1860 US Census: Population, Economy, Demographics, Immigration, and Slavery | Eve of the Civil War
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- What was the population of the United States during the Civil War?
How many slaves were there in the United States?
How many immigrants were in the United States in 1860?
Which cities were the biggest in the United States during the Civil War?
The US Census answers very important questions. Many population figures and statistics, or demographics, are very interesting.
In 1860, on the eve of the American Civil War...
New York City and Brooklyn combined had about one million people. New York State had by far the largest population in the US at almost 4 million.
Philadelphia had more residents than the population of Arkansas.
New Orleans was the one city in the South that had the population of a large Northern city.
Most of the population of South Carolina was enslaved in 1860.
The percentage of slaves in Tennessee was about half that of those in the Deep South.
The American Midwest had, in just a few generations, achieved the same population as the old Northeast. Cincinnati, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee had already emerged as major metropolitan centers by 1860.
Many important urban centers in 1860 would be small towns today. Atlanta, Georgia and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania were both around 10,000 people. These were big numbers in 1860, but small towns today.
About 4 million Americans were born in a different country in 1860. Over a million Americans were born in Ireland, and a similar number were born in Germany.
This film was made by Jeffrey Meyer, librarian and historian.
Images from the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
As an Englishman I find it fascinating how America evolved demographically, geographically & culturally since we lost the continent.
Lots of immigrants from Europe during the late 19th century.
Due to the current horrible corrupt administration we have, sometimes I think we were better off staying with England. Our laws are lax and People don't get arrested. The inner cities are being taken over by mob rule. I can give dozens of other examples.
Sadly we're under the same corrupt Globalists in the UK. Both Americans and Brits have to free themselves from the 5th columns brought in without our consent. Ie Great Reset and World Economic Forum!
@@yvonneplant9434 most growth was actually naturally ever since the founding with the tfr being 7 at the beginning of the 19th century and falling to four/three by the beginning of the 20th
You never had the continent Don't rule out the French and the Spanish to some extent the Russians
My ancestors attended German language public schools in Baltimore, Maryland. During World War I, German language public schools in the US were required to change to English language curriculum.
Freedom Fries.
Couldn't help but notice that Maryland was excluded as a border state and overlooked when comparing other southern states with slave populations. Maryland is a prime example of why statistics are quite deceptive state-to-state. There were several reasons. 1) Nearly 80% of slaves were located on plantations in the south eastern counties surrounding the Chesapeake Bay. 2) Counties along the Mason-Dixon line to the north were devout Welsh Quakers - mainly those living along the Welsh Track - vehemently against slavery and going before congress in 1790 declaring their opposition. 3) From Fredrick County into Western Maryland, slavery made up less than 6% on average due to the high number of Germanic religious groups embracing pacifism and apposing slavery to such lengths as to purchase slaves solely to free them and provide employment.
This did not come without its retractors however. Roughly 35-40% of residents in Hagerstown, Washington County were pro-confederate supporters at the start of the war and who would participate in the violent Baltimore riots in 1861 preceding the firing on Ft Sumter. In fact, the first blood actually spilled in the Civil War began in Baltimore - not Ft Sumter. Washington County in Western Maryland would become a prime breeding ground of internal strife with both Pro Union and Confederate supporters harassing one another and leading to family dissolutions and the literal accounts of brothers fighting against brothers. Lee would take advantage of this political divisiveness to coordinate his supply train routes through Washington County during his second invasion, knowing he could rely on Southern sympathizers supporting his logistical lines as well as obfuscate troop movements through the Cumberland Valley into PA, relying upon this logistics line of support as a route to escape back into Virginia after Gettysburg. In short, Maryland was very unique in its role as a boarder state during the Civil War.
watch again, its covered.
Not only that, but Baltimore weighs in at population 212,000, larger than Boston, and barely gets a mention; only that its population of blacks is half slave and half free, though interesting in itself. Meanwhile DC, pop. 75,000 is covered in glowing praise; why it's a major cosmopolitan area by 19th century standards!
This simply reflects projecting the present, of a swollen DC and an enervated Baltimore, back to the 19th century, when DC was something of a small town compared to the city of Baltimore. OH NO!!! That doesn't compute, that doesn't fit with the narrative!!
I wouldn't be surprised at all that the creator of this video has a connection with DC. It looks like history is slowly being rewritten to the point where DC always had the commerce and industry and Baltimore was always The Wire. Absolutely disgusting.
Thank you for this truth. It is appreciated.
@@MVC670 i didnt get the impression any city was "praised" . weird gripe.
Because people don't know history
I read a statement by someone that during the War the South's largest population center was New Orleans, and the 2nd largest was wherever a Union Army was.
Lots of people think about Atlanta but the city was fairly new when it got torched for persisting their war for the right to own people. It was important and growing because of the railroads, and those were recent.
That is likely accurate. The only population center I found in the census in the south above 100,000 people is New Orleans, meaning that the Army of the Potomac would be the second largest city in the South.
Since the Union military occupied New Orleans in early 1862...that would be New Orleans also.
Losing New Orleans and the Mississippi above Vicksburg in the first 4 months of 1862 was the end of the war. Only the mismanagement of Union leaders allowed the war to continue for another 3+ years.
Sad but true. The United States traditionally needs a year or two to turn their peacetime boondoggle military into a tactical war machine capable of facing a similar enemy. Same thing happened in WW2.
The South readied their local militaries in earnest in 1859 after the John Brown incident. The local southern militias had not fallen into disuse as those in the north had after the 1830s and 40s.
