whole of the United States, but only a very wide registration area,
including about 38 per cent. of the total population and about 86.7 per
cent. of the urban population. For the rest only an inference, checked
on this side and on that, is allowed. However, the general result is
affected very little by this undetermined element; and our arguments
and conclusions, since they deal with only the large features in the
case, are not affected at all.
The first great fact that meets us, is this: The average death-rate of
the Negro is not far from double that of the White. For the year 1890
the rates per myriad were: White 196, Coloured 299--a coloured excess
of 55 per cent.; for the year 1900 they were: Whites 178, Coloured
296[38]--a coloured excess of 66 per cent. The rates were almost exactly
as five to three! Not only then is the Black dying faster than the
White, but his rate exceeds the White rate more and more, having gained
14 per cent. in ten years. The White rate has fallen very
markedly--eighteen per myriad in these ten years; the Negro, only three
per myriad. Were the whole population considered, it is doubtful
whether his rate has fallen at all. Indeed, in cities not in the
registration states his rate has actually risen perceptibly, from 309
to 313, whereas the White rate has meanwhile fallen from 189 to 175.
[38] These are the "uncorrected rates" in the registration area.
The rates corrected--on the basis of age distribution--are still
far more ominous for the Negro. They are, in the entire
registration area: for native Whites having one or both parents
foreign, 187; for native Whites having both parents native, 166;
for Negroids, 347.
"One is warranted, then, in saying that according to the best
evidence obtainable the death rate of the negroes in the
registration area is nearly double that of the whites in the same
area."
"On these assumptions the computed death rate of the non-Caucasians
in 1890 was 34.4 and in 1900, 34.2; of the whites in 1890, 19.5,
and in 1900, 17.4. It seems not improbable that these figures
may be trusted so far as they indicate that there has been a
decline in the death rate of each race during the last ten
years, that the decline among the negroes has been less rapid
than that among the whites, and that the death rate of the
negroes at the present time is about, but not quite, twice that
of the white race." Census _Bulletin 8, Negroes in the United
States_, p. 66a.
But as the death rate of the Negroes in 1890 was reckoned on a
return of population almost certainly considerably too low, that
rate was itself too high; the proper correction would probably
bring the rate in 1890 even below that of 1900.
When now we consider the causes of this astonishing mortality, its
significance seems greatly enhanced. It was long believed, with more or
less reason, that the Negro enjoyed a certain at least partial immunity
from some of the most formidable diseases that assail the Caucasian. He
was thought less exposed to consumption and malaria, far less to cancer
and nervous disorders. But now listen to the tale of the census! In
scarlet fever and diphtheria and cancer, the Caucasian still asserts
his sad preeminence; his rates per myriad are 120, 459, 667, against
the Negro's 26, 320, 480. But in all the others, he is far outstripped.
Thus, the rates per million, for Whites and Blacks, are: consumption,
1735 and 4854; pneumonia, 1848 and 3553; diseases of the nervous
system, 2137 and 3080; of the urinary system, 998 and 1573; heart
diseases and dropsy, 1374 and 2211; typhoid fever, 324 and 675;
malarial fever, 65 and 632! We note here especially the fearful
prevalence of consumption, an almost infallible index of failing
vitality. Still more astonishing is the mortality from nerve-diseases,
where we should least expect them--a most interesting side-light on the
question of "discouragement." Equally instructive are the numbers 998
and 1573; the sad tale they tell is confirmed by such facts as these:
the deaths (in 1900) from diseases affecting female organs of
generation were: Whites 2661, Coloured 592. From affections concerned
with pregnancy they were: Whites 7816, Coloured 1883. Remember that the
former outnumber the latter nearly eight to one; and you perceive that
the Coloured death-rate is nearly double the White. Add to the
foregoing that the deaths from venereal diseases were: Whites 1030,
Coloured 561. At the White rate, this latter should have been 135
only--an excess of 316 per cent.; the Black death rate is over four
times as great as the White. All this indicates the destructive
prevalence, among the Blacks, of these race-ruining maladies from which
they were so long supposed to be comparatively exempt. We observe also
that cancer is rapidly marching to the front among the plagues of the
Negro--indeed, it already attacks the womb of the Black more frequently
than that of the White. Any one of these indications, or any two, or
perhaps three, might be misleading; but not the general consensus of
all. If evidence has any value at all, there can be no doubt whatever
that these figures indicate both a low viability in the Black man and
the appalling prevalence of the most race-destructive disorders.
