The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-10-19
Ratio of Increase from 1S40 10 1s50

These figures, copied from Table LXII Of
Ratio Tables of Increase and Decrease Of
Population, show that the truth is precisely
the reverse of the statement of the Sentinel.
But tho comparison made by the Sentinel is
4 very partial and inconcIusive one. If it had
been anxious to spread the whole truth before
its readers, it would have compared, first the
growth Of population in the Atlantic or original
free States, with that in the corresponding class
of slave States; and next the ratio of increase
in the new and Western free States with that
in the new and Western slave States What il
was afraid to do, We shall now do and demon
strate the truth Of the main position of the
Missouri Democrat.
Audnttc Free States
Maine, N. Hampshire Vermont, Massachs-
Sets Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania.
Pop. in 1910. Pop. in 1850. Total in Ratio of
crease increase.
6,76l,Os2 s.626,S5l 1,S63769 275
Atlantic Stare States.
Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia.
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia
Pop, in 1910. Pop. in 1850. Total in Ratio of
crease increase.
1875 s22 4,5sl6i5 7l5s23 1874
The ratio of increase in the free States, it
will be observe d, is one-third greater than in
the slave. Should the increase for this de-
cadc be according to these ratios, the popula-
ton of the Atlantic free States in 1860 will be
within fra elton of eleven millions, that of the
corresponding slave States, elk million seven
hundred thous aud.
Now, let us ompare the now and Western
free States with the corresponding class of
slave States. We leave out Texas and Califor-
MIA, having no return of their population in
1910, and, for the purposes of moro accurate
admission into the Union.
Nep and WeSte,n Free States
Ohio 1902 Indiana, 1916; Illinois, 1918:
Michigan, 1886; Wisconsin, 1913; Iowa, 1s4s.
Pop. in 1910. Pop. in 1850. Total in Ratio of
2.967,s4O 4,7l5.474 1,7476s4 So
Western Siare States.
Kentucky, 1892; Tennessee, 1896; Louisi-
ana, 1912; Mississippi, 1917; Alabama, 1920;
Missouri 1921 Arkansas, 1886; Florida, 1s45.
Pop. in 1S4O Pop. in 1859. Total in Ratio Of
crease increase.
s,lO9,l32 4,772.s74 1,s6s,s42 80
Now, should these ratios continue, the popu-
lation of the former class of States would be.
in 1860, seven and & half millions; Of the lat.
ter, little more than six and O half millions.
We need hardly say that glance at the
comparative ratios of increase in free and slave
States, during the seversl decades since 1890.
fully authorize the assumption that the ratio of
increase in the latter will decrease, while that
in the former will tend to increase This will
result from the driving out of the poor white
population of the slave States and the concen.
tration of foreign immigration in the free
States.
If we examine the relative increase of all the
slave States and eli the free States, from 1890
TO 1850, the position taken by the Missouri
Democrat is still further confirmed. The fol-
lowing table shows the population of the two
sections, in 1890 and 1s5O-the total increase
and the per cent. increase in each:
Free States.
Population in 1870, 1868, Ass; in 1850,
IL, 527, 2l4 totalincrease, 4, 55s 7ss per cent
increase 5S7.
Slare States.
Population in 1890, 1852 in 1850,
s,664, 662; total increase 7,7O3, 800; per cent.
increase, 1872.
Both sections, it win be observed, start with
populations ebout equal-the free States hav-
ing the advantage of only seven thousand I; bat
after q race of sixty years, the non-slavehold.
ing section contains population of - So, PA,
the slayeholding, s,664,662, or 1850, $50 less
than the free; and, let it be remembered, three
millions of the population of the South is a
servile one. If we compare the free people Of
both sections, the population of the slayehold-
ing IS not quite half that of the non-siayohOld-
ing.