I
70-26 ,374
TWAROG, Katherine Foster Jorgensen, 1933- PRE-EXISTING KINSHIP TIES AND MIGRATION PATTERNS: A GENEALOGICAL APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF MIGRATION-SYSTEMS.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D. , 1970 Anthropology
University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
c) Katherine Foster Jorgensen Twarog 1971
ALL' RKSHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED PRE-EXISTING KINSHIP TIES AND MIGRATION PATTERNS:
A GENEALOGICAL APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS
OF MIGRATION-SYSTEMS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Katherine'Jorgensen Twarog, B.A., M .A. * * * * * * *
The Ohio State University 1970
Approved by
Adviser Department of Anthr ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Dr. Erika Bourguignon, my adviser, for her
invaluable and thoughtful criticisms and suggestions during the
research and analysis of this material. Few students have had the
opportunity to work as closely as I have worked with Dr. Bourguignon
during both my undergraduate and graduate years at The Ohio State
University. There is no way to fully acknowledge my appreciation
for the friendship and encouragement of Dr. Bourguignon and her
husband, Paul Bourguignon.
I am very grateful to Dr. Leo Estel, Dr„ Francis Utley, and
Dr. Robert Dentan for reading my thesis and for their very helpful
criticisms and comments. I wish also to thank Dr. T. R. Williams
for his assistance with the initial formulation of this problem and
Dr. William Petersen for his suggestions and comments about relevant
demographic material.
My doctoral course work and the first portion of my field work was generously supported by a grant from the National Institute
for Mental Health.
I am also indebted to librarians at The Ohio State Univer
sity Library, the Ohio Historical Society Library, The Ohio State
Library, and the Pennsylvania State Library for their efforts on my
b ehalf. I should also like to acknowledge the assistance of my major informants in the study, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Bentz, of
Pataskala, Ohio, Miss Jennie Grable, of Pataskala, Ohio, Mr. H.
Clinton Baird, of Springfield, Ohio, and Mrs. Russell Mauger of
Baltimore, Ohio. During the years of this study, the Bentzes have become close friends who have helped with this research in innum erable ways.
Certainly, no list of acknowledgments would be complete without the names of my friends, Mrs. Martha Kitts, Mrs. Anne
Zimmer, and Mrs. Use Gould, who donated so many many hours of their limited time to help with the time-consuming work involved in the processing of the field data.
I wish to particularly thank Mrs . Charles Ott for her care ful, meticulous1 preparation of the present manuscript.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge my debt to those members of my own nuclear families of orientation and procreation who have been so involved in the completion of this project. My parents,
Dr. and Mrs. H. H. Foster, have shown as always compassion and understanding. Certainly without my husband Leon's patience, wisdom, and good humor completion of the dissertation would have been impossible. Only my husband and our friends could ultimately understand why the Twarogs and the "Tworgs’' are frequently referred to not as accident-prone, but catastrophe-prone'.
Ultimately, however, this dissertation must be dedicated to the six very lively, often impossible, "Tworgs": Stas, Becky,
iii Jill, Wendy, Bill, and Sophie, who probably scarcely remember when Mother wasn't in school, or cross, or both. I can only hope that they pursue their professional or graduate studies before rather than after they have their own nuclear families of procreation „
iv VITA
April 4, 1933 ...... Born, Lodi, Wisconsin
1959-1960 ...... Fellow, General Motors Scholar ship, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1960 ...... B.A. (cum laude), Anthropology, The Ohio State U n iversity, Colum bus, Ohio
1960 ...... Phi Beta Kappa, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1960-1961 ...... Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Scholar ship, Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1962 ..... M .A., Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. The Structure and Function of the Kinship System of a Midwestern Community
1962 ...... Teaching Assistant, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1962 ...... Research Associate, Fels Memorial Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio
1962-1967 ...... Fellow, National Institute for Mental Health, Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1967 (Fall) ...... Instructor, Anthropology, Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio
v Publications
Jorgensen, Katherine Foster (now Twarog): The Structure and Function of the Kinship System of A Midwestern Community, unpub. M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
"Endogamous Mating and Kindred Migration in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries in the Midwest," Paper presented at American Anthropological Association M eetings, Nov ember 1962
"Notes on the Role of.Fictive:American Kinship," (With Millicent Ayoub) Central States Anthropological Society Meetings, St. Louis, Missouri, May 1963
"Midwestern Rural Kinship Patterns in the 19th and early 20th Centuries; A Preliminary Comparison," Paper presented at the Ohio Academy of Sciences, Columbus, Ohio, April 1966
Fields of Study
Major Field: Cultural Anthropology
Studies in Kinship and Social Organization. Professor Erika Bourguignon.
Studies in Linguistics „ Professors Francis Utley, W-Y Wang, and Leonard Newmark
Studies in Folklore. Professors Francis Utley and Archer Taylor
Studies in Abnormal Psychology: Professors Alvin Scoedal and Sheppard Iiverant
Studies in Historical Methodology. Professor John C. Rule
vi CONTENTS Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii
VITA...... iv
TABLES ...... x i
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1. The Problem ...... 2
2. The American Kinship System ...... 7
II STUDIES IN INTERNAL MIGRATION...... 12
1. Recent Developments in Migration Theory . 14
a) Repeat Migration...... 19
b) Kinship and Migration Studies ...... 21
2. The Phenomena of Chain-Migration ...... 23
3. Discussion ...... 31
III THE GENEALOGICAL M ETH O D...... 34
1. The Use of the Genealogical Method ...... 35
2. Definitions and Attributes of Genealogies and Genealogical Knowledge ...... 39
3. Genealogical Studies in Western Societies .... 41
a) The Small Community Study ...... 43
b) The Problem-Oriented Territorially Demarcated Study ...... 44
c) The Problem-Oriented y Non-Territorially Demarcated Study...... 49
v ii CONTENTS (Continued) Page 4. Historians' Use of Genealogical Material .. „ <,. 5 2
5 . Metge's Study of the Maori ... 0...... 54
IV THE FIVE OHIO TOWNSHIPS...... 58
1. Classification of Migrational Events...... 60
2. Analytical Procedure...... 68
3. The Locale of the Study...... 70
a) The Selection of Townships...... 70
b) Natural Environmental Conditions ... o o.... 72
c) Cultural Environmental Factors ...... 72
d) Population Com position ...... 75
4. Summary ...... 82
V THE ELEVEN FAMILIES IN THE DEPTH - GENEALOGIES ...... 84
1. The Presentation of the Genealogical Data 88
a) The Numbers and Percentages of Migrants and Migrational Events in Each of the Eleven Families ...... 88
b) The Areas of Destination for Out-Migra- tional Events from the Five Ohio Town ships ...... 92
c) The Numbers and Percentages of Kin-linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events Found in Each of the Eleven Families .. ... 95
d) The Numbers and Percentages of S p ecific types of Kin-Linked Migration Events Occurring in Each of the Eleven Families .. 98
2. The Implications of the Genealogical Data 103
a) The Evidence of Chain-Migration in the Family Genealogies...... 108
v iii CONTENTS (Continued) Page
3. Summary .... o...... Ill
VI THE HISTORICAL PATTERNING OF MIGRATION EVENTS ...... 113
1. The Coding of the Genealogical Data 114
2 . The A nalysis of the G enealogical D a ta ...... 116
a) The Numbers and Percentages of Migrants Classified by the Date of Birth of the First-Born Members of the Genealogical Generation ...... 116
b) Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships 123
c) The Analysis of the Numbers and Percen tages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Historical Time Period ...... 129
d) The Analysis of Specific Types of Kin- Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Historical Time Period 132
3. The Implications of the Historical Patterns .... 140
4. Sum m ary...... 145
VII AGENCIES OF KIN LIAISON IN THE FIVE TOWNSHIPS. 147
1. Informal Agencies of Kin Liaison Found in the Eleven Fam ilies ...... 149
a) Persons Functioning as Agencies of Kin liaison ...... 149
b) Informal Patterns of Visiting ...... 154
c) Special Circumstances in the Townships 156 Promoting Kin L iaison......
2. Formal Agencies of Kin Liaison...... 15 7
a) The Rites de Passage...... 157
b) The Family Reunion ...... 158
ix CONTENTS (Continued) Page
3 . The Agencies of Kin-Liaison and Migration S y s t e m s...... 162
VIII GENERAL PATTERNS OF POPULATION MOVEMENT IN OHIO ...... 165
1. Migration Systems and the State of Ohio ...... 166
2. The Evidence for Two Migration Systems in the Census Data ...<>.. 169
a) The High Efficiency Migration System ...... 169
b) Low Efficiency Migration Systems ...... 177
3. The Comparability of the Census Data With the Genealogical D ata...... 183
IX CONCLUSIONS...... 188
1. Findings of the Present Study ...... 188
2. Methods ...... 192
3. Implications of the Data ...... 192
4. Implications for Further Research...... 194
APPENDIXES...... 197
A The Genealogical Data for the Eleven Families in the Study...... • , ..... , . 198
B Census Data on Population Mobility ...... 284
REFERENCES...... 304
x .TABLES
Population Growth in Fairfield, Licking, and Franklin Counties: 1810-1900
Population Growth in the Five Ohio Townships in the Study: 1850—1900
States of Origin of Native-Born Population of Ohio and of the Five Townships: 1850
Native-Born and Foreign-Bom Population of Ohio and of the Five Townships: 1850
Areas of Origin of the Population of the Five Ohio Townships: 1850
Major States of Origin of Township Population and Religious Institutions Found in Townships
Selected Characteristics of the Eleven Families in the Study
Numbers and Percentages of Migrants and M igrational Events : Rank Order
Average Number of Migrational Events per Individual Migrant
Areas of Destination for Out-Migrational Events from the Five Townships
Areas of Destination for Out-Migrational Events from the Five Townships Excluding Return Migration
Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin—linked Migrational Events
Numbers and Percentages of Adult Kin-linked and Mon Kin-linked Migrational Events
Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
15 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Adult Kin-Linked Migrational Events 101
16 Rank Order of the Eleven Families with Respect to Percentages Involved in Migra tional Events, Kin-Linked Migrational Events, and Migrational Events with Out-of-State Destinations 104
17 Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Historical Time Period 118
18 Average Number of Migrational Events per Individual Migrant in Each Historical Time Period 119
19 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events in Each Historical Time Period 124
20 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events Excluding Return-Migration, in each Historical Time Period • 127
21 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-linked and Non Kin-linked Migrational Events in Each Historical Time Period 130
22 Numbers and Percentages of Adult Kin-linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Historical Time Period 131
23 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Historical Time Period 134
24 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Adult Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Historical Time Period 135
25 The Numbers and Percentages of Ohio Out- Migrants in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska: 1850-1950 170
x ii TABLES (Continued) Number Page
26 Migratory Exchange Between Ohio and Illinois: 1850-1950 172
27 Migratory Exchange Between Ohio and Iowa: 1850-1950 173
28 Migratory Exchange Between Ohio and Kansas:1850-1950 174 29 Migratory Exchange Between Ohio and Nebraska: 1850-1950 175
30 Migratory Exchange Between the East North Central Division and the West North Central Division: 1850-1950 178
31 Numbers and Percentages of Native-Born Ohioans living in Ohio: 1850-1960 180
32 Rural-Urban Distribution of Native-Born Ohioans Living in Ohio: 1870-1950 181
33 Numbers and Percentages of Persons Bom in East North Central Division Living in East North Central Division: 1850-1960 184
34 Numbers and Percentages of Native-Born Ohioans living in East North Central Division: 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1960 185
35 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Thomas Youmans Family 210
36 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: Thomas Youmans Family 211
37 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-linked and Non Kin-linked Migrational Events: Thomas Youmans Family 212
38 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Thomas Youmans Family 213
x iii TABLES (Continued) Number Page
39 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Nathanial Atkinson Family 218
40 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: Nathanial Atkinson Family 219
41 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Nathanial Atkinson Family 220
42 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Nathanial Atkinson Family 221
43 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Jonathan Grable Family 225
44 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: Jonathan Grable Family 226
45 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Jonathan Grable Family 227
46 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Jonathan Grable Family 228
47 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Abraham Miller Family 231
48 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: Abraham Miller Family 232
49 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Abraham Miller Family 233
50 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Abraham Miller Family 234
x iv TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
51 numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: John Baird Family 238
52 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the F ive Ohio Tow nships: John Baird Family 239
5 3 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Mon Kin-Linked M igrational Events: John Baird Fa mi ly 240
54 Mumfoers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: John Baird Family 241
55 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Michael Beem Family 246
5 6 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio To-wnships: Michael Beem Family 247
5 7 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Michael Beem Fa mily 248
5 8 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events : Michael Beem Fa mily 249
59 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Jonathan Elliot Family 253
60 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: Jonathan Elliot Fa mily 254
61 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Jonathan Elliot Family 255
62 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Jonathan Elliot Family 256
x v TABLES (Continued) Number Page
63 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: William Mauger Family 260
64 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: W illiam Mauger Family 261
65 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-linked Migrational Events: William Mauger Family 262
66 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: William Mauger Family 263
67 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Frederic Mauger Family 267
68 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: Frederic Mauger Family 268
69 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Frederic Mauger Family 269
70 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Frederic Mauger Family 270
71 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Daniel Snider Family 273
72 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: Daniel Snider Family 274
73 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-linked Migrational Events: Daniel Snider Family 275
74 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Daniel Snider Family 276
x v i TABLES (Continued) Number Page
75 Numbers and Percentages in Each Genealogical Generation: Jeremiah Mauger Family 280
76 Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships: Jeremiah Mauger Family 281-
77 Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Jeremiah Mauger Family 282
78 Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events: Jeremiah Mauger Family 283
79 Historical Statistics of the United States: 1850-1950 287-290
80 Numbers and Percentages of White Native-Born Population of East North Central Division Remaining in East North Central Division 291
81 Numbers and Percentages of White Native-Born Population of Ohio Remaining in East North Central Division, 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1960 293
82 Distribution by Numbers and Percentages of Native-Born Ohioans: 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1960 294-295
83 Lifetime Migration Histories by Age Group and Type of Birthplace 297-299
84 Numbers and Percentages Remaining in State of Origin by Age Group and Type of Birthplace 301
85 Total Numbers and Percentages Remaining in State of Origin by Classification in Terms of SMA or Non SMA Birthplace 302
x v ii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The focal problem of the present study is the relationship between pre-existing kinship ties and the types of migration patterns found in five central Ohio townships since their settlement in the early 19th century.
The major goal of this study is to test the hypothesis that pre-existing kinship ties have been of great significance for migration processes found in these townships both for the process of chain- 1 2 migration and for the formation of actual rnigration-systems. This study also attempts to discover whether the types of kin-linked migra- 3 tional events found at different historical time periods and the con comitant types of chain-migration and rnigration-systems of these time periods, have reflected the demands of the cultural environment of that
Chain-migration is defined as that type of migration in which pre-existing kinship ties and concomitant primary social relation ships are the major factor in the selection of the area of destination. Ideally, chain-migration results in a clustering of related persons from the same area of origin at a given area of destination. 2 Migration-system is defined as "Two or more areas of origin and destination which interact in terms of significant migratory inter change to form migration patterns," (Hillery, Brown, and De Jong 1965: 3 6 ). O A migrational event is defined as the semi-permanent or per manent movement of an individual from one place of residence to another outside the county of the initial place of residence. A kin- linked migrational event is one which includes pre-existing consan- guineal or affinal kinship ties between migrants or between migrants and residents at the area of destination. 1 time period. The role of informal and formal agencies of kin liaison^
in these townships in our study in maintaining lines of communication
between geographically distant kinsmen that have facilitated kin-
linked migrational events is also explored.
The second goal of the present study is to demonstrate the
feasibility of combining a traditional anthropological research tech
nique , the genealogical method, with the utilization of demographic
and historical data in order to provide types of concrete behavioral
data which can furnish new insights into certain aspects of American
s o c ie ty .
1. The Problem
Only a handful of scholars have tried to explore systematic
ally the relationships between the patterns of social organization and
the patterns of internal migration in North America, (Brown, 1951, 1952;
Brown, Schwarzkeller and Mangalam, 1963; Schwarzkeller and Seggar
1967; Till and Brown 1967; Hillery, Brown, and De Jong 1965). Indeed
the prevailing interpretation seems to be that, if there were any
demonstrable relationship, it would unquestionably be a negative one,
namely that migration has contributed to the fragmentation of the Amer
ican family. The following statement by Conrad Arens berg, eloquently
illustrates this viewpoint:
The American family is distinguished by the great importance, emphasis upon, and independence of the small, immediate (or biological) family of father, mother, and minor children . . .
4 Agencies of kin liaison refers to those persons or occasions that function to sustain close ties between geographically distant kin sm en . American custom attempts to generalize this small unit, to free it from the authority of other family ties, etc. . . The household is small and mobile, enabling the family to follow the husband a s he moves from position to position from one town to another. Frequent moves increase the family's isolation, not only from kindred, but from neighbors and members of a given community in the great fluidity of American occupational and residential life. (1968: 232-233)
In recent years, a few sociological studies have suggested that the American family is neither as isolated nor fragmented as is frequently supposed, (e.g., Sussman and Burchinal 1962; Leichter and Mitchell 1967; Tilly and Brown 1967). Indeed, the sociologists who have worked on the Beech Creek study in Eastern Kentucky were able to show that pre-existing kinship ties have been relevant for the formation of chain-migration patterns in contemporary Appalachia,
(Brown, et_al., page 2, citation).
During the course of field-work in Illinois in 1960, I col lected rather extensive genealogical information for four pioneer families in one township, (Jorgensen 1962a). In the analysis of these genealogies, I was struck both by the close kinship ties that had existed for these families in the generations before their in-migration to the township and by the close kinship ties between those members of the families who migrated further Westward, (Jorgensen 1962b).
Material from county histories throughout the East North
Central Division of the Midwest, (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) and discussions with Professors Carl C. Taylor,
Everett Rogers, and Louanna Pettay, who were then at The Ohio State University and who came from similar Midwestern communities, strongly suggested that I was not dealing with an aberrant group.
There seemed to be a very real possibility that pre-existing kinship ties had played and were still playing a major role in migration pat terns throughout the Division.
On the basis of these explorations, a series of interrelated hypotheses were formulated. The major hypothesis was that pre existing kinship ties have consistently been an important factor in migration patterns in the East North Central Division of the Midwest.
The importance of these kinship ties was reflected by the fact that, on an impressionistic level, chain-migration seems to have been the predominant migration process in the area.
There were clear indications, however, that while chain- migration seemed to have been consistently important, there were some significant changes in the types of kin-linked migrational events found at different historical time periods. Consequently, the second hypothesis was formulated: the types of pre-existing kinship ties relevant for the process of chain-migration at a particular historical time period and, subsequently, the type of migration-system found during that particular historical time period, would reflect the nature of the cultural environment of that period.
One major question, however, was how lines of communica tion were maintained between geographically distant kinsmen, a pre requisite for the development of patterns of chain-migration and the concomitant development of rnigration-systems. This led to the third hypothesis: it was necessary to examine the roles of both informal and formal agencies of kin liaison to understand adequately the factors involved in the creation and sustaining of actual rnigration- system s .
It was obvious that an approach combining anthropological research techniques with research techniques from other disciplines such as history and demography was required.
It was decided to analyze as a test case the relationships between pre-existing kinship ties and the types of migration patterns found in five representative central Ohio townships from their settle ment in the early 19th century to 1967.
In the course of field-work in these townships, depth- genealogies^ were compiled for eleven representative pioneer families who had been resident in the townships since the initial settlements in the early 1800s. It was possible to collect genealogical informa tion for 2980 descendants of the progenitors of these familes. How ever, the present analysis is restricted to those 1265 persons in the depth-genealogies who were either (a) members of generations preceding township settlement, (b) members of generations who came to the townships as in-migrants during the phase of initial settlement of the townships, or (c) members of the eleven families actually bom
^Depth-genealogies are defined as genealogies based on the extensive knowledge of the kinship specialist or genealogies of one or more pedigrees, where such knowledge exceeds, considerably, the customary range of kinship knowledge in the society. g in the five townships. These data, supplemented by data from primary and secondary historical and demographic sources, comprise the basic material for analysis.
Migrational events recorded in the eleven depth-genealogies were classified in order to test the following two hypotheses:
(1) Kin-linked migrational events have always been an im portant factor in migration events in eleven representative pioneer families in the five townships.
(2) While kin-linked migrational events have always been the numerically dominant type of migration event, the specific kin- linked migrational events of a given time period are clearly related to the cultural environment of that time period. That is, the types of kin-linked migrational events in the five townships have changed over tim e.
Intensive interview material and data from other sources, such as the local newspapers, have been used to explore the third hypothesis:
(3) Both informal and formal agencies of kin liaison have played a major role in sustaining lines of communication between geographically distant kinsmen that have been relevant for the pat terns of chain-migration and the concomitant development of
0 There are 1715 persons for whom genealogical information was collected who are omitted from the present study. Of these, 129 are collateral descendants of those members in (b) who did not migrate into the townships; 1586 are the descendants of out migrants from the five townships who were not themselves bom in the townships. It should be noted that, in most instances, the progenitors of the eleven families were not the actual first settlers in the five townships, but their ancestors. rnigration-systems from the five townships.
Before proceeding to the presentation and analysis of the
basic data, a brief discussion of the major attributes of American
kinship and the kinship terminology used in the present study is
necessary. In the following chapters the literature on current migra
tion theory and current migration studies is reviewed. Then, the
genealogical method, its utilization in studies in Western societies,
and its applicability to the present study will be examined.
2. The American Kinship System
While there have been no substantive disagreements among
anthropologists about such basic aspects of the American kinship
system as kinship terminology and marriage patterns, there have been
marked differences in their interpretations of the role of the kinship
system in the larger society. While it is possible that these inter pretations are the result of the difference between broad general
studies of American kinship as compared to detailed studies of more tightly delineated areas, such as a New England city, (Warner 1941), the differences are striking enough to suggest some very real difficulties.
Two examples are indicative of this. In their 1955 discus sion of the American kinship system, which was based on the analysis of American kinship terminology, Homans and Schneider stated that:
The American kinship system is marked by bilateral descent and the nuclear family and the kindred are the basic kin groups. Marriage is monogamous, residence neolocal, and inheritance by testamentary disposition. Succession is absent; a man gets no 8
political or other office simply through kinship ties. The range of kinship is narrow and kinship tends to be sharply divorced from other institutions such as the occupational system, the effect being to make kinship appear small beside such complex and ramifying institutions as economics and technology. (1955:1194)
Indeed, Homans and Schneider reached the conclusion that,
"The American kinship system appears to be pushed to the wall by other institutions and much of its coloring is derived from this,"
(1955: 1208).7
The conclusions reached by Warner in his Yankee City study are in contrast to those expressed by Homans and Schneider, (Warner
1941; Homans and Schneider: 1955). After studying the intricate genealogical charts prepared by his researchers there, Warner noted:
The extended kinship relations of all groups in the community were sampled in great detail and charts were made which demonstrated the interconnected ness on a kinship basis of hundreds and sometimes of thousands of people. These charts clearly demonstrate that kinship in our society, far from being the moribund type of relationship of which many have accused it, is a vital structure which organizes much of the lives of the members of the community and gives them a firm place in the total society. (1941: 60-61)
The first basic point of agreement is that American kinship is, in Murdock's terms, "cognatic," that is "a grouping of kinsmen organized by genealogical ties without particular emphasis on either patrilineal or matrilineal connections," (1960:1).
7 The resemblance of Homans and Schneider's conclusions to those of Arensberg's, which were presented on page 2 , is clear. 9 In his essay on the kindred, Freeman has suggested the following distinctive characteristics of cognatic relationships:
Cognation, genealogically defined, is the relation ship between persons of the same stirp or stock; a stock being in Radcliffe-Brown's words, "all the descendants of a man and his wife counting descent through females as well as males . " (1961: 204)
Freeman has explored the implications of these cognatic stocks for the formation of the kindred of any given individual:
If we take an individual as our point of reference it will be observed that he belongs to as many stocks as he recognizes married pairs of truncal ancestors, and that it is all of these stocks, taken together, which make up his personal kindred. (1961: 204)
Freeman points out that an "obvious criterion in establish ing the range of a kindred is the extent to which an individual can precisely trace bilaterally his (or her) genealogical relationships, "
(1961: 207). The precise limits to which a given individual will, indeed, trace kindred relationships, Freeman further notes, are to
"a marked extent, optative," (1961: 209).
David Schneider has suggested the lack of general agree ment on the limits of American kinship in his description of the ambiguity of American kinship terminology:
"Family" can mean all of one's relatives, but "my family" or "the family" means a unit which contains a husband and wife and their child or children, all of whom are kinds of relatives. "The immediate family" is another way of restricting the all-inclu sive scope of "family" from all relatives to certain very close ones. (1968: 30) 10
On a more technical level, however, it is possible to use traditional anthropological definitions to distinguish three types of
"family" units in American society. The average adult in American society is first, as a child, a member of a nuclear family of orienta tion, that is, the family he is bom into and participates in as a dependent child. Secondly, he is a member of a nuclear family of procreation, that is, the family he creates when he assumes his adult role of either husband or wife and potential parent. Thirdly he has a potentially optative filiation with members of his personal kindred outside of his nuclear families of orientation and procreation^
(Parsons 1943: 24-27).
It should be stressed that there are significant differences in the range of consanguineal kinsmen that are recognized as poten tial kindred members both from society to society and from individual to individual, (Freeman, 1961: 207-208). Normally, in American society, effective, interacting kindreds do not extend beyond the range of first or second cousin, (Freeman 1961: 208). It is possible that there are also class-linked differences involved in kindred range,
(Warner 1941).
One important fact about American kinship should be stressed at this point. Although the American kinship system is classified as "cognatic," surnames are inherited patrilineally and a woman marrying normally takes the surname of her husband. As long as effective kindred membership is dependent primarily on the personal memory of a given individual, this change in surnames of female 11 descendants is not particularly relevant. If additional information is needed, however, it is much easier to trace the male descendants of a progenitor than the female descendants.
In the present study, the following kinship units have been used. First, the cognatic stocks of the progenitors of the eleven families in the study will be referred to as stocks or, in the broader term, as the family of the progenitor (or truncal ancestor, in Freeman's terms) i .e ., the family of Frederic Mauger, (Appendix A: 259, 264-271).
Below the level of the progenitor, however, for a given person in a given stock, his relationships to his elementary families will be classified on the basis of the previously suggested criteria as occurring in either the nuclear family of orientation or the nuclear family of procreation.
The term, extended kin group, will be used in this study to designate members of the cognatic stock studied, who for a given individual in that stock, are members of neither his nuclear family of orientation nor his nuclear family of procreation.
By focusing on the collection of data for the eleven stocks, information has not been collected specifically for the kindred of any given informant. Therefore, given the limitations of my knowledge on the kindred affiliations of my informants, beyond the extended kin group, persons potentially in the category of kindred, but not in the extended kin group I studied, will simply be referred to as kinsmen. CHAPTER II
STUDIES IN INTERNAL MIGRATION
Migration, that is, the large-scale movement of individuals from one permanent area of residence to another, has traditionally been of much interest to anthropologists. With very few exceptions, however, American cultural anthropologists have not been particularly interested in research on internal migration patterns of the Western
European derived segment of the North American population. The research concerning this segment has primarily focused on contem porary problems in other areas, (e.g. Mead 1942; Gorer 1948; Warner et a l.. 1942, 1943, 1945, 1947, 1959, 1963; West 1945; Gallaher
1961; Vidich and Bensman 1957).
In recent years, a number of anthropologists have studied various dimensions of the contemporary kinship structure of American society, (Homans and Schneider 1955; Cumming and Schneider 1961;
Goodenough 1965; Schneider 1965; Wallace and Atkins 1960; Ayoub
1966; Schneider 1968). Many of the questions that have been formulated in this context by the traditionally non-Westem society oriented anthropologist have also been formulated by scholars in other dis ciplines such as sociology and history. A number of these scholars have demonstrated the importance of kinship in American society,
12 13
(e.g. Parsons 1943; Sussman and Burchinal 1962; Sussman 1968;
Farber 1966; Leichter and Mitchell 1967; Saveth 1963; Baltzell 1958).
American anthropologists, however, have not generally studied the inter-relationships between the American kinship system and internal migration patterns. Indeed, only a handful of scholars in any of the social sciences, have studied these phenomena, (James
S. Brown, et a l., 1951, 1952, 1963, 1965; Schwarzkeller and Eggan
1967; Matthews 1965). The sociologists. Brown, Schwarzkeller, and Mangalam, have specifically referred to:
The serious deficiency in studies of migration, namely, the superficial treatment of the part played by the family structure in migration and in the adjustment phase of the migration process. (1963: 48)
Historians have also seen the lack of more precise kinship knowledge as a real deterrent in the analysis of migration as it relates to studies of settlement patterns. For example, Eblen has discussed the subjective rather than factual basis of present histor ical opinion in his analysis of the population composition of nine teenth century frontier counties:
Students of the frontiers of the United States invar iably feel compelled to generalize on the physical nature of the migratory populations. Historians and sociologists alike have relied on subjective evalua tions resulting in generalizations that cover much of the possible spectrum . . . as everything from "a family affair" . . . to that of "only young men of certain types and conditions." (1965: 399)
Eblen used census data to demonstrate that the population characteristics of the agricultural frontiers in the non slave-owning 14 parts of the Western United States between 1840-1860 were generally comparable with the age and sex characteristics of the populations of larger areas and of the nation as a whole. Even his careful study, however, did not describe kinship units above the level of the nuclear family that may have been relevant for the frontier counties of that period, (Eblen 1965).
1. Recent Developments in Migration Theory
Sociologists, economists, historians, and demographers have made innumerable studies on internal migration in the United
\ States, (Bogue and Hagood 1953; Hauser and Duncan 1959; Lee and
Lee 1957; Taeuber and Taeuber 1958; Glass and Eversley 1965;
Wittke 1964; Clark 1959). Current migration theory, however, re flects the dissatisfaction of some social scientists with the gap in our knowledge about the precise relationship of cultural institutions, such as kinship, to the cultural process of migration. Hillery, Brown, and De Jong have clearly been cognizant of problems such as this in their discussion of the inadequacies of migration theory:
The available statistical tools force one to define migration as if it occurs only in events, e .g ., migration is assumed to "take place" when a boun dary is crossed. Our frame of reference is that migration is a group process rather than an ^/Isolatec^ individual event, (1965: 35)
The demographer, Everett Lee, has also stressed this point.
He has noted that until the 1960s the major theories of migration have followed lines that were developed in Ravenstein's 1885 postulation 15
of migration laws. These laws were, of course, based on general
izations from statistical data available at that time, (Ravenstein
1882, 1889). Lee concludes that:
In the three-quarters of a century which have passed, Ravenstein has been much quoted and occasionally challenged. But while there have been literally thousands of migration studies in the meantime, few additional generalizations have been advanced . . . Most studies have focused upon the characteristics of individual migrants with little reference to the volume of migration or of the assimilation of the migrant at destination. (1%5. 48)
Lee is interested in defining cross-cultural components of
migration. He first defines migration as, simply, a permanent or
semi-permanent change of residence. He then differentiates four
components of every act of migration. These are (1) an area of origin,
(2) an area of destination, (3) an intervening set of obstacles, and
(4) personal factors, (1965: 49-50). He then distinguishes factors in
each of these four areas that are relevant for any given decision to
migrate. These are (1) factors associated with the area of origin, which can be both positive and negative; ( 2 ) factors associated with
the area of destination, which can be both positive and negative;
(3) intervening obstacles, such as distance; and (4) personal factors.
In conjunction with the latter point, he specifically notes that "it is not so much the actual factors at origin and destination as the perception of these factors which results in migration," (1965: 50).
After discussing the relationships of the volume of migration to the economic conditions at both the area of origin and the area of 16
destination, Lee proceeds to a discussion of migration-streams and
counter-streams.'1' It is precisely Lee's emphasis on the significance
of the counter-stream in maintaining relationships between the area
of origin and the area of destination that represents a significant
departure in migration theory. The following quotation is representa
tive of his emphasis on this point:
A counter-stream is established for several reasons . . . The very existence of a migration stream creates contacts between origin and destination . . . The overcoming of a set of intervening obstacles by early migrants lessens the difficulties of the pas sage for later migrants and, in effect, pathways are created which pass over intervening opportunities /"my italics_/just as elevated highways pass over the countryside. (1965; 54_55)
Lee concludes his discussion by stressing the non-random-
ness of the migrating population:
Migration is selective . . . This simply states that migrants are not a random sample of the population at origin. The reason why migration is selective is that persons respond differently to the sets of plus and minus factors at origin and destination, have different abilities to overcome the intervening sets of obstacles, and differ from each other in terms of the personal factors discussed above. (1965: 57)
Hillery, Brown, and De Jong have focused on the more spec ific problem of developing an analytical framework for our know
ledge of specific migration streams representative of separate migra tion patterns into a more generalized conceptualization of migration-
As early as 1882, Ravenstein postulated that "each main current of migration produces a compensating counter-current," (188.2: 199). In modem terminology, however, this is phrased as "migration stream and counter-stream," (Bogue 195 7: 7). 17 systems demonstrable on a demographic level of analysis. After discussing the reasons that migration has been conceptualized im plicitly, if not explicitly, as an individual event rather than a group process, they propose the following definition for a migration- system :
A migration system in the most general sense is composed of two or more areas of origin and des tination which "interact" in terms of significant migratory interchange to form migration patterns. (1965: 36)
They then postulate three conditions as both necessary and sufficient to establish the existence of migration systems:
(First) It is necessary to establish the selectivity of migration with reference to direction . . . (Second) For the concept of systems, it is also necessary to establish the presence of an inter change of migrants between the areas involved . . . (Third) There is a need to demonstrate that certain areas tend to exchange migrants with each other more than they exchange with other areas. (1965: 36-38)
Both of these papers are admittedly pioneering theoretical formulations. Lee has formulated a clear, concise, descriptive model of migration, unquestionably applicable to migration in numerous cultures. The model suggested by Hillery, Brown, and De Jong's theoretical formulations is somewhat more limited than Lee's and is somewhat more dependent on the availability of substantive sources of demographic information. They have, however, been able to use such data from the Southern Appalachian sub-regions to demonstrate the presence of migration systems in the contemporary population there. 18
There are, however, certain problems posed by these for
mulations. All migration models, implicitly or explicitly, that focus
on relationships between migration streams and counter-streams,
logically require time as one of the components of the model. That
is, these must be models of a diachronic rather than synchronic
nature. The very existence of a migration system, for example, implies a period of time for the creation of that system. That is, it is possible to study synchronically, the ages and sexes of all out-
migrants from a specific township in 1954. To study the sustained
interaction that Brown, Hillery, and De Jong see as requisite to the discernment of a migration-system, however necessitates longitudinal
studies of extended time depth.
At present, only one series of publications, that of the 2 Beech Creek study in Eastern Kentucky, has met these conditions.
James S. Brown, the second author of the article of migration system s,
(Hillery, Brown, and De Jong 1965) has been involved in research in this area since 1942. A number of publications that are germane to new formulations about both internal migration and American kinship have resulted from the Kentucky study, (Brown 1951, 1952; Brown,
Schwarzkeller, and Mangalam 1963; Scharzkeller and Seggar 1967;
Hillery, Brown, and De Jong 1965). These studies are limited, how ever, to the comparatively recent period between 1942 and 1967.
2 The Beech Creek study, directed by James S. Brown, was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health in cooperation with the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station: (Schwarzkeller and Seggar 1967: 662).
1 19
In order to understand the time dimension more accurately, we need to know more about the circumstances under which a migra tion system is created and what variations are created by different types of intervening obstacles. We also need to know more about the ways in which a migration system may die out in a given area of origin and another migration system become dominant. Stated some what differently, changes in directions of migration streams are probably responses to changes in the total cultural environment of a specific area at a specific time period and can be profitably examined as su ch .
a) Repeat Migration
One problem that has continually plagued scholars of migration in modem Western societies has been the question of how much mobility actually exists as judged on the basis of the total number of persons migrating, rather than the total number of migra- tional events. This has been a particularly acute problem in studies of internal migration in North America where no source of information roughly equivalent to the European population registers exists,
(Thomas 1938: 52, 164, 399, 410, 413; Goldstein 1964: 1120). This means that our precise knowledge of the number of individual mig rants as against the number of individual migrational events is quite spotty and inaccurate. Several American scholars have completed extensive studies with material obtained from these European popula tion registers simply to develop guide-lines for the possible interpre tation of these imprecise areas of knowledge of American internal 20 3 m igration.
Thus, in his 1964 analysis of patterns of repeat migration
in Denmark, Sidney Goldstein found that a comparatively small
percentage of the total population of Denmark was mobile. The
mobile members of the society, however, were mobile enough to
considerably inflate the overall mobility rates. In his analysis of this phenomenon, Goldstein comments that:
The pattern of repeated mobility is most character istic of a limited segment of the population . . . a high degree of residential stability for most of the population is not at all contradictory with high rates of mobility. The repeated moves of a small segment of the population inflate the overall mobility rates well beyond what they would be if mobility were based on the number of migrants rather than on the number of moves . (1964: 1 1 2 1 )
After his analysis of his Danish data, Goldstein deplores the impossibility of replicating that study in the United States with standard data from the United States Census:
It is impossible to differentiate from census reports whether high mobility rates ,/fin the United Statesff7 are the product of the repeated movement of the same persons year after year, or the single moves of a larger number of persons from just one place to another where they become permanent residents. (1964: 1120)
3 The most complete review of the techniques used by demog raphers to study this problem in the United States is presented by Everett Lee in his introduction to his dissertation. Virtually every thing from school and tax records to city directories and utility records have been utilized as resource material for these studies in the United States, (Lee 1951). 21
A preliminary investigation of lifetime migration history tables by the United States Bureau of the Census strongly suggests that Goldstein's conclusions from his Danish study might be applic- 4 able for migration patterns in this country, (Current Population
Reports: Series P-23, No. 25, March 8 , 1968).
Since much theorizing on both the structure of the American kinship system and the role of the family in American society has been based, either implicitly or explicitly, on the assumption of high rates of geographical mobility for the nuclear family units, careful and concise studies showing that, in fact, far fewer nuclear family units migrate than is generally assumed could have complex ramifications for these areas of inquiry.
b. Kinship and Migration Studies
Scholars in several disciplines have made references to the historical role of kinship relations in internal migration in this country. Historians, such as Wertenbaker, (1926) Stilwell, (1948)
Curti, (1959) and Feinstein, (1966) while clearly aware of the import ance of these groups, did not investigate them, however, since they were peripheral to the focal problem of their inquiries . For example,
Stilwell in his discussion of out-migration from Vermont from 1790-
1850, talks at length about the factors that determined the areas of destination for the out-migrants:
4 Data from these lifetime migration tables and from other publications of the United States Bureau of the Census are presented in Chapter VII and Appendix B of the present study. 22
The Vermont migration went for the most part where we would expect it to go . . . in the track of ear lier migration to New York, Ohio, and beyond. There are plenty of obvious geographical reasons for such a drift . . . But there were also personal and clannish reasons that pulled Vermonters into regions where Vermonters had already gone . . . From the time when the first Vermonters blazed their way into "York State," this relaying of migrants persisted . . . The main area of Vermont settlement is a continuous one spreading slowly over the map like ink on a blotter, and crisscrossed with all sorts of ties of blood and friendship. (1948: 138-139)
Anthropologists have noted similar patterns in the small
community in the South and in the Ozarks (e .g ., West 1945; Pearsall
1959; Gallaher 1961; Matthews 1965). In his study, Plainville,
U. S. A ., for instance, West briefly discussed the origins of the
"large extended families "that he found in that area:
The American pioneers raised large families which repeatedly organized themselves into a "clan" system. A man occupied frontier land and his sons, when they married, spread out over the surrounding countryside. As land became scarce, clan members migrated to new frontiers and repeated the same pattern. In any locality, extended families often formed whole neighborhoods, political units, and entire church organizations. (1945: 47)
As has been noted, in my own earlier study in Illinois, I was
able to discern a pattern of generational extended-kin group migra
tion antedating the Illinois settlement by four generations, that was
continued in later migrations toward the Far W est, (Jorgensen 1966).
Although none of these studies attempted more than an
impressionistic description of kin-linked migration, their very similar
ity is suggestive of the possibly wide-spread distribution of this
pattern 23
2. The Phenomena of Chain-Migration
These impressionistically described patterns of kin-linked
migration are very similar to contemporary migration patterns found
by scholars who have studied the phenomena of chain-migration,
(Thomas and Znaniecki; 1918-1919; Price 1964; Mac Donald and
Mac Donald 1964).
Mac Donald and Mac Donald, studying Italian immigration
to the United States from 1885-1914, defined two ways in which
immigration from a country could be organized: impersonally organ
ized migration and chain-migration. They defined impersonally
organized migration as "migration movement based on impersonal
recruitment and assistance, " (1964: 83). Chain-migration was
defined as "that movement in which prospective migrants learn of
opportunities, are provided with transportation, and have initial ac
commodation and employment arranged by means of primary social
relationships with previous migrants," (1964: 84).
However, in view of the differences between long-distance
international immigration and comparatively short-distance internal
migration, chain-migration is defined in the present study as "that
_ _ type of migration where pre-existing kinship ties and concomitant
primary social relationships are the major factor for the selection of
the area of destination." (See Introduction, p. 1) It has been noted
that chain-migration frequently results in the "clustering" of related
persons from the same area of origin at a given area of destination,
(Schwarzkeller and Seggar 1967).
Only the sociologists in the Beech Creek studies have for
mally studied the role of chain-migration in internal migration in the United States. In their analysis of chain-migration from the
Beech Creek area since the 1940s, Schwarzkeller and Seggar con
cluded that:
The rural to urban migrant is not necessarily alone or a stranger in the new community, even when he first arrives, and, indeed, most Beech-Creekers have many kinsfolk in the communities to which they have migrated . . . Out-migrants from specific mountain neighborhoods tend to cluster residen- tially in certain areas of destination and these clusters are located within what can technically be termed "cultural islands" but more descriptively labeled "little Kentuckies." Through the process of chain-migration, therefore, the Beech Creek socio cultural system has been transferred bodily, so to speak, to areas in Ohio and elsewhere. (1967: 663-664)
Brown, Schwarzkeller, and Mangalam conceptualize the
chain-migration of, what they term, "stem families" as part of a
sociological system,^ (1963). They have examined the ongoing
5 It should be stressed that this usage of "stem families" and, in the following paragraph, of "extended-families" differs from that suggested by Murdock in his "World Ethnographic Sample." Murdock defines stem-family as "minimal extended families con sisting of only two related families of procreation (disregarding polygamous unions), particularly of adjacent generations." He defines "extended-family" as "Extended-families, regardless of whether housed in one or more dwellings, where they constitute definite corporate units /"my italics_/ and are large in size, i.e ., normally comprising the families of procreation of at least two sib lings or cousins in each of at least two adjacent generations," (Murdock 1957: 669) . The widespread use of the term "extended families" by sociologists is particularly interesting because it reflects some of the general problems of development of kinship terminology for cog natic descent groups, (Scheffler 1966). Many of these problems hinge on the essentially non-corporate nature of American cognatic descent groups, (1966: 541-543). However, some of the problems of kinship classification in the United States reflect an additional problem. A simple example may illustrate this. Generally, Americans are classified as having neolocal residence, although Cumming and 25
relationships between the members of "effective kinship groups"
(1963: 664) in both the area of origin and the area of destination.
They found that members of what they term "extended
fam ilies," from the Beech Creek area in Kentucky, tended to migrate
to the same areas of destination and that, in a given town, the
migrants there were almost all related by close kinship ties,
(1963: 48-69).
