[A] Figures for 1890 from Eleventh Census, Pop., Part ii, pp. 630-703; for 1900, Twelfth Census, Occupations, Table 43. The cities are from the list in Tables III and IV supra.

[B] Includes office-boys, shippers, and helpers in stores in 1900, probably not separated in 1890.

[C] Includes clerks and copyists.

[D] Includes some wheelwrights for all cities except one.

[E] Includes waitresses in 1900.

[F] Decrease.

The evidence, then, that the economic call of Southern cities has received response from Negroes as from whites is fairly conclusive. That the economic motive of the Negro has had a large place in causing his migration to urban centers is further shown by the testimony of Negro wage-earners in a Northern city.

In a personal canvass in New York City, 365 wage-earners were asked their reasons for coming to New York City. In reply to the question put in this direct manner 210 out of the total 365 wage-earners gave replies; of these, 99 or 47.1 per cent gave answers that are easily classified as economic. The other replies have been grouped under "family" reasons, 68 or 32.4 per cent, and "individual" reasons, 43 or 20.5 per cent. Many cases in the last two groupings, as appear below (pp. 31-32), would probably be seen to have an underlying economic cause, if we knew more of their history. The 99 answers classed as economic were as follows:

Table V. Economic Reasons Given by 99 Wage-Earners for Coming to New York City, 1909.

To "get work" or "find work" 38

To secure "better wages" or "more money" 19

With former employers 18

To complete trade training 2

To engage in work previously assured 4

To "better my condition" 15

"Business low at home" 1

"Wanted to buy house at home by (with) money made here" 1

"Seeking business" 1

Total 99

This evidence is further corroborated by a record of the wages of 64 of the 365 wage-earners before and after their coming to New York City. For 38 males and 26 females statements of the wages received just previously to their coming to New York City and of their present wages were secured. These figures are presented because they suggest that a wider survey of such facts would probably be in line with the body of data given above. For instance, of 37 men, the median weekly wage before their coming to New York City was in the wage-group $6.00 to $6.99, and after coming, the median weekly wage increased so that it was in the wage-group $10.00 to $10.99. Of the 26 women, the median weekly wage was in the wage-group $4.00 to $4.99 before their coming to New York City and advanced so that it was in the group $6.00 to $6.99 after coming. These facts indicate a decided response to the higher wage attraction of New York City. It should be remarked that the wage-earner in his migration to secure higher wages seldom takes into consideration the higher cost of living in New York City. Table VI, following, gives the details of the comparison:

Table VI. Weekly Wages Received by 64 Individuals Before and After Coming to New York City, 1909.

Wages. Males. Females.

Before. After. Before. After.

Less than $3.00 - - 9 -

$3.00-$3.99 8 - 3 3

$4.00-$4.99 3 - 3 3

$5.00-$5.99 6 3 6 3

$6.00-$6.99 6 3 1 7

$7.00-$7.99 1 8 2 6

$8.00-$8.99 4 - - 2

$9.00-$9.99 - 4 2 2

$10.00-$10.99 3 5 - -

$11.00-$11.99 1 4 - -

$12.00-$12.99 1 2 - -

$13.00 and over 4 9[A] - -

Total 37 38 26 26

[A] One individual replied "less than now in New York City."

In the economic movement to the Northern cities, the activity of employment agencies (especially for female domestic help) with drummers and agents in Southern communities has served to spread tales of high wages and to provide transportation for large numbers.[11] Again, many who have been to the urban centers return for visits to their more rural home communities with show of better wages in dress, in cash and in conversation[12].

The conclusion of the matter, therefore, is that the Negro is responding to the call of commerce and industry and is coming to the urban centers under economic influences similar to those that move his fellows.

III. Secondary or Individual Causes of the Negro's Movement Cityward.-It requires only a brief survey of the legislation in several of the Southern states to understand that this has played a part in uprooting the population from the soil and transplanting it in the urban centers.

The trend of legislation everywhere has been to make the city attractive at the expense of the rural districts. First among these measures have been the improved educational facilities provided by municipal authorities. In the South, this has come since 1865. Parks and recreation centers are rapidly being added. General regulation of rights and privileges has been made with the city in the foreground, and many another measure has favored the urban centers.

Labor legislation in the South that affects the Negro population has been of two kinds, aside from the laws to regulate or prohibit the exodus of laborers through the activity of labor agents or runners[13]: (1) that applying to the industrial centers and serving to make conditions of labor on railroads, in mines, and other places where Negroes are employed more attractive and payment of wages more certain and frequent than in the case of labor upon the farm and plantation; (2) that dealing with the relations of landlord and tenant which in practical operation often makes the life of the tenant and farm-hand very hard. Coupled with the ignorance of the usual Negro peasant, these laws are sometimes tools of coercion.[14]

Another line of secondary or individual causes is shown in the reasons for coming to New York City given by wage-earners mentioned above (p. 27). The tabulation of answers indicates that the influences drawing individuals to New York City are, on the one hand, family relationships. These cases, 68 or 32.4 per cent of the 210 replies noted above, have been classified as those who came because of parents, because of husband or wife, or because of other relatives. On the other hand, there are the individual inclinations. The latter, 43 or 20.5 per cent of the 210 replies, are grouped under restlessness, attraction of New York City, unattractiveness of former residence, and miscellaneous. These groupings and designations are given as suggestive only to facilitate the understanding of the mental attitude of the Negro wage-earner. Their more or less economic tinge may be seen. The reasons classified as "family" and as "individual" are reported in detail in Table VII, following:

Table VII. Reasons given in 1909 By Wage-earners Showing why they Came to New York City, 1909.

