Citation
A demographic study of the population of North Carolina

Material Information

Title:
A demographic study of the population of North Carolina
Creator:
Zopf, Paul Edward, 1931-
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1966
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvii, 473 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
African Americans ( jstor )
Agricultural population ( jstor )
Censuses ( jstor )
Cities ( jstor )
Counties ( jstor )
Population dynamics ( jstor )
Population growth rate ( jstor )
Rural populations ( jstor )
Urban populations ( jstor )
White people ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Sociology -- UF ( lcsh )
Population -- North Carolina ( lcsh )
Sociology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 459-471.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
021775246 ( AlephBibNum )
13322355 ( OCLC )
ACX5829 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EASZ63913_0PJN6A INGEST_TIME 2017-07-19T20:41:43Z PACKAGE UF00097890_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

A DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY OP' THE POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA By PAUL E. ZOPF, JR. A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTL\L FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA June, 1966

PAGE 2

Copyright by Paul E. Zopf, jp. 1966

PAGE 3

To My Wife

PAGE 4

ACKNa.;LEDGMENTS The writer acknowledges his deht to many people. The research and writings of his teacher and chairman of his supervisory committee, T. Lynn Smith, Graduate Research Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Florida, have been especially significant in providing much of the basic frame of reference and many of the methods employed in the present study. In fact, the writings of Dr. Smith's students show considerable consistency and continuity, making the teacher responsible for a great deal of agreement by demographers on basic concepts, terminology, rationale, and methods. This has helped to create synthesis of a type so much needed in demography where the risk has been subordination of theoretical insight and appropriate interrelationships of findings to encysted empirical accuracy. The writer also expresses gratitude to other members of the supervisory committee for guidance, patience, and understanding throughout the entire process of graduate study, and for their assistance in preparation of the dissertation. These members are Raymond E. Crist, Research Professor of Geography; William K. McPherson, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Economist; John V. D, Saunders, Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of iv

PAGE 5

the Latin American Language and Area Center; and Joseph S. Vandiver, Professor of Sociology and Chairman of the Department. The writer is especially grateful to David B. Stafford, Chairman, Department of Sociology, Guilford College, who read and criticized the entire draft of the manuscript, and whose encouragement helped to bring the study to completion. Also gratefully acknowledged are the efforts of Clyde A. Milner, President Emeritus, Guilford College, and E. Garness Pxirdom, Chairman, Department of Physics, Guilford College, who helped to secure from the Piedmont University Center, a grant which facilitated some of the work, and, of course, the generosity of the Center itself. Thanks are due Grady E. Love, President, Davidson County Junior College, and Charles G. Chilton, Assistant Business Manager, Downtown Division of Guilford College, for making available equipment necessary to carry on the research. Thanks also are due the Bureau of the Census whose tireless efforts have made available some of the most accurate and quantifiable measures of human behavior in existence. Inestimable gratitude is due my long-suffering wife, not merely for her encouragement at various specific points in the study, but for her faith that it is all worthwhile, and to my son who has been deprived of endless hours with his father. Paul E. Zopf, Jr.

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ' iv LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES xiii CHAPI-EH PAHT ONE. INTRODUCTION I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. REVIEV OF THE LITERATURE 8 PART TWO. ITOIIBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE INHABITANTS III. NUMBER AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE INHABITANTS 58 PART THREE. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION IV. AGE COMPOSITION 60 V. SEX COMPOSITION 95 VI. RURAL AND URBAN RESIDEITCE 121 VII. RACE AND NATIVITY I5I VIII. MARITAL CONDITION 179 IX. LEVELS OF EDUCATION 212 X. OCCUPATIONAL STATUS 255 PART FOUR. VITAL PROCESSES •H. FERTILITY: RATES OF REPRODUCTION 5OO HI. MORTALITY: RATES OF DEATH 556 vl

PAGE 7

CHAPTKH PAGE PABT FIVE. KIGRATION ZIII. MIGRATION 578 PART SIX. GROWTH AND REDISTRIBUTION nv. GROWTH AND REDISTRIBUTION' ^25 XV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ^9 BIBLIOGRAPHY ^59 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ^72 vil

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 North Carolina's Position Among the States in lopulation and in Density of Population, I96O . hO 2 Distribution and Density of Population, by Counties, I960 ^5 3 Distribution and Density of Population, by Regions, 19^0 50 h Percentages of the Population in Three Broad Age Groups in North Carolina, by Counties, I96O 82 5 Percentages of the Population in Three Broad Age Groups in North Carolina, by Regions, I960, 86 6 Percentages of the Population of North Carolina in Three Broad Age Groups, by Residence and Color, 1920, 19^+0, and I960 9^ 7 Sex Ratios of the Urban, Rural-Nonfarm, and Rural-Farn Populations of North Carolina, by Race and Nativity, I960 103 8 Sex Ratios for the Counties of North Carolina, by Color and Residence, I960 Ill 9 Sex Ratios for the Maior Regions of North Carolina, by Race, I960 117 10 Percentages of Persons in the Three Residence Categories, by Race, I960 125 11 Population of the North Carolina Counties Classified by Residence, I96O I3I 12 Numbers and Percentages of the Populations of the Four Major Regions Classed as Urban, Rural-Nonfarm, and Rural-Farm, North Carolina, I960 136 viii

PAGE 9

TABLE Page 13 Populations of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Central Cities, and Urban Places of 10,000-5C,CC0, I960 1^0 Ik The Urban Population of North Carolina, by Race, 1890-1960 1^2 15 Changes in the Populations of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas of North Carolina, 1950-1960 1^6 16 Percentages of Persons in the Racial and Nativity Categories, North Carolina and the United States, I960 155 17 Country of Birth of North Carolina's ForeignBorn White Population, I850, 1900, and I960. . . 158 18 Numbers and Percentages of Native '/Whites and Negroes In the North Carolina Counties, I960 . . l65 19 Indian Populations of Selected Counties In North Carolina, I960 170 20 Numbers and Percentages of Native Whites, Foreign-Born Whites, Negroes, Indians, and Other Races in the Population of North Carolina, by Regions, I960 172 21 Numbers and Percentages of Negroes, Indians, and Foreign-Born Whites in the Population of North Carolina, 1790-1960 17422 Percentages of Whites in the Population of North Carolina, by Residence, I89O-I96O 176 23 Percentages of Males and Females Who Were Divorced or Separated, by Color and Residence, North Carolina, I960 I88 2k Percentages of the Populations of the Regions of North Carolina Who Were Single, Married, or Widowed, by Color and Sex, I960 202 25 Median Years of Schooling Completed by Persons Aged 25 and Over, by Sex, Color, and Residence, North Carolina and the United States, 1^)60 . . . 216 ix

PAGE 10

TABLE Page 26 Percentages of Persons Aged 25 auad Over Who Had Completed No Years of Schooling, by Sex, Color, and Residence, North Carolina and the United States, I960 21? 27 Percentages of Persons Aged 25 and Over Who Had Completed High School, by Sex, Color, and Residence, North Carolina and the United States, I960 218 28 Percentages of Persons Aged 25 and Over Who Had Completed College, by Sex, Color, and Residence, North Carolina and the United States, I960 . . . 219 29 Median Years of Schooling Completed by Persons Aged 25 and Over, by Color and Residence, for States, I960 . 225 30 Variations in Levels of Education of Persons XQed 25 and Over in the Major Regions of North Carolina, by Color, I960 237 31 Percentages of Whites and Nonwhites Aged 25 Years and Over Who Had Completed Specified Years of Schooling, North Carolina and the United States, 19^0, 1950, and I960 242 32 Percentages of Persons Aged 25 and Over Who Were Functional Illiterates, and College Graduates, "by Color and Residence, North Carolina and the United States, 19'<-0, 1950, and I960 2^3 33 Occupational Classification of Employed Persons, by Sex, North Carolina, I960 269 3^ Numbers and Percentages of Civilians Aged 14 and Over Employed in Each Group of Industries, by Sex, North Carolina, I960 277 35 Percentages of Males Aged 14 and Over in The Labor ?orce and of All Workers Engaged in Agriculture and Manufacturing in the Regions of North Carolina, I960 282 36 Index Numbers Showing the Relative Importance of Seven Major Industry Groups in Urban Places of 10,000 or More, North Carolina, I960 284

PAGE 11

TABLE Page 37 Fertility Hatlos for the 50 States and the District of Columbia, by Color, I960 504 58 Fertility Ratios in North Carolina and the United States, by Size of Place and Color, I960. 508 59 Variations in Fertility Ratios for the Major Regions of North Carolina, by Color and Residence, I960 524 40 Changes in Fertility Ratios for North Carolina and the Conterminous United States, by Color and Residence, 1950, .19^0, 1950, and I960. ... 551 41 Number of Deaths of Children of Less Than One Year of Age per 1,000 Live Births, by Color and Residence, for States, I960 540 42 Number of Fetal Deaths (Stillbirths) per 1,000 Live Births, by Color and Residence, North Carolina and the United States, I960 544 45 Number of Maternal Deaths per 100,000 Live Births, by Color, North Carolina and the United States, 1958-1960 544 44 Age-Specific Deaths per 1,000 Existing Population, by Color and Sex, North Carolina and the United States, I960 545 45 Number of Deaths per 1,000 Population, All Ages and Less Than One Tear, by Color, for Places of Various Sizes, North Carolina, i960 549 46 Number of Deaths per 100,000 Population from 31 Leading Causes, by Color, North Carolina and the United States, I960 554 47 Number of Deaths per 1,000 Population Less Than One Year of Ago from 15 Major Causes, by Color, North Carolina, I960 562 48 Number of Deaths per 1,000 Inhabitants in the White Population, by Age and Sex, North Carolina, 1950 and I960 367 49 Number of Deaths per 100,000 Inhabitants in the White Population of North Carolina from 19 Major Causes, 1950, 1940, 1950, and I960 574 zi

PAGE 12

TABLE Page 50 Number of Deaths per 100,000 Inhabitants In the Nonwhlte Population of North Carolina from 19 Major Causes, 1930, 19^+0, 1950, I960 375 51 Numbers and Percentages of Persons Who Migrated to North Carolina from Each State Between 1955 and I960, by Color 386 52 Numbers and Percentages of Persons //ho Migrated from North Carolina to Each State Between 1955 and I960, by Color 391 53 Net Migration Between North Carolina and the Other States, by Color, 1955-1960 395 5V Change In the Population of North Carolina Between 1950 and I960 Attributable to Natural Increase and to Net Migration, by Color, Metropolitan and Rural Areas ^10 55 Percentages of People in Several Residence Categories in 1955 and I960, by Color and Rural or Urban Status, North Carolina ^+13 56 Percentages of Farm Operators Who Lived on Their Present (1959) Farms for Specified Numbers of Years, by Color and Tenure, North Carolina , . . ^+16 ^^7 Percentages of the Enumerated Populations Who Were Born in Their Respective States of Residence, by Color, North Carolina and the United States, I9OO-I96O ^21 58 Annual Rates of Population Growth in North Carolina, the South, and the United States as a Whole, 1790-1960 ^25 59 Population of North Carolina, 1790 to I96O ... »+27 60 North Carolina's Position Among the States in Population Growth, 1950-1960 ^30 61 Absolute and Relative Changes in the Populations of the Regions of North Carolina, by Race, 1900-1960 and 1950-1960 ^5 xli

PAGE 13

LIST C? FIGURES FIGUR3 Page 1 Distribution of population in North Carolina, I960 ^5 2 The major regions of North Carolina, by counties ^9 3 Variations in density of population in North CsLTolina, by townships, I960 58 ^ Age-sex pyranid for the total populations of North Carolina and the United States, I960 . . 66 5 Age-sex pyramid for the urban and rural-farm populations of North Carolina, I960 70 6 Index numbers showing the relative importance of each age group in the total population of North Carolina, by residence, I960 71 7 Age-sex pyramid for the white and Negro populations of North Carolina, I960 75 8 Index numbers showing the relative importance of each age group in the urban population of North Carolina, by color and sex, I960 .... 76 9 Index numbers showing the relative importance of each age group in the rural -nonfarm population of North Carolina, by color and sex, I960 77 10 Index numbers showing the relative importance of each age group in the rural-farm population of North Carolina, by color and sex, I960. . . 78 11 Changes in the proportions of people in three broad age groups, by color and sex. North Carolina, 1870-1960 92 12 Sex ratios for the native-white and Negro populations of North Carolina and the United States, by age, I960 99 xiii

PAGE 14

yiGURS Page 13 Sox ratios of people eligil)le for marriage, by color, age, and residence, I960 107 1^ Changes in the sex ratios in North Carolina and the United States, by race, 1850-1960. . . 118 15 Vhite populations of North Carolina counties, by residence, I960 126 16 Nonwhite populations of North Carolina counties, by residence, I960 127 17 Growth of population in North Carolina, by residence, 1790-1960 1^3 18 Distribution of the Negro population of North Carolina, by tovrnships, I960 161 19 Marital status of the male populations of North Carolina and the United States, by age, I960 182 20 Marital status of the female populations of North Carolina and the United States, I960 . . 185 21 Comparison of the marital status of white and nonwhite males in the urban population of North Carolina, I960 190 22 Comparison of the marital status of white and nonwhite females in the urban population of North Carolina, I960 191 23 Comparison of the marital status of white and nonwhite males in the rural -farm population of North Carolina, I960 192 2^ Comparison of the marital status of white and nonwhite females in the rural-farm popiilation of North Carolina, I960 195 25 Index numbers showing the extent to which the white urban, rural-nonfarm. and rural-farm populations of North Carolina contained more or less than their pro rata shares of single persons in each age group, by sex, I960. . . , 196 xiv

PAGE 15

FIGUEB Page 26 Index numbers showing the extent to which the white urban, rural -non farm, and rxiral-farm populations of North Carolina contained more or less than their grq rata shares of married persons in each age group, by sex, I960 . . . 197 27 Index numbers showing the extent to which the white urban, rural-nonfarm, and rural-farm populations of North Carolina contained more or less than their pro rata shares of widowed persons in each age group, by sex, I960 . . , 198 28 Variations in the marital status of white males in North Carolina, by age, 1890, 19'*-0, and I960 205 29 Variations in the marital status of white females in North Carolina, by age, 1890, 19^0, and I960 206 30 Variations in the marital status of nonwhite males in North Carolina, by age, 1890, 19^0, and I960 207 51 Variations in the marital status of nonwhite females in North Carolina, by age, 1890, ig^^-O, and I960 208 32 Percentages of persons aged 25 and over who had completed specified numbers of years of schooling. North Carolina and the United States, I960 214 33 Median number of years of schooling completed by persons aged 25 and over, by sex. North Carolina counties, I960 228 34 Median number of years of schooling completed by persons aged 25 and over, by color. North Carolina counties, I960 231 35 Median number of years of schooling completed by persons aged 25 and over, by residence. North Carolina counties, I960 236 36. Percentages of children aged 10-14 enrolled In school, by color. North Carolina and the United States, 1890-1960 247

PAGE 16

PIGUHB Page 57 Median number of years of schooling completed by males aged 25 and over, by age, color, and residence. North Carolina, I960 24-9 38 Median number of years of schooling completed by females aged 25 and over, by age, color, and residence, Worth Carolina, I960 250 39 Percentages of whites aged 1^ and over in the labor force, by age, sex, and residence. North Carolina, I960 256 40 Percentages of nonwhites aged 1^4and over in the labor force, by age, sex, and residence, North Carolina, I960 257 41 Numbers and percentages of all males aged 14 and over who were in the labor force, by color. North Carolina counties, I960 260 42 Percentages of the employed labor force aged 14 and over in nine major occupational groups, by color. North Carolina and the United States, I960 270 45 Percentages of all employed workers engaged in agriculture and nanufact\iring, by counties, North Carolina, I960 281 44 Changes in proportions of persons aged 14 and over in the labor force, by sex and color, North Carolina, 1920-1960 295 45 Changes in proportions of males aged 14 and over in selected occupational groups, by color. North Carolina, 1940-1960 294 46 Changes in proportions of females aged 14 and over in selected occupational groups, by color. North Carolina, 1940-1960 295 47 Changes in proportions of employed civilians aged 14 and over who fell into 12 industrial categories, North Carolina and the United States, 1940-1960 298 48 Fertility ratios among the total population of North Carolina, by townships, I960 512 xvi

PAGE 17

PIGUfiB Page ^^•9 Fertility ratios for urban and rural-farm whites, by counties, North Carolina, I960 . . 51^^ 50 Fertility ratios for urban and rural-farm nonwhites, by counties, North Carolina, I960. 515 51 Fertility ratios for rural -nonf arm whites and nonwhites, by counties. North Carolina, I960. 519 52 Changes in fertility ratios, by color and residence. North Carolina, 1910-1960 528 55 Crude birth rates for the total populations of North Carolina and the United States, 1915-1964 529 5AChanges in household size in North Carolina, 1790, 1890, 1950, and I960 55^ 55 Infant mortality rates, by race. North Carolina counties, I960 552 56 Changes in the infant mortality rate, by color, North Carolina and the United States, 1915-1965 570 57 Percentages of persons born in their respective states of residence, I960 582 58 Percentages of persons who lived in different counties within their respective states of residence in 1955 and I960, by age eind color. North Carolina and the United States 401 59 Net gains op losses of civilians through migration between 1950 and I960, by counties. North Carolina 405 60 Population change in North Carolina, by residence, 1890-1960 455 61 Changes in the native-white and Negro populations of North Carolina, by residence, 1910-1960 458 xvli

PAGE 18

CHAPTER I INTB0DUCTI05 This studj is an analysis of the basic features of and trends in the population of North Carolina. It involves detailed considerations of all the principal aspects of demography including the number and geographic distribution of the inhabitants, the composition or characteristics of the population, the vital processes, migration, and the growth of population. A wide variety of methods, most of which are well known in the field, are employed. Special attention is given to a comparison of the materials for North Carolina with those for the other states and those for the nation as a whole. In addition, at appropriate places throughout the text the study treats some of the social and cultural factors which produce particular population conditions. This is because the complex structure and functions of social life in North Carolina are assumed to act in concert with basic values, attitudes, and other subjective orientations to produce population components with certain distributions, arrangements of characteristics, and particular patterns of growth or decline. On this point, see William F. Ogburn, "On the Social Aspects of Population Changes," in Population Theory and Policy; Selected E e adings , Joseph J. Spengler and Otis Dudley Duncan Qeds.") CGlencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1956), pp. ^55-^^0.

PAGE 19

ObJectiTae The general objective of the present study Is to make aind. present an overall demographic analysis of the people of North Carolina. Hence a detailed consideration of the population itself and of the factors which influence its numbers, distribution, characteristics, and changes constitutes the bulk of this volume. Specifically, the present analysis is designed: (1) to determine and to describe the essential features of the population of North Carolina; (2) to ascertain and set forth the nature of the chemges it is undergoing; and (5) to identify and describe some of the principal factors associated with the demographic situation and trends in the state. The presentation of materials depicting the present situation constitutes the major portion of the analysis, and a brief section on change forms the concluding part of each chapter. Scope The popxilation of North Carolina lends itself well to an analysis which is set within the broader demographic context of the nation and the South. It also is adapted to detailed analysis by regions, counties, and minor civil divisions (townships) which are found within the state. Thus the state as a whole and its various subdivisions constitute the geographic area in/olved in the present dissertation.

PAGE 20

Most of the materials used were derived from data in the Eighteenth Census of the United States which was taken as of April 1, I960. The bulk of the comparisons made between North Carolina and the other states and between the state and the nation as a whole also pertain to this data as do those involving various population components within the state. However, North Carolina was included in the First Census of the United States (1790) and in all subsequent enumerations, and this makes it possible to trace many long-time trends within the state. A few of these extend as far back as 1790, others to 1850, and many to 1880 or 1890. The possibilities of determining changes between 1950 and I960 are especially numerous and valuable. The major topics which are covered in this treatise include: (1) the number and geographic distribution of the inhabitants; (2) the composition or characteristics of the population, including age, sex, residence, race and nativity, marital condition, educational status, and occupation; (5) the vital processes which are fertility and mortality; (4) internal migration; and (5) the growth and redistribution of the population. Unfortunately, the failure of the U.S. Census to secure data on religious affiliations of the population precludes the possibility of including this characteristic along with the others enumerated.

PAGE 21

Significance of the Study 1 deaographic study of the population of North Carolina is important for several reasons. In the first place, the analysis of a state population is one of several systematic ways of organizing the highly reliable and very costly census data into a meaningful order so that inferences may be drawn relative to such things as industry and agriculture, health, education, employment and unemployment, and so on. In the second place. North Carolina is one of 50 political units for which comparable data are collected. This enables valuable comparisons to be made, both for I960 and for previous census years. Finally, an analysis of this kind, using tested and v/ell-known techniques, makes it possible to contribute to the growing body of empirically verified knowledge in the general field of population study. Sources of Data The data employed in the present study have been taken chiefly from two sources, including: (1) the decennial enumerations made by the United States Bureau of the Census and the subsequent compilations and analyses published by that agency, including intercensal estimates of various kinds; and (2) the registrations of vital statistics (births and deaths) which are now compiled and tabulated by the National Office of Vital Statistics of the United States

PAGE 22

Department of Health, Education, and WelfeLre. The first source has been used far more extensively than the second, partly because the former has a longer history of accuracy than the latter, and partly because the latter deals with only two of the major topics which are considered in the present analysis. Some material from other sources also is used and references to these are indicated at appropriate places throughout the text, and especially in the notes to the tables. All of the maps, diagrams, charts, and tables used in this manuscript were prepared personally by the present writer. At no point were data already compiled in various reports simply translated into charts. Numerous other studies were used, however, to provide the theoretical frame of reference, techniques of analysis, and a basis for com2 parison of North Carolina with other population segments. Anadytical Techniques and Indexes The indexes and other devices employed in the present study are the conventional ones used by students of population matters. They include some developed and used by K The major sources of the frame of reference and techniques are T, Lynn Smith, Fundamentals of Population Study (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., I960); and T. Lynn Smi th and Homer L. Hitt, The People of Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 19^2).

PAGE 23

personnel in the United States Bureau of the Census and in the National Office of Vital Statistics of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. They also include those created and extensively employed by other individual workers such as Alvin L. Bertrand, Donald J. Bogue, F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., Kingsley Davis, G. Horace Hamilton, Homer L. Hitt, John 3. Knox, Howard V. Odum, Calvin F. Schmid, Henry S. Shryock, T. Lynn Smith, Conrad and Irene Taeuber, Varren S. Thompson, Rupert B. Vance, Walter F. Willcox, and others. Moreover, the nature of the data makes it unnecessary to employ either involved sampling techniques or various types of correlation analysis in the present study. The large numbers involved in the census and registration materials leave little opportunity for variations as large as a few tenths of a percentage point to be the result of chance and this fact obviates the need for using and explaining complicated sampling procedures. Furthermore, the data which form the basis of the chapters that follow have been compiled by the various agencies responsible in such a way that it is possible to subsort and make direct comparisons according to age, sex, residence, race, and other characteristics. Hence in most cases one avoids the need to employ correlation analysis as a substitute for adequate cross-classification. Finally, the devices employed to present the results of the study include

PAGE 24

7 maps, graphs of several kinds, chairts, ratios, index numbers, rates, and detailed tables. Order of Presentation The principal features of the population of North Carolina are analyzed in the various chapters which follow. First, though. Chapter II was prepared to present a general review of the literature on the subject. It is included along with this introduction in Part I of the volume. Next, attention is concentrated upon the number and geographic distribution of the inhabitants, discussed in Chapter III, which constitutes Part II. Part III is very lengthy and comprises the bulk of the study and is concerned with the composition or the characteristics of the population. Specifically it includes chapters on age composition, sex composition, rural and urban residence, race and nativity, marital condition, educational status, and occupational status. Peirt IV concentrates upon the vital processes, with chapters devoted to fertility or reproduction and to mortality or rates of death, respectively. Part V, composed of a single chapter, is an analysis of migration; and Part VI, consisting of Chapter XIV, is a discussion of the growth of. population in North Carolina. A very brief summary and conclusion is presented as the termination of the exposition.

PAGE 25

, CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Interest in population matters has existed since the earliest history of civilization but objective efforts to derive general rules or principles governing demographic relationships and trends are comparatively recent. Therefore, while concern and speculation about population appear in an endless variety of early writings, the expositions which represent scientific study of the matters involved are comparatively recent. It is the purpose of this chapter to indicate some of the objective studies which have relevance for the present study. The list is not intended to be exhaustive and could be extended almost indefinitely. John Graunt: Scientific Population Study John Graunt may be credited with making the first significant contribution to the field of scientific population study. Employing the Inductive method he made use of statistical materials for the purpose of arriving at over 100 general propositions. For the basis of his Natural and Political Observations Mentioned In the following Index and

PAGE 26

9 made upon the Bills of Mortality (1662),^ Graunt used the records of bxirial permits for the city of London for the years 1604 through 1661. He then collected records of christenings and was able to calculate rates of natural increase, subclassifying by residence and sex. ?rom various comparisons and cross-classifications, Graunt made 106 observations, most of which since have been verified independently and repeatedly by other students of population. Thus his efforts constitute the first genuine study of population using statistical methods and inductive inference, resulting in the formulation of a set of generalized propositions which have stood the test of repeated testing. These are especially concerned with variations in levels of fertility emd mortality between rural and urban areas and with patterns of migration, including selectivity by sex, Mai thus: Population Increase The last part of the eighteenth century was characterized by considerable interest in the growth of population and in the impact which this was expected to have upon national economies. Perhaps the major work of the period was the Essay on Population by Thomas R. Mai thus, first published in ^See Walter F. Uillcox (ed.). Natural and Political Observations made upon the Bills of Mortality by John Graunt (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1959).

PAGE 27

10 1798 and later revised in several editions. Essentially, Mai thus was convinced that population tends to grow faster than the means of subsistence, with the former increasing at a geometric rate and the latter at an arithmetical rate. From this general doctrinaire position. Malthas then freely deduced a variety of specific propositions and consequences. His approach has persisted until the present, but unfortunately, it has resulted in a considerable number of pronouncements on population matters which have little or no empirical foundation and some which are highly fanciful. These often state or imply that long-time trends in the birth rate can be predicted with accuracy. This assumption then constitutes the basis for projecting present rates of natural increase into the indefinite future and drawing conclusions about the numbers of people who will exist a given number of years hence. Regrettably, the forecasts which this approach has produced often have been so spectacular that they have obscured other, more significant endeavors or have diverted time and effort away from more rewarding activities. Moreover, when many such predictions have been found to be in error, they have been conveniently forgotten in favor of new predictions. Nevertheless, the : « Thomas R. Mai thus, An Essay on the Principle of Population or a View of Its"?a3t and Present Effects on Human Happiness (first ed. . London; 1798): (second ed. . London: i805); other editions followed.

PAGE 28

11 Malthusian doctrine has pervaded a considerable amount of the thinking on population matters, and as such, constitutes an important stage in the development of demography. DeBow: Characteristi'cs of the Population Much of the tremendous value of the United States census materials which deal with population composition is attributable to the efforts of J. D. B. DeBow who was Superintendent of the United States Census in 1853 and 185^. Prior to this appointment, DeBow has gained considerable stature as a demographer through the essays and other material which had appeared in his periodical, DeBow' s Review , and apparently he was the first man ever to hold a chair in statistics at a university in the United States. On the basis of insights gained in his work as publisher and teacher, DeBow was appointed to analyze the results of the 1850 census of the United States. That enumeration included data on the principal characteristics of the population and DeBow, familiar with statistical methods, was able to make a substantial number of cross-classifications and to revolutionize the hemdling of these basic materials on population composition. Many of DeBow 's analyses on this topic appeaxed in his Statistical View of the United States which is one of the most significant developments in the science of population

PAGE 29

12 stud7» In it, DeBow was especially concerned with race and national origin, rural and urban residence, age, occupation, and some other characteristics. In addition, he made the first official attempts to analyze rates of fertility and mortality and some aspects of migration of the population. Regrettably, when the census was completed and the Census Office closed in 185^ as was its practice during part of each intercensal period, DeBow was released but he was not reappointed when the office reopened to prepare for the 1860 census. However, his work remains among the most significant treatments of population composition which comprises a major portion of the present study. Development of Vital Statistics Another subject of basic concern to students of population, that involving the vital processes (births and deaths), was largely neglected in the United States until the twentieth century. Despite DeBow' s initial efforts to study these subjects, a registration system was not begun until 1902, and it was not until 1955, with the addition of Texas to the system, that the registration area of the nation _ ^J. D. B. DeBow, Statistical View of the United States. . .Being a Compendixim of the Seventh Census . 7 (Washington: Beverley Tucker, Senate Printer, 1854) . ^Ibid., p. 19.

PAGE 30

13 included all of the states. But since that time, while the data on hirths and deaths generally have been less dependable than those derived from census enumerations, they have been highly useful. Since 1950, their accuracy has improved greatly and the vital statistics can now be used with reasonable confidence. Moreover, these data now are crossclassified according to several of the characteristics of the population which increases their value immeasurably. Growth of Denography: 1920 's and 1950' s In the 1920 's and 1930's, a comparatively large number of careful studies of several kinds enabled the discipline of demography to develop rapidly. A number of these make up the basis upon which the present treatise has been developed. Most of them, of course, were made possible by the increase in the accuracy and versatility of data on population matters which became available through census reports and compilations of the vital statistics. Three of the principal contributions during this period follow, although they do not comprise an exhaustive list. -^?or a critical examination of this early situation, see Walter ?, Villcox, Introduction to the Vital Statistics of the United States; 1^0-1930 CVashington; Government Printing Office, 1933).

PAGE 31

1^ Galpin; Subclasslfication of the rural population Rural and urban residence is one of the most important characteristics of a population. For example, in the present study of North Carolina, it figures prominently throughout the analysis because it pervades much of the sociocultural situation in the state. However, the rural category is inclusive and heterogeneous. Consequently, a major refinement was suggested to the Census Bureau by Charles J. Galpin, Head of the Department of Farm Population and Rural Life in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, when he recommended the use of the subclaesif ications of rural -nonf arm and ruralfarm. Following his publication of some results of using this refinement for eight selected counties throughout the nation, the 1920 data for the entire nation were analyzed according to these subclasses and a report was published on n the matter by Leon Truesdell.' The impact of these two contributions was so great that subsequent censuses have relied Charles J. Galpin and Veda B. Larson, Farm Population of Selected Counties; Composition, Characteristics, and Occupations in Detail for Eight Counties, Comprising Otsego County, N.Y., Dane County, Vis. , ^^ew Madrid and Scott Coun-feies, Mo., Cass County, H. Dak., Uake County. N.C., Ellis County, Tex. , and King County, Wash . CWashington; Government Printing Office, 192^;. 7 'Leon E. Truesdell, Farm Population of the United States; An Analysis of theT^^O Farm Population Figur'ei . . . Census Monograph VI CVashington; Government Printing Office, 1926).

PAGE 32

15 heavily upon cross-classifications according to three basic residential classifications: urban, rural -nonf arm, and rural-farm. Subsorting by these categories is fundamental to any attempt to understand demographic aind sociocultural differences in a population such as that of North Carolina. There, many fundamental variations which often are assumed to arise from race, region, or other factors actually result from contrasts between the urban, rural -nonf arm, and ruralfarm categories, Villcox and Thompson; The fertility ratio A highly importajit development in the measurement of reproduction was the development of the fertility ratio or the ratio of young children to women of childbearing age. It is computed in a variety of ways as the number of children aged 0-4 per 100 or 1,000 women aged l^-''-^, 15-'<-9, 20-'i-9, and so on. It was first used by Walter Villcox in his efforts to find a suitable measure of fertility in the absence of vital statistics on that subject. The earliest mention of the index seems to have been in a paper presented in 1911 before the American Statistical Association. It is fully described in that investigator's later work on the general 9 topic of demography.'^ n/illcox, Introduction to the Vital Statistics , p. 57. "waiter F. Villcox, Studies in American Demography (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 19^0;, Chapter 17.

PAGE 33

16 Huch credit for the dissemination of this excellent index belongs to Villcox's student, Warren S. Thompson who employed the data on age in the 1920 census to analyze fertility by means of the ratio. In fact, so great was this contribution, that use of the fertility ratio as a substitute for the birth rate has become almost commonplace among students of the subject. Because of the great deficiencies in the birth registrations, it was not until about 1950 that the birth rate became even approximately as dependable as the fertility ratio in measuring the rate of reproduction. Moreover, the age data presented in the decennial census reports are cross-classified according to the major characteristics of the population and this makes the fertility ratio far more versatile than the birth rate. For example, the ratio may be used to examine fertility differences between rural -nonfarm and rural-farm people whereas the task of possible collation of the necessary data is so colossal that the birth rate cannot be so employed. Also, the age data generally are more available for small units of population, such as the county or the township, than are birth registrations. Finally, the age data have a longer history of accuracy than do the birth registrations, making it possible to trace some relatively long-time trends in fertility. Warren S. Thompson. Ratio of Children to Women; 1920, Census Monograph XI (Washington: Government Printing OlTice, 1951).

PAGE 34

17 Thus the contributions by Villcox and Thompson have added significantly to the understanding of one of the two vital proceseea. Smith; State population study Inasmuch as the present study is a demographic analysis of the population of an entire state, T. Lynn Smith's work on the population of Louisiana is of particular pertinence to it. In his study, Smith developed a framework for the analysis of the composition of the population which became a prototype for many similar research endeavors. The particular characteristics with which this pioneer work deals are race and nativity, residence, age, balance between the sexes, marital condition, illiteracy, and occupation. Many of Smith's techniques and devices for analysis and presentation appear in his later publications, but the definitive organization of the materials on this fundamental subject first appeared in his 1957 work. Of particular interest are his conclusions and statement of trends and implications which were not vastly different for Louisiana in 1957 than were those for North Carolina and many other Southern states in I960. T. Lynn Smith, The Population of Louisiana; Its Composition and Changes , Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No7^95 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1957)

PAGE 35

18 The Development of State Population Studies Smith's study of Louisiana had a number of implications for the field of demography. In the first place, his work showed that the analysis of a state population is one way of imposing the rigors of system and order upon vast amounts of census data, using them for purposes of inductive reasoning. Obviously, this met a great need in the field of population study which long had been given to speculation and deduction. In the second place, Smith's study employed materials which are available in the same form and with the same precision for the other states of the nation, providing the opportunity for a high degree of control in comparing the demographic situations in various parts of the nation. Given these two contributions of Smith's 1957 study, it was logical that other students of population would turn to his techniques and frame of reference and would engage in similar endeavors. Many of the studies have been done in the Experiment Stations of the various states, chiefly because the early interest in the sociology of rural life, which found its focus among personnel in the Experiment Stations, came to include considerable interest in population matters. As a result, most of the state population studies now in print are parts of continuing demographic research in the respective stations. Therefore, many of these works are not

PAGE 36

19 confined to a single date of publication nor even to the efforts of one author. The following list, alphabetized by states and identified with the name of one or two researchers, includes some of the more important efforts. California; Thompson Varren S. Thompson's analysis of California's population is a comprehensive and complete one, and unlike those which have been prepared by the workers in many states, it covers the major features of the state's population in a 12 single volume. This 1955 study places major emphasis upon change, a tendency v;hich appears in most of the state population studies nov; being published. The Thompson study of California's population involves growth between 1850 and 1950, especially that which has resulted from migration. It also includes analyses of changes in the characteristics, the rapid urbanization of the population, patterns of migration, and development of agriculture and industry, Connecticut; Burnight Robert Burnight and other workers have produced several studies of the population of Connecticut. In these works. 'barren S. Thompson, Growth and Changes in California's Population (Los Angeles: The Haynes Foundation, 1955).

PAGE 37

20 especially two of the most recent, ^ the Connecticut researchers have concerned themselves chiefly with growth and redistriblition of population, with particular attention given to changes in the rural and urban populations. To a considerable extent, because of the peculiarities of Connecticut's population, these workers have reported either the slow growth or decline of the population of central cities but the in. burgeoning growth of suburbs. The latter situation is developing in North Carolina, of course, but the former has not yet done so. The contrast between the two states inheres largely in the fact that Connecticut's cities are relatively old manufacturing centers, and like many others throughout the nation, are experiencing population decreases. These workers also describe a comparatively recent migration phenomenon in which persons who had left central cities for outlying suburbs now are migrating from the latter to even more distant hinterlands, but continuing to commute to urban Jobs.l5 TZ ^Robert G, Burnight and Dorothy Ingalls, A Decade of Population Change; Connecticut, 19^0-1960 , Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 566 (Storrs: University of Connecticut, 1961); and Robert G. Burnight, 100 Years of Interstate Migration; 18^0-19^0 , Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Studies in the Population of Connecticut No. 5 (Storrs: University of Connecticut, 1957). in. Burnight and Ingalls, o£. cit , , pp. 6-21, •^Ibid. , p. 7.

PAGE 38

21 Kentuctor; Schwairgweller and De Jonf^ Schwarzweller's studies in Kentucky illustrate the patterns of migration from an economically depressed area. Therefore, they reflect similar patterns in North Carolina in the exodus of people from the eastern farming regions and from the state's portion of "Appalachia. " One of the Kentucky studies presents a careful analysis of migration of young men from the state according to their original geographic distribution, several of their characteristics, their sociocultural origins, the patterns of migration which they produce, and the motivations which impel them to move.^^^ A second study in the Kentucky series is concerned with the economic situations of the migrants and with their educational backgrounds as a factor in shaping their economic situations after they have migrated. "'•'^ A third study reports the patterns of migration of young men according to the family situations from which they come, the adjustments which ^arry K. Schwarzweller, Sociocultural Origins and Migration Patterns of Young Men from Eastern Kentucky , Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 685 (Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1965). 17 Harry K. Schwarzweller, Career Placements and Economic Life Chances of Young Men from Eastern Kentucky , Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 686 (Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1964).

PAGE 39

22 the migrants must make, and their patterns of interaction 18 with the various locality groups such as the neighborhood. De Jong has prepared an analysis of population change 19 in Kentucky between 1950 and 19bO. ^ This study is especially concerned with the components of population change, that is, with births, deaths, and migration and their effects upon various areas of the state. In general, his results indicate extreme depopulation through migration from the state, representing a condition which has become an abiding feature of the situation in over one-third of North Carolina's counties. His methods, therefore, are useful in studying the latter situation. Louisiana; Smith and Hitt, and Bertrand In expanding upon his original research on the population of Louisiana, Smith with Hitt produced the volume, The People of Louisiana which is the basic model for the present study. In their treatise, the authors analyzed five major T75 Harry K. Schwarzweller , Family Ties, Migration, and Transitional Adjustment of Younp; Men from Eastern Kentucky T Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 591 (Lexington: University of Kentucky, 196^). "Gordon F. De Jong, The Popul ation of Kentucky ; Changes in the Number of Inhabitants, 19 50-60 ^ Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 675 (Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1961). 20, T. Lynn Smith and Homer L. Hitt, The People of : Louisiana State University Press, Louisiana (Baton Rouge 3^527:

PAGE 40

23 areas, including: (1) the number and distribution of the inhabitants; (2) the composition or characteristics; (5) the vital processes; (^) migration; and (5) growth and redistribution of population. This investigation is the culmination of many others which had been done at Louisiana State 21 University, and it represents much of Smith's basic frame ?P of reference in the investigation of population matters. Following the publication of the results of the I960 census of population, Bertrand and others continued the Louisiana population studies. Some recent reports have appeared under the general heading of Louisiana's Human Resources, and include analyses of the number, distribution, and composition of the population, * migration, and other matters. Michigan; Hawley Hawley's study of changes in Michigan's population between 1840 and 19^0, with projections to I960, is designed ^ For a listing of these, see ibid., pp, 263-264. 22 This is expanded and amplified in T. Lynn Smith, Population Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1948); and T. Lynn Smith, Fundamentals of Population Study (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., I960). 25 ^Alvin L. Bertrand, Louisiana's Human Resources , Part I, . Number^ Distribution, and Composition of the Population, I960. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 548 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1961). 24 Roger L. Burford in consultation with Alvin L. Bertrand and Ualfrid J. Jokinen, Louisiana's Human Resources , Part IV, Migration of the Working" Aged Population , Louisiana Agricultural Sxperiment Station Bulletin No. 595 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1965).

PAGE 41

2^ largely for planning agencies. ^ It includes the amount of growth; the sources of people residing in Michigan; and redistribution within the state by regions, rural and urban residence, and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The study also includes changes in the composition of the population, that is, in age, sex, race, and residence. Hawley's work is particularly useful for present purposes because of its treatment of growth, redistribution, and changes in composition. Hawley also notes the strong influence on the population of a state which is exerted by changes at the national level. He observes that migration is a particularly unpredictable factor, Tennessee; Knox and Cleland The most comprehensive study of the population of Tennessee is that by Knox. ' This worker developed particularly detailed analyses for the counties on the assumption that this unit comprises an especially useful one for study. This rationale has been employed in the present study of North Carolina and detailed analyses have been made for its counties. The county data presented by Knox are particularly 7^ ^Amos E. Hawley, The Population of Michigan, 18^0 to 1960; An Analysis of Growth. Distribution, and Composition (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 19^+9). ^^Ibid., pp. 89-90. 27 John B. Knox, The People of Tennessee (Knoxville: University of Tennet^see Press, 19^»-9;.

PAGE 42

25 useful for three purposes: (1) to Identify the population according to residence; (2) to classify the labor force; and (5). to identify the distribution of agriculture and industry as major elements in the economy of Tennessee. This approach provides part of the basis for the identification of the functions of North Carolina's counties, regions, ajid major cities according to the proportions of workers engaged in particular kinds of occupations. Knox also presents material for the state on religious affiliations between 1906 and 1936, The compilation of population differences between the counties of Tennessee was continued by Cleland using 28 I960 data. His work, done in detail for each of the individual counties, is concerned with most of the same demographic topics that appear in the study by Knox, but Cleland simply presents his material in tabular and graphic form without analysis, Washington ! Schmid Some of the most detailed and comprehensive work done on any state population is that carried out for Washington by its Census Board, largely under the direction of Calvin 25 Charles L, Cleland, Selected Population and Agricultural Statistics for Tennessee Counties , Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No, 559 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1963),

PAGE 43

26 Schmid. ^ The efforts include the major aspects of demographic analysis and involve a considerable amount of projection which is based upon the "cohort-survival" method in most cases. The bulk of these works places strong emphasis upon trends and especially upon the increasing migration of population into the state and the rapid pace of urbanization. Other state population studies Many other studies have been carried out in other states, largely by personnel of the respective Experiment Stations, It is possible to extend the list of these indefinitely, so only a few others need be mentioned as helping to make up the background for the present demographic study of North Carolina, These investigations have been made in Montana,-^ New York,^ Oklahoma,-^ and in South ^5 ^Some of these studies, all published at Seattle by the Washington State Census Board, are Calvin P. Schmid, Earle H. MacCannell, and Maurice D. Van Ardsol, Jr., Mortality Trends in the State of Washington (1935); Calvin P. Schmid and Vincent A. Miller, Population Trends and Educational Change in the State of Washington (1960); Calvin P. Schmid, Population Trends in Cities and Towns in the State of Washington, 1900 to 1965 (1963); Calvin F. Schmid and others, Population Forecasts. State of Washington; 1965 to 1983 (1966); and Calvin P. Schmid and others. Enrollment Forecasts, State of Washington: 1965 to 1985 (196^7: ^ Haradd A. Pedersen, Montana's Human Resources , Montana Agricultural Experiment Station Circulars Nos. 251 and 25^ (Bozeman: Montana State College, I960 and 1961). ^ Waif red A. Anderson, The Characteristics of New York State Population , Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 925 (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1958). ^ James D. Tarver and Susie Reardon Bedingfield,

PAGE 44

27 Carolina.*' Others have been conducted in Texas, ''^ Wisconsin, '' and elsewhere. No state, of course, has completely neglected the matter of its ovm population, and the publications on the subject are numerous. North Carolina Research Although no complete demographic study has been published in a single volume for North Carolina, various workers have produced a wide variety of materials on specific population subjects. Some of the outstanding contributors to the understanding of the demographic situation in North Carolina are the following, although the list is by no means exhaustive; OklaNo, and James D. Tarver and Joseph C. Urbon, Population Trends of Oklahoma Towns and Cities, Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. T-IO^ (Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, 1963). ^-^Julian J. Petty, The Growth and Distribution of Population in South Carolina (Coltunbia; State Council for Defense, 19^5). 5^ E, L. Skrabanek, A Decade of Population Change in Texas . Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 1000 (college Station: Texas Agricultxiral and Mechanical University, 1965), 55 ^'^MeLTgaret Jarman Hagood and Emmit F. Sharp, Rural -Urban Migration in Vlsconsin, 19^0-1950 , Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin No. 176 (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1951); Douglas G. Marshall, Wisconsin's Population Changes and Prospects, 1900-1965 , Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 241 (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1965); and Glenn V. Fuguitt, Growing and Declining Villages in Wisconsin, 1950-1960, Wisconsin

PAGE 45

28 F. Stuart Chapln^ Jr. One of the most valuable recent books on North Carolina, analyzing in careful detail the urbanized Piedmont Crescent, is the collection of integrated writings edited by F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. and Shirley F. Weiss. -^ The contributing authors have analyzed such major aspects of this major section of North and South Caxolina as the economic base, including the functions of the respective cities and the agricultural background; political behavior, including that of Negroes in and around the city of Durham; mobility of people in the region; the sociocultural factors which exist in the area; and the patterns of urban growth and development, including a variety of implications for public policy. The present study of North Carolina draws heavily upon the work by these researchers in the analysis of the Piedmont region which is the center of North Carolina's growth and urban-industrial activity. Other work by Chapin includes his contribution on If) city planning to Vance and Demerath, The Urban South, -^'^ a Population Studies Series Report No. 8 (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1961). Urban Growth Dynamics in a Regional Cluster of Cities (New YorFi John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 7 1962). -^'F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., "City Planning: Adjusting People and Place," in The Urban South by Vance and Demerath, Chapter 15.

PAGE 46

29 major study on land use, and additional work with Hemmens 59 and Veiss on the growth of the Piedmont Crescent. ^ C. Horace Hamilton Hamilton is one of the prolific contributors to the body of knowledge concerning North Carolina's population. Perhaps he is best known for his several studies of migration, beginning with an analysis of rural-urban migration in 193^ in which a method for making estimates of this fundamental matter was presented. This has been followed through the years by a wide variety of other researches on migration, especially net interstate migration which concerns North Carolina in a most fundamental way because of the losses which the state sustains, and net migration between counties within the state which accounts for a great deal A-1 of the redistribution of the population. Hamilton also * P. Stuart Chapin, Jr., Urban Land Use Planning (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19>7Ti ^^P. Stuart Chapin, Jr., George C. Hemmens, and Shirley P. Weiss, Land Development Patterns in the Piedmont Industrial Crescent (Chapel Hill: Institute for Research in Social Science, I960). '*"^C. Horace Hamilton, Rxiral -Urban Migration in North Carolina: 1920 to 1950 ^ North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 295 (Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 195^). C. Horace Hamilton, Net Migration to and from North Carolina and North Carolina Counties from 19^0 to 1950 . Progress Report R3-I8 (Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 1955). The method also is discussed by Jacob S. Siegel and C. Horace Hamilton, "Some Considerations in the Use of the Residual Method of Estimating Not Migration," Journal of the

PAGE 47

50 has analyzed the selectivity of migration, both for North Carolina, with particular attention given to variations by age and level of education, and for the South, the other regions, and various categories within the nation as a whole. Hamilton also is skilled at employing the vital statistics, especially those which deal with mortality, for purposes of measuring levels of morbidity of the population and assessing racial differentials both in morbidity and mortality. ^ He has also used the vital rates and patterns of migration in order to make population projections during intercensal periods. American S tatistical Association , Vol. 4? (Sept., 1952), pp. 475-500. ^^C. Horace Hamilton, "Educational Selectivity of HuralUrban Migration: Preliminary Results of a North Carolina Study," Selected Studies of Migration Since World War II (New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1957; » PP. 110-12^; "Educational Selectivity of Net Migration from the South," Social Forces, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Oct., 1959), pp. 55-'+2; "Continuity and Change in Southern Migration," in The South in Continuity and Change by John C. McKinney and Edgar T. Thompson (eds.) (Durham: Duke University Press, 1965), Chapter III; and "Educational Selectivity of Migration from Farm to Urban and to Other Nonfarm Communities," in Mobility and Mental Health by Mildred B. Kantor (ed.) (New XoWx Charles C. Thomas, 1965), Chapter 7. ^^C. Horace Hamilton, Health Progress in North Carolina from 1 940 to 1950 , Progress Report Rs-Sl (Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 195^); North Carolina Abridged Life Tables by Color and Sex: 19^9-1951 , Progress Report R3-22 (Raleigh: iJorth Carolina State College, 195^); and "Ecological and Social Factors in Mortality Variation," Eugenics Quarterly , Vol. 2, No. 4 (Dec, 1955), PP. 212-2?T: ^^C. Horace Hamilton, "A Short Method for Projecting

PAGE 48

31 Finally, Hamilton also has contributed to the understanding of the rapid changes which are taking place in North Carolina in the relative importance of urban and rural populations, especially that of rural-farm residents. His work with Mayo on the rural population of North Carolina is especially comprehensive and constitutes a suitable model for other a-nalyses of this segment of the total population. S. Huntington Hobbs, Jr. Hobbs has contributed to the present work on North Carolina in one major way, although his book includes analysis of the population as only one of several topics. Hobbs has carefully delineated the major regions of North Carolina (Tidewater, Upper Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountain) according to a number of geographic, social and cultural, economic, and other criteria. This regional delineation Population by Age from One Decennial Census to Another," Social Forces , Vol. ^1, No. 2 (Dec, 19&2) , pp. 165-170. ^C. Horace Hamilton and Herbert Aurbach, What's Happening to North Carolina Farms and Farmers , North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. ^07 (Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 1958). Selz C. Mayo and C. Horace Hamilton, Rural Population Problems in North Carolina , North Carolina Agricialtural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No, 76 (Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 19'^5). '^'^S. Huntington Hobbs, Jr., North Carolina; An Economic and Social Profile (Chapel HlTTl University of North Carolina Press, 1958). °Ibid. , pp. 5^-69 and p. 81.

