Agricultural Neighbor Labor, Family Labor, and Kinship in the United States 1790-1940
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Relieved of These Little Chores: Agricultural Neighbor Labor, Family Labor, and Kinship in the United States 1790-1940 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Matt Andrew Nelson IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Steven Ruggles, Adviser August 2018 Matt Nelson 2018 Acknowledgments The encouragement and feedback from my committee, both during the dissertation writing but also in class proved invaluable. None of this would have been possible without my advisor Steven Ruggles. He not only taught me to be a little more forthright in my arguments and pay attention to what I am trying to measure, but also gave me a job as a graduate student at the Minnesota Population Center which pushed me down the track of demographic history. Evan Roberts and David Hacker provided wonderful feedback along the way (and even cited me in some of their presentations!) and gave me advice on how to sharpen my arguments and focus on the narrative. Deborah Levison encouraged me to always consider the “devil’s advocate” argument in “Population Methods and Issues for the United States and Third World,” and Chris Isett taught me to appreciate the “necessary but insufficient” arguments in “Comparative Economic History.” None of my work would have been possible without the Minnesota Population Center and IPUMS, both in the data created, but also funding conference travel, providing a graduate assistantship, and eventually employment. Cathy Fitch, Sarah Flood, Ron Goeken, Miriam King, and Sula Sarkar all gave me reading suggestions, conference paper feedback, or technical tips and tricks in SPSS, Stata, and ArcGIS. Fellow graduate students Emily Bruce, Elizabeth Dillenberg, Melissa Hampton, Amanda Koller, Katie Lambright, Ellen Manovich, Bernadette Perez, and Evan Taparata all read early drafts of my work, critiqued my presentations, and took my mind off of school every once in a while, at the Republic. I also would like to thank my “2B” Friends and “HarrPottery” trivia group for providing welcome distractions and/or GIS and statistics advice. i Myron Gutmann, Susan Hautaniemi Leonard, Ken Sylvester, Ken Smith, and George Alter all taught me technical skills and gave me an appreciation for demographic research outside my expertise in the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Longitudinal Analysis of Historical Demographic Data summer course. Antoinette Fauve-Chamoux spurred my conference participation by organizing panels at Social Science History Association Conference (SSHA) and European Social Science History Conference (ESSHC) for me to participate in, and later invited me to École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris in 2018 to present at her weekly seminar. Conference and workshop audiences at SSHA, Population Association of America (PAA), ESSHC, Modern History Workshop, and the Work, Family, Time Workshop all provided invaluable feedback on my working projects, though as in all academic work, remaining errors are solely my own. This whole journey could not have started without my undergraduate mentors. Jennifer Deane gave me the biggest encouragement that I could succeed in graduate school and pushed me to continue my studies. Bart Finzel gave me my first research assistantship and career advice that shaped my future as a data scientist (even if I didn’t believe him at the time). Stephen Gross showed me that the kind of quantitative history I wanted to do was something worthwhile and nothing to scoff at (apologies to my History Methods Course and my 10 minute tirade on the benefits of quantitative methods in history). Even if I don’t live within 3 households of my kin, my family has supported me throughout my whole life. My parents, Brett and Jamie Nelson, and my brother and sister in-law Barry and Jamie Nelson have always been there for me. Encouraging my love of history and kayaking, walking the Pipestone National Monument the “right” way, and ii MacGyvering tree bark to hold in a snowmobile spark plug are only a few of the important life lessons you have instilled upon me. My parent-in-laws Dave and Kim Kvam and all of the Kvam siblings (Ellie Kvam, Nick and Dani Kvam, Isak Kvam and Maria Thompson) thanks for listening to me drone about my research over a cup of coffee and watching me win the Kvam Croquet tournament in 2012. While it was a close call on who to dedicate this dissertation to, the runner ups were Dula Ann Kvamdottir, First of her Name, Ruler of the Free Kitties, Mother of Tabbies, Khaleesi of the Great Glass Sunroom, and Minerva “Lil’ Smokey” Meowgonagall who tried to cuddle at all times, get outside, make unwanted edits of my drafts, knock stuff off the dresser, and cry for