In the first decade (1850-60) his gains were 7 per cent. (not quite), 4
per cent., 32 per cent., 4 per cent.; whereas in twenty years
(1880-1900), the gains have been only 5 per cent., 12 per cent., 11 per
cent., 7 per cent. The total percentage of gain has been actually less
in the two decades than in the one. In these states, then, the doom of
the Black is sealed.
In Louisiana, the course of fate is not less sure. In 1850 the Blacks
were slightly preponderant--262,271 against 255,491; in 1870, "by
reason of slaughterous war," they had increased their lead decidedly,
and very greatly in 1880 (483,655 against 454,954); but in 1900 they
have fallen far behind--only 650,804 against 729,612. Of this state,
then, the redemption is sure and in rapid progress.
Not less manifest is the bleaching of North Carolina. There the
coloured population has not doubled itself in fifty years, whereas the
White has far more than doubled and, but for the plague of war, would
certainly have trebled itself. In the first decade (1850-1860), the
Whites and Blacks increased each by not quite 15 per cent.; but in the
double decade (1880-1900) the Whites increased by 46 per cent., the
Blacks by not quite 18 per cent.
There is quite a similar tale to be told of Tennessee. The great empire
of Texas shows a much better record; there the Negro has, indeed,
ten-folded himself--largely, of course, by immigration; but the Whites
have been multiplied by nearly sixteen. In the first decade the Whites
increased by 173 per cent., the Blacks by 312 per cent.; in the last
decade the former increased by 39 per cent., the latter by little over
27 per cent. Surely, ambiguity here is quite out of the question.
South Carolina has long had the unenviable distinction of being by far
the darkest state in the Union. In 1850 the ratio was twenty-seven to
thirty-nine. She suffered ruinously for her secession folly, and for
nearly twenty years her White population was practically stationary; in
1870 she had only twenty-nine myriads, and even in 1880 only
thirty-nine against sixty of Blacks. But, at last, the tide has begun
to turn. The introduction of manufactures promises redemption to the
Palmetto State. From 1880 to 1900 the Negroes increased by nearly 30
per cent., but the Whites by 43 per cent. The hue of the state is now
almost precisely the same as at the firing on Fort Sumter; she has at
last made good the losses of the war.
Georgia is the watermelon paradise of the Black folk. In the first
decade they gained greatly on the Whites, advancing their ratio from
thirty-eight to fifty-two up to forty-seven to fifty-nine; they still
further increased their gain in the next twenty years, till in 1880 the
ratio stood seventy-three to eighty-two. But this was the high-water
mark; since then it has sunk back slightly to 103 to 118; the Whites
are now gaining slowly. This \example is very instructive and very
encouraging; for it shows that even a steady gain of the Black over the
White continued through a whole generation may yet be turned into a
loss in the next generation.
A similar case is presented by Alabama. Here the Negro's increase in
the first decade was 27 per cent., the Caucasian's only 23 per cent.
The state suffered frightfully during the war, and in 1870 the White
population had actually fallen from 526,271 (in 1860) back to 521,384.
The Black population was then returned at 475,510, but it was almost
certainly over 500,000; for in the preceding decade it rose from
345,109 to 437,770; it must (in 1870) have exceeded or at least
equalled the White. But now the Caucasian begins once more to
demonstrate his superior life-powers; in the next three decades he
nearly doubles his numbers (521,384 to 1,001,152), while the Negro
rises only to 827,307. With the establishment of industries in iron,
the triumph of the White in Alabama has been assured.
There remain only Arkansas, Florida, and Mississippi. In the hot and
moist alluvial lands of these states, the Negro seems likely to make
his most stubborn stand against the encroachment of the Caucasian. In
these three, he is still multiplying faster than his competitors; in
one he is already far ahead in numbers. Must he not, then, ultimately
make them completely his own? At first sight it would seem we should
answer yes, but closer inspection reveals tendencies that must finally
reverse the present conditions. In Arkansas, the White rate has gained
rapidly on the Black. In 1850-60 these rates were: White 100 per cent.,
Black 133 per cent.--one-third more; but in 1890-1900, White 15.4,
Negro 18.7, and for the double decade, 1880-1900, they were: White 59,
Negro 74. From having been one-third greater, the Negro rate has become
about one-fifth greater.
