The Status of Black People in Appalachia
Reports
May 1, 1971
174 pages
Cite this item
-
Division of Legal Information and Community Service, DLICS Reports. The Status of Black People in Appalachia, 1971. 996c7518-799b-ef11-8a69-6045bdfe0091. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7016cf63-b254-4b4b-949f-8070757d12cf/the-status-of-black-people-in-appalachia. Accessed June 18, 2025.
Copied!
..
..
..
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 • 586-8397
Division of Legal Information and Community Service
THE STATUS OF BLACK PEOPLE IN APPALACHIA
A Statistical Report
This report was commissioned by the Legal Defense Fund and pre
pared by Michael Bruland for the Black Appalachian Commission.
Mr. Bruland has made the following observations about the accuracy
of the Advance Report of the Bureau of Census which he used in
preparing this analysis of the 1970 census.
Errors in the Advance Report
of the 1970 Census of Population
In going over the age classifications, I have
noticed certain distorted figures that can be
explained only in terms of errors. In Pike
County, Kentucky, for example, the census lists
24 Negro males and 358 Negro females under the
age of five. It would appear that the latter
figure is vastly distorted and would offer, at
least, a partial explanation for the 139 per
cent increase of black population in an area
that is generally decreasing in population.
Fortunately, I have found few of these errors;
however, anyone using the Advance Reports should
carefully check the figures given. Comparing
the various age classifications is one method
of checking the accuracy of the figures .
Michael Bruland
May 1971
Contributions are deductibk for U. S . income tax purposes
National Officers
President
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN. JR.
Secretary
DR. GEORGE D. CANNON
CLIFFORD L. ALEXANDER, JR.
Washington, D. C.
MRS. FARROW R. ALLEN
Riverdale, N. Y.
MRS. ROBERTS. BENJAMIN
KinK"S Poin t, N. Y.
JUDGE HOMER BROWN
Pittsburgh, Pa.
CHARLES BUCHANAN
New York, N. Y.
PETER L. BUTTENWIESER
Philadelphia, Pa.
DR. GEORGE D. CANNON
New York, N . Y.
ALFRED CORNING CLARK
New York, N. Y.
RAMSEY CLARK
Falls Church, Va.
WILLIAM K. COBLEN'l'Z
San Francisco, Cali!.
REV. WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN, JR.
New Haven. Conn.
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, J R.
Philadelphia, Pa.
MRS. THORNBURG COWLES
New York, N. Y.
DR. JOHN A. DA VIS
New York. N . Y.
OSSIE DAVIS
New Rochelle, N. Y.
ADRIAN W. DeWI ND
New York, N. Y.
THOMAS B. DYETT
New York, N. Y.
DAVID E. FELLER
Berkeley, Calif.
CLARENCE C. FERGUSON
Newark, N. J .
MINTON FRANCIS
Dorchester, Mass.
DR. JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN
ChiC&lfO, Ill.
R oger N. Baldwin
Vivian J. Beamon
Viola \V. Bernard
Harry Bela.Conte
John C. Bennett
Leonard Bernstein
Hans A. Bethe
Eugene Carson Blake
Sarah Gibson Blanding
George P. Brockway
Halph J. Bunche
Helen L. Buttcnwicser
Muriel M. Duttinger
Mrs. Sam uel McCrae Cavert
Fanny Travis Cochran
James Bryant Conant
Albert Sprague Coolidge
Aaron Copland
George S. Counts
Henry Hitt Crane
Maxwell Dane
Ossie Davis
Albert Edward Day
Ruby Doe
Albert C. Di!fenbach
Ralph Ellison
Morris L. Ernst
Executive 0 ff icers
Director-Counsel
JACK GREENBERG
Associate Cmuisel
JAMES Ill. NABHIT Ill
JU DGE FRANCIS E. RIVERS, l'rc¥it.lc'tt 1~·wcritw:.
Board of Directors
A.G. GASTON
Birmingham. Ala.
WALTER GELLHORN
New York, N. Y.
ROBERT W. GILMORE
New York, N. Y.
AMOS T. HALL
Tulsa, Okla.
MRS. PATRICIA ROBERTS HARRIS
Washington, D. C.
JUDGE WILLIAM H. HASTIE
Philadelphia, Pa.
MRS. RITA E. HAUSER
New Yo1·k, N. Y.
JUDGE A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM
Philadelphia, Pa.
ELIOT HUBBARD, III
Lincoln, Mass.
HANS W. HUBER
Rumson, N. J.
DR. PERCY L. JULIAN
Oak Park, Ill.
HARRY KAHN
New Yo1·k, N. Y.
JUDGE DAMON J. KEITH
Detroit, Mich.
JOHN G. LEWIS, JR.
Baton Rouge. La.
MRS. ALFRED 111. LINDAU
New York, N. Y.
DR. ARTHUR C. LOGAN
New York, N. Y.
CURTIS F. McCLANE
New York, N. Y.
ROBERT McDOUGAL, JR.
Chicago, Ill.
L. D. MILTON
Atlanta, Ga.
THE RIGHT REV. PAUL J\100RE, JR.
New York, N. Y.
DR. JAMES M. NABRIT, J R.
Washington, D. C.
"COMMITTEE OF 100"
H. William Fitelson
Louis Finkelstein
John Hope Franklin
Buell G. Gallagher
Mrs. A. G. Gaston
Harry D. Gideonse
Mary Barnett Gilson
Roland B. Gittelsohn
Frnnk P. Graham
Morton S. Grossman
Herman Hailperin
S. Ralph Harlow
Edler Hawkins
James G. Heller
Bishop Henry W. Hobson
Sidney Hook
Mrs. Raymond V. Ingersoll
Mrs. Henry A. Ingraham
Mo1·dcca.i \Y. Johnson
Mrs. Percy Julian
Horace M. Knl1en
Freda Kirchwey
John Howland Lathrop
James Lawrence, Jr.
Mrs. Herbert H . Lehman
Henry Smith Leiper
Natiu11al Officers
Vice President
LOUIS II. P OLLAK
Treasurer
MHS. Tl!OHNBURG COWLES
MRS. ESTELLE OSBORNE
New York, N. Y.
SHAD POLIER
New York, N. Y.
LOUIS H. POLLAK
New Hnven, Conn.
CECIL F. POOLE
San Francisco, Calif.
DR. C. B. POWELL
New York, N. Y.
MAXWELL M. RABB
New York, N. Y.
F. F. RANDOLPH, JR.
New York, N. Y.
JUDGE FRANCIS E. RIVERS
New York, N. Y.
MRS. SAMUEL I. ROSENMAN
New York, N. Y.
DR. DAVID G. SALTEN
New York, N. Y.
WILLIAM H. SCHEIDE
Princeton, N. J.
ARTHUR D. SHORES
Birmingham, Ala.
ASA T. SPAULDING
Durham, N. C.
DR. CHARLES H. THOMPSON
Washington, D. C.
JUDGE ANDREW R. TYLER
New York, N. Y.
CYRIL D. TYSON
New Yo1·k, N. Y.
CHAUNCEY L. WADDELL
New York, N. Y.
WILLIAM 0. WALKER
Cleveland, Ohio
REV. M. MORAN WESTON
New York, N. Y.
JOHN H. WHEELER
Durham. N. C.
CLAUDE "BUDDY" YOUNG
New York, N. Y.
Mnx Lerner
Alfred Baker Lewis
John A. Mackay
Archibald MacLeish
Horace S. Manges
Benjamin E. Mays
Robert J. McCracken
Karl Menninger
Charles Merrill
Bishop Paul Moore. Jr.
Reinhold Niebuhr
Pulfrey Perkins
A. Philip Randolph
Mrs. Irn De A. Reid
Norman Rockwell
Carl T. Rowan
John L. Saltonstall , Jr.
William H. Scheide
George N. Shuster
Mrs. Harper Sibley
Arthur B. Spingarn
Telford Taylor
Charles J. Turck
Harold C. Urey
William H. Vanderbilt
Robert Penn Warren
Bradford Young
The "Committee of 100", a voluntary cooperative group of individuals, headed by Bishop
Paul Moore, J r., has sponsored the appeal of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Inc. s ince 1943 to enable the Fund to put into operation a program designed to make
desegregation a reality throughout the United States.
~25
..
•'
..
. ·.
For the last several decades, poverty has forced millions
of persons to migrate from Appalachia. Between 1950 and 1960,
2.2 mill ion persons migrated from the region, and an estimated
])
606,100 persons mierated between 1960 and 1966. In 1970,
about 13.2 million persons were living in Appalachia , about
485,000 more than in 1960 . (See Table II .) If, however , the
region's percentage increase in population (2 7 percent ) had
I '
been the same as the entire Nation's (13.3 percent), almost
2.3 mill ion more persons would have been living in Appalachia
in 1970 than in 19 70 •
In testimony before a Congressional subcommittee in 1969,
Ralph R. Widner , Executive Director of Appalachia Regional
Commission, made the following statement: "The bulk of out-
migration from Appalachia is white although in extreme
Southern Appalachia -- Al llbama and Mississippi -- migrants are
2/
predominantly black ."- Since black people comprise only 7.3
perc ent of Appalachia's population and even this small percentage
l/ Widner, Ralph R., Migration , Urban Growth, and t~c Economy
in Appalachia, Testimony before the Ad Hoc Committee on Urban
Growth, Committee on Banking and Currency, U. S. House o f
Representatives, July 10, 1969 •
II Widner, p. 2.
. ·
..
...
is unevenly distributed, Mr. Widner's s tatement is accurate.
It fails, however, to measure t he impact of migrat ion on the
region's black population outside Alabama and Mississippi •
In 1970, Appalachia's black population was more than 1.3
million, a decrease of more than 9,000 persons from 1960. If,
however, the region's black population had increa sed the same
percentage as the entire Nation's black population (20.1 per-
cent), n. lmost 268 ,000 more black people would have been living
in Appalachia in 1970 than i n 1960.
The Distribution of Blach. Population
In general , the proportion of black people to t he total
population dec reases as one moves from South to North. In
ll
1970 , only three states -- Mississipp i (29 .2 percent ), Alabama
(20 .5 percent), and South Carolina (17.1 percent) - - had greater
proport ions of black people than the Nation's average. In con-
trast, the three states with the smallest proportions of black
people were New York (1.1 percent ), Ohio (2.2 percent), and
Maryland (2.4 percent).
More specifically, however, certain areas of Northern
Appalachia, such a s the Southern coalfields of West V~rginia
and the industrialized Southwestern portion of Pennsylvania,
3/ Henceforth, it will be assumed that the mention of particu
lar states will be in reference to the Appalachian portions of
these states unless otherwise s t ated.
- 2 -
~ · have substantial ntunbers of black people. Likewise, certain
. · ..
areas of Southern Appalachia, such as the Appalachian Hj ehlands
of Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, have few, if any,
black people. These areas will be treated more fully in the
discussions of specific states.
Unlike the white people on Appalachia, the black people
tend to be urbanized. In 1970, the proportions of black people
livinr~ in towns over 10,000 populaticn and over 25,000 popula-
4/
tion were 51.9 percent nnd 40 .8 percent, respectively. The
proportions of white people were 25.4 percent and 16. 0 percent,
respectively. In comparine urban black and white populations,
it is important to remember that often a substantial proportion
of the white people in a particular urban area will live out-
s i de the l i mi ts of the dominant city and, therefore , will not be
counted as part of that city's populat ion, whereas the black
peopl e , who tend to live withi n t he city limits, will be counted.
Moreover, 25.4 percent of the black people lived in two counties
Jefferson Cot:nty, Alabama (Binningham) and Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The urban black population will be
treated a lso more fully in the discussions of specific states .
4/ These percentages were calculated for those towns having
more than 10,000 population in 1970 and those towns having more
than 25,000 population in 1960.
- 3 -
~ ·
..
'.
Economic Situation of Black People in Appalachia
Unfortunately, economic data from the 1970 Census of
Population is still unavailable. In this report, therefore,
five types of data will be used to approximate the econ~mic
situation of black people in each Appalachian state:
1. The increase or decrease of black population (Tables I
and II) - Assuming that people tend to move from areas where
they cannot make decent livings, a decrea se in population would
inqicate an unfavorable economic situation. Asst.nning that peo-
ple tend to move !£_areas where they thi nk they can, at least,
better their economic conditions, a substantia l increase in
population would indicate a favorable economic situation. The
natural increase of population - births over deaths - must be
considered; thus, an area can have an increase in population
but still have out-migration.
2. Age distribution of black populat ion (Table III) -
Assuming that people tend to migrate at their most productive
ages, the percentage of persons in the most productive age
categories would give a rough indication of the availability of
employment opportunities in a particular a r ea . For this report,
the age category of 25 to 35 years will be used. ·A low per-
centage for a county compared with the Nation as a whole would
indicate the lack of employment opportunities. Age data is
- 4 -
. . .
·''· ...
provided for only those counties with black population of
more than 1,000 .
3. Socio-economic indicators (Table IV) - The explanation
for this data, which mea sures the extent of deprivati on, can be
found with Table IV. These indica tors were computed by the
!'ppalachian Regio~;i--c~~is~vfrom data provided by the 1960
Census of Population. Although the indicators were based on
old data, they provide a basis for explaining what happened
during the 1960 's.
4. The rate of unemployment for 1962 and 1967 (Table V) -
Compiled by the Appalachian Regional Cormnission, this data
provides an indication of the change in employment opportunities
in each county during a five year period. For comparison, the
U. s. averages for 1962 and 1967 were 5.5 percent and 3.8 per-
cent, respectively.
5. Descriptive materials - This information, primarily
from the Appalachian Regional Cormnission materials, will be used to
supplement the above data.
Alabama
"As in the case of the rest of the Southern Appalachia, Alabama
is in transition from the old rural, agricultural economy to a
5/
new urban, industrialized economy."- Alabama's changing economy
5/ , State and Regional Development Plans in Appalachia
- 1968, Appalachian Regional Commission, December 1968, p. 93.
- 5 -
in the 1960's provided more employment opportunities for its
work force and greater stabi lity to its population. The bene-
fits, however, of these economic changes appear to have gone
primarily to the white population. While the white population
increased 11.2 percent between 1960 and 1970, the black popula-
tion decreased 4.2 p ercent. (Table II)
The age distribution of the black population reflected this
I
out-migration. In general, a lower percentage of black people
were in the most productive age cater;ories than tlie Nation as a
whole. Madison County, which had a substantial increase in
black population, had the highest percentage of black people in
the 2 5 to 35 age category ..
The socio-economic indicators (Table IV) help provide an
explanation for the conti nued ont-mi.gration of black people.
Although in most counties white deprivatjon was erea ter than
the. U. S. average, black deprivation was considerably grea ter
and was especially severe with respect to income. These indi-
cators are based on 1960 data, and meanwhile Federal legislation
that would tend to narrow the black-white employment and income
gaps has gone into effect; however, black deprivation in Alabama
is· probably still considerably greater than that of t he U. S.
as a whole.
In 1970, the proportions of Appalachian Alabama's black
population living in towns over 10,000 population and over 25,000
- 6 -
.. ·
..
... ..
·.
..
population were 54.3 percent and 48.0 percent, respectively.
The proportions of white populations were 35.6 percent and 31.7
percent, respectively. Jefferson County (Birmingham) along con-
tained 47.1 percent of the black population compared with 25.8
percent of the white populat ion. Only one town, Huntsville,
appears to have attracted black migrants, and even there the
increase of black population (67.5 percent) was substantially
I
less than that of white population (93 . 4 percent). Moreover,
Huntsville's economy has suffered recent setbacks as a result of
decreased Federal spending in the aerospace industry.
Pennsylvania
In 1970, only 3.6 percent of Appa lachian Pennsylvania's
population was black. It is significant, however, that the
black population was concentrated into a relatively small area.
Allegheny County (Pittsbureh) alone contained 6G.3 percent of
the black population compared with 25.5 percent of the whit e
population. Moreover, seven heavily industrialized counties in
extreme western portion of Pennsylvania contained 90 . 8 percent
&_/
of the black population.
It is important to note that even with this concentration
the proportion of black people to the total population of the
&_/ Allegheny, Beaver, Erie, Washington, Fayette, Westmoreland
and Mercer. (See Table I)
- 7 -
seven counties was relatively low. The population of Allegheny
County was only 9.0 percent black, although several cities
Pittsburgh (20.2 percent), Wilkinsburg (19.2 percent), and
McKeesport (10.4 percent) -- in the county had higher percentages.
Of the seven counties, only Erie County appears to have had
an incrESse in population greater than what one would expec t
from a natural increase (births over deaths). In Allegheny
County, the black popuJation increased only 0.2 percent; how
ever, the black popnlatiun of Wilkinsburg grew from 721 in 1960
to 5,315 in 1970, apparently a result of shifts of black popula
tion within the county.
In general, the seven counties experienced un. out-mi!jration
of both black and white population during the 1960' s. This out
migration appears to have been related to a decljne in the hP.avy
resource based industry which apparently suffered f rom a weakened
market advantage and fro rn the recession of the e[lrly 1960' s.
This decline resulted in substantial unemployment, which had
its greatest impact on black workers. (Table IV) The Appalachian
Regional Commission is trying to diversify the area's industrial
base.
As one moves eastward, the black population decreases
abruptly. Outside the seven counties of Western Pennsylvania,
only six counties had black populations of more than 1,000 in
- 8 -
..
·.
1970, and two of these -...: Cambria and Lawrence -- a djoin one or
two of the seven counties. The black populations of three of
the other four are connected with urban centers. The black
population of Centre County consists primarily of students ·at
Pennsylvania State University.
Mississippi
The black population of Appalachian Mississippi is largely
small town and rural. In 1970, only 15.0 percent of the black
people lived in the four towns with over 10,000 population
compared with 17 .1 pe rcent of the white people. Moreover, three
predominantly rural counties -- Noxubee, Marshal 1 and Kemper --
were the only coun t ies in Appa l achia that were over 50.0 percent
black.
In the last two decades, Mississippi has been changing
from an agricultural to an industrial economy. "However, in
tenns of the absolute nt.nnbers of new jobs ad<led, Mississippi has
lagged behind most states and the quality of employment growth
7/
has been poor ... - But, like Alabama, white people in Mississippi
have been the primary beneficiaries of indus trial deveiopment.
At. the beginning of the decade, a substantial number of white
people had low incomes; there was a considerably larger number
7/ , State and Regional Development Plans in
Appalachia - 1968 , p. 37.
- 9 -
of black people in the same situation. (Table IX) It is likely
that a similar situation still prevails for black people, par
ticularly in predominantly rural counties.
1he population of Appalachian Mississippi increased 3.1
percent between 1960 and 1970, the white populatio~ growth of
10.3 percent having been largely offset by the black population
decline of 11.3 percent. Even those counties having substantial
industrial development had a decrease in black population.
South Carolina
Of the three Appalachian states with a l arger proportion of
black people than the Nation's average, only South Caro lina had
an increase in black population between 1960 and 19 70. The
black population increase of only 4.3 percent indicates, however,
an out-migra tion of black people during the decade . In contrast,
the white p qmlation appears to have been relatively stable,
with a 13.3 percent increase.
At the beginning of the decade, the economic situation of
black people in South Carolina appears to have been similar to
that of black people in predominantly urban counties iri. Alabama,
particularly with regard to income. At the end of the decade,
however, the age distribution of black people (Table III) showed
a generally higher proportion of black people in the age category,
25 to 35 years, than in Alabama, indicating a greater access for
- 10 -
•
..
· ..
black people to the industrial jobs that were opening up
Appalach i an South Carolina.
Trends toward industrial diversification became
evident by the 1960' s. 'D1is period has seen
the gradual evolution and Growth of industries
which are totally unrelated to the apparel-tes
tile complex. Primary among these are the
beginnings of an electrical machinery complex.
TI1is industry employing over 3,000 people by
1965. At the same time, however, there has
been continued growth in the dominant
industries of textiles and apparel. £/
If these trends continue, it is possible that South Carolina's
black population might achieve stability in the 1970's.
The percentage of people living in urban centers in
·· Appalachian South Carolina is generally less than what one
~·
..
might expect in a relatively industrialized area. In 1970,
43.2 percent of the black people lived in towns over 10,000
population compared with only 22.0 percent of the white
population .
fJ/ State and Regional Development Plans in Appalachia
- 19 68 ' p • 102 .
- 11 -
Tennessee
As in Alabama and Pennsylvania, the black population of
Tennessee is predominantly urban. In 1970 the proportion of
black people living in towns over 10 ; 000 population was 73.1
percent compared with 30.4 percent of the white population.
Hamilton County (Chattanooga) and Knox County (Knoxville)
together contained 65.l percent of the black population com-
pared with 23.3 percent of the white population. Hamilton
County was the only county in which the proportion of black
people (18.7 percent) was higher than the U. S. avera8e.
Overall , 6.3 percent of the region's population was black.
Between 1960 and 1970, Appalachian Tennessee's black
population grew 5. 8 percent compared with 7.8 percent for
the white population. The growth of black population in
both Hamilton County (0.2 percent) and Knox County (4.3
percent) was sluggish and contributed relatively little to
the regional growth of black population . The growth of
black population appears to have been primarily in a number
§_/
of counties, other than Hamilton and Knox, each of which
had at least one town with over 10,000 population.