Atlanta was a very big city even at that time. Close to the population of New Orleans I am sure...and much less French lol. A baseball game was held in Atlanta the year of 1859.....Robert E. Lee threw out the first pitch to Stonewall Jackson 😆 😆 😆 The hot dog had not been invented yet. Nor French fries. Okra and black-eyed peas....peach cobbler...Southern tea...were the hot sellers at the concession stand.
What were the militias in the north used for in prior to falling out of use?
Oregon became a state in 1859 I think? Most people don’t know that no black people could live in Oregon, it is in the Oregon constitution. It seems strange that at the time southern states are about to leave the union Oregon joined but did not allow black people. Why? I think it shows that anti black racism was everywhere not just the south. My family came to Oregon around this time to escape poverty in the south. People could not compete with the plantation owners and slave labor. As crazy as it sounds was it a way ( in their minds )to keep rich plantations from ruling Oregon like they ruled the south. I wonder what they thought?
Good points. A number of new northern states had immigrants from the south because they were seeking a different life than in the plantation south, as you stated.
Michigan, on the other hand, never had a state law that recognized the ownership of other humans. That is part of the reason Michigan was an end point on the underground railroad moving freed slaves away from the south. Michigan was also positioned to help those freed people emigrate to Canada where southern slave ownership laws couldn't be enforced.
irish famine 1845,.millions died, a lot made it to usa,get as far away from the uk as possible certain death .from trevelyan/himmler..,christianity what a joke.love thy neighbour
My family were emigrants from Russia in the 1870's when Czarist Russia tried to purge itself of its Jewish communities. The emigrations had a lot to do with the many wars involving that region plus the fact that only the eldest son could inherit any of the families wealth. Those two things helped to drive quite a few Germans to look to the US for a better future.
@@cdjhyoung these bigots that led these country's that persecuted people jews.irish,african they lost a great lot of people of great intelligence ,einstein ect.
I predict that 33% of those who ever watch this will notice just how many times we see n hear 33 or 33% on everything about everything. Experts say *33%* know why this is really as it's no big secret for those who'll do the research to find out. Experts also said only approx *33%* will be curious to know. *Gosh, I feel as if I have written this 33 times in the past*
*Golly, Look @ The Time - It's **03:33*
I have barely begun this post, but as a current southerner I wanted to express my abhorrent disapproval of our enslavement of fellow humans. I realize that those were different times, but nothing can excuse slavery. Not here in North America, not in the Caribbean, not in Africa and not in modern day China. The South was wrong. Period. However, there is an irrational tugging for those southern lives lost because they were local and often relations. No excuses. No attempt at justification. Just my relations were wrong and, well, they were my relations.
With all the advantages the North had in 1860, it is incredible that the South survived as long as it did during the war.
Those north advantages came via slave profits from the south. Which the gov used to subsidize mechanized industry in the north.
@@carltonbanks5470 - yes! I wonder every time I see these videos, though they are fascinating - they always fail to mention who the “slave ship builders were”. From my research (not complete in any way), but from what I have been able to ascertain ... they were built and captained in the North.
If someone has different info, please let me know, as I’ve been unable to find it.
@@ann1260 the importation of new slaves had been banned since 1808.
@@vaderbuckeye36 - yes it was, but that didn’t stop it. It was like drugs are banned/against the law nowadays, but they’re widely available.
@@ann1260 who cares where a ship was built whats your point? quit your disingenuous gaslighting confederate apologist. we get it.
Thanks for sharing!..I read a book about pre war 1860s but the analysis presented here is so much more revealing...So much more derived from the 1860 consensus!
Thank you!
Now do the census estimates of the UK, occupied Canada, British Caribbean in 1775 and the soon to be independent US. This would include urban to rural, slave percentages and existing industrial base.
Assuming the German mercenaries and the late war French regiments offset one another in numbers for each side.
You guys may be surprised....yet that war for independence worked.
Well geography worked against the British and the local elites supported the American rebels so the odds were usually not as long as people may think.
@@EuropeanQoheleth the UK troops did poorly in most campaigns in North America when further than 50 to 60 miles from the ships. That indicates poor logistical planning by a military initially well supplied by their naval base.
The Continentals had no significant domestic industrial base, a scrounged privateer navy, and overseas supplies only after 1777 and 78 that were two decade old surplus being smuggled in past blockades of the mighty RN.
However, it worked. Mistakes on both sides, it still worked with the complete surrendered loss of two major expeditionary redcoat armies of regulars. That didn't play well in the London papers, and eroded North's bare majority even further.
Most folks familiar with American history, might not realize the tie the Civil War has to the rivalry between Hamilton & Jefferson circa 1790-1805.
Hamilton, of New York admired Britain. From, perhaps as early as 1740 to as late as 1870, Britain's industrial output exceeded the entirety of continental Europe combined. In Hamilton's view, independence meant not being dependent or vulnerable to Britain's strength, but instead emulating. Towards that, Hamilton produced his famous Report on Manufactures to Congress in 1791. This report was an attempt at using public policy to impel America to industrial and economic development that could eventually match Britain's. The plan had 3 main components: 1) high tariffs to help infant industries, 2) Huge investments in infrastructure (roads, canals) to create national markets; 3) A central bank to moderate currency panics/depressions and to fund infrastructure and new industries. This plan would later be taken to Europe by Friedrick Lists, who succeeded in putting it in place in Germany (despite it being politically fractured) behind a customs union called the Zollverein in 1832. This forced other states to adopt the plan: France, Sweden, Austria, later Italy and Mexico and Japan (minus tariffs until 1906, instead Japan's government built factories then sold them to private merchants) and later still Russia. Every one of the nations that adopted Hamilton's plan in the 19th century, became a 1st world nation in the 20th century - except Mexico, which was the only nation that did not provide universal elementary education so couldn't internalize the knowledge required by new technology of industry.
