NCREASE OF POPULATION
IN THE UNITED STATES
1910-1920
-y
INCREASE OF POPULATION
IN THE UNITED STATES
1910-1920
A STUDY OF CHANGES IN THE POPULATION OF DIVISIONS,
STATES, COUNTIES, AND RURAL AND URBAN AREAS,
AND IN SEX, COLOR, AND NATIVITY, AT
THE FOURTEENTH CENSUS
BY
WILLIAM S. ROSSITER
CENSUS MONOGRAPHS
I
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON
1922
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
HERBERT HOOVER, Secretary
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS .
W. M. Steuart, Director
EARTH
SCIENCES
UBRARy
NOTE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENSUS.
The text of the main reports of the Fourteenth Census is for the most
part limited to such explanatory matter as was deemed necessary for a
correct understanding of the statistical tables. This limitation was de-
cided upon in order to expedite the publication of the main reports and
with a view to the preparation of a series of supplementary monographs
analyzing and interpreting some of the more important subjects covered
by the census inquiries. While the adoption of this policy marks a
departure from usual census procedure, it is clearly a long step in ad-
vance in the effort to make the decennial census of as much practical
value to the Nation as possible. I have pleasure in adding that the
decision of the bureau to publish this series of monographs is in line
with the policy long urged by individuals and scientific organizations
interested in the widest use of census returns and in the highest effi-
ciency of the bureau.
The first of this series is submitted herewith. To Mr. William S.
Rossiter, of Concord, N. H., long an official of this bureau, chairman of
the advisory committee to the Director of the Census and president of
the American Statistical Association, was assigned the task of preparing
a study of the increase of population as shown at the last census. His
knowledge of the bureau and his previous work in the field of population
analysis were believed especially to qualify him for this undertaking.
Having but limited time available, Mr. Rossiter was fortunate in secur-
ing the assistance of Mr. Willard L. Thorp, instructor in Social and Eco-
nomic Institutions at Amherst College, of whose untiring and invaluable
assistance in preparing data and writing much of the text he desires me
to make full and grateful acknowledgment.
Mr. Rossiter also expresses keen appreciation of the expert aid ren-
dered by Mr. Le Verne Beales of this bureau, who supervised the prepara-
tion of tables, edited manuscript, and contributed sections here and there
which have greatly aided in strengthening this narrative of population
change.
It is appropriate that the first of this new series of census publications
should deal with population increase as recorded by the historic decen-
nial census of the United States. Accordingly, in the following pages
is presented an orderly but not over-detailed narrative, which it is
hoped will be found to gather interest and significance as it proceeds,
of the increase of the Nation from 1910 to 1920, with some analysis of
the changes which occurred during that period in the composition and
residence of the population.
3
858?-2!2
CONTENTS.
Pace.
Introductory survey 9
Chapter I. — An historic decade: 1910-1920 15
Chapter II. — Growth of population in the United States before the I'our-
teenth Census 21
Chapter III. — Increase of population in Nation and states 27
Chapter IV. — States which increased but slightly, or decreased, in popula-
tion 37
Chapter V. — County increase or decrease 6a
Chapter VI. — Rtu"al and urban increase or decrease 73
Chapter VII. — Increase or decrease of population considered by sex, nativity,
and color S4
Chapter VIII. — Native whites of native parentage 87
Chapter IX. — Numerical importance of descendants of white persons enu-
merated at tlie First Census 95
Chapter X. — Native whites of foreign or mixed parentage and foreign-born
whites 1 03
Chapter XI. — Negro population 123
Chapter XII. — Indians, Chinese, and Japanese 133
Chapter XIII. — Influence upon population increase of changes in age, marital
condition, and birth and death rates 139
Chapter XIV. — Influence uixtn population increase of development of agri-
culture, maniifactures, and mining 155
Chapter XV. — Outlying possessions, exclusive of Philippines and Virgin
Islands ; 171
Chapter XVI. — Summary and conclusion 180
APPENDIXES.
Appendix A. — Estimates of the native white stock: 1900, 1910, and 1920 187
Appendix B. — Rate of natural increase in foreign white stock: 1900-1920 197
Appendix C. — Estimation of net immigration 199
Appendix D. — Fertility of native whites 205
Appendix E. — Construction of Tables 62, 63, and 64 207
Appendix F. — Computation of average numbers of children per native and
foreign white mother 213
TEXT TABLES.
Table i. — Population of the United States, with decennial increase: 1790-
1920 -21
Table 2. — Growth of population in area enumerated in 1790, with growth
in remainder of continental United Stales: 1 790-1920 24
Table 3. — Increase of population, by divisions and states: 1910-1920 29
Table 4. — Increase or decrease of population in Maine : 1 790-1920 38
Table 5. — Ntunber of cities, towns, and other civil divisions in Maine show-
ing increase or decrease in population, by coi^ties: 1920 41
Table 6. — Increase of population in Delaware: 1790-1920 42
Table 7. — Increase or decrease of population in New Hamjjshire : 1790-1920 ... 43
Table 8. — Towns and cities in New Hampshire classified by size, 1920, and by
increase or decrease, 1910-1920, by counties , 45
Table 9. — Increase or decrease of population in Vermont: 1 790-1920 48
5
6 CONTENTS.
Page-
Table io. — Increase or decrease of population in Nevada: 1860-1920 53
Table ir. — Increase or decrease of population in Mississippi: 1800-1920 56
Table 12. — Increase or decrease of jK>pulation in Iowa: 1840- 1920 59
Table 13. — Number of counties, number decreasing in population, and aggre-
gate population of decreasing counties, with per cent of United
States total: i860, 1880, 1900, and 1920 63
Table 14. — Number and aggregate population of coimties or equivalent divi-
sions whose population decreased during preceding decade, for
the North and West in comparison with the South: i860, 1880,
1900, and 1920 65
Table 15.— Increase of rural and urban population: 1900-1920 75
Table 16. — Summary- of urban communities: 1920 78
Table 17. — Population of cities having, in 1920, 250,000 inhabitants or more,
with increase and rank : 1920 and 1910 79
Table 18. — Growth of New York City in comparison with remainder of state:
1900-1920 80
Table 19. — Growth of cities in New York State having over 25,000 inhabitants,
exclusive of New York City, in comparison with smaller commu-
nities: 1900-1920 80
Table 20. — Summary of population in cities of 25,000 and over in 1920, and
population outside such cities: 1920 and 1910 82
Table 21.— Growth of the white and colored elements of the population: 1790-
1920 85
Table 22. — Increase in total white population and in native whites of native
parentage: 1860-1920 87
Table 23. — Increase of native whites of native parentage in comparison with
increase in total population in cities of 100,000 inhabitants or
more : 1900-1920 91
Table 24. — Native white population of native parentage, distributed as urban
and rural : 1910 and 1920 92
Table 25. — Distribution of population and rate of increase by race and nativity :
1920 and 1900 100
Table 26. — Per cent distribution of foreign-bom whites and native whites of
foreign or mixed parentage, by geographic divisions: 1920 and
1910 104
Table 27. — Foreign-bom white population of the United States, by country
of birth : 1920 and 1910 113
Table 28. — Immigrants from specified coimtries, by decades: 1840-1920 114
Table 29. — Countries ranked according to number contributed to foreign-bom
white population of the United States, as enumerated in specified
census year: 1920, 1910, and 1900 117
Table 30. — Number of white Canadians, other than French, by geographic
divisions: 1920 and 1910 119
Table 31. — Dominant nationalities among foreign-bom whites in cities having,
in 1920, over 250,000 inhabitants: 1920 and 1910 121
Table 32. — Negro population and increase in Negro population of cities hav-
ing, in 1920, more than 25,000 Negro inhabitants: 1920, 1910,
and 1900 128
Table 33. — Indian population, by divisions and states: 1920, 1910, and 1900. . 134
Table 34. — Chinese population, by divisions and states: 1920, 1910, and 1900. . 136
Table 35. — Japanese pojjulation, by divisions and states: 1920, 1910, and 1900. 137
Table 36. — Proportions of children under 15 years of age and of persons 45 years
of age and over in the total population: 1920, 19 10, and 1900. . . . 141
CONTENTS.
Page.
Table 37. — Summary of the marital condition of the population of the United
States: 1920 and 1910 146
Table 38. — Per cent married in total number of males and females at specified
ages: 1920 and 1910 148
Table 39. — Increase in total population of the United States, by decades,
1790-1920, with estimated increase which would have occurred
diu-ing each decade had there been no immigration nor emigration
in that decade, 1820-1920 152
Table 40. — Comparison of agriculture with manufactures and production of
minerals on basis of^ number of persons engaged and value-prod-
uct, by geographic divisions: 1919 156
Table 41. — Per capita value of products: Agriculture, manufactiu'es, and
mining: 1919 157
Table 42. — Urbanization of population in comparison with industrial devel-
opment, by geographic divisions: 1920, 1910, and 1850 160
Table 43. — Increase in population in comparison with increase in industrial
activity, by geographic divisions: 1910-1920 168
Table 44. — Racial composition of the population of Alaska: 1920 and 1910. . . . 172
Table 45. — Population of Hawaii, by race, with per cent of increase: 1920 and
1910 174
Table 46. — Population of Porto Rico, by color or race and nativity: 1920 and
1910 177
Table 47. — Population of Guam, by color or race: 1920 177
Table 48. — Population of American Samoa, by race: 1920 178
Table 49. — Population of Panama Canal Zone, by color or race and nativity:
1920 179
DETAILED TABLES.
Table 50. — Number and aggregate population of counties or equivalent divi-
sions whose population decreased during preceding decade, by
divisions and states: 1920, 1900, 1880, and i860 2 16
Table 51. — Urban population, classified in three groups, according to size of
cities, 1920, with per cent of increase, 1910-1920 220
Table 52. — Population in cities having 25,000 inhabitants or more in 1920,
and outside such cities, with increase or decrease, by divisions
and states: 1920 and 1910 223
Table 53. — Increase in population, by color, nativity, and parentage, by divi-
sions and states: 1910-1920 224
Table 54. — Urban and rtu-al population, by color and nativity, for divisions
and states: 1920 and 1910 226
Table 55. — Native whites of native parentage in total, urban, and rural popu-
lation, by divisions and states: 1920 and 1910 234
Table 56. — Proportion native white of native parentage in population of cities
having, in 1920, 100,000 inhabitants or more: 1920 and 1910. . . 240
Table 57. — Per cent of increase by nativity and according to whether bom in
division or state of residence, 1910-1920, and per cent distribu-
tion by age and marital condition, 1920 241
Table 58. — Distribution of total population by nativity and of native popu-
lation according to whether bom in division or state of residence :
1920 and 1910 242
Table 59. — Distribution of population according to color, nativity, and
whether bom in state of residence, with ratio of increase in each
class to total increase, for selected states: 1920 and 1910 244
CONTENTS
Pace-
Table 6o. — Per cent of increase according to color, nativity-, and whether
bom in state of residence, 1910-1920, and per cent distribution
of whites and Negroes by age and marital condition, 1920, for
selected states 246
Table 61. — Proportions of children under 15 years of age and of persons45 years
of age and over in total population, by divisions and states:
1920, 1910, and 1900 247
Table 62. — Number of persons engaged and value produced or added, for
agriculture in comparison with manufactures and production of
minerals, by divisions and states: 1919 248
Table 63. — Urbanization of population in comparison with industrial develop-
ment, by divisions, 1920, 1910, and 1850, and by states, 1920
and 1910 249
Table 64. — Increase in population in comparison with increase in industrial
activity: 1910-1920 253
Table 65. — Areas other than states enumerated at each census: 1 790-1920 254
Table 66. — Elements of population estimated by different methods: 1900 and
1920 25s
Table 67. — Years of admission of states to Union 255
MAPS AND DIAGRAMS.
Comparison of rate of increase in total population with rate of change of immi-
gration: 1850-1920 23
Growth of population in area enumerated in 1790 25
Rate of population increase in the United States, by divisions: 1900-1920.. . 30
Rate of increase or decrease in total population, by states: 1910-1920 32
States which increased slightly in population, or decreased: 1910-1920 33
Maine — Increase or decrease in population of counties: 1900-1920 39
Maine — Towns showing decrease: 1910-1920 40
Delaware — Increase or decrease in population of counties: 1900-1920 ^2
New Hampshire — Increase or decrease in population of counties: 1900-1920. . . 44
New Hampshire — Towns showing decrease: 1910-1920 47
Vermont — Increase or decrease in population of counties: 1 900-1920 49
Vermont — Towns showing decrease: 1910-1920 51
Nevada — Increase or decrease in population of coimties: 1 900-1920 54
Mississippi — Increase or decrease in population of counties: 1900-1920 :;8
Iowa— Increase or decrease in population of counties: 1900-1920 60
Missoiu"! — Increase or decrease in population of counties: 1900-1920 67
Counties in which population decreased: 1880 -1920 70
Counties in which population decreased: 1910-1920 71
Urban and rural population : 1890-1920 73
Increase in luban population, by classes of cities: 1890-1920 78
Color or race, nativity', and parentage, by divisions: 1920, 1910, and 1900 S6
States showing increase in foreign-bom white: 1910-1920 icg
Foreign-lx)m population, by principal countries of birth: 1920 and 1910 117
States in which increase in Negro population was more than 1,000 and was at
a higher rate than increase in total population: 1910-1920 126
Distribution of population by age periods: 1890-1920 140
Value of agricultural products, l;y states: 1919 158
Value of mimufactured products, by states: 1919 159
States which produced 3 per cent or more of total value of manufactured or
agricultural products rcjjurted for the United States: ioiq 1(1
Per cent of increase in population, 1910-1920, and in manufactures, 1909-1919. . 1O9
Per cent of increase in population and agriculture : 1910-1920 169
INTRODUCTORY SURVEY.
Four quarto volumes comprise the tabular presentation of the
detailed returns of population at the Fourteenth Census of the
United States. Within these volumes can be found all facts
usually collected by the Government as a statistical record of the
people. They form the basis for reaching decisions in innumerable
official and private transactions, but for the average citizen, who
in the end bears the responsibility and expense of the enterprise,
they possess little real interest.
Although the census volumes are available to all and are to be
found in the principal libraries, the size and tabular character of
the volumes deter the ordinary inquirer from attempts to learn
the significance of census returns. In consequence, the popula-
tion census, decade after decade, has been of interest principally
to students of statistics, political economy, and government. The
full public usefulness of these tabular records is seldom realized
by Nation, state, or community, because much of the significance
of the returns is not properly brought out by consistent and ade-
quate analysis. Heated controversies, indeed, have arisen and
writers have been subjected to criticism merely because accurate
interpretation of census figures led to public knowledge of un-
pleasant civic truths.
An attempt is here made to present a statistical picture of
national progress. Anyone M^ho desires to read the history of the
United States in terms of changing numbers, racial strains, and
places of residence, during a decade crowded with epoch-making
events, may do so in these pages. It is especially the hope of the
Director of the Census and of the author that this narrative, though
deaUng solely with the results of the census returns, will be so
illuminated by the vast national changes which the census records
that the element of human interest will be ever present. Beyond
all interest to individuals, however, is the possibility that clear
presentation of the facts of population change may be of real help
to some of the states or smaller subdivisions of the Union, where
local problems of increase or decrease of inhabitants or change in
race proportions may have become imsettling influences. Upon
such matters it is generally the case that the Federal census alone
offers authoritative information.
9
10 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The purpose of this monograph is primarily to describe the
location and the group characteristics of the men, women, and
children who composed the increase which took place from 1910
to 1920 in the population of the United States. This increase
was 13,738,354 and represented the excess of inhabitants in
the Nation enumerated by the Fourteenth Census, 1920, over the
number enumerated at the Thirteenth Census, 19 10. Clearly
enough, these persons were not in existence or not in the United
States April 15, 1910, the enumeration date of the Thirteenth
Census. This increment, however, represented but approximately
one-half of the actual change which took place in the American
people. The population of the United States at the Thirteenth
Census was 91,972,266. How many of these persons were again
enumerated at the Fourteenth Census, 1920? The answer to this
question proves exceedingly interesting, since "increase of popu-
lation" is commonly considered to represent merely the excess
shown at a given enumeration over the last preceding enumeration.
Between the taking of the Thirteenth Census and that of the
Fourteenth, a scant 10 years (April 15, 19 10, to January i, 1920)
elapsed. During that period the estimated number of deaths of
persons enumerated in 19 10 was 11,240,000,^ hence the survivors
of the Thirteenth Census available for enumeration at the Four-
teenth Census, if in the United States, numbered only 80,730,000
on January i, 1920. Not all these persons, however, were in this
country on that date.
The decade was unusual for the great number of departures
of aliens and foreign-bom and native-bom citizens to take part
in the World War or to participate in hospital or other activities
connected with it. The number of survivors, in 1920, of the emi-
grants who left the United States between 1910 and 1920 has been
estimated at 2,280,000.^ Hence, the survivors in this country of
the Thirteenth Census, as previously specified, were further reduced
' Davis and Foudray, U. S. Census Bureau, 1922. This estimate was made from
United States Life Tables, 1910, for both sexes and all races (p. 16), and the annual
mortality rates for the death-registration area (Mortality Statistics, 1919, p. 9).
^ Emigration of aliens, April 15, 1910, to December 31, 1919, 2,070,000; emigration
of citizens, July i, 1917, to December 31, 1919, 130,000 (not recorded prior to July i,
1917); excess of citizens departing (including nonemigrants) over citizens arriving
(assumed to represent returning nonemigrants), April 15, 1910, to Jmie 30, 1917,
240,000; estimated total emigration, 2,440,000; estimated mortality to January i, 1920
(included in total mortalit>', 11,240,000, among persons enumerated in 1910), 160,000;
estimated survivors January i, 1920, of emigrants diiring decade, 2,280,000.
INTRODUCTORY SURVEY. U
by that number, leaving 78,450,000.^ Therefore, instead of there
being some 90,000,000 persons to enumerate again, together with
the normal decennial increase, as might be supposed, the number
of persons to be counted at the Fourteenth Census who had been
counted before at least once did not greatly exceed the population
enumerated 20 years before, 76,000,000.
It remained for the Nation, when the count was made in 1920,
to have made good by births and by immigration, first, the shrink-
age noted from the population returned at the previous census,
and second, having replaced the losses, to supply additional
numbers to represent a normal increase over the total shown 10
years before.
This replacement and increase were accomplished about as
follows :
Natives under 5 years of age, 1920 11,528,000
Natives from 5 to 9 years of age, inclusive, 1920 11,228, 000
Total natives under 10 years of age 22, 756, 000
Survivors of natives bom between January i and April 15,
1910 630, 000
Surviving natives bom since April 15, 1910 22, 126, 000
Surviving immigrants^ 5,345,000
Total additions (stated as a multiple of 10,000) 27, 470, 000
Survivors of the Thirteenth Census 78,450,000
Estimated population, 1920 105, 920, coo
The close similarity between the total thus estimated and the
number actually enumerated at the Fourteenth Census (105,710,-
620) constitutes credible evidence of the substantial complete-
ness of the Foiuteenth Census enumeration. Moreover, it is pos-
sible, or even probable, that the difference of only 210,000, or one-
fifth of I per cent, between the total as estimated and as enu-
merated is due in large part to an error in the estimated mortality.
' The actual number of Thirteenth Census survivors in this coimtry was somewhat
larger, for the reason that the 2,280,000 survivors of the emigrants diu-ing the decade
1910-1920 included an indeterminate number of persons who had immigrated to this
countrj' within the same decade. The error resulting from tlie assumption that all
the emigrants during the decade were persons who had been enumerated in 19 lo is,
however, offset by the assumption that all the survivors of the immigrants during
the same decade were in the United States in 1920.
2 Total immigration, April 15, 1910, to December 31, 1919, 5,775,000; estimated
mortality between arrival in the United States and December 31, 1919, 430,000; siu"-
vivors, 5,345,000.
12 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
It is clear that vast changes in the composition and distribution
of the population of the United States must have occurred in this
brief period of lo years, involving the reclassification of a much
larger number of persons than the 13,700,000 representing the
net increase of population at the Fourteenth Census.
By the act of Congress providing for the taking of the Thirteenth
Census of the United States (1910) the date of enumeration was
set as of April 15. This act broke the long-estabHshed precedent
of taking the census as of June i of the census year. It also
made impossible the comparison of exact decennial periods.
The Thirteenth Census, in consequence of this change, fell one
and one-half months short of covering a full decade. As the
Fourteenth Census approached, the law providing for it again
involved a change, setting January i of the census year as the
date of enumeration. Thus another decade was "short," this
time three and a half months less than a full decade, while the
enumeration fell five months less than 20 years after the Twelfth
Census.
In all of the computations employed in this monograph it has
been impossible to take these fractional shortages into account.
Since the labor involved would have been prohibitive, the two
periods specified have in general been accepted as full decades,
and all calculations have been made on that basis.
Nevertheless, these shortages are of some consequence statis-
tically. In delicate computations, the differences involved might
prove important. If the Thirteenth Census had been taken June
I, 1910, instead of April 15, 1910, and a full decade covered, the
result would have been approximately as follows:
Estimated population June i, 1910 92,149,155
Actual population June i, 1900 75-994.575
Estimated lo-year increase 16,154,580
Increase during official census period 15, 977- 691
Difference , 176,889
Estimated 10-year per cent of increase 21.3
Official per cent of increase 21.0
There is a difference, for the short period of 45 days, of 177,000,
or three-tenths of 1 per cent. If a corresponding estimate be maile
INTRODUCTORY SURVE;Y. , ; ; ' 'i , 1' ! '.'. ; '' • ' fs'
to cover a full decade from the census of 1910 to that of 1920,
the following result appears:
Estimated population April 15, 1920 106, 123,3.60
Actual population April 15, 1910 91,972,266
Estimated 10-year increase 14, 151, 094
Increase during official census period 13, 738, 354
Difference 412 , 740
Estimated 10-year per cent of increase 15. 4
Official per cent of increase 14- 9
For the shortage of tliree and a half months here involved, a
marked difference appears of over 400,000, or five-tenths of i per
cent. If, however, these changes prove in the end to be of service
in leading to the permanent adoption of the best date for census
taking, the temporary inaccuracies here noted will be of little
consequence.
To analyze the growth of population from 19 10 to 1920 most
effectively, it is advisable, first, to sketch the economic back-
ground , describing very briefly the changes and the forces at work
from 1 9 10 to 1920 which might influence population increase as
recorded at the Fourteenth Census, and second, to summarize
concisely the results of previous censuses and the changing rates
of national growth. With the economic condition of the nation
and the facts of previous population change clearly before the
reader, it is then possible to sketch the increase or decrease recorded
in 1920 of the nation as a whole and of its geographic divisions,
states, and smaller subdivisions, and then to analyze the population
by its racial elements, with continual references to the more vital
and significant changes and tendencies of the decade. Discussion
of actual increase or decrease and accompanying changes naturally
ends here, but no study of this character would be complete for
1920 without some reference, more or less detailed, to the influence
upon population of changes in the family, in marriage, birth, and
death rates, and also in manufactures and agriculture during a
decade when they exerted unwonted influence upon population.
William S. R-ossiter.
I.
AN HISTORIC DECADE
1910-1920.
The Fourteenth Census of the United States was taken at the
close of a decade which future historians are likely to regard as
of far-reaching importance in the life of the Nation.
The early part of this lo-year period witnessed important but
peacefid economic changes, most of which were the result of con-
tinuing national development. In the summer of 1914 the sudden
outbreak of the great war in Europe began at once to affect the
nations not involved, especially the United States. As the decade
advanced, nation after nation entered the conflict, still further in-
fluencing the economic condition of the United States, imtil this
country in turn concentrated all its vast available resources, human
and material, upon the task of winning the war.
So great had been the effort to organize and dispatch abroad
huge armies, and to concentrate man power arbitrarily at certain
points upon the production of supplies and means of transporta-
tion, that by January i, 1920, a year after the armistice, the read-
justments necessary to restore the Nation to normal conditions
were far from completed. It is, indeed, to be doubted whether
those population tendencies which were in evidence as the decade
opened and which were rudely disturbed a few years later by
exciting world events will ever be fully resumed.
Before considering actual changes in the population and in its
racial and geographic distribution which occurred in this lo-year
period, it is necessary to an unusual degree to have clearly in mind
as a general background some of the principal economic changes
which occurred during the decade, many of which directly affected
the increase or decrease of population.
Two composite views of the United States, one a picture of the
Nation in 19 10, the other a picture taken in 1920, would show
extraordinary differences — differences far greater than similar
composites at other and corresponding periods, except perhaps in
i860 and 1870. Comparison of social and economic conditions at
the beginning of the decade with those at the end would surely
reveal surprising differences. A normal development was to have
been expected, but beyond this normal rate of expansion an external
force, the World War, entered into the situation, revolutionizing
15
t6'
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
and reorganizing industrial and social life and making the decade
one full of abnormal changes.
Thus an orderly analysis of the growth of population in the
United States from 1910 to 1920 proves of especial interest and
importance, since in addition to those facts connected with
increase or decrease which a census always records, the returns of
the Fourteenth Census reflect many of the population changes
produced by the war.
No period of serious business depression occurred during the
entire decade. By 1 910 the coimtry had quite recovered from the
severe effects of the depression of 1907, and business continued
fairly steady and undisturbed until the depression of early 191 4.
This depression was intensified by the outbreak of the World War,
but from the middle of 1915 the demand for agricultural and man-
ufactured products which grew out of the war sent the industries
of the Nation by 1916 to entirely new levels. Extreme activity
and somewhat artificial prosperity continued until the end of the
decade. This period was interrupted in the beginning of 191 9 by
a decided slowing up of business immediately after the signing of
the armistice, but the downward mov^ement was soon checked, and
the year 1920 began with a favorable outlook. The decade, there-
fore, from the standpoint of business, was an unusual one. That
there would have been marked expansion, even without the war, is
probably true. Markets were being extended in foreign countries,
natural resoiu-ces were being opened up, new sources of power dis-
covered, new methods of production introduced, and scientific
management and efficiency engineering were becoming factors in
business organization. Capital equipment had greatly increased,
and the development ot electric railways, the automobile, tele-
phone, wireless, and parcel post made the decade exceptional;
while the creation of the Federal Reserve and Federal Farm Loan
Systems facilitated industrial and agricultural development.
With the outbreak of the war, a demand arose for manufac-
tured products such as the country never before had been called
upon to meet. An average* of index numbers of volume of pro-
> The arithmetical arerage of four Index Numbers of Physical Volume of Produc-
tion is as follows:
1910.
1918.
E. E. Day.
93
"3
W.W.
Stewart.
95
134
Carl
Snyder.
91
139
W. I. King.
89
"3
Averaec.
9'
I30
AN HISTORIC DECADE. 17
duction stands at 92 for 19 10 and 120 for 191 8, an increase of
over 30 per cent. These figures indicate the physical volume of
products quite apart from their value. This exceptional develop-
ment, from its ver}^ nature, must not only have affected the growth
of population but also have caused some redistribution within
the country.
The war also changed the relative importance of various indus-
tries. Many readjustments were necessary, based on a "war"
scale of values, since production for military needs bears little
relation to production for normal requirements. Moreover, com-
modities which had been in limited demand were suddenly
required in large quantities. Many other industries were indi-
rectly, but greatly, stimulated. Some, indeed, were actually
created, such as the manufacture of certain chemicals and dyes.
Mining operations, especially those relating to copper, zinc,
and lead, were expanded to their utmost capacity, drawing many
thousands of people to areas hitherto sparsely settled. These
changes resulted in considerable redistribution of population.
Cities doubled in size, and entirely new towns sprang up to accom-
modate workers in shipbuilding and other plants. A Federal
Housing Corporation was organized which constructed towns at
short notice. Great numbers of Negroes migrated from their
homes in the South to industrial cities of the North in response
to the insistent demand for unskilled labor.
Although it is true that, in the main, the industries so magnified
had begun by 1920 to swing back toward prewar conditions, yet
when the census was taken the effect of this tremendous readjust-
ment was still visible.
Certain industries in early stages of development in 19 10 grew
abnormally during the decade. Doubtless they would have
grown to large production had the period been entirely peaceful,
but the war added artificial stimulus. The number of telephones
in tlie country more than doubled. The motion- picture industry
grew to surprising importance. The production of automobiles
jumped over 1,200 per cent in 10 years. To the motor industry
almost exclusively can be attributed the achievement of the city
of Detroit in more than doubling its population, reaching prac-
tically a million inhabitants, and the great increase during the
decade in the number of persons gainfully employed in the entire
state of Michigan.
107°— 22 2
18 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Although the automobile, by reducing the isolation of rural
life, made the farm more attractive, there is no clear evidence
that it retarded the movement from country to city. It is
equally significant that the motor truck and farm tractor reduced
the amount of labor and time necessar}'^ for the cultivation of
farms and thereby made it possible for the number of persons
engaged in agriculture to be reduced without material change in
crop production.
Agriculture during this period, however, was subject to many
forces other than the introduction of the automobile and tractor.
The development and application of scientific methods, the exten-
sion of Government projects of irrigation and homesteading, the
creation of the Federal Farm Loan System, and the technical
developments of the period, all made greater crop production a
possibility. But far beyond these in its influence was the abnor-
mal demand for agricultural products, due to the eUmination by
the war of certain European agricultural areas as sources of
supply. The "war garden" movement in the cities was sympto-
matic of the movement for greater production which appeared
everywhere in the United States.
Powerful forces were at work during the decade for the develop-
ment of cities. The war called insistently for a greater variety and
larger volume of products. This greater volume of output could
be obtained either by more rapid work and longer working days by
those already employed or by an increase in the number employed.
Industrial establishments were located principally in cities, and so
cities everywhere offered work to all at high wages and under
improved working conditions. An increased number of workers,
in turn, required more people to ser\'e them.
Changes in population during the decade, however, were by no
means confined to those arising from agriculture and other lines of
industry; immigration and emigration, as well as internal migra-
tion, were important factors. These also were greatly influenced
by the war or were the direct result of it. Immigrants entering
the country during the first five years of the decade averaged about
900,000 per aimum; during the last five years, 1915-1919, they
averaged only a quarter of a million per annum, less than one-
third as many. This sudden check in the number of immigrants
affected definitely the population increase for the decade ; in fact,
it was one of the largest factors limiting population growth.
AN HISTORIC DECADE. 19
Emigration in the decade from 1910 to 1920 had a considerable
effect on population. At the call of their native countries, large
numbers of the foreign bom left the United States. These men
were principal!)^ residents of eastern cities. The influence of this
factor is clearly seen in the reduced percentages of increase for
most cities in spite of the great influx of the rural element.
Over 4,000,000 men, most of whom were withdrawn from agri-
cultiu-e and other industries, entered the military and naval
services in 191 7 and 191 8. These men were taken for a consider-
able period from their homes and plunged into an entirely new
enwonment. Out of an approximate total of 4,000,000 men
under arms, more than 2,000,000 were transported to Europe.
A large number never returned. The extent to which this phase
of the war reduced the birth rate and caused permanent change
of residence is not yet fully apparent.
The increased demand for labor, arising from the expansion of
industr}', while at the same time the available supply of labor was
reduced, afforded opportunity for many women to become wage
earners under exceptionally favorable conditions. Old prejudices
against women's capacity as industrial workers abated. The
importance of this change is not yet evident, but such increasing
activity on the part of women in industr}' must effect definite
results in family life, and thereby influence future population
changes.
To those who l^elieve that conditions of living and working are
factors affecting population growth, the decade offered a number
of interesting developments, namely: The Federal child -labor
law; the general decrease in the length of the working day; the
movement toward safety and accident prevention; the develop-
ment of community and welfare work; the attempts to meet the
housing problem in systematic fashion; and finally a period of
unusually general employment, high wages, and business activity.
Until 1900 the flow of population was mainly westward. From
that census it appeared that the current had slackened, and
changes of population became more dependent upon isolated
developments in different sections of the countn,-, such as irriga-
tion, the settlement of Oklahoma, orcharding in the far North-
west, and the mining and oil discoveries of the vSouthwest, The
Central states and the South grew in industrial importance. The
eddies and currents of population tended increasingl}'' to follow
changing industrial development. This naturally led to an ac-
20 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
celerated increase in urban population. It remained for the
decade rnider consideration to record an aggregate population in
the 68 cities of 100,000 inhabitants and over, so great that they
comprised more than one-quarter of the entire population of the
United States. This tendency has, as suggested, kept pace with
the industrial development — in fact, has been guided largely by
it. But the tendency of the American people to concentrate in
cities was stimulated b}' the war, and economically is probably
the most important development indicated by the Fourteenth
Census.
II.
GROWTH OF POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH CENSUS.
The population of the United States in 1920 was 27 times as
great as that returned at the First Census, 130 years before.
This record of remarkable increase has been discussed fully in
census reports and by many statisticians and others interested
in the growth of the Nation. Some reference, however, to past
rates of growth is essential in order to make possible an intelligent
consideration of the rate of increase between 19 10 and 1920.
Tabi,e I. — Population of thb United States, with Decennial
Increase: i 790-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
1790
1800
181O
1820
1830
1840
1850
i860
1870
1880
1890.
1900
I9IO
1920.
Population.
3,929,214
5.308.483
7,239,881
9,638,453
12,866,020
17,069,453
23,191,876
31.443.321
'39,818,449
50. 15s. 783
62,947,714
75.994.575
91,972,266
105, 710,620
Total decennial
increase.
1,379,269
1,931,398
2,398,572
3.227,567
4.203,433
6, 122,423
8,251,445
'8,375,128
' 10.337.334
12,791,931
13,046,861
15.977.691
13.738,354
Per cent of
increase.
35.1
36-4
33-1
23'S
32-7
35-9
35-6
26.6
26.0
25-5
20.7
21.0
14.9
' Estimated correction for error in census of 1870.
The first 70 years of census taking in the United States (1790 to
i860) disclosed a fairly uniform increase in population of about
one-third every 10 years. This uniformity created an impression
which became quite general, especially among those unfamiliar
with the factors limiting population change, that a one-third
increase per decade was a "natural" or normal rate of growth for
the United States, and could be confidently expected to continue.
Even so thoughtful a student of national affairs as President Lin-
coln fell into the error of regarding this long-continued and roughly
22 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
uniform increase as a safe proportion by means of which to project
the growth of the country's population well into the future.
This subject evidently deeply impressed Mr. Lincoln. In his
first annual message he said : ' ' There are already among us those
who, if the Union be preserv^ed, will live to see it contain
250,000,000." In his second annual message he predicted
187,000,000 inhabitants in the United States in 1920.^
The uniformly high rate of increase during the period 1790 to
i860 was the direct result of the expansion of a new nation by an
extremely virile and fertile race. At the First Census, 1 790, chil-
dren under the age of 16 averaged almost exactly three per white
family.- This surprisingly high proportion demonstrates without
need for further proof the unusual fertility of the so-called native
stock, which apparently continued with little diminution until the
end of this period. Prior to i860 the United States was practi-
cally in the pioneer stage; land was plentiful, agriculture was the
general occupation, life was simple. Economic conditions, ways
of living, and the natural inclinations of a plain people made the
family the most important institution of the time. The rearing
of large families was the normal and proper objective of life.
But the Civil War brought this early period to a close, and was
followed by an era of readjustment and a great industrial awaken-
ing. This was stimulated by new inventions and the wider
application of such earlier ones as the steam engine, by develop-
ment of technical methods, and by the rapid construction of
railroad systems. Coincidentally with the development of in-
dustry and the great accumulation of wealth, came many so-
cial changes. Old ideals tended to yield to new ones. Increas-
ing complexities of life and more alluring opportunities for personal
gratification appeared and multiplied while at the same time the
urgent need for large families steadily decreased. These and many
other factors contributed after i860 to bring about the continued
decline in the rate of population increase.
It was not until after the Civil War that there was a large inllux
' Richardson, Messages of the Presidents, VI, pp. 58, 138.
- The average number of children under 16 per family, for all classes of the jxjpu-
lation, in 1920 was a trlHe less than 1.5. (The corresponding average for white
families in 1920 has not been computed.) Census " families " differ somewhat from
natural families, in that the former include certain economic groups, such as boarders
or lodgers in hotels, boarding houses, and lodging houses, and inmates of institutions,
who are not related by blood.
GROWTH BEFORE FOURTEENTH CENSUS.
23
of immigrants whose racial antecedents differed from those of the
people who constituted the great bulk of the population at the
time of the First Census. The increased numbers of foreigners
who sought the United States seemingly should have tended to
raise the percentage of population increase; instead, the rate of
increase actually declined. As the industrial life of the Nation
developed and as living became more complicated, especially in
rapidly growing cities, still further declines in the per cent of
increase of the national population appeared from decade to
decade, with one exception. The Thirteenth Census showed a
Comparison of Rate of Increase in Total Population with Rate of Change
OF Immigration: 1850-1920.
\
LPOPULATIDM
1\
T
^
slight increase over the rate shown for the previous census. This
was the direct result of the great influx of immigrants from 1900
to 1 9 10 — a number in the aggregate so large as to raise the rate
of population increase shown in 19 10 and thus to be capable of
overcoming for the decade the general tendency toward a declining
rate of growth.
The narrative of population growth in the United States prior
to 1920 is hardly complete without reference to the effect of
territorial expansion. Although the total area of the United
States in 1790 was 867,980 square miles, the First Census, taken
24
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
in that year, covered only 417,170 square miles/ the remainder
being so sparsely populated that it was impracticable to canvass
it. In this area of a little more than 400,000 square miles —
scarcely equal to the combined areas of California and Texas —
which contained practically the entire population of the country in
1790, there were enumerated 45,379,381 persons in 1920, as com-
pared with a total of 60,331,239 in the remainder of the country,
consisting of 450,000 square miles belonging to the United States
in 1790 but not enumerated, together with over 2,100,000 square
miles added since 1790.
Table 2. — Growth of Population in Area Enumerated in 1790,
WITH Growth in Remainder of Continental United States:
1790T1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
POPULATION OF AREA ENUMERATED
IN 1790.
POPULATION OP REMAINDER
OP CONTINENT.^. UNITED STATES.'
Number.
Per cent of
increase.
Number.
Per cent of
increase.
1790
3,929,214
5.247.355
6,779.308
8,293,869
10,240,232
11,781,231
14,569,584
17.326,157
19,687,504
23.925.639
* 28, 188,321
33.553.630
39.930.335
45.379.381
1800
33-5
29.2
22.3
23-5
15-0
23-7
18.9
13-6
21. 5
17.8
19.0
19.0
136
61,128
460,573
1,344,584
22,625,788
* 5,288,222
8,622,292
14, 117, 164
18,870,867
26,230,144
34,759.393
42,440,945
52,041,931
60,331.239
181O
653-5
191. 9
95-3
101.4
63.0
63-7
33-7
39-0
32-5
1820
18^0
1840
1850
i860
1870
1880
1800
1000
lOIO
22.6
15-9
1020
1 Area belonging to the United States but not enumerated in 1790, together with area added since 1790.
' Including 5,318 persons stationed abroad, in the naval service of the United States.
* Including 6,100 persons stationed abroad, in the naval service of the United States.
* The population of Indian reservations, first enumerated in 1890, is here included with that of the areas
in which located.
Inspection of Table 2 shows that the percentages of increase of
population in the area covered by the First Census and in the
remainder of the country, which percentages at earlier periods
bore no resemblance to each other, tended toward similarity as
the added area was developed and populated, and that at the
census of 1920 they differed less than at any previous census. The
increase during the last decade in the original area was slightly
less than the increase for the entire country, while that for the
added area was slightly larger.
' This area now comprises Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, Nortli Carolina, South Carolina, Ken-
tucky, Tennessee, and part of Georgia.
GROWTH BEFORE FOURTEENTH CENSUS.
25
The record of population change during the 1 30 years of American
census taking indicates remarkably steady growth for the first 70
vears, followed by a lower but equally steady rate of increase for
30 years (from i860 to 1890), a still lower rate during the next
two decades, and a sharp decline in the rate from 1910 to 1920.
Indeed, were the decrease in the rate of increase shown in 1920
as compared with 19 10 to be repeated in 1930, the increase at the
Fifteenth Census would be but 8.8 per cent; and if it continued to
sink as sharply after that year, increase would cease and decrease
begin before 1950. This serves to illustrate the marked change
which occurred in the percentage of increase from 19 10 to 1920 in
comparison with those of earlier decades. If, however, due
allowance were made for the effect of immigration, the decline in
the rate for 19 10 to 1920 as compared with the rates for preceding
decades would be less pronounced, as will be seen from Table 39
(p. 152), which shows for each decade the rate of naturalincrease
due to excess of births over deaths, except to the extent to which
■ the widening of the area of enumeration at certain censuses was a
factor.
Growth of Population in Area Enumerated in 1790, with Growth in
Remainder of Country: 1790-1920.
26
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
It is reasonable, therefore, to expect that future censuses will
continue to show moderate rates of increase characteristic of
rather fully settled countries.*
' The rates of increase in population for England, Belgium, France, Italy, and Ger-
many for the latest normal lo-year periods for which figures are available were as
follows :
England . .
Belgium . .
France . . .
Italy
Germany .
Period.
1901-1911
1900-1910
1901-1911
1901-1911
1900-1910
Per cent
of
increase.
10. s
10. 9
1.6
«6.6
IS»
I Adjusted to apply to exact lo-year period. Rate for lo years, 4 months, 6.8 per cent.
III.
INCREASE OF POPULATION IN NATION AND STATES.
From 1 910 to 1920 the number of inhabitants of the United
States increased 13,738,354. Great as this increment was, that
which occurred from 1900 to 1910 exceeded it, being the largest
decennial increase so far attained, nearly 16,000,000. Fourteen
millions, however, the increase in round numbers from 1910 to
1920, exceeded all previous increases except that shown in 1910,
and suggests the immense proportions to which the population of
the United States has attained. So great, indeed, is it that the
net additions to the Nation over deaths and departures for the last
lo-year period averaged nearly 4,000 persons per day.
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL INCREASE.
The mere increase from 1910 to 1920 was greater than the
entire population of the Republic in 1830; it was equal to more
than twice the total population of New England in 19 10; it almost
equaled the aggregate population of 21 of the 48 states in 1920.
And yet, although the figure denotes a population growth of such
dimensions, its significance lies not in the fact that it was so
large but rather in the fact that it represented the smallest per-
centage of increase ever reported by a Federal census. From
1900 to 1 910 the rate of increase was 21 per cent; from 1910 to
1920 but 14.9 per cent; and this low record compares sharply with
the previous low rate, 20.7 per cent, shown for the decade 1890
to 1900.
The extremely low rate of population increase for the last
decade was a continuation of the tendency previously pointed
out as having become marked since 1870 but which had never
before been so pronounced.
The decline in immigration was, of course, one of the chief
causes which lowered the rate of increase. Had the average an-
nual immigration and emigration throughout the entire decade
been the same as for the five-year period ended June 30, 1915,*
^ That is, the period of five fiscal years which most closely approximated the first
half of the period between the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Census dates.
27
28 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 191Q-1920.
the population enumerated in 1920 would have been nearly
108,000,000 instead of 105,710,620, and the rate of increase would
have been a little more than 17 per cent instead of 14.9 per cent.
Thus the decline in immigration during the period from the out-
break of the war to the taking of the Fourteenth Census was an
influential factor in the lowering of the percentage of increase;
but even had immigration continued at a record rate throughout
the decade, the percentage of the national population increase
still would have been lower than that shown by any previous
census of the United States.
Another method by which to examine the influence of immigra-
tion upon increase of population is to eliminate fluctuation by
taking some such decade as 1890 to 1900 as a standard and by
calculating the rates of increase for succeeding decades on the
basis of a net immigration which would contribute the same propor-
tion of population increase that it actually did contribute between
1 890 and 1 900. Thus adjusted, the combined rate of increase would
have been 20. 7 per cent for 1 890 to 1 900, 1 8 per cent for 1 900 to 1 9 1 o,
and 15 per cent for 1 910 to 1920; and of the increase during each
decade a trifle less than three-fourths would have been due to
excess of births over deaths among the population enumerated at
the beginning of the decade, and slightly more than one-fourth to
excess of immigration over emigration plus excess of births over
deaths in the families of the immigrants after arrival in this
country. That is to say, during 1890 to 1900 the natural increase
in the population would have been 15.2 per cent and the increase
due to immigration would have been 5.5 per cent; between 1900
and 1 910 the two sources of increase would have yielded 13.2 per
cent and 4.8 per cent, respectively; and between 1910 and 1920,
1 1 per cent and 4 per cent, respectively.
Both these computations go to show that were immigration
either less fluctuating or were it even increased to the
highest rate yet known, still the percentage of national
increase would tend downward. Hence the percentage of
increase for the last decade (14.9) takes on much significance,
since it indicates a definite slowing down in the rate of national
population increase. The results of immigration restriction if
continued throughout the next decade, coupled with a continua-
tion of the tendency already recognized toward lessened increase
of the American people, suggest that the Fifteenth Census will
show a rate of increase probably even lower than that brought
out by the Fourteenth Census.
INCREASE IN NATION AND STATES.
29
Table 3. — Increase of Population, by Divisions and States;
1910-1920.
POPULATION.
DIVISION AND STATE.
United States.
Geographic divisions:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central .
West North Central.
South Atlantic
East South Central .
West South Central.
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
E.^t North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Colimibia.
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
We.st South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Orecon
California
Number.
105, 710,620
7, 400, 909
22, 261, 144
21,475.543
12,544,249
13,990,272
8,893.307
10, 342, 224
3,336,101
=;,s66,87i
Per
cent of
total.
Number.
91,972, 266
7.0
21. 1
20.3
11.9
13-2
8.4
9-7
3-^
S-3
6,552,681
19,315,892
18,250,621
11,637,921
12, 194,895
8,409,901
8, 784, 534
2,633,517
4,192,304
768,014
0.7
742,371
443,083
0.4
430,572
352,428
0-3
355,956
3,852,356
3-6
3,366,416
604,397
0.6
542,610
1,380,631
1-3
1,114,756
0,385,227
9.8
9,113,614
3,155,900
3-0
2,537,167
8, 720,017
8.2
7,665, III
5,759,394
5-4
4,767,121
2,930,390
2.8
2, 700,876
6,485,280
6.1
5,638,591
3,668,412
3-5
2,810, 173
2,632,067
2-5
2,333,860
2,387,125
2-3
2,075,708
2,404,021
2-3
2,224,771
3,404,055
3-2
3,293,335
646,872
0.6
577,056
636,547
0.6
583,888
1,296,372
I. 2
1,192,214
1,769,257
1-7
1,690,949
223,003
0. 2
202,322
1,449,661
1.4
1,295,346
437,371
0.4
331,069
2,309,187
2. 2
2,061,612
1,463,701
1-4
I, 221, 119
2,559,123
2.4
2,206, 287
1,683,724
1.6
1,515,400
2,895,832
2.7
2,609, 121
968,470
0.9
752,619
2,416,630
2-3
2,289,905
2,337,885
2. 2
2, 184, 789
2,348, 174
2. 2
2,138,093
I, 790,618
1- 7
1,797,114
1,752,204
I- 7
1,574,449
1,798,509
1-7
1,656,388
2,028,283
1.9
1,657,155
4,663,228
4.4
3,896,542
548, 889
o- 5
376,053
431,866
0.4
325,594
194, 402
0. 2
145,965
939,629
0.9
799,024
360,350
0.3
327,301
334,162
03
204,354
449, 396
0.4
373,351
77,407
0. I
81,875
1,356,621
1-3
1,141,990
783,389
0.8
672.76s
3,426,861
3-2
2,377.549
Per
cent of
total.
19-8
12.7
13-3
9.1
9.6
2.9
4.6 j
0.8
o-S
0.4
3-7
0.6
9.9
2.8
8-3
2-3
2.4
3-6
0.6
0.6
2.4
1.6
2.8
0.8
2.4
2-3
2.0
O. 2
0.9
0.4
0.7
a. 6
increase.'
1910 to 1920.
Number.
13,738,354
848,228
2,945,252
3,224,922
906,328
1,795,377
483,406
1,457,690
702, 584
1.374,567
25,643
12,511
-3,528
485,940
61,787
265,87s
1,271,613
618,733
1,054,906
992, 273
229,514
846,689
858,239
298, 207
311,417
179,250
no, 720
69,816
52,659
104, 158
78, 308
20,68i
154.315
106,502
247,575
242, 582
352,836
168,324
286, 711
215,851
126,725
153,096
210,081
—6,496
l77f75S
142, 121
371,128
766,686
172,836
106, 272
48,437
140, 605
33,049
129,808
76,041;
—4, 468
214,631
110,624
1,049.31-
Per
cent.
12.9
IS- 2
17-7
7.8
14.7
5-7
16.6
26. 7
32.8
3-S
2.9
— I.O
14.4
II. 4
23-9
14.0
24.4
13-8
20.8
8.5
iS-o
30.5
12.8
150
8.1
3-4
12. 1
9.0
8.7
4.6
9.8
—0.4
"■3
8.6
22.4
19.7
46.0
32.6
33-2
17.6
10. I
63- 5
20.4
-5- 5
18.8
16. 4
Per
cent of
in-
crease,'
1900 to
1910.
17. a
23.0
14-2
12. S
16.8
II. 4
34-5
57-3
73-5
6.9
4.6
3-6
20.0
26.6
22. 7
25.4
34-7
21.6
14.7
7-3
16.9
16. I
11.8
18. s
—0.3
6.0
80.8
45-4
II. 8
iS-o
10. 2
9-S
II.9
32-2
9.0
18.8
12.
ri.2
19.9
16.0
27.4
16.5
n. I
13.1
II.
28.7
i 17-7
1 42-4
6.6
8.1
16.9
IS- 8
20.0
19.9
109.7
27-8
54- S
101.3
57- 7
48.0
67-6
66.2
34-9
93-4
120-4
62.7
60. I
' A minus sign ( — ) denotes decrease.
30
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
INCREASE BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS.
Upon advancing the analysis of population increase from the
Nation as a whole to geographic divisions, it appears from Table
3 that from 1910 to 1920 the general migration of population
westward decidedly slackened and that population changes dur-
ing the decade were irregular, showing less evidence of a well-
defined geographic tendency than was shown in the previous dec-
ade. In general, they were dependent on industrial development.
Rate of Population Increase in the United States, by Divisions:
1900-1920.
PER CENT
40
UNITED STATES
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS
PACIFIC HPH
MOUNTAIN
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
SOUTH ATLANTIC
NEW ENGLAND
WEST NORTH CENTRAL
CAST SOUTH CENTRAL
1910 TO 1020
EZ2Z^SI800 TO 1910
The Mountain and Pacific divisions continued to show higher
percentages of increase than did other sections of the country,
but for the decade 1910 to 1920 these rates were sharply reduced
as compared with the preceding decade. WTiereas at the previous
census 10 of the 11 states in these two divisions showed rates
of increase more than twice the average for the entire country,
at the recent census only 5 of the 1 1 could be so classified.
The division of most significance is the East North Central,
consisting of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
This division alone, of the nine into which the country is divided,
showed a rate of increase from 1910 to 1920 higher than for the
previous decade. It is much more than a coincidence that within
this same area occurred the notable industrial expansion of the
period. In contrast with the rapid growth in the East North
Central group was the very low rate of increase reported by the
East South Central division. A considerable northward migra-
tion of Negroes from the South during the war naturally increased
the rate shown in the one region at the expense of the other.
INCREASE IN NATION AND STATES.
31
RATE OF INCREASE BY STATES.
Of the 48 states which compose the Union, 45 reported increases
of population from 1910 to 1920.
The percentage of increase in 20 states exceeded that for the
United States. Eight of these lay east of the Mississippi and 12
west of it. Twelve states, or one-quarter of all, reported increases
exceeding 20 per cent. They were :
Arizona 63. 5
Montana 46. o
California 44-1
Wyoming 33. 2
Idaho 32. 6
Michigan 30. 5
Florida 28. 7
New Jersey 24. 4
Connecticut 23. 9
Oklahoma 22. 4
Ohio 20. 8
Utah 20. 4
At the other extreme, the 12 states which either showed the
lowest percentages of increase, or actually decreased, were:
Increase.
Louisiana 8. 6
Indiana 8. 5
Iowa 8. 1
Tennessee 7. o
Kentucky 5. 5
Kansas 4. 6
Maine 3. 5
Missouri 3. 4
New Hampshire. ... 2. 9
Decrease.
Mississippi o. 4
Vermont i. o
Nevada 5. 5
With two exceptions, Indiana and Iowa, the 12 states recording
the lowest percentages of increase, or decrease, show declines, in
most cases considerable, in rate of growth during the past decade.
Taken as a group, the 12 states registered an increase of approxi-
mately 1,000,000 in 1920, as against 1,500,000 in 1910. With
the exception of the three northern New England states, long
nearly stationary in population, and Nevada, traditionally
dependent on mining as the result of the recurring discoveries
of precious metals, the states showing loss or extremely low per-
centages of increase form an irregular group in the central and
southern parts of the United States. In all the states in this
group the rural areas tended to decrease in population, and no
doubt contributed, from communities and industries not stimu-
lated by war conditions, to those, especially in the great central
industrial states near by, which urgently called for both skilled
and unskilled labor. In Louisiana, for example, much of the
shrinkage from the 19.9 per cent of increase from 1900 to 19 10
to the 8.6 per cent shown in 1920 was due to the conversion of a
Negro increase of 63,000 in the earlier decade into a loss of over
13,000 in the later period. This, like similar losses in Negro
population reported by other Southern states, and elsewhere
more fully discussed, resulted directly from the exceptional con-
ditions appearing in the decade from 19 10 to 1920.
D
o
<
O
H
- r- „ o a T3
So 2^ 8 8 « ^
i a s s s ^ -5
h w O O O ^ >►
^ wi -t-t w ■*-- C >■
O ,42 S g S
DliPS
32
1
i
/ *
/
i
i
}
i
d '
I /
i
— 1 — '
/
^ o
1
i
i
^'^
y
-l i.
^ ^ \t,
M CI W
107°— 22-
33
34 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The five states which show the highest percentages of increase
from 1910 to 1920 were all in the West. With the exception of
California each of these states had a small population, so that its
rate was sharply affected by a numerical increase small in com-
parison with the increases shown by many of the larger states.
The general causes for these high rates of growth in the five states
specified were evident. Irrigation, for example, added to the
farms of Arizona over 147,000 acres of fertile soil, or approximately
46 per cent.
This figure is of especial significance because of the fact that
nearly 66 per cent of the improved farm land in Arizona is subject
to irrigation. Still greater irrigation projects were undertaken
during the decade in other states, and exerted a decided influ-
ence upon population increase. California, with 1,555,000 acres
added during the decade to its improved farm land by new irriga-
tion enterprises, and Idaho, with 1,058,000 acres, showed the
greatest developments along these lines. Nevada, the one western
state in which an actual decrease in population took place, and in
which 94.4 per cent of all improved farm land is irrigated, showed
a decrease in irrigated acreage of 140,000, or 20 per cent. During
the decade over 35,000,000 acres in Montana and more than
18,000,000 in California were taken up on original homesteading
grants.
These agricultural developments may also be raeasiu-ed in
other terms. The increase in the number of farms in the entire
country was 1.4 per cent. In comparison with this figure the
number of farms in Montana increased by 1 20 per cent, wliile in
Wyoming the increase was 43.3 per cent, in Idaho 36.7 per cent,
and in CaHfornia 33.4 per cent. The increase in mere number of
farms, however, is not always significant. The number of farms
in Arizona, for example, increased 8.1 per cent, but the number
of acres in the farms increased 365.4 per cent. The agricultural
resources of the West continue to be developed, but depend less
and less upon mere cultivation and more upon scientific assistance
such as irrigation.
There was considerable growth in the western cities, Los Angeles
being the striking example, with an increase of over a quarter of
a million persons during the decade. This increase was drawn
largely from distant states, and doubtless entailed no unwonted
drain upon rural California.
INCREASE IN NATION AND STATES. 35
While the first five states in order of rate of increase from 1910
to 1920 are in the Far West, the next four are all east of the
Mississippi River, being, in order, Michigan, Florida, New Jersey,
and Connecticut. The expansion of population in these states
was in all cases well above that of the country as a whole. The
growth of Michigan resulted in the main from the automobile
industry. Florida developed its possibilities as an agricultural
state, although a considerable part of its growth appeared in
Jacksonville, Tampa, and Pensacola. Moreover, Florida un-
doubtedly benefited by the change in the date of enumeration
from April 15 in 19 10 to January i in 1920. The states of New
Jersey and Connecticut both declined somewhat in agriculture,
but expanded in population because of the war demands for
munitions, ships, and manufactured products.
NUMERICAL INCREASE.
In analysis of population changes it is customary to utilize the
percentage as the conclusive measure of increase or decrease.
Such measurement, however, reflects merely what has happened
in relation to a given base. If that is small, population increase
may bulk large in percentage and very small in actual numbers.
Thus in 1920 some of the largest percentages related to numerical
increases scarcely noticeable in the national increase. Hence
mere percentage measurement may prove extremely misleading.
Is the percentage of state increase a just measurement of popu-
lation change within the Union? After all, it has come about
that in the broadest sense states are but geographic districts of a
great and united Nation. Are not those who study the returns of
the Federal censuses as throwing light upon national development
more concerned with actual numerical increase or decrease, and
especially the distribution of the 14,000,000 additional inhabitants
recorded in 1920, than with mere percentage fluctuations ?
If this be granted, it will be profitable to consider in some
detail numerical increase. Some states may be conspicuous in
both classifications, but it is to be expected that great centers of
population, however low their percentages of increase, will con-
tribute the greater part of the total increase shown by the Nation.
36
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The 12 states which made the largest numerical contributions
toward the increase of nearly 14,000,000 reported in 1920 were as
follows, in the order of numbers contributed:
Total 8, 979, 772
New York 1,271, 613
Pennsylvania i, 054, 906
California i, 049, 312
Ohio 992, 273
Michigan 858, 239
Illinois
Texas
New Jersey. . . .
Massachusetts. .
Oklahoma
North Carolina.
Minnesota
846, 689
766, 686
618, 733
485, 940
371.128
352, 836
3". 417
These states, therefore, supplied about 9,000,000 of the entire
increase occurring from 19 10 to 1920. Thus one-quarter of the
states contributed about two-thirds of the total population
growth. These obviously were the main sources or channels of
national increase.
IV.
STATES WHICH INCREASED BUT SLIGHTLY, OR
DECREASED, IN POPULATION.
In the preceding analysis 1 2 states have been specified as the most
liberal numerical contributors toward the national increase in 1920.
The 12 states at the other extreme must, of course, include the
three which reported actual decrease in population during the
decade. The list which follows is thus grouped in two parts:
states showing low numerical increase, and states showing decrease.
Increase. ' Decrease.
Utah 76,045
North Dakota .... 69, 816
Delaware 20, 681 j Mississippi 6.
New Hampshire. . 12, 511 |
Rhode Island 61, 787
South Dakota. ... 52, 659
Wyoming 48,537
New Mexico 33, 049 1 Vermont 3, 528
Maine 25, 643 Nevada 4, 468
Of those states in the group which showed increase, the highest,
Utah, contributed but 76,000; and the lowest, New Hampshire,
less than 13,000. The entire group of 12 states made a net con-
tribution of less than 400,000 persons to the increase of 14,000,000
added to the national population from 19 10 to 1920. It is thus
of much interest to observe at one extreme a group of 12 states
which together contributed nearly two- thirds of all the national
increase and at the other extreme a group of states equal in number
which together contributed but one thirty-sixth of the total in-
crease during the decade. Had the latter 12 states returned an
aggregate increase at the percentage shown by the Nation as a
whole from 19 10 to 1920, their numerical increase, instead of
being less than 400,000, would have approached 1,000,000.
. Attention is invited to the changes during the decade in the
three states showing the smallest increase, and in the three which
decreased.
STATES SHOWING SMAI.I. INCREASES.
Maine.
Since i860 the highest rate of increase in Maine, 6.9 per cent,
was that for the decade 1900 to 1910.
37
38
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
There are i6 counties in the state. Of these, 5 decreased in
population from 1910 to 1920. They are located along the coast
from Lincoln County, which borders on the Kennebec River, to
the Canadian border. The decline in this coast region is but the
continuation of a tendency which has been manifesting itself for
a considerable period. Two of these counties, Lincoln and Waldo,
have decreased at each census since 1850; Hancock and Knox
have decreased during each decade since 1880; and Washington
has decreased at both of the last two censuses. In i860 these five
counties had an aggregate population of 179,314, as compared with
135,619 in 1920. At the latter census they contained but 5 cities
and 3 towns with more than 2,500 inhabitants, the largest being
Rockland , 8 , 1 09 . This is the oldest settled area in the state and has
long been a shipping and fishing center. The other counties have,
in the main, shown consistent increase in population, except
Sagadahoc, which decreased 8.6 per cent during the decade from
1900 to 1 9 10, This is the next county southwest of the group
which has so steadily decreased.
Table 4.
-Increase or Decrease of Population in Maine:
1790-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE ( — )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE ( — )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Percent.
1800
55. 179
76, 986
69, 630
lor, 120
102, 338
81,376
45, no
57-2
50-7
30-4
33-9
25.6
16. 2
7-7
1870
— 1.364
22, 02r
12, 150
33. 380
47. 905
25. 643
— 0. 2
181O
i88o
3-5
1.9
50
6.9
3-5
1820
1800
18^0
1900
184.0
I9IO
i8so
TQ20
i860
Aroostook alone, of all the counties, showed an increase in im-
proved farm land, whereas the state as a whole showed a loss in this
respect of 383,328 acres, or 16.2 per cent. The growth in this
county is a continuance of the expansion due to the discovery
that its soil was particularly favorable to the raising of potatoes.
This one county alone produced 2 1 ,33 1 ,934 bushels of potatoes in
19 1 9, at a yield of 252 bushels per acre, and was the leading
county in the United States in potato production.
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE. 39
In 1900, 33.5 per cent of the inhabitants of the state were urban;
in 1910, 35.3 per cent; and in 1920, 39 per cent. Although the
rural population in the entire state decreased by nearly 12,000, in
five counties it showed increases— Aroostook, Franklin, Penobscot,
Piscataquis, and York.
Maine — Increase or Decrease in PoPLn,ATioN op Counties:
1900-1920.
I I Increase both 1910 and 1920
Decrease 1910; increase 1920
Decrease 1920; increase 1910
BSB Decrease both 1910 and 1920
Movement toward large towns and cities was as evident in
Maine as elsewhere in the Nation. Most of the cities in the
state showed gains during the decade, Portland leading with an
increase of over 10,000. Bath, with 56. S, had the highest per-
centage of increase. This is probably due to war-time expansion,
because of the fact that the only steel shipbuilding industry in
the state is located there. The six principal cities of the state
together contributed more than the entire increase in population
reported by the state in 1920.
Maine — Towns Showing Decrease: 1910-1920.
f-^r-i-^'
I'^cj^io - "^
IS;
^i.:^^;p"
Shaded areas show decrease.
No population reported.
iS^
^^v
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE.
41
Decreases in rural population are found to be so general that
the smallness of the aggregate increase in the state as a whole is
readily accounted for. The following table presents, by counties,
the number of cities and organized towns in the state, dis-
tributed as increasing or decreasing:
Tabi,e 5. — Number of Cities, Towns, and Other Civil Divisions
IN Maine Showing Increase or Decrease in Population, by
Counties: 1920.
Total .
Androscoggin
Aroostook . . .
Cumberland .
Franklin
Hancock
Kennebec. . .
Knox
Lincoln
Oxford
Penobscot. . .
Piscataquis. .
Sagadahoc . . .
Somerset ....
Waldo
Washington .
York
Total number
of cities, towns,
etc.'
14
no
26
40
43
30
20
89
75
67
26
62
28
Number
increasing in
population.
Number
decreasing in
population.
438
3
70
9
7
3
4
16
33
34
5
25
5
19
ID
40
16
34
23
17
IS
35
56
41
6
41
21
43
17
' Includes all townships, gores, plantations, islands, grants, tracts, and surpluses reporting any popula-
tion in either 1920 or 1910.
^ Includes three civil divisions with no change in population.
' Includes one civil division with no change in population.
From this table it appears that of the 712 cities, towns, and other
civil divisions, 438, or nearly two-thirds, decreased in population.
In 15 of the 16 counties a majority of the towns reported decreases,
and in Hancock County four-fifths of the towns decreased.
Delaware.
Of the three states reporting very low numerical increases,
Delaware alone contributed about the same increment as in
previous censuses, and actually slightly increased it over that
returned in 19 10. In one respect, however, the population record
of Delaware in 1920 was exceptional.
