European Immigration to America's Great Basin

Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xxxiv:4 (Spring, 2004), 569–594.

IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN Scott Alan Carson European Immigration to America’s Great Basin, 1850–1870 For more than a generation, historians and econo- mists have painted nineteenth-century American occupational mobility with broad strokes. The experience of international migrants indicates that their nativity and settlement within America signiªcantly inºuenced the occupational mobility that they encountered. Between 1800 and 1850, many European emigrants opted to emigrate from Sweden and Germany to America’s northern central plains. Many nineteenth-century Irish immigrants remained in New England; other Irish immigrants dispersed across the American continent. Still another set of mid-nineteenth- century European emigrants migrated to America’s far western frontier. Between 1850 and 1880, a large contingent of mostly British immigrants relocated to America’s Great Basin. This article considers the international occupational mobility of this last group of nineteenth-century immigrants, comprised mostly of European Mormon recruits. Thernstrom found that American upward occupational mobility was infrequent during the early nineteenth-century, at least among ªrst-generation workers in Newburyport. According to Thernstrom, America was not the “Land of Opportunity” so often described by social historians. However, Kamphoefner noted that nineteenth-century Germans encountered a great deal of mobility between their German and American occupations. Swierenga discovered that nineteenth-century Dutch immigrants bound for America’s Midwest experienced more downward and less upward mobility than Kamphoefner’s German sample. Ferrie’s observation that early nineteenth-century European immigrants to the United States underwent considerable occupational mobility is consistent with the labor literature, which shows that immigrant occupational mobility is often ºuid shortly after arrival.1 Scott Alan Carson is Assistant Professor, University of Texas, Permian Basin. He is the author of “Indentured Migration in American’s Great Basin: Occupational Targeting and Adverse Selection,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XXXII (2001), 387–404. © 2004 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Inc.

1 Walter Kamphoefner, Westphalians: From Germany to Missouri (Princeton, 1987), considers the occupational mobility of Dutch immigrants to America’s Midwest. Robert Swierenga,

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 570 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON White-collar and skilled immigrants left their ªrst occupations more rapidly than farmers and unskilled workers. British and Germans fared better in American labor markets than the Irish. Herscovici’s data set of nineteenth-century Newburyport males who remained in the same location suggests that previous studies may have underestimated the extent of economic mobility. Those who left Newburyport were more successful than their counterparts who remained behind. Advantages that accrued to migrants were due, in part, to their success at becoming farmers. Minns uses census data from the 1900 and 1910 Integrated Public Use Manu- scripts (ipums) to show that American immigrants experienced considerable occupational mobility into the white-collar sector of the American labor market. Highly skilled immigrants entered the United States as blue-collar workers and moved into white-collar occupations after acquiring American-speciªc human capital, such as the mastery of the English language. Other studies examine the pre-migration occupations of nineteenth-century immigrants to assess the value of human-capital transfers from source countries to the United States. These broad and narrow geographical studies of nineteenth-century occupational mobility indicate that every American geographical region must be studied for an accurate understanding of nineteenth-century overall American occupational mobility.2

“Dutch International Migration and Occupational Change: A Structural Analysis of Multina- tional Linked Files,” in Ira A. Glazier and Luigi De Rosa (ed.), Migration Across Time and Na- tions (New York, 1986); Stephan Thernstrom, Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City (Cambridge, Mass., 1964); idem, Other Bostonian: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880–1970 (Cambridge, Mass., 1973); Clyde Griffen and Sally Griffen, Natives and Newcomers: The Ordering of Opportunity in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Poughkeepsie (Cambridge, 1978). Joseph P. Ferrie, “The Entry into the U.S. Labor Market of Antebellum European Immigrants,” Explorations in Economic History, XXXIV (1997), 295–330, demonstrates that if mobility occurred upon or shortly after arrival, much of the work in the migration literature may miss a great deal of occupational mobility. This point is consistent with the labor literature, which shows that immigrant occupational mobility is often ºuid shortly after arrival. See also idem, “Up and Out or Down and Out? Immigrant Mobility in the Antebel- lum United States,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XXVI (1995), 33–56. 2 Stephan Hercovici, “Migration and Economic Mobility: Wealth Accumulation and Oc- cupational Change Among Antebellum Migrants and Persisters,” Journal of Economic History, LVIII (1998), 927–956, ªnds that nativity was signiªcant in occupational mobility and wealth accumulation. Barry Chiswick, “The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign Born Men,” Journal of Political Economy, LXXX (1978), 285–325; Larry Neal and Paul Uselding, Immigration, A Neglected Source of American Economic Growth: 1790 to 1912 (Oxford, 1972); Chris Minns, “Income, Cohort Effects and Occupational Mobility: A New Look at Immigration to the United States at the Turn of the 20th Century,” XXXVII (2000), 348–349.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 571 America’s Great Basin extends eastward from the Sierra Nevadas to the Rocky Mountains. Its internal waterways drain onto desert ºats instead of running to the sea. During the nineteenth-century, many unskilled immigrants to the American West chose to remain in the Great Basin and took up low-productivity farming. For many of them, this was a move upward. Their decision to migrate may even have been inºuenced by perceived opportunities in the Great Basin. European skilled immigrants temporarily abandoned their skills or permanently suppressed their acquired European human capital to migrate into a developing economy where their abilities were not in demand. However, as the Great Basin’s market extended, these once-skilled European immigrants may have resumed their original occupations. Great Basin labor markets developed along parallel lines with America’s other western labor markets. Small populations and restricted output markets limited the occupations that western labor markets could sustain. Not until the twentieth-century did western labor- market skills begin to converge with those of eastern labor markets. Nevertheless, migrants in the nineteenth-century American West clearly made strategic choices based on the same consider- ations as in eastern markets; their occupational choices depended on previous skills, time of migration, area of settlement (urban or rural), and number of children. These factors may have offset those over which migrants had no control, such as nativity, age, and gender.3 This study adds to the literature on nineteenth-century American occupational mobility by focusing on a unique set of immigrants who left the earliest industrialized cities of England to settle in a developing agricultural region of the American West, giving attention to how immigrants may have returned to their European occupations once the Great Basin’s market could ac- commodate them. Upon their arrival, these immigrants may have been unwilling to migrate to other places in the United States that would have been more suited to their skill levels. Following the scheme used by Galenson and Pope, and Ferrie, Great Basin workers’ occupations are classiªed into white- collar, skilled, agricultural, and unskilled categories. A new nine-