Family reasons (68 or 32.4 per cent, of 210). Total.

On account of parents. On account of husband or wife. On account of other relatives.

"Brought here by parents" 12 "Relatives of wife here" 1 "A son here" 2

"With mother" 6 "Wife here" 1 To visit a brother and remained" 5

"Came with mother who was here" 4 "To follow husband" 1 "Had a sister here" 9

"Father was here" 2 "Came with husband" 7 "My health was bad and came to live with sister" 1

"On account of death of father" 1 "My husband was working on a ship coming here" 1 To live with other relatives on account of death of mother 4

"Father transferred in revenue service" 1 Through influence of other relatives 10

Total 26 Total 11 Total 31 68

Individual reasons (43 or 20.5 per cent of 210). Total-43.

Restlessness.-16 Attraction of New York City.-15 Former residence, unattractive.-6

"Thought I would like the place as a change;" wanted "to be goin somewhere." "I wanted to come out this way." "To say I was leaving home like everybody else." (From St. Martin's Island.)

"Was in Rhode Island and wanted a change." "Wanted to come to a larger (place); to travel to see the world." "Got tired of Boston and came to New York."

"Thought I'd like to make a change." "Passing through several summers; stopped." "Got tired of Virginia; came to visit friend; remained."

"Wanted to make a change." "Came out with friends who were coming; been back and forth." "Got tired of Baltimore; thought I'd see some of New York."

"To change cities and see New York." "Was running on the boat to New York and stopped for a while." "Got tired of home, that's all."

"Thought I would like change; to be going somewhere." "Just to see New York; was traveling and stopped." "To get away from home for a change."

"Just for a change." "Took a notion to come; wanted to come North." Miscellaneous.-6

"Just for a change." "Liked New York after seeing it as a sailor in the Navy." "Came to get married."

"Thought I'd make a change; came North to try it." "Thought I would like New York." "Stopped on way to Boston, robbed in Jersey City."

"Just to be coming." (To New York) "Thought I'd like New York." "Came to America to go to school." (From S. Hampton, Bermuda.)

"For recreation; to change cities." "Wanted to see the place." "To learn architecture."

"Traveling and stopped." "To see the place and be with sister." "To visit friends; got married."

"Split the difference of time." "To see the city; friend wrote me of sights of the great city." "To see and learn and improve my ability."

"Felt like traveling." "Heard talk of enjoyable life here."

"Had a roaming mind-came here from Chicago." "Came here from Cincinnati; had read a great deal of New York City and wanted to see it."

"Felt like traveling."

Another individual cause operates especially upon the more able and intelligent classes and sends them to Northern cities. The restriction by "Jim Crow" legislation and by custom of the rights and privileges of persons of color in Southern communities leads some of them to migrate North. They long for a larger liberty for themselves and particularly for their children, which the hard conditions of Southern communities do not give. They come North to gain this and to escape the proscriptions.[15] They settle in the cities. A similar force probably operates in a few sections of the South to send Negro families to the security of the urban centers.[16]

The final conclusion from these facts concerning the causes operating upon the Negro population has been clearly indicated in the above discussion. Such fundamental economic and social causes do not cease to operate suddenly. So far as the development of the South is concerned, the agricultural, industrial and commercial movement is in its infancy, and it will doubtless be of an indefinite growth. The secondary and individual causes will continue to play their part. The Negro will be affected in a manner similar to that of the Southern white population. Any rural improvement or "back-to-the-land" movement should recognize that along with the whites, Negroes will continue to migrate to the urban centers and that they will come to the cities in comparatively large numbers to stay. The problem alike of statesman, race leader, and philanthropist is to understand the conditions of segregation and oppositions due to race prejudices that are arising as a sequel to this urban concentration and to co-operate with the Negro in his effort to learn to live in the city as well as the country.

Although it requires serious attention, the situation is a hopeful one. Improvement in the living and working conditions has its effect upon the health and morals of Negroes just as it has in the case of other elements of the population. Intelligence is essentially a matter of education and training. Good housing, pure milk and water supply, sufficient food and clothing, which adequate wages allow, street and sewer sanitation, have their direct effect upon health and physique. And municipal protection and freedom from the pressure of the less moral elements of the environing group go a long way toward elevating standards of morality. In spite of the limits which the neglect and prejudice of a white public sets to opportunities for improvement, Negroes do show progress along these lines.

Speaking first of the health of Negroes in cities, an index is given in the general death-rate.[17] In the period from 1871 to 1904, the death rate for the white and Negro populations of several Southern cities is summarized by Mr. Hoffman.[18] Of the consolidated death-rate of the white population, he says,

For only two cities are the returns complete for the entire period of thirty-four years. The tendency of the rate has been persistently downward from 26.7 per 1,000 in 1871 to 20.6 in 1886 and 17.4 in 1904. Commencing with the rate for the year 1871, the general death-rate of the white population of Southern cities shows an upward direction at different times during twelve years, and a downward direction during twenty-one years, following in this respect practically the same course as the corresponding death-rate for Northern and Western cities combined. The year of maximum mortality was 1878, due to a yellow fever epidemic, while the year of minimum mortality was, as in the case of the Northern and Western cities, 1903.