PAGE 49

32 has been taken as he developed it and used extensively in the present study. In fact, Hobbs's identification of the counties which comprise each region has made it possible to use the extensive census materials for the counties in order to maice a detailed demographic analysis Tor these four major regions of the state. In turn, this analysis shows clearly the majiner in which North Carolinians are distributed throughout the state, the variations in their characteristics, and the patterns of growth, decline, and redistribution of population within the state, Howard V, Odum Odum is probably best known for his comprehensive study of the entire Southern region in which a wide variety of observations on the population of the area are made. Those pertaining to changes in rural and urban residence, the role of Negroes in the South, the vast migrations of people, and the rates of natural increase and of growth by this means are especially detailed. North Carolina, as one of the 15 states which Odum analyzed, figures prominently in his work. In addition, Odum's book forms the background for a recent work edited by McKinney and Thompson which is designed to trace the changes that have occurred since the zrq ^Howard W, Odtim, Southern Regions of the United States (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,

PAGE 50

33 publication of Odum's work.^ The contributing writers have been successful In tracing continuing trends and In describing the variations In the South which have occurred since the 1930 's. Cdum's regional studies carried over Into his other work, Including in most cases, the extensive use of census materials In his assessment of the human resources available to the South, the changes In the composition of these, especially the racial and residential composition, and a variety of approaches to social planning using the concept of regionalism and regional differences as a base. Rupert B. Vance Vance has contributed to the body of knowledge on Southern society and thus to that which concerns North Carolina. Three of his works on the Southern region are of particular significance In providing elements of the background of the present study, although they are not limited to North Carolina, Vance's Human Geography of the South . ^ ^^cKlnney and Thompson, The South In Continuity and Change . ^^A few others of Odum's writings are, "A Sociological Approach to the Study and Practice of American Regionalism," Social Forces . Vol. 20, No. h (May, 19^2), pp. ^+25-^36; coeditor with Katharine Jocher of In Search of the Regional Balance of America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 19^5); and "This is Worth Our Best," The Southern Packet . Vol. V, No. 1 (Jan., 19^9), PP. 1-8. 1932). ^^(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,

PAGE 51

5* and his and Danilevsky's All These People -^-^ both involved extensive analyses of the population resources of the region. The Urban South , of which Vance and Demerath are co-editors, is particularly important to the present study because it is a compendium of studies of urbanization in the South, including that of the Piedmont Crescent (a term coined by Vance) which figures prominently in our analysis of North Carolina. In addition, Vance's contributions to demography in North Ceirolina and in the South generally, deal with several problem aspects, chiefly those of the tenant farm population,'^-' the unemployed,-' the poorly housed,'^ and others who found themselves in difficult situations as a result of the Great Depression, the decline of Southern agriculture, or other situations. Most of these studies are relatively early (1930's). g^ -^-^(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 19^5). ^ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1954). ^^Rupert B. Vance, Regional Reconstruction; A Way Out for the South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955); and Farmers Without Land (New York: Public Affairs Committee, 1937). ^ Rupert B. Vance and Nadia Danilevsky, "Population and the Pattern of Unemployment, 1930-1957," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly , Vol. XVIII, No. 1 (Jan., 19^0), 27-^5. ^ '^Rupert B. Vance, How the Other Half is Housed (Chapel Hill: University of Nor'cli Carolina Press, 1936).

PAGE 52

35 Finally, Vance also has presented useful material on migration and methods for measuring it.'^ Other North Carolina researchers Many other persons who have contributed to an understanding of the demographic and sociocultural situation within North Carolina could be listed and their work discussed. However, it must suffice simply to name some of them with one work by each. Seven of these workers are Robert Bunting, ^"^ Robert Dinkel,^° John Gulick,^"'Floyd Hunter, Barclay Jones, ^^ Daniel Price, ^'^ and Anthony Tang.^^ ~ Rupert B. Vance, Research Memorandum on Population Redistribution Within the United States , Bulletin No. 42 CNew York: Social Science Research Council, 193B). 59 -^^Robert L. Bunting and Peter A. Prosper, Labor Mobility Patterns in the Piedmont Industrial Crescent (Chapel Hill: Institute for Research in Social Science, I960). ^°Robert M. Dinkel, "Peopling the City: Fertility," in The Urban South by Vance and Demerath, Chapter 5. John Gulick and Charles E. Bowerman, Adaptation of Newcomers in the Piedmont Industrial Crescent (Cnapel Hill: Institute for Research in Social Science, 1961). 62 Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955). Barclay Gibbs Jones, County Income Estimates for North Carolina Counties (Chapel Hill: School of Business Administration, University of North Carolina, I960), Daniel 0, Price, "Nonwhite Migrants to and from Selected Cities," Americaja Journal of Sociology , Vol. 5'<-» No. 3 (Nov., 1958), pp. 19S-201. ''Anthony M. Tang, Economic Development in the Southern Piedmont ; Its Impact on Agricultu re (Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina Press, 1958).

PAGE 53

36 National Studies Many researchers have produced de^iographic studies of entire national populations, and while it is not feasible to discuss these in detail, it is useful to list several of them. Their works are relevant to the present study because many of them have been developed along similar lines and employ methods which have been taken for use in the present study. All of those listed represent efforts to analyze the major features of a large, total population as is the case with the present treatise on the population of North Carolina. The countries or areas involved are Brazil, mainland China, ' Czechoslovakia, Vest Germany,^ Hungary,'^ India ss T. Lynn Smith, Brazil; People and Institutions (third ed. , Baton Hougel Louisiana State University Press, 1963). '^John S. Aird, The Size, Composition, and Growth of the Population of Mainland China , U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 15 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961). Waller Wynne, Jr., The Population of Czechoslovakia , U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 3 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953). 69 ^Paul F. Meyers and W. Parker Mauldin, The Population of the Federal Republic of Germany and West Berlin , U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 195'*-). 70 '^ Jacob S. Siegel, The Population of Hungary , U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 9 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958).

PAGE 54

57 71 72 7? 7'4and Pakistan, Israel, Japan/ "^ and Latin America. Others include Manchuria, the Soviet Union, the United States (Bogue),'^'^ the United States (Taeubers) ,'^^ and Yugoslavia. ' ^ rjy Kingsley Davis, The Population of India and Palcistan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951). 72 Norman Lawrence, Israel: Jewish Population and Immigration , U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952). ni. -^Irene B. Taeuber, The Population of Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958;, 74 T. Lynn Smith, Latin American Population Studies (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, I960). 75 -^Waller Wynne, Jr., The Population of Manchuria , U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 7 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958). ''^Yraxis. Lorimer, The Population of the Soviet Union: History and Prospects (Geneva: League of Nations, 19^6). 77 ^ ^Donald J. Bogue, The Population of the United States (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1959). 7ft Conrad Taeuber and Irene B. Taeuber, The Changing Population of the United States (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958). 79 ^ ^Paul F. Meyers and Arthur A. Campbell, The Population of Yugoslavia , U.S. Bureau of the Census. International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 5 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 195^).

PAGE 55

CHAPTER III NUMBER AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE INHABITANTS The most important facts describing the population of North Carolina are the number of inhabitants and the manner in which they are distributed throughout the state. These facts are closely associated with the potential for population growth or decline, the occupational situation, the age-distribution profile, and a variety of other characteristics. Furthermore, Smith and Hitt suggest that many of the questions and problems relating to industry and agriculture cannot be fully answered unless data are utilized which show the size and distribution of the population. For example, North Carolina's quest for industry is closely allied with the number of workers which any business moving to a given area can hope to attract. Moreover, the distribution of the inhabitants provides some idea of the extent of urbanization or rurality and these, in turn, relate directly to the balance between industry and agriculture and to the factors which make for a dynamic equilibrium in this balance. Finally, information on population size is vital T. Lynn Smith and Homer L. Hitt, The People of ^1 Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, lyb^), p. 6. 38

PAGE 56

59 in the equitable administration of such efforts as the Urban Renewal Program and in adjusting the dislocations which it produces. National and State Comparisons The inhabitants of North Carolina numbered ^,556,155 on April 1, I960. As compared with other states in the nation, this population is relatively large with 11 states having greater populations and 38 of them and the District of Columbia having smaller populations. (See Table L) New York had almost four times as many people as North Carolina and the most sparsely populated state in the conterminous United States, Nevada, had a mere one-sixteenth as many residents as North Carolina. The two states ranking immediately above North Carolina in quantity of the human resource were Florida, which rose from twentieth place in 1950 to tenth place in I960, and Indiana. The two ranking immediately below North Carolina in size of population were Missouri and Virginia. In density of population or average number of people per square mile of land, North Carolina ranked seventeenth among the states with an index of 92.9. Obviously, this figure is merely the relationship between the total number U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population; 196Q « Number of Inhabitants , North Carolina , Final Report PC(1 ) -55A (1961), p. 9, TableT;

PAGE 57

40 TABLE 1 NORTH CAROLINA'S POSITION AWONG THE STATES IN POPULATION AND IN DENSITY OF POPULATION, I96O

PAGE 58

'H TABLE 1 continued

PAGE 59

^2 of inhabitants and the total land area and should not be taken to suggest an even distribution of North Carolinians throughout the state. On the contrary, a more detailed view indicates that there are heavy concentrations of people in a relatively few small parts of the state combined with sparse habitation in other very extensive portions. Sixteen states which were more densely populated than North Carolina are located largely in the Ilorth and East, although they also include California and Hawaii. Among the Southern states, only Virginia, with 99. cpersons per square mile of land, outrajiked North Carolina. Virginia and Hawaii immediately preceded North Carolina in population density, whereas Florida and Tennessee ranked just below. Finally, the population density for the conterminous United States in I960 was 60,1, but when Alaska and Hawaii were included, the index was 50.5, suggesting that in either case, North Carolinians are considerably more crowded for living space than are residents of the nation as a whole. Distribution Within North Carolina The spatial distribution of the 4.5 million people who lived in North Carolina in I960 may be seen in Figure 1, which includes all places with 1,000 or more inhabitants. Centers of 1,000-2,^99 people were included with larger ones, partly because there are a great many of them in

PAGE 60

^3

PAGE 62

North Carolina, but chiefly because they tend to have social characteristics which are more reminiscent of larger urban centerc than of rural-farm populations,^ Thus a study of Figure 1 indicates the clustering of North Cfiroliniains in population aggregates of all sizes. In addition, the large centers of Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, High Point, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem are diagrammed according to the numbers of people in their "urbanized areas" which include in each case a central city and its surrounding "urban fringe." This makes it possible to include the people who function as integral parts of some large population center even though they may live just outside of the city limits. Use of the smaller "urban place" designation excludes many such people from the several large cities which influence their lives. North Carolina's population also is unevenly distributed among the 100 counties, basically because of rural and urban differences between them, (See Table 2.) In I960, the numbers of people in the county units ranged from less than 5,000 in Tyrrell to over 2^0,000 in Mecklenburg, with the five most populous ones (Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, Wake, and Cumberland) having nearly a quarter of the state's total and the five least populous ones (Dare, Hyde, Camden, _ For census purposes "urban" people are those in places of 2,500 or more inhabitants.

PAGE 63

^^ TABLE 2 DISTRIBOTION AND DENSITY OF POPULATION, BY COUNTIES, I960

PAGE 64

0-6 TABLE 2 continued

PAGE 65

^7 TABLE 2 continued

PAGE 66

Clay, and Tyrrell) having little more than half of one per cent. The populations in nine counties exceeded 100,000 and those in 50 exceeded 50,000. On the other hand, 11 counties contained fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, and 55 had fewer than 20,000. Distribution by reRions Several groups of counties which comprise the major regions of North Carolina appear in Figure 2, and their populations and densities are given in Table 5. These four great regions, originally delineated by Hobbs, are distinguished from each other not merely by the sizes of their respective populations, but also by a wide variety of social characteristics which greatly influence those populations. The nearly endless list of these characteristics includes education, levels of living, proportions of whites and Negroes, percentages of city and farm people, and a host of others. But for all that, the regions are basically conceptual ideals, separated from each other for purposes of the present study in order to emphasize the diversity of population in North Carolina. Their separation is by no means perfect nor are the regions four unintegrated fragments. Rather, they are distinct sociocultural entities S. Huntington Hobbs, Jr., North Carolina: An Economic and Social Profile (Chapf»r"Hill : University of North Carolina 'Presi', 1958;, pp. V4-69, and 81.

PAGE 67

ZJ.9 '\

PAGE 68

TABLE 3 DL5TRIB0TI0N AND DQJSITT OF POPULATION, BY REGIONS, I960 50 Region Population Persona

PAGE 69

51 which blend into each other at their peripheries as one proceeds from the coast to the mountains, just as their geographies and climatic conditions flow from one type into another. Add to this blending the fact that North Carolinians from each of them migrate to the others, joined by people from other states, and the regions are seen to lose even more of their distinctive features. Thus they may be used only as abstract representations of the many distinct social and cultural features which are examined systematically in the chapters that follow. The Tidewater region includes many of the thinly inhabitated areas of eastern North Carolina. With just over a tenth of the state's people but fully a fifth of the land area, its 22 counties have far less than their pro rata shares of the population. A high water table, vast marshes, and salt-laden soils render thousands of acres of the region virtually incapable of supporting large numbers of people. In fact, a substantial part of its value rests with just these conditions which make it an ideal wildlife haven and recreational area. Obviously, these functions do not attract large numbers of permanent residents who would be represented in the census enumeration, although many summer tourists pour into the region each year. But reality forbids that in this case, a low population should be called a social problem to be remedied by an influx of permanent residents.

PAGE 70

52 Indeed, it would be a far s^reater problem than any present difficulty to find suitable Jobs, housinK, or farms for large numbers of people who might wish to take up residence in the region. Generally, the sparse habitation of the region is relieved only along the coast, for there ^re found North Carolina's port facilities, niilitary installations, and tourist services with their relatively large populations. But farther inland, the remnants of an ante-bellum plantation economy still survive; and these areas of the Tidewater are clearly identified by low population density and by a few scattered towns and small cities. The Upper Coastal Plain is characterized basically by its high proportion of Negroes who are anchored to subsistence agriculture in land-tenure sirrangements not greatly different from those which have existed for a century. Therefore, populations in most parts of this sparsely inhabited farming region have grown very little, although much smaller, nonagricultural parts are heavily populated and have gro'*fn substantially. Of course, the region also contains the largest military installation in the United States (Fort Bragg in Cumberland County). This huge establishment exerts considerable influence over the population characteristics of Cumberland County, the city of Fayetteville, and even some of the surrounding counties.

PAGE 71

55 Twenty-three counties comprise the Upper Coastal Plain, and in 1960, they contained a quarter of the state's population and about 28 per cent of its land area. The region ranks second to the Piedmont in numbers and density of people, but that fact belies its fundamental rurality. Thus even though some people reside in several urban centers with 5,000-5^,999 inhabitants, many of these clusters are directly associated with the extensive cotton and tobacco cropping and marketing systems of the region. This means that the towns and cities actually are often more reminiscent of a rural-agricultural than an urban-industrial complex despite the relatively large size of a few of them. Also, in relative terms, the agricultural population itself is large. In fact, this region is North Carolina's major cropping area and one of the most important cash-income farming areas in the United States. Consequently, many of its rural and urban people are engaged in various phases of agricultural production, processing, marketing, and related enterprises, none of which produces heavy concentrations of people.^ Yet the individual counties of the Upper Coastal Plain generally contain many more people than those of the Tidewater, but many fewer than the ones in the Piedmont. The Piedmont region contains more than twice as many people as any other region, with nearly 2,500,000 people in ^Cf. Hobbs, North Caroline , p. 61.

PAGE 72

its 58 counties. These residents represent well over half of the state's population on some 57 per cent of its land area. Moreover, many of the Piedmont counties have grown rapidly in recent years, and the region has been a major recipient of people movinp away from at least two of the other regions and from other states. It lor.es far smaller proportions of its people through migration than do the other three regions. Therefore, whether reality or illusion, the Piedmont region is viewed by manj of the people whom it attracts as the stronghold of better levels of living and as an escape from subsistence agriculture. Within its boundaries are found those factors which draw and concentrate populations, including many of the South' s major textile mills, tobacco factories, and furniture plants, most of the large markets and retail centers of the state, and a substantial proportion of its commercial and trajisportation facilities. Moreover, in many ways the Piedmont possesses the greatest potential and the greatest responsibility for continued growth of the state's economy. This is true of both that segment which is based upon manufacturing and its related enterprises, and the one which stands upon the processing and marketing of agricultural products. The net result of the rapid growth of the Piedmont, draining people away from other parts of the state, is an Cf, Hobbs, North Carolina , pp, 65-65.

PAGE 73

55 accelerated rate of social change; and this acceleration helps to distinguish the region from other parts of North Carolina. Therefore, despite the many deliberate efforts to draw the regions into a unified whole, the fact remains that there is a tendency toward greater heterogeneity in local areas and homogeneity throughout the state. The former is typified in the diversity of the Piedmont, and for a time, this fact may produce even greater socioeconomic separation than now exists within the state. Furthermore, in the long run, integration of the four diverse regions into a functioning whole will be based upon the interdependence of many dissimilar parts, each v/ith certain specialties not possessed by the others. This will force North Carolinians to contend increasingly with sociocultural differences which penetrate into all parts of the state, for urban heterogeneity and differentiation do not produce the same kind of unilateral development which typified plantation agriculture or the family farm. Rather, the usual situation is more or less simultaneous development along many lines. Much of this development will be oriented to the Piedmont and will radiate from it; and if this region does continue to grow, a significant understanding of its demographic features will be. vital for the proper planning of this growth. At this writing, such planning is rudimentary and uncoordinated.

PAGE 74

56 The Mountain reRJon in the western part of the state contains in its 17 counties, less than 10 per cent of the state's population scattered thinly throughout 1^4per cent of the land area. Over half of the region is classified as farm land. Yet this does not include the subsistence agriculture conducted on the small plots which were too small 7 to be classified as farms in the 1959 Census of Agriculture . Other, smaller parts of the region contain the major mining enterprises in North Carolina and a few other relatively minor industries. Much of it is well suited to the tourist R business which is growing rapidly. In fact, future development of the region will be based to a great extent upon the extension of tourism, whereas the importance of farming will continue to wane. Variations in Population Density The density of population (number of people per square mile of land) varies tremendously among the 100 counties in North Carolina. Thus the state average of 92.9 persons per square mile is a less significant index of the distribution of people than are the wide variations which occur from one part of the state to another. For example, in Mecklenburg ^U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Agriculture , 1959, Vol. I, Counties, Part 26, North Carolin a U9bl}, pp. xiv-xv. ®Cf. Hobbs, North Carolina , pp. 65-68.

PAGE 75

57 County containing the city of Charlotte, there were over 500 persons per square mile of land as compared with only nine in Hyde County which had no center with as many as 1,000 inhabitants. Obviously, among the more densely peopled counties, such as Forsyth, Guilford, Durham, New Hanover, Gaston, and others, some major city is vital in increasing population density throughout the entire county. (See Figure 1.) Thus while 55 counties had population densities higher than the state average, at least 50 of them contain cities of 10,000 or more people. Furthermore, high population densities often extend to a considerable distance outside of the cities themselves and urban influences radiate into these concentrations, whereas the populations of rural communities, which are thinly scattered over the landscape, very rarely have significant spheres of influence. These two facts constitute a major element of sociocultural conditions and change in North Carolina. Examination of the density pattern oj townships provides some preliminary insight into the spheres of influence of particular cities. (See Figure 5.) Obviously, despite the dominance of these cities over broad areas, their populations are closely confined to a handful of minor civil divisions. For example, the townships which contain and surround the city of Raleigh are heavily populated, but many other townships in WaJce County contain fewer than 25 people

PAGE 76

58 •H O U \D ca ON > H

PAGE 77

59 per square mile — clearly not a situation of uniform crowding. Therefore, analysis of density at the township level (Figure 5) and. of population concentrations throughout the state (Figure 1) emphasizes the fact that North Carolina contains: (1) a relatively few to'Amships whose dimonsions are small but whose populations are large and densities high; and (2) a vast number of these minor civil divisions whose collective area is great, but whose people are few and densities very low. The heaviest concentrations of people by townships follow the urbanized "Piedmont Crescent" westward through Raleigh, Durham, Burlington, Greensboro, High Point, VinstonSalem, Salisbury, Concord, and Charlotte and down Into South q Carolina,^ There are concentrations in a few parts of the coastal area and In the general vicinity of Ashevllle in the Mountain region. In addition, there is relatively high density in the vicinity of many small cities in the center of the Upper Coastal Plain, with the extreme northern and southern parts of that region essentially lacking in population centers. But these aggregations pale against the high concentrations of people in the heart of the Piedmont, Finally, low density occurs in virtually all of the Tidewater region with the exception of townships in and around New Hanover, Onslow, and Carteret counties. ^The "Crescent" Is identified by Rupert B. Yance, Human Geography of the South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1952), pp. 32-33.

PAGE 78

CHAPTER IV AGE COMPOSITION The individual's age is his most important characteristic because the way in which he thinks and behaves and the needs which he has are closely related to the number of years he has lived. It also has a bearing on such diverse matters as his marital status and occupation, the role he plays in the society of which he is a part, his tendency to move or to stay in one place, and his chances for parenthood and even survival. In addition, the age profile is a fundamental feature of the whole society. An "old" population, for example, with an extremely high proportion of people aged 65 and over has quite different problems than a "young" population with a superabundance of children under 15. The former must concern itself with such matters as retirement and medical-care programs for the aged while the latter should, but generally doesn't, invest more heavily in education and child-welfare services. In both cases, one vital faotor involved is the proportion of persons in the productive age ranges (15-64) and their ability to finance See T. Lynn Smith, Fundamentals of Population Study (Philadelphia: J-B. Lippincott Co., 19o(5), p. 14S. ^Ibid. , pp. 1^-1^9. 60

PAGE 79

61 these various programs and services. Thus social planning must account for age variations directly as well as for other social characteristics which are likely to be associated with age. Age composition perforce must be analyzed by means of data which have embodied some inaccuracies, particularly in censuses prior to I960 and especially in all of the compilations for the nonwhite or Negro population. There have been tendencies for respondents to round off their ages into those which end with zero; for women to subtract a few years from their ages; for some elderly people to add a few years to their ages; and for children under one year of age to be missed entirely by the enumerators. Because of these variations in the data, Smith has devised the following method for evaluating the accuracy of the age reporting: Take the distribution of ages by single years, from under one to ninety-nine, which most modern censuses publish, and ignore the very few who have passed their hundredth birthdays or whose ages are unreported. If all of the ages were known and reported correctly, almost exactly 10 per cent of the total should be in the first year of age and the others ending with 0, another 10 per cent in the other ages exactly divisible by five, ^0 per cent in other even-number ages, and the remaining W per cent in the odd-numbers not divisible exactly by five. Thus all of the tendencies to concentrate mentioned above should reduce the percentages in the last of these four categories. Consequently, by comparing the total number of persons reported in the age groups one, three, seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, . . . ninety-three, ninety-seven, and ninety-nine, with the figure corresponding to ^0 per cent of the total, one may secure an indicator of the reliability

PAGE 80

62 with which the ages have been reported. Perfect reporting would produce a r.core of 100, whereas any concentration on the ages ending in zero, five, or the other even numbers would produce an index of less ; than 100. The greater the error, the smaller the score. ' The score on accuracy of age reporting for the total population of North Carolina was 99.^ for 19^0, and it was 96.0 for 1950. The scores were 95.6 in 19^0 and 92.6 in 1950. Much of the improvement in accuracy was due to two changes made by the Bureau of the Census in the method of collecting the statistics. These were tne use of selfenumeration with the respondent consulting birth records; and rephrasing of the appropriate question to ascertain "date of birth rather than the age in number of years. . . .' The Bureau of the Census also makes corrections for persons who do not report age. North Carolina's many population components varied in the accuracy of age reporting. Thus in I960, nonwhites (index 98.6) scored lower than whites (99.6); males (99.2) scored slightly lower than females (99.5); and rural-farm people (99.5) and the urban population (99.2) scored slightly lower than rural -nonfaxm inhabitants (99.5). The lowest scores were those for nonwhite urban males and nonwhite rural-farm females, each with an index of 98.2. ^ Ibid ., p. 151. ''"U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: I960, Detailed Charact eristics , N arth Carolina , Final Report P5Tr5-355 (1%2), p. xi.

PAGE 81

65 Nevertheless, these results all indicate a relatively high degree of accuracy in age reporting, and while some differentials exist on a racial basis, they are not as great as they were in earlier censuses. For example, in 19^0 the score for white males was a low 97.5, indicating considerable error in the statistics, and that for nonwhite males was only 90.5. Thus the age reporting situation has Improved greatly and the scores encourage confident use of the I960 age data. Factors Affecting Age Distribution The three demographic processes — fertility, mortality, and migration — are responsible for differences in the age composition of two or more populations and also for the changes in the profiles of the same population from one period of time to another.^ Birth rates and death rates generally act together to influence the age pattern, and when fertility is high and mortality is low or declining rapidly, a high proportion of the population will be children with their attendant needs and problems. This divergence of fertility and mortality rates is now occurring widely in many so-called "underdeveloped" countries, and no longer do many parts of the world have static populations because their birth rates are countered by nearly as high death rates. On ^Smith. Fundamentals , p. 1:35.

PAGE 82

6* the other hand, those peoples whose birth and death rates both are relatively low generally are characterized by increased life expectancy for adults as well as better chances for survival of the newborn, with the eventual result that relatively high proportions of such populations will be in the 65-and-over category. The age-sex pyranid, which portrays the proportions of males and females in specific age ranges, reflects these and other combinations of fertility and mortality levels. For example, in the United States, the influenza epidemics of 1918, the relatively low birth rates during the 1950's, and the high birth rates immediately following World War II, along with other factors which have influenced the proportions of people in the several age ranges, appear on such a graph, either as contractions or elongations of the appropriate bars. Wars have their obvious influence on mortality levels, especially among males, but also exert a less obvious one upon fertility, generally in two ways: (1) during the actual war years birth rates tend to be depressed as they were during World War II in the participating countries; and (2) following cessation of hostilities, birth rates tend to rise sharply when post-war marriages produce children and as servicemen return to their wives. g For a discussion of several combinations of birth and death rates and their implications, see Dennis H. Wrong, Population and Society; (second ed. , New York: Random Houae, 19S3), PpT 14-23.

PAGE 83

65 Migration also influences the shape and appearance of the age-sex pjramid, and because persons aged 17-28 axe most likely to be the migrants, some parts of the United States exhibit a relative scarcity of young adults, while others have high proportions of the same. For example, farming areas often are relatively deficient in persons aged 17-28 because many of them have migrated to cities. Moreover, young females are especially likely to leave farms for urban centers. The age situations in North Carolina and the South are particularly affected by the continuing exodus of Negroes from Southern agriculture, for between 1950 and I960, this factor reduced the region's nonwhite population by 14 per cent. State and National Comparisons Several striking differences exist between the age distributions for North Carolina and the United States. Perhaps the most outstanding of these is the greater "youthfulness" of the state's population in comparison with that of the nation as a whole. (See Figure 4.) In I960, 53.^ per cent of the total population of North Carolina was under 15 years of age compared with 51.1 per cent in the nation. In the other large age groups the corresponding proportions were 59.8 per cent and 59.7 per cent aged 15-64, and 6.8 per cent and 9.2 per cent in the groups 65 and over,

PAGE 84

66 NORTH CAROLINA ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ UNITED STATES 5 4 3 2 1 PERCENT MALE 12 3 4 5 PERCENT FEMALE Figure k. Age-sex pyrsimid for the total populations of North Carolina and the United States, I960.

PAGE 85

67 respectively. Thus North Carolina had 7 per cent more than its pro rata share of the nation's children, approximately its fair share of persons in the productive ages, and about 26 per cent less than its proportional share of elderly people. There may be several reasons for differences between the age profiles of a state such as North Carolina and the nation at large. According to Smith and Hitt in their study of the population of Louisiana, many of the differences could be attributed to three factors, Including: (1) birth and death rates, both of which exceed those for the nation, producing a relatively high proportion of children in the state; (2) the movement of large numbers of young adults from the state, few of whom ever return or are replaced; and (3) immigration of persons from other countries into the nation but not into the state. '^ All three of these circumstances have existed in North Carolina, except that the death rates in a few of the racial and residential categories have been slightly lower in the state than in the nation. Thus North Carolina's superabundance of persons under 50 and relative scarcity of those 50 and over is the result of several factors, including: (1) relatively high fertility rates which long were associated with higher proportions of ^T. Lynn Smith and Homer L. Hitt, The People of Louisiana (Baton Houge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952), pp. 5^^-55.

PAGE 86

68 farm people and Negroes in the state than in the nation; (2) relatirelj heavy losses through recent migration of young adults from the state; and (5) extremely small movements of foreign-born persons into the state. Yet despite losses through migration of persons aged 18-29, there is a higher proportion of those in this age range in North Carolina (25 per cent) than in the nation as a whole (1^ per cent). This situation is due to a particular combination of fertility and migration. Most of the people who were aged 18-29 in I960 had been born during the 1950' s and the early 19^0 's when fertility rates among persons of all races were considerably higher in the state than in the nation. Many of these people subsequently left North Carolina, but the fertility differential was sufficient to produce, by I960, the higher proportion of young adults in the state despite the substantial losses through migration. People in the rural-farm and Negro categories made up much larger percentages of the population of the state than that of the nation during the 1950 's and the 19^0 's and the higher fertility levels of both groups were instrumental in increasing North Carolina's I960 proportion of young adults. The larger relative share of children in the population of North Carolina than in that of the nation means that heavy demands are placed upon the state's educational facilities. It also means that while North Carolinians contribute

PAGE 87

69 to programs which help to sustain the aged, the state receives less than its proportional share of assistance from these programs because of its relative scarcity of elderly people. Variations Within the State Within North Carolina there are many variations in the age profiles, such as the differences between those for city and farm people and those for whites and Negroes, Rural-urban differences Figure 5 has been prepared to show differences between the age disx;ributions of urban and rural -farm people, and Figure 6 to show the extent to which the three residence categories contain more or less than their pro rata shares of persons in each of the five-year age groupings. In the latter graph, the percentage of the state's population which falls in each age group is taken as 100, and the index indicates the degree to which the proportion of those in the corresponding ages for a given residential group is above or below that percentage. Observation of Figures 5 ^JJid 5 indicates that in I960, the urban population was characterized by nearly its pro rata share of children under 5» a pronounced underrepresentation of youngsters aged 5-17, a relatively large proportional

PAGE 88

70 Hill ill liiii ill z O OJ UJ o in o in o I*to
PAGE 89

71 z

PAGE 90

72 share of persons aged 18-6^, and approximately its fair share of people 65 and over. The heterogeneous rural-noafarm population had well over its pro rata share of persons in all ages under 35 and substantial relative scarcities of those 33 and over. Finally, the rural-farm population was characterized by a low proportion of children under 5, a very high proportion of those aged 5-17, extremely low indexes of persons in the early productive years (18-^4), and inordinately high percentages of those ^5 and over. Much of the relative abundance of youngsters aged 5-17 on farms is due to the substantially higher birth rates which long have prevailed there. But the relative deficiency of those aged 0-4, a scarcity which was never observed prior to 19dO, is lai'gely the result of the recent heavy migration of women in the most fertile ages av;ay from the state's farms, and of the long-term tendency for birth rates of rural and urban people to converge. Both of these tendencies also are reflected in the fact that children aged 5-9 are a smaller proportion of the farm population than those aged 10-14. Therefore, even though age-specific fertility rates remain slightly higher among farm than urban people, the number of potential parents living on farms has been reduced so greatly that children in the first five years of life now are proportionately scarce in these areas.

PAGE 91

73 The even greater relative scarcity of children aged 5-17 in the urban areas as conapared with the rural-farm districts arises from the comparatively high proportions of young adults in cities who are unmarried and generally do not reproduce. The traditional values generated in urban centers also have tended to favor relatively lov; levels of reproduction. But this combination of earlier circumstances should not be allowed to obscure the fact that while the proportion of children aged 0-^ in the farm population has been dwindling, that in the urban population has been growing. This reduction in the proportion of farm children means, of course, that the previously heavy rural-to-urban migration cannot continue indefinitely at the same rate because the supply of potential migrants provided by farms is no longer as great as it once was. It also raises the possibility that an actual scarcity of young farmers might even arise in rural areas if the proportion of children decreases further. The relative abundance of children in the rural-nonfarm population may be attributed chiefly to two factors. First, a substantial proportion of that residential category is composed of young married adults with relatively high fertility levels who live and rear t:heir children in suburban areas. Second, another large segment is made up of persons who are not defined officially as farm dwellers, but whose

PAGE 92

7A. attachment to low-status, subsistence agriculture is closely associated with a high level of reproduction. Differences by race and nativity The variations in the age distribution throughout North Carolina also are influenced greatly by the racial conposition of the population. Thus the age patterns of the white population conform fairly closely to those for the state as a whole, while the ones for Negroes exhibit several major differences as well as some minor similarities. Therefore, Figure 7 has been prepared to portray differences in the age profiles of the native-white and Negro populations. In addition, Figures 8, 9, and 10 have been designed to show the extent to which the racial differences in the urban, rural-nonfarm, and rural-farm populations are consistent with those in the population as a whole. Observation of even so crude a measure as the age-sex pyramid (Figure 7) indicates that the age distributions of the races differ greatly in two principal respects. First, the white population contains a far smaller proportional share of children than the Negro population. Second, the white population has more than its pro rata share of persons of all age groups above 20. Moreover, study of Figures 8, 9, and 10 indicates clearly that these two situations also occur In the urban and rural-nonfarm segments of the population, and that they are especially pronounced in the rural-

PAGE 93

75 <, «no»fio»no»r)Oino I If f 1 1 II 1 1 f I f I "'"IIMjIIII to -I < z q: UJ (VJ UJ < CO 2 I o ho ON < H

PAGE 94

76 X 0) 0) -P TS «1 -ri H m o P c -P X o

PAGE 95

77 0) cr\ •H >» H » CO bOO •H si 3 +> o ^^ x! O (0 s

PAGE 97

79 farm por. ion. In the latter category, white children are greatly underrepresented as compared with Negro youngsters, and white adults of all ages are inordinately more numerous than Negro adults. Finally, t^ese two major differences between the age profiles for the ra<:es also hold for males and females except that white males aged 55 and over are relatively scarce in the urban and rural -nonf arm segments. The superabundance of Negro children results from a reproduction rate which is at least one-third higher than that for whites; and while there is some recent tendency for fertility rates of the races to converge, the differential is still substantial and significant. The racial differences in reproduction rates, of course, are most extreme in the rural -farm population. Thus, as is indicated in Chapter XI, it appears that the observed high fertility of Negroes in comparison with that of whites is due to the persistence among the former of the traditionally high birth rates of those who live on farms. The effects upon the age distribution of relatively high fertility levels among Negroes are supplemented somewhat by declining mortality rates, enabling a larger proportion of Negroes of all ages, including the newborn, to survive. Yet in I960, in North Carolina the infant mortality rate for Negroes was still more than twice that for white*. Furthermore, there is a substantial relative

PAGE 98

80 scarcity of Negroes in the most fertile years, largely because migration has taken such great numbers and proportions of young adults out of North Carolina. This applies to all three residence categories. Higher mortality rates among adult Negroes than whites also produce a similar effect. The tendency for proportions of whxte males and females above age b5 to diverge widely in both the urban sind rural -nonf arm populations, and for the males to be greatly underrepresented in both cases, deserves brief comment. This situation simply reflects the long-term tendency for older women, especially widows, to concentrate in the state's villages, towns, and cities and for older men to remain on its farms. Thus a larger proportion of white men in the adult years above 4-0 lives on farms than in either of the other residence categories. The percentage is especially high for those aged 65 and over. Some of these men and some elderly women as well have returned from urban centers to spend their later years, but most simply remain in the rural communities in which they were born. Other racial or nativity groups deserving mention include Indians who, in 19-^0, numbered about 38,000, and the foreign-born who numbered about 22,000. The age profiles for the two are quite different from that for the state as a whole. For example, the Indian population has fair more ~c On this point;, see Smith and Hitt, Louisiana , p. 58,

PAGE 99

81 than its £ro rata share of children and far less than its proportional shares of persons in the productive ages and of the elderly. On the other hand, the foreign-born population has substantially less than its fair shares of children and of adults in the productive years, and more than its proportional share of the elderly. Variations by counties There is considerable dissimilarity in the age profiles of the counties, influenced especially by the varying percentages of people who are urban, rural-nonf arm, and rural-farm, and by the differences in the proportions of Negroes and whites. For each of the counties, the proportions of the population in the three broad age categories are given in Table 4. This tabulation also presents indexes to show the extent to which each county has more or less than its oro rata share of North Carolinians aged 0-1^, 1564-, and 65-over, respectively. In I960, 50 coxinties contained more than their 2££ rata shares of children under 15 years of age. These same counties had only a little more than a quarter of the urban population and two-fifths of the rural -nonf arm people; but they were the homes of almost two-thirds of the farm people. Forty-three of them also had more than their proportional shares of Negroes. In contrast, 35 counties contained more than their 2ro rata shares of people aged 15-6^. ^i addition.

PAGE 100

82 TABLE k PERCENTAOES OF THE POPXIUTIOH IN THREE BROAD AGE GROUPS NORTH CAROLINA, BT COUNTIES, I960 IN

PAGE 101

85 TABLE ^ continued

PAGE 102

8^ TABLE * continued County

PAGE 103

85 these counties had over three-fourths of North Carolina's urban population, about half of its rural -nonf arm people, and a mere quarter of those living on farms. Moreover, only four of these counties contained more than their proportional shares of Negroes, although nearly all of then, had comparatively large numbers of persons of that race. Finally, 66 counties contained more than their fair shares of the elderly and accounted for only a quarter of the urban population but for over half of the rural -nonf arm and rural-farm populations. Negroes were overrepresented in 29 of them. Hence the counties which are characterized predominantly by rural-farm society must rear and educate a large share of the state's children, and especially the state's Negro children; whereas the ones which contain the major cities have large proportions of its productive adults of both races and have inordinately low proportions of those under 20. Counties with high percentages of rural-nonf arm people resemble the urban counties with respect to the relatively large shares of persons in the productive ages. Thus oldsters in North Carolina tend to avoid the highly urbanized counties and to remain in the more isolated ones in which the family farm and various types of subsistence agriculture still figure prominently in economic activities. va-riations b y regions The counties may be group-d into their respective regions and the age variations ...mmarized, as in Table 5.

PAGE 104

TABLE 5 PERCENT AQIS OF THE POPOLATICN IN THREE BROAD AGE GRODPS NORTH CAROLINA, BY REGIONS, I96O IN Region Dnder 15 Per cent Index 15-6if Per cent Index 65 and over Per cent Index Dependency ratio Tidewater Upper Coastal Plain Piedmont HountedjQ 3^.6 36.5 32.2 30.3 10*+ 109 96 91 58.8 57.^ 61.0 59.9 96 102 100 6.6 97 6.1 90 6.8 100 9.8 Ikk 70.1 7'+.2 63.9 66.9 North Carolina 33.^ 100 59.8 100 6.9 100 67.5 Source: Compiled suid computed fron data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Cenaua of Population; I960 , General Population Characteristics . North Carolina . •in&l Report PC(1)-35B (1961). p. and pp. 9ii-122, Table 27. 36. Table 16;

PAGE 105

87 As is to be expected, the major faxming regions — the Tidewater and Upper Coastal Plain — have more than their pro rata shares of children and are relatively deficient in persons aged 15-6^ and 65 and over. The age profiles in these two regions also are strongly influenced by their large Negro populations. On the other hand, the Piedmont region with its high proportion of urbanites, is relatively deficient in children but has a superabundance of persons aged 15-o^, and especially of those aged 18-40. It has exactly its pro rata share of elderly people. Finally, the Mountain region obviously is a haven for the elderly, exhibiting a relative scarcity of children and just its pro rata share of productive adults, but having far more than its fair share of those aged 6^ and over. The superabundance of old people in the Mountain region is important in increasing their proportion in the state's total rural-farm population, whereas the migration of young adults from the farms to cities in North Carolina and elsewhere reduces the proportion of these people in the total farm population. The elderly do not participate significantly in this migration, preferring in most cases to live out their lives in the relative seclusion and the traditional social patterns of their native coves and valleys. There is, for example, a vast gulf between the relative urbanity of the Piedmont region and the rural-

PAGE 106

88 oriented folk culture of the mountains where a significant share of the old people live, aaa even the poverty which drives cany young adults into the socioeconooiic mainstream of the state may offer greater emotional security to the elderly than the unknown social world which lies heyond the hills. Even Asheville, the one major city in the Mountain region," is strongly cha-racterized by these circumstances, exhibiting relative deficiencies of children and of persons aged 1^-6^, but a superabundaiiCe (index 1?!) of those 65 and over. Dependency Ratios The age distribution also has implications for the ratio between persons in the dependent ages (under 15, 65 q and over) and those in the productive years (15-64).^ In I960, this dependency ratio in North Carolina was 67.5 consumers per 100 producers as compared with one in the nation of 67.1. The difference is negligible, but ratios in both the state and the nation have increased considerably since 19^0 when they were 58.5 and 46.8, respectively. And while the I960 ratios were nearly identical, that in North Carolina was produced by a larger proportion of children agod 5-1^ but a smaller percentage of persons aged 65 and over than that in the nation. Of course, when the dependency ratio See Smith ana Hitt, Loui.siana, p. 56.

PAGE 107

89 is set against the background of a median family income in the ST:ate which is about one-third lower than that in the nation as a whole, North Carolina's producers are seen to have a lesser overall capacity tc provide a high level of living for themselves and zh2 dependent, consuming population. ^° Hence the ratio of dependents to productive adults is less significant than x;be re^50u^ces available co carry the burden and the manner in which those resources are distributed. This fact alone makes many discussions of "overpopulation" virtually meaningless. Within North Carolina, the number of dependents per 100 producers vanes between the urban, rural -nonf arm, and rural-farm populations, with the ratios being 61.5, 69.1, and y'l-.O, respectively. These differentials are compounded further by the fact that in 19?9, urban people had a median family income which was ebout one-fifth higher than that of rural-nonfarm people, and nearly twice as high as that of the rural-farn population. Therefore, despite the value of products grcv.'n and consumed on the farm, the more urbanized counties with proportionately fewer dependents but higher incomes than rural areas assume a significant part of the cost of education and other services for the latter. (See Table 4-,) People in the Piedmont Crescent carry much of On this point, see Joseph J. Spengler and Otis Dudley Duncan (eds.), Demop;raphic Analysis (Glencoe, 111.:: The Free Press, 1956), p. ^^5.

PAGE 108

90 this burden for the state. (See Table 5.) Furthermore, low incomes and high dependency ratios in rural-farm areas have precipitated much of the migration of young adults from farms. But the movement further increases the dependency ratio on farms by reducing the proportion of productive adults, and necessitates increased diversion of funds produced in urban centers throughout the nation to rural populations in the forn of such programs as crop subsidies and "Appalachia" relief. Ihe dependency ratio varies especially widely between the two major racial segnients of the population, being 61.0 for whites and 86,2 for Negroes. Thus there is nearly a 50 per cent difference between the indexes for the two races. This difference has fundamental implications for social and economic conditions, particularly when it is coupled with the fact that in 19591 the median family income was about two and a half times higher for whites than for Negroes. Of course, support of the dependent population in any racial category does not fall exclusively upon that race, but is carried in part by the total population of the state and even that of the nation, with taxes and other productive efforts distributed for the support and education of many persons of both races in the dependent ages.

PAGE 109

91 Trends ?or many decades, there was a steady tendency for the proportion of children under 1^ to decrease and for that of persons aged 15-64to increase at about the same rates; while the percentage of persons aged 55 and over continued to rise gradually. (See Figure 11.) The result was aji increase in the average age of the population. These trends existed for the populations of the nation and North Carolina, and for each of the major racial and residential categories within the state. Furthermore, during much of this time, there was a tendency for the age distributions of the racial and residential groups to converge. The factors responsible were, of course, decreases in the levels of fertility and mortality and resultant increases in life expectancy. However, the lowest percentages of children and the highest proportions of persons aged 15~6^ were reached in the early years of World War II. Thereafter, increases in the rates of reproduction caused the proporT:ion of children to rise and that of persons aged 15-6'4 to decline. In North Carolina, these chsinges caused the races to diverge substantially with the percentage of white children increasing only slightly, but that of Negro children expanding at an inordinately great rate as fertility increased. Moreover, while the proportions of people of both races aged 15-64 declined, the races -gain diverged widely, with the percentage

PAGE 110

92 PERCENT 65 60555045 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 "I I I I I I I I 1 r WHITE MALES WHITE FEMALES NON-WHITE MALES NONWHITE FEMALES 65 AND OVER J L J L 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 H 5 1870 ISeO 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 CENSUS YEAR Figure 11. Changes in the proportions of people in three broad age groups, by color and sex, North Carolina, I87O-I96O.

PAGE 111

93 for Negroes dropping much more precipitously than that for whites. Finally, the relative shares of persons of both races aged 65 and over increased but the difference between the races remained about the same. Only elderly white women showed a significant tendency to exceed the proportion of all elderly in the population of the state as a whole. The percentage of Negro children living in rural-farm areas deserves comment. Since 1920, this proportion has been higher than those for the white population and for Negroes in the other residence categories. (See Table 6.) Moreover, whereas the percentage of white children living on farms has declined markedly, that of Negro children was little different in I960 than in 1920. This is due in considerable measure to the fact that the birth rate among the Negro rural-farm segment of the population has been little affected by the social and economic factors which tend to produce fairly wide fertility variations in cities and suburbs or among whites. Therefore, the levels of reproduction and proportions of children among rural-farm Negroes still are those which typified fairming areas in the United States from the opening of our history until about 1950 or 19^. However, rates of reproduction and proportions of children can change significantly in relatively short periods of time, and the age distribution trends for which they are partly responsible should not be projected haphazardly into future years.

PAGE 112

TABLE 6 PERCENTAGES 07 THE POPULATION OF [.'OSTH CAROLINA IN THREE BROAD AGE GROUPS, BY RESIDENCE AND COLOR, 1920, 19^+0, AND I960 9^ Race, age group,

PAGE 113

CHAPTEfi V SEX G0MP0SITI05 Whether an individual is male or female ranks as his second most significant characteristic, preceded in importeince only by age. Furthermore, the proportional balance between tbe sexes directly involves a number of social circumstances of importance to the total society, related especiedly to social roles. Paramount among the latter, of course, are the reproductive functions which fall separately to men and women. But many others which are assigned by society also are related directly or indirectly to sex and combine to influence social orgajiization, patterns of behavior, attitudes, and values. Thus the relative proportions of males and females have great influence upon the nature of a prevailing social milieu. For example, frontier areas such as Alaska contain substantially higher proportions of males than females in the productive age ranges, and this imbalance is likely to be associated with such things as the rudimentary development of social control and the typically "male" occupations. On the other hand, cities generally have Of. T. Lynn Smith, Fundamental g of Population Study (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., I960}, pp. 181-182. 95

PAGE 114

96 more than their pro rata shares of women and this fact is apt to be related to such circumstances as comparatively conservative behavior and a plethora of "female" occupations. Of course, differences in the relative proportions of males and females in various parts of the United States generally are not now as great as they once were. Thus even though states such as Nevada and the Dakotas still have higher percentages of males than females, the proportions are much more alike than they were a few generations ago. The disappearance of the western frontier and the influx of enterprises which supplemented stock-raising, mining, farming, and related activities have brought increasing numbers of women into these states and have tended to produce a more equal balance between the sexes. Finally, sex composition of a population also has particularly important implications for marital status, rates of reproduction, and rares of mortality which are significantly different for the sexes. Even migration is selective of higher proportions of males or females, depending upon their destinations, the cistances which they must; travel, 2 and the factors which cause them to migrate. In the present study, sex composition is analyzed by means of the sex ratio or number of males per 100 females. ""For a discussion of such factors, see Rupert 3. Vanc( and Nadia Danilevsky, All These People (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 19^^), p. ^7.

PAGE 115

97 However, age, residence, and race also aeed to be taiken into account in order to interpret the data accurately. For example, if a sex ratio of IOC in a total population were the result of large numbers of males living on farms and of females residing in cities, the geographical separation and the relative scarcities of males or females within each residence category would have far more significant implications for marital status, fertility, and other matters than would the overall balance. However, as mentioned in Chapter I, despite the desirability of cross-classification by age, race, and residence, discrepancies in the age data, especially those for Negroes, make it inadvisable to engage in a great majay detailed analyses by age for members of that race. State and National Comparisons The sex composition of North Carolina's total population closely approximates that found among the nation's people as a whole. Thus in 19cO, there were 91,022,5^3 females and 88,305,113 males in the nation or 97.0 males for each IOC feniales. In North Carolina, there were in the same year, 2,509,279 females and 2, 24-6, 376 males, or a sex ratio of. 97.3. In view of this close similarity it is not strange that the indexes for 22 states and the District of Columbia were below that for North Carolina. Most of these states

PAGE 116

98 had one or two characteristics in common: eitb'jr (1) comparatively large proportions of urban people, among whom women tend to predominate; or (2) relatively high percen-cages of Negroes, a racial group characterized by a very low sex ratio. In some cases, both of these characteristics existei together to produce comparatively low proportions of males. Therefore, the relatively high sex ratios are found chiefly in the western states and the relatively low ones in the South and in the highly urbanized states of ::he Northeast. The extremes in I960 were 152 in Alaska and 83 in the District of Columbia, Despite the similarity in the sex compositions of the total populations of North Carolina and the nation, there are also several differences among the elements which make up those populations. (See Figure 1?.) For example, there are major variations by age. Thus the proportion of males in the 15-24 range tends to be considerably higher in North Carolina than in the United States as a whole; whereas the percentages in most of the other age categories are apt to oe lower in the state than in the nation. This situation is related to the fact that the peak migration of females from North Carolina occurs at ages 13-24, whereas that of males takes place at ages 20-26. Thus the slightly "delayed" exodus of males from the state is chiefly responsible for the relatively high sex ratio in the population aged 15-24, But

PAGE 117

99 in

PAGE 118

100 significant proportions of males of these ages do leave the state when they become a few years older, and at age 25 and over the percentages of men in the state and the nation are not very different, being below those of women in both cases. Levels of mortality also are higher among males than females of all ages, and by age 25 » help to reduce the sex ratio to belov: 100. Furthermore, the heavy concentrations of young men at the militaj^y installations help to increase the proportion of those aged 18-2^. There are also important differences between North Carolina and the nation m the sex compositions of the populations classified by residence. Thus in I960, the sex ratios in the nation for urban, rural -non farm, and ruralfarm people were 9'^» 105, and 107, respectively; and the comparable indexes in the state were 90, 102, and 102. But once again, the sex ratios in North Carolina were considerably higher than those in the nation for rural-faxm and rural-nonfarm people in the 15-2'+ age rajiges. This fact, coupled with the much higher proportions of people classified as ruralnonfarm and rxiral-fairm in North Carolina than in the nation were instrumental in raising the state's overall sex ratio. Finally, by race, the percentages of males in the Negro populations of the state and the nation are much lower at most ages than in the white groups. Thus in I960, the sex ratios for whites and Negroes in the nation were 97 and

PAGE 119

101 95 1 respectively, while the comparable Indexes in North Carolina were 93 and 9^. Once more, the relatively high proportions of males of both races aged 15-2^ were important in raising the sex ratio for the state's total population. In sunimary, several factors tend to increase the proportion of males in North Carolina above that found in the nation and several others tend to decrease it, with the net result being the nearly identical state and national sex ratios. Some of those which serve to elevate North Carolina's index are: (1) the significantly higher proportion of males than females aged \'^-2^; (2) the comparatively high percentage of people living on farms, which retain larger shares of males than females; and ($) the inordinately high proportions of people living in the suburban and subsistenceagriculture parts of rural -nonf arm districts, both of which are relatively abundant in males. On the other hand, some of tae factors which tend to depress the sex ratio of the state are: (1) the substantially higher levels of mortality among males than females; (2) the comparatively high proportions of Negroes among whom males of mo.^t ages are greatly underrepresented; (5) the significantly larger net losses of males than females through migration; and (^) the virtual nonexistence of a foreign-born population in which the proportion of males would be relatively high. For a discussion of factors which influence sex ratios, see Smith, Fundamentals , p. 188.

