, l x 1- . ‘- >; "~~ "‘f'v' - ‘ ‘ " '3: . 9C" .’ ‘ "in ' ‘ ¢ _ ‘1 » ’0‘ 7 ,- 5:5,”,- 7, . t f: 5] , >7t~7..‘fi-v.._}. L ‘ ‘ - , -..« ‘ 42.3423 .g,;3;:‘sza'f¢-~g"r§395’?i;.-. 'fi .1; .. ' -. ~ I tam-1 ??';;.a~itw'*iwifi§ c $31.22,"? . . g. A . I ‘ u, ' --.h A V —' W-Dto' an? ‘0',” "’qu- ; ogr. w A 4 ,5- ".— A“ 1 - q,- - w.n,.o-Q aun- l“Jf4_'~“’-"‘ _ g. :e .‘ 3; ~. 3 |lii !. .3. :1“. a.- 93‘ it“? i ‘ ‘ ‘;I _ . withbxg" i I u :i' - 2 3:. 3'31.- ~ ,5; g a . -- ~‘- - ”ya-n“. d». “nun... ”, a: 4‘ . ... -. ...~ . A ._.—...- «a PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5’08 K:lProj/Acc&PrelelRC/DaIeDuo. indd /THE SOUTHERN-NESS OF HOOSIERDOM: THE NATIVITY OF SETTLEMENT GROUPS IN INDIANA BY 1859, BY Gregory Steven Rg§e A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1981 Copyright by GREGORY STEVEN ROSE 1981 u C? II/ /C/ / ABSTRACT THE SOUTHERN-NESS OF HOOSIERDOM: THE NATIVITY OF SETTLEMENT GROUPS IN INDIANA BY 1850 BY Gregory Steven Rose This dissertation analyzes the nativity of Indiana's population by 1850. Using the microfilmed manuscript census, state of birth for pioneers in each county was ascertained. The small foreign born element was not included, and those born in Indiana were not studied in detail. By comparing, as an example, the percentage of Kentuckians in a county to the state mean for Kentuckians, maps were prepared presenting areas of concentration for natives of each major state in Indiana. Southerners in Indiana were examined in detail because of the greater percentage of Southerners in Indiana than other Old Northwest states. Southerners tended to concentrate in the southern half of Indiana, with Kentucky, Virginia and North Carolina the three leading states providing natives from that region. Specific origins of Southerners were important due to the regional variation between Upland South and Lowland South. This division cuts through the South Atlantic coastal states, so the census nativity source, having birthplace by state only, cannot discriminate between Upland and Lowland Southerners. Gregory Steven Rose The two sources consulted for county based locations are the General Land Office records, giving the land purchaser's previous residence, and the Society of Indiana Pioneers' records, supplying places of birth and migration. Each indicates that most Southerners living in Indiana by 1850 had been born in and migrated from the western parts of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and eastern Tbnnessee and Kentucky, or the Upland South. The Upland South was settled primarily by migrants moving southwestward from southeastern Pennsylvania. Both population and cultural connections exist between the Upland South and the southeastern Pennyslvania cultural core or hearth. In contrast to the Lowland South, the Upland was strongly affected by Middle Atlantic culture, and these traits, somewhat modified by years of change in the Upland South region, can also be found in Indiana, expressed through dialects, words and terms, folk housing, and religion. The strong Southern population element in Indiana was actually Upland Southern, and had significant cultural connections with southeastern Pennsylvania, the initial source of the Upland Southern population. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S A number of debts to people and institutions have naturally been accumulated over the course of formulation, research, writing, and completion of this dissertation. The Michigan State University Interlibrary Loan service obtained a seemingly endless stream of microfilmed census materials during a long year spent at microfilm readers. The staffs of the Indiana State Archives and the Society of Indiana Pioneers provided helpful service during visits to their offices to review research materials. The stipend and honor granted by the Indiana Historical Society Graduate Fellowship during 1980-81 materially assisted in completion of the dis- sertation. And finally, the graduate assistantship provided by the Department of Geography at Michigan State University during 1977-80, and the teaching position for the 1980-81 academic year, have been greatly appreciated, giving both financial help and an opportunity to gain valuable profes- sional experience. Dr. Stanley D. Brunn, graduate advisor from 1975 to August of 1980, helped in formulating the research program, and Dr. Ian M. Matley, graduate advisor after August 1980, was extremely prompt and thorough in his reading of and suggestions for the initial drafts. Thanks also go to Drs. Daniel Jacobson, Frederick Honhart, and Robert Thomas, iii members of the graduate committee, whose comments were valued. Sheridan Dodge inked the outlines of the master copies of maps presented in this dissertation. In addition, many professors in the department have helped in a variety of ways during the last six years, and their kindnesses will not be forgotten. This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Robert L. Rose, and my wife, Terry Maloney-Rose. iv Chapter II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES O O I O O O O O O O O O O O OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis . . . . . . . Rationale: Why There and Then? . Sources of Information . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . PREVIOUS STUDIES OF POPULATION NATIVITY AND ORIGINS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O Nativity Studies in various Parts of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nativity Studies of the Old Northwest . . Nativity Studies of Indiana . . . . . . . THE 1850 POPULATION OF INDIANA ACCORDING TO STATE OF BIRTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures, Problems, and Caveats . . . Results from the Census . . . . . . . . Northern Natives in Indiana, 1850 . New England Native Settlers . . Middle Atlantic Native Settlers . Ohio Native Settlers . . . . . . . Southern Natives in Indiana, 1850 . . Southeast Coast Native Settlers . Kentucky Plus Tennessee Native Settlers . . . . . . . . . . . EXPLANATIONS OF THE PATTERN OF NON-HOOSIER NATIVITY IN INDIANA . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Land Cessions and the Disposition of the Public Domain in Indiana . . . . The Spread of Population and Population Densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Establishment of Indiana Counties . . @03me H 10 10 12 16 21 22 26 31 34 46 47 57 64 67 75 82 Chapter Page V. ROUTES OF ACCESS AND MIGRANT GROUPS IN INDIANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Canals and the Great Lakes . . . . . . . 102 Routes and Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 New England Migrant Routes . . . . . 105 Middle Atlantic Migrant Routes. . . 113 Southern Migrant Routes . . . . . . . 118 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 VI. ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHPLACE, RESIDENCE, AND SUBSEQUENT MIGRATION OF SOUTHERNERS . . . . 131 The Nativity of Ohioans in Indiana . . . 132 Previous Analysis of Indiana's Population by J. E. Layton . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Migration Evidence from the 1850 Census . 143 Major Southern States Represented in Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 145 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 The Step-Wise Migration to Indiana of Southern Pioneers . . . . . . . . . . . 149 General Land Office Records . . . . . . . 157 The Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 VII. MIGRATION TO THE UPLAND SOUTH . . . . . . . . 181 The General Pattern of Migration to the Upland South . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Population Sources in the Upland South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 The Scotch-Irish . . . . . . . . 191 The Pennsylvania Germans . . . . 193 Population Amounts in the Upland South . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Routes of Migration to the Upland South . . . . . . . . . . 197 The Movement of Population Through the Upland South . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Southeastern Pennsylvania . . . . . . 198 western Maryland . . . . . . . . . . 200 western Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 201 western North Carolina . . . . . . . 202 western South Carolina . . . . . . . 205 Eastern Tennessee . . . . . . . . . 205 Eastern Kentucky . . . . . . . . . 206 vi Chapter VII. (Continued) The Upland South as a Cultural Sub-Core . The Migration of the Presbyterian Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upland Southern Dialects . . . . . . _ VIII. SUPPORTIVE CULTURAL EVIDENCE FOR INDIANA'S NATIVITY PATTERN AND SOUTHERN-NESS . . . . Speech Types and werds . . . . . . . . Southern and Middle Atlantic Dialects in Indiana . . . . . . . . The Term "Hoosier" . . . . Religion and Church Affiliation . Methodists . . . . . . . . . Baptists . . . . . . . . . . Presbyterians . . . . . . . Christians, or Disciples of Christ The Society of Friends, or Quakers Folk Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . Place Names and Nativity . . . . . . . Place Names as Cultural Indicators Place Names as Migratory Indicators H . CONCLU S ION . O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O C SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 208 210 211 214 217 218 228 232 233 236 237 239 242 245 249 250 253 257 267 LIST OF TABLES United States Nativity in Indiana, 1850 Place of Residence Previous to Indiana, and Date of Move Migration Patterns of Southerners to Indiana Rankings of States of Birth and Migration viii 154 169 170 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. LIST OF FIGURES Key to Indiana Counties Regional Nativity of Settlers in Indiana, 1850 Ranges of Northern Natives in Indiana, 1850 Settlers of New England Nativity in Indiana, 1850 vermont Natives in Indiana, 1850 Ranges of New England Natives in Indiana, 1850 Settlers of Middle Atlantic Nativity in Indiana, 1850 Pennsylvania Natives in Indiana, 1850 New York Natives in Indiana, 1850 Ranges of Middle Atlantic Natives in Indiana, 1850 Ohio Natives in Indiana, 1850 Ranges of Ohio Natives in Indiana, 1850 Ranges of Southern Natives in Indiana, 1850 Settlers of Southeast Coast Nativity in Indiana, 1850 Ranges of Southeast Coast Natives in Indiana, 1850 Virginia Natives in Indiana, 1850 North Carolina Natives in Indiana, 1850 Settlers of Kentucky plus Tennessee Nativity in Indiana, 1850 Ranges of Kentucky plus Tennessee Natives in Indiana, 1850 Kentucky Natives in Indiana, 1850 Indian Land Cessions in Indiana Land Office Districts in Indiana Population Density of Six Persons per Square Mile in Indiana by Decade ix 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 39 41 43 44 48 50 52. 53 55 59 60 62 69 72 77 Figure 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.’ 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Population Density of 18 Persons per Square Mile in Indiana by Decade Population Density by 1850 in Indiana Dates of County Establishment in Indiana Middle Atlantic Natives in Ohio, 1850 Southern Natives in Ohio, 1850 Migrants from Kentucky in Indiana, According to J. E. Layton ‘ Migrants from Virginia in Indiana, According to J. E. Layton Migrants from North Carolina in Indiana, According to J. E. Layton Indiana Natives in Indiana, 1850 Previous Residences of Migrants from Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia to Indiana, According to General Land Office Records Previous Residences of Migrants from North Carolina and South Carolina to Indiana, According to General Land Office Records Previous Residences of Migrants from Kentucky and Tennessee to Indiana, According to General Land Office Records Birthplaces of Migrants from Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia to Indiana, According to Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records Birthplaces of Migrants from North Carolina and South Carolina to Indiana, According to Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records Birthplaces of Migrants from Kentucky and Tennessee to Indiana, According to Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records Places of Migration from Delaware, Maryland and Virginia to Indiana, According to Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records Places of Migration from North Carolina and South Carolina to Indiana, According to Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records Places of Migration from Kentucky and Tennessee to Indiana, According to Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records 79 80 84 136 137 140 141 142 156 161 162 163 172 173 174 175 176 177 Figpre 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Places of Migration from Ohio to Indiana, According to Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records werd Distributions in Indiana Dialect Boundary Terms in Indiana Methodist and Baptist Church Concentrations in Indiana, 1850 Presbyterian and Disciples of Christ Church Concentrations in Indiana, 1850 Quaker Church Concentrations in Indiana, 1850 House and Barn Types in Indiana Place Names as Cultural Indicators in Indiana Place Names as Migratory Indicators in Indiana xi 179 220 223 235 240 244 247 252 254 Indiana, bounded as they were in 1850 (Figure 1). KEY TO INDIANA COUNTIES The following map provides locations of counties in Reference will need to be made to this map, as counties are not indi- cated on other Indiana maps within the text. The counties below are listed alphabetically, and the numbers of counties follow a serpentine path from the northwest corner of Indiana to the southeast corner along the Ohio River. 18 17 61 25 31 40 Adams Allen Bartholomew Benton Blackford Boone Brown Carroll Cass Clark Clay Clinton Crawford Daviess Dearborn Decatur De Kalb Delaware Dubois Elkhart Fayette Floyd Fountain Franklin Fulton Gibson Grant Greene Hamilton Hancock 89 49 42 29 20 70 13 32 76 71 57 66 10 6 1 3 69 35 48 11 68 22 63 39 56 9 74 79 55 51 87 Harrison Hendricks Henry Howard Huntington Jackson Jasper Jay Jefferson Jennings Johnson Knox Kosciusko Lagrange Lake La Porte Lawrence Madison Marion Marshall Martin Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Noble Ohio Orange Owen Parke Perry xii Pike Porter Posey Pulaski Putnam Randolph Ripley Rush St. Joseph Scott Shelby Spencer Starke Steuben Sullivan Switzerland Tippecanoe Tipton Union Vanderburgh vermillion Vigo wabash warren warrick washington wayne wells White Whitley 12 11 10 Figure 1 Key to Indiana Counties xiii 23 22 .2“ 21 20 n___1: I ‘28 3o 29 w [33 32 37 36 —— ———'L—— 35 3“ 33 no 41 ——-—- I “2 z #3 48 av I ‘ 5° _fg ‘ nu 1+6 5.5.}... jsé 57 58 +——— 59 F ' 60 63 62 61 .mfl, 69 7° Chapter I OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES Introduction Indiana, in contrast to the other states of the Old Northwest, has long been identified as a state particularly strongly influenced by the South. Southern characteristics, for example in speech, are recognized today by visitors to Indiana; these suggest a state south of the Ohio River, such as Kentucky, rather than north. Even the topography of the southern third of the state--rolling, heavily forested in places, and with occasional bedrock outcrops-~seems more Upland Southern than Midwestern. Extensive farm areas and, in the past, the derogatory designation of "Hoosiers" as country rubes and rustics adds a rural component to this perceived Southern-ness. Clearly, the rural and Southern aspects of Indiana are a part of the state's image as perceived by outsiders, an attitude augmented by turn of the century rural and local color writers from the state like Edward Eggleston and James Whitcomb Riley. On a map of population nativity in Indiana, generated from the easily accessible birthplace information in the 1870 census, approximately the southern one-half of the state is depicted as being primarily in the zone of Southern settlement, 1 while the rest of the state is shown as being peopled mainly by Northern natives, for the most part from Pennsylvania. Historians, like Frederick Jackson Turner (1935, 1958), have closely followed this census division in noting nativity and subsequent characteristics in the Old Northwest, typically considering the South as one region rather than dividing it into Upland and Lowland Souths. Various indicators of culture, such as building types and speech terms, have been mapped by geographers (Glassie, 1968; Zelinsky, 1973) and present a similar division between Southern and Northern nativity, with the exact placement of the boundary usually depending on the indicator or the author. In the case of cultural elements, however, an Upland and Lowland South division of that region is often recognized, while all of these maps identify a certain degree of Southern-ness present in Indiana. If the South is divided into two regions—-Upland and Lowland--then, according to the delineation described by Jordan (1967), states or portions of states that qualify as Upland South can be identified and migrants from there can be considered Uplanders. Southern Indiana appears in the "Upper Southern Expansion" zone, an area that was derived from the Upland South. More importantly, both this expansion zone and the Upland South itself have their core in south- eastern Pennsylvania. werking backwards through time and settlement sequence, migration paths from the South which terminated in Indiana can be traced, thereby indicating that this Southern element was a result of the Upland South's expansion. The expansion can be followed through the Upland South, across the Appalachians, north through the Great valley, and finally to its hearth in southeastern Pennsylvania. Recounting the step-by-step retrogression raises a question: were the Southern settlers in Indiana actually more Upland South than Lowland South in nativity and, if so, were they really more Middle Atlantic than Southern in initial cultural origin? This question will form a central theme of this dissertaion, which will prove that Southerners in Indiana were mostly Upland Southerners who came from an area retain- ing at least some of its original Middle Atlantic cultural heritage, and that these Southerners joined an already sizable Middle Atlantic nativity group in the state. Hypothesis The research hypothesis to be examined in this disserta- tion is that Indiana, according to the 1850 census, was settled primarily by natives of the Middle Atlantic states, Ohio, and, in particular, the Upland South. Further, the Middle Atlantic influence may be stronger than just nativity data alone would indicate, for many Upland Southerners may have been born into families who had migrated to that region from the Middle Atlantic states. Numerous Ohioans in the state may have had similar Middle Atlantic origins. It is hypothesized that the strong Southern element in Indiana's population prior to 1850 had its initial American origins in the Middle Atlantic states, and that the Southerners in Indiana were not from the Lowland South (the major plantation area) but from the Upland South (the yeoman and Southern highlands area) that was settled primarily by migrants and native Uplanders from the Middle Atlantic states. According to Thompson (1956), the Middle Atlantic states, because of a central location on the East Coast and their often indistinct regional outline, are not accorded their just recognition in the general history of the United States. This problem can be extended to westward migration and frontier settlement history as well. If it can be shown that most of the population settling Indiana was originally of Middle Atlantic culture, then the settlement history of the state will be better understood. The New England element in migration to the Old Northwest has been studied, and Southern natives have also been researched (Rosenberry, 1909; Barnhart, 1935; and others). R. Chaddock (1908) has considered the Middle Atlantic and Southern elements in Ohio's growth, but few other studies have described, in detail, the migration of Middle Atlantic and Southern natives to the Old Northwest. The migrating peoples brought their culture with them, but it is clear that this culture changed as migrants from many areas mixed and as together they faced new problems demanding new solutions. This mixture and the resultant forging of new cultures were found in each of the new settle- ment areas--inc1uding at one time the Middle Atlantic and 5 Tidewater South, later the Upland South and Old Northwest. So, although the Upland Southerners were not of purely Middle Atlantic culture when they moved to Indiana, they possessed Lowland South culture to an even lesser extent. The difference between Upland and Lowland Southerners was that the former, or their ancestors, had migratory and cultural connections with the Middle Atlantic states and, as Uplanders, when they moved on to new frontiers like Indiana, they carried at least residual evidence of their Middle Atlantic origins. Rationale: Why There and Then? Indiana is chosen as the study area for this research because of its significance as a crossroads location in American history and its long-time Southern identification. Of all the states in the Old Northwest, according to the 1850 census, Indiana had both the greatest number (175,053) and the greatest percentage (18.8%) of its population native to the South in the frontier and early settlement period. Ohio ranked next in number (150,845 or 8.6%) and Illinois next in percentage (136,311 or 18.5%). The two primary source regions to be considered in this study, South and Middle Atlantic, accounted for 44.8% and 19.6% respectively of non-Hoosier born natives present in the state; Ohio provided most of the balance, some 30.8%. When nativity by state from the 1850 census is mapped, a nearly zonal distribution of population results, with Southerners occupying the southern portion of the state and Northerners, primarily Middle Atlantic natives, in the north. It is this apparent contrast that gives rise to the initial questions concerning popula- tion origins and nativity. The year 1850 was chosen for detailed study because it is the first year birthplace by state for each state was recorded in the census, even though it was not published on a county-by-county basis until 1870. In that year, using Indiana as an example, the number of persons living in Marion County but born in Kentucky could be ascertained from the published list, but this list included only those few states with the largest number of natives living in Indiana. Thus, not only is the 1870 published information incomplete, but it represents a relatively late date: the state had, by then, been organized for 54 years and was thoroughly settled. In 1850, however, while frontier conditions were all but absent in most parts of the state, Indiana had not been settled for such a long time that most of the original migrants were deceased. By using the original census returns for 1850, the largest possible number of non-Indiana birth- places can be recorded. Sources of Information Both geographical and historical literature was surveyed to discover how scholars have addressed the question of .7 nativity of settlement groups in various states, the Old Northwest, and Indiana. As the literature review will show, most studies of population origins done in the past for Indiana have relied on non-census materials. More recently, the availability of microfilmed manuscript census schedules has facilitated an increase in the number of detailed nativity studies completed for parts of various states. These records for Indiana were used by E. Lang (1953a) to discover the nativity of settlers in 21 northern counties, but have not been used for those 69 counties in the central and southern parts of the state where the contact between Southern and Middle Atlantic natives was likely the greatest. Four types of primary source material were considered for this study. First, the microfilm reproductions of the 1850 manuscript census schedules for Indiana were examined to determine the origin of settlers in each county by state of birth, because the census question was only specific to that degree. Second, travel narratives, diaries, letters, and reminiscences of settlers in Indiana were reviewed. Often these sources contain perceptive remarks and contempo- rary information regarding the source and destination of migrants. Third, available legal records, such as land purchase or alienation lists were used to gain some know- ledge of the settlers' origins. And last, genealogical records for Indiana pioneers were reviewed to discover both birthplace and subsequent residence on a state as well as county basis. Nativity information, obtained from the census and other sources, formed the major data set; maps created from these tabulations were of primary importance in testing the hypothesis. Procedures To determine whether Indiana is really more Upland South and Middle Atlantic than Lowland South in culture and nati- vity, these procedures were followed. (1) Identification and mapping of the nativity of settlers in Indiana by 1850, as determined from the manu- script census; mapping of out-of—state dominance by state and region of nativity. Natives of foreign countries were completely excluded; Indiana natives were only mentioned. Although those born in the state formed the largest single group, they were probably children or young adults whose parents had migrated from other states. (2) Examination of the settlement sequence through time from south to north (the disappearance of the frontier in the state) and identification of major transportation net- works reaching Indiana which might explain the concentration of certain nativity and cultural groups in parts of the state. (3) Use of the "child ladder method" to indicate origins and subsequent residences of families in the course of their migration to Indiana. Also included in an examina- tion of detailed evidence to identify counties of previous residence and birth for Southern migrants, and mapping of those counties supplying migrants to Indiana. This allowed a more specific identification of nativity, movement, and cultural origins than did the census. (4) Delimitation of the South into Upland and Lowland regions, apportionment of Southern natives in Indiana between those two regions, and examination of the settlement history of the Upland South. The sequence, pattern, and origin of the settlers is described, showing the connections between the Upland South and the Southeastern Pennsylvania (Middle Atlantic or Midland) culture hearth. (5) A further definition of the cultural heritage of Indiana counties, noting how aspects of culture agree with the census-derived nativity maps. Such cultural indicators as words and terms, religion, folk housing and building types, and place names are used. Chapter II PREVIOUS STUDIES OF POPULATION NATIVITY AND ORIGINS Sprinkled throughout historical and geographical litera- ture, particularly since the turn of the century, are various studies of population nativity and linkages between source areas and new frontiers. Many of the early studies presented these connections almost as "givens" while others used the example of movement of notables and their families as repre- sentative of the major trend of migration, which was often true. After the 19208, studies began to rely on increasingly statistical information covering larger groups, in particular that taken from the census, consulted first in its published form and later in manuscript using either the originals or microfilmed.copies. Nativity Studies in various Parts of the United States Investigation of population origins as a correlary to the study of frontier history has been undertaken by numerous historians. F. J. Turner, the most recognized, discussed in two works (1920, 1932) the origins of population in the trans-Appalachian west and the influence of nativity on the character of various sections. F. L. Paxson, another frontier historian, also considered population migrations and settlement 10 11 (1924), as did R. A. Billington (1974): but Billington only mentioned the subject in a minor way. Among geographers, E. C. Semple and R. H. Brown studied the sources of popula— tion and migration. Semple (1903) discussed the influence of routes and barriers in determining the movement of settlers to new locations while Brown (1948), also concerned with settlement, looked more at the evolution of settlement through time and place in the nation. After werld War II, a number of historians began consult- ing census materials to examine nativity in mid-nineteenth century frontier areas. Among the earliest of these was B. F. Lathrop (1948b), who used the manuscript 1850 and 1860 censuses to study migration to East Texas from 1816 to 1860. He also devised the "child ladder method," a technique to identify the step by step migration of families by ascertain- ing the birthplaces of their children, as listed in the census. In 1950, J. S. Douglas published an article on the sources of Oregon's 1850 population, also according to the manuscript census. Studies in various other areas of the United States, using manuscript census, have continued to the present. M. Throne (1959) made a detailed study of Wapello County, Iowa, including nativity, stepwise migration, and age structure. One of B. F. Lathrop's students, V. H. Treat, completed a dissertation in 1967 that used the child ladder method to analyze the manuscript census, describing migration 12 to Louisiana from 1834 to 1880. T. G. Jordan wrote two articles that directly relate to the research in this disser- tation, although they center on the nativity of settlers in eastern Texas. The first (1967) divided the South into two regions, Upper and Lower, and mapped the areas dominated by settlers from each in Texas. T. W. Rogers described popula- tion movement out of South Carolina between 1850 and 1860 in 1967; the next year he did a similar study for Tennessee. In 1971, R. D. Vicero discussed nativity patterns of French Canadian settlers in vermont before the Civil war. J. C. Hudson (1976) considered frontier migration to the Dakotas, noting both the northern European and North American popula- tion elements present. And finally, an article by J. C. Rice, written in 1977, studied the nativity areas for pioneers in south central Minnesota. Typically, these studies have centered on areas in the United States that were settled during the middle and late nineteenth century, due to the availability of census nativity information which was first taken in 1850. One of the major frontier areas that falls within this time frame is the Old Northwest. Nativity Studies of the Old Northwest Focusing specifically on studies of the Old Northwest as a whole, and states other than Indiana in that region, a number of books and articles can be identified that 13 considered sources and elements of the population. Among the earliest was that by R. E. Chaddock on Ohio before 1850 (1908). Using census totals and a compilation of birth- places from county histories, he noted the importance of Pennsylvania and the South in that state's population. In 1933 H. C. Hubbart wrote an article concerning the pro— Southern influence in the Old Northwest, associated with the migration of Southerners to the region. However, he concluded that these migrants were not really Southerners but had become westerners, for they quickly absorbed the frontier character- istics of their new home. And, in a later book (1936), he gave credit both to the Southerners in the Old Northwest, originating mostly in Kentucky and Tennessee, and the Pennsylvanians for the establishment of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois; the trade connections of these states with the South were also discussed. D. R. Fox in 1934 edited a volume of essays which pointed to the Eastern influences on western institutions, in contrast to the common view of independent western development. During the 19303, J. D. Barnhart became a leader in the study of Southern out-migration, concentrating particularly on those who moved to the Old Northwest. He published an article (1935a) concerning the centers of origin for this Southern migration; the region he found to be most usually responsible was the Southern highlands, whose population could be traced back to the Middle Atlantic states. Another 14 article that year, and one later (1940), stressed the leader- ship role these Southerners held in the Old Northwest, and the importance of their Upland Southern non-slaveholding, but not always abolitionist, background. J. E. Schafer (1937) discussed the spasmodic nature of settlement and the impor- tance of natural increase rather than immigration as the major contributor to the phenomenal growth of newly settled states. He concentrated on Wisconsin while mentioning the Southern impact on the Lower Middle west. R. C. Buley's exhaustive study of the Old Northwest's people, institutions, and life in the early settlement times, first available in 1950, considered both the sources for and evolution of the region. Detail abounds: letters, diaries, newspapers, and other contemporary materials were gleaned to create a picture and history of the region in those years. Mention was made of the various elements in the settlement population. A book written in 1953 by R. L. Power studied those cultural groups responsible for the settlement of they southern half of the Old Northwest. He devoted many pages to the Upland Southern element in the population of Indiana and Illinois. Relying mainly on primary sources, such as letters, travel journals, and newspapers, he showed how origins of the Upland South population can be traced to the valley of Virginia, how they had easier access to southern Indiana and settled that part of the state first, and how out of the mixture of different cultural groups the "Westerner" arose . 15 A gap of more than two decades followed these studies, during which time historical frontier studies concentrated increasingly on local history and individual settlements; relatively little work was done concerning nativity and population migration in the Old Northwest. Since the mid 19703 it has primarily been geographers who, using the micro- filmed manuscript census, have described the population origins of this region. Close to this dissertation study area and involving a partially similar state and people, D. K. Meyer wrote two articles in 1976 concerning the nativity, by state, of United States born settlers in the Shawnee Hills of southern Illinois by 1850. Upland Southerners dominated in that area, and the diffusion of folk housing, as an indi- cator of Southern culture, was described by Meyer in a related piece that same year. Another paper by Meyer, in 1980, examined nativity in the Illinois Military Tract between the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. And, in a work soon to be published, H. G. H. Wilhelm describes in detail the popula-. tion origins for the entire state of Ohio in 1850 through the use of the microfilmed census schedules. Most of these publications on the Old Northwest mentioned, as an integral part of the region, the population origins of Indiana. They often noted the stronger Southern element in the state but, of course, did not center on Indiana. Fortu- nately, the Hoosier state has been the main subject of a sub- stantial number of population origin studies, to be reviewed below. 16 Nativity Studies of Indiana Historians were primarily responsible for early studies on the population origins of Indiana settlement. Fueled by the interest in regionalism that affected both historians and geographers in the first half of this century, numerous articles appeared. The earliest considered here, published in 1908 by w. E. Henry, mentioned in particular the Kentuckians (Upland Southerners) and Pennsylvanians in the state. Origi- nally a paper read at a historical society meeting in 1909, this next nativity study, by A. Rogers and subtitled "A Tie that Binds," zeroed in on the North Carolinians in Indiana. Noted was their concentration in a few central counties in the state, the connections that can be drawn between the two states according to word use and vocabulary, and the Quaker element in this migration. In 1915, W. O. Lynch broadly out- lined the population origins of Hoosier settlers before the Civil war. He highlighted the major groups in the state-- Ohioans, Kentuckians, Pennsylvanians-~and claimed that by 1850 the major influx of Southerners was over.' J. E. Layton, in 1916, published an article about sources of Indiana's population from 1816-50; in this study he used land office reports (the purchaser listed his former home) and biographical material collected from county histories. The main thrust of Layton's work concerned the attitudes of Hoosiers, primarily those in the southern part of the state, towards the South and slavery shortly before the Civil War. 17 He found, not surprisingly, that political and sectional dif- ferences were strongly tied to the dominant area of origin for the population. Ohio, followed by the South and then Pennsylvania and New York, were the primary locations of previous residence, while the census list of birthplaces reversed Ohio and the South in order of importance. R. L. LaFollette, in a 1929 article, stressed the Northern and especially Middle Atlantic elements in the settlement and growth of the state. For him, the most important factor in the character of Indiana was the introduction of ideas and folkways carried by the new settlers who were definitely not all Upland Southern in origin. Primarily relying upon the published lists given in the Census of 1870, though later decades were also reviewed, the geographer, S. S. Visher, statistically analyzed the popula- tion of Indiana in three articles, the first published in 1930. Mention was made of the areal distribution and changes through time of population nativity in the state; the pre- ferred destinations of migrating Hoosiers were also noted. The generally low number of foreign born immigrants in the state and the dominance of the non-Hoosier population by natives of particular states, often concentrated in certain areas, were discussed: Ohioans in the northeastern counties, Kentuckians nearest to their own state, and Virginians in the central part of the state. The historian, J. D. Barnhart, was also strongly interested in the population origins of 18 Hoosiers, particularly again, the Southern element in the state. In a 1937 discussion about the creation of the state's constitution, he noted the strong Southern element at the convention, but stressed that it was clearly the Upland South, antislavery and democratic, that accounted for most of this Southern aspect. R. L. Power published an article in 1942 that centered on the Hoosier as a stereotypical frontiersman, showing that the Hoosier folk-type came out of, and evolved from, that of the Upland South, especially North Carolina. Concentrating on Indiana in the 18403, R. H. van Bolt (1951) pointed out the Upland Southern origins of much of the state's population as well as the significance of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina in the settlement of Indiana. And A. H. Meyer, in 1954 and 1956, published two articles describing early transportational and settlement patterns in the Calumet area of northeastern Indiana. After half a century's scholarly study of the origin of Indiana's population, interest may well have peaked with the publication of three articles by E. Lang, in 1953 and 1954, that examined the 1850 manuscript census to describe popula- tion nativity and age structure in 21 northern Indiana counties. In one article that focused on Southern natives who migrated to northern Indiana (1954), she analyzed the census information to disprove the commonly held notion among historians that few Southerners had settled north of 19 the National Road. Numerous Southerners, particularly from Kentucky and Virginia, were present in northern Indiana, and at least some of the Ohio natives were born of Southern parents. In addition to those works that studied nativity itself, a number of articles have been published that examine the origins of certain cultural aspects of Indiana's population. Indirectly, the origin and spread of these cultural traits indicated movements of peOple, for as people move they carry their cultural baggage with them. Features of Hoosier and Midwestern vocabulary and pronunciation are considered in articles by A. H. Marckwardt (1940, 1957), M. Carmony (1972), and R. I. McDavid and v. McDavid (1973) concerning the word "Hoosier" itself. Related to these studies, a dissertation completed in 1970 by A. L. Strickland examined the distribu- tion of selected folk words in Indiana, and Hoosier folk architecture was the subject of an article published in 1977 by R. W. Bastian. An essay by H. W. Marshall and J. M. Vlach (1973) used central Indiana as one example in support of their argument that a "folklife" approach to dialects, combining their distribution with patterns of material culture, allows a more complete consideration of vocabulary and population migration history. Finally, a newly published work by J. M. Bergquist (1981) used central Indiana again as a case study for discovering the origins of Hoosier, and Midwestern, culture through the use of the folklife approach. 20 While most researchers have considered the population origins of Indiana from non-census evidence (E. Lang used the 1850 census but studied less than one quarter of the state's counties) and others have used the manuscript census to discern the nativity of settlers in different states, no researcher has put the two sources together, along with cultural evidence, to describe fully the nativity of the 1850 population of Indiana, with emphasis on migrants from the Upland South and Middle Atlantic states. That will be the primary objective of this dissertation. Chapter III THE 1850 POPULATION OF INDIANA ACCORDING TO STATE OF BIRTH This study of population origins is based on an examina— tion of those origins as defined by place of birth or place of previous residence. Either source of information is of value when determining cultural elements in the state and the strength of one region's representation relative to the others. Neither is able to present the full story, however, because each concerns only a part of the complete frontiering experi- ence. Nativity information tells where people were born but, considering the mobility of the population and the tendency for their movement to occur in steps from frontier to frontier, it indicates little about any intermediate places of residence. Knowledge is limited to where settlers had been born and where they were living on June 1, 1850, when the census takers I found them. If these settlers had remained in a certain place for a particularly long time, at least a number of years, they probably had absorbed important aspects of the culture of their neighbors in that location. Previous areas of temporary residence were an important factor in the . migrant's culture, especially for the children, who were growing up in this new cultural milieu. Thus, information 21 22 on place of previous residence for the Indiana settlers has great value. But typically not included in this type of source are places of residence prior to the one from which the move to Indiana was made; nor is place of birth noted. Both birthplace and previous residence need to be examined; this chapter and the next two will do so for Indiana. Procedures, Problems, and Caveats Using the microfilmed manuscript census, Elfrieda Lang, working in the late 19403, was the first researcher to under- take a detailed examination of Indiana's population nativity and age structure as of 1850. She limited her study to the 21 (now 22) northern counties in the state where, because of the pattern of settlement advance, only 165,286 of the state's total of 988,416 people lived in 1850 (Lang, 1953a, 21). Place of birth for the balance of the state (70 counties and 823,130 people) has been ascertained by the present researcher and, when combined with the list made by Lang, now makes a complete enumeration of United States place of birth for Indiana citizens in 1850 available. The following procedure was used to create this data base. First, as mentioned above, foreign born natives were not included in the data collection. On a statewide basis, these natives in Indiana numbered 54,426, or 5.5% of the popu- lation, not an insubstantial number (in fact, this figure was greater than the total for all New England natives in the 23 state), but not directly associated with the question of Southern-ness (Seventh Census, 1850, xxxvii). For each Indiana county, a record of the number of United States born settlers native to each state was made and percentages of the population in that county native to each state were computed. This figure was compared to that for each state in Indiana as a whole (for example, Marion County had 4.9% of its popu- lation born in Maryland, as compared to a statewide mean of 2.6%) and, on a base map for 1850, counties were identified as either above or below the mean percentage figure for settlers from that particular state in Indiana (Table 1). In this fashion, a complete series of maps for Indiana of settlement above or below the mean for each supplying state was created. Not all the states in the Union in 1850 are included in this map set--only maps for the states east of the Mississippi River, excluding Louisiana and Wisconsin, and placing today's west Virginia within Virginia as it was at the time, were made. Some of these will appear below as each source region is discussed. The tables created by the Census Bureau giving (to continue the example) the total number of Marylanders living in Indiana in 1850, were arrived at in much the same manner as the figures in this study--by tabulating the population native to each state as shown on the manuscript schedule forms (Seventh Census, 1850, xxxvi-xxxviii). Errors, omissions, and disagreements were inevitable during the 24 TABLE 1 United States Nativity in Indiana, 1850 Census Totals Microfilm Totals State Number Percent* Number Percent* Connecticut 2,485 0.64 2,619 0.64 Maine 976 0.25 1,027 0.25 Massachusetts 2,678 0.69 2,863 0.70 New Hampshire 886 0.23 947 0.23 Rhode Island 438 0.11 413 0.10 Vermont 3,183 0.82 3,296 0.81 New Jersey 7,837 2.01 8,154 2.00 New York 24,310 6.23 25,708 6.31 Pennsylvania 44,245 11.34 47,073 11.56 Alabama 395 0.10 411 0.10 Delaware 2,737 0.70 2,764 0.68 Georgia 761 0.19 758 0.19 Maryland 10,177 2.61 10,554 2.59 Mississippi 287 0.07 258 0.06 North Carolina 33,175 8.50 32,878 8.08 South Carolina 4,069 1.04 4,069 1.00 Virginia 41,819 10.71 43,288 10.63 washington, D.C. 227 0.06 209 0.05 Kentucky 68,651 17.59 70,552 17.33 Tennessee 12,734 3.26 13,087 3.21 Illinois 4,173 1.07 4,344 1.07 Indiana 541,079 518,692 Ohio 120,193 30.79 127,845 31.40 Michigan 1,817 0.47 1,950 0.48 Missouri 1,006 0.26 985 0.24 Miscellaneous 1,054 0.27 1,087 0.27 TOTAL NON-HOOSIER 390,313 407,139 *Percent not native to Indiana 25 census tabulation as well as during subsequent researches. These problems are present here, and had been recognized at the time that the 1850 census was published. The director of the census, J. D. B. DeBow, reported that "blanks in the nativity column sometimes extend to whole pages. These blanks were considered in the office to mean that the person was born in the state . . ." in this case, Indiana (Lee and Lee, 1960, 678). Also discrepancies arose between figures in different tables that should have been the same. A comparison between two different tables in the 1850 census report shows, in the case of Indiana, these disagreements: for total population born in the United States, either 931,392 or 930,458; for total foreign born, either 54,426 or 55,572 respectively; for total of unknown birthplace, either 2,598 or 2,386 respective- ly; and for those born in Indiana, either 541,079 or 525,732 respectively (Lee and Lee, 1960, 678-79). Surprisingly, when either the first or second value in each set is added up, they each total 988,416 for Indiana's 1850 population. In this research, as birthplaces were tabulated, blank spaces and even blank pages in places were considered to indicate unknown birthplace, rather than assumed to identify native Hoosiers. Only in those cases where there was no doubt were the blanks assigned to a particular state. Occasionally pages would be repeated on the microfilm copy, seemingly having been filmed twice; at other times it 26 appeared that pages were missing and had not been filmed. As a result of all these problems, state of nativity totals counted by this researcher and those in Table XV of the census agreed in only one instance, for South Carolina. In most cases, totals compiled for this research were somewhat higher, particularly for Pennsylvania and Ohio, although this was not always the case--both North Carolina and Indiana itself were lower. Overall, there was a disagreement in totals of less than one percent, but the largest difference was for Indiana--541,079 according to Census Table XV but 518,692 according to this research, leaving a disparity of 22,387 natives. Interestingly, the figure collected for this dissertation compares more favorably with the second, lower, Census Bureau figure mentioned above; by using that number, the difference in Indiana natives is reduced to only 7,040. Results From the Census Accompanied by the maps showing counties in Indiana above and below the mean, and half and one and a half times the mean, the sections below present the results from this journey through reels of microfilm, and examine the specific patterns of settlement that appear. In all cases where per- centages are given for regional or state nativity in Indiana, the figure is a proportion of all non-Indiana and non-foreign born people living in the state, according to computations made for this research. 