They were particularly impressed by the close ties that
were sustained between the members of these "extended-families"
that remained in the area of origin and the members of "extended -
families" that clustered at the area of destination. Following
Frederic Le Play's terminology, (Le Play 1872; Zimmerman and
Frampton 1935: 47), they distinguished between these as "stem-
families" and "branch-families ":
The authors feel that both the stability of the direc tions of migratory streams from Eastern Kentucky and the clustering of class-oriented family groups in
5 (continued) Schneider have indicated that this may be more ideal than real, (1961: 499). Nevertheless, it is impossible with the present terminology to discriminate between the marital residence patterns between three , adult siblings; two of whom have settled on farms adjacent to their parents, whose ancestors first settled in the area 150 years ago and the other sibling who migrates to Alaska with his spouse. (These examples occur in my genealogies .) It is possible that the use of terms, such as "extended- families" and "clans" reflects the sociologists' intuitive dissatis faction with available kinship terminology to describe the social realities they are encountering in their research. There are also no terms that permit conceptualization of the kinship interaction and support between geographically distant kinsmen. Indeed, it is pos sible that the present terminology even reifies the suggestion of isolation, rather than cohesion among such kinsmen. 26
certain areas during migration are suggestive of the supportive role played by the "branch-families" (that is, the migrant's family and kin in the new communities within the migration system). (1963: 66 )
In summary,Brown, Schwarzkeller, and Mangalam con cluded that:
The greater the functional adequacy of the stem- family (modified to include the network of the associate branch-families) of the Beech Creek sociocultural system in responding to the changing needs of the Beech Creekers, the more adjusted the migrants will be, both as individuals and as families, under certain conditions. (1963: 6 6 )
No longitudinal studies on kinship and migration in the northern United States have been made by anthropologists. Some anthropologists, however, have studied migration among smaller populations over a shorter period of time. As an example of this, one might look at the contributions of Piddington, Ayoub, and Kohl and Bennett to a 1965 symposium on Kinship and Geographical
Mobility, (Piddington ed. 1965). An additional paper by Ayoub may also be considered from this perspective,, (Ayoub 1966).
Although Piddington does not formally state that he is interested in the analysis of chain-migration, many of his statements clearly indicate that he is . He has focused on the interpretation of the roles of those members of geographically distant kin groups in both the area of origin and the area of destination who have func tioned as the agencies of kin liaison, (1965: 151). He regards these individuals' roles as functional both in maintaining contacts of a personal nature between geographically distant kinsmen and in 27 maintaining communications for potential migration-streams.
He distinguishes three groups of persons who function as agencies of kin liaison in the French-Canadian group he studied in
Manitoba. The first group, which he terms the "kin-keepers," are described as "elderly women and men who keep up an extensive correspondence with geographically remote kin to whom they provide information about kin in Manitoba, in return for news of the migrant and any kin in his vicinity," (1964: 150). The second group are the kinsmen who are Roman Catholic clergy members who are "often geographically mobile though generally somewhat restricted in activities," (1965: 150).
The third group of persons who function as agencies of kin liaison are persons who are in occupations that directly or indirect ly involve travel. He lists persons connected with water and air transport, transport workers, employees of inter-provincial and inter national business and governmental organizations whose work entails much traveling, and members of the armed services and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, (1965: 151).
Piddington found that these agencies of kin liaison had been at least indirectly involved in numerous cases of migration from
Manitoba. In his analysis of his genealogical material, Piddington noted the marked variations in the percentages of members of nuclear families of orientation that were living outside Manitoba proper. He concluded that: 28
These percentages range from 32 .8% to 1 .3% with a mean of 12.1%. Migration thus "tends to run in families." The most important reason for this is that migrants tend to go to places to which their siblings or other relatives have already migrated rather than to scatter themselves over different areas . . . Out o f 143 c a se s in w hich siblings migrated from M anitoba, only 43 (30%) broke up to settle in different areas. In the remaining cases, two or more siblings migrated to the same area. As extreme cases of this tendency, there was one example of each of the following: eight, seven, and six siblings migrating to the same area. (1965: 149)
Piddington was also interested in occasions that reinforced extended-kin ties. Three types were discernible in Manitoba: the first was the regular or casual pattern of visitation with geographic- g ally distant kinsmen. The second was the more or less ceremonial occasion connected with a rite de passage. The third occasion was linked to a special circumstance in the community which Piddington studied: the presence of the provincial French-Canadian hospital there. Piddington suggested that other areas might also have special conditions that tended to reinforce extended-kin ties.
Piddington has stressed the ease of access of modem audio visual materials, such as photographs, color slides, tape recordings, and newspaper articles, as aids in maintaining recent accurate know ledge about kinsmen in geographically distant areas, (1965: 150-151).
0 Schwarzkeller and Seggar have also stressed the importance of visiting for the Beech Creek migrants , "The simple fact of 'seeing kinsfolk'—in many ways a reinforcement ritual--is a valid indication that some degree of familistic sentiment or cohesion, some form of attachment to extended-family groups ex ists," (19 67: 665). . 29
One formal agency of kin liaison that Piddington did not report for the French-Canadians, but that is highly important in the
Midwest, is the Family Reunion, (Ayoub 1966; Jorgensen 1962:
32-34). Ayoub has analyzed, at length, the components of the family reunion system. She has noted that it does serve to maintain relationships between geographically distant kinsmen. Her major concern, however, has been for the symbolic significance of these reunions. After noting the optative aspect to participation in reunion groups, Ayoub specifically discusses this implicit symbolism:
My study of the complex of family reunions in the United States suggests that, despite the absence of a formal ancestor cult and of unilineal descent, the charter myth of relationship and affinity still succeeds in promulgating the acceptance of the blanket role of kinsmen among people who believe themselves to be so related and are willing to celebrate this premise. (1966: 431)
It is possible, following Piddington's line of interpretation, to suggest that this institution may well represent the overt symbol ization also of both a willingness and a desire to perpetuate extended- kin group ties in spite of, or even because of, geographic distance.
Certainly, those formalized "reunitings" of geographically distant kinsmen could play a very important role in reinforcing and maintain ing lines of communication.
In another interesting study, Ayoub has found that both the expectation of possible future migration and the enjoyment of relation ships with geographically distant members of the kindred was devel oped in early childhood. She has stressed the importance of the acceptance of migration as a cultural norm: 30
The idea of voluntarily changing one's place of residence and moving on to another is surely one of the characteristics of American life. Following this line of reason, Americans rear children to the idea that leaving one home for a new one is familiar, even though the house may not be. A child sees and knows his relatives, neighbors, and friends leaving the homes he connected them with and although he may not envy their departure, its occurrence is not strange to him. (1965: 1-2)
Ayoub also discovered that older children in her sample actually had more genealogical knowledge about some of their geo graphically distant relatives than about some of the local kindred.
She attributes this to the "affectionate attention and candy "syndrome associated with visiting kin, (1965: 6 ).
Another profitable line of investigation has been suggested by Kohl and Bennett in their analysis of the differential significance of contacts with geographically distant kinsmen for males and females in the Jasper ranching community in Canada, (Kohl and Bennett: 1965).
They first show that, for young adult males, "kinship serves routinely as a means to enter the ranching occupation," (1965: 95).
They note, however:
The ranch daughter's situation is different; while her affective ties with the family of orientation are strong, entrance into adult status does not depend upon the aid given by her parents. Since women do not succeed to the enterprise (of ranch ing) she is encouraged to emigrate. (1965: 95)
In this instance, therefore, kinsmen at the area of destina tion play an important role for the migrating female, but not for the male who remains in the area of origin. However, as Kohl and 31
Bennett point out, the necessity in each generation for females to migrate out creates a demand for a stable base for future migrants:
The wider kin network outside of the region operates differentially for the ranch son and the ranch daugh ter. The wider kin network functions for the girl not only as a source of models, but also as a means for making the outside community accessible. For the ranch son, the wider kin network offers little in the way of an alternative to local ranching. However, these kin connections become important for the ranch son at the time his daughter is of age to emigrate. (1965: 115)
In Bennett's recent study of the Hutterites in the Jaspar,
Canada area, he finds that the Hutterite ecological adaptation, which he designates as the most efficient for the area, is dependent pre cisely on the continued out-migration of members of the Hutterite colonies into new Hutterite colonies. These data would seem to support the interpretation that, in certain instances, migration may actually facilitate the cohesiveness of kinship relations, (Bennett
1968).
3. Discussion
A brief evaluation of some of the more significant publica tions in both the area of migration theory and the area of the relation ships between the American kinship system and American migration patterns may suggest some generalizations that can be made at present and some of the needs for future research.
It has been common in both anthropological and sociological publications, before the 1960s, to conceptualize the basic American family unit as the nuclear family of procreation isolated from the 32
nuclear families of orientation of both spouses by repeated isolated
migrational events.
Both migration and kinship research since 1960 strongly
suggest that this interpretation is not fully adequate. Numerous
sociologists and a few anthropologists have found indications that relations with the extended-kin group are both important and signif icant. A few of these scholars have suggested that extended-kin groups not only maintain relationships between geographically dis tant kinsmen, but that the very presence of these groups at both the areas of origin and the areas of destination functions to create those migration streams and counter-streams which are prerequisite for the establishment of a true migration system through the process of chain-migration.
Research by demographers has raised additional, perhaps more fundamental questions, about the actual frequency, in terms of numbers of individual migrants, of migration in the United States.
There appears to be a possibility that there is much less mobility than is generally supposed in the United States. This does not deny the reality of extremely high rates of mobility for a small percentage of the total number of migrants. Recent data from the United States
Bureau of the Census seem to substantiate this claim.
Unfortunately, at present there is no firmly established historical baseline with which contemporary kin-linked migration can be contrasted. Although historians, in general, have been deeply interested in migration, there have been no systematic studies of the relation between kinship structure and migration in the past. One quite recent study of frontier counties in Western states between
1840 and 1860 (Eblen 1965) indicated that the population compos ition was similar to that of non-frontier counties, but kin units above the level of linked nuclear families of procreation with elder ly members of families of orientation were not demonstrable with the manuscript census data alone.
Even studies that have focused on the interrelations be tween kinship and migration have dealt with populations studied over a comparatively limited period of time . There has sometimes been a lack of terminological precision about the family unit under examination. Indeed, even the historiography in Warner's classic
Yankee City series has recently been challenged, (Themstrom 1968).
There is a clear need for diachronic studies both to estab lish earlier normative patterns of kin-linked migrations and to explore the ways these kin-linked migrations have been modified in response to either a changing cultural or ecological environment. CHAPTER III
THE GENEALOGICAL METHOD
The genealogical method, that is, the field collection of
family pedigrees and genealogies'*' and the methods developed for the
subsequent utilization of these data for further societal analysis has
been the primary research tool for the present study. The geneal
ogical method has been used extensively by anthropologists since
1900 when it was explicitly formalized by W. H. R. Rivers, (Rivers
1900, 1910, 1912; Conklin 1964; Barnes 1948, 1967). Both anthro
pologists and historians have used genealogical material in studies
of Western societies.
In this chapter, we shall first briefly review the uses of the
genealogical method and some of the theoretical questions it has
posed. Secondly, we shall present the operational definitions used
in the present study and a brief discussion of certain cross-cultural
attributes of genealogical knowledge. Third, examples of the three
major types of genealogical studies that have been carried out in the
United States, Canada, and, to a lesser extent, England, will be reviewed. Finally, a study on contemporary Maori kinship and migration will be examined, (Metge 1964).
"^Pedigrees are defined as tables or similar registers that present all the known consenguenial descendants of a given progenitor. Genealogies are defined as family histories compiled from the data from these pedigrees supplemented by other data from additional pri mary and secondary sources. 34 35
1. The Uses of the Genealogical Method
The genealogical method has been used to study problems
in such basic areas of social organization as kinship organization,
marriage and residence patterns, economic and political organiza-
tion, inheritance, succession, and descent patterns, and migration
patterns, (Rivers 1910: 3-7, 1912: 145-146; Conklin 1964: 45-55;
Evans-Pritchard 1951; Firth 1936; Fortes 1945, 1949b; Goodenough
1951; Bacon 1958; etc.)- It has also been used, if somewhat less frequently, in studies of religion, physical anthropology, and oral history, (Rivers 1910: 8-9; Vansina 1963, 1967; Geertz, H. and
Geertz, C.J., 1964; etc.). Indeed, Leopold Poposil,. in his anal ysis of Kapauku Papuan economy, states without reservation:
The use of the genealogical method proved so important and multifunctional that it definitely formed one of the major pillars on which my present economic, and my past legal and socio cultural, analyses rest. (1964: 23)
In recent years, two new applications of genealogical data have emerged. The first is concerned with the functions of geneal ogical knowledge in different societies (Cunnison 195 7; Bohannon, L.
1952; Bohannon, P.J. 1954; Mayer 1965; Peters 1960) the second with the cross-cultural range of genealogical knowledge, (Mayer 1965; Barnes 1967; Firth 1956; etc.).
Most anthropologists have stressed the usefulness of the genealogical method primarily as a survey research technique unique ly suited to the problems faced by the anthropologist in the non literate, non-Westem setting of most traditional anthropological 36 studies. Comparatively few studies have explored the potential ap plications of the genealogical method for studies of literate Western societies. To a certain extent, this is a reflection of the general methodological problems encountered by anthropologists dealing with problem-oriented studies in what Eisenstadt has termed "complex societies," (1961). In his theoretical discussion of the genealogical method, Conklin has stated this succinctly:
The genealogical method is often taken for granted, but this should not be considered as evidence for general agreement among anthropologists as to what this "method" actually includes . . . In part, this may be due to a time lag in that some of the ques tions now being asked had not been formulated in Morgan's time or when Rivers was at work among th e T o d a . (1964: 27)
Recently, Bennett and Thaiss have explored the problems and possibilities in relationships between traditional intensive anthro pological field methodology and, what they have termed "extensive" survey research methodology that has been developed in other dis ciplines in the social sciences, (1967: 272). They noted that, while
"extensive" survey research methodology has occasionally been relevant for anthropologists involved in "holistic-depictive" studies, it is invariably relevant for anthropologists involved in the study of
"parts of cultures or social system s, made in pursuit of specialized theoretical objectives, and employing sharply defined techniques as well as the more exploratory techniques," (1967: 272). They have defined survey research as:
A methodology which requires the presentation of a standardized stimulus to a human population on the basis of defined criteria. The information
t 37
sought is generally defined in terms of the stimulus or topic rather than in terms of the unique qualities of the population. (1967: 272)
They then distinguish between the conceptualizations of
human subjects in these two types of research: in the traditional in tensive research, "the human subjects are viewed as individual
persons with unique historical qualities," while in problem-oriented
research, human subjects are primarily regarded as "groups or popula
tions about which to generalize, " (1967: 272).
It is at this point that the genealogical method stands as a transitional method between the method of intensive interviewing with
individual informants and the methods of mass sampling techniques.
The genealogical method does involve the use of pre-arranged ques tionnaires, grids, and charts. The techniques for eliciting geneal ogical data are also relatively standardized, (Rivers 1900, 1910, 1912;
Notes and Queries 1912, 1929, 1951; Conklin 1964; Bames 1948, 1967).
Yet, unlike most survey techniques, the genealogical method has often been used by anthropologists precisely to establish rapport and to gain entrance to the societies studied. Rivers, himself, clearly saw this potential usage:
Both from the point of view of gaining exact informa tion and as an actual introduction /" m y ita lics_ 7 to the group with whom work is to be done, the collection of genealogical data affords a sound basis and should be begun as soon as possible. (1910: 12)
He further stressed the usefulness of genealogical materials: In acquiring a knowledge of the pedigrees, the inquirer learns to use the concrete method of dealing with social matters which is used by the natives 38
themselves and is able to study the formation and nature of their social classification and to exclude entirely influence in civilized categories. (1912: 119)
Anthropologists have raised some important objections to the use of the genealogical method in Western societies. They have noted, for example, the tedious, often time-consuming work involved in the collection and analysis of genealogical data in complex societies, (Bennett 194 7). Indeed, some anthropologists have tried to find ways to circumvent the actual field collection of genealogical data because of the time element involved, (Crow and Mange 1964;
Shaw 1960; Newcombe, Smith and Schwartz 1965).
These objections, however, fail to come to terms with the basic question: Is the genealogical method relevant for problem- oriented studies in complex societies? Formulated somewhat differ ently, do the genealogies provide data unavailable elsewhere as well as new insights into the basic mechanisms of the society studied, regardless of the society's level of complexity? If they do, then, in spite of the technical difficulties, the genealogical method constitutes a unique research tool for the social sciences and should be used as su ch .
One can only concur with the concluding remarks of Bennett and Thaiss:
Human reality must be apprehended by a variety of viewpoints, not by one alone, because this very reality is always, in part, a construct, always in part an image, and only by encouraging differences in perspective and approach can one obtain the needed richness of imagery and, consequently, theory. (1967: 307) 2. Definitions and Attributes of Genealogies and Genealogical Knowledge
Three types of genealogies can be found cross-culturally:
These are (1) field-genealogies, that is, genealogies based on the knowledge of the average member of the society about his personal kindred; (2) depth-genealogies, that is, genealogies based on the extensive knowledge of the kinship specialist or genealogist of one or more pedigrees in the society, regardless of the oral or written state of that knowledge; and (3) aetiological genealogies, that is depth-genealogies where the more distant ascending generations are linked with the mythical or religious ancestors of the society. The major function of these aetiological-genealogies often is the valida tion of a group's present position in the social structure of the society, (Barnes 1948, 1967; Peters 1960; Rioux 1957, 1961; Pidding- ton 1961; Bacon 1958; etc.).
The development of literacy and historiography in Western societies has meant that the creation of aetiological genealogies is no longer feasible, (Barnes 1967: 118-121). However, the existence of many kinds of records and documents means that it is possible to collect extensive, authentic, empirically demonstrable depth- genealogies of considerable length and breadth. (See Appendix A for a discussion of methods and sources of genealogical materials, pp. 198-205).
Anthropologists investigating the range of genealogical knowledge in non-Western societies have found that the acquisition of such knowledge often comes relatively late in the native's life 40 cycle, (e.g., Bohannon, L., 1952: 306). There are indications that such knowledge is often directly related to the native's role in the political and economic life of the group, (Bohannon, L., 1952;
Cunnison 195 7; Bacon 195 8; Geertz, C. and Geertz, H ., 1964).
A common characteristic of oral field-genealogies is that the span of time for which accurate or exact genealogical information is available is limited. This is usually a four or five generation span, although in an unilineal society, knowledge of one line of ascent may extend further, (Mayer 1965: 372-376; Barnes 1948; Firth 1956: 13-17,
42, 76; Ayoub 1960: 8-21; Cumming and Schneider 1961: 499;
Schneider 1968: 67-68).
Genealogical knowledge for a longer span of time has been characterized as consensual, that is, knowledge serving the function of general group symbols, "without attempting to establish the rela tionships of individual descendants in terms of particular kinship categories," (Mayer 1965: 366). Anthropologists have been able to distinguish common practices involved in the creation of these con sensual genealogies.
As early as 1935, the Culwicks suggested the widespread phenomenon of "structural amnesia." They suggested that "a man tends to remember only those links in his pedigree which are socially important and which place him at once in the minds of his hearers,"
(Culwick and Culwick, 1935: 180).
Schneider has described a similar phenomenon as "The
Famous Relative Syndrome": 41
There is one particularly interesting way in which boundary fuzziness is expressed: this is through the Famous Relative. During the course of field work we not infrequently encountered the state ment that So-and-so, a famous personage, was a relative. Sometimes the relationship was traceable, sometimes not. When it was traceable, it could be clearly seen that this was the only relative of such distance on the genealogy, whereas closer relatives were unknown and unheard of. (1968: 67)
"Structural amnesia" is closely related to the widespread cultural characteristic of "telescoping" genealogical information.
Barnes has defined "telescoping" as :
The foreshortening of the pedigree; i.e ., by the omission and elision of ancestors in intervening generations; ancestors with similar or identical names are fused; persons whose names are in herited are fused with their successors; a person with comparatively few surviving descendants is shifted to become the child of one of his or her more prolific siblings; cousins who live together or whose descendants live together become siblings. (1967: 120)
Thus, we may conclude that there seem to be striking simil arities in the types of genealogies, the range of exact genealogical knowledge, and the processes involved in creating genealogies in literate and non-literate, Western and non-Western societies.
3. Genealogical Studies in Western S o cieties
Both anthropologists and historians have used genealogical material in studies of Western societies. In this section, we will consider representative examples of work by scholars in both dis c ip lin es . 42
Using the definitions suggested by Bennett and Thaiss,
(196 7), it is possible to distinguish three major types of anthropol
ogical studies in Western societies that have used genealogical
materials. The first is the small community study where, even though the "community becomes the sample rather than the object
itself," (Bennett and Thaiss 1967; 281, Arensberg 1968: 7-28), the
methodological approach essentially differs little from intensive anthropological field methodology and the presentation of research findings is generally patterned on "holistic-depictive" representation.
The second and third types of studies share one character istic; in both types the anthropologist is involved in "problem- oriented" studies of "population aggregates of contemporary nation- societies," (1967: 281). These two types are created by the dif ferent uses of territorial groupings by the investigators.
In the second type of study, genealogical data (and on oc casion supplementary intensive interview data) are elicited from the population of a territorially delineated area, such as a housing estate in London (Firth 1956) or a community in southwestern Ohio,
(Ayoub 1960, 1965, 1966). That is, the population studied is, at least in part, defined by pre-existing comparatively permanent ter ritorial grouping.
In the third type of study, genealogical data (and on occasion supplementary intensive interview data) are elicited from persons selected as representative of certain "population aggregates of contemporary nation-societies, " (Bennett and Thaiss 1967: 281), 43 with no attempt at territorial demarcation involved, other than, per haps general residence in a city as large as New York or Boston, or membership in a transient group at a large institutiong such as an undergraduate student body of a college, (Schneider 196 8; Codere
1955).
There are considerable variations in both the research data produced and the analysis of these data in these three types of stu d ie s.
a) The Small Community Study Anthropologists and sociologists have undertaken many small community studies in Western societies, (West 1945; Miner 1939;
Gallaher 1961; Vidich and Bensman 195 7). Although there has been considerable variability in the methodology used in these studies, anthropologists have generally used genealogical data in their work.
For example, Miner found the depth genealogies that he was able to compile from his informants together with the parish records relevant for both the tracing of marriage patterns and the tracing of chain- migration patterns from the parish of St. Denis in Quebec into the New
England states, (1939: 70-77, 85-90, 199-214).
In her study of an Appalachian community in Eastern Tennessee,
Elmora Matthews found that depth genealogies were indispensable for her historical analysis of marriage and residence patterns there, (1965:
50-5 8). She has also used field genealogical data to determine areas of destination and effective interacting kin groups for out-migrants from the community: 44
One of the extensions of the Ridge community is in Brechin, fifteen miles northeast of Turnabout Hollow . . . Another is a neighborhood in the county seat of Kimbrace County that is composed of six or seven inter-related families who have moved from the Ridge community . . . A third extension of these valleys is in Detroit, Michigan, where brothers and cousins have been going together since depression years to find work. (1965: 57-58)
Matthews also comments on the significance of these pre
existing kinship ties in sustaining migration streams between these
areas of interaction:
Moving to join family lines in Brechin or the county seat or in Detroit 550 miles away does not separate a person from valley connections as cleanly as moving to Nashville or even to some nearby farm communities. Family lines and attitudes seem to be largely maintained in the county-seat, Brechin, and Detroit extensions . . . so much so that these persons are permitted to move back to their valley homes or to marry back into valley farms. For a wav of life to be continued, a migration stream rather than individual migrations is required; the streams have _ been small, but they have been steady./ my italics / (1965: 60)
Both Miner and Matthews, then, deal with the phenomenon
of chain-migration and the concomitant creation of migration-systems
but the authors do not present the quantitative demographic data on which these interpretations rest.
b) The problem -oriented, territorially demarcated study
In this section, we shall focus on representative studies where anthropologists have used the genealogical method in studies of territorially demarcated population aggregates. In some instances, the ethnic backgrounds of the informants have also been considered 45
as relevant for the purposes of analysis, (e.g., Warner, et_y_t, 1942,
1943, 1945, 1947, 1959, 1963; Garigue 1956, 1958; Leichter and
Mitchell 1967). Warner's studies in Yankee City, for example, focus
on the collection of extensive depth-genealogies for each of the major
ethnic groups in Yankee City. By using these materials, Warner was
able to distinguish the unique patterns of social organization for each
group and to analyze the role of kinship in each group. These studies
remain the most complete urban studies in the United States.
Several anthropologists have found the genealogical method a productive research tool in less ambitious, more limited studies, as well. Firth, Garigue, Young, Wilmott, and Crozier have drawn on the genealogical method in their research in London. Garigue worked with families of first and second generation persons of Italian origin; the others with native Anglo-Saxons, (Firth 1956; Garigue
1956; Young and Wilmott 195 7; Crozier 1965).
This group of studies in London has been pivotal in demon
strating that kindred ties and extended-kin group ties can both be important in an urban setting. Although they are based primarily on the analysis of field-genealogies from demarcated territorial areas, such as specific housing projects or neighborhood enclaves, suf ficient data were collected to indicate that there is a relatively high rate of demonstrable kinship linkages for residents in such areas.
That is, in a given neighborhood, several interrelated families are often found, many of whom are in effective interaction. 46
The study by Crozier differs from the others in some respects,
(Crozier 1965). She compiled an extensive depth-genealogy for one family in a London borough over a two-hundred year period to demon strate the possibility of both population persistence and occupational succession in an urban environment. In this instance, the evidence for the ten-generational occupational succession in the field of print ing is derived from the analysis of the genealogical information. It is interesting to note that William Keisel, an American professional genealogist, recently reported on a similar pattern of both population persistence and occupational succession for a New England family,
(1950: 81-92).
A number of anthropologists have studied the French-
Canadian kinship system, (Garigue 1958; Rioux 1957, 1961; Pidding-• ton 1961, 1964). Most of these studies have been based on geneal ogical materials. After studying kinship patterns in the Italian population in Iondon, Garigue replicated his study with urban French-
Canadian families in Montreal, (Garigue 1956, 1958). He collected both field and depth-genealogies which he analyzed to determine the extent to which traditional French-Canadian kinship patterns had broken down in the face of the North American urbanization pattern.
It was his conclusion that kinship ties in Montreal had actually facilitated rather than retarded urbanization there and, thus, had remained important in French-Canadian life.. Studies by Rioux and
Piddington have also supported Garigue's interpretation of the impor tance of kinship for French-Canadian life, (Rioux 1957, 1961;
Piddington 1961, 1965). 47
In another urban setting, Leichter and Mitchell have re
ported similar findings from their research with informants from a
New York City Jewish ethnic background, (1967).
However, the French-Canadian studies, the Appalachian
studies, and perhaps even the New York studies, have been directed
towards work with informants from ethnic subcultures where, it may
be suggested, contemporary problems in adjusting to the demands of
the larger society might play an important role in reinforcing these
kinship ties, (Wagley and Harris 195 8; Tilly and Brown 1967; Leich
ter and Mitchell 1967). Unfortunately there are comparatively few
studies of contemporary populations of North American-Western
European derived segments of the population from regions of the
United States where they are presumably not in a culturally marginal
p o sitio n , (Tilly and Brown 196 7).
One of the few studies of this type was undertaken by Young
and Geertz, (Young and Geertz 1961). They analyzed the comparative
impact of aging on individuals from matched suburbs in London and in
San Francisco in terms of their contact with kinsmen. Because avail
able research data, and particularly a study by Codere (1955) had
emphatically stressed the relative strength of the ties of the nuclear
family of procreation and the weakness of other kin ties, Young and
Geertz hypothesized that aging would present many more problems for elderly individuals in the United States than in Great Britain.
The results of their research showed that there were no major differences in the contacts of aging parents with their adult children, 48 or with other kinsmen, in either society. Older people in their
samples were by no means deserted by their fam ilies.
One major difference did appear, however. Elderly infor
mants in San Francisco had much more extensive knowledge of their
depth-genealogies than elderly informants in London. Their pride
in and knowledge of their pedigrees was the direct result of exten
sive relationships that they maintained with members of their kindred,
(Young and Geertz 1961: 124-141).
Young and Geertz found this difference so striking that they
formulated questions that were included on national public opinion
polls in Great Britain and the United States (1961: 137-138). From
the results of these polls they ascertained that 64 per cent of the
American respondents had extensive knowledge of their ancestors,
as contrasted with 37 per cent of the British, (1961: 138). Their con
clusions are of interest in that they appear to contain an unstated premise. Unfortunately, the comparative data on which these con- 2 elusions may have been based are not presented in the article:
The more disrupted the family, the firmer its histor ical reconstruction; and the people who are most prone to perform this reconstruction are the old, the widowed, and the single who feel most cut off from an ongoing family in the present. The past is in voked to make up for the shortcomings of the present. (1961: 139)
The handful of studies that have specifically focused on the relationships between kinship and migration in the United States and
2 Without additional corroborative data, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the results of this innovative study have been analyzed in a way that is both inconsistent and somewhat biased. 49
Canada have already been briefly discussed above in the section on
Kinship and Migration.
These studies all point to the conclusion that it is possible to use the genealogical method profitably in "problem-oriented" studies when the groups are from territorially-demarcated areas.
c) The problem-oriented, non-territorially demarcated study
At least three anthropologists have used field-genealogies in studies that have specifically used informants from non-territorially demarcated populations. These are Helen Codere, Elaine Cumming, and David Schneider, (Codere 1955: Cumming and Schneider 1961;
Schneider 1968).
Codere’s study was based on her analysis of 200 out of 600 genealogies that she collected from students in her undergraduate courses in anthropology at Vassar College. The results of her anal ysis have been widely quoted by both American and British anthropol- 3 ogists as representative of the total American kinship system:
The main finding of the study is that as a system of social organization and interpersonal relations, kinship is minimized in the United States. The gen eral conclusions describe a kinship system that is localized in the immediate family, lacking in recip rocities between kin mates and equals, impoverished in opportunities for knowledge about people, and weakened by the rejection of relationships. (1955: 65)
Precisely because her generalizations are so broad and have been so widely cited, it is necessary to discuss some of the limita tions of her methodology. The students themselves were responsible
3 Codere's study is cited in publications by Firth 1956; Rioux 1957; Garigue 1958; Cumming and Schneider 1961; Ayoub 1960; and Geertz and Geertz 1961. for the compilation of their own genealogies and were, specifically, instructed not to use kinship specialists in their own families. The students, in general, were only given one evening for completion of this class project, (Codere 1955: 65, 67-68; Zimmer/participating student/personal communication 1965). These procedures are markedly different, for example, from those used by Codere in her study of the Kwakiutl, (Codere-195 0).
These criticisms should not be interpreted to mean that a study of young females, occupying an upper-class position in a stratified society, in their late adolescence could not be a valid study. Generalizing from the results of such a study to a descrip tion of kinship for the broader society, however, seems, at best, highly questionable.
Schneider has used the genealogical method in two studies,
(Cumming and Schneider 1961; Schneider 1968). In the first of these carried out in Kansas City, Cumming and Schneider interviewed 220 adults between the ages of 5 0 and 80 for information on their kindred
After these initial interviews, field-genealogies were collected from fifteen individuals who were considered to be representative of the group. From the data acquired through the genealogies and through the interviews, Cumming and Schneider were able to investigate a wide range of topics.
One of the patterns that emerged in their study was the significance of the sibling bond to the aging adults interviewed.
Indeed, in certain instances, the sibling bond seemed stronger than 51
either husband-wife or parent-child bonds. The authors interpreted
the closeness of ties between generational collaterals as indicative
of general tendencies toward age grading in American society, (1961:
494-499 , 5 0 5 -5 0 7 ).
Schneider's second study dealing with American urban kin
ship, American Kinship: A Cultural Account is the first publication of
a projected series, (1968:14 ). The focus of the book is limited to
an analysis of the symbolic meaning of kinship in American society.
Consequently, there is little concrete material presented from the
extensive field-genealogies that were collected for the study. Some
of the methodological procedures in this study, carried out in
Chicago, are discussed by Schneider (1968: 12-14, 6 7-75).
Schneider saw as the goal of his study, the analysis of data
from "every major segment of the population in the United States,"
(1968: 14). He wanted to determine:
Whether there are as many different kinship systems as there are different subgroups in the United States, or whether there is a single system or some combin ation of dominant and variant systems ? (1968: 14)
He based this study on the analysis of 43 field-genealogies and supplemental intensive interview material that were collected from a total of 53 families. The intended breadth of the study may
be indicated from his description of the composition of the pool of informants:
The Chicago adult informants were m iddle-class whites; some of whom were Catholic, some Protestant, some Jews; of old Anglo-Saxon, German, Polish, Bohemian, Irish, Greek, Italian, and Jewish ethnic identity. (1968: 13)
It is significant that Schneider's analysis, based on geneal ogical information elicited from 43’ unrelated families from a broad variety of backgrounds, focuses on the overwhelming importance of the nuclear family of procreation in the American kinship system.
Thus, in summary, the new uses of the genealogical method are, at present, somewhat less satisfactory than more traditionally formulated studies or problem-oriented studies with a clear territorial linkage. Additional work is needed before broad generalizations can be made from this type of research. Such studies must also cope with theoretical problems that arise from the ramifications of these methodological shifts.
4. Historians' Use of Genealogical M aterial
Although European historians have been interested in the tracing of royal pedigrees for their analyses of royal dynasties, mar riages, and political alliances and although some American histor ians have studied the genealogies of some famous Americans, there has been comparatively little interest in wide-scale usage of depth- genealogical material for investigations of general social history.
It is particularly significant that these genealogical mater ials have not been utilized even though the potential importance of such information has frequently been suggested. As early as 1913, the Austrian economist, Joseph Schumpeter, discussed the analysis 53
of the processes of class formation in urban societies and made the
following observations:
The lack of zeal with which social scientists explore and evaluate this material is in lament able contrast to the fact that it alone can provide a reliable knowledge of the structure and life processes of capitalist society. (1913: 167)
Recently the American historian, Edward Saveth, has dis cussed at some length the underdevelopment of family history in
American historiography, (Saveth 1963). He states that the stress on the importance of the nuclear family in this country by social
scientists has caused the historian to minimize the role of "extended- kin groups as a means of access to social, economic, and political opportunity," (1963: 237). Indeed, Saveth sees the American his torian's own cultural valuation of an emphasis on individual achieve ment and egalitarianism as a very limiting factor for the historian's awareness of the significance of family connections. He discusses this in relation to the patrician politician:
In a society devoted to egalitarianism pride of ancestry becomes for the patrician politican an aspect of covert culture that finds expression in privately printed and manuscript genealogies, in personal and private papers, and in membership in ancestral and patriotic societies, /my italics/. (1963: 238)
Finally, Saveth sees the failure of American historians to work in the field of family and social history as fundamentally linked to a basic misunderstanding of the possible relationship between family history as a formal topic for analysis and the numerous amateur publications in this area. While not discounting the importance of 54 the genealogical information these latter publications may contain,
he notes that the disagreeable overtones of "filiopiotism, family pleading, and amateurism,,r (1963: 239) found in many of these col lections have kept legitimate historians away. He urges a re-eval uation of this material as basic source material for future evaluations.
Saveth's own conclusions about the structure and function of the patrician class in the 19th century South are indicative of possible areas for further historical research, (Saveth 1963, 1964).
E. Digby Baltzell has studied the creation of the American
East Coast business aristocracy, (Baltzell 1958). Although he has studied individual families, his primary interest has been on the sociological dimensions, rather than on the uniquely historical aspects of the influence of these families on national patterns. His focus is summarized in his introduction:
This is a study of an American business aristocracy of colonial stock and Protestant affiliations, and centered in the older metropolitan areas along the Eastern Seaboard. Although primarily a Proper Philadelphia story, with ancient roots in the city's golden age at the close of the eighteenth century, it is also an analysis of how fabulously wealthy, nineteenth-century family founders, in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, supported various exclusive institutions which produced, in the course of the twentieth century, a national upper-class way of life. (1958: v)
5. Metge's Study of the Maori
Joan Metge's study of contemporary Maori kinship and migration patterns presents an innovative use of the genealogical method, (1964). This study is particularly interesting because the 55 author combined a year's field work in a traditional anthropological setting in a Maori village with a year's field work in a problem- oriented study of three Maori residential enclaves in the city of
Auckland, New Zealand. This combination of studies has been coup led with a high level of demographic sophistication.
Metge entered her field work situation with the view held by many anthropologists and sociologists that:
Urbanization produced a breakdown in traditional values and virtues in the migrant group and a break with their rural origins . . . My original conceptual framework entailed thinking about Maori urban society as a separate society and as a separate entity; a social and cultural world not only different but severed from Maori rural society. (1964: 4)
After the completion of her field work and the analysis of her data, however, Metge reached very different conclusions:
Length of residence in the city was by no means consistently correlated with the weakening of bonds of kinship and decline in attachment to "Maori ways." Personal temperament, previous experience of migra tion, the strength of links with the home community; all had a bearing upon the immigrant's adjustment to life in the city . . . I further discovered that urban Maoris maintained close contact with rural kin and their communities of origin after as much as twenty- five to thirty years in the city, and into the second generation. (1964: 4)
A particularly interesting segment of Metge's work delin eates six basic kinship patterns found among the urban Maori, (1964:
170-179). Field-genealogies of the urban Maori were analyzed by
Metge in terms of effective and non-effective (that is , interacting and non-interacting) kindred members. These types are: (1) the 56
isolated individual with few effective kin at the area of destination
and none at the area of origin; (2) the elementary family domestic
unit with a limited number of effective kin in either the area of origin
or the area of destination; (3) a grand-family domestic unit with few
effective urban kin, but close ties with the grandfather's area of
origin; (4) a "denuded" grand-family with a large circle of effective
kin both in the area of origin and the area of destination and in ad- titional areas of destination; (5) an extended-family with a highly
developed corporate life; and (6) a kin-cluster with close relations with the community of origin.
In her concluding sections, Metge analyzes the inter relationships between the rural and urban members of consanguineal kin groups. She discusses both the mechanisms which maintain these interrelationships, (that is, the agencies of kin liaison, in
Piddington's terms) and the migration patterns, (1965: 200-250).
Metge concludes by postulating the existence of a migration system among the Maori:
Auckland Maori society and Maori rural society were not closed and separate systems but existed in close contact and interaction with each other. Residents in both were linked by membership in the same func tioning descent-groups and they met periodically in both city and in rural community to cooperate in the ceremonial observance of social crises in their lives, events in which both continued to desire participation from as many kin as possible. Auckland residents retained a specific attachment to specific rural com munities and rural marae. The personnel of urban and of rural Maori society was not static, but there was a constant circulation among them, as individuals and • families moved from one to another for short or long terms. The behavior, beliefs, and aims of those in each were affected by continuing contact and exchange of personnel, (my italics). 1964: 250)
* 57
There is a marked similarity between the patterns of chain- migration that Schwarzkeller and Seggar observed in Appalachia, that
Matthews refers to with respect to eastern Tennessee, and that Metge finds in New Zealand, (Schwarzkeller and Seggar 1967; Matthews
1965; Metge 1964). There is also a marked similarity between the migration-systems that Hillery, Brown, and De Jong have described for the Southern Appalachian sub-regions and those Metge describes for New Zealand, (Hillery, Brown, and De Jong 1965; Metge 1964).
By using genealogies, however, Metge has been able to define the effective and non-effective members of potential Maori migration-streams and the composition of kinship units in those migration-streams at a level of specificity not found in the other s tu d ie s.
Metge's work is unique in suggesting that the study of a representative rural small society grouping can be combined with a genealogical study of persons living in ethnic enclaves in urban settings to demonstrate the existence of an effective interactional kinship and migration system. Much of the methodology of the Metge study could be replicated in studies of the United States and Canada. CHAPTER IV
THE FIVE OHIO TOWNSHIPS
The body of information used in the present study consists of genealogical data supplemented by data from primary and second ary historical and demographic sources.
Between October of 1965 and April of 1967 I conducted field work in five central Ohio townships. I compiled depth-geneal- ogies for eleven representative pioneer families who, with one exception, settled in the five townships within twenty-five years after the initial areal settlements in the early 1800s.
Genealogical data were elicited for 2980 persons in the eleven families (or stocks, in Freeman's terms), (Freeman 1961). In
Appendix A, the methods used in the construction of the genealogies are discussed briefly and data for each of the eleven families in the study are presented in the following categories: (a) the total number of individuals in the genealogy, (b) the total number of individuals in the genealogy used in the present study, (c) the time period for which genealogical information is available,'*' (d) methods used in the collection of the genealogical information, (c) brief family history, and (f) brief analysis of family migration patterns.
'■^Time period is defined in this instance by the dates of birth of the progenitor and by the last bom member of the stock for whom information is available. 58 59
Eight of these depth-genealogies were compiled by collating field-genealogies from the present day descendants of the progenitor together with supplemental data. These included church records, newspaper clippings, cemetery lists, family Bibles, family corres pondence, microfilm census data, county histories, and additional material from the genealogical sections of the Ohio Historical Society
Library, the State of Ohio Library, and the Pennsylvania State Library.
(See Appendix A: Youmans 206; Atkinson: 214; Grable: 217; Miller:
229; Elliott: 250; W. Mauger: 252; F. Mauger: 259; J. Mauger: 277 .)
The ninth depth-genealogy was taken from one family Bible with only brief interviewing of two descendants, (D. Snider:271 ). The tenth was collected from an elderly male informant who had compiled his own manuscript record of his family genealogy, (Baird 1965). This manuscript is now deposited in the Ohio Historical Society Library.
The eleventh genealogy was located in that library, (Beem 1936).
Supplemental interviews were conducted with two female descendants of that family.
The analysis of kin-linked migrational events found in these eleven genealogies has been restricted to events including persons in three categories: (a) those in ascending generations, that is, those genealogical generations bom before the townships settlements,where adequate genealogical information was available to distinguish migra tion patterns prior to the settlement of the townships; (e.g.,Appen dix A: Atkinsons: 214), (b) those family members who entered the townships during the original period of settlement; and (c) the des cendants of the eleven families who were born in the townships. Of 60
the 2980 persons in the genealogies, only 1285 fit into one of the
three categories noted. Of the 1715 remaining persons in the geneal
ogies, 1586 were descendants of out-migrants from the townships and
have not been considered in the present study.
It should be noted that, by restricting the analysis to per
sons falling into one of these three categories, we are able to
analyze familial migration patterns in relation to a single geographic
location. Thus, we are able to investigate in-migration and out
migration in these five townships at any given historical time period.
1. Classification of Migrational Events
In the following pages migrational events found in the depth-
genealogies are analyzed to detect comparative family patterns in
migration in the five townships. The relevance of the cultural environ
ment during specific historical time periods to migration patterns found
during those periods is also investigated. This is done by classifying
each individual migrational event by the genealogical generation in
which it occurs. It is important, therefore, to distinguish between the term generation as used by the anthropologist studying kinship,
and the term, generation, in its more generalized, less specialized
usage. Bacon suggests the following distinctions:
(1) A generation comprises the offspring of the same parent or parents and is counted as a single degree or step in reckoning the descent of a person or family from a more distant ancestor . . . (2) A generation comprises all those members of a society who were bom at approximately the same time • whether or not they were related by blood. (Bacon 1965: 284) 61
In the United States, the term generation is used in both ways. Thus we can in the context of kinship relations distinguish two given young women as aunt and niece occupying kin positions in two different genealogical generations, which corresponds to Bacon's first definition. In a more generalized context, however, both might be members of the "hippie" generation and subject to the traumas of the generation gap. In the present study, the term generation will be restricted to the first usage.
This classification, however, presents new problems for the analysis of patterning found in specific historical time periods.
That is, the fifth-generation in one family may occur, chronologic ally, during the time of the third generation in another family. In the section on historical analysis of migration patterns, this problem has been resolved by classifying genealogical generations according to the date of birth of the first-born member of each genealogical 2 generation in the eleven stocks.
2 It should be noted that the classification of a person in a specified time interval is dependent solely on the date of the first born member of his genealogical generation. There are two implica tions for this method of classification: (a) actually, some people bom after the end of the period are thus classified in it, i.e ., the genera tion of 1801-1850 is not made up only of persons bom during that time span, and (b) many of the coded migrational events, if not the major ity, have probably occurred in the 1851-1900 period. Even with such admittedly broad categories, it has been possible to see evidence of clear shifts of patterning not otherwise demonstrable. Given the comparatively small number of persons in the study and the long time span, the creation of more limited categories fragmented the broader view of the underlying patterns. It is hoped that future studies, based on this test study, might be able to permit more narrowly limited categories. 62
One additional point should be made at this time. The typology used to describe specific types of kin-linked migrational events found in the genealogies is also based on both traditional anthropological concepts about kinship and basic anthropological generalizations about the American kinship system, per se, In
American society, descent can be traced through both the paternal and maternal lines for each ascending generation, although surnames follow the paternal line. This type of descent is referred to in this study as "cognatic." There is currently some discussion about the circumstances under which a cognatic, or genetic, kinsmen can be considered a "relative." Indeed, in his review of Schneider's study of American kinship, Wallace has specifically addressed this point:
Perhaps the most illuminating contribution of /Schneider's/ analysis is the recognition that for remote con sanguines and for relatives by marriage (both the consanguines of spouse and the spouses of consanguines) the rule explicitly requires the individual to decide for himself whether a person who can be located in the genealogy is to be con sidered a relative at all and whether or not a kin ship term w ill be used in referring to or addressing him if he is or even if he is not. The choice is to be based on the realities of the actual social rela tionship between the parties. (1969: 101)
In the present analysis, however, demonstrable genetic re lationships have been the basis for the designation of consanguineal kin. Although the majority of my informants knew second and even some third and fourth cousins in the stocks collected, it was never necessary to go beyond the range of first cousin for the consanguineal kinsmen involved in kin-linked migrational events. 63
Americans also recognize another class of kin created by the bonds of marriage, that is, affinal kin, or "in-laws,," (Schneider
1968: 76-106). It should be borne in mind that in a cognatic society, the father's affinal kin by a given marriage become, for the offspring of that union, consanguineal kin. As noted in Chapter I, above, this class of kinsmen will not be considered in the present study, beyond the level of the person's spouse.