PAGE 120

102 Variations Within the State In addition to the lower proportion of males than females in the total population of North Carolina and the factors which produce differences between the state and the nation, there is considerable fluctuation in the sex ratio in the state. Thus within North Carolina, the differences associated with residence and race are particularly significant, Rural-\irban differences Generally, the rural areas of North Carolina contain higher proportions of males and cities larger percentages of females, just as they do in the nation at large. Thus in I960, the sex ratios for rural -nonfarm and rural-farm people were just above 100 and that for the urban population was significantly below. (See Table 7.) Much of this pattern is due to the tendency for women to migrate into the state's cities and for men to remain on farms and in the agricultural portions of rural -nonfarm areas. Moreover, the suburban parts of the latter also tend to contain roughly equal proportions of males and females. Finally, the tendency for more women than men to move into cities is true for both of the major races and for Indians as well. Because much of the variation in sex composition is due to patterns of migration, it is necessary to analyze

PAGE 121

105 TABLE 7 SEX RATIOS OF THE URBAH, RURAL-NONFARM, AND RUBAL-FARM POPULATIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, BY RACE AND NATIVITY, I96O All Race and nativity residence Urban Rural-nonfarm Rural-farm categories 91.5 103.3 102.3 77.7 83.5 67.2 87.2 99.3 100.5 8'+.2 9k. S 103.3 Total population 97.5 90.3 102.3 101.7 Source: Compiled and computed from data in U.S. Bvireau of the Census, D.S. Cenaus of Population; I96O , Detailed Characteristica , North Carolina , Final Report PC(1)-35D (1962), pp. 533-33'*, Table 96. ^Includes 38,129 Indiana who were 91. '+ per cent of "all others" in North Carolina. Native whites

PAGE 122

104 the portion of the population whi.ih is aost likely to participate in that movement, naniely, those aged 15 and over. This requires the exclusion of younger persons, for while many of them move with their parents, neither sex is more likely than the other to be involved. As a result, the sex ratios are approximately the same for "chese youngsters in urban, rural -nonf arm, and rural-farm areas. Moreover, the proportions of males and females among them have no important implications for marriage, which is fundamentally related to the sex composition of an adult population. Thus in I960, the sex ratio for all people aged 15 a-nd over was 9^ compared with 97 for the total population. Furthermore, the exclusion of persons under 15 points up the extent to which women inhabit the cities and men the rural districts. Thus the sex ratios for people aged 15 and over in urbsji, rural -nonf arm, and rural-farm areas were 86, 101, and 101, respectively. Similar patterns exist by race, with whites in the three residence categories having ratios of 87, 105, and 101, and Negroes ratios of 81, 98, axid 100, respectively. Finally, noc only do these data substantiate the conclusion that the populations of cities are predominantly feminine, but the fact that the sex ratios are not above 105 in any residence category is a basis for the judgment rhat males Zf Cf. T. Lynn Smith and Homer L. Hitt, The People of Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiajac State University Frees, 1952), pp. 69-70.

PAGE 123

105 have been drained away from the state in relatively high proportions. Even the farms which once contained great superabundances of then no longer have much more than their £ro rata shares, whereas cities have far less than their fair proportions. The differences in sex composition by residence are related significantly to marital status, for women who are single, widowed, or divorced are more likely than married women to be found in cities. ^ Thus in urban areas sex ratios are strongly depressed by large numbers of unmarried women who have exceedingly poor statistical chances of changing that condition. This fact, of course, is basically related to fertility rates, the occupational situation, and the sociocultural nature of the areas involved. In I960, the sex ratios for married whites in urban, rural-nonfarm, and rural -farm areas were 98, 101, and 99, respectively, and the comparable ones for married Negroes were 89. 99, and 97. Obviously, the index for urban Negroes departs widely from the expected 100. This results partly from the fact that substantial numbers of Negro women who live in cities and who report themselves as being married have husbands who have migrated to other parts of the nation. Moreover, the pattern of "common-law" marriage which is LockP «n? M L S^ ^°^?*^^^® ^^^^^ VBurgess, Harvey J. n22 V* ^ S^^ Margaret Thomes, The Family (thik ed. . New York: The American Book Co , 1 953), " pp. 225-226;

PAGE 124

1''6 fouad with greater frequericy aaong Negroes than whites causes soaio wozen to report them.selves as being married, when in fact they are not. When the people who are eligible for marriage (single, widowed, divorced) are considered separately from the married population, significant variations appear by residence, race, and age. (See Figure 13,) For exa^iple, the ratio in I960 for all of these mateless people was a very low 87, a fact which means that a relatively high proportion of the state's single, widowed, and. divorced women will be unable to obtain husbands. But this is chiefly an urban phenomenon, whether the urban place under consideration contains 2,500 or 100,000 inhabitants. Thus the ratio for that part of the population was 67, whereas the one in the rural -ncnfarm portion was 104-, and that in the rural-farm segment also was 104. This means, of course, that only about two-thirds of the women in the state's cities who aspire to marriage will actually be successful in acquiring husbands. It also means that wifeless farmers will find it difficult and even impossible to find women they can marry. By race, the indexes for whites without mates in the urban, rural -nonfar*m, and rural-farm populations were 65, 107, arjd 104, respectively. Among Negroes the comparable indexes were 69, 96, and 104. However, while the sex ratios are lowest for white urban women, a large proportion of them

PAGE 125

107 o O o 8 2 S o o (VJ (\J (M 8 O O s s o o 00 (O 1 1—1 1 r

PAGE 126

1G8 consists of elderly widows who have passed the ages when marriage is generally contracted. This, of course, is largely the result of the hiizher mortality rates found among males than feraales in all age ranges and of the factors mentioned above that tend to depress the sex ratio. On the other hand, young, single persons living in all three of the residential areas have substantially higher sex ratios than persons who are widowed or divorced. Thus women aged 20-29 stand the best chances of marriage for they are greatly outnumbered in all residence categories by men, although the superabundance of the latter is especially great on farms. But in the years beyond 50 or 55, the marriage chances of women diminish significantly unless they are willing to act against the prevailing norm and marry men who are considerably younger than themselves. Differences by race and nativity One basic fact which appears consistently in the analysis of the sex ratios of North Carolinians is the greater femininity of the Negro population. The races tend to follow the same general patterns of variation by age groups, but in every case, the sex ratios are lower for Negroes than for whites. This is true whether one is considering the state as a whole, the three residence categories, the population aged 15 and over, or the single, widowed, and

PAGE 127

10^divorced.^ Part of the pronounced scarcity of Negro males in North Carolina is due to ^he ui-ratioa of relatively large proportions of them fron the state. 2ut the fact that a similar underrepresentation olso occurs in the nation's total Negro population, which is virtually unaffected by imJ!iip:ration and emigration, implies that other factors must «lso cperato. One of the most influential of these is the relatively low proportion of Negro males at birth. Thus in I960, the sex rttios at birth for North Carolina's whites and Negroes v-ero about 107 and 105, respectively. Although the latter reprosetts some underreporting of infants, even when the data are adjusted for this factor, the sex ratio at birth still is sigtiiricantly lower for Negroes than for whites. Furthermore, tetve^n 19^+0 and I960, the rate of decrease in the mortality rate among N«£ro females in the state has been consideral.y greater than the rate of reduction for Negro males. Ccn&equencly, it appears that some prenatal factors, an examiration of which is beyond the scope of the present study, and tte increasing propensity for surviv-.l among Negro females totu contribute to the comparatively low proportions of mil-^s o: that race.' These conditions ^For a similar aitaatioc in Louisiana in 19^0, see Smith and Hitt, LouiirLfOis, p. ?: . '^Por a discuasica of rociai. differences in stillbirth rates and related factore, see Vunca and Danilevsky, All These People , pp. '^^-'••7.

PAGE 128

110 are supplemented, of coxirse, by the relatively heavy losses of males through migration. Finally, the sex con-joaition of the Indian population is sicilar to that of Negro ^^eople in North Carolina. Thus in I960, the sex ratios for Indians living in urban, ruralnonfarm, and rural-farm areas were 8^^, 9:', and 10$. Foreignborn people also exhibit very low proportions of males in all three of the residence categcries, with the urban, rural-nonfarm, and rural-farm ratios being 78, 63, and 67, respectively. This is contrary to what uight be expected in an immigrant population, but in North Carolina most of the small immigrant group fall into two categories, namely: (1) a small number of elderly women who have outlived their foreign-born husbands; and (2) a slightly larger group of younger women who are the wives of native-born service personnel or former servicemen. Variations by counties County variations in sex ratios by I'ace and residence appear in Table 3. Generally, after the data have been sorted separately by race, the counties fall into three principal groups, including: (1) those in which the proportions of males are lov/ as compared with the percentages of females because the respective counties are dominated oj large urban centers; (2) the ones in which the proportions of males are relatively high because of the prevalence of a

PAGE 129

Ill TALLE 8 SEX RATIOS FOR THE COUOTIES Oi-' NORTH CAROLINA, BY COLOR AND RKIDSNCE,' I960 '*fhit9 population Nonwhite population County Urban

PAGE 130

112 TABLX 8 eoBtiJUMd Conmty Vhlt« popalatlem Urban RuralRural nonfara fara Koawhitt population Orban Ruralnonfara Ruralfar« Duplin Dorhaa Edfocoab* Forsyth Franklin Qaatoia Qatas Qrah.aa aranrilla Or aena Guilford Halifax Harnttt Haywood Hendorscn Hertford Hoke Eyda Iredell Juck£on Johastcu Jonea Lee Lono5Lincoln 92.9 86.1 92.3 32^.0 93.7 SO.^ 86.6 92.1 96.1 93.2 78.8 99.1 88.5 87. 86.1* 77*7 87.3 63.? 96.2 99.0 105.7 97.1 93.7 98.1 96.3 90.0 92.7 95.2 100.0 98.3 97.2 95.7 97.5 112.4 101.0 100.5 103.5 95.2 113.9 96.1 *:^>.i 93.2 101.8 102.6 103.4 98.3 101.8 99.5 97.5 109.8 101.0 100.9 103.2 103.2 100.8 ICO, 9 96.2 100.8 104.3 108.3 99.2 9*^33 1C7-2 99.0 111.9 ].02.3 105.5 83.4 82.7 85.8 84. 79.2 90.9 80.4 76.5 89^9 91.1 95.6 88.9 8i;9 31.1 91.9 98.9 101.2 95.3 92.3 96.3 94.9 102.6 91.8 UO.O 97.9 105.6 92.8 97.2 90.1 o9.9 93.0 92.7 96.8 99.5 93.0 ^.8 95.8 100.4 96.9 10').0 116.4 104!4 107.3 102.6 105.0 101.6 97.9 94.3 124.1 100.2 93.9 102.5 McDowgil Mccon Kadlson Martin Mecklenburg MitcheU Montfoaary Moore Nitah New HanoTer >y. o'>.5 102.9 96/6 102.4 iCO.5 102.5 1C7.0 96.1

PAGE 131

115 TABLE 8 continued County White population Nonwhite population Urban

PAGE 132

11^^ TABLE 8 continued County Whit© population Drban RuralRuralnonfaona farm Nonwhite population Urban RuralRuraJ.nonfarm faro Wayne Wilkes Wilson Yadkin Yancey North Carolina 90.5 111.7 105.0 85.7 116.2 89.1 99.3 10^.9 92.8 g'+.O 101.3 8i+.6 g'+.o

PAGE 133

115 rural-farm way of life; and (5) those in which special circumstances tend to overshadow the residential and racial differences in producing the local pattern of sex composition. Most notable among the latter are the counties in which the proportions of men are abnormally high. They include Onslow, Cumberland, and Wayne counties which contain Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Fort Bragg, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, respectively. They also include Carteret County which is dominated by the port facilities at Morehead City and Orange County which contains the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Moreover, the military installations are classified as being in rural -nonfarm territory and this has the effect of producing a very high ratio in that residence category in the counties involved. But the proportional abundance of women and the relative scarcity of men tends to be the rule among the counties. Thus in I960, only 16 of them had sex ratios of 100 or more, and with the special cases mentioned above excluded, the indexes did not exceed 10^ in any county. Altogether, however, ^^ counties had sex ratios which were above the state average, but nearly all of them had relatively high proportions of farm people and 30 of them had no urban populations at all. Variations by regions Regional variations in the proportions of males and femalos also are strongly influenced by the percentages of

PAGE 134

116 people who are rural or urban and those who are white and Negro. (See Table 9.) Thus the lowest sex ratios for both races are found in the Pieii:.ont region because of the larj^e numbers of women who have .Tiiirrated to the cities of this region. Furthermore, relatively low indexes are found in the Mountain region because of its comparatively large proportion of elderly white widows, many of whom live in the city of Asheville (index 8^). Finally, the highest proportions of males axe found in the two eastern regions which are closely oriented to farming, maritime functions, and military establishments, all of which attract high percentages of adult men. The highest ratios for Negroes also are found in these two regions, chiefly because of the farming enterprises with which they are associated, although the indexes for members of that race do not reach 97 or more in any region. Trends The sex composition has shown some marked changes in North Carolina since 1850. (See Figure 14.) These trends are quite different than the ones which have taken place in the nation as a whole. In the first place, for almost a century, the sex ratio for the white population remained higher for the nation than for the state, largely because a relatively high proportion of foreign-born in the former

PAGE 135

TABLE 9 SEX RATIOS FOR THE HAJOR REGIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, BY RACE, I960 117 Region All races Negroes Indians Tidewater 105,7 Upper Coastal Plain 98.9 PiediBont 95.1 Mountain 96.0 110.6

PAGE 136

118

PAGE 137

119 increased its share of males. However, after IS'^O, this relationship changed because the proportion of the foreignborn in the nation's population decreased significantly, while the percentage of farm people in that of the state remained comparatively high. Second, the male population of North Carolina was decimated by the Civil War to a far greater extent than was that of the nation as a whole. This caused the sex ratio to drop from 99 in 1860 on the eve of the war to 92 in 1870 after the carnage had ended. The ratio in North Carolina then increased relatively rapidly to the high of 1920 and decreased gradually thereafter. Similar changes due to the war occurred for the Negro pxjpulation but these were less drastic and abrupt than those for the white group. Moreover, the proportion of Negro males did not rise after 1870. Rather, from the peak of 1850 it decreased gradually to the low of I960. This pattern, of course, results partly from the migration of North Carolina's males to cities elsewhere in the nation, and partly from the fact that substantial numbers of Negro women have moved into the cities of the Piedmont from neighboring states. The rural parts of Virginia and South Carolina have contributed particularly large shares of these female migrants. Of course, decreases in the sex ratio also have resulted from significant reductions in the mortality rate and important incr«^ases in life expectancy.

PAGE 138

120 This set of phenomena places a higher proportion of North Carolinians in the older age ranges where the percentage of males is comparatively low. Finally, there is some tendency for the sex ratios of the various segments which make up the state's population to converge. This trend is closely associated with the fact that the sociocultural differences which tend to separate farm people from those in cities or whites from Negroes are becoming less broad.

PAGE 139

CHAPTER VI RURAL AND URBAN RESIDENCE Whether one lives on a farm or in a city is a fundamental determinant of many of the sociocultural conditions to which he is exposed. In turn, these are instrumental in shaping his attitudes, values, and behavior.^ Residence also has bearing upon one's occupation, marital status, level of education, religious affiliation, and a host of other characteristics. It also has basic practical implications, for if North Carolina's leaders wish to appraise realistically the needs for urban redevelopment and to plan logically for metropolitan expansion, they must know how many people live in the state's cities and how fast those cities are growing. If they intend to evaluate rationally the programs which are proposed for agriculture, they must know the numbers of residents who live on farms and the ways in which those numbers are changing. And if they hope to contend successfully with a wide variety of other social changes, they must understand how the relative proportions and the identifying features of urban, rural-nonf arm, and rural -farm people change from one period of time to another. ^See T. Lynn Smith and Homer L. Hitt, The People of L ouisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Fress, 1952), p. 19. 121

PAGE 140

122 In North Carolina, of course, a basic fact of life is the extreme rurality of high proportions of its people. Sural and urban residence is identified by the Bureau of the Census by means of its definition of "urban," which for North Carolina in I960 states that the urban population comprises all persons living in (a) places of 2,500 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, boroughs, villages, and towns. . .; (b) the densely settled urban fringe, whether incorporated or unincorporated, or urbanized areas. . .; (d) counties. , .that have no incorporated municipalities within their boundaries and have a density of 1,500 persons or more per square mile; and (e) unincorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more. . . .2 Furthermore, rural people are subdivided into rural-farm and rural -nonf arm as follows* In the I960 Census, the farm population consists of persons living in rural territory on places of 10 or more acres from which sales of farm products amounted to 850 or more in 1959 or on places of less than 10 acres from which sales of farm products amounted to $250 or more in 1959. ... The effect of the I960 definition is to exclude from the fairm population persons living on places considered farms by the occupants but from which agricultural products are not sold, or from which ssiles are below a specified minimum. 5 In 1950 the rural-farm population was defined differently, and while the actual magnitude of the change in ^ U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: I960, General Social and Economic Characteristics , United States Summary , Final Report PC(1)-1C (1962). p. vii: ^U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population; I960, General Social and Economic C haracteristics. North Carolina, Final Report Pea)-5^C :i%l). p. viii.

PAGE 141

123 North Carolina is not known, certainly it has had the net effect of reducing the rural-fam population and increasing the rural -nonf arm. State and National Comparisons In I960, 39.5 per cent of North Carolina's population was classified as urban, ^4-2. 7 per cent as rural -nonf arm, and 17.7 per cent as rural-farm. (See Table la) In the nation as a whole, the comparable percentages were 59. 9| 22,6, and 7.5» respectively. Thus the fact that North Carolina contains much larger proportions of rural people than the nation as a whole is basic to any linderstanding of the state's demographic situation. In fact, so great is North Carolina's rurality, that in I960, only six of the 50 states contained higher proportions of rural inhabitants, including North Dakota with 55 per cent, and in descending order, Mississippi, Alaska, Vest Virginia, Vermont, and South Dakota. The other ^ all had higher percentages of urban people. Yet the extreme rurality of large portions of the state stands in marked contrast with the fact that North Carolina's portion of the Piedmont Crescent is one of the most heavily urbanized areas of the entire South. Furthermore, the rate of growth of the urban population in North Carolina is greater than that in the nation at large; and many of the extremely rural features of the state are being

PAGE 142

12^ modified rapidly and significantly by those associated with urbanization. Thus an evaluation of North Carolina's residence situation compared with that of the nation becomes a study of extreme contrasts and rapid social change. Variations Within the State As was indicated above, in I960 two-fifths of North Carolina's population fell in the urban category, almost 45 per cent was classified as rural -nonf arm, and only 18 per cent was placed in the rural-farm class. Within North Carolina it is possible to find the small farming community and its traditional ways of life, the laxge metropolis and its heterogeneous and dynamic patterns, and the intermediate rural -nonf arm population with its own combination of elements derived from the urban and rural-farm extremes. Thus the relative proportions of urban, rural -nonf arm, and rural-farm, people vary greatly from one section of the state to another and among the racial groups. In order to assess these differences accurately, it is necessary for the data to be cross-classified according to residence and race. Consequently, while a study of Figure 1 indicates the general distribution of rural and urban people within the state, observation of Table 10 and Figures 15 and 15 shows the absolute and relative importance of whites and Negroes, respectively, in each county in the state. In addition, the

PAGE 143

125 TABLE 10 PERCENTAGES OT PERSONS IN THE TTOEE Hi^SIDQJCE CATaGORIES, BY RACE, I960

PAGE 145

127

PAGE 146

128 relative importance of whites and Negroes of various age groups in the urban, rural -nonf arm, and rural-farm populations, which is presented in Figures 8, 9, and 10, respectively, is germane to the present topic. Differences by race and nativity In 19o0, the percentage of the Negro population classified as urban was slightly higher than the proportion of the white population placed in this category. (See Table 10.) However, much higher percentages of whites than of Negroes fell in the extremely heterogeneous rural-nonf arm category, while exactly the reverse was true for the ruralfarm group. Moreover, of those in the rural-nonf arm category, a much larger share of Negroes than whites is engaged in agriculture as tenants, sharecroppers, or laborers. Thus while the proportion of Negroes identified as urban has been a little higher than that of whites ever since 1890, this does not alter the basic fact that Negroes in North Carolina are much more likely to be involved in low-status farming and the social patterns to which it is related. Furthermore, as mentioned in Chapter IV, the overrepresentation of Negroes in urban centers is due to relatively high pro rata shares of children, whereas adults of all ages are proportionately scarce.

PAGE 147

129 The composition of the heterogeneous rural -nonf arm population in North Carolina varies substantially by race. The four principal segments of which this residence category is composed are: (1) Negroes in the eastern counties who are engaged in subsistence agriculture on plots which are too small or which yield insufficient income to be classified as farms; (2) whites in the western counties who are involved in self-sufficient farming on mountain plots; (5) whites in the Piedmont Crescent and elsewhere who live in suburbs around urban centers; and C'^) people of both races scattered throughout the state in hamlets and villages with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants. The outstanding fact, of course, is that rural -nonf arm whites are more likely than Negroes to live in suburbs, that is, to be a part of the urban population which is classified as rural. In passing, it should be noted that in I960, less than 5 per cent of the state's Indians were classified as urban, over half as rural-farm, and the remainder as ruralnonfarm. Virtually all of the latter lived in places with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants in the extremely rural Upper Coastal Plain. Thus rurality and farming characterize the vast majority of North Carolina's Indian population. Finally, 61 per cent of the foreign-born in North Carolina lived in cities and only 3 per cent on farms, with the remaining 36 per cent in rural -nonlarm areas, probably mainly in the urban fringe.

PAGE 148

150 Variations by counties As indicated in Table II, 1,501,9-1 people or almost two-fifths of North Carolina's 1960 population was classified as urban. But despite a heavy concentration of urbanites in the Piedmont Crescent counties, none is totally urban in the make-up of its population. (See Figures 15 and 16.) For example, there is no county comparable to Louisiana's Orleans Parish, to the five counties of New York City, or to San Francisco, Philadelphia, or Arlington counties, all of whose people are urban. However, at least three-fourths of the population was classified as urban in Mecklenburg (78 per cent), Guilford, and Durham counties. At least half of the people in eight others were in this category. In all, 23 counties ranked above the state average in the proportion of urban people. Together they contained over half of the population of North Carolina, more than three-fourths of the urban population, and about half of the white and also of the Negro populations. Negroes were overrepresented in 11 of these counties, many of which have relatively large absolute numbers of members of that race. These 23 counties cover one-fifth of the land area of the state; and over half of them are located in the Piedmont region. At the other end of the scale are 3^ counties which contained no urban people at all, Negroes were overrepresented in 17 of then, chiefly in the east, while they were

PAGE 149

TABLE 11 POPULATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES CLASSIFIED BY RESIDENCE, 19^0 151 County

PAGE 150

152 TABLE 11 continued Jounty

PAGE 151

153 TABLE U continued

PAGE 152

13^ underrepresented in all of those located In the west. These counties are, of course, overwhelmingly agricultural, with over two-thirds being in the Tidewater and Mountain regions. In i960, 1,9^5,8^3 people or well over two-fifths of the state's population were classified as rural-nonfarm. None of the counties was composed exclusively of people in this category, but at least three-quarters of the inhabitants in 12 of them were thus identified. (See Table 11 and Figures 15 and 16.) These include Dare (98 per cent), Polk, Montgomery, Cherokee, Swain, Pamlico, McDowell, Jackson, Currituck, Davie, Avery, and Macon counties. At least half of the people In U-1 others were rural-nonfarm; and altogether 66 counties contained more than their pro rata shares of population in that category. They also contained just over two-fifths of the total inhabitants of North Carolina, but over three-fifths of the rural-nonfarm people. The racial variations in this residence category are reflected in the fact that the 66 counties contained "+7 per cent of the state's total white population but only 37 per cent of its Negro people. Negroes were overrepresented in 29 of them, chiefly in the eastern one-third of the state. Finally, no county is lacking in rural-nonfarm people, and even Guilford with the smallest proportion had 19 per cent. In i960, 808,391 people, or Just under I8 per cent of North Carolina's population, were classified as rural-farm;

PAGE 153

135 and at least half of the population in foiir counties was so identified, (Sea Table 11 and Figures 15 and 16.) These are Greene (62 per cent), Madison, Caswell, and Stokes. Altogether 64 counties ranked above the state average in their proportions of rural-farm residents. They contained Just over two-fifths of the total population and well over three-quaxters of the rural-farm population. Furthermore, only 57 per cent of the total white population but 55 per cent of the Negro population resided within them, Negroes were ovarrepreeented in 41 counties located almost exclusively in the eastern portion of the state. Variations by regions The data on residence for the various counties, grouped into their respective regions, are summarized in Table 12. Thus in I960, in the Piedmont region almost half of the total population wa^ urban, as compared with less than one-third in the Upper Coastal Plain, Just over a quarter in the Tidewater, and less than a quarter in the Mountain region. The Moxintain and the Tidewater regions vied for the largest proportions of rural -nonfarm people with well over half of their total populations classified in that category, followed by the Upper Coastal Plain and the Piedmont, each with about two-fifths of their totals given as rural -nonfarm. The largest number and highest proportion (29 per cent) of rural -farm people was in the

PAGE 154

136 TABLE 12 HUHBKHS AlID PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATIOKS OF TOE 7DUH MAJOfi BMIOKS CLASSED AS UHBAH, RURAL-NONFABM , AND RURALFARM, NORTH CAROLINA, I960 Eeald*»e* North Carolizia Tidewater Upper Coastal Plain Pledaont Mountain All residence categories: Nuaber Per cent '»,556,155 100.0 511,721 100.0 1,166,555 100.0 2,'+«3.993 100.0 393.886 100.0 Urban: Naber Per cent 1,801,921 39.5 138,685 27.1 3^*6,260 29.7 ,220.199 V9.I 96,777 2V.6 Snr al-nonf ara : NoBber Per cent 1.9^5.81*3 '2.7 278,259 3^A '81,120 'H.2 970,'*82 39.1 215.99'» 5'».8 RareG.-fara: Nwber Per cent 808,391 17.7 9'».777 18.5 339,175 29.1 293.312 11.8 81,115 20.6 Sources: Cooplled and coaputed froa data In U.S. Borean of the Census, U.S. Census of Populatloa; 1960 . Muaber of Inhabitants, North Carolina , Final Report PC(1)"35A (1961). pp. 13-1'*, Table 6; and Genera l Social and Econocale Characteristics, North Caroliiia , Final Report PC{1)35c (1961), pp. 158-159. Table 35, and pp. 301-306, Table 91.

PAGE 155

137 Upper Coastal Plain which contains remnants of the old plantation economj of North Carolina. About one-fifth of the people in t;he Mountain region were rural-farm, followed in descendins order by the Tidewater and the Piedmont regions. However, because many of the small agricultural properties were not classified as farms in 1960, the official percentages of farm people in many areas of the state underestimate the rurality of some of those districts. This is especially true in the Upper Coastal Plain and the Mountain regions. The fact that a smaller proportion of urbanites lives in the latter than in any other region is a more significant indicator of the close attachment to a rural way of life of over three-quarters of its people. A major feature of the residence situation in North Carolina is the rapid urbanization of the Piedmont region. It already contains over two-thirds of the state's urban people and this proportion is rising at a rapid rate. In addition, the Piedmont contains approximately half of the rural -nonfaxm people. As indicated above, many of the latter live in areas immediately outside of the cities in the urban fringes. Although they are not classified as residents of those cities, they tend to be urban people in occupations and all other essential aspects of life. Even though the Piedmont contains over one-third of the state's farm people, most cj* them live in the less urban peripheral

PAGE 156

138 parts of the region. Thus the Piedmont region is one in which the features of urbanization predominate. But it is also one in which urban, rural-nonfarm, and rural-farm people are interdependent, creating needs, functions and services, and social forms that cut across the three residential categories. The Tidewater, Upper Coastal Plain, and Mountain regions are much more likely to be identified by the patterns of behavior that result from a rural way of life, even though each has at least one city with '+5>,000 or more inhabitants. But the values, attitudes, and behavioral patterns of their people also have become increasingly similar to those which are found in the cities of the Piedmont. This change is reflected in the fact that in all regions, the rural-nonfarm population has become increasingly larger than the rural-farm. Thus all three of the residential segments of the state's population tend to become more alike, and the earlier contrasts between rural and urban people to become greatly modified. The Piedmont region generates msuay of these changes and dominates others. Size of Place Over 95 per cent of North Carolina's urban people live in 36 cities having populations of 10,000 or more. These cities and their I960 populations are listed in Table

PAGE 157

159 15, and their locations are shown in Figure 1. Twenty-two of these urban centers are concentrated in the Piedmont Crescent, although in 196C, none of them had as many as 250,000 inhabitants. Even Charlotte, which is the state's largest city, ranked only fifty-ninth in size among the nation's urban places. Thus in North Carolina, no city dominates the entire state or even a large portion of it. Rather, as a group the several cities of the Piedmont Crescent exercise control over that region, and the region, in turn, exerts considerable influence over the state as a whole.' Trends Ever since 1790, the proportions of urban people in North Carolina have been substantially lower than those in the nation at large. This fact has helped to shape the socioeconomic situation of the state and has influenced its place in the life of the nation. In fact, prior to 1820, North Carolina contained no urban inhabitants at all, and it was not until 1910 that their proportion even exceeded onetenth of the state's total population. (See Table 1^ and Figure 17.) However, in each intercensal period since 1880, the rate of increase of the urban population in North Carolina has exceeded that in the nation. For a comprehensive study of the Crescent, see F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. and Shirley F. Weiss (eds.), Urban Growth Dynamics in a Regional Cluster of Cities (New York: YnV^n \Ji\%j and Sons ^ Inc., 1962), passim and pp. 8-9.

PAGE 158

1^0 TABLE 15 POPULATIONS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL ARLAS, CENTR.O. CITIES, AND URBAN PLACES OF 10,000-50,000, I960 SHSA, central city.

PAGE 159

I'H TABLE 13 continued SMSA, central city, Total Per cent Index of pro rata or urban place population Negroes ^.hire of Negroes Salisbury

PAGE 160

l->2 TABLE 14 THE URBAW POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA, BY RACE, I89O-I96O Race 1690 1910 1930 1950 i960 Total urban population: Nur.ber 115,759 318,^+7^ 809,8'47 1,3-38,101 1,801,921 Per cent of total population 7.2 1'+.'+ 25.5 33.7 39.5 Vhite urban population: Number 60,0^9 202, 'f58 565, ^+78 1,005,7^^ l,3'*'+,75'+ Per cent of white population 5.7 15.5 25.2 33.7 39.6 Negro urban population: Nuaber 55,696 115,975 2'+6,237 Per cent of Negro population 9.9 16.6 Indian urban population: Number ... i. Per cent of Indian population ... a i,237

PAGE 161

143

PAGE 162

1^4 Outstanding among the changes in the relative proportions of people in the three residence categ 'ries has been the rapid growth of North Cirolina's rural-nonf arm population. Thus since 1920 when vhe rural-nonf arm and rural-farm subdivisions were first used, the number of rural-nonf arm people has increased nearly threefold and the proportions have gone from 22 per cent in 1920 to '^•5 per cent in 19r;0. On the other hand, the farm population has become a smaller percentage of the total with each census, dropping from ^9 per cent in 1920 to 18 per cent in I960. It should be indicated that the growth of the rural-nonfarm population is ,iue partly to the transfer of rural-farm people to that category, partly to migration from the farms, and to a considerable extent to the movement of urban residents into the suburbs. Much of the latter represents an effort on the part of city people to recapture some features which are characteristic of the rural-farm comimunity, such as personal contacts between people, primary-group social solidarity and social control, emotional security, and others. After more than a century of urban growth, by I960, the proliferation and expansion of towns and small cities in combination with the continued growth of larger centers, had On this and related points, see Everett M. Rogers, Social Change in Rural Society (New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, Inc., I960), p. 161; and Wendell Bell, "Pamilism and Suburbanization: One Test of the Social Choice Hypothesis," Rural Sociology , Vol. 21, Nos, 5-^1 (Sept. -Dec, 1956), pp. 276-283:

PAGE 163

come to characterize the pattern of urban development. la fact, the relatively small cities which now abound in the state are characteristic o-' much of the South. Some of those in North Carolina have highly specialized functions, being the ports, textile towns, tourist centers, furniturebuilding cities, tobacco-processing communities, university towns, and centers of government. Other larger ones are diversified, multiple-function metropolises which cannot be identified accurately with any single, dominant enterprise or function. Charlotte and Greensboro are two of the best examples of this latter type of city. The rate of growth also varies by the size of center and the prevalent pattern of annexation of new territory. For example, between 1950 and 1960, the seven central cities of North Carolina's six Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas increased by 58 per cent; whereas cities with 10,00050,000 people increased only 15 per cent. Annexation of new territory by the large cities was responsible for much of their growth, and when the population increase caused by this expansion is excluded, very different rates are found to prevail. (See Table 15.) Thus apart from annexation. For a discussion of city size and function in the South, see Nicholas J. Demerath and Harlan W. Gilmore, "The Ecology of Southern Cities," by Rupert B. Vance and Nicholas J. Demerath (eds.), The Urban South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 195^), PP. 1^0-143.

PAGE 164

14-S TABLE 15 CHANGES IN THE POPULATIONS OF THE STANDARD METROPOLITAN ' STATISTICAL AREAS OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1950-1960 Standard Metropolitan

PAGE 165

1^7 between 1930 and I960, the populations of the seven largest cities increased by 15 per cent, those of the ones having 10,000-30,000 inhabitants grew by 4 per cent, and places with 2,300-10,000 residents increased by 8 per cent. In sum, between 1930 and I960, North Carolina's total urban population expanded 22 per cent through annexation and 9 per cent by means of migration and the birth of new residents into the 1950 areas of towns and cities. More than 30 per cent of the population of annexed territory was added to the state's six Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The significance of annexation in expanding urban populations should be held in proper perspective, however, for while a great deal of urban growth is due to this extension of city boundaries, much of the latter also is simply the formal absorption of people who have already become integral social parts of cities. Thus the areas which are most likely to be annexed are unincorporated urban fringes, most of whose people work in a nearby city and depend upon its services. The Social Context of Rural and Urban Residence In a relatively short time. North Carolina has changed from a state composed predominantly of rural-farm people to On the matter of annexation throughout the nation, see Henry F. Shryoc. , Jr., "Some Results of the I960 Census of the United States," Rural Soc i ology , Vol. 27, No. ^ (Dec, 1962), pp. ^61-463*

PAGE 166

148 one made up primarily of :r.Dse residing in urban and ruralnonfarm districts. An e^^.r.er.tial eieraeat of this change is the fact that higher pro;)orT,ions of the people have come under the influence of urban centers and of ideas, values, and behavioral patterns which prevail in and emanate from those centers. However, urban-oriented society has not replaced rural-oriented society in the state but is growing out of it, and this new combination of rural and urban features has produced at least nine other changes. The first of these is a substantial decline in the extended-family system of personal security and in the multifaceted subsistence economy in which the family was a producing unit and farming an inclusive way of life. Second is a concomitant rise in importance of the nuclear family as a consumer unit and of an occupational situation in which one or two wage earners supply necessary income for the family. This usually occurs in a situation physically removed and sometimes psychologically alienated from the family matrix. Third is a decrease in social pressures to conform to traditional behavioral norms and an increase in rationality as an element of social control. Fourth. is the modification of social and economic organization, with expanding industrialization having great impact upon both. Fifth is a series of changes in political organization majaifested in the growing political identity of urban dwellers, efforts

PAGE 167

11+9 to reapportion the rural-dominated state legislature, and the tendency toward a two-party systeir,. Sixth is a body of highly pervasive social moveinents in the areas of labor, race, and other human relations. Seventh is the development of a heterogeneous sociocultural matrix within which the individual's personality is derived. Eighth is a decrease in the tendency for the two parts of racially segregated communities to socialize children in two mutually exclusive ways of life. Ninth and last is a vast growth in the number of elements which comprise the social system and the cultural environment, and in the complexity of their interrelationships. This complexity is conditioned by a much higher degree of social differentiation and by greater division of labor. The rural base of social organization in North Carolina remains less changed in such isolated places as the cottonand tobacco-growing areas of the Upper Coastal Plain and the subsistence plots of the Mountain region than it does in the Piedmont. In many tradition-oriented areas one may still find examples of an unsophisticated folk: culture geared to agriculture as a way of life. But much of the cultural consistency once found in each of North Carolina's communities has been modified as urbanization has proceeded. And because of the diverse origins of their people, the cities embody a greater variety of behavioral patterns,

PAGE 168

150 attitudes, values, and beliefs than the rural-farm communities. Diversity had existed previously between rural comjuunities, but it now exists within urban communities. Yet these large urban complexes also tend to become more like each other, to exert a "standardizing influence" over outlying 7 rural territory, and to make the total society more homogeneous. Thus the urban, rural -nonfaxm, and rural-farm components of North Carolina's population operate as a functioning whole, but they constitute an infinitely more complex system in which dynamic equilibrium rather than static stability prevails. As these many changes proceed, the rural -nonf arm segment of the population tends to emerge as a new combination of the elements of the rural-farm and urban extremes. Doherty suggests that "rural -nonfarm" is not merely a residential category but a new socioeconomic unit consisting of interdependent towns, rural residential areas, farms, and a g variety of agricultural and nonagricultural industries. This type of complex is developing rapidly in North Carolina, partly because of the state's effort to attract and adjust to new industry and the tendency for the latter to develop in nonurban areas, "^Cf. Nels Anderson, The Urban Community (New York: Henry Holt and Co., Inc., 1959), p. ^. Joseph C. Doherty, "Rural America in Transition," in After a Hundred Years, U.S.D.A. Yearbook, 1962, p. 589.

PAGE 169

CHAPTER VII RACE AND NATIVITY Race and national origin are outstanding characteristics in themselves and they also are important because of their linkage with certain other social features. For example, the age composition, occupational profile, general level of education, and even the rates of fertility, mortality, and migration of a population are influenced by the proportions of its members who are white, Negro, and Indian, and who are native-born and foreign-born. Furthermore, race and nativity are major elements in the basic social organization, differentiation, stratification, and mobility of a people. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to know how social institutions are interrelated, how separations between members of a society are structured, how conflict is engendered and resolved, and how status is changed unless some information is available concerning racial composition and its implications. Thus the demographic data on race and nativity provide a necessary basis for drawing inferences on many of these related subjects. Race and nativity as categories in North Carolina, involve mainly native-born whites and nonwhites, with Negroes constituting almost all of the latter group but with Indians 151

PAGE 170

1-^2 also being a significant minority. The percentages of foreign-born psrsons and :h .-e of ot>her races are negli'^ible. In I960, the data on race were obtained by means of selfenumeration 30 that the respondent was free to designate his own racial and ethnic iaenlity. In this way, the Bureau of the Census was able to classify the vast majority of persons according to the races oy wnich the com/nunity identified them, inasmuch as most individual and comiDunity identifications coincided. This nonanthropological definition is closely atuned to the person's social status insofar as that status is related to race and national origin. The "Negro" category in North Carolina is increased by the practice of classifying as members of that race, persons of mixed Negro and white ancestry or of mixed Indian and Negro ancestry unless Indian characteristics clearly predominate or the individual is regarded as an Indian in his community. Furthermore, in 1950, the category "other races" included people who were of mixed white, Negro, and Indian ajocestry, but because of the difficulties associated with the accurate identification of such people, in i960 the practice was abandoned. Most of these people were returned to the "Indian" category, creating an apparent growth of North Carolina's Indian population during the 1950-1960 decade, ^ See U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population; I960 , General Population Characteristics , North Caro-" " lina . Final Report PCCl!)-55B C1961), p. ix.

PAGE 171

155 State and !Iational Comparisons The racial and ethnic corr.position of the populations of North Carolina and the nation differs so greatly that patterns of behavior have been influenced ^uite differently in each case. In this connection, two fundamental facts stand out: In the first place, North Carolina is a Southern state with a much higher proportion of Negroes than the United States as a whole. In the second instance, the nation is characterized by a compaxatively high proportion of foreign-born people, whereas North Carolina contains relatively few of them. Consequently, these two situations have shaped the social and economic relations of the inhabitants of the state and the nation quite differently. But these conditions axe changing rapidly, for the Negro population of North Carolina is becoming a smaller percentage of its total and the foreign-born of the nation are decreasing as a proportion of its overall population. Therefore, it is necessary to identify both the long-term differences between the state and the nation in racial and ethnic composition, and the changes which are taking place in each instance. Whites and Negroes In North Carolina in I960, there were 1,116,021 Negroes, but their proportion in the population was more

PAGE 172

than twice as hip^h as it wa:^ in the United States as a whole. (See Table 16.) This meanc that whites, who numbered 5,599,285, were a considerably s.-naller proportion of the state's total population than they were of that in the nation, the percentages beir.g 75 and 89, respectively. Of course, the dichotomous racial classification ioes not account separately for persons who are mixtures of the white and Negro races, for in l^oO, racial classification was based upon self-enumeration with no allowance made for any degrees of crossbreeding. Generally, self-enumeration placed people in the racial categories with which they were identified by their respective communities, and while this is a realistic approach, it provides no data on the numbers and percentages of mixed-bloods. But certainly a substantial share of North Carolina's white and Negro populations have ancestry rooted in both races. The proportion of Negroes in the population of North Carolina was exceeded by that of Mississippi (^+2 per cent), and in descending order, by those of South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia, Interestingly, in 1960, the District of Columbia ranked above all of the states, having 5^ per cent of its population classified as Negro. This results from the fact that the nation's capital recently has been the recipient of many Negroes leaving North Carolina and other Southern states. In tvrn the migration to

PAGE 173

155 TABLE 16 PERCENTAGES OF PERSONS IN THE RACIAL AND NATIVI'IT CATEGORIES 1 NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, i960 Per cent Unit Native-born Foreign-born Negro Indian Other Total white white North Carolina 7k.2 0,k 2'+. 5 0.8 0.1 100.0 United States 83.6 5-2 10.5 0.3 O.^t 100.0 Source: Compiled and computed from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: I960 , General Population Characteristics , United States Suamary , Final Report PC(1)-1b" (1961) , pp. l^t^-li+S, Table kk\ General Population Characteristics , North Cgirolina , Final Report PC(1)-35B, p. 35, Table 15; Detailed Characteristics , United States Summary . Final Report PC(1)-1D (1965), pp. 559-360, Table 158; and Detailed Characteristics , North Carolina , Final Report PC(1)-35D (1962), pp. 533-536, Table 96.

PAGE 174

156 Vashington, D. C. and to other large urban centers reflects a major change in the Negro's nistorical attachments to agriculture and to residence ia the South. Yet despite losses through migration, the total nujiber of Negroes in N^orth Carolina was exceeded only in New York, Texas, and Georgia, each of which had well over l,000,OuO xembers of that race. Thus the changes which are now taking place in relationships between whites and Negroes ^re of particular importance in North Carolina because of its comparatively large nonwhite population. Native-born and foreign-born When native-born people are compared with the foreignborn, the sociocultural differences are often found to be so marked that birth and death rates, occupation, religious affiliation, and especially age are greatly affected. However, national origins are much more diverse in the nation as a whole than they are in North Carolina because in 19&0, the state contained only 20,0^4-1 foreign-born whites who were less than 0,5 per cent of the total population. (See Table 16.) In contrast, the nation contained over 9,000,000 such persons who made up more than 5 per cent of the total population. In fact, so great is North Carolina's relative lack of the foreign-born, that only Mississippi had a smaller percentage, although Arkansas and Tennessee each contained the same proportion as did North Carolina,

PAGE 175

157 V«lther h.*Te the countries of origin of North Carolina's foreign-born people been very numerous, for the early contributions were made largely by only four nations of Western Europe. Thus the first settlers were Englishmen who numbered about ^,000 in 1675, followed by the "Scotch-Irish" who began to migrate from Pennsylvania around 17^0, the Germans who started to arrive from there in 17^5, and the Highland Scots who came a few years later following unsuccess2 ful military encounters with the British at home. Even as late as 1850, Scotland, England, Ireland, and Germany had contributed over 90 per cent of all of the foreign-born population living in North Carolina. (See Table 17.) But in 1900, immigrants had begun to arrive from Canada, Italy, and Russia, while Scotland and Ireland diminished in importance as contributors. Finally, by I960, Germany, England, Canada, and Greece had contributed well over half of the state's foreign-born whites, with a few from each of several other nations. Because of the scarcity of the foreign-born and the Inglo-Saxon background of most of the white people who do live in North Carolina, the state's ethnic background is almost entirely "native" in the sense that the settlers who came in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were not supplemented in the following two centuries by large « Cf. S. Huntington Hobbs, Jr., North Carolina; An Economic and Social Profile (Chapel HiTTl University of North Carolina Press, 1958), pp. 70-75.

PAGE 176

158 TABLE 17 COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF NORTH CAROLINA'S FOREIGN-BORN WHITE POPULATION, 1850, 1900, AND I96O

PAGE 177

159 numbers of new immigrants. In this respect, North Carolina has tended to preserve the earlier cultural heritage in its rural traditions, whereas the areas of the nation which received large numbers of more recent immigrants have experienced greater modification of that heritage. Indians North Carolina's Indians numbered 58,129 in I960, and made up just under 1 per cent of the total population. However, even this proportion was almost three times as large as that in the nation as a whole. Moreover, only four states (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) had larger numbers of Indians than did North Carolina. Thus while they are a relatively small percentage of the state's total population, Indians are proportionately much more abundant in North Carolina than in ^6 other states. In fact, North Carolina contains over 7 per cent of the national total of members of that race. Racially, a major portion of the "Indian" population is made up of persons with mixed white, Negro, and Indian ancestry, now designated as "Croatan" or "Lumbee" Indians. This group and the "pure" Indians trace their indigenous lines chiefly to the Corees and the Tuscaroras , although these people as tribes probably abandoned the area somewhere

PAGE 178

160 around 1712.* In addition, Hobbs suggests that the early predecessors included the Chowanocs, the Catawbas, and the Cherokees, and that Indians of all tribes numbered between 30,000 and 55,000 when whites first arrived in what is now North Carolina. The number of Indians declined steadily in the yeaxs following the eaxly white settlements until 1860 when it was a mere 1,158. The total increased slowly although the proportion of Indians in the state's population never exceeded that reached in I960. Variations Within the State One of the most striking features of North Carolina's population is the spatial distribution of the major racial elements, but especially of the Negro segment. Thus Figure 18, which is based upon the percentages of Negroes in each of North Carolina's townships, has been prepared to show the patterns of concentration and dispersal. Furthermore, the differences in the geographic distribution of this group are closely related to rural and urban residence. (See Figure 16.) But the traditional association between the Negro and particixlar types of residence has undergone rapid -5 ____^ ^__ Part I (Worcester: Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer Andrews pp. 583-58^ From Jedidiah Morse, The American U niversal Geography , ' ,1793). Hobbs, North Carolina , p. 70.

PAGE 180

162 and radical change in the last few decades. Consequently, both the long-term patterns and the major changes need to be taken into account. Rural-tirban differences One of the most important relationships between raoe and residence in North Carolina has been the close association of the Negro population with the major agricultural areas. Study of Figure 18 indicates that the proportions of Negroes are highest in the old farming sections of the state, espeoiallj where the original slave belts existed. This has been the case for generations, although the state's white population also has tended to be much more closely allied with agriculture than has that of the nation as a whole. But certain changes which are talcing place rapidly in these traditional relationships are highly significant. Thus because Figure 18 is based upon percentages of people in the townships, it cannot emphasize adequately the fact that while the proportions of Negroes in the rural-farm townships may be relatively high, the absolute numbers sometimes are compaxatirely small. On the other hand, larger numbers of Negroes are found in the state's most urbanized townships. In I960, the net result of these two circumstances was the roughly equal representation of whites and Negroes in the urban population, the underrepresentation of Negroes in the rural -nonf arm category, and the superabundance of members

PAGE 181

165 of that race in the rural-farm group. (See Table 10.) Moreover, Negroes who live in rural -nonf arm districts are likely to be living on subsistence plots and to be engaged in agriculture, whereas whites are more apt to be living in suburbs and the wage earners among them to be employed in urban occupations. Obviously, the sociocultural differences between these two segments of the rural -nonf arm population are great. Thus while Negroes in North Carolina are appearing in increasing niimbers as urbanites, the fact that few of them have yet become suburbanites implies that as a group their status remains significantly below that of whites, There are some significant variations in the proportions of whites and Negroes living in urban centers with 10,000 or more inhabitants. (See Table 15.) For example, Negroes are overrepresented in the cities which are located along the coast where dock jobs and other laboring occupations are found in relatively large numbers. They also are comparatively abundant in those which are close to military bases where racial segregation is minimal and where Jobs are generally available. In addition, Negroes are overrepresented in many of the cities which are located in the heart of the Upper Coastal Plain, because many people of that race simply leave the farms in this region and move into local cities in search of better socioeconomic opportunities. Finally, the proportions of Negroes are relatively high in

PAGE 182

164 Baleigh and also in Durham which has a fairly large concentration of those who operate local businesses or who are white-collar professional people. On the other hand, Negroes tend to be relatively scarce in cities which are primarily oriented to several types of manufacturing, especially that of the textile industry which employs more white women than either white men or Negroes of either sex. Variations by counties Differences in the proportions of whites and Negroes by counties underscore the high percentages of members of the latter race in the eastern part of the state and their large numbers in its urbanized center. Thus Table 18 lists the proportions of the total county populations which are native whites and Negroes, and the index numbers indicate the relative importance of Negroes in those populations, Por purposes of analysis, the counties may be separated into those with relative scarcities of Negroes (indexes below 50), the ones with fairly equitable shares (indexes of 50-1^9), and those with inordinately high proportions (indexes of 150 and over). On this basis, in I960, 5^ counties had relative scarcities wnti contained less than 8 per cent of North Carolina's total Negro population. All except two of them ^Por a discussion of expanding participation by Negroes in the social, economic, and political affairs of North Carolina, see Bradbury Seasholea and Frederic N, Cleaveland, "Negro Political Participation in Two Piedmont Crescent Cities," in Urban Growth Dynamics in a Regional Cluster of Cities by P, Stuart Chapin, Jr. and Shirley P. Weiss (eds,), (ITew York: John Viley and Sons, Inc, 1962), pp. 260-508.

