Which demographic change took place in the united states in the early 1900s?

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Source

From the book The Making of America, published by National Geographic Society © 2002, National Geographic Books

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

In his 1893 publication, The Significance of the Frontier in American History, Frederick Jackson Turner famously asserted that the American frontier had closed due to the population’s continual shift westward. In this assertion, Turner may have been expecting a story of settlement similar to that of the East – densely populated areas with little uninhabited land. However, the story of settlement in the West after 1890 is different. It features infrequent pockets of dense populations in large urban areas such as Denver and San Francisco, surrounded by vast frontier. While small farmers and homesteaders had traditionally typified those who settled in the frontier, they decreasingly comprised the region’s settlers as the trend of urbanization increased (the 1920 census first recorded that more Americans lived in urban areas than rural areas). Those who did remain in frontier areas had a changing demographic composition and used the land for a variety of reasons: big ranches and farms, agribusiness, resource extraction, water projects, and federal land holdings. Additionally, the frontier region became less imbalanced regarding sex, with a more equal distribution of females and males. These changes occurred as urban areas grew and changed tremendously during the 20th century, offering greater economic opportunities and room for social mobility than frontier areas. This project will explore the demographics of the inhabitants of the American West during the years from 1900 to 2000. The dimensions of analysis I will explore are location (regarding migration and settlement), family (regarding size of families), industry, sex, metropolitan status, marital status, and race during the time period from 1900 to 2000. Trends in these areas are important to consider due to the central roles that the frontier and urbanization play in American history. While the American West did not take on the settlement pattern that Turner had suggested it would, it did experience large changes in demographic trends throughout the 20th century that shaped it into today’s West.

Literature Review

Existing scholarship on changes in the American West during the 20th century focuses on several themes. The first is the survival of the frontier region throughout the 20th century, as it did not close by 1893 but rather changed. The second theme is the growth of urban areas, which expanded remarkably in size and stood in contrast to the surrounding frontier areas that maintained low population densities. The third is the contrast between the urban and frontier areas of the West, as urban areas became centers of power while those in frontier areas were relegated to the peripheries of power. Scholarship on these themes focuses largely on the relationship between the economic and demographic changes, as changes in opportunities affected trends such as migration and social order.

Frederick Jackson Turner’s assertion in 1893 that the United States frontier had closed has been a major point of discussion in scholarship on the American West during the 20th century. Contemporary scholars argue that the frontier region did not close by 1893, but rather survived and changed throughout the 20th century (Popper, 1986, 106). Turner and his contemporaries traditionally defined the frontier as a region with less than two persons per square mile (Popper, 1986, 104). I will use the same density measurement as Turner to define the frontier region, which is two persons per square mile, but will measure at the county level as other scholarship has done (Popper, 1986, 104). Scholars explain this survival, which is regarded as the continued existence of counties with less than two persons per square mile at the county level, by citing key economic and demographic trends. As new technologies emerged and land became less available, economic opportunities for individual settlers became more difficult to pursue (Popper, 1986, 109). Accordingly, the individualistic culture among cowboys and homesteaders gave way as corporations became primary landholders (Lang et al., 1997, 378). This shift toward agribusiness accompanied a loss of economic power among many traditional settlers, as skilled agricultural workers shifted to unskilled labor (White, 1991, 323). Minorities often became further marginalized in these communities which now offered less economic opportunity (White, 1991, 325).  In this way, scholars relate the changing demographic composition of the frontier region to economic developments, which prompted many to move to urban areas or possibly become marginalized and unskilled laborers.

The remarkable growth of urban areas is a second major theme of scholarship on the American West in the 20th century. Scholars relate economic developments to the West’s decreasingly rural population, as people increasingly migrated to cities to work in growing industries (Lang et al., 1997, 381). This trend of urbanization relied partly on developments in agribusiness and infrastructure in frontier areas, which provided natural resources such as water for arid urban areas (Popper, 1986, 113). This contributed to the West’s distinctive settlement pattern of large cities with sparsely occupied surrounding areas (Lang et al., 1997, 383). Additionally, growing urban areas become more equitable regarding race and gender, as economic opportunities became greater than in frontier areas. Accordingly, groups such as females and immigrants migrated to cities in large numbers (Hine and Faragher, 2000, 418, 421).

