A, GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FOREIGN - BORN IN HURON, SANILAO AND ST; CLAIR COUNTIES OF MICHIGAN WITH PARTICULAR , REFERENCE TO CANADIANS: 1850-1880 Thesis for the Degree Of? Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CHARLES FRANK KOVAClK 1970 “ '1-n‘. 'u Lm R. A R: 2*! Michigan Straw University l V................ _ I W IIIIIIITIIIRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1293 00066 4056 I This is to certify that the thesis entitled A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FOREIGN-BORN IN HURON, SANILAC, AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES OF MICHIGAN WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO CANADIANS: 1850-1880 presented by Charles Frank Kovacik has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Geography Jegree in AERIWAW thémflaun Date November 19, 1970 0-7839 PLACE IN I!!!“ BOXto mmwombeluckoutflom your-cow. TO AVOID FINE‘ MUM on Of MON dd. 60.. MSU laAn mum Mon/E“ Opponunlty Intuition W ”39.1 ABSTRACT A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FOREIGN-BORN IN HURON, SANILAC, AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES OF MICHIGAN WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO CANADIANS: 1850-1880 By Charles Frank Kovacik From the earliest date of white settlement to the present, Canadian- born persons accounted for significant proportions of Michigan's total foreign-born papulation. For each census decade since 1850, excepting only 1860, Canada has contributed the greatest number of foreignrborn persons. However, most research concerning foreign-born settlement in Michigan has been limited to the Dutch, Germans, Finns, Swedes, and Nor- wegians. Little effort has been made at investigating the Canadian—born. It is the purpose of this dissertation to analyze the demographic characteristics, interrelationships, and significance of the Canadian-born and other significant foreign-born groups and their impact in the settle- ment of Huron, Sanilac, and St. Clair counties of eastern Michigan from 1850 to 1880. Demographic attributes such as nativity, age, and sex are examined with respect to distribution, interrelationships, change, and significance of change on both a spatial and temporal basis. Economic and political activities of the Canadian and other major foreign-born groups such as occupation, voting behavior, and participation in local government are also considered. The principle source of data utilized in this dissertation is the manuscript census. The individual handscript enumeration sheets are the primary census documents. Only these records provide data concerning foreign-born persons which can be organized at the township level. Charles Frank Kovacik The chronicle of settlement in the study area closely parallels that of the entire Lower Peninsula. French Canadians were the first white men to inhabit both areas. Michigan's first mills devoted to saw- ing pine lumber were established in St. Clair County by French Canadians. In both areas, Canadians were the most numerous foreign-born group. Be— tween 1860 and 1880 more than one of every four inhabitants of the tri- county region was born in Canada. Foreigners actually outnumbered natives in Sanilac County from 1850 to 1870. The same was true in Huron County between 1860 and 1870. Al— though St. Clair County maintained the largest number of foreigners, the foreign-born did not comprise as significant a proportion of the popula— tion as those in Sanilac and Huron counties. Canadians equalled from 55 to 65 per cent of all foreign-born residents. Germans, Irish, English, Scots, and Poles comprised the other significant foreign—born groups. Port Huron Township reported the greatest densities for all foreign- born groups, excepting the Poles. Canadians accounted for unusually large proportions of the population in areas where population densities were low. The Germans and Poles exhibited a tendency to settle in rural clusters. The Irish, English, and Scots maintained a more dispersed distribution. The age-sex composition of the Canadian population displayed char- acteristics of both the native and foreign-born. While males outnumbered females, the Canadian pOpulation exhibited less of an aging trend than the other foreign-born. Among all foreigners, only the Canadians contributed appreciably to the youngest age groups. While most of the Canadians were farmers, many found employment in the city of Port Huron. Compared to all other employed foreigners, Cana- dians were predominately employed in the secondary industries. The leading Charles Frank Kovacik occupations reported were carpenter and saw mill worker. Politically, little difference could be discerned between Canadian voting behavior and that of the native population. Townships which in- cluded large Canadian populations usually reported Republican majorities. Some townships which included significant German, Irish, and Polish pop- ulations favored the Democratic party. It is haped that this dissertation contributes toward gaining an understanding of the tri-county region and illustrates the research po- tential of the manuscript census. No foreign nation has contributed as many of her sons and daughters to the development of the study area, or Michigan, as has Canada. A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FOREIGN-BORN IN HURON, SANILAC, AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES OF MICHIGAN WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO CANADIANS: 1850-1880 By Charles Frank Kovacik A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1970 607/4; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to recognize the assistance that has been afforded me in the conceptualization and preparation of this dissertation. Many individuals gave freely of their time and talents, and it is here that I wish to humbly express my gratitude. Special recognition is due my supervisory committee: Dr. Daniel Jacobson, Chairman; Dr. Clarence L. Vinge; Dr. Lawrence M. Sommers; and Dr. Jay R. Harman for their cooperation and assistance. I cannot express too much my appreciation of Dr. Daniel Jacobson who so generously pro- vided time, assistance, and encouragement. I wish to express my appreciation to the memory of Paul C. Morrison whose suggestions were invaluable during the conceptual stage of this work. I also wish to thank Dr. Alvin C. Gluek since it was in his Canad- ian history courses where the idea for this study was conceived. I am deeply grateful for the assistance rendered by the competent staff of the Michigan State Library. Special thanks are due Mrs. Jo Anne Jager, Michigan Section, who often gained me admittance to an overcrowded microfilm reading room. Cyrus Young, graduate student at Michigan State University, deserves special mention for his invaluable aid in producing the computer maps. My colleagues in the Department of Geography at the University of South Car- olina have been generous in their help and encouragement. The cartographic assistance of Dr. Donald 0. Bushman and Dr. Paul E. Lovingood, Jr. has been much appreciated. Mrs. Dorothy Brabham typed the final manuscript ii and to her I am deeply grateful. A large debt of gratitude must be expressed to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Kovacik, for extending to me the luxury of graduate school and their ever-present encouragement. Finally, I acknowledge my indebt- edness to my wife, Susan Thorpe Kovacik, for her help in tabulating some of the data, typing of rough drafts, and constructive criticism. Most of all, I wish to thank her for her tolerance, patience, and understanding. To her this dissertation is dedicated. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of Problem . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . Methodological Considerations. . . . Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . II 0 SWDY WA 0 O O O O O O O O O O Canadians, Michigan, and the Thumb . Land and Man in the Thumb. . . . . . sumry. . O O I O O I O O O O O O 0 III. THE GROWTH OF POPULATION, SETTLEMENT, AND THE FOREIGN- BORN IN MICHIGAN AND THE THUMB REGION. . . . Population Growth and Settlement . . . . . . The French Canadian era to statehood . . . 1850. . 1900. . Early years of statehood: 1837 to Completion of settlement: 1850 to The rural to urban movement: 1900 Foreign-Born Population Trends . . . Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Thumb region . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to 1960 . IV. DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN THE THUMB: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Population Distribution 1850 . . . . Population Distribution 1860 . . . . Population Distribution 1870 . . . . Population Distribution 1880 . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page vi viii 35 35 35 51 55 62 68 68 81 94 97 97 98 106 121 137 154 Chapter V. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) THE CHANGING FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FOREIGN-BORN IN THE THUMB REGION: 1850-1880 c o c o o c o c o o o o o o c o o o c 0 Changing Population Densities . . . Significance of the Foreign-Born. . . . . . . . . sumary O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 VI 0 CONCLUSIONS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Foreigners in 1880 and 1945 . . . . . . . . . . . Population Origins, the Manuscript Census, and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . Page 156 156 172 199 202 203 205 208 Table l. 2. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST’O! INIHIS Michipn Comtiea of 4,“ or lbre Canadian-Born 1870-lgwosooooooooaosaoassesses French Canadian Settlements in Southeastern Michigan, 1803. O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 Population Growth “of Michigan: 1800-1960 . . . . . . . Population Growth in the M Region: 1830-1960 . . . Rural and Urban Population of the Thumb Region: 1900-1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreign-Born Population of Michigan and Significant Countries of Origin: 1850-1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . Increase of Significant Foreign-Born Groups in MChiyn: 18%18”. O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 Increase of Significant Foreign-Born Groups in mChim: 18%19100 O O O O O O O O I O I I O O O O 0 Increase of Significant Foreign-Born Groups in mChi-g‘n: 1910-1930. 0 O 0 O I O O C C O O O O O O O O Decrease of Significant Foreign-Born Groups in mChim:1930-1960.aoaoaoaoasoooaooc Foreign-Born Population of the Thumb Region: 1850.18” 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 000000 Foreign-Born Population of the Thumb Region: 1900'1960 o o a o a ccccccc a a o a a a a o a a o Foreign-Born Population of the Thumb Region by Tmahip: 1850 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Foreign-Born Population of the Thumb Region by TWhip: 1860 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O o O Foreign-Born Population of the Thumb Region by TMShip: 1870 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I 0 vi a Page 16 37 40 66 70 76 78 80 82 86 91 101 109 126 Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Foreign-Born Population of the Thumb Region by TOWShip: 1880 O O O O C O C C C C O O O O O O C O The Saw Mill: Flour Mill Ratio in the Thumb Region, 1850'1884...00000000000000.00- Population Changes in the Thumb Region: 1850-1880. . Foreign-Born Population Changes in the Thumb Region: 1850-1880 0 o s o a a o o a a a a o o O o o o s o o a Change in Population Density and Percentage of Total Foreign-Born Increase For Selected Foreign-Born Groups in the Thumb Region: 1850-1880 . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Males Among the Total and Selected Foreign-Born Populations of the Thumb Region: 1850-1880 a o a o o o o a a a o a a a o s a o 0 Percentage of Adult Males and Females AmDng the Total and Selected Foreign-Born Populations of the Thumb Region: 1850’1880. o o a o o a s a o o o o o o a c 0 Percentage Male, Adult Male, and Adult Female of Major Foreign-Born Groups in Selected Thumb Region Townships: 1850-1880000000sooooooooaaoo Occupational Composition of the Male Foreign-Born Population, Percentage of Workers by Industry Group for the City of Port Huron: 1850-1880. . . . . . . . Percentage of Potential Voting Population Among Native and Foreign-Born Adult Males in Townships Which Favored the Democratic Party: 1870-1880. . . . . . . Percentage of Foreign-Born Persons Holding Local Government Positions in the Thumb Region: 1850-1880. vii Page 141 157 158 162 165 177 179 182 187 196 198 Figure 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. LIST OF FIGURES Location of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regions in Michigan of Greatest Canadian-Born Population from 1870-1950. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Thumb Region of Southeastern Michigan. . . . . . Tapography of the Thumb Region of Michigan . . . . . Major Soil Division in the Thumb of Michigan . . . . Natural Vegetation of the Thumb of Michigan. . . French Canadian Settlement in Southeastern Michigan: 1803 O O O O O O O O O C O O O O I O O O O O O 0 Progress of Settlement in the Lower Peninsula of MiChigan: 1790-1900 C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Private Claims Granted in St. Clair County . . . . . Progress of Settlement in the Thumb Region . . . . . Population Growth in the Lower Michigan Peninsula by county 0 I I O O O I O O O O I O O O O I O I O O O O St. Clair County, Population Density: 1850. . . . . St. Clair County, Density of the Foreign-Born: 1850 St. Clair County, Density of Canadians: 1850. . . . The Thumb Region, Population Density: 1860. . . . . St. Clair County, Density of the Foreign-Born: 1860 Sanilac County, Density of the Foreign-Born: 1860 . St. Clair County, Density of Canadians: 1860. Sanilac County, Density of Canadians: 1860. . . . The Thumb Region, Population Density: 1870. . . . . viii Page 15 20 21 24 27 38 41 46 53 64 99 103 105 107 113 114 117 119 123 Figure 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. The Thumb The Thumb The Thumb The Thumb The Thumb The Thumb Region, Region, Region, Region, Region, Region, LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) Density of the Foreign-Born: Density of Canadians: 1870. Population Density: 1880. . Density of the Foreign-Born: Density of Canadians: 1880. Foreign-Born Groups; Greatest Density by Township: 1880 . . . . . . . . . . POpulation Density Change in the Thumb Region by Com- parable Townships: 1850—1880. . . . . . . . . 1880 Foreign-Born Density Change in the Thumb Region by Comparable Townships: 1850-1880 . . . . . . . Change in Density of Canadian-Born Population by Comparable Townships: 1850-1880 . . . . . . . Age-Sex Composition of the Total Population and Selected Foreign-Born Groups in the Thumb Region by County: Age-Sex Composition of the Total P0pulation and 1850-1860 a a o a a a a o o a o o o 0 Selected Foreign-Born Groups in the Thumb Region by County: 1870-1880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 130 133 138 146 149 153 159 163 167 174 175 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Far too often geographers and historians overlook the role of Canada and its peoples in studies concerning settlement in North America. Al— though there is great interest in colonial settlement, American1 scholars in particular, show little enthusiasm toward interrelating colonial settle- ment in Canada and the United States. Research is oriented to New England, the Middle Atlantic, and the southern colonies. In carefully documented studies scholars, following the advancing frontier, emphasize the South Atlantic and Gulf states, Tennessee and Kentucky, and the Ohio River Valley. Another column of the advancing North American frontier, which is not of great interest, concerns settlement within the Great Lakes region of Canada and the United States. In general works concerning frontier settle— ment, Michigan is often avoided.2 The interaction of Canadian and American peoples in the settlement of the Great Lakes region is particularly ig- nored.3 It would appear that Canada and its peoples had little connection 1The term American usually refers to all inhabitants of both North and South America. In this paper, the term is restricted to inhabitants of the United States. The term, Canadian, will refer to inhabitants of Canada. 2Willis F. Dunbar, ”Frontiersmanship in Michigan, L (1960), po 99. N Michigan Histggy, 3The only substantial work concerned with the interaction of Canadian and American peoples in the settling of the continent is Marcus Lee Hansen and John Bartlett Brebner, The Mingling of the Canadian and American Peoples (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940). 2 with the settlement of Michigan,4 and that the chronicle of settlement ceases as one takes leave of the Ohio River Valley and approaches Michigan and the Canadian-American border.~ Of the studies concerning the Great Lakes region of the United States, foreign-born groups such as the Dutch, Germans, Finns, Swedes, and Nor- wegians receive considerable attention.5 Scholars also indicate interest in religious groups such as the Quakers and Mennonites. Perhaps research concerning these groups is encouraged by their uniqueness, but actual settlement of North America is not usually considered a mosaic of unique nationality and religious groups. Possibly it is the "non-unique” nature of Canadians that discourages geographers from investigating the role of 4Historical geographers have noted the early French Canadian influence at Detroit and the influx of settlers from the Eastern States and Ohio; see Almon Ernest Parkins, The Historical Geography of Detroit (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Historical Commission, 1918). However, two of the most distin- guished historical geographers of the United States make no mention of the thousands of Canadians who made their new homes in Michigan or other Great Lakes States; see Ralph H. Brown, Historical Geography of the United States (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1948) and Harlan H. Barrows, Lectures on the Historical Geographyyof the United States as Given in 1933, ed. by William A. Koelsch, Department of Geography Research Paper No. 77 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). 5Of the numerous studies dealing with foreign-born settlement in the Great Lakes region, special mention should be made of those studies concern- ing foreign-born settlement in Michigan such as Erdman D. Benyon, "The Hun- garians of Michigan," Michigan History, XXI (1937), pp. 89-102; Martin L. D'Ooge, "The Dutch Pioneers of Michigan," Michigan Pioneer and Historical _Qollections, XXXVIII (1912), pp. 204-212; James Fisher, "Michigan's Cor- nish People,” Michigan History, XXIX (1945), pp. 377-385; Richard C. Ford, "The French-Canadians in Michigan," Michigan History, XXVII (1943), pp. 239-257; Hildegard Binder Johnson, "The Location of German Immigrants in the Middle West," Annals, Association of American Geographers, XLI (1951), pp. 1-41; Mark O. Kistler, "The German Language Press in Michigan - A Sur- vey and Bibliography," Michiggn History, XLIV (1960), pp. 303-323; Carlton C. Qualey, "Pioneer Scandinavian Settlement in Michigan," Michigan History, XXIV (1940), pp. 435-450; Lois Rankin, "Detroit Nationality Groups,” Mich- igan History, XXIII (1939), pp. 129-206; John Russell, The Germanic In- fluence in the Making of Michigan (Detroit: Herald Press, 1927), Andrew Ten Brook, "Our German Immigrations," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Col- lections, XXVI (1894-1895), pp. 241-255; John Wargelin, ”The Finns in Mich- igan," Michigan History, XXIV (1940), pp. 179-203; and Carl Wittke, "Ora et Labora: A German Methodist Utopia," Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXVII (1958), pp. 129-140. 3 Canada's peOple in settling the region. Statement of Problem From the earliest date of white man's occupance to the present, Canad- ian-born persons accounted for significant pr0portions of Michigan's total foreign-born population. Canada has contributed the largest number of per- sons of foreign-nativity for each census decade since 1850, excepting only 1860. However, studies concerning immigrant settlement in Michigan fail to relate the Canadian contributions to the settlement and development of the state. It is the purpose of this dissertation to analyze the demographic characteristics, interrelationships, and significance of the Canadian-born and other significant foreign-born groups and their impact in the settle- ment of Huron, Sanilac, and St. Clair counties of eastern Michigan from 1850 to 1880 (see Figure 1). In more specific terms, nativity or country of origin of all foreign- born persons residing in the study area from 1850 to 1880 will be deter- mined. Demographic attributes such as nativity, age, and sex will be ana- lyzed with respect to distribution, interrelationships, change, and the significance of change on both a spatial and temporal basis. Economic and political activities of the Canadian and other major foreign-born groups such as occupation, voting behavior, and participation in local government will also be analyzed. Collection of Data In order to make such an analysis, the number and distribution of Canadian-born and other foreign-born persons who helped settle the study area was determined. For a meaningful and precise analysis, data were ob- tained on township level. Any spatial analysis on the basis of townships reflects reality more precisely and is more lucid in illustrating patterns LOCATION OF STUDY AREA 200 9 7: § G W l S C 0 I S l I O '5 .30 I: s \ ‘3» 9- III I c II I O I II \\ MILWAUKEE - ‘5 \\\\ 0 I l A I I 0 . BUFFALO " § ~ I I j 0mm .5 U” I I w I O CHICAGO a Lake CLEVELAND p [IIISY Iv II II lllllOlS INDIANA oPITTSBURGH INDIANAPOLIS 0 u I 0 L/'_’_/ J 0. AK A crII OIIAIIO HURON COUNTY 0 Bad Au SANILAC rho-O— .-.-- ' ST. CLAIR Part Huron ’ ‘__-——— Q Recourv'i' E I ’$ I I6 .?.m '. Detroit ..... Figure l. 5 and relationships than an analysis at the county level. The United States Census first reported country of origin data in 1850. In both 1850 and 1860, summaries included country of origin only by state. Nativity was first summarized by county in 1870; the practice was continued to 1950.6 Unfortunately, there are no summaries by township. Data by township had to be gleaned from individual hand script enumeration sheets. The manuscript enumeration sheet is the primary census document. It contains, in the hand script of the enumerator for the particular district, all data the Bureau of Census requests for the specific decade. The amount of detail varies with each census period. This source, and only the manu- script census records, provides data concerning foreign-born persons which can be organized on a township basis. Microfilmed c0pies of the manuscript enumeration sheets are available from the National Archives.7 The gathering of country of origin data at the township level is a slow and tedious task. Five months (summer and fall of 1968) were spent at the Michigan State Library microfilm reading facilities gathering data for this dissertation. Several thousand enumeration sheets were examined, and tallies of each Canadian-born and the country of origin of all other foreign-born persons in the study area were recorded plus age, sex, and occupational status. All data concerning foreign-born persons utilized in this paper for the decades 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1880 were collected from 6Country of origin was not reported by county in the 1960 census. Country of origin of the foreign stock and mother tongue of the foreign— born population were reported by selected counties in 1960. 7Microfilm copies of the original Federal population census schedules for 1800 to 1890 may be purchased from the National Archives. Most of the 1890 schedules were destroyed or badly damaged by fire; none are available for Michigan. For a complete list of prices and availability see National Archives, Federal Population Censuses, 1790-1890: A Price List of Micro- film Copies of the Schedules, National Archives Publication No. 60-3 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1969). 6 the manuscript census records unless otherwise footnoted. In gathering data utilizing a tally method, some error is certain to be made. A comparison of tallied township totals and reported county totals does show some inconsistencies. The error in per cent between the totals is so slight that it was recommended to the writer to utilize his own totals. Conversations with Dr. J. Allan Beegle, demographer at Michigan State Uni- versity, encouraged the writer to use the tallied data with no reservations. When the data are presented, however, differences will be footnoted. Methodological Considerations Geography attempts to comprehend spatial reality. Geography, espec- ially cultural and historical geography, has maintained a long tradition of attempting to ascertain the p0pulation origins of particular regions. One of the major conceptual notions of both cultural and historical geography is that the nature of a particular cultural landscape is in large part deter- mined by the character of its population. Knowledge of a region's popula- tion origins certainly adds to the understanding of its spatial reality. It is hoped that this study, in determining the origins, interrelationships, and significance of the Canadian-born and other foreign-born pOpulation groups significantly adds to our understanding of the Thumb region. It is also hoped that this study will serve as an aid to the comprehension of the spatial reality of other sections of Michigan which were settled by large numbers of Canadians. The dissertation clearly falls into that systematic division of the geo- graphical discipline called historical geography. Historical geography is concerned with the spatial realities of the past and geographical change through time. If spatial reality could be understood by examining purely contemporaneous phenomena, a geography concerned with analyzing temporal 7 elements of spatial phenomena would be incidental. Clearly, contemporaneous analyses answer questions concerning the what and where qualities of spatial phenomena. If the questions of when, why, and how need to be answered, there is a need for investigation of temporal factors. Only by examination of the temporal dimension can geographers answer the when, why and how of spatial reality. Perhaps the major goals of all scientific endeavor are the ability to explain certain phenomena, and to predict. A11 explanation and prediction is based upon the present comprehension of reality. Prediction implies a future condition, either repetition of a previous condition, status quo, or change. Geographers in attempting to understand either reality or change must utilize temporal as well as spatial qualities of phenomena. The tem- poral dimension is fundamental to the comprehension of change. Historical geography can provide insights into the nature of both reality and change. Change is a significant factor in geography--either past, present, or future. Change should not be examined for its own sake; attempts should be made at determining the significance of change. Historical geography adds to the comprehension of spatial reality by explaining the what and where of past and present spatial realities through the analysis of the when, where, and how. and significance of change factors.8 8For a further explanation of the nature and substance of historical geography see J.O.M. Broek, "The Relations Between History and Geography," Pacific Historical Review, X (1941), pp. 321-325; Andrew H. Clark, "Histor- ical Geography," in P.E. James and C.F. Jones (eds.), American Geogrpphy: Inventory and Prospect (Syracuse: Association of American Geographers by the Syracuse University Press, 1954), pp. 71-105; H.C. Darby, "On the Re- lations of Geography and History," Journal of the Institute of Briggsh Geog- raphers. XIX (1954), pp. 1-11 reprinted in Fred B. Dohrs and Lawrence M. Summers (eds.), Cultural Geogrgphy: Selected Readipgs (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company 1967), pp. 30-42; H.C. Darby, "Historical Geography,” in H.P.R. Finberg (ed.), Approaches to History (Toronto: Lniversity of Toronto Press, 1962), pp. 127-156; Richard Hartshorne, "The Relations of History to Geography," The Nature of Geography (Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Association of American Geographers, 1939), pp. 175-188; and Richard Hartshorne, "Time Although historical geography is commonly considered a sub—discipline of geography, it has been suggested that historical geography be considered a method or an approach to the solution of geographical problems. Andrew H. Clark denies that historical geography is "a field of tOpical speciali- zation."9 Within the realm of historical geography, numerous approaches have been advocated. Geography as a factor in history,10 sequent occu- pance,11 cross sectional,12 period reconstruction,13 vertical theme,14 and culture history15 have all been exposed as methods to analyze geographical problems in a historical context. The approach utilized in this dissertation is the changing geographies .7 and Genesis in Geography," in Perspective on the Nature of Geography (Chicago: Association of American Geographers by Rand McNally & Company, 1959), pp. 81-107. 