One possible reason for remigration from the US back to their respective countries was the language barrier. While there are some cultural differences in Northwestern European countries, I don't believe they were insurmountable. The English were the main source of colonists, but there were also a significant number of French, Dutch, and Germans, along with a sprinkling of other Northwestern Europeans. This European immigration continued, with fits and starts, ever since.
The problem arises when the immigrants are from areas with desperate genetic traits and European cultural backgrounds.
I think the language barrier was without doubt much harder for some to overcome than other. Especially those middle aged or older would have had a very hard time. But it was not a significant hurdle for those from the UK, naturally with the exception of some from the western portion who still spoke only the old languages. But they were rare by the time period in question.
The cultural difference created by Catholicism vs today's Islamic migrants was a big deal at one point but nothing compared to the latter.
I'm a descendant of both Old American WASPs who came over on the Mayflower and of newer Ellis Islander European immigrants (hence my username consisting of Finnish profanity as a little in-joke), and even I have to say: Ellis Island mass immigration shouldn't have been allowed. It provably made America a worse place. I don't care that I wouldn't exist if that immigration hadn't happened, it objectively made things worse off. This should have remained an overwhelmingly predominantly Anglo-Saxon nation as the founders intended.
I trace most back prior to 1700 with the exception of an Irish GG grandmother. I carry her J2c7 mtdna which appears in greatest concentration in Scandinavia.
This is mythology. The Scots, Irish and Germans were here in numbers in colonial times, which were a mixing bowl of kinships and nationalities starting with the first native-born generation. A high proportion of our revolutionary ancestors were Scots and north English, which is to say, very much not “Anglo-Saxon”, whatever that means. If the founding fathers wanted an Anglo-Saxon nation, they would have specified so in the very first immigration law (1790) which merely specified that immigrants be “white”. Today’s mass immigration is a big problem, but this is not based on facile interpretations of the past.
Kind of surprised that Norwegian immigrants remained poor for so long. Might have been that they didn't settle in the cities much, and homesteaded the Upper Midwest instead, subsistence farming and not using cash much.
Interesting article. What do you make of the fact that Western Europeans ended up with a stronger welfare state than we did, including the English and the French (the primary original population sources for the US) and the Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians (a later wave)?
Seems to me that it was more a response to changing economic conditions, and a way to defeat rising Marxist pressures, than it was the Irish (considering it happened to everyone).
Interesting. I observe that immigration restrictions helped the members of quota-limited immigrant groups a great deal to become Americans. I often wonder how my Italian-born grandfather would have made it on his feet if his wages and social prospects had been undermined by a continuing flow of impoverished Italian immigrants. Moreover his grandchildren, like the great majority of other immigrants of that generation, intermarried with other Americans, so the genetic and cultural argument becomes rather fragile.
I could not locate the comment that you are referring to, but..
I do not have a copy of Ó Gráda's book, but the summary online says "the majority were eventually able to move a rung or two up the American socioeconomic ladder."
This is far from your original claim that "The Irish achieved parity with natives quite early."
I think the research shows that there was a clear gap in SES between Irish Catholic neighborhoods and WASP neighborhoods in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities as late as 1940 or even later.
Irish Catholic neighborhoods became wealthier as the economy grew, but that is a long way from achieving parity. The rank order of SES of immigrant groups was remarkably stable over long periods of time even as each group got wealthier.
I think the research shows that it was the 1940-1970 period where you see a dramatic narrowing of SES between Irish Catholics and WASPs in the Northeastern cities. That is one century after the big wave of Irish immigrants in the 1840s. So that is clear not "fairly rapidly."
This narrowing in the 1940-1970 period was largely due to:
1) Strong economic and manufacturing growth during the period.
This is an interesting article, and you are correct to highlight the return rates of European immigrants before 1920 plus the overestimation of the level of assimilation. But the return rates does not appear to be significant for the specific case of Irish immigrants during their diaspora 1840-60 when the vast majority of Irish immigrants arrived.