42
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Tabi,b 6. — ^Increase of Popui^ation in DeIvAware: i 790-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE SINCE PRECEDING
CENSUS.
CE.NSUS YEAR.
INCREASE SINCE PRECEDING
CENSUS.
Number.
Per cent.
Number. Per cent.
1800
5.177
8, 401
75
3,999
1,337
13-447
20, 684
8.8
13- I
0. I
5-5
1-7
17.2
22. 6
1870
12,799
21,593
21,885
16, 242
17, 587
20, 681
II. 4
17-3
14.9
9.6
9-5
181O
1880
1820
1890
1870
1900
I9IO
1840
i8?o
1920
i860
Delaware — ^In'Cre.\se or Decrease in Population op Counties:
1900-1920.
1 1 Increase both 1910 and 1920
Decrease 1920; increase 1910
Decrease both 1910 and 1920
The state, having small geographic area, consists of but three
counties, Kent, New Castle, and Sussex. The first and last are
essentially rural, differing sharply from New Castle, which includes
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE.
43
the city of Wilmington and which contains almost exactly two-
thirds of the population of the state. Very nearly one-half of the
state's inhabitants were enumerated in Wilmington alone. Since
i860 Kent County has three times shown a decrease: in 1890,
1 9 10, and 1920. During the same period Sussex has reported
but one decrease, in 1920. While this small state has grown
slowly but with singular uniformity for 30 years, and actually
increased fractionally its percentage of increase from 1910 to
1920 as compared with those for the last two preceding decades,
nevertheless this increase for the first time came exclusively from
New Castle County, and in reality almost entirely from the city
of Wilmington; while the remainder of the state, comprising Kent
and Sussex Counties, recorded a decrease of population amounting
to more than 4,000. Thus the increase in Wilmington offset the
loss elsewhere and contributed practically the entire increase shown
by the state. At no previous census has the rural area of Delaware
shown a net decline in population.
New Hampshire.
New Hampshire was among the first of the American colonies
to become generally settled. Although during the 130 years of
census -taking its population more than trebled, this growth, in
comparison with the expansion of the entire United States to
practically 27 times its 1790 population, was extremely deliberate.
Table 7. — Increase or Decrease of Population in New Hampshire:
1790-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE ( — )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE ( — )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.
1800
41, 973
30, 602
29, 701
25, 167
IS. 246
2,?,, 402
8,097
29. 6
16.6
13-8
IO-3
5- 7
II. 7
2- 5
1870
1880
1890
1900
IQIO
-7.773 -2.4
28, 691 9.
20, KXQ 8. C
181O
1820
iS^io
35. 058
18, 984
12,511
9-3
4.6
2.9
1840
i8t;o
1920
i860
There are 10 counties in the state, of which 5 increased and 5
decreased during the decade. The 5 decreasing counties con-
stitute the central area of the state, and include the lake and
mountain region. The greatest increase was shown by Coos
County in the extreme north, and a fairly consistent increase
was shown also by the counties in the south. That these tend-
44
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
encies are not entirely the result of temporary causes is sug-
gested by the past records of the two counties showing the great-
est increase and the greatest decrease during the decade 19 lo
to 1920; namely, Coos County, with an increase of 17.4 per cent,
and Carroll County, which decreased 8 per cent. The popula-
tion of these two counties since 1880 has been as follows:
COUNTY.'
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
Coos
18, 580
18, 224
23,211
18, 124
29, 468
16, 895
30. 753
16,316
36,093
15.017
Carroll
These opposite tendencies are especially interesting, since the
two counties border on each other.
New Hampshire — Increase or Decrease in Population op Counties:
1900-1920.
i J Increase both 1910 and 1920
Decrease 1910; increase 1920
Decrease 1920; increase 1910
fZ^ Decrease both 1910 and 1920
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE. 45
Of the remaining counties in the state, the only ones that
showed any considerable change during the last decade were Hills-
borough and Sullivan, which reported increases of 7.5 per cent
and 8.2 per cent, respectively. Hillsborough includes the largest
two cities in the state, Manchester and Nashua, and their develop-
ment and expansion as manufacturing centers have resulted in
large numerical increases within the county. In 1920 it con-
tained more than three-tenths of the entire population of the
state. On the other hand, Sullivan, with no cities and with only
one town having more than 5,000 inhabitants, increased at a
slightly greater rate than Hillsborough. Moreover, Sullivan's
rate of increase advanced from 4.1 for the decade 1890 to 1900 to
7.4 for 1900 to 1910 and 8.2 for 1910 to 1920, whereas for Hills-
borough the rate declined during the same three decades from
20.8 per cent to 11.9 per cent and 7.5 per cent.
The most interesting feature of population change in New
Hampshire, however, has been not the county developments but
rather those within the minor civil divisions, that is, in the cities
and towns. In this respect the experience of New Hampshire is
not exceptional but rather indicates a tendency present in many
states.
TaBI^E 8. — ^TOWNS AND CiTlES IN NEW HAMPSmRE CLASSIFIED BY SiZE,
1920, AND BY Increase or Decrease, 19 10-1920, by Counties.
New Hampshire .
Belknap.
Carroll . .
Cheshire .
Coos ' . . .
Grafton .
Hillsborough .
Merrimack . .
Rockingham .
Strafford
Sullivan
Per
cent of
increase
or de-
crease;
19 10 to
1920.
2.9
-0.6
-8.0
I. o
17.4
-2.6
7-5
-2.9
0.6
— I. o
To-
tal.
179
NUMBER OF TOWNS AND CITIES GROUPED BY SIZE.
Decreasing.
Un-
der
Soo
71
500
to
1,000
66
1,000
to
2,500
32
2,500
to
5.000
Over
5,000
Total.
72
4
3
4
19
II
9
5
II
Increasing.
Un-
der
500
500 1,000
to to
1,000 2,500
25
to
5,000
Over
5,ooo
. . . I
2 I
I I
' Eleven minor civil divisions in Coos County returned no inhabitants in both 1910 and 1920.
From the table above it is possible to analyze the minor civil
divisions, in terms of size groupings, with regard to increase or
decrease of population. It is significant that in general the smaller
46 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
towns show decreases and the larger towns increases sufficient to
result in a small net increase for the state as a whole. Of the 167
subdivisions having fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, 137, or approx-
imately 82 per cent, showed actual losses in population. If
Coos County be eliminated from consideration, in the rest of the
state, which includes all but the extreme northerly section, out of
137 such towns there were only 15 which increased. If a group
be formed of towns having from 1,000 to 5,000 inhabitants, here
again the number decreasing predominated, though by no means
so decidedly. Of the 70 in this group, 40, or 57 per cent, decreased.
The group of towns and cities reporting over 5,000 inhabitants,
however, showed just as definite a trend toward increase as the
smaller towns showed toward decrease, 12 of the 14 such com-
munities reporting actual increases in population. The two de-
creases occurred in Strafford County, but the single increase in
this group in the same county was more than three times as
great as the sum of the two decreases.
The only county in which the number of towns increasing
exceeded the number decreasing was Coos. All the other counties
showed an excess of towns decreasing. Some, such as Cheshire,
showed increases in population, even though most of their minor
civil divisions registered decreases during the decade.
In 1900, 55 per cent of the population of New Hampshire was
urban; in 1910, 59.2 per cent; and in 1920, 63.1 per cent. The
rural districts probably distribute their losses to all parts of the
country as well as to the local urban centers, while the urban
centers gain not only this addition but nearly all newcomers to
the state, both native and alien.
The significance of this change is emphasized by the census of
agriculture, which showed that in 1910 there were 27,053 farms
in New Hampshire, and in 1920 only 20,523. This is a decrease
in number of approximately one-fourth. It was not the result
of consolidation, for the number of acres of land in farms decreased
by almost two-thirds of a million, and the improved land in
farms decreased from 929,185 to 702,902 acres, or by 24.4 per
cent. This is not a new tendency. The number of acres of
improved farm land in the state has decreased during every
decade since i860, and is now less than one- third of the figure
for that year.
With the increasing trend toward the large town and city, the
problem of states such as New Hampshire and Vermont appears
to lie in maintaining the small town in a condition of reasonable
prosperity.
New Hampshire — Towns Showing Decrease: 19 10-1920.
W:<:'^ ■ - ":-^fmmi^/ ^ vA
/:'->s
g
y
pf
4
\/
ST^AJTOROS
J
/
p '"
N G H > »y
Shaded areas show decrease.
♦ No population reported.
•/"
47
48
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
STATES SHOWING DECREASES.
During the first 70 years of American census-taking, every
state reported an increase of population at each successive census.
Since i860 there have been 8 decreases reported (disregarding
those due to detachments of territory), and 3 of these appeared
in 1920. The following statement shows the states in which
these decreases occurred :
I860-I870 I87&-I880
I 880-1 890
1890-1900 1900-1910
1910-19:0
Maine.
New Hampshire.
Nevada.
Nevada.
Iowa.
Vermont.
Nevada.
Mississippi.
Of the 8 decreases in state population, 3 were shown by Nevada,
though that state returned in 1920 nearly double the population
returned in 1900. The 3 states which reported decreases in 1920
were located at geographic extremes — South, West, and East.
The causes of their decline in population were in general dissimilar.
Vermont.
Of the three states which recorded decrease in population at the
Fourteenth Census, Vermont presents problems in some respects
the most serious. The population in 1910 was 355,956; in 1920,
352,428.
Tabi,e 9. — Increase or Decrease of Population in Vermont:
1 790-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE ( — )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE (— )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.
1800
69,040
63.430
18,086
44.671
11,296
22, 172
978
80.8
41. 1
8.3
18.9
4.0
7.6
0-3
1870
1880
15.453
1.735
136
11,219
12.315
-3.528
4-9
0-5
3-4
3-6
— 1.0
1810
1820
i8qo
18^0
IQOO
1840 . .
IQIO
i8<;o
1Q20
i860
< Less than one-tenth of i per cent.
In the case of Mississippi the decrease in total population from
1910 to 1920 resulted from the departure of large numbers of
Negroes under the lure of high wages in northern cities during a
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE. 49
period of unusual industrial pressure, but conditions in Mississippi
in the future are likely to revert to those existing in earlier periods.
In the case of Nevada, population was first attracted to the state
by the discovery of gold and silver; it promises to become increas-
ingly stable with the development of agriculture by irrigation.
Vermont — Increase or Decrease in Population op Counties:
1900-1920.
and 1920
increase 1920
increase 1910
1910 and 1920
Vermont population changes are due to different causes. It is
true that the great migration toward industrial centers arising
from war activities affected Vermont unfavorably. In the case of
nearly all the other states a considerable part of the movement
from country to city found its objective in the larger communities
within the same states. In Vermont, small in area, having few
cities and no large ones, lying at the door of the great industrial
centers, an unusually large proportion of those citizens who deter-
107°— 22 4
50 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
mined to seek larger communities went beyond the boundaries of
the state. But the changes thus described have been in progress
in Vermont for a long period. The population has increased little
in the last 50 years. Of the 14 counties in the state, those border-
ing on the Connecticut River, Windham, Windsor, Orange, Cale-
donia, and Essex, considered as a group, recorded an almost
continuous decrease for 70 years, their population in 1920 being
113,762, as compared with 122,923 in 1850. The group of lake
counties, Rutland, Addison, Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle,
showed a moderate but nearly continuous increase until 19 10,
but reported a decrease of 1,826 from 1910 to 1920; while the
midland counties, Washington, Lamoille, and Orleans, together
showed a decrease of about 3,000 from 1910 to 1920.
It is not in the county figures, however, that the far-reaching
change which has taken place in the rural population of Vermont
appears most strikingly. There are in the state 251 cities, towns,
and other di\'isions having some population in 1920 or 1910.^ Some
of them began to decrease as early as 1830. One-sixth, indeed, of
all the towns showed some decrease at that census, but this pos-
sessed little significance, since there was much shifting and adjust-
ment of population in settling wilderness areas. In 1 850 fewer than
100 towns showed decreases. This number had increased to 1 40 in
1880, but the movement to the West and to the cities culminated
for the nineteenth century in 1890, when 188 towns showed
decreases. This total of decreasing towns declined in 1900 and
1910, but showed a sharp increase again in 1920, when 188 towns,
or nearly three-fourths of the entire number, recorded decreases.
Had the population change in Vermont been along slow but con-
tinuous lines of increase, a large number of towns should have
shown their maximum population at the last census, but, as a
matter of fact, the maximum had been reached by 1 29 towns (or
more than one-half of all in the state) in or before 1850.^ Conse-
quently a minority of the to-wois have recorded maximum popula-
tion within the last 70 years.
Vermont is thus peculiarly the victim of the population trend
of the times. It withstood in the earlier periods of economic
change in New England the strong tendency toward industrial
development and has clung with a persistence which is noteworthy,
and, indeed, in our time Avorthy of more admiration than is
accorded it, to agricultural interests and farm life. But the tenac-
' In addition, there are 3 gores and i township having no population in cither
1920 or J910.
^ American Statistical Association Quarterly, March, 191 1, p. 412.
Vermont-Towns (Shaded) Showing Decrease: igi
910-1920.
,^ > WATtRBOl
No population reported for
Avery's gore and Warren gore,
l*wis township, and Warner's
grant, in Essex County, nor
ior Aver>''s gore, in Franklin
County.
SI
52 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
ity of purpose of the population in general has not prevented
the drain, evident all over the Nation, although more pronounced
in the Eastern states than elsewhere, of the rural areas for the
benefit of the cities and the Far West. Outside the lo large towns
and cities in Vermont the population was smaller by approximately
30,000 in 1920 than in 1850. In these towns and cities the increase
in 70 years was approximately 65,000; hence on these communities
fell the burden of making good the loss and furnishing whatever
net increase in the state's population occurred, about 38,000.
The rural population continues largely of the native white
stock. It is a strong, sturdy, self-contained element, which has
still within itself the seeds of possible readjustment and increased
prosperity. It is quite consistent with the American character
that the rather discouraging population tendencies above outlined
have been carefully considered by the thoughtful citizens of the
state with a view to improvement of conditions and future growth
along progressive Unes.
It has happened that by their small increase in population, or by
actual decrease, shown at the Fourteenth Census, the three north-
em New England states have been among those inviting separate
analysis in these pages. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont con-
tain in reality a distinct population class. They have contributed
mightily of the highest quality of manhood and womanhood to the
upbuilding of the Nation, not only to the industrial East but to the
agricultural Middle West and the Far West. These three northern
states have thus accomplished a great work in national develop-
ment. All three possess a severe climate and limited natural re-
sources compared with many other states. Therefore, because of
the attractions of mild climate and rich soil to be found elsewhere
in the United States, the northern New England states have
had rather restricted opportunity for agricultural and industrial
development, so that it is not remarkable that as the years have
passed they have tended to falter in population growth.
Scrutiny of population changes in Maine, New Hampshire, and
Vermont, as revealed in their minor civil divisions, leads to the
presumption that somewhat the same economic conditions prevail
throughout northern New England. The similarity, indeed, of
rural decline throughout the north country suggests that the
problems of agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and
general business may be more or less alike in Maine, New Hamp-
shire and Vermont, and that the task of meeting phases of these
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE.
53
problems which tend to restrict population growth and retard
material progress might well be made the subject of concerted
action.
No statistical measurement of changes which have occurred in
these three states would be complete, however, without taking into
consideration their increasing popularity as centers of summer rest
and recreation. In these respects they are almost unique, so that
by 1920 both population and agriculture were being distinctly
influenced by the magnitude of the resort interest. The rapid
growth of great cities, not only in the eastern but in the central
states, seems likely to increase the numbers of persons annually
seeking the Maine coast and woods and the mountains of New
Hampshire and Vermont. Entertainment of summer visitors
has not been classed as an occupation, and would hardly be so
regarded elsewhere, but in these three states it can not be over-
looked as an important means of support for many of the resident
population.
Nevada.'
The state of Nevada nearly doubled in population from 1900
to 1910, but it reported a decrease of 5.5 per cent (81,785 to
77,407) from 1 9 10 to 1920. This was not the first decrease of
population which the state had experienced. In 1880 Nevada
had a population of 62,266, but returns for the censuses of 1890
and 1900 showed decreases of 23.9 and 10.6 percent, respectively.
Tabi^E 10.
-Increase or Decrease of Popui^ation in Nevada;
1860-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE ( — )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE (— )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.
1870
35.634
19.775
-14,911
519-7
46.5
-23-9
1000
— 5,020
39.540
-4,468
1880
IQIO
93-4
-5-5
1800
1920 . . .
Population changes in Nevada have followed very closely the
fluctuations in the mining industry of the state. The mining of
precious metals reached a high state of prosperity in the late seven-
ties and then began to decline. Population showed correspond-
ing fluctuations. New gold and silver deposits were discovered
in 1900, and as a result the population between that year and
54
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
1 910 nearly doubled. The production of precious metals from
these new fields, however, reached its peak in the year 1915, when
11,883,700 ounces were mined, but production dropped to 4,659,-
100 in 1 91 9. History is apparently repeating itself, for this de-
cline in one of the two major industries of the state since 191 5,
coupled with the disturbances which doubtless arose from the
war, so reduced the population as to record an actual net de-
crease for the lo-year period.
Nevada — Increasb or Decrease in Population op Counties:
1900-1920.
' ' increase both 1910 and 1920
r)jcrcase 1910; increase 1920
Decrease 1920; increase 1910
BS9 Decrease both 1910 and 1920
Nevada, the sixth largest state in the Union, consists in the main
of mountain and desert. Because of extreme aridity, agriculture
can be carried on for the most part only by means of irrigation.
Crops so raised show very high per acre returns, but the state con-
tinues to depend principally upon its mineral wealth. Extending
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE. 55
from central California southeast along the dividing line between
that state and Nevada, and thence past the Colorado River into
Arizona, is one of the richest mineral belts in the world.
The exceptional population problems in Nevada are made more
evident by analysis of county returns. There are two counties,
Eureka and Storey, which have returned decreases for two dec-
ades. These are the two counties in which the early discoveries
of rich mineral deposits were made. The Comstock lode with
the Great Bonanza mine was located in Storey County, and by
1882 the mines in Eureka County had produced over $60,000,000 of
precious metals. These two counties, which together contributed
nearly 40 per cent of the state's entire population in 1880, have both
shown decreases at each of the foiu- censuses since that year, until
in 1920 they contributed but 3 per cent of the entire population of
the state.
The other great mining fields in Nevada were not discovered
until 1900, and their growth is reflected by the figm-es of the 1910
census. In 1900 rich deposits of gold and silver were discovered
in Nye County, and the Tonopah district grew to 4,000 inhabitants
in three years. In 1902 the Goldfield district in Esmeralda
County was opened up, and 8,000 inhabitants entered in a period
of three years. These were followed by the discovery of gold in
Bullfrog and Manhattan, both districts of Nye County. In 1907
Esmeralda and Nye led in gold production, and Nye and Churchill
in silver. But from 1910 to 1920 both of these counties showed an
actual decrease in population. Apparently they are following the
tendencies of those other areas which prospered during the earlier
mining period. The known gold fields appear to be becoming
exhausted, and a diversion of the population in such locahties to
new regions naturally is taking place.
Agricultural changes in Nevada have shown no resemblance to
the fluctuations which have attended mining. Systematic increase
in irrigation during the decade resulted in an increase in the number
of farms in Nevada from 2,689 to 3,163, or 17.6 per cent. Indeed,
the counties which are best suited to agriculture showed few popu-
lation decreases from 1910 to 1920. Washoe, WTiite Pine, and
Lyon reported increases, and Douglas and Elko showed but slight
decreases.
In 1920, 48.7 per cent of all persons born within the state of
Nevada, and still alive, were residing outside the state boundaries.
This figiu-e is higher than that for any other state in the Union.
56
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The history of Nevada as it is read in the decennial population
returns seems to indicate that in the increasing importance of
agriculture, with the invariable accompaniment of stability, lies
the solution of the problem of population decline.
Mississippi.
From 19 lo to 1920 Mississippi showed a decrease in population
from 1,797,114 to 1,790,618, or four-tenths of i per cent.
Table ii. — Increase or Decrease of Population in Mississippi:
1800-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR Di;CREASE (— )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECRE.\SE ( — )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.
181O
1820
31.502
35.096
61,173
239.030
230,875
184,779
356-0
87.0
81. 1
175-0
61.5
30.5
i
1870 36,617
1880 ■301 -ffye
4.6
36.7
14.0
20.3
15-8
-0.4
18^0
1890
IQOO
158,003
261,670
245.844
— 6,496
1840
l8i;o
1910
IQ20
i860
The principal factor in bringing about the decline in popu-
lation shown in 1920 was the migration northward of large num-
bers of Negroes during the war. In 1910 Negroes contributed
to the state's population 1,009,487, or 56.2 per cent. In 1920
the number of Negroes within the state was 935,184, or 52.2 per
cent of the total population. The Negro population of Mississippi
decreased by approximately 74,000 during the decade. The
whites, on the other hand, increased 68,000, but this increase was
not quite sufficient to offset the decline in Negro population.
The great demand for labor in the North served as an over-
whelming inducement to the Negro farmers and farm workers
to leave their traditional southern environment and go to the North
to earn, to them, almost incredible wages. Special trains ran
between points in Mississippi and northern ihdustrial centers,
taking on the appearance of holiday excursions. Many localities,
recognizing their dependence upon Negro labor, took steps to
prevent action on the part of any individual which might encourage
the migration of the Negroes. This was only partially successful.
It has been estimated that during the decade there was a net
migration of more than 400,000 Negroes from the South to the
North and West. In consequence, while the rate of increase for
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE. 57
the Negroes in Mississippi during the decade 1900 to 1910 had
been exactly equal to the rate of increase for Negroes in the
entire country, the Fourteenth Census revealed a marked change.
The state of Mississippi showed an actual decrease in Negro
population of 7.4 per cent, while the total Negro population of the
United States increased 6.5 per cent.
Although the decrease in the total population of Mississippi
was due to Negro migration, the whites also showed a decided
slackening in rate of increase during the decade. From 1900 to
1 910 the rate of increase for native whites in the entire Nation
was 20.8 per cent. The corresponding figure for the state of
Mississippi was 22.6, somewhat above the national figure.
From 1 910 to 1920, however, the Nation's rate of increase for
native white population was 18.6 per cent, but that for Mississippi
fell to 8.9 per cent. This reduction in the rate of increase for
native whites to a point far below the rate for the entire country
is a factor which must also be considered in any adequate anaylsis
of the causes for the decrease of population in the state. No
such reduction appeared in the neighboring states of Alabama or
Georgia, both of which states returned increases of native whites
corresponding very closely to that for the entire Nation.
An examination of the county figures for ]\Iississippi shows that
the population reduction was not localized. In most of the 82
counties of the state the rate of increase from 1910 to 1920 was
lower than that for the previous decade, or the rate of decrease
was greater, or an increase between 1900 and 1910 was followed
by a decrease during the next decade.
The northeastern, southeastern, and central northwestern areas
of the state registered considerable increases in population.
Of these three districts, the northeastern and southeastern are
predominantly white, but in the northwestern district over 80
per cent of the population consists of Negroes.
Apparently the migration of Negroes drew especially those
from the upland regions of the state. Most of the counties in the
northwestern area, where the larger part of the Negro population
was concentrated — being an alluvial plain and unusually fertile —
showed actual increases in Negro population.
It is probable that since the taking of the Fourteenth Census
some of the Negro migrants have returned to the South. This is
to be expected, because the unusual demands for labor in northern
cities arising from war conditions have ceased. Such a return
58
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
current will, of course, exaggerate the normal increase in the Negro
population of the Southern states concerned during the decade
1920 to 1930, but may thereby advance them to approximatelv
the position which they would have reached without any such dis-
turbance, although it is to be expected that some portion of
this Negro migration will remain in the North.
Mississippi —Incrbasb or Decrease in Population op Counties:
1900-1920.
L--J Increase both 1910 and 1920
Decrease 1910 ; increase 1920
Decrease 1920; increase 1910
BZBI Decrease both 1910 and 1920
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE.
59
REPLACEMENT OF DECREASE BY INCREASE.
Iowa.
At the census of 1910 the state of Iowa achieved some promi-
nence as the only state in the Union recording a decrease in popula-
tion. In 1920, however, the slight decrease shown at the previous
census was replaced by a moderate increase. This record of
decline and recovery possesses both interest and significance.
From 1840, in which year the state was first enumerated, until
1 9 10 the population of Iowa showed a declining percentage of
increase from census to census, the rates since 18S0 ha\'ing been
below those for the country as a whole.
The population of the state in 1900 was 2,231,853, and in 1910
it was 2,224,771, a decrease of 7,082, or three-tenths of i per cent.
Table 12.
-Increase or Decrease of Population in Iowa:
1840-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
INCREASE OR DECREASE ( — )
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
1
INCREASE OR DECREASE ( —
SINCE PRRCeomG CENSUS.
rRN.-^irs; year.
Number. Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.
1850
i860
1
149,102 1 345-8
482 , 699 2 5 1 . 1
519,107 76.9
430.595 ' 36.1
1
1890 287,683
1900 319.556
1910 —7,083
17-7
16.7
1870
-0-3
8.1
1880
1020 i7o,2';o
The returns for 1920, therefore, proved of great interest. The
Fourteenth Census recorded the population as 2,404,021, an
increase of 179,250, or 8.1 per cent, over the previous census.
Instead of having the lowest rate of increase, Iowa then outranked
in this respect 9 other states, including the 3 that showed decreases.
The slight decrease of the decade 1900 to 19 10 combined the
effects of a sluggish growth of cities and an actual decrease of pop-
ulation in the rural area. It will be remembered that at this pe-
riod immense tracts of land in western Canada were being made
available for settlement. For these 10 years the rate of urban
increase in Iowa was 19.9 per cent, as compared with 34.8 per cent
for the total urban population of the country. On the other hand,
the total rural population of the country increased 11.2 per cent,
while that of Iowa actually decreased 7.2 per cent.' This rate of
' These percentages are based on the population, in 1910, of the areas treated as
urban and asriu-al, respectively, in 1020.
60
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
decrease in rural population exceeded that for any other state
during the decade. Since rural population constituted more than
two-thirds of the entire population of the state, its considerable
decrease was sufficient to offset the increase in the urban popula-
tion and to result in a decrease for the state as a whole.
Both the urban and rural rates for Iowa recorded great improve-
ment in the decade 1 910 to 1920. The rural population of the state
increased seven-tenths of i per cent, while the Nation 's rate had
dropped to an increase of 5.4 per cent. Instead of leading the
other states in rural decrease Iowa recorded an actual, though
slight, gain in the population of the territory treated as rural in
1920. On the other hand, the rate of urban growth increased to a
considerable degree. From the figure for the previous decade, 19.9
per cent, it increased to 24 per cent, while that for the entire
country fell from 34.8 to 25.7 per cent.^ Hence the actual gain in
the population of the state was due to urban development. The
largest four cities, Des Moines, Sioux City, Davenport, and Cedar
Rapids, increased from an aggregate population of about 210,000
to 300,000. The total urban increase was 169,000, and the rural
increase about 10,000.
Iowa — Increase or Decrease in PoPULAtioN of Counties:
1900-1920.
' I Increase both 1910 and 1920
V////A Decrease 1910 ;iucrtase 1920
^388 Decrease 1920; increase 1910
EBB Decrease both 1910 and 1920
' These percentages are based on the population, in 1910, of the areas treated as
urban and as rural, respectively, in 1920.
STATES SHOWING SLIGHT INCREASE, OR DECREASE. 61
It is interesting to note the change in population by counties.
During the decade 1890 to 1900 every county but one within the
state increased in inhabitants. During the decade 1900 to 19 10
only 28 out of 99 counties continued to increase, the remaining 71
showing positive decreases. During the lo-year period 19 10 to
1920, 72 counties increased while 27 decreased. Although the
counties which decreased during the decade 1900 to 19 10 were
widely distributed throughout the state, those which decreased
between 19 10 to 1920 were located along the Mississippi River
boundary or in the southern part of the state.
The record of Iowa is of especial significance because it is in
many ways the leading agricultural state in the United States.
The fertility of its 28,607,000 acres of improved farm land is such
that the value of the total farm crop for the state is greater than
that for any other state save Texas. The total value of such land
alone represents a sum greater than that for any other state. This
agricultural development is not a recent one, like that of the more
western states, for Iowa had a population of well over a million in
1870, and in 1900 the density was 40 persons per square mile.
V.
COUNTY INCREASE OR DECREASE.
Hitherto analysis of increase of population has dealt in the
main with the Nation, tlie 9 geographic divisions, and the 48
states. Broad geographic areas permit, for the most part, only-
interesting generalizations. Obviously, as the inquiry advances to
the county, the comparison of changes during the decade becomes
much more signiJQcant. No standard of county size, however,
exists. Counties vary widely in area in different states and
within the same state. There were 3,065 counties in the United
States in 1920, and the average size was approximately 1,000
square miles. Even in New England, however, the county
areas differ greatly, the average being 1,868 square miles in Maine
and only 574 in Massachusetts. In diminutive Rhode Island,
5 counties are crowded into 1,067 square miles, with an average
of 213 for each county. In California the average size per county
is 2,684 square miles; in Oregon, 2,656; in Iowa, 561; in Georgia,
379; and in Texas, 1,037.
In general the Southern states tend to division into many
counties and hence to small county areas, but there are sharp
exceptions. Georgia has 155 counties with 59,000 square miles,
but the adjoining state of South Carolina, with half the area,
has only 46 counties.
Variation in size, while interesting — illustrating, for example,
the independence of the states in deciding internal affairs for
themselves — ^really possesses no special significance. The essen-
tial fact is the subdivision of the entire area of the 48 states into
more than 3,000 parts.
Except in the old settled states, county boundaries have been
subject to continual change. Obviously these changes were more
general and marked at earlier censuses, so that it is extremely
difficult to secure even rough comparability for a considerable
period of time. In Table 50 an attempt has been made to follow
the changes which took place during the 70-year period from
1850 to 1920, the comparison being limited to the first, tliird, fifth,
and seventh decades of tliis period. These statistics are sum-
marized in Table 13, on the opposite page.
62
COUNTY INCREASE OR DECREASE.
63
Table 13. — Number of Counties, Number Decreasing in Popula-
tion, AND Aggregate Population of Decreasing Counties, with
Per Cent of United States Total: 1S60, 1880, 1900, and 1920.^
CENSUS YEAR.
i860
1880
1900
1920
POPULATION.
Total for
United States.
31,443,321
50.155.783
75.994.575
105,710,620
Aggregate in
decreasing
counties.
2,201,019
I. 711.453
5.823,383
18,527.979
Total
number.
2,078
2.S92
2.836
3.065
Number
decreasing
since
preceding
census.
136
82
368
1,086
Per cent
which
population
in decreasing
counties
formed of
total for
United
States.
7.0
3-4
7-7
17-5
' In preparing this table, it has been necessary in certain cases, in order to avoid treating as decreasing
counties those in which decreases in population were due to reductions in area, to combine two or more
counties whose areas were increased or reduced during the decade by transfers of territory from one to
another, and in other cases to combine counties formed during the decade with those from whose original
territory they were formed.
The average population per county in the United States, as
shown by the census, was 15,132 in i860, 19,350 in 1880, 26,796
in 1900, and 34,490 in 1920. The total number of counties in the
United States increased 47.5 per cent from i860 to 1920, in part
by subdivision and in part by organization of new counties.
During the period of 60 years here included, the population of the
Nation considerably more than trebled, while the average popu-
lation per county, affected by increases in the number of counties
due to the formation of new counties from older ones or from un-
organized territory, somewhat more than doubled. Of real signifi-
cance is the wide view which this table permits of the movement
of population into and out of the 2,000 counties, increasing to 3,000
during the period under consideration, in a broad sense seeking
for larger advantages in agriculture, mining, or manufacturing. In
i860, just before the beginning of the Civil War and in a period
when much of the national development, with relation both to the
soil and to industry, was yet to be undertaken, 7 per cent of the
population resided in counties decreasing in population. These
counties, curiously enough, were located principally in the South and
Southwest, and it is not improbable that they reflected the read-
justments which foreshadowed the Civil War, such as the move-
ment of slave population from certain states, as Virginia, to other
states farther south. Even in New England, however, at that
early date the proportion of population in decreasing counties
was larger than the average for the United States, rising in Ver-
mont to 60.5 per cent.
64 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
In 1880, out of approximately 2,600, but 82 counties, contain-
ing an aggregate of only 1,711,000 population, or 3.4 per cent of
the entire population of the Nation, showed decline. Thus
scarcely more than one- thirtieth, or proportionally but a little
more than one-half as many as at the census of i860, were
comprised in the area of decreasing population. Here again
New England showed a much larger percentage of population in
the area of decrease than the other states, while for the Southern
states the percentages were almost negligible. In the South, how-
ever, the increases are exaggerated and the decreases are under-
stated for the decade 1870 to 1880 as a result of the defective
enumeration of 1870 in that section of the country. '
In 1900 there appeared a marked increase in the number of
counties showing decline. The population in that year residing in
the 368 decreasing counties represented nearly 8 per cent of the
total for the country and numbered nearly 6,000,000. The unen-
viable prominence of New England disappeared at this census
and was replaced by that of the West North Central group of
states, which contributed about one-third of all the declining
counties. In 1920, however, the most marked change occurred.
One-third of all counties in the United States showed declines.
These counties comprised more than one-sixth of the entire popu-
lation, or 17.5 per cent. The areas most directly involved were
the Northern Central states and the Southwest, and here appears
definitely for the first time that influence which is to be referred to
so frequently in this analysis, the general effect of the movement
of population from the rural districts to the urban centers.
Table 14, which follows, has been prepared to make clear the
trend of county population decrease when two great sections of
the Nation are contrasted — the North and West, considered
together, and the South.
* "The census of 1890 shows, in the Northwest, many counties in which there is an
absolute or a relative decrease of population. These states have been sending farmers
to advance the frontier on the plains, and have themselves begun to turn to intensive
farming and to manufacture. A decade before this, Ohio had shown the same transi-
tion stage. Thus the demand for land and tlie love of wilderness freedom drew the
frontier ever onward. * * * Mobility of population is death to localism, and the
western frontier worked irresistibly in unsettling population. The efTcct reached
back from tlie frontier and affected profoundly tlie Atlantic coast and even the Old
World." — Turner, The Frontier in American History, pp. 22, 30.
COUNTY INCREASE OR DECREASE.
65
Table 14. — Number and Aggregate Population of Counties or
Equivalent Divisions Whose Population Decreased During
Preceding Decade, for the North and West in Comparison with
THE South: i860, 1880, 1900, and 1920.
Total
population.
Total
number of
counties.
COtTNTIES DBCRBASINO
SINCE PRECEDING CENSUS.
Percent
which
popula-
CENSUS YEAR AND SECTION.
Number.
Aggregate
population.
tion of
decreas-
ing
counties
formed
of total
popula-
tion.
i860.
United States
31,443,321
20,309,960
11,133,361
50.155.783
33,639,215
16,516,568
75.994.575
51.471,048
24.523.527
105,710,620
72,584,817
33,125,803
2,078
1,078
1,000
2.592
1.389
1,203
2,836
1,560
1,276
3.065
1,674
1. 391
136
41
95
82
72
10
368
284
84
1,086
627
459
2,201,019
991,662
1.209,357
1. 7". 453
1.589.033
122,420
5.823.383
4.701.590
1,121,793
18.527.979
11,490,508
7.037.471
7.0
4.9
10.9
3-4
4-7
0.7
7-7
9.1
4.6
17-5
15.8
31.2
The North and West. . .
The South
1880.
United States
The North and West. . .
The South
1900.
United States
The North and West . . .
The South
1920.
United States
The North and West. . .
The South
In 1920 the population of decreasing counties was propor-
tionally small in the North and West and large in the South.
This showing corresponded to that of i860. Twenty years later,
in 1880, the decrease was almost all to be foimd in the North and
West ; ^ and in 1900, while it appeared to some extent in the South,
the percentage for that section was only half as great as that shown
by the remainder of the country.
It is probable that the rough similarity of the conditions shown
by this table for i860 and for 1920 arose from the shifting of
Negro population, though this shifting was due to radically dif-
ferent causes. During the decade 1850 to i860 to some degree
the decreases arose from the transfer of slaves, while during 1910
to 1920 they were caused by voluntary migration in search of
more lucrative employment.
' As ah-eady explained (p. 64), the decrease in the South during the decade 1870 to
1880 was understated as a result of the defective enumeration of 1870.
107°— 22 5
66 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
County decreases of 60 years ago represented but a small frac-
tion of the land area; in 1920, however, the aggregate of areas
showing decreases was 900,000 square miles, or nearly one-third
of all the national domain. In 1 1 states the area of decrease ex-
ceeded one-half of the total area, and in 2 of the 1 1 it exceeded
three-quarters of the state area, Missouri showing decreases in
78.2 per cent of the total area, Delaware in 77.9 per cent, Nevada
in 73 per cent, Indiana in 68.4 per cent, Vermont in 60.8 per cent,
and New York in 61.2 per cent. Twenty-two states reported one-
third or more of their area as decreasing in population.
Missouri, among all the states, presents perhaps the most
striking illustration of county decrease. In 1920 almost four-fifths
of the area of the state, considered by counties, decreased in popu-
lation. As the factors which influenced such extensive declines in
Missouri undoubtedly were influential elsewhere, it will be profita-
ble to consider in some detail the changes which occurred in that
state, and which thus may be accepted as typical of those occur-
ring in states adjoining or resembling it.
DECREASING COUNTIES IN MISSOURI.
Missouri had a population in 1920 of over 3,000,000, a figure ap-
proximately equaling that of California. Among the states west
of the Mississippi it was exceeded in population only by Texas.
Since the area of the state is by no means as great as that of most
of the Western states, the density of population, which was 49.5
persons per square mile in 1920, was greater than that for any
other state west of the Mississippi. Perhaps in this very fact
lies much of the explanation of the recent retardation of the popu-
lation growth of Missouri. Since 1870 its rate of population
increase has been less than that for the country as a whole — the
unusually small rates of the last two decades, namely, 6 per cent
and 3.4 per cent, being of particular note. Its ranking of forty-
fifth among the 48 states in terms of population growth for the
decade 1900 to 19 10 was but little bettered during the last decade,
when it ranked forty-fourth.
Missouri has 114 counties and one independent city, St. Louis.
Of these, 89 decreased in population in 1920. Of the 114 coun-
ties, 66 have no urban population whatsoever. That is, in 66 of
the 114 counties, or 57.9 per cent, there is no city, town, or village
of 2,500 or more inhabitants. Of the remaining 48 counties, 41
have less than half their population urban. In the remaining
COUNTY INCREASE OR DECREASE.
67
counties, but 7 in number, more than one-half the population is
urban. This would lead to the belief that Missouri is an extremely
rural state. As a matter of fact, 46.6 per cent of its population
is urban. Such a concentration is unusual, for in the face of
the fact that 46.6 per cent of the population is urban, still only
6 per cent of the counties have a majority of their population
urban. Approximately three-fourths of this urban population is
in three cities — St. Louis, Kansas City, and St. Joseph. Moreover,
Missouri has an unusually large number of counties.
Missouri — Increase or Decrease in Population op Counties:
1900-1920.
I I Increase both 1910 and 1920
^^ Decrease 1910; increase 1920
tSSSS Decrease 1920; increase 1910
fggg Decrease both 1910 and 1920
In a state which is primarily rural in nature, having but a
few large cities, the greater the number of counties the less the
area which each city may dominate, and, therefore, the greater the
representation of the rural area. A combining of counties within
Missouri, resulting in a smaller number, would have little effect
upon the number of urban counties but would cut decidedly
into the number of rural counties. Thus the urban population
68 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
of the state is highly concentrated, to such a degree, indeed, that
94 per cent of the counties have the majority of their f>opulation
rural and in nearly 58 per cent the population is wholly rural.
Other states have even greater urban concentration than
Missouri. In South Dakota 79.4 per cent of the counties have no
urban population; in North Dakota, 77.4 per cent; in Nebraska
and Virginia, 71 per cent; and in eight states between 60 and 70
per cent of the counties are wholly rural. On the other hand,
other states also had a greater rural decrease. Nevada lost 9.3 per
cent of its rural population; Maryland, 8.1 per cent; New Hamp-
shire, 6.2; and Indiana, 6.1 per cent. But it remained for Mis-
souri, high in the Hst in each particular, so to combine these two
factors as to have the greatest area in decreasing counties.
The Fourteenth Census reported a decrease in the rural popula-
tion of Missouri, from 1910 to 1920, of 4 per cent. This was not
a new tendency, for the decade 1900 to 1910 reported a corre-
sponding decrease of 4.2 per cent. Such a decrease, however,
was not Missouri's problem alone. It proved to be a general
tendency throughout that section of the country, for Indiana,
IlUnois, and Kansas showed similar decreases.
NATlONAIv TENDENCIES REFLECTED IN COUNTY CHANGES.
The extension of population decrease to so many counties, the
wide distribution of areas involved, and the number of instances
in which entire states were seriously affected naturally create
some concern. To a Umited degree, it is justified. The county
decreases begin to register in some detail the extent to which men
and women are turning from isolated farms or small villages to
larger communities. This tendency is no recent development. It
was coincident with the development of the factory system and the
necessary concentration of man power in small areas. The move-
ment gained momentum steadily as wealth, population, and in-
dustrial activity increased. By 1900, 40 per cent of the popu-
lation of the United States Uved in cities having 2,500 inhabitants
or more; by 1910, 45.8 per cent; and by 1920, 51.4 per cent.
The war greatly increased the tendency toward urbanization.'
There has appeared already some evidence of subsidence here
' The growth of the cities was reduced by emigration and the decline in immigra-
tion, so that during the last decade the rise in the percentage urban was slightly
less than during the decade 1900-1910, despite the increase in the movement from
rural to urban communities.
COUNTY INCREASE OR DECREASE. 69
and there, especially where the tendency was of more recent
origin and thus possibly the result of temporary war conditions.
Another census will begin to supply interesting statistical measure-
ments of this reverse movement and of its permanence.
It must be remembered that in all newly settled areas it is the
American way to rush in and start boom communities without
much regard to the ability of the region itself to afford permanent
support. Hence in county returns at every census signs of pop-
ulation readjustment have appeared; considerable initial popula-
tion here and there, subsidence, and later a tendency toward slow
increase, doubtless on a more solid basis.
It is unlikely, in spite of the rather general settlement of all
the states, that the shifting and readjustments in newly developed
county areas are yet near completion. The decrease of population
in 26 out of 77 counties in Oklahoma during the last decade no
doubt illustrated, in part, this action-and-reaction tendency.
It also clearly reflected the war call toward the cities and the
changing demands upon agriculture, which for some counties
lessened and for others increased the profitable production of their
specialties.
At the census of 1920 the 2,000 counties which increased in
population for the most part included either large cities, industrial
areas, active mining developments, or rich agricultural regions,
the products of which continued to prove profitable or lent them-
selves to organized marketing or specialization.
On the other hand, more than i ,000 counties declined in popu-
lation. They either were distinctly rural or had not natural
resources capable of affording the particular profits encouraged
by war operations. So it came about that from 900,000 square
miles many thousands of citizens departed and flocked into the
remaining 2,000,000 square miles to contribute their numbers
and initiative toward fiu-ther increasing the prosperity of already
prosperous areas.
In some cases the newcomers no doubt overburdened the com-
munities to which they migrated. The next census will then re-
cord the resulting readjustments. But in general the move-
ment tended toward the further rapid development of cities and
of the favored agricultiu-al counties, at the expense of those
regions where profits come more slowly and life is harder.
Ill
o o o
^ ^ <u
s s s
o b t;
<U it ^
g
70
71
72 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The general impression gained from an analysis, by counties, of
the Fourteenth Census is of a widespread movement from rural
and perhaps sparseh'^ settled counties which afforded comparatively
little opportunity for progress, not only toward those counties
which were more fertile or more attractive in other respects, but
also toward the cities in which were being produced in such
phenomenal fashion commodities in response to the insistent
demands of war or to meet rapidly increasing peace-time demands
during a period of unusual industrial expansion.
In short, in one respect the wide sliifting of county population
reflected the effect upon the national character of the great area
of the Republic and illustrated the typical American characteristics
of independence and restlessness. Large numbers of people in
the United States continually seek more favorable conditions of
life, and thus far they have continued to find opportunity and
room to experiment successfully. In future years, as the density
of population increases, the shifting of any considerable number
of persons over wide areas will necessarily decrease, and men must
be more contented with such advantages as they already possess
or must seek less settled lands beyond our borders. In 1920
the lure of possible betterment of conditions was capable of ex-
pression within the Republic; in later years it may not be.
VI.
RURAL AND URBAN INCREASE OR DECREASE.
Analysis of population change from 1910 to 1920, as it has
advanced in the preceding pages from the larger geographic
units — the division and the state — to the smaller one of the
county, has developed increasing evidence of definite population
movement. Throughout the Nation the tendency from country
to city, long observed to be in progress, appears to be increasing.
Alone among the nations, the United States has been meas-
ured and studied statistically by means of periodic census-taking
since the beginning of its existence. In consequence, only in the
United States has been recorded accurately the extraordinary
change known to have taken place to a greater or less degree in
all nations resulting from the development of industries. This
great economic change, first felt in Europe and later in America,
took the form, in general, of an assault, continuous and increas-
ing for many decades, upon the population of rural areas, with
corresponding increase of numbers in urban centers.
Urban and Rural, Population: 1890-1920.
millions
60 80 100
\y/////W//y////>y// /////////////^^^^^
?BAN W/////A RURAL
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to measure urban
growth in Europe, since the enumeration of population, except
in Great Britain and France, has been systematic and fairly
accurate for only a relatively brief period. In fact, it is difficult
to compare even the present population of large cities in all
European countries, since census taking in some of them may not
be accurate, and there is no uniformity in the dates of enumeration.
There are in Europe, exclusive of Russia, 291 cities having more
than 50,000 inhabitants. Their aggregate population at the most
recent census taken of each (ranging from 191 2 to 1920) was
63,279,417. The aggregate population of these cities formed
approximately 20 per cent of the total population of the countries
to which the figures pertain. In the United States the corre-
sponding percentage in 1920 was 31.
73
74 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
In the United States, however, the statistical record is practi-
cally complete. In 1790 this Nation was substantially all rural
in the sense that no large cities existed. Industrial enterprises
were unknown. Almost the entire population supported itself
from the soil. The largest city was Philadelphia (including sub-
urbs), with 42,000 inhabitants. One hundred and thirty years
later more than one-half the Nation's inhabitants resided in com-
munities of 2,500 or more, and nearly one- third in cities of 50,000
or more. In 1790 there were but 6 cities having 8,000 or more in-
habitants; in 1920 the 6 had multipHed to 924, and the number
of commimities with more than 2,500 inhabitants was 2,787.
The record of the diverging growth of the rural and urban areas
of the United States proves extremely interesting as it shows the
great centers of population gathering momentum from decade to
decade and accumulating man power by drawing both from the
rural areas and from the great volume of immigration, to develop
manufacturing enterprises which yielded a total value of products
in 19 1 9 exceeding $60,000,000,000.
Meantime, with much slower population increase and with many
areas showing decreases, but aided by the constant development of
labor-saving agricultural machinery, the rural areas have contrib-
uted the necessary suppHes of food to maintain the more rapidly in-
creasing population in urban centers. The tendency thus out-
lined was greatest during the decade from 1900 to 1910; but, in
view of the slackening in general population increase, it was more
noteworthy during the recent decade. War demands from 191 4
to 191 7, becoming even greater with the entrance of the United
States into the conflict, stimulated the movement from country to
city to such an extent as to offset in some measure the effects of
emigration and the decline in immigration, so that the increase,
long under way, in the urban proportion of the population was
practically unchecked. As recently as 1880, only 28.6 per cent
of the population was urban and 71.4 per cent rural. Rapid
changes from decade to decade left the proportions 45.8 per cent
urban and 54.2 per cent rural in 1910, representing a shift of
5.8 per cent in the increase of urban and decrease of rural since
1900; but between 1910 and 1920 another transfer of 5.6 percent
took place, so that for the first time the census recorded more per-
sons residing in communities having 2,500 or more inhabitants
than in communities having less than that number (51.4 per cent
as compared with 48.6 per cent).
RURAL AND URBAN INCREASE OR DECREASE.
75
Recalling again that the national increase from 1910 to 1920
was 13,738,354, what proportion of this increase appeared in the
rural areas of the Nation, and what proportion in the urban
areas, as classified by the Federal Census? The increases in the
rural and urban population for the decades 1910 to 1920 and 1900
to 1 910 are shown in the following table:
Table 15. — Increase of Rural, and Urban Population : 1900-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
RURAL.
URBAN.
PER CENT 0*
INCREASE. '
Total.
Increase. '■
ToUl.
Increase.'
Rural.
Urban.
1000
45,614,142
49 , 806 , 146
51,406,017
1 30,380,433
42,166,120
54,304,603
IQIO
4,192,004
I. 599. 871
11.785.687
12,138,483
9.2
3-2
38-8
28.8
1020
' The increase figures in this table are somewhat misleading, since they represent the growth of the rural
and urban populations, respectively, disregarding the fact that the growth of the urban population took
place in an increasing area while that of the rural population took place in a decreasing area. This is be-
cause, as their population increases, small incorporated places pass from the rural to the urban class, thus
continually increasing the urban territory and decreasing the rural territory. The increase, during the
decade 1910 to 1920, in the population of the total territory which was treated as urban in 1920 was
11,111,419, or 25.7 per cent; and the increase during the same decade in the population of the territory
which in 1930 was treated as rural was 2,626,935, or 5.4 per cent. Because of a change in the classification
of certain towns in Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut, no exactly comparable figures for the decade 1900
to 1910 are available; but, on the basis of the former classification of the towns in question, the increase
between 1900 and 1910 in the territory treated as urban in 1910 was 11,013,738, or 34.8 per cent; and the
increase during the same decade in the territory treated as rural in 1910 was 11. 2 per cent.
In absolute figures, the urban increase for 1910 to 1920, as
shown in Table 15, in the face of a considerable shrinkage in
total national increase, is greater than that for 1900 to 19 10,
while the rural increase during the recent decade was less than
two-fifths as large as that for the preceding one.
In considering the percentage of increase, lower for both classes
of the population, the effect of the slackened national growth
should not be overlooked. Had the population increased be-
tween 1 910 and 1920 at the rate shown for 1900 to 1910, the
increase of total population in 1920 would have been over
19,000,000, instead of less than 14,000,000. Hence, with the total
growth what it actually was, the urban group, to have repeated
the increase of 38.8 per cent recorded for the decade 1900 to 1910,
would necessarily have made a numerical gain greater than the
total population increase shown for the United States in 1920.
The percentages, less for both classes, reflect in the rural a lessen-
ing of the increase beyond that proportionate to the national
slowing down, and in the urban an acceleration of the increase
represented by a larger absolute number than appeared in 19 10.
76 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The census classification of urban and rural is not entirely sat-
isfactory. Indeed, no classification of this subject has been
found that meets all requirements. As population increases it
expands necessarily in two directions: it increases existing com-
munities and creates new ones. Hence the older towns and vil-
lages tend constantly to pass the 2,500 limit — which, according to
the census classification, separates rural from urban communi-
ties — into the urban class, while the rural element (below 2,500)
is recruited by the newly established communities, the increase of
small existing settlements which still have fewer than 2,500 in-
habitants, and the increase in the farm population. Thus the
units of increase in the urban class are comparatively large and
those in the rural class must be comparatively small.
Accepting, however, the classification as it exists, 474 rural
villages and towns became urban communities. Each of them,
as long as its population numbered 2,499 or less, was rural, but
as soon as the total population reached 2,500 it became urban.
This resulted in each case in an actual subtraction from the rural
and addition to the urban group of 2,500 persons, or a total urban
growth of approximately 1,185,000 due to accretion. These 474
newly listed urban communities also added to the urban popula-
tion any subsequent growth. The rate of natural increase in urban
population, due to excess of births over deaths, has been estimated
at approximately 10 per cent. This would signify a growth of about
4,500,000 (allowance being made for the natural increase within
the increment due to accretion and migration) , which, added to the
1,185,000 due to accretion, would give a total of 5,685,000 resulting
from these two causes. Subtracting this number from the total
increase in urban population, approximately 12,140,000, leaves, in
round figures, 6,450,000 as the growth due to migration. This ex-
ternal contribution consisted in part of foreign born coming to the
country, especially during the first half of the decade, and in
greater measure of domestic migrants, largely native whites of
native parentage and Negroes.'
These analyses, however, are of value principally in permitting
broad views of changes which, perhaps, may be termed economic
and which undeniably are occurring. The population of small
cities and towns, classed by the census as rural, in many instances
* The above analysis of the growth of urban population was suggested by Joseph A.
Hill, Assistant Director of the Census, in a paper, "Some Results of the 1920 Census of
Population," prepared for the American Statistical Association.
RURAL AND URBAN INCREASE OR DECREASE. 77
is increasing; 474 communities, as has been pointed out, actually
passed from the rural to the urban class between 19 10 and 1920.
The movement from rural to urban continued to be greatest
in the areas in which it began — the industrial Northeastern and
North Central states. The New England, Middle Atlantic, and
East North Central groups, which together form the great indus-
trial section of the Nation, record a rural population (for many-
years smaller than the urban) stationary from 1900 to 19 10 and
slightly decreased from 19 10 to 1920, while all the liberal total
increase appears in the urban class. In the West North Central
group of states, for the most part agricultural, the rural element
is much larger than the urban, but even here the rural increases
were surprisingly small, and nearly all the increase reported for
this group was confined to the lu-ban class.
In the three southern divisions, which long have been regarded
as constituting the rural stronghold of the Nation, the increase
between 19 10 and 1920 in the population of the territory treated
as rural in 1920 was approximately 1,400,000, but the urban in-
crease was nearly 2,300,000.
In the Pacific states, in which the urban element predominated
in 1 9 10, the urban increase was much greater than the rural in-
crease. It remained for the Mountain group (Montana, Idaho,
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada)
to offer the only exception; here the rural element, larger in 19 10
than the urban, showed a decidedly greater increase from 19 10 to
1920 than that recorded by the urban class.
During the lo-year period from 19 10 to 1920, 474 cities and
other communities, formerly rural, passed, because of population
increase, into the class of cities having 2,500 to 25,000 inhabitants;
and during the same period 59 cities moved upward into the
25,000-100,000 class, while 18 left this class for the one comprising
cities having 100,000 inhabitants or more. These changes resulted
in increasing the number of cities in the 2,500-25,000 class from
2,085 to 2,500, in the 25,000-100,000 class from 178 to 219, and in
the class 100,000 and over from 50 to 68. This procedure makes
precise comparison difficult, but does not impair the general
significance of the steady population growth of cities.
Table 51, on page 220, presents a classification of the urban
population in 1920, with reference to these three groups of cities,
for the geographic divisions and individual states. This classifi-
cation of urban population is summarized, for the United States,
in Table 16.
78
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table i6. — Summary of Urban Communities: 1920.
CtASS OP COMMtJNITY.
Total
2,500 to 25,000. .
25,000 to 100,000
100,000 and over
Number.
2,787
2,500
219
68
POPULATION.
Number, 1920.
54,304,603
16,534,489
10,340, 788
27,429,326
Per cent of
increase:
1910-1920.'
25-7
23.0
330
24.9
' The percentages of increase in this summary relate to the several groups of cities as c(msliluUd in iq20.
Thus each percentage represents the growth within an unchanged area, but not the difference between
the population living in the specified group in 1910 and in the corresponding group in 1920. To illustrate:
The number of cities having 100,000 inhabitants or more in 1910 was 50, and in 1920, 68. The combined
population of the 68 cities increased by 24.9 per cent between 1910 and 1920, but if the rate of increase had
been based on the population in 1910 of the 50 cities which had 100,000 inhabitants or more in that year it
would have been 35.1 per cent. In the diagram below the percentages of increase relate to groups which
comprised different cities at different censuses.
Increase in Urban Population, by Classes of Cities: 1890-1920.
PER CENT
O 20 40 60 80
TOTAL
"™*" WMMMM^ ^
».0«, ANO OVER ^^^^^gfc;^^
26 ,000 TO 100.000
100.000 TO 250,000
260.000 TO 600.000
600.000 AND OV^R ^^^SS ^JB^^^^,
^zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzm
l^H^ 1910 TO 1920 KZZQQI 1900 TO 1910 V/y/Z/Z^A lfi9Q TO 1900
Classification of cities by geographic areas brings out from
another angle the urban strength of the eastern and central
industrial states. These groups, comprising New England and
the Middle Atlantic and East North Central states, contributed 38
of the 68 cities having 100,000 inhabitants or more in 1920, with
approximately 19,500,000 population in an aggregate of 27,500,000,
and 144 of the 219 cities having 25,000 to 100,000 inhabitants,
with 6,500,000 population in an aggregate of 10,340,000.
Of the 25 cities having 250,000 or more inhabitants in 1920,
only 4 retained the same rank in that year as in 19 10, while 10
improved their position and 11 fell behind. These changes
merely indicate the readjustments which of necessity occur in
the population of a group of great cities scattered throughout the
country during a period of general and large increase.
RURAL AND URBAN INCREASE OR DECREASE.
79
The following table presents in detail the changes in this group :
Tabi,e 17. — Population of Cities Having, in 1920, 250,000 Inhabit-
ants OR More, with Increase and Rank: 1920 and 19 10.
New York
Chicago
Philadelphia. . .
Detroit
Cleveland
St. Louis
Boston
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Los Angeles
Buffalo
San Francisco . .
Milwaukee
Washington
Newark
Cincinnati
New Orleans. .. .
Minneapolis ....
Kansas City, Mo
Seattle
Indianapolis. . . .
Jersey City
Rochester
Portland, Or eg. .
Denver
POPULATION.
5,620,048
2,701,705
1.823,779
993.678
796,841
772,897
748,060
733.826
588,343
576,673
506,775
506,676
457.147
437.571
414.524
401,247
387,219
380,582
324,410
315.312
314.194
298, 103
295.750
258,288
256,491
,766,883
■185,283
, 549 , 008
465,766
560,663
687,029
670,585
558,485
533.905
319,198
423.715
416,912
373.857
331.069
347 . 469
363.591
339.075
301,408
248,381
237.194
233.650
267.779
218, 149
207,214
213.381
increasb, 1910-1920.
Number.
853.165
516,422
274,771
527,912
236,178
85,868
77.475
175.341
54.438
257.475
83 , 060
89,764
83,290
106,502
67.055
37-656
48,144
79.174
76,029
78,118
80,544
30,324
77,601
51.074
43.110
17.9
23.6
17.7
42. 1
12.5
II. 6
31-4
10.2
80.7
19.6
21-5
22.3
32.2
19-3
10.4
14.2
26.3
30.6
32.9
34-5
II-3
35-6
24.6
20.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
3
9
6
4
5
7
8
17
16
14
13
15
18
19
25
28
27
The changing relations of the two great sections of the Ameri-
can people, divided according to rural and urban residence, are
assuming extreme economic importance. Thus far the analysis
has developed a tendency so general and pronounced that it ex-
tends to all states in the Union. It will be of great interest, there-
fore, to make a somewhat more detailed analysis for the state
which not only has the largest total population but also contains
the largest city and is preeminently urban in character.
rural and urban changes in new YORK STATE.
The State of New York reported practically its entire generous
increase from 19 10 to 1920 in the growth of New York City and the
other cities having 25,000 inhabitants or more. New York City
has contributed for a long period two-thirds or more of the decen-
80
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
nial increase in the population of the state, so that by 1910 the
city overtook and passed the remainder of the state, reporting
more than half the total population of New York state in that
year. The gap widened in 1920, when the city returned 54.1
per cent of the state's inhabitants, as against 45.9 per cent outside
the city.
Tabi^e 18. — Growth of New York City in Comparison with
Remainder of State: 1900-1920.
CENSUS YEAR.
1900
I9IO
1920
NEW YORK CITY.
Total
population.
3,437,202
4,766,883
5,620,048
Number.
939,788
1,339,681
853.165
Per
cent.
37-1
38.7
17.9
REMAINDER OP STATE.
Total
population.
3,831,692
4.346,731
4.765.179
Increase.
Number.
335.932
515.039
418,448
Per
cent.
9.6
13-4
9.6
It is important to remember, however, that New York outside
of New York City is a large and very populous state. Shorn of
the city. New York, with 4,765,179 inhabitants remaining, would
still rank fourth among the states in population. This great
total includes 21 cities having more than 25,000 inhabitants and
ranging from that figure up to half a million. Three cities,
Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, together returned nearly
1,000,000 inhabitants.
The aggregate population of the cities in New York having
25,000 inhabitants or more, exclusive of New York City, and the
increases which have occurred in their population during the past
three decades are shown in the following tabulation in compari-
son with smaller communities, including rural districts:
Table 19. — Growth of Cities in New York State Having over
25,000 Inhabitants, Exclusive of New York City, in Comparison
with Smaller Communities: i 900-1 920.
CITIES OVER 25,000, EXCLUSrVB OP NEW
YORK CITY.
coMMimrriBs iwder 35.000.
CENSUS
YEAR.
Num-
ber of
cities.
Combined
population.
Increase since
preceding census.
Combined
population.
Increase or decrease ( — )
since preceding census.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.
1900
I9IO
1920
II
20
21
1,019,831
1,564,688
1,942.859
373.717
544,857
378,171
57-8
53-4
24.2
2,811,861
2 . 782 , 043
2,833,330
-37.785
-29,818
40,377
-1-3
— I.O
1.4
RURAL AND URBAN INCREASE OR DECREASE. 81
Here is shown in most striking fashion the trend toward large
cities in the state which in a population sense is overshadowed by
the metropolis of the country. New York City increased 17.9
per cent from 19 10 to 1920. The 21 other cities having more
than 25,000 inhabitants in 1920 increased 24.2 per cent, while
the population of smaller communities outside these cities, amount-
ing to nearly 3,000,000, increased only 40,277, or slightly more
than I per cent, recording, in fact, a practically stationary con-
dition although these smaller communities included many small
cities and large villages.
It is possible to go further with the analysis of New York
State conditions. In 19 10, 15 counties, or one-quarter of all in
the state, reported loss of population. These losses totaled but
19,000. In 1920, 13 of the 15 counties previously decreasing
again retiuned decreases, but instead of only 15 counties report-
ing loss as before, the number grew to 32, or two-thirds of all the
nonmetropolitan areas in the state, and the aggregate loss was
87,000. These 32 counties were scattered all over the state.
In fact, the decreasing counties appeared so generally that it is
impossible to indicate any definite geographic trend.
Advancing the analysis to cities and towns (corresponding to
townships in most sections of the country), of which there are
approximately 1,000 in the state, it is found that three-quarters
of the entire number declined in population — to be exact, 743 in
1920, as compared with 632 in 1910. The 738 towns and 5 cities
reporting decreases had an aggregate population of 1,625,886 in
1910, as against only 1,431,836 in 1920. Thus they lost during
the decade 194,050 inhabitants, or 11.9 per cent.
The apparently gratifying increase in population which has
been in progress in the state of New York from 1910 to 1920
was secured from three sources: First, the city of New York;
second, the group of 21 other cities having more than 25,000
inhabitants in 1920; and third, from among the 36 cities having
from 10,000 to 25,000 inhabitants in 1920. The population of
the remainder of the state, taken as a whole, remained stationary.
There are many of the more urban states in which the popula-
tion changes resemble those here described, but New York is
conspicuous because it contains the largest city in the country
and also a very large urban population outside the metropolis,
so that its urban increase proves to be especially interesting and
impressive.
107°— 22 6
82
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
INCREASE OF SMALLER CITIES.
The movement which has been in progress during the past
decade from countn^ to city is perhaps more vividly illustrated
by the figures presented in Table 52 (p. 222) than by any of the
tabulations presented in the preceding pages. This table separates
the population of each state into two groups; one, cities of 25,000
and over; and the other, the smaller cities, villages, and rural
communities. The purpose of the analysis in this form is to
show the predominating influence, both as to absolute figures and
increase, of communities having in excess of 25,000 inhabitants.
Cities of 25,000 population and over are found in 41 out of the 48
states. In 1920 they contributed to the total population approx-
imately 38,000,000 inhabitants. The following summary indi-
cates the disparity in increase :
Table 20. — Summary of Population in Cities of 25,000 and Over in
1920, and Population Outside such Cities: 1920 and 1910.
anes op 25,000 and over in 1920
(287 atiEs).
ALL OTHER COMMtJNITIES.
CENSUS YEAR.
Total
population.
Increase.
Percent
of in-
crease.
Total
population.
Increase.
Percent
of in-
crease.
