Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, Appalachia is very White compared to the Deep South. But most of those states are at a crossroads of both Appalachia and The Deep South.
Right, but proportionally, Appalachia makes up more of VA, NC, and TN. GA comes close, but the coastal plain area in the state is noticeably larger; same with AL to a lesser extent. By contrast, most of SC is coastal plain with Appalachia being confined to the a few counties in the northwestern corner of the state, and Appalachia is almost nonexistant in MS and LA.
That is not true in the cotton and former cotton producing regions of those states. Look at Western Tennessee, Eastern Arkansas, and the bootheel of Missouri for example. They all have significant black populations at a much higher percentage than the rest of their state.
Many of them did not have the means to migrate away and/or they were locked in the sharecropping system that was in place after the civil war. The sharecropping system came into existance largely due to the fact that there was not much monentary wealth to be had in the south after the Civil War.
Example: Slavery - 1860 MO Census
This map shows the slave population % of every county in Missouri in 1860. The region along the Missouri river was mainly Hemp and Tobacco production, the Bootheel was cotton, and there was also slave labor used in the lead mines which is what you see just south of St. Louis. Other than the lead mining counties, those counties still at least have a somewhat significant black population, some above the state average and some right at it.
As I said, slavery is the answer here. Stoddard County, Missouri (Located in the bootheel, labeled by "Sdd") didn't have a lot of cotton production until the early to mid 1900's due to it being a massive swamp. This is why there isn't a black population there even though there is a decent amount of cotton being grown there today. It got started after agricultural mechanization.
Great post and you beat me to it in terms of explaining that regions of the non-Deep South states have regions with very high Black concentrations in regards to population. Arkansas' Delta is very similar to the Mississippi Delta. Western Tennessee is pretty much an extension of those regions, as is SE Missouri, Western Kentucky and even Southern Illinois.
That is not true in the cotton and former cotton producing regions of those states. Look at Western Tennessee, Eastern Arkansas, and the bootheel of Missouri for example. They all have significant black populations at a much higher percentage than the rest of their state.
Many of them did not have the means to migrate away and/or they were locked in the sharecropping system that was in place after the civil war. The sharecropping system came into existance largely due to the fact that there was not much monentary wealth to be had in the south after the Civil War.
Example: Slavery - 1860 MO Census
This map shows the slave population % of every county in Missouri in 1860. The region along the Missouri river was mainly Hemp and Tobacco production, the Bootheel was cotton, and there was also slave labor used in the lead mines which is what you see just south of St. Louis. Other than the lead mining counties, those counties still at least have a somewhat significant black population, some above the state average and some right at it.
As I said, slavery is the answer here. Stoddard County, Missouri (Located in the bootheel, labeled by "Sdd") didn't have a lot of cotton production until the early to mid 1900's due to it being a massive swamp. This is why there isn't a black population there even though there is a decent amount of cotton being grown there today. It got started after agricultural mechanization.
Great post and you beat me to it in terms of explaining that regions of the non-Deep South states have regions with very high Black concentrations in regards to population. Arkansas' Delta is very similar to the Mississippi Delta. Western Tennessee is pretty much an extension of those regions, as is SE Missouri, Western Kentucky and even Southern Illinois.
Also, I think the OP meant to ask a different question given the answer he is looking for. Most Black people have always lived in the South throughout the history of the US. That percentage has never gone below 50-55% and many Black people in other regions are first generation born in those regions. There have been long time Black communities/families/residents outside of the South, but this is a matter of volume and goes back to that one word, slavery. I will say that slavery was present in some Northern states too.
Great post and you beat me to it in terms of explaining that regions of the non-Deep South states have regions with very high Black concentrations in regards to population. Arkansas' Delta is very similar to the Mississippi Delta. Western Tennessee is pretty much an extension of those regions, as is SE Missouri, Western Kentucky and even Southern Illinois.
Also, I think the OP meant to ask a different question given the answer he is looking for. Most Black people have always lived in the South throughout the history of the US. That percentage has never gone below 50-55% and many Black people in other regions are first generation born in those regions. There have been long time Black communities/families/residents outside of the South, but this is a matter of volume and goes back to that one word, slavery. I will say that slavery was present in some Northern states too.