PAGE 183

165 TABLE 18 NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF NATIVE WHITES AND NEGROES IN THE NORTH CAfiOLINA COUNTIES, I96O

PAGE 184

166 TABLE 18 continued County

PAGE 185

167 TABLE 18 continued

PAGE 186

168 TABLE 18 continued County Natire wl

PAGE 187

169 are located in the western oae-third of the state where the population is almost exclusively native-white. Moreover^ 55 counties had fairly equitable percentages of Negroes, but most of them also had comparatively large numbers of persons of that race. They contained more than 56 per cent of the state's total Negro population with especially heavy concentrations in the Crescent cities. In fact, 29 of these counties lie in the middle one-third of North Carolina. Finally, Negroes were superabundajit in 51 counties which contained about 36 per cent of the state's total. These are generally the farming counties with 27 of them being located in the eastern one-third of the state. Thus while the counties with high proportions of Negroes appear clearly in Figure 18, the ones with large numbers but only average proportional shares stand out in Table 18. These large numbers of Negroes who are concentrated in North Carolina's cities are as significant socioeconomically as are the high percentages of members of that race in the eastern farming districts. In fact, this tendency for many Negroes to leave the farming areas and to migrate into the state's cities is probably the single most important factor making for change in the complex patterns of race relations within the state. While the Indian population is relatively small, its distribution by counties merits the summary which appears in Table 19. Thus not only do most of the members of this race

PAGE 188

170 TABLE 19 INDIAJf POPOLATIOKS OT SILICTED COUNTIES IN NORTH CAROLINA, I960 Coiinty*

PAGE 189

171 live in relatively few counties, but over two-thirds of them live in Robeson Coimty la the southern portion of the Upper Coastal Plain, Virtually all of them are agriculturists, irrespective of whether they are classified as rural -nonfarm or r\iral-farm, with less than one-twentieth being classified as urban residents. Variations by regions The differences in the racial composition of the populations of the four major regions are given in Table 20 by means of absolute numbers, percentages, and index numbers. Native whites are compaxatively scarce in the two eastern regions, somewhat overrepresented in the Piedmont, and superabundant in the Mountain region. Conversely, Negroes are most heavily represented in the Upper Coastal Plain and the Tidewater regions where cotton and tobacco cropping systems still bind many of them to the land. They are proportionately underrepresented in the Piedmont, although that region has the largest number, and they are nximerically and proportionately scarce in the Mountain region. Indians, of course, are heavily represented in the Upper Coastal Plain, although the Mountain region also contains slightly more than its pro rata share; whereas they are almost completely nonexistent statistically in the Tidewater and Piedmont regions, yoreign-born whites are overrepresented in all regions except the Piedmont, but with almost half of the total small

PAGE 190

172 TAHLE 20 NUMBERS AND PERCaTTAaiS OF HATIVE WHITiS, FOREI ON-BORN WHITES, NEOROiS, INDIANS , AND OTHER RACES IK THE POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA, BY REGIONS, .i960 Nuaber, per cent and index, by race

PAGE 191

1/7 5 population, the latter region still has the largest nusiber of these people. Finally, other races (Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and others) are most heavily represented in the two eastern regions because of their association with major military installations, largely as wives of service personnel. In other regions, they live almost exclusively in cities. Trends Within North Carolina the major changes in racial ajid ethnic composition have involved native whites and Negroes, for while the numbers of Indians and foreign-born whites also have changed, these two groups have never been a very significant part of the total population, (See Table 21.) Thus since 1790, there have been two basic trends in the proportions of whites and Negroes, including: (1) the tendency for the proportion of Negroes to increase etnd for that of whites to decrease until about 1880; and (2) the inclination for the percentage of Negroes to decline and for that of whites to rise steadily from 1880 until I960. The former trend was due primarily to the higher fertility rates of Negroes and their propensity to remain in North Carolina. The latter trend was due partly to the growing exodus of Negroes from North Carolina, particularly following 1910, and partly to the fact that mortality rates among

PAGE 192

17^ TABLE 21 ^^JMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF NBQROES, INDIAJIS, AND FOREiaN-BORN WHITES IN THE POPULATION OF NORTH CAEOLINA, I79O-I96O Year 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 i860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 19^+0 1950 i960 Negr

PAGE 193

175 whites decreased faster than those among Negroes. Moreover, the decline in the proportion of Negroes has persisted despite the fact that throughout the 1880-1960 period, their rates of reproduction have been significantly higher than those of whites. The decline in the proportion of Negroes has occurred in all of the residence categories. Thus even though Negroes in North Carolina were associated almost exclusively with agriculture, a study of Table 22 indicates that the proportions of whites have increased in the populations of the state as a whole, the rural districts, and the towns and cities of all sizes. At the same time, of course, the percentages of Negroes have decreased. Moreover, among North Carolina's cities there has been a persistent tendency for whites to make up larger percentages of the populations of the smaller than the larger ones. This results chiefly from the fact that when Negroes migrate to urban centers in North Carolina, they tend to choose the biggest ones, either moving away from smaller centers or from farms. The cities of the Piedmont Crescent and some of those in the Upper Coastal Plain and the Tidewater regions have been the major recipients of these Negro migrants. The loss of North Carolina's Negroes to other parts of the nation is reflected even in short-term trends. Thus between 1950 and I960, the total population of the state grew

PAGE 194

176 Table 22 percentaqes of whites in the population of north cafiolina, by residence, 1890-1960 Per cent whites Residence 1890

PAGE 195

177 by 12 per cent, but the white population increased by lAper cent ajid the Negro group by only 7 per cent. Moreover, in both the white and the Negro categories, the rate of growth in North Carolina lagged behind that in the nation, partly because of the changing fertility patterns in the state and partly because of the net losses through migration to other psirte of the country. Moreover, while the Negro population of North Carolina grew at a slower rate than that of the nation during the entire 1900-1960 period, the white population experienced a slower rate of growth only between 1950 and I960. Residence and the Status of the Negro Changes in the racial composition of North Carolina's population are related to the changes in the status of Negroes. Many of these have accompanied urbanization, for the growth of cities has provided Negroes with two interdependent advantages not previously available, including: (1) occupational opportunities outside of agriculture; and (2) modification of racial segregation which is generally less rigid in cities than in rural communities. Moreover, not only have the attractive features of urbanization brought many of North Carolina's Negroes into cities in the state, but they have caused these people to migrate to other parts of the nation which previously contained few or no

PAGE 196

178 Negroes. Thua urbanization has helped to create changes in racial composition within North Carolina and has also helped to produce the steady loss of Negroes from the state and their decline as a proportion of the total population. These circumstances reflect the increasing duality of the state's Negro population: the historic attachment to the soil of one segment and the increasing affinity for urban centers of another portion. In turn, this duality stands as evidence of broad changes in the collective self-concept and patterns of social mobility among Negroes, nPor a thorough elaboration of many of these points, see Seasholes and Cleaveland in Urban Growth Dynamics, pp. 260-308.

PAGE 197

CHAPTEH VIII MARITAL CONDITION Closely related to the data on other personal characteristics which have collective significance for a society are those which indicate the proportions of people who are single, married, widowed, and divorced. Of course, marital status varies considerably by age, sex, residence, and race and is strongly influenced by particular combinations of these factors. In addition, being married or unmarried may be indicative of given features of one's personality and the manner in which he is oriented to the social system. For the society, the proportions of the population who are single, married, widowed, and divorced relate directly to vital processes and in a general way to the structure, persistence, and change of the family institution."^ In fact, the proportions of people who fall into each of the four marital -status categories often provide a more dependable means of examining the family than do the marriage and divorce rates which are frequently misused, yor example, the divorce rate fails to account for the high ^^^f T7~Lynn Smith and Homer L. Hitt, The People of Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952), p. 73. 179

PAGE 198

180 proportion of remarriages and provides no basis for evaluating the separations of mates although the social and personal effects may be similar to those engendered by divorce. Moreover, the marria'ge rate usually ignores such basic features as the age distribution of a population, its rural or urban character, and the fluctuations in the sex 2 ratio of people in the marriageable ages. Thus these rates are frequently used to describe a situation without a proper analysis of the social context within which it occurs. But when the percentages of people in the vairious maxitalstatus categories are analyzed with other demographic factors in mind, the information which they can provide is considerable. In general, no natter what specific variations may be foxind, marriage is the normal condition for the vast majority of Americans who reach adulthood, whether they enter the married state one or more times. Thus the proportions of persons who are married constitute the basis of the analysis of marital condition and the percentages who are single, widowed, and divorced represent variations of this more nearly universal condition, JLge and Harital Status The age profile of a population probably has greater bearing than any other characteristic on its marital status. Ibid.

PAGE 199

181 Thus with all people under age 15 excluded because they are almost universally single, the proportions of those classified as single, married, and widowed are presented by age ranges for males and females in Figures 19 and 20, respectively. The data for divorced people are not included because the curves which would result would be obscure in such diagrams as these. However, summary reference is made to them when appropriate. These charts also are used below in comparing the marital condition of all Americans with that of all North Carolinians, but at present they illustrate the necessity of accounting for age in analyzing marital status. Not only is it unusual for males to marry before they are 15, but a study of Figure 19 indicates that marital condition changes for the great majority in the 17-28 age range when the proportion of married men rises rapidly and that of single ones drops equally fast. Then, while changes in the proportions of single men are relatively minor above the ages 30-34, by this stage the inevitable increase in widowhood occurs and the percentage of widowers begins to rise perceptibly while that of married men begins to level off. By the time the 60-64 ages are reached, the proportion of .widowed men rises rapidly while that of married men decreases concomitantly. In addition, at no age is more than about 3 per cent of the males classified as divorced.

PAGE 200

182

PAGE 201

18$

PAGE 202

184 although the highest percentage of divorces occurs in the early 20' s. Many divorced males remarry, of course, and appear as a proportion of the wedded population. The patterns hy age for females differ from those for males in two major ways: In the first place, femailes tend to marry younger than males, (See Figure 20.) Therefore, an increase in the percentage married and an accompanying decrease in the proportion single occur at an earlier age for the former than for the latter. In the second place, women are much more likely than men to be widowed or divorced, and as a result the percentages of females who have lost their mates increase sharply after the ages ^5-^9 1 BSid the proportions of those who are married decrease concurrently. State and National Comparisons When the percentages of people in the marital-status categories are compared for North Carolina and the nation as a whole, several differences appear by sex. (Compare Figures 19 and 20,) First, higher percentages of males in every age group are classified as married in North Carolina than in the country at large. Conversely, the proportions of those who are single are greater in the nation than in the state. The percentages of widowers are virtually the sane in the state and the nation except at age 8^ and over

PAGE 203

185 when men at the national level are more likely to have lost their wives than are those in North Carolina. Also higher proportions of men classified as divorced are found in the United States as a whole (2.1. per cent) than in North Carolina (1.1 per cent). In addition to those divorced, in I960, 2.2 per cent of North Carolina's males were separated from their wives but not divorced from them, whereas in the nation the comparable figure was 1.^ per cent. Of course, these may be either permanent or temporary separations, but a substantial share of them represents the dissolution of a functioning family unit. Second, higher proportions of North Carolina's females aged 15-^4 than those in the nation are married. But at age 45 and above, the percentages are somewhat smaller in the state than in the nation. However, in all age ranges, the proportions of single females axe lower in the former than in the latter. Therefore, the pro rata share of widows in all age ranges is greater in North Carolina than it is in the United States as a whole. Also the state's women are less likely to be classified as divorced than axe American women in general, with the proportions being 1,7 per cent and 2.9 per cent, respectively. On the other hand, separation is more prevalent among women in North Carolina (2,9 per cent) than those in the nation (2.0 per cent).

PAGE 204

186 Generally, North Carolinians are more likely than other Americans to be married, widowed, or separated and are less likely to be single or divorced. The higher proportion of maxried people found in North Carolina than in the nation is due in large part to the relative prevalence of this status among males. The latter are in comparatively short supply in the state and this enables a large percentage of them to be married if they wish. Also partly responsible is the fact that North Carolina exceeds the nation in proportions of rural -nonf arm people among whom single, divorced, and separated persons are comparatively scarce and married persons relatively abundant. On the other hand, the state's comparatively large Negro population tends to increase the proportions of people who are single, divorced, and separated. Also part of North Carolina's comparatively large share of widows may be attributed to the Negro population among whom the death rate of males is inordinately high. Variationa Within the State Within North Carolina there are several important differences in marital condition between men and women, rural and urban people, and whites and Negroes. Thus in order to avoid having the data on marital status obscured by variationa in aex, race, and residence, it is necessary to account separately for these characteristics. Naturally, age remains a basic factor to be eaployed in any such analyset

PAGE 205

187 Differences by sex In comparing marital status for North Carolina and the United States, it was suggested that major differences appear between males and females within the populations of each unit. Carrying this approach farther, a comparison of the situations for the sexes within North Carolina, using Figures 19 and 20, indicates the following variations: (1) the relative shares of single women are less than those of single men up to age ^5, but at age ^5 and over this relationship is reversed; (2) the proportion of married females exceeds that of males through age 5^; (3) the percentage of married men is higher than that of women at age 35 and above; (A-) the proportion of widows is greater than that of widowers at all ages, but the differential becomes especially great above ages 4-0-4^; (5) the number of widows in the state's population exceeds the number of married women after age 59, whereas the number of widowers exceeds the number of married men only above age 85; (6) the proportions of women classified as divorced and separated are considerably higher than those of men in these two groups (see Table 23); and (7) the relative proportions of all unmarried males and females are such that the woman who has never married or who has lost a husband by age ^5 has an exceptionally poor chance of marriage.

PAGE 206

188 TABLE 23 PEBCOiTKiBS or MALES AND rOlALSS •BD WERE DIVORCED OB SEPARATS), BY COLOR AND RESIDENCE, ORTH CAROLINA, I960 Whites Nonwhlt*s R«0id«iio« Kal*8 r«Bal«s MaI5i F«a&l»s Urbaa 3.0 5.0 7.8 U.8 Rural-aoafarm 2.3 2,8 ^,7 6.3 Rwal-farti 1.8 1.7 2.9 3.7 North Caroliaa 2.5 3.6 5.5 8.2 Sovrc*: Co«pll«d and coap«t«d froa data in U.S. tartam of tha Caastia, U.S. Canama of Population; I960 . Dat3fa5. Table 105I

PAGE 207

189 Differences by race In North Carolina^ race and residence are highly interdependent factors and it is necessary that they coo be treated separately along with age and sex when marital status is analyzed. This is done by meams of Figures 21, 22, 25, and 2^. Th9se charts are based upon data for whites and nonwhiteo, although the patterns for Negroes and Indians who comprise virtually all of the nonwhite category are similar. North Carolina's white people are slightly older when they marry than ai'a its nonwhite inhabitants, but at all ages, the former are significantly more likely than the latter to be in the married state. This is true both for males and for females. Furthermore, at most ages, nonwhites are more apt than whites to be single, although nonwhite women aged 60 and over are an exception. Nonwhites are more likely than whites to be widowed, divorced, or separated, and they show a grea-ccr propensity to marry more than one time. These last four conditions are related to the comparatively low socioeconomic status which plagues many Negroes in the state and to the higher levels of mortality, family instability, and informal "marriage" arrangements ^On this point and for the techniques employed in making such comparisons, see T. Lynn Smith, Fundamentals of Population Study (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co. , 1960), pp. 222-225; and Smith and Hitt, Louisiana , pp. 7887.

PAGE 208

190

PAGE 209

191

PAGE 210

192

PAGE 211

193 to

PAGE 212

194 which often accompany such status. Furthermore, most of these general differences between the races in marital status also occur in the urban and rural-farm categories, except that the racial variations are not as pronounced in farming areas as they are in cities. In part, the sex ratio among Negroes is so low in North Carolina's urban areas that single, widowed, SLnd divorced women stand a very poor chance of finding mates. But in addition, the incidence of commonlaw marriage and the ease with which such arrangements are initiated and terminated tend to be greater in cities than on farms with the result that relatively high proportions of both sexes are in the several mateless categories. Rural-urban differences The basic variations in marital status between rural and urban populations are: (1) the more pronounced tendency for faxm than urban residents aged 15-29 to be single; (2) the greater propensity for farm than city people aged 50 and over to be in the married state; and (3) the greater likelihood for the inhabitants of cities than those of farming districts to be widowed or divorced. Zf On these and related points, see Ernest W. Burgess, Harvey J. Locke, and Mary M. Thomes. The Family (third ed. , New York: The American Book Co., 1965), pp. 9i-92, and Chapter 5; and E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro Family J-Q ^^e United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. ^1.

PAGE 213

195 In order to show the ways in which these general conditions apply to various segments of the state's white population, Pigures25, 26, and 27 have been prepared for the urban, rural-nonf arm, and rural-farm categories, respectively. Thus observation of these charts indicates the extent to which the white population in each residence group had more or leas than its pro rata share of the state's single, married, and widowed people in the several age ranges. The indexes, of course, were computed separately for the sexes; but the nonwhite population was not included because of some inaccuracies in the data and because of the excessive number of charts which would be necessary. In the urban population, the most striking feature is the relatively high proportion of women classified as single. On the other hand, single males of all ages are greatly underrepresented in cities, making it difficult for large numbers of unmarried women to find husbands. Married women are particularly scarce in cities, whereas married men are about equitably represented, partly because some are living there without their wives. Furthermore, widows are significantly overrepresented in the urban population whereas widowers are conspicuously scarce in the ages under 40, although they appear in somewhat greater proportions in the older ages. Finally, divorced persons of both sexes are much more likely to appear in the urban population than in any other residence category.

PAGE 214

196 INDEX NUMBERS 200

PAGE 215

197

PAGE 216

198 Figure 27. Index numbers showing the extent to which the white urban, ruralnonf arm, and rural-farm populations of North Carolina contained more or less than their pro rata shares of widowed persons in each age group, by sex, I96O.

PAGE 217

199 The rural -nonf arm population contains great relative deficiencies of single people of both sexes, largely because the suburbs in which much of North Carolina's white ruralnonfarm population lives attract comparatively few persons who have never been married. As might be expected, ruralnonfarm areas have more than their fair shares of married women and approximately their equitable shares of married men. The proportion of the latter is decreased somewhat by the comparatively high proportion of unmarried men who live in the agricultural portion of rural -nonfarm territory in North Carolina, The distribution of widowed people in the rural -nonfarm population varies greatly by age and sex, with young widows being greatly underrepresented, young widowers heavily overrepresented, and those of both sexes above age ^4-0 being about equitably represented. These several situations reflect further the duality of the rural -nonf arm category in North Carolina, for yoxing, married adults tend to be characteristic of its suburban segment whereas older widowed males tend to be found in those parts which are still closely associated with subsistence farming. Finally, the proportion of divorced persons is somewhat below the state average, but about intermediate between the percentages found in cities and on farms. Rural-farm areas exhibit the most pronounced variations in the proportions of people in the marital-status

PAGE 218

200 categories. Thus inordinately high proportions of males ar.d foaales aged 20-^4 living on farnis are still single. Hov;ever, the areas containing the superabundances of single people of the two sexes tend to be widely separated, with women concentrated in the western part of the state and men in the eastern portion. Thus the excesses of these persons eligible for marriage generally do not overlap and if each group reaains in its respective area of residence, many of the members are destined to remain unmarried because of local scarcities of single persons of the opposite sex. Of course, many will migrate to other places. On the other hand, young, married adults of both sexes are extremely scarce on fairms, but above age W married women are greatly overrepresented because the comparatively high sex ratios among older farm people increase the statistical chances for women to bo married. Moreover, while young men can improve their opportiinities for marriage by migrating to urban centers, young women do not have the same advantage, for they already are heavily represented in cities. In addition, the rural-farm areas in which men are proportionately more abundant offer few occupational opportunities for women should they elect to move there. Widowed persons of both sexes are superabundant on farms in the 25-29 age ranges although the numbers involved are small, but after age 29 they become extremely scarce with elderly widowed women

PAGE 219

201 being oepecially slightly represented on farms. This is due to the fact that many women who become widows in farming areas either marry again or move to urbein centers. Finally, divorced persons are' inordinately scarce on farms, their proportions being less than half those which are foimd in urban populations. Variations by regions There are several differences in marital status by regions in North Carolina. (See Table 2^.) In all regions, women of both races are more likely than men to be widowed and less apt to be single and married. Males, of course, tend strongly to be either married or single because relatively small proportions are widowed. Moreover, smaller proportions of men than women are classified as divorced. In the Tidewater region, among whites the relative proportion of single men is very high but that of single women is extremely low. Conversely, the percentage of males who are married is lower than that in any other region but the proportion of married females is higher. Finally, widowers are comparatively scarce but widows are slightly overrepresented. Among nonwhites, single men are overrepresented but single women eire proportionately scarce, married men are in comparatively short supply while married women are equitably represented, and the widowed of both sexes are somewhat overrepresented.

PAGE 220

202 TABLE 2k percehtaqes or the populations of the rixiions or north caholina VHO VreBI SIMGLE, HARKIED, OR WIDOVED, BI COLOR AND SEX, I96O Sex and region

PAGE 221

205 The white population of the Upper Coastal Plain also has a superabundance of single men but a slight deficiency of single women. It has slight scarcities of married people of both sexes, and approximately its pro rata shares of the widowed. Among nonwhites in this region, single people of both sexes axe overrepresented, whereas married and widowed people of both sexes are comparatively scarce. The white group in the heavily urbanized Piedmont region exhibits a deficiency of single males but a slight overabundance of single females. Moreover, married people of both sexes are somewhat overrepresented, but widowed persons are relatively scarce. Among nonwhites, single people of both sexes are comparatively few, the married are about equitably represented, and the widowed are slightly overrepresented. Lastly, the extremely rural Mountain region has barely its fair share of single white men but an inordinately high proportion of single white women. It has less than its pro rata shares of married people of both sexes but comparatively high proportions of those who are widowed, chiefly because of the relatively large proportion of elderly in the region. Its small nonwhite population has relative deficiencies of single people of both sexes, an equitable share of married women and a slight superabundance of married men, but inordinately high proportions of widows and widowers.

PAGE 222

204 Thus single men are concentrated in the eastern part of the state and single women in the Piedmont and western sections. However, in every region, the percentages of single men in the populations are much smaller than those of single women. Moreover, a great many of these unmarried males are aged 15-17, but when they reach the ages when marriage is most likely to occur, they will also be in the range when migration from the state is the greatest. Thus many of them eventually will marry in other sections of the nation. The proportions of men who are married are highest ia the urbanized areas where there are superabundances of marriage partners, whereas the percentages of women classified as married are greatest in the eastern farming regions where their statistical chances for marriage are excellent. Finally, widowers tend to be isolated in the most rural sections of the state whereas widows are more likely to live in its urban centers, although no entire region has vast proportional abundances of either. Trends There have been several important changes in marital status in North Carolina since 1890 when the first data on the subject appeared in the census reports. Figures 28, 29, 50, and 31 have been prepared for white males, white females, nonwhite males, and nonwhite females, respectively to show

PAGE 223

205 PERCENT

PAGE 224

206 PE RCENT — I r T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r WHITE FEMALES ^qqq 1940 I860 15 20 25 30 35 Figure 29. Variations in the marital status of white females in North Carolina, by age, 189O, 19'+0, and I96O.

PAGE 225

207 PERCENT T r 1 1 1 1 r NONWHITE MALES 15 20 25 30 35 Figure 30, Variations in the marital status of nonwhite males in North Carolina, by age, I89O, 19^+0, and I96O.

PAGE 226

208 PERCENT

PAGE 227

the major treads. Most of Tihem also occurred in the nation at large. Thus during the 1890-1900 period, the proportions of North Carolina's total population aged 15 and over classified as married increased and the percentages of tt;0se enumerated as single decreased. Moreover, this tendency for larger relative shares of people to be married occurred in every age group and was accompanied by a gradual decrease in the average age of marriage. Much of the increase in the proportions of married people is due to the decrease in mortality rates which has taken place during the twentieth century. This, of course, is reflected in the fact that in I960 in each age range, the percentages of males and fe.iiales classified as widowed were lower than they were in 1890. Part of the decline in the proportions of widowers is due to the increases in the rates of remarriage of men who have lost their mates through death, and part to increases in the survival rates of women. Also, the abnormally high proportion of widows in 1890 still reflected the large losses of men sustained by North Carolina during the Civil War; but by I960, the last vestiges of this influence had disappeared. Lastly, the relative shares of those classified as divorced have continued to increase in all age ranges, and this fact helps to prevent the proportions of the married from being even greater than they are. However, the maximum ^Cf. Smith, Fundamentals, pp. 225-227.

PAGE 228

210 proportion in I960 in any category was 2,9 per cent of the white women aged ^'p-^^. It is easy, therefore, to overestimate the relative importance of the divorced because maj^y of them eventually remarrj. When the races are considered separately, whites are found to follow the sane general trends which appear in North Carolina's total population. Within this racial group, in most age ranges, between 1890 and I960 the proportions of women in the marital-status classes varied more than did those of men. Thus the percentages of women classified as married have increased more markedly than have those of men and the relative shares of women enumerated as single have dropped more precipitously. Moreover, the percentages of widows have decreased more significantly than have those of widowers, while the relative shares of divorced women have risen more rapidly than have those of men. The patterns are somewhat different for the nonwhite population. In the first place, the marital status of males changed far less during 1890-1960 than did that of females or of whites of either sex. In the second place, some of the more important changes which did occur among nonwhite men were contrary to those which took place in the totad population. Thus the proportions of married men of most ages became somewhat smaller during the 60-year period and the percentages of single males rose slightly. In large

PAGE 229

211 part, of course, the reduction in the relative shares of married men is due to the fact that manj of them migrate from North Carolina to other psirts of the nation. Among nonwhite females, the changes in marital status between 1890 and I960 were less marked than were those among white females, but both followed the same general pattern. Of course, the major differences between the races, discussed above, tend to persist. For a discussion of changes in marital status, see Conrad Taeuber and Irene B. Taeuber, The Changing Population of the United States (New York: John Viley and Sons, Inc., 19!^5), p. U5.

PAGE 230

CHAPTER IX LEVELS OF EDUCATION The educational adequacy of a population is the basis upon which a variety of human activity is predicated, including occupational pursuits, involvement in the affairs of society, patterns of interaction between members, and dayto-day living in situations which are subject to rapid •change. Furthermore, the level of education helps to determine the ways in which people react to international crises, social problems, and the vast array of circumstances which characterize existence in the nuclear age. The educational proficiency of various segments of the population also is a measure of their quality and of that of the total society which they comprise. Thus the proportions of total illiterates and functional illiterates, and those of gradeschool, high-school, and college graduates in a population provide valuable insights into the abilities and overall competency of the people. Finally, deficiencies in education are now a far more crucial problem than they were a few generations ago, chiefly because of the fact that while nineteenth-centxiry farming required relatively little formal schooling, the present occupational structure — including Persons with fewer than five years of schooling, 212

PAGE 231

215 agriculture — is iufinitely more demanding of such training.^ State and National Comparisons Despite its recent progress in improving school facilities, North Carolina makes a poor showing when the levels of education of its people eire compared with those in the nation at large. Thus a study of Figure 52 indicates that in North Carolina, people aged 25 and over are much more likely than those in the United States as a whole to have completed only 0-7 years of schooling, and that they are far less apt to have received schooling beyond the seventh grade. However, in order to assess accurately the differences between the state and the nation ajid to identify the levels of education attained by various population segments, it is necessary to divide the data by race and residence. Otherwise, the variations in educational proficiency may simply substantiate the fact that North Carolina has a comparatively high proportion of rural-farm people and a significantly larger relative share of Negroes than the nation as a whole. For this purpose, four tables have been prepared to account separately for sex, color, and residence in evaluating differences between the state and the nation in m Cf. T. Lynn Smith and Homer L. Hitt, The People of Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952), p. 88.

PAGE 232

214 a O -P
PAGE 234

213 educational status. Table 25 is based upon the median years of schooling attained; Table 26, the proportions of people who had not completed even the first grade; Table 27, the percentages of those who had graduated from high school; and Table 28, the proportions who had graduated from college. Observation of these data leads to several conclusions concerning the educational proficiencj of North Carolina's people in comparison with those in the nation at large. Most importantly, according to all of these indexes, North Carolinians collectively rank below the population of the nation as a whole. This is true whether the median years of schooling or percentages of specified years of schooling completed are used. However, there are some notable exceptions by race and residence. For example, urban whites in North Carolina attain approximately the same levels of education as do those in the United States at large. In contrast, the average number of years of schooling attained by nonwhites (almost entirely Negroes) in North Carolina's cities is well below that achieved by those in the urban population of the nation as a whole. But this disparity is due chiefly to the comparatively high proportions of North Carolina's Negroes who have completed no years of schooling and are illiteratee, those who are functional illiterates, and the ones who have left educational institutions prior to graduation from high school. At the college-graduate

PAGE 235

TABLE 25 KEDIAM TEABS 07 SCHOOLING COMPLETED BI PERSONS AOED 25 AND OVER, BT SEX, COLOR, AND RESIDENCE, NORTH CAROLINA AND TBE UNITED STATES, I960 216 Sex and color North Carolin* Total Urban RuralRuralnonfara farm United States Total Urban RuralRuralnonfar* fara White Males Females 9.8 11.5 9.2 U.l 10.3 11.8 9.1 8.7 9.7 8.1 7.7 8.7 10.9 11.5 9.9 10.7 11.3 9.'* 11.2 11.6 10.3 8.9 8.7 9.7 Nonwhite Males yejtales 7.0 6.1 7.5 7.6 7.0 8.0 6.7 5.9 7.3 8.2 7.9 8.5 8.7 8.5 8.9 6.4 5.8 6.9 5.7 6.5 Total Males Females 8.9 lO.'f 8.5 10.0 9.5 10.7 8.6 8.2 9.0 10.6 11.1 10.3 11.0 10.9 11.2 9.5 9.0 10.0 8.6 9.2 Sources: Coapiled and coaputed froa data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of PeTrglation; I960 , General Social and Economic Final Report PC(1)-1C, Characteriatics , United States Sumary , T9S2; pp. 207-209, Table 7b; and General Social and Econoaic Characteriatics , North Carolina, Final Report PG(1)-35C (1961), p. 166, Table <+?.

PAGE 236

217 TABLE 26 PERCENTAGES OF PERSONS AGED 25 AITO OVER WHO HAD COMPLETED NO TEARS OF SCHOOLING, BT SEX, COLOR, AND RESIDENCE, NORTO CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, I960 Sex aad color North Carol laa Total Urban RxiralRuralnonfarm farm Uaited States Totad Urban RuralRuradnonfara fan» Vhite Males Females 2.1 2.5 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.8 2.Z 2.6 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.2 Nonwhite Males Females 6.5 8.2 5.0 5.5 6.7 7.0 8.8 5.*+ 7.6 10.0 5.4 5.6 6.8 ^.6 4.2 10.1 5.0 11.9 5.5 8.4 10.0 12. 5 7.6 Total Males Females 5.1 5.7 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.2 3.3 3.9 2.8 3.9 5.0 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.2 2,2 2.2 2.6 3.0 2.2 2.3 2.7 1.8 Sources: Coopilod and computed fi*oB data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: I960 , General Social and Economic Characteristics , United States Suaaarj , Final Report PC(1)-1C, 1962, pp. 207-209, Table 76; aind General Social and Econoaic Characteristics , North Carolina . Final Report PC(1)-35C (1961), p. 167, Table hj.

PAGE 237

TABLE 27 PERCENTAGES OF PERSONS AGED 25 AND OVER VHO HAD COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL, BY SEX, COLOR, AND RESIDENCE, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, I96O 218 Sex and color North Carolina Total Urban Ruralnonfara Ruralfarm United States Total UrbcLQ RuralRuralnonfam farm White 57.0 46.9 52.7 2^,2 Males 55.8 kk.9 29.3 19.2 Females '+0.1 48.7 55-7 28.9 45.2 46. U 56.5 41.6 45.7 54.0 44.7 47.0 59.2 51.6 26.5 36.9 Nonwhite 14.7 19.8 12.2 7.5 Males 12.0 17.7 9.8 4.7 Fe^lea 17. 1 21.6 14.6 10.1 21.7 25.5 11.6 20.0 25.7 10.5 25.2 26.6 12.7 7.1 5.4 8.8 Total 52.3 ^+0.7 28.8 19.9 Males 29.5 39.0 25.8 15.7 Females 55.0 42.5 51.7 24.2 41.1 44.5 5^.*+ 59.5 ^5.^ 31.9 42.6 44.9 36.9 29.5 24.9 34.5 Sources: Compiled and computed from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: I96O , General Social and Economic Characteristics , United States Suinaary , Final Report PC(1)-1C, 1962, pp. 207-209, Table 76; and General Social and Economic Characteristics , North Carolina . Final Report PC(1)-35C (1961), p. 167, Table 47.

PAGE 238

219 TABLE 28 PERCENTAGiS OF PERSONS AOED 25 AND OVER VHO HAD COMPLETED COLLEGE, BY SEX, COLOR, AND RESIDENCE, WHTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, I960 Sex euid color North Carolina Total Urban RuralRuralnonfara fara United States Total Urban RuralRuralDonfarm fam White Males Females 7.0 11.0 8.0 13.3 6.1 9.1 5.0 5.5 2.5 1.9 3.0 8.1 10.3 6.0 9A 12.3 6.8 5.6 6.9 3.0 2.7 3.5 Nonwhite Males Feaales 3.5 2.7 k.2 3.k 'f.6 6.1 2.5 1.8 3.1 1.0 0.6 lA 3.5 3.5 3.6 *f.l k.2 ^.0 2.1 1.8 2.4 1.1 0.7 1.6 Total Males Feaales 6.3 9.7 6.9 ll.V 5.7 SA k,5 k,9 V.2 2.1 1.6 2.6 7.7 9.7 5.8 8.9 11.5 6.5 5.3 '.2 2.8 2.6 3.2 Sources: Coapiled and coapated froa data in U.S. Bureau of the Cenaua, U.S. Census of Population; I960 , Qeneral Social and Econonic Characteristics , United States Suiary , Final Report PC(1)-1C, 1962, pp. 207-209, Table 76; and General Social and Econoaic Characteristics, North Carolina . Final Report PC(1)-35C (1961), p. 167, Table k?.

PAGE 239

220 level, however, nonwhites in North Carolina's cities meike a better showing than do those in the nation's xirban population. This is especially true for women. In the rural -nonf arm population, North Carolina's whites have much lower levels of education than do their fellows in the nation as a whole. Thus those in the state have smaller average amounts of schooling than do the ones in the nation and they are more likely never to have been to school at all or to be functional Illiterates. As expected, North Carolina's rural-nonfarm whites are considerably less likely than those in the nation to be high-school or college graduates, although the percentages of rural-nonfarm white women who have completed college are about the same in North Carolina and the nation. Thus men are especially instrumental in depressing the proportion of white college graduates living in rural-nonfarm areas. But surprisingly, nonwhites in the state's rural-nonfarm districts have higher levels of education than do those in the comparable category in the nation at large. Accordingly, the average amount of schooling completed and the percentages who are high-school and college graduates all are greater in North Carolina than in the United States as a whole. Conversely, the proportions who have completed no years of schooling or who are functional Illiterates are smaller in the state than in the nation. As Is the case in the '-^-ban population, nonwhite women tend to

PAGE 240

221 receive significantly more schooling than men and are highly instrtiMental in raising the level of education among the state's entire rtiral-nonfarm Negro population. The white rural-farm group in North Carolina has considerably less schooling on the average thain the white farm population of the nation as a whole. Thus the median years of schooling and the percentages of high-school and college graduates are lower in the state's white farm population than in that of the nation, while the proportions of those who have not completed the first grade and of functional illiterates are higher. But once again. North Carolina's nonwhite population living on farms makes a slightly better showing than does that in the nation, with more formal education on the average, and smaller proportions of people who had received either no schooling or fewer than five years of training. Not surprisingly, this advantage arises from the fact that higher proportions of the nonwhite farm women are high-school and college graduates in the state than in the nation. For the nonwhite farm men, the reverse is true, with those in North Carolina standing below their fellows in the United States as a whole. Thus North Carolinians as a whole have lower levels of education than do people in the nation at large. But white urbanites in the state are about as well schooled on the average as are those in the nation, while nonwhite

PAGE 241

2?? urbanites are much more poorly educated on the whole In North Carolina. However, while the levels of education air.ong North Carolina's whites in both of the rural categories are below those of rural residents in the nation at large, the state's nonwhites living on farms and in rural-nonfarm territory make better showings than do those in comparable categories in the United States as a whole. Of course, this slight superiority of the state's nonwhite rural populations over those in the nation should not obscure the fact that nonwhites in both political units lag far behind whites In the levels of education attained. This is a fundamental fact which influences many other facets of life among the Negro population. Compared with the other U9 states and the District of Columbia, in I960, North Carolina ranked very close to the bottom in median years of schooling completed by the total population. (See Table 29.) This m.eans that the averages in only five states (Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia) fell below that in North Carolina. But the comparative situation varies considerably by race and residence. Thus North Carolina's white urban population ranked thirty-first among the states, but its nonwhite urban people ranked forty-third. In fact, urban whites in North Carolina have attained fully as much formal schooling as those who live in the heavily urbanized states of the

PAGE 242

225 TABLE 29 MEDIAN TEARS OF SCBCWLDia COMPLETED BY PEBSOKS AQED 25 AND OVEB, BY COLOR AND RESIDENCE, rOH STATES, I960

PAGE 243

22^^ Region and state

PAGE 244

225 broad region which extends southward from New England through Pennsylvania and westward ' from Massachusetts through Wisconsin. But they lag behind the urban whites in the states of the middle and far west and those in majiy other states of their own southern region. Unforttinately, urban nonwhites in North Carolina have attained fewer years of schooling than their fellows in all states except a handful of those in the Deep South. North Carolina's rural -nonf arm white and nonwhite populations each ranked thirty-eighth among comparable population segments in the other states, although almost all of those which made poorer showings than North Carolina are located in the South. However, rural-nonfarm nonwhites in the three or four states which have substantial Indian populations but very few Negroes also tend to rank below those in North Carolina. In fact, in levels of education, Indian and Negro populations, cross-classified by residence, are quite similar. Finally, among the rural -farm populations of the states. North Carolina's whites ranked a very low fortyeighth, with only those in Louisiana and Virginia having lower levels of education. North Carolina's rural-farm nonwhites ranked thirty-second among the states, although seven of the latter had fewer than 200 such people. For that reason, rural-farm nonwhites in orily 10 states had lower

PAGE 245

226 levels of education thsin did those in North Carolina. All except two of them (New Mexico and Arizona) axe located in the South. Thus North Carolina's relatively poor showing in education among its sister states is a result of the comparatively low levels among the nonwhite urban population and the white rural groups; whereas urban whites and rural nonwhites compare more favorably with people in comparable categories in the other states. Variations Within the State There are wide vairiations in educational status among the various segments which make up the population of North Carolina. The great differences between whites and nonwhites have already been suggested, but it is fair to observe that thede are so broad that they influence virtually all other circumstances which relate to race in North Carolina. Furthermore, on the average, females in the state receive more formal education than males, but only up to a point, for men are more likely than women to be college graduates. In addition, urban people have substantially more schooling than either rural -nonf arm or rural-farm residents, partly because of the differential availability of funds for education. Finally, amounts of schooling vary widely from one geographical part of North Carolina to another, but these

PAGE 246

227 differences tend to be reflections of those which are associated with race or residence. The variations within the state as a whole by sex, race, and residence appear in the portions of Tables 25, 26, 27, and 28 which pertain to North Carolina. The differences among the counties by sex, race, and residence are shown in Figures 55» 3^, and 55» respectively. Differences by sex The amounts of formal education attained by men and women aged 25 and over are more similar than are those reached by whites and nonwhites or urban and rural-farm people. Thus in I960, the median years of schooling completed was 8.5 for males and 9.5 for females. Similar relationships between the sexes occur for people of both races and for those in the three residence categories, although the disparity tends to be somewhat greater in rural areas than in cities. This tendency for females to have higher levels of education than males also exists on a county basis except in the few where military installations or large \iniversities are instrumental in reversing the situation. (See Figure 53.) Thus for the most part, smaller percentages of females than males have no school or fewer than five years of formal training, and higher percentages of females have completed high school. However, at the college-graduate level, the relationship between the sexes changes with males being more likaly than females to have

PAGE 247

228

PAGE 248

229 completed four years of college or university training. But here there are significant variations by race and residence. Thus while the proportion of college graduates is higher among the total male than the total female population, this relationship is confined to whites. Moreover, it is restricted to the white population living in cities and rural -nonfarm districts, whereas in farming areas, higher proportions of women than men are college graduates. Among nonwhites, females in all of the residential categories are more likely than males to have graduated from college. Of course, nonwhite college graduates of either sex are comparatively scarce in farming areas where the proportion is apt to be less than one-quarter of that found in urban centers. Thus, in general, females are more likely than males to complete the eight grades of elementary school and to graduate from high school. But males are more likely to enter and to complete a four-year college course and to proceed beyond that to post-graduate training. Nevertheless, the fact that the educational level of females is about on a par with that of males is of fundamental importance in equating the statuses of the sexes. For example, in a society which is vuiderdeveloped, the level of education attained by males usually greatly exceeds that reached by females.* Therefore, the fact that levels of education among ^For treatment of this point on a world-wide basis, see T. Lynn Smith, Fundamentals of Population Study (Philadelphia: J.B. Lipplncott Co., 1%0;, pp. 256-2^<:J.

PAGE 249

250 males and females in North Carolina are not widely different » and that females even tend to obtain somewhat more schooling on the average, suggests that the statuses of the sexes are roughly similar and that the social segment of which both are parts is not greatly retarded. This, of course, has important implications for the chaxiging occupational roles of women, for the fact that they are chiefly responsible for conveying the vastly complex cultural heritage to children, and for the current expectation that they will be informed and interesting companions to their husbands. However, the much greater differences in educational status between the races and between rural and urban people axe indicative of broad variations in social status and levels of living. Differences by race There is no index used to measure educational adequacy which shows Negroes to have levels of education which are equal to those of whites. Thus North Carolina's white population has more years of schooling on the average, higher percentages of high-school and college graduates, and smaller proportions of illiterates and functional illiterates than its nonwhite population. This is true in every residential category in the state and in 99 of the 100 counties. (See Figure 5^.) Thus in I960, in median years of education. The I960 data do not make it possible to compare the educational statuses of the white and nonwhite populations, by residence, at the county level.

PAGE 250

231 o: OO K 2 UJl-H UJ < o $ ^ OliQ bO c! •rl W H 0) O -rl O -P g§ to o W -rl S O 0) U >> S o X

PAGE 251

252 the white population averaged almost three years higher than the nonwhites. Furthermore, the proportion of high-school graduates in the white population was more than twice that in the nonwhite group, and the percentage of whites who are college graduates was just about double that of the nonwhites who had attained this level. At the bott;om of the educational scale, the proportion of the nonwhites who had never completed the first grade was more than three times that of the whites. Moreover, while 12 per cent of the white population aged 25 and over was classified as functional illiterates with fewer than five years of formal schooling to their credit, 52 per cent of the nonwhites fell into this category. In addition, the amount of schooling received by rural-farm nonwhites is so little that in I960, the median for all nonwhite males living on farms fell within the functionally illiterate category. On a county basis, the highest indexes for people of both races are those for the most highly urbajiized Piedmont Crescent, and for the counties containing major military installations. On the other hand, many counties in the eastern and western extremes of the state generally contain high proportions of members of both races with comparatively low levels of schooling. But there is one interesting exception. In the counties of the old slave belts, the levels of education among Negroes are exceptionally low whereas those among whites are comparatively high. This situation

PAGE 252

235 is typical of the on© frequently found in former plantation areas in which the statuses of whites and Negroes were poles apart under slavery and where they still remain widely divergent. Thus the counties in the northern part of the Upper Coastal Plain contain many reasonably well-educated whites who are descended from the planter aristocracy or who are small-town business and professional people, but many very poorly schooled Negroes who are the descendants of slaves and who now labor in low-status agriculture. Such educational differentials reflect the great extremes in social stratification which still prevail in these areas. Differences by residence When educational status is analyzed according to residence, urban people are found to have the highest levels of schooling, rural-farm the lowest, and rural -nonfarm amounts which are intermediate. This relationship appears irrespective of the index of educational proficiency employed. Thus in I960, the median years of schooling of urban people was 2.7 greater than that of rural-farm residents ajid 1.8 larger than that of rured -nonfarm inhabitants. Furthermore, the percentage of high-school graduates in urban areas was nearly twice that found on farms, and the proportion of college graduates found in cities was three times that in the farming districts. The rural -nonfarm group occupied an intermediate position in the percentages of hitsh-school and college

PAGE 253

25^ graduates. At the bottom of the educational scale, farm people are the most likely of those in the several residential categories to have little or no education. Thus in I960, 3.9 per cent of the state's farm people had not completed even the first je&v of schooling and 22.0 per cent could be classified as functionally illiterate; whereas the comparable percentages for the urban population were only 2.5 and IJ.l, respectively. Again, the rural -nonf arm population tended to be intermediate. However, while nonwhites in the urban population have significantly higher levels of education than the ones living on farms, nonwhites in the rural-nonfarm category tend to have amounts of schooling which are very close to those of rural-farm people. Thus the intermediate position in educational attainment of the state's entire rural -nonfarm group is the net result of comparatively high levels of schooling among whites and relatively low levels among nonwhites. In this respect, the white population resembles that living in cities and the nonwhite population is nearly identical to that residing on farms. Of course, when farm residence is combined with nonwhite color characteristics, one finds the very lowest levels of education, whereas urban residence and membership in the white race are associated with the highest levels. For example, the difference between the median amount of schooling attained by urban whites and that achieved by rural-farm nonwhites was 5.5 years.

PAGE 254

255 Within the urban category, relatively high levels of education eire found not only in the leirge Piedmont cities, but also in many smaller cities and towns. Thus the counties whose urban populations have comparatively high levels of education are widely scattered throughout the state, including some in each one of the major regions. (See Figure 35.) For example, in 26 counties, the urban people had more schooling than the state's total urban population, but 15 of those counties have no cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants. Furthermore, many of them are located in the heart of North Carolina's farming districts. Thus even the people in comparatively small towns have significantly more schooling than do those in the open country. In fact, the persistently low levels of education found among open-country people in the state constitute one of the most stubborn cultural resistances to change that social planners are likely to encounter. Indeed, by any standard, the levels of education of farm people are low, the range between the extremes is small, and the distribution of these low levels is extremely wide and relatively uniform, (See Figure 55.) Variations by regions The educational standing of the population of North Carolina varies considerably from one major region to another. (See Table 50.) Kany of these differences, of course, are simply reflections of the fact that some parts of the state

PAGE 255

236

PAGE 256

257 TIBLE 50 VARIATIONS IN LEVELS OF EDOCATIOH OF PERSONS AGED 25 AND OVER IN THE MAJOR REGIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, BY COLOR, I960 Median years Per cent with Per cent Per cent of schooling no schooling hi^-school college graduates graduates Region White Nonwhite White Nonwhite White NonWhite Nonwhite white Tidewater Upper Coastal Plain Piedaont Mountain 10.^ 6.8 9.7 6.5 9.9 7.3 8.9 7.7 1.6 2A 2.1 2.4 5.9 7.6 5.8 5.9 25.** 8.3 22.1 Zl.k 19.2 5.9 2.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 9.7 7.7 '.I 12,6 6.0 2.8 North Carolina 9.8 7.0 2.1 6.5 21.7 8.7 7.0 3.5 Source: Compiled and coapated from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population; I960 , General Social and Economic Characteristics . North Carolina , Final Report PC(1)-35C (1961), pp. 158159, Table 35; and pp. 285-291, Table 87.

PAGE 257

253 contain much higher proportions of Negroes than others. However, even when this factor is controlled, a number of variations remain, most of thera associated with the degree to which a given region is rural or urban in the make up of its population. In the Tidewater region the median years of schooling completed by whites is higher than it is in any other region, being well above the state average. However, much of this advantage Is due to the military Installations in Craven and Onslow counties and to the city of Wilmington in New Hanover county. These three counties have relatively high proportions of high-school graduates, but in the remainder of the region the levels of education are quite low. Furthermore, nonwhites in the Tidewater have comparatively little schooling, rajiking below the state average on all of the indexes by which educational proficiency for members of this color group is measured. Pew of them hold the military or whitecollar occupations which are associated with comparatively high levels of education, but a great many of them work in those types of agriculture which are intimately related to low educational attainment. In the Upper Coastal Plain, the average amount of schooling of the white population is slightly below that of all whites in the state, but the proportion of high-school graduates is somewhat higher. Mfny of the latter are

PAGE 258

259 associated with Port Bragg, while others, chiefly in the northern psLrt of the region, have acquired the cultural heritage which places considerable value upon an education for whites but not for Negroes. Furthermore, nonwhites (or Negroes) living in this region of cottonand tobaccooriented agriculture have lower levels of education on the average than do those in any other major region, and rank well below nonwhites in the state as a whole on all of the indexes of educational proficiency. Moreover, the absolute number of nonwhites involved in this situation is comparatively large. Many of them are Negroes who are so closely bound to the rural-oriented social milieu of the region that they find it nearly impossible to change their socioeconomic situations or to be certain that their children receive adequate educations. The cultural heritage of the Negro population is probably more deficient in this region than in any other part of the state; and low levels of education are simply one reflection of this fact. Members of both races living in the urbanized parts of the Piedmont region have attained higher levels of education than those residing in any of the other major sections. Thus whites who inhabit the cities of the Piedmont are much mo^e likely to be college graduates than are those in the population at large and to rank well above the state average on most of the other indexes of educational achievement.

