AHC: Immigration Waves to the American South before the ACW

Would there be anything to provoke substantial waves of immigration to the American southern states INSTEAD of the northern states prior to the American Civil War?

Also, what effects would this have on the war itself? Would there be huge draft riots in the south like there were in the north? Would the Confederacy even attempt to draft foreigners?

This might end up hurting the Confederacy, actually. AFAIK, immigrants, like the Germans in Texas, tended to support the Union.

Not very likrly and most southerners didn't want them. To quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine:

Southerners before 1860 were not terribly friendly to immigration. I
do not simply refer to mass nativist movements, although Know Nothingism
briefly flourished in the South as well as the North. I have in mind the
feelings of many Southerners who did not belong to any nativist movement,
like Edmund Ruffin: "One of the great benefits of the institution of
African slavery to the southern states is its effect in keeping away from
our territory, and directing to the north and north-west, the hordes of
immigrants now flowing from Europe, and which accession of population has
already so much demoralized not only the states receiving the largest
supplies of such population, but the federal government itself. Every
political aspirant, aiming for the highest offices, deems it to his
interest to conciliate and attempt to bribe to his support, this new and
enormous element of political power. Hence we see unprincipled, but not
the less influential and dangerous aspirants for presidential honors,
competing with each other, as to who shall offer the highest bids for this
support, in bestowing the public lands gratuitously on immigrants from all
the world. It will not be long before this foreign power, so fostered and
increased, will be so strong, that the grants, conditions, or acquiescence
of the government, will be altogether superfluous and worthless." (Ruffin
acknowledged that "To hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Europe our
country has been greatly indebted for their useful private or public
lives." but added "But I speak of classes, and not of individuals--of the
general rule, and not of its exceptions.")
https://books.google.com/books?id=nWNKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA64-IA15

Get more German and Czech immigration to Central Texas. It will probably lead to Texas staying in the Union though if it were a big enough immigrant population.

One of the reasons people went north is because that's where the jobs were. Many immigrants ended up working in factories or farming. The South was not heavily industrialized and slavery meant that they didn't need farmworkers. An immigrant could try to set up a small farm, but it would be easier to go West and settle in the wide, unclaimed territory than in the South.

Napoleon IV said:

One of the reasons people went north is because that's where the jobs were. Many immigrants ended up working in factories or farming. The South was not heavily industrialized and slavery meant that they didn't need farmworkers. An immigrant could try to set up a small farm, but it would be easier to go West and settle in the wide, unclaimed territory than in the South.

Click to expand...

Yeah, what jobs are available for immigrants in the South? They can't get jobs working in agriculture because of, well, the whole slavery thing, and there aren't any factories or opportunities for unskilled labor. Realistically, there options are either a)go north and work in a factory/labor, or b) go west and work in agriculture. There's nothing for them down south.

Kung Fucious said:

Yeah, what jobs are available for immigrants in the South? They can't get jobs working in agriculture because of, well, the whole slavery thing, and there aren't any factories or opportunities for unskilled labor. Realistically, there options are either a)go north and work in a factory/labor, or b) go west and work in agriculture. There's nothing for them down south.

Click to expand...

There are a small number of factory/labor jobs in the South, but why go there when there is plenty of the same jobs available in North? A few could work as overseers, but there is the issue of nativism and once again not a whole lot of those jobs existed.

Plus, people went North not just because of jobs, but because their family or culture was there. By 1861 New York had a vibrant Irish and German communities (the two biggest groups of non-English immigrants at the time). It made sense to settle there, where you could live in your own culture, with family who had already immigrated, and take advantage of the connections your fellow immigrants had. In the South it would essentially just be a tiny number of immigrants in a sea of hostile Southerners.