3 Ferrie, “Up and Out”; Clayne Pope, “Households on the American Frontier: The Distri- bution of Income and Wealth in Utah, 1850–1900,” in David Galenson (ed.), Markets in His- tory: Economic Studies of the Past (Cambridge, 1989), 148–189.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 572 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON teenth-century data set is introduced, drawing on British Mormon ship rosters in Liverpool, as well as Kearl, Pope, and Wimmer’s Utah Project, to link European workers’ demographic and occupational characteristics to their Great Basin demographic and occupational characteristics. This data set is used to address three issues regarding nineteenth-century European immigrants and their migration to America’s Great Basin: ªrst, aggregate trends in occupational mobility between Europe and the Great Basin; second, post-migration occupational selection relative to individual characteristics; and, third, the inºuence of microlevel demographic, residential, and occupational characteristics on Great Basin occupation mobility.

departure and arrival: liverpool and the great basin For the most part, the ªrst European encounters with the Great Basin were military expeditions sent to map the American West. How- ever, nonmilitary explorers Jim Bridger and Jedidiah Smith respectively entered the territory in 1824 and 1827. The ªrst explorer sponsored by the United States Government was John C. Fremont who entered the Bear River Valley on his way to the Oregon territory. Upon his return, Fremont conªrmed what earlier explorers had observed, that because the region had no internal drainage system, all water drained into the Great Salt Lake, later to evaporate on desert salt ºats. Other explorers sought routes for a transcontinental railroad, led military expeditions, and performed scientiªc ªeld studies for institutions of higher education. When the Mormons arrived in 1847, they found a settlement north of the Salt Lake Valley established in the preceding year by Miles Goodyear. They purchased Goodyear’s land and began a large-scale, European occupation of the Great Basin, which has lasted to the present. The Mormons began their exploration of the Great Basin shortly after their 1847 arrival. The base settlement was established in the Great Salt Lake Valley, extending in every direction as the demand for arable lands intensiªed. The ªrst internal exploration went northward, into what would become Davis County, to ªnd additional land for the rapidly growing population. Settlement typically proceeded along lines contiguous with the original one in Salt Lake County. By 1849, parties had reached into the northern and southern Great Basin. At the direction of the Mormon

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 573 hierarchy, groups were then selected both from established households and new immigrants to settle outlying territories.4 Mormons were not the only settlers of European ancestry to inhabit the Great Basin during the later half of the nineteenth- century. Soon after the settlement was established, gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill in California, prospectors from around the world converged on the hills of California, and the westward trafªc of would-be gold seekers across the Great Basin increased. Some of it stopped in the Great Basin. Several eastern business en- terprises also chose to establish units within the Great Basin. In addition, precious metal discoveries in the intermountain west created an economic environment in which multiple cultures si- multaneously coexisted, each seeking similar economic objec- tives.5 The degree of occupational mobility between Europe and the Great Basin was determined largely by the similarity between the two labor markets. European workers’ ability to employ their pre- migration skills was greater for those who came from economies similar to that of the Great Basin than for those who did not. In the mid-nineteenth century, agriculture in Britain and Europe continued to occupy a dominant role in developing industrial economies. However, British agricultural laborers were not as numerous as French, German, and American ones. Other European occupations included domestic servant, textile worker, construction and railroad worker, and skilled and unskilled laborer. Most nonagricultural workers—skilled or not—toiled in small produc- tive units, many of them associated with the putting-out system and easily transferable to the Great Basin’s developing economy, where markets were constrained (see Appendix A for the occupational coding of European immigrants according to the ship lists and the census).6 Mid-nineteenth-century settlement of the arid Great Basin

4 Eugene E. Campbell, Establishing Zion: The Mormon Church in the American West (Salt Lake City, 1988), 57–91. See also Galenson and Pope, “Precedence and Wealth,” in Claudia Goldin and Hugh Rockoff (eds.), Strategic Factors in Nineteenth Century American Economic His- tory (Chicago, 1992), 230. 5 Corinne in northern Utah was a non-Mormon settlement within the Great Basin. 6 The putting-out system was a pre-industrial European manufacturing arrangement whereby capitalists gave work to craftsmen to be performed in their homes. Chiswick, “Ef- fects of Americanization”; Ferrie, “Entry into the U.S. Labor Market,” 596; Norman McCord, British History 1805–1906 (New York, 1991), 214–215.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 574 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON initially preceded economic development in surrounding, more fertile regions within the American West simply because it was the Mormon Church leaders’ desire for their followers to live in isola- tion from other cultures. After initial settlements were established, other European Mormon recruits permanently relocated to the Great Basin. Many immigrants were able to travel independently to the region. Those unable to bear the costs of migration could obtain aid from the Perpetual Emigrant Fund (pef). The pef was also responsible for transporting skilled labor and capital from Eu- rope and the eastern American states to be used in Great Basin production. A series of public-works projects had the effect of both assisting unemployed households and constructing numerous public projects in Great Basin communities.7 The Great Basin’s constrained labor-market diversity is evi- dent in comparison of the number of different occupations in Eu- rope to the number of different occupations in the Great Basin. The fewer occupations in the Great Basin’s labor market relative to Europe’s labor market may suggest that the Great Basin was less developed than Europe. There were 184 unique European occupations held by Great Basin migrants before departing for the Great Basin; these same immigrants moved into only 98 Great Ba- sin occupations—a 46.7 percent decline. Great Basin households faced constrained occupational choices. The migrants who left Liverpool for the Great Basin came from diverse European backgrounds. They arrived in an area nearly void of economic development, where the common de- nominator was low-productivity agriculture (see Appendix B for a construction of the data set on which this study is based). Table 1 presents the nativity of migrants in the Great Basin data set as coming from three general regions—the British Isles, Continental Europe, and Scandinavia, along with migrants’ occupational fre- quencies. Panel A suggests that European nativity, as measured from Liverpool, was overwhelmingly English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. In time, the share of immigrants departing Liverpool from non-British origins increased, but the migration ºow remained