9Clark, Inventory and Prospect, p. 71 10An early approach in the development of historical geography in North America. The geographic influence on history was stressed. The attempt was to illustrate the significance of the environment on history. A good exam- ple of this approach is reflected in Ellen Churchill Semple, American History and Its Geographic Conditions (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1903). 11This theme was brought forth by Derwent S. Whittlesey, "Sequent Occu- pance," Annals, Association of American Geographers, XIX (1929), pp. 162- 165. Geographical reconstructions of past occupance eras were described and one era was contrasted with the next. 12The attempt to describe the past geography of a region in horizontal sections through time. 3This approach aims at the reconstruction of the past geography for a specific period, usually on a regional basis. 'Perhaps the best example is Ralph H. Brown, Mirror for Americans: Likeness of the Eastern Seaboard, 1810 (New York: American Geographical Society, Special Publication 27, 1943). 4This approach selects a phenomenon or group of phenomena and traces the developments and changes through time, see H. C. Darby, "The Changing English Landscape," Geographical Journal, CXVII (1951), pp. 377-398. 15The emphasis of this approach is directed to the recontruction of past cultures and the development of the cultural landscape. Carl 0. Sauer is most responsible for the development of this approach, and his philoso- phy is clearly defined in Carl 0. Sauer, "Foreward to Historical Geography," Annals, Association of American Geographers, XXI (1941), pp. 1-24. 9 approach advocated by Andrew H. Clark.16 Regions are usually in a state of flux and rarely in a state of equilibrium. The approach conceptualized by Clark considers areas as changing entities and is concerned with location, identification, direction, and rate of change of specific or associated phe- nomena within an areal context. One may be concerned with a specific phenom- enon, group of associated phenomena, or a region. The emphasis is upon change, changing interrelationships through time and space, and the signif- icance of change. This approach utilizes a standard geographical tool -- the map. Dis- tribution maps of a specific phenomenon are constructed for various time periods. Here, maps portraying the Canadian-born and other foreign-born group population distributions, by township, for decades 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1880 are presented. Such distributions are merely the first step which provide a means to determine the location, time, and rate of change. Distributions are not ends but a means to further research concerning the process and significance of change. It is from the analysis of distribu- tions that questions arise concerning change. The distributions are examined and changes noted for each period. The next step is to analyze the where, when, why, and significance of change. Changes in the Canadian-born or other foreign-born population distributions are examined with respect to change in related spatial phenomena such as: demographic factors other than nativity (age and sex), occupation, voting behavior, and participation in local gov— 16Clark noted his interest in geographic change through time in Clark, Inventory and Prospect, pp. 70-105. His notions are more fully outlined in Andrew H. Clark, "Geographical Change: A Theme for Economic History," Jour- nal of Economic History, XX (1960), pp. 607-613. Clark also expressed his concern for the study of geographical change in an unpublished paper, see Andrew H. Clark, "The Coordinates of Historical Geography" (paper to the Plenary Session, Association of American Geographers, Annual Meeting, Syr- acuse, N. Y., March 30, 1964), pp. 1-13. Perhaps the best measure of Clark's approach is exemplified in his work. See Andrew H. Clark,Three Centuries and the Island (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959). 10 ernment. Emphasis is on the changing relationships and the significance of change. Organization To acquaint the reader with the organization and the relationships be— tween the various parts of this dissertation, a brief preview is offered. Chapter II is concerned with the study area. First, Canadian settle- ment is considered with emphasis on the spatial and temporal distribution of the Canadian-born in Michigan. The Thumb area stands as a significant area of Canadian settlement. Topography, climate, soils, and vegetation are discussed to illustrate the physical character of the landscape. Con- sideration is given to the development of some significant man—land rela- tionships. The aim of Chapter III is to provide a perspective, or context, in which the analysis of Canadian-born and other foreign-born settlement in the Thumb region from 1850 to 1880 can be viewed with respect to the overall population growth, settlement, and development of Michigan. Population growth from first white settlement to 1960 is discussed in terms of total, total foreign-born, Canadian-born, and other significant foreign-born groups. Population growth is analyzed for both Michigan and the Thumb. General settlement trends and development are also considered for the Lower Penin- sula and the Thumb. The theme of Chapter IV is to establish the origins of the Thumb's foreign-born population and to report and analyze, by township, the distri- bution of pOpulation from 1850 to 1880. Density patterns of total, foreign- born, and Canadian-born p0pu1ations are presented. All data utilized in Chapter IV were gleaned from the manuscript census records. Chapter V is devoted to the changes in population patterns from 1850 11 to 1880 and the significance of these changes. The significance of popula- tion change is determined by change in related spatial phenomena. Chapter VI is reserved for summary and concluding remarks. CHAPTER II STUDY AREA Canadians, Michigan, and the Thumb Two nations, Canada and the United States, occupy Anglo-America. In- dependently, from two separate core areas, both began the conquest of North America. Together they developed and settled a considerable portion of this huge land mass. As time passed and settlement slowly moved forward, the border constructed to divide the two fledgling nations rarely served as a barrier to settlement. The westward movement must not be considered unique to one nation but a unified movement from both core areas. At certain points in time people south of the Canadian border sought opportunities in the north, and peOple in the north sought a better way of life in the south. A serpentine movement of population and settlement was manifested as groups of pioneers advanced, mingled, and meandered about the imaginary line that separates Canada from the United States. If the general patterns of settlement from both Anglo—American core areas are examined, the position of Michigan becomes particularly signifi- cant especially with regard to the expansion of Canadian settlement. Set- tlement in the United States advanced almost uninterrupted from the east coast, along the Ohio River valley, to the Mississippi River. Michigan, considerably north of the Ohio, was relatively isolated from the major ave- nues of settlement to the south although the opening of the Erie Canal, in 1825, did provide important access. Substantial portions of Indiana, Illi- 12 13 nois, and Missouri were settled before Michigan. Most of Illinois and Mia- souri were occupied by 1840, while only the southern portion of Lower Mich- igan received a significant number of settlers. The westward movement from the Canadian core paralleled, to a degree, the fluid movement south of the border. The frontier of the St. Lawrence and Ontario Lowlands presents an avenue of settlement analogous to the Ohio River valley, but occupance was not as rapid. However, once this corridor was occupied, expansion beyond the Ontario Lowland was virtually curtailed. Canada had no middle west of continuous fertile soils that welcomed pioneer settlement and compensated the pioneer's efforts with a prosperous agriculture. In contrast to the United States, the Midwest of Canada was the hostile Canadian Shield -- a region of pre-Cambrian crystalline rock, thin glaciated soils, and dense forest. The Shield served as a liability rather than an asset with respect to westward expansion.1 When the good lands of the St. Lawrence and Ontario Lowlands were taken up and productive land to accommodate population increase was unavailable, when settlers be- came disgruntled with their fate, or when people simply felt the urge to move there was no easily accessible and attractive land in Canada. To achieve their goals, these people necessarily had to leave Canada. Mere proximity and land availability testify to the strategic position of eastern Michigan with respect to the expansion of settlement by Canadian peoples. Thousands of Canadians elected to come to‘Michigan.2 Distribution 1For an account of the unsuccessful settlement attempts on the Canadian Shield during the 1850's see A.R.M. Lower, "The Assault on the Laurentian Barrier, 1850-1870," Canadian Historical Review, X (1929), pp. 297-304. 2The Canadian-born population of Michigan swelled from 14,008 in 1850 to 184,398 in 1900. It dropped to 164,747 in 1920 only to reach a peak of 203,302 in 1930. Since 1930, there has been a steady decline to 126,095 Canadian-born in 1960. In 1880, 9.1 per cent of the total and 38.3 per cent of the foreign-born population of Michigan were Canadian-born. Further discussion of population growth is reserved for Chapter III. 14 maps, based on Canadian nativity by county, were constructed for selected decades to determine which areas of the state received significant number of Canadians.3 From these maps, three general patterns can be determined. Figure 2 illustrates counties which reported 4,000 or more Canadian-born in three periods; 1870-1880, 1890-1910, and 1830-1950. The value, 4,000 or more, was arbitrarily selected. Respective counties are listed in Table l by decade. Three definite nodes of Canadian-born settlement can be identified for the 1870-1880 period. Major concentrations were in wayne County, Sani- lac and St. Clair counties in the Thumb region, and the Saginaw Bay area. Most of the Canadian settlers chose to locate in the southeastern portion of the Lower Peninsula. Little Canadian settlement took place in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Canadian settlement reached its greatest areal extent between 1890- 1910 with five areas of concentration. Two areas predominate in the Upper Peninsula, one a swath from Houghton to Marquette counties to Menominee County and the other at the Sault in Chippewa County. In extreme south- eastern Michigan, the Canadian population of Wayne County doubled during this period, thereby, forming the densest concentration. Kent County is an outlier area, undoubtedly due to the concentration in Grand Rapids. The ex- tensive area of Canadian settlement occurs along the shore and inland of Lake Huron, including all counties that rim Lake Huron from Alpena southward to St. Clair. This region is the result of the expansion and coalescense of the two nodes, Saginaw Bay and Sanilac-St. Clair. Between 1930 and 1950, the distribution of Canadian—born becomes most 3The published census contains country of origin data by county for the decades 1870 to 1950. Only state totals are available for 1850 and 1860. The distribution maps were constructed for the decades 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1930, and 1950. 15 I870- I880 as. sssss I ccccc ccccc eeeeeee ccccc a. aaaaa a l890-l9l0 uuuuuu oooooo ...... ..... ..... ..... REGIONS IN MICHIGAN '930 3 I950 OF GREA TEST CANADIAN- BORN POPULATION a ..... ------------ ................. FROM I670 TO I950 SHAoto AREAS atmessm- comma .2 OR MORE CANADIAN-802N05- 4.000 aegis. CFK Figure 2 . )s 16 TABLE 1. MICHIGAN COUNTIES OF 4,000 OR DDRE CANADIAN-BORN: 1870-1950 Number of Year County Per Cent of Canadian-Born Canadian Population 1870 wayne 10,095 11.7 St. Clair 8,113 9.4 Sanilac 6,011 7.0 Saginaw 5,511 6.4 Bay 4,273 4.9 1880 wayne 13,647 9.2 Bay 10,160 6.8 St. Clair 9,701 6.5 Sanilac 9,170 6.1 Saginaw 8,864 5.9 Lapeer 5,649 3.7 Huron 5,387 3.6 Tuscola 4,840 3.2 Marquette 4,647 3.1 Kent 4,312 2.8 1890 Wayne 21,291 11.7 St. Clair 10,767 5.9 Saginaw 10,695 5.8 Sanilac 10,139 5.5 Bay 8,805 4.8 Huron 6,620 3.6 Chippewa 5,362 2.9 Kent 5,265 2.9 Tuscola 5,247 2.8 Marquette 4,868 2.7 Menominee 4,420 2.4 Lapeer 4,322 2.3 Alpena 4,234 2.3 Iosco 4,082 2.2 1900 Wayne 32,501 17.7 St. Clair 9,586 5.1 Bay 8,373 4.5 Sanilac 8,266 4.4 Chippewa 7,957 4.3 Saginaw 7,042 3.8 Huron 6,749 3.6 Houghton 5,627 3.0 Kent 5,019 2.7 Tuscola 4,877 2.6 17 TABLE 1 (cont'd.) Year County Number of Per Cent of Canadian-Born Canadian Population 1910 Wayne 45,829 26.7 St. Clair 7,904 4.6 Chippewa 6,381 3.7 Sanilac 6,340 3.6 Bay 6,159 3.5 Saginaw 5,953 3.4 Huron 5,198 3.0 Genessee 4,723 2.7 Kent 4,545 2.6 Houghton 4,093 2.3 1930 wayne 119,130 54.4 Oakland 13,485 6.6 Genessee 8,683 4.2 St. Clair 6,261 3.0 1950 wayne 81.878 57.6 Oakland 13,945 9.8 Genessee 5,295 3.7 Macomb 5,295 3.7 St. Clair 4,105 2.8 Source: U. 8. Bureau of the Census. 18 dense and spatially limited. There are only four counties in 1930 and five in 1950 that include 4,000 or more Canadian-born. They represent 68 and 78 per cent of the total state Canadian-born population, respectfully. The distribution is definitely restricted to southeastern Michigan, focusing on Wayne County, with only slight scattering throughout the remainder of the state. The general rural to urban population movement, deaths among Canad- ians who resided in rural areas in previous periods, and greater opportunity in urban areas for more recent immigrant arrivals account for the concen- tration. Selection of the Thumb region4 for intensive analysis of the Canad- ian role in the settlement of eastern Michigan rests on two significant fac- tors. First, the Thumb region certainly received significant numbers of Ca- nadian—born settlers. Secondly the Thumb region, in many respects, is typi- cal of the general settlement pattern and development of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Land and Man in the Thumb The regional place name, the Thumb, has a geographic origin. Exami- nation of a map of the Lower Peninsula quickly reveals the origin of the term. The outline of the peninsula resembles a left-handed mitten placed palm down. The area occupied by St. Clair, Sanilac, and Huron counties shapes the thumb of the mitten. As a result, the land area surrounded by Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron is commonly called the Thumb of Michigan.5 The region encompasses 2,514 square miles with Sanilac County contrib- 4In this dissertation, the Thumb region is areally defined by the po- litical units of St. Clair, Sanilac, and Huron counties. 5It is not uncommon for inhabitants of the Thumb to utilize the thumb of their left hand to indicate their place of residence. One gentleman told me he lived in the "crease of the knuckle"! 19 uting 961 square miles, Huron 819, and St. Clair 734 square miles. The Black, Pine, and Belle Rivers provide the major arteries of drainage (see Figure 3). These three streams empty into the St. Clair River and drain the southern two-thirds of the study area. The northern portion, partic- ularly Huron County, is drained by numerous short streams which flow into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. Topography Fenneman includes the Thumb as part of the Great Lakes section of the Central Lowland in his physiographic divisions of the United States.6 All of the landforms within the study area are the result of the last glac- ial advance, the Wisconsin, of the Pleistocene. Two lobes of the great ice sheet, the Saginaw and Huron, converged at the Thumb and left a complicated physiography. Figure 4 illustrates the surface features of the study area. Sand dunes along the northwestern shore of Huron County, eskers in southeastern Sanilac County, ancient beach ridges throughout the area, and the low marshy lands of the St. Clair River delta all lend variety to the landscape. For the purpose of this paper it is sufficient to state that ancient lake beds or lacustrine plains and moraines dominate the topography. In general the topography varies from.very flat lands of the delta, level to gently rolling lacustrine plains, to rolling and rather hilly terrain of the Port Huron moraine and interlobate area. Lowest elevations occur along the coast, gradually increase on the lacustrine plains, and reach a maximum in morainal areas. Elevation ranges from somewhat below 600 feet along the shore to slightly over 800 feet in morainal areas. Local relief is greatest 6Nevin M. Fenneman, Physiography of Eastern United States (New York: MCGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938), pp. 456-499. 20 POI! AUS'IN ensures: an cassvuu _ . 0 ~. poet HOPE * 3" e 2 .° .1? : IAYPOIY ‘ ‘ A '2 euro y MARIO! IADO aucu AX. / sutwuuo “wausvfiu . omuot (In roassvvuu THE onus: argue DEC IV! A! THUMB REGION CAISO VlllE OF SAN usrv 8 roar , SOUTHEASTERN APP-IOAYI c‘ caoswnt one: . ttxmotou E. WW" 0 10 JHII C“ IV AKIPOIY “miles saocx CA‘AC “H“ C son ‘5. *‘~ "IO" 9 O I o "I. stcuu ‘ mums cnv FAIIHAVEN ALOONAC ‘0 "’1=.:'3 ans 0 500:: CFK Figure 3. 21 TOPOGRAPHY OF » ' éfiréfi THE THUMB RECNNI '3T5’””,fi% OF MICHIGAN " GLACIAL LAKE BED ' GROUND MORAINE MORAINE WATERLAID MORAINE OUTWASH ESKER SAND DUNES DIDEEEE O 5 IO L___1___J MILES SOURCE= THE SURFACE FORMATIONS OF THE SOUTHERN PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN, HELEN M MARWN,I95& Figure 4. 22 along the major rivers of the region. Climate The Thumb is included in the humid continental regime of world cli- mates and is characterized by cool summers and cold winters. Although the area does experience some influence from surrounding water bodies, it is situated on the leeward side of the state with respect to prevailing winds. There is less effect from the surrounding water bodies than would normally be expected.7 Mean annual temperatures range from near 50° F in southeastern St. Clair County to slightly less than 47° F in northern Huron County. Jan- uary temperatures vary from 27° F in the south to 23° F in the north. July temperatures average from 74° F to 60° F from south to north. The frost-free season ranges from 160 days in the southeast to about 140 days in the northwest.8 Mean average precipitation varies from over 31 inches in southern St. Clair County to less than 28 inches in northwestern Huron County. Al- though there is no real wet or dry season in the Thumb, the summer months receive more precipitation than any other season. The mean annual snow- fall exhibits a wide range from 30 inches in the south to over 50 inches at the tip of the Thumb.9 The Thumb is one of the warmest areas in the state: it is milder during the winter and warmer in the summer than in other areas. Situated on the leeward side of the state, the region generally receives less pre— 7Thomas E. Niedringhaus, "A Climatology of Michigan" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966), p. 198. 8Data concerning temperature were gleaned from maps in Neidringhaus, "A Climatology of Michigan", Chapter II. 9Ibid. 23 cipitation than other agricultural portions of the state. Soils Soils of the Thumb region represent two of the great soil groups of the world. Huron, Sanilac, and northern St. Clair counties are situated within the zone of podzol soils while southern St. Clair County is classi- fied as a gray-brown podzolic region. Six major areas based on soil assoc- iation are represented in the Thumb and are delineated in Figure 5.10 The level, poorly drained soils formed from loams, silt loams, and clay loams of Area I form the most extensive soil associations. These soils are associated with the lacustrine plain and cover large areas in Huron and Sanilac counties. They are high in organic matter, nitrogen, and lime. The soils retain moisture well, have good natural fertility, and are durable under cultivation. They were develOped on fairly level, wet, swampy, and originally heavily timbered lands in areas of poor nat- ural drainage. The soils are productive when adequate drainage is pro- vided and are not subject to serious erosion. Three other groups of soil associations are represented in the pod- zol region of the Thumb. Area II is characterized by well drained, level to rolling soils developed from limy loams, sandy loams, and loams. Its distribution conforms to the morainal areas. The soils are high in lime, high in moisture retaining capability, and are relatively fertile. Area III, in extreme northwestern Sanilac County, is represented by level, poorly drained soils developed from limy loams to clay loams and tend to 10The six major soil associations and Figure 5 are based on E.P. Whiteside, I.F. Schneider, and R.L. Cook, Soils of Michigan, Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 402 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1959), pp. 32-52. For a detailed account of the soils of Sanilac County see U.S., Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service, Soil Survey: Sanilac County, Michigan by Ivan F. Schneider, et al., Series 1953, No. 10 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1961), pp. 1-83. 24 - _____ ....... ..... n ' 0 MAJOR SOIL DIVISIONS IN THE THUMB OF MICHIGAN [:Z] AREA I AREA II ..... AREA HI AREAIV AREA v ....... Ti :3 -'°n IENEIE AREA VI 0 I0 _—__.l miles .Schneider and Whiteside. Sp. Bull. 402. Agricultural Experiment Station . Michigan State Univ. err Figure 5. 25 have a considerable sand or sandy loam overburden. The soils are gen- erally wet and sandy and are characterized by poor natural drainage. Area IV, in northeastern St. Clair County, is an area of mixed wet and dry sands with organic soils. These soils, a combination of wet and sandy textures and associated peats, have low value for agriculture. Area V outlines the gray-brown podzolic great soil group. The level, poorly drained soils formed from loams, silt loams, clay loams and clays occupy the southern half of St. Clair County. These soils are high in or- ganic matter, nitrogen, and lime. They have good moisture retention, good natural fertility, and are durable under cultivation. The soils were de- velOped under poor natural drainage conditions and the land was wet and originally heavily timbered. Where prOper drainage has been applied, the soils prove productive. Soils in Area VI are organic, mucks and peats, and appear as small islands in north central Sanilac and northwestern St. Clair counties. These soils were developed in swamps and have limited use for agriculture. They range from extremely acid to mildly akaline and in Sanilac County are utilized for the cultivation of mint, onions and truck crops. Poorly drained and wet describes the most salient characteristics of the soil associations. The fundamental problem facing the pioneer agriculturalist, after his land was cleared, was drainage. As settlement developed, drainage programs were initiated. Vegetation The Thumb region is situated within the Beech-Maple Forest region of eastern North America. It is situated at the northern extreme of the region and actually occupies a transition area between the Beech-Maple Forest region and the Great Lakes section of the Hemlock-White Pine North- 26 ern Hardwoods Forest region.11 In such a transition zone, the composition of the natural vegetation is obviously complex. A simplified classification of the natural vegetation has been de- vised especially for this dissertation from Veatch's map.12 Included are regions of deciduous forest, deciduous and pines forest, white pine and deciduous trees, and prairie vegetation. Figure 6 illustrates the distri- bution of these major vegetation types. The deciduous forest includes areas in which the trees were almost solely deciduous. Species dominance varied with local differences in soil and tapography. The dominant types of trees were: maple, beech, elm, oak, ash, basswood, hickory, sycamore, and cottonwood. In most cases, the area of deciduous forest occupied inland locations. On a gross scale, the decidu- ous forest was established on portions of the Port Huron moraine and ground moraine in Sanilac and St. Clair counties. Some deciduous forest was situ- ated on the old glacial lake beds of western Huron and southern St. Clair counties. A similar variety of trees occupied the area delineated as decid- uous and pines forest, however, there was a definite mixture of white pine and other pines. Again, local variations in topography and soil accounted for the dominance of a particular species. The associations within this classification coveredgaconsiderable portion of the study area. The decidu- ous and pines forest was most closely associated with the lacustrine plain, 'but some was situated on the Port Huron moraine in Huron County and in the interlobate area of northeastern Sanilac County. The white pine was fre- quently a constituent of this forest. 