HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN Thesis In! the Degrea oI Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Jahan Ara Malik 1960 ~ Ill ~ H I I 9686 w \d N m .00 _| O N _| —I This is to certify that the thesis entitled HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF INGRAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN .‘ ‘ presented by Jahan Ara Melik has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Major professor Date May 2: 1961 L I B R A R Michigan St: University I! If} I I!!! III I I I ---‘ .._ “fit-Wu...“ q. I 4 ‘ REMOTE STORAGE RS”? PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from yoflr record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE APR 3 0 2618 111617 A?! A! 2/17 20:: Blue FORI' S/DateDueForms_20I7.mdd - pg.S ABSTRACT HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY or INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN by Johan Ara Malik The purpose of this study is to describe and inter- pret the historical geography of Ingham County, Michigan. Historical geography deals with the areal differentiation of the face of the earth in the past and the changes with time. To facilitate analysis of Ingham county's transi- tion from the original natural state, five successive time periods were selected, these ending in 1838, 1875, 1910, 1945, and 1960 respectively. Early white settlers, the first arriving in 1834, found the future county a forested wilderness, sparcely peopled by semi-nomadic Pottawattomie Indians. Because of Pleistocene glaciation, three belts of morainic hills, separated by gently undulating till and outwash plain, crossed the area from east to west and some 25 per cent of the land was poorly drained.l Density of the forests and the swampy nature of so much land were important factors delaying settlement of the county, which although surveyed by 1829, was not politically organized until 1858. The previous year there were 822 inhabitants. Entering the area from the southeast and south these pioneers instituted an economy primarily based on subsistence agriculture. Jahan Ara Malik 2 By 1874, Ingham's population reached 29,193, the forests had been largely cleared and there were nearly 3,500 farms. ' leanwhile, there had been a shift to cash grain agriculture, the rectangular pattern of roads had nearly attained its ultimate development, and the railroads had been laid. The most significant event, however, was establishment of the state capital in the forests of Lansing Township in 1847. By 1874, Lansing, the city which grew up around this site had a quarter of the county's population and was the focus of its economic life. Also of great future consequence was the founding of Michigan §tate Agricultural College in 1855 in what is today East Lansing. During the next period, 1875-1910, dairy farming and mixed farming superseded grain farming in importance. Addi- tional acreages were brought into use and farm incomes ex- panded, but after 1880 rural population declined. There was a high rate of urban growth, however, especially after 1900 when Lansing emerged as an important automobile manufactur- ing center. In 1910 nearly three-fifths of the county's population of 53,310 were in Lansing. The flood tide of movement cityward has barely started, however, before the appearance of the first rural non-farm dwellers who worked in Lansing. In 1910 most of these commuters used the newly established electric interurban lines. The automobile, which was to dominate this movement in the future, was still not Jahan Ara Malik 3 widely used and agitation for good roads was just beginning. Between 1910 and 1945 demand for manufactured goods created by two world wars and the prosperous 1920's so stimulated Lansing's industrial growth that, despite the "Great Depression”, expansion of urban living was the out- standing characteristic of county life. In three decades, ending in 1940, county pepulation increased from 53,310 to 130,616; Lansing's from 31,229 to 78,397. Thus, some 60 per cent of the increase was in Lansing. Rural farm popula- tion had continued to decrease, but there was a large gain in rural non-farm residents, especially near Lansing. East Lansing, too, had grown rapidly, partly because of rising enrollments at Michigan State University, and had a popula- tion of 5,839 in 1940. By this time nearly 80 per cent of the county's people lived in the three northwestern town- ships. The areal spread of the cities and expansion of rural non-farm living had caused a decline in land in