AHC: More Spanish-Americans (in the narrow sense)

AHC: More Spanish-Americans, by which I mean people who immigrated *directly* from Spain to the United States and their descendants. (Immigrants from Latin America--even if entirely of Spanish descent--do not count, not do those who immigrated from Spain to Texas or New Mexico, etc. before these areas became part of the United States.) I know there's the obvious argument that it was easier for Spaniards who wanted to emigrate to come to Latin America, where they would not have to learn a new language. Yet after all, millions of non-English-speaking people came to the United States from countries other than Spain, and if the US had other advantages over Latin America (in terms of standard of living, for example) there seems no reason these advantages could not offset the language problem.

Indeed, according to the *Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups* (1980), article "Spaniards" (pp. 948-950) "More than 250,000 Spaniards have come to the United States directly from Spain since US authorities began keeping records in 1820...The timing of Spanish immigration to the United States is largely responsible for its relative invisibility. Half the Spaniards who have come since 1820 arrived between 1900 and 1924 and were lost among the great waves of southern and eastern Europeans who arrived in the same period..." By the mid-1920's, of course, the quota system prevented any large-scale immigration, though it is questionable whether it would have taken place in any event; in fact, a considerable number of Spanish-American immigrants "returned to Spain or moved on to another country (usually in Latin America)." (p. 949)

Another reason for the relative invisibility of direct immigrants from Spain is that "immigrants were less likely to regard themselves as Spaniards than as Galicians, Basques, Asturians, or Catalonians. There is little evidence that the Spaniards in the United States have ever worked to maintain a separate identity or community." https://books.google.com/books?id=W2MWDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1989

So again, my question is how you get a large number of immigrants from Spain to the United States before the imposition of quotas in the 1920's? Probably making Latin America less attractive is essential, but how? (Have places like Argentina descend into poverty and war in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?)

The POD can either be before or after 1900.
 
Last edited:
Bump? Incidentally, there was considerable *Portuguese* immigration to the US, despite the presumed availability of Portuguese-speaking Brazil...
 

CaliGuy

Banned
AHC: More Spanish-Americans, by which I mean people who immigrated *directly* from Spain to the United States and their descendants. (Immigrants from Latin America--even if entirely of Spanish descent--do not count, not do those who immigrated from Spain to Texas or New Mexico, etc. before these areas became part of the United States.) I know there's the obvious argument that it was easier for Spaniards who wanted to emigrate to come to Latin America, where they would not have to learn a new language. Yet after all, millions of non-English-speaking people came to the United States from countries other than Spain, and if the US had other advantages over Latin America (in terms of standard of living, for example) there seems no reason these advantages could not offset the language problem.

Indeed, according to the *Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups* (1980), article "Spaniards" (pp. 948-950) "More than 250,000 Spaniards have come to the United States directly from Spain since US authorities began keeping records in 1820...The timing of Spanish immigration to the United States is largely responsible for its relative invisibility. Half the Spaniards who have come since 1820 arrived between 1900 and 1924 and were lost among the great waves of southern and eastern Europeans who arrived in the same period..." By the mid-1920's, of course, the quota system prevented any large-scale immigration, though it is questionable whether it would have taken place in any event; in fact, a considerable number of Spanish-American immigrants "returned to Spain or moved on to another country (usually in Latin America)." (p. 949)

Another reason for the relative invisibility of direct immigrants from Spain is that "immigrants were less likely to regard themselves as Spaniards than as Galicians, Basques, Asturians, or Catalonians. There is little evidence that the Spaniards in the United States have ever worked to maintain a separate identity or community. https://books.google.com/books?id=W2MWDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1989

So again, my question is how you get a large number of immigrants from Spain to the United States before the imposition of quotas in the 1920's? Probably making Latin America less attractive is essential, but how? (Have places like Argentina descend into poverty and war in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?)

The POD can either be before or after 1900.
Weren't there no quotas on Latin American immigration before 1965, though? If so, have some extremely massive crisis occur in Latin America which will cause a lot of the Spaniards there to immigrate to the U.S.
 
Weren't there no quotas on Latin American immigration before 1965, though? If so, have some extremely massive crisis occur in Latin America which will cause a lot of the Spaniards there to immigrate to the U.S.

