Most people black people didn't leave the South until after slavery ended though.
Yes, I know.
I am saying that being capable of leaving areas with large (former) slave populations to go to areas that were always free MIGHT have conferred an advantage on them compared to those who stayed in the south, particularly areas of the south with higher (former) shares of slave populations.
Do you disagree with that? If so, why?
I added in the term former so you wouldn't be confused over the time period I'm discussing, though I would think someone should be able to infer that from the context
No I don't disagree with it. I have no opinion on it because there's no data. You could easily make the alternative argument that the reason black populations in the South have worse health outcomes than those outside of the South is because they are more represented in rural areas, while they tend to be concentrated in or around cities outside the South. Perhaps cities have better resources than rural areas and therefore urban black people are better served.
That's seems like a reasonable counter-explanation that I came up with in all of 30 seconds. So, I think it's easy to say that areas where slaves were concentrated could be a causal explanation, but like any hypothesis it requires evidence. There is none beyond the assertion itself.
The article sort of addresses this, so I'd say it's in you to provide this explanation of why, for instance, the black belt performs worse than even Appalachia or many rural states like Montana which are as or more rural.
There's certainly data here and an associated narrative. Engage it. Don't just say something else could be true. ---
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.