For example, a four-county area -- Sullivan, Washington,
Greene, and Carter -- in Northeastern Tennessee had a growth
§_/ Sullivan, Washington, Hamblen, Bradley, McMinn,
Anderson, Greene, Warren, Coffee, Putnam, and Carter.
(See Table I)
- 12 -
.. ·
..
.. . '
..
..
in black population above the U. S. average. This area fonns a
"relatively prosperous, urbanizing island in an otherwise
. 9/
economically depressed rural area . " -
Although the growth of certain cotmties in Appalachian
Tennessee would suggest that there had been some movement of
black people into these counties, the overall trend in the
region was one of out-migration. There may have been a certain
I
increa se of economic opportunities for black people in the
region, · but it is unlikely that it would have been sufficient to
have overcome the deprivation, particularly with regard to
income, with which they began the decade. (Table IV)
N0 rth Carolina
Like Tennessee, Appalachian North Carolina has two dominant
urban centers which together contain a majority of the blakc
populat ion. In the case of North Carolina, Forsyth County
(Winston- Salem) and Buncombe County (Asheville} together contained
61.0 percent of the black population in 1970 compared wi th 31.8
percent of the white population.
The growth of black population in Forsyth County (4. 3
percent) and Buncombe County (G. G percent) was not as sluggish as
the two dominant urban centers of Tennessee, bu t it was less than
..
·· the regional growth of black populatiun, (11.5 percent) which in
9/ State and Regional Development Plans in Appalachia - 1968,
- p. 142.
- 13 -
turn was twice that of Appalachian Tennessee. The primary
growth of black population appears to have taken place along
the Piedmont, extending into the Appalachian Highlands to Haywood
10/
County. Unlike Tennessee, N0 rth Carolina had only two tm·ms,
besides Winston-Salem and Asheville, with over 10,000 population.
In general, N0 rth Carolina entered the 1960's with the
same problems of low-income that the other Southern Appala·chlan
states had. (Table IV) However, it would appear that indus-
trialization, particularly among the Piedmont, has improved the
situation to the extent that the region is, at least, retaining
its black population. This is reflected in the productive age-
categories which are relatively close to the U. S. average .
(Table III)
West Virginia
West Virginia is the only state entirely within Appalachia.
Between 1960 and 1970, the State's population decreased 6.2
17.2 percent dccrc<.~sc in black population. Black pcq" lC' cc ::1-
prised only 4. 2 percent of the total population, and therefore,
the numerical decrease of West Virginia 's white population
(-102,899) was considerably greater than that of its black
population (-15,385).
The decrease in black population occurred primarily in the
10/ Bt.Lrke, Wilkes, McDowell, Henderson, Polk, Alexander, Trnnsyl..;
---vania, Yadkin, and Haywood Counties. (See Table I) Macon County
was excluded because of apparent errors in the 1970 Census of
Population figures.
- 14 -
.·
.,
.. ...
·-.
..
..
11/
southern coal field counties. McDowell County's black pop-
ulation, which in 1960 was the l argest in West Virginia,
dropped from 15,913 in 1960 to 9,373 in 1970, a 41.1 percent
decrease. In all southen1 coal field counties, while the
white popultion suffered greater numerical decreases, the
black population suffered greater percentage decreases.
Although the southern coal field co unties had problems
of low-income, theprimary motivating force in the out-
migration appears to have been unemployment. (Tables IV and
V) rn any case, the result of the out-migration was an
extremely low percentage of b l ack people in the most produc-
tive age categories. (Table III)
It is quite apparent that the large manufacturi ng centers
of West Virginia did not absort the black out-migration from
the southern coal fields. Both Kanawha County (Char leston)
and Cabel l County (Hungtington) had decrea ses in black
populat ion. The heavy manufac turing counties of the Northern
Panhandle -- Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, and Marshall -- all had
substantial losses in black population. Only Wood County
(Parkersburg) had a substanti al i nc rease in black population.
Georgia
As in the rest of southern Appalachia, the Georgia
economy is makjng a transition from a r ura l and
11/ McDowell, R<.. leigh, Mercer, Fayette, Logan, Mingo, Summers
- and Wyoming Counties. (See Table I) Nonroe County was excluded
because the 1970 Census of Population listed a majority of its
black population as inmates of an institution.
- 15 -
agricultural economy to an urbanized and industrialized
one. Unl Jke its neighbors, Alabama and South Carolina,
Georgia has a substantial rural popula tion in the rugged
mountain areas of the Appalachian Highlands. 12/
Appalachian Georgia has also a considerably lcwer black
population than its neighbors. In part, this can be attributed
to the presence of the Appalachian Highlands, which contain
rela tively few black people or, i n the case of severa l counties,
none at 1all. Perhaps even more important, however, to the low
black population is the absence of large urban c enters within
the region. Rome, with a population of 30,759 in 1970, is the
l argest town, and there are only three other towns with over
10,000 population.
Appa lachian Georgia i s not, however, i so lated f rom large
urban c enters. Both Atlanta , Georgia and Cha t tanooe,a ,
Tennessee, border on the region. Atlanta, i n particular, has
had an important e f fect on the growth of population in Appalachian
Georgia. First, it has he lped attract industries to the region.
Second, several of the region's counties -- Gwinnett, Forsyth,
Douglas, and Cherokee -- surrounding Atlanta have had substantial
growth in white population, the result probably o f suburban iza-
tion. One would suspect a movement of white peopl e ou t of Atlanta
into adjacent Appalachia and a movement of b lack people from the
reeion into Atlanta.
Unl ike Alabama and Mississippi, Appalachian Georgia's black
population increa sed 8 .U percent between 1960 and 1970. Although
12/ State and Regional Development Plans in Appalachia - 19 63 ,
p. 109
- 16 -
"
black people in the region suffered from the problems of l ow-
income in the early 1960's (Table IV), they have apparently
benefited from economic development in the region. This is
reflected in the percentage of black people in the age
category, 25 to 35 years, which is close, for the most part,
to the U. S. average.
'Dhio's Appalachian area is quite similar in its economy
and in its problems to adjoining areas in West Virginia and
13/
Pennsylvania.-"- Like the adjoinine areas, to which Eastern
Kentucky may be added, Ohio has experienced an out-migr a tion
of both whi te and black people. Between 1960 and 1970, the
region's white population increased only 1.0 percent, while
its black population decreased 8 .1 percent. Athens Cotnty
was the only county that had an increase in black populatic.m ,
and this increase was probably the result of a growth :in en-
rollment of black students at Ohio University.
The largest concentration of black people in Appalachian
Ohio was in Steubenville, Jefferson Cotmty, which as 12.7
p~rcent black in 1970. Between 1960 and 1970, the black
populations of Jefferson County and Belmont County decreased
0. 4 percent and 13 .L~ percent respectively. The economy of
both count ies is essentially an extension of the heavy
mnnufac turine r c r,:i un of Southwestern Pennsylvnnia and the
13 / State nnd Regional Development Plans in Appalachia 1968 , p. 199 .
- 17 -
Northern Panhandle of West Virginia. In general, the other
parts of Appalachian Ohio appear to have lagged behind the
national economy, resulting in out-migration .
Kentucky
There is no major concentration of black population
in Appalachian Kentucky. The five towns with over 10,000
population contained 25.3 percent of the black population
compared with 8.9 percent of the white population . There are,
however, three minor concentrations.
The first concentru tion is a five-county -- Madison, Clark,
Mont~omery, Lincoln, and Garrard -- area along the western edges
of the region. N0 apparent pattern of change took place during
the 1960's, and future development will be probably more
dependent on what happens outside Appalachian Kentucky, par-
ticularly in adjoining Fayette Cot.mty (Lexington).
The second concentration is centered on Harlan County
]:4/
Harlan, Bell, Perry and Clay Countie8. Th is area has
suffered from considerable unemployment in the coal industry
(see Tables IV and V), which has resulted in considerable
out-migratiun. Harlan County's black population fell 42.2
percent during the 1960's, and by 1970 only 4.9 percent of
its black population was in the age category, 25 to 35 years,
compared with the U. S. average of 12.3 percent.
The third concentration is in Boyd County (Ashland), a mann-
14/ Pike County was not included because of an apparent error in
1970 Census of Population figures.
- 18 -
..
•.
...
facturing center connected with adjoining industrial areas in
Ohio (Ironton-Portsmouth) and West Virginia (Huntington).
Virginia
Appalachian Virginia experienced substantial out-migration
during the 1960's. Between 1960 and 1970, the region's white
population decreased G.3 percent, and its black population,
which comprised only 3.5 pe rcent of the tota l population,
decreased 4.4 percent .
Appalachian Virginoa, like Kentucky, has no major concen
tra tions of black populatiun. The two towns -- Covington and
Bristol -- with over 10,000 population contained only 13.9
percent of the black population compared with 5 . 0 percent of
the white populat ion.
The statistics for Virginia are confused by t he existence
of "independent cities' 1 because the census data for these
cities is excluded from the da ta for the counties in which they
are located . Thus, Alleghany County, when combi ned with the
cities of Covington and Clifton Forge, had a black population of
2,514, the largest i n the region. Wa shington County, when
combined with Bristol City, had a population of l,U54 . In both
cases, both the counties and the independent cities experienced
decreases in black 'population. The b l ack population of Washington
County did not experience the growth that was occurring in ad-
j oinging Sullivan County, Tennessee.
- 19 -
New York
In 1970 Appalachian New York had a black population of
11,889, 1.1 percen t of the total population. Only four
counties -- Chemung , Broome, Tompkins, and Chautauqua --
hod black populations of more than 1,000. Between 1960
and 1970, however, the region's black population grew 35.6
percent compared with a 5.6 percent increase for the white
population. This growth of black population was reflec ted
in the relatively high percentage of black people in the
a~e category - 25 to 35 years. (Table III). Towns with
over 10, 000 population contained 69. 2 percent of the black
people compared with 29.3 percent of the white people.
Maryland
Appa lachian Maryland includes only three counties and
has a black population of 5,099, 2.4 percent of the total
population. ''While the area has suffered from the decline
of employment in coal mining and railroading, it has been
relatively successful in attracting new fonus of economic
15/
activity to take their place.-,,- Between 1960 and 1970 1
the region's black population increased 35.2 percent com-
pared with an increase of 6.2 percent for the white pop-
ulation. The two cities -- Hagerstown and Cumberland --
with populations over 25,000 contained 52.9 percent of the
15/ State and Regional Development Plans in Appalachia -
- 1968, p. 207.
- 20 -
..
.·
·~
black population compared with 30.8 percent of the white
population.
.... Conclusions
•'
It is difficult to make generalizations for a region as
large and varied a s Appalachia. Perhaps the Appalachian
Regional Commission's socio-economic indicators will provide
a picture of the status of black people in Appalachia during
the 1960' s:
Comb. Ind. Low Inc. Low Educ. Unempl. No. Tl. &W
u. s. 100 100 100 100 100
Appalachi a
Total 141 200 126 135 105
Appalachia
White 137 192 124 132 99
Appalachia
Non-White 212 253 135 164 290
White deprivation in Appalachia was substantially greater
than the U. S. as a whole, but b l ack deprivation was even
greater. Moreover, a larger proportion of black people
migrated out of the region.
Since 1960, legislation intended to narrow the gap
between black and white people and between Appalachia ·and
the Nation as a whole has gone into effect. Tii.e Appalachian
Regional Commission, Equal Employment Opporttmity Cormnission,
Office of Economic Opportunity, and a host of other Federal
and Stat e agencies have been formed to carry out programs
- 21 -
toward this end. Til.e extent to which black people in
Appalachia gain access to these programs will determine
the extent to which they can take advantage of economic
developments as they occur in the region. In terms of
their distribution, particularly in areas of Southern
Appalachia where economic development is occurring, it
would appear that black people in the region are in a
favorable position to make substantial economic gains.
- 22 -
..
· ..
..
T.t\BLE I
BLACK PU PULATION
... .
Alabama
-·
Blsck Po2ulation % Change % of Total Pooulation
County 1960 1970 19 60-70 1960 1970
1. Jefferson 21 9 , 662 206 ,461 - 6 .0 34.6 32.0
2. Tuscaloosa 31,296 28 '9 64 -7.5 28.7 25.0
3. Madison 21, 944 2Q, 517 +30 .0 l C. 7 15.2
4. Talladega 20 '9 58 20,045 -4.3 32.0 30.7
5. Calhoun 17, ~ 2~ 17,432 -2. 8 18 .7 16. 9
6 . Etowah 14, ~ 34 13,3G2 -10 .4 15.4 14. 2
7. Chambers 13,032 12,502 -9.3 36 .7 34.6
8. Elmore 10,2D6 9 ,459 -D.O 33 .7 28 .2
9. Tallapoosa 10,117 9,433 - 6.7 23.9 2 7. 9
10. Colbert C,975 G,53G -4.9 19.3 17 .2
11. Pickens 9 , 7fJ 1 G,419 -13.9 44.7 41.4
12. Morgan 7, 617 7.47 6 -1.9 12.6 9.6
13. Limestone 7,631 7 ,35C -3.6 20.9 17. 6
14. Lauderdale 7 ,271 7,223 -.7 11.l} 10. 6
15. She~by 6 ,072 6 ,444 +6.1 10 . 9 16 . 9
<d 16 . Lawrence 5,463 5 ,230 -4.3 22.3 19 .2
17. Walker 5,583 4, 979 -10. 8 10.3 D.9
UL Randolph 4 , ~ 66 4'137 -16 .7 25.5 22. 6
19. St. Clair 4,265 3,999 - 6 .2 16.8 14. 3
- 1 -
TABLE I
BLACK POPULATION
Alabama
(Continued) .
Blac~ PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
20. Bibb 4,421 3,920 -11.3 30.8 28.4
2J. Coosa 3,882 3,721 -4.1 36.2 34.9
22. Chilton 4,005 3 ,465 -15.2 15.9 13.8
23. Fayette 2,567 2,249 -12.4 15.9 13. 8
24. Clay 2,021 2,173 +7.5 16.3 17.2
25. Jackson 2,237 2,170 -3.0 6.1 5.5
26. Lamar 2,097 2,055 -2.0 14. 7 14.3
2 7. Cherokee 1,679 1,460 -13.0 10.3 9.4 ..
28. Cullman 501 1,337 +166.9 1.1 2.5
29. Franklin 1,231 1,293 +5.0 5.6 5.4
30. Marshall 1,104 l,2C2 +16.1 2.3 2.4
31. DeKalb 320 1,006 +22.7 2.4 2.0
32. Blount 839 764 -8.9 2.8 3.3
33. Marion 720 745 +3.5 3.3 3.1
34. Cleburne · 698 652 - 6.6 6.4 5.9
35. Winston 74 120 +62.2 .s . 7
"' Ci ties
1. Birmin8ham 134,991 126,362 - 6 .4 39. 6 42.0
(Jefferson)
2 . Tuscaloosa 18 ,804 17 ,901 -5.2 29.8 27.0
(Tuscaloosa)
- 2 -
TABLE I
BLACK POPULATION
Alabama ....
(Continued)
~ ·
Black PoEulation io Change % of Total PoEulation
Cities 1960 1970 1960- 70 1960 1970
3 . Bes semer 18 ' 9 72 17,433 - 8 .1 57.4 52.2
(Jefferson)
4. Hunts ville 9 , 9U6 16,729 +67.5 13. 3 12 .1
(Madis on)
5 . Gadsden 12 '314 11,228 -D.3 21.2 20. 8
(Etowah)
6. Anniston 11,409 10 ,C40 -5. 0 33.9 3.4.4
(Cfllhoun)
7 . Florence 4, G7 3 5,101 +4. 7 15.4 14.9
.. (Lauderdale)
8 . Decatur 4,7 62 4 ,945 +3. 3 16.3 12.9
- 3 -
Pennsy lvania
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 19 60 1970 1960-70 19 60 1970 ...
1. Allegheny 133 ,544 144,545 +e.2 8 .2 9.0
..
2. Beaver 11,175 11,585 +3.7 5.4 5.6
3. Erie 7,019 8 ,9 51 +27.5 2. 5 3.4
4. Washington 9, 125 7,662 -16. 0 4 . 2 3.6
5. Fayette 8 ,128 6 , 658 -lC.l 4.8 4.3
6. Westmoreland 7,052 6 , 092 -13. 6 2.0 1.6
7 . Mercer 4,973 5 ,250 +5. 6 3.9 4.1
8. Cambria 3,455 3,454 1. 7 1. 8
9 . Lawrence 2, 024 2 '7 70. -1. 9 2.5 2. 6
10. Luzerne 1,040 1,056 +7 0 .1 0.3 0.5 ..
11. Centr e 623 l, 3G4 +120.4 0. 3 1.4
12. Lycoming l,2(J3 1,305 +8 . 5 1.1 1.2
13 . Crawford 1, 013 1,045 +3 .2 1.3 1.3
14. Huntingdon 946 996 +5.3 2.4 2.5
15. Blair l,09C 9G l -10 . 7 o.c 0.7
16. Lackawanna 703 941 +33.9 0.3 0 .4
17. Armstrong C74 754 -13. 7 1.1 1. 0
UL Union 641 734 +14. 5 2.5 2. 6
19. Monroe 593 616 +3 .9 1. 5 1.4 ...
20. Indiana 452 473 +4 . 6 0. 6 0.6
21. Butler 458 437 -4.6 0.4 0.3
- 4 -
Pennsylvania
(Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PQ:QUlation .. County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
.. 22. Venango 391 393 +0.5 0.6 0.6
23. Greene 354 336 -5.l 0.9 0.9
24. Wayne 3S5 318 -19.5 1.4 1.1
25. Schuylkill 346 309 -10.7 0 . 2 0.2
26. Snyder 155 157 +1.3 0. 6 0.5
27. Clearfield 244 14f.3 -39.3 0.3 0.2
28 . Bedford 169 143 -15.4 0.4 0.3
'
29 . Northumberland 104 140 +3L~. 6 0.1 0.1
30. Columbia 53 112 +111.3 0.1 0.2
.
31. Somerse t 154 112 -27. 3 0 .2 0.1
-· 32. Mif f lin 133 9 3 - 30.1 0.3 0.2
33. Warren 91 73 -19 . 8 0 .2 0.2
34. Tioga 73 71 ·- 2. 7 0.2 0 .2
35 • . Carbon 52 65 +25.0 0 . 1 0.1
36. Bradford 54 64 +lG.5 0.1 0.1
37 . Fu l ton 04 57 - 32 . l 0. 8 0.5
3G. McKean 54 53 -1.9 0.1 0.1
39. Clinton 37 45 +21. 6 0.1 0.1
<I
40. Clarion 40 0.1
41. Susquehanna 66 39 -40. 9 0.2 0.1
42. Wyoming 50 37 -26.0 0.3 0.2
- 5 -
Pennsylvania
(Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970 . .
43. Potter 49 35 -20.4 0.3 0.2 ..
44. Perry 35 0.1
45. Montour ·33 31 -6.1 0.2 0.2
46. Jefferson 46 29 -37.0 0.1 0.1
47. Pike 9 27 +200.0 0.1 0.2
48 . Sullivan 25 15 -40.0 0.4 0.3
49. Cameron 7 14 +100.0 0.1 0.2
so. Elk 37 9 -75.9 0 . 1
51. Juniata 15 7 -53.3 0.1
52. Forest 1
Cities
1. Pittsburgh 100,923 104,904 +3.9 16 .7 20. 2
(Allegheny)
2. Erie 6,645 c ' 57 7 +29.l 4. G 6 .6
(Erie)
' 3 . Wilkinsburg 721 5,315 +63 7. 2 2.4 19.2
(Allegheny
,
14. Al i quippa 5,537 4, 998 - 9.7 21.0 22 .4
(Beaver)
5. McKeesport 3,457 3,935 +13 .9 7. 6 10.4 ~
(Allegheny)
6. Johnston 2,643 2, 688 +l. 7 4.9 6.3
(Cambria)
- 6 -
Pennsylvania
(Cuntinued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulat ion.
Cities 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
7 . ~.Jest Mifflin 1,446 1,550 +7.2 5 .3 5.5
.. (Alle13heny)
8. Sharon 1,111 1,250 +12.5 4 .4 5.5
( ltercer)
9. Williamsport 965 1 , 121 +16.2 2.3 3.0
(Lycoming)
10. Wilkes-Barre 0 2 6 937 +13 . 4 1.3 1. 6
(Luzerne)
11. Sc r anton 658 G54 +27 .G 0.6 o.e
(Lnc l· a wanna)
12. Altoona 763 002 +5 . 1 1.1 1.3
(I3 lair)
.. 13. Hazleton 3 9 +200.0
(Luzerne)
- 7 -
Mississippi
Black Population % Change % of Total Population I
I
County 19 60 1970 1960-70 1960 . 1970 I .