29,746,272
37,770,114
62,225,994
67,940,506
1020
8,023,842
27.0
5. 714. 5"
9.2
Reference to the table from which this summary is derived shows
that in each of the 41 states except 4 — New Jersey, Kentucky,
Montana, and Colorado — the percentage of increase for the cities
of 25,000 or more was greater, and in most cases very much
greater, than the percentage of increase shown by the rest of the
state. Indeed, the contrasts in some instances were almost start-
ling. It is significant also that in most of the Southern states, to
which attention has already been called as being the stronghold of
the rural element and of rural growth in the past, the increase in
population of the cities grouped as indicated was large, reaching
a maximum of nearly 80 per cent in Oklahoma. Kentucky and
Louisiana were the only Southern states in which the rates of in-
crease were low. Five states in the South showed more than 50
per cent increase in the population of cities over 25,000. On the
other hand, the increase in those portions of the states outside
such cities was confined to the narrow range of from 4 to 2 1 per
cent.
RURAL AND URBAN INCREASE OR DECREASE. 83
This analysis of rural and urban increase from various points of
view makes evident the unprecedented trend of increasing numbers
of persons during the past 20 years away from country life until,
in the imwonted events of 19 10 to 1920, the great increase in city
population led to a majority of the so-called urban population in
the entire Nation, and a rather definite arrest of rural increase.
In the great movements of humanity here and there across the
continent, there are likely to appear relatively less and less violent
population changes as settlement and development of natural
resources tend to become complete; hence, succeeding censuses no
doubt will reflect a slowing down of the urban movement.
VII.
INCREASE OR DECREASE OF POPULATION CON-
SIDERED BY SEX, NATIVITY, AND COLOR.
Consideration thus far of population changes from 1910 to
1920 has been confined to mere quantitive increase or decrease.
Distinct from these changes wrought in the population as a
whole, such as increase or decrease shown by states or smaller
areas, or the general tendency to migrate from country to city,
are other and equally important changes affecting the composi-
tion of the population itself — changes in regard to sex, nativity,
and color. These in turn, as proved to be the case with the popu-
lation as a whole, assume added significance when considered by
geographic areas.
CHANGES IN THE PROPORTION OF THE SEXES.
Natiu*ally the first advance from the consideration of the pop-
ulation merely as individuals must be classification by sex. The
following statement shows the sex distribution of the population
of the United States for 1900, 19 10, and 1920:
CENSUS YEAR.
Male.
Female.
Males to
100
females.
38,816,448
47,332,277
53,900,431
37.178.127
44, 639, 989
51,810, 189
104.4
106.
IQ20
104.
The number of males in continental United States in 1920 con-
siderably exceeded that of females. This excess has appeared
at every census since 1820, when for the first time the returns
indicated the sex of every person enumerated, free or slave. In
1920 the numerical excess of males was more than 2,000,000,
larger than at any preceding census except that of 1910, when it
reached nearly 2,700,000. But tlie proportionate excess in 1920
was less than it had been for 40 years; in other words, the sexes
were more nearly balanced numerically in 1920 than in any of
the 3 preceding census years. In each 10,000 of the population
of 1910 there were 293 more males than females, and in 1920
only 198. This decrease of 95 per 10,000 in the excess of
males may be compared with the decrease of 120 per 10,000
between i860 and 1870, the only other decade since 1820 marked
84
INCREASE BY SEX, NATIVITY, AND COLOR.
85
by a sharp decrease in the excess of males. Both changes were
due to the effects, direct or indirect, of the two wars, the Civil War
and the World War. The decrease of more than 600,000, or about
22 per cent, in the excess of males during the decade 19 10 to 1920
was due to several influences combined — the greater mortality
of males resulting from the war, the emigration of more males
than females, the check upon immigration, which normally brings
in about 55 per cent of males, and perhaps an increase in the pro-
portion of females among the immigrants who did arrive. Exam-
ination of the figures by race and birthplace shows that almost
three-fifths of the decrease in the excess of males is among the
foreign-bom whites, although they constituted only 13 per cent of
the total population. This shows that the main influences at
work were the decrease in immigration and the increased emigra-
tion of the foreign bom, as noted above.
INCREASE BY NATIVITY AND COLOR.
The changing rates of increase for the white (subdivided as
native and foreign) and colored population are shown in Table 21,
which follows. Tables 53 and 54 will also be found of interest
in connection with increase and distribution.
Table 21. — Growth of the WmTE and Colored Elements oe the
Population: 1790- 1920.
TOTAL
WHITE.
CENSUS
YBAR,
POPULATION.
Total.
Native.
Foreign bom.
Number.
Per
cent
of in-
crease
Number.
Per
cent
of in-
crease
Number.
Per
cent
of in-
crease
Number.
Per
cent
of in-
crease
Number.
Per
cent
of in-
crease
1790
1800 . .
3,929,214
5, 308, 483
7, 239. 881
9. 638, 453
12, 866, 020
17, 069, 4S3
23, 191. 876
31,443,321
«39. 818,449
50, 15s. 783
62,947, 714
75.994.575
91, 972, 266
105.710,620
35-1
36.4
33-1
33-5
32.7
35-9
35-6
26.6
26.
'24.9
20. 7
21.
14.9
3, 172,006
4, 306, 446
5, 862, 073
7.866,797
10,537.378
14, 195, 80s
19. 553. 068
26, 922, 537
'34.337.292
43,402,970
55, loi, 258
66, 809, 196
81.731.957
94, 820, 915
7S7, 208
1, 002, 037
I, 377, 808
1. 771.656
2, 328, 642
2, 873. 648
3,638,808
4, 520, 784
25,481,157
6, 752, 813
7, 846, 456
9. 185,379
10, 240, 309
10,889,705
35.8
36. 1
34-2
33-9
34-7
37-7
37-7
27- 5
26.4
3 26. 7
21. 2
22-3
16.
32.3
37- S
38.6
j8io
J830
1840
31-4
23.4
26.6
24-9
21. 3
33.3
3 16. 2
17. I
II. 5
6.3
1850
i860
J870
1880
J890
1900
1910
1930
17.312,533
22. 825, 784
228,843,580
36, 843, 291
4S. 979. 391
56, 595. 379
68, 386, 412
81, 108, 161
31.8
26. 4
27.7
'24. S
23- I
20.8
ta6
2, 240, 535
4, 096, 753
5,493.712
6. 559. 679
9, 121, 867
10, 213, 817
13, 345, S4S
13. 71a. 754
82.8
34- I
19.4
'39. 1
12.
30.7
2.8
• Negroes, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
2 Estimated corrected figures ; census of 1870 incomplete.
'In computing this percentage of increase, the returns from the special enumeration of Indian Terri-
tory and Indian reservations in 1890 were excluded from the total for that year.
86
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Color or Race, Nativity, and Parentage, by Divisions:
1920, 1910, AND 1900.
PER CENT
)
7ZZZ1
1620
UNITED STATES i9io
1900
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS
1820
NEW ENGLAND
MID.ATLANTIC
E.NaCENTRAL
W NO, CENTRAL
80. ATLANTIC
E. 80.CENTRAL
MUdO^ENTRAL
PACIFIC
f///////A NATIVE WHITE. NATIVE PARENTAGE
^SSJUdSm NATIVE WHITE. FOREIGN OR MIXED PARENTAOe
ir^yy^ F0REIQN>BORN WHITE
■m NEGRO AND ALL OTHER
The increase of population from 1 910 to 1920, distributed accord-
ing to color or race, was as follows : White, increase, 13,088,958;
Negro, increase, 635,368; Indian, decrease, 21,246; Chinese, de-
crease, 9,892 ; Japanese, increase, 38,853; all other, increase, 6,313.
The white population of the United States has shown a higher
rate of increase than the total population at every census ex-
cept that of 1 8 10.
Classification merely as white, however, has only a general
interest, for the stream of immigration entering the country in
great volume after 1840 supplied a distinct element, the foreign
bom, 99 per cent of which was white and which early began to
form a considerable proportion of the total white population.
One step removed from this element, and derived from it, was
the class "native white of foreign or mixed parentage," a group
which began to assume large proportions by 1880. Thus in 1850
and i860 the census divided the whites into "native" and "for-
eign," but in 1870 and thereafter added the subdivisions "native
whites of native parentage," " native whites of foreign parentage,"
and "native wliites of mixed parentage."
VIII.
NATIVE WHITES OF NATIVE PARENTAGE.
Table 53, which appears on page 224, presents the increase of
the population of the United States from 19 10 to 1920 classified
by nativity, as previously defined. From this table it appears
that the increase contributed by each class was as follows:
Native white —
Of native parentage 8 , 933 , 382
Of foreign parentage 2 , 778, 228
Of mixed parentage 1,010, 139
Foreign-bom white 367 , 209
Total white increase, 1910 to 1920 13,088,958
More than two-thirds of the entire white increase from 1 910 to
1920 was contributed by the natives of native parents. Since this
element formed more than one-half of the total population of the
United States in 1920, and more than three-fifths of the white
population, it will be first considered.
Tabi,e 22. — Increase in Total White Population and in Native
WmTES of Native Parentage: 1860-1920.
1860-1870
1870-1880
1880-1890
1890-1900
1900-1910
1910-1920
Increase in
total white
Ix)ptilation.
17,414,755
1 9,065,678
2 11,580,920
11,707,938
14,922,761
13,088,958
INCREASE IN NATIVE WHITES
OF NATIVE PARENTAGE.
5,049, 112
25,789,924
6,473,646
8,539.213
8,933.382
Per cent of
total white
increase.
55-7
50. o
55-3
57-2
68.3
1 Estimated corrected figures; census of 1870 incomplete.
' Exclusive of Indians in Indian Territory and on Indian reservations, not enumerated prior to 1890.
The proportion which the increase in native whites of native
parentage formed of the total white increase affords an interesting
glimpse of the influence of the foreign element. Undoubtedly at
the Second Census, had data corresponding to those in the above
tabulation been seciu-ed, the proportion of the entire white in-
crease contributed by the natives of native parentage would have
been very high, perhaps in excess of 95 per cent. This propor-
tion decreased as the tide of immigrants swelled and the foreign
87
88 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
born and the native whites of foreign parents began to appear as
factors in the population growth. By 1840 the proportion of
native whites of native parentage had no doubt appreciably
lessened, and in 1850, when the census returned two and a quarter
millions of foreign bom, the proportion of the increase in the
white population contributed by the native whites of native
parentage was probably 65 per cent. By 1880 it had fallen to
56 per cent, and 10 years later, in 1890, another reduction set
the proportion at the low limit of 50 per cent. The next three
censuses showed advances. During the decade 19 10-1920 the
native white population of native parentage registered, for the
first time in half a century, more than its proportionate share of
the total white increase. This was due, however, to the fact that
the foreign-bom white population, probably for the first time in
nearly a century, was only a trifle larger at the end of the decade
than at its beginning. In fact, each of the three subclasses of the
native white population — those of native parentage, those of
foreign parentage, and those of mixed parentage — ^increased at a
higher rate than the white population as a whole. The proportion
which the increase in the native whites of native parentage formed
of the total white increase during the last decade, 68 per cent,
was probably similar to the corresponding proportion for the
decade 1 840-1 850, but the native whites of native parentage are
no longer descended almost entirely from Revolutionary and pre-
Revolutionary stock, as they were 70 years ago, and the increased
contribution of the third generation of the foreign stock — namely,
the grandchildren of foreigners — is now an important factor in
the increase of the native white population of native parentage.
It will be observed from Table 53 (p. 224) that the increase
of nearly 9,000,000 between 19 10 and 1920 for the United States
as a whole was unevenly contributed by the states. New England
returned a very slender increase, and a rate of increase below the
national average was contributed by the Middle Atlantic, West
North Central, and East South Central groups of states; but, on
the other hand, the rate of increase was considerably higher than
the national average in the other geographic divisions, rising,
indeed, to nearly 37 per cent in the Pacific division. These
divisional proportions, however, prove too general to be of es-
pecial value.
It is only when the changes shown by the native whites of
native parentage are considered by individual states that the
degree of increase or decrease begins to assume importance. New
NATIVE WHITES OF NATIVE PARENTAGE. 89
England proves to be one of the interesting groups for considera-
tion. Of these six states, Connecticut showed considerable
increase, followed closely by Massachusetts. These advances are
likely to have reflected the industrial activity during the war
period of the two states preeminently industrial. In Maine the
native whites of native parentage were practically stationary, an
increase of less than i,ooo being shown. In New Hampshire a
comparatively heavy reduction occurred, the state losing nearly
5,000 of this population class. Vermont lost about 1,000. Thus
in the three northern states of New England the natives of native
parentage suffered a net reduction of approximately 5,000 during
the decade, while in the three lower New England states, no
doubt in large measure for the reason suggested in the case of
Connecticut and Massachusetts, the increase amounted to nearly
195,000. Considerable reinforcement, however, must have been
contributed by the offspring of natives of foreign parentage in
the three states which have always returned a conspicuously
large foreign-bom element.
In the Middle Atlantic states considerable increases are recorded
in the native element, amounting in round numbers to 440,000 in
New York, 530,000 in Pennsylvania, and 200,000 in New Jersey.
The highest rate of increase, however, appears for New Jersey.
In New York the influence of the third generation of the foreign
stock was probably more marked than in Pennsylvania, and in
the former state the native stock increased at a slightly greater
rate than in the latter.
In the East North Central group, consisting of the industrial
states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Micliigan, and Wisconsin, the
increase varied from 9.4 per cent in Indiana to 38.2 per cent in
Wisconsin, but a per cent of increase in Michigan almost as large
as in Wisconsin represented a much larger numerical increase
than in the latter state. In Michigan the development of the
automobile industry exerted great influence upon the industrial
life of the state diuing the decade and tended, of course, to attract
a large number of high-grade mechanics, electricians, and other
experts, and thus increased the number of persons bom in other
states who became residents of Michigan, swelling the number of
natives of native parentage reported in 1 920. This group of states
showed a larger numerical increase than any other group. Clearly
it did not result so much from fertiHty within the group as from
the general movement of population during the decade to the
great industrial centers of the Nation.
90 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
In the West North Central group liberal increases were reported
except in Missouri and Kansas, the rate of increase varying from
6.2 per cent in Missouri to 43.9 per cent in Minnesota. In this
geographic division the indirect influence of the foreign element
through grandparentage was undoubtedly very considerable.
In the South Atlantic group the effect of natural increase tending
normally to expand the population has always been more in evi-
dence than elsewhere. Here the increases tend to be more
uniform. Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia showed a fairly uniform increase
averaging about 18 per cent. The exceptional increase in Florida
may be due in some measure to the fact that the census was
taken as of January i , and thus at a season when large numbers
of winter residents were in the state, some of whom no doubt
claimed it as their "usual place of abode," though residing during
the greater part of the year in other states.
The conditions in the East and West South Central states re-
sembled those in the states of the South Atlantic group, since
there were few foreigners, except in Texas, where the foreign-born
white population increased 50.2 per cent during the decade, and
the native stock in most of the states tended to retain its increase
within the state borders. In consequence the percentage of in-
crease in these geographic divisions ranged from 9.2 in Mississippi
to 28.1 in Oklahoma, averaging approximately 16 per cent.
The variations which occurred in the Mountain and Pacific
regions were not significant of normal increase. Here, in the
largest degree, appeared the drift of natives from other localities
arriving for purposes of business or residence. This is a process
which, while it increases the proportion of the native element
in the state of settlement, reduces at the same time the percent-
age which the native element contributes to the total increase
in the state of birth. The irregularities here shown are illustrated
by the percentages of increase, which range from 2.7 in Nevada
to 83.3 in Arizona.
URBAN TENDENCY OF THE NATIVE WHITE ELEMENT.
Of the total increase of 9,000,000 native whites of native parent-
age in 1920 shown in Table 53, more than three-quarters was re-
ported for urban communities.
The increase in population of American cities which has been so
marked during the last 30 or 40 years has been the effect in part
NATIVE WHITES OF NATIVE PARENTAGE.
91
of the continued influx of immigrants and also of the increase of
the second generation of the foreign stock. There has been a
continuous increase, of course, somewhat irregular, drawn from
the element "native whites of native parentage," not only from
those persons in this class born within the cities but from migration
of natives of native parentage from rural areas and smaller cities.
Up to 1 910 the increase derived from this source had been com-
paratively small, so that the proportion formed by the natives of
native parentage in the . aggregate population of cities having
100,000 inhabitants or more in 1900 was less than one- third and
was approximately the same in 19 10. In 1920, however, the 50
cities which had 100,000 or more inhabitants in 19 10 showed an
increase in natives of native parents 50 per cent greater in amount
than that shown in 19 10 for the same cities, thus indicating an
obvious movement of the native element, affecting all parts of the
United States, from rural to urban environment. It must be re-
membered, however, that many of the cities extended their bound-
aries between 1900 and 19 10 and between 19 10 and 1920, and
therefore that the absolute increases during the two decades are
not strictly comparable. Nevertheless, the very considerable
difference between the amounts of the increase during the two
decades is perhaps the most significant fact which appears in con-
nection with the natives of native parentage, coupled with the
varying degrees of increase which have been previously pointed
out. It will be profitable to extend the analysis of this increased
trend of the native element to cities.
The following table indicates the relation between increase in
total population in cities having 100,000 inhabitants or more,
and in the native element in the same communities:
Table 23. — Increase of Native WmTES of Native Parentage in
Comparison with Increase in Total Population in Cities of
100,000 Inhabitants or More: 1900-1920.
Num-
ber of
cities.
TOTAL POPULATION.
NATIVE WHITES Ot NATIVE PARENTAGE.
CENSUS
YEAR.
Number.
Increase.
Percent
of in-
crease.
Number.
Increase.
Per
cent of
in-
crease.
1900
I9IO
1920
38
68
14,208,347
20,302,138
27,429,326
4.254.817
6,370,088
9.852,391
6.093.791
7,127,188
42.9
35-1
2,115,271
3,482,303
49-7
54-7
92
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The figures in the foregoing table relate to 38 cities in 1900,
50 cities in 19 10, and 68 cities in 1920. The increases, therefore,
are greater than those which would be obtained from a comparison
of the combined population, in different census years, of a definite
and unchanging group of cities. Nevertheless, the table serv^es
fairly well the purpose for which it is presented, namely, a com-
parison of the rates of increase, during the past two decades, of
the total population and of the native white population of native
parentage in the large cities.
A distinct check occurred in the rate of growth of total popula-
tion in these cities from 19 10 to 1920 as compared with 1900 to
19 10, but the rate of increase in the native whites of native parent-
age, almost 50 per cent during the early decade, showed a fur-
ther advance to 54.7 per cent for the recent decade.
Between 1900 and 19 10 the increase in native whites of native
parentage in this group of large cities was slightly more than
one- third, but between 1910 and 1920 it was nearly one-half, of the
total increase.
Table 55 (p. 234) presents by states the distribution of native
whites of native parentage in 19 10 and 1920 as urban and rural.
This table may be thus summarized for the United States :
Table 24. — Native White Population op Native Parentage,
Distributed as Urban and Rural: 19 10 and 1920.
Native white of native parentage
Per cent of total population
Urban native white of native parentage
Per cent of total urban
Rural native white of native parentage .
Per cent of total rural
Total urban population
Per cent urban in total population
49,488,575
53-8
17,621,230
41.8
31,867,345
64.0
42, 166, 120
45-8
58,421.957
55-3
24,556.729
45-2
33,865.228
65-9
54, 304, 603
Si-4
Inspection of the table shows that while the total population
in 1920 became slightly more urban than rural, the native wliites
of native parentage continued to maintain a strong rural majority.
But this was due entirely to the result of earlier tendencies,
for while the rural whites of native parentage increased about
2,000,000 (contributing, indeed, more than the total increase
in the general rural class), the urban section of the native ele-
NATIVE WHITES OF NATIVE PARENTAGE. 93
ment increased almost 7,000,000. This increase and its distribu-
tion prove perhaps the most significant change revealed by the
distinctly native white element at the Fourteenth Census.
In New England, where the native whites of native parentage
constituted but little more than one-third of the total population,
but one-third in turn of this class itself remained rural, and while
the urban native whites of native parentage increased from 19 10
to 1920 about 250,000, the corresponding rural class decreased
about 60,000.
Similarly, in the group of states extending from New York to
Virginia, although the proportion of native whites of native
parentage slightly exceeded that shown by New England, the
increase of 1,500,000 in the urban group contrasted with a decline
of 40,000 in the rural group.
In the South, where the urban native whites of native parent-
age have heretofore constituted a comparatively small proportion
of the total population, an urban tendency similar to that shown
elsewhere manifested itself in 1920, and the growth of the lu^ban
element actually slightly exceeded numerically that of the rural
element.
In all the more important groups of states the same tendency
is disclosed, as inspection of Table 55 reveals geographically the
urban absorption of 7,000,000 of the 9,000,000 increase from 19 10
to 1920 in the number of native whites of native parentage.
Of the 68 cities having 100,000 or more inhabitants in 1920, 55
showed a distinct increase in the proportion contributed by the
native whites of native parentage. This significant tendency
appears in cities of all sizes and located in all parts of the country.
The three leaders in population, New York, Chicago, and Phila-
delphia, showed rather marked increases, and two of the three,
Chicago and Philadelphia, reversed the tendency to decrease the
proportion native of native parentage, shown from 1900 to 1910.
More than half their total population was reported by 26 cities as
native white of native parentage, an increase over the correspond-
ing number in 19 10.
Three cities reported over 70 per cent of all their inhabitants as
native whites of native parentage. Of these, Reading, Pa., led
with 75.2 per cent. At the other extreme New Bedford and Fall
River returned less than one-fifth of their population in the native-
parentage class.
94 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Thirteen cities were exceptions to the general tendency and
showed decreases in the proportion of their native whites of native
parentage, and in all but three of them similar decreases appeared
between 1900 and 19 10. Six of these cities were in New England —
three in Massachusetts and three in Connecticut. In nearly all
the large communities in these two industrial states the native
element has declined to low proportions in the total population.
Here is indicated, broadly, perhaps, one of the most significant
changes revealed by the Fourteenth Census. It is the response
made by millions of persons of native American stock to the call
of the cities, north, east, west, and south, for workers to serve
in factories and shops where education and skill were required.
IX.
NUMERICAL IMPORTANCE OF DESCENDANTS OF WHITE
PERSONS ENUMERATED AT THE FIRST CENSUS.
Analysis thus far has dealt with the entire element of the white
population classified by the census as natives of native parentage.
This class, comprising nearly 60,000,000 persons, is far from homo-
geneous. It clearly consists of two sections, the descendants of
the original white element enumerated at the First Census, and
descendants in at least the third generation of persons arriving
in the United States after 1 790. What part of this so-called
native element of 58,000,000 in the United States in 1920 was de-
scended from the 3,000,000 whites enumerated in 1790? It is
clear that, having reached even an approximate figiire, the differ-
ence must represent the contribution by those persons who settled
in this country subsequently to 1 790.
This subject has long offered one of the most interesting statis-
tical problems considered by students of population change in the
United States. The importance of analyzing the origin of the
population of the United States was first publicly recognized 100
years ago. As Congress took up the task of framing the law
authorizing the Second Census, 1800, the Connecticut Academy of
Arts and Sciences, by Dr. Timothy Dwight, its president, memo-
rialized the Senate concerning the scope of the census. The
memorial contained this rather prophetic suggestion .
"To present and future generations it will be highly gratifying
to observe the progress of population in this country, and to be
able to trace the proportion of its increase from native Americans and
from foreigners immigrating at successive periods. ' ' ^
Unfortunately, the Senate did not heed the memorial and did
not provide for the return of the foreign bom at the census of
1800. It was half a century later, in 1850, that foreign-born
persons were first enumerated separately.
» Garfield 's Report on Ninth Census, H. R., Forty-first Congress, second session,
Vol. I, No. 3, p. 36.
95
96 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Analysis of the increase of population by nativity requires
some reference to the probable increase of the distinctly native
element. A brief census study of this subject in 1909/ in connec-
tion with a review of the statistics obtainable at an early period,
established three methods of determining what had been the
contribution of the native element to the total white population.
These methods were: (i) Elimination of foreign stock from the
native element; (2) estimate of growth of the native white stock
based on the rate of increase shown by the Southern states ; ^ and
(3) estimate of growth of the white population of native stock
measured by the proportion of persons in Massachusetts having
native grandparents. The third method of computation was made
possible by the fact that in 1905 the state census of Massachusetts
attempted an inquiry, the nativity of grandparents, which had
never been attempted by any other census, state or national, in the
United States. The result of that inquiry was not altogether
satisfactory. It was generally regarded as being rather inaccurate,
but it seems reasonable to conclude that the inaccuracy related
more to those elements foreign or recently foreign than to the
native element, since nearly all Americans of native stock can
answer unhesitatingly that their grandparents were bom in the
United States, though in many instances they might not be sure
as to the state in which born.
The first of these methods yielded an estimate, for 1900, of
35j5oo,ooo as representing the native white stock whose foreign-
born ancestors arrived in this country not later than 1790; the
second computation gave 35,640,000; and the third, 33,730,000.
The average of the three estimates was very nearly 35,000,000.
This figure was assumed to represent the numerical equivalent of
the native white stock in the United States in 1900; that is to say,
it was considered as equal to the sum of the number of persons of
pure native ancestry since 1 790 plus a number representing the
amount of native stock in those persons of mixed native and foreign
stock. For example, the amount of native stock in four persons
each of whom had one foreign-bom grandparent and three native
' A Century of Population Growth in the United States, 1790-1900. U. S. Census,
1909.
^ In making the estimate by this method it was assumed that the rate of natural
increase of the native white stock prior to 1870 was the same for the country as a
whole as for the Southern states, and that subsequently to 1870 the rate for the re-
mainder of the country was equal to one-half that for the Soutli.
DESCENDANTS OF WHITES ENUMERATED IN 1790. 97
grandparents of pure native ancestry would be equivalent to the
amount of native stock in three persons of pure native ancestry.
(See Appendix A, p. 187.)
Twenty years elapsed from the Twelfth Census to the Four-
teenth. The population of the nation in that period increased
about 40 per cent. What has been the contribution of the native
stock during the two decades?
It can not, of course, be claimed that methods of approaching
this subject are exhausted when those above described have been
utilized. There are, indeed, many ways of approaching it, but it
probably will be agreed that the most satisfactory method elimi-
nates in some manner the foreign increment, which has been grow-
ing in importance and numbers, especially since 1845. To this
end a careful study has been made in the Bureau of the Census and
a simple mathematical formula has been utilized. It is the confi-
dent belief of the census experts who have worked over the figures
that the procedure outlined at length in Appendix A of this mono-
graph is more likely to yield accurate results than any of the
others which have been considered. The conclusion, in fact, was
reached that the second method employed in the previous census
study represented considerable obvious inaccuracy, and that the
third method, while extremely valuable if it could have been
brought up to date, reflected conditions which might have been
outlived by 1920, so that the percentage used to determine native
stock in 1900 became in 1920 an arbitrary and rather uncertain
one.
If the method thus suggested as preferable, of computing the
contribution of the original stock to the population of the United
States in 1920 by eliminating the effect of immigration (p. 191),
be accepted, the numerical equivalent of the native white stock
in 1900 was 37,290,000; in 1910, 42,420,000; and in 1920,
47,330,000.^ (For estimates for 1820-1890, see p. 195.)
' Were the second method of estimating native white stock utilized — a computation
based on the increase shown in Southern states — ^the result would have been 46,250,000
for 1920. But, as suggested, this method can not be regarded as being especially-
reliable or satisfactory. The third method, tliat of utilizing the proportion of native
grandparentage secured from the Massachusetts census of 1905 (79.1 per cent of the
native whites of native parentage), if applied to this element of the white population
in 1920, would yield a total of 46,200,000. The similarity here shown suggests that
possibly the proportion formed by persons of native grandparentage may be some-
what more nearly constant than students of statistics would have been inclined to
admit. (See Table 66 and also conclusion of footnote, p. 195.)
107°— 22 7
98 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The 47,330,000 estimated as representing the amount of native
white stock in 1920 may be considered as the number of white
persons who would have been enumerated in that year had there
been no immigration nor emigation since 1790 and if, nevertheless,
the rate of natural increase had been what, historically, it appears
to have been. The total number descended, in whole or in part,
from white persons enumerated in 1790 was, of course, consid-
erably larger because of the intermingling of native and foreign
stock. In fact, it would be theoretically possible for the total
number of native white persons enumerated in 1920, except those
having both parents foreign bom, to have descended in whole or
in part from white persons enumerated in 1 790.
There is at least one possible flaw, though a minor one, in the
calculation employed in making the recent estimates. It is found in
the assumption that the same rate of natural increase was present
in both the native and foreign elements. An attempt to ascertain
the ratio between the two rates of increase led to the unexpected
discovery that the marriage rates are considerably lower among the
native whites of foreign or mixed parentage than among the native
whites of native parentage. This is true for tlie United States as a
whole and also for urban and rural communities separately. Thus,
on the one hand, while the birth rate in the families of the foreign-
bom whites is higher than for the native whites, on the otlier
hand the marriage rate is considerably lower for American-bom
white persons having foreign-bom parents than for the native
whites of native parentage. It can not be assumed, therefore,
that the third generation of foreign white stock is relatively any
more numerous than the contemporary generation of native white
stock.
The expansion of the native white stock in 20 years is repre-
sented by the advance from 37,290,000 in 1900 to 47,330,000 in
1920, an increase of 10,040,000, or nearly 27 per cent. The rate of
increase in the native whites of native parentage during the same
period was 43 per cent. The difference between these rates is due
to the fact that the native whites of native parentage are recruited
in part by the children bom to native whites of foreign or mixed
parentage, that is to say, by the grandcliildren of tlie foreign-bora
whites. The total increase in the native whites of native parentage
is, tlierefore, greater than the natural increase, since in the case
of the families in which the parents are native whites of foreign or
DESCENDANTS OF WHITES ENUMERATED IN 1790. 99
mixed parentage the births increase the class of native whites of
native parentage, whereas' the deaths of the parents do not de-
crease that class.
It is not possible to apportion among all the states the increment
of 10,040,000 in the native white stock. One separation, however,
is possible and proves of some interest. Certain Southern states
have been affected to a very slight degree by the great tide of
immigration. Kven at the last census, though the foreign bom
and the children of foreign parentage in this area showed a slight
increase, the absolute figures were negligibly small. Hence the
increase of white natives of native parentage in at least 9 Southern
states was practically that of distinctly native stock, and may be
regarded as a part of the 10,040,000 aggregate increase just shown
to have occurred in 20 years. These 9 Southern states are Virginia,
North CaroHna, South CaroHna, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,
Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Together they retiumed
9,700,592 white natives of native parentage in 1900. In 1920 the
total was 13,061,286. This was an increase of 3,360,694, or nearly
35 per cent, in 20 years, in comparison with the national increase
ot 43 per cent in native whites of native parentage and 27 per cent
in estimated native white stock.
Withdrawing this number of persons from 10,040,000 leaves
6,680,000 as the approximate increase contributed by the remain-
ing 39 states and the District of Columbia. In these states the
estimated native white stock in 1900, after deduction of the total
number of native whites of native parentage in the 9 specified
Southern states, was 27,590,000. Hence the increase of the native
white stock outside the excepted group of 9 Southern states was 24.2
per cent in 20 years. The difference here indicated between the in-
crease shown for certain Southern states and that attributed to the
remainder of the Union is in line with imdoubted tendencies. It
is well known that the South has contributed a generous increase
to the native stock, while it has long been the general beHef among
statisticians that the contribution to the native stock by the rest
of the country was not large and differed widely among tlie states,
being in many very small. In some Eastern states, indeed, it has
seemed probable that a loss was being recorded.
The increase of population for the 20-year period 1900 to 1920
may now be thus interestingly divided, as shown in Table 25.
100
INCRE.\SE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 25. — Distribution of Population ant> Rate of Increase by
Race and Nativity : 1920 and 1900.
Total.
Number.
105, 710, 620
Per cent
of
total.
Number.
75.994,575
Per cent
of
total.
100. O
Native white 81, 108, 161
Native stock (estimated). '47,330,000
Nine Southern states.! ^j^^q^j 286
All other states (esti- j
mated) 134,270,000
Foreign stock (esti- '
mated) , '33, 780, 000
Foreign-bom white 13, 712, 754
Negro j 10, 463, 131
Indian, Chinese, Japanese,'
etc I 426, 574
76.7
44-8
12.4
.32.4
32.0
13.0
9.9
0.4
56, 595, 379
* 37, 290, 000
- 9, 700, 592
' 27, 590, 000
' 19, 300, 000
10, 213, 817
8, 833, 994
351,385
74-5
49. I
12.8
3^-3
25-4
13-4
II. 6
0-5
Per
cent of
in-
crease.
1900-
1930.
39- I
43-3
26. 9
34-6
24. 2
75- o
34-3
18.4
21.4
1 Numerical equivalent.
' Native white of native parentage; approximately same as pure native white stock.
The addition of nearly 14,500,000 to the foreign white stock of
native birth during the 20-year period, representing an increase of
75 per cent, is derived from two sources: First, the increase of the
foreign white stock of native birth present in 1900 (equivalent to
19,300,000); and second, the sur\nvors, in 1920, of the children
bom in the United States since 1900 to foreign white parents.
While the first of these two sources is properly designated as
natiu-al increase, the second is not, since births in the United
States to foreign parents increase the class under consideration,
while the deaths of the parents do not decrease it. (See Appen-
dix B, p. 197.)
From the standpoint of historic interest and of influence on the
development of the Nation, the distinctly native stock in the
population of the United States has, of course, been the over-
shadowing element. There has long been an impression on the
part of students of population statistics that this element, begin-
ning with an unusually large percentage of increase, has been
slackening in growth to the point where it was almost a question
whether any increase at all was occurring — especially in certain
localities.
The late Francis A. Walker, Superintendent of the Tenth
Census, whose contributions to scientific population analysis are
DESCENDANTS OF WHITES ENUMERATED IN i790. 101
of the highest order, advanced the theory that the reduced in-
crease of the native stock was the result of contact and competi-
tion with the foreign element, beginning about the middle of the
last century. This theory has been vigorously opposed and as a
complete explanation has not been accepted, but in one respect
it is certainly true. The coming of the foreign element into
the life of the Republic stimulated industrial activity, railroad
construction, manufacturing, and development of all kinds. These
great economic changes in turn tended to make over the social
conditions of the Nation, and in the complexities arising in that
direction is undoubtedly to be found the principal cause of
decreasing increase of a stock originally so prolific. Thus General
Walker's theory may be accepted as reasonably correct, though
perhaps in a roundabout way.
The analysis presented in the foregoing pages seems to make it
evident that the distinctly native stock, by which is meant the de-
scendants of those persons who were enumerated at the First Cen-
sus, has not ceased to increase as a whole, but that this increase is
being contributed unequally by different parts of the country.
Such a change may be accepted as natural and normal. In those
states more or less fully settled and in which the incentive to pop-
ulation increase no longer is urgent, it is not to be expected that
radical changes in any element will appear from census to census.
The racial characteristics of the original stock are such that the
innate yearning to achieve develops a decided tendency to seek
other fields of activity where opportunities for advancement
are greater than in older and more populous communities. Thus,
quite naturally, while this element of the population tends to
become stationary or even to decline in New England, in those
areas where the call is still urgent for increased population,
where chances are many for individual advancement, the de-
scendants of the original stock continue to increase. In the
South and in certain of the Northern Central and Western states,
without question the representatives of the early stock are con-
tributing with reasonable liberality to the increase of population.
This analysis indicates that the native white stock is increasing
in the entire Nation at the rate of about ii or 12 per cent per
decade. Thus in a broad sense the early or Revolutionary stock
is continuing to increase at a rate which rather closely approxi-
mates the increase shown as an average by the nations of Europe
somewhat allied to it in characteristics, primarily England and
102 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Scotland. It is not to be expected, if modem statistics of popu-
lation growth are to be accepted as indicative, that a nation
having reached maturity will increase at a much faster rate than
an average of lo per cent per decade. Therefore, it is reasonable
and normal that the oldest element in the population of the
United States and thus the one which is reasonably comparable
with the population of the nations of Europe should continue to
increase at a rate roughly corresponding to the European rates.
X.
NATIVE WHITES OF FOREIGN OR MIXED PARENTAGE
AND FOREIGN-BORN WHITES.
NATIVE WHITES OF FOREIGN OR MIXED PARENTAGE.
The native whites of foreign parentage form what may be termed
an intermediate group in the census classification by nativity.
The white immigrant is classed as "foreign-bom white." His
children by his foreign-bom wife then become ' ' native whites of
foreign parentage," and their children, the grandchildren of the
immigrant, become a part of the principal element numerically of
the nation, the "native whites of native parentage. ' ' The marriage
of a white person of foreign birth to one of native birth necessi-
tates for the children resulting from such marriage, bom in the
United States, the additional classification "native whites of mixed
parentage."
The class of native whites of foreign parentage is dependent for
its existence upon the number, ages, and marital condition of the
foreign-bom whites in the countr)\ If an absolute check were
placed on immigration the foreign bom would gradually disappear,
while the number of native whites of foreign parentage would
linger one generation longer and then also become nonexistent.
As the number of foreign bom within the country increases, the
number of their children increases. In the half century from
1870 to 1920 the native whites of foreign parentage increased from
10.8 per cent of the entire population to 14.8 per cent, and during
the same period the native whites of mixed parentage increased
from 3 per cent to 6.6 per cent.
The increase in native whites of foreign parentage for the
decade 191Q to 1920 was 2,778,228, representing excess of births
over deaths and emigration. The increase in the native whites
of mixed parentage for the same decade was 1,010,139. The total
number of children under 10 years of age, and therefore having
been bom since January i, 19 10, who were enumerated at the
1920 census as native white of foreign or mixed parentage was
5,901,905. Reducing this number by 162,000, representing the
estimated number of children bom between January i and April
103
104
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
15, 1910 (the Thirteenth Census date), and sur\'iving on January i,
1920, leaves, in round numbers, 5,740,000 children bom between
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Census dates and sur\'iving on
the latter date. The difference of approximately 1,952,000 be-
tween this number and the net increase of 3,788,367 in the two
classes under consideration represents the number of persons in
those classes who were enumerated on April 15, 1910, and who
died or emigrated before January i, 1920.
In accordance with the general trend thus far observ^ed, the
urban rate of increase of the natives of foreign parentage has far
exceeded the rural rate of increase. In lurban communities this
group increased 30 per cent during the past decade, while in
rural areas it increased but 4 per cent.
As might have been expected, the distribution of native whites
of foreign or mixed parentage conforms in general to the distribu-
tion of the foreign born. The following table shows the propor-
tions for the last two census years :
Table 26. — Per Cent Distribution of Foreign-born Whites and
Native Whites of Foreign or Mixed Parentage, by Geographic
Divisions: 1920 and 1910.
GBOGRAPHIC DIVISION.
United States
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central. .
West North Central.
South Atlantic
East South Central . .
West South Central.
Mountain
Pacific
Foreign-bom
white.
100. o
13.6
35-8
23-5
10. o
2.3
0-5
3-3
3-3
7-5
Native white
of foreign
or mixed
parentage.
II. 6
3'^-3
26. I
14.9
2.4
0.9
3- I
3-3
6.3
Foreign-bom
white.
Native white
of foreign
or mixed
parentage.
100.
100.
13-6
36.2
23.0
12. I
2. 2
0.7
2.6
3-3
6.5
10. 9
29. 6
27. o
17.0
2-3
I. I
3-2
3-3
5-6
During the last decade the native whites of foreign parentage
increased by 21.5 per cent, a higher rate than that for any other
group of the white population. The New England, Middle
Atlantic, and Pacific states all show increases of over 30 per cent,
while the East South Central was the only geographic division to
record a decrease — 6.8 per cent. All the states reporting de-
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK. 105
creases for native whites of foreign parentage also showed de-
creases in number of foreign-born whites, though the reverse is
not true.
It is worthy of note that in the state of New Hampshire, in
which the native whites of native parentage decreased nearly
5,000 and the foreign-bom whites decreased more than 5,000, the
native whites of foreign parentage and the native whites of mixed
parentage together increased more than 22,000, and thereby kept
the state from returning a net decrease for the decade.
Connecticut, with an increase of 45.8 per cent, and New Jersey,
with 43.9 per cent, are illustrations of the attraction which in-
dustrial centers have for the native whites of foreign parentage.
One other state merits especial attention. Although the foreign-
born whites in North Dakota decreased 15.8 per cent during the
decade, the native whites of foreign parentage increased 13.3 per
cent and the native whites of mixed parentage increased 35.6 per
cent, and the combined increase in these two native classes was
greater numerically than the increase in the native whites of
native parentage. In Wisconsin, Minnesota, Idaho, Wyoming,
Colorado, and Utah decreases in the foreign-born whites were also
accompanied by increases in the native whites of foreign or mixed
parentage, but in these states the increases in the native whites of
native parentage were greater than the combined increases in the
other two native white classes.
FOREIGN-BORN WHITES.
The decade 1900 to 19 10 witnessed the entrance of about
8,000,000 foreigners into the United States and a net increase of
30.7 per cent in the foreign-bom white population. At the close
of the period immigrants were entering the country at the rate of
1,000,000 per annum. The chief restrictions at that time were
those based on physical disability, moral turpitude, and the immi-
grant's ability to support himself. In 19 10 the number of foreign-
bom whites in the country was 13,345,545, or 14.5 per cent of the
entire population. Had the increase for the decade 19 10 to 1920
continued at the rate of the previous period, the foreign-bom
white population of the countr}^ would have reached seventeen
and one-half millions in 1920. As a matter of fact, the census
of 1920 showed a foreign-bom white population of 13,712,754,
an increase of 367,209, or 2.8 per cent, over the corresponding
106 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
figure for 1910. For the previous decade, the rate of increase of
the foreign-born whites was nearly one-half greater than that for
the total population, while for the lo-year period 19 10 to 1920 it
was less than one-fifth that for the total population. In the sense
of permitting more thorough assimilation, this slackened increase
has proved fortunate. The decrease in the rate of increase for
the foreign-born whites effected a decrease in the proportion of
the total white population which was foreign born. This pro-
portion dropped to the lowest point reached since 1850, or 14.5
per cent of the entire number of white persons enumerated.
Such a figure, however, is inadequate as an expression of the
foreign-born element.
"We obtain a more significant measure of the relative impor-
tance of the immigrants if we consider the percentage which they
form of the adult population, or, taking a figure which is con-
veniently accessible in the census reports, the percentage which
they form of the total male population 21 years of age and over.
It is a percentage which would be startling if we had not become
familiar with it, or if it were announced for the first time in the
history of census taking. In 19 10 — to take first the earlier and
more sensational percentage — 24.6 per cent, or practically one-
fourth, of the male population 21 years of age and over consisted
of immigrants. The percentage has now declined to 22. i , which is
still over one-fifth of the total. Of course, much higher per-
centages are reported in certain sections of the country'. In the
Middle Atlantic states (New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania)
35.4 per cent of the male population 21 years of age and over is
foreign bom; in the New England states, 38.2 per cent; in Massa-
chusetts, 41.9 per cent; in Boston, 46.3 per cent; and in New York
City, 53.4 per cent." ^ Such proportions of foreign bom within
the United States make any decrease in the rate of increase sig-
nificant and deserving of more intensive examination.
Practically all the foreign born are whites, the proportion wliite
being 98.6 per cent, as compared with 88.4 per cent for the natives.
While the foreign-bom population can be increased only by immi-
gration, there are two forces constantly at work decreasing their
number, emigration and mortality. Importunately fairly compar-
able data on all three subjects are available.
On April 15, 1 9 10, the number of foreign-bom whites in the
United States, as shown by the Tliirteenth Census, was 13,345,545.
' Dr. Joseph A. Hill, Assistant Director of the Census, before the American Statis-
tical Association, Pittsburgh, Dec. 27, 1921.
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK. 107
Between that date and January i, 1920, the excess of white immi-
gration over white emigration was approximately 3,350,000.
(See Appendix C, p, 203.)
The addition of the estimated net white immigration of 3,350,000
to the 13,345,545 foreign-bom whites enumerated in 19 10 gives
a total of approximately 16,695,000 as the number of foreign-
bom whites who would have been present in the United States
on January i, 1920, had there been no mortality in this class
between the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Census dates. The
number actually enumerated was 13,712,754. This would indi-
cate, assuming the census figures and the immigration and emi-
gration figures to be correct, a mortality of about 2,980,000.
The mortality actually recorded in the death-registration states ^
indicated, for the entire United States, assuming the death rate
for the foreign-bom white population to be the same for the
country as a whole as for the registration states, a foreign white
mortality of only 2,415,000 for the period from April 15, 1910, to
January i, 1920.
This discrepancy of 565,000 — equal to about 4 per cent of the
entire number of foreign-born whites enumerated — probably
results in the main from three causes: First, that the mortality
returns, although satisfactorily near completeness in most states
in the registration area, are not absolutely complete and do not
cover the entire United States, so that any estimate for the
country as a whole is subject to some margin of error; second,
that the deaths of some foreign-born persons, although registered,
may have been erroneously reported as deaths of natives; third,
that undoubtedly a considerable number of foreign born, in the
period of excitement just following the war and because of the
antagonisms and prejudices aroused by it, may have represented
themselves to the census enumerators as natives.
In this study of the foreign bom, considered as a general group,
regardless of sex or nationality, it is important to review the
changes in distribution which have occurred during the lo-year
period. Since there was little actual net increase during the
period, any considerable increase or decrease which took place in
a given state or city must have been attended by a corresponding
* This group of states, with 76.6 per cent of the total foreign-bom white population
of the United States in 1910, was enlarged from year to year and in 1919 was estimated
to contain 90.6 per cent of the total foreign-bom white population of tlie country.
108 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
decrease or increase in other areas. This does not necessarily
imply a migration from one area to another. Approximately
5,500,000 foreign-bom whites entered the country during the
decade, and an almost equal number either emigrated or died. It
is, therefore, possible for the distribution to have been changed
quite violently during the period with practically no interstate
migration. Considerable redistribution actually did take place in
this manner.
The races which decreased during the period were relatively
quite general in their distribution throughout the country, while
those which increased tended to concentrate in New England, the
Middle Atlantic, and the East North Central groups of states.
Consequently the changing proportions between 1910 and 1920
led to increased concentration in the Eastern states. The shut-
ting off of the stream of immigrants brought about a demand for
other persons to take their places in the industrial centers. The
incoming foreign bom have a definite status in our economic labor
supply, and there was great demand for the type of labor which
they customarily furnish. This tended to attract such foreign
bom as arrived during the decade to the industrial centers and to
retain them there.
The redistribution which occurred from 19 10 to 1920 greatly
affected certain areas. The West North Central division, which
in 1 9 10 possessed a foreign-bom white population of 1,613,231, or
13.9 per cent of its entire population, actually showed for the
lo-year period a foreign-bom white decrease of 241,270, or
about 15 per cent. This area, being mainly agricultural, was
neither able to compete with the demand for labor from the in-
dustrial states nor to attract those immigrants who came to the
United States during the decade. The East South Central division
also showed a decrease in total foreign bom, but such a change is
not of especial significance, as the foreign bom in the southern
districts have always been few in number. The increases oc-
curred in the main in the industrial sections, in the Atlantic Coast
states, and along the Mexican border. Massachusetts, Connecti-
cut, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan all in-
creased in foreign-bom white population. Because of the increase
in Mexicans alone, the states of Texas, Arizona, and California
also bulked large in the total.
o
w
o
OJ
109
110 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The increase in practically all the Southern Atlantic states is
worthy only of passing notice, Florida being the only state in this
group to show a foreign-bom white increase of over 5,000. The
percentages of increase in these states showed marked advances
because of the small actual numbers on which based.
Increases in three states, Michigan, Texas, and CaHfomia, ag-
gregated more than the net foreign-bom white increase shown by
the entire country.
INCREASE OF FOREIGN BORN IN CITIES.
The tendency of the foreign-bom white population toward con-
centration in cities and large towns has long been manifest. In
1890, 61.8 per cent of the foreign-bom whites were numbered in
the urban population. This proportion increased to 71.4 per cent
in 1 910, and by 1920 the foreign-bom white population of the
United States had become 75.5 per cent urban. Thus at the
Fourteenth Census three out of every four foreign-bom white per-
sons in this country lived in communities of 2,500 inhabitants
or over. On the other hand, during tlie decade the number of
foreign-bom whites in rural districts decreased 12 per cent.
It is probably true that this apparent urban movement of the
foreign bom does not represent actual migration to any consider-
able extent. Certainly during the decade under survey the migra-
tion of the foreign bom to the cities was not as great as that of the
native whites or of the Negroes. Apparent migration is due largely
to the replacement of nationalities. The GeiTnans, English, and
Scandinavians, races which decreased during the decade, have
always contributed much lower proportions of their total numbers
to the population of cities tlian have the Italians, Russian Jews,
and other races which showed increases during the decade. A
change in the proportions of these races witliin tlie coimtry would
naturally result in an apparent urbanization movement. By tak-
ing out a number of Germans and replacing them witli Russian
Jews, although the number of foreign bom within the comitry
might be exactly the same, the percentage urban would be made
higher. For example: During the last decade the foreign-bom
white population of rural communities in the East North Central
division decreased 165,000, while the foreign-bom white popula-
tion of urban communities increased 320,000. And yet this was
only partly a matter of urban migration. It was principally the
result of such a redistribution of nationalities, since during the
decade the number of persons of German birth witliin this division
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK. Ill
decreased about 280,000 and the number of Scandinavians about
30,000, while on the other hand the Poles (using "mother tongue"
to distinguish Poles for 1910) increased by 85,000, the Austrians
and Hungarians (using the prewar boundaries) 80,000, the Ital-
ians 55,000, and the Russians 110,000.
What such a substitution means can be realized readily by refer-
ence to the results of the 1910 census, wliich showed that while the
Germans in the United States were 67 per cent urban and the Scan-
dinavians 53 per cent, the Russian Jews, on the other hand, were
87 per cent urban, the Austrians and Hungarians 74 per cent, and
the Italians 78 per cent. These figULres represent the tendency of
each nationality to congregate in cities. Any change such as that
which took place in the East North Central division, replacing the
less urban nationalities with those more urban in tendency, would
result in an apparent cityward migration.
It is important in this connection to keep constantly in mind the
fact that the accumulation of immigrants in cities is not a fair test
of their tu-ban tendencies. Cities are the natural points at which
immigrants arrive ; they are the points at which a living of some
sort can usually be secured. The dispersion of the foreign bom
to smaller communities and to rural districts is at best a slow
process. In a period of rapid immigration, the cities choke up
with immigrants. When immigration slackens the dispersion of
newly arrived foreigners to other parts of the country can better
keep pace with the number entering the various ports.
One other factor should be considered. The native white was
traditionally migratory. The war demand for city workers was
able to sweep him into industrial centers. The Negro was
also easily attracted to the cities. These influences did not so
easily affect the rural foreign bom. They had come to this
country in the main for economic betterment, had gone by choice
to the rural commimities, and had striven for and in general had
reached positions of comparative independence. They had not
been in the United States long enough to become as restless as
v/ere the native whites, even had they possessed by inheritance so
great an instinct for change. They were quite contented with
their rural life. If these foreign-bom persons had been by nature
city dwellers, they would not have chosen rural life when they
entered the United States. So it is not surprising that the actual
migration of this element from country to city was of little numeri-
cal consequence.
112 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
There was a certain type of migration from the country which
must be mentioned, and that was the movement of foreign-born
persons back to their native lands for military service. Pre-
sumably, however, this movement was of greater consequence
from the larger cities, where nationalities congregate and where
enthusiasm could be more easily aroused, than from the rural
districts.
INCREASE AND DECREASE OF FOREIGN-BORN WHITE BY
NATIONALITY.
Up to this point the discussion has dealt with the foreign born
mainly as similar units. Such a discussion is fruitful from
certain viewpoints, but changes in nationalities press for analysis.
It is especially important to consider proportions of nationality,
since the Fourteenth Census period is noteworthy as the apparent
close of slightly restricted immigration and the beginning of an
era of restriction. The method chosen for applying the new policy
is based on the numerical strength of national groups within the
country.
For the purpose of examining the foreign-bom white population
in 1920 and of comparing it with that of 19 10, Table 27 has been
prepared. There was an obvious difficulty with regard to the
enumeration of the foreign born at the census of 1920, arising
from the transfer of territory from one country to another and the
formation of new countries in Europe. This table has been
compiled, so far as possible, in such a way that similar areas are
made comparable. To obtain a figure for 1910 comparable to
that shown for Poland for 1920, the numbers of Austrians, Rus-
sians, and Germans who in 19 10 claimed Polish as their mother
tongue have been subtracted from the totals for Austria, Russia,
and Germany, respectively, and combined. Alsace-Lorraine was
tabulated separately for 1920, but not for 1910, and therefore for
comparison it was included with Germany. The area in central
Europe was made comparable only by comparing the 1920 aggre-
gate for Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Jugo-Slavia with
the 1 910 aggregate for Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and Montenegro.
No adjustments have been made, however, in regard to the
transfers of territory from Russia and Austria-Hungary to Ru-
mania, from Austria-Hungary to Italy, from Germany to Den-
mark, from Bulgaria to Jugo-Slavia and Greece, and from Turkey
in Europe to Greece.
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK.
113
Table 27.— Foreign-Born White Population of the United
States, by Country oe Birth: 1920 and 1910.
COUNTRY OP BIRTH.
All countries
Europe
Northwestern Europe '
England
Scotland
Wales
Ireland
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxem-
burg
Switzerland
France : . .
Central Europe '
Germany and Alsace-Lorraine . .
Austria, Hungary, etc
Poland
Eastern Europe ■
Russia, Lithuania, and Finland
Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania,
and Turkey in Europe
Southern Europe '
Greece
Italy
Spain and Portugal
Other Europe
Asia
America
Canada
French
Newfoundland
Other
Mexico
Other America
Other continents or islands
13.712,754
11,877,991
3.794.555
812,828
254,567
67,066
1.037.233
363.862
625,580
189,154
207,037
118,659
118,569
4,365,181
1,720,423
-1,504,780
I. 139.978
1.809,573
1.685,381
124, 192
1,902,781
175.972
1,610, 109
116,700
5. 901
110,450
1,656,801
,117,878
307,786
13. 242
810,092
478.383
47,298
67.512
13.345.545
11,787,878
4.237.373
876,455
261,034
82,479
1.352. 155
403.858
665,183
181,621
172.518
124,834
117,236
4,600,073
2,311,085
^1,351,104
937,884
1 . 423 . 645
1,314,051
109,594
1.523.934
101,264
1,343,070
79,600
2,853
64.314
1,453, 186
Increase ( + )
or
decrease (— ).
I, 196,070
385.083
5.076
810,987
219,802
32.238
40, 167
+367.209
+ 90.113
-442,818
— 63,627
- 6,467
- IS. 413
—314,922
- 39.996
- 39.603
+ 7.533
+ 34.519
- 6.175
+ 1.333
-234,893
- 590.662
+ 153.676
-1-202,094
+385.928
+371.330
+ 14.598
+378.847
+ 74.708
+267.039
+ 37.100
+ 3.048
+ 46,136
+203,615
- 78, 192
- 77,297
-I- 8, 166
- 895
+258,581
+ 15.060
+ 27.345
1 Because of the inclusion of Alsace- Lorraine with Germany, and of Albania in Eastern Europe, in order
to obtain figures comparable with those for 1910. the totals for Northwestern, Central, Eastern, and Southern
Europe, as given in this table, are different from those which appear in the Fourteenth Census reports.
' Austria, Hungar>', Czechoslovakia, and Jugo-Slavia.
' Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and Montenegro.
107°— 22 8
114
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
From Table 27 it appears that the increase received from
Europe was about 90,000, from Asia 46,000, and from America
204,000. It is of interest to note that the number of whites in
the United States bom in Africa, included under " Other continents
or islands," totals 5,222. Asia showed the highest rate of increase,
contributed almost entirely from Armenia and Syria, the extreme
western part of the continent. (It must be remembered that
the figures in Table 27 relate only to the foreign-bom white
population.)
IMMIGRATION FROM EUROPE.
Europe and America were the largest two contributors to the
foreign -bom population of the United States. From 1 910 to 1920
America for the first time surpassed Europe in the net number of
foreign born which it contributed. Europeans in the United States
increased from 1900 to 1910 by almost 3,000,000, or 33 per cent,
but from 1910 to 1920 their increase was less than a tenth of a
million — less, indeed, than i per cent. The World War had greatly
reduced immigration from Europe and had drawn heavily for
military service upon the foreign bom already in this country.
England, Ireland, Scandinavia, and Germany lost numerically,
and Austria- Hungary, Poland, Russia, and Italy gained.
From Table 27 it is possible to compare the foreign-bom white
population in 1920 with that returned in 19 10. Such a table
affords the most recent inventory of the change in the composi-
tion of the foreign bom within the country. Before examining it
in more detail the general currents of immigration to the United
States should be indicated. Inspection of the following table will
show the tendency of immigration for 80 years.
Table 28. — Immigrants from Specified Countries, by Decades:
1840-1920.^
nUCADE.
Ireland.
Germany.
Italy. Russia.
I840-I850
780, 719
914, 119
435, 778
436,871
655. 482
403, 496
339. 065
M5. 937
434, 626
951,667
787, 468
718, 182
I. 452, 970
543,922
341.498
143. 945
1,870
9,231
11,728
55. 759
307, 309
61:5, 604
656
I, 621
igro— i860
4,536
52,254
26=;, 088
1870-1880
1880-1890
COJ. 70-J
2, 04!;, S77 I. CQ7. J06
I, 109, 524
921,957
• Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1920, Table 6S.
The Irish and Germans were the first foreign born other than
British to come to the United States in any great numbers. In
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK.
lis
1850 the Irish constituted 42.8 per cent of the total foreign bom
in this country. In i860, with a total foreign-bom population
of 4,138,000, the Irish numbered 1,611,304 and the Germans
1,276,000, indicating that these two nationalities formed about 70
per cent of the total. Their numbers continued to increase until
in 1890 there were in the United States nearly 2,000,000 Irish and
3,000,000 Germans. The great influx from these two nationalities
began to slacken by the Twelfth Census, 1900, and the total
number of either nationality entering the country as immigrants
during the 20 years from 1900 to 1920 failed to reach half a
million. Although the Germans still maintained the position
which they first reached in 1880 as the nationality predominating
among the foreign born in the United States, Ireland, first in 1870,
descended to third position in 19 10 and was sixth in 1920.
Paralleling the reduction in the number of Irish, the number of
Germans in this country has decreased by approximately i ,000,000
in the last 20 years. Although during the 10 years 1900 to 19 10
the decrease was only about 11 per cent, it amounted to over 25
per cent for the decade 19 10 to 1920.
It must be remembered that restrictions recently imposed will
make impossible the arrival of any great number of immigrants, at
least for half the decade. The decrease in the number of German-
bom, in general, has been uniform throughout the Nation. There
seems to be very little net migration of this class between the
states. The cities, to be sure, show a higher rate of decrease
than the rural districts, but the presumption is that the bulk of
those who returned to Germany for military service in the earl}^
years of the war were drawn from the cities. The national
feeling is more easily maintained and aroused when the national
atmosphere is to some extent developed in a racial group of
considerable size, such as is found only in cities. Here are the
rates of decrease shown by Germans in some of the larger cities:
DECREASE.
CITY.
DECREASE.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per
cent.
New York
83, 983
70,001
25, 045
30. 2
38.4
38.6
Philadelphia
St. Louis
Detroit
21,714
17,677
14,437
35-3
37-
32.3
Chicago
Milwaukee
116 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
With the rate of decrease for the larger cities so much above
the general average of 25 per cent, it is necessarily true that the
rate of decrease in smaller cities or in the rural districts must be
lower.
In 1870, 87 per cent of the total German-bom population of
the United States resided in three geographic divisions — the Middle
Atlantic, East North Central, and West North Central. It is
interesting to note that in 1910 there were still 84 per cent of the
Germans in the same area, and in 1920, 83 per cent.
The two races which have shown the greatest increases in the
last decade are the Italians and the Russians, the Italians having
increased 267,039 and the Russians 371,330, the latter principally
of Jewish blood. This is a continuation of an immigration which
has been rapidly growing since 1880. During the decade 1900 to
19 10 the Italian immigrants outnumbered, more than four to one,
the Italians already in the United States at the beginning of the
decade. Over 80 per cent of the Russians and 85 per cent of the
Italians are in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and East North
Central states. In 40 years the number of Italians in the United
States has multiplied 36 times, that of Russians 39 times.
The tendency of these two races toward urban life is thus very
marked. In the vState of New York, for example, of the 545,000
Italians present in 1920, over 440,000, or 81 per cent, were in
cities having 100,000 inhabitants or more. New York City alone
contained 72 per cent of all the Italians in the state. The Russians
show an even greater tendency to concentrate in cities than the
Italians, nearly nine-tenths of the Russians in 1920 being massed
in urban communities.
The foreign bom in the United States, at first almost entirely
from northwestern Europe and Germany, at recent censuses have
shown increased proportions from the southern and eastern parts
of the Continent. Upon the classification of the principal countries
contributing to the foreign-bom element in the population of the
United States, according to numerical strength at the last three
censuses, 1900, 19 10, and 1920, the following changes appear:
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK.
117
Table 29. — Countries Ranked According to Number Contributed
TO Foreign-born White Population of the United States, as
Enumerated in Specified Census Year: 1920, 1910, and 1900.
Rank, 1920.
Rank, 1910.
Rank, 1900.
I. Germany.
I. Germany.
I. Germany.
2. Italy.
2. Russia.
2. Ireland.
3. Russia.
3. Ireland.
3. Canada.
4. Poland.
4. Italy.
4. England.
5. Canada.
5. Canada.
5. Sweden.
6. Ireland.
6. Austria.
6. Russia.
7. England.
7. England.
7. Austria.
8. Sweden.
8. Sweden.
8. Italy.
9. Austria.
9. Himgary.
9. Norway.
10. Mexico.
10. Norsvay.
10. vScotland.
The steady advance of Italy and the gradual retirement of
Ireland are the two outstanding features of this table. The fol-
lowing diagram presents in graphic form the principal nativities
present in the foreign-born population, for 1920 and 1910:
Foreign-born Population by Principal Countries of Birth: 1920 and 1910.
GERMANY AND 1920
ALSACE-LORRAINE 1910
ik
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
S 10 16
x/y///y>y//yyy>//./^y/^-^^y/yy^^^^
RUSSIA, LITHUANIA,
AND FINLAND
ITALY
AUSTRIA , HUNGARY ,
ETC.*
NORWAY , SWEDEN ,
AND DENMARK
POLAND
IRELAND
1920
1910
1920
1910
1920
1910
1920
1910
1920
1910
y//////^///////////////^//////////^^^^
w////J///y'///J//y////)//y////}///////>/M
V/////^///y>/y>/^///////)///////}///y'///)//A
ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, 1920
AND WALES '910
CANADA AND '920
NEWFOUNDLAND '9'0
1920
1910
v/y/y/////////// //////}///////^////////.
v/////}/////y/}///////>/////A I
'//////>///////}///////>///////>///'///?i
'//y//^/^//y'/^/y>///////////////y>/777m
^//////?///////.>///////////////////7777;^^
♦Includes, for 1920, Austria, Huncary, Czecboslovakia, and Jugo-SIavia, and, for 1910, Austria-Hun-
gary, Serbia, and Montenegro.
118 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
IMMIGRATION OF MEXICANS AND CANADIANS.
In America there is constant interchange of population with
the two countries bordering on the north and south, Canada and
Mexico. There is considerable uncertainty with regard to the
permanent residence of many Mexicans in the United States at
the census date. Although in the past there have been certain
waves of emigration from the United States to Canada, the
tendency toward the warmer climate on the whole strongly pre-
dominates. There is at present, however, little emigration of
Americans to Mexico.
Of all the nationalities which have been added in recent years
to the population of the United States, the Mexican increase
since 1900 is especially worthy of note. In the decade 1900 to
1 910 the number of Mexicans in the United States more than
doubled, increasing 115 per cent. This number, 219,802, in
turn doubled during the lo-year period 1910 to 1920, reaching the
total of 478,383, an increase of 118 percent.^ The influx centered
mainly in three states, Texas, California, and Arizona. Texas
received nearly 50 per cent of the increase, or 125,414. Oil
and agricultural developments in the United States and un-
settled poUtical and economic conditions in Mexico are probably in
the main responsible. In 1920 practically one-quarter of a million
of the population of Texas were of Mexican birth. Adding Arizona
and California to Texas accounts for about 80 per cent of the in-
crease of Mexicans. The fact that these three states reported this
noteworthy influx during the decade placed them before all the
other states in rate of increase of foreign born from 19 10 to 1920,
the foreign-born white of Arizona increasing 67 per cent, of Texas
50 per cent, and of California 32 per cent. The immigration of
Mexicans during the previous decade to the same three states
represented also about 80 per cent of the increase of that nation-
ality in the United States. Because of the shortness of the period
under investigation, and of the extremely abnormal conditions
.prevailing in Mexico near and after the end of the Diaz regime
in 1 911, up to the end of the decade, the permanence of such a
movement can not be determined.
