Title: Comparative social changes in Florida, the Southeast and the United States since 1930, by Stanley A. Clark
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097569/00001
 Material Information
Title: Comparative social changes in Florida, the Southeast and the United States since 1930, by Stanley A. Clark
Physical Description: xix, 321 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Clark, Stanley Andrew, 1948-
Publication Date: 1973
Copyright Date: 1973
Subject: Social conditions -- Southern States   ( lcsh )
Population -- Southern States   ( lcsh )
Sociology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Sociology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Thesis: Thesis -- University of FLorida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 300-320.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097569
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000580918
oclc - 14100401
notis - ADA9023


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









Copyright by



To my father,

Professor Douglas A. Clark,

who will always be the sociologist and teacher

I admire above all others

stated quite simply that there was no distinct South. Simpson

and Norsworthy echoed their agreement by saying

. .there are many Souths. Comparative
Census data on the states of the South
.vary sufficiently to call into question
the very reality of a homogeneous region
in 1960. (1965:204)

Johnson (1941) also reflected that opinion, claiming that

since there were as many differences between areas of the

South as there were between the South and other regions, the

idea of a single "South" was untenable. And Ktsanes believed

he had terminated the discussion with this comment:

One conclusion which becomes absolutely
inescapable. .is that the theoretical
aim of having a 'different' South, a region
which performs essentially agricultural
functions for the rest of a more highly
industrialized nation, has now finally
disappeared. (1966:1)

The debate is not over, then; neither can it be resolved

at this point. In a real sense, any research that involves

the region as an entity implicitly accepts the assumption

that in many ways the South has a distinctiveness, regardless

of what some feel to be an erroneously imputed "mystique."

Whatever one's opinion on the issue of cultural similarity,

one fact remains: there has been a far-ranging structural

homogeneity in the region throughout its history. The South

has had the common heritage of a dual social structure with

parallel institutions for whites and blacks. There exists

a distinctly regional historical molding, then, in which

separate-but-unequal duplication has been the rule. These

structural.and institutional similarities have given common

cause to the entire Southeast, first to maintain that duality

in the face of outside pressure, and after the Supreme Court

ruling of 1954, to dismantle and phase out the existing

biracial social apparatus. Perhaps it was the duplicative

system itself that contributed the most to regional lags

by sapping resources and energy. A fuller discussion of

Southern structural similarity will follow at a later point

in this chapter.

Topical Review of Research

In the same way that "the changing South" has been the

theme of most recent Southern research, it has also been

noted that

S .observations about the South. .
[by] social scientists have almost invar-
iably focused upon the issue of race and
and race relations. (Thompson, 1945:119)

Odum purported to explain why this has been the case. The

South has been composed historically of two separate folk

cultures, black and white. He concluded that ". .the story

of the Negro in the South becomes. .the most decisive factor

in the architecture of southern culture" (1947:41). Race

relations as an issue is touched upon almost without exception

in all Southern research. In some cases the topic is central:

for example, Bertram Doyle's analysis (1937) of the normative

system that supports biracial culture, Vander Zanden's analysis

of changing Southern race relations (1965), and Killian and

Grigg's study (1966) of the effects of urbanization on black-

white interrelationships are but a few. Moreover, when any

writer discusses American race relations the South receives

much attention, since it has been taken to be an excellent

field laboratory in this regard. Odum (1942) summarized the

importance of the race issue in the study of Southern regions

by claiming that the most noticeable difference between the

South and the rest of the nation was in its biracial culture.

Cash (1941) also stressed the historical significance of the

day by day, close interdependence of blacks and whites

throughout the course of Southern regional development.

The topic of urbanization in the South merits careful

attention at this point as a substantive area of investigation.

Vance and Demerath (1954) stated that urbanization was a key

index of regional social change. The process has been both'

recent and sudden, and has resulted in many rapid concomitant

changes (Mack, 1970). Kahl (1959) clarified the major effects

of urbanization and industrialization wherever those processes

occur; his list included rural-urban migration, occupational

specialization, labor force shifts, better educational

standards, and so on. Because of this fact, numerous writers

have attempted to determine the nature of urbanization in

the South and its effects on regional culture and social

structures. Machlachlan and Floyd (1956) explained why this

attention was merited:

The fact that the urbanization of the
South has been a part of a national
trend. .should not be permitted to
obscure the significance of the pattern
of this change within the region. To
a region which for nearly all of its
history has been primarily and over-
whelmingly rural, with its population
scattered sparsely, the demographic
changes of recent years have much more
impact than similar changes in areas
whose urban pattern has been established
for longer periods. The growth of
southern cities, then, is sociological
news. .and it justifies careful
scrutiny. (1956:30)

Urbanization is a complex phenomenon with many dimensions;

the process eludes simple definition. In its broadest sense,

the major variables involved are population size and concen-

tration. The operational definition of urbanization for this

research, then, is that offered by T. Lynn Smith:

. .urbanization is best viewed as a
redistribution of population, involving
both (1) an increase in the number of
points at which population concentrates,
and (2) a growth in the size of these

Tisdale (1942) presented the same description of the process,

noting that population concentration was the most significant

factor; she believed that two necessary conditions were a

growing population and a developing technology.

Why has the process been recent in the South? Why is it

that, as Smith (1954) observed, Southern urbanization was

fifty years behind the nation? According to Nichols (1960),

the major reason for the lack of urban and industrial develop-

ment in the region was .the Southern tradition, namely

(I) the persistence of agrarian values,
(2) the rigidity of the social structure,
(3) the undemocratic nature of the political
(4) the weakness of social responsibility,
(5) conformity of thought and behavior.

To be sure, there was a pro-urban sentiment in the South early

in this century, but according to Brownell (1969) it was not

until the 1920's that this ideal was sufficiently widespread

to spur Southern urbanization.2 There had been a few cities

in the South of the 19th century, but at that time regional

towns were essentially seacoast trade centers with few

industrial functions (Heberle, 1954). The process was extremely

slow, receiving its major impetus between the two World Wars

and the following'years. Economic growth had begun to make

the region attractive; and, when combined with the rapidly

increasing population, contributed significantly to the growth

of metropolitan areas (Wilber, 1964).

The first comprehensive study of urban development in

the South appeared in 1941 when Johnson published his

Statistical Atlas of Southern Counties. In this work he

developed a typology of Southern counties which included

the Cotton county, by which he characterized about one half

of the total number in the region, and the Metropolitan county,

which was at that time rather rare. When his work was published,

A public sentiment favorable to the development of cities
is not a necessary condition for their appearance, but it
does tend to promote the diffusion and acceptance of urban

over 85 percent of all Southern counties were either rural

or "small town" in nature. It has been only within the last

quarter century that urban development and suburban sprawl

(studied by Dietrich in 1960) have come to the fore in Southern


Urbanization implies rural change, of course, and several

authors have studied the South in that context. McCormick

(1931) provided a national overview of those trends, noting

that the urbanization of rural American (including the South)

was the major trend in rural life. Nixon (1941) nostalgically

reflected on rural patterns before urbanization. Ryan and

Anderson (1942) analyzed changes in rural life that were a

consequence of World War II. Dickins (1950) traced the

alterations being made in the Southern farm family as it

became increasingly like its urban counterpart and Bertrand

(1966) studied how the rural South was adjusting to the

confrontation it faced with urban America.

The attention given to rural change often centers on

migration. This point is clearly visible in terms of Southern

research and a large number of scholars have dealt with the

migratory characteristics of the region's population. According

to Vance (1945), the three major trends have been a westward

internal movement away from the coast, migration from the

region northward, and internal shifts from rural to urban

areas. Odum (1947) discussed the same movements. The basic

explanations given for population movement here usually

involved some sort of "safety-valve" conceptualization: the

South's birth rates have been higher than the rest of the

nation, and to relieve the pressures of over-crowding some

sort of migration is essential. The lure of economic oppor-

tunity probably plays a much more significant role in this

process. The most notable and consequential movement may

well be that of blacks permanently leaving the region. This

point was made by Mayo and Hamilton (1963), Maclachlan and

Floyd (1956), Hamilton (1965), Persky and Kain (1970) and

others. Heberle (1945) observed how the second World War

was influential in this trend.

This is not to say that there has been no inmigration

from other regions; Odum (1947) discussed the high levels

of population movement into the South in the early 20th

century. Further, Hitt (1954) analyzed the pull of Southern

metropolitan centers from outside the region. As recently

as 1965, Hamilton claimed that immigration rates were

increasing, but only among whites.

Industrial growth is in many ways indistinguishable from

urbanization, since these phenomena are part and parcel of

the same modernization process. In the rural sector, indus-

trialization involves the mechanization of agriculture. Early

in this century, when farms around the nation were utilizing

new technological developments, the small Southern farms could

not afford to keep pace; Ruttan (1955) called this a period

of "rural stagnation." At mid-century the lag in mechanization

continued throughout the region as Southern farms remained

deficient in modern equipment and machinery (Hoover and

Ratchford, 1951). Further study of farm mechanization was

done by Williams (1939) and Bertrand (1948), with the

conclusion that great social changes and resulting problems

were occurring throughout the rural South.

On a broader scale, Southern industrial growth has not

kept pace with that of other regions. The regional economic

structure is not strong; its business mix is unbalanced

(Dunn, 1962), and those industries that the South does possess

have been largely low-wage, low-value and slow-growth, such

as mining and forestry (Herring, 1940; Vance, 1945). The same

can be said for agriculture, which is the foundation of the

Southern economy. According to Dunn,

agriculture has not only damned the Deep
South because it dominates the employment
structure and, therefore, denies the Deep
South a share in the more normal employ-
ment gains in the nation; it has also
damned the area because southern agriculture
has. .not remained competitive with
agriculture in other regions (1962:17).