PAGE 259

240 However, the rxiral-farm population of the region tends to depress the overall levels somewhat with the net result that the median je&rs of education attained by whites is just slightly above the state average. But nonwhites in this region have significantly higher levels of education than do those in the state as a whole. Thus the Piedmont has substantially more than its pro rata share of nonwhites who are high-school and college graduates, and less than its fair share of persons at the bottom of the scale. In the Mountain region, the average level of education attained by the white population is so low that it helps to depress significantly that of the white population of the state as a vrtiole. Moreover, the level is low irrespective of the index of educational proficiency used. However, the nonwhite population fares considerably better than it does in the state as a whole, chiefly because three-quarters of the group lives in Asheville where the levels of education for members of both races are much higher than they are in the outlying parts of the region. Trends Any evaluation of trends in education in North Carolina automatically becomes a study of improvement in all of the racial and residential categories. However, it is difficult to measure the improvement because the data on the number of

PAGE 260

years of schooling completed by persons aged 2> and over have been compiled only since 19^0. Thus while the materials in Table 51 show changes during 19^0-1960 in the proportions of persons who had completed specified years of schooling, and those in Table 52 portray changes in the percentages of functional illiterates and college graduates, other methods must be employed to trace the trends which originated prior to 19'^•0. For this purpose, two devices may be used. First, it is useful to assess the changes which have taken place during the 1890-1960 period in school enrollment. Thus Figure 56 has been prepared to show fluctuations in the percentages of youngsters aged lO-l'^who actually were enrolled. This index gives actual school enrollment as a proportion of the persons whose ages made them eligible to attend. Second, it is helpful to compare the median years of schooling completed by persons in five-year age ranges, from 25-29 to 75-aLnd-over, This permits the evaluation of at least a 50-year period of the twentieth century during which educational folkways have changed drastically in the United States. In North Carolina and the nation as a whole, people in all racial and residential categories have become increasingly better-educated since 19^0. (See Tables 51 and 52,) Furthermore, although nonwhites remain at a considerable disadvantage as compared with whites, they have

PAGE 261

TABLE 51 PEBCENTAQES OF WHITES AND NONVHITES AGED 25 AND OVEH WHO HAD COMPLETED SPECinED TEARS OF SCHOOLING, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES 19'+0, 1950, AND i960 Color and year None North Carolina: I960: Whites Nonwhltes

PAGE 262

2^5 TABLE 52 PKRCi3fPAaES OF PERSONS AOED 25 AND OVEfi WHO WERE FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES AND COLLBQE GRADDATES, BY COLOR AND RESIDENCE, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, ig'KD, 1950, AND I960

PAGE 263

experienced greater rates of Improvement. Thus between 19^+0 and I960, the median years of schooling completed by whites in North Carolina increased by about 21 per cent, but that completed by nonwhites expanded by 57 per cent. A comparable situation exists in the nation as a whole. But, of course, levels of education in the state continue to be lower than those in the nation. As a result, the proportions of those who finished their formal schooling after the eighth grade decreased in the nation but increased in the state. One should note that in I960, 38 per cent of the whites and 60 per cent of the nonwhites in the nation terminated their educations after completing the eighth grade, while the comparable percentages in North Carolina were ^5 erid 71. Yet while a growing percentage of persons with only eighthgrade educations constitutes no great advantage in the highly specialized nuclear age, many of those enumerated in 1950 would not even have progressed to that point in earlier decades. Unfortunately, during the 19^^0-1960 period, the percentage of functional illiterates in North Carolina decreased at a slower rate than did that in the nation as a whole. These people, being about one-eighth of the whites aged 25 and over in the state and about one-third of the nonwhites, do not have the skills which are necessary to enable them to hold technical jobs, to contribute to the state's income, or

PAGE 264

to provide adequate levels of Incoae for themselves and their dependents. High proportions of them either live at the subsistence level or are dependent upon the bettereducated population for their sustenance. Moreover, their situation tends to become chronic and is passed from one generation to the next so that the difficulty of changing this circumstance tends to be compounded. Finally, the percentage of high-school graduates in North Carolina increased at a faster rate than did that in the United States as a whole. But in most categories, the proportions of college graduates increased more slowly in the state than in the nation at large. Many of the disadvantages in educational attainment suffered by North Carolinians as compared with Americans in general result from the smaller amounts of money which the state has been able to put into its school programs. For example, in 1960-1961, North Carolina ranked forty-sixth among the 50 states in its annual per-pupil expenditure for education ($2^1), surpassing only Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Obviously, it fell far below the national average of $375. This handicap helped to place the average number of students per elementary teacher at 51.^ as compared with 28.9 in the nation and the average number of secondary students at 25.1 per teacher as compared with 20.6 in the nation. Yet in I960, North Carolina

PAGE 265

2*^6 spent about ^ per cent of its per capita income on education, ajid ranked second aaong the states in this respect. Therefore, much of the relatively poor educational attainment of many of its people is the legacy of earlier decades and arises from the fact that the absolute amounts of money available for education are smaller than those which can be had in most other states, even though a comparatively high percentage of the per capita income is used for this purpose. Furthermore, North Carolina's position has been evaluated in the present study for I960 in order to retain comparability with data used in other chapters, but since that time, substantial strides have been made in education. Improvements in education in the state and the nation may also be evaluated by means of school enrollment data for persons a^ed 10-1^. This age range was selected because virtually all children within it are eligible by age to be in school and under state law they are expected to be attending. Moreover, data on the subject are available for as early as 1890, and permit some long-term trends to be examined. Thus observation of Figure 56 indicates that persons of both races in North Carolina and the nation now are much more likely to be enrolled in school than were those in previous decades. Moreover, the rate of increase -'Cf. Hugh T. Lefler and Albert R. Newsome, North Carolina (revised ed. , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 196?), p. 621.

PAGE 266

PERCENT 95

PAGE 267

2^8 in the proportion of white persons enrolled has been greater in the state than in the nation, so that in I960, there was virtuallj no difference between the two. However, the differentials between the races persist. Not only do nonwhites in North Carolina have a poorer enrollment record than do those in the nation, but since I960 there has been virtually no increase in the percentage of enrollment among the former. Thus even though North Carolina has had a compulsory attendance law since 1907, in I960, over 5 per cent of the nonwhite youngsters aged 10-1^ and about 5 per cent of the white were not actually registered. These proportions represent over 15,000 nonwhite and more than 19,000 white children. For the most part, excluding those who are physically or mentally incapable of school work, these youth come either from the lower socioeconomic levels or from extremely rural areas where education is less valued. Obviously, a disproportionately large share of them is nonwhite. When long-term trends in education are assessed by means of the median years of schooling completed by persons in various age ranges, those in any given age group are found to have received somewhat more schooling than the ones who are their immediate elders.^ (See Figures 37 and 58.) o^^ T ^? ^ discussion of this topic, see Conrad Taeuber and Irene B. Taeuber, The ChanRing Population of th e United States (New York: John Wiley S nd^ijons, I nc. , 19b8), p.

PAGE 268

249 MEDIAN URBAN WHITES RURAL-NONFARM WHITES RURAL-FARM WHITES URBAN NONWHITES RURAL-NONFARM NONWHITES RURAL-FARM NONWHITES 25 30 35 45 55 AGE 65 75 Figure 37. Median number of years of schooling completed by males aged 25 and over, by age, color, and residence. North Carolina, I960.

PAGE 269

250 MEDIAN 25 30 35 Figure 58, Median niimber of years of schooling completed by females aged 25 and over, by age, color, and residence. North Carolina, I960.

PAGE 270

251 Thus in I960, almost 50 per cent of the state's white men aged 65-69 was functional illiterates as compared with only ^ per cent of those aged 25-29. Moreover, 5 per cent of the older men but 12 per cent of the younger ones had graduated from college. Similar patterns exist for white women although the extremes are not as great. In both cases, the median years of schooling attained by persons aged 25-29 is almost double that reached by those aged 65-69. Similar patterns of change by age are found in the three residence categories, although urban inhabitants have higher levels of education than rural people of comparable ages. However, beyond age ^5, there is very little difference between the levels of education attained by rural-faj:™ ajid rural -nonfarm whites. Nonwhites exhibit about the same patterns of increase in the level of education by age as do whites. Thus in I960, over 65 per cent of the nonwhite males aged 65-69 were functional illiterates as compeired with 17 per cent of those aged 25-29. Moreover, while 1 per cent of the older men had graduated from college, more than 5 per cent of the younger ones had done so, Nonwhite women show similar tendencies, although in all age ranges they are considerably better educated than males. As is the case with the white population, the median years of schooling for nonwhites of both sexes aged 25-29 was nearly double that of persons aged 65-69.

PAGE 271

252 However, while the levels of schooling attained by urhan, rural -nonf arm, and rural -farm whites tend to converge in the younger age ranges, the opposite is true for nonwhites. Thus the differences between nonwhites in the three residential categories are much greater for persons aged 25-29 than they are for those in the older age ranges. The outstanding fact, of course, is that urban nonwhites aged 25-29 have much higher levels of schooling than do their fellows in any other residential category or age range. In summary, those in North Carolina who have received the most schooling are white, young adults living in cities or on the major military installations; whereas those who have gotten the least amount of training are elderly Negroes living in all of the residential areas, but especially in the rural districts.

PAGE 272

CHAPTER X OCCUPATIpNAL STATUS A study of the occupational profile of a population is a logical complement to a consideration of its levels of education for both are intimately associated with the plsme of living. In fact, education, occupation, and income or fineincial power are frequently used as criteria to evaluate socioeconomic status. Even different patterns of behavior and total ways of life may exist for people in various occupations. In particular, agriculture still pervades much of the occupational scene in North Carolina and influences many other social characteristics. Moreover, the fact that a sizeable share of state's farming enterprises provides inadequate levels of living is a fundamental fact which directly affects a third or more of its people. This is reflected in part in the efforts by various state administrations to attract new industries and to encourage resident entrepreneurs to develop others. Unfortunately, these intentions are handicapped by the gap between the need for skilled personnel in many such industries on the one hand and ""Cf. Elgin P. Hunt, Social Science; An Introduction to the Study of Societv (second ed. , New York: The Macmillan Co., 1961), p. 286. 255

PAGE 273

2^^ the actual level of training which many potential workers have received on the other. Thus North Carolina's interest in providing better education, in reducing the chronic underemployment in agriculture, and in attracting new industries are inextricably interwoven. The related fourfold need to move some people out of subsistence agriculture, to raise the levels of those who continue to farm, to train many who prefer to seek other Jobs, ajid then to make those other jobs available, constitutes a formidable set of social problems. Thus agriculture as an encompassing way of life makes up the background against which North Carolina's occupational situation, and especially the changes in it, should be studied. This is not to negate other important and expaniing occupational pursuits, but simply to acknowledge the existence of one dominant factor in the state's job-holding situation. Manufacturing, which employs many more people in North Carolina than does agriculture, does not create the same pattern of poverty produced by low-status farming, even though the wages paid in some industries are relatively low. T For a discussion of excesses of workers in agriculture, see Theodore W. Schultz, Agriculture in an Unstable Economy (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 19^5), p. ^Cf. D. Gale Johnson, "Mobility as a Field of Economic Research," in Population Theory and Policy; Selected Readings, by Joseph J. Spengler and Otis Dudley Duncan Ceds.) Illlencoe, 111.: The Free Press), 1956, p. 486.

PAGE 274

255 The Labor Force Among North Carolina's 4,556,155 inhabitants in I960 v;ere 3,118,526 who were aged 14 and over. Of these people eligible to be in labor force, 1,75^*562 or 56.5 per cent actuedly were within it. This group included 1,154,511 males and 600,051 females or 76.1 per cent and 37.5 per cent, respectively, of all males and females aged 14 and over. (See Figures 39 and 40.) In the nation as a whole, 77.4 per cent of the eligible males and 34.5 per cent of the females v;era in the labor force, indicating that North Carolina's group contains relatively fewer males but more females than does that in the United States at large. The relative proportions of the sexes in the labor force also may be shown by mesms of sex ratios, which v;ere 192 males for each 100 females in North Carolina's labor force but 212 in that of the nation. This proportionately greater share of females in the state's work force is due partly to the textile mills which employ many women, and partly to the fact that many of North Carolina's young women have moved to its cities where their employTnent rate is compa-ratively high. For complete definitions of "labor force" and other terms used by the Bureau of the Census in classifying the materials on occupational status, see U.S. Census of Population; 1960 ^ General Social and Economic Characteri.stics , North Carolina , Final Report PCC1)-35C (1961), pp. xxviixxxvii.

PAGE 275

256 1 1

PAGE 276

257

PAGE 277

2.'L Nonwhites (aostly Negroes) are an important part of the labor force in North Carolina. Thus in I960, there were 582,213 nonwhites in the work force, comprising 21.8 per cent of the total. But while this is a substantial share of people, nonwhites actually were underrepresented, for :;hey made up 22.7 per cent of the population aged 1^ and over. In the nation as a whole, nonwhites were 10.6 per cent of the labor force and had oeen since 19^0. 3y sex, higher proportions of the nonwhite females than of the white are in the state's labor force, whereas lower percentages of the nonwhite males than of the white are so involved. This situation is due partly to the greater tendency for nonwhite women to be heads of households with dependent children to support, and partly to the loss through migration of Negro males aged 17-24. In fact, the latter movement has been go massive that between 19^0 and I960, the absolute number of nonwhite men in the state's labor force decreased by over 25,000. In addition, the proportion of the labor force which was nonwhite dropped from 29 per cent to 22 per cent. Obviously, part of the loss of Negro men is due to the prevalence of menial and poorly paid jobs, chiefly in agriculture. In turn, this situation results from racial antagonisms, relatively low levels of education, and inadequate job training, all of which discriminate heavily against the nonwhite population.

PAGE 278

.^b9 At all ages above 1^, the proportions of eligible white males who aj?e actually in the labor force are greater than those of the nonwhite. (See Figures 59 and ^0.) In general, this is also true on a county basis. (See ?i ;ure ^1.) However, a study of Figure ^0 indicates a different pattern among females. Thus nonwhite females enter the labor force at an earlier age than whites, and they tend to labor many years longer than their white sisters, often being forced by economic necessity to spend even their "retirement" years working. Moreover, while white woiien aged 21-22 are the most likely of their racial group to be employed, nonwhites aged ^5-^9 are the most likely of their color cate^-^^ory to be working. During the ages 23-39, m'iny white women who held jobs after leaving high school or college marry, build homes, and rear children. But when the children have grown and have embarked upon their own careers, some white women again seek employment; and the proportion of those aged 4040in the labor force is higher than in other age ranges except 21-22, This situation exists fo.^ urban, rural-nonfarm, and rural-farm white women. Also, many self-supporting single, widowed, and divorced women are represented in the older age ranges. But no measureable decrease during the ages when childbirth is most likely to occur takes place among nonwhite women in the state. Thus in 19bO, the proportions of those in the labor force increased with age

PAGE 279

260 "2 '-' c; o

PAGE 280

without interruption to a high of 57.5 per cent of the oaes aged 45-'*-9. Negro women often hold jobs froni which they take temporary leaves for childbearing, but the need to earn a living soon forces them to return to whatever employment is available. As a result, there is no temporary decrease in the proportion of nonwhite women in the labor force comparable to that which occurs among whites. Approximately the sajne differences between white and nonwhite women occur in the national labor force. The composition of the labor force varies considerably by residence. (See Figures 59 and ^0.) For example, there is significant variation between urban and rural-farm males. The latter are more heavily represented in the labor force when they are 14-2^ or 50 and over. On the other hand, urban men abound in the labor force when they are 50-59, but upon reaching age 65, a relatively large share of them retire. Farm men are more apt to continue working until they die, lajTgely because the agricultural enterprise tends to be a total way of life which one does not abandon with the same facility that one leaves an industrial job. Furthermore, above the ages 25-29, smaller percentages of ruralnonfarm males than of urban or rural-farm men are in the labor force. But those aged 20-2^ have higher rates of participation than do city or farm men. Of course, in North Carolina, a considerable share of these young white men is

PAGE 281

262 in the armed services rather than in civilian jobs. Thus in I960, 9.5 per cent of the total rural -nonf arm labor force was made up of military personnel. When the latter are excluded, the rate of participation of rural-nonfarm white males in the civilian labor force is lower at all ages than are those of rural-farm and urban men. These same general patterns also exist for nonwhites. Of course, white men in all three of the residence categories are more likely than are nonwhites to be in the labor force. Observation of Figures 39 and ^4-0 suggests that urban women of all ages have higher rates of involvement in the labor force than do rural-nonfarm or rural-farm women. Those living on farms are especially underrepresented, but, of course, this is artificial since much of the work which they perform does not qualify them for official inclusion in the labor force. The Job status of urban women is more clearcut, for they either hold jobs outside of the home or they do not; but the involvement of farm women in the agricultural enterprise is less easily identified. In addition, of course, the potential female labor force in farming areas is greatly reduced by the migration of many young women to cities where they do find jobs. Finally, at most ages, the proportions of rural-nonfarm women in the labor force tend '^Cf. Conrad Taeuber and Irene B. Taeuber, The Changing Population of the United States (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), pp. 216-217.

PAGE 282

263 to be intermediate between those of urban and farm females. The same general patterns, by residence, occur for white and nonwhite women, although nonwhite urban women are especially likely to be in the labor force, reaching 70 per cent of the ones aged '^O-^^. The relationship between residence and labor-force status also may be examined by means of the sex ratios. Thus urban whites had a ratio of 16^ and urban nonwhites a relatively low one of 116. In rural -nonf arm areas, the sex ratio was 22? for whites and 181 for nonwhites. That for rural-farm whites was 290, and for nonwhites, 272. Thus cities have much higher proportions of women of both races in the labor force than do the rural districts. In addition to those who were in the labor force in I960, 1,564,16^ or ^5.7 per cent of the persons aged 1^ and over were classified otherwise. Women in all marital categories made up 75.^ per cent of this group, but while only about one-third of those single and divorced were excluded from the work force, nearly two-thirds of the married and widowed were not included within it. Thus a substantial proportion of the North Carolinians not classified as being in the labor force are women engaged in maintaining homes and rearing children, or are widows who live on incomes from other sources than their own labors. However, in relative terms, white women in both of these groups are underrepresented in the labor force while nonwhites are overrepresented.

PAGE 283

2d^ The remaining groups of people not in the labor force, in addition to those classified as "other," are the ones enrolled in school and those who are inmates of institutions. In I960, there were 515,955 people aged 1^ and over registered in schools, accounting for about a tenth of the total population of these ages and 25.0 per cent of all those not in the labor force. The sexes were about evenly represented among them, and whites were slightly better represented than nonwhites. Finally, there were 57,5'*-l inmates of institutions who accounted for 2.7 per cent of those aged 1^ and over not actually in the labor force. Nesirly two-thirds were males, and among them, nonwhites were greatly overrepresented. On the other hand, nonwhite females were underrepresented in the institutional population. A certain proportion of the labor force is, of course, unemployed, although the rapid fluctuations in this status make it impractical to present a detailed analysis on the basis of I960 data. However, some general conclusions concerning unemployed males are in order. First, the percentage of unemployed white males tends to be somewhat higher in North Carolina than in the nation as a whole. Second, the proportion of nonwhite males in this category tends to be lower in the state thaja in the nation, chiefly because a relatively large share of the state's Negroes work in agri-

PAGE 284

265 culture in which the level of unemployment is comparatively low. Third, within North Carolina, Negroes have substantially higher rates of unemployment than whites in each of the three residence categories. Fourth, urban people in the state generally have higher rates of unemployment than do rural-farm people, while rural -nonf arm workers closely resemble the urban population in this respect. Fifth, unemployment in the state varies considerably by age, with those 15-19 experiencing much higher rates than persons in all other ranges. This is especially true in cities and of the nonwhite population. For example, in I960, over 15 per cent of all nonwhite urban youths aged 15-19 was unemployed. Sixth, the highest levels of unemployment exist among "operatives and kindred workers" in manufacturing and related industries which axe located in urban eireas, whereas comparatively low levels occur among professional and technical workers, mauiagerial personnel, household servants, and clerical and sales people. Class of Worker Since 194-0, the Bureau of the Census has published data which permit the identification of workers according to whether they work for others, are self-employed, are employed by governmental agencies, or labor without pay on a family farm or in a family business. Thus of the 1,605,^78 North

PAGE 285

266 Carolinians who were employed in I960, 1,171 '^26 or 75.0 per cent were classified as private wage and salary workers, 2^2,^36 (15.1 per cent) as self-employed workers, 159,691 (9.9 per cent) as government workers, and 51»923' (2.0 per cent) as unpaid family workers. In the nation as a whole, the corresponding proportions in the four classes were 75.0 per cent, 15.7 per cent, 15.7 per cent, and 0.5 per cent, respectively. Females were more likely than males to be working as private wage and salary workers, unpaid family workers, or as those in government, but were much less likely than men to be directing the enterprises in which they were employed. By residence, 80.0 per cent of all urban workers were in the wage -and -8 alary category as compared with 77.^ per cent of those living in rural-nonfarm areas, but only ^5.5 per cent of the ones in rural-farm districts. Only 8,1 per cent of the urban workers were self-employed as compared with 11.5 per cent of those in rural-nonfarm areas, but ^5.0 per cent of the workers on farms. Government workers, of course, are much more likely to be classified in the urban population where they were 11.5 per cent of all workers as compared with 10.2 per cent of those in rural-nonfarm districts and 5.7 per cent of the ones in farming areas. Finally, unpaid family workers were a mere 0.6 per cent of the urban labor force, 1.1 per cent of the rural-nonfarm and 7.8 per cent of

PAGE 286

267 the rural-farm. Thus there is almost twice the proportion of wage and salary workers in cities as on farms; more than five tines the percentage of self-employed workers in ruralfarm as la urban areas; twice the share of governmental workers in cities as in rural-farm districts; and 15 times the proportion of unpaid family workers on farms as in cities. In all four categories, the rural-nonfarm workers resemble the urban group far more closely than they do the rural-farm. On a racial basis, nonwhites are more likely than whites to work for others or to labor as unpaid family workers, especially on farms, but they are less likely to be self-employed. Thus in I960, 72.1 per cent of the whites and 7^.8 per cent of the nonwhites were private wage and salary workers, and 10.0 per cent and 10.2 per cent, respectively, worked for governmental agencies. In addition, 16.3 per cent of the whites but only 12.0 per cent of the nonwhites were self-employed, whereas 1.7 per cent of the former and 5.1 per cent of the latter labored as unpaid family workers, largely in agriculture. Occupational Distribution The Bureau of the Census also divided the employed labor force into those who fall into major categories of Jobs. The numbers and proportions of males and females in

PAGE 287

268 each of these categories are given in Table 53. In addition, the differences between whites and nonwhites in the percentages who fall into the nine most important ones in the state and the nation are shown in Figure 42. Operatives and kindred workers employed in a wide variety of industries and in transportation were first in importance in North Carolina in I960, and included 24.8 per cent of the employed labor force. Workers in this category in the nation as a whole also exceeded those in any other class, but were only 18.4 per cent of the total. Furthermore, 158,017 or 39.6 per cent of the North Carolinians in this category were engaged in manufacturing, with over three-fourths of that number producing nondurable goods, chief among which are textile, tobacco, and food products. Some 58,116 people were drivers and deliverymen and accounted for 14.6 per cent of the total in the category. The remainder were scattered among dozens of other specific occupations. Males made up 59.9 per cent of the operatives category, but females constituted a larger share (41.1 per cent) than their representation in the total labor force would suggest, chiefly because about two-thirds of the large work force in the textile industry is composed of women. Second in the number of people employed was an inclusive category of agricultural workers, including farmers and farm managers and farm laborers and farm foremen. However,

PAGE 288

TABLE 35 OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION Of OffLOTED PERSONS, BY SEX, NORTH CAROLINA, I960 269 Occupatlonad category

PAGE 289

270 ou :,|S UJCK i^o "J^J^ *^uj 5S zO D
PAGE 290

271 their combination into one t^roup is designed only to place agriculture in its proper perspective as an employer of certain numbers and proportions of people, and all of those within it should not be assumed to have similar socioeconomic statuses. In all, 198,212 people or 12.5 per cent of the employed were working in agriculture. In the nation as a whole, only 6.1 per cent was so engaged. Within this inclusive category, faxmers (including owners, tenants, and sharecroppers) made up 62.^ per cent, farm laborers who are paid in wages constituted 25.8 per cent, and unpaid family workers were 11.1 per cent. In addition, there were 632 farm msuaagers, 555 farm foremen, and ^1 self-employed farm service laborers. These last three subclasses comprised less than 0.7 per cent of the total group. By sex, farming is dominated by a high proportion of males as indicated by the fact that 85.5 per cent of all agricultural workers in the state was men, although many women who worked at farm tasks were not actually classified as being in the labor force. Third in importance were craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers who numbered 187 » 126 and represented 11.7 per cent of the total employed. In the nation as a whole, the proportion was 15*5 per cent. Mechanics and repairmen accounted for 50,108 workers or 26.8 per cent of those in this category in North Carolina, foremen for 1^,9 per cent.

PAGE 291

272 and carpenters for I'^.l per cent. These are typically "masculine" occupations and 97.1 per cent of all people in the category was men. Fourth in importance w6re clerical and kindred workers, numbering 151,956 people or 9.5 per cent of the total as compared with 1^.^ per cent in the United States at large. In North Carolina, males in this category were twice as numerous as females, and the former made up four times as large a proportion of all male workers as did the latter of the female workers. Most of the women were working as secretaries, bookkeepers, and telephone operators. Men in the category were mostly shipping and stock clerks or workers in 27 other detailed occupations. Fifth in order in the state was the group of professional, technical, and kindred workers who numbered 126,^21 people and who made up 7.9 per cent of all those employed. This compares with a proportion of 11.2 per cent in the nation. About half of the North Carolinians in this group was women and half of the women was teachers and nurses. Within the category. North Carolina surpassed the nation in the proportions of teachers and religious workers,^ but it was behind the national averages in the percentages who For a discussion of the relationship between proportions of religious workers and the degree of rurality, see Waldo M. Burchard, "A Comparison of Urban and Rural Churches," Rural Sociology . Vol. ?8, No. 5 (Sept., 1963), pp. 271-278: ^ \ y ^ ^ ^J^

PAGE 292

275 were engineers, lawyers and judges, librarians, natural and physical scientists, nurses and doctors, and social scientists. None of the six remaining categories of workers contained more than 6.7 per cent of the state's total employed labor force. Managers, officials, and proprietors numbered only 108,075 and accounted for 6.7 per cent, with males being nearly nine-tenths of this group. But in the nation, 8,^ per cent of the total was in this category. Service workers (except household) totaled 10^,750 and amounted to 6,6 per cent of North Carolina's total work force, over half of whom were women. In the nation, 8,4 per cent of the employed was so classified. Sales workers in the state, numbered 105,184, or 6.4 per cent, of whom two-thirds was men; and in the nation people in this category constituted 7.2 per cent. Laborers (except farm and mine) in the state amounted to 80,975 people and made up 5.0 per cent of the total. Over 95 per cent of this group was men. The comparable figure for the nation is 4.8 per cent. Private household workers in North Carolina, totaling 70,995, comprised 4,4 per cent of all employed workers, but virtually all of them were women. By comparison, only 2.7 per cent of the workers in the United States as a whole was in this category. Finally, employed North Carolinians with occupations not reported numbered 75,005 or 4,7 per cent of the total, with

PAGE 293

27^ almost two-thirds being males ^ and nearly equal to the proportion (4.9 per cent) in the United States. The relative representation of males and females in the nine most important occupa-tional groups may be used to summarize the differences which exist on the basis of sex. Thus the ratios of males per female in each of five occupational groups are as follows: farmers ajid farm managers, seven; managers, officials, and proprietors, three; craftsmen and foremen, 17; farm laborers, two; and nonfarm laborers, 10. On the other hand, the ratios of females per male in the remaining four are the following: professional and technical workers, two; clerks, four; household workers, 61; and other types of service workers, two. In some occupations (professionals, farmers and farm managers, craftsmen and foremen, operatives, and farm laborers) the gap between the proportions of men eind women employed has narrowed over the years, but in the others it has widened. Moreover, these same relationships between the sexes appear for whites and for nonwhites except that the proportion of nonwhite female professional and technical workers is about twice that of males, largely because of the preponderance of nonwhite women as teachers in elementary and high schools and the comparative scarcity of nonwhite males in the other professions. Teaching, of course, has been an important avenue of access to the professions for Negroes in North Carolina, where they have been practically barred froB many other ralativaly high-status occupational pursuits.

PAGE 294

275 There are striking differences by race in the occupations of North Carolinians and of Americans in general. (See Figure 42.) Thus in I960, 52.2 per cent of all nonwhite workers in the state were domestics or service employees as contrasted with only 5.8 per cent of the white workers. In the nation, 53.3 per cent of the nonwhites and 9.3 per cent of the whites fell into this group. Furthermore, 10.5 per cent of the state's whites but 22.6 per cent of its nonwhites were farm owners, tenant, sharecroppers, or laborers. In the nation, 6.2 per cent of the whites and 9.1 per cent of the nonwhites fell into these classes. In North Carolina, 5.1 per cent of the white workers and 15.1 per cent of the nonwhites were nonfarm laborers; in the nation the comparable percentages were ^.2 aind 13.2 This higher proportion of nonfarm laborers in the nation was partly due to the fact that much of its unskilled nonwhite labor force is composed of people who have left Southern agriculture but who retain the status of laborer. Operatives accounted for 28.5 per cent of the state's white workers and for 17.8 per cent of its nonwhites, for 19.2 per cent of the whites in the nation and for 21,0 per cent of the nonwhites. Finally, in the professional, managerial, clerical and sales, and craftsmen categories, nonwhites in the state and the nation were greatly underrepresented as compared with whites.

PAGE 295

276 Industry Groups The members of North Carolina's employed labor force also are classified by the census according to 15 groups of industries. The numbers and proportions of employed males and females aged l^r and over who fell into these categories appear in Table 34. The outstanding fact is that in I960, manufacturing, with 509,193 workers or 31.7 per cent of the total, employed almost twice as many people as any other industry. Males made up nearly two-thirds of all persons in this industry group, but the sexes were about equitably represented on a proportional basis. Second in importance was wholesale and retail trade with 257,257 workers or 16.0 per cent of the total, and with males being exactly two-thirds of the total and slightly overrepresented. Agriculture (including forestry and fisheries), which long had been North Carolina's dominant industry, ranked third with 208,018 workers or 15,0 per cent of the total. Males predominated, of course, being more than four-fifths of the workers in this group, with females being proportionately scarce. In fourth place were professional and related services which employed 15^,905 people or 9.6 per cent of the total. But almost two-thirds of them was women, mainly teachers; and the category thus contained about three times more than its fair share of females. Fifth in .i..portance air.ong the industry groups was

PAGE 296

277 TABLE 5^ NUMBERS AND PiBCBNTAaES OF CIVILIANS AGED 1^ AND OVER EMPLOYED IN EACH OROUP OF INDOSTHIES, BY SEX, NORTH CAROLINA, I960

PAGE 297

278 personal service which accounted for 122,^05 people or 7.6 per cent of the entire employed group. Women predominated, being well over three-quarters of this group; and this imbalance was especially marked among the nonwhites. Construction, in sixth place, supplied Jobs for 98,224 or 6.1 per cent of the workers, with males making up practically all of this category. The remaining groups in descending order of importance, and the percentages of workers in each are: transportation, communication, and other utilities ('+•.6); public administration (5.1); finance, insurance, and real estate (2.7); business and repair services (1,7); entertainment and recreation (0.5); and mining (0.2). In addition, the industry group was not reported for 3.1 per cent. Males were more numerous than females in each of these. However, in finance, insurance, and real estate and among those for whom the industry was not reported, the ratio of males to females was relatively low. In summary, males were most heavily represented in manufactviring, agriculture, wholesale and retail trade, and construction, with these four groups comprising 7^.^ per cent of the total employed male labor force. On the other hand, manufacturing, professional and related services, personal services, and wholesale and retail trade accounted for 81,7 per cent of the female labor force.

PAGE 298

279 By race, on a proportional basis, white aales were OTerrep resented, and nonwhites underrepreaented, in the following: manufacturing; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; transportation, communication, and other utilities; public administration; business and repair services; and mining. On the other hand, the industries which had more than their pro rata shares of Negro males and less than their fair shares of white males are: agriculture; construction; personal services; professional and related services, which includes many nonwhite male teachers and ministers; and entertainment and recreation. Negroes also were overrepresented among those for whom the industry waa not reported. Obviously, nonwhites tend to be superabundant in the comparatively lowstatus and poorly paid Jobs, whereas whites appear in greater proportions in the ones which provide relatively high incomes and status. White females were proportionately more abundant than nonwhites in all of the industries except personal services, which accounted for over half of the nonwhites, and in agriculture. Clearly, when Negro women hold Jobs, they tend either to be domestics or to engage in farming, not infrequently as field hands who work for wages. Agriculture and manufacturing The relative importance of agriculture (including forestry and fisheries) and manufacturing as the industries

PAGE 299

280 froB which workers make their livings is highly significant in characterizing the society of which they are part. It has particular relevance for comparative degrees of rural ity and urbanization. Therefore, ^Figure ^5 has been prepared to show the proportloaa of enployed workers who were engaged in these two industries in each of North Carolina's counties. One should note that in 1%0, while agriculture accounted for 15.0 per cent of all those employed and manufacturing for 31.7 per cent, the former clearly dominated the Upper Coastal Plain region and the latter most of the Piedmont region. (See also Table 55.) Furthermore, textile workers constituted 50. per cent of those engaged in manufacturing and furniture builders 15.9 per cent. Workers involved in the production of tobacco products, foodstuffs, machinery and equipment, and those engaged in the printing and publishing industries made up nearly all of the remainder of the manufacturing category. On a regional basis, the Tidewater, of course, has more than its pro rata share of people engaged in agriculture, but only slightly more than half of its fair share of those involved in manufacturing. The Upper Coastal Plain is dominated by agriculture of several kinds, but has far less than its proportional share of workers in manufacturing. The Piedmont, as is well known, is the center of the state's major manufacturing enterprises. Farming is Important in

PAGE 300

281 ^1 • (D O ^^ o (^ u a cc OJ o

PAGE 301

282 TABLE 35 PERCENTAOES OF MALES AOED l^f AND OVER IN THE LABOR FORCE AND OF ALL VORKERS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURING IN THE fiBSIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, I96O Region Per c«nt of all alaa aged lit and oTer in the labor force Per cent in agriculture Per cent in anufacturing White Nonwhite Tidewater Upper Coastal Plain Piedaont Mountain North Carolina 82.0 78.5 78.7 69.0 69.7 67.9 70.9 63.9 78.0 69.'f 20.5 26.2 7.1 12.7 13.0 17.0 19.9 38.^ 29.9 31.7 Souroea: Compiled and co-puted fro. data in U.S. Bureau of S; ':r^ P'S; Cenaua of P opulation: I960 . GenezjOs^c^^Sd f^^T ^fg ^gStJH. N°rth_Carolina. >L a Report PCa)-35C 29r ilble*87 • '''"'• ^^' '"• '^^-'^5' ^'^'^'^ ^^' and pp.'ii5-

PAGE 302

283 8oa0 of its ooxmtids but the region as a whole has little more than half of its pro rata share of those engaged in agriculture, Finally, the Mountain region^ with less than its fair share of workers in the labor force, also has relative scarcities of those engaged in manufacturing and also of those employed in agriculture. The latter rather paradoxical situation arises in large part from the fact that many people gain their livelihoods from subsistence farming of a type which does not qualify officially as a part of the agricultural industry, partly because of its sporadic nature and the chronic underemployment of many people involved. Some also are employed in a variety of other industries in Asheville. Industry variations and functions of cities The importance of the industry groups in the state's major cities may be used to identify the major functions of these centers. (See Table 56.) Many of the largest ones cannot correctly be associated with single, dominant activities, for such cities as Greensboro and Charlotte have become highly diversified. The latter, for example, is now an important wholesale and retail center, serves as a major hub for transportation and the distribution of goods throughout large parts of the North Carolina-South Carolina Piedmont, and is the location of important financial, insurance, and real estate interests. Many of tae cities are vastly more

PAGE 303

w o gig i^ 8 4* O « P O 5 H •• • 4> • O « if: ^31 •33 . • t< 0) H U O tJ *> 53 o d -H •H O » ** -H ^ P * -rl 3 i ^ H o o 284 CTvK^f-40000 VOC^lAoin H r-i rH ,H O^rvjoooooQ iTNaDvpaorj \p vO q -* rvj (A trStTvoo r\l -4oo vOjriKiKcN. (Si-iSrvcS oomaoooo ^ cv-^ oc JQ a^\orv-j-eo iHr-l rH r-l f-»H r-tr-li-tr-lr^ iH r-l Rg^^g E^?^?:^^ ^^5\RS \R^:^s^5 Q C^qo O Jvo vooOf^^vo JS vo (r>>J&co rg uS i-l On C^ i?S H rH r-l r-( iH OO O CO h^ !0 IC'^2^S^^ K^HK^O^vX> -JKNOKN.*' H j-*avKNC^ inc^^ojc^ ONcor^iAvb • • O -rl • V • r-l & b •< < m u o O d d 4J O U jj ») «> 4> o S ,-) (d 3 O Q C) 6m O o • o ti H d i> 5 W t. Ih a d d • o •o • • ij ^ r-< • » d u o o Da M

PAGE 304

1^ 9 O r-j O • • * t4 ** 0^/5 a, « • « U 0) q 3 n « 4^ • §§ a » o a -H t-l o ^ -P -rt -H ^t o +> q 3 h d B e S B XI >. o -P I P o JjCO f^vO rH H ON C^ , S lA H (\JV£)K\ KMr\C^f\JK% vooo-3-Hoor^ ir\ lA v£» J-iOOlAOoOOOlPv rvj fM C^oo c\J H rA CTv vo 00 f\J r-H rH r^ r-l rH r^ r-I -* lA C^ O u 5"^ H r-( O CO 13 Waa»,5 •HSOr-^'S ©^Sr^r^S • 90«« 9 O O ti Ci ^ ** fi ^ -ri ri Ji-^xart psosKOTOT w«iP>>> O r-H p u O r-I
PAGE 305

286 complex in their industrial and social composition than were the early "mill towns" which grew up around the textile plants. Many of them are heterogeneous and diverse in the occupational opportunities which they offer, the kinds of people that they attract, the social forms which they exemplify and functions which they perform. Consequently, they often constitute the nuclei of much larger tributary areas within which are found rural -nonf arm and rural-farm people as well as urbanites living in other centers of various sizes. In summary, while it is possible to identify the major functions which give these ciUes their particular characters, there is a strong tendency toward great diversity of occupational pursuits in most of them. The 56 cities with 10,000 or more inhabitants may be classified into several distinct types on the basis of the industries in which comparatively large proportions of their civilian male workers are engaged.*^ For this purpose, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and transportation and communication are the most significant industries with which a large share of the cities is identified. In fact, these three industries occupy at least half of the workers in 53 of the cities. Of course, some centers specialize heavily in other industry groups such as the professions and public administration. ~7 4 mw „^^' '^' ^y^ Smith, "The Functions of American Cities in The Sociology of U rban Life by T. Lynn Smith and C.A. McMahan (,eas.; QNew York: WE Dryden Press, 1951), pp. 97-

PAGE 306

237 For purposes of classification, the percentages of male workers who fell into the several major industry groups in the urban population of the nation at large were taken as bases of 100. North Carolina's cities then were placed into their respective groups when thej had significantly higher proportions than the nation of workers in the various industry groups. For this purpose, an index of 150 was the minimum criterion used in classifying a given city. Thus no center was identified as specializing in a given function unless it had at least I50 per cent of its pro rata share of the nation's male workers who were engaged in the corresponding industry. The percentages of males in the nation's urban labor force who were classified in the major industry groups were: manufacturing, 52.5; wholesale and retail trade, 18.8; transportation, communication, and other utilities, 9.^; construction, 8.0; the professions axA related fields, 7.8; public administration, 6,^\ and finance, insurance, and real estate, ^.1. The remaining indujtrlea were not used because none of North Carolina's cities specialized heavily in them. However, all of the cities had more than their pro rata shares of household and service workers, but this is typical of Southern cities and does not serve to differentiate them from each other. Moreover, only four of North Carolina's cities had indexes of 150 or more in two or three industry groups. On the other hand, the

PAGE 307

288 proportions of workers In the ••veral industries did not attain this ninimum basis for identification of a specialty fxinction in 13 of the urban places. Thus while many of the state's urban centers tend to specialize in one function, more than a third of them do not specialize at all. The latter are the diversified cities which perform a multitude of functions. Manufacturing cities , according to our criteria, are those which had at least 150 per cent of their pro rata shares of workers engaged in the production of goods of various kinds, chiefly textiles, furniture, and tobacco products. None of them, of course, had indexes as high as 150 in any other industry group. They include, in descending order of specialization: Kannapolis (index 193)* Thomasville, Lexington, High Point, Lenoir, Burlington, eind Gastonia. Trading centers , in which wholesale and retail trade was the only category with sufficient workers to produce an index of 150 or more, are less common in North Carolina than in many other areas. In I960, only Fayetteville fell into this group. Some other cities do combine this speciality with one or more others, however, and are mentioned separately below. Cities specializing in transportation , in which the only index exceeding 150 is that for railroading, shipping,

PAGE 308

289 and trucking, and so on Include Rocky Moxmt (index 189) whose workers are importantly involved with railroad Jobs, and Vilmington in which far more than the national proportion of workers is engaged in the many jobs associated with water transportation. Cities in which construction is the only function which meets the minimum standard for identification of specialized activites, include, in descending order, Monroe (index 205) Eeidsvllle, Wilson, and Kinston. The professions and related activities as the only function producing an index of 150 or more generally predominate in cities in which colleges or universities are the major enterprises. In I960, they included Chapel Hill (index 656) whose occupational situation is dominated almost exclusively by the University of North Carolina, and Durham in which the concentrations of teachers and administrators at Duke University and of professional people in other fields are instrumental in raising the proportion of these workers. In Dtirham, there is a comparatively heavy concentration of Negro professional workers, few of whom are associated with the University. Finally, Haleigh also falls into this group, partly because professional personnel of maiiy varieties work closely with those in the branches of state government found in the capital city. Raleigh also

PAGE 309

290 contains more than its pro rata sheire of persons engaged in public administration, although it does not have an index of 150 for this fimction. Public administration is the only function producing aji index of I50 or more in those cities in which governmental activities at various levels employ a relatively large share of the workers. There are two such centers in North Carolina, namely New Bern (index 272) and Elizabeth City. Cities with two or three major functions , each of which produces an index of at least 150, are relatively scarce in North Carolina, numbering only four of the 56. In I960, these cities, along with the functions which qualified them as specialty centers according to our criteria, were: Goldsboro which emphasizes construction and trade; Greenville which is heavily involved in trade and the professions; Salisbury which has a great overrepresentation of workers in transportation and the professions; and Jacksonville which has a large share of workers engaged in each of three fields, that is in trade, finance, and public administration. Highly diversified cities are those in which a great variety of jobs abounds. In these 15 centers, no industry provided Jobs for as many workers as would be necessary to

PAGE 310

291 produce the »lnlBua index of 150, They may be subdivided into two distinct types. On the one hand are four large central cities of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas which are highly diversified and whose workers are engaged in such a multitude of pursuits that the cities cajinot be identified by one or a few dominant functions. They include Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem. On the other hand are nine cities of 10,000-20,000 which also are quite diversified, chiefly because they are comparatively self-sufficient centers located in areas of the state which are less under the influence of the largest metropolises. These much smaller urban places have avoided becoming highly specialized satellites of such larger centers, but have expanded to the point of offering most of the services which persons in the surrounding area find necessary. As a result, their labor forces do not specialize heavily in any one field. Most of them do have more than their pro rata shares of workers in manufacturing, trade, or construction, but not sufficiently large shares to identify the cities as being specialized in these fields. The smaller centers are Albemarle, Concord, Henderson, Hickory, Lumberton, Roanoke Q Rapids, Sanford, Shelby, and Statesville. W ' ?or a detailed discussion of the functions of various cities in North Carolina, see F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. and Shirley P. Weiss (eds.). Urban Growth Dynamics in a Regional Cluster of Cities (New YorFi John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962) passim .

PAGE 311

292 Trends Changes in the relative shares of males and females, by color, participating in the labor force are shown in Figure ^'4-. The outstanding feature is the increasing involvement of females of both races. Thus between 1920 and I960, the proportion of the white females in the labor force rose from 18 to 37 per cent, and that of the nonwhites from 58 to ^0 per cent. Obviously, a concomitant decrease in the percentages of males in the labor force also occurred, with that for whites dropping from 85 to 78 per cent, and that for nonwhites from 87 to 69 per cent. The increases among women arise from basic changes in their occupational roles in American society and from the fact that larger shares of them now live in cities where the tendency to take paid jobs outside the home is comparatively strong. The decreases among males occurred chiefly in the ages 1^-17 and stem from the fact that in I960, a larger percentage of these youths was enrolled in school than was the case in 1920. Furthermore, a comparatively large share of men aged 18-29 had migrated from the state. The changes which took place between 19^+0 and I960 in the types of jobs held by males and females appear in Figures ^5 and ^4-6, respectively. The proportions of white males employed as farmers and farm managers declined significantly from 27 per cent in 19^0 to 10 per cent in I960.

PAGE 312

293 PERCENT 90

PAGE 313

294

PAGE 314

IDI .JJL..^ I i I ^^. IJ.UJ Otq: uja: 2::i
PAGE 315

296 The percentages of white males who were farm and nonfeirm laborers also decreased as did those of household and service workers. But in every other occupational group, most of them closely associated with greater urbanization, the relative shares of white males increased during the period, with the greatest growth occurring among professional and technical workers and craftsmen. Finally, in I960, operatives made up the largest single occupational group among white males in the state, having replaced farmers and farm managers in this respect between 19^0 and 1950. Nonwhite males are still greatly underrepresented in the occupations which provide .comparatively high incomes and socioeconomic status, but the difference between the races was less in this respect in I960 than it was in 19^0. Thus the proportions of nonwhite males who were professional and technical workers, clerks and salesmen, craftsmen, and operatives increased; whereas those of farmers and farm managers and farm laborers decreased. However, the percentages of household and service workers increased and those of nonfsirm laborers remained about the same. As late as I960, 5^4per cent of all nonwhite males in North Carolina's labor force was still working as unskilled laborers and another 12 per cent was employed as service personnel. White females are employed mainly as operatives and as clerks and saleswomen, but the proportions of those in

PAGE 316

297 the first group have decreased whereas the percentages in the second have increased. But except for the relative decrease among white females who were classified as farm laborers, their proportions in the other groups have changed very little. Indeed, the occupational situation of white females tends to be more static than that of men, partly because the jobs held by many women are designed to supplement the income of a male wage earner or are temporary preludes to marriage, having only an incidental relationship to the widespread pattern of occupational nobility as a means of improving one's social status, Nonwhite females continue to be engaged mainly as household and service workers, the proportions being 6^ per cent of the total in 19'^^0 and 61 per cent in I960. The percentages of nonwhite women employed as professional and technical workers, clerical and sales personnel, and operatives increased slightly, whereas the relative importance of those engaged in agriculture, either as farm operators or as farm laborers, decreased somewhat. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of nonwhite women are still employed in low-status jobs, and only slov/ly are they able to secure employment except as servants. Variations in the proportions of all workers who fell into 12 industry groups appear in Figure 4?. Data for both North Carolina and the United States as a whole have been

PAGE 317

298 i-l H a> o So -| Q. 4> O O «5 +• — (fl t3 cdZ o nj Pi o la

PAGE 318

299 included for comparative purposes. Observation of this chart makes it evident that the most important tendency has been for the profile for North Carolina to come to resemble more closely that of the nation as a whole. Highly significant is the fact that the proportion of North Carolinians engaged in agriculture (including forestry and fisheries) decreased from 5^ per cent in 19^0 to a mere 13 per cent in I960. That of workers employed in personal services also declined. But the percentages in each of the other 10 categories either remained the same or increased. These fluctuations make it possible for the state to "catch up" with the nation in such areas as construction, transportation and communication, wholesale and retail trade, and public administration. In addition, the state maintained its lead over the nation in the proportion of people engaged in manufacturing. The textile industry, of course, is largely responsible for this circximstance. In total, while the state still lags behind the nation in the proportions of people who fall into the categories which provide relatively high incomes and status, the disparity was less in I960 than it was twenty yeeirs earlier.

PAGE 319

CHAPTER XI FERTILITY: RATES OF REPRODUCTION The rate at which the propulation reproduces is a basic aspect of population study. Furthermore, it is one of the vital processes , mortality being the other, and the two along with migration are the only primary factors which can influence the number of people and their distribution. In addition, fluctuations in levels of fertility are indicative of many other social situations and changes which cause people to produce majiy or few children, and are especially related to age, sex, race, residence, educational status, occupation, religion, and others. Because of the influences which may be brought to bear on the actual levels of reproduction, in assessing human fertility in North Carolina it is useful to ascertain: (1) the ways in which levels of reproduction compare with those in other states and in the nation as a whole; (2) the differences which exist between rural and urban people; (5) the variations which occur between the races; (4) the differences which are found by geographical areas within the state; and (5) the long-term trends in fertility that have emerged and the ways in which they compare with those in other parts of the nation. As mentioned in Chapter I, the fertility ratio (number of 300

PAGE 320

501 children aged 0-4 per 100 women aged 15-44) is the index most used in the present study to examine the rates of reproduction. The size of household also is employed a^ a supplement to the fertility ra,tio. Several indexes might be used to measure the levels of fertility, including the crude birth rate, several types of standardized or refined birth rates, the net rate of reproduction, the rate of replacement, and the fertility ratio. The crude birth rate is familiar to most readers and is calculated with ease, but it is computed from registration data which are likely to be lees accurate than are enumerated data, it does not compensate for age and sex variations in the population, and it generally cannot be calculated separately for small areas nor for the ruralnonfarm and rural-farm categories. This means that fertility in townships and even counties cannot be studied properly nor can that for the two divisions of rural people. The calculation of several of the other indexes mentioned above is complicated and the data for developing them are not always available. Therefore, the index used in the present study is the fertility ratio which is the number of children aged 0-4 per 100 women aged 15-44, Cf. T. Lynn Smith, Fundamentals of Population Study (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co,, 19S0) , p. 277, 2 Jot a comprehensive discussion of this index, see the work by its developer, Walter P. Villcox, Studies in American DeaoKraphy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1940), Chapter 17.