In Florida and Mississippi, the complexion, though still very dusky, is
lighter than half a century ago. In the former, the white excess in
1880 was hardly thirteen per hundred Negroes; in 1900 it had risen to
twenty-nine. In the great cotton state, the darkest spot on the
continent, the Blacks have long been in a seemingly hopeless majority.
This amounted to 15,000 in 1850; in 1860 it had risen to 84,000; in
1900 to 266,000. During the last decade the Black increase per thousand
was 222, the White only 177. So the situation would seem to be growing
steadily worse. However, there is still a ray of hope. The Blacks are
still gaining, but at a decreasing rate. From 1850 to 1860 their gain
per thousand was 408, but from 1880 to 1900 it was hardly 396; they
gained not nearly half so fast. Meantime, the White gain from 1850 to
1860 was only 196 per thousand, whereas from 1880 to 1900 it was 337;
while the Black gain fell from 408 to 396, the White rose from 196 to
337. At this rate the White must surely overtake and pass the Black,
and another half century will almost certainly see the white numbers
greatly preponderant.
The case of Mississippi is especially interesting as showing the
prospect of the Blacks at its brightest and of the Whites at its
darkest. This state has no large city, but few towns of moderate size,
and no manufactures. It is almost exclusively agricultural. Here, then,
the conditions that make for the Whites are at their worst; those that
make for the Blacks are at their best. Here, if anywhere on our
continent, the odds are all for the Negro; and yet, even here, he makes
a losing fight--he still has the advantage, but it is slipping from his
hands.
We can think of only one objection likely to be raised against the
foregoing statistical argument. Some one may say that we have made too
little use of the decade 1890-1900, but have preferred the score of
years 1880-1900. It is true that the last decade (1890-1900) shows
better for the Negro than the preceding (1880-90)--which, indeed,
indicated his over-rapid decadence throughout the South. But it seems
hardly possible that this showing should not be deceptive. For there is
not a single known circumstance that favoured him in his last decade
rather than in the preceding. The explanation seems very simple; the
coloured returns of the eleventh census were incomplete--not nearly so
incomplete as those of the ninth, yet enough so in comparison with the
tenth and the twelfth to make the showing for 1880 to 1890 too bad, and
for 1890 to 1900 too good. The census reports of the Black population
for 1850 and 1860 seem to have been substantially correct; for 1870,
extremely incomplete; for 1880, greatly better; for 1890, not nearly so
good; for 1900, much better again. For 1870 this is now conceded. Thus,
in Mississippi the coloured population increased from 1850 to 1860 by
126,000; from 1870 to 1880 by 206,090; but from 1860 to 1870 by only
6,797 (impossible!). In Kentucky it actually lost (1860-70) 13,957, but
gained (1870-80) 49,241; and once more lost (1880-90) 3,380. So, in
South Carolina, the Negro gain was (1870-80) nearly 190,000, but
(1860-70) only 3,500. So, in Missouri, a gain of 28,463 (1850-60) and
of 27,279 (1870-80), but (1860-70) a loss of 432.
The indications of imperfection in the census of 1890 seem clear,
though not so glaring as in that of 1870. Such, for instance, are the
actual decreases in the Negro population of Kentucky and Missouri, and
the extremely small gains (1880-90) of 5,500 (Maryland), 5,000
(Missouri), 4,000 (Virginia), against gains (1890-1900) of 19,500
(Maryland), 11,000 (Missouri), 25,000 (Virginia). Other imperfections,
not so glaring, but quite as unmistakable, a careful eye may detect
only too frequently. Thus, consider the following returns per 1,000,000
for the census years--
1860 1870 1880 1890
Insane 765 971 1,833 1,697
Feeble-minded 602 636 1,533 1,526
Deaf and Dumb 408 420 675 659
Blind 403 527 976 805
In all these classes a steady increase up to 1880, then a sudden
falling off in 1890.
Once more, the death rate in the non-registration area in 1880 was
13.42 per thousand; in 1880 it was only 10.79. Such an improvement in
health, especially in districts mainly rural, is quite incredible. The
fact is that for many purposes of comparison the eleventh census is
unavailable--a fact that greatly strengthens many of our contentions.