Based on data that I have seen, their return rates was around 9% (much lower than later immigrant groups). If accurate, then it is not plausible that that low rate caused a significant Survivor Bias problem.
The most likely reason was:
1) the steamship had not yet gone into transatlantic service during the period of Irish immigration, so it was much harder to return and
2) Ireland was much poorer.
Jews, Germans, and Scandinavians also had relatively rates of low return migration.
It is also factually incorrect to claim that “ Irish immigrants arrived in America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” The vast majority came 1840-60, so the return data that you gave is not relevant .
Actually, Germans had sometimes higher return rates when conditions in their home country improved. Sometimes, there were better skilled ones who returned. And obviously, some skilled Germans of a particular mindset returned in 1933-1939 due to US depression and improving economic conditions in Germany.
Yes, that is probably true, but my comment was about German immigrants from between the 1840s and 1880s when Germans made up a high percentage of total immigrants. Conditions in the 20th Century were very different and the percentage of total immigrants from Germany were much lower.
Yep - a good question. 1860-1870 is probably watershed, because German conditions for skilled labor and above improved thereafter (unification under Bismarck, industrial boom catching up with UK per capita GDP).
Where are the other 40 comments here? I see a little text-entry for them when I preview comments from the main article, but I can't seem to view them when I actually load the comments-area?
Where is the 9% figure coming from? In Bandiera et al’s analysis of the 1900–1910 and 1910–1920 decades, the return rate for Irish was actually *above* the average of European immigrants—74.1% and 93.9%, respectively.
I also don’t see the evidence for the claim about Jews, Germans, and Scandinavians having low return rates.
Yeah this is just wrong, no offense. Remigration rates tends to be underestimated and so researchers have to apply various checks and corrections to the data used. While it’s true that the 1900–1910 and 1910–1920 decades saw accelerated rates of remigration, this is true for basically all European immigrants, and there’s also no reason to think the Irish would be disproportionately more likely than all others to leave during this time. I recommend reading through the papers cited since, in my opinion at least, their methodologies are better than other studies done on the same topic.
You are missing the point. Return rates have more to do with technology of the time period rather than ethnicity. And shipping technologies changed radically.
The key break was the transition to steamship oceanic crossings in roughly the 1880s. That made it FAR easier for immigrants to return to their home country. And they could migrate to USA knowing that they could easily come back, which changed their initial intentions.
Irish immigration long preceded that time period. Irish immigrants realistically could not return during the period when they actually arrived because it required long, expensive, and dangerous sailing ships. So accelerated return rates in 1900-1920 period are irrelevant to the Irish.
Show me evidence that Irish immigrants to US had a high return rates 1840-1860.
My point is that any technological changes that would help facilitate return migration would apply to the Irish as much as other immigrant groups. Most returnees within that decade also arrived in that decade, so it’s not Irish who were here in say 1840 going back in 1910 for the most part. For basically all groups, the returnees were recent migrants.
Your demand that I cite a study starting at 1840 is obviously absurd if you knew anything about the lack of proper data collection during this time. There’s actually hardly any study done on any European immigrant group in general in the mid-1800s. The furthest back most studies have been able to go is the 1880s, since the U.S. government made significant improvements to data collection after the Civil War. Your demand is so that you can set the bar for the evidence high enough that you know it cannot possibly be satisfied and thus would allow you to dismiss any claims that run counter to whatever you already believe, even if you have no means to seriously support your preferred narrative either.
But despite this, one thing that’s almost certain is that, since data quality and collection improves over time, administrative records from the twentieth century are more reliable than from decades prior. But even then, Bandiera et al. found that conventional estimates of remigration during the time frame they explored had been underestimated by about *three times*. The problem then, of undercounting returnees, is almost certainly worse for estimates further back in time.
If you actually think the Irish remigration rate was only 9% based on a single “research” you did (read: outsourcing your thinking to ChatGPT), then you’re either delusional, extremely motivated by a desire to vindicate an existing narrative you already believe in, or you have a level of faith in these older estimates that’s completely unwarranted.
