
Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010 - maxerickson
http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/centersofpop/animatedmean2010.html
======
matthucke
If you interpolate between the 1970 and 1980 points, mid-1972 would be fairly
close to Belleville, Illinois - where, in mid-1972, I was born.

...thus confirming my long-held belief that I am the center of the universe.

~~~
mpyne
Another notable result of the 1980 census was that it was the first one where
the majority of Americans lived west of the Mississippi River.

~~~
hollerith
Not true[1]. Perhaps the "population center of mass" is west of the
Mississippi, but that is a different statistic.

[1]
[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_it_the_population_west_of_the...](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_it_the_population_west_of_the_Mississippi_river_versus_east_of_the_Mississippi)

~~~
inportb
It would be fun to actually compute the center of mass, knowing that people
are not uniformly massive.

~~~
ekimekim
A good starting point might be average weight statistics on a per-state level.
I doubt you could get any finer-grained information though.

------
dj-wonk
Another animation from the University of Kentucky Appalachian Center, "US
Population Growth from 1790 to 1990" tells the story better:
[http://www.outragegis.com/animations/population-
growth.htm](http://www.outragegis.com/animations/population-growth.htm)

------
delucain
I wonder if the accelerating trend towards higher Southern populations in the
1900s was brought on by the invention and development of home air
conditioning. I know I would have never moved to Texas without it.

~~~
gumby
Indeed, it is will known that air conditioning enabled the southern population
to rise:

Discussion for the US south (and some discussion of the social consequences of
the technology): [http://www.independentmail.com/news/2007/jun/24/air-
conditio...](http://www.independentmail.com/news/2007/jun/24/air-conditioning-
its-made-south-what-it/)

Discussion more generally for the world, and also some side effects:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/07/h...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/07/how-
air-conditioning-transformed-the-u-s-economy/)

------
Akuma99
... just as a side note, the use of the word "Animated" is being a little
liberal.

------
pkfrank
A beautiful illustration of manifest destiny.

~~~
gitah
It's amazing how fast the US expanded. In 60 years, within one life time, the
US changed from a small new England colony to an empire larger than the size
of Europe.

However, the growth of the British Empire was probably faster during this time
period.

------
dimitar
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
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
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
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.

------
zzm
Looks like a big jump between 1940-1950 due to the gold rush, I imagine a
similar jump will probably be seen for 2010-2020

~~~
tokenadult
You probably meant to write "1840-1850" if you are referring to the Gold Rush.
Another big change that happened in the same decade was a change in the
borders of the United States.

------
esom
This doesn't seem to take into account the non-European population^1...? I
guess that's fine if you state it -- just people the census was counting (not
even all white people in US territories all the time).

So this annoyingly helps sustain the myth that North America was an
unpopulated forest until being 'settled' by 'settlers'.

1
([http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census...](http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census_records/censuses_of_american_indians.html)):

"Prior to 1900, few Indians are included in the decennial federal census.
Indians are not identified in the 1790-1840 censuses. In 1860, Indians living
in the general population are identified for the first time. Nearly all of the
1890 census schedules were destroyed as a result of the fire at the Department
of Commerce in 1921.

Beginning with the 1900 census, Indians are enumerated on reservations as well
as in the general population."

\-
[http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census...](http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census_records/censuses_of_american_indians.html)

~~~
IvyMike
Hm: is "non-European" the word you wanted?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm really not sure. Even quickly skimming
[http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/cenpop2010/COP2010_...](http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/cenpop2010/COP2010_documentation.pdf),
it's not clear to me whether slaves were excluded from this tally.

~~~
esom
You're right, wasn't thinking of Africans. But I think you knew what I meant.

------
adjwilli
It seems like it moves more in decades of greater economic growth. There are
probably a lot of factors to account for that, but it's interesting
nonetheless.

------
markbnj
I've never seen a less surprising info-graphic. Nicely done, though.

------
clubhi
Interesting. Here is a similar animated graph of the population of our solar
system over the last 10K years or so.

[http://www.nationsonline.org/gallery/Earth/Solar_System.jpg](http://www.nationsonline.org/gallery/Earth/Solar_System.jpg)

------
TheOtherHobbes
I guess 'population' never included the original natives.

------
awda
Go west, young man!

------
JohnDoe365
Ok, now I see. But - what is it telling me?

------
norswap
One ought to watch this to the sound of the Pet Shop Boys' "Go West"
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flWTWG-
gTT4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flWTWG-gTT4)).

