|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jul 26, 2024 14:14:29 GMT
What if America severely restricted immigration at some point between 1800 and 1840? Basically becoming something Japan is today, a country with very few people of foreign ancestry..
Some initial thoughts
1. The US would remain a country of people of majority English and (to a lesser degree) Scottish and German ancestry.
2. More people from Europe would go to Canada and South America. Chinese and Japanese people might emigrate to Australia and New Zealand in larger numbers.
3. The US might have a smaller population but it's not a guarantee.
My question - how would culture of the US that stays predominately English/British look like?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 26, 2024 14:30:56 GMT
What if America severely restricted immigration at some point between 1800 and 1840? Basically becoming something Japan is today, a country with very few people of foreign ancestry.. Some initial thoughts 1. The US would remain a country of people of majority English and (to a lesser degree) Scottish and German ancestry. 2. More people from Europe would go to Canada and South America. Chinese and Japanese people might emigrate to Australia and New Zealand in larger numbers. 3. The US might have a smaller population but it's not a guarantee. My question - how would culture of the US that stays predominately English/British look like? If we pick a number from this site: Immigration to the United States, 1851-190012 million immigrants will not arrive in the United States, that is a big number and more if we could the years not named. |
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jul 26, 2024 14:36:57 GMT
Yes and because of this I guess many more people will arrive in places like South America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 26, 2024 16:07:47 GMT
What if America severely restricted immigration at some point between 1800 and 1840? Basically becoming something Japan is today, a country with very few people of foreign ancestry.. Some initial thoughts 1. The US would remain a country of people of majority English and (to a lesser degree) Scottish and German ancestry. 2. More people from Europe would go to Canada and South America. Chinese and Japanese people might emigrate to Australia and New Zealand in larger numbers. 3. The US might have a smaller population but it's not a guarantee. My question - how would culture of the US that stays predominately English/British look like?
It might depend on why and how long such a decision lasts as its unlikely to be continuous policy for ~200 years. plus do you mean they stay with that population mix because they ban all migration or becaise they ban all migration other than from those populations? I.e. no population from anywhere or only from English/Scottish/German populations.
For as long as its lasts the US will be more Anglo-Saxon and probably overall more Protestant than OTL. The total population is likely to grow markedly more slowly as not only does the US not have those millions of immigrants but also their offspring. Local population growth could be larger as a result of the lack of immigrant labour but doubt it would make up all the difference.
The lack of migrants and the inflexibility of such a mindset is likely to reduce creativity somewhat as your more likely to have a more socially conservative culture, less open to new ideas.
Of course because legal migration from Europe is restricted doesn't mean all migration will stop. Thinking of two types that are likely. a) Very likely than [unwilling] black migration due to the west African slave trade will continue and it could well be larger than OTL as with less white people about the demand for slave labour is likely to be larger. b) If the US becomes a successful nation with a lot of wealth and a strong economy then it will attract migration, especially from Mexico and Canada as they look for better opportunities. Depending on the actual borders there might be more from other areas as well, such as parts of the Caribbean. Going to be very difficult to keep many of those people's out, especially in the poorly settled western lands.
You also have the issue of what happens with the US and its borders. With a markedly smaller population and economy does it expand territoriality as OTL? There's going to be less demand for additional lands so less pressure for military expansion, or possibly even eagerness to purchase lands. Also possibly a desire to avoid obtaining lands than have say an existing Spanish/Latino population. Plus if the US is accepting no new migrants at all and successfully blocking illegal migration from Canada especially you could see the latter significantly more developed and the resulting borders to be pushed southwards somewhat in the west. At the very least all of Oregon region - OTL British Columbia and the states of Oregon and Washington are very likely to end up Canadian as they will simply have the population to settle those regions. Or if there's some tension at some point a weaker US could lose territory in the north and west to Britain/Canada.
Not sure what will happen over slavery and whether or not a civil war will occur over this issue. Likely the black slave population will be higher and more broadly spread with more states in the middle regions staying slaver states simply because some slaves are being used for labour due to the shortages of 'white' workers. This could mean slavery last longer. 