Shifting power between frontier and urban areas in the American West is a third major theme of scholarship. Traditionally, those who exemplified the qualities of the frontier, such as individualism and self-reliance (White, 1991, 431), were able to pursue ample opportunities in the West. This changed in the 20th century, as rural westerners lost their traditional access to power with the growth of large corporations and use of unskilled labor (White, 1991, 431). In this way, scholars contrast the shifts toward agribusiness and corporate land holdings in the West with the trend of large scale urbanization. While those in frontier areas lost economic opportunity, growing urban areas provided room for new social mobility. Additionally, while white populations fell and some minority populations grew in frontier areas (Lang et al., 1997, 382), the economic disparities between urban and frontier areas rendered those remaining in frontier areas without power. This contributes to a myth of social mobility in frontier areas, even as it continued to be marked by open spaces and agricultural practices (Popper, 1986, 111).

The data for each figure cover the years from 1900 to 2000 and include persons living in the western United States. The data come from the IPUMS-USA database, using 1% samples for each year (1% state fm1 for 1970 and 1% metro for 1980). The states that comprise this western region of the United States are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Metropolitan status was determined by the U.S. Census Bureau by grouping persons according to their addresses. Marital status is determined by whether persons are married, not married (separated, divorced, or widowed), or never married. The data are weighted by PERWT, except for the data for Figure 6, which is weighted by HHWT.  Only persons who identified as white (or Puerto Rican), black (or mulatto), Native American, or Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Indian, or Korean) are included. Only persons aged 15-65 are included; figures 5 and 9 are exceptions in that they display data for persons of all ages.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of population as a proportion by industry, metropolitan status, and sex. Figure 2 shows the distribution of population by metropolitan status. Figure 3 shows the distribution of population by sex and metropolitan status. Figure 4 shows the distribution of population as a proportion by marital status, sex, and metropolitan status. Figure 5 shows the distribution of age by year and metropolitan status. Figure 6 shows the distribution of family sizes by metropolitan status. Family size is defined as the number of persons for each household recorded. Figure 7 shows the distribution of population by race and metropolitan status. Figure 8 displays the changes in population density in the United States using the Social Explorer tool. Figure 9 shows the distribution of population by state and metropolitan states.

Code for these figures is available .

Industry

Figure 1: Population Aged 15-65 by Industry, Sex, Year, and Metropolitan Status, for Western States, 1900-2000

Figure 1 shows the distribution of population as a percentage by industry, metropolitan status, and sex for the western United States for the years from 1900 to 2000. The non-metro area has a large agricultural sector as a proportion of the population in 1900, which corresponds with traditional ideas of the rural West being typified by agricultural practices, as Frank J. Popper (1986, 111) explains. However, between 1900 and 2000, the proportion of persons working in the non-metro agricultural sector decreased dramatically. Robert E. Lang (1997, 378) relates this development to the growth of agribusiness in the region, which relies on mechanized and unskilled labor and accordingly requires fewer workers to produce the same output. Richard White (1991, 431) clarified this point, noting that the shift toward unskilled labor accompanied a loss of social mobility among working class persons. There is a large and simultaneous increase in the proportion of non-metro workers in the construction and manufacturing industries. Scholars cite many reasons for this trend. As Popper (1986, 113) notes, urbanization necessitated an increasing amount of natural resources, such as water, from sparsely populated rural areas. This required developments in infrastructure (e.g., dams, aqueducts) on a large scale, which the federal government frequently appropriated and contracted out to corporations. Like non-metro areas, metro areas had an increase in the proportion of persons working in construction and manufacturing sectors. This corresponds with the trend of urbanization, as growing manufacturing industries and new populations spurred increases in construction in areas such as suburban housing. For much of the 20th century, metro areas had a greater proportion of the population working in trade and services, which may help explain the growth in economic opportunities and social mobility that Robert Hine and Mack Faragher (2000, 418) note. These trade and service industries partly facilitated the growth of the middle class, and as Hine and Faragher (2000) explain, provided opportunities that non-metro areas did not offer for the large numbers of females and immigrants that moved to cities.

Urbanization, Gender, and Marital Status

Figure 2: Population Aged 15-65 by Year and Metropolitan Status, for Western States, 1900-2000

Figure 2 shows the distribution of population by metropolitan status for the western United States for the years from 1900 to 2000. There is a clear trend of settlement in metro areas, as cities grew. The rate of urbanization increases dramatically around the middle of the century, which White (1991) attributes partly to events such as World War II and the economic growth that followed. The slowly changing numbers of non-metro settlers in comparison to the jump in metro settlers in the West indicate that many of those who moved to metro urban areas were likely not simply migrants from the surrounding frontier areas. Rather, as Hine and Faragher (2000, 421) note, these settlers may have often been less likely settlers of the non-metropolitan West, such as females.