In reference to the table for the Negro population he says,[19]

Without exception, the death-rates are materially in excess of the corresponding death-rates of the white population, but there has also been in this case a persistent decline in the general death-rate from 38.1 per 1,000 in 1871 to 32.9 in 1886 and 28.1 in 1904. Commencing with the rate for the year 1871, the general death-rate of the colored population of Southern cities at different times assumed an upward direction during fifteen years and a downward direction during eighteen years, departing in this respect from the corresponding mortality of the white population of Southern cities and the general population of Northern and Western cities, the tendency of which was more distinctly towards a definite improvement. The year of maximum mortality for the colored population was 1873, while the year of minimum mortality was 1903.

The general correspondence and few divergencies of the two death-rates are more clearly seen from the following diagram,[20] adapted from Hoffman's study already cited:

Diagram II: The General Death Rate of American Cities 1871-1904 (after Hoffman)

Other data[21] for two of the cities investigated by Mr. Hoffman, and for three other cities (Atlanta, Ga., Charleston, S.C., and Richmond, Va.) from 1882 to 1905 furnish results similar to his and indicate likewise that while the general death-rate for the Negro population is uniformly in excess of that of the white, there is a tendency downward. For example, in Atlanta, Ga., the death-rates from 1882 to 1885 were for the white population, 18.22 per 1,000, Negro, 37.96; from 1886 to 1890, white, 19.25, Negro, 33.41; from 1891 to 1905, white, 18.03 per 1,000, Negro, 32.76. Baltimore, Md., Charleston, S.C., Memphis, Tenn., and Richmond, Va., show a similar decrease, except that the white and Negro populations of Baltimore show an increase in the third period, 1891 to 1905, and the rate of the Negro population of Charleston increased in the second period, 1886 to 1890.

We see, then, that while the death-rate of Negroes in Southern cities has been considerably in excess of that of the whites, there has been at the same time a similar tendency toward improvement.

And where there is unprejudiced effort the death-rate among Negroes is affected favorably by improved living conditions. The chief health-officer of Richmond, Va., Dr. E.C. Levy, has sounded a note which is not mere prophecy.[22] He said, in 1906, "There is no doubt whatsoever but that the introduction of better sanitation among the colored people would have great influence on their high death-rate, but whether, after all, it can be brought down as low as the white rate, is a matter which can not be foretold." Again, in 1907, he says,

We must clearly face the issue that the first fruits of improved sanitation in Richmond will most probably be seen in a lowering of the death-rate among the colored people, as conditions among them are so much worse at present, but this in turn will gradually react on the white race.

And, in 1908, this significant paragraph occurs in his report:

The white death-rate in Richmond during 1908 was 17.48 per 1000; the colored rate was 29.21 per 1000. Although the colored rate was thus 67 per cent higher than the white rate, the decrease in the colored rate from 1907 was greater than the decrease in the white rate, the 1907 rates being 18.11 for whites and 32.99 for Negroes.

Out of a total decrease of 166 in the number of deaths in 1908 compared with 1907, the white decrease was 27, while the colored decrease was 139. From the time that I entered office I have predicted that improved sanitation would benefit the Colored race more quickly than the white, and the figures above given justify this conclusion.

The statement of this health officer points to experience rather than to prejudiced notions about the physical weaknesses of Negroes.

From both the statistician and the sanitarian, therefore, comes the word that while the health of Negroes in cities is worse than that of whites, it shows a tendency to improve similar to that of the white population when a fairly impartial treatment is accorded.

As with health, so with other phases of the Negro's city life. There is no place for pessimism. Improvements in intelligence and in moral conditions can not be counted by case and set down in figures and tables.[23] But any one at all familiar either by reading or recollection with the condition of the Negro at the beginning of his freedom, who now takes an impartial and unprejudiced view of his intellectual and social life in urban communities, will come to no other conclusion than that in the face of peculiar whims and prejudices a large and increasing number in the group is arising to the full consciousness of a freeman and has assimilated the best that America affords in morals and intelligence; and that they are vitally concerned for the uplift of themselves and their people, persistently seeking to partake of all that makes for progress.[24]

For the whole Negro population in cities some light is thrown upon developments by the few facts at hand on crime among Negroes.[25] Statistics of crime are, of course, of limited worth in judging of moral conditions. Arrests and prison commitments have many factors which figures do not show and are quite as much a commentary upon the white communities at large as upon the unfortunate Negro law-breakers. Yet, along with other facts, these records of crime are a part of the social barometer.

An analysis of three periods of crime (prior to 1866-1867; 1867 to 1880, and 1880 to 1903) made by Mr. Monroe N. Work gives indicative results. Speaking of arrests per thousand of the Negro population in nine cities, he says,[26]

Taking the period from 1866 to 1882, it appears that at some time during this period the arrest-rate, with the possible exception of St. Louis, for each of the cities decreased. From 1882 to 1892-1896 there was, with some exceptions, a marked increase in the arrest-rates of the several cities. This was especially true of Chicago, Cincinnati, Washington and St. Louis. From 1892-1896 to 1902-1903 there appears to have been a general tendency for the Negro arrest-rates of these cities to decrease. It appears that, on the whole, we are warranted in concluding that for the nine cities considered, the rate of Negro arrests per thousand of the Negro population is decreasing.

The rates of jail commitments for Baltimore, Charleston, and St. Louis have increased slowly since the seventies until the nineties, and now apparently are beginning to decrease slightly.