7 Carson, “Indentured Migration in America’s Great Basin: Occupational Targeting and Adverse Selection,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XXXII (2002), 387–404; Leonard Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830–1900 (Cam- bridge, Mass., 1958), 44–47.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 575 Table 1 European Nativity and Occupations of Great Basin Migrants from Liverpool panel a 1850s 1860s total n percent n percent n percent British Isles 783 97.8 422 93.8 1,205 96.3 Continental 15 1.9 15 3.3 30 2.4 Europe Scandinavia 3 .4 13 2.9 16 1.3 panel b 1850s 1860s total great great great europe basin europe basin europe basin Unskilled 44.4 22.4 47.3 27.6 45.5 24.2 Farmers 4.9 48.3 3.6 38.5 4.4 44.8 Skilled 40.5 23.4 40.0 27.1 40.3 24.5 White-collar 10.2 6.0 9.1 6.9 9.8 6.3 notes 1850s migrants’ occupations were recorded in the 1860 United States federal census. 1860s migrants’ occupations were recorded in the 1870 United States federal census.

predominantly from the British Isles. Panel B presents European immigrants’ occupational distributions and their 1850s and 1860s Great Basin occupations. The occupational distributions indicate that European immigrants’ occupations, as stated on the ship lists, were substantially different from their Great Basin occupations. The proportion of European immigrants recorded as unskilled workers declined by 46.8 percent between Europe and the Great Basin, whereas the proportion of farmers in the Great Basin increased by 918 percent. The proportion of skilled and white-collar workers declined by 39.2 percent and 35.7 percent, respectively. These may not have been uncommon labor ºows into nineteenth-century western agriculture. Comparing the European and Great Basin occupation distributions reveals that European labor markets differed markedly from the Great Basin’s labor market, reºecting disparate stages of economic development between Eu- rope and the American West.8 8 Dean L. May, Three Frontiers: Family, Land, and Society in the American West, 1850–1900 (New York, 1994), 89–106.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 576 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON The emigrant pool from which the majority of Great Basin migrants derived consisted primarily of urban, skilled workers. It originated from a few urbanized districts: London, the West Mid- lands, South Wales, Lancashire, West Riding, and Central Scot- land. Moreover, Great Basin immigrants who originated from rural communities tended to come from towns and to have urban- style occupations. Great Basin migrants may well have included a large proportion of skilled workers with relatively high incomes and wealth holdings, allowing them to migrate earlier than other immigrants, precisely when the Great Basin was least able to ac- commodate their skills. This gap between the developed British economy and the primitive Great Basin settlement made conditions rife for occupational mobility; skilled British workers may have had to accept lesser positions in Great Basin agriculture.9 Apart from the constrained markets, numerous natural calam- ities and large annual inºuxes of new migrants made low- productivity agriculture a near necessity within the Great Basin. Large-scale crop damage and drought had dire consequences, es- pecially during the 1850s. Moreover, many immigrants entered the region too late in the growing season to join the agricultural workforce, but they had to be provided with food until the following spring. Certain skills, however, were necessary in the region’s economic development. British wagon makers, masons, carpenters, joiners, and machinists were encouraged to remain in their European skilled occupations. Nevertheless, a large number descended into low-productivity agriculture.10

trends in great basin occupational mobility Immigration frequently forces, or permits, migrants to change their occupations. Table 2 further disaggregates Great Basin occupational mobility, presenting three occupational transition matrices to determine how immigrants changed occupations between Europe and the Great Basin. Columns represent European occupations at the time of emigration from Liverpool. Rows represent occupations as recorded in the next United States federal census. Each element of the transition matrix represents the conditional prob-

9 Philip A. M. Taylor, Expectations Westward: The Mormons and the Emigration of their British Converts in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, 1966), 148–157; May, Three Frontiers, 53, 56–67. 10 May, Three Frontiers, 101–109. See also Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, 150, 205–206, 223–228.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 577 Table 2 European Immigrants’ Occupation-Transition Matrix panel a, 1850s european occupation n white-collar skilled farmer unskilled White-collar 48 .232 .040 .103 .034 Skilled 187 .183 .383 .051 .129 Farmer 344 .415 .355 .667 .475 Unskilled 222 .171 .222 .180 .362 panel b, 1860s european occupation n white-collar skilled farmer unskilled White-collar 31 .366 .033 0 .047 Skilled 122 .171 .494 .063 .117 Farmer 129 .195 .222 .750 .324 Unskilled 168 .268 .250 .188 .511 panel c, total european occupation n white-collar skilled farmer unskilled White-collar 79 .276 .038 .073 .039 Skilled 309 .179 .423 .055 .125 Farmer 473 .342 .308 .691 .418 Unskilled 390 .203 .232 .182 .418 notes Immigrants in Panel A left Europe during the 1850s and settled within the Great Ba- sin to be enumerated in the 1860 federal census. Immigrants in Panel B left Europe during the 1860s and settled within the Great Basin to be enumerated in the 1870 federal census. Immi- grants in Panel C are the combination of Panels A and B.

ability that an immigrant was found in a particular Great Basin occupation, given his European occupation. Table 2 indicates that during the 1850s, low-productivity agriculture was the predominant occupational change. White-collar and unskilled workers were more likely to move into Great Basin agriculture than to remain in their 1850s European occupations. Skilled and semiskilled immigrants were nearly as likely to remain in their European skilled occupations as to move into Great Basin agriculture; yet some also opted for agriculture. European immigrants listed as farmers were the least likely to change occupations

