CHAPTER I_The Negro at Work in New York City: A Study in Economic Progress

E-text prepared by Jeannie Howse, Suzanne Shell, and the Project Gutenberg

Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net)

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this

file which includes the original illustrations.

See 24712-h.htm or 24712-h.zip:

(https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/4/7/1/24712/24712-h/24712-h.htm)

(https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/4/7/1/24712/24712-h.zip)

+------------------------------------------------------------+

| Transcriber's Note: |

| |

| Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has |

| been preserved. |

| |

| This ebook has some very wide tables which might be better |

| displayed in the html version. |

| |

| Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For |

| a complete list, please see the end of this document. |

| |

+------------------------------------------------------------+

Studies in History, Economics and Public Law

Edited by the Faculty of Political Science of

Columbia University

Volume XLIX Number 3

Whole Number 124

THE NEGRO AT WORK IN NEW YORK CITY

A Study in Economic Progress

GEORGE EDMUND HAYNES, Ph.D.

Sometime Fellow of the Bureau of Social Research,

New York School of Philanthropy;

Professor of Social Science in Fisk University

[Illustration]

New York

Columbia University

Longmans, Green & Co., Agents

London: P.S. King & Son

1912

George Edmund Haynes

PREFACE

This study was begun as one of the several researches of the Bureau of

Social Research of the New York School of Philanthropy, largely at the

suggestion of Dr. Samuel McCune Lindsay, the director, to whose

interest, advice and sympathy its completion is largely due. Sincere

thanks are due the Bureau for making the investigation possible.

The material was gathered between January, 1909, and January, 1910,

except about four weeks in August, 1909, during the time that I was

pursuing studies at the School of Philanthropy and at Columbia

University.

The investigation necessarily involved many questions concerning the

personal affairs of many Negroes of New York and it is a pleasant duty

to acknowledge the unvarying cheerfulness with which they rendered

assistance in securing the facts.

I wish to acknowledge especially the help of Dr. William L. Bulkley in

making possible many of the interviews with wage-earners, of Dr.

Roswell C. McCrea for criticism and encouragement in preparation of

the monograph, and of Dr. E.E. Pratt, sometime fellow of the Bureau of

Social Research; Miss Dora Sandowsky for her careful and painstaking

tabulation of most of the figures. They should not be charged,

however, with responsibility for any of the errors that may be

detected by the trained eye.

The study as now published is incomplete. Part I, the Negro as a

Wage-earner and Part II, the Negro in Business, were to be

supplemented by Part III, the Negro in the Professions. But the time

absorbed in gathering the material for the first two parts prevented

the securing of a sufficient amount of personally ascertained data for

the third; it seemed best to concentrate on the first two for the sake

of thoroughness.

The summaries following the data on the several points and at the end

of each chapter, and the conclusion at the end of the volume contain

some repetitions which may be open to criticism, but they have been

retained with the hope of making the monograph useful to those who

wish to know the conclusions from the succession of figure upon figure

and percentage upon percentage, without necessarily going through

these details. At the same time, anyone who may wish to weigh the

inferences in the light of the facts has the details before him.

Conditions among Negroes in Philadelphia have been adequately studied

in the work of Dr. W.E.B. DuBois and Dr. R.R. Wright, Jr. It is to be

hoped that some time soon the need of similar inquiries in other

cities--East, West, North and South--may be realized and that

provision may be made in this way for the guidance of the growing

impulses of those who wish to better conditions in urban centers.

I am aware that there are good reasons for criticism of these pages.

But what has been done was done in the search for the truth, that the

enthusiasm of reform may be linked with the reliability of knowledge

in the efforts to better the future conditions of the city and the

Negro.

GEORGE EDMUND HAYNES.

FISK UNIVERSITY, NASHVILLE, TENN., APRIL 1, 1912.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

