Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/661

SOCIAL CONDITIONS] since 1880 has been nearly equal. But while this growth was relatively uniform over the South, in the North there was a low (often a decreasing) rate of rural and a high rate of urban growth. Throughout the 19th century the rates of growth of the North Central division and that of the eastern half of the South Central division steadily decreased. It is notable that that of the South Atlantic group has grown faster since 1860 than ever before, despite the Civil War and the conditions of an old settled region: a fact possibly due to the effects of the emancipation of the slaves.

Comparing now the population of the regions east and west of the Mississippi, we find that the population of the first had grown from 3,929,214 in 1790 to 55,023,513 in 1900; and that of the second from 97,401 in 1810 to 20,971,062 in 1900. From 1860 to 1890 the one increased its numbers decennially by one half, and the other by under one fifth; but from 1890 to 1910 the difference in growth was slight, owing to a tremendous falling off in the rate of growth of much of the Western and the western states of the North Central divisions. Only an eighth of the country’s total population lived in 1900 west of the 96th meridian, which divides the country into two nearly equal parts. Although, as already stated, the population of the original area of 1790 was passed in 1880 by that of the added area, the natives of the former were still in excess in 1900.

Urban and Rural Population.—The five cities of the country that had 8000 or more inhabitants in 1790 had multiplied to 548 in 1900. Only one of the original six (Charleston) was in the true South, which was distinctly rural. The three leading colonial cities, Philadelphia, New York and Boston, grew six-fold in the 18th century, and fifty-fold in the next. The proportion of the population living in cities seems to have been practically constant throughout the 18th century and up to 1820. The great growth of urban centres has been a result of industrial expansion since that time. This growth has been irregular, but was at a maximum about the middle of the century. On an average throughout the 110 years, the population in cities of 8000 considerably more than doubled every twenty years. The rate of rural growth, on the other hand, fell very slowly down to 1860, and since then (disregarding the figures of the inaccurate census of 1870) has been steady at about half the former rate. In Rhode Island, in 1900, eight out of every ten persons lived in cities of 8000 or more inhabitants; in Massachusetts, seven in ten. In New York, New Jersey and Connecticut the city element also exceeded half of the population. At the other extreme, Mississippi had only 3% of urban citizens. If the limit be drawn at a population of 2500 (a truer division) the urban element of Rhode Island becomes 95.0%; of Massachusetts, 91.5; of Mississippi, 7.7. All the Southern states are still relatively rural, as well to-day as a hundred years ago. Ten states of the Union had a density in 1910 exceeding 100 persons to the square mile: Illinois (100.7), Delaware (103), Ohio (117), Maryland (130.3), Pennsylvania (171.3), New York (191.2), Connecticut (231.3), New Jersey (337.3), Massachusetts (418.8) and Rhode Island (508.5).

There are abundant statistical indications that the line (be the influence that draws it economic or social) between urban centres of only 2500 inhabitants and rural districts is much sharper to-day than was that between the country and cities of 8000 inhabitants (the largest had five times that number) in 1790. The lower limit is therefore a truer division line to-day. Classifying, then, as urban centres all of above 2500 inhabitants, three-tenths of the total population lived in the latter centres in 1880 and four-tenths (30,583,411) in 1900; their population doubled in these twenty years. If one regards the larger units, they held naturally a little more of the total population of the country—just a third (33.1%; ten times their proportion of the country’s total in 1790); and they grew a little faster. The same years, however, made apparent a rapid fall, general and marked, yet possibly only temporary, in the rate at which such urban centres, as well as larger ones, had been gaining upon the rural districts; this reaction being most pronounced in the South and least so in the North Atlantic states, whose manufacturing industries are concentrated in dense centres of population.

Interstate migration is an interesting element in American national life. A fifth of the total population of 1900 were living in other states than those of birth; and this does not take account of temporary nor of multiple migration. Every state numbers among its residents natives of nearly every other state. This movement is complicated by that of foreign immigration. In 1900 the percentage of resident natives varied from 92.7% in South Carolina to 15% in Oklahoma; almost all of the Southern states having high percentages.