Hamilton's view of an industrialized United States were vehemently opposed by Jefferson who foresaw the US being a country of yeoman farmers. Hamilton's view was shared by much of the North Eastern states, but the Southern states all embraced Jefferson's as did the early Midwestern states which, like the south, were large and initially very agricultural in outlook.
The United States - never completely adopted the plan 100%. Hamilton managed to get the first Bank of the United States established in 1791 which lasted until 1811, and then Democratic-Republicans allowed it to disolve. A 2nd Bank of the US was created in 1816, to help counter the recession that hit after the end of the Napoleonic wars (which, being a non-combatant, had been a boom for the U.S.) that lasted until 1836 where upon Andrew Jackson let it die. But it got the US, by fits and starts, to the 1840s, which was long enough for the US economy to develop past the point of being an economic colony providing raw materials to, and therefor dependent upon, Europe.
The adoption of Hamilton's plan was always mixed. The North East had large populations, so it had significant influence in Congress, and so the U.S. usually had significant tariff's which were needed as the only reliable way to fund the Federal Government.
Jefferson's South and initially the Midwestern states fell behind and supported Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party. Meanwhile the North-Western states pursued Hamilton's ideas individually and regionally. Infrastructure improvements shortened the overland journey from Boston to New York from weeks to days even before Jefferson became president. But then, New York state implemented the biggest infrastructure project yet contemplated, all entirely within its own borders: the Erie Canal. The canal wasn't completed until 1825, but it's impact was huge. Suddenly Midwestern agriculture flowed east over the canal into New York City, while New Englanders and other NorthEasterners, flowed west to help settle the Midwest. Suddenly the orientation of the MidWest was re-orienting itself in alignment with the North East. This was reinforced with the growth of railroads after 1835. One aspect of that was literacy: the Northeast was highly literate thanks to Puritan religious legacy, and that ethic made its way into the Midwest. Thus facilitating industrial growth there behind U.S.'s tariffs where as the South was not as literate, and so this might have contributed to its lack of economic development.
By 1850 the North East had a comprehensive and dense railroad network. In the 6 years that followed 1850, a huge railroad investment was made in the Midwest - creating an equally dense railroad network there and fully integrated with the NorthEast's railroad network and economy. The Erie Canal was the hinge that caused the Midwest to become a reflection of the NorthEast instead of the South. This huge burst of economic activity all occurring in 6 years alters the context under which the Civil War was fought. One wonders what the outcome might have been if the California compromise had not delayed the onset of the war by 10 years.
But on a higher level view - the unfolding development of the United States from 1791 forward is the Northern half unfolding much like Hamilton envision versus the South unfolding closer to Jefferson's original vision, except for the reality of slavery which he never fully reconciled, but nevertheless proceeded. These two models stared down each other, even as each advanced westward. We all know the story: Hamilton was shot by Jefferson's Vice President, Arron Burr in a dual. In a sense, this made Hamilton the Civil War's first casualty. But in the end, Hamilton's model prevailed, at least in 1865. Some of this battle is still taking place, culturally, but in 1865, Hamilton's vision clearly and overwhelmingly prevailed - and would until deep into the 20th century and the South began to belatedly develop, first with the help of Roosevelt's New Deal, added industrialization with the World War II and then post 1970 growth as "the Sun Belt."
Awesome video.
Great channel. Thank you so much!
No matter how you slice it, the South got its ass kicked 🤷
You must admit they put up a damn ferocious fight ... considering Lincoln and others thought it would be over in 6 months.
It was a terrible war, no matter - all the lives lost. Very sad.
@@ann1260 Yes, they fought ferociously. And then Sherman mopped the floor with them. Their economy was completely destroyed too. Resistance was futile.
@@jamesmziegler - That was a travesty and should have never been allowed. That was horrible!!
I’m in KC, Missouri and we had Order #11, which was similar - and the fact is “here”, at least, they in fact didn’t care who you sided with, they burned almost everyone out! And send women and children walking with nothing.
@@ann1260 Well, that is terrible. My only point is that they were powerless to stop it. A real butt-whooping, that war.
@@jamesmziegler I don't know you, but maybe you are not aware the North lost 360,222 of their overpowering forces they sent here to subdue the the South...and I'll bet you never read a complete book about the any battle ever fought during that period..have you?..Humm?
Two things to also consider: 1.) Not only did the majority of slave states have lower total populations compared to free states, but with such high proportions of slaves, that meant only 3/5 of large chunks of the population would be counted towards House representation and presidential Electors (a major reason Lincoln won, despite 10 slave states barring Republican Electors from being on the ballot. 2.) Not only did free states have just as farms and close to similar total agricultural land, slave state production were mostly cash crops (cotton, tobbaco) with much less staple crops (wheat, rice), while in free states nearly all crops were foodstuffs (wheat, corn, barley etc).
yeah bro, bc those werent considered people. get it?!
@@mustbtrouble even the Constitution itself literally referred to "slaves" as PERSONS. The "three-fifths" calculation is in respect to the numerical total of said persons, not as a percentage of their personhood. Of course, the slavers ultimate conundrum was the fact that they both wanted to count slaves as persons, as far as representation, but then also as "property" so they could violate their natural rights.
@@bswearer thanks for the 3/5 compromise explainer. i guess they shouldve been happy they got 3/5 representation for their chattel. clearly those people didnt like the constitution. sorry i read all the neoconfederate comments thought you were making a point but i guess you just like summarizing.