Most industrial activity in the region has involved primary

or extractive operations; only in recent years have gains been

made as the South enters secondary- and tertiary-level indus-

tries such as chemicals and synthetics (Schriver, 1971;

McKinney and Bourque, 1971). The southern states are presently

gaining an increasing share of national industrial development,

which is badly needed to balance an economic structure that is

heavily weighted in favor of agriculture and the rough pro-

cessing of raw materials.3

Accompanying the lag in industrialization has been a

deficit in wages. The South has been making gains in the past

thirty years in this regard, yet as a region the lack of

equality with national averages is readily apparent. Low

income implies low capital for the financing of new industry;

the end result nearly amounts to a vicious cycle, and serves

to keep the South in many ways at early stages of industrial-

ization (Vance, 1945). On the whole, the picture is not quite

so bleak as it may appear on the surface; relative progress

has encouraged many writers. This feeling is evident in the

following statement by Hoover and Ratchford made some two

decades ago:

The income of southerners would have to
be increased by about 50 per cent to
make it roughly equal to the income of
non-southerners. Twenty years ago it
would have required an increase of more
than 100 per cent. Thus progress is
being made in reducing the southern lag.
Literature pertaining to Southern social structures and

institutions is so vast that it obviates a comprehensive

review. Nonetheless, selected important writings will be

briefly presented. Initial discussion focuses on the strati-

fication system and occupational structure in the region; and

An expanded discussion of the Southern economy appears later
in this research with the presentation of relevant data.

secondly, major institutions that have been analyzed in recent

decades (specifically, the political and religious institutions)

will be reviewed. The underlying foundations of Southern

culture, according to Odum (1947), were race and caste, and

powerful, distinctive institutions have been constructed.upon

this framework.

The social class and occupational systems of most societies

are closely interrelated with their age, sex, racial charac-

teristics, technology and industrial development. Many writers

focus on class in terms of race, and occupation in terms of

industrialization. It becomes difficult, therefore, to locate

literature that limits its focus to these two systems per se,

especially at a regional rather than national level. Odum (1947)

believed that any study of the South historically involved

four major groups: a white aristocracy, a white middle and

lower class, and a black lower class. The Southern class'

system has been parallel in nature, separated by race into a

caste-type structure that Dollard found to be unchanged as

recently as 1949. The entire.Southern culture was originally

constructed on the props of a class-caste system (Davis and

Dollard, 1940). Careful studies of this regional phenomenon have

been undertaken by Davis, Gardner and Gardner (1941), Dollard

(1937), and others. Southern attitudes to the inequitable state

of affairs were for many decades nonchalant: blacks were quite

He elaborated this point in the preface to the second edition
of his book, Caste and Class in a Southern Town, Harper and
Brothers, 1949.

simply at the bottom of the pyramid and class barriers were

taken for granted (Ogburn, 1945). A widely accepted social

code served to support and maintain the caste-like system

in the South,once slavery had been abolished (Dollard, 1937;

Doyle, 1937), yet by the middle of the century changes were

taking place. Social mobility for both blacks and whites

was becoming more widespread and the class structure was coming

to resemble that of the rest of the nation (Heberle, 1959).

In spite of these changes race remains a significant factor

in the determination of social status in the South (Robinson

and Preston, 1970). and North as well. This is especially true

in the Southeast, where being black has been almost synonymous

with being lower class.

The occupational structure of the Southeast is currently

undergoing profound changes as rural farm areas are being

depopulated; it is still considerably different from the rest

of the nation because of the agricultural basis of the regional

economy. While the South retains large numbers in farming

occupations, the United States as a whole is much more oriented

toward manufacturing and service occupations. Evans observed

this trend in 1938; others have also focused on regional

differences relative to the national occupational picture

(Vance, 1945; Hoover and Ratchford, 1951). The situation of

Southern blacks in low-status, immobile occupational categories

has been noted (Odum, 1947; Dewey, 1962), and is believed to

be contributing to the high out-migration of blacks from the

region (Persky and Kain, 1970). But Simpson and Norsworthy

concluded that:

While the South is still a long way
from catching up with the nation, it
has markedly upgraded its occupational
structure in an absolute sense.
The recent and dramatic decrease in the proportion of workers

in agriculture serves as an indicator of the nature and extent

of regional occupational shifts (Thompson, 1954), and Shriver

(1971) was convinced that tremendous concomitant social changes

would occur as the South continued to approach national averages.

The subject of Southern institutions encompasses a wide

range of social behavior and has been considered by a large

number of regional social scientists. Our attention will

turn briefly to two of the most important institutions:

political and religious. This is not to deny the significance

of the Southern family, which Ogburn (1945) among others

believed to be the most powerful institution of them all.

The educational system in the region, which has historically

trailed behind the nation in its development (Vance, 1945;

Odum, 1947) but which has been steadily improving in the

last thirty years (Thompson, 1966), will be discussed in

Chapter VII.

The political structure of the South has most often been

conceived as a homogeneous and solidly Democratic entity; this

point has been observed by literally dozens of recent writers,

and has been the object of growing controversy in academic

circles.5 There is wide agreement that a politically "Solid

South" is disappearing. Thompson (1966) believed the major

catalyst was the civil rights movement, and Cortley and Titus

(1954) traced the impact of urbanization on Southern politics,

noting power struggles between urban and rural districts as

well as growing widespread involvement in the governmental

process. Nixon (1941) observed that the strength of rural

areas in terms of political control was powerful but declining

somewhat. A recently noted trend in Southern politics has

been the growing participation of blacks in the political

process (Elliot, 1965; Watters and Cleghorn, 1967). This is

a tremendously significant social change in which the federal

courts played an important role (Vines, 1966).

Alterations are also occurring with respect to religion,

an institution intimately related to Southern culture (Hill,

1967). The comprehensive portrayal of regional religious

practice undertaken by Bailey in 1964 was an important contri-

bution to the regional literature. Shriver (1970) observed

a new "social awareness" in the Southern church that was

unknown before the middle of this century, and a resulting

alliance with the secular world that signified widespread

institutional reorientation. Yet for all the changes, religion

in the Southeast is still mostly conservative and Protestant,

a fact which Maddox and Fichter (1966) believed justifies the

descriptive expression "Bible belt" in the region.

5For example, see Bartley and Graham (1972).

Community and Macroanalytic Research in the South

There has been a long tradition of community-level research

in American sociology, and Southern towns have been the subject

of analysis in several well-known studies. Dollard's work

(1937) in "Southerntown" provided an overall analysis of the

social life of a small regional community as seen from a social

psychological perspective. A similar effort was undertaken by

Davis, Gardner and Gardner in "Old City" (1941). Finally,

Nixon (1941) studied "Possum Trot," a dying rural community

in northern Alabama undergoing many profound changes as a

result of the Depression years.

To conclude the review of literature, we will focus on

four studies in this century that have attempted the same

approach as that outlined in Chapter I: that is, a macro-

level, regional analysis of many social and demographic

variables with the goal of developing a comprehensive picture

of Southern life and social structures. Unfortunately, with

the exception of Ford's survey (1962), the data were all

collected before the second World War. This fact in itself

sufficiently justifies the necessity of contemporary research.

in the same pattern.

Howard Odum's work is frequently cited as a benchmark in

the regional tradition. His massive Southern Regions of the

United States (1936) was an effort to determine whether the

South was fully participating in national wealth and progress;

his conclusion was negative, for the region was not in balance

with respect to many factors including the development and

use of "human resources." Odum's major contribution was the

division of the South into eastern and western subregions.

He accomplished this by developing over two hundred indices

which were applied to states in the Southeast; those that were

dissimilar from other states on a large number of indices were

either disqualified from inclusion in the region or relegated

to the opposite Southern subregion. The net result of his

effort was recorded in literally hundreds of descriptive

categories, expressed as maps or tables in the 1936 publication.

The general framework of that presentation included first a

study of Southern culture and natural resources; second,

technology, industry and wealth; and finally, regional insti-

tutions and folkways. In a sentence, Odum deduced that

the southern states generally rank in
the lowest fourth of the states of the
Union in standard measurements of income,
wealth, levels of living, education, and
public health and welfare facilities.
A second study of the South was conducted by Johnson in

1941 and published as the Statistical Atlas of Southern Counties.

As the title implies, this work involved basically the collection

and tabulation of data for 1104 counties in the region, and

did not include the integrative or explanatory activity found

in Odum's work. Johnson studied many social and economic

variables using the county as his basic unit of analysis; Odum's

focus had been on the state. The quality of the Statistical

Atlas lies in its assemblage, from hundreds of data sources,

of a large amount of comparable data for a static analysis of

the South of 1940.

Rupert Vance contributed a third macroanalytic analysis

of the region. The themes he had begun to develop in the

1930's were brought together in 1945 in All These People:

The Nation's Human Resources in the South. He was attempting

to demonstrate along with Odum the regional imbalances that

existed, in an effort to insure that the South would be treated

equally in the nation's development. This is apparent in the

following passage from his book:

The South wants to share the Nation's future.
It is not the existence of regional. inequal-
ities that disturbs the South so much. It is
their persistence over the generations . .
The South. .is not so optimistic about its
place in the nation's future. The new region-
alism is an indication of this trend, and if
one had to phrase its implications it would
be in seven words: Wanted: The Nation's
future for the South. (1945:477)

Vance approached the region in much the same way as Odum,

analyzing first population characteristics, occupations and

industrial growth; and subsequently studying health and

education. Like Odum, he cared very deeply about the South

and his presentation was sympathetic to Southern history and


The final macroanalytic study considered here was con-

ducted in the 1950's by a team of researchers and assembled

under the editorial guidance of Thomas Ford in The Southern

Appalachian Region: A Survey (1962). This investigation of

the Appalachian subregion had as its goal a description of

changes since 1935 and the present situation with regard to

health, education, religion, the economy, and other social

and demographic characteristics. The working assumption was

stated by Vance:

.the Appalachians have lagged behind
the nation on all counts, including the
development of resources and the indus-
trialization of the area. ...It is feared
that one great subregion--the Southern
Appalachians--has not kept step with the
South's advance. (1962:7,8)

Ford utilized approximately the same outline as that of Odum

and Vance; he focused on the regional population, economic

structure, institutions and problems. Tremendous changes were

observed by the various writers on nearly every front.

