Migration to the CSA

Not many. Liberal immigrants seeking political/religious freedom aren't going to be attracted to a state based on slavery. Economic immigrants aren't going to want to have to compete with slaves for work, assuming the south manages to industrialize eventually. Diplomatically the CSA is likely being embargoed by the US and the Europeans at least, so it's unlikely that the quality of life will be that high. Really the only people I can see wanting to move there are either 1) people so racist that they will move across the ocean to an unfamiliar country just for the chance to own a black person or 2) slave-owners from other countries trying to avoid abolition laws, such as Brazilian slave owners. Neither of those categories have enough people to make much of a difference in the CSA population.
 
yah I sort of think that if the CSA won indepneced they would have collapsed and the union would have just re-annexed it
 
Honestly I gave argued before, people should look at Latin America as example. As long as CSA are as thinly populated as it is, it will see European immigration.
 
America was popular to emigrants for two things. One, the idea of vast empty plains with land for free and the huge bustling cities bursting with jobs. While neither of these were exactly true, the idea of them held many imaginations in Europe. The CSA will have neither.
 
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

To be sure, there were some dissenters. As Eugene Genovese writes in The Political Economy of Slavery, "J. L. Orr, an advocate of industrial expansion, chose consistency over safety and advocated liberal naturalization procedures in the Confederacy, praising foreign mechanics as 'everywhere useful citizens.' Not many Orrs were to be found in the slave states. The foreign-born population of the Southern cities continued to cause apprehension among the rural slaveholders. With only 20 per cent of Charleston’s population foreign-born in 1848, foreigners led natives by almost two to one in the race for poorhouse admission. Elsewhere, except in New Orleans, conditions were about the same: unskilled Irish workers struggling to stay alive, Jewish peddlers and small merchants doing a necessary job but arousing considerable resentment by their mode of life, German artisans falling under the suspicion of antislavery feelings, and so forth." https://books.google.com/books?id=ld_bAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA232

In general, I think Ruffin's view was more prevalent--that slavery discouraged immigration to the South was considered a feature, not a bug. If even in the North it was feared that immigrants would bring foreign "isms," this fear had to be more intense in the South.
 
America was popular to emigrants for two things. One, the idea of vast empty plains with land for free and the huge bustling cities bursting with jobs. While neither of these were exactly true, the idea of them held many imaginations in Europe. The CSA will have neither.

Although not completely true , it was true that is was possible to get land cheaply in the West and the US economy was growing fast. You could get land far cheaper in the US than in Europe (true even today) and most jobs in the US paid more than most jobs in Europe. The median income in the US was higher in the US than in Europe by the mid to late 19th century. The streets may not have been "paved with gold" but the pay was high enough that people kept coming even after people wrote back home.
 
However an even smaller trickle than before as the CSA will be impoverished. Even in a best case scenario it is going to take decades to recover from the war, it took about 2 decades OTL even with being part of one of the richest countries on the planet. In TTL it is going to have one of the richest countries on the planet hostile to it and right next door so you are probably looking at least 4 decades.
 
Texas and Oklahoma might still get some immigrants, and later Florida. Other than that the Confederacy would have gotten very few immigrants from Europe.
 

samcster94

Banned
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

To be sure, there were some dissenters. As Eugene Genovese writes in The Political Economy of Slavery, "J. L. Orr, an advocate of industrial expansion, chose consistency over safety and advocated liberal naturalization procedures in the Confederacy, praising foreign mechanics as 'everywhere useful citizens.' Not many Orrs were to be found in the slave states. The foreign-born population of the Southern cities continued to cause apprehension among the rural slaveholders. With only 20 per cent of Charleston’s population foreign-born in 1848, foreigners led natives by almost two to one in the race for poorhouse admission. Elsewhere, except in New Orleans, conditions were about the same: unskilled Irish workers struggling to stay alive, Jewish peddlers and small merchants doing a necessary job but arousing considerable resentment by their mode of life, German artisans falling under the suspicion of antislavery feelings, and so forth." https://books.google.com/books?id=ld_bAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA232

In general, I think Ruffin's view was more prevalent--that slavery discouraged immigration to the South was considered a feature, not a bug. If even in the North it was feared that immigrants would bring foreign "isms," this fear had to be more intense in the South.
The Confederacy was a very right wing society, and that is even for its time.
 
The South's best land (outside of Texas, probably) was locked up by big landowners or already held by the existing white population. What was left wasn't as desirable and wasn't any cheaper than better plots in the American West. There may be a short burst after the war when the death toll opened existing plots for speculation, but that wouldn't last very long.

I don't think it would have much immigration until much later. Remember even as part of the US the South didn't have a huge influx of foreign born immigrants during the late 19th-early 20th centuries. The area has gained most of its in flow population from the Sunbelt Migration. That didn't kick off until AC became a thing.

I don't think it's an issue of protestants only. Catholicism was fairly common in Louisiana, Florida, Texas and Coastal AL/MS and there were a fair number of Jewish and Muslim people in the coastal cities. It's worth remembering that most Southerners were of mixed Celtic (mostly Irish) & native descent. They were, as previously pointed out, sort of averse to anyone new.
 
Top