Settle down, dude! What the fuck are you getting so excited about?
Histrionics and calling me “delusional” does not bolster your case (quite the contrary).
Remember that the author of this article specifically sites the Irish as evidence for his claim. That is literally the start of the article. I was questioning how relevent the data the author site actually applied to the Irish immigration 1840-1860.
I am not tied to the 9% stat. Again, if you show me evidence that Irish immigrants to US had a high return rates 1840-1860, then I will change my mind.
Yes, I agree that "for basically all groups, the returnees were recent migrants." That is exactly why data from the steamship period is not relevant for the Irish.
Yes, I agree that data from the steamship era is far better than for the sailing ship era. That is exactly why you cannot apply that data to the Irish immigrants who overwhelmingly came from before that period.
Yes, I agree that other studies have underestimated return data. But that is still not evidence regarding the Irish immigration 1840-1860.
If it is "obviously absurd" to cite data from this time period, then obviously the evidence presented by you and the author does not apply to the vast majority of Irish immigrants.
I never "demanded" anything. I asked for evidence. That is not absurb, nor is it a high bar.
I have no "preferred narrative."
I am not "delusional," "extremely motivated," or have "an existing narrative." I build my opinion from the evidence, and I was asking you for evidence.
I am asking for evidence for the exact set of immigrants that the author raised in his claim (which you and the author apparently cannot give). It is fine to just say that there is not enough good data to make the claim.
I’m not inclined to remain good faith if the person I’m speaking to isn’t and the argument relies on an appeal to ignorance. You literally started this disagreement over one conversation with ChatGPT.
I never "started a disagreement" with you. You replied to me!!
Nor have any of my replies suggested a lack of good faith. I was not the one calling me "delusional," "absurb," "extremely motivated," and "preferred narrative."
My original comment pointed out that the Irish immigration (which the author raises as the crux of the matter in the first two paragraphs) does not match his description.
And just because I checked ChatGPT quickly to verify that I was correct does not mean that I did not know anything about the topic previously.
I have literally taught university-level courses on Immigration and Social Policy and read dozens of books on the topic.
And, no, I do not have preset believe on immigrant return rates. I am happy to accept new evidence.
I am perfectly happy to say, we just do not know the return rates for the Irish migration that overwhelmingly focused on the 1840-60 time period. But sailing ships and steam ships clearly have an effect on return rates independent of ethnicity, so we should not use data from 1900-20 to bolster claims about immigrant groups who came much earlier.
As I understand it, some immigrants returned because they never planned to stay permanently. They wanted to save some money, buy land, start a business or whatever back home and returned when they could do so.
The family of the grandfather of a friend did just that. The grandfather came back to Poland with his family and, because he knew some English, he could help the folks in his village with letters to relatives in America. He also was the best banjo player in his Polish village.
The essay's framework runs aground on the group it conspicuously fails to mention: the Jews. Early-twentieth-century Jewish immigrants were a population racialized as a distinct and inferior race. The era's credentialed psychometric authorities certified the verdict. Goddard's Ellis Island testing and, more consequentially, Brigham's 1923 analysis of the Army data, a sample of roughly 1.75 million, placed the "Hebrew" group near the bottom of the racial-intelligence hierarchy. That research helped pass the very 1924 Quota Act the essay celebrates as foresight. Within two generations the Jewish immigrants converged on native outcomes and then overshot them. That is precisely the trajectory the essay rules out as magical thinking.
I suppose you could counter that the Jews were never actually low in human capital; the early tests were primitive, so Jewish success confirms persistent group ability rather than refuting it. But that counter doesn't rescue the essay, it indicts it. The argument the essay is running (take a contemporary snapshot of measured group performance and read it as fixed, heritable destiny) is the same inference Brigham ran in 1923. But Brigham retracted it in 1930, conceding that "the entire hypothetical superstructure of racial differences collapses completely."
