ratios of 1900 and 2000, and reinforce the suggestions of various
other facts that the social, as well as the economic, conditions in
colonial times were practically constant.
| Sections of the Country.[1] |
Whites under 16 Years per 1000 of Total Population. | ||||
| 1790. | 1820. | 1850. | 1880. | 1900. | |
| Area of 1790 | 490 | 483 | 414 | 373 | 344 |
| New England | 470 | 443 | 358 | 309 | 291 |
| Middle states | 494 | 485 | 405 | 358 | 326 |
| Old South | 502 | 508 | 464 | 431 | 402 |
| Added area | — | 526 | 463 | 406 | 368 |
The decline in the proportion of children since 1860 has been decidedly less in the South (Southern Atlantic and South Central states as defined below) than in the North and West, but in the most recent decades the last section has apparently fast followed New England in having a progressively lesser proportion of children. In the North there was little difference in 1900 in the ratios shown by city and country districts, but in the South the ratio in the latter was almost twice that reported for the former.
The decades 1840–1850, 1880–1890 and 1860–1870 have shown much the greatest decreases in the percentage of children; and some have attributed this to the alleged heavier immigration of foreigners (largely adults) in the case of the two former decades, and the effects of the Civil War in the third. So also the three decades immediately succeeding the above showed minimum decreases; and this has been attributed to a supposed greater birth-rate among the immigrants.
These uncertainties raise a greater one of much significance, viz. what has been the cause of the reduction in the national birth-rate indicated by the census figures? The question has been very differently judged. In the opinion of General Francis A. Walker, superintendent of the censuses of 1870 and 1880, the remarkable fact that such reduction coincided with a cause that was regarded as certain to quicken the increase of population, viz. the introduction of a vast body of fresh peasant blood from Europe, afforded proof that in this matter of population morals are far more potent than physical causes. The change, wrote General Walker, which produced this falling off from the traditional rate of increase of about 3% per annum, was that from the simplicity of the early times to comparative luxury; involving a rise in the standard of living, the multiplication of artificial necessities, the extension of a paid domestic service, the introduction of women into factory labour.[2] In his opinion the decline in the birth-rate coincidently with the increase of immigration, and chiefly in those regions where immigration was greatest, was no mere coincidence; nor was such immigrant invasion due to a weakening native increase, or economic defence; but the decline of the natives was the effect of the increase of the foreigners, which was “a shock to the principle of population among the native element.” Immigration therefore, according to this theory, had “amounted not to a reinforcement of our population, but to a replacement of native by foreign stock. That if the foreigners had not come, the native element would long have filled the places the foreigners usurped, I entertain”—says General Walker—“not a doubt.”
It is evident that the characteristics of the “factory age” to which reference is made above would have acted upon native British as upon any other stock; and that it has universally so acted there is abundant statistical evidence, in Europe and even in a land of such youth and ample opportunities as Australia. The assumption explicitly made by General Walker that among the immigrants no influence was yet excited in restriction of population, is also not only gratuitous, but inherently weak; the European peasant who landed (where the great majority have stayed) in the eastern industrial states was thrown suddenly under the influence of the forces just referred to; forces possibly of stronger influence upon him than upon native classes, which are in general economically and socially more stable. On the whole, the better opinion is probably that of a later authority on the vital statistics of the country, Dr John Shaw Billings,[3] that though the characteristics of modern life doubtless influence the birth-rate somewhat, by raising the average age of marriage, lessening unions, and increasing divorce and prostitution, their great influence is through the transmutation into necessities of the luxuries of simpler times; not automatically, but in the direction of an increased resort to means for the prevention of child-bearing.
Education.—In the article Education (United States), and in the articles on the several states, details are given generally of the conditions of American education. Here the statistics of literacy need only be considered.
