Azorean Migration to California Part 2

In Part 1, I indicated that the city of San Leandro, Caliornia attracted the greatest number of Azoreans in the west. Some of the foreign born people enumerated in San Leandro in each of the decades did identify their country of birth as Portugal. Without further investigation, I cannot determine if these are Azoreans or from Portugal or some of each.

Robert Santos' paper on the Azorean to California migration noted that Massachusetts was the first area in the United States that attracted the Azoreans. By the 1850s the busiest ports were in New England. Each week dozens of whaling ships left the ports in New England. Those Azoreans working on whaling ships had the opportunity to come to Massachusetts.

In some cases, the men jumped ship and permanently settled in and around New Bedford, Massachusetts. Others served on the ships until discharged and then permanently settled in America. By the 1870s, direct shipping was begun from Horta, the location of the US Consulate in the Azores, to Boston. This allowed for an easier journey by family members to New England. As the male immigrants in New England saved enough money for passage, they sent for family members.

San Francisco was also a whaling ship port in the 1800s. With the discovery of gold in California, people from within the United States and throughout the world were attracted by the prospect of becoming wealthy. The some Azoreans working on whaling ships used the opportunity when they were in port at San Francisco to jump ship.

By 1860, the majority (86%) had settled in the Central Coast, Sacramento Valley and the Sierra Nevada. About equal numbers were in the Central Coast (35%) as were in the gold country (34%). They were occupied in whaling, farming or gold mining.

Twenty years later, interest in gold mining greatly diminished. Only 6% of the Azorean immigrants are found in the gold country, whereas almost 83% are found in the Central Coast (71.5%) and Sacramento Valley (11%). They are primarily engaged in farming in the East Bay where San Leandro is situated.

I also happened to notice that some of the people I found in the census between 1900 and 1940 were born in Hawaii and whose parents were born in the Azores. Mr. Santos' paper included a subheading, "From Hawaii."

By 1870, Mr. Santos indicates there are around 400 Portuguese living in Hawaii. They were primarily members of the crew aboard whaling ships who jumped ship when the ship was in port for supplies. Then in 1877, Hawaii faced a labor shortage in the sugar cane industry. The Hawaiian government offered to pay transportation costs for Azoreans who to immigrate to Hawaii with the provision that the immigrant work in the cane fields for 3 years.

The immigrant was offered monthly pay, food, lodging and medical care. Men represented the majority of the immigrants (42%), but entire families seized the opportunity. Women accounted for 19% of the immigrants and children, 35.6%. However, by 1890 the Hawaiian Portuguese began migrating to the Bay Area.

The Hawaiians viewed the Portuguese laborers as of a lower class. The hardworking Azoreans were offended. Some moved to the mainland while others took steps to asimilate into the Hawaiian population. They changed names, moved out of field jobs and intermarried.

The Hawaiian transplants also settled in San Leandro. Many settled along or near Kanaka Lane (Row or Road). The street was later renamed Orchard Street because of the number of fruit orchards planted by the Azoreans living there. I was curious to see what Orchard (now Avenue) looked like in 2012. If it were a street being laid today, Orchard is not likely a name that would fit.

Sources:
The Portuguese in San Leandro by Meg Rogers. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing Company, 2008.

San Leandro by Cynthia Vrilakas Simons. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing Company, 2008.

American Experience Whaling Ports of the 1850s.

Azoreans to California: A History of Migration and Settlement by Robert L. Santos. Denair, CA: Alley-Cass Publications, 1995.

South Dakota and Minnesota to Alberta - What's the Connection?

My great uncle on my father’s side and my great-great-grandfather on my mother’s side both went to Alberta, Canada. Neither my mother nor my father could tell me why. My great-great grandfather on my mother’s side came back to the United States while my great uncle stayed in Alberta.

In the 1900 US Census both of them were living in Minnesota, albeit in different parts of Minnesota. My great uncle Andrew was still living in Minnesota in the 1910 Census as was my great-great grandfather. However, I found my great-great grandfather in the 1906 Canadian Census living in Alberta, Canada. My great uncle Andrew moved to Alberta after 1910.