1. Lowndes 17,722 16 ,236 -8.4 38.0 32.7 ..
2 . Marshall 17,250 14 ,091 -13.7 70.4 62.0
3. Monroe 12,019 10,302 -13.6 35 .4 30.5
4. Oktibbeha ll,43C 10;004 -12. 5 43.7 34.8
5 . Lee 10,26S 9,54G -7.0 25.3 20.6
6. Noxubee 12,064 9,3~7 -22.1 71. 7 65. 8
7 . Clay 9, 712 9,306 -4.2 51. 3 49.3
8. Winston 0,275 7 ,l<JD -13. 0 43. 0 39 . 1
9. Chickasaw 6,503 5 ' ~ 76 -9.2 3o .5 35.1
10. Kemper 7 ,206 5,612 -22.l 513 .7 54.8 ..
11. Alcorn 3,337 3 ,196 -4.2 13 . 2 11. B
12. Benton 3,606 3,149 -12. 7 4 6 . 7 42.0
13. Pontotoc 3 ,291 3,097 -5. 9 19 .1 17. 8
14. Union 3,30C 2,944 -11. 0 17.5 15.4
15. Tippah 2,746 2,581 -6.0 10 .2 16.3
16. Choctaw 2 ,51S 2,366 -6.0 29.9 28.0
17. Prentiss 2, l CS 2,353 +7.5 . 12 .2 11. 7
18. Webster 2, 623 2,253 -14.1 24. 8 22.4
·.
19. Itawamba l374 951 +fL £3 5. 8 5. 6
20. Tishomingo 680 663 -2.5 4.9 4 .4
- D -
South Carolina
.. - Black PoQulation % Change % of Total PoQulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
..
1. Greenville 36,710 39,829 +8.5 17.5 16.6
2 . Spartanburg 34 '659 36,450 +5. 2 22.l 21. 0
3. Anderson 19,203 19 '046 -0.8 19. 5 18 .1
4. Cherokee 7,463 7,09 8 -4.9 21 . 2 19 .3
5. Pickens 4 ,602 5 '53 7 +20.3 10.0 9.4
6 . uconee 4,301 4,051 -5.8 10.7 9.9
Ci t ies
.. 1. Greenville 19 ,657 19 '14 5 -2. 6 29 .7 31. 3
(Greenville)
2. Spartanburg 14'1()3 14 ,8 16 +5.1 31.G 33.3
(Spartanburg)
3. Anderson 8,304 7,075 - 14.8 20.1 25 . 7
(Anderson)
...
- 9 -
Tennessee
Black Po:eulation % Change % of Total Po12ulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970 -.
1. Hamilton 47,343 47 ,416 +.2 19.9 18.7 ..
2. Knox 22 '797 23,840 +4 . 6 9.1 8.6
3. Sullivan 2,511 3,235 +28.8 2.2 2.5
4. Washington 2,528 3,081 +21.9 3.9 4.2
5. Blount 2,761 2,737 -.9 4.8 4.3
6. Hamblen 2,051 2,353 +15.0 6.2 6.1
7. Bradley 1,992 2,313 +16.1 5.2 4~6
8. Franklin 2,271 2,149 -5.4 G. 9 7.9
9. McMinn 1,784 2,137 + j 9.8 5 .3 6 .0
10. Anderson 1,981 2'114 +6. 7 3.3 3.5
..
11. Roane 1,604 1,603 4.1 4.1
12. Greene 1,054 1,342 +2 7. 3 2.5 2.8
13. Werren 1,108 1,294 ~16.13 4. 5 4. 8
14. Marion 1,346 1,244 -7 .6 6.4 6.0
15. Coffee 1,001 1,233 +23.2 3.5 3.8
16 . Hawkins 1,035 1,038 +. 3 3.4 3.1
17. Monroe 909 930 +7.C 3.9 4.2
18. Jefferson 924 1310 -12.3 4.3 3.2
.,
19. Cocke 701 784 +11.8 3.0 3.1
20. Putnam 526 74 6 +41.8 1.8 2.1
21. Smith 615 725 +17.9 5.1 5.8
- 10 -
Tennessee
(Continued)
~k PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
.. 22. Carter 415 673 +62.2 1. 0 1.6
23. Rhea 634 643 +1.4 4.0 3.7
24. Loudon 451 564 +2 5.l 1.9 2.3
25. White 420 546 +30.0 2.7 3.2
26. Fentres s 47 6 3. 8
27. Bledsoe 453 452 -.2 5. 8 5.9
28. DeKalb 280 315 +12.5 2.6 2. 8
29. Claiborne 305 2'.19 - 2 .0 1. 6 1. 5
30. M0 rgan 300 2Si 2 -2 . 7 2. 1 2.1
31. Meigs 257 240 - 5.1 s.o 4.6
.. 32 . Campbell 251 226 -10 . 0 0.9 0.9
33. Sevier 194 222 +14.4 o.u 0 .0
34. Cannon 196 212 +8.2 2.3 2.6
35. Grainger 175 192 +9 . 7 1 .4 1.4
36. Grundy 11 160 +1354.5 0.1 1. 5
37. Clay 167 128 -23.4 2.3 1.9
38. Macon 121 12 6 +4.1 1. 0 1. 0
39. Johnson 139 111 -20 .1 1.3 1. 0
.·
40. Cumberland 105 0.5
41. Hancock 100 91 -9.0 1.3 1.4
42. Overton 73 68 +6.8 0.5 0.5
- 11 -
Tennessee
(Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
43. Scott 66 0.4 ..
44. Jackson 36 27 -25.0 0.4 0.3
45. Pickett 4 24 +500.0 0.1 0.6
46. Polk 24 22 -G.3 0.2 0.2
47. Van Buren 29 19 -34 . 5 0.8 0.5
48. Unicoi 7 0.1
49. Sequatchie 4 0.1
50. Union 1
Cities
1. Chattanooga 43,162 42,936 -.5 33.2 36.1
(Hamilton)
2. Knoxville 20 '68 7 22,323 +7. 9 l D. 5 12.7
(Knoxville)
3. Johnson City 2,245 2,502 +11.4 7.2 7.4
(Washington)
4. uak Ridge 1,304 1,569 +20.3 4.8 5.5
(Anderson)
s. Kingsport 1,499 1,491 -.5 5.7 4.7
(Sullivan)
· ..
- ] 2 -
N0 rth Carolina
Black PoQulation % Change % of Total Po~ulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
1. Forsyth 45, 652 4 7 , 825 +4.8 24.1 22.3
• '
2. Buncombe 14,047 15,285 +8.8 10 .s 10.5
3. Rutherford 5,410 5,412 12.0 11.4
4. Burke 3, 689 4 , G09 +30.4 7.0 8 .0
5. Caldwell 3,468 3,6GG +6.3 7.0 6.5
6. Wilkes 2,716 3,397 +25. l 6.0 6.9
7. Surry 2,795 2, 747 -1. 7 5. B 5.3
('I McDowell 1,363 2, 343 +71. 9 5.1 7.6 I) •
9 . Henderson 1, 9 52 2,342 +2 0 .0 5.4 5.5
-. 10. Davie 2, 057 2,225 +3.2 12 . 3 11. 8
11. Stokes 2 ,253 2,190 -2. n 10 .1 9.2
12. Polk 1,424 1,628 +14 . 3 12. 5 13.9
13. Alexander 1,062 1,521 +43 .2 6.8 7.3
14. Transylvania 851 1,350 +58.6 5.2 6. 8
15. Yadkin 1,117 1,250 +11.9 4.9 5.1
16. Haywood 873 1,250 +43. 2 2.2 3.0
17. Macon 233 1,115 +294.0 1.9 7.1
18 . Jackson 337 544 +61 .4 1. 9 2.5
.. ·
19. Cherokee 310 406 +31.0 1.9 2.5
20. Watauga 227 350 +54.2 1.3 1. 5
21. Madison 120 290 +141. 7 0.7 1. 8
- 13 -
Not"" th Carolina
(Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total Po12ulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
22. Alleghany 208 239 +38 .9 2.7 3.6
23. Ashe 197 283 +43. 7 1. 0 1.4
. .
24. Swain 67 257 +2G3.6 0.3 3.3
25. Yancey 140 236 +63 . 6 1.0 1.9
26. Mitchell 41 199 +385.4 0.3 1. 5
2 7. Avery 156 150 -3 . 8 1.3 1.2
28. Graham GB 1.3
29. Clay 49 48 -2.0 0 . 9 0.9
City
1. Winston-Sa l em 41,231 45,533 +10 .4 3 7. l 34.2
(Forsyth)
2. Asheville 11,436 11,271 - 1.4 19 . 0 1.9 . 5
(Buncombe)
....
- 14 -
West Virginia
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
1. Kanawha 14,416 14,347 -.5 5.7 6.3
..
2. McDowell 15, 913 9,373 - 41.1 22.3 18. 5
3. Rn leigh 9,572 [l,073 -14. 6 12. 3 11.5
4. Mercer 7 ,161 5,460 -23.8 10.5 8.6
5. Fayette 7 ,592 5,198 -31. 5 12. 3 10.5
6. Cabell 4,760 4,655 -2.2 4.4 4.4
7. Logan 4,802 2,894 -39 . 7 7 .8 6.3
8. Jefferson 2,874 2 ,859 -.5 15 . 4 13.4
9 . Marion 2,739 2,391 -12.7 4.3 3.9
.. 1 0 . (,:.:.o 2,12J 1, 998 - 5.8 3 .] 3.l
11. Greenbrier 1,894 1 ,718 - 9 . 3 5.5 5.4
12. Mingo 2,066 1, 567 - 24.2 5.2 4.D
13. Berkeley 1,317 1,411 +7.1 3.9 3. S'
14. Hancock 1,505 1,294 -14 .o 3 . 3 3.3
15. Monongalia 1, 112 l,25u +13.l 2 .0 2. 0
16. Harrison 1,323 1,254 -5.2 1.7 1. 7
17 . Wood 626 1,062 +69. 6 0 . 8 1.2
10 • Mineral 670 715 +6. 7 3.0 3 . 1
.,;
19. Summers 1,032 575 -44.3 6.6 4.4
20. Monroe 347 543 +57 .9 3.0 4.9
21. Wyoming 1,288 477 -63.0 3.7 1.6
- 15 -
West Virginia
(Continued)
Black PoEula tion % Change % of Total PoEulaticn
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
22. Boone 345 427 +23.8 1.2 1. 7
23. Grant 232 324 +39.7 2.8 3.8 ..
24. Mason 533 310 -42.4 2.2 1 . 3
25. Brooke 405 292 -27.9 1.4 1.0
26. Wayne 38 290 +663.2 0 .1 0.8
2 7. Randolph 263 250 -1.9 1.0 1.0
28. Preston lOG 256 +137.0 0.4 1.0
29. Marshall 342 226 -33.9 0 . 9 .6
30. Hardy 242 2.4 -11. 6 2.6 2.4
31. Braxton 121 1 GLt. f-52 .1 O.G 1.5
32. 1 inco ln 1G6 .9
33. Taylor 195 150 -23.J 1.3 1.1
34. Hampshire 163 14G ~9.2 1.4 1.3
35. Morgan 125 145 +16.0 1.5 1. 7
36. Barbour 1G5 145 -21.6 1.2 1. 0
3 7. Pendleton 169 141 -16.6 2. l 2.0
3n. Pocahantas 375 135 -64. 0 3.7 1. 5
39. Upshur 73 116 +5G.9 0.4 .6
40. Putnam 23 103 +347 .G 0.1 .4
••
41. Roane 15 102 +530.0 0.1 .7
42. Lewis 98 100 +2 .0 o.s .6
43. Wet;zel G7 .4
- 16 -
West Virginia
(Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
44. Jackson 73 .3
45. Calhoun 7 67 +857.1 0 . 1 1.0
46 . Pleasants 7 65 +828.6 0.1 .9
47. Ritchie 63 .6
48. Tyler 10 49 +390.0 0. 1 .5
49. Nicholas 37 .2
50. Tucker 23 35 +52.2 0. 3 • 5
51. Gi lmer 28 .4
52 . Webster 26 .3
53. Cl ay .]l 24 -66. 2 0 .6 .3
54. Wirt 13 10 - 23 0 ] 0 . 3 . 2
55 . Doddridge 3
Cities
1. Charleston 8 ,236 7,617 -7.5 9.6 10.7
(Kanawha)
2. Huntington 4,766 4,3D3 -8.0 5. 7 5.9
(Cabell & Wayne)
3. Wheeling 1,815 1,790 -1.4 3.4 3.7
(uhio)
.. 4. Fairmont 1,621 1,567 -3 . 3 5.9 6.0
(Marion)
5. Weirton 1,494 1,254 -16.1 5.3 4.6
(Brooke & Hancock)
- 17 -
West Virginia
" (Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
Cities 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
6. Clarksburg l371 915 +5.1 3.1 3.7
(Harrison)
7. Parkersburg 627 n11 +29.3 1.4 1.8
(Wood)
·-·
- U3 - ·
Georgia
Black PoEulati on % Change % o.f Total PoEulation
Counties· 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
1. Floyd 9 ,83 5 9,69 7 -1.9 14.3 13.J
2. Carroll 6,990 7,531 +7.6 19.2 16.6
3. Hal l 5,371 6.015 +12.0 10.8 10.l
4. Polk 4,454 4, 636 +4 .1 15 .9 15.6
5 . Bartow 4,268 4 ,376 +2 .5 15 .1 13.4
6. Gwinnett 3 , 483 3, 696 +6 .1 3.0 5.1
7 . Dougl as 2, 477 3 ,163 ' +27 . 1 14.8 11.0
8. Barrow 2 , 563 2,926 +14 . 2 17.7 17.3
9. Jackson 2,367 2,707 +14.4 12.8 12.8
10. Walker 2,398 2,511 +4. l 5.3 5.0
.. 11. Stephens 2,556 2 ,415 - 5 . 5 13.9 11 . 9
12 . Whitfield 1,394 2,2 10 +16.7 4 . 5 4 . 0
13. Cha ttooga 1,335 2 ,052 +11.8 9 . 2 10 . 0
14. Madison 2 ,091 1,906 -8.8 18. 6 14.i
15 . Franklin 1,526 1,552 +1 .7 11. 5 12 .1
16. Gordon . 1,211 1,402 +15. D 6.3 5.9
17. Paulding 1,205 1,372 +13. 9 9 .2 7 . 8
l D • Cherokee 89 7 1,344 +49. n 3. 9 4.3 ..
19 . Heard 1,226 1,265 +3 .2 23.0 23 . 6
20. Haralson 1 ,192 · 1,220 +2. 3 8.2 7.7
21. Habersham 905 1 ,213 +34.0 5 . 0 5.9
- 19 -
Counties
22. Catoosa
23. Banks
24 . White
25. Pickens
26 . Dade
2 7 . Lumpkin
28 . Forsyth
29. Mur r ay
30. Fannin
31. Rabun
32. Gilmer
33. Dawson
34. Towns
35. Union
1. Rome
(Floyd)
Georgia
(Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoQulation
1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
316 476 +50.6 1.5 1.7
420 453 +5.3 6 .6 6.6
29 3 453 +52.0 4.3 5.9
382 3GG +1.0 4 .3 4.0
133 304 +120.3 1. 6 3.1
130 199 +53 . l 1 .8 2.3
159 .9
03 155 +36 . 7 0 .3 1.2
40 133 +245 .0 0 .3 1. 0
59 121 +105 . 1 0 . t3 1. 5
8 2n +2 50 . 0 . 1 . 3
7'186 7,249 +0 . 9 22. 3 23.6
- 20 -
Q.b.12
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
1. Jefferson 5,356 5,333 -0.4 5.4 5.5
2. Muskingum 3,403 3,292 -3.3 4.3 4.2
3. Ross 3'121 2,970 -4.3 5.1 4.9
4. Belmont 2,096 1,710 -lU.4 2.5 2.1
5. Lawrence 1,774 1,622 -3 .6 3. 2 2.9
6. Scioto 1,684 1,319 -21 . 7 2 . 0 1. 7
7. Athens 1,033 1,230 +19.l 2.2 2.2
8. Gallia 1,227 1, 057 -13.9 4 .7 4.2
9 . Clermont 966 896 -7 . 2 1 1 0.9
10. Tuscarawas 767 733 -3 . 3 1.0 1.0
11. Highland 861 729 -15. 3 2.9 2.5
12. Guernsey 694 700 +o . s l .U 1.9
13. Washington 227 674 -lG .5 1. 6 1.2
14. Harrison 575 516 -10.3 3.2 3.0
15. Brown 523 509 -3.6 2. J 1.9
16. Morgan 497 4138 -1.9 3.9 3.9
17. Coshocton 354 335 -5.4 1.1 1.0
UL Pike 310 287 -7.4 1 . 6 1.5
·; .
19. Meigs 332 223 - 32.9 1. 5 1.1
20. Jackson 234 194 -17.2 0.9 0.7
21. Carroll 312 145 -53.5 1.5 0.7
22. Perry 306 125 -59 .2 1.1 0.5
- 21 -
Ohio
(Continued)
J3lack PoEulation % Change % of Total Po:Eulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 19 70
23. Hocking 161 115 -28.6 0. 8 0.6
24. Adams 5~ 25 -40.7 0.3 0. 1
25. Vinton 20 19 -5.0 0.2 0.2
26 . Holmes 7
2 7. Monroe 6
28. Noble 6
Cities
1. Steubenville 3,639 3,910 +7.4 11 2 12.7
(Jefferson)
2. Zanesville 2 ,852 2,906 f 1.9 7 . 3 8 .8
(Muskingum)
3. Portsmouth 1,614 1, 296 -19. 7 4.n 4.7
(Scioto)
- 22 -
Kentucky
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
1. Madison 2, 578 2,746 16. 5 7.7 6.4
2. Harlan 4,037 2,335 -42.2 7.9 6.2
3 . Clark 1,959 1,965 +0.3 9 .3 8 .2
4 . Pike 546 1,305 +139.0 0.8 2.1
5 . Montgomery 1,305 1,133 -13. 2 9 . 7 7.4
6. Bell 1,272 l ,OG2 - 16 . 5 3. 6 3 .4
7. Lincoln 907 1,056 +16.4 5.5 6.3
5 . Boyd 938 1,017 +8.4 l .U 1.9
9 . Perry 1,048 9132 - 6 . 3 3 . 0 3 . t3
10 . Garrard 006 723 - 13 .4 9 .1 7.6
11. Clay 456 710 +53.B 2.2 3.9
12. Pulaski 619 6Sl +11. 6 1 .... . u 2.0
13. Adair 779 622 -20.2 5 .3 4. 0
14. Letcher 722 619 -14. 3 2.4 2.4
15. Green 607 539 -11 . 2 5.4 5.2
16. Floyd 333 506 +52.0 o.n 1.4
17 . Knox 378 497 +31.5 1 . 5 2.1
UL Monroe 353 443 +2 6.9 3.0 3.8
..
19. Cumberland 477 441 - 7. 5 6.1 6.4
20. Wayne 396 405 +3.0 2.7 2.9
21. Fleming 359 406 +13.1 3.3 3.6
22 . Bath 473 405 -14 .4 5.2 4.4
- 23 -
Kentucky
(Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
23. Clinton 26 402 +14l~ 6 . 2 0.3 4.9
24 . Laurel 249 209 +16. 1 1.0 1.1
25. Whitley 154 257 +66.9 0.6 1.1
26 . Rowan 25 240 +360 .0 0.2 1.4
·2 7. Greenup 146 226 +54.0 0.5 . 7
2C. McCreary 190 1. 6
29 . Ca r ter 20 139 +344.0 0.1 1.0
3 (J . Kno _t 173 17 5 +1.2 1 .0 1.2
31. Casey 42 166 +2Y5.2 0.3 1.3
32. Pu we J. ~ 93 106 +13 .9 1.4 1.4
33. La·;;:-ence 36 100 +177 . U 0 . 3 0 . 9
34 . ~'i. ' Sse ll 143 90 -31.5 1 . 3 0.9
35 . Roe·, cast le 89 0.7
36. HagoJ=fin 88 o.n
37 . Johnson 01 0.0
3G. Gwsley 16 61 +281. 3 0 .3 1.2
39. Mor -:;ar. 11 59 +43 6.4 0.1 0.6
40. Lee 51 57 +11 .n 0 .7 0.9
..
41. Estili. 37 54 +45. 9 0 .3 0 .4
42 . Jack sen 49 0.5
43. Elliott 47 o.n
44. Meni ffee 12 390 +150.0 0.3 0.7
- 24 -
County
45. Breathitt
46. Martin
47. Leslie
48. Wolfe
49. Lewis
City
1. Ashland
Kentucky
(Continued)
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
46 29 -37.0 0.3 0.2
24 0.3
15 0.2
16 0.3
26 16 -38.5 0.2 0.1
813 310 -0.4 2.6 2.8
.. .
- 25 -
Virginia
Coun ties and Black PoEula tion % Cbange % of Total Po12u lat ion
Independent Cities 1~60 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
1. Pulaski 1,79'; 1,804 +0.3 6.6 6.1
2 . Botetourt 1, 521 1 , 52 7 +0 .4 9. 1 B.4
3. Tazewell 2,015 1,337 -33.6 4.5 3.4
4. Covington City 1, 327 1,212 -8.7 12. 0 12.0
5. Bris t c l City 1 ,148 1,079 -6 .0 6. 7 7.3
6. Wy the 944 1 , 011~ +7 .4 4 . 3 4.6
7. Clifton Forge
City 1,037 809 - 14 .3 19 . l 16.2
8. Wise 1,220 860 -29.5 2 .3 2.4
9 • Washington 951 775 -10 . 5 2.5 1.9
..
