Why are rural black parts of the South extremely rural?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I’ve noticed this tends to be a theme in the South where rural black areas tend to be even more sparse than rural white areas around them. Is this just due to depopulation or is there more going on here? It’s quite interesting because in state legislative maps for these states some of the largest districts are Dem and in SC and MS a Dem may be able to  actually win more “land” while loosing statewide.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They've been bleeding population for decades. This where most of the original Great Migration came from. Including to the cities in the South, they weren't always that heavily black.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

They've been bleeding population for decades. This where most of the original Great Migration came from. Including to the cities in the South, they weren't always that heavily black.

There must have been a time when if you told someone that Birmingham, Alabama, would become 2/3rds black sometime in the future, they'd laugh at you in the face and assume you were joking.

[Agonized-Statism]

The Black Belt lost over 40,000 residents from 1998 to 2018, and that trend has been going on forever. Black farmers started fleeing after the Civil War due to violent racism, then huge numbers left during the World Wars for the army or cash-paying jobs in nearby or distant cities, then many more left with the post-WWII industrialization and diversification of agriculture (chemical herbicides deteriorated the physical integrity of the land so much that the most stubborn black family farmers had to leave), and people are still leaving due to persistent issues such as hospital closures and lack of broadband access. There's no opportunities, bad infrastructure, no will to invest in the region, and no signs of the depopulation reversing. If you think it's bad now, wait until the climate reaches a tipping point.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

The Black Belt lost over 40,000 residents from 1998 to 2018, and that trend has been going on forever. Black farmers started fleeing after the Civil War due to violent racism, then huge numbers left during the World Wars for the army or cash-paying jobs in nearby or distant cities, then many more left with the post-WWII industrialization and diversification of agriculture (chemical herbicides deteriorated the physical integrity of the land so much that the most stubborn black family farmers had to leave), and people are still leaving due to persistent issues such as hospital closures and lack of broadband access. There's no opportunities, bad infrastructure, no will to invest in the region, and no signs of the depopulation reversing. If you think it's bad now, wait until the climate reaches a tipping point.

At the risk of asking an obvious question: what do you think would happen when climate reaches the tipping point?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Basically;

Slaves were forced onto undesirable land cause it what was left —> Racist White’s in power don’t invest in the regions —> Blacks move to cities to find better opportunities—> modern day politicians view such regions as “hopeless causes” and don’t invest in them

[Agonized-Statism]

At the risk of asking an obvious question: what do you think would happen when climate reaches the tipping point?

An abrupt change of the climate from one stable state to another brings extreme weather, increased temperatures, more frequent and intense hurricanes, flooding, decreased freshwater availability, climate-sensitive disease outbreaks, and ecological collapse. A lot of people are driven out at once, and there's not much to come back to. The landscape is alien and tropicalized, ravaged by Dengue, Zika, West Nile, Lyme disease, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and requiring ungodly expensive amounts of air conditioning to survive. I see most black rural Southerners crowding into nearby Sun Belt cities until those collapse too.

[Sol]

Basically;

Slaves were forced onto undesirable land cause it what was left

This is not so accurate--heavily Black rural areas often correspond to areas with particularly good soils because they were the most hospitable to plantation agriculture.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Basically;

Slaves were forced onto undesirable land cause it what was left

This is not so accurate--heavily Black rural areas often correspond to areas with particularly good soils because they were the most hospitable to plantation agriculture.

Broadly yea, but they didn’t own that land. The only land slaves could actually own after the war (at least in South Carolina) was generally swampy or sea islands. All the good soil was owned by white planters who forced them back into sharecropping slavery

[Tintrlvr]

Basically;

Slaves were forced onto undesirable land cause it what was left

This is not so accurate--heavily Black rural areas often correspond to areas with particularly good soils because they were the most hospitable to plantation agriculture.

Broadly yea, but they didn’t own that land. The only land slaves could actually own after the war (at least in South Carolina) was generally swampy or sea islands. All the good soil was owned by white planters who forced them back into sharecropping slavery

Also true. And explains, even aside from slavery, why these areas are exceptionally rural: Landholding is very concentrated, so there are relatively few smallholder farmers, meaning lower rural populations, especially with the mechanization of agricultural requiring fewer workers. Other rural areas usually have more small farms and higher populations as a result because of the stickiness of owning a farm (much less likely to pick up and move away if your family owns the farm than if you're just a sharecropper or a farmhand).

[jimrtex]

I’ve noticed this tends to be a theme in the South where rural black areas tend to be even more sparse than rural white areas around them. Is this just due to depopulation or is there more going on here? It’s quite interesting because in state legislative maps for these states some of the largest districts are Dem and in SC and MS a Dem may be able to  actually win more “land” while loosing statewide.

Most people in "rural counties" don't live in rural areas They live in small towns. If there was not sufficient population for a small town 100 years ago, it won't develop. There might have been barely enough for a small hotel for traveling salesmen, and a small store. But now the salesmen travel by car, and stay overnight in the chain hotel out on interstate near a medium town. People drive to the Walmart 20 miles away for shopping. For big purchases like a car or furniture they drive to the nearest city.

If you look at the House map, you will see towns like Tupelo, Starkville, and Columbus chopped up so that there several districts that are smallish in size because they are getting a head start from the towns.

Now compare with the districts around Oxford, Greenville, Greenwood, Vicksburg where a single House district is drawn tightly around the city. Your brain ignores small details like this as it tries to construct a comprehensive understanding of the map. It might even skip areas along the Mississippi as all the meanders overwhelm the brain and we simplify it into the broad curve outward from  Memphis down to Vicksburg and then that back out down to Natchez and Louisiana.

And then there are places like Natchez where there are small areas that are then stretched out into three districts.