PAGE 321

302 Obviously, the fertility ratio is fairly well controlled by age and is not distorted by variations in the sex ratio. In addition, if one wishes to ascertain the basic trends in reproduction, the birth registrations for years prior to 1950 are almost certain to be less accurate than the census data upon which the fertility ratio is based. In fact, it was not until 1955, with the addition of Texas, that the registration area of the United States even came to include all of the states. The data necessary to compute the fertility ratio also are available for small population units in North Carolina and permit a far more comprehensive analysis than does the birth rate. Furthermore, when it is useful to translate the fertility ratio into the birth rate for purposes of comparison, this may be done according to a procedure devised by Smith in which an increase of 1.0 point in the former is accompanied by one of 0.65 in the latter. For many parts of the world, when reasonably dependable data on age and sex are available, the birth rates obtained in this manner are often more reliable than the reported rates. There are some disadvantages associated with use of the fertility ratio. For example, a concentration of women in one or a few of the five-year age ranges between 15 and ^^ may produce considerable distortion. Such a situation Smith, Fundamvintals ^ pp. 290-291

PAGE 322

303 actually does exist in North Carolina in which women aged 18-29 are relatively scarce on farms but superabundant in cities. Those are ages of comparatively high rates of reproduction and this situation tends to deflate the ratio in farming areas and to inflate that in urban centers. Furthermore, the data on which the fertility ratio is based are available only after each decennial census. Moreover, the use of children aged 0-Ameans that an additional time lag is added to the data. As a result of these factors, the age data for I960 upon which fertility ratios in the present study are based, relate to the situation as it existed on April 1, I960, but in the case of children aged 0-^, the ratio is oriented to those who were born during 1955-1959. For some purposes, especially in establishing trends, this time lag is a serious one, but all things considered, the fertility ratio is still the most reliable index of reproduction. State and National Comparisons The people of North Carolina have relatively low rates of reproduction as compared with the nation as a whole. The state's relative position may be seen in Table 57 in which the 50 states and the District of Columbia are ranked according to their fertility ratios. Moreover, the ratios Tf — For a discussion of these points, see ibid . , pp. 277279.

PAGE 323

30^ TABLE 57 FERTILITY RATIOS TOR THE 50 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA, BT COLOR, i960 State

PAGE 324

505 TABLE 57 continued

PAGE 325

506 are given separately for the races. In addition, an index of rurality has heen included in this table, using the percentage of rural whites and also the one for rural nonwhitos in the nation at large as 100. State indexes above 100 indicate a larger proportion of rural people, white or nonwhite as the case may be, and those below this figure, a smaller share. In general, because of its relatively large ruralfarm and Negro populations and the higher rates of reproduction of those in these categories, one would expect the fertility level in North Carolina to exceed that in the nation. However, in I960, the total population of the state had a ratio of 5^.5 as compared with one of 56,5 in the nation at laxge. By race, v/hites in the state, with a ratio of 48, 9* ranked even lower in comparison with those in the nation where the index was 5^,6, On the other hand, nonwhites in North Carolina had a fertility ratio of 72,5 as compared with a lower one of 69.2 for those in the nation. But the latter situation arises chiefly from the fact that a higher percentage of Negroes in the state is rural and that these people have significantly higher fertility levels than their urban fellows. When the data eire cross-classified by residence, whites and nonwhites in North Carolina exhibit lower levels of fertility in each residence class than do those in comparable categories in

PAGE 326

507 the nation as a whole. (See Table 58.) This circumstance results pa:rtl7 from a relative scarcity of females aged 1829, for it is during those ages that the peak rates of migration from North Carolina and of reproduction both occur. On the other hand, the state has comparatively high proportions of females aged 15-17 and of those aged 50-4^, but because they are less likely than the ones aged 18-29 to reproduce, their presence tends to deflate the fertility ratios. Of course, the lower fertility ratios in North Carolina than in the nation at large also are due partly to fundamental changes which have taken place in birth norms. These fluctuations have had the net effect of producing convergence of the fertility rates of urban and rural-farm whites to the point where the difference between them is negligible,^ Patterns of migration of young women from rural to urban areas also tend to deflate fertility ratios in the former but to inflate them in the latter, chiefly because comparatively high proportions of the migrants are in the ages of 18-29. In fact, so great is the magnitude of this influence on fertility levels in North Carolina, that the ratio for whites in I960 actually was slightly higher in cities than was that in farming districts. This situation is so paradoxical that it has created the need ^?or a discussion of some of the reasons for ruralurban differentials in fertility, see Donald J. Bogue (ed.). The Population of the United States (Glencoe, 111,: The Free Pre8s/l959). pp. 305-306,

PAGE 327

308 TABLE 38 FERTILITT RATIOS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, SIZE OF PLACE AND COLOR, I96O BT North Carolina ',±2.0 of place Dnited States Total Vhitee Nonwhites Total Vhites Nonwhitea All urban Urbanized areaa Central citiea Urban fringes Othar urban 10,000 or more 2,500-10,000 All rural Rurail-nonfara Ruralfarm 50.2 k6,3 'tg.i '5.8 ^8.7 ^5.1 5^.9 5^.1 51.1 ^7.1 50.5 ^.3 52.2 W.2 57.6 50.6 58.7 5^.6 5h.S 41.1 61.6 58.4 58.3 63.2 6if.5 62. i» 69.0 80.3 79.7 81.1 54.1 52.5 53.7 52.1 51.5 48.5 57.1 56.7 55.5 54.0 54.7 53.1 56.6 55.0 62.1 59.7 63.4 61.3 58.0 54.2 64.7 63.5 63.1 65.9 70.6 68.7 73.4 84.0 83.0 86.2 Sources: Coispiled and computed from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Cenaua of Population: I96O . General Population Ch aracter^tlcB, North Carolina . Final Report PC(1)-35B (1Q61), pp. K _ _ . . ... 56-40, Table 'J Pnited Sta tes Suasnary . Final Report PC(1)-1B (I96I), pp. 148-152, ^*^^« ^* general Social and Econoaic Characteristics . North Carolina . Final Report PCC1)-35C (1961), pp. I6I-I62, Table 37; and United s"t^es Sucnary , Final Report PC(1)-1C (1962), pp. 199-200, Table ZT.

PAGE 328

509 for an index of fertility by age ranges of women within the 15-^^ group, but no well-tested, reliable device is yet available for this purpose. Finally, the transfer of part of the 1950 farm population to the rural-nonf arm group in I960 has had the effect of lowering fertility ratios in the former and increasing them in the latter. In evaluating North Carolina's place among the states in levels of fertility, it should be noted that the ones whose people have higher fertility ratios than the nation exhibit a few sets of distinguishing characteristics. Some are those identified with frontier conditions such as in Alaska whose proportionately small female population bears comparatively large numbers of children. Others still contain relatively large rural-farm populations among whom women are proportionately scarce but fertility levels relatively high. Examples of such states are the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho. Still others with relatively high levels of fertility contain comparatively high proportions both of farm people and of Negroes. In many of them, the rates of reproduction among the nonwhites frequently are inordinately high, while those of whites often are relatively low. North Carolina is an example of such a situation, for although its total population ranked fortieth among the states (and the District of Columbia) in levels of fertility, its white population ranked fiftieth but its nonwhite group

PAGE 329

310 placed thtrt7-fir«t. Other states in which this situation exists are confined to the' "Deep South," and are well exemplified bj Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and others. However, even where they are almost exclusively urban, as is the case in most states of the Northeast and certainly in the District of Columbia, nonwhites have significantly higher levels of reproduction than do whites. In these instances, two factors are important: In the first place, such urbanized areas as these have received inordinately large shares of nonwhite females in the most fertile ages. In the second place, the comparatively high birth rates are often those found among people with recent farm backgrounds, comparatively little schooling, and relatively low levels of living. If these influences, especially that exerted by the rural background, were identical for the races, there is every reason to expect that rates of reproduction also would be alike. When the data on reproduction are examined by race and residence in both the state and the nation, one basic fact stands out: that is there are much greater differences in the levels of fertility between nonwhites in urban, r\iral-nonfarm, and rural-farm areas than there are between whites in these three residential categories. In I960, in the nation as a whole, the fertility ratios for urban, rural -nonf arm, and rural-farm whites were 52.5, 61.3, and

PAGE 330

511 5'<-.2, respectively, but the coa»parable figures for nonwhites were 64.7, 85.0, and 86.2. In North Carolina, the comparable indexes for whites were ^6.5, 5^.6, and 41.1, and for nonwhites they were 61.6, 79.7, and 81.1. This situation means, of course, that a substantial share of the differences between the fertility levels of whites and Negroes actually are those which arise from variations in residence. Variations Vithin the State Fertility rates differ widely within North Carolina as certain characteristics vary, producing wide fluctuations from one section of the state to another. To illustrate the pattern which these differences create, Figure 48 has been prepared in which the fertility ratios are shown by townships. A study of this map leads to the conclusions that: (1) fertility levels are highest in the eastern part of the state where the Negro farm population is proportionately abundant; (2) they are intermediate in the highly urbanized central part of the state where high percentages of people of both races live in cities and where they are influenced by urban birth norms and the age distribution; and (5) the rates are the lowest in the western one-third of North Carolina which contains disproportionately high percentages of elderly people, a relative scarcity of children, and very few Negroes.

PAGE 331

^y^.[l ^, 312

PAGE 332

513 Rural-urban differences It is also apparent from a study of Figure ^8 that in order for levels of reproduction to be evaluated accurately, it is necessary to account separately for those which occur in cities and in both subdivisions of the rural sector. Por this purpose, Figure ^9 has been prepared to show variations by residence in the fertility ratios for whites, and Figxire 50 to show those for nonwhites. The comparisons have been made between urban and rursil-farm inhabitants in order to evaluate the present status of the long, historical association between farm life and relatively high rates of reproduction on the one hand, and between urban life and comparatively low levels of fertility on the other. The rural -nonf arm population has been treated separately on a racial basis because of the variations which occur within that residential segment. In all of these cases, fertility ratios for county units have been used because of the unavailability of the detailed data for townships by race and residence. It is highly importeint that in most sections of North Carolina, there is much similarity between urban and ruralfarm whites in their rates of reproduction as measured by the fertility ratio. (See Table 38 and Figure ^9.) The relative scarcity of farm women aged 18-29 and their comparative abundance in cities has already been cited as

PAGE 333

31^ ^— ^

PAGE 334

315 o • H O •H H -P O

PAGE 335

316 partly responsible for this fact. But it is even more significant that the similarity between the two residence groups is partly the result of a long-continued decline in actual rates of reproduction among rural-farm whites. This situation, in turn, is indicative of basic changes in folk\/ayE related to births and in the values to which those folkways are associated, of increased comprehension of methods of birth control and of greater willingness to employ those methods, and of other important social facts. As a result of these factors, the rates of reproduction of urban and rxiral-farm whites have practically converged. In fact, in I960, those of farm people were even a trifle lower than the ones for city residents. Among nonwhites, the levels of reproduction are considerably higher in the rural districts than they are in cities, (See Table 58 and Figure 50.) This situation, of course, is the one which existed for many decades for members of both races, but it is now confined principally to the nonwhite population. As a result, farms are still the "seedbeds" for substantial numbers of Negroes who migrate as young adults to the cities of the state and the nation. In addition, nonwhites in urban centers produce more than enough children to replace the members of that Cf. Sel2 Kayo and C. Horace Hamilton, "Current Population Trends in the South," Social Forces , Vol. A-2, No. 1 (Oct., 1965), p, 85.

PAGE 336

317 race who die or move away. However, this comparatively high rate of reproduction is probably a lingering result of the recent rural-farm backgrounds of a high proportion of urban Negroes and this cultural lag should not be allowed to obscure the fact that levels of fertility anong nonwhites are about one-third lower in cities than on farms. This circumstance reflects the fundamental changes in reproductive behavior which are now occurring among nonwhites and which are similar to those that took place previously in the white population. In this respect, nonwhites are movljig away from a pattern created by the lower-class, rural-farm milieu and into one which Is m.ore characteristic of urban life and of somewhat greater affluence. Furthermore, levels of fertility tend to decrease among nonwhite populations who come under the Influence of urban centers even though they may continue to reside in the outlying rural districts. This situation is mirrored in the fact that the rates of reproduction among rural-farm nonwhites who live relatively close to North Carolina's cities are significantly lower than those of many farm nonwhites who reside in the more Isolated, traditional farming areas. In fact, rates of reproduction are seen to become progressively lower as one moves his attention from farming areas to rural-nonfarm districts, to small cities, and finally to the largest urban centers. (See Table 38.)

PAGE 337

318 The fertility levels of the rural-nonfarm population differ sufficiently from those in the urban and rural-farm groups to require careful consideration. For example, among whites, fertility ratios are higher in rural-nonfarm areas than they are either in cities or on farms. (See Table 38 and Figure 51.) However, they are nearly identical with those of people living in the urban fringes of large cities. Thus the comparatively high rates of reproduction in this segment of the white population reflects the fact that it is composed in paxt of young, married adults living in suburban areas where birth rates would be expected to exceed those in central cities. Clearly, this subxirban group has more than its pro rata share of persons in the most fertile ages, as compared with either of the other two major residence categories. In addition, the white people who are engaged in subsistence agriculture in some parts of the state also appeared in the rural-nonfarm category in higher proportions in I960 than in earlier decades, and their comparatively high rates of reproduction also serve to elevate that for this entire residence category. Among the nonwhite population living in rural-nonfarm areas, the levels of fertility tend to fall between those of persons living on farms and those residing in cities. However, the levels of the rural-nonfarm category are not greatly different from those of rural-farm people,

PAGE 338

319 -p ^

PAGE 339

520 but they aire much higher than those found in cities. Thus the fact that many of the rural -nonfarm nonwhites in North Carolina actually aje people engaged in subsistence agriculture tends to produce rates of reproduction which are very similar to those of people living in the rural-farm districts. In turn, this similajrity attests to the fact that in North Carolina, the basic differences in fertility tend to occur on a residential basis. When the many social factors which differentiate urban and farTn populations become less pronounced and homogenization of the two segments proceeds, the fertility differentials tend to disappear as they have among the white population. On the other hand, when the rural -urban differentials persist, then the fertility ratios in each residence category are quite different as they are among North Carolina's nonwhite population. Because of the important influence which is exerted on rates of reproduction by the sociocultural factors associated with each type of residence, the highest fertility ratios eimong rural -nonfarm Negroes are found in the Tidewater and Upper Coastal Plain regions where most of them actually are agriculturists. The individual counties involved are most of the same ones which also have high ratios for nonwhites living on farms. On the other hand, rural -nonfarm Negroes living in the Piedmont counties which contain many of the state's major cities, are apt to have fertility ratios which

PAGE 340

321 fall well below the state average for this group, suggesting that the many factors which create their birth patterns are shaped more hj urban influences than by rural-farm conditions. Differences by race It has been suggested above that the basic differences in levels of fertility in North Carolina arise from variations among the residential groups. This means that the fundamental disparities between the races are closely related to these residential differences which have already been evaluated. However, in summary, the following generalizations may be made concerning the racial differentials in rates of reproduction in North Carolina: (1) In the state as a whole, the Negro population is multiplying more rapidly than the white. But this seems to arise either from the fact that much larger shares of Negroes than whites still live in extremely rural situations, or from the fact that comparatively high proportions of Negroes who reside in cities have left farms in the recent past and retain many of the sociocultural features which originated in that background. Relatively high levels of fertility are one of these. (2) In all major residence categories, nonwhites reproduce at a higher rate than do whites, but the differences between them is far less in cities than it is on

PAGE 341

322 farms. For example, in 1%0, the fertility ratio of Negroes living in cities was about 52 per cent higher than that of whites, in rxiral -non farm areas it was 'vG per cent greater, but in farming districts it was 97 per cent higher. (5) The Negro and white populations both are reproducing the most rapidly in the eastern one-third of the state, and the least rapidly in the western one-third. The urbanized center of North Carolina is intermediate in the rates of reproduction of members of both races. Thus the same sociocultural influences which produce different rates of reproduction from one part of the state to another appear to operate in the same general way for whites and Negroes, If birth rates were influenced more significantly by race than by any other factors, this would not be the case, for Negroes would exhibit uniformly high rates no matter what their residential or geographical distribution might be, and whites would show comparatively low ones, (^) The Indian population exhibits patterns of fertility which are similar to those of Negroes, except that in all three residential categories, the state's indigenous population is reproducing at a greater rate than the Negro group. The former are overwhelmingly classified either as rural-farm inhabitants or as rural -nonfarm people who make their livings from subsistence agriculture, and their levels of fertility reflect this high degree of rtirality.

PAGE 342

325 Many other data on fertility in North Carolin could be analyzed by race in order to ascertain some of the ocioeconomic factors which are related to levels of reproduction. These materials are not included in the present study, ^ t have been scanned by the writer. They appear to provide ' ufficient basis for the following tentative preneralizations. In the first place, among nonwhites, improvements in the general level of living stand in a consistent inverse relationship with rates of fertility. Second, among whites, higher levels of living are associated with lower rates of fertility in a less consistent manner than is the case for nonwhites, with the former in a few of the highest brackets showing significantly greater rates of reproduction than those who live in somewhat more modest circumstances. Third, the fertility differential between whites and nonwhites tends to disappear entirely as the socioeconomic statuses of members of the two races converge. Finally, of the three major criteria of socioeoonomic status (income, occupation, and education), education stands in the most consistent inverse relationship with levels of fertility among the members of both racial groups. Variations by regions Regional differences generally bear out those which occur on a racial and especially on a residential basis in North Carolina. (See Table 59.)

PAGE 343

324 TABLE 59 VARIATIONS IN rEBTILITI RATIOS FOR THE MAJOR HB3I0NS OF NORTH CAROLINA, BI COLOR AND RJBIDISCE, I960 Color and residenc* North Carolina Uppor Tidewater Coaatal Plain Piedmont Mountain Whites:

PAGE 344

525 Whites in the Tidewater region have higher levels of reproduction than they do in any other region in the state, with those in each of the residence categories producing above-average fertility ratios. Even the small cities and towns in this region are strongly influenced by the rural milieu within which much of its white population functions. Nonwhites in the region also have higher rates of reproduction than the state average for members of that racial group. This is true in all of the residential categories; but the region still does not have the highest overall levels in the state. The fertility levels of whites and nonwhites in the Upper Coastal Plain exceed the state averages in each of the residence categories. However, the rates among nonwhites are inordinately high because of the extreme rurality of most members of this group who live in the region. Even those who are found in its cities exhibit levels of fertility which are well above the state average for the nonwhite urban population. Of course, many young women of that race who have left farms in the Upper Coastal Plain have simply moved into small cities in the same general area and their presence in the most fertile ages tends to increase the birth rate of tirban nonwhites in the region. The Piedmont region is heavily influenced by the xirban character of a high proportion of its inhabitants of

PAGE 345

326 both races. Thus the fertility lavtls of the white population are below the state average in each of the residence groups, with the figure for rural -farm people being especially low. Similarly, the rates of reproduction of nonwhites living in cities, in rural -nonf arm districts, and on farms are below the state averages for each of these categories. The Mountain region, characterized by an extreme relative scarcity of women in their reproductive years and a proportional abundance of those who are elderly, had the lowest overall levels of fertility of any region. However, the rates of reproduction of its white farm people are above the state average, largely because farm life in this region is exceedingly rural in its sociocultural form and is associated with a comparatively high rate of reproduction. The nonwhite population, of course, is extremely small and its rates of reproduction fall below those of nonwhite people in all of the other regions. In each region, the highest level of fertility of whites is that for the rural -nonf arm population. Among nonwhites, the highest rates in the two eastern regions are those in rural-farm areas; and in the Piedmont, is that of the rural-nonfarm population. However, among nonwhites in all regions there is relatively little difference between the rates for the rural-nonfarm and the rural-farm populations. On the other hand, that for urban nonwhites is substantially below those of both subdivisions of the rural group.

PAGE 346

527 Trends A major feature of fertility in North Carolina and in the United States was the long-time decline among all racial and residential groups which continued until the mid1950's. This trend is shown for North Carolina in Figure 52, However, the trend line in this chart is based upon the fertility ratio which is computed using census data that are available only every 10 years. As a result, it is possible to overlook some of the dramatic changes in fertility which have occurred between many of decennial censuses. In addition, of course, the number of children aged 0-4 was used in computing the fertility ratio, and this means that in the present study, the index actually is related to births which occurred during 1955-1959. These two lags make the fertility ratio a relatively crude means of identifying detailed trends, even though it is the most reliable measure of fertility for other piirposes. Therefore, Figure 53 bas been prepeired to show trends in the crude birth rate for the total population of the United States and for that of North Carolina. These data, published annually, have been presented for the nation for each year from 1915 through 1964, and for 7 the state for each year since I917. Of course, substantial inaccuracies exist in these registration materials, especially _ '^The birth rates for years prior to 1955 are those for all states which were part of the registration system.

PAGE 347

328

PAGE 348

529

PAGE 349

550 those pertaining to nonwhites, and for this reason they were not used to show birth-rate trends separately by race. Moreover, data on birth rates for uroan, rural -nonf arm, and ruralfarn: people simply do not exist. The birth-rate trends for the state as a whole are similar to those found in the nation at large, given the limitations of the data. But, of course, the most outstanding tendency has been for the rates of the state and the nation to converge until the difference between them has virtually disappeared. In both cases, the birth rates decreased more or less steadily until the mid-1950' s when they began to rise rapidly toward the peak of 19^1. They declined sharply for a few years but rose again to the high point of 19^7. The rates did not drop markedly in the 1950'3 as had been widely predicted, but they did decline significantly in the early 1960's. The trends for some segments of the populations of the state and the nation did not conform to this general pattern. Thus a study of Table ^0, which is based upon the fertility ratio, suggests that between 19^0 and I960, in the United States as a whole, while the fertility ratios in most racial and residential categories remained relatively high, that of rural-farm whites decreased. In North Carolina, fertility declined among whites living in rural -nonf arm and rural-farm districts. (See Figure 5^ and Table ^0.) In the last two situations, heavy losses of white

PAGE 350

TABLE kO CHANGES IN FERTILITI RATIOS FOR NORTH CAROLINA AND THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES, BY COLOR AND RESIDENCE, 1930, IS'+O, 1950, AND i960 531 Race and residonce 1930 19'+0 1950 i960 North Carolina:

PAGE 351

332 women aged 18-29 from rural districts were largely responsible for the declines. This and other factors were sufficiently influential to decrease the fertility level of the entire white population of the state below that for whites in the nation for the first time in history. Moreover, the decrease among the rural -nonfarn population occurred despite the fact that in I960, a comparatively large number of children were transferred from the rural-farm to the rural -nonf arm category. Several factors were influential in relation to the increases of fertility among Negroes in general and among urban whites. One of these, of course, is the improvement in accuracy of age reporting of Negro infants which serves to inflate the ratio above that of previous censuses. But in addition, between 19^0 and 1950, a substantial portion of the increase in the percentage of children born to women in the 15-^4 age range resulted from marked increases in the relative shares of those who were married. For example, in 19^0, 60,9 per cent of all American women aged 15-^4 was married as was 50.5 per cent of all those in North Carolina. But by 1950, these proportions had increased to 70.7 per cent in the nation and 70,2 per cent in the state. Between 1950 and I960, the proportions increased again but less sharply. Nevertheless, the change in marital status may account for some of the increase in the fertility ratio. In addition. "S Cf. Bogue, The Population of the United States , p. 290.

PAGE 352

553 broad and complex changes in levels and standards of living, patterns of motivation, health controls, and others were partly responsible. The average size of household may be used as a supplementary index to evaluate long-term changes in fertility patterns in North Carolina. Trends based upon this index have been marked by increases in the proportions of households containing one, two, three, or four people and decreases in the percentages of those which are larger, (See Figure '?^.) For example, the average number of persons per household declined from 5.6 in 1790 to 3.7 in I960, This does not arise entirely from the limitation of births, of course, for some households include those who are elderly and who live by themselves rather than with children, but the long-term change is closely related to alterations in family size and the numbers of people who must be supported by heads of households. In general, North Carolinians have been subjected to the same socioeconomic factors which have produced fluctuations in fertility in the nation as a whole. However, the slightly lower fertility rate among the state's people is a recent development, and for this reason the average household in North Carolina continues to be larger than that in the nation. But it is important to note that •^Cf. Conrad Taeuber and Irene B. Taeuber, The Changing Population of the United States (New York: John Viley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 171.

PAGE 353

55^

PAGE 354

535 while the typical household in the state contains a larger share of children aged 5-14 than does that in the nation, it shelters a smaller proportion of youngsters aged 0-4. Thus if North Carolina continues to urbanize and if it continues to lose significant proportions of its women in the most fertile years, the size of the average household can be expected to decline further. Moreover, as the norms which encourage limitation of births become thoroughly diffused throughout the rural segments of the population, especially the Negro group, the average size of household can be expected to decline even more.

PAGE 355

CHAPT3R XII MOHTALITY: RATES OF DEATH Mortality is the second of the two vital processes and also the second of the three primary factors which influence the number and distribution of the population. Generally, mortality is less significant than fertility in producing population chemges, although in some circumstances it may be the more importemt of the two. However, on a national basis, it is usually more instrumental in this respect than is migration, which is the third primary population factor. One shoxild stress that the recent huge upsurge in the population of the world is due almost entirely to a precipitous decline in the death rate unaccompanied by any significant change in the birth rate. In addition to providing information on the mortality situation itself, the materials on this subject, especially those on the causes of death, provide valuable insight into the general well-being of the various groups in a population. Host of what we know about health levels, for example, is inference from mortality data. In addition, it is possible to. acquire considerable understanding of the socioeconomic conditions of a group whose chief causes of death are the 336

PAGE 356

557 contagiouB and deficiency diseases and whose infant aortality rates are comparatively high. Such a population will have far different levels of living than one whose major causes of death are heart disease, cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, and other so-called degenerative illnesses which are characteristic of advanced age in a population with a relatively long expectation of life. Thus the mortality level may be examined as an important demographic condition in itself and also as an indicator of the well-being of a population. State and National Comparisons The overall mortality situation of North Carolinians as a whole compares favorably with that of the population in the nation at large. For example, in I960, the crude death rate for the entire state was 8.4 deaths per 1,000 existing population as compared with one of 9.5 for the 2 nation as a whole. But this comparatively favorable position of North Carolinians is true only for the white population. That group had a crude rate of 7.8 in the state as T — On these and other points, see T. Lynn Smith, Fxindamentals of Population Study (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott CO., I960), pp. 551-352. 2 The crude rate is that which is unadjusted by age, being the number of deaths per 1,000 population. Death rates must be used in this chapter because there are no census data on the subject. Therefore, such deficiencies as the lack of subdivision into rural -nonf arm and rural-farm are unavoidable.

PAGE 357

358 compared with one of 9.5 in the nation, whereas the rates for the two nonwhite populations were 10.2 and 10.1, respectively. By sex, white males and females in the state, with rates of 9.5 and 6.5, respectively, fared better than did those in the nation where the comparable rates were 11.0 and 8.0. As expected, North Carolina's nonwhite males, with a crude rate of 11.6 and its females, with one of 8.8, were in a slightly less favorable position than were those in the nation where the comparable rates were 11.5 and 8.7. Finally, most of these sajne relationships between the state and the nation prevail when rural and urban people are compared. That is, in I960, rural and urban whites of both sexes had lower crude death rates than did those in the nation. Conversely, North Caj?olina's rural nonwhites had higher rates but its urban people of this race had lower ones than did their fellows in the United States at large. Clearly, North Carolina's white people have significantly lower mortality levels than do those in the nation, but its nonwhites (mostly Negroes) have slightly higher ones than do their fellows in the United States as a whole. It should be apparent immediately that the crude death rates are greatly influenced by differences in the age distributions of the populations involved. This is of major importance, for compared with the nation, North Carolina haa a significantly higher proportion of children aged 5-l'^-

PAGE 358

539 afflong vdiom death rates are very low, but it has a smaller share of elderly people amoag whom death rates are comparatively high. Therefore, it is necessary to take age into account. For this purpose, three indexes have been selected, including: (1) the infant mortality rate which is the number of deaths of children aged 0-1 per 1,000 live births; (2) the fetal (stillbirth) rate or the number of fetal deaths per 1,000 live births; and (5) age-specific death rates for those aged 1-^, 5-9, 10-14. . .85 and over.^ The first two indexes are closely related to socioeconomic status because they reflect the levels of prenatal and postnatal care received by nothers and infants. Therefore, particularly wide variations occur on a racial basis. CompsLred with those in the nation as a whole. North Carolina's white infants (children aged 0-1) are in a favorable position in the struggle to survive, but its nonwhite babies are in a decidedly unfavorable position. (See Table 41.) This is true in both rural and urban areas. For example, death takes a higher toll of xirban white infants in 26 other states than it does of those in Nortn Carolina, Furthermore, among rural white children, infant mortality rates are greater in 52 states than they are in North Carolina. On the other hand, among urban nonwhites in the first '^For a discussion of age-specific death rates and other indexes, see Smith, Fundamentals , Chapter 15; and C. Horace Hamilton, "Ecological and Tiocial Factors in Mortality Treads," Eugenics Quarterly , Vol. 2, No. 4 (Dec, 1955), PP. 212-223.

PAGE 359

5^0 TABLE kl NUMBiS OF DEATHS OF CHILDREN OF LESS THAN ONE YE.MI OF AGE PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS, BY COLOR A.ND RESIDENCE, FOR STATOS, I960 State UTiites

PAGE 360

TABLE kl continued Vil State Whites

PAGE 361

542 year of life, those in North Carolina rank fifth from the bottom in the array of states. Finally, the deaths of nonwhite rural infants are proportionately greater in 14 other states than they are in North Carolina. Moreover, most of the states in which the nonwhite populations have higher levels of infant mortality than does that in North Carolina contain very few Negroes and have comparatively high proportions of Indians. Thus the losses of Negro infants are relatively greater in North Carolina than they are in virtually any other state in the nation. This dismal circumstance reflects the vast differences between the state's whites and Negroes in those elements of nutrition, health, sanitation, and medical care which strongly influence the toll taken by infant mortality. Stillbirths are about as likely to occur among North Carolina's whites as they are among those in the nation as a whole. But as in the case of infant mortality, nonwhites in the state are at a substantial disadvantage as compared with those in the United States at large. (See Table ^^2.) Moreover, this less favorable situation in North Carolina is found in the cities as well as in the rural districts. In both t;he state and the nation, the fetal or stillbirth rate is approximately twice as great for nonwhites as it is for whites. ^Fetal deaths include only those having a gestation period of 20 or more weeks.

PAGE 362

545 Obviouslji medical care during the prenatal period, delivery, and the postnatal year greatly affects the levels of fetal auad infant deathr found among the races. For example, in I960 in North Carolina, only 0,1 per cent of all fetal deaths among whites but 9 per cent of those among nonwhites occurred outside of a hospital under the care of a midwife rather than of a physician. In the nation, 0.2 per cent of the losses among whites but 6 per cent of those of nonwhites took place under these unsatisfactory conditions. The amount and quality of care which mothers receive also is reflected in their own mortality levels during childbirth. For example, the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births is much lower among North Carolina's white females than among those in the nation as a whole, but it is significantly hij^^^her among the state's nonwhite women than among those in the United States at large. (See Table ^3.) Finally, the relation of mortality to age may be examined separately by race and sex. It is obvious from the data in Table ^^ that the lower level of mortality of North Carolina's total white population results largely from the greater durability of females in the state than of those in the nation. (See Table ^^,) Males of the same age, on the other hand, have approximately the sajne death rates in the state and the nation. But in no age range do the indexes

PAGE 363

?a^ TABLE i*2 NUMBER OF FETAL DEATHS (STILL3IBTHS) PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS, BY COLOR AND RESIDENCE, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, I960 North Carolina United States Residence Whites Nonwhiteo Whites Nonwhite All urban 12.9 29.1 l'+.5 26.3 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas 12.5 28.8 1^.2 25.7 Other urban 13.2 29.2 13.6 27.5 All rural 14.9 29.7 l'+.2 29.5 All categories 1^.1 29.5 1**.! 26.8 Source: Compiled froa data in U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vital Statistics of the United States: I96O , Vol. II Mortality . Part B, Section 9 (1965), pp. 60-77, Table 9-2. TABLE '+3 NUMBER OF MATERTIAL DEATHS PER 100,000 LIVE BIRTHS, BY COLOR, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, 1958-1960 Place Total Whites Nonwhites North Carolina 51.9 20.'+ II8.6 United States 37.'* 26.0 100.6 Source: Compiled from data in U.S. Department of Headth, Education, and Welfare, Vital Statist ics of the United States: I96O , Vol. II, Mortality . Part A (I963), p. 69.

PAGE 364

545 TABLE M» kGLSPBCinC DEATHS PER 1,000 EHSTINQ POPUUTION, BT COLOR AND SEX, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES, I960 Age

PAGE 365

5^6 for whites in North Carolina differ very much from those in the nation as a whole. ^ Ibis is highly significant for it indicates that members of this race in the state have access to medical and health care whi-ch is comparable to that available to whites in the nation at large. But unfortunately, at virtually every age, the levels of mortality among North Carolina's nonwhites are greater than are those of their fellows in the United States as a whole. Only among children aged 5-1^ are the levels for the state and the nation approximately the same, chiefly because these youngsters have comparatively low death rates under most conditions. In summary, irrespective of the index of mortality used, whites in North Carolina are found to compare favorably with those in the nation as a whole, whereas nonwhites compare very unfavorably with their color group in the United States at large. In many respects, the mortality differentials are indicative of the vast difference in levels of living between whites and Negroes in North Carolina and even between Negroes in the state and those in the nation. To the extent that mortality differentials reflect variations in socioeconoaic well-being of the population, the state's Negro group suffers greatly from gross inadequacies in nutrition, medical and health care, sanitation facilities, and other things necessary for good health and long life. ^Ibove age 65> or 70, the death rates are quite variable and coapariaonfl should be »ade cautiously.

PAGE 366

547 Variations Within the State Vithin North Carolina, there are wide variations in the mortality patterns, especially by race, but also by residence. In addition, of course, the well-knov>rn differences occur between males and females and among persons of various ages, making it necessary to analyze rates of death according to these two characteristics. Rural -urban differences North Carolinians living in rural areas enjoy slightly greater longevity than their urban fellows, but the differences are not nearly as wide as they were in the past. In I960, the crude death rates for urban and rural people were 8.5 and 8,3, respectively. However, the races exhibit quite different patterns of mortality by residence. For example, in I960, whites living in urban centers had lower indexes than did those who live in the rural districts, with the crude death rates being 7.^ and 7.9, respectively. However, the crude rate for nonwhites who reside in cities (11.7) indicates that they have poorer chances of survival than do those living in the rural areas (9.2). Many of these variations by residence are due to the fact that the farms contain inordinately high proportions of childxen aged 13-14 among whom the chances of death are very low. Therefore, it is necessary to control the age factor

PAGE 367

548 in evaluatiiig mortality on a residence basis. When the infant mortality rate is used for this purpose, that for whites is found to be higher in urban centers than in the rural districts, but that for nonwhites the reverse is true. (See Table ^1 . ) These differences suggest, of course, that the historical tendency for rural districts to be healthier places in which to live than cities continues for whites in North Carolina. But the levels of health and medical attention are likely to be so poor among nonwhites who reside in the rural parts of North Carolina that the infants who are bom in cities have a somewhat better chance than their farm cousins of surviving to the end of the first year of life. ?rom that time on, of course, the chances of survival Improve greatly over those found in the infant group. The better care received by urban than by rural nonwhite Infants and their mothers also lowers fetal mortality among the group living in cities. But in this case, both whites and nonwhites are influenced In a similar manner. Thus a study of Table A-2 indicates that for both raoes, the rate of fetuses born dead Is higher in r\iral districts than It is in urban centers. Of course, in both of the residential categories, the rate of fetal deaths of nonwhites is about twice as high as is that of whites. Vlthln the urban category, the overall chances of mortality are the lowest for members of both races residing m the cities of 100,000 or more. (See Table 'V5.) They

PAGE 368

5^9 TABLE 45 NUHBER OF DEATHS PER 1,000 POPULATION, ALL AGES AND LESS THAN ONE YEAS, BY COLOR, TOR PLACES OF VARIODS SIZES, NORTH CAROLINA, I96O Size of place All ages Under 1 Nonwhitee All ages Under 1 10,ooo-2't,999 2 5, 000'+9, 999 50,000-99,999 100,000 and over 8.7 8.3 7.0 28.6 29.3 22.8 20.2 12.6 15.2 12.0 11.3 70.5 61.5 52.4 All pieces 2*+.? 12.1 56.7 Sources: Compiled ajid coaputed from data in U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vital Statistics of the United States; I96O , Vol. II, Mortality , Part B, Section 9 (1963), PP. 359. Table 9-1; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: I960 , General Population Characteristics , North Carolina , Final Report PC(1)-55B (1961), pp. ^5-'+7, Table 20.

PAGE 369

^-~o tend to be highest in the places which are intermediate in size in the state, that is, those with 2 3>, 000-49, 999 inhabitants. This same tendency appears when the crude death rate and the mortality rate of those under one year of age are used as indexes, except that the comparatively high level of living among Negroes who reside in Durham causes the infant death rate to be relatively low in cities of 50,000-99,999. Differences by race The mortality level of North Carolina's nonwhite population is considerably higher than is that of the white group. This is true at all ages except a few of those above 65. when the recorded rates of mortality are not very different for the races. (See Table 44.) However, the age data for older Negroes are less accurate than are those for whites and the similarity of the death rates should be treated with caution. Moreover, the differential between the races occurs for males and females and for urban and rural people. It even carries over into urban centers of all sizes. The differences are particularly striking for those in the first year of life when variable levels of nutrition and medical care are likely to result in a marked divergence of the infant mortality levels of the races. Thus in I960, whites in North Carolina had an infant mortality rate of 25 per 1,000 live births as compared with

PAGE 370

551 one of 5^ for nonwhites. These differences between the races are found throughout North Carolina, but they are especially pronounced in the traditional farming areas in the eastern part of the state. (See Figure 5^.) There the death rates for whites are generally below the state average for members of that race but those for Negroes are substantially above the average for their racial group. Even when they live in the smaller cities scattered throughout the old farming regions, nonwhites have comparatively high mortality levels in this geographical area. With some exceptions, nonwhites fare the best in the urbanized central portion of the state where medical care is likely to be far more available to them than it is in the rural districts. Thus their opportunities for survival are greatest by a considerable margin in the largest cities of the Piedmont region. Moreover, this is true both of central cities ajad of other parts of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas which surround the cities. The differentials in the mortality of the sexes are smaller among nonwhites than among whites. In part, this is due to the fact that the medical developments which allow higher proportions of women to survive childbirth have reached white people far more effectively and completely than they have the Negroes. Consequently, the maternal mortality rate of nonwhites in the state is nearly five times

PAGE 371

552 :Cn.

PAGE 372

555 that of whites. (See Table ^5.) Furthermore, the strenuous work which high proportions of t;he state's nonwhite women are obliged by economic necessity to perform and the comparatively low levels of living which this situation reflects, are instrumental in producing mortality levels for women which are not drastically lower than those for men. Of course, in the older age ranges, many of the differences diminish for members of both races. In summary, nonwhites in North Carolina lag far behind whites in their potential for survival, simply because many of the socioeconomic circumstances associated with being a Negro in North Carolina are reflected in higher rates of illness (morbidity) and eventually of death. Causes of Death In I960, 58,160 persons died in North Carolina, producing a rate of QA for each 1,000 in the population. The total includes deaths from all forms of illness, congenital defects, accidents, homicides, suicides, and all other causes. In many cases, especially among Negroes, the causes were unknown or unreported. However, among the many causes, some stand out as being far more significant than others. (See Table 46.) ^The causes of death indicated in the present study are those standardized in the seventh revision of .he Is|er:: national Statistical Classificat .on of Diseases, In.juries and Causes of Death. ~

PAGE 373

Ss^' r-« t^-NO '^J O t^ a» r-i r^ ry oo iH rvj NviJ 3<\J K\r^ H t^irs^ a^>o 55^ oo

PAGE 374

-D O KN vCnj ,-\J rj rvi --1 <\J oj o rhOv J^ rH VD t-l JLAvD M-N M-\ r\j l>o -:r vO rA fM f~s -3^ CTvvO LTN O^ •>£> JO f\j r-( f\j Ovj O iH rvj U)

PAGE 375

536 Chief among the causes of death is heart disease which, in I960, alone accounted for 53 ?er cent of all deaths in North Carolina. This malady also is the major cause of mortality among members of both races, although it accounts for a higher proportion of the deaths among whites (57 per cent) than those among nonwhites (29 per cent). Second in importance as a killer of North Carolina's people are vascular lesions of the central nervous system (strokes and related maladies) which were responsible for another 1^4per cent of all deaths in the state. In third place are malignant neoplasms (cancer) to which are attributed an additional 12 per cent of all deaths. Fourth and fifth in rank on the list of causes are certain diseases of early infancy, and influenza and pneumonia (except of the newborn), respectively. Each of these causes was responsible for about 5 per cent of all deaths. The causes in sixth through tenth places, in descending order of importance, are nonvehicular accidents, accidents involving motor vehicles, a variety of ill-defined causes frequently associated either with early infancy or old age, diabetes, and general arteriosclerosis. These 10 most important causes of mortality in North Carolina were responsible for about 85 per cent of all deaths, for 84 per cent of those among the white population, and for 82 per cent of those among nonwhites.

PAGE 376

357 Observation of the relative importance of the various causes of death given in Table ^6 indicates at least three basic facts: (1) The so-called degenerative ailments such as heart disease, cancer, strokes and cerebral hemorrhages, and others which are found predominantly in the older ages, are the maladies from which the overwhelming majority of North Carolinians succumb. (2) The infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, the deficiency maladies such as pellagra, and the ailments which are associated with relatively poor medical care of the newborn and of mothers during childbirth are of comparatively minor importance. Only a generation or two ago, these were far more virulent and took a much higher toll of human life than they do at present. (3) Accidents of various kinds, but especially those involving motor vehicles, have increased significantly as causes of death. In summary, those illnesses which characterize a society in which medical care is rudimentary have been brought under rigid control in North Carolina. Those which are typical of a population that contains a comparatively high proportion of elderly people have cone to the fore, generally being far more defiant of medical control than are the infectious illnesses. The causes of mortality which result in violent death of one kind or another have become more important in North Carolina than was the case in earlier years.

PAGE 377

Comparison with the nation Heart disease is by far the major cause of death in the United States as a whole just as it is in North Carolina. In fact, it accounts for an even higher proportion of deaths in the nation (59 per cent) than of those in the state (55 per cent). In addition, death rates fron cancer, diabetes, general arteriosclerosiE , cirrhosis of the liver, and other degenerative diseases all are higher in the nation than in North Carolina. This is to be expected, inasmuch as the former has a higher percentage of people aged 65 and over in its population than does the latter. On the other hand, North Carolina compares unfavorably with the nation in the loss of people due to vascular lesions of the central nervous system. It also la^^s behind 'rhe nation in the control of a few of the contagious diseases, especially influenza and pneumonia. But in the latter case, while these illnesses taice a higher toll of nonv.'hites in the state than in the nation, they are the killers of a smaller share of whites in North Carolina than in the United States at large. North Carolinians also suffer Liguor rates of mortality from various diseases of early infancy, ailments and complications associated with pregnancy end delivery, nephritis, gastrointestinal maladies, and nonvehicular accidents of all kinds; but in each case, the comparatively high rates in the state are due to those which prevail among the nonwhite population.

PAGE 378

559 The death rates among whites from these causes are lower than are those of whites in the nation as a whole. On the other hand, North Carolinians of both races are more likely than people in the nation to die from motor-vehicle accidents, various ill-defined causes, homicide, and benign and unspecified neoplasms. Finally, the death rates from suicide are higher among whites in North Carolina than in the United States at large. In general, North Carolinians are somewhat less likely than Americans as a whole to die from the deteriorative diseases and some of the infectious diseases, notably tuberculosis. But they are more likely to succumb to a few other infectious ailments, difficulties associated with childbearing and infancy, strokes and related maladies, accidental and homicidal violence, and several types of gastrointestinal complaints. It is significant, of course, that in I960, such ailments as whooping cough, typhoid fever, diarrhea, diphtheria, malaria, pellagra, and others which were important killers in previous generations no longer appeared on the list of 31 leading causes of death of North Carolinians or of Americans as a whole. Differences by race Within North Carolina, the overall mortality levels of nonwhites are considerably higher than are those of whites.

PAGE 379

360 In I960, the difference amounted to almost 25 per cent. Nevertheless, the death rates of nonwhites were lower than those of whites from nine of the specific causes listed in Table 4-6, Thus the white population is more likely than the nonwhite to die from cancer, general arteriosclerosis, congenital malformations, suicide, other diseases of the circulatory system, cirrhosis of the liver, infections of the kidney, ulcer of the stomach and the duodenum, and diseases of the gall bladder. Obviously, most of these are ailments which become increasingly important causes of death as the average age of a population increases and as it becomes more subject to the stresses and strains of modern, urban life. Therefore, their greater prevalence in the white population is consistent with the fact that the proportion of v/hites aged 65 and over is considerably larger thaji that of nonwhites of these ages and that a much larger share of the nonwhite population is still associated with farming. Deaths from congenital malformations are more common in the white population than in the nonwhite, probably because the higher fetal death rate among the latter eliminates many potentially malformed children before birth. The better care generally obtained by white mothers may enable a malformed fetus to survive to birth, only to die shortly thereafter from some other cause. Moreover, congenital

PAGE 380

561 malformation is the only one of 15 major causes of death among infants aged 0-1 which takes a proportionately higher toll of white than nonwhite babies. (See Table 47.) The other 14 are far more wasteful of nonwhite infants. Negroes of adl ages are considerably more likely than whites to succumb to heart disease, ailmencs of the central nervous system, influenza and pneumonia, accidents of all kinds, but particularly those which occur on farms, nephritis and related diseases, gastritis and allied maladies, hernia and intestinal obstructions, tuberculosis, a variety of other infective and parasitic diseases, complications of pregnancy, and syphilis. Many of these are contagious diseases which are amenable to a high degree of control. Therefore, if these difficulties can be reduced among the state's nonwhite population, the death rate for that group should still drop somewhat. On the other hand, the degenerative diseases which afflict members of both races are considerably more difficult to prevent or to cure, and when they stand far in the forefront as the major killers in a population, it is unlikely that the overall death rate of such a group can be reduced very significantly. This is the case in the state's white population. In addition, nonwhites are far more likely to die of causes which are unknown or illdefined. Clearly, improved diagnosis and treatment for members of this racial group should also reduce the proportion

PAGE 381

562 TABLE ky NUMBEb'oF DSATHS per 1,000 POPULATION LESS THAN ONE YEAR OF AGE FROM 15 MAJOR CAUSES, BY COLOR, NORTH CAROLINA, I960 Cauee Total Whites Nonwhites All cauces Imaaturity Postnatal asphyxia Influenza and pneuaonia (except of newborn) Congenital aalformations Birth injuries Ill-defined, especially oalnutrition SyaptoGis and ill-definad causec Accidents GfiLstritis, duodenitis, enteritis, colitis Pneunonia of newborn Neonateil disorders due to nother's diseajse during pregnancy Diarrhea of the newborn Other respiratory diseases Bronchitis All other causes 32.8 23.0 53.8 5.2

PAGE 382

565 of deaths which fall into this vague category. Nonwhites also die of a wider variety of causes than do whites, chiefly because many of those which are amenable to far better control are still relatively conimon among the Negro group. Age differences The relative importance of the causes of death varies substantially by age, of course, with many of them being highly specific to persons in the several age groups. These variations among the causes, by age, may be summarized as follows: (1) Under one year of age, immaturity, respiratory ailments, congenital malformations, birth injuries, and ill-defined causes, especially malnutrition, exact a comparatively heavy toll. (2) In the ages 1-1't^, deaths from any cause are comparatively few, with accidents accounting for about half of all fatalities among male children and about one-third of those among females. Respiratory ailnents and the lingering effects of congenital malformations also are important as are various types of malignancies, nearly tv/o-thirds of which are leukemia and aleukemia. Ill-defined causes remain among the five most important ones, v/ith nonwhite boys and girls being especially susceptible to the variety of illnesses included in this category.

PAGE 383

56^ (5) During the ages 15-5''-, the death rate begins its gradual rise for members of both races and both sexes, although white males in these ages incur heavier proportional losses than any other group. Accidents continue to be a major cause of death, but heart disease and cancer become increasingly important. Suicide and homicide take on greater significance for persons in this age range. (^) In the age range 35-'^9, the degenerative diseases have become the major maladies which cause death, with heart disease in first place and cancer in second position. Accidents continue to kill a significant number of persons, as do suicide and homicide. Strokes and related ailments also figure prominently in the list of causes of death of members of this age group. (5) Among those aged 50-6^, the death rate continues to rise at an accelerating rate, taking an especially heavy toll of men of both races. The deteriorative diseases are by far the major causes; and among them, heart disease, cancer, and strokes are joined by diabetes and cirrhosis of the liver. Accidents and suicides continue to be important causes, and influenza and pneumonia also exact increasingly heavy tolls among this aging group. Ill-defined causes and the complex symptoms of senility also appear now as significant causes.

