United States Census Figures Back to 1630 — Key Ideas to Explore
Edition facts
Before opening United States Census Figures Back to 1630 — Key Ideas to Explore, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 6,363 words, 28 min estimated reading time, and 23 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 0.1 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “United States -- Population -- Statistics,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
A Few Words About These United States Population Statistics.
All figures listed below for years before 1992 are US Census Bureau figures as per the source files. Where there were an assortment of figures for a specific year, we averaged them. 1992 was an estimate. Years after 1992 are our estimates on a predicted growth rate of 1%, as the average growth rate of all the averaged figures from 1972-1992 was exactly 1.00%.
The raw data from which we took these figures is appended as footnote #2. All dates not given are presumed to be July 1, as that is the official date given by the US Census Bureaus, over the years, except where otherwise noted. Dates are for footnoted figures only.
Why and How You Should Use These Tables
Given the rapid inflation that took place sometimes over the past few decades, you might be aware that if a report said a certain monetary figure was up 10% during one decade, it was prudent to check to see if the figures took the inflationary trends into account to tell you the actual value a figure in one year might represent would actually be less than figures which counted more value in lesser numbers of dollars in the previous decade.
Thus you would be wise to consult a table of Price Indices-- such as the file "price10.txt" released in 1993, before your evaluation of such figures is complete.
The same is true of population figures, which are going up a certain amount every year, in a very similar manner to those price index figures, only not quite as fast, in most cases.
What Started This Report
Very recently, there was a report issued on education, which stated something on the order of people in the United States are receiving 10% more of a certain level of education, than they were a decade before.
The years and the exact figures have been altered to protect those responsible from embarrassment.
For example: let us presume the report stated: Graduation From Grade School was up 5% from 1981 to 1991.
You would think from this report that the average kid had 5% greater chances of getting a Grade School Diploma in 91 than in 81. . .but. . .it turns out that it was just the opposite because the population was 1.097352 times larger in 91, than it had been in 1981. . .which is about 10% larger, thus in a "real education" sense, in the same way the monetary reports are given in "real dollars" or "constant dollars," education was actually moving in just the opposite direction, and thus was DOWN about 5% instead of UP about 5% from 1981 to 1991.
Remember, these were not from years quoted in the report and the figures were not exactly 5% or 10% respectively, nor the diploma referred to was not a Grade School Diploma, but they are pretty close to being exact, in terms of the percentages and years; much closer than you might expect.
***Here is a footnote explanation of how to be more exact***
To be exact, one would have to do a demographic analysis, of the specific portions of the population of the ages at which such diplomas were conferred, as it would be irrelevant from a realistic point of view to measure the population on whole bases if you were only concerned with people who were of the age to receive Kindergarten Diplomas between 1981 and 1991-- or whatever ages and a whatever kind of diploma. Thus these figures are not as precise as they could be, but still given the trends of population and education, it is obvious that a trend in one is not following the direction of the other. A further look at the US Census figures averaged below will be sufficient to inform you that previous generations that were measured had even greater growth rates than 10%, so that the number of people getting any specific degrees or diplomas in the following decades should have been going up even more.
In the tables below, the first line shows the Base Year: or "The Year In Question" labeled "YEAR: ####" so if you want a chart based on 1980 as the base year, you simply search/find "YEAR: 1980" to find the relevant portions.
Once you have located the table for "YEAR: ####" you can see comparisons of that year to any other year by looking up the year you wish to compare to in the left column.
The SAMPLE comparison is 1991, presented below.
You will note a ten year comparison looks like:
year/1991 1991/year Growth%
1981 0.911285 1.097352 0.9031%
This means a 1991 statistic would have to be shrunk to about 91% of its size to be relevant to a comparable 1981 statistic.
On the other hand, and 1981 statistic would have to be enlarged, this time by about 10% to be useful in comparison to 1991.
This work presents a table of United States population figures extending back to 1630, compiled from Census Bureau data and supplemented with estimates for years after 1992. The editors have averaged multiple figures for certain years and applied a 1% growth rate projection based on the average from 1972–1992. The raw data is appended as a footnote, and dates not otherwise specified are presumed to be July 1.
The editorial preface frames the table as a tool for correcting misinterpretations of percentage increases in reports—for instance, an apparent rise in educational attainment may actually be a decline once population growth is factored in. This cautionary note sets the stage for the statistical data that follows.
Structure and Editorial Framing
The work opens with a substantial editorial preface before any table appears. This preface explains the methodology—averaging figures, estimating post-1992 data, and the rationale for a 1% growth rate—and then delivers a pointed lesson on how to read percentage changes in context. The editors use a hypothetical example about grade school diplomas to illustrate that a reported 5% increase could actually be a 5% decrease when population growth is accounted for. This framing is not merely explanatory; it shapes how the reader should approach the numbers. The table itself is presented without further commentary, leaving the preface as the interpretive key.
Recurring Images: Growth Rates and Decimal Precision
The table columns—year, population in millions, growth factor, and percentage growth—repeat a pattern of decimal precision that invites close reading. For example, the 1870 entry shows a negative growth rate (-1.0968%), a rare dip that stands out among otherwise positive figures. The 1860s show a cluster of high growth rates (e.g., 5.9947% in 1871, 2.9504% in 1861), while the 1930s entries hover near 1%. The consistent four- or five-decimal-place precision (e.g., 1.928101 for 1930) gives an illusion of exactness, yet the preface reminds us these are often averages or estimates. This tension between precision and estimation is a recurring motif.
Movement Between Scenes: From Preface to Table
The transition from the editorial preface to the statistical table is abrupt. The preface ends with a footnote explanation about demographic analysis, then the table begins without a heading or introduction. This shift mirrors the work's dual nature: part methodological essay, part raw data repository. The reader must hold the preface's warnings in mind while scanning the columns. Later, the text shifts again to Project Gutenberg boilerplate, which is unrelated to the census data. This juxtaposition of analytical preface, numerical table, and legal/licensing text creates a disjointed reading experience that underscores the work's status as a compiled document rather than a unified narrative.
Recurring Details: The 1% Growth Rate and Its Implications
The editors repeatedly emphasize the 1% average growth rate from 1972–1992 as the basis for post-1992 estimates. This figure appears in the preface and implicitly governs the table's later entries. Yet the table itself shows considerable variation: growth rates range from -1.0968% (1870) to 5.9947% (1871). The 1% average masks these fluctuations. The preface's hypothetical example about education also hinges on a 10% population increase over a decade, which corresponds roughly to a 1% annual rate. This recurring detail ties the methodological choice to the interpretive lesson, making the growth rate a central, if understated, theme.
Readers should approach the table with the preface's caution in mind: raw population figures and percentage changes can mislead if growth is not accounted for. The work is best used as a reference for specific years, but its value lies equally in the editorial framework that teaches how to interpret such data. For a fuller understanding, consult the appended raw data and consider demographic breakdowns by age group, as the preface suggests.
That rainy afternoon, the census tables felt less like numbers and more like a long exhale of lives lived. Staring at growth curves, I wondered what those souls did for joy. The thought led me, almost accidentally, to The Field Book: or, Sports and pastimes of the United Kingdom compiled from the best authorities, ancient and modern — Background and Themes, a gentler kind of statistic, one measured in laughter and idle hours.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
Take a moment to reflect on this book
Create a short personal record of your experience with this book.