On its face, it is quite too improbable that the Blacks should gain
only 138 per thousand in the decennium 1880-90 and then, without any
assignable cause, leap to 180 per thousand for the next decennium
(1890-1900). Only two things could bring this about--increase of birth
rate, decrease of death rate. The former is quite inexplicable and
incredible; the latter is contradicted by the facts of the case. It
would mean a fall of four in the annual mortality per thousand, and
there has been nothing of the kind.
The defect in enumeration, certainly so great in 1870 and almost
certainly present in less degree in 1890, is very easy to understand
and antecedently probable. For the prejudice against "numbering the
people" has been strong since the days of David and of Judas of
Galilee, and the Negro flees from the census-taker as from a
tax-gatherer, or vaccinator, or even a kodak fiend.
Be this as it may, it is generally admitted that, in all arguments from
statistics, the larger the numbers and the longer the space of time,
the more trustworthy the indications; in any case then we are more than
justified in taking the double decennium (1880-1900) in comparison with
the first decade (1850-60); since the census of 1870 is admittedly
grossly in error, no other basis of comparison nearly so trustworthy is
present.
Herewith then we close the argument. It seems hardly necessary to add
that the higher percentage of Negro gain in the North Atlantic and
North Central States signifies nothing except that small numbers have
been greatly swollen by immigration. It is well known that in these
regions the Negro, unfed by immigration, tends swiftly to extinction.
Viewed thus from what point of the compass you will, the general
movement of the life of the continent is towards the elimination of the
African element. We admit that figures may be made to lie, but we have
subjected them to no captious cross-examination; we have let them speak
for themselves; we have neither forcibly repressed nor forcibly
extorted any testimony; their voluntary witness is singularly
consistent and unequivocal and wholly irresistible.
ANTHROPOMETRY
It has been proved by the foregoing statistical study, varied in every
way and taking every significant fact into consideration, that the
Negro is everywhere in the United States yielding and making place for
the Caucasian. We might, indeed, have anticipated that such a result
would follow infallibly upon exposing the two races to open
competition. For the Negro has never voluntarily extended himself
beyond his African home; he has never eagerly sought out new habitats,
nor readily adapted himself to new environments; whereas the Caucasian
has traversed and colonized the earth from the equator to either pole;
he has plumbed every abyss; he has scaled every height; he has spied
out every secret place: for him no sea has been too wide, no plains too
broad, no mountains too high, no sands too hot, no snow too cold, no
jungles too dark and deadly. He pits himself against Nature, he forges
for himself Achillean armour, he grasps the shield, he shakes the
spear, and rushes joyfully to the encounter. Nothing of all this,
nothing in any way like aught of this, has the Negro ever done; naught,
in our judgement, will he ever do. The massive facts, then, of the
geographical distribution of the races give token unmistakable that, in
any collision within any but the tropical regions, the Negro must go
down before the Caucasian.
This superior vigour, this aggressive vitality need not reveal itself
to any mass-measurements; it might hide away in the cells and the
finest tissue; it might be not anatomic, but histotomic only. The
distinguished surgeon, Dr. Rudolph Matas, as the result of wide
observation and careful inquiry, declares that pathological-anatomical
peculiarities of the Negro are not recognizable chirurgically; Black
and White are sensibly the same.
Nevertheless, broad distinctions are actually present and come to light
wherever extensive observations have been made. It is jauntily declared
by a great protagonist of the Black man that "physically, he is the
equal of the white man; he is as tall and as strong," and such is
perhaps the general opinion. There is a fine irony, however, in the
fact that precisely these moments in which his equality is so
incautiously affirmed are the ones in which he is distinctly inferior.
He is in truth neither so tall nor so strong, though vertical inch for
inch he is somewhat heavier. It seems needless to copy down table after
table to prove these statements. We quote the words of Hoffman, summing
up extensive comparisons: "The average stature of the negro is less
than that of the white, and the difference, though slight, prevails at
all ages." From Gould's "Military Statistics," pp. 461-465, we learn as
distinctly as we can learn any such facts, that the Negro is not so
strong as the Caucasian; that the mean lifting strength of the Black is
very markedly below that of the White at all ages above seventeen, with
the exceptions of thirty-one to thirty-four, where the Black excess is
nearly five pounds, and of forty-five to forty-nine, where the Black
average is 328.7, the White only 325.7--a Black excess of three pounds.