It seems that if you want more immigrants in the South, you need more industry and you need more jobs. Not all Southern planters were opposed to industrialization. As the relationship between North and South became more and more strained, some leading figures saw the writing on the wall, and looked to compromise the Slave Power with the growing industrial power of the North. James Henry Hammond, the proponent of the Mudsill Theory, was a pretty awful human being, but he was also a supporter of industry in the South. More thinkers like Hammond earlier on could see important industrial cities bloom bigger and sooner in the South, especially if there's a greater need to establish a power base to rival the one up North. Perhaps if the Slave Power was somewhat weaker to start (maybe something like a 50/50 Compromise in place of the 3/5 compromise with a bunch of butterflies to back it up?), the planter aristocracy would not be able to rely on the political system to entrench themselves, and would look for other sources of leverage to maintain their way of life.

Quimporte said:

It seems that if you want more immigrants in the South, you need more industry and you need more jobs. Not all Southern planters were opposed to industrialization. As the relationship between North and South became more and more strained, some leading figures saw the writing on the wall, and looked to compromise the Slave Power with the growing industrial power of the North. James Henry Hammond, the proponent of the Mudsill Theory, was a pretty awful human being, but he was also a supporter of industry in the South. More thinkers like Hammond earlier on could see important industrial cities bloom bigger and sooner in the South, especially if there's a greater need to establish a power base to rival the one up North. Perhaps if the Slave Power was somewhat weaker to start (maybe something like a 50/50 Compromise in place of the 3/5 compromise with a bunch of butterflies to back it up?), the planter aristocracy would not be able to rely on the political system to entrench themselves, and would look for other sources of leverage to maintain their way of life.

Click to expand...

Of course less Slave Power and more Southern industry may well butterfly away the Civil War.

Napoleon IV said:

Of course less Slave Power and more Southern industry may well butterfly away the Civil War.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking too. If the south began industrializing as early as possible, the use for slavery might be more limited, thus the war might not happen as in OTL. It probably still will for other factors, but it would hopefully be shorter.

VirginiaHistoryTeacher said:

That's what I'm thinking too. If the south began industrializing as early as possible, the use for slavery might be more limited, thus the war might not happen as in OTL. It probably still will for other factors, but it would hopefully be shorter.

Click to expand...

What makes you think slaves couldn't be used in factories? Plenty of posters here have argued that they would work just fine, and it drives down the wages of white factory workers, which would certainly make the owners happy. And of course, that last would be the primary consideration involved.

TRH said:

What makes you think slaves couldn't be used in factories? Plenty of posters here have argued that they would work just fine, and it drives down the wages of white factory workers, which would certainly make the owners happy. And of course, that last would be the primary consideration involved.

Click to expand...

Yes, even thinkers like Hammond wanted to incorporate the existing system of slavery into emergent Southern industry.

TRH said:

What makes you think slaves couldn't be used in factories? Plenty of posters here have argued that they would work just fine, and it drives down the wages of white factory workers, which would certainly make the owners happy. And of course, that last would be the primary consideration involved.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure they would still be used in factories, but if the south industrialized in a way like the north did, there would likely be fewer slaves. The institution would still be there in its quality, but not as much in its quantity. I would think the trouble with industrialization would be that you'd have to teach slaves a specific and somewhat marketable skill that they could easily use in the same industry in the northern states. Same reason they weren't taught to read. This would be a sure-fire way to demonstrate the economic fallacy of slavery too. Oh you taught your slave a skilled trade? Idiot! Now he'll export himself and import his skill with him.

VirginiaHistoryTeacher said:

Oh I'm sure they would still be used in factories, but if the south industrialized in a way like the north did, there would likely be fewer slaves. The institution would still be there in its quality, but not as much in its quantity. I would think the trouble with industrialization would be that you'd have to teach slaves a specific and somewhat marketable skill that they could easily use in the same industry in the northern states. Same reason they weren't taught to read. This would be a sure-fire way to demonstrate the economic fallacy of slavery too. Oh you taught your slave a skilled trade? Idiot! Now he'll export himself and import his skill with him.

Click to expand...