10. Grayson 678 721 +6 .3 3.9 4.7
11. !lussell 4SS 640 +29.9 1.9 2. 6
12. SmYth 4'J7 6G5 +21.7 1. 6 1. 9
13. Scott 309 5nn uu +90 .3 1.2 2 .4
14. Bath 496 555 +11.9 <j. 3 10.7
15. Floyd 533 4S3 - 7.5 5.1 5.0
'16. Alleehany 473 413 -12. 5 3.9 3.3
17. Gi.le s 447 398 -11.0 2.6 2 .4
UL Lee 154 34G +126 .0 0 .6 1. 7 ..
19. Gr..lax City 341 338 ~0.9 6. 5 5.4
20. Norton City 380 239 -37. 1 7.6 6.0
21. Bland 197 138 -29. 9 3.3 2.5
- 26 -
Virginia
(Continued)
Coun t ies and Black Po2ulation % Change % of· Total PoI?ulation
I ndepencient Cities 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
22. Carroll 69 12G +35.5 0.3 0.6
23. Dickenson 141 110 -21.9 0.7 0.7
24. Buchanan 181 0.3
25. Craig 3 35 +1066.7 0.1 1.0
26. Highland 19 11 -42.1 0 . 6 0.4
- 27 -
New York
Black Po~ulation % Change % of Total PoEulation
County 1960 1970 19 60- 70 1960 1970
1. Chemung 2,566 3,375 +31.5 2.6 3.3
2 . Broome 1,275 2,245 +76.1 0 .6 1.0
3. Tompkins 1,257 l,G51 +42.3 1.9 2.4
4. Chautauqua 1,30£3 1,454 +11.2 0.9 1.0
5. Steuben 7Gl G72 +11. 7 o. n 0.9
6. Cattaraugus 4Cl 52G +8.5 0.6 0.6
7 . Tioga 139 322 +70.4 0 . 5 0.7
8. Ostego 155 2)7 +72.3 0.3 0.5
9. Delaware 174 260 +49.4 0.4 0.6
10. Chenango 216 223 +5. 5 0 . 5 0.5
11. Allegany Gl7 145 +66.7 0.2 0.3
12. Cortland G2 137 +67.1 0 . 2 0.3
13. Schoherie 90 125 +38.9 0. 5 0 . 5
14. Schuyler 105 80 - 23 .0 0 .7 0.5
Cities
1. Elmira 2,465 3,139 +27 .3 5.3 7.9
(Chemung)
2. Binghamton 1 ,215 1,423 +17.1 1.6 2.2
(Broome )
' 3. Ithaca 1,036 1,340 +29.3 3.6 5.1 -.
(Tompkins)
4. James town 794 7Gl -1. 6 1.9 2.0
(Chautauqua)
- 2U -
Maryland
Black PoEulation % Change % of Total PoQulation
County 1960 1970 1960-70 1960 1970
1. Washington 2,554 3,709 +40.4 2.8 3.6
2 • Allegany 1,178 1, 198 +l. 7 1.4 1.4
3. Garrett 40 112 +1eo.o 0.2 0.5
Cities ----
1. Hagerstown 1,686 1,778 +5. 5 4.6 5.0
(Wash ing ton)
2 . Cumberland S69 913 -5.3 2 . 9 3.1
(Allegany)
- 29 -
TABLE II
A22alachian Po2ulation
by State
Region Alabama Pennsylvania Mississifmi
Total PoQ.
1960 17,726,567 l,9G2,2D 6 5,930,784 406,187
1970 18 ,212 '073 2'137 ,212 5,930,303 4U3 ,644
Change +405;506 +154,926 -431 +12,457
% Change +2.7 +7 .13 +3.1
Black PoQ.
19 60 1,331,122 457, 616 200,224 137.630
1970 1,321, 651 433,49 5 211,497 122,103
Change -9,471 -19'121 +11,273 -15,527
% Change -0.7 - 4 . 2 +5.6 -11.3
% of Total Pop.
1960 7.5 23 .1 3 .4 33.9
1970 7.3 20.5 3. 6 29.2
White PoE·
1960 16,382,117 1 , 524,190 5,726, 033 260 , 057
1970 16,G52, 379 1,695 ,440 5,707, 013 1 29 5 ' 704
Change +4 70 ,262 +171,250 -19 '752 +27, 647
% Change +2. 9 +11.2 -0.3 +10.3
% of Total Pop.
1960 92.4 76.9 96. 6 66.0 ..
1970 92.5 79.3 96. 2 70.6
- 30 -
South Carolina Tennessee Ngrth Carolina
Tot al Pop.
1960 586,523 1,607,689 939,740
1970 656,126 1,733,661 1,037,212
Change +69 ,603 +125 ,972 '+97 ,472
% Change +11. 9 +7 .8 +10.4
Bl ack POE·
1960 106,938 103,877 92,864
1970 112,041 109 ,490 103,517
Change +5,103 +5,613 +10,653
% Change +4. 8 +5.4 +11.5
% of Total Pop.
1960 18.2 6.5 9.9
1970 17.1 6.3 10.0
White POE·
19 60 479,322 1,503,402 C42 ,921
1970 543,156 1,621,114 928,803
Change +63, G34 +117 '712 +85 ,882
% Change +13.3 +7. 8 +10.2
% of Total Pop.
1960 81. 7 93.5 89.7
1970 82.0 93.5 89.5
- 31 -
West Virginia Georgia · uhio Kentucky
Total Pop.
19 60 1,860,421 675,024 1,119,555 922,152
1970 1,744,237 013, 596 1,129,350 l3 75,922
Change -116,184 +13D,572 +9 '79 5 -46,230
% Change -6.2 +20.5 +0.9 -5.0
Black Pop.
1960 G9,316 62,634 27,503 22, 734
1970 73,931 6B ,091 25 ,264 23 '7l3 5
Change -15, 305 +5,407 -2 , 239 +l,054
% Change - 17.2 +8 .6 - 0 .l +4.6
i'o of Total Pop.
1960 4 . 2 9 .3 2.5 2.5
1970 4.2 U.4 2 . 2 2.7
White Pop.
1960 1,770 ,147 611, 673 1,091,485 899 ,132
1970 1,667, 248 744 , 504 1,102,055 GSl,009
Change -102, 099 +132,911 +10,570 - 48,123
% Change -5. G +21. 7 +1.0 - 5 . 4
% of Total Pop.
1960 95.6 90.6 97.5 97.5
1970 95.6 91.5 97.6 97.2
- 32 -
Virginia New York Maryland
Total Po2.
1960 500,334 1, 000,064 195, U08
1970 470,094 1,056, 367 209 '349
Change - 30,240 +56,303 +13,541
i'o Change -6.0 +5.6 +6. 9
Black PoE.
1960 17,19G G,7 66 3 , 772
1970 16,44 6 l l ,G89 5,09 9
Chan~e -7 52 +3,123 +1,327
% Chan r,e -4.4 +35. 6 +35.2
% of Total Pop.
19 60 3.4 0.9 1.9
-. 19 70 3 .5 1.1 2.4
Whi te PoE·
1)60 4G3, <;; 6[; ~G9 ,045 19 1, 942
1970 453,2~7 1,039,033 203,nss
Change -30, 671 +49, 93U +11,913
i'o Change -6.3 +5 .1 +6.2
% of Total Pop.
196(., 96 .7 90.9 93 .0
1970 96.4 90 .4 9 7 .4
..
- 33 -
TABLE II A
County PQ2ulation Categories*
by State
County
Population Alabama Mississippi Georgia South Carolina
Over 100,00Q 1 (2) (2)
50,000-99,999 (3) (4) (2)
25,000-49 ,99 9 2 (7) ( 2) (G) 2 (2)
10,000-24, 999 4 (16) 4 (11) (14) 1
5,000--9,9S9 9 (2) 6 (4) 3 (G) 2
2, 500--4, 999 G 5 (2) 7 (3) 1
1,000--2,499 9 3 11
5 00----~99 3 2
100----499 1 10
Under 100 4
*Number of counties in each state with black population in various size
categories given first. Counties with white population in various size
categories placed in parenthesis.
- 34 -
.·.
County Po2ulation· Categories*
by State
County
Po2ulation North Carolina West Virginia Tennessee Kentucky
vver 100,000 (2) ( 2) (3)
50,000-99 ,999 (2) (7) ( 3) (2)
25,000-49 ,999 1 ( 6) ( 13) 1 (13) (7)
10,000-24,999 1 (15) 1 ( 19) 1 (21) (26)
5,000--9,999 1 (4) 4 (13) (7) (12)
2,500--4,999 4 3 (1) 3 (3) 1 (2)
1,000--2,499 10 9 11 -7
500----999 1 3 9 0
u
100----499 9 22 15 16
Under 100 2 13 10 16
*Number of counties in each state wi th black population in various size
categories given first. Counties with white population in various size
categories placed in parenthesis.
- 35 -
County Po2ulation Categories*
by State
Coun ty
Population Ohio New York Virginia Maryland Pennsylvania
Over 100,000 (2) 1 (15)
50,000-99,999 (10) (5) (2) (12)
25,000-4CJ,99 9 ( 6) ( 5) (6) (16)
10,000-24,9~9 (11) (2) (11) (1) 1 (16)
5,000--9,999 1 (1) (4) 5 (2)
2,500--4,9S9 2 1 (5) 1 2 (1)
1,000- -2,499 5 3 1 l 4
500----999 7 2 ....
u 6
100--- -499 (\ 7 10 1 12 u
Under 100 5 1 2 21
* Number of counties in each state with black population in various size
,. categories given first. Counties with white population in various size
categories placed in parenthesis.
- 36 -
:-
·'.
,
Total
203,165,699
TABLE III
AGE DISTRIBUTION ON BLACK POPULATION*
UNITED STATES
Black
22,672,570
1. 17,166,973 - 0 .4% 2 ,454,4G<J - 10 .8%
2. 40,742,591 - 20.1 5,574 , 031 - 24.6
3. 35,441,289 - 17.4 4,249 , 225 - l G. 7
4. 24,908 ,490 - 12. 3 2,700,0313 - 11.9
5. 23,071,631 - 11 . 4 2 , 3913 ,516 - 10.6
6. 23,039, 126 - 11.3 2,113,361 - 9.3
7. 1G,5C2 ,398 - 9 .1 1,612,013 - 7.1
8. 20,049 ,592 - 9 .9 1 , 565,89 1 - 6.9
Key
1 - under 5 years
2 - 5 to 14 years
3 - 15 to 24 years
4 - 25 to 34 years
5 - 35 to 44 years
6 - 45 to 54 years
7 - 55 to 64 years
8 - 65 years and over
* For counties wit h Black population of 1,000 or more.
- 37 -
ALABAMA
Jefferson Tuscaloosa Madison
206,461 28,964 28,517
1. 18, 514 - 9.0% 2,989 - 10.3% 3,584 - 12.6%
2. 49,259 - 23.9 6,789 - 23 . 4 6, 834 - 24.0
3. 38,128 - 18.5 5, 637 - 19 . 5 6,923 - 24.3
4. 18,429 - 8.9 2,939 - 10.1 3, 642 - 12.8
5. 20,399 - 9.9 2,977 - 10 . 3 2 , 341 - 8.2
6. 20,689 - 10.0 2,739 - 9.5 1,984 - 1.0
7. 19, 875 - 9.6 2, 471 - 8.5 1, 549 - 5.4
8. 21,168 - 10.J 2, 423 - 8.4 1 , 660 - 5.8
...
Tall adega Cal hou11 Etowah
20,045 17,432 l J,382
1. 2,503 - 12.5% 1 , 861 - 10. 7% 1, 374 - 10 . 3%
2. 5,587 - 27 .9 4, 429 - 25. 4 3,193 - 23.9
3. 4,045 - 20.2 2, 502 - 20 . 1 2,439 - 18. 2
4. 1,782 - 8.9 1,660 - 9.5 1 ,147 - 8.6
5. 1,749 - 8.7 1, 617 - 9.3 1, 312 - 9.8
6. 1,558 - 7.8 1,643 - 9. 4 1,474 - 11.0
1. 1,423 - 7.1 1,376 - 7. 9 1,265 - 9. 5
8. 1,398 - 1.0 1,344 - 7. 7 1,178 - 8.8
- 38 -
ALABAMA ( Con ' t)
Chi:unbers Elmore Tallapoosa
12, 582 9,459 9,438
1. 1, 544 - 12.3% 1,250 13.3% 1,079 - 11.4~
2. 3,293 - 26.2 2,480 - 26.2 2,375 - 25.2
3. 2,314 - 18.4 1,769 - 18.7 1,740 - 18.4
4. 1,186 - 9.4 953 - 10.1 966 - 10.2
5. l,023 - 8.1 730 - 7.7 895 - 9 .5
6. l, 051 - 8.4 701 - 7 .4 747 - 7.9
7. 1,052 - 8.4 720 - 7.6 771 - 8.2
9, 1,119 - 8.9 848 - 9.0 865 - 9.2
•.. Colbert Pickens Morgan
8,538 0,419 7, 476
1. 945 - 11.1% 079 - 10.7% 81µ - 11.2%
2. 2,120 - 24. 8 2,352 - 27.9 1,834 - 24 .5
3. 1, 544 - 18.1 1,495 - 17.8 1,227 - 16.4 ·
4. 798 - 9. 3 6'13 - O.o 723 - 9.7
5. 763 - 8.9 639 - 7.6 665 - 8.9
6. 821 - 9.6 716 - 8.5 705 - 9;4
7, ·695 - 8.1 685 - 8.1 633 - 8.5
8. 852 - 10.0 962 - 11 .4 848 - 11.)
- 39 -
ALABAMA (Con It)
Limestone Lauderdale Shelby
7,358 7,223 6,444
1. 9 3 3 - 12 • 7% 796 - 11 .0% 778 - 12.1%
2. 1, 944 :- 26.4 1,770 - 24.5 1,736 - 26.9
3. 1, 314 - 17. 9 1,227 - 17.0 1,180 - 18.3
4. 708 - 9.6 709 - 9.8 576 - 8. 9
5. 635 - 8.6 622 - 8.6 539 - 8.4
6. 570 - 7.7 684 - 9.5 485 - 7 .5
1. 514 - 1.0 614 - 8.5 511 - 7.9
8. 700 - 9.5 801 - 11 .1 639 - 9.9
...
Lawrence ~Jalker Randolph
5,230 4, 979 4,137
1. 680 - 13.0 439 fl. 8 h6S - 11.2
2. 1,385 - 26 .5 1 , 302 - 26.1 1,042 - 25.2
3. 1,022 - 19.5 850 - 17 .1 691 - 16.7
4. 251 - 8. 6 342 - 6.9 h59 -
..
11.1
5. 357 - 6.8 385 - 7.7 332 - 8.o
6. 398 - 7.6 459 - 9.2 356 - 8.6
7. . 427 - 8.2 501 - 10.1 349 - 8.4
8. 510 - 9.8 701 - J4 1 443 - 10.7
..
- 40 -
ALABAMA (Con' t)
St. Clair Bibb Coosa
3,999 3,920 3,721
1. 516 12.9% ~-67 - 11. 9% . 470 - 12.6%
2. 1,047 - 26 . 2 1, 134 - 28.9 995 - 26.7
3. 769 - 19.2 718 - 18. 3 677 - 18.2
4. 365 - 9.1 305 - 7.8 347 - 9.3
5. 361 - 9.0 265 - 6.8 367 - 9.9
6. 312 - 7.8 320 - 8.2 277 - 7 .4
1. 313 - 7.8 345 - 8.8 289 - 7.8
8. 316 - 7.9 366 - 9.3 299 - 8.0
-. Chilton Fayette Clay
J,465 2,249 2,173
1. 409 - 11.8% 244 - 10.8% 293 - 13. 5%
2. 915 - 26.4 556 - 24.7 563 - 25.9
3. 627 - 18.1 L~o8 - 18 .1 395 - 18.2
4. 291 - 8.4 196 - 8.7 234 - 10. 8
5. 320 - 9.2 203 - 9.0 191 - 8.8
6. 270 - 7.8 190 - 8.4 165 - 7,6
7. ·270 - 7.8 241 - 10.7 156 - 7.2
8. 363 - 10~ 5 211 - 9.4 176 - 8.1
- 41 -
ALABAMA (Con 1 t)
Jackson Lamar Cherokee
2,170 2,055 1,460
1. 239 - 11.0% 256 - 12. 5% 174 - 11.9%
2. 507 - 23.4 488 - 23.7 342 - 23.4
3. 393 - 18.1 382 - 18.6 298 - 20.4
4. 183 - 8. 4 184 - 9.0 151 - 10.J
5. 209 - 9.6 179 - 8.7 133 - 9.1
6. 210 - 9.7 163 - 7.9 132 - 9.0
7. 211 - 9.7 196 - 9.5 119 - 8.2
8. 218 - 10.0 20 7 - 10.1 111 - 7.6
:.
Cullman Franklin Marshall
1,337 1,293 1,282
1. 338 - 25.3% 138 - 10. 7% 142 - 11 .1%
2. 204 - 15.3 298 - 23.0 287 - 22.4
3. 139 - 10.4 232 - 17.9 242 - 18.9
4. 372 - 27.8 130 - 10.1 125 - 9.8
5. 76 - 5. 7 125 - 9.7 146 - 11.4
6. 57 - 4.3 135 - 10.4 127 - 9.9
7. 63 - 4.7 108 - 8.4 99 - 7. 7
8. 88 6.6 126 - 9.7 110 - 8.6 ~
- 42 -
ALABAMA (Con•t)
DeKalb
1,006
1. 126 - 12.5%
2. 227 - 22.6
3. 185 - 18.4
4. 111 - 11.0
5. 89 - 8.8
6 . 75 - 7.5
7. 94 - 9.3
8. 99 - 9.8
..
- 43 -
PENNSYLVANIA
Allegheny Beaver Erie
144,545 11,585 8,951
·-
1. 13, 560 - 9.4% 1,134 - 9.8% 1,255 - 14.0%
2. 32,607 - 22.6 2,927 - 25.3 2,475 - 27,7
3. 24,291 16.8 2,027 - 17.5 1,694 - 18.9
4. 14, 799 - 10 . 2 1,120 - 9.7 964 - 10.8
5. 16,168 - 11.2 1,302 - 11.2 925 - 10.3
6. 16,140 - 11. 2 1,253 - 10.8 742 - 8.3
7. 12, 770 - 8.8 953 - 8.2 487 - 5.4
8. 14, 210 - 9.8 869 - 7,5 409 - 4.6
Washin~ton Fayette Westmoreland Mercer ..
7,662 6, 658 6,092 5, 250
1. 632 - 8.2% 667 - 10 .0% 560 - 9. 2$, 514 - 9.8%
2. 1,707 - 22.3 1,670 - 25. 1 1,389 - 22.8 1 ,395 - 26.6
3. 1,357 - 17.7 1,150 - 17. 3 1,112 - 18.3 990 - 18.9
4. 656 - 8.6 453 - 6.8 520 - 8.5 492 - 9,4
5. 766 - 10.0 592 - 8.9 61~2 - 10.5 600 - 11.4
6. 857 - 11.2 660 - 9,9 663 - 10.9 524 - 10. 0
7. . 746 - 9,7 609 - 9.1 529 - 8.7 368 - 7.0
8. 951 - 12.4 857 - 12. 9 677 - 11.1 367 - 1.0
- 44 -
PENNSYLVANIA (Continued)
Cambria Lawrence Luzerne
3,454 2,770 1,856
1. 333 - 9.6% 312 - 11.3% 134 - 7. 2%
2. 901 - 26.1 678 - 24. 5 298 - 16.1
). 706 - 20.4 510 - 18. 4 696 - 37.5
4. 270 - 7.8 269 - 9.7 196 - 10.6
5. 334 - 9.7 274 - 9.9 192 - 10.3
6. 341 - 9.9 276 - 10. 0 132 - 7.1
1. 308 - 8.9 208 - 7. 5 91 - 4. 9
8. 261 - 7.6 243 - 8.8 J 17 - 6.3
-- Centre Lycoming Crawford
1,384 1, 305 1 , Ol~5
1. 42 - 3.0% 148 - l l.3-f, 136 - 13 . 0%
2. 46 - 3.3 273 - 20.9 249 - 23.8
3. 932 - 67.3 205 - 15.7 193 - 18.5
4. 218 - 15.8 171 - 13.1 69 - 6.6
5. Bo - 5.8 146 - 11.2 111 ·- 10.6
6. 34 - 2.5 133 - 10. 2 104 - 10.0
7. 15 - 1.1 92 - 7. 0 94 - 9.0
8. 17 - 1.2 137 - 10.5 89 - 8.5
- 45 -
MISSISSIPPI
Lowndes Marshall Monroe
16,236 14, 891 10,382
1. 1,982 - 11.7% 1,691 - 11.4% 1,271 - 12. 2/o
2. 4 , 351 - 26 .8 4, 376 - 29.4 2,776 - 26.7
3. 2,958 - 18.2 3,294 - 22 .1 1,891 - 18.2
4. 1,536 - 9.5 1,169 - 7.9 880 - 8. 5
5. 1,306 - 8.o 1,054 - 7.1 762 - 7.3
6. 1,202 - 7 .4 1,045 - 7.0 818 - 7.9
7. 1,369 - 8.4 954 - 6.4 846 - 8.1
8. 1,532 - 9.4 1, 310 - 8.8 1,138 - 11.0
Oktibbeha Le e Noxubee
10,004 9, 5!~8 9, 397 :-
1. 1,909 - 10.9% 1,028 - l0.8% 1,130 - 12.0%
2. 3,074 - 30.7 2,4 32 - 25. 5 2, 7 34 - 29.1
3. 1,900 - 19.0 1,701 - 17.8 1, 712 . 18.2
4. 890 - 8.9 1,065 - 11. 2 738 - 7.9
5. 774 - 7.7 887 - 9.3 703 - 7.5
6. 684 - 6.8 762 - 8.0 667 - 7.1
7. 762 - 7.6 782 - 8.2 741 - 7.9
8. . 830 - 8.3 891 - 9.3 972 - 10.3
- 46 -
MISSISSIPPI (Contt)
Clay Winston Chickasaw
9,306 7, 198 5,976
1. 1,030 - 11.1% 8132 - 12.3% 757 - 12.7%
2. 2,41+4 - 26.3 1,842 - 25.6 1,570 - 26.3
3. 2, 121 - 22.8 l ,40L~ - 19.5 1,099 - 18.4
4. 732 - 7.9 552 - 7.7 560 - 9.4
5. 714 - 7.7 595 - 8.3 465 - 7.8
6. 735 - 7.9 612 - 8.5 447 - 7.5
7. 676 - 7.3 605 - 8.4 438 - 7.3
8. 854 - 9.2 706 - 9.8 640 - 10.7
•·.