The workhouse commitments for Philadelphia, Washington, Cincinnati, Louisville, Chicago and St. Louis "show a similar tendency to decrease." Penitentiary commitments[27] for Baltimore and Chicago show, on the whole, a decreasing trend. "The rate of annual commitments to the state penitentiary of Illinois from the city of Chicago in 1873 was 4.4; in 1902 the rate was 1.6," the highest rate being in 1873. Mr. Work continues,

The rate of annual commitments to the penitentiary from Baltimore in 1888 was 1.1; in 1902 the rate of annual penitentiary commitments from this city was 1.3; the highest rate of annual penitentiary commitments from Baltimore was 2.0 in 1899. Since 1898-1899 there has been a decrease in the annual Negro penitentiary commitments for both cities. The rate per thousand of the Negro population for the number of prisoners received in the Kansas penitentiary was available for four years, as follows: in 1889 and 1890 the rate of annual Negro commitments to the Kansas penitentiary was 1.5; in 1891 and 1892 the rate was 1.3. The rate per thousand of the Negro population for the number of prisoners received annually in the Indiana penitentiary was available for three years, as follows: in 1900 the rate was 2.1; in 1901 the rate was 2.5; and in 1902 the rate was 2.0.

Mr. Work remarks finally,[28]

Summarizing our results, it is seen that police arrests, jail, workhouse and penitentiary commitments appear to have increased during the period from 1890 to 1892-1896. The highest rates of arrests and commitments were about 1893. Since 1894-1896 the tendency of both arrests and commitments to decrease has been notable. The crime-rate for murder is also probably decreasing. It appears, therefore, that the conclusion that crime is probably decreasing among the Negroes of the United States is warranted. The crime-rate of Negroes, North and South, appears at present to be about the same, although the rate of police arrests for some Southern cities is higher than that for the Northern cities. The claim that there is greater criminality among the Negroes of the North than those of the South is probably not true. The fallacy on which this claim was based was in comparing the criminal rate of the Negroes of the North, who live almost entirely in cities, with the criminal rate of the Negroes of the entire South, the great majority of whom live in rural communities.

Besides, differences in age-grouping are usually ignored.

On the whole, therefore, there is firm ground for hope as the Negro becomes adjusted to the urban environment.

Since, then, these economic and social causes bid fair to continue their influence for an indefinite time, the concentration of Negroes in urban centers makes imperative the need of knowledge and methods of dealing with the problems that face the Negro and the Nation in these growing urban centers[29]. These questions of how to live in the city are problems of health, of intelligence and of morals. They are economic, social, political, educational and religious. The present essay is an attempt to study carefully the economic problems arising out of the Negro's adjustment in his struggles to make a living and to live in the city as seen in the commercial Metropolis of America; to find out at what he is employed there; to inquire of his efficiency and success, and of the attitude of employer and fellow employee. As we find Negroes rising from the plane of the employed to that of the employer, these questions arise: How does he get into business and what lines does he enter? With what success does he meet? What resourcefulness does he show? What are the reasons for his failures? We want to know what are his relations with the business world with which he deals and the consuming public to whom he caters. These and many other things can be ascertained only by painstaking investigation.

This study aims to be a small contribution to the end that efforts for betterment of urban conditions may be founded upon facts. The material has been treated in two parts-that relating to wage-earners and to business undertakings. In the former the United States Census reports, a personal canvass, and the unpublished schedules for 2,500 families of the New York State Census of 1905, were used as sources; for the latter a block to block canvass was made and records of the business enterprises were secured by personal interviews.

FOOT-NOTE ON THE MANNER AND CAUSES OF CITY CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION[30]

The manner of growth has been two-fold: (1) By natural increase through the lowering of the death-rate due partially to improved housing conditions, progress in personal hygiene of the poorer classes and in city sanitation and inspection; (2) by migration: that is, short distance movements by progressive stages from the more rural districts toward the larger centers.[31] In the case of the great cities this may mean increase in density of the most populated areas.[32]

The causes of concentration in cities are the following:

I. The Divorce of Men from the Soil.[33] The diminishing relative importance of elementary wants, improvements in scientific cultivation and in agricultural machinery, and the opening of distant and virgin fields by better transportation have reduced the relative number of workers needed on the soil.

II. The Growth of Commercial Centers.[34] This went hand in hand with the Agrarian Revolution. Trade has been the basis of city founding. The prevailing influence in determining location has been "a break in transportation." Where goods are transferred and where, in addition, ownership changes hands, urban centers grow up. Wealthy classes arise which require others to supply their increasing and varied wants.

III. The Growth of Industrial Centers.[35] The passage of industry from the household, handicrafts and domestic systems to that of the factory, with the invention of power machinery and modern methods of transportation and communication, draws population away from the rural districts to the industrial centers.

IV. Secondary or Individual Causes.[36] (a) The shifting demand for transfer of labor from agricultural to industrial production was met by the economic motive of workers. (b) Political action has influenced city growth; legislation affecting trade and the migration of labor; centralization of governmental machinery in the cities; legal forms of land tenure, etc. (c) Social advantages such as better education, varied amusements, higher standard of living, intellectual associations and pursuits, draw people to urban centers, while desire for the contact of the moving crowds, for the excitement and apparent ease of city life, serve to make the rural districts distasteful.

* * *

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The most comprehensive study of city growth is The Growth of Cities in the 19th Century, by A.F. Weber, vol. xi, Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law (New York, 1899), pp. 1-478. The meaning of city and urban population is that used by Weber: An agglomerated population of two thousand to ten thousand for towns, more than ten thousand for cities, more than one hundred thousand for great cities. Cf. p. 16.

