Will the Migration from "Snowbelt" to "Sunbelt" Reverse in the U.S.?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The largest cities in that region (besides Chicago) were barely on the map before the Great Migration.

whoops, i missed this hilariously inaccurate little gem before.

you seriously need to bone-up on US city development history.

here are the 15 largest US cities in 1900 (before the great migration began).

midwest/rust belt/great lakes cities in bold.



1. New York - 3,437,202

2. Chicago - 1,698,575

3. Philadelphia - 1,293,697

4. St. Louis - 575,238

5. Boston - 560,892

6. Baltimore - 508,957

7. Cleveland - 391,768

8. Buffalo - 352,387

9. San Francisco - 342,782

10. Cincinnati - 325,902

11. Pittsburgh - 321,616

12. New Orleans - 287,104

13. Detroit - 285,704

14. Milwaukee - 285,315

15. Washington - 278,718

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_U...#City_rankings

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by pj3000

You’re full of it.

Chicago, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Rochester, Cleveland, Detroit were all among the 20 largest cities in the nation by the 1860s. That’s not even including cities of the greater region like St Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Louisville.

And Manufacturing jobs came in great numbers to those cities and others in the greater Midwest and northeast long before the automobile.

You claim that these cities only became populated because of the automobile and confederacy collapse. You’re completely wrong.

Some migration had already begun (see the Underground Railroad as an example of this) and true, the Midwest was already growing. In Detroit for example, 2/3rds of the black population was southern by the late 19th century.

That said, there wasn't migration in huge numbers until the early-mid 20th century, during the second industrial revolution after the Civil War ended. That caused the growth (in terms of population and prosperity) to greatly accelerate at an unprecedented rate, just like what's happening in the Sunbelt today with the reverse migration.

I don't know why you're being obtuse about this. It's like my posts are offending you because you feel the facts I'm posting aren't putting your region in the best light.

[the urban politician]

^ Did you post a “fact”? I didn’t see one. Post a stat for us

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit gained like 100,000 blacks in the 20th century prior to WW2, and then gained another 650,000 blacks in the next three decades.

To me, that's an enormous difference. It's clear that Detroit's prewar growth had almost nothing to do with black migration, while postwar population trends were almost entirely dependent on black migration.

That's fine, but it was still the first phase of the Great Migration, which set in motion the events and conditions that would lead to things like the Harlem Renaissance and the blossoming of healthy black urban neighborhoods. I mean, yes, pretty much the entire country hit the road looking for work in the 1930's and even more so when World War II really set industrial demand on fire, but it did start officially in 1916.

Check it out: It may just be a Wikipedia article, but I found it an entertaining read.

[hauntedheadnc]

By the way... All this talk about shovels. I'm as Southern as they come, but I own a snow shovel and have used it at least once every winter since I bought it. But then, I live in the part of the South where it snows reliably every winter and where it also reliably gets bitterly, viciously, killingly cold. More than once I've seen, on national temperature maps, it be colder here than in places in North Dakota. This is also the place, for the record, where the record low, recorded in January, 1985, was -35F.

We're Snowbelters in spirit.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

whoops, i missed this hilariously inaccurate little gem before.

you seriously need to bone-up on US city development history.

here are the 15 largest US cities in 1900 (before the great migration began).

midwest/rust belt/great lakes cities in bold.



1. New York - 3,437,202

2. Chicago - 1,698,575

3. Philadelphia - 1,293,697

4. St. Louis - 575,238

5. Boston - 560,892

6. Baltimore - 508,957

7. Cleveland - 391,768

8. Buffalo - 352,387

9. San Francisco - 342,782

10. Cincinnati - 325,902

11. Pittsburgh - 321,616

12. New Orleans - 287,104

13. Detroit - 285,704

14. Milwaukee - 285,315

15. Washington - 278,718

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_U...#City_rankings

And none of the population of those midwestern and great lakes cities was made up of European immigrants at all.

