AHC: divert immigration from New York

In our timeline, huge numbers of immigrants passed through New York in the 19th Century. Your challenge is to cause this immigration to still go to the United States, but go through other cities instead. Preferably with a POD after 1750.
 
You need another major port/finance/industry center.

Perhaps in a timeline where the South isn't completely economically ruined (perhaps manumission earlier on), immigrants could pass through New Orleans (definitely), Texas ports, or Charleston. Other candidates include Boston and Baltimore.
 
You need another major port/finance/industry center.

Perhaps in a timeline where the South isn't completely economically ruined (perhaps manumission earlier on), immigrants could pass through New Orleans (definitely), Texas ports, or Charleston. Other candidates include Boston and Baltimore.

What if the British attack and burn the portlands of New York City during the War of 1812? That might divert the flow of immigration to Boston and Charleston in the short run, which could help build immigration 'momentum'. There isn't that much that makes New York City a premium location miles above everyone else, other than that its the place everyone goes, so everyone goes there. Its a self-perpetuating system. If that flow of immigrants can be directed elsewhere (I'm guessing Boston is the best bet, maybe Charleston too if they can implement pro-industrial policies pre-Civil War), then the forces that lead to New York growing can grow the other cities too.
 
You need another major port/finance/industry center.

Perhaps in a timeline where the South isn't completely economically ruined (perhaps manumission earlier on), immigrants could pass through New Orleans (definitely), Texas ports, or Charleston. Other candidates include Boston and Baltimore.

The Gulf Coast is too far away from Europe to be the first port of call (at least going to the US), especially when there are much closer alternate sites available. And remember that transit time was measured in weeks (not hours), so the sooner you can make landfall, the better.

Boston and Baltimore would be my picks.
 
Socrates

How about the old idea of a longer 1812 conflict and possibly more British success but most of all resulting in New England ending up breaking away. Possibly New York is also besieged for a period in the conflict.

This means it ends up as virtually a border city and hence sees its hinterland reduced. Possibly also affected by an Indian protectorate further inland, which also reduces its scope as a route for immigration. Also this potentially exposes it to attack in any future conflict, which could be a factor if the US is unwilling to accept the loss of New England.

Steve
 
Interesting ideas guys.

I'm assuming the existence of slavery undercutting free labourers put people off the South? Am I right in this? I don't know how well the local labour market conditions got communicated to poor Europeans.

Other than that, it does seem Baltimore and Boston are the best bets. Possibly Philadelphia too? Why do we think they didn't attract more in our timeline?
 
You need another major port/finance/industry center.

Perhaps in a timeline where the South isn't completely economically ruined (perhaps manumission earlier on), immigrants could pass through New Orleans (definitely), Texas ports, or Charleston. Other candidates include Boston and Baltimore.

A better economy for the South isn't the solution. In 1860 there were more immigrants in New York than in all 11 states that would form the Confederacy.
 
N'Orleans seems a good bet when it comes to settling the Midwest. Don't have to go over them there mountains back east. Instead, just steam up river to St. Louis and head west.
 
Without the Erie Canal, New York never would have become such a dominant port city (nearly misspelled it as "pot city")

Kill DeWitt Clinton (or get rid of him) and there'd be no incentive to ship to New York rather than Canadian/Southern ports.
 
Without the Erie Canal, New York never would have become such a dominant port city (nearly misspelled it as "pot city")

Kill DeWitt Clinton (or get rid of him) and there'd be no incentive to ship to New York rather than Canadian/Southern ports.
1) very good point. The Erie Canal was incredibly important for the growth of NYC. OTOH, it's an obvious solution, so your best bet to stop it/reduce its importance is to construct an earlier StLawrence Seaway. With SHIP communication to the Great Lakes, the BARGE canal of the Erie will be MUCH less important.

2) Philadelphia was larger and more important than NYC for some time. The first big problem was a Yellow Fever epidemic. If that doesn't hit, Philadelphia might be more attractive.
 
Top