The claim here is not that group differences can't be measured, or that today's data equal Goddard's. It is narrower and harder to dodge: jumping from a snapshot of group differences to a permanent racial verdict has already failed spectacularly, against the very group the hereditarian tradition now treats as its showcase of high heritable ability. A track record like that doesn't make the inference impossible. It makes the burden of proof far heavier than this essay anywhere acknowledges, and the essay carries none of it. "Unassimilable" is a 1923 prophecy wearing 2026 citations.
In short, the essay's method is exposed by the case it omits: a group racialized as a feeble-minded race that proceeded to assimilate completely and outperform the group doing the measuring. You are reviving Carl Brigham's argument without mentioning that Brigham himself retracted it.
The growth of the welfare state and the increase in the size of government are not uniquely American phenomena though, are they? The same thing happened in European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I’m not clear why one needs to search for a specifically American explanation. It’s just something that happens in developed societies.
It's something that happens to societies in retrograde. No thriving economy seeks socialism. It has taken root in the most backward societies in the twentieth century (Russia and China) and in European countries following the collapse of empire. (Germany first,then GB,France and Scandinavia following WWII). It isn't necessarily a disease itself but a symptom of the acceptance of decline. The United States was in this condition in the 1930s. FDRs New Deal extended the crisis artificially,and quite intentionally I might add. But WWII and the opportunity it opened up to America again in rebuilding the ruins coupled with real leadership made it not just inevitable,but unthinkable and the wise have not sought to go back. But the virus unleashed by Wilson and nurtured by Roosevelt have plagued us every since. Once people are given a free lunch,they don't like to work for their dinner anymore.
Thanks for the informative analysis.
One possible reason for remigration from the US back to their respective countries was the language barrier. While there are some cultural differences in Northwestern European countries, I don't believe they were insurmountable. The English were the main source of colonists, but there were also a significant number of French, Dutch, and Germans, along with a sprinkling of other Northwestern Europeans. This European immigration continued, with fits and starts, ever since.
The problem arises when the immigrants are from areas with desperate genetic traits and European cultural backgrounds.
I think the language barrier was without doubt much harder for some to overcome than other. Especially those middle aged or older would have had a very hard time. But it was not a significant hurdle for those from the UK, naturally with the exception of some from the western portion who still spoke only the old languages. But they were rare by the time period in question.
The cultural difference created by Catholicism vs today's Islamic migrants was a big deal at one point but nothing compared to the latter.
I'm a descendant of both Old American WASPs who came over on the Mayflower and of newer Ellis Islander European immigrants (hence my username consisting of Finnish profanity as a little in-joke), and even I have to say: Ellis Island mass immigration shouldn't have been allowed. It provably made America a worse place. I don't care that I wouldn't exist if that immigration hadn't happened, it objectively made things worse off. This should have remained an overwhelmingly predominantly Anglo-Saxon nation as the founders intended.
I trace most back prior to 1700 with the exception of an Irish GG grandmother. I carry her J2c7 mtdna which appears in greatest concentration in Scandinavia.
This is mythology. The Scots, Irish and Germans were here in numbers in colonial times, which were a mixing bowl of kinships and nationalities starting with the first native-born generation. A high proportion of our revolutionary ancestors were Scots and north English, which is to say, very much not “Anglo-Saxon”, whatever that means. If the founding fathers wanted an Anglo-Saxon nation, they would have specified so in the very first immigration law (1790) which merely specified that immigrants be “white”. Today’s mass immigration is a big problem, but this is not based on facile interpretations of the past.
Solzhenytsyn in his final book tried to warn the West who was responsible.
https://files.catbox.moe/pti3tl.jpg
One of my family migrated to the US, but returned home. We gather California in the 1860's was no place for a devout Cornish Methodist.
Kind of surprised that Norwegian immigrants remained poor for so long. Might have been that they didn't settle in the cities much, and homesteaded the Upper Midwest instead, subsistence farming and not using cash much.
Interesting article. What do you make of the fact that Western Europeans ended up with a stronger welfare state than we did, including the English and the French (the primary original population sources for the US) and the Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians (a later wave)?