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 578 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON in the Great Basin. Unskilled European workers were also more likely to take up Great Basin agriculture than to remain in their unskilled occupations. These results for the 1850s bear comparison with other studies of nineteenth-century occupational mobility. Although Kamphoefner’s sample was limited, 93.3 percent of his German laborers experienced upward occupational mobility between emigration and their next observed status in the United States’ 1860 federal census. That only 6.9 percent of German artisans became American laborers suggests that the Germans experienced a great deal of upward and little downward occupational mobility. Swierenga, however, found that between 1841 and 1850, Dutch immigrants were subject largely to downward mobility. Among his Dutch white-collar workers, 23 percent were classiªed in the 1850 census as laborers, as were 22 percent of Dutch craftsman. Ferrie’s broader study of a cross-section of immigrants discovered that 44 percent of unskilled workers in the New York ship lists moved into occupations of greater status in the 1850 census. Nev- ertheless, approximately 20 to 26 percent of skilled European workers had switched to unskilled occupations by 1850. Between arrival and 1850, 20 percent of European farmers were classiªed as American farmers. Nineteenth-century occupational mobility var- ied by nativity, occupation, and location of the labor market.11 These studies provide a benchmark for the extent of Great Basin occupational mobility. Among 1850s Great Basin immigrants, 76.8 percent of 1850’s and 63.4 percent of 1860’s white- collar workers moved into occupations of lower status, though only 17.1 percent of 1850’s Great Basin white-collar workers were relegated to unskilled occupations. Skilled Europeans experienced similar downward moves upon their entry into the Great Basin labor market. European white-collar workers bound for the Great Basin seem to have experienced proportionally fewer moves into unskilled occupations than Dutch white-collar workers who moved into America’s Midwest. The share of Dutch and Great Basin skilled immigrants who moved into unskilled occupations was similar. The occupational stability of European farmers upon their arrival in the Great Basin is striking; 67 percent of 1850’s arrivals and 75 percent of 1860’s arrivals who deported Europe as

11 Kamphoefner, Westphalians, 153; Ferrie, “Entry into the U.S. Labor Market,” 298–303.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 579 farmers took up farming again in the Great Basin. The share of Dutch farmers and other American antebellum immigrants who took up American agriculture is much smaller. Of the 1850s’ Great Basin immigrants, 63.8 percent of unskilled workers advanced occupationally; so did 48.9 percent of the 1860s’ unskilled immigrants. The upward mobility of unskilled workers once they reached the Great Basin lagged behind that of German laborers observed by Kamphoefner but approximated that of other Euro- peans. Downward occupational mobility of white-collar workers into unskilled occupations in the Great Basin may have been less severe than that of Dutch white-collar workers who migrated to America’s Midwest. Finally, farmers who migrated into the Great Basin had greater occupational stability than farmers who located into other regions within the United States.12 Whereas Table 2 considers the occupational mobility of Eu- ropean immigrants bound for the Great Basin, Table 3 presents transition matrices of 1850s’ arrivals who were found in both the 1860 and the 1870 census manuscripts—a total of 196 observations. Though limited in size, these data give some indication of the extent to which immigrants who remained within the Great Basin maintained, abandoned, and/or moved back to their original European occupations. Panel A indicates the degree of occupational mobility between arrival and 1860. Panel B demonstrates the occupational transitions of the same immigrants between arrival and 1870. As the Great Basin’s market and population extended during the 1860s, immigrants tended to retain or reclaim their European occupations. The Great Basin’s output market rapidly extended, the population increasing from 11,380 in 1850 to 40,273 in 1860, an increase of 253.9 percent. Between 1860 and 1870, the population increased 115.5 percent, from 40,273 to 86,786. This explo- sion in population inºuenced labor-market development and brought new value to specialization. Immigrants, who had abandoned their European occupations—probably because land was so readily available—were able to resume them when the market extended. As Table 3 shows, this return to pre-migration skills may have been more pronounced for white-collar workers. During the 1850s, European white-collar workers were more

12 Ferrie, “Entry into the U.S. Labor Market,” 301–303.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 580 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON Table 3 1850 European Immigrant Arrivals, Multiple Census Observations panel a, british to 1860 european occupation 1860 occupation n white-collar skilled farmer unskilled White-collar 11 .2 .023 .154 .039 Skilled 53 .1 .465 .077 .130 Farmer 83 .3 .326 .769 .507 Unskilled 49 .4 .186 0 .325 panel b, british to 1870 european occupation 1870 occupation n white-collar skilled farmer unskilled White-collar 15 .35 .045 .154 .026 Skilled 52 .15 .407 .077 .169 Farmer 97 .4 .419 .692 .571 Unskilled 32 .1 .128 .077 .234 notes A total of 196 observations are linked to the 1850s’ Mormon Ship rosters and the 1860 and 1870 United States federal censuses. Columns represent European occupation. Rows of Panel A are immigrants’ 1860 Great Basin occupations. Rows of Panel B are the same immigrants’ 1870 Great Basin occupations.

likely to take up agriculture or unskilled occupations than white- collar occupations in the Great Basin. Between 1860 and 1870, most of these white-collar workers continued to farm or sorted back into skilled occupations. When 1850 skilled and semiskilled workers arrived in the Great Basin, they tended to resume their skilled European occupations, though a sizable contingent of them also moved into agriculture. This trend continued into the 1870s. Part of the increase in the 1850s’ share of skilled workers who moved into 1870s agriculture was due to European skilled workers who became unskilled workers in the 1850s before entering agriculture before 1870. Most European farmers immigrating into the Great Basin tended to remain in farming, but a noticeable share of European farmers in both the 1850s and 1860s bypassed skilled occupations and moved directly into Great Basin white-collar occupations. Finally, unskilled workers became less likely to persist in unskilled occupations over time, moving instead into Great Basin

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 581 agriculture and ªnding in the American West the occupational “safety valve” that they may have sought.