PAGE 384

565 (6) In the 65-and-over groups, heart disease kills at least three times as many persons as any other one cause. Cancer and vascular lesions of the central nervous system (strokes and related maladies) compete for second place, while other degenerative diseases, accidents, suicide, respiratory diseases, and the inevitable ill-defined causes round out the list of major causes. Trends The outstanding fact immediately apparent from an examination of mortality trends in the United States and North Carolina is the substantial decreases which have taken place in the twentieth century. They, of course, have been accompanied by a steady increase in life expectancy. Moreover, the major causes of death have become confined increasingly to those which are characteristic of an "aging" population. These several changes are found among all age groups, both sexes, whites and Negroes, and rural and urban people. In fact, the only pronounced increase in mortality during the 1915-1960 period occurred in 1917-1918 during the disastrous influenza epidemic. Otherwise, except for minor fluctuations, mortality levels have fallen with the passing of time, and the expectation of life has increased. However, prior to 1935 with the addition of t,he last state (Texas) to the registration area of the United States, some of even the

PAGE 385

566 minor fluctuations may well have been due to the gradual addition of the Southern states in which the age, residence, and race compositions vary considerably from those for the nation as a whole. For that reason, the trends which can be traced from 1950 to the present are the most reliable. The crude death rate of North Carolinians decreased from 11.5 in 1950 to 8.^ in I960, while that of people in the United States as a whole dropped from 11.5 to 9.5. Thus the fall has been more rapid in the state than in the nation. The decrease in North Carolina has been especially marked for the nonwhite population whose crude rate declined from 15.1 to 10.2, while that for nonwhites in the nation as a whole dropped from 16.5 to 10.1. The decrease for whites in the state was from 9.7 in 1950 to 7.8 in I960, while the decline for those in the nation was from 10.8 to 9.5. Finally, in both cases, at all ages, the proportional decreases have been greater for females than for males. The age distributions of the state and the nation have differed considerably during most of the period when the dramatic decreases in mortality were taking place. Consequently, it is again necessary to account for this factor in evaluating trends. For this purpose. Table ^8 has been prepajred in which the age-specific death rates of North Carolinians are shown separately for 1950 and I960. In this case, only the white population was used because of the unreliability of the early mortality rates for nonwhites in some of

PAGE 386

TABLE ^8 NUMBES OF DEATHS PER 1,000 INHABITANTS IN THE WHITE POPULATION, BY AGS AND SEX, NORTH CAROLINA, 1950 AI^'D I960 567 Age

PAGE 387

568 the age ranges. Observation of this table points up the fact that in every age range, the levels of mortality have decreased significantly since 1930. Moreover, this trend is a continuation of one which can be traced from 1917 when North Carolina became one of the states in the registration area. This trend is of fundamental importance in evaluating North Carolina's demographic situation. However, it is equally basic to understand that the decreases in the levels of mortality which took place in the first half of the twentieth centaury almost certainly will not be repeated in the future. This is especially true for rhe white population, although among the nonwhite group there is still considerable room for improvement in the chances of survival. But in general, the highly contagious diseases which often reached epidemic proportions, taking very high tolls of human life, have come under effective control. Even the various maladies which make the first hours and days of life so hazardous are comparatively well-controlled among the white population. Moreover, while mortality levels are lower in all age ranges at present than they were in 1950 or in 1917, they still conform to the same pattern by age as they did in these earlier years. (See Table 48.) Persons in the first year of life continue to stand in greater danger of dying than do older children. Youngsters aged 1-1^, adolescents, and young adults have such exceedingly low levels

PAGE 388

369 of mortalitj that no important additional decreases can take place among these groups. Oiler adults become increasingly likely to die, and those aged 63 and over stand the poorest chances for survival. Thus, while the levels of death have been reduced for persons in all age groups, the patterns by age are the same now as they have been in the past. This means, of course, that mortality levels will not decline below certain points and that future decreases are likely to be minor and even negligible. This tendency for mortality to drop at an increasing rate as various infectious illnesses come under control but then to decline at a decreasing rate after comparatively low levels have been reached, may be shown by means of the infant mortality rate. (See Figure 56.) Rates of death in this age group also are very sensitive to differences in the socioeconomic well-being of various segments of the population, and variations in the former are usually closely atuned to differences in the latter. Therefore, changes in infant mortality usually reflect changes in socioeconomic status of a population. The trends in infant mortality enable several observations to be made: (1) The decrease in infant mortality since 1917 has been spectacular. For example, among whites, the rate dropped in the nation from 91 per 1,000 live births in 1917

PAGE 389

370

PAGE 390

571 to 25 in I960. B7 comparison, that in North Carolina decreased from 87 in the earlier year to 22 in the later. Among the nonwhite populations of the state and the nation, the decreases are from 1?3 to 52 and from 1^1 to 45, respectively. Furthermore, the^e declines have been relatively steady, with the major fluctuation occurring during the influenza outbreak mentioned above. (2) The infant mortality levels of whites in the state have been nearly identical with those in the nation since the end of World War II. Moreover, both are very low as compared with those of nonwhites, and even with those of whites throughout much of the rest of the world. (3) Since the middle 19''+0's, there has been comparatively little change in the infant mortality levels of the two white populations, even though the Second World Wax witnessed the development of a great variety of new drugs and medical techniques. These innovations have not reduced the infant mortality levels among whites in any major way since 19^5, which implies, of course, that they already are approaching their lower limit. (4) The infant mortality levels among nonwhites in the state and the nation, long nearly identical, diverged after 19^5 v;ith that in North Carolina remaining substantially higher than the one in the nation as a whole, (5) Among nonwhites in the nation, there have been only minor decreases in the infant death rate since the

PAGE 391

572 late 1^^0'By producing approximately the same tendency to level off that appears in the white population. Among those in North Carolina, not only have the rates tapered off, hut they have risen and fallen sporadically by individual years. However, the leveling in the state and the nation occurs at a much higher plane in the nonwhite group than in the white. Therefore, there is still considerable opportunity for improvement among the former. This will probably take place as increasing proportions of the Negro population move into higher socioeconomic levels, one element of which is better prenatal and postnatal care for mothers and infants. But North Carolinians must face the fact that the comparatively static infant mortality levels which have prevailed since 19'^6 suggest strongly that a substantial share of the state's Negroes have experienced little or no improvement in their overall levels of living since that time. In summary, the trends in mortality since the turn of the present century have Involved decreases for all age groups. But those which have appeared in the 1950' s and 1960's indicate that the years of spectacular decreases in any age category probably have passed. This is especially true of the white population, while the nonwhite probably will experience moderate decreases in the near future. However, even those will be modest as compared with the declines between 1917 and 19^5,

PAGE 392

375 The causes of death also have changed considerably in relative importance, with those of a contagious nature becoming less important but. with the degenerative types becoming more significant. Nineteen major causes are given in Table '^•9 for whites and in Table 50 for nonwhitos for the years 1950, 19^0, 1950, and 19S0. Several conclusions follow from the changes in the relative importance of these causes : (1) The great bulk of deaths now results from fewer causes than was the case in 19^0. Furthermore, a much sm-'iller share is likely to ensue from ill-defined causes or to be unreported. (2) In I960, the deteriorative illnesses (heart disease, vascular lesions of the central nervous system, cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, and diabetes) were far more important as causes of death than was the case in 1950. In the later year they accounted for 67 per cent of all deaths among whites as compared with only 28 per cent in the earlier, The same causes v/ere responsible for 5^ per cent of the deaths of nonwbiles occurring in I960, but for 22 per cent of those which took place in 1950. Each of these five causes has increased in importance as a killer among the white population, and the first four have come to be responsible for a larger share of the deaths of nonwhites, (5) Deaths from influenza and pneumonia, nephritis, tuberculosis, syphilis, and other infectious illnesses have

PAGE 393

37^ TABLE ^+9 NUMBER OF DEATHS PER 100,000 INHABITANTS IN THE WHITE POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA FROM 19 MAJOR CAUSES, 1950, 19^, 1950, I960 Cause of death I960 1950 ig'^ 1950 All causes Diseases of the heart Vascular lesions of the central nervous system Malignant ceoplasais All accidents Influenza and pneumonia Certain diseeises of early infancy Suicide Congenital malforaations Diabetes mellitxis Cirrhosis of the liver Nephritis and other renal sclerosis Hernia and intestinal obstruction Hoaicide Gastritis, duodenitis, enteritis, colitis Tuberculosis Appendicitis Syphilis and its sequelae Complications of pregnancy Pellagra All other causes 776.2

PAGE 394

575 TABI-E 50 NUMBER OF DEATHS PER 100,000 INHABITANTS IN THE NONVHITE POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA FROM 19 MAJOR CAUSES, 1950, 19^, 1950, I960 Cause of death I960 19^ 19^+0 1950 All causes 1,017J 997.'+ 1,160.1 1,515.'+ Diseases of the heart Vascular lesions of the central 29^+. 8 277.7 16;+. 9 16^+. 2 nervous system

PAGE 395

376 been reduced greatly In Importance among members of both races, (h) The deaths which are directly attributable to nutritional deficiencies are proportionately fewer now than they were a generation ago and the rates which they produce also are lower. The reduction has been most spectacular for pellagra which killed more than 23 per 100,000 whites and 55 per 100,000 nonwhites in 1930 but fewer than 0.1 per 100,000 of each race In I960. (5) Other diseases which are associated with the lack of medical care and with comparatively low levels of living have been curtailed greatly as causes of death. These Include various complications of pregnancy and diseases of Infancy, Of course, appendicitis and other maladies which are curable if they receive proper attention also fall into this category. (6) Mortality due to violent death of several kinds generally has increased in importance. However, some forms have assumed greater significance and others less, with the major variations occurring by race. For example, deaths resulting from nonvehlcular accidents have become less prevalent for whites but more common for nonwhites. However, those involving motor vehicles have risen sharply for both races. Suicide has increased as a cause of death in both racial groups, but while the rate for whites in I960 was

PAGE 396

577 more than three times that Tor nonwhites, the rate of increase has been greater amon^ the latter. Homicide, more than six times as common anon^; nonwhites as among whites, has iecreased in relative importsuice as a caur.e of mortality of the latter but remains nearly unchanged as a factor producing deaths of the former. In summary, the causes of death which are associated with advancing age have increased in importance among members of both races. On the other hand, those contagious diseases and other ailments which are attributable more or less directly to neglect, poverty, lack of medical facilities and attention, dietary deficiencies, and improper diagnosis have decreased in importance for members of both races. Finally, violent deaths, except suicide, have remained a far more important cause of mortality in the Negro than in the white group.

PAGE 397

CSaPTEH XIII MIGRATION Migration, especially that of North Carolinians from their native state, is a recurrent theme in much of the writing about the state. Therefore, this subject deserves careful treatment. In fact, it deserves far greater attention than the available materials allow, for those necessary to evaluate properly the migration of persons from rural to urban areas, from farm to farm, and even the movement from the state are not adequate in many respects. Nevertheless, many aspects of this basic and complex process may be examined by using those data which are available and by drawing proper inferences from known demographic factors and trends. In particular, for a state such as North Carolina, major attention needs to be devoted to the general subject of internal migration. The importance of this phenomenon greatly overshadows that of foreign immigration into the state, for at no time has the foreign-born group been very large. ?or example, in I960, it was a mere 0.5 per cent of the total population of the state. Migration also is of basic interest because it has been involved in many of the fundamental sociocultxiral 378

PAGE 398

379 chcinges that have taken place inHorth Carolina. 1 great many of these are related to the transition of a rural-farm society to one which is more urban-industrial in form and in which a leirge flow of nigrants from farms to cities figures prominently. At the national level, interstate and interregional migration has been largely responsible for the shifting of Americans in such a way that much of what otherwise would have been a radical redistribution of population has been avoided. That is, large numbers of people have left such rural-farm parts of the nation as North Carolina, with their traditionally high rates of natural increase, and have moved to cities where those rates have been comparatively low. This has produced relatively moderate rates of growth in both residential areas but has helped to avoid both excessive growth in farming districts and relatively slow increases in 2 the cities. This highly dynamic feature of North Carolina's population in its relationship with that of the nation at large has involved especially high proportions of Negroes, ?ive types of internal migration are of major importance. They are (1) state-to-state; (2) county-to-county; On the migration from areas of relatively high natural increase, see the observations by C. Horace Hamilton, "County Net Migration Hates: Discussion," Rural Sociology , Vol. 50, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), p. 17. 2 Cf. T, Lynn Smith, Fundamentals of Population Study (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., I960), p. 'W-^.

PAGE 399

580 (3) rural -urban; W farm-to-farm; and (5) urban-tourban. State-to-state Migration Interstate migration is nov; receiving sone of the attention by deaographers which it deserves, with particular attention being directed to net migration and many of the characteristics of persons who are involved in this largescale shifting of Anericana, Studies concerning selectivity "by age, race, and sex are especially useful as are those which have concantratcd upon income, education, and occupational status of migrants. ^Many basic data on internal migration are available in U,S. Bureau of the Census, U.S, Cen3U3 of Population; 1960 , S ub.loct Reports , Mobility for States and~State Economic Ir3a3 , i'inal Report PC(2'P2B~n"'-J^Tr Some importa.it studies on the subject are G. Horace Heanilton, "Educational Selectivitj' of Rural-Urban Migration: Prolinlnary Results of a North Carolina Study," Selected Studies of Iligration Since World V/ar II (New York: fHlbanlr M3morial ?und, 19b7;, PP. 110-122; C. Horace Hanilton, "Educational Selectivity of Not Iligration froc the South," Social Porces , Vol. 38, No. 1 (Oct., 1959), pp. 35-^2; C. Horace Hamilton, "Educational Selectivity of Higration froji Farm to Urban and to Other Noxifarm Comaunities," Mobility and Mental Health by Mildred B. Kant or (ed.) (New YorFi Charles C. Thomas, 1965); Robert Forman and Roy G. Francis, 'Some Ideological Aspects of Migration," Soci olopT of Rural L ife, No. ^ (Sept., 1965), University ofllLnnesota Pai^er ifo. 5220; George A. Hillery, Jr., Jamoa S. Bro;m, and Gordon F. Do Jong, "Higration Systems of the Southern Appalachians: Some Demographic Observations," R'Ox-al SociolofTry , Vol. 50, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), pp. 53-^8; Henry S. Shryock, Jr., Population Mobility Within the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago, 196^^); Henry S. Shryock, Jr. and Charles B. Nam, "Educational Selectivity of Interregional Migration," Social Forces , Vol. 45, No. 5 (Mar., 1965), pp. 299-510; and James D. Tarver and Villiam R. durley, "The Relationship of Selected Variables with County Net Migration Rates in the United States, 1950 to I960," Rural Sociology , Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), PP. 5-13-

PAGE 400

581 Conpared v;itli most of her sister states, North Carolina receives couparatively few people fron other paxts of the nation, but loses a great many of her own native-born sons and daughters to other sections of the United States. This situation mo:y bo exaiained using the percentages of people \/ho had been born in their respective states of residence. For this purpose, Figure 57 bas been prepared in which the states receiving the largest shares of migrants are the ones which have the lo'.;cst proportions of inhabitants \/ho had been born in the states in which they were residing. Thus in I960, \:hilo only 70 per cent of all Americans had been born in the states in which they were living, 84per cent of all North Carolinians fitted this description. This means, of course, that 50 per cent of all Americans but only 16 per cent of the North Carolinians had migrated from their states of birth. Furthermore, only Mississippi (15 per cent), Alabama, and Kentucky had smaller proportions than did North Carolina of persons who had migrated from other states. Thus North Carolina attracts comparatively few residents from other areas. Moreover, those v/hom it does receive come largely from contiguous Southern states. These conditions imply that because there is a comparative scarcity of persona who have migrated to North Carolina, the state has not had to adjust drastically to large and heterogeneous influxes of people such as are found in the nation's capital.

PAGE 401

582

PAGE 402

383 in many of the highly urbanized states of the Northeast, and on the Vest coast. The situation in North Carolina reflects that which is more typical of the South, that is, a larger relative share of persons who were born in their states of residence than is to be found in any other part of the nation, including the farming states of the midwest. Within the South, only Florida with its large retired population, and the states which are contiguous to Washington, D.C. with their large percentages of persons who v;ork in the nation's capital, contain comparatively high proportions of those who had boon born in other states. On a racial basis, whites axe proportionately more likely than Negroes to migrate to North Carolina from other states. In I960, 85 per cent of the white population had been born in the state, whereas 88 per cent of the nonvhite group fell into this category. This means, of course, that 17 per cent of the white population had come from other states, as compared with only 12 per cent of the Negroes. In the nation as a whole, 29 per cent of the whites, and 55 per cent of the nonwhites indicated that they had been born in other states than the ones in which they were residing. This shows clearly that in the United States as a whole, comparatively large shares of the Negro population have left their native states and have established their residences in others. North Carolina is one of those from which they have

PAGE 403

584 migrated in large numbers. Moreover, the state's nonwhites not only desert its low-status agriculture, but they also seem reluctant to move into its cities, preferring in most cases to go to live in urbnn centers elsewhere in the nation. The propensity to participate in interstate migrations also varier widely by age. For example, higher proportions of those aged 18-3^ migrate from North Carolina thpji do persons in any other age range. However, within this age category, females tend ro migrate at somewhat younger ages than males and nonwhites are likely to move at earlier ages than v/hitcs. Nevertheless, the vast majority of persons who move from one state to another do so when they are young adults, i.'hereas older persons tend to become established permanently in a particular place. Of course, so-jie persons aged 65 move to retirement communities, to places in which they can be near children and grandchildren, or to various other areas of the nation. Finally, interstate migration also exercises educational selectivity. For example, Hamilton's studies show that migration from North Carolina tends to include relatively large shares of persons who are poorly educated as well as of those who are well educated, but comparatively small proportions of those who fall between the extremes. This general pattern also holds for whites, but among 4 Hamilton, "Educational Selectivity of Hural -Urban Migration," pp. 7-8.

PAGE 404

3P5 nonwhltes, those who have completed a year or more of high school or college are much more likely to migrate than are those who are less well educated. This racial differential also appears when only the migration from farms is considered. Sources of migrants It also is possible to ascertain the origins of the persons who migrate to North Carolina. For this purpose, Table 51 has been prepared showing the numbers and the percentages of the total migrants to North Carolina who came from each of the other states and from each of the major regions of the nation. The migration which took place between 1955 and i960 is that for which the analysis was made, partly because the net loss from the state during this period was only one-quarter of that which occurred during the 1950-1959 period.'^ This great difference between the two halves of the decade is Indicative of some important recent changes in the migration pattern, and the 1955-1959 materials almost certainly are more accurate than are those for I95O-I959. These changes have resulted chiefly from the fact that recently North Carolina has been able to retain a higher proportion of its own white people and to attract 5lbid .T P' 8. ^ Ibid . ^On this matter, see Angell Beza, "Population Movement to and from North Carolina, 1955-60," University of North Carolina Newsletter , Vol. XLVIII, No. U(Dec, 1963)

PAGE 405

5'^S TABLE 51 riUMBSRS AND PERCENTAGES OF PERSONS WHO MIGRATED TO NORTH CAROLINA FROM EACH STATE BETWEEN 1955 /J^D 19bO, BY COLOR

PAGE 406

587 TA3LE 51 continued Re-jion and state Vhi

PAGE 407

388 larger numbers from other states than was true between 1950 and 1955, However, the state lost nonwhites at about the Sojae rate during both fiva-year periods and failed to attract any appreciable proportions of then. In I960, 272,172 persons or 6.0 per cent of the total residing in North Carolina had lived in other states in 19!?5. Of these migrants to North Carolina, 2^^1,388 (88.7 per cent) were whites and 50,784 (11.3 per cent) were nonwhites (virtually all Negroes). Over three-fifths of the white migrants had come from other parts of the South as had more thnn two-thirds of the Negroes. However, the percentage of nonwhites tjnong the migrants is less than half of their proportion in the total population of the state. From Table 51 it is also apparent that the Northeast and the North Central regions together supplied North Carolina with more than 75,000 white people who represented about 51 per cent of all those who migrated to the state between 1955 and I960. This substantial shift of people, many of whom had resided in th'3 state previously, is often overlooked in the analysis of migration to and from North Carolina. Finally, fewer than 20,000 people came to North Carolina from the West, representing less than 8 per cent of the total. n The reader should be aware that the materials which measure migration between 1955 and I960 are derived chiefly from census questions which attempt to ascertain the individual's residence in 1955 and in I960. In the latter case, the census enumerator records the present place of residence, but in the former the respondent must recall his situation five years earlier and be willing to report it correctly.

PAGE 408

The states fron which North Carolina has received its largest numbers of white migrants, in desceiiding order, are Virginia (55,880 people or 1^ per cent of the total), South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee, each of which sent more than 10,000. Together these seven states accounted for ^7 per cent of the total under consideration, Nonwhites were drawn in disproportionately large numbers frou the neighboring states of South Cajolina and Virginia, although over 11 per cent also came from Nev; York. Thus while nonwhites (Negroes) made up just over 11 per cent of the total migration to North Carolina, they -/ere overrepresented in the total movement from these three states. Yet the numbers of nonwhites who move into North Carolina generally are small. Except for 7,5^1 who migrated from South Carolina, ^,518 who moved from Virginia, and 3,527 who came from New York, no state was reported as being the 1955 residence of more than 1,700 of them. Obviously, the comparatively high degree of territorial mobility of the Negro population since the end of World War I has not involved any appreciable movement to North Carolina. In this respect, the state is similar to most of the others in the South. Destinations of North Carolinians The loss of people from North Carolina to all other parts of the nation is larger thai, its gain through migration,

PAGE 409

590 resulting in a substantial net loss. Therefore, the destinations of these people are of particalar interest. A total 548,707 living in North Carolina in 1955 were reported as residing in other states in I960. This figure is equal to 7.7 per cent of the total 19o0 population. Of those who migrated from the state, 275,09^ (78.9 per cent) were white and 75,615 (21.1 per cent) were nonwhite. (See Table 52.) Over two-thirds of the whites went to other parts of the South, with the remainder divided about equally betv/een the other three major regions of the United States. However, alnoat half of the nouwhites migrated to the Northeast and more than two-fifths of them went to other sections of the South. Comparatively few nonwhites or Negroes left North Carolina for the North Central region and the West. The states to which white persons living in North Carolina in 1955 did migrate, in descending order of importance, are Virginia which received almost 't-4,000 or 16 per cent of the total, and Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and Tennessee, each of which received at least 10,000 apiece. Together these six states accounted for 55 per cent of the whites who left the state during the fiveyeax period under consideration, Nonwhites went in comparatively large numbers to New York (v;hich absorbed a quarter of the total), Virginia, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. These six units accounted for

PAGE 410

591 52 I.'UMBERS A.ND PERCENTAGES OF PriRoONS WHO MIGiRATED FROM NORTH CAROLINA TO EACH STATE BETWEEN 1955 AlfD I960, EY COLOR

PAGE 411

392 TABLE ^2 contijmed Begion and state South Carolina Georgia Florida Kentucky Tennessee Alabaaa Miii&lscippi Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoiua Texas West : Montana Idaho Uyoning Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada V/ashington Oregon California Alaska Hawaii Whites

PAGE 412

595 over 75 per cent of the total. Clearly, North Carolina loses comparatively large shares of its Ne^ro inhabitants to cities in the northeastern seer.: on of the nation where they seek better socioeconomic conditions than are provided by the lo'./-status farming enterprises which they abandon. The bulk of this migration is directly from the state's farms to cicies elsewhere in the United States, with comparatively few of i;he Negro migrants making intermediate stops of a few months or years in North Carolina's urban centers or those elsewhere in the South. Moreover, contrary to the pattern exhibited by maiiy Negroes leaving other sections of the Sou-ch, those from North Carolina are not likely to go in large numbers to California. Between 1955 and I960, that state received only 1,61^ of North Carolina's nonwhites, representing a mere 2,2 per cent of the total who left. North Carolina's nonwhites continue the trek made by many of their predecessors to the nation's largest city sjid its surrounding areas. Conversely, very few move to most states of the Deep South (except Virginia), and although large numbers of whites move to Florida, very few Negroes do so. In large part this results from the fact that v/hile Florida attracts a great many retired persons as well as substantial numbers of younger migrants, very few of those in either category are Negroes,

PAGE 413

59^ Net Kalna and losses The two currents of movement In which some persons migrate from other states into North Carolina but in which many natives leave, results in comparatively heavy net losses from North Carolina. Between 1955 and I960, this decrease amounted to 76,535 people. By race, the net loss of whites was 53,706 and that of nonwhites was '•2,829. (See Table 55.) However, as important as these net migrations are, they are far less than half of those which took place between 1950 and I960. In that decade, the net loss of people of all races from North Carolina was 327,838, of whom 120,9^1 or 37 per cent were whites but 206,897 or 63 per cent were nonwhites. These two very different rates of loss which existed in the two halves of the 1950-1959 decade imply, of course, that North Carolina probably will not go on indefinitely contributing large numbers of people through its net exchanges with other states. This change, in turn, suggests that the heavy rural-to-urban migration which has characterized much of the twentieth century shows signs of diminishing. This should come as no surprise when it is recalled that rural-farm areas in North Carolina now have levels of fertility which are roughly similar to those found in urban centers and that the farms no longer have the large potential supplies of migrants which they once contained. This is of fundamental significance in evaluating North Carolina's role in the total society in the period immediately ahead.

PAGE 414

391 TABLE 53 NET MIGRATION BETVfEEN NORTH CAHOLINA AND THE OTHER STATES, BY COLOR, 1955-1960 Region and state Net gain or Iocs by North Carolina Total

PAGE 415

396 Region «md a

PAGE 416

597 Between 1955 and I960, North Carolina sustained particularly heavy net losses in the exchange with some states and fairly large gains in the give and take with others. (See Table 53.) North Carolina added white people through net gains from 25 states, with the largest returns coming from those in the South and in the Northeast. However, net gains of nonwhites occurred in the exchanges with only 15 states. Moreover, while North Cairolina attracted 5,7^1 more nonwhites from South Carolina than it sent to that state, in no other case was the net more than that of 507 persons through the exchange with Georgia. At the opposite end of the scale, net losses of whites to Florida, New York, and California were especially heavy, while those to Georgia and Maryland also were appreciable. Among nonwhites, the net loss to New York was more than twice that incurred in the exchange with any other state, although New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Connecticut also attracted comparatively large shauces of North Carolina's Negroes. The bulk of the net losses were to states in which the levels of living are higher than they are in North Carolina, whereas the majority of the net gains are from those, chiefly in the South, in which the plane of existence is comparatively low. Compared with the entire South, North Carolina loses larger shares of its white and nonwhite populations. Thus

PAGE 417

598 between 1955 and I960, the net loss of whites from the state amounted to 1.1 per cent of its 1950 population of that race, whereas the South as c. whole experienced a net gain of 0.9 per cen;; of its white G^o^p. Kost of the latter growth is attributable to increases experienced by Florida and by Virginia, largely in the area immediately surrounding the District of Columbia. The net loss of nonwhites from North Carolina represented ^.Aper cent of the state's I960 population of that color, whereas the loss from the South as a whole amounted to 2.9 per cent of its nonwhite group. Thus by any standard, North Carolina has incurred a comparatively heavy loss of Negroes, only a relatively small portion of whom are replaced by those moving into the state from other sections of the nation. Currents of state-to-state migration The total migration of people into and from North Carolina is composed of several currents which differ somewhat for whites and nonwhites. The flow of the white population includes: (1) a relatively large movement from North Carolina up the eastern seaboard into the area which extends from the suburbs of Washington, D.C. to Connecticut; (2) a smaller shift of North Carolina's whites to the West, especially to California but also to other states on the coast as well as to Hawaii, Alaska, and Texas; (3) a heavy movement to Florida; (^) an appreciable loss to Georgia

PAGE 418

399 with a substantial proportion migrating to Atlanta and its environs; (5) an increasin'^ly important movement of whites into North Carolina from several states of the Northeast and North Central regions; and (6), a substantial migration into the state from South Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and some other parts of the South. The movements of the nonwhite population are fewer and include: (1) a very heavy migration northward up the East coast to the highly urbanized states of the Northeast; and (2) a much smaller shift into North Carolina from South Carolina, Georgia, and some other Southern states. County-to-County Migration North Carolinians shift around considerably within the state, producing several currents of movement between counties. The general direction of this movement is toward the urbanized central portion of the state and away from the eastern sections and especially from the western, mountainous area. However, there are smaller flows of people in local areas from farms to towns and small cities such as those located along the coast, in the Upper Coastal Plain, and even in the Mountain region. The last movement is confined almost exclusively to the migration into Asheville, and even that is relatively small. Movement within the state is highly selective of persons in particular ages Just as is interstate migration.

PAGE 419

^00 In order to present the factor of age in its relationship to nitration, Figure 5B has been prepared. This diagram shows the percentages of people who lived in different counties within their respective states of residence in 1955 and 1950, hy age, in the state and in the nation as a whole. Several observations follow from these circumstances: (1) Children aged 5-9 are more mobile than older youngsters, chiefly because they are the offspring of parents who also are in the most mobile years, whereas the parents of children aged 10-14 are more likely to be established in permanent locations. These conditions prevail for members of both races and in the state and the nation as a whole. (2) The ages 20-2^4are those during which the highest percentages of persons were found to be living in different counties within their respective states in I960 than they reported had been their residences in 1955. This means, of course, that those in the late teens and early twenties are the most highly mobile group in the population. Moreover, this is the case for males and females in each of the color subclassifications. However, the relative shares of nonwhites living in different counties in their respective states are lower than those of whites at these and all other ages, chiefly because Negroes tend to maie comparatively long-distance moves and thus to leave not only their native counties, but their native states as well. For North Carolina, this circuastance is largely accounted for by the

PAGE 420

^01 PERCENT 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 T — I — r T — r N.C. WHITES N.C. NONWHITES U.S. WHITES U.S. NONWHITES /' ^\\ V--.. J L— I i I I I l__l L 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 AGE Figure 58. Percentages of persons who lived in different counties within their respective states of residence in 1955 and i960, by age and color, North Carolina and the United States.

PAGE 421

402 shift of Negroes to urban areas in the Northeast, and especially to New York. (5) Above age ^5 or 50, the percentages of people who shift axound within their ^espective states of residence are comparatively snail. However, there are minor increases above age 55 as people retire and move to new locations, sometimes within their own states, oftentimes in others. (4) The difference between the state and the nation in the percentages of people who move from county to county are minor. Thus within the borders of North Carolina, the bulk of the population is no longer anchored more or less permanently to agricultural land. Quite the contrary. North Carolinians now change their counties of residence with about the same frequency as do Americans in general. A great deal of this is rural -to-urban migration, some of it is movement between farms, and some is movement from cities to the rural areas, especially nonfarm suburbs. Net gains and losses by cotmties The most outstanding result of migration into and from North Carolina's 100 counties is the fact that only 10 of them incurred net gains of population between 1950 and I960 while 90 sustained net losses during the decade. (See Figure 59.) Of course, in measuring these increases and decreases, movement out of the counties to other states as well as that between counties wi-;hin North Carolina is

PAGE 422

•H O CO box!

PAGE 423

404 incluied. Moreover, these chcnges ore the ones which took place between 19^0 and 19'>-, and are e:cpre3sed as percentages of the 1950 county population. They include only the migration of civilians, and are based upon estimates cade by 9 the Bureau of the Census. Seven of the counties which had net gains in the exchanges of migrants are located in the Piedmont region, Henderson County in the Mountain region also gained as did Onslow in the Tidewater and Cumberland in the Upper Coastal Plain. These last two counties experienced net gains because of the relatively large number of civilians who migrated into them in order to be near the military bases which are located in them. However, despite the net increases in 10 counties, each of the major regions sustained a net loss through migration, ranging from 2.2 per cent of the 1950 population in the Piedmont to 15.9 per cent of that in the Upper Coastal Plain. On an individual county basis, the greatest decreases were incurred by three groups of counties, including: (1) about four in the southern part of the Upper Coastal Plain from which the Negro descendants of plantation slaves have been leaving in large numbers; (2) five or six in the northern part of the same region where Negroes also have been motivated in large numbers to leave low-status ^The method is discussed in County and City Data Book , 1962 (A Statistical Abstract Supplement/, l^b^^ p. Til; and estimates for North Carolina Counties are given in ibid., pp. 263-275, Table 2, Item 35.

PAGE 424

^05 farming; and (5) seven or eight in the Appalachians in the western section of the state from which large percentages of white young adults have moved, leaving behind the traditional folk communities and subsistence farms. The net gains through migration in the individual counties of the Piedmont region have varied considerably, from 16.5 per cent in Mecklenburg to 3.2 in Randolph. But even the largest of these increases were not sufficient to prevent the thriving Piedmont region from incurring a net loss through migration. Moreover, this took place despite the fact that the vast majority of persons of both races who enter North Carolina from other states take up residence in the cities which comprise the highly urbanized Piedmont Crescent. The net losses through migration are heaviest in the counties where the level of living is relatively low and the gains are greatest in those where the plane of existence is comparatively high. Thus economic motives, broadly defined, are those which impel vast numbers of North Carolinians to seek out new areas and to leave those which are economically depressed. In turn, this tends to draw away from the depressed areas, persons who are relatively well educated and who hold the higher status Jobs. The drain then further reduces the level of living in such places.

PAGE 425

't06 In order to evaluate the relationship between socioeconomic conditions and mi^jration, the 10 counties which experienced net sains throu^^h migration were combined into one group and the seven which 'sustained net losses of 10,000 or nore into a second group. Then the groups were compared according to some of the elements which make up the level 01 living. Three components were used, with the state average for each taken as an index of 100, although it should be made clear that these and other elements of the level of living are basically inseparable in their relationship to migration. The three components are: (1) the percentage of white-collar workers in the county; (2) median family income in the county in 1959; and (5) the percentage of housing in the county classified as "sound" in the I960 Census of Housing. The following situations appeared as the most outstanding: (1) In the 10 counties which had net gains of population through migration, the index for the proportion of white-collar workers was 120 as compared with one of 79 in the seven which lost 10,000 or more inhabitants. (2) In the counties which gained, the index for median family income was 117 as contrasted with one of 70 in those which lost. (5) The counties which gained had an index of 120 on the percentage of "sound" housing, but those which lost had one of 72. Thus those parts of the state in which professional, clerical, and other white-collar Jobs are most

PAGE 426

407 available, where incone is reasonably adequate, and where housing is in relatively bOod condicion, attract people from other paxts of the state and the nation. Conversely, those places in which less favorable* conditions prevail not only fail to attract many migrants, but also lose substantial shares of their own native-born people. Unf ortxinately, the latter conditions exist in a much larger share of the state's counties than do the former. Those unfavorable circumstances are especially prevalent among the rural-farm populations of both races, and the lajge exodus of these people from the state points up this fact dramatically. Therefore, low levels of living are both cause and effect of migration from North Carolina, Rural-Urban Migration A great deal of the migration of Americans in general and of North Carolinians in particular is that from the rural districts into the cities. This has been especially important during the twentieth century, being a principal factor in the growth of cities and towns and the instrument whereby majiy of the basic forms and functions of American society have been fundamentally transformed. Therefore, the subject of rural-urban migration deserves especially careful study. Unfortunately, though, the materials available at present do not permit this vast migration to be studied

PAGE 427

^08 directly. Rather, extant data Eust be used in various combinations in order that inferences may be drawn concerning this important natter. For this purpose, two indexes are used in the present study,* including: (1) the numerical and proportional growth of the state's six Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, exclusive of that which has resulted from natural increase (excess of births over deaths) between 1950 and I960, and the concomitant shrinkage of the total rural population;^° and (2) the percentages of persons in the urban, rural -nonf arm, and rural-farm populations who lived in different counties, states, or countries in 1955 and I960. The first of these indexes is limited to the population changes in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas because the urban population living outside of these six counties also increased between 1950 and I960 by means of annexation. Moreover, the rural population is not subdivided into rural -nonfarm and rural-farm for analysis by means of this first index because the change in the definition of a farm, used in the I960 census, and the absence of vital statistics separately for these categories makes any such refinement impossible. Nevertheless, the heavy migration of North Carolinians from farms to cities and the ^^This is a variation of a technique employed by C. Horace Hamilton, Rural -Urban Mi^^^ation in North Carolina; 1920 to 1930, Agricultural Experiment Station bulletin No. 295 (ftaleigE: North Carolina State College, 195^), P. J'*-.

PAGE 428

^+09 relatirely minor reverse movement are well-known and can be denonstrated bj means of the above-mentioned indexes. Between 1950 and I960, the population of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, increased by 222,4?^. This figure is equal to 25 per cent of the population living in these six units in 1950. Of this group, natural increase accounts for the addition of 170,8^+1 persons, leaving 51,615 to be attributed to net migration. (See Table 54.) Thus migration may be considered to account for an increase over the 1950 population of 5.8 per cent. However, the white population was entirely responsible for this part of the increase, whereas the nonwhite group experienced a net loss through migration from the metropolitan counties. As a result, these estimates show that while the white metropolitan population increased 8.3 per cent by means of migration, the nonwhite was 2.1 per cent smaller than it would have been had there been no migration. Of course, the much higher rate of natural increase of the latter was sufficient to produce an overall gain of 40,355 nonwhites in the metropolitan population, but this should not be ailowed to obscure the fact that large numbers of nonwhites left the most highly urbanized areas of North Carolina. Thus the bulk of the migration of North Carolina's nonwhites continues to be in the direction of cities, but toward those which are located in other sections of the nation. Its whites, on the other hand, also aeaklng b«tt«r socioeconomic advantagss,

PAGE 429

'HO ON g r-i EH M Q iJ 5 J3

PAGE 430

^11 are much more likely than nonwhites to leave rural districts for urban centers within the state. The net losses through migration of North Carolina's rural population have been spectacular, for rural districts have lost people in far greater numbers and proportions than the urban parts of the state have attracted them. Thus the lion's share of people who migrate from rural areas also leave North Carolina, but this condition is especially pronounced for nonwhites, (See Table '?^.) With the factor of natural increase taken into account, between 1950 and 1950, the rural population of the state sustained a net loss through migration of ^71*668 persons, a number equal to 17.5 per cent of the 1950 total. But while the net loss was 1J>»^ per cent for whites it was 28.8 per cent for nonwhites. In fact, 30 great was the exodus of the nonwhite rural population, that between the two years in question, their absolute number was reduced by almost 17,000 persons. Even a high rate of natural increase which added nearly 190,000 nonwhite rural children between 1950 and I960 was not sufficient to offset the loss of those of all ages who moved away. Some went to North Carolina's cities, a handful went to rural areas elsewhere in the nation, but the vast majority migrated to urban centers in the northeastern part of the country, especially New York. It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of this great reduction of the rxiral

PAGE 431

412 population through nifjration an.i the concomitant movement of IsLTge numbers of whitea to the state's cities, for these two factors have been chiefly responsible for the rapid emergence of the Piedmont Crescent as the most important urbanized area of the state and one of the most significant of the South. The urban centers of North Carolina also attract some people from other states, especially from Virginia and South Carolina. Thus in I960, 9 per cent of the urban whites and ^ per cent of the urban nonwhites reported that they had lived in a different state in 1955. "^"^ (See Table 55.) Furthermore, 11 per cent of the white urban group and 5 per cent of the nonwhite had migrated to their cities of residence from other North Carolina counties since 1955. In contrast, only about 1.5 per cent of each of the white and nonwhite populations living on farms had migrated to them from other states, and only about 4,5 per cent of the whites and 6.8 per cent of the nonwhites had moved to farms from other sections of the state. The rural -nonf arm population incurred percentage increases, by race, which were close to those experienced by the urban group. Yet all of these gains through migration are modest as compared with the heavy losses of rural North Carolinians to cities elsewhere in the United States. In this case, percentages of persons who lived in different houses, counties, and states in 1955 and I960 were computed for the totaJ. urban population and not merely for those living in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas,

PAGE 432

^13 TA3LE 55 PERCENTAGES OF PEOPLE IN SEVERAL RESIDENCE CATEGORIES IN 1955 AND i960, BY COLOR AND RURAL OB DRBAN STATUS, NORTH CAROLINA

PAGE 433

41 a The seven largest: cities in North Carolina also differ in their ability to attract people to them. For example, Charlotte and Durham draw more than their fair shares of those who come to North Carolina from other states. Greensboro, High Point, and Raleigh are the Meccas of North Carolinians from other counties. On the other hand, Asheville receives fair less than its pro rata shaxe of persons from other states, ajad also of those from other North Carolina counties. It has an especially high proportion of people who continue to reside in the same place year after year. The same is true of Winston-Salem, but to a lesser degree. Parm-to-Paxm Migration Many farm people, especially Negroes who occupy the low statuses of the tenant or the sharecropper, also move from one farm to another with considerable frequency. This milling aroxind in little eddies is indicated by the fact that in I960, 21 per cent of North Carolina's white and 39 per cent of its nonwhite rural-farm population had lived in a different house in the same coxmty in 1955. (See Table 55.) The 1959 Census of Agriculture provides additional useful information on this subject by reporting the numbers of farm operators who had lived on their farms for a specified number of years. On the avei'age, white operators

PAGE 434

remain on the saLrae farms for longer periods of time than do the nonwhites, (See Table 56.) For example, in 19^9, 65>.9 per cent of all white operators but only ^8.3 per cent of the nonwhites had lived on fheir farms for as many as 10 years. At the opposite end of the scale, ^.S per cent of the whites and 9.8 per cent of the nonwhites had been on their present farms for one year or less. But these differences are due almost entirely to the types of tenure which prevail among the white and nonwhite groups. For example, all full owners of farms had spent an average of 19 years on their farms whereas sharecroppers of the races combined averaged only seven years. When the factor of tenure is accounted for separately, the differences between whites and nonwhites in the length of time on a given farm are found to be relatively small. This means, of course, that when tenure statuses are similar, the rates of farm-tofarm migration of whites and nonwhites are approximately the same. Thus among full owners, 77.7 per cent of the whites and 79«9 per cent of the nonwhites had operated their farms for 10 or more years, whereas among sharecroppers, 51.3 per cent of the whites and 28.7 per cent of the nonwhites had worked the same farms for 10 or more years. Clearly, the differences between the races are largely a function of the fact that the proportions of white farm operators who are fxill owners, part owners, and managers are

PAGE 435

^16 TABLE 56 PEBCENTAaES OF TASK OPERATORS WHO LIVED ON THEIR PRESORT (1959) FARMS FOR SPECIFIED NUMBERS QF YEARS, BY COLOR AND TENURE, NORTH CAROLINA Years on present farm Color and tenxtre Average number 1 or lesa

PAGE 436

417 nuch higher than the percentri^-TeG of nonwhites who fall into those categories. On the other hand, inordinately large proportions of the nonwhite^are tenants, especially sharecroppers. This situation is illustrated by the fact th^,t in 19?9, only 11 per cent of all farn owners in North Carolina were nonwhites, whereas 47 per cent of all sharecroppers were members of that color group. This latter type of tenure system produces little investment in the farm of a type which would discourage migration; and as a result of their greater tendency to be low-status tenants, Negroes are much more likely than whites to drift from farm to farm. In fact, when nonwhites are full owners, part owners, managers, or even cash tenants, they tend to operate the same fairni for a somewhat longer time on the average than do white operators of comparable categories. On the other hand, nonwhite sharecroppers and persons who have contracted related types of arrangements are somewhat more mobile than are whites who occupy those tenure classes. A considerable share of farm ownership in North Carolina, especially in the Mountain and western Piedmont regions, also confers comparatively low socioeconomic status. In fact, many of the farms in these areas are small and relatively xinproductive. Their operators also have comparatively low levels of living. Most of them are operated by white owners who rarely migrate from one farm to another.

PAGE 437

'as However, districts whicn are characterized by subsistence agriculture of this type do lose very high proportioas of their young adults to urbc.n centers. These faras also contain comparatively high percentages of farm operators and their families who commute to other jobs each day. As a result, in North Carolina, farm owners exhibit the highest incidence of persons who work in other jobs C+o per cent), while sharecroppers show the lowest proportion (55 per cent). Negroes are overrepresented among the latter, of course, being concentrated mainly in the Upper Coastal Plain and Tidewater regions where other types of jobs are not particularly plentiful for members of that race. Among farm people of both races, but especially whites, off-farm employ ment often returns more income than does the sale of farm products. The farm-to-farm movement also is partly a function of age, for sharecroppers in North Carolina are a considerably younger group on the average than are owners or part owners. Thus the sharecropping system in the state contains a higher proportion of relatively young operators than does the ownership system, it involves a disproportionately high number of Negroes, and it encourages little investment of capital or effort in improving the farm. All of these factors tend to be associated with a comparatively high rate of residential mobility. Therefore, it is not

PAGE 438

419 surprising that an inordinately large share of the farm-tofarm movement takes place among Negro sharecroppers, whereas a comparatively small proportion is accounted for by owners or part owners of either race. Trends The importance of migration as a factor influencing North Carolina's demographic situation has increased greatly in the twentieth century. North Carolinians have tended to move into and from the state in growing proportions as well as to shift aroiind within it from one county to another and from house to house. Yet, while North Carolina's population has come to include larger percentages of persons who had been bom in other parts of the nation, since 1870 it has continued to sustain net losses of people of both races 12 through migration. It long has contributed large shares of its rural people to the massive movement to cities; but for generations its own urban centers have received only small n\imbers and proportions of migrants from other sections of the nation. As a result, in comparison with the general situation in the nation North Carolina continues to have relatively few people who were born outside the state of " r2 — For the 1870-1929 situation, see Hamilton, Rural Urban Migration in North'Carolina: 1920 to 1930 » p. ^1 ; and for that of 19'<-0-1949, see C. Horace Hamilton, Net Migration to and from North Carolina and North Carolina Counties from 19^0 to 1950 . Progress Report Rs-18 (Raleigh; North Carolina State College, 195!^)} passim .

PAGE 439

*20 residence. (See Table 57.) This, of course, is to be expected in an area which consistently has lost more people through migration than it has gained by that means and which also has had a comparatively h'igh rate of natural increase. This pattern of migration has prevailed especially for the Negro population since about 1920. The many types of migration by North Carolinians have produced increasingly large net losses by the state. Between 13W and 1950, North Carolina experienced a net loss of 98,000 whites and of 162,000 nonwhites, producing proportional losses of 5.7 per cent and 16.2 per cent, respectively, in comparison with the 19^0 populations. But between 1950 and I960, the net losses were even greater, for North Carolina gave up 121,000 whites and 207,000 nonwhites. These persons were the equivalent of ^.0 per cent of the 1950 white population and 19.2 per cent of the nonwhite group. Moreover, this increase in the rate of loss has continued since 1890, with the exception of the period between 1920 and 19^0 when the movement from farms to cities slowed down. In the terminology of the days of the Great Economic Depression, the "damming up of young people on the farms" caused many would-be migrants to remain in North Carolina. But between 19^0 and 1950 and during the decade which followed, the rate of loss through net migration shot up to higher levels. That for nonwhites, as expected, rose «ven mor« precipitously than that for whites.

PAGE 440

^21 TABLE 57 PERCENTAGES OF THE ENUMERATED POPULaI'IONS WHO WERE BORN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES OF RESIDENCE, BY COLOR, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITSD STATES, 1900-1960 Area and color Per cent born in the state of residence 1900 1910 1920 1930 19^J0 I95O 1950" North Carolina: Total population 95.5 95.0 93.7 89.9 90.2 87.'* Sk,Z Whites 95. » 9^1.9 93.7 ... 90.4 86.8 82.8 Nonwhitea 95.6 95.1 93.6 ... 89.7 89.2 88.1 United States: Total population 79.1 78.0 77.^ 76.2 77.1 73.5 TO.'* Whites 78.2 77.2 77.1 ... 77.3 7'».0 70.8 Nonwhitea 8^.2 83.2 80.O ... 75.9 69.8 67.5 Sources: Co«piled and coaputed fro« data in D.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population; I96O . General Social and Economic Characteristics . United States Sumaary , Final Report PC(1)-1C (1962), p. 202, Table 5^; and North Carolina . Final Report PC(1)-35C (1962), p. I63, Table 59.

PAGE 441

i^22 In sunmary, the re;:iients of North Carolina long have been more likely than ii^ericans in general to have been born in the state in which tney were residing. But this is due to the fact that the state has continued to sustain relatively heavy net losses through interstate migration. Furthermore, since 1890, the proportions of Negroes who moved from the state have been considerably higher than those of whites, A major share of the nonwhite group has shifted from areas of low-status agriculture to urban centers in other parts of the nation.

PAGE 442

CHAPTER XIV GROWTH AND REDISTRIBUTION For a long period, North Carolina's population has grown much more slowly than that of the United States as a whole. Some parts of the state have grown whereas others have decreased, resulting in a constant redistribution of people within it. These dynajnic aspects of the population are of fundamental interest to the student of demography eind to policy makers who are concerned with urbaji development and planning, industrial growth, programs for agriculture, the expansion of medical and health facilities, and many other matters which involve efforts to plan for the immediate future. The numbers and distribution of people are in constant flux, of course, because of variations in fertility, mortality, and migration. But while it is vital to understand how these primary factors have produced population changes up to the present, it is hazardous and often misleading to project these very far into the future. Fertility and migration are especially unpredictable and do not lend themselves well to long-range forecasts. For this reason, the population growth discussed in the present chapter is that which occurred between 1790 and I960, but none of the trends produced by these changes are projected into the future, 423

PAGE 443

Changes in Numbers The long-time trend of North Carolina's population change has been one of comparatively slow growth. (See Table 3'8.) Thus between 1790 and 19o0, in North Carolina the annual rate of increase was 1,6 per cent as compared with one of 2.6 per cent in the nation as a whole and one of 2.2 per cent in the South. Moreover, unlike the situation in some other states, the rates of growth in the nineteenth century were not substantially higher than they have been in the twentieth. In fact, the rate of growth of North Carolina's population was comparatively slow between 1790 and 1900 when the populations of the nation and of the South were expanding much more rapidly. However, in the years from 1900 to I960, North Carolina continued to -grow at the same annual rate (1,6 per cent) as it had in the nineteenth century, whereas that in the nation fell to 1.5 per cent during this period and the annual rate for the South declined to 1.4 per cent. Finally, in the decade of the 1950' s, North Carolina's population grew slowly as compared with those of the United States at large and of the Southern region. In large part, North Carolina's relatively slow rate of growth North Carolina's situation is tn contrast, for example, with that reported for Louisiana by T. Lynn Smith and Homer L. Hitt, T^e People of Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952), p, 231.