PAGE

PREFACE 7-8

THE NEGRO AS A WAGE EARNER

CHAPTER I

THE CITY AND THE NEGRO--THE PROBLEM 13

CHAPTER II

THE NEGRO POPULATION OF NEW YORK CITY 45

CHAPTER III

GENERAL CONDITION OF WAGE-EARNERS

1. Sex and Age of Negro Wage-Earners 54

2. Nativity of Negro Wage-Earners 57

3. Marital Condition of Wage-Earners 60

4. Families and Lodgers 61

CHAPTER IV

OCCUPATIONS OF WAGE-EARNERS

1. A Historical View of Occupations 66

2. Occupations in 1890 and 1900 69

3. Occupations in 1905 72

CHAPTER V

WAGES AND EFFICIENCY OF WAGE-EARNERS

1. Wages in Domestic and Personal Service 78

2. Wages in Other Occupations 82

3. Efficiency of Wage-Earners 83

PART II

THE NEGRO IN BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY

CHAPTER I

THE CHARACTER OF NEGRO BUSINESS ENTERPRISES

1. The Business Promise 93

2. A History of the Negro in Business 94

3. The Nature of the Establishments in 1909 98

4. Ownership of Establishments 100

5. Size of Business Enterprises 104

CHAPTER II

THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS

1. Valuation of Tools and Fixtures 109

2. The Amount of Merchandise on Hand 111

3. Gross Receipts in 1907 and 1908 113

CHAPTER III

DEALING WITH THE COMMUNITY

1. Age of Establishments 117

2. Permanence of Location 118

3. Business Methods 120

4. Credit Relationships 122

5. The Purchasing Public 123

CHAPTER IV

SOME SAMPLE ENTERPRISES

1. Individuals and Partnerships 127

2. The Negro Corporation 137

CONCLUSION 143

APPENDICES, A, B, C 149

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 154

INDEX 157

PART I

THE NEGRO AS A WAGE EARNER IN NEW YORK CITY

CHAPTER I

THE CITY[1] AND THE NEGRO--THE PROBLEM

The city of to-day, the growth of the past century, is a permanent

development. Dr. Weber has effectively treated the history, nature,

causes and effects of the concentration. He shows[2] that the

percentage of urban population has varied in different countries; and

that this is due mainly to the varying density of population and to

the diverse physical features of the countries which have been

differently affected by the Industrial Revolution and the era of

railroads. The causes of this concentration have been the divorce of

men from the soil, the growth of commercial centers, the growth of

industrial centers, and such secondary and individual causes as

legislation, educational and social advantages.

In the United States, city growth has been affected by all of the

several causes that have operated in other countries, modified at

times and in places by exceptional influences.[3]

In the discussions concerning the Negro and his movement cityward, it

is often assumed that his migration is affected by causes of a

different kind from those moving other populations; or that it is not

similar in respect to the movement of the white population under

similar conditions; or that the concentration can result only in dire

disaster both to himself and to the community into which he moves.

Such facts as are available suggest that these assumptions are

ill-founded. The efforts that are being put forth to improve rural

conditions and to advance agricultural arts among Negroes are highly

commendable and effective. The thesis of this chapter is that,

notwithstanding improvements resulting from these efforts for rural

districts, wherever similar causes operate under similar conditions,

the Negro, along with the white population, is coming to the city to

stay; that the problems which grow out of his maladjustment to the new

urban environment are solvable by methods similar to those that help

other elements of the population.

In the first place, so far as we know now, the general movement of the

Negroes, speaking for the South, does not seem to have been very

different from that of the whites. Professor Wilcox says,[4]

It is sometimes alleged that the migration to cities, which has

characterized nearly all countries and all classes of population

during the last half century, has affected Southern whites more

than Southern negroes, and that the latter race is thus being

segregated in the rural districts. That such a movement may have

gone on, or may now be in progress, in parts of the South can

neither be affirmed nor denied on the basis of the present

figures, but it may be said with some confidence that, as a

general statement applied to the whole South, it is not correct.

To be sure the negroes constitute 32.6 per cent of the

population of the country districts in the entire South and only

30.9 per cent of the city population, but an examination of the

figures (Census 1900) for the several divisions and states will

show that what is in some degree true of the South as a whole is

not true of most of its parts.

Therefore, it is of importance to note that the movement of white and

Negro populations toward cities tends to be coincident. We may get

some indication of these movements of white and Negro populations

cityward by comparing the growth of their numbers in the principal

Northern and Southern cities from 1860 to 1900.

The Negro population has shown a greater increase than the white in

each southern city taken separately for the entire period, 1860 to

1900, but together the movement of the white and Negro populations was

similar except between 1860 and 1870. That fourteen of the southern

cities show an excessive proportional increase of Negro population

between 1860 and 1870 is probably due (1) to the very small

proportionate Negro population in each of these cities in 1860, the

Negroes being almost entirely in the rural districts, and (2) to the

exceptional influences following the Civil War which uprooted the

rural Negro population that was proportionately larger than the white.