In 1900 illiterates (that is, persons unable to write, the majority of these being also unable to read) constituted nearly one-ninth (10.7%) of the population of at least ten years of age; but the greatest part of this illiteracy is due to the negroes and the foreign immigrants. Since 1880 the proportion of illiteracy has steadily declined for all classes, save the foreign-born between 1880 and 1890, owing to the beginning in these years, on a large scale, of immigration from southern Europe. Illiteracy is less among young persons of all classes than in the older age-groups, in which the foreign-born largely fall. This is due to the extension of primary education during the last half of the 19th century. The older negroes (who were slaves) naturally, when compared with the younger, afford the most striking illustration of this truth. On the other hand, a notable exception is afforded by the native whites of native parents, particularly in the South, where child illiteracy (and child labour) is highest; the declining proportion of illiterates shown by the age-groups of this class up to 24 years is apparently due to a will to learn late in life.
The classification of the illiterate population (above 10 years of age) by races shows that the Indians (56.2%), negroes (44.5%), Chinese (29.0%), Japanese (18.3%), foreign white (13.0%), native white of native parentage (5.7%), and native whites of foreign parents (1.6%), are progressively more literate. The advantage of the last as compared with native whites of native parentage is apparently owing to the lesser concentration of these in cities. The percentages of illiterate children for different classes in 1900 were as follows: negroes, 30.1; foreign whites, 5.6; native whites of foreign parentage, 0.9; native whites of native parentage, 4.4. There is a greater difference in the North than in the South between the child illiteracy of the Caucasian and non-Caucasian elements; also a ranking of the different sections of the country according to the child illiteracy of one and the other race shows that the negroes of the South stand relatively as high as do its whites. All differences are lessened if the comparison be limited to children, and still further lessened if also limited to cities. Thus, the illiteracy of non-Caucasians was 44.5%, of their children 30.1%, and of such in cities of 25,000 inhabitants, 7.7%.
In the total population of 10 years of age and over the female sex is more illiterate than the male, but within the age-group 10 to 24 years the reverse is true. In 1890 females preponderated among illiterates only in the age-group 10 to 19 years. The excess of female illiteracy in the total population also decreased within the same period, from 20.3 to 10.8 illiterates in a thousand. The tendency is therefore clearly toward an ultimate higher literacy for females; a natural result where the two sexes enjoy equal facilities of schooling, and the females greater leisure. Among the whites attending school there was still in 1900 a slight excess of males; among the negro pupils females were very decidedly in excess. In all races there has been since 1890, throughout the country, a large increase in the proportion of girls among the pupils of each age-group; and this is particularly true of the group of 15 years and upward-that is of the grammar school and high school age, in which girls were in 1900 decidedly preponderant. A similar tendency is marked in college education.
Religious Bodies.—According to the national census of religious bodies taken in 1906 there were then in the country 186 denominations represented by 212,230 organizations, 92.2% of which represented 164 bodies which in history and general character are identified more or less closely with the Protestant Reformation or its subsequent development. The Roman Catholic Church contributed 5.9% of the organizations. Among other denominations the Jewish congregations and the Latter Day Saints were the largest. The immigrant movement brings with it many new sects, as, for example, the Eastern Orthodox churches (Russian, Servian, Syrian and Greek), which had practically no existence in 1890, the year of the last preceding census of religious bodies. But the growth of independent churches is most remarkable, having been sixfold since 1890.
The statistics of communicants or members are defective, and because of the different organization in this respect of different bodies, notably of the Protestants and Roman Catholics, comparisons are more or less misleading. Disregarding, however, such in comparability, but excluding 15% of all Roman Catholics (for children under 9 years of age), the total number of church members was 32,936,445, of whom 61.6% were Protestants, 36.7% Roman Catholics and 1.7% members of other churches. The corresponding figures in 1890 were 68.0, 30.3 and 1.7%. For the reasons just given these figures do not accurately indicate the religious affiliations of the population of the United States. In this particular they very largely understate the number of Hebrews, whose