[2] See footnote at the end of this chapter. Weber, op. cit., pp. 146-154.

[3] Weber, op. cit., pp. 167-68; 173-74; 201-207. See also footnote at end of chapter.

[4] Twelfth Census, Bulletin 8, Negroes in the United States, p. 29.

[5] Weber, op. cit., pp. 24-27, 162.

[6] Coman, Industrial History of the United States, Revised edition, (New York, 1910), pp. 308-9.

[7] Kelsey, The Negro Farmer, (Chicago, 1903), pp. 5-103; vide pp. 24-28. Du Bois, The Negro Farmer in Bulletin 8, (Twelfth Census), pp. 79-81.

[8] DuBois, op. cit., p. 77.

[9] Kelsey, Some Causes of Negro Emigration: Charities, New York, vol. xv, no. 1, pp. 15-17; cf. DuBois, op. cit., pp. 73-74.

[10] Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1909, table 143, p. 261.

[11] Kellor. Out of Work, pp. 73, 83.

[12] Cf. Tucker, Negro Craftsmen in New York, in Southern Workman, September, 1907, p. 550.

[13] For statute provisions of state governments, see Twenty-second Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, Labor Laws of the United States, pp. 129, sec. 4165; 133-135, secs. 6345-6856; 146-147, secs. 3695-3696, 3905, 4057; 153, secs. 5357-58, 5383; 155-56; acts of 1901, no. 101, secs. 1-3; acts of 1905, no. 49, secs. 1-3; 157-59, act no. 219, sec. 1; act no. 225, secs. 7-18; 278, secs. 2530, 2641-42; 281, sec. 3233-34; 291, sec. 4732; 495-501, secs. 1350, 2722-2739A; 706, sec. 2139; 1228-29, secs. 2717-2720; 1231-32, secs. 338, 358; 1251-52, secs. 3794, 4339-42; 1339-40, sec. 3657D. Vide also, Digest and Summaries of Certain Classes of Laws Affecting Labor,-Mechanics' Liens, pp. 37-38, 43, 44, 49, 50, 55, 61-62, 70-72, 74.

[14] The laws referred to are framed in terms of the regulation of contracts of employment, violation of contract, and contracts of employment with intent to defraud. Breach of contract in either set of cases is usually a misdemeanor (criminal act instead of a civil tort) with a penalty of fines (or imprisonment in Florida). Often in practical operation, they place the tenant and farm laborer at the discretion or mercy of the landlord. The writer has made repeated visits to many rural communities in Ala., Ga., Fla., Miss., and La., and has observed how these legislative measures serve as barriers to thrift among the landless Negro farmers. A number of the youths have expressed their conviction that since their fathers and mothers have accumulated nothing after years of labor on the land, they do not intend to stay on the plantation to repeat the process. For provisions of statutes: See Commissioner of Labor, op. cit., pp. 133-34, secs. 6845-46; 147, sec. 5030; 284, chaps. 703-704, secs. 1146-1148.

[15] Economic Analysis of American Prejudice, by Dr. Wm. L. Bulkley, in The Colored American Magazine, July, 1909, pp. 17, 19. 20-21.

[16] Cf. Darkest America, by Kelly Miller in New England Magazine, April, 1904.

[17] Vide Hoffman, The General Death Rate of Large American Cities, 1871-1904, in Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association, new series, vol. x, no. 73, March, 1906. Mr. Hoffman says: "While the general death-rate is of very limited value for the purpose of comparison in the case of different localities, it is, I am satisfied, after a very careful investigation and much experience, of quite considerable value in making local comparison of the present health conditions with the past."

[18] Op. cit., pp. 5-8. The cities are Baltimore, 1871-1904; New Orleans, 1871-1904; District of Columbia, 1876-1904; Louisville, Ky., 1890-1904; Memphis, Tenn., 1876-1904.

[19] Op. cit., pp. 7-8. (Italics are mine.)

[20] In the Biennial Report of the Board of Health of New Orleans, La., 1906-1907, this diagram of Mr. Hoffman is reproduced with the following comment: (p. 113) "The colored mortality has not only been excessive, but has borne no relation whatever to the white mortality curve, being on the ascending scale at times when the white mortality was clearly on the decrease." A comparison with Mr. Hoffman's words about the two death-rates quoted above and a glance at the curves supply sufficient commentary upon this biased view.

[21] Mortality Among Negroes in Cities, Atlanta University Pubs., no. 1, (Atlanta, Ga., 1896), p. 51; vide pp. 21-25; and 2nd ed., 1903, pp. 11-15.

[22] Annual Reports of the Health Department of the City of Richmond, Va., 1906, p. 22; 1907, p. 34; 1908, pp. 39-40.

[23] Cf. Ray Stannard Baker, in American Magazine, Feb. and March, 1908, and Following the Color Line, (New York, 1909), pp. 54-55.

[24] For a large body of facts and opinions on this point see Atlanta University Pubs., no. 8, pp. 64-79; 108-110; 154-190. Personal observation during residence of the past twelve years in Louisville, Ky., Memphis and Nashville, Tenn., Atlanta, Ga., Chicago, and New York, and during visits to Baltimore, Md., Washington, D.C., Norfolk and Richmond, Va., Savannah and Augusta, Ga., Chattanooga, Tenn., Birmingham and Mobile, Ala., New Orleans, La., and smaller cities has afforded the author of this essay considerable opportunity to know at first-hand this phase of Negro city life.

