Population Change and the Persistence of the Legacy of Slavery Heather A. O’Connell Katherine J. Curtis Jack DeWaard I’d like to quickly acknowledge Katherine Curtis, who is here in the audience, and thank you all for having me here. It’s a pleasure to share our work with you. In this project, our focus is on better understanding how the legacy of slavery has persisted over time, particularly the disruptive influence of population change.

Legacy of Slavery Social and institutional remnants of the ideology used to justify slavery Before I get any farther, what is the legacy of slavery? Define… Focus on place and spatial distribution of outcomes.

Legacy of Slavery Social and institutional remnants of the ideology used to justify slavery Empirical evidence (poverty inequality, school segregation, political attitudes, etc) Previous research has established a connection between historical slavery and a variety of contemporary outcomes, including… Scholars argue that this provides evidence of a legacy of slavery, one that supports exacerbated levels of black-white inequality and overall conservative political climates that extend far enough to effect even the implementation of different types of health care measures (new SSM paper). Seems plausible, especially given attempts to explain the initial association using a variety of contemporary measures, but the argument is based on an association between one variable from 1860 and another measured 150 or more years later.

Research Question Does population increase disrupt the link between historical slavery and contemporary black-white economic inequality? In this research we focus on one important type of change – population change – because it has the potential to disrupt the social dynamics that have been hypothesized to be a part of the legacy of slavery and its transmission over time. That is, do high levels of population increase disrupt any relationship between historical slavery and contemporary black-white economic inequality?

Data County-level US South Our analysis focuses on counties located in the US South, specifically southern states with census data from 1860. This focus is consistent with previous research and our attention to how historical institutions – namely slavery – become embedded in place and subsequently persist over time.

Variables Dependent Variables, 2011-15 ACS Black minus White poverty rate Black poverty non-Hispanic White Poverty For our analysis we focus on 3 separate outcome variables, all of which come from the ACS data. Black-white inequality, measured as… But also black and white poverty separately, because race scholars – in and out of the legacy of slavery literature – have emphasized the importance distinguishing between processes that support black disadvantage (higher black poverty) and white advantage (lower white poverty). Looking at black and white poverty separately gives us some purchase on that.

Variables Legacy of slavery, 1860 Slaves divided by total population Another important variable – We use this data on slave concentration from 1860 to proxy the strength of any contemporary legacy of slavery - the proportion of slaves in the total population for a county in 1860. This is the measure most commonly used in recent research and is consistent with the understanding that places in the South with higher concentrations of slaves historically had stronger attachments to the institution. They had more reason to be committed to any race-based ideology that supported slavery.

Variables Population change, 1880-2010 Black and White There are many different components of population change on which we could have focused. We considered many of them. What we present today simplifies population change during this 13-decade period based on three criteria. First, we want to consider black and white population change separately, because these components of change may have distinct social consequences.

Variables Population change, 1880-2010 Black and White Three time periods Second, we separate the 13 decades into three time periods because the timing of when the population change occurs may also be relevant to understanding its social impact. We expect early changes may be particularly impactful, but population change in the most recent decades associated with the return migration to the South may also be important. Our three periods roughly correspond with pre-great migration, the great migration, and the return migration.

Variables Decadal Population Change, US South When we look at population change for blacks and white for our study region, we can start to identify some important temporal distinctions. Growth throughout, but lower for both during the middle period. Roughly reflects the great migration. These different time periods are also associated with important historical moments that are associated with greater or weaker opportunity for social change. So we want to distinguish between population change happening in these different times. Pop change isn’t enough – there has to be an opening.

Variables Population change, 1880-2010 Black and White Three time periods Focus on growth vs. decline Finally, within each of these periods, we focus on a binary indicator of black and white population change, comparing growth to decline, because this is the most salient distinction and is consistent with our theoretical expectations – increases have greater potential for social disruption because of the influx of new ideas, whereas population decline may facilitate social continuity, especially if the decline is the result of selection out-migration.

Methods Regression analysis Interaction, slavery and population change Our general methodological approach is to use an interaction in a multivariate regression. Specifically, we need to interact population change with historical slavery to assess the extent to which population change alters the expected positive association between slavery and contemporary racialized poverty outcomes. A negative interaction… Conversely, and counter to our expectations, a positive interaction would suggest… A non-significant interaction would suggest population change has no impact the extent to which the legacy of slavery persists or not, which would suggest it is a pretty robust or sturdy feature of place.

Methods Spatial data analysis techniques Moran’s I, residuals I = .08, p < .001 Results from error model are consistent We use spatial data analysis techniques to address the potential impact of spatial positioning on our regression results. Specifically, we tested our model residuals for spatial correlation using the Moran’s I statistic. We found minimal but significant levels of spatial correlation. However, the results are virtually identical when using a spatial error model, which is consistent with the substantively minimal Moran’s I statistic. We have chosen to present the more parsimonious OLS models, but the spatial error model results are also available.