great basin occupational selection Two sets of descriptors inºuence occupational selection and mobility: predetermined involuntary characteristics—such as age and nativity—and more elective, contingent ones—such as previous occupation, residence, family size, and the decision to migrate that can be manipulated for the sake of occupational status. Although residential status and family size were not likely to have been manipulated to inºuence economic opportunity, changes in their status may have signiªcantly inºuenced migrant success. Interpretation of residence as a choice characteristic, however, is problematical. During the initial years of the Great Basin settlement, viable economic cir- cles were severely limited; the ªrst settlers may have exhausted the economic opportunities. As a result, newcomers frequently had to establish new settlements. Nevertheless, since family size and rural residence were clearly not predetermined characteristics, they are loosely bundled in this study as choice characteristics. Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate that migrants abandoned their skills after arrival only to redeem them later when the market per- mitted. However, little is known about what might have moti- vated immigrants to select Great Basin occupations in the ªrst place. To ªnd out, a logit model was used to assess how workers’ characteristics inºuenced their occupational selection. Age was expected to be signiªcant in the case of white-collar and skilled workers. Because they needed time to accumulate skills, they had to spend time in the labor market. Age may have also been a signiªcant factor for agricultural and unskilled workers. As young workers matured, they would have been likely to advance into more skilled occupations. Older workers may have moved out of the labor market into unskilled on-the-job retirement. Nor were rural workers outside of Salt Lake County expected to become white-collar or skilled, because they were not sufªciently trained relative to the Salt Lake County labor market. The availability of free or inexpensive land away from populated areas tended to conªne rural residents to agriculture.13

13 Roger Ransom and Richard Sutch, “The Labor of Older Americans: Retirement of Men on and off the Job, 1870–1937,” Journal of Economic History, LXVI (1986), 1–30.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 582 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON European occupations recorded at the time of sailing from Liverpool would seem to be highly correlated with Great Basin occupational classiªcation. Migrants heavily invested in human capital and skilled occupations may not have been as likely as Eu- ropean farmers and unskilled laborers to dedicate themselves to agriculture. Hence, white-collar and skilled occupations were probably negative determinants of Great Basin agriculture, whereas the European farming variable should be signiªcant and positive in explaining Great Basin agriculture relative to other occupations. The inºuence of nativity is uncertain, since a primary concern among Great Basin settlers may have been equality. Nev- ertheless, British immigrants may have been more likely to select white-collar and skilled occupations than German and Irish immigrants because of their prior attainment, such as the ability to speak English. However, the Great Basin’s unique egalitarian culture may have offset this nativity effect. The inºuence of British and Great Basin family size may not have been as signiªcant for white- collar and skilled workers as for agricultural workers; white-collar and skilled occupations may not have required the number of family workers that planters required. Great Basin occupational logit models for white-collar, skilled, agricultural, and unskilled workers are presented in Table 4.14 Table 4 indicates that many expectations regarding mid- nineteenth-century demographic and occupational characteristics were consistent with occupational selection. Workers were more likely to become white-collar, skilled, and agricultural workers than unskilled ones with age. Rural workers were less likely to take up white-collar and skilled occupations than agricultural and unskilled ones. As expected, European white-collar and skilled occupations were signiªcant in explaining who tended to ªll white-collar and skilled occupations in the Great Basin. European farmers were more likely to move into Great Basin white-collar occupations than skilled, white-collar workers were to end up as unskilled laborers or farmers. Not surprisingly, European farmers were more likely to become Great Basin farmers, too, and unlikely to take up unskilled positions.

14 Nineteenth-century Mormon sailing vessels were chartered as private or semiprivate concerns. Records used herein are drawn from the recently made available Family Search, Mormon Immigration Index (Salt Lake City, 1994), which lists age, occupation, and family size. Minns, “Income, Cohort Effects and Occupational Mobility.”

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 583 The insigniªcance of British nativity may suggest that Great Basin labor markets did not discriminate by place of birth. Nativ- ity’s insigniªcance may also mean that European immigrants to the Great Basin were of comparable quality. The signiªcance of Great Basin family size implies that white-collar and skilled workers could sustain larger families than unskilled workers and that larger families were required to maintain family farms. The effect of time in the Great Basin, as demonstrated by the duration variable regressor, was positive and signiªcant in the matter of becoming or remaining a planter. Hence, Great Basin occupational selection depended on residence, prior European occupations, and Great Basin family size. Notably, these were conditions over which migrants had some input vis-à-vis their occupations. The evidence suggests that the nineteenth-century American West was a place of opportunity; occupational selection depended mostly upon factors that workers could control.

occupational mobility Immigrants to the Great Basin were largely free to determine their residential status, timing of migration, and family size. Again, although residential status and family size may not have been direct inºuences on economic opportunity, changes in their status may have signiªcantly inºuenced their economic success. Of the occupational characteristics that workers could not alter, age and nativity were the ones that would appear to be most relevant to occupational mobility. As workers aged, they acquired more skills, which may have resulted in upward mobility. However, this upward mobility had its limit. With age came physical constraints that may have impelled them into less skilled occupations, such as farming. Hence, Great Basin occupational mobility would be expected to follow an age-mobility proªle in which workers experienced upward mobility at younger ages and less upward mobility at older ages. Table 4 indicates that nativity was not signiªcant in the Great Basin’s occupational selection; hence, nativity may not have inºuenced Great Basin occupational mobility either.15 Residence may be the voluntary state that inºuenced occupational mobility more than any other. Rural residence may have al- lowed workers in unskilled occupations to move into agriculture, 15 Ransom and Sutch. “All Things Reconsidered: The Life-Cycle Perspective and the Third Task of Economic History,” Journal of Economic History, LI (1991), 271–288.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02October 2021

Table 4 1870 Great Basin Logit Occupation Selection Models white collar skilled

P 2 ץ P 2 ץ X ␹ ץ X ␹ coefficient ץ coefficient Intercept Ϫ5.27 8.50 Ϫ2.20 5.42 Age .081 .042 1.25 .049 .314 1.38 Age2 Ϫ9.2Ϫ4 Ϫ.019 1.32 Ϫ5.8Ϫ4 Ϫ.155 1.63 Rural Ϫ1.18* Ϫ.015 2.99 Ϫ1.31* Ϫ.203 74.90 Ewc 2.27 .029 54.50 .286 .044 1.06 * Ϫ Eskill Ϫ.047 Ϫ6 4 .021 1.70* .264 107.92 Efarm .816 .010 1.98 Ϫ.950 Ϫ.148 2.37 Brit 1.14 .015 1.21 Ϫ.118 Ϫ.018 .098 Bsize Ϫ.072 Ϫ.003 1.19 .048 .023 1.68 GBsize .058 .004 1.08 .022 .017 .415 Duration Ϫ.551*** Ϫ.007 3.83 Ϫ.129 Ϫ.020 .674 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02October 2021