Under seventeen the White average is only 250.4, the Black
258.9--another Black excess of 8.5, very considerable and noteworthy,
and for seventeen the Black excess is 295-292.8 = 3.2. For all other
ages, the White excesses are as follows:
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
26.8 23.6 15 10 13.7 23.6 8.6 15.6 24.1
27 28 29 30 35-39 40-44 50-
6.9 13.5 9 1.4 26.8 10.4 24.2
Hence, it appears that up to seventeen the Negro is on the average
stronger than the White; he is also stronger in the cases measured from
thirty-one to thirty-four and from forty-five to forty-nine, though his
advantage is not great; but everywhere else he is markedly not so
strong. Of course, it is easy to except to such statistics--to say that
the averages are untrustworthy; but it would be very strange if so many
distinct and independent indications were all wrong. As the lowest age
for soldiers is hardly below sixteen, we see that the Black excels, and
only slightly, in only twelve years, the White in twenty-three years up
to fifty and in all above, and on the whole very considerably, his
excess rising twice to 26.8. The indication, then, is of a more
tropical nature in the Black; he attains his maximum sooner, but he
maintains it not so long nor so high; and this might certainly have
been expected.
Similar is the indication of the respiration. In full vigour the
average respiration per minute of Whites, Blacks, Mulattoes are 16.44,
17.75, 19.01; while with impaired vigour the average rates are for
Whites 16.84, for Blacks and Mulattoes 20.71. Here this excessive
frequency is found at every age, both in health and still more in
disease, both for Blacks and still more for Mulattoes. It seems
impossible, then, that the indications should be erroneous. On the
other hand, the pulse of the White, in vigour and in ailment, is faster
than the full Black's, but slower than the Mulatto's; Whites 74.84,
77.21; Blacks 74.02, 76.91; Mulattoes 76.97, 83.12. Here the
differences are too slight for emphasis, and we do not know that there
is any advantage in a somewhat slower pulse. But what is the meaning of
the quicker respiration? It means the decidedly lower lung capacity of
the Black. Since the Black weighs more per inch of height than the
White, we are prepared to find his chest measurements greater after
respiration. These measurements confirm each other. Of 315,620 White
soldiers the average girth of chest was 33.42 inches, but of 25,828
coloured soldiers it was 33.69; and this difference in favour of the
Blacks maintained itself for all statures. However, the lung capacity
or mobility of chest (_i.e._ the difference between the girth at forced
inspiration and forced expiration) is greater in the Whites; in 6,359
Whites the average was 3.24; in 377 Negroes it was 3.23. This
difference is too small to be worth noting, but mark you! in the
under-weights (100 to 120 pounds) the mobility was far greater in the
Blacks (3.33 against 3.15), also in the overweights (180 and more)
(3.38 against 3.27); but in the normal weights (120 to 180) it
everywhere favoured the Whites. Moreover, these Whites were about an
inch taller than the Blacks (67.30 against 66.39) at all ages; their
chest girth was nearly half an inch less (32.49 against 32.84), and yet
their lung capacity was greater. The indication of stronger lungs seems
unmistakable.
At this point it seems necessary to point out that in this extremely
important matter of chest mobility, the Negro is not maintaining
himself but is perceptibly declining. In 1861-65 the excess favoured
the Whites for the ages thirty to thirty-nine, and under twenty; for
all other ages it favoured the Blacks, who fell behind only .01 on the
general average (3.24 and 3.23). But in 1892-94 it favours the Whites
at all ages; and the White excess has increased to .35 (2.93 and 2.58).
(Reports of Provost-Marshal General, Vol. I., and of Surgeon General of
U.S.A., 1893-95.) The indication is not in itself infallible, but it
has great significance in connection with other corroborative evidence.
Lung capacity is not chest mobility, but the two are closely related.
Gould's measurements indicate a very decidedly smaller number of cubic
inches of air in case of the Negro, and this for all heights and
weights. The White excess increases steadily from eight cubic inches
(for under-heights, sixty inches) up to fifteen and one-half cubic
inches for over-heights (seventy-one inches), but falls back to
fourteen and one-half for six-footers. On the other hand, this White
excess falls from twenty-five and one-half cubic inches for narrow
chests (30 inches) down to two cubic inches for large girths (40
inches); but its uniform presence shows that the excess is a fact,
whatever may be the varying size of the fact. Here again the indication
is unambiguous that the Negro is short-winded, weak-lunged as compared
with his White rival.
