Читать книгу The Negro at Work in New York City: A Study in Economic Progress - George Edmund Haynes - Страница 6

Table of Contents

The City[1] and the Negro—The Problem

The city of to-day, the growth of the past century, is a permanent development. Dr. Weber has effectively treated the history, nature, causes and effects of the concentration. He shows[2] that the percentage of urban population has varied in different countries; and that this is due mainly to the varying density of population and to the diverse physical features of the countries which have been differently affected by the Industrial Revolution and the era of railroads. The causes of this concentration have been the divorce of men from the soil, the growth of commercial centers, the growth of industrial centers, and such secondary and individual causes as legislation, educational and social advantages.

In the United States, city growth has been affected by all of the several causes that have operated in other countries, modified at times and in places by exceptional influences.[3]

In the discussions concerning the Negro and his movement cityward, it is often assumed that his migration is affected by causes of a different kind from those moving other populations; or that it is not similar in respect to the movement of the white population under similar conditions; or that the concentration can result only in dire disaster both to himself and to the community into which he moves. Such facts as are available suggest that these assumptions are ill-founded. The efforts that are being put forth to improve rural conditions and to advance agricultural arts among Negroes are highly commendable and effective. The thesis of this chapter is that, notwithstanding improvements resulting from these efforts for rural districts, wherever similar causes operate under similar conditions, the Negro, along with the white population, is coming to the city to stay; that the problems which grow out of his maladjustment to the new urban environment are solvable by methods similar to those that help other elements of the population.

In the first place, so far as we know now, the general movement of the Negroes, speaking for the South, does not seem to have been very different from that of the whites. Professor Wilcox says,[4]

It is sometimes alleged that the migration to cities, which has characterized nearly all countries and all classes of population during the last half century, has affected Southern whites more than Southern negroes, and that the latter race is thus being segregated in the rural districts. That such a movement may have gone on, or may now be in progress, in parts of the South can neither be affirmed nor denied on the basis of the present figures, but it may be said with some confidence that, as a general statement applied to the whole South, it is not correct. To be sure the negroes constitute 32.6 per cent of the population of the country districts in the entire South and only 30.9 per cent of the city population, but an examination of the figures (Census 1900) for the several divisions and states will show that what is in some degree true of the South as a whole is not true of most of its parts.

Therefore, it is of importance to note that the movement of white and Negro populations toward cities tends to be coincident. We may get some indication of these movements of white and Negro populations cityward by comparing the growth of their numbers in the principal Northern and Southern cities from 1860 to 1900.

The Negro population has shown a greater increase than the white in each southern city taken separately for the entire period, 1860 to 1900, but together the movement of the white and Negro populations was similar except between 1860 and 1870. That fourteen of the southern cities show an excessive proportional increase of Negro population between 1860 and 1870 is probably due (1) to the very small proportionate Negro population in each of these cities in 1860, the Negroes being almost entirely in the rural districts, and (2) to the exceptional influences following the Civil War which uprooted the rural Negro population that was proportionately larger than the white. The truth of this is corroborated by the per cent of increase by decades for these southern cities taken together. Comparisons with the white population in Northern cities were not made because of the influence of foreign immigration of whites. The per cent of increase of the populations in Southern cities from 1860 to 1870 were white 16.7 per cent, Negro 90.7 per cent; from 1870 to 1880, white 20.3 per cent, Negro 25.5 per cent; from 1880 to 1890, white 35.7 per cent, Negro 38.7 per cent; from 1890 to 1900, white 20.8 per cent, Negro 20.6 per cent; from 1900 to 1910, white 27.7 per cent, Negro 20.6 per cent. That is, when the proportion between the urban and rural populations of blacks and whites becomes normal, and exceptional influences no longer bear upon the Negro, the two populations show about the same rate of increase in their migrations to these Southern cities. The percent of increase of the Negro population for eight Northern cities (counting all the boroughs of New York City as now constituted as one) was as follows: 1860–1870, 51 per cent; 1870–1880, 36.4 per cent; 1880–1890, 32.3 per cent; 1890–1900, 59.2 per cent. The larger liberty of Northern cities was coupled with the economic call of better wages. And this probably may account for the fact that Southern cities show an increase of whites of 7.7 per cent more than of Negroes between 1900–1910. The migration to both Southern and Northern cities is graphically illustrated in the accompanying diagram.

Diagram I: Per Cent Increase of Whites and Negroes

The figures for Southern cities represented in the diagram are given in Table I.