27 Northern Natives in Indiana, 1850 By combining settlers from New England, the Middle Atlantic states, and Ohio, the category of Northern natives was created, comprised of persons born north of the Mason- Dixon line and the Ohio River, and east of the Mississippi River. This Northern nativity group included natives of Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, but together they only accounted for 1.6% of the pOpulation. With 4,344 natives in Indiana by 1850, Illinois was the largest contributor of these three with 1.1% of the total Northern population. Most were found along the western border of Indiana, where every county was higher than the state mean in native Illini population. Statewide, Northerners comprised 55.6% of the non-Hoosier, non-foreign population. A map showing areas with greater than average numbers of Northern natives reveals a boundary between Northerners and Southerners approximately through the center of the state, with Southern penetration farthest north in the center of Indiana and Northerners in the southeastern corner (Figure 2). Despite the fact that more than half of the state population was born in the North, fewer than half (only 45%) of the counties fall into the Northern nativity category. The particularly large percentage of the Indiana migrant population born in Ohio, over 30%, enlarged the Northern nativity values. Further examination of Ohio nativity below will reveal a substantial number of Southerners in its population. 28 Figure 2 . Regional Nativity of Settlers in Indiana, 1850 S stupid CEEI .sneiLnI n1 axeiiju3 Eo yjiviibn Isnoipofl 29 On a map of Northern settlers above 83.4% and below 27.8% of the county population (half again and half as much as the mean value), what will become a typical northeast versus southwest split is first seen (Figure 3). Those areas most heavily settled by Northerners were in the northeast portion of Indiana, with Steuben County the leader (98.2%); in the south central and southwestern parts of the state, Northern settlers were relatively few, with a low of 7.7% in Monroe and Orange counties, both in the south central portion. A rather substantial northwest to southeast belt running through the state was settled by an intermediate number of Northern born settlers. In those counties on the Ohio River and in the southeasternmost corner, the much higher than average number of Northerners present often indicated concentrations of New England and Middle Atlantic native migrants. Although over half of the total non-Hoosier population was born in the North, this was still significantly below the average of 70.7% Northern born for the Old Northwest region.’ Next to Indiana, Illinois was the lowest, with 62.8%; Northern native amounts increased in order from Ohio to Wisconsin to Michigan, highest with 98.1%. By dividing the North into two regions, New England and the Middle Atlantic states, and including Ohio as a separate state in the Northern region, a detailed description of the relative importance and preferred settlement locations for natives of different Northern regions and states who settled Indiana by 1850 can be presented. 30 Percent Mean556 Figure 3 Ranges of Northern Natives in Indiana, 1850. O. ; or! .r 5...;- L ,t. no ... . .....- m ; . i .4 h. I A! ulJ 0.. . ..-. .o I. Y. I, _ x \\ . r . I]! I . F4 .4“. . e r \ ,c .l“ e'\ V v V .- - l . a . v I. u u v A I— ) . .. .. \ « vilI- I’II I u . . \pf MW A A r.’. .... I . \. -. .) .-.. I, .. . a. I e. 4.11.... . ..x A... ... . . .l . n I .. a ‘1! .- 1|- || .l- 1... I V .I (a u I . ' ... u I .r 0'... I- ... \ .‘|‘\ ... ~ ..l l u r r a Do. . e 41'...- ) s‘... 31.11.. . . . _ _ . .. . . . , . e. or . .. I . _ I. . . f r um ... a: _ ~ . a V .J, . e . _ . x x .. . \ . ~\. I I I I 1. u l . \ / _ v ‘ \ ll _ _ . _ - .. . ,. — z .. . I 4|. ‘1'.- ..r'... I ll" ‘- Ii‘". .4 a . \I\ I... n - J k‘n H . ...! - .., a fl . ' Is \ . I. . . . z .. .0. v . v_ s y . . - w w . _ _ n _ .. .- - fl I n 1‘ a u .. . J. u ‘5' I) .o. a " 1| - .t. _- . .L V74 I I . w o ' A . _ . _ . o -‘ l4: , - I It» If J4... .- \...a. ,6». . .‘ (GI-NJ: ..N . a 1.01.. . 9 . . . .I . , .. . . . . I F .11“ . I an . .- . a v F52. . 'l u v w \ - I- .I o '\ / . .H- y r . . . .. .3 , . . I c h . 1.. 4 .... . . ..I .I _ a . .. _. . , . I .... ,. .. .7..- e _ . I ,t . . . .. . .- 8 . . * ..o .. - er. I I." .. we. I. . 1.8-.) ,- ..- - .F . e 1. a - a . . , . g, . . . - . e .r 5‘... a . I .4 . . . a . arfiwfiwfiw W W. a$3rtuugml ..r..i J..- .|.¢.. ... - I .1) it. :0, a. I... 9. . eav- Q .. - . . , - . . m . I“ - . - . . . _ .uflu 1‘, s. . . a r. i _ . . --.. .... . ., - , . . . -.,. . I J _ a .. . I... r , v I ‘ I 4 ..l I- .1 .. .lI! I I. . I. a: _ . . 4‘ . ., u - o O. I)?‘ I . . . . -_ ,- g . . .1 ' «St a r/ \w v\\ . . . _ I . I, . . _ . . I- . . . . . . t. c * . I . _ b. I . \ ..\ .. \ I. It _ I. s u I.‘ e 7:! (I I III! II...‘ II I I IL » ~ If u \ _ 1 _ .e .13 ’ ... x . e A . .. a r F .e _ . . . h . n. , y \ . 3 1 ~ It). .I s .Olt C ‘ . I . .\ s g \ H e _ u u v v . . 3:1.r _ 1 _ . .-L. n . . ...)! -.r- L. . . ._r r . . . . e I I I “ , J l . . III. p .. “ ., I. q I!) . .\- . . . - _ .. .1 . _ .1 31 New England Native Settlers In comparison to all other regions, relatively few-~a total of 11,165--natives representing New England lived in Indiana at the time of the 1850 census. Only 2.7% of the non-Hoosier, United States born settlers in the state hailed from the New England states, far below the 10.3% average of Yankees for the Old Northwest as a region. Of the New England states, it was not Massachusetts, with the largest popula- tion, providing the most settlers but vermont, which had 3,296 natives present in Indiana, slightly over 0.8%. Massachusetts was next with 2,863 settlers, followed by Connecticut (2,619) and Maine (1,027). New Hampshire and Rhode Island together had the least, with less than 1,400 total natives. When the mapped pattern is examined, a few notable items appear (Figure 4). First, New England born settlers were concentrated on the fringes of Indiana, mostly next to the northern border and along the Ohio River, particularly in the southeastern corner of the state nearest to Ohio. Except for a few scattered counties, the central portions of the state were below the state average for New England born settlers. This pattern was representative for each of the New England states individually as well, as seen in the case of vermont (Figure 5) . Second, a map of those counties where New England natives accounted for less than 1.4% of their population, as opposed to those counties with more than 4.1% of their settlers from 32 Mean 2.? percent Figure 4 Settlers of New England Nativity in Indiana, 1850 SE nsmnmmdA E93 “"1 neoanomq [_;J memeq V S nseM b eiupii DESI ‘easibnl a: yjivijsw bnsfpnfi wen 30 21913398 33 I Above mean I Below mean Mean 0.8 percent Figure 5 Vermont Natives in Indiana, 1850 OEBI neenvevod m nmynwom 109:)er 5 O 6 szupii ‘snsibnl ni eevijnn 3fl0m19V nseM 34 there, clearly shows both the concentration and the absence areas (Figure 6). The extreme range of that region's popula- tion percentages was from a low of 0.24% in Monroe County in South central Indiana (only 10 of the 4,166 non-Hoosier migrants were New Englanders), to a high of 13.1% in Lake County, in the extreme northwestern corner. A zone of transition surrounded the highlighted portions of the state. Those areas with nearly twice the average number of New Englanders were clearly on the northern, northeastern, and southern borders; along the Ohio River they were found at the west and in the southeast corner. Places with less than half the usual number of New Englanders were in the central belt and southwestern corner of the state. Middle Atlantic Native Settlers Partly on the strength of the Middle Atlantic natives present in Indiana, the Northern population in the state was relatively well represented, although less so than in the surrounding states of the Old Northwest. Nearly one fifth (19.9%) of Hoosier settlers were from the Middle Atlantic region, compared to an average for the 01d Northwest of 42.4%; as was the case with New Englanders, Indiana had the lowest percentage of its population native to the Middle Atlantic states in all of the 01d Northwest region. Illinois was next lowest with 28.5%, and the high of 64,1% was reached by Michigan. In Indiana, Pennsylvania provided the largest :portion of Middle Atlantic representation, with 11.6%, :followed by New York (6.3%) and New Jersey (2.0%). 35 Percent ‘ I Above 4.1 I ...... { 2 Mean 2.7 ' AV; g “(I .. ; “Figure 6 Ranges of New England Natives in Indiana, 1850 EE In9019q ... '2 . 'l r. Lb evooA E. _ I 1 etwolea} J VS nSSM a erupt? CEBI .snslbnl ni asvijsM bnsfpna won 30 eepnsfl 36 Perusal of the maps for the Middle Atlantic region and the two most important states within it reveals some signi- ficant differences between the states. For the region as a whole, Middle Atlantic natives were concentrated in two areas of the state: the northern third, except for along the Illinois border, and in the southeastern corner, with some scattered counties along the Ohio River (Figure 7). Since Pennsylvania was represented by almost two thirds of the Middle Atlantic settlers, the regional pattern and that of Pennsylvania were very similar, except for a few counties in east central Indiana (Figure 8). The settlement pattern of New Jersey natives was quite spread out, resulting in only occasional areas of any real concentration--a grouping of counties in the southeastern corner and a few in the west center and northwest. A striking settlement pattern difference in this region results from a comparison of maps presenting Pennsylvania and New York nativity. New York natives concentrated mostly along the northern border, not moving nearly as far south as the i Pennsylvanians did and, other than in the southeastern corner, generally avoiding the balance of the state (Figure 9). Moreover, a comparison of the New York pattern with that of the New England region reveals close agreement, particularly if it is directly compared to Vermont. Judging from the mapped pattern alone, there may have been a greater cultural connection between New England and New York than between 37 I Above mean Ill Buownwmw Mean 19.9 percent Figure 7 Settlers of Middle Atlantic Nativity in Indiana, 1850 YE r7"! nsem evocA - ' ...-..Z'J‘ r-w rmunwohai ...—.3 M90191: 9 er "F’BM T eruuii L 088! \sneibni at yjivkjsm aitnanA elbbiM io aisljfisa 38 Mean 11.6 percent Figure 8 Pennsylvania Nat‘ix'res in Indiana, 1850 088i ‘1 F‘- nsom woha L J memoq a.rr naeM 8 9109i? ‘snsian ni asviisw sinsvlyannsq 39 I Above mean ' 2*. g Below mean . Mean 5.3 percent Figure 9 , New York Natives in Indiana, 1850 1" '3 num ovodA t J In..- mom wolaa r—w L....._':l Ineowq 8 3 ’1653-1 9 svupii 0881 ,snstbnl ni agvijsw XIoY wsw 40 New York and Pennsylvania, if the pattern of westward migra- tion and settlement is used as an indicator of cultural similarity. Additional research along this vein might yield valuable results beyond the already known importance of New England in the settlement of western New York state. A map of those counties with substantially more or fewer Middle Atlantic natives than the state average shows those portions of Indiana where these natives were most concentrated (Figure 10). The extreme range was from a high of 49.2% of the population native to the Middle Atlantic region in Lake County at the northwest, to a low of 3.3% in Monroe County, in the south central area. These same two counties also recorded the high and low figures, respectively, for New Englanders. In fact, the pattern of nativity above and below the mean is very similar for both regions, particularly for counties with settlement amounts significantly above the mean. Those counties below average are grouped primarily in the west central and southwestern parts of the state, noticeably farther south than was the case with New Englanders. The relatively high number of counties in the intermediate settlement concentration category, a total of 48, coupled with the high regional mean of nearly 20%, suggests that Middle Atlantic born settlers were typically present in all counties and all areas of the state. Ohio Native Settlers Of all the Indiana settlers born in the North, natives of Ohio made up the largest group, larger in fact than any 41 -Peroont I'll Abow3298 Bdow 99 Nban199 ‘ Figure 10 Ranges of Middle Atlantic Natives in Indiana, 1850 tnaneq er-m a989wxflx Lea 7"1 . k? . 99 we»: L-u 9.2! as 'M t-1 CD avrx'jz'; (1.. - .. '1 ya up?! :3 n.£3§ oILbiM Bo aspnnfl 42 other single state. Only native Hoosiers, born and living in Indiana, comprised a greater settlement group in 1850. Ohio is treated alone as a source of migrants because, in addition to its large population of 1,980,427 by that year, the state was in the "west" itself (Seventh Census, 1850, xxxvii). Like Indiana, it was a state that received heavy immigration after the Revolution and particularly after the war of 1812; it also had received the impact of migrants who had undergone cultural change on their way to Ohio. The map of Ohio natives above and below the mean of 31.4% of Indiana settlers born in that state shows a very sharp north-south division, close to the traverse of the National Road through Indiana (Figure 11). The northern half of the state, except for a few counties in the northwest corner, received a substantial number of Ohio born settlers while the south, including some counties on the Ohio border, was below Indiana's average level of Ohioans. Suprisingly, a map of those areas receiving the heaviest immigration of Ohioans (above 47.1% of the county's population native to that state) and of those areas receiving the least (below 15.7%) shows the southern half of the section along the Ohio border as having intermediate levels of Ohioans, despite nearness to that state (Figure 12). The southwestern portions of Indiana also had a relatively insignificant number of Ohio natives. Unexpectedly, a group of counties along the northern border of Indiana appeared in the intermediate classification, 43 I Above mean I Below mean Mean 31.4 percent Figure 11 Ohio Natives in Indiana, 1850 Eb F71 newnewmA i nsem wot-=8 ' 1 -_J meowq b .‘8 nneM II stupii OEBI ‘snzibnl n1 aevijsn oido 44 Percent I Above 47.1 ‘ Below 15.7 Mean 31.4 Figure 12 Ranges of Ohio Natives in Indiana, 1850 ~ , tneme’l . J. ,‘ i 1‘ "_ ‘ ‘ . ..i‘v 1' ’ . ‘ - ‘ . ' ' t.“ eve-1A ‘r- ~ - V tar W033 {'8 "8:3” .. _‘ '. ‘ 7“. v ;. i a , ,, , .. r ‘1 . . . a.“ _ 1.: ..‘t _' . n . ’ - - - ~ .-- -.‘ ,‘ __. .' ‘ r _ ‘ p ,- - . . ‘ ' u -_". . . '_ .0. 1‘." ' '~ ‘ v . i . 4' . ‘2_ ’7 '.‘_r\_ .v-‘y L 45 suggesting dominance here of two different Northern nativity groups: New Englanders and Middle Atlantic migrants. The migration pattern of Northern natives presents a few Significant points. First, the general concentration of Northern migrants in the northern parts of the state appears to support the oft-repeated theory of direct westward or latitudinal movement of settlers from their birthplaces to the frontier, as noted by F. L. Owsley and others (1949, 59). Second, the major Northern group in Indiana was not from the East Coast but from the "western" interior state of Ohio, which itself had received strong immigration from Virginia, Kentucky, and in particular, Pennsylvania. Third, the over- all absence of New England natives and the low percentages of Middle Atlantic born settlers in Indiana, when compared to other Old Northwest states, indicates the Southern element in Indiana was stronger than was typical for states in the Midwest. It also suggests that the perceived Southern-ness present in Indiana has, in general outline, sufficient support in fact to be accepted as actual. Just over half of the 1850 non-Hoosier born population of Indiana was of Northern birthplace, leaving nearly half of this population native to the South, a substantially higher amount than in any other state of the Old Northwest. The next section describes the Southern migration to Indiana in greater detail. 46 Southern Natives in Indiana, 1850 The South is quite a large area to be considered as a single unit stretching, as it does in common conception, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River, south of the Mason—Dixon line. This view is particularly over-simplified in comparison to the North, which is typically divided at least into New England, the Middle Atlantic states, and the Midwest. The single-region conception of the South is too macrosc0pic to describe regional variations in the South or of Southern-native migrants. As described here, the South is comprised of the region delineated above and includes washington, D.C. but excludes Louisiana. After a discussion of the region as a single unit, the pages below split the South into two major divisions for closer analysis. Southern born settlers in Indiana comprised 44.0% of the migrant population by 1850, in comparison to an average for the Old Northwest of 28.3%, and higher than any other state--Illinois was next with 34.7%. A map of this pattern- of Southern nativity is, obviously, a reversal of that seen for Northern nativity, with Southern migrants concentrated in the southern half of the state and extending rather far north in the central areas, but exceeded by Northern natives in the southeastern corner (Figure 2). When the extremes above and below the mean are mapped, showing those counties with greater than 65.9% of their migrants from the South and those with less than 21.9% from 47 there, it appears that the most heavily Southern settled areas were those in the southwestern quarter, while throughout much of the north, but particularly in the northeast, Southern born settlers were far fewer than was normal for the entire state (Figure 13). The county having the fewest Southerners, Steuben (only 1.8%), is at the northeasternmost corner; Monroe and Orange counties, each with 91.5% of the non-Hoosier population native to the South, had the greatest amount and are found at the eastern edge of the southwestern quarter, nearly at the state's north-south axis. A large portion of the state was in the intermediate classification, including those counties in the southeastern corner--Dearborn, Ohio, Ripley, Franklin, Union--that were below the statewide mean for Southern born settlers. Neither of the two regions excised from the South for further study include the states of Georgia, Florida, Alabama, or Mississippi. These four states were frontiers at the same time that Indiana was and, while they did provide some migrants to Indiana, the number (1,446) and percentage (0.4%) was guite minor; Georgia alone accounted for 758 migrants, more than half of the total. The two regions of the South identified for description below are the Southeast Coast and Kentucky plus Tennessee. Southeast Coast Native Settlers This region was comprised of those states touching the .Atlantic Ocean from the Mason-Dixon line to Georgia, namely ‘Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, plus 48 Percent III )wae660 I Below 22.0 Mean 44.0 Figure 13 l'Ranges of Southern Natives in Indiana, 1850 tneouefl f'.-"f 0689v01\ # ’ II 'J r‘fi OSSwoiz-H L i ...—l 0.» nee-V. 058 I £1 eznpifi (ensibzl hi savijsu n.9djuca 30 aopzefl 49 the city of washington, D.C. Each of the states except Delaware extended west at least to the Piedmont; some extended well into the Appalachians. The region included what is now west Virginia as a part of Virginia, the way it was in 1850, with all other boundaries essentially the same then as now. Southeast Coast natives in Indiana by 1850 constituted 23.0% of the state's population, higher than the Old North- west average of 17.0%, and higher than any state in the Old Northwest except Ohio with 24.9%. For Ohio, 63.9% of the Southeast Coast migrants were from Virginia and another 27.4% from Maryland, yielding a combined percentage of 91.3%. In comparison, Marylanders and Virginians together accounted for only 57.4% in Indiana; North Carolina was a significant contributor to this state. For Southeast Coast nativity above and below the mean, the map shows a similar pattern to that for the entire South, but with some notable changes (Figure 14). First, several counties along the Ohio River were below the mean for natives from this region. Second, the region also below the mean in the southeastern corner of Indiana increased westward but decreased in northward extent. And finally, the area of Southeast Coast natives has been extended and enlarged in the east central portion of the state, adding a few counties such as Randolph, Delaware, and Grant. The sharply east to southwest trend of those sections settled by Southeast Coast 50 - Above mean Igg Bdowrmmn Mean 23.0 percent Figure 14 Settlers of Southeast Coast Nativity in Indiana, 1850 - ., £1 etLprx DESI .sueibnl ni yttqijhfi jinn) JafiadtJoa 30 2151333? 51 natives is apparent, starting in the east central part of the state and moving toward the areas along the wabash River border with Illinois. Relatively few Indiana counties contained settlement levels above 34.6% and below 11.5% Southeast Coast natives, as 66 of the 90 counties were between those levels in the intermediate classification (Figure 15). The mapped pattern is a distillation of the settlement distribution noted above. Along the northern and northeastern border, and one or two counties away from the line, Southeast Coast nativity substantially below the mean was found, the low of 1.6% appearing in Steuben County at the northeast corner. A curving line from the center of the eastern border, west to the middle of the state and then south, identified the location of counties significantly above the mean for this region's settlers; the high of 48.2% was reached at Henry County in the east central area. An examination of the mapped pattern of settlers from the two leading source states in this region, Virginia and North Carolina, reveals an interesting difference. Virginia supplied 43,288 migrants, or 10.6% of the non-Hossier total, the fourth largest number of migrants. The pattern of their settlement was somewhat more dispersed than was true for the region (Figure 16). Most noticeable was the strong northward extension of these migrants, and the relatively sparce settle- ment by Virginians in the southeastern and southwestern corners. A fairly strong settlement spur proceeded northward 52 Percent I Above 34.5 Mean 23.0 Figure 15 Ranges of Southeast Coast Natives in Indiana, 1850 0“" .- ’K-v \ c his: )2 d tat: 9w..- E‘. N web"? 0 SS {lb-HA :- '1 l " t I u \ . i l i 53 . Above mean I Below mean Mean 10.6 percent Figure 16 Virginia Natives in Indiana, 1850 b1 erupii .T -. r2 snvjisfl siniptiv d nsem svodA L4; nsem woleEl .L—J lnemeq aor neeM 54 from the south central portion along the Ohio River, and a particularly strong belt of settlement extended from east to west through the center of the state, close to the course of the National Road. This central region contains Madison County, where a high of 23.7% of the non-Hoosier population had been born in Virginia. Harrison County, in the area where Virginians settled heavily along the Ohio River, was next in dominance with 22.3% of the county Virginian native. Addition- ally, the northeastern portion of the state was avoided by Virginians, although the northwestern part did receive settle- ment by them. The five counties in the northeast corner all averaged a level of Virginian settlers that was less than half that for Indiana as a whole, from 4.2% in Noble County to a low of 0.9% in Steuben County. North Carolina born migrants in Indiana totaled 32,878 or 8.1%, the fifth largest source. A different pattern of settlement by North Carolina natives appeared, very strongly concentrated in the southwestern portion of the state, and not extending nearly as far north as did Virginians (Figure 17). Sixty-three counties in Indiana had either half or twice the state average level of North Carolinians, suggesting a tendency for these migrants to concentrate in a few areas only. Two such regions appear on the North Carolina settler map: first, the counties in the east central part of Indiana, around Henry County, with 24.6%; and second, in the south central to southwest area where, 55 I Above mean I Below mean Mean 8.1 percent Figure 17 North Carolina Natives in Indiana, 1850 (J . L nsentsvodA [DO I, nemnwmha tnemeq r 8 mst-M |J1 VI sazgj C83! ‘52; ELI nL aevtlew enlican duloM 56 in Orange County, the high of 32.3% of the non-Hoosier popu- lation having North Carolina birthplaces was found, four times the state mean (Orange is also the name of a North Carolina county). DeKalb and Steuben counties, in the north- east, both had only 0.02% of their population native to North Carolina; Starke County in the northwest had no settlers born in that state residing there. The North Carolina nativity pattern rather closely approximated that of the Southeast Coast region, in contrast to the Virginian nativity distri- bution. Nativity patterns for the other two major states in this region, Maryland and South Carolina, add to the regional dis- tribution. Maryland natives, 2.6% of the population, were widely scattered throughout the state, particularly along the eastern border. Natives of South Carolina, comprising slightly over 1.0% of the population, were especially strongly con- centrated in the southwestern part of the state and had a secondary focus in east central Indiana; their pattern of residence appeared as a compression of the North Carolina nativity distribution. On a regional basis then, Southeast Coast natives settled primarily in the southern half to two thirds of the state. They tended to concentrate in the east central and southwestern portions of Indiana avoiding, in the main, the northern part of the state, except to a certain degree in the case of Virginians. At the southeastern corner, where Middle Atlantic and New England natives were inclined to concentrate, Southeast 57 Coast natives were usually not found, other than settlers who had been born in Maryland. To the north of this corner, in the east central area, the Southeast Coast migrants were well represented, and many of them were Quakers from North Carolina. Kentucky Plus Tennessee Native Settlers Kentucky and Tennessee were separated as a region from the rest of the South because, similar to the case for Ohio, their location west of the Appalachians meant that they were frontier areas at about the same time as Ohio, and not too long previous to the settlement of Indiana. Both Kentucky and Tennessee had received settlers before the Revolution, but it was during the subsequent period that they grew from frontiers to settled regions, achieving statehood quite early-- 1792 for Kentucky and 1796 for Tennessee--and having respective populations of 982,405 and 1,002,717 in 1850 (Seventh Census, 1850, xxxvii). Settlers born in Kentucky and Tennessee reached a total of 83,639, or 20.5%, of the non-Hoosier population in Indiana by 1850. This exceeded the average percentage for the Old Northwest, almost 11.0%, leading all other states in number and all but one, Illinois with 20.8%, in percentage. In Illinois, however, the ratio between Kentucky and Tennessee born was much closer than in Indiana. For Indiana, of settlers present from the Kentucky-Tennessee region, 84.4% were born in Kentucky while 15.6% were native Tennesseans; for Illinois, the figures were 60.6% and 39.4% respectively. 58 The nearness of Kentucky and Tennessee to Indiana and Illinois probably accounted for at least part of the relatively high nativity amounts in both Old Northwest states, but Ohio, also just across the Ohio River from Kentucky and Tennessee, only had 2.9% of its 1850 population native to those two states-- the position of Indiana and Illinois farther west may explain this difference. Mapping nativity above and below the mean for Kentucky and Tennessee born settlers in Indiana shows a clear pattern of north-south division (Figure 18). The boundary between areas of focus and low concentration nearly followed a line drawn from the southeast corner to the center of the state's western border, leaving approximately the southwestern half of Indiana settled by larger numbers of Kentucky and Tennessee born migrants. Even more dramatically than was the case with North Carolina, mapping the values indicating extremes of Kentucky and Tennessee settlement reveals a sharp differentia- tion between those counties with major and minor elements in the population from those states (Figure 19). A total of 73 of 91 counties in Indiana by 1850 had settlement levels of Kentucky and Tennessee natives either above 30.8% or below 10.3% of the non-Hoosier population. The southeast to west central band of counties settled by intermediate levels of natives from this region is clearly shown, but is narrow enough to indicate that most of Indiana was settled to either a.strong or a weak degree by natives of this region. Extremes <3f settlement ranged from a high of 61.8% in Perry County, 59 - Above mean III Bdownwan Mean205pmnmnt Figure 18 Settlers of Kentucky plus Tennessee Nativity in Indiana, 1850 m I I nsem eve-3A "- u—u t "J nsem wolsr’i 60 Percent I Above 30.8 Ill Bdow103 Mean 20.5 Figure 19 Ranges of Kentucky plus Tennessee Natives in Indiana, 1850 ineoweq ‘ 8.08 svodA L f l 8.0f wolee F ' L... 3'. 6.09 nseM QI 91091! mi asviJLM 552°91F9T aufg yflnmjnsx 30 aepnbfi 0881 ‘En51F:I 61 near the midpoint along the Ohio River border of the state, to a low of 0.15% in DeKalb County at the northeast. Analyzing the settlement of Kentucky and Tennessee individually, a general repetition of this pattern was found to occur. Maps of regional nativity and Kentucky nativity are exactly the same, including the outlier of Tipton County-- not surprising since more of the population was native of Kentucky, 17.3% statewide, than to Tennessee, with only 3.2% (Figure 20). A map of Kentucky nativity ranges showing counties above 26.0% and below 8.7% Kentucky natives is very similar to that for the region, with 16 counties, including Tipton, in the intermediate range. Again, the county most heavily settled by Kentuckians was Perry (58.7%), but the county with the fewest was Steuben, the next county north of DeKalb. The pattern of Tennessee nativity also presented a concentration in the southwestern portion of Indiana but, in contrast to the Kentucky distribution, included even fewer counties in southeastern Indiana, and had a small spur of counties pushing toward north central Indiana--Boone, Clinton, Howard, and Carroll. Dubois County in the southwest, with 12.7% of its population Tennessee natives, was the most heavily settled by them; DeKalb and Lagrange counties, in the northeast, had both the lowest percentage, 0.02% in each case, and only one Tennessee native apiece. 62 I Above mean I Below mean Mean 17.3 percent Figure 20 Kentucky Natives in Indiana, 1850 r——-f neemevocA ' : nsmnummfl I . 0.. *- 103019q €.Yr nr.¢fi L321 r::Eb-: ni anvitnfi yizujnex és The Southern pattern of nativity was one very strongly concentrated in the southern half to two thirds of Indiana, and particularly noticeable in the southwest. Relatively few Southern migrants were present in the north, but this generalization was excepted in at least two significant cases. Virginia natives were found in central and northern areas of Indiana, and those born in North Carolina were present in larger than average amounts in east central sections; both states were important elements in the settlement of those regions in Indiana. Kentucky and Tennessee natives tended to remain in areas farther south in the state. Despite the fact that less than half of the state's migrant population had been born in the South (only 44%), more than half of the counties (50 of the 91) and 54% of the land area, measured by counties, had been settled by Southerners. Especially when compared to other states in the Old Northwest, Indiana's population had, indeed, been strongly influenced by the South. Chapter IV EXPLANATIONS OF THE PATTERN OF NON-HOOSIER NATIVITY IN INDIANA A number of possible explanations for the conspicuous north-south division of settlement groups, and the concentra- tion of certain groups in particular areas, can be advanced. These solutions fall into two general categories: factors associated with the sequence of settlement and the disap- pearance of the frontier, and factors associated with migra- tory routes to Indiana and various degrees of accessibility for migrants to the state. In each case, the location of settlers willing to migrate was of utmost importance, and the nearness of certain settled areas and population sources contributed to the sequence of settlement. Because Kentucky and Tennessee achieved statehood before Ohio, and had larger populations previous to 1820 (also the earliest settlement period for Indiana), it may have been these two Southern states that had, at first, a portion of their population willing to move on to new frontiers. However, due to the rapid growth of Ohio's population, any difference was soon erased. In 1800, Kentucky could claim approximately 221,000 residents and Tennessee 106,000, while Ohio had only 45,500 people living in the state (United States Census, 1800-50). Population densities ranged from 64 65 5.5 persons per square mile in Kentucky and 2,5 in Tennessee to 1.1 in Ohio. By 1820 the relationships in population rank between the three states were quite different: Ohio led, with over 581,000 people and a population density of 14.1 persons per square mile, Kentucky was next with 564,000 and a density of 13.9, and Tennessee was last. The year 1830 saw Ohio's population nearing one million and its settlement density at 22.8 persons per square mile, a figure well over the density level of 18 persons per square mile that J. F. Hart noted as marking the beginnings of successful agricultural settlement (1974, 73-74). Kentucky and Tennessee had reached similar levels of population density in the same year as well. The rapid growth of Ohio continued, reaching over 1.5 million in 1840 and a population density of 36.9; Tennessee's population of 830,000 surpassed Kentucky's (780,000) in that year, and each had a population density of over 19 persons per square mile. All three of these states were by then exporting significant numbers of settlers, as the nativity tables, available for the first time in 1850, prove. Kentucky, with a population of 982,000 in 1850, had 257,638 natives living in other states while Tennessee, populated by just over one million persons, supplied 241,606 natives to other states. But the leader in that year was Ohio, with 1.98 million people living in the state, and another 295,453 natives present in other states (Seventh Census, 1850, xxxvi). Despite the range of state population sizes, Ohio having more than twice as 66 many people as Kentucky, for all three the total number of natives living in other states was surprisingly close. Although each of the three states was an important source of migrants by 1850, it should be noted that approximately 30% of native Kentuckians and Tennesseans in the United States were living outside of their own states, while only 20% of Ohioans were. The nativity table used for these computations revealed another interesting item: support for the theory of direct westward migration of settlers from their source states. Of the Kentucky natives living elsewhere, the greatest number were found directly west in Missouri, followed very closely by Indiana and then Illinois. Tennessee natives residing in other states were also most numerous in Missouri, followed by Arkansas and Illinois. Ohio born residents of other states appeared in largest amounts in Indiana, then Illinois (half of the Indiana figure) and Iowa (half of the Illinois figure), links in a chain extending directly west from Ohio. The settlement and development of Indiana proceeded from east to west and from south to north. This sequence was in keeping with the general westward movement of the frontier in the United States, although the south to north movement in Indiana was somewhat of an exception. Details of this settlement pattern indicated an overall movement of the frontier from the southeastern border and Ohio River areas north and west to territory just south of Lake Michigan. 67 Apparent migration and settlement expansion throughout Indiana were rarely achieved by migrants choosing any area they desired for settlement, without any restrictions. Before migrants could enter and take up lands legally, the territory had to be organized; before that could happen, Indian land cessions had to be gained. Indian Land Cessions and Disposition of the Public Domain in Indiana The actual lands bounded by Indiana have changed sub- stantially since the earliest territorial times. In 1800, Indiana Territory consisted of "all that part of the territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio River, which lies to the westward of a line beginning at the Ohio, opposite to the mouth of the Kentucky River" (Pence and Armstrong, 1933, 138). After a slight border alteration in 1802 upon Ohio's petition for admission to the Union, the eastern line of Indiana Territory became the present border between Indiana and Ohio. This vast territory included lands from which emerged the states of Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, the northeastern part of Minnesota, and of course, Indiana. Michigan Territory was split off from Indiana Territory in 1805, Illinois Territory in 1809, and finally the state of Indiana was formed in 1816, with boundaries as present except for some minor alterations in the north (Pence and Armstrong, 133 I 142-47) o 68 Before admission to the Union, a few territorial counties had been formed, generally comprised of extensive tracts of land as well as an important frontier outpost. Clark and Knox counties had appeared in 1801, with Knox County includ- ing the old territorial capital of Vincennes. Dearborn County was formed in 1803, and Harrison County, established in 1808, was the home of Corydon, the territorial capital after 1813 and the state capital from 1816 to 1825 (Indiana. A Guide, 1941, 181). Before statehood, ten more counties were estab- lished; after statehood the remainder were gradually legis- lated, as the state grew and more Indian territory was ceded. At first, the Indians retained title to all of Indiana except a triangular slice, located along the Ohio River and the southern half of the Ohio-Indiana border, and two small areas, one nearly coincident with present Clark County and the other an area many times larger than, but including, the present Knox County (Figure 21). These lands had been opened to non-Indian settlement in 1795, a direct result of the Battle of Fallen Timbers that had occurred near Toledo in the previous year and had also made available to settlers all of Ohio except the north central and northwestern sections (Wilson, 1966, 33-34). Between 1803 and 1809 William Henry Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, signed a series of treaties with the Indians that opened more lands in southern Indiana for settlement (Buley, 1951, I, 18). The section in the southwest along the Ohio River was ceded in 1804, a similar 69 5 Z 1826 ) 1821 1mm 1832 18KB 1818 5 'HMO 13m; 1818 1MB 1805 1795 1804 Figure 21 Indian Land Cessions in Indiana It.» 8' .1 1 0| .‘.\c '01 '0‘ .I! ! ,’i|'-"lr ill 1‘ O I-.. ,\ 70 portion of the southeast was relinquished in 1805, and two large sections north of these available areas were ceded in 1809. Despite the war of 1812, settlement and land demand were not interrupted and in 1818 an extremely large portion of central Indiana, called the New Purchase, was turned over to the government by treaty, quickly surveyed, sold, and organized into counties (Buley, 1951, I, 19). New availa- bility of Indian lands to frontier settlement continued un- abated, with a small strip in north central Indiana and a belt of territory along the border with Michigan ceded in 1826, followed by another treaty for lands in northeastern Indiana in 1828, and the opening of northwestern Indiana in 1831. All that remained in Indian hands was territory of a few counties' extent in central Indiana, surrounding Tipton County, held as the Miami Reserve. A part of this remnant was pared off in 1834; the remainder was relinquished in 1840 and the period of undisputed Indian land ownership in Indiana was over (Buley, 1951, I, 111). Indian cessions turned the land over to the federal government as part of the public domain. The policy of the government was to sell these acres to those who would settle them, a "commitment to make lands available to all citizens of the republic, and to create an administrative system directed to this end" (Rohrbough, 1978a, 39). The system created was intended to regularize the distribution of land, providing for surveys, the setting up of land offices, 71 and the organized sale and settlement of lands in the West as they were readied for legal ownership. While many frontiers- men squatted on lands that were still Indian territory, had not yet been made available for sale, or in some instances had been sold to others, government policy toward squatters was generally lenient, at times permitting temporary occupancy or allowing eventual purchase of these "borrowed" lands (Rohrbough, 1968, 94). There were seven land office districts selling Indiana lands, six in the state and one in Cincinnati, Ohio. Each district contained an office at a town accessible to all, where the legal papers were completed and the purchase price paid, usually with a down payment or in scrip for military service. Sometimes, offices within districts were moved to areas closer to the lands available, making purchase easier. The pattern of land district and office openings in Indiana followed the cession of Indian lands and was ahead of legal, but not always actual, settlement. The first land office that sold acreages in the state was Cincinnati, opened in 1800, with jurisdiction over a narrow slice of land in southeastern Indiana (Figure 22). Next the Vincennes Land Office in south- western Indiana was set up, followed in 1810 by Jeffersonville in the southeastern part of the state. At first, not all territory in these districts was available for settlement-- some of the lands eventually to be distributed through a particular office were still possessed by the Indians at the 72 \._/ La Porte and Winamac Fort Wayne Crawfordsville Brookville and Indianapolis Vincennes Jeffersonville Figure 22 _ Land Office Districts in Indiana Terre Haute and / Cincinnati o a» ~-.