The truth of this is corroborated by the per cent of increase by

decades for these southern cities taken together. Comparisons with the

white population in Northern cities were not made because of the

influence of foreign immigration of whites. The per cent of increase

of the populations in Southern cities from 1860 to 1870 were white

16.7 per cent, Negro 90.7 per cent; from 1870 to 1880, white 20.3 per

cent, Negro 25.5 per cent; from 1880 to 1890, white 35.7 per cent,

Negro 38.7 per cent; from 1890 to 1900, white 20.8 per cent, Negro

20.6 per cent; from 1900 to 1910, white 27.7 per cent, Negro 20.6 per

cent. That is, when the proportion between the urban and rural

populations of blacks and whites becomes normal, and exceptional

influences no longer bear upon the Negro, the two populations show

about the same rate of increase in their migrations to these Southern

cities. The percent of increase of the Negro population for eight

Northern cities (counting all the boroughs of New York City as now

constituted as one) was as follows: 1860-1870, 51 per cent; 1870-1880,

36.4 per cent; 1880-1890, 32.3 per cent; 1890-1900, 59.2 per cent. The

larger liberty of Northern cities was coupled with the economic call

of better wages. And this probably may account for the fact that

Southern cities show an increase of whites of 7.7 per cent more than

of Negroes between 1900-1910. The migration to both Southern and

Northern cities is graphically illustrated in the accompanying

diagram.

[Illustration: Diagram I:

PER CENT INCREASE OF WHITES AND NEGROES]

The figures for Southern cities represented in the diagram are given

in Table I.

TABLE I. NUMBER AND PER CENT. INCREASE OF WHITE AND NEGRO POPULATIONS,

PRINCIPAL SOUTHERN CITIES, 1860-1900.[A]

----------+---------------+-------------++---------------+-------------

| Population | Increase || Population | Increase

| 14 cities. | 1860-1870. || 15 cities. | 1870-1880.

+-------+-------+-------+-----++-------+-------+-------+-----

| 1860. | 1870. | No. | Per || 1870. | 1880. | No. | Per

| | | | cent|| | | | cent

----------+-------+-------+-------+-----++-------+-------+-------+-----

White |610,015|712,015|102,000| 16.7||715,887|867,403|145,081| 20.3

| | | | || | | |

Negro |141,709|270,212|128,503| 90.7||272,433|341,907| 69,474| 25.5

----------+-------+-------+-------+-----++-------+-------+-------+-----

| Population | Increase || Population | Increase

| 15 cities. | 1880-1890. || 16 cities. | 1890-1900.

+---------------+-------+-----++---------------+-------+-----

| 1890 | | Per || 1900 | | Per

| | No. | cent|| | No. | cent

----------+---------------+-------+-----++---------------+-------+-----

White | 1,183,419 |307,542| 35.7|| 1,429,931 |246,512| 20.8

| | | || | |

Negro | 485,477 |132,316| 38.7|| 585,931 |100,054| 20.6

----------+---------------+-------+-----++---------------+-------+-----

| Population | Increase

| 16 cities. | 1900-1910.

+------------------------------+--------------+--------------

| 1910. | No. | Per cent

+------------------------------+--------------+--------------

White | 1,817,155 | 387,224 | 27.7

| | |

Negro | 706,352 | 120,821 | 20.6

----------+------------------------------+--------------+--------------

[A] Table is based on figures compiled from Eighth Census,

_Pop._, pp. 9, 19, 46, 74, 132, 195, 215, 452, 487, 519; Tenth

Census, vol. i, _Pop._, pp. 416-425; Eleventh Census, vol. i,

_Pop._, pp. 451-485; Twelfth Census, vol. i, pt. 2, _Pop._, pp.

cxix-cxxi and _Bulletin 8, Negroes of the United States_, pp.

230-232. For 1860, compare Hoffman, _Race Traits and Tendencies

of the American Negro_ p. 10.

Both the diagram and the table support the conclusion that the

movement of the white and Negro populations to these cities have been

similar under similar conditions and influences.

In like manner such statistics as are available show that the causes

that have concentrated the white population in urban centres have

operated likewise to send the Negro thither.

