This is to certify that the thesis entitled POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA: A Study of Selected Characteristics presented by David Gordon Bennett has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M . A . G _.___._ degree in _______e O graphy W2 Major professor August 196u Date 0-169 ABSTRACT POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA: A STUDY OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS By David Gordon Bennett The purpose of this thesis is to present prospective industrialists with an analysis of selected characteristics of the population of North Carolina, considering particularly those which would probably influence them the most in locating secondary and tertiary establishments within the state. The some four and one-half million residents of North Carolina are unevenly distributed in the state's four major regions. The Tidewater region contains one-tenth of them; the Mountain section, one-seventh; the Coastal Plain, one-fourth; and the Piedmont, one-half. The most heavily populated part of the state is the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent." Outside of this industrialized area, there are only two counties with a high concentration of persons, namely Cumberland in the Coastal Plain and Buncombe in the Mountain section. The Piedmont is the only region which has a density exceeding that of the state average. The highest densities are in the ”Piedmont Industrial Crescent", Cumberland and Buncombe counties and New Hanover County in the Tidewater section. Counties having the highest densities contained the largest cities. During the 1950's, only the Piedmont had a larger numerical increase than in the 1940's. The Mountain and Coastal Plain regions accounted for 70% of the 38 counties (out of 100 in 2 the state) which lost population between 1950 and 1960. On the whole, there is a correlation between the counties which have experienced the largest numerical increase during the last three decades and those with the most residents in 1960. Four-tenths of the residents of North Carolina are classified as urban, while over one—sixth are rural farm and over four-tenths, rural nonfarm. The rural farm population is the smallest proportion of the total population in every region except the Coastal Plain where the least important one is urban. The rural nonfarm share is greatest in all except in the Piedmont where it is exceeded by urban. The patterns reflect the facts that the Coastal Plain is the most agricultural region and the Piedmont is the most industrialized one. Between 1950 and 1960 four-fifths of the numerical growth of the state occurred in the urban areas, where the pop- ulation increased 36%. The largest numerical urban gain was in the Piedmont and the highest percentage loss of rural farm inhabitants and gain of rural nonfarm residents were in the Mountain region. Although the nonwhite population is most numerous in the Piedmont section, its percentage is greatest in the Coastal Plain. Both the smallest number and lowest percentage of nonwhites are in the Mountain section. The Piedmont was the only region with a higher percentage of this class in 1960 than in 1950. For the state as a whole, the percentage of nonwhite in the total population is declining because of migration out of the state. Today it is about 25% and it may drop to only 10% by 1960. The low income levels of families in the Tidewater and Coastal Plain sections are explained by the high percentages of rural and nonwhite inhabitants in these areas, while that of the dominantly white Mountain region reflects the high proportion of rural residents, poor resources and lack of industrial development there. The much higher level of family earnings in the Piedmont, especially the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent,” results primarily from a more balanced ratio of whites and nonwhites and a high degree of urbanization and industrialization. The greatest deviations in age group structure and in proportion of males 18 years of age and over as compared to females Occur in Onslow County. This is explained by the presence there of two large military bases. The Piedmont has by far the greatest number high school and college graduates, with the Coastal Plain, Mountain, and Tidewater sections following in that order. Mecklenburg, Guilford, Wake, and Forsyth are the leading counties primarily because of their larger populations, higher degree of urbanization, and greater wealth which have resulted in higher salaries paid to teachers, better schools, and the location here of a very high proportion of the colleges and universities of the state. During the next two decades, the Piedmont in particular, will continue to increase in population, while only the Mountain section will possibly experience a decline. The "Piedmont Industrial Crescent” will probably become to an even greater extent than now, the educational and industrial center of North Carolina. POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA : A Study of Selected Characteristics By David Gordon Bennett Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Geography 1964 Approved: W To my wife, Carolyn PREFACE Population studies of states are most often made in an attempt to draw industries into the states. These investigations are usually promoted by the state government and carried out under the guidance of a special economic development department. Naturally, the resulting report tries to present information which shows the state in the most favorable position. ths, charts, photographs and written material are most often directed toward an overview of the state's economic and social characteristics. This type of study is well-suited to the prospective indus- trialist who is contemplating the location of a secondary or tertiary establishment, whether or not he has decided to concentrate on a certain section of the county. After surveying several states for his new location, the prospective entrepreneur would most certainly want to obtain more specific information about the state (or states) which seems to be most suitable for his purposes. Studies showing the distributions and trends of certain population characteristics of the counties of the state would supply most of the desired information. This study on the population characteristics of North Carolina marks a continuance of my interest in the progress of this state. Although I graduated from East Carolina College located in the North Carolina Coastal Plain, most of my life has been spent in the Piedmont section of North Carolina. While iii studying in the Geography Department at East Carolina, I became interested in the progress that the different sections of the state were making in the development of new industry. Although a number of the counties were making considerable gains in this direction, too many others were stagnate or decadent. The lack of development of industry in many of these counties could be averted if entrepreneurs were made aware of opportunities related to the population characteristics of the areas. The development of my interests and the dis- covery that no comprehensive study of this nature had been made prompted me to select this topic for investigation. The purpose of this paper is to present prospective industrialists with an analysis of selected characteristics of the population of North Carolina, considering particularly those which would probably have the greatest influence on them in locating secondary and tertiary establishments within the state. Most of the discussion and all maps and tables concerning the distribution of population are based on 1960 Bureau of Census figures. The writing and the maps and charts which deal with population trends are primarily based on one or more Bureau of Census reports for the years 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1960. A tremendous debt of gratitude is hereby expressed to the many persons who gave their assistance and cooperation in the gathering of materials for this exposition. I am particularly indebted to the following persons, agencies, and libraries: the staff of the Reference Division of the Michigan iv State University Library, especially those persons who work with Inter-Library.Loan materials; Mrs. Lois S. Neal, Reference Librarian in the General Services Division of the North Carolina State Library, and others on the staff there; Mr. James R. Hinkle, Head of the Commerce and Industry Division of North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, and other department staff; the Charlotte and Mecklenburg County Public Library; the University of North Carolina Library; the North Carolina State College Library; the Wake County Planning Board; Mr. Bert A. Winterbottom, Assistant Director of the City-County Planning Board of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County; Mr. R. Albert Rumbough, Director of the Planning Department of Fayetteville, North Carolina; Mr. Allan D. Spader, City Planner in the Charlotte—Mecklenburg Planning Commission; and Jim Story, Editor of The News-Record of Marshall, North Carolina. Throughout the preparation of this thesis, several professors and graduate students in the Geography Department of Michigan State university have offered their help and encouragement. I am especially grateful to Dr. Paul C. Morrison for offering suggestions and for critically reading the manuscript and to Dr. Clarence L. Vinge and Dr. Allen K. Philbrick for their many constructive criticisms. In addition, I received valuable assistance from Mr. Martin Knorr and Mr. Elbridge Renning. Finally, I am deeply indebted to my wife, Carolyn, whose assistance in typing and reading my paper has been invaluable. Most of all, I am appreciative of her patience and understanding throughout its preparation. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 iii LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 II. THE OVERALL POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Total Population Tidewater Mountain Coastal Plain Piedmont Population Density Mountain Tidewater Coastal Plain Piedmont Discordance of Patterns Population Trends Mountain Tidewater Coastal Plain Piedmont Selected Counties Tidewater Counties Carteret New Hanover Onslow Coastal Plain Counties Cumberland Wayne Pitt and Lenoir Mountain Counties Madison Piedmont Counties Mecklenburg Guilford Forsyth Franklin, Warren, and Anson TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Chapter III. URBAN AND RURAL POPULATION . . . Introduction Urban Population Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont Rural Population Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont Rural Farm Population Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont Rural Nonfarm Population Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountin Piedmont Selected Tidewater Counties Onslow Pasquotank New Hanover Dare Selected Coastal Plain Counties Cumberland Pitt Johnston and Robeson Selected Mountain Counties Watauga Mitchell McDowell Madison Buncombe Wilkes Selected Piedmont Counties Mecklenburg Forsyth Wake Davie Montgomery IV. WHITE-NONWHITE AND INCOME . . . . Per Cent Nonwhite Coastal Plain Tidewater Mountain Piedmont Page 311. TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Chapter Sex Education High School Education Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont College Education Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont VI. Summary and Conclusion . . . . . APPENDIX 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O BIBLIOGRA PHY O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Page Table II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV . XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX . LIST OF TABLES Population, 1960 . . . . . . . Population Density, 1960 . . . . . Population Change by Decades, 1930-1960 . . . . Per Cent Population Change by Decades, 1930- -l960 . . . . . . . . . . Per Cent Urban, 1960 . . . . . . Urban Change by Decades, 1940-1960 . . . . Per Cent Urban Change by Decades 1940-1960 . . . . . . . . . . Per Cent Rural, 1960 . . . . Rural Change by Decades, 1940-1960 Per Cent Rural Change by Decades, 1940-1960 . . . . . . . . . Per Cent Rural Farm, 1960 . . . . Rural Farm Change, 1950-1960 . . . Per Cent Rural Farm Change, 1950-1960 . . . . . . . Per Cent Rural Nonfarm, 1960 . . . Rural Nonfarm Change, 1950-1960 . Per Cent Rural Nonfarm Change, 1950-1960 . . . . . . . . . Per Cent Nonwhite, 1960. . . . . White Change, 1950-1960. . . . . Nonwhite Change, 1950-1960 . . . Per Cent White Change, 1950-1960 Per Cent Nonwhite Change, -Per Cent of Families with Incomes under $3,000 . . . . . Per Cent of Familes with Incomes over $10, 000 . . . . 1950-1960 Selected Population Characteristics, 1960 . . . Level of School Completed by North Carolina's Population, Aged 25 Years and Over, 1960 Persons over Twenty-four Years of Age with Four Years of High School Completed, 1960 . Population Characteristics, 1960 Persons over Twenty-four Years of Age with Four Years of College completed, 1960 . . Population by Classes, 1960 . . . vi Page . 17 38 .38 .42 .42 . 42 . 48 . 48 . 48 . 52 . 52 52 7O 70 70 73 73 . 78 .103 .106 .106 .113 .115 Figure |_, . 5...; l 11> DJ 11>UJ3>OUJ>OCU3>OUJ>OUJ>OUJ>UJD> OUJZD 5—: l-' l ll-B LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS North Carolina . . . . . . . Total Population, 1960 . . . Population Density, 1960 . . . Urban Places over 25,000 . . . Population Population Change, 1950-1960. . Per Cent Population Change, 1950-1960. Per Cent Urban, 1960 . . . . . . Urban Change, 1950-1960 . . . . Per Cent Urban Change,1950-1960. Per Cent Rural, 1960 . . . . . . . Rural Change, 1950-1960 . . . . . Per Cent Rural Change, 1950-1960 . Per Cent Rural Farm, 1960. . . . . Rural Farm Change, 1950-1960 . . . Per Cent Rural Farm Change, 1950-1960 Per Cent Rural Nonfarm, 1960 . . . Rural Nonfarm Change, 1950-1960 . . Per Cent Rural Nonfarm Change, 1950- 196 Per Cent Nonwhite, 1960 . . . . . . White Change, 1950-1960 . . . . . . . Nonwhite Change, 1950-1960 . . . . Per Cent White Change, 1950-1960 . Per Cent Nonwhite Change, 1950-1960. . Per Cent of Families with Incomes . . under $3,000 Per Cent of Families with Incomes . . . over $10,000 Persons over Twenty-four Years of age with Four Years of High School Completed, 1960 . . . . . . . Persons over Twenty-four Years of age with Four Years or More of College Completed, 1960 . . . . . o o o o o o O. o o o o 0 vii 0 O O O O O O 105 105 \ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study of the population characteristics of North Carolina deakiprimarily with those trends and distributions which would probably have the greatest influence on the location of secondary and tertiary industries1 in different sections of the state. This work is not intended to be primarily a study in economic geography, and therefore, does not attempt to indicate the various industries which might logically locate in one county or another. Instead, a comprehensive analysis of the population structure of the state is given so that prospective extrepreneurs can select what in their judgement is the best location for their particular industry. North Carolina is located in the southeastern part of the United States. The state lies roughly between 340 and 360 30' North Latitude and between 750 30' and 840 30' West Longitude? It is 503 miles in length between its eastern and western extremities and covers 52,712 square miles. Of this, less than 7% is water? The area is divided into 100 counties 1See Appendix A. for definitions. 28. Huntington Hobbs, Jr. North Carolina: An Economic and Social Profile (Chapel Hill: The University of North CaroIina Press, 1958), p. 17. 3Ibid. {\v I uvc .. .H :n. Vv. 0‘ {/J A j as shown in Figure 1. Topographically, the state is often divided into four major regions? They are: the Tidewater, consisting mostly of a flat surface with an abundance of swamps and marshes; the Coastal Plain of level, sandy soil; the Piedmont, with its gently rolling hills; and the Mountains, whose terrain is the highest and most rugged in eastern America. The climate is moderate with an average temperature of 38-400 for January and 75-770 for July? Precipitation averages about 50 inches, with approximately one-third being received during the summer months. Some mountain areas, however, have considerably higher averages than this which are attributable primarily to heavier snowfall in those regions. In most instances, prospective entrepreneurs are interested in the location and concentration of people, either as a source of labor or as a market. In Chapter I, the overall population distribution and trends are discussed. The total population and the population density of certain counties are compared. The leading cities of the state are examined as to their relationship to the focusing of inhabitants within particular counties. Finally, population changes are compared percentage-wise in order to establish a clearer picture of the overall trends. Chapter II contains an investigation of the patterns 4See Appendix B for list of counties by regions. 5John L. Knapp, North Carolina: An Economic Profile (Richmond: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmondlfl962f7),p.l. 6Hobbs, p. 17. v 4'. Qty: P“: d.—l a. . 5 H \ L. n and trends of the urban, rural, ruralfarm, and rural nonfarm segments of the population. Although urban areas are usually considered more attractive industrial locations, certain regions with high rural population densities--especially those with a high percentage of rural nonfarm inhabitants-~could be considered for some industries, as for example canneries and tourist businesses. Chapter III deals with the relationship between the nonwhite population and the average family income in North Carolina. A comparison is also made between the white and nonwhite changes in population numbers. Prospective entre- preneurs needing highly skilled labor will, of course, be more interested in sections which contain a relatively high per- centage of white population, while those requiring larger amounts of cheap labor will undoubtedly seek primarily those areas with comparatively more nonwhite inhabitants. The ages and the sex of the population of an area can be very important in locating a secondary or tertiary industry. Some features of these two characteristics will be discussed in Chapter IV. The level of education of persons living in a region can also be important in choosing the location of specific establishments. Therefore, in this chapter, educational attainments of the population are considered and these are related to certain of the population characteristics previously discussed. The study ends with a brief chapter of summary and conclusions. O ,7‘ ~H I’ve CHAPTER II THE OVERALL POPULATION Total Population In 1960, North Carolina had a population of 4,556,155.7 Over one-half of these persons were concentrated in the Piedmont region of the state, while the Coastal Plain had another one- fourth and the Mountain and Tidewater sections one-seventh and one-tenth reapectively. The approximate distribution of the population by county in each region is shown in Figure 2-A and Table 1. The exact numbers can be determined from Appendix B. Although the Piedmont contains the greatest concentration of persons, some counties within that region are not heavily populated. In general, the reverse holds true for the other sections of the state. Most of the counties have a small number of inhabitants, but one or two in each area have substantial totals. The most populous counties in all four sections are those which contain cities of 25,000 or more persons. (Compare Figs. 2-A and 2-c). The Tidewater and Mountain sections have the highest proportions of their counties with less than 25,000 residents, these being 66.7% and 64%, respectively, while the figures in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain are 23.5% and 21.7%. More out- standing is the fact that no county in the Tidewater, only one 7Knapp. p.2. ‘VI “vo liq. My '4 b ~ . u.‘ 6 in the Coastal Plain, and only one in the Mountain area has 100,000 inhabitants, while six in the Piedmont are in this category. Two of the latter have more than 200,000 residents. Tidewater.--Twelve of the eighteen counties in the Tidewater region have less then 25,000 persons while none has over 100,000 (Table l). The most populous counties are New Hanover, Onslow, and Craven, each having, 50,000 to 100,000 residents. Carteret, Beaufort, and Pasquotank are the only other ones with over 25,000 persons. The 1960 population of 428,260 in the Tidewater region was the smallest in any of the four major regions of the state. Mountain.--The next to the smallest number of people reside in the western Mountain region. Here sixteen of the twenty-five counties have less than 25,000 residents each (Table 1). Only Buncombe County has over 100,000 and Burke is the only other one with a moderately large number (52,701). Asheville, the single large city in the region, is in Buncombe County. It has approximately 130,000 people. Coastal P1ain.--This region also has only one county with over 100,000 persons, namely Cumberland, which includes Fayetteville, a city of about 50,000. There are five counties with less than 25,000 inhabitants, and eight and nine with 25,000-50,000 and 50,000-100,000, respectively. In other words, a large proportion of the counties, 74% of them, are in the medium pOpulation ranges instead of at the extremes. Most of those with 50,000-100,000 residents have towns of moderate size (Fig. 2-A and 2-C). No county with under 50,000 persons contains a town of over 25,000. TOTAL POPULATION . I900 :41 \ \ \ fig "\X‘ ....... POPULATION DENSITY - IOOO URBAN PLACES OVER 25,000 POPULATION ,4t‘rn::-l..p 1 ‘ k ‘\\\. @011 We ‘5’ “‘7‘“ 1 v. v r‘ w. . ‘. , A‘n‘k In; "3‘ng .- , \. Lasso .«.”d 1 o PLACCO 0' 80.000 TO 50.000 0 'LACIO 0' 00.000 to no.0” ’ 0 nuts or 000.000 on non ages A MID-0N1 moon-m. concur. ' Fm. 00. o“. TABLE I Population, 1960 Counties Region with Tidewater CoaStal Plain Mountain Piedmont 0- 25,000 PeOple 12 5 l6 9 25,001- 50,000 People 3 8 7 10 50,001-100,000 People 3 9 l 9 100,001-200,000 People 0 1 1 4 200,001-300,000 People 0 0 0 2 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 Total P0pu1ation 428,260 1,122,558 695,645 2,309,692 TABLE II P0pu1ation Density, 1960 Per Square Mile Counties with Region Density Tidewater CoastaI'Plain Mountain Piedmont State 0- 50 12 6 12 7 37 50.1-100 3 10 9 9 31 100.1-200 2 6 3 13 24 200.1-400 1 l l 3 6 Over 400 0 0 0 2 2 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Average Density 65.9 84.1 63.7 143.2 92.9 9 Piedmont.--Although this section is the most heavily populated, the people are not evenly dispersed. The great majority of them are agglomerated in the "Piedmont Industrial 8 Crescent". This area encompasses twelve counties and includes all of the cities of the state with a population of over 50,000 except Asheville (Fig. 2-C).9 Not only does this "Crescent" contain two-thirds of the residents of the Piedmont, but it also includes one-third of all of those in North Carolina.10 Half of the counties in the "Crescent" have over 100,000 inhabitants; two of these have over 200,000. Davie is the only one of nine Piedmont counties with less than 25,000 residents included in this industrial concentration, and none of those with over 100,000 are located outside its boundaries. In general, counties bordering the "Crescent" have lower population than those within it. (Fig.2-A). 8Greensboro Planning Department, High Point Planning Department, and City-County Planning Board of Salem and Forsyth County, Census Tract Data, the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina: GreenSboro-High Point, Guilford County;7Win§ton-Salem, Forsyth County: 1950 1960,‘l963,‘by John L. Booth, PhiIip Wi—Dondero, Chester C. Jandzinski, Silvia M. Maya, Anthony S. Bareta (October, 1963), p.5. \O Adapted from the following: Greensboro Planning Dep- artment, High Point Planning Department, and City-County Planning Board of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County, Census Tract Data, The Piedmont Triad of North Carolina: Green§boro-High POIht, Guilford County;’Winston:SaIem, , Forsyth County:‘l950,l960,l9b3, by John L. BoEth, Philip w. Dondero, Chester C. Jandzinski, Silvia M. Maya, Anthony S. Bareta (October, 1963), P.5; and Hammer and Company Associates, Metropolitan Charlotte: An Economic Study of Its Commercial DeveIopment’ Potential Atlanta: Hammer and Company AssoCIates, January, 19 4), p.5. 10Greensboro and High Point Planning Departments, Winston- Salem and Forsyth County Planninngoard, rx5. 10 P0pu1ation Density The average density of the population of North Carolina is 92.9 per square mile. Appendix B shows the density of individual counties by region. Only the Piedmont area, with a density of 143.2, exceeds the state average. The figure of 84.1 in the Coastal Plain is only slightly be- low this average. Those of the Tidewater and Mountain sections are far below-- 65.9 and 63.7, respectively. Most of the counties in the Tidewater and Mountain areas have densities of 0-50, in the Coastal Plain of 50-100, and in the Piedmont of 100-200. (Fig.2-B and Table II). The percentages of counties within each section having less than 50 people per square mile are as follows: Tidewater, 66; Mountain, 48; Coastal Plain, 26; and Piedmont, 21. Three counties in the Piedmont have densities of 200-400, while only one in each of the other three regions is in this category. Two Piedmont counties, namely Forsyth and Mecklenburg, have densities of over 400. In general, the most thickly populated counties in the four regions are those which were previously shown to contain the largest number of residents and the largest cities. No county in North Carolina with a city of over 25,000 has less than 100 inhabitants per square mile. (Figs. 2-B and 2-C). Mountain.--This region has the lowest average density in the state. Buncombe is its only county with a density of over 200, while twenty-one of the twenty-five counties have less than 100 persons per square mile. Only three counties are in the medium density range of 100-200. The absence of large 11 towns, with the exception of Asheville, contributes to the low density of individual counties and the region as a whole (Figs. 2-B and 2-C). Tidewater.-—In general, the counties of the Tidewater section are also low in population density. Only New Hanover County has over 200 people per square mile (Fig. 2-B). This one area of high density is due to the presence of Wilmington, the only city of over 25,000 in the Tidewater section, together with the small size of the county. Although the proportion of sparsely populated counties here is higher than in any of the other three regions, the average density is not as low as in the Mountain section (Table 11). Coastal Plain.