Another influence should be noted. Slavery tended to drive out of a community those who opposed the system, and also the poor whites, non-slave holders. The planters sought to buy out or expel this latter class, because of the temptation they were under to incite the slaves to steal corn and cotton and sell it to them at a low price. There was also trouble in many other ways. There was thus a tendency to separate the mass of the blacks from the majority of the whites. That this segregation actually arose a map of the proportionate populations for Alabama in 1860 shows. It may be claimed that there were other reasons for this separation, such as climatic conditions, etc. This may be partially true, but it evidently cannot be the principal reason, for we find the whites in the majority in many of the lowest and theoretically most unhealthful regions, as in the pine flats. This is the situation to-day also.
The influence of the rivers in determining the settlement of the country has been mentioned. Nowhere was this more the case than in the alluvial lands of the Mississippi, the so-called "Delta." This country was low and flat, subject to overflows of the river. The early settlements were directly on the banks of the navigable streams, because this only was accessible, and because the land immediately bordering the streams is higher than the back land. Levees were at once started to control the rivers, but not until the railroads penetrated the country in 1884 was there any development of the back land. Even to-day most of this is still wild.
The war brought numerous changes, but it is only in place here to consider those affecting the location of the people. The mobility of labor is one of the great changes. Instead of a fixed labor force we now have to deal with a body relatively free to go and come. The immediate result is that a stream of emigration sets in from the border states to the cities of the North, where there was great opportunity for servants and all sorts of casual labor. The following table shows the number of negroes in various northern cities in 1860 and also in 1900:
| 1860. | 1900. | |||
| Washington | 10,983 | 86,702 | ||
| Baltimore | 27,898 | 79,258 | ||
| Philadelphia | 22,185 | 62,613 | ||
| New York | 16,785 | 60,666 | ||
| St. Louis | 3,297 | 35,516 | ||
| Chicago | 955 | 30,150 |
Coincident with the movement to the more distant towns came a development of southern cities. City life has been very attractive to Negroes here also, as the following table indicates:
| 1860. | 1900. | |||
| New Orleans | 24,074 | 77,714 | ||
| Atlanta | 1,939 | 35,727 | ||
| Richmond | 14,275 | 32,230 | ||
| Charleston | 17,146 | 31,522 | ||
| Savannah | 8,417 | 28,090 | ||
| Montgomery | 4,502 | 17,229 | ||
| Birmingham | ... | 16,575 |
Other cities show the same gains. As a rule, the negro has been the common laborer in the cities and in the trades does not seem to hold the same relative position he had in 1860. In recent years there has been quite a development of small tradesmen among them.
A comparison of the two tables shows that Washington and Baltimore have more Negroes than New Orleans; that St. Louis has more than Atlanta and Richmond, while New York and Philadelphia contain double the number of Savannah and Charleston. This emigration to the North has had great effect upon many districts of the South. It seems also to be certain that the Negroes have not maintained themselves in the northern cities, and that the population has been kept up by constant immigration. What this has meant we may see when we find that in 1860 the Negroes were in the majority in five counties in Maryland, in two in 1900; in 43 in Virginia in 1860, in 35 in 1900; in North Carolina in 19 in 1860, in 15 in 1900.