We would not disguise the fact that the last census, while in general
so exceedingly gloomy in its omens for the Negro, is yet traversed here
and there by some brighter ray. Thus, the city death rate from
consumption fell from 6,001 in 1890 to 4,710 in 1900, and the rural
from 3,652 to 3,227; especially the first comparison seems very
encouraging. But we must remember that in that decade science and art
vied in desperate struggle against that disease, which could hardly
fail to produce at least temporary notable results, especially in the
earlier years of life, where the principal gain was made. During the
same period the White urban rate fell from 2,851 to 1,978, or 31 per
cent. against the Negro 21.5 per cent.; and the White rural rate from
1,777 to 1,316 or 26 per cent. against the Negro loss of 12 per cent.
Meanwhile, also, the White rate for pneumonia has perceptibly fallen
everywhere, while the Negro rate has scarcely changed in town (3,469
against 3,480) and has actually risen decidedly in the country (1,767
against 1,583), and in the registration area from 279 to 349!
There is no escape, then, from our conclusion. It is vain to allege
excessive infant mortality, unhygienic conditions, and the like as
explanations. The huge death rate faces the observer along the whole
line and under all circumstances. Thus in the registration area, for
1900, the Negro rate for the various ages showed the following excesses
over the White rate:
Ages 0-4 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65-
Excess (per cent.) 137 139 164 96 89 71 26
While these excesses are greatest up to manhood, they remain very great
even up to old age. The relative importance of infant mortality among
the Negroes is commonly much exaggerated. In 1900 the number of deaths
under five years, per 10,000 deaths at all ages, was: Whites, 3,022;
Negroes, 3,422--a comparative excess of only about 13 per cent. It is
from 10 to 25 that the Negro offers relatively the richest field to
disease and death. The lowered death-rate observed in the cities is
referable almost wholly to the earliest years. Thus, in New Orleans,
the rates for White and Black for the triennium 1899-1901, as compared
with 1889-1891, showed the following gains (unmarked) and losses
(marked -) per myriad:
Ages 0-4 5-9 10-19 20-29 30-49 50-69 70-
White -172 -9 -1 -9 -26 -48 -69
Coloured -109 2 26 62 22 57 -635
Here the mortality (per 10,000 Whites) has decreased slightly along the
whole line; among the Blacks it has decreased at the ends, but has
increased everywhere else--a result extremely significant. Similarly
for Washington and Charleston. Once more, the statistics of hospitals,
as the Johns Hopkins (Baltimore) and the Charity (New Orleans), show an
average death rate of the Blacks nearly double that of the Whites,
except in surgical cases. Here the general conditions are practically
the same for both races, the duration of treatment averages the same,
and the far greater mortality is virtually decisive for the far less
vitality of the Negro race.
The very strongest corroboration of our contention is furnished by
Surgeon-General O'Reilly in his recent report for the fiscal year,
ending June 30, 1903. The death rates of White and Coloured soldiers
were 144 and 241 per myriad, respectively, almost exactly in the ratio
of three to five--a coloured excess of over 67 per cent. Here the life
conditions were sensibly the same; the far higher vitality of the
Caucasian appears in the boldest relief.
The question of increase, already discussed, is very intimately
connected with the death rate, but equally so with the far less
accurately known birth rate; in fact, the rate of growth in numbers is
the difference of these two. Evidently, a very high death rate may
consist with a rapid increase in numbers, if only the birth rate be
high enough; on the other hand, even a high birth rate would bring
about little increase, if the death rate should be inordinately high.
No one seriously questions the great mortality among the Negroes; but
their champions think and hope that this may be made good by extreme
fertility. Let us see what this latter would have to be. Since the
former is nearly 300 per myriad, in order to maintain the very low rate
of growth of 100 per myriad, the latter would have to reach 400. Is
this rate a fact? And, if so, is it likely to continue to be a fact? We
shall summon all the evidence accessible, both direct and indirect.
While nothing like minute exactness is at present attainable, the
general purport of the testimony can not, it seems, be mistaken.
The birth and death rates for certain European countries, for the last
decade, are as follows (per myriad):
England Scotland Ireland Denmark Norway Sweden
and W.