Seems to me that it was more a response to changing economic conditions, and a way to defeat rising Marxist pressures, than it was the Irish (considering it happened to everyone).
Great article, saved!
Interesting. I observe that immigration restrictions helped the members of quota-limited immigrant groups a great deal to become Americans. I often wonder how my Italian-born grandfather would have made it on his feet if his wages and social prospects had been undermined by a continuing flow of impoverished Italian immigrants. Moreover his grandchildren, like the great majority of other immigrants of that generation, intermarried with other Americans, so the genetic and cultural argument becomes rather fragile.
The Irish achieved parity with natives quite early. It is often said that the Irish were laggards, but new research shows that this is untrue.
What new research are you referring to?
I showed the research in a response to Alden Whitfeld. It is titled the surprising mobility of the Irish by ograda and some others
I could not locate the comment that you are referring to, but..
I do not have a copy of Ó Gráda's book, but the summary online says "the majority were eventually able to move a rung or two up the American socioeconomic ladder."
This is far from your original claim that "The Irish achieved parity with natives quite early."
I think the research shows that there was a clear gap in SES between Irish Catholic neighborhoods and WASP neighborhoods in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities as late as 1940 or even later.
Irish Catholic neighborhoods became wealthier as the economy grew, but that is a long way from achieving parity. The rank order of SES of immigrant groups was remarkably stable over long periods of time even as each group got wealthier.
I think the research shows that it was the 1940-1970 period where you see a dramatic narrowing of SES between Irish Catholics and WASPs in the Northeastern cities. That is one century after the big wave of Irish immigrants in the 1840s. So that is clear not "fairly rapidly."
This narrowing in the 1940-1970 period was largely due to:
1) Strong economic and manufacturing growth during the period.
2) Suburbanization
3) Intermarriage, etc
Please send me the research you’re referring to. Are you referring to the Porato Famine wave of Irish immigrants? I’m incredibly interested.
I sent an email with it.
I sent you a message on substack https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/246494/1/WP21-21.pdf
This is an interesting article, and you are correct to highlight the return rates of European immigrants before 1920 plus the overestimation of the level of assimilation. But the return rates does not appear to be significant for the specific case of Irish immigrants during their diaspora 1840-60 when the vast majority of Irish immigrants arrived.
Based on data that I have seen, their return rates was around 9% (much lower than later immigrant groups). If accurate, then it is not plausible that that low rate caused a significant Survivor Bias problem.
The most likely reason was:
1) the steamship had not yet gone into transatlantic service during the period of Irish immigration, so it was much harder to return and
2) Ireland was much poorer.
Jews, Germans, and Scandinavians also had relatively rates of low return migration.
It is also factually incorrect to claim that “ Irish immigrants arrived in America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” The vast majority came 1840-60, so the return data that you gave is not relevant .
Actually, Germans had sometimes higher return rates when conditions in their home country improved. Sometimes, there were better skilled ones who returned. And obviously, some skilled Germans of a particular mindset returned in 1933-1939 due to US depression and improving economic conditions in Germany.
Yes, that is probably true, but my comment was about German immigrants from between the 1840s and 1880s when Germans made up a high percentage of total immigrants. Conditions in the 20th Century were very different and the percentage of total immigrants from Germany were much lower.
Yep - a good question. 1860-1870 is probably watershed, because German conditions for skilled labor and above improved thereafter (unification under Bismarck, industrial boom catching up with UK per capita GDP).
Where are the other 40 comments here? I see a little text-entry for them when I preview comments from the main article, but I can't seem to view them when I actually load the comments-area?
Where is the 9% figure coming from? In Bandiera et al’s analysis of the 1900–1910 and 1910–1920 decades, the return rate for Irish was actually *above* the average of European immigrants—74.1% and 93.9%, respectively.
I also don’t see the evidence for the claim about Jews, Germans, and Scandinavians having low return rates.
I just got it from ChatGPT. It says the source is historian Thomas J. Archdeacon, who lists Irish return migration at 9%.
Why should we care about Irish return data from 1900-1920, when the vast majority of Irish immigrants came in the 1840-1860?