Kemper Alcon. Benton
5,612 3,196 3, 149
1. 703 - 12.5% 33.3 - 10.4~ Ji/5 - 12.5%
2. 1,487 - 26.5 757 - 23 . 7 1,063 - 33 .8
3. 1, 092 - 19.5 582 - 18.2 539 - 17.1
4. 412 - 7.3 285 - 8.9 226 - 7.2
5. 428 - 7.6 267 - 8.4 251 8.o
6. 387 - 6.9 283 - 8.9 213 - 6.8
7. 481 - 8.6 309 - 9.7 213 - 6. 8
8. 622 - 11.1 380 - 11.9 249 - 7.9
- 47 -
MISSISSIPPI (Con 1 t)
Pontotoc Union Tippah
3,097 2,944 2,581
1. 354 - 11.4% 384 - 13.0% 274 - 10.6~
2. 807 - 26.1 667 - 22.7 680 - 26.3
3. 628 - 20.3 539 - 18.3 458 - 17.7
4. 249 - 8.o 284 - 9.6· 226 - 8.8
5. 239 - 7.7 211 - 7.2 225 - 8.7
6. 247 - 8.o 243 - 8.3 197 - 7.6
7. 278 - .9 .0 283 - 9.6 251 - 9.7
8. 295 - 9. 5 3.33 - 11.3 270 - 10.5
.. .
Choctaw Prentiss Web ster
2,366 2, 353 2,253
1. 301 - 12. 7% 312 - 1J.J% 2;, ( 11 . 4%
2. 664 - 28.1 621 - 26.4 621 - 27.6
3. 443 - 18.7 h43 - 18.8 401 - 17. 8
4. 196 - 8.3 234 - 9.9 180 - 8.o
5. 170 - 7.2 208 - 8.8 ·195 - 8.7
6. 143 - 6.0 166 - 7.1 182 - 8.1
7. 222 - 9.4 177 - 7.5 204 - 9.1
8. 227 - 9.6 192 - 8,2 2l3 - 9.5
- 48 -
SOU'rH CAROLINA
Greenville Spartanburg Anderson
39 , 829 36,480 19,046
1 • 4,525 - 11 .4% 4,224 - 11.6% 2,227 - 11.7%
2. 9,728 - 24.4 8,961 - 24.6 4,622 - 24.3
3. 7, 562 - 19.0 6,955 - 19.1 3, 568 - 18.7
4. 4,878 - 12.2 4,207 - 11.5 2,201 - 11.6
5. 3,990 - 10.0 3,490 - 9.6 1,773 - 9.3
6. 3,666 - 9.2 3, 371 - 9.2 1,787 - 9.4
7. 2, 915 - 7.3 2,721 - 7. 5 1,433 - 7.5
8. 2,565 - 6.4 2,551 - 7.0 1, 435 - 7.5
.·.
Cherokee Picken s Oconee
7,098 5,537 4, 051
1. 849 - 12.0% 579 - l0 .5% 440 - 10 .9%
2. 1,835 - 25.9 1,328 - 24.0 943 - 23 . 3
3. 1,453 - 20.5 966 - 17.4 718 - 17 . 7
4. 711 - 10.0 627 - 11.3 496 - 12.2
5. 622 - 8.8 578 - 10.4 352 - 8.7
6. . 579 - 8.2 507 - 9.2 407 - 10.0
7. 510 - 7.2 472 - 8.5 339 - 8.4
8. 539 - 7.6 480 - 8 .. 7 356 - 8.8
- 49 -
TENNESSEE
Hamil ton Knox Sullivan
47 ,1µ6 23,840 3,235
1. 4,946 - l0.5% 2,253 - 9.5% 540 - 16.7%
2. 10,787 - 22.1 5,151 - 21 . 6 533 - 16.5
3. 8,389 - 1 7. 7 4,836 - 20.3 614 - 19.0
4. 5,037 - 10.6 2, 195 - 9.2 549 - 17.0
5. 4,810 - 10.1 2,142 - 9.0 245 - 7.6
6. 4, 747 - 10. 0 2,557 - 10.7 294 - 9.1
7. 4,306 - 9.1 2,312 - 9.7 208 - 6.4
8. 4,404 - 9.3 2, 394 - 10. 0 252 - 7.8
:-
Washingt on Blount IJ ronlsn Bradley
3,081 2, 7 37 2 , :)38 2, 313
1. 282 - 9.2% 249 - 9.1% 236 - 10.0% 270 - 11 . 7%
2. 7.6 - 23.2 535 - 19.5 41+6 - 18.9 526 - 22.7
3. 563 - 18.3 512 - 18. 7 555 - 23. 5 418 - 18.1
4. 270 - 8.8 238 - 8.7 2)8 - 10.9 269 - 11.6
5. 276 - 9.0 257 - 9.4 227 - 9.6 232 - 10.0
6. 315 - 10.2 336 - 12.3 207 - 8.8 199 - 8.6
7. 257 - 8.3 302 - 11.0 210 - 8. 9 190 - 8. 2
8. 402 - 13.0 308 - 11.3 219 - 9.3 209 9.0
-50-
1rENNESSEE (Con•t)
Franklin McMinn Anderson Ro ane
•. 2,149 2,J 37 2,114 1,603
1. 242 - 11.3% 200 - 9.4% 220 - 10.4% 174 - 10.9%
2. 504 - 23.5 531 - 24.8 503 - 23.8 379 - 23.6
3. 424 - 19.7 355 - 16 . 6 454 - 21 . 5 279 - 17 .4
4. 227 - 10.6 223 - 10.4 220 - 10.4 148 - 9.2
5. 210 - 9 . 8 223 - 10.4 231 - 10. 9 139 - 8.7
6. 168 - 7.8 211 - 9. 9 222 - 10.5 167 - 10.4
7. 181 - 8. 4 168 - 7. 9 153 - 7.2 163 - 10.2
8. 193 - 9. 0 226 - 10.6 111 - 5. 3 154 - .9.6
.·. Greene Warren Marion Coffee
1,342 1 , 294 1 ,244 1,233
1. 124 - 9 . 2'/o 152 - 11.7% 113 - 9 . 1% 140 - 11 .4%
2. 31 9 - 23 .8 317 - 2L~. 5 310 - 24. 9 274 - 22.2
3. 254 - 18.9 202 - 15. 6 192 - 15. 4 · 255 - 20 . 7
4. 146 - 10. 9 163 - 12. 6 121 - 9 . 7 135 - 10.9
5. ' 112 - 8.3 116 - 9.0 110 - 8.8 ·129 - 10 .5
6. 127 - 9.5 102 - 7.9 151 - 12 . 1 101 - 8.2
1. 120 - 8.9 112 - 8.7 119 - 9 . 6 98 - 7.9
8. 140 - 10.4 130 - 10.0 128 - 10. 3 101 - 8.2
- 51 -
TENNESSEE (Con•t)
Hawkins
1,038
1. 110 - 10.6%
2. 246 - 23.7
3. 183 - 17.6
4. 103 - 9.9
5. 90 - 8.7
6. 89 - 8.6
7. 100 - 9.6
8. 117 - 11.3
...
-52-
NORTH CAROLINA
Forsyth Buncombe Rutherford
47,825 15,285 5,412
1. 4,635 - 9.7% J ' 621 - 10.6% 603 - 11.1%
2. 11,107 - 23.0 2,960 - 19.4 1,407 - 26.0
3. 9,324 - 19. 5 2,562 - 16.8 989 - 18.3
4. 5,306 - 11.1 1,663 - 10.9 435 - 9.0
5. 4,907 - 10.3 1,474 - 9. 6 489 - 9.0
6. 4,524 - 9.5 1,689 - 11.1 505 - 9.3
7. 4,162 - 8.7 1,484 - 9.7 461 - 8.5
8. 3,950 - 8.3 1,832 - 11.9 473 - 8.7
•..
Burke Cal dwell Wilkes
4 ,809 3 ,698 3 , 397
1. 453 - 9.4% 456 - 12 .4% 575 - 16 .9%
2. 1,09 5 - 22.8 G71 - 23.6 623 - 18.3
3. 887 18. 4 722 19 . 6 498 - 14.7
4. 546 - 11.4 402 - 10.9 6 54 - 19. 3
5. 5~6 - 10.7 37 5 - 10.2 279 - 8 .2
6. 479 - 10.0 363 - 9. G 294 - G.7
7. 414 8.6 267 7.2 226 6.7
8. 419 8.7 232 6.3 248 7.3
- 53 -
NORTH CAROLINA (Con't)
Surry McDowell Henderson
2,747 2,343 2,342
..
1. 262 - . 9. 5% 235 - 10.0% 215 9.2%
2. 662 - 24.0 563 - 24.0 537 - 22.9
3. 518 - 18. 9 427 - 18. 2 416 - 17.8
4. 278 - 10.1 251 - 10.7 241 - 10.3
5. 275 - 10.0 223 - 9.5 224 - 9.6
6. 297 - 10. 8 237 - 10.l 229 - 9.8
7 . 221 - 8.0 198 - 8.5 220 - 9.4
8. 234 - 8 .5 209 - 8.9 260 - 11.1
...
Davie Stokes Polk
2,225 2,190 1,628
1. 247 - 11.1% 23 6 - 10.8% 161 - 9 .9%
2. 524 - 23. 6 526 - 24.0 365 - 22.4
3. 369 - 16.6 441 - 20.1 323 - 19.8
4. 253 - 11.4 275 - 12. 6 139 - 8 .5
5. 232 - 10.4 253 - 11. 6 159 - 9.8
6. 221 - 9 .9 189 - 8.6 153 - 9.4
7. 175 - 7.9 122 - 5. 6 149 - 9.2
8. 204 - 9.2 148 - 6 . 8 179 - 11.0
- 54 -
NuRTH CARULINA (Con't)
Alexande r Transylvania Yadkin
1,521 1,350 1,250
1. 163 - 10 . 7% 150 - 11.1% 126 - 10.1%
2. 345 - 22.7 204 - 21.0 2913 - 23.8
3. 331 - 21. 8 40[3 - 30 . 2 266 - 21.3
4. 191 - 12.6 123 - 9 .1 129 - 10.3
5. 148 - 9.7 100 - 7 .1~ 131 - 10 .5
6. 139 - 9 .1 111 - 3 .2 112 - 9.0
7 . 104 - 6 . 8 97 - 7.2 101 - 8.1
8. 100 - 6.6 77 - 5.7 87 - 7.0
...
Haywood
1,250
1. 107 - n .6%
2. 266 - 21. 3
3. 205 - 16.4
4. 130 - 10.4
5. 142 - 11.4
6. 135 - 10. 8
7. 127 - 10.2
8. 138 - 11.0
- 55 -
WEST VIRGIN IA
Kanawha McDowell Raleigh
14,347 9,373 8,078
1. 1,432 - 10.0% 744 - 7 .9% 930 - 11.5%
2. 2,874 - 20.0 2,316 - 24.7 1,628 - 20 . 2
3. 2,877 - 20.1 1,701 - 18.1 1, 19 3 - 14.8
4. 1,474 - 10.3 423 - 4.5 773 - 9.6
5. 1,145 - 8.0 761 - 8.1 572 - 7.1
6. 1,413 - 9.8 1,112 - 11.9 772 - 9.6
7. 1,407 - 9 .G 1,117 - 11.9 944 - 11.7
8. 1,725 - 12 .0 1,199 - 12.8 1,266 - 15.7
...
Mercer Fayette Cabell Logan
5,460 5' 198 4,655 2,894
1. 408 - 7.5% 443 - G.5% 364 - 7 .8% 205 - 7.1%
2. 1,098 - 20.1 1,341 - 25.8 995 - 21.4 705 - 24·.4
3. 988 - 18.l 905 - 17 .4 7G8 - 16.Y 476 - 16.4
4. 340 - 6 .2 2313 - 4. 6 420 - 9.0 122 - 4.2
5 . 421 - 7.7 366 - 7 .0 444 - 9.5 228 - 7.9
6. 606 - 11.1 500 - 9 . 6 507 - 10.9 301 - 10.4
7. 714 - 13.1 641 - 12.3 506 - 10.9 344 - 11.9
;
8. 885 - 16.2 764 - 14.7 631 - 13.6 513 - 17.7
- 56 -
WEST VIRGINIA (Con' t)
J efferson Marion Ohio Greenbrier
2 ,859 2 ,391 1,998 1, 718
1. 326 - ll.4io 234 - 9.8% 195 - 9 . 8io 165 - 9.6%
2 . 747 - 26.1 485 - 20.3 454 - 22.7 410 - 23.9
3. 479 - 16. 8 380 - 15.9 361 - 18.1 250 - 14. 6
4. 273 - 9.5 134 - 7.7 171 - 8. 6 149 - 8 .7
5. 253 - 8.8 156 - 6. 5 186 - 9.3 173 - 10.1
6 . 272 - 9. 5 220 - 9 .2 U39 - 9.5 195 - 11.4
7. 229 - G.O 273 - 11.4 196 - 9.8 163 - 9 .5
8 • 280 - 9.8 459 - 19. 2 246 - 12.3 213 - 12.4
. ·.
Mingo Berkeley Hancock Monongalia
1,567 1,411 1,294 l,25G
1. 130 - 5 .3% 130 - 9. 2% 100 - 7.7% 97 - 7 .7%
2. 350 - 22.3 285 - 20.2 329 - 25 .4 218 - 17.3
3. 255 - 16.3 204 - 14. 5 221 - 17.1 346 - 27.5
4. 78 - 5.0 12 6 - 8 . 9 131 - 10.1 115 - 9.1
5. 130 - 8 .3 149 - 10.6 137 - 10. 6 116 - 9 .2
6 . 146' - 9 .3 175 - 12.4 156 - 12 . 1 107 - n .5
7. 188 - 12 . ·O 138 - 9.8 112 - 8 .7 87 - 6.9
8. 300 - 19 .1 204 - 14.5 108 - 8.3 172 - 13.7
- 57 -
WEST VIRGINIA (Con' t)
Harrison Wood
1,254 1,062
1. 98 - 7.8% 106 10.0%
2. 246 - 19. 6 238 - 22.4
3. 218 - 17.4 202 - 19.0
4. 114 - 9.1 104 - 9. 8
5. 97 - 7.7 129 - 12.l
6. 144 - 11. 5 77 - 7. 3
7. 136 - lo .e 54 - 5.1
8. 201 - 16.0 152 - 14 . 3
...
- 58 -
GEORGIA
Floyd Carroll Hall
9 ,697 7 ,531 6,015
1. 98 5 - 10 .2% 1,102 - 14. 6% 716 - 11.9%
2. 2, 331 - 24.0 1,980 - 26 .3 1, 618 - 26.9
3 . 1,740 - 17.9 1 ,449 - 19 .2 1 , 164 - 19.4
4. 989 - 10.2 955 - 12 .7 69 5 - 11.6
5. 958 - 9.9 617 - 8. 2 608 - 10.1
6 . 931 - 9. 6 535 - 7.1 496 - 8 .2
7. 901 - 9 .3 479 - 6 .4 352 - 5.9
8. 862 - 8 . 9 414 - 5.5 366 - 6 .1
.·.
Polk Bartow Gwinnett
4,636 4,3 76 3 ' 696
1. 558 - 12. 0% 503 - 1L5% 408 - 11.0%
2. 1,171 - 2!) .3 1,053 - 24 . 1 965 - 26 .1
3 . 788 - 17 . 0 C07 - 10 .4 736 - 19. 9
4. 401 - 8 .6 511 - 11. 7 4 56 - 12.3
5 . 475 - 10.2 447 - 10. 2 367 - 9 .9
6. 440 - 9.5 388 - S.9 312 - 8. 4
7. 449 - 9 .7 315 - 7.2 239 - 6.5
8 . 354 - 7 . 6 352 - 8. 0 213 - 5.8
- 59 -
GEORGIA (Con' t)
Douglas Barrow Jackson
3,163 2,926 2,707
1. 379 - 12.0% 335 - 11.4% 287 - 10.6%
2. 812 - 25.7 762 - 26.0 692 - 25.6
3. 572 - 18 .1 572 - 19 .5 510 - 18 .3
4. 391 - 12 .4 369 - 12.6 331 - 12.2
5. 309 - 9 . B 258 - U.8 272 - 10.0
6. 249 - 7.9 223 - 7.6 226 - 8.3
7. 221 - 7.0 206 - 7.0 205 - 7.6
8. 230 - 7.3 201 - 6. 9 184 - 6.8
...
Walker Stephens Whitfield
2,511 2 ,415 2,210
1. 256 - 10.2% 244 - 10.1% 209 - 9 .5%
2 . 604 - 24.1 563 - 23.3 516 - 23.3
3. 481 - 19 .2 473 - 19.6 413 - lB. 7
4. 256 - 10.2 251 - 10.4 250 - 11.3
5. 264 - 10.5 223 - 9.2 253 - 11.4
6. 243 - 9.7 2GO - 11.6 236 - 10.7
7. 206 - 8.2 195 - 8.1 175 - 7.9
8. 201 - 8.0 186 - 7.7 158 - 7.1
- 60 -
GEORGIA (Con 1 t)
Chattooga Madison Frank lin
2,052 1,906 1,552
1. 258 - 12 .6% 232 - 12.2% 195 - 12. 6%
2. 47 6 - 23 . 2 512 - 26.9 409 - 26.4
3. 392 - 19 .1 3C6 - 20.3 307 - 19 . 8
4. 247 - 12.0 234 - 12.3 174 - 11.2
s. 156 - 9.1 136 - 7. 1 131 - 8. 4
6. 178 8.7 102 9.5 144 9.3
7. 159 - 7.7 121 - 6.3 105 - 6.8
8. 156 - 7. 6 103 - 5.4 37 - 5.6
...