Births 301 307 230 303 304 272
Deaths 184 188 181 177 165 164
Increase 117 119 49 126 139 108
Austria Hungary Ger. Prussia Netherl'd. Belgium
Emp.
Births 372 405 362 368 327 289
Deaths 271 303 225 221 186 192
Increase 101 102 137 147 141 97
France Italy Switzerland
Births 222 355 277
Deaths 216 246 190
Increase 6 109 87
In Eastern Europe, says Rubin, the birth rate varied from 450 to 470
for a century (1800 to 1900); but in Western Europe, since 1870, it
fell from 342 to 313 (1900).
The determination of this rate in the United States cannot be made with
certainty or confidence, owing to the imperfection of the data. Our
census reports yield such results as these for the last decade, for the
whole United States, according to the analyses of the census:
Average annual excess of births per myriad, 177; average annual number
of deaths per myriad, 174; hence, average annual number of births per
myriad, 351.
On this result we may perhaps rely so far as to say that the rate lies
somewhere between 330 and 370.
Similar analysis yields the following average annual excess of births
for native Whites, foreign Whites, and the Coloured (_i.e._ practically
Negroes) in the United States, and in the four grand divisions:
Northeastern, Central and Northern, Southern, and Western.
N.W. F W. C.
United States 195 365 178
Northeastern 38 396 101
Central and Northern 200 360 102
Southern 241 274 191
Western 259 403 2
Here the more rapid multiplication of the Caucasian is indicated under
all conditions, with the single startling exception of New England. In
the West, the Coloured are mostly Indians.
Not less impressive are these same excesses arranged by States:
Ala. Ark. Del. D.C. Fla. Ga. Ky. La. Md. Miss. N.C. S.C.
N.W. 276 297 103 132 288 234 209 358 168 258 193 178
F.W. 306 317 310 194 497 240 152 112 175 225 104 110
C. 249 233 73 107 245 225 83 215 92 264 138 167
Tenn. Tex. Va. W.Va. Ill. Ind. Ia. Kan. Mich. Minn. Mo. Neb.
N.W. 173 387 75 339 228 163 298 216 193 400 263 222
F.W. 230 532 106 252 439 194 310 300 401 534 171 437
C. 136 310 74 196 168 142 62 202 150 26 90 -43
N.J. N.D. O. Pa. S.D. Wis. Conn. Me. Mass. N.H. N.Y. R.I. Vt.
N.W. 139 353 129 140 299 412 -18 -42 38 -104 89 ... -88
F.W. 398 921 219 368 528 345 425 474 456 585 366 462 232
C. 136 -230 120 138 -241 -146 89 125 174 -150 88 60 184
To be sure, these results are greatly complicated and deeply obscured
by immigration and emigration. None of them state the case correctly;
but they can not all err the same way, and collectively they exhibit
clearly that the Negro is losing ground everywhere in the race for
numbers. But these rates furnish us no independent evidence concerning
the birth rate. Such, however, we find in the number of births in the
census years 1890 and 1900. The returns are certainly incorrect,
certainly incomplete; they yield a mean birth rate of only 272--surely
too small, leaving a deficiency of 79 or of 28-1/2 per cent. That the
enumeration of births should be defective is not at all surprising; but
there is no reason to suppose the returns for 1890 less imperfect, and
a comparison of the two cannot fail to be instructive:
U.S. N.E. C.& N. S.W. Conn. Me. Mass. N.H. N.Y. R.I.
1900 272 238 259 315 240 211 240 213 242 243
1890 269 221 268 301 213 176 215 180 233 223
Vt. Ind. Ill. Ia. Kan. Mich. Minn. Mo. Neb. N.J.
1900 213 249 255 258 258 243 287 260 272 258
1890 183 254 278 263 285 249 302 290 299 253
N.D. O. Pa. S.D. Wis. Al. Ark. Del. D.C. Fla.
1900 336 231 269 308 274 321 324 247 203 309
1890 365 242 258 318 271 306 343 250 233 287
Ga. Ky. La. Md. Miss. N.C. Okl. S.C. Tenn. Tex.
1900 321 306 305 263 312 337 337 343 307 329
1890 306 296 298 260 303 301 221 313 308 316
Va. W.Va. Ariz. Cal. Col. Ida. Mt. Nev. N.M. Or.
1900 303 332 269 183 239 304 244 189 336 204
1890 272 307 172 196 256 266 218 155 330 226
Ut. Wash. Wy.