Figure 3: Population Aged 15-65 by Sex, Year, and Metropolitan Status, for Western States, 1900-2000

Figure 3 displays this trend, as it shows the distribution of population by sex and metropolitan status for the western United States for the years from 1900 to 2000. Females comprised a greater proportion of the population in metro areas than in non-metro areas, and for part of the 20th century comprised a great proportion of the non-metro population than males. The distribution of sex in the non-metro region is skewed toward males for the first half of the 20th century, which may be explained by the economic developments that Popper (1986) and White (1991) note. However, as they explain, non-metro areas offered fewer economic opportunities for individuals over time, which may explain the more equal distribution of sex in the latter half of the century. As economic opportunities traditionally pursued by young males, such as ranching or skilled farm work, were decreasingly available, males may have been less likely to move alone to non-metro areas.

Figure 4: Population Aged 15-65 by Marital Status, Year, and Metropolitan Status, for Western States, 1900-2000

Differences in opportunities may also explain trends in marital status between gender and metropolitan status, shown in Figure 4. While there is no discernible trend in marital status among males between metro and non-metro areas, females living in non-metro areas in the first half of the 20th century were more likely to marry than females in metropolitan areas. As non-metro areas had fewer economic opportunities for females than metro areas, the norm may have been to marry earlier in non-metro areas.

Age and Family Size

Figure 5: Population Pyramids for Persons living in the West, 1900-2000

Economic opportunities may also explain trends found in Figure 5, which shows the distribution of age by year and metropolitan status of persons living in the West from 1900 to 2000. The non-metro plot shows a population consistently skewed toward young persons, which trend persists through 1900 to 1950. This contrasts with the metro plot, which shows a population that is sparse and equitably distributed in age from 1900 to 1940. The population then grows dramatically with the Baby Boomer generation, which remains the largest segment of the population until 2000. That primarily young persons inhabited non-metro areas may reflect the economic opportunities geared more toward younger than older persons, such as physical labor. In contrast, the shifting distribution of age in metro areas as the Baby Boomer generation aged may reflect economic opportunities in the region that were geared toward all working age persons, such as managerial jobs. As persons grew older in metro areas, being able to hold the same career over time may have caused them to not migrate, whereas young persons doing physical labor in non-metro regions would have reasons to later migrate. In addition to a population equitably distributed by age, metro areas display different patterns in family size than non-metro areas.

Figure 6: Family Sizes by Year and Metropolitan Status for Western States, 1900-2000

Figure 6 reveals that between 1910 and 1940, families were generally smaller in metro areas than non-metro areas. One explanation for this is that families in metro areas were more likely to be nuclear families due to the constraints and norms that working in metro areas brought. In non-metro areas, families may have been likely to have more children due to the benefits that may bring on a farm or due to differing norms.

Race

Figure 7: Population Aged 15-65 by Race, Year, and Metropolitan Status, for Western States, 1900-2000

Figure 7 also shows the distribution of population by metropolitan status for the western United States for the years from 1900 to 2000, but it goes further in breaking down the distribution by race. The distribution of white persons in the region reflects the overall trend in distribution of population by metropolitan status shown in Figure 2, partly because white persons comprised a much larger portion of the population than did black, Asian, or Native American persons. However, Asian and black persons were more likely to live in metro areas than non-metro areas earlier than white persons were. This may reflect the trend in social equality among different races in metro areas that Hine and Faragher (2000, 418) note. Additionally, this may reflect how minorities (i.e., Asian and black persons) in non-metro areas were more likely to be marginalized as the shift toward agribusiness occurred, as White (1991, 431) explains. If economic opportunities in non-metro areas were difficult for white persons to pursue, then they were even more difficult for minorities subject to discrimination to pursue. The economic disparities for working class persons, particularly minorities, between metro and non-metro areas reflects a trend that White (1991, 431) explains. Decreasingly available economic opportunities in non-metro regions relegated working class persons to the periphery of power regarding social and economic status; this contrasts with urban areas, cited as centers of power and typified by greater economic opportunities, more social mobility, and a more equitable racial order. Popper (1986, 111) cites these disparities in explaining a myth of social mobility in the frontier region, as metro western areas offered greater opportunities for diverse populations than did non-metro areas. While the white population in metro areas was greater in absolute numbers than black and Asian populations, the latter two were represented much more heavily in metro areas than in non-metro areas.