With these kinship categories in mind, it is possible to dis tinguish several types of potential migrational events for a person in a given genealogy. The person may migrate alone or with strangers, with his spouse or his family of orientation, or with members of his extended-kin group. Even if the migration is made with members of his extended kin group, it may be made with the generationally closest members of the group, his parents or siblings. If the migra tion is made during childhood, it is the parental kin tie that is presumably most important. The migration may also be made, with or without the sibling group, during adult years with additional members of the extended kin group, such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, either participating in the actual act of migra tion, in residence at the area of destination, or in the case of retum-migration, in residence at the area of origin.
Migration events recorded in the depth-genealogies have been'coded in terms of the following criteria. It should be emphas ized, in this coding, that the concept of chain-migration as a dis tinctive form of migration organization (Mac Donald and Mac Donald
1964) has been used both implicitly and explicitly with regard to 64 adult sibling and adult consanguineal migration events:
(1) Isolate (or non kin-linked) Migrational Event. When a person of adult age, that is, eighteen years or over, voluntarily migrated to an area of destination with no' known members of the extended-kin group in either the migrating group or at the area of 3 destination, that act was classified as an isolate migrational event.
(2) Childhood Migrational Event. Persons under the age of eighteen accompanying their parents to an area of destination, were classified as involved in childhood migrational events.
(3) Nuclear Family Migrational Event. When a married person of adult age and his or her spouse migrated (with or without dependent children) to an area of destination without consanguineal kinsmen from the focal extended kin group in either the migrating party or at the area of destination, that act was classified as a nuclear family migrational event. This classification does not neces sarily preclude affinal kin involvement in the migrational event; how ever, as has been noted, knowledge of such affinal kin involvement from the material in the genealogies would be quite rare. There were four instances of females under eighteen migrating with their husbands who were counted as adult participants in nuclear family migrational events. There were also eight cases in the depth-genealogies where,
3 In focusing on the compilation of the eleven stocks for the present study, information for consanguineal or affinal kinsmen in other extended-kin groups was generally not collected. Since, for a given person in a given stock,this constitutes genealogical informa tion for only one of his four grand-parental stocks, it should be stressed that the percentages of kin-linked migrational events would be no lower if additional information were available, and would, in all probability, be somewhat higher. 65
after the death of parents, older siblings took teen age siblings into their adult families of procreation and assumed a surrogate parental
role. In these instances, the migration of the older sibling, his or
her spouse, (and their dependent children, if relevant), was clas
sified as a nuclear family migrational event; the younger sibling's
migration was classified, if he or she was in the middle or late teen age years, as an adult migrational event with siblings.
(4) Adult Sibling Migrational Event. When a person of adult age migrated to an area of destination either accompanied by another adult sibling, or with an adult sibling already in residence at the area of destination, that move was classified as an adult sibling migrational event. Some of the clearest examples of adult sibling migration came during the frontier period when young adult male sib lings (both married and single) frequently came a year or two in advance of the family groups to handle the land transactions and to make some rudimentary preparations of land and shelter for the larger, less flexible, family groups.
(5) Adult Consanguineal Migrational Event. When a person of adult age migrated to an area of destination (in the case of retum- migration, or course, the area of origin becomes the area of destina tion) with or without siblings, but with additional members of the extended kin-group such as cousins ,aunts, uncles, and grandparents, either participating in the act of migration or in residence at the area of destination which, as we have noted in the case of retum-migration was the original area of origin, that move was classified as an adult
« 66 consanguineal migrational event. Two sub-types of adult consan guineal migrational events were distinguished:
(5a) Adult Consanguineal Out-Migrational Event. When a person of adult age, married or single, migrated to an area of des tination accompanied by a consanguineal kinsmen from the extended- kin group, other than parents or siblings, or, in addition to parents or siblings, or where such consanguineal kinsmen were already in residence at the area of destination and where there were indications of chain-migration, the migrational event was classified as an adult consanguineal out-migrational event.
(5b) Adult Consanguineal Retum-Migrational Event. When a person of adult age, married or single, who had previously been an out-migrant from the area of origin, returned to live in the area of origin where the consanguineal kinsmen from the natal extended-kin group were located, this migrational event was classified as an adult consanguineal retum-migrational event.
It should be noted that a given individual may, in his life time, be involved in more than one type of migrational event. That is, he may, for example, be involved in an isolate migrational event in his early twenties and an adult consanguineal return-migrational event in his early thirties.
Some further points should be stressed about the coding.
The classification of the migrational event was made in terms of the concrete behavioral event recorded in the genealogies. It is not possible, in general, in using genealogical material with the time- depth of the data used in the present study, to evaluate the values 67 or attitudes of the migrant. There is also a built in focus on con
sanguineal migrational events in the coding procedures used. The most striking example occurs with a person in the Beem family who was married and migrated from the five townships with two brothers, three cousins, and an uncle. Thus, he was simultaneously involved in acts of nuclear family migration, adult sibling migration, and adult consanguineal out-migration. Physically, however, he only made one migration. Under the present classification, that one migration event was placed under the most broadly inclusive event, adult con sanguineal out-migration.
In theory, objections may be raised that the presence of a fifth cousin at the area of destination could have meant an adult con sanguineal out-migration event classification in some particular instance. In reality, however, it was never necessary to go beyond the kinship range of uncle or first cousin in classification, (e.g .,
J. Mauger: 276 ). Those situations in which adult consanguineal out-migrational events were enumerated invariably represented a clus tering of kinsmen in the area of destination. This does not preclude, of course, the classification of the first act or acts of migration into the area of destination as isolate migration, adult nuclear family migration, or adult sibling migration.
Another point should be stressed. The assumption of per sonal residence and, if male, work responsibilities has been used to distinguish between migration and extended visiting. As has been noted, the dividing line between childhood and adult migrational events in this study has been the eighteenth year. If a person reached eighteen and then moved to Columbus to work, this move was considered a voluntary adult migrational event. By the same token,
college attendance, although relatively infrequent until the late 1930s, has also been classified as a voluntary adult migration event. Invol untary military service, however, has not been regarded as true migration because of its mandatory rather than optative nature. Career armed service personnel, however, have been counted as out- migrants. Of the 55 0 persons who were migrants, 57, or 10.4%, had one migrational event with college as the area of destination; 9, including 5 of the college-bound migrants, elected armed service careers. It has not always been possible to gather accurate informa tion on the locations of the service personnel after the initial act or acts of out-migration. In four instances, however, these persons have returned to the area of origin upon retirement from the service.
2. Analytical Procedures
The migrational events found in the depth-genealogies and coded under the five enumerated categories are analyzed in two ways „
First, on the basis of the data for individual families presented in
Appendix A, family patterns of migration are compared. Tables presenting these data indicate for each of the eleven families in the study: (a) the numbers and percentages of migrants and migrational events; (b) the numbers of migrants and the average number of migra tional events per migrant; (c) the numbers and percentages of kin- linked and non kin-linked migrational events; (d) the numbers and percentages of adult kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events; 69
(e) the numbers and percentages of specific types of kin-linked
migrational events, and (f) the numbers and percentages of specific types of adult kin-linked migrational events.
Secondly, the migration events found in the depth-geneal- ogies are classified by historical time periods according to the date of birth of the first-born member of a given genealogical generation.
Six historical intervals are used: 1606-1 750, 1751-1800, 1801-1850,
1851-1900, 1901-1950, and 1951-1967. The cultural environments of Ohio at each of these approximate time intervals are discussed.
Then the data are presented in terms of the following categories for each specified time interval: (a) the numbers and percentages of migrants and migrational events; (b) the area of areas of destination of out-migrants from the five central Ohio townships except for those bom in the 1606-1750 interval; (c) the numbers and percentages of kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events; (d) the numbers and percentages of adult kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events; (e) the numbers and percentages of specific types of kin- linked migrational events; and (f) the numbers and percentages of specific types of adult kin-linked migrational events „
With these data it is possible to ascertain both the simil arities and differences in migration patterns at specified time inter vals and the distribution of specific types of kin-linked migrational events at these intervals.
These findings are then analyzed in terms of our historical knowledge of the cultural environment of a given historical time 70
period to ascertain the relationships between the migration patterns and the nature of the cultural environment of the period.
Furthermore, supplemental data from interviews with d es
cendants of the eleven families and from primary and secondary h is torical sources are analyzed to determine the informal and formal
agencies of kin liaison that maintain contact between kin groups in
the area of origin and the areas of destination. The role of these
agencies in perpetuating a given migration system is also discussed.
At that point, the data from the family genealogies will be
compared with data from the United States censuses to evaluate the
extent to which migration events found in the eleven families are
broadly representative of state-wide patterns of population movement.
Finally, the significance of this study for current research
on both American migration patterns and American kinship studies is
discussed and suggestions for further research are presented.
3 . The Locale of the Study
a) The Selection of Townships
Five adjacent central Ohio non-urban townships were used
in the present study. Ohio is one of the five states in the East North
Central Division of the United States Bureau of the Census; the
others are Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. The town
ships selected are reasonably typical of non-urban townships found
in the northern, central, and southwestern sections of the state of
Ohio. (The southeastern portions of Ohio have been comparatively
more isolated until quite recently.) 71
The term “township" denotes both a political and geographical
division. It is a division of a county that is "a territorial area having the status of a unit of local government in some 16 northeastern and
north central states, " (Webster III: 2418). Unlike other units of local government, such as the county, municipalities, incorporated towns,
and villages, the township was created as a specific geographical
division by the United States Public Land Surveys and, as such, it is
"a piece of land that is bounded on the east and west by meridians
six miles apart at its south border and it has a north-south length of
six miles . . . it forms one of the chief divisions of a U.S. public land survey," (Webster III: 2418).
In the Midwest, during the early years of statehood, town
ships were often more stable political and geographical divisions than counties. In Ohio, before 1830, large counties were frequently
divided into smaller counties. This was less frequently true of townships, (Roseboom and Weisenberger 196 7: 164).
The five townships selected for the present study were all
settled between 1806 and 1830. In contrast to the nearby township of Granville, in Licking County, they were not settled as organized religious colonies, (Hill 1882: 425-45 7). They were all predominantly rural until the end of the Second World War.
The Townships in the study are: (1.) Liberty Township, in
Fairfield County and (2) Lima, (3) Etna, (4) Harrison, and (5) Jersey
Townships in Licking County. There are two towns in these townships with a 1960 population of over 1500: Baltimore-Basil in Liberty Town ship and Pataskala in Lima Township. There are three villages with 72 populations under 800: Etna in Etna Township, Kirkersville in Har rison Township, and Jersey in Jersey Township. There are also four unincorporated hamlets: Outville, in Harrison Township, Columbia
Center and Summit Station, in Lima Township, and Wagram, in Etna
Township.
b) Natural environmental conditions
The townships selected for the present study are in the center of the state of Ohio in the glaciated portion of the Allegheny
Plateau. As such they have had relatively good soil conditions.
They have ample rainfall and the winters, while moderately severe, are not as harsh as those found in the northwestern comer of the sta te.
In the Historical Gazeteer of Ohio, the agricultural produc tivity of the general area in which the townships are located is described as follows:
The broad valleys of the Licking and its tributaries have from the first been prized for their agricultural productiveness. The uplands are generally rolling rather than hilly. Upwards of ninety per cent of the area at one time or another has been in cultivation. This is a central Ohio area and has had the varied productiveness of this region in wheat, com, and other grains; in sheep and wool, beef cattle and dairying, and, in more recent years, poultry raising and fruit growing. (1937: 237)
c) Cultural Environmental factors
Three cities, almost equi-distant from the townships devel oped during the first half of the nineteenth century. These were
Lancaster in Fairfield County, Newark in Licking County, and the state 73
capitol/ Columbus, in Franklin County. Census data from 1810-
1900 on population figures in Fairfield and Licking counties indicate the slow but gradual growth of these counties throughout this period.
Comparative data from Franklin County indicate the rapid growth of
Columbus as the major urban center in the central Ohio region after
1850, (Table 1).
A relatively cohesive network of transportation and commun ication that facilitated the economic growth of the area developed in central Ohio during the first half of the nineteenth century. The
National Road, the major linkage between the Eastern Seaboard and the Midwest, was built in 1825. It crossed Harrison and Etna Town ships. The two villages, Etna and Kirkersville, were originally coach- stops on the road. The Ohio Canal, built in 1829, ran through Bal timore and Basil in Liberty Township and passed through Buckeye Lake just east of Harrison Township „
In the last half of the nineteenth century, after the rapid development of railroads on both a state and regional basis, the economic importance of the National Road and the Ohio Canal for commercial purposes changed markedly. The National Road continued to have some commercial importance.throughout the period and, with the invention of the automobile and the subsequent paving of the
National Road in 19 27, it again played a major commercial role in the area. The Ohio Canal, however, ceased commerical operation in the area in the 1870s.
Population figures from township censuses between 1850-1900 reflect these changes. The rapid growth of Lima Township after 1870 74
Table 1: Population Growth in Terms of Actual Population Figures and Comparative Growth in Population Density in Fairfield, Licking, and adjacent Franklin Counties: 1810-1900. United States Bureau of the Census
Counties Fairfield Licking Franklin 493 Sq. Miles 665 Sq. Miles 479 Sq. Miles
Numbers Density Numbers Density Numbers Density
Decades
1810 11,361 23.0 3,85 2 5.8 3,486 7.3
1820 16,333 33.7 11,861 17.8 10,172 21.2
1830 24,786 50.3 20,869 31.4 14,751 30.8
1840 31,924 64.8 35,096 52.9 25,049 52.3
1850 30,264 61.4 38,846 58.4 42,909 89.6
1860 30,538 61.9 37,011 55.7 50,361 105.1
1870 31,138 63.2 35,756 53.8 63,019 131.6
1880 34,284 69.5 40,450 60.8 86,797 181.2
1890 33,939 68.8 43,279 65.1 124,087 248.0
1900 34,259 69.5 47,050 70.8 164,460 329.0
Source: The Compendiums for the Censuses of the United States: 1820, 1840, 1850; 1860; 1870; 1880; 1890; 1900. United States Bureau of the Census. 75
represents the rapid growth of the town of Pataskala, which was a
major freight station for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, (Table 2).
At no time after 1830/however, could the five townships be
regarded as truly isolated. In this respect, the townships in the
study seem typical of townships throughout the central, northern,
and southwestern sections of the state of Ohio. Roseboom and
Weisenberger's statement that "Provincialism could not flourish in a
state that was the highway of the nation" (1967: 1) is especially applicable to the five townships in the study which were on the main traffic arteries of that highway.
d. Population Composition
Most of the original settlers in the townships were descend ants of Western and Central European immigrants who had settled in the original thirteen colonies. With the exception of a small Catholic
church in Jersey Township, which was maintained from 1859 to 1887, the religious denominations in the townships were all Protestant.
Only Etna, Harrison, and Liberty Townships had a large contingent of foreign-born among the original settlers. The foreign-born settlers, in these Etna and Liberty Townships were, with three exceptions, from Germany or Switzerland. In Harrison Township, several Welsh
settlers, who came in the 1840s, farmed in the northeastern portion of the township near the Welsh settlements in Granville Township„
No other large ethnic contingents were present, (Fairfield Co.
Histories; Licking Co. Histories). Table 2: Population Growth in Terms of Actual Population Figures in the Five Ohio Townships in the Study: 185 0-1900. United States Bureau of the Census
The Five Townships Liberty Etna Harrison Jersey Lima
Decades
185 0 7885 2897 1307 1447 1266 972
1860 ------
1870 8361 3000 ' 1224 1242 1253 1642
1880 8711 3070 1166 1329 1343 1803
189 0 8298 3055 1053 1224 1206 1761
1900 7771 2812 955 1158 1081 1765
Source: Population Figures for Minor Civil Divisions; United States Bureau of the Census; 1850; 1870; 1880; 1890; 1900. 77
Prior to 1850/ detailed information on population composi tion is limited to information available in the county histories. In the 185 0 census/ for the first time, both area of origin and area of present residence are given for all persons enumerated in the manu script census schedules.
The areas of origin for the native bom 185 0 population of the five townships parallels the state-wide population composition profile. There is no native bom population group that deviates more than 2.6% from the state profile (Table 3). The percentages of foreign-bom in the 185 0 population of the five townships, 7.6%, deviates less than four percent, 3.4%, from the percentages of foreign born in the state, (Table 4).
There is considerable variation, however, in the areas of origin for the native-born population of the five different townships.
In any given township, there is a discernible clustering of settlers from a particular area of origin, (Table 5). For example, while 2.9% of the overall population in the five townships is from New Jersey, only 1.0% of the population of the township of Etna is from New Jersey compared with 10.6% of the total population of the township of Jersey.
On the other hand, whereas 10.0% of the population of Etna Township is from Pennsylvania, only 3.8% of the population of Jersey Township is from Pennsylvania. Anecdotal information from the earliest Licking
County history strongly supports the interpretation that this clustering was the direct result of chain-migration into the initial settlements,
(Hill 1881: 413-416, 471-476, 482-486, 489-496). 78
Table 3: States of Origin of the Native-Born Population of Ohio and of the Five Ohio Townships in the Study. Numbers and Percentages United States Census of 1850.
State of Ohio The Five Townships Number Percent Number Percent
Totals 1 ,757,354 100.0 7,258 100.0
Ohio 1,219,432 69.4 5,173 71.3 CO o
Pennsylvania 200,634 ■ 11.4 5 79 • c n o Virginia 85,762 4.9 434 .
Maryland 36,698 2.1 238 3.3
New Jersey 23,532 1.3 231 3.2 CO New York 83,759 • 339 4 .7
New England 66,032 3.8 229 3.2 o Other 41,505 2.3 11 • CO
Sources: State Population Figures: United States Bureau of the Census: Compendium of the Seventh Census of the United States; 185 0 Township Population Figures: United States Bureau of the Census: Manuscript Census Data; (microfilmed) Seventh Census of the United States: 1850. 79
Table 4: Native-Born and Foreign-Born Population of Ohio And Of The Five Ohio Townships in the Study. Numbers and Percentages. United States Census of 1850.
Ohio The Five Townships Number Percent Number Percent
Totals 1,980,329 100.0 7885 100.0
Native- born 1,757,354 88.8 7258 92.4
Foreign- born 218,193 11.0 597 7.6
Unknown 4,782 0.2 0 0.0 Table 5: Areas of Origin of Population of the Five Ohio Townships in the Study: Numbers and Percentages. . United States Census of 1850. (Microfilm manuscript census data)
The Five Townships Liberty Etna Harrison Tersey Lima °/ Number % Number % Number % Number % Number /o Number %
Totals 7885 100.0 2897 100.0 1307 100.0 1447 100o0 1266 100.0 972 100.0
Ohio 5173 65.7 2102 72.6 759 58.1 864 59.7 809 63.9 654 67.3
Pennsylvania 5 79 .7.3 253 8.7 131 10.0 90 6.2 48 3.8 57 5.9
Virginia 434 5.5 162 5.6 74 5.7 80 5.5 40 3.2 78 8.0
Maryland 238 3.0 64 2.2 21 1.6 37 2.6 70 5.5 47 4.8
New Jersey 231 2.9 30 1.0 13 1.0 25 1.7 134 10.6 33 3.4
New York 339 4.3 19 0.7 83 6.4 122 8 04 88 7.0 30 3.1
New England 229 2.9 19 0.7 35 2.8 111 7.7 46 3.6 19 2.0
Other 35 0.7 11 0.3 8 0.5 10 0.7 2 0.1 3 1.3
Foreign-born 597 7.6 237 8.2 182 13.9 108 7.5 29 2.3 41 4 o 2 81
Another interesting feature of township population compos itions is that, for a given township, there seems to be a definite relationship between the major country (or countries) of origin of the foreign-born population and the major states-of-origin of the native- born population of that township0 For example, the foreign-born population of Liberty and Etna Townships are predominantly from
Germany or Switzerland; in Harrison and Lima Townships, from Eng land and W ales. Harrison Township, with its W elsh and English settlers, attracted New Englanders and New Yorkers. In Lima Town ship, numerous settlers of Scotch-Irish background came to the area from Virginia. On the other hand, German and Swiss settlements in
Liberty and Etna Townships seemed to attract large numbers, compar atively, of Pennsylvania Germans from the area near Lancaster and
Reading, Pennsylvania. Indeed, the rural areas of these two town ships were referred to colloquially as "Little Germany" until the late
1800s. A German-English patois also persisted in these townships.
Although no religious group in the townships studied ap proached the level of a formal organized religious colony, a rough correlation did exist between the ethnic background of the population and the church denominations represented in the individual townships.
Two types of Protestant churches were found in the townships0 First, there were those derived from a German background, such as the
Lutheran, German Reformed, Evangelical, River Brethren, and the
United Brethren. Secondly, there were those derived from an English background, such as the Presbyterians, Universalists, Baptists, and
Methodists. 82
Since church denomination affiliation in this country has
frequently reflected a number of factors, such as class position,
ethnic affiliation, and world view, it has also had ramifications for
those marriage patterns which ultimately determine kinship patterns,
(e.g. Brown 195 2). It is quite possible that the combination of
church denominational affiliations coupled with language differences
may have actively reinforced some ethnic differentiation in Etna and
Liberty townships during parts of the nineteenth century.
The close relationship between township population compos
ition and the religious institutions of the townships is indicated in
Table 6 .
4. Summary
In summary, the townships selected for the study, both in
terms of natural and cultural environments and population composition,
are broadly representative of townships in the state of Ohio and,
probably, of townships in other comparable areas of the East North
Central Division of the Midwestern region of the United States. \ 83
Table 6 : Major States of Origin of Township Population and Religious Institutions Found In Townships in 1850
States of Origin Permanent Composing More Religious Than 5% of The Institutions Total Population Of the Township
Townships
Liberty Pennsylvania, Virginia, *German Reformed, Lutheran, Ohio-bom descendants *United Brethren,Evangelical, of German and Swiss *Methodist settlers
Etna Penns ylvania, Virginia, German Reformed, *United New York, Ohio-born Brethren, Evangelical, descendants of German River Brethren, *Methodist and Swiss settlers
Harrison New York, New England, *Presbyterian, Baptist, Pennsylvania, Virginia *Methodist, Congregational
Jersey New Jersey, Maryland, * Presbyterian, *Universalist, New York, New England United Brethren, Congrega tional
Lima Pennsylvania, Virginia, *Methodist, *Presbyterian, Maryland United Brethren
*More than 100 members in 1850
Source: Population composition; Table 5. Religious Institutions; United States •Bureau of the Census; 1850 CHAPTER V
THE ELEVEN FAMILIES IN THE DEPTH-GENEALOGIES
Depth-genealogies were compiled for eleven families, or stocks, in the five townships„ These families were adjudged reason ably representative of their townships of settlement with respect to the major states of origin, the major religious groups, and subsequent ly, the major ethnic groups in the townships. They were also to a certain extent representative of both the small town segment of the township population and the rural farming segment of the township population. Before 1900, the majority of the members of three fam ilies, the Youmans, the Bairds, and the Elliots, were primarily engaged in business activities in Pataskala. Several of the members of the
Mauger families were engaged in similar business activities in the community of Baltimore-Basil. Two families, the Atkinsons and the
M illers, although farming at that period, had business interests that extended beyond the townships. On the other hand, prior to 1900, most of the Grables, Beems, and Sniders (as well as the rest of the Maugers) were engaged in full time farming in the townships. Table 7 presents an overview of selected characteristics of the eleven families. Ap pendix A contains the individual family history, migration data by genealogical generation, and a discussion of the methods used in the Table 7: Selected Characteristics of. the Eleven Families in the Study
Family No. of Time State Township Religious Total Total Geneal Period of of Affiliation in in ogical Involved* Origin Settlement Geneal the Genera ogies Study tions N. Atkinson 234 188 11 1606- New Hamp Harrison Congretational- 1960 shire Presbyterian J. Baird 325 61 6 1749- West Vir Harrison Presbyterian 1964 ginia M. Beem 1310 232 6 1754- Maryland Jersey Universalist 1936 J. Elliot 148 108 12 1636- New Hamp Lima Presbyterian 1960 shire J. Grable 79 45 7 1780- Virginia Etna Methodist 1963 F. Mauger 328 225 7 1788- Pennsyl Etna German Reformed 1964 vania Presbyterian ? W. Mauger 195 117 6 1802- Pennsyl Liberty German Reformed 1967 vania J. Mauger 132 132 7 1818- Pennsyl Liberty German Reformed 1967 vania A. Miller 10 10 3 1806- Pennsyl Harrison United Brethren 1862 vania D. Snider 87 55 7 1775- Pennsyl Liberty Evangelical 1963 vania T. Youmans 132 89 8 1740 New Jersey Etna Methodist 1963
*Time Period involved refers to the date of birth of the first-born and last-born member of the family for which information is available.
0 0 c n 86
compilation of each of the eleven genealogies, (Appendix A).
There was considerable variation in both the number of
generations for whom genealogical information was available and the
number of persons found in each family genealogy. To some extent, the methods used in the collection of the genealogies (see Appendix A
194-205 ) and the availability of informants determined the extent of genealogical information. In general, however, the variability in the size of the genealogies also reflects the simple fact that the content of a given genealogy is determined by both the "fertility and the nuptuality of the individuals it contains, " (Barnes 1967: 104).
The inclusion of two groups of families, the Maugers and the Millers,requires some further clarification. There are currently three "groups" of families in Licking and Fairfield counties with the surname, Mauger. These families do not consider themselves inter related. Indeed, even the few elderly persons who believed that a relationship between the families of Frederic and William Mauger might be demonstrated are adamant that no such relationship could be demonstrated for the family of Jeremiah Mauger. Therefore, even though the present study has discovered that such a relationship does indeed exist, following anthropological custom, the families will be analyzed as my informants conceptualize them, as distinct units.
The Abraham Miller family has been included although it consists of only ten persons in three consecutive generations because of its close resemblance to the fragmented nuclear family of procrea tion that some anthropologists and sociologists, such as Arensberg 87
and Homans and Schneider, have suggested as the representative
American family unit, (Arensberg 1968; Homans and Schneider 1955).
All efforts to establish linkages of this family with other families in
the five townships (indeed, in the Licking county area) with the same
surname, same state of origin, or same religious affiliations were
unsuccessful. This family, therefore, most closely approximates the
image of the isolated nuclear American family of procreation and will
be considered in that respect.
The data for analysis in this chapter have been drawn from the totals for the individual family tables pressented in Appendix A.
Tables 8-15 present the totals from the family tables in terms of the following categories: (Tables 8 and 9) the numbers and percentages of migrants and migrational events in each of the eleven families
(Table 8) and the numbers of migrants and the average number of migrational events per individual migrant in each of the eleven famil ies (Table 9); Tables 10 and 11) the areas of destination for out- migrational events from the five Ohio townships in each of the eleven families with (Table 10) and without (Table 11) the inclusion of retum-migration; (Tables 12 and 13) the numbers and percentages of kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events found in each of the eleven families (Table 12) and the numbers and percentages of adult kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events found in each of the eleven families (Table 13); and (Tables 14 and 15) the numbers and percentages of specific types of kin-linked migrational events occurring in each of the eleven families (Table 14) and the numbers 88 and percentages of specific types of adult kin-linked migrational events occurring in each of the eleven families (Table 15).
The implications of these data will be discussed in the con cluding section of this chapter.
1. The Presentation of the Genealogical Data
a) The Numbers and Percentages of Migrants and
Migrational Events in Each of the Eleven Families
Of the 1265 persons in the study, 551, or 43.6%, were in volved in migrational events, (Table 8). This means that 714, or
56.7%, of the group spent their lifetimes in the natal area. As shown in Table 8, there was considerable variation in the percentages of migrants in the eleven families. They ranged from. 65.2% among the
Youmans to 24.2% among the Jeremiah Maugers . Three fam ilies, the
Youmans, the Atkinsons, andGrables, had more than 60% of their members migrating; one family, the M illers, had 5 0%; three fam ilies, ' the Bairds, the Beems, and the Elliots, had more than 40% of their members migrating; three other fam ilies, the W. Maugers, the F.
Maugers, and the D. Sniders, had more than 30% involved, and one family, the J. Maugers, had only 24% of their family members involved.
There was also considerable variation in the average number of migration events per individual family migrant, (Table 9). Thus, the Youmans, the most mobile family in the study, had the highest percentage of individuals migrating and with the W. Maugers the highest average number of migration events per individual migrant. 89
Table 8: Rank Order of the Eleven Families with Respect to Numbers and Percentages of Migrants and Migrational Events
Total Number Number Percentage Number of in of Migrating Migration Study Migrants Events
T. Youmans , 89 58 65.2 127
N. Atkinson 188 117 62.2 133
J. Grable 45 27 60.0 28
A. Miller 10 5 50.0 5
J. Baird 61 28 45.9 43
M. Beem 235 97 41.3 148
J. Elliot 108 44 40.7 56
W«. Mauger 117 ' 44 37.6 90
F. Mauger 225 82 36.4 151
D. Snider 55 17 30.9 28
J. Mauger 132 32 24.2 49
Totals 1265 551 43.6 858 90
Table 9: Average Number of Migrational Events per Individual Migrant in Each of the Eleven Families in the Study Listed by Rank Order of Percentage Migrating
Average Number of Number Number of Migration Events of Migration per Individual Migrants Events Migrant
T. Youmans 58 127 2.1
N. Atkinson. 117 133 1.1 o i I — J. Grable 27 28 •
A. Miller 5 5 1.0
J. Baird 28 43 1.5
M. Beem 97 148 1.5
J. Elliot 44 56 1.3
W. Mauger 44 90 . 2.1 00 F. Mauger 82 151 •
D. Snider 17 28 1.7
J. Mauger 32 49 1.5
Totals 551 858 1.6 91
The Atkinsons and the Grables, with the second and third highest per
centages of migrants, were actually low on the average number of
moves per individual family migrant. .These averaged out to one move
per migrant.
On the other hand, the W. Mauger family was comparatively
low in terms of percentages migrating, (3 7.6%) but quite high in
average moves per individual migrant, (2.1). In this instance, the
founder, W . Mauger, first migrated to Liberty Township in the early
1830s with his wife and their eight children; he returned to his natal
area of origin, Pottstown, Pennsylvania in 1839 with his wife and twelve children. He then re-migrated to Liberty Township in 1846 with his wife and twelve children. Thus, W. Mauger was personally
responsible for 36 of the 90 migrational events in the W. Mauger genealogy. This example, incidentally, furnishes an excellent cor
roboration of Goldstein's suggestions noted in Chapter II above, that the repeated mobility of a small segment of the population may inflate overall mobility rates.
Even the families with high overall percentages of migration al events, however, it should be noted that there are marked differ ences in both the numbers and percentages of migrants in the different genealogical generations. Examples of this are found in the Youmans family, in generations 5 and 6 ; (Appendix A: Table 35) in the Atkinson family, in generations 4 and 5 and generations 8 and 9 (Appendix A:
Table 39) and in the Baird family, in generations 3 and 4, (Appendix
A: Table 51 ). 92
These generational differences in the numbers and percen tages of migrants strongly suggest that Piddington's assertion, cited earlier, that "migration tends to run in families" (1965: 149) might be profitably modified, in this instance, to the following statement:
Migration tends to run generationally in families.
b) The Areas of Destination For Out-Migrational
Events from the Five Ohio Townships
Table 10 focuses on the areas of destination of out-migra- tional events from the five central Ohio townships found in the eleven families. Of the 746 migrational events recorded, 387, or 51.9%, took place within the state of Ohio. Of these 167, or 22.4%, had
Columbus as the area of destination. The growing dominance of
Columbus as the major urban area in central Ohio after the 1850s has previously been noted, (p. 53 ). Of the remaining migrational events,
148, or 19.8%, involved areas of destination in the Midwest:^19, or
2.5%, areas of destination in the Far West; and 52, or 7.0%, areas of destination in other states or territories.
Return-migration to the five townships accounted for 140, or
18.8%, of all migrational events noted in the genealogies.
When retum-migration is excluded as an area of destination for out-migrational events, (Table 11) we find that 387, or 63.3% of
^The term "Midwest, " is used in this study to refer to that group of states classified by the UoS. Bureau of the Census as the East North Central and the West North Central D ivisions. The East North Central Division, which generally corresponds with the old Northwest Territory, is composed of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Mich igan, and Wisconsin; the West North Central, of Minnesota, Iowa, M issouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. Table 10: Areas of Destination for Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each of the Eleven Families Listed by Rank Order of Percentage Migrating
Total Number of Migration Other Other Western Other Return Events Columbus Ohio Midwest States States Migration
T. Youmans 121 23 43 0 3 13 39 % 100.0 19.0 35.5 0.0 2.5 10.7 32.9 N. Atkinson 60 16- 20 3 5 5 11 % 100.0 26.7 33.3 5.0 8.3 8.3 18.4 J. Grable 24 2 0 19 1 1 1 % 100.0 8.3 0.0 79.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 A. Miller 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J. Baird 33 9 6 7 1 5 3 % 100.0 27.3 18.2 21.2 3.0 21.2 9.1 M. Beem 146 12 41 79 2 2 10 % 100.0 8.2 28.1 56.3 0.7 0.7 6.0 J. Elliot 43 16 9 6 2 6 4 % 100.0 37.2 20.9 14.0 4.6 14.0 9.3 W. Mauger 90 20 33 5 2 3 27 °// o 100.0 22.2 36.7 15.6 2.2 3.3 30.0 F. Mauger 150 40 46 25 0 13 26 % 100.0 26.7 30.7 16.7 0.0 8.7 17.2 D. Snider 27 14 2 1 1 0 9 % 100.0 51.9 7.4 3.7 3.7 0.0 33.3 J. Mauger 48 15 17 2 2 2 10 % 100.0 31.3 , 35.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 20.8
Totals 746 167 220 148 19 52 140 °// o 100.0 22.4 29.5 19.8 2.5 7.0 18.8
CO CO 94
Table 11: Areas of Destination for Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships, Exclusive of the Category of Return Migration; Total Numbers and Percentages
Areas of Destination Total Number Colum Other Other Western Other of bus Ohio Midwest States States Migration Events
Number 606 167 220 148 19 52 % 100.0 27.6 36.3 24.2 3.4 8.5 the 606 migrational events left involve destinations within the state
of Ohio. Of these migrational events, we find that 16 7, or 27.6%,
have Columbus as the area of destination; 220, or 36.3% have other
areas of destination within the state of Ohio; 148, o4 24.2%, have
destinations within other states in the Midwest;19, or 3.4%, have
areas of destination in the Far Western states; and 52, or 8.5% have
areas of destination in other states (or territories) of the United
States.
Thus, 5 35, or 88.1% of all out-migrational events have an
area of destination within the region of birth, the Midwest. There are only four areas of destination, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Kansas, that although in the Midwest lie outside the East North Cen tral Division. (They are located, of course, in the W est North
Central Division.) These four states received 65, or 10.7% of the
migrants involved in out-migrational events. Thus, 4 70, or 77.4% of all the migrational events had areas of destination within the East
North Central Division.
c) The numbers and percentages of kin-linked and
non kin-linked migrational events found in each of
the eleven families
Tables 12 and 13 permit us to evaluate the central hypothesis of this study: pre-existing kinship ties are closely related to migra tion patterns. It should be stressed again at this point that the class ification of migrational events in the genealogies has been based on the concrete behavioral event recorded in the depth-genealogies. For Table 12: Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each of the Eleven Families Listed by Rank Order of Percentages Migrating
Total Number of Kin-Linked Non Number Number Migration Migration Kin-Linked Migrating in Events Events Migration Study Events
T. Youmans 89 58 127 100 27 % 100.0 78.7 21.3 N. Atkinson 188 117 133 113 20 % 100.0 85.0 15 .0 J. Grable 45 27 28 26 2 % 100.0 92.9 7.1 A. Miller 10 5 5 4 1 % 100o0 80.0 20.0 J. Baird 61 28 43 33 10 % 100.0 76.7 23.3 M. Beem 235 97 148 138 10 % 100.0 93.2 6 .8 Jo Elliot 108 44 56 43 13 % 100.0 76.8 23.2 W. Mauger 117 44 90 79 11 % 100.0 87.8 12.2 F. Mauger 225 82 151 133 18 °//O 100.0 88.0 1 2 .0 D. Snider 55 17 28 28 0 % 100.0 100.0 0 .0 J. Mauger 132 32 49 42 7 °//o 100.0 85.7 14.3 Totals 1265 551 858 739 119 % 100.0 86.1 13.9 Table 13: Numbers and Percentages of Adult Kin-linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each of the Eleven Families Listed by Rank Order of Percentages Migrating
Total .. Number Number of Adult Kin- Adult Non Kin- Number Migrating Adult Linked Linked in Migration Migration Migrational Study Events Events Events
T. Youmans 89 58 97 70 27 % 100.0 72.2 27.8 N. Atkinson 188 117 91 71 20 % 100.0 78.0 22.0 7. Grable 45 27 16 14 2 % 100.0 87.5 12.5 A. Miller 10 5 2 1 1 % 100.0 50.0 50.0 J. Baird 61 28 39 29 10 % 100.0 74.4 25.6 M. Beem 235 97 111 101 10 % 100.0 91.0 9.0 J. Elliot 108 44 53 40 ' 13 % 100.0 75.5 24.5 W. Mauger 117 44 49 38 11 % 100.0 77.6 22.4 F. Mauger 225 82 110 92 18 % 100.0 83.6 16.4 D. Snider 55 17 24 24 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 J. Mauger 132 32 37 30 7 % 100.0 81.1 18.9 Totals 1265 551 629 510 119 % 100.0 81.1 18.9 98 example, the presence of close consanguineal kinsmen in either the migrating group or at the area of destination has been the basis for the designation of an adult consanguineal migrational event, (see
Chapter IV above).
Of the 1265 persons in the study, 551, or 43.6%, were involved in the 85 8 migrational events coded. Of these 85 8 migra tional events, 739, or 86.1% involved pre-existing kinship ties.
Only 119, or 13.9% involved migrational events where there was no pre-existing kinship tie. Of these 739 kin-linked migrational events,
229, or 31.0% involved childhood migrational events. Of the 628 adult migrational events recorded, 510 or 81.1% involved a pre existing kinship tie and 119., or 18.9% were coded as non kin-linked migrational events.
Stated in terms of persons rather than events, we find that of the 1265 persons in the study a maximum of only 119, or 9.5% were involved in migrational events where no pre-existing kinship ties were present. This means that a minimum of 1145 persons, or
90.5%, of the 1265 persons in the study, have spent all their lives in proximity to kinsmen, whether they have remained in the area of origin or have migrated to an area of destination.
d) The numbers and percentages of specific types
of kin-linked migration events occurring in each of
the eleven families
Tables 12 and 13 have shown that more than eight out of every ten migrational events involved a pre-existing kinship tie. No family studied had fewer than 76.7% (J. Baird) of its migrational events of a non-kinship nature„ Tables 14 and 15 present a break down of the numbers and percentages of specific types of kin-linked migrational events found in the eleven families with (Table 14) and 2 without (Table 15) childhood migration.
Childhood migrational events constitute 31.0% of all kin- linked migrational events, or almost one out of every three. There is considerable variation among the eleven families. In the A.
Miller and the W. Mauger families, over 50% of all migrational events involved child migrants. On the other hand, in the Elliot and
Baird families, only 7.0% and 12.1%, respectively, of all migra tional events involved child migration (Table 14).
Childhood migrational events present certain analytical problems because of the non-voluntary nature of the migration.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that a childhood migrational event is a valuable index of certain aspects of the parental migrational event in the first ascending generation. That is, the presence or absence of migrating children may be indicative of other migrational circumstances. Thus, a man migrating with eight children is pre sumably in his middle adult years. Circumstances resulting in a migration decision at this point in the life cycle are presumably dif ferent from those that might affect a young childless couple. Indeed,
*Acts of childhood migration are, of course, a type of con sanguineal migration, but in the present study, childhood migration has been regarded as non-voluntary, rather than voluntary and there fore has been distinguished from adult consanguineal migration on that b a sis. Table 14: Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-linked Migrational Events Occurring in Each of the Eleven Families Listed by Rank Order of Percentages Migrating
Total Adult Consanguineal Number Nuclear Adult Migration Event Kin-Linked Childhood Family Sibling Out- Return- Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Event Event Event Event Event Event
T. Youmans 100 30 19 4 15 32 % 100.0 30.0 19.0 4.0 15.0 32.0 N. Atkinson 113 42 13 9 32 17 % 100.0 37.2 11.5 8.0 28.3 15.0 J. Grable 26 12 5 5 3 1 °//o 100.0 46.1 19.2 19.2 11.5 3.8 A. Miller 4 3 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J. Baird 33 4 16 9 1 3 % 100.0 12.1 48.5 27.3 3.0 9.1 M. Beem 138 37 10 21 57 13 % 100.0 26 o 8 7.2 15.2 41.4 9.4 J. Elliot 43 3 10 7 18 5 % 100.0 70 0 23.3 16.3 41.8 11.6 W. Mauger 79 41 6 5 15 12 % 100.0 51.9 7.6 6.3 19.0 15.2 F0 Mauger 133 41 25 9 31 27 °//o 100,0 30.8 18.8 6.8 23.3 20.3 D. Snider 28 4 4 0 14 6 /o 100.0 14.3 14.3 0.0 50.0 21.4 J. Mauger 42 12 9 2 10 9 % 100.0 28.6 21.4 4.8 23.8 21,4
Totals 739 229 118 71 196 125 % 100.0 31.0 16.0 9.6 26.5 16.9 Table 15: Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Adult Kin-Linked Migrational Events Occurring in Each of the Eleven Families Listed by Rank Order of Percentage Migrating
Adult Consanguineal Total Number Nuclear Adult Miaration. Event Adult Kin-Linked Family Sibling Out- Retum- Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Event Event Event Event Event
T. Youmans 70 19 4 15 32 % 100.0 27.2 5.7 21.4 45.7 N. Atkinson 71 13 9 32 17 % 100.0 18.2 12.7 45.1 24.0 J. Grable 14 5 5 3 1 % 100.0 35.7 35.7 21.4 7.2 A. Miller 1 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J. Baird 29 16' 9 1 3 °/o 100.0 55.2 31.0 3.4 10.4 M. Beem 101 10 21 57 13 % 100.0 9.9 20.8 . 56.4 12.9 J. Elliot 40 10 7 18 5 % • 100.0 25.0 17.5 45.0 12.5 W. Mauger 38 6 5 15 12 % 100.0 15.8 13.2 39.5 31.5 F. Mauger 92 25 9 31 27 % 100.0 27.2 9.9 33.5 30.2 D. Snider 24 4 0 14 6 % 100.0 16.7 0.0 58.3 25 = 0 J. Mauger 30 9 2 10 9 % 100.0 30.0 7.2 33.3 30.5
Totals 510 118 71 196 125 % 100.0 23.1 13.9 38.4 24.5 102 the high incidence of young nuclear-family migrations in the Baird family is reflected in the low incidence of childhood migration.
Furthermore, high percentages of childhood migration in the geneal ogies have been frequently linked generationally with high percentages of adult consanguineal kin migration, such as at the time of the original settlement of the townships .
In general, however, the preliminary interest of the present study concerns adult kin-linked migration, (Table 15). Of the 510 adult kin-linked migrational events found in the depth-genealogies, 118 or 23.1% involve adult nuclear family migration; 71, or 13.9% involve adult sibling migration; 196, or 38.4% involve adult consan guineal out-migration; and 125, or 24.5% involve adult consanguineal return-migration.
It is particularly significant that, of the 510 adult kin- linked migrational events, only 118, or 23.1%, involve nuclear family migrational events. Nuclear family migration corresponds most closely to the patterning of contemporary migration in the United
States suggested by anthropologists, such as Arensberg (1968: 232-
233).