As I said, I'm only interested in *direct* immigration from Spain to the US.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
As I said, I'm only interested in *direct* immigration from Spain to the US.
What about having massive numbers of Carlists immigrate to the U.S. after they realize that their side is unable to acquire/capture power in Spain, though?
 
You need two things to give cause and effect to your scenario, a reason to leave Spain and a draw to come to the USA. Looking back on my family tree the immigration coincided with relative lack of opportunity in Europe and new opportunity in America. In one case the family arrived in one group that split, one portion moving to the Upper Midwest to become farmers and the other moving to the Ohio to work for the railroad. Land was being made available in the former and employment in the later, we still live in those areas along with others. If there is a drought, recession, change of government, oppression, etc, you have motivation to leave, and if you have new land or industry you have destination. My best suggestion is to open up California and the Southwest generally, including Texas, to new farming, ranching and industry such that Spaniards feel affinity to the climate, existing Spanish cultural footprint and are desired. Perhaps the discovery of oil sparks a boom and renewed railroad construction demands lots of "cheap" labor, or the wine industry takes root sooner, and so on. Create a link and Spain might become the bigger immigrant source you seek.
 
Bump? Incidentally, there was considerable *Portuguese* immigration to the US, despite the presumed availability of Portuguese-speaking Brazil...

This is rather odd to me. Many parts of New England, like Fall River, Massachusetts, are known for their extremely large Portuguese population (though there are many Cape Verdeans and Brazilians nowadays in those places). But yet I'm not aware of any major areas known for their Spanish populations, or many famous Spanish immigrants (aside from David Farragut off the top of my head).

I wonder if that has to do with the fact that Spanish America was more than just one country. IIRC, Argentina and Cuba (of all places) were the main draws for Spanish populations.

What about having massive numbers of Carlists immigrate to the U.S. after they realize that their side is unable to acquire/capture power in Spain, though?

The Carlists would still have Latin America. Plenty of reactionaries and clericalist support there, like Gabriel Garcia Moreno in Ecuador.

You need two things to give cause and effect to your scenario, a reason to leave Spain and a draw to come to the USA. Looking back on my family tree the immigration coincided with relative lack of opportunity in Europe and new opportunity in America. In one case the family arrived in one group that split, one portion moving to the Upper Midwest to become farmers and the other moving to the Ohio to work for the railroad. Land was being made available in the former and employment in the later, we still live in those areas along with others. If there is a drought, recession, change of government, oppression, etc, you have motivation to leave, and if you have new land or industry you have destination. My best suggestion is to open up California and the Southwest generally, including Texas, to new farming, ranching and industry such that Spaniards feel affinity to the climate, existing Spanish cultural footprint and are desired. Perhaps the discovery of oil sparks a boom and renewed railroad construction demands lots of "cheap" labor, or the wine industry takes root sooner, and so on. Create a link and Spain might become the bigger immigrant source you seek.

I wonder if they'd just end up blending in with the Tejanos and Nuevomexicanos and Mexican immigrants in general in that case. Although for Catalans, Basques, and Galicians, their separate language might make it slightly harder for that. But even in Latin America, a lot of figures are listed as "of Basque descent", "of Galician descent", etc., so that seems to be a recurring theme for Spanish migration.

What about room for Spaniards on the East Coast, as with the example of the Portuguese of Massachusetts (and Rhode Island)?
 
Well, regarding carlists, their main base if support was not the kind of people who migrates en masse. Leaving aside their ultrareactionnary ideology that maybe would make a country like the USA at the time an undesirable destination, they were supported mainly by rural populations composed of small landowners and aristocrats. In Un-PC words, hillbillies and VIP's. Still, as far as I know, some carlists settled in Argentina, and I guess in other iberoamerican countries.

I'm also surprised with the relative large presence of portugueses in opposition to spaniards in the USA.

I don't know the reasons. Countries like Argentina, Cuba or Mexico were very attractive for spaniards due to the common language (your average galician, catalan and even more basque migrant also spoke spanish) culturaland historical links and the fact that spanish immigrants were rather welcomed in those countries and not few of then thrived economically and socially. It was probably also cheaper to reach Latin-America from Spain than reaching the USA. Also migration patterns. Once members of acommunity settle somewhere, it's more likely that others will follow, having the support to start a new life easier. For example, you have a relativelly large basque community in Boise, IIRC they fitted well with the kind of sephering practised in Idaho at the time.

