Short answer: the U.S. didn’t need Italian immigrants to “function” in the 1700s or 1860s because it was a very different country, doing different kinds of work, with different labor systems and expectations. Italian immigration became crucial later, when the economy and cities changed.
Here’s the long, historically grounded answer.
1. The 1700s: A rural, British-derived society
In the 1700s, what later became the United States was:
Overwhelmingly rural
Agrarian, not industrial
Demographically British and Northern European
Who was actually there?
The population consisted mainly of:
English settlers
Scots-Irish
Germans (especially in Pennsylvania)
Dutch (New York)
Enslaved Africans (a massive and coerced labor force)
Italy did not exist as a unified nation until 1861. Southern Italians lived in poor, isolated agrarian economies with no migration pathways to British North America. There was no economic “pull” and no social network to bring them.
How did society function?
Farming families were largely self-sufficient
Labor was supplied by family members, indentured servants, and enslaved people
Towns were small; there were no massive cities requiring cheap mass labor
In other words, the jobs Italians later filled didn’t exist yet.
2. The 1860s: Civil War America—still not an immigrant-industrial economy
By the 1860s:
The U.S. population was ~31 million
Still majority rural
Industrialization was just beginning, concentrated in the Northeast
Who did the hard labor?
Native-born Americans
Irish immigrants (who arrived earlier, especially after the famine of the 1840s)
German immigrants
Enslaved labor in the South (until emancipation)
Italian immigration was still minimal because:
Southern Italy was impoverished but immobile
Travel was expensive and risky
The U.S. had not yet developed the urban-industrial labor demand that later pulled Italians in
3. When Italians did become important: 1880–1924
Italian immigrants arrived in huge numbers only after:
Rapid industrialization
Explosive city growth
Massive demand for low-wage, physically demanding labor
They filled niches that barely existed earlier:
Construction and infrastructure
Street work, sanitation
Dock labor
Factory piecework
Urban food trades (bakeries, groceries, restaurants)
Places like Ellis Island processed millions of Italians precisely because the economy now needed them.
4. A key misunderstanding to avoid
It’s tempting to think:
“How could America function without X group?”
But historically, societies reconfigure themselves around whoever is present.
In 1700 → family labor + slavery
In 1860 → native labor + Irish/Germans
In 1900 → Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, etc.
Each wave arrives because the structure has changed, not because the earlier society was incomplete.
Bottom line
The U.S. functioned in the 1700s and 1860s because it was simpler, smaller, and rural
Italian immigrants were not missing—they were not yet needed
When America became urban, industrial, and infrastructure-heavy, Italians became indispensable
Here’s the long, historically grounded answer.
1. The 1700s: A rural, British-derived society
In the 1700s, what later became the United States was:
Overwhelmingly rural
Agrarian, not industrial
Demographically British and Northern European
Who was actually there?
The population consisted mainly of:
English settlers
Scots-Irish
Germans (especially in Pennsylvania)
Dutch (New York)
Enslaved Africans (a massive and coerced labor force)
Italy did not exist as a unified nation until 1861. Southern Italians lived in poor, isolated agrarian economies with no migration pathways to British North America. There was no economic “pull” and no social network to bring them.
How did society function?
Farming families were largely self-sufficient
Labor was supplied by family members, indentured servants, and enslaved people
Towns were small; there were no massive cities requiring cheap mass labor
In other words, the jobs Italians later filled didn’t exist yet.
2. The 1860s: Civil War America—still not an immigrant-industrial economy
By the 1860s:
The U.S. population was ~31 million
Still majority rural
Industrialization was just beginning, concentrated in the Northeast
Who did the hard labor?