One other group that could suffer badly might be the Irish assuming that at some time there would be a major famine in Ireland. There will still be room for migrants to Britain, Canada and Australia as OTL but probably not the US. Possibly some might end up in FNA as its not too far away and the French might welcome settlers from another Catholic population?
Anyway initial thoughts but I do think its likely to be a policy that wouldn't last for long as there would be too many forces internal and external which would work against such an idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jul 26, 2024 21:29:13 GMT
I assume the know-nothing party comes into power in this scenario, which the republican party was based on the Whig Party of Henry Clay, abolitionist nothings, and some democrats who were so hateful against slavery.
When the republican American Party took over, they passed immigration restrictions. The laws they passed prevented unaccompanied children and sick people, but the major immigration restrictions were the 1917 Literacy Test Act. Oh, and something I forgot if you where Chinese
Pax tube, of course, has a bias, but what he is saying in the video is unfortunately true, although I might disagree with him saying America isn't a nation of immigrants.
I do apologize for the current politics brought in the video; however immigration arguably has influenced the USA more in recent years then in the past,but others could argue the exact opposite. AS the topic is about immigration restrictions, immigrants did have rivarys when coming to the United States so sometimes they did wish to ban other immigrants as teddy did make the speech argian against these immigration rivlarys
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 26, 2024 23:46:30 GMT
Why should they? But if they do: If the War of 1812 still happens, Britain has a better chance to win. Will they split off New England?
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jul 30, 2024 11:20:04 GMT
What if America severely restricted immigration at some point between 1800 and 1840? The 1800-1840 timeframe would be a rather odd timeframe to pick for starting restrictions. Immigration to America was minuscule from 1800-1820 (Napoleon Wars in Europe = full employment! there). Small scale immigration picked up in the 1820s, became somewhat noticeable in cities and construction industries between 1830 and 1840. a) Very likely than [unwilling] black migration due to the west African slave trade will continue and it could well be larger than OTL as with less white people about the demand for slave labour is likely to be larger. I really don't think so - by 1800, and really, by a dozen years beforehand, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade's demise by a target date of about 1808 was well foretold and going to happen. And it did happen that year, 1808, during an immigration drought (Napoleonic Wars keeping Europeans employed, blockade of the continent) and embargo. The middle colonies and upper south had turned away from the trans-Atlantic slave trade by the time of constitutional ratification in the late 1780s, the lower south and New England insisted on getting in two more decades of legal imports - thus no federal bans allowed until 1807. But New England shippers duly divested from the trade, and upper south planters marketed "surplus" slaves to Deep South and southwest buyers as replacement for imports. The international slave trade ban was duly passed as soon as constitutionally legal in 1807, with again, only South Carolina and Georgia objecting. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 30, 2024 21:46:36 GMT
What if America severely restricted immigration at some point between 1800 and 1840? The 1800-1840 timeframe would be a rather odd timeframe to pick for starting restrictions. Immigration to America was minuscule from 1800-1820 (Napoleon Wars in Europe = full employment! there). Small scale immigration picked up in the 1820s, became somewhat noticeable in cities and construction industries between 1830 and 1840. a) Very likely than [unwilling] black migration due to the west African slave trade will continue and it could well be larger than OTL as with less white people about the demand for slave labour is likely to be larger. I really don't think so - by 1800, and really, by a dozen years beforehand, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade's demise by a target date of about 1808 was well foretold and going to happen. And it did happen that year, 1808, during an immigration drought (Napoleonic Wars keeping Europeans employed, blockade of the continent) and embargo. The middle colonies and upper south had turned away from the trans-Atlantic slave trade by the time of constitutional ratification in the late 1780s, the lower south and New England insisted on getting in two more decades of legal imports - thus no federal bans allowed until 1807. But New England shippers duly divested from the trade, and upper south planters marketed "surplus" slaves to Deep South and southwest buyers as replacement for imports. The international slave trade ban was duly passed as soon as constitutionally legal in 1807, with again, only South Carolina and Georgia objecting.