farms. There was also a fall in the number of farms, but those that remained were larger, better equipped, more productive, and more commercial than ever. Changes in industry had been more ones of degree than kind. The automobile industry retained its leadership in value of product and as the largest employer. Increased use of the automobile had caused county roads and highways to be tremendously improved. Jahan Ara Malik 4 It also resulted in abandonment of the interurban lines in 1929 and operation of street cars in Lansing in 1933. Most of the significant trends which characterized life between 1910 and 1945 have been continued into the pre- sent post-war period. Thus, in 1960 there was less land in farms, fewer farm people, and fewer farms, but larger and much better equipped ones, than in 1945. There has been great further expansion of manufacturing, but the automobile industry still maintains its leadership, employing about the same proportion of industrial workers as before. Lansing has continued to grow rapidly. Its pepulation reached 108,128 in 1960, but much of the gain has been the result of annexations rather than of internal increase. Population growth in East Lansing has been even more spectacular, ris- ing to 29,745 in 1960. Between 1940 and 1960 population of the county increas- ed from 130,616 to 211,634. Urban population gained 62.8 per cent, but the share city people were of the county total remained practically the same. Farm population declined some 7 per cent, however, while rural non-farm population rose 95 per cent. Since most of the urban growth and a sizeable part of that of rural non-farm residents was in the three northwestern townships, these had over 87 per cent of the county's population in 1960. Even so, rural non-farm population increased in every township, except Lansing Township where there was a slight decrease because of annexa- Jahan Ara Malik 5 tions by Lansing and East Lansing. It is evident that commu- ters in increasing numbers have recently been traveling great- er distances than ever before to reach their jobs in Lansing and East Lansing. Thus, the post-war years in Ingham County mirror especially well two trends characteristic of these same years for the nation as a whole. These are the "popula- tion explosion" and the "exploding metrOpolis". Although Ingham County is a part of a much larger, physical- ly homogeneous area, variations in its development from that of adjacent counties have been pronounced. The factors of great- est importance accounting for this have been matters of human decision, namely the location of the state capital at Lansing, of Michigan State University at East Lansing, and of the auto- mobile industry in Lansing. In the future, as in the past, these three factors will continue to be significant. HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY Jahan Ara Malik A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1960 / -.F‘ -1 ~ : P.‘ A i . ' / M“ so _ 7 I “ ‘ .‘ -_"_ . / .’ /.=‘_ ‘7- I. «‘7' ‘A- 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the many individuals who have contributed interesting and helpful suggestions during the period of this research, and who have given valuable assistance in field investiga- tion. Thanks are due to the personnel at the Archives of the Historical Commission, at the Michigan State Library in Lansing, both the Shiawassee Street and Cass Building branches, and at the County Clerk's office in Mason for their cooperation and assistance in finding old manuscripts and maps concerning early phases of the history of the area. I am grateful to Mrs. P. C. Morrison for her invaluable help in typing and revising the manuscript. Particular appreciation is felt for the untiring assistance, guidance, advice and constructive criticism of Professor Paul Gross Morrison, under whose guidance this dissertation was under- taken and completed. East Lansing, Michigan Jahan A- Malik August, 1960 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEmeE-NTS e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 11 LIST OF TABLES e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 7 LIST OF FIGURES e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e V111 LIST OF PLATES e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o I INTRODUCTION 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 1 Chapter 1‘ TE NATURAL SETTING. e e e e e e e e e e e e e 11 Climate 11 Surface Configuration 14 Drainage 24 Soils 26 Natural Vegetation 33 Minerals 39 II. THE PIONEER YEARS AND BEFORE e