--Almost one-half of the twenty-three counties of this region have 50-100 persons per square mile, while another one-fourth have 100-200 (Table II). No county with a city of over 25,000 has a density of less than 100. Only Cumberland, which contains the city of Fayetteville, has one of over 200 (Figs. 2-B and 2-C). The two counties with densities of 100-200 that do not now have cities of over 25,000 will probably have at least one place each of this size by 1970. Piedmont.--The Piedmont has the highest average density of any of the four regions. Over one-third of its counties have 100-200 people per square mile, while less than one-half have under 100. Five counties contain over 200 persons per square mile. Two of these, Mecklenburg and Forsyth, have over 400. Each of the two has one of the three cities of this region and the state with over 100,000 residents (Fig. 2-C). All five of the densly populated counties are located within 12 the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent." The very high overall density of the Piedmont is due chiefly to the location here of ten of the sixteen cities of the state with a population of over 25,000. Discordance of Patterns The population densities of the various counties correlate closely in most cases to the numerical totals since most of the counties are of similar area. The most obvious discrepancies between the two patterns are found in Jackson County and Vance County in the M0untain region and the Piedmont, respectively. Although neither of these contains more than 25,000 persons, both have a density of over 100 per square imile--which is above the state average of 92.9. This, of course, is due to their small surface size. Another inconsistency is present between Guilford County and Forsyth County in the Piedmont. The population of the former is more than 50,000 greater than that of the latter, but its density is substantially less. The greater population of Guilford County is attributable, in large part, to the fact that it contains two large cities namely Greensboro and High Point, while Forsyth County has only Winston-Salem (Fig. 2-C). The difference in the densities is because the area of Guilford is much greater than that of Forsyth. Wake County in the Piedmont and New Hanover County in the Tidewater also have differences between their total populations and their densities that are worth noting. The location of the state capital, Raleigh, and of several colleges 13 within the borders of Wake County largely accounts for the nearly 100,000 more persons living there than in New Hanover County. The largest seaport in the state, Wilmington, on the other hand, is in New Hanover County. This fact, coupled with its much smaller size, largely accounts for its higher density. Between 1950 and 1960 Little River Township of Hoke County was annexed to Moore County. This transfer of 88 square miles of land involved only 688llpersons at an average density of 7.8 per square mile. If this annexation had not taken place, Moore County would have had a 1960 density of 53.6 instead of 48.3, while Hoke County would have had one of 41.2 rather than 50.2. An anomalous situation in the case of Carteret County should be mentioned. When the 1960 census was taken, 3,502 persons aboard a naval fleet which happened to be passing were counted as part of the population.12 If this "fictional" population were eliminated, the county would have had only 27,438 inhabitants with a density of 51.6 per square mile in 1960, rather than figures of 30,940 and 58.2 respectively. These 11North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of Counties and Minor Civil Divisions: 1910:1960, Piédmont.SubregI6n of North Carollna, by Josef'Perry (Raleigh: By the author, January, 1962),(pages dealing with Moore County). 12North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, 1980 P0pu1ation Projections for North Carolina Counties with 1950,1960 and 1970 PopuIatlon bynge Groups, By John H. Voorhees and Therese Ramsey I [RaIeigh : By the author], October, 1963), p.vii. l4 differences, however, do not affect the position of the county shown by Figures 2 and 3. Population Trends During the 1930's only nine of the one hundred counties in North Carolina experienced a loss in population (See Appendix B for population changes of counties by region). The Tidewater region had the highest number and percentage of counties with a decline, while the Mountain region was the only one where no county lost inhabitants. During the following decade (1940-50) the number of those with a decrease rose to twenty-two, or over one-fifth of the total. The Mountain section was now the one with the highest number and percentage of counties with loss. In the succeeding ten year period, ending in 1960, thirty-eight counties, or nearly four-tenths of those in the state had a decline. The Mountain section retained its previous position with fifteen of its twenty- five counties losing population (Table III). Most of the counties which gained residents during each of the three decades were within the 4000 increase range. With the exception of the 1930-1940 period, the greatest number of the counties were in the 0.l-lO% range of population growth (Tables III and IV). Two of the three counties experiencing the greatest numerical increase during the decade ending in 1960 were in the Piedmont, while the one with the highest percentage gain was in the Tidewater section (Figs. 3-A and 3-B). In general, the counties in North Carolina showing 15 the greatest growth of population during the last three decades agree closely with those having the most inhabitants in 1960. As might be expected, counties which led in population increase from 1930 to 1940 have continued to grow. Many of them have accelerated their numerical expansion, if not their rate of expansion. In direct contrast to this great growth in some counties have been declines in others, particularly in the Mountain and Coastal Plain sections of the state. P0pu1ation changes for each decade from 1930 to 1960 and percentage changes for the same periods are summarized in Tables III and IV respectively. Although Mecklenburg County in the Piedmont has grown the most numerically during the last three decades, it has not led in percentage gains in any of those periods. On the other hand, both Cumberland County in the Coastal Plain and Onslow County in the Tidewater region have shown an accelerated growth in numbers and high percentage gains as well. These two contrasting examples show that even though numerical changes in county inhabitants are vitally important to the prospective locator of secondary or tertiary industry, percentage variations in certain instances may indicate similarly attractive situations which might not be clear from an examination of only arithmeticalshifts. From 1950 to 1960, Cumberland, Onslow, and Wayne counties were the only ones outside the "Crescent" that had an increase in their populations of over 12,000 persons CFig. 3-A). However, both Cumberland County and Onslow County mentioned previously had greater percentage advances than any WNW->070 I I 680C000 6th. 88 609 9T .twobmtb ”own” mew 1.1.1 1.9 TLQOECHT. 09Cc 6A 9070 L3 70.10098 IOCc I70 BAN. 36 99908 0096 98 C063 38 owcmso Hmpoe 00H 00H 00H Hm am am mm mm mm mm mm mm 0H 0H 0H noHoesoo anoe m 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 000.0s . H00.ms m m 0 H m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 000.0: . H00.0m H m 0 H H 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 H 0 000.0m . H00.sm a s m m s m 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 m 0 000.:0 - H00.mH AH Hm rm 0 HH 0 s m 0 m 0 HH m H H 000.mH . H00.s mm ms mm mH mH pH 0 0H 0H m :H m w m mH 000.: n H mm mm m 0 m m mH HH 0 HH m m 0 0 a 0 . smm.m momH 0m0H osmH oomH 0m0H 0amH oomH 0mmH osmH obmH 0mmH osmH 000H 0mmH osmH . Geo I... I. OH ofloHlO @HI. 0H ommfilo 0H IOMOH o o louo I. o I. o I... to o mwcwfio MO opmum pcospon CHmpczoS chHm Hapmwoo Hopmzoofie omcmm opwpm 6:0 mcofiwom >9 moflucsoo no 969532 ommasomma .moowooa >9 owcmno coapmasaom HHH mflmde wH .NHqN.mH.©.NH m.©H :.©H N.mH m.H 0.0 H.mH H.@ :.OH O.NH m.mH m.MN m.m owedno proe OOH OOH OOH 3m 3m 3m mN mN mN MN MN MN wH wH wH mmecsoo HMpOB H H O O O O O O O O O O H H O mm hm>O H m O O H O O O O H H O O H O mm I H.O# NH HH HH m b # O N 3 N O m N N O o: I H.ON HH HN :m N O NH m 3 NH O 0 HH H N 3 ON I H.OH Fm N: 0 MH 3H mH N w i m :H N m O OH .OH I H.O mm NN m m m m mH HH O HH N N m m 3 O I m.®H me OmmH OimH ommH OmmH OJmH ommH OmmH Ode ommH OmmH ozmH ommH OmmH O#mH I. I... I. . I. . I... I. . I. . I... I. . I. . I... I. . I. . I... I. . OwCMQO %0 mpdpm PCOSUmflfi CHdeSOz CHMHQ Hdpmfloo fiwpdzmcfia Gdem opmpm 0cm mconom an moHpcsoo mo Hoganz ommHIommH monsoon kn owcmno coHHstaom name you >H mamas NH 18 [2 -3.887 - o - Incl-24,000 III]! 400 now - 35.00: 43,000 POPULATION CHANGE . I950 - I960 155553323 w§ ‘V I - 4,000 24.00: ~ 36,000 ‘I . . , - , MILES 6 33 3? To - 48.00! - 76,000 0.0.0.4004 PER CENT OF POPULATION CHANGE.I950 -I960 LEGEND [2:] - nos -0 - 20.: 5.0 OI 'IO - 5.6 . f} MILES mm IOI -20 - 967 ..... E: o 20 40 60 00.0.4000 Fig. 3 [*1 Q) r!) n) l—J- 53 P. 19 of the counties in the "Crescent" area. Thus, it becomes apparent that there are certain areas of North Carolina, not located within the "Crescent" or the Piedmont, which are showing significant gains in population. Mountain.--The population of the Mountain region is growing less rapidly than that of any of the other major areas. The number of inhabitants rose only 11,606 during the 1950's, as compared to 44,339 during the previous decade and 83,916 the one before that (Table III). The percentage gain of only 1.8 for the ten years ending in 1960 indicates that much of the natural increase was siphoned off by migration to other areas. In fact, an increasing number of Mountain counties are losing population rather than gaining. The acute drop in population of many of these counties began in the 1940's. Although none had a loss in its population during the 1930's, eleven did the following decade. This was 44% of the total. During the next ten year period ending in 1960, fifteen counties suffered a loss (Figs. 3-A and 3-B). This meant that 60% of the twenty-five counties declined in inhabitants. The future outlook for this part of the state is disheartening. Still another county is expected to enter the loss column during the present decade, bringing the number to sixteen or to 64% of the total. The decade after that will probably witness declines in two more counties, raising the total to 72%. 0f the counties which continue to grow, most will probably not make appreciable gains. It is predicted that four of the remaining seven counties will have an increase 20 of less than 2,000 persons each by 1980. One of the four is Buncombe, which includes the city of Asheville and is the most populous county in the area. This seems to indicate that the surge of growth promoted by the establishment of the (American Enka Corporation near Asheville in 1939l6and of other manufacturing companies is now slowing down. Although the location of additional large manufacturing plants in Buncombe County is not foreseen, the diversity of the economy already present will probably sustain its present position in the area. Tidewater.--This region is gaining population less rapidly than any other except the Mountain area. Most of the gain of 67,242 was in four counties between 1950 and 1960 (Appendix B). The percentage of counties losing population increased from 22 in the 1930's to 33 in the l950's--an increase from four to six in number. Furthermore, during the present decade a loss of population in 50% of the eighteen Tidewater counties is expected. This trend will probably continue until at least the 1980's. Of the other nine counties in the Tidewater area, five are expected to grow less than 4% during each of the next two decades. The population of Craven County, which had an increase of almost 10,000 from 1950 to l960--or slightly over 20%--is projected to increase only 13,000 in the next twenty l6Hugh Talmage Lefler and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern State (2d edT_re.; Chapel HIIIEI The University of North Carolina Press, 1963, p. 598. 21 years,131n which no decade will show a gain of as much as 11%. An examination of Figure 3-A reveals that Tidewater Jones County fell into the under 4,000 increase class for the ten year period 1950-1960. It did the same for the decades ending in 1950 and 1940. Although observation would seem to indicate a continuing increase subsequent to 1930, there was actually a gain of only one person during the 1950-1960 period. Moreover, projections for population change during the next two decades indicate a gradual decrease in the number of inhabitants in this county.14 Coastal P1a1n.--Each of the decades ending in 1940 and 1950 witnessed a loss in population in only two Coastal Plain counties. These were the same both decades, namely Greene and Gates. This was less than 9% of the twenty-three counties within the region. However, between 1950 and 1960 eleven counties showed a loss of inhabitants, including the two which had previously been in this loss class (Table III). Thus, some 48% of the counties lost population during the decade. The outlook for the future is that an even larger number of Coastal Plain counties will lose people. Indications are that four more counties--Halifax, Nash, Harnett, and Robeson--will do this during the present decade and will 13Ibid. (of footnote 12). luIbid. (of footnote l2). 22 continue the trend until at least 1980. This means that some 65% of the counties will probably suffer a loss of population during the 1960's and the 1970's. The eight remaining counties are expected to continue increasing at about the same rate as was true from 1950 to 1960.15 Cumberland was then the only one with an increase of over 48,000, while growth in the other seven was much less (Table III and Appendix B). As can be clearly seen from Figure 3-A the population of the Coastal Plain is becoming focused in four counties--Cumberland, Wayne, Lenoir, and Pitt. P0pu1ation growth in the Coastal Plain as a whole has been at a decreasing rate over the last thirty years, (Table IV). Piedmont.--The Piedmont has shown the largest pop- ulation growth of any of North Carolina's four regions. Moreover, the rate of growth has risen during each of the last three decades. The number of people increased over 333,000 during the 1950-1960 period, as compared to 280,132 the preceding decade and 199,000 the one before that (Table III). The great majority of the increase has been in the"Piedmont Industrial Crescent." Within this "Crescent" are found the first, second, fourth and sixth numerically most rapidly growing counties in the state--Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, and Wake, in that order. A marked contrast to this spectacular expansion in some counties is the condition in others, particularly Warren, and to a lesser extent in Franklin, Anson, Richmond, Caswell, and Vance. All of these lost people during 151bid. 23 the 1950-1960 period (Figs. 3-A and 3-B). In the future, population trends in Piedmont counties will probably continue much the same as in the recent past. All of the counties that had a loss of residents in the 1950's will no doubt extend this in the coming years. Of the counties which gained in the past, probably only Cleveland will reverse the trend and experience a loss during the 1960's.17 On the whole, the outlook for the future growth of the Piedmont is bright. Selected Counties The discussion which follows will consider in more detail population numbers, densities, and changes in particular counties in each of the four regions of the state. Tidewater Counties Carteret.--Carteret County possesses a unique position in its anticipated growth for the next two decades. Since there were 3,502 navy personnel included as part of the population in 1960, as was mentioned before, there will be a definite difference in the true increase by 1970 and that computed by the Bureau of the Census. The 1970 census will probably show a net gain of about 1000 persons for the preceding ten years. If so, the apparent increase will be some 3%, while the true figure will be nearer 17%.18 This 17Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, Voorhees and Ramsey, p.x. 18Ibid. 24 discrepancy will affect population figures for only the 1960-1970 decade. New Hanover.--This is the most densely populated county in the Tidewater area, as well as the second largest numerically and the second most rapid in growth. During the two decades following 1960, it is expected to retain its position in all three of these categories. The principal city is Wilmington, which contains over 61% of the population. Surprisingly enough, however, during the decade ending in 1960 the city proper experienced a net loss of over 100 residents. This appears to have been due to the movement of persons into the adjacent suburbs of East Wilmington and South Wilmington. These two communities together had a growth of 6,000 the same decade.19 This trend will probably continue. Onslow.--Onslow County contains the largest number of people in the Tidewater section and has had the highest percentage growth in the entire state for the last two decades. This great growth is, indeed, in sharp contrast with the trend in most of the other Tidewater counties. The primary reason for it is the presence of Camp Lejeune, the "world's most complete amphibious training base,"20 and Cherry Point, the Marine air base. These two Marine installations 19Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of Counties...Eastern Subregion..., (pages dealIng WIfh New Hanover County). 2OSharpe, II, 973. 25 have not only brought in military personnel, but also a large number of civilians to work on and off the bases. Over 75% of the growth of the county in the last decade was in Jacksonville Township just north and northwest of Camp Lejeune. Moreover, another 17% of the increase was in adjoining Swansboro Townshipggabout two—thirds the area of which is on the marine base.22 Coastal Plain Counties Cumberland.--Cumberland County, which is the fastest growing county in the Coastal Plain, centers on Fayetteville. Although this city was originally established because of its transportation and water power advantages at the head of navigation on the Cape Fear River, its great surge of growth-- and that of Cumberland County--first began in the 1920's with the building there of an army post after the end of World War I. The result was the spread of the trade area of Fayetteville and an increased demand for housing.23 Cumberland County moved from the state's twelfth most populous county in 21Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of Counties...Eastern Subregion..., (pages dealing with Onslow Counfy). 22 Sharpe, II, 959- 23Mary McRae Colby, "The Geographic Structure of Southeastern North Carolina" Research Paper No. 58, Ph.D dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, August, 1958, pp. 198-200. 26 1940 to the fifth most in 1960.24 Today, the city of Fayetteville is important for its manufacturing and tourism, and as a trade center for an area estimated to have a population of from 150,000 to 200,000 inhabitants. Nearly one-third of the people 2 living in Cumberland County reside in Fayetteville. 5 Wayne.--Goldsboro is Wayne County's population center. Like Fayetteville, the town contains about one-third of the inhabitants of the county.26 Most of the others are dispersed 2 in a rural pattern. 7 During the last decade, over 90% of the increase in Wayne County was concentrated in Goldsboro and the 28 adjoining township on the east, New Hope. Just as was true with 2”Fayetteville Planning Department, Population : FayettevilleL_North Carolina (technical study No.2; Fayetteville: Department oT_Planning, January, 1963), p.1, originally prepared by N. Duncan McIntyre: a graduate student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 25North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of Counties and Minor Civil Divisions: 1910-1960, Eastern subregion of North Carolina, by JoseI—’ Perry (Raleigh: By the autho January, 1962: (pages dealing with Cumberland County . 2 6Ibid., (pages dealing with Wayne County). 27Colby, p.196 28Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of Counties...Eastern Subregion..., (pages dealing with Wayne Counfy). 27 Cumberland County, the armed services caused the acceleration of the population growth in Wayne County. In 1942, Seymour Johnson Field was established here for Army flight training. Later, the curtailment of activities at the base halted the feverish phase of county growth. Nevertheless, the impetus for a growing county had been acquired. Not only did the civilians originally drawn by the base remain,29but there has also been a continuing rise in the number of inhabitants. The 1950-1960 increase was 17,792, approximately three times as many as during each of the previous two decades. Pitt and Lenoir.--Pitt County and Lenoir County have as their principal towns Greenville and Kinston, respectively. Both places are important for their tobacco markets. Greenville also has East Carolina College as a significant part of its community. Although population figures do not include college students from outside the county, East Carolina's nearly 6,000 students play an important part in the economy of Greenville and Pitt County and in this way have contributed to the county's growth. Kinston has a fairly broad economic base with a diversity of manufacturing enterprises. The town of Kinston and Lenoir County also benefit, to a limited degree, from residence there of military personnel stationed at the nearby Marine bases, Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune, in Onslow County.30 During each of the two decades beginning with the years 1960 2913111 Sharpe, A New Geography of North Carolina (Raleigh: Sharpe Publiahing Company, 1954), I, 512. 30Ibid., III, 1385. 28 and 1970, the increase of population in Lenoir County will probably be approximately twice that of Pitt County. This will mean that the Pitt County lead of almost 15,000 persons in 1960 will be diminished to a little over 3,000 by 1980.31 Mountain Counties Madison.--Madison County has experienced the sharpest drop in population of any county in the Mountain section. During the last decade it not only ranked first in the number and percentage of population decline in the Mountain region, but also second in both categories in the entire state only to Warren County in the Piedmont. A Letter of April 4, 1964, from Jim Story, Editor of The News-Record in Marshall, stated that the decrease has been chiefly due to the lack of opportunity for gainful employment. He also suggested that the low salaries paid in the county could not hold the young people because of better employment opportunities and higher salaries in adjoining Buncombe County and other industrial areas. Madison County is now listed among the "Depressed Areas" in the United States. The outlook appears bleak, indeed, if based solely on the past. However, certain facts about the county and its county seat, Marshall, lend substantial hope for the future. Marshall is located on both the French Broad River and the Southern Railway, these providing an enormous water supply and good 31Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, V60rhees and Ramsey, p.x. 29 transportation, respectively. Suitable industrial sites are available. Mars Hill College, a four year institution, is located within the county.32 The tourist industry, which is already developed on a moderate scale, could be expanded. Thus, there appears to be hidden opportunity here for the establishment of both secondary and tertiary industries which would undoubtedly result in a rising population, or at least a slowing of the loss. Sufficient local capital is lacking, but this can be brought in from other areas by men who have the imagination and willingness to invest their time, energy, and money. The aid program now being carried on by the federal government will also be a stimulus to the development of not only Madison County, but also other depressed Mountain counties as well. Piedmont Counties Mecklenburg.--Mecklenburg, the most populous county in the Piedmont section and in the entire state, is also the one that has experienced the largest numerical growth in both areas for the past three decades. Moreover, this trend is expected to continue until at least 1980.33 The principal city of the county, and the state as well, is Charlotte. The city had 201,564 residents in 1960. From 1940 to 1960, 35% of the 32 marshall Chamber of Commerce, Information Concerning Marshall and Madison County, a brochure, (1962). 33Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, Voorhees and Ramsey, p.x. 30 population growth in the Charlotte Trade Area took place in Metropolitan Charlotte. The increase of the some 340,000 inhabitants in the Charlotte Trade Area during this period was equivalent to the combined 1960 population of the cities . and of Greensboro, High Point,/Ra1eigh in North Carolina and 34 In addition, by 1960 there were Greenville in South Carolina. more people residing within a 75 mile radius of Charlotte than in an equal area around Atlanta or other southern cities several times the size of Charlotte.35 Guilford.--This county ranks second in total population and numerical growth in both the Piedmont section and the state. It also ranks third in population density in North Carolina. This rapidly growing county contains the state's second and sixth largest cities, namely, Greensboro and High Point.36 Greensboro increased its population during the 1950's by over 45,000 and High point by over 22,0009while the county as a whole gained only about 55,000. In 1960, the two cities contained over 73% of the people residing in the county. The rapid expansion of both Greensboro and High Point has been aided by their numerous manufacturing, retail, financial, and service firms. The perimeter of these two cities, being less than seven 34Hammer and Company Associates, p.11. 35LeGette Blythe and Charles Raven Brockmann, Hornet"s Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (Charlotte: McNally, 1961), p.282. 36Greensboro and High Point Planning Departments; Winston-Salem and Forsyth County Planning Board, p. 5. 