-oo-->|‘ 14'".: ‘2 "I.llllll‘i'llf-'ll‘lo.. . . u A a _ ~ , v ’1. _ . . . x . \ . \ .I . l _ la _. l N . u .9. l . .' 4.. _ n . . v ‘ ‘ - $4. I! pk I. It,l.o ...-.011I ,tllul'f . in "l .-.Ill! .. \. It v 4 o v A _ .. . a n — o . c — x n \ \ K . it‘ll? .)\I‘ I‘- .4 '7'." 5.1:. ,I'J‘t’l" ‘ffll. .1 It . v l. .7. \I‘ H ~ ‘11 l I : H‘ N ,, u h. ,,/ «L Ix 1.1..III ‘irlilctri'llinlvl‘..: ‘10 Ill.‘“ll|1.t‘-1..spl\ 1| 11.1 1|“ (Ills?! 1.1-I119, \ fl _ r. .. n‘.’ J I. " "~ ‘4 I i. 3 "I ...L 73 time the office was established. An example of this delay can be shown by an area of land in southwest and south central Indiana, mostly within the Vincennes district, named Harrison's Purchase. It had been ceded in 1809, but not put on the market until the fall of 1816, although many squatters resided there. When at last surveying was completed, follow- ing a long interruption caused by the war of 1812, and Harrison's Purchase was ready for auction, "purchasers flocked to the land offices in Vincennes and Jeffersonville," creating such a demand that in 1817 Vincennes led all other land offices in sales: over 286,500 acres at a cost of $571,000 were mar- keted in that year alone, and sales at the Jeffersonville office neared the same level (Rohrbough, 1968, 131). Following the cession in 1818 of the New Purchase, a large portion of central Indiana, jurisdiction areas in the region were delineated and land offices, occasionally shifting to another site within the area as lands nearby were opened for settlement, were established. The Brookville Land Office was set up in 1819 and moved to Indianapolis in 1820; one in Terre Haute was opened in 1819 and shifted to Crawfordsville in 1823. Northeastern Indiana, also partially ceded by the Indians in 1818, saw the creation of the Fort wayne Land Office in 1822. This office continued to sell lands that had been bought from the Indians, including the last areas of the state they surrendered in 1840. In 1833, the final land district was set up in northwestern Indiana, with the office at LaPorte until after 1837, when it was moved to Winamac. 74 Sales at the various land offices reached their height at different times, depending upon the date that each office had been established and that most lands were available. For the state, strong sales in central Indiana occurred in the 18203, but in particular the decade of the 18308 saw rapid purchases of land at all offices in the state: that same decade saw the greatest growth in Indiana's population (Hart, 1974, 77-78). J. F. Hart has stated that "the busiest land offices of each decade were at the margins of the settled area" and land offices were particularly busy during their opening years (1974, 77). In Indiana, of the over 45,000 individual land sales at the Jeffersonville office until 1850, 24,000 occurred from the opening of the office to the end of 1821. At Terre Haute-Crawfordsville, of the 36,000 purchases made between the opening in 1820 and 1850, 27,000 of these had been registered by 1836. And, of the 28,500 sales at the Fort wayne office up to 1850, 22,500 were completed between establishment of the office in 1822 and mid October of 1838 (Register of Receipts, various Land Offices, Indianapolis). Depending on their locations, sales at certain land offices peaked during different decades, indicating changes in the destinations of immigrants. During the 18208, Indianapolis sold 845,000 acres and Crawfordsville 787,690, but Fort wayne sold only 18,836. Between 1830 and 1837, however, Indianapolis sold almost 1,500,000 acres and Crawfordsville 1,686,708 acres, while Fort wayne sold 2,377,837 acres, registering an 75 astonishing sale of 1,294,357 acres in 1836 alone (Rohrbough, 1978a, 51-52). So it would seem that the bulk of land sales did occur during the earliest period after placement of the land on the market and that the time of most rapid population growth occurred shortly after the lands were opened for settlement. Next, the spread of settlement and the sequence of population growth need to be examined. The Spread of Population and Population Densities The population of Indiana grew rapidly in the first 50 years of the nineteenth century, from 2,417 in 1800 to 988,416 in 1850 (Rohrbough, 1978a, 41). Relatively slow growth from 1800 to 1810 resulted in the addition of 22,103 settlers, while the decade 1810-20 witnessed an increase of 122,658 people. In the next decade the population grew by 195,853, from 1830 to 1840 it increased the most rapidly by gaining 342,835 settlers, and between 1840 and 1850, another 302,550 people were added (United States Census, 1800-1850). Not all parts of the state shared equally in this growth, however, for some areas received greater numbers of migrants than others. An examination of population growth through time, as shown by changing population densities per square mile, indicates these disparities. Using the censuses for 1810 through 1850, population density values for all the then-extant counties were calculated, recognizing occasional 76 problems to be considered associated with changing boundaries of counties and the formation of new counties from ones pre- viously established. But a general pattern of growth can be noted. Two different levels of population density are presented here--the first, six persons per square mile, indicates the beginnings of settlement, and the second, 18 persons per square mile, represents the beginnings of successful agri- culture (Hart, 1974, 74). Examination of the map showing six persons per square mile density at various years reveals an interesting pattern of growth (Figure 23). Earliest settle- ment was found in the southeastern corner, and near there along . the Ohio River, where the required level of settlement had been achieved by 1800. Expansion north and west from this core continued in 1810 and 1820, with a secondary area of growth appearing on the western border, centered around Vincennes. By 1830, the intermediate part of south central Indiana had reached a density of six persons per square mile, including territory along the Ohio River but excluding places just north of it. Settlement of the north central and northern border portions had occurred by 1840, while a small area in the northeast and part of a larger section in the northwest did not reach that level until 1850. Also delayed in settlement was a portion of central Indiana that was the last area of reserved Indian lands. In the northwest, Jasper County and parts of Starke and Pulaski counties did not reach the density of six persons per square mile until after 1850. 77 18G) 1810, RC) . 1 " i J 1am Afl' b .‘ t." I 7 7“ ‘ - ' 1810 1820 1820 Figure 23 Population Density of Six Persons per Square Mile . ,in Indiana by Decade 0.1!.--“ 1“! 0“- I ..lll‘.’ i- \ .. .r ti'.\.‘ .1“! 19 7‘16-.. 1» it: .4 6‘1. 1 I 11 I I: ll . A I. \1 ll 1. 1 w . . 4 1' .l. . ( . l . I‘ll I. e“ ‘- ..‘K .1. 1-4!- . .I I ; 1‘ \. v .. o u . I . n 1 I; l . x I o ‘ J 1 I. . u . . O D . .. I 1 f I .$ \. _ .. . . . . . a \ s \ x x _ . . . I.“ n .0 . l \ A I . .\ . 1 .. . . z . 1 n e r \ I ...-1 \ .. 4 .. .01. .a.-1luon.n v II.I1 one“. (I 78 The mapped pattern showing settlement density of at least 18 persons per square mile presents a very similar pro- gression, except that it occurs, in most counties, after an . interval of approximately ten years (Figure 24). Regions claiming at least six settlers per square mile in 1820, for example, tended to have a minimum of 18 persons per square mile by 1830. The progression of settlement from the south- east to the northwest is even more clear on this map, as the area of early settlement in the southwest, shown on the previous map, did not reach the higher density level until about 1840. The section in the southwest that was delayed in settlement appears on this map also, especially from the Ohio River north and again in an area around Brown County in the south central portion. In addition, the two parts of the northeast and northwest that received settlement late in the period are well defined. Thus, the sequence of settlement, as indicated by changing population densities, seems to have proceeded from the southeastern corner of the state to the north and west, leaving portions remaining to be settled still present in the northeastern corner, the southwestern area, and an especially large section in the northwest. Another method of examining population densities is by recording the actual density of population that each county had in 1850 (Figure 25). This map presents four categories above and below the mean value for the state: 50% above and below the mean forming two classifications, and the other two consisting of values either above or below that range. 57‘ 9 13.5and1ggegv7L , _ é" M36 ~ 272 I ‘ 273 - 408 1850 2 ,. i .2 1840.» 18301’ 40 9 and show 1830 7“,: 'n 1 , v.1: ~ H” ) xi ‘ .5 -4- 'rrg ‘ .;8 ~ 4 3‘3? . J, - , my; I 11‘“ It" 2". |_ ' ‘Ii' _ r 3 18“) "S? fligure'34 Population-.ansity-zef +183 Persons per square Mile in Indiana by Decade 1850 1850 1840 1830 1820 1810 1810 .- p- natal/U I'" b \\ 7 1“ I- C E7 AFI‘). \a‘.‘-l A) \. ‘ 1r . a s .I-lxvlluu'fl F 81'7”.)1 .J v .4 .\ \1“ .\ 1‘! ”/ l,_.-F.-—— ._—_47. / r a \ ... ‘ .0. 9’4 .1... x a . \ . W It; \ \ by . II. x. «x ‘ J o \. . .’ \ \ _ .l 1 , I O . .\ , a J .. n _ r I: 4....- .| 1 it I u .\ (I . s. \f‘ . v o . . .1 x x (1 1 , .. . .. u x u 11 l .. l . ., rm . 1 l! I. l- a 1 h \ w .\ x X e a 0.11 r \ . . . a h v ‘1 \. N . N . \\ 0 \ J 1 \ — d x .1 :\ J . x . \ l i i . . . s O m l t . . . u x . ‘. n ‘i’ a. .\ F, (a. ,IIII-I'Ii‘lll'l" I. 11"": 4|" :‘ I l.l¢..l|-.| Q. “---- . bf. 81.... 7|!- ui 6.x . I? fill" 8. I‘.ii!.li~rfl..l ... Ice..." 4 Jr-Xv L 4 . . s x \ v f l. I c bl .. . .2. . . 1 ... . _ ma . a. . , 1 , 1 .. I 1 i \ 4 Pa. f fif~ ":1 ft; r- '.‘.‘.‘z. _‘. 7 w- 80 Persons Per Square Mile D 13.5 and below D 13.6 - 27.2 '1 27.3 — 40.8 I 40.9 and above Figure 25 Population Density by 1850 in Indiana woied bns 6.5.? G ' r"."'l l i n. .- a SIS - asr 805 — 8 1S evods bm 9.3!- .. ...: . L are: 81 It was assumed that those areas settled earliest achieved the highest population densities through a combination of the enlargement of families, an increased number of farms and farmers, and the gradual sale and clearing of the remaining farmlands in the county, often the more marginal ones. Any towns or cities in a county tended to increase the population more than rural settlement expansion alone would have done, and this resulted in a higher population density in that county when compared to neighboring counties. The high population density for Marion County, where Indianapolis is located, serves as an example of this condition. The pattern of decreasing population density in places away from the southwestern part of the state strengthens the settlement patterns seen in the previous two maps. For Indiana, the average population density rose from less than one person per square mile (using the present land area of Indiana) in 1810 to 9.5 in 1830, then to 18.9 in 1840, slightly above the level needed to mark the beginnings of successful . agriculture, and finally reaching 27.2 in 1850. Highest densities, up to 99.8 persons per square mile, were found in the southeast along the Ohio River and Ohio border. The central part of the state, stretching from east to west, also had relatively high population densities, usually in the first category greater than the state average. The southwest and northeast portions of Indiana, areas of contrasting popula- tion nativity, both had a settlement density value generally 82 below the state average, indicating either relatively recent or slower than normal settlement. Further, in the north- western corner settlement was accomplished last, as in many counties significant population densities were not attained until after 1850: in that year, Jasper County had a density of 3.6 persons per square mile, and Benton County could only claim a density of 2.8. Once lands were opened for settlement and immigration began to occur, requests for local juris- diction of these frontiers were sent to the state legislature, which responded by establishing counties in these rapidly growing areas. The Establishment of Indiana Counties County organization in Indiana does not appear to have followed any intentional plan, but rather responded to pro- blems as they arose: the settlement of remote frontiers, the need to make county legal services available at a moderate distance from new settlements, and the land speculations by owners of potential sites for county seats (Pence and Armstrong, 1933, 21). "Although there were occasional tenta- tive moves during the early years of statehood toward laying out all unorganized territory into counties, their organization actually followed irregularly behind the lines of Indian cessions and pioneer settlements" (Pence and Armstrong, 1933, 28). It was not until 1835 that the establishment of counties ahead of settlement occurred with the formation of 14 counties in the northern part of the state (Pence and Armstrong, 1933, 64). 83 Fortunately for the purposes of this research, the legis- lature's responsiveness to settlement pressure allows the dates of county formation to be used as another indicator of the movement of the settlement frontier across the state. A map of county establishment dates, according to the year that the enabling act became effective, was made from informa- tion given in G. Pence and N. C. Armstrong, and again shows the general south to north expansion of settlement in the state (Figure 26). Numerous adjustments in boundaries subsequent to initial county formation were made, particularly for the older counties, including the erection of new counties. For example, Ohio County (1844) was organized some 30 to 40 years later than its neighbors, and Brown County (1836) ap- peared approximately 15 to.20 years after the surrounding counties. The late date for Howard and Tipton counties (1844), following 12 to 15 years after establishment of nearby counties, reflected the cession by the Indians of the last remnants of the Miami Reserve, held until 1840 (Pence and Armstrong, 1933, 83-84; Buley, 1951, I, 111). In general, however, the use Of county formation dates to follow settlement expansion is valid. The four counties established before 1810 lie along the Ohio and southern wabash rivers. The other ten counties set in place during the territorial period outline a crescent shape from Knox County on the wabash, south along that river to the Ohio River, then east along the riverbank (except for washington County which is separated from the river by one county) and finally north along the Ohio-Indiana border. 84 I 1800 - 1814 I 1815 — 1819 I 1820 — 1824 D 1825 — 1834 D 1835 — 1844 Figure 26 Dates of County Establishment in Indiana I 1‘ I; f.‘ 85 Interior southern Indiana, just recently ceded, was as yet unorganized and only thinly settled. Northern Indiana was still Indian territory, remaining so until after statehood in 1816. As lands became available and settlement increased in the southern area, new counties were formed: from 1815 through 1819, 18 counties were established in the southern third of the state and a few more along the eastern border with Ohio were organized, following the increase in settlement densities there. The period 1820-24 saw the legislating of another 20 counties, essentially filling more than the southern half of the state with established legal divisions and reflecting the increased settlement of central Indiana. Relatively few counties were provided by the state government between 1825 and 1829; these were along the fringes of previously settled areas. Then, 1830 through 1834 witnessed the establishment of a group of counties in the newly ceded territories of north central and extreme northern Indiana, leaving as yet un- organized a group of counties south of the Michigan border, widening on the east and west. This empty area closely agreed with the sparsely settled lands existing in Indiana at the time. The legislature, finally acting well ahead of settlement pressure, established 14 counties here in 1835, and only a few other counties remained to be organized by 1850. The last county created, Newton, is not shown on the map since formation occurred in 1859, postdating this study. 86 It was separated from western Jasper County, in one of the last regions to be settled. The gradual establishment of counties, generally moving from north to south, but advancing more rapidly in some areas than others, followed the trend of settlement and population growth. An example of the correlation found among factors of land purchase, population and settlement increase, and county formation can be seen in Rush County. The land forming Rush County was part of the New Purchase, acquired in 1818, and was sold through the Brookville-Indianapolis Land Office with first sales occurring in October of 1820 (Kiefer, 1969, 4). By the end of 1822, nearly 40% of the land in the county had been purchased; by the end of 1827, approximately 66% had been taken up (Kiefer, 1969, 31). However, not all of it was bought by pioneer families. Judging by the sizes of land purchased, speculators, who acquired large tracts of the better acres for later sale at increased prices, purchased at least some lands in the county. In the first three years, an average of 57.7% of the land bought was in parcels of between 66 and 90 acres, 31.1% between 140 and 179 acres, and 3.0% over 180 acres (Kiefer, 1969, 35). By 1830, over 80% of the land in Rush County had been purchased. Also by that last year, the county's population had reached 9,707, up from a figure of.3,677 in 1820. But this latter figure included all of Delaware County, an area nearly 20 times the size of present-day Rush County, and from which 87 it was created. If it is assumed that there were no settlers in Rush County in 1820, probably not the case due to the presence of squatters, then the growth of the county can be roughly charted. In 1830, the population density in the county reached 23.7 persons per square mile, over the figure of 18 that J. F. Hart cited for settled agriculture to begin. If even growth over the decade 1820 to 1830 occurred, which in reality was most likely not true, then approximately 971 persons entered the county every year, meaning that by mid 1827, the population figure might have exceeded 7,000, and a population density of at least 18 persons per square mile would have existed. Actually, recognizing its rapid growth, in 1822 Rush County was separated from Delaware County and established as an independent legal jurisdiction. Therefore, in less than two years from the time lands in the county were available for purchase, Rush County had been formed; in slightly more than two years, 40% of the land in the county had been bought and in another five years two thirds of it were sold. And, assuming constant growth rates, within seven years after lands were opened for purchase, population levels indicated the beginnings of successful agriculture; this period was almost certainly much shorter in reality. If Rush County can be used as an example, then less than ten years was required for a county to exceed frontier conditions in population, have well over half of its lands sold, and achieve county status during the frontier period in Indiana. 88 In most cases, the cession of Indian lands, the sale of those newly available acres, the spread of settlement, and the establishment of counties were four nearly simultaneous events. In one area, settlement might have preceeded both clear legal title and county formation; in another, lands may have been ceded by the Indians, surveyed, and organized into counties before the settlers moved in. Often, because of the legislature's failure to establish local government structures before settlement began, the formation of counties was the last in the sequence to occur, although it came first in the northern area. Usually, all of these events happened reasonably close together. Within a decade at the longest, areas entering the settlement stage were organized into counties, and in nearly all cases the county structure had been erected well before the county's population density reached 18 persons per square mile. Once lands were available for sale, and even if the county itself had been established, it did not necessarily grow. An example of this is provided by the southwestern counties. The map of population settlement densities shows 'this area and the northeastern portion of the state to have been at quite similar levels in 1850. But the southwestern counties had been cleared of Indian title, and shortly thereafter available for sale, between 1795 and 1809; they were organized into counties from 1801 to 1825. Those counties in the northeast had been ceded by the Indians from 89 1818 through 1832 and formed into counties between 1824 and 1836. In the southwest, settlement to the state's average 1850 level took from 25 to 50 years, while in the northeast it required only 18 to 25 years. The density figures in the northeast indicate a region that had been opened for settlement recently, but in the southwest they show an area that had been available for purchase for a relatively long time but had grown only slowly. Clearly, other factors than time of land availability were involved in the migrants' choice of settlement location within Indiana. Chapter V ROUTES OF ACCESS AND MIGRANT GROUPS IN INDIANA One of the most important factors in determining the settlement sequence of Indiana, besides land availability, was accessibility. Throughout the settlement period, particular routes were used by the pioneers to reach dif- ferent parts of Indiana. The routes chosen changed over time, as new lands were made available, as new modes of transportation were introduced, and as improvements in old routes were effected or new routes constructed. At various times, travel to Indiana was easier from certain directions than from others and for certain migratory groups than for others. The migrant's choice of a transportation route was influenced by the eventual destination and by the experiences of those who had made similar trips previously. It is difficult to judge how many migrants who settled in the state initially chose Indiana as their specific destination. Many, drawn west by the attraction of new land, headed wherever the frontier was at the time. These pioneers were bitten by the urge to move but they were not necessarily certain where they wanted to go. They probably would have responded as a North Carolinian migrant did in 1835 when asked his destination: 90 91 No where in pertick'lar. Me and my wife thought we'd hunt a place to settle. we've no plunder-—nothin' but just ourselves and this nag-—we thought we'd try our luck in a new country (Lang, 1954, 351). Others decided to settle lands they observed along the way and either never made it to their original destination of Indiana, or stopped.in Indiana rather than continue on to another state, perhaps Michigan or Illinois. Settlers were drawn to certain areas that had been currently described as the most fertile, having the best climate, and the finest prospects for future growth. In 1826, Timothy Flint wrote on the subject: For some cause, it happens that in the western and southern states, a tract of country gets a name, as being more desirable than any other. The imaginations of the multitudes that converse upon the subject get kindled, and the plains of Mamre in old time, or the hills of the land of promise, were not more fertile in milk and honey than are the fashionable points of immigration (Rohrbough, 1968, 133). Gersham Flagg, a vermont born pioneer, compared in 1818 the_ successive attraction of different areas in the west to an illness. Altho you say the Ohio feever is abated in vermont--the Missouri and Illinois Feever Rages greatly in Ohio, Kentucky & Tennessee and carried off thousands. When I got to Ohio my Ohio feever began to turn but I soon caught the Missouri feever which is very catchin and carried me off (Rohrbough, 1968, 90). Interestingly, Flagg did not catch Indiana fever: in fact, he made no mention of such a malady even existing. He was 92 a New Englander and, as will be seen below, Yankees never found Indiana especially attractive. Also difficult to judge is both the amount and the accu- racy of information about frontier areas that trickled back to the more settled areas. Formal sources--guidebooks, journals, newspaper accounts, published letters--were important gener- ators of enthusiasm for particular places, and seem to have been used especially by New Englanders who were contemplating migration. Letters to family and friends ”back home" drew many to new lands to settle near western pioneers they knew, and information exchanged on personal visits to older areas, despite the limited number of such trips because of distance, effort, and expense involved, also attracted new settlers to the western lands. In 1818, Morris Birkbeck entered in his journal: Old America seems to be breaking up and moving westward. we are seldom out of sight . . . of family groups, behind and before us, some with a view to a particular spot; close to a brother perhaps, or a friend, who has gone before, and reported well of the country. Many, like ourselves, when they arrive in the wilderness, will find no lodge prepared for them (Rohrbough, 1968, 127). Whatever attracted these migrants, they were sure to undergo many new experiences on the way to their destination and once they arrived. Many did not survive. Others retreated back East after being defeated by the frontier, but large numbers continued to make the difficult journey. 93 Those pioneers who were sufficiently attracted and decided to undertake the strenuous trip to Indiana considered at least four travel factors before they started out: nearness of a route to the settlers' former home and destination, length of the projected trip, time required for the trip, and difficulty of the trip. A route that was shortest might also be the most difficult; the longest one might also be the least difficult and safest. Typically, roads provided the shortest but hardest journeys while rivers, usually the longest in distance but not necessarily time, were often the least arduous. No route presented conditions that were completely favorable, if for no other reason than the physical difficulty of the trip and the uncertainties about conditions that lay ahead. But through time a few main routes came to be preferred and tended to bring immigrants to Indiana from specific source regions. Rivers waterways provided the first transportation routes into the Old Northwest, and chief of these was the Ohio River.' A This river, "the only important navigable river flowing towards the west in eastern North America, served as a great natural highway, not only for the immigrants who came into the Northwest, but for their commerce as well" (Buley, 1951, I, 40). Running in the direction of pioneer movement--westward from the Appalachian Mountains into the Middle west--this "natural highway" offered an excellent means of travel and transport in the region, and the addition of a number of 94 navigable tributaries to the Ohio greatly extended its reach both north and south (Brown, 1948, 197-98). Settlers and supplies arrived and surplus goods left via the rivers, as settlement followed the Ohio River downstream.and up its tributaries. The rivers that join to form the Ohio at Pittsburgh, the Allegheny and the Monongahela, in addition to tributaries from the south, such as the Kanawha or Kentucky, brought older settled regions into contact with newly opened lands in the Old Northwest. Burns claimed that "in the days when Indiana was settled and developed, the Ohio River was the most important means of transportation from the East" (1923, 169). The value of the Ohio River for early westward popula- tion movement was recognized before 1800, and the demand for emigrant guides to the river led to the first edition of Zadok Cramer's The Navigator in 1801. Other guides were written and used, but this book in particular "became the indispensable guide for travelers and settlers moving west- ward" and, at a dollar per copy, "was an immediate best seller" (Cramer, 1966, foreword). Excellent advice was presented to the migrant concerning types of boats and equip- ment to purchase, places to embark from, sights and natural features along the way, and towns on the shore to stop at or leave for the interior from. He noted the four typical points on the upper Ohio where settlers often boarded flat- boats and began the trip downstream: Brownsville (Redstone), Pennsylvania, on the Monongahela; Olean, New York, on the 95 Allegheny; Pittsburgh at the junction of those two tribu- taries; and Wheeling farther downstream. Of the first town, John woods wrote in 1822, "Brownsville is a thriving place . . . at high water many people embark here for Pittsburg. As the National Road crosses the Monongahela at this place, there is a bridge to be built over the river," and of the second site, S. H. Long noted after a trip in 1819, ”the little village of Olean, on the Allegheny River, has been for many years a point of embarkation where great numbers of families . . . have exchanged their various methods of slow and laborious progres- sion by land, for the more convenient one of the navigation of the Ohio" (Thwaites, 1904, VIII, 57; X, 215). Because Brownsville and Olean normally hadxsufficient water levels except at spring and fall flood, Pittsburgh was the preferred departure point, except during periods of extremely low water when Wheeling had to be used, because it was farther east than Wheeling and reduced road travel by approximately 45 miles (Cramer, 1966, 35). In this time before river control projects, the seasonal range between high and low water was substantial. At the low water stages in late summer and early autumn, the river could become quite shallow. Not only did the shallowness uncover sand bars, snags, and make rapids potentially dangerous, but the river itself flowed slower, causing the trip downstream to be both more dangerous and longer. For these reasons, and the fact that flatboats and keelboats were little less unmanageable 96 when the water was high, it was advised that migrants float downstream during high water, particularly with the spring flood, after ice had left the stream, and again in a period of greater than normal flowage in the fall (Brown, 1948, 256-57). Floating along the Indiana shore of the Ohio River between Cincinnati and the wabash River in 1808, Thomas Ashe noted that "navigation of the last three rivers I have mentioned, is very trifling. Their waters are low, and broken by rocks and rapids;” in 1818 William Darby pointed out that between the Great Miami and wabash rivers "it is a curious fact that in this long course, no stream, above the size of a large creek, falls in the Ohio from Indiana" (Lindley, 1916, 27, 191). Unlike Ohio, which had important tributaries such as the Muskingum, Scioto, and Miami joining the Ohio River and extending navigation, or Kentucky, where major subsidiary rivers like the Big Sandy, Licking, Kentucky, and Green flowed northward into the Ohio, Indiana "had few ' streams of navigable size which reached back farther than forty miles from the Ohio," the only real exception being the wabash River (Cramer, 1966, 26; Buley, 1951, I, 26). The thas, and its tributary the White River, penetrated deeply into central Indiana, but two factors made this river system of less value in the early settlement of the state than tribu- taries of other states had been: one, the river mouth was in the southwesternmost corner of the state, so it did not assist in the east to west settlement of the areas of southern 97 Indiana along the Ohio River; and two, it lead into the central parts of the state that were not cleared of Indian title until 1818 at the earliest. Despite the low number of streams that could be navigated successfully, the legislature hoped that some could be opened up for travel by small flatboats through clearing of snags, bars, and other obstructions, and thus serve as routes of transport, supplementing the poor road system. ”The first step in transforming these streams into highways was to declare them navigable waterways, thus forbidding their Obstruction by mill dams and bridges" (Esarey, 1912, 60). As a result, in 1820 a list of 14 streams was declared navi— gable, most of them for only short distances and many of these were quite small in size--"almost every creek large enough to float a sawlog was opened, so far as a statute without an appropriation would effect it" (Esarey, 1912, 61). In 1826, the state provided money to implement this law, but generally little effort was expended on the smaller streams--sensibly, most of the monies went toward improving navigation on the wabash and White Rivers, where substantial numbers of flat- boats were soon sent downstream, particularly in high water periods (Esarey, 1912, 61). Relatively few boats went up- stream, however, for they had to be poled or towed, and both of these were slow processes.‘ David Thomas noted in 1816 that, to avoid the slow ascent of the wabash from the Ohio River, "many travellers land at Evansville . . . and proceed to Vincennes by land. The distance is fifty-six miles. 98 The road is tolerably good in summer, and much used, but after the autumnal rains, quicksands are frequent" (Lindley, 1916, 113). Eventually steamboats puffed upstream, rarely past Indianapolis on the White River, but often continuing on the wabash as far as Lafayette (Esarey, 1912, 61-62). The Ohio River appeared to have been an important avenue of immigration and trade, but most of the rivers in Indiana during the pioneer period, except for the wabash and White, were not heavily used. Trails and roads were more important, despite the often difficult conditions of travel experienced on them, since they led more directly to the interior.‘ Roads Before the coming of the National Road, a few trails across the Appalachians had been blazed and were being travel- ed. The earliest of these was Braddock's Road, completed in 1755 between Fort Cumberland on the Potomac in Maryland and Pittsburgh, followed by Forbes' Road from Philadelphia to Carlisle, Ligonier, and near Pittsburgh in 1758. Daniel Boone marked a trail through Cumberland Gap in 1775, and this road was later continued through Kentucky to the falls of the Ohio River at Louisville. And in New York, the Genesee Road, beginning in Albany and opened beyond the Finger Lakes to Buffalo by 1800, was extended along the shore of Lake Erie to Detroit before the war of 1812. Other trails crossed the Appalachian Mountains, but these four were the major routes followed during the early settlement period in the Old Northwest 99 (Buley, 1951, I, 445-46). Further, both Braddock's Road and Forbes' Road reached the Ohio River at or near Pittsburgh, reinforcing the importance of that city as a transfer point for passengers and cargo onto the river. In 1806, Congress appropriated the money necessary to build a new, "modern" road across the Appalachian Mountains from the East Coast to Ohio, but construction did not begin until 1811. The road was intended to provide a substantial improvement over the rutty trails that had been used, on which streams were usually crossed at fords and in spring, or after heavy rains, the path turned into a muddy morass. This new road was to be 80 feet wide, unobstructed by any timber in that strip, with all tree roots grubbed out and the ground graded smooth. Bridges and culverts of stone were to be constructed, and a 30 to 40 foot wide track down the center of the roadway would be "macadmaized" (the latest advancement), meaning it was to be covered with a layer of crushed stone ten inches deep (Burns, 1919, 212-16). Called the National Road, it followed the route of Braddock's Road from Cumberland,' Maryland, to southwestern Pennsylvania, but rather than lead- ing to Pittsburgh, it proceeded farther south to Washington, Pennsylvania, and then to Wheeling on the Ohio River. Although the road was not yet completed to Wheeling by 1817, it was open for traffic to that town; not until 1820 was the money to complete this section made available. In 1825, construction to continue the road from Wheeling to Zanesville, Ohio, was begun (using part of the old Zane's 100 Trace, authorized in 1796 to pass from Wheeling through Zanesville to Limestone, now Maysville, Kentucky) and money was appropriated to survey the road through the state capitals of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Construction west of Zanes- ville began in 1826 and was completed to Columbus in 1833; a;so, in 1830 work on the road started at Indianapolis, build- ing both east and west from that town. At last, in 1836, the road reached the western border of Indiana at Terre Haute on the wabash River, and by the next year it had been macademized through Indiana (Buley, 1951, I, 447-48). However, the road was apparently not, thus far, heavily used. writing from Richmond, Indiana, a town near the eastern border with Ohio, M. H. Jenks noted in 1838 that "the National Road passes through this place but is not yet finished, nor travelled" (McCord, 1970, 173). The long period of construction on the National Road reduced its value somewhat, spanning as it did the introduction of two major revolutions in transportation technology: steamboats and railroads. Roads in Indiana itself were also important to the early transportation of settlers and supplies, as many led from the Ohio River to the state's interior. Typically the first roads were improvements on trails originally laid out by the Indians, and many had focal points at the same places: portages, stream rapids, or early settlements, particularly Fort wayne, Fall Creek near Indianapolis, and Vincennes (Buley, 1951, I, 451). In many instances, these roads were in poorer condition than they had been during Indian times,.for the heavy traffic 101 of wagons and carts on the dirt surface created a loose layer of dust, and frequently wheels cut deep ruts into the roadway. Little sunlight penetrated the trees to reach the road surface, so it was often damp, muddy, or worse, as experienced by David Thomas in 1816: "after the autumnal rains quicksands are frequent" (Lindley, 1916, 113). Timothy Flint, traveling in 1828, wrote that "in the summer and autumn, the passing in this state is tolerable, from the circumstance of the level- ness of the lands. Few of the roads are much wrought, or kept in good repair. There are ferries on all the great waters of passing. The roads, during winter and spring, are excessively deep and heavy" (Lindley, 1916, 460). As the National Road worked westward into Indiana, it crossed these roads and trails, thus improving the road net- work in the state. Earliest roads in the state had a west- ward orientation, such as the Old Buffalo Trace from New Albany (across the Ohio River from Louisville) to Vincennes, in use well before it was surveyed in 1805. Another road from Cincinnati to Vincennes was laid out in 1801-02, while. others tracked north to Indianapolis--one from Madison and another from New Albany--and smaller trails led to and from various towns and settlements in the southern half of the state (Buley, 1951, I, 451-52). After it was clear that Indianapolis would be on the National Road and as settlement in the state continued to move north from the Ohio River, the legislature considered building a north-south highway through the state. In an 102 1826 treaty with the Indians, ceding territory in northern Indiana, the state received lands to build a road north of Indianapolis to Lake Michigan. Madison, on the Ohio River, was chosen in 1830 to be the southern terminus of the road, and by 1836 it was complete from there through Indianapolis, Logansport, and South Bend, reaching Lake Michigan at Michigan City. It was passable for eight months out of the year. Another road from Indianapolis northwest to Chicago, skirting west around the Kankakee swamps, was begun in 1829. Again, other local roads were laid out to facilitate movement to and in northern Indiana as that area settled in the late 18203 and 18308, including trails from Terre Haute along the Wabash to Fort.Wayne, and from the latter town north to southern Michigan, south into eastern Indiana, northwest to South Bend and eventually to Chicago (Buley, 1951, I, 452-54). These roads were really only trails, and were very gradually improved with gravel or planks. Those who traveled them noted their poor condition: at Fort Wayne one wrote in 1844, ”the road from this place to Indianapolis has seldom or ever been traveled with wagons even to this day, and only on horseback in dry seasons, and cases of emergency," while another claimed that the road from Fort Wayne to Richmond was a "mere trace . . . and the greater part of the year a loaded wagon could not travel the trace” (Power, 1935, 42). Canals and the Great Lakes After 1825, with the successful and profitable operation of the Erie Canal, a rage for canal building spread through 103 the newly settling Western areas, especially Ohio and Indiana. The primary object of the canal planners was to connect the Great Lakes with the Ohio River, therefore joining the interior with the East by an all-water route much shorter than the cur- rently available one--down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to New Orleans and then east and north along the coast. Not only would canals permit more direct movement of surplus products out of the Old Northwest, but they would provide easier access to the West for supplies and immigrants. In general these plans, begun as early as 1822 in Ohio, involved the linking of streams emptying into Lake Erie with streams flowing into the Ohio River by cutting through the divide in northern Ohio and northern Indiana that separated those two drainage basins. Many of these points had been used as portages by the Indians. Canalization of the rivers to straighten them, remove obstructions, and increase depth was required, as well as the identification of feeder streams that would help maintain a sufficient water level. This construc- ‘ tion, plus the building of locks, would be an expensive under- taking. By the mid 18208, work had begun on two canals in Ohio. Construction of the first, the Miami Canal connecting Dayton and Cincinnati along the course of the Miami River, commenced in 1825 and was completed in 1830 (Buley, 1951, I, 494, 496). The other, the Ohio and Erie, was to tie the Ohio River and Lake Erie together by proceeding from Cleveland to Portsmouth 104 on the Ohio via the Scioto and Muskingum rivers. Work on this canal also began in 1825, but progressed more slowly and with greater expense because of the longer distance to be covered and the more difficult terrain; eventually 152 locks were required (Buley, 1951, I, 494, 496-97). In the late 18203, agitation for canal construction increased in Indiana, particularly in the southeast part of the state along the Whitewater River where the population was most dense, and in the Wabash Valley (Esarey, 1912, 98). By 1828, the legislature had committed Indiana to building the Wabash and Erie Canal to connect Toledo with the Ohio River via Fort Wayne and the Wabash River, but problems in getting Ohio to provide for the section between Toledo and the Ohio border delayed work until 1832. Efforts on the canal continued, and in 1836 it became, along with the White- water Canal, the Central Canal on the White River past Indianapolis to Evansville on the Ohio, and a number of road projects, part of the "Mammoth Internal Improvement Bill." The severely underestimated expenses of this bill, which approved of joint construction on many projects rather than completion of a few which could then provide revenues to finance other works, eventually bankrupted the state in 1839. But the wabash and Erie project was salvaged and finally finished in 1843, allowing traffic to pass between Toledo and the Ohio River (Esarey, 1912, 86-109). As canals in Ohio and Indiana opened up, transportation connectiOns with the Great Lakes were enhanced, and migrants 105 headed west could start at New York City, use the Hudson River to Albany and the Erie Canal to Buffalo, climb onto a lake steamer (in common use by the 1830s), and disembark at Cleveland, taking the Ohio and Erie Canal to the Ohio River, or at Toledo, taking the wabash and Erie Canal to the Ohio River. And substantial amounts of produce from the west, ranging from wheat and butter to ashes and feathers, made the reverse journey, funneling through Buffalo on their way east (Buley, 1951, I, 537). But the canals soon faced stiff competition from railroads. By 1840 land had been leased to build a railroad from Madison to Indianapolis, and this proved to be a very successful venture (Esarey, 1912, 122-23). Routes and Groups In the migration to Indiana there was a tendency, depend- ing upon the time of migration and the routes available, for specific nativity groups to take particular routes to dif- ferent parts of the state. The following sections consider the main groups of settlers entering the state and the paths, leading to certain areas of Indiana, that each group typically used.