e e e e e e e e 41 Indian Occupancy 43 White Occupancy 50 Pioneer Settlement 53 Routes Followed by the Settlers 57 Factors Leading to the Settlement of Ingham County 62 Distribution of White Settlers 66 Pioneer Agriculture 70 Civil Organization, the First Villages, and the Start of Manufacturing 75 Summary: Ingham County, 1838 79 III. THE EARLY YEARS, 1838‘1875 e o 0 0 e o o o o e 8]. Establishment of the State Capital at Lansing 82 State Agricultural College 88 Population 89 Transportation 100 Roads 101 Railroad Building Period, 1861-1873 104 Agriculture 109 Rural Service Centers 127 Extractive Industries 130 Forest Products 130 Goal 131 iv Chapter Page Quarries and Mineral Wells 132 Ianufacturing Industries 133 Occupations and Life 139 Ingham.County, 1875 140 Iv. Tm mnmlE YEARS C O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 143 Lansing 145 Population 148 Agriculture 161 Transportation 172 Roads 173 Railroads 179 Electric Interurban Lines 181 Towns, Villages, and Hamlets 182 Manufacturing 184 Occupations 191 Ingham County, 1910 192 V. TWO WORLD WARS AND THE YEARS BETWEEN e . . . . . 197 Lansing 199 Population 203 Agriculture 218 Transportation 236 Roads 237 Electric Lines and Railroads 241 Air Travel 244 manufacturing Industries 245 Automobile Industry 248 Occupations in 1940 251 Ingham County, 1945 259 VI. THE POST'wAR YEARS AND CONCLUSIONe e e e e e e e 261 Lansing 262 Population 268 Transportation 277 Agriculture 279 Manufacturing and Other Occupations 285 Urban Centers 291 Conclusion 295 APPENDIXeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 306 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Climatic Summary, East Lansing, Mich. . . . . . l3 2. Business Establishments and Professional People, Lansing, Michigan, 1874 e e e e e e e e e e e e 87 3. Population, Ingham County, 1840-1874 . . . . . 91 4. Number of Dwellings, Families and Inhabitants, Ingham.county, Michigan, 1840-1870 . . . . . . 93 5. Number of Rural Homesteads, Ingham.county, Mich- 18”,].838'195000eeeeeeeeeeeeee 94 6. Number of Farms and Acres in Farms, 1850-1874, Ingham Gounty, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 7. Agricultural Produce, Ingham county, Michigan, 1840-18740eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee116 8. Horticulture, Ingham Bounty, Michigan, 1874 . . 119 9. Livestock on Farms in Ingham County, Michigan, 1840‘1874eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee120 10. Dairy Produce and‘wool, Ingham Bounty, Michigan 1850-1874eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee121 11. Manufacturers, Ingham County, Mich., 1850-1860. 134 12. Manufacturers of Ingham.county, Mich., 1874 . . 136 13. Occupations of Males 21'Years and Over, Ingham county, Ulchigan, 1840-18.74 e e e e e e e e e e 141 14. Population Ten Years and Over Engaged in Select- ed Occupations, Lansing, Michigan, 1910 . . . . 147 15. Population, Ingham.Oounty, Michigan, 1880-1910. 151 16. Race and Nationality of the Population, Lansing and Ingham Bounty, 1880'1910 e e 0 0 o o e o o 152 17. Number of Dwellings and Families, Lansing and Ingham 000, 1884-1910 e e e e e e e e e e e e 155 18. lumber of Acres of Land subject to Entry, 1879- 1900eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee160 vi Table Page 19. Agricultural Produce, Ingham County, Michigan, 1880-19100eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 163 20. Fruit and Vegetable Produce, Ingham.County, Michigan, 1884‘19100 e e o e e o o o o e e e e 164 21. Domestic Animals, Ingham.County, Michigan, 1880- 1910..................... 166 22. Dairy Produce, Ingham County, Michigan, 1880- 1910eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. 167 23. Operator Status and Number and Size of Farms, Ingham County, Mich., 1880-1910. . . . . . . . 171 24. Manufacturing Establishments, Lansing and Ing- ham County, “101118“, 1884 o 00 e O 0 e e e e 193 25. Manufacturing Establishments, Lansing and Ing- ham County, Michigan, 1894 e e e 0 0 o e e 00 194 26. Manufacturing Establishments, Lansing and Ing- hu County, Mighigan, 1914-19470 e e e e e e 201 27. Population, Ingham County, Mich., 1920-1960 . 205 28. Dwelling Units, Ingham County, Michigan, 1920- 1950000000eeeeeeeeeeeeeo 210 29. Construction Time of Dwelling Units Existing in 1940, Ingham County, Michigan . . . . . . 211 30. Construction Time of Dwelling Units Existing in 1950, Ingham County, Michigan . . . . . . 212 31. Dollar Value of Farm Products Sold, Ingham County, “Chigan, 1909-1944 e e e c e e e e 221 32. Farms, Ingham County, Michigan, 1910-1954 . 