11Lucy E. Braun, Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America (New ‘Yorkn Hafner Publishing Company, 1967), pp. 305-326, 337-364. 12J. 0. Veatch, "Presettlement Forest in Michigan" (Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1959). 27 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee oooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooo sssssssssss aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ooooooooooooo ccccccc NATU RA L oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa IO F T H E T H U M B O F M I C H I G A N j-zfifj-j} .:::::' ::::::::::""":::::::.‘-.'.‘s '35-‘5 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IOICIOCIIOOOIICCCOOI 0......OOIOOCOOCCO "’ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0 EC I Du on s . -m D ECI DU 00 S A N D PIN ES eeeeee :9 nasaol' ". so. “' .: ooooo aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Source: After .I. O. Veatch. Presettlement Forest in Michigan. Dpt. of Resource Development. Michigan State Univ. I959 WHITE PINE AND DECIDUOUS -. . .. . P can. 1‘“ j-_ ' fl” \. '1 1' see. ’ . «— . __ . ~11 " D ‘. . ' .rr sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss : ".Oo 0.“ ~‘ ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss 0.... W. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa O :3. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ........ ... a Q.......f... ... '.0s°o.a° 0- .... 00.0.0.0...00 .0......... .0. .soa.o.o. .00 as. .. a. .0 . CFK Figure 6. 28 The area of white pine and deciduous forest includes stands which were characterized by a dominance of white pine with a variety of decid- uous trees. The dominant Species was the white pine, so highly valued by the lumberman. White pine grows under a variety of conditions, but the largest area was associated with sandy textured soils of northeastern St. Clair County. White Pine also occupied sites on the lacustrine plain in extreme northeastern Sanilac County and south central Huron County. Veatch's map indicates two areas of prairie within the study area. Wet prairie occupied the delta lands of the St. Clair River and was mostly marsh grasses with individual and scattered clumps of willow and tama- racks. Dry prairie was located along the coast of northwestern Huron County. This prairie was associated with a narrow sand dune belt and con- tained grasses with scattered oaks or aspen. The first white settlers were confronted with heavy timber. Decidu- ous trees were dominant, but large areas were forested with a combination of deciduous, white pine, and pine trees. There were four areas where white pine was the dominant species. The ax of both lumberman and early agricul- turalist dealt destruction to the forest; very little evidence of the natu- ral vegetation is present on the contemporary landscape. The First White Men The hope of finding a transcontinental route, establishing a vast empire, and the zeal of missionaries to save souls brought French explor— ers to Michigan. The Thumb was among the first areas of the Lower Penin- sula to be viewed through white man's eyes. Its peninsular position prob- ably accounts for its early discovery. Adrien Jolliet, returning to New France after an unsuccessful at- tempt to locate copper deposits near Lake Superior, paddled along the Lake 29 Huron shore in 1669. Fathers Dollier and Gallinee, assured by Jolliet of many heathen tribes, retraced Jolliet's route via the St. Clair River and the Michigan shore of Lake Huron in 1670.13 Although the shoreline of the Thumb was known early, the interior remained unknown. Surely some coureurs‘gg,§gi§ must have eXplored the watershed of one of the streams that drain the Thumb. Besides seeking a route to Asia and christening natives, the French developed a lucrative fur trade in the Great Lakes region. It was the French practice to establish outposts at strategic and accessible sites. ‘Michilimackinac, near the Sault, was the center of French fur trading interests. When English traders began to make inroads into the region, the French decided to build a stockade to prevent the English from reaching the upper lakes. A fort at the head of the St. Clair River offered a site which could guard the route between Lakes Huron and Erie. Fort St. Joseph, at the site of the present city of Port Huron, was built by Sieur Duluth in 1686. In 1688, it was decided the stockade was not worth main- taining; it was burned.14 Although Fort St. Joseph was short lived, it was the first attempt by white men to gain a foothold in southeastern Michigan. This location, in present St. Clair County, preceeded Cadillac's efforts at Detroit by fifteen years. Soon after Great Britain took possession over Michigan land in 1763, another post in present St. Clair County was constructed. Lieutenant Patrick Sinclair built Fort Sinclair at the strategic confluence of the 13F. Clever Bald, Michigan in Four Centuries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954), pp. 34-35. 14William Lee Jenks, St. Clair County, Michigan: {tsfigistory and Its People (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1912), I, pp. 88-90. 30 Pine and St. Clair rivers in 1765. The stockade stood for about twenty years and acted as a military and trading post.15 The Earliest Settlers French Canadians were the first permanent settlers of southeastern Michigan. Lamotte Cadillac founded Detroit in 1701, and it quickly became the leading fur trading center of the Lower Peninsula.16 From this core, subsequent waves of pioneers embarked on the settlement of the state. Prior to 1805, when Michigan became a territory, the white population was essentially French Canadian. French Canadian settlement focused on the Michigan shores of Lakes Erie and St. Clair, Detroit River, St. Clair River, and the streams draining into these waters. There was little inland settle- ment, no substantial attempts at agriculture; the economy depended largely on the fur trade.17 The Thumb's southern reaches, especially along Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River, maintains as old a settlement history as any area in the Lower Peninsula. Lumbering The dense deciduous and pine forests and numerous rivers and streams provided a suitable habitat for fur bearing animals which led to early ex- ploration of Michigan. When the supply of furs began to wane, man was al- ready familiar with the forest and began its exploitation. Logging, espec- ially for white pine, dominated the state's economy for half a century. The lumber industry attracted immigrants, provided jobs, gave impetus to 151bid., p. 92 16Ida Amanda Johnson, The Michigan Fur Trade (Lansing, Mich.: (Iansing, Mich.: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co. for the Michigan His- torical Association, 1919), p. 31. 17George Newman Fuller, Economic and Social Beginning of Michigan (Lansing, Mich.: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., 1916), p. 489. 31 agriculture, created towns and cities of the wilderness, and supplied cap- ital for other development. The Thumb was heavily forested with hardwoods and pines. Areas which included white pine were of particular interest to lumberman (see Figure 6). The forest of St. Clair County was utilized as early as 1765 when white pine was felled for the construction of Fort Sinclair. When the need for building materials at Detroit appeared, St. Clair County offered the closest desirable source of lumber. In the 1780's, French Canadians established some of Michigan's first lumber mills at the mouths of streams flowing into the St. Clair River.18 There were at least seven small mills in operation in St. Clair County by 1800, and some ambitious development began after 1816.19 Im- petus was given to the lumber industry through increased demand as mid- western prairie states and cities were settled and developed. These small mills provided the origin of Michigan's lumber industry. As pineries were exhausted, mills were established father north at the mouths of the Cass, Saginaw, Au Gres, Au Sable, and Thunder Bay rivers. Later the industry moved west to rivers draining into Lake Michigan. Lump ber production in Michigan reached its peak late in the nineteenth century, however, it remains an important factor in the economy of the Upper Penin- sula. Agriculture Agriculture was also introduced into the Thumb area at an early date. IEts development, however, was somewhat thwarted with respect to areas to tine west. Wet and poorly drained soils, particularly those associated with the lacustrine plain, heavy timber, and the availability of fertile lands 18Jenks, St. Clair County, p. 363. 191bid., p. 380. 32 in south central and southwestern Michigan hindered early agricultural expansion. Sedentary agricultural settlements did not dominate the land- scape until the fur trade and lumbering eras passed. Agricultural methods employed by the French Canadians were poor. The French Canadians were primarily interested in the fur trade and did not attempt to become accomplished agriculturalists. It was left for the lumber industry to stimulate agricultural development. Small clearings were cultivated to supply the needs of men and animals of the lumber camps and mills. After the pinery had been raped of white pine, the people attracted by the lumbering industry either moved on or turned to agriculture. Potatoes, hay, wheat, and oats were among the first crops grown. Not until the 1870's did interest in livestock become significant.20 From these meagre beginnings, the Thumb progressed to become one of the richest agricultural regions of the state. Its counties rank high today in value of farm products sold. In 1960 the Thumb counties led in the production of many significant crops. Sanilac was the number one producer of hay, for example, followed by Huron; St. Clair was fourth. Sanilac and Huron ranked first and sec- ond in the production of alfalfa. Huron was one of the top three wheat producing counties. Sanilac was first and Huron second in the production of oats. Huron County led the state in bean production. Sanilac and Hu- ron ranked one, two in number of dairy cattle.21 The Thumb region is classified as a dairy and cash crop farming region. 20 Ibid., p. 380. 21Bert Hudgins, Michigan: Geoggaphingackgrounds in the Development of the Commonwealth (4th ed., Detroit: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1961), pp. 72-77. 33 Summagy The counties of St. Clair, Sanilac, and Huron define the study area of this dissertation and, hereafter, will be termed theaThumb region, or simply the Thumb. Factors which led to the selection of the study area are also significant elements with respect to Michigan's settlement. The analysis of Canadian settlement in the Thumb should lead to generaliza- tions concerning the role of the Canadian settler in the Lower Peninsula. The Thumb occupies a peninsular location in southeastern Michigan, fronting on Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay, and includes 2,514 square miles. Early contact by explorers and fur traders can be attributed to this penin- sular location. A stockade overlooking the St. Clair River, a strategic link between lakes Erie and Huron, was the first attempt by white men to gain a foothold in southeastern Michigan. Glaciation is responsible for the varied surface features of the study area. Rolling to hilly terrain of the morainal areas and the gen- erally level lacus trine plain dominate the topography. Latitudinal ex- tent, inland and coastal location, and differences in local relief create slight climatic variations. However, the Thumb lies on the leeward side of the state and experiences milder weather than most other areas. Permanent settlement in the Thumb and Lower Peninsula have cannon be- ginnings. The early French Canadians, who settled along the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, were poor agriculturalists. Agriculture was hindered by wet and naturally poorly drained soils. Once drainage pro- grams were initiated, the soils provided a rich agricultural base. Heavy timber also discouraged agricultural development. However, the dense forest and particularly stands of white pine attracted lumber- men. It was in the Thumb where Michigan's lumbering era was spawned. 34 Lumbering attracted immigrants and stimulated agricultural settlement. The settlement and development of the Thumb region paralleled that of the Lower Peninsula in many respects. Most significant, to the goal of this dissertation, large numbers of Canadian-born settlers took up land in the study area. Canadian-born persons have contributed a sig- nificant pr0portion of the population of the Thumb and the State. The principal problems that the physical-biotic environment posed for settle- ment were the clearing of forests and soil drainage. CHAPTER III THE GROWTH OF POPULATION, SETTLEMENT, AND THE FOREIGN-BORN IN MICHIGAN AND THE THUMB REGION Population Growth and Settlement White men arrived in Michigan for the first time in the late seven- teenth century. French Canadians were the first to establish a foothold in both Michigan and the Thumb. Tardy settlement, claims of misrepresentation, deterioration of the French Canadian influence by the arrival of easterners, south to north and coastal to interior direction of settlement, lumbering, land speculation, and the rural to urban phenomenon were characteristic of the settlement process in both Michigan and the Thumb. The French Canadian Era to Statehood Michigan Although the French established several settlements prior to 1701, the efforts of Cadillac at Detroit were the most enduring. Cadillac brought seeds, horses, and cattle to his outpost, but the settlement languished for a century. Agriculture was not the main interest at early Detroit, and its people made few attempts to expand their holdings or encourage more settle- ment. Nearly a half century later (1749) an attempt was made by the Cover- nor General of Canada to induce settlement at Detroit.1 Tools, wagons, seeds and livestock were offered to those willing to take up land. In the 1William L. Jenks, "Michigan Immigration," Michigan Histo_r_y, XXVIII (1944), p. 67. 35 36 next two years, only 103 persons responded and the government suspended any further attempts to induce settlement. Development at Detroit was slow. As late as 1803, the town included only four acres. After initial occupance at Detroit, settlement was sporadic. The founding of most of the French settlements in southeastern Michigan did not antecede the American Revolution. Several settlements were established dur- ing the Revolutionary War, but immigration was heaviest after the peace with Great Britain. Indian Agent Jouett described the French Canadian settle- ments in 1803 in a message communicated to Congress.3 Table 2 and Figure 7 were prepared from Jouett's message and give some insight into the location, extent, and date of settlement. Jouett makes no attempt at estimating the population, but from his report it can be conservatively inferred, that well over 1,000 persons inhabited the region. With only a few exceptions, all were French Canadians. Expansion westward commenced from New York and New England after the peace with Great Britain. Pioneers followed rivers and streams to the Ohio River Valley. Mere location was in large part the principal factor account- ing for the late settlement of Michigan. Michigan was far removed from the mainstream of settlement. Regardless of the significance attached to claims of land quality misrepresentation and the famed Tiffin Report,4 not only Michigan but the whole western Great Lakes region was late in receiving the impact of the westward movement. Kuhn asserts that any publicity Michigan 2U. S. Congress, Legislative and Executive Documents, American State Papers, "Description of the Lands and Settlers in the Vicinty of Detroit," by C. Jouett, Class VIII, Public Lands, I (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1832), p. 191. 31bid., pp. 190-193. 4U. S. Congress, Legislative and Executive Documents, American State Papers, "Military Bounty Lands," by Edward Tiffin, Public Lands, III (Wash— ington: Gales and Seaton, 1834), pp. 164-165. 37 TABLE 2. FRENCH CANADIAN SETTLEMENTS IN SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN, 1803 Location Families Inhabitants Farms Remarks Monroe County Otter Creek 33 Settled 1779-1794 River Raisin 121 Settled 1784-1786 Sandy Creek 16 Settled 1792 Rocky River 2 House, distillery grist mill worth $10,000 Huron River 1 Detroit Area Ecorce River 16 Settled before 1797 River Rouge 43 Settled 1780 Detroit River 23 Detroit Only four acres including the fort Grosse Isle 10 Settled 1776 Detroit to Grosse 60 farms in 9 miles Point 60 French land grants before 1760 Macomb County Milk River to Settled 1797, squat- Clinton River 30 tors River Clinton 34 Settled 1788-1800 Clinton to St. Clair 2 Settled 1801 St. Clair River Area Six Miles Upstream 12 Settled 1780-1790 Belle River 19 Settled 1780-1782 Pine River (Sinclair) 5 Settled 1800 TOTAL 203 85 129 Source: U. S. Congress, American State Papers, C. Jouett. 38 FRENCH CANADIAN MILK R. _ __ _ LAKE O SETTLEMENT l3T. CLAIR co. ('9, HURON IN ' 1’ SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN I __ .L _. I803 MACOMB CO. I Q'Approximote Area 09,, 'of Settlement "04' I 9? WAYNE co. N A\ ...- “ I: f g c A N A o A g I. In . D 84 I \\‘ In“; $' OT‘LER CR. LAKE ERIE MONROE co. .\ SCALE L "' "" 0 I9 LAKE ST. CLAIR #210 mi. CFK Figure 7. 39 received in the east was usually favorable.5 The first census of Michigan, taken in 1800 as part of the National Census, reports only 551 inhabitants. Michigan did not assume its present boundaries until 1837. In 1800 a large part of the Lower Peninsula was or- ganized as Wayne County, and its inhabitants were reported in the Ohio to- tals. About nine-tenths of Wayne County was in Michigan.6 The total of 551 does not include inhabitants of Wayne County. When 90 per cent of the Wayne County total is added, a more representative 3,436 persons can be in- ferred as the population in 1800. Table 3 represents the population growth as reported by the census with some adjustments. In 1810 the census enumerated 4,762 persons as inhabitants of the Ter- ritory of Michigan. This is an increase of approximately 1,300 persons from the estimated total of the previous decade. The settled area expanded only slightly from 1800 to 1810, and population concentrations focused on the rivers and shore lines of southeastern Michigan. Figure 8 portrays the set- tled areas and the direction of settlement from 1790 to 1900. In 1820 the census reported 8,896 persons in the Territory. Seven counties and Detroit were included in the enumeration. Of the seven counties two, Brown and Crawford, were situated in the present state of Wisconsin. The area within the contemporary boundaries of Michigan included 7,452 per- sons. Settlement moved further inland from the old French Canadian centers and beginnings were made in the Saginaw Valley. Michigan first felt the real impact of the westward movement from 1820 to 1830. In 1830 the census reported a population of 31,639 for the Terri— sMadison Kuhn, "Tiffin, Morse, and the Reluctant Pioneer," Michigan History, L (1966), pp. 111-138. 6Census of Michigan, 1904: Population, I (Lansing, Mich: Wynkoop Hollenbeck Crawford Co., State Printers, 1906), p. xivi. clq‘ ‘VI 40 TABLE 3. POPULATION GROWTH OF MICHIGAN: 1800 - 1960 Year Number 18001 3,436 18102 4,762 18203 7,452 1830 28,004 1837 175,025 1840 212,267 1850 397,654 1860 749,113 1870 1,184,059 1880 1,636,937 1890 2,093,890 1900 2,420,982 1910 2,810,173 1920 3,668,412 1930 4,842,325 1940 5,256,106 1950 6,371,766 1960 7,823,194 Notes: Because Michigan did not have fixed boundaries before statehood, 1837, the pOpulation reported by the Federal Census does not represent the actual number of residents residing within the present state boundaries. Some ad- justments have been made to present a more representative pOpulation for the‘state before boundaries were fixed. 1The Federal Census reports only 551 inhabitants for the state which accounted for the population of the northern county of Mackinac. Wayne County reported 3,206 inhabitants, of which nine-tenths resided in Michigan. The summation of the 551 inhabitants of Mackinac County and the 2,885 resi- dents of Wayne County results in a total of 3,436. 2The Federal Census reports 8,896 residents for Michigan. Two counties totaling 1,444 persons were entirely within the present boundaries of Wis- consin leaving a more representative total of 7,452 persons residing within the present boundaries of Michigan. 3The Federal Census reports 31,369 residents for Michigan. Three coun- ties were outside the confines of contemporary Michigan and totaled 3,635 persons. The actual number of persons residing within Michigan was 28,004. Source: U. S. Bureau of Census. 41 PROGRESS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE LOWER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN 1790 - I900 Alpena 0 50 ., I J '- miles .'.‘ I‘ll . ........ 234' 09 E." - Cadillac 5’ Port Austin ._ ..' °°° ........ Isio- . ..33, , ..-' 3.“ m. I ('3 I Q Sagina‘ ; v \ .". .' Muskegon°: -":. W9 " .' ll“ i Port Huron 1020 Pontiac ' - IMO .-' ..... Ann Aft," okuDetroit St. Joseph ...... ,‘qllackson 3.0.4,: 133:6" Monroe :\ Source: Michigan Isochronic Map by Andrew Pereida . in Hudgin’ s Michigan: Geographic Backgounds in the Development of the Commonwealth. I96l. on: Figure 8. 42 tory. Three thousand six hundred and thirty-five persons, included in the total, actually lived in counties now in Wisconsin. Sixteen Michigan coun- ties and Detroit totaled 28,004 inhabitants. Pioneers reached further into the interior and the settled area expanded considerably. Outlier nodes of settlement appeared in southwestern portions of the state and the Saginaw Valley settled area was enlarged. It was during this period that French Canadian dominance gave way to the peoples of New England and New York. Michigan became a state in 1837. It entered the Union with a popula- tion of 175,025 persons, an increase of almost 150,000 from the 1830 total. Thirty-one counties were organized. Population was concentrated in the southeast, but villages were established at Kalamazoo, Niles, Jackson, Flint, and Saginaw. Most of the increase was the result of the westward movement of peoples from New England and New York. The Thumb Fifteen years before Cadillac's efforts at Detroit, occupance was at- tempted in the Thumb at Fort St. Joseph. The short-lived stockade (1686- 1688) was defended by fifty men.7 It was intended to secure the detroit between lakes Erie and Huron against English encroachment. The next sig- nificant attempt at occupance was the construction of Fort Sinclair just south of the Pine and St. Clair River confluence. The British stockade was maintained from 1765 until independence was granted the colonies. Lieuten— ant Patrick Sinclair, command officer and a native of Scotland, obtained a deed from the Indians for 3,749 acres along the Pine River in 1765. Utiliz- ing the pine timber and deriving large profits from a saw mill, Sinclair maintained his claim for seventeen years. 7Jenks, St. Clair County, pp. 88-89. 8U.S. Congress, American State Papers, "Lands and Settlers in Detroit," p. 193. 43 Sinclair was not the first to realize the potential of the white pine in the region. Campbell asserts that pine from the St. Clair River area was used to construct homes in Detroit as early as 1742.9 Exploitation of white pine was an early activity in the southern reaches of the Thumb. The activ- \ ity was pursued by both the British and French Canadians. There were no desirable building materials in the environs of Detroit. The St. Clair River area afforded the closest supply. Excepting the early forest exploitation of the 1740's, no French Canadian settlements were es- tablished prior to 1780. By this time Detroit had developed into a settle- ment of about 2,000 inhabitants. Duperon Baby built a saw mill near the present site of Algonac in 1780 and began to supply Detroit with timber.10 Others from the Detroit settlement soon realized the need for timber and the potential of the St. Clair pinery. Slowly settlements were estab- lished along the North Channel of the St. Clair River, upstream from Algonac, and at the mouths of the Belle, Pine, and Black rivers. Although the saw mills were small, crudely constructed, and often only temporary; they were among the first saw mills built in Michigan. From this primitive beginning, the lumbering frontier which later swept both the Lower and Upper Peninsulas was launched. After the United States gained control over the area, there was need for a statement from Congress concerning land title. C. Jouett, Indian agent at Detroit, was ordered to report the land claims to Congress in 1803. Jouett's district included all the French Canadian settlements from Otter Creek in Monroe County to the St. Clair River area (see Table 2 and Figure 9James V. Campbell, "Early French Settlements in Michigan," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, II (1877-1878), p. 102. 10Jenks, St. Clair County, p. 363. 44 7).11 Thirty-six farms were reported along the banks of the St. Clair River upstream to the Pine River. All were occupied between 1780 and 1800. In addition, Jenks claims ten settlers located near the mouth of the Black River between 1782 and 1796.12 These farms were typical of the long-lot settlements established else- where by the French and French Canadians in North America. All of the farms fronted on water. Farms along the St. Clair River upstream to Algonac were smaller in total acreage than those to the north. None of the farms south of Algonac exceeded 240 acres. These farms included from three to five acres of frontage and extended about forty acres inland. Soils were des- cribed as low and sandy "showing every mark of poverty".13 North of Algonac, farms were larger. Ten and twenty acres of river frontage was common, two claimed forty to forty-five acres. Again each ex- tended inland to a rear line at forty acres. The farms were described as improved on cultivated, fertile soils.l4 Typical of the long-lot system of land tenure is a narrow but extenu- ated land holding with water frontage which provided a means for transpor— tation, communication, fishing and trapping. The limited size of the claims indicate little desire for agriculture and land acquisition. The French Canadian was characteristically a poor farmer. In the St. Clair area the dwelling was usually situated on the river bank. A garden was started immediately behind the dwelling and usually in— 11U. S. Congress, American State Papers, "Lands and Settlers in De— troit," pp. 190-193. 