Sexes.—The percentages of males and females, of all ages, in the aggregate population of 1900, were 51.0 and 49.0 respectively. The corresponding figures for the main elements of the population were as follows: for native whites, 50.7 and 49.3; foreign whites, 54.0 and 46.0; negroes, 49.6 and 50.4. The absolute excess of males in the aggregate population has been progressively greater at every successive census since 1820, save that of 1870—which followed the Civil War, and closed a decade of lessened immigration. The relative excess of males in each unit of population has not constantly progressed, but has been continuous. In densely settled regions

females generally predominate; and males in thinly settled regions. In every 1000 urban inhabitants there were, in 1900, 23 (in 1890 only 19) more females than in 1000 rural inhabitants. In the rural districts, so far as there is any excess of females, it is almost solely in the Southern cotton belt, where negro women are largely employed as farm hands.

Vital Statistics, 1900.—The median age of the aggregate population of 1900—that is, the age that divides the population into halves—was 22.85 years. In 1800 it was 15.97 years. A falling birth-rate, a falling death-rate, and the increase in the number of adult immigrants, are presumably the chief causes of this difference. The median age of the foreign-born in 1900 was 38.42 years. The median age of the population of cities of 25,000 or more inhabitants was 3.55 years greater than that of the inhabitants of smaller urban centres and rural districts, owing probably in the main to the movement of middle-aged native and foreign adults to urban centres, and the higher birth-rate of the rural districts. The median age of the aggregate population is highest in New England and the Pacific states, lowest in the South, and in the North Central about equal to the country’s average. The average age of the country’s population in 1900 was 26.2 years. The United States had a larger proportion (59.1%) within the “productive” age limits of 15 and 60 years than most European countries; this being due to the immigration of foreign adults (correspond in figure 80.3%), the productive group among the native whites (55.8%) being smaller than in every country of Europe. The same is true, however, of the population over 60 years of age.

The death-rate of the United States, though incapable of exact determination, was probably between 16 and 17 per 1000 in 1900; and therefore less than in most foreign countries. The following statement of the leading causes of death during the eleven years 1890–1900 in 83 cities of above 25,000 population, is given by Dr J. S. Billings:—

Among the statistics of conjugal condition the most striking facts are that among the foreign-born the married are more than twice as numerous as the single, owing to the predominance of adults among the immigrants; and the native whites of foreign parents marry late and in much smaller proportion than do the native whites of native parentage—the explanation of which is probably to be found in the reaction of the first American generation caused on one hand by the high American standard of living, and on the other by the relative economic independence of women. In 1900 1.0% of the males and 10.9% of the females from 15 to 19 years of age were married; from 20 to 24 years, 21.6% and 46.5% respectively. Of females above 15 years of age 31.2% were single, 56.9 married, 11.2 widowed, 0.5 divorced; many of the last class undoubtedly reporting themselves as of the others. The corresponding figures for males were: 40.2, 54.5, 4.6 and 0.3%. In 1850 there were 5.6 persons (excluding the slave population) in an average American family; fifty years later there were only 4.7—a decline, which was constant, of 16.1%. In 1790, 5 persons was also the normal family—i.e. the greatest proportion (14%) of the total were of this size; but in 1900 the model family was that of 3 persons by a more decisive proportion (18%). The minimum state average of 1790, which was 5.4 in Georgia, was greater than the maximum of 1900. Within the area of 1790 there were twice as many families in 1900 as in 1790 consisting of 2 persons, and barely half as many consisting of 7 and upward; New England having shown the greatest and the South the least decrease. In 1790 about a third and in 1900 more than one half of all families had less than 5 members.

The data gathered by the Federal census have never made possible a satisfactory and trustworthy calculation of the birth-rate, and state and local agencies possess no such data for any considerable area. But the evidence is on the whole cumulative and convincing that there was a remarkable falling off in the birth-rate during the 19th century. And It may be noted, because of its bearing upon the theory of General Francis A. Walker, that the Old South of 1790, practically unaided by immigration, maintained a rate of increase at least approximating that attained by other sections of the country by native and foreign stock combined. Not a state of the Union as it existed in 1850 showed an increase, during the half-century following, in the ratio of white children under 16 to 1000 white females over 16 years: the ratio declined for the whole country from 1600 to 1100; and it has fallen for the census area of 1790 from 1900 in that year to 1400 in 1850 and 1000 in 1900. On the other hand, elaborate colonial censuses for New York in 1703 and 1812 show