Table I. Number and Per Cent. Increase of White and Negro Populations, Principal Southern Cities, 1860–1900.[A]

	Population 14 cities.	Increase 1860–1870.	Population 15 cities.	Increase 1870–1880.
1860.	1870.	No.	Per cent	1870.	1880.	No.	Per cent
White	610,015	712,015	102,000	16.7	715,887	867,403	145,081	20.3
Negro	141,709	270,212	128,503	90.7	272,433	341,907	69,474	25.5
	Population 15 cities.	Increase 1880–1890.	Population 16 cities.	Increase 1890–1900.
1890.	No.	Per cent	1900.	No.	Per cent
White	1,183,419	307,542	35.7	1,429,931	246,512	20.8
Negro	485,477	132,316	38.7	585,931	100,054	20.6
	Population 16 cities.	Increase 1900–1910.
1910.	No.	Per cent
White	1,817,155	387,224	27.7
Negro	706,352	120,821	20.6

[A] Table is based on figures compiled from Eighth Census, Pop., pp. 9, 19, 46, 74, 132, 195, 215, 452, 487, 519; Tenth Census, vol. i, Pop., pp. 416–425; Eleventh Census, vol. i, Pop., pp. 451–485; Twelfth Census, vol. i, pt. 2, Pop., pp. cxix-cxxi and Bulletin 8, Negroes of the United States, pp. 230–232. For 1860, compare Hoffman, Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro p. 10.

Both the diagram and the table support the conclusion that the movement of the white and Negro populations to these cities have been similar under similar conditions and influences.

In like manner such statistics as are available show that the causes that have concentrated the white population in urban centres have operated likewise to send the Negro thither.

I. The Divorce of the Negro from the Soil.—With other rural populations improvements in agriculture have made fewer workers necessary. In the case of the Negro, the main moving force from the rural districts since 1860 has been the breaking down of the old régime. The decades from 1840 to 1890, except 1870 to 1880, or the period of the "industrial paralysis" after the panic of 1873, were decades of remarkable urban growth in the United States.[5] The first two decades of this time were the years of violent slavery agitation. Then followed the Civil War and the boon of freedom, which gave rise to an unusual mobility of Negro labor. The inevitable Wanderlust which sudden social upheaval entails was increased by Ku-Klux terrorism and the breaking down of the slave plantation system.[6] Thousands of the wandering freedmen flocked to the Union army posts which were located in towns and cities.

This was only the beginning. The landless freedman furnished occasion for the creation of the share-tenant and crop-lien systems. In many cases these handicaps often became intolerable under dishonest merchants, unscrupulous landlords, and ill-treatment by overseers.[7] All this tended to loosen the hold of the Negro tenant upon the soil.

Simultaneously with these dominant forces in agriculture, another began to be felt. The one crop of cotton or tobacco taxed the land in many sections year after year until it was worn out. In 1899, 70.5 per cent of Negro farmers reported cotton as the principal source of income. Tobacco formed the principal source of income of 16 per cent of Negro farmers in Virginia, of 30.1 per cent in Kentucky and of 18.7 per cent in Maryland.[8] Compared with the growing industrial pursuits, these old agricultural lands no longer offer attractive returns.[9]

Again, where thrift, improvement in agricultural methods and knowledge develop, just as among other farmers, there begins to be a surplus of hands to the cultivator, and Negroes turn toward better paid employment in the urban centres.

It is true that there are large uncultivated, virgin areas of the Southwest, especially in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, that are calling loudly for farm labor. The population these areas can support is very considerable and the returns to labor are better than in many of the older agricultural sections. Granting this, the tendency of modern civilization and improvements in facilities for transportation favors the urban centers. So that migration is easier toward the city than away from it or toward these untilled agricultural areas. The Negro is in the population stream.

II. The Migration of the Negro to Industrial and Commercial centers.—A study of the growth of the Southern cities shows influences at work similar to those of other sections. Statistics of manufactures of the United States Censuses are not altogether conclusive or reliable, but they measurably indicate conditions. We turn to these records for light upon the Southern situation.

A study of the value of manufactured products of sixteen Southern cities shows that there was a marked increase during the twenty-five years from 1880 to 1905. The industrial centers, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Birmingham, Alabama, have come into prominence in the decade, 1890–1900, and show an increase in value of products of 17.8 per cent and 78.9 per cent respectively. The comparatively small increase during 1890–1900 for Richmond, Va.; Charleston, S.C.; Augusta and Savannah, Ga., and Mobile, Ala., was probably due to unknown local causes and to a reaction during the industrial crisis of 1892–1894 from the excessive increases of the preceding decade. Yet these cities along with nine of the others show remarkable increase in the total value of products for the entire twenty years from 1880 to 1900. Richmond, with an increase of 39 per cent and Savannah, with an increase of 90.3 per cent, were the only cities which had an increase of less than one hundred per cent in value of products during the score of years from 1880 to 1900. The total increase in value of products from 1880 to 1900 for 14 of the cities (Chattanooga and Birmingham being omitted) was 143.3 per cent. The following comparative statement in Table II shows the increase in the value of products of manufactures in sixteen Southern cities from 1880 to 1905, and gives the detailed figures which are the bases of the preceding conclusion. (See p. 21.)