food (as if 12 lbs. cats are being underfed…). Despite all of their shenanigans, their independent and sassy nature have always proved enjoyable over the past 6 years. At the end of it all, none of this would have been possible without Molly Kvam. Her support, whether reading a draft of my paper and butchering it with a red pen (the verb and color of pen are descriptively accurate), providing an ear to listen to me gripe about research and writing, or doing some of my chores in order to let me (or force me to?) focus on my dissertation made all of this possible. Molly, for one of our anniversaries, you wrote me a book called “Wolfi and Schnappi: A Love Story.” While not as romantic nor as well written, this dissertation is dedicated to you in the same spirit as the book you wrote me. iii Abstract Jeffersonian yeoman agricultural tradition represents the “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” narrative of United States identity with its emphasis on independence, hard- work, and strong family networks. This Jeffersonian narrative specifically focuses on the patriarchal authority of the white male farmer taming nature and the frontier, ignoring the importance and roles of women, children, and social networks on the farm. My dissertation uses farm diaries and the Census to address these invisible forms of labor largely ignored in the traditional narrative. Andrew Peterson’s diaries described family labor and neighbor labor exchanged with nearby families. While living in a frontier area, exchanged neighbor labor worked with the Peterson household through the 1860s until Andrew’s children were old enough to work in the fields. Neighborhood exchange of labor complemented a low worker to consumer ratio within the Peterson household, and was not simply a frontier or pre- capitalist form of bartering. Farm diaries better describe the work of these invisible groups than the Census, but Andrew still underreported women’s work due to traditional narrative biases. Gendered ideologies and census procedures emphasized norms of separate work spheres and reinforced the traditional agricultural narrative at the expense of these invisible groups. While most of the bias for women occurred in planning by Census officials, enumerator practices and biases resulted in inconsistent reporting for children. Biases such as month of enumeration and sex of the respondent were small but statistically significant for women and children. Other important socio-demographic variables for occupational responses included age, school attendance, marital status, and parental occupation. iv Availability of new complete count census data allows for measuring kin networks beyond the household. Kin propinquity declined in the United States from 30% in 1790 to 6% by 1940, which closely mirrored long-term declines in agriculture and intergenerational coresidence due to urbanization and industrialization. Kin propinquity was especially high in New England prior to 1840, and Appalachia and Utah after 1850. The convergence in kin propinquity rates for younger and elderly people between 1850 and 1940 were caused by declining fertility, declining mortality, and younger generations leaving the farm with better economic opportunities elsewhere. v Table of Contents List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………..…vii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………..….….vii Introduction: Invisible Labor and Networks…………………………………………...…..1 Chapter 1: “Those Who Labour in the Earth”: A Literature Review of U.S. Agricultural and Demographic History……...…………………………………….....7 Chapter 2: Improving the Big Woods: Andrew Peterson’s Family and Neighbor Labor in Nineteenth-Century Minnesota…………………………………………………25 Chapter 3: “The Return Should be ‘None’”: Occupational Responses for Farm Women and Children in the Census, 1850-1940…………………………………………53 Chapter 4: Brother Bought Himself a Farm Nearby: The Decline of Kin Propinquity in the United States, 1790-1940…………………………………………………………101 Conclusion: Beyond the Household………………………..…………………………...135 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………… 139 Appendix A: Andrew Peterson Diary Coding Description…………………………..….157 Appendix B: Kin Propinquity Data Quality Issues……………………………………...167 vi List of Tables 3-1: Hypothetical Farm Contributions of Andrew Peterson Family, 1880………………60 3-2: U.S. Census Universes for Occupation by Year, 1850-1950………………………...62 3-3: Variables for Logistic Models by Year………………………………………………79 3-4: Means of Variables by Regression, 1860-1870……………………………………...84 3-5: Logistic Model Occupational Response 1860-1870…………………………………86 3-6: Means of Variables by Regression, 1880……………………………………………88 3-7: Logistic Regression Occupational Responses for Boys in MN River Valley, 1880………………………………………………………………………………………89 3-8: Logistic Regression