Yeah this is just wrong, no offense. Remigration rates tends to be underestimated and so researchers have to apply various checks and corrections to the data used. While it’s true that the 1900–1910 and 1910–1920 decades saw accelerated rates of remigration, this is true for basically all European immigrants, and there’s also no reason to think the Irish would be disproportionately more likely than all others to leave during this time. I recommend reading through the papers cited since, in my opinion at least, their methodologies are better than other studies done on the same topic.
You are missing the point. Return rates have more to do with technology of the time period rather than ethnicity. And shipping technologies changed radically.
The key break was the transition to steamship oceanic crossings in roughly the 1880s. That made it FAR easier for immigrants to return to their home country. And they could migrate to USA knowing that they could easily come back, which changed their initial intentions.
Irish immigration long preceded that time period. Irish immigrants realistically could not return during the period when they actually arrived because it required long, expensive, and dangerous sailing ships. So accelerated return rates in 1900-1920 period are irrelevant to the Irish.
Show me evidence that Irish immigrants to US had a high return rates 1840-1860.
My point is that any technological changes that would help facilitate return migration would apply to the Irish as much as other immigrant groups. Most returnees within that decade also arrived in that decade, so it’s not Irish who were here in say 1840 going back in 1910 for the most part. For basically all groups, the returnees were recent migrants.
Your demand that I cite a study starting at 1840 is obviously absurd if you knew anything about the lack of proper data collection during this time. There’s actually hardly any study done on any European immigrant group in general in the mid-1800s. The furthest back most studies have been able to go is the 1880s, since the U.S. government made significant improvements to data collection after the Civil War. Your demand is so that you can set the bar for the evidence high enough that you know it cannot possibly be satisfied and thus would allow you to dismiss any claims that run counter to whatever you already believe, even if you have no means to seriously support your preferred narrative either.
But despite this, one thing that’s almost certain is that, since data quality and collection improves over time, administrative records from the twentieth century are more reliable than from decades prior. But even then, Bandiera et al. found that conventional estimates of remigration during the time frame they explored had been underestimated by about *three times*. The problem then, of undercounting returnees, is almost certainly worse for estimates further back in time.
If you actually think the Irish remigration rate was only 9% based on a single “research” you did (read: outsourcing your thinking to ChatGPT), then you’re either delusional, extremely motivated by a desire to vindicate an existing narrative you already believe in, or you have a level of faith in these older estimates that’s completely unwarranted.
Settle down, dude! What the fuck are you getting so excited about?
Histrionics and calling me “delusional” does not bolster your case (quite the contrary).
Remember that the author of this article specifically sites the Irish as evidence for his claim. That is literally the start of the article. I was questioning how relevent the data the author site actually applied to the Irish immigration 1840-1860.
I am not tied to the 9% stat. Again, if you show me evidence that Irish immigrants to US had a high return rates 1840-1860, then I will change my mind.
Yes, I agree that "for basically all groups, the returnees were recent migrants." That is exactly why data from the steamship period is not relevant for the Irish.
Yes, I agree that data from the steamship era is far better than for the sailing ship era. That is exactly why you cannot apply that data to the Irish immigrants who overwhelmingly came from before that period.
Yes, I agree that other studies have underestimated return data. But that is still not evidence regarding the Irish immigration 1840-1860.
If it is "obviously absurd" to cite data from this time period, then obviously the evidence presented by you and the author does not apply to the vast majority of Irish immigrants.
I never "demanded" anything. I asked for evidence. That is not absurb, nor is it a high bar.
I have no "preferred narrative."
I am not "delusional," "extremely motivated," or have "an existing narrative." I build my opinion from the evidence, and I was asking you for evidence.
I am asking for evidence for the exact set of immigrants that the author raised in his claim (which you and the author apparently cannot give). It is fine to just say that there is not enough good data to make the claim.
And, from the tone of your other replies, you obviously did mean offense!