‘ New England Migrant Routes Relatively few New Englanders settled in Indiana--on1y 2.7% of the non-Hoosier natives in 1850--and they were dis- tributed primarily on the northern and southern fringes of 106 the state (Figure 3). Contemporaries noted the concentrations of New Englanders in these areas, especially along the Ohio River. As early as 1816 David Thomas, while visiting southern Indiana, wrote that ”our hostess at Madison said there was 'a smart chance of Yankees' in that village” (Lindley, 1916, 133). Timothy Flint, after trips to southern Indiana a decade later, claimed that on the Indiana shore of the Ohio River, "most of the newly arrived settlers that I addressed were from Yankee land" and again in 1828 stated that in Indiana "we first find the number and manners of northern people predominating among the immigrants. Here we first discover, in many places, a clear ascendency of New England dialect, manners, and population” (Lindley, 1916, 439, 443). And farther north, in the Fort wayne area, a very general statement by Captain James Riley in 1820 commented on the numbers of "emigrants from the northern and eastern states, to this section of the country" (Lindley, 1916, 242-43). But their "ascendency" did not hold true for the entire state, because in wayne County in the east central area, Charles F. Coffin, an early pioneer, recalled that "very few New England or Eastern people were amongst these early immigrants"--most were Southerners (Lindley, 1916, 532). In general, little note of New Englanders in other parts of Indiana was made, mostly because there were few present. In fact, for some Southern settlers, the presence of New Englanders among the pioneers was viewed with alarm. for in southern Indiana, according to Timothy Flint in 1826, 107 "the Southern portion of this emigration seemed to entertain no small apprehension, that this also would be a Yankee state," a fate that had seemingly befallen Ohio (Lindley, 1916, 440). Others noted the apparent competition, if not outright dislike, between Southern and New England natives, primarily due to the conflict of their cultures. An example of an attitude that contributed to this contest can be seen in the description, from a book published in 1838, of the New Englander's mission in southern Indiana. He was directed to ”mingle freely and unsuspiciously with his neighbors, and while he sinks his manners to their level, strive to bring up their habits, by successful example, to the New England standard” (Power, 1953, 16). Still, relatively few New Englanders, but many from other places, moved to Indiana. In Flint's words, the state ”was evidently settling with great rapidity. The tide of emigration from the northeast was settling further west. Ohio had already received its first tide and the wave was rolling onward" (Lindley, 1916, 440). There were two major reasons for New Englanders' avoidance of Indiana: one, the indirect access to the state, if typical migration routes used by New Englanders were taken, and two, the generally poor reputation of Indiana in New England. Although by 1850 the population of southern Indiana was mostly of Southern origin, there were some New Englanders in the region. Before the Erie Canal opened, these migrants, who were usually found in counties closest to the Ohio River, 108 took the same route west that some of their Southern and Middle Atlantic neighbors in Indiana had followed: the Ohio River. The travelers from New England reached New York either by land across New England or by boat to New York City. Continuing west, they crossed New York and Pennsylvania and headed for Pittsburgh, either by land or on one of the Ohio River tributaries, such as the Allegheny which could be met at Olean, New York. In 1817 John Bradbury wrote that New England migrants "mostly cross the Hudson River betwixt Albany and Newburg and must pass through Cayuga in their way to Pittsburgh" (Lindley, 1916, 36). Or they might board a coastal vessel for Philadelphia or Baltimore and take land routes through Pennsylvania or Maryland (Braddock's Road, Forbes' Road or later the National Road), heading once again for the Ohio River or a tributary, such as the Monongahela which could be reached at Brownsville (Redstone), Pennsylvania. This migration was not of great effect in Indiana, however. With the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825, a new and less difficult route to the west was available, one which could provide an all-water journey to the shorelines of Ohio and Indiana and later, using the canals that opened in those two states, to the interior regions as well. At the same time that this new water route was available, the agricultural economy of New England began to deteriorate, so new lands in the Old Northwest became both more accessible and more attractive. F. J. Turner summed up the relationship between 109 the factors of route accessibility and migration tendency for New England natives when he stated: the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, the extension of steam navigation on the Great Lakes in the 1830s, and the railroad connections between Boston and the Lake ports early in the 18405, opened to New England movers the rich and vacant lands of the North Central states, and, at the same time, poured a competitive and destructive flood of agricultural surpluses from these cheap, rich, virgin soils upon the farmers of New England (1958, 45). Although transportation to the Old Northwest had become easier, not all states received an equal share of the New England migration stream: Indiana served as the destination for fewer New Englanders than did Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. Easterners claimed that they had missed Indiana primarily because, as a newspaper explained, the state "has no channel by which the stream of emigration could flow into it; while the facilities for transport around the lakes and down the Ohio River, have caused those who were seeking a western home to pass around and beyond it" (Power, 1953, 73). The result was, according to this view, that New Englanders did not settle in Indiana because first, they could not easily reach it in the period before about 1825, and second, once less difficult transport was available (particularly the Erie Canal and Great Lakes, but also rail- road), other, more attractive states than Indiana were accessible. While there were, of course, many ways to reach Indiana-— the Ohio River, the National Road, or the Erie Canal and Great 110 Lakes-~it was true that few New Englanders actually settled there. Other factors in addition to poor transportation access may account for their low representation, primarily factors collectively described as the poor reputation of Indiana in New England. Apparently very little information about Indiana actually reached New England, or any other older section of the United States, because the state was not publicized to the extent that others in the Old Northwest were. Accounts, or lack of them, about Indiana in guidebooks, letters, newspapers, and agricultural journals, support this contention, according to R. L. Power (1953, 78). Timothy Flint said the state had been "silently" settled, and Hoosier public figures were disturbed that growth had been "noiseless and unnoticed;” the governor complained in 1851 that "there is less known abroad, this day, of Indiana . . . than any other state in the Union of her age and position" (Power, 1953, 76-77). Also, important opinion shapers in the East, like newspaper editors and churchmen, took little notice of Indiana, especially when compared to the amount of enthusias- tic praise given to other Old Northwest states. One dis- traught Hoosier, after pointing out the misinformation or total absence of information present about Indiana in the East, closed his angry remarks by writing: "I want the people of the eastern states to know that thg£§_i§ gush a plagg_a§ Indiana" (Power, 1953, 78-81). Another reason New Englanders gave for avoiding Indiana, particularly southern Indiana, was the poor moral, intellectual, 111 and cultural reputation of its people and society. This view was clearly an extension of the sectional conflict already brewing between North and South. Other areas in the Old Northwest were gradually improved, in the New Englanders' eyes, with time and their own influence but Indiana was "always . . . the hardest field to cultivate," especially in the southern part (the same was true of southern Illinois) where, as a Congregational minister reported in 1844, there was little except "advancing desolation" (Power, 1953, 82). Most gave the responsibility for the fact that the Hoosier had "no enterprise, no good society, no intelligence" to the presence of a ”poor class" of Easterners who settled there, and by "poor class" they usually meant Southerners (Power, 1953, 82). Not all New Englanders felt this way, for some Yankees actually settled in these "desolate" areas, but surely others who were considering migration to the west were affected by these views. In addition to the problems faced by southern Indiana, settlement of northern Indiana by New Englanders was slowed by the prevailing view outside of the state that this region was little more than one continuous swamp: ”it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Indiana . . . was passed off by contemporary eastern writers as being an unmitigated morass" (Power, 1935, 43). Wetlands were avoided as places for settlement not only because they were generally unsuitable for agriculture without expensive 112 drainage systems, but also because of the pioneers' fears of catching the "malarial fevers" and "agues" associated with swamps and marshes. In part, the notion that northern Indiana was comprised of wetlands was true, for three areas of marsh and swamp were present there: northeastern Indiana, part of a continuation of the Black Swamp of northwestern Ohio, the Kankakee marsh in northwestern Indiana surrounding the Kankakee River, and the wet level uplands separating the Wabash River valley from central Indiana. A. H. Meyer described the Kankakee marsh and its notable effect on roads and settlement in articles about the Calumet region of northwestern Indiana (1954, 1956). And a study published in 1955 by M. R. Kaatz charted the delayed development of northwestern Ohio caused by the Black Swamp, an extensive wetland that included parts of north- eastern Indiana. However, belying the generalization, not all of northern Indiana was waterlogged, and rapid settlement continued to occur, as it had throughout most of the state. Many pioneers still found Hoosier lands to be attractive, as their predecessors had in the early days when "Indiana Territory was known for its large tracts of rich and fertile lands; the most renowned were the well-watered valleys of the Ohio, White, Whitewater, and Wabash rivers" (Rohrbough, 1968, 130). But, proving there had been some truth to Easterner's disdain of inundated Indiana, large portions of the state were eventually drained. In his book, R. L. Power 113 included a map that indicated areas of the eastern United States dependent on drainage projects, and the northern half of Indiana is clearly within this category (1953, 62). So New Englanders may have avoided northern Indiana because the land was wet and health conditions were perceived as being poor. For a variety of reasons then, both real and imagined, few New Englanders settled in Indiana. Originally, the state was not as easily reached by New Englanders as by other migrant groups because of poor transportation connec- tions and the distance involved. Later, accessibility improved, but a number of other factors appear to have combined to draw New England migrants away from Indiana. Included were the attractiveness of new frontiers, the fact that portions of the state were thoroughly settled, the inadequate internal transportation network, their apparent dislike of Southerners, and the wetlands of northern Indiana, in the part of the state which was not yet settled when the New Englanders began to move west beyond Ohio. Middle Atlantic Migrant Routes Migration to the West from the Middle Atlantic states was greatly assisted by the improvement of existing arteries of travel, although pioneers from there were not deterred from moving west before major improvements were made. Prior to construction of the National Road, local roads through Pennsylvania, like Braddock's Road or Forbes' 114 Road, or through New York, for example the Mohawk and Genesee Turnpike or the Catskill Road, led to the Ohio River or its tributaries. These early routes typically included as a final part of the journey a flatboat trip down the Ohio River. After a difficult road traverse of the Appalachians, struggling up and braking down the long mountain passes, the Ohio River presented an easier, but not completely safe, last leg of the journey to the Old Northwest. Little mention was made in contemporary writings of Middle Atlantic migrants residing in Indiana, although Samuel Brown in 1817 noted that in Franklin County, south- eastern Indiana, "a considerable number of the inhabitants are from the state of New York" and David Thomas found many New Yorkers in the area around Terre Haute (Lindley, 1916, 151, 95). In 1838 the Philadelphian, M. H. Jenks, while visiting in east central Indiana, wrote "Richmond is prin- cipally inhabited by Quakers, many of them from our section of the country" (MoCord, 1970, 173). Caleb Atwater, showing the merits of Ohio for settlement in 1829, admitted to anyone emigrating from the Atlantic states westwardly, though Ohio would best suit him, in all respects, yet Indiana is decidedly next, in advantages, of all sorts. The soil and climate are about the same in both states, the people nearly the same, and their interests, feelings, and views precisely the same. These states may be considered as Pennsylvania and Maryland extended from the Atlantic Ocean to the wabash River. They are one and the same people, and so may they ever act and feel towards each other (Lindley, 1916, 531). 115 Not all contemporary observers agreed with Atwater, however, particularly with respect to his statement concern- ing the similarity of Ohio and Indiana residents. One who saw a significant difference between the sources of popula- tion in these two Western states was Karl Postel. Writing of southern Indiana in 1828, he identified both the state's poor transportation connections with the east and "the circumstance that the state of Ohio had already engrossed the whole surplus population from the eastern states" as having a "prejudicial effect upon Indiana, its original population being by no means so respectable as that of Ohio." However, as one went north in Indiana, conditions improved: "The case is rather different in the interior of the country and on the Wabash, the finest part of the state, where re- spectabhesettlements have been formed by Americans from the East" (Lindley, 1916, 524). Both of these early analysts were highlighting a point already brought out in the previous chapter--the change from mostly Southern natives in southern Indiana to primarily Middle Atlantic natives in northern Indiana. "Thus there appears to have been, at the simplest, in southern Indiana . . . a crisscrossing of westward and northward streams of population" (Power, 1953, 38-39). In part, the nativity group differences present in Indiana can be attributed in part to the fact that Ohio lay across the main paths of westward migration from the Middle Atlantic states-~both the Ohio River and the National Road-- and in such a location captured many migrants who might 116 have continued moving westward before choosing land. In 1812 John Melish touched on this situation when, considering southern Indiana, he wrote: "the settlements commenced about twelve or fourteen years ago and have made considerable progress, though they have been retarded by the settlement of the fertile and beautiful state of Ohio” (Lindley, 1916, 32-33). At the same time, Southerners were crossing the Ohio River, entering both southern Ohio and southern Indiana, and they most noticeably established an early presence in Indiana. The role played by Ohio in the migration of Middle Atlantic natives westward is dual, for it served as a desti- nation in the early period and a source of them, or their offspring, in the later period. Lang notes that the National Road was used by pioneers migrating from both Pennsylvania and Ohio (1945, 339). As Ohio was settled and the next generation was unable to find cheap or empty land there, its population began spilling westward into central Indiana. There, these migrants met those pioneers who were filling southern Indiana northward from the Ohio River. In the 18203, central Indiana was opening for settlement, approxi- mately a generation after Ohio had achieved statehood and a generation after southernmostIndiana had received its first settlers from the south and east. Middle Atlantic migrants had the shortest distance to cover before reaching the new western lands, in itself an advantage, and this favorable situation was further enhanced 117 by the completion of the Erie Canal. As Billington wrote, although Some pioneers from the Middle States continued to use the old routes-—the National Road, Forbes' Road, or the Catskill Turnpike, to reach the Ohio; then made their way down the river and northward . . . More took advantage of a newly completed all-water route between east and west, the Erie Canal (1974, 289). The presence of the canal affected the immigrants' destination decisions. The journey to the West was made easier at the same time that lands closer to home in western New York, Pennsylvania, and even Ohio were filling with settlers and land costs there were rising. Also, because the Erie Canal emptied into Lake Erie, an increasing number of pioneers were drawn to the Great Lakes area of the Old Northwest, now accessible by a canal and lake steamer route to people from the Middle Atlantic and New England regions in particu- lar. Thus, the principal effect of the Erie Canal on settlement in the Old Northwest "was to deflect the immigrant stream from the Ohio Valley to the Great Lakes" (Billington, 1974, 289). A3 Ohio became more thoroughly settled and areas farther west attracted those migrants who took the_Erie Canal- Great Lakes artery, western Lake Erie grew into a major landing point. In the early 18003, navigation by passenger- carrying vessels on the Upper Great Lakes was not common, since the trip around Michigan was a lengthy one, even in a steamboat. Instead, roads were built across the Lower 118 Peninsula of Michigan between western Lake Erie and southern Lake Michigan; two of the most important were the Chicago Road, completed by 1832 between Detroit and Chicago, and the Territorial Road, opened from Detroit to St. Joseph, Michigan, in 1834 (Billington, 1974, 292). Another connect- ing route available along the shores of Lake Erie was the Vistula Road, which took migrants west from Toledo through the northern counties of Indiana, and the Wabash and Erie Canal also provided access to northern Indiana for migrants using Lake Erie (Lang, 1954, 354). Many travelers decided to settle lands they had passed on or found near these routes, so much so that Billington claims the northern counties of Indiana were settled by the overflow of pioneers moving west along the Chicago Road (1974, 292). Since most of these pioneers were born in the Middle Atlantic states or New England, the validity of this statement is proved by the above average nativity amounts for Middle Atlantic migrants and New Englanders in northern Indiana, as shown by those maps presented in Chapter III. Southern Migrant Routes Many contemporary observers found the presence of a large number of Southerners, particularly in southern Indiana, to be a distinguishing characteristic of the state. While some New Englanders reacted quite negatively to Southern elements in the population of the area, not all did, and many Western travelers and potential settlers 119 commented, without judgment, on the Southern-ness of Indiana's pioneer population. Many of these settlers were what would eventually become recognized as perennial frontiersmen: John WOods claimed in 1821 that "some of the backwoodsmen have been following the Indians from the frontiers of Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, through the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, without being much more settled than the Indians themselves" (Thwaites, 1904, X, 265-66). In 1816 David Thomas, describing the area around Orange County in south central Indiana, discovered "many of the settlers in this quarter are Carolinians; and some told us (probably with reference to their native land) that 'this is a miserably cold country';" specifically, many of them were Quakers from North Carolina (Lindley, 1916, 53-54). Two years later in southwestern Indiana near Princeton, he indicated that ”the inhabitants are principally Kentuckians" (Lindley, 1916, 113). Isaac Reed, writing at New Albany in 1818, determined "the inhabitants were from various parts ' of the older settled country:--some were from Connecticut, some from Massachusetts, some from Pennsylvania, numbers from Kentucky," supporting the maps above showing Easterners present among the Southern natives along the Ohio River in the state (Lindley, 1916, 464). In wayne County, east central Indiana, Edmund Dana noticed in 1819 that "many of the settlers were from North Carolina;" in Clark County on the Ohio River, within the land grant made by Congress to 120 retire military warrants issued to Revolutionary war soldiers by Virginia, he found numerous Virginians (Lindley, 1916, 202, 206). John WOOdS said of his neighbors in the New Harmony area in 1820: "most of them are from the South, from North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee," in agreement with the maps presented above (Thwaites, 1904, X, 317). And near Terre Haute in 1821, William Forster described "a new settlement of Friends [Quakers] from the upper part of North Carolina" (Lindley, 1916, 262). A detailed study of Indiana in 1828, completed by Isaac Reed, brought out a characteristic of Indiana's population apparent to many: its Southern-ness. The population is a mixture from almost every quarter; but mainly from south of the Ohio River. Interest has drawn most; to be in new countries has induced others, and to get away from negro slavery has influenced not a few in their removes from the slave-holding states. There are many from Ohio, and some from the northern states, but their numbers are few (Lindley, 1916, 497). Karl Postel wrote in 1828 that settlement of the state was, "in the south, on the banks of the Ohio and further up, by Kentuckians" (Lindley, 1916, 524). In reminiscences by Charles F. Coffin, who was brought as a child from North Carolina to wayne County, Indiana in the pioneer period, he recalled "there was a large emigration from North and South Carolina, especially of Friends, who settled in different parts of the County" along with a "considerable emigration from Kentucky and Tennessee" (Lindley, 1916, 532). 121 Stephen B. weeks studied the migrations of Southern Quakers, an important subgroup in the settlement of Indiana according to these descriptions, publishing a book at the turn of the century. The primary reason for their migration, mostly from central North Carolina, was opposition to slavery, but general interest in western lands was also an important consideration (weeks, 1896, l, 215). About 1815, most of these Quakers began moving to Indiana rather than Ohio, particularly to the east central area adjoining Wayne County, and in such large numbers that Weeks claims that by 1850 one third of the population in Indiana was comprised of native Carolinians and their children (weeks, 1896, 263, 280, 284). Other Southern states provided large numbers of migrants especially, as shown by the nativity percentages from the 1850 census, Kentucky. I The paths that these settlers took to Indiana were typically a combination of water and land routes through the South, frequently with the last portion on the Ohio River. Contemporary observers noted some of the preferred routes of access used by Southerners, particularly points where Southern trails and roads met or crossed the Ohio River on the way to Indiana. Edmund Dana in 1819 identified Fredonia, in Crawford County, as an important transfer point. The town is so situated in a great bend of the river, which projects so far to the north, at this place, as to cause it to be the nearest convenient accessible point of navigable waters for a great 122 extent of country round. Its position, and the face of the country on each side of the river, for many miles, is favorable for much travel across from Kentucky and the southern states into the interior of Indiana (Lindley, 1916, 210). Richard Lee Mason traveled from Maryland to Illinois in 1819 by way of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, and "crossed the Ohio at a point where it is three-quarters of a mile wide. Passed through New Albany, Indiana, a little village inhabited by tavern-keepers and mechanics” (Lindley, 1916, 235). In 1828, Timothy Flint saw Evansville, in the southwest corner of the state, as "the landing place for immigration descending the Ohio, for the Wabash" (Lindley, 1916, 450). The same year, Karl Postel, in the town of Vevay at the southeast corner of the state, wrote that "in the evening arrived ten teams laden with fifty emigrants from Kentucky, going to settle in Indiana . . . . My land- lord assured me that at least 200 wagons had passed from the Kentucky side, through Vevay, during the present season, all full of emigrants." But, he pointed out, "the Ohio is generally crossed above Jeffersonville, at the Falls of the Ohio downstream from Vevay, near New Albany and across the river from Louisville" (Lindley, 1916, 522-23, 526). At other points along the Ohio crossings could be made. as John woOds noted in 1820: There is a ferry boat, worked by horses, between Cincinnati and the towns of Newport and Coverly; these towns, in Kentucky, lie opposite to Cincinnati, and are separated from each other by 123 the mouth of the Licking; a considerable stream, of Kentucky (Thwaites, 1904, X, 237). Near Cincinnati, the Ohio River begins a sharp turn to the southwest, which becomes its general trend as it passes along Indiana's southern border. This southwesterly bend was "an unfavorable direction for emigrants who were bound for the interior of Indiana and Illinois," although it did bring the state closer to the sources and routes of Southern migrants (Brown, 1948, 197). Because of this turn in the river's course, "Big Bend below Cincinnati became an accus- tomed place at which to leave the river and set out overland, by wagon or perhaps on foot" for all travelers on the Ohio, not only Southerners (Brown, 1948, 198). However, for many Southern migrants there were even better access routes to Indiana that met the river farther west. Part of the journey by Southerners could be made on one of the many tributaries joining the Ohio from the south. To use this excellent water system, Southerners had to cross the great drainage divide along the crest of the Appalachians and locate a west or north flowing stream of sufficient size and safety to float a barge or keelboat. Migrants could use the Kanawha River, in what is now west Virginia and on which, according to Zadok Cramer, "by a portage of a few miles through the mountains . . . a communication may be had . . . with the head waters of the Monongahela River, and also with the waters of the James River" flowing eastward through Virginia (1966, 100). In addition, the Big Sandy River, 124 forming the boundary between Kentucky and today's West Virginia, was said by Cramer to be navigable far inland by small boats, and other rivers such as the Licking, Kentucky, Salt ("about 150 yards wide at its mouth and . . . navigable sixty miles"), and Green, were available for migrants to use to reach Indiana (Cramer, 1966, 104, 125). Once the Ohio River had been met, it could be crossed or taken farther downstream to the migrants' final destination. Roads were probably more valuable for travelers from the South heading to Indiana than rivers, particularly as the transporation network in Kentucky was improved. Most of these roads avoided striking out across Ohio staying, rather, south of the Ohio River until they were at least as far west as Louisville. The most commonly traveled road through the South was the Wilderness Road, the main line of which reached Cumberland Gap after leading up the Shenandoah Valley, and tributary valleys in the headwaters area, from southeastern Pennsylvania. Other important roads east of the Appalachians joined it at various points, increasing its significance. The road continued to work its way into the mountains, and "the most difficult section . . . was the crossing of the upper Holston and Powell rivers and their intervening ridges before reaching Cumberland Gap" (Brown, 1948, 185). After it passed over the Appalachians at Cumberland Gap and turned northwestward through Kentucky to Lexington, one fork led northeastward through Kentucky to Ohio by way of Maysville on the Ohio River, and another fork directed settlers 125 destined for Indiana to Louisville. At Lousiville, Southern pioneers could cross the Ohio River and continue inland on one of the local trails or roads within Indiana. The Vincennes Trace from New Albany, across the river from Louisville, to Vincennes was so heavily used that it has been described as ”virtually a projection westward of the Wilderness Road which ran from Cumberland Gap to Louisville" (Power, 1953, 38). So much migration flowed north to the state along this route that Power claims "southern Indiana-Illinois lay at the outlet of a 'corridor' which spilled human beings north- ward across the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Cairo" (1953, 37-38). Many "emigrants from the North as well as from Virginia and North Carolina sought the new West through Cumberland Gap" and the Wilderness Road, particularly in the earliest settlement days of Tennessee, Kentucky, and later of Indiana (Brown, 1948, 185-86). Virginia and North Carolina Quakers, moving to the Whitewater Valley area of southeastern Indiana, typically took the Wilderness Trail, branching off at the Lexington-Cincinnati fork (Thornbrough and Riker, 1956, 197-98). Other, non-Quaker migrants from Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina also used this route into Indiana, as did Kentuckians and Tennesseans (Lang, 1954, 351-52; Barnhart, 1951, 29-30). For Kentucky and Tennessee natives, as for Ohioans, the move to Indiana was not overly difficult because of the relatively short distance involved, and typically local 126 roads within their home states were used to reach Indiana. However, for a migrant from Virginia or Maryland, and even from North Carolina, the journey on the Wilderness Trail was lengthy, involving at least 700 miles from southeastern Pennsylvania to the Ohio River, so many Marylanders and Virginians traveled on the local roads which provided access to the Ohio River through Pennsylvania. With the coming of the National Road, even though it had its best eastern connections in the Middle Atlantic states, Southerners, especially from Maryland and Virginia, became heavy users of this "shortcut" to the Old Northwest (Lang, 1954, 352.) Summary It would appear then, that routes of access to Indiana changed over time, and the sources of migrants also varied. At certain times different routes were opened or older ones improved, making travel to Indiana easier for migrants from certain regions. This change over time led to a layering of migrants in Indiana as settlement moved north, from Southerners who settled in southern Indiana, to Middle Atlantic migrants found in the central part of the state, to New Englanders on the northern as well as southern margins. A series of maps compiled by J. A. Jakle highlight the changing routes and destinations of travelers in the Ohio Valley from 1740 to 1860 (1977, 167-174). If the period 1770 to 1849 is considered, those changes over time that affected Indiana can be examined, but one point must be 127 kept in mind: "none of the 'long hunters' who early crossed the southern Appalachians into Kentucky and Tennessee recorded their experiences" so the Middle Atlantic and New England routes are overemphasized in the available reminiscences (Jakle, 1977, 160). Forbes' Road and the Wilderness Road, along with minor trails through Virginia, were the main routes of access between 1770 and 1789, and this continued in the period 1790 to 1809, with Forbes' Road the single most important artery. Once roads reached the Ohio River however, "more than 40% of the travelers moved by flatboat down the upper Ohio River" (Jakle, 1977, 161). Between 1810 and 1819, Pittsburgh and Wheeling were the most important points of transfer from land routes, particularly the newly completed National Road, to the Ohio River, but "it was clearly the decade of overland transportation" (Jakle, 1977, 161). During the next ten years, the Ohio River received ' heavy use west from Pittsburgh and Wheeling as steamboat traffic increased, while the National Road continued to gain more traffic. In the 18303, canals and railroads began to appear, traffic centered on the Michigan Road, the National Road to Indiana, and the Ohio River; at the same time "the Erie Canal and Lake Erie served as a significant route of access to the region" (Jakle, 1977, 162). And finally in the 18403, while the importance of the Ohio River remained, railroads, on paths generally parallel to the National Road, 128 gained passengers and Lake Erie steamer traffic increased (Jakle, 1977, 162). The time factor appears to have played an important role in the access routes to, nativity sources for, and settlement of Indiana. The Wilderness Road route through Cumberland Gap was the first major trail across the Appalachians, before and during the Revolution, leading Upland Southerners into Tennessee and Kentucky for settle- ment. From those two states, movement both north and west brought Southerners into the southern part of Indiana early in the 18003, just as that area opened for settlement. Next across the Appalachian Mountains were Pennsylvanian and Middle Atlantic states' natives who came into western Pennsylvania along Forbes' and Braddock's Roads after the Revolution and then migrated down the Ohio River or along local roads into Ohio. Then, as they continued to move west through Ohio, Middle Atlantic natives and Ohioans began to enter the central areas of Indiana as that part of the state opened in the 18203, taking the Ohio River or land routes. However, the major westward-trending land route, the National Road, was finished but slowly across both Ohio and Indiana, extending west only to Columbus by 1833, and not completed through Indiana until 1836. Since this important land access route reached Indiana during the 18303, well after the middle parts of the state, through which the National Road went, were settled, it would suggest that those Middle Atlantic natives in central Indiana probably moved 129 west on the Ohio River and continued north on the local roads in Indiana. Later migrants to Indiana from the Middle Atlantic states who traveled west took the National Road, and then moved north to northern Indiana where open lands could be found. In the late 18303 and early 18403, at the same time that northern Indiana was available for settlement, the Erie Canal-Lake Erie route was receiving heavy traffic, bringing New Yorkers and New Englanders to northern Indiana. The contrast in settlement pattern between Pennsylvania and New York natives in Indiana may have been a result of the different routes of access taken. Pennsylvanians, traveling west using the Ohio River or the National Road, concentrated in the central areas of Indiana. New Yorkers, taking the Erie Canal-Lake Erie route to the west, settled on the northern fringes of Indiana with New Englanders, perhaps as an overflow from the Michigan Road through southern Michigan. Migration to Indiana was accomplished in various states from different source regions as new transportation routes . opened up. The result was settlement of the state from south to north, first from the Ohio River northward on local roads, then north from the National Road, with the exception of some New Englanders and.New Yorkers who moved south into extreme northern Indiana. The settlement complexion of the state reflected this south to north filling of the state, with Southerners in the south, Middle Atlantic natives in the central area, and New Englanders mostly along the 130 northern margin. As new lines of access became available, different groups of migrants began to fill Indiana, resulting in the distribution of nativity present by 1850. Chapter VI ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHPLACE, RESIDENCE, AND SUBSEQUENT MIGRATION OF SOUTHERNERS The remainder of this study will focus on the Southern element in the 1850 population of Indiana, the largest nativity group other than Ohioans. New England natives comprised only 2.7% of the population and were, in contrast to the other Old Northwest states, relatively unimportant in the settlement and develOpment of Indiana. Those born in the Middle Atlantic states represented 19.9% of the non- native Hoosier population, a more substantial figure, and Ohioans, the largest single state source, reached 31.4%. Southerners, coming from a large, varied region and compris- ing 44.0% of the population not born in Indiana, were both the second largest and the most recognized of the migrant groups in the state. New Englanders may have shied away from the state because Southerners resided there in large numbers, while Southerners perceived Indiana as an attrac- tive immigration destination because it was accessible, similar in many physical respects to areas of the Upland South and, in what was an important consideration for some Southerners, not a slave holding state. Middle Atlantic natives and Ohioans also found Indiana to be a satisfactory settlement destination, together forming 51.3% of the 131 132 non-Hoosier population in 1850. Often, children of Virginians and Pennsylvanians who settled in Ohio moved on to Indiana, and those two Eastern states were the ultimate cultural source for many of the Ohioans. The Nativity of Ohioans in Indiana Before the Southern population in Indiana is examined in detail, a brief description of the population origins of Ohioans in Indiana is appropriate, since the Ohio population was built by migrants from other areas. A study by E. Lang (1953b) considered the migration of Ohioans to northern Indiana, and a forthcoming work by H.G.H. Wilhelm will examine, from the manuscript census, population elements by county in the Buckeye state. For Indiana, the settlement pattern of Ohioans indicated, as shown above in Figures 11 and 12, a concentration in the northern half of the state, with a weakening at the northwestern corner and scattered counties in the southeast having more than the state mean of Ohioans. Areas in Indiana that received the heaviest immi- gration of Ohio natives formed a band just south of the northern border and north of the central part of the state, while areas of least immigration were located in the south- western quarter of the state. Not only did Ohioans form a large percentage of the Indiana population in 1850, but many natives of Eastern states had lived in Ohio before they settled in Indiana. R. H. Van Bolt wrote of the migration of Ohioans to Indiana: 133 "the Ohioans poured out of the western and southwestern sections of their state into the Upper Whitewater and White River Valleys and over to the Upper Wabash," settling in those areas of central and northern Indiana noted above (1951, 340-41). A study of Ohioans in northern Indiana by Lang suggested that many Buckeyes had lived in southern Indiana before moving north, most of the Ohio immigrants were young (less than five percent were over 40 years old) and, through an examination of the ages of children born in Ohio but living in Indiana by 1850, the length of time pioneers stayed in Ohio "varied from one to twenty-five years" (1953b, 397-99). Ohio settlers were themselves migrants from other states and so, as Van Bolt cautioned, it must be remembered that Ohio was a political grouping of sections; the growth of the state had been in many respects similar to that of Indiana. The southern hill regions had been filled up early with Pennsylvanians, Virginians, and Kentuckians. The area south of the Western Reserve and west of Pennsylvania . . . included Pennsylvania Germans and Scots-Irish . . . large numbers . . . from New York, western Pennsylvania . . . [and] the Western Reserve [was] ruled by . . . the Connecticut and New England emigrant (1951, 344). In 1908 R. E. Chaddock published a study of Ohio's popula- tion prior to and in 1850. Using census totals and county histories, he found that first Pennsylvania, then Virginia, New York, Maryland and New Jersey supplied the greatest number of migrants; from his evidence it was "clear that 134 Ohio's early population came largely from the backcountry regions of Pennsylvania and the South" (46). Accounts of travelers visiting Ohio during the early settlement period substantiate the presence of Pennsylvanian and Virginian migrants in the Buckeye state. At the end of the Revolutionary war, many pioneers illegally crossed the Ohio River searching for new land and the United States government sent troops there to clear them out. The army commander characterized the squatters he found in Ohio: "most of those engaged in this business are shiftless fellows from Pennsylvania and Virginia, though I have seen and conversed with a few who appear to be intelligent and honest in their purposes" (Rohrbough, 1978b, 64-65). Francis Andre Michaux, the French naturalist, described the migrants and settlements he observed along the Ohio River in 1802. "Till the years 1796 and 1797 the banks of the Ohio were so little populated that they scarcely consist- ed of thirty families in the space of four hundred miles." But since then, because of a heavy influx of migrants from‘ Pennsylvania and Virginia, "the plantations are now so increased, that they are not farther than two or three miles distant from each other, and when on the river we always had a view of some of them" (Rohrbough, 1978b, 400). A study by H.G.H. Wilhelm, which has not yet been published, analyzes the population of Ohio on a county by county basis, similar to the present research on Indiana. Information furnished by Wilhelm shows the same rankings 135 of individual states supplying migrants to Ohio as those Chaddock found, although the specific numbers differ. Pennsylvania was the largest source, with 35.2% of the non- native Ohioan population, followed by Virginia (15.4%), New York (13.9%), Maryland (6.4%), New Jersey (3.9%), and Connecticut (3.8%). Regionally, the Middle Atlantic area provided 60.1% of the Ohio population, the South 18.7%, and New England was next with 10.9%. This indicates that, for the Ohio born population in Indiana, their original cultural origin was heavily Middle Atlantic, and to a lesser extent Southern. Mapping nativity patterns of Middle Atlantic migrants living in Ohio, according to those counties with nativity amounts greater than and less than the mean for the region, indicates that Middle Atlantic natives in Ohio tended to settle in the eastern, central, and northwestern parts of the state, closest to and directly west of the Middle Atlantic region (Figure 27). The area in the northeast corner of Ohio with less than the average number of Middle. Atlantic natives corresponds to the Western Reserve, heavily settled by New Englanders. Southern migrants to Ohio chose the southern half of the state, more living in the west than the east, directly west of Virginia and north of Kentucky .(Figure 28). The north-south contrast between locations of Middle Atlantic and Southern migrants is similarly apparent in Indiana, and this division appears to be nearly continu- ous, with the boundary near the path of the National Road through both states. I Above mean - Below mean Mean 60.1 percent ,Figure 27 Middle Atlantic Natives in Ohio, 1850 581 _ ‘ch f- j m—‘sm 9/ H_;J --.“! nse'n wolea l 3” meowq r08 nseM VS 910913 0881 (Ohio m': eeviJeW oijnsle slbbiz 137 I'll Abowamemw - Below mean Mean 18.7 percent Figure 28 Southern Natives in Ohio, 1850 ":‘- r. em “A In: I’.".