@@mustbtrouble the slavers originally wanted 100%. Northerners demanded that if slavers could count slaves, then they should be able to count cows, sheep and other animals. This debate not only exposed their different views towards slaves (persons or property) but also perhaps more importantly, politically speaking, as to whether representation should be based on PEOPLE or wealth. The slavers argued in favor of property value, and "wealth", of which they claimed slaves held far more "monetary value" than free persons. Of course, it's an absurd notion that people who weren't even permitted to vote for their representatives, or exercise any liberty at all, should be counted even 1% towards representation. Anti-slavery advocates even asserted such an argument, saying 0% of the slave population should be counted... obviously with the slavers demanding 100%, they ended up compromising at 2/3 for the sake of getting the Constitution ratified. 50% would have likely caused the rebellion quicker than 1860, given the demographic shifts and natural reproduction rates which exponentially favored the free states, but at least with 2/3 the matter was settled in 1865 as opposed to 1900.
@@bswearer you are right,which is the center rot of our society.
another documentary stoking the embers of racial tension by talking about slavery O.o (rolls eyes)
Not one word about Texas? Are you kidding me? Already in 1860 Texas cotton was very important to the Southern cause...and it's soldiers fought very bravely in the Civil War. Famously so.
too bad your police arent quite as brave.
Totally excellent work 👍👍👍👍🙏🙏
8:28 Rome topped out at 1M in AD 250.
(It paid to have water & sewer infrastructure in streets that were paved. ) 🤠
Should have pasted the comments over a map of the states in 1860. It doesn't make as much sense to do it over a terrain map.
230.000 per month cross the southern border . No accountability nor the possibility for timely assimilation. This will lead to continued segregation and minimization of the founders influence of smaller governance.
🤡coockoo-coockoo
Wonder why you started talking about the southern border in a video about the 1860s 😂. Must be a miserable life right there.
Really enjoyed this presentation. The details of the population distributions gave me an insight into what America once was.
Thank you!
By 1860 Philadelphia was Philadelphia county and the original Phila., at its core, which was what W. Penn defined and designed. The consolidation in 1854 is what caused the Phila. population to jump past Baltimore.
we’re any cities out west sizable enough to be recognized? What was San Francisco’s population?
Nope. From the Civil War until the mid 1900s, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio were the largest states in America. The power in America, and the cause of its rise, we’re there.
@@NoahBodze no shit sherlock, that wasn’t my question
56,802 ... and about 380,000 for CA total.
How much were the farm laborers in the north paid? Can you get that data?
Most farm laborers in the northern states were the children of the farmers
no bc most people were self employed and that isnt census data. have you ever filled out a census?
Very interesting @Brandon Gallemore!
@@mustbtrouble my point is, that if the north was paying them ten cents a day and claiming it wasn't slave labor then the whole history we have been sold is skewed. States rights was obviously a huge issue and so was slavery, but Abe Linconol supported it until he was forced to sign the emancipation proclamation.
@@BrandonGallemore no, "the north" wasnt paying people 10 cents a day, dafuq
Does the demographic figures include slaves? If it does, then the actual numbers that could serve in the war look even worse for the South. If North had 2:1 advantage in population, but around half of Souths population was slaves (who wouldn't be used as soldiers, then the Norths advantage is 4:1.
They were counted. The 3/5ths clause existed to count those slaves as a whole person for population and 60% of a person for the purposes of representation.
The Census tabulated slaves, so there are actually very accurate figures on slaves. So the north's advantage is multiplied even more. 4:1, as you suggest, is probably pretty accurate.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian Considering all of the disadvantages of the South comparatively, how dang good were their armies to whip the north for 2.5 yrs. Having studied the war for years, I'm surprised the North hadn't lost two years in.
The confederate army had nearly 1 million fewer troops but still managed to put 100,000 more of the invaders in the dirt than they did of us. Also not trying to correct your language but it's slaves not enslaved.
@@tray-oq1nj not sure what you mean by "it's slaves not enslaved." Were the slaves not enslaved? What's the difference between the two?
Quickly becoming my favorite channel!
GOT TO GET OFF UA-cam, TOO MANY ADVERTS
Jeffrey, you're a gentleman & a scholar, literally'
US population now is 330,000. Ten times increase in 162 years. People propagate exponentially. In 250 years since US was formed people have over populated all across the continent. I'm happy I won't be around much longer so I don't have to experience even more desecration of the earth by too many people.
youre right and nobody will want to acknowledge this.
Eh. Across the world, birth rates are collapsing. Japan's population, for example, is shrinking. China is predicted to undergo a demographic crisis due to the one child policy.
You’re brainwashed by the globalists.
And to think we're still 14% of the population
15:12 That's a beautiful train. The South didn't have many trains though. Atlanta didn't grow until later when it became a railroad hub.
How do you make these map videos?? I’d like to do some of my country: Miami-Dade County.
Google Earth for starters
As a former resident of Miami I would love to see that.
This guy sounds like Mr Beat
It would have been worthwhile to provide some more background to this Census-such as the legislative requirement for same and the Federal office charged with its compilation. Admittedly this can be found through standard internet search but it would have highlighted the important role played at the time by the Marshals' Service -being the closest the U.S. had at the time to a Federal civil service and police force.