[25] Atlanta University Pubs., no. 9, Notes on Negro Crime: Crime in Cities, by M.N. Work (Atlanta, Ga., 1904), pp. 18-32; cf. pp. 49-54. Vide also Kellor, Experimental Sociology, pp. 250 ff.

[26] Op. cit., p. 22.

[27] Ibid., pp. 26-29 passim.

[28] Op. cit., p. 32.

[29] Philadelphia is the only city which has had adequate study. Vide DuBois, W.E.B., The Philadelphia Negro, (Philadelphia, 1889) and Wright, R.R., Jr., The Negro in Pennsylvania, a Study in Economic History (Philadelphia, 1912).

[30] Vide Weber, op. cit., passim.

[31] Ibid., 232 ff.; 241 ff.; 283 ff.; 346-364, passim.

[32] A suggestive study on this phase of the city problem has been published recently: Industrial Causes of Congestion of Population in New York City, by E.E. Pratt, Ph.D., (New York, 1911), pp. 5-262.

[33] Weber, op. cit., pp. 161-169; 223.

[34] Ibid., pp. 171-173; 181-182; 223-224.

[35] Weber, op. cit., pp. 184-191.

[36] Ibid., pp. 210, 213-222.

* * *

CHAPTER IIToC

The Negro Population of New York City

The Negro population of New York City has had a history similar to that of other Northern cities. Beginning with a small body of slaves, it has since had its problems growing out of the presence of an increasing number of Negroes in the midst of the environing white group. In 1629, The Dutch West India Company pledged itself to furnish slaves to the Colonists of New Amsterdam.[37] A similar resolution was passed by the colony council in 1648[38] and by 1664 slavery had become of sufficient importance to receive legislative regulation in the Duke of York Code.[39] Both by further importations and by natural increase the Negro population grew until in 1704 it numbered about 1,500; in 1741 it was estimated at about 2,000, and in 1757 about 3,000. Beginning with the first Federal Census of 1790 there was an increase shown by each census except those of 1820 for Brooklyn and of 1850 and 1860 for other parts of New York City, mainly Manhattan.

The figures show a striking contrast in growth between Brooklyn and the other parts of New York City as now constituted, exclusive of Brooklyn. The former had a comparatively small Negro population until after 1860, but from 1790 the Negro population although small increased steadily, except the one decade between 1810 and 1820. This was a decrease of only 92 or 4.9 per cent of a population less than 2,000. Only one increase, from 1800 to 1810, was less than 13 per cent. Beginning with 5,915 at the Federal census of 1790, the Negro population of the other parts of New York City has shown a high per cent of increase in numbers, above 15 per cent, at eight of the twelve succeeding censuses, and 8.1 per cent and 5.5 per cent at two others. The decreases from 1840 to 1850, 13.2 per cent, and from 1850 to 1860, 7.5 per cent, were probably due to the unfavorable sentiment against the Negroes which arose during the abolition agitation of these periods and which had its effect on the Negro's movements to and from the city. The small increase from 1860 to 1870, 5.5 per cent, was very probably the result of the same causes-of the Civil War disturbances and the New York Draft riots, which deterred Negroes from coming to New York City and sent many Negro residents away.[40] The figures for Manhattan show a similar trend at each census. However, except the periods noted above, there has been a general trend toward increase in both Manhattan and Brooklyn. The Negro population has become a smaller and smaller part of the total population from decade to decade since 1810, but this is because the several streams of foreign immigrants have been large and not because the increase of the Negro population has been small.

Table VIII, which follows, shows the growth of the total and the Negro populations, and brings the full figures to view:

Table VIII. Total and Negro Population of New York City, as at Present Constituted, 1704-1910.[A]

Year. New York City, exclusive of Brooklyn. Brooklyn.

Population. Increase of Negro population. Population. Increase of Negro population.

Total. Negro. Number. Per cent Total. Negro.[B] Number. Per cent

1704 - 1,500 - - - - - -

1741 - 2,000 500 33.3 - - - -

1757 - 3,000 1,000 50.0 - - - -

1790 44,906 5,915 2,915 97.2 4,495 1,478 - -

1800 73,476 8,626 2,711 45.9 5,740 1,811 333 25.5

1810 111,431 12,116 3,490 40.4 8,303 1,853 42 2.3

1820 140,869 13,100 984 8.1 11,187 1,761 92 4.9[C]

1830 221,743 16,082 2,982 22.8 20,535 2,007 246 13.9

1840 343,501 18,595 2,573 15.6 47,613 2,846 839 41.8

1850 557,233 16,131 2,464 13.2[C] 138,882 4,065 1,219 42.8

1860 895,657 14,927 1,204 7.5[C] 279,122 4,999 934 22.9

1870 1,058,182 15,755 828 5.5 419,921 5,653 654 13.1

1880 1,312,203 22,496 6,741 42.8 599,495 9,153 3,500 61.9

1890 1,668,867 26,330 3,834 17.0 838,547 11,307 2,154 23.5

1900 2,270,620 42,299 15,969 60.6 1,166,582 18,367 7,060 62.5

1910 3,132,532 69,700 27,403 64.8 1,634,351 22,702 4,335 23.6

[A] Figures 1704-1757 from Du Bois, Notes, etc., p. 1.

[B] Negro not reported separately 1790 to 1850; includes "slaves" and all other "Free Colored" which does not involve serious error in the earlier censuses.

