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 Big 4 were New Yorkers. I dont know why people are basically attributing SF to New England?
And the first major english speaking settlement in SF were a group of Mormons, one of them, Samuel Brannan became the first millionaire during the gold rush, not because of gold but through selling supplies to miners.
There was quite a large number of New Englanders (and those of Yankee descent) settling in San Francisco. 10,000 went in 1849. New Englanders set up the schools--Berkeley was transformed into the Yale of the West and largely staffed by New Englanders. By 1853, the schoolboard was staffed by New Englanders and they made the Boston curriculum mandatory. I would say San Francisco was largely a combination of New Englanders and '49ers by 1850. The only difference is that the New Englanders had control of the education.*
I would say New Englanders had a stronger influence on the cities of the Pacific Northwest, but they had a huge influence in the area from the Bay to Sacramento. Samuel Brannan was from Maine, btw. For what it's worth the Mormons were largely Yankees as well (from upstate New York).
Over this period, they make up the majority of SF mayors (I would say New York is second). After this point, Californians start to become the majority. I think that's pretty significant.
California makes the most sense to me, Texas is a good second and Missouri is an ok-ish third.
I can understand the Missouri argument and its interesting to hear as I have never considered it before but I feel like Missouri lacks in the religious diversity of California with its many religions and non-religious philosophies where as Missouri is very Catholic or very Protestant; still pretty representative of the US as a whole. The obvious geographical feature it is missing is coastline.
Ohio has suprisingly "southern" or "country" parts, the stereotypical midwestern cornfields and county fairs, and decently sized urban areas where you'll find a mix of people.
I'm still going with Ohio
Then California.
New York, Maryland and Virginia (if you include DC) are also potential contenders
The only way that Missouri can represent America in miniature is that it is almost smack dap in the middle of the USA. Illinois would be a better representation.
There was quite a large number of New Englanders (and those of Yankee descent) settling in San Francisco. 10,000 went in 1849.
I cant find specific New England migration numbers to San Francisco in 1849, but but prior to that, the place already existed:
Quote:
In 1848 before the discovery of gold, California had a population of some 12,000 Mexicans - including Californians of Mexican descent, called Californios - in addition to about 20,000 Native Americans and only 2,000 Yankee frontiersmen, soldiers, and settlers.
I don't dispute that. But I provided you specific New England migration numbers to Northern California in 1849.
Anyway, there were 12,000 Californios (located mostly where?). But by 1855, California had a population of 300,000. Before gold, San Francisco's population was 800. After, it was 20,000.
I'm just talking about the New England influence on San Fracisco, not saying it founded the city.
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.
