Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Midwest and Southwest had French and Spanish settlers before English-descended, or American ones, didn't they?
But it doesn't seem like demographically they were a large influence on the population before later American settlement arrived. Otherwise, their descendents would be more numerous today in the country. For instance, how come one rarely hears about any French ancestry in the Midwest from the earliest settler days (most French ancestry in Americans seems to be either Louisiana, Cajun, or French-Canadian immigrants to Maine). Or how come descendents of the Spanish settlers that predated the Anglo ones aren't as common (compared to later Mexican and Latin American immigration) in the country?
The Midwest and Southwest had French and Spanish settlers before English-descended, or American ones, didn't they?
But it doesn't seem like demographically they were a large influence on the population before later American settlement arrived. Otherwise, their descendents would be more numerous today in the country. For instance, how come one rarely hears about any French ancestry in the Midwest from the earliest settler days (most French ancestry in Americans seems to be either Louisiana, Cajun, or French-Canadian immigrants to Maine). Or how come descendents of the Spanish settlers that predated the Anglo ones aren't as common (compared to later Mexican and Latin American immigration) in the country?
those regions were sparsely populated. if anything, they were predominantly inhabited by indigenous peoples.
The Midwest and Southwest had French and Spanish settlers before English-descended, or American ones, didn't they?
But it doesn't seem like demographically they were a large influence on the population before later American settlement arrived. Otherwise, their descendents would be more numerous today in the country. For instance, how come one rarely hears about any French ancestry in the Midwest from the earliest settler days (most French ancestry in Americans seems to be either Louisiana, Cajun, or French-Canadian immigrants to Maine). Or how come descendents of the Spanish settlers that predated the Anglo ones aren't as common (compared to later Mexican and Latin American immigration) in the country?
The only substantial French settlement in the Midwest prior to the U.S. entering the area was around Saint Louis. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, around 1,000 people lived in Saint Louis, and around 1,500 in rural land nearby. A significant proportion of the population was black slaves. The small urban population was basically swamped with the urban growth of the city. But French held on in some rural pockets until the 20th century.
As to the Southwest, at the time of the Mexican Cession there were only around 80,000 Mexican citizens in total (this discounted Anglo settlers and probably most Native Americans). "Old Spanish" culture remains strong in Northern New Mexico in particular to this day, although spoken use of Spanish declined in the 20th century. Elsewhere they have tended to either assimilate into "Anglo" culture over time (e.g., wealthy Californios), or else were swamped by later Mexican migration (e.g., the Rio Grande Valley)
These pre-American French and Spanish populations were not so large. These territories, even before they were American territories, were frontier lands. California and New Mexico were the frontiers of New Spain. The midwest was the frontier of New France (exception being New Orleans.)
Second, these populations were nuanced. Californios, Tejanos, Spanish in New Mexico. There were varying French communities such as in New Orleans, Cajuns, St. Louis.
This, for their size, these communities actually did survive and play a distinct role in American culture and the development of their regions post-American annexation. While Californios might be harder to locate, there are still tejano and nuevo mexicano (Old Spanish) descendants in these two state, especially rural areas, as well as in the south of Colorado, which was part of New Mexico.
And of the Old French. Did you forget New Orleans? Many of the Cajun and Creole peoples are descended from that period of French rule. This was the lineage of the famous American writer Kate Chopin. Though covering a geographically small area, French in Louisiana and to a lesser extent Missouri, were very regionally and in some cases nationally influential.
The Midwest and Southwest had French and Spanish settlers before English-descended, or American ones, didn't they?
But it doesn't seem like demographically they were a large influence on the population before later American settlement arrived. Otherwise, their descendents would be more numerous today in the country. For instance, how come one rarely hears about any French ancestry in the Midwest from the earliest settler days (most French ancestry in Americans seems to be either Louisiana, Cajun, or French-Canadian immigrants to Maine). Or how come descendents of the Spanish settlers that predated the Anglo ones aren't as common (compared to later Mexican and Latin American immigration) in the country?
I'd say that people probably just don't know they're descended. I, and my immediate family aren't descended from any. But, I have a nephew who's descended from early French-Canadians in the upper midwest, an uncle who's descended from early French-Canadians in Missouri, another who's descended from early Spanish settlers in California, and a cousin who's descended from early French-Canadians in the Pacific Northwest.
So that's quite a few out of just a fairly small family (and the ones whose genealogy I've done).
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,801,634 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by markovian process
The Midwest and Southwest had French and Spanish settlers before English-descended, or American ones, didn't they?
But it doesn't seem like demographically they were a large influence on the population before later American settlement arrived. Otherwise, their descendents would be more numerous today in the country. For instance, how come one rarely hears about any French ancestry in the Midwest from the earliest settler days (most French ancestry in Americans seems to be either Louisiana, Cajun, or French-Canadian immigrants to Maine). Or how come descendents of the Spanish settlers that predated the Anglo ones aren't as common (compared to later Mexican and Latin American immigration) in the country?
Come to Northern New Mexico, you'll find plenty of Spaniard descent here.
Because there were very few colonists from France and Spain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