31 miles apart,37Makes it probable that within a generation or two they will become one large unified metropolis. At the present, there is a definite increase in occupancy along the routes between the two places. They, and therefore Guilford County, are expected to continue growth until at least 1980?8 Forsyth.--Forsyth County is the third most populous county in the Piedmont section and in the entire state. It also ranks second in density within the two areas. The reason for the much higher density here as compared to Guilford County, which has over 60,000 more people, is that its area is 217 39 square miles smaller. Winston-Salem, the principal city in Forsyth County, is the third largest one in the Piedmont region 40 and in North Carolina. It and Greensboro and High Point in 41 Guilford County form the "Piedmont Triad of North Carolina." Just as with Mecklenburg and Guilford counties, so too it is expected that Forsyth County will experience continued rapid 42 growth until at least 1980. A great deal of the expansion 37Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of Counties...Piedmont Subregion...,(first map in book). 38 Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, Voorhees and Ramsey, p.x. 39Sharpe, I, 146; II, 840. qureensboro and High Point Planning Departments; Winston-Salem and Forsyth County Planning Board, p. 5. 411bid., p. iii. ’ . 1 . q . . . TgDepartment of Conservation nno Development, DlVISIOn of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, Voorhees and Ramsey, p. x. 32 has been because Winston-Salem is both the leading industrial center and the leading cultural center of North _ 43 Carolina. FranklinifWarren, and Anson.---In contrast to the areas of phenomenal growth in the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent" are six Piedmont counties which have experienced a decrease in population during the past decade. Losses were especially large in Franklin, Warren, and Anson counties. Franklin County, which did not begin losing population until this past decade, then suffered a sharp drop. The 1960 population was 2,586 less than that of 1950, or a loss of a little more than 8%. Warren County, which had a slight increase in the number of persons living there during the 1940's, also underwent an acute loss the following decade. In fact, this county had the greatest numerical and percentage loss of any county in North Carolina during these years. This decrement was distributed more or less evenly throughout the county, except for the small town of Norlina which had an increase of 53 persons, or a little over 6%?AL Anson County is the only one in the Piedmont section, and one of the five in North Carolina, to experience a drop in population during each of the last three decades. All of its 43 Forsyth County, Board of County Commissioners,, A Decade of Progress in Forsyth County, North Carolina ( [Winston-Salem, 196II), p.fil6} 44 Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of Counties...Piedmont Subregion..., (pages dealing with Warren County). m3.._ fl 33 townships and two of its eight towns lost population during the 1950's?5 The largest town, Wadesboro, has less than 4,000 inhabitants. With the steady decline of agriculture in the county, more people are beginning to commute to jobs in the surrounding counties. The attributes which Anson offers new industries are "a coastal plains climate, massive hydro- electric power and transportation, a strategic location, a large labor force and conservative citizenry."46 Still, industry does not come and the population continues to fall. The population projections for the next two decades do not forecast 14 change in this trend. 7 l'5Ibid., (pages dealing with Anson County)‘ 46Sharpe, III, 1123. 47Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, Voorhees and Ramsey, p.x. CHAPTER III URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONL‘L8 Introduction In the previous chapter, attention was brought to bear upon the unevenness of the areal distribution of the population of the state in the four defined regions. The Piedmont contains two counties with over 200,000 inhabitants and four more with over 100,000. The Mountain and Coastal Plain regions each have only one county with over 100,000 persons. The Tidewater area has none (Fig. 2-A). The density pattern has somewhat similar outlines with the Piedmont region having two counties with over 400 persons per square mile and three counties with over 200. Each of the other three sections has only one county with a density exceeding 200. Recognition of these differences in the number and density of inhabitants suggests that other characteristics of the population might exhibit similar areal variations. This proves true of distributions of urban, rural farm and rural nonfarm populations of North Carolina, as is shown in Figures 4-A, 5-A, 6-A, and 7-A. Urban Population Almost four-tenths of the population of North Carolina, is classified as urban. In the Piedmont section approximately 48See Appendix A for definitions. 34 35 one-half of the people are in this group, while in the other three regions it is between one-fourth and one-third (Table V). Over one-half of the counties in the Tidewater and Mountain sections are less than 10% urban,whereas less than one-third of those in the Coastal Plain and only one-fifth of those in the Piedmont are in this category. Nearly 20% of the Piedmont counties, or seven out of thirty-four, are over 60% urban. Only one other county in the state, New Hanover in the Tidewater region, is in this class (Fig. 4-A). Details of the number and per cent of urban population in the various counties and changes the last two decades can be determined from Appendix C. During the last decade, the Piedmont accounted for nearly three-fourths of North Carolina's gain of 434,021 urban residents. The Coastal Plain also had a relatively large increase, amounting to 100,416 persons, but the Tidewater and Mountain sections gained only about 14,000 each (Table VI). Within the same ten year period, five counties in the Mountain, two in the Tidewater area and one in the Piedmont lost urban population (Table VI; Figs. 4-B, 4-C). Thus, it is apparent that although there was an overall growth of urban population in the state and in each of the major regions, eight North Carolina counties actually lost people of this class. The increase of 434,021 urban dwellers between 1950-1960 was much larger than the one of 266,632 the previous decade. Among the four regions only the Tidewater section had a smaller increase in the last decade than during the preceding one. Between 1950 and 1960 two Piedmont counties added over 35,000 urban residents each, These were Guilford with 61,370 and Mecklenburg with 71,194 36 (Fig. 4-B). This was a significant share of the total gain in urban population in the state. During the 1950's the Coastal Plain had the greatest percentage of urban increase (44.5%), while the Mountain region had the least (8.3%). The Coastal Plain and Piedmont sections had higher percentage increases in the 1950's than in the 1940's, whereas the Tidewater had less and the Mountain stayed about the same (Table VII). Six counties in the state recorded an urban population for the first time in 1950, and three more did this in 1960. During the 1950's Onslow County in the Tidewater region had the highest percentage gain of any county (Fig. 4-C). This was 130.4%, but the numerical gain was 9,992, less than in eleven other counties of the state and much less than the 71,194 added in Mecklenburg County which had the largest increase. Tidewater.--0n1y the Mountain region is more rural. Nearly one-half of the Tidewater counties are less than 10% urban. Yet, one is over 60%, and is the only one outside the Piedmont in this class. This is New Hanover County in which the city of Wilmington is located. Between 1940 and 1950, two counties, Washington and Onslow, recorded their first urban population. During the 1950's, however, Beaufort and Chowan lost urban residents and no county had an increase of over 10,000. Nevertheless, Onslow County had the highest percentage gain in the state. Even though Pasquotank County and New Hanover County are much more urban, both in percentages and numbers, Onslow experienced the biggest urban growth. Its gain of 9,992 persons was the largest part of the 13,997 increase in the Tidewater region as a whole (Appendix C). PER CENT URBAN,I960 ‘IIIWHIIIH I “W haw” km)“; nllllIIIIII ........ ”H“ ....... ......... ...... II": .............. LEGEND ' CD won unonu lllll 20' ' ‘0 :3 OJ . IO - QOI - CO - Io.I - 20 - 5°" ' .0 URBAN CHANGE,I950-l960 ................... ............. ------------ ...... ........... .......... .......... .......... ..... ......... ....... ............. ............. ............... ................... ................. ................... .................. ..... ....... ............. .............. LE GENO 3:55;: CID won on.“ m I0.00| - 23.000 D 4.0.. - -I - 32.00I - 35,000 MW - . IO 00 - «.310 — ' '0 o to .0 .0 - 7I,I 94 “53!: PER CENT URBAN CHANGE I950-I960 ............. ............. ............. ooooooooooo . ' ""111 ........... ....... ............................. ................................. ............ .......... ....... ...... ...... ................. nun .2133. ........ - --- ' "U" ............... ...... .................... ........................... ....................... ............. ............. -------------- ..... ...... --------------- .................... CID now on.“ n 30.: - .0 I - OJ ' 30 - I 30‘ CD has! on... povuumou 'TJ II-J. CR 4:- 38 TABLE V Per Cent Urban, 1960 Counties _, Region with Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain ‘Piedmont State N6hé* 10 5 I3 6 34 0.1-10 0 2 1 l 4 10.1-20 0 3 3 5 11 20.1-40 6 7 7 9 29 40.1-60 1 6 l 6 14 60.1-80 1 O 0 7 8 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Per Cent 29.1 29.3 26.8 50.4 39.5 People 144.565 324,522 153,360 1,204,905 1,827,352 TABLE VI Urban Change by Decades 11940 - 1960 Range Number of Counties by Region and State of Change Tidewater coastal Tflain Mountain Piedmont State 1940- 1950 1940- 1950 1940- 1950- 1940- 1950- -l940- 1950- 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 19 0 1960 T‘ngng 10 10 7 5 14 13 34 Loss 0 2 1 0 2 5 3 1 8 1-10,000 7 6 14 16 9 6 2O 19 50 47 10, 001- 23,000 1 0 1 1 O l 4 4 6 6 32, 000- 35, 000 O 0 0 l O 0 1 2 1 3 61, 000- 72, 000 O O 0 O O O O 2 O 2 Total Counties 8 18 23 23 25 25 34 34 100 100 Total Change ox b— a) \o “1 \0 on a: 01 .4 b— ox (n .4 r: Ln Ln Ln cn o: 1‘. 02 02 "‘1 02 “i 0?. “2 ‘0. 0.. r1 «3 0: co cn :- b— Ln \0 .1 (n .4 Ln (3 .4 r4 \0 <3 \0 «1 H H m (\l -:I' TABLE VII Per Cent Urban Chan e by Decades 1940 - 19 0 Range ’NUmber a? Counties by Region and73tate of Change Tidewater Coastal Tlain Mountain *Piedmont State 0 ._ 0 g 0 ._ o ._ 10 ._10 g- 10 g- 0 g- 0 ._”0 g- 1950 1960 0 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 19 0 1960 None* 10* 5 147 13 6 3 34 Loss- 012 O 2 5 3 l 6 8 0.1- 30 3 5 10 6 7 5 11 18 31 34 30.1- 60 3 O 2 6 1 O 6 7 l2 l3 60.1-103 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 2 5 7 120-152 0 1 1 0 0 O 1 O 2 1 190.6 0 0 0 O 0 O l 0 1 0 Urban First Time 2 O 1 2 1 1 2 O 6 3 Total Counties 18 18 23 23 25 25 34 34 100 100 Total Change 40.3 12.7 30.7 44.5 8.8 8.3 24.3 35.5 24.2 31.7 * No urban population 39 Coastal Plain.--No county in the Coastal Plain has ohver one—half of its population classified as urban. Its six major urbanized counties are Cumberland and the five surrounding Greene County, namely Wilson, Wayne, Lenoir, Pitt, and Edgecombe (Fig. 4-A). Within the last two decades three counties obtained an urban population for the first time. These were Hertford County in the 1940‘s and Hoke and Duplin Counties in the 1950's. The greatest numerical increases in the last decade occurred in Cumberland and Pitt, but percentage gains were as large in several other counties (Fig. 4—B, 4-C). No county lost urban inhabitants during the same period. The Coastal Plain has only five counties without any urban population. This is the smallest number in any of the states four regions. Mountain.--The Mountain section of North Carolina had the largest number 04) and highest percentage (60%) of counties with less than 10% of their population classified as urban of any region. Thirteen of these counties had no urban population (Fig. 4-A and Table V). During the last two decades, two counties have recorded an urban population for the first time-- Watauga County in the 1940's and Mitchell County in the 1950's. 0n the other hand, within the last decade, five counties have declined in the number of urban inhabitants. McDowell showed the greatest loss, almost 2,300 persons, or over 40%. As would probably be expected, Buncombe County had the greatest numerical gain (10,155) during the same years. Five other counties, however, had higher percentage increases (Appendix C). Buncombe is the only county in the region whose population is over 40% urban (52.4%). Piedmont.-—The Piedmont section, which contains six 40 of the seven cities with over 50,000 inhabitants, and 50% of its people classed as urban, is the most urbanized part of the state. All of these cities are included in the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent." Each county which contains one of these cities is over 60% urban. In addition, two other Piedmont counties are in this class. Both adjoin Mecklenburg County and have a city with a population of more than 25,000. On the whole, the greatest urban gains have been in the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent." During the 1950's Mecklenburg County experienced the greatest increase adding 71,194 urban residents (Fig. 4-B). Seven other counties had an increase over 10,000. Even so, one county (Richmond) lost urban population and six others have no people of this class (Appendix C). Rural Population Approximately ysixetenths of North Carolina's residents are classified as rural. Nearly one-half of the population of the Piedmont is rural, although this is the most urbanized region of the state. Each of the other three regions is 70% or more rural with the highest figure being 73.2% in the Mountains (Table VIII). Only eight of the 100 counties in North Carolina have a rural population of under 40%, whereas forty-nine of them have one of over 80% (Fig. 5-A). Thirty-four of the latter are completely rural (Appendix D). Fifteen more counties had a decline in rural population during the 1950's than}%he 1940's. (See Appendix D for rural changes by number and percent). However, only four counties gained over 10,000 rural inhabitants in the former period, while 41 nine did in the latter. Within the last decade, the Coastal Plain and the Mountain region lost rural population. The 16,122 loss in the Coastal Plain was the biggest one. However, Cumberland County in this section was the only one in the state with a rural increase of over 19,000 persons. The increase of 55,385 rural residents in the Tidewater region was the largest, and accounted for much of the 64,811 added in the whole state (Table IX). Although Onslow had the highest percentage gains during the last twenty years, the increase dropped from 112.3% to 89.2% in successive decades. During the 1950's the Tidewater region had by far the highest percentage increase in rural population (22.3%). Almost nine-tenths of the counties in North Carolina had one of less than 17%. The percentage gain for the state dropped from 9.0% in the 1940's to [2.4% in the 1950's (Table x). Tidewater.--This section is 71% rural, the second highest in the state. Although one—third of its counties lost rural population during the 1950's, the region as a whole had the greatest numerical and percentage increase in this class of people of any in North Carolina (Tables IX and X). The greatest increase occurred in Craven and Onslow counties (Fig. 5-B). New Hanover is the only county outside the Piedmont with a rural population of under 40%. Pasquotank is the only other one in the Tidewater region with one of less than 60”. 42 TABLE VIII Per Cent Rural, 1960 Counties Region With Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State 20.1- 40 1 O O 7 8 40.1- 60 l 6 l 6 14 60.1- 80 6 7 6 9 28 80.1-100 10 10 18 12 50 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Per Cent 70.9 70.7 73.2 49.6 60.5 People 283,695 798,036 5427285 1,104,787 2,728,803 TABLE IX Rural Change by Decades 1940-1960 Range Tidewater Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountain State of Change 1940-1950- 1940-1950- 1940-1950- 1940-1950-1940-1950- 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 7,600- 7,200 O 0 O 2 0 0 O 0 O 2 5,907- 0 8 6 5 17 12 13 13 15 38 51 1- 5,000 8 9 l6 2 l3 l8 9 7 46 36 5,001-10,000 0 1 l l 4 2 2 3 7 7 10,001-14,000 l 2 O 0 3 l l 0 5 3 l9,001-21,000 l 0 1 1 2 0 0 O 4 1 Total Counties l8 18 23 23 34 34 25 25 100 100 Total Change E3 on w\ m\ '1 o co \0 o n- a) Ox \0 a) ox 01 xx 2- r4 ox «I u) r1 r1 e1 :1 \o q- .4 .. o. q | n a A N 0] CD ux ax :- n: cn C) 01 ~ ~ “1 L“ 3 TABLE x 3 C“ m ' a} 553 cu Per Cent Rural Change by Decades 1940-1960 Number of counties by Region and State Range Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmofit State of Change "O- 0 O- 0'0— 0 0- 0 o-‘0 o— 0 0— 0 0— 0‘0- 0'0- 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 3O - o 8 7 19 13 15 12 13 38 54 0.1-17 5 7 l7 2 7 7 14 19 43 35 17.1-34 3 2 O l 5 3 5 2 l3 8 34.1-53 O l l l O O 3 O 4 2 69.1-90 l l O O O O O O l 1 112.3" 1 O O O O O O O l 0 Total Counties 18 18 23 23 25 25 34 34 100 100 Total Change 16.9 22.3 5.8 -2.0 6.3 - .5 11.2 2.5 9.0 2.4 PER CENT RURAL. '960 ....... u- ........... ................ ..................... ............................ ........... .......... ...... ....... ...... ....... ...... .................. ................. ............ .......... .......... LEGEND :20.-.0 “GOI-OO £35325? ‘0' - so - 80! - '00 RURAL CHANGE. |950 - '960 .................... ..................... ......... ......... ......... ........... .......... LEGEND ’-.F * ,_ .7500 - .7200 mm 5.00: . v0.000 Z—Z-' . CI] -5.907 - 0 - no.00n - I4,000 ‘ MILES - . - 5,000 - l9,‘OI .2n,000 mat—E O 20 00 50 PER CENT RURAL CHANGE. |950 -l960 ....... ............ ............ LEGEND $355357 \ , . .:.;.'.i.;lj E - 30: - 0 mm .7: - 0: - n7 - 34. - 53 - 092 MILES I“ 0 20 40 50 0.0... - I.“ 44 Coastal Plain.—- Between 1950 and 1960, the Coastal Plain section lost 16,122 rural inhabitants, a decrease of 2.0%. These were the greatest numerical and percentage declines in any of the state's four regions. This part of North Carolina contains five, or about 15%, of the 34 counties of North Carolina that have no urban population. Nineteen of its twenty—three counties lost rural population during the last decade. This was a greater number and proportion of counties losing rural residents than in any other region (Fig. 5-C). Mountain.--Only one county, Buncombe, in the Mountain section has less than 60% of its population classified as rural, while 18 of the 25 have over 80%. The number of counties experiencing a loss in rural population increased from 13 in the 1940's to 15 in the 1950's. The Mountain region, however, is still the most rural one of the state. On the whole, this region had a decline of 2,650 rural inhabitants, or of 0.5%, during the last decade. Ten counties gained, but none more than Burke where the increase was 6,097 persons. Piedmont.--The Piedmont is almost 50% rural even though it is the most urbanized region of the state. Only seven counties have a rural population of under 40%, while twelve of them have one of over 80%. Six of the latter are completely rural. The number having a decrease was 12 in the 1940's and 13 in the 1950's, while five had an increase of over 10,000 in the former period and only one in the latter. During the last decade, only two counties had a rural increase of over 17%. In general, within the same period the Piedmont had an increase in rural population of 45 of 28,183, or 2.5%. Rural Farm Population In order to have a better understanding of the rural population, it should be divided into the rural farm and rural nonfarm components and each of these groups studied. Almost one-fifth of the residents of North Carolina are classified as rural farm. Only two counties in the Coastal Plain have a rural farm population of under 20%, while nine, thirteen, and twenty-one in the Tidewater, Mountain, and Piedmont sections, respectively, are in this category. The number of counties in each region with over 40% rural farm residents are as follows: Tidewater, 1; Mountain and Piedmont,6 each; and Coastal Plain, 10 (Fig. 6-A and Table XI). Only Dare Countyin the Tidewater region had an increase in rural farm population during the last decade (Fig. 6-B). Every other county in the state lost people from their farms. Two, three, and four counties of the Mountain, Coastal Plain, and Piedmont sections, respectively, had a decline of over 10,000 rural farm inhabitants. The Piedmont had a decrease of over 217,000, the Coastal Plain and Mountain areas of approximately over 155,000 each, and the Tidewater of almost 40,000 (Table XII). Appendix E shows details of the changes in rural farm population. During the 1950's over one-half of the counties in the Mountain section experienced a decline of more than 60%. No county in the Tidewater, one in the Coastal Plain, and four in the Piedmont were also in this category (Fig. 6-C). The 46 Mountain region had the highest percentage of rural farm losses and the Coastal Plain, the lowest. As a whole, the state had a loss in rural farm population of over 40%, amounting to 567,486 persons who left to become rural nonfarm or urban dwellers (Table XIII). Tidewater.--The loWest proportion (0.5%) of rural farm population in the Tidewater section and the state is found in New Hanover County. During the 1950's, rare was the only county in North Carolina in which there was an increase in the number of farm people (59). Only Jones County in the region has a rural farm population of over 40%, whereas five have one of less than 10% (Fig. 6-A). No Tidewater County had a loss of more than 6,000 rural farm persons, and only one had a decline over 60%. The Tidewater region lost 38,961 of its farm dwellers between 1950-1960. This was the smallest numerical loss and it had the second lowest percentage loss of any region in the state (Table XII). Coastal Plain.--0ver 30% of the people in the Coastal Plain are classified as rural farm. Thus, it is the most agricultural region in North Carolina. Greene County in this region is the only one in the state with a rural farm population of over 60%. Cumberland is the region's only county with less than 10% rural farm population, while ten have over 40% of their people so classified. During the 1950's, none had a decrease of less than 2,000 persons and three had a gain of over 10,000. All but two of the twenty-three counties experienced a loss of 17-40% (Fig. 6-C). The Coastal Plain region had a decline in rural farm inhabitants of Just over 30% during this period, this being the smallest of any of the four regions. PER CENT RURAL FARM, |960 LEGEND E on - IO ‘71:?" IO] - 2 0 mm 20.1 - 00 MILES _ - 40.: - 62 0 20 40 so RURAL FARM CHANGE. l950 - |960 - ‘ ' 550° ' ' '0.00' m -6.000 - - 2.00: - 40.000 - - 0.00» I: -2.000 - -24. E33 .59 PER CENT RURAL FARM CHANGE. I950 - I960 J, *7 v ' ::: ..... , ‘ ‘ ' . " 1‘ _\ ,5 I“: LEGEND -: . , -.. . - -52 - -50.: :37: -50 - -00) :3 ~40 - ~'7" MILES 776 w CE! . o 20 40 00 0.0.0.4000 48 TABLE XI Per Cent Rural Farm 1960 Counties Region With Tidewater Coastal Plain IMountain Piedmont State 0 -10 5 1 6 11 23 10.1 -20 4 l 7 10 22 20.1 -40 8 ll 6 7 32 40.1 -62 l 10 6 6 23 .Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total PEr Cent 14.2 30.5 17.9 11.6 17.7 People 60,795 355.538 124,575 275,771 811,774 TABLE XII Rural Farm Chan e,_l950-1960 Range Number of ounties by Region and State _ of Change Tidewater Coastal Ifialn Mountain Piedmont State - 15,500- - 10,001 0 3 2 9* - 10,000- - 6,001 O 11 10 12 R3 - 6,000- - 2,001 8 9 12 18 7 - 2,000- - 241 9 O l O 10 v 59 1 O 0 O 1 Total Counties 18 34 100 23 25 Total Change -38,961 -156,812 ~154,466 -217,247 -567,486 TABLE XIII __* Per Cent Rural Farm Change, 1950-1960 Range NUmber of Counties by Region and State of Change Tidewater Coastal Plain M0untain Piedmont State - 82- - 60.1 1 0 13 4 18 - 60- - 40.1 7 2 8 22 39 - 40- - 17.1 9 21 4 8 42 4 .6 l o o 0 1 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Change -39.1 -30.8 -55.3 -44.5 ~41.2 49 Mountain.--The Mountain section is less than 20% rural farm. Although only Madison County has more than half its people (59.9%) in the rural farm class, the number of counties in each percentage division used in Table XI are almost evenly divided. During the last decade only one county lost less than 2,000 rural farm residents, while only two decreased by over 10,000. Percentage losses were generally high (Fig. 6-C and Table XIII). The region experienced a decline of about 55%, amounting to 154,466 persons (Table XII). Piedmont.--0n1y slightly over one-tenth of the Piedmont population is classified as rural farm. Nearly one-third of the counties are less than 10% rural farm and almost two-thirds of them are under 20% (Table XI). Those that have the highest percentages of rural farm inhabitants are in the north and northeastern parts of this region (Fig. 6-A). From 1950 to 1960, no county decreased less than 2,000, and four declined by more than 10,000 farm dwellers (Table XII). Approximately two-thirds of the counties had a loss of from 40-60% of their farm population. Cleveland County had the largest drop in number (13,464), while Gaston had the highest percentage loss (70.6). The Piedmont rural farm population decreased by almost 45%. Its numerical loss of 217,247 farm people was the largest for any of the four regions and nearly one-half of the 567,486 in the entire state. Rural Nonfarm Population North Carolina has over 40% rural nonfarm population. In the Tidewater and Mountain sections it is approximately 55% 50 rural nonfarm, while in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions it is about 40%. The Tidewater area barely has the highest percentage of rural nonfarm dwellers and the Piedmont the lowest (Table XIV). Eighty-three of the counties of the state have more rural nonfarm than farm people (Appendix E). The rural nonfarm class is the largest proportion of the population in each of the four regions except in the Piedmont where it is exceeded by the urban group (compare Tables V, XI, XIV). Guilford County in the Piedmont is the only one in the state that is less than 20% rural nonfarm. Nine counties, on the other hand, have over 80% of this kind of people. Five of these counties are in the Mountains, three in the Tidewater area, and one in the Piedmont (Fig. 7-A). During the 1950's every county in North Carolina had an increase in rural nonfarm and inhabitants. This is in direct contrast to the loss in rural farm people in every county except one, and similar to the gain in urban populations in all but eight. It is indicative of the great movement of people to the cities and suburban areas, or at least the adoption of nonfarm living and commuting to work in case they did not move. Increases in rural nonfarm population in 1950-1960 ranged from a high of 25,672 in Cumberland County in the Coastal Plain to a low of 241 in Tyrrell County in the Tidewater area (Fig. 7-B). Percentages of gain varied between 164.4 in Union County and 5.9 in Guilford County, both of which are in the Piedmont (Appendix E; Fig. 7-C). The numerical increase was less than 2,000 in only sixteen of North Carolinas Counties and over 17,000 in three cases (Table XV). The percentage increase was PER CENT RURAL NONFARI, |960 LEGEND :3 :0.: - 20 Ill! 40: - 00 - 20.: - «0 - 00:- 00 - 00.: . 