-" O. . :r. ‘- "nomqVBtn-il Gall (DISC r1 22:13:? ruadjucfi 138 Ohioans formed the largest non-Hoosier element in the population of Indiana. Apparently, many of these were chil- dren of migrants native to other states who had moved to Indiana with their family or later on their own, as part of a stepwise migration. Nativity sources for Ohio indicate the presence of a strong Middle Atlantic population element in that state and, when migrants from Ohio are combined with the Middle Atlantic natives who were living in Indiana by 1850, an extremely high level of direct and indirect Middle Atlantic nativity and cultural influence in Indiana is suggested. The balance of this chapter focuses on an analysis of Southerners' birthplace, residence, and subsequent migration to Indiana. Previous Analysis of Indiana's Population bny. E. Layton The earliest study of Indiana population origins which had been carried out using a sufficiently large data base to allow numerical analysis was completed in 1916 by J. E. Layton. He intended to use the information on sources of settlers to determine what effect this had on the attitudes Hoosiers maintained toward slavery during the 18503 (Layton, 1916, 3). Because the manuscript census was not available, he used two ingenious sources: "Land Office Reports and the biographical material given in the County Histories and Atlases and in the City and County directories" (Layton, 1916, 7). The Land Office reports provided data on place of residence prior to migration to Indiana and place of 139 settlement within the state, while the biographies typically gave the same information plus place of birth. However, in his analysis, only if place of birth and previous residence were the same did Layton note birthplace. He was theorizing that place of migration rather than place of birth had a greater influence on the "social and political tendencies and habits" of these people, "for in hundreds of cases they were taken [to a place other than their birthplace] to grow up and form their habits under a wholly different environ- ment” (Layton, 1916, 7-8). When mapped, the data Layton accumulated show a pattern of Southern influence in Indiana very similar to that resulting from the 1850 census. Migrants who came from Kentucky were concentrated in the southern half of Indiana, yet not along the extreme eastern border; migrants from Virginia presented a more random pattern with a tendency to concentrate in the central portions of the state; and migrants from North Carolina were found in two places, east central and southwestern, but not extreme southwestern, Indiana (Figures 29-31). There is rather close agreement between the pattern of settlement in Indiana according to birthplace, from the census, and the pattern according to place or residence before migration to Indiana, from Layton. Apparently, either birthplace or previous residence supplies an accurate identifier of areas in Indiana affected by people and culture from other states. However, since Layton included one's birthplace only if it was the same as 140 I Above mean I Below mean Mean 22.6 percent Figure 29 Migrants from Kentucky in Indiana, According to J. E. Layton Obi ‘5! nsen19vodA E?',? firs-fil- nsem wolea E ‘f L_4 tneawsq 6.93 nseM GS sxugii pnibzoooA ‘snsibnl n1 yfloujnsx me}? 33HSIpiM nojysd .3 .L 03 141 I Above mean I'll Bemwnnmm Nhan7fipnnmnt Figure 30 Migrants from Virginia in Indiana, According to J. E. Layton Lei fl nsem evodA E; ‘4 19‘ nmynamkfii [ -.r memeq 6X neeM CE stuniq k. pnibIOOOA .snsian n1 sinipuiv moxl ajnsjpiM nojst .3 .L of 142 . Above mean I Below mean Mean 6.0 percent Figure 31 Migrants from North Carolina in Indiana, According ‘ ' to J. E. Layton SPI '2 naemwolea ." i I n- tnomoq 0.8 ncoM IE swupii paibuoovA ‘snsian ni sniIOIED deoH maxi ejnsxpim nojysd .3 .L 03 143 the place from which a migrant came to Indiana, one signifi- cant migration which may have occurred, from birthplace to place of migration previous to settlement in Indiana, was not considered. Migration Evidence from the 1850 Census The information gleaned from the 1850 census on birth- places of Southerners living in Indiana can be further refined, beyond the numerical totaling, to provide evidence for migration of Southerners through the South before they reached Indiana. One form of evidence is merely suggestive, and so less reliable, depending as it does on the number of Southerners in Indiana hailing from individual states and the migrants who settled those states. The other form is more specific, identifying particular patterns of movement according to the birthplaces of children in the family. Major Southern States Represented in Indiana All of the Southern states and territories extant in the United States by 1850 are represented in the nativity totals for Indiana, but only the six states having the lar- gest amounts of Southern born natives in Indiana are consid- ered here. The sheer numbers of migrants from each of these states suggest the varying importance of each in Indiana's population. Kentucky Kentucky was the leading Southern state, providing 70,552 migrants, or 17.3% of the total non-Hoosier population 144 by 1850. The large number of Kentuckians present in Indiana is not particularly surprising, considering that they are neighboring states and major transporation routes to Indiana passed through Kentucky. As the oldest of the trans- Appalachian states, a large portion of the population was comprised of native Kentuckians in 1850 (81.2%), but elements of the population born outside of the state indicate those states supplying migrants to Kentucky during the settlement period decades earlier. Kentucky had been populated by pioneers who moved through Cumberland Gap into the Kentucky Bluegrass, first erecting a permanent settlement near Harrodsburg in 1774. Some of the early pioneers were from North Carolina, but most hailed from Virginia: in 1784, "Richard Henry Lee wrote to James Madison of the 'powerful emigration'-from the interior parts of Virginia to Kentucky" (Rohrbough, 1978b, 23-24). A desire for new, fertile lands and an escape from high land costs and taxes in the East, the usual causes, fueled the emigration. Before 1792, this tie with Virginia was one of both population origin and political control, for until statehood in that year the settled parts of Kentucky were administered by Virginia (Rohrbough, 1978b, 378-82). Even by the relatively late date of 1850, when Kentucky was heavily settled considering its western location, and a large majority of the population was native to the state, Virginians were the next most important group, constituting 145 39.3% of the non-Kentucky population. This figure probably indicated a combination of older pioneers in the population and newer migrants following the paths their parents or grandparents had blazed. As its neighbor to the east, only a short move was required by Virginians whose destination was Kentucky. Tennessee, the neighbor to the south, was next in rank with almost 17% of the non-Kentucky population native to that state, followed by North Carolina with 10.3% and Pennsylvania having 5.4%. It was primarily a movement through the South which settled Kentucky, with the important exception of the Pennsylvanians who may have come into Kentucky along the Wilderness Road but probably floated down the Ohio River. Virginia Virginia natives represented the next largest category of Southerners in Indiana, totaling 10.6% of the non-Hoosier population in 1850. Because this state had been growing and settling since early colonial times, although the western parts were opened later, its non-native population elements, only slightly over 5% of the total, are not significant. With the exception of New Jersey, which provided the greatest number of out of state natives to Virginia, neighboring states were the source of the non-Virginian population: in descending order, Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. North Carolina The third most important state providing natives to Indiana was North Carolina, 8.1% of the non-Hoosier 146 population having been born there. North Carolina was another state that began to receive population early, but the western parts were not settled until near the end of the colonial era, just shortly previous to Kentucky and Tennessee. Resident natives of North Carolina comprised over 96% of the United States born population, leaving very few with birthplaces in other states: in order, Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia, all neighbors. Substantial portions of the population in western North Carolina came from Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania during the settlement period. Many were Quakers who contin- ued on, in later generations, to Indiana and Ohio, escaping religious difficulties caused by slavery in North Carolina. Tennessee Tennessee was the fourth most important source of Southern settlers in Indiana by 1850, providing 3.2% of the non-Hoosier population. In Tennessee, over 77% of the people were native to the state. Of the remainder, the largest number came from, in lessening order, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. That North Carolinians were the largest was not unexpected, because for a number of years population and legal connections between the two existed, with portions of Tennessee organized as counties of North Carolina until they were formed into an independent territory in 1790 and gained statehood in 1796 (Rohrbough, 1978b, 24-26). 147 Maryland As with Virginia, in Maryland the long interval between settlement and the 1850 census nativity count renders that information somewhat meaningless. Maryland natives were fifth according to the number of natives present in Indiana, with 2.6% of the non-Hoosier population. Again, most of Maryland's non-native pOpulation (less than nine percent of the total born in the United States) came from the surround- ing states of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, and the city of Washington, D. C., in descending order. Although the population of outsiders in each state was small by 1850, during the colonial period it was Pennsylvania, along with the Tidewater areas of the Southern states, which supplied most of the population settling western Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. In turn, these sections provided the migrants who settled Tennessee and Kentucky. Because the first census that collected nativity infor— mation was taken in 1850, for states which had been settled many years previously extrapolating backwards by using this data to represent the nativity and composition of the original settlers in that state cannot be relied upon. By the mid nineteenth century, the number of those born outside of each Southern state was quite small, ranging from four to 23 percent and, since most of the better farmland had been settled for many years, it is likely that the indicated migration represented movement to non-agricultural areas and certainly not to frontier settlements as in states farther 148 west. Typically, a rapid increase in the native population within a swiftly growing state was experienced, so rapid in fact that natural increase rather than migration was usually responsible for most population growth, after an initial period of strong immigration during the early history of a state. J. E. Schafer examined this episode in the demography of states for the Midwest, noting that in ”the very begin— nings of a new settlement" natural increase of population “is necessarily very slight, the additions being nearly all through immigration. Yet, natural growth promptly sets in" (1937, 92). He gave an example of this increase by investi- gating the portion of Wisconsin's population native to that state over three decades. Between 1850 and 1880, the number of people living in Wisconsin but born in other states rose by only 24,000, less than 1,000 per year, while the percentage of the population native to the state increased from 32% to 76%. Thus, most of the population growth during that period came from the birth, or natural increase, of native Wisconsinites (Schafer, 1937, 94). The number of migrants from various Southern states residing in Indiana at least hinted at a migration from some of the seaboard states to the Inland South, particularly seen in the heavy representation of Kentucky born Hoosiers. A more specific determination of this migration is required. 149 The Stepwise Migration to Indiana of Southern Pioneers For many pioneers living in Indiana, the transfer from their previous residence to the Hoosier state was not their first, nor their last, such move. Relying only upon birth- place information, however, any migration which might have occurred between that movement indicated by birthplace elsewhere and residence in Indiana by 1850 cannot be examined. This migration could have been very significant in the cultural heritage of a pioneer for even if, as an example, a migrant had been born in New Jersey, residence in North Carolina during childhood might have had an impor- tant effect on outlook, religion, dialect, and even economic or agricultural activities, and all of this would be trans- ferred to Indiana with migration by 1850. J. E. Layton noted that few Westerners grew up in the same place they had been born, and many moved on when they reached maturity, taking themselves or their young family wherever there was new, cheap, and fertile land to establish an existence upon. The youth of most, but not all, pioneers was typically observed by contemporaries who watched the westward movement. Morris Birkbeck, traveling to Illinois through Ohio and Indiana in 1818, saw most migrants carrying only the essentials in a small cart or wagon--bedding, household utensils, farming equipment--plus livestock and "a swarm of young citizens" walking behind (Rohrbough, 1968, 127). Looking back in the 1870s, a Hoosier pioneer remembered families "of eight or ten following on foot a cow, on the 150 back of which was thrown a sack containing all their worldly goods" migrating to Indiana from Southern states (Power, 1953, 26-27). Yet Timothy Flint wrote in 1818 that immigra- tion to Indiana "has been for the most part composed of young men, either unmarried or without families. It has been noiseless and unnoticed" (Lindley, 1916, 443). General— ly it was recognized that the family was the primary category of migrant, and especially when the children were young, it was "the settler and his wife, who constituted the economic and social unit which conquered the frontier" (Buley, 1951, I, 141). In a 1971 study of the southern Indiana frontier in 1820, J. Modell described the demographic characteristics of the typical pioneer family. Students of frontier popula- tions have shown that the notion of the unmarried frontiers- man taming the wilderness alone has been overemphasized: "families, instead, provided the basic element of social structure on the frontier." According to Modell's research, the family "passed almost intact" to the frontier in Indiana, as most were "normal" with both parents, and of course children, present (1971, 615, 620). The majority of house- holds surveyed in Indiana were comprised of 5.5 to 6.5 persons, with a birthrate tending to be higher and a popula- tion commonly younger and including more males than in older, settled areas. Additionally, farmers had more children than non-farmers and greater birthrates were found, despite occupation, in agricultural than in non-agricultural counties (Modell, 1971, 615-16, 619-20, 624-26). 151 The family unit usually continued to expand, notwith- standing the various diseases, ranging from agues and fevers to malaria and cholera, which often were contracted. Birkbeck described a typical growing family in front of their cabin, jaundiced from the effects of a range of fevers they shared in common with nearly all of the frontier population. The man, his pregnant wife, his eldest son, a tall, half-naked youth, just initiated in the hunter's art, his three daughters, growing up into great rude girls, and squalling tribe of dirty brats of both sexes, are of one pale yellow without the slightest tint of healthful bloom (Rohrbough, 1978b, 165). Life on the frontier was not easy, and many families were severly decimated by illness, accident, or famine. The 1850 census can be used to examine the step by step migration process that many pioneers followed on their way to Indiana. This was first done, by B. F. Lathrop in 1948, in a series of articles employing the ”child ladder" system to describe migration to East Texas between 1835 and 1860. With this method, one can ascertain the birthplaces of parents (often this may indicate movement--for example, the North Carolina birthplace of the father and a Tennessee birthplace for the mother suggests, but does not prove, that the father moved to Tennessee, where he met his wife) and the birthplaces of children they had who were living at home in 1850. If the example above is continued, and the family is given four children, the oldest of 15 years born in Tennessee, the next two, 12 and nine, both born in 152 Kentucky, and one of six born in Indiana, a child ladder has been identified showing a regular sequence of children's ages and birthplaces. Thus the family began in Tennessee, where they were living at least 15 years before 1850, indicated by the birthplace of the oldest child in 1835, and by 1838, dated according to the next oldest child, they had moved to Kentucky, where the twelve and nine year old children were born. Sometime between the births of the two children aged nine and six in 1850, and so between 1841 and 1844, the family migrated to Indiana where the last child was born. There are a few problems with this method which must be kept in mind, including the fact that an intermediate resi- dence may not be listed because no child was born, the child was not living at home or was deceased. And the ladder may not indicate the correct family movement if two families, each missing a parent and having followed different migration paths, were combined in Indiana or elsewhere on the way. Also, Lathrop explained the "great limitation" in this system of migration analysis which arises from the imprecision of birthplaces as recorded in the census. Since birth- places are shown by states, not by specific localities, the method deals only in state units. It cannot tell the part of a state whence a family came . . . The method does not touch, nor pretend to touch, movements within a state . . . can and often does miss interstate moves (1948b, 9). Despite these conditions, resulting primarily from the nature of the data, a sample of 15 counties in Indiana was 153 selected for child ladder analysis to determine migration routes. The counties chosen were evenly distributed within the state, so as to encompass every settlement region. WOrking from the census returns, the following procedure was used. In the sampled counties, the first 25 families in each town- ship were recorded; the families chosen had to have two or more children to allow child ladders to be found. As ages and birthplaces were tabulated, the migratory paths indicated by different birthplaces were revealed. The results of this survey are presented in Table 2. Only the state of direct migration to Indiana, that is, the last rung on the ladder, is considered here--migrations previous to the final one to Indiana, while suggested by older children's or parents' birthplaces, are not listed in this table. In general, the same relationships among the leading non-Hoosier nativity states and the major states of previous residence were found. The greatest percentage of moves was made between Ohio and Indiana, followed in descending order by Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, New York, and Illinois. Further, counties in northern Indiana received a greater number of settlers moving from Northern states, while those moving to the southern part tended to have lived in Southern states previously. Thus in Allen County at the northeast, 75% of the child ladders indicated moves just westward from Ohio to Indiana; for Perry County in the south, only 12% included Ohio. Conversely, 81% of 1.5‘4 .vocssou .ucoouom :« so>nm one noocooauomc u.c~ ~.N~ N.Nn m.h v.9 v.0 N.w N.c a.n enema :« .oo>«ucz csnwosu no 00‘ ooou0>£ nvuhncn anwnoa anINnoH acumnon avtmnou mononan vvnmnan hnanmu mvtonau nvlonon molavou vvnanou NVIhnom nvtnnou Nvlanuu wvlovom ecawocn o» o>ox no one: a. v. w. A. wt a v m N N m N. A NN N. N. N. o m N9 m n m n a w 0 ha 9 NA on on A m N w oN m m A w m Ha a a N» A A a H mm cu m n H N M Nu m Am m o m w an n H. MN h N av N N NA an vN n @ aN a Nu m a n9 N N va a. m. we a n N a m. n. NH N N an o H N u N n ow N m w H n v NA cm 9 m. mh m. A m. m. a nu H3 0! 4H m4 :0 H! AH (5 29 um 02 m: a: fix 10 MG 44 (a a m. m. m. A #2 dz h> HI :2 4! a! 80 amouo>¢ cons: cu>sssam ansonm accuse season auuom oocouzaq couuouuon cannuo causes success ouazeaoo cousduo cannon co-¢ Nassau asewcsn .o>ox we came new .ecnwccn cu u=o«>oum ousoounoz uo cough N NAG‘F 155 the child ladders for migrants to Indiana in Perry County involved Kentucky, while none of those in Allen County did. Other counties where particularly large numbers of natives from certain states were concentrated reflected that situa- tion in the child ladders: Lawrence in the south center had many natives of North Carolina: Benton in the west center claimed Virginians; Porter in the northwest included New Yorkers: Gibson in the southwest held South Carolinians. The gaps between children's ages allowed the move to be dated, and again the southernmost counties tended to have earlier dates of migration, but the relationship was not very clear because of the time elapsed between initial settlement and the 1850 census. Significantly, however, there were substantially more child ladders in the northern counties than the southern. The three northernmost counties averaged 208 child ladders each, while the three southernmost had only 118 among them. This was related both to the settlement pattern in the state, expanding from south to north, and to the older population in the south, with many more Indiana natives (Figure 32). After the initial settlement of a frontier, most of the population growth was from natural increase--children born on that frontier. Fewer families in the north than in the south had parents who were Indiana natives, for at the south, those born in the state were now young adults starting families. The average age of Indiana natives reflected this: in northern counties they were younger (less than six years 156 I Above mean . Below mean Mean 56.0 percent Figure 32 Indiana Natives in Indiana, 1850 157 old in Allen County), but to the south they were older (over 12 years old in Gibson and Jefferson counties). The large number of young children in both areas kept the average age for Hoosiers lower than that for adults alone would have been. Parents, especially in the northern counties, often had birthplaces different than those of their offspring. As examples, a move from New York to Ohio to Indiana was not unusual for a settler in northern Indiana, and a chain of migration from Virginia to Kentucky to Indiana for a southern Indiana settler was typical. These occurrences added support to the notion that migration to the frontier was normally done in stages, as the parents, frequently themselves born in different states, met on an older frontier and moved on to newer ones in search of cheap, good lands. General Land Office Records As noted by Lathrop and others, in every case where the census is used as a source of nativity information the problem of imprecise location of birthplace or residence previous to the move to Indiana hampered a thorough descrip- tion of population origins. This is a particularly serious difficulty in studies like the present one, where states considered as population sources straddle more than one cultural region: the Southern states were partially in the Lowland South and the Upland South. Because each of these cultural regions had a significantly different settlement 158 history, migrants hailing from each region will be different. Many researchers have identified the Southern element of Indiana's population as Upland Southern: from Turner "the Ohio Valley was settled, for the most part . . . by men of the Upland South," to Van Bolt "in the Upland areas of southern Indiana, which was in many respects a greater Kentucky or North Carolina, opportunity was similar to that which had existed a generation before in the Upper South," to Power "emigrants were soon multiplying on the various routes by land or water to the Northwest . . . . They had by 1830 planted their modes of living in the then settled portions of the Northwest" (Turner, 1920, 164; Van Bolt, 1951, 336; Power, 1953, 1). But details of the connections between Indiana and the Upland South, and even identification of specific areas in the South that supplied migrants, has not been accomplished on a significant scale. It is not enough to say that Southerners who settled in Indiana were from the Upland region; it must be shown how many were from there, and exactly where the areas that supplied Southerners were located. One way of identifying specific sources of migrants living in Indiana is to refer to the General Land Office records that Layton used. He recorded the place from which a migrant came to Indiana by state, but the records also indicate the county of prior residence (Registers of Receipts, various Land Offices, Indianapolis). There are, Ihowever, some biases inherent in this source, primarily 159 because only those who purchased land from the government were included. If an early settler bought land from a speculator or a pioneer who had extra land or who had moved elsewhere, the previous residence of the second purchaser is not recorded. Also, since most but not all of the purchasers actually filing for land were males, few females are represented, although if the woman was married her prior residence would probably be the same as her husband's. Apparently, in many cases the land purchaser identified his current Indiana county of residence as his previous residence. Also, many were living in Indiana and purchased additional land or, if they were squatters, bought land in the state for the first time, so not all locations listed are out of state. And, because of a fire during the settle- ment period at the Vincennes Land Office, the Registers of Receipts are not complete for that part of the state. But a large enough data base can be extracted from these records to allow an accurate description of the prior residences of Southerners who had purchased land from the opening of the various land offices until June 1, 1850. Despite the presence of large areas in northwestern Indiana which had not been sold by then, the first of June was chosen because the taking of the census of 1850 was to have begun on that day, even though for a number of reasons some areas in Indiana were not canvassed until later and the survey was not completed until at least September. 160 The former residences of almost 6,600 Southerners were identified and subsequently located on base maps of Southern counties as they were bounded during the 18303 (Figures 33, 34, and 35). Only a few purchasers listed their previous residences as Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, or across the Mississippi River, so these states were eliminated from the final maps. The pattern of counties confirmed the claims of other researchers--most of the Southern migrants in Indiana had moved there from the Upland South, best identified in western sections of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Kentucky provided, as it had according to the census, the most migrants: 5,555 or 84.3% of the total, from 69 counties. These counties were heavily concentrated in the section of north central Kentucky commonly called the Bluegrass Basin, one of the best agricultural areas in the state. From there, Indiana lay directly to the northwest, and most migrants took the northwest trending routes of the Kentucky River or the Wilderness Road for the short hop to Indiana. The sparsely settled eastern part of Kentucky supplied relatively few migrants, despite the generally poorer farming conditions there. Apparently those areas in greater demand and of higher agricultural value provided most of the Kentucky migrants to Indiana. They may have left because of stories they had heard of even more fertile land in Indiana, but their migration was probably caused at least to a degree by the high cost of land in this attractive inia ryland, and Virg fice Records \ .1 «130m .0 Seats .. , . I 30% can a - em mucoma maehoumu 11:,w can wawhouou 1+uou 304w mdzmguwz wo m5::smnuom m20w<3.a -. . r : h 1“. «av... .. 1 .. nice .r .. 5.7.0 ram; kerosene ed oahcscoub .n...n..y_.._u:._ cu 163 mcuoomm moflmmo ccmq Hmumcwo ow mcflwuoooc ~mcmwocH on mommmccwa was hxosucmx Eoum mpcmumwz mo mwocwvwmmm maofi>wum mm ousmflm 223mm 3 89:52 in .;E I a :- a 905$ .0 3r. :53 \L ‘3 33.22:..nu ...; mnmmJ “1.1. 34 ., ....n. 13:; 12.. ‘ X: 2.5.3; ..w -.. n ...A .. .. ...}; : NZJCGTM 3,: .LC ":2... _ ..DZ. -.. 1:. .. _.,..3..:a v.\ 164 farming region, typically too dear for young farmers just starting out on their own to afford. Virginia, which at that time included west Virginia, was the next most identified location of previous residence, with 533 migrants, or 8.1% of the total, in 56 counties. Some Virginians listed the Tidewater counties as their former home, but most were from the western portions, particularly the Shenandoah valley, where a southwestward trending strip of regularly mentioned counties can be seen. Northwestern Virginia, the section that would become west Virginia, sup- plied over 43% of the total from Virginia, concentrated within a few counties. That part of the state was noti settled until after the Revolution, so the migratory push to the west may not have been as strong there as in areas of Virginia farther east, although the Kentucky experience does not support this idea. Third in order was North Carolina, with 240 migrants, or 3.6% of the total, from 15 different counties. Almost no migrants to Indiana listed Tidewater and eastern North Carolina as their place of previous residence. North central North Carolina was the primary area of migration to Indiana, and this region has been identified by weeks as a major source of Southern Quakers who moved to Indiana (1896, 263). Extreme western North Carolina also provided some migrants to Indiana, but the bulk clearly focused on the central and west central sections. 165 Tennessee was fourth according to the number of Southern migrants moving to Indiana, with 125 or 1.9% of the total. Most of the Tennesseans were from the eastern half of the state, in the Appalachian region. Next was Maryland, with 84 migrants or 1.3% of the Southerners, primarily from the western region of the state, especially in the Great or Shenandoah Valley. As with Virginia and North Carolina, few Marylanders were from the Tidewater area. Most of the 35 migrants from Delaware moved to Indiana from the northern part of the state, and many of the 17 pioneers from South Carolina were from the western, or Upland, portions of that state. The order of Southern states providing migrants to Indiana was the same as indicated by the Census of 1850: led by Kentucky, then Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The levels were somewhat different, however, with Kentucky accounting for 39.8% of the Southern birthplaces in the census but 84.3% of the Southern migration places, according to the land office records. For the other states, the percentages of Southerners born there were normally higher than the percentages of Southern residents migrating to Indiana. In Virginia, 24.4% of the Southern population was born there, but only 8.1% of the Southerners migrated to Indiana from there; for North Carolina the figures were 18.6 and 8.1 respectively; for Tennessee they were 7.4% and 3.2%. Data from Kentucky, which had a greater percentage of Southerners migrating from than born there, and the higher birth than 166 migration percentages for Virginia and North Carolina suggest that migration to Indiana did indeed occur in a stepwise fashion, with Southern pioneers moving west from their birthplaces for at least a short stay in Kentucky before they moved on to Indiana by 1850. The pattern of previous residence for Southerners was clearly one of Upland South concentration. It was from the western reaches of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, the last frontier areas in those states, that most migrants to Indiana came. And it was eastern Tennessee and north central Kentucky which supplied most of the pioneers to Indiana from the trans-Appalachian region. The Upland South, not the Lowland, Tidewater South, appears to have been the source of most Southerners living in Indiana by 1850, accord— ing to the land office records. The Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records Another source of information can be tapped to provide birthplaces and previous residences for pioneers to Indiana by 1850: the records of the Society of Indiana Pioneers. The society was founded in 1916, the state's centennial year, and since that time has collected genealogical material on Indiana pioneers as supporting evidence for membership. To be eligible to join the society, applicants must be able to prove that they have an ancestor who settled in Indiana during the early period. The exact date by which the pioneer had to live in Indiana depends upon when the county of 167 residence was established--for the first counties in the state, those found in southern Indiana, the pioneer had to have settled there before the close of 1825. The acceptable dates are later as the central and northern counties were opened, the latest date being the end of 1850. Dependent as the society is on voluntary materials, the list of pioneers assembled is not complete, because only for those pioneers whose descendants know of and are interested in the society has genealogical material been submitted. Thus, the information is not as free from bias as the census schedules are, although they are not faultless. In some cases, pioneers living in certain counties appear more often than those from other Indiana counties, despite the equal time period allowed all counties. One strength, however, is that women, who were every bit as much pioneers as men, are identified quite regularly as having been early ancestors. On the application form that members fill out, the county, state, and date of birth and residence before migra- tion to Indiana are requested. Approximately half of the application forms submitted between 1916 and 1978 were surveyed for this research, and the state of birth and previous residence was recorded for 2,146 migrants who were born in the South and migrated to Indiana from the South or from Ohio. Only 1,100 of these Southerners had birthplace and migration place identified by county, and this was also recorded. As in the section using General Land Office records to identify previous residences of settlers, materials from 168 the Society of Indiana Pioneers indicated those counties in the South which supplied migrants. But particularly valuable was the information on county of birth that this source provided, allowing exact areas of the South to be specified. In descending order for all of those combinations yielding five or more pioneers, the state of birth and migra- tion gleaned from the Society of Pioneers' files is presented in Table 3. The largest group was of those born in Kentucky and migrating to Indiana from Kentucky, next came those born in North Carolina and leaving from there, followed by those born in Virginia and moving from Kentucky. The typical circulation patterns of people through the South and Ohio are noted in this table, particularly movement from the ‘coastal South states to the interior states of Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, on the way to Indiana. However, there is a significant difference in the location of migrants identified only according to place of birth and solely by place of migration to Indiana (Table 4). Virginia was the leading state when ranked by place of birth but only fourth according to place of migration, while Kentucky, the third state in number of birthplaces, was the leading state of previous residence, indicating that numerous Virginians moved one step west (often to Kentucky or Ohio) before they came to Indiana, and from Kentucky came many more migrants than just those who were born there. North Carolina retained the second ranking in both columns, with most North Carolinians born in and migrating from that state, many of Migration Patterns of Southerners to Indiana RANK BIRTHPLACE MIGRATION PLACE NUMBER 1 Kentucky Kentucky 447 2 North Carolina North Carolina 361 3 Virginia Kentucky 248 4 Virginia Virginia 226 5 Virginia Ohio 123 6 Maryland Kentucky 72 7 Tennessee Tennessee 72 8 North Carolina Kentucky 66 9 North Carolina Ohio 62 10 South Carolina South Carolina 57 11 Maryland Ohio 55 12 Maryland Maryland 48 13 Kentucky Ohio 43 14 Virginia Tennessee 37 15 Maryland North Carolina 24 16 South Carolina Ohio l7 17 Virginia North Carolina 17 18 Delaware Ohio l6 19 South Carolina Kentucky 15 20 Delaware Kentucky 14 21 North Carolina Virginia 10 22 Tennessee Kentucky 10 23 Delaware Delaware 8 24 Maryland Virginia 7 25 North Carolina South Carolina 5 ‘26 Virginia South Carolina 5 Source: Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records 170 mcuoomm .muomcofim mcmwvcH mo mumfioom “mouoom ms wanders: a pm mcwaonmo nusom w om mommmccma w boa oommwccme m an mcwaonmo nusom m mam mflcsmus> 4 won unassums s can owro m ems savanna: m mos acasoumo auuoz m som mcfisoumo runoz N «am axosucmx H one macamua> H umnsaz mumum scam umnssz mumum scam onaamez msmHm coaumumsz can sauna mo mmumum no mmcwxcmm v Handy 171 whom were Quakers. A clear indication of a migratory pattern from Southern coastal states to interior Southern states appears from both tables. More specifically, maps generated from the information on county of birth and previous residence for Indiana pioneers indicate areas within the Southern states where Indiana's Southern population originated. The map of birthplaces demonstrates that, while some pioneers from the South were born in the Tidewater or Lowland sections of the Southeastern states, particularly in Maryland and Delaware, the majority were born in the western parts of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina (Figures 36, 37 and 38). The Shenandoah Valley region of Virginia provided many of the settlers, while the Piedmont area of central North Carolina had an especially strong concentration, particularly in Guilford and Randolph counties. Those who were Tennessee natives tended to have eastern Tennessee birthplaces, while most of those from Kentucky were born in the north central portion, close to Indiana. Places of migration for pioneers settling in Indiana were similar to birthplaces, but had a more westerly focus (Figures 39, 40 and 41). Fewer migrants had the eastern or Tidewater sections of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina as their place of residence prior to Indiana, and fewer also came from the western parts of Virginia. Central North Carolina, however, retained a strong concentra- tion of migration places, indicating that many North inia to Maryland and Virg an {VI Begum so 533:: .2. I 0., a I w .m: w... m .w .r H 7 - nuwuwm :4 OH 174 .mvuoomm .muoonoflm . .ucsuucn o» Gammon—5n. new 23.35 «0 .huquOm to» ..mfifiuooom mxgpcmxfiouu. magnum“: mo mundaanuufim mm 859mm fl . I I 22.8w .0 .3552 in .. , I 11 96% 885 I .3 or. fl :- LI ATI .mnnwvnH on wsmwruaoe man Azozun. : t A. w .L ._ - . n71... $3\2,4 ,,.. . N. is, H. +5 Y . . .H , i LA. I ‘ . . 5.. v ()5 {in f .. try. h. . . . r L » D 1‘ ii. an.” .. «‘4 .N V, , mm oucrwd : Boqw manage»; wo whomnaauuwm 1: : .maowzcwa mathvaw wo Knowoox Ou onwvaoocb mvuooom ( :::: , 8V1 om.,@~ om..wm ___- o YYI .,\.. 2 «WM 6 ......I n w few. .. 2.9.622... .2...“ z «a» 5.3..» ... $5.». a. .vnmwtzu 01 ossnasusa rim 4mc:.22m =12» nowcmtuhz no mau.m . .r,nA M , n x ; . . ) mvasuvm .w4;or3hn nnrhmnw no camanxn On unnveoaub .14.. “v 02cm”; 178 Carolinians who moved to Indiana came from their counties of birth. Eastern Tennessee supplied a few more migrants than it had natives, but the strongest increase by far occurred in Kentucky. North central Kentucky furnished many more migrants than natives, particularly in the Bluegrass areas. This difference meant that Kentucky served as a temporary halting place for natives of other Southern states who eventually continued their migration to reach Indiana. The sources of migrants (not natives) coming from Ohio ‘were also mapped (Figure 42). The southwestern portion of that state, nearest to the migration path through the Upland South and previously identified as an important supplying region for Indiana pioneers, was a typical final step for :many Southern migrants to Indiana. Another less concentrated area appears in the southeast, close to Virginia. Those ‘moving to Indiana from southwestern Ohio likely originated in Kentucky, while those from southeastern Ohio began their migrations in Virginia. The shift from a more eastern location of birthplaces to a more western location of migration places coincided with the evidence for step migration through the Southern states before Indiana was reached. Also, maps of previous residence from the records of the General Land Office and the Society <3f Indiana Pioneers agree in general distribution of migrants, (although the total number counted was lower in the latter source. An Upland South location of births, but particularly (of residence previous to migration to Indiana, is clearly 179 El _ I 6415 .31—50 Number of Settlers , - 51 and above / Figure 42 Places of Migration from Ohio to Indiana, According to Society of Indiana Pioneers' Records 1C J ! --.- - “‘\I’ wo—- ...- .. . (cl... Ulu it... .III.+a)-Itnllitl l t ~11 I. 1.4-1-1." 1|..:- tql.. ..LII rliv'JtZI'lbuI Val (Jul‘l‘ Ill— ..~,. .1 g;- i 2 -. --,-_4_ ..7...’ xfl n-..— - K. '. 