Gordon Pau lding Cherokee
1,402 1,372 1 ,344
1. 186 - 13 .3% 171 - 12 .5% 153 - 11.4%
2 . 317 22. 6 358 26 .1 323 24.0
3. 263 - 19 .1 292 - 21.3 255 - 19. 0
4. 135 - 9.6 152 - 11.1 159 - 11. 5
5. 134 - 9.6 118 - 8.6 127 - 9.4
6. 120 8.6 107 7. D 96 7. 1
7 . 119 - 8.5 86 - 6 .3 107 - n.o
~ ~
... 8. 123 - 8.8 88 - 6. 4 124 - 9.2
- 61 -
GEORGIA (Con' t)
Heard Haralson
1,265 1,220
1. 154 - 12. 2'7o 163 - 13 . 4%
2. 397 - 31.4 296 - 24 . 3
3 . 238 - 18 .8 241 - 19 . 3
4. 143 - 11 . 3 115 - 9. 4
5. 94 - 7.4 122 - 10.0
6. 89 - 7.0 108 - 8.9
7. 72 - 5.7 [32 - 6.7
8. 78 - 6.2 93 - 7 . 6
,
- 62 -
CJHIO
Jefferson Muskingum Ross Belmont
5,333 3,292 2,970 1,710
l. 516 9 .7% 370 11.2% 208 7.0% 145 8 .5%
2. 1,259 - 23. 6 838 - 25.5 565 - 19.0 373 - 21.8
3. 928 - 17.4 597 - 113 .1 392 - 13.2 283 - 16.8
4. 535 - 10.0 316 - 9.6 323 - 11. 0 131 - 7 .7
5. 5Cl - 10.9 239 - n n 453 - 15.3 157 - 9.2 u.u
6. 525 - 9 .8 318 - 9.7 438 - 14.7 192 - 11.2
7. 458 - 3 . 6 279 - 8 .5 292 - 9.8 165 - 9 .6
8 . 531 - 10. 0 225 - 8.7 294 - 9.9 259 - 15.1
Lawrence Scioto At hens Gallia
.·. 1,622 1,319 1,230 1,057
1. 117 7. 2% 120 9.1% 96 7 " !. • () 0 54 5.1%
2. 355 - 21.9 325 - 24.6 12D - 10.4 20U - l G. 9
3. 279 - 17.2 197 - 14. 9 600 - 48. D 139 - 17. 9
4. 160 - 9.9 91 - 6 . 9 116 - 9.4 128 - 12.2
s. 164 - 10.1 136 - 10. 3 70 - 5 . 7 108 - 10.2
6. 209 - 12.9 142 - 10. 8 64 - 5.2 109 - 10.3
7 . 146 - 9.0 123 - 9.7 69 - 5 . 6 112 - 10.6
8. 192 - 11.8 180 - 13.6 U7 - 7.1 157 - 14.9
- 63 -
KENTUCKY
'Madison Harlan Clark
2,746 2,335 1,965
1. 188 - 6.8% 172 - 7 .4% 187 - 9.5%
2. 52 6 - 19.2 517 - 22.l 417 - 21.2
3 . 765 - 27. 9 444 - 19. 0 289 - 14.7
4. 199 - 7.2 116 - 4.9 217 - 11.0
5 . 235 - n.G 147 - G.3 132 - 9.3
6. 250 - 9 .1 249 - 10 .7 221 - 11.2
7 . 247 - 9 .0 343 - 14.7 180 - 9.2
8. 336 - 12. 2 347 - 14. Y 272 - 13.8
Montgomery Bell Li ncol n Boyd -··
1,133 1,062 1 , 0.)1) 1,017
1. 99 - 8 . 7% 9G - 9 . 2% 93 - [, . 8% f1 2 - 8.1%
2. 26G - 23.5 263 - 24 . 8 259 - 24.5 219 - 21.5
3. 196 - 17.3 145 - 13. 7 144 - 13. (l 191 - 15 . 3
4. 109 - 9.6 13 G - 0.1 93 - 8.8 77 - 7. 6
5. 91 - 8.0 77 - 7.3 94 - l3. 9 110 - 10.8
6. 127 - 11.2 117 - 11.0 119 - 11.3 111 - 10.9
7. 106 - 9.4 124 - 11.7 101 - 9 .6 95 - 9.3
8. 139 12.3 152 14.3 153 14.S 132 13.0
- 64 -
VIRGINIA
Pulaski Botetourt Tazewell
1,504 1,527 1,337
1. 164 - 9.1% 144 - 9 .4% 107 - 8.0%
2. 398 - 22.l 355 - 23.2 261 - 19. 5
3. 331 - 18 . 3 307 - 20.1 233 - 1'7.4
4. 173 - 9.6 114 - 7.5 103 - 7.7
5. 201 - 11.1 l J O - G.5 106 - 7.9
6 . 201 - 11. l 176 - 11. 5 144 - 10.8
7. 164 - 9 .1 121 - 7.9 172 - 12.9
8 . 172 - 9.5 130 - 11. D 207 - 15.5
•..
Covingt on City Br i s to l City Wythe
1,212 1,079 1,014
1. 122 10 • lio 90 D.3% 31 [). 0%
2. 232 - 19 .1 212 - 19 . 6 236 - 23. 3
3. 210 - 17.3 194 - 13 . 0 167 - ] 6 . 5
4. 105 - 'J • 7 n n u u - 5 .2 nn - 8 .7
)
\
s. 109 - 9.0 90 - 0 .3 99 - 9. 8
6. un - 14.9 124 - 11.5 103 - 10 .2
i .
7. 111 - 9.2 127 - 11. D 102 - 10.1
8. 142 - 11. 7 154 - 14.3 138 - 13.6
- 65 -
NEW YORK
Chemung Broome Tompkins
3,375 2,245 1,851
1. 307 - 9. 1'70 293 - 13.3% 202 - 10.9%
2. 750 - 22.2 469 - 20.9 329 - 17.8
3. 1,041 - 30 .8 531 - 23.7 481 - 26.0
4. 377 - 11.2 346 - 15.4 283 - 15.3
5. 316 - 9.4 213 - 9.5 172 - 9.3
6. 258 - 7.6 lt.~5 - 6.5 125 - 6.8
7. 178 - 5.3 127 - 5.7 123 - 6.6
8. 148 - 4.4 116 - 5.2 136 - 7.3
:-
Chautauga
1,454
1. 223 - 15 . 3%
2. 324 - 22.3
3. 241 - 16.6
4. 172 - 11. 8
5. 153 - 10.5
6. 153 - 10.5
7. 103 - 7.1
8. 85 - 5.8
- 66 -
MARYLAND
Washington Allegany
3,789 1,198
1. 328 - 8 . 7% 100 - 8 .3%
2. 548 - 14.S 226 - l D.9
3. 1, 599 - 42.2 271 - 22.6
4. 444 - 11. 7 113 - 9.3
5. 246 - 6.5 103 - 9.0
6. 212 - 5.6 143 - 11.9
7. 202 - 5.3 90 - 7.5
n. 210 - 5.5 142 - 11.9
•'·
- 67 -
TABLE IV
White-Nonwhite Socio-economic
Indicators -- Appalachia
Four indicators from the 1960 census have been used by the
Appalachian Regional Commission to measure the extent of poverty
in Appalachia:
1. Low Income -- percentage of families with incomes under
$3,000 per year
2. Low Education -- percentage of persons who have not com-
pleted high school.
3. Unemployment -- percen t a ge of persons unemployed.
4. Family Stability -- percentage of families wi. th only one
parent at home.
These indicators have been combined into a fifth indicator.
In reading these indicators , use the U. S. aver<18e as an in-
dex of 100 . Any ranking below 100 is better than the U. S. avera[;e;
any ranking above is worse. For example, a ranking of 150 means
that that county is 150 per cent worse than the Nation as a whole
for a particular indicator. A ranking of 300 means tha t . the county
is three times worse.
Rankings for only those counties with a black population of
more than 1,000 in 1960 have been used in Table IV. For each cc:mnty . '
the upper figure is the black ranking and the lower figure is the
white ranking.
- 60 -
Alabama
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. W.
Jefferson 198.4 238.0 140.G 206 .1 20[3.8
82.l 71.0 92.1 84.1 81.2
Tuscaloosa 217.2 305.3 149. 6 161.1 252.8
93.3 117.0 99.5 73.2 133.6
Madison 198 .8 308 .0 143.3 149 .1 194.4
82.l 94.4 G 7 .G G3.3 63.0
Talladega 226.6 322.7 149.3 214.3 220.2
105.1 131. 9 113.3 92. 9 82.l
Calhoun 212.0 257. 4 144.3 20C .4 237.S
103. 9 119 .4 111.4 102.0 G2.8
Etowah 232. 9 2 56 .1 151.4 299. l 225.0
125.2 132. 9 115 .G 170.9 GO. 9
Chambers 211.2 36[i . G 157 .9 ·•n n 229.5 c u OIL'
93. 5 94 .G 119 . 3 75. 0 85 .1
.,
' Elmore 234.7 396. 5 i se, o lG l .1 203.4
102.9 150 . 5 115 . 2 61. 5 84.4
Tallapoosa 207.0 361 . 6 154 . 5 99. 6 212.2
100. 6 132.4 119. 0 67.6 33.3
Pickens 213 . 7 412 .3 156 . 5 66 . [l 219 . 5
112.9 178 . 9 119 .l 61.9 91. 7
Colbert 19 6 . 7 266.2 144 . 7 167.7 210 .1
102.3 12L~. 6 106 . G 103. C 74.2
Limestone 210.9 393.4 150 . G 108. 2 183.4
122.3 200.G 122.6 us. 3 GO. 7
Morgan 232.l 339 .0 151. 3 192.4 245.6
100.8 147.8 109.2 74.8 71.5
Lauderdale 212.l 311.4 150.4 150.1 236.5
109 . 9 148.9 109.8 104.S 76.3
- 69 -
ALABAfli\ (Conti nued)
No
Comb . Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. w.
Shelby 202.l 332.9 152.5 127.0 195 .8
113 . 7 16G .l 126 .1 104.8 75.9
Walker 223.0 347.5 149.8 166.7 229.l
142 .3 192.5 133.6 155.3 89.9 ·-
Lawrence 212.3 400.2 157.4 91. 6 199 .8
149~. l 244.2 135.3 139.4 77.7
Randolph 196.4 359. 7 156.0 C2.7 137. 0
121. 5 213 .4 131.0 41. 5 95.1
Bibb 211.3 396 . 6 158.2 100 .6 1G9 .9
137.6 20G . 1 136.4 110.S 95.0
St. Clair 204.5 312.4 158. 7 132. 7 164.1
129. 7 lC0.7 13 5. 9 116. 4 35.8
Chilton 20G.S 346.4 152.7 103.8 231.1
lJG. 7 231.1 135 . 7 ) 11. 9 75.9
Coosa 189. 7 359 .o 156. 6 l UO .l 142.5 ,_
123.7 1.9 3. 3 124 .4 £3 7.2 09 .9
Fayette 179.3 380.9 14 3 . '} !+4 .2 148.3
144. 6 23~J. 1 132.3 111.1 96. 3
Jackson 196. 7 314. 9 155.6 110 .4 197. u
146.6 246.2 139.4 115.6 05.4
Lamar 191.4 306 . G 155.l 55.0 169.0
134.8 222.9 137.6 96 . 9 n i. 7
Clay 219 .1 3S 3 .4 153.5 99 .• 0 230.7
137.7 234.1 134.n 93 . 3 U8.7
Cheroke·e 210. 7 315.0 147.i 203.7 177.2
136.9 222.5 133 .G 107 .5 83. 8
Franklin 240. 8 344.6 15.S .L 217. 9 244.7
144.1 234.9 133.8 123.2 84.7
Marshall 154.0 326.4 142.5 19 . 5 127.7
126.9 207.3 129 . 0 92.8 78.6
- 70 -
Pennsylvania
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. W.
Allegheny 199 .3 169 .2 127.1 290 .2 210. C
92 . C . 55.8 95. 5 114.5 105.2
Beaver 174.6 llG.6 135. 3 259 .1 187. 3
92.9 52.n 104.3 134. 8 79. 6
Washington 207.6 205.9 134 .9 303.3 106.1
110.2 C6.l 110.4 149.5 94.6
Fayette 261. 9 251.5 135.3 422.3 237. D
162.6 145. 9 117.3 266. 2 120. 5
Westmoreland 240 .4 213. 9 134. 7 409 .l 203.9
113. 8 G0.5 103.l 179.l 92.4
·Er ie 243. 6 179. 5 135.9 462. 5 196. 5
105.0 71. 8 S5 . 4 lGO. l 92.7
Mercer 205.3 139 .5 122. 7 3GC. 6 190 . 2
90 . 0 70 .5 94. 0 109 . 6 85.3
. •.
Cambria 1C2. 7 l DS.S 145 . 5 1G3 .4 212.3
130 . S 111. 7 1 l , ,.,
105.3 114. 8 ..l ..L. .J... • t_I
Lawrence U37. 3 139.G 123.7 338 .9 146 .9
102. 0 72.7 105.2 137.5 92.7
Lycoming 229 .0 20G.6 115. 6 366 .G 225.1
102 .5 G 7. 9 100. 9 124 .4 97 .0
Blair 202.G 21G . G 127 .2 204.9 260. 2
103.0 97.7 106 . G l OC .5 99 .l
Luzerne 150.0 201.1 115 .9 61.3 221.0
144. 7 115.5 109 . 13 204.3 149.1
Crawford 19 0.2 167.7 120 .9 300.6 171. 6
106.3 99.4 96.3 139.0 90.3
- 71 -
Miss issippi
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. w.
Lowndes 228. 4 3 7'J . 2 157.0 142. 7 235.0
33.5 112.3 84.4 63.1 74.4
Marshall 191. C 3~4.4 157.9 62.7 152.5
119 .9 lG 1. 2 lOU.7 75.6 114.0
Noxubee 227 . 1 433. 6 162.5 112.4 200.0
99.9 149 .9 8 5. 9 76.6 87 .4
M0 nroe 240.1 3~8. 0 157.4 235.4 2011. 5
115.l 170.2 llG.3 33 .1 90. 6
Oktibbeha 225.3 3~ 3. [J 153 . 5 127. 6 226.4
96. 7 )63.7 74.0 UG.5 60.6
Lee 190 . 5 304. 3 152.2 G5. 9 190.6
111. 5 l'J3.l 105. e 103.3 73.2
, ' •
Clay 211.9 392.5 154 .G 74 .0 225.7
94.9 126.0 S2. 9 72 . 9 87. 9
,.
Winston 221.4 404. 6 i s 0 . s· 130. G 191.8
124. 3 207.1 117.5 9 7 .4 75.1
Kemper 206.5 425.2 160.1 56.4 1G4. 5
122.5 263 .3 105.1 49.7 71. 9
Chickasaw 221.1 411. 9 151.2 130.2 191. 3
130. G 204.4 114.2 103.7 101.0
Benton 207.3 423.5 166.6 lOG. 7 130 . 6
154.1 287.1 129 .2 84.1 115.9
Alcorn 226 . 13 393.5 154 .1 159.9 199 . 8
143.0 235.0 124.6 117.5 94.3
Union 214 .1 392.7 160 . 7 14 7 .4 155.7
138.3 264.4 127 .4 85.9 75.7
Pontotoc 213.9 426 .4 160.0 110.9 158.4
156.1 293.3 126.5 110.1 93.8
- 72 -
..
'
4
;
Tippah
Webster
Choctaw
·Prentiss ·
Ggmb. Ind.
186.2
141. l
187.8
138.3
215 .8
149 .2
217.l
148.6
Mi ssissippi '(Continued)
Low lnCS!!@ Low §dug.
392.7 158 .3
274.9 119.0
430.3 160.7
233.0 118.7
436.3 1.53~5
285.8· 120.S ·
418.8 165.2
276.7 127.0
- 73 -
No
yPsmploz • ..
49.S
93.J
H.W1 . .... ':
144.4
77.2
..
....... ,• .
' ..
.. " .
'. .
. · .
10.6 149 .s ..
33 . 9 76.7 . . · ....
..
63.3 ' 204.9 . ":.
98.7. · 91.9 ~ . :)\
99.3
104 ... 8
. . .
• I
UIS.1
85.9
' . . .
.. .
" ,
"
. ~ -
'. '
' .
'· ..... ...
f . . ..
. . ~·
. '
South Carolina
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. W.
Greenville 189 .3 297. 4 14n.3 78. 8 232.5
02.0 94.0 99.9 53.2 134.1
Spartanburg 203.3 322.2 152.l 117.0 241.8
100.3 113. 6 115.3 79. 4 92.7
Anderson 189.3 343 .4 154.4 63.3 196. 3
97. l 116.5 119 .9 5G.4 93.7
Cherokee 223.5 370.1 157.0 116.1 250. 7
126.6 147. G 127.G 117.7 113.1
Pickens 172 .1 300. C 149.0 5G . 0 180.8
93.5 117 .2 119 .4 62. 3 7 5.2
Oconee 184.4 31G .9 151.9 67.5 199. 3
117.5 165.7 130.0 71. 3 103.1
,.
- 74 -
Tennes s ee
No
Comb. Ind . Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. w.
Hamilton 195 . 0 ~47.2 147.7 145.l 240.1
92 .3 9 3 .4 99.4 78 . 9 97,5
Knox 198 .2 ·263 . 5 127 . 9 136 .2 265 . 3
104 .3 115. 2 102 . 6 102.6 96. 8
Dlount 183.7 222 . 7 1 3L~. 2 190 . 1 ll37.7
114. 6 143.6 113.8 120 . 0 Gl. l
~fa shington 203 . e 202 . 3 142 . 9 7S.l 311.0
131. 6 1'5 5.2 116.1 127.6 1J 7. 7
Sul livan l G 7 . 9 256 . 6 127. 0 116.n 251.3
104 . 4 124 .6 112. 5 91.0 89 .4
Frank lin 177 . 7 322. 0 14~. 9 03.U 163.2
128 .7 196 . 2 122 . 7 106 . 0 90.2
Hamblen 203. 1 262.'J 115 .G 179 . 6 254.2
120 .4 162. 5 122. G 9 7 . 3 99.l ,,
Ander son 150 . 0 19U. 5 143 . 3 111. 0 179.l
98 .2 114 .3 91.4 111. 2 76 .0
Bradley 214. 3 317 . 5 139. 9 157. 3 242.2
123.G 158 .2 127.9 111. 7 97 .4
McMinn 219 .n 33 U. 6 15G. 4 161.4 229 .0
133 . 6 202.7 128. 9 105.2 97 .4
Roane 200 .3 2GG .7 144 . 1 urn . 5 202.1
123 .4 ll~ 5. 0 124. 9 14 5 , l, 93 . 2
Marion 235. G 292 .8 140 . 1 237 .2 265. 0
155. 7 200 . 9 137.7 180 . 9 103. 2
Warren 189 . 3 377 . 6 147 . 0 45 . 3 18 7 .6
136 .5 234 .5 120 . 0 91.2 91.5
Hawl i ns 192.4 329. 2 147 . : 74.1 219 . 0
144.2 236 . 9 136 .4 100. 0 103 . 5
- 75 -
Tennessee (Continued)
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income - Low Educ. Unemploy. H. W.
Greene 202. 3 321.0 142.1 103.6 242.3
154.5 223.0 129. 6 171.2 94.1
Coffee 222.4 289.7 148.0 104. 7 267.0
115.5 165 . 7 113.4 103.0 80.0
'•
- 76 -
ll0 rtli Carolina
llo
Comb. Ind. Low In< ome Low Educ. Unemploy. H. H.
Forsyth 199 . 7 209.9 136.9 167.5 206.4
6G.5 64.0 92.3 41.2 76.7
Buncombe 196 .0 231.7 136.4 103.0 263.0
9S.5 126.3 96 .8 73.9 96.8
Rutherford 214.4 350.5 148.3 127.6 231.1
113.9 159.6 121. 6 G4 .3 90.1
Burke 172.0 2Cl.G 145.0 73.9 190 .9
loo.n 126.2 124.9 60.8 91.2
Caldwell 1D2 .6 242.C 129. 6 130.3 227.9
107.0 140.7 . 26.G 76.5 84.0
Surry 156.9 264. D 144.9 G3 .0 154.C
llC. 5 173.6 125. 3 i8 .l 92.0
Wilkes lfJ4.2 342.7 145.7 SQ .5 1G9. 0
135.4 217.7 132.3 90 .2 101. 6
Stokes 177.3 2< 1.0 ltd. 0 GO .O 206.5
121.2 213.2 134.G 73.3 63.6
Davie 175 . G 243.5 14 5. l3 167.6 146 .2
101.4 135.2 125 .4 75.3 69. 5
Henderson 206.3 339.0 150.8 01 .5 254.0
107.2 153. 6 104 .U 69. 5 95. 9
Jackson 257.1 311.0 141.9 388.7 1D7. 0
148.5 227.7 122.0 139.5 104.6
Swain 203.2 319 .1 134.G 190.4 163.S
153.S 268 .8 134.9 114. G 95. 6
Polk 193.0 385 .5 145.7 36 .5 204.1
123.l UJO.l 110.6 93.4 lOG.2
• •
McDowell 167.7 300.9 141.3 68.6 160.0
128.2 159.7 128. 3 146.5 78.4
- 77 -
North Carolina (Continued)
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. ~-
Yadkin 162.5 255.5 146 . 2 126.5 121.7
111.0 179 . 3 129. 6 59.6 75.7
Alexander 168 .·7 284 .6 143.5 101.3 145.3
115. 4 1 72 .3 133.3 64.4 91. 8
, .
. .
78
West Virginia
llo
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ . Unemploy. H. W.
McDowel l 192 .2 224. 9 136.6 248 .5 158.8
157 .7 185.4 136 .1 203.4 105.9
Kanawha 163.0 203.9 115.6 130.1 197 .2
103.0 94.9 101. 5 119 . 8 95. 7
Raleigh 261.4 2D7.5 140.7 412.6 204.9
166.7 173 .9 122.G 259 . 6 110.3
Fayette 262.l 256 . 5 143.7 443. 4 204.7
167.1 1~ 3. 7 132.2 232.5 120.0
Mercer 212 . 2 257 . 7 122.G 234 .7 233. 8
144. 3 163.4 115.3 177.9 120.8
Cal ell 177. 2 227.6 llG.6 114 .9 247.7
112 .7 103 .7 103.6 129. 7 108.9
Logan 1C6.4 220 .2 146.4 93 . 9 185.3
155.9 147.2 135.5 • 29. 2 111.8
Jefferson 212.6 253.9 141.0 210.G 244. n
117.7 139.3 115.5 115.3 100.6
Marion 172.G 209. l 142. 4 172. 3 166.7
115.0 114.6 107.2 130.3 107.G
Ohio 206.1 256 .1 132.0 212 .5 223. 8
116. 3 91.G 103.6 140.6 129.8
Mingo 255.2 292. 7 137.9 372.0 2U3 .2
1~2 .3 211.4 135.9 254.8 127 .1
Greenbrier 222. 8 326.9 136.3 172.3 255.7
149.4 197. 9 119.0 157.1 123.6
Hancock 132.9 100.9 113.(J 99 .9 211.9
72. 6 43.1 J.10.3 59.9 76.9
Harrison 216.6 273.1 117 .0 108.2 288.0
124.4 122.0 105.6 165.9 104.0
- 79 -
West Virginia (Continued)
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. W.