Table 30 shows the distribution, by geographic divisions, of the
British Canadians in the United States, as enumerated at the
censuses of 1920 and 19 10.
* It is probable that many Mexicans of mixed white and Indian blood, in whom
the Indian strain predominated, were improperly classed as white.
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK.
119
Table 30. — Number of White Canadians, Other Than French, by
Geographic Divisions: 1920 and 1910.
GEOGRAPHIC DI\nsIO>f.
Total
New England
Middle Atlantic. . . .
East North Central .
West North Central
South Atlantic . . . .
East South Central .
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
810,092
233.971
120,049
222,213
69.785
12,059
2,967
8,105
30.185
110,758
810,987
245.859
119.959
223,672
84.055
7.725
3,096
7.509
30,896
88,216
The British Canadians in the United States showed practically
no change in number, and apparently there was little migration of
British Canadians within the United States ; New England and the
East North Central states still maintained the majority and re-
tained it in similar proportion. The French Canadians, on the other
hand, have not proved as stable but have shown a decided decrease.
This was not a new tendency on their part. During the previous
decade they decreased 9,378, or 2.4 per cent. This tendency, so
slight in that decade, increased to considerable proportions between
1 9 1 o and 1920, during which period the number of French Canadians
in the United States decreased by 77,297, or 20 per cent. Michi-
gan, New York, and New England are the areas reporting the
largest numbers of French Canadians. In 19 10 over two-thirds
of this class of the foreign-born population were concentrated in
New England, half of them being in the single state of Massa-
chusetts. The decrease, however, was not proportionally as great
in this group of states as in the rest of the country, New England
with two-thirds of the French Canadians bearing only one-half of
the decrease. The states which lost most heavily were New York,
Michigan, and Minnesota. The decrease for New England was
low enough to indicate a reduction due mainly to mortality. The
rate for the rest of the country, however, was so high as to raise
the presumption that a considerable return to Canada had taken
place.
120 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
AGE CHANGES AMONG TllE FOREIGN BORN.
Considerable light on age changes during the decade is found
by a comparison of age distribution of the foreign-bom whites
in the United States as returned in 1910 and 1920.
PER CENT DISTRIBUTION.
1920
1910
Under 18 years
6.2
54-3
39-5
8.1
18—44. vears
57.6
34-3
4C vears and over
The checking of immigration during the last five years of the
decade resulted in the changes of age distribution noted. There
is a decided increase in the proportion over 45 for 1920 at the ex-
pense of the younger groups. If there were no immigration, in 45
years obviously 100 per cent would be over 45 years of age. It
is necessary for immigrants to arrive continually in order to main-
tain an unchanged age distribution. The decade developed an-
other cause of change in age proportions, the emigration of men
to their native lands for military service, which drew only from
the younger adults. This "growing old" among the foreign born
as a whole is exactly the process that has been going on for 40
years among the Irish and Germans — a decrease in immigration
and a correspondingly larger and larger proportion in the older
age groups. Since the average age is higher, the mortality rate
must be higher.
It is worthy of note that the Irish have shown the greatest rate
of decrease, by and large, in the districts in which they are fewest,
the average rate of decrease being 23 per cent and that for the five
agricultural districts, exclusive of the Pacific division, averaging
33. The three industrial groups of states showed a lower aver-
age rate, 23 per cent, while the Pacific division, with a rate of 14,
demonstrated either a migration to that division or that a younger
group of Irish with a lower death rate resided there.
CHANGES IN PREDOMINATING NATIONALITIES IN LARGE CITIES.
It remains to point out the changes which occurred from 19 10 to
1920 in dominant nationalities in the principal urban, and hence
foreign-bom, centers. The foreigners upon entering the country
tend to concentrate in certain cities, where their countrymen are
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK.
121
numerous and where their previous European environment can to
some extent be reproduced. The decade from 1 900 to 1 9 1 o showed
very few changes in the nationalities predominating within cities.
Below is Table 31 , making comparison of the same cities in 19 10
and 1920. Were the comparison to include 1900, the decade 1900-
19 10 would show but 9 changes in the leading two nationalities for
the 19 cities here considered.
Table) 31. — Dominant Nationalities Among Foreign-born Whites
IN Cities Having, in 1920, Over 250,000 Inhabitants: 1920 and 1910,
1920
1910
First.
Second.
First.
Second.
Baltimore
Russians.
Irish.
Poles.
Poles.
Germans.
Poles.
Canadians.
Italians.
Mexicans.
Germans.
Swedes.
Italians.
Russians.
Italians.
Russians.
Germans.
Germans.
Italians.
Russians.
Germans.
Canadians.
Germans.
Germans.
Russians.
Htmgarians.
Poles.
Irish.
Canadians.
Poles.
Norwegians.
Germans.
Italians.
Russians.
Irish.
Poles.
Russians.
Germans.
Irish.
Germans.
Irish.
Germans.
Germans.
Germans.
Austrians.
Germans.
Germans.
Germans.
Germans.
Swedes.
Italians.
Russians.
Germans.
Russians.
Germans.
Germans.
Germans.
' Irish.
Russians.
Boston
Canadians.
Buffalo
Canadians.
Chicago
Austrians.
Cincinnati
Hungarians.
Cleveland
Germans.
Detroit
Canadians.
Jersey City
Irish.
Los Angeles
Canadians.
Milwaukee
Russians.
Minneaf)olis
Norwegians.
New Orleans
Germans.
New York
Italians.
Newark
Russians.
Philadelphia
Irish.
Pittsburgh
Russians.
St. Louis
Russians.
San Francisco
Irish.
Washington
Germans.
The decade 1910 to 1920 shows changes in 13 of the 19 cities.
Some, however, are due to the introduction of Poland as a nation-
ality, and may not signify much change in the predominance of
nationalities. The remaining six cities maintained the same two
nationalities in the same order of rank in both 1910 and 1920.
In Boston the Irish still hold first place and the Canadians second,
but the latter show a considerable decrease for the decade and
are closely followed by the Russians and Italians. Minneapolis,
New Orleans, New York City, St. Louis, and Philadelphia all
reported no change during the decade, but the Italians in Phila-
delphia lacked less than 1,000 of exceeding the Irish, increasing in
number as the Irish decreased. Los Angeles alone of all large
cities showed two foreign-bom American nationalities predomi-
nating — Mexicans first, Canadians second.
122 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
A cross section the other way proves equally interesting. In
1 910 Germans predominated in 12 of the 19 cities and were second
in three. In 1920 the number of cities in which Germans pre-
dominated had dropped to 4, while those in which they held
second place had increased to 5. In 6 cities the German element
had dropped out of the first two places entirely. Arising to take
the place of the Germans were the Itahans and the Russians, each
having achieved primacy in 4 cities, although Italy led in but i
and Russia in but 2 in 1910. Poland, a country which may have
been represented by Austrians, Russians, or Germans in the 19 10
list, led in three cities and was second in three others in 1920.
This analysis has made it clear that there was in progress
during the decade 19 10 to 1920 a continued and increasing de-
cline of the German and Irish races in urban leadership and
a marked increase in the number of Italians, Russians, and
Poles. In practically every large city the Irish bom and German
bom, so long dominant, are yielding to the foreign bom of southern
Europe and depending in part for their influence in the com-
munity upon those modifications of national temperaments and
behefs which appear in the partially Americanized natives of
German and Irish parentage. The new immigration restrictions
will tend to alter conditions, and it remains for the next census to
point out the part which these foreign nationalities are to play in
the United States.
XI.
NEGRO POPULATION.
The original centers of Negro population within the United
States, as determined by the First Census in 1 790, were the states
of Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. These four states re-
turned, at that time, nearly 87 per cent of the total number.
They were employed almost exclusively in the cultivation of
tobacco and as household servants. With the development and
expansion of cotton growing in the South and Southwest, and with
the embargo of 1808 against the importation of slaves, it was found
advantageous to increase the labor resources of the lower South in
connection with the increasing cultivation of cotton. From a
study of the census statistics for the period prior to the Civil War
it is found that in the more northerly states of the South the slave
population was proportionally smaller and increased less rapidly
than in the far South, and that in general in the more newly settled
of the far Southern states the slave population increased more
rapidly than the white population. The census returns therefore
reflect the economic facts that slave labor was most valuable in
the lower South, and that with the development of newly opened
areas in that section the tendency to employ slave labor increased.^
In i860 the states which now constitute the South Atlantic, East
South Central, and West South Central divisions contained 92
per cent of all the Negroes in the United States.
The Civil War released the bonds which required the Negro to
remain in any specific part of the country, but it is significant that
at the end of a period of 50 years, during which the number of
Negroes in the United States more than doubled, the census of
1 9 10 found 89 per cent of this race still resident in the Southern
states. Until 19 10 there seems to have been no force sufficient to
bring about any considerable and rapid shifting of the Negro popu-
lation. Such a force was suppHed by the World War and the
accompanying demands for unskilled labor during the decade 19 10
to 1920, resulting in a marked, though perhaps temporary, redis-
tribution. Tliis developed in two ways: first, a considerable
'A Centnr>'^ of Population Growth, p. 133; Brown, Lower South in American
History, p. 23.
123
124
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
breaking up of the concentration of Negro population in the
Southern states, with a wider distribution; and second, the move-
ment of a surprisingly large number of indi\'iduals of a race
historically agricultural toward urban communities. These
changes, coupled with the sharp decline in the rate of increase, are
of sufficient importance to justify examination in some detail.
The following statement shows the percentages which the Negro
population of the Southern states formed of the total Negro popu-
lation of the United States in i860, 1890, 1900, 19 10, and 1920,
and gives certain other percentages of interest in this connection:
CENSUS VEAK.
Per cent of
Negro popula-
tion in
Southern
states.
Per cent of
native Negro
population of
United States
remaining
in state of birth
Per cent urban
in Negro pop-
ulation of
United States.
Percent
rural in
Negro
popula-
tion of
United
States.
i860
1890
1900
1910
1920
92. 2
90-3
89.7
89.0
85.2
85.2
84.4
83-4
80. I
(')
19.8
22. 7
27.4
34- o
0)
8a2
77-3
72. 6
66.0
' No data available.
^ Relates to total colored population, including Indian, Chinese, and Japanese; not computed sep-
arately for Negro population.
In 1920 the Negro population of the United States numbered
10,463,131. This represented a lo-year increase of 635,000, or
6.5 per cent, the lowest thus far recorded. In consequence of this
slow numerical progress the proportion formed by Negroes in the
total population declined from 10.7 per cent in 1910 to 9.9 per cent
in 1920. The liighest proportion, 19.3 percent, was recorded in
1790. One hundred and thirty years later, at the census of 1920,
the proportion had shrunk to slightly more than half its original
size. At the census of 18 10 Negroes showed the greatest per-
centage of increase, 37.5, derived from a numerical increase of
375,000, or more than one-half that recorded 1 10 years later. The
decennial increases from 1850 to 1910 ranged from 765,000 to
double that number, and thus the increase for 19 10 to 1920 was
lower than for any previous decade since 1 840. The Negro increase
was greater at each of the last two censuses before emancipation
than at a census taken more than half a century after that event.
For about a century the growth of the Negro population in the
United States has been derived almost exclusively from natural
NEGRO POPULATION. 125
increase — that is, the excess of births over deaths — whereas white
increase has been assisted at every census by immigration.
Tables 59 and 60, to be found on pages 244 and 246, present some
interesting comparisons of increase of whites and Negroes in states
in which large proportions of the population are Negro.
Marked tendencies toward interstate migration and concentra-
tion in cities are significant changes shown for Negroes by the
Fourteenth Census. In 19 10, 89 per cent of the Negroes resided
in the area comprising the South Atlantic, East South Central,
and West South Central states. Their rate of increase in this
area during the following decade was 1.9 per cent, and in the
East South Central division an actual decrease took place. The
remainder of the country, the North and West, which in 19 10
had returned 1 1 per cent of the Negro population, showed a very
large relative increase. The census returns for 1920 make it evi-
dent that the Negro increase was not extensive in the districts
which already were well populated with that race, but rather in
those in which Negroes had never been numerous. Clearly this
was a readjustment not resulting from changing birth and death
rates but due to migration.
In the analysis of population change in Mississippi, reference was
made to the considerable migration of Negroes northward during
the war. One of the results of this migration is found in the fact
that in the 9 states in which in 1920 Negroes formed more than
one-fourth the total population the increase of white population
was greater from 19 10 to 1920 than that of the Negro population,
so that in these states, strongholds of Negro population, the
proportion of Negroes decreased as compared with that of the
whites. As a tendency, however, this is not altogether a develop-
ment of the Fourteenth Census. With the exception of a slight
increase in 1880, the proportion of Negroes in the South Atlantic
division has been decreasing from census to census since 1850,
when it stood at 39.8 per cent, until in 1920 it was only 30.9
per cent; while in the West South Central division the proportion
of Negroes decreased from 39.2 per cent in 1850 to 20.1 per cent
in 1920. This is the result in part of northward Negro migration
and in part of slow Negro increase as compared with that of
whites, and also in some measure, especially in the West South
Central division, to migration of whites southward.
The increased tendency of Negroes to move from rural to urban
communities is largely a development of the recent decade. The
136
NEGRO POPULATION. 127
Negro has generally been regarded as most effective and useful
in agricultural callings. In 1910 the number living in communi-
ties having 2,500 inhabitants or more constituted only 27.4 per
cent of the total Negro population; but during the decade which
followed, the great demand for unskilled labor and the restlessness
characteristic of the times drew Negroes to cities in large numbers.
From 1910 to 1920 the Negro population of urban communities
increased one- third, while that of rural communities decreased.
At the time of the taking of the Fourteenth Census over one-
third of the entire Negro population had become urban.
Nearly 235,000 Negroes removed to cities in the South Atlantic
division, and nearly the same number to cities in the East North
Central states. Certain of the Northern states having small urban
Negro populations in 19 10 showed astonishing proportional
increases. Michigan, for example, increased its urban Negro
population 352.5 per cent, though the actual numerical increase
was only 42,000. In the East South Central group of states,
although each state lost Negro population, this loss was wholly
rural, for the urban Negro population in the entire division in-
creased over 62,000, or 12 per cent. Mississippi, the state with
the greatest decrease, in spite of a total decline of nearly 75,000 in
Negro population, showed an urban Negro increase of 3.4 per cent.
The migration of Negroes, however, tended principally to the
large industrial centers of the North. The Negro population of
Chicago increased from 44,103 in 1910 to 109,458 in 1920; that
of Detroit increased from 5,741 in 1910 to 40,838 in 1920;
and Cleveland, with 8,448 Negroes in 1910, reported 34,451 in
1920. The increase in cities was not confined to those in the
Northern Central states. New York City, having 91,709 Negroes
in 1910, showed an increase to 152,467 by 1920. In practically
every large city in the country there was a marked growth in
the Negro element.
The extent to which the Negroes have become dwellers in large
urban communities, together with the increase in this tendency
between 1900 and 1920, is strikingly indicated in Table 32, on
page 128. It is seldom, indeed, that the returns of the Federal
census reflect such a wide and general racial movement.
It will be observed that for the decade 1900 to 19 10 the rate
of increase in the combined Negro population of the 24 cities for
which figures are presented in Table 32 was only about two
128
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
and one-half times as large as the rate of increase in the Negro
population of the entire country (11.2 per cent), whereas the
recent decade shows for these same cities a rate of Negro increase
six and one-half times as large as that for the Negro population
of the country as a whole. During the earlier decade the increase
Table 32. — Negro Population and Increase in Negro Popula-
tion OF Cities Having, in 1920, More than 25,000 Negro In-
habitants: 1920, 1 9 10, AND 1900.
Total
New York, N.Y..
Philadelphia, Pa..
Washington, D. C
Chicago, 111
Baltimore, Md ...
New Orleans, La. .
Birmingham, Ala .
St. Louis, Mo
Atlanta, Ga ,
Memphis, Tenn. . ,
Richmond, Va
Norfolk, Va
Jacksonville, Fla. .
Detroit, Mich
Louisville, Ky. . . .
Savannah, Ga
Pittsburgh, Pa....
Nashville, Tenn...
Indianapolis, Ind .
Cleveland, Ohio. . .
Houston, Tex
Charleston, S. C. . .
Kansas City, Mo . .
Cincinnati, Ohio. .
NEGRO POPULATION.
1,508,061
1,060,510
825,364
152,467
91,709
134.229
84,459
109, 966
94,446
109,458
44,103
108,322
84, 749
100,930
89,262
70, 230
52,305
69,854
43,960
62,796
51.902
61,181
52,441
54.041
46, 733
43-392
25,039
4I,S20
29, 293
40, 838
5,741
40,087
40, 522
39.179
33.246
37,725
25.623
35,633
36,523
34. 678
21,816
34.451
8,448
33.960
23,929
32.326
31.056
30,7'9
23,566
30,079
19,639
60,666
62,613
86, 702
30, ISO
79, 258
77,714
16,575
35,516
35,727
49,910
32,230
20, 230
16, 236
4, III
39. 139
38,090
20, 355
30.044
15.931
5,988
14,608
31.522
17.567
14,482
INCREASE IN NEGRO POPULATION.
Number. Per cent.
447,551
60,758
49, 770
15,520
65.355
23, 573
11,668
17,925
25,894
10, 894
8,740
7.308
18,353
12, 227
35.097
—435
5-933
12, 102
—890
12,862
26,003
10,031
1,270
7.153
10,440
42. 2
66.3
58.9
16. 4
13- I
34-3
58.9
21. O
16.7
15-6
73-3
41.7
611. 3
— I. I
17.8
47.2
—2.4
59.0
307.8
41.9
4. I
30. 4
53-2
Number. Per cent
235. 146
31.043
21,846
7.744
13.953
5,491
11,548
35,730
8,444
16,175
2.531
14. 503
4,809
13.057
1.630
1,383
5.156
5.268
6,479
5.885
2,460
9.321
—466
5.999
S.IS7
28.5
SI- 2
34-9
8.9
46- 3
6.9
14.9
2IS-6
23.8
45-3
5- I
45.0
23.8
80.4
39-6
3-5
18.4
25.9
21. 6
36.9
it.t
63.8
— i-S
34- I
35-6
in the number of Negroes residing in large American cities was
merely in harmony with the general tendency sho^^'n by both
whites and Negroes; but the increase during the war decade of
Negroes in the large cities to a number nearly 50 per cent larger
than that reported in 19 10 affords perhaps the most vivid statis-
tical picture yet revealed of the call of the great centers of industry
NEGRO POPULATION. 129
and commerce for more and yet more unskilled labor, and of the
systematic attempt in all quarters of the country to substitute
the Negro worker for the unskilled foreigner who had suddenly
ceased to arrive in America.
It is significant that of these 24 cities only 2 showed decreases
in Negro population during the last decade and only i showed
a rate of increase less than the average rate for the Negro popu-
lation of the entire country, while the rates for the remaining 21
cities ranged from twice to 94 times as high as that for the Negro
population of the country as a whole. The distinctly northern
cities seem to have recorded the largest increases in Negro popu-
lation. That is, those cities farther away from the historic areas
of Negro residence benefited most largely by the widespread
urban tendency of the race.
This extremely interesting table suggests a question of much
future economic importance: Were foreign immigration to be
resumed in the future on a scale commensurate with immigra-
tion from 1890 to 1900 or during the period immediately pre-
ceding the war, it is reasonable to suppose that the Negro, less
in demand because of greater labor supply, would tend to drift
back to his former environment. But immigration, for the first
time in Federal history, has been restricted, and if this restriction
continues, and unskilled labor in prosperous times becomes again
at a premium, is the Negro to respond to the demand as during
the war and continue to increase in urban centers during the
present and subsequent decades at rates resembling those shown
for the war period ?
Should this prove to be the case the effect upon the labor supply
in the South (and thus upon southern industry and agricultmre)
and upon the Negro race itself will be very marked.
This readjustment of Negro population was a direct response,
on the one hand, to the need for labor arising from the checking
of the incoming immigration and the departure of foreigners,
leaving work to be done and few to do it, and on the other, to
the growing demand for labor resulting from increased activity in
all industries because of war stimulation — an increase occurring
just as the normal supply of foreign-born laborers had been de-
pleted. Whether the Negroes who migrated to cities in response
to these highly abnormal conditions will continue to prefer urban
environment, or will tend to return to their original homes or
seek rural life elsewhere, will be revealed at later censuses.
107°— 22 9
130
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The census returns for 1920, so far as they relate to Negro
population, have been analyzed by Prof. Walter F. Willcox, of
Cornell University, well known as an authority on statistics of
Negroes and author of the first comprehensive analysis of Negro
statistics, made just after the Twelfth Census (1900). Prof.
Willcox reaches some interesting conclusions : ^
"The remarkable fall in the rates of Negro increase and the
rapid distribution of Negroes over other parts of the country than
the South are the striking changes revealed by the census figures.
How is the fall in the rate of increase to be explained? Has it
any connection with the growth of interstate migration? To get
light upon these questions we turn from the census figm-es of Hving
population to the registration figures of births and deaths. Since
1900 the United States has been developing toward a national
system of vital statistics by voluntary cooperation between the
Federal Government and the governments of the states and cities.
For five years, 19 15 to 19 19, inclusive, the births and deaths of
Negroes have been recorded in a number of Northern states,
including the New England states, New York, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Minnesota, and for a shorter period the same facts
for several other Northern and a few Southern states are known.
The figures for the Northern states are as follows :
Births and Deaths of Negroes in Northern States: 191 5-1 91 9.
Births.
Deaths.
Natural
decrease.
Deaths to
100 births.
Total
New England states
New York
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Minnesota
56,142
8.634
19,088
24,924
2,971
525
64.587
9, lOI
20,342
30,786
3.488
870
8,445
467
1.254
5.862
517
345
114
105
106
130
"7
165
"In each of these divisions Negro deaths outnumbered Negro
births by between 5 and 65 per cent, and in consequence the
increase of Negroes in all these states has been entirely due to
migration.
' "Distribution and Increase of Negroes in the United States," a paper read by
Prof. Walter F. Willcox, of Cxjmell University, before the American Eugenics Con-
gress, New York, September 21, 1921, amplifying his earlier article, "Negro, "in a
new volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1922).
NEGRO POPULATION.
131
"In the Southern states the following compilation of all available
figures shows results wliich are widely different:
Total.
Maryland
District of Columbia.
Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina
South Carolina
Years covered.
Births.
196,487
1916-1919
1915-1919
1917-1919
1917-1919
1917-1919
1919
25,418
I I , 042
57.244
12,460
67,724
22,599
Deaths.
156,140
25.407
13,280
42,971
17,410
42,633
14.439
Natural
increase or
decrease ( — ).
40,347
Deaths
to 100
births.
79
-2,238
14.273
-4.950
25,091
8,160
100
120
74
140
62
64
White
deaths
to 100
births.
52
68
81
48
51
41
39
"In every one of the Northern states Negro deaths outnumber
births; in the Southern states, in general, the conditions are
reversed.
"The difference between city and country is at least as influ-
ential upon race increase as the difference between South and
North, which in this case closely parallels it. Throughout the
North and in the cities of the South Negro deaths are more nu-
merous than Negro births; in fact, southern cities are even more
unfavorable than those of the North to natural increase.
"Between 1910 and 1920 the number of Negro children under
5 years of age in the United States decreased by nearly 120,000
(i 19,425) , or almost 10 per cent, and the number of white children
increased by more than 1,000,000 (1,051,007), or more than 11
per cent. In 1920 for the first time the proportion of white
children to white women exceeded that of Negro children to
Negro women, the difference being 42 per 1,000. For each race
the birth rate as thus roughly meastu-ed fell; but among the
Negroes the fall was 17 per cent, among the whites it was 2.5
per cent. In the South the number of Negro children under 5
years of age decreased between 1910 and 1920 by nearly 150,000
(148,521), or 12.7 per cent; and the number of white children
increased by 134,000 (134,036), or 4.7 per cent. At the present
time, the proportion of children to women among southern
Negroes is only about five-sixths of what it is among southern
whites.
"These changes will doubtless prove to be closely connected
with the rapid urbanization of Negroes between 19 10 and 1920.
The rural Negro population of the United States decreased in that
decade by nearly one-fourth of a million (239,308) , or 3.4 per cent;
while the urban Negro population increased by seven-eighths of a
million (874,616), or 32.7 per cent. In the rural districts, the
proportion of Negro children in 19 10 was 7 per cent greater and
in 1920 it was 5 per cent less than the proportion of white chil-
132 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
clren. Under these conditions the swarming of Negroes into cities
North and South and the sharp fall in the increase of all Ameri-
can Negroes are related almost as cause and effect.
"If the rate of increase between 1900 and 1920 be projected
through the rest of the century without change, it would yield at
its close about 20,500,000 as the maximum limit of Negro popu-
lation. It also seems reasonable to anticipate that the Negroes,
who at the census of 1790 were over 19 per cent, or nearly one-
fifth, of the population of the country' and now are about one-
tenth, are likely b\' the end of the century to be not more than
one-twentieth. "
XII.
INDIANS, CHINESE, AND JAPANESE.
The total population of the United States in 1920 included the
following: Indians, 244,437; Chinese, 61,639; Japanese, 111,010.
In the preceding pages of this analysis no consideration has
been given to these three racial stocks. Each, however, forms
an appreciable part of the total population, and is entitled to
discussion. Each presents in turn peculiar problems to the
Nation; although but one, the Japanese, has shown a tendency
to increase for a considerable period.
INDIANS.
The North American Indian seems to be slowly merging into
the national population, or, where this is not occiuxing, to be
declining in numbers.
The decrease during the last decade may, however, be more
apparent than real. The returns for Indians are subject to some
degree of uncertainty because of the practice of treating as In-
dians all persons having any trace of Indian blood. Such persons
in some cases can not be distinguished by their appearance from
pure-blooded whites, and as a result some of them have doubt-
less been reported as white at one census and as Indian at
another, since the enumerators are not always able to interview
directly the persons whom they enumerate but are obliged to
secure information regarding them from other persons. More-
over, at the census of 19 10 a special effort was made to secure a
complete enumeration of all persons having any perceptible amount
of Indian blood, for the purpose of preparing a special report
showing tribal relations, purity of Indian blood, etc. It is prob-
able that this resulted in the enumeration of a considerable
number of persons as Indians who would ordinarily have been
reported as whites. For these reasons the changes indicated by
the returns of the last foiu* censuses may not altogether corre-
spond to the facts.*
A large proportion also of the Indians included in the census
total are persons having more or less Negro blood. Especially
^ Color or Race, Nativity, and Parentage, Vol. II, Fourteenth Census Reports, p. 17.
133
134
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
in Oklahoma, intermarriage with Negroes has been frequent;
and in consequence, in that state and elsewhere, the number of
persons of mixed racial characteristics has undoubtedly increased
to a marked degree, while the number of Indians of pure blood
has materially decreased.
Table 33. — Indian Population, by Divisions and States:
1920, 1910, AND 1900.
DIVISION AND STATE.
United States.,
244.437
Geographic divisions:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central. . .
West North Central . .
South Atlantic
East South Central. . .
West South Central . .
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
^Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan I 5,614
Wisconsin ! 9, 6ir
West North Central:
Minnesota ' 8,761
I. 71S
S.940
IS. 69s
37. 263
13.673
1.623
60.6IS
76, 899
31. o"
839
28
24
sss
no
IS9
S.S03
100
337
151
125
194
265,683
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota.
South Dakota.
Nebraska
Kansas
529
171
6. 2S4
16.384
2,888
2, 276
2, 076
7. 717
18,255
41, 406
9.034
2, 612
76, 767
75. 338
32.458
8q2
284
152
6,046
168
1.503
127
279
188
7.519
10, 142
9. 053
471
3^i
6,486
19. 137
3.502
2.444
^37.196
1,600
6,959
15.027
42,339
6,585
2. S90
65. 574
66, 155
30, 367
798
22
5
587
35
153
5.257
63
1,639
42
243
16
6,354
8.372
9, 182
382
130
6,968
20, 225
3.322
2, 130
DIVISION AND STATH.
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Colimibia. . ,
Virginia
West Virginia ,
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Alexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Oregon
California
32
37
824
7
II, 824
304
125
S18
57
56
405
1, 105
106
1,066
57.337
2, 109
10, 956
3.098
1.343
1.383
19.512
32.989
3, 711
4.907
9,061
4.590
17.360
5
55
68
539
36
7.851
331
95
74
234
216
909
1.253
460
780
74. 82 s
702
10, 745
3.488
1,486
1,482
20, 573
39, 201
3.133
5. 240
10, 997
5. 090
16,371
5. 687
131
19
3S8
101
108
177
3, 203
66
593
64,44s
470
11.343
4, 326
1,686
I. 437
13. 144
36,480
3,623
5, 3t6
10,039
4.95'
15.377
In 1920, persons of Indian blood were enumerated in every
state in the Union, though Delaware reported but 2 and West
Virginia 7, The changes in the Indian population during the last
two decades possess some statistical interest, but they should be ob-
INDIANS, CHINESE, AND JAPANESE. 135
served with full knowledge of the changing composition, already
referred to, of the population classified as Indian. It is probable,
indeed, that the 244,437 Indians, so termed, enumerated in 1920
contained in the aggregate decidedly less North American Indian
blood and decidedly more white and Negro blood than did the
237,196 Indians enumerated in 1900, and that in consequence
in the aggregate they possessed somewhat less marked Indian
characteristics than were evident 20 years earlier.
Almost half of the states show increase in Indian population
from 1900 to 1920. All the Atlantic states except Massachusetts
and Delaware showed increase in the number of Indians; though
such increase was small except in the case of North Carolina,
where the largest number of Indians in any Eastern state (5,687
in 1900) considerably more than doubled in 20 years. The 14
states having an Indian population in 1900 exceeding 5,000 were,
in descending order: Oklahoma, Arizona, South Dakota, Cali-
fornia, New Mexico, Montana, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
North Dakota, Michigan, North Carolina, New York, and Nevada.
This number became 13 in 1920, in which year 6 of these states
showed increases, in some cases rather marked, in Indian popu-
lation for the 20-year period, while South Dakota and Oklahoma
registered pronounced decreases. More than half of all Indians
continue to be located in four states.
The inference from the changes here noted is that the extinction
of the North American Indian at no distant date, which so long
has been confidently predicted, has been averted by increasing
intermarriage ; and that while possibly Indian tribal relations and
customs may disappear, a considerable strain of Indian blood will
remain, especially in the 13 states having an appreciable Indian
population in 1920, where the reservation system continues to
make segregation possible.
CHINESE.
Chinese immigration took place between i860 and 1890, but
since then, as the result of legislation restricting immigration of
this race, the Chinese population in the United States has decreased.
Of the 61,639 Chinese in this country, only 7,748 are females, and
the increase of Chinese by birth is, therefore, small.
Although at the outset most of the Chinese in this country were
located on the Pacific coast, there has been a constant tendency to
extend their places of residence to other states ; and in consequence
136
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
the proportion of this race in California, which in 1880 was 71.2
per cent, was reduced by 1920 to 46.7 per cent. There are a few
Chinese in every state in the Union, the smallest number, 11, being
found in Vermont.
It should be added that the Chinese in the United States are
distinctly urban, four-fifths of them residing in cities and \il-
lages of 2,500 inhabitants or m.ore. Considerable numbers live
in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, while New York
leads all other eastern cities as a center of residence for the
Chinese.
Table 34. — Chinese Population, by Divisions and States:
1920, 1910, AND 1900.
DIVISION AND STATE.
United States.
Geographic divisions:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central. . .
West North Central . .
South Atlantic
East South Central. . .
West South Central . .
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
61, 639
3.60a
8,812
S.043
1,678
1,824
54a
I. 534
4.339
34. 265
161
9S
II
».544
22s
566
S. 793
I, 190
1.829
941
»83
2,776
792
2SI
508
835
412
124
14a
189
68
3.499
8, 189
3.4IS
1.19s
1.583
414
1.303
5.614
46. 320
108
67
8
2,s8a
37a
462
5. 266
I. 139
1, 784
569
276
2, 103
241
226
275
97
S3S
39
121
iia
16
89,863
4.203
ic, 490
2,533
1.13s
I. 791
427
1.555
7.950
59. 779
119
112
39
2,968
366
599
7.170
1.393
1.927
371
207
1.503
240
213
166
104
449
32
16s
180
39
DrvisioN and state.
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia. . .
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia.
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
P.\cific:
Washington
Oregon
California
43
371
461
278
98
88
93
211
181
63
57
59
364
"3
387
361
773
873
S8S
253
291
171
I. 137
34a
6S9
2.363
3.090
28,813
30
378
369
154
90
80
57
333
191
52
43
62
257
62
507
139
595
1.28s
859
346
373
348
1.30S
371
937
3. 709
7.363
36, 348
5t
544
455
243
S6
51
67
204
130
57
75
58
237
6a
599
58
836
1.739
1.467
461
599
341
«.4>9
573
>.3S3
3.639
10,397
45. 753
INDIANS, CHINESE, AND JAPANESE.
137
JAPANESE.
Immigration from Japan is restricted, but the influx of persons
of this nationality has not suffered an absolute check ; so that, as
the number in the country is small, the percentage of growth has
been high.
Table 35. — Japanese Population, by Divisions and States:
1920, 1910, and 1900.
DIVISION AND STATE.
United States.
Geographic divisions:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central . . .
West North Central. .
South Atlantic
East South Central . . .
West South Central . .
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Peimsylvania
East North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Centilal:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
347
3, 266
927
I, 21S
360
35
578
10. 792
93. 490
191
35
102
2,686
2SS
8S
38
804
52
272
1.643
482
1,000
156
26
428
10,447
57. 703
151
33
I. 247
2C6
190
76
38
285
590
107
24. 326
446
126
223
5.107
18, 269
354
52
148
division and state .
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia .
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
Ix)uisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Oregon
California
8
29
103
56
67
449
.074
.569
. 194
.464
251
550
.936-
754
.387
. 151
.952
31
48
340
1.585
1.363
1.596
2,300
258
864
12, 929
3.418
41. 356
2, 44t
I. 291
393
48
8
281
417
5.617
2, 501
10, 151
The Japanese in the United States in 1880 numbered only 14S,
but in 1920 had increased to more than 100,000. The increase
from 1 910 to 1920 w^as 54 per cent, which was the lowest rate
for any decade during which the Japanese have been coming to
the United States, the lowest rate for any previous decade
138 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
( 1 900-1910) having been about 200 per cent. It should be ob-
served, however, that if Japanese women alone were considered,
the increase during the 10 years from 1910 to 1920 would be over
300 per cent. In 1910, 57.3 per cent of the Japanese in the
United States resided in California, but in 1 920 this proportion had
increased to 64.8 per cent.
From the brief reference here presented to the returns for
the Indians, Chinese, and Japanese, it appears that tlie only-
definite change of consequence relates to the problem which for
some time has been giving concern to the white inhabitants of
California. The returns clearly indicate the manner in which the
Japanese have concentrated in tliat state, and while their numbers
are so small that if scattered about the United States their pres-
ence would scarcely be noticed, their concentration in one state
has tended to make the local problem an embarrassing one.
XIII.
INFLUENCE UPON POPULATION INCREASE OF
CHANGES IN AGE, MARITAL CONDITION,
AND BIRTH AND DEATH RATES.
Age has been an important inquiry at every decennial census
of the United States, and statistics as to marital condition have
been published for the last four censuses. The birth rate, like
the mortality rate, is computed by the Census Bureau from data
secured for registration areas, and thus is not covered by the
decennial enumeration.
These three inquiries are significant principally as together
revealing causes of changes in the rate of population increase, and,
therefore, can not be overlooked. Age is in itself not a cause
(except as it becomes a factor in the decline of some com.m.unity
at length losing its vitality), but rather is a result of conditions
produced by other factors. Nevertheless, age is interwoven
with both marital condition and birth rate, and consequently
must be at least briefly considered.
AGE.
The per cent distribution of the total population by age groups
in 1 910 and 1920 was as follov/s:
AGE GROUP.
1920
1910
Total
100.
100.
Under 5 years
10. 9
20.8
47- 3
20.8
II. 6
■; to 14 years
20. 5
48.9
13.9
1 1; to 44 years
45 years and over
*
Why did this decided drop during the decade occur in the pro-
portion of those under 5 years of age, and why the noteworthy
redistribution of those 1 5 years of age and over, in which a decrease
in the proportion from 15 to 44 years is more than offset by an
increase in the proportion for those in the oldest group?
It is clear that the same forces which influence the increase or
decrease of the population are able also to influence the character-
139
140
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
istics of the population. These forces must be immigration,
emigration, birth, and mortality. Approximately 80 per cent of
all immigrants fall within the age group 15 to 45. A large pro-
portion of the emigrants returning to Europe during the decade
1 910 to 1920 must also have fallen within this group, especially
those who returned to their native lands for military serx-ice. The
checking of immigration and the stimulation of emigration, one
by withholding additions to the 15-44 group and the other by
actually effecting withdrawals, brought about a proportional
reduction of the group.
Distribution of Population by Age Periods: 1890-1920.
TOTAL POPULATION
NATIVE WHITE,
NATIVE PARENTS
NATIVE WHITE,
FOREIGN OR MIXED
PARENTAGE
FOREIGN-BORN
WHITE
NEGRO
1620
1910
1600
1890
1920
1910
1900
1890
1920
1910
1800
1890
1920
1910
1900
1890
1820
1910
1900
1890
UNDER OVER
15 YEARS PER CENT 15 YEARS
40 20 20 40 60
?a!»««55:<<<^««j«<»»Nvyv^yxy
8585S!>K5X-M.:.:^^S*555^VXyyy'Xy
J85Bfi5S:>^x♦:«*:^^^»^^^^'x••>■x>'.
S656«S->K;555!X:?;ji^^fJJ^'^XXX^Xy'
J55585!S<i5S:;555*:iM^»555^^XX^>^X
J555«Sj;5>K«Wft%^SS5«««5^yxyxy/'
e55«s>s<«?>;««!55»5^>^5'vxyyyy
aSfifi«K55555«SS5»iS&«KX/f/XX/r
t%kA^^
222
8g8a8gJ5*!:8K««3*55«5»55^'X/XyV^/
^BfisaaKissssss^sssi'^ii^^^j^yyx/yy-,:
mTZA
80
100
^^UNDER 5
^SSas TO 14
^^15 TO 24
BZ2Z325 TO 44
46 TO 64
C5 AND OVER
But the 15-44 group included also the Nation's childbcaring
element. Since the check to its growth did not come until the
latter half of the decade, the proportion of children over 5 at the
taking of the 1920 census was not thereby reduced. The shift in
proportion occurred during the last few years of the decennial pe-
riod, and expended its effect on the number of children under 5
years of age found by the census enumerators. The proportion
of children in this particular age group dropped from 11.6 to 10.9
per cent, a very considerable decrease. There were at least two
AGE, MARITAL CONDITION, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS.
141
probable factors besides immigration and emigration which
influenced this low figure — the withdrawal of many men from their
homes to enter military or naval service, and the migration of
great numbers of men to temporary city residence because of the
great industrial activity of this exceptional period.
The proportional increase in the group of persons 45 years of age
and over was due in part to the proportional reduction in the
15-44 group resulting from the checking of immigration and the
stimulation of emigration, and in part to the influenza epidemic,
which took its toll mainly among persons under 45 years of age.
Table 36.— Proportions of Children Under 15 Years of Age
AND of Persons 45 Years of Age and Over in the Total
Population: 1920, 19 10, and 1900.
[For state figures see Table 6i.]
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION.
PER CENT UNDER IS YE.\RS OP AGE.
PER CENT 45 VEARS OF AGE
.\ND OVER
1920
1910
1900
1920
1910
1900
United States
31.8
32.1
34-4
20.8
18.9
17.7
New England
28.5
29.8
29.4
31- I
36.5
37-1
36.5
33-2
25. 2
27. 2
29.
29-5
31-9
37-5
38.1
38.8
31- 1
24-3
27.4
30. 6
32.5
35-4
39-
39-7
41-3
33- "^
27.9
24. 6
21.7
22.5
21. 7
17. 6
17.9
16.3
18.8
25.1
23.0
19.8
21. 2
19-3
16. 2
15- 9
14.4
17.0
21.5
22.5
19-3
19. I
17. I
15-7
15-
13-5
15-7
20.5
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West NortJi Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
A comparison of urban and rural age distribution affords further
insight into the developments of the decade. The following
tabulation records the urban and rural age distributions for 1920:
AGE- GROUP.
Urban. Rural.
Total
100. 100.
Under 5 years
9-7 j 12-3
17.9 24.0
50- 9 43- 5
21. x 20. 2
1; to 14. vears
I j; to 4-d vears
45 years and over
' 1
Of the riu-al population, 45.9 per cent were under 20 years of age,
while for the urban population the corresponding percentage, 35.8,
was less than four-fifths as large. Since the average longe\-ity of
the rural population is greater than that of urban dwellers, migra-
142 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
tion from country to city must be the explanation of these varying
proportions. Migration apparently does not take place until
about the age of 20, at which age the niral proportions show a
decided drop and the urban proportions a corresponding gain.
Consistently, the census reveals a greater dechne between 19 10 and
1920 in the proportion of rural children than in the proportion of
urban children.
Analysis, however brief, of age distribution leads to the con-
clusion that the population of the United States, as a whole, was
slightly older in 1920 than it was at the census of 1910, and that
the rural districts, strongholds heretofore of population increase,
have declined slightly in their proportion of children, because of the
response from, rural areas to the lure of opportunity in the large
cities. It is one more result, added to the many already noted,
of war influences in a nation not yet returned to normal when the
census of 1920 w^as taken.
MARITAL CONDITION.
Information secured through Federal census returns concerning
the number of persons of each sex single, married, or widowed was
first tabulated and published at the census of 1890. Comparative
figiu-es are therefore available for only 30 years. Changes during
this period in the proportion married among all adult males and
females are, of course, of great interest and also of vital importance
to the welfare of the Nation ; nevertheless the most extreme com-
parison possible from census records necessarily covers economic
and social conditions within the recollection of a large part of the
adult population in 1920. Such a comparison affords no striking
picture of the marriage proportions existing in one distinct eco-
nomic period as contrasted with another. The entrance, for exam-
ple, of women into practically all gainful callings — previously filled
almost exclusively by men — is a recent development of great
importance. This far-reaching economic change doubtless is now
affecting family life, and its influence may be expected to increase
rather than diminish. It is still too early to measure the effect,
if any, that the readjustment of ideals on the part of a great number
of women may have upon the marriage rate itself and thus of
course upon population.
A century or more ago practically no women were employed in
gainful callings outside of domestic service. Marriage and mater-
nity commonly were accepted as the woman 's natural sphere of
AGE, MARITAL CONDITION, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS.
143
responsibility and activity in life. Clearly the possession, were
they obtainable, of reasonably reliable statistics showing, for
some early period, the proportions married and widowed among
adult women would prove of great value because it would permit
comparison of our own exceptional period with one reflecting
those social conditions which prevailed prior to the so-called
industrial revolution. Is such a comparison impossible ? Are the
exact proportions, during the colonial period of American history,
of women single, married, and widowed among adult females of
that period past finding out in our time? Fortunately there
exists one colonial enumeration which throws some light upon
this subject.
The royal governors of the British North American colonies,
from 1635 to 1775, made in all 30 counts, or more ambitious
enumerations, of population.^ A variety of statistical informa-
tion, in addition to the mere count of inhabitants, was recorded
at many of these enumerations. In but three, however, do any
facts relating to marriage appear : In the colonial censuses of New
Hampshire, taken in 1767 and 1773, and in the Connecticut census
of 1774. The Connecticut census gives the number of each sex
married "under 20, ' ' "from 20 to 70, ' ' and " over 70, ' ' but ignores
widows. Fortunately the New Hampshire colonial enumerations
furnish practically all the information desired to set up what
appears to be a reasonably accurate marriage rate for females as
it existed a century and a half ago. To secure this rate it is only
necessary to make one fully warranted adjustment. At the
enumeration of 1773 ^ the following facts concerning white persons
were secured :
MALES.
Total 36,739
Under 16 18, 334
Over 60 I, 538
Unmarried, 16-60 6, 263
Married, 16-60 10, 604
FEMALES.
Total 35,684
Unmarried 22, 228
Married 11, 887
Widowed i, 569
Thus, curiously, the only information concerning women secured
at both New Hampshire enumerations related to marital condi-
dition, but the inclusion of all female children with single adult
females leaves both census returns without a record of the number
of unmarried women. On the other hand, the marital statistics
' A Century of Population Growth, pp. 4-7, 149-185.
^ The Colonial census of 1767 records the same information but for only 91 towns.
The census of 1773, for 141 towns, is therefore utilized.
144
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
for males supply the number married between i6 and 60 but
omit the number married over 60 and also the number of widowers.
The omissions for males can not be supplied, but it is possible to
determine approximately the number of unmarried women, and
hence to complete the proportions single, married, and "widowed
among all adult females.
What was the number of girls imder 16, and hence, by subtrac-
tion, the number of unmarried women? The number of boys
under 16 was 18,334. The number of girls must have been about
the same. Normally boys slightly outnumber girls. In 1920
the distribution of males and females among the native white
of native parents was as follows:
All ages.
IS and under.
Males
29, 636. 781
28, 785, 176
103.0
II, 105,994
10,815,226
Females
Males to 100 females
102. 7
The tabulation for the population of New Hampshire as enu-
merated in 1773 showed an identical ratio of males and females for
the total population, namely, 103 to 100. Since the sex ratios
for the total population are the same, it is reasonable to presume
that the sex ratios for persons under 16 will at least be similar.
It is, therefore, possible to apply the kno^vn ratio of 102.7 to 100
to the known number of males under 16 in New Hampshire,
18,334, and thus to estimate the number of females under 16.
Such a calculation gives 17,852 as the estimated number of females
under 16, and the subtraction of this number from the total leaves
17,832 women 16 years of age and over. Assmning that all those
married and widowed were over 16 years of age, the number of
unmarried women over 16 must have been 4,376. It is now pos-
sible to estimate the proportions single, married, and widowed in
comparison with the corresponding proportions for 1 920 :
MARITAL CONDITION OP WOMEN
1773.
per cent (New
Hampshire).
1920. PER CENT
(united states).
16 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER.
Native white.
Total
population.
Single
24- s
66.7
8.8
28.8
60. 4
'10.7
25. 4
Married
62. 2
Widowed
' 12. 2
' Includes divorced.
AGE, MARITAL CONDITION, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS. 145
This comparison is, of course, qualified as to its reliability by
the fact that the scope of the earlier inquiry was decidedly limited.
Examination of the proportions presented above demonstrates
a decided variation between the marital-condition proportions for
women in 1773 and in 1920. The proportion of women married
decreased during the period, with corresponding increases in the
single and widowed groups. The decided differences appearing
between the proportions for native white and those for the total
population in 1920 are due to the very high percentage single among
native white women of foreign or mixed parentage and the very
low percentage single among foreign-bom women. A direct com-
parison between the New Hampshire census and the 1920 figures
is perhaps best obtained, however, by using the native white
group for 1920, since the total population includes the negro and
the foreign-bom elements, both of which groups introduce new
factors into the problem. Making the comparison in this manner,
if the proportion had been the same for the United States in 1920
as for New Hampshire in 1773, the number of unmarried native
white women in the country would have been a million less than
that shown by the census returns. This increase in the proportion
single is presumably due to the increased opportunities for self-
support, as suggested before, and to the change in the social
status of the unmarried woman.
The proportion widowed likewise appears much higher for 1920
than for 1773. Although the inclusion of the divorced with the
widowed for 1920 has some effect upon the result, it can not
be used as a complete explanation of the difference, since the
total number of divorced women in the country in 1920 repre-
sented but eight- tenths of i per cent of all women 16 years of
age or over. The increase in the proportion of women widowed,
in the face of a decrease in the proportion married, indicates a
decided change from the condition existing before the Revolution.
Although it is possible that the relative ages of husband and wife
were more nearly equal or that the expectation of life for males and
females differed less in the earlier days, the probable explanation
is that the marital relationship was held to be more desirable in
that period, and conditions were such as to make it more difficult
for widowed women to maintain an independent existence.
The rather marked changes in the marital condition which
have taken place during recent decades are worthy of analysis.
107°— 22 10
146
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 37. — Summary of the Marital Condition of the Population
OF THE United States: 1920 and 1910.
SEX AND CENSUS
YEAR.
Both sexes:
1920. . . .
1910. . . .
Male:
1920
1910
Female:
1920
1910
Total
population
15 years
of ac and
over.
72,098, 178
62,473,130
36,920,663
32,425,80s
3S>I77,SIS
30,047,325
Number.
22,584,467
21,483.299
12,967, 565
12, 550. 129
9,616,902
8,933>170
Per
cent
of
total.
31-3
34- 4
35- I
38.7
27-3
29. 7
Per
cent
of
total.
Number.
43.168,159 59-9 5i 67s. 933 7-9 So8. S88
35.777.2S7 57.3 4,647,618 7.4 341,230
DIVORCED.
Per
^^f Number.
total.
21,849,266
59-2
1,758,308
18.092,600
55-8
1,471,390
21,318,933
60.6
3,917,62s
17,684,687
58.9
3, 176,228
Per
cent
of
totaL
235-284
156, 162
273.304
185,068
o. 7
o-S
0.6
c-5
0.8
0.6
The proportion married in the total population 15 years of age
and over increased, and a corresponding reduction appeared in
the proportion remaining single. The proportion of married males
increased sharply, while the proportion of married females also
increased, but at a slower rate. The number of married men ex-
ceeds that of married women. This excess of a little over half
a million represents, in general, those immigrants whose wives are
in foreign countries. The ratio of males to females among the
foreign bom in the country, as recorded by the 1920 census, was
approximately 122 to 100.
The increase in the proportion married is by no means peculiar
to the last census. The proportions from 1890 have been as
follows :
Per Cent Married in Population 15 Years of
Age and Over: i 890-1 920.
CENSUS YEAR.
1920
I9IO
1900
1890
Both sexes.
59-9
57-3
55-7
55- 3
Male.
59-2
55-8
54-5
53-9
Female.
60.6
58-9
57- o
56.8
The tendency toward increase in the proportion married may be,
to some degree, a logical development of the changing age dis-
tribution noted in the previous section. The proportion of the
population 21 years of age and over is increasing, not only with
AGE, MARITAL CONDITION, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS. 147
reference to the total population of all ages but also with reference
to the total population 15 years of age and over, and therefore,
since most marriages do not take place until the husband at least
is at or above the age of 2 1 , the proportion of married persons in the
total population 1 5 years of age and over Vvould naturally show
some increase. Thus the tendency noted throughout this 30-year
period may result in some measure from changed age distribution.
This, however, is not sufficient to explain the entire increase in
the proportion of married persons which occurred during the
decade 1910 to 1920. Certain conditions were present in the
country which doubtless stimulated the marriage rate. It was a
decade of business prosperity. Wages were high, unemployment
was rare, the demand for labor was steady, and general business
activity prevailed. Such conditions in some degree tended to lift
certain economic restraints on marriage. The result was, natu-
rally enough, an increase in the marriage rate; but perhaps the
most important contributing cause was the influence of the war.
There is a strong presumption that the war increased the number
of married persons -wathin the country. Doubtless some marriages
v/ere contracted in order to procure exemption from military serv-
ice, but marriages induced by the war were in general those has-
tened by the entry of the male into military or naval service.
Such tendencies probably account to some extent for the changed
proportions recorded by the 1920 census.
The number of persons remaining single showed in 1920 an
excess of males over females amounting to 3,350,663. Such a
figure, while less than that for 1910 (3,616,959), continues to be of
interest. The reduction here noted was somewhat influenced by
the marked reduction (635,332, or 26.7 per cent) in the excess of
males over females 1 5 years of age and over which characterized
the close of the decade 1 910-1920. After all, however, the dis-
crepancy between unmarried males and unmarried females, far
beyond the actual difference between the numbers of the two sexes,
is to be found principally in the different ages at which men and
women marry, the excess of unmarried males over unmarried
females being offset in considerable measure by the excess of
widows over widowers.
The census of 1920 revealed a marked increase in the proportion
of maiTied persons am.ong the younger element of the population.
The proportion of persons married for the ages over 45 actually
showed decreases, but the reverse was true of the younger age
148
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
groups. For each year of age from 15 to 34, for both sexes, an
increase appeared in 1920 in the proportion married as compared
with 1 910, the change being especially noticeable for the younger
ages. For the ages 35 to 44, inclusive, considered as a group,
there was also an increase during the decade, but less pronounced,
especially in the case of women. Such a change should exert a
marked influence on both the family life and the future increase of
population in the Nation.
Table 38. — Per Cent Married in Total Number of Males and
Females at Specified Ages: 1920 and 19 10.
Total 1 5 years and over
15 years
16 years
17 years
18 years
19 years
20 years
2 1 5'ears
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
3 1 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 years and over
59-2
0.3
55.8
0.8
0.4
2.7
6.5
1.4
3.8
12-5
8.6
21.0
16.2
28.4
23.8
35-8
32.3
42.3
39-2
48.8
45-5
54-2
59-7
63-3
68.3
Si.o
56.6
60.0
66.3
68.4
65.6
72.9
71.9
72.9
71-3
75-7
76.9
75-1
75-9
79.8
81.0
79.2
81.5
77-9
64.7
79.0
65.6
60.6
1.4
4-2
9.8
19.2
28.6
38-4
45-8
52-9
59-2
64.2
67.8
71.4
74-4
75-9
78.4
76.6
81. 1
80.2
82.2
81.7
80.3
74.0
61.2
33-9
58-9
I,
3'
8.
17'
25'
36.
43 ■
50 ■
57'
62.
65-7
69.9
72.9
74-4
77.6
74.7
80.7
79-4
81.5
80.9
80.1
74.8
62.3
35-0
It is not until the age of 35 is passed that the proportion of males
married at any particular age equals that of females; and such
ages as 20 years, for example, are striking in that the proportion
married is very much greater for females than for males. The
fact that females marry at younger ages naturally results in a
greater number of single men than of single women.
AGE, MARITAL CONDITION, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS.
149
This same condition — early marriage of females — also accounts
in part for the greater number of widows tlian widowers. Table 3 7
reveals the disparity. The number of widowed and divorced
women was more than twice as large as the number of widowed
and divorced men. Other causes of this disparity are found in
the tendency of the wife to outlive the husband, even though of
the same age, and in the fact that men remarry to a greater ex-
tent than women. Of all men over 65, 64.7 per cent are married,
as against only 33.9 per cent of all women. The following tabu-
lation shows, for 1920, the percentages married and the percent-
ages widowed or divorced for men and women in specified age
groups:
35 to 44 years. . .
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 years and over
Total
married,
widowed,
ordivorced.
83-7
87.8
90. I
92.4
Married.
79.8
81.0
77-9
64.7
Widowed
or
divorced.
3-9
6.8
12.2
27.7
Total
married,
widowed,
ordivorced.
88.6
90-3
91-5
92.7
Married.
Widowed
or
divorced.
80.3
74.0
61.2
33-9
8.3
16.3
30-3
58.8
Although the proportions of men and women who have passed
into or through the married state are approximately the same for
the age groups from 55 upward, nevertheless, of those over 65,
nearly two-thirds of the men are still married, while only one-third
of the women have husbands living.
The distribution of the widowed has several interesting features.
The states showing, for 1920, the highest proportions of widowers
are Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, while the smallest
proportion appears for the state of Utah. These high and low pro-
portions are partially accounted for by the varying age distribution.
Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont show larger proportions of
men 65 years of age and over — among whom the number of widow-
ers is, of course, relatively larger than among men below that age
limit — than are found in any other state, while the corresponding
proportion for Utah is relatively small, although there are a few
states in which it is still smaller. The distribution of widows
establishes the fact that the largest proportions are found in the
two resort states in the country, Florida and California, while
North and South Dakota, states of a distinctly different type, have
the smallest proportions of widows. The proportion of women in
150 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 19I0-I920.
the higher age groups is large in California but not in Florida, and
is small in North Dakota but not in South Dakota. It appears,
therefore, that the relationship between the proportion widowed
and the age distribution is much less noticeable in regard to women
than in regard to men.
The figure for persons divorced can not be used as an indication
of the total number divorced, but merely shows the number of
divorced persons who had not remarried at the time the census was
taken.
THE BIRTH AND DEATH RATES.
The birth rate in the United States appears to have been de-
clining gradually for a considerable period, although reductions in
infant mortalit}^ are sufficient to offset this tendency in some
degree. That it is not being completely offset, however, is indi-
cated by the age distribution over a longer period than the past
decade.
In 1 790, 49 per cent of the white population of the country were
under 16 years of age. In 1880 but 37.1 per cent were under 15
years of age, and the 1920 census records only 31.5 per cent so
classified.
The numbers of white persons 20 years of age and over — that is,
of self-supporting age — to i ,000 white children under the age of 1 6
in continental United States in 1790, 1850, 1900, and 1920 were as
follows :
1790 782
1850 1,118
1900 1 . 583
1920 1 ,801
Thus among the whites there were about 5 children under 1 6 to
9 adults 20 years of age and over in 1920, as compared with 5 chil-
dren to 4 adults in 1790. Is the United States tending toward a
condition where the younger group will be so small that it will serve
only as a replacement ?
Birth statistics were not systematically collected by the Federal
Government until 191 5; and although mortality statistics are
available from state and insurance records further back into the
past, they can be of little assistance without statistics of births.
Hence it is impossible to determine for any length of time the
natural rate of increase by a direct calculation. If any method be
employed, it must consist in determining how much of the increase
is due to external contributions, and then subtracting that from
the actual increase, thus obtaining a remainder which should
represent the increment resulting from natural increase.
AGE, MARITAL CONDITION, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS.
151
The Federal immigration statistics were begun in 1820, and they
are available from that time. Emigration figures, however, are
available only since 1907 and for all previous years must be esti-
mated. Such estimates have been made, based on the fact that
the difference between the increase in foreign born and the number
of immigrants during any census period must represent the aggre-
gate of persons dying or emigrating during the period. From such
data as were available, a rough approximation v/as made of the
number who presumably died. The remainder were emigrants.'
On the basis of such a computation the net immigration from
1 82 1 to 1920 has been estimated as follows:
DECADE.'
Estimated net
immigration.
DECADE.'
Estimated net
immigration.
182I-183O
137,000
558,000
1,599,000
2.663.000
187I-1880
2,530,000
4,273,000
3,239,000
5.558,000
3,467,000
183 I— 1840
1881-189O
184I— 1850
189I — 1900
185I-1860
I9OI— I9IO
1861-1870 2 . -J ;6. 000
I9II-I92O
' Adjusted to correspond to census dates.
The subtraction of the net immigration for a certain period from
the actual increase for the period, however, will not give the natural
increase, for there still is present in the remainder a small incre-
ment, the excess of births over deaths in the families of the immi-
grants arriving during the period.
To determine this increment for a given decade, the assumption
was made that the rate of natural increase was the same for the
immigrant families as for the total population. No separate
birth statistics for the native and foreign elements in the popu-
lation have been compiled until recently, and so no actual check
is possible.
Although the birth rate for immigrant families is high, the in-
fant-mortality rate is also high. Moreover, the proportion of
married persons among immigrants, not including men who have
left their wives in their home countries, is relatively low. It is
possible, therefore, that the rate of natural increase among immi-
grants, especially during the first few years after arrival in this
country, may correspond rather closely to that for the total popu-
lation. At any rate, this assumption appears as tenable as any
other, and it has accordingly been made. Considering the immi-
gration to have been uniformly distributed throughout the period,
' For a detailed explanation, see Appendix C.
152
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
the average length of time elapsing between the arrival of the im-
migrant and the end of the decade would be five years. There-
fore, the natural increase, during the decade of arrival, within the
group represented by the net immigration is estimated to be equal
to five times the annual increase in a normal population group of
the same size.
With these two figures, the net immigration and the natural
increase within the net immigration, it is possible to obtain the
natural increase of the population per decade.
Table 39. — Increase in Total Population of the United States,
BY Decades, i 790-1920, with Estimated Increase Which
Would Have Occurred During Each Decade Had there been
NO Immigration nor Emigration in That Decade, 1820- 1920.
[The rates in this table have been estimated by methods identical with those employed in estimating
the corresponding rates for the white population, described in Appendix A. For description of method
employed in estimating emigration, see Appendix C]
1790-1800
1800-1810
1810-1820
1820-1830
1830-1840
1840-1850
1850-1860
1860-1870
1870-1880
1880-1890
1890-1900
190O-1910
191O-1920
ACTUAL INCREASE.
Number.
1.379.269
I. 931. 398
2,398.572
3.227,567
4.203,433
6, 122,423
8,251,445
'8,375,128
10.337,334
12,791,931
13,046,861
15.977.691
13.738.354
35-1
36.4
33'
33-
32.
35'
35'
26.
26
25-5
20.7
21.0
14.9
ESTIMATED INCREASE H.\D
THERE BEEN NO IMMIGRA-
TION NOR EMIGRATION DUR-
ING DECADE.
3,065,000
3,564,000
4,319,000
5,288,000
5,817,000
7,566,000
8,175,000
9 , 568 , 000
10,031,000
10, 117,000
Per cent.
31-8
27.7
25-3
22.8
18.5
19.0
16.3
15-2
13.2
10.9
' No data for years prior to 1820.
> Estimated corrected figures; census of 1870 incomplete.
These rates represent the difference between the birth and
death rates in the country. If the difference were zero, the
changes in population from one census to another would be due
entirely to immigration and emigration. Such a table, demon-
strating as it does the declining rate of increase in the United
States, is one which should be most carefully considered. It
represents a continuous tendency and one which has shown
no signs of slackening. The United States, as intimated in a
preceding chapter,' has reached a point in native population
' See p. loi.
AGE, MARITAL CONDITION, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS.
153
growth, by a process of continuous shrinkage in per cent of in-
crease, which in 1920 was about abreast of European increase.
Continuation of this reduction to 1930 would indicate an ex-
tremely serious tendency. The next census, therefore, is likely
definitely to align the United States either with old settled coun-
tries having normal increase, or with abnormal France. The
results of the Fifteenth Census, in so far as they reveal a check to
decreased rate of increase or the projection of a long-standing
tendency over the danger line, should be awaited with intense
interest by all who are concerned with the national welfare.
It is possible to check to some extent the figure for the last
decade by means of the birth and death rates which are now avail-
able. These figures have been collected from continually in-
creasing birth-registration and death-registration areas, which in
1 91 9 contained nearly 60 per cent and more than 80 per cent,
respectively, of the total population of the country.
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
Birthrate.
25-1
25.0
24.7
24.6
22.3
Death rate.
13-6
14.0
14-3
18. 1
12.9
Excess.
"•5
II. o
10.4
6-5
9.4
Of these years, 191 5 and 191 6 are generally considered to be
normal. Since 1916 the epidemic of influenza and the war con-
ditions of Uving have been such as to cause possibly misleading
fluctuations. Inspection of the tabulation presented above sug-
gests that the result reached by the elimination of the increase
due to the foreign bom, at least for the recent decade, is approxi-
mately correct, since it corresponds so closely with the result
achieved by utilizing birth and mortality returns for the years
accepted as normal, 191 5 and 191 6.
Some data as to the average number of children per mother are
now available from the birth-statistics reports. These data show
the following averages for those white mothers in the birth-
registration area who gave birth to children during the calendar
year 1 9 1 9 : ^
Average number of children ever bom :
Per native white mother 3.2
Per foreign white mother 4.0
Average number of surviving children :
Per native white mother 2.8
Per foreign white mother 3.4
* See Appendix F.
154 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 19I0-I920.
The birth-registration area in 191 9 inchided only five Southern
states, Mar}dand, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina. Thus the proportion which the Southern states in the
registration area formed of the total area was considerably less
than the proportion which the South as a whole forms of the
entire United States. The average number of children per native
white mother, computed for the registration area, is therefore pre-
sumably somewhat smaller than the corresponding average for
the entire United States, since the average for the South is higher
than for the rest of the country.
SUMMARY.
From this brief survey of changes in age, marital condition, and
birth and death rates, summed up, what influences do they ap-
pear to have exerted upon population ?