180 shown by these maps, created from more detailed, alternative sources to the census. Evidence for a step by step migration of Southern pdoneers through the Upland South to Indiana is substantial. ith only was this circulation displayed by the child ladder samples from the census, indicating state to state movement, but also by the General Land Office records and the Society 1ace, as pioneers followed the frontier. The specific counties of birth and migration were most often in the western ssections of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South (Zarolina, and in eastern Tennessee and Kentucky. (All of these Eireas are in the Upland rather than the Lowland South, and the Inovement suggested was one through the Upland South to Indiana. From the census, approximately half of the population of IIndiana was identified as native to the variOus states of the South. Other sources, allowing counties of birth and migra- ‘tion for Southerners living in Indiana to be found, indicated that the sections in those states where the majority of Southerners came from were in the western and northern, or Upland rather than Lowland, South. The following chapter examines the movement of population into the Upland South, describing the ultimate sources of this migration. Chapter VII MIGRATION TO THE UPLAND SOUTH Areas of the interior, or Upland, South have been identified in the previous chapter as the birthplaces and especially migration places of most Southerners who settled in Indiana by 1850. This chapter investigates the population sources for the Upland South itself, identifying areas that :provided settlers for the region and tracing them back to ‘their original source, or culture hearth, in what is now the ‘United States. Before that can be done, a definition of the Upland South itself is required. The Upland South is delimited by, as the term implies, the hilly or mountainous, Piedmont or interior, parts of the Southeastern states, as.opposed to the lowland, or Tidewater, coastal and near coastal areas. Generally, researchers in Southern history have recognized some of the differences between the Upland and Lowland South as contrasts in popula- tion origins, agricultural and economic systems, history, and even culture. They usually have marked the boundary Ibetween the Upland and Lowland South along the eastern edge <3f the Piedmont, for there the physical geography of the South shifts from the Coastal Plain province to the Piedmont 181 182 and other interior provinces, and soils and vegetation are also altered. Two geographers who have used the 1850 and 1860 censuses to discover population nativity have considered the differences between the Upland and Lowland South. T. G. Jordan described the Lowland South as "composed of states fronting on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, an area dominated be the slave-cotton system" and plantation agriculture, in contrast to the Upland South, "where slaveless yeoman farmers were dominant and cotton was scarce," replaced by «grain agriculture on medium sized farms (1967, 667). The interior states of Kentucky and Tennessee are listed with ‘the Upland South while Atlantic coast states of Maryland, ‘Virginia, and North Carolina are considered Lowland South, despite a map Jordan provided showing Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina straddling the boundary between Upland and Lowland South (1967, 668). In an article about popula- tion elements in southern Illinois, D. G. Meyer identified the Upland South states as Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, and Lowland South states as South Carolina and states south and west of it, choosing to place North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland in the Upland South instead of the Lowland South as Jordan did (1976b, 154). In both cases, the difficulty in deciding to ‘which region Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina should be assigned arose from the fact that census nativity informa- tion was taken only on a statewide basis. Both Jordan and 183 Meyer noted there were two distinct areas of the last three states which provided migrants to newer Western states, but they were unable to define the specific counties comprising each. The present research has identified the counties in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina supplying migrants to Indiana. Nearly all of the supplying counties were west of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont border in the Upland South. Because the Upland South received emigrants from a variety of seaboard regions, F. J. Turner called it part of the "Old West” (1920, 68). This region was not the "oldest West” which was found on the Atlantic coast, but a western area intermediate between the coastal colonial settlements of the seventeenth century and the trans- Allegheny settlements of the latter portion of the eighteenth century . . . It includes the back country of New England, the Mohawk Valley, the Great Valley of Pennsylvania, the Shenandoah Valley and the Piedmont-~that is, the interior, or upland portion of the South, lying between the Alleghenies and the head of navigation of the Atlantic rivers marked by the "fall line" (Turner, 1920, 67, 68). Subsequent historians who examined the Southern population of Indiana have agreed with this view, extending it to claim that Uplanders held Western attitudes and were Westerners because they had crossed into the Piedmont and other more westerly regions: "inhabitants of these upland areas considered themselves western men whether they resided in North Carolina, Kentucky, or Indiana” (Van Bolt, 1951, 338). The argument for the "Westerner" developing in the back- country of the South has been challenged, to a certain 184 extent, by subsequent students of the frontier and of cultural geography. They note the commercial orientation of early pioneers toward the East, the fact that "most frontier societies did not evolve in isolation for long," and that the cultural areas supplying the population from which the Westerner arose were themselves changing and evolving from outside contacts (Mitchell, 1978, 71-72). A review of the general history of Upland South development identifies those Eastern coastal regions which provided the migrants who settled the Upland South. The General Pattern of Migration to the Upland South Not until approximately 1700 did the western portions of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina begin to receive settlers. Available lands suitable for expansion of planta- tion agriculture near the coast were becoming hard to find, and older lands were being reduced in value by erosion and soil exhaustion. Thus, the first movement into the Virginia Piedmont was motivated by plantation owners and land specu- lators from eastern Virginia who saw their Tidewater farm- lands wearing out and areas available for new fields reduced by settlement. In the Piedmont they could claim lands for future plantations. As was common on other frontiers, hunters, fur traders, and land agents explored the western areas first, finding the best routes for entry and the most attractive lands (Sosin, 1967, 28). Within Virginia, land speculators, eastern settlers, or newly arrived immigrants 185 pushed settlement into the Piedmont along those major river valleys--Potomac, James, Roanoke--that were accessible from the Tidewater (Robinson, 1979, 141-42). The North Carolina Piedmont was not as easily reached, for the western parts of the Coastal Plain formed a sparsely settled barrier, and rivers flowing off of the Piedmont ran more southeast than east through South Carolina, making entrance by water from settled regions difficult (Bridenbaugh, 1951, 120-21). Accordingly, T. J. Wertenbaker claimed that the Virginia Piedmont came under the most Tidewater influence because Virginians and Marylanders practicing plantation agriculture gradually moved westward into it (1942, 125). West of the Piedmont was the Blue Ridge, narrowing to the north, and beyond lay the Ridge and Valley area, variously known as the Great Valley, the Cumberland Valley, the Valley of Virginia, or the Shenandoah Valley. It was here in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, along with adjacent parts of the Piedmont in the latter two states plus South Carolina, that rapid population growth and settlement ex- pansion was experienced in the last half century of the colonial period. Also, it was here that migrants from two of the three major colonial culture hearths, southeastern Pennsylvania and Chesapeake Bay, met and aspects of their culture mixed (Mitchell, 1978, 75). Trending as it does from northeast to southwest, from southeastern Pennsylvania into the Tennessee-North Carolina border area, the physical characteristics of the Ridge and Valley area aided the 186 movement of settlers southwestward through the valleys from southeastern Pennsylvania. Despite the barrier of the Blue Ridge some, but not many, Virginians from the Piedmont moved westward into the Ridge and Valley area, while most Lowland settlers migrated southwestward along the coast, remaining within the Tidewater region. The Ridge and Valley area, ”a kind of peninsula thrust down from Pennsylvania, was rendered comparatively inaccessible to the westward movement from the lowlands, and was equally accessible to the population which was entering Pennsylvania" (Turner, 1920, 99). Further migration westward into the Appalachians was hindered by the topographic barrier they presented, so according to the traditional environmentalist view, pioneers were shunted to the southwest. The height of the Appalachians was not the barrier, but "the long, unbroken extent of the system and its great width of three hundred miles . . . . Hence the tide of frontier settlers . . . spread southward along the line of least resistance into the broad open Valley of Virginia" (Semple, 1903, 62, 8). Other causes for the southwestward shift of frontier expansion have been suggested: the reluctance of Indians to sell more land in Pennsylvania, the inability or unwillingness of colonial _ governments to protect frontier settlements from hostile Indians, high land prices in Pennsylvania, when compared ‘to Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, and that in reach- ing the Appalachians, English settlers had for the first 'time encountered lands claimed by the French (Florin, 1977, 187 56-57). Whatever the causes, settlement did expand primarily to the southwest from southeastern Pennsylvania, and eventual- ly in what became a futile ruling, the British government prohibited habitations west of the mountains in its Proclama- tion of 1763 (Sosin, 1967, 15). Settlement of the Shenandoah Valley began sometime after 1725, although the exact year is hard to pinpoint. W. F. Dunaway has identified settlements of Pennsylvanians in the Valley of Virginia which appeared about 1726 (1931, 138). C. Bridenbaugh placed the ”official beginning" of the south- westward flow of immigrants from Pennsylvania into the Shenandoah Valley at 1730, when a group of Pennsylvania Germans settled near Luray, Virginia (1951, 123). Previously, portions of the eastern Piedmont had received settlers, and squatters or scattered pioneers had probably already found suitable farmsteads in the Ridge and Valley province. At various times, the governments of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina all encouraged settlement of the western parts of their colonies by allowing individuals to .gain large land grants, from which they later sold parcels, and by offering low land prices or reduced property taxes to attract newly arrived immigrants (Sosin, 1967, 21). Land costs were substantially less in the western wilderness than in the East, even though in western Maryland and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, settlers had to purchase their acres from speculators who had been granted large tracts of land (Bridenbaugh, 1951, 138-39). The prices 188 they charged were not excessive, and the average farmer purchased three to four hundred acres, but through time costs rose to the point where lands farther south could be purchased at much more reasonable rates (Bridenbaugh, 1951, 139). Many researchers have studied the movement of Pennsylvanians and Tidewater Southerners into the Upland South, some describing the region as a whole while others chose only a particular colony or area. Both historians and geographers have been concerned with this population move- ment. F. J. Turner wrote: Thus it happened that from about 1730 to 1760 a generation of settlers poured along this mountain trough into the southern uplands, or Piedmont, creating a new continuous social and economic area, which . . . built up a new Pennsylvania in contrast with the old Quaker colonies, and a new South in contrast with the Tidewater South (1920, 99-100). T. G. Jordan, in a study of nativity in Texas, noted that the Upper South . . . built up a new Pennsylvania in contrast was, above all, a child of southeeastern Pennsylvania . . . Beginning in the first half of the eighteenth century, there ' was a major stream of emigration south— ward from Pennsylvania, composed mainly of small farmers of Scotch-Irish and German descent, moving along the Great valley and the Piedmont into the back- country of the southern seaborad colonies (1967, 667-68). tJnfortunately, because no systematic census of all colonies <>r states was taken before 1790 and no nativity questions ‘mere asked before 1850, exact amounts and origins of settlers 189 in the Great Valley cannot be ascertained. But a number of scholars have researched these questions in detail, and a general outline of the demographic characteristics of the Upland South is provided below. Population Sources in the Upland South Some of the quotations above have touched upon the major sources of migrants who settled the Upland South-- Pennsylvanians, especially those of Scotch-Irish and German ethnicity and, to a much lesser extent, Tidewater and Piedmont Southerners. Some idea of the ethnic composition of the Upland South population and the numbers residing in the region can be gained from a review of research on the subject. Analyses of the ethnicity of the early American popula- tion are usually based on a study of names extracted from the 1790 census by H. F. Barker. Most researchers admit that this is an uncertain source, subject to errors in inter- pretation and fact, but the best available. From it an estimate has been made of national or linguistic stocks in the white pOpulation of the United States, with those of English ethnicity found in greatest amount (60%), followed by German, Scotch, Ulster Irish (Scotch-Irish) and Irish (Barker, 1931, 307). For those states south of Pennsylvania, the rankings are somewhat different, with the English still first by far (62%), followed by Scotch (12%), Ulster Irish (7%), then German (7%) and last Irish (5%) (McDonald and 190 McDonald, 1980, 180). F. McDonald and E. S. McDonald have found Barker's estimates to be questionable, particularly ”in regard to the states from Pennsylvania southward" and especially because of his "low estimates of the numbers of people of Celtic extraction in that area": Highland and Lowland Scots, Welsh, Irish, and Scotch-Irish (1980, 181). They have re-examined the 1790 census through a more refined assignment of names to ethnicity, discovering that in the states of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the English were still the leading ethnic group, but with only 44%, followed by Scots (26%), Irish (12%) and German (7%), the Celtic groups gaining significantly in their analysis (McDonald and McDonald, 1980, 198). Generally, Southern population origins reflected seventeenth century origins and eighteenth century patterns of immigration: the German element declined as one moved farther from Philadelphia; in the upper south, the English slightly outnumbered the Celts, and neither formed a majority; in the Carolinas, Celts formed a majority and substantially outnumbered the English (McDonald and McDonald, 1980, 199). In addition, there appeared to be an increase in the propor- tion of the population of Celtic origin in the backcountry or Upland regions and a decrease in the English, in opposition to the conditions found in the Tidewater areas (McDonald and MCDonald, 1980, 199). This served as another point of dif- ference between the Tidewater and Upland regions of the South. Because the English were the recognized and dominant ethnic stock in the American colonies, it has been other groups, 191 particularly the Scotch-Irish and Germans, who have received substantial study in the Upland South region. The Scotch-Irish The Scotch-Irish population of the colonies has been the subject of a number of works. Coming from northern Ireland, or Ulster, these people were actually Lowland Scots who had lived in Ireland for many years before beginning to leave for the American colonies (Leyburn, 1962, x). Although some Scotch-Irish had crossed the ocean beginning in 1684, early in the 17003 restrictions by the British on the Ulster woolen and linen trade, which was a key economic activity of the Scotch-Irish, rapid rent increases by the British landlords, a series of disastrous harvests, and restrictions on the Presbyterian religion combined to start a heavy migration from Ulster (Leyburn, 1952, 157, 164-65). During five major exodus periods of a few years' duration scattered between 1717 and 1775, an estimated 200,000 to 250,000 Ulstermen came to America, many as indentured servants because they did not have the cost of passage (Leyburn, 1962, 157-80). The Scotch- Irish were welcomed in southeastern Pennsylvania, and there they found civil and religious liberty and economic oppor- tunity (Dunaway, 1944, 46-47). Most used Philadelphia, New Castle, or other Delaware River towns as their port of entry, remaining in the settled parts until their indenture was completed or they had earned enough money to purchase land. While the first agricultural settlements of the Scotch-Irish were near Philadelphia, before long many were 192 moving farther inland because land costs in the more developed areas were too high and the better quality acres were all taken. The search for land led them west and then south into the Cumberland or Great Valley (Dunaway, 1944, 59; Sutherland, 1936, 143). Consequently, the Scotch-Irish began the pioneer- ing effort in much of the Shenandoah valley, systematically moving into the colonies southwest of Pennsylvania, parti- cularly southern Virginia and the Carolinas (Leyburn, 1962, 185-86). It was ”restlessness . . . but even more the constant influx of new arrivals from northern Ireland, that accounted for the settlement of the backcountry of colonies south of Pennsylvania" (Leyburn, 1962, 200). The colonial governments of Virginia and North Carolina passed laws and provided land grants to attract Scotch-Irish immigrants who were sufficient- ly land hungry to be willing to act as buffers between the Indians in the valley and the older settlements to the East. Due to the attraction of land in the American colonies, coupled with the deteriorating economic, political, and religious conditions in northern Ireland, the Presbyterian population of that country, essentially the Scotch-Irish, was "said to have declined by half in the eighteenth century, and the number of persons leaving for America was greater from Ireland than any other country" (Leyburn, 1962, 200-15; Sutherland, 1936, 141). By the time of the Revolution, as lunch as 90% of the Scotch-Irish population in the American colonies may have lived in the Upland South, east of the Appalachians (Leyburn, 1962, 185-86)- 193 The Pennsylvania Germans The other major ethnic group in the backcountry was the Pennsylvania Germans. These settlers, primarily from the southwestern regions of Germany, had been attracted to Pennsylvania in the late 16003 and early 17008 as an escape from their extremely poor situation in Europe. Some Germans, mostly Mennonites, arrived in Pennsylvania a few years after the Quakers, and by 1683 had purchased 40,000 acres of land and began to settle Germantown (Florin, 1977, 18—19). Agents of William Penn toured the Palatinate sections of Germany in 1708 and 1709, encouraging more of them to move to Pennsylvania. So successful were these promoters that by October of 1709, nearly 14,000 Germans had landed in Penn's colony (Rouse, 1973, 21). Also, other areas of Germany were canvassed, and more disenchanted Germans were lured to Pennsylvania, hoping to escape the religious and economic hardships they were suffering. Lutheran and German Reformed sects predominated, but the German population was not homogeneous except in one feature: they all spoke German and few understood English. Inevitably, this led to numerous conflicts and claims that the Germans were stupid-~actually they ranked among the best farmers and livestock raisers (Tolles, 1957, 130-31). The German immigration was heavy after the initial contacts in the early 1700s, and by 1750 the "tide of immigration" had "reached flood” (Tolles, 1957, 132). In 1752, an estimated 100,000 Germans were living in Pennsylvania, and by 1790, about one third of the population was German 194 (Florin, 1977, 19; McDonald and McDonald, 1980, 180). This would mean there were approximately 150,000 Germans in Pennsylvania by the latter date, just slightly less than those of English background living there according to Barker, or nearly twice their number according to McDonald and McDonald (1980, 180, 198). The influx of these new migrants was so great that it eventually created a new ethnic division in Pennsylvania--the Pennsylvania Germans or Dutch grew to rival the Quakers (Tolles, 1957, 135). Finding the coastal areas either occupied or too expen- sive, Germans moved into the interior agricultural lands of southeastern Pennsylvania, particularly the limestone valleys where they were either the first settlers or bought these fertile acres from others (Wood, 1942, 31). Land scarcity in southeastern Pennsylvania forced Germans to expand into the Shenandoah Valley, where they met the heavy Scotch-Irish immigration also entering the region, and a competition, or even an antagonism, between these two migrant groups ensued (Sutherland, 1936, 149). According to the ethnic stereotypes, the Germans were orderly, industrious, and frugal, while the Scotch—Irish were quick-tempered, shiftless, and impetuous (Leyburn, 1962, 190-91). As they met and competed on the frontier, a pattern of alternating and parallel movement began--the Scotch-Irish would settle one part of a local valley, the Germans another. fThe next year, new arrivals from each group would trek to unsettled lands just past these pioneer 195 farms, and repeat the checkerboard pattern of location (Leyburn, 1962, 190). Other sources have suggested that the Scotch-Irish led the pioneering movement into valley lands but the Germans followed closely behind, buying partially improved farms which the restless Scotch-Irish had worked for a few years before they felt the urge to move on into the wilderness (WOod, 1942, 32). In time, perhaps related to the character of German and Scotch-Irish pioneering, the Germans occupied the northern parts of the Shenandoah valley and the Scotch-Irish were concentrated in the southern, upstream portions. S. H. Sutherland identified the border region between the two migrant groups as the height of land separat- ing the watersheds of the Potomac and James rivers in northern Virginia, in the area of Highland County (1936, 200). Population Amounts in the Upland South Estimates of population amounts in the colonies and states before 1790 are difficult to discover and uncertain in reliability, but can give a general picture of population distribution. Not until the second quarter of the eighteenth century did the Piedmont and Valley regions begin to develop. For example, those two sections of Virginia settled rapidly after 1732, if the formation of counties can be used as a indicator, with nine counties established between 1732 and 1750, and 15 from 1750 to 1782 (Sutherland, 1936, 199). In 1932, E. B. Geeene and V. D. Harrington compiled population statistics for various colonies, states, and counties, in (what is now the United States, before 1790 and back to as 196 early as 1694, from lists of taxables and inhabitants (123-72). Their figures can be used to indicate the percentage of the population from those Upland South counties of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina providing the majority of set- tlers to Indiana. Between the time of the Revolution and the 1790 census, it would appear that approximately 24% of Maryland's population, 23% of Virginia's population, and 37% of North Carolina's population lived in the western areas of those states. These figures are similar to those estimated by Bridenbaugh for the backcountry in 1776: 20% of Maryland's population, 25% of Virginia's population, and 40% of North Carolina's population (1952, 121). The distribution of population at various years during the colonial period has been examined cartographically by H. R. Friis (1968). Between 1625 and 1720, the settled portions of Tidewater Maryland and Virginia gradually expanded into the interior along bays, inlets, and rivers, while south- eastern Pennsylvania exhibited rapid growth after 1625. By 1740, penetration inland in southeastern Pennsylvania had reached the Ridge and Valley province, beginning to curve southwestward into northern Virginia. From 1760 onward, settlement continued to increase in the northern and central Shenandoah valley. Scattered parts of the valley in southern Virginia had received some migrants by 1770, and growth south- westward into eastern Tennessee had occurred by 1790. At the latter date, there was a distinct area of settlement trending from northeast to southwest in western Maryland and Virginia 197 and eastern Tennessee. The Carolina Piedmont was also heavily populated, but the Blue Ridge, the physiographic province be- tween the Piedmont and the Valley, was sparsely inhabited (Friis, 1968, plates). The population in the western sections of the southeastern states grew steadily but not to the level found in the East. Before the western areas were thoroughly settled, pioneers were already moving into the more remote upstream valleys, eventually crossing the Appalachians into Tennessee and Kentucky. Routes of Migration to the Upland South Most settlers reached the Upland South by land, for the rivers flowed northeast, opposite to the direction they wished to move, and the parallel arrangement of valleys provided lowland paths for migration. The primary land route was the Great wagon Road, a heavily traveled road developed in part from older Indian paths, which gradually extended southwest as the frontier expanded (Sosin, 1967, 44). Starting originally as a trail between Philadelphia and Lancaster, Pennsylvania,. it crossed the Susquehanna River at Harris' Ferry (now Harrisburg), passing through York and Gettysburg, along the Cumberland valley of Maryland, to Williams' Ferry (Williamsport) on the Potomac (Sosin, 1967, 44). Across the river into Virginia, the road entered the Shenandoah Valley, going through Winchester and Staunton, crossing the James River at Looney's Perry (Buchanan), and reaching Roanoke (Bridenbaugh, 1962, 129). At Roanoke, the main portion of the road turned east, following the Staunton River gap through the Blue Ridge. 198 crossing into the North Carolina Piedmont and after 1760 continuing on through the Piedmont to Camden, South Carolina (Bridenbaugh, 1952, 129). Another branch of the wagon Road swung southwestward at Roanoke, crossing through the narrow valleys and rugged country in the southern Ridge and valley area, and then headed westward, fording a number of rivers and climbing over mountain passes before reaching Cumberland Gap (Brown, 1948, 185). This route came to be called the Wilderness Road, and served as a major path of access for Upland Southerners into the trans-Appalachian and Old North- west territories. The Movement of Population Through the Upland South werking southwestward through the Upland South, a quick review of the backcountry is presented. Aspects of population history, origin, and settlement are considered, especially the connections between and outgrowth of each region from south- eastern Pennsylvania. Southeastern Pennsylvania Either originating in or traveling through it, settlers from Pennsylvania provided the major source of the Upland South population. The substantial influx of Germans and Scotch-Irish in the early 17003 caused an "explosive expan- sion of settlement in Pennsylvania" during the 17303, as some migrants reached the eastern edge of the Ridge and valley and a few moved into the Cumberland valley itself (Florin, 1977, 52). The entire period between 1730 and 1760 was 199 marked with heavy immigration, and land near Philadelphia became more difficult to obtain (Lemon, 1976, 24). People continued to enter southeastern Pennsylvania, moving to the unsettled frontiers, eventually reaching the barrier of the Alleghenies, and turning southwestward instead into the Shenandoah Valley. "By 1740 . . . settlers had taken up some land in all of southeastern Pennsylvania's more fertile areas, and many people coming through Philadelphia were now passing through to the backcountry of Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina" (Lemon, 1976, 43). In this case, as was true of subsequent frontiers, the impetus to migration was not so much land scarcity as a scarcity of the better soils. Plenty of land was available, "since in 1760 large numbrs of unassessed acres were reported in the assembly" of Pennsylvania, but these lands were of both poorer quality and higher cost than tracts which could be obtained on the frontier, so new settlers were drawn to the wilderness (Lemon, 1976, 67). The growth of population in older sections increased the demand for land and forced up prices, so many second and third generation settlers also migrated to the frontier. First the unused parcels in south- eastern Pennsylvania received most of the land seekers, but "after the initial surge of immigrants into the Cumberland Valley . . . frontier families were to use the valley as a routeway to the South" (Florin, 1977, 56). Thus the exodus of Pennsylvanians into the Upland South had begun, and the "first phase of the emigration of Pennsylvanians was a 200 movement south into western Maryland and the Valley of Virginia, and somewhat later, into the Carolinas and Georgia" (Dunaway, 1931, 136). Western Maryland Maryland has a small strip of territory in the Shenandoah Valley, and its colonial government desired to settle this area. German and Scotch-Irish immigrants typically landed at Delaware River rather than Chesapeake Bay ports, however, and only slowly did they reach parts of the Valley in Maryland. Due to a long standing border dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania that affected this section, many immigrants were reluctant to settle there, fearing their land titles would be invalidated and their investments lost (Porter, 1975, 331-32). Virginia's governor reaped the benefits of this controversy by offering low land prices and secure titles, so many migrants traveled from Pennsylvania through Maryland to reach Virginia. Lord Baltimore in Maryland tried to counter this by providing inexpensive acreages, but the annual quitrents were still higher than elsewhere, roads were poor, and county formation lagged (Porter, 1975, 333-38). ”For years, Germans from Pennsylvania were passing over the Monocacy Trail, through what is now Frederick and Carroll counties [Maryland] on their way to Virginia and few, if any, stopped to take up land in Maryland until 1732-33" (Karinen, 1965, 142). Then western Maryland began to receive pioneers, but many continued south- ward to more inviting territory. 201 western Virginia In the Piedmont areas of Virginia, Tidewater migrants from the east comprised an important element of the popula- tion, and gradually settlements spilled over into the Shenandoah valley (Abernethy, 1940, 45). The same held true for the valley, where some eastern Virginians of English ethnicity pioneered among those of Scotch-Irish or German origin from southeastern Pennsylania (Mitchell, 1972, 464). Although the first land grant in the Valley was made in 1728 to pioneers from the Virginia Piedmont, before long most settlers hailed from the Middle Colonies (Abernethy, 1940, 41, 55). "The majority migrated southward from southeastern Pennsylvania and adjacent areas of Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey," especially from the Pennsylvania counties of Lancaster, Chester, Bucks, and Philadelphia, before 1760 (Mitchell, 1972, 468). The valley was largely unoccupied when the Scotch-Irish and Germans from the north began to arrive, perhaps as early as 1726 (Dunaway, 1931, 138). An early settler has been documented living near Elkton, Virginia in 1727; by 1734, 54 families were established near Winchester; in 1734 or 1735, a group of Quakers had settled in Frederick County, all in the northern part of the Shenandoah valley (Kemper, 1922, 173, 175). Scotch-Irish immigration to the valley began in 1738 and had reached its height by the middle of the next decade, coming mostly from southeastern Pennsylvania (Kemper, 1922, 175). 202 Growth in all of western Virginia was very rapid: "by 1750, the Valley from Harper's Ferry [in the north] to Roanoke [in the south] was settled pioneer country, and settlers were still coming, chiefly from Pennsylvania" (Kemper, 1922, 178). So few Tidewater migrants were present in the Shenandoah valley compared to the number of Pennsylvanians, that modified Pennsylvanian social, political, and cultural influences dominated there, and eventually in all of the Upland South, rather than those of the Tidewater plantation region (Dunaway, 1931, 138). The "movement of population from Pennsylvania to Virginia in the colonial era and to 1800, was the controlling circumstance in the settlement and progress of a large section of Virginia" and here was formed the "reservoir" of population which would, in later years and generations, settle the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and add to the migrant streams in the Old Northwest (Dunaway, 1931, 147). Already by the early 17403, evidence for emigration from the valley to newer frontiers was present, and it "took on significant proportions after the mid 17503" (Mitchell, 1972, 469). Western North Carolina The Carolinas were slightly out of the path of direct southwestward movement through the Shenandoah valley, so migrants were required to detour eastward across the Blue Ridge to reach the Piedmont in North Carolina (Anderson-Green, 1978, 415). By 1750, most of the choice land in the Shenandoah had been claimed and, rather than farming poorer 203 quality tracts, Valley residents continued pioneering in search of more good acres (Ramsey, 1964, 21). Due to con- flicts with the Indians in southwestern Virginia during the 17503 and 17603, the early migrations of Valley residents were directed south and then east, and the Carolina Piedmont became the primary receiving area (Mitchell, 1972, 469). The first settlers entered the western Carolinas shortly before 1750, and by 1751, over 150 warrants had been filed for western North Carolina lands (Ramsey, 1964, 23-25). Judging from the steady establishment of counties between 1750 and 1775 in the North Carolina Piedmont, rapid population growth was experienced--in 1770 alone, four counties were formed (Merrens, 1964, 27-28). Each of the major ethnic groups established in Pennsylvania and other frontiers in between was present in North Carolina, as ‘ English, Scotch, Scotch-Irish, and Germans, plus Blacks, lived there (Connor, 1933, 17). Moving southward in the Valley, coming from and settling in different localities, the two major population elements in central North Carolina, the Germans and the Scotch-Irish, had arrived by 1775 (Connor, 1933, 62). Those of English ethnicity were probab- ly the largest group there but, as in other places, they were not noticed or studied. "English settlers moved into North Carolina from all other colonies, and in particular from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland“ (Merrens, 1964, 63). 204 Virginia, because of its closeness to North Carolina and the years spent there by many migrants who later contin- ued south, seems to have been the most important population reservoir (Merrens, 1964, 63). But a large number of Pennsylvanians were also present: Benjamin Franklin estima- ted, in 1763, that 10,000 families had moved from Pennsylvania to North Carolina in the previous few years (Merrens, 1964, 54). An analysis of the origins of settling families in the New River border region of Virginia and North Carolina showed three settlement sources--eastern Virginia, the Yadkin, North Carolina area slightly to the east, and those counties of western Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania on or near the Great Wagon Road (Anderson-Green, 1978, 416). The points of origin for these families indicated that 12 were from Pennsylvania, ten from Virginia, nine from New Jersey, four from North Carolina, and three from other seaboard states. Of those families from Virginia, seven hailed from counties in the Shenandoah Valley, one was from the Piedmont, and two came from the Tidewater (Anderson- Green, 1978, 416). The distribution pattern of origins shows that the western Upland areas of the South, along with Pennsylvania and New Jersey, provided the majority of settlers to this part of North Carolina instead of the Tidewater. By extension, the Upland South supplied most settlers in the rest of Piedmont and western North Carolina. 205 Western South Carolina In western South Carolina, the sources of population were quite similar to western North Carolina. Most of the Lowland and some of the Upland portions of the state were comprised of plantations, so much so that by 1825, South Carolina was a "typical plantation state" (Bacot, 1923, 692). After approximately 1763, the frontier areas contained the bulk of the white population, and a steady influx of settlers from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and even North Carolina, continued (Bacot, 1923, 683-84). A detailed study of Camden, South Carolina, in the north central part of the state, described it as an interior market center on an axis, the southern end of which terminated at Charleston and included many points to the north, from North Carolina to Philadelphia . . . . This same axis . . . was the route followed by immigrants coming overland into this part of South Carolina from colonies to the north, and for that purpose too, the axis extended all the way to Pennsylvania and New York (Ernst and Merrens, 1973, 565-66). From this route, the continuation of the Wagon Road through the Carolina Piedmont, Upland South Carolina received most of its population, primarily Upland Southerners and south- eastern Pennsylvanians. Eastern Tennessee The southwestward progress of migrants through the Shenandoah Valley had reached the northeastern tip of Tennessee by the late 17603 (Rogers, 1968, 118). Entering 206 by way of this corner, Tennessee received its earliest set- tlers from North Carolina and Virginia, the North Carolinians pioneering in the mountains of extreme eastern Tennessee in 1769 while Virginians were concentrated in the areas slightly farther west, in the southern extremities of the Shenandoah valley, at approximately the same time (Gohmann, 1938, 4-5). Newcomers were lured by the usual attractions--fresh, unex- hausted soils, lower land costs, promotions by speculators, economic opportunities, and simple wanderlust. Although the Revolutionary war interrupted settlement, when Tennessee achieved statehood in 1796 the population stood at over 77,000, the majority of whom were from North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina (Clark, 1942, 22). Rapid growth was experienced in the closing years of the 17003, and "this stream of migrants, containing thousands of settlers from the older Carolinas and Virginia, continued to pour into the Cumberland basin during the boom era following the war of 1812" (Rogers, 1968, 122). Eastern Kentucky In eastern Kentucky, the first permanent settlements were erected in 1774 at Harrodsburg, on the southern edge of the Bluegrass. A number of colonizing organizations were soon established, drawing primarily on Virginia and North Carolina for their members (Rohrbough, 1978b, 23-24). Heavy immigration began after the Revolutionary war, part of a continuing westward search for new, inexpensive lands, and Kentucky became largely an extension of the Upland South 207 settlement region stretching from southeastern Pennsylvania to western North Carolina (Barnhart, 1941, 19). There were two major elements in this earliest Kentucky population, both from the South. One group, comprised of those whose migration has been traced above through the Ridge and Valley region from initial origins in southeastern Pennsylvania, had a strong Scotch—Irish, German, or English background. The other group consisted of Lowland Southerners who were pushed to the frontier by rising land prices and the expan- sion of plantations in the East. Both groups typically traveled along the Wilderness Road through Cumberland Gap, although some went north into western Pennsylvania and floated down the Ohio River (Barnhart, 1941, 19). Southern influences, expecially those of the Upland South, were strongly felt in Kentucky, since much of the population came from western Virginia and western North Carolina sources. Each of these states drew upon regions that had been settled earlier for new pioneers to fill their open lands. In a stepwise fashion, settlement proceeded from one locatibn to another, as the original migrants or their descendents moved on when conditions at home did not seem as attractive as those on the "other side of the fence." The following quotation about the North Carolina frontier is representative of the entire migratory and pioneer experience in the Upland South. The majority of the newcomers did not traverse the entire wagon road, 435 miles from Philadelphia to the Yadkin, in one unbroken journey. Often a group of 208 families stopped for some months or years in a county of the northern Shenandoah Valley before moving on further South (Anderson-Green, 1978, 614). The Upland South as a Cultural Sub-Core The transportational and population source connections between southeastern Pennsylvania and the Upland South have been examined to show that, while the Tidewater areas did supply some migrants to the Upland South, nearly every major group of immigrants during the eighteenth century followed the same pattern of movement: they landed in Philadelphia, went westward to the first unoccupied lands in the interior uplands and valleys and, as those lands were taken up, migrated southwestward along the valleys (McDonald and McDonald, 1980, 182-83). Southeastern Pennsylvania did not house all of the migrants to the Upland South for significant periods, as some stayed there for only a few years and other merely landed there, passing through on their way to the Shenandoah Valley frontier. New immigrants to America brought their European culture with them, and were also affected by the culture developed in the southeastern Pennsylvania core. A number of cultural connections between southeastern Pennsylvania and the Upland South can be drawn. One of the best ways to look at the formation of distinctive American cultural regions is to trace population movements, recognizing "the pioneer settlers as cultural vectors or agents in transmitting cultural traits" (Mitchell, 1978, 66). Thus, the culture of the Upland Southerner was 209 formed by the migration of settlers from two major colonial culture hearths: southeastern Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay area, with the former of greater importance (Mitchell, 1978, 68). This migration brought many different peoples of American and European origin into contact with one another and, as they met and mingled, so did their 'respective cultures. A sufficient amount of mixture occurred so that "available evidence suggests that the pioneer generations on the earliest trans-Appalachian frontiers [such as Kentucky] were derived less from the seaboard than from intermediate areas recently settled before the American Revolution" (Mitchell, 1978, 73). R. D. Mitchell hypothe- sized the existence of "regional 'way stations'” within the spheres of colonial culture cores "where significant cultural fusions occurred that directly influenced the development of early trans-Appalachian societies" (1978, 73). M. Newton identified the Upland South as one of these "way stations," or a place of "cultural preadaptation," where aspects of various cultures were combined, tested, sifted, and selected until a new, modified culture emerged, an amalgam of older cultures best suited to conditions experienced in the Upland South region (1974, 143-50). From the new cultural hearth thus formed, existing in the Upland South between 1725 and 1775, extensions were spread as Uplanders migrated into the Appalachians, some first to Tennessee and Kentucky, then across the Ohio River to southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Many aspects of this culture 210 traveled through the Shenandoah Valley and across the Appalachians: the courthouse square, hamlet-sized settle- nents, dispersed farmsteads, log construction, yeoman farming methods and crop selections, Protestantism, and independence (Newton, 1974, 149-53). According to this analysis of cultural diffusion, colonial cores of southeastern Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay area contributed to the creation of a secondary cultural hearth, one which underwent ”distinctive settlement experi- ences," in the Shenandoah valley and the northern North Carolina Piedmont. "The western Virginia and northwestern Carolina areas can be viewed as centers of trait diffusion from the Midland and Chesapeake hearths" (Mitchell, 1978, 74-76). Two indicators of contributions to and expansion of this new cultural hearth have been esamined to show the fusion and subsequent growth that occurred: distributions of the Presbyterian church and dialects in the South. The Migration of the Presbyterian Church The Presbyterian church was typically associated with Scottish and Scotch-Irish immigrants during the colonial period, and those places receiving the heaviest Scotch-Irish immigration also had concentrations of Presbyterian churches (Mitchell, 1966, 293). R. D. Mitchell has mapped the loca- tions of Presbyterian churches at five periods between 1730 and 1800, and a clear pattern of diffusion with the movement of Scotch-Irish settlers in the Upland South is apparent. 211 The chronological establishment of churches indicated a migratory stream flowing westward from the Tidewater sections of Virginia and the Carolinas into the Piedmont, and a migratory flood inland from southeastern Pennsylvania west tothe Great Valley and then southwestward through the Ridge and Valley and Piedmont areas. By the last years he studied, concentrations of Presbyterian churches were found across the Appalachians in southwestern Pennsylvania, at scattered locations along the Ohio River, and in the Kentucky Bluegrass (Mitchell, 1966, 294-98). Also by then, "any distinct relationships between the Presbyterian church, the Scotch- Irish, and frontier settlement had been lost" as newer religions, particularly the Baptists and Methodists, began converting Southern pioneers, and soon these churches became recognized as the major frontier denominations (Mitchell, 1966, 297). Upland Southern Dialects Two articles by G. R. wood concerning dialects andword distributions in the South have described the combination of Midland and Southern words and pronunciations in the Upland South as a result of settlement history (1961, 1; 1963). A number of word distributions were mapped, and a boundary between Midland and Southern dialect regions was drawn approximately through the Piedmont, although there was some communication between the sources of the two dialects. Hence, ”the mountain dialect of colonial Virginia and of the 212 Carolinas was Midland, or more narrowly South Midland" (wood, 1963, 245). From a study of words used in the South, distinctively Midland terms and dialects were found in the Upland portions, yet words from the Lowland South and even from other, outside regions were also discovered in the Upland Southern areas, especially those farther away from the original centers of Upland settlement (Wood, 1963, 255; 1961, 14). Settlement history in the Upland South points to a definite connection, both direct and indirect, with south- eastern Pennsylvania during the pioneering period in the 50 years before the Revolution. Most of those who settled the Southern backcountry migrated from or through south- eastern Pennsylvania to reach their destination, because of the ease of movement into the Shenandoah Valley from there and also because of the influx of new immigrants funneled through the Delaware River ports. Upland Southerners received strong infusions of cultural traits from the Mid- land region, some from the Tidewater South, and some from European countries. European cultural baggage was especially significant for those German and Scotch-Irish natives who merely passed through the Midland culture hearth of south- eastern Pennsylvania on their way to the Shenandoah Valley frontier. From the mixture of these cultures emerged a modifica- tion of each, a "preadapted" or secondary culture recognized 213 in the Upland South.’ While Tidewater Southern influences were present, the Midland culture traits were strongest, and affected the Upland South settler the most. As the Upland Southerners or their descendants moved deeper into the backcountry South, across the Appalachians to Tennessee and Kentucky and eventually to Indiana, they brought with them many vestiges of Midland culture traits. Although these traits had been significantly modified through time, their origins still lay in the Middle Atlantic culture hearth of southeastern Pennsylvania. Chapter VIII SUPPORTIVE CULTURAL EVIDENCE FOR INDIANA'S NATIVITY PATTERN AND SOUTHERN-NESS The previous chapters have made a strong argument for the identification of Indiana's Southern population origins with the Upland South region. As Upland Southerners, most of their ultimate population and cultural origins could be traced to southeastern Pennsylvania, and so were associated with the Middle Atlantic cultural hearth. Therefore, the cultural baggage carried by the Uplanders to Indiana contained elements of modified Middle Atlantic culture. And the impact of Upland Southerners' culture upon the landscape reflected their cultural heritage, as it did for all nativity groups. The distribution of selected cultural elements for each group in the state can be studied in order to correlate the cultural evidence and the nativity evidence collected for the state, particularly concerning the Upland Southern-ness of the Southerners in Indiana. 