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.
If you think it's so simple, answer it, because there are still several exceptions to this. Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all have much smaller black populations than the deep south states.
becasue agriculture (esp. cotton ) was a big part of the economy in the deep south and most slaves were brought there. The other states didn't rely on cotton as much, alot has to do with the environment, so as a result they didn't have a big need for slaves and thats why their black populations are lower. Thats why there aren't that many black people in the appalachian areas.
EDIT: NC and VA still have high black populations a lot of them are transplants.
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.
If you talk in raw numbers, despite having a smaller % of blacks representing the total population, some of those midwestern states have more blacks than deep south states.
Example? Illinois is only 15% and Louisiana is 32% black, but Illinois has 1.9 million blacks while Louisiana has 1.4 million blacks. Ohio is only 12% black while South Carolina is 28% black, but Ohio has 1.4 million blacks while South Carolina has 1.3 million. Also, NC and VA have more blacks than Mississippi, Alabama, etc. Blacks just make up a larger % of the latter 2 states' total population.
Now here's where you'll notice the REAL difference. In the deep south, the black population is more widespread. Example, most of the rural counties of Middle and South Georgia have lots of blacks people, as opposed to up north where the black population is almost exclusively in or near metropolitan cities.
Yes, the rural black population in the south is much different from the rural population in the north where it's almost exclusively whites.
Your other points are a bit off though. Illinois has a much lower percentage of blacks overall than the deep south states. The only reason they have more in actual population is because it's a MUCH larger state than any of the southern states, nearly 13 million people compared with Louisiana at 4, Mississippi at 3, and Alabama at 4.
Ohio is also a densely populated state with many urban areas and cities, same case as Illinois. So I don't really understand that point.
But your last paragraph brings up an excellent point. The southern rural population is more diverse between blacks and whites than it is up north where they are almost exclusive to the urban areas.
The other thing to say is that Blacks leaving the South did not migrate uniformly across the rest of the country. The Northeastern/Midwestern industrial cities gained large Black populations. California did also, to a somewhat lesser extent. Blacks were recruited from Louisiana and Texas particularly to work in the shipyards and wartime industries of California during World War II. But many fewer Blacks went into the less populated far northern reaches of the country, like the Northwest and New England, especially northern New England. Among larger cities, Portland, Oregon, for example, has very few Blacks.
Excellent post. This is the information I was seeking, thank you for sharing.
Ok, Mutiny77 beat me to it regarding Indianapolis. It's not even on the same radar historically for Blacks like Chicago, Detroit, or even St. Louis was for Midwestern cities.
If you think it's so simple, answer it, because there are still several exceptions to this. Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all have much smaller black populations than the deep south states.
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: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/count...usSlavery.html
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.
Last edited by GunnerTHB; 12-04-2012 at 12:27 AM..
That is a fascinating map, mutiny. But I am surprised at the contrast between GA and NC with comparitively few slaves and ALA, SC, and VA with much larger populations. The line is especially stark between SC and GA and I expect they have the same agricultural/soil conditions.
That is a fascinating map, mutiny. But I am surprised at the contrast between GA and NC with comparitively few slaves and ALA, SC, and VA with much larger populations. The line is especially stark between SC and GA and I expect they have the same agricultural/soil conditions.
Does anyone have an idea why?
Largely because Charleston was historically the largest port of entry for slaves. Tidewater VA was also an important port of entry, as was NOLA.
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.