The age of the American people, as a whole, is probably slightly
greater than in 1910. This is the result of slackened increase of
population — due in part to the country-wide migration of whites
and Negroes, more or less interrupting the family relation — and
of the departure of great numbers of the younger foreign bom.
The actual expectation of life of the population, at birth or at any
given age, may also be slightly higher than in 19 10.
The number married proportionately increased among both
sexes, and marriages in the younger age groups sharply increased.
The birth rate declined, but the apparent natural increase
of about 10 or 12 per cent, without alien assistance, and the
averages of 2.8 surviving children per native white mother and
3.4 per foreign white mother, shown for the birth-registration area
in 1 91 9, indicate that if these rates are maintained the United
States has no cause for especial concern.
XIV.
INFLUENCE UPON POPULATION INCREASE OF
DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
MANUFACTURES, AND MINING.
Historically, agriculture has been regarded as the most important
factor in increasing or limiting population growth. It remained
for manufactures to demonstrate at a later period an even greater
influence on the number of inhabitants and their places of resi-
dence. In a decade conspicuous for manufacturing, agricultural,
and mining activity and prosperity, what effect did these great
forces have on the American people, as shown at the Fourteenth
Census ?
In the United States population is always alert to follow manu-
facturing or mining development. The American people, adven-
turous and unbound by tradition, are especially ready to redis-
tribute themselves within the wide domain of the Republic
according to the expansion or contraction of industrial activity
and the corresponding return available to tliem in a given area.
A brief analysis is here presented of the relationship existing in
the United States between industrial growth, whether agriculture,
manufactures, or mining, and population change from 1910 to
1920.
The census makes use of nine subdivisions in its classification
of occupations. These subdivisions and their importance, in the
sense of number of workers in each, at the census of 1920 are
indicated by the following tabulation:
Agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry 10, 953 , 158
Extraction of minerals i , 090, 223
Manxifactures and mechanical industries 12 ,818, 524
Transportation 3 , 063 , 582
Trade 4,242,979
Public service (not elsewhere classified) 770, 460
Professional service 2 , 143 , 889
Domestic and personal service 3 , 404 , 892
Clerical 3, 126,541
Total 41,614,248
The first three groups, agriculture, mining, and manufactures,
represent the basic occupations, and upon the location of these
industries depends the location of the other six groups. If
manufacturing settles in a particular center, transportation,
155
156
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
trade, public, professional and domestic service, and clerical
workers distribute themselves accordingly. In a large sense their
work is really accessory to one or the other of the three groups
named. Consequently, these three basic activities are here con-
sidered as typical of industrial development and distribution
throughout the country.
The distribution, by geographic divisions, of the total number
of persons engaged and the value-product for agriculture in
comparison with manufactures and production of minerals, is
given in Table 40.
Table 40. — Comparison of Agriculture With Manufactures and
Production of Minerals on Basis of Number of Persons Engaged
and Value-Product, by GEOGRAPmc Divisions: 19 19.
[For state figures, see Table 62.]
PERSONS ENGAGED IN —
Value of
agricultural
products. 2
Value added by
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION.
Agriculture.
Manufactures
and produc-
tion of
minerals. '
manufacture plus
value of products
of mineral
industries. >
United States . . .
10,636,826
11,893,558
$20,933,487,000
$28,206, 165,000
New England
221, 162
633 . 664
1,586,291
1,664,919
2, 114, 586
1,782,628
1,781,389
414,009
438.178
1.543.095
3,816, 142
3,091,676
708,772
1,073, 132
480, 570
413.863
222,382
543.926
463, 106,000
1,497,641,000
4.323.955.000
S. 540. 245, 000
2,509,661,000
1,722,324,000
2,702, 169,000
914, 787,000
1,259, 599,000
3,249,884,000
9,287,921 ,000
7.596,274.000
1,690,804,000
2 , 2 1 1 , 62 5 , 000
846 ,211, 000
1,220, 595,000
634,264,000
1,468, 587,000
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
^ Including production of oil and gas.
^ Total value of crops plus total value of live-stock products and domestic animals sold or slaughtered on
farms; includes some duplication representing value of crops consumed by live stock.
There are two units by which the activity of industries may be
measured, value of products and physical volume of production.
Value of products is here used, because data are available for a
much earlier period than if volume of production were sought, and
the value rather than the volume of the product is that which
influences population increase.
A first inspection of Table 40 creates an impression of similarity
between persons engaged and value produced for each of the
two groups there listed. This impression, however, is not entirely
correct, as the following per capita analysis indicates. This per
capita proportion is of service only as a means of determining
how constant the ratio is in the different divisions. It obviously
can not be used as a basis of comparison between agriculture and
AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURES, AND MINING.
157
manufacturing, or for comparison within a single group, because
such a comparison would rest only on the assumption that all
the value produced in the industry was distributed to labor. The
return here pictured as per capita gives no indication of the
actual return in the industry.
Table 41. — Per Capita Value of Products: Agriculture, Manu-
factures, AND Mining, 19 19.
PER CArlT.\ VALUE OF
PRODUCTS FOR
PERSONS ENGAGED IN —
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION.
PER CAPITA VAtUE OP
PRODUCTS FOR
PERSONS ENG.\GED IN —
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIOK.
Agricul-
ture.
Manufac-
turing
and
mining.'
Agricul-
ture.
Manufac-
turing
and
mining.'
United States. . .
1,968
2,372
West North Central.
South Atlantic ....
East South Central .
West South Central.
Mountain
Pacific
3.328
1,187
966
I. 517
2,210
2.875
2.386
2,061
1,761
2,949
2,852
2,700
New England
Middle Atlantic ....
East North Central. .
2,094
2,363
2,726
2,io6
2,434
2.457
' Including production of oil and gas.
This analysis reveals the fact that the similarity is not as great
as at first appeared. However, if the extraction of minerals
is separated from manufactures, the Western states tend to con-
form more nearly to the Eastern, and in the case of manufactures
a fairly constant ratio is discovered. The lack of any constant
ratio for agriculture is made evident by a comparison of the West
North Central with the East South Central group. The three
southern groups, in fact, show ratios much lower than those for
the remainder of the country. The Negro element in the agri-
cultural group in the South is doubtless responsible in large
measure for this situation. In both groups the lowest per capita
is that for the East South Central division, which is the heart
of the black belt. The South Atlantic is next in all particulars.
Another cause of the difference in this respect between the North
and the South is to be found in the fact that in the northern
states much of the agricultural work— in particular, the harv^est-
ing — is performed by casual laborers. Such laborers, however,
were largely in cities on the Fourteenth Census date (January i,
1920) and were accordingly enumerated as engaged in nonagri-
cultural occupations. This resulted in an exaggeration of the
per capita value-product for agriculture in the North. That
there is a close relationship between value added and number ot
workers in manufacturing seems to be here suggested. Such
relationship is emphasized by further consideration of the subject.
Q
O
c^
<
D
-4
U
2
o
<
158
IS9
160
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The following table of proportions (a summary of Table 63,
p. 249) advances the analysis:
Table 42. — Urbanization of Population in Comparison with
Industrial Development, by Geographic Divisions:
1920, 1910, AND 1850.
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION AND
CENSUS YEAR.
United States:
1920
1910
1850
New England:
1920
1910 ,
1850
Middle Atlantic:
1920 ,
1910 ,
1850
East North Central
1920
1910 ,
1850
West North Central
1920
1910 ,
1850
South Atlantic:
1920 ,
1910
1850
East South Central
1920
1910
1850
West South Central
1920
1910 ,
1850
Mountain :
1920
1910
1850
Pacific :
1920
1910
1850
PER CENT OF TOTAL COM-
PRISING VALUE OF AGRI-
CULTURAL PRODUCTS,
VALUE ADDED BY MANU-
FACTURE, AND VALUE OF
PRODUCTS OF MINERAL
INDUSTRIES.'
Agricul-
tural
prod-
ucts.
42.6
45-8
71-5
Value
added by
manu-
facture.
51-0
47-4
26.5
Mineral
prod-
ucts.
6.4
6.9
1.9
12.5
iS-5
37-1
87.0
83.3
61.4
13-9
16.5
55-5
78.2
74.3
41.8
36.3
42.6
85.3
59-7
51-7
14.0
76.6
77-5
83-5
19-5
18.3
15-6
53-2
56.0
85.1
39-4
37-4
14.0
67.1
67.8
93-7
25-9
27.6
6.1
68.9
18.6
74.8
93-2
21.0
6.8
59-1
48.1
92.8
20.2
20.6
7.2
46.2
48.2
8.8
47-3
42.7
7.6
1.2
1-5
4.0
5.6
0.7
71
4.6
0.2
4.1
20.8
31.2
6.6
9.2
83.6
PER CENT OP TOTAL PER-
SONS ENGAGED IN AGRI-
CULTURE, MANUF-\C-
TURES, AND PRODUCTION
OF MINERALS.*
Agricul-
ture.
Manu-
fac-
tures.
47.2
58.4
48.0
12.5
18.4
e)
14.2
47-2
e)
33-9
47-4
ih
70.1
76.4
e)
66.3
74.8
e)
78.8
85.5
81. 1
88.4
(')
65.1
64.9
(')
44.6
S7-0
87.0
80.3
77.6
67.9
e)
61.7
46.6
e)
27.0
19.6
e)
29.2
21.6
(')
16.9
II. 6
e)
15-5
10.3
(=•)
21.0
16.6
e)
52-5
37-7
Produc-
tion of
miner-
als.
4.8
Per cent
urban
in
total
popu-
lation.
51-4
45-8
17.9
Per
cent of
jjopula-
tion in
cities of
100,000
and
over
and
their
adja-
cent
terri-
tory.'
0-5
79.2
76.3
j 42.6
8.2
74-9
"•3
71.0
26. 1
4.4
60.8
6.0
52.7
9-3
2.9
37-7
4.0
33-3
10.9
4.4
31.0
25-4
II. 6
4-3
22.4
2.9
18.7
3-7
3-4
29.0
ei^
22.3
14.0
18.4
36-4
36.0
6.6
2.9
63.4
56.8
14.3
34-9
29.4
58.9
48.9
{')
63.0
5f7
39-6
31.6
h
19.6
16.6
(')
16.3
12. 1
(=•)
12.3
10.6
(')
10.8
4.2
13.3
9.1
47.1
43-4
' Relates to calendar year preceding census year. Mineral products include oil and gas.
'The term "adjacent territory" refers to the area lying within approximately lo miles beyond the
boundaries of the central city.
' Data incomplete.
* Less than one-tenth of i per cent.
w
6. H
OJ Q
O 6}
« 2
" w
W
o
W
107°— 22-
-11
i6i
162
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
In this table are revealed the proportions which the numbers of
persons engaged in agriculture, manufacturing, and mining con-
stituted of the total of the three and also the corresponding pro-
portions for the value of products in the case of agriculture and
mining, and for value added in the case of manufacturing. Ignor-
ing absolute values, the state or division is judged by the propor-
tions which manufacturing, agriculture, and mining represent
within its boundaries.
In 1920 the proportions as represented in the table were, for the
entire cotmtry, such that in agriculture 47.2 per cent of the per-
sons in the three groups engaged produced 42.6 per cent of the
total value produced by the three groups; in manufacturing, on
the other hand, 48 per cent of the total persons engaged ^ produced
51 per cent of the total value; while in mining 4.8 per cent of the
total workers ^ were responsible for 6.4 per cent of the value-
product.
In general, there is throughout the various divisions and states,
except in the case of the mining group, a fair degree of similarity
between the proportions of persons engaged and the value pro-
portions. In terms of these proportions, the order of the divisions
was:
Agriculture.
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION.
West Nortli Central .
West South Central ,
East South Central .
Mountain
South Atlantic
Pacific
East North Central .
Middle Atlantic . . .
New England
PERSONS
ENGAGED.
VALUE OF
PRODUCTS.
Rank.
Per cent.
Rank.
Per cent.
3
70.1
I
76.6
I
81. I
2
68.9
2
78.8
3
67.1
5
65.1
4
59- I
4
66.3
5
53-2
6
44.6
6
46. 2
7
33-9
7
36.3
8
14.2
8
13-9
9
12. 5
9
12.5
^ The terms "persons engaged" and "workers" are used s>Tionymously throughout
this chapter and include clerks, salaried officials, etc., as well as wage earners. All
proportions of the total workers and total value of products are stated as percentages
of the respective aggregates for the three groups of industries under consideration,
not 0/ the aggregates for all industries combined.
AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURES, AND MINING.
163
Manufachires.
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION.
New England
Middle Atlantic . . .
East North Central .
Pacific
South Atlantic
East South Central .
Mountain
West North Central
West South Central
PERSONS ENGAGED.
Rank. ! Per cent.
87.0
77.6
61. 7
52-5
29. 2
16. 9
21. O
27.0
15-5
VALUE ADDED BY
.M.\NJFACTURE.
Per cent.
78.2
59-7
47-3
39-4
25-9
20. 2
19-5
18.6
Mining {including production of oil and gas).
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION.
Mountain
West South Central
Middle Atlantic . . .
South Atlantic
East South Central
Pacific
East North Central
West North Central
New England
PERSONS ENGAGED.
14. O
3-4
8.2
4- 4
4-3
2.9
4-4
2.9
0-5
VALUE OF PRODUCTS.
Rank.
20.8
12. 5
7-9
7- 5
7- I
6.6
4.0
3-9
o- 5
The relation of the value proportion and the worker propor-
tion is even more clearly displayed by an examination of these
relationships for states. Three groups of states have been pre-
pared for examination, the 10 leading in proportions of persons
engaged in agriculture, the 10 in manufactiu'ing, and the 10 in
mining.
The figures for the leading 5 Northern and leading 5 Southern
agricultural states, as determined by proportions of persons en-
gaged, are as follows:
States Having Largest Proportions of Agricultural Workers: igng.
STATE.
Per cent of
total persons
engaged.
Per cent of
total value
of products.
STATE.
Per cent of
total persons
engaged.
Per cent
of total
value of
products.
NORTH.
North Dakota . . .
South Dakota . . .
Nebraska . . .
94-4
91-5
79.1
77-9
73 5
96. I
94-4
87.1
78.7
85-5
SOUTH.
Mississippi ....
Arkansas
Texas
88.5
86.6
837
82.7
80.7
79-5
79-5
74-7
75-4
70-5
Idaho
South Carolina .
Georgia
Iowa
164
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
It will appear from the above separation into groups that the
two columns bear entirely different relationships to each other in
the two parts of the country. In every Northern state, the value
proportion is higher than the worker proportion ; in every Southern
state the worker proportion is higher than the value propor-
tion. A more striking instance of this situation in the South-
em states is that of Louisiana, where 70.2 per cent of the
workers create 44.9 per cent of the total value. Presumably
this difference in ratio is due to three causes: First, the extent
of Negro labor in the South, where Negro laborers are gener-
ally recorded as agricultural workers, yet are perhaps not the
equivalent of the same number of agricultural workers in the
Northern states; second, the more extensive use of machinery in
the Northern states, which increases the value proportion without
affecting the number of workers; third, the fact that much of the
northern agriculture is carried on by casual labor — the harvesting,
for example. These men on January i, 1920, when the census
was taken, were in cities, but during the summer became agricul-
tural workers. Therefore, the figure for agricultural workers in
the Northern states would have a tendency to be too low.
This table would tend to substantiate the first general state-
ment made as a result of the examination of Table 4 1 , that the
number of workers in agriculture was not closely related to the
value of agricultural products.
A similar investigation into the states which lead in manu-
factures results in the following :
States Having Largest Proportions
of Workers in Manufactures: 19 19.
STATE.
Per cent of
total persons
engaged.
Per cent of
total value
added by
manufacture.
STATE.
Per cent of
total persons
engaged.
Per cent of
total value
added by
manufacture.
Rhode Island —
95-3 96.2
94.0 94.5
90.7 91. I
90. 2 90 . 6
8^ I Ra 1
New Hampshire . .
Ohio
77.6
68.1
68.0
65-4
64.3
77-9
67.4
New Jersey
Connecticut
Pennsylvania. . . .
Delaware
Michigan
67.8
71.7
69.0
A remarkable similarity is here indicated between the propor-
tions, especially for the states which are predominantly manu-
facturing. Naturally, as the proportions decrease, they are more
affected by the proportions for the other groups within the states.
AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURES, AND MINING.
165
Unlike the proportions shown in connection with agriculture, the
proportions of the total persons engaged and value added for
manufacturing show a striking similarity. The extent to which
manufactures overshadows agriculture in the leading five states is
worthy of note.
Mining as an industry within the country does not assume the
same proportions as agriculture or manufactures. The leading lo
states are :
States Having Largest Proportions of Workers in Mining (including
production of oil and gas): igig.
STATB.
Per cent of
total persons
engaged.
Per cent of
total value
of products.
STATE.
Per cent of
total persons
engaged.
Per cent of
total value
of products.
West Virginia . . .
Nevada
34-2
28.8
26.9
23-4
18.0
45-2
35-5
50.2
28.1
17.9
Montana
Utah
14-5
14.0
II. 4
II. I
10.4
21.2
23.6
II. 9
18.2
26.2
Arizona
Colorado
New Mexico. .. .
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Pennsylvania... .
Since in no state in the Union does mining assume proportions
larger than both agriculture and manufactures, it is difficult to
determine its exact relation to population. It is evident that the
proportion which the value of its product forms of the total value
of products is greater than the proportion which the number of
its workers constitutes in the corresponding total. This, of
course, represents a greater per capita return in mining than in
the other branches of industry. It is interesting to note that
Pennsylvania, which is made eligible for this group because of the
vast amount of coal mined within its boundaries, is the only state
of the group in which the relationship just noted does not hold
true. That mining plays no important part in the actual popu-
lation distribution is evidenced by a comparison of the size of the
proportions returned for each of the three groups. For the 5
Northern and 5 Southern states leading in agriculture, the aver-
age proportion of persons engaged in that particular branch of
industry was 83.9 per cent; for the 10 states leading in manufac-
turing, the average was 79.7 per cent; for the 10 states leading
in mining, the average was 19.3 per cent. Mining, obviously, is a
much less important factor than either of the other two branches
of industry.
The relationship of these industrial groups to the urban and
rural distribution of the population requires little comment. From
166 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
the very nature of the industry, agriculture necessitates rural life,
whereas manufacturing requires the grouping of individuals
together in cities or large communities. The columns in Table 63
which give, for the purpose of comparison, the proportion of the
area which is urban are significant. The 10 agricultural states
have an average proportion of 23 per cent urban; the 10 manu-
facturing states have an average proportion of 73 per cent urban,
while the first 5 manufacturing states have an even higher urban
proportion, or 85 per cent. This is even further emphasized by a
consideration of the population in cities of over 100,000 and their
adjacent territory (referring to the area lying within approximately
10 miles of the boundaries of the central city). Among the first 5
states in which manufacturing predominates, 75 per cent of the
total population were in this urban classification. Among the
5 Northern and 5 Southern states leading in agriculture, 5 per
cent of the population were in such communities.
It remains to discuss the changes which have taken place in
both population and industry during the decade. In any com-
parison between different censuses the change in the census date
must be kept in mind, since a change from April 15, the date of
the 1910 census, to January i, the date of the 1920 census, neces-
sarily affects the number engaged in agriculture.
As early as 1850 the relationship between the proportion of
urban population and the nature of the industry within the area
was clearly indicated. Indeed, with the country as little developed
as it was in 1850, the relationship was even more marked than it
is at the present time. In 1920 the leading four urban divisions
were the leading four manufacturing divisions, and were also those
having the lowest four proportions for agriculture. Apparently,
however, cities were not as dependent upon manufacturing in 1920
as they were in earlier years, while the rank of the state in terms
of agriculture is not necessarily the converse of its rank in
manufacturing.
A definite change in the position of agriculture and manufac-
turing has been going on for years. In 1850 agriculture produced
71.5 per cent of the total value for agriculture, manufacturing,
and mining. By 19 10, although the number of persons engaged in
manufacturing was less than the number in agriculture, the value
added by manufacture was greater than the value of agricultural
products. This ascendency of manufactures continued during the
AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURES, AND MINING. 167
decade, and the 1920 census recorded a slightly greater proportion
of wage earners in manufactures and a value added by manu-
facture nearly 20 per cent greater than the value of agricultural
products. During the last decade, mining lost ground in both
categories. The urban development of the country- paralleled the
development of manufactures and passed the 50 per cent mark
between 19 10 and 1920.
The tendency of the last decade has been largely to bring the
proportions for value and for workers together. In 19 10 the
discrepancy for agriculture was 12.6 per cent; for manufactures,
I I.I per cent. These variations were reduced in 1920 to 4.6
per cent for agriculture and 3 per cent for manufactures. This
same tendency toward a closer similarity can be traced in most of
the divisions and states. The three southern divisions were those
in which the 19 10 census found the greatest diversity in propor-
tions. In each case the census of 1920 recorded changes resulting
in more similar proportions. In two divisions, the East and West
South Central, the high proportion for value added by manufac-
ture decreased, while the low proportion for workers increased.
It is probably true that there is a certain equilibrium which
will eventually be reached, although the varying use of capital
in the two groups may result in different proportions for the
value of products and for the number of workers.
The division showing the greatest change in characteristics dur-
ing the period from 1850 to 1920 was the East North Central.
Classed in 1850 as one of the agricultural areas, it has since reached
third place among industrial areas. Such rapid changes as that of
the state of Michigan, from an agricultural state to an industrial
state, have been factors in this development. With the industrial
change has come a decided expansion in population.
In order to compare the changes and developments during the
decade. Table 64 has been prepared, a summary of which will
be found as Table 43, page 1 68 . This table states the per cent which
the increase or decrease in any particular division or state formed
of the total increase or decrease in the United States.
An examination of the figures for the geographic divisions shows
that the columns which bear a strildng resemblance are those for
increase in population, increase in value added by manufactures,
and increase in persons engaged in manufactures. The columns
depicting increase or decrease for agriculture and mining show
168
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
little apparent relation to each other or to other groupings in the
table. Even a casual inspection makes it evident that manufac-
turing development for the decade controlled the distribution of
population increase.
Tabi^E 43. — Increase in Population in Comparison with
Increase in Industrial Activity, by Geographic Divisions:
1910-1920.
[The division percentages in this table are based, respectively, not on net increase or decrease in the
country as a whole, but on the total increase in those divisions in which increases took place or on the
total decrease in those divisions in which decreases took place. Thus the percentages of total increase
and the f>ercentages of total decrease ( — ) in each column totahze separately to loo.]
GSOGRAFHIC DIVISION.
United States . . . .
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central . . .
West North Central. ..
South Atlantic
East South Central . . .
West South Central...
Mountain
Pacific
PER CENT WHICH INCREASE OR DECREASE IN DIVISION FORMED OF TOTAL
INCREASE OR DECREASE IN UNITED STATES —
In popu-
lation.
6.
21.
6.
13-
3-5
10.6
5-1
10. o
In value
of agri-
cultural
products.
1.9
6.6
19.9
24.9
12.8
7-9
14.5
4-7
6.8
In value
added by
manufac-
ture.
In value
of mineral
products.
In num-
ber of
r>ersons
engaged
in agri-
culture.'
In num-
ber of
persons
engaged
in manu-
facturing
indus-
tries.'
In num-
ber of
persons
engaged
in
produc-
tion of
miner-
als.'
100.
12,
33'
29.
5'
7-
2.
2,
5-7
0.1
-3-1
10.3
25.2
12.7
7.8
-8.6
-12.7
-8.2
27.9
35-0
5.6
12.8
6.9
23.1
-25-9
-25-5
-16. 1
5-9
2-5
3-2
6.1
5-4
44-8
1.4
8.3
-8.0
-44.6
-15-6
-18.8
20.6
27.8
51-5
-7-5
-5-4
' Percentages based on figures for agriculture and animal husbandry, as shown by occupations report.
2 Percentages based on totals shown by manufactures repwrt.
' Percentages based on totals shown by mines and quarries report. Mineral products include oil and gas.
It is interesting to note that, whereas the changes in location of
persons engaged in manufactiu'es have corresponded very de-
cidedly with the changes in the value added by manufacture,
the same relationship does not hold for agricultiu-e or mining.
The factors guiding the changes in manufacturing proportions are
such as to keep them in much closer relationship than those in
agriculture.
In the first place, the return in manufactures is related much
more closely to cost of production than that in agriculture.
Consequently a change in value is reflected in wages much more
readily in manufactures than in agricultiu-e, and this would
result in a redistribution of individuals much more rapidly than
where there was no wage change.
AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURES, AND MINING.
169
Likewise, the relationship between production and price is
much closer in manufacturing than in agriculture. The farmer
produces, with no knowledge whether his crop will be a profit or
Per Cent of Increase in Population, 1910-1920, and in Manufactures,
1909-1919.
POPULATION
URBAN
RURAL
MANUFACTURES
ESTABLISHMENTS (NUM^gR)
WAGE EARNERS (avERAQE NUMBER)
CAPITAL
WAGES
COST OF MATERIALS
VALUE OF PRODUCTS
VALUE ADDED BY MANUFACTURE
a loss, since the price is far beyond his control ; however, he does
produce. The manufacturer, on the other hand, is much more
closely in touch with his market and is able to adjust his pro-
duction to the return therefrom.
Per Cent of Increase in Population and Agriculture: 1910-1920.
60
PER CENT
100 ISO
200
1
■
■i
"**
**"'
"'"'
m
__
^^^^
1
—
1^
Bl
PER CENT
100
POPULATION
URBAN
RURAL
AGRICULTURE
NUMBER OF FARMS
ALL LAND IN FARMS
IMPROVED LAND IN FARMS
VALUE OF ALL FARM PROPERTY
LAND AND BUILDINGS
LAND ALONE
BUILDINGS
IMPLEMENTS AND MACHINERY
LIVE STOCK
^"
I
1
■
I
^™
JJ™
^™
™
^^
^^
^^
^^*
L__ ._
^^H
^*
-
^^^
___
^^^^^^^
^^*
^^H
^
■B
Further, manufacturing represents a more mobile group of
workers than those in agriculture. They are less bound by
ownership, or by tradition, to remain in any particular locality.
They are urban dwellers and, as such, can move to other cities
170 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 19l(>-1920.
with much less difficulty than is involved in any change on the
part of the agricultural population.
Finally, the decade was a manufacturing decade. The last 5
years were years of manufacturing predominance. Consequently
manufacturing was able to outbid agriculture, and therefore any
changes occurring during the decade would be in accordance
with the industrial developments.
From this discussion two generalizations may be drawn: (i) The
fact that manufacturing, rather than agriculture, is the determin-
ing factor in effecting marked population changes; and (2) the
tendency of the proportions for value of products and workers
toward increasing similarity.
XV.
OUTLYING POSSESSIONS, EXCLUSIVE OF PHILIPPINES
AND VIRGIN ISLANDS.
With the First Census of the United States, and at every
succeeding census, there have been enumerated geographic areas
which were not states of the Union. These areas, observed
from census to census, form a striking picture of organization of
new territory and its rapid development to a degree of population
strength which justified entrance into the Union of states. Since
1 91 2, when Arizona and New Mexico were admitted to the
Union, there have remained as territories only Alaska, Hawaii,
and Porto Rico.
There began also to appear other outlying areas enumerated at
the decennial census: Guam, American Samoa, and the Panama
Canal Zone. Thus at the census of 1920 the nonstate areas,
which at previous censuses had included territories within the
continental area of the Nation, comprised only the District of
Columbia, Alaska, the Panama Canal Zone, and various islands in
the Atlantic and Pacific. Table 65, which appears on page 254,
presents a list of nonstate areas enumerated at each census. It is
appropriate that there should be included here some reference to
the population of outlying areas enumerated at the Fourteenth
Census. These areas, with their population in 1920, are as follows:
Alaska Territory 55 , 036
Hawaii Territory 255,912
Porto Rico Territory i , 299 , 809
Guam 13.275
American Samoa 8, 056
Panama Canal Zone 22 , 858
AIvASKA.
Between 1910 and 1920 the population of Alaska decreased
from 64,356 to 55,036, that is, by 9,320, or 14.5 per cent. This
decrease was the result of less profitable mining and fishing
operations and the consequent departure from the territory of
persons whose sole interest was in these enterprises.
The first census of Alaska was taken in 1880, 13 years after
the purchase by the United States from Russia of this vast
northern territory. The population doubled from 1S90 to 1900,
the period of greatest mining excitement, and remained practically
stationary until the census of 1910, covering the period of pro-
171
172
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
duction. The census of 1920 suggests the general tendency to
"clean up" and the failure to develop further spectacular dis-
coveries. It is not, however, from the finding and feverish
mining of precious metals that permanent prosperity and popu-
lation are secured, if the history of California and Nevada mining
communities afford fair examples; and, since it is now agreed that
Alaska offers great opportunity for future development in agri-
culture, lumber, coal, and fisheries, it is likely that future censuses
will record solid and gratifying increases, the first signs of which
appeared in 1920 in the growing equality of the sexes, in the face
of a sharp decrease in total population. The decrease, moreover,
was largely among the foreign bom. With the native Americans
decreasing at a comparatively slow rate and establishing famihes,
the future of the territory, it is to be hoped, is now being laid on
more secure foundations.
There is but one town in Alaska which the Census Bureau would
class as an urban community — Juneau, in the southern district,
with 3,058 inhabitants. Four other towns have more than 1,000
inhabitants each: Ketchikan, 2,458; Anchorage, 1,856; Sitka,
1,175; ^iid Fairbanks, 1,155. In 19 10 there were 7 towns instead
of 5 having more than 1,000 inhabitants each. An interesting
example of the collapse of boom expansion is Nome, which had
12,488 inhabitants in 1900, 2,600 in 1910, and only 852 in 1920.
There are in the territory a total of 17 incorporated towns, 151
unincorporated villages, 5 unincorporated towns, 5 forts, 5 islands,
and 2 stations. Among them some had as few as 16 or 18
inhabitants.
Table 44. — Raciai, Composition of the Population of Alaska:
1920 AND 1910.
COLOR OR RACE.
Total population
White
Native
Foreign-bom
Indian
Chinese
Japanese
Negro
Another
55.036
27.883
16,286
".597
26,558
56
312
128
99
64,356
36,400
18,426
17.974
25.331
1,209
913
209
294
PER CENT OP TOTAL.
100.
50.7
29.6
21. I
48.3
O. I
0.6
0.2
0.2
56.6
23
28.6
II .
27.9
35-
39-4
+4-
1.9
95-
1-4
65-
03
38.
o-S
66.
Percent of
decrease or
increase
( + )
1910-1930.
14.5
OUTLYING POSSESSIONS.
173
This table brings out the decrease in population among the
foreign-bom white, which accounts for 68.4 per cent of the total
decrease shown by Alaska in 1920. A further analysis of the
foreign-bom decrease in terms of nationality results in the
following tabulation :
COUNTRY OF BIRTH.
1930
I910
COUNTRY OP BIRTH.
1920
1910
2, 169
1,716
1,688
843
2,597
2,208
2,717
1,550
Finland
794
601
562
329
976
Ireland
1,157
England
1,023
Italy
744
Three nationalities — Norwegian, Swedish, and Canadian — were
largely in the majority among the foreign bom. The decreases of
these nationaHties have apparently been proportionally less heavy
than those of the others.
The decrease in persons gainfully employed in Alaska exceeded
the decrease in the total population, the loss in population being
9,320, while the decrease in persons gainfully employed was
13,276. One factor in bringing about this curious result was the
tendency during the decade toward more nearly normal proportions
between the sexes. Such a redistribution is of great importance,
especially in shifting the number of persons actually wage earners
and in determining the natural rate of increase. The figures are
as follows:
SEX.
1920
1910
Male
34,539
20,497
45,857
Female
18,499
There were, in 1910, 247.9 males for every 100 females, which
figure w^as reduced in 1920 to 168.5 males for every 100 females.
Such a change also resulted in a decided increase in tlie proportion
of married males. The percentage of males over 15 years of age
who were married increased from 30.9 in 1910 to 39.2 in 1920,
while there was practically no change in the proportion of females
married.
The decrease in persons gainfully employed was distributed
throughout all the occupational groups save agriculture. The
greatest decreases occurred in the mining and manufacturing
groups, indicating a decided falling off in those forms of industrial
activity.
174
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
HAWAII.
The Hawaiian Islands, nine in number, were acquired by tlie
United States in 1898 and were organized as the territory of
Hawaii in June, 1900. The Federal censuses since that time have
reported considerable increases in population. The number of
inhabitants in 1900 was 154,001; in 1910, 191,909; and in 1920,
255,912, the increase during the last decade being 64,003, or 33.4
per cent.
The entire population of Hawaii which might be termed urban
resides in two cities, Honolulu and Hilo. Honolulu, much the
larger, is on Oahu Island, and recorded in 1920 a total population
of 83,327, an increase of 59.7 per cent over the number of its
inhabitants in 1910. Hilo had a population of 10,431 in 1920,
having increased slightly more than 50 per cent during the decade.
The census figures which have aroused the most interest are
those dealing with race and color. They are given in the following
table :
Table 45. — Population of Hawaii, by Race, with Per Cent of
Increase: 1920 and 1910.
Total 255,912
Hawaiian
Caucasian-Hawaiian .
Asiatic-Hawaiian. . . .
23.7^3
11,072
6,955
Caucasian :
Portuguese 27,002
Porto Rican 5 , 602
Spanish I 2 , 430
Other Caucasian j 19, 708
Chinese I 23 , 507
Japanese | 109,274
4,950
Korean .
Filipino .
Negro. .. .
All other .
2 1 , 03 1
348
310
191,909
26,041
8,772
3,734
22,301
4,890
1,990
14,867
21,674
79-675
4,533
2,361
695
376
PER CENT OF TOTAI,.
Per cent of
increase
or de-
crease (—).
33-4
9-3
4-3
2.7
10.6
2.2
i.o
7-7
9
42.
1,
13.6
4.6
1.9
II. 6
2-5
1.0
7-7
"•3
41-5
2.4
1.3
0.4
0.2
-».9
26.2
86.3
14.6
22. 1
32.6
8.5
37-1
9.2
790.8
-49.9
— 17.6
The racial classification is rendered somewhat complex by the
number of intermarriages between natives and immigrants. The
native and mixed native and foreign groups are as follows: Ha-
waiian, pure native stock; Caucasian-Hawaiian, a mixture of
Caucasian and Hawaiian stock, largely a development from the
OUTLYING POSSESSIONS.
175
Spanish settlement of the island; and Asiatic-Hawaiian, repre-
senting a mixture of Asiatic and Hawaiian stock.
The large proportion of Japanese and relatively small number
of Caucasians, other than Portuguese, are significant. Of the
19,708 persons classed as ''Other Caucasians" — of which num-
ber nearly 11,000 were born in continental United States —
12,670, or approximately two-thirds, were located in the city of
Honolulu alone.
Of the actual increase among the Japanese, 8,000 were males
and 22,000 were females. The men are employed mainly in
agriculture, while the women are employed either on sugar farms
or as domestic and personal servants. It is interesting to note that
nearly 85 per cent of the foreign bom enumerated at the
1920 census who had immigrated within the preceding 10 years
were Japanese.
Because of the widespread discussion in continental United
States concerning the number of Japanese in the states and the
limitation of the number migrating to this country, secured by
agreement with Japan, comparison with the unrestricted migra-
tion of Japanese to Hawaii is of much interest. Here are the
changes which have occurred in the number of persons of this
race in continental United States and in Hawaii : ^
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
Hawaii.
86
12, 360
61, III
79. 67s
109, 274
The figures for Hawaii for 1880 and 1890, as shown in the above
table, are taken from reports published by the then Hawaiian Gov-
ernment. (It will be remembered that the Hawaiian Islands did
not become a territory of the United States until 1898, and ap-
peared for the first time in the reports of the census of 1900 as a
part of this country.)
Obviously the Japanese were not attracted either to Hawaii,
then an independent kingdom, or to the United States as early
' The figures in this statement include the American-bom (or Hawaiian-bom)
descendants of Japanese immigrants, in addition to the immigrants themselves.
176 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
as 1880. But by 1890 Hawaii had apparently been discovered
as a desirable country to which to emigrate, and in that year also
the first suggestions of emigration to the United States appeared.
During the following decade occurred the heaviest movement of
Japanese to Hawaii, together with a marked increase in the
number coming to the United States.
Thereafter appears a rather interesting equalization of numbers.
Immigration of Japanese to Hawaii slackened from 1900 to 19 10,
the increase in Japanese population for the 10 years amounting to
less than 20,000, as against nearly 50,000 for the preceding decade ;
but the number coming to this country was so great that the
total Japanese population of continental United States in 19 10
tended to approach the number in the territory of Hawaii. In
1920 the increase shown for continental United States was con-
siderably greater than for Hawaii, and for the first time the
number of Japanese in continental United States slightly exceeded
that in the island territory.
PORTO RICO.
The island of Porto Rico was formally surrendered by Spain in
October, 1898, and was ceded to the United States by the treaty
of Paris, signed December 10 of the same year.
The population of Porto Rico, as recorded by the census of 1910,
was 1,118,012. This number increased during the decade from
1910 to 1920 by 16.3 per cent, resulting in a total of 1,299,809 in-
habitants at the taking of the 1920 census. The average number
of inhabitants per square mile in 1920 was 378.4, as compared with
325.5 in 1 910 and 277.5 i^ 1899. This represents a density 10
times as great as that for continental United States.
The decade has shown a slight increase in the proportion
of urban population. In 1920 the urban population, according
to the customary census classification, constituted 21.8 per cent
of the total population, as compared with 20.1 per cent in 19 10.
There were, in 1920, 16 cities or towns having more than 5,000
inhabitants, the largest being San Juan and Ponce. San Juan had
71,443 inhabitants in 1920, having increased about 50 per cent
during the decade. Ponce, with a population of 41,912, had
increased but 19 per cent.
The following table indicates the racial distribution. The
Census Bureau classes as native all those bom in continental
United States or any of its outlying possessions. It is interesting
to note how nearly completely the population is made up of
natives.
OUTLYING POSSESSIONS.
177
Tabi,e 46. — Population of Porto Rico, by Coi,or or Race and
Nativity: 1920 and 19 id.
KUMBER.
PBR C8NT OP TOTAL.
1920
1910
1920
1910
Total
1,299,809
I, 118,012
100.
100.
White
Black
948,709
49,246
301,816
32
4
2
1,291,642
8,167
732,555
50,245
335.192
12
8
73-0
3-8
23.2
(')
99.4
0.6
65-5
4-5
30.0
(')
Mulatto
Chinese
Japanese
All other
Native
I, 106,246
I I , 766
98.9
I . I
Foreign bom
' Less than one-tenth of i per cent.
Since the number of foreign bom is so slight, and since 99.8
per cent of the natives were actually born on the island, it would
appear that the increase is almost entirely internal — that is, due
to excess of births over deaths. The experience of Porto Rico is
especially interesting because of the unusual density of popula-
tion, and of the fact that the island is self-supporting.
Some geographic concentration by race can be observed, the
blacks and mulattoes being found mainly in the northern and
eastern parts of the island, about San Juan. The decrease in
both these groups, as compared with the increase in the white
population, is very marked.
GUAM.
Guam is the largest and southernmost island of the North
Pacific group known as the Marianne or Marianas Islands. It
is located 5,053 nautical miles southwest of San Francisco, 3,337
nautical miles west by south of Honolulu, and i ,506 nautical miles
east of Manila. The island is about 30 miles in extreme length
and from 4 to 8^ miles in width, its estimated area being 225
square miles. On December 10, 1898, Guam was ceded to the
United States by Spain.
Table 47. — Population of Guam, by Color or Race: 1920.
COLOR OR RACE.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
COLOR OR RACE.
Number.
Percent
of total.
All races
13.275
100.
Japanese
2IO
74
42
38
29
1.6
0.6
0-3
0. 2
Chamorro
12,216 92.0
396 3.0
280 2 . r
Mixed
Filipino
Black
White
Not reported
0.2
107°— 22-
-12
178
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The island of Guam has little attraction for population, its
importance centering about the naval station there located. In
1920 the total population was 13,275, an increase of 1,469, or 12.4
per cent, over the number enumerated in 1910. This 1920 figure
is lower than had been forecast by the early years of the decade,
because of an epidemic of influenza which swept the island in
October and November of 1918. In those two months there were
858 deaths, and the death rate for the fiscal year ended June 30,
1 91 9, was 72.3 per 1,000 of population.
The population is made up mainly of natives, called Chamorros,
a hybrid race with the Malayan strain predominating.
AMERICAN SAMOA.
American Samoa comprises six islands, namely, Rose, Manua,
Olosega, Ofu, Tutuila, and Aunuu. Tutuila, the largest and most
important of these islands, lies 4,160 nautical miles southwest
from San Francisco, 2,263 nautical miles south-southwest from
Honolulu, and 2,354 nautical miles northwest from Sidney,
Australia. The United States took formal possession of American
Samoa February 19, 1900.
Table 48. — Population of American Samoa, by Race: 1920.
KACE.
N-ber. P--'
RACE.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
All races
Polynesian
8,056
100.
Mixed
Whitp
233
>6
2. q
0. I
7.776
965 '
Another
' Comprises 3 Japanese, i Chinese, and 2 Negroes.
Prior enumerations made by the governor of the islands since
the United States took possession recorded a population of 5,679
in 1900, 5,563 in 1901, 5,888 in 1903, 6,780 in 1908, 7,251 in 1912,
and 7,550 in 1916.
The population of American Samoa consists almost entirely
of native Polynesians. The few inhabitants of mixed blood are
for the most part the children of white fathers and Polynesian
mothers.
PANAMA CANAL ZONE.
The Panama Canal Zone was acquired by the United States
November 18, 1903, by treaty with the Republic of Panama. In
OUTLYING POSSESSIONS.
179
accordance with the terms of this treaty, Panama granted to the
United States "in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of
a zone of land and land under water" of the width of lo miles for
"the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and pro-
tection" of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Panama. The
cities and harbors of Panama and Colon, which are included
within the boundaries of this zone, were, however, expressly
excluded from the grant.
In the period between 1903 and 1920 a number of censuses were
taken under the supervision of the Isthmian Canal Commission,
the sanitary department, and the police. The census of 1920 was
the first Federal decennial census at which the Canal Zone was
enumerated.
In 1904 the first census taken by the Isthmian Canal Commission
indicated a population of approximately 10,000. In 191 2 this had
increased to 60,000, the increase consisting mainly of laborers
working on the canal construction. The first Federal census, that
of 1920, recorded a population of 22,858 persons. That there has
been such a wide fluctuation is by no means strange. In the
first place, the number of persons employed in the construction
of the canal has varied widely between these dates. In the second
place, there was a considerable decrease in 1 9 1 2 due to an Execu-
tive order, known as the depopulation order, which demanded the
departure of native landowners and squatters, either into the two
cities of Panama and Colon or to points outside the Canal Zone.
Table; 49. — Population of Panama Canal Zone, by Color or Race
AND Nativity: 1920.
COLOR OR RACE AND NATTVITV.
Total population
White
Negro
Other colored
Native white
Native parentage
Foreign or mixed parentage . . .
Foreign-bom white
Native Negro
Foreign-bom Negro
22,858
12,370
10,429
59
10.753
7.734
3.019
1,617
2,757
7,672
17.964
7-711
10,207
46
6,660
4.771
1,889
1,051
2,719
7,488
MILITARY AND
NAVAL.
4.894
4,659
222
13
4.093
2,963
1,130
566
38
184
XVI.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
The greatest of all wars will make the lo years from 1 910 to 1920
conspicuous among all census periods. The conflict itself and the
suspense and uncertainty which were finally terminated by the
Versailles treaty together extended from i9i4to 1919. Therefore,
normal influences, such as existed, were massed at the beginning
of the decade, but even in neutral lands had been largely swept
away by the close of this period. In consequence, almost all the
population changes shown by the Fourteenth Census reflected the
influences of the Great War.
Although the period of active warfare by the United States was
extremely short, in an economic sense participation in the conflict
began in the early part of 1915. Entirely commercial, it was
nevertheless very real, but it differed from the war activities of
the militant nations in that supplies and munitions furnished from
America were purchased and paid for by European countries
unable to manufacture in sufficient volume for themselves. But
the man power, which in other nations was of necessity divided
between armies and factories, in the United States was concen-
trated, so far as unusual opportunities for profit accomplished
that end, upon specialized manufactures and agriculture.
The Fourteenth Census was taken a little more than a year after
the armistice was declared. Evidences were still present on all
sides of the vast economic readjustment and effort which this
Nation had made, first, to fill the orders of belligerents for muni-
tions and supplies, and second, to concentrate the entire resources
of the country upon the task of winning the war after the United
States had at length entered the conflict.
War influence is seen at each successive step of the analysis
which appears in this volume: In reduction in the rate of national
population increase; hi the changes which occurred in states,
counties, cities, and smaller communities; and finally, in the pro-
nounced readjustments which took place among the different ele-
ments of the population.
The persistent influence of the war alone is likely to make the
Fourteenth Census conspicuous among Federal censuses, even long
after it has passed into history. There are, however, two other
causes for prominence. If succeeding censuses show a return to a
180
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 181
more liberal percentage of increase, the census of 1920 will be note-
worthy for the sharp depression which it showed in population
growth. On the other hand, should the low rate of increase con-
tinue, or should the rate tend to decline still further, then the
Fourteenth Census will prove to be noteworthy as marking the be-
ginning of a distinct slowing down in national growth. Finally, the
Fourteenth Census records the effect (caused directly by the war) of
an unsettlement of family relations, probably more widespread
than corresponding changes during any previous decade covered by
American census-taking except that of the Civil War. Millions
of able-bodied men, a considerable proportion married, repaired
for longer or shorter periods to centers of industrial activity or
went to training camps or abroad with the colors. The degree of
this suspension of family relations can not be measured, because
by 1920 many persons had returned to their previous places of
residence and were there enumerated as though never absent.
The number thus long absent but having returned must have
been great, yet in spite of this partial readjustment the census
everywhere gives evidence of an unusual proportion of changes in
residence. This characteristic of the decade in the aggregate
must have been an important factor in retarding population
increase.
From 1 910 to 1920 the population of the United States increased
14,000,000, a considerably smaller absolute number than that
sho\^^l by the census of 1910, but larger than the increase sho\\Ti
at any previous census. This increase was contributed unequally.
A dozen states were responsible for nearly t^vo-thirds of it, and
at the opposite extreme 3 states returned a decrease, and 9 other
states an increase of about 400,000. As might be expected, in view
of war iniluences, tlie increase of population in the United States
from 1 910 to 1920 was largely confined to the industrial states, and
within those states to areas principally urban. For the first time
in the history of the Nation persons residing in urban environments
exceeded in number those living in rural communities. The former
increased at a rapid rate, approximating 25 per cent; but the
increase of the latter was much slower — a rate little more, indeed,
than 5 per cent.
In all American census-taking but eight instances of decrease of
state population have occurred.* Three of these appeared at the
^ These eight decreases do not include that showTi by Virginia for the decade iSCc-
1870, due to the detachment of West Virginia.
182 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
census of 1920. These three states — Nevada, Vermont, and
Mississippi — were conspicuous among those having small urban
population, while the 9 states which showed at the census of
1920 very small increase were also composed largely of rural
communities.
This noteworthy change was emphasized even more strongly by
the counties. There are over 3,000 counties in the United States.
Of this number, one-third declined in population. The declining
counties comprised over 900,000 square miles, or almost one-third
of the area of the United States, and contained 19,000,000 people,
or more than one-sixth of the entire population. The counties
which decreased were largely rural, and thus sharply reflected the
tendency of the decade and the effort of large numbers of persons
to readjust themselves to greater advantage during the penod of
immense industrial and agricultural activity.
In New York — which, possessing a greater population than any
other state in the Union, affords an important example of extreme
urban increase with contrasting conditions in the rural commu-
nities — New York City, with more than half the entire popula-
tion, showed 17.9 per cent increase, as compared with 9.6 per cent
for the remainder of the state. The latter increase in turn was
practically all contributed by 21 cities of 25,000 or more. Three-
fourths, indeed, of the 1,000 minor civil di\'isions of the state of
New York lost population during the decade.
When the increase of population at the Fourteenth Census is
considered by nativity and color it appears that the whites in-
creased by more than 13,000,000 and the Negroes by less than
700,000. The white increase was thus 16 per cent and the
Negro but 6.5 per cent, marked decreases in the percentages for
both elements. The whites of native parentage, in the 13,000,000
increase, numbered about 9,000,000; and this number in turn
was composed of two elements, the equivalent of those derived
from the original or native stock and those native bom of native
parents descended from persons who immigrated after 1 790 but at
dates sufficiently early to permit the existence of grandchildren
bom in this country. Computations by census experts seem to
indicate the equivalent of about 47,000,000 persons as descended
from the original or native stock. (The term "equivalent" is
necessarily employed, because persons of absolutely pure native
ancestry — that is, persons having no foreign-boni ancestors who
came to this country subsequently to 1790 — represented a much
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 183
smaller number, so interwoven have the native and foreign' ele-
ments become during the passage of more than a century.)
The importance of this computation as to the present theoretical
strength of the descendants of the original stock is found in the
fact that it appears to be evident that this blood strain in the popu-
lation is not disappearing, but is increasing at a reasonable and
rather normal rate, ranging somewhere between lo and 12 per
cent, an increase contributed by different parts of the country in
widely varying percentages.
The native element migrated to the cities much more generally
during the last decade than in previous decades. In the past
this element has been found in much larger proportion in rural
than in urban communities, but at the census of 1920 the
proportions showed a marked change, since in almost all of the
large cities native whites of native parentage manifested a decided
tendency to increase. This change may prove to have been merely
an evidence of the readjustments forced by war conditions, but
it is likely to persist at the next census.
The increase in foreign bom shown at the Fourteenth Census
was extremely small. Analysis of the changes which occurred in
the foreign element make it evident that, obedient also to the con-
ditions prevailing during the decade, large numbers of foreigners
left the United States in response to calls to the colors from their
native lands. Those who departed were largely residents of cities,
so that those who entered the United States and remained in the
cities were not sufhcient in number in many cases to make good the
losses. The demand thus occasioned for labor attracted to the
cities many of the native element, and accounts for the readjust-
ments already referred to which occurred in connection with that
great body of the population.
The percentage of increase in the number of Negroes was much
less than that shov\'ii at any previous census. It is necessary,
indeed, to go back 80 years — to the census of 1840 — to find an
absolute decennial increase in the Negro population less than that
shown in 1920. As in the past (since 18 10), this increase was
derived almost exclusively from births. Among the colored popu-
lation a remarkable movement was in progress during the decade.
This also was the result of war conditions. The Negroes are
essentially a rural element. Such increase of tlie Negro race as
is shown by the census comes exclusively from the rural districts,
but the call of the cities during the war period for additional
labor, skilled and unskilled, proved an irresistible attraction to
184 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
many Negroes in the Southern states, and large numbers of them,
beginning in 191 5, drifted toward the northern and western cities,
and, to a lesser extent, toward southern cities also. Two dis-
tinct changes were thus brought about by the Negro migrants:
They shifted a considerable percentage of their numbers from
rural to urban communities, and they removed many of their race
from that environment in which their number tended to increase
to a new environment in which they were not reproductive. It
is probable that some readjustments, both as to residence and as to
increase, began to occur shortly after the close of the decade under
consideration, in which event the percentage of increase for the
Negroes at the next census may show some improvement.
Whether the urban tendency of the Negro race has been checked
by the return to normal conditions probably depends on the de-
mand for unskilled labor, governed in large measure by immigra-
tion legislation.
From this brief summary of the changes revealed by analysis
of the Fourteenth Census returns, the direct or indirect influence
of the war is apparent. In total population, in the readjust-
ments of the native white population, in the decreased proportion
of foreigners, and in the greatly reduced increase and the read-
justments of the Negro population, the economic conditions which
controlled the decade are clearly evident.
Because of the influence of the war, many of the tendencies
which proved of statistical importance in 1920 may not continue,
but when the returns of the next census are available for com-
parison, may turn out to have been merely temporary conditions,
readjusted as the Nation began to swing again into the paths
of peace.
Yet, withal, it is difficult to point to a decade of more absorb-
ing interest statistically than that of 1 910 to 1920. The analysis
of Fourteenth Census returns presented in these pages passed
quickly into an atmosphere of impressive changes. It dealt with
population massing on a vast scale, with decrease in a thousand
counties and in many thousand rural communities in order to
increase population in areas more directly concerned with the
great task which confronted the Republic. The detailed infor-
mation now so accurately secured by the Federal census makes
it possible to say in a very real sense that the social and industrial
history of the United States during the war decade was written
in the returns of the Fourteenth Census.
APPENDIXES
185
Appendix A,
ESTIMATES OF THE NATIVE WHITE STOCK:
1900, I9IO, AND 1920.
The numerical equivalents of the native white stock and the foreign
"wdiite stock which together constituted the white population of the
United States in 1900, 19 10, and 1920, estimated as explained herein,
together with the proportions which the two kinds of stock formed of the
total white population, were as follows:
Total -white
population.
NATIVE WHITE STOCK.
FOREIGN WHITE STOCK.
CBKSUS YBAR.
Number.
Per cent
of total
white.
Number.
Per cent
of total
white.
1000
66,809, 196
81.731.957
94,820,915
37,290,000
42,420,000
47,330,000
55-8
519
49.9
29,520,000
39,310,000
47,490,000
44.a
48.1
50.1
lOIO
1020
The estimates for the native white stock also represent the numbers of
white persons who presumably would have been living in the United
States in the years specified if there had been no immigration nor emigra-
tion since 1 790 and if the rates of increase for the white population had
been the same as the rates representing the natural increase, due to excess
of births over deaths, which took place in the white population as it ac-
tually existed.
DEFINITION OF "NATIVE WHITE STOCK."
The term "native white stock" as here used refers to white persons who
were living within any area now a part of continental United States at
the time that area was first enumerated, and to the descendants of such
persons. By far the greater part of the native white stock is descended
from persons enumerated in 1 790 in the New England states, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Caro-
lina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee; but a small pro-
portion is made up of persons whose ancestors were living, or who were
themselves living, in other areas when those areas were first enumerated.
The original populations of such new areas, however, were very sparse.
Moreover, the inhabitants of these added areas consisted in part of
migrants from the original area of the United States, or the descendants
of such migrants, so that it would be impossible to estimate separately
the French and Spanish stock. It has been necessary, therefore, to
define native white stock as explained above, with no further subdivision.
It would, of course, be utterly impossible to determine the number of
white persons enumerated in 1920 or any other recent census year who
iSr
188 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
were of absolutely pure native stock — that is, all of whose foreign -born
ancestors came to this country prior to 1790. A very considerable but
indeterminable number of persons classed by the census as native v/hites
of native parentage are of mixed native and foreign stock. These per-
sons would not have existed had there been no immigration, but in their
place there would have existed a smaller number of persons representing
approximately the same amount of native stock unmixed with foreign
blood. For example, if each of four natives of native parentage had one
foreign-bom grandparent and three grandparents of pure native ances-
try, the four persons together would represent the same amount of native
stock as would exist in three persons of pure native ancestry. All
that can be estimated, therefore, is the numerical equivalent of the
ainount of native white stock in the country, stated in terms of units repre-
senting the amount of native white stock in one person of pure native
white ancestry. The actual number of persons whose native blood is
included in this total is, of course, much larger, inasmuch as any person
who had at least one white ancestor enumerated in 1 790 has in his veins
some native white blood. For example, it is possible that not more than,
say, 20,000,000 persons in this country are of absolutely pure native white
stock, while the remaining 27,000,000 of the total of 47,000,000 estimated
as the numerical equivalent of the native white stock might be made up
of varying proportions of native stock in 45,000,000 persons (native
whites of native parentage or of mixed native and foreign parentage).
Moreover, it would be theoretically possible for every native white person
of native parentage in the United States in 1920 to be of mixed native
and foreign stock.
BASIC DATA.
In making these estimates the following data were employed :
(i) Foreign stock, roughly estimated at ^00,000, included in native white
poj?iilation of native parentage in 1853. — The number of foreign-bom
v/hite enumerated in 1850 was 2,240,535. In the Compendium of the
Seventh Census (1850) the number of the foreign bom and the progeny of
foreigners arriving after 1790 was estimated at 3,000,000 or 3,200,000 in
1853.^ On the basis of this approximation (made at a time when a reason-
^ ' ' Estimating the survivors in 1850 of the foreigners who had arrived in the United
Statessince the census of 1790 upon the principle of the English life tables, and making
the necessary allowances for the less proportion of the old and very young among
them, andforreemigration, etc., theirnumber is stated in the abstract of the census
published in 1853, p. 15, at 2,460,000. From this, a deduction is then made of 10 per
cent, on account of the greater mortality of emigrants and their lower expectation of
life, which brings the actual survivors very nearly to the figiires of the census. The
deduction of 10 per cent seems hardly sufhcicnt and does not accord with tlie deduc-
tions that are generally made in the reasoningsof vital statisticians. It would be safer
to assume 15 per cent than 10, which would reduce the survivors to a little more thim
2.000,000. To this add 50 per cent for the living descendants of foreigners who have
come into the country' since 1790 (observing that nearly four-fiftlis of the number have
arrived since 1830, and could not have both children and grandchildren bom in the
country, and more than half have arrived since 1840 and must have had comp:iratively
few native bom children, it would not be safe to add any more), and tlic number of
foreigners and their descendants in 1853 is not likely to exceed 3,000,000 or 3,300,000."
Compendium of the Seventh Census, p. 119.
ESTIMATES OF NATIVE WHITE STOCK. 189
able approximation should have been possible) , the descendants of white
immigrants arriving subsequently to 1790 and prior to 1853 must have
numbered about 1,000,000 in the latter year. Since the majority of the
immigrants prior to 1850 had arrived in this country during the decade
1 840- 1 850, it is practically certain that not more than one-half of this
number were native whites of native parentage, that is to say, were
grandchildren of immigrants. The remaining 500,000, consisting of
native whites of foreign or mixed parentage, were, in the main, very young
and therefore presumably did not contribute to any great extent to the
native white population of native parentage prior to 1870. The survivors
of these 500,000 native whites of foreign or mixed parentage were, of
course, included in the native whites of foreign or mixed parentage in
1870 (infra). The omission of the contribution of this group to the native
whites of native parentage prior to 1870 is probably approximately
counterbalanced by the liberality of the estimate of 500,000 as the con-
tribution by the immigrants to the native whites of native parentage
prior to 1853.^
(2) Native whites of foreign of mixed parentage, 1870, equivalent to
4,745,683 native whites of foreign parentage. — ^This number is made up of
4,167,098 native whites of foreign parentage and one-half of the 1,157,170
native whites of mixed native and foreign parentage and represents the
amount of foreign white stock in the first group plus the foreign white
stock derived from the foreign parents of the second group. (The native
parents of the second group who were wholly or in part of foreign stock
are assumed to have been included in the 500,000 native whites of native
parentage in 1853 who were descended from immigrants arriving subse-
quently to 1790.)
(3) Foreign-born white persons enutnerated in i8jo, 5,493,712.
(4) Excess of white immigration over white emigration ^ from 1870 to
1920, as follows —
1871-1880 2,395,000
188 1— 1890 4, 192 ,000
1891-1900 3 , 143 , 000
1901-1910 5,365,000
19 1 1— 1920 ^ 3,600,000
(The above figures have been adjusted so as to make them relate as
closely as possible to the exact periods elapsing between census dates.)
(5) Total white population in igoo, 66,809,196, and tn 1920, 94,820,915.
RATES OF INCREASE.
In estimating rates of natural increase, due to excess of births over
deaths, it has been assumed that these rates have been the same for both
the native and the foreign white stock. ^ This assumption may at first
' A Century of Population Growth, p. 87.
- For method of estimating white emigration, see Appendix C.
^ Estimated net white immigration and progeny surviving on January i, 1920.
* This assumption was suggested by Miss Elbertie Foudray, of the division of vital
statistics, Bureau of the Census, who made a careful study of the subject.
190 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
seem improbable and contrary to the generally accepted belief that the
foreign stock is the more prolific. It is true that in the immigrant families
in this country the average number of children is larger than in the native
families, but the difference is probably less than it is commonly believed
to be. A computation made from the returns from the birth-registration
area in 19 19 yielded the following results, which relate only to those
mothers who gave birth to children during the calendar year 19 19. The
birth -registration area in that year comprised 22 states and the District
of Columbia, whose aggregate population was estimated at 58.6 per cent
of the total population of the United States.
Number of children ever bom per native white mother 3.2
Number of children ever bom per foreign white mother 4.0
Number of surviving children per native white mother 2.8
Number of surviving children per foreign white mother 3.4
In view of the fact that the birth rate for the native white population
is undoubtedly somewhat higher in the Southern states, of which only
five were included in the birth-registration area in 19 19, than in the
remainder of the country, it is almost certain that the figures given above
show a somewhat greater difference between average numbers of children
per native and foreign white mother than would appear if the figures
had been based on returns for the entire United States.
Moreover, it appears from the census reports that the proportions of
married persons are considerably smaller among native whites of foreign
or mixed parentage than among native v^^hites of native parentage.
This is true not only for the United States as a whole but for urban
and rural communities considered separately, so that the explanation
is not to be found wholly in the fact that a much larger proportion of the
native whites of foreign or mixed parentage than of the native whites
of native parentage live in urban communities, where the marriage
rates are lower than in rural communities.
Thus, while the birth rate among the foreign-bom whites is somewhat
higher than among the native whites, a factor opposite in effect is found
in a lower marriage rate for the native white population of foreign
parentage than for the native whites of native parentage. As there are
no statistics in regard to the number of children born to the native whites
of foreign or mixed parentage who do marry, there is no definite basis
for an assumption that the third generation of tlie foreign white stock
is relatively any more numerous than the contemporaneous generation
of the native white stock.
For these reasons it is believed that the most logical and defensible
method of estimating the native and foreign white stock is that based
on the assumption that their rates of natural increase are the same,
considering not only the first but subsequent generations. (See Appen-
dix B for expansion of discussion.)
ESTIMATES OF NATIVE WHITE STOCK. 191
In calculating these rates the net white immigration during each
decade is assumed to have been distributed uniformly throughout the
decade, so that the average length of time elapsing between arrival in
the United States and the end of the decade was five years. Thus the
natural increase among the immigrants arriving during a given decade
would be equal to one-half the natural increase among the same number of
persons present at the beginning of the decade; that is to say, one-half
the decennial rate for the white population at the beginning of the decade
could be applied to the net white immigration as a whole, or the entire
decennial rate could be applied to one-half the net white immigration.
Hence the total natural increase — in other words, the total increase less
the net white immigration — represents a rate based on the total white
population enumerated at the beginning of the decade plus one-half the
net white immigration arriving during the decade. This rate can
therefore be easily calculated by the following method:
Deduct net white immigration during decade from total numerical
increase in white population and divide remainder by white population
enumerated at beginning of decade plus one-half net white immigration.
(For a description of the method employed in estimating net immigra-
tion, see Appendix C.)
To illustrate : The numerical increase in the white population between
i8go and 1900 was 11,707,938. Deducting the net white immigration
during the decade, 3,143,000, from this increase leaves 8,564,938 as the
increment due to natural increase in the population enumerated at the
beginning of the decade and in the immigrant population arriving during
the decade. The white population enumerated in 1890 was 55,101,258.
Adding to this number one-half the net white immigration gives a total
of 56,672,758 as the base on which to compute the percentage of increase;
and the division of this number into the 8,564,938 representing the
natural increase gives a rate of 15. i per cent.
Thus computed, the rates of natural increase in the white population
during the 10 decades from 1820 to 1920 were as follows:
Per cent.
1820-1830 31-9
1830-1840 28. 7
1840-1850 25. 1
185O-1860 22.8
I860-I870 1 18.3
I870-I880 ' 18.8
I880-I800 16.5
I890-I900 15. 1
1000-19 10 13.8
1910-1920 ^11.6
' Estimated corrected total for white population in 1870 used in computing rates
for 1860-1870 and 1870-1880.
2 Calculated as explained in Appendix C.
192 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
The rates of natural increase for the several foreign-white-stock groups
under consideration, to 1900 and to 1920, have been calculated as follows,
the result in each case representing i plus the rate:
White pofnclaiion derived in igoo and ig20 from native whites of native
parentage in 1833 representing foreign stock. — The increase in this group
for the period 1 853-1 860 is assumed to have been seven- tenths of the
increase for the entire decade. The rate of increase during this 7-year
period would therefore be seven- tenths of 22.8, or 16 per cent; i plus
the rate for the period 185 3-1 900 would be 1.16X 1.183X 1.188X 1.165X
1. 151, or 2.186; and i plus the rate for 1853-1920 would be 2.186X
1.138X 1. 116, or 2.776.