97.7 glfi . J MILES — O 20 40 .0 RURAL NONFARN CHANGE. |950 -|960 i‘ ‘L'C‘ .............. ..... 353:9; ............. ' '\ ‘ ..-.-..-.-5 ' '.7.:.f..-.j. .......... ,._,__. ..-_.... ..-. ______ .............. ............... LEGEND 7‘7 -~ __.._.:;...;..f:::§:.~,.. 21:33:35‘7337' . :-;~;- ............ :3 N0 - 2.000 - :0.00: - :saoo _ - 2.00: . 0.000 - moo: - :moo MILES .1 0.00: - :0.000 - 25.372 PER CENT RURAL NONFARN CHANGE, 1950-I900 \s x. .......... lip: \\\\\‘\ ‘8) r ..... WIHHIH LEGEND '8} .:.::%3%:;::% CI] 5.0 . :7 - 00.: - 00 - :1: - 00 - 00.: - :04 - 40.: - 00 - ”5.3 52 TABLE XIV Per Cent Rural Nonfarm, 1960 Counties Region with Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State 10.1-2O 0 O O l 1 20.1-40 3 l3 2 12 3O 40.1-60 3 9 9 15 36 60.1-80 9 1 9 5 24 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Per Cent 56.7 40.2 55.3 38.0 42.8 People 222,900 442,498 417,615 834,016 1,917,029 TABLE XV Rural Nonfarm Change, 1950-1960 Range Number of Counties by Region and State of Change Tidewater Coastal Plain M0untain Piedmont'7State 241- 2,000 8 3 4 l 16 2,001- 6,000 6 12 ll 17 46 6,001-10,000 2 6 5 10 23 10,001-15,5OO 2 O 5 5 l2 17,001-17,600 O 1 0 1 2 25,672 0 l O O 1 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Change 94,346 140,690 151,816 245,445 6321297 TABLE XVI Per Cent Rural Nonfarm Change, 1950-1960 Range PNUmber of counties by Region and State of Change Tldewater Coastal Plain Mountain lTiedmont State 5.9- 17 6 2 1 4 13 17.1- 40 2 8 4 11 25 40.1- 60 2 8 5 10 25 60.1- 80 7 2 4 7 20 80.1-104 1 2 9 1 13 115.3 0 1 O O l 136.1-165 O O 2 l 3 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Change 63.5 46.4 65.3 39.0 48.2 53 over 60 in thirty-seven.oounties (Table XVI). The state as a whole added 632,297 rural nonfarm residents, or 48.2%. The Piedmont had the largest numerical gain (245,445), but the smallest percentage increase (39.0) of any of the regions. The Tidewater area had the smallest numerical gain (94,346) but the next to the largest percentage increase (63.5). These facts indicate the earlier development of the trend towards rural nonfarm living in the Piedmont than in other areas, especially the Tidewater region. Tidewater.--Dare County has the highest percentage (97.7) of rural nonfarm population in the Tidewater region and in the state. Two others in this none is under 20%. During in rural nonfarm residents (Fig. 8-B). With only two section have one of over 80%, while the last decade, the greatest increase occurred in Craven and Onslow counties counties having increased over 10,000 in this same period, this area gained the least rural nonfarm inhabitants of any region. However, its percentage increase was high, being less than 2% under that of the Mountain area where it was greatest. Coastal Plain.--No 20% rural nonfarm and only county in the Coastal Plain is under one is over 60% (Table XIV). The range is less than in any other region. However, from 1950 to 1960 two counties increased over 17,000 in population of this class. Cumberland County had the greatest numerical gain in the state. This amounted to 25,672. In the Coastal Plain Wayne County experienced the highest perCentage increase and the second largest one numerically. Mountain.--0ne-fifth of the counties in the Mountain 54 region are over 80% rural nonfarm in population. In addition during the 1950's, five counties increased over 10,000 and nine by more than 80%. This section had the highest percentage of rural nonfarm growth (65.3%) of any area during the period (Table XVI). Piedmont.--0n1y one county has a rural nonfarm population of over 80%, and in only one is it less than 20%. The highest percentages are found in Montgomery County and Davie County. Although six counties had an increase of more than 10,000 nonfarm persons during the last decade, only two had one of over 80%. On the whole, the greatest growth was in the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent." Davidson County had the largest numerical increase, this amounting to 17,532 of the 245,445 for the whole region. Thus, it is evident that the increase was widespread. Only vance County added less than 2,000 nonfarm residents. Even though this region had the largest numerical increase, it had the smallest percentage growth. Selected Tidewater Counties Onslow County.--The percentages of urban and rural population assigned to Onslow County present a distorted picture of the true conditions. Some of the apparent trends concerned with these population characteristics are also somewhat misleading. Although Onslow County is the twelfth largest county in population in North Carolina and experienced the greatest percentage gain (96.7%) during the last decade, only 21.3% of the persons residing there are classified as urban. Furthermore, its largest city, Jacksonville, accounting for over 95% of the urban growth of the county, had a population 55 in 1960 of only 13,49159 These figures might give one the idea that there is not a great deal of concentration of persons living within the county. Such an impression would be misleading. In spite of the fact that the highest percentage of rural growth occurred in Onslow County, the rural farm population actually decreased. The entire rural increase was in rural nonfarm residents. The reason for such a rapid increase in the rural nonfarm category was not a great surge of persons into suburbia, but rather the incrementation of military personnel at Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point. As a result of this increase in persons near Jacksonville, this city began to grow rapidly in response to the rising demand for products and services of secondary and tertiary industry. The county's growth of the population is expected to continue during the next two decades, though not at as rapid a rate as during the two previous ones. The urban growth rate will probably accelerate at the expense of that of the rural. The rural nonfarm population will doubtlessly continue to increase at a moderate rate. Pasquotank County.--Pasquotank County is unique in that although it has only one town, Elizabeth City, it ranks second in the percentage of urban population (54.9%) in the Tidewater area. With a rural nonfarm percentage of 37.1, the county is becoming more and more oriented toward an urban economy. In 1960, only 8% of the population of the county 49Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of Counties...Eastern Subregion..., (pages dealing with Onslow County). 56 was classified as rural farm. The number of inhabitants in the county is expected to increase at azflow rate for the next two decades?0 New Hanover County.--New Hanover, which has the highest percentage of urban population and lowest proportion of rural farm inhabitants in the Tidewater area, also has the largest city of the region, Wilmington. While Wilmington, East Wilmington, and South Wilmington make up the urban areas of the county, resort centers such as Carolina Beach and Kure Beach account for a great deal of the rural nonfarm population?l Continuing increase of population is anticipated for the next two decade22and there is a chance that the extra population pressure will result in the elimination of almost all farms and rural farm population in the county. Dare County.--Dare County, which has the highest percentage of rural nonfarm population in North Carolina, contains no town with over 600 persons. The increase in the rural farm population is not as significant as it first appears. Manteo, the largest town in the county, is located on Roanoke Island where the outdoor drama of the ill-fated first English colony is presented every summer. Dare County also includes a 50 Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, V00rhees and Ramsey, p.x. 51Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of C0unties...EasterggSubregion...,(pages dealing with New Hanover County). 52Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, V00rhees and Ramsey, p.x. 57 large part of the Outer Banks ( Fig. l) which are favorite vacation spots for cottagers, campers, hunters, and fishers?3 Because of these vacation attractions and others, such as the Wright Memorial at Kill Devil Hill, Dare County ranks at the top in its accomodations for its tourists. Its vacation business has been increasing steadily for several yearséz‘L What the Lost Colony has done to tide Dare over éfifii’hirné‘énifié’i‘i’fli:$522.2?§fi°§eg§§£§e¥iéia$235”" This statement suggests a continued increase in tourism in the county. This in turn will undoubtedly result in further growth of the population serving the vacationer. The increase will be mostly in rural nonfarm residents making the already high percentage of this group even higher. Selected Coastal Plain Counties Cumberland County.-—Among Coastal Plain counties, Cumberland ranks second and third respectively in the numerical and percentage growth of urban residents during the ten years 1950-1960. The same decade it also recorded the highest gain in rural population of any county in North Carolina. The city of Fayetteville accounted for a little over 50% of the county's 6 urban growth.5 Furthermore, the urban increment was less than 53Carolina Telephone, Welcome to Eastern North Carolina, a pamphlet, January, l962. 543harpe, I, 75-77, 84. 55Ibid., p. 77. 56Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population of counties...Eastern Subregion...,(pages dealing with Cumberland”County). 58 7,000 more than the rural one. This astounding increase in rural population was explained in a letter dated April 29, 1964, received from R. Albert Rumbough, Director of Planning for the city of Fayetteville, in which he stated that Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base populations were included as rural nonfarm-- accounting for over 40% of the growth?7 Indeed, this county had by far a larger number of persons added to its rural nonfarm population than did any other North Carolina county during the last decade (Figs. 10 and 11). Within the same period, the rural farm population actually decreased 5,300. Pitt County.--Greenville, the principal city, had over 60% of the urban increase in Pitt County during the last decade. In contrast to the urban increase of 10,299 was a rural farm population decrease of 10,377. These are dramatic examples of the overall urban and rural farm trends that are continuing to take place throughout most of the state. Johnston and Robeson Counties.--Both Johnston and Robeson counties had a net loss of over 7,000 rural inhabitants during the 1950's. These were the largest rural population losses in the state within that period of time. Johnston County also experienced the biggest overall loss in population in the Coastal Plain region. Robeson County, on the other hand, increased its number by a little over 1,300. However, population projections for the future indicate that this county 57Fayetteville Planning Department, p. 48. finfi”“ uvuh‘H ‘ 'Hfi-fiPV‘. u. Hid-A «F‘r‘ 041C ‘ ‘Y‘Ah: "."J‘ c— U ‘l axf, y ‘8 VA“ 59 58 will probably begin losing inhabitants in the present decade. Selected Mountain Counties Watauga County.--Watauga County, which obtained an urban population for the first time in the 1940's, is now over 20% urban. Most of these people are concentrated in the town of Boone (3,686), which is the location of Appalachian State College. Although the county lost over 800 inhabitants during the last decade, Boone increased its number by over 500. With Appalachian State College as the county's biggest business, Boone is certain to grow as the college continues to expand. The town is also important for its tourist business. The most important attraction here is the summer play, "Horn in the West." Another summer tourist center is Blowing Rock. The business here is divided between well—to-do families who spend the summer in their cottages and traveling tourists who come to see the scenery?9 This seasonal industry helps to explain why the percentage of rural nonfarm population (38.5%) is almost as large as that of the rural farm population (40.5%). Mitchell County.--Mitchell County, which first witnessed an urban population within the last decade, is now almost 20% urban. Its large rural nonfarm population (52.8%) is attributable primarily to the fact that the chief occupation and principal source of revenue is mining. Spruce Pine, the 58 Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Projects Section, Voorhees and Ramsey, p.x. Sgsharpe, 11, 1072-1073. *r: 2" t-oV ‘- ;\ "I ~51 It ‘. add.“ U 5 £7". 8 U40 ‘r‘g m 981v All 60 focal point of the mining and mineral processing industry of the stateéocontains the county's entire urban population. The growing tourist industry also makes a significant contribution 61 to the support of the rural nonfarm population. McDowell County.--McDowell County lies between Buncombe, the most populous county in the Mountain section, and Burke, the fastest growing one. The sharp drop in urban population which has occurred here must be attributed largely to the adjoining industrialized counties attracting many of these people by offering them better jobs and more pay. This situation is similar to that in Madison County, which is also losing population to Buncombe County?2 Madison County.--Madison County, which has the largest rural farm population in the Mountain section, is the leading producer of burley tobacco in North Carolina?3 During the last decade both its rural farm and rural nonfarm population decreased in number. This is one of the thirteen counties in the Mountain section that has no urban population. The largest town in the county, Marshall, has less than 1,000 inhabitants. Buncombe County.--Buncombe County has over 50% of its population classified as urban. Almost 90% of this group live in Asheville. A combination of manufacturing and tourist industries is primarily responsible for this concentration. The 6OIbid., I, 226. 61Ibid., 233. 62Letter from Jim Story, Editor, The News-Record, Marshall, North Carolina, April 21, 1962. 63Marshall Chamber of Commerce, InformationAConcerning Marshall and Nadison County, a brochure,*(l962). 61 majority of the rest of the population is listed as rural nonfarm. In light of the fact that the future growth of the overall population of the county is expected to be slow, the urban increase will probably be at a slightly more rapid rate, while the rural farm population will show a larger drop. Wilkes County.--Despite the fact that Wilkes County . rural form. had a rural population of over 90% in 1960, less than 20% was/ The entire population increased 26 persons from 1950 to 1960, but the number of urban inhabitants decreased by 99. The greatest loss in the population, however, was in the rural farm classification. In the past, Wilkes County has been predominantly rural with small increases which resulted from a greater number of births than deaths and out-migrations. Nevertheless, within the last decade, a stepped-up pace of young adult emigration has reduced the natural increase of the county. This change in natural increase has been due to reduced potential births and increased deaths of older people. By 1980, this new trend is expected to cause a decrease in the population by a little over 5%. With a continuing decline in the urban and rural farm population, the proportion of the total of the already high (72.7%) rural nonfarm population will no doubt increase. Since the county is considered overpopulated, these losses in population are not a serious 64 handicap to the economy. 64 North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Western Piedmont Planning Office, Population and Economy: Wilkes County, North Carolina, Prepared by Josef H. Pérry ( (Raleigh: By the author), October, 1962), pp. “0‘43. 62 Selected Piedmont Counties .Mecklenburg County.—-Mecklenburg, the most urbanized county in the state (78.0%), has a rural farm population of less than 2%. This heavy concentration of urbanites is due to the presence of the City of Charlotte. A wide diversification. of tertiary enterprises, has been an enormous incentive for people to move into Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. If the trends of the last decade in rural-urban population continue during the next ten years, the rural farm inhabitants will have almost disappeared. Moreover, the rural nonfarm percentage of the population will decrease even with an absolute gain in numbers. Forsyth County.--F0rsyth County, like Mecklenburg, has a large urban and rural nonfarm population and only a small percentage of farmers. The greater percentage of rural nonfarm inhabitants in Forsyth County than in Mecklenburg County is largely attributable to the fact that there are several commuter towns and communities that have easy access to Winston-Salem. The areas of Forsyth County surrounding Winston-Salem really should not be thought of as rural. The rural family is penetrating industry and the urban family is penetrating the rural sections. Rural Forsyth, then, except for some sections to the north, ggally is semi-rural, or perhaps semi-urban. The combination of several large manufacturing industries and modern expressways radiating to outlying communities has 65Sharpe, I, 120. A/_ 63 resulted in this rural-urban pattern. Wake County.--Although Wake County experienced the greatest loss of any of the highly urbanized counties in the Piedmont, it still retained a rural farm population percentage tWice as high as that of any of these counties. The rural nonfarm population pattern is similar to that of Forsyth County. Although the percentage of urban population in Wake County is less than that of Forsyth, the increase in urbanization has been greater. Raleigh, the largest city in the county, 66 experienced an increase 13% greater than the county as a whole. Davie Countyge-Davie County, whose rural nonfarm population is 80% of the total inhabitants, adjoins Forsyth County. This high percentage of rural nonfarm population is due primarily to the large number of commuters who work in Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. A new R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company cigarette factory, which is to be built in Davie County in the near future, will undoubtedly mean an increase in the population of the county. Mocksville, the largest town in the county (2,379), will probably grow considerably when the plant is opened, and therefore, give Davie County its first urban population. Montgomery County.--Montgomery County, which has the highest percentage of rural nonfarm population in the Piedmont section and the third highest in the state, is similar to Davie County in that it has no urban population. However, unlike 66The League of Women Voters of Raleigh, Handbook of Wake County (Raleigh, 1963(, p.7. ' ' “ an" 0410 . . ‘FP‘ -ugh '"V .u. g I n r (1) .‘Q ‘A 5v 64 Davie County, Montgomery County is not situated near a large industrialized center upon which it can rely for work for its population. Instead, five small towns scattered through the county provide a diversity of industries. Its principal industries are textiles, lumben and woodworking. Machinery, furniture, and trailers are also products of the county?7 Troy, the largest town in Montgomery County (2,346), may become the first urban place as the population of the county continues to increase. 67Sharpe, III, 1466, 1469, 1486. CHAPTER IV WHITE-NONWHITE AND INCOME Per Cent Nonwhite In 1960, there were approximately 1,156,000 nonwhite inhabitants in North Carolina, or slightly over 25% of the total population?8 The proportion of this class to all residents was highest in the Coastal Plain and lowest in the Mountain region, while the concentration in the Tidewater area was higher than in the Piedmont (Table XVII). The percentages were: Coastal Plain, 41.5; Tidewater, 29.2; Piedmont, 22.5; and Mountain, 6.5. Coastal Plain.--Although the number of nonwhites in the Coastal Plain is less than in the Piedmont, they constitute a larger part of the population. Eight of the twenty-three counties have over one-half of their residents classified as nonwhite (Fig. 8-A). No county has less than 15% of its population in this group. In all except Robeson, almost the entire nonwhite population are Negroes. Here, however, about one-half are American Indians. Tidewater.--In the Tidewater section no county has a nonwhite percentage of over 50% or under 5%. On the other hand, three counties--Dare, Carteret, and Onslow-~have 5-15% of their people in this class. Thirteen of the eighteen 68Knapp. p. 5. 65 66 counties of the region have a nonwhite proportion of 30-50%. Mountain.--The Mountain section has the lowest percentage of nonwhite residents of any of the four areas. Of its twenty-five counties, thirteen have a nonwhite proportion of under 5%, and eleven others one of 5-15%. The lack of concentration of the nonwhite population in this region is to a great extent the opposite of that in the Coastal Plain and Tidewater areas (Table XVII). Piedmont.--No county in the Piedmont has a nonwhite population of less than 5%. Only one has a proportion of over one-half. This- is the only county outside the Coastal Plain that is in this category. It is Warren County, with 64.7% nonwhite residents. Every county in the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent" has between 15-30% nonwhites except Gaston and Davidson counties where the figure is less than 15% and Durham County where it is over 30%. In fact, fifteen of the thirty-four counties have 15-30% of their populations classified as nonwhite. The highest percentages of nonwhites are in the northeastern and southeastern parts of the region (Fig. 8-A). White and Nonwhite Numerical Changes The increase in white inhabitants in North Carolina during the 1950's was approximately five times as great as that of the nonwhites (Tables XVIII and XIX). As was true with the overall population, the Piedmont and certain isolated counties in other regions shoWed by far the greatest increase in both white and nonwhite residents. Even in the Piedmont, however, some counties lost either or both white and nonwhite residents 67 (Figs. 8-B, 8—C). In the other three sections a larger number, or in some cases a majority, of the counties experienced such a loss. (See Appendix F for white and nonwhite numerical changes). Although the number of white residents has increased more rapidly than that of the Negro, the majority of the growth of the latter has been in urban areas. This trend is due to migration resulting from the decline of farm employment in most areas of North Carolina and the increasing availability of jobs in the industrial areas. However, over one—half of the Negroes who are moving are going out of the state. By 1980, the percentage of Negroes in North Carolina could decrease from the present 25% to about 10%?9 Tidewater.--Comparisons of numerical gains and losses of whites and nonwhites reveal that during the 1950's eight Tidewater counties experienced an increase in the proportion of nonwhite residents. In three of the eight, the increase was due to a lower loss of nonwhite than white inhabitants (Appendix F). Eight counties lost white population and five of the same ones lost colored people. In the region as a whole, however, the white gain of 59,808 was much larger than that of 7,434 nonwhites. The greatest numerical gain in both classes was made in Onslow County. The nonwhite population increased in thirteen of the eighteen counties, while the number of whites gained in ten (Figs. 8-B and 8-C). Coastal Plain.--During the last decade, eleven counties in the Coastal Plain region showed a relative increase in 69Lefler and Newsome, pp. 604-605. 68 nonwhite population (Appendix F). Cumberland County not only had the largest numerical increase in white inhabitants during the 1950's, but also in the nonwhites. Twelve of the counties lost population in each class (Tables XVIII and XIX). In eight cases they were the same counties. Here, as in the Tidewater area, however, the total gain of whites in the region was much larger than that of nonwhites. It amounted to 62,418 and 19,310 respectively. Mountain.--During the 1950's, the Mountain region had the least increase in white residents of any region, but it had a loss of nonwhite people (Tables XX, XXI). Thus the proportion of whites to colored increased. Nevertheless, fifteen of the twenty-five counties had a loss in the number of white residents, while fourteen had a decrease in nonwhites. Ten counties experienced a decline in both classes (Figs. 8-B and 8-C). Eleven increased in nonwhite population, while ten gained whites. Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, and Henderson counties all had gains of over 5,000 white people, while experiencing losses or only small gains of nonwhites (Appendix F). Piedmont.—-Between 1950 and 1960, the Piedmont had an increase of 280,094 whites and 2,456 nonwhites. Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, and Wake counties had the largest numerical increases in each class in the order given (Appendix F). There were three counties which experienced a loss in nonwhites of more than 1,000 each, while two of these and two others also had a decrease in white residents. Five other counties had a decline of less than 1,000 nonwhite inhabitants. / I 09 I: -3300 - 0 - :0.oo: - 20.000 PER CENT NDNWHITE, I960 LEGEND 0" - 5 ([1111] :5: - so 5' . I5 m 30: - so - 50: 647 .. MILES WHITE CHANGE, I950 - I960 ~ '7 L:I”| 4 WW .iggs @135 I; . 11M ,t’u'r' LEGEND 5.000 - 27.00: . 42,000 D II! 5.00: - :o.ooo - 50.005 W . 0 20 40 so LEGEND ‘is55 .54; " ,7” 41? c: -3.300 . : - 5.000 I 5'00. . :0.000 - - :0.oo: - 20.000 o 20 40 so 0 r D G... - :964 70 TABLE XVII Per Cent Nonwhite, 1960 Counties Region With Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State 0. 