These four studies each contributed in unique ways to

our understanding of the region; however, the information is

dated and static. There is an obvious need for current

longitudinal research along the same lines established by

Odum, Johnson, Vance and Ford. The "changing South" of 1940

was long ago transformed by subsequent alterations; thus, a

study which would incorporate data from the past and present

would afford the best perspective for understanding regional

trends through time and possibly into the future.

A. further weakness of existing Southern research has been

described by Dunn:

Each bit of regional research really fulfills
its highest purpose when it is integrated
with the other bits in a comprehensive design.
S. The absence of such a design is a defect
in. .all existing Southern regional research.
. One study has a different time span from
another. One uses a different geographical
breakdown and another a different industrial
classification. Often important questions and
hypotheses are not even considered because the
research is not viewed in the larger context
of the contribution it can make to enlarging
the meaning of other research findings.

The utilization of standardized federal data collection sources

will enable the research presented in these chapters to over-

come some of the difficulties noted by Dunn. Efforts to

integrate present findings with those of other writers will

further enhance the quality of this design. The data will

be interpreted in light of recent sociological statements in

order to give broad meaning to our understanding of changes

throughout the region.



There are many limitations to the development of a

research design pertinent to time series analysis. One must

depend on secondary sources for the vast majority of data,

and it is not possible to alter methodological decisions that

were made by the initial researchers. Recognizing these

constraints, the procedures used in the present study are

outlined in this chapter.


The first question raised in longitudinal research

involves the choice of a baseline. There must be a satis-

factory rationale for selecting any particular time period

against which changes are to be measured. In the present

study, 1930 was chosen as the baseline for several reasons.

First, many authors have noted that widespread-social changes

in the South, while originating perhaps prior to 1930, did

not fully rise within the region until the Depression years

of the early 1930's. Secondly, 1930 has been noted as a

significant year in the start of regional metropolitan growth

(Wilber, 1964) and industrial development (Hoover and Ratchford,

1951). Bertrand (1966) observed that it was in 1930 that the

South began to move toward new and better relationships with

the rest of the nation.

Further, any study of social change should follow the

general principle set down by Stein in reference to community

research, when he wrote that ". .a case study of a community

in transition must describe the social structure prior to the

onset of the changes. ." (1964:55-56). Does 1930 accurately

represent the South before its massive transformation? The

following statement by Leonard Reissman is a powerful testimony

to that fact:

As late as 1930, the South could be charac-
terized as a regional society built upon
aristocratic domination, aristocratic senti-
ments, and aristocratic traditions ... .The
South's stratification system was steeply
pyramidal: a small, land-owning and commercial
elite at the top; a relatively small middle
class of professionals, managers, farmers,
tenant farmers, and urban poor; and finally,
the whole of this structure resting upon the
bulk of the Negro population.bound to agri-
culture. The caste barrier separated Negro
from white, and just as surely, the aristo-
cratic barrier separated the elite from all
others. Upward social mobility was relatively
limited. .under these restrictive conditions,
political and social relations tended to
remain traditionally static. With but few
exceptions during most of the hundred years
after the Civil War, political styles and
social etiquette in the South continued to
reinforce the status quo. The South had
constructed an almost impenetrable barrier
around itself during those decades that kept
out most changes originating outside.

There are important methodological reasons as well as

substantive arguments for the choice of the 1930 baseline.

There is a noticeable lack of comparable data for the years

prior to 1930 in regard to subsequent decades and, in addition,

many definitions and categories that have since become an

integral part of federal and local data-gathering organiza-

tions were nonexistent before the baseline year.

Time Intervals

The second question raised in time series analysis is

the selection of time intervals for which data are to be

assembled. In some cases, given adequate data, the choice

can be more or less arbitrary; in the majority of cases, data

collection intervals dictate the time frames to be used.

Regardless, intervals must be wide enough to spotlight major

changes that are occurring and small enough so that important

interim changes are not ignored. For the purposes of this

research, a ten-year interval separation satisfies the time

period guidelines, and closely conforms to the actual avail-

ability of data. Data were collected for the major variables

being investigated for each decennial period between 1930-

1970. In cases where this was not possible, data that most

closely approximated this sequence were incorporated; for the

most part, the time interval design was only slightly altered.

Unit of Analysis

A final topic of interest for longitudinal research is

the unit of analysis. In cases where practical considerations

are not significantly intrusive, theoretical matters can dictate

the decisions that are made. In the present research, the

It should be noted that in some cases data from 1930 are
themselves normomparable with those of later years.

only practical choice was the state, since data for any other

unit was far below acceptable quality. County data was at

once too massive, noncomparable, and incomplete; subregional

information could be located only for the Appalachian and

Tennessee Valley areas. There is no question that geopolitical

boundaries are rarely if ever coincidental with social bound-

aries; this point has been amply demonstrated by regional

planners, community researchers and others. Nevertheless,

the fact remains that the state has been the most widely used

unit for the collection of Census and other data at the national

level, and these data generally surpass in quality, quantity

and comparability all other available kinds. The historical

nature of the research design necessitates the use of that

information which is available.

Data Sources

The impracticality of anything but secondary source

material in an undertaking this extensive has already been

observed. From the universe of available secondary informa-

tion, then, several sources were used in this research. The

United States Census Bureau (Department of Commerce) provided

the most useful data of any single source, and the quality of

that material is quite high. This is not the place for a

critical review of the merits and weaknesses of Census reports;

on balance, the information assembled by the Bureau has steadily

improved through time, and the incorporation of relevant Census

data since 1930 is justifiably used in this research as in

that of many other social scientists.

Other data sources were consulted as well in the course

of the present study. The Statistical Abstract of the United

States, while being essentially a condensation of Census Bureau

data, annually assembles information on many variables that

are unavailable from Census documents. The Abstract was

valuable initially in the development of a variable design

and later in the actual collection of data. Another instru-

mental federal publication was Vital Statistics of the United

States, a widely used release of the Department of Health,

Education and Welfare (formerly from the Department of Commerce).2

Much information was unavailable from any of these three

major sources. As a consequence, several other federal

departments were referred to, including Labor, Justice and

.Transportation. Additional material was obtained from agencies

such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal

Aviation Administration and the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Other national organizations proved to be useful in collecting

relevant data, including the American Medical Association and

the American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation.

Assembling information for each state used, in each time

period, was no easy task. Dozens of letters were written to

initiate and follow up on leads to new material. In most cases

United States vital statistics have unfortunately not had
the high quality of other federally collected data. This
is especially the case in the South, where underreporting.
and other inaccuracies have been serious problems historically.

several sources had to.be contacted in order to complete a

single crosstabulation. In many ways this represents an

important contribution of the present research: the concen-

tration of comparable longitudinal data for some of the

variables used in this study had never been done before for

the Southeastern region. Not every dimension could be fully

treated for each time period, but every effort was made to

achieve that goal wherever possible.

In conclusion, the problems of research of this nature

are many. Time series analyses always involve an uncertainty

with regard to the contamination of the materials being used

(Webb et al., 1966). This can take the form of original

errors that are an unknown quantity, or the collection of data

initially for purposes that could lead to systematic distor-

tions. Further, not all records survive the effects of passing

time, and it is impossible to determine which information-has

selectively been preserved. Other problems include changing

definitions through time that result in noncomparability;

varying and inconsistent data collection procedures from state

to state during the time period being used; and numerous

transcriptions and transformations of the data that involve

unknown errors and mistakes. The deficiencies noted here do

not necessarily apply in every instance to the data used in

this research. The variables being investigated are primarily

social structural. There is not the high danger of contami-

nation that is characteristic of attitudinal and other types

of variables. Those problems that are encountered have been

taken into account by the collecting agencies in most cases,

and this fact enhances the quality of the data that are used.

In this research there has to be, naturally, some defini-

tion given to the term "South." Historically there has been

little if any agreement on what states constitute the region.

Some feel that the secessionist Confederate States are the

only legitimate "Southern" ones; others have used varying

definitions in their research, as indicated in Table 1.



State Source McKinney
Odum Vance Johnson Jones Bourque
(1936) (1945) (1941) (1971) (1971)

Alabama X X .X X X
Arkansas X X X X X
Florida X X X X X
Georgia X X X X X
Kentucky X X X X X
Louisiana X X X X X
Maryland X
Mississippi X X X X X
North Carolina X X X X X
South Carolina X X X X X
Tennessee X X X X X
Texas X
Virginia X X X X X
West Virginia X

N 11 11 12 12 12

There exists a basic agreement among these selected writers

regarding most choices. Some states, however, notably Maryland,

Texas and West Virginia, are used by only one or two authors.

Further, the Census definition is an extremely broad one which

incorporates certain states that other writers have not included

in delimiting the region. The Census Bureau defines the South

as comprising three subregions: (1) the South Atlantic

(Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida);

(2) theEast South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and

Mississippi); and (3) the West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana,

Oklahoma and Texas). In terms of the present research, this

definition is unsatisfactory simply because it is too inclusive

and in its broadest sense does not discriminate between states

along any historically meaningful lines.