Along with the increase of production has gone the growth in the average number of wage-earners in manufacturing establishments. Each city made a decided advance in the average number of wage-earners in manufactures during the twenty years from 1880 to 1900. In that period, out of fourteen cities, two increased over 300 per cent in the average number of wage-earners, two cities increased over 240 per cent in the average number of wage-earners, five cities increased over 100 per cent and the remaining five cities showed an increase of 76.3 per cent, 57 per cent, 39.8 per cent, 18.8 per cent, and 7.5 per cent respectively. Chattanooga, Tenn., and Birmingham, Ala., from 1890 to 1900 increased 5.2 per cent and 105.6 per cent respectively. Omitting these, the other fourteen cities taken together increased in the number of wage-earners during the twenty years from 1880 to 1900, 60.9 per cent. Table III, which follows, brings into full view this large and constant increase in the average number of wage-earners in manufacturing establishments, exclusive of proprietors, salaried officers, clerks, etc.

Table II. Total Value of Products, Including Custom Work and Repairing, of Manufactures in Sixteen Southern Cities, 1880–1905.[A]

	Total value of products.
1880.	1890.	1900.	Per cent increase 1880–1900.	1905[B]
	$	$	$		$
Wilmington	13,205,370	24,568,125	34,053,324	157.9	30,390,039
Baltimore	78,417,304	141,723,599	161,249,240	105.6	151,546,580
Washington[C]	11,882,316	39,331,437	47,667,622	301.2	18,359,159
Norfolk	1,455,987	5,100,408	9,397,355	545.4	5,900,129
Richmond	20,790,106	27,792,672	28,900,616	39.0	28,202,607
Charleston	2,732,590	9,005,421	9,562,387	249.9	6,007,094
Atlanta	4,861,727	13,074,037	16,707,027	243.6	25,745,650
Augusta	3,139,029	9,244,850	10,041,900	219.9	8,829,305
Savannah	3,396,297	6,319,066	6,461,816	90.3	6,340,004
Louisville	35,423,203	54,515,226	78,746,390	122.3	83,204,125
Chattanooga		10,216,109	12,033,780	17.8[D]	15,193,909
Memphis	4,413,422	13,244,538	17,923,058	306.1	21,348,817
Nashville	8,597,278	14,590,823	18,469,823	114.8	23,109,601
Birmingham		7,034,248	12,581,066	78.9[D]	7,592,958
Mobile	1,335,579	3,826,399	4,451,062	233.3	4,942,331
New Orleans	18,808,096	48,295,449	63,514,505	237.7	84,604,006
Total	208,458,304	427,882,407	531,760,971	143.3[E]	521,316,314

[A] Compiled from Census Reports: 1880, 10th Census, Manufactures, pp. xxiv, xxv; 1890–1900, 12th Census, vol. viii, Manufactures, Part ii, pp. 7, 108, 115, 134, 279, 301, 335, 831, 848, 908; 1905, 12th Census, Manufactures, Part ii, pp. 20, 142, 152, 179, 339, 361, 403, 1025, 1056, 1127.

[B] In Tables ii and iii the figures of Manufactures from 1880 to 1900 are not exactly comparable with those of 1905, because the census of 1905 was limited to manufacturing establishments and excluded all neighborhood work and establishments for custom work and repairing. Hence percentage of increase was not worked out for this period.

[C] Figures for Washington, D.C., apply to the District of Columbia and include governmental establishments.

[D] Increase 1890–1900.

[E] Increase per cent for 14 cities from 1880 to 1900, exclusive of Chattanooga and Birmingham.

Table III. Average Number of Wage-earners[A] Engaged in Manufactures in Sixteen Southern Cities, 1880–1905.[B]

	Average Number of Wage-earners.
1880.	1890.	1900.	Per cent increase, 1880–1900.	1905.[D]
Wilmington. Del.	7,852	13,370	16,055	104.5	13,554
Baltimore, Md.	56,338	76,489	78,738	39.8	65,224
Washington, D.C.	7,146	20,406	24,693	245.5	17,281
Norfolk, Va.	752	2,391	4,334	476.3	3,063
Richmond, Va.	14,047	16,891	16,692	18.8	12,883
Charleston, S.C.	2,146	4,684	5,027	134.2	3,450
Atlanta, Ga.	3,680	7,957	9,356	154.2	11,891
Augusta, Ga.	4,518	5,714	7,092	57.0	4,839
Savannah, Ga.	1,130	2,419	2,870	154.1	3,330
Louisville, Ky.	17,103	24,159	29,926	7.5	24,985
Chattanooga, Tenn.[C]		5,200	5,472	5.2	6,984
Memphis, Tenn.	2,268	5,497	8,433	271.8	8,153
Nashville, Tenn.	4,791	7,275	8,447	76.3	8,435
Birmingham, Ala.[C]		3,247	6,675	105.6	3,987
Mobile, Ala.	704	2,719	2,827	301.5	2,496
New Orleans, La.	9,504	22,342	19,435[E]	104.5	17,631
Total	131,979	212,313	233,925	60.9[F]	208,186

[A] Does not include proprietors, salaried officers, clerks, etc.

[B] 1880, Tenth Census, Manufactures, pp. xxiv, xxv; 1890 and 1900, 11th Census, Manufactures, Part ii, pp. 7, 108, 115, 134, 279, 300, 335, 831, 848, 908; 1905, 12th Census, vol. viii, Manufactures, Part ii, pp. 20, 142, 152, 179, 339, 361, 403, 1025, 1056, 1127.

[C] No return for 1880.