Little seems to have been written about the missed opportunity that an expanded Marshals' Service presented at the time for the maintenance of Federal authority in the 'Upper South' slaveholding States which eventually joined the Confederacy-Virginia,Tennessee, Arkansas and N.Carolina. While the Constitution assigned the suppression of rebellion to a federalised State Militia under the the control of the President, apparently this was only used on one occasion-the so-called' Whiskey Rebellion' in the early days of the new Republic in Western Pennsylvania. The 'Force Act' passed by the Congress at the request of President Jackson during the Tarrif Crisis with S.Carolina envisaged the use of military force after a district had been 'proclaimed'
President Lincoln's "militia call' call to the Northern States in 1861 mentions, I think ,the failure of the Marshals' in the Deep South to halt secession: it is generally held that it was this call that drove the 'wavering' Upper South States to join the C.S.A. as they resented the threat to use military force against their Southern brethren. However an alternative would have been a greatly expanded Marshals' Force in these States' -recruited by deputising among the considerable body of unionist sympathisers in such States. Such a move would have provided such sympathisers with a positive way of exchanging State loyalty for a more fundamental Federal one. There was widespread resentment in many of the slave States that DID remain loyal to the Union to the deployment of Union troops with wide powers of arrest and detention with no appeal to the Courts and 'habeus corpus' writs ignored. The Congress might usefully have enacted legislation enabling the Federal Courts to take over the running of States where seccession moves were strongest-after all the Marshals service was partly under their control. Americans , having being described as a 'litigious people', would have found the legal processes-and challenges- a useful way of 'taking the heat' out of the crisis!
Most nations threatened with internal disorder and rebellion traditionally have relied on their police forces in the first instance and the military as a last resort. Nobody denies that thwarting secession in the Upper South would have been an entirely bloodless affair but deputised Marshals with concealed side-arms and staves might have limited the violence to bruised limbs and bloody noses.For such an approach to be successful it would have to be accompanied, of course, by a 'standing down' of the Street Militia in these States to avoid conflicts of loyalties. The altogether milder use of force might have served to satisfy Northern opinion without driving the 'wavering' States into rebellion.
With secession thus confined to to the seven 'hothead' Deep South States -and the military taken out of the picture- an eventual resolution might have been easier.
@@TheSouthernLady777 I cannot account for it; it occurred while I was finalising the posting and it would have been awkward to try to eliminate it. The 'strikethrough' area is an intended part of the comment.
Missouri: the slave state with no slaves🤔. (I get it, the 1860 census showed 10%). All the dramatic Congressional hassle surrounding my state's admittance to the Union in 1820-21 seems silly by 1860. I think Congress sort of got it right with the Kansas-Nebraska Act where each state could decide the slavery issue for themselves...until it went horribly wrong in Kansas. Immigration patterns decided the issue in both states. There was a huge somewhat natural movement of "free thinking" Germans to Missouri, versus the forced unholy mess of both sides rushing to Kansas.
I've always been intrigued with the British Army's attitude to, what British people call, American war of independence. Redcoats aka 'Royal Marines' had to sail 2,000 miles to fight many American soldiers of English descent, including George Washington himself.
I often wonder if this was instrumental in Britain employing thousands German Hessians?
Some ships sailed from Canada. The Ships of the line were incredible warships of the day.
You're actually probably right. Many think that Lord Howe and other British generals just didn't have the desire to crush a rebellion against their kinsmen.
Atlanta having a population around 10,000 wasa shock. Great videos!
Very eye opening to see the scale of some of these cities in the 1860s.
It was a very new city. The iron triangle (three RRs from the east) made it to Marthasville Terminus (the original name) only a bit over a decade before.
The W&A staked it out as mile post 1 in the 1830s but it was barely more than a single railhead company town till 1847. Officially "Atlanta" had only seen two censuses by 1861.
I bet traffic was still a nightmare LOL
so Brett, fresh from arms deals in Paris and London, travelled 400 miles to a podunk backwater to court Scarlet? back when he gave a damn?
What a pity the Arkansas and Tennessee people could not see this video in 1861. I think not only the most East Tennessee counties, 1 county in Middle Tenneessee and 5 counties in West Tenneessee would have voted beside the Unio and not only Ozark region in Arkansa would have been prounionist. Less than 750 000 people would have dead!
Lots of people
Since the cotton business was located in the south, New York City, and England, why not consider a deeper layer to the Civil War. Not North vs. South, but Chicago and Midwest versus New York City and the South? The war happened very quickly once abolitionists in Massachusetts joined forces with a politician from Illinois. And railroads and telegraph wires had a huge effect too.
An interesting perspective. Cotton (and the wealth it generated) were definitely driving forces in the start of the war, but I hadn't considered the Midwest as anything other than a part of, or a puppet of the New England/Northeast _power brokers_ region.
NYC was definitely aligned with the South due to the many markets for Southern products passing through their ports on the way to Europe. They were good for "profit".
A comparison of wealth and its transfer between regions is also eye opening... but I digress.
As I recall, the Midwest also was noted for their extreme dislike of slaves, former slaves, or darker skinned people in general... inclusively. Sundown laws, the original Klan, discriminatory labor laws and housing, etc... mostly, or even specifically began in that region.
But... "The South" gets all the blame because of "Slavery"... which is still not the same as racism.
Sorry to ramble. Thank you for your post above. It gave me pause for thought.
nah id rather see a layer on the border states vs great lake adjacent states vs utah territory. or CA vs texas vs oregon. whatever that means
@crimony Maybe because NY was a major hub for the abolitionist movement, but you're right in that NYC was very tied economically to the south/slave economy.
Very well done. I've subscribed.
Much appreciated!
The figure for the South must include slavery border states that didn't join the Confederacy. I recall a figure of 9 million people for it.
@Jeffrey the Librarian Would you happen to know if in 1860, the majority of African Americans in New York State resided in New York City?