12Jenks, St. Clair County, pp. 139-141. 13U. S. Congress, American State Papers, "Lands and Settlers in De- troit," p. 192. 141618. 45 cluded a small orchard. A field of corn or wheat extended beyond the gar- den. The largest portion of the claim was left in forest.15 Fuller claims the habitant was not conscious of his poverty, adhered to old farming tech- niques, and was resistant to change.16 Fifty-two Private Claims were finally settled in St. Clair County which included 19,500 acres.17 Under provisions of the act concerning the regulation of deeds granted or purchased from the Indians, granted by France before 1763, or granted by England between 1763 and 1783, persons who set- tled, occupied and improved land before July 1, 1796 and maintained it up to 1807 would be granted title if the claim did not exceed 640 acres.18 Figure 9 illustrates the location of the Private Claims, all of which front on Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River, or along the lower reaches of the Belle, Pine and Black rivers. The French Canadian settlements in St. Clair County were significant because not only were they the first permanent settlers, but they supplied lumber for the Detroit area and focused attention upon the pineries of the Thumb. By 1800, there were seven mills in Operation. Two were situated on the Black River, two on the Pine River, and three on small creeks which .drained into the St. Clair River.19 French Canadians dominated the region until the 1820's. The United States Officially displayed an interest in the area when Fort Gratiot was constructed, in 1814, at the confluence Of the Black and St. Clair rivers. 15 Fuller, Economic and Social, p. 106. 16Ibid., p. 113. 17 Jenks, St. Clair County, p. 70. 181616., pp. 69-70. 19 Ibid., p. 109. 46 . I a. s 5’: ’Q a ”EEK 4;.“ 1° FORT AI, GRATIOT ”(a ‘8 85"" 13:9 PORT $2 HURON $1 PRIVATE CLAIMS GRANTED g IN ST. CLAIR COUNTY fiafi £5 ST. CLAIR if E E < .J 't“:§§g 0 CLAIMS GRANTED 3%”- NIARINE CITY £8 _;3 CANADA miles 4%: ALGONAC A182 1’ N SOURCE W. T I JENKS, T RY m Figure 9. 47 The stockade was built largely as a protective measure against the Indians, but the complete garrison of forty men did not arrive until 1817.20 In 1819, after their term was served, some soldiers remained to settle. Land in the public domain was offered for sale in 1818, but little was sold in St. Clair County. Only a portion of the county was surveyed. The entire county wasn't surveyed until 1823. Land sales proceeded slowly and from 1818 to 1829 only forty-one sales were transacted.21 Although St. Clair County was officially organized in 1821 and divided into three townships in 1823, settlement came slowly. Evidence of inac- tivity is dramatically illustrated in that the small garrison of forty men at Fort Gratiot was considerably reduced in 1821 and, by 1826 the stockade lay in ruins.22 The abandonment of the stockade, which was initially estab- lished to protect settlers, clearly indicates that the government had little faith in any immediate settlement activity. Excluding Indians, only about 300 inhabitants resided in St. Clair County in 1821. Most of the population was distributed along the St. Clair River with a few settlers engaged in lumbering in the lower reaches of the Black River. River locations were preferred since there were no roads. Seventy-nine persons were assessed for taxation in 1821, and about one-third of the surnames on the tax roll indicate French Canadian descent.2 ’0/ Saw mills were established in 1816 and 1818.“4 Activity in the early twenties focused chiefly on the fledgling lumber industry and more mills were 20Western Historical Company, History of St. Clair County (Chicago: A. T. Andreas & Co., 1883), p. 263. 21Jenks, St. Clair County, pp. 80-81 221bid., pp. 99-100. 23See reprint Of assessment roll in Western Historical Company, History of St. Clair County, pp. 131-132. 24Jenks, St. Clair County, p. 365. 43 constructed. Associated with the abundant timber supply, the shipbuilding industry enjoyed an early start. The first ship built on the banks on the St. Clair River was produced by the government at Fort Gratiot in 1818 - a thirty-four foot revenue cutter.25 Samuel Ward arrived at Marine City in 1819, from New York, and in 1824 constructed the "St. Clair", foreseeing a trade link with the East via the Erie Canal. The Ward family later grew wealthy from shipbuilding and lumbering and produced Michigan's first million- aire. Fishing was also an early activity and some restrictions concerning the quantity of catch were set in 1825.26 The first Federal Census to include St. Clair County (1830) reported 1,114 inhabitants. Relatively few persons took up land in the twenties, but land sales picked up in 1830. Rampant speculation in land, which swept the entire state, accounted for 200,000 acres sold in 1836 -- almost one-half the area of St. Clair County.27 Tne northern counties Of the Thumb first felt the frontier impact in the thirties. Sanilac County was surveyed in 1834, and its first permanent settler arrived in the same year. Unchecked speculation in timber lands, especially along the Lake Huron shore and inland areas offering river trans~ port, accounted for the purchase Of 70 to 90 per cent of the land in some townships.28 Also in 1834, Canadian-born A. G. Peer opened development in Huron County when he began quarrying stone on a seasonal basis at Grindstone City. The stone was shipped to Detroit and was utilized in the paving of 25Ibid., p. 403. 261bid., p. 377. 27Ibid., p. 81. 28Portrait and Bioggaphical Album of Sanilac County Containinngortraits and Bipgraphical Sketches of Prominent and Representative Citizens of the County (Chicago: Chapman Brothers, 1884), p. 453. 49 Woodward and Jefferson Avenues.2 Unrestrained land speculation spawned the "paper city"3O era throughout the state. White Rock, situated fifty miles north of Port Huron on the Lake Huron coast of Huron County, was one of the famed speculative endeavors. White Rock was widely advertised in Detroit as a growing metropolis contain— ing busy saw mills, Churches, schools, a bank and a magnificent harbor cat- ering to steamboats. However, Bela Hubbard a visitor in 1837 remarked: We found the entering river: it hardly admitted our canoe. Harbor there was none. Churches, houses, mills, peqple were all a myth. A thick wilderness covered the whole site. Only fifteen or twenty families had taken up land in the two northern coun— ties by 1837.32 While settlers were first arriving in the northern portions of the Thumb, St. Clair County (1837) included 3,673 inhabitants. Lumbering was the chief activity and displayed rapid growth from 1830 to 1837.33 In 1837 four grist mills were Operating while thirty mills were sawing timber. Lumbering activities centered on the city of Port Huron and St. Clair and the lower reaches of the Black River. Many of the large capacity mills were established at Port Huron and St. Clair from 1833 to 1836. The first 29Portrait and Biographic Album of Huron County Containing Portraits and Biographical Sketches Of Prominent and Rgpresentative Citizens of the County (Chicago: Chapman Brothers, 1883), p. 451. 0Paper Cities were a speculative device where persons or groups of people purchased land at a suitable site for a town or city. A plat was drawn and the land divided into lots. To sell the lots, these plats were highly publicized as prosperous towns. Despite the publicity, most of the paper cities were merely wilderness sites. 31Bela Hubbard, "A Michigan Geological Expedition," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collection, III (1884), p. 200. 32Album of Sanilac County, p. 455 33Jenks, St. Clair County, pp. 365-369. 50 steam powered mill established in Michigan began operation at Port Huron in 71833.34 It utilized saw dust for fuel. The capitalists who purchased tim- ber lands and established saw mills were largely natives of New York, Massa- chusetts, and Pennsylvania. These early entrepreneurs represented the Yan- kee tide which began to invade the southern portion of the Thumb in the thirties. Interest in agriculture lagged prior to statehood as emphasis focused on lumbering and shipbuilding. Men working in the forest depended on lum- bering for a living and only tilled the soil for a short period during the summer months. Potatoes and vegetables were cultivated to supply their im- mediate needs. Some crOps were planted in clearings to furnish feed for the livestock used in the pineries. Here farming was secondary when com— pared to counties to the southwest where there were no pine forests. Figure 10 represents the progress of settlement in the Thumb. French Canadians, who were virtually the only settlers in 1800, located along Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River. Settlement was slow during the next thirty years. Some pioneers moved inland, but only the twelve most south- eastern townships Of St. Clair County received settlers by 1830. The most northern settled area reached up the Black River. No locations were made in either Huron or Sanilac counties by 1830, and only a few coastal settlements were established by 1837. Settlement was retarded in the Thumb for many of the same reasons pOpu- lation growth lagged throughout Michigan. Just as Michigan was removed from the mainstream of settlement--the Ohio River Valley-—so the Thumb was situ- ated away from the general route of settlement in Michigan. While inland settlement proceeded through the southern tier of counties, dense forests and wet lands stymied overland movement to the Thumb. Paralleling the claims 341616., p. 368. 51 of misrepresentation of Michigan as a poor place for potential settlement back East, Fuller asserts the Thumb was misrepresented as a swamp by De- troit interests who were fearful of the proximity of the St. Clair area to Detroit.35 Early Years of Statehood: 1837 to 1850 Michigan From statehood to 1850, the settled area of the Lower Peninsula was significantly enlarged. The outlier areas of the 1830's became centers with large hinterlands. By 1850 settlement extended to Muskegon.well beyond Grand Rapids and Lansing. The Saginaw Valley was occupied (see Figure 8). In the Thumb region most of St. Clair County was settled by 1850, but only the Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron shorelines of Huron and Sanilac counties at- tracted settlers. The first years following statehood were turbulent. The state govern- ment embarked on an ambitious program of internal improvements which in- cluded road, canal, and railroad construction. The schemes failed. Specu- lation in land and capital continued unchecked and "paper cities" multi- plied. The financial problems of the late thirties slowed the pace of set- tlement only momentarily. POpulation stood at 175,025 at statehood, increased to 212,267 in 1840, and reached 397,654 in 1850 (see Table 3). Population increase from 1830 to 1840 was 180,628 and 185,387 from 1840 to 1850. Considering the similar in- crease in both decades, it can be inferred that growth from 1840 to 1850 was due more to natural increase than immigration. Land for agricultural settlement was the chief focus of this period. The agricultural southern tier of counties were well settled by 1850. Al- 35Fuller, Economic and Social, pp. 164-165 52 though agriculture was paramount, the lumber industry was beginning to show its potential. Saw mills multiplied along the Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay shores. Thirty-one counties were organized in 1837; by 1850 there were forty-three counties. The agricultural frontier crept northward. The Thumb While settlement began to fix firm roots throughout the southern tier of Michigan's counties, southern portions of the Thumb were also becoming occupied. The general statewide pattern of settlement advanced from south to north and from coastal to interior locations. An analogous pattern was displayed in the Thumb. Settlement became secure in St. Clair County while the northern counties of Huron and Sanilac were first receiving pioneers. Sanilac County wasn't organized until 1848. It had previously been at- tached to St. Clair for judicial purposes.36 Huron County finally warranted organization in 1859 after it had been attached to Saginaw and later Sanilac counties.37 Population increased from 3,673 in 1837 to 13,219 in 1850. St. Clair County was inhabited by 10,899 persons, Sanilac 2,112, and Huron as part of Sanilac County reported only 210 persons in 1850. In Huron and Sanilac coun- ties, townships adjacent to Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay were the first to at- tract pioneers. There was little or no activity in the inland townships of the northern counties (see Figure 10). Settlement and pioneer economic development focused on the southeastern section of the Thumb while settlements to the north were mere wilderness out- posts. Northeastern St. Clair County contained a luxuriant stand of white pine (see Figure 6). It was here that lumbering was most significant. Saw 36Album Of Sanilac County, p. 459. 37Album of Huron County, p. 430. .53 1840 Port Au‘, Ori - tone City 1840 ‘\\ Coseville .‘Ih'on “.75., .Iod Axe .'°"' (810 1860 Parisville O 118.90 Forestville 1850 Port Hope Sebewaing I 1830 18;; PROGRESS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE , MIC? THUMB REGION... Port Sanilac 1850 -'" 1840 """ Source: History of Huron County. Chapman Pub. History of Sanilac County. Chapman Pub. HI‘IP'Y 0' St. Clair County. Andreas Pub. Jenks. History of St. Clair County. Isoc— ‘Based on dates of first settlement in each township. CPR Figure 10. 54 mills multiplied from 1837 to 1850. New mills, both steam and water pow- ered, were also constructed at St. Clair, Marine City, and Algonac tapping the forests in the Belle and Pine river hinterlands. Chief markets for the lumber were Chicago, Milwaukee, Oswego and Buffalo, New York.38 Mill towns grew as the increased demand for woodsmen, raftsmen, and sawyers attracted pioneers. Samuel Ward's shipbuilding endeavors at Marine City Offered Opportunity for carpenters, joiners, caulkers, and sailors. In 1840, Ward launched the steamer "Huron" which soon commanded the St. Clair River route from Detroit to Port Huron.39 Port Huron and St. Clair were incorporated as villages in 1849 and 1850 respectfully.4O Lumbering and associated shipbuilding were the chief activities of the period. Workers in the mill towns and forests were dependent on outside sources for their foodstuffs. Most of the flour and corn was brought from Detroit.41 It wasn't until 1847 that farmers produced enough surplus wheat to justify the construction of a flouring mill,42 Settlement expanded slowly to the north. Extreme southeastern Sanilac received the first settlers, but by 1850 only townships adjacent to Lake Hu- ron experienced any develOpment. Coastal locations were selected largely for transportation convenience. Lumbering once again provided the stimulus, but development was not as rapid or intensive as in St. Clair County. The first steam powered saw mill was built in 1846 at Lexington.43 Shingle- 38Western Historical Company, History of St. Clair County, p. 463. 39Jenks, St. Clair County, p. 403. “01616., p. 253. 41Western Historical Company, History of St. Clair County, p. 242. 42Ibid., p. 463. 43Album of Sanilac County, p. 454. 55 making was an important activity, and many took up temporary residence to make enough shingles to accumulate capital to buy land.44 Only Lexington bore any resemblance to a village. The first steamboat docked there in 1846.45 Huron County reported only 210 inhabitants in 1850, and pOpulation was distributed in isolated settlements along the coast. To the Lake Huron coast came lumbermen, shingle-makers, trappers, and fishermen; many of whom made no claim to the land. At Grindstone City, A. G. Peer made a claim of 400 acres and was soon turning out grindstones.46 At Sebewaing, a colony of German missionaries arrived in 1845 bent on christianizing the Indians.l'7 Most of the settlers perceived the forest as the source of their pros- perity. Agriculture was neglected. Those who came north to the Thumb were in direct contrast to their fellow pioneers to the southwest who would rather plow a field than fell a pine. Those who came to the Thumb to work in the forests, mills, and shipbuilding yards were the predecessors of thousands who were to create scores of mill towns along the shores of both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas. Completion Of Settlement: 1850 to 1900 Michigan Initial settlement, in both peninsulas Of Michigan, was completed by the turn of the century. All Michigan counties had a population density Of .at least two persons per square mile in 1900. While portions of the northern Lower Peninsula were receiving initial 44Oliver Raymond,"Port Sanilac Settler," Michigan History, XXXIII (1949), pp. 167-170. 45Album of Sanilac County, p. 479. 446 Album Of Huron County, p. 269. 47Ibid., p. 430. 56 settlement, pOpulation densities in the southern tier of counties were in- creasing. Most of the southern half of the Lower Peninsula, excepting in- terior portions of the Thumb, had been settled by 1870. By 1880, almost all of the Lower Peninsula was settled save a few isolated interior locali- ties (see Figure 8). In the northern Lower Peninsula, settlement was first established along the shores of lakes Huron and Michigan, leaving the inter- ior as the last area of settlement. Michigan's population increased steadily from 397,654 in 1850 to 2,420,982 in 1900. Each decade averaged an approximate 400,000 increase over the preceding decade (see Table 3). The rural population ratio de- clined from 95.7 per cent in 1850 to 79.6 in 1870, to 60.7 per cent in 1900. There was an associated rise in the urban pOpulation ratio from 4.3 per cent in 1850 to 39.3 per cent in 1900.48 Although the rural population ratio diminished in this period, each decade exhibited an increase in total rural population. The urban pOpulation was growing at a more rapid rate than the rural which accounts for the decreasing rural to total population ratio. The area south of a line from the northern border of St. Clair County to Muskegon included the state's best known agricultural lands of the time and was the most densely pOpulated. Within this half century, Michigan emerged from the wilderness and entered the ranks of the agricultural states. It was during these fifty years that the foundations for Michigan's present industrial and commercial economy were laid. Many factors account for the quick expansion and development of almost all facets of life. Some of the more significant factors associated with this develOpment were the comple- tion of the Michigan Central Railroad from Detroit to Chicago in 1852, sub- 48Amos H. Hawley, The Population of Michigan 1840 to 1960: An Analysis of Growth, Distribution, and Composition, Michigan Governmental Studies, No. 19 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1949), p. 26. 57 sequent railroad construction, the Homestead Act of 1862, the Civil War, technological developments in agriculture, and the lumber industry. Markets for agricultural and manufactured products created from Civil War demands stimulated Michigan's economy. Agriculture boomed throughout the War period. Michigan became a significant wheat producing state and ranked as high as eighth in the nation as late as 1890.49 Wool production was also stimulated by military demand. Michigan ranked either third or fourth in the nation in wool production from 1860 to 1890. Since the tra- ditional markets of Michigan were along the Atlantic seaboard, military activity had little effect on marketing practices. Trade with the indus- trial East was very profitable, and transportation rates actually decreased during the War.50 In the 1850's speculators turned their attention and capital to the pine lands. Lumbering diffused from the Thumb, and the associated economic boom struck the Saginaw Valley. From here the industry moved northward with mill towns established at Oscoda, Alpena, and Cheboygan. Rivers flowing in- to Lake Michigan also tapped rich pine hinterlands; mills were constructed at Grand Haven, Muskegon, and Manistee. Mill towns flourished at the mouths of most rivers on both Lake Huron and Michigan shores. In the mid-1870's logging railways increased the lumbermen's range. Areas far from the rivers could be economically logged. Lumbering moved to the Upper Peninsula in the eighties, and Michigan attained its largest production in 1888.51 It ranked 49Willis F. Dunbar, "The Transformation of Rural Life in Michigan Since 1845," Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, XXIX (1943), p. 482. .1. 50Richard H. Sewell, "Michigan Farmers and the Civil War," Michigan History, XLIV (1960), p. 367. 51Willis Frederick Dunbar, Michigan: A Histopy of the Wolverine State (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 474-475. 58 first in the nation in 1900. Settlement followed lumbering developments. Farmers began to culti- vate the cut-over lands. The lumbering heyday produced Michigan's first millionaires. Capital was now available for investment. Industrial and commercial centers were beginning to develOp as a result of the boom in agriculture and lumbering. Early manufacturing was usually limited to the immediate local area; only the lumber and furniture industries had markets out of the state. Each local area was independent with respect to the necessary manufactures; each company had a local monopoly. In the 1880's and 1890's, changes in this organization came about with increased demand and availability of investment capital.52 Manufacturing became concentrated in larger urban areas about 1900. The Thumb Most of the major man-land relationships of the contemporaneous land- scape of the Thumb region were established during the last half of the nine- teenth century. The foreign-born settlers and their contributions in estab- lishing these relationships is the focus of this dissertation. Therefore, much of the detail is left to the remaining chapters. In an attempt to main- tain continuity, only general trends are presented here. Paralleling the state pattern, settlement continued to diffuse from south to north and from coastal to interior locations. Only a few interior townships had not received their first permanent inhabitants by 1870, and every organized township had received settlers by 1880 (see Figure 10). Emulating the statewide pattern, population densities were greatest in the south and least in the northern counties. 52Sidney Glazer, "The Beginnings of the Economic Revolution in Michigan," Michigan History, XXIV (1950), p. 194. 59 The population of the tri-county region stood at 13,219 in 1850. POp- ulation steadily increased to 124,445 in 1900. St. Clair County remained the most pOpulous with 10,899 inhabitants in 1850 and 55,228 in 1900. Sanilac County increased from 2,112 in 1850 to 35,055 inhabitants in 1900. Huron County displayed a rapid growth from 210 in 1850 to 34,162 persons in 1900. The steady population increase was by no means uniform in each county. Table 4 indicates the population growth of the Thumb counties from 1830 to 1960. St. Clair County sustained its greatest increase from 1850 to 1870. Between 1870 and 1890, Sanilac and Huron counties tallied larger numerical increases than St. Clair. The greatest gains in population were recorded from 1870 to 1880 for Sanilac and Huron counties. More population.was added to St. Clair than Sanilac during the last decade of the century, but Huron County enjoyed the greatest increase. Sanilac County reached its peak pOpu— lation in 1900. As the pineries of the Thumb were depleted, either by the ambitious ax of man or the ravaging fires of 1870 and 1881, economic emphasis switched from lumbering to agriculture. Agriculture became the prime activity, es- pecially north and west of Port Huron. Port Huron soon became the metrOp- olis of the region and supported a pOpulation of 19,158 in 1900. Other in- corporated places of over 1,000 persons in 1900 were Marine City with 3,829, St. Clair with 2,543, Algonac with 1,216, and Yale with 1,125 inhabitants. Sanilac County reported no incorporated place of over 1,000 persons in 1900; Marlette was the largest town with 996 inhabitants. Sebewaing was the larg- est incorporated place in Huron County with 1,243 inhabitants in 1900 fol- lowed by Bad Axe with 1,241 and Harbor Beach with 1,149 persons. Only Port Huron enjoyed any significant industrial develOpment. The major pattern established in this fifty year period was the devel- Opment Of a highly productive rural-agricultural system with only one sig- 60 Table 4. POPULATION GROWTH IN THE THUMB REGION: 1830-1960 Year County Population Thumb 1830 St. Clair 1,114 1,114 1837 St. Clair 3,673 3,673 1840 St. Clair 4,606 4,606 1845 St. Clair 8,375 8,375 1850 St. Clair 10,899 Sanilac 2,112 Huron 210 13,219 1860 St. Clair 26,604 Sanilac 7,599 Huron 3,165 37,368 1870 St. Clair 36,661 Sanilac 14,562 Huron 9,049 60,272 1880 St. Clair 46,197 Sanilac 26,341 Huron 20,089 92,627 1890 St. Clair 52,105 Sanilac 32,589 Huron 28,545 113,239 1900 St. Clair 55,228 Sanilac 35,055 Huron 34,162 124,445 1910 St. Clair 52,341 Sanilac 33,930 Huron 34,758 121,029 1920 St. Clair 58,009 Sanilac 31,237 Huron 32,786 122,032 1930 St. Clair 67,563 Sanilac 27,751 Huron 31,132 126,446 1940 St. Clair 76,222 Sanilac 30,114 Huron 32,584 138,920 61 Table 4 (cont'd.) Year County POpulation Thumb 1950 St. Clair 91,599 Sanilac 30,837 Huron 33,149 155,585 1960 St. Clair 107,201 Sanilac 32,314 Huron 34,006 173,521 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census. 