Table 4 Continued farmers unskilled

P 2 ץ P 2 ץ X ␹ ץ X ␹ coefficient ץ coefficient Intercept Ϫ3.52 17.10 2.92 1.97 Age .089 .508 5.65 Ϫ.132 Ϫ.032 13.08 Ϫ ** * Age2 Ϫ9.6 4** Ϫ.226 5.41 .002* .015 13.69 Rural 2.10* .291 174.14 Ϫ.713* Ϫ.004 24.08 Ewc Ϫ.542** Ϫ.075 5.45 Ϫ.988* Ϫ.006 12.89 Eskill Ϫ.787* Ϫ.109 31.05 Ϫ.745* Ϫ.005 23.67 Efarm 1.84* .255 2.11 Ϫ2.27* Ϫ.014 13.37 Brit Ϫ.362 Ϫ.050 1.14 .411 .003 .776 Bsize .003 .001 .006 Ϫ.034 Ϫ5.1Ϫ4 .763 GBsize .091 .065 8.82 Ϫ.179 Ϫ.004 23.45 * * Ϫ Duration .365** .051 6.62 Ϫ.083 Ϫ5 4 .301 * signiªcant at the .01 level. ** signiªcant at the .05 level. *** signiªcant at the .10 level. notes 2 Dependent variables equal 1, respectively, if occupations were white-collar, skilled, farmers, or unskilled; 0 otherwise. Aget and Aget represent the migrants’ age in the census year. Duration is the time that migrants spent in the Great Basin, as measured from registration on a ship roster to their location in

deciannual censuses. Ruralt is a binary variable that equals 1 if a migrant resided in a rural community and 0 if in an urban community. Ewc, Eskill, and Efarm are European white-collar, skilled, and agricultural occupations, respectively. The omitted occupation is unskilled. Brit is a binary nativity variable that represents British birth. The omitted residence variable is birth in continental Europe. Finally, Bsize and Gbsize are European and Great Basin household sizes. 586 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON and rural residence may have forced workers in white-collar and skilled occupations into agriculture. Urban locations may have had more developed labor markets, allowing urban workers to remain in their same occupations. Hence, rural locations may have offered workers occupational mobility, whereas urban locations offered workers occupational stability. Time may have also inºuenced mobility, that is, the time required for workers to become established in local labor markets. The degree to which Great Basin labor markets reºected Euro- pean labor markets may have also inºuenced occupational mobility. Since the Great Basin offered skilled workers fewer opportunities than Europe, European white-collar and skilled workers may have encountered considerable downward mobility, while unskilled workers moved up into Great Basin agriculture. Again, these factors are segregated into choice and non-choice factors. Binary mobility variables for upward, horizontal, and downward occupation moves are regressed on 1850s’ non-choice and choice characteristics in Table 5. Table 5 indicates that 1850s’ occupational mobility was signi- ªcantly inºuenced by characteristics that migrants controlled. Model 1 omits European occupations, which are added to Model 2 to demonstrate the inºuence of European occupations on Great Basin occupational mobility. This addition of occupations in- creases the statistical signiªcance beyond rural residence in Model I to age, European occupations, rural residence, and time in the Great Basin. Predictably, the age factor demonstrates the expected pattern of migrants, on average, improving occupationally until they reached middle age, after which they became less likely to make upward moves. The non-choice nativity factor was noticeably in- ert. According to Model 2, the demographic choice variables that tended toward upward occupational mobility during the 1850s were rural residence and time spent in the Great Basin. European occupations were insigniªcant. The only meaningful demographic choice variable in Model 2’s horizontal move panel is residence. European migrants who settled in Great Basin rural areas were not likely to remain in their European occupations, but urban workers were, since urban economies more closely reºected European labor markets. Euro- pean occupation was also statistically signiªcant regarding an im-

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 587 migrant’s occupation in the Great Basin. As expected, Great Basin agriculture was the most stable occupation. White-collar, skilled, and unskilled workers were less likely than the control group, planters, to remain in their European occupations. Non-choice factors were statistically insigniªcant in determining whether workers remained in their European occupations. Arrival in the Great Basin presented many immigrants opportunities to own land, which would have been prohibitively ex- pensive in Europe. Many white-collar and skilled immigrants settled in rural areas and took up Great Basin agriculture. Regard- less of whether they wanted to do so or not, they thereby lost occupational status. During the 1850s, the probability that skilled workers would have abandoned their skills upon arrival to the Great Basin is positive and signiªcant. Non-choice variables were insigniªcant in determining downward occupational mobility.16 Table 6 shows how these same mobility characteristics inºuenced occupational mobility during the 1860s and may have changed between 1860 and 1870. Model 1 suggests that several factors were signiªcant in determining occupational mobility, in- dependent of European occupation. For example, age and rural residence are signiªcant when European occupations are omitted. However, Model 2 provides greater detail about factors that determined upward occupational mobility. As for workers in the 1850s, age in the 1860s inºuenced the upward direction of occupational mobility. The only other important demographic factor related to upward mobility was rural residence. Rural residents were again more likely to improve their occupations upon arrival in the Great Basin. The association of family size with upward occupational mobility suggests that workers with many children either sought better occupations to support them or attracted better positions in principle. There were no signiªcant relationships between 1860s European occupations and Great Basin upward occupational mobility. Migrants who remained in the same occupations during the 1860s had only the residence choice factor to thank for their stability. Rural residents continued to change occupations more than their urban counterparts, since skilled rural residents tended to

16 Taylor, Expectations Westward, 26–27, indicates that free or inexpensive land was a promi- nent drawing point for Europeans to emigrate to the Great Basin. See also Millennial Star, X (1848), 40–41, and May, Three Frontiers, 154, concerning Great Basin land policies.