5 O 0 l3 0 l3 5.1-15 3 0 ll 9 23 15.1-30 2 3 1 15 21 30.1-50 13 12 0 9 34 50.1-65 O 8 O l 9 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Per Cent 29.2 41.5 6.5 22.5 25.4 Number 125,254 455,570 45,783 521,457 1,148,064 TABLE XVIII White Change, 1950-1960 Range Number of Counties by Regions and State of Change Tidéwater CoaStal Plain Mountain Pledmont State (-)3,300- 0 8 l2 l5 4 39 1- 5,000 6 7 6 18 37 5,001-10,000 3 2 4 4 1% l0,00l-20,000 O l O 4 27,001-42,000 l l O 3 5 58,085 0 o o 1 1 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Change 59,808 62,418 12,098 281,094 415,418 TABLE XIX Nonwhite Change, 1950-1960 Range Number of Counties by Regions and State of Change Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont Staté (-)3.300- 0 5 12 14 8 39 1- 5,000 13 10 ll 24 58 5,001-10,000 0 O O O O l0,00l-20,000 O l O 2 3 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Change 7,434 19,310 -492 52,456 78,708 ‘1 71 White and Nonwhite Per Cent Changes On the whole, there was a relative decline in the proportion of nonwhite inhabitants in North Carolina during the decade ending in 1960 because the percentage gain in white population was greater in all four regions than that of the nonwhite (Tables XX and XXI). The Tidewater region had the highest percentage gain in white residents and also the highest proportional gain of whites to nonwhite, while the Mountain section had the lowest in both. The Piedmont experienced the greatest nonwhite percentage increase whereas the Mountain area had a small decrease in this class. See Appendix D for the percentage changes in whites and nonwhites in particular counties; also Figures 9-A and 9-B. In not one of the four regions does the percentage gain of nonwhite residents between 1950-1960 appear to be as large as would be expected from normal natural increase. Only in the Piedmont where it was 11.2% does it come anywhere near this figure. This indicates a large amount of migration out of the state, and out of each of the regions. That there was also considerable movement within the state is indicated by the 10 year gain of over 20% in eight counties and the loss in thirty-nine of them. Four of the counties gaining over 20% were in the Piedmont, two in the Tidewater area and one each in the Coastal Plain and Mountain (Table XXI). The percentage gain (13.9) of white residents in the state during the same ten years was much nearer what might be expected from natural increase, but even here the figure is below the national average for percent of population gain, thus 72 indicating out-of-state migration of whites as well as Negroes. Within the state the increase of 24.8% in the Tidewater area and of 18.5% in the Piedmont suggests movement of whites to these areas from the Coastal Plain and Mountains where the gains were 10.6% and 1.9%, respectively (Table XX). The average increase in whites for the state as a whole was 13.9%; for nonwhites it was 7.3%. Four counties in the Coastal Plain, four in the Tidewater, four in the Mountains and eleven in the Piedmont .had white increases bigger than the state average. The number of counties in each region in the order above that (had nonwhite increases larger than the state average were four, five, nine, and eighteen (Appendix F). These counties can in general be considered focal points of internal migration. Tidewater.--Eight of the eighteen counties in this region lost white residents during the decade ending 1960. Five lost nonwhite people. Tyrrell County had the highest percentage loss of whites (14%) and Hyde of Negroes (10.9%). Only Onslow County had a percentage increase in both white and nonwhite persons of over 40%. This was 102.7% in the former and 65% in the latter (Figs. 9-A and 9-B). Both were larger proportional gains than in any other county of the region. Coastal Plain.--Twelve counties in this region suffered a decline in whites, while a like number had one in nonwhite residents. Cumberland County had the greatest percentage increases in both classes (Tables XX and XXI). However, the proportion of nonwhites in thiscounty declined as the result of a larger 73 TABLE XX Per Cent White Change, 1950-1960 Range Number of Counties by Regions and State of Change Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmong, State (-)31.1-(-)15.1 o 1 2 o 3 - 15.0- 0 8 ll 13 4 36 0.1- 20 7 8 10 22 47 20.1- 40 2 2 O 8 12 57-5 0 l 0 0 1 102.7 1 O O 0 1 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Per Cent 24.8 10.6 1.9 18.5 13.9 TABLE XXI Per Cent Nonwhite Change, 1950-1960 Range Number of Counties by Regions and State of Change Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State E-)31.1-(-)15.1 O 0 6 2 8 -)15.0- o 5 12 8 6 31 0.1- . 2O 11 10 10 22 53 20.1- 40 l O 1 4 6 47 O l 0 O l 65 l 0 0 O 1 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Per Cent 6.3 4.3 -l.l 11.2 7.3 000000 7h- PER CENT WHITE CHANGE, I950 - I960 LEGEND 15:73 -(I” ............ 5:5 -3:: - -:5.: mm 20,: - 40 ’zi;f:‘;,._':' [:1 . :30 - 0 - 57.5 MILES 0.: - 20 — :02-7 W0 0.6.5.4964 PER CENT NONWHITE CHANGE, I950- I960 .......... LEGEND w ifiti \ m .3::\- .:5: mm 20.: - 40 S-wo- o -47 ov- 20 -65 I E 0 20 40 60 0.6.5.4060 75 increase in white residents. The same was true in Wayne and Lenoir which stood second and third, respectively in increase of both classes. Mountain.--During the last decade, fifteen counties in the Mountain region had a loss in whites and fourteen in nonwhites. Two declined more than 15% in white population, actually 16% and 19.7%, while six decreased their nonwhites by between 15 and 27% (Figs. lO-A and lO-B). Moreover, no county had an increase in whites and only Cherokee had a gain in nonwhites,of over 20%. The Mountain area as a whole had the lowest percentage gain in white residents of any of the regions and was the only one that had a loss of nonwhite people. Piedmont.--From 1950 to 1960, only four counties in the Piedmont had a decrease in whites, while eight had one in nonwhites. The largest percentage increases in the former were in Forsyth and Mecklenburg counties; in the latter they were in Guilford, Davidson, and Mecklenburg. See Appendix D for exact changes in both classes. Although no county had an increase in either class of over 40%, the Piedmont had the highest percentage gain in nonwhites and the second highest in whites. The largest gains in both classes tended to be in H II the Industrial Crescent (Figs. 9-A and 9-B). Family Incomes The relative proportion of the nonwhite population in the different regions can be used as one index of the income levels of families living in these regions. In North Carolina, the counties in the Tidewater, Coastal Plain, and 76 Piedmont sections having the lowest family incomes are usually those which have an extremely high percentage of nonwhite residents (Figs. lO-A and lO-B). In the Mountain region, where there is a low percentage of nonwhites the low family incomes are attributed. ;primarily to the topo- graphy of the area, which usually discourages the location of manufacturing industries, and to the poor agricultural resources. The low per capita incomesof most of the counties in North Carolina are primarily attributed to four factors: (1) the low incomes earned in agriculture; (2) the below average wages in manufacturing industries; (3) the low proportion of wage earners as compared with dependents; and (4) the large number of unskilled nonwhite persons in the labor force. In 1958, only two counties in the state, Mecklenburg and Forsyth, had incomes which were above the national average for that year, while just 17 others had incomes above the average for North Carolina. The other 81 counties had incomes below both the state and national averages. For the most part, counties which had the highest incomes were located in the urban and industrialized Piedmont?O There is little hope that this situation will be altered without the investment of capital and the location of industry in the less industrialized areas of North Carolina. Only the Piedmont section has some counties which have 70Knapp, pp. 12-14 77 PER CENT OF FAMILIES wm: INCOMES UNDER 83.000 g, LEGEND C23 20:- 30 Inn] 4o:- 50 C23 30:- 40 Inn 50:- so * MILES - 60: - 7:8 0.63.4964 PER CENT OF FAMILIES WITH INCOMES OVER 8:0.000 ‘ “fl. 0 6‘th 4‘. V“ llll _ LEGEND :1 :0 - 4 :nm: 7: - :0 C23 “I - 7 - '0' ' '3 - :3:- :53 D 6.. 4960 78 TABLE XXII Per Cent of Families with Incomes under $3,000 Counties Region with Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont 20.1-30 0 O l 13 0.1-40 3 l 9 10 0.1-50 5 4 2 6 50.1-60 6 10 9 u 60.1-72 4 8 4 1 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 TABLE XXIII Per Cent of Families with Incomes over $10,000 Counties 1 Region with Tidewater Coastal Plain ‘Mountain Piedmont 1.8- 4 11 12 14 9 10.1-l3 O O O 4 13.1-15.3 0 O O 2 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 79 over 10% of their families having annual income exceeding $10,000. In the Tidewater and Coastal Plain regions, every county has more than 30% of its families earning less than $3,000 annually, and all but one in the Mountain section is in this category (Tables XXII and XXIII and Figs. lO-A, lO-B). Tidewater.—-In this region where thirteen of eighteen counties have over 30% of their population nonwhite, only eight counties have over one-half their workers earning more than a. totayj'$3,000 annually, while in ten counties over one-half earn less than this amount. The high ratio of rural population in this area, the relatively high nonwhite population, and the low family incomes apparently coincide. New Hanover County has the highest percentage of urban population and of families with an income of over $10,000 and the lowest proportion of families earning under $3,000 annually (Fig. lO-A, lO-B). Onslow County, which experienced the greatest numerical and percentage gains in both whites and nonwhites during the 1950's, has over 4% of its families earning more than $10,000 a year and under 40% of them with an income less than $3,000. Coastal Plain.--No county in the Coastal Plain area has over 7% of its families earning more than $10,000 annually, while only Cumberland County has less than 40% of them with an income under $3,000 (Figs. lO-A, 10-B).3 Every county in this region which c0ntains a nonwhite proportion greater than 50% has over one—half of its families earning less than $3,000 a year (compare Figs. 8-A and lO-A). Moreover, only three of these counties have over 4% of their families with an income in 80 excess of $10,000. There seems to be even a better correlation between high proportions of nonwhites and low incomes in the Coastal Plain than in the Tidewater area. Mountain.--Although the concentration of nonwhites in the Mountain section is the least of any of the four areas, family incomes are in general lower than in the Tidewater area, but not as little as in the Coastal Plain (Tables XXII, XXXIII). Even though Swain County is the only one in the Mountain region that has a nonwhite population of over 15%, four of the 25 counties have over 60% of their families with an income of under $3,000 and another nine have 50-60% of them in this bracket. Burke County is the only one with less than 30% of its families earning under $3,000 annually. No county has over 10% of its families earning more than $10,000 a year, although Haywood and Buncombe do have over 7% of their families with this income (Figs. lO-A, lO-B). Thus, it is apparent that the cause of low family income in the Mountain area is not the high proportion of nonwhites in the population but the poor agricultural and other resources. Piedmont.--A11 five counties showing a decline in either whites or nonwhites during the last decade have less than 5% of their families with an income over $10,000, and four of them have more than one-half of their families earning under $3,000 a year. Ten of the twelve counties in the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent" have less than 30% of their families with an income under $3,000 and in one-half of the "Crescent" counties over 10% of the families earn more than $10,000 annually. Forsyth County and Mecklenburg County have the lowest percentage 81 of families with income under $3,000 and the highest proportion earning over $10,000 a year. In the Piedmont as a whole, the lower percentage of nonwhites than in the Tidewater and Coastal Plain areas and the much greater industrialization and urbanization go far to explain why this area has the highest family income level of any of the regions. Selected Tidewater Counties Dare County.--The proportion of nonwhite inhabitants in Dare County is considerably lower than that of the Seven County Coastal Areazlwhich is composed of Beaufort, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, and Tyrrell counties. The 1960 nonwhite population in Dare County was only 6.8% of the total, while in the Seven County Coastal Area it as a whole was 36.3%. Most nonwhite workers living in urban areas are concentrated in menial trades and services. Nonwhites in rural sections are usually engaged in subsistence farming which is declining in importance. Although the nonwhites in Dare County fare better than elsewhere in Eastern North Carolina, they are steadily decreasing in number. Most of them live in Nags Head Township, the tourist center of the county, and have a median income of about $700 more than that 72 obtained in the Seven County Coastal Area. In this seven county 71See Appendix A for definition. 72North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population and Economy: Dare County, North Carolina, prepared by Bruce Briggs, Richard Sutton, and Joe Perry ( [Raleighz By the authofil), March 1963, pp. 12-13. 82 area, only Dare, Currituck, and Pasquotank have less than 50% of their families earning under $3,000a year, while only Hyde and Pasquotank have more than 4% of theirs with an income over $10,000. Carteret Countygr-This county is not only one of the three in the Tidewater area having a percentage of nonwhites less than 15, but it is also one of the three in which less than 40% of the families earn under $3,000 annually. In addition, only three Tidewater counties have a higher percentage of families in the county earning more than $10,000 a year. In Carteret County 5.4% of the families are in this category. - Onslow County.--The tremendous increase in both white and nonwhite population in Onslow County has been kargely the result of the presence of Camp Lejeune. The population growth in Jacksonville is about 75% dependent upon this marine 73 Abase. This includes military and civil personnel connected with the base, as well as persons working in businesses serving these people. Due to the enormous growth in the white population of the county since 1950, the proportion of nonwhite residents has dropped from 19% to 13%—-even though the number of nonwhites has also increased greatly. While the tremendous gain in white population has been largely due to the increase in military personnel at the marine base, the rise in 73 North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Planning Staff, Jacksonville, North Carolina: Population and Economic Summary, prepared by Robert D. Barbour, J0hn voorhees, and John G. Scott (Report No. 1; (Raleigh: By the author), 1960), pp. 1, 10. 83 the number of nonwhite residents, especially in Jacksonville, has been attributed to a high reproduction rate and in- migration from near by rural areas to fill newly created jobs. This growth in nonwhite population during the last decade amounted to 65%. In the future the nonwhite population will probably show a slow proportional rise as a result of the presence of stable government employment?4 The relatively high income level, as compared with that in most other counties of the Tidewater area, is due primarily to the large number of military and civil service workers in the county. The fact that the military base is the heart of the economy might be interpreted as putting Onslow County in a precarious situation. However, this is not true. Camp LeJeune is a permanent installation which operates at maximum efficiency when fully populated?5 New Hanover County.--Although New Hanover County had a nonwhite population of nearly 28% in 1960, this was a drop of 3.4% from the figure for 1950. The decrease was due primarily to the out-migration of Negroes from the city of Wilmington. In fact, over 70% of the Negro out-migration from the county was from Wilmington. During the same ten year period, 6,053 whites migrated out of the City, while the remaining sections of the county gained 6,983 whites by immigration-many of whom were outmigrants from Wilmington. Therefore, although there 7”'Ibid. 75Ibid., pp. 29-31. 84 was a decrease in the proportion of nonwhites in New Hanover Ccnanty, there was an increase in the ratio of nonwhites to :flqites within the city. On the whole, however, there was an iruzrease in the number of whites and nonwhites in the county (hie to the high rate of natural increase. Wilmington, ruavertheless, experienced a net decrease in total population of 21,030 because of the higher rate of out-migration from the city than the natural increase and in-migration?6 The nonwhite percentage for the county as a whole is 27.8; for the city, 37.8; and for the county excluding Wilmington, 12.1. The difference in the income level between Wilmington and the rest of the county reflects to a high degree the variation between the two areas in the proportion of nonwhite residents. The average family income of Wilmington is $4,892, while the median is only $3,870. This considerable difference indicates a highly uneven distribution of incomes within the city where a few families with a high income raise the mean without changing the median. The families of the county outside Wilmington have a higher median than the city which is only slightly less than the average. This denotes a more even balance in incomes here with a few families having incomes at either extreme. Thus, there appears to be a Significant correlation between the high percentage (37.8%) __ 76North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Population and Economic Report: Wilmington, North Carolina, prepared by Josef H. Perry ( [Raleighz By the authofi], October, 1962), p. 55. 85 of nonwhites in Wilmington and the high percentage of families with an income under $3,000 (37.8%). In fact, 66.7% of the nonwhite families in the city earn less than $3,000 a year, while only 23.6% of the white families are in this income bracket?7 In addition, proportionate computations of the income levels of both races in Wilmington show the nonwhite families account for 54.6% of those in the low income range. This is nearly 17% higher than the nonwhite percentage would indicate. The fact that the population of New Hanover County is only .5% rural farm indicates that this factor is not significant in determining overall income levels of the county. Selected Coastal Plain Counties Robeson County.--Robeson County is outstanding in its ethnic diversification. The three major racial groups are whites (41%), Negroes (29%) and Indians (29%)?8 This is the most even distribution of the races in any county in the state. Segregation is complete. Elementary and high schools are provided for each race in all areas, and in the Smiling community there is a school attended by "Independents"-- children rejected by all three racial groups. A separate college is also provided for the Indians?9 There is reported evidence that some of the ascendants of these Indians were 77Ibid., pp. 42-43, 67. 78(North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development), North Carolina Population-~1960, a bulletin. 79Sharpe, I, 394-396. 86 members of the now famous "Lost Colony." Since Robeson County is expected to start decreasing in population during this decade and the number of whites declined during the 1950's while that of nonwhites increased, the racial distribution will probably become more even in the future. The increase in the nonwhite population has been due largely to the growth of the number of Indians. Indeed, Pembroke, the home and capital of the Indians§0claimed 12% of the increase of the county during the last decade. Cumberland County.--Cumberland County has one of the lowest proportions of nonwhite population in the Coastal Plain. However, as in most areas of North Carolina, the natural increase rate of nonwhites is much higher than that of the whites. Despite this fact, the proportion of the nonwhites decreased from 27.9 to 26.6 per cent during the 1950's. This change was due to out-migration?l Even Fayetteville, the largest city in the county, has been experiencing an out-migration of young adult nonwhite males. There has also been an in-migration of young adult white males and females. This has been mostly on the urban fringe and is due largely to the presence of the military bases in the area and also to the process of 82 suburbanization. The smaller percentage of families in Cumberland 80Ibid., p.396 81Letter from R. Albert Rumbough, Director of Planning, Planning Department, Fayetteville, North Carolina, April 29, 1964. 82Fayetteville Planning Department, p. 24. 87 County with an average income of less than $3,000 is not only attributable to the low proportion of Negroes (95% of the nonwhite population), but also to the presence of the industrial city of Fayetteville and the Fort Bragg army base. Greene County.--Greene County has the highest percentage of Negroes of any of the Coastal Plain counties, and showed an increase in the proportion of Negroes during the 1950-1960 decade. As might be expected, this county has the greatest percentage of Coastal Plain families (70.3%) with an income under $3,000. All these facts show a significant correlation to the size of the rural farm population, which in 1960 was the highest on a percentage basis of any county in North Carolina. Selected Mountain Counties Swain County.--Although Swain County has the largest proportion of nonwhite residents of any Mountain county (19.8% in 1960), only 4.2% of these persons were Negroes. Most of the others were Cherokee Indians. The forefathers of these Indians were living in this area when the first white man came to settle. Just as the Negroes in the South have a low income level, so do the Indians. In fact, in Swain County 59% of the families earn under $3,000 a year and only. 2.2% of all families have an income of more than $10,000. This income picture is perplexing when one notes that 84% of the inhabitants of the county are classified as rural-nonfarm. However, in 1950, 20.4% of those employed were in manufacturing with most of the remaining workers engaged in service or tourist 88 industries either directly or indirectly. In 1953, approximately 2,000,000 tourists visited Swain County?3 During the 1950's the white population decreased by 19.7%, while the nonwhite population increased by 7.5%. This variation in the usual trends of change of the whites and nonwhites is probably due mostly to the fact that Indian residents have a much greater tendency to remain in their home area than do Negroes. Burke County.--Burke County is the only one in North Carolina outside of the Piedmont region that has less than 30% of its families earning under $3,000 a year. This is largely because nearly 55% of those employed work in manufact- uring industries, while only 4% work in agriculture. The low percentage of nonwhite (7%) may also be a contributory factor. Although both races increased their numbers from 1950 to 1960, the whites experienced a more rapid growth, thereby lowering the proportion of nonwhites in the county. Haywood and Buncombe Counties.--Haywood and Buncombe counties have the highest percentage of families in the Mountain section with an income of over $10,000. After having seen how prosperous and fast growing Buncombe County is, to find that Haywood County has a slightly higher percentage of families earning more than $10,000 a year seems somewhat surprising at first. However, according to an account written in 1953, Haywood County possessed advantages which might explain this 83Sharpe, I, 464, 468-469. 89 phenomenon. This stated: Haywood is the leading beef cattle producer in the state. It has the largest rubber, largest shoe factory and the largest paper factory in the state. It is among the five largest dairy counties. The weekly industrial wage is the highest in North Carolina. Its farmland values are the highest in the south; third highest in the nation. It contains more concrete silos than any other county in the South. It has Ehe largest farm agent set—up in the state.8 Haywood County also has an extremely low percentage (2%) of nonwhites. Both whites and nonwhites increased between 1950 and 1960 with the nonwhite proportion becoming only slightly greater. On the other hand, in Buncombe County a little over one-tenth of the population is nonwhites. In 1960, the number of whites over nonwhites were almost 8,000 persons more than it had been in 1950. The fact that nearly 10% of the persons living in Buncombe County are retired85partially explains why approximately 30% of the families had an income under $3,000. Executives of the large industries and the ample opportunity for double income families doubtlessly account for a significant portion 84Ibid., 175-176. 851bid., II, 636. 90 of the high-salaried families. Selected Piedmont Counties Warren County.--The proportion of nonwhite population in Warren County, which is the highest in North Carolina, has changed little in the last 100 years. In 1860, Warren County had the highest proportion of slaves of any county in the state (68%)860ne hundred years later, the nonwhite population was 64.7% of the total, with 96.8% of these being Negroes?7 This was true although from 1950 to 1960, the nonwhite ratio dropped because the nonwhite population decreased percentagewise, more than did the whites. Warren County also has the third highest percentage of rural farm inhabitants in the Piedmont (47.1%). These facts help to explain the low income level of the county. It ranks highest in the Piedmont and fifth in the state in the percentage of families with an income under $3,000 (64.3%). In addition, only three counties in the Piedmont section have a lower proportion of their families earning more than $10,000 annually. Mecklenburg County.--During the 1950's, the gains in both white and nonwhite residents of Mecklenburg County paralleled each other. The increase of nearly 17,000 nonwhites, or 34%, did not significantly change the nonwhite ratio of the total population. The large numerical increase in nonwhite residents 86Lefler and Newsome, 399. 