'The migration of people from various regions brought an entire array of cultural traits into newly settled areas. Evidence of some of these traits remained for many years after initial settlement, especially lasting features such as barns, houses, and place names. Other elements were more 214 215 ephemeral, but can be studied at later periods: dialects and word usages are examples. Cultural geographers have traced the origins and dispersals of a variety of cultural elements, while linguistic geographers have followed the migration of dialects. Most researchers have determined that Indiana straddles three major cultural subregions which are extensions of the three East Coast cultural hearths or cores: southeastern New England, southeastern Pennsylvania, and Chesapeake Bay. On a summary map of major traditional culture areas, W. Zelensky placed the southern extremity of Indiana in the Upland South region, an outgrowth of the Middle Atlantic and Lowland South, and the northern extremes tentatively within the Upper Middle west region, formed from New England, New York, and northern Ohio. The large, central portion of Indiana was defined as being within the lower Middle west zone, an extension of both the Middle Atlantic and Upland Southern cultures (1973, 118-19). Factors considered in the creation of these regions include population migration, the diffusion of innovations and ideas, building types, the distribution of religious denominations, settlement features, language, and folklore (Zelinsky, 1973, 77-108). Zelinsky drew upon many sources for his map, combining research by geographers, historians, anthropologists, and linguists. One of the earliest studies delimiting cultural boundaries appeared in 1965, written by F. Kniffen, and concerned folk housing as an indicator of cultural diffusion. 216 The work identified sources and diffusion routes of folk housing and formed folk housing regions, comparing them to dialect areas. In each case Indiana was crossed by two or three regional boundaries (561, 571-72). Kniffen and H. Glassie co-authored a related article about spatial and temporal aspects of wood construction in which similar maps appeared, tracing the New England, Pennsylvanian, and Upland Southern streams of building methods across the Appalachians (1966, 60-61). And in 1968, Glassie published a book on material folk culture patterns in the Eastern United States, combining diffusion maps with illustrations of houses, farm tools, and artifacts displaying regional variation. Studies of material folk culture were incorporated with studies of linguistic patterns in an article by H. W. Marshall and J. M. Vlach (1973). Numerous maps were present- ed, derived both from research by Kniffen, Glassie, and others, and from examinations of dialects and word use in the South and Middle Atlantic regions; the need for thorough study of all aspects of culture, especially in areas of mixture, was stressed. Further investigations of cultural regions have examined many facets of physical and verbal culture, and Indiana is always illustrated spreading across at least two regions. In 1974, M. Newton described the Upland South as a mixture zone for the Middle Atlantic and Lowland South cultures, identifying southern Indiana as directly influenced by Upland South culture, and central Indiana affected initially, but not thoroughly, by Upland 217 South culture and later by Midwest culture, in part an out- growth of Pennsylvania (149). Lastly, a map and chart pre- pared by R. D. Mitchell placed Indiana astride New England cultural extensions in the north, Middle Atlantic cultural extensions at the center, and the Upland South cultural region in the south, itself an outgrowth of the Middle Atlantic and Tidewater South cultural cores (1978, 75, 77). Only a few works have specifically examined aspects of different cultural regions existing in Indiana. These works are reviewed below, and original research is presented, to describe the three major cultural regions in Indiana, particularly the Upland South and Middle Atlantic. Associa- tions are made between the distribution of cultural areas and nativity patterns in the Hoosier state. Speech Types and werds Extensive investigations of dialects and word use have been done for the Eastern United States, resulting in the publication of linguistic atlases for the Eastern and North" Central states. From these types of studies, dialect zones in Indiana have been identified by tracing the expansion of specific indicative terms or pronunciations from their source regions. A general description of dialect areas in Indiana below is followed by an examination of a distinctively Indianian word——"Hoosier." 218 Southern and Middle Atlantic Dialects in Indiana A. H. Marckwardt was an early student of dialects in Indiana, investigating the state as part of a survey of Great (Lakes regional speech begun in 1938 (Carmony, 1972, 10). work on this project by Marckwardt, R. I. McDavid Jr., and others continued, spawning articles as research progressed. Using the study of the East Coast by H. Kurath as a guide, similar words were surveyed in the Midwest, and Northern, Midland, and Southern dialect areas in Indiana were identified (Carmony, 1972, 10). In 1958 McDavid drew the boundaries of dialects crossing the state from east to west. Northernmost Indiana was placed in the Inland North region, an extension of western New England and Upstate New York, and between northern and central Indiana was an area of Northern Midland dialect, derived from the eastern Ohio valley. The bulk of Indiana fell within the South Midland dialect region, with a minor subregion along the Ohio River (580). M. Carmony has attested to the general accuracy of the boundaries derived from the Linguistic Atlas of the North Central States, but his further research has suggested that modifications may be necessary because of the presence of subsidiary dialects in the state (1972, 10-14). In 1940, Marckwardt presented some of his preliminary findings to the Indiana Historical Society. The distribution of these words, when correlated with their patterning in the Eastern United States, indicated direct connections between 219 regions to the east and Indiana. Additionally, comparisons among the dialect distributions found in the Southeast and Indiana, and nativity areas in Indiana from the present research uncovered some rather clear linkages. Four words representing these links have been selected for examination here: "greasy," "snack," "wishbone," and "midwife" (Figure 43). "Greasy" has been used as a key word to identify the North-South division in a number of places. The pronuncia- tion of the "s" was the clue--if it was pronounced as an "s" it typically suggested a New England or New York origin for the speaker, while if the sound was a "2" it indicated a Southerner (Marckwardt, 1940, 128). In Indiana, the boundary between "3" and "z" placed the southern two-thirds of the state in the Southern pronunciation realm, shifting the border slightly farther north than the nativity of Southerners would indicate, but retaining the characteristic northward bend in the middle (Figure 2). Three terms appeared in Indiana that refer to food eaten between meals: "a bite," "a snack," or a "piece" (Marckwardt, 1940, 133). In the northern two-thirds of the state, the word was "a piece;" according to Kurath's atlas, "piece" was used all throughout Pennsylvania, southeastern New York, what is now west Virginia, and eastern Ohio, so it was primarily a Middle Atlantic term (1949, Figure 127). This word seemed to have been used farther south in Indiana than Middle Atlantic nativity would suggest, but the addition 221 of Ohioans brings the word and birthplace maps into closer agreement (Figures 7 and 11). In the southeastern corner of Indiana, it was called ”a bite,” clearly indicated as a New England term by Kurath. On the regional nativity map of Indiana, the southeastern area had a concentration of New England born settlers, in direct correlation with the origin of ”a bite" (Figure 4). ”A snack" was the word used in the southwestern corner, and according to Kurath, "snack" was a Tidewater Southern and secondarily Upland Southern term. Migrants from most Southern states were found here in Indiana, but natives of Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee were especially concentrated within that section. All throughout Indiana, except for a narrow band along the northern border, the words for a wishbone were "pulley bone” (Marckwardt, 1940, 134). Kurath indicated that this term was found extensively throughout the South, particularly in the Uplands and in the Carolinas, but also in the Tidewater areas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (1949, Figure 98). Thus, most of the counties in Indiana settled by Southern and 1 Middle Atlantic migrants used "pulley bone" while the northern part settled by New Englanders, did not (Figures 2, 7 and 4). Finally, of the four states Marckwardt surveyed--Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Illinois--only Indianians used the term "granny woman" for a midwife (1940, 136). The south- eastern portions of the state retained the word "midwife." In Kurath's atlas, "granny woman" was an Upland Southern and North Carolinian term, with some scattered areas in 222 Pennsylvania that also used it; in the Tidewater South, the word was "granny” alone (1949, 149). Those places not choosing "granny woman" correlate with concentrations of New England settlement in Indiana: the southeastern corner, east, and north (Figure 4). In an article written after the Linguistic Atlas of the North Central States was almost complete, Marckwardt placed most of Indiana within the Midland dialect region, itself a combination of the Upland South and Middle Atlantic speech zones (1957, 4, 3). The northern limits of Midland indicator terms traversed the northern third of Indiana, some close to the southern part of the northern area and others nearly along the northern border (Figure 44). One of these words was "sugar tree" for sugar maple, an Upland Southern and western .Pennsylvanian term; the other was the "s" or "z" pronunciation of "greasy” described previously (Marckwardt, 1957, 10). The southern boundary of Northern dialects was likewise defined through the same portion.of Indiana, including the word ”pail," clearly a New England and New York word but with some representation in northern Pennsylvania, and "stone boat" for a sledge dragged by horses, a term whose southern border dipped farther south than the others, trending southeast to northwest through the central third of the state, and which originated in western New England, New York, and the northern half of Pennsylvania (Marckwardt, 1957, ll; Kurath, 1949, Figure 78). 224 Marckwardt, in an attempt to further define the Midland region, followed Kurath's division of the Midland into North and South (1957, 5). The southern limit of North Midland terms ("hay mow") and the northern limit of South Midland terms (”you-all") crossed the southern third of Indiana, generally between the Ohio River and the National Road and close to but south of the transition between Northern and Southern native settlers (Figure 2) (Marckwardt, 1957, 12). The isogloss between South Midland and Ohio valley words ran across the state approximately between the northern and central thirds, with Ohio Valley terms to the north of the border, relatively close to the areas of Ohioan nativity in Indiana (Figure 11) (Marckwardt, 1957, 13). The problem, for those wishing to identify particular word distributions and associate them with source locations in the East, is that settlement of the Old Northwest brought at least three different cultural groups together, and mixture inevitably resulted. Marckwardt recognized this complication, and its effect upon defining linguistic boundaries in the Midwest. In general these isoglosses form a relatively broad band, and in many instances, they must be interpreted as representing the limits of areas of concentration rather than of actual occurrence. For many terms there is considerable spreading throughout much of the area (1957, 8). In the 19603, M. Carmony surveyed a group of college students to plot the distribution of words in Indiana, using 225 a modification of the questionnaire from.which Marckwardt had made the linguistic atlas (1972, 13). The delineation of boundaries, in some cases a problem for Marckwardt Years before, became more difficult because of a larger number of informants and an increased amount of mixture in words and terms. Essentially, division of the state into three regions-- Northern, North Midland, and South Midland-—along the lines proposed by Marckwardt could not be supported (Carmony, 1972, 13-17). Rather, the linguistic evidence validated the concept of a major dialect boundary in Indiana based on a rather broad but substantial band of isoglosses across- the middle of the state. The strength of this boundary appears to be directly related to the dimming of the Northern- North Midland boundary as Northern words have moved southward, and at least some Midland and Southern words have retreated (Carmony, 1972, 17). Carmony did discover six subsidiary dialect zones in the state, due to the greater number of informants he interviewed. He found two "Southern enclaves” in northern Indiana, one in the northwest, probably associated with the presence of Virginians there by 1850, and another one in extreme north- eastern Indiana, not associated with any abundance of South- erners (Figures 16 and 2). Two subareas were discovered in east central Indiana, associated with Southern population elements, particularly North Carolina Quakers (Figure 17) (Carmony, 1972, 19). And two other sections on the Ohio River around Harrison and.C1ark counties exhibited "seemingly aberrant Northern expressions and pronunciations" but, when 226 nativity maps are consulted, New England migrants resident there in 1850 are indicated (Figure 4) (Carmony, 1972, 21). In a dissertation completed in 1970, A. L. Strickland attempted to discover the northern and southern boundaries of the Midland region in Indiana from an analysis of mailed questionnaires (4). The assumption that Indiana lay mostly within the Midland region was accepted, and the survey results were similar to those Carmony found in at least one respect: "the geographical distribution of lexical items within Indiana do not indicate that distinct isoglosses among Northern, Midland, and Southern dialects can be determined in the state" (Strickland, 1970, 124). However, the tendency remained for northern Indiana to be North Midland and also partly Northern in dialect, and southern Indiana to be South Midland in dialect, the problem being that "no precise bundle of isoglosses can be drawn from the present evidence to separate distinct dialect regions" (Strickland, 1970, 124). Additionally, during the ten year interval between an earlier study and the collection of data for Strickland's survey, "considerable change in vocabulary usage occurred" judging from the different boundaries that resulted (Strickland, 1970, 125). The modification of dialects by the passage of time is a critically important item to be considered in dialect studies, particularly today with the enhanced communication that mass media allow. As Strickland noted, vocabulary changes with 227 time can have an effect on isoglosses, which may also partly explain the discrepancy in results that Carmony and Marckwardt experienced. Carmony's study surveyed college freshmen in the late 19603. Not all were born in the counties where they lived, although most were Indiana natives as were their parents, and 70% to 75% of their parents had at least a high school education (1972, 13-14). Marckwardt, using criteria similar to those in Kurath's work, questioned informants who had been born and spent nearly all of their lives in the community where they were interviewed, had a grade school education only, and were 70 or more years old (1940, 124-25). The population Marckwardt examined during the 19303 and 19403 was substantially older than Carmony's group, and reached back closer to the frontier and early settlement period when the migrations that originally brought the various dialects into Indiana occurred. One criticism of Marckwardt's 1940 study must be recognized: as it was a preliminary attempt, not many Hoosiers were surveyed. Similar information formed the basis of the 1957 article and was gathered from a much larger group of Midwesterners. Clearly Indiana's dialect areas reflected the source regions of the migrants and, in comparison to the surrounding states, greater representation of Upland Southern, or South Midland, dialects and terms was discovered in Indiana. Significantly, Marckwardt wrote, Indiana seems to preserve certain characteristics of southern speech to a greater extent that either of 228 her sister states to the east and . west, paralleled historically by the fact that the push of migration from the South reached a point farther north in Indiana than in either Ohio or Illinois (1940, 139). The isoglosses between South Midland, North Midland, and Northern words run through Indiana, dividing it into lati- tudinal zones for each dialect, but many exceptions were found to support "the basic axiom of linguistic geography . . . that the more recently settled a country, the less clearly defined will be its settlement patterns and consequently the patterns of dialect distribution" (McDavid, 1958, 504). Generally, however, there is a close enough association between dialects and migration to strengthen the connections already shown between Indiana and the Upland South. Even the term for an Indianian indicates this tie. The Term "Hoosier" The evolution of the word "hoosier," and in particular how it came to be applied to people from Indiana and the state itself, has been a long standing question. Research on this puzzle began as long ago as 1907, with the publica- tion of an article by J. P. Dunn. He traced the name back to a poem by Jehn Finley appearing in an Indianapolis news- paper on January 1, 1833. It was entitled "The Hoosier's Nest," although in the body of the poem the word was spelled "hoosher." Dunn claimed that this was probably the first appearance of the term in print, but it seemed to have been in verbal use previously (1907, 13-17). By 1835 the word had 229 been generally accepted to refer to Indiana or Indianians (Dunn, 1907, 10). A variety of explanations for or origins of the word have been proposed, ranging from a corruption of "who's here" to the question raised in the aftermath of a typically vicious frontier fight, where contestants often scratched, gouged, and bit off opponents' noses and ears: "whose ear?" (Dunn, 1907, 11-18). Dunn found two common threads running through the likely sources of ”hoosier": the word "was first applied to a rough, boisterous, uncouth, illiterate class of people, and that the word originally implied this character," and it "came from the South, or was first applied by Southern people" (1907, 18). He then discovered references to the word in western North Carolina, Tennessee, and northern Georgia, and eventually traced its "Anglo-Saxon" origins to Cumberland, England, where "hoozer" meant "anything unusually large" and derived from "hoo," meaning ”high," probably becom- ing associated with people living in highland areas and carrying "rustic” or "hillbilly" connotations. The connection in title between Cumberland in England, Cumberland Valley in southeastern Pennsylvania, and the Cumberland Mountains also served to support a transfer of the term from England through the Upland South to Indiana (Dunn, 1907, 19-20, 26, 27). The distribution of "hoosier" in the Upland South was mapped for an article published by R. I. McDavid, Jr. in 1967. During the fieldwork for the Eastern linguistic atlas, McDavid discovered the word in use by older rural 230 generations from West Virginia to Georgia. He described it as "an upland term, characteristic of the foothill and mountain sections, but it occurs occasionally in the coastal plain and even the North Carolina tidewater" (McDavid, 1967, 3-5). The meaning is fairly constant: basically, an uncitified--and by implication, uncivilized --dweller in out-of-the-way communities; in other words, "hoosier" was synonymous with such familiar terms as "hayseed," "hick," and ”hillbilly.” But from this meaning it was only a short step to make "hoosier" become another name for the poor white (McDavid, 1967, 5). Its English origins were thought to be similar to those Dunn found--northern England, Lowland Scotland, or Ulster-— "the areas from which came the pioneer stock of western Pennsylvania and the Southern uplands" (McDavid, 1967, 5). The term was assumed to have moved through the Upland South into Kentucky and, in reference to Indiana, was originally applied derogatorily to those who, unable to achieve success in Kentucky, crossed into Indiana to try the newest frontier. With economic growth in Indiana, "hoosier" lost its adverse connotations in the state, although they were retained in the Upland South, and came to symbolize "the vigor and initiative one associates with the American Middle west" A comparison of the terms "hoosier" and "cracker" in 1973 noted that "cracker" was more often applied to poor whites while ”hoosier" referred to mountaineers or isolated rustics, but the appellations were somewhat interchangeable 231 (McDavid and MeDavid, 163). The focus of the distribution of "hoosier" was in the northern Upland South, particularly West Virginia and the Shenandoah valley but also the upper Pied- mont of Virginia and the Carolinas: "the term is rare below the Fall Line." "Cracker" was most often found in the Tidewater South, in western South Carolina and northern Georgia (McDavid and McDavid, 1973, 164-66). The explanation of this pattern came from migration history--in the northern Upland South, settlement was by southeastern Pennsylvanians who contained a substantial Scotch-Irish ethnic element, harking back to the origins of "hoosier" in Great Britain, while the southernmost Upland South, especially South Carolina, received significant amounts of Lowland Southerners (McDavid and MoDavid, 1973, 166). Each of the word distributions examined indicated that Indiana originally received most of its distinctive dialect and word usages from the Midland region. This region is usually divided into a North Midland or Pennsylvanian zone, and a South Midland area primarily comprising an extension of the Upland South. The South Midland dialect region encompassed most of Indiana and, while in places of outgrowth from the original dialect cores significant linguistic mixture occurred due to population migration, the connections between Indiana, the Upland South, and ultimately southeastern Pennsylvania were the most direct. 232 Religion and Church Affiliation Maps of current church affiliation regions typically place Indiana within the Midland religious region, and the Southeastern states in a Southern religious region (Zelinsky, 1973, 97). Further definition puts Indiana, along with western Virginia and western North Carolina, in an area of Protestantism, especially Methodism, and the rest of the South in a zone of Methodist and Baptist dominance (Jakle, Brunn, Roseman, 1976, 210). Reconstituting the religious regions of the past is difficult because of the time elapsed, the migration of population groups, and the religious converts gained by proselytizing churches, although the census has recorded church membership as far back as 1850. Thus, while R. D. Mitchell was able to trace migrations of the Scotch- Irish by using locations of Presbyterian churches from 1730 to 1800, all through that period many "left the Presbyterian fold for other denominations" as Baptists and Methodists converted many on the frontier (1966, 296-97). Accepting these difficulties, counties in Indiana with concentrations of each of the five leading denominations in 1850, according to the number of churches in the state, have been mapped to associate religious affiliation and nativity (Seventh Census, 1850, 799-807). A county having at least 50% more churches than the state mean for that particular denomination was considered to have a concentration of that religion present. In the state as a whole, the five leading 233 denominations were Methodist (38.3%), Baptist (21.1%), Pres- byterian (13.9%), Disciples of Christ or Christian (9.2%), and Friends or Quakers (4.4%), together accounting for over 85% of the churches in Indiana. For most cases, the pattern of distribution placed certain denominations in specific parts of Indiana which contained many natives of particular Eastern and Southern states, and so a cultural connection between the two was implied. However, in some instances, settlers may have shifted denominations, joining one that was already established or had been proposed by an itinerant preacher, and disturbing the nativity-denomination relation- ship. The following sections describe, in descending order according to their presence in Indiana, the locations of the state's five leading church groups, depending upon the number of structures, and the Eastern areas in which they were also concentrated. Methodists Methodist circuit riders were a common sight on the frontier, and played an important role in the religious life of the west, appearing shortly after the pioneers themselves (Hudson, 1961, 91). The church separated from its Anglican origins right after the Revolution, and achieved rapid increases in membership, growing from 15,000 members in 1784 to 58,000 in 1790; by 1820 Methodists had overtaken Baptists as the largest religious denomination in the United States (Hudson, 1973, 123). The traveling preacher system the 234 Methodists adopted proved "admirably designed for moving quickly into new territory, whether that territory was in older settled regions of the seaboard or over the mountains into the new communities of the frontier. In both areas Methodists met with equal success" (Hudson, 1973, 123-24). By 1850, Methodism was still the leading denomination in the United States, and the pattern of Methodist dominance indicated a rather even distribution throughout the nation (Gaustad, 1962, 77). The Upland South had fewer Methodist churches than the North did, especially notable in western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, and most of Kentucky. One section heavily filled with Methodist churches was western Pennsylvania and all of eastern and southern Ohio. "As early as 1781, western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Valley were invaded" by circuit riders, and in 1787 Pittsburgh was officially added to the list of regional Methodist conferences (Gaustad, 1962, 76). In general, then, the North held more Methodist churches than the South, but western territories were a significant part of Methodist strength. (Areas of Methodist concentration in Indiana were primarily in the northern part of the state, opposed to Baptist church locations mostly in the southern half (Figure 45). Counties having greater than 57.5% of their churches Methodist in denomination generally displayed a similar pattern to that of Middle Atlantic nativity, and were in particularly close agreement with the locations of Ohioans (Figures 7 and 11). The connection between Ohioan nativity and Methodism in 235 Methodists, above 57.5 percent I.a Baptists. bove 31.7 percent Figure 45 Methodist and Baptist Church Concentrations in Indiana, 1850 . .— o—. 'r v . —.— .. rwt.--vr- .4 . I b if). i 1 .fit "if: 33.. manor”;- '3 - .vo N . 5 , ‘ mgr. ateitos s3! min... ,. . l ...... c a...“ . V ... town. ~ Us v “hour.“ 3... o w _ -u ”...! . A s. n. . . . u» ...x ......) an r .v («flat 236 Indiana is not unexpected, because of the strong concentra- tion of Methodist churches in Ohio. Apparently, Middle Atlantic and Ohioan migrants retained their Methodism as they moved farther west into Indiana. Baptists There was a significant difference in the Baptist deno— mination as practiced in the North and South. Baptists had appeared as early as 1639, with the removal of Roger Williams from the Puritan church and his founding of Rhode Island, the center of Baptist strength in New England (Hudson, 1973, 44). During the eighteenth century, working out of Philadelphia, they "carried on vigorous missionary activity from Nova Scotia to Georgia which was to result in a marked Baptist growth toward the close of the colonial period" (Hudson, 1961, 21). Much of this increase was centered on the Upland Southern frontier, where "self-supporting farmer-preachers moved over the mountains with the initial wave of westward migration," forming the basis of a distinctive, and essentially separate, Southern Baptist church (Hudson, 1961, 92). Disagreements over theology, doctrine, missions, methods of training preachers, and at last slavery, made this separation formal in 1845 with the establishment of the Southern Baptist Convention (Gaustad, 1962, 57). Therefore, two regions of Baptist church concentration existed in the United States by 1850. One was in New England and its migratory and cultural extensions of New York and eastern Ohio. The other was in the South, particularly 237 eastern Virginia, North and South Carolina, all of the Old Southwest, plus Tennessee and Kentucky (Gaustad, 1962, 56). Across the Ohio River in southwestern Ohio was another area of Baptist concentration probably, as the nativity and migration information touched on above indicated, Southern Baptist due to the presence of Upland Southerners there. In Indiana, Baptist church concentrations (31.7% and above) were within the Southern nativity region, except for some outliers in the northeastern part of the state (Figure 45, Figure 2). No specific Southern state displayed a pattern of nativity exactly like that of Baptist churches, but a combination of Kentuckian and Virginian distribution approxi- mated it, not including those Baptist counties in the north- eastern corner (Figures 20 and 16). Apparently, counties settled by Southerners were also areas of Baptist church concentration. On the frontier in Indiana, Baptists drew their membership mostly from natives of the Upland South, and the Baptist churches present in the state were most likely of the Southern Baptist division. Presbyterians Some Presbyterians appeared in New England during the first few decades after the Puritan colony was founded, but their growth was only moderate. A central synod for Presbyterianism in America was finally established at Philadelphia in 1716 (Hudson, 1973, 42). This occurred just one year before the first of many periods of heavy 238 emigration from Ulster by Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, which "contributed so greatly to Presbyterian strength" in America (Hudson, 1973, 42). The movement of Scotch-Irish immigrants to southeastern Pennsylvania, through the Shenandoah valley. and into the Upland South, meant that "these areas became the great centers of Presbyterian strength and influence" (Hudson, 1973, 42). Problems associated with the "Second Great Awakening" in the early 18003—-the emotionalism of camp revivals, doctrinal questions, the type of training for ministers--led to numerous schisms, or splits, in the church. One of these occurred in 1805, resulting in the formation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in Kentucky, and another in the South shortly after sent members into the various ”Christian" denominations (Hudson, 1973, 134-40). Due to the divisions in the Presbyterian church, and especially the loss of many Southerners, the pattern of Presbyterian churches in 1850 indicated a predominance in the North (Gaustad, 1962, 89). New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, particularly in its western parts, were the .main areas of Presbyterianism, with much of Ohio also included. The association with the Middle Atlantic cultural zone was primary, while a scattering of churches from southeastern Pennsylvania through the Shenandoah valley and the Piedmont, and only a few in eastern Kentucky, confirmed the relative absence of Presbyterian churches in the Upland South. In Indiana, the distribution of Presbyterian concentra- tions (over 20.9% of a county's churches) showed a pattern 239 fairly evenly spread throughout the state, with more churches in the northern half than the south (Figure 46). Considering the denominational history of this church and its national distribution in 1850, this arrangement was not unexpected. The ubiquity of Presbyterianism suggests that many nativity groups practiced this religion, as churches were found in areas dominated by Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Virginians, and Kentuckians. However, settlers of Middle Atlantic or Ohio origins were most likely to be Presbyterian (Figures 7 and 11). If Presbyterianism could still be associated with those of Scotch-Irish ethnicity, as in the eighteenth century, then the two-pronged migration of this particular group from south- eastern Pennsylvania--directly west through Pennsylvania and Ohio, and in a loop through the Upland South--would have placed Presbyterian churches in all parts of Indiana, as it appears to have done. Christians or Disciples of Christ The four sources which gathered to form the Christian church all came from splinters of other frontier denominations attempting to evangelize Protestantism: Virginian Methodists, New England Baptists, Kentucky Presbyterians, and Campbellite Christians (Hudson, 1973, 124-25). Led by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, these groups wished to end denominational divisions, instead relying only on the New Testament as a guide for the church (Guastad, 1962, 63). .An outgrowth of the revival that split the western Presbyterian church, the Campbellites were joined by others sharing this view, and together they 240 I Presbyterians. above 20.9 percent Disciples of Christ. above 13.8 percent Figure 46 Presbyterian and Disciples of Christ Church Concentrations in Indiana, 1850 0.38 enshendlnq Z tnemeq 8.05 evr.-:- -. ab szvpi! no‘mrf’.) m: '10 as git: i r: set a has neixsiyle:-q OEUI .LnritnI nt a ,. \I 01331311001103 Jenna to edgier." -_.’ ‘ tnemeq 8.8! ovoi: L. _ . 241 established the Christians or Disciples of Christ as an evangelical denomination which was very similar to the Southern Baptists (Hudson, 1961, 94, 61). The Disciples of Christ "were confined almost entirely to the Ohio valley and represented what was perhaps the most typical . . . vigorous, and influential form of Protestantism on the southern frontier" (Hudson, 1961, 94). In 1852, Alexander Campbell estimated the total member- ship of the church at 225,000 with 75% of them in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana, and Illinois (Gaustad, 1962, 64). Clearly, by that time the church was primarily a western denomination mostly concentrated in the Ohio valley, and its adherents, of whatever previous religion found it an attractive alternative. The Disciples' "appeal was certainly not limited alone to the Baptist or Presbyterian who sought a freer, wider fellowship, but it reached the new settler who had not yet found a church, and the new settlements in which no church was yet to be found" (Gaustad, 1962, 64). Counties in Indiana with greater than 13.8% of their churches belonging to the Disciples of Christ denomination in 1850 were mostly in southern Indiana (Figure 46). Their pattern of distribution is in close agreement with that of Southern nativity, especially those born in Kentucky and North Carolina (Figures 2, 20 and 17). The Upland Southern origins of this church were well reflected by the areas of its concentration in Indiana. Despite the common availability of this religion on the frontier, few Disciples of Christ 242 churches appeared in regions outside of the frontiers of Upland Southern settlement. The Society of Friends or Quakers Originally, Pennsylvania was established by William Penn in 1681 to provide a place where English Quakers could develop a society according to their religious beliefs, and "large scale Quaker immigration set in at once" (Hudson, 1973, 31). As land became scarce in southeastern Pennsylvania during the eighteenth century, many Quakers followed the migration path that the Scotch-Irish forged from Philadelphia through the Upland South to Piedmont North Carolina. Others, landing on the coast of North Carolina, moved through the Tidewater to the interior (weeks, 1896, 96). Along the way southward in the Shenandoah Valley, settlements of Quakers were founded-- at Monocacy, Maryland, in Frederick, Orange, Campbell, and Bedford counties of Virginia--but a concentration appeared in Piedmont North Carolina, centered on Chatham, Guilford, Orange, and Randolph counties (weeks, 1896, 96-101). Later, the normal urge for new land, coupled with problems arising from Quaker objections to slavery, led to a heavy emigration from Piedmont North Carolina to the Old Northwest, especially Ohio and Indiana, after 1800 (weeks, 1896, 1). By 1850, Quaker churches were found in only certain sections of the United States: southeastern Pennsylvania and central New Jersey, southeastern New York, occasionally in New England, with many in Piedmont North Carolina, eastern and southwestern Ohio, and eastern and south central Indiana 243 (Gaustad, 1962, 94). The Quaker church had by then undergone a major schism with one group, the Hicksites, smaller but primarily in the Middle Atlantic regions and the larger division, the Orthodox, moving with "surprising strength across the Alleghenies into the west" (Gaustad, 1962, 95). By 1843, the second largest group of Orthodox Quakers claimed 18,000 members in Ohio; the largest group was of 30,000 in Indiana (Gaustad, 1962, 96). Counties having greater than 6.6% Quaker churches were concentrated in a few parts of Indiana--on1y 26 counties had Quaker churches, and 18 of these were well above the 4.4% state average (Figure 47). The locations of Quaker churches were similar to North Carolina nativity, not surprising considering that numerous North Carolinian migrants were Quakers (Figure 17). Twelve hundred Quakers moved directly from Piedmont North Carolina to Richmond (wayne County) Indiana between 1809 and 1819, while many others went there after stops in Ohio (weeks, 1896, 268). Those counties in the north central area may have been settled by Quakers of Ohio nativity who, originally migrating from North Carolina to Ohio, moved on to Indiana in search of new lands (Figure 11). One estimator has placed the Carolina native or descendant population of Indiana in 1850 at one third of the total, al- though certainly not all were Quakers (weeks, 1896, 268, 284). There seems to have been a connection between the loca- tions of specific religious denominations and nativity groups in Indiana. The religion most typically associated with 244 I Quakers above”6’.6 ‘p'erc'enf‘ ‘ - \ , . l e -\ r . n a -.. ,, '_ , ’ 1l 1 J ‘l ‘ 2r , . I _ j .2 ___ r r P“; ' t ' r . a J, 7‘ .‘ .4. A. v . l " ‘J T J r‘ - 1U] "‘ ‘- v‘ n b- : v» ,- ‘l 1' 4 f s L— i -..“ } J l- u ‘ '1 ‘1 V'\ ‘f" 1 'r' ‘ a». .L A . ‘ O "I ‘ - 4h _ u 1 sins it. Figure 47 Quaker Church Concentrations in Indiana, 1850 C . 81971800 V 9 a 3 a .. w ‘ 0. 9 . «H .0 III iii“ 41031 ‘I/( W A. H ~.\\' \" J \ l _ \ . , .. ...}... . . x . .w u. r ... . ”rang . , .. silt. {0114. Lil (10:11.01 W... a. \r. .... . . n ./ s ._ . . ._ . on “.1 _ v ...t - - -.. 11.111 J . . ... . . H q \ . .-\I..\t . 4 . . \K . . _- it I: ... w . _. J M . r t o 4... gen. . P. (..l 9 . J _. .nfldfln...)no. . --.. . -f... - ......» _ u . v ..—. v.1.y/rqu3trswnlag .m ”(Us .. .. ../..12.a_,..~www . t . .2... .. m1- i 11.? ._ h _. . . .1 ,. . . . _ int; 19.. a 1 y -. . : - is. to ...D N. _. , \. we...“ . . .n . 2W. : to] .... ...? . .13 r... .2 . 3...... . r! (J . I ,.... ._ ' . (I. 1 I! 54- .L’ v.1. .7 it I I I. 51‘ 2% 11 _ “H. a}... A L. h— T- .. ( 5 a.;:" 1| ‘0.) -"§u f. . ..._. ., a . , 3,1. 7 .. . _ ”V. L,wvm.mn,u...e.. n .Illlrtalli It‘s-is... lint-‘13.... , 4*‘0‘4‘4? {111... 245 Southerners, Baptists, appeared to concentrate in places settled by Kentuckians, while Methodism was mostly found in areas of Middle Atlantic and Ohioan nativity concentrations. The Christian church was also closely correlated with Southern natives, but the Presbyterian church, fairly well established throughout the state, had adherents from all nativity groups because of the migration history of Pennsyl- vanian Scotch-Irish. Quakers and North Carolinians were similarly distributed, an expected connection due to settle— ment history. An association between religion, nativity groups, and culture in Indiana is apparent. Folk Architecture On maps of material folk culture regions in the United States, prepared by H. Glassie, Indiana straddles three regions: at northernmost Indiana, the Northern cultural region was found, an outgrowth of New England, New York, and northern Ohio; in the center two-thirds the Midwest culture region prevailed, primarily an extension of the Middle Atlantic core; in the southernmost counties, Upland Southern material folk culture was noted (1968, 37-39). An examination of houses and barns in Indiana by R. W. Bastian has tested the validity of the regionalization proposed by Glassie and others, finding it to be generally accurate (1977, 133). Bastian traversed the state along eight east to west paths from northern to southern Indiana, surveying house and barn types for later mapping. A number of styles associated 246 with Eastern origins were identified, and their areas of concentration reflect nativity present there. The first, the upright-and-wing or temple-form house, having from above a ”T' shape, was found in the western places settled by New Englanders: New York, northern Ohio, and the Great Lakes (Figure 48) (Glassie, 1968, 129-33). It represented "the prevailing folk house in northeastern Indiana and farther west, just below the Michigan boundary . . . . [and was] absent from the remainder of the state, except in the south- eastern corner" (Bastian, 1977, 117). Both of these sections boasted New England and New York settlement concentrations, with the appearance of New England styles in the southeastern corner a further support for the presence of Yankees in that area (Figures 4 and 9). The distribution pattern of the I-house, "two-story dwellings, one room deep, two or more rooms long," some with chimneys or windows in the gable ends, indicated their common presence in all parts of the state (Glassie, 1968, 67; Bastian, 1977, 121). They were discovered "throughout the Indiana countryside," but less frequently in south central Indiana, suggesting that settlers from.all eastern regions built these house types in the state. Indeed, the I-house "was a common structure among the colonial English up and down the Atlantic shore” (Bastian, 1977, 123). Another style, the two-pen house, "a one-story, two-unit, end-gable structure,” was the "common to prevailing house type in southern Indiana . . . . rarely encountered in 247 f7 mm " DEV n - .. Upright and wing, Multi -level, or temple form, house or banked, three-bay barn l l- house Single level, three — bay barn Two pen house Transverse crib barn Figure 48 House and Barn Types in Indiana e I \4 l. C a 1 t B E i .l E E e a 1 C d C C; b NH 3 W ”Mm «WC m h... M.» a. a \\Illl.ll l.) . , \ D flu - p i ‘ l 4.1 i flfifslll Illllliill I ill) . ,. / _ . m u . . 1 M ,. lull.-- . . ..... v . all. o l _ H .ll 5. .. . n. m .* 'N ‘ ~ .s .~. ” l .u . l . _ I AL .1..- K .. v. .l i .. p l . .9. - r 1 ..-. \s \L %.| I n M ”m I“ .h. IN . ...o. . a m _ .F! lb (I. nl . 0.. m a . II I. . .. ll w . . . . A. ... K. W... I.F W: .a- M PI Fl. 4'1 .. v w u i u . v .. . l \ _ m . u . 1 a. .. . x . ... ..., it _ ~ _ . .. . lll _ o I. _ l . . h . . Viv. m- I ..... luw . . _ .. r. I. .. . . I i r . i t it i . l f .1 F ‘ ,... h l. .e ..L .1 l4. 5" «It I It ) I l. i H _ . . _ n ._ . M, . Ll ...l..