Table 5 Logit Model of 1850s Occupational Mobility

P 2 ץ P 2 ץ X ␹ ץ X ␹ model 2 ץ upward moves model 1 Intercept Ϫ4.48* 7.12 Ϫ25.66 .310 Age .075 0.013 1.47 .305 .022 10.78 Ϫ * Age2 Ϫ.0008 Ϫ1 4 1.33 Ϫ.003* Ϫ.0002 10.16 British 1.11 0.197 1.06 .692 .163 .215 Rural .474** 0.084 4.11 1.00* .105 8.36 Duration .092 0.016 2.03 .323* .029 8.68 Efarm 12.72 Ϫ2.77 .008 Eunskill 16.69 Ϫ.552 .013 Family change .039 0.007 .447 .080 .014 .848 N 417 417 horizontal moves Intercept 1.54 1.12 3.92** 5.26 Age Ϫ.074 Ϫ.011 1.65 Ϫ.074 Ϫ.010 1.56 Age2 .0008 1.0Ϫ4 1.62 .0008 1.0Ϫ4 1.32 British .591 .086 .500 .926 .124 .871 Rural Ϫ1.29* Ϫ.187 37.65 Ϫ1.43* Ϫ.191 41.31 Duration Ϫ.080 Ϫ.012 1.70 Ϫ.062 Ϫ.008 .945 Ewc Ϫ3.62* Ϫ.486 23.46 Eskill Ϫ2.47* Ϫ.332 13.87 Eunskill Ϫ2.78* Ϫ.373 17.57 Family change .017 .003 .125 Ϫ.0007 Ϫ9.0Ϫ5 .0002 N 440 440 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02October 2021

Table 5 Continued

P 2 ץ P 2 ץ X ␹ ץ X ␹ model 2 ץ downward moves model 1 Intercept Ϫ1.04 .103 Ϫ2.33 1.25 Age Ϫ.001 Ϫ2Ϫ4 .002 .047 .0007 .307 Age2 6.2Ϫ4 Ϫ9Ϫ6 .001 Ϫ4.0Ϫ3 Ϫ6Ϫ5 .162 British Ϫ.576 Ϫ.199 1.40 Ϫ1.32 Ϫ.199 1.33 Rural 1.44* .259 23.06 1.72* .259 27.67 Duration Ϫ.026 Ϫ.0008 .003 Ϫ.052 Ϫ.0008 .413 Eskill 1.77* .268 37.46 Efarm Ϫ13.88 Ϫ2.10 .0009 Family change Ϫ.074 Ϫ.01 1.85 Ϫ.066 Ϫ.01 1.07 N 334 334 * signiªcant at the .01 level. ** signiªcant at the .05 level. *** signiªcant at the .10 level. notes The estimated dependent variables are 1 if immigrants moved into more skilled, remained in the same, or moved into less skilled 1860 occupations; 0 otherwise. Age represents the migrants’ age as measured in the 1860 federal census. Rural represents 1 for the migrants located outside Salt Lake County and 0 inside Salt Lake County. Duration is measured as 1860 less the year recorded in European ship rosters. Family Change is 1860 federal census family size less Euro- pean family size. Marginal probabilities for upward occupational moves are for remaining in the same occupation and for downward occupational moves, observed at unskilled worker age, and for duration and change in family size, by means. Ewc, Eskill, Efarm, and Eun represent Great Basin migrants’ European occupations, white-collar, skilled, agricultural, and unskilled, respectively. The control group for upward occupational moves is comprised of continental Eu- ropean skilled workers living in Salt Lake County. The control group for horizontal occupational moves is comprised of continental European agricultural workers living in Salt Lake County. The control group for downward occupational moves is comprised of continental European unskilled workers living in Salt Lake County. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02October 2021

Table 6 Logit Model of 1860s Occupational Mobility

P 2 ץ P 2 ץ X ␹ ץ X ␹ model 2 ץ upward moves model 1 Intercept Ϫ4.65 17.18 Ϫ21.00 .013 Age .096 .018 4.58 .152 6Ϫ3 6.61 ** Ϫ ** Ϫ Age2 Ϫ.0012** Ϫ2.0 4 5.52 Ϫ.002* Ϫ2 5 6.87 British .980** .181 5.10 Ϫ.481 Ϫ.005 .331 Rural 1.09* .202 28.08 1.59* .015 36.06 Duration .054 .01 1.50 .078 7Ϫ4 1.42 Efarm 13.55 .130 .005 Eunskill 17.37 .167 .009 Family change .024 .004 .694 .086*** .0008 3.74 N 732 732 horizontal moves Intercept .820 .764 2.50** 5.66 Age Ϫ.004 Ϫ6Ϫ4 .009 Ϫ.0009 Ϫ1Ϫ4 .0005 Age2 .0001 2Ϫ5 .129 8Ϫ4 1Ϫ5 .041 British Ϫ.437 Ϫ.071 1.54 Ϫ.173 Ϫ.022 .213 Rural Ϫ1.26* Ϫ.204 59.64 Ϫ1.31* Ϫ.166 60.90 Duration Ϫ.012 Ϫ.002 .090 Ϫ.008 .001 .038 Ewc Ϫ2.27* Ϫ.289 19.56 Eskill Ϫ1.71* Ϫ.218 14.33 Eunskill Ϫ2.19* Ϫ.279 23.30 Family change Ϫ.036 Ϫ.006 1.80 Ϫ.040 Ϫ.005 2.11 N 788 788 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02October 2021

