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