My father’s uncle Andrew was a first generation American, his parents having been born in Denmark. I really hadn’t given much thought about why my great uncle Andrew moved to Alberta, Canada. On the other hand, I was intrigued as to why my great-great grandfather moved so much.

He was born in Ontario, Canada but married my great-great grandmother in Sangamon Co., IL in 1872. My great grandfather, his son, was born in Nebraska in 1874 and his brother was born in Iowa two years later. The other children were born in Brookings Co., SD. So it looked to me that he moved a lot.

I was driven to find out more about Alberta, Canada and why some of my family would move there. I found some books written between 1895 and 1918 concerning the history of Alberta. I discovered that in 1901 the population in Alberta consisted of Canadian and native born (54%) and immigrants. The immigrants represented 6.8% from the British Isles, 16.6% from the United States and 24.4% from continental Europe (Austria, Hungry and Russia).

So why was the second largest group of immigrants to Alberta, Canada from the United States? I learned from reading The Tercentenary History of Canada Volume III by Frank Basil Tracy (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1908) that land had become so expensive in the United States because land in the Mississippi Valley was mostly claimed and crop yields were so good that farmers were realizing great crop revenues.

Between 1890 and 1897/98 land in the Mississippi River valley had gone from $32 per acre to between $50 and $60 per acre. Homestead land in the United States by 1900 was not available. So the sons of farmers in this region were faced with working on their father’s farm and not having the means to finance a farm of their own. At this same time, the Canadian Pacific Railway was opening up western Canada. A person could obtain farm land at a very reasonable price with good terms.

However in the years after 1880, Canadians from Manitoba had moved to North and South Dakota because of total crop failures due to frost, wheat rust, hail and unpredictable rainfall during the growing season in Manitoba. Even though a man could obtain farmland cheaply in western Canada, why would he be enticed to settled in western Canada if there is a threat that frost, wheat rust, hail and unpredictable rainfall could wipe out his entire crop?

Although the Canadian Pacific Railway could not control frost and hail, they recognized the water problem was something for which they could find a solution. Thus, the Canadian Pacific Railway Corporation initiated a massive irrigation project that would provide water to 3 million acres of land along the route on either side of its right of way.

It worked out well. My great uncle Andrew and his offspring and descendants have lived in western Canada since.

Distribution Maps from the 1870 US Census for the Decades 1830 - 1870

My last blog entry discussed the migration of non-native Americans across the United States from 1790 through 1820. I wondered why the maps would include only these years and not the decades from 1830 through 1870. I revisited the website and found a separate map for each census year from 1830 through 1870.

Between the 1790 and 1820 censuses, people are settled in the original 13 states and are slowly moving westward. This movement was represented on four maps printed on one page of the atlas. However, after 1820 people were moving westward at a faster pace as the United States acquired more territory in North America. Thus, a larger part of today’s US was represented at each successive decade.

1830
By 1830, people in Maine are migrating toward the north such that half the state is well-populated, and people are moving into western Georgia. The panhandle of Florida is densely populated by this time but the peninsula portion is still sparse. The State of Tennessee is well settled. Not much is changed between 1820 and 1830 in Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois and Mississippi.

1840
This decade finds people settled in southern Wisconsin, much of Michigan, Illinois, Missouri and Mississippi. People are beginning to settle in the northern parts of Florida.

1850
The Cherokees were removed from Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and North Carolina in late 1838 to Oklahoma. This left the remaining pockets of Indian territory in these states available for settling. This was evident in the 1850 Population map that showed Georgia and Alabama well-populated throughout each state.

A portion of southwestern Louisiana was a part of the Republic of Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas became the 28^th state in United States. By 1850, people are settled in eastern Texas south of the Red River to the Gulf coast. The states of Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas are populated throughout each state.

1860
By this census, people in Texas are settled in areas in the west around San Antonio and north toward Dallas. Most of Iowa and southeastern Minnesota are settled. People have moved into Kansas and Nebraska and are settled in the southeastern part of Nebraska and the northeastern part of Kansas.