I. The Divorce of the Negro from the Soil.--With other rural

populations improvements in agriculture have made fewer workers

necessary. In the case of the Negro, the main moving force from the

rural districts since 1860 has been the breaking down of the old

régime. The decades from 1840 to 1890, except 1870 to 1880, or the

period of the "industrial paralysis" after the panic of 1873, were

decades of remarkable urban growth in the United States.[5] The first

two decades of this time were the years of violent slavery agitation.

Then followed the Civil War and the boon of freedom, which gave rise

to an unusual mobility of Negro labor. The inevitable _Wanderlust_

which sudden social upheaval entails was increased by Ku-Klux

terrorism and the breaking down of the slave plantation system.[6]

Thousands of the wandering freedmen flocked to the Union army posts

which were located in towns and cities.

This was only the beginning. The landless freedman furnished occasion

for the creation of the share-tenant and crop-lien systems. In many

cases these handicaps often became intolerable under dishonest

merchants, unscrupulous landlords, and ill-treatment by overseers.[7]

All this tended to loosen the hold of the Negro tenant upon the soil.

Simultaneously with these dominant forces in agriculture, another

began to be felt. The one crop of cotton or tobacco taxed the land in

many sections year after year until it was worn out. In 1899, 70.5 per

cent of Negro farmers reported cotton as the principal source of

income. Tobacco formed the principal source of income of 16 per cent

of Negro farmers in Virginia, of 30.1 per cent in Kentucky and of 18.7

per cent in Maryland.[8] Compared with the growing industrial

pursuits, these old agricultural lands no longer offer attractive

returns.[9]

Again, where thrift, improvement in agricultural methods and knowledge

develop, just as among other farmers, there begins to be a surplus of

hands to the cultivator, and Negroes turn toward better paid

employment in the urban centres.

It is true that there are large uncultivated, virgin areas of the

Southwest, especially in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas,

and Texas, that are calling loudly for farm labor. The population

these areas can support is very considerable and the returns to labor

are better than in many of the older agricultural sections. Granting

this, the tendency of modern civilization and improvements in

facilities for transportation favors the urban centers. So that

migration is easier toward the city than away from it or toward these

untilled agricultural areas. _The Negro is in the population stream._

II. The Migration of the Negro to Industrial and Commercial

centers.--A study of the growth of the Southern cities shows

influences at work similar to those of other sections. Statistics of

manufactures of the United States Censuses are not altogether

conclusive or reliable, but they measurably indicate conditions. We

turn to these records for light upon the Southern situation.

A study of the value of manufactured products of sixteen Southern

cities shows that there was a marked increase during the twenty-five

years from 1880 to 1905. The industrial centers, Chattanooga,

Tennessee, and Birmingham, Alabama, have come into prominence in the

decade, 1890-1900, and show an increase in value of products of 17.8

per cent and 78.9 per cent respectively. The comparatively small

increase during 1890-1900 for Richmond, Va.; Charleston, S.C.; Augusta

and Savannah, Ga., and Mobile, Ala., was probably due to unknown local

causes and to a reaction during the industrial crisis of 1892-1894

from the excessive increases of the preceding decade. Yet these cities

along with nine of the others show remarkable increase in the total

value of products for the entire twenty years from 1880 to 1900.

Richmond, with an increase of 39 per cent and Savannah, with an

increase of 90.3 per cent, were the only cities which had an increase

of less than one hundred per cent in value of products during the

score of years from 1880 to 1900. The total increase in value of

products from 1880 to 1900 for 14 of the cities (Chattanooga and

Birmingham being omitted) was 143.3 per cent. The following

comparative statement in Table II shows the increase in the value of

products of manufactures in sixteen Southern cities from 1880 to 1905,

and gives the detailed figures which are the bases of the preceding

conclusion. (See p. 21.)

Along with the increase of production has gone the growth in the

average number of wage-earners in manufacturing establishments. Each

city made a decided advance in the average number of wage-earners in

manufactures during the twenty years from 1880 to 1900. In that

period, out of fourteen cities, two increased over 300 per cent in the

average number of wage-earners, two cities increased over 240 per cent

in the average number of wage-earners, five cities increased over 100

per cent and the remaining five cities showed an increase of 76.3 per

cent, 57 per cent, 39.8 per cent, 18.8 per cent, and 7.5 per cent

respectively. Chattanooga, Tenn., and Birmingham, Ala., from 1890 to

1900 increased 5.2 per cent and 105.6 per cent respectively. Omitting

these, the other fourteen cities taken together increased in the

number of wage-earners during the twenty years from 1880 to 1900, 60.9

per cent. Table III, which follows, brings into full view this large

and constant increase in the average number of wage-earners in

manufacturing establishments, exclusive of proprietors, salaried

officers, clerks, _etc._

TABLE II. TOTAL VALUE OF PRODUCTS, INCLUDING CUSTOM WORK AND

REPAIRING, OF MANUFACTURES IN SIXTEEN SOUTHERN CITIES, 1880-1905.[A]

--------------+----------------------------------------------------------

| Total value of products.