Settlement and Density

Figure 8: Population Density at the County Level with Social Explorer

Figure 8 displays the changes in population density in the United States during the years from 1900 to 2000 using the Social Explorer tool. The data is displayed at the county level, using a population density of two persons per square mile as the threshold for being a frontier area. This is the same threshold that 19th century observers, such as Frederick Jackson Turner, use to define the frontier. The animation importantly shows that the frontier continued to exist (or “survive”) as a region when considered with the traditional definition, which is a central claim made by Lang (1997, 378) and Popper (1986, 106). Scholars cite the extant frontier as a trend that reflects the overall economic and demographic changes in the American West between metro and non-metro regions. As agribusiness emerged and economic opportunities declined in non-metro regions, people frequently instead migrated to metro regions with growing industries and opportunities (Popper, 1986, 109). Figure 8 also displays the distinctive settlement pattern of the West, which is marked by densely populated urban areas surrounded by vast and sparsely populated frontier areas.

Figure 9: Choropleth Population Maps for Persons in the Western United States, 1900-2000

This pattern is visible in Figure 9, which shows the distribution of persons living in the western United States by state and metropolitan states during the years from 1900 to 2000. While non-metro areas generally occupied more space in the West, metro areas were generally more densely populated. This reflects the West’s distinctive settlement pattern, with densely populated metro areas and vast surrounding non-metro areas. Figure 9 excludes persons whose metropolitan status was not-identifiable. However, persons in that category significantly detracted from population counts in the years 1960, 1970, and 2000, which accounts for the fluctuations in population in metro and non-metro areas around those years.

This project set out to identify and partly explain demographic changes that occurred in American West during the 20th century. Existing literature in this area focuses on what was driving those demographic changes. Economic and historical forces, such as the industrial boom that followed WWII or new farming technologies, are frequently cited in explaining why urbanization and mechanization occurred on such a large scale. However, the literature does not focus as much on what these demographic changes looked like in practice for specific segments of the populace, such as those of different races or genders. One reason for this may be that robust historical data at the individual level is difficult and time consuming to gather. Using the IPUMS-USA data base, this project was able to circumvent that barrier and explore what demographic changes looked like for persons in the American West.

Importantly, the non-metropolitan West was found to have often asymmetrical patterns among its population – more males than females, more young persons than old persons, generally larger families than in metropolitan areas, and an imbalanced distribution of industries. With time, these imbalances generally diminished, as industries changed in non-metropolitan areas and people moved to cities. This is what the literature suggested would be true, due to economic opportunities that pulled settlers to those areas. When considered alongside the results from metropolitan areas, a fuller picture comes into view. As cities grew dramatically throughout the 20th century, the growing metropolitan population was more equitably distributed in areas such as gender, family size, age, and industry. This may reflect the different economic trends found in metropolitan areas rather than non-metropolitan areas, as the former had opportunities for more persons. Different dimensions of analysis considered in this project do point toward an underlying trend that suggests that metropolitan areas provided broader opportunities for broader segments of the populace.

Further research in this area should focus on the implications of the different dimensions of analysis considered in this project. Some questions, such as how economic opportunities differed for minorities between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, have been discussed already. However, there is not yet sufficient literature that considers the reasons for differences in marital status and family size, for example, between metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. These may come from cultural norms, economic necessity, or a mix of both. Further qualitative research should consider why the patterns among the different levels of analysis in this project exist. We may then be able to draw more robust conclusions about why the West changed over time and took on its current composition, while remaining distinct from the eastern portion of the United States. The results here provide quantitative evidence that demographic differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan existed on many different levels and reflect trends in existing literature, but qualitative analyses will further explain these findings.

Hine, Robert V., and John Mack Faragher. The American West: A New Interpretive History. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2000.

Lang, Robert E. et al. “Is There Still a Frontier? The 1890 US Census and the Modern American West.” Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, 1997, pp. 377–386.

Popper, Frank J. “The Strange Case of the Contemporary American Frontier.” The Yale Review, 1986, pp. 101–121.

White, Richard. “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own”: A History of the American West. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.

How did the population move in the United States during the late 1800s and early 1900s?

How did the population change in the United States between 1880 1920?

Which demographic change resulted from the economic developments of the late 1800s?

Which group made up the majority of immigrants by the year 1900?