Ferkeley 227. 5 263.fl 134.4 273.0 230.9
124. 7 117.0 118.6 159 .1 104.l
Wyoming 206.1 229.l 141.5 233.3 220.l
132.4 154.6 136.8 163.0 74.9
Monongalia 193.4 255.2 131.G 171.5 215.1
129.5 135.7 106.9 173.6 101.8
Sunmers 300.0 322.5 146.6 454 .3 276.2
187.0 250.8 130.8 246.2 120.0
- no -
Georgia
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unem2lo:z:. H. W •
...
Floyd 204.9 2G0 .3 151.1 146.2 241.9
105.4 114.7 116.3 99.4 91.3
Carroll 189. 7 320.3 153.7 83.7 196. 3
116.8 158 .1 130.2 93.4 85.4
Hall 219. 7 203.U 153.l lUl.4 260.5
110.7 149.2 122.7 D0 .7 90.1
Polk 104.9 2GS . 3 152.l 105. 3 193. 5
126.3 160.0 131.4 110. 9 95.0
Bartow 206.2 2G9.4 155.9 l Gl.9 197 .5
122 .o 160.2 134.5 109 .3 84.1
Gwinnett 206.9 293. 4 153. 1 122 .0 249.l
100.2 131.3 127.2 71 .3 71.0
Stephens 235.7 352 .G 152.2 22fL 5 209. 5
113.7 159 . G 115.7 1U2.l 9 7. 3
Barrow 192.4 355.0 155.l 54.1 205.3
113.3 169.3 129.2 51.G 103.l
Douglas 203.2 300.6 156.7 163.2 212.4
110.9 135.2 137.2 111.9 59. 3
Walker 162.6 253. 9 152.9 33.5 210.3
103.7 126.2 125.9 06.2 . 76. 3
Jackson 184.3 345.7 160.9 71 .4 159. 0
122.6 179.9 134.4 70.5 105.7
Madison 226.3 335.3 157.6 134.7 227.4
127.6 237.2 130.3 32.4 110.4
Whitfield 136.7 270.7 144.0 47.1 234.9
113.5 130.9 127 . 7 104.5 90.7
Chattooga 172.5 308 .8 150.1 37.7 193.4
120.0 156.2 131.1 102.9 89.9
- 81 -
Georgia (Continued)
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. W. ..
Franklin 229.5 371.6 153.l 202.6 190. 7
150.3 227. C 141.5 117.8 114.3
Heard 185 .8 375.6 159. 6 0.0 207 .9
137.1 242.2 133.0 72.5 100.3
Gordon 226.9 349.0 152. 7 238 .8 167.3
127.3 196.1 132.5 82 .0 98.7
Haralson 211.5 323.6 156.1 73.7 293.4
125.9 171.1 131.7 96.1 104.7
Paulding 146.8 274.2 136.4 74.8 101.6
121.0 156.0 142.0 110.5 75.6
1 .
- 82 -
Ohio
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy . H. W.
Jefferson 166.5 153.5 133 .9 197.6 181.l
96 .2 71.0 106.3 120.1 86 .9
Muskingt.nn 187 .4 135.3 13G.8 204. 2 140.G
109.3 95. 6 104.6 143.6 95. 5
Ro ss 159.4 144. 3 138 .9 213.2 141.3
108.4 111 .9 109 .3 123.n nn .4
Belmont 133.4 210.2 126 . 2 243.0 154.3
132.9 112.6 112.2 201.4 105.2
Lawrence 200.7 170.9 122.7 292 .9 216.2
124.6 121.1 116.6 161.4 99.2
Scioto 252.4 227.9 134.0 389 .4 235.4
136. 9 131. 6 119 .0 H3 6.9 110.3
•\ Gallia 137 .4 230.4 139.4 ~ 69 .9 209.7
139 .1 166 . 7 121.3 _63 .4 104.9
Athens 169 .o 219 .1 120.8 192. 5 143. 6
122. 7 154.0 100.1 133. 7 103.l
Clennont 170.3 165.5 129 .4 264.8 126.6
80.l 66.3 108.8 91.6 53.5
- 83 -
Kentucky
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ . Unernploy. H. W.
Harlan 27G.3 2G0.9 143.7 458.3 225.0
175.G 225.G 137.9 215.7 123. 6
Madison 195.0 361. 3 145.G 6G.9 203.9
124.4 199. 7 115.7 n5.2 97.0
Clark 211.0 280 .G 13G.G 1C4.2 240.3
115.2 152.8 116.4 104.1 37 .4
Montgomery 243.2 325.3 130 .3 229.l 207 .9
122.7 210.C 127.0 59 .G 93.2
Bell 241.9 317. G 140.0 247 .n 262.3
191.3 274.0 139.n 213. 4 135.0
Perry 173.3 379 .4 144.8 124. 0 64.9
174.9 251.8 142.3 &.08. 9 96. 7
,.
- 84 -
Virgin i a
No
Comb. Ind . Low Income Low Educ . Unemploy. H. W.
Tazewell 259 .0 312 . 3 140.3 362.9 220.7
155.0 1C7.3 131 .7 195. 5 105.0
Pulaski 228 . 5 290 . 5 145.4 226 . 9 251.1
128.6 151.0 121. 2 131.4 110 . 3
Botetourt 207 . 6 304.4 145.4 145.l 235.6
116. 5 157.9 119.G 95.6 92 . 7
Covington 145.4 13C.9 140.4 139.G 162.5
City 93 . 6 69. 3 lOG.3 90 9 106 . 0
Wise 199.4 326.1 148.2 194.1 129 .l
161.1 206.4 142.6 187.6 107.6
Bristol 131 . 9 322.9 126.3 51.9 226.6
City 112 .7 135.l 110.5 97.2 108 .l
Clifton 165.6 211.D 125.9 154.3 167.6
Forge City 37.3 95.8 tHL7 33.4 131.5
• •
- 85 -
New York
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. W.
Chemung 159 .4 155.0 132.C 140.9 206.7
95 .9 63.7 96. 6 121.3 97.1
Tompkins 111. 9 108.1 93.3 72.6 173.3
71.5 65 .9 72.5 65.5 132.2
Cattaraugus 233.5 195. 9 138.2 353 .1 241.3
98.6 84.B 102 . 3 110.7 90.6
Broome 131.7 9G.5 126.9 163.5 133.1
79.7 52. 3 93 .1 77.2 91.1
Chautauqua 198.13 171.7 12C.6 .jJ4. 6 160.5
97 .4 79.0 104 . 7 120.7 85.2
. (
- 86 -
Maryland
No
Comb. Ind. Low Income Low Educ. Unemploy. H. W.
Washington 204.7 254.5 12e.n 196.3 239 .4
118 .4 96.G 115.5 162.2 99.0
Allegany 245.2 252.l 123.9 290 . 5 309.5
115.8 106.7 112.9 129.l 114.8
; .
- 37 -
TABLE V
Overall Unemployment Rate
Alabama
County 1962 1967
1. Jefferson 6. 7% 4.2%
2. Tuscaloosa 4.5 3.6
3. Madison
4. Talladega 8.1 4.5
5. Calhoun 7. [j 3.8
6. Etowah 10.4 4.8
7. Chambers 4.6 2.4
8. Elmore 9 . 7 6.0
1 .
9. Tallapoosa 5.1 2.9
10. Colbert 5.9 6.0
11. Pickens 8.3 4.4
12. Morgan 5.9 5.0
13. Limestone 3.9 3.6
14. Lauderdale
15. Shelby
16. Lawrence 6.5 12.2
17. Walker . :.
18. Randolph 6.7 4.7
19. St. Clair 14.3 8.0
- 80 -
Alabama
(Continued)
County 1962 1967
20 . Bibb 9.3% 7 .2%
21. Coosa 7.0 6.3
22. Chilton 12.l 7.0
23. Fayette 7.6 5.4
24. Clay 6.1 4 . 3
25. Jackson n .1 4 .9
26. Lamar 4.1 3.1
2 7. Cherokee 10.9 7.3
23. Cullman 13.0 6.6
29. Franklin 12.6 G. 6
30. Marshall 0. 8 5.2
31. DeKalb 9.0 5.7
32. Blount 9.3 5.1
33. Marion s. n 3.0
34. Cleburne 10.8 4.7
35. Winston 8.8 5.1
> .
- 89 -
Pennsylvania
County 1962 1967
1. Allegheny 9.4% 3.1%
2. Beaver
3. Erie 7.9 3.5
4. Washington
5. Fayette 17.9 7.6
6. Westmoreland
7. Mercer G.l 3.8
8 . Cambria 15.l 5.5
9. Lawrence 10.0 4 . 6
10. Luzerne 10 . 0 4.5 '·
11. Centre 5.5 2.4
12. Lycoming 6 . 2 3.4
13. Crawford 9.5 4.5
14. Huntingdon 10.5 5.0
15. Blair 10.7 7.6
16. Lackawanna 11.2 4.3
17. Annstrong 12.8 5.6
UL Union
19. Monroe 4 . 1 1.7
20. Indiana 11.3 4.7
21. Butler D.4 3.7
- 90 -
Pennsylvania
(Continued)
County 1962 1967
22. Venan go
23. Greene 9.8 4.1
24. W...1.yne
25. Schuykill 11.9 5.4
26. Snyder
27. Clearfield 14.5 6.5
28. Bedford 14.6 6.9
29. Northumberland
JO. Colmnbi a 10.7 3.8
31. Somerset
·' 32. Mifflin
33. Warren 5.6 2.8
34. Tioga 7. 8 4.0
35. Carbon 7.5 5.4
36. Bradford 8.o 3.5
37. Fulton 10.0 4.5
38. McKean 7.7 4. 7
39. Clinton lJ.l . 7 .1
40. Clarion 9. 4 4.6
41- Susque he.nn a 11 .0 4.8
;. . 42. Wyoming 12.5 5.6
43. Potter 7.7 7.5
44. Perry 11.6 5.6
- 91 -
Pennsylvani a
(Continued)
County 1962 1967
45. Montour 7.9% 4.6%
46. Jefferson 9.4 5.4
47. Pike 6. It- 2.8
48. Sullivan 9.1 4.5
49. Cameron 10.0 4.9
50. Elk 8.2 5.1
51. Juniata 8.8 3. 7
52. Forest 8.2 3.5
'·
p
. '
- 92 -
Mississippi
Cou,nty 1962 1967
1. Lowndes 5.6% 2.8%
2. Marshall 12. 5 2.8
3. Monroe 9.0 3.3
4. Oktibbeha 7 .1 6.2
5. Le e 7.1 3.8
6. Noxubee 8 . 5 L~. 3
7. Clay 5.9 3.7
8. Winston 15.2 4.2
9. Chickasaw 9.4 3.6
10. Kemper 25.1 10.8
·' 11. Alcorn 13.0 6.8
12. Benton 5.9 5.2
13 . Pontotoc lJ.2 11.5
14. Union 8.2 3 . 6
15. Tippah 13.8 6.7
16. Choctaw 12.4 5.8
17. Prentiss 9.0 6.2
18. Webster 8.8 6.J
19. Itawamba 11 .3 3.2
20. Tishomingo 1 0.1 7.2
~ .
- 93 -
South Oarolina
County 1962 1967
1. Greenville 4.3% 3.5%
2. Spart an burg 5.3 3.7
3. Henderson 3.1 3.4
4. Cherokee 5.5 6.4
5. Pickens
6. Oconee 317 3.3
'·
. . ,
- 94 -
Tennessee
Cow1ty 1962 1967
1. Hamil ton 7 .1% 2.8%
2. Knox
J. Sullivan 4.0 2.9
4. Washington 7.1 5.1
5. Blount
6. Hamblen 2.5 3.3
7. Bradley 5.3 3. 3
8. Franklin 4.1 7.0
9. McMinn 7.8 5.8
10. Anderson 5.5 3.0
11. Roane 7.8 5.4
12. Greene 9.8 9.4
lJ. Warren 6.o 3.7
14. Marion 12.8 5.4
15. Coffee 7.6 5.1
16. Hawkins 10.6 7.7
17. Monroe 11 .4 6.0
18. Jefferson 2.9 3.2
19. Cooke 11.4 7.3
20. Putnam 5.4 4. 7
21 . Smith 7.3 4. 7
~ .
22. Garter 14. 0 10.4
23. Rhea 11.1 7.4
- 95 -
County
24. Loudon
25. White
26. Fentress
27 . Bledsoe
28. DeKalb
29. Claiborne
30. Morgen
31. Me igs
32. Campbell
33. Sevier
34. Cann on
35. Grainger
36. Grundy
37. Clay
38. Macon
39. Johnson
40. Cumberland
41. Hancock
42 .• Overton
43. Scott
44. Pickett
45. Jackson
Tennessee
(Continued)
1962
7.6%
11.1
6.3
11.1
4. 8
6.4
13. 0
10. 0
18.4
10.5
5.9
7 .4
7 .4
9.5
6.5
12.5
11. 7
11 .8
6.3
15.8 ·
5.9
7.1
- 96 -
1967
3.7%
..
8.3
6.1
6.0
4. 9
4.1
7.2
9.4
9.8
6.0
' ·
5.1
6.3
6. 9
2.2
8.3
8.7
6.0
6. 0
4. 2
9.2 ~
2.5
5.1
County
46. Polk
47. VanBuren
48. Unicoi
49. ·sequatchie
50. Union
Tennessee
(Continued)
1962
-- %
7.1
9.5
10.0
7.7
- 97 -
1967
-- %
9.2
6.8
4.1
10.2
North Carolina
County 1962 1967
1. Forsyth 4.3% 2.8%
2. ) Buncombe 5.6 3. 2
3. Rutherford 6.4 4.0
4. BLU•ke 5 .4 2.4
5. Caldwell 4.8 3.1
6. Wilkes 6.2 5. 4
7. Surry 7.3 5. 3
8. McDowell 6.8 3.8
9. Henderson 5.3 3.5
10. Davie 4.4 2.5
11. stokes 7. 5 5. 6
. .
12. Polk 7.2 5.2 ~
.
13. Alexander 5.3 4. 1
14. Transylvania 5.2 3.7
15. Yadkin 4. 7 3.2
16. Haywood 4.8 3.1
17. Macon l0.3 4. 9
18. Jackson 7.6 5.1 .
19. Cherokee 19.2 8.6
20. Watauga 6.6 4. 7
21. Md.di eon 10. 0 9.2
22. Alleghany 4.6 2.8
23. Ashe 6.7 8.6
- 98 -
North Carolina
(Continued)
County 1962 1967
24. Swain 16.0% 8.4%
25. Yancey 9.9 5.6
26. Mitchell 17.4 7.6
27. Avery 10.4 4 .1
28. Graham 24.6 11. 6
29 . Cley 15. 7 10.1
·'
- 99 -
West Virginia
County 1962 1967
1. Kanawha 7.6% 4.5%
2. McDowell 20.6 10.2
3. Raleigh 16.9 7.9
4. Mercer 13.6 6.o
5. Fayette 22.5 11.1
6. Cabell 12.9 5.2
7. Logan
8. Jefferson
9. Marion 11.3 4.5
10. Ohio
' ·
11. Greenbrier 16.9 10.2 . .
12. Mingo 22 . 7 13.8
lJ. Berkeley 10. 0 5.7
14. Hancock
15. Monongalia 11.7 4.1
16, Harrison
1 7. Wood
18. Mineral 8.9 4.0
19 •. Summers 12.8 8.6
20. Monroe
21. Wyoming 9.4 5,3
22. Boone 19.9 11.1
- 100 -
Connty
23. Grant
24. Mason
25. Brooke
26. Wayne
27. RJ.n dolph
28. Pr e ston
29. Marshall
30. Hardy
31. Braxton
. •. 32 • Lincoln
33. Taylor
34. Hampshi re
35. Morgan
36. Barbour
37. Pendleton
38. Pocahantas
39. Upshur
40. Putnam
41 · Ro an e
. . 42. Lewis
43. Wetzel
44. Jackson
West Virginia
(Continued)
1962
10.7'/,
14.5
8. 2
15. 6
11.)
12.9
10 .7
16. 6
16.5
9 o0
13.0
10. 6
18. 1
12. )
13.4
8 •. 6
11.6
7~1
1).1
5.8
- 101 -
1967
8.otf,
10.)
3.5
8. 9
7. 8
5 . 9
11.6
l J . 9
1008
8.1
3.0
5.3
11+. 0
8.7
1.3
I+. 3
9 .I+
7.1
8.3
5.0
Coun t y:
45. Calhoun
46. Pl e a sants
47. Ri tchie
48. Tyle r
49. Nicholas
50. Tucker
51. Gilmer
52. Webster
53. Clay
54. Wirt
55. Doddridge
West Virginia
(continued)
1962
16. 9'%
6.4
8.4
7 .4
14.5
10.1
12.5
18.2
22.6
7.8
11.0
- 102 -
1967
13.4%
3.4
7.6
4. 9
6.5
5.2
9.3
17.5
15. J
4. 0 ..
5.1 .
Georgia
County 1962 1967
1. Floyd 5.6~ 6.~
2. Carroll 8.8 4.4
3. Hall 5.4 2.9
4. Polk 7.3 5.3
5. Barton 7.0 5.o
6. Gwinnett 7.8 5.2
7. Douglas 11.6 8. 6
8. Barrow 4. 7 3 .4
9. Jackson 5.5 4.2
10. Walker 15.5 4.9
11. Stephens 8.2 4.5
·'
12. Whitfield 8.2 4.6
. 13 • Chattooga 6.9 3.6
14. Madison 10 .0 5.4
15. Franklin 5.9 5.2
16. Gordon 8.8 5.2
17. Paulding 9.7 9.4
18. Cherokee 6.1 3.4
19. Heard 13.2 4.2
20 •. Haralson 3.8 2.1
21. Habersham 5.1 2.9
;,
22. Catoosa 6.2 3.1
23. Banks 1 ).6 5.3
- 103 -
. Georgia
(Continued)
County 1962 1967
24. White 10.1~ 6.7'/,
25. Pickens 9.2 4.9
26. Dade 33.8 6.6
27. Lumpkin 11.7 5.3
28. Forsyth 10.0 5.9
29. Murray 12.4 7.6
30. Fannin 16.0 10.4
31. R:ibrm 9.3 6. 4
32. Gilmer () 13 , . 5.1
33. Dawson 11 . J 5. 0
34. Towns 15.J 12.9 ~.
35. Union 13.2 6.7 . .
- 104 -
Ohio
County 1962 1967
1. Jefferson 4.4% 4.5%
2. Muskingun1 7.2 5.8
3. Ross 5.8 3.3
4. Belmont 10.1 5.0
5. Lawrence 9.0 8.8
6. Scioto 10.J 1.0
7. Athens 5.8 2.9
Bo Gallia 9.1 5.9
9. Clermont 14.6 10.2
10. Tuscarawas 4 .9 ) • 7
. ' 11. Highland 5.8 d.8
\. 12. Guernsey 5. j 4. 7
13. Washington 7.8 '3. 9
14. Harri son 4.3 2.9
15. Brown 8.8 6.4
16. Morgan 4 .2 J.O
17. Coshocton 6.3 4.0
18. Pike 6.7 6.4 ·
19. Meigs 14.5 9. 3
20. Jackson l J. 6 5.6
\
21. Carroll 11.5 8.J
22. Perry 1.2 7.9
23. Hocking 11 .5 6.9
- 105 -
Ohio
(Continued)
Countz 1962 1967
24. Adams 14.1~ 7.7~
25 . Vinton 8.J J.9
26. Holmes 4.1 2.8
27. Monroe 4.5 3.4
28. Noble 9.5 5.3
,J
- 106 -
Kentucky
County 1962 1967
1. Madison 8.9~ 5.6%
2. Harlan lJ.O 10.0
3. Clark 6.o 2.5
4. Pike 15 .3 9.2
5. Montgomery 7 .4 3.1
6. Bell 16.1 16.1
7. Lincoln 14.6 11.3
8. Boyd 5.4 3.4
9. Perry 16.2 12.4
10. Garrard 8.5 4.5
. ' 11 • Clay 16.6 13. 0
12 • Pulaski 9. 4 5.0
...
lJ . Adair 5.8 5.0
14. Letcher 15.h 9.4
15. Green 4.9 5.1
16. Floyd 16.6 11.5
17. Knox 15.6 17.0
18. Monroe 4.1 4. 5
19. Cumberland 14.1 6.7
20 •. Wayne 10.5 14.5
21. Fleming 7.5 1.9
22. Bath 25.l 11.2
23. Clinton 15.1 11.8
- 107 -
Ken tuck~
(continue)
Count;y 1962 1967
24. Laurel 10.~ 5.3~
25. Whitley 10.9 6.0
26. Rowan 13.1 6.4
27. Greenup 18.7 8.9
28. McCreary 7.7 11.2
29. Carter 12.5 9.3
30. Knott 70.8 23.7
31. Casey 1.2 15.9
32. Powell 18.8 14.8
33. Lawrence 6. 6 10 . 0 ..
34. Russell 12.9 17.9
35. Rockcastle 17.2 9.2 .•
J6. Magoffin 19.5 20.0
37. Johnson 15.0 8.7
J8. Owsley 7.8 28.1
39. Morgan 12.4 6.0
40. Lee 4.1 7.1
41. Estill 22.7 18.8
42. Jackson 18.o 11 . 5
43. Elliott 64. 5 24.2
44. Meniff ee 37. 6 11.9
45. Breathitt 28.4 24.7
46. Martin 34.6 22.3
- 108 -
Ken tuck~
(continue)
County 1962 1967
47. Leslie 20.5~ 29.1~
48. Lewis 6.4 3.5
49. Wolfe 5.7 14.2
..