+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------

| 1880. | 1890. | 1900. | increase | 1905[B]

| | | |1880-1900.|

--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------

| $ | $ | $ | | $

| | | | |

Wilmington | 13,205,370| 24,568,125| 34,053,324| 157.9 | 30,390,039

Baltimore | 78,417,304|141,723,599|161,249,240| 105.6 |151,546,580

Washington[C] | 11,882,316| 39,331,437| 47,667,622| 301.2 | 18,359,159

Norfolk | 1,455,987| 5,100,408| 9,397,355| 545.4 | 5,900,129

Richmond | 20,790,106| 27,792,672| 28,900,616| 39.0 | 28,202,607

Charleston | 2,732,590| 9,005,421| 9,562,387| 249.9 | 6,007,094

Atlanta | 4,861,727| 13,074,037| 16,707,027| 243.6 | 25,745,650

Augusta | 3,139,029| 9,244,850| 10,041,900| 219.9 | 8,829,305

Savannah | 3,396,297| 6,319,066| 6,461,816| 90.3 | 6,340,004

Louisville | 35,423,203| 54,515,226| 78,746,390| 122.3 | 83,204,125

Chattanooga | | 10,216,109| 12,033,780| 17.8[D] | 15,193,909

Memphis | 4,413,422| 13,244,538| 17,923,058| 306.1 | 21,348,817

Nashville | 8,597,278| 14,590,823| 18,469,823| 114.8 | 23,109,601

Birmingham | | 7,034,248| 12,581,066| 78.9[D] | 7,592,958

Mobile | 1,335,579| 3,826,399| 4,451,062| 233.3 | 4,942,331

New Orleans | 18,808,096| 48,295,449| 63,514,505| 237.7 | 84,604,006

--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------

Total |208,458,304|427,882,407|531,760,971| 143.3[E] |521,316,314

--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------

[A] Compiled from Census Reports: 1880, 10th Census,

_Manufactures_, pp. xxiv, xxv; 1890-1900, 12th Census, vol.

viii, _Manufactures, Part ii_, pp. 7, 108, 115, 134, 279, 301,

335, 831, 848, 908; 1905, 12th Census, _Manufactures, Part ii_,

pp. 20, 142, 152, 179, 339, 361, 403, 1025, 1056, 1127.

[B] In Tables ii and iii the figures of Manufactures from 1880

to 1900 are not exactly comparable with those of 1905, because

the census of 1905 was limited to manufacturing establishments

and excluded all neighborhood work and establishments for

custom work and repairing. Hence percentage of increase was not

worked out for this period.

[C] Figures for Washington, D.C., apply to the District of

Columbia and include governmental establishments.

[D] Increase 1890-1900.

[E] Increase per cent for 14 cities from 1880 to 1900,

exclusive of Chattanooga and Birmingham.

TABLE III. AVERAGE NUMBER OF WAGE-EARNERS[A] ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURES

IN SIXTEEN SOUTHERN CITIES, 1880-1905.[B]

------------------------+----------------------------------------------

| Average Number of Wage-earners.

+-------+-------+----------+----------+--------

| 1880. | 1890. | 1900. |increase, |1905.[D]