It is quite obvious that a widely-accepted definition of

the South is not to be found. Rather than enter the arena of

attempting to determine (as did Odum in 1936) which states

qualify as Southern and which do not, our concern is with

defining the region as simply as possible and moving on to an

analysis of social changes. For this research, then, the term

"South" will be used interchangeably with "Southeast," and

is defined as comprising the following states:

Alabama Mississippi
Arkansas North Carolina
Florida .South Carolina
Georgia Tennessee
Kentucky Virginia
Louisiana West Virginia

The only point of real debate in this list is the inclusion

of West Virginia in the region. It is felt that West Virginia,

as an integral part of the Appalachian region, was more

justifiably incorporated in than excluded from the operational

definition. The regional boundaries drawn here, incidentally,

are identical to those used by the Bureau of Business and

Economic Research at the University of Florida.3

It was noted in the first chapter that the study of broad

social change is impractical without limiting the number of

variables in some way. For this research seven major variables

have been selected as the base from which an analysis of

fundamental social and demographic changes occurring in the

Southeast can be made; they are (1) population characteristics,

(2) urbanization, (3) industrialization, (4) education,

(5) health, (6) well being and social disintegration, and

(7) isolation and provincialism. Our attention now turns to

a brief discussion of each construct.

Population characteristics.--The study of population

changes since 1930 (growth, distribution and composition)

serve as a highly informative background for analyzing other

social changes. Actuarial data such as crude birth and death

rates are useful in this context, as are the age and racial

characteristics of the regional population. The following

variables have been incorporated into this first construct:

Number of Inhabitants
Percent Change in Population
Southern Contribution to the National
Percent of Population by Age, Sex and Race
Median Age of the Population by Race
Percent of the Population by Race

3 The Bureau uses this definition in its annual Florida
Statistical Abstract.

Actuarial Data
Birth and Death Rates Per 1,000 Population
Marriage Rates Per 1,000 Population

Urbanization.--Urbanization has been described previously

as a major process that has gathered momentum through the

Southeast in recent decades. This includes an increase in the

number of urban concentrations, a growing population density,

and the enlarging size of urban settlements; the concomitant

alteration is'a depopulation of rural areas,. The second major

variable, then, is composed of these factors:

Number of Places
Percent of Population Classified as Urban
Percent Change in Urban and Rural Population
Percent of Places Classified as Urban
Number of Metropolitan Areas

Size of Places
Percent of Total Population in Urbanized Areas
According to Size

Population Density
'Population Density Per Square Mile
Percent of Population Within Metropolitan Areas'

Industrialization.--As urbanization has gripped the region,

so also has industrial growth. The mechanization of farms has

had tremendous impact on rural life in the region; the number

of farms has declined, their average size has increased, and

fewer persons remain in agricultural occupations. At the same

time, the proportion of the labor force in industrial work has

rapidly increased, and wholesale and retail sales have risen

steadily. The two dimensions in this construct, therefore,

are agricultural change and economic and industrial growth:

Agricultural Change
Percent of Population (of Labor Force Age) in
Agricultural and Nonagricultural Work
Number of Farms
Average Acreage and Value Per Farm
Percent of Farms Operated by Full Owners, Tenants
and Croppers, by Race

Economic and Industrial Growth
Number of Retail Establishments With Payroll
Sales of Retail Establishments With Payroll
Percent of the Labor Force Population in Contract
Construction, Manufacturing, Wholesale and
Retail Trade, and Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate, by Race
Percent of the Labor Force Population in Professional
and Technical, Managerial, Official and Proprietary,
and Operative and Kindred Occupations, by Race

Education.--The study of regional education is complex

because of the many dimensions involved. For this research

the construct is divided into three broad categories. Attainment

refers to the overall level of education and literacy of the

population. Quality means an adequate supply of teachers and

sufficient expenditures of funds to ensure good facilities.

Utilization incorporates daily and yearly usage of existing

facilities at primary, secondary and higher .levels of education.

The following factors comprise the education construct:

Educational Attainment
Median School Years Completed by the.Population
Twenty-five Years and Older, by Race
Percent of the Population Twenty-five-Years and
Older Classified as Illiterate

Educational Quality
Pupil-Teacher Ratios
Per Pupil Expenditures for Primary/Secondary and
Higher Education

Percent of the Population Aged 7-13 and 16-17
Attending School
Percent of the Population Enrolled in Higher

Health.--The health of the Southern population is an

important indicator of regional development with respect to

national vitality. This major variable includes the availability

of services, which must be adequately distributed throughout

the region, and the quality of those services that exist. This

dimension can be measured by examining mortality rates and

health care data. Factors in the health construct are:

Availability of Services
Physician/Surgeon and Dentist Rates Per 100,000
Hospital Beds Per 1,000 Population

Quality of Services
Maternal Mortality Rates Per 10,000 Live Births
Fetal Death Ratios Per 1,000 Live Births
Infant Mortality Rates Per 1,000 Live.Births

Mental Health and Illness
Patients in Mental Hospitals Per 10,000 Population

Well being and social disintegration.--Well being in a

population is in many ways relative and therefore difficult

to measure. There are a series of indicators that tap this

construct fairly well by face validation. The quality of life

can be measured by analyzing the existence of social problems

such as poverty, welfare and adequate housing. A second

dimension of this major variable is institutional strength;

that is, are the existing institutions powerful enough to

insure adequately normative behavior? High levels of unemploy-

ment, divorce, illegitimacy, suicide and crime would indicate

weak institutional controls. The sixth construct incorporates

these factors:

Quality of Life
Net Migration in Percent
Personal Per Capita Income
Percent of the Population Classified as Poor
Aid to Dependent Children and General Assistance
Recipients Per 10,000 Population
Percent of Total Occupied Housing Units With All
Plumbing Facilities, and 1.01 or More Persons
Per Room
Percent of the Labor Force Population Working in
Private Households, by Race

Institutional Strength
Percent of Labor Force Unemployed
Divorce Rates Per 1,000 Population
Illegitimate Births Per 1,000 Live Births, by Race
Suicide Rates Per 100,000 Population
Murder and Burglary Rates Per 100,000 Population

Isolation and provincialism.--A region that is isolated

from other regions will probably be more provincial in outlook

and will tend to lag behind most national developments. Isolation

can be measured by such indicators as the availability of road-

way networks and air transportation facilities, and the extent

of mass media service including newspapers, radio and television

stations.- The existence of these sources facilitates contact

and interaction with other parts of the country. The final

major variable is composed of two dimensions:

Regional Communication
Telephones Per 100 Population
Total Commercial Broadcast Stations
Daily Newspaper Circulation Per 100 Population

Regional Transportation
State-Administered Road Mileage Per Square Mile
Number of Civil Aircraft and Public Airports

These seven major variables have not been developed

empirically but rather through a priori and theoretical reasoning.

There is precedent in the existing literature for most of the

construct indicators listed above, which lends a satisfactory

face validity to the present arrangement of variables. Data

were collected for each construct during late 1972 and the first

half of 1973. Crosstabulations were done by state and by time

period for all the indicators that were selected. The statis-

tical techniquesused in this research will be described later.

The study design involves three major foci as indicated

in Chapter I. The Southeast (excluding Florida) is being compared

with national trends along each dimension over time; Florida is

being compared with national trends in the same way; and Florida

is being compared with the other states that comprise the

Southeast. Several broad working hypotheses or assumptions are

operative in this investigation. These include the following:

(1) The Southeast lags behind national averages along

many social and demographic dimensions.

(2) The region has been closing the gap with the nation

since 1930, although the rates differ with each


(3) Change has not been uniform throughout the Southeast;

there are as many intra- as interregional differences.

(4) The -state of Florida is not "typically Southeastern."

It approaches or surpasses the national average for

most indicators.

(5) Florida, then, leads the way in the region toward

closing the existing gaps.

Each of these assumptions will be subjected to analysis in the

coming chapters, not as a rigid test of hypotheses but in a

broader descriptive sense.

Certain characteristics of the .research design limit

the choice of statistical techniques that may be used. Twelve

states were selected for analysis under the assumption that

they formed a meaningful geographical region that was relatively

homogeneous in many ways. The inclusion of these states does

not constitute random sampling, nor indeed is there a universe

from which they were drawn. The operationally defined South

constitutes a universe in and of itself, and the use of

statistical inference on the data that were obtained is there-

fore not appropriate. The only practical option is the use of

summary descriptive statistics, which will not entail any

assumptive violations.

Several descriptive techniques are available for our

purposes. The fundamental measures of central tendency (mean,

median, mode) and dispersion (variance, standard deviation)

are useful, as well as simple-percentages, proportions and

rates. Ranks, average rank and per cent change enable one

to study longitudinal changes; graphic procedures including

histograms and frequency polygrams will also be used to add

clarity to the presentation of data. These techniques will

be utilized in the following chapters as they become appro-


4 In a sense the United States represents a universe, but
only for inferential purposes, Since the South is being
viewed as a unique region, it is not appropriate to accept
this perspective since generalizations to the nation as
a whole are not planned.

The -data will be presented in.such a way that the two

goals outlined in the introductory chapter can be reached.

An average for the eleven Southern states (excluding Florida).

will be computed5 and compared with the appropriate national

average as well as data for the state of Florida. Differences

between Florida, the Southeast and the nation will be readily

apparent using this format. The statistical significance of

the differences cannot be obtained without assuming the

propriety of using inference, and therefore will not be computed

here. Other techniques such as rank order correlation also

assume the existence of a theoretical sampling distribution

and will not be utilized for that reason.