It was all poor, white farmers from the south who came up right after the civil war to work in those big automobile factories that wouldn't exist for another four decades...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

And none of the population of those midwestern and great lakes cities was made up of European immigrants at all.

correct.

if the word "none" means >50%

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Some migration had already begun (see the Underground Railroad as an example of this) and true, the Midwest was already growing. In Detroit for example, 2/3rds of the black population was southern by the late 19th century.

That said, there wasn't migration in huge numbers until the early-mid 20th century, during the second industrial revolution after the Civil War ended. That caused the growth (in terms of population and prosperity) to greatly accelerate at an unprecedented rate, just like what's happening in the Sunbelt today with the reverse migration.

I don't know why you're being obtuse about this. It's like my posts are offending you because you feel the facts I'm posting aren't putting your region in the best light.

Acting like the cities of the Great Lakes and Midwest were barely populated places until the migration of southern blacks and whites (drawn to the auto industry) is what is obtuse.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pj3000

True, and those people are weak-willed and my life will be better if they're not around me.

Anyone who has a hankering to move to somewhere like Nashville because they want milder winters can't get away from me and my kind soon enough.

You seem to have an incredibly intense hate for people who don't like winter. Kind of weird.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

It's like my posts are offending you because you feel the facts I'm posting aren't putting your region in the best light.

no, the reason you are getting so much push-back from so many people on your comments is that they are simply not accurate.

the major cities of the midwest/great lakes/rust belt were all WELL established major urban centers by 1900 (8 of the 15 largest cities in the entire nation, in fact!), before the great migration from the south swelled their ranks even higher.

19th century european immigration made the cities of this region into big-time, real-deal, major US cities. the great migration (along with a shit-ton of continued european immigration) subsequently made them even bigger in the 20th century.

that's how it happened, whether or not you want to accept it.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Some migration had already begun (see the Underground Railroad as an example of this) and true, the Midwest was already growing. In Detroit for example, 2/3rds of the black population was southern by the late 19th century.

That said, there wasn't migration in huge numbers until the early-mid 20th century, during the second industrial revolution after the Civil War ended. That caused the growth (in terms of population and prosperity) to greatly accelerate at an unprecedented rate, just like what's happening in the Sunbelt today with the reverse migration.

I don't know why you're being obtuse about this. It's like my posts are offending you because you feel the facts I'm posting aren't putting your region in the best light.

The midwest and interior northeast were already established as an economic and industrial powerhouse. My small hometown was the fastest growing city (briefly) in the 1890's which is why these cities drew immigrants by the millions and attracted black migrants from the south. Chicago was building skyscrapers for nearly a couple decades by the turn of the century.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Jesus, is it really that bad to live up North? Some snow for 3-4 months is not a big deal.

but then again, I am Canadian, and all we do is bitch about the weather.

It's not a big deal, but when you experience life without it, it's not hard to appreciate it. That said, it can be weird. Three years in Hawaii and my memories are always foggy because I can't remember what part of the year anything happened: the weather was always the same, no shorthand.

[Buckeye Native 001]

A lot of long time Arizona residents who moved here from the Midwest would never admit it, but a lot of us secretly enjoy cloudy days since we average OVER 300 DAYS OF UNRELENTING SUNLIGHT AND IT GETS REALLY FUCKING TIRING AFTER A WHILE

Hell, I developed a sensitivity to sunlight after living in the Southwest and Southern California for over 20 years, to the point where I have to wear sunglasses even on particularly cloudy days.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

A lot of long time Arizona residents who moved here from the Midwest would never admit it, but a lot of us secretly enjoy cloudy days since we average OVER 300 DAYS OF UNRELENTING SUNLIGHT AND IT GETS REALLY FUCKING TIRING AFTER A WHILE

Hell, I developed a sensitivity to sunlight after living in the Southwest and Southern California for over 20 years, to the point where I have to wear sunglasses even on particularly cloudy days.

i'm sort of on the edge of where it goes from kind of cloudy all the time to kind of sunny all the time, and as i get older i realize that (because of my profession) if it were any sunnier the chances of skin cancer really go up. in fact skin cancer is a problem in my office (environmental consulting/ engineering).

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Acting like the cities of the Great Lakes and Midwest were barely populated places until the migration of southern blacks and whites (drawn to the auto industry) is what is obtuse.