I think we should look at what reasons made Brazil less attractive to portuguese emmigrants at the time, or if portuguese emigrated in larger proportions so they reached more destinations, or whatever.

Maybe other factors like the spanish-american war played also a role making the USA less desirable
 
I wonder if they'd just end up blending in with the Tejanos and Nuevomexicanos and Mexican immigrants in general in that case. Although for Catalans, Basques, and Galicians, their separate language might make it slightly harder for that. But even in Latin America, a lot of figures are listed as "of Basque descent", "of Galician descent", etc., so that seems to be a recurring theme for Spanish migration.

What about room for Spaniards on the East Coast, as with the example of the Portuguese of Massachusetts (and Rhode Island)?

It seems hard to speculate without sounding snobbish at best or racist at worst, but I would offer that the average Spainard is going to feel more "elite" in a Cuba or Argentina than the USA, an Anglophone country with a decidedly "White" America where even the Spanish are viewed as foreign and common. Thus my suggestion of the Southwest and Texas, both formerly Spanish, having much Spanish language and culture and before air-conditioning seen as inhospitable to the "Anglo" folks. One might add Florida and Louisiana to places where a Spanish enclave takes root given the right combination of motivation and draw. I could see the Spanish developing the cattle ranching business, sugar plantations, and wine growing industries before getting into oil and maybe fishing? And I think the Spanish need to hold onto a separate "superior" identity to be what you ask, thus they refuse to be lumped into being regarded as native, the way Mexicans are not Spanish but a blend of cultures. But then you need to address how that plays against the assimilation pressure and racist attitudes in the USA, far more overt in times past when this immigration is likely occurring.
 
It seems hard to speculate without sounding snobbish at best or racist at worst, but I would offer that the average Spainard is going to feel more "elite" in a Cuba or Argentina than the USA, an Anglophone country with a decidedly "White" America where even the Spanish are viewed as foreign and common. Thus my suggestion of the Southwest and Texas, both formerly Spanish, having much Spanish language and culture and before air-conditioning seen as inhospitable to the "Anglo" folks. One might add Florida and Louisiana to places where a Spanish enclave takes root given the right combination of motivation and draw. I could see the Spanish developing the cattle ranching business, sugar plantations, and wine growing industries before getting into oil and maybe fishing? And I think the Spanish need to hold onto a separate "superior" identity to be what you ask, thus they refuse to be lumped into being regarded as native, the way Mexicans are not Spanish but a blend of cultures. But then you need to address how that plays against the assimilation pressure and racist attitudes in the USA, far more overt in times past when this immigration is likely occurring.

Who are these Spaniards, though? A Spanish elite (much a less Spanish nobility of course) will just stay in Spain. Both the Southwest and Texas had plenty of Anglos, to the point where for Texas the majority of Spanish-speakers were Mexican immigrants and not Tejanos (though they assimilated to the Tejanos). It seems relatively easier for Spaniards to assimilate to the "old guard" of Latinos in the United States, the same group who largely opposed further immigration from the region. At least in those regions.

I don't know why Louisiana and Florida might be particular draws for them. The Deep South never really drew immigrants, and if that's the sort of business you want to run, might as well just go to Cuba instead, or even Puerto Rico (still the Spanish Empire after all).

As mentioned earlier, the Basque in Idaho (I completely forgot that, but it's true) are certainly an interesting example of Spanish immigration, and perhaps what else? Galicians in New England, similar yet separate than their Portuguese cousins? Catalans somewhere else? Castillians proper in the Midwest?

Now, can we get large communities of Spanish ranchers, taking bold chances at exploiting land in the Plains and the West in general? Nevada might be a good option. It was the least populated state until Alaska joined, and maybe Spaniards going there for ranching and other opportunities could leave the state (whatever Nevada becomes, we all know from OTL a plausible option) with a very interesting and uniquely European Spanish heritage compared to the rest of the Mexican Cession.
 
Top