This indication is immensely strengthened by combination with another
exceedingly important fact. It has been said that the Negro is stouter
than the White, at all ages and all statures, weighing more per inch of
height. Now this extra weight per vertical inch is considered of all
outward signs the best for lung strength and lung soundness. "Are you
gaining in weight?" is the all-important question that the physician
asks of his tuberculotic patient. The Negro has (or had) here very much
outwardly in his favour; the lower height, the heavier build, the
greater girth of chest; so important is the single item of weight that
it is held on the basis of the broadest induction that even a very
slight overplus in heaviness may suffice to counteract effectively a
hereditary disposition towards tubercle, while actuaries are agreed
that slightness in proportion to age and height greatly determines
susceptibility to consumption.
And yet, in spite of all, he is the peculiar victim of tuberculosis,
which attacks him not only with great and increasing frequency, but
with especial malignance. Of his enormous death rate from lung
affections, we have yet to speak. Here we would merely point out the
obvious conclusion, that histologically the Negro thus appears inferior
to the White man; not only do his tissues offer ready lodgement to the
invading bacillus, but they offer far less stubborn and protracted
resistance to such inroads when once in progress.
At this point, it seems well to quote the conclusions of Hoffman (pp.
170-171):
"First. The average weight of the colored male of military age, and of
colored male and female children, is greater than that of whites of the
same classes. This excess in weight prevails irrespective of age,
stature, or circumference of the chest.
"Second. Already quoted. (p 217).
"Third. The greater weight and smaller stature of the negro as compared
with the white are found to prevail practically the same to-day as
thirty years ago. The race has therefore undergone no decided change in
respect to these conditions of bodily structure.
"Fourth. The average girth of chest of the negro male of thirty years
ago was slightly greater than that of the white, but at the present
time the chest expansion of the colored male is less than that of the
white. This decrease in the size of the living thorax in part explains
the increase in the mortality from consumption and respiratory
diseases.
"Fifth. The capacity of the lungs of the negro is considerably below
that of the white. This fact coupled with the smaller weight of the
lungs (4 oz.) is without question another powerful factor in the great
mortality from diseases of the lungs.
"Sixth. The mean frequency of respiration is greater in the negro than
in the white. As accelerated respiration indicates a tendency towards
disease, the fact just stated fully supports those regarding inferior
vital capacity and lesser degree of mobility of the chest.
"Seventh. The mean lifting strength of the white is in excess of that
of the negro. The prevailing opinion that the negro is on the whole
more capable of enduring physical exercise is therefore disproved."
[H.'s "therefore" is quite unwarranted. There is no such necessary
connection between strength to lift and strength to endure. However,
his conclusion, although illogical, is nevertheless correct, as appears
plainly from a large body of other evidence.] "This fully agrees with
the facts regarding excessive mortality, which in itself is proof" [or
at least indication] "of a lesser degree of physical strength.
"Eighth. The power of vision of the negro is inferior to that of the
white, but he is less liable to diseases of the eye, especially color
blindness."
In the light of these "conclusions," which accord so perfectly with the
great facts of geographical distribution, how is it possible to speak
of the Negro as physically equal to the Caucasian?
But not only is this comparative structural weakness clearly indicated,
but it is becoming more and more apparent. The marked apparent decline
in the chest expansion between 1863 and 1894 (from 3.23 to 2.58), the
increasing mortality, the decreasing immunity, the vague but unvarying
testimony of general observation--all tell one and the same unambiguous
story.
VIABILITY.
It has been well said by Professor Willcox that the three great causes
of race extinction are disease, vice, and profound discouragement. Are
these formidable three at work against the American Negroid? It is
mainly a matter of statistical evidence. We have indeed few statistics
of discouragement, but of vice and disease they greatly abound. Of all
statistics those of mortality and vitality are perhaps the most
important, the most trustworthy, the most significant, the most
suggestive, and the most weirdly fascinating. They fill two gigantic
volumes of the twelfth census report, and to them we appeal in the
prosecution of our inquiry.