1900 352 220 242
1890 312 238 217
These data are inexact; they are bound up with the errors of
enumeration, particularly in 1890, but they confirm in general the high
fecundity of the American Caucasian everywhere, save in the Northeast.
The high rate indicated in the South cannot be due to the Negro. In
West Virginia the coloured element is insignificant, yet the return is
very large--332; in Kentucky the Negro hardly holds his own in numbers,
yet the whole birth rate is 306. In the Carolinas the native Whites
have far outrun the Blacks in increase, and the birth numbers are
337,343; whence it seems clear that nothing points to a Negro rate
higher than 351--higher than the general average for the Union. But is
the Black rate really so high? Despite the prevailing crude opinion, we
feel sure that it is sensibly lower and is steadily falling. There is
nothing in the history of the Negro to suggest great fecundity. He has
never populated his fatherland densely and poured over into the
territory of his neighbours. In the West Indies, where birth tables
have been kept with some care, there is no token of great fertility. In
Alabama, the records since 1888 point to a birth rate among Whites
thrice as high, among Blacks only twice as high, as the death rate. In
1890 the births recorded were: Whites 13,631; Blacks 9,955--the highest
in six years but one (9,961 in 1893). In this year the populations were
as 100 to 83, but the births as 100 to 73. You say that the Black
births were not all recorded. Very true, but neither were the White.
The excess of deficiency in the Blacks must have been 14 per cent. of
the whole, in order to make their rate equal to the Whites'. Maybe
these records are not worth the paper they were written on; but can the
same be said of the New England records? In Rhode Island, from 1861 to
1893, the _excess_ of _deaths_ over _births_, among the Negroes, was
18; in Connecticut from 1881 to 1893 the same excess was 272; in
Massachusetts in 1888 it was 68. "... we must conclude, however
reluctantly (sic!), that the race is not self-sustaining in this
latitude" (Dr. Fisher, Registrar of Vital Statistics, Rhode Island,
quoted by Hoffman). Similarly Dr. Snow, Registrar of Providence;
similarly Appolino, Registrar of Boston (both quoted by Hoffman). We
could go on massing such evidence, but it may all be scouted as
irrelevant, since the question is not about the Negro in the North, but
in the South. However, it is precisely in the North, especially the
Northeast, that his numbers are increasing, of course by immigration,
faster and faster; if, then, he "is doomed to extinction" there, his
numbers elsewhere must suffer corresponding depletion.
There is yet another and more satisfactory way of attacking this
problem of the birth rate--not a direct, but an indirect one. Says the
great statistician, Marcus Rubin, in his paper on "Population and Birth
Rate," read before the British Association at Bradford, September,
1900: "Quite generally it may be remarked that a large birth rate will
crowd the age-groups corresponding to childhood comparatively to what
would result from a small birth rate. It is also clear that, when the
adults produce a numerous offspring, the latter will, other things
being equal, constitute a larger proportion of the whole population
than if it were less numerous."
Rubin has Denmark in mind, and western Europe;--he is not dreaming of
the Gulf States. Let us apply this common-sense principle to the case
in hand. Here is a table of the per thousands of the population at
various ages, native White and Black. We take the native White, since
immigrants are generally of full age, and we are now concerned with the
general fertility of Caucasian natives and not of foreigners; of the
latter, it is confessedly very high.
1880 1890 1900
Under 1 year N.W. 33 30 30
N. 34 23 28
From 1 to 4 years N.W. 123 112 110
N. 131 111 109
From 5 to 9 years N.W. 144 136 133
N. 154 145 136
Total under 10 years N.W. 300 278 273
N. 319 284 273
Here the situation is revealed with great clearness. We see that both
in White and in Black the race is aging; extreme youth is becoming less
and less conspicuous. But the diversities are broadly marked. In babes,
the Blacks fall behind by two per thousand of their total; in children
from one to four years, they again fall behind, but only one per
thousand; in children from five to nine they excel by three per
thousand; in the grand total of children under ten, they exactly equal
the native Whites. This record of itself clearly indicates a failing
fecundity in the Blacks; the younger, the fewer, comparatively.