7(North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development), North Carolina Population--l960, a bulletin. 91 was basically the result of the same forces which also caused the growth of the white population?8 For over 100 years the Negro population has averaged between 25-30% of the total for both the city of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County99 With approximately 25% of the present population classified as 90and a fairly thoroughly diversified economy?l nonwhite Mecklenburg County has the highest percentage of families in the state with an income in excess of $10,000 and the second lowest one of families earning under $3,000 a year. Projections for the next two decades indicate that the economy of the county will not show any large proportionate changes?2 that the average household income will increase over $1,000 in each decade?3 and that the ratio of nonwhites to whites will remain fairly constant. Guilford County.--Between 1950 and 1960, Guilford County experienced the second largest growth of population in the state (Fig. 3-A). However, although the county ranked first in the percentage increase of nonwhite residents, it was ninth in gain of white inhabitants (Figs. 9-A and 9-B). The 88Letter from Allan D. Spader, City Planner, Charlotte- Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 24, 1964. 89Blythe and Brockman, p.449. 90North Carolina, Department of Conservation and Development, North Carolina Population--l960, a bulletin. 91 92Ibid. Hammer and Company Associates, pp. 18, 84. 93Ibid., Appendix table B-XI. 92 nonwhite growth during this decade was 11.3% higher than that of the whites. This resulted in a small proportionate gain for nonwhites in total population?4 The large textile, tobacco, and furniture industries in the county are doubtlessly responsible for a significant part of the increase in both the white and nonwhite residents. Guilford County has the third highest percentage of families in the state earning over $10,000 annually and the third lowest proportion of its households with an income under $3,000. Forsyth County.--During the 1950's population growth of Forsyth County resulted primarily from the tremendous increase in the number of white residents. This was more than nine times greater than that of the nonwhites. The percentage gain of the former was nearly 27% higher than that of the latter with the result that the percentage of nonwhites in the total population of the county dropped 4% between 1950 and 1960?5 The slow growth of the Negro population, which contains 99.8% of the nonwhite residents, seems to be largely attributable to ...(l) the large net out-migration (of Negroes) in the primary labor force age group, which is also the child-bearin age group; and (2) a consequently low birth rate.9 However, this trend is not expected to continue for much 94Sharpe, II, 840. 95Ibid., 1, 146. 96Letter from Bert A. Winterbottom, Assistant Director, City-County Planning Board, County of Forsyth and City of Winston-Salem, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, April 21, 1964. 93 longer as is indicated by the following statement: We believe that this condition must be in the process of modification in view of the many improved opportunities which are opening up locally for education, recreation, employment and medical care; and the har- monious progress in desegregation in employ- ment, education and public accomodations.9 Forsyth County has the lowest percentage of families of any county in the state with an income under $3,000 and the second highest one of families earning more than $10,000 a year. This high income level is usually attributed to the attraction here of a large number of technical and professional workers by Western Electric since 1947. However, this popular hypothesis is not substantiated by census data. A more probable explanation is that the family incomes are supplemented by interest received from investments in the tobacco industry of Forsyth made by, or in the interest of, many generations of employees. Again, there are no investigations which have been conducted which might confirm or oppose this hypothesis.98 97Ibid. 98Ibid. CHAPTER V AGE, SEX, AND EDUCATION Age North Carolina is experiencing the same trends in age distribution changes that are occurring in most areas of the United States. For one thing, the average age of the population is rising. From 1940 to 1950, North Carolina's population grew 13.7%, while persons over 64 years of age increased 43.9%. Better medical care was primarily responsible for this trend?9 Another major reason for the increasing proportion of older people has been an out-migration of a large number of young adults. Almost 75% of those leaving during the 1950's was persons between 20 and 44 years of age. The aging of the population during the last decade continued the previously established trend, but at a somewhat less rapid rate. Between 1950 and 1960, the number of people increased 12.1%, while those over 64 years of age increased 38.6%. During the same decade the proportion of persons 65 years of age and over increased from 5.5% to 6.8%. However, even with an aging p0pulation, North Carolina in 1960 had a larger part of its residents under 10 years of age and a 100 smaller one of those over 64 than did the nation as a whole. With few exceptions, the proportion of persons in each 99Hobbs, pp. 81-82. lOOKnapp, pp. 5-6. 94 95 of the different age groups does not vary a great deal among the 100 counties of the state. The percentages do range, however, from 33.2% in Orange County to 48.2% in Hoke County for persons under 18 years of age: from 45.1% in Warren County to 60.5% in Onslow County for persons from 18 through 64 years of age, and from 2.0% in Onslow County to 13.0% in Hyde County for persons over 64 years of age (Appendix G). The respective ranges in these age groups, then, are 15.0%, 15.8%, and 11.0%. Moreover, the variations in the different age groups are distributed fairly evenly throughout the four 101 sections of the state. Coastal Plain.--The Coastalelain not only has the highest percentageof persons under eighteen years of age, but also the lowest of those from 18 to 65 and over 65 (Table XXIV). The fact that this region has the greatest proportions of rural farm and nonwhite residents is significantly reflected in the age structure of its population. The larger size of the young age group is probably the result of the higher birth rate and resultant higher natural increase associated with rural farm areas, particularly so with nonwhites. The high proportion of both these classes of people in one region largely explains the presence of a young population. The low percentage of persons in the other two classes are a result not only of the many children, but also of the out-migration of many residents 18 to 65 years of age during the last twenty years. Most of these persons moved to the more urbanized areas of the 101See Appendix B for percentage age distributions. - 96 state, where better vocational opportunities were to be found. Mountain.—-The Mountain section has the lowest percentage of residents under 18 years of age, and the highest over 65 of any of the four regions of North Carolina. This area also has the smallest proportions of persons classified as urban and nonwhite. The lack of a very young population is possibly best explained by the extremely small percentage of nonwhites resulting in a relatively low birth rate. On the other hand, the fairly old population in this area is probably caused by the tendency of older residents to remain in their present locations, whereas those persons in the other two age groups move much more frequently. The children go with their parents who are working age adults. Piedmont.--The Piedmont region has the highest percentages of residents in the 18 to 65 age group and in urban places and the lowest in rural nonfarm and rural farm areas (Table XXIV). The relatively large proportion of the population in the middle age group results from the demand for these persons to work in the industries and businesses of this region. Although the Piedmont has the lowest rural nonfarm percentage, the great majority of these inhabitants commute to work in urban areas rather than just live on non-producing farms. Here,as elsewhere in the United States, the lower birthrate is associated with the higher percentage of urban dwellers. Tidewater Counties Dare and Hyde.--Dare County has the lowest percentage of Tidewater residents under 18 and the second highest over 65, while 97 TABLE XXIV Selected Population Characteristics, 1960 (Per Cent) Category Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State Urban 29.1 29.3 26.8 50.4 39.5 Rural Nonfarm 56.7 40.2 55.3 38.0 42.8 Rural Farm 14.2 30.5 17.9 11.6 17.7 Nonwhite 29.2 41.5 6.5 22.5 25.4 White 70.8 58.5 93.5 77.5 74.6 Under 18 years 39.4 42.9 36.9 37.6 39.0 18-65 years 54.2 51.1 54.2 55.7 54.2 Over 65 years 6.4 6.0 8.9 6.7 6.8 98 Hyde County has next to the lowest proportion from 18 to 65 and the highest over 65 (Appendix G). The relatively old population is chiefly a result of the rural nature of these counties. The somewhat lower percentage of younger persons in Dare than Hyde reflects the greater share of rural nonfarm population in the former which is largely connected with the tourist business in that county. Onslow.--In the Tidewater region, Onslow County has the highest percentage of persons 18 to 65 and the lowest over 65. The explanation for the high proportion of persons in the middle age group is that most of the military personnel and their wives connected with the Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point Marine bases live in the county. This high percentage and that of young persons combine to produce a low proportion of residents in the old age group. Coastal Plain Counties Cumberland.--Cumberland County has the lowest percentage of residents in the Coastal Plain in both the under 18 and over 65 age groups, as well as the highest in the 18 to 65 one (Appendix G). The age distribution here is not typical of that elsewhere in the Coastal Plain. This is because of the presence in the county of Fort Bragg and the Pope Air Force Bases. Not only the military personnel and the civil employees connected with the bases, but most of the persons working in businesses in the area are in the 18 to 65 age group. 593g,--in the Coastal Plain, Hoke County has the highest proportion of persons under 18 and the lowest one of those 18 to 99 65. This extreme example of a very young population is nevertheless typical of the region. It is a reflection of a rural population of over 80%, a large part of which is nonwhite. Mountain Counties Buncombe.--In the Mountain section, Buncombe County has not only the lowest percentage of persons under 18, but also relatively high proportions of residents 18 to 65 and over 65 (Appendix G). The very low percentage of young persons results chiefly from the high ones in the other age groups. The high proportion of inhabitants in the middle age group reflects the high urban and white populations of this county. On the other hand, the high percentage of older residents is representative of the increasing importance of Buncombe as an area for retired persons. Watauga.--Watauga County has the highest percentage of Mountain area residents from 18 to 65 years of age. This figure is associated with the fact that this county is one of eight in this region with an urban population of over 20%, as well as a large proportion of white residents. Piedmont Counties Mecklenburg.--In the Piedmont region, Mecklenburg County has the lowest percentage of residents over 65, as well as relatively high ones in the other two age groups (Appendix G). This age distribution reflects the urbanization of this county. Orange.--Orange County has the lowest proportion of 1""! . , .V: . _. m 100 inhabitants under 18 and the highest one from 18 to 65. The small percentage of young persons is related to both the low rural farm and low nonwhite proportions; 13.6% and 23.7%, respectively. The high percentage of residents in the middle age group reflects the moderate urbanization and high rural nonfarm proportion in the county. Warren.--Within the Piedmont, Warren County has the highest percentage of persons under 18 and over 65 and the lowest one from 18 to 65 (Appendix G). The fact that the nonwhite proportion (64.7%) is the greatest in North Carolina and that the county is 100% rural (47.1% rural farm) accounts for the high percentages of children and old people, with a consequent low percentage in the middle age group. Sex The ratio of males 18 years of age and over in the population does not vary much from one county to another or among the regions. New Hanover has the lowest share of males in this age group and all the other counties in the state, except four, range from this low of 46.1%, to 50.9%. Although Carteret County and Cumberland County have relatively high proportions, with 56.6% and 57.0% respectively, Onslow County has by far the highest one with 64.2%. By subtracting the per- centage of males from 100 the proportion of females can be determined. The fact that many of the marines stationed at Camp Lejeune are single and must live in barracks on the base102 accounts in large part for the much higher percentage of males 102Sharpe, II, 964. 101 18 years of age and over living in Onslow County. Education Regionally, the Coastal Plain counties as a group, have the highest percentage of persons under 18 years of age (Table XXIV). As stated before, this seems to correlate with the larger proportions of nonwhites and rural farm dwellers, who have high natural increase rates, in this section. The presence of a larger percentage of persons under 18 years of age in the more heavily populated Coastal Plain than in the Tidewater and the Mountain sections indicates that a larger number of residents in the former region will have to be educated. Even though the Piedmont has a still greater number of young persons to be sent to public school, most of its counties are sufficiently wealthy to be able to finance a better school program than in the other three regions. Such ideas as these should be kept in mind as the education of the state and the four regions is discussed. Education in North Carolina occupies an increasingly significant role in the development of the state's economy. In order to obtain higher paying jobs, additional schooling is becoming imperative. This causes problems. The low income level of the state combined with the large school enrollment results in teachers' salaries being below, and the student- teacher ratio above the national average. Another serious problem confronting North Carolina education is the large number of drop—outs. Less than 50% of the students who began the first grade in 1950 completed high school and only about 102 one—tenth will finish college. In 1960, the median years of school completed in North Carolina by persons over 24 years of age was 8.9, which was nearly two years below the national average. The two major factors contributing to this position were the lower level of education attainment of the state's large rural and nonwhite populations. The latter particularly has a high percentage of persons with under four years of school completed (Table XXV)].'O3 In order to raise the educational level of the people of North Carolina and to curtail the extremely high drop-out rate, the state must somehow overcome the three most serious problems confronting its educational system. These are (1) the growing school enrollments, (2) the lack of well-trained teachers, and (3) the inadequate physical facilities to house present and future students. Although the state is working hard at meeting the educational needs of its people, the demands will increase before they decreasetouThe present administration, under the direction of Governor Terry Sanford, has placed its major emphasis on a program of providing quality education for the people of North Carolina. High School Education In North Carolina, among persons classified as urban and white there is a much higher percentage of high school graduates than among rural and nonwhite residents (Table XXV). The 103 104 Hobbs, pp. 225-228. Knapp, pp. 6-7. 103 TABLE XXV Level of School Completed by North Carolina's Population Aged 25 Years and Over, 1960 ~— Per Cent by Level of School Completed Median l to 3 4 Years of School 4 Years 5 to 8 Years of High School Years or less Years High School and Over Completed The State 16.5 34.3 17.0 32.3 8.9 Urban . 13.1 28.7 17.4 40.7 10.4 Rural 18.9 38.2 16.7 26.2 8.3 White 12.2 33.0 17.7 37.1 9.8 Nonwhite 31.9 38.8 14.6 14.7 7.0 Source: John L. Knapp, North Carolina: An Economic Profile (Richmond: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, (1962), p.7. 104 counties in North Carolina which have the largest numbers of high school graduates over 24 years of age are among the most populous ones. These are Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, and Wake counties, which also rank first, second, fourth, and seventh, respectively, in the percentage of their urban populations?05 The Piedmont has by far the greatest numerical concentration of high school graduates, with the Coastal Plain, Mountain, and Tidewater areas following in that order (Table XXVI). Percentage-wise, however, the arrangement is different, with the Tidewater, Mountain, and Coastal Plain regions following the Piedmont in turn. Tidewater.--The educational level of the Tidewater section is very low. One-half of the counties have less than 1,000 residents each who have completed high school and only two have over 7,000 graduates (Fig. ll-A). The three Tidewater counties--New Hanover, Onslow, and Craven--which have the most high school graduates are those that contain the largest populations. In addition, New Hanover County has the highest percentage of urban population in this region, and Onslow County has the lowest nonwhite population. Coastal Plain.--The Coastal Plain region has the lowest percentage of high school graduates (Table XXVII). Several factors seem to contribute to this situation. First, this section has the highest proportions of nonwhite and of rural See AppendEx-G for per cent of urban-rural and white-nonwhite students who finish school. isIH'Ln.P.-lr.p O...— 105 / A PERSONS OVER TWENTY-FOUR YEARS OF AGE WITH FOUR YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETED, I960 -:-" .'-. :'.' :55" 355$:- LEGEND (:3 65- 500 m 3.50:- 7.000 50: - :.000 7.00: - :5.500 [mm :.00: - 3,500 - I6.00I - 27.000 - 35.3:2 :;:;:-: ..... '1 MILES 0.6.5.4966 B PERSONS OVER TWENTY-FOUR YEARS OF AGE WITH FOUR YEAR OR MORE OF COLLEGE COMPLETED, l960 —Y- . y .flfiéih I ( 1'53? \‘7 LEGEND CI] 65 - 500 mm v.00: - 3.500 (:23 50: - :.000 m 3.50: - 7.000 :5.000 7.00I - DOD-D64 T710 L'lb. 11 106 TABLE XXVI Persons over Twenty-Four Years of Age with Four Years of High School Completed, 1960. Counties Region With Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State 65- 500 3 O 2 O 5 501- 1,000 6 2 4 O 12 1,001- 3,500 6 10 l2 16 44 32501” 7:000 l 9 6 9 25 7,001-15,000 2 l l 5 9 16,001-27,000 O l O 3 4 35,312 0 O O 1 1 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Number 42,095 87,496 62,865 239,337 431,793 Percentage of Total Population 9.8 7.8 9.4 10.4 9.5 TABLE XXVII Population Characteristics, 1960 (Per Cent) Category Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State Urban 29.1 29.3 26.8 50.4 39.5 Rural Nonfarm 56.7 40.2 55.3 38.0 42.8 Rural Farm 14.2 30.5 17.9 11.6 17.7 Nonwhite 29.2 41.5 6.5 22.5 25.4 White 70.8 58.5 93.5 77.5 74.6 Family Income Under $3,000 43.9 52.2 40.3 28.5 37.2 Family Income ~ over $10,000 4.9 4.3 5.4 8.9 6.9 High School Graduates 9.8 7.8 9.4 10.4 9.5 College Graduates 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.9 3.2 Population of State 9.5 24.7 15.4 50.4 100.0 107 farm persons, many of whom fall into both of these categories. This in turn is reflected in the second factor, that of low income. This area has not only the highest percentage of families earning under $3,000 a year, but also the lowest with incomes over $10,000. Therefore, the greater tendency for nonwhites and children from low-income families to drop out of school before graduation leads to the very low percentage of high school graduates in this region. In contrast, the Coastal Plain has the second largest number of high school graduates in the stateEO6Cumberland, Wayne, and Robeson contain the most residents with a high school education. The large number of graduates in Cumberland and Wayne counties is no doubt due to the larger population and greater urbanization of these two areas. Although the proportion of nonwhites in Robeson County is 15% greater than in Pitt County, the former has slightly over 200 more high school graduates. This is probably best explained by the fact that Robeson has nearly 20,000 more inhabitants than does Pitt. However, Pitt County has 6.9% of its population with a high school education, while Robeson has only 5.6%. This illustrates the effect of the large nonwhite population on lowering the educational level of the area as a whole. Mountain.--A1though the Mountain section has a relatively small number of high school graduates as compared 106In this chapter, all statistics concerned with high school and college graduates represent those persons 25 years of age and over. 108 to the Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions, it has more than the Tidewater area (Table XXVI). It has a slightly lower proportion of its total population who hold diplomas than the average for the state (Table XXVI). Less than one-fourth of the counties in the Mountain region have under 1,000 residents with high school diplomas. Buncombe has the largest number of graduates (over 13,500). This is due to the large population and the high degree of urbanization. Graham County has the fourth lowest number of high school graduates in the state. However, it is also sixth from the bottom in population, so it has a smaller percentage of high school graduates than might be expected. Piedmont.--The Piedmont has the highest percentage of high school graduates in North Carolina (Table XXVII). The higher educational level of the people in this region may be explained first by the facts that the highest urban and white population percentages and the lowest rural nonfarm and rural farm ones are located here; second by the facts that this section has the lowest proportion of families earning under $3,000 a year and the highest with an income over $10,000. Therefore, not only are the social and economic conditions more favorable for keeping children in school for additional years, but also more money is available to finance better education facilities. This is exemplified by five main conditions in the area: the larger population, the greater wealth and industrial development, the better teachers because of higher salaries paid, the better schools in the urbanized 109 places, and the location here of a very high proportion of the colleges and universities in the state. In 1960, the Piedmont had no county with less than 1,000 persons who had graduated from high school (Table XXVI). Mecklenburg, Guilford, Wake, and Forsyth Counties, each of which had a city of over 50,000 residents, had over 16,000 high school graduates. In fact, 18 of the 34 counties in this region each had more than 3,500 persons who had graduated. In the Piedmont as a whole there were more individuals with this level of education than in the other three regions combined. College Education The counties in the state with the most college graduates over 24 years of age are those with the largest populations. For the most part, these are the same omes that have the most high school graduates (Compare Figs. ll-A and ll-B), and for much the same reasons. Tidewater.--The Tidewater area has the lowest percentage of college graduates living within its borders, although it was second from lowest in the proportion of high school graduates. It also contains the highest percentage of rural nonfarm people and is the lowest in overall population (Table XXVII). There seems to be little reason however, to suspect that the proportion of rural nonfarm population bears much relation to that of the college graduates. Rather it is the presence in this section of only three small colleges out of the 63 colleges 110 and universities in North Carolina that is most important in explaining the low proportion of college graduates. The very low percentage of the state's population living in the Tidewater, which in turn demands fewer highly educated persons, is another reason for this relatively low concentration of persons with college degrees. Two-thirds of the counties in the Tidewater area have less than 500 college graduates each, while only one has more than 2,000 (Table XXVIII and Fig. ll-B). This region contains only three (5%) of the colleges in North Carolina. One of these is a senior collegeIO7Although Pasquotank County contains two of the three colleges, only about 700 college graduates reside there. However, both schools are small: a Negro senior college with an enrollment of between 500 and 600508and a junior college which opened in the fall of 1961?09 Thus, the presence of colleges in a county does not necessarily guarantee the habitation of a large number of college graduates there, especially if the colleges are small and the county largely rural in character. The other junior college in this region is Wilmington College, which was founded in 1947 in New Hanover CountyIlONew Hanover, Onslow, and Craven counties have the most college graduates and 107Lefler and Newsome, p. 625. 108 Sharpe, I, 355. 109Lefler and Newsome, p. 625. 110 Hobbs, p. 236. 111 the largest populations. Coastal Plain.--The second largest number of college graduates live in the Coastal Plain (Table XXVIII). Cumberland, Pitt, and Wayne counties have the most inhabitants holding a degree. Although Pitt County has only one-half as many high school graduates as Wayne County, it has approximately 100 more persons with a college degree. The most obvious reason for this discrepancy is the presence of East Carolina College in the town of Greenville in Pitt County. This state-supported college, having an enrollment of about 6,000, is the largest institution of higher education outside the Piedmont region. Together, Cumberland, Wayne, Pitt, and Robeson counties have four of the seven senior colleges and one of the four junior colleges in the Coastal Plain region, which in turn contains one-half of the junior and senior colleges located outside the PiedmontIllHowever, the institutions of higher education in this area are not always located in the counties which are experiencing the greatest growth. In fact, two Coastal Plain counties in which colleges are located lost population during the 1950's and two others are expected to lose residents during this decade. The losses,however, will be mostly of rural and nonwhite populations who have a much 112 smaller percentage of college graduates. Mountain.