I’m not inclined to remain good faith if the person I’m speaking to isn’t and the argument relies on an appeal to ignorance. You literally started this disagreement over one conversation with ChatGPT.
I never "started a disagreement" with you. You replied to me!!
Nor have any of my replies suggested a lack of good faith. I was not the one calling me "delusional," "absurb," "extremely motivated," and "preferred narrative."
My original comment pointed out that the Irish immigration (which the author raises as the crux of the matter in the first two paragraphs) does not match his description.
And just because I checked ChatGPT quickly to verify that I was correct does not mean that I did not know anything about the topic previously.
I have literally taught university-level courses on Immigration and Social Policy and read dozens of books on the topic.
And, no, I do not have preset believe on immigrant return rates. I am happy to accept new evidence.
I am perfectly happy to say, we just do not know the return rates for the Irish migration that overwhelmingly focused on the 1840-60 time period. But sailing ships and steam ships clearly have an effect on return rates independent of ethnicity, so we should not use data from 1900-20 to bolster claims about immigrant groups who came much earlier.
As I understand it, some immigrants returned because they never planned to stay permanently. They wanted to save some money, buy land, start a business or whatever back home and returned when they could do so.
The family of the grandfather of a friend did just that. The grandfather came back to Poland with his family and, because he knew some English, he could help the folks in his village with letters to relatives in America. He also was the best banjo player in his Polish village.
The essay's framework runs aground on the group it conspicuously fails to mention: the Jews. Early-twentieth-century Jewish immigrants were a population racialized as a distinct and inferior race. The era's credentialed psychometric authorities certified the verdict. Goddard's Ellis Island testing and, more consequentially, Brigham's 1923 analysis of the Army data, a sample of roughly 1.75 million, placed the "Hebrew" group near the bottom of the racial-intelligence hierarchy. That research helped pass the very 1924 Quota Act the essay celebrates as foresight. Within two generations the Jewish immigrants converged on native outcomes and then overshot them. That is precisely the trajectory the essay rules out as magical thinking.
I suppose you could counter that the Jews were never actually low in human capital; the early tests were primitive, so Jewish success confirms persistent group ability rather than refuting it. But that counter doesn't rescue the essay, it indicts it. The argument the essay is running (take a contemporary snapshot of measured group performance and read it as fixed, heritable destiny) is the same inference Brigham ran in 1923. But Brigham retracted it in 1930, conceding that "the entire hypothetical superstructure of racial differences collapses completely."
The claim here is not that group differences can't be measured, or that today's data equal Goddard's. It is narrower and harder to dodge: jumping from a snapshot of group differences to a permanent racial verdict has already failed spectacularly, against the very group the hereditarian tradition now treats as its showcase of high heritable ability. A track record like that doesn't make the inference impossible. It makes the burden of proof far heavier than this essay anywhere acknowledges, and the essay carries none of it. "Unassimilable" is a 1923 prophecy wearing 2026 citations.
In short, the essay's method is exposed by the case it omits: a group racialized as a feeble-minded race that proceeded to assimilate completely and outperform the group doing the measuring. You are reviving Carl Brigham's argument without mentioning that Brigham himself retracted it.
The growth of the welfare state and the increase in the size of government are not uniquely American phenomena though, are they? The same thing happened in European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I’m not clear why one needs to search for a specifically American explanation. It’s just something that happens in developed societies.
It's something that happens to societies in retrograde. No thriving economy seeks socialism. It has taken root in the most backward societies in the twentieth century (Russia and China) and in European countries following the collapse of empire. (Germany first,then GB,France and Scandinavia following WWII). It isn't necessarily a disease itself but a symptom of the acceptance of decline. The United States was in this condition in the 1930s. FDRs New Deal extended the crisis artificially,and quite intentionally I might add. But WWII and the opportunity it opened up to America again in rebuilding the ruins coupled with real leadership made it not just inevitable,but unthinkable and the wise have not sought to go back. But the virus unleashed by Wilson and nurtured by Roosevelt have plagued us every since. Once people are given a free lunch,they don't like to work for their dinner anymore.