|lllJ, l . H — - “flu ill: IL _ . ._ _. _ .m . J - _ . a ill 1 . - . . . . I . W . f u i , . H 248 central Indiana and . . . absent from the northern part of the state" (Bastian, 1977, 124-25). This house was derived from Scotch-Irish settlements in Pennsylvania, and was carried by them through the Upland South to southern Indiana (Glassie, 1968, 78-79, 82). The places of primarily Southern nativity in Indiana and the distribution of the two-pen house were quite similar, even to the presence of an area of these houses in north central Indiana, associated with the slight northward bow of the Southern settlement boundary (Figure 2). Barn types also reflected cultural origins in Indiana. Like the I-house, the single level, three-bay barn, with a central passageway and a bay on each side, was found to be an "ubiquitous structure in rural Indiana," present especially in the north, center, and extreme southern, but less so in the south central, parts of the state (Bastian, 1977, 138). Because this style of barn seemed to have been typical in England, it was probably known by pioneers from all three culture hearths--New England, southeastern Pennsylvania, and Chesapeake Bay (Bastian, 1977, 128). Multi-level, three-bay barns, or banked barns, displayed a pattern of distribution that was more closely associated with a specific nativity group. These barns apparently had their source in northwestern England, but in "New England was the original North American home" (Bastian, 1977, 129). They were discovered "on farms throughout northern Indiana and in the southeastern corner of the state" in the same areas that had upright-and-wing houses present: the places 249 settled by New Englanders and New Yorkers (Figures 4 and 9) (Bastian, 1977, 129). The transverse-crib barn, one with the gable peak parallel to the central passageway, and modifications of this type were encountered in the central and especially southern, but not northern parts of the state (Bastian, 1977, 131-32). Parti- cularly common in south central Indiana hill country, their distribution was similar to that of Southern natives, except for a section of northwestern Indiana which may have reflected Virginian settlement in the last frontier areas of the state (Figures 2 and 16) (Bastian, 1977, 132). In each of these cases, associations have been made between East Coast sources of architectural styles and the migration of nativity groups. Additionally, the Southern folk architecture was actually of Upland South, not Lowland South, origins, again showing the connection between the Middle Atlantic culture core in southeastern Pennsylvania and Upland Southern migrants. Place Names and Nativity Place names can be applied using two methods to denote the cultural or nativity group that settled a particular area. One is by tracing place names present in original cultural hearths to different areas where they occur most often, relying upon names as cultural indicators similar to dialects or terms. The other method follows repeated occurrences of specific names through states, providing 250 sources and dispersals of the names and quite often move- ments of migrants from place to place. Place Names as Cultural Indicators W. Zelinsky studied generic place names on the East Coast which were associated with each of the three cultural hearths, publishing his work in 1955. Place names tending to be con- centrated within one of the hearths were taken as indicators, and the movements of these terms to frontier areas suggested the migration of a particular cultural group to that place (1955, 319-49). Using a list of cultural indicator place names as a guide, place names in Indiana having any of these words as an integral part were located (Zelinsky, 1955, 348). More place names were of New England and Middle Atlantic origin than Southern, so the table below lists New England and Middle Atlantic terms that occurred five or more times within a grid square and Southern terms that were present at least twice. New England Culture Brook Hill Mount Center Lake Village Creek Southern Culture Branch Forks Knob 251 As examples, the town in Indiana named Pumpkin Center demons- trated a New England cultural connection; Garden City repre- sented the Middle Atlantic culture; Floyds Knobs showed the presence of Southern culture. To display the results cartographically, a map of Indiana was overlain with a grid system, and place names designating each cultural group were located within the squares, giving a distribution of the three cultural groups in Indiana according to these names (Figure 49). The results were generally supportive of the regions identified by maps of cultural areas in Indiana, but there seemed to have been a southward shift of each place name group. New England names were primarily located in the northern part of Indiana, with a scattering of them farther south. Many Yankees moved west to form "colonies," collecting a group of interested emigrants, purchasing lands close to each other, and moving there as a body "to afford a congenial concentration" (Power, 1953, 13). Thus the New Englanders may have started many of the small towns and villages in Indiana, naturally naming them out of their own cultural heritage (Figure 4). Place names of Middle Atlantic origin were concentrated in the southern two-thirds of the state, with quite a few scattered in the north. Consequently, much of the Middle Atlantic place name region was outside of the Middle Atlantic nativity region and in the section usually dominated by Southerners (Figures 7 and 2). One possible explanation is related to the ultimate cultural sources of much of the 252 I New England - Middle Atlantic [:1 Southern Figure 49 Place Names as Cultural Indicators in Indiana oimwA dob: ‘ Mm " .. a r; 253 Southern population in Indiana--it was Upland Southern and before that Middle Atlantic in origin. So this may be an example of a retained element of Middle Atlantic culture planted in the Southern nativity sector. Few place names of Southern origin were found, and most were in the southern or eastern parts of Indiana, the areas of Southern nativity (Figure 2). The three indicator words for Southern culture were also Southern frontier terms, and their placement in the South clearly outlined the Upland sections (Zelinsky, 1955, 327, 328, 334). The connection between place names and cultural groups in Indiana appears to be fairly reliable, and the joining of Middle Atlantic and Upland South regions in the state harks back to the original cultural associations between those two groups. Place Names as Migratory Indicators A book by R. L. Baker and M. Carmony, published in 1975, considered both the historic and folkloristic origins of place names in Indiana. From their work, names which had been trans- ferred from other states were mapped, as were places originally settled by people from a certain state. As examples, Angola, Indiana was ”named for Angola, New York, home of settlers,” B and Augusta, Indiana was ”probably a transfer name from either Georgia or Viginia” (Baker and Carmony, 1975, 4, 7). Excluding Ohio, each of the states was assigned to a region and the pattern of two or more names per grid square attributable to each region was mapped (Figure 50). 254 - W l l I New England F , 7. — ‘ .‘ Figure 50 Place Names as Migratory Indicators in Indiana .-4 total; 4*!“ . If ‘t‘ _ . . . 4‘ vi: ovalc - . _ r cu. . _ J§.ui?\ _ .v a 9‘0!l\ .!.‘l»§:'§l . . . . .41.;4r‘. 11:4"- . . o.‘ 4 A. i: .4! ‘.‘4..|‘ . 1‘. . I .u) .. .! a . 4.. .‘ fill .I 0),! . 4|... II . . . v «I! i. a: n It?! . I vlvll . . . , I . a . l I . .4 .0 .v 4 .4 . .n...|... Ollrtm. 4|. . l . I i u+ . I. n . {cl 4! . . .. . .\ l .. . . I I... .. . . 4 .. . n ’ u . ._ . . . . . i . _ c u . _ I . . . . . _ . . . p _ l . .. v . . . . ’ . . . a o I. A l .54.... g _ _ u l V e ,4 . 4 ’ . O l I — .. o . r .. l.. .... It .. . . n . . n . l 5. 3|: I t I ‘4’ I l . 1 ll. . tattle... v I l . "‘3Wt L .Y.’ .o — < ...J yr; v.6. . VFW. , l #1 n .....l... . . "41. r .... Vt .. .Jcntl. Jan.“ 4...“ 4., n13...- ...-.u .. w“ 1*...1 . 9 - i .- “twp—uh“ .5-.. .. .l . _ fl . .. . . ~ . a l. l i 1.1 .i . Y .15. . ..d: c.‘- 3L .4. i; u. .4... v .1. .‘ - . . . I . 9U“... w“ . . .....u ...... . . -, . , . $ . . .a 1 . ....o if . Co... VF! m... p. , ....Irs. ..., “W x a . o B i v.. .4 l . II n l n ..l A. A ....a ..V. x. . p 4. t \ .. a . r..— .. _. ( ; . . ... .. .NH. _ .v .4 la .a .. . . pm a ... .. . n. ., . J 1a.! ..r x . . . t . ... .- . V.’ .' I II 255 New England migrant or transfer names were found mostly in the southeast but only once in the north, a pattern that resembled the settlement distribution of New Englanders (Figure 4). Place names and migrants from the Middle Atlantic areas concentrated primarily in the north, agreeing with their nativity, while the few in the southeastern part of Indiana were also in a secondary settlement region of Middle Atlantic natives (Figure 7). Southern place names were found exclusively in the southern half of the state, again well within the sector of Southern settlement (Figure 2). For every case, the results more closely approximate the nativity regions in Indiana by 1850 than the pattern of names as cultural indicators did. Migratory or transfer names are examples of direct movement from a particular place, whereas the cultural indicator place names reflect a more involved and potentially intricate connection. The cultural evidence supports the nativity evidence of a very strong Southern element in Indiana. This Southern element was of Upland Southern origin according to dialect, religion, folk architecture, and place names. And, in tracing the sources of both Upland Southern population and culture, the trail leads most clearly back to southeastern Pennsylvania, with some inputs from the Lowland South. The Upland South culture of Indiana was actually modified Middle Atlantic, although the degree of modification may have been enough to make it an identifiable culture of its own. 256 Many students of the Old Northwest have identified a new culture which was formed in the Ohio valley. "About 1800 the Ohio valley . . . became the meeting place of two streams of migration, that of the Middle States and that of the Upland South" (Bergquist, 1981, 21). The interweaving cultures were also the two major ones present in Indiana and were similar to each other because of their outgrowth in large part from the same source. Both cultural and historical evidence point to the genesis of an Ohio valley culture that was born in the Miami country just before the war of 1812 and took root in the next two or three decades in much of central Indiana and the regions west of it (Bergquist, 1981, 31). This new division has also been termed the Lower Middle West region, derived from an extension of Middle Atlantic and Upland Southern cultures (Zelinsky, 1973, 118-19). On the strength of the Upland Southern cultural element in Indiana, the Midwestern culture is usually recognized as somewhat different and distinctive when compared to surrounding states. The most unique element was the higher degree of Southern-ness, associated with the greater level of Upland Southern nativity in Indiana than in the other Old Northwest F states. Chapter IX CONCLUSION The intent of this study has been twofold: first, to discover the pattern of non-Hoosier nativity in Indiana by 1850, and second, to trace the population origins of South- erners living in Indiana to find out whether they were Upland or Lowland Southerners. Some previous research has been completed on Indiana's population elements, but most of it relied upon county histories, general historical evidence of migration and Indiana settlement, or statewide census totals. Only in northern Indiana have Hoosier population origins by county been ascertained from the manuscript census schedules, and in that case the results were not mapped, but presented in tables. In recent years, the schedules have been examined, and patterns of nativity for portions or all of other states (Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, vermont) brought to light. Now the same information is available for Indiana. The results of the present study show that distinct regions of settlement nativity within Indiana existed by 1850. By mapping the pattern of nativity above and below the mean for Indiana, from a particular state, areas of greater than and less than average concentration were indicated. Although there were exceptions, natives of Northern states 257 258 tended to live in the northern half of Indiana, while migrants born in Southern states typically remained in the southern counties. Pioneers to Indiana supplied by specific states were often found in certain parts of Indiana, associated either with nearness to the state of birth or with the general pattern of migration influenced by time of migration, trans- portation route availability and accessibility, personal know- ledge, and preference or prejudice. Fifty-six percent of the population in 1850 was comprised of native Hoosiers, who formed the largest single population element; approximately 5% were foreign born. Of the remainder, the group primarily considered in this study, six states were responsible for 85% of the non- Hoosier United States born population living in Indiana by 1850. Ohioans were the largest group (31.4%) and, despite the state‘s location directly east of Indiana, they were mostly found in the northern half of Indiana. Considering that Ohio itself was a western state, Buckeyes may not have begun migrating from there until later in Indiana's settlement period, when frontier conditions in Ohio were ending. By then, south- ern Indiana, the first area available to whites, was also no longer experiencing frontier conditions--in northern Indiana, however, new land was being opened for settlement. Kentucky was the next most important source, providing 17.3% of the non- Hoosier, United States born population. They remained in the southern half of the state, with few at the southeast, in the parts directly northwest of Kentucky. The southward 259 curve of the Ohio River along Indiana's southern border brought most of southern Indiana close to Kentucky, and transportation routes in Kentucky also directed movement north and west to the Ohio River, on the other side of which lay Indiana. Pennsylvania accounted for 11.6% of the migrants to Indiana. Most were found within the northern half and along the eastern border of the state, although a few counties along the Ohio River and in the interior had a greater than average concentration of Pennsylvanians. Virginians were fourth, with 10.6% of the population. Their pattern of distribution was not focused, but included portions of southwestern, central, and northwestern Indiana. Two significant areas of North Carolinians, the next largest group (8.1%), were apparent, one in the east center, associated with a strong North Carolina Quaker colony there, and one in the southwest. New Yorkers ranked sixth, having 6.2% of the non-Hoosier population native to the Empire State. Their arrangement indicated a mixture between the patterns of Pennsylvanians and New Englanders: mostly along the northern border with Michigan, with a smaller concentration in the southeast corner, and a few along the Ohio River. 2 Southerners living in Indiana by 1850 were selected for in depth study because of the recognition of Southern influences on the people and outlook of the state. None of the surrounding states of the Old Northwest possessed as much of a Southern element in the population as did Indiana: 44.0% of the non-Hoosiers had been born in the South, Pl 260 compared with 34.7% in Illinois and 28.0% in Ohio. While few would disagree with the division of the North into two distinct regions, Middle Atlantic and New England, the South is typically viewed as a single entity. Yet there are and were significant sectional differences within the South-- in physical geography, economy, population origins, and culture--which allow the region to be divided, along the fall line between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont, into two units, the Lowland South and the Upland South. The Lowland South was an area of large plantations, slavery, and primarily English ethnicity: the Upland South was a section of small farms, yeoman farmers with few slaves, and English, Scotch- Irish, and German ethnicity. Not surprisingly, there were social, economic, and cultural distinctions between these regions as well. Unfortunately for census based nativity research about the South, the division between Upland and Lowland cuts ! through most Southern states. Thus the eastern parts of : Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina are in the Lowland, Tidewater region, while the western areas lie in the Piedmont and Ridge and valley, or Upland, sections. i Kentucky and Tennessee, being in the interior of the South, are generally classified as Upland Southern states, and so do not constitute as much of a problem, although the western portions of these states are in the Mississippi River alluvial plain, not actually the Upland. The census requested place of 261 birth by state only, so any division of Southern nativity into Upland and Lowland has to be made along state lines, ignoring one of the areas in those states that lie across both sections. To solve this dilemma, somewhat unsatisfac- tory divisions of Southern states into Upland and Lowland categories are made, placing Kentucky, Tennessee and west Virginia in the Upland and the balance of Southern states in the Lowland, or putting Kentucky, Tennessee, west Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina in the Upland and the others in the Lowland. To specify the exact origins of Southerners by county, other sources of information must be tapped. The present research has relied upon two: the General Land Office records that give the place of previous residence by county for land purchasers, and the Society of Indiana Pioneers' genealogical files that contain locations of prior residence and birthplace, both by county. Although neither source is as complete in coverage as the census, since only those who bought land from the government or whose descendants belong" to the Society of Indiana Pioneers are included, the results from each generally agree, and so the information appears to be reliable. Only Southerners in Indiana, defined accord- ing to migration place or birthplace, were considered in the results drawn from these two sources. According to the General Land Office records, the place of most Southerners' residence prior to migration to Indiana th. wa: SC 262 was distinctly within the Upland South. While there were some who moved from the Lowland South, the majority by far came from the Upland, particularly the Shenandoah valley of northern Virginia, what is now west Virginia, north central North Carolina, and eastern Tennessee. As especially strong concentration was identified in north central Kentucky, the Bluegrass, just southeast of Indiana, suggesting that many of the Southerners in Indiana did not travel extreme dis- tances, but were from nearby. The Society of Indiana Pioneers' records are even more valuable, despite their smaller number, because both birthplace and place of last residence before migration to Indiana are listed. Areas of prior residence agree in large part with those for the General Land Office records: the Shenandoah valley of Virginia, north central North Carolina, and north central Kentucky, all within the Upland South. When the birthplaces are mapped however, an interesting difference in location appears. Birthplaces still indicate most migrants were of Upland Southern nativity but locations shifted farther east. Thus, instead of the region of extremely heavy concentration being in north central Kentucky, equally significant centers of birthplaces occur on the eastern side of the Appalachians, in the northern Shenandoah valley, western Maryland, and once again in north central North Carolina. Apparently, Upland Southerners moved to Indiana in stages, with many born in the eastern parts of the Upland South and moving to Kentucky before continuing their migration to Indiana. The consistently high level of 263 migrants born in and moving from north central North Carolina suggests that many migrated directly to Indiana from there; substantial numbers of these North Carolinians were Quakers. As a general statement, apparently most Southerners living in Indiana by 1850 had been born in and left from some place within the Upland South region. Nativity was first included on the list of questions in the census of 1850, so population origins for the Upland South during its frontier period, approximately 1725 to 1775 east of the Appalachians and the years after the Revolution in Tennessee and Kentucky, cannot be ascertained from this source. Rather, other evidence must be examined to discover the population components of the Upland South, much of which is not statistical but historical. Among these are studies of the ethnicity of the population and migration and develop- ment history. From an analysis of Southern surnames, a large portion P of the population, greater than for the United States as a whole, was found to be of Scotch—Irish and German background in addition to the majority English ethnic population. Tracing the migratiOnal history of the Scotch-Irish and Germans leads back to southeastern Pennsylvania, where nearly all of these people, or their ancestors, first landed in America.’ Reacting to reduced availability of good, inexpensive land in southeastern Pennsylvania and a steady, at times heavy, influx of new Scotch-Irish and German immigrants beginning about 1720, settlers moved farther inland 264 until the Allegheny Front was reached. For various reasons-- physical, economic, diplomatic--pioneers turned to the south- west, entering the Ridge and Valley province through the Cumberland Valley of Pennsylvania and continuing on to the Shenandoah valley of Virginia by 1730. Scotch-Irish and German immigrants trekked southwest to the frontier in the Shenandoah, joined by southeastern Pennsylvania farmers or their children who could not afford land there, and the set- tlement frontier was pushed southwestward through the Ridge and Valley province. Some Tidewater Southerners, especially from Virginia, were added to this first "Old west," but it was primarily an outgrowth of southeast Pennsylvania. Besides the migration evidence, substantial cultural evidence supports the connection of the Upland South with southeastern Pennsylvania. This area was one of the three major colonial cultural hearths or cores, and on maps of those regions in the United States, the Upland South is regularly identified as a cultural extension of southeastern Pennsyl- vania. Items such as word use, dialect, building types, and religion in the Upland South have links with southeastern Pennsylvania, indicating that the ultimate cultural origin of the Upland South was in that region. Certainly there were modifications as inputs of culture from Europe and the Low- land South were received, and additional evolutionary changes occurred over time, but the initial source for most of the culture, and the population, of the Upland South was south- eastern Pennsylvania. 265 The Upland Southern culture was present in Indiana as well. The population connections with the Upland South are clear, as are the cultural linkages. Similar cultural evi- dence--word use, dialect, building types, religion--in most of Indiana shows the connections between Indiana and the Upland South. Even the nickname for Indiana, "Hoosier," had its origins in the Upland South, and was carried along by the migrants from there who came to Indiana as part of their cultural baggage, gradually becoming applied to the state and its residents. Further, the Ohioan population element was extremely important in Indiana, forming the largest non- Hoosier group, and the two major sources of Ohio's population were Pennsylvania and Virginia, the former surrounding the cultural core and the latter in part an extension of it. And the third most important state of non-Hoosier nativity in Indiana was Pennsylvania itself. The combination in Indiana of the Upland Southern popula- tion and culture, already having Middle Atlantic elements, with that of the Middle Atlantic region, plus Ohioans who possessed a strong Middle Atlantic influence, resulted in Indiana being affected by Middle Atlantic or initially Middle Atlantic culture more than nativity alone would indicate. While the Southern element in Indiana was noticeable and remarked upon, it was not the same as the Southern element of Tidewater Virginia, South Carolina, or Alabama, as examples. The Southern-ness of Hoosierdom was Upland Southern-ness, 266 actually a modified Southern-ness, affected and altered by the indirect and direct infusion of Middle Atlantic popula- tion and culture. It was the Middle Atlantic culture, although assuredly changed by time and outside influences, which shaped the Southern-ness of Hoosierdom. SELECTED B IBL IOGRAPHY SELECTED B IBL IOGRAPHY Manuscript Materials Population Schedules of the Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, Indiana. National Archives Microfilm Publications, Microcopy #432. Washington: National Archives and Records Service, 1963. Registers of Receipts, Various Land Offices. Indianapolis, April 14, 1808 to June 1, 1850. Dissertations Gohmann, Sister Mary de Lourdes (1938). Political Nativism’ in Tennessee to 1860. Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America. Strickland, Arney Lee (1970). A Study of Geographical and Social Distribution of Some Folk Words in Indiana. Ph.D. dissertation, Ball State University. Treat, Victor Hugo (1967). Migration into Louisiana, 1834- 1880. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas. Books Abernethy, Thomas Perkins (1940). Three Virginia Frontiers. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Baker, Ronald L. and Marvin Carmony (1975). Indiana Place Names. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Barnhart, John D. (1953). Valley of Democracy. The Frqgtier Versus the Plantation in the Ohio Valley, 1775-1818. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Barnhart, John D. and Dorothy L. Riker (1971). Indiana to 1816. The Colonial Period. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana Historical Society. Billington, Ray A. (1974). Westward Expansion: A History of the American Frontier. New York: MacMillan Company. 267 268 Bond, Beverley W. (1934). The Civilization of the Old Northwest. New York: MacMillan Company. Bridenbaugh, Carl (1952). Myths and Realities. Societies of the Colonial South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Brown, Ralph H. (1948). Historical Geography of the United States. New York: Harcourt, Brace and WOrld. Buley, Roscoe Carlyle (1951). The Old Northwest, Pioneer Period, 1815-1840. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Caruso, John A. (1959). The Appalachian Frontier. Indiana- polis: Bobbs-Merrill. Clark, Blanche Henry (1942). The Tennessee Yeomen, 1840-1860. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Clark, Thomas D. (1979).. Historic Maps of Kentucky. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. Cockrum, William M. (1907). Pioneer History of Indiana. Oakland City, Indiana: Press of the Oakland City Journal. Connor, R. D. W. (1933). Race Elements in the White Popula- tion of NorthCarolina. Greensboro, North Carolina: The Women's College of North Carolina. Corbitt, David Leroy (1969). The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. Raleigh, North Carolina: State Department of Archives and History. Cramer, Zadok (1966). The Navigator, Eighth Edition, 1814. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms. Dunaway,.Way1and F. (1944). The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Esarey, Logan (1943). The Indiana Home. Crawfordsville, Indiana: R. E. Banta. Faust, Albert Bernhardt (1927). The German Element in the United States. New York: The Steuben Society of America. Florin, John (1977). The Advancgjof Frontier Settlement in Pennsylvania, 1638-1850: A Geographical Interpretation. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University. 269 Fox, Dixon R. (1934). Sources of Culture in the Middle West: Background versus Frontier. New York: Appleton-Century. Franklin, W. Neil, comp. (1971). Federal Population and Mortality Schedules, 1790-1890, in thelNational Archives and the States: Outline of a Lecture on their AvailabilitngContent, and Use. Washington: National Archives and Records Service. Friis, Herman R. (1968). A Series of Population Maps of the Colonies and the United States, 1625-1790. New York: AmeriCan Geographical Society. Gastil, Raymond D. (1975). Cultural Regions of the United States. Seattle: The University of Washington Press. Gaustad, Edwin S. (1962). HistoricallAtlas of Religion in America. New York: Harper and Row. Glassie, Henry (1968). Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press. Greene, Evarts B. and Virginia D. Harrington (1932). American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790. New York: Columbia University Press. Hanna, Charles A. (1902). The Scotch-Irish. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Hart, John Fraser (1975). The Look of the Land. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hubach,.Robert R. (1961). Early Midwestern Travel Narratives: An Annotated Bibliography, 1634-1850. Detroit: wayne State UniVersity Press. Hubbart, Henry Clyde (1936). The Older Middle west, 1840- 1880. New York: Appleton-Century. Hudson, Winthrop S. (1961). American Protestantism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (1973). Religion in America. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Indiana, A Guide to the Hoosier State (1941). New York: Oxford University Press. Jakle, John A. (1977). Images of the Ohio Valley. A Historical Geography of Travel, 1740-1860. New York: Oxford University Press. 270 Jakle, John A., Stanley D. Brunn, and Curtis C. Roseman (1976). Human Spatial Behavior. A Social Geography. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press. Johnson, Guion G. (1937). Antebellum North Carolina. A Social History. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Kiefer, wayne E. (1969). Rush County, Indiana. A Study in Rural Settlement Geography. Bloomington: Indiana University; Press. Klingaman, David C. and R. K vedder, eds. (1975). Essays in Nineteenth Century Economic Historyl__The Old Northwest. Athens: The Ohio University Press. Kurath, Hans (1949). A Word Geography of the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Lemon, James T. (1976). The Best Poor Man' 8 Country. A Geographical Study of Early Southeastern Pennsylvania. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Leyburn, James G. (1962). The Scotch-Irish. A Social History. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Lindley, Harlow, ed. (1916). Indiana as Seen by Early Travelers. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Commission. McCord, Shirley S., comp. (1970). Travel Accounts of Indiana, 1679-1961. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau. Merrens, H. Roy (1964). Colonial North Carolina in the Eighteenth Cen_tury: A Study in Historical Geography. Chapel H111: The University of North Carolina Press. Meyer, Duane G. (1961). The Highland Scots of North Carolina, 1732-1766. Chapel Hill: The University of North Caro1ina Press. Mitchell, Robert D. (1977). Commercialism and Frontier. Perspectives on the Early Shenandoah valley. Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press. Odum, Howard (1936). Southern Regions of the United States. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Owsley, Frank L. (1949). Plain Folk of the Old South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Paxson, Frederic L. (1924). History of the American Frontier, 1763-1893. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 271 Pence, George and N. C. Armstrong (1933). Indiana Boundaries. Territory, State, and County. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau. Power, Richard Lyle (1953). Planting7Corn Belt Culture: The Impress of the Upland Southerner and Yankee in the Old Northwest. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society. Ramsey, Robert W. (1964). Carolina Cradle: A Settlement of the Northwest Carolina Frontier, 1747- 1762. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolinafi Press. Robinson, W. Stitt (1979). The Southern Colonial Frontier, 1607-1763. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press. Rohrbough, Malcolm J. (1968). The Land Office Business. The Settlement and Administration of American Public Lands, 1789-1837. New York: Oxford University Press. (1978b). The Trans-Appalachian; Frontier. Peqple, Societies, and Institutions 1775-1850. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosenberry, Lois K. M. (1909). The Expansion of New England: The Spread of New England Settlement and Institutions to the Mississipp1 River, 1620- 1865. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin. Rouse, Parke, Jr. (1973). The Great Wagon Road, from Philadelphia to the South. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schultz, Harold S. (1950). Nationalism and Sectionalism in Sguth Carolina, 1852-1860. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. Semple, Ellen Churchill (1903). American History and Its Geographic Conditions. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. The Seventh Census of the United States: 1850 (1853). washington: Robert Armstrong, Public Printer. Sosin, Jack M. (1967). The Revolutionary Frontier, 1763-1783. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sutherland, Stella H. (1936). Population Distribution in Colonial America. New York: Columbia University Press. Thompson, D. G. Brinton (1956). Gateway to a Nation: The Middle Atlantic States and Their Influence on the Development of the Nation. Peterborough, New Hampshire: William Bauhan. 272 Thornbrough, Gayle and Dorothy Riker, comps. (1956). Readings in Indiana History. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau. Thwaites, Reuben Gold (1904). Earlywesternlgravels, 1748- 1846. Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company.’ Turner, Frederick Jackson (1920). The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt and Company. (1932). The Significance of Sections in American History. New York: Henry Holt and Company. (1958). The United States, 1830-1850. The Nation and Its Sections. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith. weeks, Stephen B. (1896). Southern Quakers and Slavery. A Study_in Institutional History. Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science, Extra vo1ume 15. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. wertenbaker, Thomas Jefferson (1942). The Old South: The Founding of American Civilication. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Wilson, William E. (1966). Indiana. A History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. wood, Ralph, ed. (1942). ThetPennsylvanian Germans. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Wright, Carroll D. and William C. Hunt (1900). History and Growth of the United States Census. washington: Government Printing Office. wright, Louis B. (1955). Culture on the Moving Frontier. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Zelinsky, Wilbur (1973). The Cultural Geography of the United States. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall. Articles The following abbreviations for journal titles were used: Egg Annals, Association of American Geographers G3 Geographical Review IHSP Indiana Historical Society Publications Egg, Indiana Magazine of History Iggg, Journal of Southern History 273 MVHR Mississippi Valley Historical Review, now Journal of American History PA Pioneer America PG Professional Geographer WMQ William and Mary_gparterly Abernethy, Thomas Perkins (1941). The First Transmontane Advance. In Humanistic_§§udies in Honor of John Calfin Metcalf, 120-38. Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press. Anderson-Green, Paula Hathaway (1978). The New River Frontier Settlement on the Virginia-North Carolina Border, 1760-1820. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 86(4), 413-31. Bacot, D. Huger (1923). The South Carolina Up Country at the End of the Eighteenth Century. American Historical Review 28(4), 682-98. Barker, Howard F. (1931). Report of the Committee on Linguistic and National Stocks in the Population of the United States. American Historical Association Annual Report 1, 107-441. Barnhart, John D. (1935a). Sources of Southern Migration into the Old Northwest. MVHR 22(1), 49-62. (1935b). The Southern Element in the Leadership of the Old Northwest. JSH 1(2), 186-97. (1937). The Southern Influence in the Formation of Indiana. IMH 33(3), 261-76. (1940). Southern Contributions to the Social Order 0 the Old Northwest. North Carolina Historical Review 17(3), 237-48. (1941). Frontiersmen and Planters in the Formation 0 Kentucky. JSH 7(1), 19-36. (1951). The Migration of Kentuckians Across the Ohio River. Filson Club Historical£Quarter1y 25(1), 24-32. Barrows, Robert G. (1973). The Manuscript Federal Census: Source for a "New" Local History. IMH 69(3), 181-92. Bastian, Robert W. (1977). Indiana Folk Architecture: A Lower Midwestern Index. PA 9(2), 115-36. 274 Batteau, Allen (1979-80). Appalachia and the Concept of culture: A Theory of Shared Misunderstandings. Appalachian Journal 7(1-2), 9-31. Bergquist, James M. (1981). Tracing the Origins of a Mid- western Culture: The Case of Central Indiana. IMH 77(1), 1-32. Bliss, Willard F. (1951). The Tuckahoe in New Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 59(4), 387-96. Boeck, George A. (1962). A Historical Note on the Uses of Census Returns. Mid-America 44(1), 46-50. Braderman, Eugene M. (1939). Early Kentucky: Its Virginia Heritage. South Atlantic Quarterly 38(4), 449-61. Buley, R. Carlyle (1937). Glimpses of Pioneer Mid-West Social and Cultural History. MVHR 23(4), 481-510. Burns, Lee (1919). The National Road in Indiana. IHSP 7(4), 209-37. (1923). The Ohio River, Its Influence on the Development of Indiana. IMH 19(2), 169-81. Carmony, Marvin (1972). Aspects of Regional Speech in Indiana. In Davis, Lawrence M., ed. Studies in flpnor of Raven I. McDavid, Jr., 9-24. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press. Chaddock, Robert E. (1908). Ohio Before 1850. A Study of the Influence of Pennsylvanian and Southern Population in Ohio. Columbia University Studies in History Economic§y_and Public Law 31(2). Douglas, Jesse S. (1950). Origins of the Population of Oregon in 1850. Pacific Northwestguarterly4l(2), 95-112. Dunaway, wayland F. (1931). Pennsylvania as an Early Distributing Center of Population. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 55(2), 134-69. Dunn, Jacob Piatt (1907). The word "Hoosier". IHSP 4(2), 3-29 0 Ernst, Joseph A. and H. Roy Merrens (1973). "Camden's Turrets Pierce the Skies!": The Urban Process During the Eighteenth Century. WMQ 30(4), Third Series, 549-74. 275 Esarey, Logan (1912). Internal Improvements in Early Indiana. IHSP 5(2), 41-158. Gordon, Leon M., III (1950a). Effects of the Michigan Road on Northern Indiana, 1830-1860. IMH 46(4), 337-402. (1950b). The Price of Isolation in Northern Indiana, 1830-1860. IMH 46(2), 151-64. Hart, John Fraser (1972). The Middle west. AAG 62(2), (1974). The Spread of the Frontier and the Growth of Population. .In Walker, H. J. and W. G. Haag, eds. Man and Cultural Heritage, 73-81. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Henry, W. E. (1908). Some Elements of Indiana's Population, or Roads West and Their Early Travelers. IHSP 4(6), 375-96. Hubbart, Henry Clyde (1933). "Pro-Southern" Influences in the Free west, 1840-1865. MVHR 20(1), 45-62. Hudson, John C. (1976). Migration to an American Frontier. AAG 66(2), 242-65. James, Alfred P. (1930). The First English-Speaking Trans- Appalachian Frontier. MVHR 17(1), 55-71. Jordan, Terry G. (1967). The Imprint of the Upper and Lower South on mid-Nineteenth Century Texas. AAG 57(4), (1969). Population Origins in Texas, 1850. GB 59(1), 83-103. Kaatz, Martin R. (1955). The Black Swamp: A Study in Historical Geography. AAG 45(1), 1-35. Karinen, Arthur E. (1959). Maryland Population: 1631-1730: Numerical and Distributional Aspects. Maryland Historical Magazine 54(4), 365-407. (1965). Numerical and Distributional Aspects of Maryland Population, 1631-1840. Maryland Historical Magazine 60(2), 139-59. Kemper, Charles E. (1922). The Settlement of the Valley. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 30(2), 169-82. 276 Kniffen, Fred (1965). Folk Housing: Key to Diffusion. AAG 55(4), 549-77. Kniffen, Fred and H. Glassie (1966). Building in Wood in the Eastern United States: A Time-Place Perspective. g3 56(1), 40-66. Kulikoff, Allan (1979). The Colonial Chesapeake: Seedbed of Antebellum Southern Culture? JSH 45(4), 513-40. LaFollette, Robert L. (1929). Interstate Migration and Indiana Culture. MVHR 16(3), 347-58. Lang, Elfrieda (1945). Conditions of Travel Experienced by German Immigrants to DuBois County, Indiana. IMH 41(4), 327-440 (1953a). An Analysis of Northern Indiana's Popula- t1on in 1850. IMH 49(1), 17-60. (1953b). Ohioans in Northern Indiana Before 1850. IMH 49(4), 391-404. (1954). Southern Migration to Northern Indiana Before 1850. IMH 50(4), 349-56. Lathrop, Barnes F. (1948a). History from the Census Returns. Southwestern Historical_guarter1y 51(4), 293-312. (1948b). Migration into East Texas. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 52(1), 1-31, 52(2), 184-208, 5273). 325-48. Layton, Joseph E. (1916). Sources of Population in Indiana, 1816-1850. Bulletin of the Indiana State Library 11(3), 3-16. Lebergott, Stanley (1970). Migration within the United States, 1800-1960: Some New Estimates. Journal of Economic History 30(4), 839-47. Lee, Everett S. and Anne S. Lee (1960). Internal Migration Statistics for the United States. Journal of the American Statistical Association 55(292), 664-97. Lindley, Harlow (1911-12). The Quakers in the 01d Northwest. Proceedings, Mississippi valley Historical Associaton 5, 60-72. Lynch, William O. (1915). The Flow of Colonists to and from Indiana Before the Civil war. IMH 11(1), 1-7. 277 Lynch, William O. (1943). The.Westward Flow of Southern Colonists Before 1861. JSH 9(3), 303-27. Marckwardt, Albert H. (194). Folk Speech in Indiana and Adjacent States. Indiana History Bulletin 17(2), 120-40. (1957). Principal and Subsidiary Dialect Areas in the North-Central States. Publications, American Dialect Society 27, 3-15. Marshall, Howard Wight and John Michael Vlach (1973). Toward a.Folklife Approach to American Dialects. American Speech 48(3-4), 163-91. McDavid, Raven 1., Jr. (1958). The Dialects of American English.. In Francis, W. Nelson. The Structure of American English, 480-543, 579-85. New York: The Ronald Press Company. (1967). WOrd Magic, or WOuld you want your Daughter to Marry a Hoosier?' Indiana English Journal 2, 1-7. McDavid, Raven 1., Jr. and V. McDavid (1973). "Cracker" and "Hoosier". Names 21(3), 161-67. McDonald, Forrest and Ellen Shapiro McDonald (1980). The Ethnic Origins of the American People, 1790. WMQ 37(2), Third Series, 179-99. Meyer, Alfred H. (1954). Circulation and Settlement Patterns of the Calumet Region of Northwestern Indiana and Northeastern Illinois (First Stage - to 1830). AAG 44(3), 245-74. - (1956). Circulation and Settlement Patterns of the Calumet Region of Northwestern Indiana and Northeastern Illinois (Second Stage 1830-1850). AAG 46(3), 312-56. Meyer, Douglas K. (1975). Diffusion of Upland South Folk Housing to the Shawnee Hills. 35 7(2), 56-66. (1976a). Native-Born Immigrant Clusters on the Illinois.Frontier.. Proceedings, Association of American Geographers 8,41-44. (1976b). Southern Illinois Migration Fields: The Shawnee Hills in 1850. rg 28(2), 151-60. (1980). Immigrant Clusters in the Illinois Military Tract. EA 12(2), 97-112. 278 Mitchell, Robert D. (1966). The Presbyterian Church as an Indicator of westward Expansion in Eighteenth Century America. go 18(5), 293-99. (1972). The Shenandoah valley Frontier. AAG 62(3), 461-86. (1978). The Formation of Early American Cultural Regions: An Interpretation. In Gibson, J. R., ed. European Settlement and Development in North America, 66-90. Toronto: The University of Toronto Press. Mitchell, Waldo F. (1914). Indiana's Growth, 1812-1820. IMH 10(4), 369-95. Modell, John (1971). Family and Fertility on the Indiana Frontier, 1820. American Quarterly 23(5), 615-34. Newton, Milton (1974). Cultural Preadaptation and the Upland South. In walker, H. J. and W. G. Haag, eds. Man and Cultural Heritage, 143-54. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Opper, Peter Kent (1975). North Carolina Quakers: Reluctant Slaveholders. North Carolina Historical Review 52(1), 37-58. Owsley, Frank L. (1945). The Pattern of Migration and Settlement on the Southern Frontier. JSH 11(2), 147-76. Porter, Frank w. III (1975). From Backcountry to Country: The Delayed Settlement of western Maryland. Maryland Historical Magazine 70(4), 329-49. Power, Richard Lyle (1935). Wet Lands and the Hoosier Stereotype. MVHR 22(1), 33-48. \ (1940). A Crusade to Extend Yankee Culture. New England Quarterly 13(4), 638-53. (1942). The Hoosier as an American Folk Type. IMH 38(2), 107-22. Rice, John G. (1977). The Role of Culture and Community in Frontier Prairie Farming. Journal of Historical Geography 3(2), 155-75. Robinson, Morgan P. (1916). Virginia Counties. Virginia State Library Bulletin 9, 125-59. Rogers, Adolph (1909). North Carolina and Indiana. A Tie That Binds. IMH 5(2), 49-56. 279 Rogers, Tommy W. (1967). The Great Population Exodus from South Carolina, 1850-1860. South Carolina Historical Magazine 68(1), 14-21. (1968). Origin and Destination of Tennessee Migrants, 1850-1860. Tennessee Historical Quarterly 27(2), 118-22. Rohrbough, Malcolm J. (1978a). The Land Office Business in Indiana, 1800-1840. In This Land of Ours: The Acqui- sition and Disposition of the Public Domain, 39-59. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society. Russ, William A., Jr. (1948). The Export of Pennsylvania Place Names. Pennsylvania History 15(3), 194-214. Schafer, Joseph E. (1937). Peopling the Middle west. Wisconsin Magazine of History 21(1), 85-106. Shyrock, Richard H. (1939). Cultural Factors in the History of the South. JSH 5(3), 333-46. Smith, H. E. (1928). The Quakers, Their Migration to the Upper Ohio. Ohio Archeological and Historicalrguarterly 37(1): 35-85. Throne, Mildred (1959). A Population Study of an Iowa County in 1850. Iowa Journal of History 57(4), 305-30. Tolles, Frederick B. (1957). The Culture of Early Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 81(2), 119-37. van Bolt, Roger H. (1951). The Indiana Scene in the 1840's. IMH 47(4), 333-56. Vicero, Ralph D. (1971). French-Canadian Settlement in vermont Prior to the Civil War. 2g 23(4), 290-94. Visher, Stephen S. (1930). Distribution of the Birthplaces of Indianians in 1870. IMH 26(2), 126-42. (1941). Population Changes in Indiana, 1840-1940. Proceedings, Indiana Academy of Science 51, 179-93. (1942). Indiana's Population, 1850-1940, Sources and Dispersal. IMH 38(1), 51-59. (1955). The Location of Indiana Towns and Cities. IMH 51(4), 314-46. 280 Migrants and Places of Birth: A 2g 27(1), 58-64. Early Indiana Trails and Surveys. Walker, Gerald (1975). Methodological Note. Wilson, George R. (1919). IHSP 6(3). Wood, Gordon R. (1961). Word Distribution in the Interior South, Publications, American Dialect Society 35, 1-16. (1963). Dialect Contours in the Southern States. American Speech 38(4), 243-56. (1936). Pioneer Folk of Early Southern Woodburn, James A. Indiana. Indiana University Alumni Quarterly 23(4), 401-11. Social Zelinsky, Wilbur (1951). Where the South Begins. Forces 30(2), 172-78. (1955). Some Problems in the Distribution of Generic Terms in the Place Names of the Northeastern United States. AAG 45(4), 319-49. u111111111111