NYC and Brooklyn but a sizable population lived upstate as well, and many spoke Dutch.
Great video, but "Wisconsonian" made me cringe, as a Wisconsinite.
I don't know if when you present facts without facts that then people like me don't watch anything else you show.
Stop and put up the state list and population, City and population.
Without that it looks like you are steering to some point and not the facts. Bye!
What was Minford and South Webster Ohio like in the 1860s? On second thought better push that up to the 1890s..
Thank you for the vdeo.
The 1860 Census, a few months before The Civil War
1860 Census
Total American Population: 31.4 Million American People
11 Americans per square mile
0:25 3 Regions
Northeast: 10.5 Million People
Midwest: 9 Million People
South: 11 Million People
0:49 The Uppermidwest was settled fairly quickly.
Midwest 1800: 51,000 People
Midwest 1860: 9 Million People
*Rural or City?*
1:52
Northeast 60% Rural 40% City
Midwest 90% Rural 10% City
South 90% Rural 10% City
*Farms*
2:05
Virgina: 31 Million acres of Farm land.
2:35 4 Million Bales of Cotton
*South, 1/2, 1/4 African American*
3:19 Virginia, 45% African American
3:31 Alabama, 50% African American
7:02 South Carolina, 60% African American
3:44 Georgia, 50% African American
4:08 Tennessee, 25% African American
5:12 Ohio populated from
45,000 -> 2.3 Million People in 60 Years
5:33 New York’s 3.9 Million Residents.
*West Coast States; California and Oregon*
7:22 shift
7:35 California 330,000 residents, Oregon 52,000 Pioneers.
8:13 Washington DC: 75,000 People
8:50 Boston MA
9:07 Providence Rhode Island
10:24 Jobs of New Yorkers
11:23 Philadelphia had more people living in Philly than in Arkansas in 1860
12:34 Ohio Jobs.
13:10 Abraham Lincoln and Illinois.
9:13 New York City 🏙️ Brooklyn, Buffalo, Albany, Rochester, Troy.
14:30 Louisville Kentucky
Thanks for detailing this.
Swathes of un-welcome boarder crashers.... not quite so land of the free home of the brave when the boot is on the other foot!!
Good video.
Is there a reason why you rounded the southern states from 900,000 to 1 million but didn’t round NY from 3.9 mil to 4 mil and PA from 2.9 mil to 3 mil?
Also, how did ppl live in the south in 1860? I live in middle Georgia and the heat and humidity is almost unbearable. Not to mention the bugs and snakes which were way more populated back in the day due to development and habit destruction. Lastly, I been to New Orleans and it’s hot as hell too. To have a population over 100,000 in 1860-how did they survive from April to October when its 90-100 degrees and 70% humidity.
Great question. This was my first census video, and I am more consistent on rounding now.
Yes, living in an age before electricity is an entirely different world. In 1900, the life expectancy in the USA was 45. There was tons of malaria in the American South in the 19th century. Shade trees, beverages, and windows are some of your only defenses from the heat. In the 19th century, liquids have to be either fermented or boiled to be safe. So, folks were likely consuming diluted fermented beverages in large quantities. I think iced tea is 20th century, so that's a modern way to cool down outside.
Even in the 17th century, Europeans knew that northern winters were brutal, but at least with winter you didn't have the incessant heat and disease.
Compare this to the migration of some 40 to 60 millions of people across the Southern Border of the United States and some 10 millions who overstayed their visas or crossed the Northern Border and Coast lines from 1980 to 2022. This being of persons without official permission or right to do so.
The largest migration in human history.
The political situation and factors prevent serious sociological examination and study of this event.
It's called being ruled by a certain chosen group that seems to want us gone. As a result the same has happened to Europe.
why u posting your bs here.
You know imagine if your lifetime was 1780 to 1860 how much demographic development you would’ve seen in your lifetime in the US.
Yes, we think of the change happening in our lives, but great change has been happening each generation for a long time.
Can somebody explain to me how it was possible for the US Citizens to explode in numbers in such short time. I mean 5-10 kids per mother were pretty normal during that time, but that was also the case in Europe e.g Germany and England but their numbers didnt quadrupelled at all.
Europe's population doubled between 1800 and 1900, even after all the emigration to the US and other places. Shows how high the birth rate was and also kids were surviving to live longer.
@@caezar55 and if we look at the whole world, we went from 1 billion to 8 billion during the period 1800 - 2000. No wonder, it's a mess now. World changed drastically. Very tough for me to imagine how places look like. Uffffff
EXCELLENT, VERY INTERESTING
Sidenote: Michigan is above Indiana, not Illinois as you stated.
How did you manage to nearly skip over Indiana and discuss more at length Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois, when All four states were carved out of the Indiana territory?
Good question.
This has to be the most arbitrary bitching I’ve ever seen.
I'm English by name but have plenty of German ancestry. Starting with my Grandfather marrying a deutsch girl and also my father. Those German women can cook.
The funny thing is everyone knows how influential Italian, French, Mexican, and Chinese food is. But German food is hamburgers, hotdogs, sausages, pancakes, pretzels. I would argue German cuisine is one of the most popular food cultures in the world, but it doesn't get the credit.
This is the third video where you have excluded Mississippi's historical significance. You failed to mention Biloxi as a French colony created in 1699 in another video and in this video you also failed to mention that Mississippi was the most wealthy state in the union at this time. If you are going to make a video about history maybe you should tell the whole story? Natchez was the most wealthiest city in the US before the war It boasted more millionaires per capita than any other city in the US at that time. Also fun fact for another one of your videos. Pensacola, Florida pre-dated St Augustine in 1559 by 6 years as a Spanish colony but it was destroyed in 1561 by a hurricane. Please do more research before you put out a video like this.