White population derived in 1900 and ig20 from native whites of foreign
or mixed parentage in 1870 and from foreign-horn whites in 1870. — For the
period 18 70- 1900, i plus the rate of increase for these groups would be
equal to 1.188X 1.165X 1.151, or 1.593; ^^^ i plus the rate for the period
1870-1920 would be equal to 1.593X 1.138X 1.116, or 2.023.
White population derived in igoo and ig20 from net white immigration
since 1870 — *
Net immigration during decade 1870-1880, to 1900 — 1.094X
1. 1 65 Xi. 151, or I. 467
Net immigration during decade 1 870-1 880, to 1920 — 1.467X
1.138X I.I 16, or 1.863
Net immigration during decade 1880-1890, to 1900 — 1.0825X
1.151, or I. 246
Net immigration during decade 1880-1890, to 1920 — 1.246X
1. 138 X 1. 1 1 6, or I. 582
Net immigration during decade 1890-1900, to 1900 i. 0755
Net immigration during decade 1890-1900, to 1920 — 1.0755X
1.138X 1.116, or I. 366
Net immigration during decade 1900-1910, to 1920 — 1.069X
I.I 16, or I. 193
(Survivors of net white immigration, and progeny, for decade 19 10- 1920
have been estimated by a different method, explained in Appendix C.)
APPUCATION OF RATES TO BASIC DATA.
White population derived from native whites of native parentage in 1853
representing foreign stock —
In 1900 — 5cxD,oooX2.i86, or 1,093,000
In 1920 — 500,000X2.776, or 1,388,000
White population derived from native whites of foreign or mixed parentage
enumerated in 1870 —
In 1900 — 4,745,683X1-593. or 7, 560,000
In 1920 — 4,745,683X2.023, or 9,601,000
White population derived from foreign-born white population enumerated
in 1870 —
In 1900—5,493,712X1.593. or 8,751,000
In 1920 — 5,493,712X2.023, or II, 114,000
' As already explained, the rate of natural increase applicable for a given decade to
the immigrants arriving during that decade is assumed to be equal to one-half the rate
applicable to the same number of persons present in the country at tlie bcgiiming of
the decade.
ESTIMATES OF NATIVE WHITE STOCK. 193
White population in i goo derived froimiet white immigration since 1870 —
1870-1880 — 2,395,oooXi.467, or 3,513,000
1880-1890 — 4, 192, 000X1.246, or 5,223,000
1890-1900 — ^3, 143,000X1. 0755, or 3,380,000
Total 12 , 1 16 , 000
White population in ipso derived from, net white immigration since 1920 —
1870-1880 — 2, 395,000X1. 863, or 4,462,000
1880-1890 — 4, 192, 000X1.582, or 6,632,000
1890-1900 — 3, 143,000X1-366, or 4, 293,000
1900-1910 — 5, 365, 000X1-193, or 6,400,000
1910-1920 — survivors and progeny (estimated as explained in
Appendix C) 3,600,000
Total 25,387, 000
TOTALIZATION OF ITEMS.
Foreign white stock, igoo —
Survivors and progeny of native whites of native parentage,
1853, representing foreign stock 1,093,000
Survivors and progeny of native whites of foreign or mixed
parentage enumerated in 1870 7 , 560, 000
Survivors and progeny of foreign-bom whites enumerated in
1870 8,751,000
Siu-vivors and progeny of net white immigration, 1870 to 1900. . 12, 116,000
Total 29,520, 000
Native white stock, igoo —
Total white population 66, 809 , 196
Deduct foreign white stock 29, 520, 000
Native white stock (in round tens of thousands) 3 7 , 290 , 000
Foreign white stock, ig2o — -
Survivors and progeny of native whites of native parentage,
1853, representing foreign stock 1,388,000
Survivors and progeny of native whites of foreign or mixed par-
entage enumerated in 1S70 9,601,000
Survivors and progeny of foreign-born whites enumerated in
1870 II, 114,000
Survivors and progeny of net white immigration, 1870 to 1920.. 25,387, 000
Total 47 , 490 , 000
Native white stock, ig2o —
Total white population 94,820,915
Deduct foreign white stock 47 , 490 , 000
Native white stock (in roimd tens of thousands) 47 , 330, 000
107°— 22 13
194 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
ESTIMATE FOR 1910.
The estimates for the native white stock in 1900 and 1920 having been
made, it was possible to calculate the corresponding one for 19 10 in a very
simple manner, as follows :
The estimate for the native white stock in 1900, 37,290,000, was
multiplied by 1.138 (i plus the rate of natural increase in the white popu-
lation during the decade 1900-1910); the corresponding estimate for
1920, 47,330,000, was divided by 1.116 (i plus the rate of natural increase
in the white population during the decade 1910-1920) ; and the two results,
42,436,000 and 42,410,000 (the difference being due to the fact that the
percentages of increase were not computed to a greater number of decimal
places), were averaged to the nearest ten thousand, giving 42,420,000 as
the estimated native white stock in 1910.
TEST BY ALTERNATIVE METHOD.
The results obtained by the foregoing method have been tested to some
extent by the employment of an alternative method. Both the original
and alternative methods were based upon the same fimdamental assump-
tion, namely, that the rates of natural increase in the native and the
foreign white stock are the same; but the difference between the two is
such that the results of the test are of value as indicating the substantial
accuracy of the census data as to foreign white stock in 1853 and 1870,
used in the foregoing calculations.
The test was made by roughly estimating the population derived in
1820 from white immigration between 1790 and 1820, deducting this from
the total white population enumerated in 1820, and applying to the
remainder the rates of natural increase from decade to decade, estimated
as already described. (See p. 191.)
The immigration for the period 1790 to 1820, the first year in which
the immigration was recorded, was estimated on the assumptions that it
had gradually increased from 4,000 in 1790 to 8,000 in 1820; that the
naitural increase during each decade in the total white population enu-
merated at the beginning of the decade was one- third; and that the
natural increase during each decade in the families of the immigrants
arriving during that particular decade was equal to one-sixth of their
total number. During the seven years from 1S20 to 1826, inclusive, the
immigration, beginning with 8,385, fluctuated wathout showing any
pronounced upward movement, but after 1826 it increased much more
rapidly, although irregularly, from year to year. It seems probable,
therefore, that there had been no sharp increase during the few years or
the decade inmiediately preceding 1820, but ratlier that there had been
a slow and irregular increase between 1790 and 1820. For the purposes
of this calculation, however, it has been assumed tliat the increase was
steady. If the several assumptions above set forth were substantially
1890 32 ,410.000
IQOO 37,300,000
1910 42,450,000
1920 47,370,000
ESTIMATES OF NATIVE WHITE STOCK. 195
correct, the population derived in 1820 from the net white immigration
between 1790 and 1820 was approximately 275,000, or 2,% per cent of
the total white population in 1820. This estimate, of course, is really
nothing more than a guess; but, in view of the small proportion which
the pppulation derived from immigration since 1790 constituted of the
total population in 1820, the margin of error is necessarily very small in
comparison with the total native white stock.
The subtraction of the estimated 275,000 foreign white stock from the
total white population enumerated in 1820, 7,866,797, leaves approxi-
mately 7,590,000 as the estimated native white stock in that year; and
by applying to this number, in series, the estimated decennial rates of
natural increase in the white population from 1820 to 1920 (see p. 191)
there are obtained the following estimates of the native white stock : ^
1820 7, 590,000 j 1880 27,820,000
1830 10,010,000
1840 12,880,000
1850 16,120,000
i860 19 , 790 , 000
1870 23,420,000
The differences between the estimates made by the two methods for
the years 1900, 1910, and 1920 are remarkably slight. Of course, if the
basic theory, namely, that the rates of natural increase have been the
same for both the native and the foreign white stock, is erroneous, the
error in the results of both sets of estimates would be the same in kind
^ The following excerpt from the Abstract of the Seventh Census, page 131, is of
interest in this connection:
' 'According to Doctor Seybert, an earlier writer upon statistics, the number of foreign
passengers from 1790 to 1810 was, as nearly as could be ascertained, 120,000; and
from the estimates of Doctor Seybert and other evidence, Hon. George Tucker,
author of a valuable work on the census of 1840, supposes the number, from 1810 to
1820, to have been 114,000. These estimates make, for the 30 years preceding 1820,
234,000. If w^e reckon the increase of these immigrants at the average rate of the
whole body of white population during these three decades, they and their descend-
ants, in 1820, would amount to about 360,000. "
It has been assumed that this estimate is unduly liberal, since it would imply an
average annual immigration, during the 30 years from 1790 to 1820 (which included
the period of the War of 1812), slightly larger than the average for the five years from
1820 to 1824, inclusive, as shown by the immigration reports for those years. Fiuther-
more, these early records, which relate to incoming alien passengers , not to immigrants
alone, overstate somewhat the actual immigration. If, however, the estimate of
360,000 persons of foreign white stock in 1820 were accepted as substantially correct,
the estimated native white stock in 1820 would be 7,510,000 instead of 7,590,000.
This reduction of i.i per cent would reduce the estimates for 1900, 1910, and 1920
in the same proportion, that is, to 36,890,000 for 1900, 41,980,000 for 1910, and
46,850,000 for 1920.
196 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
and approximately the same in degree. Thus the test supplies no cor-
roboration of this basic theory. But the original estimates were based
on census data as to the foreign white stock present in the United States
in 1853 and 1870 and on the net white immigration from 1870 to 1920,
whereas the test estimates took into account the net white immigration
from 1820 to 1920 but made no use of any census data except for the total
white population. The test, therefore, corroborates the original estimates
so far as the substantial accuracy of the census data in question is
concerned.
Appendix B.
RATE OF NATURAL INCREASE IN FOREIGN WHITE STOCK:
1900-1920.
The natural increase between 1900 and 1920 in the foreign white stock
of native birth (that is, the total foreign white stock less the foreign-bom
white) may be estimated by deducting the number of surviving persons
bom in this country during the 20-year period to foreign parents, together
with a suitable proportion of those having mixed parents, from the total
increase in the foreign white stock of native birth during the 20-year
period.
The numerical equivalents of the foreign white stock in 1900 and in 1920
were 29,520,000 and 47,490,000, respectively (Appendix A). Deducting
the numbers of foreign-bom whites enumerated in those years (10,2 13,81 7
in 1900 and 13,712,754 in 1920) leaves, in round tens of thousands,
19,310,000 and 33,780,000 as the numerical equivalents of the foreign
white stock of native birth as constituted in 1900 and 1920, respectively.
The natural increase in this class of the population between 1900 and 1920
is represented by excess of births (native whites of native parentage)
over deaths. The total increase, however, includes all natives of foreign
parentage, together with a proper proportion of natives of mixed parent-
age, bom between 1900 and 1920 and surviving in 1920. In order to
obtain the natural increase, therefore, this group must be deducted from
the total increase.
The number of native whites of foreign parentage under 20 years
of age in 1920, and therefore bom since January i, 1900, was 7,424,449;
and the number of native whites of mixed parentage under 20 years
of age in 1920 was 3,246,874. Reducing these two numbers by the
estimated numbers of persons born between January i, 1900, and June i,
1900 (the Twelfth Census date), leaves 7,310,421 and 3,185,942, respec-
tively, as the numbers bom between the Twelfth and Fourteenth Census
dates and surviving on the latter date. The total number of native
whites of foreign parentage represents foreign white stock ; but only an
indeterminate proportion of the native whites of mixed parentage repre-
sents foreign stock. If each of the native parents were of pure native
stock, the numerical equivalent of the amount of foreign white stock
in the native whites of mixed parentage would be exactly one-half of
the total number; but as a matter of fact many of the native parents
are of wholly foreign stock, others are of mixed native and foreign stock,
and still others are of pure native stock. For the purposes of this
197
198 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
calculation it is arbitrarily assumed that the numerical equivalent
of the foreign stock in the native parents of the native whites of mixed
parentage is equal to one-half the total number of native parents. This
is a larger proportion than the corresponding one for native whites
generally, but it is reasonable to assume that the proportion of foreign
stock in the native whites who marry foreign whites is somewhat larger
than the average. On the basis of this assumption, the amount of foreign
stock in the native whites of mixed parentage born between the Twelfth
and Fourteenth Census dates would, therefore, be three-fourths their
total number (one-half from the foreign parents and one-fourth from
the foreign stock in the native parents), or 2,389,455. The addition
of this number to the 7,310,421 native whites of foreign parentage in the
same age group gives a total of 9,699,876, or approximately 9,700,000,
as the numerical equivalent of the foreign white stock in the native
whites of foreign or mLxed parentage bom between the Twelfth and
Fourteenth Census dates and surviving on the latter date. The sub-
traction of this number (representing persons whose parents were not
included in the foreign white stock of native birth) from the total increase
of 14,470,000 between 1900 and 1920 in the foreign white stock of native
birth leaves 4,770,000 as the natural increase within the foreign white
stock of native birth as constituted in 1900. This represents a rate of
24.7 per cent, which is less than the estimated rate of natural increase,
due to excess of births over deaths, in the total white population of
the country during the 20-year period, 27 per cent. (Rates for 1900-
1910, 13.8 per cent, and 1910-1920, 1 1.6 per cent, compounded; see table,
p. 191.)
Appendix C.
ESTIMATION OF NET IMMIGRATION.
[Data used in computing rates of natural increase in population: See Table 39 and Appendix A.)
NET IMMIGRATION, 182O TO I910.
Immigration, 1820 to igio. — The earliest immigration records are those
for 1820. For the period from October i of that year to December 31,
1867, the figures relate to incoming alien passengers, and for the subse-
quent years, to immigrants.
Prior to July i, 1898, alien arrivals were not recorded by race or people,
but the records of the Bureau of Immigration show arrivals by country
of last permanent residence since 1820. In order, therefore, to approxi-
mate the white immigration, the number of immigrants from Asia,
Africa, and the Pacific Islands was deducted from the total for each
decade to June 30, 1900; and for the subsequent period the white
immigration was obtained by deducting the numbers of Africans, Chinese,
Japanese, Koreans, and Pacific Islanders from the total.
Emigration, 1820 to 18 jo. — Until July i, 1907, emigration was not
recorded ; and, as the foreign-bom population was not separately reported
at censuses prior to 1850, no data are available on which to base an
estimate of the emigration which took place during the first half of the
nineteenth century. It may be safely assumed, however, that the emi-
gration up to 1850 was negligible; and an examination of the census
statistics and of the immigration statistics for the period from 1850 to
1870, due account being taken of mortality, indicates that the emigration
between 1850 and 1870 was also negligible. The total immigration from
1820 to 1870 has, therefore, been treated as the net immigration. During
the succeeding decades, however, considerable emigration took place, and
it is therefore necessary to estim.ate it in order to secure an estimate of the
net immigration.
Emigration, 18 jo to igio. — In order to expedite the work, the white
emigration was assumed to represent the total emigration during the
decades from 1870 to 19 10, the difference being so slight that the resultant
error was deemed negligible. The estimate was made by adding the
number of white immigrants during the decade to the number of foreign-
bom w'hite persons enumerated at the beginning of the decade, deducting
the estimated mortality, subtracting from the remainder the number of
foreign-bom white persons enumerated at the end of the decade, and
treating the result as representing the number of survixang foreign-
born white emigrants. The numbers of foreign-bom white persons
were ascertained from the census reports, and the numbers of white
immigrants were estimated as explained above.
There is no way of estimating the am.ount of native emigration for the
decades prior to 1910, but such emigration was probably so small as to be
negligible for the purposes of these calculations.
199
200
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Death rate of foreign-born white. — The following statement shows the
death rates per i,ooo for the foreign-bom white population and the total
white population for 19 19 (the year which terminated on the day preced-
ing the Fourteenth Census date), 19 10, 1900, and 1890:
YBAR.
Foreign-
bom
•white.
Total
■white.
Area.
17-5
17-2
I9-4
19.4
12.4
14-6
17-3
19. I
in nonregistration states.
Do.
Registration area.
Do.
Since the death rate for the foreign-bom white population in 1890 was
only slightly higher than that for the total white population, it has been
assumed, for the purposes of these calculations, to have been the same as
the rate for the total white population in earlier years. The rate for the
total population of the registration area in 1880, 19.8 per 1,000, was
assumed to represent the rate for the white population; and for 1870 the
death rate for the white population was estimated at 20.3 per 1,000, this
estimate being based on the mortality records of ]\Iassachusetts.
Estimate of mortality dtiring given decade among foreign-born white
population enumerated at beginning of decade. — In making this estimate
account must be taken of the increase in the average age of the group
during the decade, and of the decrease from year to year in the number
to which the rate is applied. During the decade the younger element is
depleted only slightly by death, whereas the older element is depleted
much more rapidly. Moreover, while the minimum age of the group
advances by 10, the maximum age remains practically unchanged. It
may be assumed, therefore, for the purposes of this calculation that the
average age of the group increases by about 5 during the decade.
The Life Tables * show that, on the average, the death rate for the
foreign-bom white population at a given age is about 30 per cent greater
than that at the age five years younger. (Of course, the increase in the
rate from one year of age to another through the various quinquennial
periods is far from uniform and is greater at the older ages than at the
younger. No attempt was made to work out an exact ratio of increase
applicable to the average death rate for the foreign-bom white population
of all ages, for the reason that the element of uncertainty in the entire
calculation is necessarily so great that the resort to an exact method in
order to determine this one factor would not increase the accuracy of the
' Compiled by Prof. James W. Glover, of the University of Michigan. The tables
used in this calculation arc based on the mortality in 1909, 1910, and 1911 in the
"original registration states," namely, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massiichu-
setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Michigan, and
the District of Columbia.
ESTIMATION OF NET IMMIGRATION. 201
result to a sufficient extent to justify the labor involved. It was esti-
mated, therefore, after a careful inspection of the rates for each fifth year
of age from 15 to 70, that the increase in the general rate for the entire
foreign-bom population during a period in which the average age
advanced by 5 would be about 30 per cent.)
If the rate was 30 per cent greater at the end of the decade than at the
beginning, the average rate for the entire decade may be assumed to have
been 1 5 per cent greater than the rate at the beginning of the decade. The
decrease during the decade in the total number to which the rate was ap-
plied was approximately one-fifth, and therefore the average was approxi-
mately nine-tenths of the number at the beginning of the decade.
Thus, in order to obtain a decennial rate applicable to the foreign-bom
white population enumerated at the beginning of a decade, the normal
rate should be increased by 15 per cent to account for the effect of the
advance in age, and the result should be decreased by 10 per cent to
account for the effect of the reduction in number. This would yield a
net increase of only 3.5 per cent (i. 15 X 0.90= 1.035) in the decennial rate
applicable to the number enumerated at the beginning of the decade.^
Estimate of viortality during given decade among white immigrants
arriving within that decade. — To obtain a rate applicable to the total
number of white immigrants arriving during the decade, the normal
annual death rate for the foreign-bom white population was multiplied
by 5, it being assumed that the immigration was distributed uniformly
throughout the decade and that therefore the average length of time
elapsing between arrival in this country and the end of the decade was
five years, and the result was arbitrarily reduced by one-fourth to ac-
count for the lower average age of immigrants than of the entire foreign-
born population.
Final calculation. — The remainder of the process was as follows: The
estimated number of survivors, at the end of the decade, among the white
' A subsequent estimate of the mortality, diiring the 10-year period beginning
Apr. 15, 1910, among the foreign-born whites enumerated in 1910, based on the age
distribution as showTi by the Thirteentli Census and the death rates as shown by the
Life Tables, indicates a decennial rate of 178 per 1,000 applicable to the number
enumerated at the beginning of the decade, as against an average annual rate of 16.4
per 1,000 for the years 1909, 1910, and 191 1. The decennial rate was thus 8.5 per cent,
or about one-twelfth, greater than 10 times the average annual rate for 1909, 1910, and
1911. The death rate for the total white population of the registration area in 1919,
however, showed a decline of about 12 per cent, or nearly one-eighth, as compared with
the average for 1909, 1910, and 191 1. If it be assumed that the rate for the foreign-
bom white population, disregarding the effect of advancing age, also declined by ap-
proximately one-eighth between 1910 and 1919, and if it be further assumed that this
indicated a decline of one-sixteenth , or about 6 per cent, in the average annual rate for
the decade, the net excess of the decennial rate applicable to the foreign-bom white
population over 10 times the average annual rate at the beginning of the decade would
be 2 per cent. (Increase due to advancing age, 8.5 per cent. Decrease dx:e to general
reduction in rate, 6 per cent. 108.5 P^^ ^^"^ reduced by 6 per cent — that is, 1.085 X
0.94 — equals 102 per cent.)
202 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
immigrants arriving during the decade was added to the estimated num-
ber of survivors among the foreign-bom whites enumerated at the begin-
ning of the decade. The result represented the estimated number of
foreign-bom whites who would have been present in the country had there
been no emigration during the decade, and the difference between this
number and the number actually enumerated represented the reduction
due to emigration — in other words, the number of surviving white
emigrants. It was assumed that the emigration was uniform throughout
the decade, and that therefore the average length of time elapsing be-
tween emigration and the end of the decade was five years. Accord-
ingly the normal annual death rate for the foreign-bom white population,
expressed as a percentage, was multiplied by 5 and the product was sub-
tracted from 100 per cent, leaving a percentage representing the propor-
tion which the number of surxdvors at the end of the decade formed of
the total number emigrating during the decade, and this percentage was
divided into the estimated number of surviving emigrants. (The divnsor
used for the decades prior to 1900 was 0.9, and for 1900-19 10, 0.909.)^
NET IMMIGRATION AND ITS EFFECT ON POPULATION INCREASE, 191O-1920.
The estimate of the net white immigration between April 15, 19 10, and
December 31, 19 19, was made in the following manner:
From the total number of white immigrants (5,153,489) who arrived in
the United States during the period from July i, 19 10, to June 30, 19 19,
there was subtracted the estimated number of white emigrants (2, 02 3, 000)
who departed during the same period, leaving approximately 3,130,000 as
the excess of white immigration over white emigration during the 9-year
period in question. The number of white emigrants was estimated by
adding to the number of white alien emigrants, as shown by the immi-
gration reports, the estimated numbers of native and naturalized emi-
grants. The numbers of such emigrants who departed prior to July i,
1917, are not given in the reports of the Bureau of Immigration; but the
excess of departures over arrivals of citizens during the period from July i ,
1 9 10, to June 30, 191 7, has been assumed to represent the number of
citizens who emigrated during that period.
The immigration reports do not show, by months, the arrivals and de-
partures of citizens nor the arrivals and departures of aliens classified
according to race. Accordingly, the net immigration during the periods
from April 15 to June 30, 1910, and from July i to December 31, 1919,
was estimated as follows: For the period from April 15 to June 30,
1 9 10, one-half the total excess of immigrants over alien emigrants during
' According to the reports of the Bureau of Immigration, the average annual alien
emigration during the 7 years ended June 30, 1914 — the only nonnal years for which
emigration figures are available — was 281,967. If this average be accepted as fairly
representative of the decade iqoo-1910, it would indicate a total alien emigration (all
races) of approximately 2,820,000. The estimate made by the method described
above gives 3,058,000 as the number of white emigrants, both naturalized citizens
and aliens.
ESTIMATION OF NET IMMIGRATION. 203
April was added to the corresponding excess during May and June.
This gave a total of 258,962. (The excess of citizen departures over
citizen arrivals was disregarded, since, for so short a period, it might
not supply a trustworthy approximation of the actual number of citizen
emigrants.) For the 6-months period from July i to December 31,
1919, there was a slight excess, 3,329, of alien emigrants over immi-
grants. The number of citizen emigrants during this 6-months period
was estimated at 31,000, approximately one-half of the total number
of such emigrants during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1920.
The net white immigration from April 15, 19 10, to December 31, 19 19,
thus estimated, was 3,355,000, or in round fifties of thousands, 3,350,000
(3,130,000-1-259,000-3,000-31,000 = 3,355,000).
The net immigration of all races was estimated by adding to the net
white immigration the difference between the total nonwhite immigra-
tion and the total nonwhite alien emigration. (Beginning with July,
1907, the reports of the Bureau of Immigration show emigration by race
or people.)
In estimating the effect of immigration on population increase during
preceding decades it has been assumed that the net immigration was
distributed uniformly throughout the decade, so that the average length
of time elapsing between arrival in this country and the close of the dec-
ade would be five years, and the rate representing the natural increase
in the families of the immigrants during that time, expressed as a decen-
nial rate, would be equal to one-half the decennial rate applicable to the
population present in the United States at the beginning of the decade.
Such an assumption is not justified, however, in the case of the decade
19 10-1920, inasmuch as about three-fourths of the immigrants who
came to the United States betw^een April 15, 1910, and January i, 1920,
arrived prior to July i, 1914. Accordingly, the natural increase in the
net white immigration of 3,350,000 was roughly estimated at 250,000,
or a trifle more than two-thirds the natural increase which would have
taken place if the entire 3,350,000 persons had been present in the United
States at the beginning of the decade; and for the net immigration of all
races, estimated at 3,470,000, the natural increase was roughly estimated
at 260,000, or 10,000 more than that for the net white immigration.
Thus the white population resulting in 1920 from immigration between
1910 and 1920 was approximately 3,600,000; and the population of all
races resulting in 1920 from immigration during the decade was approxi-
mately 3,730,000.
In calculating the rate of natural increase in the population of all
races, the net immigration plus its estimated natural increase was sub-
tracted from the total population increase and the remainder (represent-
ing the increase which would have taken place if there had been no
immigration nor emigration) was divided by the number of persons of
all races enumerated in 19 10; and a similar method was employed in
calculating the rate of natural increase in the white population.
204
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
NET WHITE IMMIGRATION IN RELATION TO INCREASE IN FOREIGN-BORN
WHITE population: 1 9 10-1920.
The estimate of the net white immigration to this country between
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Census dates, 3,350,000 (originally made
for the purpose of determining the effect of immigration on the total
white population, not on the foreign-bom white population alone), by
including emigration of native citizens, understates somewhat the net
addition to the foreign-bom white population resulting from excess of
immigration over emigration. On the other hand, the emigration figures
as given in the reports of the Bureau of Immigration may be somewhat
incomplete, for the reason that during the war certain naturalized foreign
whites may have left the country to escape compulsory military servnce,
naturally departing in such a manner as to leave no actual record of their
going. Moreover, citizens of enemy countries may have left in order to
take part in the war under the flags of their native countries. In view of
the impossibility of evaluating these uncertain factors, it is reasonable to
assume that the possible understatement of alien emigration in the
official records is offset by the inclusion of native emigrants in the
estimate.
NET immigration, ALL RACES, AND NET WHITE IMMIGRATION: 1820-192O.
The statement below shows the estimated net immigration of all races
and the estimated net white immigration for the decades from 1 820 to 1 920.
As previously explained, the total immigration of all races and the total
white immigration were assumed to represent the net immigration of all
races and the net white immigration, respectively, for the decades prior
to 1870; for the decades from 1870 to 19 10 the net immigration of all
races was estimated by deducting the estimated white emigration (as-
sumed to represent the total emigration) from the total immigration,
and the net white immigration was estimated by deducting the esti-
mated white emigration from the white immigration; and for the decade
1 9 10- 1 920 the estimates were made in the manner described under the
head "Net immigration and its effect on population increase, 1910-1920."
1820-1830.
1830-1840.
1840-1850.
1850-1860.
1860-1870.
1870-1880.
J880-1890.
1890-1900.
1900-1910.
1910-1930.
Net immiKration,
all races.
137.000
558,000
I, 599,000
I, 663,000
1, 356, 000
1. 530, 000
4, 373,000
3, 339,000
5, 558, 000
3, 467, 000
Net TPhite
immigrat^pn.
137,000
558, 000
1. 599. 000
3, 631, 000
3, 391, 000
2. 395. 000
4, 193, 000
3. 143, oco
5, 365. 000
3. 355. 000
> Adjusted to correspond to census dates.
Appendix D.
FERTILITY OF NATIVE WHITES.
By dividing the number of native white children under lo years of age,
excluding those of foreign parentage and one-half those of mixed par-
entage, enumerated in a given division or state, by the average number
of native white persons in the same division or state during the decade
(that is, a simple average of the numbers enumerated at the beginning
and end of the decade), roughly comparable rates can be established for
the native white element for the decade 19 lo to 1920. These rates
prove to be as follows for the various divisions:
Per cent.
New England 13.6
Middle Atlantic 15.5
East North Central 18.8
West North Central 20. 7
South Atlantic 26.3
East South Central 26.7
West South Central 26.3
Mountain 24.1
Pacific 17.2
Average, United States 20. 3
The foregoing percentages do not represent birth rates, since they
refer to the numbers of children bom between the Thirteenth and Four-
teenth Census dates and surviving on the latter date. The total numbers
born would, therefore, represent somewhat higher birth rates. Neither
do they represent rates of increase, since deaths of persons bom prior to
the Thirteenth Census date are not taken into account.
As might be expected from the knowm trend of increase, the New
England states showed the smallest proportion of children bom to native
whites, while the southern divisions showed the largest proportions, a
fact also widely recognized, since the native white stock has continued
to increase at a relatively rapid rate in the South, this great area as yet
not having been invaded to any degree by the foreign element.
Considered by states, the northern New England states, Maine, New
Hampshire, and Vermont, show proportions of 17, 14, and 17 per cent,
while for each of the three lower states, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut, the proportion is distinctly smaller, 13 per cent. In
general, the proportions for the agricultural states, even in New England,
are higher than those for the distinctly industrial states. For example,
the proportion for New York is the same as that for Massachusetts and
Connecticut, namely, 13 per cent, while Ohio shows 19 per cent,
205
206 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Wyoming 24 percent, and California 16 per cent. Some light is tliro\vTi
upon the reduced proportions sho\\Ti by the industrial states, in which
the numbers of native whites of foreign or mixed parentage are relati\ely
large, by the fact that the proportion of such persons who laarry is dis-
tinctly lower than the corresponding proportion for native whites of
native parentage.
Appendix E.
CONSTRUCTION OF TABLES 62, 63, AND 64.
The number of persons engaged in agriculture and the value of agri-
cultural products, as shouTi in Table 62, were used in the compilation of
the corresponding percentages in Table 63. The number of persons
engaged in manufactures and production of minerals, and the value
added by manufacture plus value of products of mineral industries, as
shown in Table 62, were obtained by appropriate combinations of the
items on which were based the percentages in Table 63.
URBAN POPULATION.
The urban population for 1920 and 19 10 was taken from the census
reports. The urban population for 1850 was estimated in the following
manner :
All towns having 2,500 inhabitants or more in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island were treated as urban, in accordance
with the present practice. Because of this practice the urban popula-
tion of these three states in 1850 was overestimated to an extent some-
what greater than that to which it was overstated by the recent census
figures, for the reason that in 1850 the population actually rural in the
to^\^lS having 2,500 inhabitants or more formed a considerably larger
proportion of the total population than was the case in 19 10 or 1920.
It seems logical, however, to apply the same rule for 1850 as for 19 10 and
1920.
All pla.ces which in the 1850 report were shown separately from the
townships or other minor civil divisions in which they were located and
which in that year had 2,500 inhabitants or more were treated as urban,
regardless of whether they were or were not incorporated. Probably
nearly all such places were incorporated; and even if they were not,
they were urban in character.
In most cases, however, the 1850 report did not show the smaller
cities and villages separately from the minor civil divisions in which
they were located. In each such case the place was assumed to have
had a separate existence as an urban community in 1850 if shown sepa-
rately in 1870 and if, from a comparison of the 1870 and 1920 popula-
tion figures, it appeared that the population in 1850 was 2,500 or more.
The proportion which the urban population formed of the total for
the minor civil division was almost invariably larger in 1920 than in 1870,
207
208 INCREASE OF POPULATION- 1910-1920.
and it was assumed that the increase in the proportion between 1850 and
1870 was two-fifths as large as the increase between 1870 and 1920.
For example, if the urban population formed 50 per cent of the total
in 1870 and 60 per cent in 1920, it was assumed to have been 46 per cent
in 1850.
In a few cases, where it appeared that extensive additions of terri-
tory had been made to the urban area since 1870, the proportion was
assumed to have been the same in 1850 as in 1870.
For a very few places no separate figures for 1870 were given, and
accordingly it was necessary to project the proportion through 1880.
In cases where an entire minor civil division — such as Watervliet town,
Albany County, N. Y. — has been incorporated since 1850, its total
population in that year, if 2,500 or more, was treated as urban.
Where the name of a place had disappeared since 1850, but where it
was obvious that the place had been annexed to some city — for example,
Williamsburgh, Kings County (Brooklyn), N. Y.— the population in
1850, if 2,500 or more, was treated as urban.
A large part of the population of Philadelphia County, Pa., in 1850
was enumerated in territory outside the city of Philadelphia. Between
1850 and i860, however, the city limits were extended to include the
entire county. Accordingly the population of every minor civil divi-
sion in the county in 1850 which had 2,500 inhabitants or more in that
year was treated as urban.
Population of cities of 100,000 and over and their adjacent territory. —
The term "adjacent territory" refers to the area lying within a distance
of approximately 10 miles beyond the boundaries of the central city.
In cases where the city boundaries were extended between 19 10 and
1920, the boundaries of the district as a whole were correspondingly
extended. Accordingly the 19 10 population shown for a given district
in the census report for 1920 is not in all cases the same as the population
shoAvn for that district in the 19 10 report, since the figures in the 1920
report relate to the area as constituted in 1920. The 1910 figures used
as a basis for the percentages in Table 63 are taken from the 19 10 report
and of course relate to the areas as constituted in that year.
The total for 1920 (36,886,961) represents the population of 58 districts
comprising 68 cities of 100,000 or more and their adjacent territory,
and the total for 1910 (27,020,818) represents the population of 44
districts comprising 50 cities of 100,000 and over and their adjacent
territory.
The 1920 distribution by states for those districts which lie in two or
more states was made from the data on pages C5 to 71 and 73 to 75,
Volume I, Fourteenth Census Reports. The 1910 population figures for
the various minor civil divisions comprised in the districts as constituted
CONSTRUCTION OF TABLES 62, 63, AND 64. 209
in ig20 were readily available, but no such figures were readily available
for the districts as consHhited in igio. Accordingly, the 1910 distribu-
tion by states for each district lying in two or more states was made on
the assumption that the proportions in the several states were the same
for the 1910 population of the area as constituted in 1910 as for the
1910 population of the area as constituted in 1920.
VALUE OF PRODUCTS.
Agricultural products. — For 19 19 and 1909 the total value of agricultural
products was obtained by adding together the value of all crops, the value
of all live-stock products (dairy products, eggs and chickens, wool and
mohair, and honey and wax), and the value of domestic animals sold or
slaughtered on farms. The total thus does not include forest products
of farms nor products of greenhouses and other floral products. A con-
siderable but indeterminable amount of duplication results from the feed-
ing of crops to live stock, and some duplication also arises from the sale
of domestic animals by one farmer to another and the subsequent resale
or slaughter of such animals by the purchaser during the census year.
The value of agricultural products for 1 849-1 850 (12 months ended
May 31, 1850) was determined by calculating average unit values from
Tables CLXXXVI and CXC, pages 174 and 176, Compendium of the
Seventh Census, and applying these values to the amounts of those
agricultural products which were reported in quantity units. The total
for each state was then ascertained by adding together the various items
in Table CLXXXV, beginning with "Value of animals slaughtered,"
page 171, but omitting "Home-made manufactures." There are also
included estimates for poultry, milk, and eggs, for which no reports were
made in 1850. The poultry estimate was made by distributing the
$13,000,000 estimate for the United States given in Table CXC among the
states on the basis of the distribution in 1840. The $5,000,000 estimate
for eggs made in Table CXC was distributed among the states on the
assumption that the value of the egg product in each state was five-
thirteenths as great as the value of the poultry product. The $7,000,000
estimate for milk made in Table CXC, which was equal to approximately
one-eighth the combined value of butter and cheese, was distributed
among the states on the assumption that for each state the value of milk
was equal to one-eighth the combined value of butter and cheese.
Follo^ving are the various items which made up the 1 850 total :
Crops — Barley, buckwheat, cane sugar, clover seed, cotton, flax,
flaxseed, grass seed (other than clover), hay, hemp, hops, Indian com,
maple sugar, market- garden products, molasses, oats, orchard products,
peas and beans, potatoes (Irish), potatoes (sweet), rice, rye, tobacco,
wheat, wine.
107°— 22 14
210 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Other products — Animals slaughtered, beeswax and honey, butter,
cheese, eggs, milk, poultry, silk cocoons, wool.
As the net result of various exclusions, adjustments, and corrections
made in order to bring the figures into harmony with those for recent
censuses, the amount used as representing the total value of agricultural
products in 1850, $974,387,000, is less by about $325,000,000 than the
total given in Table CXC of the Compendium for 1850. The most impor-
tant exclusions and adjustments were the following:
(i) The exclusions of the items "Live stock, over i year old — annual
product, $175,000,000," and "Cattle, sheep, and pigs, under i year old —
$50,000,000." Such items are not now included as part of the total
annual agricultural product.
(2) The substitution of $111,703,142 as the value of animals slaugh-
tered, w^hich is given in Table CLXXXVI and represents the sum of the
several state items, for the item "Animals slaughtered, $55,000,000,"
in Table CXC.
(3) The exclusion of "Residuum of crops, not consumed by stock, com
fodder, cottonseed, straw, rice flour, and manure (Patent Reports),
$100,000,000." No reliable apportionment of these items among the
states could be made.
Value added by maniijaciure. — The items under this head for 19 19 and
1909 were taken from the manufactures reports for those years. For the
year ended May 31, 1850 (the 12-month period covered by the report for
1850), the figures were calculated from the Digest of the Statistics of
Manufactures. The state totals for cost of raw materials and value of
products (Table 4 of the Digest) were reduced by subtracting from them
the sums of the corresponding items lor the following industries (Digest
Tables i and 2) : Blacksmiths, bleachers and dyers, carpenters and
builders, chrome mining, coal mining, dyers, fisheries, flour and grist
mills, gold mining, iron mining, lumber (sawing and planing) , millstones,
millstones (burr), slate quarries, stone and marble quarries, timber hewers,
timber and wood, wood cutting and cording. (The "flour and grist
mills" items doubtless included the output of some mills which would
now be treated as merchant mills and included as manufacturing estab-
lishments, but probably the greater part of the output of this group of
mills in 1 849-1 850 represented custom mills, which are not now treated
as manufacturing establishments.)
The revised state totals for cost of raw materials were subtracted from
the corresponding totals for value of products in order to obtain the value
added by manufacture. This, rather than the value of products, has
been used in comparison with the value of agricultural products and the
value of mineral products, for the reason that the cost of the raw materials
represents a much greater part of the total value of products in the case
CONSTRUCTION OF TABLES 62, 63, AND 64. 211
of manufacturing industries than in the case of agricultural or mineral
industries.
Mineral products. — The total value of mineral products was obtained
by totalizing the following items in Tables i and 2 of the Digest of the
Statistics of Manufactures for 1850: Chrome mining, coal mining, gold
mining, iron mining, millstones, millstones (burr), slate quarries, stone
and marble quarries.
PERSONS ENGAGED IN INDUSTRIES.
Agriculture. — The numbers of persons engaged in agriculture in 1920
and 1910 were obtained from the occupations reports. The number for
each state was calculated by deducting the following items from the
total for the group "Agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry":
Farmers, turpentine farms; farm foremen, turpentine farms; farm
laborers, turpentine farms; florists; greenhouse laborers; landscape
gardeners; fishermen and oystermen; foresters, forest rangers, and timber
cruisers; foremen and overseers, log and timber camps; inspectors,
scalers, and surveyors; managers and officials, log and timber camps;
owners and proprietors, log and timber camps; teamsters and haulers,
log and timber camps; other lumbermen, raftsmen, and woodchoppers.
The 1850 occupations data are not comparable with those for 19 10 and
1920, as the earlier figures relate only to males 15 years of age and over
and do not include slaves.
Manufactures. — The numbers of persons engaged in manufactures in
1 9 19 and 1909 were taken from the manufactures reports for those
years. Data for 1 849-1 850 are given in the report for that year, but
have not been used because of the lack of corresponding figures for agri-
culture.
Production of minerals. — The numbers of persons engaged in the pro-
duction of minerals in 19 19 and 1909 were taken from the mines and
quarries reports. As in the case of manufactures, data are available for
1 849-1850, but have not been used because of the lack of corresponding
figures for agriculture. (The number of persons engaged in the produc-
tion of minerals in 1909 was taken from Table 8, Vol. XI, Thirteenth
Census Reports. The United States total was reduced by deducting
974, representing certain persons who could not be distributed by states.)
COMPUTATION OF PERCENTAGES IN TABLE 64.
In compiling this table, two sets of percentages, one for increases
and one for decreases, have been computed for each set of items for
which some divisions or states showed increases and others showed
decreases during the decade 1 910-1920. It would be impossible, of
course, to compute, from a decrease in a given division or state and an
212 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
increase in the United States as a whole, a percentage representing the
proportion which the decrease in the giv^en division or state formed of
the increase in the United States. Moreover, it would have been bad
practice to base the percentages for those divisions and states which
showed increases on the net increase for the United States as a whole,
since if this had been done the sum of the percentages of increase would
have been more than loo.
Accordingly, the division percentages of increase and decrease are
based, respectively, on the total increase in those divisions in which
increases took place and the total decrease in those divisions in which
decreases took place; and the state percentages of increase and decrease
are based, respectively, on the total increase in those states in which
increases occurred and the total decrease in those states in which de-
creases occurred. Thus the percentages of increase and the percentages
of decrease total separatel}' to approximately loo. A percentage for a
given division does not, however, necessarily represent the sum of the
percentages for the states composing that division, since in some cases
certain states mthin a division show increases and others show decreases,
so that the net increase or decrease for the division does not represent
the sum of the increases for those states which showed increases, or of
the decreases for those states which showed decreases. IMoreover, the
United States totals on which the division percentages are based are not
the same as those on which the state percentages are based, so that,
even if all the states in a division show increases or all show decreases,
the sum of the state percentages is not necessarily the same as the division
percentage, which has been computed on a different base. To illustrate:
Suppose that in half the states the number of persons engaged in agri-
culture increased, the aggregate increase being 1,000,000, and that in
the remaining states there were decreases aggregating 2,000,000. The
state percentages for increase and decrease would, therefore, be computed
on the bases of 1,000,000 and 2,000,000, respectively. Suppose, further,
that the states which showed increases were so grouped that in, say, five
divisions the increases were exactly offset by decreases, while in the re-
maining four divisions there would be aggregate decreases of 1,000,000
with no increases. In this event the division percentages for decrease
would be based on i ,000,000 and would refer to only four of the divisions,
while for the remaining five there would be no percentages for either
increase or decrease.
Appendix F,
COMPUTATION OF AVERAGE NUMBERS OF CHILDREN PER
NATIVE AND FOREIGN WHITE MOTHER.
The average numbers of children per native and foreign white mother
in the birth-registration area, calculated for those mothers who gave
birth to children in 1919, are as follows:
Average number of children ever bom:
Per native white mother 3.2
Per foreign white mother 4. o
Average number of surviving children:
Per native white mother 2.8
Per foreign white mother 3. 4
The data employed in the calculation of these averages have been
taken from the Census Bureau's annual report, Birth Statistics, 19 19.
The figures relate to the birth-registration area, which in that year com-
prised 22 states — Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wis-
consin, Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, Washington, Oregon, California, Mary-
land, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Kentucky — and the
District of Columbia, with nearly three-fifths of the total population of
the United States.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN EVER BORN PER NATIVE WHITE MOTHER.
Total births to native white mothers in 1919 912 , 792
Deduct number in connection with which no data as to total num-
ber of children ever bom were given 47 , 041
Number of births in connection with which total number of chil-
dren ever bom was stated 865 ,751
Divide by 1.0122 to account for plural births ' 855, 316
Total number of children ever bom to these mothers 2 , 722 , 296
Average number of children ever bom per native white mother
(2,722,296-^855,316) 3.2
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SURVIVING CHILDREN PER NATIVE WHITE MOTHER.
Total births to native white mothers in 1919 912 , 792
Deduct number in connection with which no data as to total num-
ber of children now living ^ were given 70, 707
Number of births in connection with which total number of chil-
dren now living was stated 842 , 085
Divide by 1.0122 to account for plural births ' 831,935
Total number of children ever bom to these mothers and now
living^ 2,363,396
Average number of surviving children per native white mother
(2 -363. 396-^83 1, 93 5) 2.8
■ In 1919 plural births averaged 12.2 cases per 1,000 mothers in the registration area,
for all races; not computed by race and nativity. As exceedingly few c;ises are of
triplets, quadruplets, etc., tliere is only a very slight departure from accuracy in the
assumption that the number of children bom is 1.0122 times the number of mothers.
^ The phrase "now living" refers to the time at which the last birth occiured.
213
214 INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN EVER BORN PER FOREIGN WHITE MOTHER.
Total births to foreign wliite motliers in iqiq 354.95*^
Deduct number in connection with which no data as to total
number of children ever born were given 47.4i<>
Number of births in connection with which total number of chil-
dren ever bom was stated 307 , 540
■ Divide by 1.0122 to account for plural births ' 303.833
Total number of children ever born to these mothers 1,226,471
Average number of children ever bom per foreign white mother
(1,226,471-^-303,833) 4-0
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SURVIVING CHILDREN PER FOREIGN WHITE MOTHER.
Total births to foreign white mothers in 1919 354. 95^
Deduct number in connection with which no data as to total
number of children now living- were given 56,323
Number of births in connection with which total number of chil-
dren now living was stated 298 , 633
Divide by 1.0122 to account for plural births ' 295,031
Total number of children ever bom to these mothers and now
living 2 1 , 008 , 689
Average number of surviving children per foreign white mother
(1,008,689-^-295,031) 3-4
1 In 1919 plural births averaged 12.2 cases per 1,000 mothers in the registration area,
for all races; not computed by race and nativity. As exceedingly few cases are of
triplets, quadruplets, etc., there is only a very slight departure from accuracy in the
assumption that the number of children bom is 1.0122 times the number of mothers.
2 The Dhrase "now living" refers to the time at which the last birth occurred.
DETAILED TABLES
215
216
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 50.-
-NUMBER AND AgGHEGATE POPULATION OF CoUNTIES OR EQUIVALENT
Divisions and States:
DIVISION AND STATE.
1920
Per cent
Counties
in which popu-
lation
decreased dur-
popula-
tion of de-
Total
ing decade 1910-1920.
Total
population.
number
of
creasing
counties
counties.
Number.
Aggregate
population.
formed
of total
popula-
tion.
105,710,620
3,005
1,086
18,527,979
17.5
7,400,909
67
22
553,909
7.5
22,261,144
150
56
1,988,767
8.9
21,475,543
436
224
4,660,425
21.7
12,544,249
619
242
3, 643, 191
29.0
13,990,272
558
134
1,837,007
13.1
8,893,307
364
163
3, 015. 458
33.9
10, 242, 224
469
162
2,185,006
21.3
3,336,101
269
48
327,413
9.8
5, 566, 871
133
35
316, 803
5.7
768,014
10
5
135,619
17.7
443,083
10
5
167, 083
37.7
352,428
14
8
192,436
54.6
3,852,356
14
3
33,839
0.9
604,397
5
1
24,932
4.1
1,380,631
10,385,227
8
62
32
1,336,299
12.9
3,155,900
21
3
77,250
2.4
8,720,017
67
21
575,218
6.6
5,759,394
88
39
967,760
16.8
2,930,390
92
64
1,238,271
42.3
6,485.280
102
56
1,163,8,H1
17.9
3,668,412
83
48
962,357
26.2
2,632,067
71
17
328, 156
12.5
2, .387, 125
86
9
16S, 826
7.1
2, 404, 021
99
27
514, 739
21.4
3, 404, 055
1115
89
1,565,036
46.0
646, 872
53
10
118,218
18.3
636,547
68
17
116,010
18.2
1,296,372
93
33
392,441
30.3
1,769,257
105
57
767,921
43.4
223,003
3
2
74,764
33.5
1,449,661
324
12
257,995
17.8
4.37,571
2, ,309, 187
1
•120
36
457, 585
19.8
1,463,701
55
15
231,263
15.8
2,559,123
100
11
107. 590
4.2
1,683,724
46
1
21.710
1.3
2,895,832
1,55
45
505,455
17.5
968,470
54
12
180.639
ia7
2,416,630
120
01
918,339
38.0
2, 337, 885
95
37
638, 1,53
27.3
2,348,174
67
21
571,961
24.4
1,790,618
82
44
887,005
49.5
1,7.52,204
75
25
438,500
25.0
1,798,509
64
27
462, 484
25.7
2,028,283
77
26
4.39, 5N0
21.7
4,663,228
253
84
M4,442
18.1
548, 8,89
51
4
37,200
6.8
431,866
44
1
18,092
4.2
194, 402
'22
3
18, 973
9.8
939, 629
63
15
87, 851
9.3
360, 3,50
29
12
119, 167
33.1
334. 162
449, 396
14
29
1
9,871
2.2
77,407
17
12
36,259
46.8
1,3.56,621
39
13
153.994
11.4
7s;{, 3N9
36
s
59, 562
7.6
3,426,861
58
14
103,247
3.0
United States..,
Geographic division.s:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central.
West North Central.
South Atlantic
East South Central .
West South Central .
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine ,
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts ,
Rhmle Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York ,
New Jersey ,
Pennsylvania ,
East North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois ,
Michigan
Wisconsin ,
We.st North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska ,
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware ,
Maryland
District of Columbia
Virginia
West Virginia
North CaroUna
South Carolina ,
Georgia
Florida
East South Central :
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Missis.sippi
We.st South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana ,
Oklahoma ,
Texas
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming ,
Colorado ,
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Wa.sliington ,
Oregon ,
California
• Inchides independent city of St. Louis.
' Includes independent city of Baltimore.
• Includes 20 independent citlc-s.
* Includes lSiiidoi)endciit cities.
DETAILED TABLES.
217
Divisions Whose Population Decreased During Preceding Decade, by
1920, 1900, 1880, and 1860.
1000
DIVISION AND STATE.
Total
population.
Total
number
of
counties.
Counties in which popu-
lation decreased dur-
ing decade 1890-1900.
Per cent
which
popula-
tion of de-
creasing
Number.
Aggregate
population.
counties
formed
of total
popula-
tion.
United States
75,994.575
2,836
368
5.823,383
7.7
Geographic divisions:
New England
5,592,017
15, 454, 678
15,9,S,5,581
10, 347, 423
10,443,480
7, .547, 757
6,532,290
1,674,6.57
2,416,692
67
149
435
594
.520
350
400
189
126
15
39
62
127
42
22
20
27
14
331,080
1,. 321, 320
1,371,077
1,528,861
.549, 549
389,089
ia3, 155
64,543
81,709
5.9
8.5
East North Central
8.6
West North Central
14.8
South Atlantic
5.3
East South Central
5.2
West South Central
2.8
Mountain
3.9
Pacific
3.5
New England:
Maine
694,466
411,588
343,641
2,805,346
428,556
908,420
7, 268, 894
1,883,669
6,302,115
4,157,545
2. 516, 462
4.821,550
2,420,982
2,069,042
1,751,394
2,231.853
3,106,665
319,146
401,570
1,066,300
1,470,495
184,735
1,188,044
278. 718
1, 854. 1.S4
958,800
1,893,810
1,340,316
2,216,331
528, 542
2,147.174
2,020,616
1,828,697
1,551,270
1,311,564
1,381,625
6 790,391
3,048,710
243,329
161,772
92,531
539,700
195, 310
122,931
276,749
42,335
518, 103
413,536
1,485,053
16
10
14
14
5
8
61
21
67
88
92
102
83
70
82
99
1115
39
64
90
105
3
'24
1
M18
55
97
40
1.37
45
119
96
66
75
75
59
6 23
243
«24
21
7 14
57
19
13
27
14
36
33
57
4
2
6
2
111.501
36,421
127,803
30,832
16.1
New Hampshire
8.8
Vermont
37.2
Massachusetts
1.1
Connecticut
1
22
1
16
22
14
6
19
1
24,523
845,285
34,507
441,528
566,030
229,666
99.156
453,506
22,719
2.7
Middle Atlantic:
New York
11.6
New Jersey.
1.8
Pennsylvania
7.0
East North Central:
Ohio
13.6
Indiana
9.1
Illinois
2.1
Michigan
18.7
Wisconsin. .
1.1
West North Central:
Iowa
1
20
54,610
393,002
2.4
Jlissouri
12.7
North Dakota
South Dakota
16
35
55
77,037
492.529
511,683
19.2
Nebraska
46.2
34.8
South Atlantic:
Maryland
3
71,295
6.0
18
195,710
10.6
North Carolina
9
145, 881
7.7
Georgia
9
3
10
8
1
3
4
6
99,816
36,847
160, 466
180,395
13,206
35,022
66,899
80,602
4.5
Florida
7.0
East South Central:
Kentucky
7.5
Tennessee
8.9
Alabama ... .
0.7
2.3
5.1
Louisiana
5.8
Texas
10
35,654
1.2
Idaho
3
1
15
1
8,733
369
37,975
3,158
5.4
Wyoming
0.4
Colorado
7.0
New Mexico
1.6
Utah
Nevada
7
2
1
11
14,308
6.163
4,151
74,395
33.0
Pacific:
Washington
1.2
1.0
Cahfomia
5.0
^ Includes population of Indian Territory (392,060).
' Exclusive of Indian reservations.
' Includes Yellowstone National Park.
218
Table 50.-
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
-Number and Aggregate Population of Counties or Equivalent
Divisions and States: 1920,
1880
DIVISION AND STATE.
Total
population.
Total
number
of
counties.
Counties in which popu-
lation decreased dur-
ing decade 1870-1880.
Percent
which
popula-
tion of de-
creasing
Number.
Aggregate
population.
counties
formed
of total
popula-
tion.
50, 155, 783
2,592
82
1,711,453
3.4
Geographic divisions:
4, 010, 529
10, 496, 878
11,206,668
6, 157, 443
7, 597, 197
5,585,151
3,334,220
653, 119
1,114,578
67
148
424
.531
495
351
357
119
100
14
9
26
10
4
5
1
10
3
458,788
351,488
562,423
172,899
34,889
85,792
1,739
30,709
12, 726
11.4
Middle Atlantic
3.3
East North Central
5.0
West North Central
2.8
0.5
1.5
West South Central
0.1
4.7
Pacific
1.1
New England:
648,936
346, 991
332, 286
1,783,085
276, 531
622,700
5, 082, 871
1,131,116
4,282,891
3,198,062
1,978,301
3,077,871
1,636,937
1,315,497
780, 773
1,624,615
2,168,380
36,909
98,268
452, 402
996,096
146,608
934,943
177,624
1,512,565
618,457
1,399,750
995, 577
1,542,180
269, 493
1,648,690
1, .542, 3.59
1,262,505
1,131,597
802, 525
939,946
16
10
14
14
5
8
60
21
67
88
92
102
> 79
63
78
99
2 115
21
45
69
104
3
<24
1
MIO
54
94
33
137
39
117
94
66
74
74
58
7
263,958
40.7
4
2
123,617
35,624
37.2
2.0
1
8
35,589
307, 818
5.7
Middle Atlantic:
6.1
1
1
4
9
1
11
2
5
1
43,670
20,074
67, 533
183,230
2,565
289,021
4,514
109,293
26,534
1.0
East North Central:
Ohio
0.6
3.4
Illinois
6.0
0.2
22.0
West North Central:
0.6
6.7
Missouri
1.2
North Dakota
South Dakota. .
1
203
0.2
1
32,355
3.2
South Atlantic:
Maryland
Virginia
1
10,292
0.7
3
24,597
1.6
Florida ...
East South Central:
Kentucky
2
1
2
12.499
7.269
66,024
0.8
Tennessee
0.5
Alabama
5.2
West South Central:
Texas
1,591,749
39, 159
32,610
20,789
194,327
119,565
40,440
143, 963
62,266
75,116
174,768
864,694
225
11
13
7
31
12
7
23
15
25
23
52
1
1
2
1,739
2,537
3,683
0.1
6.5
Idaho
11.3
New Mexico
1
11,029
9.2
Utah
2
4
3,046
10,414
2.1
Nevada
16.7
Pacific:
Washington .
California
3
12.726
1.5
* Includes 1 unorganized county.
» Includes independent city of St. Louis.
» Dakota territory.
* Includes indopendont city of Baltimore.
' Includes 11 ludopeudeut cities.
DETAILED TABLES.
219
Divisions Whose Population Decreased During Precedino Decade, by
1900, 1880, and 1860— Continued.
1
1860
DIVISION AND STATE.
Total
population.
Total
miml)er
of
counties.
Counties in which popu-
lation decreased dur-
ing decade 1850-1860.
Percent
which
popula-
tion of de-
creasing
Number.
Aggregate
population.
counties
formed
of total
popula-
tion.
United States
31,443,321
2,078
136
2,201,019
7.0
Geographic divisions:
3,135,283
7, 458, 985
6,926,884
2, 169, 832
5,364,703
4,020,991
1,747,667
174,923
444,053
67
146
403
349
459
305
236
31
82
13
9
17
326,670
229, 871
421, 8'<2
10.4
3. I
6.1
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
48
43
4
1
1
558, 363
613, 818
37, 176
9,849
3,390
10.4
15.3
2 1
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
5.6
0.8
Pacific
New England:
Maine
628, 279
326, 073
315,098
1,231,066
174,620
460, 147
3,880,735
672,035
2,906,215
2,339,511
1,-350,428
1,711,951
749, 113
775, 881
172,023
674,913
1,182,012
\ 3 4, 837
28,841
107, 206
112,216
687,049
75,080
8 1,219,630
7 376,688
992,622
703,708
1, 057, 286
140, 424
1,155,684
1, 109, 801
964,201
791,305
435, 450
708, 002
16
10
14
14
5
8
60
21
65
88
92
102
63
58
64
97
113
1
3
7
2
36, 698
88, 735
190,740
10, 497
5.8
27.2
60.5
0.9
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
8
216, 818
5.6
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
1
15
2
13,053
392,991
28, 891
0.4
16.8
2.1
East North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
Nebraska
34
41
3
<22
1
6 98
50
86
30
132
37
109
84
52
60
55
48
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia
Virginia
15
2
5
4
21
1
17
14
6
6
155,058
28,448
43, 412
121,128
210,234
83
181,679
222,008
128, 783
81,348
12.7
7.6
4.4
17.2
19.9
0.1
15.7
20.0
13.4
10.3
West Virginia
North CaroUna
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentuckv
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
4
37, 176
5.3
Oklahoma
Texas
604,215
133
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
8 34,277
93, 516
New Mexico
11
1
9,849
10.5
Arizona
Utah
40,273
6,857
11,594
52, 465
379,994
17
3
19
19
44
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Oregon
California
i 3,390
0.9
« Exclusive of 50 counties taken to form West Virginia between 1860 and 1870. Independent cities
counted as parts of counties in which located.
' Fifty counties taken from Virginia to form West Virginia between 1860 and 1870.
8 Population for area organized in 1861 as Colorado territory but included in 1860 in territories of Kansas.
Nebraska, New Mexico, and Ctah.
220
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 51. — Urban Population, Classified in Three Groups, According
[The percentages of increase given in this table relate to the several group'! of cities as cormtiiuled in 19S0.
increased by 24.9 per cent between 1910 and 1920, but in
DIVISION AND ST.4TE.
United States . . .
Geographic divisions:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central .
West North Central.
South Atlantic
East South Central .
West South Central .
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East North Centr.^l:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia.
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain:
Montana ,
Idaho
Wyoming ,
Colorado
New Mexico ,
Arizona ,
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington ,
Oregon ,
California
total territory urban in 1920.
PLACES OF 100,000 OR MORE
IN 1920.
Num-
ber of
places.
Population.
292
604
1586
322
1273
1 169
1 260
117
165
25
27
14
169
27
30
121
314
148
93
171
93
82
59
81
63
12
14
31
62
4
18
1
39
35
55
32
59
30
51
47
39
32
41
38
63
119
17
20
8
26
12
15
17
2
35
23
107
54. 304, 603
5, 865, 073
16,672,595
13, 049, 272
4, 727, 372
4, 338, 792
1,994,207
2,970,829
1,214,980
3,471,483
299, 569
279, 761
109, 976
3,650,248
589. 180
936,339
8,589,844
2,474,936
5,607,815
3,677,136
1,482,855
4, 403, 1.53
2,241,560
1,244,568
1,0.51,593
875, 495
1,586,903
88,239
101, 872
405,306
617,964
120, 767
869, 422
437,571
673, 984
369, 007
490, 370
293, 987
727, 859
355,825
633,543
611,226
509,317
240,121
290,497
628, 163
.539, 480
1,512,689
172,011
119,037
57, 348
4.53, 2.'J9
64,960
117,527
215, .584
15,254
748, 735
391,019
2,331,729
H'te-
25.7
16.6
19.3
33.6
19.7
a3.9
19.2
41.9
24.4
39.8
13.1
9.1
10.7
15.5
11.8
29.7
18.7
24.2
18.1
35.9
27.9
24.0
66.2
21.6
20.6
24.0
14.0
29.1
33.7
2,-.. 2
21.2
24.4
31.0
32.2
35.8
42.4
40.1
22.2
27.8
52.9
25.5
28.5
12.9
25.8
18.8
59.0
52.1
23.6
41.9
31.9
14.4
24.5
60.2
23.0
14.1
20.8
22.2
51.1
Population.
27, 429, 326
2,203,306
10,549,599
6, 775, 993
2,131.833
1,769.625
694.390
952,332
374, 601
1,977,647
1,521,583
237,595
444,128
6,807,810
1,084,100
2,657,689
2,171,635
314.194
2,701,705
1,131.312
457, 147
615, 280
126, 468
1, 097, 307
191,601
101, 177
110,168
733.826
437.571
287,444
200. 616
234, 891
280, 693
178,806
387, 219
565,' i is"
256,491
118,110
419,749
258,288
1,299,610
Percent
of in-
crease.
24.9
15.5
17.6
36.9
20.0
33.0
1.5.8
38.6
22.4
37.0
12.9
,5.9
32.7
18.9
16.3
15.1
38.1
34.5
23.4
95. 2
22.3
19.2
46.4
17.3
22.6
22.9
26.0
31.4
32.2
45.0
4.9
15.4
34.8
14.2
62.5
20.2
27.3
22.6
21.1
46.3
1 The total number of places in certain cla,s.ses for tho United States as a whole is loss than the sum of
the numbers shown for the inilividual states or divisions, for the rea.son that each of three cities lies in
two adjoining states and oiu; in two divisions. Each of these cities is counted in each state and ouch
division. For full explanation, see note 1, Table 31, p. 50, Vol. 1, Fourteenth Census Koports.
DETAILED TABLES.
221
TO Size of Cities, 1920, with Per Cent of Increase, 1910-1920.
For example, the combined population of the 68 cities which had 100,000 inhabitants or more in 1920
1910 only 50 of these cities had 100,000 inhabitants or more.]
DIVISION AND ST.\TE.
United States.
Geographic pmsiONS:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central.
West North Central.
South Atlantic
East South Central. .
West South Central.
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Jf assachusetts
Rhode I.sland
Coimecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia.
Virginia
West Virginia
North CaroUna
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mount.un:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Oregon
CaliJomia
places of 25,000 to 100,000
IN 1920.
Num-
ber.
219
Population.
10,340,788
1,699,018
2,3.53,654
2,681,461
733, 831
1,119,452
367, 926
607,225
176,623
601,598
127,041
106,763
1,028,383
167,406
269,425
755,097
718,899
879,658
535,822
5.59,351
700,310
583, 309
302,669
9.8,917
285,053
147, 472
25,202
54,948
122, 239
57,901
201,907
173, 862
156, 609
105,481
219,920
203,772
127,972
135,713
104,241
94,012
43,874
193,647
275, 692
41,611
73, 155
29, 053
32,804
150, 194
'45i,'404'
Per cent
of in-
crease.
20.2
24.3
43.5
23.2
43.5
22.6
65.2
16.9
47.5
15.9
11.1
19.0
21.3
31.4
20.6
30.0
23.2
46.6
42.6
29.0
78.5
25.4
26.1
30.7
1.9
78.8
25.0
27.2
51.0
42.3
51.4
54.7
22.7
26.3
64.4
6.3
51.0
16.3
33.2
56.6
79.9
70.8
6.2
160.9
28.2
PLACES OF 2,.500 to 25,000
IN 1920.
Num-
ber.