Definitely. My own state of NJ had the highest number of slaves in the north at one point. As a matter of fact, it was a southern-sympathizing state, but due to its location, I guess they figured it would be healthier to stick with the Union.
Great post and you beat me to it in terms of explaining that regions of the non-Deep South states have regions with very high Black concentrations in regards to population. Arkansas' Delta is very similar to the Mississippi Delta. Western Tennessee is pretty much an extension of those regions, as is SE Missouri, Western Kentucky and even Southern Illinois.
Also, I think the OP meant to ask a different question given the answer he is looking for. Most Black people have always lived in the South throughout the history of the US. That percentage has never gone below 50-55% and many Black people in other regions are first generation born in those regions. There have been long time Black communities/families/residents outside of the South, but this is a matter of volume and goes back to that one word, slavery. I will say that slavery was present in some Northern states too.
I can think of two counties in Southwest Illinois that have over 30% black population. I read an article once that I'm pretty sure said slavery was allowed below a certain point in Illinois. It was close to the Ohio River.
And culturally, there is an argument to be made to include those areas as part of the deep south. They have more in common than most people realize.
Last edited by GunnerTHB; 12-04-2012 at 10:11 AM..
Even at the apex of the Great Migration (1970), the South STILL contained 53% of the US' African Americans. Nowadays, the South contains 54-55% of the Black American population, and that is including more recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa.
Interestingly, one of the blackest states in the US is Maryland at around 30%, but it's not a deep south state. However, it's historically had a rural black population since it's south of the Mason-Dixon Line, but now is either mostly urbanized (in Baltimore) or suburbanized (such as Prince George's County) since the state as a whole has become more urbanized.
Are you guys forgetting the civil war was 150 years ago? You're not giving it enough thought. All the blacks in California and Washington had no ancestors living there in the 1800's, their families moved and migrated there over the last century. I'm asking why some families did and some did not. Thought people could take the question seriously and think a little deeper, not just the surface facts we all know about the history of the south. Great job.
The Great Migration is what you seem to be interested in. There is an excellent book out that addressed your question I highlighted above.
Are you guys forgetting the civil war was 150 years ago? You're not giving it enough thought. All the blacks in California and Washington had no ancestors living there in the 1800's, their families moved and migrated there over the last century. I'm asking why some families did and some did not. Thought people could take the question seriously and think a little deeper, not just the surface facts we all know about the history of the south. Great job.
Well, most migrations in human history are spurned by one thing: jobs, jobs jobs
Resident Population Data - 2010 Census
At least out West, almost no one had ancestors who've lived here in the 1800s. In 1910, the West as a whole had a population of 7 million, compared to nearly 72 million today.
Typically, when people migrate for work-reasons, they don't bring their whole families with them, especially for industrial related work. Usually, the working-age males leave home to find money wherever they can. In many cases, once the work is done, they simply go back home.
When it comes to settling in an area, it then becomes a personal choice. Many of those who migrated north went back south as soon as the jobs dried up, but some found the north hospitable enough to stay. Imagine the thought process it takes to leave everything you have known behind, including most of your friends and family, to move somewhere hundreds of thousands of miles away (this is pre-jet travel). Heck, even today, this is daunting, but before the age of airplanes, it meant self-imposed exile. A lot felt that the Jim Crow South, for all its flaws, was still home and didn't feel the need to leave. Some didn't have the means to leave. Same as anywhere else.
Definitely. My own state of NJ had the highest number of slaves in the north at one point. As a matter of fact, it was a southern-sympathizing state, but due to its location, I guess they figured it would be healthier to stick with the Union.
I'm not surprised as NY didn't abolish slavery until July 4th 1827 and had more slaves than GA at one time. Most were in the Downstate portion and into the Hudson and Mohawk river valleys. That is why it isn't odd to see Black people with Dutch and French(Huguenot) surnames up here.
I believe I read that if they born before 1827, they weren't freed until they were 18 or at the discretion of the owner. I think NJ didn't have its last slave released until 1865 or 1866.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