Relatively speaking, they were. That's a fact. My point is just being distorted over (what appears to be) faux outrage.

There's been a request for status, so here you go.

In 1860, the population in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes (for the sake of this discussion, let's only consider WI, IL, IN, OH, MI) was only 6,926,884. In the 1800, the population was about 54,212. Thus, the population increased about 6.8 million during that time. That's a modest growth rate, no doubt. No one's disputing that.

In comparison, the total US population in 1860 was 31,443,321 (thus this region only made up 22% of the country's total population). The cities in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes may have been more densely populated (which is to be expected, as their economies weren't based around the agricultural industry like in the South), but that doesn't mean the region as a whole wasn't relatively smaller and culturally / economically less relevant than both the Sunbelt and the East Coast.

Now all of that said, by 1920, the population in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes had increased to around 21,475,543. So basically, the rate of growth had more than tripled since the Civil War (compared to the previous 60-year span) as the population increased by 14,548,659. Migration from the south was already well underway, although the numbers weren't huge until the early 1900s. In Detroit, for example, 2/3rds of Detroit's black population, for example, was of southern origin by 1900. Also, by 1900, the in-migration of blacks since 1860 had average about 10,000 per Census,

The growth was even more exponential during the next 60 years. By 1980 (around the time manufacturing employment peaked), the population in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes was 41,057,252, having increased by another 19,581,707 million people.

As you can see, a whopping 84% of it growth occurred after the Civil War ended.

Now some are especially taking offense to the idea that the automobile was the main catalyst behind growth experience during the Second Industrial Revolution. So let's look at the numbers in 1900. In MI / WI / IL / IN / OH, the population was only 15,985,581. From 1900 to 1980, 62% of the population growth the Midwest experienced occurred.

So as I said before, the numbers speak for themselves. The Midwest did not see the bulk of it growth that made it into what until the combination of mass migration from the South (in the wake of the Civil War ending) and the Second Industrial Revolution (centered around Automobile production) occurred.

[pj3000]

^ Again, you're continuing to completely ignore the European immigration from about 1850 to the early decades of the 1900s as basis for much of the population increase.

Just consider one of the newer, smaller, further west and north midwestern cities... Milwaukee...



Consider the major growth and consider who was comprising that growth.

Very early on it was Irish, English, Dutch, and German, and then it was a major influx of Germans, then Scandanavians, then large numbers of Poles and eastern Europeans, and then Italians. This was all before 1900, when it became one of the 15 largest cities in the US.

Just considering the impact on population that German immigrants had... by 1900, a third of the entire state of Wisconisn's population was born in Germany. Mlwaukee was referred to as "the German Athens".

50,000 native Poles lived in the state by 1900.

That is before significant southern migration occurred and certainly before automobile production.

Southern black and white migration to Milwaukee did not occur in large volumes until a decade to 2 decades later... generally coinciding with manufacturing jobs related to the WWI production effort. This is generally the same migration pattern/timeline that occurred throughout the midwestern region's cities.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Relatively speaking, they were. That's a fact. My point is just being distorted over (what appears to be) faux outrage.

There's been a request for status, so here you go.

In 1860, the population in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes (for the sake of this discussion, let's only consider WI, IL, IN, OH, MI) was only 6,926,884. In the 1800, the population was about 54,212. Thus, the population increased about 6.8 million during that time. That's a modest growth rate, no doubt. No one's disputing that.

In comparison, the total US population in 1860 was 31,443,321 (thus this region only made up 22% of the country's total population). The cities in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes may have been more densely populated (which is to be expected, as their economies weren't based around the agricultural industry like in the South), but that doesn't mean the region as a whole wasn't relatively smaller and culturally / economically less relevant than both the Sunbelt and the East Coast.

Now all of that said, by 1920, the population in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes had increased to around 21,475,543. So basically, the rate of growth had more than tripled since the Civil War (compared to the previous 60-year span) as the population increased by 14,548,659. Migration from the south was already well underway, although the numbers weren't huge until the early 1900s. In Detroit, for example, 2/3rds of Detroit's black population, for example, was of southern origin by 1900. Also, by 1900, the in-migration of blacks since 1860 had average about 10,000 per Census,

The growth was even more exponential during the next 60 years. By 1980 (around the time manufacturing employment peaked), the population in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes was 41,057,252, having increased by another 19,581,707 million people.