62 nificant commercial-industrial center. Primarily due to the developments at Port Huron, St. Clair County was the most populous. It would appear that during the last thirty years of the nineteenth century new lands in the north were perceived to offer more Opportunity than the more settled southern portions Of the Thumb. The Rural to Urban Movement: 1900—1960 Michigan The development of an industrial and commercial economy and the bur- geoning growth of urban places are the two most salient features of Michi- gan's develOpment since 1900. The most dramatic changes in Michigan's cul- tural landscape Of today as compared to that of the 1890's can be attrib- uted to the rural to urban movement of population and the development of the automobile industry. The automobile industry and the mobility afforded to society altered the way of life for all Americans, but the industry has special significance for Michigan. Both urbanization and industrialization owe much Of their development to the automobile. Certainly there were other significant industries operat- ing in Michigan at the turn of the century; but the automobile industry with its associated services and auxilliary industries, must stand as the most significant in develOping and maintaining manufacturing. The industry boomed from the early 1900's until the Depression slowed the economy down in the thirties. During World War II, the industry turned to the production of mu- nitions and war materiel.53 Since the War the automobile industry has main- tained and created jobs in its factories, in allied industries, and in ser- vices related to the automobile. From 2,420,982 inhabitants in 1900, the total pOpulation catapulted 53Dunbar, Michigan: A History, pp. 574-575. 63 to 7,832,194 by 1960 (see Table 3). The population increased by about 400,000 between the decades of 1900 and 1910, a pace similar to that of the last half of the nineteenth century. The rate of increase more than doubled from 1910 to 1920 and tripled from.1920 to 1930. The depression years of the thirties halted rapid population increase; the rate returned to the 400,000 increase of the late nineteenth century. During the 1940's population swelled by over 1,100,000 to a total of 6,371,766 persons in 1950. An even greater increase was exhibited in the fifties, and Michi- gan reported 7,823,194 inhabitants in 1960. Although the population increased during each decade from 1900 to 1960, not all counties in the Lower Peninsula enjoyed a consistent popu- lation increase. Fifty-four of the sixty-eight Lower Peninsula counties report a peak population in 1960, but only fourteen had a consistent pop- ulation growth since 1900 (see Figure 11). Each of these fourteen coun- ties are located in the southern half of the Lower Peninsula and ten have within their boundaries an urban place of over 25,000 inhabitants. Only Berrien, St. Joseph, anroe, and Ottawa counties displayed a continual growth and do not contain an urban place of 25,000 persons. The rural to urban trend is reflected by the consistent growth of counties which con- tain large urban places as compared to the vascillating growth of counties without significant urban development. In most cases, those counties which did not include an urban place of 25,000 inhabitants did not enjoy a con- sistent population growth. Fourteen of the sixty-eight Lower Peninsula counties reported peak populations in years previous to 1960. Excepting Huron and Sanilac coun- ties, which reached peak populations in 1910 and 1900 respectively, all are located in the northwestern quarter of the Lower Peninsula. All of these 64 POPULATION GROWTH IN THE LOWER MICHIGAN PENINSULA BY COUNTY LEE CONSISTENT POPULATION GROWTH FLUCTUATING GROWTH WITH PEAK IN l960 Figure 11. 65 counties attained their greatest numbers by 1920 with three reaching a peak in 1900, nine in 1910, and two in 1920. In general, these counties are located in the cut-over region of the northwestern Lower Peninsula where the sOils are of low agricultural potential. The change from a largely rural-agricultural to a complex urban-indus- trial economy has significantly altered the nature of the population distri- bution since 1900. In 1900 only two cities reported a population greater than 50,000 inhabitants, five in 1920, nine in 1950, and in 1960 seventeen cities reported a population greater than 50,000 persons. Urban growth has concentrated in the southern half of the peninsula with all thirty-seven cities of over 25,000 persons in 1960 situated south of a line drawn from Muskegon to Midland to Bay City. Population is most dense in the Detroit vicinity where twenty-two of the thirty-seven cities are located. The ratio of rural to total population declined from.60.7 per cent in 1900 to 26.6 per cent in 1960 while the urban ratio Climbed from 39.3 per cent in 1900 to 73.4 per cent in 1960. These changing ratios reflect not only changes in population distribution but also economic emphasis. Michi- gan changed from rural-agricultural in 1900 to a sophisticated urban-indus- trial economy in 1960. However, MHChigan still maintains a strong agricul- tural foundation. The Thumb The three counties comprising the Thumb reported a population of 124,445 persons in 1900. In 1960, the population was reported at 175,521 persons. Population growth lagged behind the rapid growth displayed on a statewide basis. Table 5 illustrates population growth in the Thumb region from 1900 to 1960. Total population was at a virtual standstill from 1900 to 1930 and act- 66 .msmauo can no amouam .m .D “OOHSOm wma.aaa moo.am meo.om mam.~ Hum.maa coo.em uous: cam.~m I-I-I- «Hm.~m ouaacam oma.em meo.mn Ho~.~oa Hanan .um coma oem.moa eRH.om am~.~m mea.~ mam.mma sea.mm coupe Amm.om I-I-I- amm.om panacea mmm.~e oo~.me asm.aa uauau .Dm omaa mme.om ooa.a~ ewe.~e «Ne.~ cum.wn~ «mm.~m coupe eaa.om --- eaa.om panacea amm.em mom.mm N-.oa uaaao .um oema an~.mm NmH.Hm ~H~.wm --- 64¢.eua NmH.Hm conga Hmh.a~ --- Hme.eu uaaaaam Hmm.a~ Nau.wm mem.ae “Hugo .um omaa mma.am ewa.um onw.~m --- «mo.-H ema.~m sous: em~.an --- ~m~.Hm oaaaaam oma.mu mem.~m moo.mm gauge .um omma mee.ma mmn.sm eem.m~ --- auo.aua mme.em coupe omo.mm --- omm.nm panacea meo.5~ ee~.nm Ham.~m uaaao .um onH maa.mm ~6A.¢m omm.mN --- mes.eaa ~ea.¢m pops: mmo.nm --- mmo.mm ouaaaam wao.a~ omm.n~ w-.mm pauau .um ooaH gonna gonna dean: menu: aoqumaaaom oowuaanaom huaooo anew aafia ease gaze oooaiooafi .m mamdfi "ZOHUMM nthmH mmH ho ZOHHHHmuuuoo mH mm e an a oH.o mm Hm -.~ an mm.oH Ham a£55.38 H Hm e NH NH m~.H emH an mH.H emu Hm.e Hao oeaHo am mu o as wH wo.o HmH Hm mo.m aHN Hm.em «am has H .. m an wH he.o em «a Hm.o Hm ea.m emH comma mm Hm so «H «H Hm.n oaH aH mm.~ mmu Ha.HN Hmo.H aeHeo 0H NH .. on as mo.m mmH mm oo.e NmH mm.oH mas uHHH>eouuam a He 0 on oH eo.H ea wH em.H HmH wH.oH HMH awsxooum HH e H on NH ww.o me am om.H moH He.H mmm uHHHum .aom .aom .aom Hmuoa smack huge .aom Hmuoa huge .mom huam .aom QHSmaBoa .wem :uHHH .umo -aon .auo Ho a -emn m.m -amn Hauoy omwa mo N no N IE "mHmmz3OB Wm ZOHUmm mZDmB HIE mo onfimqamom zmomleHmmom .MH mgmdfi 102 with their densities and ratios to total and foreign-born population by township. The foreign-born distribution in St. Clair County reflects the same pattern as manifested by the total population. The average density of foreign-born was 4.72 per square mile as compared to the 15.68 density for the total population. Figure 13 shows that the same six townships which exceeded the average pOpulation density also accounted for greater than average foreign—born densities. Port Huron reported the densest foreign- born population with 22.61 per square mile. Twenty-seven per cent of the foreign-born of the county lived in Port Huron Township while the township accounted for only 21 per cent of the county's total population. The vil- lage of Port Huron comprised 19 per cent of the county total and 68 per cent of the township foreign-born. Cottrellville, Ira, St. Clair, Clay, and China respectively, tallied densities above the county average. Exam- ination of the foreign-born to total population ratio indicates that only five townships exceed the 30 per cent recorded for the county. Port Huron Township tallied the largest ratio of 39 per cent, Ira 37 per cent, and Cottrellville contained 32 per cent foreign-born. Burtchville and Clyde, which were more sparsely pOpulated townships, reported 38 and 37 per cent foreign-born respectively. The distribution of foreign-born paralleled the pOpulation distribution in Sanilac County. The foreign-born were more significant here than in St. Clair County. Although the density of foreign-born was only 1.11 per square mile, over one—half of all residents were born outside the United States. Of the 210 total residents in Huron Township, ninety-five were foreign-born. The foreign-born as well as natives resided in scattered and isolated settle— ments along the coast. 103 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 5555???? 18 so sszzzsszsggszgggssgzgz DENSITY OF THE 555- __ FOREIGN-BORN 53355555335333.5355? 33333333333333.5333?33?? (per sq. mi.) 555: 353555??? o-1.99 ggi’liiilifififi . 333333??? 5—8.99 2.33%? :. :%:::::*::::::::::. ' “"1 _ “anaggssssfi 2232::- 9 19” arnggggggir' o 5 '0'... ‘ I!!!II:::II l 1 3:03.». 20+ miles C'K mm Figure 13 . 104 Distribution of Canadians The Canadian density pattern in St. Clair County did not wholly con- form to that of the total or foreign-born (see Figure 14). The average density of Canadians was 2.81 per square mile. Port Huron contained the highest density with 14.05 per square mile. Ira Township, although ranked fifth in population density, was second to Port Huron with 9.58 per square mile. Cottrellville, Clay, St. Clair, China, and Burtchville townships each supported a density greater than the county average. Ira, Burtch- ville, Clyde, and Port Huron were the only townships to surpass the average of 18 per cent Canadian ratio to total population. Sixty per cent of the foreign-born in St. Clair County were Canadian and Ira, Casco, Burtchville, Clyde, Lynn, Riley, Clay and Port Huron exceeded the average. Canadians were most dense in Port Huron Township, but also constituted significant proportions of less densely populated areas. It would appear that Canadians made the greatest contribution to the early settlement of Sanilac County. Although the density of Canadians was only 1.11 per square mile, they constituted 41 per cent of the population and 80 per cent of all foreigners. The distribution of Canadians is diffi- cult to assess, but it is suggested they made up a significant portion of the population near the settlement of Lexington. Other Foreign-Born Groups In fourteen of the fifteen St. Clair County townships, Canadians rep- resented the mbst densely populated foreign-born groups. Columbus Town- ship, which supported total and foreign-born populations less than the county average, had a slight majority of Irish. The Irish were the second most dense group in the county but only averaged 0.80 per square mile. Following the Irish were the English, Scots, and Germans which, in most l()5 ooooooooooooooooooooo IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ................................. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" .UO...... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0000000000 0990090000 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" .UBOOOOOOO. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" .0080009..O """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" .UOOCOOOOOOO OOOO~.O-.0--.O.----...—...-..o-O'Oo-CCCC-.Oc-OC...---.--'----o. .UOOOOOOQOOOO "'°"""""°"""" .909090000090. """"""""""" .00990809000900 .900“0.°9°.U..0. ......... """ """"""""""" ONOCOCOCOOCUOCO. ..... ,.. ...... --------------------------------------------------------------- 00 00 ........ UUHLIN ....o """""""'°"' PONY "U90” 9. ......o........ ......o........I...I. "‘.’."""""""‘ 00 ...OOCQOOUO... ......OOOIQOOOOOIIIOI ......IOQIIIIIIoooo... ......Q...l..|0.0.000 ....-.‘.-.". ....... 000000009900... ................................................................ "°"""""-'°'°"° OOCBOOOOIDOOOOO .......... '.........-. ...............-...... ..............c....[. "'°°""""""-'°' 00998000090... .................................................. ""°"""“""--" .CCUOU'OOOOCI 000000000000000000000000000000 "LE' ...... 0000.... "LF, ...... .....".-.'°."f."" 0.000.90000 ............................................... 0009900009 A ................................................................ “""""'°""‘°"‘ 0.099... .009... .............. \ O O O c ................................................................................. 3222:: ST- CLAIR COUNTY ”5° 3252223322222222252322 DENSITY OF CANADIANS 5335355333555535555535 (per sq. mi.) ' 0 ° 99 22525525255722'525522 :53 ----2---- l_199 I... “HRIEIEIIIEEE: I!i!i!IlI§I§:EiE§ I 5055 iiIil is iIi Hi i! IliiiiiIE ixiiiii 2—4.99 ‘u "hiézaluunggfi? 5-8-99 ':.:::::::%;:%=%=%:;:a II"II l;§::!.!.!s () m .i fluvial. L 000.0000. 9 + ‘ ' miles '"n' Figure 14. 106 cases, were most dense in the more populated townships. The Irish were also the second ranking foreign-born group in Sanilac and Huron counties, but their numbers were small. Population Distribution 1860 The population of the Thumb region was enumerated at 37,368 in 1860. St. Clair County was the most populous and numbered 26,604 individuals. Sanilac County reported 7,599 persons. Huron County, which was finally organized in 1859, embodied 3,165 inhabitants. St. Clair County embodied the largest total and was the most densely populated county. Population was concentrated in the townships fronting on the St. Clair River, Lake Huron, and Lake St. Clair. The county ave- raged 38.27 persons per square mile. There were twenty-one organized townships in 1860 and those situated on the eastern and southern borders of the county were unst densely populated (see Figure 15). Port Huron was the most densely populated of all townships in the Thumb, equalling 150.04 persons per square mile including 22 per cent of all St. Clair County residents. Incorporated as a city in 1857, Port Hu- ron enumerated 4,371 inhabitants in four wards which accounted for 74 per cent of the township and 16 per cent of the county population. St. Clair Township reported 72.39 persons per square mile, and its high density is explained by development at the city of St. Clair which was incorporated in 1858 and made up 47 per cent of the township population. Cottrell- ville, which included the village of Newport, later incorporated as Marine City, contained 70.16 persons per square mile. East China, Ira, Clay, China, and Burtchville townships respectively, exceeded the average county density. The least populated townships occupied the western and north- western sections of the county. Lynn Township reported a density of only 107 HE THUMB REGION I860 POPULATION DENSITY (PO! sq. mi.) u... :“0 00;... Z. ' u. I . ' UIUIIIIO I 20.49... boots-I. ....'..l.l 0.0000. ..Iblh.) 0 I o '10- I I \lll‘ I 00 I IIOIII! III. 0 ”tun-Hon...“ a O u Inno- ”Inn..." 0 M|LE S ,. "”"mnziiiro II I “lllll OIIIIII I. 00 III!» I. 00 III. II I III to "nun-Inuunnnauu IHIIII. . . .0100... Igpt....§‘. ‘....' ..500 ' """"'"‘"”"°' NIH-......g". . ...-...... . ION. ‘ '0 "win..." III!!! I .0 I OIIIIOII .IIIIUOC 0000.0.0.‘ iii)!!!“ ”3"“IEIIII CI'K Figure 15. 108 6.24 people per square mile. Sanilac County included fifteen organized townships and averaged 7.90 persons per square mile. Examination of Figure 15, population density of Sanilac County in 1860, reveals that the densest areas were situated along the shoreline of Lake Huron. The large size of Austin, Marion, Bridge- hampton, washington, and Elk townships indicate only slight settlement. Lexington Township was the most densely populated at 53.33 persons per square mile and development at the city of Lexington, incorporated 1855, probably accounted for the high density. worth and Sanilac were the next in density with 31.82 and 29.80 persons per square mile respectively. For- ester, Speaker, and Delaware townships also exceeded the average density. Huron County was organized into nine townships by 1860 and averaged only 3.78 persons per square mile. Only Sebewaing Township was organized with its contemporary dimensions, Figure 15, and reported 17.05 persons per square mile. The remaining townships were to be reduced in areal ex- tent as population increase warranted. Little settlement took place away from.the coast by 1860. Rubicon, Huron, Dwight, and White Rock townships included densities larger than the county average. Dwight reported the greatest number of settlers probably owing to activities focusing on Port Austin and Grindstone City. Distribution of Foreign-Born Enumerated as foreign-born were 18,070 inhabitants of the Thumb, equalling 48 per cent of the total population. St. Clair County tallied 11,737, Sanilac 4,478, and Huron County reported 1,855 foreign-born inhab- itants. Foreign-born residents equalled 44 per cent of the population of St. Clair County. Both Sanilac and Huron counties reported more foreigners than natives with 59 per cent of their population consisting of foreign- 109 an «o «m mm «H ... am an ... mmu ... nae sum: HmH on HoH mHH He om ... Hem ms ... HNH ... Ham.H aHemasoa eHH How sum as wH mo.~H Hmm Hs wH.a~ Hom.H mm.HH HHH.m HHuHo .um mu Hm m sH Nu ~e.m oHN om em.H «mm wo.m~ was HoHHm «Hm Ham HHn Hm ea ... mmH.H Hm ... aH~.~ .... HHm.e sHHu Hauoa em on aoH om mm ... sum as ... was .... mHo.H same ass as HeH No on on ... com em ... «so .... oo~.H can: sum He ca oH as am ... mma as ... awe .... was was: ecu aH mHH so we ow ... Hon em ... «No .... HmH.H sum: umH so oHH Hm on mN ... one He ... GNH .... «mm.H aHemssoa owu Hon men mm cu HH.mm mem.H on mw.eH mea.~ so.omH moo.m nous: uuom mH m as He Ha a~.m HHH es oe.m NaH Hm.~H ems amass: mm oH m mm Hm om.H as He mm.~ ma e~.e mum :aaH cu Ho oH mo Hm HH.H HoH me He.oH Hmm on.m~ mam HHmneHe mu HHH HH as on mH.H wHN co oo.mH ems mH.HN wHH masseuse .. o~ as as aH mw.HH «Hm me Hs.mu «Hm mm.~o omH.H .HH oH He 0H nH Ha mm.H sea as so.oH Hon ma.oH «mm consummuo e GHN «H mm on No.4 moH so mm.HH mus mo.wH Geo usuaam H mH HH on mH H~.~H Hm on mm.e~ eHH ee.we me meHeu swam cs Ha «a an HH ~H.H on mm o~.m~ mom GH.oH Ham.H 0HHH>HH838 es oHH wH Hm Hm Ho.e QHN He mo.HH ems ma.w~ Hmo.H maeasHou Hm HH Hm oH Hm Hw.m mam me Hm.mH mom mm.Hm muH.H oeHHu as aH m «a «H mn.o osH nu HH.oH New mm.ms Hmo.H H....Ho mm em mum eH m m~.~ mH an om.mH cum mm.o¢ oem.H .aHeo nH .. sus «H H oH.~ wH Hm wH.HH mHo mm.om swo.H cause Na am H «H an Hm.mH eoH mm mo.H~ Hmm em.am ocm.H oHHH>euuusm Hm Hm m NH on so.H oHN Hm Ho.oH HHm ~H.HH eeH Hmaxooum Hm e N on mH s~.e emH mu om.H omH em.m~ omo.H cHHHom .aom .aom .aom .m.m Hmuoa huHm .aom Hmuoa huHm .aom huHm .aom Qwsmnsoa .mau euHuH .Hoo we a we a -cmn .amo «0 H -ame .m.m -awe Hmuoa oowH "HHmmzzos an onemm exams may no oneaesmom zmomuzUHmmom .aa mamNNN0 N HH NNH NN HH NN.N NN NH HN.N NNN NN.N NNN .aNeNeHN NNN NoN NNN NN cs NH.N oNo.N NN NN.N NHe.q NN.H NNN.H Nuance NNHHaNN NN oN N NN Ne NN.NH NNN NN NN.NH NNN NN.HN NNN.H HN.N: oN NN .. Ne HN NN.N NN NN Ho.H NoH HN.H NHH :oHNcHemmz NH oN .. NH Ne NN.N NNH NN HN.N NNH NN.N HNN NNNNNNN HN oH oNH NN NN NN.N NNN HN NN.HH NNN NN.NN NNN.H NNHHcNN N oN N Na HN NN.H NN NH HN.N HNH HN.N HNH NHHNHHNz HH N oH NH Ne NN.N HN HH HN.N NNH HN.H HNH aoHNNz N HH .. oN NN NN.N NN HN NN.N HoH HN.N NNH NNHHN> NHHN: NN NN NN NH Ne NN.NN HHN em NN.NN NNH.H NN.NN eNo.N couNeHxNH NH HN .. HH Ne NN.N NNH NN NN.N NNH NN.N NNN uacamum NN NH N NN NN NN.N NNH HN HN.N NHN NN.NH NHN NNHNNNNN NH NH .. NH HN NN.H HHH HN NH.N NNH NH.N NNN NHN cs NN NN Ne oN NH.N NNH NN HH.N oHN NN.N NNN NHNNNHNN N N H NN Ha NN.H oH NN HN.N NoH NN.N NHH HNNN NH NN N NH Ne NN.N NNH NN NN.H NNH NN.N NNN eoHNaNeNNNHNN Ne NN NH Ne NN NN.N HNH NH NN.N NNN NN.N Nos cHHmsa NNN NoH.H NNH.H NN NN NH.N HHo.N es NN.NH HNH.HH HN.NN NNN.NN Hucsoo NHNHo.HN N Na HH NN NH NH.N NNH NN NN.H HNN NN.NN NoN NNHms NH ooH NNH HN NH .. NHN NN .. NNN .. NNe.H NHHN Hmuoe NN NN HN NN NH .. HNH NN .. NNN .. NNN Nun: NNN .mom .aom .aom .m.m Hmuoa NHHN .aom Hmuoe muHm .aom muHm .aom awcmnaoe .Nem HNHHH .Nmo N0 N No N -ame .amo N0 N -eme .N.H -cmn Hmuoe A.e.ucoov NH mHman 111 .Hosusm he voHHnEoo Hoousom mus «ea wmo mq mm 00.0 Now on NN.N nmm.H wn.m moH.m mumaoo douam ma NH «0 Hm wH Nn.o me am Hm.~ NON o~.¢ Nam xoom muHaz .aom .aom .aom .m.m amuoe Nufim .aom Hmuoe NUHm .aom hufim .aom awamssoH .Nem NNHHH .Nmu N0 N N0 N meme .cmo N0 N -ame .m.e .ama Hmuoa "H H A.N.Ncoov NH mamas 112 born. Table 14 reviews the total, foreign-born, Canadian and selected foreign-born group numbers, densities, and ratios by county and township. The foreign-born density pattern varies somewhat frmm that mani- fested by the total population in St. Clair County (see Figure 16). The average density of foreigners was 16.88 per square mile compared to 38.27 per square mile population density. Only seven townships surpassed the average foreign-born density, while eight exceeded the average population density. Port Huron Township included the largest density of foreign- born with 74.83 per square mile. The city of Port Huron represented 18 per cent of the county foreign-born and 79 per cent of the foreign-born in the township. St. Clair Township reported 29.78 foreign-born per square mile. Ira Township, although ranked fifth in population density, accounted for 28.47 foreign-born per square mile. East China, Cottrellville, Burtch- ville, and Casco were the remaining townships which reported densities above the county average. Nine townships exceeded the 44 per cent foreign-born of total popu- lation for the county. Six of the nine reported total population densi- ties less than the county average, implying that foreign-born persons ac- counted for greater percentages of the total in the more recently settled portion of the county. Emmett and Greenwood townships recorded 66 and 62 per cent of their inhabitants as foreigners, respectively. Burtchville and Brockway enumerated more than half of their population as foreign-born. Others exceeding the county average were Port Huron, Ira, Clyde, and Kim! ball. The average density of foreign-born in Sanilac County stood at 4.65 per square mile compared to the 7.90 per square mile population density (see Figure 17). The foreign-born were distributed in a pattern similar 113 -:- . . : IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11;: .25§2§.5 55- IIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIII nkfiLIN IIIII IIIIIIIII RILEY III IIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIII III ST. CLAIR COU NTY 1860 DENSITY OF THE FOREIGN-BORN (per sq. mi.) ......... 0—1.99 2-4.99 IIIIIIIII IIIIJIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII 5—8.99 222222222 22254322! 222030322 222222253 .9-19.99 000000000 20—29.99 30+ .- =. 222222: 0 ..-.- EIEIII2: EEEIEE2E3 EIEE:E 3.32 EEiEEEEIE EEEEEEIEEEEEEEIEI3EE EEEIEIEIEIEIEifiEEEIEE 0000000000 !EEEEEEI§E§§IE 22 32 '22! a O C . isialiiliialltliillii 0000000000000000.00000000 3 "' 2'2 "!I' 2 0000000000000000000 000000 .EE!!E-IIE I III I! 0 - - - - 4 IIEIEIEIEIEIEEEIIIEEE 00000000000000000000000000 '2323333333232'232'12 00000000000000000000000000 '32-322-13232 i3. '35 0000000000000000000.000000 2222 00000000 “0000 E23 ------- LYNN '3‘ 3- SE: EEIIE UROCKIAV EEE E;Ei3E GREENHOOU iii! 00000000 UUNTCHVILLE 000000 ..................... i.iiggggggg§igggg§..g E:§!§§Iiiii3!§‘:8:i3 ........................... ‘ "" ' “ "‘ " ‘ ‘ " ' 0 0 00 0000000 III 000 ..................... 55.555555555533555555 i:g§§§3§§§.§§!!§33§3 0.00 0 00 0 0 0 ' ' ' " ' '°° 0 00 0000 000 00000 2 :EIEIIEEIEIIEEEIIIEE 0000000000 0 0 o u " " " 00000 0 0 00000 EEEIIEEEIIIEIIIEIEEE 00000000000000 0 0 00 EIEEEEEEEEE EIEIEIEIEIEIEEEEEIIEE 000000000 EEEEIEIEIElliiEEIEE! 0000000000 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i':§i=§'il="35’i‘§'i EEEEEEEE E- .iiiilai3. E32 22220503323313222322 00000000000 III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII §=§§i§ oiiiiiEEEiEEEEEi !-:--3-EI'!§EEIIE E23 Iiiiflliiliiliiiiifili IIIICIII'II IIIIIIIII IIII §§§EIE§E EEEE EEEEIEE 2220 IiEiili 2230!! 00000000... IIIIIIIII ILSSEV III-I EEEEEI: kHNEIT 25222 2252233 KFNOCKEE 2280 2832023 CL'DD ;§i§i§ ....DD...... IIIIIIIII IIIII £5 25221 iEi i: 35!!!! .52 5 2225020 ”2 it! I. ..IIIDDDI...' III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3.3222. 322: 52 232352222 EEIE2E2322253E5203222 522 20202820203552222 II'IIIDDIDIDI. III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SEE 52252223523222}? 2 [3 '22 332222 .22222222322 25230282 °I§§2§§220322 00.0....I'DD'UD IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2222222212335322132; 222352222222222222222 15220202222205222222 IIIDIIIDIIIIIDI success-I-acnnnuuounuu EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEIIEEEEEEIEEEEEIEEEE EEEEIEIEIEIEEEEEEEEE I 0 I '00! 00000 I EIEIIIEIEIEIIIEEIIEEI 0 I EIEIEIEIEIEEIEEEEEEE! 00000000000000 EiEIi-EIEIEIIIIIEEIEI IIIIIIIIIICIDII EEEIEIEIEIEIEEEIEEEE! 00000000000000. EEEIEIEIEIEIEEIIEEEEI 00000000000000 EEEIEIE EEEEE 0000000000000 EEEIEIE IIKUALL 3222! 00000000000 EE: 'IEII IEEE 2 0000000000 EEE ““““ E! 00000000 EEEIEIE IEIEEII!IIIEE. -2 0000000 ”0 2E 2E E2;: 2:22 E2: -2 000000 IIIIII IALPS IIIIII IIIIII Illllllllulll IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII EE! 00000 0000 00000000000000. III 000000000000000000090 00 000000000000000000000 000 000000000000000000000 0000 E 000.0..00000000000000 :E-E 000.0.9 0.000. ' 5 0000000 S‘III ctain 0000000 EIE E 00.0.0 0.0.000 =.I£.= 0000000000000000000.000000 Io.IIIIIIIIOIIIUIIIIIIIIO EEEEEEEIEEEIE :22: 'EEIEI;2 -522 E ...... 2 00.00000000000000000000 0.000000000000000000000 33223222333222 EEEEIEEEEIEE 3E EIEIEI: 'IEI2 H233 EE IEI..I2E...EI..E-E 000 EIEIEIEiEi=2222.E: 000 EEiEIE 2222' '32 222 E3 .222 0000 i: 'I: ”III EIEEE EE IEIEI LHINA EEEEE IA)! EIEIEI 22222 CHINA :i2iE2EiEEEIEE EIEIEIEIEEEEEEEEE 3222E22IEEIIEE EEIEIEIEIEIEIEEEE! 00000 EEIEEEIEE EEIEEEIEIEIEEEIEE 0000 iiEEIEEEEiiEE EEIEIEIEIEEIEEIEE 0000 EIEEEIEIEEEIEE EEIEIEIEIEééiEEEE 000 00000000000000 00000000000000000000. 000 000000 0.000000000000000000. 000 in. 000000 000 00 000 000000 000 LOIYNELLVILLE 0 00000000000000 000 0000000000 00.000000000000000 000000000 00.000000000000000 0000 00.00000000000000 0000 0 .5555I555255555 EEEEE -i= E:E ::85 E if 32EE EIEE ensco EEEEEE 55 52 NE. EEIEEEIEIEIEIEEIE EEIEEEIEIEIEIEEIEIEE 02212220! 222152! EEEIEEEEIE CLAV 2222!!! E! EEEEEEEIE III!!! E 5!! EEE IIIEIEIEEEEEI ii EEEIEIEIEEEEE EIEIEIIEE E! I! IEEEEEEEEEIEIEIE I!!! I I IEEEEEEEEEIIIEIEIE I E E2 IEEEEEE EEIEIEIEIEE I IEEEEEIIIEIEI! El IEEEEEEEEEIEIEIE I I! IEEIEEIEIEI I! EEEEEIII I! 2222!. IIEIIIEIIII III IYNA' Figure 16. 114 ....‘C.....------.-.--...-.-.-...--..-.D...-...-..-....-OOOQQOCO AUSYIN 02000200000022222020220222 0000020000ISIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 00000002000022022220220002 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIII: IIIIIIIIII uhLAIARE IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII 000.00.00.000.000000000000000.0.030000000000000000000' 0.....00..00.0000000000000000'000000.0...0.......0.0000.0000.00000.0.0.0...IO'00000000 ...." It..IIIIIII..-...o.........o.0..ol.c........0.0......-....I.........0.0.0....-........ II'Uli' 00..0000.0000000000000000I000000000000II.I.........0000.000I.000000000000000'0000000000 II'II“ o0..0000.0IIIIIIIIIIo.IIIIIIIOIIIOI-IIII....III....I00'.000oo000I0I0000I000oI00.00... """.- ....000..00000.0.0.......-.............. ..........0 c 0 a..0.0.0.0..o....... 'l0'Il"I 000..0000'000000000.0....I..000...-00.... V‘D’ON ....00..000..000.000000000000'0.00... ......" 