222 33. Farm Land Use, Ingham County, Michigan 1925- 1954....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 223 34. Farm.Equipment, Ingham.90unty, Michigan, 1930- lgueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 224 35. Tenure of the Farm Operators, Ingham County, M16he,1920"1954eeeeeeeeeeeeee 229 vii Table Page 36. Livestock and Livestock Products, Ingham County, Michigan, 1919-1945 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 233 37. Hay Crops, Ingham County, 1919-1954 . . . . . . 234 38. Small Grains Threshed or Combined, Corn, Sugar Beets, Potatoes and Beans Harvested, Ingham County, Michigan, 1919‘1954 e e e e e e e e e e 235 39. Labor Force and Employment, Ingham County and Lanaing, M1Chigan, 1940 e e e e e e e e e e e e 253 40. Labor Force and Employment, Ingham County and Lansing, Michigan, 1950 e e e e e e e e e e e e 255 41. Number and Per Cent of Population Growth, Ing- ham County, Hichlgan, 1940'1960 e e e e e e e e 269 42. Value of Farm Products Sold, Ingham County, Michigan 1944-1954 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 281 43. Livestock and Livestock Products, Ingham County, H1Chigan, 1944-19540 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e 283 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Ingham County, Identification Map. . . . . . . 2. Ingham County, Population by Place of Residence. 3. Ingham County, Percentage of Papulation by Place OfRGSidOnOQeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 4. Ingham.County, Surface Forms . . . . . . . . . . 5. Ingham County, Land Division . . . . . . . . . . 6. Ingham County, Natural Forest Cover . . . . . . 7. Ingham County, Aboriginal Features . . . . . . . 8. Lower Michigan: Distribution of Pottowattomies and Indian Treaties o e o o e o o e e e e e e e 9. Lower Michigan, Moraines and Indian Trails . . 10. 'Lower Michigan, Survey Divisions . . . . . . . 11. Lower Michigan, Counties in 1832 . . . . . . . 12. Ingham County, Settlement Features, 1838 . . . 13. Ingham County, Rural Dwellings and Road Pattern, 1859.00.00.00000000...... 14. Ingham County, Rural Dwellings and Selected Cir- culation Features, 1874. . . . . . . . . . . . 15. Ingham County, Rural Dwellings and Selected Cir- culation Features, 1895. . . . . . . . . . . . l6. Ingham County, Rural Dwellings and Selected Cir- culation Features, 1910. e e e e e e e e e e e E1'7. Ingham County, Rural Dwellings and Selected Cir- culation Features, 1940. . . . . . . . . . . . 18. Ingham.County, Rural Non-farm Dwellings, 1940. 19. Lansing: City Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. East Lansing, City Growth . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 8 16 29 55 42 44 44 52 52 56 96 9B 156 159 216 217 264 265 ix Figure Page 21. Ingham County, Rural Dwellings and Selected Cir- culation Features, 19500 e e e e e e e e e e e e 275 22. Ingham County, Rural Non-farm Dwellings, 1950 . . 276 Plate 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF PLATES Log Cabin on Shaftsburg Road, Williamston, T own 8111 p O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Log Cabin Built in 1840 with an Annex Added in. the Middle 1870' 8 O I O O O O O O O O O O Farmhouse Built in 1875, on Zimmer Road, Section 10, Williamston Township . . . . . . Barn on Haslett Road, Williamston Township, Dating from 1875 e o e e e e o o e e e e e e Farm.Home in Alaiedon Township, Built About 1910 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Abandoned Gravel Pit in the Mason Esker . . Open Car on the Lansing and Pine Lake Electric Lineoeeecceeeeeeeeeeeee. R90 “ator 90- Buildings. 0 e e e e e e e e e Farmstead in Alaiedon Township With Most of Buildings Constructed . . . . . . . . . . . Barn in Ingham Township, Built About 1940. . Rural Non-farm Home Built in 1950, Williamston TownShip O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Large Gravel Pit Currently Operating on the Mason Baker in Delhi TomShipe e e e e e e 0 Large, Modern Barn Built in 1960, Williamston Tom Ship 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 One of Oldsmobile's Landing Plants . . . . . Page 125 125 126 126 176 176 177 177 226 226 287 287 288 288 INTRODUCTION This study concerns Ingham County, which is situated in the south-central part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The county has an area of 559 square miles and a papulation of 211,634.1 It has a diversified economy based upon industry, business, government, education and agriculture. Lansing, the state capital, is its