| | | |1880-1900.|

------------------------+-------+-------+----------+----------+--------

Wilmington. Del. | 7,852| 13,370| 16,055 | 104.5 | 13,554

Baltimore, Md. | 56,338| 76,489| 78,738 | 39.8 | 65,224

Washington, D.C. | 7,146| 20,406| 24,693 | 245.5 | 17,281

Norfolk, Va. | 752| 2,391| 4,334 | 476.3 | 3,063

Richmond, Va. | 14,047| 16,891| 16,692 | 18.8 | 12,883

Charleston, S.C. | 2,146| 4,684| 5,027 | 134.2 | 3,450

Atlanta, Ga. | 3,680| 7,957| 9,356 | 154.2 | 11,891

Augusta, Ga. | 4,518| 5,714| 7,092 | 57.0 | 4,839

Savannah, Ga. | 1,130| 2,419| 2,870 | 154.1 | 3,330

Louisville, Ky. | 17,103| 24,159| 29,926 | 7.5 | 24,985

Chattanooga, Tenn.[C] | | 5,200| 5,472 | 5.2 | 6,984

Memphis, Tenn. | 2,268| 5,497| 8,433 | 271.8 | 8,153

Nashville, Tenn. | 4,791| 7,275| 8,447 | 76.3 | 8,435

Birmingham, Ala.[C] | | 3,247| 6,675 | 105.6 | 3,987

Mobile, Ala. | 704| 2,719| 2,827 | 301.5 | 2,496

New Orleans, La. | 9,504| 22,342| 19,435[E]| 104.5 | 17,631

------------------------+-------+-------+----------+----------+---------

| | | | |

Total |131,979|212,313|233,925 | 60.9[F] |208,186

------------------------+-------+-------+----------+----------+---------

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

_etc._

[B] 1880, Tenth Census, _Manufactures_, pp. xxiv, xxv; 1890 and

1900, 11th Census, _Manufactures, Part ii_, pp. 7, 108, 115,

134, 279, 300, 335, 831, 848, 908; 1905, 12th Census, vol.

viii, _Manufactures, Part ii_, pp. 20, 142, 152, 179, 339, 361,

403, 1025, 1056, 1127.

[C] No return for 1880.

[D] Figures for 1905 are less and are not comparable with

preceding figures, because in 1905 all neighborhood work and

establishments for custom work and repairing were excluded.

[E] Does not include cotton compressing in 1900.

[F] Fourteen cities; Chattanooga and Birmingham are omitted.

The industrial pull of Southern cities, then, is shown both by the

increase in the average number of wage-earners and in the total value

of manufactured products.

There is no reason to doubt that commercial enterprise has operated

and kept pace with industrial activity in causing the growth of these

urban centers. Figures for the trade of these sixteen Southern cities

are not available. However, we have side lights upon the commercial

life in the amount of railroad building that has taken place in the

South since 1860. In 1860, there were only 8,317 miles of railroad in

the thirteen states from Maryland and Delaware to Arkansas and Texas.

In 1900, there were 46,735.86 miles in the same territory, an increase

of 461.9 per cent. From 1900 to 1905 this increased to 55,239.22 miles

or 18.2 per cent in the five years.[10] Likewise the traffic

operations, including total tonnage, and freight, passenger, express

and mail earnings of selected groups of railways covering most of this

territory, increased very rapidly from 1890 to 1900. In the ten years,

from 1890 to 1900, the tonnage increased from 63,597,120 tons to

121,180,317 tons or 90.5 per cent; and total earnings went from

$113,616,184.45 in 1890 to $168,606,233 in 1900, an increase of 48.4

per cent in ten years.

As these industrial and commercial forces affect the population, the

Negro without doubt shares to a considerable extent the influence.

That the Negro has been a large labor factor in the South is a patent

fact. All the data available indicate that he has been affected by

economic influences similar to those which have moved the white

population toward the urban centers.

The most decisive set of facts is the growth in the number of whites

and Negroes in gainful occupations in Southern cities. The census

returns of 1890 and 1900 for a number of Southern cities were

sufficient for an inference. For some occupations figures for 1890

were not available, and in other occupations some cities were not

reported in 1890. So a selected list of occupations was taken.

The comparisons of those occupations selected are striking. Among the

males, for domestic and personal service occupations, from 1890 to

1900, the white wage-earners increased 42.3 per cent and the Negro

wage-earners increased 31.1 per cent. Here we see the influence of the

growth of wealthy classes in the industrial and commercial centers,

who require increasing numbers to supply their developing wants. In

trade and transportation occupations, while the number of white

wage-earners increased 25.2 per cent from 1890 to 1900, the Negro

wage-earners increased 39.1 per cent during the same decade. For the

same period, in manufacturing and mechanical pursuits, the white

workers increased 6.1 per cent and the Negro workers increased 12.1

per cent. This indicates the dependence of the growing industry of the

South upon its black male workers and shows how strong upon them is

the economic pull.