00...0000.000000000000000000000000000.0g0 .....nc.0........o..000.0-0.0000I.... .-"'3"' ..o......o....o..............-I...u.o..................... .......-..0.0.I-0..---.~..- ""'33.I v.0..ounugoco.................n...o.-...............oo u.......o.....0.0.0.o..-...-... '3 :00..00000000000a....... .....0...0.0..... ......g...0 . 0000.0000000000000000’000000‘ "ORFSYE" ......o..0009-c.o.o.........-.0...-......, ... ....... ... ..........'-'--.°..u.......' III'II..'8. ......0.......................o....... . o ...-......0 . . a .00. 0.00.0.0 0.0'0 00.. -"'3"..3' v.0..00000000000000.00.0000.000000IIIII...II.000.II.II 0 0 0 o 0 .00300000000030 00 I I...:.8..-. ..0..000.III......0......-..000-000..... . ........... . . 0 . 00 ...0.0.000.00. 0 .. ."'3.'."‘. 0'0..0000.00000000000000000000'000 00. 0 ..I .... 00 . ...... 00 ...0.0-0.0..I. ..... ‘IU'IIS'jllI o.I...o.-00.................noo... .o. . . ... . ...... . . ... ...0.0.o....0. 0 . 33"3"..'3' 0.0..00000000000000000 0 000000000 .. .... ..... .. ...0.0.I 0.00. I... '..'3."""- ......I............ ......... .........“R1UG§H0-pYO~ .. ..... 0.....0.0.I.0..-.-.- . ..0..000.|II......0...00....000..00. .0 ... 0 .00. n.0000.0 0.-°. 00... EEEE:E§EEEEE§E 0.0..0000.000000000I0000000.000 .. . .. . g . .. .. ooooo o .00. ...0-0.0 0.... . . :EEEEE=EEEEE:§ 000..0000|00000I0.0..IIIII.. ......o .. ... .... ..... u o. . .. ...0.0.0 0..-. 0.... 52555555555552: UIOIIIOOOIIOOOOOOIOIIOI00-00 '0 0000 o ...o .0 0 .0. 0 00000 0 0 30.0000-0-33000' 0 :2222222255252: III..000-IIIIII.III.........000 .- 0 . . 0 ..0 .. 00 0 0 . 0 0000~0~0 0.03 00... 2555:;EEEEéEEEEE 2222252222222222 .--.'.'....."'..’." I .....0...o .... . ... .....I 0 o . 0. 0.00.0.0 0 0'. 0 EEEEEEiEEEEE:EEE .-......'.'- ....... 0 ... 000.00 000......0 ......I ....... g 00 n.0020-0 1 0'0 0 EEEEEEEEEEEEéEEE ......-""' """"" . ...-.0 ... .. .... .. ....... .... .00. ...0.0.0 0 ----- . .. 22:2 S‘~2L‘C 222 '°"°"""’33" 33333 . . ........ ....... .. .. . . ..... ...... .....u.. 0 . . .. 22:: 2:2 -"...."...-'-. ..... ...-..Io' ...-........ . .. .00. .....0.0 0 nnnnn 0 .. EEEEEE:EEEEE:E:E ------------ --------- ... ................. . .. ..s~1~cvo~ . .. .......... . . .. 5555:52522525555 --......-.~. ....... 0.0..000 00-00..... ..... .00. ...0.0.0 0 0 0 0 :§EE:§§EEEEEEEEE§ .....- .... ... .00300000000II. ...-0...... ..o 00.300 ...-Or! 0 uuuuu . . EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ""..' P‘“Lt1'b """ u. . 0 .0. .. ... ..0........ ......00. ..0.0.0 0 ..... . . 5222222222222225 "'"" """ ......00........... ... ......0 .......00 ..0.0.0 0 . . .. é§55553555éEEEE§ ......."".'... """" 00000000000000000000 .0 0.00 '0 0 3 300°' '°".'." ' “““ ' " iaaséaiiisééiéia -.------.---------- ----------- ------ -------- .---- ------------- - -------- ----- ------- ouneeneeeeeaaanunuaue .........-..-.....-.-- --------- -------- ----- .-. --------------- . --- ----- ----- ------- oooueaeeaeaeeaeanoaueu --------.------------ -.-- ------- ------------------------- ------ --------------- ----- 0000000060000000000000 ---.---..------------ --.------------- ------- - ------------------ --- ----- ------------ 0900000000000000000000 --------------------- ------- ----------—-----------------~-- ------ . ----- ----- ------- 0900000000000000009000 .-------.------------ --- ------ .---------- ...... ..--....-.- -------- . ----- 0000000 000 -- -..-....-....--..-.- ELI .-...---... ----- - -------- 00£L 3-03-- 0000000 LIIINUYON 000 -------------------- --------~----.--- -------- - ----- 0000000 000 ---------------------------------.-------- --------------- ----- 0000000000000000000000 ....--..---.....-.-..-..............-..... --------------- ----- 0000000800006000006000 0 5 00000000000000.0000000 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 | | --------------------- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -°'-----'-°3°3'33‘33 2222222222222222222222 ----------°-3-------- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -------~3-'-'-3--333 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE . ---------------------- ...-..............-. ----------'--------- Issssszasesiagzagiaasg ff}||(3§; ----- ----------------- ...-.........--...-- -----------------—-- EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIEE ------ -- IIIIII IIIII ------ --33- IE2222222 E222222 ------ 00PLE VALLEV -- ...... IDEAKEH 0.0-I ------ FIFHONY ----- EEEEEEEEE 00910 EEEEEEEE ------ -- IIIIII IIIII ------ 33333 EEEIEEEEE 22222222 - ----- -°-----3---3---- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUI! --3----3'-3-333 ----- EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIEEIEEIE --------...-.--..-.--. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0333-33 3°33 33333 EEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 3 333333 ----3-3333333-3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~33-33-3'3333-333333 2EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIE 33---------3-3---3-3-- clans-00200200003080 - 3333333 333-3-- ----- EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE '3---------°°----3 3-- IIIIIIIIIIIII0IIIIII --'-----'-3-'3'33‘33 22222222222222222222222222 SANILAC COUNTY 1860 DENSITY or THE FOREIGN-BORN (per sq. mi.) '000t.000 222222222 222202222 I222222II 222222222 0-1.99 9-19.9 2—4.99 000000000 000000000 000020000 20+ IIIIIIIII IIIIJIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 5—8.99 C0’K Figure 17. 115 to the total population. Townships situated along the coast accounted for the largest densities, and Lexington Township provided the most dense area of foreign-born. The same sizatownships that contained population densi- ties greater than the county average also reported more than average for- eign-born densities. Foreign-born persons accounted for 59 per cent of the total popula- tion of Sanilac County. well over one-half the residents were born out- side the United States. Each township contained more than one-half of its total as foreign-born and nine exceeded the county average. Of these nine townships, only Delaware was above the county average density for total and foreign-born. Corresponding to, although more dramatic, the pattern in St. Clair County--foreigners made up significantly greater proportions of the settlers in the sparsely and more recently settled townships. At least three of every four residents of Maple Valley, Austin, and Marlette townships were foreign-born. 'More than two of every three in Marion, Fre- mont, and Elk were foreigners. Washington, Delaware, and Buel townships reported over 60 per cent foreign-born. The foreign-born density pattern in Huron County was commensurate to that of the total population but averaged only 2.22 per square mile. Sebe- waing reported 9.98 foreign-born per square mile and provided the densest foreign-born area. Foreigners accounted for 59 per cent of the population. Only Sand Beach and Caseville townships reported less than 50 per cent for- eigners. Bingham, Dwight, and Huron townships exceeded the county average. Distribution of Canadians Over one-half of all foreign-born persons residing in the Thumb area in 1860 were born in Canada. Canadians numbered 9,933, contributed 26 per cent of the inhabitants, and accounted for 55 per cent of the foreign-born 116 population. St. Clair County reported 6,071, Sanilac 3,060 and Huron tal- lied 802 Canadians. Although St. Clair County reported the greatest number of Canadians, its ratio of Canadians to total population was only 23 per cent. Sanilac and Huron reported 40 and 25 per cent respectively. Canad- ians in Sanilac County accounted for 68 per cent of all foreign-born resi- dents. Canadians in St. Clair accounted for 52 per cent of the foreign- born while 43 per cent of the foreign-born were Canadians in Huron County. Canadians numbered 8.73 persons per square mile in St. Clair County. The density pattern of Canadians by township is not in complete agreement with that of either the total population or foreign-born (see Figure 18). While eight townships surpassed the average density of population and seven exceeded the average foreign-born density, only six townships reported Ca- nadian densities in excess of the county average. As expected, Port Huron Township recorded the greatest density of Canadians. Burtchville, ranked eighth in total and sixth in foreign-born density, was second to Port Huron Township. East China and Ira townships ranked next in density. Clyde Town- ship, although reporting below average total and foreign-born densities, in- cluded 9.81 Canadians per square mile. Nine of the twenty-one townships reported greater than average Canad- ian ratios to total population. More than one-third of the residents in Greenwood, Burtchville, Kenockee, and Brockway townships and over one-fourth of Clyde, Kimball, Mussey, Port Huron, and Emmett townships were born in Canada. All nine townships are situated in the northern portion of the county and seven are in the interior. There were fourteen townships which reported more than the county average Canadian per cent of foreign-born. In Burtchville, Riley, Greenwood, Brockway, Clyde, Kimball, and wales town- ships more than two of every three foreigners were Canadians. It would ap- pear that Canadians made up greater proportions of the population in the 117 -..-...0. LVN” .---n- --.-...0. .-.--- --.-....--couoouqoocu sssssussssssssssssss: ssssssssssssssssssssg sssssasssslssssssssss ssssgssssssssssssssss ssssugsssssssssssssss sssssssss ssss ssssgusss HLSStY sssss III'IIIII s:sss asassgssssssssssssssss sssssnssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssss sssssussssssssssssssss [8383.883383038888883 :lltflgllllIiiltllflxll : I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I llntlfltlallllilltIllt astiggzlltlflltllltalt ssssssss sssss :s-ssnss “chglu ssss. t‘liflgll Iltll assassssssssissssssss sass-35ssssssssssssss asnlnusxsslltsllllltc ISIIIIIISIIIIIIIIIIII sasssslllsllssslssssl ssssssss sssss sssssll EHHQYY ssssl ssssssl sssss :ssssslsssssssssssss sasszssssssslsssssss ssssssssssssssssssss sssssssslssssssszs5s ,------—..----_-.-- ------_------- ——--- ----.---A--- -------- ..... 55: “XLEV 55555 ST. CLAIR COU NTY 1860 DENSITY OF CANADIANS (per sq. mi.) ...-X's.- 0...... ...-2..-. 12:31:11 LIIIIIIIII‘ 0—0.99 1—139 2—4.99 5-8.99 9—19.99 20+ ---.--cu III III III III II “I on I" u. I. OOOOOIOOOOOUOOBOOOOOO GGOBOIDIOUBUGOOOODOBG OOOGOIOIBOOIOUGBBOOBO eeoee~0ueoaueoaeeoeae GOOGOUOUOIOIIOBOOdOBO 08800000 88080000 BUNTCNVILLE 98090000 aesea-euovovooeeeooee eeaeaoooeuouooeeeaoea OOOOOIOIOIOIOOGBBOOOO 0060 90800 80860 60080 90600 008000 608880 08600. 800800 6.9800 OOeROBSO ---------o----—------o ssssssssssssgsssssssss slsssssssssssssssslsss ssssggsxssssussssussss sssssslsssssssssssslss slsssssss ssssss ssslssssl CAQCO lsslss sssssssss ssslss ssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssss-lssssslss ssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssgsssusssss sssssslsssssssssssssss IDIOQIIIOII 000.00 000000.800. IRA 9&9300 IIOOQIIOOII 006809 .0000. OIIIOIGIOUGUOO I DISORDOIOB IOIQOGiOO 0000 -- -- ccccccc GIGIIIOIOIGIOOIOGIBBOBIUGIIIII IBIOIIOIOIIIOBHQSIOGI IIIIIIIII eoeaoseoenaseaaeeeeee IIIIIIIIII eeeeueoeuouoeeaseeeo IIIIIIOIII , seasoeaeoeseaaeeeaeo IIIIIIIIIII 55555555§5§§§5§:: :2: BSBG'BIGIIIBOBUBUBBO IIIIIIIIIII 5555555 555 OGBOIOI 08'690 IIIIIIIIIII 5555555 KtNOClbk 555 990000. LLVDE 080880 IIIIIIIIIIII 5555555 555 BOGOIOU 680890 IIIIIIIIIIIII 55555555555555555"55 ORGOUO'BUBUBOBOGOBGQ IIIIIIIIIIIIII 55555555555555522525: OOOOIOIOUOUSUBUGODOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 55555555555555555555‘ OBOOUI'BIOUOUBGOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 55555555555555555555: OGBOIOIOUBIBIGBBQBOO I I | DUHI ~L~nn I E assssssssssssssssssls EEEIE: 5555555555 I I = slllsllsIIBIsI=III=ll 55585: IIIIIIIIIIIIII E ssssssssssxsslttlllii 55585: IIIIIIIIIIIIIII E llslsxssllslsllISIS'l 555:5: IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 :ssssssssltlsl838833' 555=5=" IIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 ssssssss lsslll 555:5z- IIIIIIIIIIIII 5 sassslsl aALC3 Iss=ll 555:5: IIIIIIIIIII : ssssssss I:IIII 555:5:5 IIIIIIIIII E ssssssssssasssssssttl 555:5:5:5 IIIIIIII 3 ssssxssssssssssssslll 55535:5:5 IIIIIII E slssssstssssuszssssls 555353525 ’’’’ IIIIII 5: ssssssssszsussssslll 555858585 IIIII E; sssssssssssgssssslss 55585: IIII one-aduueuaeauo Ill =555?55§5555?555555:5 Dee's-nuasaevesaeeaun ll =555=§§§E£§§§é§§§§555 oeosoonueoaaeuoaanauo Ill ;:§§=5§§§55§§§E:E§5:§ noose-useuauuoaoenena 'lll =§§5=E§55555§55555555 neaunsusesnuuanunuana 55555555 5:5 880.0.“ "”9805 5555;555 COLUHUUS 5:5 OUODIIO Silk! CLAIH Bufiuiuu 55555555 5:55 OOIIIO OUOUGUQ §5§a=§555555§555555:55 aasnonsnsaeeaeuaeneausauna 5555555555555555555555 08.0.9.000UUOOUUUHUUUGeBH 5555555555555555555:55 OBIIIHIGIOBOOGGUOIUIUQUI 5555555555555555555'55 BOIIICIIIIOUQOUOOIUIHOO OOIOIRUOUOOUUBUOOOUUHHU 0688 salstslslsllssslss sllsflssslsstssssssss has sslslslslsslasssssss IUD IIIsIslslsstssssss:s 9989 sllslsi slsss sssslss LMINA sssss :A)Y sslslsl sssss culws III-IIIIISIIstIsI sslsosssssssssssss IUIUI sslssssslsssssss: 0680 sslssssssssssssss any. ssIslsIslsstssssg BOD 55s5s5s5s555555555555 55s5z5sis5555555'555: 55: 55 55s COTYuétLVILLt 5 55: 55:5:5555555555555 55s5s5s55555555555 55s5s5s5s55555555 5555 55 5 0 5 55;; l arrJ Svnsr Figure 18. 118 less densely populated townships. Canadians, in most cases, far outnum- bered other foreign-born groups in the less densely settled townships--par- ticularly those in the interior. However, no township reported more Ca- nadian than native-born inhabitants. In 1860, Sanilac County numbered 3.18 Canadians per square mile. The distribution of the density of Canadians by township corresponds to the pat- terns manifested by both the total and foreign-born populations (see Figure 19). However, only five townships exhibited Canadian densities greater than the county average while six exceeded the total and foreign-born av- erages. Lexington, Worth, Sanilac, Forester, and Speaker townships re- corded more than the average density. Nine of the fifteen townships exceeded the 40 per cent Canadian to total pOpulation ratio of the county. Maple Valley and Elk townships actu- ally numbered more Canadians than natives and reported 65 and 50 per cent respectively. Marion, Speaker, Bridgehampton, Delaware, Lexington, Worth and Buel exceeded the county average. Canadians accounted for 68 per cent of all foreign-born in the county and nine townships surpassed the mean. More than three of every four foreigners were Canadian in Worth, Maple Valley, Lexington, Speaker, and Elk townships. At least two of every three foreigners were Canadian in Bridgehampton, Fremont, Marion, and Forester townships. The lowest ratio of Canadians to foreign-born was 45 per cent in Austin Township. Canadians were the dominant group and were a signifi— cant factor in the pOpulation of each township. Canadians outnumbered na- tives in two sparsely populated townships, but the more densely pOpulated townships, as well, reported significant numbers of Canadians. Canadians dominated other foreign-born groups in the interior areas of Sanilac County as well as along the coast. Huron County was still in its first stages of occupance in 1860, and sVnav 1519 I'Is'IIIOOIIIc-ooo .0. sssosossl 00s. I...IIIIIII.OI.IO. 0". IOIIIOIOOOOss O‘DOCIIIIOOIIIsssI Oiggooosoolsloesss so..IsssIIsossssss so..000ssoosolssss .0..sssssecsssooss ....IIIOIIIIssssss OCusIOOIOOOOIIosss I...IIIIIIIOIOIOII II..usoss-ssovssss ...:IOIIOIIIICOOII OIggllcsosocIssosv ......IOOOI ...... .....OIOIIIIIICOO' ......IOIIIIOO'IID O°ggosssosssssgsss so...IIIIOOOosIsIss I'O.Iosssos-I0soos s.I..IoI-Istsstssso IsO..OIIsIIIoeIssss ssI..sss-sssssasns ssI..O.l ssoosossso 0.0..ssssgssssossss ..I..OOI goose-o. s .....IIICIIIIIIIIII ssI...IOIIOQIIIoO-I sgs..sssseoesoussso 0.0..IIOIIJOI'OQIII ss'OlIsssssss-Isv v .....IOIIIIIIIIOIOI sO...IIIOIss-I009I 0.0..ssasssosscsa s .....IIOOOOOD sass sOsssssoQIsoII. . ---...O.-.‘.~Io.---- rAkLtllf miles J a ......III IIsI‘...s 000...... .0000...” . ........... . -- III... OI Oil. :=:::::ss:ss:ss:ssss :=::::s:sssssssls:s: :::::ss:sss:sssss:s: :ssssssssss -sssss:s as:: V. s8 :55: NAPLr VALLEY 3' ass: as =::::ss:slss:sssssss esssssssslslssssssss :::::sssssss:ssss:ss :s::::s:s8ss:sszs:s= sssssassssss:sszssss SANILAC COUNTY 1860 so o.ssso..ssnsos.oos IIOIsslI'ssssIOIs.sIO too-oss-so 0000...... ......sososososos.sas ...-sssosssssssos.sos ssgssssss..osssos.sos Cocossssogssgslfls.oso ans-sssss. sgsII?.sIs ss.sssoso..s.IIIs.lIo ...-......sssofi‘tsII' IIOIssssssgsssIIs.sos casc...os.ossson-.s-v so s.osos.sss II. socssssOsslIs o o 0 I I I a a I o s g o s u I O s . s I s ' I I s s I o s s s I s s I I s s s O I s s s I s I s s s s s O I s . a o I I I s I I I . s s s s I s . I I ‘ 0 s s s I s s I s U I I . s I I ' 0 a s I s I s I o I s . s I s ' I soooIosIsoI s so. I s I s I o e o s v I I s . s s s s O s s I I 0 I s s I I s g s 0 IIIII I o 0.00 as II 0.0 0 Icon. to. s. I s s s . III .s s s u I III I ass 0 .sI .s s 0 I I o s s I o o s I one IsOllggo I I I Fl‘ --. ....... o ...... :s:::sssssssssssssss ss:sssss:ss:=s:sssss ssssssssssssssssgsss :s:sssssssssss:sssss ssssss sssss ssssss sutsabd sssss ssssss sssas ss:sssssssssssssssss :s:s:sssssssssssssss :sssssssesssssssssss :ssssssssssssszsesss IIISIIS=IIIIII88888I ,.,.. sslslslslstlsssagssssss::s ..,,. ..Illulslullssllnssss:ssas ..., filial-Ills0385ssasssssss:3 ..... ..lslllslslflsslassssssslss .... Iss'slslssssssssssssssssass use. IjillllI'I IIISSSI .... ssssssssss UhLlH‘RE sssssss .... ssslslslll assassss ..., assist-lslssla:ssggsssssssss ..., lgaIII-IIIBI=::tl..:=l:ll:tl ..., asallIslslsstssssggsszsssszs ..., sssOslsIIIsszzesssssssssssss sss'slslllssBssssssrssssssss .oco.-.aooo.o-I.s-u o-.... ..ICOOOOIIIOI'Igl IIIIOOQI 'IIIIIII'IIIIIIII 0 0' ..l' ICOIIIIIOIUI O I. .l ...-o sICII-Uolss - so 0 ...-......oosos.. ...-..- .s‘sslso'slsoslss . s . .....n .0-0 lasso - s . - *OKkSTtn .so sIIsIIOAOICso s s . EE ... . ......a.... . . . 55 ....................... """':5555 ...... ............ .. .. """""" 5555 . s... sIslsII' oI- I .ss ... . ......... . . . ... dflflfldflafiaflbfibfi . .. ..o ... u . . ..... 6896668889688“ .... ...-.-...-. . . .. GIUIBEUBBPOGOFI .--. .o . o o . ..... 636969896989695 . o s I.- s s s s so as OGBOGGSBOPuflbflbfi OQQHHIUGBGUIUPUI ..... ..... ... . . . .. 6989508889800900 ..... ..... . . . . ... GIOOQIOBODIII“UO .. . ..a.. . ..... . . .. 59V” “69 . .. ..... . . . . . .. and» stxtsc “so as . I a . . - ... 596” #5. . . . ..... . . . ........ nflh“d°8“9“u“bhbfl ........0.o.ooc.. . u . . ofiuhuhdflerdfiétbfl . s -.cIus u I s . wfldHSBHFbuflidfibfli . . .. ... ... . ........ 69891F69695“69e“1 .00 out.- 0 I ........ s IBHHUHUIOQUPOFUU ... .. o.... u . . . .. dflu“38“98“d°d“66 ..............~..-....... 636*50698“098‘80 ------- '-'-‘-'-"" IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -°'----°""' ------ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ------- '°'-"°°-"' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII --"-°-"""" ---- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ------- '-'-"'--'-' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -°' ----- '-°'-- IIIIIII III ------- ° *LFL '--‘-- IIIIIII Ltll\u'n\ III -°- ----- '-°'-- IIIIIII III -" ----- """"-"- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -------- "'-"'-"-’ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ------- °°‘-'-'-°"' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -" ----- "‘-""°"' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII --.-.-...-Uouonpoon. ......'.......""'..' sssssssslslslsizszss slissxsslssslsczslsr ssasszsslslslsl:sts: 3::ssssslslssss:s::s 9906966898988958903866 BdfloUdBBFdROOGFUGUFUBG Nebufidfifihdfiefiefldflaflfifid OUGGFHRHRUHUBOFHOBROHBF ssssss :sss: 999559839 909896“ slits! bnf'fl~7 328:: Haeaeunun ..uth unseen—g atlas: sass: Ogfigagnge fibeefléhu assasssslzlslscsasss OQRGOQQGGnfiUBBpeflUOeeeqp. s:lss:s:'slslssssl 8838::ssl53ssss:s= sllxsssslssslsls3: sslsszsstsasssszs: osnsnoaoenausaeeauusaeflrs 6896060090008898909884860 assuasseasqeeanenOFGQeauhe nuassuaeeeauosaeeseeeenru- DENSITY OF CANADIANS (per sq. mi.) 0-0.99 IIIIIIII: sssssssss ass-Jessa sssssssss 1—1.99 isséiiiii 5 5515555 iisioli5i 2—4.99 5—8.99 .9-1999 20+ cu=x Figure 19. 120 the Canadian density per square mile was only 0.96. Five of the nine town- ships surpassed the average county population density and six exceeded the average foreign-born, but only three townships accounted for a greater Ca- nadian density than average. Huron, Rubicon, and Dwight townships, com- prising the northeastern quarter of the county, reported the densest Cana- dian populations. One of every four residents of the county was born in Canada and Dwight, Huron, Hume, and Rubicon exceeded the average. No town— ship reported more Canadians than natives. Canadians accounted for 43 per cent of all foreign-born and six townships numbered more than the mean. Canadians were most dominant in Huron, Rubicon, and Dwight townships in- cluding over 60 per cent of the foreigners respectively. Canadians ac- counted for more than 50 per cent of the foreign-born in Hume, Caseville, and Sand Beach. Other Foreign-Born Groups Only three of the twenty-one townships of St. Clair County reported a greater number of foreign-born other than Canadian. Germans averaged 2.48 per square mile and accounted for 6 per cent of the population and 15 per cent of all foreigners. The Irish maintained a density of 2.45 per square mile including 6 per cent of the total and 15 per cent of the foreign-born pOpulations. The English numbered 1.33 persons per square mile, 3 per cent of the pOpulation, and 8 per cent of the foreign—born. Germans in Casco Township accounted for 39 per cent of its population, 60 per cent of its foreign-born, and numbered 11.77 per square mile providing the greatest con- centration of Germans in the Thumb region. China Township also reported more Germans than any other foreign nativity. The most numerous foreign- born group in Emmett Township were the Irish who equalled 6.04 persons per square mile, 33 per cent of the population, and 50 per cent of all foreign- 121 ers constituting the densest area of Irish in the Thumb region in 1860. No foreign-born group outnumbered Canadians in any of the fifteen townships of Sanilac County. The Irish were the second largest group con- sisting of 7 per cent of the total and 11 per cent of the foreign-born pop- ulation and maintained a density of only 0.52 per square mile. The English of Sanilac County included 5 per cent of the pOpulation and Germans equalled only 3 per cent. Canadians tallied more foreign-born than any other group in six of Huron County's nine townships. Germans, Irish, and English ranked below the Canadian total. The densities of these three groups were slight, and the Germans numbered only 0.76 per square mile. However, Germans accounted for 20 per cent of the total and 34 per cent of the foreign-born. Corre- sponding ratios for the Irish were 5 and 8 per cent and for the English 4 and 7 per cent. Persons born in Germany equalled the largest foreign-born group in Sebewaing, Bingham, and White Rock townships. Germans actually out- numbered natives in Sebewaing embracing 56 per cent of its pOpulation, 95 per cent of all foreigners, and provided a density of 9.49 per square mile. Germans in Bingham Township mustered 38 per cent of its population, 49 per cent of its foreign—born, and numbered 1.16 per square mile. Germans in White Rock Township contributed 27 per cent of its population, 46 per cent of all foreigners, and provided a density of 1.15 per square mile. Other than Canadians and Germans, no foreign-born group could assemble more than one person per square mile in any township. Egpulation Distribution 1870 The Thumb region contained 60,272 inhabitants in 1870. The pOpulation increased substantially from 1860, and the southern portion of the Thumb re— mained the most densely pOpulated. St. Clair County reported 36,661 inhabi- 122 tants, Sanilac 14,562, and Huron County tallied 9,040 persons. St. Clair County remained the most populous and reported the highest population density at 60.15 per square mile. Townships fronting on the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair recorded the highest concentrations. Town- ships situated in the interior of southernmost St. Clair County also re- ported dense populations (see Figure 20). All twenty-three contemporary townships of the county were organized by 1870. Owing to the rapid development of the city of Port Huron, Port Huron Township reported a density of 367.12 persons per square mile and included 19 per cent of all county residents. The city of Port Huron was divided into four wards which totaled 5,973 persons, 88 per cent of the township, and 16 per cent of the county population. Cottrellville, spurred by devel- opment at Marine City, reported 108.98 persons per square mile. Ira Town- ship, due to its limited areal extent, numbered 87.50 persons per square mile. Activity at the city of St. Clair raised the population density of St. Clair Township to 86.41 per square mile. Clay, East China, and Casco townships also exceeded the county average density. Townships including cities and thosisituated along the southwestern border of the county reported the high- est densities. Casco Township was the only interior township to exceed the mean density. The least densely populated areas occupied the northwestern portion of the county with Lynn reporting the lowest density. Sanilac County included twenty-two organized townships and averaged 15.13 persons per square mile in 1870. The densest area of population was situated along the coast of Lake Huron in southeastern Sanilac County (see Figure 20). Lexington Township was the most densely settled area reporting 62.86 per square mile. Totals for the city of Lexington could not be accu- rately extracted from.the nanuscript census records, but the city probably accounted for much of the population. Sanilac and worth were next in dens= 123 THE THUMB REGION I870 POPULAnON DENfiTY (per sq. mi.) can 040.. 5 coat» I Io-4I.II Io-IIII u—u-u—n-u W W. W on..- ...-n ...—a...— II-u— an." ...—~— m sun—unu— M WI m . "I“ Ami 11:1 5— MILES Figure 20. 