Migration events involving only adult members of the person's nuclear family of orientation, i.e ., adult sibling migration, also account for fewer migrational events than would have been predicted from the emphasis anthropologists have placed on the im portance of the adult sibling bond in cognatic descent groups,
(Pehrson 1951; Cumming and Schneider 1961). Only 71, or 13.9% of the adult migrational events fall in this category. 103
On the other hand, even though it had been anticipated that adult consanguineal kin migration might be important in Ohio, because of its seeming importance in .my earlier Illinois study, the actual numbers and percentages were higher than anticipated,
(Jorgensen 1962b).Of the 510 adult kin-linked migrational events,
321, or 62.9% were coded as adult consanguineal migrational events.
Of these, 196, or 3 8.4% involved adult consanguineal out-migra tional events; 125, or 24.5% involved adult consanguineal retum- migrational events. It has been noted in Chapter IV above that the methods of coding of migrational events have focused on the widest range of kinsmen involved in either the migrating party or already in residence at the area of destination.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the concrete behavioral data alone, it is still a fact that, if adult sibling migration is also included as a form of consanguineal migration, in 392, or 76.8% of the 510 adult migrational events coded, adult consanguineal kinsmen were present in either the migrating party, per se , or already in residence at the area of destination.
2. The Implications of the Genealogical Data
Before evaluating the implications of this material, some aspects of comparative patterns among the eleven families must be briefly discussed,(Table 16). We must see what the relationships are among the following three factors; (1) the mobility rates, (as indicated by the percentages of family members involved in migrational 104
Table 16: Rank Order of the Eleven Families with Respect to the Percentage of Family Members Involved in Migrational Events; the Percentage of Kin-Linked Migrational Events; and the Percentage of Migrational Events with Out-of- State Destinations
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Family Members Kin-Linked Migrational Events Involved in Migrational with Out-of-State Migrational Events Events Destinations
Family % Family % Family %
T. Youmans 65.2 D. Snider 100.0 J. Grable 87.5
N Atkinson 62.2 M.Beem 93.2 M.Beem 57.7
J. Grable 60.0 J. Grable 92.9 J. Baird 45.4
A. Miller 50.0 F. Mauger 88.0 J.Elliot 32.6
J. Baird 45.9 W. Mauger 87.8 F. Mauger 25.4
M.Beem 41.3 J. Mauger 85.7 A.M iller 25.0
J. Elliot 40.7 N. Atkinson 85.0 N. Atkins on 22.6
W. Mauger 37.6 A.M iller 80.0 W. Mauger 21.1
F. Mauger 36.4 T. Youmans 78.7 T. Youmans 13.2
D. Snider 30.9 J.Elliot 76.8 J. Mauger 12.6
J. Mauger 24.2 J. Baird 76.7 D. Snider 7.4 105
events), ( 2) the extent of kin-involvement in migrations (as indicated
by the percentages of kin-linked migrational events in the eleven
families) and (3) the focal areas of destination, (as indicated by the
percentages of migrational events having out-of-state destinations). -
It should be stressed that the first factor, represented in column one
in Table 19, refers to people; the second and third, to migrational
even ts.
After these comparisons are made, it will be possible to
investigate more accurately the phenomenon of chain-migration
which, as we have previously noted, is closely related to the crea
tion of migration-systems in relation to the eleven families.
Table 16 presents the ranked order of each of the eleven
families for each of the three major areas of interests represented in
data presented in Tables 8-15 (inclusive). Supplementary material
from Appendix A has also been used for some of the eleven families.
First, if there is an ideal type of fragmented nuclear family of procreation similar to that suggested by Arensberg and Homans and
Schneider, it should consist logically of a family characterized by high percentages of its members migrating, but with a very low per centage of kin-linked migrational events involving these members. It should also seem reasonable to assume that a comparatively high percentage of migrational events for such a family should have areas of destination that are geographically at some distance from the natal area, that is, migrational events with an area of destination outside the state-of-origin. None of the eleven families, including the A. Miller family, meets these criteria.
One family, however, meets the opposite criteria for the fragmented nuclear family of procreation, (the D. Sniders), and another (the J. Maugers) closely approximate it. This is a family characterized by comparatively low percentages of its members migrating, with a high percentage of kin-linked migrational events involving these members, and a very low percentage of out-of-state migrational events.
Other families suggest the complexity of these three factors.
For example, the T. Youmans family, has the highest overall per centage of migrants, (65.2%), yet the majority of these migrants have elected areas of destination in the state of Ohio. That is, only 13.2% of the Youmans migrational events have had destinations outside of the natal state. However, the percentage of kin-linked migrational events in this intra-state migration is the third lowest in the study, (78. 7%) „
On the other hand, the J. Grable family presents a different pattern. This family is third highest in the percentage of family members migrating, (60.0%). It is highest in percentages of migra tional events with out-of-state destinations, (87.5%). However, it is also third highest in the percentages of kin-linked migrational events, (92.9%). Indeed, the J. Grable genealogy indicates that the major migrational event in the family was the movement of 19 kinsmen to the Beatrice, Nebraska area in the 1870s and 1880s. Thus, the high percentage of family members migrating, in this instance, indicates the relocation of the family, rather than the fragmentation of all family links. 107
Other interesting family differences appear when we analyze more specific tables for certain fam ilies. The M. Beem and J. Baird families are very similar in terms of the percentages of family members migrating. In the M. Beem family, 41.3% have migrated; in the J. Baird, 45.9%. They are also quite similar in the percentages of migrational events involving out-of-state destinations. In the
M. Beem family, 5 7.7% of all migrational events have had out-of- state destinations; in the J. Baird, 45.4%. There is a marked differ ence, however, in the percentages of members of these two families involved in kin-linked migrational events. In the M. Beem family,
93.2% of all migrational events involve pre-existing kinship ties; in the J. Baird family, only 76.7% involve pre-existing kin ties. When
Ihbles 14 and 15 are examined for the specific types of kin-linked migrational events found in these two families, a rather striking dif ference emerges. In the M. Beem family, 5 0.7% of the kin-linked migrational events involve consanguineal kinsmen, while 7.2% involve only the adult nuclear family of procreation. These percen tages are almost reversed in the J. Baird family'where 48.5% of the kin-linked migrational events recorded involve the nuclear family of procreation, while only 3.0% are limited to consanguineal kinsmen.
The very low percentage of childhood migrational events in the J.
Baird genealogy (only 12.1% of the total) as contrasted with the higher percentage of childhood migrants in the Beem genealogy (26.8%) is probably indicative of a focus on the migration of fairly young adults in the nuclear family of procreation. 108
These data are clearly suggestive of the complexity of the factors involved in the analysis of family migration patterns. Cer tainly, these differences suggest that we may be dealing with a phenomenon that could represent consistent variations in family migration patterns. One fact clearly emerges. Most of the families who have been involved in migrational events with high percentages of out-of-state destinations have had comparatively high percentages of kin-linked migrational events, as well. It should be stressed, however, that is, no family were less than 76<, 7% (J. Baird) of all migrational events kin-linked.
It is possible that the slightly lower than average percen tages of kin-linked migrational events in some families such as the
T. Youmans (78.7%), indicate that when families are within a 150- mile radius (the distance to any one of the borders of the state from the five townships), the natal kin group is "available" when needed and slightly less dependency on day-to-day contact with kinsmen is required for maintenance of kin ties „ It should also be noted that a very high percentage of migrational events with areas of destina tion in Ohio had Columbus, in Franklin County, or other central Ohio counties as areas of destination.
a) The Evidence of Chain-Migration in the Family
Genealogies
Chain-migration, which has been discussed in some detail in Chapter II above, has been found in several of the eleven families.
Chain-migration has been defined for the present study as: 109
that type of migration where pre-existing kinship ties and concomitant primary social relationships are the major factor for the selection of the area of destination. Ideally/ chain-migration results in a "clustering" of related persons from the same area of origin at a given area of destination. (Chapter 1: p. 1)
Even though patterns of chain-migration were found in all of the families, except the A. Millers, there were major differences in both the area or areas of destination and the distances involved which led to considerable variation in the patterns of individual family chain-migration. It is possible, on the basis of the geneal ogical material, to suggest the presence of at least two types of chain-migration. The first type is chain-migration to an area of destination outside the state of origin. This area of destination, in the genealogies, has frequently been more than 5 00 miles from the area of origin. This type of chain-migration seems frequently to be concomitant with the movement of comparatively a large number of consanguineal kinsmen within a period of one or two decades. The movement of the Atkinsons to the five Ohio townships, (Appendix A,
214-217), the movement of the Grables and the Maugers to Beatrice,
Nebraska, (Appendix A: 223-228,264) and the movement of the Beem family to Chardin, Iowa, (Appendix A:242 -249 ), exemplify this type of chain-migration. In all these instances, a high number of con sanguineal kinsmen were shifted from one geographical area to another within a ten to twenty-five year period.
The second type of chain-migration suggested by the geneal ogical material involved chain-migration to an area of destination within the state of origin. The migration of the J„ Mauger and D. 110
Snider families to Columbus, Ohio best exemplify this. Since the
1870s, there has been a pattern of migration between the five town ships and the city of Columbus comparable to the flow of population suggested by Metge for the rural Maori and the Auckland Maori. In these instances, the migration stream has not shifted significantly overtime, but remains small and relatively constant. Matthews has also noted the persistence of certain migration streams in her
Tennessee study that seem quite similar:
For a way of life to be continued, a migration stream rather than individual migrations is required; the streams have been small, but they have been steady. (1965: 60)
The historical patterns in these chain-migrations will be discussed in Chapter VI below. It is important at this point to note , however, that while there are significant differences in these two patterns, both have one common effect; the maintenance of extended kin-group ties over a period of time. That is, where long-distance migration of a large number of consanguineal kinsmen is involved, in effect, a nuclear colony of consanguineal kinsmen is established in the new area of destination. Where short-distance migration of a small, but steady, stream of consanguineal kinsmen over an ex tended period of time is involved, certain types of contacts between kinsmen in the area of origin and the area of destination are also reinforced by the small but steady movement of these kinsmen be tween the area of origin and the area of destination. I l l 3. Summary
The findings reported in this chapter corroborate the major thesis of the present study: pre-existing kinship ties have been important for migration patterns found in five central Ohio townships.
Data indicate that, in spite of the high average percentage of migrants, (43.6 %), found in the eleven families in the study and the considerable variation in the areas of destination of out-migrational events, out of the 85 8 migrational events recorded in the depth- genealogies, 739, or 8601% have been kin-linked migrational events.
These data further indicate the overall importance of con sanguineal kinsmen in migrational events. Of the 85 8 migrational events recorded, only 23 7, or 27.6% involve no known consanguineal kinsmen. Of these 118, or 18.0%, involve the affinal kinsman of spouse; 119, or 18.9%, involve no known kinsmen in either the consanguineal category or the only affinal category of kinsmen con sidered in the present family;the person's spouse. It should be stressed again, in connection with these 237 events, that these eleven family genealogies represent, for any one individual in these genealogies, all of his relatives in only one of his four stock groups.
These genealogies do not represent all the members of any one indiv idual's personal kindred who are also his consanguineal kinsmen.
(See Appendix A: p. 200, for a discussion of this point.)
An evaluation of the percentages of migrants and migrational events for the eleven families has indicated that the inter-relationships between high percentages of family members involved in migrational events, is frequently correlated with high percentages of kin-linked 112 migrational events, particularly in migrational events having out- of-state destinations. These data suggest the interrelationship between mobility and strong family ties is both more subtle and more complex than is generally assumed.
Evidence of chain-migration was found in ten of the eleven families in the study. It was possible to discern two very different types. The first was long-distance chain-migration, out of the state of origin, where a comparatively large body of consanguineal kinsmen moved to the area of destination within a comparatively short period of time. The second pattern was intra-state chain- migration, where the movement of personnel was over an extended period of time, with considerable fluctuation between the area of origin and the area of destination. CHAPTER VI
THE HISTORICAL PATTERNING OF MIGRATION EVENTS
In this chapter, genealogical data on migrational events
are analyzed to ascertain the relationship of pre-existing kinship
ties to patterns of out-migration found at specified historical time
periods. The relationships of the type or types of kin-linked migra
tional events to the cultural environments of those historical time
periods is explored. The periodization is based on the definitive
history of the state of Ohio edited by Carl Wittke, (1940-1944).
Supplemental information on United States migration history is based
on Clark's study of Westward migration, (Clark 1959)«
Historians of Ohio have defined five historical phases in the development of the state since statehood was achieved in 1803 .
The first was the period of the early frontier years, from 1803-1825,
(W. T. Utter 1941). The second was the period of transition from frontier economy to an agricultural economy from 1825 to 1850,
(Weisenberger 1941). The third was the Civil War period from 1850 to 1870 when the state was at its peak in agriculture, and indus trialization and urbanization were just beginning, (Roseboom 1944).
The fourth period was the period between 1870 and 1900 when indus trialization and urbanization proceeded at a rapid rate, (Jordan
113 114
1942). The fifth period was the development of Ohio in the twentieth
century as a leading northern industrial state, (Lindley 1942).
The present study focuses first on how migrational events
found in the eleven families are associated with the formative years of the state and in particular the formative years of central Ohio.
The formative years are those years of heavy immigration from Eas tern states when frontier or late-frontier conditions existed in Ohio,
(1803-1850). Secondly, the study focuses on the years of intensive agricultural activity when urbanization and industrialization were just beginning to develop in the central Ohio area and in Columbus, in particular. Out-migration from the five townships into other states in the division and in the region is also considered, (1850-1885).
Thirdly, the drawing power of Columbus as a major metropolitan area in the last part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century is discussed in relation to migrational events of that period,
(1885-1940). Finally, the significance of the suburbanization of the five townships since the end of the second World War is analyzed,
(1941-1958).1
1. The Coding of the Genealogical Data
Migrational events found in the genealogies were classified on the basis of the year of birth of the first bom member of a given
The cultural content of these periods is more relevant to the present study than the absolute dates; that is, the dates represent chronological approximations of historical time periods. 115 genealogical generation into six historical time periods (or intervals):
1606-1750,2 1751-1800, 1801-1850, 1851-1900, 1901-1950, and
1951-1968. As has been noted in Chapter III above, this method of classification creates a population of chronological contemporaries
(if admittedly an extremely broad one) that cuts across the classifica tion by genealogical generations, while^still permitting us to ascer tain the specific composition of the kin group or groups involved in 3 migrational events of those approximate time intervals.
It should be stressed that by using this method of classifi cation, some people bom after the end of the period are thus classified in the period. That is, the generation of 1801-1850 is not made up only of persons bom during that time span. This would be particularly true for a genealogical generation, for example, such as the 8th Atkinson generation, where the first-born member is born in 1839 and the last in 1887. This also means that many of the migrational events of such a generation will, in reality, fall in the following historical time period, chronologically. Nevertheless, there are some clear shifts in patterning that are indicated by these data. Some of these shifts, particularly in the types of kin-linked
2 Genealogical data, prior to 1750, were so fragmentary that they have been grouped together in this one category.
3 This method of classification is probably best considered at this point as exploratory rather than definitive. Suggestions for possible refinement of this method in future research will be dis cussed in the concluding chapter. 116 migrational events, are simply not demonstrable without the use of delineated chronological periods to form a basis for comparison.
These data are presented in terms of the following categor ies: (1) the numbers and percentages of migrants where the first bom member of the genealogical generation is born during the specified time interval; (Table 17) (2) the number's and percentages of migrants and the average number of migrational events by the first-born member of a genealogical generation; (Table 18) (3; the area or areas of destination of out-migrational events from the five Ohio townships based on the classification of migrants by the first-born member of the genealogical generation (Table 19) and the area or areas of destination of out-migrational events, as above, with the exclusion of the category of retum-migration; (Table 20) (4) the numbers and percentages of kin-linked and non kjn-linked migrational events on the basis of the classification of the first born member of the geneal ogical generation, Table 21) and the numbers and percentages of adult kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events, as above;
Table 22) and (5) the numbers and percentages of specific types of kin-dinked migrational events based on the classification of the first born member of each genealogical generation, Table 23) and the numbers and percentages of specific types of adult kin-linked migra tional events, as above, (Table 24).
2. The Analysis of the Genealogical Data
a) The numbers and percentages of migrants classified
by the date of birth of the first-born member of the 117
genealogical generation
Table 17 shows that 551, or 43.6% of the 1265 persons in the genealogies were involved in migrational events.. There is a decrease, however, in the percentage migrating for each of the time intervals after 1801. It should be noted that the genealogical data are also much fuller and more complete after 1801. Table 18 indicates that while there was an overall decrease in general in both the numbers and percentages migrating, there has been a slight increase in the average number of migrational events per individual migrant, over each of the historical time periods. This increase may, in part, represent the more detailed information we have for recent generations, because of the availability of informants. There is certainly much more information, for example, on return-migration available for such persons. It may also mean that while a smaller percentage of the total population is migrating some of those migrating are quite mobile.
The high percentage of migrants in the 1751-1800 historical time period, coupled with the comparatively low number of migrational events per individual migrant ( 1 . 1) also reflects that fact that in several of the families this corresponds to the progenitor who migrated into the townships and who by definition was a migrant. Nevertheless, even in the Atkinson family, among members who did not migrate to central Ohio (but went instead to Georgia) high percentages of migrants were found during this period.
While it is possible to speculate that the increase in the percentage of migrants is primarily due to our increased amount of 118
Table l 7 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Historical Time Period Based on Date of Birth of First-Born Member of the Genealogical Generation
Date of Total Number Percentage Birth Number Migrating Migrating
1606-1750 66 36 54.5
1751-1800 84 60 71.4
1801-1850 449 224 49.9
1851-1900 413 173. 41.9
1901-1950 188 57 30.3
1951-1968 65 k 1 1.5
Totals 1265 551 43.6 119
Table 18: Average Number of Migrational Events per Individual Migrant in Each Historical Time Period Based on Date of Birth of First-Born Member of the Genealogical Generation
Average Number of Migration Date of Number of Number of Events per Birth Migrants Migration Individual Events Migrant
1606-1750 36 37 1.0
1751-1800 60 65 1.1
1801-1850 224 350 1.6
1851-1900 173 314 1.8
1901-1950 ' 57 91 1.6
1951-1968 1 1 1.0 120 data7 it is also possible that this reflects particular cultural factors.
It was not until the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that the American Revolutionary War was finally concluded and Amer ican control of lands west of the Appalachians assured. The sub sequent creation of the Northwest Territory in 1787 was a major factor in territorial development. Nevertheless/ there was a delay of several years before active settlement in Ohio began in the late
1790s and the early 1800s, (Clark 1959: 104-137).
Those persons born between 1751-1800 would have been reaching maturity at this time in their natal communities in the Eastern states. Indeed, Clark has specifically referred to the impact of the extremely high migration rates from 1795-1830:
The great frontier movement may also be compared to a vast forest fire/ caught in a wild breeze that swept it beyond newly cleared fire trails / swirling onward out of hand.. Wherever land was available there was no apparent force to restrain the advance of population which at times threatened to drain some older coastal settlements. (1959: 291)
Thus, most of the persons in our genealogies bom during the
1751-1800 historical time period, migrated into the five central Ohio townships during the period of initial settlement and were involved in no migrational events with areas of destination further Westward.
Persons in the genealogies coded,for the 1801-1850 historical time period, however, include both those who came into the townships as the children of the members of the 1751-1800 generation and who may or may not have remained in the townships as adults, and persons who were actually bom in the townships and who may or may not have 121
remained there as adults. The states immediately west of Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois, and then Iowa and M issouri, were intensively
settled between the years of 1830-1860.
After the end of the Civil War, and particularly after the
passing of the Homestead Act in 1872, vast quantities of land
opened for settlement in the Great Plains states and, to a lesser
extent, the Far Western states. Both Nebraska and Kansas received 4 high percentages of Ohio migrants at that time.
Persons coded for the time period between 1851-1900, how
ever, reached maturity, for the most part, in the last quarter of the
19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century. The rapid
urbanization of central Ohio during this Period, (see Chapter IV
above) and in particular the population growth of Columbus and, to a lesser extent, Newark, was an important factor in population
movement at that period.
It should be noted that the large number of persons in the time periods of 1801-1850 (449) and 1851-1900 (413) reflects not only the larger amount of genealogical information available but the
size of the families. Throughout the nineteenth century, families of six to twelve children are not unusual. Indeed, one progenitor of the eleven families, F. Mauger, sired 22 children by three wives,
21 of whom lived to maturity, (Appendix A: 263-270).
4 In Chapter VIII, demographic data on the migration systems of Ohio-Illinois, Ohio-Iowa, Ohio-Kansas and Ohio-Nebraska is analyzed. 122
Nevertheless, there was a significant drop in the percen
tages of migrants coded for the period of 1851-1900 (41.9%) when
compared with the percentages for the- immediately preceding period
of 1801-1850 (49,9%).
Both the numbers and the percentages drop dramatically for
the persons coded for the time period between 1901-1950. Only 188
persons in the eleven families were born in the five townships
during this period. Only 5 7, or 30.3%, of these were involved in
migrational events. This drop in migrational events is correlated with an overall decrease in family size. Only one nuclear family
of procreation, the Russell Mauger branch of the F. Mauger family,
had more than five children. Two to three children per nuclear
family of procreation were much more common. It should be stressed, however, that since the majority of the 188 persons coded for this time period are still living, migration figures are not complete by comparison with migration figures, for example, from the 1801-1850 time period.
It is, of course, too early to predict adult migration patterns for the children represented in the 1951-1968 category. It is striking, however, that of the 65 children for whom data are available, only one has been involved in a childhood migrational event. This may be indicative of the fact that the growing suburbanization of the town ships since the end of the second World War means that the parents of these children are able to participate in the Columbus job market while retaining their residence in their natal area. 123
b) Areas of destination of out-migrational
events from the five Ohio townships
Table 19 presents the areas of destination for out-migrational
events from the five central Ohio townships by migrants classified on
the basis of the date of birth of the first-born member of the geneal
ogical generation for each time period, since the settlement of the
townships. The time period from 1606-1750 is not included in this
analysis, since the townships were not settled until after 1815.
Persons from the 1751-1800 period who came into the townships as
settlers and were involved in no further out-migrational events are
not counted unless some of the members of the given genealogical
generation, that is, their siblings or cousins, were involved in out-
migrational events from the five townships.
Only twenty migrational events.fall into this category.
Seventeen of these involve migrational events within the state of
Ohio; three involved migrational events with areas of destination out
of the state. Two of these migrational events involve areas of des
tination in Illinois. These are the migrations of two Beem siblings
, with their nuclear families of procreation to Illinois in 1837,(Appen
dix A:242).
The numerically more significant out-migrational events
begin with persons coded for the following time period, 1801-1850.
There are 320 migrational events recorded for the 449 persons in the
genealogies. Of these,147, or 45.8% had destinations within the
state of Ohio. Migration to other Midwestern states accounted for Table 19: Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Historical Time Period by the Date of Birth of the First Member of the Given Genealogical Generation
Areas of Destination Number of Columbus Other Other W estern Other Return Migration Ohio Mid States States Migration Events western States
1751-1800 20 0 17 2 0 1 0 % 100.0 0.0 85.0 10.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 1801-1850 320 25 122 111 6 12 44 % 100.0 7.8 38.0 34.7 2.0 3.8 13.7 1851-1900 314 100 69 32 13 32 68 % 100.0 31.8 22.0 10.4 4.2 10.4 21.2 1901-1950 91 42 12 3 0 6 28 % 100.0 46.2 13.2 3.0 0.0 6.0 30.8 1951-1968 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Totals 74 6 167 220 148 19 52 140 % 100.0 22.4 29.5 20.0 2.5 7.0 18.8 124 Ill, or 34.7% of the total. Only 18 migrational events had other destinations; 6, or 2„0% involved destinations in Far Western states;
12, or 3.8% had destinations in other-states of territories. Retum- migration was responsible for 44, or 13.7% of the events coded.
In the 1851-1900 coding period, we find 314 migrational events coded for 413 persons. Of these, 169 or 53.8% had destina tions within the state of Ohio; 100 , or 31.8% had the city of Colum bus as the area of .destination. There were 74 migrational events with destinations outside the state of Ohio; 32, or 10.6% involved other states in the Midwest; 13, or 4.2% involved states in the Far
West; and 32, or 10.6% had areas of destination in other states-or territories.. Retum-migration accounted for 68, or 21. 2% of all migrational events.
In the time period of 1901-195 0, we find 91 migrational events coded for the 188 persons bom during that period. As has been noted, many (if not most) of the persons coded for this time period are still living so the potential for future migrational events still exists. Of the 91 migrational events recorded, at present 42, or 46.2% had Columbus as the area of destination. Another 12, or
13.2% had areas of destination within the state of Ohio. Only 9, v or 9.0% of all migrational events had destinations outside the state;
3, or 3.0% had destinations in the Midwest; 6, or 6.0% had destin ations in other states or territories.
Only one migrational event has been coded for the children in the 1951-1968 time period. This involved the return of a war-bride 126
and her child (the coded person) to her parents' home in Germany
after her divorce.
When the category of return-migration is excluded, (Table
20), we see the strong parallels between the areas of out-migrants
from the five Ohio townships and the major migration streams of the
periods. Thus, in 1837, Benjamin Beem and his siste r, Anna Beem,
(with their nuclear families of procreation) who were members of the
1751-1800 generation, migrated to Ottawa, Illinois.
The descendents of their oldest sibling, Richard, however,
(members of the 1801-1850 generation) migrated to Chardin, Iowa in
1849. In the late 1870s, and early 1880s, these descendants were joined by Beem descendants who were members of the 1851-1900 generation. Descendants of other siblings of Richard, Benjamin, and Anna Beem, also joined the Beem "colony" in Illinois, (Appendix
A: 242-249).
In other of the eleven families, younger members of the
1801-1850 generation were participants in the migrations into the
Great Plains states of Nebraska and Kansas. For example, in the
1870s, 1880s, and early 1890s, members of the Mauger and Grable families migrated to Beatrice, Nebraska, (Appendix A: 264-266 ,223).
This group was composed of persons from the later genealogical generations of the 1801-1850 period and the earlier genealogical generations (primarily children) coded in the 1851-1900 period.
In general, however, there was a marked decrease in out- of-state migration among persons classified in the 1851-1900 period. Table 20: Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships Classified into Historical Time Intervals by the Date of Birth of the First Member of the Given Genealogical Generation
Area of Destination Date of Number of Columbus Other Other W estern Other Birth 1st Migration Ohio Midwestern States States Bom Events States
1751-1800 20 0 17 2 0 1
% 100.0 0.0 85.0 10.0 0.0 5.0
1801-1850 276 25 122 111 6 12
% 100.0 9.1 44.1 40.2 4.4 2.2
1851-1900 246 100 69 32 13 32
% 100.0 40.7 • 28.1 13.0 5.2 13.0
1901-1950 63 42 12 3 0 6
% 100.0 66.7 19.1 4.7 0.0 9.5
.1951-1968 1 0 0 0 0 1
% 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Totals 606 167 220 148 19 52 % 100.0 27„ 6 36.3 24.2 ' 3.4 8.5 127 128
The striking change in pattern at this period is the rise in importance of Columbus as the major area of destination. It is probable in this instance that the closing of the frontier by the early 1890s, (Clark
1959: 743-762) and the growing urbanization of central Ohio meant that what could be termed the "urban frontier" seemed more promising than the "western frontier. "
The trend toward migration is intensified in the next time period, for persons classified by the date of birth of the first bom member of the genealogical generation into the 1901-1950 categories.
The marked overall decrease in migration events in this time period has already been noted, (p. 117)„ This decrease in both the numbers and percentages of migration events is coupled with increasingly limited selections of areas of destination. Of the 63 migration events coded, 42, or 66 0 7% had Columbus as the area of destination. Al though the majority of the members of this group are still living and are, therefore, presumably capable of additional migrations, another type of evidence that migration is indeed slowing down is indicated by the analysis of migration patterns found in the children who are, in general, the descendants of the 1901-1950 group, and who are themselves coded in the 1951-1968 group. In all, 65 children have been born in the five townships who are descendants of the eleven families in the study. Only one of these has been involved in a childhood migrational event; the return to Germany with her mother, of this child referred to previously. This would seem to indicate, at the very least, that the parents of children in this age group are
not now migrating. 129
It should be noted that many of the adults bom in the 1901-
1950 time period and consequently the parents of the children in the
1951-1968 period (and even of some of the younger members of the
1901-1950 time period) are living in the five central Ohio townships but are actually employed in the metropolitan area of greater Colum
bus ..
c) The Analysis of the Numbers and Percentages
of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational
Events in Each Historical Time Period
Tables 21 and 22 present the numbers and percentages of kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events in each historical time interval based on the classification of the first-bom member of each genealogical generation (Table 21). Table 22 focuses on the numbers and percentages of adult kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events coded in the genealogies. As already noted ear lier/ of the 85 8 migrational events coded in the genealogies, a total of 739, or 86.1% involve pre-existing kinship ties; thus, only
119, or 13.9% do not involve pre-existing kinship ties.
When childhood migrational events are included, (Table 24), there is no time interval in the study when less than 82.2% (1851-
1900) of all migrational events of persons classified for that interval involve kin-linked migration. The highest percentages are found, however, in those migrational events for the population classified in the periods of 1751-1800 (89.2%) and 1801-1850, (90.0%). These periods a,re related chronologically to the periods when the areas of Table 21: Numbers and Percentages of Kin-linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Historical Time Period Classified by Date of Birth of First-Born Member of Each Genealogical Generation
Total No. of Number of Number of Kin-Linked Non Kin-Linked Persons Persons Migration Migration Migration ' in Study Migrating Events Events Events
1606-1750 66 36 37 31 6 % 100.0 83.8 16.2 1751-1800 84 60 65 58 7 % 100.0 89.2 10.8 1801-1850 449 224 350 315 35 % 100.0 90.0 10.0 1851-1900 413 173 314 258 56 % 100.0 82 o 2 17.8 1901-1950 188 57 91 76 15 % 100.0 83.5 .16.5 1951-1968 65 1 1 1 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0
Totals 1265 551 85 8 739 119 % 86.1 13.9 131 Table 22: Numbers and Percentages of Adult Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Evenst in Each Historical Time Period Classified by Date of Birth of First-Born Member of Genealogical Generation
Total No. . No. of No. of Adult Kin Adult Non of Persons Adult Linked Kin-Linked Persons M igrat M igra M igra Migration in Study ing tion tion Events Events Events
1606-1750 66 36 15 9 6
% 100.0 60.0 40.0
1751-1800 84 60 58 51 7
% 100.0 87.9 12.1
1801-1850 449 224 222 187 35
% 100.0 84.2 15.8
1851-1900 413 173 263 207 56
% 100.0 78.7 21.3
1901-1950 188 57 71 56 15
% 100.0 78.9 21.1
1951-1968 65 1 0 0 0
% 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 1265 551 629 510 119 % 100.0 81.1 18.9 132 destination involved long-distance migration; such as the initial township settlements, the migration to adjacent (but still distant comparatively) Midwestern states before 185 0; and the migrations, after 1870, to the Great Plains states of the Midwest.
A slightly different pattern emerges when the numbers and percentages of adult kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events are analyzed. The lowest percentage of adult kin-linked migrational events is found in the first time interval, 1606-1750, when only 60.0% are coded as kin-linked. It is probable, however, that this low percentage reflects our fragmentary knowledge for the period. In many instances, only data for lineals are available.
There are significant differences between the percentages of adult kin-linked migration events in the periods 1751-1800 and
1801-1850 and the percentages of adult kin-linked migrational events in the following two periods from 1851-1900 and 1901-1950. In the
1751-1850 periods, 87.9% and 84.2%, respectively, of all adult migrational events were kin-linked; in the 1851-1950 periods, this percentage dropped to 78.7% and 78.9%, respectively.
No adult migrational events were coded for the 1951-1968 period, since no one, by the definitions used in this study, had attained adult age at the counting period„
d) The Analysis of Specific Types of Kin-Linked
and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each
Historical Time Period 133
Tables 23 and 24 present the numbers and percentages of
kin-linked and non kin-linked migrational events for those individuals
in the genealogical generations coded for the specific historical
time periods. There were 739 kin-linked migrational events recorded.
Of these, almost one out of every three (229, or 31.0%) involved a
childhood migration event. Table 26 indicates the marked variations
in both the numbers and percentages of childhood migration events 5 over tim e.
After a high incidence of childhood migration events in the period from 1606-1750, (71 .0%) there was a striking drop in the numbers and percentages of childhood migration events coded for the
1751-1800 time period. Only 7, or 12.1% of the 5 8 kin-linked migrational events coded fell into the category of childhood kin-
linked migration. To a certain extent, this reflects the previously mentioned fact that many of the progenitors of the eleven families in the study are found in this period and that persons from the 1606-
175 0 time period did not migrate as adults, in general across the
Appalachian Mountains in the early 1800s, (see p. 117).
This interpretation is supported by the sharp rise in both the numbers and percentage of childhood migration events in the following
1801-1850 time period. There, 128 or 40.6% of the 315 kin-linked migrational events coded for the period involve childhood migration.
^Childhood migration in this study refers to all migrational events, with the exceptions noted on pp. 54-68 , involving persons under the age of eighteen. Because of the presumed involuntary aspects of childhood-migration, sub-types such as childhood retum- migration, have not been used in the present study. Table 23: Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events Occurring in Each Historical Time Period Classified by Date of Birth of First-Born Member of Genealogical Generation
Total - Adult Consanguineal Number Nuclear Adult Migration Event Kin-Linked Childhood Family Sibling Out- Return Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Events Event Event Event Event Event
1606-1750 31 22 4 5 0 0 % 100.0 71.0 12.9 16.1 0.0 0.0 1751-1800 58 7 6 17 22 6 % 100.0 12.1 10.3 29.3 37.9 10.3 1801-1850 315 128 36 33 80 38 % 100.0 40.6 11.4 10.5 25.4 12.1 1851-1900 25 8 51 56 15 75 61 % 100.0 19.8 21.7 5.8 29.1 23.6 1901-1950 76 20 15 1 20 20 % 100.0 26.3 19.7 1.3 26.3 26.3 1951-1968 1 1 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 * ° ° i Totals 739 229 118 71 197 125 % 100.0 .31.2 16.2 9.6 26.7 16.9 i
Table 24: Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Adult Kin-Linked Migrational Events Occurring in Each Historical Time Period Classified by Date of Birth of First-Born Member
Total Number Adult Consanguineal Adult Nuclear Adult Migration Event Kin-Linked Family Sibling Out- Return Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Event Event Event Event Event
1606-1750 9 4 5 0 0 % 100.0 44.4 55.6 0.0 0.0 1751-1800 51 6 17 22 6 % 100.0 11.8 33.3 43.1 11.8 1801-1850 187 36 33 80 38 % 100.0 19.3 17.6 42.8 20.3 1851-1900 207 56 15 75 61 % 100.0 27.1 7.2 36.2 29.5 1901-1950 56 15 1 20 20 % 100.0 26.8 1.8 35.7 35.7
Totals 510 117 71 197 125 % ■ 100.0 22.9 13 o 9 38.6 24.5 135 136
The dramatic decline in the following period, 1851-1900, where only 51, or 19.8% of the 25 8 migration events coded for the period represent childhood migrational events is particularly inter esting. Migration events in this period, as noted previously, were coupled with the growing urbanization of the central Ohio area.
In the next coding period, 1901-1950, there is a slight increase in the percentages of childhood-migration events. Of the
76 migration events coded, 20, or 26.3% involve childhood migration.
Many of these are actually coupled with adult-return migration to the five townships.
Because of the variations in both the numbers and percen tages of childhood migrational events occurring in the different coding pictures, it is difficult to evaluate adult kin-linked migra tional events, when childhood migrational events are included in the • total figures. Therefore, the analysis of adult kin-linked migrational events will use the numbers and percentages presented in Table 24.
Of the 510 adult kin-linked migrational events coded for the study, 188, or 23.1% involve nuclear family migration; 71, or 13.9% involve adult sibling migration; and 322, or 63.1% involve adult con- sanguineal kin-linked migration. Of these 322, 19 7, or 38.4%, in volve adult consanguineal out-migrational events; 125, or 24.5% involve adult consanguineal return-migrational events. There has been a marked fluctuation in both the numbers and percentages of these adult kin-linked migrational events coded for the historical time periods. 137
Adult nuclear family migrational events show a slow but
steady increase, both in numbers and percentages, throughout the
nineteenth century. Thus, in the period between 1751-1800, only
6 or 11.8% of all adult migrational events were limited to the nuclear
family. In the period between 1801-1850, persons classified there
had 36, or 19.3% of the coded adult migration events in this category.
There is almost an 8% increase in nuclear family migration for
persons classified in the next period, 1851-1900. That is, 56, or
27.1% of the 207 adult migrational events involve nuclear family
migration. Data for the following period, 1901-1950, which as we
have noted is not yet complete , show that 15, or 26.8% of the 56
adult kin-linked migrational events involve nuclear-family migration.
It is interesting to note that the increase in adult nuclear family
migration has been coupled with the decrease in inter-state migra tion. That is, the areas of destination of many of these adult nuclear
family migrations have been within the state of Ohio. It should also
be noted that persons who were involved in adult nuclear family
migration events in out-migration events were coded if they returned to the five townships in the category of adult consanguineal retum- migration. Therefore, the suggestion that adult nuclear family migra tion events have had the fragmenting implications that have been
suggested would probably not be supported by more intensive anal ysis of this type of event in the families studied.
On the other hand, adult sibling migration events seem
clearly related to the demands of a changing cultural environment. Thus, in the 1606-1750 time period, adult sibling migration account ed for 5, or 55.6% of the 9 known adult migration events. Even with the more complete data from events classified for persons from the
1751-1800 time period,. 17, or 33.3% of the 51 migration events involved adult sibling migration. There was a sharp decline in adult sibling migration events in the following 1801-1850 coding period: of the 187 adult migration events recorded, only 33, or 17.6% involved adult sibling migration. In the 1851-1900 period, there was an additional drop in the percentages of adult sibling migrational events: of the 207 coded migrational events, only 15, or 7.2% were limited to adult sigling migration. In the period between 1901-1950, only 1, or 1.8% of the 56 coded adult migrational events could be considered an adult sibling migration.
There are significant differences between the two types of adult consanguineal kinship events coded in the present study, adult consanguineal out-migration and adult consanguineal retum-migra- tion. It is interesting to note that, in terms of the combined percen- tages of adult consanguineal migrational events, there is an increase in the total percentages for each historical time period. That is, in the period between 1606-1750, no adult consanguineal migrational events are coded; in the following period, between 1751-1800, 28, or 54.9% of the total of 51 migrational events involve adult consan guineal migration. The time periods of 1801-1850 and 1851-1900 are relatively similar in terms of the percentages of adult consanguineal migrational events. In 1801-1850, 118, or 63.1% of the total 187 migrational events involved adult consanguineal kinsmen: in 1851- 139
1900, 136, or 65.7% of the total 207 adult migrational events in
volved adult consanguineal kinsmen. There was an increase of 5.7%
in the 1901-1950 classification. Of the 56 adult migrational events
coded, 40, or 71.4% involved adult consanguineal kinsmen.
When these two types are considered separately, however,
there are some striking differences. First of all, adult consanguineal
out-migrational events have maintained the most constant percen
tages of any specific type of kin-linked migrational event in the
present study. There is only an overall drop of 7.6% in the total
percentages for the respective time periods. (No information is
available for the 1606-1750 period.) Thus, in the period coded for
1751-1800, adult consanguineal out-migrational events accounted
for 22, or 43.1% of the total; for the 1801-1850 period, 80, or 42.8%
of the total; for the 1851-1900 coding period, 75, or 36 „ 2% of the total;
and for the 1901-1950 period, 20, or 35.7% of the total.
During these same periods, however, there has been a
dramatic rise in adult consanguineal return-migration events. Thus,
in the 1751-1800 coding period, only 6, or 11.8% of all adult migra
tional events involved retum-migration. For the 1801-1850 period this percentage had risen to 20.3% of the 187 migrational events
coded. There was almost a 10% rise from the 20.3% to 29.5% of the total adult migrational events coded for the 1851-1900 period.
This was followed by another rise of more than 5% in the 1901-1950
coding period when 37.5% of all adult migrational events were adult
consanguineal return migration events. It should be noted that the 140 dramatic rise in adult consanguineal return-migration events almost parallels the dramatic decrease in adult sibling migration events.
3 . The Implications of the Historical Patterns
In the concluding sections of Chapter V, it was suggested that in spite of the variability of individual family patterning of migrational events, two distinct types of chain-migration were dis cernible. The first of these, termed long-distance chain-migration, involved the migration to a geographically distant area of destina tion (outside the state of origin) of a comparatively large body of consanguineal kinsmen within a comparatively short period of time.
The second,termed short-distance chain-migration, involved the migration of a comparatively large body of consanguineal kinsmen to an area of destination within the state of origin in a small, but steady stream of migrants over a comparatively long period of time.
With these distinctions in mind, it is possible now to explore the relationship of these types of chain-migration to the demands of the particular cultural environment of specific historical phases in Ohio.
As has been noted earlier, historians have defined five historical phases in Ohio, since statehood was achieved in 1803; the early frontier years, from 1803-1825, the period of transition from a frontier economy to an agricultural economy from 1825-1850, the peak agricultural period from 1850-1870 when industrialization and urbanization were just beginning, the period from 1870-1900, when industrialization and urbanization proceeded at a rapid rate, 141 and the period from 1900 to 1942, when Ohio developed into one of the leading northern industrial states.
It is possible, on the basis of the comparative importance of agriculture and industry, to distinguish broad similarities between the demands of the first and second phases, that is the period of intensive agriculture, and probably the major demands of the third phase. The following two phases, from 1870-1942,are coupled with the years when industrialization became extremely important to the state's economy, (Roseboom and Weisenberger 1967: 209-230,
391-398.) It is then possible to explore the types of chain-migration in terms of these two economic patterns.
Long distance chain-migration has several implications but one of the most striking, from the point of view of this discussion, is the obstacle of distance as an intervening factor for continuing relations with kinsmen in the area of origin. Certainly, before the development of rapid transportation systems in the early 20th cen tury, geographical distance was a formidable impediment. It was very natural then, given the reality of the harshness of pioneer agri cultural life, that a clustering of interrelated kinsmen became a very real solution to the uncertainties a new environment posed. Indeed, given the hard physical agricultural labor demanded in a new area, the frequent financial problems that characterized the small farmer throughout the nineteenth century, and the health problems of the period, it is difficult to conceptualize a reasonable solution that would not, in general, involve a group similar to the kin group0 In this sense, it is noteworthy that most of the instances of adult sibling migration in the three earlier coding periods involve
situations where young brothers migrated to the prospective area of settlement. There are numerous examples of this pattern in the genealogies (the J. Baird family, the N. Atkinson-family, the M.
Beem family, etc.) where brothers migrated to the area of destination, stayed a winter or two, managed the legalities of land purchase, and did some rudimentary clearing of land and planting of crops 0
They then returned to the areas of origin for their wives and children
/ (or fiancees) and, generally, older families in the consanguineal kin groups.
The subsequent migration of several interrelated kinsmen to the proposed settlement in the new area of destination solved many practical problems. For example, the threshing bee and the quilting bee of pioneer days were cooperative work settings which were often performed by groups of male and female kinsmen respectively, (Rogers
1960: 75-81, Jorgensen 1962a: 45-47). Indeed, the factors of isola tion and loneliness associated with the pioneer pattern were, in part, ameliorated by this. In his autobiographical novel, A Son of the
Middle Border, Hamlin Garland has discussed this at some length,
(1914: 61, 83, 134).
It is interesting to note, in conjunction with long-distance chain migration, that the percentages of return-migration events are lowest in the periods with the highest percentages of long-distance migration. 143
Thus, it is possible to say that long-distance chain-
migration probably met the demands of the cultural environment of the frontier.
Long-distance chain migration probably also met another little appreciated problem of the agricultural society of the nine teenth century. It has been frequently noted that before the inven tion of heavily mechanized farming in the twentieth century, the large family played an important role in the basic economy of the
society. Even comparatively young children could actively assist in the work cycle, of the farm. Thus, large families were not only an ideal but a real asset in an agricultural economy, (Rogers, 1960:
174-175).
Only a limited number of the children in these large families, however, could potentially expect to inherit land for their own nuclear families of procreation0 Thus, the open lands in the West for almost one hundred years drained off the surplus of young adults from the settled communities.
With the closing of the frontier in the'early 1890s, however, and the development of "urban frontiers" during this transitional period, a very different set of conditions emerged. For the persons classified in the 1851-1900 and 1901-1950 time periods, chain- migration was almost exclusively short-distance chain-migration to join relatives already in residence in Columbus„ Of course, with such close proximity to Columbus and the excellent network of transportation that has characterized the state in general since the 144
1880s, this short-distance chain-migration by no means severed
links with rural relatives. Indeed, there are numerous examples in
the genealogies showing that many mutual services were exchanged.