As you can see, a whopping 84% of it growth occurred after the Civil War ended.

Now some are especially taking offense to the idea that the automobile was the main catalyst behind growth experience during the Second Industrial Revolution. So let's look at the numbers in 1900. In MI / WI / IL / IN / OH, the population was only 15,985,581. From 1900 to 1980, 62% of the population growth the Midwest experienced occurred.

So as I said before, the numbers speak for themselves. The Midwest did not see the bulk of it growth that made it into what until the combination of mass migration from the South (in the wake of the Civil War ending) and the Second Industrial Revolution (centered around Automobile production) occurred.

^ The big, resounding flaw in your analysis that is instantly obvious is that the huge growth rate in Midwest cities from 1860-1920 (the vast majority of this time being pre-automobile) was due to immigration, not southern migration.

By 1920, many Midwestern cities were close to their peak populations. Growth was more stagnant thereafter. Southern migration just wasn't what built these cities into what they are, although it did play a role.

[skyscraperpage17]

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the population of individual cities when we're comparing regions vs. regions. Just because a larger share of the population was centered in urban areas (and that's hardly surprising, given the South's economy was based on agriculture) doesn't mean the Midwest as a whole wasn't smaller and less relevant than than the Sunbelt / East Coast.

Furthermore, I'm ignoring the growth resulting from European immigration because it has nothing to do with my point. The point, again, is the bulk of the growth the Midwest has experienced occurred after the Civil War ended (thus when northward migration began) and during the Second Industrial Revolution.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the population of individual cities when we're comparing regions vs. regions. Just because a larger share of the population was centered in urban areas (and that's hardly surprising, given the South's economy was based on agriculture) doesn't mean the Midwest as a whole wasn't smaller and less relevant than than the Sunbelt / East Coast.

Furthermore, I'm ignoring the growth resulting from European immigration because it has nothing to do with my point. The point, again, is the bulk of the growth the Midwest has experienced occurred after the Civil War ended (thus when northward migration began) and during the Second Industrial Revolution.

Your point... the premise of your argument... is untrue. Massive early population growth rates in midwestern cities occurred because of European immigration, not because of southern migration.

Look at historical population growth rates in the cities of the Midwest from Buffalo to Chicago... the greatest growth occured between the 1850s and 1910. This was due to European immigration.

To argue otherwise is factually inaccurate.


Your assorted points below are all false:

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I'm not saying absolutely no one lived in that region at the time. But the point is much of the growth it enjoyed didn't occur until the mass migration from the Sunbelt began (for the manufacturing opportunities that existed).

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The fact is culturally and economically, the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes as a whole was completely irrelevant despite the relatively few people who lived there. The largest cities in that region (besides Chicago) were barely on the map before the Great Migration. It wasn't until jobs in manufacturing were being churned out in droves (the invention of and demand for the Automobile being the main catalyst for this) that the mass migration from the south began and the Midwest really began to grow and develop.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

That said, there wasn't migration in huge numbers until the early-mid 20th century, during the second industrial revolution after the Civil War ended. That caused the growth (in terms of population and prosperity) to greatly accelerate at an unprecedented rate, just like what's happening in the Sunbelt today with the reverse migration.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the population of individual cities when we're comparing regions vs. regions. Just because a larger share of the population was centered in urban areas (and that's hardly surprising, given the South's economy was based on agriculture) doesn't mean the Midwest as a whole wasn't smaller and less relevant than than the Sunbelt / East Coast.

Furthermore, I'm ignoring the growth resulting from European immigration because it has nothing to do with my point. The point, again, is the bulk of the growth the Midwest has experienced occurred after the Civil War ended (thus when northward migration began) and during the Second Industrial Revolution.

To discuss the massive growth of the Midwest after the Civil War, which occurred mostly in cities, without acknowledging European immigration, is just an exercise in being an idiot.