1870
I don’t know why California, Nevada and Utah were not represented in the maps of 1850 and 1860. These states were a part of a territory that included parts of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico and most of Arizona that was ceded to the United States in 1847. California’s population by 1850 was large enough to be granted statehood. Utah was settled by the Mormons beginning in 1847.

This map shows the continental United States. Much has changed in the population of the western parts of the US. Coastal California and much of the mountain region in the eastern part of the state are settled. Other western states are populated in small locations mostly along rivers. The Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, and Montana have very sparse populations.

Minnesota and Wisconsin are well-populated with the exception of the northern portions of each state. The western part of Maine is still sparse according to the 1870 map. People are moving southward in Florida and are settled north of Orlando and a little farther south of Orlando on the Gulf side of the state.

I am very interested in what changes in population the next decade brings.

Distribution Maps from the 1870 US Census

I subscribe to an e-newsletter, Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter, written by Dick Eastman. Yesterday the newsletter included an article entitled "What the Census Said about Us....in 1870." He had come across a link to The Statistical Atlas of the United States that was published in 1874 and included a link to the website, Radical Cartography.

I clicked on the link and found 53 map and charts created from the data gathered in the 1870 Census. Some of the maps were drawn from data collected separate from the census. These maps included physical features of the United States such as river systems, woodlands, rainfall, frequency of storm centers, coal measures, etc.

A set of maps under the heading "The Progress of the Nation, 1790 - 1820" was quite interesting. The maps illustrated the population density for each decade from 1790 through 1820, excluding the native American population.

1790
In 1790, the population is densest along the coast from New Hampshire to North Carolina and part of South Carolina. The most densely populated states at this time are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. While the most sparsely populated states are Maine and Georgia except along the coastal region. Since most of Georgia was in Indian territory, I was not surprised to find the number of people living there small. Maine, on the other hand, has me wondering.

The upper portion of Pennsylvania and most of New York were sparsely populated. Virginia and the Carolinas are fairly well-populated throughout the state. Virginia included what today is West Virginia. With the exception of a part of Kentucky along the Ohio River, there are very few people west of the original 13 states.

1800
The map illustrating the population distribution in 1800 reveals movement of people in Pennsylvania toward the border with New York and of people into western New York. By this time people are moving into Tennessee and more people are settled in Kentucky along the much of the length of the Ohio River. I am surprised that in 1800, Ohio is still sparsely settled as land warrants were issued for land in the Ohio Territory in lieu of pay to soldiers who fought in the American Revolution.

Since none of the maps include population information of land that is not part of the United States, the 1790 and 1800 maps do not include population information in Louisiana and in the parts of the current states that comprised the Louisiana Purchase.

1810
The 1810 map includes population information in Louisiana. In this map, most people are living along the Red and Mississippi Rivers. The map also reveals that people are settled on the Mississippi between what is now Illinois and Missouri.

This map shows that by 1810 about three quarters of Ohio is well-populated. So some time between the 1800 Census and 1810, people moved into Ohio. People are also beginning to move into Indiana along the Ohio River while western Tennessee remains sparsely populated as is northern Maine.

Mississippi, Alabama and western Georgia are part of Indian territory and have a very small population. A large area of northeastern New York, of northwestern Pennsylvania, and of western Virginia into Kentucky are sparsely populated and may have something to do with the topography of those areas.

1820
The area of Virginia and Kentucky that are sparsely populated in the 1810 map shrank considerably by 1820. The area of northwestern Pennsylvania that is sparsely populated in 1820 is also smaller. However, the population in the area of northeastern New York and the northern half of Maine are not changed. I wonder why?

The map indicates that the Indian territory in Alabama is gone and people are settled throughout most of the state and into southern Mississippi. People are settling into the westernmost part of the Florida panhandle near Alabama after 1819 when the United States acquired Florida

The southern portions of Indiana and Illinois and more of Missouri along the Mississippi River and now along the Missouri River are settled by 1820. People are also settling along the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers in Arkansas.

These maps were great fun to analyze. I plan take a look at my tree to see how where my relatives settled compares to the information on these maps