One informant who lived near the old Columbus-Newark interurban
line, spoke of taking her grandmother's eggs and vegetables, into the city to her relatives there on summer mornings and being escorted on errands in Columbus before returning to Pataskala on the evening tra in , (Beem 1965).
Thus, when a young kinsman in one of the five Ohio town
ships decided to move into the city of Columbus, he was not joining disinterested, even potentially hostile, strangers. He was joining urban kin with whom he had been in continual contact since child hood.
There w as, however, another pattern of migrational events that is associated with the rise in importance of short-distance chain' migration. This was the marked increase in the percentages of retum-migrational events. This increase suggests that there was a fluctuation of personnel between the five townships and the metro politan area of Columbus. Many of these return-migrational events involved the return of comparatively young adults who had been coded for isolate out-migrational events or for adult nuclear family migrational events.
g Similar patterns have been noted by anthropologists study ing urbanization in other areas of the world, e .g ., Gutkind has noted almost identical patterns among the Ganda in Mulago, (1965: pp. 52- 54, 58-60)o 145
The overall decline in migrational events for the persons coded for the last two periods; 1901-1950 and 1951-1968, seems to be associated with the suburbanization of the five townships since the end of the second World War„ Since that time, these five town ships have had high percentages of their total adult population gainfully employed in Columbus, (Robert Mead, President, Pataskala
State Bank, personal communication, 1967). Thus, the present day descendants of the eleven families have been able to remain in the area of origin but participate in the richer economic opportunities in the Columbus metropolitan area.
4. Summary
In this chapter, genealogical data on migrational events have been analyzed to ascertain the relationships between pre existing kinship ties and patterns of out-migration found at specified historical time periods.
Two distinct types of chain-migration were discerned from the data. The first, long-distance chain-migration, involves the migration to geographically distant areas of destination (outside the state of origin) of a large group of consanguineal kinsmen within a comparatively limited period of time. This pattern is associated with the types of kinship migrations found during the time of the settle ment of the United.States west of the Alleghenies.
The second type of chain-migration, short-distance chain- migration, that is the migration of a comparatively large group of consanguineal kinsmen to an area of destination within the state of 146 origin, in a small, but steady stream of migrants over a comparative ly long period of time, is associated with types of kinship migrations found in those historical time periods' that were synchronous with the heavy urbanization of central Ohio and the closing of the Western frontier,, CHAPTER VII
AGENCIES OF KIN LLAISON IN THE FIVE TOWNSHIPS
This chapter analyzes the roles of both informal and formal agencies of kin liaison'1' in sustaining close ties among kin groups in the area of origin (the five central Ohio townships) and in the area or areas of destination of the migrating segment of the population. The relevance of these sustained kin ties for the development of patterns of chain-migration and, subsequently, for the development of true migration-systems will also be discussed„
It was found that at least two groups of persons in the five central Ohio townships functioned as agencies of kin liaison,
(Piddington 1965, see Chapter II above). These were people who for a variety of reasons maintained extensive and prolonged correspond ence with relatives who had left the townships and people in occupa tions that directly or indirectly involved extensive traveling.
Two types of agencies of kin liaison have been disting uished in this study. Agency is defined as "a person or thing through which an end is achieved," (Webster III: 1967, 40) that end being the maintenance of kin ties, Informal agencies, then, refers to "the conducting or carrying out, (of the end) without formal, regularly prescribed or ceremonial procedure," (Webster III 1967: 1160). Formal agencies are those situations (i.e., things) which "require special or stipulated solemnities or formalities to become effective," (Webster III 1967: 893). Rites de passage and organized reunions can be considered as examples of formal, comparatively organized occasions that play a role in sustaining kin ties. In this sense, persons cannot be a formal agency, although clearly, the solemnities or ceremonial procedures involved are dependent upon persons carry ing out their roles in them. 148
The cultural pattern of long extended visits to geograph ically distant kinsmen, however, probably played an equal, or even greater role, in migrational decisions„ Informants' references to relatives that came for four to six week stays were not infrequent.
Indeed, the allocation of several columns in the local community newspapers to recording both these visits and the general news about out-migrants is, in itself, indicative of the social importance of * sustaining ties with geographically distant kinsmen.
Attendance at and participation in the more ceremonial oc casions that characterized the rites de passage and the formal Mid- 2 western family reunion pattern also reinforced these ties.
It is suggested in this chapter that participation in kinship activities, in general, by geographically distant kinsmen,is indica tive of a willingness to accept certain more general responsibilities towards kinsmen. Occasions such as the rites de passage and, in particular, the family reunion, created opportunities for the members of extended kin groups to interact while celebrating their temporary
"corporate" unity. Such symbolization, it is argued, could easily be generalized to meaning a willingness to participate in a given kin relationship for potential out-migrants from the area of origin.
2 The Family Reunion, that is the annual ritual gathering of the descendants of one man and his wife (or wives) has been an im portant, comparatively formal, kin-linked occasion in the Midwest for over one hundred years, (Ayoub 1966: 423-429). The symbolic high point of the Midwestern reunion is the ritual Sunday dinner shared by all kinsmen present, (Jorgensen 1962: 32-35; Ayoub 1966: 416). 149
Conversely, the same relationship could be reaffirmed for those members of the kin-group at the area or areas of destination who wished to return to the area of origin in the five townships.
In this chapter we ask to what extent are kinsmen in both the area of origin and the area or areas of destination involved with both formal and informal agencies of kin liaison?
We shall first present case histories illustrative of the informal agencies of kin liaison in the eleven families. In the following section case histories of the formal agencies of kin liaison will be analyzed.
1. Informal Agencies of Kin Liaison Found in the Eleven Families
a) Persons Functioning as Agencies of Kin Liaison
Most of the elderly informants interviewed corresponded with several geographically distant kin. In some instances the amount of correspondence was voluminous. The fact that only a few out-of-state genealogies were not completable because these infor mants had no names of potential correspondents to contact is in itself an excellent indication of the degree of communication that has been sustained.
The following excerpt transcribed from a taped interview with an elderly female informant, Miss Jennie Grable, of Pataskala, indicates something of the extent of this communication:
Interviewer: Now I,want to ask you, do you still exchange Christmas cards and birthday cards with your relatives ? Miss Grable: I have so many to send to that I think I am just going to quit it. I've got them in 150
California, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, and, oh, ah, that isn't all of them. Interviewer: But you have kept in touch a bit with them? Miss Grable: Yes, and you know, it just pretty near wears me out trying to write to all of them and, ah, they don't want a Christmas card unless they get a letter with them. (November 1965)
Further interviews with this informant revealed that these relatives who corresponded with her and, in some instances, ex changed presents with her, were the children and the grandchildren of her father's brothers who had left Etna Township for Beatrice,
Nebraska in the 1870s. The informant was born in 1881 and, as nearly as could be ascertained, had met few of her correspondents personally. Still, she had been writing to them regularly since the very early 1890s .
Another informant who carried on extensive correspondence with distant kinsmen was H. Clinton Baird, who had both written to and visited many of his more distant relatives. Indeed, during the
Depression years, he moved to West Virginia near the homestead of his third cousins there and remained in that vicinity for twenty-five years until his retirement. He was an active participant in their full range of kinship activities, (Baird 1964: 130-141). In his auto biography, the following newspaper item appears:
I plan sometime in November of this year to visit my many Kansas cousins whom I have never seen, then on to Eloy, Arizona to visit the Martins, then on to Los Angeles, California to see my daughter, Marjorie, and her family . 0 . I expect to spend Christmas with them. Then on to around the San Francisco area and visit my three nieces and their families. From there to Torrence, Wyoming to 151
visit my cousins, the Howes, who I have carried on a correspondence with since 1910. After my visit with them, I'll be on my return trip to Pataskala. (1964: 186)
Another item appeared in the Pataskala Standard after Mr.
Baird's return to the community:
I made a side trip of almost a hundred and fifty miles to Frankfort, Kansas where I planned to visit some, cousins I had never seen before, but had corresponded with Mrs. Florence Harry, my cousin, for several years. (1964: 187)
It is significant that in the printed Beem depth-genealogy, as well as in many of the printed depth-genealogies I consulted in the libraries, the names and addresses of living descendants of the progenitor were given. Since these would presumably not have been included if these descendants had objected, one must assume that on the basis of consanguineal kinship alone these persons are willing to accept both correspondence with kinsmen and perhaps the enter taining of traveling kinsmen as well. This is clearly indicated by the following excerpt from the Beem genealogy:
A. Traveler's Guide Note: Addresses even in a single city are hard to keep correct. We cannot vouch of these addresses and we are very sorry we do not have a greater number of addresses on our mailing list. You will notice that we are leaving spaces after each state and as you learn of new Beems write in their names and addresses and then make a report of changes or additions at the following reunions . • (Beem 1936: 195) 152
Many of the persons listed in the genealogies were active in occupations that required extensive traveling. For example,
several members of both the Elliot and Baird families were active in railroading. The following newspaper items by Frederic Mauger's grandson, Frederic, are indicative of the role such persons played in sustaining kin ties. In this instance, the ties sustained are with the kinsmen in the grandparents' area of origin in Pottstown, Penn sylvania .
Frederic Mauger was a prosperous insurance agent in Liberty
Township whose business activities frequently involved trips to the
East Coast. After these trips, he frequently reported on the relatives
"seen" in the local interest column of the Baltimore (Ohio) Sun. The following item, from that newspaper, describing a trip to Pennsylvania in 1901, where he notes both the kinsmen visited and their geneal ogical relationship to him, is typical of items appearing in these newspapers:
Mrs. Mary Frederick of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania of 2144 North 32nd St., a cousin, was seen. In Pottstown, the following relatives were seen: Mrs. Elmira Levengood (cousin) of King St.; W. N. B. Mauger (cousin); Mrs. Wm. Foucht of Pottstown (a cousin); and Mrs. Sarah Mauger of Pottstown (a cousin). (1901: 2)
At a later point in the news item, Frederic Mauger mentions visits to other kinsmen in the general area and notes their specific kin linkage:
In Stonetown, John Levengood (an uncle) was seen. In Douglassville, another uncle was seen. In Reading, Pennsylvania, Mr„ Mauger visited with 153
Wm. L. Reifsnyder (a cousin) and in Allentown, with Anna Hoffman (a cousin) . . . in Bangor, Pennsylvania, with Rev. S. P. Mauger, who was the eldest son of William Mauger of Fairfield County, Ohio. (1901: 2)
One rather humorous example taken from my field work il lustrates how modern technological devices, such as the telephone, may both facilitate and hinder communication between geographically 3 distant kinsmen:
I was attempting to clarify certain details in the •"Alexander" genealogy. One of the female descendants of the "Alexanders," Mrs. L. R., of Granville, Ohio, gave me the information she possessed and suggested that I phone "Cousin Marian (Alexander)" of Wheeling, West Virginia, for the Thomas P. Alexander segment of the genealogy. Miss Marian Alexander completed this segment with one minor exception and sug gested that I write or phone "Cousin Alice Browning".of Champaign, Illinois, for that Brown ing segment. When I failed to reach her, I again contacted Miss Alexander, who informed me that her fourth cousin, Alice Browning, had just gotten married. (Alice was seventy-five.) Soon after that I visited "Cousin Julia Alexander Tuttle" in Col umbus. I mentioned "Cousin Alice Browning's " marriage to her. At that point, "Cousin Julia" who, in her ninety-third year of life is a bit hard of hear ing, beamed from ear to ear and said, "So that's what she was trying to tell me on the telephone last wee^‘ (Field Interviews: Feb. 1969)
The preceding anecdotal material is indicative of the way persons in the eleven families have functioned as agencies of kin liaison by sustaining contacts with geographically distant kinsmen,
3 The names have been changed in this anecdote to protect the privacy of informants. 154
4 often over an extended period of time. The coupling of the pattern of sustained correspondence with geographically distant kinsmen and the pattern of informal visiting with geographically distant kinsmen, which will be discussed below, undoubtedly reinforced the ties between these persons.
b) Informal patterns of visiting
In many of the cases presented in the first section, it was almost impossible to separate information about patterns of corres pondence from information about patterns of visiting. As has been noted, visiting was considered significant enough socially to be reported in great detail in the two newspapers in the communities.
Many informants gave long descriptions of prolonged visits to rela tives who had left the area of origin. For example, while discussing the Beem reunions, two female descendants gave the following information:
The people came for the reunions when we (the women) were just little kids. Often they came for the reunion in August, brought their families and spent the summer. They'd get off the train at Grandmother's (at Summit Station) and make their headquarters there while they "visited all the Beems in the county." Grandmother's was the center. People called it the Star Hotel. That was the best hotel in Columbus then. (Beem Informants: Jan. 1965)
Visiting that was not linked with a specific occasion, such as the Beem reunions, also seemed extensive and commonplace in the families:
4 The role of correspondence in the creation of migration- streams has been documented by Thomas and Znaniecki, in their study of the Polish peasant, (1918,1919). 155
When our grandmother was alive, she had every body there for both holidays and Easter too. She didn't like to go out, but she liked to have people in, and what with living next to the railroad sta tion, sometimes she'd have twelve for breakfast. (Beem Informants: Jan. 1965)
Clearly these long sustained contacts with the focus on the warmth and strength of the kinship bond were involved in many migra tional decisions. Indeed, one specific case of return-migration, the decision of Della Mauger Reed, her husband, William, and her son,
Harry Allen Reed to return to the five central Ohio townships from the
Beatrice, Nebraska area, was credited by her son to the family's visit during the summer of 1897 to her sister, Jane Mauger Stemen, and the increasing reluctance of the Allens to return to their home in
Beatrice Nebraska to face the harshness of the Great Plains winter,
(H. A. Reed: September 1967).
The gradual cessation of the Ohio-Nebraska-Kansas migra tion system, which will be discussed in the following chapter, may in part reflect the feedback from negative reports from visitors and former residents of the area. For example, Mr. Baird includes a description of his North Dakota visit to former Pataskala residents in 1901 in his autobiography:
From Ellendale, North Dakota, I hitch-hiked to the J's , only to learn that he lived about fifty miles to the north in the sand hills. Really, I don't know why he got me to come out there, for I found him living in a house with only a kitchen and two bedrooms with a double bed in each of these. He had a wife and six children, including one breast baby. Fred and I slept in one bed with a little boy, his wife slept in the other bed with the other four, and one girl slept out in a cold kitchen on an old buggy seat with only an old overcoat thrown over 156
for covers. I have seen the two little girls ride a pony bareback across the prairie to school and when they came home they would take off their shoes and stockings and pack their feet in snow. At this place, there was not.a tree in sight and com cobs and dried cow manure was their only fuel. I soon realized that this was no place for me. (1964: 91)
The possible impact of Mr. Baird's description of his visit
to North Dakota on the perception of conditions at this possible area
of destination for out-migrants is self-evident.
On the other hand, frequent visits to an area where warm
kin ties were emphasized seemed to be a factor in the creation of a
favorable perception of conditions at a possible area of destination
for out-migrants.^ One of the descendants of the Daniel Snider
family referred at length to "fun" that she and her sisters had had
during their frequent visits to their grandparents in Columbus, after
her grandfather retired from active farming and moved there. Even tually, each of the four sisters lived with the grandparents in
Columbus while completing high school, although two subsequently
returned to Etna Township, (Snider informant: June 1965).
c) Special Circumstances in the Townships
Promoting Kin liaison
There have been a handful of occasions, such as the anniver
sary of the fiftieth year of the community of Pataskala in 1902 and
Stilwell has stressed the importance of kin ties for precise knowledge about conditions at the area of destination and the inter vening obstacles for out-migrants from Vermont: "There were also personal and clannish reasons that pulled Vermonters into regions where Vermonters had already gone. Relatives could and did furnish exact information as to the chances for success in the places where they themselves located. And this was the only information, outside of the rosy representations of the land companies, which the average emigrant possessed," (1948: 138). 157 the centennial for the community in 1952 that have been "homecoming" occasions, when former residents have frequently returned to par ticipate in the festivities associated with the occasions.
However, there have been no special circumstances or unusual facilities, generally, discernible in the five townships that have played an unusual role in reinforcing kin ties.
2. Formal Agencies of Kin Liaison
a) The Rites de Passage
There are, generally, three rites de passage that members of the extended-kin group are expected to recognize; birth, marriage, and death. There are several, what could be termed secondary rites de passage, such as birthdays, wedding anniversaries, and gradua- tions, with optative rather than obligatory overtones. There is a considerable variation in both the size of the kin group involved and the genealogical range of kinsmen present. For example, a much wider range of kinsmen would normally be present for an adult's funeral than a child's birthday.
While examining a box of newspaper clippings that one of g my informants had collected over a sixty-year period, I was struck
0 Although this line of inquiry was not intensively pursued since it was somewhat peripheral to the focal problem, it should be noted that newspaper items, at least in small towns, frequently give both the names and places of residence of geographically distant kinsmen present at funerals and weddings. In addition, the local practice of participants at funerals signing a register of mourners, could also provide data for analysis. David Schneider is using com parable materials in his Chicago study (still unpublished) that should indicate the range of kinsmen involved in urban rites de passage, (1968: 12-13). 158 by the differences in the sizes of groups reported in attendance at equivalent rites de passage. For example, for the funerals of
Isabelle Youmans Mead (Appendix A:2-0 7) and Joseph Atkinson, (215) members of socially prominent families in Pataskala, the newspaper clippings reported that "the church was filled to overflowing." (The
Pataskala Standard: Oct. 12, 1909 and Mar. 18, 1920, respectively).
On the other hand, obituaries for less prominent members of rural families were frequently limited to one or two paragraphs with the simple notation that "friends and relatives were present."
Similar reporting on the size of the group present at wed dings indicated that stratification may have been a factor in this.
That is, persons who were socially prominent, for whatever reasons, in the communities studied, tended to have a wider range of kinsmen 7 involved in these ceremonies. The one occasion that seems to draw on the whole range of available kinsmen is the comparatively rare celebration of a couple's fiftieth wedding anniversary.
b) The Family Reunion
The Family Reunion, that is, the regularized reunion of the cognatic kinsmen of a specified extended kin-group for a ritual meal,
(generally, on a summer Sunday afternoon) has been an important 8 kinship phenomena in the Midwest for over one hundred years.
7 It is interesting to note the implications of this pattern for future genealogical knowledge. Both the Culwicks and Schneider have noted that socially prominent kinsmen are more likely to be remembered ("structural amnesia") in genealogies, (see Chapter III above). 8 Family reunions have been formally reported for the five Ohio townships in the study since the first publication of the 159
Ayoub has identified three types of reunions on the basis 9 of the degrees of lineality and collaterality involved. The first is the Sibling Reunion, where the siblings of a given couple, their
children, and their grandchildren, gather for the ritual meal. In
general, 50-75 persons are present at this type of reunion. The
second is the Cognate Reunion where lineals and collaterals from a genealogical depth of five to ten generations are present. In general,
75 to 225 persons are present at this type of reunion. The third, but rare, type is the Name Reunion. In this type of reunion, the links to the common ancestor and with each other are greatly attenuated.
Only a few amateur family genealogists are able to state precise relationships. There are usually 200-600 persons in attendance at this type of reunion, (1966: 417-424).
All three types of reunions occur in the five Ohio townships studied. Six of the eleven families had Sibling Reunions. Two of the families had had Cognatic Reunions, in the past, that had bordered in size on Name Reunions. Indeed, the majority of my informants, even if they did not attend reunions for the cognatic stock that I was
8 (Continued) Pataskala Standard and the Baltimore Sun, in 1889 and 1888, respect ively, through the final months of field-work in the summer of 1968. It is probable that they were in existence before the initial newspaper publications. 9 It should be noted that sheer numbers become a factor in the designation of "Reunion0" In a family where, for several generations, only one or two members have reproduced and those reproducing have had only one or two offspring, individuals in the family representing the same degrees of lineality and collaterality represented in the reunion may "get together" but these gatherings, held comparatively easily in individual homes at any season of the year, are not designated as "Reunions" by either the newspapers or my informants . 160 investigating, were involved in one or more reunions in their other cognatic stocks.
Because reunions, generally-, are scheduled several months in advance, geographically distant kinsmen often schedule their visits to the area of origin to coincide with the reunion dates.
When I analyzed lists of participants, for reunions in two of the eleven families, the Beems and the Mangers,* ^ I found that, first, all the relatives living in the five townships seem to have gone to the reunions held within the geographical boundaries of the town ships. The second largest group at these reunions was composed of those members of the consanguineal kin groups who had moved to the cities of Columbus, Lancaster, and Newark, or, much less frequently to other communities within a fifty mile radius. The third largest group was composed of those members of the consanguineal kin groups living outside the state of origin. Comparatively few family members living elsewhere in the state of origin attended the reunions studied.
It is possible that these persons visited the townships at other times during the year and thus did not feel the need to participate in the township reunion pattern.
One newspaper clipping specifically noted: "The Nebraska contingent was represented by Mrs. Laura Mauger Grable and her children," (Baltimore Sun: 1898). Another somwhat earlier item
■^Information was collected for the Beem Reunion of 1914 and the Mauger Reunions of 1892, 1894, 1896, 1898, and 1902. The numerous Sibling Reunions held since 1914 are not analyzed separ ately. 161
stated: "The Western branch sent its greetings by Mrs. Caroline
Mauger Peters and her lovely family," (Baltimore Sun: 1894). There
are numerous suggestions in items about other family reunions and
in statements by informants that this was indicative of an areal
pattern. In situations where a number of families had migrated
previously as members of a consanguineal kin group, to an area of
destination at a considerable distance; e .g ., Ohio to Nebraska, it
was almost impossible for all the out-migrants to return simultan
eously. In these instances, there seems to have been a premise
that the presence of one family group from the area was, to some
extent, representative of the family sentiments of all the consanguin
eal kinsmen there. Indeed, letters of greeting from the absent
members were frequently read at the reunion to the participants. This
custom of reading letters and telegrams from absent family members
is still continued at family reunions in the area (e.g. Ayoub 1966:
424).
It should be stressed that because of the very real diffic
ulties involved, attendance once or twice during a decade at a family reunion was probably correctly interpreted as significant of strong family sentiment.
In her excellent descriptive and theoretical article on the
Midwestern Family Reunion, Ayoub has discussed some of the func tions of the reunion:
Those who attend a reunion are very conscious of the service the celebration performs and argue that their reunion is worthwhile because it reintroduces kinsmen
i 162
to one another. In effect, it repairs gaps in kinship bonds wrought by miles of distance or years of minimal contact, and none doubt that such repairs are praiseworthy. . . . Reunions institutionalize kin relationships and transmute them into diffuse associations characterized by optative and casual friendships. (427-28)
She stresses the importance of these "occasional kin groups" for the participants:
Although the data disclose no evidence of true corporate kinship groups such as are reported, for example, in Africa, I would contend that family reunions provide Americans with one way of representing an aggregate of kinsmen to the outside and to itself as a unified kin group . . . Those who attend a reunion are no more a col lection of kinsmen; they have been transformed into a kinship group. What concerns us is their conviction of corporateness, not whether_or not they are, in fact, corporate, /m y italics/ (1966: 428)
The implications of these formal and informal agencies of kin liaison for the creation of migration-systems will be discussed in the following section.
3. The Agencies of Kin Liaison and Migration-Systems
Everett Lee has postulated that the creation of a migration- system is dependent on four factors; (a) conditions at the area of origin, (b) conditions at the area of destination, (c) intervening obstacles, and (d) personal factors, (1965: 49-50). He has stressed the importance of perception of each of these factors as a necessary condition for the original decision to migrate or to remain in the area of origin. It is precisely at that point that the factor of communication becomes relevant, (1965: 5 i). 163
Migration systems are created and sustained then by com munication between persons in the area of origin and persons in the area of destination. Our genealogical data clearly indicate that, in the cases under investigation, the individuals communicating are linked by ties of kinship.
In his contemporary study of urban kinship in Chicago,
Schneider has noted that participation in a kin-linked dyad, such as the uncle-nephew dyad, is signaled by the willingness of both uncle and nephew to accept the roles assigned to uncles and nephews in a dyad, (1968: 62-66). Following this line of interpretation, it seems reasonable that a willingness to participate in those agencies which actively reinforce kin ties between geographically distant kinsmen often signaled a willingness to accept a kinsman role.
In a more concrete instance, by the 1890s, when the Mauger reunions were held, there had been a shift in the principal areas of destination of out-migrants from interstate to intrastate destinations.
Indeed, Columbus became the major area of destination in all three
Mauger families, (Appendix A:258-283). The Mauger reunions , then, with their stress on the cohesiveness of the family, were undoubtedly occasions where information, advice, and even offers of assistance could be made for persons in both the areas of origin and destination.
Furthermore, contacts made with kinsmen there, particularly when reinforced with more general patterns of correspondence and visiting, could certainly be viewed as indicative of a willingness, rather .than reluctance, to assume some of the broader responsibilities of true kinship participation. 164
Such symbolization, it is argued, could easily be general ized to meaning a willingness to participate in a given kin dyad role relationship for potential out-migrants from the area of origin. Con versely, the same dyad could be reaffirmed for those members of the extended kin group, who wished to return to the area of origin in the five townships. CHAPTER VIII
GENERAL PATTERNS OF POPULATION MOVEMENT IN OHIO
In the preceding chapters, genealogical data for eleven rep resentative pioneer families in five central Ohio townships1 have been analyzed to demonstrate (a) the importance of pre-existing kin ship ties for migration events in these families and (b) the specific types of kin-linked migrational patterns that were dominant in these five townships at specified chronological periods. On the basis of the distribution of these kin-linked migrational events and the analysis of their relationship to the areas of destination predominat ing in the respective chronological time periods, it was possible to distinguish two distinct patterns of chain-migration in these town ships. The first, long-distance chain-migration was coupled, historically, with those time periods when geographically distant
(i.e., inter-state) areas or destination were settled. This type of chain-migration was generally linked with the migration of a compar atively large group of consanguineal kinsmen within a comparatively short period of time. The second, short-distance, chain-migration, was coupled historically with those periods when intensive urbaniza tion of central Ohio occurred. This type of .chain-migration was
^The general representativeness of the five townships for Ohio in 1850 has been discussed in Chapter IV. The relationship of the eleven families to the townships is discussed in Chapter V. Additional data are presented in Appendix B. 165 166 linked with the migration of a comparatively large group of consan guineal kinsmen in a slow, but steady stream, over a comparatively long period of time. It was also noted that low rates of retum- migration were associated with the first pattern; high rates, with the second.
It was suggested that these types of chain-migration, created at least in part by the agencies of kin liaison, were pivotal for the creation of migration systems in the families studied.
In this chapter, we will examine census data indicative of the possibility that the state of Ohio has been involved historically 2 in at least two types of migration-systems. If it is possible to demonstrate that the migration events found in the eleven families used for this study were broadly representative of statewide patterns of population movement, then it is reasonable to suggest the pos sibility that the same patterns of kin-linked migrational events found in the eleven families may well have existed in other townships in
Ohio as well.
1. Migration-Systems and the State of Ohio
In their study of Southem-Appalachian migration-systems in existence in 1949-1950, Hillery, Brown, and De Jong noted two
2 There are several extensive excellent studies of internal migration in the United States that have served as general back ground for the analysis of this present chapter. Although several of these studies have been peripheral for the focal problem of the present study and, consequently, are not cited in this chapter, their usefulness for my own background of American internal migration has been invaluable. See Chapter I above.' 167 major prerequisites for the establishment of the existence of migra tion systems:
(1) 'As is customary with migration studies in general, it is necessary to establish the selec tivity of migration with reference to direction; and (2) for the concept of systems, it is also necessary to establish the presence of an inter change of migrants between the areas involved. (1965: 34)
In a longitudinal study of the type of the present study, it is possible to differentiate at least two distinctive types of migration- systems. However, since this study must take into account the shifts in the directions of migration streams, the problem of the interchange of migrants must be discussed in a bit more detail.
In his recent article on migration theory, Lee makes the . observation that "migration tends to take place largely within well- defined streams," (1965: 55). He has suggested some of the factors that have been involved in determining what he has termed the rela tive efficiency of migration streams . After first defining the efficiency of the stream as the "ratio of stream to counterstream or the net redistribution of population affected by the opposite flows,"
(1965: 55), he delineates conditions influencing high efficiency of migration streams and low efficiency of migration streams:
(1) The efficiency of the stream is high if the major factors in the development of a migration stream were minus factors at origin . . . The efficiency of migration streams will (also) be high if the inter vening obstacles are great. Migrants who overcome a considerable set of intervening obstacles do so for compelling reasons, and such migrations are not undertaken lightly . „ . (2) The efficiency of stream and counterstream tends to be low if origin and destination are similar. In 168
this case, persons moving in opposing flows move largely for the same reasons and, in effect, cancel each other out. (1965: 55-56)
Using Lee's definitions, it is possible to suggest at least two migration-systems that the state of Ohio has participated in his torically: the first is characterized by a very high level of efficiency; the second, by a low level of efficiency.
The first, it will be hypothesized, appeared at the time of the intensive settlement of the states west of Ohio; in the period from 1830-1860, Indiana and Illinois; in the period from 185 0-1885,
Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska.
These long-distance interstate migration streams were characterized by a heavy flow of migrants in a comparatively short period of time. This influx, it may be suggested, is demonstrated by the "peaking" of the migration-flow within approximately twenty years of its start, and its gradual decrease. The counter-streams in these instances, although quite low in numbers and percentages, were probably relevant for the slow but steady feed-back from those areas of destination which resulted in the cessation of the particular migration-system.
The second, it will be hypothesized, involved instances of comparatively short-distance migration, (generally intra-state) where smaller, but steadier, streams of out-migrants are involved. The counter-streams, in these instances, were sustained between two inter-changing areas over an extended period of time. In this instance, the growing numbers and percentages of native-born Ohioans found 169
in the state-of-origin and the state-wide shifts in both the numbers
and percentages of the rural and Urban populations may be used as
evidence.
2. The Evidence for Two Migration-Systems in the Census Data
a) The High-Efficiency Migration-System
To demonstrate the first type of migration-system, data on
migratory exchange between Ohio and Illinois, Ohio and Iowa, Ohio and Kansas, and Ohio and Nebraska, between the years of 185 0-195 0 is presented, (Tables 26, 27, 28, and 29). The total numbers and percentages of Ohio out-migrants found in these four states from
1850-1950 is presented in Table 25.
Ohio and Illinois are both located within the East North
Central Division and became states in 1803 and 1818, respectively.
Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska are states in the West North Central
O Division and became states in 1846, 1864, and 1867, respectively.
Although there are marked fluctuations in the total percentages going from Ohio to any given one of these states, the total percentage of native-born Ohioans who were out-migrants from Ohio, living in these four states did not drop below 15.0% until the 1940 census period, (Table 25).
3 In using census materials and studies based on census mater ials, it should be noted that there are often minor discrepancies in the basic census data. That is, the data given in the Compendium of a given census may vary somewhat from the data cited in the Historical Abstracts of the United States (195 7) or in the American Philosophical Society study on Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the United States: 1870-195 0, (Kuznet and Thomas 195 7-1960, 1964.) ■ I 170
Table 25: Numbers and Percentages of Native-Born Ohioans, Who Were Out-Migrants, Found in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska Combined: 1850-1950
Total Total Total Percentage Number Number Number of Native- Native- Native- Native- Born Born Born Born Ohioans Ohioans Ohioans Ohioans Who Were Out- Out- Out- Migrants Migrants Migrants in Four in Four States States
1850 1,514,885 295,453 94,932 32.1
1860 - - - -
1870 2,615,300 802,200 337,500 42.1
1880 3,251,400 930,400 381,400 40.9
1890 3, 766,500 1,045,000 403,100 38.5
1900 4,233,800 1,100,200 351,700 30.0
1910 4,636,700 1,149,000 285,900 24.9
1920 5,134,900 1,122,000 221,800 19.7
1930 5,673,600 1,154,300 173,600 15.0
1940 5,980,500 1,097,700 126,000 11.5
1950 6,715,800 1,297,500 109,400 8.5
Source:. Lee, Miller, Brainerd, and Easterlin, Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables, Volume I, Kuznet and Thomas, e d ., Population Redistribution and Economic Growth, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Penn. 195 7, p. 282. Data for the 1850 are taken from the compendium for that census. 171
In each of these four states, however, the percentages of their native-born population migrating to Ohio is below 5% of their total migrating population. Nevertheless, there is no time period 4 when there were no migrants to Ohio.
Because of the unevenness of both the numbers and per centages from Ohio going into the other states as opposed to migrants from the four states coming to Ohio, it is useful to conceptualize these as donor-receiver migration-systems. That is, Ohio in this instance is the donor state; Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas, respectively, the receiver states, (Tables 26, 27, 28, and 29).
In each of these four migration-systems, there is a period of marked increase, which will be termed the "peaking" of the migration-system, followed by a gradual decrease in both the numbers and percentages of Ohio out-migrants found in the state.^
Thus in the Ohio-Illinois system which was historically the earliest, the "peaking" comes for the first decade for which we have information, 1850. It is probable that after that time a
4 Eldridge and Thomas have suggested that an examination of the ages of persons in the counter-stream (who, for example, in the early years of Nebraska-Ohio migration, were undoubtedly child ren) could provide clues, also, for instances of return-migration not otherwise demonstrable from census data, (1964; 127). 5 For an excellent demographic analysis of the major migra tion streams and counter-streams in the United States between 1870- 1950, the reader is referred to the Eldridge and Thomas analysis of 1964, (1964: 117, 130).
It should be noted, again, that the 1850 census is the first United States Census where both the states of origin and the states of residence were given for persons in that census. Table 26: Migratory Exchange Between Ohio and Illinois: 1850-1950
Total Total Total % of Total Total Total % of Number Number Number Total Number Number Number Total N ative- N ative- Ohioan Ohioan N ative- N ative- Illin o is- Illin ois born born Out- Out- born born ian Out- Ohioans Ohioans Migrants Migrants Illin o is- Illinois Out- Migrants Out- in in ians Out- Migrants in Ohio Migrants Illin ois 111. Migrants in Ohio
1850* 1,514,885 295,453 64,219 21.7% 389,507 45,889 1,415 3.1% 1860 ------1870 2,615,300 802,200 162,600 20.3% 1,469,500 288,400 6,200 2. 2% 1880 3,251,400 930,400 136,200 14.6% 2,241,300 550,800 9,900 1.8% 1890 3,766,500 1,045,000 124,700 11.9% 2,984,500 811,600 12,500 1.5% 1900 4,233,800 1,100,200 134,900 12.3% 3,867,600 1,003,800 18,700 1.9% 1910 4,636,700 1,149,000 119,600 10.4% 4,665,800 1,295,300 25,300 2.0% 1920 5,134,900 1,122,000 101,500 9.0% 5,543,100 1,496,700 43,800 2.9% 1930 5,673,600 1,154,300 94,700 8.2% 6,371,400 1,652,300 56,700 3 .4% 1940 5,980,500 1,097,700 78,600 7.2% 6,845,200 1,631,100 58,600 3.6% 1950 6,715,800 1,297,500 76,200 5.9% 7,582,500 1,921,800 67,600 3.5%
Migration Systems Ohio: Donor: Illinois: Receiver
* Data for the 1850 census are taken from the compendium for that census. Source: Lee, Miller, Brainerd, and Easterlin, Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables, Volume I, Kuznet and Thomas, ed., Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the U.S., 1870-1950, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1957, p. 260, Ohio, p. 282. Table 27: Migratory Exchange Between Ohio and Iowa: 1850-1950
Total Total Total % of Total Total Total % of . Number Number Number Total Number Number Number Total Native Native- Ohioan Ohio Native- Native- Iowan Iowan -bom born Out- Out- bom born Out- Out- Ohioans Ohioans Mi grants Migrants Iowans Iowan Migrants Migrants Out- in Iowa in Iowa Out- in Ohio in Ohio Migrants Migrants
1850* 1,514,885 295,453 30,713 10.4% 56,738 6,358 378 5.9% 1860 ------1870 2,615,300 800,200 126,200 15.8% 515,900 88,700 2,800 3.2% 1880 3,251,400 930,400 120,300 12,9% 950,300 216,700 4,600 2.1% 1890 3,766,500 1,045,000 102,600 9.8% 1,391,200 395,500 4,400 1.1% 1900 4,233,800 1,100,200 88,000 6.0% 1,865,400 552,000 6,800 1.2% 1910 4,636,700 1,149,000 61,700 5.4% 2,209,200 798,200 7,600 1.0% 1920 5,134,900 1,122,000 44,100 3.9% 2,532,100 914,000 10,500 1.1% 1930 5,673,600 1,154,300 26,600 2.3% 2,869,000 1,077,500 14,300 1.3% 1940 5,980,500 1,097,700 15,500 1.4% 3,030,600 1,078,700 14,000 1.3% 1950 6,715,800 1,297,500 11,400 0.9% 3,212,500 1,182,700 15,800 1.3%
Migration Systems * Ohio: Donor: Iowa Receiver Data for the 1850 census are taken from the compendium for that census. Source: Lee, Miller, Brainerd, and Easterlin, Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables, Volume I. Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the U.S.: 1870-1950; ed. Kuznet and Thomas, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Penn. 1957, p. 262* Ohio p. 282. Table 28: Migratory Exchange Between Ohio and Kansas: 1850-1950
Total Total Total % of Total Total Total % of Number Number Number Total Number Number Number Total Native- Native Ohioan Ohioan Native- Native- Kansan Kansan born bom Out- Out- born born Out- Out- Ohioans Ohioan Migrants Migrants Kansans Kansas Migrants Migrants Out in in Out- in Ohio in Ohio Migrants Kansas Kansas Migrants
1850* 1,514,885 294,453 — —— — — — 1860 ------1870 2,615,300 802,200 38,000 4.7% 69,700 10,400 300 2.9% 1880 3,251,400 930,400 93,100 10.0% 267,000 44,900 1,400 3.1% 1890 3,766,500 1,045,000 116,200 11.1% 603,400 133,800 2,500 1.9% 1900 4,233,800 1,100,200 87,900 8.0% 887,600 279,000 5,300 1.9% 1910 4,636,700 1,149,000 73,500 6.4% 1,215,000 415,600 5,800 1.4% 1920 5,134,900 1,122,000 53,800 4.8% 1,494,800 551,800 8,000 1.4% 1930 5,673,600 1,154,300 37,000 3.2% 1,798,100 704,300 10,300 1.5% 1940 5,980,500 1,097,700 22,700 2.1% 2,002,900 835,200 10,900 1.3% 1950 6,715,800 1,297,500 15,300 1.2% 2,178,200 967,700 12,500 1.3%
Migration Systems': Ohio: Donor: Kansas: Receiver * Data for the 1850 census are taken from the compendium for that census, p. 270. Source: Lee, Miller, Brainerd, and Eastern, Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables, Volume I, Kuznet and Thomas, ed. Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the U.S. , 1870-195 0, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Penna,, 195 7. p. 26 8, Ohio, p. 282.
I—* Table 29: Migratory Exchange Between Ohio and Nebraska: 1850-1950
Total Total % of % of Total Total Number Number Total Total Total Number Total . Native Number Nebraskan Native Ohioan Number Number Nebraskan Ohioan Out- bom- bom- out Native- Native Out- Out-Migrants Migrants Ohioans Ohioans Migrants born bom Migrants in in Ohio Out- m Nebraskans Nebraskans in Ohio* Migrants Nebraska Nebraska 1850* 1,514,885 294,453 ------1860 ------1870 2,615,300 802,200 10,700 1.3% 23,100 4,609 76 1 . 6% 1880 3,251,437 934,383 31,800 3.4% 112,800 17,600 342 1 . 9% 1890 3,766,500 1,045,000 59,600 5 .7% 356,500 54,300 -- 1900 4,233,800 1,100,200 40,900 3 . 7% 599,600 142,200 2,029 1.4% 1910 4,630,700 1,149,000 31,100 2.7% 832,800 241,500 -- 1920 5,134,900 1,122,000 22,400 2. 0% '1,059,400 328,300 9,803 3 . 0% 1930 5,6/3,600 1,154,300 15,300 1.3% 1,320,000 448,400 5,351 1 . 2% 1940 5 , S’.;8,095 1,097,700 9,200 0.8% 1,484,200 571,000 -- 1950 6,715,800 1,297,500 6,500 0.5% 1,640,800 713,000 - -
Migration Systems: Ohio: Donor: Nebraska: Receiver * There is no information given on Nebraska-Ohio migration; these figures are from the compendiums of the U.S. Census for those decades. Source: Everett Lee, Ann R. Miller, Carol Brainerd, and Richard Easterlin, Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the United States: 1870-1950, Volume I. Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables. Simon Kuznets and Dorothy S. Thomas, directors, American philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Penn., 1957, p. 274. Ohio, p. 282. 176
substantial percentage of the Ohioan outr-migrants residing in Illinois were persons from the initial period of heavy in-migration to Illinois who remained there as permanent settlers, (Table 26).
In the Ohio-Iowa system, the "peaking" comes in the 1870s, when 15 .8% of the total native-born Ohioans who were out-migrants were found in Iowa. There is a marked decline after the 1890s, (Table
27).
Similar patterns are observable in the Ohio-Kansas and
Ohio-Nebraska migration systems, (Tables 28 and 29). In the Ohio-
Kansas system, there is an increase of over 5% in Ohio out-migrants in Kansas between the decades of 1870-1880, when 4.7% and 10.0% t
respectively, were present. There is a slight increase of 1.1% in the 1880-1890 period when the actual "peaking" occurs. There is a rapid decline after that period. In the Ohio-Nebraska migration-
system, which was numerically smaller than the others, the system seems to have begun in the 1870s. The peak is reached in 1890, when 5.7% of all Ohio out-migrants were found in Nebraska. There was a decline after that period.
In the Ohio-Iowa, Ohio-Kansas, and the Ohio-Nebraska migration patterns, it should be noted, out-migrants from Ohio and migrants from the three states to Ohio, are present for one to two decades preceding the actual "peaking" of the migration. It is sug gestive of the pattern of chain-migration already demonstrated for the five townships in this study whereby a few interrelated families first move into a given area of destination and are then joined by a larger body of consanguineal kinsmen. 177
It is interesting to note in Table 30 that there are indica tions of a division migration system as well. That is, the East
North Central Division and the West North Central Division have had migratory exchanges since 1850. Even on a division level of analysis, however, it is possible to see a shift in both numbers and percentages from the earlier historical period which was associated with the settlement of the West North Central Division. In this instance, a "peak" of 76.1% and 73.1%, respectively, was reached in 1870 and 1880. After that period, the role of the East North
Central Division as a donor to the West North Central Division seems to have gradually declined. It is also significant that through 1880
32.0% of all out-migrants from the West North Central Division came to the East North Central Division.
There are strong suggestions in the census data from 1940 and 1950 that a migration-system more closely resembling that des cribed for Hillery, Brown, and De Jong for Southern Appalachia (1965) may be developing between these two divisions. This would be a migration-system characterized by the comparatively low efficiency of stream and counter-stream.
b) Low-efficiency Migration-Systems
Unfortunately, it is more difficult over an extended period of time to demonstrate what have been termed low-efficiency migra tion-systems. This is particularly true when intrastate, rather than interstate migration is concerned. Table 30: Migratory Exchange Between the East North Central Division and the West North Central Division: 1850-1950 ~ Migration System East North Central Division: Donor West North Central Division: Receiver
Total Born Total Born Total Born % Born Tctal Total . Total % Born in ENC in ENC in ENC ENC Bom Bom Born WNC Out- Out- Out- in in WNC in WNC Out- Migrants Migrants Migrants WNC Out- Out- Mi grants in WNC in WNC Migrants Migrants in in ENC ENC 1850 2,757,356 174/756 96,708 55.3% 373,500 38,838 12,794 3 2.9% 1860 4,562,911 518,582 358,725 69.2% 848,692 92,674 27,496 29.7% 1870 6,550,805 925,263 704,106 76.1% 1,684,544 160,194 62,386 38.9% 1880 9,062,808 1,541,690 1,126,361 73.1% 3,117,714 315,920 101,161 32.0% 1890 11,459,737 2,179,381 1,464,505 67.2% 5,083,535 571,857 137,664 24.1% 1900 13,990,407 2,451,199 1,424,563 5 8.1% 7,211,362 1,068,417 267,723 25.1% 1910 16,287,667 3,047,706 1,411,304 46.3% 9,210,184 1,800,028 323,844 18.0% 1920 18,836,603 3,230,497 1,292,533 40.0% 11,077,968 2,378,479 462,835 19.5% 1930 21,523,034 3,355,167 1,102,154 32.8% 13,113,754 3,113,754 760,889 24.1% 1940 23,255,752 3,224,679 896,605 27.8% 14,401,132 3,695,538 818,929 22.2% ' 1950 26,252,590 3,909,520 801,785 20.5% 15,804,720 4,617,865 925,255 20.0%
Abbreviations: ENC: East North Central Division WNC: West North Central Division Source: Historical Statistics of the United States; Colonial Times to 1957, United States Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract Supplement; Prepared by the Bureau of the Census with the Cooperation of the Social Science Research Council, 1961, pp. 41-43. 179
Therefore we must use data that are much more tentative to suggest the existence of such systems . Two types of evidence are introduced. The first presents the numbers and percentages of native-born Ohioans actually living in the state of Ohio from 1850-
1960, (Table 31). The second presents the rural-urban distributions of the state's native-born white population from 1870-1950/ (Table
32). Certain methodological problems connected with the latter table will be discussed at that point.