5 The averaging procedure is justifiable only to the extent
that the units being averaged have comparable population
bases. While the eleven states being combined do not have
identical populations, the differences are small enough
so that this basic rule is not being compromised.



In order to give meaning to the following presentation

of data, it is necessary to describe the Southern population.

This can serve as a background for understanding the rela-

tionship of Florida to the region and the region to the nation.


Number of inhabitants.--Table 2 presents state population

totals for each time period. The population of Florida has

increased by 600 percent in the last forty years; no other

state approaches that remarkable figure. Arkansas, Mississippi

and West Virginia have undergone only slight absolute gains

in the same time period. The growth of the other Southern

states has been comparable to national figures since 1930.

The percent change in the population of each state has been

computed and is presented in Table 3.

Percent change in population.--Florida's growth has

exceeded the regional and national figure at each time period;

in most cases Florida percentages are several times larger

than other percentages. Most Southeastern states have

experienced variable population increases through the four

decades since 1930 with the notable exception of West Virginia,

which has lost population since 1950. The only state with a



State 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

Alabama 2646 2833 3062 3267 3444

Arkansas 1854 1949 1910 1786 1923

Georgia 2909 3124 3445 3943 4590

Kentucky 2615 2846 2945 3038 3219

Louisiana 2102 2364 2684 3257 3641

Mississippi 2010 2184 2179 2178 2217

North Carolina 3170 3572 4062 4556 5082

South Carolina 1739 1900 2117 2383 2591

Tennessee 2617 2916 3292 3567 3924

Virginia 2422 2678 3319 3967 4648

West Virginia 1729 1902 2006 1860 1744

Florida 1468 1897- -. 2771 4952 6789

United States 123203 132165 151326 179323 203235

a Population in thousands

Source: United States Department of Comnerce, Bureau of the Census:
United States Census of Population: 1970; Number of Inhabitants,
United States Sunmary PC(1)-A1, Table 8, page 48; page 37
(correction note text).



State 1920- Rank 1930- Rank 1940- Rank 1950- Rank 1960- Rank Average
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 Rank

Alabama 12.7 (5) 7.1 (11) 8.1 (8) 6.7 (8) 5.4 (10) 8.4
Arkansas 5.8 ( 9) 5.1 (12) -2.0 (12) -6.5 (11) 7.7 ( 8) 10.4
Georgia 0.4 (12) 7.4 (10) 10.3 ( 7) 14.5 ( 4) 16.4 (3) 7.2
Kentucky 8.2 ( 8) 8.8 ( 8) 3.5 (10) 3.2 ( 9) 6.0 ( 9) 8.8
Louisiana 16.9 ( 4) 12.5 ( 3) 13.5 ( 4) 21.4 ( 2) 11.9 (4) 3.4
Mississippi 12.2 ( 6) 8.7 ( 9) -0.2 (11) 0.05a (10) 1.8 (11) 9.4
North Carolina 23.9 ( 2) 12.7 ( 2) 13.7 ( 3) 12.2 ( 6) 11.5 ( 5) 3.6
South Carolina 3.'3 (11) 9.3 ( 7) 11.4 ( 6) 12.5 ( 5) 8.7 ( 7) 7.2
Tennessee 11.9 (7) 11.4 (4) 12.9 ( 5) 8.4 (7) 10.0 (6) 5.8
Virginia 4.9 (10) 10.6 (5) 23.9 (2) 19.5 (3) 17.2 (2) 4.4
West Virginia 18.1 ( 3) 10.0 ( 6) 5.4 ( 9) -7.2 (12) -6.2 (12) 8.4
Average : 10.8: 9.4 9.1 7.7 8.2
Florida 51.6 ( 1) 29.2 (1) 46.1 (1) 78.7 (1) 37.1 (1) 1.0
United States 16.2 7.3 14.5 18.5 13.3

a Actual percent change was less than 0.05.
Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: Report of Fourteenth Census: 1920,
Population, Volume I, Table 8, page 20; Report of Sixteenth Census: 1940, Population, Volume I,
Number of Inhabitants, Table 4, page 16; Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1971,
Table 11, page 12; United States Census of Population: 1970, Number of Inhabitants, United
States Sumnary, Table 9, page 50.

steady relative population increase is Georgia. Florida's

average rank (1.0) is not challenged by any state, although

Louisiana, North Carolina and Virginia all rank fairly high

over the time period 1930-1970. In this case, then, Florida

is unlike the region or the nation; instead, the patterns for

the South and the United States are fairly similar.

Southern contribution to the national population.--To

clarify our understanding of the relative population of each

state the raw data in Table 2 have been transformed into

percentages and appear in Table 4. There has been a fairly

high stability over time with regard to the Southern contri-

bution to the national population. North Carolina ranks as

the most heavily populated state with an average rank of 1.4;

Arkansas, South Carolina and West'Virginia rank the lowest

during the five time periods. The state of Florida has jumped

from twelfth to first position in the region in the past forty

years, which indicates the phenomenal growth in the state's


Percent of population by age, sex and race.--The composi-

tion of the Southern population can be studied by the traditional

criteria of age, sex and race through use of population pyramids.

Figures 1-10 present pyramids for the South as a whole (including

Florida) and the United States (including the South) for the

five time periods being studied. On visual inspection, the

region's population is younger than that of the nation as a

whole; however, the pyramids come to resemble one another more


State 1930 Rank i940 Rank 1950 Rank 1960 Rank 1970 Rank Average

Alabama 2.1 (4) 2.1 ( 5) 2.0 (5) 1.8 ( 6.5) 1.7 ( 7) 5.5
Arkansas 1.5 ( 9) 1.5 ( 9) 1.3 (11.5) 1.0 (11.5) 0.9 (11.5) 10.5
Georgia 2.4 (2) 2.4 (2) 2.3 (2) 2.2 ( 3.5) 2.3 (3.5) 2.6
Kentucky 2.1 ( 4) 2.2 ( 3.5) 1.9 ( 6) 1.7 ( 8) 1.6 (8). 5.9
Louisiana 1.7 (7) 1.8 (7) 1.8 ( 7.5) 1.8 ( 6.5) 1.8 (6) 6.8
Mississippi 1.6 (8) 1.7 (8) 1.4 ( 9.5) 1.2 (10) 1.1 (10) 9.1
North Carolina 2.6 ( 1) 2.7 ( 1) 2.7 ( 1) 2.5 ( 2) 2.5 ( 2) 1.4
South Carolina 1.4 (10.5) 1.4 (11) 1.4 ( 9.5) 1.3 ( 9) 1.3 ( 9) .9.8
Tennessee 2.1 ( 4) 2.2 (3.5) 2.2 (3.5) 2.0 ( 5) 1.9 ( 5) 4.2
Virginia 2.0 ( 6) 2.0 ( 6) .2.2 ( 3.5) 2.2 ( 3.5) 2.3 ( 3.5) 4.5
West Virginia 1.4 (10.5) 1.4 (11) 1.3 (11.5) 1.0 (11.5) 0.9 (11.5) 11.2
Average 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7
Florida 1.2 (12) 1.4 (11) 1.8 (7.5) 2.8 (1) 3.3 (1) 6.5

Source: United States Department of Ccnmerce, Bureau of the Census; United States Census of Population:
1970, Number of Inhabitants, United States Summary PC(1)-A1, Table 10, page 51.

Males Females


75 and over






less than 5
1413 1211 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 56 7 ..9 10 11 12 13 14

Source: United States Department of Cormerce, Bureau of the Census: United States
Census of Population: 1960, General Population Characteristics, Individual
State Volumes PC(1)B Series, Table 17 for each state.

I '

Males Females Totals:
Whites; - .1i
75 and over Nonwhites:-----

65-69 I
55-59 -1j

40-44 I
25-29 .-

15-19 JI

less than 5
1413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census of
Population: 1960, General Population Characteristics, U.S. Sunmary, PC(1)1B,
Table 47.


75 and over
. 40-44
less than 5

14 13 12


L.. ii . . .

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census
of Population: 1960, General. Population Characteristics, Individual State Volumes
PC(1)B;Series, Table 17 for each state.




Sales Females Totals:--
Whites:4-44!- I
. Nonwhites:----
75 and over

60-64 j
55-59 |
50-54i _
40-44 ,
. 30-34
10-14 I

less than 5 :
14 13 121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213 14

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census
of Population: 1960, General Population Characteristics, U.S. Summary, PC(1)1B,
Table 47. '

~__I _

Males Females Totals:--
Whites :r-ir1
75 and over Nonwhites:---

70-74 ,.


a 35-39

& 30-34 ,
5-9 I- I
less than 5! i
14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Source: United States Department of Caomerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census
of Population: 1960, General Population Characteristics, Individual State Volumes
PC(1)B 'Series, Table 17 for each state.


75 and ove



c 45-49
C 40-44




less than 5 _-
1413 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 2 1 0 1 -23 -4 5 6 7 8-9 10 11 12 13 14

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census
of Population: 1960, General Population Characteristics, U.S. Summary, PC(1)1B,
Table 47.


.Whites: LL


Males Females
75 and W Ij hites:
over r H+ i a a
70-74! Nonwhites:
55-59 .
45-49 l i.

S40-4 I4
S35-39 I
S30-34 i
I ---I
5-9 _
less I
than 5 .........
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census
of Population: 1960, General Population Characteristics, Individual State Volumes C:
PC(1)B Series, Table 17 for each state.