For the females, the increases are no less telling, especially for

Negro workers. In ten selected occupations for Southern cities, the

white female workers decreased 29.1 per cent and the Negro female

workers increased 36 per cent from 1890 to 1900. The decrease for the

whites was due to an excessive decrease among dressmakers, milliners

and seamstresses, which may be a discrepancy of the census returns.

The full list of selected occupations in Southern cities for 1890 and

1900 are given in full in Table IV, following:

TABLE IV. INCREASE OF WHITE AND NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS IN SELECTED

OCCUPATIONS, SOUTHERN CITIES, 1890-1900.[A]

KEY:

A: No. of cities.

B: Per cent increase.

----------------------------+----------------------------------------------

| Male.

+----+--------------------+--------------------

| | Native white. | Negro.

| +-------+-------+----+-------+-------+----

Occupation. | A | 1890. | 1900. | B | 1890. | 1900. | B

----------------------------+----+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+----

service | -- | 29,407| 41,854|42.3| 54,179| 71,047|31.1

Barbers, hairdressers | 10 | 1,436| 2,208| -- | 1,946| 2,317| --

Bartenders | 8 | 1,688| 2,486| -- | 277| 389| --

Laborers (not specified) | 10 | 19,843| 27,759| -- | 35,868| 51,346| --

keepers | 9 | 1,577| 2,107| -- | 377| 474| --

Servants and waiters | 10 | 1,395| 1,128| -- | 15,358| 16,071| --

detectives, etc. | 10 | 3,441| 6,166| -- | 353| 450| --

Trade and transportation | -- | 71,291| 89,294|25.2| 18,305| 25,459|39.1

commercial travelers | 10 | 8,571| 13,031| -- | 287| 411| --

officials (bank) | 8 | 2,309| 1,824| -- | 76| 13| --

teamsters | 10 | 6,385| 8,117| -- | 11,246| 14,545| --

porters, etc.[B] | 9 | 3,302| 4,486| -- | 3,554| 6,225| --

Steam railway employees | 10 | 11,033| 11,532| -- | 2,213| 3,048| --

Street railway employees | 8 | 1,987| 3,366| -- | 85| 170| --

etc.[C] | 10 | 37,704| 46,638| -- | 844| 1,057| --

mechanical pursuits | -- | 55,236| 64,288|16.3| 11,548| 12,887|11.6

Bakers and butchers | 9 | 4,111| 4,512| -- | 632| 640| --

Blacksmiths[D] | 10 | 3,722| 4,003| -- | 852| 935| --

repairers | 10 | 2,195| 1,816| -- | 1,184| 965| --

Carpenters and joiners | 10 | 12,947| 12,394| -- | 3,029| 2,762| --

operatives | 7 | 2,648| 2,534| -- | 258| 281| --

(not locomotive) | 10 | 3,379| 5,151| -- | 881| 1,224| --

Iron and steel workers | 9 | 3,366| 4,808| -- | 779| 752| --

Machinists | 10 | 5,086| 8,088| -- | 92| 174| --

Marble and stone cutters | 5 | 1,009| 906| -- | 150| 149| --

Masons (brick and stone) | 6 | 2,663| 2,362| -- | 731| 1,264| --

varnishers | 10 | 6,807| 7,372| -- | 875| 782| --

Plasterers | 7 | 672| 633| -- | 886| 811| --

fitters | 7 | 1,925| 2,646| -- | 113| 151| --

employees | 7 | 2,543| 4,409| -- | 749| 1,062| --

Tailors | 10 | 2,163| 2,654| -- | 337| 307| --

----------------------------+----+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+----

Total | -- |155,934|195,436|25.3| 84,032|109,393|30.2

----------------------------+----+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+----

----------------------------+----------------------------------------------

| Female.

+----+--------------------+--------------------

| | Native white. | Negro.

| +-------+-------+----+-------+-------+----

Occupation. | A | 1890 | 1900 | B | 1890 | 1900 | B

----------------------------+----+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+----

stewardesses | 10 | 1,475| 1,956 | -- | 752| 513| --

Laborers (not specified) | 10 | 332| 712 | -- | 676| 901| --

Laundresses | 10 | 1,543| 2,409 | -- | 25,968| 41,386| --

Nurses and midwives | 10 | 781| 2,472 | -- | 1,097| 3,691| --

Servants[E] | 10 | 10,176| 9,983 | -- | 47,198| 56,729| --

Saleswomen | 7 | 2,633| 4,808 | -- | 37| 28| --

seamstresses | 10 | 41,313|22,007 | -- | 6,528| 6,859| --

Tailoresses | 6 | 2,814| 2,950 | -- | 164| 131| --

----------------------------+----+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+----

Total | -- | 61,067|47,297 |29.1| 81,027|110,238|36.0

| | | [F] |[F] | | |

----------------------------+----+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+----

NOTES FOR TABLE IV.

