3 ms·

I'm probably missing something, but the points c. 1850 seem way too south for me. The Confederates had around half of of the population of the Union (http://www

by dimitar 12y ago

I'm probably missing something, but the points c. 1850 seem way too south for me. The Confederates had around half of of the population of the Union (http://www.mrnussbaum.com/civil_war/unionconfederacy.htm http://www.mrnussbaum.com/civil_war/unionconfederacy.htm) and yet the population center is just south from the Mason-Dixon line (but north of the initial front). Was the population concentrated around the border between North and South? The West didn't matter - California had less than a million inhabitants in 1860. Edit: All southern states on the border with the exception of Virginia (except West Virginia, of course) fought for the Union, so they are probably included in the statistics for the North. Still, the North was more populous even if the border states had joined the South.

tokenadult 12y ago
Settlement in the west skewed farther south than north during that period. Minnesota and Wisconsin were very sparsely populated when they were federal territories. To this day, most of the population concentration of Minnesota is almost four degrees of latitude from Minnesota's northern border.
- tanzam75 12y ago
  Exactly. For center of population, as for center of mass, position matters. The farther you are from the center of population, the greater your weight. One Floridian might contribute the same southward pull as ten Virginians. The bottom line is that America was still an agricultural nation in 1850. The population of the northern states was biased towards the south, where farming was more productive. Meanwhile, the Deep South had a large slave population, because that was where the cotton grew. Thus, Texas and Louisiana had far more people than Minnesota Territory. Mississippi had more people than Wisconsin. Alabama had more people than Michigan. And Georgia had more people than ... well, Ontario is not part of the United States. Oh sure, there were a lot of people in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. But these states were just too far south to exert much of a northward pull.
  - dmourati 12y ago
    I hadn't thought of the slave population initially. Not to bring up a sore topic for no reason but I wonder if these calculations use the Three-Fifths compromise.

by dimitar 12y ago

tokenadult 12y ago

Settlement in the west skewed farther south than north during that period. Minnesota and Wisconsin were very sparsely populated when they were federal territories. To this day, most of the population concentration of Minnesota is almost four degrees of latitude from Minnesota's northern border.

tanzam75 12y ago
Exactly. For center of population, as for center of mass, position matters. The farther you are from the center of population, the greater your weight. One Floridian might contribute the same southward pull as ten Virginians. The bottom line is that America was still an agricultural nation in 1850. The population of the northern states was biased towards the south, where farming was more productive. Meanwhile, the Deep South had a large slave population, because that was where the cotton grew. Thus, Texas and Louisiana had far more people than Minnesota Territory. Mississippi had more people than Wisconsin. Alabama had more people than Michigan. And Georgia had more people than ... well, Ontario is not part of the United States. Oh sure, there were a lot of people in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. But these states were just too far south to exert much of a northward pull.
- dmourati 12y ago
  I hadn't thought of the slave population initially. Not to bring up a sore topic for no reason but I wonder if these calculations use the Three-Fifths compromise.