Males Females
75 and htje
over rI---
70-74 nonwhites:
-~- I
65-69 J I
60-64 I

55-59 J j_
50-54 L.
45-49 J

40-44 F!
5-9 *
less than
5 15 14 1312 11 10 9 8--- 7 -5 3 1 12 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 1314 15
Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census
of Population: 1960, General Population Characteristics, U.S. Summary, PC(1)1B,
Table 47.




75 and ove




. 40-44


20-24 1


10-14 --

5-9 ,...

less than 5. -. -----
14 13121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census
of Population: 1970, General Population Characteristics, Individual State Volumes
PC(1)B Series, Table 21 for each state.


Xr '

Males Females

75 and over





| 45-49.
% 40-44

Whites: il wil

20-24 -

15-19 _
10-14 L

5-9 I -
less than 5 _
1413 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Source: United States Department of Comnerce, Bureau of the Census: United States Census
of Population: 1970, General Population Characteristics, U.S. Sunmary, PC(1)B,
Table 53, pages 276-277; Number of Inhabitants, U.S. Sumnary, PC(1)-A1, page 37
(correction note).


and more at each interval. In other words, the Southern

population is becoming more like the national population with

regard to age, sex and racial composition. It can also be

observed that differences between the white and nonwhite

pyramids are more pronounced for the nation than for the region,

but the disparity diminishes through time. It appears that

the regional racial homogeneity of 1930 has been replaced by

a situation in which there are more nonwhites at lower age

levels, and more whites at upper age levels. This pattern is

similar to trends observed in the national pyramids.

Age Distribution

Median age of the population by race.--Unfortunately,

population pyramids do not easily lend themselves to careful

comparative analysis. In order to more closely examine the

population composition, median age and racial composition have-

been selected for closer scrutiny. The age data are presented

in Table 5. A Southeastern average was not computed since the

data are expressed as medians and are therefore not amenable

to further mathematical manipulation. Florida ranks first in

the region at each time period; that is, the median age in

Florida (not controlling for race) is greater than any other-

Southeastern state since 1930. In comparison to national

medians, Florida's median age lagged slightly behind in 1930

but has surpassed the national figure since 1950; thus Florida

has come to have an older population than that of the nation

as a whole. It should be noted that the median age in almost





State 1930 1940 1950
Non- Non- Non-
Total Rank White White Total Rank White White Total Rank White White

Alabama 21.5 (10) .21.6 21.5 23.8 ( 9.5) 24.4 22.7 25.5 ( 9) 26.7 22.7
Arkansas 22.2 ( 6.5) 22.0 22.9 24.8 ( 6) 24.9 24.5 26.9 ( 5) 27.6 24.1
Georgia 21.9 (8) 22.6 20.9 24.5 ( 7) 25.6 22.8 26.2 (8) 27.4 23.1
Kentucky 23.6 ( 2) 23.2 28.2 25.4 ( 5) 25.0 29.9 27.0 ( 4) 26.7 30.9
Louisiana 23.1 ( 4.5) 23.3 22.8 25.5 ( 4) 26.3 24.3 .26.7 (6) 28.0 23.9
Mississippi 21.8 ( 9) 22.2 21.4 23.8 ( 9.5) 25.1 22.5 24.6 (11) 27.3 21.3
North Carolina 20.4 (11) 21.0 19.1 23.1 (11) 23.9 21.1 25.0 (10) 26.2 21.6
South Carolina 19.7 (12) 21.3 18.4 22.2 (12) 24.1 19.9 23.6 (12) 26.1 19.6
Tennessee 23.2 (3) 23.0 24.4 25.8 ( 2.5) 25.5 26.9 .27.3 ( 2.5) 27.2 27.4
Virginia 23.1 ( 4.5) 23.7 21.5 25.8 ( 2.5) 26.5 23.7 27.3 ( 2.5) 27.8 25.3
West Virginia 22.2 ( 6.5) 22.0 25.3 24.3 ( 8) 24.2 26.6 26.3 ( 7) 26.2 26.9
Florida 25.8 ( 1) 26.5 24.6 28.9 (1) 30.0 26.7 30.9 ( 1) 32.0 27.2
United States 26.4 26.9 23.4 29.0 29.5 25.1 30.2 30.7 26.0


State 1960 1970
Non- Non- Average.Rank
Total Rank White White Total Rank White White (Total)

Alabama 26.0 : (7) 28.2 20.3 27.0 ( 6) 28.8 21.5 8.3
Arkansas 29.0 ( 2) 30.9 20.5 29.1 ( 3) 30.7 21.2 4.5
Georgia 25.9 ( 8) 27.8 20.9 25.9 ( 9) 27.5 21.6 8.0
Kentucky 27.6 (5) 27.6 27.7 27.5 ( 5) 27.8 23.8 4.2
Louisiana 25.3 (10) 27.6 20.5 24.8 (11.5) 26.8 20.7 7.2
Mississippi 24.2 (11) 28.7 18.6 25.1 (10) 28.8 19.4 10.1
North Carolina 25.5 ( 9) 27.5 19.5 26.5 (8) 28.2 21.4 9.8
South Carolina 23.4' (12) 26.4 18.1 24.8 (11.5) 27.1 19.9 11.9
Tennessee '28.0 ( 4) 28.7 .23.8 28.1 ( 4.) 29.2 22.5 3.2
Virginia 27.1 ( 6) 28.0 23.4 26.8 ( 7) 27.6 23.2 4.5
West Virginia :28.5 ( 3) 28.6 27.1 30.0 ( 2) 30.0 27.6 5.3
Florida 31.2 ( 1) 33.1 23.0 32.3 ( 1) 34.8 21.7 1.0
United States .29.5 30.3 23.5 28.1 28.9 22.7

Census of Population:
Table 53, page 276;

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: United States
1970, General Population Characteristics, United States Sunnary PC(1)-B1,
individual state volumes, Table 21 for each state.

every Southeastern state has been increasing through the time

periods, but national medians have peaked and are declining.

In summary, Florida's median age is greater than the other

Southern states and is similar to the national medians between

1930-1960, at which time the other states in the region begin

to resemble the national figure more closely than does Florida.

Turning to the median age by race, certain differences

become apparent. An inspection of white and nonwhites figures

indicates that in 1970 and through most of the four decades

since 1930 the regional nonwhite population has been consider-

ably younger than the white population. The difference is

greatest in Florida in 1970, when the median age for nonwhites

was 13.1 years lower than that'for whites. Florida's nonwhite

population has closely resembled the nation in median age

throughout the study period, while whites in the state are

older than national figures and thus do not exhibit this *

similarity. For the Southeastern region excluding Florida,

whites are consistently below the national median, indicating

again the distinctiveness of Florida's population. Nonwhites

in the Southeast have also tended to be below national figures

for nonwhites, with the exception of Kentucky and Tennessee.

Since the vast majority of Southern nonwhites are Negroes,
the terms "nonwhite" and "black" will be used interchange-
ably throughout this research.

Race Distribution

The racial composition of the population is another basic

sociodemographic variable which is useful in setting the back-

ground for this study. The importance of race in the history

of Southern culture and social structure has already been

noted and cannot be overemphasized. Relevant data have been

assembled in Table 6.

Percent of the population by race.--Florida's racial

composition is nearly identical to that of the region until

1950. Both the state and the region have experienced relative

losses in the black population, but this trend has been

accelerated in Florida in the last twenty years. In 1970

there was a difference of nearly 6 percentage points between

the state and the rest of the Southeast. The higher propor-

tion of whites in Florida has brought that state closer to

national figures; however, the entire Southern region still

has a disproportionate number of blacks, even though the gap

is closing steadily. Within the region, Kentucky and West

Virginia have consistently had the lowest percent of blacks

and Mississippi has had the highest figure, while Florida has

ranked in between over the five time periods.

Probably the most important reason for the relative

decrease in the black population of the South is outmigration.

Blacks have contributed increasing numbers to this outward

flow in recent decades at the same time that net migration

from the region seems to be declining. The major impetus


State 1930 1940 1950
Non- Non- Non-
White Rank White White Rank White White Rank White

Alabama 64.3 ( 8) 35.7 65.3 ( 8.5) 34.7 67.9 ( 9) 32.1
Arkansas 74.2 (4) 25.8 75.2 ( 5) 24.8 77.6 ( 6) 22.4
Georgia 63.2 ( 9) 36.8 65.3 (8.5) 34.7 69.1. ( 8) 30.9
Kentucky 91.4 ( 2) 8.6 92.5 (2) 7.5 93.1 (2) 6.9
Louisiana 62.9 (10) 37.1 64.0 (10) 36.0 67.0 (10) 33.0
Mississippi 49.7 (12) 50.3 50.7 (12) 49.3 54.6 (12) 45.4
North Carolina 70.5 ( 6.5) 29.5 71.9 ( 7) 28.1 73.4 ( 7) 26.6
South Carolina 54.3 (11) 45.7 57.1 (11) 42.9 61.1 (11) 38.9
Tennessee 81.7 (3) 18.3 82.5 ( 3) 17.5 83.9 ( 3). 16.1
Virginia 73.1 (5) 26.9 75.3 ( 4) 24.7 77.8 (5) 22.2
West Virginia 93.3 ( 1) 6.7 93.8 ( 1) 6.2 94.3 ( 1) 5.7
Non-Florida Average 70.8 29.2 72.1 27.9 74.5 25.5
Florida 70.5 (6.5) 29.5 72.8 ( 6) 27.2 78.2 ( 4) 21.8
United States 89.6 10.4 89.6 10.4 89.3 10.7


State 1960 1970
Non- Non- Average
White Rank White White Rank White Rank

Alabama 69.9 (9) 30.1 73.6 ( 9) 26.4 8.7
Arkansas 78.1 (6) 21.9 81.4 (5) 18.6 5.2
Georgia 71.4 (8) 28.6 73.9 ( 8) 26.1 8.3
Kentucky 92.8 ( 2) 7.2 92.6 ( 2) 7.4 2.0
Louisiana 67.9 (10) 32.1 69.8 (10) 30.2 10.2
Mississippi 57.7 (12) 42.3 62.8 (12) 37.2 12.0
North Carolina 74.6 ( 7) 25.4 76.8 ( 7) 23.2 6.9
South Carolina 65.1 (11) 34.9 69.3 (11) 30.7 11.0
Tennessee 83.5 ( 3) 16.5 83.9 ( 4) 16.1 3.2
Virginia 79.2 ( 5) 20.8 80.9 ( 6) 19.1 5.0
West Virginia 95.1 ( 1) 4.9 95.9 ( 1) 4.1 1.0
Non-Florida Average 75.9 24.1 78.3 21.7
Florida 82.1 ( 4) 17.9 84.2 ( 3) 15.8 4.7
United States 88.6 11.4 87.5 12.5

of Population:
48, page 262;

Source: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census: United States Census
1970, General Population Characteristics, United States Summary PC(1)-B1, Table
individual state volumes, Table 18 for each state.

for northward movement was the second World War which opened

a large number of jobs in the industrial centers of the

Northeast and Midwestern United States. The heaviest migra-

tion of blacks out of the region since 1930 has been among

the young (Mayo and Hamilton, 1963).