Table 31 is indicative of the increasing stability of the state's population. Overall, there is an average of 76.6% of the native-born Ohioan population found at all the censuses in the state- of-birth. There are distinct differences, however, in the percentages at the different census decades. The lowest percentages are found in the decades between 1870-1910. The decades from 1870-1890, in particular, are coupled with the decades with the highest percentages of out-migration from Ohio into the states of the West North Central
Division. (In this sense, the Ohio percentages resemble the broader division percentages of migration into the West North Central
Division, Table 30). Since 1920, the percentage of native-born
Ohioans resident in the state-of-birth has never dropped below 78.2%.
Table 3 2 shows the rural urban distribution of the native- born white population of Ohio from 1870-195 0. In interpreting these data, two facts should be taken into consideration. First, there was a comparatively heavy influx of Central and Eastern European im migration to Ohio in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
In general, these immigrants went to industrial urban areas. Their 180
Table 31: Numbers and Percentages of Native-Born Ohioans Living in the State of Ohio: 185 0-1960
Total Number Total Number Percentage of of Native- of Native- Native-Ohioans Ohioans Ohioans Living in living Ohio in Ohio
1850* 1,514,885 1,219,432 80.5%
I860** ---
1870 2,615,300 1,813,100 69.3%
1880 3,251,400 2,321,000 71.4%
1890 3,766,500 2,721,500 72.3%
1900 4,233,800 3,133,600 74.0%
1910 4,636,700 3,487,700 75.2%
1920 5,134,900 4,012,900 78.2%
1930 5,673,600 4,519,300 79.7%
1940 5,980,500 4,882,800 81.7%
1950 6,715,800 5,418,300 80.7%
1960* 8,401,068 6,734,582 80.2%
Source: Lee, Miller, Brainerd, and Easterlin, Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables, Volume I; Kuznet and Thomas, e d ., Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the United States; 1870-195 0, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Penn. 1957, p. 282 * Data for the 185 0 and 1960 censuses are taken from the compendiums for those censuses. ** Data for the 1860 census are somewhat fragmentary and not included in the present study.
I Table 3 2: Rural-Urban Distribution of Native-Born White Population in Ohio: 1870-1950
Total Number Number in Number in Percent in Percent in Native-Born Rural Urban Rural Urban White Popula Areas Areas Areas Areas tion of Ohio
1870 2,229,800 1,768,100 461,700 79.3 20.7
1880 2,723,600 1,961,700 761,900 72.0 28.0
1890 3,126,200 1,977,900 1,148,300 63.2 36.8
1900 3,602,300 1,007,900 1,594,400 55 .7 44.3
1910 4,057,600 1,952,000 2,105,600 48.1 51.9
1920 4,893,200 1,943,700 2,949,500 39.7 60.3
1930 5,688,100 2,011,300 3,676,800 35 o4 64.6
1940 6,047,200 2,178,700 3,868,500 36.0 64.0
1950 6,985,500 2,555,600 4,429,400 36.6 63.4
Source: Lee, Miller, Brainerd, and Easterlin, Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables, Volume I; Kuznet and Thomas, ed., Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the United States: 1870-1950. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Penna., 1957 182 children would, of course, be part of the native-born white popula tion of the state. Secondly, in the period between 1940 and 1960, there has been a marked increase in migration of Southern Appal achians, in general, into the industrial centers of the northern urban states. These persons would, of course, swell the percentages found in urban areas.
On the other hand, Lee, Miller, Brainerd, and Easterlin have specifically noted that by using 1940 census classifications for rural and urban areas (urban areas are areas having a population of more than 2,5 00 persons) "many persons who participate most fully in the general urban culture are included in rural populations simply because their residences fall outside the limits of areas classified as urban," (1959: 97),
Even with these limitations, however, the shift from a pre dominantly rural centered population to an urban centered population in the decades between 1870-1950 is evident. This is most striking after 1910. However, the percentage of the state's population clas sified in urban areas never exceeds the 1930 percentage of 64.6%.
It seems reasonable to suggest, although difficult to prove, that a fairly high percentage of those persons still found in rural areas may well represent the descendants of the original settlers, since most of the descendants of the late 19th century and early 20th century European immigrants seem to be in urban areas of the state and since the Southern Appalachian migration has always had an urban focus. It is probable that the comparatively high capital 183 requirements for farming, for example, since the 1920s, would have precluded the entrance of high percentages of these persons into farming occupations. Other factors, such as language, religious differences, and general ethnic differences would, generally, prob ably reinforce decisions to remain in urban areas.
Tables 33 and 34 present the numbers and percentages of persons born in the East North Central Division from 185 0-1960 remaining in the natal division (Table 33) and the percentages of native-born Ohioans, from the censuses of 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1960, remaining in the natal division, (Table 34). Given the intensive urbanization of the East North Central Division, in general, and certainly of Ohio since the 1880s, and the comparative economic stability of the Division, these trends are not surprising.
3. The Comparability of the Census Data with the Genealogical Data
When the census data are compared with the data from the family genealogies presented in Chapter VI, there are indications that the families in the present study, while generally comparable with state patterns, are perhaps slightly less mobile than the average population. For example, an average of 76.6% of the native-born
Ohioans remained in Ohio; .(Table 31) but 82.5% of the persons in the genealogies remained in Ohio. Overall, 86.7% of native-born
Ohioans remained in the East North Central Division; (Table 34), however, 90.6% of the persons in the genealogies remained in the div isio n . 184
Table 33: Numbers and Percentages of White Native Population Born in East North Central Division Remaining in East North Central Division: 185 0-1960
Percentage of Total Total Remaining Total Remaining Number in Division in Division
1850 2,757,356 2,582,600 93.7
1860 4,562,911 4,044,329 88.6
1870 6,550,805 5,625,542 85.9
1880 9,062,808 7,521,118 83.0
1890 11,459,737 9,280,356 81.0
1900 13,990,407 11,539,208 82.5
1910 16,287,667 13,239,961 81.3
1920 18,836,603 15,606,106 82.8
1930 21,523,034 18,167,867 84.4
1940 23,255, 752 20,031,073 86.1
1950 26,253,590 22,344,590 85.1
1960 32,236,270 27,127,488 84.1
Average percentage remaining in East North Central Division: 84.8
Source: Historical Statistics of the United States; Colonial Times to 195 7 United States Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 1960 Compendium of the Seventeenth Census of the United States; I960, United States Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C« 135
Table 34: Numbers and Percentages of White Native-Born Population of Ohio Remaining in East North Central Division; 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1960
Total Number Total Remaining Percentage of Bom in in Division Total Remaining Ohio in Division
1850 1,514,885 1,429,923 94.4
1870 2,649,296 2,284,955 86.2
1880 3,302,656 2,782,277 84.2
1900 4,310,651 3,612,668 83.8
1960 8,401,068 7,140,734 85.0
Average percentage remaining in East North Central Division: 86.7
Source: The Compendiums of the Seventh, Ninth/Tenth Twelfth, and Seventeenth Censuses of the United States: 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1960, United States Bureau of the Census, Washington, D .C., 1850, 1870/ 1880, 1900, and 1960 186
The major migration streams from the East North Central
Division to the West North Central Division (Table 30) are reflected in the areas of destination of out-migrational events found in the eleven families, (Chapter VI: Tables 19 and 20). Indeed, the cessa tion of out-migrational systems to these areas of destination in the late 1880s seems also generally comparable to statewide patterns.
The increase in the numbers and percentages of persons in the genealogies electing Columbus as the area of destination for persons coded from the 1851-1900 and 1901-1950 historical time periods, (Chapter VI: Tables 19 and 20),seems also to reflect general statewide shifts in rurab-urban population distribution, (Table 3 2).
One very interesting pattern shown in the analysis of migrational events in the genealogies,that is not demonstrable with the state census data/is the marked increase in return-migration to the five townships 0 These increasing percentages would seem to indicate a very low ratio of efficiency in these later migration streams.
With the increasing suburbanization of the five townships since the end of the Second World War, however, as has been noted, this does not necessarily mean that the members of the eleven families are not active participants in segments of Columbus urban culture.
Thus, it seems possible to say that while the data for pop ulation in the genealogies for the eleven families in the study do not mirror the data for population mobility in the state to the extent that the township population composition, for example, mirrored the state population composition in 1850, (Chapter IV, Tables 3 and
4), the percentages and patterns are sufficiently similar to suggest 187 the potential use of such data for the analysis of particular prob lems in the study of population movement.
This chapter has examined census data to explore the possibility that the state of Ohio has been involved historically in at least two types of migration-systems. The census data presented supported these suggestions. These data also supported the con clusion that the patterns found in the analysis of migration-events in eleven representative families in five Ohio townships are probably demonstrable in other townships in the state as well.
\ CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSIONS
1. Findings of the Present Study
This study has demonstrated that pre-existing kinship ties have been important for migration patterns found in five central Ohio townships. This has been shown by the intensive analysis of migrational events found in eleven depth-genealogies from repres entative pioneer families in the townships. The types of kin-linked migrational events predominating at a given historical time period, however, have reflected the nature of the cultural environment of that period.
Data indicate a high overall percentage of migrants, (43.6%), found in the eleven families although a majority in fact did not migrate. These data also indicate considerable variation in the areas of destination of out-migrational events. Nevertheless, 739, or 86.1% of the 858 migrational events coded in the genealogies have been kin-linked migrational events.
These data further indicate the overall importance of con- sanguineal kinsmen in migrational events. Of the 85 8 migrational events coded, only 23 7, or 36.9% involve no known consanguineal kinsmen. Of these 118, or 18.0% involve affinal kinsmen and 119, or 18.9% involve no known consanguineal or affinal kinsman.
188 189
These pre-existing kinship ties have been particularly relevant for the process of chain-migration which has been the major pattern of migration from these five townships. It has been possible with the genealogical data to distinguish two distinct types of chain- migration in spite of the variability of family patterning of migra tional events. These are (1) long-distance chain-migration, which involves the migration of a comparatively large group of consan guineal kinsmen to a geographically distant area of destination within a comparatively short period of time, and (2) short-distance chain-migration, which involves the migration of a comparatively large body of consanguineal kinsmen to a geographically closer area (generally within the natal state) in a small but steady stream of migrants over a comparatively long period of time.
An examination of the historical time periods when these two types of chain-migration are found indicates that long-distance chain-migration is associated with' those historical time periods that were concurrent with the settlement of the United States west of the Alleghenies. Short-distance chain-migration is most frequent in those historical time periods that synchronize with the closing of the Western frontier in the late 1880s and the intensive urbaniza tion of central Ohio.
The high incidences of both types of chain-migration strongly support the view of Hillery, Brown, and De Jong that migra tion is best conceptualized as "a group process rather than an individual event „" (1965: 35). 190
Indeed, the high incidence of chain-migration in the genealogies coupled with the comparatively lower, but still con stant occurrence of retum-migration events found in the genealogies strongly suggests the presence of true migration-systems. Put somewhat differently, chain-migration and return-migration, in these five townships, created those types of migration-streams and counter-stream s (Bogue 1957: 7) that are prerequisites for the development of true migration-systems , (Chapter II).
Contacts fundamental to sustaining migration-streams and counter-streams and, thus, migration-systems between kinsmen in the area of origin and kinsmen in the area of destination are found to be dependent on both informal and formal agencies of kin liaison,
(Piddington 1965).
It has been possible to distinguish both persons in the eleven families and occasions that have functioned as agencies of kin liaison. There are persons who for a variety of reasons have maintained extensive and prolonged correspondence with relatives who have left the townships. There are also persons in occupations that directly or indirectly have involved considerable traveling and, subsequently, opportunities for maintaining direct contact with geographically distant kinsmen. There are also occasions, such as periods of extended informal visiting with geographically distant kinsmen and more formalized occasions, such as the rites de passage and the Midwestern Family Reunion pattern, that have helped main tain effective communication between geographically distant kinsmen. 191
It has been suggested that such communication has been
pivotal for the creation of migration-systems, since it has had direct ramifications for the perception of the prospective out-migrant of (a) the conditions at the area of origin, (b) the conditions at the prospective area of destination, (c) the intervening obstacles, and
(d) personal factors, (Lee 1965: 49-50).
The examination of data from the United State's censuses has indicated the possibility that the state of Ohio has been in volved, historically, in two types of migration systems. The first, a high-efficiency migration-system, characterized by the high ratio of efficiency of the migration stream, vis-a-vis the low efficiency of the counter-stream was found to be chronologically correlated with the periods of settlement of the states in both the East North
Central Division and the West North Central Division that were
West of Ohio. The second, a low-efficiency migration-system, which was characterized by the close ratios of the migration-streams and counter-streams, was found to be chronologically correlated with the intensive urbanization of the state of Ohio, since the 1890s, and the increasing stabilization of native-born Ohioans in the state- of-birth.
These census data are supportive of the conclusion that the kin-linked migrational events found in the families studied are representative of more general patterns of kin-linked migration in the state. Data from other sources, such as the study of contem porary Appalachian migration in the Beech Creek studies and county 192
histories from throughout the Midwest suggest that these findings
might be replicated in similar studies in the area.
2. Methods
The genealogical method was the primary method employed
in the gathering of field data for the present study. For analytical
purposes, these field data were supplemented by both primary and
secondary source material.
The concrete behavioral data produced by the use of the
genealogical method in the present study have facilitated both the
discovery and interpretation of two distinctive patterns of migra
tional behavior, both based on pre-existing kinship ties, that have
not been previously described in the professional literature.*
3 ♦ Implications of the Data
The ramifications of these findings are complex. The first and perhaps clearest is that in these townships migration has not
negated the importance of kinship ties with geographically distant kinsmen. Rather, the patterns of migration found in these townships
seem to have been based very specifically on kinship ties with geographically distant kinsmen.
*The similarity of one type of migration-system, the low- efficiency migration-system, to the migration-system described for the Beech Creek area in Kentucky, and generally, for the very con temporary (1940-1960) migration patterns in Southern Appalachia should be noted. The author's debt to the scholars in the Beech Creek studies for their pioneering work in this area is freely acknow ledged , (Brown, Schwarzkeller, Mangalam, Hillery, De Jong, et a l.) . 193
This was .most graphically demonstrated in Chapter V where it was noted that of the 1265 persons in the study, a maximum of only 119, or 9.5% were involved in migrational events where no pre existing kinship ties were present. This means that a minimum of
1145 persons, or 90.5% of the 1265 persons in the study, have spent all their lives in proximity to kinsmen, whether they have remained in the area of origin or have migrated to an area of des tination .
The United States Census data indicate, for example, that large numbers of persons went from Ohio to Kansas and Nebraska in the 1870s and 1880s. However, what the census data cannot demonstrate and what the genealogical data do prove is that the specific areas of destination in Kansas or Nebraska were selected by migrants from a given family either because consanguineal kins men were already in residence at those areas of destination or because they were planning to migrate to those areas of destination with their consanguineal kinsmen.
Thus, it is possible to say that migration-systems, in these i instances, were created by familial migration patterns, rather than by impersonally organized recruitment of labor, (Mac Donald and
Mac Donald 1964).
A very basic question that has been raised by the present study concerns the frequent assumption by social scientists that population mobility has increased in the twentieth century American population, (Arensberg, 1968). There are strong indications in both 194 the genealogical data and the census data explored for the present study that at least in Ohio this generalization is erroneous.
Moreover, for the groups in the genealogies coded for the historical time periods between 185 0-196 8, there are strong indica tions that migration has been primarily intrastate rather than inter state in nature. It should be noted, however, that these five townships are on the fringes on the Standard Metropolitan Area of
Columbus. Thus, the population stability in these townships may in part reflect the more general stability of population in urban areas noted in the census report on lifetime migration histories for persons in Standard Metropolitan Areas as compared to persons in non Standard Metropolitan Areas in the United States, (Appendix B:
Tables 83, 84, 85; pp. 297, 299, 301 , 302.
4. Implications for Further Research
In the first chapter of this study, Arens berg's evaluation of the American kinship structure as characterized by isolated nuclear family of procreation units fragmented by continued acts of migration was noted as representative of similar evaluations by others:
The American family is distinguished by the great importance of, emphasis upon, and independence of the small, immediate (or biological) family of father, mother, and minor children. American custom attempts to generalize this small unit, to free it from the authority of other family ties, etc. . . .the household is small and mobile enabling the family to follow the husband from position to position from one town to another. Frequent moves increase the family's isolation, not only from kindred, but from neighbors and members of a given 195
community in the great fluidity of American occu pational and residential life. (1968: 232-233)
This type of fragmented isolated unstable family unit has
not been characteristic of the ideal family unit most frequently found
in the present study, nor is it characteristic of family types reported
in the Beech Creek study, (Brown, Schwarzkeller, Mangalam, et al.)
the French-Canadian studies, (Garigue 1956, Rioux 1960, Piddington
1961 , 1965), the Yankee City studies, (Warner, e ta l., 1941 , 1942 )
and for studies of Jewish families in New York City.
Census data for Ohio (and the Southern Appalachians) also raise questions about its frequency of occurrence.
Certain questions posed by the present study could best be resolved by replication of this study in three types of settings: (a) other field-situations in comparable communities in the East North
Central Division, (b) other field-situations in comparable commun ities in the other division in the Midwest, the West North Central
Division, and (c) other field-situations in the other census regions of the United States.
If the analysis of depth-genealogical material from other states, divisions, and regions of this country were to indicate a similar pattern of importance of pre-existing kinship ties for migration patterns, the implications would be clear. The concept that the basic American family type approximates the unstable family unit suggested by Arensberg would be found to be erroneous.
If, however, there were marked regional differences in these patterns, 196
we would have concrete behavioral data, in the form of depth-
genealogical material, with which to systematically evaluate our
interpretations.
It is probable that studies patterned after Metge's work
with the Maori in New Zealand could facilitate our more accurate
understanding of relationships between rural and urban kinsmen,
(Metge 1964). Such studies would be complementary to the sug
gested replications of the present study.
In conclusion, anthropologists possess a unique survey instrument, the genealogical method, which produces that type of
concrete behavioral information that permits us, as social scientists, to evaluate a given situation in an objective frame of reference.
The use of this method in studies of our own society should produce new ideas and interpretations of our own culture. APPENDIXES 198
APPENDIX A
The Genealogical Data for the Eleven Families in the Study 199
1.) General Methodological Discussion
The methods used in the construction of the genealogies used in the present study have varied slightly from family to family.
To understand this variability, one must distinguish between the trad itional methods of genealogical construction used by the anthropolo gist in the non-Westem field situation and the traditional methods of genealogical construction used by professional genealogists in Wes tern society. Some of these problems have been discussed in Chapter
Three.
The anthropologist in the field situation ostensibly collects genealogies, which in this study have been termed field-genealogies, from most of the adults in his area of field-work in order to create depth-genealogies for analytical purposes. In reality, depth- genealogies are collected most frequently from older informants who are genealogical specialists in their own society, (Rivers 1912). In his recent article "Genealogies," J. A. Barnes has given an excel lent presentation of anthropological methods of genealogical construc tion in non-Westem societies, (Barnes 196 7).
On the other hand, a professional Western genealogist, commissioned to construct a depth-genealogy for a specific family, may, in theory, never personally interview a single descendant of that family. The entire genealogy may be constructed by using the types of manuscript data available in a literate society with a long-standing tradition of maintaining formal written documents, such as manuscript census data, parish records, school records, and tax records. 200
Both the methods end the resources used by professional genealogists have been described at length in publications by Smith and Doane. In his Guide to Genealogical Research, Smith has des cribed research techniques used by non-professional genealogists in the Mormon church to trace their family genealogies. Doane, in his
1960 edition of Searching for Your Ancestors, has also described the basic research techniques of the professional genealogist and has included several appendices on sources for research materials.
The present study has used research techniques from both the anthropologist and the professional genealogist to complete the genealogies used in this study.
Some rather elementary facts about these genealogies should be borne in mind. First, a family depth-genealogy is not synonymous with the kindred of any given individual therein. In a society where cognatic, or non-unilineal, kinship is the pattern, every given indiv idual recognizes kinship with two parents, his mother and father, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great grand parents, ad infinitum. Thus, hypothetically, if I collect genealogical information from Sarah Mauger about the Mauger family, I am collect ing information about her relatives through her father, John Mauger, but ignoring information about her relatives through her mother,
Elizabeth Jones Mauger. On the grandparental level, I am eliciting information about her paternal grandfather, Henry Mauger, but ignor ing information about her paternal grandmother, Mary Smith Mauger.
In more professional terminology, I am ignoring Sarah Mauger1 s kindred, that is the "kinship group organized exclusively on the basis 201 of a circle of relatives traced outward from an individual1' (Freedman
1964: 366) and focusing on tracing a specific stock, that is "tracing the race or line of the original progenitor of a family from which others have descended or been derived," (Webster II: 297). Secondly, genealogical data are classified by genealogical generations. A dis cussion of the implications of such classification is presented in
Chapter Four, pp.60-62. At this point, it should be stressed that I have used generation, i.e ., genealogical generation as defined by
Bacon:
A generation comprises the offspring of the same parent or parents and is counted as a single degree or step in reckoning the descent of a person or family from a m ore.distant relative. (1965: 284)
• Third, both in theory and in reality, tracing of stock groups may produce individuals who are descended from the progenitor in more than one line, as results from cousin marriage, or it may produce in dividuals in a study such as the present one, who are related to more than one of the families (or stocks) being traced. By choosing families from different townships, different ethnic backgrounds, and different religious backgrounds, there has been a minimal overlapping of stocks in the present study. Out of the 1267 persons in the eleven families studied, 5 7, or 4.6%, appear in more than one stock group; 16 of the 5 7/ or 1.3%, in more than two. This means that there are, in actuality, only 1210 persons in the study. However, because of the methods used in counting migrational events, it was decided to count them as members of each individual family in which they had membership. 202
Fourth, because the surname in Western society is inherited patrilineally and because a woman accepts her husband's surname as her own legal surname in the United States, it has been more difficult generally to trace married female descendants and their offspring than male descendants and their offspring.
Put somewhat differently, a daughter's daughter's daughter's daughter is only traceable by accurate knowledge of a minimum of three additional surnames. A son's son's son's son, however, retains the same surname as his great-grandfather. Indeed, tracing of descend ants of females is so difficult that many professional genealogies in clude only the name of a daughter, her date of birth (and death), the name of her spouse, and the names of their offspring, and their dates of birth (and death). At that point, tracing of descendants of females is discontinued.
In the present study, eleven genealogies have been com piled for eleven familes (or stocks). Eight of the eleven genealogies were compiled by augmenting field-qenealoqies with genealogical data taken from the sources normally used by the professional genealogist.
Both the descendants of males and females of the progenitor have been traced, although in some families, such as the Frederic Mauger family, a few female lines are not complete. The ninth genealogy, the Daniel Snider genealogy, was taken from the Snider family Bible with only minimal interviewing of the two accessible descendants.
The tenth genealogy was collected from an elderly male informant,
H. Clinton Baird. Mr. Baird had compiled his own manuscript record 203
of the John Baird family genealogy. This manuscript has been Xeroxed
by the Ohio Historical Society for its permanent genealogical collec- tion. Mr. Baird has traced descent through both males and females.
The eleventh genealogy, the Michael Beem family, was
found in printed manuscript form in the genealogical section of the
Ohio Historical Society Library. Supplemental interviews were con
ducted with two female descendants of that family. However, this
genealogy and genealogical data for the Elliot and Atkinson families,
prior to their entrance into the townships, follow the pattern of English
genealogists of tracing only male lineal descendants. Since there were
no descendants of the males in the Beem family bom in the five town
ships after 1915, it was decided to work entirely with the printed man
uscript data. Interviews with the two female descendants, however,
were quite helpful in other areas of the present study.
The Elliot and Atkinson printed genealogical data were found,
unexpectedly, after their field-genealogies were completed. The
printed data on the Elliot family were quite fragmentary and consisted
mainly of knowledge of direct lineals, that is , father, grandfather,
great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather. Thus, although mater
ial for twelve genealogical generations is recorded, in reality, there
is fairly little data available until the sixth genealogical generation.
The printed genealogical data for the Atkinson family, how ever, were substantial and provided corroboration, for example, of a pattern of cousin-marriages in this family that antedated the Ohio settlement by one hundred fifty years. After the seventh genealogical 204 generation, however, the Atkinson material used in the present study consists of only that genealogical information directly relevant to the families fitting into the categories described by the study. This
Atkinson material,at present, is the only material with sufficient longitudinal depth to permit us to ascertain a pattern of kin-linked migrational events extending back to the 165 0s, that is, over a 3 20 year period. This material is also to be Xeroxed by the Ohio Historical
Society.
David Schneider has commented in his book on American kinship, that "it took some time to learn how to take a genealogy,"
(Schneider 1968: 12). This could be broadened in the present study to say that it took some time to learn how to assemble a good depth- genealogy.
Nevertheless, when the most extensive depth-genealogy that
I personally compiled, (that of the Mauger families), was compared with the Beem and Baird genealogies, I came to the following con clusions. These three genealogies were strikingly similar in both con tent and types of "extractable information." Given the enormous amount of time, work, and expense, that was involved in compiling the Mauger genealogy and its general comparability with previously collected manuscript genealogical data, I feel that research with genealogical materials should begin with existent printed genealogical m aterials.
In most.Eastern, Southern, Midwestern, and some Western states, it is possible, by combining county and township histories 205
with genealogical information contained at state historical and geneal
ogical libraries, to find some families in any given area that are
included in printed genealogies. By then completing and updating mis
sing lines and by interviewing descendants intensively, the scholar
could considerably shorten the period spent in data collection.
2. The Eleven Families in the Study
A precis of the genealogical material collected for each of the
eleven families (or stocks) in the study will be presented in terms of
the following categories:
(1) Total number of persons in the genealogy
(2) Total number of persons in the genealogy used
in the present study
(3) Time period involved
(4) Methods of compilationof genealogy
(5) Brief family history
(6) Significant material on migration events in
the families.
Four tables have been prepared for each of the eleven families on migration events in those families. These tables contain the fol lowing information:
(a) The numbers and percentages of migrants in each
genealogical generation in the family
(b) The areas of destination of out-migrational events
from the five Ohio townships in each genealogical
generation in the family 206
(c) The numbers and percentages of kin-linked and non
kin-linked migrational events in each genealogical
generation in the family
(d) The numbers and percentages of specific types of
kin-linked migrational events in each genealogical
generation in the family.
The totals from the four tables presented for each of the eleven families have been used for comparative purposes in Chapter
IV.
2.1) The Thomas Youmans Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 132
(2) Total number in present study: 89
(3) Time period involved: 1740-1963
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
Field-genea'logies were initially collected for both descend ants of the Thomas Youmans family and of the William H. Mead family.
Since only two descendants of the William H. Mead family were found* however* both of whom married children of the William C. Youmans branch of the Thomas Youmans family* the Mead genealogies have not been analyzed separately.
Supplemental information was also collected from primary and secondary sources.
(5) Brief history of the family
Thomas Youmans* the founder of the family* migrated from
England to New Jersey in 1764 with his wife and their four children. 207
After the War of 1812, five of his grandchildren migrated to Etna Town ship in Central Ohio. One of these grandchildren, Thomas Youmans, moved to Kirkersville, Ohio in Harrison Township around 1820. He was the proprietor of an inn on the Old National Road. Some of his children stayed with the family business, but his son, William C.
Youmans, the founder of the primary line of this study, farmed in Etna
Township.
William C. Youmans was a part-time farmer and then a part- time businessman and grain merchant before the Civil War. By the middle 1860s, his two eldest sons, Morris and Jacob, were among the wealthiest men in Lima and Harrison Townships. During the 1870s,
Morris and Joseph formed a business partnership with William H. Mead
II, their brother-in-law, who was married to their second sister,
Isabelle. William H. Mead II's only sister, Josephine, married the fourth Youmans brother, Moses.
The inter-related Youmans-Mead families invested in land, agriculturally related enterprises such as grain elevators, and the town bank. In the 1890s, the Youmans brothers opened a store in the community of Pataskala which became the major general store there.
Only one of the seven sons of W. C. Youmans, Moses, was not directly involved in family business enterprises. He remained a farmer.
Until the past decade, the Youmans-Mead families dominated the economic and social life of Lima and Harrison Townships. They have operated the bank, the newspaper, and the major stores. Other 208
informants in the study refer to them as "having style."
Both the Youmans and Mead families have been Methodists
since the early 1800s. Indeed, several descendants of the W. H.
Mead II-Isabelle Youmans marriage have been members of the Method
ist clergy. Another example of their close affiliation with the Method
ist denomination is demonstrated by their financial support of and attend
ance at the Methodist university in the state, Ohio Wesleyan Univer
sity. The majority of young adults in recent generations of the Youmans-
Mead family have attended Ohio Wesleyan University.
(6 ) The tables on migration
Table 35 indicates a rate of population modility matched only
by one other family in the study, the Atkinson family. Of the 89
persons, 58, or 65.2%, are involved in migrational events.
Table 36 suggests, however, that of the 121 migrational
events reported for the 5 8 migrants, only 16, or 13.2%, involved out-
of-state destinations. Actually, the high rate of migration within the
state of Ohio (outside of Columbus) and the high rate of retum-
migration represent, in general, the migration of twenty-eight young
adult family members to Ohio Wesleyan University. In other families
in the study, college was frequently the first out-migrational event
resulting in adult residence outside the natal area. In this family,
it often seems to have been an interlude before assumption of adult
responsibilities in one of the adult economic enterprises in the
community. Thus the apparent high rate of migration is actually some what misleading. Table 3 7 indicates that out of 127 recorded migrational events, 100, or 78.7%, were kin-linked; 27, or 21.3%, were non kin- linked. However, 17 of these 27 events, involved attendance at Ohio
Wesleyan University when no other consanguineal kin were in attend ance .
Table 3 8 shows the importance of return-migration to the natal community. Of 100 recorded kin-linked migrational events, 31, or 31.0%, involved retum-migration although in 11, or 11.0%, of the cases, instances of subsequent out-migration were recorded. Other than movement to Columbus, however, there is no discernible pattern of chain -migration similar to that found in other large families such as the Atkinsons and the Beems. There is also a high incidence of nuclear family migrational events, (19.0%).
It is possible that the diversification of family economic interests in Lima and Harrison Townships meant that any person wish ing to remain in proximity to his kin group could find a highly satis factory adult role. This, coupled with the high social standing of the family, probably made life in these townships seem highly desirable.
Decisions to leave seem, in general, to have been for rather unusual reasons. For example, one family group became missionaries on a
Navaho Indian reservation.
There are several cases in this family in which descendants of out-migrants have moved back to the grandparental natal community with the families of procreation, even when the parental generation is located elsewhere. 210
Table 35 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Thomas Youmans
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 1 100.0 1740
2nd Generation 4 4 100.0 1768-1770
3rd Generation 10 5 50.0 1807-1827
4th Generation !2 7 58.3 1837-1863
5th Generation 18 11 61.1 1866-1903
6th Generation 21 19 90.5 1895-1920
7th Generation 14 11 7 8,. 6 1921-1943 o o 8th Generation 9 0 1952-1963
Totals 89 58 65.2 Table 36 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Thomas Youmans
Areas of Destination Number of Other Migration Columbus Other M id- W estern Other Return Events Ohio W estern States States Migration States
3rd Generation 7 0 6 0 0 0 1 % 100.0 0.0 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3
4th Generation 13 1 4 0 0 3 5 % 100.0 7.7 30.8 0 .0 . 0.0 23.1 38.5
5th Generation 23 5 8 0 0 1 9 % 100.0 21.7 34.8 0.0 0.0 4.3 39.1
6th Generation 60 10 22 0 3 7 ’ 18 °//O 100.0 16.7 36.7 0.0 5.0 11.7 30.0
7th Generation 18 7 3 0 0 2 6 % 100.0 38.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 11.1 33.3
8th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 121 23 43 0 3 13 39 % 100.0 19.0 35.5 0.0 2.5 10.7 32.2 212
Table 3 7 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation
Progenitor - Thomas Youmans
Non Total Number Numberof Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 1 1 1 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
2nd Generation 4 4 5 5 0 Percent 100.0 o.o •
3rd Generation 10 5 7 7 0 o o
Percent 100.0 •
4th Generation 12 7 13 13 0 Percent ' 100.0 0.0
5th Generation 18 11 23 22 1 Percent 95.7 4.3
6th Generation 21 19 60 38 22 Percent 63.3 36.7
7th Generation 14 11 18 14 4 Percent 77.8 22.2
8th Generation 9 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0
Totals 89 58 127 100 27
Percent 78.7 21.3 Table 38 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Thomas Youmans
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-M igra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 1 0 1 0 0 0 °//o 100.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd Generation 5 4 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd Generation 7 5 1 0 0 1 % 100.0 71.4 14.3' 0.0 0.0 14.3 4th Generation 13 2 2 4 0 5 °//o 100.0 15.4 15.4 30.8 0.0 38.5 5th Generation 22 11 2 0 3 6 % 100.0 50.0 9.1 0.0 13.6 27.2 6th Generation 38 8 6 0 7 17 % 100.0 21.1 15.8 0.0 18.4 44.8 7th Generation 14 0 6 0 5 3 °//0 100.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 35.9 21.4 8th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 100 30 19 4 15 32 % 100.0 30.0 19.0 4.0 15.0 32.0 214
2. 2) The Nathanial Atkinson Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 234
(2) Total number in present study: 188
(3) Time period involved: 1606 -I960
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
Initially, field-genealogies were collected from Ohio-born descendants of the Nathanial Atkinson family and these genealogies^ were supplemented by data from Licking County histories.
In 1968, after the initial completion of the genealogy, a printed genealogy, published in 1882 as part of the history of the community of Boscowen, New Hampshire, was found. Unlike the
Elliot genealogy, the Atkinson genealogy was relatively complete.
However, although the names of both males and females and the names of spouses of both males and females were given, only descendants through males were traced in each descending generation. (This follows the English tradition of genealogical recording.) Because of the pres ence of unusually competent informants, however, it has been possible to trace both male and female lines, completely, after the Atkinsons entered Harrison Township. The data through the sixth generation are derived from the printed genealogy. From the seventh generation on, both printed and field genealogical material has been used. After the early 1880s, however, genealogical information is based entirely on the field-genealogies.
(5) Brief history of the family
Nathanial Atkinson settled in Newburyport, Massachusetts in the early 1640s. He was of English origin. His descendants 215 remained in Newburyport until the fourth generation in the 1760s. Two brothers in this generation became members of the Newburyport Plan tation development in Boscowen, New Hampshire. They migrated there in the 1760s with their wives and rather large families. Eighteen children made the move with their families. All of the children but one spent their adult lives in the Boscowen, New Hampshire area.
In the sixth generation, however, 28 out of the 35 descend ants of male Atkinsons left the New Hampshire area. Five of these came to the central Ohio area. One of these individuals, Nathanial Peabody
Atkinson, is particularly interesting. His obituary specifically credits him with having introduced sheep-raising in Licking County, Ohio in the 1820s. (licking County was the largest sheep-raising county in the state for many years.) Census data indicate that he was the ear liest member of the family to come into the area. He seems to have directly influenced twenty interrelated families to settle in the vicinity.
Although he purchased farms in Harrison Township on at least two (and probably three) occasions, he spent the last forty years (of his ninety odd years of life) as a highly successful wool and woolens merchant and entrepreneur in Wheeling, West Virginia.
The Atkinson family maintained (and maintains) a certain sense of Eastern identity. Many have returned to Eastern schools, such as
Dartmouth, for college. In terms of educational traditions and valua tion of family ties, they are not dissimilar from some of the "old families" described byW . Lloyd Warner, (Warner 1963: 62-87).
Although the Atkinsons were Congregationalists in New Hamp shire, they affiliated with the Presbyterian church in central Ohio. 216
The Atkinsons were comparatively prominent members of Har rison Township and the village of Pataskala. One branch, the Joseph
Atkinson family, became quite wealthy. Most of the descendants of that branch moved into the Columbus metropolitan area between 1890 and 1910. At present, only a handful of persons in the townships are descendants of the Atkinson family.
(6) The Tables on migration
Table 39 is indicative of the high degree of mobility in this family. Out of the 188 persons in the present study, 116, or 62%, were involved in migrational events.
Several of the areas of destination of out-migrational events in Table 40 involve chain-migration. This is most clearly indicated in the 7th generation, for example, in the Westward migration of four
Atkinson kinsmen to Urbana, Illinois, or in the migrations to Columbus in the 8th and 9th generations where family business interests were involved. Indeed, the five "other areas of destination" in Table represent the return of five Atkinson males to New Hampshire for their schooling. The members of the Atkinson family who moved into Col umbus in the 8th and 9th generations have maintained this family tradition.
Although the Atkinsons are the second most mobile family in the study, 113, or 85.0%, of all migrational events in the family are kin-linked. Table 4.1 indicates that, with one exception, no genera tion has less than 80.0% of all migrational events that are kin-linked.
(The two migrations in the 3rd generation are not kin-linked.) 217
In Table 4 2 , when kin-linked migrational events are broken down into specific types, only 13 of the 113, or 11.5%, involve nuc lear family migration. If childhood migration events are not counted, only 13, or 18.3%, of all adult moves are not made in terms of con- sanguineal kin ties.
Given the familial valuation of educational and professional training, there were persons in this family even before 185 0 who were presumably financially independent and who presumably might have had less need for the kin network. Yet there is considerable evidence, some of which has been presented in Chapter Seven (p. 15 3) that these family ties are still unusually significant to the descendants.
These tables support the interpretation that strong cohesive family ties can be maintained even when there is a high degree of geographic mobility.
2.3) The Tonathan Grable Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 79
(2) Total number in present study: 45
(3) Time period involved: 1780-1963
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
This genealogy was completed by supplementing the extensive field-genealogy collected from an Ohio-born descendant of the Jonathan
Grable family with genealogies collected through extensive correspond ence and telephone interviews with branches of the family that had left the central Ohio area for Western states. 218
Table 3 9 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Nathanial Atkinson
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 1 100.0 1606
2nd Generation 4 4 100.0 1638-1644
3rd Generation 9 2 22.2 1665-1682
4th Generation 10 2 20.0 1704-1718
5th Generation 22 19 86.4 1739-1769
6th Generation 35 28 80.0 1784-1821
7th Generation 46 31 67.4 1815-1854
8th Generation 33 17 51.5 1839-1887
9th Generation 14 9 64.3 1897-1923
10th Generation 4 1 25.0 1922-1926
11th Generation 10 3 30.0 1949-1960
Totals 188 117 62.2 Table 40 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Nathanial Atkinson
Areas of Destination Other Number of Columbus Other Mid- W estern Other Return Migration Ohio W estern States States Migration Events States
6th Generation 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 9//o 100.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0
7th Generation 35 2 14 2 4 4 9 % 100.0 5.7 40.0 5.7 11.4 11.4 25.7
8th Generation 7 5 0 1 0 0 1 % 100.0 71.4 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3
9th Generation 9 5 2 0 1 1 0 % 100.0 55.6 22.2 . 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0
10th Generation 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 ,, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 'V
11th Generation 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 60 16 20 3 5 5 11 °//o 100.0 26.7 33.3 5.0 8.3 8.3 18.3 219 220
Table 41 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation
Progenitor - Nathanial Atkinson
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 1 1 1 0 Percent 100.0 0.0 2nd Generation 4 4 4 4 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
3rd Generation 9 2 2 0 2 . Percent 0.0 100.0 4th Generation 10 2 2 2 0 Percent 100.0 0.0 5th Generation 22 19' 19 18 1 Percent 94.7 5.3 6th Generation 35 28 28 24 4 Percent 85.7 14.3 7th Generation 46 31 40 cv 32 8 Percent 80.0 20.0 8th Generation 33 17 24 20 4 Percent 83.3 16.7 9th Generation 14 9 . 9 8 1 Percent 88.9 11.1 10th Generation 4 1 1 1 0 Percent 100.0 0.0 11th Generation 10 3 3 3 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
Totals 188 117 133 113 20
Percent 85.0 15.0 Table 42 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation t Progenitor - Nathanial Atkinson
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-M igra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 1 0 1 0 0 0 % ■ 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2nd Generation 4 4 0 0 0 0 °//o 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3rd Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4th Generation 2 0 1 1 0 0 % - 100.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
5th Generation 18 18 * 0 0 0 0 O//O 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6th Generation 24 0 0 6 12 6 % 100.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0
7th Generation 32 13 3 2 8 6 % 100.0 40.6 9.4 6.3 25.0 18.7 Table 42 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Nathanial Atkinson (Continued)
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-Migra- Return tion Event Migration Event
8th Generation 20 3 4 0 8 5 % 100.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 25.0
9th Generation 8 1 3 0 4 0 % 100.0 12.5 37.4 0.0 50.0 0.0
10th Generation 1 0 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0
11th Generation 3 3 0 0 0 0 % ■ 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 113 42 13 9 32 17 % 100.0 37.2 11.5 8.0 28.3 15.0 222 223
One of the descendants, Bertram Grable, of Denver, Colorado,
is at present compiling a Grable genealogy. Copies of this are to be
deposited in the Ohio Historical Society Library and the Colorado His
torical Society Library.
(5) History of the family
The Grable, or Graybill, family settled originally in eastern
Virginia. The Grables of Etna Township came from eastern Virginia in
1817 with other interrelated families: the Housers, the Nelsons, and the Essexs. Jonathan Grable, the progenitor, was a reasonably pros
perous farmer in the township. Other related families of Grables
settled in the area south of Lancaster, Ohio.
In the 1870s, seven of the nine young adults of the third gen
eration migrated to Beatrice, Nebraska with their families. At least
fifty percent of the total population of the next three generations also
left the area of origin. There are few Grable descendants left in the
tow nships.
Although the members of the Grable family that migrated to the
West left in the 1870s, the descendants of the family in the natal area
still maintain extensive correspondence with the first, second, and
third cousins in the Far West. Indeed, although many of them have
never met, they not only exchange letters and, cards, but rather expen
sive presents as well.
Some of the family members who migrated to the West became
quite wealthy. One uncle of the principal informant, Miss Jennie
Grable of Pataskala, was involved in land transactions in both Colorado 224 and Florida. The occupation of another Grable relative, Miss Grable's first cousin, was given by Miss Grable as simply "Philanthropist0"
(6 ) The tables on migration
The mobility of the family is indicated by the high percentages of migrants. In Table 43 , out of 45 persons in the genealogy, 27, or
60.0%, were involved in migrational events.
The most graphic table, however, is Table 44 on areas of des tination of out-migrational events. Twenty-four migrational events are cited. Of these, 20, or 84%, involved areas of destination in the
West North Central Division, or 1 in the West. These migrational events occur in the third, fourth, and fifth generations.
Table 45 is indicative of the influence of pre-existing kinship ties on migration patterns in the Grable family. Of the 28 migrational events cited, 26, or 92.9%, are kin-linked migrational events.