Still more clearly is this seen, on comparing the earlier record of
1880. Then the Black youth surpassed the White relatively at all
ages--by one, by eight, by ten, and in the grand total by nineteen. All
this superiority has been lost in twenty years. It seems hard to
imagine a more impressive record. High mortality among infants will not
explain this, especially it will not explain the loss in the score of
years, nor the relative scarcity of the very young.[39]
[39] "The number of negro, Indian, and Mongolian children under 5
years of age to each 1,000 women 15 to 44 years of age was 759 in
1880 and 585 in 1900, showing a decrease of 174 [23 per cent.!]
in twenty years. The number in 1880 was 173 greater, and in 1900,
77 greater than the corresponding number for the whites." Census
_Bulletin 8, Negroes in the United States_, p. 14a.
But another fact is illuminative. The chief statistician, William C.
Hunt, remarks (Population, Part II., p. lviii.): "The decrease in the
relative proportion of children among the negro element is due for the
most part to the greater infant mortality of the negro race as compared
with the native white population, although it may be due in part to
_the decrease in the proportion of negro women who are or have been
married, for each age-group_ except that from 15 to 19 years, as shown
by the statistics of conjugal condition for 1890 and 1900." We have
just observed that the first explanation does not explain. "Greater
infant mortality" might cause a smaller "relative proportion of
children among the Negro element," both in 1880 and in 1900; but it
could not cause a "decrease in the relative proportion" from 1890 to
1900, unless that mortality was not only great, but actually becoming
greater. But such is not the fact; if it were, it would mean ruin to
the Negro race. On the contrary, it is precisely in these years of
infancy that the mortality has been reduced. Nor could even a huge
mortality, extending up to the tenth year, of itself bring about the
relatively small number of babes under one year. It is the second fact,
which we have italicized, that throws light on the situation. Except
very young girls, whose marriages are largely transient or nominal, the
Negro women are beginning to shun marriage. This is a part of the
general moral and social declension, which no unbiased observer of the
race can fail to notice. Here are the numbers per thousand, male and
female, of the single and married and widowed, of those over fifteen
years of age, in 1890 and 1900:
1900 1890 1900 1890
Single (M) 392 398 Single (F) 299 300
Married (M) 540 555 Married (F) 537 546
Widowed (M) 58 43 Widowed (F) 154 147
And for native Whites:
Single (M) 397 401 Single (F) 310 306
Married (M) 549 554 Married (F) 577 582
Widowed (M) 45 40 Widowed (F) 106 107
The fall from 546 to 537 is not large--only 9; but it must be increased
by the increase 7 of those returning themselves as "widows," of which
the number, 154, is excessive, and by the excess (3) of divorcees,
making altogether an increase of about 2 per cent. of the female
population, who decline to produce their kind legitimately. It is
impossible to interpret this otherwise than as a sign of moral and
social deterioration, which Nature cannot fail to punish promptly by a
diminishing birth rate.
It is also seen that the White ratio of the married women has fallen
slightly, from 582 to 577--about half as fast as the Black, the number
of the single increasing from 306 to 310. Undoubtedly, the growing
determination of the White woman to be a man--to compete with a man in
all forms of activity--has sensibly reduced the marriage rate, and
therewith the birth rate of the Caucasian, and will yet further reduce
it--a result we must deplore; but there is here no sign of deterioration,
as in case of the Black woman. In her case it _is_ attested freely by
the more respectable Negroes themselves. Ask such a one to recommend
some "nice coloured girl" as a domestic, and she will probably reply
frankly that she knows of none, that they are altogether become
unprofitable, that they are scandalously and outrageously unchaste,
that there is none that doeth good--no, not one. At this point we speak
from personal knowledge. In such statements, there is no doubt
considerable exaggeration; but they are largely and increasingly
correct. Even Professor Dubois, the ablest of Afro-Americans, confesses
that about one-fifth of the Negro families belong to the lowest
class--"below the line of respectability, living in loose sexual
relationship," and so on. "Laziness and promiscuous sexual intercourse
are their besetting sins." He is reporting on the Negroes of Farmville,
Va. (Department of Labour Bulletin, January, 1898, p. 37.)
Much somberer colours must be used in depicting the conditions in
larger towns. He found about 15 per cent. belonging to the higher
class--a percentage that wider investigation would hardly maintain. In
another connection the same stern prophet declares: "Unless we conquer
our present vices, they will conquer us. We are diseased; we are
developing criminal tendencies, and an alarmingly large percentage of
our men and women are sexually impure."