Its true that the US formally banned the slave trade but it still allowed a loop-hole with a fair number of slaves continuing to be imported with a blind eye being taken by officials in southern ports and the US government refusing to allow foreign nations, principally the RN to be allow to stop and search suspected slave ships flying the US flag off the W African coast.
|
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 10, 2024 9:25:48 GMT
What if America severely restricted immigration at some point between 1800 and 1840? Basically becoming something Japan is today, a country with very few people of foreign ancestry.. Some initial thoughts 1. The US would remain a country of people of majority English and (to a lesser degree) Scottish and German ancestry. 2. More people from Europe would go to Canada and South America. Chinese and Japanese people might emigrate to Australia and New Zealand in larger numbers. 3. The US might have a smaller population but it's not a guarantee. My question - how would culture of the US that stays predominately English/British look like? |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 11, 2024 12:40:31 GMT
This despite the fact that after WW1 immigration laws were made stricter? This was the reason after all refugees had a harder time to get in.
|
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 17, 2024 18:14:23 GMT
This despite the fact that after WW1 immigration laws were made stricter? This was the reason after all refugees had a harder time to get in. The country was about 15% immigrant by the time those laws came into effect IIRC, not counting the American born descendants of previous immigrants. Even with the tightening, they were already a large part of the population and thus political blocs by then. |
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Sept 14, 2024 3:26:49 GMT
I think the only way to pull this off in the 1800 to 1840 timeframe would be for America to lose the War of 1812 to Britain outright and that causes America to lose land in Maine and in the Great Lakes and also trauma from outright losing a war to a European power. With that, I can see America becoming more closed off and applying restrictions to immigration, which would mean far fewer Irish and German immigrants into the United States. I can see restrictions being lifted after a deadlier alt-Civil War however due to the need for labor.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 14, 2024 22:52:15 GMT
I think the only way to pull this off in the 1800 to 1840 timeframe would be for America to lose the War of 1812 to Britain outright and that causes America to lose land in Maine and in the Great Lakes and also trauma from outright losing a war to a European power. With that, I can see America becoming more closed off and applying restrictions to immigration, which would mean far fewer Irish and German immigrants into the United States. I can see restrictions being lifted after a deadlier alt-Civil War however due to the need for labor.
Its something which might prompt that effect, especially if that also raised questions about the US's rights to Louisiana. Plus is this also meant they weren't in a position to force the Spanish out of Florida. Although that would probably fall sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Sept 15, 2024 22:55:35 GMT
I think the only way to pull this off in the 1800 to 1840 timeframe would be for America to lose the War of 1812 to Britain outright and that causes America to lose land in Maine and in the Great Lakes and also trauma from outright losing a war to a European power. With that, I can see America becoming more closed off and applying restrictions to immigration, which would mean far fewer Irish and German immigrants into the United States. I can see restrictions being lifted after a deadlier alt-Civil War however due to the need for labor. How about the British seizing control of Louisiana Territory? That would effectively prevent the Americans from expanding |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 16, 2024 17:28:27 GMT
I think the only way to pull this off in the 1800 to 1840 timeframe would be for America to lose the War of 1812 to Britain outright and that causes America to lose land in Maine and in the Great Lakes and also trauma from outright losing a war to a European power. With that, I can see America becoming more closed off and applying restrictions to immigration, which would mean far fewer Irish and German immigrants into the United States. I can see restrictions being lifted after a deadlier alt-Civil War however due to the need for labor. How about the British seizing control of Louisiana Territory? That would effectively prevent the Americans from expanding
It would be a big barrier to their direct political expansion but given the sizeable population the infant US had it might be difficult stopping large scale settlement of the lands immediately west of the Mississippi and how loyal those settlers might be to Britain or the US would be an important point.
Historically a lot of the English speakers in what's now Ontario province when the 1812 war started were actually Americans - largely from New England who had taken an oath of loyalty to Britain in return for being allowed to settle in lands there and they did stay loyal when the US attacked - although this could have been partly because New England as a whole strongly opposed the war so they probably felt less inclined to support the invaders. Whether this might be the case with settlers from the US in Louisiana in the case of another conflict could be a big point.
|
|