>2,500
246
541
1513
301
1242
1158
1243
110
147
22
25
14
142
22
21
147
100
294
1127
181
154
79
73
56
74
58
12
13
29
59
3
15
13.1
'64.2'
132
31
51
30
54
26
47
143
36
32
139
36
60
1109
16
20
8
23
12
14
15
2
30
22
95
Population.
16, 534, 489
1,962,749
3,769,342
3, .591, 818
1,861,708
1,449,715
931,891
1,411,272
663, 7.56
892, 238
172, .528
172,998
109,976
1,100,282
184, 179
222,786
1,026,937
671,937
2,070,468
969,679
609,310
1,001,138
526,939
4»1,752
337,396
463,974
342,124
88,239
76,670
158, 757
394,548
10,599
77,695
184,633
195, 145
333, 761
188,506
307,323
152,0.53
270,680
194,820
226,270
240, 121
196,4.85
197,070
34.5, 8:53
671,884
130,400
119,037
57, 343
123,613
64,960
.88, 474
64,670
1,5,254
178,792
132,731
580,715
Percent
of in-
crease.
23.0
14.7
21.0
21.6
18.1
28.3
2a 5
3.5.8
27.7
41.4
11.1
7.8
10.7
16.0
11.8
22.1
16.4
32.4
20.0
26.4
14.2
24.8
19.2
18.8
21.7
15.5
9.7
29.1
23.4
28.6
19.1
9.6
16.0
18.3
35.3
34.1
22.0
27.7
39.8
16.5
26.5
30.0
12.9
22.6
21.8
49.3
38.4
30.4
41.9
31.9
19.8
24.5
42.2
13.5
14.1
23.7
24.4
53.0
222
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 52. — Population* ix Cities Having 25,000 Inhabitants or More in 1920,
States: 1920
DmaON AND STATE.
United States.
Geographic divisions:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central..
"West North Central .
South Atlantic
East South Central..
West South Central.
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island ,
Connecticut ,
Middle Atlantic:
New York ,
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
lUinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia.
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West south Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Oregon
California
cities of 25,000 AND OVEB.
1920
37,770,114
3,902,324
12,9a3,2,T3
9, 457, 454
2, 865, 6&4
2,889,077
1,062,316
1,559,557
551,224
2,579,245
127,041
106,763
2,549,966
405,001
713, 553
7,562,907
1,802,999
3,537,347
2, 707, 457
873, 545
3,402,015
1,714,621
759,816
714, 197
411,521
1,244,779
2.-1, 202
246, 549
223, 416
110,168
791,727
437, 571
489, 351
173. 862
156,609
105, 481
420,536
203,772
362. 863
416, 406
283,047
1910
29,746,272
3,319,991
10,863,102
6,817,514
2,371,982
2,110,337
899,744
1,054,553
457,195
1,8.51,854
109, 621
96,068
2,212,358
362,329
539,615
6,354,006
1,485,380
3,023,716
1,937,855
625,839
2,732,354
906,317
615, 149
594,618
304,514
1,080,087
14,094
200,204
178,465
87,411
596,831
331,069
340, 175
114,838
101,224
8.5, 9-17
328,908
123,934
344,3.57
333,045
222,342
94,012
431,093
193, 647
840,805
41,611
329,646
29,0.V1
150,914
569, 943
258, 288
1,751,014
70, .599
367,090
107,665
509,199
39,165
Increase: 1910-1920.
Number. Per cent.
8,023,842
288,539
11,1.34
118.. 3.57
475,233
213,251
1,163,370
582,333
2,040,151
2,639,940
493,682
778, 740
162, 572
505,004
94,029
727,391
17,420
10,695
337,608
42,672
173,938
1,208,901
317,619
513,631
769, 602
247,706
669, 661
808,304
144,667
119,579
107,007
164,692
11,108
46,345
44,951
22,757
194,896
106,502
149, 176
59,024
55,385
19,534
91,628
79,838
18,506
83, .361
60,705
23,413
64,003
8.5,982
331,606
2,446
41, 107
17,919
32,557
94,710
45,037
587,644
27.0
17.5
18.8
,38.7
20.8
36.9
18.1
47.9
20.6
39.3
15.9
11.1
15.3
11.8
32.2
19.0
21.4
17.0
39.7
39.6
24.5
89.2
23.5
20.1
;i.5.1
15.2
78.8
23.1
25.2
26.0
32.7
32.2
43.9
51. 4
54.7
22.7
27.9
64.4
.5.4
25.0
27.3
33.2
17.4
79.9
6.5.1
6.2
14.2
160.9
27.5
II'. 9
21. 1
50.6
' A minus sign ( — ) denotes decrease.
DETAILED TABLES.
223
AND Outside Such Cities, with Increase or Decrease, by Divisions and
AND 1910.
more in /.wo, and to those cities having under 25,000 inhabitants !rt /S^O, together with the rural territory
itants or more in 1920 was greater than the combined population of the cities which had 25,000 inhab-
1910 and 1920.1
DIVISION AND STATE.
United States.
Geographic divisions:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central . ,
West North Central.
South Atlantic
East South Central . .
West South Central .
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East North Central:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia.
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolmti
Georgia
Florida
East Solith Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Oregon
California
cities under 25,000 and rural communities.
1920
67, 940, 506
498, 585
357, 891
018, 089
678, 585
101, 195
830,991
682,667
784,877
987, 626
640, 973
336, 320
352, 428
362,390
199,396
667,078
822. 320
352, 901
182, 670
051,937
0.56, 845
083, 265
953, 791
872, 251
672, 928
992, .500
1.59, 276
646, 872
611, 345
, 049, 823
, 545, 841
112, 835
657, 934
819, 836
289, 839
402, 514
578, 243
475,296
764, 698
0.-)3, 767
921, 479
065, 127
790,618
658, 192
367, 416
834,636
822,423
507, 278
431,866
194, 402
609,983
360, 350
305.109
298, 482
77,407
786,678
.525, 101
,675,847
1910
62, 225, 994
3, 232, 690
8, 452, 790
11,433,107
9, 265, 939
10, 084, 558
7, 510, 157
7, 729, 981
2, 176, 322
2. 340, 450
632, 750
334,504
355, 956
1,154,0.58
180, 281
575, 141
2,759.608
1,051,787
4,641,395
2, 829, 266
2,075,a37
2, 906, 237
l,903,a56
1,718,711
1,481,090
1,920,257
2, 213, 248
577, 056
.569, 794
992, 010
1,512,484
114,911
698, 515
1,721,437
1,106,281
2,105,063
1,429,4.53
2, 280, 213
628, 685
1,945, ,548
1,851,744
1,91.5,7.51
1,797.114
1,503,850
1,289,298
1,549.490
3, 387, 343
336, 888
325,594
145, 965
510, 485
327, 301
193, 220
254,994
81,875
666, 757
4.59. 514
1,214,179
Increase or decrease: '
1010-1920.
Number.
5, 714, 512
Per cent.
265, 895
905,101
584, 982
412,646
1,016,637
320,834
952,686
008, 555
647, 176
8,223
1,816
-3, 528
148, 332
19, 115
91, 937
62, 712
301.114
.541, 275
222, 671
-18,192
177,028
49, 935
1.53, .540
191,838
72,243
-53, 972
69, 816
41,551
.57, 813
33, 357
-2,076
-40,581
98,399
183,558
297, 451
148, 790
19.5,083
136,013
108, 219
69, 735
149, 376
-6,496
1.54, 342
78, 118
285, 146
435,080
170.390
106, 272
48,437
99,498
33,049
111,889
43,488
-4,468
119,921
65.587
461,668
9.2
8.2
10.7
5.1
4.5
10.1
4.3
12.3
28.0
27.7
1.3
0.5
-1.0
12.9
10.6
16.0
2.3
28.6
11.7
7.9
-0.9
6.1
2.6
8.9
13.0
3.8
-2.4
12.1
7.3
.5.8
2.2
-1.8
-5.8
5.7
16.6
14.1
10.4
8.6
21.6
5.6
3.8
7.8
-0.4
10.3
6.1
18.4
12.8
.50.6
32.6
33.2
19.5
10.1
57.9
17.1
—5.5
18.0
14.3
38.0
224
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 53. — Increase ix PopuLATioNf, by Color, Nativity,
[A minus sign (— ) denotes decrease.!
DrVTSION AND STATE.
United States...
Geographic divisions:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central..
West North Central.
South Atlantic
East South Central..
West South Central..
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East North Central
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia
Virginia
AVest Virginia
North Carolina
South Carohna
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
I>ouisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain :
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Oregon
Caliiornia.
total increase.
Number.
13, 738, 354
848,228
2, 945, 252
3, 224, 922
906, 328
1, 795, 377
483,406
1, 457, 690
702,584
1, 374, 567
25,643
12, 511
—3, 528
485,940
61, 787
265, 875
,271,613
618, 733
,054,906
992, 273
229, 514
846,689
858, 239
298,207
311,417
179, 250
110, 720
69, 816
52, 659
104, 158
78,308
20,681
154, 315
106,502
217, 575
242, 582
352, 836
168, 324
286,711
215, 851
126,725
153,096
210, 081
-6,496
177, 755
142, 121
371, 128
766,6)J6
172,836
106, 272
48, 437
140,605
33,049
129,808
76, 045
- 1, 468
214,631
110,624
, 049, 312
Per
cent.
14.9
12.9
15.2
17.7
7.8
14.7
5.7
16.6
26.7
32.8
3.5
2.9
-1.0
14.4
11.4
23.9
14.0
24.4
13.8
20.8
8.5
15.0
30.5
12.8
15.0
8.1
3.4
12.1
9.0
8.7
4.6
10.2
11.9
32.2
12.0
19.9
16.0
11.1
11.0
28.7
5.5
7.0
9.8
-0.4
11.3
8.6
22.4
19.7
46.0
32.6
33.2
17.6
10.1
63.5
20.4
-5.5
18.8
16.4
44.1
NATIVE white OF
NATIVE parentage.
Number.
8, 933, 382
189,730
1, 168, 051
2,038,402
951, 861
1, 438, 211
640,290
1, 192, 336
535,884
778, 617
873
-4, 719
-1,057
127, 344
13, 732
53,557
437,941
202,766
527, 344
635,863
199,456
466,008
445,606
291,469
252,546
225,027
149, 101
45,505
62,946
114, 989
101, 747
12,067
126, 461
72, 777
209,256
190, 750
279,485
137,448
251, 639
158,328
175, 940
178, 151
216, 670
69,529
149, 183
165, 137
368,704
509,312
113,676
90,653
42,188
127, 905
17,708
68,677
74,118
959
126,320
80,875
571,422
Per
cent.
7.3
13.8
20.9
14.6
19.6
11.7
20.7
36.5
36.9
a2
-2.0
-0.5
11.5
8.6
13.5
13.6
20.1
12.5
21.0
9.4
17.9
36.4
38.2
43.9
17.3
6.2
28.0
25.6
17.9
8.4
9.4
16.4
43.7
15.8
18.3
18.8
20.8
18.1
42.3
9.4
10.8
18.4
9.2
13.8
21.3
28.1
19.6
70.1
44.5
52.3
26.9
6.9
83.3
43.2
2.7
21.6
19.4
61.6
native white of
foreign parentaob.
Number.
2,778,228
445,775
1, 284, 875
593,677
23,423
79,192
-8,431
51, 767
81,123
226,827
Per
cent.
21.5
30 5
31.2
17.2
1 1
23.9
-6.8
14.2
21.9
34.5
12,695
17.3
13, 438
19.9
2,593
6.6
246, 438
29.1
38,390
26.6
132,221
45.8
602,246
26.9
253,047
43.9
429,582
33.2
166,976
24.9
16,058
7.6
234,881
19.1
163,969
26.8
11,793
1.6
40,666
6.1
-18, 831
-4.8
-11.963
-3.8
23,919
13.3
-1,704
-1.2
-2, 722
-1.2
-5,942
-3.5
5,722
32.6
12,882
9.9
8,607
32.5
8,901
41.2
21,218
59.9
1,851
47.6
1,266
22.0
3,139
23.7
15,606
77.5
-10, 592
-13.8
-149
-a 7
1,924
10.9
386
4.2
643
3.5
-1,373
-2.0
3,206
6.4
49,291
21.7
33,312
48.6
7,!»45
19.6
5,483
27.8
15,312
13.3
4,455
30.9
13,417
51.4
1,918
2.6
-619
-5.0
39,773
22. 7
16, 491
20.8
170^563
42.i
DETAILED TABLES.
225
AND Parentage, by Divisions and States: 1910-1920.
[A minus sign (— ) denotes decrease.]
DIVISION AN'D .ST.\TE.
United States.
Geogr.vphic divisio.n's:
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central..
West North Central.
South Atlantic
East South Central..
West South Central.
Mountain
Pacific
New England:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic:
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East Nqrth Central:
Ohio
Indiana
lUinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Centr.vl:
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
South Atlantic:
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia..
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South CaroUna
Georgia
Florida
East South Central:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain:
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Pacific:
Washington
Oregon
California
native white of
mixed parentage.
Number. Percent
1,010,139
143, 792
222,066
223,102
139, 752
34, 569
-3, 720
39, 559
59,122
151, 897
14,916
9,031
1,318
73,332
13, 892
26,303
108,155
5t,95o
58,956
32,705
2,050
67,091
75,694
45,562
73,343
16,631
-4,156
25,330
12, 371
12,872
3,361
1,334
4,752
5,151
5,786
3,616
775
316
1,420
11, 419
-3,466
-460
900
-694
1,839
-1,.328
4,869
34,179
24,716
9,413
4,020
7,368
1,493
6,612
6,220
-720
35, 715
17,&40
98,642
15.9
24.3
15.0
13.5
12.6
20.9
-4.1
16.4
23.9
38.3
FOREIGN-BORN WHITE.
Number. Per cent. Number.
24.3
25.4
3.7
24.2
27.6
3a 7
14.1
27.2
11.5
9.3
1.5
13.6
21.4
14.2
26.8
7.0
-2.0
35.6
10.6
10.0
2.8
16.1
7.7
27.8
35.4
16.3
15.6
5.9
11.4
72.8
-7.2
-2.6
6.1
-6.7
lai
-3.0
11.0
25.4
64.7
26.8
31.5
11.0
12.5
41.2
10.8
-8.3
33.2
31.4
42.4
367, 209
56,268
86,396
156, 059
-241, 270
25, 365
-14,918
110,574
16, 315
172, 420
-2,784
-5, 325
-5, 335
26,484
-4,526
47,754
56,840
80,425
-50, 869
81, 452
-8,454
4,391
131,111
-52, m
-56,846
-47, 837
-42, 870
-24, 655
-IS, 237
—26, 213
-24,612
2,390
-1,997
4,197
4,157
4,834
1,157
347
1,114
9,166
-9, 273
-2, 981
-1,294
-1,370
-2,934
-6,911
-116
120,535
1,976
-1,464
-1,863
-9, 897
6,423
31, 275
-6, 938
-3, 197
8,858
-850
104, 412
8.1
1.8
5.1
-15.0
8.7
-17.2
31.7
3.7
20.0
-2.5
-5.5
-10.7
2.5
-2.5
14.5
2.1
12.2
-3.5
13.6
-5.3
0.4
22.0
-10.2
-10.5
-17.5
-18.7
-15.8
-18.1
-14.9
-18.2
13.7
-1.9
17.2
15.6
8.5
19.5
5.7
7.4
27.1
-23.2
-16.1
-6.8
-14.6
-17.4
-13.3
-0.3
50.2
2.2
-3.6
-6.9
-7.8
28.4
66.8
-10.9
-17.8
3.7
-0.8
31.8
635,308
12, 745
182,313
213, 718
35,8.59
212, 632
-128,981
79,153
9,334
18,595
-53
57
-1,049
7,411
507
5,872
64,292
27,372
90,649
74,735
20,490
73, 225
42,967
2,301
1,725
4,032
20,789
-150
15
5,553
3,895
-846
12,229
15,520
18, 921
22,172
65,564
28,876
29,378
20,818
-2.5, 718
-21, 330
-7, 630
-74,303
29,329
-13,617
11,796
51,645
-176
269
—860
-135
4,105
5,996
302
-167
825
652
17,118
Per
cent.
6.5
19.2
43.6
71.0
14.8
5.2
-4.9
4.0
43.5
63.7
-.3.9
10.1
-64.7
19.5
5.3
38.7
47.9
30.5
46.7
67.1
34.0
67.1
251.0
79.3
24.4
26.9
13.2
-24 3
1.8
72.2
7.2
-2.7
5.3
16.4
2.8
34.6
9.4
3.5
2.5
6.7
-9.8
-4.5
-0.8
-7.4
6.6
-1.9
8.6
7.5
-9.6
41.3
-38.5
-1.2
252.1
298.5
26.4
-3-2.6
13.6
43.7
79.1
107°— 22-
-15
226
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 54. — Urban and Rural Population, by Color and
[The percentages of increase in this table represent the grow th of the urban and rural population, respective-
for the reason that certain places, by reason of the growth or decline in their population, passed from the
between 1910 and 1920 in the total territory urban in 1920 w as 25.7, and the corresponding percentage for
[A minus sign ( — ) denotes decrease.]
UKBAN POPULATION.
DIVISION, STATE, AND CENSUS YEAR.
Total.i
White.
Negro.
Native.
Foreign-born.
United States:
1920
54,304,603
42, 166, 120
28.8
40,283,101
29, 846, 561
34.9
10,356,983
9,532,733
8.6
3. .559, 473
1910
2,684,797
Per cent of increase
32.6
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS.
New England:
1920
5,865,073
4,998,082
17.3
16,072,595
13,723,373
21.5
13,049,272
9,617,271
35.7
4,727,372
3, 873, 716
22.0
4,338,792
3,092,153
40.3
1,994,207
1, 574, 229
26.7
2,970,829
1,957,456
51.8
1,214,980
947,511
28.2
3,471,483
2,382,329
45.7
4,147,230
3,363,394
23.3
11,901,974
9,324,444
27.6
10,080,910
7,192,361
40.2
3,903,214
3,074,396
27.0
2,969,600
1,989,234
49.3
1,374,153
1,006,808
36.5
2,208,154
1,378,925
60.1
1,009,436
750,960
34.4
2,668,430
1,766,039
51.1
1,641,728
1,573,954
4.3
4,239,681
4,049,477
4.7
2,511,626
2, 189, 291
14.7
607,384
631,696
-3.8
222,488
191,756
16.0
48,407
57,932
-16.4
220,460
136,808
6L1
181,439
173,331
4.7
683,770
528,488
29.4
71,416
1910
56,445
26.5
Middle Atlantic:
1920
517,432
1910
339, 246
Per cent of increase
52.5
East North Central:
1920
448,873
1910
230,542
Per cent of increase
94.7
West North Central:
1920
212,591
1910
164, 301
Per cent of increase
29.4
South Atlantic:
1920
1,144,371
1910
909,520
Per cent of increase
25.8
East South Central:
1920
571, 316
1910
509,097
12.2
West South Central:
1920
535, -282
1910
435,838
22.8
Mountain:
1920
16,678
1910
15,446
Per cent of increase
8.0
Padflc:
1920
41,514
1910
24,362
^0.4
New England.
Maine:
1920
299,569
262, 248
14.2
279,761
25.5,099
9.7
109,976
98,917
n.2
3,650,248
3,125,367
16.8
589, 180
524, 654
12.3
936,339
731,797
2}-;.o
239,156
203,508
17.5
207,774
179,490
15.8
91, 597
77,337
18.4
2,558,510
2,078,565
23.1
407,412
339,000
20.0
642, 781
484.888
32.6
59, 152
57,826
2.3
71,429
75, 174
-5.0
18,146
21,239
-14.6
1,045,106
1,008,581
3.6
171,685
175,405
-•2.1
276,210
235,729
17.2
766
1910
792
-3.3
New Hampshire:
441
1910
356
Per cent of increase
23.9
Vermont:
1920
220
1910
326
Per cent of increase
-32.5
Massachusetts:
43,624
1910
35, 243
Per cent of increase
23.8
Rhode Island:
1920
9,710
1910
9,055
Per cent of increase
7.2
Connecticut:
16,655
1910 . . ...
10, 073
Per cent of increase
56.0
> Includes Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
DETAILED TABLES.
227
Nativity, for Divisions and States: 1920 and 1910.
ly, but do not represent the actual increase In the population of urban and rural areas axcom-tituUd in 19!0,
rural to the urban or from the urban to the rural class between 1910 and 1920. The percentage ofincrease
the total territory rural in 1920 was 5.4. (See Table 39, pp. 60 and 61, Vol. I, Fourteenth Census Reports.))
[A minus sign ( — ) denotes decrease.]
DIVISION, STATE, AND CENSVS YEAR.
United States:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS.
New England:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
Middle Atlantic:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
East North Central:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
West North Central:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
South Atlantic:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
East South Central:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
"West South Central:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
Mountain:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease.
Pacific:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase .
New Englank.
Maine:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease. .
New Hampshire:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease. .
Vermont:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease. .
Massachusetts:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease. .
Rhode Island:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease. . ,
Connecticut:
1920
1910
Per cent ofincrease. . .
RURAL POPULATION.
Total.!
51,406,017
49,806,146
3.2
1,535,836
1,554,599
-1.2
5, 588, 549
5,592,519
-0.1
8,426,271
8,633,350
-2.4
7, 816, 877
7, 764, 205
0.7
9,651,480
9,102,742
6.0
6, 899, 100
6,835,672
0.9
7,271,395
6,827,078
6.5
2,121,121
1,686,006
25.8
2,095,388
1,809,975
15.8
468, 445
480, 123
-2.4
ia3,322
175,473
-6.9
242,452
257,039
-5.7
202, 108
241,049
• -10 2
15,217
17,956
-15.3
444,292
382,959
16.0
White.
Native. I Foreign-born.
40,845,060 !
38, 539, 851
6.0
1,298,195
1,302,734
-0.3
4,827,291
4,729,829
2.1
7,634,673
7,668,041
-0.4
6,950,212
6,663,994
4.3
6,363,420
5,791,814
9.9
4,921,455
4, 660, 661
5.6
5, 448, 240
4,993,807
9.1
1,750,238
1,332,585
31.3
1,051,336
1,396,386
18.3
419,190
426,354
-1.7
143,324
153,858
-6.8
215,694
227, 100
-5.0
167,480
195,311
-14.2
13,069
14,861
-12.1
339, 438
285,250
19.0
3,355,771
3,812,812
-12.0
228,926
240,432
-4.8
672, 894
776, 702
-13.4
711,653
877,929
-18.9
764, 577
981,535
-22.1
93,432
98,799
-5.4
23,532
28,925
-18.6
238, 873
211,951
12.7
271,786
263, 579
3.1
350,098
332, 960
6.1
48, 197
52,307
-7.9
19,804
21,384
-7.4
26,380
28,622
-7.8
32, 428
42, 469
-23.6
1,814
2,620
-30.8
100,303
93,030
7.8
Negro.
6,903,658
7,142,966
-3.4
7,635
9,861
-22.6
82,751
78,624
5.2
65,681
70,294
-6.6
65,930
78,361
-15.9
3,180.749
3,202,968
-0.7
1,952,216
2,143,416
-8.9
1,528,297
1,548,588
-1.3
14,123
6,021
134.6
6,276
4,833
29.9
544
571
-4.7
180
208
-13.5
352
1,295
-72.8
1,842
2,812
-34.5
326
474
-31.2
4,391
4,501
-2.4
1 Includes Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
228
" INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 54. — Ukban and Rural Popxtlation, by Color and
[The percentages of increase in this table represent the growth of the urban and rural popuZo^ion, respective-
for the reason that certain places, by reason of the growth or decline in their population, passed from the
between 1910 and 1920 in the total territory urban in 1920 was 25.7, and the corresponding percentage for
[.\ minus sign (— ) denotes decrease.]
DIVISION, STATE, AND CENSUS YEAR.
Middle Atlantic.
New York:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
New Jersey:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Pennsylvania:
1920
1910
Per cent of Increase
East North Central.
Ohio:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Indiana:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Illinois:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Michigan:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Wisconsin:
1920
1010
Per cent of increase
West North Central.
Minnesota:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Iowa:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Missouri:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
North Dakota:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
South Dakota:
1920
1910 •.
Per cent of increase
Nebraska:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Kansas:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
■ Includes
URBAN population.
Total.i
8,589,844
7,185,494
19.5
2, 474, 936
1, 907, 210
29.8
5, 607, 815
4,630,669
21.1
3, 677, 136
2, 665, 143
38.0
1, 482, 855
1,143,835
29.6
4,403,153
3, 476, 929
26.6
2, 241, 560
1,327,044
1, 244, 568
1,004,320
23.9
1,051,593
850,294
23.7
875, 495
680, 054
28.7
1,586,903
1,398,817
13.4
88,239
63,236
39.5
101,872
76, 673
32.9
405, 306
310,8.^)2
30.4
617,964
493, 790
25.1
White.
Native. Foreign-born.
5, 809, 720
4, 578, .556
26.9
1,752,736
1,291,286
35.7
4,339,518
3, 454, 602
25.6
2, 949, 461
2, 105, 641
40.1
1,291,795
983, 630
31.3
3, 191, 148
2,390,991
33.5
1,663,124
967, 108
72.0
9S5, 382
744,991
32.3
801,114
598, 280
33.9
769. 731
579, 682
32.8
1,303,223
1,119,759
16.4
71,497
47, 596
50.2
89,139
63, 572
40.2
333, 195
246. 732
35.0
535,315
4 IS, 775
27. H
2,585,350
2,482,487
4.1
628, 402
5-19, 274
14.4
1,02.5,929
1,017,716
0.8
570,449
476,502
19.7
118,813
111,396
6.7
1, 046, 677
997,890
4.9
521,554
347, 078
50.3
254, 133
256,425
-0.9
241,463
245,042
-1.5
90,019
90,353
-0.4
148,813
173, 795
-14.4
16, 161
15, 169
6.5
12,150
12, 498
-2.8
59, 346
57, (Xi5
4.1
39, 4.32
37,8<>4
4.3
Negro.
18.1,212
117,486
57.6
92,328
65,427
41.1
239,892
156,333
53.4
155,975
82,282
71,813
48,425
48.3
161,728
85,538
89.1
55,006
12. 156
352.5
4,351
2,141
103.2
8,250
6,518
15,345
9,786
56.8
134, 167
104, 462
2S.4
272
306
-11.1
340
412
-17.5
12, 121
6,621
83.1
42,096
36, 19t)
16.3
Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
DETAILED TABLES
229
Nativity, for Divisions and States: 1920 and 1910 — Continued.
ly, but do not represent the actual increase in the population of urban and rural areas cm constituted in 19S0,
rural to the urban or from the urban to the rural class between 1910 and 1920. The percentage of increase
the total territory nu-al in 1920 was 5.4. (See Table 39, pp. 60 and 61, Vol. I, Fourteenth Census Reports.)]
[A minus sijgn (— ) denotes decrease.]
DmSION, STATE, AND CENSUS YEAR.
Middle Atlantic.
New York:
1920
1910
Percent of increase
New Jersey:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Pennsylvania:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
East North Central.
Ohio:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Indiana:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Illinois:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Michigan:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Wisconsin:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
West North Central.
Minnesota:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Iowa:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Missouri:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
North Dakota:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
South Dakota:
1920
1910
P«r cent of increase
Nebraska:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Kansas:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase . .'
' Includes
RURAL POPXnjlTION.
Total.!
1, 795, 3S3
1, 928, 120
-6.9
680,964
629, 957
8.1
3,112,202
3, 034, 442
2.6
2, 082, 258
2, 101, 978
-0.9
1, 447, 535
1, 557, 041
-7.0
2, 082, 127
2, 161, 662
-3.7
1, 426, 852
1, 483, 129
-3.8
1, 387, 499
1, 329, 540
4.4
1, 335, 532
1, 225, 414
9.0
1, 528, 526
1,544,717
-1.0
1, 817, 152
1, 894, 518
-4.1
558,633
513, 820
8.7
534,675
507,215
5.4
891,066
881,362
1.1
1,151,293
1, 197, 159
-3.8
White.
Native. Foreign-born.
1, 576, 195
1, 659, 017
-5.0
545, 738
496,420
9.9
2, 705, 358
2, 574, 392
5.1
1, 943, 736
1,952,011
-0.4
1,406,408
1, 497, 009
-6.1
1, 901, 234
1,983,411
-1.7
1,211,868
1, 222, 615
-0.9
1, 171, 428
1, 062, 995
10.2
1, 081, 658
917, 937
17.8
1, 388, 803
1, 356, 025
2.4
1, 735, 795
1, 786, 277
-2.8
436,954
366,101
19.4
447,617
399, 571
12.0
796, 372
757, 696
5.1
1, 063, 013
1, 080, 387
-1.6
200,762
246,785
-18.6
110,211
108, 914
1.2
361,921
421,003
-14.0
108,248
120,743
-10.3
.32, 055
47, 926
-33.1
160,274
204,670
-21.7
205,081
248,446
-17.5
205,995
256,144
-19.6
244,701
297,968
-17.9
135, 628
183, i:ji
-25.9
37, 213
55, 101
-32.5
115, 342
140,989
-18.2
70,241
88,130
-20.3
90,306
118,830
-24.0
71,146
97,386
-26.9
Negro.
13,271
16,705
-20.6
24,804
24,333
1.9
44,676
37,586
18.9
30, 212
29,170
3.6
8,997
11, 895
-24.4
20, .M6
23,511
-12.6
5,076
4,959
2.4
850
759
12,0
559
566
-1.2
3,660
5,187
-29.4
44,074
52,990
-16.8
195
311
-37.3
492
405
21.5
1,121
1,068
5.0
15,829
17,834
-11.2
Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
230
INCREASE OF POPULATION; 1910-1920.
Table 54. — Urban* and Rural Popilation, by Color and
[The percentages of increase in this table repre^-ient the growth of the urban and rural p')j:tUation,Tespcctiye-
tor the reason that certain places, by reason of the growth or decline in their population, pas^d from the
between 1910 and 1920 in the total territory urban in 1920 was 25.7, and the corresponding percentage for
[.V minus sign (— ) denotes decrease.]
DIVTSION, STATE, AND CENSUS TEAR.
SotJTH Atlantic.
Delaware:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Maryland:
i920
1910
Per cent of increase
District of Columbia:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Virginia:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
West Virginia:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
North Carolina:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
South Carolina:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Georgia:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Florida:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
East South Central.
Kentucky:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Tennessee:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Alabama:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Mississippi:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
West South Central.
Arkansas:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Louisiana: i
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
1 Includes
urban population.
Total.i
120, 767
97,085
24.4
869,422
658,192
32.1
437,571
331,069
32.2
673, 984
476, 529
41.4
369,007
228,242
61.7
490,370
318, 474
54.0
293, 987
224, 832
30.8
727,859
538,650
35.1
355,825
219,080
62.4
633,543
555,442
14.1
611,226
441,045
38.6
509,317
370, 431
37.5
210, 121
207,311
15.8
290,497
202,681
43.3
628,163
496, 516
26.5
White.
Native.
90,919
71,843
26.6
656, 770
477. 984
37.4
298,312
211,777
40.9
445,247
304, 478
46.2
326,671
197, 130
65.7
330,852
199, 342
66.0
173, 142
119,045
45.4
442,170
301,848
46.5
205, 517
105, 787
94.3
506,508
418,602
21.0
429,189
277,833
54.5
301, 227
203,145
4S.3
137, 229
107, 228
28.0
211, 251
137, 272
53.9
4(M,612
301,918
34.0
Foreign-born.
16, 815
14,060
19.6
87,740
80,598
28,548
24,351
17.2
19,226
13,681
40.5
19,755
15,653
26.2
4,239
3,090
36.9
4,224
4,044
4.5
12,432
11,758
5.7
29,509
24,515
20.4
21,561
30,125
-28.4
11,48-1
12,598
-8.8
11,183
10,611
5.4
4,179
4,598
-9.1
5,590
6,054
-7.7
32,609
33,257
-1.9
Negro.
12,992
11, 157
16.4
124,509
99,230
25.5
109,966
94, 446
16.4
209,134
158, 218
32.2
22,484
15,380
46.2
155,165
115,975
33.8
116, 439
101,702
14.5
273,036
224,826
21.4
120,596
88,586
36.1
105,393
106,631
-1.2
170,464
150,506
13.3
196,833
156,603
25.7
98, 626
95, 357
3.4
73, 592
59, 147
2-1.4
190, 413
160,845
lit. 4
Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
DETAILED TABLES.
231
Nativity, for Divisions and States: 1920 and 1910 — Continued.
ly, but do not represent theactual increase in the population of urban and rural areas as amstituUd in 192G,
rural to the urban or from the urban to the rural class between 1910 and 1920. The percentage of increase
the totaltcrritory rural in 1920 was 5.4. (Sec Table 39, pp. 60 and 61, Vol.1, Fourteenth Census Reports.)]
[A minus sign ( — ) denotes decrease.]
DI\aSION, STATE, AND CENSUS YEAR.
South Atlantic.
Delaware:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase. .
Maryland:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase. .
District of Columbia:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase. .
Virginia:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase. .
West Virginia:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase. .
North Carohna:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase. .
South Carohna:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase. .
Georgia:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase. . .
Florida:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase . . ,
RURAL POPUXATION.
Total.i
102,236
105, 237
-2.9
580,239
637,154
-8.9
White.
Native.
81,886
81,839
0.1
445,790
480,481
-7.2
Foreign-born.
2,995
3,360
-10.9
14,437
23,576
-38.8
Nogro.
17,343
20,024
-13.4
119,970
133,020
-9.8
East South Centr.\.l.
Kentucky:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Tennessee:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase ,
Alabama:
1920
1910 ,
Per cent of increase
Mississippi:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
West South Central.
Arkansas:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase .
Louisiana:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase .
,635,203
,585,083
3.2
,094,694
992,877
10.3
, 068, 753
, 887, 813
9.6
, 389, 737
, 290, .568
7.7
, 167, 973
,070,471
4.7
612, 645
533,539
14.8
783, 087
734,463
2.8
726, 659
743, 744
-1.0
.833, 857
767,662
4.0
550,497
589,803
-2.5
461, 707
371, 768
6.6
170,346
159, 872
0.9
1, 141, 877
1, 058, 703
7.9
988,653
902,615
1, 445, 828
1, 295, 227
11.6
638,995
5.54,062
15.3
1, 230, 758
1, 114, as2
10.4
389,628
304,005
2S.2
1, 643, 272
1, 569, 296
4.7
1, 441, 326
1, 415, 140
1.9
1, 128, 143
1, 006, 731
12.1
708, 714
669,494
5.9
1,054,531
976, 845
8.0
647,128
587,386
10.2
11,559
12, 947
-10.7
42,151
41, 419
1.8
2,860
2,846
0.5
2,177
2,010
8.3
3,754
3,314
13.3
13,499
9,327
44.7
9,219
9,928
-7.1
3,994
5,861
-31.9
6,479
8,345
-22.4
3,840
4,791
-19.8
8,385
10,855
-22.8
12,262
18,525
-33.8
480,883
512, 873
-6.2
63,861
48,793
30.9
608,242
581,868
4.5
748,230
734, 141
1.9
933, 329
952, 161
-2.0
208,891
220,083
-5.1
130,545
155,025
-15.8
281, 294
322,532
-12.8
703,819
751, 679
-6.4
836, .553
914, 130
-8.5
398, 628
383,744
3.9
509,844
553,029
-7.8
' Includes Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
232
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 54. — Urban and Rural Population, by Color and
{The percentages of increase in this table represent the growth of the urban and rural populaiion, respective-
for the reason that certain planes, by reason of the growth or decline in their population, passed from the
between 1910 and 1920 in the total territory urban in 1920 was 2.5.7, and the corresponding percentage for
[A minus sign (— ) denotes decrease.]
DIVISION, ST.^TE, AND CENSUS YEAE.
West South CENXRAi^-Continued.
Oklahoma:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
Texas:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
MOUNTAIN.
Montana:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
Idaho:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
Wyoming:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
Ck)lorado:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
New Mexico:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
Arizona:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
Utah:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase .
Nevada:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase .
Pacific.
Washington:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
Oregon:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
California:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase.
URBAN POPtJLATION.
Total.'
539,480
320,155
68.5
1, 512, 689
938,104
61.2
172,011
133,420
28.9
119, 037
69, 898
70.3
57,348
43,221
32.7
453,259
404,840
IZO
64,960
46,571
39.5
117, 527
63,260
85.8
215,584
172,934
24.7
15,254
13,367
14.1
748,735
605,530
23.6
391, 019
307, 060
27.3
2, 331, 729
1, 409, 739
58.6
White.
Native. Foreign-bom.
472, 154
267,292
76.6
L 120, 137
672,443
66.6
136,933
95,875
42.8
106,426
59,123
80.0
47,449
33,202
42.9
383,167
330,458
16.0
57,484
41,498
38.5
84,629
43,166
96.1
181, 159
137,490
31.8
12,189
10,148
20.1
579,856
450,599
28.7
322,583
240,025
34.4
1, 765, 991
1,075,415
64.2
14,211
11,406
24.6
168,050
86,091
95.2
32,763
34,656
-5.5
11,124
9,481
17.3
8,437
8,242
2.4
59,626
63,698
-6.4
5,665
4,090
38.5
28,910
17,189
68.2
32,311
33,394
-3.2
2,603
2,581
0.9
149,686
139,582
7.2
61,508
57, 070
7.8
472, 576
331,836
42.4
Negro.
47,904
36,982
29.5
223,373
178,864
24.9
1,270
1,455
-12.7
645
426
51.4
833
1,041
-20.0
9,364
9,359
0.1
861
795
8.3
2,631
1,310
loas
1,006
959
4.9
68
101
-3Z7
6,782
4,699
23.0
1,844
1,264
45.9
33,888
18,399
84.2
> Includes Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
DETAILED TABLES.
233
Nativity, for Divisions and States: 1920 and 1910 — Continued.
ly, but do not represent the actual increase In the population of urban and niral areas as constituted in 19S0,
rural to the urban or from the urban to the rural class between 1910 and 1920. The percentage of increase
the total territory rural in 1920 was 5.4. (See Table 39, pp. 60 and 61, Vol. I, Fourteenth Census Reports.))
(A minus sign (— ) denotes decrease.)
DIVISIOK, STATE, AND CENSUS YEAR.
West South Central— Continued
Oklahoma:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Texas:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Mountain.
Montana:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Idaho:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Wyoming:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Colorado:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
New Mexico:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Arizona:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Utah:
1920
1910
Pct cent of increase
Nevada:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
PAcmc.
Washington:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
Oregon:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
California:
1920
1910
Per cent of increase
RURAL POPtnJinON.
Totai.i
1,488,803
1, 337, 000
11.4
3, 150, 539
2, 958, 438
6.5
376, 878
242, 633
55.3
312, 829
255,696
22.3
137, 054
102, 744
33.4
486, 370
394, 184
23.4
295,390
280, 730
5.2
216, 635
141,094
53.5
233,812
200,417
16.7
62,153
68,508
-9.3
607,886
536,460
13.3
392, 370
365, 705
7.3
1, 095, 132
907, 810
20.6
White.
Native.
1,309,072
1, 137, 155
15.1
2, 437, 509
2, 292, 421
6.3
303,707
173, 061
75.5
280,279
219,671
27.6
117,442
79,998
46.8
423,982
326,106
30.0
248,112
240,442
3.2
128, 721
81, 478
58.0
204,287
165,700
23.3
43,708
46,129
-5.2
489,866
417, 315
17.4
344,412
312,064
10.4
817,058
667,007
22.5
Foreign-born.
25,757
28, 678
-10.2
192,469
153,893
25.1
60,857
56,988
6.8
27,839
30,946
-10.0
16, 818
18 876
-10.9
57, 328
63,153
-9.2
23,412
18,564
26.1
49,189
29,635
66.0
24,144
29,999
-19.5
12,199
15, 418
-20.9
100,369
101, 615
-1.2
40,643
45,931
-11.5
209,086
185,414
12.8
Negre.
101,504
100,630
0.9
518,321
511, 185
1.4
379
2.4
275
22i
22.2
542
1,194
-54.6
1,954
2,094
-6.7
4,872
833
484.9
5,374
699
668.8
440
185
137.8
278
412
-32.5
1,101
1,359
-19.0
300
228
3U6
4,875
3,246
50.2
' Includes Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
234
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 55. — Nattv^e Whites op Native Parentage in Total, Urban,
DmSION, STATE, AN'D CEV3U3 YEAR.
COMBINED TTBBAN AND RCRAL POPULATION.
Total.
Native white, native
parentage.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
105,710,620
91,972,266
58,421,957
49,488,575
55.3
53.8
7,400,909
6,552,681
2,803,149
2,613,419
37.9
39.9
22,261,144
19,315,892
9,631,012
8,462,961
43.3
43.8
21,475,543
18,250,621
11,790,370
9,751,968
54.9
53.4
12,544,249
ll,a37,921
7,475,548
6,523,687
59.6
56.1
13.990,272
12,194,895
8,779,416
7,341,205
62.8
60.2
8,893,307
8,409,901
6,092,782
5,452,492
68.5
64.8
10,242,224
8,784,534
6,959,785
5,767,449
68.0
65.7
3,336,101
2,633,517
2,002,508
1,468,624
60.0
55.7
5,566,871
4,192,304
2,887,387
2,108,770
51.9
50.3
768,014
742,371
495,780
494,907
64.6
66.7
443,083
430,572
225,512
230,231
50.9
53.5
352,428
355,956
228,325
229,382
64.8
64.4
3,852,356
3,366,416
1,230,773
1,103,429
31.9
32.8
604,397
542,610
173,553
159,821
28.7
29.5
1,380,631
1,114,756
449, 206
395,frJ9
32.5
35.5
10,385,227
9,113,614
3,668,206
3,230,325
35.3
35.4
3,155,900
2,537,167
1,212,675
1,009,909
38.4
39.8
8,720,017
7,665,111
4,750,071
4,222,727
54.6
55.1
United State.-;:
1920
1910
GEOGRAPHIC DR^ISIONS.
New England:
1920
1910
Middle Atlantic:
1920
1910
East North Central:
1920
1910
West North Central:
1920
1910
South Atlantic:
1920
1910
East South Central:
1920
1910
West South Central:
1920
1910
Mountain:
1920
1910
Pacific:
1920
1910
New England.
Maine:
1920
1910
New Hampshire:
1920
1910
Vermont:
1920
1910
Massachusetts:
1920
1910
Rhode Island:
1920
1910
Connecticut:
1920
1910
Middle Atlantic.
New York:
1920
1910
New Jersey:
1920
1910
Pennsylvania:
1920
1910
DETAILED TABLES.
235
AND Rural Population, by Divisions and States: 1920 and 1910.
UKBA>f POPULATION.
RiniAL POPULATION.
Per cent
urban in
total pop-
ulation.
Native white, native
parentage.
Native white, native
parentage.
Total.
Total
Number.
Per cent
of total.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
54,304,603
42, 166, 120
24,556,729
17,621,230
45.2
41.8
51,406,017
49, 806, 146
33,865,228
31,867,345
65.9
64.0
51.4
45.8
1
2
5,865,073
4,998,082
1,867,235
1,619,070
31.8
32.4
1,535,836
1,554,599
935,914
994,349
60.9
64.0
79.2
76.3
3
4
16,672,595
13,723,373
5,976,653
4,718,463
35.8
34.4
5,588,549
5,592,519
3,654,359
3,744,498
65.4
67.0
74.9
71.0
5
6
1.3,049,272
9,617,271
5, 970, 956
4,014,669
4.5.8
41.7
8,426,271
8,633,350
5,819,414
5,737,299
69.1
66.5
60.8
52.7
7
8
4,727,372
3,873,716
2,627,908
1,984,327
55.6
51.2
7,816,877
7, 764, 205
4, .847, 640
4,539,360
62.0
58.5
37.7
33.3
9
10
4,338,792
3,092,153
2,559,203
1,675,819
59.0
54.2
9,651,480
9,102,742
6,220,213
5,665,386
64.4
62.2
31.0
25.4
11
12
1,994,207
1,574,229
1,231,225
856,826
61.7
54.4
6,899,100
6,835,672
4, 861, 557
4,595,666
70.5
67.2
22.4
18. 7
13
14
2,970,829
1,9.57,456
1,904,3^86
1,142,636
6-t.l
58.4
7,271,395
6,827,078
5,055,399
4,624,813
69.5
67.7
29.0
22.3
15
16
1,214,980
947,511
695,078
491,829
57.2
51.9
2,121,121
1,680,006
1,307,430
974, 795
61.6
57.8
36.4
36.0
17
18
3,471,483
2,382,329
1,724,085
1,117,591
49.7
46.9
2,095,388
1,809,975
1,163,302
991, 179
55.5
54.8
62.4
56.8
19
20
299,569
262,248
153,986
137,519
51.4
52.4
468, 445
480, 123
341,794
357,388
73.0
74.4
39.0
35.3
21
22
279, 761
255,099
112,873
104,701
40.3
41.0
163,322
175,473
112,639
125,530
69.0
71.5
63.1
59.2
23
24
109,976
98,917
59,302
49,623
53.9
50.2
242,452
257,039
169,023
179,759
69.7
69.9
31.2
27.8
25
26
3,650,248
3,125,367
1,116,638
962,238
30.6
30.8
202, 108
241,049
114,135
141, 191
56.5
58.6
94.8
92.8
27
28
589,180
524,654
163,733
147,938
27.8
28.2
15,217
17,956
9,820
11,883
64.5
66.2
97.5
96.7
29
30
936,339
731,797
260,703
217,051
27.8
29.7
444,292
382, 959
188,503
178,598
42.4
46.6
67.8
65.6
31
32
8,589,844
7,185,494
2,487,080
1,955,409
29.0
27.2
1,795,383
1,928,120
1, 181, 186
1,274,916
65.8
66.1
82.7
78.8
33
34
2,474,936
1,907,210
837,624
639,962
33.8
33.6
680,964
629,957
375,051
369,947
55.1
58.7
78.4
75.2
35
36
5,607,815
4,630,669
2,651,949
2,123,092
47.3
45. S
3,112,202
3,034,442
2,098,122
2,099,635
67.4
69.2
64.3
60.4
37
38
236
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 55. — Native Whites of Native Parentage in Total, Urban, and
DIVISION, STATE, AND CENSUS YEAB.
CX3UBINSD UEBAN AND BUBAL POPULATION.
Total.
Native white, native
parentage.
Per cent
of total.
East Nobth Centbal.
Ohio:
1920
1910
Indiana:
1920
1910
Illinois:
1920
1910
Michigan:
1920
1910
Wisconsin:
1920
1910
West Nobth Centbal.
Minnesota:
1920
1910
Iowa:
1920
1910
Missouri:
1920
1910
North Dakota:
1920
1910
South Dakota:
1920
1910
Nebraska:
1920
1910
Kansas:
1920
1910
South Atlantic.
Delaware:
1920
1910
Maryland:
1920 ,
1910
District of Columbia:
1920
1910
Virginia:
1920
1910
West Virginia:
1920
1910
North Carolina:
1920
1910
South Carolina:
1920
1910
Georgia:
1920
1910
Florida:
1920
1910
,759,394
, 767, 121
, 930, 390
, 700, 876
,485,280
,638,591
,668,412
, 810, 173
,632,067
,333.860
387,125
075,708
404,021
224, 771
404,055
293,335
646,872
577,056
636,547
583,888
,296,372
, 192, 214
, 769, 257
.690,949
223,003
202,322
,4-19,661
,295,846
437,571
331,069
300,187
061,612
468, 701
221,119
559, 123
206,287
683, 724
515, 400
895, 832
609, 121
968, 470
752,610
3,669,122
3,033,259
2,329,544
2,130,088
3,066,563
2,600,555
1,670,447
1,224,841
1,054,694
763,225
827,627
575,081
1, 52<<, 553
1,303,526
2,536,936
2, 387, 835
207,966
162, 461
308, 598
245,652
757,064
642, 075
1,308,801
1,207,057
139, S76
127,809
893,088
766,627
239,488
166,711
1,534,494
1,325,238
1,2:52,S.''>7
1,042,107
1,765,203
1,485,718
799,418
061,970
1.642,697
1,391,058
532. 295
3r3,967
63.7
63.6
79.5
78.9
47.3
46.1
45.5
43.6
40.1
32.7
34.7
27.7
63.6
58.6
74.5
72.5
32.1
28.2
48,5
42.1
58.4
53. 9
74.0
71.4
62.7
63.2
61.6
59.2
54.7
50.4
66.5
64.3
84.2
85.3
69.0
67.3
47.5
43.7
56.7
5.1.3
.^l.
49.7
DETAILED TABLES.
237
Rural Population, by Divisions and States: 1920 and 1910 — Continued.
URBAN POPtn,ATION.
RURAL POPULATION.
1
Percent
i urban in
totalpop-
. ulation.
Total.
Native white, native
parentage.
Total.
Native white, native
parentage.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
3,677,136
2,665,143
1,996,363
1,360,068
54.3
51.0
2, 082, 258
2, 101, 978
1, 672, 759
1,673,191
80.3
79.6
63.8
55.9
1
2
1,482,855
1, 143, 835
1,043,866
775,755
70.4
67.8
1,447,5.35
1, 557, Ml
1,285,678
1,354,333
83.8
87.0
50.6
42.4
3
4
4,403,153
3,476,929
1,583,665
1, 122, 044
36.0
32.3
2, 082, 127
2, 161, 662
1,482,898
1,478,511
71.2
68.4
67.9
61.7
5
6
2,241,560
1,327,044
902, 177
470, 803
40.2
35.5
1,426,852
1,483,129
768,270
754,038
53.8
50.8
61.1
47.2
7
8
1,244,568
1,004,320
444,885
285,999
35.7
28.5
1,387,499
1,329,540
609,809
477,226
44.0
35.9
47.3
43.0
9
10
1,051,593
850,294
356,046
248, 321
33.9
29.2
1,335,532
1,225,414
471,581
326,760
35.3
26.7
44.1
41.0
11
13
S75, 495
680, OM
552, 275
395, 577
63.1
58.2
1, 528, 526
1,544,717
976, 278
907,949
63.9
58.8
36.4
30.6
13
14
1,586,903
1,398,817
949, 293
768,923
59.8
55.0
1, 817, 152
1, 894, 518
1, 587, 643
1,618,912
87.4
85.5
46.6
42.5
15
18
88,239
63,236
36,448
23,814
41.3
37.7
558,633
513,820
171,518
13S,647
30.7
27.0
13.6
11.0
17
13
101, 872
76,673
58,251
39,523
57.2
51.5
534,675
507,215
2.50,347
206,129
46.8
40.6
16.0
13.1
19
20
405,306
310, 852
225,605
160,880
55.7
51.8
891,066
881, 362
531,459
481, 195
59.6
54.6
31.3
26.1
21
22
617,964
493, 790
449,990
347,289
72.8
70.3
1,151,293
1, 197, 159
858,814
859,768
74.6
71.8
34.9
29.2
23
24
120,767
97,085
63,747
51,323
52.8
52.9
102,236
105,237
76,129
76,486
74.5
72.7
54.2
43.0
25
26
869, 422
658,192
482, 491
333,781
55.5
50.7
580,239
637,154
410,597
4.32,846
70.8
67.9
60.0
50.8
27
28
437,571
331, 069
673,984
476, 529
239,488
166, 711
54.7
50.4
100.0
100.0
29
30
413, 778
283,140
61.4
59.4
1,63.5,203
1,585,083
1,120.716
1,042,098
68.5
65.7
29.2
23.1
31
32
369,007
228,242
288,802
170, 675
78.3
74.8
1, 094, 694
992,877
944, a55
871,432
86.2
87.8
25.2
13.7
33
34
490, 370
318, 474
324,229
194, 816
66.1
61.2
2,068,753
1,887,813
1,440,974
1.290,902
69.7
68.4
19.2
14.4
35
36
293,987
224,832
164,425
111,531
55.9
49.6
1,389,737
1,290,568
634,993
550,439
45.7
42.7
17.5
14.8
37
38
727, 859
538,650
419, 1&3
282, 493
57.6
52.4
2,167,973
2,070,471
1,223,514
1,108,565
56.4
53.5
2.5.1
20.6
39
40
3.>5, 825
219,080
163,060
81,349
45.8
37.1
612,645
533,539
369,235
292,618
60.3
54.8
36.7
29.1
41
42
238
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 55. — Native Whites of Native Parentage in Total, UrbaK, and
Drv-ISION, STATE, AND CENSUS YEAB.
COMBINED imBAN AND BtntAL POPULATION.
Total.
Native white, native
parentage.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
1
East South Central.
Kentucky:
1920
2,416,630
2.289,905
2.337.885
12,184,789
2.348.174
2,138,093
1.790.618
1,797,114
1,752,204
1,574,449
1,798.509
1,656.388
2,028.283
1.657,155
4,663,228
3, 896, 542
548,889
376,053
431.866
325,. 594
194.402
145,965
939.629
799,024
360,350
327,301
334, 162
204,354
449,396
373.351
77,407
81,875
1,356.621
1.141,990
783,389
672,765
3.426,861
2,377,549
2,039.134
1,863,194
1,832.757
1,654,606
1,394,129
1.177.459
826.762
757.233
1.226,692
1,077,509
941,724
776,587
1.679,107
1,310,403
3,112.262
2,602,950
275.803
162, 127
294.252
203,599
122.884
80,696
603.041
475. 136
273,317
255,609
151,145
82,468
245,781
171,663
36.285
35,326
711,706
585,386
497,726
416,851
1,677.955
1,106,533
84.4
81.4
78.4
75.7
59.4
55.1
46.2
42 1
70.0
68.4
52.4
46.9
82.8
79.1
66.7
66.8
50.2
43.1
68.1
62.5
63.2
55.3
64.2
59.5
75.8
78.1
45.2
40.4
54.7
46.0
46.9
43.1
52.5
51.3
63.5
62.
49.
46.5
?,
1910
3
Tennessee:
1920
4
1910
f)
Alabama:
1920
6
1910
7
Missis.sippi:
1920
8
1910..
9
West South Central.
Arkansas:
1920
in
1910
n
Louisiana:
1920 .
1?
1910
13
Oklahoma:
1920
14
1910 . . .
15
Texas:
1920 . .
16
1910
17
Mountain.
Montana:
1920
18
1910
19
Idaho:
20
1910
?1
1920
??
1910
?3
Colorado:
?4
1910
05
1920
26
1910
V
Arizona:
2>S
1910
?9
Utah:
1920
30
1910
31
Nevada:
^?
1910
33
Paqfio.
Washington:
1920
34
1910 ,
35
<JreRon:
1920
36
1910
37
California:
38
1910
DETAILED TABLES.
239
Rural Population, by Divisions and States: 1920 and 1910 — Continued.
tJBBAK POPULATION.
RURAL POPULATION.
I
Per cent
1 urban in
total pop-
i ulation.
Total.
Native white, native
parentage.
Total.
Native white, native
parentage.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
Number.
Per cent
of total.
1
633,543
555,442
422, SOS
323, 488
60.8
58.2
1,783,087
1,734,463
1,616,236
1,539,706
90.6
88.8
26.2
24.3
1
2
611,226
441,045
402,3.59
252,188
65.8
57.2
1,726,6,59
1,743,744
1,*30,398
1,402,418
82.8
80.4
! 26.1
1 20.2
3
4
509,317
370,431
278,827
184,386
54.7
49.8
1,838,857
1,767,662
1,115,302
993,073
60.7
56.2
21.7
17.3
5
6
240, 121
207,311
127, 141
96,764
52.9
46.7
1,550,497
1,589,803
699,621
660,469
45.1
41.5
13.4
11.5
7
8
290,497
202,681
195,777
123,733
67.4
61.0
1,461,707
1,371,768
1,030,915
953,776
70.5
69.5
16.6
12.9
9
10
628,163
496,516
320,229
217,517
51.0
43.8
1,170,346
1, 159, 872
621,495
559,070
53.1
48.2
34.9
30.0
11
12
.539,480
320, 155
437,374
243, 172
81.1
76.0
1, 488, .803
1,337,000
1,241,733
1,067,231
83.4
79.8
26.6
19.3
13
U
1,512,689
938, 104
951,006
558,214
62.9
59.5
3,150,539
2,958,438
2,161,2.56
2,044,736
68.6
69.1
32 4
24.1
15
16
172,011
133,420
81,508
53,774
47.4
40.3
376,878
242,633
194,295
108,353
.51.6
44.7
31.3
35.5
17
18
119,037
69,898
80,213
43,808
67.4
62.7
312,829
255, 696
214,039
159,791
68.4
62.5
27.6
21.5
19
20
57,348
43,221
33,705
22,365
58.8
51.7
137, a54
102, 744
89, 179
58,331
65. 1
56.8
29.5
29.6
21
22
4.53,259
404,840
276,329
230,544
61.0
56.9
486,370
394,184
326,712
244,592
67.2
62.1
48.2
50.7
23
24
64,960
46,571
48,859
34,473
7.5.2
74.0
295,390
280,730
224,458
221, 136
76.0
78.8
18.0
14.2
25
26
117,527
63,260
58,330
26,644
49.6
42.1
216,635
141,094
92,815
5.5,824
42.8
39.6
35.2
31.0
27
28
215,584
172,934
108,034
73,559
50.1
42.5
233,812
200,417
137,747
98,104
58.9
48.9
48.0
46.3
29
30
15,2.54
13,367
8,100
6,662
53.1
49.8
62,153
68,508
28,185
28,664
45.3
41.8
19.7
16.3
31
32
748, 735
605,530
373,611
294,854
49.9
48.7
607,886
536,460
338,095
290, .532
55.6
54.2
5.5.2
53.0
33
34
391,019
307,060
227, .549
170,078
58.2
55.4
392,370
365, 7a5
270,177
246,773
68.9
67.5
49.9
45.6
35
36
2,331,729
1,469,739
1,122,925
652,659
48.2
44.4
1,09.5,132
907, 810
.5.55,030
453,874
50.7
50.0
68.0
61.8
37
38
240
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 56.— Proportion Native White of Native Parentage in Population
OF Cities Having, in 1920, 100,000 Inhabitants or More: 1920 and 1910.
Akron, Ohio
Albany, N. Y
Atlanta, Ga
Baltimore, Md
Birmingham, Ala.
Boston, Mass
Bridgeport, Conn.
Buflalo,N.Y
Cambridge, Mass. .
Camden, N.J
Chicago, HI
Cincinnati, Ohio. .
Cleveland, Ohio...
Columbus, Ohio. . .
Dallas, Tex
Dayton, Ohio
Denver, Colo
Des Moines, Iowa
Detroit, Mich
Fall River, Mass
Fort Worth, Tex
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Hartford, Conn.
Houston, Tex
Indianapolis, Ind
Jersey City, N.J
Kansas City, Kans...
Kansas City, Mo
Los Anseles, Calif...
Louisville, Ky
Lowell, Mass
Memphis, Tenn
Milwaukee, Wis
Minneapohs, Minn. .
Nashville, Tenn
New Bedford, Mass.
New Haven, Conn. .
New Orleans, La
New York, N.Y....
Newark, ^l. J
Norfolk, Va
Oakland, CaUf
Omaha, Nebr
Paterson, N.J
Philadelphia, Pa
Pittsburgh, Pa
Portland, Oreg
Providence, R.I
Reading, Pa
Richmond, Va
Rochester, N.Y
St. Louis, Mo
8t. Paul, Minn
Salt Lake City, Utah.
San Antonio, Tex —
San Francisco, CaUf .
Scranton, I'a
Seattle, Wash
Spokane, Wash
Springfield, Mass
Syracuse, N.Y
Toledo, Ohio
Trenton, N.J
Washington, D.C...
Wilmington, Del —
Worcester, Mass
Yonkers, N.Y
Youngslown, Ohio. .
TOTAL POPULATION.
1020
Total 27,429,326
208,435
113,344
200,616
733,826
17!H,S06
748,060
143,555
505, 775
109,694
116,309
2,701,705
401,247
796,841
237,031
158, 976
152,559
256, 491
126,468
993, 678
120, 485
106, 482
, 137,634
138, 036
138, 276
314,194
298, 103
101,177
324, 410
576, 673
234, 891
112,759
162,351
457, 147
380, 582
118,342
121,217
162, 537
387,219
5,620,048
414, 524
115,777
216,261
191,601
135, 875
1, 823, 779
588,343
258, 288
237, 595
107, 784
171,667
295,750
772,897
234, 698
118,110
161,379
1910
21,885,419
506,
137,
315,
1(M,
129,
171,
24:5,
119,
437,
110,
179,
100,
132,
676
783
312
437
614
717
164
289
571
16H
754
176
358
69,067
100,253
154,839
558,485
132, 685
670, 5S5
102,054
423,715
104,839
94,538
2, 185, 283
363, 591
560,663
181,511
92,104
116,577
213, 381
86,368
465,766
119, 295
73, 312
112,571
98,915
78,800
233,650
267, 779
82,331
248,381
319, 198
223,928
106,294
131, 105
373, 857
301, 408
110,364
96,652
133,605
339,075
4,766,883
347, 469
67, 452
150, 174
1 150, 355
125,600
1,549,008
533,905
207,214
224,326
96,071
127,628
218, 149
687,029
214,744
92,777
96,614
416,912
129,867
237, 194
104,402
88, 926
137, 249
168, 497
96,815
331,069
87, 41 1
145, 9K6
79,803
79,066
NATIVE WHITE OF
NATIVE PARENTAGE.
1920
9, 852, 391
1910
7,123,131
125, 079
56,265
124,948
378, 380
92,211
181,811
36, 816
165, 135
29,045
56,249
642,871
206,605
212,:il7
159,069
112,509
100,996
144,673
84,361
313,997
19, 168
75,515
66,079
40,327
72,433
219, 297
87,083
56,575
209,134
294,458
139, 403
24, 676
82, 795
130, 845
133, 178
74,022
20,098
44,401
190,641
1,164,834
113,413
57, 759
90,279
86,525
31,824
698, 782
216, 530
136, 216
63,728
81,000
102,956
111,976
359, 482
77, 378
56,234
76,299
167,179
48,715
139, 701
57,324
48, 945
80,072
12^1,055
44, 195
2:59, 488
56,868
50,716
30,059
46,459
37,793
44,473
91,987
261,474
66,312
157,870
27,156
119,692
25,615
49,581
445, 139
154, 937
132,314
116,846
59,746
72,301
106,945
53,785
115,106
15,858
50,139
40,777
31,011
37,181
150,593
74,861
48,021
153,717
169,967
113,543
20,703
59,985
78,823
96,186
63,687
18, 738
37,726
147, 473
921,318
94, 737
34, 471
55,198
I 61,416
28,392
584,008
176,089
104, 163
59,966
74,714
69, 130
74, 525
269,836
61,594
38,152
44,629
115,359
38, 745
105,784
54, 574
35, 732
58,408
75,117
38, 679
166,711
44, 937
41,421
21,640
25,595
PEE CENT OF
TOTAL
POPT7LATION.
1920 1910
35.9
60.0
49.6
62.3
51.6
51.6
24.3
25.6
32.6
26.5
48.4
23.8
51.5
26.6
67.1
70.8
66.2
56.4
66.7
31.6
15.9
70.9
40.7
29.2
52.4
69.8
29.2
55.9
64.5
51.1
59.3
21.9
51.0
28.6
35.0
62.5
16.6
27.3
49.2
20.7
27.4
49.9
41.7
45.2
23.4
38.3
36.8
52.7
26.8
75.2
60.0
37.9
46.5
33.0
47.6
47.3
33.0
35.4
44.3
M. 9
37.8
46.6
51.
37.0
54.7
51.6
28.2
30.0
35.1
» Includes population of South Omaha, consolidated with Omaha since 1910.
DETAILED TABLES.
241
Table 57. — Per Cent of Incre.\se by Nativity and According to Whether
Born in Division or State of Residence, 1910-1920, and Per Cent Distri-
bution BY Age and Marital Condition, 1920.
[In this laDle the divisions and states are arranged in descending order, the position of each division or state
being determined by the rate of increase in tlie population born and living in it.]
PER cent of increase OR DECREASE
(— ) IN popul.\.tion: 1910-1920.
age and marital condition of
native white and
total negro 1 population: 1920.
GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIOX
AND STATE.
Total.!
Bom and
Uving in
specified
division
or state.
Bom in
other
divisions
or states.
Foreign
born.
Per cent
under
15 years.
Per cent
15 to 44
years.
Per cent
45 years
and over.
Percent
mar-
ried,
15 to 44
j-ears.
United States . . .