Table 46 shows the strength of pre-existing adult consanguin- eal kin ties. (See Chapter VI,p. 64, fora discussion of coding migra tional events.) Eight migration events, or 30.5%, involved these. Of the five nuclear family migration events, one represents the first family in Beatrice, Nebraska. The high percentages of childhood migrational events in the fourth and fifth generations indicate that the migrating families were primarily families in which the adults were already in their thirties and forties and, presumably, comparatively stable. After the fifth generation, chain-migration Westward ceased to be important. 225
Table 43 : Numbers and Percentage s of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jonathan Grable
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 0 0.0 1780
2nd Generation 4 4 100.0 1810-1820
3rd Generation 9 7 77.8 1833-1854
4th Generation 16 9 56.3 1856-1884
5th Generation 11 6 54.5 1882-1919
6th Generation 2 1 50.0 1925-1930
7th Generation 2 0 100.0 1951-1263
Totals 45 27 60.0 Table 44 : Areas of Destination of Out--Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jonathan Grable
Areas of Destination______Number of Migration Columbus Other Other Western Other Return Events Ohio Mid- States States Migration western States
3rd Generation 7 0 0 6 0 1 0 % 100.0 0.0 0.0 85.7 0.0 14.3 0.0
4th Generation 9 0 0 8 1 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 0.0 0.0
5th Generation 7 1 0 5 0 0 1 % 100.0 14.3 0.0 71.4 0.0 0.0 14.3
6th Generation 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 24 2 0 19 1 1 1
% 100.0 8.3 0.0 88.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 226 227
Table 45 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation
Progenitor - Jonathan Grable
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration M igration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0
2nd Generation 4 4 4 3 1 Percent 75.0 25.0
3rd Generation 9 7 7 7 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
4th Generation 16 9 9 9 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
5th Generation 11 6 7 6 1 Percent 85.7 14.3
6th Generation 2 1 1 1 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
7th Generation 2 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0
Totals 45 27 28 26 2
Percent 92.9 7.1 Table 46 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jonathan Grable
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-M igra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd Generation 3 0 2 1 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 3rd Generation 7 0 1 4 2 0 % 100.0 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 0.0 4th Generation 9 8 0 0 1 0 % 100.0 88.9 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 5th Generation 6 4 1 0 0 1 % • 100.0 66.6 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 6th Generation 1 0 1 0 0 0 °//O 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 26 12 5 5 3 1 °//o 100.0 46.1 19.2 19.2 11.5 3.8 ; ...... 228 2.4) The Abraham Miller Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 10
(2) Total number in present study: 10
(3) Time period involved: 1808-186 2
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
County historical data supplemented with microfilm census data, church records, newspaper clippings, interviews, and cemetery listings, formed the basis for the genealogical information available.
Because the surname, Miller, is quite common in the five townships, and because the state of origin for most of these families was PennsyT vania, an extensive search was made to trace Abraham Miller's rela tionships to other persons by that name in the townships. No demonstrable relationships were found.
(5) Brief history of the family
Abraham Miller came to Harrison Township in 1833 with his wife, Pleasant Smith Miller, and three children. He purchased 800 acres of land at that time.
Abraham Miller became the wealthiest stock-breeder in western Licking County. He was instrumental in the founding of several state agricultural societies and was widely known in Ohio in the 1870s.
The Millers had eight children. Only three of these children married. Two had no children and the third had a son who died at the age of seven. A niece of the husband of one of the Miller daughters took care of the brothers and sisters in their old age and inherited the family property. When the last spinster daughter died in 1929, at 230
the age of 82, the family line was extinguished.
Abraham Miller was a devout member of the United Brethren
church and was both a founder and trustee of Otterbein College, the
United Brethren college in Westerville, Ohio. Both the sons and
daughters in the Miller family received college training there. One of the daughters became the Dean of Women at a female seminary in Iowa
in the 1880s. A county historical book refers to them as "amazingly talented artistic individuals, all of whom are involved in art, music, and literature," (Memorial Record of Licking Co. 1894: 5 22).
(6 ) The tables on migration
Table 47 shows that five of the ten members of the Abraham
Miller family were involved in migrational events.
Table 48 shows that in the second generation there were three
moves into Ohio (Harrison Township) and one move to another state
in the Midwest. These moves represent the childhood moves into the township and the daughter who became the Dean of Women.
Table 49 shows that of the five migrational events found in the Miller family, four of these were kin-linked migrational events.
One involved no pre-existing kinship tie.
Table 5 0 indicates that the kin-linked move in the first gen eration involved the nuclear family: the three kin-linked moves in the second generation were persons moving as children in that nuclear family.
It is interesting to speculate on the implications of the mat erial on the Miller family. They were unquestionably isolated from kindred involvements typical of the late 19th century. They were 231
Table 47 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Abraham Miller
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 1 100.0 1801
2nd Generation 8 4 50.0 1829-1848
3rd Generation 1 0 0.0 1862
Totals 10 5 50.0 Table 48 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Geneeation Progenitor - Abraham Miller
Areas of Destination Number of Migration Columbus Other Other Mid- W estern Other Return Events Ohio W estern States States Migration States
2nd Generation 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3rd Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 232 233
Table 49 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in'Each Genealogical Generation
Progenitor - Abraham Miller
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 1 1 1 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
2nd Generation 8 4 4 3 1 Percent 75.0 25.0
3rd Generation 1 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0
Totals 10 5 5 4 1
Percent 80.0 20.0 Table 5 0 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Abraham Miller
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-M igra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 1 0 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2nd Generation 3 3 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3rd Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 1o ° • % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 • 1 ! Totals 4 3 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 234 235
also unusually creative people, involved in problems affecting the
broader society rather than the townships of origin; i.e ., the neces
sity for founding a state-supported denominational institution and the
mentioned agricultural societies. Perhaps freedom from the demands
of kindred responsibilities permitted them greater participation in
creative enterprises.
2.5) The Tohn Baird Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 3 25
(2) Total number involved in present study: 61
(3) Time period involved: 1749-1964
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
One of John Baird's descendants, H. Clinton Baird of Patas-
kala, Ohio, has completed a manuscript depth-genealogy of the Baird
family. This genealogy has been Xeroxed by the Ohio Historical
Society library. Supplemental anecdotal material and life-history
material were also collected from Mr. Baird.
(5) Brief history of the family
John Baird, a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian, settled in Wheeling,
West Virginia in the 1790s. He had no known relatives there. Indeed, anecdotes about John Baird, and about the Bairds in general, have
placed strong emphasis on a tradition of individual independence of
action. John Baird and Nathanial Atkinson are both mentioned as
founders of the Old Stone Church at Elm Grove, West Virginia, which
was purportedly the first Presbyterian church founded west of the
Appalachians. 236
Around 1815, two of John Baird's elder children moved to the
neighboring county in Ohio, Belmont County. One of these children
later migrated to Missouri and all contact was lost with the natal
family.
His two middle sons, William and Joseph, migrated to Har
rison Township, Licking County, Ohio, in 1830 with their neighbor,
Peabody Atkinson, Nathanial Atkinson's first cousin. After initial
attempts at sheep-raising, the Bairds turned to general farming. The
Bairds in Harrison Township were staunch Presbyterians. Even today
all the Baird descendants are registered Presbyterians.
William Baird had two daughters, only one of whom married.
After her suicide in the 1870s, her husband left the township with
their two sons. Joseph Baird, however, had eight sons, five of whom
reached maturity. One of these sons migrated to Kansas with his
family. The remaining four sons in the 1870s sold most of the farm
land and became partners in a general store. They kept no further
economic interests in land or in other diversified businesses in the community. Subsequently, when the store burned in the late 1890s,
they did not develop further business interests in the community.
Business investments in Columbus, however, drew some of the family
members there at that point.
Many of the male Baird descendants became involved at dif
ferent periods with aspects of railroading. Mr. Baird himself is an
interesting case history. He was a hobo at different periods in his
life, although he spent the last thirty years of his working life in
Weirton, West Virginia in close contact with the Baird descendants 237 there. Mr. Baird was married three times to the same woman, Frances
Buckingham Baird. Their daughters are, perhaps, the most upwardly mobile females in the study. One is married to the vice-president of a major corporation; the other, a former professor in pathology, is married to the president of a small manufacturing company in New
England.
(6 ) The tables on migration
Table 51 indicates that of the 61 persons in the study, 28, or 45.9%, were involved in migrational events.
Table 5 2 shows that an unusually high percentage of out- migrational events had areas of destination outside the state of Ohio.
Almost 47% of all migrational events fall into this category. With the exception of the move to Columbus in the fourth generation after the store burned, there are no other indications of chain-migration in this family.
Out of the total of 43 migrational events noted in Table 53 , only 33, or 76.7%, were kin-linked migrational events. Ten, or 23.2% were non kin-linked migrational events. This is the lowest percentage of kin-linked migrational events in the study.
This trend is also found in the analysis of Table 54 on spec ific types of kin-linked migrational events. Of the 33 kin-linked migra tional events, 16, or48.5%e involve nuclear family migration. Only
4 children, or 12.1%, are involved in migrational events which sug gests that the persons involved in nuclear family migration were, for the most part, younger individuals. Nine, or 27.3%, of all migra tional events involved sibling migration. This again is higher than 238
Table 51 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - John Baird
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 1 100.0 1749
2nd Gene ration 7 7 100.0 1791-1810
3rd Generation 12 1 8.3 1831-1857
4th Generation 24 13 54.2 1858-1895
5th Generation 12 6 50.0 1890-1938
6th Generation 5 0 0.0 1942-1964
Totals 61 28 45.9 Table 52 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - J ohn Baird
Areas of Destination Number of Migration Other Events Columbus Other M id- W estern Other Return Ohio W estern States States Migration States
3rd Generation 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 °//o 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4th Generation 22 6 , 5 4 0 4 3 % 100.0 27.3 22.7 18.2 0.0 18.2 13.6
5th Generation 10 3 1 2 1 3 0 % 100.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 30.0 0.0
6th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 33 9 6 7 1 7 3 % 100.0 27.3 18.2 21.1 3.0 21.2 9.1 240
Table 5 3 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - John Baird
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 1 2 1 1 Percent 50.0 50.0
2nd Generation 7 7 7 7 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
3rd Generation 12 1 1 0 1 Percent 0.0 100.0
4th Generation 24 13 23 18 5 Percent 78.3 21.7
5th Generation 12 6 10 7 3 Percent 70.0 30.0
6 th Generation 5 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0
Totals 61 28 43 33 10
Percent 76.7 23.3 Table 54 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - John Baird
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-M igra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 1 0 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd Generation 7 o 2 5 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 0.0
3rd Generation 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4th Generation 18 0 11 4 0 3 % 100.0 0.0 67.1 22.2 0.0 16.7 5th Generation 7 4 2 0 1 0 % 100.0 57.1 28.6 0.0 14.3 0.0 6th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 33 4 16 9 1 3 % 100.0 12.1 48.5 27.3 3.0 9.1 241 242 the overall averages. Only one migrational event, Mr. Baird's move to Weirton, West Virginia, involved consanguineal kin ties. This move is discussed in his life history, which has also been Xeroxed by the Ohio Historical Society, (H. Clinton Baird: 1965a; pp. 130-141).
2 . 6 ) The M ichael Beem Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 1310
(2) Total number involved in present study: 235
(3) Time period involved: 1754-1936
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
This genealogy was completed by supplementing a depth- genealogy, which was printed in 1936, with interview data from two female descendants of the Beem family.
This genealogy follows the English tradition of recording the names of both male and female descendants of a given genealogical generation and the surnames of spouses of both male and female des cendants. However, only the offspring of male descendants are enumerated in the following descending generations.
It was possible to complete the female genealogies for the sixth generation, but there were so few involved that a decision was reached to restrict this analysis to the data contained in the printed depth-genealogy. Nevertheless, the supplemental interviews were most helpful in interpretation of the genealogical data.
(5) Brief history of the family
Little is known about the ancestors of the Michael Beem family prior to the initial settlement of Michael Beem in Jersey Township 243
in Licking County, Ohio. The ancestors seem to have been persons of German origin who settled in Allegheny County, Maryland before the
Revolutionary War. Michael Beem, the progenitor of this family, and his sister Catherine married a brother and sister from a family with the surname Green.
In 1803, Michael Beem's sister and her family moved to an area just south of Newark, Ohio. In 1812, a son and daughter of
Michael Beem's came to live with their aunt. A few months later, two more sons of Michael's, William and Daniel, came to Jersey Township which was about twenty miles away from their aunt's home. Finally, in 1816, Michael Beem came with his four youngest children to Jersey
Township. The remaining three sons, Richard, John, and Andrew, came in 1817, 1818, and 1821, respectively. In each of the succeeding gen erations, similar migrations of family groups occurred. Nuclear colonies formed in townships in Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas that drew 1 from the original Ohio settlement for a four-generational period. Indeed, the small number of Beems remaining in the central Ohio area does not reflect the collapse or the dispersal of the family, but the fact that members of the family, as relatively intact kin-groups, have moved to these other settlements.
Michael Beem and his family were Universalists. The family founded Universalist churches in Jersey Township, Ohio, in Illinois, and in Iowa.
Most of the Beems who lived in Jersey Township were moder ately prosperous farmers. A few became involved in agriculturally- connected enterprises, such as grain-trade, small farm machinery 244
manufacturing, and creameries. Several of the families who migrated
to Iowa and Kansas, however, became quite wealthy and comparatively
prominent in those states.
(6 ) The tables on migration
Table 55 indicates that 97 of the 235 persons in the study,
or 41.3%, were involved in migrational events. Numerically, however,
the biggest turnover in population came in the third generation when
51 of the 95 members of that generation, or 53.7%, were involved in
migrational events.
Table 5 6 presents information on the areas of destination of
out-migrational events from the townships. It has already been noted that chain-migration was an important factor in the original settlement of the townships. Two other migrational events in the second genera tion involve chain-migration. These are the moves to the Midwest of a brother and sister, both involved in a sibling-exchange marriage, and the move to Union County, Ohio of the last of Michael Beem's
sons and his two oldest nephews. In the Illinois move, the brother and sister were accompanied by their father's sister's son, Richard
G reen.
Migration figures from the third and fourth generations show that 53% of migrational events in both generations involved migrations to the Illinois community above and to a community in Iowa formed by the oldest son, Richard. Some of the younger members of the third genealogical generation migrated initially to Iowa and subsequently to Kansas. By the end of the 19th century, many of these persons were prosperous farmers there. The fourth generation reflects the pull 245 of these areas of settlement. Of the 28 migrational events, 15, or
53%, involved migration to Illinois or Iowa, and 9, or 32%, involved migration to Kansas.
There is a dramatic shift in the fifth generation. No further migrations to the Eastern Midwestern states are found, although two more persons migrate to the Kansas settlements. The major area of destination is Columbus. Seven of the fifteen migrational events, or
46.7%, have Columbus as a destination. This same pattern is con tinued in the sixth generation. Columbus is still the major area of destination. However, the percentages of those migrating to Columbus and those returning to their natal township are the same. Of the total migrational events 42.9% are found in each category.
Table 5 7 shows the overwhelming predominance of kin-linked migrational events in the Beem family. Of the 148 recorded migra tional events, 13 8, or 93.4%, involve kin-linkages. This is the second highest percentage found in the study.
The specific types of kin-linked migrational events occurring in the Beem family are also of much interest. Table 5 8 clearly shows the overall importance of pre-existing consanguineal kin ties in Beem migration. Of the 138 kin-linked migrational events, 78, or 56.5%, involve consanguineal ties. Adult sibling migration accounts for 21, or 15.9%, of all migrational events; adult consanguineal migration accounts for 5 7, or 40.6%, of all migrational events.
Only 10, or 7.2%, of all migrational events are limited to nuclear family migration. 246
Table 55 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical s Generation Progenitor - Michael Beem
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 2 2 100.0 1754-1760
2nd Generation 11 11 100.0 1775-1798
3rd Generation 95 51 53.7 1801-1850
4th Generation 72 17 23.6 1843-1876
5th Generation 37 11 29.7 1863-1905
6th Generation 18 5 28.8 1901-1936
Totals 235 97 41.3 Table 5 6 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - M ichael Beem
Areas of Destination Number of Other Return Migration Columbus Other M id- W estern Other Migration Events Ohio W estern States States States
2nd Generation 15 0 13 2 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 86.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
3rd Generation 81 1 23 53 0 0 0 % 100.0 1.2 ' 28.4 65.4 0.0 0.0 4.9
4th Generation 28 1 1 22 2 1 1 % 100.0 3.6 3.6 78.5 7.1 3.6 3.6
5th Generation 15 7 3 2 0 1 2 % 100.0 46.7 20.0 13.3 0.0 6.7 13.3
6th Generation 7 3 1 0 0 0 3 % 100.0 42.9 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9
Totals 146 12 41 79 2 2 10 % 100.0 8.9 28.1 54.1 1.4 1.4 6.8 247 248
Table 5 7 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation
Progenitor - M ichael Beem
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 2 2 2 2 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
2nd Generation 11 11 15 14 1 Percent 93.3 6.7
3rd Generation 95 51 81 76 5 Percent 93.8 6.2
4th Generation 72 17 28 24 4 Percent <■* 85 .7 14.3
5th Generation 37 ' 11 15 15 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
6th Generation 18 5 7 7 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
Totals 235 97 148 138 10
Percent 93.2 6.8 Table 5 8 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Michael Beem
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event O ut-M igra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 2 0 1 1 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 2nd Generation 14 3 0 2 9 0 % . 100.0 21.4 0.0 14.3 64.3 0.0 3rd Generation 76 29 3 14 . 23 7 % 100.0 38.2 3.9 18.4 30.3 9.2 4th Generation 24 0 3 2 16 3 9//0 100.0 0.0 12.5 8.3 66.7 12.5 5th Generation 15 1 2 3 7 2 °//o 100.0 6.7 13.3 20.0 46.7 13.3 6th Generation 7 4 1 0 1 1 % 100.0 57.1 14.3 0.0 14.3 14.3
Totals 138 37 10 22 56 13
°//o 100.0 26.8 7.2 15.9 40.6 9.4 249 2.7) The Jonathan Elliot Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 148
(2) Total number in present study: 108
(3) Time period involved: 1606-196 0
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
Initially, field-genealogies were collected from Ohio-born
descendants of the Jonathan Elliot family and these genealogies were
supplemented by bibliographic research. Extensive correspondence and telephone interviews were conducted with Mr. Moses Elliot of
Amanda, Michigan concerning specific family lines.
After the initial compilation was completed, one of the
descendants, Mrs. Vinton D. Morrow of Pataskala, located an old printed genealogy (186 2) of the Elliot family in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. Much of the information from that genealogy was fragmen tary, but it has been used with these limitations in mind.
(5) Brief history of the family
The Jonathan Elliot family came from England to Newburyport,
Massachusetts in the 1640s. The first three generations located there.
In the fourth generation, two brothers moved to Manchester, New
Hampshire. Two sons of the younger brother subsequently moved to farms near Boscowen, New Hampshire.
Several members of the Elliot family fought in the American
Revolution and were officers in the militia. After the Revolution, three members of the next generation moved into the village of Boscowen,
New Hampshire, and were tradesmen there. The five descendants of one of these individuals, Samuel Elliot and his wife, Sarah Chamberlain 251
Elliot, migrated to central Ohio in the lore 1821s and early 1 83 Cs.
One of the Elliot daughters was married to Peabody Atkinson in the
1330s, (see Atkinson, p. 215). The 'Samuel Elliots, themselves, came to Lima Township in the early 1840s following their children.
Four of the family members remained in Lima Township. One,
Bernard Elliot, moved to Cincinnati, Ohio. He became a professional genealogist there. It is ironical that his extensive genealogy on the
Elliot family, which one of the descendants has, is simply illegible.
Most of the Elliots were business people in the community of Pataskala. They were Presbyterians and active in the church. In two of the generations, the majority of the females remained single.
These single females were primarily teachers of music and art. The married siblings in those generations who remained in Pataskala actually formed a household which included their unmarried sisters.
At one time, one married couple shared their home with their own four children, three unmarried sisters, and one grandfather. Only a few
Elliot descendants remain in the area.
(5) The tables on migration
Information for the first five generations is fragmentary, al though both the 4th and 5th generations did have instances of adult sibling migration. Indeed, data on the 6th generation, though more complete, are still less than adequate. After this point,data are complete. It should be noted that migration in the seventh generation is an excellent example of chain-migration,
Table 53 indicates that 44, or 40,7%, of the 108 persons in the study wore engaged in migrational events. 252
Table 60 shows the areas of destinations of out-migrational
events from the tow nships. The high percentage of M idwestern d e s tinations in the 8th generation is also indicative of chain-migration.
One married couple migrated to Champaign, Illinois where they were
joined by three other married and unmarried siblings. With two ex
ceptions, the following generations migrated to Columbus. The two daughters of my principal Elliot informant migrated (with their nuclear families of procreation) to Floridaa and Alaska, respectively.
In Table 61 it is interesting to note that, although some of the Elliot households included many members of both the nuclear familes of orientation and procreation, the Elliots are the second- lowest in the study in percentages of kin-linked migrational events
(Table 16 ). Only 43, or 76.8%, of the 5 6 enumerated migrational events are kin-linked. While the percentages of adult sibling and adult consanguineal migrational events are comparatively high, (7, or
16.4% and 18, or 41.9%), respectively), the percentage of nuclear- family migration is also comparatively high. Ten of the 43 kin-linked migrational events, or 23.3%, involve the nuclear family. Only 3 of the 43, or 7.0%, however, involve childhood migration and only 1, or
2.3%, involves retum-migration. (Table 6 2)
2 . 8) The William Mauger Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 195
(2) Total number in present study: 117
(3) Time period involved: 1802-1967
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy: Table 59 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jonathan Elliot
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 1 100.0 1629
2nd Generation 1 0 0.0 1660
3rd Generation 1 0 0.0 1684
4th Generation 6 2 33.3 1714-1720
5th Generation 9 3 33.3 1746-1764
6th Generation 22 7 31.8 1772-1812
7th Generation 5 5 100.0 1810-1823
8th Generation 16 5 31.3 1833-1863
9th Generation 16 6 37.5 185 8-1891
10th Generation 17 11 64.7 1897-1923
11th Generation 4 1 25.0 1922-1926
12th Generation 10 3 30.0 1949-1960
Totals 108 44 40.7 Table 60 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jonathan Elliot
Areas of Destination Number of Other Migration Columbus Other M id- W estern Other Return Events Ohio W estern States States Migration States
7th Generation 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8th Generation 9 1 1 4 0 1 2 % 100.0 11.1 11.1 44.4 0.0 11.1 22.2 9th Generation 13 6 0 2 1 2 2 % 100.0 46.2 0.0 15.4 7.7 15.4 15.4 10th Generation 11 5 2 0 1 3 0 % 100.0 45.5 18.2 0.0 9.1 27.3 . 0.0 11th Generation 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12th Generation 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 43 16 9 6 2 4 6 % 100.0 37.2 20.9 14.0 4.7 9.3 14.0 254 255
Table 61 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation
Progenitor - Jonathan Elliot
Non Total Number Numberof Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 1 1 0 1 Percent 0.0 100.0 2nd Generation 1 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0 3rd Generation 1 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0 4th Generation 6 2 2 2 0 Percent 100.0 0.0 5th Generation 9 3 3 2 1 Percent 66.7 33.3 6th Generation 22 7 7 5 2 Percent 71.4 28.6 7th Generation 5 5 6 5 1 Percent 83.3 16.7 8th Generation 16 5 9 6 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 9th Generation 16 6 13 10 3 Percent 76.9 23.1 10th Generation 17 11 11 9 2 Percent 81.8 18.2 11th Generation 4 1 1 1 0 Percent 100.0 0.0 12th Generation 10 3 3 3 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
Totals 108 44 56 43 13
Percent 76.8 23.2 Table 6 2 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jonathan Elliot
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-Migra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2nd Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3rd Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0
4th Generation 2 0 0 2 0 0 % • 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
5th Generation 2 0 0 2 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
6th Generation 5 0 2 3 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0
7th Generation 5 0 0 0 5 0 • % 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
8th Generation 6 0 1 0 3 2 % 100.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 50.0 33.3 Table 6 2 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jonathan Elliot (Continued)
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-Migra- Return tion Event Migration Event
9th Generation 10 0 4 0 4 2 °//o 100.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 20.0
10th Generation 9 0 3 0 5 1 % 100.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 55.6 11.1
11th Generation 1 0 0 0 1 0 °//o 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 - 0.0
12th Generation 3 3 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 43 3 10 7 18 5 % 100.0 7.0 23.3 16.3 41.9 11.6
ro o n 258
This genealogy was completed by supplementing field-qeneal- ogies collected from Ohio-born descendants of William Mauger with intensive bibliographic research. For a further discussion of research on the Mauger family, see material presented in the section on the
Frederic Mauger family.
(5) Brief history of the family
William Mauger was the fifth son of Heinrich and Mary Balser
Mauger and a brother of Frederic Mauger. He was bom near Pottstown,
Pennsylvania in 1802. He was married in 1823 to Elizabeth Masir
Mauger. Twelve children were born to this marriage, eleven of whom survived to adulthood.
William Mauger first migrated to Ohio in 1830 with his wife and family. In 1838, however, he became discouraged and re-migrated to Pottstown, Pennsylvania with his family. He remained in the Potts- town area until late 1845 or early 1846 when he returned to Liberty
Township in Fairfield County, Ohio. He purchased 160 acres there which he farmed until his death in 1880.
The family of William Mauger has always been active in the
German Reformed church in Liberty Township. Very few have left the church and those who did have become United Brethren or Methodists.
(6 ) The tables on migration
Information was available for all but one of the eleven des cendants of the William Mauger family. Table 63 indicates that of the 117 descendants of the family,only 44, or 37.6%, were involved in migrational events. This figure does not differ significantly from the percentage of migrants in the Frederic Mauger family, 36.4%. 259
Table 64 indicates that of 90 migrational events enumerated, only 10, or 11.2%, involved out-of-state migrations. In addition, 27, or 30.0%, were return-migration events.. One of the Pottstown, Penn sylvania Maugers commented generally on this, "We Maugers are all homebodies. You can look through the telephone directories of every major city in this country and you'll hardly find a Mauger," (Silas
Mauger: 1965).
Table 65 is indicative of the strength of family-ties. Of the
90 migrational events cited, 79, or 87.8%, involve pre-existing ties.
Table 66 presents the breakdown on the specific types of kin- linked migrational events in the family. Childhood migration is, over whelmingly, the most predominant. Overall, 41 of the 79, or 51.9%, of all migrational events fall in this category. Plowever, many of these moves represent the moves back to Pottstown and the return to central
Ohio.
One six of the 79 moves involve nuclear family migration.
This represents 7.6% of the total.
The William Mauger family is comparatively stabilized in central Ohio. The majority of descendants still live within commuting distance of the five townships and are still in contact with each other.
2.9 The Frederic Mauger Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 328
(2) Total number in study: 225
(3) Time period involved: 1788-1964
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy 260
Table 63 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - William Mauger
Total Number Percentage Number M igrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 1 100.0 1802
2nd Generation 12 12 100.0 1824-1845
3rd Generation 24 8 33.3 1852-1882
4th Generation 26 12 46.1 1882-1917
5th Generation 28 9 32.1 1914-1953
6th Generation 26 2 7.7 1947-1967
Totals 117 44 37.6 Table 64 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - William Mauger
Areas of Destination Number of Migration Columbus Other Other Western Other Return Events Mid States States Migration W estern States
1st Generation 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 % 100.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7
2nd Generation 38 0 25 2 0 0 11 % 100.0 0.0 65.8 5.5 0.0 0.0 28.7
3rd Generation 11 2 2 2 0 2 3 % 100.0 18.2 18.2 18.2 0.0 18.2 27.2
4th Generation 19 9 2 1 2 0 5 % 100.0 47.4 10.5 5.3 10.5 0.0 26.3
5th Generation 17 7 3 0 0 1 6 % 100.0 41.2 17.6 0.0 0.0 5.9 35.3
6th Generation 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 90 20 33 5 2 3 27 % 100.0 22.2 36.7 5.6 2.2 3.3 30.0 262
Table 65 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - William Mauger
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 1 3 3 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
2nd Generation 12 12 38 37 1 Percent 97.4 2.6
3rd Generation 24 8 11 10 1 Percent 90.9 9.1
4th Generation 26 12 19 15 4 Percent 78.9 21.1
5th Generation 28 9 17 12 5 Percent 70.6 29.4
6th Generation 26 2 2 2 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
Totals 117 44 90 79 11
Porronf R7 R 1 9 9 Table 66 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - William Mauger
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-Migra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 3 0 1 1 0 1 % 100.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3 2nd Generation 37 33 2 2 0 0 % 100.0 89.2 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 3rd Generation 10 1 0 2 4 3 % 100.0 10.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 30.0 4th Generation 15 2 1 0 8 4 % 100.0 13.3 6.7 0.0 53.3 26.7 5th Generation 12 3 2 0 3 4 % • 100.0 25.0 16.7 0.0 25.0 33.3
6th Generation 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 79 41 6 5 15 12 % 100.0 51.9 7.6 6.3 19.0 15.2 263 264
This genealogy was completed by supplementing field-
genealogies collected from Ohio-born descendants of Frederic Mauger
with intensive bibliographic research utilizing sources including manu
script census data. Extensive correspondence was also conducted
with descendants of Frederic Mauger in Western states and in Mich
igan. Additional research on the Mauger family was completed at the
Pennsylvania State Library, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and in the
area of origin, Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Archival material in the state
depositories of the German Reformed, Lutheran, and United Brethren
churches was also used.
At present, two female descendants of Frederic Mauger, Mrs.
Charles Bentz of Pataskala and Mrs. Russell Mauger of Baltimore, are
compiling all the genealogical information on the descendants of
Frederic Mauger's father, Heinrich Mauger of Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
This formal record is to be deposited in the Ohio Historical Society
Library and in the Pennsylvania State Library.
(5) Brief history of the family
Frederic Mauger, the third son of Heinrich and Mary Balser
Mauger was bom near Pottstown, Pennsylvania in 1788. He was
married three times; first to Elizabeth Houghton Mauger who died in
1824; secondly, to Mary Lindermann, who died in 1828; and, finally to Hester Ruschneider Whortman Mauger who died in Beatrice Nebraska
in 1881. Frederic Mauger was the father of twenty-two children, twenty-one of whom survived to adulthood.
In 1835, he migrated to Wagram, Ohio, in Etna Township, with his third wife, Hester, and three children from his first marriage, 265
three children from his second marriage, two children from his third
marriage; and Mrs. Mauger's son by her first marriage, Frederic Whort-
man. He was preceded in his settlement in central Ohio by his brother,
William, who came in 1830, and his oldest daughter, Hannah Mauger
Shirey, who came in 1829 or 1830. Frederic Mauger died in Wagram ,
Ohio in 1869 at the age of 81.
In 1852, two more sons by his first marriage, Daniel and
Henry Mauger, brought their families from Pottstown, Pennsylvania
and settled a few miles from their father's residence at Wagram. They
were accompanied by the son of Frederic and William Mauger's brother,
Jeremiah Mauger, and his family who settled near them in adjacent
Liberty Township in Fairfield County.
The Maugers were members of the German Reformed church
in the Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Baptismal records for all the Maugers
migrating into the townships from Pennsylvania were found in the old
German Reformed church records in Pottstown. There was no German
Reformed church near Wagram, Ohio, and the children from the first marriage affiliated with the United Brethren church at Etna. No records on church affiliation are available for the three children from the second
marriage. The last five children of the third marriage migrated together, with their families, to Beatrice, Nebraska in the early 1870s as home
steaders. These children were all Presbyterians. One correspondent in Omaha, Nebraska states that Frederic Mauger became a Presbyterian convert before his death, (Hester Peters, 1965). A search through the excellent Presbyterian records available in the townships, however, did not substantiate this claim. 266
The present day descendants of the Frederic Mauger family
x'esiding in central Ohio are primarily middle-class in level of educa
tion. Those remaining in the townships .are generally involved in
farming or small business enterprises.
(6 ) The tables on migration
Table 67 indicates that out of 225 persons in the study, 82,
or 36.4%, migrated during their lifetime. This table also shows a
decreasing percentage of those migrating in each subsequent genera
tion.
Table 68 shows’the destinations of out-migrational events from the townships. In the second and third generations, a large
percentage of those migrating moved W est, towards the Great Plains
states. During this period, 19 of the 66 migrational events, or 28.8%,
involved out-of-state destinations in the West North Central Division
states. From the fourth generation on, however, only6 out of 84, or
7.1%, involve out-of-state destinations. Of the 84 migrational events, it should be noted, 21, or 25.0%, involved return-migration.
The importance of pre-existing kinship ties for migration pat terns in the Frederic Mauger family is shown in Table 69. Of the 151 enumerated migrational events, 133, or 88.0%, were kin-linked.
Table 70 shows the types of kin-linked migrational events found in each genealogical generation. It should be noted that the high percentages of childhood migration in the second and third generations coincide with the initial movement of Frederic Mauger into Etna Town ship and the movement of the seven adult siblings to Beatrice, Neb raska with their children in the 1870s, In 25, out of the 133 kin-linked 267
Table 6 7 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Frederic Mauger
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 1 100.0 1788
2nd Generation 22 16 72.7 1814-1851
3rd Generation 60 28 46.7 1837-1891
4th Generation 48 18 37.5 1865-1909
5th Generation 37 10 27.0 1895-1943
6th Generation 43 9 20.9 1920-1963
7th Generation 14 0 0.0 1954-1964
Totals 225 82 36.4 Table 68 ; Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Frederic Mauger
Areas of Destination
Number of Other Migration Columbus Other Mid- Western Other Return Events Ohio Western States States Migration States
2nd Generation 19 2 10 7 0 0 0 % 100.0 10.5 52.6 36.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
3rd Generation 47 9 19 12 0 2 5 °//o 100.0 19.2 40.4 25.6 0.0 4.2 10.6
4th Generation 46 15 10 1 0 8 12 °//o 100.0 32.6 21.7 2.2 0.0 17.4 26.1
5th Generation 20 8 5 2 0 1 4 O o
% . 100.0 9 25.0 10.0 0.0 5.0 20.0
6th Generation 18 6 2 3 0 2 5 °//o 100.0 33.3 11.1 16.7 0.0 11.1 27.8
7th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °//o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 150 40 46 25 0 13 26 % 100.0 26.7 30.7 16.7 0.0 8.7 17.2 268 269
Table 69 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Frederic Mauger
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 1 1 1 0 o O
Percent 100.0 •
2nd Generation 22 16 19 19 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
3rd Generation 60 28 47 42 5 Percent 89.4 10.6
4th Generation 48 18 46 38 8 Percent 82.6 17.4
5th Generation 37 10 20 18 2 Percent 90.0 10.0
6th Generation 43 9. 18 15 3 Percent 83.3 16.7
7th Generation '14 0 0 0 0 o o
Percent 0.0 •
Totals 225 82 151 133 18
Percent 88.0 12.0 Table 70 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Frederic Mauger
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-Migra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 1 0 0 0 1 0 O//o 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 2nd Generation 19 8 4 0 7 0 % 100.0 42.1 21.1 0.0 36.8 •0.0 3rd Generation 42 23 5 4 5 5 % 100.0 54.8 11.9 9.5 11.9 11.9 4th Generation 38 7 8 5 6 • 12 % 100.0 18.4 21.1 13.2 15.8 31.5 5th Generation 18 0 5 0 8 5 % 100.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 44.4 27.8 6th Generation 15 3 3 0 4 5 % 100.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 26.7 33.3 7th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 133 41 25 9 31 27 % 100.0 30.8 18.8 6.8 23.3 20.3 270 271 migrational events, or 18.8%, only the nuclear family was involved.
Given the fact that 18 migrational events were non kin-linked, this means that 43 of the 151 migration events in this family were not linked to pre-existing consanguineal ties. This represents 30.8% of the total. Conversely, 69.1% were related to consanguineal ties.
2.10) The Daniel Snider Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 87
(2) Total number in present study: 55
(3) Time period involved: 1775-1963
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
Most of the genealogical information for this family came from the family Bible of the progenitor, Daniel Snider, which was owned by one of the informants. Supplemental interview data and a limited amount of additional genealogical information were elicited from a second informant.
(5) Brief history of the family
Daniel Snider, the progenitor, resided in the state of Pennsyl vania. The exact location is not known. He had fourteen children.
Information is only available for his fourth son, Daniel, who migrated to Liberty Township, Fairfield County, Ohio in the early 1820s. My informants did believe that Daniel had a sister or sisters in the town ship, but the spouses' .surnames are not known so the relationships are not at present demonstrable.
This family has always been a middle-class farming family.
They have not been involved in business until quite recently and their Ill
occupations in the small towns near Columbus and in Columbus, itself,
have been modest.
The Sniders have always been United Brethren with one excep
tion. One daughter married a Presbyterian and affiliated with that
denomination.
The Sniders are a close small family with much emphasis on
family dinners and family picnics. Even though a very high percentage of the full range of relatives participate in these events, the full
significance of this is not always apparent because of the small size of the group.
Most of the family members who moved away from the Liberty
Township area moved into the city of Columbus. Few have migrated elsewhere.
(6 ) The Tables on migration
Table 71 demonstrates the relatively low rate of migration in the family. Out of 55 persons in six generations, only 17, or 30.9%, have been involved in migration events.
Table 72 most graphically demonstrates the geographic stab ility of this family. Only 2 migrational events out of 27, or 7.4%, have areas of destination outside the state of Ohio. Columbus is the area of destination of 14, or 51.9%, of all migrational events. An additional
9, or 33.3%, involve return to the natal townships.
Table 73 indicates further the significance of kinship ties for these families. Twenty-eight migrational events are recorded for the
seventeen persons who migrated. All of these 28 events, that is 100.0%, are kin-linked migrational events. 273
Table 71 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Daniel Snider
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 0 0.0 1775
2nd Generation 14 1 7.1 1801-1821
3rd Generation 9 4 44.4 1832-1850
4th Generation 7 3 42.9 1859-1911
5th Generation 11 5 45.5 1882-1926
6th Generation 7 4 57.1 1920-1929
7th Generation 6 0 0.0 1956-1963
Totals 55 17 30.9 Table 72 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Daniel Snider
Areas of Destination Number of Other Migration Columbus Other Mid- Western Other Return Events Ohio Western States States Migration States
3rd Generation 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4th Generation 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5th Generation 12 6 0 0 1 0 5 °//o 100.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 41.7
6th Generation 8 4 0 0 0 0 4 % 100.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0
7th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 27 14 2 1 1 0 9 % 100.0 51.9 7.4 3.7 3.7 0.0 33.3 2 74 275
Table 73 : Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation
Progenitor - Daniel Snider
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0
2nd Generation 14 1 1 1 0 o o
Percent 100.0 •
3rd Generation 9 4 4 4 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
4th Generation 7 3 3 3 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
5th Generation 11 5 12 12 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
6th Generation 7 4 8 8 0 o o
Percent 100.0 •
7th Generation 6 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0
Totals 55 17 28 28 0
Percent 100.0 0.0 Table 74 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Daniel Snider
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-Migra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0
' % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd Generation 1 0 1 0 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd Generation 4 0 3 1 0 0 % 100.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 4th Generation 3 0 0 0 3 0 % 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 5th Generation 12 2 0 0 6 4 % 100.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 50.0 33.3 6 th Generation 8 2 0 0 4 2 % 100.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 7th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 28 4 4 0 14 6 % 100.0 14.3 14.3 0.0 50.0 21.5 276 277
Table 74 again supports this conclusion. Of the 28 migra tional events recorded, 14, or 5 0.0%, directly involve migration with members of the consanguineal kin group. Only 4 migrational events, or 14.3%, involved nuclear family migration. Since no isolate migra tion was recorded, this means that consanguineal kin ties were involved in 85.7% of all migration events in this family.
2.11) The Teremiah Mauger Family
(1) Total number in genealogy: 132
(2) Total number in present study: 132
(3) Time period involved: 1818-196 7
(4) Methods used in collection of genealogy
The first portions of this genealogy were collected by supple menting field-genealogies collected from Ohio-born descendants of
Jeremiah Mauger with intensive bibliographic research. In the spring of 1968, quite unexpectedly, Mrs. Russell Mauger located an infor mant who was a descendant of Jeremiah Mauger who was unusually familiar with the total family genealogy and certain aspects of family history as well.
(5) Brief history of the family
Jeremiah Mauger was the fourth son of Jacob and Mary Hensel
Mauger. Jacob Mauger, his father, was the second son of Heinrich and Mary Balser Mauger 0 Jeremiah Mauger, his wife, Sarah Bechtel
Mauger, and their family, came to Liberty Township, Fairfield County,
Ohio, in 1852. He was accompanied by his two eldest male first cousins in the Frederic Mauger family, Daniel and Henry. It should 278 be noted that he was a nephew of both Frederic and William Mauger.
Jeremiah Mauger farmed in Liberty Township until his death in 1901. All of the members of his family were members of the German
Reformed church there.
The present day descendants of the family are still located primarily in Licking and Fairfield Counties. For the most part, they are still farmers and small-businessmen. The Jeremiah Mauger des cendants have maintained close family ties between the different branches.
(6) The Tables on migration
The Jeremiah Mauger family was the least mobile family in the study. Of the 132 persons in the genealogy, only 32, or 24.2%, were involved in migrational events, (Table 75 ).
Table 76 indicates that only 6 of the 32 events, or 12.6%, had areas of destination outside the state of Ohio. Indeed, 10, or
20.8%, involved return-migration to the five townships0The geograph ical stabilization of this family is indicated by the fact that only 3 members of the Jeremiah Mauger family have spent their adult lives away from the state of Ohio and, in general, the central Ohio region.
(That is, 3 of the 6 out-migrants from Ohio, returned to Ohio.)
Pre-existing kinship ties have been important in 42,or 85.7%, of the total of 49 migrational events noted in Table 77 . However, when the specific types of kin-linked migrational events are analyzed,
(Table 78), nuclear family migrations comprise 9 of the 49 events, or
21.4%. Since most migration has been short-distance migration, or 279
intra-state migration, this is perhaps less significant than it would seem. Return-migration has been important in 9 out of the 42, or
21.3%,migrational events. 280
Table 75 : Numbers and Percentages of Migrants in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jeremiah Mauger
Total Number Percentage Number Migrating Migrating
1st Generation 1 1 100.0 1818
2nd Generation 7 6 85.7 1843-1865
3rd Generation 20 6 30.0 1866-1901
4th Generation 35 10 28.6 1888-1933
5 th Generation 35 8 22.9 1911-1958
6th Generation 33 1 3.0 1952-1968
7th Generation 1 0 0.0 1967
Totals 132 32 24.2 Table 76 : Areas of Destination of Out-Migrational Events from the Five Ohio Townships in Each Genealogical Generation ■ ■ Progenitor - Jeremiah Mauger
Areas of Destination Number of Migration Other Columbus Other Mid- Western Other Return Events Ohio Western States States Migration States
2nd Generation 12 2 7 0 0 0 3 % 100.0 16.7 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 3rd Generation 10 2 5 0 1 0 2 % . 100.0 20.0 50 o 0 0.0 10.0 0.0 20.0 n 4th Generation 13 7 2 L 1 0 1 % 100.0 53.8 15 15.4 7.7 0.0 7.7 5th Generation 12 4 3 0 0 1 4 % 100.0 33.3 25.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 33.3 6th Generation 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 °//o 100.0 0.0 0.0 u. 0 0.0 100.0 0,0 7th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0
Totals 48 15 17 2 2 2 10 % 100.0 31.3 35,4 4.2 4.2 4.2 20.8 282
Table 77: Numbers and Percentages of Kin-Linked and Non Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jeremiah Mauger
Non Total Number Number of Kin-Linked Kin-Linked Number Migrating Migration Migration Migration Events Events Events
1st Generation 1 1 1 1 0 o o
Percent 100.0 •
2nd Generation 7 6 12 11 1 Percent 91.7 8.o
3rd Generation 20 6 10 10 0 Percent 100.0 0.0
4th Generation 35 10 13 10 3 Percent 76.9 23.1
5th Generation 35 8 12 9 3 Percent 75.0 25.0
6th Generation 33 1 1 1 0 o o
Percent 100.0 .
7th Generation 1 0 0 0 0 o o
Percent 0.0 •
Totals 132 32 49 42 7
Percent 85.7 14.3 Table 78 : Numbers and Percentages of Specific Types of Kin-Linked Migrational Events in Each Genealogical Generation Progenitor - Jeremiah Mauger
Total Number Childhood Nuclear Adult Adult Consanguineal Kin-Linked Migration Family Sibling Migration Event Migration Event Migration Migration Event Event Event Out-Migra- Return tion Event Migration Event
1st Generation 1 0 0 0 1 0 °//O 100.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 100.0 0.0 2nd Generation 11 5 0 2 1 3 % 100.0 45.5 0.0 18.2 9.1 27.3
3rd Generation 10 2 3 0 4 1 °//o 100.0 20.0 30.0 0.0 40.0 10.0
4th Generation 10 1 5 0 3 1 °//o 100.0 10.0 50.0 0.0 30.0 10.0
5th Generation 9 3 1 0 1 4 % 100.0 33.3 11.1 0.0 11.1 44.5
6th Generation 1 1 0 0 0 0 % 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7th Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totasl 42 12 9 2 10 9 /o 100.0 28.6 21.4 4.8 23.8 21.5 283 APPENDIX B: Census Data on Population Mobility 285
Tables presented in publications of the United States Bureau
of the Census (Tables 79 and 80) and tables compiled from publica
tions of the United States Bureau of the Census (Tables 83/ 84, and
85), show that, historically, population mobility in the United States
has overwhelmingly taken place within the borders of a given state.