PAGE 444

^2> TABLE. 58 ANNUAL RATES OF POPULATION GRCrfTH IN NORTH CAROLINA, THE SOUTH, AND THE UNITED STATES AS A WHOLE, 1790-1960 Area

PAGE 445

'^26 results from its comparatively large not losses of persons through migration. Of course, throughout its history, North Carolina's population has grovm substantially in absolute numbers, advancing from 593,751 in 1790 to more than 1,000,000 in 1870, over 2,000,000 in 1910, and ^,556,155 in I960. (See Table 59.) In total, between 1790 and 1900, North Carolina's population expanded somewhat less than fivefold as compared with ain increase of almost twentyfold in the nation as a whole. But between 1900 and I960, a gain of 2,662,5^5 was registered in North Carolina, representing an increase of I'l-l per cent as compared with one of 135 per cent in the nation at large. Thus since the turn of the present century, and especially between 1900 and 1930, the rate of population growth in North Caxolina was somewhat higher than was that in the nation as a whole, although the differences between the two were not great. In both cases, the populations more than doubled during the 60-year period. Since 1930, however, the growth rate in the state has been considerably lower than that in the nation as a whole. The patterns of growth and redistribution which developed in the two decades since 19^0 are highly suggestive of present oonditiona and of several rapid sociocultural changes which are taking place in the state. Between 19^0 and 1950, North Carolina's population showed a gain of ^90,306 or of

PAGE 446

TABLE 59 POPULATION OF NORTH CAEOLINA, 1790 TO I96O 427

PAGE 447

'J-28 15.7 per cent. This rate was somewhat higher than that which prevailed between 1930 and 19^0 when the birth rate was lowest^ but lower than those of most decades prior to 1950. Only between 1860 and 1-870, when the effects of the Civil Var were felt heavily in North Carolina, and between 1850 and 18^0, were the growth rates lower than they were between 19^0 and 1950, Moreover, the latter rate was considerably lower than the 1^.5 per cent which prevailed in the nation as a whole. Between 1950 and I960, the rate of population growth in North Carolina declined even more. The absolute increase of A-9^,226 inhabitants during this 10-year period produced a relative gain of only 12.2 per cent as compared with that of 13.7 per cent between 19'*-0 and 1950. In the nation as a whole, the decade of the 1950' s brought an increase of 18.5 per cent as compared with one of 1'^.5 per cent in the preceding intercensal period. Thus the growth rate of the nation's total population was one-third greater than was that of North Carolina's inhabitants. This differential is not without precedent, however, for North Ceirolina's people increased at a slower rate than did those in the United States at large in 15 of the 17 decades between 1790 and I960, This, of course, would be unusual for a state with comparatively high proportion of Negroes and of rural-farm people were it not for the substantial losses of people through Bigration from the state.

PAGE 448

429 The rate of population increase in North Carolina between 1950 and I960, as corapared with the corresponding rates of growth in the other ^9 states, may be described as below average, but by no means among the very lowest. (See Table 50.) The inhabitants of 52 states increased in nuaiber more rapidly, those of 14 states increased less rapidly, and the residents of the remaining three and of the District of Columbia actually declined in number. The greatest rate of growth was experienced by Florida with a phenomenal 78.7 per cent gain, followed closely by Nevada (78.2 per cent), Alaska (75.8 per cent), and Arizona (75.7 per cent). The populations of California and New Mexico also increased substantially. At the other extreme, sustaining the heaviest loss was Vest Virginia with a 7.2 per cent decrease, followed by Arkansas (-6.5 per cent), the nation's capital (-4.8 per cent), and Mississippi (less than -0.1 per cent). In the South, eight states had larger proportional increases between 1950 and I960 than the 12,2 per cent gain registered by North Carolina. These were Florida with its spectacular increase, followed in descending order by Delaware (40.3 per cent), Maryland, Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina. Four other states in the region grew more slowly than did North Carolina, and the remaining three actually lost population.

PAGE 449

TABLE 60 NORTH CAROLINA'S POSITION AMONG THE STATES IN POPULATION GEOWTH, 1950-1960 ^^50 state

PAGE 450

451 TABLE 60 continued

PAGE 451

432 Population Growth in Rural ajid Urban Areas The rapid development of urbanization as a complex set of sociocultural phenomena and the concomitant increases in the urban population and decreases in that living on farms is one of the most basic changes which North Carolina is experiencing. Indeed, urbanization as an effect and also as a cause is involved in almost all aspects of the sociocultural revolution now going on in North Carolina and other parts of the nation. Therefore, the rates of growth of the populations of towns and cities, rural -nonf arm areas, and rural-farm districts are of the utmost significance. Ever since 1830, the urban population of the state has grown at a rate far exceeding that of the rural population. (See Figure 60.) Between 1900 and I960, the urban population increased 865 per cent, from a mere 186,790 persons in the former year to 1,801,921 in the latter; whereas during the comparable 60-year period, the rural population expanded only 61 per cent, or from 1,707,020 inhabitants in 1900 to 2,75^,23^ in I960, As a result, while in 1900 the urban popxHation of the state comprised only 9«9 per cent of the total, by I960 it made up 59.5 per cent of all. Nevertheless, the rural population continues to be substantially larger than the urban, although the vast majority of persons in the former now are claBsified as rural -nonf arm rather than as rural-fara residents.

PAGE 452

^33 a ueo 2 DO ==§ d o o \

PAGE 453

^e rate of urbanization has fluctuated considerably, but it was especially high between 1950 and 1960 when the urban category increased by 455,820 persons or 51.7 per cent. On the other hand, during thisdecade, the rural population expanded by only 60,406 persons who represented an increase of merely 2,2 per cent. Moreover, except for the exceedingly low rate which prevailed between 1850 and 1840, that of I95O-I959 was by far the lowest rate of growth that the state's rural population has ever experienced. As expected, while the rural group has grown in numbers during every intercensal period, the rate of growth has decreased steadily throughout the twentieth century; and it diminished especially sharply between 1930 and I960, Highly important also is the fact that urban centers now have come into existence in every part of North Carolina. The first towns and cities developed along the coast and on various estuaries, and it was much later before any considerable number of poptilation centers developed in the central portion of the state. As recently as 1880, there were only nine places with 2,500 or more inhabitants in North Carolina. But by I960, there were 125 such places, seven of which were in the category having 50,000 or more inhabitants. As mentioned above, the changes in the rural and urban populations between 1890 and I960 have resulted in a

PAGE 454

^55 rising rate of growth of the urban segment and a decreasing growth rate of the rural portion. (See Figure 60.) These two rates of increase have resulted in one for North Carolina's total population which ]ias been nearly constant, neither rising nor falling precipitously. This relatively steady growth resulted from a combination of the declining rate of increase until 19^0 of the rural-farm population followed by its subsequent decrease in numbers on the one hand, and the increasing rates of the urban and rural -nonfarm groups on the other. Since 19^0, however, the ruralnonfarm population has exhibited the greatest rate of growth, surpassing even that of the urban group. Because of the increase of this segment, North Carolina still contains a larger rural than urban population, although much of the former is not "ruralin a sociocultural sense. This is especially true for the white population living in the comparatively large suburban areas which still are classified as rural -nonf arm territory. The great decline of the farm population and the growth of the urban and rural -nonfarm segments is a highly significant social fact, for it represents basic changes of a far-reaching sort. In particular, the sociocultural sphere of farm people has broadened considerably, permitting then access to ideas, attitudes, values, and behavioral patterns which are generated in the more urbanized parts of

PAGE 455

^56 society. This was far less prevalent only a generation ago, meiking for a higher degree of isolation of the rural group. Simultaneously, the singular influence exerted upon the rural dweller by the local, community has declined. The net result of these changes is a higher degree of heterogeneity in local areas and greater homogeneity throughout the entire state. These changes are reflected in part in the growing importance of the rural -nonf arm population, a substeintial proportion of which is found in an intermediate position between xorban-dominated society on the one hand and the remnants of a rural -dominated society on the other. In some respects, the rural -nonf arm population is very much like the rural -farm group, and in others it is more similar to the urbein. But generally, the highly diverse rural-nonfarm component exhibits am intricate interweaving of elements of ruredity and of urbanization.^ This fact is of fundamental significance in any effort to understand North Carolina and the changes which it is undergoing. The Growth of the White and Negro Populations Patterns of growth of the white and Negro populations of North Carolina have differed greatly in the twentieth On this point, see Glenn V. Puguitt, "The City and the Countryside," Rural Sociology , Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sept., 1963), pp. 246-261. ^?or an excellent elaboration of this idea, see Joseph 0. Doherty, *'Hural America in Transition," in After A Hundred Years, U.S.D.A. Yearbook of Agriculture, 19627"p. 589.

PAGE 456

'^57 century, yigura 61 shows the changes in the numhera of menbers of both races, by residence. It reveals that, although both races grew in numbers between 1910 and I960, the absolute and relative increases of the whites were considerably greater than were those of the Negroes during this period. Thus while the number of whites in North Carolina increased 127 per cent, that of Negroes expanded only 60 per cent. Obviously, this great disparity occurred despite the higher rate of natural increase of the Negro population. Therefore, it can be explained only through the mass exodus of Negroes from North Carolina. As expected, the percentage of Negroes in the total population has decreased steadily from 52.0 per cent in 1910 to only 25.^ per cent in I960. Moreover, this trend is still in process, for between 1950 and I960, the white population grew 13.9 per cent but the Negro group increased only 6.6 per cent. Obviously, these changes in the numbers and relative proportions of whites and Negroes in North Carolina have produced a substantial shift in the racial composition of the state's population, and if the trend continues, it will further influence the social griri economic life of the state. It will have particvilar impact upon sigriculture, of course, because Negroes have been the mainstay of the pervasive sharecropping and tenancy system in North Carolina. Their unwillingness to ^n this case, the Negro rather than the nonwhite population is used,

PAGE 457

NUMBER 4,000.000 3.000.000 2,000.000 ^58 1,000,000 600,000 600,000 400.000 200,000 ^ 100,000

PAGE 458

'09 remain in these statuses will suyely create significant realignments of the various components which make up the agricultural segment of North Carolina's economy. It is also apparent frojn Figure 61 that the members of both races living in urban centers have increased fairly steadily in numbers, although the white group has grown at a slightly more rapid rate than has the Negro portion. The rural -nonfarm population of both races also has continued to grow fairly steadily, although some of the apparent increase in the rate of growth between 1950 and I960 was due to the change in the definition of a farm. This expanded the numbers in the rural -nonfaxm category but decreased those in the rural-farm class. Nevertheless, whites and Negroes have increased considerably in the rural-nonf arm category. Moreover, this growth should not be construed as an increase in rurality, for the rural -nonfarm population is highly heterogeneous and often extremely urban in many of its sociocultiiral features. But members of the ruralfarm population of both races have become fewer and have also become subject to an inordinately high rate of decrease. This has been especially marked since 19^0, although, of course, some of the decline between 1950 and I960 resulted from the change in the definition of a farm. But the change in the definition places the remaining rural-farm people in a more realistic position insofar as defining their social

PAGE 459

behavior and cultural environment is concerned. It in no way negates the basic fact that North Carolina's white and Negro farm populations have been shrinking rapidly. Redistribution Within the Urban Population The pattern of distribution within North Carolina's urban population adso has undergone some significant changes. In general, in the first several decades following 1820 when the first urban population was enumerated, the coastal towns and cities waxed in importance as the major urban aggregations. But in later periods, their absolute and relative growth was eclipsed by that of cities which developed in the area that became the Piedmont Crescent. Thus in 1850, the port town of Wilmington was the state's largest urban center with over 7,000 people, followed by New Bern, Bdenton, and Raleigh; and this pattern persisted for a generation. But after 1880, the growth of coastal towns and cities was not rapid and there developed a tendency for North Carolinians and others to move into various urban centers scattered throughout the state. In 1900, Wilmington was still the largest city, but Charlotte, Asheville, Raleigh, Greensboro, and Winston each had passed the 10,000 mark: and this development took place in areas extending from the coast to the mountains, let at the turn of the century, the proportion of people living in cities In North Carolina was less than b.air that in the nation.

PAGE 460

^^1 By 1910, Charlotte (5'+,000 people) was the largest city in the st:^te, a distinction it has retained to the present. Ten yoars later, in 1920, North Carolina had 55 urban places, four of w-.ich ('^nston-Salen, Charlotte, Vilmington, and Asheville) each contained more than 25,000 Deople. These widely separated cities exerted increasing influence over their respective areas of the state and were beginning to attract large numbers of people from the farms as industry, trade, and commerce expanded and provided new employment. Even so the urban population made up less thaji one-fifth of the state's total. By this time, the cluster of urban centers in the Piedmont Crescent had begun to assume impressive proportions and had become the major recipient of people shifting from place to place within North Carolina and into the state from elsewhere. In I960, North Carolina contained seven cities with 50,000 or more inhabitants. All of them except Asheville are located in the Piedmont Crescent in the central portion of North Carolina. With their I960 populations, these large centers are Charlotte (201,564), Greensboro (119, 57^), Winston-Salem (111,135), Raleigh (95,931), Durham (78,502), and High Point (62,065). In I960, Asheville in the Mountain region contained 60,192 inhabitants. Each one of these cities is part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area because of the influence which it exerts over the county in

PAGE 461

4 '4-2 v.'hich it is located. Thef^e large centers are increasingly dominant in the life of the state, although many smaller one':' in other parts of North Carolina also exercise considerable influence in aore localized areas. Therefore, although the rural population is still in the majority, even the nost isolated groups within it are falling more under the pervasive spheres of influence of the urban centers. Redistribution of the Rural Population Vithin the rural population, there has been considerable redistribution, with the general pattern involving growth of the larger villages, noderate declines of the sr.'iller ones, and great decreases of the open-country population. Changes in the latter are basically the caxe a^ those which have occurred in the rural-farm population. The numbers and proportions of persons living in the larger villages and other centers with 1,000-2,500 inhabitants have grovm considerably. For example, in 1900, 35,705 persons or 2,8 per cent of the population lived in places of this size, whereas in I960, 257,95^ inhabitants or 5.2 per cent of the total resided in such centers. During the 60year period, of course, population gains have elevated many of these aggregations into the urban category. Finally, ^Greensboro and High Point are both parts of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area which includes all of Guilford County,

PAGE 462

4^5 theso centers as a group have increased at a faster rate than has tho population as a whole. However^ their rate of increase is considerably below that found in urban centers and in rural-nonfaria districts. Obviously, they are not at all like the rural-faLra group which has declined in nunibers at a comparatively rapid rate. Villages and hamlets with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants have not grown appreciably in numbers of people and have decreased in the percentage of the total population which thoy contain. Thus in 1900, such places accounted for 9^,59^ persons, representing 5*0 per cent of the total, but in I960, while the inhabitants of these centers numbered 110,981, they wore only 2,^ per cent of the total. The rate of growth of those centers is far below that of the total, urban, axid rural -nonf arm populations; but, of course, the small centers have grown whereas the open-country population has declined significantly. Hedistribution Among the Regions The patterns of growth and decline in the populations of North Carolina's counties have resulted in rapidly expanding populations in some parts of the state, static ones in other areas, and even decreases in some sections. The general tendency during the period from 1900 to I960 has been for the population of the Piedmont region to grow

PAGE 463

444 considerably more rapidly than that of the state as a whole, for those in the Tidewater and Upper Coastal Plain regions to grow core slowly than the total, and for the group in the I^ouatain region to grow very alowly and even to decrease at various times during the period. Tne changes in numbers of people and the percentages of growth or decline in the regions appear in Table 61. In all regions between I9OO and I960, the IJegro population has grown much more slowly than the white group, with by far the greatest increase of those forming this segment occurring in the Piedinont region. In fact, during that period, the region accounted for almost one-half of the entire growth of the Negro population of North Carolina. These and other changes result from losses in some counties and gains in others. Thus the white population in I960 was actually smaller than it had been in 1900 in nine counties, while the Negro group was smaller in 21 of them. In the case of losses of whites, six of the counties are in the Tidewater region and three in the Mountain region. In the case of decreases of Negroes, 12 of the counties are in the Mountain region, four in the Tidewater, and five in the parts of the Piedmont which border on the Mountain region. All of the changes in population distribution which were produced by differential growth between 1900 and I960 were even more accentuated in the most recent decade for

PAGE 464

^^+5 TABLE 61 AEJOLDTE AND RELATIVE CHAKGES IN THE POPULATIONS OF THE REGIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, BY RACE, 1^X)-1960 AND 1950-1960 Upper Race The state Tidewater Coaatal Piedmont Mountain Plain r'atire whites Change: I9OO-I96O Number 2,n5,6'tl 187,368 ^27,175 1,537,790 165,308 Par cent l67.^ 12V. 9 155.5 211.1 79.7 Change: 1950-1960 Nuaotr '+12,257 58,6'tl 66,5l6 290,766 5,666 Per cciit 13.9 21.0 10.5 17.3 1.0 l.e>rroe6 Change: I9OO-I96O Nufflber ^+91,552 '1,837 205,896 2't2,019 38o Per cent 78.7 32.5 92.'+ 93.5 2,k Change: 1950-1960 IfujBber 66,668 5,130 11, 9'+^ 53,276 1,682 Per cent 6.6 3.1 2.9 11.9 7.8 Sources: Coafipilod and computed froa data in U.S. Bureau of the Cooi.us, U.S. Cea3ua of Pop'olation: I96O , General Population Characteristics . North Ccurolina , Fir.al Rgport PC(1)-55B (1961), pp. 123-130. Table 23; U.S. Cansua of Population: 1950 , Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population , Part 33. Korth Carolirir Tl952) , pp. 107-112, Table ^2; and IVelf th Cengua of the United States: 1900 , Vol, I, Population , Part 1 (I90I), pp. 59'+-595, Table 22.

PAGE 465

4*4.6 which information is available. Thus between 1950 and I960, the growth of population that took place in the Piedmont far outstripped that which occurred in the two eastern rer:ions, and, of course, topped the decreases which were sustained by the Mountain region. In that decade, the Negro population which remained in the state was especially likely to concentrate in the heavily lirbanized Piedmont. Thus this region accounted for 80 per cent of the total growth of the state's Negro group. The Piedmont counties also accounted for 71 per cent of the growth of the white population. Fundamentally, there are comparatively few differenceo between the races in their regional patterns of growth or decline. That is, the agricultural areas of the state lose large numbers of persons of both races and grow slowly or not at all, whereas the urbanized industrial and conimercial areas gain many members of both races and register the greatest growth rates. This tendency for the races to behave in a similar manner substantiates our contention that when factors of socioeconomic status, occupation, rural or urban residence, age and sex distribution, and others are accounted for, the Negro population exhibits demographic features which are very much like those found in the white group. The regional patterns of growth are, of course, reflections of those which occur in the separate counties

PAGE 466

447 that make up the four regions. Between 1950 and I960, the losses from some of the counties were especially heavy, with 40 experiencing decreases of their white populations and 46 having losses of their *Negro groups, la both cases, • of course, natural increase added to the populations of all of the counties, so the losses were due entirely to migration. As has been the case throughout the twentieth centuxy, the greatest losses took place in the counties of the Tidewater, Upper Coastal Plain, and Mountain regions. Some decreases also were registered in the Piedmont counties which border the Upper Coastal Plain and in some which share boundaries with those in the Mountain region. The continuing tendency is for North Carolinians to concentrate even more heavily In the highly urbanized central portion of the state ^nA to abandon its western and eastern extremes. Moreover, if the growth of population due to movement of military personnel into the eastern part of the state Is excluded, this general pattern of redistribution is even more exaggerated. Prom the standpoint of growth rates between 1950 and I960, four types of counties are discernible in North Carolina, including: (1) those in which relatively rapid growth has taken place, amounting to 25 or more per cent; (2) those in which moderate growth (10-24 per cent) has occurred; (5) the ones in which the population has remained relatively

PAGE 467

3tatic, experiencing less than 10 per cent growth dxiring the decade; and (4) those which have lost population. The geographical distribution of these counties further cubstantiates the general pattern of growth which occurs in the central portion of the state and the relatively static populations or even significant decreases found elsewhere. In general, the counties in which at least 25 per cent growth occurred are those located in the urbanized heart of the Piedmont region or are the ones in which large military baces are located. The counties which have grown moderately are those which border on the heavily urbanized ones of the Piedjaont or which themselves contain one or more compaLratively small urban centers. The ones which remain relatively static also ajre many of those which contain small cities or lairge towns. They tend to be located on the periphery of the Piedmont region or along the coast. Finally, the counties in which populations have decreased are those of the farming districts, including the old plantation sections of the eastern part of the state and the subsistence farming areas of the western part.

PAGE 468

CHAPTER XV SUMMARY AND .CONCLUSIONS It is neither necessary nor desirable to conclude a study such as this with an elaborate summary of findings, for they are best understood in the contexts in which they appear in the various sections of the text, complete with the evidence upon which they are based. It is in order, however, to present concisely the basic approach of the study and the most important conclusions that have been drawn. This work treats of the most valuable resources of North Carolina — her people. It presents a wide variety of empirically verified facts concerning them. Initial consideration is given to their number and geographical distribution throughout the state. Following this, attention is centered upon their demographic characteristics. These are age, sex, residence, race and nativity, marital condition, educational status, and occupation. Next, the vital processes (fertility and mortality) as they prevail in North Carolina are treated in considerable detail. Then th? patterns of migration, especially that to or from North Carolina and the interchanges between its rural and urban areas, are analyzed and described. Finally, the manner in

PAGE 469

450 which North Carolinians have increased in number and have redistributed themselves within the state receives detailed consideration. In all, these various parts of the general analysis comprise a comprehensTive demographic exposition of the population of North Carolina, The fundamental conclusions which have been drawn from the analysis are the following: (1) Its total population places North Carolina relatively high (twelfth) among the states and causes it to be more densely settled than 33 of them, (2) The geographical distribution of North Carolina's inhabitants is such that high concentrations of people are found in the central portion of the state, whereas the eastern and western one-thirds are more sparsely inhabited. The Piedmont Crescent, wherein North Carolina's major cities are located, is one of the most Important urbanized regions of the entire South, (3) North Carolina's population resides in four major regions, each a mosaic of sociocultural features, ranging from those of the extremely rural Mountain region to the ones found in the highly urbajiized Piedmont, (4) The state's population is a "youthful" one, containing a relatively large proportion of children but a comparative scarcity of adults of all ages, including those in the productive years and the aged. Persons aged 18-29

PAGE 470

^51 are especially scarce, chiefly because migration from the state selects a high percentage of those in these ages. This is particularly true for the Negro population which contains an even higher proportion of children but a much lower percentage of adults than the white segment. (5) The state's faxms are no longer the homes of coaparatively large shares of white children aged 0-^, So great has been the rural -to-urban morement of persons in their most fertile years, that the proportion of very young white children is no higher on farms than it is in cities. On the other hand, Negro children aged 0-4 are still superabundant on farms, (5) The balance between males and females in North Carolina is now about the same as that in the nation. No longer is the state characterized predominantly by rurality with its comparatively high proportion of males. Bather it is experiencing a rapid urbanization which is associated with a relatively large number of females. This balance between the sexes results in part from the tendency for young adult males to leave their native state for other parts of the nation. (7) Negro males of all ages are inordinately scarce, pajrtly because of their very heavy exodus from North Carolina and partly due to the fact that even at birth, they do not outnumber females rery greatly. This varies from the situation for whites among whom births of males considerably outnumber thos« of resales.

PAGE 471

452 (8) There is a substantial tendency towards convergence on the part of the sex ratios, age distributions, and other features exhibited by the various racial and residential groups within the state. This indicates a growing homogeneity resulting from a reduction of the differences which have distinguished whites from Negroes, farm residents from urban people, and mountain folk from coastal inhabitants. The net results of these changes are greater heterogeneity in local areas and increased homogeneity throughout the state as a whole. This homogenization of society is one of the most basic changes now taking place in the state. (9) The population of North Carolina continues to be far less urban than that of the nation as a whole. Conversely, it contains a much larger share of rural-nonfarm and rural farm residents. But the rate of growth of the urban population is greater in the state than in the United States at large and this is indicative of the extremely rapid pace of urbanization, of the concomitant decline of rurality, and of changes in other closely related sociocultural features. These changes from a rural -dominated society to a highly urbanized one also are among the most basic which are occurring in the state. (10) The rapid urbanization of some parts of the state and the persistence of extreme rurality in others is

PAGE 472

^53 accsntuatin^ the denosraphic contrasts in North Carolina. Tne Piedmont region is th^ epitoaie of urbanization, the oastorn part of North Carolina is the stronghold of rurality typified by tenancy and share cropping, and the Mountain rev;ioa is on outstanding example of a traditional folk rurality in which ov^Tierehip of subsistence farms figures prontaently. (11) Negroes and whites are about equally likely to be ui'banitos but the former are nuch more inclined to be living on farms, Turtheriaore , the composition of the ruralnonfai'm population varies greatly by race, with whites tending to be suburbanites but Negroes to have their homes on subsistence plots which are too small or too poor to be clascified as farms . Negroes have not yet gained access to the suburban part of society in North Carolina. (12) North Carolina still contains about double its pro ra. ta share of the nation's Negroes, although the proportion in the state is declining steadily. It has very few persons of foreign birth, and while its Indian population is larser than those of ziost other states, this group too is relr.tively small, Thus native whites and Negroes comprise virtually the entire population, and the complex relationships between thea pervade most of North Carolina's socioculturol situations. As mentioned above, there is a tendency for any of the deaographlo features of the races to converge, which, in turn, reflects the decreasing rurality of members of both.

PAGE 473

(13) The proportion of married persons in the population is relatively high and this has increased significantly ia tho twentieth century. This is due to a considerable exter^t to the fact that the average age at marriage has declined substantially. The proportions of widows and widowers and of single people have decreased, and the percentages of those who axe divorced have risen, (14) Compared with the nation as a whole, the educational statue of North Carolina's people is low. This is especially the case ajnong the Negro population. The persons in North Carolina who have received the most schooling are young adult whites who live in cities or on the major military installations; whereas those who have had the least training are older Negroes who live in all residential areas, but especially in the rural districts. These great educational differentials by race reflect the extremes in social stratification which still prevail in the state despite tendencies toward convergence. The trends in education, however, reflect rapid improvement. Negroes have experienced the greatest rates of improvement, having had the greatest initial handicap to overcome. (15) Occupationally, agriculture, manufacturing, and trade employ the vast majority of those in North Carolina's work force. In fact, manufacturing supplies employment for a larger share of the state's labor force than it does for those in that of the nation at large. An unusually

PAGE 474

^55 high proportion of females is involved, mainly in textile manufacturing which is North Carolina's largest manufacturing iDdustry. But agriculture, as an encompassing way of life, makes up the background against; which North Carolina's occupational situation must be understood. (16) The most fundamental changes in North Carolina's occupational situation are the rapid decline in the inportance of agriculture, the continuing increase in the significance of manufacturing, and the very rapid rise in the importance of industries which serve manufacturing. But in this process, Negroes continue to occupy the low-status jobs, in agriculture and out of it, showing loss occupational mobility than whites. This, of course, is a major reason explaining why many of them leave the state. (1?) Unemployment rates in the state are lower than those in the nation as a whole, but there is more underemployment or the excessive expenditure of human effort for an inadequate return. This is especially acute in agriculture among those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Inevitably, this problem affects an abnormally high proportion of the colored population. (18) The major functions of North Carolina's cities are closely related to the types of industrial pursuits which employ a sizeable share of the work force. The major centers are no longer dominated by single functions but have

PAGE 475

^56 becone Involved in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, tranEportation, education, governnent, and veurious other sources of jobs, (19) The people of North Carolina have relatively low rates of reproduction as conparod with those in the nation as a whole. This is Icirgely the recult of the mass exodus from the state of persons in the most fertile ages, although changes in birth folkways also have played an important part. So much of the migration has involved movement from agriculture of those in the most productive ages, that our inexact indexes seem to indicate that the levels of reproduction which prevail on the state's farms nou are below those found in cities. Moreover, while Negroes continue to have higher levels of reproduction than whites, they appear to do so chiefly because they are much more likely either to be farm people or to have been so very recently, (20) The level of mortality in North Carolina compares favorably with that in the nation, but this is the net result of two very different situations for whites and Negroes. The state's white population has a considerably lower death rate than does that in the United States at large, but its colored population has a higher one than that of the nation's Negroes. This circumstance also reflects the wide variations between the races in socioeconomic status.

PAGE 476

(21) The major causes from which North Carolinians die are those which predominate in a population with good medical care and a relatively long expectation of life. Thus the degenerative diseaseshave become more iniportant killers of the state's people and the infectious and deficiency illnesses have become far less significant. Whites enjoy far greater protection from these various preventable illnesses than do nonwhites. (22) North Carolinians are extremely mobile. In fact, such large proportions of them, particularly Negroes in the young-adult years, leave the state that it continues to sustain appreciable net losses from interstate migration. North Carolinians also are remarkably mobile within the state, shifting in large numbers into the counties which comprise the Piedmont region and away from the traditional farming districts, (25) North Carolina's population continues to grow relatively slowly and steadily as compared with that of the nation as a whole. The rural population continues to decrease, with the rural-farm segment declining especially rapidly, but the rural -nonf arm growing, while the urban segment expands rapidly. The proportion of Negroes in the population also is declining, for members of this race migrate from the state in such large numbers that even their compeiratively high rates of natural increase cannot sustain

PAGE 477

458 their previous levels of relative importance. All of these patterns of growth and decline have produced fairly high rates of expansion in the urbanized central portion of the state and either low rates of increase or actual decreases in most of the other sections.

PAGE 478

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aird, John S. , The Size. Composition, and Growth of the Population of Mainland Ch -ina, U.S. Bureau of the Census. International Population Statistics Reports, Series P90. No. 15. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961. Anderson, Nels, The Urban Coaim unity . New 'fork: Henry Holt and Co., Inc., 1959. Anderson, Valf red A. , The Characteristics of New York State Po pulation , Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin Ho. 925, Ithaca: Cornell University, 1958, Bell, Wendell, "Fanilisn and Suburbanization: One Test of the Social Choice Hypothesis," Rural Sociology , Vol, 21, Nos. 3-'^ (Sept. -Dec, 1956), pp. 275-28 3. Bertrand, Alvin L. , Louisiana's Human Resources , Part I, Number. Distribution, and Composition of the Population . r^bO, Louisiana Apjricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 548, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 19ol . Beza, Angell, "Population Movement to and from North Carolina, 1955-60," University of North Carolina Newsletter , Vol. XL VIII, No. ^ (fiec, 19S3). Boguo, Donald J., The Population of the United States . Glencoe, 111.1 The Free Press, 1959. Bunting, Robert L. , and Peter A. Prosper, Labor Mobility Problems in the Piedmont Industrial Crescent , Chapel Hill: Institute for Research in Social Science, I960. Burchard, Waldo W, , "A Comparison of Urban and Rural Churches," Rural Sociology . Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sept., 1963), pp. 271-278. Burford, Roger L. , in consultation with Alvin L. Bertrand and Waif rid J. Jokinen, Louisiana's Human Resources , Part IV, Migration of the Working Aged Population , Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 595, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1965. ^59

PAGE 479

460 Burgess, Kmeat W. , Harvey J, Locke » and Mary Margaret Thomeo, The Family (third ed.)» New York: The American Book Co., 1963. Burnight, Robert G. , 100 Years of Interstate MiKration; I85O-I95O , Connecticut Agricult;ural Experiment Station, Studies in the Population of Connecticut No. 5, Storrs: University of Connecticut, 1957. , and Dorothy Ingalls, A Decade of Population Change: Connecticut, 1950-1960 , Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin lio , i>66 , Storrs: University of Connecticut, 1961. Chapin, Jr., P. Stuart, "City Planning: Adjusting People and Place," in The Urban South , by Rupert B. Vance and Nicholas J. Demorath Ceds.;, Chapel Eill : University of North Carolina Press, 195^, Chapter 15. , Urban Land Use Planning , New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. , George C. Hemmens , and Shirley ?. Weiss, Land Development Patterns in the Piedmont IndustrlTal Crescen t, Chapel Hill; Institute for Research in Social Science, I960. , and Shirley F. Weiss (eds.). Urban Growth DynamicsTn a Regional Cluster of Cities , New York : John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 196^. Cleland, Charles L. , Selected Population and Agricultural Statistics for Tennessee Counties, Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 559, Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1965. Davis, Kingsley, The Population of India and Pakistan , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951. DeBow, J. D. B., Statistical View of the United States. . , Being a Compendium of the Seventh Census. . . , Washington: Beverley Tucker, Senate Printer, 185^. De Jong, Gordon F. , The Population of Kentucky; Changes in the Number of Inhabitants, 1950--60 , Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 675, Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1961.

PAGE 480

Demerath, Nicholas J., and Harlan V. Gilmore» "The Ecology of Southern Cities," in The Urban South , by Rupert 3. Vance and Nicholas J,' Demerath (eds.), Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1954, Chapter 7. Dinkel, Bobert M. , "Peopling the City: Fertility," in The Urban S outh , by Rupert B. Vance and Nicholas J. i)eai9rath (eds.)» Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 195^4-, Chapter 5. Doherty, Joseph C. , "Rural America in Transition," in After a Hundred Years , U.S. Departnent of Agriculture Yearbooic, 1962, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952, pp. 585-589. Foraan, Robert, and Roy G. Francis, "Some Ideological Aspects of Migration," SocioloK7 of Rural Life , No. A(Sept., 1965), University of Hinnesota Paper No. 5220, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1963. Frazier, E. Franklin, The Nerrro Fanily in the United States . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Fuguitt, Glenn V., "The City and the Countryside," Rural Sociolo^ , Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sept., 1963), pp. 2^5-261. , Growing and Declining Villages in Wisconsin, 195cT^96Q . Wisconsin Population Studies Series Report No. 8, Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1964. Galpin, Charles J., and Veda B. Larson, Farm Population of Selected Counties: Co:nr)0'^itJ on. Characteristi:;5 . and Occupations in Detail for Sitrht Counties, Conprisinc!: Otsego County. N.Y.. Dane County. Wis.. New Madrid nnd Scott Counties. Mo.. Cnss County. N. Dak.. Wake Count y. N.C, Ellis County. Tax., and King County. Wash.. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1924. Gulick, John, and Charles E. Bowsrman, Adaptations of Newcomers in the Piedmont Industrial Crescent, Chapel Hill; Institute for Research in Social Science, 1961. Hagood. Margaret Jarman, and Emmit F. Sharp, Rural-Urban Migration in Wisconsin, 1940-1950 . Wisconsin Agricultural bcporiment Station Hesearch Bulletin No. 176, Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1951.

PAGE 481

^62 Hamilton, C. Horace, "Continuity and Change in Southern Migration," in The South in Continuity and Chang e, by John C. McKinney and Edgar T. Thompson (eds.), Durham: Duke University Press, 1%3, Chapter III. , "County Net Migration Rates: Discussion," Rural Sociology , Vol. 50, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), pp. 13-17. , "Ecology and Social Factors in Mortality Trends," Eugenics Quarterly , Vol. 2, No. ^ (Dec, 1955), pp. 21^-2?5T , "Educational Selectivity of Migration froa Farm to Urban and to Other Nonfarm Communities," in Mobility and Mental Health , by Mildred 3. Kantor (ed.), New York: Charles C. Thomas, 1965, Chapter 7. . "Educational Selectivity of Net Migration from the South," Social Forces , Vol. 58, No. 1 (Oct., 1959), pp. -^^-^T. ____^ , "Educational Selectivity of Rural-Urban Migration: Preliminary Results of a North Carolina Study," Selected Studies of Migration Since Vorld War II , New Yorkl Milbank Memorial Fund, 1957, pp. 110-122. , Health Progress in North Carolina from 19^0 to 1950 , North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Progress Report Rs-21, Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 195^. , Net Migration to and from North Carolina and North Carolina Counties from 19^0 to 195Q i NorTE Carolina Agricultural Bxoeriment Station Progress Report Rs-18, Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 1955. , North Carolina Abridged Life Tables by Color and Sex: 1949-1951 , North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report Rs-22, Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 1955. , Rural -Urban Migration in North Carolina: IS^Q to I95O 1 North Carolina Agricultural Ibq^eriment station Bulletin No. 295, Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 193^. , "A Short Method for Projecting Population by Age from One Decennial Census to Another," Social Forces , Vol. ^1, No. 2 (Dec, 1962), pp. 1965-170.

PAGE 482

465 Hamilton, C, Hor»c«» and Herbert Aurbach, What ' 3 Happening to North Carolina Fauraa and Famers . North Carolina Experiment Station Bulletin ifo. 407, Raleic^h: North Carolina State College, 1958. Hawley, Amos H. , The Population of MichlRan, 18^0 to I960; An Analysis of Growth, Dlgtrlbution. and Conposltloa , Ann ArboTl University of Michigan Press, 19^^ Hillery, Jr., George A., James S. Brown, and Gordon P. De Jong, "Migration Systens of the Southern Appalachians: Some Demographic Observations," Rural Gociolo>^ , Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), P?. 53-4^: HobDs, Jr., S. Huntington, North Carolina; An Econonic and Social Profile , Chapel Hill; University of iToFEE Carolina Press, 1958. Hunt, Elgin F., Social Science; An Introduction to the Study of Society (second ed. ) , New York; The Macmillan Co., 1961. Hxinter, Floyd, Community Power Structure , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953. Johnson, D. Gale, "Mobility as a Field of Economic Research," in Population Theory and Policy; Selected Readings , by Joseph J. Spengler and Otis Dudley Duncan (eds.), Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1956, Chapter 9. Jones, Barclay Gibbs, County Income Estimates for North Carolina Counties , Chapel Hill; School of Business Administration, University of North Carolina, I960. Kant or, Mildred B. (ed.). Mobility and Mental Health , New York; Charles C. Thomas, 1965. Knox, John B. , The People of Tennessee , Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 19^9. Lawrence, Norman, Israel; Jewish Population and Immigration , U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Population Statistics Report, Series P-90, No. 2, Vashington: Government Printing Office, 1952. Lefler, Hugh T. , and Albert R. Newsome, North Carolina (revised ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963.

PAGE 483

46^ Loriner, Prank, The Population of the Soviet Union: History and Prospects . Geneva: The League of Nacions, 19^6. McEinney, John C. , and Zdgar T. Thompson (eds.), The South in Continuity and Chanp:e . Durhan: Duke University Press, 1965. Mai thus, Thoaias R. , An Essay on the Principle of Population or a View of Itsl^ast and Present streets on Imman Ha^oinoss (first ed.;, London: 1798; (second ed.), London: 180$. Marshall, Douglas G. , W isconsin's Population Changes and Prospects, 1900-lS b^. Wisconsin Ar^rir.nU.nmV TnrpPT^-l mpr^-h Station Bulletin No. 241, Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1935. Mayo, Selz C, and C. Horace Hamilton, "Current Population Trends in the South," Social Forces. Vol. 42. No. 1 (Oct., 1965), pp. 77-8!i: , Rural Population Problems in North Carolina . North Carolina Agricultural jijqperiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 76, Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 1945. Meyers, Paul P., and Arthur A. Campbell, The Population of Jugoslavia, U.S. Bureau of the Census, international Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 5, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1954. and W. Parker Mauldin, The Population of the PedeTal Republic of Germany and'ge'st Berlin , U.S. liureau of the Census, International Population Statistlcal Reports, Series P-90, No. 1, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1954. Morse, Jedldiah, The Apiorican Universal Geography . Part I, Worcester: Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer Andrews, 1795. Odum, Howard W. , "A Sociological Approach to the Study and Practice of American Regionalism," Social Porces, Vol. 20, No. 4 (May, 19^2), pp. 425-456. Southern Regions of the United States . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina l^ress, 1956. _ . "This is Worth Our Bast," The Southern Packet . Vol. V, No. 1 (Jan., 19'^9), pp. 1-8.

PAGE 484

Odum, Howard V., and Katharine Jocher (eda.), In Search of the Begional Balance of America . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 19^5. Oghurn, William P., "On the Social Aspects of Population Changes," in Population Theory and Policy; Selected Readings , by Joseph J. Spengler and Otis Dudley D-oncan (ed6,)» Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1956, pp. 455-^/4-0. Pedorsen, Harald A., Montana's Human Resources , Montana Agricultural Experiment Station Circulars Nos. 231 and 23A-, Bozeman: Montana State College, I960 and 1961. Petty, Julian J,, The Growth and Distribution of Population in South Carolina , Columbia; State Council for Defense, vmz Price, Daniel 0., "Nonwhite Migrants to and from Selected Cities," American Journal of Soc iology, Vol. 5^, No. 5 (Nov., 19bi5). pp. 19S-201. ^ Sogers, Everett M. , Social Change in Rural Society . New York: Appleton-Cantury-Crofts, Inc., I960. Schmid, Calvin P., Population Trends in Cities and Towns in the State of Vashington, 19OO ^P_I965 , Seattle; Washington State Census Board, 195>. . . ^ * Earle H, HacCannell, and Maurice D. Van Ardsol, Jr. , Mortality Trends 'in the State of Washington , Seattle: Washington State Census Board, 1955. — , and Vincent A. Miller, Population Trends and Mucational Change in the State of Washington , Seattle: Washington State Census Board, I960. Vincent A. Miller, Kiyoshi Tagashira, Riohard A. Engels, and P. Jean Watson, Enrollment Porecasta. State of Washington: 1963-19B5 , Seattle; Washington State Census Board, 1966. . Vincent A. Miller, Kiyoshi Tagashira, Richard A. Engels, and P. Jean Watson, Population Forecasts. State of Washington; 1965 to I985 , Seattle; Washington State Census Board, 195b. Schultz, Theodore V,, Agriculture in an Unstable Economy , New Tork: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 19^5.

PAGE 485

466 Schwartweller, Harr7 K. , Career Placements and Economic Life Chances of Young Men from Sas tern Kentucky . Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 686, Lexington: University of Kentucky, 196^4-. Family Ties, MlRration, and Transitional Adjustment of Younp; Men from Eastern ^entucky , Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No, 691, Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1964. » c ^ J, ^ , Sociocultviral OrlRlns and Migration Patterns of Youn^Men from Eastern Kentuck y, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin I.o. 685, Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1965. Seasholes, Bradbury, and Frederic N. Cleaveland, "Negro Political Participation in Two Piedmont Crescent Cities," in Urban Growth Dynamics in a Regional Cluster of Cities , by F. Stuart Chapln, Jr., and Shirley F. Weiss (.eds.), New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962, Chapter 9. Shryock, Jr., Henry S. , Population Mobility Within the United States . Chicago: University of Chicago, 1964. "^Some Results of the I960 Census of the United States," Rural Sociology , Vol. 27, No. 4 (Dec, 1962), pp. 460-4';^. « and Charles B. Nam, "Educational Selectivity of Interregional Migration," Social Forces , Vol. 42, No. 5 (Mar., 1965), pp. 299-510. Slegel, Jacob S. , The Population of Hungary , U.S. Bureau of the Census, Interna-bional Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 9, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958. ____» ^^^ C. Horace Hamilton, "Some Considerations in the Use of the Residual Method of Estimating Net Migration," Journal of the American Statistical Association . Vol. 4V (i^ept., 1952), pp. 475-500. Skrabanek, R. L. , A Decade of Population Change in Texas , Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 1000, College Station: Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, 1965, Smith, T, Lynn, Brazil; People and Institutions (third ed.), Baton Rougel Louisiana State University Press, 1965,

PAGE 486

467 Saith, T. Lynn, "The Functions of American Cities," in The Sociology of Urban Life , by T. Lynn Saith and C. A, McMahan leds. ) > New York: The Dryden Press, 1951, Chapter 3. Fundamentals of Population Study . Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, Co. , I960. _^ . Latin American Population Studies . Gainesville: University of Florida Press, I960. , Population Analysis . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 19^5 y The Population of Louisiana; Its Composition an5~Chan'ges ,LouisiaLna Agricultural Bxperiment Station Bulletin No. 295, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1957. . and Homer L. Hitt, The People of Louisiana . &aton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952. . and C, A. McMahan (eds.), The Sociolofz;y of Urban LiTe . New York: The Dryden Press, 1951. Spengler, Joseph J., and Otis Dudley Duncan (eds.), Demographic Analysis, Glencoe, 111,: The Free Press, 1956. , Population Theory and Policy: Selected Readings , "l?lencoe , 111.: The Free Press, 1956. Taeubor, Conrad, and Irene B. Taeuber, The Changing Population of the United States . New lorFI John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 195a. Taeuber, Irene B., The Population of Japan . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958. Tang, Anthony M. , Economic Development in the Southern Piedmont. Its Impact on Agriculture , Chapel Hill; University or North Carolina Press, 1956. Tarver, James D., and Susie Reardon Bedington, Changing Age Structure of Oklahoma Population Centers , Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. T-102, Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, 1965.

PAGE 487

^68 Tarver, James D. , and William R. Gurley, "The Relationship of Selected Variables with County Net Migration Rates in the United States,' 1950 to I960," Rural SocioloRy , Vol. 50, No. 1 (Mar., 1963), pp. 5-15. „__ .,^» 3iicl Joseph C. Urbon, Population Trends of Oklahoma""7ovns and Cities. , Oklahoaa Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. T-105, Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, 1965. Thoripson, Warren S., Growth and Changes in California's Population , Los Angeles: The Haynes Foundation, 1955. , Ratio of Children to Women: j-920 . Census Monograph XI, Washington: Government Print ing Office, 1951. Truesdell, Leon E. , Farn Population of the United States: An Analysis of "bhe 19^6 Farm Population Figures. . . , Census Monograph VI, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1926. U.S. Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1962 (A Statistical Abstract Supplement), Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962. , Eighth Census of the United States: 1860, Washington: Government Printing Office, iBur. , Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial" Times to 1957 , Washington: Government Printing Office, I960. ____^ , Mortality Statistics: 1950 , Washington: Government Printing Office, 195^. , Negroes in the United States, 1920-52 , Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955. , Seventh Census of the United States: 1850, Washing"Uon: Government Printing Office, 15557^ , Sixteenth Census of the United States; 19^0 , Vol, II, Characteristics of the Population , Part 1. United States Summary , Washington; Government Printing Office, 19^5.

PAGE 488

469 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States; WO * Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population , Part 3» New York-Oregon , Vashinf^ton: Goverrinent Printing Office, 19^5. Thirteenth Census of the United States; 191Q t Abstract of the Census , Supplenent for IJorth Carolina, VaGhington: Government Printing Office, 1915. , Twelfth Census of the United States; 19Q0 « Vol. I, " Population , Part 1, Washington; Govarnment Printing Office, I9OI. , U.S. Census of Agriculture; 19^9 , Vol. I. Counties , Part 26, North Carolina , Washington; Government Printing Office, 1961. , U.S. Census of Agriculture; 19^9 . "Vol. II, General Peport , Statistics by Subjects , Washington! Government Printing Office, 1962. _, U.S. Census of Population; i'tics of the Population, Part ! Vol, II, CEiLracteristics of the Population, Part 1, United States Summary, Washington; Government Printing Office, 1952. ^ U.S. Census of Population; 19^Q » Vol, II, Characterls'tics of the Population , Part 33/ North Carolina, Washington; Government Printing Office, 1^52: y U.S. Census of Population; 1960 , Detailed Characteristics, North Carolina. Final Report PC(.i;-55D, Washington; Government Printing Office, 1962. , U.S. Census of Population; I960 , Detailed Characteristics , Un ited States Summary , Final Keport PC;(,i;-iD, Washingtonl Government Printing Office, 1963. , U.S. Census of Population; I960 , General Characteristics , North Carolina, Final Report PC(.1)-55B, Washington; Government Printing Office, 1961. , U.S. Census of Population; I960 , General Population Characteristics , United States Summary , Final Report PCC1}-1B, Washington; Government Printing Office, 1961,

PAGE 489

'V70 U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population; I960 , General Social and Economic Characteristics , North Carolina , Final Report PCC1)-3^C, Washington : G^ernEient Printing Office, 1961. , U.S. Census of Population: I960 , General Social and Economic Characteristics , United gjates Summary , Final Report PGC1)-1C, Washington; , U.S. Census of Population: I960 , Number of Inhabitants , North Carolina , Final Report PCC1)-55A, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961. , U.S. Census of Population; I960 , Number of Inhabitants , United States Summary , Final Report PCC1)-1A, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961. < U.S. Census of Population; I960 , Subject Report s, Mobility for States and State Economic Areas , Final Report PCC2;-2B, Washington; Government Printing Office, 1965. , Vital Statistics of the United States: 19^0 ^ Part II, Natality and Mortality Data , Washington: Government Printing Office, 19'^5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, After A Hundred Years , U.S. Department of Agriculture Tearbook, 1962, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vital Statistica of the United States; ^19^0 , Vol. Ill, Part II, Mortality Data , Washington: Government Printing Office, 1933. , Vital Statistics of the United States; I960 , Vol." iT, Mortality , Part A; and Part B. Section 9, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963. Vance, Rupert B. , Farmers Without Land , New York: Public Affairs Committee, 1957. , How the Other Half is Housed , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1956. , Human Geography of the South , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1952.

PAGE 490

^71 Vanca, Hupert B., "Population and the Pattern of Unemployment, 1930-1937," Milbank Memorial P\ind Quar terly. Vol. XVIII, No. 1 (Jan., 19^), pp. 27-^3. , Regional Reconstruction; A Way Out for the South7 "Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina Press, 1935. , Research Memorandum on Population Redistribution Within the United States . Bulletin No. ^2. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1958. and Nadia Danilevsky, All These People . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1945. . and Nicholas J. Demerath (eds.), The Urban SoiTEE . Chapel Hill: University of North~^arolina Press, 1954, Villcox, Walter ?. , Introduction to the Vital Statistics of the United States; 1900-1930 ^ Vashington; Government Printing Office, 1935. ^_ (ed.), Natural and Political Observations made upon the Bills of Mortality by John Gr aunt , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1939. , Studies in American Demography , Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1940. Wrong, Dennis H. , Population and Society (second ed.). New York: Random House, 1953. Wynne, Jr., Waller, The Population of Czechoslovakia . U.S. Bureau of the Census. International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 3, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953. , The Population of Manchuria , U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 7, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958.

PAGE 491

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Paul E. Zopf, Jr. was born July 1, 1951, at Bridgeport, Connecticut. In June, 19^9, he was graduated from Warren Harding High School in that city. In June, 1955, he received the degree of Bachelor of Science from the University of Connecticut, sjod in September of the same year he enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida. He worked as a teaching assistant until June, 1955, and as a research assistant in the Florida Experiment Station until August, 1955, when he received the degree of Master of Science, after which he continued for a full year as research assistant with the Florida Experiment Station. Then, in September, 1956, he enrolled in Tulane University in pursuit of work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In September, 1957, he transferred to the Graduate School of the University of Florida as a research assistant and continued his work towaxd the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until June, 1959. From June, 1959, until September, 1959, he was employed as a research assistant with the Connecticut Experiment Station. In September, 1959, he began full-time teaching as Assistant Professor of Sociology at Guilford College, Greensboro, North Carolina, From September, 1965, until July, 1966, he pursued his work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 472

PAGE 492

/;?$ Paul 2. Zopf , Jr. is married to the former EvelTn Lanoel Montgomery and is the father of one son. He is a member of the American Sociological Association, the Rural Sociological Society, the Soutliern Sociological Society, the Southeastern Conference on Latin American Studies, and Alpha Kappa Delta.

PAGE 493

This dissertation wa3 prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory comittee and has been approved by all :::.3mber3 of that conLTittee. It was subnitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the reouireaents for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June 21, 1966 Supervisory Committee: Dean, Graduate School ohii£j^-" ^ "' T (/ iiV. C-rTTr/y

PAGE 494

lo )^^46 60 i'i5!