Census figures 1790-1910 are from the latest revisions of the Bureau of the Census. Figures for same area, outside of Manhattan and Brooklyn, are estimates of censuses 1790-1890. Figures for 1900 and 1910 are exact.

[C] Decrease.

To summarize the point, while the Negro population has become a smaller relative part of the total population each decade since 1810, it has shown a decided trend toward a large actual increase.

The distribution of the Negro population has varied with its increase and with the growth of the city. But almost from the beginning, probably the environing white group has segregated the Negroes into separate neighborhoods. The figures available for Brooklyn do not permit a positive inference, but in Manhattan, while the areas populated by Negroes have shifted somewhat from decade to decade, there have been distinctively Colored sections since 1800.[41]

An idea of this segregation is shown in the fact that in 1900, 80.9 per cent of all the Negro population of Manhattan was contained within 12 out of 35 Assembly Districts and that in 1890 seven wards of Manhattan contained fully five-sixths of the Negro population of the Borough. The largest number of Negroes, 13.8 per cent of the total number, were living, in 1900, in the Nineteenth Assembly District with numbers approximating this in the Eleventh, which contained 10.4 per cent, the Twenty-seventh, which had 9.2 per cent, and the Twenty-third, which had 8.7 per cent of the Negro population. The Negro population for Manhattan, 36,246, was distributed in 1900 by assembly districts as is shown in Table IX (p. 49).

These figures give a clear idea of the segregated character of the Negro population and show something of its present location. There has been a decided shifting from the part of Manhattan between Twenty-fifth, Forty-second streets, Sixth and Eighth avenues, and into Harlem between One Hundred and Thirtieth, One Hundred and Fortieth streets, Fifth and Eighth avenues during the past five years as business interests have been taking possession of the zone around the new Pennsylvania Railway Station, between Thirty-second and Thirty-third streets. But as the Negroes have moved into blocks in Harlem, the whites have moved out.

Table IX. Distribution of Negro Population by Assembly Districts of Manhattan, 1900.

Assembly District. Negro population. Per cent of total.

5th Assembly District 1,378 3.8

9th Assembly District 1,673 4.6

11th Assembly District 3,756 10.4

13th Assembly District 2,584 7.1

17th Assembly District 1,214 3.4

19th Assembly District 4,982 13.8

21st Assembly District 1,135 3.1

23rd Assembly District 3,169 8.7

25th Assembly District 2,950 8.1

27th Assembly District 3,318 9.2

31st Assembly District 1,483 4.1

32nd Assembly District 1,680 4.6

All other Districts 6,924 19.1

Total 36,246 100.

The exact character and extent of the segregation of the Negro population may be clearly seen from diagrams of this Harlem district, and of the "San Juan Hill" district in the West Sixties, based upon the latest figures of the Census of 1910. This is given in Diagrams III and IV (pp. 50-51)[42]

With such a distribution of the clearly segregated Negro population, the representative character of the 2,500 families chosen for closer study becomes evident. These families, from figures based upon the original returns of the New York State Census of 1905, were chosen from the Eleventh, the Nineteenth, the Twenty-third, and the Thirty-first districts. The last district was taken in preference to several which contained larger numbers, because it included certain streets that were typical of the Harlem section.

DIAGRAM III:

DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEGRO POPULATION OF HARLEM

Corrected To June 1911

DIAGRAM IV:

DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEGRO POPULATION ON "SAN JUAN HILL"

In all 2,639 families were tabulated. Of these 95 were excluded because the heads of these families were of the professional or business classes, 37 because they were too incompletely reported, and 7 because the heads were white. This reduced the number to 2,500 families, which consisted of 9,788 persons, exclusive of 17 white members of these families. The data from the State Census schedules of enumerators were tabulated in regular order as reported by them for each block or part of block for the Negro families that were designated as living in that street or block.

The families studied were from the following territory: Within the Eleventh Assembly District, the area bounded by Thirtieth and Thirty-eighth streets, Seventh and Tenth avenues; within the Nineteenth Assembly District, Sixty-first, Sixty-second, and Sixty-third streets, between Amsterdam and Eleventh avenues, commonly called "San Juan Hill;" within the Twenty-third and Thirty-first Assembly Districts, One Hundred and Thirtieth and One Hundred and Thirty-third streets between Eighth and St. Nicholas avenues, and One Hundred and Thirty-fourth and One Hundred and Thirty-fifth streets between Fifth and Seventh avenues. These three segregated neighborhoods in 1905 may be roughly characterized as follows: The first was probably in the lowest grade of social condition; the second did not show a decidedly predominant type, but ranged from the middle grade toward the more advanced; the third was the most advanced.

A comparison in detail of the distribution by assembly districts of the total Negro population and of the 2,500 selected families shows also that the latter are representative of the several neighborhoods and of the total population. Table X shows the distribution by Assembly Districts of the 2,500 families for comparison with Table IX above, which gave the total Negro population of Manhattan and its distribution.

Table X. Distribution by Assembly Districts of 2,500 Negro Families, State Census, 1905.

Assembly District. No. of families. No. of persons.

Eleventh 927 3,329

Nineteenth 1,018 4,024

Twenty-third 326 1,581

Thirty-first 229 854

Total 2,500 9,788

In addition to the data of the State Census of 1905, a personal canvass was made in 1909 of 73 families in their homes, having a total of 212 persons. To these were added 153 individuals at one of the evening schools of the city, a total of 365 persons. The localities within which these 365 people lived corresponded in the main to the location of the 2,500 families taken from the State Census of 1905; that is, between Twenty-fifth, Forty-fifth streets, Fifth and Eighth Avenues; Fifty-third, Sixty-fifth streets, west of Sixth Avenue and between One Hundred and Thirtieth and One Hundred and Thirty-sixth streets, Fifth and Seventh Avenues.