124 ity reporting 49.16 and 36.68 per square mile respectively. Speaker, Fore- ster, Fremont, Elk, and Delaware townships also surpassed the mean county density. Settlement was most concentrated along the coast, but three of the eight townships exceeding the county mean were situated in the interior of southern Sanilac County. The least settled area was in the western por- tion of the county encompassing Argyle, Lamotte, Moore, and Watertown town- ships. Huron County was organized into twenty-two townships by 1870 and ave- raged 10.81 persons per square mile. Settlement remained focused on the coasts of Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay (see Figure 20). Eight of the eleven townships fronting on the coast reported densities exceeding the county mean. Port Austin reported the largest density at 44.39 per square mile. Data for villages were not clearly separated from the township, and therefore only township statistics could be extracted from the manuscript census records. Undoubtedly, activity at the village of Port Austin and Grindstone City accounted for the high density in Port Austin Township. White Rock, Rubi- con, and Fair Haven contributed over 30 persons per square mile. Sebewaing, Gore, Paris, Sand Beach, Hume, and Bingham townships also exceeded the county mean. Only Paris and Bingham.are situated away from.the coast and are located in southern Huron County. Much of the interior was occupied by fewer than 5 persons per square mile. Distribution of Foreign-Born There were 27,330 foreign-born persons in the Thumb region in 1870 ac- counting for 45 per cent of the population. St. Clair contained 14,859 foreign-born which comprised 41 per cent of its population. Sanilac County included 7,700 and Huron County 4,771 foreign-born inhabitants. Both Sani- lac and Huron Counties numbered more foreigners than natives, and the foreign- 125 born accounted for 53 per cent of each county's population. Table 15 in- cludes the total, foreign-born, Canadian, and other selected foreign-born groups along with densities and ratios for each township. The mean density of foreign-born for St. Clair County was 20.41 per square mile compared to the 50.16 mean of the total population. The foreign- born density pattern, Figure 21, varies from that manifested by the total population. Port Huron, Cottrellville, Ira, and St. Clair townships con- tained the largest densities of foreign-born paralleling their positions with respect to total population. While the city of Port Huron included 16 per cent of the county population, 19 per cent of the county's foreign-born resided in the city. Casco, Fort Gratiot, and Burtchville were the remain- ing townships which exceeded the foreign-born mean. Casco ranked seventh in total population density but was fifth in foreign-born density. Fort Gratiot and Burtchville did not exceed the mean population density but ranked sixth and seventh in foreign-born density. Twelve townships reported a greater ratio of foreign-born to total population than the county average of 41 per cent. Ten of the twelve in- cluded less than average population densities and all ten were situated in the three northern-most tiers of townships. Foreign-born settlers clearly embraced greater proportions of the population in the more sparsely popu- lated and more recently settled northern portion of the county. In fact-- Greenwood, Burtchville, and Lynn townships included more foreigners than natives. The foreign-born density pattern in Sanilac County reflects the ident- ical pattern displayed by the density of the total population (see Figure 21). The average density of foreign-born was 8.00 per square mile compared to the 15.13 mean population density. Foreigners were concentrated along the coast and reached into the interior in the extreme southern tiers of 126 am amH as en su ... men as ... Nah ... aaa.a can: can cm on so am ea ... saw me ... can ... mm~.H an”: eaN an as ea mm on ... cos um .... Hos ... oom.a anus uma me no nu me an ... mam as ... own ... «mm enemasoa Nam mma mam am am ~a.mm Hea.a as «w.msa -~.m «H.50m mow.o sous: uuom om mN owe am om o~.m «mm as Hm.ma mam mm.am NHH.” seams: on «a a on an sh.m mom Hm am.h mam mm.aa mmm snag ea as ea ms um NN.¢ sen ma ma.~a was mm.om Hmo.H Iguassu mu men as on mu ma.a man as mm.oa awn ms.¢m a-.H mmxooamu .. n «am an ea mH.NH aHN an wo.~m can om.sm own.a «HH an em as so as mH.oH mam om so.mH wmm cH.m~ was sooscampu an me n as an HH.aH ous he am.aa Nmm oa.mm maH.H usage mm as «N we um ow.mH mum as oa.s~ won an.aa ~mo.~ uouumuu uses a mom ma Na ma ha.m use as am.~a was em.o~ com uuuaam a m a mm «a ~w.m as mm ma.m~ an ~m.me Baa usage omen nu cu cam we ea ... HNH aw ... smm ... os~.~ sues means: as so moa me «a ... man an ... anm ... ~ma.a massages as as mew as as oa.ma omm om Hm.~m «as wa.moa Nam.~ maaa>aamuuuoo mm mm as an om mo.a an“ an a~.HH was H~.¢m mH~.H manasHoo mu cu mm as on mm.a can as mm.ma one mo.~m ohH.H maaao on Ha m as ma ... emH om ... «ma ... ems oaaowaa mm a ma as a” ... no” em ... maa ... HNB augmesoe we NH ma no ea aa.oa saw mu a~.oa sen e~.mo maq.~ swag mm mm can Ha a NN.H mm mm on.oa Ham am.ms ame.a mango m 0 cas m a NN.N am as mm.a~ one Hm.mm Ham.a cameo cu Nm «a oh on ca.oa emu Hm ~m.m~ hon «H.ea ems maau>suuusm as as m on mm mm.m~ Has as He.sa Nae mo.sm omm.a assaooum an m «H as am mo.a “mm mm mm.a mam cm.mm Hm~.H assume .eom .aom .aom .m.m Houoa huge .mom HouoH huam .aom huge .aom easmo3oa .wam nofiuH .uou mo N no N Icon .auu mo N Icon .m.m anon Houoa came "mammzzoa an zOHomm mazes use so oneaaamom zmom-zuammoa .mH MAM¢H 127 a a a mm mm so.m was No as.n mom ~n.m mam smaaa> mass: as” mm so as an ma.- new as am.m~ ma~.~ om.~o mm¢.~ sausages; a n .. on me w~.~ «a «m mm.a as so.~ so ouuqauu nN Ha N as an sw.~ mod on ah.a sea am.a can «nauseous ha mm .. as as em.m mou an oo.o~ sun s~.ma oeo aeoamum a N n so on ... mm as ... an ... mm aa~u>eeaaauam ma ca a «a an ... we mm ... mu“ ... nmu nauseous he cu .. as as ... «ea an ... Hoe ... «mm assesses on an a as an c~.o~ mam Hm so.nu man on.o~ one umumouoa a ca a as as mm.a an an no.~ ms ne.m emu usage «a w~ a as an n~.o Haw me an.» com no.5H mno saw «H a a an an .. he so .. as ... Hug oaaa>ummuom on on mm an aN .. awe Hm .. aam ... HNo assesses as an me an an hm.a wNN mm he.w can em.ma ass sausages 0 ea m as an ao.~ as «m am.~ «Ha -.m eHN Imam on on na an an so.m can an co.e was hm.NH ems ecuaaeemmeaum RN an ca mm on nn.m has as mn.e emu so.m man nausea a a ma as as no.o so «a am.” so” NH.N and «Hamua o~¢.~ hma.a Hoo.m «m «N 5H.H~ one.» as Ha.o~ aom.¢~ e~.om Hoo.om aucaoo uauao.um am an «a no «N om.m son an mm.~a new m~.wm mmm.a amass so an mom as ea ... «am an .. moo ... oma.~ muse Hence mu as mna as a“ ... and He .. «an ... mom was: new as an we as as ... «me an .. 4am ... use use: use an as sum as ma ... emu an .. «no ... ~oo.~ aaeuesoe as” use has as ea os.n~ can an an.cm Ham.a Ha.ew ~ma.m uauHU.um an as «a on an o~.~H one an e~.ma can om.ae .aoo.a amass sou man was mm mu .. mom.a we .. ~¢m.~ ... mam.m spam Hence so no new as Nu .. was as .. mam ... ama.a can: sue .mom .aom .aom .m.m sauce huqm .aom fiwuos Moan .aom Noam .aom awnmazoe .wcu nowuH .uou no N no N neon .aoo mo N uaon .m.m neon HouOH A.e.uaoov ma mamas 128 m ON ONN ON ON OO.N NO mm OO.m NNN NN.ON mOO aaauosm N N O OO «O OO.N ON NN On.m NNN OO.¢ OON amvNuoSO ON NN NO OO NO o¢.m NNN OO ON.O ONO OO.NN OOO nouoO Oawm Oe mm mO NO ON mm.O NNN mm O0.0N OOO O¢.NO OON :OONODM ON ON ON OO Om O0.0N NON mm OO.¢N ONO OO.¢O ONN aNum=<_uuom N O OO ON a NN.N OO mm OO.¢N ONO O0.0N NOO mNuam .. .. N NO Om NN.N ONN OO ON.O mmN Om.m ONN ovum: ON NN O NO Om ON.N NNN Nm OO.N OON O0.0 ONO ome «N NN O NO NO ON.N NON Om ON.O NNN ON.O OOO uous: ON mm mm OO mm Om.m NON Om m0.0 OON OO.nN ONO mass ON O m ON On OO.N NON «q m0.0 NON N0.0 OOO uaouO O O ON Om ON O0.0 NO NO OO.NN OO O0.0N ONN ouou a O OON mm NN mN.m Om mO ON.¢N OON ON.OO ONO co>am uNom m ON N NN NO OO.N OON Om Nm.N NON O0.0 mmm unmNsn n m .. NN OO OO.N On On N¢.N Nn On.N Nm xmeoo ON O mm On ON NO.N NON mq OO.N ONN O0.0 NOO oNNN>omoO N N ON OO ON ma.O On NO OO.N NO ON.O ONN ONonxoouO On ON on OO mm O0.0 ONN NO Om.N NNO OO.NN NOO EIOOGNO mOm ONN NOO NN Om ON.m mNm.m Om O0.0 OON.N ON.mN NO0.0N Nuance omNNcwm NO NO O NO OO ON.ON ONO mO O0.0N OON O0.0m OOO.N nuuoz N O .. mO NN ON.O NN mm ON.O NN O0.0 mO maouuouo3 ON NO .. ON ON NN.N mmN OO NN.m OON O0.0N ONO aOanNnmnz On OO O NO OO ON.ON OOO mm Nm.NN ONO OO.NO ONN.N noxmoam nu ma NON me an na.m~ see an as.m~ omo.a oa.me mma.N oaauaam n N N OO On OO.N mm OO nO.N ON ON.O NNN anon: NN Om ON OO ON On.O ONN NO NO.N NON OO.NN One coOaNz NN «O ON OO OO NN.m NON am OO.N ONO N0.0N nON ouuoNuuz NO NO ON ON mO mN.O OOm OO Om.m NON NN.O OOO aONuaz .Oom .aom .aom .O.m Nauoe NuNm .aom Nouoh NuNm .aom huNm .aom .Oam :uNuN .uoO mo N mo N anon .aoo mo N Icon .O.h noon Nouoa A.O.uaouv ON MANOR E 129 .uonuaw NO OmNNOEOO "mouaom OOO NOO OOO NO NN NO.N OOO.N OO ON.O NNN.O N0.0N OO0.0 Nuaboo Gonna NN NN ON NO ON O0.0 NN OO O0.0N ONN OO.NO ONN xoom oust ON ON N OO OO O0.0 OON NO ON.O OON ON.N ONN maoua> O N OO ON ON NN.O ON OO OO.N OO O0.0 NON NOONO a H Sn 2 a an; on «a sh: «mm 3.3 Ba massage"... .Oom .Oom .mom .m.m Nduoa OuNm .Oom Nmuoe OuNm .Oom NuNm .Oom ON£O:SOH .wem :3: Duo no .N no .N neon .53 no .N -89 ans 4.5 H38. 3 I“ H N6 383 ON ONOOH 130 ............ THE THUMB REGION |870 DENSITY or THE (POI’ Sq. mi.) 04.99 5- 8.99 943.99 “149.99 ii"; 20419.99 E 50¢ n Ina-...... ME,“ ii MILES 131 townships. The same seven townships, in the same order, exceeded the mean foreign-born as well as the mean population density for the county. Foreigners outnumbered natives in Sanilac County and seventeen of its twenty-two townships reported more foreign-born than native inhab- itants. Ten townships surpassed the 53 per cent foreign—born ratio to total population calculated for the county. Argyle reported 76 per cent of its inhabitants as foreign—born, Austin and Moore reported 66 per cent. Most of the townships which exceeded the mean were situated in the northern and western portions of the county. Only Fremont and Speaker contained population densities greater than the county average. Foreign- ers accounted for greater proportions of the interior residents and ap- pear to have been more apt to settle in the newly opened areas of Sanilac County than native-born settlers. The pattern of foreign-born density by township in Huron County, Fig- ure 21, reveals some correspondence to that manifested by the total popu- lation. The mean density of foreign-born was 5.70 per square mile come pared to the 10.81 population density. Foreign-born settlement, with one significant exception, focused on the coastal townships. Eleven townships exceeded the county mean density. Port Austin contained the densest con- centration of foreign-born numbering 24.48 per square mile. Rubicon and Fair Haven townships ranked second and third. Paris Township, although ranked seventh in population density, ranked fourth in foreign-born den- sity. Paris was one of three townships situated in the interior which exceeded the mean density of foreign-born. Bingham and Sherman ranked tenth and eleventh. Huron County included more foreigners than natives, and thirteen of its twenty-two townships embodied more foreign-born than natives. Eleven townships exceeded the mean of 53 per cent foreign-born of total pOpula- 132 tion enumerated for the county. Sheridan Township reported 77 per cent foreign-born. Foreigners accounted for greater proportions of the popu- lation in the central and northern portions of the county while natives outnumbered foreigners in both the southwestern and southeastern corners --particularly along the coast. Distribution of Canadians There were 16,008 Canadians residing in the Thumb region in 1870 who accounted for 27 per cent of the population. Fifty-nine per cent of all foreign-born residents were born in Canada. St. Clair County enumerated 8,056 Canadians equalling 22 per cent of its population. Thirty-eight per cent of all inhabitants of Sanilac were Canadians who numbered 5,519 per- sons. Huron County tallied 2,443 Canadians who comprised 27 per cent of its population. Canadians outnumbered every other foreign-born group in the Thumb constituting 51 per cent of all foreigners in Huron County, 54 per cent in St. Clair County, and 72 per cent of Sanilac County's foreign- born. St. Clair County reported a Canadian density of 11.17 per square mile. The density pattern of Canadians by township is both similar and dissimilar with respect to the patterns manifested by the population for foreign-born density patterns (see Figure 22). While only seven townships exceeded the mean total foreign-born densities, nine surpassed the mean Canadian density for the county. Port Huron Township reported the greatest density of Ca- nadians. Burtchville and Fort Gratiot townships, both below the mean pop- ulation density, ranked second and third respectively. Grant, Brockway and Riley townships were fifth, seventh and eighth in Canadian density but all three were below the mean densities of the population and the foreign- born. Cottrellville, St. Clair, and Ira townships also reported Canadian 133 THE THUMB REGION I870 DENSITY OF CANADIANS (persqmu) O-I. 99 2-4. 99 5- 8.99 m m u- a — mum...- , .- L——l MILES Figure 22. 134 densities greater than the county mean. Canadians attained above average densities in the more densely populated townships as well as the less dense. The pattern displayed by townships exceeding the mean Canadian density was dispersed which implies that Canadians settled all sections of the county. However, there was an area of concentration in the north- eastern corner of the county. Twelve of the twenty-three townships of St. Clair County exceeded the 22 per cent ratio of Canadians to total population reported for the county. No township reported more Canadians than natives, but Greenwood reported 40 per cent of its population as Canadian. All twelve townships were situated in the northern three tiers of townships. Fifteen townships counted more than the 54 per cent Canadian ratio to foreign-born popula- tion reported for the county. More than three of every four foreigners were Canadian in Riley, Grant, Brockway, Berlin, Lynn, and Kimball town- ships. Out of the fifteen townships which exceeded the ratio, only three were situated in the southern portion of the county. Although Canadians accounted for greater than average densities in various sections of the county, Canadians comprised greater proportions of the total and foreign- born populations in the less densely populated northern tiers of townships. Sanilac County averaged 5.73 Canadians per square mile in 1870. The distribution of the density of Canadians by township, Figure 22, corre- sponds to the patterns manifested by both the total and foreign-born pop- ulations. Seven townships exceeded the mean Canadian density for the coun- ty. Lexington Township reported 21.78 Canadians per-square mile. Canadians were most dense along the coast and in the southern portion of the county. Eleven of Sanilac County's twenty-two townships surpassed the 38 per cent Canadian to total population ratio compiled for the county. Maple Valley and Mbore townships included more Canadians than natives. Of the 135 eleven townships only Worth was situated adjacent to the coast. Canadians accounted for greater than average proportions of the total population in the southern and western reaches of the county. Canadians embraced 72 per cent of all foreign-born in the county and thirteen townships exceeded the mean. Ten of the thirteen reported more than three-fourths of their for- eigners as Canadians. Canadians dominated all other foreign-born groups in both densely and sparsely populated townships, along the coast as well as in the interior. Canadians accounted for a density of 2.91 per square mdle in Huron County. Ten townships reported a density surpassing the county mean. The seven densest Canadian townships occupied coastal locations followed by three interior situated townships (see Figure 22). Port Austin recorded 16.89 Canadians per square mile and offered the greatest concentration of Canadian settlers. Six of the seven most dense townships occupiaieastern and northern coastal locations while Fair Haven Township embodied the only above average density in the western portion of the county. Bingham, Meade, and Verona townships were inland townships which displayed dense Canadian populationS. Canadians amounted to 27 per cent of the population of Huron County. Only Meade Township reported more Canadians than native-born inhabitants. Fifteen of Huron County's twenty-two townships compiled greater proportions of Canadians to total population than the county. The six leading town- ships were situated in the less densely populated interior. Canadians in- cluded 51 per cent of all foreigners residing in the county. Meade Town- ship reported 87 per cent of its foreign-born as Canadian, and Dwight tal- lied 77 per cent. Grant, Colfax, White Rock, Huron, and Lake townships each reported more than two-thirds of their foreign-born as Canadian. Can nadians consisted of more than one-half of all foreign-born in sixteen of 136 the twenty—two townships. Other Foreign-born Groups Germans, Irish, English, and Scots composed the remaining signifi- cant foreign—born groups in the Thumb region. However, their combined total fell far below the total number of Canadians. The Irish, English, and Scots were fairly evenly distributed throughout the region. Germans, however, tended to cluster in settlements particularly in more rural areas. Seven townships, not including Port Huron, maintained 43 per cent of all German residents in the Thumb. Fifty—eight of the Thumb's sixty-seven townships reported Canadians as their most populous foreign- born group allowing only nine townships to other foreign-born groups. Germans in St. Clair County averaged 4.32 per square mile, 8 per cent of the pOpulation, and 20 per cent of the foreign-born. The Irish accounted for 5 per cent of the population, 12 per cent of all foreigners, and numbered 2.57 per square mile. The English constituted only 3 per cent of the population. Port Huron Township notwithstanding, the greatest density of Germans in the Thumb was recorded in Casco Township at 20.07 per square mile including 36 per cent of its total and 82 per cent of its foreign-born populations. Ira and China townships also reported more Ger- mans than any other foreign nativity with densities of 14.07 and 10.98 per square mile. The Irish were the largest foreign group in Emmett Township equalling 7.53 per square mile, 28 per cent of the total, and 60 per cent of the foreign-born pOpulations. No foreign-born group outnumbered Canadians in any of the twenty-two townships of Sanilac County. The Irish were the second largest group but could muster only 5 per cent of the total and 9 per cent of the foreign- born pOpulations. The English and Germans included only 4 and 3 per cent 137 of the population respectively. The Irish reported the greatest county density with only 0.74 per square mile. Germans outnumbered all other foreign-born groups in four Huron County townships and averaged 1.18 per square mile, 11 per cent of the total, and 21 per cent of the foreign-born. Sebewaing, Fair Haven, Sher- man, and Sigel townships reported German majorities. Germans in Sebe- waing Township numbered 9.74 per square mile, 35 per cent of its popula- tion, and 83 per cent of its foreigners. Fair Haven equalled 8.01 Ger- mans per square mile. Sherman and Sigel townships tallied 3.08 and 0.94 Germans per square mile respectively. Poles were the third largest for- eign-born group in the county but only averaged 0.44 per square mile and 4 per cent of the county population. Eighty-four per cent of all Poles in Huron County and 81 per cent of all Poles in the Thumb resided in Paris Township. Poles in Paris Township numbered 8.65 per square mile, 35 per cent of its population, and 59 per cent of its foreign-born. The Irish in Huron County accounted for only 4 per cent of its population. Population Distribution 1880 The population of the Thumb region increased to 90,993 inhabitants by 1880 and settlement continued to be most dense in the southern and coastal areas. St. Clair County enumerated the largest population at 46,197 persons. Sanilac and Huron Counties tallied 26,341 and 20,089 inhabitants respectively. St. Clair County averaged 66.45 persons per square mile (see Figure 23). Port Huron Township reported the greatest density in the Thumb with 533.71 per square mile. Eighty-nine per cent of the township's popula- tion resided in the city of Port Huron. The city of Port Huron grew more rapidly than the county and included 19 per cent of its population. The 138 ....... ....— ...-.n-quu-unII .... Inc- M IIIIII I!“ I THE THUMB REGION IBBO POPULATION DENSITY (per sq. mi.) .u “out...“ .ul I” nun-I II .0 IIIIIIII II IIIIII 'III' I - I. II thIIlIQII III “II I. a no.“ nun“ . u u. «I 0.0.0“. IIAIIvIIIIIII unln .I- I ”II 'vIIen‘ II. C. I I‘ll-I III-III W 0.. I‘ll 0... WIN IHII'IIIQI .0 'Il'vllllllI‘ .ulu. -| nun nun-nu lulu!“ 'III ....... . ' . , uuvnuunn I Inn-II IH' .,: - Ilhlnl l IIIOII'IGIIIIII I I'II III I ll Ofi'fiuunI IIIHHII-HIIIII Ill Inn-.1”. "'- ‘ ... m ‘li‘l‘v'l'IOI‘b’llltl I'UUHIl WOO... U ml»... n 7||wl,~ u u... ”Io-coco. n t I - n “I l It'll Mao-Cu vulunluluvlll't unl- .-|u.. I|I|I| vl.‘ uni-7 l‘.||1II'." u I. ...n nu Hu- - HI -| In 0... “...-nupn-Ilnun HIOHI'H IN IH'H-Iucnounlll IquoIIm “up .u ”Io-II - “ I * III-unulul ..unu 0. II .unu DIII'IMIallIIlIII'I' m .v.-. . . ..... .. ..v.e M nun ,.. .IIIII - Inn-u I.-.I.n|n--Inlu-.I Ilei‘ “I In... .. u‘ IIIuI a I . In .IIHIIIvHI-u IHIII-uvlnl ql Q 4|III' Hil- II ‘Ivl'1l I I' '01 “Inn“. Ilu-Inn CFK Figure 23. 139 city was divided into six wards in 1880. Six other townships reported densities above the county mean. Cottrellville, with continued develop- ment at Marine City, numbered 113.43 per square mile. Fort Gratiot, Ira, St. Clair, East China, and Clay townships also exceeded the county man density. The densest concentrations were situated along the eastern and southern boundaries of the county. However, dense populations were also reported in the interior townships of Casco, Riley, Brockway, and wales-- each reported a density over 50 persons per square mile. Lynn Township, in the extreme northwest, was the least densely populated with 21.86 per square mile. Ten of Sanilac County's twenty-five townships exceeded the 27.37 mean population density. The density pattern reveals that five of the ten townships occupy coastal locations (see Figure 23). Lexington Township reported the greatest concentration at 77.33 per square mile. Sanilac and Delaware numbered 60.76 and 45.56 per square mile respectively. Settlement was beginning to become dense in the interior with Bridge- hampton, Speaker, Elk, Fremont, and Marlette townships reporting densities in excess of the county mean. Evergreen, Elmer, Custer, and Lamotte town- ships provided the least densely populated areas of the county. Huron County consisted of twenty-six townships in 1880 and averaged 23.99 persons per square mile. Settlement persisted to be more dense along the coast (see Figure 23). Eight of the twelve townships reporting densities greater than the mean occupied coastal locations. Port Austin Township reported the densest population with 77.38 per square mile. Rub- icon and Gore also reported densities of more than 50 per square mile. Most of the coununities of the county were situated on the coast. Paris, Sherman, Bingham, and Dwight were the only interior townships to report greater than average densities. Townships situated in the western and 140 central portion of the interior provided the lowest population densities. Distribution of Foreign-Born Foreign-born inhabitants contributed 43 per cent of the Thumb region's population in 1880 and numbered 39,044 persons. St. Clair contained 17,214 foreigners who amounted to 37 per cent of its population. Sanilac and Hu- ron counties enumerated 12,864 and 9,748 foreign-born respectively and made up 49 per cent of the population in each county. Table 16 provides the numbers of total, foreign-born, and selected nativities plus densities and ratios by township. The mean density of foreign-born in St. Clair County was 24.76 per square mile compared to the 66.45 population density. The foreign-born density pattern varies only slightly from.that manifested by the total pop- ulation (see Figure 24). Port Huron Township and particularly the city of Port Huron dominated in foreign-born density. Twenty-two per cent of the county's foreigners lived in the city of Port Huron, and the township re- ported a density of 228.85 foreign-born per square mile. Fort Gratiot, Cottrellville, St. Clair, and Ira were the only other townships to exceed the county mean. Brockway, Casco, East China, and Greenwood townships reported over 20 foreigners per square mile. Eleven townships reported a larger foreign-born to total population ratio than the 41 per cent county mean. No township included more foreign- ers than natives. Fort Gratiot and Greenwood both reported 48 per cent. All ten townships occupying the northern two tiers of townships plus Port Huron exceeded the county mean foreign-born ratio. Natives predominated in the southern townships. The foreign-born density pattern in Sanilac County differs only slightly from that manifested by the total population (see Figure 24). 