industrial and commercial core and has a pOpulation of 108,128, or nearly 51 per cent of the county total (Fig. 1). Although the area has been occupied by humans for many centuries, the greatest changes in the areal occupance of Ingham County have occurred in the last 125 years, or since the arrival of the white man. Agriculture has been an important industry since the coming of the first perman- ent white settler in 1835, but agricultural practices and land-use patterns have undergone notable changes over the years. At present a large proportion of the county area is devoted to moderately prosperous mixed farms and dairy farms. Lack of good communications and an expanding internal 1. Population figures both for Lansing and Ingham County are preliminary results of the Census of the United States , 19600 INGHAM COUNTY IDENTIFICATION IAP I I, I Lanslng 1% Mas/w . 9' h“, as! Lansing ! Oke-os Ge‘dm ”WI/£9 ‘3‘ . ([044 I LANSING . w MERIDIAN A V ' AZ IHEAIFIELD . f l n i . HHOI' 3‘ . I ‘ 2 l | I - DELHI ALAIEDON ‘ I k I ! AURELIUS fJINGHAH lHIIE OAK ! ! i ! i | I o ' 'C ansvrIIe . I Aurelius j g . V I l / 7 : BUNKER HILL STOCKBRIDGE ' ONONDAGA Bunker , QHIII " LES/IQ Flfchburg Stockbrldge .—.—. .—.— —-— ._. . ._. ..—.—.— o I 2 3 4 5 MILES 6.f.'.R.lv, arm/yd Irunn lesiern RI/Irovd N.Y.f.°.‘?. New YarA (pnfrn/ Gn/rovd 6.0.17.1). Chesapeake Ohio Q4/Iroad ).A.l. 6L) FIQJ 3.3. market encouraged the early growth of local manufacturing concerns, some of which continue to operate today. When transportation and communication improved, however, with the introduction of railroads in the third quarter of the 19th century, not only were distant markets opened to the county's surplus agricultural produce, but also impetus was given to further industrial growth. By the early years of the 20th century functional diversity based upon commerce, industry, education, and government had complete- ly replaced the subsistence agriculture of the pioneer white settler. Thus over a period of 125 years Ingham County has undergone notable changes. Ingham County as a unit is a part of a much larger and physiographically homogeneous area. In their broader aspects, the changes in its areal occupance were reflective of the whole state and nation, and were not peculiar to Ingham County alone. However, variations from the national development and from the development of adjacent counties have occurred within this area. The selection of Ingham County as a unit of study was therefore Justified by its unique growth. This growth has resulted from the existence of Lansing, the state capital, within the county boundaries and from its educational importance as the home of Michigan State University. Lansing was made the state capital in 1847. It was a city established in the wilderness and its early growth was 4 slow. By the latter part of the 19th century, however, Lansing had gained the proportions of a large urban place, not only functioning as a state capital, but as a commercial, industrial, and educational center as well. As early as 1880 the growth of Lansing had become synonymous with the growth of the whole county. Outside the city the county showed relatively little deve10pment of industry or popula- tion, other than the great increase in that of a rural non- farm character after that time. The State Agricultural College, now called Michigan State University, was established on the outskirts of the city of Lansing in 1855. The major influence of this institution in Ingham County has been to cause a rise in the population, and to encourage local business enter- prises in the city of East Lansing, besides making it possible for a larger percentage of young people of Ingham County to obtain a university education. The pepulation increase in Lansing and East Lansing stimulated the growth of suburban places beyond the city limits. The spread of rural non-farm homes between these places and into the countryside has resulted in the develop- ment of a sizeable urbanized area in the northwestern section of the county. Purpose The purpose of this dissertation is to describe and to interpret the historical geography of Ingham County. 