Results Table 1. Legacy of Slavery Relationship, Net of Controls   Inequality Black Poverty White Poverty Coef SE Slave Concentration, 1860 -.03 .03 -.04 -.02 * .01 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Baseline regression results – black poverty, white poverty, inequality. Importance of white advantage. Consistent with other research. Just going to show the interactions for three dimensions of population change.

Results Table 2. Black Population Increase, Middle Period Inequality   Inequality Black Poverty White Poverty Coef SE Slave Concentration, 1860 -.02 .03 -.07  * -.05 *** .01 Black Population Increase .00 .02 -.03 .01 -.02 *** Interaction -.03 .04 .03 .05 *** .01 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Interaction results – black population change, middle period Focusing first on the white poverty model where we see persistent legacy effects, black population increase fully explains this association – interaction suggests that legacy only persists where black population declined in the middle period. The transmission of the legacy of slavery was fully disrupted in counties that experienced black population increase. Interestingly, suppressing effect for black poverty model…

Results Table 3. White Population Increase, Middle Period Inequality   Inequality Black Poverty White Poverty Coef SE Slave Concentration, 1860 -.04 .05 -.10  * .04 -.06 *** .02 White Population Increase -.03 .02 -.04 ** -.02 .01 Interaction .02 .04 .07 .05 ** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 What I find most interesting about these results is that we find something very similar when looking at white population increase for the middle period Something more general about experiencing population increase during this time period? May be especially unique, and be more reflective of other place characteristics rather than suggestive of the population change having an impact. Great Migration – most southern counties were on the decline.

Results Table 3. White Population Increase, Early Period Inequality   Inequality Black Poverty White Poverty Coef SE Slave Concentration, 1860 .11 .07 .09 -.02 .04 White Population Increase .10 ** .03 .00 .01 Interaction -.14 * .07 .00 .03 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 The only other significant results were for white population change, early period Most consistent with our expectations. May help explain weak baseline relationship for inequality. Driven by changes in black poverty relationship

Discussion Legacy has declined, but perniciously linked to white advantage Several points that are relevant to discussions of rural poverty, particularly racial inequality in poverty. First, legacy of slavery is argued to be an important part of understanding contemporary society – particularly connected to the persistence of white advantage.

Discussion Legacy has declined, but perniciously linked to white advantage Population change helps explain where this history still matters However, the persistence of that legacy depends on the types of population change that occurred in a county – so some places exhibit a stronger connection than others.

Discussion Legacy has declined, but perniciously linked to white advantage Population change helps explain where this history still matters Legacies are persistent, but not permanent And the most important piece to take from these results is the substantive point that emphasizes that, despite being persistent over tens of decades, the legacy of slavery is not impermeable. Under the right conditions, population dynamics have the potential to disrupt this link.

Limitations and Extensions Treats different dimensions of population change as if they are independent Population change, not migration At what point does the legacy of slavery start to diminish? Limitations and extensions Multiple dimensions simultaneously Limited data available, but future analyses could focus more specifically on migration Finally, our results raise an interesting new question related to the non-significant legacy of slavery association for inequality: at point did this association start to diminish? Is this a recent change, possibly related to changes in data collection or the economic context associated with the great recession, or is this part of a longer trend? We think pursuing this line of research on the social consequences of population change is going to be really fruitful. Additional limitations: Large geographies – are they socially meaningful? Likely not. Could conduct sensitivity analyses without large clusters Finally, our study relies on a proxy of the legacy of slavery, namely historical slave concentration. Scholars argue this measure reflects the extent to which slavery ideology has become embedded in place, such that a higher concentration of slaves would increase the social necessity of norms and strict ideas about race that reinforce inequality. As a result, we would expect these places to retain remnants of this ideology via the legacy of slavery argument, but ideally we would have a direct measure capturing the contemporary manifestation of that legacy rather than a historical proxy. That, I believe, will be the next big challenge in this literature.

Contact Information Heather A. O’Connell Louisiana State University hoconnell@lsu.edu

Results Early Black Population Change To give you a quick sense of how these differences in pop change are unfolding across the counties, I’m going to click through a series of maps. First set for blacks – start in the early period, move to the middle, and most recent. Green is decline, purple is the highest category of increase Early

Results Black Population Change Big shift… Middle

Results Recent Black Population Change And then again – much less decline; distinct spatial patterns, with potentially distinct consequences for then extent to which population change would affect the legacy of slavery. Recent

Results Early White Population Change Early has more places of high growth – brown – early. And very few places of teal. Early

Results Middle White Population Change That quickly changes in the middle period – similar temporal pattern as blacks, but decline was not as pervasive. Middle

Results Recent White Population Change Finally, in our most recent period, there is a return to population growth throughout much of the region, but not as high as in the early period. Recent