141 .. O su as HH ... Ou Nu ... ON ... OOu cm>sO HHOO .. u OON ON N ... OO OO ... OHs ... OOO.N aunmasoe .. O OOu Ou O N0.0 suH oO OO.Nu OOs OH.HO OsO.H OHH NO ss OO uN OO Ou.OH NsO Os OO.ou oON u0.0s OOO.H Ooosaumuu uO Hs O HO sO Os.OH HOs us OH.OH HNO OO.Os NOO.H scans uO OO OH ON OO ... HOs OO ... OON ... OOu.H uoHuOOO uuoa ou OH HH HN su ... OOH sO ... uHu ... qu OHOOOsoe uOH ON Nu ON sO ON.OO HsO Os OO.Os OHO OO.HO uoO.H uoHuOuO Ones OH HOO OO OO sH O0.0 uHu Os sO.NH HsO Hs.Hs OOs.H sumaam Ou HO NOH uO sH ... OOu Nu ... OOs ... ONO.H OHHO maHqu O HO NHH Os OH ... OOH Ou ... usO ... HOu.H OHOOesoN HO uO sOu Os OH NO.NH HOO Nu OO.OO OON Os.OOH sOO.u mHHHpHHObuoo us OO OO OO OH No.O OHu oO OO.HH sos Nu.NO NuO.H OaaaaHoo Ou OO OO HN OO OO.oH uNO us OO.sH OuO ON.sO uOu.H OOOHO Ou OH O NO OH ... OHH Ou ... OOH ... uHN uOuOOHs as O OO OO OH ... HuH Nu ... NHu ... HHO aHsmasoe OO uu OO OO OH uu.oH HOu Ou OO.OH uOO OO.NO OuO.H NOHO HH s s OO OH uO.HH sO oO sN.Hu HoH OO.uN NOO OaHOo uOOO uu Ou uOO OH O HN.H OO Nu Os.OH Hss OO.Os OuO.H OaHOO O O ouN O u Os.H OO NO Hu.Ou OuO oo.uO uHu.u OOOOO O HH H OO OO ... Os Os .... HN ... NsH OHOOOOOH Ou Nu O OO Ou ... NOH os ... Osu ... OOO OHOOczoe HO OO OH OO Ou ON.OH OHu us OO.OH sHO ON.Ns uON OHHH>OOOOOO oH O .. OO Hs ... OsH Os ... OOH ... HOO panama Omsxooum N O .. NO OO ... NO OO ... Om ... ONN hm3xooum os sO OH NN OO ... uas Ns ... OOO ... OOO.H aHnmcsoa HO OO OH OO NO OH.OH ONO Os uH.su uOO Oo.uO OOO.H Nmaxooum mu, uH. a. ON. .wmu. Ou.O :Ouu, Ou, OuHO HOO OOHOO OOu.H _=HHOOO .nom .Oom .Oom .O.m quoe OuNO .aom Nauoa OuNu .Oom NuNm .Oom ONSOoaoB .OaO OOHOH .umu O0 N O0 u neon .aOO Oo N -aon .O.O -amn Hsuoe g OOON "MHmOZBOF rm onwmm QZDNH mmH mo ZONHONDmom zmomuszMmDm .ON mNmOH 142 OO us OH OO NO OH.N OOu OO OO.OH uOO OH.OH HOO :HOOOO s O Ou ON OO OO.O OOH OO HN.s ONH Os.O HsO OHNOOO OOu.H OHO.H OOu.O NO Hu OH.sH usO.O NO ON.su sHu.NH Os.OO NOH.Os Nassau OHOHO.OO Os OO os OO Ou OO.HH HHs OO HO.OH NOO Ou.HO OuO.H OOHOO NO ss OsH OO Ou ... uOO OO ... sOO ... OuO.H OOHO Hmuoa OH Hu NO OO Ou ... HOH OO ... usO ... ONO OOO: Oau us Ou HO OO Ou ... HOH sO ... qu ... OsO OOO: OOH sO ON OOH NO OH ... sOH Nu ... OuO ... OOO.H OHOOesoa HO OuH NOO Os OH OH.OH ONO OO OH.Nu OOH.H O0.00 OHO.O OHOHO .OO O s O ON OH ... os Nu ... NO ... uHu OHOOaOz HO OO O OO Ou ... OOs OO ... OOO ... OON.H OHOOOOOO NO NO OH OO Ou HO.OH OOO uO uH.NH osO sO.OO uOO.u OOHOO OOs OHs OOs OO Ou ... OHO.u ss ... OOO.O ... OO0.0 OOHO HOOOO NO OO OOu Hs OH ... OOu Os ... NOO ... HOO.H OOO: OOO sHH HOH Hu uO uO ... Oss uO ... NHN ... OOO.H sums OOO HN OO NN HO Hu ... ONO OO ... HHO ... OON.H Opus sus Hs OO ss OO Ou ... HOO us ... sOO ... uOO.H OOO: OOO NO Os OO OO Hu ... OOu sO ... uus ... usu.H OOO: Oau ON HO OO OO OO ... ONO uO ... sOO ... OOO.H OOO; OOH NO OO us OO Hu ... OOu NO ... NNO ... OHO.H OHOOOOOO OOs Oss HOO OO Ou OO.OOH NuO.u Os O0.0uu usu.s HN.OOO OO0.0 conga uuou OH s uu ON su ... OOH OO ... NNH ... ssO uOOOO Ou O uOu OO OH ... OOH ss ... OuO ... uOu.H OOOOOOOH Hs OH sOO Os OH OO.O OHO os ON.OH OON OO.Os Os .H Osman: NO OH HH ON uO NO.N OOu Os uO.O OOO OO.Hu OON aaOH H s .. OO HO ... ss OO ... uO ... ssH OHHH>OOHaO uu OO ON OO Ou ... OOu OO ... HOs ... OOu.H OHOOOsoa Ou Os ON OO su Ns.O osO OO HO.sH OOO ON.OO Ous.H HHOOEOO HO HOH. mm. uO Nu uO.uH Ous Os O0.0H OOO NO.ss HOO.H Omsooems .Oom .Oom .aom .O.m quOH NHNO .aom NmuoH NuNm .Oom NUNm .Oom aNnmo309 .Oam OONHN .uoO mo N mo N neon .amo mo N anon .O.m icon NwooH N.O.u:ooO OH OHOOH 143 uH s us ON os O0.0 OsH NO H0.0 OOu uO.O OOO muons O O OH OO sO ... sO Os ... OO ... HOH csOeHz OO OO su OO Hu ... OsH OO ... uOO ... OOO OHamasoe OO OO sO ss su u0.0 OOu OO uu.OH ONs su.su HNO emOaOz OH s s HO uO ... NsH os ... uOH ... OOs OquHqu NH OO Os uN NO ... OOs HO ... sOO ... usu.H OHOOOBOO Nu NO Ns sN OO uu.HH OOO Os OH.OH OHO uO.HO OON.H OuumHqu N H .. NN OO ... OO OO ... OO ... OOH OHHHpquumO HO Os Ou uO Os ... NOO sO ... uHN ... OHO.H OHOOesoe OO Os Ou uO ss OO.O NHO OO Hs.OH HON O0.0H OHs.H eoHqu OH Hs O OO Os sO.uH HOs OO OO.sH NuO uH.Ou OOO OOHHO> OHOOz OH uH OH OO OO ... HOH Ns ... Ouu ... NNs HHOOOouO OO OH Os OO Ou ... Hsu OO ... NsO ... OOO couOcHxOH OO NO OH OO sO ... OuO us ... OOO ... HOO.H OHOOOOOO OHH NO HN NN uO Hs.su OsO Hs ON.HO Nuu.H OO.NN OOO.u aoOOeHxOH O O H OO OO s0.0 OOH Hs Os.O OuH Os.O HOO OqusOH Ou OH s ON NO Ou.O Ouu OO O0.0 NOO NO.NH uHO OOOHOOOOO Hs Os N ON OO OH.uH Ous Os s0.0H uOO O0.00 OOH.H uaoasua Ou Os O HO Os ON.OH OHs OO s0.0u OHO Os.NO osO OOOOOOOO OH OH OH OO Os NO.N OOu HO O0.0 OuO OO.sH OuO OONHO O sH sH OO Ou ON.H OO HO O0.0 OOH OH.O OHu ammuOum>O uH u OO ON OO ON.O OOH uN Hu.O NOH Hu.N OOu uaaHO OO Os OH OO NO HN.OH HOs Os NH.NH OHO OH.NO uOO.H OHO OH H OH OO su ... OO Hs ... OO ... Hsu OHHH>OOOHOO uO OO usO OO OH ... OOO OO ... HOH.H ... OOO.H OHOmesoe NO OO HOO uO OH us.O sOO OO OO.Ou OOu.H OO.Os HOH.H muOsOHOO . O O OO Os OH.O OHH uO NN.O OOH Nu.N uOu OOOOOO Ou OO N ON OO Ns.O ssu Ns O0.0 suO O0.0H OOO HOOO II I. II II II III I... coo IIo III ”NImOV «meaH aouawfiwfiwhm .aom .Oom .nom .O.m NMUOH NUNO .aom Nmuos MONO .aom NuNm .Oom aNnmaon .Oeu OOHOH .OOO O0 N me u -amn .eOO Oo N -eOO .O.O -amO Hsuoe E E H.0.0eooO OH OHOOH 144 O HH O NO OO s0.0 HOH OO Os.s OOH O0.0 OsN aHoocHH HH OH .. ON OO Hs.s OO Os O0.0 HHH HO.sH ONN «OOH O NH .. Os sH ... sH OO ... ON ... OO OO>HO amz N s .. OO ON ... OH Os ... HO ... NN OOHu sous: OH ON HO NO ON ... NOH Os ... OON ... OOO OHOOOOON ON Ns HO OO ON OO.O OOH Os sN.O ONO ON.NN OON sous: H s OH HO Hs ... OOH OO ... OOH ... OON OOOOOOOO “OOO NH ss Os OO OO ... sNN HO ... NsO ... ONO OHcmnaoe OH Os HO ON OO OO.HH OOO HO NO.OH NNs HN.HO OOO masm HN O N OO OO OH.O OHN ss OO.N ONN Os.NH NNO OOOHO s O OO Os HN HO.HH ON ss NO.sN OOH O0.00 sNO OOOO ON NH OHN Os NN O0.0 HHN Os ON.O OOs ON.OH sNO OO>O= OHOO OH Os NN NO ON sN.O ssN OO NO.NH ONs ON.ON OOO OOOHsO OH OH O ON Os HN.s OOH NO N0.0 OHN OO.HH OHs UOOOHOO NH NN ON ON os OH.O ONN OO OH.O OON s0.0H OsO OOHOOOOO HH ON OO OO OH ... NHH OO ... ONN ... sOO OHHH>OOOO OH NH Ns Os ON ... OO Os ... sOH ... st OHOOaaoO ON OO OOH HO ON HO.O OHN OO OO.HH sHs N0.0N OOO.H OHHH>OOOO s NH Os NN ss NO.O NOH HO Hs.N OON OO.NH NOs OHOHOOOOOO O O os HO OO OO.O OHH OO sO.s ONH N0.0 HHO OHOHanoHO Hs OO ON OO OO OO.O NsO sO OO.sH ONO OO.NN OOO _aOOOOOO OON OOO OsN.H HN OO O0.0 OO0.0 Os OO.NH NOO.NH NO.NN NON.sN Ouasoo OOHHOOO OO NO O NO OO NO.sH NOO ss OO.NH OOO ON.OO sOO.H nuke: s OH OH OO Os NN.O ONN HO OH.N OON O0.0H OOO csouuoOOz NO ON s HO NO ON.O OsO Os OO.NH NOs N0.0N NOO OOOOOHOOOz Ns HO .. HO Os O0.0H NOO Os O0.0N HNN NN.Ns ONs.H HOOOOOO ON ON OH OO sN ... OsH OO ... OON ... OOO OOHHOOO “OOO Os OO ONH OO ON ... sOs Ns ... OON ... NOO.H OHOOOBOO ON NO NOH OO ON O0.0H OOO Hs O0.0N OHO.H; ON.OO NOs.N OOHHOOO .aom .mom .aom .m.m Huuoa huam .aom HauOH huwm .aom huHm .nom nasmn30H .Oum OOOOH .uou mo N mo N -OOO .cOO Oo N uaan .O.m -OOO HOOOO i A.O.uco0v OH mamsg 145 .HOSuSI ha vwawaaoo “oousom OOs NOO NOO.N OO NN Os.O Hos.O. Os sO.HH OsN.O OO.ON OOO.ON Ouasoo conga O s OH NO NN ... NO OO ... sO ... NON xooO OOHOO O HH O OO NN ... OO Os ... OO ... OsH OHnmnsoe OH OH NN OO sN O0.0H OO Hs NO.NH NOH O0.0s ONO Noam OOHOO O O s OO Os ... NO NO ... OO ... OOH «Os OOO NN HN HH ON Ns ... OON OO ... ONO ... OOO OHOOOBON OO sN OH OO Os HO.O OOO NO OO.HH st NO.ON OsN anuo> ON N OsH sO ON NO.N NOH OO O0.0 NOO os.sH HNO HOOHO OH os NON NO ON NO.O NHN OO HO.OH OOO H0.00 sOO.H OOEOOOO OH OH O OO NO sN.N ONN ON HN.HH sos OO.sH OsO OOOHOOOO O N ONH ON HH ... OO OO ... OHN ... OOO OOHO3OOOO .. .. OON HH s ... OO OO ... NNO ... OOO OHOOnaoa O N OHs NH O OO.N sO OO O0.0H osO ON.Os OOs.H OOHOaOOOO sH O OH NN HO ... sOH os ... NHN ... sOO OOOOO OOOO HO HO OOH NO HO ... sOO OO ... OOs ... HOO OHamaaoe Os os ONH NO HO OH.NH OOs Os ON.OH OON Os.OO OHO.H OOOOO OOOO OO Os OOH Os HN O0.0H OON Os Ns.ON OOO NO.HO ONN.H couHOOO N NN .. HO Os ... OOH OO ... NNH ... OON OOHO maou mvflHHU OO ON ON OO NN ... NON Hs ... HHO ... NON OHOOO< uuom O NH OO ss ON ... OO Os ... sOH ... OOO OHOOOOOO HO OO NO OO ON OO.NN oos Os HN.OO NHO OO.NN OOO.H OHOO=< OOOO N . O NO NH O OO.N OO Os ON.OH OOO Os.Hs NOs.H OHuOO O N ON Os ON OH.H OO Ns ON.N HO Os.O sOH OO>HHO O OH NN ON Ns ON.N OON OO OO.O NOO OO.OH ONO «OOO: .mom .mom .Aom .m.m Hauoa huHO .mom HOOOH muOO .mom huNO .mom manuazoa .OaO OOHNH .OOO mo N no N -aoa .OOO O0 N upon .O.O -con HOOON N.O.Ocoov OH OOOON 146 In.” I I I ”lulu-I -.-I "I I'll III. Ill I III M HHH I In IOIIIIIIIIIH Ill .0 I. III! IIIHIIOOIOOI I. I In nun-n l 0.0 I ...... nun-unsunnuu THE THUMB REGION I880 DENSITY OF THE FOREIGN-BORN (per sq. mi.) 0 II b I I O O I II I - o 99 ————————_— j - Inn-unu-n-u-nI-o In II I I‘ll I 'W M“ IIIIuII-I. In. III ‘I'I'OIII - 5 - s 99 ‘ 9 '.- 5| II IIIIII III II 7 I IIIII III ”III." IQII||II I'I I .0. 001 0.4-CI‘ .M'IOI uuuumu- I . IIII I'DI ...: IIIILXII I I‘I'I ,vI-IIHIII "I l' I I IIIII l ,. . .. .. . ., . ‘ I III I? III II 1" -., III I II‘ 'I IIII v0 '9-' IIavII' I Ill‘l IIIOOID I...(l|. III] II I II|'I It HI INI II 0.0 I Ill‘r'l I I""‘l.l“ ll‘v'l‘vl a q IIII I I-IvIn IIIII. II“ II..' Innnnnnwa I'III‘I‘II “nu. II "III”. III! OI Hun-nun IHIIII‘ III-Innuunuq InI-uuun- ll . IIIHIH-vuunu In NH "IIIII'I‘l‘I I nun IIIIIIII ..II- II-I-n 5...! IIOIllll IA'CIIIIIIIIIIIIIO' - O . .. . . ‘ .9 m I‘ I. I . . .- 20- 49.99 50 O .. . ! O0.0-0.0.0.0.“..OHOO NIH-HH-H-I-u- ... I“ II. 0'01 . I I IIIIIIIII Illuuuv 1‘.“ OIIIII CFK Figure 24. 147 The average density of foreigners was 12.55 per square mile compared to the 27.37 mean population density. Eleven townships exceeded the mean foreign-born density, and five of the first six were situated along the coast implying the foreign-born were more densely populated along the coast. Six interior townships reported densities above the county mean. Lexington Township reported the densest foreign-born population with 31.70 per square mile. Natives, for the first time, outnumbered foreigners when Sanilac County recorded 49 per cent of its population as foreign—born in 1880. However, seventeen of its twenty-five townships included more foreign-born than natives. Elmer reported 72 per cent of its population as foreign- born marking the greatest ratio. Only two of the seventeen townships were situated along the coast and only Delaware and Forester exceeded the mean population density. Foreigners continued to account for greater proportions of the pOpulation in the less densely populated areas of San- ilac County. The foreign-born were distributed in much the same pattern as the total pOpulation in Huron County (see Figure 24). The northern and east- ern coastal townships provided the densest foreign-born pOpulations. The mean density was 11.64 per squaremile. Thirteen townships exceeded the mean with Port Austin reporting 35.21 foreign-born per square mile. Paris Township was the only inland township of the leading six to exceed the county mean. Foreign-born in Huron County accounted for 49 per cent of the pOpu- lation and thirteen townships exceeded the mean ratio. Sheridan Township reported 75 per cent of its population as foreign-born. None of the town- ships which reported more foreigners than natives were situated along the coast and only two, Sherman and Dwight, exceeded the county mean density. 148 Foreigners here, as elsewhere in the Thumb, accounted for greater prOpor- tions of the residents in townships which were sparsely populated and more recently settled. Distribution of Canadians Canadians numbered 23,811 inhabitants and included 26 per cent of the Thumb's population in 1880. Sixty-one per cent of all foreigners were Canadians. St. Clair County enumerated 9,842 Canadians who equalled 21 per cent of its population. The Canadian population of Sanilac County increased to 8,5633 and included 35 per cent of its pOpulation. Huron County con- tained 5,401 Canadians who comprised 27 per cent of its population. Cana- dians dominated all other foreign-born groups comprising 57 per cent of all foreigners in St. Clair, 71 per cent in Sanilac and 55 per cent of the foreign-born residing in Huron County. Canadians equalled 14.16 per square mile in St. Clair County. The density pattern of Canadians by township varies from the total and foreign- born distributions (see Figure 25). Six townships reported densities greater than the mean for the county. Only Port Huron, Fort Gratiot,and Cottrell- ville exceeded both the Canadian and total population mean densities. Port Huron Township reported 136.33 Canadians per square mile, and the city of Port Huron contained 24 per cent of the county's Canadians. Brockway, Grant, and Greenwood townships exceeded the mean Canadian density but ranked below the average total and foreign-born densities. Casco and China townships re- ported less than two Canadian per square mile. Twenty-one per cent of the population of St. Clair County were Cana- dians, and twelve townships exceeded the mean. No township reported more 3The total number of Canadians reported in the census for Sanilac County was 9,170 in 1870. The author tallied only 8,568 from the manu- script census. This difference is accounted for by the absence of Bridge- hampton Township for the manuscript census record. 149 'I'II‘IIOII II'IIII II. n I THE THUMB REGION l880 DENSITY OF CANADIANS (per sq. mi.) I 04.99 .......................... M M ___ IIIIII. M m “not w m m .. . O IIIIO'II It! 1mm m!“ I.‘ M I I0. '0. ......‘Cfl‘. ... ..OCCI“‘. I I'll I “M nurunnu 0.00M I Innuu I... ~ I I... I ~ u... III ICC-....CIUUUIII Int-IIO'rI IIIII-IIIIIIIOOO ICOOOOOOCIIIIIUUI III 0 I III II 0.00m on....n.nI-IIIII...A llll- IIOIIIII “0M Ill IIIIIIII-II III I IN" IICOAIIIIII I W l......‘............ I I 0.00.00.00.00”... In- I '00... ' III I Olllll'. III . DO... IIII "IO-- 0. ,._‘.... IO! '3'... ...I-II-. o-II ago. II aI-I OIIa “... .4IIt-IIIII HOO . IIHIIIO' III II... I I... ~ I" III' I' IIII. -llllIIh-lx I I l IIul|- 2053. n22: E...— z. m02<1u 5....“sz 2031.330... 160 The number of comparable townships almost tripled between 1860 and 1870. Increased population growth resulted in the organization of more and smaller townships. Population density increased most in St. Clair County, especially in townships situated adjacent to the St. Clair River. The area encompassed by Port Huron Township, by 1870 divided into Fort Gratiot and Port Huron townships, increased by almost fifty persons per square mile. ‘Most of this increase was absorbed in the city of Port Huron. Substantial change also occurred in interior locations. Little growth took place in Burtchville and Clyde townships, while East China actually decreased in population density. Although Sanilac and Huron counties added over seven people per square mile, township organization lagged behind St. Clair. Only nine comparable townships were organized in Sanilac County. Speaker Town- ship added over twenty-two inhabitants per square mile, and Sanilac in- creased by nearly twenty. Forester and Fremont also tallied substantial changes. Sebewaing was the only comparable township in Huron County, and it added over ten persons per square mile. The rapid settlement of Sanilac and Huron counties is especially apparent during the final decade. The majority of comparable townships in these two counties exhibited substantial population density increases, both along the coast and in the interior. Largest increases were re- corded in Port Austin and Gore townships, each added more than thirty persons per square mile. Delaware, Sand Beach, and Rubicon increased by more than twenty persons per square mile. Population growth in St. Clair County slowed between 1870 and 1880, and China Township suffered a decrease in density. However, Port Huron and Fort Gratiot enjoyed the greatest increases in the Thumb region. Fort Gratiot added over forty persons per square mile while Port Huron 161 swelled by over one hundred and sixty-six inhabitants per square mile. Foreign-Born Population Change The number of foreign-born residents of the Thumb increased from 4,440 in 1850 to 39,826 in 1880. However, foreign-born growth did not keep pace with total pOpulation change. Between 1850 and 1860, the foreign-born exceeded the total popu- lation growth rate. Foreigners accounted for 56 per cent of the Thumb's pOpulation change (see Table 19). Greatest numerical gains occurred in St. Clair County. Foreigners accounted for more of the population change than native inmigration and natural increase combined. The next decade witnessed a decrease in the foreign-born rate of change. Foreigners accounted for 40 per cent of the population change between 1860 and 1870, no longer maintaining a rate commensurate with the total pOpulation change. Foreigners probably accounted for more of the population change than natural increase in Sanilac and Huron coun- ties. St. Clair County suffered the greatest numerical decrease in foreign-born change, while Huron County enjoyed a larger numerical change than incurred during the previous decade. Although the foreign-born change increased between 1870 and 1880, the change was below that exhibited by the total pOpulation. Native inmigration and natural increase continued to overwhelm foreign-born change. It should be pointed out that any children born in the United States of foreign—born parents are considered natives. Density changes in Huron and Sanilac counties were greater than recorded in previous decades. Figure 28 illustrates the location, time, direction, and rate of foreign-born population change between 1860 and 1880. Comparable town- 162 TABLE 19. FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION CHANGES IN THE THUMB REGION: 1850-1880 m F.B. Density Z F.B. F.B. Percentage Year County Increase Increase Increase of Pop. Increase 1850-1860 St.Clair 8,458 12.16 258 54 Sanilac 3,412 3.54 320 62 Huron 1,760 2.11 1853 60 Thumb 13,630 5.47 310 56 1860-1870 St.Clair 3,122 4.49 27 31 Sanilac 3,222 3.35 72 48 Huron 2,916 3.48 157 50 Thumb 9,260 3.71 51 40 1870-1880 St.Claif 2,355 4.35 16 26 Sanilac 4,382 4.55 57 37 Huron 4,977 g 5.94 104 45 Thumb 11,714 5.01 43 37 Source: Compiled by author. 1Data are based on the author's research of the manuscript census records. Bridgehampton Township of Sanilac County is missing from the manuscript census. ships which displayed the greatest increase in foreign-born density dur- ing the first decade of change were Port Huron, Burtchville, Casco, St. Clair, and Ira. These townships, plus Columbus, added more foreigners than natives. Port Huron attracted the largest number, over 500 more foreigners than natives. Port Huron Township accounted for 21 per cent of the county and 15 per cent of the Thumb region change. Fewer foreign-born arrived between 1860 and 1870. Mbre than half the comparable townships recorded significant changes, but only Port Huron and Speaker added more than ten per square mile. Compared to total population change (Figure 27), the rate of foreign-born change was considerably lower. Five townships actually suffered a decline in 163 .mm ouawwm iii-:3}. Hitiam .illollnaa OsO—.0..— o..—-°n.— one—SnI’Op 5.1-<5IOU >- 2053. 032.: wt.— z. moz2m2wo 2¢On.2@.m¢9_ 164 foreign-born density, while eight recorded no significant change. Most of the inactivity was centered in more densely populated St. Clair County.2 Between 1870 and 1880, more foreigners took up residence in the Thumb than during the previous decade. Six comparable townships added more than ten per square mile. Port Huron and Fort Gratiot sustained the largest increases, but seven St. Clair County townships suffered declines. Delaware added more than ten per square mile while worth and Sanilac were the only Sanilac County townships which decreased. Gore, Port Austin, and Sherman demonstrated substantial increases. No town- ship in Huron County recorded a decline, all tallied significant in- creases. Despite the increase in foreign-born arrivals, natives supplied the greatest proportion of the Thumb's population change. Indeed, some more densely populated townships suffered declines in foreign-born density even though total population density increased. Excepting Port Huron and Fort Gratiot, greatest foreign-born change occurred in Huron and Sanilac County townships. Canadians The Canadian-born far outnumbered all other foreign-born groups in the Thumb region. Canadians accounted for the most significant regional as well as county density changes for eadh decade (see Table 20). Al- though the pattern of Canadian and foreign-born change was similar, it did differ to a degree. While the most significant foreign-born change 2Foreigners accounted for large proportions of the population in many townships (Chapter IV). However. with respect to density change the foreign-born influence appears to have been less significant. This disparity is the result of the foreigner's apparent desire to locate in the less densely populated townships, Port Huron notwithstanding. .uonusm ho onwaBoo 165 ma.o m mH.o m m~.o m 0H.o NH No ma.m gases «m.o m ma.o e m~.o m om.o NN om am.m sebum no.0 m NH.o e o~.o m ma.o ma on ha.m owfiacwm .... N oH.o m em.o H ao.o m as mm.m uamHu.um ommH-0awH ma.o a oo.o m mH.o m o~.o om no m¢.N nanny Ha.o m mH.o a H~.o a m~.o NH om ma.a noose .... m mo.o m wa.o a -.o a on mm.~ omaaaam Ho.o- m efi.o m mH.o m «H.o as an qe.u namHu.um cawfi-ooma ~o.c m a~.o m ~¢.o we.o ma ma 0 um mm.~ asses eo.o a wo.o a sH.o ma.o on as o as mm.o cause .... m AH.o oH mm.o NH mq.o a mm o me am.” omaaamm ... ~o.o m oo.o a em.o «a mo.H ma o~.~ we ~a.m unmao.um onwauomwa .m.m .Hom .m.a .uoum .m.m .mam .m.m .uH .m.a .uwo .m.m .amo auasou was» .,mo x no s mo x mo N we a mo 4 II II .I llnlwl‘l 411.! I 1'A‘l.{l' -.I .II'I.‘||| ‘II‘! owwalomwa ”ZOHUmm mSDmH mmH ZH mmbomu zmomlszmMOh nmaomumm Mom mm- ZO..—<.5._Om Z¢On-2<_o.:mzmo z. w029 2902. 023:» wt... 2. ”some leanicfizom cakewaum 08¢ 29.—.522 asp?— uzb so igloo gum; 175 .33....- :mMiZ .Hm unseen saw. . in! 77 LL g H {as Mia-H m T W J j W E'LL H Ii '"J [11111] LILLJ J 3.2!???" JAR"! :5”??? :¥???9 .:.°..9 “saaz‘ '::;:‘ *::::‘ “z":é *— a - L ’1- 1 him "m fl J" {mm Ff? WW. *1 8365: "£300 >0 20.03. 083:» us... 8. «.5080 830929339. empowdm 02¢ 2031552 45.0... as... ...O zgtmoalco xwmfig 4-,— 176 difficult and complex. Inferences drawn from.tohort change are tenuous. However, some guarded generalizations can be made. Typical of frontier areas, males outnumbered females. The propor- tion of males to females decreased as the region became settled (see Table 21). However, in almost every decade the proportion of males was greater in the total, German, Irish, and English populations than among Canadians. The low ratio of Canadian males appears to be related to the proximity of Ontario to the Thumb. To a large degree the native population consisted of NeW’Yorkers and New Englanders who had to travel greater distance to the Thumb than did the Canadians. The Canadian population was overwhelmingly made up of persons from neighboring Ontario. By the end of the period, most of the population increase consisted of native Michiganders. This, in large part, accounts for the low male ratio of the total population in 1880. Furthermore St. Clair County, which is least distant from.Cntario, neintained the lowest proportion of Canadian males throughout the period. As distance from Ontario increased, Huron and Sanilac counties, the pro- portion of Canadian males usually increased. There was a substantial sex ratio difference, among both foreign- born and native populations, between more populated St. Clair County and less densely settled Huron and Sanilac counties. It is clear that the English, Irish, and German populations contained significantly more males than the Canadian or total populations. These groups were even less likely to be accompanied by females in sparsely populated areas. The ageesex pyramids suggest a general aging trend within the tot- al population. The proportion of persons in the youngest cohort, 0-10 years of age, diminished. Children accounted for a smaller proportion of the Thumb's population in 1880 than in 1850. This trend was most 177 TABLE 21. PERCENTAGE OF MALES AFDNG THE TOTAL AND SELECTED FOREIGN-BORN POPULATIONS OF THE THUMB REGION: 1850-1880 == _= m Total County Year Population Canadian German Irish English Thumb 1850 54.0 51.9 5 56.3 61.1 1860 53.8 53.3 5 53.4 60.8 1870 52.6 51.9 5 53.8 60.1 1880 52.11 52.4 5 52.8 60.1 St.Clair 1850 53.2 51.0 57 4 55.2 60.7 1860 52.7 51.6 54 8 52.2 58.9 1870 51.7 50.9 53.1 52.1 59.1 1880 51.4 50.5 53.3 50.4 58.3 Sanilac 1850 55.5 53.5 58.2 62.0 63.0 1860 55.4 54.9 56.5 54.9 63.0 1870 53.0 52.4 57.4 53.6 58.7 1880 52.6 53.8 54.9 55.1 59.9 Huron 1850 62.9 62.1 100.0 60.0 80.0 1860 58.8 59.5 54.2 61.8 68.2 1870 55.7 54.3 57.1 62.8 65.9 1880 52.8 53.3 54.9 57.2 65.1 Source: Compiled by author. 1Based on the Census of Michigan: 1884. Istrongly manifested in St. Clair County. However, it wasn't until 1870 that the youngest cohort attained its greatest proportions of Sanilac and Huron county's population. It would appear that the unsettled or frontier milieu of Huron and Sanilac counties between 1850 and 1870 dis- couraged settlers from.bringing children. Among the foreign-born groups, only the Canadians contributed sig- nificant numbers to the youngest cohort. The Irish and English were least apt to be accompanied by children. To a lesser degree, this was also true of Germans. No doubt, distance accounted for the disparity between the proportions of Canadians and other foreign-born children. 178 It seems that Canadians, and to a lesser degree Germans, manifested a greater tendency to settle as family units than the Irish or English. The statement concerning the Canadian tendency to settle as family units must be qualified. Not all Canadian-born children were born of Canadian parents. Examination of the manuscript census revealed that many were born of Irish, English, and Scot parents. This represents certain evidence that some English, Irish, and Scots arrived via Canada. This trend was less evident among Germans. While the youngest cohort dhminished, the oldest cohort, 51 years and older, increased. Among the foreign-born, this tendency was magni- fied. By 1880 the Irish, English, and Germans exhibited an inverse age structure when compared to the total population. Instead of a wide base at the younger ages, these foreigners exhibited disproportionate pro- portions at the oldest cohort. In 1850, there was a definite preponderance of Irish, English, and Germans included within the 21 to 30 year old cohort. This was particularly evident among males. Canadians were more evenly distrib- uted between birth and 30 years of age. Males far outnumbered females in the young adult ages. This trend was best illustrated in Huron and Sanilac counties. Canadians maintained their greatest numbers between the ages of 11 and 30. Since there were fewer Irish, English, and German arrivals; their populations aged more dramatically. Table 22 illustrates the sex composition of the Thumb's adult population, aged 21 or over, by county. The Thumb's total population suffered a decline in the proportion of adult males from.1850 to 1870, but between 1870 and 1880 the proportion increased. The proportion of adult females increased with each decade. 179 .awmfi "nomena“: mo noncoo on» no panama .uosusw hp poawqaoo "ouuaom a.m~ m.wm m.am o.¢m «.mm w.¢¢ m.m~ m.Hm ¢.ow ¢.mN cams m.om m.oe «.mm m.hm m.Nm m.¢¢ H.wH «.mm m.mH h.o~ chug m.- o.mm m.nm a.¢m m.n~ H.nm m.ma w.m~ m.wH m.mm coma o.o~ o.ow o.om o.om .... o.oou m.mH w.nm h.¢H m.~¢ omwa nouns n.0m m.mm N.¢¢ m.mm n.fim ¢.H¢ «.5N N.nm o.HN m.¢~ owma s.om ¢.mm m.¢¢ w.Hm o.mm m.o¢ o.m~ H.5N H.CN w.m~ ohma ¢.mN m.om m.mm H.5q o.Hm w.¢¢ m.na m.¢~ m.wH n.0N coma m.m~ m.c¢ m.mu n.Hm «.mm o.m¢ ¢.o~ o.NN ¢.oH m.m~ omwa ooHHamm h.mn o.qm m.w¢ m.w¢ N.o¢ ¢.o¢ N.Hm n.mm N.nN ¢.mu owwfi H.5m m.m¢ m.¢¢ m.w¢ o.om m.m¢ m.o~ w.w~ o.- w.¢~ ohma h.m~ o.w¢ «.mm N.~¢ «.mm H.H¢ m.ou ¢.m~ m.cm ¢.m~ coma H.om w.w¢ H.Hm n.md o.m~ w.m¢ m.aH m.m~ m.mH n.m~ omwa Hwoao.um o.- m.mm n.m¢ m.om o.nm N.¢¢ q.w~ «.mm Hm.NN HN.@N owma m.mm e.¢m m.m¢ ¢.om o.mm m.m¢ m.n~ a.h~ o.HN w.¢~ ohms c.m~ H.om ¢.wm H.¢d o.Hm m.o¢ «.mfi m.¢~ m.ou m.o~ coma s.m~ n.w¢ N.om n.o¢ o.m~ m.Om w.mH «.mu «.ma c.o~ omwa nanny onaom mam: unmask mam: mamaom was: onEom mam: camaom can: you» munsoo nowawcm anHH cashew addendum sowuoasoom Houoa ommalommfi "oncmm mzmza HEB ho mZORB .mmm muouo> rmom muouo> .aom muouo> .mom Ououo> .mmm OwamaBOH Hmow .mJH nonuo OOH.H...“ cannou :oHomamu o>Huoz w... W ol muouo> HoHucouom ocm coHuoHonom Hmuoe mo oOOHOooHom 1 m. m D 3. I 8 m m m. a O. O 3 8 TL m a O 3 o I. 1 o e u 3. OOOHIONOH "EMOOOH OH.H.OOUQHMQ NEH nmmo>HHuomsmlmHnmwBoa OO NN .. N O O .. N ON OO OO cons: ON OH .. .. .. O N N OO OO OO ooHHcmm HO mm H .. .. .. .. H O HH OOH uHoHU .um NO OO o m H O H NN ON OHN Aasga OHoHonmo Wuaooo m m O O O m. n .... O O. mw 3 3 u. T. w o a .3 u 1 IHN. .... a 9 .4 T. T. 9 a I. V. A J u T. a a D. I. a a A a S P u a u u 9 3 a... a s .A u D. D. u u. T. D. . 00 T. a“ 1.1. s o o. a. m a T. 1 a s uHOHHo mo Ouucsou No oOoHaoouom OOOHnome HZCHOMO OZO=H HEB zH OonHHmom Bzmzzmm>ow H