--The number of college graduates in the Mountain region is smaller than in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain lllLefler and Newsome, p. 625. 112 Knapp, p. 7. 112 sections, but it is larger than in the Tidewater area. The percentage of the total population holding a degree is higher than in either the Coastal Plain or Tidewater region. Nearly six-tenths of the counties in the Mountain section have less than 500 persons with a college education (Table XXVIII). All counties with under 1,000 high school graduates likewise have less than 500 residents with college degrees. This part of North Carolina has three senior colleges and five junior colleges. Three of these are located in Buncombe County].13 The largest college in the Mountain region is Appalachian State College located in Watauga County. Buncombe is one of the six counties in this area containing colleges, but it is the only one of these with over 3,500 residents who have a college degree (Fig. ll-B). It has approximately 5,700 college graduates. Graham County has the smallest number of college graduates, as well as the next to least number of residents. Piedmont.—-The greatest number and per cent of college graduates in any region of North Carolina live in the Piedmont (Table XXVIII). Only six counties have less than 500 persons who have completed college. Mecklenburg, Guilford, Wake, and Forsyth counties each have more than 9,000 college graduates. Moreover, 18 of the 34 counties in this section have over 1,000 persons with college degrees. The four counties with the most college graduates have not only the largest populations in 113Lefler and Newsome, p. 626. 113 North Carolina, but also contain a high proportion of the colleges in the state. In 1962, these four counties had four of the twelve public senior colleges or universities, two of the five public community colleges, twelve of the twenty-six private senior colleges or universities, four of the sixteen private junior colleges, and all four of the theological schools in the state. In other words, 26, or 41%, of the 63 colleges and universities in North Carolina are in these four counties. Moreover, 41 of the 63, or 63%, are in the PiedmontEluThis situation, together with the highest percentages of urban dwellers and families with incomes over $10,000, the second highest percentage of whites, and the lowest one of familes earning under $3,000 a year result in this region having the highest educational level in North Carolina. TABLE XXVIII Persons over Twenty-Four Years of Age with Four Years or More of College Completed, 1960 Counties Region With Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State 65- 500 12 5 14 6 37 501- 1,000 3 8 5 10 26 1,001- 3,500 3 9 5 12 29 3,501- 7,000 0 1 l 2 4 7,001- 15,500 0 0 0 4 4 Total Counties 18 23 25 34 100 Total Number 10,222 25,962 18,921 89,490 144,595 Per Cent of Total Population 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.9 3.2 114 Ibid. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The population distribution and trends in North Carolina are uneven in different parts of the state. There are over four and one-half million persons living here. The Tidewater region contains one-tenth of them; the Mountain section, one-seventh; the Coastal Plain, one-fourth; and the Piedmont, one-half. The most heavily populated part of the state is the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent." Outside of this industrialized area, there are only two counties having many people., Cumberland in the Coastal Plain and Buncombe in the Mountain region. Only the Piedmont area with a density of 143.2 persons per square mile exceeds the state average of 92.9. The counties of highest density are in the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent," except for Cumberland and Buncombe mentioned above, and New Hanover in the Tidewater section. Counties which contain the bigger towns have the larger populations and higher densities. Differences between total population and density patterns are usually due to the variable size of the counties. An increase of 16 and 19% in the populations of the Piedmont and Tidewater sections occurred in the 1950's. During the same years the Coastal Plain experienced a growth of only about half as much, while the Mountain region had one of less than 2%. Although some counties in all four section lost population because of out-migration, the greatest decreases 114 ll5 numerically and percentage-wise occurred in those of the Mountain and Coastal Plain regions. Together these accounted for'fl3% of those experiencing losses. On the whole, the counties having the largest numerical increase in population during the last three decades agree closely with those possessing the most inhabitants in 1960. Counties which led in population growth in the 1930's continued to grow and many of them accelerated both their numerical and percentage expansions during each of the two succeeding decades. The next twenty years after 1960 will probably show a continued increase in the number of people living in the Piedmont, Coastal Plain and Tidewater sections, whereas the Mountain region may experience a decline. The relief measures proposed by President Johnson for the "Depressed Areas" and the possibility of the location of new industries here seem to be the only chance for the Mountain region to reverse the loss trend. TABLE XXIX Population by Classes, 1960 (Per Cent) Tidewater Coastal Plain Mountain Piedmont State Urban 29.1 29.3 26.8 50.4 39.5 Rural Farm 14.2 30.5 17.9 11.6 17.7 Rural Nonfarm 56.] 40.2 55.3 38.0 42.8 The rural farm population has the smallest proportion in every region except the Coastal Plain where the least one is urban (Table XXIX). The rural nonfarm percentage is greatest 116 except in the Piedmont where it is exceeded by urban. These patterns reflect that the Coastal Plain is the most agricultural region and the Piedmont is the most industrialized. Over one-third of the residents of North Carolina are classified as urban. The Piedmont has an urban population of over 50% (actually 52%), while the Mountain region has one of 27% and the Coastal Plain and Tidewater areas have 29% each (Table xx1x). F _. Although the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent" appears to in be highly urbanized, only three of its counties, namely Mecklenburg, Durham, and Guilford, have an urban percentage above A the national one of 70%. Two other counties in the Piedmont (Forsyth and Cabarrus) and one in the Tidewater section (New Hanover) are near this figure. The lack of very large cities contributes significantly to the low proportion of urban inhabitants elsewhere. Four-fifths of North Carolina's population growth in the 1950's occurred in urban areas. During the last decade, the urban population increased 36%. Both the greatest percentage loss of rural farm inhabitants and gain of rural nonfarm residents were in the Mountain region. Although the nonwhite population is most numerous in the Piedmont section, its percentage is greatest in the Coastal Plain. The smallest number and lowest percentage of people of this class are in the Mountain section. The Piedmont was the only region in which the percentage of nonwhites was higher in 1960 than in 1950. During the interval the Tidewater ll7 section experienced the greatest relative loss. The Piedmont had the largest numerical gains in both whites and nonwhites and the greatest percentage increase in the latter, while the Tidewater section was outstanding in the former. Although the white population has grown more rapidly than that of the Negro, the major increases of both have been in the urban areas. This has probably been the result of the growing availability of jobs in the industrial areas and the decline of agriculture in most parts of the state. Nevertheless, more than 50% of the Negroes who are moving are going out of North Carolina. Within the next decade or two, the proportion of Negroes living in the state may drop from over 20 to about 10% if present trends continue. Although whites and Negroes are moving away from the farming areas at approximately the same rate, a greater proportion of Negroes than whites are leaving the state. Throughout the 1960's most of the counties in North Carolina will probably continue the same general trends of movement in both races. The degree of concentration of nonwhites in an area can usually be used as one index of family income levels. In North Carolina, the counties with the lowest family incomes generally are those which have a very high proportion of nonwhites. Also, the greater the proportion of rural farm population the lower the incomes tend to be. Thus, the low income levels of the Tidewater and Coastal Plain sections are explained by their high percentages of rural and nonwhite in- habitants, while that of the Mountain region reflects the high 118 proportion of rural residents and the low wage levels paid in the industries. The much higher level of family earnings in the Piedmont, especially the "Piedmont Industrial Crescent", results primarily from a more balanced ratio of whites and nonwhites and a high degree of urbanization and industrialization. Although North Carolina is experiencing an aging population, in 1960 it had a smaller proportion of persons over 64 years of age and a larger one of those under 10 than did the Uhited States as a whole. The different age groups and the proportion of males 18 years and over do not have very great ranges throughout the state. Onslow County has the most notable deviations in age and sex distributions. This is explained by the presence of the two Military establishments there. While the counties of the Coastal Plain together have the highest percentage of persons under 18 years of age, the Piedmont has the largest number of residents in this category. Persons in this age group must be educated if the state is to make progress. The high drop-out rate, low income level, growing school enrollments, lack of well-trained teachers, and the inadequate space to house present and future students are most critical problems facing North Carolina education today. However, under the supervision of Governor Terry Sanford, the present state administration has placed its major emphasis on a program of providing quality education for the people of the state. The counties in North Carolina with the most high school and college graduates are as might be expected, the most populous 119 ones in the state. The Piedmont has by far the greatest concentration of persons with high school and college educations, with the Coastal Plain, Mountain and Tidewater sections following in the order. Mecklenburg, Guilford, Wake, and Forsyth are the leading counties. This is due to the larger populations and urbanization in these counties. The greater wealth and industrial development has resulted in higher salaries paid to teachers, better schools, and the % location here of a very high proportion of the colleges and ‘4‘ universities of the state. The Tidewater region has the lowest percentages of ;5 1 overall population and college graduates and the highest one in rural nonfarm residents. The low proportions in the two former classifications appear to have a fairly significant relationship in that a smaller population does not demand as high a proportion of inhabitants with a college education as a larger one would. Also, there are only three small colleges in this section, two of which are junior colleges. The very high rural nonfarm percentage seems to be related to the presence of only one city of any size, and to the poor agricultural quality of the region. The fact that the highest percentages of rural farm and nonwhite population are in the Coastal Plain is related significantly to the location here of the lowest percentages of families with incomes over $10,000, high school graduates, persons 18 to 65, and over 65 years of age. In addition, this section has the highest proportions of families with incomes 120 under $3,000 and persons under 18 years of age. Thus, the most rural farm and nonwhite region of North Carolina has the lowest educational and income levels and the youngest population resulting in the most critical problems of education in the state. The Mountain region has the lowest percentages of nonwhites and city people. The low urban proportion has little or no relation to the small nonwhite population, but is because Asheville is the only city over 25,000 located here and the area is very rugged and mountainous with little in the way of resources except scenery. However, the fact that this section has the lowest percentage of inhabitants under 18 and the highest one of those over 65 is significantly related to the extremely low proportion of nonwhites. The existence of the highest percentage of urbanites and lowest one of rural nonfarm and rural farm residents in the Piedmont strongly correlates with the location here of the highest proportion of families with incomes over $10,000 and the lowest one of those earning under $3,000 a year, These characteristics, together with that of the largest overall population being in this region, are related significantly to the highest percentages of both high school and college graduates living here. Finally, there is a definite relationship between the high degree of urbanization and education and the high percentage of persons 18 to 65 years of age. This study, therefore, has shown significant relationships t0 exist among many of the characteristics of the population 121 of North Carolina. These correlations not only have made clearer the nature of North Carolina's population, but also have reinforced theories regarding many of the attributes and trends of population present in most areas of the United States today. APPENDIX A Glossary Reference week.--"In the 1960 Census...the majority of the population was enumerated during the first half of April."115 Rural population.--Those persons not classified as urban 1.116 are defined as rura Rural farm population.--"In the 1960 Census, the farm population included persons living in rural territory on places of ten or more acres from which sales of farm products amounted to $50 or more in 1959 or on places of less than ten acres from which sales of farm products amounted to $250 or more in 1959."117 Rural nonfarm population.--"0ther persons in rural territory including those living on 'city lots', were classified as nonfarm residents. Persons were also classified as nonfarm if their household paid rent for the house but their rent did not include any land used for farming.”118 115 116 U. 8., Bureau of the Census, A Report of the Seventeenth Ibid. (of footnote 116 below). Decennial Census of the United States: wCensus of Population: 1950, Vol. II, Part 33, p. XIII. 11 7Ibid., p. XV. llBIbid. 122 123 Secondary industries.--All activities which are 119 concerned with manufacturing are secondary industries. Seven County Coastal Area.--The Seven County Coastal Area is a seven county area along the coast of North Carolina which includes Beaufort, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, and Tyrrell counties;2O Tertiary industries.--All service activities which are concerned with such functions as finance, trade, the professions, government, recreation, construction, and . . . . . . 121 transportation and communications are tertiary industries. Urban population.--"According to the new definition that was adopted for use in the 1950 census, the urban population comprises all persons living in (a) places of 2,500 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, boroughs, and villages, (b) incorporated towns of 2,500 inhabitants or more outside any urban fringe...According to the old definition, the urban population was limited to all persons living in incorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more and in areas (usually minor civil divisions) classified as urban under special rules relating to population size and density. 119Harvey S. Perloff with Vera W. Dodds, How a Region Grows: Area Development in the U. S. Economy (Supplementary Paper No. 17; New York: Committee for Economic Development, March, 1963), p. 24. 120Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff, Population and Economy: Dare County, North Carolina, p. 4. 121Perloff and Dodds, p. 24. 124 ”In both definitions, the most important component of the urban territory is the group of incorporated places having 2,500 inhabitants or more. A definition of urban territory restricted to such places would exclude a number of equally large and densely settled places, merely because they were not incorporated places. Uhder the old definition, an effort was made to avoid some of the more obvious omissions by the inclusion of the places classified as urban under special rules. Even with these rules, however, many large and closely built-up places were excluded from the urban territory. To improve the situation in the 1950 Census, the Bureau of the Census set up, in advance of enumeration, boundaries for urban-fringe areas around cities of 50,000 or more and for incorporated places outside urban fringes. All the population residing in urban- fringe areas and in incorporated places of 2,500 or more is classified as urban according to the 1950 definition, (of course, the incorporated places of 2,500 or more in these fringes are urban in their own right.) Consequently, the special rules of the old definition are no longer necessary;22 122Bureau of the Census, A Report of the Seventeenth..., p. XIII. APPENDIX B POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR COUNTIES Total Population Change County Population Density 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960 1960 1940 1950 1960 Coastal Plain Bertie 24,350 35.1 357 238 -2,087 Bladen 28,881 32.9 4,767 2,547 -812 Columbus 48,973 52.2 7,943 4,958 ~1,648 .373 Cumberland 148,418 224.5 14,101 36,686 52,412 ' Duplin 40,270 49.0 4,636 1,335 -804 Edgecombe 54,226 106.1 1,268 2,472 2,592 Gates 9,254 27.0 ~491 ~505 -301 ,1 Greene 16,741 62.2 -108 —524 -l,283 f1 Halifax 58,957 81.7 3,266 1,865 579 by Harnett 48,236 79.6 6,328 3,366 631 “ Hertford 22,718 63.8 1,810 2,101 1,265 Hoke 16,356 50.2 693 819 600 Johnston 62,936 79.2 6,177 2,208 -2,970 Lenoir 55,276 141.4 5,495 4,722 9,323 Martin 27,139 56.4 2,711 1,827 -799 Nash 61,002 110.5 2,826 4,311 1,083 Northampton 26,811 49.7 1,138 133 -l,62l Pitt 69,942 106.6 6,778 2,545 6,153 Robeson 89,102 94.4 10,348 10,909 1,333 Sampson 48,013 49.9 7,358 2,340 -l,767 Scotland 25,183 79.4 3,058 3,104 -1,153 Wayne 82.059 147.9 5.315 5.939 17.792 Wilson 57,716 154.7 5,305 4,287 3,210 Tidewater Beaufort 36,014 43.3 1,405 703 -l,120 Brunswick 20,278 23.2 1,307 2,113 1,040 Camden 5,598 23.4 -21 -217 375 Carteret 30,940 58.2 1,384 4,775 7,881 Chowan 11,729 65.2 290 968 -811 Craven 58.773 81.1 633 17.525 9.950 Currituck 6,601 24.2 -1 -508 400 Dare 5.935 15.3 839 -636 530 Hyde 5,765 9.1 -690 -1,381 -7l4 Jones 11,005 23.6 498 78 1 New Hanover 71,742 369.8 4,925 15,337 8,470 Onslow 82,706 109.4 1,650 24,108 40,659 Pamlico 9,850 28.9 .407 287 -143 Pasquotank 25,630 111.9 1,425 3,779 1,283 Pender 18,508 21.6 2,024 713 85 Perquimans 9,178 35.2 -895 -171 -424 125 126 Total Population Change County Population Density 1930- 1940- 1950— 1960 1960 1940 1950 1960 Tyrrell 4,520 11.3 392 -508 -528 Washington 13,488 40.1 720 757 308 Mountain Alleghany 7,734 33.6 1,155 -186 1421 Ashe 19,768 46.3 1,645 -786 -2,110 Avery 12,009 48.6 1,758 —200 - ,343 Buncombe 130,074 201.7 10,818 15,648 5,671 Burke 52,701 104.2 9,205 6,903 7,183 Caldwell 49,552 104.1 7,779 7,557 6,200 Cherokee 16,335 36.0 2,652 —519 -1,959 Clay 5,526 25.9 971 -399 -480 Graham 6,432 22.3 577 468 -454 Haywood 39,711 73.1 6,531 2,827 2,080 Henderson 36,163 94.7 2,645 4,872 5,142 Jackson 17,780 105.9 1,847 -105 -1,489 Macon 14.935 28.9 1,847 294 -1,239 Madison 17,217 37.8 2,216 -2,000 -3,305 McDowell 26,742 60.5 2,660 2,724 1,022 Mitchell 13,906 63.2 2,018 -837 -1,237 Polk 11.395 48.7 1,658 -247 -232 Rutherford 45,091 79.7 5,125 779 -1,265 Surry 48,205 89.8 2,034 3,810 2,612 Swain 8,387 15.8 .609 -2,256 -1,534 Transylvania 16 ,372 43.2 2,652 2,953 1,178 Watauga 17,529 54.8 2,949 228 -813 Wilkes 45,269 59.2 6,841 2,240 26 Yadkin 22,804 68.1 2,647 1,476 671 Yancey 14,008 45.0 2,716 -896 -2,298 Piedmont Alamance 85,674 197.4 15,287 13,793 14,454 Alexander 15,625 61.3 532 1,100 1,071 Anson 24,962 46.8 —906 -1,662 -1,819 Cabarrus 68,137 189.3 15,062 4,390 4,354 Caswell 19,912 45.8 1,818 838 -958 Catawba 73,191 180.3 7.662 10,141 11,397 Chatham 26,785 37.9 549 566 1,393 Cleveland 66,048 141.7 6,141 6,302 1,691 Davidson 79.493 145.6 5,512 8,867 17,249 Davie 16,728 63.4 523 511 10,356 Durham 111,995 374.6 13,048 21,395 10,356 Forsyth 189,428 446.8 14,794 19,360 43,293 Franklin 28,775 58.2 926 959 -2,586 Gaston 127,740 355.0 9,438 23,305 16,238 Granville 33.110 61.1 621 2,449 1,317 Guilford 246,520 378. 20,906 37.141 55.463 Iredell 62,526 105.8 3,731 5,879 6,223 Lee 26,561 104.2 1,714 4,779 3,039 Lincoln 28,814 93.6 1,315 3,262 1,355 Mecklenburg 272,111 502.0 23,855 45,226 75,059 Montgomery 18,408 37.7 62 980 1,148 wszzfimr‘“*-aunv -* 1- 127 Total Population Change County Population Density 1930- 1940- 1950- 1940 1950 1960 Moore 36.733 28.3 2,754 2,160 3,604 Orange 42,970 108.0 1,902 11,363 8,535 Person 26,394 66.0 2,990 —668 2,033 Randolph ~61,497 76.8 8,295 6,250 10,693 Richmond 39.202 82.2 2,794 2,78% -395 Rockingham 69,629 121.7 6,815 6,91 4,813 Rowan 82,817 160.2 12,541 6,204 7,407 Stanly 40,873 102.4 2,618 4,296 3,743 Stokes 22,314 40.6 366 -l,136 794 Union 44,670 69.5 -1,882 2,937 2,636 vance 32,002 128.5 2,667 2,140 -99 Wake 169,082 195.7 14,787 26,906 32,632 Warren 19,652 44.4 —219 394 -3,887 APPENDIX C URBAN POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Urban Change County Number Per Cent 1940-1950 1940-1950 1950-1960 1950-1960 Urban Urban No. Per Cent No. Per Cent 1960 1960 Coastal Plain Bertie 0 0 *** O *** 0 Bladen O 0 *** 0 *** '0 Columbus 4,683 9.6 1,227 40.8 445 10.5 Cumberland 70,183 47.3 17,287* 99.2 32,040 84.0 Duplin 29 0.1 *** 0 29** 0 Edgecombe 22,236 42.9 1,875- 9.8 2,235 10.6 Gates 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Greene 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Halifax 19,273 32.7 -218* -2.0 5,213 37.1 Harnett 10,749 22.3 1,060* 20.2 1,089 11.3 Hertford 7,226 31.8 3,579** 0 3,647 101.9 Hoke 3,058 18.7 *** 0 3,058** O Johnston 11,921 19.9 4.535 ' 23.3 4,308 52.5 Lenoir 24,819 44.9 2,948 19.2 6,483 35.4 Martin 6,924 25.5 1,009 25.4 1,949 39.2 Nash 16,382 28.4 1,226 9.0 2,506 16.9 Northampton 0 O *** 0 *** 0 Pitt 29,965 42.8 4,012 25.6 10,299 52.4 Robeson 18,072 20.3 3,383 58.3 8,886 96.7 Sampson 7,491 15.5 857 24.1 3,047 69.0 Scotland 8,242 32.7 1,449 25.5 1,108 15.5 Wayne 33,847 40.8 4,983 24.7 8,331 33.1 Wilson 28.753 49.8 3,776 19.6 5,743 25.0 Tidewater Beaufort 9,969 27.6 3,657 42.7 -2,287 -l8.7 Brunswick 0 O *** 0 *** 0 Camden 0 0 *** O *** 0 Carteret 8,505 27.5 1,289 19.9 149 1.8 Chowan 4,458 38.0 633 16.5 -10 -0.2 Craven 15,717 26.7 3,997 33.8 106 +0.6 Durrituck 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Dare 0 0 *** O *** 0 Hyde 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Jones 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 New Hanover49,533 69.0 12,636 34.8 4,490 10.0 Onslow 37,205 21.3 3,960* 0 9,992 130.4 Pamlico 0 0 *** O *** 0 Pasquotank 14,062 54.9 1,121 9.7 1,377 10.9 Pender 0 0 *** O *** 0 Perquimans 0 0 *** 0 *** O Tyrrell 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Washington 4,666 34. 4,486** 0 180 4.0 128 129 Number Per Cent Urban Change County Urban Urban 1940—1950 L940~1950 1950-1960 1950-1960 1960 1960 No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Mountain Alleghany 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Ashe 0 O *** 0 *** 0 Avery 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Buncombe 61,592 52.7 1,690* 3.3 . 10,155 17.4 Burke 12,127 23.0 756 7.4 1,086 9.8 Caldwell 12,901 26.0 914* 3.8 5,013 63.6 Cheroke 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Clay 0 O *** O *** 0 Graham 0 O *** O *** O Haywood 11,227 28.3 2,224 27.9 1,026 10.1 Henderson 5,911 16.3 722 13.4 -192 -3.1 Jackson 0 O *** ' O *** 0 Macon O 0 *** 0 *** 0 Madison 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 McDowell 3,395 12.5 -l49* -5.2 -2,296 -40.7 Mitchell 2,504 18.0 *** 0 2,504** O POlk O O *** O *** O Rutherfordl4,040 31.1 3,021* 33.6 -1,472 -9.5 Surry 9,923 20.6 1,014* 11.2 —3,048 -23 .5 Swain O O *** O *** O Transylvania4,857 29.7 847 27.7 949 24.3 Watauga 3,686 21.0 2,973** 0 713 24.0 Wilkes 4.197 9.3 -99 -2.2 -l82 ~4.2 Yadkin 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Yancey o 0 *** 0 *** Q Piedmont Alamance 43,865 51.2 13,049 78.9 14,279 48.3 Alexander 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Anson 3,564 15.0 —l79 -5.0 336 9.9 Cabarrus 46,162 67.7 914* 5.9 4,055 9.6 Caswell O 0 *** 0 *** O Catawba 32,257 44.1 1,900 10.1 11,463 55.1 Chatham 4,425 16.6 2,501** 0 1,954 78.1 Cleveland 25,706 38.9 2,130 10.3 2,992 13.2 Davidson 31,283 39.4 3,134 14.5 6,558 26.5 Davie 0 0 *** O *** 0 Durham 84,742 75.6 11,116* 18.5 11,274 15.4 Forsyth 131,118 69.2 7,996* 10.0 34,988 36.4 Franklin 2,862 10.0 2,545 ** 0 317 12.5 Gaston 79.203 61.8 3.391 * 10.4 17,314 28.3 Granville 6,978 21.1 2,694 67.5 293 4.4 Guilford 183552 76.1 16,548* 16.9 61,370 48.6 Iredell 33,728 42.8 5.900. 32.6 2,740 11.4 Lee 12,253 46.1 5,053 101.9 2,240 22.4 Lincoln 5,704 19.8 898 19.8 246 5.1 Mecklenburg 212,124 78.0 34,143* 32.8 71,194 50.5 Montgomery 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 92.1 Number Per Cent Urban Change County Urban Urban 1940-1950 1940-1950 1950-1960 1950-1960 1960 1960 No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Moore 5,198 14.2 1,047 32.5 956 21.7 Orange 12.573 29.3 5.523 151.1 3.399 37.0 Person 5,147 19.5 ~278 -6.0 826 19.1 Randolph 15,579 25.3 720 10.3 7.878 102.3 Richmond 13,183 33.6 -351 -4.0 -414 -3.0 Rockingham28,641 41.1 8,995* 86.6 3,717 14.9 Rowan 39,060 47.2 1,235* 5.6 8,087 26.1 Stanly 12,261 30.0 7,738. 