At any period from 1850-1960, for approximately seventy-five percent
of the total population, the state of birth and the state of residence
at the time of census enumeration are the same. Even when people
have migrated across state borders, fewer than fourteen percent have
left the geographic region of birth.
Data from the East North Central Division of the United States
Bureau of the Census (which includes Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Mich igan, and Wisconsin) show essentially the same pattern, although there was a slight decline in the percentages remaining in the census
division during the thirty years following the Civil War. That thirty-
year period corresponds to the time period involved in the historical
settlement of the Great Plains states and the Far West.
With the closing of the frontier at the end of the 19th century and the growing urbanization of the East North Central Census Division during that period and throughout the 20th century, there has been an increase in regional population stability. The state of Ohio, in general, mirrors these divisional trends. At present, eighty percent of all native-born Ohioans live in their state of birth. This is slightly higher than the national average of seventy-four percent, (74.0%). 286
Lifetime migration histories compiled by the Bureau of the
Census for a representative sample of the total population of the United
States show that, nationally, regardless of age or type of birthplace, there is a persistence of the trend toward intra-state migration. There is a significant difference, however, between state-wide population stability of individuals born in Standard Metropolitan Areas (SMA), that is, metropolitan areas with populations exceeding 5 00,000, and those found in non-Standard Metropolitan Areas (non-SMA). There is more population stability in the Standard Metropolitan Areas (76% in natal state) as compared to the non-Standard Metropolitan Areas (6 7% in natal state). This suggests that urbanization may actually increase population stability.
1.) The Tables in the Appendix
In every census taken by the United States Bureau of the
Census since 1850, both the state of origin and the state of residence have been elicited for each person enumerated in the census. There has been some variation, however, in individual censuses, in the presentation of these data. In 1957, the United States Bureau of the
Census published a compilation of historical statistics from the 185 0 census through the 195 0 census. (Historical Statistics of the United
States 1957).- This compilation facilitates broad historical compari sons on specific points. For the more detailed information, it is still necessary to return to the original census for a given decade.
In addition to the publication of the decennial census, the
United States Bureau of the Census also published, from time to time, 287
abstracts on specific topics. One of these studies, an analysis of
lifetime migration histories, has been used in the present study.
1.1) The Native Population, by Residence Within or
Outside State, Division, and Region of Birth, by
Color: 1850-1950
Table 79 from the Historical Statistics of the United States, presents the national breakdown of the native population in terms of
state of birth and state of residence at the time of each given census.
This table indicates that, for approximately 75% of the total popula tion, regardless of the census period, the state of birth and the state of residence are the same. For more than 80%, the state of birth and the division of residence for the census are the same. More than 86% of the total population remain within the region of residence of their natal state. Approximately 14% leave the natal region.
1. 2) Numbers and Percentages of White Native Popula
tion Bom in East North Central Census Division Remain
ing in East North Central Division: 185 0-1960
Table'80 focuses on residence and migration patterns found in the East North Central Division, which includes Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. With the exception of the 1960 figures, these data were included in the compilation of historical statistics, (Historical Statistics of the United States 1961). This table is particularly interesting because of the variations in percen tages remaining in the natal division at the different censuses. Before Table 79 Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957, Bureau of the Census Statistical Abstract Supplement: 1961, p. 41
Bom in Other States Color Born in State Contiguous to State Noncontiguous to State and Native of Residence of Residence of Residence Year Population Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 iota! 1950z 139,868,715 102,788,385 73.5 14.589.035 10.4 20,695,185 14.8 1940 120,074,379 92,609,754 77.1 12,583,482 10.5 14,322,504 11.9 1930 108,570,897 82,677,619 76.2 12,200,290 11.2 13,187,810 12.1
1920 91,789,928 71,071,013 77.4 9,741,781 10.6 10,532,669 11.5 1910 78,456,380 61,185,305 78.0 7,959,860 10.1 8,950,254 11.4 1900 65,653,299 51,901,722 79.0 6,308,975 9.6 7,192,070 11.0
18903 53,372,703 41,872,656 78.5 4,628,768 8.7 6,464,295 12.1 1880 43,475,840 33,882,734 77.9 4,083,004 9.4 5,509,760 12.7 1870. 32,991,142 25,321,340 76.8 3,182,563 9.6 4,474,757 13.6 White 1950 ■ 124.382,950 91,984,035 74.0 13,195,215 10.6 17,629,445 14.2 1940 106,795,732 82,533,805 77.3 11,298,723 10.6 12,492,817 11.7 1930 95,497,800 72,821,481 76.2 10,824,966 11.3 11,452,788 12.0
1920 81,108,161 62,524,789 77.1 8,675,416 10.7 9,521,420 11.7 1910 68,386,412 52,806,091 77.2 7,018,331 10.3 8,245,872 12.0 1900 56,595,379 44,278,021 78.2 5,534,957 9.8 6,562,833 11.6
1890 3 45,862,023 35,524,287 77.5 4,064,121 8.9 5,926,722 12.9 1880 36,843,291 28,310,081 76.8 3,576,340 9.7 4,956,596 13.5 1870 28,095,665 21,355,242 76.0 2,779,526 9.9 3,951,487 14.1 288 Table 79(Continued)
, 1 Born in Other States C o l o r ______and Bom in State Contiguous to State Noncontiguous to State Year Native of_ Residence ______of_Residence ______of_Residence ______Population Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 White 1860^ 23,353.385 17,527,069 75.1 2,529,494 10.8 3,242,190 13.9 1850 17,772,270 13,624,902 76.7 2,105,724 11.9 2,006,033 11.3
Non- White 1950 15,485,765 10,804,350 69.8 1,393,820 9.0 3,065,740 19.8 1940 13,278,647 10,075,949 75.9 1,284,759 9.7 1,829,687 13.8 1930 13,073,097 9,856,138 75.4 1,375,324 10.5 1,735,022 13.3
1920 10,681,767 8,546,224 80.0 1,066,365 10.0 1,011,249 9.5 1910 10,069,968 8,379,214 83.2 941,529 9.3 704,382 7.0 1900 9,057,920 7,623,701 84.2 774,018 8.5 629,237 6.9
18903 ■ 7,510,680 6,348,369 - 84.5 564,647 7.5 537,573 7.2 1880 6,632,549 5,572,653 84.0 506,664 7.6 553,164 8.3 1870 4,895,477 3,966,098 81.0 403,037 8.2 523,270 10.7 289 Table 79(Continued)
Color Bom Born State and in out abroad of birth Bom in Division Bom in Region Year lying or at not of Residence of Residence areas Sea reported Number Percent Number Percent 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 TotaL 1950 329,970 96,355 1,369,785 113,477,915 81.1 119,490,510 85.4 1940 156,956 122,169 279,514 101,694,396 84.7 106,734,907 88.9 1930 . 136,032 130,677 238,469 91,382,402 84.2 96,447,180 88.8
1920 38,020 92,863 313,582 77,906,515 84.9 82,308,490 89.7 1910 7,365 67,911 285,685 66,746,379 85.1 70,864,304 90.3 1900 2,923 67,151 180,458 56,248,496 85.7 60,025,002 91.4
18903 322 10,010 396,652 45,022,600 84.4 48,398,175 90.7 1880 51 291 36,582,390 84.1 39,530,266 90.9 1870 51 169 12,262 27,363,803 82.9 29,634,393 89.8 White 1950 289,435 88,065 1,'196,755 101,491,050 81.6 107,061,705 86.1 1940- 99,170 117,933 253,284 90,586,586 84.8 95,225,370 89.2 1930 71,582 125,060 201,923 80,492,581 84.3 85,075,201 89.1
1920 26,476 88,838 271,222 68,601,740 84.6 72,563,235 89.5 1910 6,413 64,356 245,349 57,703,559 84.4 61,361,087 89.7 1900 2,563 63,366 153,639 48,102,508 85.0 51,407,811 90.8
1890 3 279 9,543 337,071 38,315,138 83.5 41,227,682 89.9 1880 50 224 ------30,681,197 83.3 33,126,949 89.9 1870 38 160 9,212 23,130,521 82.3 24,914,093 88.7 290 Table 79(Continued
.
Color Born Bom State and in out- abroad of birth Bom in Division Bom in Region Year or at not of Residence of Residence areas Sea reported Number Percent Number Percent 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 White I8604 2,618 52,014 18,969,380 81.2 20,481,089 87.7 18504 — — — —----- 35,611 14,707,719 82.8 15,765,010 88.7
Non- White 19502 40,535 8,290 173,030 11,986,865 77.4 12,428,805 80.3- 1940 57,786 4,236 26,230 11,107,810 83.7 11,509,537 86.7 19301 64,450 5,617 36,546 10,889,821 83.3 11,371,979 87.0
1920 11,544 4,025 42,360 9,304,775 87.1 9,745,255 91.2 1910 952 3,555 40,336 9,042,820 89.8 9,503,217 94.4 1900 360 3,785 26,819 8,145,988 89.9 8,617,191 95.1
18903 43 467 59,581 6,707,462 89.3 7,170,493 95.5 1880 1 67 ------5,901,193 89.0 6,403,317 96.5 1870 13 9 3,050 4,233,282 86.5 4,720,300 96.4
Mexicans classified as nonwhite in 1930, as white in other censuses. 2 Based on 20-percent sample of persons enumerated. 3 Excludes population of Indian Territory and Indian reservations, specially enumerated in 1890, with a native population of 117,368 white, and 208,083 nonwhite, not dis tributed by State of birth. 4 Free colored included with white. 292
Table 80 : Numbers and Percentages of White Native Population Bom in East North Central Division Remaining in East North Central Division 185 0-1960
Percentage of Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Number in Division in Division
1850 2,757,356 2,582,600 93.7%
1860 4,562,911 4,044,3 29 88.6%
1870 6,550,805 5,625,542 85.9%
1880 9,062,808 7,521,118 83.0%
1890 11,459,737 9,280,356 81.0%
1900 13,990,407 11,539,208 82.5%
1910 16,287,667 13,239,961 81.3%
1920 18,836,603 15,606,106 82.8%
1930 21,523,034 18,167,867 84.4%
1940 23,255,752 20,031,073 86.1%
1950 26,253,590 22,344,590 85.1%
1960 32,236,370 27,127,488 84.2% 293 the Civil War, over 88% of the population remained in the natal div ision. After the Civil War, however, as settlement of the Great Plains and the Far West accelerated, there was- an overall loss of more than
2% each decade until 1910 (with the exception of 1900). After 1910, however, there was a slow but gradual increase in both the total numbers and percentages of those remaining in the natal division.
1.3) Numbers and Percentages of White Native Population
Bom in Ohio Remaining in East North Central Census
Division: 1850-1870-1880-1900-1960
Table 81 presents data found in the individual United States
Censuses of 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1960. These data indicate that the native-born white population of Ohio was actually slightly above the division average in terms of both numbers and percentages remaining in the East North Central Census Division between 185 0-
1900. Nineteen hundred sixty census data show a continuation of this pattern. This indicates that, overall, the native-born Ohio popula tion has been at least as stable in migration patterns as the native- born population of other states of the division.
1.4) Table 82: Distribution by numbers and percentages
of native-born Ohioans: 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1960
Table 82 shows the distribution of native-born Ohioans in
Ohio, in other states of the East North Central Division, and in other states of the United States. In 1850, Ohio had more than 80% of her 294
Table 81 : Numbers and Percentages of White Native Population Born in Ohio Remaining in East North Central Division 185 0-1870-1880-1900-1960
Percentage of Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Number in Division in Division
1850 1,514,885 1,429,923 94.4%
1870 2,649,296 2,284,955 86.5%
1880 3,302,656 2,782,277 84.1%
1900 4,310,651 3,612,668 83.7%
1960 8,401,068 7,140,734 85.0% Table 82 : Distribution of Native Ohioans: 185 0-1870-1880-1900-1960
1850 1870 1880 1900 1960
Totals 1,514,885 2,649,296 3,302,656 4,310,651 8,401,068
Ohio 1,219,432 1,842,213 2,361,437 3,189,837 6,734,582 % 80.5% 69.5% 71.5% 74.0% 80. 2%
Indiana 120,193 189,359 186,391 178,344 112,161 % 7.9% 7.0% 5.6% 4.0% 1.3%
Michigan 14,677 62,207 77,053 88,290 194,520 % 1.0% 2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 2.3%
Illinois 64,219 163,012 136,884 137,161 82,524 % 4.2% 7.0% 4.1% 3.2% 1.0%
Wisconsin 11,402 23,164 20,512 19,036 17,217 % 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2%
Kentucky 9,985 19,533 27,115 38,539 61,964 % 0.7% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7%
Iowa 30,713 126,283 120,495 88,298 9,741
°//o 2.0% 5.0% 3.6% 2.1% 0.1% 295 Table 82 (Continued)
1850 1870 1880 1900 1960
Missouri 12,737 76,062 78,938 80,966 21,658 °//o 0.8% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 0.3%
Kansas - 38,205 93,396 88,298 13,866 °//o - 1.4% 2.8% 2.1% 0.2%
Nebraska - 10,729 31,800 40,981 6,436 % - 0.4% 1.0% 1.0% 0.1%
California 5,500 12,735 17,759 34,969 292,443 % 0.8% 0.5% . 0.5% 0.8% 3.5%
Pennsylvania 7,729 19,295 27,500 57,436 ' 106,319 % 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 1.3% 1.3%
New York 3,743 7,512 11,599 26,219 81,443 % 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 1.0%
Other 14,555 71,722 129,534 242,277 666,194 % 0.8% 2.7% 3.6% 5.6% 8.0% 296 297
natal population remaining in the state of origin. This was approx
imately four percent higher than the national average. In 1870 and
1880, however, the percentages of native-born Ohioans remaining in
the natal state was approximately five percent less than the national
average. By 1900, however, this trend began to reverse. In 1960,
80% of all native-born Ohioans remained in Ohio (and, of course, in
their division of origin) as contrasted with a national average of 74%
in the 1950 census.
Less than five percent of the Ohio-born population with
residences outside of Ohio, in the 1960 census, however, were found
in other states in the East North Central Division. Indeed, almost
four percent of those living outside of Ohio were in the state of
California.
1.5) Table 83 : Lifetime Migration-Histories By Age Croup
and Type of Birthplace. United States Bureau of the Census
Current Population Report Series p-23, No. 25, March 3, 1968
Table 83presents data on the relationship between age groups, types of birthplace and patterns of mobility. There are striking differ ences, regardless of age groups, between persons born in Standard
Metropolitan Areas and those bom outside of Standard Metropolitan
Areas, whether the latter are born in urban or rural areas. Population in the SMA areas, in all categories, is more stable than population outside of these areas. Indeed, the most mobile group, overall, seems to be those from cities of 50,000 - 499,999 and cities of 2,500 -
49,399 . More persons in these groups leave both the state and the Table 83 : Lifetime Migration Histories by Age Group and Type of Birthplace. United States Bureau of the Census Current Population Report Series P-23, No. 25, March 8, 1958
Age Groun 18-24 Type of Birthplace Total in Population 5 00,000 50,GOO- In SMA Out SMA Report SMA 499,999 2500- 2500- In SMA Out SMA In SMA Out SMA Other Sample 49,999 49,999 Rur. NF Rur.NF F F 11,612
Total 1,798 1,935 788 1,930 829 1,995 181 2,072 89
No Move 55.6 48.8 42.4 30.7 56.2 35.7 43.6 32.2 B Same County 9.1 9.3 20.6 6.8 13.7 9.1 17.1 10.1 B Different county 14.1 16.3 19.7 30.2 15 .7 29.6 27.6 36.2 B Different State 7.2 7.7 5.7 11.1 5.2 10.1 5.5 6.9 B Different Region 13.9 18.0 11.7 21.1 9.2 15.5 6.6 14.6 B 25-34 19,025
Total 3,347 3,283 1,336 2,968 1,279 3,124 308 3,207 173
No Move 42.2 34.8 26.3 19.9 44.3 23.9 28.2 19.6 — Same County 11.4 11.8 24.4 7.7 16.7 10.7 18.5 13.0 0.6 Different County 19.4 20.3 21.3 33.5 20.3 25.5 32.8 39.8 15 .0 Different State 9.3 9.8 6.7 13.2 6.5 10.1 6.2 8.4 26.0 Different Region 17.7 23.3 21.2 26.8 12.3 19.8 14.3 18.0 58.4 298 Table 83 : (Continued)
35-44 50,000 50,000- In SMA Out SMA 499,999 2500- 2500- In SMA Out SMA In SMA Out SMA Other 19,468 SMA 49,999 49,999 Rur.NF Rur. NF FF
Total 3,415 3,042 1,258 2,899 1,104 3,135 . 415 3,964 236
No move 39.6 31.8 24.8 19.2 41.5 19.9 : 22.7 18.7 0.4 Same County 11.0 12.0 26.3 5.9 15.4 8.2 21.9 10.4 2.1 Different County 19.9 20.6 19.6 35.9 20.2 39.6 32.8 40.5 23.3 Different State 10.7 10.7 10.2 13.1 8.5 10.3 10.1 10.8 13.1 Different Region 18.9 24.9 19.1 25.9 14.5 21.9 ! 12.3 19.2 61.0
45-54 16,133
Total 2,691 2, 288 75 8 2,369 856 2,778 371 3,813 208
No Move 43.4 33.6 22.4 18.7 38.7 19.1 20.2 18.1 1.4 Same County 8.1 10.1 24.0 5.4 17.3 9.1 24.5 12.1 3.8 Different County 19.2 20.1 24.1 34.6 22.0 39.2 30.1 40.8 18.3 Different State 11.3 11.8 9.1 14.1 10.2 12.3 8.6 11.3 24.0 Different Region 17.9 24.5 2,0.1 27.1 12.0 20.2 16.6 17.7 52.4 299 Table 83 : (Continued)
50,000 50,GOO- In SMA Out SMA 55-64 SMA 499,999 2500- 2500- In SMA Out SMA In SMA Out SMA Other 11,462 49,999 49,999 Rur. NF Rur.NF F F
Total 1,785 1,417 479 1,65 8 547 1,922 315 3,155 184
No Moves 45.4 36.5 27.3 18.2 46.4 17.6 15.9 18.2 1.1 Same County 7.9 9.2 20.0 5.7 14.8 8.0 29.8 11.8 0.5 Different County 17.4 17.6 25.5 34.3 20.8 39.1 31.4 41.0 17.4 Different State 9.9 12.8 7.5 15.1 7.9 13.8 5.0 1] .8 26.1 Different Region 19.3 23.8 20.0 26.8 10.1 21.5 17.8 17.1 54.3
65+ 10,536
Total 1,388 1,125 389 1,326 473 1,775 394 3,537 199
No Moves 45.7 37.5 19.3 21.7 31.5 21.9 15.0 14.7 0.5 Same County 6.9 7.6 18.0 5.6 23.9 9.4 23.9 12.8 0.5 Different County 16.0 18.8 30.6 32.7 19.0 37.1 32.2 40.0 20.1 Different State 9.6 10.6 10.3 14.5 9.1 12.4 9.4 12.1 27.1 Different Region 21.7 25.6 21.9 25.5 16.3 19.3 19.5 20.1 52.3
7T SMA = Standard Metropolitan Area NF = Non-Farm F = Farm 300 301 natal region.
1.6) Table 84: Numbers and Percentages Remaining in
State of Origin by Age Group and Type of Birthplace.
(Compiled from data in Table 83)
Table 84 , with the exception of the 18-24 age group fur nishes further corroboration of this point. There are no groups in the
SMA areas, whether urban residents, rural non-farming, or rural farm ing, that differ significantly in this respect. Those from communities between 2,500 - 49,999 are more than five percent more mobile than any other group in the sample.
1.7) Table 85: Total Numbers and Percentages Remaining
in State of Origin by Classification in Terms of SMA or Non-
SMA Birthplace. (Compiled from data in Table 84 )
This table most graphically demonstrates the comparative population stability of persons bom in SMA and non-SMA Birthplaces.
Of the 87,012 persons in the sample, 26,505, or 30.5%, were bom in SMAs or rural areas adjacent to SMAs. Sixty thousand, five hun dred and seven, or 69.5%, were bom in non-SMA areas. Of the 26,5 05 bom in SMAs, 20,064, or 75.7%, remained in the state of origin. Of the 60,507 bom in non-SMAs, 40,479 or 66.9%, were found in the state of origin. That is, almost ten percent more of the population from SMAs remained in the state of origin than from the non-SMA areas. Table 84: Percentages Remaining in State of Origin by Age Group and Type of Birthplace O GO ^ o O O LO 50,GOO- In SMA Out SMA In SMA Out SMA In SMA Out SMA Other 499,999 2500- 2500- Rur.NF Rur.NF F .. F 49,999 49,999
18-24 1,798 1,935 788 1,930 829 1,995 181 2,072 89 % Remaining 78.8 84.4 82.7 67.7 85.6 74.4 88.3 78.5
25-34 3,347 3,283 1,336 2,568 1,279 3,124 308 3,207 173 % Remaining 73.0 66.9 72.0 61.1 81.3 60.1 79.5 69.6 15.6
35-44 3,415 3,042 1,258 2,899 1,104 3,135 415 3,964 236 % Remaining 70.5 64.4 70.7 61.0 77.1 67.7 77.4 69.6 25.8
45-54 2,681 2,888 75 8 2,369 856 2,778 372 3,813 208 % Remaining 70.7 63.8 70.5 58.7 78.0 67.4 74.8 71.0 23.5
55-64 1,785 1,417 479 1,658 547 1,922 315 3,155 184 % Remaining 71.7 63.3 72.8 58.2 82.0 64.7 77.1 71.0 19.0
65 - 1,388 1,125 389 1,326 4 73 1,775 394 3,537 199 % Remaining 68.6 63.9 67.9 60.0 74.4 68.4 71.1 67.5 .20.1
Totals 14,424 13,090 5,008 13,140 5,088 14,729 1,985 19,548 1,089 Average 72.2 67.8 72.8 61.1 79.7 67.1 78.0 71.7 17.3
CO O CO 303
Table 85 : Percentages Remaining in State of Origin by Type of Birthplace in Relation to SMA
Birthplace Birthplace SMA or non-SMA or adjacent to SMA adjacent to SMA
Total in Sample 26/505 (30.5%) 60/507 (69.5%)
Total Remaining 20/064 40/479
% Remaining 75.5% 66.9% REFERENCES
Primary Sources
Church Histories and Local Documents
(Church Histories)
The Etna Evangelical United Brethren The Snider Road Evangelical United Brethren Fletcher Chapel The German Reformed Church, Basil-Baltimore, Ohio The Mt. Zion German Reform Church, Basil-Baltimore, Ohio Trinity Lutheran Church, Pottstown, Pennsylvania
(Church Records)
The Etna-Kirkersville-Fletcher Chapel Methodist Churches The Etna Evangelical United Brethren The Wagram Evangelical The Jersey Presbyterian Church, Jersey, Ohio The Pataskala Presbyterian Church, Pataskala, Ohio The German Reformed Church, Basil-Baltimore, Ohio The Mt. Zion German Reformed Church, rural, Basil-Baltimore, Ohio
Anon 1907 Fairfield County Directory, Detroit, R. L. Polk
Anon 195 2 The Pataskala Centennial Booklet, Pataskala
Anon 1954 Pataskala and Etna Ohio High School Alumni Bulletins
304 305 REFERENCES (Continued)
County Historical Materials
Anon 1856 Licking County Land Maps; Fairfield County Land M aps.
Anon 1877 Licking County Land Maps; Fairfield Countv Land M aps.
Anon 1882 History of Berks County, Pennsylvania, Reading, Pa.
Anon 1894 Memorial Record of Licking County, Ohio, Chicago, Record Publishing Co.
Anon 1902 A Biographical History of Fairfield County, Ohio, Chicago & New York, S. J. Clarke.
Brister, E.M.P. 1909 Centennial History of the City of Newark and Licking County, Ohio, Chicago, S. J. Clarke.
Graham, A. A. 1883 History of Fairfield and Perry Counties, Chicago, W. H. Beers Co.
Hill, N. N. Jr. 1881 History of Licking County, Ohio, Newark, Graham.
Miller, Charles C. 1912 History of Fairfield County, Ohio, Chicago, Richmond- Amold Publishers.
Scott, Hervey 1877 A Complete History of Fairfield County, Ohio, Columbus, Siebert & Lilly.
Brister, E.M .P. 1909 Centennial History of the City of Newark and Licking County, Ohio, Chicago, S. J. Clarke. 306
REFERENCES (Continued)
Genealogies and Autobiographical Material
Beem, Nelson 1936 A History and Genealogy of the Beem Family, Loudonville.
Beem, H. Clinton 1964 Autobiography. A handwritten document now in the collection of the Ohio State Historical Society.
1965 The Baird Genealogy. A handwritten document now in the col lection of the Ohio State Historical Society. Anon 1902 A. Biographical History of Fairfield County, Ohio, Chicago & New York, S. J. Clarke.
Wiseman, C.M.L. 1901 The Pioneer Period and Pioneer People of Fairfield County, Ohio, Columbus, F. J. Heer Printing Co.
Books
Baltzell, E. Digby, 195 8 Philadelphia Gentlemen, The Making of a National Upper Class, Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1958.
Bennett, John W. 1968 The Hutterian Brethren, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1968.
Bogue, Donald 1949 The Structure of the Metropolitan Community: A Study of Dominance and Sub-Dominance, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. 1959 The Population of the United States. Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press.
Clark, Thomas D. 1959 Frontier America, The Story of the Westward Movement, New York, Charles Scribners' Sons. 307
REFERENCES (Continued)
Codere, Helen 1950 Fighting with Property; A Study of Kwakiutl Potlaching and Warfare, New York, J. J. Augustin.
Culwick, A. T. and G. M. Culwick 1935 Ubena of the Rivers, London, Allen and Unwin.
Curti, Merle 1959 The Making of an American Community, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940 The Nuer, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Farber, Bernard 1966 Kinship and Family Organization, New York, John Wiley & Sons. Firth, Raymond 1936 We, the Tikopia, New York, Cincinnati, American Book Co.
1956 Two Studies of Kinship in London, London, University of London Press.
Fortes, Meyer 1945 The Dynamics of Clanship Among the Tallensi, International African Institute, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
1949b The Web of Kinship Among the Tallensi, International African Institute, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Fortes, Meyer, ed. 1949a Social Structure, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Gallaher, Arthur 1961 Plainville: Fifteen Years Later, New York & London, Columbia Univ. Press.
Glass, D. V., and D. E. C. Eversley 1965 Population in History. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co.
Gorer, Geoffrey, 1948 The American People: A Study in National Character, New York, W. W. Norton. Hauser, Philip M. and Otis D. Duncan 1959 The Study of Population, Chicago, The Univ. of Chicago Press. Kuznet, Simon and Dorothy S. Thomas, editors 1957-1964 Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the United States: 1870-1950, Three volumes, Philadelphia, Pa., American Philosophical Society. 308 REFERENCES (Continued)
Leichter, Hope J. and William E. Mitchell 1967 Kinship and Casework, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Le Play/ Frederic 1872 The Organization of Labor, translated by G. Emerson, Philadelphia, Claxton, Rensen, and Heffelfinger.
Matthews, Elmora Messer 1965 Neighbor and Kin, N ashville, Vanderbilt Univ. Press.
Mead, Margaret 1942 And Keep Your Powder Dry, New York, W. W. Murrow and Co.
Miner, Horace 1939 St. Denis: A French-Canadian Parish, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Newcombe, V.B., M.E. Smith, and R. R. Schwartz 1965 Computer Methods for Extracting Kinship Data from Family Groupings of Records, Chalk River (Ontario), Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. ■\ Pearsall, Marion 1959 Little Smokey Ridge. Birmingham, Alabama, Univ. of Alabama Press.
Roseboom, Eugene and Francis Weisenberger 196 7 A History of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio Historical Society.
Saveth, Edward 1964 American History and the Social Sciences. New York, Free Press.
Schaff, Morris 1905 Etna and Kirkersville. Boston & New York, Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1951 Imperialism and Social C la sses, translated by Heinz Norden; edited and with an intro, by Paul M. Sweezy, New York, A. M. Kelley (orig. pub. 1913). 309 REFERENCES (Continued)
Stilwell, Lewis D. 194 8 Migration From Vermont, Montpelier, Vt. , Vermont Historical Society.
Sussman, Marvin B. 1968 Soucebook- in Marriage and the Family, Boston, Houghton Mifflin C o., Boston.
Taeuber, Conrad and Irene B. Taeuber f) 195 8 The Changing Population of the United' States , Social Science Research Council, New York, Wiley-and Sons.
Thomas, Dorothy Swaine 1938 Research Memorandum on Migration Differentials, Social Science Research Council, New York, Wiley and Sons.
Thomas, William I. and Florian Znainecki 1918 and 1919, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, Vols . I, II, and III, New York, Columbia Univ. Press.
Vansina, Jan 1965 Oral Tradition: A Stud^ in Historical Methodology, trans lated by H. M. Wright, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co.
Vansina, Jan, R. Mauny, and L. V. Thomas 1963 The Historian in Tropical Africa, International African Institute, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Vidich, Arthur J. and Joseph Bensman 195 7 Small Town in Mass Society; Class, Power, and Religion in a Rural Community, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Wagley, Charles and Marvin Harris 1958 Minorities in the New World: Six Case Studies, New York, Columbia Univ. Press.
Warner, W. Lloyd 1959 The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans, New Haven, Yale University Press.
196B - Yankee City, - abridged version of the Yankee City Study, New Haven, Yale University Press.
Warner, W. Lloyd and J. O. Low 1947 The Social System of the Factory; The Strike: A Social Analysis, New Haven, Yale University Press. REFERENCES (Continued)
Warner, W. Lloyd, and Paul S. Lunt 1941 The Social Life of a Modem Community, New Haven, Yale University Press.
1943 The Status System of a Modern Community. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Warner, W. Lloyd, and Lee Srole 1945 The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups, New Haven Yale University Press.
Wertenbaker, Thomas J. 1926 The American People. A History, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons.
W est, James 1945 Plainville, U.S.A.. New York, Columbia University Press.
Wittke, Carl F. 1941-1944 History of the State of Ohio. Six volumes, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State Archeological and Historical Society.
1964 We Who Built America: The Saga of the Immigrant, Rev. ed. Cleveland, Press of Western Reserve.
Young, Michael and Peter Wilmott 195 7 Family and Kinship in East London, Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press.
Zimmerman, Carle C. and Merle E. Frampton 1935 Family and Society. New York, D . Van Nostrand C o ., Inc. 311 REFERENCES (Continued)
Books: Parts of Series
Bacon, Elizabeth 1958 Obok: A Study of Social Structure in Eurasia, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 25, New York, Wenner- Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
Bogue, Donald, and Margaret J. Hagood 1953 Subregional Migration in the United States 1935-1940, Vol. II, Differential Migration in the Com and Cotton Belts, Oxford, Ohio, Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution, No. 6.
Bogue, Donald, Henry S. Shyrock, Jr., and Siegfried A. Hoermann 195 7 Streams of Migration Between Subregions, Oxford, Ohio, Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution N o. 5 „
Bond, Beverly 1941 The Foundations of Ohio, Vol. I, History of the State of Ohio, Carl Wittke, ed., Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State Archeological and Historical Society.
Eldridge, Hope T. and Dorothy S. Thomas 1964 Demographic Analyses and Interpretations: Vol. Ill, Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the United States: 1870-1950. Simon Kuznet and Dorothy S„ Thomas, e d ., Philadelphia, Penn., American Philosophical Society.
F ess, Simon D . , ed. 1937 Historical Gazeteer of Ohio, Vol. Ill, Ohio: A Four Volume Reference Library, Chicago, Lewis & Co.
Foster, George M. 1960 Culture and Conguest, America's Spanish Heritage, Viking Fund Publication in Anthropology, Vol. 27, New York, Wenner-Gren Foundation.
Jordan, P. D. 1943 Ohio Comes of Age: 1873-1900, Vol. V, History of the State of Ohio, Carl Wittke, ed„, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State . Archeological and Historical Society. 312 REFERENCES (Continued)
Lee, Everett, Ann Ratner Miller, Carol P. Brainerd, and Richard Easterlin 1957 Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables: Vol. I Population Redistribution and Economic Growth in the United States: 1870-1950. Simon Kuznet and Dorothy S. Thomas, editors, Philadelphia, Penn., American Philosophical Society.
Lindley, Harrow 1942 Ohio in the Twentieth Century 1900-1938, Vol. VI, History of the State of Ohio, Carl Wittke, ed., Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State Archeological and Historical Society.
Metge, Joan 1964 A New Maori Migration: Rural and Urban Relations in Nori'hern New Zealand, London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, No. 27, London, Athlone Press.
Murdock, George P. 196 0 Social Structure in Southeast Asia, George P. Murdock, ed. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 29, New York Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
Popisil, Leopold 1963 Kapauku Papuan Economy, Yale Publications in Anthropology, No. 67, New Haven, Conn., Yale University.
Rioux, Marcel 195 7 Be lie -An se , Anthropological Bulletin No. 13 8, (No. 3 7 of the Anthropological Series), Ottawa, National Museum of Canada.
1961 "Kinship Recognition and Urbanization in French Canada," Contributions to Anthropology, No. 173, Ottawa, National Museum of Canada.
Roseboom, E. H. 1944 The Civil War Era, 185 0-1870, Vol. IV, History of the State of Ohio, Carl Wittke, ed., Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State Archeological and Flistorical Society.
Utter, W. T. 1942 The Frontier State, Vol. II, His tor/ of the State of Ohio, ° .Carl-Wittke, ed ., Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State Archeological and Historical Society. 313
REFERENCES (Continued)
Weisenberger, F.P. 1941 The Passing of the Frontier, Vol. Ill, History of the State of Ohio, Carl Wittke, ed. Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State Archeological and Historical Society.
United States Government Publications
U. S. Bureau of the Census
1790 Census Index Berks County, Pa., Microfilm.
1830 Census, Berks and Montgomery Counties, Pa., Microfilm. Licking and Fairfield Counties, Ohio, Microfilm. 1840 Census Licking and Fairfield Counties, Ohio, Microfilm.
1850 Census Douglass Township, Berks County, Pa., Microfilm. Potts Township, Montgomery County, Pa. Microfilm. Licking and Fairfield Counties, Ohio, Microfilm.
1830 Census (5th) Licking and Fairfield Counties Microfilm. 1840, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880 (6th-10th Census) Licking and Fairfield Counties Microfilm.
U. S. Bureau of the Census
1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1960, The Compendiums of the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Twelfth, and Seventeenth Censuses of the United States: 1850, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1960. Washington, D.C ., U.S. Bureau of the Census.
1960 Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957, Washington, D.C.
1968 "Lifetime Migration Histories of the American People," Technical Studies , Current Population Reports, Bureau of Census, Series P-23, No. 25.
Periodicals
Arens berg, Conrad 1965 "Community Stuay; Retrospect and Prospect." American Toumal of Sociology. 70; 691-700. 314
REFERENCES (Continued)
Ayoub, Millicent 1965 "The Child's Control of his Kindred in View of Geographical Mobility and its Effects ."International Toumal of Comparative Sociology 6: 1-6. 1966 "The Family Reunion, " Ethnology 5: 415-432.
Barnes, J.A. 1947 "The Collection of Genealogies, " Rhodes Livingston Journal 5: 48-55. Bennett, John W. 1948 "The Study of Cultures: A Survey of Technique and Method ology in Field W ork," American Sociological Review 13: 672-689.
Bohannon, Laura 1952 'A Genealogical Charter," Africa 22; 301-315.
Bohannon, Paul 1954 "The Migration and Expansion of the Tiv," Africa 24: 2- 16 .
Bouvier, Leon F. 1968 "The Spacing of Births Among French-Canadian Families, An Historical Approach," Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 5: 17-26.
Brown, James S. 1951 "Social C lass, Intermarriage, and Church Membership," American Tournal of Sociology 5 7; 232-242. 195 2 "The Conjugal Family and the Extended Family Group, " American Sociological Review 17: 297-306.
Brown, James S ., Harry K. Schwarzkeller, and Joseph F. Mangalam, 1963 "Kentucky Mountain Migration and the Stem-Family: An American Variation on a Theme by Le Play," Rural Sociology 28: 48-69.
Codere, Helen 1955 "A Genealogical Study of Kinship in the United States, " Psychiatry 18: 65-80. 315 REFERENCES (Continued)
Crow, J. F. and A. P. Mange 1965 "Measurements of Inbreeding from the Frequency of Marriages Between Persons of the Same Surnames," Eugenics Quarterly 12: 199-203.
Crozier, Dorothy 1965 "Kinship and Occupational Succession," Sociological Review 13 N .S .:15-44.
Cumming, Elaine, and David M. Schneider, 1S61 "Sibling Solidarity, A Property of American Kinship, " American Anthropologist 63: 498-507.
Cunnison, I.G. 195 7 "History and Genealogies in a Conquest State, " American Anthropologist 59: 20-31.
Eblen, Jack 1965 "An Analysis of 19th-Century Populations," Demography 2: 399-413.
Eisenstadt, S.N. 1961 "Anthropological Studies of Complex Societies, " Current Anthropology 2: 201-222.
Feinstein, Howard 1966 "The Chronicles of Reuben: A Psychological Test of Authen ticity," American Quarterly 18: 637-654.
Freeman, J.D. 1961 "On the Concept of the Kindred," The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 91: 192-220.
Garigue, Philip 1956 "French-Canadian Kinship and Urban life," American Anthropologist 53; 1090-1096.
Geertz, H. and C. Geertz 1964 "Teknonymy in Bali: Parenthood, Age-grading, and Geneal ogical Amnesia," Tournal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 94: 94-108.
Goldstein, Sidney 1964 "The Extent of Repeated Migration: An Analysis Based on the Danish Population Register," Tournal of the American Statistical Association 59: 1121-1132. 316 REFERENCES (Continued)
Goodenough, Ward H. 1965 "Yankee Kinship Terminology: A Problem in Componential A nalysis/1 American Anthropologist 67: 259-287.
Gutkind, Peter C. W. 1965 "African Urbanism, Mobility, and the Social Network," International Journal of Comparative Sociology 6: 48-60.
Hillery, George A., James S. Brown, and Gordon F. De Jong 1965 "Migration Systems of the Southern Appalachians: Some Demographic Observations," Rural Sociology 30: 33-49.
Homans, George C. and David M. Schneider 1955 "Kinship Terminology and the American Kinship System, " American Anthropologist 57: 1191-1208.
Keisel, William C. 1950 "The Green Family, A Dynasty of Printers," The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 124: 81-92.
Kohl, Seena and John W. Bennett 1965 "Kinship, Succession, and the Migration of Young People in a Canadian Agricultural Community," International Tournal of Comparative Sociology 6: 95-116.
Lee, Everett 1965 "A Theory of Migration, " Demography 2: 47-57.
Mac Donald, John S. and Leatrice D. Mac Donald 1964 "Chain-Migration, Ethnic Neighborhood Formation, and Social Networks," Milbank Memorial Foundation Quarterly 42: 82-97.
Mayer, Iona 1965 "From Kinship to Common Descent: Four-Generation Geneal ogies Among the Gusii," Africa 35: 366-384.
Murdock, George P. 1957 "World Ethnographic Sample," American Anthropologist 59: n 669-670. — 317 REFERENCES (Continued)
Parsons, Talcott 1943 "The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States, " American Anthropologist 45: 22-38.
Pehrson, Robert 1954 "Bilateral Kin Groupings as a Structural Type," Journal of East Asiatic Studies 3: 199-203.
Peters, E. L. 1960 "The Proliferation of Lineage Segments Among the Bedouin of Cyrenaica," Tournal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 90: 29-53.
Piddington, Ralph 1960 "A Study of French Canadian Kinship," International Journal of Comparative Sociology,! : 3-22.
1965 "The Kinship Network Among French-Canadians, Kinship and Geographical Mobility" International Tournal of Comparative Sociology 6: 145-165.
Price, Charles 1964 "Chain Migration and Immigrant Groups with Special Reference to Australian Jewry, " The Jewish Tournal of Sociology 6: 157-171.
Ravenstein, E. G. 1882 "The Laws of Migration," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 48: 167-227. 1889 "The Laws of Migration," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 52: 241-301 .
Rivers, W. H. R. 1900 "A Genealogical Method of Collecting Social and Vital Statistics," Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 30: 74-82. 1910 "The Genealogical Method of Anthropological Enquiry, " Sociological Review 3: 1-12.
Saveth, Edward 1963 "The American Patrician Class: A Field for Research," American Quarterly 15: 235-252.
Scheffler, Harold 1966 "Ancestor Worship in Anthropology: or, Observations on Descent and Descent Groups, " Current Anthropology 7: 541-552. 318
REFERENCES (Continued)
Schneider, David 1965 "American Kin Terms and Terms for Kinsmen: A Critique of Goodenough's Componential Analysis of Yankee Kinship Terminology/1 American Anthropologist 67: 288-308.
Schwarzkeller, Harry K. and John F. Seggar 1967 "Kinship Involvement: A Factor in the Adjustment of Rural Migrants, " Journal of Marriage and the Family 29: 662-671.
Shaw, R. F. 1960 "An Index of Consanguinity Based on the Use of the Surname in Spanish-Speaking Countries," Journal of Heredity 51: 221-230.
Sussman, Marvin B. and Lee Burchinal 1962 "Kin Family Network: Unheralded Structure in Current Con ceptualizations of Family Functioning, " Marriage and Family Living 24: 231-240.
Themstrom, Stephen 1968 "Yankee City Revisited: The Perils of Historical Na'fvet^," American Sociological Review 30: 234-242.
Tilly, Charles and C. Harold Brown 1967 "On Uprooting, Kinship, and the Auspices of Migration," International Tournal of Comparative Sociology 8: 139-164.
Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1969 "Review: American Kinship. A Cultural Account, by David Schneider," American Anthropologist 71: 100-109.
Wallace, Anthony F. C. and J. Atkins 1960 "The Meaning of Kinship Terms," American Anthropologist 62: 58-80.
Young, Michael and H. Geertz 1961 "Old Age in London and San Francisco: Some Families Compared," British Tournal of Sociology 12: 124-141. 319 REFERENCES (Continued)
Essays and Articles in Collections
Arens berg, Conrad, "The American Family in the Perspective of Other Cultures," Conrad M. Arensberg and Solon T. Kimball, Culture and Community, New York, Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968. pp. 226-239.
Barnes, J. A. 1967 "Genealogies," A. L. Epstein, ed., The Craft of Social Anthropology, London, Tavistock Publications, pp. 101-128.
Bennett, John W. and Gustab Thaiss 1967 Sociocultural Anthropology and Survey Research," C. Y. Glock, ed., Survey Research in the Social Sciences, Russell Sage Foundation, New York 1967, pp. 269-314.
.Bogue, Donald 1957 "Some Basic Concepts and Methodological Principles of Migration Research," An Introduction to the Study of Migration Streams , Scripps Foundation for Population Studies Oxford, Ohio, Part I.
Conklin, Harold 1964 "The Ethnogenealogical Method," Explorations in Cultural Anthropology, Ward Goodenough, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 25-56.
Garigue, Philip 1956 "The Italianates," Firth, Raymond, ed .. Two Studies of Kinship in London, pp. 67-93 .
Encyclopaedia Articles
Bacon, Elizabeth 1964 "Generation," A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. by Julius Gould and William Kolb, UNESCO, New York, Free Press, 1964, pp. 284-285.
Rivers, W. H. R. 1912 "The Genealogical M ethod," Notes and Queries on Anthro pology, Fourth edition, London, Royal Anthropological Institute, pp. 119-122, 143-147, 149-155 . 320 REFERENCES (Continued)
Unpublished Materials
Ayoub, Millicent ■ 1960 The American Child and His Relatives, unpub. G, technical report, Fels Memorial Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1960.
Jorgensen, Katherine F. (Now Twarog) 1962a The Structure and Function of the Kinship System of a Mid western. Community, unpub. Master's Thesis, Ohio State University.
Jorgensen, Katherine Foster (now Twarog) 1962b "Endogamous Mating and Kindred Migration in the 19th- Century Midwest, " Paper presented at American Anthro pological Association Meetings, November 1962.
Lee, Everett 1952 "Introduction" Differentials in Internal Mobility, unpub. Phd, Univ. of Pennsylvania, pp.
Twarog, Katherine Jorgensen 1966 "Midwestern Rural Kinship Patterns in the 19th and early 20th-Centuri.es: A Preliminary Comparison, " Paper presented at the Ohio Academy of Science, April 1966.
Newspapers
The Pataskala Standard, 1890-1960
The Baltimore Sun, Basil-Baltimore, Ohio, 1890 -1965 .