Why did much less immigrants historically settle in the Southern US than in other parts of the US?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,200
SoCal
#1
Why did much less immigrants historically settle in the Southern US than in other parts of the US? Until the late 20th century, most Southern US states had relatively few immigrants--certainly less than other parts of the US had. This is evidenced by this data from various US Censuses (I made this chart several years ago, BTW):

History of immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

This map showing the US's foreign-born population in 1900 likewise shows a similar pattern:



Why exactly was this the case? Personally, I could think of several reasons:

1. The lack of urbanization in the Southern US during this time; the Southern US was less urbanized than other parts of the US were until the late 20th century (I made the Wikipedia article below several years ago, BTW):

Urbanization in the United States - Wikipedia

2. The likely lack of industrialization in the Southern US during this time--especially in comparison to other parts of the US.

3. The less welcoming climate in the Southern US during this time. AFAIK, lynchings were more widespread in the Southern US than in other parts of the US during this time; for instance, eleven Italians were lynched in New Orleans in 1891:

March 14, 1891 New Orleans lynchings - Wikipedia

4. The likely greater poverty in the Southern US in comparison to other parts of the US during this time. Immigrants might prefer to move to areas that are more well-off rather than to move to poorer areas.

Anyway, what reasons/factors am I forgetting to list here?
 
Jan 2013
974
Toronto, Canada
#2
Immigrants in the south had no comparative labour advantage. In the north, immigrants could work longer for lower salaries, but in the south, they couldn't compete against a black labour force that had no rights whatsoever. Poor southerners had the same problem.
 
Likes: Frank81

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,320
Dispargum
#3
The other definition of climate: the heat and humidity of the South was uncomfortable to Europeans used to cooler (Poland for instance) and drier (Italy) climates.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,200
SoCal
#4
The other definition of climate: the heat and humidity of the South was uncomfortable to Europeans used to cooler (Poland for instance) and drier (Italy) climates.
What makes a humid climate worse than a dry climate?

Immigrants in the south had no comparative labour advantage. In the north, immigrants could work longer for lower salaries, but in the south, they couldn't compete against a black labour force that had no rights whatsoever. Poor southerners had the same problem.
Poor white Southerners and black Southerners were economic competitors in the days of Jim Crow?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,320
Dispargum
#5
What makes a humid climate worse than a dry climate?
You've obviously never lived in humidity. I grew up on the east coast. Now I live in the west. I'll never live in humidity again. When I lived in humid climes, I had a rule about shaving whenever I had to work or when it itched. At the end of a three day weekend I was ready to shave again. Now I can easily go a week without shaving. I needed a new rule, but I was OK with that.
 
Jun 2017
418
maine
#7
Economy, social compatibility and weather.

As a generalization, west coast Norwegians--who were more likely to be farmers--settled in the midwest where the soil was terrific. East coast Norwegians were not drawn by the soil but by urban areas (as THEY were used to).

It is a truism in immigration genealogy that people tend to go where they had friends, relatives and countrymen. Norwegians had been in the midwest since 1825; they had been on the east coast for far longer.

Neither group was keen on living in the hot, humid climates of the south.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2017
418
maine
#8
You've obviously never lived in humidity. I grew up on the east coast. Now I live in the west. I'll never live in humidity again. When I lived in humid climes, I had a rule about shaving whenever I had to work or when it itched. At the end of a three day weekend I was ready to shave again. Now I can easily go a week without shaving. I needed a new rule, but I was OK with that.
Both types have upsides and downsides. I've lived all over and find that I'm quite happy on the east coast--without nose bleeds, feeling clogged up, dirtier air and eczema.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,200
SoCal
#9
Economy, social compatibility and weather.

As a generalization, west coast Norwegians--who were more likely to be farmers--settled in the midwest where the soil was terrific. East coast Norwegians were not drawn by the soil but by urban areas (as THEY were used to).

It is a truism in immigration genealogy that people tend to go where they had friends, relatives and countrymen. Norwegians had been in the midwest since 1825; they had been on the east coast for far longer.

Neither group was keen on living in the hot, humid climates of the south.
By west coast Norwegians, do you mean relative to Norway's west coast or relative to the US's west coast? Because the Midwestern US isn't actually located on the US's west coast.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,200
SoCal
#10
You've obviously never lived in humidity. I grew up on the east coast. Now I live in the west. I'll never live in humidity again. When I lived in humid climes, I had a rule about shaving whenever I had to work or when it itched. At the end of a three day weekend I was ready to shave again. Now I can easily go a week without shaving. I needed a new rule, but I was OK with that.
What type of work did you have to do and how did facial hair interfere with it?