Thank you for your feedback. Because this video is such a big topic, I had to narrow the subjects. It's impossible to cover everything in a single video, and this is one is the first in a series. Every state has its treasures, and I will need to do videos on specific states to call attention to more detail.
That population thing if you live in a town of 700 people and you go to a town of 9,000 people that's a big town if you go if you live in a town of 700 people and you go to a town of 16,000 people that's a big city
Yes, it does come down to perspective. In 1860, 10,000 people is a big town. 40,000 is a giant industrial center.
Great storytelling
Thank you!
Numbers matter. The South could never win. Imagine living in a state where 60% of the population was enslaved. What went on in the minds of these people? In some ways it reminds me of the Spartans and Helots. Surely the prevailing feelings were fear of uprisings and vicious oppression?
Yes, the South was gravely outnumbered when you factor in that a huge proportion of the population were slaves.
You only exist becuase your northern ancestors bought cotton from southern plantation owners. So don't assume northern people didn't take advantage of slavery.
Thank you for this.
Did you know that Bill Hader (SNL, The Skeleton Twins, Barry) has two spectacular ancestors? King Edward I (or is it Henry, now I forget!) and .... Charlemagne!!
Got more out of the comments than the video itself
So Iowa didn't exist?
nope. iowa walked across the southern border from guatemala with the 1000000 other illegals as someone else in comments mentioned.🤡
Part of the reason DC population was lower is taxes and spending were lower. Federal power didn't explode until the twentieth century, and with that explosion came people to take advantage of that money and power.
Cotton Gin patented 1794. Made America's seedy cotton valuable.
Erie Canal opened up the MidWest in 1825.
You said 9 out of 10 African Americans were enslaved in 1860. Then you went on to say that in states in the Deep South were slavery was prevalent.. 50%, 25% and as much as 60% of black Americans were in bondage. These numbers don't add up. Obviously there were a lot more free blacks than your original claim of half a million. This is an important correction. As it is extremely misleading to portray the black population of the South as 90% enslaved. Plus you didn't count the black populations in the north and in the West. An educated guess would tell me that in 1860.. 2/3 of the American black population where free.
Those numbers for the South of 50% or so enslaved in 1860 are for the total population, so yes, almost all African Americans in the Deep South would have been slaves in 1860.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian so here you admit half the population of black Americans in 1860 were free. The state in the south you named with the highest percentage of enslave blacks was 60%. Another state at 50% and another at 25%. Obviously.. a 90% enslaved population in the south is impossible when the states you sided with the highest percentage of enslaved populations is at most 60%. Which makes me skeptical of even accepting a 50% enslaved total population. Are you antiwhite? You do realize that some percentage of the enslaved population we're kept by free blacks. So what you could have said and didn't.. is that prior to the Civil War.. 50% of the black population in the United States were free. Why didn't you? Was the point of your video to vilify white Southerners? Cuz that's how it appears. Clearly it wasn't to present an objective factual picture of the American population in 1860.. where less than 4% of whites owned any slaves. Slavery was an economic system that not only victimized black populations.. but the vast majority of the white population as well. Who in no way directly benefited from slave labor competing with the labor they could have provided at fair market value.
The North had all the representatives in Congress and that's why the Milner Tariff was passed to give all the money to the north from tariffs that affected the South.
You were wrong about Virginia. The info you gave was the state after the Civil War. The state included West Virginia before the War and that gave Virginia almost 1.7 million people. That made the state the fifth largest population in the union. Huge for the times.
he never said specifically what rank VA had in largest states and mentions west virginia which was counted as virginia for the 1860 census. you are just slow.
I have mentioned that the statistic given was for Virginia AFTER the Civil War. Up to West Virginia statehood, Virginia's census count was just under 1.6 million, with the breakaway future state included. That was the official count in 1860.
I think it’s ironic West Virginia was allowed to sucede from Virginia, especially considering the time they did ... 🤔
Very interesting material.
how many was white oh yaaa leave that out.
how did the census define urban? would a farm in a town be considered urban?
Great question. Farms by definition would be outside of town, with a family farm being 50 acres or so. People in towns can have gardens, but a farm is too big to be within a town limit. Today the census defines a metropolitan area as any population center with 50,000 or more people. A town smaller than this is an "urban cluster." However, in the 19th century, very few cities would have been 50,000 or more people. A town might have had a few hundred people, surrounded by miles of fields until the next town, which would have been connected by a dirt road.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian By the 1860's, in the mid west, those towns would be very likely be connected by railroads, at least the most populace of them. Michigan and Ohio each had a major east-west railroad connecting both Detroit and Toledo with Chicago. Michigan also had a very extensive network of rail lines in the northern timber country servicing that industry. Small towns were no longer as isolated as just a few decades previous.
@@cdjhyoung People used to keep farm animals such as cows and pigs in urban areas at the time before it was prohibited. Remember how the Great Fire of Chicago is reputed to have started?
Honesty what I’m most curious about is how they wiped their asses
This is actually an important question because sanitation was a major reason why people fell ill. Joseph Gayetty was producing paper sheets in 1857. However, lots of folks were using corncobs or leaves. There would have been terrible digestive issues for soldiers in the Civil War, as their diets were often limited to apples, peaches, corn, and hardtack.
Skipped Florida
We're most slaves owned by a small number of families?
Great question. A few families did own a huge percentage of the slaves. However, alot of farmers owned one slave and may have worked in the fields side by side with him or her.