[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.

---------------------------+--------------+--------------

| |

| Males. | Females.

+-------+------+-------+------

Wages. | | | |

|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). | T

| o

-----------------------+----------------------+------------------------+ t

| | | a

On account of parents. |On account of husband | On account of other | l

| or wife | relatives. | .

-----------------------+----------------------+------------------------+---

| | |

"Brought here by |"Relatives of wife |"A son here" 2|

parents" 12| here" 1| |

| |"To visit a brother |

"With mother" 6|"Wife here" 1| and remained" 5|

| | |

"Came with mother |"To follow husband" 1|"Had a sister here" 9|

who was here" 4| | |

|"Came with husband" 7|"My health was bad |

"Father was here" 2| | and came to live |

|"My husband was | with sister" 1|

"On account of death | working on a ship | |

of father" 1| coming here" 1|To live with other |

| | relatives on account |

"Father transferred | | of death of mother 4|

in revenue service" 1| | |

| |Through influence |

| | of other relatives 10|

-----------------------+----------------------+------------------------+---

| | |

Total 26| Total 11| Total 31|68

-----------------------+----------------------+------------------------+---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------+---

| T

| o

Individual reasons (43 or 20.5 per cent of 210). | t

| a

-----------------------+----------------------+------------------------+ l

| | |

Restlessness.--16 | Attraction of New | Former residence, | 4

| York City.--15 | unattractive.--6 | 3

| | | .

-----------------------+----------------------+------------------------+---

| | |

"Thought I would like |"I wanted to come out |"To say I was leaving |

the place as a | this way." | home like everybody |

change;" wanted "to | | else." (From |

be goin somewhere." |"Wanted to come to a | St. Martin's Island.) |

| larger (place); to | |

"Was in Rhode Island | travel to see the |"Got tired of Boston |

and wanted a change." | world." | and came to New York." |

| | |

"Thought I'd like to |"Passing through |"Got tired of Virginia; |

make a change." | several summers; | came to visit friend; |

| stopped." | remained." |

"Wanted to make a | | |

change." |"Came out with |"Got tired of |

| friends who were | Baltimore; thought I'd |

"To change cities and | coming; been back | see some of New York." |

see New York." | and forth." | |

| |"Got tired of home, |

"Thought I would like |"Was running on the | that's all." |

change; to be going | boat to New York | |

somewhere." | and stopped for a |"To get away from home |

| while." | for a change." |

"Just for a change." | | |

|"Just to see New +------------------------+

"Just for a change." | York; was traveling | |

| and stopped." | Miscellaneous.--6 |

"Thought I'd make a | | |

change; came North |"Took a notion to +------------------------+

to try it." | come; wanted to | |

| come North." |"Came to get married." |

"Just to be coming." | | |

(To New York) |"Liked New York after |"Stopped on way to |

| seeing it as a | Boston, robbed in |

"For recreation; to | sailor in the Navy." | Jersey City." |

change cities." | | |

|"Thought I would like |"Came to America to go |

"Traveling and | New York." | to school." (From S. |

stopped." | | Hampton, Bermuda.) |

|"Thought I'd like New | |

"Split the difference | York." | |

of time." | |"To learn |

|"Wanted to see the | architecture." |

"Felt like traveling." | place." | |

| |"To visit friends; got |

"Had a roaming |"To see the place and | married." |

mind--came here from | be with sister." | |

Chicago." | |"To see and learn and |

|"To see the city; | improve my ability." |

"Felt like traveling." | friend wrote me of | |

| sights of the great | |

| city." | |

| | |

|"Heard talk of | |

| enjoyable life | |

| here." | |

| | |

|"Came here from | |

| Cincinnati; had read | |

| a great deal of New | |

| York City and wanted | |

| to see it." | |

-----------------------+----------------------+------------------------+

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:

[Illustration: Diagram II:

THE GENERAL DEATH RATE OF AMERICAN CITIES 1871-1904]

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.

The Negro at Work in New York City: A Study in Economic Progress · 第 1 / 6 章