Table 6 Continued

P 2 ץ P 2 ץ X ␹ ץ X ␹ model 2 ץ downward moves model 1 Intercept Ϫ.629 .229 Ϫ1.65 1.25 Age Ϫ.018 Ϫ.003 .112 Ϫ.032 Ϫ.006 .283 Age2 1.5Ϫ3 2Ϫ5 .062 3.3Ϫ3 6Ϫ5 .235 British Ϫ.741** Ϫ.117 4.08 Ϫ.691*** Ϫ.129 2.76 Rural 1.16* .183 17.17 1.53* .284 26.57 Duration Ϫ.047 Ϫ.007 .790 Ϫ.050 Ϫ.009 .740 Eskill 1.78* .331 62.12 Efarm Ϫ13.63 Ϫ2.54 .001 Family change Ϫ5.5Ϫ3 Ϫ9Ϫ5 .0003 .020 .306 N 600 600 * signiªcant at the .01 level. ** signiªcant at the .05 level. *** signiªcant at the .10 level. notes The estimated dependent variables are 1 if immigrants moved into more skilled, remained in the same, or moved into less skilled occupations. Age represents the migrants’ age as measured in the 1870 federal census. Rural represents 1 for migrants located outside Salt Lake County and 0 inside Salt Lake County. Duration is measured as 1870 less the year recorded in European ship rosters. Family Change is 1870 federal census family size less European family size. Ewc, Eskill, Efarm, and Eun represent Great Basin migrants’ European occupations, white-collar, skilled, agricultural, and unskilled, respectively. The control group for upward occupational moves is comprised of continental European skilled workers living in Salt Lake County. The control group for horizontal occupation moves is comprised of continental European agricultural workers living in Salt Lake County. The control group for downward occupational moves is comprised of continental European unskilled workers living in Salt Lake County. 592 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON shed their skills and unskilled ones moved up into agriculture. Eu- ropean white-collar, skilled, and unskilled workers were less likely than European planters to remain in the same occupation in the Great Basin. Only in 1870 did nativity inºuence the direction of occupational mobility—downward. Although British workers were not likely to make downward occupational moves, Euro- pean skilled workers continued to be more likely to move into less skilled Great Basin occupations.

This study demonstrates how occupational mobility between Eu- rope and the Great Basin was determined largely by the differences between the two labor markets. Although European cottage- industry production processes may have transferred to the Great Basin, occupational selection and mobility between the two economies may reºect that the American West’s labor market lagged in development, causing skilled migrants to suppress their human capital to relocate, given their nonpecuniary motives. Like the Dutch, Great Basin settlers were a cohesive group. Their un- willingness to stray far from their Great Basin community might have made upward occupational mobility more difªcult. How- ever, white-collar and skilled immigrants who chose, or otherwise had, to move into comparatively low-productivity agriculture in the Great Basin may have been able to resume their skills when the Great Basin’s economy had developed enough to sustain them. In any event, this study of Great Basin occupational mobility demonstrates that a full understanding of nineteenth-century occupational mobility requires extensive geographical research. APPENDIX A: OCCUPATION CODING OF EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS; SHIP LISTS AND THE CENSUS white-collar government agent baker barber bishop book keeper book seller brick mason butcher chemist clerk dealer druggist editor furrier grocer hammerman hawker huxter lace manufacturer milk dealer lawyer merchant minister musician naval ofªcer news correspondent news dealer oilman optician pawn broker peddler physician post master probate judge public speaker railroad clerk reporter school master school teacher silk manufacturer stone man stone mason store clerk store keeper store retailer surgeon tea dealer territorial agent trader

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA’S GREAT BASIN | 593

skilled adobe layer adobe maker boot maker blacksmith blade forger blast furnace operator boiler maker bone cutter book maker brewer brick maker brush maker cabinet maker carpenter carriage maker chair maker clock maker cloth dresser coach maker comb maker cooper cork screw maker currier distiller draper drill master dyer engine ªtter engine keeper engineer engraver ªle cutter ªnisher ªsher frame work knitter gas ªtter glass blower grist miller gun maker harness maker hatter hosier iron monger joiner lace maker lamp maker leather cutter lime burner machinist mason millwright moulder painter paper hanger plasterer potter powder maker printer rail inspector reed maker reªner roper maker saddler sail maker salt maker sawmiller sawyer shoemaker spinner stone cutter tailor tanner tinsmith tool maker umbrella maker upholsterer wagon maker warp dresser watch maker watch repairer weaver wheel maker wheelwright wood turner unskilled baller bleacher boatman chimney sweep clogger coach man compositor day laborer corder coach driver cow herder factory hand feeder ªreman freighter gardener gatekeeper groom herder hotel worker housekeeper hurdle man iron worker laborer mariner miner none overlooker packer piecer pitman police ofªcer post man quarry man roller retired rope walker seaman servant shepherd ship steward silk twister steward teamster temple washer tile hardener valet waiter warehouseman water man white washer widow wire wire drawer wool sorter farmer

APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTION OF THE DATA SET

To link immigrants from Europe to America’s Great Basin requires multiple data sources. Immigrant names derived ªrst from European Mormon ship rosters prior to embarking for the United States. These ship rosters, which included such characteristics as name, age, occupation, and family size comprised 3,147 immigrants with occupations and characteristics that could be potentially

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021 594 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON linked to the 1860 and 1870 U.S. federal censuses. Use of Kearl, Pope, and Wimmer’s Index to the 1850, 1860 & 1870 Census of Utah created a data set of 1,251 European immigrants who migrated between 1854 and 1868—801 from the 1850s and 450 from the 1860s—who could be linked to the federal census by name, date of birth, and family size. Of this total, 98 observations were found on both the 1860 and 1870 censuses.17 This data-collection method creates a gender bias toward males, who were typically the heads of household in Europe. Single women recorded on the European ship roster were nearly impossible to trace in the Great Basin because of their integration into male-led households. Single males are also potentially underrepresented, since they lacked the household-size characteristics that could identify them after their immigration into the Great Basin. 17 James Kearl, Pope, and Larry Wimmer, Index to the 1850, 1860 & 1870 Census of Utah (Bal- timore, 1981); Richard Steckel, “Census Matching and Migration: A Research Strategy,” Historical Methods, XXI (1988), 52–60.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219504773512543 by guest on 02 October 2021