Why does he keep saying African American? That was not a classification used in 1860 to my knowledge...he should use the term of the time and then provide context....say African American is misleading...I think he knows it too!!
I just wanted to be consistent. I say Irish Americans and German Americans, so it's logical terminology.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian I am just a history fan but anytime I see something that conflicts with the information I've run across I say something....honestly I like your video and they are well done. I just dont like the classification African American because it's a misnomer and really needs to be unpacked...The term includes both people of African descent and people not of African descent... negroes, mulattos and blacks do not necessarily have African descent... Nonetheless you have a good channel overall.... I'll keep watching
What do you want him to say negro? Niggah? He's saying what we were and still is African Americans.
Other than the increase in numbers, not much has changed. The narratives are still intact
12:42 -- I've walked that bridge, many a times.
In quoting population, are these numbers for the 'white population'? Did Census include African Slaves?
You are certainly correct that the North overwhelmed the South in Population, Large Cities, Industry and Transportation. Great Presentation. Like your Style for Learning.
Yes, these numbers tabulate all persons. Thank you for watching!
How to keep tha SOUTH beautiful?
Buy a Yankee a bus ticket!!!:)
Good video if you don't mind being inundated with mid roll ads
The interesting thing about the 1850 and 1860 census is the number of black slave owners in the South, although there were slave states in the North also, including Maryland and Delaware (which fought for the Union in the Civil War, despite being slave states).
The civil war wasn’t about slavery. This fact you mentioned should show you that.
Wisconsinite you mean. Wisconsonian. Is nonsense
I got it right in videos after this one. Thanks!
civil war: raging
cali / oregon: keep us updated, ok?
FYI Michigan is not above Illinois
Well, I guess I was thinking latitudinally.
Two wifi engineers got married. The reception was fantastic.
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Owl says.
Owl says who?
You're right. Owl does say "who".
@@JeffreytheLibrarian Knock knock. Who's there? Says. Says who? Says me, that's who!
What are the reasons all of these people were not counted?
It's interesting that over 65% of federal revenues in 1860 were derived from taxes on cotton.
But federal revenues only made a tiny part of the economy. No, don't go for this "America was built on slavery" crap. Free labor built the United States, not slaves. Nice try.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd I wasn't implying that the country was built on slavery. I was showing how much the US government depended upon cotton taxes. That was one of the main complaints of the Southern States. In 1861 taxes on Cotton were raised to 75%. That was one of the last straws for the South.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd Without slaves there is no free labor. That free SLAVE labor also supported many other industries indirectly like banking, shipping, and insurance in the northeast. Therefore without SLAVERY there is no United States. Your statement is the circular nonsense of an idiot.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd snowflake
@@rodneychristian9834 Tariffs too. The tariff dispute almost caused South Carolina's secession in 1831.
Marveouusly told.
Much appreciated!
african american in 1860?
🧢
Interesting how Massachusetts had more shoemakers than factory workers
It was all done by hand, so think about all the feet in Massachusetts that need shoes. Plus, folks need those shoes repaired.
slaves are NOT considered "residents" by any means. you are giving a wrong impression here
no youre just slow.
@@mustbtrouble no...your slow pilgrim... slaves weren't considered people...only property
@@gram01 no shit but they were counted on census as people.
I appreciate that you lead with facts and that lets the "student" form their own picture or narrative that is rooted in facts. Too often pseudo historians are preoccupied with pushing a narrative that is often at odd with the facts. Thank you sir.
🤡
I'm curious as to what narrative "pseudo historians" push according to what you say?
@@carltonbanks5470 I'm not sure what his specific example would be, but my first thought is certain alternate historians. It's a fun pastime to imagine a world where events occurred differently, but some of them like to insert a specific world-view.
A point of order. In 1860, they were NOT "African-American", which is a _segregational_ term made up by Jesse Jackson around 1990.
They were totally "Americans" who were black, (but were only worth 6/10's of an American to the *Northern* politicians). _Just like today!_ Many (over 10% IIRC) were "Freemen" (landowners also), and had full citizenship privileges.
Very informative video otherwise. Thank you!
And I’m pretty sure I’ve read that some of them had slaves too.
Unfortunately they were considered African slaves. They were never American at that time and I am not so sure now.
Its extremely sad that the native american culture was developing all the time and became more advanced every decade but it was conpletely stopped by the damned spaniards coming to central america.
I wonder what the natives would have achieved by 2022 if the conquistadors never razed their civilizations. Nowadays we think of aztecs as the rulers of central america but perhaps they would have fallen to other civilizations even without european interference. Like the mayas used to be a big thing but their culture was largely gone even before europeans. The same would have likely happened to aztecs with more advanced civilizations taking over.... ultimately perhaps coming to europe themselves. If i'd change one thing about the past, i'd change the intentions of the european settlers from conquest to trade
The North Americans came to trade, the Spaniards came to kill and rob. Cortez’s mission alone killed more indigenous Indians than all North Americans.
Had the English or French landed in Hispaniola instead of the Spanish, you might still have some of that civilization the Spanish destroyed.
The Aztecs were subhumans who would have died off whether Spanish came to the Western hemisphere or not
@@dampergoldenrod4156 what do you mean? Everyone dies
It's interesting that the West states are not even in your count. How would I find out what was going on in Wyoming in 1850, online?
Wyoming was not a state. Only Oregon and California were states in the west.
There were territories with pretty much just natives
Thank you for another fascinating presentation
Thank you!
really enjoying your videos. thank you
Thank you!
The good ole days when labor was cheap and the air was clean
A lot of dead and corrupt in the air especially in the south