Actuarial Data

Finally, our attention will be focused on selected

actuarial data: crude birth rates, death rates, and marriage

rates.2 This information sheds further light on the Southern

population relative to national trends. Tables 7 and 8 furnish

the data for crude birth and death rates.

Crude birth rates per 1,000 population.--Looking first

at birth rates, Florida's figures are much lower than those

for other Southeastern states. Since, 1950, however, the

difference has been diminishing. Florida exhibits patterns

that are very similar to national rates throughout the time

period 1930-1970. The South has come closer in recent decades

to national figures than was the case before 1950, but the

region still retains a slightly higher crude birth rate.

Mississippi and the Carolinas have had the highest rates in

the region, while West Virginia has moved from near the highest

rate in 1930 to the lowest rate (rank 1) in 1970. Louisiana

has experienced the opposite trend in the same time span.

2Divorce rates are considered in the chapter on well being
and social disintegration.

SWest Virginia has experienced relatively sharp changes for
many actuarial variables since 1930, due largely to massive
outmigration of the state's population. For example, the
cohort of child-bearing age has been greatly depleted; thus
one of the most rural states of the region had the lowest
crude birth rate in 1970 (see Table 7).


State 1930 Rank 1940 Rank 1950 Rank 1960b Rank 1969 Rank Average

Alabama 24.0 (10.5) 26.2 ( 8) 28.1 ( 9) 24.7 (8) 17.8 ( 5) 8.1
Arkansas 22.1 ( 5) 26.3 ( 9.5) 27.0 (6) 22.7 ( 2) 16.7 (2) 4.9
Georgia 20.9 ( 4) 25.7 ( 6.5) 28.0 (8) 25.3 (10) 19.6 (10) 7.7
Kentucky 22.6 ( 6.5) 25.1 ( 5) 26.9 (5) 23.8 ( 5) 17.9 ( 6) 5.5
Louisiana 20.3 ( 3) 24.9 ( 4) 29.7 (10) 27.7 (12) 19.9 (11) 8.0
Mississippi 23.9 ( 9) 27.1 (11) 30.4 (12) 27.2 (11) 20.0 (12) 11.0
North Carolina 24.1 (12) 26.3 ( 9.5) 27.3 ( 7) 24.1 ( 6.5) 18.i ( 7) 8.4
South Carolina 23.2 ( 8) 30.6 (12) 30.2 (11) 25.1 ( 9) 18.7 ( 9) 9.8
Tennessee 20.1 ( 2) 23.8 ( 3) 25.6 (3) 23.0 (3) 18.5 (8) 3.8
Virginia 22.6 (6.5) 23.2 ( 2) 25.4 (2) 24.1 (6.5) 16.8 ( 3) 4.0
West Virginia 24.0 (10.5) 25.7 ( 6.5) 26,6 ( 4) 21,2 ( 1) 16.2 ( 1) 4.6
Non-Florida Average 22.5 25.9 27.7 24.4 18.2
Florida 18.2 (1) 19.9 ( 1) 23.9 (1) 23.3 (4) 17,0 (4) 2,2
United States 18.9 19.4 24.1 23,7 17.7

a Rates are based on the total population residing in the area apecified enumerated as of April 1.
b 1960 birth rates are based on a 50% sample of live births.

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1933, Table 77, page 71; Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1964, Table 49,
page 49; Table 65, page 58; Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1971, Table 62, page 50;
Table 74, page 56; Vital Statistics of the United States: 1940, Part I, Table II, pages 20-53;
Part II, Table II, pages 20-53.
United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vital Statistics of the United States:
1950, Public Health Service, National Office of Vital Statistics, Volume I, Table 6.58, page 131;
Table 8.12, page 155.



State 1930 Rank 1940 Rank 1950 Rank 1960 Rank 1969b Rank Average

Alabama 11.5 (6) 10.4 (5.5) 8.8 (6) 9.3 (7) 9.5 (6) 6.1
Arkansas 10.2 (1) 8.8 (1) 8.1 (2) 10.0 (11.5) 10.3 ( 9.5) 5.0
Georgia 12.1 (9) 10.4 (5.5) 8.8 (6) 9.0 ( 4) 9.0 ( 4.5) 5.8
Kentucky 11.3 (4) 10.5 (7) 9.5 (10.5) 9.9 (10) 10.3 ( 9.5) 8.2
Louisiana 11.7 (7) 10.8 (10) 8.8 ( 6) 9.1 (5) 9.0 (4.5) 6.5
Mississippi 12.0 (8) 10.7 (8.5) 9.5 (10.5) 10.0 (11.5) 9.9 (7) 9.1
North Carolina 11.2 (3) 8.9 ( 2) 7.7 ( 1) 8.4 ( 1) 8.7 ( 3) 2.0
South Carolina 12.9 (12) 10.7 ( 8.5) 8.5 ( 3) 8.7 ( 2.5) 8.6 ( 2) 5.6
Tennessee 11.4 ( 5) 10.1 (4) 8.9 (8) 9.2 (6) 10.1 (8) 6.2
Virginia 12.5 (11) 11.1 (11) 9.0 ( 9) 8.7 (2.5) 8.2 (1) 6.9
West Virginia 10.5 (2) 9.3 (3) 8.7 ( 4) 9.7 ( 8.5) 10.9 (11) 5.7
Non-Florida Average 11.6 10.1 8.7 9.3 9.5
Florida 12.3 (10) 11.4 (12) 9.6 (12) 9.7 ( 8.5) 11.7 (12) 10.9
United States 11.3 10.8 9.6 9.5 9.5

a Rates are based on the total population residing in the area specified enumerated as of April 1.
b 1969 death rates are based on an estimation of the population specified as of July 1 and thus are
considered preliminary.
Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1933, Table 77, page 71; Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1964, Table 49, page 49;
Table 65, page 58; Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1971, Table 62, page 50; Table 74, p. 56;
Vital Statistics of the United States: 1940, Part I, Table II, pages 20-53; Part II, Table II,
pages 20-53.
United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vital Statistics of the United States:
1950, Public Health Service, National Office of Vital Statistics, Volume I, Table-6.58, page 131;
Table 8.12, page 155.

The historically high Southern birth rate has been observed

by many writers. Vance (1945) offered perhaps the best expla-

nation for this phenomenon. He listed five reasons for the

disparity including earlier marriage, lag in the acceptance of

birth control programs, a higher proportion of married persons

in the population, and regional attitudes toward sex and

children. Another factor is the racial composition of the

population: blacks tend to have higher birth rates, and as

noted above, the South has a higher proportion of blacks than

other regions in the nation.

Crude death rates per 1,000 population.--Crude death

rate trends are quite different from those for births. Florida

has had a consistently higher rate than both the region and

the nation, although the gap is not quite as pronounced in the

latter case. Florida's average rank for death rates is higher

than any other Southeastern state, that is, the death rate is

higher in Florida than in the rest of the region. This can

be explained largely by the presence of extensive numbers of

elderly persons in Florida who are increasingly migrating into

the state for their retirement years. The Southeastern region

is fairly similar through time to the national rates, indicating

another instance in which thd South is closer to the nation than

is the state of Florida. North Carolina has the lowest average

rank and thus the lowest longitudinal crude death rate of all

states in the region.

Marriage rates per 1,000 population.--The final actuarial

variable to be investigated here is the marriage rate. The

data are presented in Table 9. The state of Florida has one

of the lowest marriage rates of any state in the Southeast,

and comparing that rate with the regional average since 1950

reflects this fact. In comparison to the United States,

Florida has moved from having a higher marriage rate in 1930

and 1940 to a slightly lower rate in subsequent decades. Over

the past 40 years the South as a region has maintained a

higher marriage rate than the nation, although the gap is not

great. Surprisingly, within the Southeast North Carolina and

South Carolina rank at opposite extremes for this variable.

The relative standing of most states in the region has been

quite variable since 1930, and the actual marriage rate shows

no consistent trends in the South over the four decades.