To sum up: The assembly districts chosen and the number of families and individuals tabulated from each district are such as to give a fairly accurate description of the clearly segregated wage-earning Negro population of the districts. The study, then, is representative of about one-fourth of the Negro population of Manhattan in 1905, and is so distributed as to be reasonably conclusive for the wage-earning element of the whole Negro population.

The next question is the composition of this toiling Negro population. The general condition of the wage-earning element of this group will now, therefore, engage our attention.

* * *

FOOTNOTES:

[37] New York Colonial Doc., i, 553.

[38] O'Callaghan, Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands, 1637-1674, p. 81.

[39] DuBois, Some Notes on Negroes of New York City, p. 5.

[40] The writer has testimony of contemporary witnesses of these disturbances.

[41] Vide DuBois, Notes, etc., p. 1.

[42] Diagrams III and IV were made by Mr. Eugene K. Jones, Field Secretary of the National League on Urban Conditions Among Negroes.

* * *

CHAPTER IIIToC

General Condition of Wage-earners[43]

I. SEX AND AGE OF NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS

In the 2,500 families composed of 9,788 individuals, the sex distribution and age grouping[44] throw some light upon the life conditions of the wage-earning class. That city life does not look with favor upon a large juvenile element in the population is generally believed. That the city draws mainly those of the working period of life is also generally conceded. The number of children in this Negro group under 15 years of age is 19 per cent, below normal for great cities, and the upper age limit is also quite low, being only 6.6 per cent between forty-five and fifty-four years, and 3.2 per cent over fifty-five years. Thus the bulk of the population, 70.8 per cent, both male and female, excluding 0.4 per cent doubtful and unknown, falls between fifteen and fifty-four years, or within the vigorous working period of life. This is fully set forth in Table XI, which gives the sex distribution and age grouping in assembly districts of the 9,788 individuals in these 2,500 families of the Census of 1905:

Table XI. Sex Distribution and Age Grouping of 9,788 Negro Wage-earners in Manhattan, State Census, 1905.

Age Group. Male. Female. Total.

No. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent

Less than 15 years 949 19.6 910 18.4 1859 19.0

15-24 988 20.4 1155 23.4 2143 21.9

25-34 1543 31.8 1546 31.2 3089 31.6

35-44 889 18.4 809 16.4 1698 17.3

45-54 333 6.9 311 6.3 644 6.6

55 and over 128 2.6 188 3.8 316 3.2

Doubtful and unknown 14 0.3 25 0.5 39 0.4

Totals 4844 100. 4944 100. 9788 100.

Figures obtained from the personal canvass made in 1909 bear comparison with those of the State Census of 1905. Substantial agreement is to be noted between the two enumerations, except for the larger percentage of those under 15 years of age in 1905 (19.6 per cent male, 18.4 per cent female), and the smaller percentages in the grouping thirty-five to forty-four years (18.4 per cent male, 16.4 per cent female). Doubtless this effect is produced because so many of the cases in 1909 were individuals attending evening school, who were required to be above 14 years of age, and because few over forty-five years of age are attracted to such a place. The other small difference in percentages is due probably to the small number of individuals, 365, in the figures for 1909. The sex distribution and age grouping in 1909 is shown in Table XII, which follows:

Table XII. Sex Distribution and Age Grouping of 365 Negro Wage-earners in Manhattan, 1909.

Age Group. Male. Female. Total.

No. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent

Less than 15 years 18 10.2 21 11.2 39 10.7

15-24 35 19.8 37 19.7 72 19.7

25-34 54 30.5 50 26.6 104 28.5

35-44 40 22.6 41 21.8 81 22.2

45-54 11 6.2 21 11.2 32 8.8

55 and over 10 5.6 4 2.1 14 3.8

Doubtful and unknown 9 5.1 14 7.4 23 6.3

Totals 177 100. 188 100. 365 100.

The results above correspond also with those of the United States Census of 1900 for the entire City of New York. Making allowance for some families of professional and business classes, probably not excluded from the Census figures for 1900, and for changes which five years interval may have caused, the agreement with the two preceding tables above confirms the representative character of the data for 1905 and 1909. For the total per cent under fifteen years in 1900 was 19.8; in 1905, 19.0; from fifteen to twenty-four years, 24 per cent in 1900, 21.9 per cent in 1905; from twenty-five to thirty-four years, 25.9 per cent in 1900, 31.6 per cent in 1905; from thirty-five to forty-four years, 16.2 per cent in 1900, 17.3 per cent in 1905; from forty-five to fifty-four years, 8.3 per cent in 1900, 6.6 per cent in 1905, and fifty-five years and over, 5.6 per cent in 1900, 3.2 per cent in 1905.[45]

Here, then, is a wage-earning group made up of persons in the younger and more vigorous working period. The small number of children under 15 years of age calls attention to the fact that the growth of this population takes place largely through recruits from other sections of the Country. They must find industrial and social adjustment to a new environment largely made up of the white population. They are either killed off by the conditions under which they work and live, or drift away from the city at a premature old age.

Chapter 8 1890. 1900. Per cent increase. 8

You might like