190.6 463 3.9 Stokes 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 Union 10,882 24.4 3,665 56.6 742 7.3 Vance 12,740 39.8 3,349 43.8 1,744 15.9 Wake 106,801 63.2 22,486* 47.9 34,344 47.4 Warren 0 0 *** 0 *** 0 * The old urban definition was used for the computations. ** These counties experienced an urban population for the first time. *** These counties do not have any urban population. APPENDIX D RURAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Number PerCent Rural Change County Rural Rural 1940-1950 1940-195077195041960 1950-1960 1960 1960 No. Per Cent N0. Per Cent Coastal Plain Bertie 24,350 100.0 238 0.9 -2,089 —7.9 Bladen 28,881 100.0 2,547 9.4 ~822 -2.8 Columbus 44,290 90.4 3,731 8.7 —2,093 -4.5 Cumberland 78,235 52.7 19,399* 46.3 -20,372 35.2 Duplin 40,241 99.9 1.335 3.4 ~833 -2.0 Edgecombe 30,990 57.1 597 2.0 357 1.2 Gates ;.’ 9,254 100.0 -525 -5.0 -301 -3.2 Greene 16,741 100.0 -524 -2.8 -1,283 -7.1 Halifax 39,684 67.3 2,083* 4.6 -4,634 -10.5 Harnett 37,487 77.7 2,306* 5.9 -458 -1.2 Hertford 15,492 68.2 -1,578 -7.6 -2,382 -13.3 Hoke 13,298 81.3 819 5.5 -1,458 -15.6 Johnston 51,015 80.1 -2,427 -4.0 -7,278 -12.6 Lenoir 30,457 55.1 1,794 6.9 2,840 10.3 Martin 20,215 74.5 818 3.7 -2,748 -12.0 Nash 44,620 71.6 3,085 7.3 -423 -3.2 Northampton26,811 100.0 133 0.5 -1,621 -5.7 Pitt 39.977 57.2 —1,467 -3.2 -4,146 -9.4 Robeson 71,030 79.7 7,526 10.6 -7,553 -9.6 Sampson 40,522 84.5 1,483 3.4 -4,844 -10.6 Scotland 16,941 67.3 1,655 9.4 -2,261 —11.8 Wayne 48,212 ,59.2 956 2.5 9,461 24.2 Wilson 28,963 50.8 511 1.6 -2.533 -8.0 Tidewater Beaufort: 26,045 72.4 -2,954 -10.6 1,167 4.7 Brunswick 20,278 100.0 2,113 12.3 1,040 5.4 Camden 5,598 100.0 -217 -4.0 375 7.2 Carteret 22,435 72.5 3,386 29.9 7,732 52.6 Chowan 7,271 62.0 335 4.3 -801 -9.9 Craven 43,056 73.3 13,528 69.4 10,045 30.4 Currituck 6,601 100.0 -508 -7.6 400 6.5 Dare 5,935 100.0 -636 -lO.5 530 9.8 Hyde 5,765 100.0 -1,381 —17.6 -714 -11.0 Jones 11,005 100.0 78 0.7 1 0 New Hanover 22,209 31.0 3,701 25.5 3,980 21.8 Onslow 45,051 78.7 20,148* 112.3 10,667 89.2 Pamlico 9,850 100.0 287 3.0 -143 -1.4 Pasquotank 11,568 45.1 2,658 29.5 -94 -0.8 Pender 18,508 100.0 713 4.0 85 0.5 Perquimans 9,178 100.0 -717 -1.7 -424 -4.4 Tyrrell 4,520 100.0 -508 -9.1 -528 -10.5 Washington 8,822 65.4 —3,629 -29.4 128 1.5 131 ‘Illl‘l 132 Number Per Cent Rural Change County RUral Rural L94051950 1940—1950 1950:1960 1950-1960 1960 1960 No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Mountain Alleghany 7,734 100.0 -186 -2.2 -421 -5.2 Ashe 19,768 100.0 1786 —2,110 -9.6 Avery 12,009 100.0 ~209 -1,343 -10.1 Buncombe 61,482 47.3 13,958* -4,484 -6.8 Burke 40,574 77.0 6,147 6,097 17.7 Caldwell 36,651 74.0 7,267 1,187 3.3 Cherokee 16,335 100.0 -519 -l.959 -10.7 Clay 5,526 100.0 -399 6.2 -480 -8.0 Graham 6,432 100.0 468 7.3 -454 -6.6 Haywood 28,484 71.7 503 2.2 1,054 3.8 Henderson 30,252 83.7 4,150 20.1 5,434 21.9 Jackson 17,780 100.0 -105 -0.5 -1,481 -7.7 Macon 14,935 100.0 294 1.9 -1,239 -7.7 Madison 17,217 100.0 -2,000 -8.9 “3:305 -16.l McDowell 23,347 87.5 2,873* 14.3 3,318 16.5 Mitchell 11,402 82.0 -837> -5.2 -3,741 -24.7 Polk 11.395 100.0 -247 -2.1 —232 -2.0 Rutherford 31,051 68.9 -2,242* -6.1 207 0.7 Surry 38,282 79.4 -2,796* 8.5 5,560 17.4 Swain 8,387 100.0 —2,256 ~18.5 -1,534 -15.5 Transylvania11,515 70.3 2,106 22.9 229 2.0 Watauga 13,843 79.0 -2,745 -15.2 -1,526 «9.9 Wilkes 41,072 90.7 2.339 6.1 208 0.5 Yadkin 22,804 100.0 1,476 7.1 671 3.0 Yancy 14,008 100.0 —896 -5.2 -2,298 -14.1 Piedmont Alamance 41,809 48.8 744 1.8 175 0.4 Alexander 15,625 100.0 1,100 8.2 1,071 7.4 Anson 21,398 85.0 -1,483 -6.0 -2,155 -9.2 Cabarrus 21,975 32.3 3,476* 7.9 299 1.4 Caswell 19,912 100.0 838 4.2 -958 -4.6 Catawba 40,934 55.9 8,241 25.2 -66 -0.2 Chatham 22,360 83.4 -1,835 -7.4 —561 ~2.5 Cleveland 40,342 61.1 4,172 11.1 -1,301 -3.1 Davidson 48,210 60.6 5,733 18.0 10,691 28.5 Davie 16,728 100.0 511 3.4 1,308 8.5 Durham 27,253 24.4 10,279* 51.3 -918 -3.2 Forsyth 58,310 30.8 11,664# 25.0 8,305 16.6 Franklin 25,913 90.0 -1586- -5.2 -2,903 -10.1 Gaston 48,537 38.2 19,914 36.2 _l,076 -2.2 Granville 76,132 78.9 -245 -1.0 1,024 4.1 Guilford 58,968 23.9 20,593* 36.7 -5.907 -9.1 Iredell 28,788 57.2 -21 -0.1 3,483 ~10.8 Lee 14,308 53.9 —274 -2.0 799 5.9 Lincoln 23,110 80.2 2,374 12.1 1,079 4.9 Mecklenburg 59,987 22.0 12,083* 23.7 3,865 6.9 Montgomery 18,408 100.0 980 6.0 1,148 6.7 Moore 31,535 85.8 1,113 4.0 2,678 9.3 Orange 30,397 70.7 5,840 30.1 5,139 20.3 133 Number Per Cent Rural Chan e 1940-1950 1950-1960 1950-1960 County Rural Rural 1940-1950 1960 1960 No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Person 21,247 80.5 -390 -1.9 1,207* 6.3 Randolph 45,918 74.7 5.530 14.7 2,815 6.5 Richmond 26,019 66.4 3,138* 11.2 19 0.1 Rockingham 40,988 58.9 -2,077* —4.4 1,096 2.7 Rowan 43,757 52.8 4,969* 10.6 -680 -l.5 Stanly 28,612 70.0 -3,442 -12.0 3,280 12.9 Stokes 22,314 100.0 -1,136 -5.0 794 3.7 Union 33,788 75.6 . -728 -2.2 1,894 5.9 vance 19,262 60.2 -l,209 -5.4 -l,843 -8.7 Wake 62,281 36.8 4,420 7.1 -1,712 -2.7 Warren 19,652 100.0 394 1.7 '3.887 -16.5 * The old urban definition was used for the computations. APPENDIX E RURAL FARM AND RURAL NONFARM POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Rural Rural Rural Farm Rural Nonfarm County Farm Nonfarm Change Change 1960 1960 1950-1960 1950-1960 number per Cent number per cent Coastal Pla _ Bertie 11,638 12,712 -5,166 -30.7 3.077 31.9 Bladen 12, 090 16.791 -5.542 -31.4 4,720 31.9 Columbus 21,950 22,340 -8,049 -26.8 5,956 36.4 Cumberland 9,907 68,328 -5,300 ~34.9 25,672 60.2 Duplin 20,628 19,613 -6,359 -23.6 5,526 39.2 Edgecombe 15,611 15,379 -6,215 -28.5 6,572 74.6 Gates 5,697 3,557 —2,249 -38.8 1,948 51.8 Greene 10,364 6, 377 -4,522 -30.4 3,239 103.2 Halifax 17,998 21,686 -8,768 -32.8 4,134 23.6 Harnett 15,241 22,246 -8,320 -35.3 7,862 54.7 Hertford 6,867 8,625 -3,330 -32.7 948 12.3 Hoke 5,827 7,471 -4,056 -41.0 2,598 44.2 Johnson 26,653 24,362 12,730 -32.8 5,452 28.8 Lenoir 12,191 18,266 -6,224 -33.8 9.064 98.5 Martin 11,920 8,295 —4,125 -25. 7 1,377 19.9 Nash 22,921 21,699 -7,809 -25. 4 7,386 51.6 Northampton 10,876 15,935 -7056 -39. 9 5,435 51.8 Pitt 19,854 20,123 10,377 -34. 3 6,231 44.9 Robeson 37,905 33,125 -9.803 -20. 5 2,250 7.3 Sampson 22,604 17,918 10,920 -32.6 6,076 51.3 Scotland 4,518 12,423 -5,254 -53.8 2,993 31.7 Wayne 16,686 31,865 -7,602 -31.3 17,063 115.3 Wilson 15,592 13,371 -7,036 -31.1 4,503 50.8 Tidewater Beaufort 9,495 16,550 -5,251 -35.6 6,418 63.2 Brunswick 5,714 14,564 —4,265 ~42.7 5.305 57.3 Camden 1,504 4,094 -743 -33. 1 1,118 37.6 Carteret 1,529 20,906 -1,127 -42. 4 8,859 73.5 Chowan 3,635 3,636 -2,481 -40. 6 1,680 85.9 Craven 7,203 35,853 -3,129 -30.3 13,174 58.1 Currituck 1,243 5,358 -1,631 -56.8 2,031 61.0 Dare 135 5,800 .59 +77.6 471 8.8 Hyde 1,733 4,032 -964 -35.7 250 6.6 Jones 5,400 5,605 —2,212 -29.1 2,213 65.2 New Hanover 354 21,855 —1,380 -79.6 5,360 32.5 Onslow 6,738 38,313 -4,036 -37.5 14,703 62.3 Pamlico 1,628 8,222 -1,243 -43.3 1,100 15.4 Pasquotank 2,056 9,512 -1,261 -38.0 1,167 14.0 Pender 5,787 12,721 —4,941 -46.1 5,026 65.3 Perquimans 2,769 6,409 -1,132 -29. O 708 12.4 Tyrrell 1,440 3,080 —769 -34.8 .241 8.5 Washington 2,432 6,390 -2,455 -50.2 2,583 67.8 134 l iiii: I4] .I.‘ . I 135 Rural Rural Rural Farm Rural Nonfarm County Farm Nonfarm Change Change 1960 1960 1950-1960 1950-1960 number per cent number per cent Mountain Alleghany 3.355 4.379 -3.055 -47.7 2.634 150.9 AShe 90835 93933 ‘79845 ’44-“ 5:735 13606 Avery 2,695 9,314 -5.753 -68.1 4,410 ’ 89.9 Buncombe 10,151 51,331 -9,550 -48.5 5,066 10.9 Burke 2,085 38,489 -7,122 -77.4 13,219 52.3 Caldwell 3,758 32,893 -8,191 -68.5 9.378 39.9 Cherokee 2,416 13,919 -7,343 -75.2 5,384 63.1 Clay 2,279 3,247 -2,053 -47.4 1,573 94.0 Graham 2,371 4,061 -l,269 -34.9 815 25.1 Haywood 6,903 21,581 -5,498 -44.3 6,552 43.6 Henderson 4,356 25,896 -6,577 -60.2 12,011 86.5 Jackson 3,219 14,561 —7,899 -71.0 6,418 78.8 Macon 3,458 11,477 -6,724 -66.0 5,485 91.5 Madison 10,321 6,896 -4,506 -30.4 1,201 21.1 McDowell 1,349 21,998 -6,259 -81.7 9,577 77.1 Mitchell 4,059 7,343 -5,113 ~55.7 1,372 23.0 ,Polk 1.557 9.838 -3.570 -69.6 3.338 51.4 Rutherford 4,431 26,620 -l2068 -73.1 12,275 85.6 Sury 13,576 24,706 -5,280 —28.0 10,940 79.5 Swain 1,363 7,024 -3,934 -74.3 2,400 51.9 Transylvanial,335 10,180 -3,419 471.9 3,648 55.8 Watauga 7,099 6,744 -4,676 -39.7 3.150 87.6 Wilkes 8,173 32,899 -14,861 -64.5 15,069 84.5 Yadkin 8,626 14,178 —5,864 -40.5 6.535 85.5 Yancey 5,900 8,108 -6,037 -50.6 3,739 85.6 Piedmont Alamance 7,739 34,070 -5,142 -39.9 5,317 18.5 Alexander 4,252 11,373 -5,043 -54.3 6,114 16.3 Anson 5,826 15,572 -6,977 -54.5 4,822 44.9 Cabarrus 4.197 17.778 ~4.759 53.1 5.058 39.8 Caswell 11,216 8,696 -4,369 ~28.0 9,378 64.5 CatEWba 5.389 35.545 -9.277 ~63.3 9.211 35.0 Chatham 7,701 14,659 -5,378 -4l.l 4,817 49.1 Cleveland 12,323 28,019 -13,464 -52.2 12,163 76.7 Davidson 6,813 41,397 -6,841 -50.l 17,532 73.5 DaVie 3.351 13.377 -3.418 -50.5 4.726 55.0 Durham 4,039 23,214 -3,734 -48.0 2,716 13.3 Forsyth 6,401 51,909 -7,129 -52.7 15,434 42.3 Franklin 13,868 12,045 -7,125 -34.5 4,222 54.0 Gaston 3,115 45,422 -7,467 -70.6 6,391 16.4 Granville 13,856 12,276 -2,853 -17.1 3,87 46.2 Guilford 12,206 46,762 —8,515 -41.1 2,60 5.9 Iredell 9,003 19,795 -9,266 -50.7 5.783 41.3 Lee 4.735 9.573 -3.528 -42.7 4.327 82.5 Lincoln 6,070 17,040 -5,899 ~49.3 6,978 69.4 Mecklenburg 4,562 55,425 -10,0l9 -68.7 13,884 33.4 Montgomery 2,614 15,794 -3,166 -54.8 4,314 37.6 Moore 6,952 24,583 -4,988 -41.8 7,666 45.3 Orange 5,860 24,537 -3,949 —40.3 9.088 58.8 136 Rural Rural Rural Farm Rural Nonfarm County Farm Nonfarm Change, Chan e 1960 1960 1950-1960 1950-19 0 Number Per cent Number per cent Person 11,618 9,629 -3,001 -20.5 4,208 77.6 Randolph 8,679 37,239 -7,113 —45.0 9,928 36.4 Richmond 3,541 22,478 -5,042 -58.7 5,061 29.1 Rockingham 14,421 26,567 -6,279 -30.3 7,375 38.4 Rowan 5,345 38,412 -8,897 -62.5 8,217 27.2 Stanly 5,074 23,538 -5,804 -53.4 9,084 62.8 Stokes 12,528 9,786 -3,372 -2l.2 4,166 74.1 Union 11,490 22,298 -11,970 —51.0 13,864 164.4 Vance 9,203 10,059 -3,413 -27.1 1,570 18.5 Wake 17,523 44,758 -12,275 -41.2 10,563 30.9 Warren 9,261 10,391 -7,775 —45.6 3,888 59.8 Ila 0 APPENDIX F WHITE AND NONWHITE POPULRATION CHARACTERISTICS County White Change Nonwhite Change White* 1950-1960 1950-1960 1960 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Coastal Plain Bertie 9.597 -731 ~6.9 -l.358 -8-5 Claden 16.667 -807 -4.6 -5 -0.04 Columbus 31.858 ‘l.590 -4-8 ~58 -0.3 Cumberland 108: 811 393780 5705 121632 147-0 Duplin 25,126 -764 -3.0 -40 -0.3 Edgecombe 23.954)4 1:274 501 1:318 503 Gates 4,232 -300 -6.6 -1 -o.02 Greene 8,317 -1,317 -13.7 34 0.4 Halifax 26,492 1,143 4.5 -564 -1.7 Harnett 34,813 -294 -0.8 925 7.4 Hartford 9,318 727 8.5 538 4.2 Hoke 6,952 748 12.0 -148 -1.6 Johnston 48,807 -2,779 -5.4 ~191 -1.3 Lenoir 33.404 7,273 27.8 2,050 10.3 Martin 12.539 -l,3l9 -9.5 520 3.7 Nash 32,256 2,233 6.5 -l,150 -4.5 Northampton 9,712 —470 -4.6 -1,151 -6.3 Pitt 39.458 5,185 15.1 968 3.3 Robeson 36,552 -938 -2.5 2,271 4.5 Sampson 29,863 -1,605 -5.1 -162 —0.9 Scotland l4,037 300 2.2 -1,453 -ll.5 Wayne 51.835 14.693 39.5 3.099 11.4 W ilson 52,498 2,036 6.3 1,174 5.3 Tidewater Beaufort 22,724 -544 -2.3 -576 -4.2 Brunswick 13,103 899 7.4 141 2.0 Camden 3,240 39 1.2 336 16.6 Carteret 27,107 6,957 34.5 924 31.8 Chowan 6,265 —807 -11.4 -4 -0.1 Craven 41,767 8,768 26.6 1,182 7.5 Currituck 4,515 296 7.0 104 5.2 Dare 5,529 504 10.0 26 6.8 Hyde 3,330 ~415 -11.1 ~299 -10.9 Jones 5,832 -179 -3.0 180 3.6 New Hanover51,744 8,314 19.1 156 0.8 Onslow 71,684 36,319 102.7 4,340 65.0 Pamlico 6,239 —298 -4.6 155 4.5 Pasquotank 15,501 452 3.0 831 8.9 Pender 9,602 79 0.8 6 0.1 Perquimans 4,875 -139 -2.8 -285 -6.2 Tyrrell 2,544 -415 -14.0 -113 -5.4 Washington 7,405 -22 -0.3 330 5.7 137 ) _._,_.' '._r. < I _s..~ 138 County White Change Nonwhite Change White* 1950-1960 1950-1960 1960 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Mountain Allegfian§" 7,501 -386 -4.9 -35 -13.1 Ashe 19,549 -2,050 —9.5 -60 -21.5 Avery 11,854 -1,294 -9.8 -49 -24.0 Buncombe 115,950 6,824 6.3 -1,153 -7.5 Burke 48,968 6,852 16.3 331 9.7 Caldwell 46,040 5,686 14.1 514 17.1 Cherokee 15,951 -2,027 -11.g 68 21.5 Clay 5,476 -463 -7- -17 "25.11L Graham 6,186 ~479 -7.2 35 11.3 Haywood 38,817 2,016 5.5 64 7.7 Henderson 34,094 5,243 18.2 -101 -4.9 Jackson 16,040 -1,756 -9.9 275 18.8 Macon 14,637 -1.l75 -7.4 -63 ~17.5 Madison 17,084 -3.245 -16.0 -60 -3l.l McDowell 25,366 1,087 4.5 -65 -4.5 Mitchell 13,863 -1,231 -8.2 -6 -12.2 Polk 9,972 -146 —1.4 -86 -5.7 Rutherford 39,691 -984 -2.4 -281 -4.9 Surry 45,398 2,413 5.6 199 7.6 Swain 6,520 -l,650 ~19.7 116 7.5 Transylvania6,505 2.063 14.3 115 15.3 Watauga 17,296 -818 -4.5 5 2.2 Wilkes 42,558 37 0.1 -11 -0.4 Yadkin 21,674 639 3.0 32 2.9 Yancey 12,872 -2.249 -l4.0 ~49 -26-5 Piedmont Alamance 70,875 12,827 22.1 1,627 12.3 Alexander 14.558 1.037 7.7 34 3.3 Anson 13,999 216 1.6 -2,035 -l5.6 Cabarrus 57,309 3,285 6.1 1,069 11.0 Caswell 9,612 -l,330 -12.2 372 3.7 Catawba 66,378 10,182 18.1 1,215 21.7 Chatham 18,371 1,120 6.5 273 3.4 Cleveland 51,250 966 1.9 725 5.2 Davidson 70,846 14,997 26.9 2,252 35.2 Davie 13,657 1,390 11.3 - -3.8 Durham 75,965 8,149 12.0 2,207 6.5 Forsyth 143,660 38,967 37.2 4,326 10.4 Franklin 15.993 ~1,051 -6.2 -l.535 -10.7 Gaston 110,446 14,496 15.1 1,742 11.7 Granville 18,389 1,443 8.5 -126 ~0.8 Guilford 194,984 41,246 26.8 14,217 38.1 Iredell 51,393 5,088 11.0 1,135 11.4 Lee 20,658 3,258 18.7 -219 -3.6 Lincoln 25,288 1,310 5.5 45 1.3 Mecklenburg205,164 58,058 39.5 16,974 34.0 Montgomery 13,820 518 3.9 630 16.0 Moore 26,998 2,769 11.4 835 9.4 Orange 32,765 6,986 27.1 1,549 17.9 139 (haunty White Change Nonwhite Change White* 1950-1960 1950—1960 1960 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent ’Person 16,911 1,375 8.87 658 7.5 Rarudolph 56,369 9,871 21.2 822 19.1 Iiichmond 27,376 -142 -0.5 —252 -2.1 Iflockingham 54,957 3,152 6.1 1,661 12.8 Rowarl 68,863 6,325 10.1 1,082 8.4 Stanly 36.376 3,479 10.6 264 6.2 Stokes 20,045 457 2.3 337 17.4 UhiCHl 35.092 2,538 7.8 98 1.0 Vance 17,973 485 2.8 —584 -4.0 Wake 124,956 28,547 29.6 4,085 10.2 ‘Warren 6,939 -962 -l2.2 -2,925 -18.7 * The nonwhite populations may be determined by subtracting the white populations from the total population in Appendix B ,aiE’ APPENDIX G Population Age Characteristics of Counties 1960 County Age by Per Cent under 18 from 18 to 65 65 and over Coastal Plain Bertie 45.0 47.0 8.0 Bladen 46.2 46.9 6.9 Columbus 44.4 49.3 6.3 Cumberland 39.9 57.3 3.3 Dup1in 42.8 50.4 6.8 Edgecombe 44.8 49.0 6.3 Gates 41.1 49.3 9.6 Greene 47.4 48.2 4.4 Halifax 44.7 48.7 6.6 Harnett 40.2 53.1 6.7 Hertford 43.3 49.8 6.9 Hoke 48.2 45.8 6.0 Johnston 40.6 52.4 7.0 Lenoir 42.4 52.3 5.2 Martin 45.7 48.2 6.1 Nash 42.8 50.5 6.6 Northampton 45.5 46.4 8.0 Pitt 41.8 52.2 5.9 Robeson 47.8 46.4 5.8 Sampson 42.5 50.4 7.1 Scotland 46.3 47.5 6.2 Wayne 40.5 53.8 5-7 Wilson 40.9 52.7 6.3 Tidewater Beaufort 41.2 50.3 8.5 Brunswick 42.7 50.2 7.2 Camden 42.1 49.2 8.7 Carteret 34.9 58.2 6.9 Chowan 42.5 49.5 8.1 Craven 40.9 54.0 5.2 Currituck 37.3 52.6 10.1 Dare 33.5 55.8 10.7 Hyde 39.0 48.0 13.0 Jones 45.7 48.2 6.2 New Hanover 37.2 55.2 7.6 Onslow 37.1 60.9 2.0' Pamlico 42.4 48.6 9.0 Pasquotank 39.1 5g.1 5.8 Pender 43.6 4 .3 .1 Perquimans 40.8 49.2 10.0 Tyrrell 42.4 47.5 10.0 Washington 44.7 48.6 6.7 140 141 County Age by Per Cent under 18* from 18 to 65 65 and over Mountain 111533553 34.7 53.6 11.6 Ashe 38.1 51.7 10.2 Avery 38.2 52.9 8.8 Buncombe 34.2 55.7 10.0 Burke 36.2 56.2 7.6 Caldwell 40.2 53.7 6.1 Cherokee 38.9 50.7 10.4 Clay 39.2 49.4 11.4 Graham 42.2 50.1 7.6 Haywood 36.6 55.2 8.2 Henderson 34.7 53.5 8.7 Jackson 35.8 54.8 9.4 Macon 37.3 52.0 10.7 Madison 35.1 55.0 9.9 McDowell 38.0 54.4 7.6 Mitchell 38.3 52.9 8.9 Polk 3 .0 52.0 12.0 Rutherford 37.0 54.3 8.7 Surry 37.3 54.8 7.9 Swain 40.6 49.6 9.7 Transylvania 38.7 54.0 7.3 WataUga 34.4 56.9 8.7 Wilkes 39.9 52.3 7.9 Yadkin 35.7 56.0 8.3 Yancey 38.8 51.5 9.7 ooooooooooooooooooooooooo ........................ ......................... 142 County Age by Per Cent under 18 from 18 to 65 65 and over Piedmont Alamance 37.3 56.3 6.4 Alexander 38.3 53.7 8.0 Anson 43.8 47.7 8.5 Cabarrus 36.4 56.8 6.7 Caswell 44.1 48.9 7.0 Catawba 38.2 55.6 6.2 Chatham 39.0 52.6 8.4 Cleveland 39.7 53.2 7.2 Davidson 38.0 55.6 6.3 Davie 36.3 54.7 9.0 Durham 34.3 59.0 6.7 Forsyth 36.3 57.6 6.2 Franklin 41.2 51.0 7.7 Gaston 38.8 55.3 5.9 Granville 39.6 52.2 8.2 Guilford 36.5 57.4 6.1 Iredell 37.4 54. 7.8 Lee 40.1 53.2 6.7 Lincoln 38.5 53.8 7.8 Mecklenburg 38.0 56. 5.7 Montgomery 40.5 51.3 8.3 Moore 40.1 51.2 8.7 Orange 33.2 60. 6.1 Person 41.8 51.2 7.0 Randolph 37.3 55.9 6.9 Richmond 41.2 51.6 7.2 Rockingham 37.4 55.4 7.1 Rowan 35.3 56.7 8.0 Stanly 36.3 56.5 7.2 Stokes 38.0 53.9 8.1 Union 39.8 52.9 7-3 vance 41.1 51.2 7.7 Wake 35.4 58.1 6.5 Warren 45.7 45.1 9.2 Source: JohnL. Knapp, North Carolina: An Economic Profile (Richmond: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 1962), p. 46; and U.S., Bureau of the Census, The Eighteenth Decennial Census of the United States: Census of Population: 1960, Vol. I, Part 35. APPENDIX H COUNTIES EXHIBITING THE MOST EXTREME POSITIONS CONCERNING THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE POPULATION H1gnest7Number, Per Lowest NUmber Population Cent, Numerical Per Cent, Numerical Characteristic Increase, or Increase, or Percentage Increase* Percentage Increase;t Total Population Mecklenburg, Guilford, Tyrrell, Clay, Camden, 1960 Forsyth, Wake, Hyde, Dare Cumberland r Population Density Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Hyde, Tyrrell, Dare 5 1960 Guilford, Durham Swain, Pender New Hanover Per Cent Urban Mecklenburg, Guilford, Over one—third of the l 1960 Durham, Forsyth, counties have no urban 13 New Hanover population. Per Cent Rural Dare, Polk, Montgomery, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Nonfarm - 1960 Cherokee, Swain Durham, Wilson, Cabarrus Per Cent Rural Greene, Madison, New Hanover, Mecklenburg, Farm - 1960 Caswell, Stokes, Ashe Gaston, Forsyth, Durham Per Cent Avery, Clay, Vance, Orange, Randolph, Guilford, Unemployed Pamlico, Mitchell Union, Moore, Duplin 1960 Per Cent Employed Wake, Mecklenburg, Stokes, Caswell, in White Collar Orange, Cumberland, Jones, Alexander, Jobs - 1960 Durham Ashe Per Cent Employed Randolph, Caldwell, Onslow, Dare, Greene, in Manufacturing McDowell, Burke, Jones, Hyde, Carteret 1960 Gaston Per Cent Nonwhite Warren, Northampton, Mitchell, Madison, Clay 1960 Bertie, Hertford, Robeson Ashe, Yancey Per Cent with Tyrrell, Clay, Greene, Forsyth, Mecklenburg, Income under Hyde, Warren Guilford, Alamance, $3,000 - 1960 Catawba Per Cent with Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Pender, Madison, Graham, Income over Guilford, Orange, Wake Perquimans, Ashe $10,000 - 1960 143 144 waest*NUMber Per Cent, Numerical Increase, or Percentage Increase$* Highest Number, Per Cent, Numerical Increase, or Percentage Increase* Population Characteristic Number with Four Years High School Completed - 1900 Number with Four or More Years College Completed 1960 Population Change 1930-1940 Population Change 1940-1950 Population Change 1950-1960 Per Cent Change 1930-1940 Per Cent Change 1940-1950 Per Cent Change 1950-1960 White Change 1950-1960 Nonwhite Change 1950-1960 Per Cent White Change, 1950-1960 Per Cent Nonwhite Change, 1950-1960 Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, Wake, Cumberland Mecklenburg, Guilford, Wake, Forsyth, Durham Mecklenburg, Guilford, Alamance, Cabarrus, Forsyth Mecklenburg, Guilford, Cumberland, Wake, Onslow Mecklenburg, Guilford, Cumberland, Forsyth, Onslow Alamance, Cabarrus, Burke, Cumberland, Caldwell Onslow, Cumberland, Craven, Orange, New Hanover Onslow, Cumberland, Mecklenburg, Carteret, Forsyth Mecklenburg, Guilford, Cumberland, Forsyth, Onslow Mecklenburg, Guilford Cumberland, Onslow, Forsyth Onslow, Cumberland, Wayne, Mecklenburg, Forsyth Onslow, Cumberland, Guilford, Davidson, Mecklenburg Warren, Warren, Madison, Tyrrell, Camden Clay, Graham, Hyde Graham, Camden, Tyrrell, Hyde, Clay Union, Anson, Hyde, Gates Swain, Madison, Anson, Hyde, Stokes Madison, Johnston, Franklin, Yancey Perquimans, Hyde, Gates, Union, Anson Swain, Hyde, Dare, Tyrell, Madison Madison, Swain, Yancey, Hyde Madison, Johnston, Yancey, Ashe, Cherokee Warren, Anson, Franklin, Scotland, Bertie Swain, Greene, Madison, Yancey, Tyrrell Yancey, Clay, Avery, Ashe, Perquimans, 145 Population Characteristic Highest NUmber, Per Cent, Numerical Increase, or Percentage Increase* Lowest Number Per Cent, Numerical Increase, or Percentage Increase#* Urban Change 1940-1950 Urban Change 1950—1960 Per Cent Urban Change, 1940-1950 Per Cent Urban Change, 1950-1960 Rural Change 1940-1950 Rural Change 1950-1960 Per Cent Rural Change, 1940-1950 Per Cent Rural Change, 1950-1960 Rural Farm Change 1950-1960 Rural Nonfarm Change, 1950-1960 Per Cent Rural Farm Change 1950-1960 Per Cent Rural. Nonfarm Change 1950-1960 Mecklenburg, Wake, Cumberland, Guilford, Alamance Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, Wake, Cumberland Stanly, Johnston, Cumberland Orange, Lee, Onslow, Randolph, Hertford, Robeson, Cumberland Guilford, Onslow, Gaston, Cumberland, Buncombe Cumberland, Davidson, Onslow, Craven, Wayne Onslow, Craven, Durham Cumberland, Guilford Onslow, Carteret, Cumberland, Craven, Davidson Dare, Hyde, Camden, Carteret Tyrrell, Cumberland, Davidson, Wayne, Guilford, Wilkes Dare, Granville, Person, Robeson, Stokes Union, Alleghany, Ashe, Wayne, Greene * Ranked in order 1,...5. ** Also, greatest numerical or percentage decrease. Richmond, Person, Halifax, Anson, McDowell Surry, McDowell, Beaufort, Rutherford, Richmond, Person, Richmond, Wilkes McDowell, Surry, Beaufort, Rutherford, Wilkes Washington, Stanly, Beaufort, Watauga, Johnston Robeson, Johnston, Sampson, Halifax Tyrrell, Swain, Hyde, Stanly, Beaufort Mitchell, Warren, Madison, Hoke, Swain Wilkes, Cleveland, Johnston, Wake, Rutherford Tyrrell, Hyde, Dare, Pasquotank, Graham McDowell, New Hanover, Burke, Cherokee, Swain Guilford, Hyde, Robe- son, Tyrrell, Dare McDowell, Anson Guilford, SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Blythe, LeGette and Brockman, Charles Raven. Hornet's Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. Charlotte: McNally, 1961. Colby, Mary McRae, "The Geographic Structure of Southeastern North Carolina." Research Paper No. 58. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, university of Chicago, August, 1958. Hammer and Company Associates. Metropolitan Charlotte. An Economic Study of Its Commercial Development Potential. Atlanta: By the author, January, 1964. Hobbs, 8. Huntington, Jr. North Carolina: An Economic and 800181 Profile. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1958. Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Newsome, Albert Ray. North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 2d ed. revised. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1963. Perloff, Harvey S. and Dodds. Vera W. How a Region Grows: Area Development in the U.S. Economy. Supplementary Paper No. 17. New York: Committee for Economic Development, March, 1963. Sharpe, B111. A New Geography of North Carolina. 3 vols. Raleigh: Sharpe Publishing Company,1954—1961. Documents Carolina Telephone. Welcome to Eastern North Carolina. A pamphlet. January, 1962. Fayetteville Planning Department. Population: Fayetteville, North Carolina. Technical study No. 2. Fayetteville: Department ofIPlanning, January, 1963. Originally prepared by N. Duncan McIntyre, a graduate student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Forsyth County Board of County Commissioners. A Decade of Progress in Forsyth County, North Carolina. [Winston-Salem, 1961]. 146 147 Greensboro Planning Department, High Point Planning Department, and City-County Planning Board of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. Census Tract Data, The Piedmont Triad of North Carolina: Greensboro-High Point, Guilford County: Winston- Salem, Forsyth County: 1950, 1960, 1963. Prepared by John L. Booth, Philip W. Dondero, Chester C. Jandzinski, Silvia M. Maya, and Anthony S. Bareta. October, 1963. Marshall Chamber of Commerce. Information Concerning Marshall and Madison County. A brochure.l:1962j' [North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development]. North Carolina Population-1960. A bulletin. North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning. Population and Economic Reportgu Wilmington, North Carolina. Prepared by Josef H. Perry.£jRa1eigh: By the author], October, 1962. North CarolinafDepartment of Conservation and Development]; Division of Community Planning, Project Planning Staff. Jacksonville, North Carolina: Population and Economic Summary.Prepared by Robert D. Barbour, John Voorhees and John G. Scott. Report No. 1.[:Raleigh: By the author], 1960. North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Project Staff. Population and Economy: Dare County, North Carolina. Prepared by Bruce Briggs, Richard Sutton and Joe Perry.l:Raleigh: By the author], March, 1963. Population of Counties and Minor Civil Divisions: 1910-1960, Eastern Subregion of North Carolina. Prepared by Josef Perry. Raleigh: By the author, January, 1962 Population of Counties and Minor Civil Divisions: 1910-1960, Piedmont Subregion of North Carolina. Prepared by JosefIPerry. Raleigh: By the author, January, 1962. North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Special Project Section. 1980 Population Projections for North Carolina with 1950, 1960 and 1970 Population by A e Groups. Prepared by John H. Voorhees and Therese Ramsey. gRaleigh: By the author], October, 1963 North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Western Piedmont Planning Office. Population and Economy: Wilkes County, North Carolina. Prepared by Josef H. Perry.l:Ra1eigh: By the authorjb October, 1962. 148 The League of Women Voters of Raleigh. Handbook of Wake County. Raleigh, 1963. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Population. Vol. III, Part 2. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the united States: 1940. Population. Vol. II, Part 5. U.S. Bureau of the Census. A Report of the Seventeenth Decennial Census of the United States: Census of Population: 1960. U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Eighteenth Decennial Census of the United States: Census of Population: 1960. Vol. I, Part 35. Unpublished Material Rumbough, R. Albert. A letter from the Director of Planning, Planning Department, Fayetteville, North Carolina. April 29, 1964. Spader, Allan D. A letter from the City Planner, Charlotte- Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 24, 1964. Story, Jim. A letter from the Editor of The News-Record, Marshall, North Carolina. April 21, 1964. Winterbottom, Bert A. A letter from the Assistant Director, City-County Planning Board, County of Forsyth and City of Winston-Salem, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. April 21, 1964. RUMHA USE IT L‘L'LY W4» "7171111711 111113111 7171717171111“