14.9
16.7
ia4
3.0
36.0
45.9
lao
53.6
Pacific
32.8
26.7
16.6
15.2
17.7
7.8
12.9
14.7
5.7
14.9
42.4
3ai
20.7
ia5
17.9
16.9
16.2
12.6
6.5
16.2
32.3
24.4
1.0
33.3
39.2
-5.8
23.5
57.6
0.2
19.9
ia3
3.2
32.0
2.2
5.2
-14.9
3.3
10.2
-16.9
3.0
30.0
37.3
37.6
37.3
34.0
34.6
36.8
37.3
37.4
36.0
4a 4
46.6
46.8
44.5
46.8
47.6
42.8
45,5
44.9
45.9
21.3
15. 6
15.5
lai
19.1
17.6
20.3
17.1
17.6
lao
.54.0
Mountain
55.9
West South Central. . .
Middle Atlantic
East North Central....
West North Central." . .
New England
5a 2
49.1
53.9
52.8
44.9
South Atlantic
East South Central
United St.ites . . .
56.2
5a 2
53.6
Montana
46.0
32.6
22.4
las
33.2
12.1
44.1
63.5
17.6
9.0
16.4
20.4
30.5
24.4
23.9
15.0
a7
14.4
n.4
19.7
2a7
15.0
19.9
12.8
4.6
14.0
13.8
20.8
32.2
ai
-5.5
16.0
11.3
10.1
9.8
11.0
11.1
a5
a6
11.9
12.0
3.4
7.0
5.5
10.2
3.5
2.9
-0.4
-1.0
74.0
64.1
59.0
56.1
54.1
54.0
4a3
39.0
36.0
34.7
31.4
29.2
26.2
26.0
24.6
24.1
23.5
21.7
2L6
21.1
2L0
20.1
19.6
ia9
17.5
17.5
16.4
15.0
14.9
14.7
14.4
14.4
13.4
13.3
lae
9.8
9.4
as
as
7.9
7.4
7.2
6.5
5.1
4.3
3.4
3.4
2.0
51.6
26.4
5.8
a9
3a 6
-5.9
5a
84.2
14.4
-3.0
13,6
22.0
59.8
35.5
3a 4
24.2
-2.7
12.2
as
6.7
i%8
16.0
23.3
20.8
-5.8
26.1
30.8
61.9
4a4
3.6
-10.0
45.5
7.9
1.6
5.0
26.0
42.0
11.9
17.2
46.0
55.4
-0.2
12.5
14.9
24.9
16.9
11.4
-16.2
5.0
0.9
-4.3
(^)
3.5
-a 5
-15.8
29.2
65.2
-ai
-lai
-4.9
-10.1
22.0
12.4
14.8
-10.4
-14.7
Z8
-2.2
9.0
32.6
0.4
a5
-10.2
-lai
2.8
-3.5
13.7
17.9
-17.4
-ia7
19.4
-17.1
2a8
-6.5
7.0
6,5
-5.2
-12.0
-L7
17.2
-ia7
-15.9
-23.0
1.3.8
-2.5
-5.5
-13.9
-10.7
3a 4
3a6
3a
32.8
35.5
48.1
2a 6
37.9
33.5
39.6
30.9
42.9
36.3
3a 3
40.0
3a 6
35.9
37.6
3a 9
37.1
34.7
35.2
3a6
37.3
3.3.0
36.7
37.6
31.9
2L9
32.8
30.4
40.4
3a 6
39.0
39.3
3a6
41.0
3a4
37.1
31.7
36.2
S1.0
36.3
35.6
3L3
31.9
32,9
3a6
31.5
47.2
46.0
46.2
4a 5
50.4
43.6
4a 5
47.4
46.9
4a
4a
45.3
46.5
44.7
42.1
49.2
4a 3
43.5
43.9
47.6
46.7
47.4
44.5
47.7
46.7
45.1
43.9
46.6
56.1
47.5
49.2
43.5
44.9
44.7
44.4
45.4
44.6
45.8
47.3
47.5
45.4
47.5
45.2
44.9
45.7
41.7
41.1
45.0
41.7
14.0
15.4
15.6
las
13.7
ai
22.6
14.4
ia7
12.2
2L0
11.7
17.1
16.9
17.8
12.1
15.5
las
17 1
15.0
ia4
17.2
16.7
14.9
20.1
lai
ia4
21.4
21.7
19.6
2a2
16.0
16.4
16.2
16.2
15.9
14.3
23.7
15.3
2a7
las
2L4
ia4
19.4
22.7
26.2
25.8
16.2
26.7
55.8
Idaho
57.8
Oklahoma
60.4
Washington
54.7
57.7
North Dalcota
47.0
53.1
Arizona
55.7
Colorado
55.5
South Dakota
51.4
Oregon
56.0
Utah
55.3
51.8
New Jersey
49.4
Connecticut
44.8
Minnesota
44.9
Nebraska
53.3
Massachusetts
42.2
Rhode Island
42.0
Texas
56.9
Florida
5a 9
IllLnois
51.7
West Virginia
57.7
Wisconsin
4a 4
56.6
Niew York
46.8
Pennsylvania
51.5
Ohio
55.8
District of Columbia. . .
Iowa
47.9
53.8
Nevada
5.3.8
North Carolina
Arkansas
66.3
60.7
New Mexico
5.5.1
Alabama
5a 1
Georgia
5a 6
South Carolina
Indiana
56.7
58. 1
56.5
Marvland...
53.4
Virginia
54.3
Missouri
55.8
Tennessee
sas
Kentucky
58. 1
55.7
Main e
53.0
New Hampshire
4a 8
5S.6
Vermont
.52.7
> Native and foreign-born Negroes not tabulated separately by age groups.
* Includes persons born in United States, state of birth not reported; persons bora in outlying possessions,
or at sea under United States fiag; and persons of foreign birth whose parents were American citizens tem-
porarily absent from the United States.
5 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.
107°— 22-
-16
242
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 58. — Distribution of Total Population by Nativity and of Native
1920 AND
[In tliis table the divisions and states are arranged in descending order, the position of each division or
In it, as shown
GEOGEAPIIIC DIVISION AND STATE.
TOTAL POPULATION.! |
1
POPULATION BORN AKD
LIVING IN SPECIFIED
DIVISION OR STATE.
1920
1910
1920
1910
105,710,620
91,972,266
77,906,515
66,746,379
Pacific .
5,566,871
3,336,101
10,242,224
22,261,144
21,475 543
12, 544, 249
7,40>),909
13,990,272
8,893,307
105,710,620
4,192,304
2,633,517
8,784,534
19,315,892
18 250, 621
11,637,921
6,552,681
12,194,895
8,409,901
91,972,266
2,137,746
1,520,606
7, 658, 879
15,949,575
15, 7%, 227
8,893,937
5,040,243
12,718,854
8,190,448
71,071,013
1,501,287
1,101,006
6,347,452
Middle Atlantic .
13,461,446
13,402,685
West North Central
7,608,996
4,338,452
South Atlantic
11,292,714
East South Central
7,692,342
United States
61,185,305
Montana
548,889
431,866
2,028,283
1,356,621
194,402
646,872
3,426,861
334, 162
939,629
630,547
7S3,3£9
449,396
3,668,412
3,155,900
1,380,631
2,387,125
1,296,372
3,852,356
604,397
4,663,228
968,470
6,485,280
1,463,701
2,632,067
1,769,257
10,38.5,227
8,720,017
5,759,394
437,571
2,404,021
77,407
2,559,123
1,752,204
300,350
2,34.8,174
2,895,832
1,083,724
2,930,390
1,798,509
1,449,661
2,309,187
3,404,055
2,337,885
2,416,630
223,003
708,014
443,083
1,790,618
352,428
376,053
325,594
1,657.155
1,141,990
145,965
577, 056
2,377,549
204,354
799, 024
583, 888
672,765
373,351
2,810,173
2,537,167
1,114,756
2,075,708
1,192,214
3,366,416
542,610
3,896,542
752,619
5,638,591
1,221,119
2,333,860
1,690,949
9,113,614
7,665.111
4,767,121
331,069
2,224,771
81,875
2,206,287
1,574,449
327,301
2,138,093
2,609,121
1,515,400
2,700,876
1,656,388
1,295,346
2,061,612
3,293,335
2,184,789
2,289,905
202,322
742,371
430,572
1,797,114
355,956
172,818
148,028
819,229
410, 175
48,982
304,679
1,268,243
109, 776
317,506
303,260
295,723
314,006
2,223,333
1,693,459
756, 212
1,392,176
735, 442
2,265,287
324,792
3,306,311
560, 103
4,090,918
1,113,343
1,852,574
967,838
6,634,469
6,564,988
4,079,758
160, 109
1,624,606
24,761
2,391,258
1,196,930
209, 234
2,055,273
2,595,423
1,505,791
2,209,448
1,522,615
1,107,290
1,978,940
2, 382, 282
1,994,. 580
2,134,989
142,963
598,345
257,074
1,595,136
250,538
99,314
90,225
515,212
262,694
31,782
North Dakota
197,847
California
903,996
78,949
Colorado
233,516
South Dakota
225,125
Oregon .
225,102
Utah
243,054
1,761,085
1,344,164
Connecticut
607,074
Minnesota
1,121,376
595,551
Massachusetts
1,861,820
Rhode Island
267,116
Texas
2,730,757
Florida
463,003
3,406,638
West Virginia
931,077
Wisconsin
1,558,455
823,628
New York
5,647,063
Pennsylv^nift ,
.5,a-5><.263
hio. .".
3,546,991
District of Columbia
139,351
Iowa
1,416,584
Nevada
21,640
Nnrlh Carnlinq
2,a89,728
Arkansas
l,a'>5,940
New Mexico
184,749
1,857,916
Geor^a
2,361,349
South Carolina
1,431,028
Indiana
2,031,345
Louisiana
1,4(15,936
Maryland
1,026,355
Virginia
1,843,152
Missouri
2,222,925
Tennessee
1,873,227
Kentucky
2, Ml. 385
Delaware
137,131
578,739
New Hampshire
24.8,629
Mississippi.
1,563,839
Vermont
250,480
• Includes persons horn in the T^nilod States, slate of birth not reported; persons born in outlvinRros-
sessions, or at .sen under \Tnltcd Stitcs flaR; and persons of foreign birth whoso p.irenls were Ammc.in
citizens temporarily ab.sont from tlic I'nitod States.
DETAILED TABLES.
243
Population According to Whether Born in Division or State op Residence:
1910.
state being determined by the rale of increase between 1910 and 1920 in the population born and living
in Table 57.]
GEOGRArmC DIVISION
AND STATE.
POPULATION BORN
IN OTHER DIVISIONS
OB STATES.
FOREIGN-BORN
POPULATION.
PER CENT WHICH POPU-
LATION BORN AND
LIVING IN SPECIFIED
DIVISION OR .STATE
FORMED OF TOTAL
P(JPULATION LIVING
THEREIN.
1920
1910
1920
1910
19-20
1910
United States
13,438,948
11,349,040
13,920,692
13,515,886
73.7
72.6
2,237,089
1,315,787
2,066,629
1,264,649
2,367,738
2,216,017
449,015
909,047
612,977
20,274,450
1,691,505
1,057,610
2, 045, 529
948, 939
1,700,645
2,3.52,472
363,636
576,944
611,760
16,910,114
1,130, .561
467,620
464, 828
4,960,418
3,232,141
1,375,653
1,885,945
330,537
72,989
13,920,692
955, 809
453,322
352, 192
4,851,173
3,073,766
1,616,695
1,825,110
299. 994
87,825
13, 51.5, 886
38.4
45.6
74.8
71.6
73.6
70.9
68.1
90.9
92.1
67.2
35.8
Monntain
41.8
West South Central
Middle Atlantic
72.3
69.7
East North Central
West North Central
73.4
65.4
66.2
South Atlantic
92.6
East South Central
United States
91.5
66.5
Montana
274, 877
240, 313
1, 155, 880
662, 451
116,830
204, 092
1, 363, 951
137, 573
492,079
247, 194
374, 292
73, 999
697, 365
711,531
241, 805
499, 584
402,676
487, 242
102, 790
968,382
349, 624
1,156,685
283, 552
309, 809
681, 185
865, 523
744, 254
983,017
244,222
543, 565
35, 734
157, 990
533, 148
119,877
269,981
279, 246
109, 369
561,0.58
223,013
236, 134
293, 493
821,375
322, 329
247, 732
59,045
58, 475
91,9.50
183, 405
54, 748
177, 783
190,063
1,092,844
608, 226
84,269
216, 996
863, 236
74, 699
430, 264
254, 762
329, 538
60, 655
436,326
525,075
174,680
402, 137
414,056
434, 104
94,710
907,908
244,836
997, 189
229, 925
256, 529
722,968
686,616
569,204
607, 352
164,623
524, 774
39,700
108,605
494,075
117,9,54
257,031
221, 545
76,996
501,420
190,309
161,783
188,886
822, 738
286,419
215, 517
47, 285
50,009
82, ,562
218, 768
52, 165
95, 591
40,747
40, 432
265, 292
26,567
131,863
757,625
80, ,566
119,138
82, 534
107,644
59,200
729,292
742, 486
378,439
486,795
1.50,665
1,088,548
175, 189
363, 832
53,864
1,210, .584
62, 105
460, 485
110,967
2, 825, 375
1, 392, 557
680, 452
29, 365
225, 994
16,003
7,272
14, 137
29. 808
18,027
16,564
6, 582
151,328
46, 427
103, 179
31,705
186,835
15,648
30,906
19,901
107,814
91, 397
8,408
44,558
94,713
42, 578
40.442
256, 241
29,020
156,654
586, 432
48, 765
129, 587
100, 790
113, 136
65, 822
597, 550
660, 788
329, 574
543, 595
176,662
1,0.59,245
179, 141
241,938
40,633
1, 20.5, 314
57,218
512, 865
135,450
2,748,011
1,442,374
.598, 374
2-i f'f^?
273; 765
19, 691
6,092
17,046
23. 146
19,286
15.477
6,179
1.59,603
52, 766
104, 944
27,0.57
229, 779
18,607
40, 162
17, 492
110,562
96,667
9,770
49,921
31.5
34.3
40.4
30.2
2.5.2
47.1
37.0
32.9
33.8
47.6
37.7
69.9
60.6
53.7
54.8
58.3
.56.7
58.8
53.7
70.9
57.8
63.1
76.1
70.4
54.7
63.9
75.3
70.8
36.6
67.6
32.0
93.4
68.3
58.1
87.5
89.6
I 93.0
75. 4
t 84.7
1 76.4
! 85.7
: 70.0
85.3
88.3
64.1
77.9
1 58.
89.1
71.1
26.4
Idaho
27.7
31.1
Washinirton
23.0
21.8
North Dakota
34.3
CaUfornia
38.0
38.6
Colorado
29.2
South Dakota
38.6
33.5
Utah
65.1
Michigan
62.7
New .lerscv
53.0
Connecticut
54.5
54.0
Nebraska
50.0
Massachusetts
55.3
Bhode Island
49.2
Texas
70.1
Florida
61.5
60.4
West Virginia
76.2
Wisconsin
66.8
Kansas
48.7
New York
62.0
73.6
Ohio
74.4
District of Columbia
Iowa
42.1
63.7
Nevada
26.4
North CaroUna
94.7
67.1
56.4
Alabama
86.9
Georgia
90.6
South Carolina
ff4.4
Indiana
75.2
84.9
Marvland
79.2
Virginia
89.4
Missouri
67.5
Tennessee
85.7
Kentucky
8a7
Delaware
67.8
Maine
78.0
New Hampshire
57.7
Mississippi
Vermont
87.0
70.4
244
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 191(>-1920.
Table 59. — Distribution of Population According to Color, Nativity, and
Class to Total Increase, for
(The states for which figures are given in this table are those in which Xegroes constituted 5 per cent or
being determined by the rate of increase in the white
STATE AND CENSUS TEAR.
Olclahoma:
1920
1910
Florida:
1920
1910
Texas:
1920
1910
West Virginia:
1920
1910
Alabama:
1920
1910
South Carolina:
1920.
1910
North Carolina:
1920
1910
Arkansas:
1920
1910
Louisiana:
1920.
1910.
Georgia:
1920
1910
District of Columbia
1920
1910
Virginia:
1920
1910
Missis^pi:
im.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
Maryland:
1920
1910
Tennessee:
1920
1910
Missouri:
1920
1910
Kentucky:
1920
1910
Delaware:
1920
1910
Total
population.
2,028,283
1,657,155
%8,470
752,619
4,663,228
3, 896, 642
1,463,701
1, 221, 119
2,348,174
2,138,093
1,683,724
1,515,400
2, 559, 123
2, 206, 287
1,752,204
1,574,449
1,798,509
1,656,388
2,895,832
2,609,121
437, 571
331,069
2,309,187
2,061,612
1,790,618
1,797,114
1,449,661
1,295,346
2,337,885
2,184,789
3,404,055
3, 293, 335
2,416,630
2,289,905
223,003
202,322
Total
white
population.2
1,321,194
1, 444, 531
638,153
443,634
3,918,165
3, 204, 848
1,377,235
1, 156, 817
1,447,032
1, 228, 832
818, 538
679, 161
1,783,779
1,500,511
1,279,757
1,131,026
1,096,611
941,086
1,689,114
1,431,802
326,860
236, 128
1,617,909
1,389,809
853,962
786,111
1, 204, 737
1,062,639
1,885,993
1,711,432
3, 225, 044
3,134,932
2,180,560
2,027,951
192,015
171, 102
White
population
born and
living in
specilied
state.
702, 130
403,005
342,353
284,455
2,650,041
2,127,423
1,079,987
903,885
1, 213, 217
1,017,267
718,524
609,677
1,665,379
1,418,606
885,648
759,647
887,092
762,369
1,471,937
1,267,017
113,486
98,843
1,360,807
1, 219, 171
732,695
662, 897
910,534
824, 742
1,628,768
1,479,902
2,280,498
2,112,820
1,933,612
1,797,734
122,524
114,463
Whit«
population
born in
other
states.
1,068,052
994,338
250,440
143,503
886,806
825,846
231,288
193,320
213,626
190,952
92,445
62,878
109,612
75,073
375,105
349,789
160,368
122,163
198, 469
145,649
181,813
111,452
223,106
142,251
111,921
112,279
189,777
131,896
238,751
208,647
746, 767
777,207
213,855
187,998
49,445
38,884
Foreign -
born
white
popula-
tion.
39,968
40,084
43.008
33,842
360,519
239,984
61,906
57, 072
17,662
18,956
6,401
6,054
7,099
5,942
13,975
16,909
44,871
51,782
16,186
15,072
26,548
24,351
30,785
26,628
8,019
9,389
102, 177
104,174
15,478
18,459
186,026
228, 896
30,780
40, aw
19,810
17,420
* Includes Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
» Includes native white persons for whom state of birth was not roporlod, and white persons born In
outl>'iug possessions.
DETAILED TABLES.
245
Whether Born in State op Residence, with Ratio of Increase in Each
Selected St.\tes: 1920 and 1910.
more of the total population in 1920. The states are arranged in dc-;ccnding order, the position of each
id 1' ■ ■ ■
population born and living in it, as shown in Table CO.]
Total
Negro
popula-
tion. a
Negro
popula-
tion born
and living
in speci-
fied state.
Negro
popula-
tion born
in other
states.
RATIO (PER CEirr) OF INCREA.SE IM SPECTFIED POPULATION
CLASS TO INCREASE IN TOTAL POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Total
white
popula-
tion.
White
popula-
tion
born
and
living
in
speci-
fied
state.
White
popula-
tion
born
in
other
states.
For-
eign-
born
white
popula-
tion.
Total
Negro
popula-
tion.
Negro
popula-
tion
born
and
living
in
speci-
fied
state.
Negro
popula-
tion
born
in
other
states.
149,408
137,612
64,079
45,976
83,941
90,420
} 101.5
80.6
19.9
0)
3.2
4.9
(.*)
1
329,487
308,669
217,229
198,496
99,079
101,278
} 90.1
36.1
49.5
4.2
9.6
8.7
0)
2
741,694
690,049
655,065
602,761
81,246
81,8.S3
} 93.0
68.2
8.0
15.7
6.7
0.8
(*)
3
86,345
64, 173
33,347
27,160
52,220
36,573
1 90.9
72.6
15.7
2.0
9.1
2.6
6.5
4
900,652
908, 282
841,668
839,821
56,309
65,981
1 103.9
93.3
10.8
(0
0)
0.9
(*)
5
864,719
835,843
847,026
821,058
16, 827
14,008
1 82.8
04.7
17.6
0.2
17.2
15.4
1.6
6
763,407
697, 843
714,449
66.3,394
47,963
33,392
} 80.3
69.9
9.8
0.3
18.6
14.5
4.1
7
472, 220
442, 891
311,247
296,040
157,935
144,065
1 83.7
70.9
14.2
(«)
16.5
8.6
7.S
8
700,257
713,874
634,353
642, 733
62,567
68,022
1 109.4
87.8
20.9
0)
0)
(0
(*)
9
1,206,365
1,176,987
1,123,394
1,097,257
80,682
75,821
1 89.7
71.5
18.4
0.4
10.2
9.1
1.7
10
109,966
94,446
46,569
40,459
62,305
53,058
1 85.2
13.7
66.1
3.9
14.6
5.7
N.7
11
690,017
671,096
617,324
623,472
70,301
46,570
\ 92.1
57.2
32.7
1.7
7.6
(.*)
9.0
12
935,184
1,009,487
861,340
899,690
71,401
106,436
} (.')
(")
(=•)
(')
(')
(')
(--)
13
244,479
232, 250
196,729
201,594
46,255
29,769
\ 92.1
.35. 6
37.5
(0
7.9
(*)
10.7
14
451,758
473,088
365,769
393, 173
83,546
77,705
1 114.0
97.2
19.7
(*)
0)
(*)
3.8
15
178,241
157,452
101,702
109,949
74,396
45,299
} 81.4
151.4
(*)
(')
IS. 8
(*)
26.3
16
235,938
261,656
201,335
233,454
33,839
27,462
1 120. 4
107.2
•-0. 1
(«)
(«)
(«)
5.0
17
30,335
31,181
20,438
22,668
9,589
8,399
1 104.0
.39.0
51.1
D.O
<*)
0)
5.8
18
3 Includes native Negroes for whom state of birtb was not reported, Negroes born in outlying
possessions, and foreign-bom Negroes.
< Decrease in class.
» Decrease in total population.
246
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 60. — Per Cent of Increase According to Color, Nativity, and
Whether Born in State of Residence, 1910-1920, and Per Cent Distribu-
tion OF Whites and Negroes by Age and M.^rital Condition, 1920, for
Selected States.
[The states for which percentages are given in this table are those in which Negroes constituted 5 per
cent or more of the total population in 1923. The states are arranged in descending order, the
position of each being determined by the rate of increase in the white population born and living
Init.)
PER CENT
or INCREASE OR DECREASE (—
: 1910-1920
STATE.
In total
white
popula-
tion.
In white
popula-
tion born
and liv-
ing in
specified
state.
In white
popula-
tion born
in other
states.
In
foreign-
born
white
popula-
tion.
In total
Negro
popula-
tion.
In Negro
popula-
tion born
and living
in speci-
fied state.
In Negro
popula-
tion born
in other
states.
26.1
43.8
22.3
19.1
17.8
20.5
18.9
13.2
16.5
18.0
38.4
16.4
8.6
13.4
10.2
2.9
7.5
12.6
74.2
29.5
24.6
19.5
19.3
17.9
17.4
16.6
16.4
16.2
14.8
11.6
10.5
10.4
10.1
7.9
7.6
7.0
7.4
74.5
7.4
19.6
11.9
47.0
46.0
7.2
31.3
36.3
63.1
56.8
-0.3
43.9
14.4
-3.9
13.8
27.2
-0.3
27.1
50.2
8.5
-6.8
5.7
19.5
-17.4
-13.3
7.4
17.2
15.6
-14.6
-1.9
-16.1
-18.7
-23. 2
13.7
8.6
6.7
7.5
34.6
-0.8
3.5
9.4
6.6
-1.9
2.5
16.4
2.8
-7.4
5.3
-4.5
13.2
-9.8
-2.7
39.4
9.4
8.7
22.8
0.2
3.2
7.7
5.1
-1.3
2.4
15.1
-1.0
-4.3
-2.4
-7.0
-7.5
-13.8
-9.8
-7.2
Florida
Texas.
-2.2
-0.8
42.8
Alabama
-14.7
19.6
4;$. 6
Arkansas
9.6
-8.0
Georgia
6.4
17.4
51.0
-32.9
55.4
7.5
64.2
23.2
14.2
AGEl
and marital condition of native
negroes: 1920.
WHITES AND OF TOTAL
Native
whites.
Totai Negroes.'
STATE.
Per
cent
under
15
years.
Per
cent
15 to 44
years.
Per
cent
45
years
and
over.
Per
cent
married
in pop-
ulation
15 to 44
years.
Per
cent
under
15
years.
Per
cent
15 to 44
years.
Per
cent
45
years
and
over.
Per
cent
married
in pop-
ulation
15 to 44
years.
Oklahoma
38.2
35.7
37.6
39.2
40.0
39.1
39.9
.39.7
37.9
38.3
21.7
36.
38.9
32.0
37.1
31.5
36.4
31.8
46.1
41.5
47.2
43.7
44.2
45.2
43.4
43.8
46.7
45.3
55. 4
45.1
41.3
46.9
44.5
47.0
44.4
4.5.1
15.6
19.6
1.5.0
16.9
15.8
15.6
16.6
16.4
15.2
16.4
22.5
18. 8
16.6
21.1
IS. 4
21.4
19.1
22.9
60.7
58.5
56.8
57.6
59.3
56.5
56.9
60.8
55.0
58.5
4.5.3
54.3
57.3
52.9
58.6
5.5.7
58.4
56.1
35.8
32.8
34.9
29.3
38.3
42.7
41.8
35. 6
35.9
39.0
1 22.4
1 36.7
38. 3
i 30. 5
33.1
22.2
28.1
28.8
48.0
50.6
49.6
56.0
44.7
44.1
43.6
47.7
48.3
45.6
57.9
46.0
45.7
50.2
48.1
56.1
49.3
40.2
15.9
16.1
15.3
14.2
16.8
13.1
14.4
16. 4
15.6
15.3
19.3
17.1
15.8
19.0
1.8.5
21.3
22.4
21.2
57.8
Florida
59.8
Texas
57.3
58.8
56.2
South Carolina
56.9
54.8
60.4
58. 8
58.7
District of Columbia
54.9
Virginia
54.1
Mississippi
59.8
Maryland
55.6
Tennessee
57.1
Missouri ^
57.0
Kentucky
55.4
Delaware
53.4
' Percentages for age based on total population of spocined diss, including a small number of persons of
unknown age.
• Native and foreign-born Negroes not tabulated separately by ago groups.
DETAILED TABLES.
247
Table 61. — Proportions of Children Under 15 Years of Age and of Persons
45 Years of Age and Over in Total Population, by Divisions and States:
1920, 1910, and 1900.
PER CENT UNDER 15
FEARS.
PER CENT 45 YEARS AND OVER.
DUnsiON AND STATE.
19-20
1910
1900
1920
1910
1900
31.8 j
32.1
34.4
20.8
18.9
17.7
Geographic division.s:
28.5
29.8
29.4
31.1
36.5
37.1
36.5
.33.2
25.2
27.2
29.0
29.5
31.9
37.5
38.1
38.8
31.1
2-1.3
27.4
30.6
32.5
35.4
39.0
39.7
41.3
33.6
27.9
24.6
21.7
22.5
21.7
17.6
17.9
16.3
18.8
25.1
23.0
19.8
21.2
19.3
16.2
15.9
14.4
17.0
21.5
22.5
Middle Atlantic
19.3
East North Central
19.1
V.'e-st North Central
17.1
South Atlantic
15.7
East South Central
15.0
West South Central
1.3.5
15.7
20.5
New England:
28.2
27.0
28.5
28.0
28.8
30.0
27.8
30.2
32.1
28.6
29.0
29.2
29.9
31.2
31.2
29.9
29.4
38.9
34.7
32.0
31.2
28.8
29.7
20.6
35.8
37.2
40.4
40.9
38.3
33.4
35.2
36.1
39.1
38.4
38.3
36.2
37.6
35.4
32.6
35.3
31.3
29.9
37.1
3:5.3
37.8
24.8
27.4
27.2
23.7
27.4
20.2
27.6
27.0
27.6
27.8
27.3
29.1
30.9
28.2
29.5
29.5
29.6
32.2
31.8
30.9
31.0
\7
34.3
32.8
31.8
28.9
30.9
23.2
37.0
36.7
40.5
41.6
39.8
35.7
35.9
37.0
39.8
40.2
39.4
38.4
39.0
38.6
27.2
33.3
26.9
28.5
36.8
31.7
37.1
20.8
26.4
25.7
22.8
27.3
2.5.9
27.6
27.4
28.1
28.0
29.1
30.7
32.4
30.9
32.3
32.9
31.9
35.8
36.4
34.0
34.8
39.3
38.5
36.4
34.9
31.4
33.1
25.0
38.3
38.3
41.3
42.7
41.4
38.6
37.6
38.8
41.1
41.9
41.5
40.5
41.3
41.6
29.2
.36. 4
30.6
30.3
38.8
32.9
40.9
25.5
30.5
30.5
26.3
28.1
28.5
28.5
24.2
23.3
22.2
22.5
21.1
20.9
23.2
24.8
21.6
21.7
22.1
20.7
23.4
23.1
1.5.9
18.0
20.5
22.4
2.3.7
22.3
22.8
18.5
17.0
16.1
14.4
16.0
19.4
19.9
18.6
16.4
16.3
16.7
16.1
16.2
16.2
18.4
18.3
16.2
21.9
17.1
16.2
16.6
2.3.8
22.7
24.4
26.1-
27.1
27.1
27.0
21.9
20.8
21.6
20.6
19.4
19.1
22.3
22.5
19.3
22.5
20.5
18.4
21.4
19.7
13.5
16.5
18.7
20.3
22.4
20.5
21.5
17.3
15.5
15.7
13.5
14.6
14.9
17.7
16.8
15.0
13.7
14.7
14.2
14.2
14.4
16.2
16.2
14.0
19.2
16.1
1.5.6
15.1
21.2
18.5
20.9
23.1
26.5
26.4
Vermont
26.6
21.0
20.6
21.8
Middle Atlantic:
20.2
19.1
18.4
East North Central:
Ohio
20.4
19.7
17.3
20.7
18.2
We.st North Central:
15.8
18.5
16.9
12.6
South Dakota
15.9
16.2
18.6
South Atlantic:
Delaware
20.2
18.6
District of Columbia
20.9
16.7
West Virginia
15.0
15.6
South Carolina
13.6
14.1
Florida
14.0
East South Central:
16.0
15.6
14.7
13.4
West South Central:
13.9
13.9
Oklahoma
12.9
Texas
13.3
Mountain:
14.2
Idaho
1.5. 2
12.8
In. 7
15.8
16.0
Utah
14.4
24.7
PAcmc:
Washington
16.6
19.3
22.2
248
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 62. — Number of Persons Engaged and Value Produced or Added,
FOR Agriculture in Comparison with Manufactures and Production of
Minerals, by Divisions and States: 1919.
(Sec Appendix E.)
PERSONS engaged IN—
Value of
agricultural
products .1
Value added by
DIVISION AND STATE.
Agriculture.
Manufactures
and produc-
tion of
minerals.
plus value of
products of
mineral
industries.
United States
10,636,826
11,893,5.58
$20,933,487,000 1
$28,206,165,000
Geographic divisions:
221, 162
633, 064
1,586,291
1, 064, 919
2,114,586
1,782,628
1,781,389
414,009
438, 178
1,543,095
3,816,142
3,091,676
70S, 772
1, 073, 132
480,570
413,863
222,382
543, 926
463, 106, 000
1,497,641,000
4,323,955,000
5,540,245,000
2,509,601,000
1,722,324,000
2, 702, 169, 000
914, 787, 000
1,259,599,000
3,249,884,000
Middle Atlantic
9,287,921,000
East North Central
7,596,274,000
West North Central
1,690,804,000
South Atlantic
2,211,625,000
846,211,000
West South Central
1,220,595,000
Mountain
634,264,000
Pacific
1,468,587,000
New England:
Maine... .
61,034
25, 312
41,724
49,839
7,337
35,916
302,702
56,796
274, 166
356,065
291, 493
375,354
271,379
292,000
291,967
325, 601
391, 574
119, 779
116, 880
186,745
232, 373
17,326
90,164
779
291,529
118,869
468,640
418,483
601, 595
107, 201
391, 392
395, 232
497,627
498, 377
402,070
278, 766
313,081
787,472
81,696
67,235
2.5, 556
98,673
54, 034
35, 397
42,974
8,444
100, 4.57
78,615
2.59, 106
100,377
91,089
42,084
814,437
156, 433
338,675
1,533,227
608,456
1,674,459
939,670
358,883
889,064
582, 271
321,788
166,240
117,473
262,097
7,087
10,914
49,262
95,699
33, 102
171,985
14,116
154, 715
204, 015
177, 531
87, 368
143,620
86,680
131, M7
128,750
155, .521
s 64, 452
62,275
'118,618
79, 169
153,801
38,037
19,027
18, .368
63, 2.31
14,253
27, 178
33, 865
8,423
155, 876
68, 852
319, 198
141,927,000
45, 892, 000
92,873,000
98,452,000
12, 008, 000
71,954,000
713,513,000
127,647,000
656,481,000
922,025,000
767,680,000
1,281,889,000
590,691,000
761,670,000
723,257,000
1,440,942,000
935, 449, 000
367, 663, 000
410,446,000
783,042,000
879,446,000
31,238,000
152, 181, 000
477,000
400, 236, 000
157, 470, 000
580, 689, 000
475,476,000
616,01.5,000
95,879,000
495, 067, 000
470, 240, 000
363, 876, 000
393, 135, 000
410,297,000
231,890,000
7a3, 772, 000
1, 356, 204, 000
140,784,000
179, 220, OCX)
67,975,000
278, 586, 000
74, 768, 000
59, 676, 000
87, 403, 000
26,375,000
295, 178, 000
20:i, 2!2, 000
761,189,000
204,076,000
169, 245, 000
Vermont. .^
81,490,000
Massachusetts
1,754,644,000
Rhode Island
332, 286, 000
Connecticut
708,143,000
Middle Atlantic:
New York
3. 947, 889, 000
New Jersey . .
1,414,430,000
Pennsylvania
3,925,602,000
EA.ST North Central:
Ohio
2, 322, 879, 000
Indiana . .
776,642,000
Illinois ,
2,115,648,000
Michigan
1,650,815,000
Wisconsin...
730, 290, 000
West North Central:
Minnesota ..
465, 439, 000
Iowa
243, 706, 000
Missouri
572, 870, 000
North Dakota
14,812,000
South Dakota
24, 499, 000
Nebraska
115,561,000
Kansas
253,917,000
South Atlantic:
Delaware
79,884,000
Maryland
334, 297, 000
37,903,000
Virginia
301,334,000
West Virginia
496,637,000
North Carolina
419,639,000
South Carolina
154,818,000
Georgia
257, 490, 000
Florida
129,623,000
East Sotrrn Central:
Kentucky
258,431,000
Tennessee
234,778,000
Alabama
251,933,000
Mississippi ...
'101,069,000
West South Central:
Arkansas
105,90.5,000
Louisiana
-284,802,000
Oklahoma
370,68,5,000
Texas
459,203,000
Mountain:
94,437,000
Idaho
48,402,000
Wyoming
81,124,000
ColoradoT
151,969,000
New Mexico
29, 003, 000
Arizona
116,602,000
Utah
88,290,000
Nevada
24,437,000
PAcmc:
Washington
379, 774, 000
162. 462, 000
California
920, 351, (KK)
1 Total value of crops plus total value of live-stfiok products and domestic animals sold or slaught orod on
farms; includes some duplication representing vuluc of crops consumed by live slock and vahK" of iiniinuls
sold and subsc<iMcntly rnold or slaughtered by piircha.ser during census year.
' Number of persons engaged in production of minerals and value of prciducts of mineral Industries for
Louisiana include corresponding items for Mississippi, nut shown separately in census reports.
DETAILED TABLES.
249
Table 63. — Urbanization of Population in Comparison With Industrial
Development, by Divisions, 1920, 1910, and 1850, and by States, 1920 and
1910.
[See Appendix E.]
DIVISION, STATE, AND
CENSUS TEAK.
United States:
1920
1910
1850
Geographic Divisions.
New England:
1920
1910
1850
Middle Atlantic:
1920
1910
18,50
East North Central:
1920
1910
18.50
West North Central:
1920
1910
1850
South Atlantic:
1920
1910
1850
East South Central:
1920
1310
1850
West South Central:
1920
1910
1850
Mountain:
1920
1916
1850
Pacific:
1920
1910
1850
New England.
Maine:
1920
1910
New Hampshire:
1920
1910
Vermont:
1920
1910
Massachusetts:
1920
1910
Rhode Island:
1920
1910
Connecticut:
1920
1910
PER CENT OF TOTAL COM-
PRISING VALUE OF AG-
RICULTURAL PRODUCTS,
VALUE ADDED BY MAN-
UFACTURE, AND VALUE
OF PRODUCTS OF MIN-
ERAL INDUSTRIES.!
Agricul-
tural
prod-
ucts.
42.6
45.8
71.5
12.5
15.5
37.1
13.9
16.5
55.5
36.3
42.6
85.3
76.6
77.5
83.5
53.2
56.0
85.1
67.1
67.8
93.7
6S.9
74.8
93.2
59.1
48.1
92.8
46.2
48.2
Value
added
by
manu-
facture.
41.0
40.6
21.3
27.0
5.3.3
52.4
5.3
7.5
3.5
5.5
9.2
12.8
51.0
47.4
26.5
87.0
83.3
61.4
78.2
74.3
41.8
59.7
51.7
14.0
19.5
18.3
15.6
39.4
37.4
14.0
25.9
27.6
6.1
18.6
21.0
20.2
20.6
7.2
47.3
42.7
7.6
58. 5
57.9
77.9
71.6
41.8
38.2
94.5
92.0
96.2
93.8
90.6
8G.7
Mineral
prod-
ucts.
6.4
6.9
1.9
0.5
1.2
1.5
7.9
9.2
2.7
4.0
5.6
0.7
3.9
4.2
0.9
7.5
6.7
0.8
7.1
4.6
0.2
12.5
4.1
0)
20.8
31.2
6.6
9.2
83.6
0.5
1.5
0.7
1.4
4.9
9.4
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.5
PER CENT OF TOTAL PER-
SONS ENGAGED LN AG-
RICULTURE, MANUFAC-
TURES, ANT> PRODUCTION
OF MINERALS.'
Agricul-
ture.
47.2
58.4
(»)
12.5
18.4
(»)
14.2
47.2
(')
33.9
47.4
(')
70.1
76.4
(')
66.3
74.8
(«)
78.8
85.5
«
81.1
88.4
(')
65.1
64.9
(')
44.6
57.0
(')
37.8
44.5
21.7
28.6
49.8
50.6
5.8
9.1
4.5
8.0
9.6
16.1
Manu-
fac-
tures.
48.0
36.3
87.
80.3
(')
77.6
67.9
(')
61.7
46.6
(')
27.0
19.6
(»)
29.2
21.6
(')
16.9
11.6
(»)
15.5
10.3
(')
21.0
16.6
«
52.5
37.7
(5)
61.5
53.9
77.6
70.1
46.3
40.1
94.0
90.3
95.3
91.4
90.2
83.3
Produc-
tion of
minerals.
4.8
5.4
(»)
0.5
1.3
(')
8.2
11.3
(')
4.4
6.0
(')
2.9
4.0
(»)
4.4
3.6
(')
4.3
2.9
(•)
3.4
1.3
(')
14.0
IS. 4
(')
2.9
5.3
(')
0.7
1.6
0.7
1.3
3.9
9.3
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.7
Percent
urban
in
total
popu-
lation.
51.4
45.8
17.9
79.2
76.3
42.6
74.9
71.0
26.1
60.8
52.7
9.3
37.7
33.3
10.9
31.0
25.4
11.6
22.4
18.7
3.7
29.0
22.3
15.1
36.4
36.0
6.6'
62.4
56.8
14.3
94. f
92.!
67.)
65. (
Percent
of pop-
ulation
in
cities of
100,000
and
over
and
their
adja-
cent
terri-
tory.'
34.9
29.4
(•)
58. 9
48.9
(»)
63.0
5.8.7
(»)
39.6
31.6
(•)
19.6
16.6
(»)
16.3
12.1
(»)
12.3
10.6
las
4.2
(')
13.2
9.1
(')
47.1
43.4
7.7
7.2
78.4
69.1
87.3
86.5
58.0
34.2
1 Relates to calendar year preceding census year.
2 The term "adjacent territory" refers to the area lying within approximately 10 miles beyond the
boimdaries of the central city.
s Data incomplete.
250
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 63. — Urbantzation of Population in Comparison With Industrial
Development, by Divisions, 1920, 1910, and 1850, and by States, 1920 and
1910— Continued.
[See Appendix E.]
DIVISION, STATE, .\.ND
CENSUS YEAR.
PER cent of total COM-
PRISING WKLUE or AG-
RICULTURAL PRODUCTS,
VALUE ADDED BY MAN-
LTACTtniE, AND VALUE
OF PRODUCTS OF MIN-
ERAL INDUSTRIES.!
PER CENT OF TOTAL PER-
SONS ENGAGED IN AG-
RICULTURE, MANUFAC-
TURES, AND PRODUCTION
OF MINERALS.'
Percent
urban
in
total
popu-
lation.
Percent
of pop-
ulation
in
citiesof
100.000
and
over
Agricul-
tural
prod-
ucts.
Value
added
by
manu-
facture.
Mineral
prod-
ucts.
Agricul-
ture.
Manu-
fac-
tures.
Produc-
tion of
minerals.
and
their
adja-
cent
terri-
tory.'
Middle Atlantic.
New York:
1920
15.3
1S.0
8.3
11.9
14.3
16.2
28.4
35.9
49.7
55.0
37.7
40.9
26.4
38.8
51.1
50.0
00.8
59.4
85.5
85.3
02.0
62.6
90. 1
97.1
94.4
93.2
87.1
87.1
77.0
82.0
2S. 1
36.5
31.3
33.2
1.2
2.0
84.2
81.3
91.1
88.4
67.8
62.8
67.4
58.1
46.9
40.7
57.0
53.6
69.0
50.4
48.2
48.0
28.2
27.8
13.4
12.7
35.8
32.7
3.4
2.6
4.4
3.4
12.8
12.8
14.4
14.0
71.7
62.0
m.7
03.7
98.7
97.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
1.7
17.9
21.0
4.1
0.0
3.4
3.7
5.3
5.4
4.0
10.8
0.7
1.5
11.0
12.8
1.1
2.0
2.2
4.7
0.5
0.3
1.2
3.4
(')
0.1
8.0
4.0
0.2
1.5
2.0
3.2
16.5
23.2
8.5
IS. 4
14.1
19.9
27.5
41.5
44.8
57.8
29.7
40.7
31.8
50.0
47.6
57.4
03.7
69.2
73.5
78.2
59.9
67.5
94.4
96.2
91.5
93.1
79.1
80.2
70.8
79.0
34.4
47.9
34.4
44.7
5.2
8.7
83.1
75.9
90.7
82.1
68.0
57.0
08.1
52.2
50.8
36.9
03.6
51.4
64.3
. 42.8
51.8
41.4
32.2
26.0
23.8
17.4
37.6
27.7
4.8
3.1
7.1
3.9
20.8
13.6
23.5
15.8
05.4
60.7
03.3
51.9
94.7
91.3
0.4
0.9
0.8
1.6
18.0
23.1
4.4
6.3
4.4
5.3
0.7
7.9
3.9
6.6
0.0
1.3
4.1
4.9
2.7
4.4
2.5
4.8
0.7
0.7
1.5
3.0
0.1
0.2
5.7
5.3
0.3
1.4
2.3
3.4
0.1
82.7
7a 8
7&4
75.2
64.3
60.4
63.8
55.9
50.6
42.4
67.9
61.7
61.1
47.2
47.3
43.0
44.1
41.0
36.4
30.6
46.6
42.5
13.6
11.0
16.0
13.1
31.3
26.1
34.9
1 29.2
54.2
I 48.0
' 60.0
50.8
1 100.0
1 100.0
73.4
1910
69.9
New Jersey:
1920
77.3
1910
69.3
Pennsylvania:
1920
45.4
1910
41.6
East North Central.
Ohio:
1920 . .
49.2
1910
36.3
Indiana:
1920
19.1
1910
14.9
niinois:
1920
49.4
1910
44.5
Michigan:
1920
37.0
1910 . . ..
23.9
Wisconsin:
1920
20.8
1910
18.9
West North Central.
Minnesota:
1920
28.5
1910
27.5
Iowa:
1920
8.2
1910 ....
1.6
Missouri: •
1920
30. 5
1910
32.0
North Dakota:
1920
1910
South Dakota:
1920
1910
Nebraska:
1920 . .
10.1
1910
14.4
KaiLsas:
1920
7.4
1910
0.3
South Atlantic.
Delaware:
1920
61.6
1910
Maryland:
1920
1910
District of Columbia:
1920
1910
60.0
55.9
100.0
100.0
' Relates to calendar year preceding census year.
2 The term "adjacent territory" refers to the area lying within approximately 10 miles beyond the
boundaries of the central city.
' I>csi than one-tenth of 1 per cent.
DETAILED TABLES.
251
Table 63. — Urbanization' of Population' in Comparison With Industrial
Development, by Divisons, 1920, 1910, and 1850, and by States, 1920 and
1910— Continued.
[See Appendix E.]
DIVISION, STATE, AND
CENSUS YEAR.
PER CENT OF TOTAL COM-
PRISING VALUE OF ag-
ricultural PRODUCTS,
VALUE ADDED IIY MAN-
UFACTURF., AND VALUE
OF PRODUCTS OF MIN-
ERAL INDUSTRIES.!
PER CENT OF TOTAL PF.R
SONS ENGAGED IN AG-
RICULTURE, MANUFAC-
TURES, AND PRODUCTION
OF MINERALS.'
Per cent
urban
in
total
popu-
lation.
1
Percent
of pop-
ulation
in
cities of
100,000
and
over
Agricul-
tural
prod-
ucts.
Value
added
by
manu-
facture.
Mineral
prod-
ucts.
Agricul-
ture.
Manu-
fac-
tures.
Produc-
tion of
minerals.
and
their
adja-
cent
terri-
tory.*
South Atlantic— Contd.
Virginia:
1920
57.0
57.7
24.1
31.4
58.0
63.1
75.4
75.9
70.5
73.0
42.5
42.3
65.7
62.9
66.7
67.4
59.1
65.4
79.5
79.2
79.5
76.7
44.9
47.5
65.5
82.5
74.7
79.9
59.9
44.4
78.7
71.7
4.5.6
70.7
64.7
46.9
38.8
38.7
30.7
32.6
41.7
36.4
24.3
23.5
29.0
25.5
53.5
48.5
21.2
33.5
30.0
28.0
31.2
24.9
20.5
20.8
18.9
20.9
47.4
48.9
8.3
7.6
16.5
18.0
18.9
16.9
16.1
16.7
26.3
7.5
23.4
27.6
4.2
3.6
45.2
36.0
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.9
4.0
9.2
13.1
3.6
3.3
4.7
9.7
9.7
65.3
71.6
36.8
50.9
72.5
81.5
82.7
86.4
80.7
85.5
5.5.3
02.4
74.8
81.5
75.4
81.3
76.2
85.2
88.5
92.2
86.6
88.9
70.2
79.2
79.8
91.1
1 S3. 7
91.0
68.2
60.1
77.9
80.0
1 58.2
66.6
60.9
58.0
31.2
24.8
29.0
22.7
27.1
18.1
17.1
13.2
18.9
14.0
42.8
34.5
16.0
14.3
21.6
15.4
18.5
10.6
11.5
7.8
12.5
9.9
28.3
20.5
9.8
4.7
13.9
8.3
17.3
15.4
18.9
14.3
18.4
9.2
27.6
23.5
3.5
3.6
34.2
26.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
1.9
3.1
9.2
4.2
2.9
3.3
5.3
4.2
29.2
23.1
25.2
18.7
19.2
14.4
17.5
14.8
25.1
20.0
36.7
29.1
26.2
24.3
26.1
20.2
21.7
17.3
13.4
11.5
16.6
! 12.9
i 34.9
; 30.0
i
1 26.6
19.3
32.4
24.1
i
31.3
35.5
i 27.6
i 21.5
29.5
1 29.6
j 48.2
I 50.7
24.1
1910
10.0
West Virginia:
1920
1910
North Carolina:
1920
1910
South Carolina:
1920
1910
Georgia:
1920
9.G
1910
8.0
Florida:
1920
1910
East South Central.
Kentucky:
1920
17.5
1910
15.5
Tennessee:
1920
15.9
1910
14.5
Alabama:
1920
! 12.4
1910
9.9
Mississippi:
1920
0.3
1910
0.2
West South Central.
Arkansas:
1920
1910
Louisiana:
1920
1.6
2.4
7. 7
3.6
26.2
9.9
8.8
2.0
21.2
38.6
5.2
11.6
28.1
21.8
11.9
25.5
0.9
1.3
1.5
0.3
10.4
4.1
2.4
0.7
14.5
24.5
3.2
5.7
23.4
24.3
11.4
18.5
0.4
0.4
23.3
22.2
Oklahoma:
1920
1910
Texas:
1920
14.6
1910
Mountain.
1920
Idaho:
1920
1910
Vi yoming:
1920
Colorado:
1920
30.8
1910
30.0
'Kelates to calendar year preceding census year. ., , , .
2 The term "adjacent territory" refers to the area lying within approximately 10 miles beyond the
boundaries of the central citv.
252
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 63.— Urbanization of Population in Comparison With Industrial
Development, by Divisions, 1920, 1910, and 1850, and by States, 1920 and
1910— Continued.
[See Appendix E.)
DrVTSION, STATE, AND
CENSUS YEAE.
PER cent of total COM-
PRISING V.VLUE OF AG-
RICULTURAL PRODUCTS,
VALUE ADDED BY MAN-
UFACTURE, AND VALUE
OF PRODUCTS OF MIN-
ERAL INDUSTRIES. I
PER CENT OF TOTAL PER-
SONS ENGAGED IN AG-
RICULTURE, MANUFAC-
TURES, AND PRODUCTION
OF MINERALS.!
Percent
urban
in
total
popu-
lation.
Percent
of pop-
ulation
in
citiesof
100,000
and
over
Agricul-
tural
prod-
ucts.
Value
added
by
manu-
facture.
Mineral
prod-
ucts.
Agricul-
ture.
Manu-
fac-
tures.
Produc-
tion of
minerals.
and
their
adja-
cent
ferri-
torj-.i
Mountain — Continued .
New Mexico:
1920
72.1
70.6
33.9
20.4
49.7
41.6
51.9
32.1
43.7
46.8
55.6
63.8
45.1
44.9
9.8
13.3
16.0
26.1
26.6
28.3
12.6
8.9
54.3
48.2
43.9
35.2
45.2
42.1
18.2
16.0
50.2
53.5
23.6
30.1
35.5
59.0
2.0
4.9
0.5
1.0
9.7
13.0
79.1
85.9
56.6
50.5
55.9
59.0
50.1
49.0
39.2
52.6
53.3
68.7
44.8
55.5
9.7
6.2
16.5
16.7
30.1
22.4
21.1
15.2
58.7
43.3
46.1
30.2
51.4
37.3
11.1
7.9
26.9
32.8
14.0
18.6
28.8
35.8
2.1
4.1
0.6
1.1
3.8
7.2
18.0
14.2
35.2
31.0
48.0
46.3
19.7
16.3
55.2
53.0
49.9
45.6
68.0
61.8
1910
Arizona:
1920
1910
Utah:
1920
1 33.4
1910
1
Nevada:
1920
1
1910
1
Pacific.
Washington:
1920
i 39.2
1910
! 36.1
Oregon:
1920
' 39.3
1910
i 36.4
California:
1920
52.0
1910
4S.S
» Relates to calpndar vear preceding census year. , „ ., , . ,
i The term "adjacent territory" refers to the area lying within approximately 10 miles beyond the
boundaries of the central city.
DETAILED TABLES.
253
Table 64;. — Increase in Population in Comparison with Increase in Industrial
Activity: 1910-1920.
[See Appenduc E.]
PER CENT which INCREASE OR DECREASE ( — ) IN DIVLSION OR STATE
FORMED OF TOTAL INCREASE OR DECREASE IN UNITED STATES.
DrVISION AND STATE.
In popu-
lation.
In value
of agri-
cultural
products.
In value
added
by
manu-
facture.
In value
of
mineral
products.
In
persons
engaged
in agri-
culture.
In
persons
employed
in manu-
facturing
indus-
tries.
In
persons
em-
ployed
in pro-
duction
of min-
erals.
United St.^tes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Geographic divisions:
New England
6.2
21.4
23.5
6.6
13.1
3.5
10.6
5.1
10.0
1.9
6.6
19.9
24.9
12.8
7.9
14.5
4.7
6.8
12.3
33.0
29.9
5.1
7.7
2.2
2.9
1.1
5.7
0.1
2.5.2
12.7
7.S
12.8
6.9
23.1
6.1
5.4
-3.1
-8.6
-12.7
-8.2
-25. 9
-25.5
-16.1
5.5.2
44.8
10.3
27.9
35.0
5.6
5.9
2.5
3.2
1.4
8.3
8
Middle Atlantic
East North Central.. .
15 6
West North Central
-18.8
20 6
South Atlantic
East South Central
27 8
West South Central
51 5
Mountain
7 5
Pacific
5 4
New England:
Maine
0.2
0.1
-24.3
3.5
0.4
1.9
9.2
4.5
7.7
7.2
1.7
6.2
6.2
2.2
2.3
1.3
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.2
1.1
0.8
1.8
1.8
2.6
1.2
2.1
1.6
0.9
1.1
1.5
-44.8
1.3
1.0
2.7
5.6
1.3
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.9
0.6
-30.8
1.6
0.8
7.6
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.3
(')
0.3
3.0
0.5
3.1
4.3
3.4
5.5
2.7
4.0
3.6
6.7
4.1
1.3
1.8
3.6
3.9
0.1
0.7
0)
2.0
0.7
3.3
2.6
2.9
0.4
2.2
2.3
1.6
1.8
2.1
1.1
3.9
7.4
0.6
1.0
0.3
1.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
1.5
1.0
4.3
0.7
0.6
0.2
6.6
1.3
2.9
14.6
5.9
12.5
9.5
2.9
7.1
7.4
2.9
1.3
0.8
1.9
(■)
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.3
1.3
0.1
1.1
0.8
1.9
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
(■)
0.1
0.2
0)
1.6
0.7
3.4
-2.0
(')
0)
(')
0)
0)
0.6
(')
24.3
3.7
1.6
5.3
1.9
0.2
3.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
-9.4
-0.2
3.7
-2.3
0.2
(')
1.1
11.4
0.1
(')
0.1
0)
4.5
0.5
1.8
(')
0.2
»1.7
13.3
7.7
-42.5
0.2
1.6
0.3
0.7
2.8
1.0
-43.7
0.1
(')
5.2
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.8
-0.2
-0.5
-3.5
-0.9
-4.0
-3.2
-2.7
-3.7
-2.7
-0.2
9.8
-1.5
-3.3
-O.G
-0.4
-0.8
-2.2
-0.3
-1.0
C-)
-3.1
-2.2
-7.2
-5.0
-6.3
-0.5
-3.3
-3.7
-8.8
-9.3
-3.4
-3.0
-1.9
-7.5
20.2
8.5
0.6
10.3
-0. 6
9.8
4.2
(=)
2.2
(')
34.5
0.3
0.2
(')
5.4
1.1
3.3
10.3
7.4
10.3
11.5
3.6
7.8
8.9
3.3
1.4
0.9
1.9
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.3
1.3
0.1
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.2
O.S
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.6
1.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
(')
2.2
1.1
5.0
1
New Hampshire
0.5
Vermont
3 4
Massachusetts
1 1
Rhode I.sland
2
Connecticut
0.7
Middle Atlantic:
New York
3.8
New Jersey
1.3
Pennsvlvania
33.4
East North Central:
Ohio
3 7
Indiana
1 5
lUinois
1 3
Michigan
5 4
Wisconsin
—1.6
West North Central:
Minnesota
6
Iowa
4 7
Missouri
9 7
North Dakota
''\,
South Dakota
Nebra.ska
-0.2
Kansas
0.5
South Atlantic:
Delaware
—0.3
Maryland
1 3
District of Columbia
1.2
Virginia
West Virginia
2tj.2
North Carolina
0.6
South Carolina
-0.6
Georgia
-1.0
Florida
1.3
East South Central:
Kentucky
23.3
Tennessee
-2.1
1.9
Mississippi
1.6
West South Central:
Arkansas
Loui.siana
» 4.7
23.8
Texas
14.5
Mountain:
Montana
-2.7
Idaho
-0.7
Wyoming
1.2
Colorado
-5.0
New Mexico
1.4
Arizona
2.6
Utah
—0.6
Nevada
-0.8
Pacific:
Washington
—1.4
Oregon
-0.3
California
-3.0
' Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent increase.
2 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent decrease.
• Mississippi included with Louisiana.
254
INCREASE OF POPULATION: 1910-1920.
Table 65.— Areas Other Than States Enumerated at Each Ceksus:
1790-1920.
[At some of the early censuses the eaameration did not cover the entire areas of certain territories. The
references to areas included apply only to those covered by the enumeration.]
CENSUS
YEAR.
1
Nonstate areas enumerated .
CENSUS
YEAR.
Nonstate areas enumerated.
17901
Vermont (independent republic).
1860
Nebraska territorv. including part of
Territory south of River Ohio, includ-
(Contd.)
present area of Wyoming.
ing present area of Tennessee.
Kansas territory.
Colorado territory (organized in 1861).
1S<X)>
District of Columbia.
Nevada territory (organized in 1J«1),
Indiana territory, comprising present
comprising part of present area of
area of Indiana, Illinois, W isconsin,
state.
and part of Michigan.
Part of Territorv Northwest of Ohio
1870
District of Columbia.
River, now Ohio and part of Mich-
Utah tenitory.
igan, remaining after organization
New Mexico territory.
of Indiana territory.
Arizona territory-.
Mississippi territory, now southern
Mississippi and Alabama. ,
Washington territory.
Idaho territory.
Montana territory.
1810 «
District of Columbia.
Wyoming territory.
Indiana territory, comprising present
Dakota territory, comprising present
area of Indiana and part of lUinois.
area of North and SoiiUi Dakota.
Illinois territory, comprising part of
Colorado territory.
present area of Illinois and present
area of Wisconsin.
1880
District of Columbia.
Michigan territorj'.
Utah territory.
Mississippi territory, comprisiiig pres-
New Mexico territory.
ent area of Mississippi and Alabama.
Arizona territory.
Part of Louisiana territory, now Mis-
Washington territory.
soin"i and Arkansas.
Idaho territory.
Orleans territory, now part of Louis-
Montana territory.
iana.
Wyoming territory.
Da'kota territory', comprising present
1820
District of Columbia.
area of North and South Dakota.
Miciiigan territory, including present
: Alaska territory.
area of Wisconsm.
1
Missouri territorj'.
1890 District of Columbia.
Arkansas territory.
Utah territory.
New Mexico tcrritorj-.
1830
District of Columbia .
Arizona territory.
Michigan territory', including present
area of Wisconsin.
Oklahoma territory and Indian Terri-
tory (combined in 1907 to form state
Arkansas territory.
of Oklahoma).
Florida territory.
Alaska territory.
1840
District of Columbia.
1900 1 District of Columbia.
Florida territory.
1 New Mexico territory.
Wisconsin territory, including small
1 Arizona territory.
part of present area of ilinnesota.
Iowa territory, including greater part
Oklahoma territory and Indian Terri-
torv (combined in 1907 to form state
of present area of Minnesota.
of Oklahoma).
Alaska territory.
1850
District of Columbia.
1 Hawaii territory.
Minnesota territory.
Utah territory.
1910
District of Columbia.
New Mexico territory.
New Mexico territory.
Oregon territory, including present
Arizona territory.
t
area of Washington.
Alaska territory.
Hawaii territory.
Porto Rico territory.
1860
District of Columbia.
Utah territory.
1920
District of Cohunbia.
New Mexico territory, including pres-
Alaska territory.
ent area of Arizona.
Hawaii territory.
Washington territory, including pres-
Porto Rito territory.
ent area of Idaho and parts of Mon-
Guam.
tana and WyoniinR.
American Samoa.
Dakota territory (organized in IhGl),
Panama Canal Zone.
comprising present area of North
and South Dakota and parts of Mon-
tana and Wyoming.
1 Maine, although a part of Massachusetts, and Kentucky, although a part of Virginia, shown separately
In census rer)oris.
2 Maine, although a part of Massachusetts, shown separately in cen.sus reports.
DETAILED TABLES.
255
Table 66. — Elements op Population Estimated by Different Methods:
1900 and 1920.
WHITE population: 1900
ELEMENT.
FIRST
computation:
Elimination of
foreign stock
from native
element.
SECOND
computation:
Growth of native
stock estimated
on basis of rate
of increase for
Southern states.'
third
computation:
Growth of native
stock measured
by proportion of
persons in
Massachusetts
having native
grandfathers.
Average.
Total white
66,809,196
66,809,196
66,809,196
66,809,196
Native element'
43, 495, 762
37,290,000
6,210,000
23, 313, 434
29,520,000
43,495,762
35,640,000
7,&50,000
23,313,434
31,160,000
43,495,762
33,730,000
9,770,000
23,313,434
33,080,000
43,495,762
35, 550, 000
7,940,000
23,313,434
31,250,000
Native stock
Foreii^n stock
Foreign element 3
Total foreign stock '
WHITE population: 1920
ELEMENT.
FIRST
computation:
Elimination of
foreign stock
from native
element.
second
computation:
Growth of native
stock estimated
on basis of rate
of increase for
Southern states.'
Average.
Total white
94,820,915
94,820,915
94 820 915
Native element^
61,960,586
47, .330,000
14,630,000
32,860,329
47, 490, 000
01,960,586
46,250,000
15, 710, 000
32,860,329
48,570,000
Native stock
46,790,000
15 170 000
Foreign stock
Foreign element 3
32 860 329
Total foreign stock *
48,030,000
1 In making the estimate by this method it was assumed that the rate of natural increase of the native
white stock prior to ks70 was the same for the country as a whole as for the Southern states, and th.ir
sabsequently to ls70 the rate for the remainder of the country was equal to one-half that for the Sou;h.
- All whites of native parentage plus one-half of all whites of mixed parentage.
' .Vll whites of foreign parentage ]ilus one-half of ail whites of mixed parentage.
* Foreign element plus foreign stock in native element.
Table 67. — Years of Admission of St.\tes to U.vion.
state.
Year of
admission.
state.
Year of
admission.
state.
Year of
admis-
sion.
Alabama
1819 '
1912 i
1836
is.:o
1876
('I
(•)
1845
(')
1890
1818 1
1816
1846
1861
1792
1812
1820
(')
(')
1837
1858
1817
1821
1889
1867
1864
(')
(■)
1912
(')
(')
1889
Ohio
1803
Arizona
Maryland..
1907
-Vrkansas
Massachusetts
Michigan
1S59
California
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
(')
(')
1889
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Missouri
Florida
1795
Oeorgia
Nebraska
Texas
1845
Idaho
Utah
1898
Illinois
New Hampshire
Vermont
1791
Indiana
Virginia
(I)
Iowa
1889
Kansas
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1853
184S
Louisiana
1R90
' One of the Original Thirteen States.
ADDITIONAL COPIES
OF THIS PtJBUCATlON MAT BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT
$1.00 PER COPY
V
14 DAY USE
' RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
EARTH SCIENCES LIBRARY
This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.
^i££j2-^Meee"
1
1
i
T r. oi Ar,„. r. •f\r. General Library
/i^I^n^X\l7R University of California
(P43088l0)476 Berkeley
K
,< I.
i.i!
.'.'lil
'M).|::
i'i';.'n;
;.ij.
I ' ' I . , , ' i ; r.
a! 1
)')
I '■ Hi" ' /if ■ ('l -U
,>^^'.■!;i'!J•i;''
t ' i.1
•i!
^l/' Mm
l:«
, ••i.'i-u-.ii:
/.III
.M
' •
[v.\
I MM'
,1;, 'I'V "ii l-'lfl