Summary and Implications

In conclusion, there are some important implications to

the trends observed in this chapter. First, Florida's rapidly

growing population may present some real difficulties for the

state. Biologist Paul Ehrlich described the effects of a

population doubling in 25 years in this way:

In order just to keep living standards at
the present. .level, the food available
for the people must be doubled. The capacity
of the transport system must be doubled.
The number of trained doctors, nurses,
teachers, and administrators must be doubled.
(Paul Ehrlich, quoted in Hodges, 1971:175)


State 1930 Rank 1940b Rank 1950 Rank 1960 Rank 1969 Rank Average

Alabama 10.4 (6.5) 12.0 (8) 7.5 (10) 9.8 (4) 13.2 (2) 6.1
Arkansas 13.5 (2) 15.7 (5) 27.0c (1) 10.3 (3) 10.8 (7.5) 3.7
Georgia 10.4 (6.5) 12.3 (7) 12.8c ( 4) 12.5 ( 2) 13.0 (3) 4.5
Kentucky 11.9 ( 4) 26.7 (1) 11.2c ( 5) 8.7 (7) 11.3 ( 4.5) 4.3
Louisiana 9.9 (9) 11.6 ( 9) 10.60 (7.5) 7.2 (11) 9.5 (10.5) 9.4
Mississippi 12.8 (3) 15.6 ( 6) 26.0 ( 2) 9.7 ( 5) 10.8 (7.5) 4.7
North Carolina 4.6 (12) 3.7 (12) 7.3c (11) 6.9 (12) 9.5 (10.5) 11.5
South Carolina 15.0 ( 1) 22.7 ( 2) 21.8c ( 3) 16.4 ( 1) 20.9 ( 1) 1.6
Tennessee 7.9 (11) 10.5 (10) 6.6 (12) 8.6 ( 8) 11.1 ( 6) 9.4
Virginia 9.8 (10) 19.6 (3) 11.1 ( 6) 9.5 ( 6) 11.3 ( 4.5) 5.9
West Virginia 10.2 ( 8) 4.2 (11) 8.6c ( 9) 7.3 (10) 8.5 (12)
Non-Florida Average 10.6 14.0 13.6 9.7 11.8
Florida 11.6 ( 5) 17.1 ( 4) 10.0 (7.5) 7.9 (9) 10.4 (9) 6.9
United States 9.1 11.9 11.1 8.5d 10.6

a Rates are determined on the total population residing in the area specified, with the population
enumerated as of April 1.
b During war years rates exclude members of armed forces serving abroad.
c Marriage licenses.
d Estimated.

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1946, Table 102, page 94; Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1971, Table 81,
page 61.
United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vital Statistics of the United States:
1950, Volume II, Table I, pages 2-15.

.Ehrlich was referring in this statement to the developing

third world nations, but the same principles may also apply

to Florida, whose population has sextupled in forty years.

There must be a concomitant increase in the availability of

goods and services such as food and housing whenever a popu-

lation increases in size. This is not difficult in states

that are growing slowly, but it involves enormous pressures

on the social and economic systems of states growing as rapidly

as Florida.

A second factor to be considered is fertility and mortality

in the region. The sex and age structures of a population have

an important influence on its birth-and death rates; an older

population will naturally have lower fertility and higher

mortality than a younger one. The high birth rate of the region

relative to the nation can be related to the fact that in recent

decades the South's population has been younger than that'of

the United States. The higher rate is also partly a function

of the high proportion of blacks, as noted earlier. However,

migration changes the population structure of any region, and

in the South the major trends have been a movement of young

nonwhites from the region and an inward flow of older whites.

In effect this is reducing the proportion of blacks, increasing

the median age, lowering the birth rates and raising the death

rates in the region. Another factor in Southern fertility

involves urbanization. Urban populations tend to be less fertile

than rural ones, and the fact that the region is undergoing

rapid urbanization explains in part the falling Southern birth

rate in recent decades.

Finally, the fact that Florida's contribution to the

national population has tripled in the last 40 years while

other Southeastern states have either declined or remained

virtually unchanged-implies a population imbalance in the

region. In an absolute sense, of course, most Southern states

are gaining in population; but relatively, the only real gains

are taking place in Florida. Other states are losing people

to the rest of the nation, in spite of the statement made by

some that the South is attracting more people than it is losing.

This seems to hold true only for Florida, and it may indicate

a continuing regional malaise that was observed by Vance and

Odum earlier in the century. The following investigation of

regional health, industrial growth, isolation and other

variables will provide a.closer and more adequate assessment

of this statement.



The process of urbanization in the Southeast has been

fairly recent in comparison to the nation. It has already

been noted that the earliest urban settlements were seacoast

trade communities and most Southern cities did not begin as

industrial centers. Cash (1941) believed that the major

catalyst to regional urban growth was the rise of the cotton

mill, which attracted thousands of rural dwellers into towns

beginning in the late 19th century. Rural overcrowding was

another important reason for the development of urban areas

in the South, as well as increasing economic opportunities

in the cities. The mechanization of agriculture freed great

numbers of the farm population from the land and thus contri-

buted to the urbanization of the region.

Whatever the origins of the process, its development was

slow. Heberle (1954) noted the retarding effect of outmigra-

tion since a large number of the mobile rural population left

the region. But the bulk of the growing Southern urban popu-

lation in the early 20th century was made up of rural farm

families who had come in search of better opportunities for

themselves. The regional rural-to-urban shift was composed

essentially of two groups: the young and the black. Those

that could-not find a satisfactory life in the Southern cities

left the region.

When Johnson studied the Southeast in 1941 he noted

several general characteristics of the metropolitan centers

in the region. These included rapid population increase

(especially among blacks), low illiteracy, better educational

facilities than in rural areas, and high population density.

At the time of his study there were 64 "metropolitan counties"--

that is, counties containing a city of at least 25,000 inhabi-

tants--in the 1,100-county region. Obviously urban growth

had not gripped the Southeast by 1940. In order to more fully

understand the nature of Southern urban development, data will

be presented that will trace the spread of regional urbani-

zation since 1930. Specifically, the following components

will be analyzed: the number of urban places, their size,

and their density.

Number of Places

Percent of population classified as urban.--The number

of urban concentrations is an important indicator of the

urbanization process. Data have been gathered on.several

variables related to this dimension of urban growth.1 The

percent of the population that is classified as "urban" has

There are certain difficulties involved when dealing with
Census reports on urban and rural characteristics, since
in 1950 the definition of "urban" was modified to include
a great many more individuals than had previously been so
defined. The reader should be aware, then, that part of
the difference between data for 1940 and 1950 is an arti-
ficial one.

been tabulated for each state in the region and is presented

in Table 10. At every time period in the study Florida ranks

first in the Southeast with the largest urban population of

any state. Regional change has been consistently smaller

than that for Florida; in 1930 the Southeastern average was

almost 24 percentage points behind Florida and by 1970 that

difference had widened to 27 points. In other words, from

the very start of the time period Florida has maintained an

urban population much larger than that of the region as a

whole, and only Louisiana and Virginia challenged its position

in 1970. In comparison to national trends, Florida lagged

somewhat in 1930 but caught and surpassed the United States

average by 1950. Twenty years later the state's urban popu-

lation was 7 percentage points higher than the national mean.

The Southeast, excluding Florida, has trailed consider-

ably behind the nation at each time interval, but the gap is

closing. In 1930 almost 30 percentage points separated the

region from the nation, but in 1970 the disparity had been

reduced to 20 points. Nonetheless, this represents a signi-

ficant regional differential; almost three quarters of the

United States population is now classified as urban, but only

one half of the South is so classified. There is a clear and

consistent discrepancy since 1930 in this respect. Within

the Southeast, Georgia, Virginia and Louisiana have the highest

ranks (4.4, 3.2 and 2.0) and Mississippi (11.8) is at the

other extreme; even in 1970 well above half of that state's



State 1930 Rank 1940 Rank 1950 Rank 1960 Rank 1970 Rank Average

Alabama 28.1 (8) 30.2 (6) 43.8 (6) 55.0 ( 5) 58.4 ( 6) 6.2
Arkansas 20.6 (11) .22.2 (11) 33.0 (11) 42.8 ( 8) 50.0 ( 8) 9.8
Georgia 30.8 ( 5) 34.4 (5) 45.3 ( 4) 55.3 ( 4) 60.3 ( 4) 4.4
Kentucky 30.6 (6) 29.8 (7) 36.8 (7) 44.5 ( 7) 52.3 (7) 6.8
Louisiana 39.7 ( 2) 41.5 (2) 54.8 ( 2) 63.3 (2) 66.1 ( 2) 2.0
Mississippi 16.9 (12) 19.8 (12) 27.9 (12) 37.7 (12) 44.5 (11) 11.8
North Carolina 25.5 ( 9) 27.3 ( 9) 33.7 (10) .39.5 (10) 45.0 (10) 9.6
South Carolina 21.3 (10) 24.5 (10) 36.7 (8) 41.2 ( 9) 47.6 ( 9) 9.2
Tennessee 34.3 ( 3) 35.2 (4) 44.1 (5) 52.3 ( 6) 58.8 (5) 5.8
Virginia 32.4 (4) 35.3 (3) 47.0 (3) 55.8 (3) 63.1 ( 3) 3.2
West Virginia 28.4 ( 7) 28.1 ( 8) 34.6 ( 9) 38.2 (11) 39.0 (12) 9.4
Non-Florida Average 28.1 29.8 39.8 47.8 53.2
Florida 51.7 ( 1) 55.1 ( 1) 65.5 (1) 74.0 (1) 80.5 (1) 1.0
United States 56.2 56.5 64.0 69.9 73.5

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: Fifteenth Census of the United
States: 1930, Population, Volume I, Number and Distribution of Inhabitants, Table 9, page 15;
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1946, Table 14, page 15; Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1964, Table 11,.page 16; Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1971, Table 17,
page 18; United States Census of Population: 1970, Number of Inhabitants, United States Summary
PC(1)-Ai, Table 18, pages 62-71.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs