because of several > factors: > 1. Battlefields being present there. > 2. Less economic development than in the north over the 100 years > after the war, encouraging a focus on past glories. > 3. The loser having more of a chip on his shoulder. > > However, a 4th factor may be important- The more far-reaching > "personnel" turn-over in the north and midwest compared to the south. > With not so many new people coming in, Civil War memories stayed more > culturally relavant in the south. > By contrast, the Civil War meant little to immigrants from Poland or > Italy who came decades after the Civil War to be the predominant > elements of the white population in Massachussets or New Jersey. > > With fewer new people, or the newcomers coming from regions that did > experience the Civil War, interest and feelings remain strong > throughout the country. ---I think this is true, but shouldn't be exaggerated. I have memories of a Spanish grandfather pouring over Civil War books and pestering us to go to the battlefields. Okay, it may have been connected to fond memories of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and all that, but I think many immigrants and their children have picked up an odd fascina- tion with that war. I'm quibbling, though: this sounds completely correct. > 2. If there is an earlier "great migration", the emergence of hate > groups in the north is probable. [although purely ad hoc mobs are a > possibility] However, if the height of the migration is the 1880s or > 1890s, these groups will not use Confederate or Klan imagery, as > memories of the Civil War are still fresh, and pro-southern > revisionism did not become dominant until about Woodrow Wilson's time. ---I agree with this too. I think the adoption of Jim Crow in the North is going too far, but explicitly racial demogoguery is almost certain. > 3. If you have mostly white southern migration to the north, "divide > and rule" strategies against labor are much less successful. Possibly > you have something resembling the British or Australian Labor Party in > the northern United States. ---Here I'm not as sure. The two-party system is very entrenched, and immigration isn't the only reason why socialism never grew deep roots in the U.S. In fact, without Eastern European immigrants leftist ideas might even have less of an impact. In addition, race is a really convenient way to divide and rule, and I'm sure northern factory owners will take advantage of it, even if only implicitly. "Eight hour day! No. We'll give you ten ... or hire some Negroes." > 4. How is the temperance movement, women's suffrage and prohibition > affected in this more firmly Protestant nation? On the one hand, > Protestants were the supporters of these movements while Catholics > resisted, but, much of the motive behind anti-alcohol legislation > might have been precisely to stick it to the Catholic newcomers. ---Sticking it to the blacks, though, that might be a basis for something similar. Here're my additions to your speculations --- please, shoot them down! 1) New York City remains more culturally dominant in the nation's consciousness. Low immigration, and the place doesn't become as alien to all the "real Americans" over the Hudson. It will have a position more like London in the nation's self-image. 2) San Francisco becomes the best center for Cajun food outside New Orleans, rather than the home of the best west coast pizza. Blacks settle in the Santa Clara Valley in large numbers, where Portuguese and Japanese laborers settled down OTL. L.A. looks about the same, but the Bay Area is just more, well, ordinary, a Cincinnati with a better climate. 3) Jazz music's arrival creates a bigger backlash in a more race-conscious nation. (Carlos? On track?) Gosh, no Louie Prima. That's bad. Yes, I'm a philistine. Noel Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 23 May 2001 01:35:04 GMT From: r32r38@aol.comnospam (R32R38) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 << >Here're my additions to your speculations --- please, >shoot them down! Sure! >1) New York City remains more culturally dominant >in the nation's consciousness. Low immigration, and >the place doesn't become as alien to all the "real >Americans" over the Hudson. As long as NYC remains the financial center of the US, it will have an alien stigma that Philly or Boston won't. Perhaps even more so, with the expanded Southern population movement. The focus of discontnent remains elite Eastern bankers instead of being transferred to elite Jewish liberals. Besides, NYC's "alien stigma" is to a large extent perpetuated (and enjoyed) by New Yorkers themselves. Remember that famous _New Yorker_ magazine cartoon that showed Manhattan in great detail while the country west of the Hudson was a narrow featureless strip? Most city residents loved that cartoon and took pride in it! -- Peter Rosa prosa123@yahoo.com R32R38@aol.com Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timeline Date: 23 May 2001 01:53:35 GMT From: coyu@aol.com (Coyu) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Peter Rosa wrote: >Besides, NYC's "alien stigma" is to a large extent perpetuated (and enjoyed) >by New Yorkers themselves. Remember that famous _New Yorker_ magazine >cartoon that showed Manhattan in great detail while the country west of >the Hudson was a narrow featureless strip? Most city residents loved >that cartoon and took pride in it! Of course, assuming ATL's immigration policies last till the 40s, it's unlikely that Saul Steinberg will ever get a chance to draw it. Though depending on how well Rainbow France weathers WWII, he might do one about Paris. Subject: Re: The 1865 Immigration timelin