Native-born Americans
Irish immigrants (who arrived earlier, especially after the famine of the 1840s)
German immigrants
Enslaved labor in the South (until emancipation)
Italian immigration was still minimal because:
Southern Italy was impoverished but immobile
Travel was expensive and risky
The U.S. had not yet developed the urban-industrial labor demand that later pulled Italians in
3. When Italians did become important: 1880–1924
Italian immigrants arrived in huge numbers only after:
Rapid industrialization
Explosive city growth
Massive demand for low-wage, physically demanding labor
They filled niches that barely existed earlier:
Construction and infrastructure
Street work, sanitation
Dock labor
Factory piecework
Urban food trades (bakeries, groceries, restaurants)
Places like Ellis Island processed millions of Italians precisely because the economy now needed them.
4. A key misunderstanding to avoid
It’s tempting to think:
“How could America function without X group?”
But historically, societies reconfigure themselves around whoever is present.
In 1700 → family labor + slavery
In 1860 → native labor + Irish/Germans
In 1900 → Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, etc.
Each wave arrives because the structure has changed, not because the earlier society was incomplete.
Bottom line
The U.S. functioned in the 1700s and 1860s because it was simpler, smaller, and rural
Italian immigrants were not missing—they were not yet needed
When America became urban, industrial, and infrastructure-heavy, Italians became indispensable
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays no native Americans. Of course we need a huge lecture that's supposed to show us we don't know squat, and there will be omissions.
And the OLD COUNTRY needed erased and Italy needed us gone far, far more than the US wanted Sicilian people.
And the OLD COUNTRY needed erased and Italy needed us gone far, far more than the US wanted Sicilian people.
4meAndyou · F
"In the 1700s in the USA, the primary nationalities of immigrants were Germans and Scots-Irish.
Germans began arriving in significant numbers around 1670, primarily settling in Pennsylvania and New York.
Scots-Irish also migrated during this period, with around 200,000 emigrating between 1710 and 1775, often seeking better economic opportunities.
Other groups included Dutch, Irish, and Swedish immigrants, but the majority were from Northern and Western Europe."
Google AI
The REASON these groups starting fleeing their own countries and flocking to the US were economic in nature. No jobs.
In ITALY, in the mid 1700's there was a period of strong economic growth. Plenty of jobs. Typically, people don't emigrate unless they are desperate.
I do believe that our distant ancestors functioned just fine without them. When the Italians DID finally arrive in force, they didn't speak the language, and congregated in little ghettos inside the major cities.
Germans began arriving in significant numbers around 1670, primarily settling in Pennsylvania and New York.
Scots-Irish also migrated during this period, with around 200,000 emigrating between 1710 and 1775, often seeking better economic opportunities.
Other groups included Dutch, Irish, and Swedish immigrants, but the majority were from Northern and Western Europe."
Google AI
The REASON these groups starting fleeing their own countries and flocking to the US were economic in nature. No jobs.
In ITALY, in the mid 1700's there was a period of strong economic growth. Plenty of jobs. Typically, people don't emigrate unless they are desperate.
I do believe that our distant ancestors functioned just fine without them. When the Italians DID finally arrive in force, they didn't speak the language, and congregated in little ghettos inside the major cities.
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
I'm pretty sure there were Italian immigrants here then, just not the large numbers that came later.
HollowayRoadN19 · 46-50
@ChipmunkErnie How sure are you?
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
@HollowayRoadN19 99.99%
BohoBabe · M
Barely.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Since there was no Italy, back then... Fine.
Some genocide must be normalized by your USA banter , sociopathic small talk! about how you got along! Like mine.
Some genocide must be normalized by your USA banter , sociopathic small talk! about how you got along! Like mine.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@HollowayRoadN19 no. The old country that was GENOCIDED had a different name. That's why we lie in your face and say "the old country" while thinking you have only ever justified our loss
And we're not like you.
Twenty three million people who knew and know and lie and half of them supporters of genocide to this day!
And we're not like you.
Twenty three million people who knew and know and lie and half of them supporters of genocide to this day!
HollowayRoadN19 · 46-50
@Roundandroundwego Tell the UN
This message was deleted by its author.