- 109 -
Virginia
Counti 1962 " 1967
1. Pulaski 2.7% 2.8'/,
•
2. Botetourt 6.J 5.4
3. Tazewell 9.4 6.o
4. Covington City 4.4 2.3
5. Bristol City 4.0 1.8
6. Wythe 3.1 3.4
1. Clifton Forge City 3.3 2.4
8. Wise 13.8 8.2
9. Wasl1ington 9.4 4.2
10. Gray son 7.5 6.o
11. Rus sel ] 8.8 6.1 ..
12. Smyth 6.3 4.9 "
lJ. Scott 13.1 6.5
14. Bath 6.4 4.0
15. Floyd 6.4 5.4
16. Alleghany 10. 8 7.8
17. Giles 4.3 3.2
18. Lee 14.8 9.1
19. Galax City 1.6 1.5
20. Norton City 5.7 3.0
21. Bland 3.3 4.2
22. Carroll 12.0 9.8
23. Dickenson 9.4 7.0
- 110 -
County
24. Buchanan
25. Craig
26. Highland
..
Virginia
(Continued)
1962
8.1%
6.4
3.1
- 111 -
1967
5.7%
5.0
3.9
New York
County 1962 1967
1. Chemung 6.8~ 3.5%
2. Broome 4.2 J.2
3. Tompkins 4.2 2.9
4. Chautauqua 7.7 4.1
5. Steuben 4.7 3.9
6. Cattaraugus 6.7 4.2
7o Tioga
8. Ost ego 7.2 5.2
9. Delaware 5.5 4.1
10 . Chenango 4.1 4.0
11. Allegany 6.J 3.8
12. · Cortland 6.o 3.9
13. Schoharie 9.8 8.1
14. Schuyler 8.3 4.1
.r
- 112 -
Cow1ty
1 . Washington
2. Allegany
3. Garrett
>.
Maryland
1962
7.6%
7. 1
14.6
- 113 -
TABLE VI
BLACK HOUSING
ALABAMA
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Jefferson 28,779 28,508
2. Tuscaloosa 3,276 4,082
3. Madison 3,500 3,090
4. Talladega 1,026 1,386
5. Calhoun 2,434 1,996
6. Etowah 2,012 1,661
7. Chambers 1,369 1,657
8. Elmore 1,036 1,097
9. Tallapoosa 1,026 1,386 . '
10. Colbert 1,276 956
11. Pickens 1,089 943
12. Morgan 997 1,091
13. Limestone 1,027 712
14. Lauderdale 1,115 847
15. Shelby 953 615
16. Lawrence 664 563
17. Walker 948 484
18. Randolph 575 475
19. St. Clair 699 233
- 114 -
ALABAMA (Con' t)
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
20. Bibb 447 448
21. Coosa 485 363
22. Chilton 449 402
23. Fayette 344 236
24. Clay 2GO 231
25 . Jackson 363 231
26 . Lamar 305 210
27. Cherokee 213 137
2Q. Cullman 127 205
29. Franklin 202 145 , .
30 . Marshall 153 185
31. DeKalb 144 120
32. Blount 128 56
33. Marion 117 68
34. Cleburne 72 80
35. Winston 19 15
.. .
- 115 -
PENNSYLVANIA
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
l. Allegheny 16,329 28,555
2. Beaver 1, 605 1,595
3. Erie 891 1,340
4. Washington 1,224 1,068
s. Fayette 1,028 825
6. Westmoreland G44 913
7. Mercer 720 714
8. Cambria 344 558
9. Lawrence 339 373
10. Luzerne 109 214 ..
11. Centre 23 108
12. Lycoming 176 131
13. Crawford 156 124
14. Huntingdon 74 64 .
15. Blair 147 144
16. Lackawanna 47 218
17. Armstrong 137 89
UL Union 1 5
19. Monroe 73 108
20. Indiana 78 45
21. Butler 81 25
- 116 -
PENNSYLVANIA (Con't)
gounty Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Venango 50 29
23. Greene 70 28
24. Wayne 2 1
25. Schuykill 41 58
26. Snyder 1 1
27. Clearfield 33 13
28. Bedford 36 33
29. Northumberland 29 12
30. Columbia 16 16
31. Somerset 17 8
32. Mifflin 19 16
33. Warren 4 4
34. Tioga 15 4
35. Carbon 5 3
36. Bradford 17 1
37. Fulton 5 5
38. McKean 15 3
39 . -Clinton 2 5
. . 40. Clarion 5 3
41. Susquehanna 10 5
42 . Wyoming 6 2
117
PENNSYLVANIA (Con't)
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
43. Potter 5 2
44. Perry 1
45. Montour 4 2
46. Jefferson 5 6
47. Pike 4 4
4i3. Sullivan 2
49. Cameron 2
so. Elk 3 1
51. Jtmiata 2 1
52. Forest 1
- 118 -
MISSISSIPPI
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Lowndes 1,876 2,218
2. Marshall 1,284 1,667
3. Monroe 1,464 1,118
4. Oktibbeha 1,335 08 1
5. Lee 1,193 1,313
6. Noxubee 1,051 1,033
7. Clay 1,231 940
n. Winston 1,131 577
9. Chickasaw 723 650
10. Kemper 668 567
11. Alcorn 451 415
12. Benton 264 314
13. Pontotoc 444 307
14. Union 406 369
15. Tippah 351 274
16. Choctaw 376 163
17. Prentiss 322 223
18. .Webster 259 286
. 19 • Itawamba 194 67
20. Tishomingo 12U 51
- 119 -
SOUTH CAROLINA
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Greenville 3,857 6,809
2 . Spartanburg 3,373 5,253
3 . Anderson 2,112 2 ,839
4. Cherokee 314 88 7
s. Pickens 807 682
6. Oconee 595 491
- 120 -
TENNESSEE
County . Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Hamilton 4,934 9,154
2. Knox 3,236 3,729
3. Sullivan 377 526
4. Washington 443 381
5. Blount 601 205
6. Hamblen 377 24 7
7. Bradley. 337 281
8. Franklin 377 155
9. McMinn 360 205
10. Anderson 300 321
11. Roane 316 135
12. Greene 197 166
13. Warren 204 153
14. Marion 242 103
15. Coffee 167 160
16. Hawkins 204 96
17. Monroe 197 67
18. Jefferson 167 58
19. Cocke 116 84
20. Putnam 111 72
21. Smith 105 82
- 121 -
TENNESSEE (Con't)
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Carter 121 53
23 . Rhea 120 69
24. Loudon 101 51
25. White 99 53
26. Fentress 119
27. Bledsoe 42 10
28. DeKalb 69 37
29. Claiborne 48 37
30. Morgan 14 7
31. Meiss 34 27
32. Campbell 30 31
33. Sevier 40 26
34. Cannon 36 21
35. Grainger 30 19
36. Grundy 17 17
37. Clay 39 6
38. Macon 28 17
39. Jchnson 36 3
40. Cumberland 12 17
41. Hancock 20 10
42. Overton 13 11
- 122 -
TENNESSEE (Con'· t)
County CJwner 0CCUfied Renter Occupied
43. Scott 10 16
44. Jackson 6 4
45. Pickett 7 1
46. Polk 3 2
47. Van Buren 6 4
48. Unicoi 2 1
49. Sequatchie 2
so. Union
- 123 -
NORTH CAROL INA
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Forsyth 5,116 9,0D5
2. Buncombe 2,327 2,157
3. Rutherford 801 521
4 . Burke 740 370
5. Caldwell 592 326
6 . Wilkes 536 358
7. Surry 461 248
n u . McDowell 400 220
9 . Henderson 314 314
10. Davie 400 182
11. St okes 309 168
12 . Polk 272 155
13 . Alexander 262 85
14. Transylvania 173 112
15. Yadkin 203 113
16. Haywood 224 154
17. Macon 76 204
18. · Jackson 110 47
. I 19. Cherokee 68 32
20. Watauga 60 34
21 . Madison 46 35
- 124 -
NORTH CAR0LINA (Con't)
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Alleghany 52 15
23. Ashe 53 25
24. Swain 29 9
25. Yancey 33 15
26. Mitchell 20 38
27. Avery 16 20
28. Graham 19 5
29. Clay 8 5
- 125 -
WEST VIRGINIA
County Owner Occupied · Renter Occupiec!
1. Kanawha 1,957 2,258
2. McDowell 1,573 1,036
3. Raleigh 1,806 641
4. Mercer 1,151 550
5. Fayette 906 4213
6. Cabell 633 835
7. Logan 530 348
8. Jefferson 401 322
9. Marion 514 263
10 . Ohio 242 392
11. Gr eenbrier 326 157
12 . Mingo 256 244
13. Berkeley 200 182
14. Hancock 234 121
15. Monongalia l~l 163
16. Harrison 225 1G6
17. Wood 194 109
UL Mineral 101 04
19. Surmners 102 6G
20. Monroe 65 21
21. Wyoming 103 47
- 126 -
w~~T Vl.l\Gl.l'l.LJ\ ~Gon-tJ
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. J3oone 72 34
23. Grant 58 33
24. Mason 34 24
25. Brooke 62 32
26. Wayne 36 61
27. Randolph 29 32
28. Preston 49 22
29. Marshall 20 16
30. Hardy 45 20
31 . Braxton 31 16
32. Lincoln 16 39
33. Taylor 37 17
34. Hampshire 21 23
35. Morgan 26 15
36 . Barbour 22 16
37. Pendleton 13 12
38. Pocahantas 31 25
39. Upshur 17 15
40. Putnam 13 9
41. Roane 3 7
42. Lewis 0
u 11
43. Wetzel 9 - 11
44. Jackson 17 2
45. Calhoun 6 12
46. Pleasants 7 6
47. Ritchie 5 13
48. Tyler 2 8
WEST VIRGINIA (Con't)
County Owner Occupied· Renter Occupied
49. Nicholas 5 1
so. Tucker 6 3
51. Gilmer 2 1
52. Webster 4 2
53. Clay 5 4
54. Wirt 2 1
55. Doddridge 1 1
- 128 -
GEORGIA
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Floyd 966 1,610
2. Carroll 693 1,005
3. Hall 537 961
4. Polk 5GO 602
5. Bartow 592 487
6. Gwinnett 414 419
7. Douglas 405 338
8 . Barrow 259 460
9 . Jack son 307 337
10. Walker 439 213
11. Stephens 354 274
12. Whitfield 291 305
13. Chattooga 305 205
14. Madison 218 226
15. Franklin 114 244
16. Gordon 131 lfl4
17. Paulding 104 110
UL Cherokee 202 131
19. Heard 95 176
20. Haralson 105 120
21. Habersham 111 67
- 129 -
GE9RGIA (Con' t)
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Catoosa 32 46
23. Banks 35 59
24. White 73 36
25. Pickens 3G 66
26. Dade 42 23
27. Lumpkin· 42 19
28. Forsyth 15 33
29. Murray l D 20
30. Fannin 17 22
31. Rabun 31 5
32. Gilmer 1
33. Dawson
34. Towns
35. Union
- 130 -
OHIO --
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Jefferson 747 810
2. Muskingum 570 341
3. Ross 379 304
4. Belmont 306 225
5. Lawrence 312 163
6. Scioto 100 250
7. Athens 149 157
8. Gallia 195 91
9. Clermont 192 48
10. Tuscarawas 166 62
11. Highland 120 66
12. Guernsey lOG 58
13. Washington 152 53
14. Harrison 85 37
15. Brown 92 52
'16. Morgan 91 31
17. Coshocton 54 3.0
18. Pike 46 18
19. Meigs 54 13
20. Jackson 44 13
21. Carroll 34 5
- 131 -
OHIO (Con' t)
County Owner Occu2ied Renter Occu2ied
...
22. Perry 29 6
23. Hocking 25 7
24. Adams 7 2
25. Vinton 1
26. Holmes
2 7. Monroe 1 1
28. Noble 1
- 132 -
KENTUCKY
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Madison 343 410
2. Harlan 377 307
3. Cl ark 311 300
4. Pike 116 226
5. Montgomery 194 150
6. Bell 176 136
7. Lincoln 202 114
n. Boyd 162 130
9 . Perry 125 135
10. Garrard 121 lOG
11. Clay 74 103
12. Pulaski 130 77
13. Adair 127 57
14. Letcher 141 61
15. Green 90 56
16. Floyd 71 90
17. Knox 93 62
18. Monroe 72 49
19. Cumberland 81 43
20. Wayne 82 32
21. Fleming 75 43
- 133 -
KENTUCKY (Con't)
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Bath 74 39
23. Clinton 9 94
\
24. Laurel 53 17
25. Whitley 23 31
26. Rowan 4 14
27. Greenup 32 20
28. McCreary 3 3
29. Carter 32 25
30. Knott 27 20
31. Casey 32 9
32. Powell 20 15
33. Lawrence 18 14
34. Russell 20 9
35. Rockcastle 10 12
36. Magoffin 9 12
37. Johnson 10 7
38. Owsley 7 4
39. Morgan 7 12
40. Lee n 5
41. Estill 11 9
42. Jackson 13 7
- 134 -
KENTUCKY (Con 1 t)
"""
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
43. Elliott 4 7
44 . Menif fee 3
45. B.reathitt 0 5 ./
4G . Martin 5 3
4 ]'. Leslie l 6
43. Lewis 4 1
49. Wolfe 4 .5
- 135 -
NEW YCJRK
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Chemung 303 428
2. Broome 161 496 ~
3. Tompkins 2 r.n
V'::1 354
4. Chautauqua 13 7 214
5. Steuben 98 97
6. Cattaraugus 79 59
7. Tioga 65 21
3 . (; s tego 28 17
9 • Delaware 36 18
10. Chenango 30 18
11. Allegany 16 14
12. Cortland 14 15
13. Schoharie 16 4
14. Schuyler 17 2
- 136 -
VIRGINIA
County &
.!!ldependent City uwner Occupied Renter CJccupie1
1. Pulaski 342 129
2. Botetour t 257 105
3. Tazewell 267 141
4. Covington City 214 128
5. Bristol City 170 178
6. Wythe 139 94
7. Clifton Forge City 151 119
8. Wise 144 64
9 . Washington 152 66
10. Grayson 135 65
11. Russell 78 93
12. Smyth 90 42
13. Scott 53 98
14. Bath 117 26
15. Floyd 90 22
16. Alleghany 70 38
17. Giles U2 22
18. Lee 43 67
19. Galax City 54 35
20. Norton City 34 39
21. Bland 14 7
22. Carroll 32 2
- 137 -
County
1. Washington
2. Allegany
3. Garrett
MARYLAND
uwner Occupied
184
158
13
- 138 -
Renter Occupied
531
192
7
w l!.iST v l.lU:i 1.1'1 IA \. t;on-· t}
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Boone 72 34
23. Grant 58 33
24. Mason 34 24
25. Brooke 62 32
26. Wayne 36 61
27. Randolph 29 32
28. Preston 49 22
29. Marshall 20 16
30. Hardy 45 20
31. Braxton 31 16
32. Lincoln 16 39
33. Taylor 37 17
34. Hampshire 21 23
35. Morgan 26 15
36. Barbour 22 16
37. Pendleton 13 12
38. Pocahantas 31 25
39. Upshur 17 15
40. Putnam 18 9
41. Roane 8 7
42. Lewis 0
0 11
43. Wetzel 9 . 11
44. Jackson 17 2
45. Calhoun 6 12
46. Pleasants 7 6
47. Ritchie 5 13
48. Tyler 2 8
WEST VIRGINIA (Con't)
County Owner Occupied· Renter Occupied
49. Nicholas 5 1
50. Tucker 6 3
51. Gilmer 2 1
52. Webster 4 2
53. Clay 5 4
54. Wirt 2 1
55. Doddridge 1 1
- 123 ..
GEORGIA
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Floyd 966 1,610
2. Carroll 693 1,005
3. Hall 537 961
4. Polk 500 602
5. Bartow 592 487
6. Gwinnett 414 419
7. Douglas 405 338
8. Barrow 259 460
9. Jackson 307 337
10. Walker 439 213
11. Stephens 354 274
12. Whitfield 291 305
13. Chattooga 305 205
14. Madison 218 226
15. Franklin 114 244
16. Gordon 131 134
17. Paulding 1G4 110
13. Cherokee 202 131
19. Heard 95 176
20. Haralson 105 120
•
21. Habersham 111 67
129 -
GE9RGIA (Con' t)
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Catoosa 82 46
23. Banks 35 59
24. White 73 36
25. Pickens 3G 66
26 . Dade 42 23
27. Lumpkin· 42 19
28. Forsyth 15 33
29. Murray lG 28
30. Fannin 17 22
31. Rabun 31 5
32. Gilmer 1
33. Dawson
34. Towns
35. Union
- 130 -
OHIO
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Jefferson 747 810
2. Muskingum 570 341
3. Ross 379 304
4. Belmont 306 225
5. Lawrence 312 163
6. Scioto 180 250
7 . Athens 149 157
8. Gallia 195 91
9. Clennont 192 48
10. Tuscarawas 166 62
11. Highland 120 66
12. Guernsey 103 58
13. Washington 152 53
14. Harrison 85 'J,7
15. Brown 92 52
'16. Morgan 91 31
17. Coshocton 54 3.0
18. Pike 46 18
19. Meigs 54 lU
20. Jackson 44 13
21. Carroll 34 5
- 131 -
OHIO (Con' t)
Cotmty Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Perry 29 6
23. Hocking 25 7
24. Adams 7 2
25. Vinton 1
26. Holmes
2 7. Monr oe 1 1
28. Noble 1 --
- 132 -
KENTUCKY
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Madison 343 410
2. Harlan 377 307
3. Clark 311 308
4. Pike 116 226
5. Montgomery 194 150
6. Bell 176 136
7. Lincoln 202 114
G. Boyd 162 130
9. Perry 125 135
10. Garr ard 121 108
11 . Clay 74 103
12. Pulaski 130 77
13. Adair 127 57
14. Letcher 141 61
15. Green 90 56
16. Floyd 71 90
17. Knox 93 62
18. Monroe 72 49
19 . Cumberland 81 43
•
20. Wayne G2 32
21 . Fleming 75 43
- 133 -
KENTUCKY (Con't)
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
22. Bath 74 39
23. Clinton 9 94 ~
24. Laurel 53 17
25. Whitley 23 31
26. Rowan 4 14
27. Greenup 32 20
28. McCreary 3 3
29 . Carter 32 25
30. Knott 27 20
31. Casey 32 9
32. Powell 20 15
33. Lawrence 18 14
34. Russell 20 9
35. Rockcastle 10 12
36. Magoffin 9 12
37. Johnson 10 7
38. Owsley 7 4
39. Morgan 7 12
a
40. Lee l3 5
41. Estill 11 9
42. Jackson 13 7
- 134 -
KENTUCKY (Con' t)
.......
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
43. Elliott 4 7
44. Meniffee 3
45. B.reathitt 0 _, 5
46. Martin 5 3
4 7'. Leslie l 6
48. Lewis 4 1
49. Wolfe 4 5
. ..
•
- 135 -
NEW YuRK
County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1. Chemung 303 428
2. Broome 161 496 '
3. Tompkins 209 354
4. Chautauqua 1G7 214
s. Steuben 98 97
6. Cattaraugus 79 59
7. Tioga 65 21
3 . us tego 28 17
9. Delaware 36 18
10. Chenango 30 18
11. Allegany 16 14
••
12. Cortland 14 15
13. Schoharie 16 4
14. Schuyler 17 2
- 136 -
VIRGINIA
County &
.!n..dependen t Ci t y uwner Occupied Renter CJccupiec
1. Pulaski 342 129
2. Botetourt 257 105
3. Tazewell 267 141
4. Covington Ci ty 214 128
5. Bristo l Ci ty 170 178
6 . Wythe 139 94
7 . Clifton Forge City 151 119
8. Wise 144 64
9. Washington 152 66
10. Grayson 135 65
. 11. Russell 78 93
. 12. Smyth 90 42
13. Scott 53 98
14. Bath 117 26
15. Floyd 90 22
16. Alleghany 70 38
17. Giles 02 22
18. Lee 4 3 67
19. Galax City 54 35
a
20. Norton City 34 39
21. Bland 14 7
22. Carroll 32 2
- 137 -
County
1. Wa shington
2. Allegany
3. Garrett
MARYLAND
uwner Occupied
134
158
13
- 138 -
Renter Occupied
531
192
7