The thing is, factory jobs were not skilled trade jobs. That's part of the reason many immigrants did them. (not that they were stupid, just that many didn't know skilled trades). Besides, the reason that they weren't taught to read was that there were fears they would learn about abolitionism and freedom and rebel or run away. Teaching them to operate industrial machinery doesn't do that.

TRH said:

What makes you think slaves couldn't be used in factories? Plenty of posters here have argued that they would work just fine, and it drives down the wages of white factory workers, which would certainly make the owners happy. And of course, that last would be the primary consideration involved.

Click to expand...

The Peculiar Institution by Kenneth Stampp showed the use of slaves was widespread in southern industry, with many southern industrialists preferring slave workers because they could not strike.

VirginiaHistoryTeacher said:

Oh I'm sure they would still be used in factories, but if the south industrialized in a way like the north did, there would likely be fewer slaves. The institution would still be there in its quality, but not as much in its quantity. I would think the trouble with industrialization would be that you'd have to teach slaves a specific and somewhat marketable skill that they could easily use in the same industry in the northern states. Same reason they weren't taught to read. This would be a sure-fire way to demonstrate the economic fallacy of slavery too. Oh you taught your slave a skilled trade? Idiot! Now he'll export himself and import his skill with him.

Click to expand...

Yes, this.

Napoleon IV said:

The thing is, factory jobs were not skilled trade jobs. That's part of the reason many immigrants did them. (not that they were stupid, just that many didn't know skilled trades). Besides, the reason that they weren't taught to read was that there were fears they would learn about abolitionism and freedom and rebel or run away. Teaching them to operate industrial machinery doesn't do that.

Click to expand...

Operating *basic* machinery, yes. Complex machinery? Not so much.

Fiver said:

The Peculiar Institution by Kenneth Stampp showed the use of slaves was widespread in southern industry, with many southern industrialists preferring slave workers because they could not strike.

Click to expand...

It may have been widespread(somewhat), but to be honest, the assertion that slaves could not strike, whether or not it comes directly from Stampp himself, is simply fallacious: of course, such wouldn't be tolerated and no doubt the slaves who did would all be punished, perhaps quite severely, or even auctioned off, but how were running away or outright revolting their only courses of action? (Even if a "strike" would very likely still be considered as if it were a revolt, that I don't dispute)

Slaves were very heavy-handed with/liable to sabotage equipment on farms, that's why they were usually given crude, hardy tools, or worked with mules rather than horses.

sciscisciortino said:

Slaves were very heavy-handed with/liable to sabotage equipment on farms, that's why they were usually given crude, hardy tools, or worked with mules rather than horses.

Click to expand...

This is also true as well.

Much more immigration into the South might have prevented Bleeding Kansas and kept Missouri and Texas as solid Union states but for one big problem: Individual free-soilers could not compete with large plantations where slavery was economical.

Fiver said:

The Peculiar Institution by Kenneth Stampp showed the use of slaves was widespread in southern industry, with many southern industrialists preferring slave workers because they could not strike.

Click to expand...

Bluntly, the South has a huge problem with attracting immigrants, beyond the ramapant nativism of it's elite: there's a huge negative preasure on wages and a doubly limited labor market. One, there are fewer industrial jobs, and two, slavery. After all, there is in fact someone who will quite literally do the job for free. And this does travel to industry - industry equals no slavery is a great myth.

Socially, can we look at the South's lack of industry in a vacuum? History is full of examples of an agricultural, hierarchical elite fighting any growth in the power of the towns. Whether its Renaissance Spain, early modern France, or the South, there is the clear awareness of the existing elite that any development of an alternative power center could be their doom.

Look at the South's rail links - entirely optimized to bring produce to transport points to other markets. Or the whole ethos, that the landed life was the ultimate goal of any successful man. Or the social values that saw more to value in being an slaveholder with a ton of debts than an industrialist. Now this is part of the economic pattern of the whole US, before and after the war - the South grows, the North and Middle West produces.

So you have a huge number of things conspiring to keep the South a destination with little to offer the immigrant waves. Hard to change that.