5 Geography in general deals with the investigation and presentation of the areal differentiation of the face of earth. Historical geography in particular deals with what may be termed geographic change in time. A histori- cal geographer reaches into the past for pertinent space orders and investigates the circumstances and processes by which things have changed.2 During the years a number of competent scholars have reported on the history of Ingham County and others have elaborated upon its achievements in the field of industry and education. To the best of the writer's knowledge, however, the kind of geographic study under- taken here has never been applied to this county. Although the findings of previous writers have furnished valuable information, they lack the concept of things associated in space which is inherent in a geographic analysis. The broad objectives of the study may be stated as follows: A. To examine the natural environment of Ingham County and relate this to mans' settlement and development of the area. 2. P. E. James and C. P. Jones, American Geography Inventory and Pros ect (Association of American Geographers, Syracuse'UETVersIEy Press, 1954), pp. 21 and 71. B. To show the sequence of occupancy, depicting stages in the transition from the county's original wooded state to its present multi- functional economy; i.e., to describe and analyse the distribution and functional organization of successive increasingly complex economies which have developed in the county. 0- To analyse the growth of Lansing in terms of its origin, functions, and influence on the overall development of Ingham County. In addition to the introduction, this study is composed of six chapters. In order to establish an en- vironmental background as a stage for the cultural impress the first chapter presents a description of the physical features of the area. The remainder of the study is devoted to the analysis of agents and processes of change, and the patterns which resulted. The most significant general factors of change among the host of natural, economic and cultural forces which have played a part are analyzed by means of a sequential series of geographies of Ingham.County representing five successive dates. In chapter II the aboriginal and early white settle- ments prior to the organization of the county in 1838 are examined. Chapter III covers the period 1838 to 1875, climaxed.by an economy heavily based on commercial grain agriculture, a rural farm pOpulation nearing its maximum 7 size (Fig. 2), the removal of any doubt that Lansing would become a city of importance, establishment of the basic road pattern, the building of railroads, and the beginning of extractive and manufacturing industries. Chapters IV, V and VI present three successive stages, from 1875 to today, in urban development, industrial progress, and the growth of inter-connections between city and county which have resulted in the present functional diversity. Chapter IV (1875-1910) discusses an era of transition: from grain farming to mixed and dairy farming, from a high percentage of rural to a high percentage of urban population, from small scale manufacturing practices to the mass produc- tion of mechanical goods,.especia11y automotive, and from the use of wagons and coaches to automobile and truck on city streets and country roads. In chapter V attention is directed to the conditions existing in Ingham County during two world wars and the intervening years of prosperity followed by world wide depression. Continued urban growth, expansion of the rural non-farm pepulation, a remarkable decrease in the number of farm people (Figs. 2 and 3), and the increasing dominance of the economy by the autombbile industry, and of transportation and everyday life by its product, are characteristics of this period. Chapter VI describes the post war developments, the most significant Of which has been the rapid growth of suburban and rural non-farm living by workers who commute between home and job n a: 091.43 egovgougooflomooosomonovo. _ a _ _ _ . . _ o I I...\ £5 43:5 lei-'3' 1°— ’0 r/ . .\ - .. I. .\.\|.. g... v82 4%.. \ ION .. I .a\ \ v\ \ \ z. \ ,on .8 ...... s \ \\ 4 \ 110' .... \\8¢u¢3 ....\ I... \ 1 :oo \ \ // \ 5.2 \ (\\ . 435: \ f..\ .25» x ......... :00 .3 wozwofimm mo Rudd .n 8. >m 29.—.529; no woflrzwom $23107- .LNBO 83d New 00. 2d... 800830~9820¢8200000¢2 1 II‘ 34... 1‘31 4 q _ PL 1.00 6 T g SCNVSI'IOHJ. NI HBQWM .r 00. has up?!“ 08. sh. mg... coo--30. 5.5.58“. 3 magma .m.: 31". (ha wozwofiwm no we; rm 29.-Eon. E83102. 9 by automobile. It also gives a summary and conclusion to the study. The growth, distribution and occupations of the population gave a distinct character to the patterns of occupance of each period. Changes from one period to another were not sudden, and occupancy features of one period often persisted far into the following periods even when they had lost much of their original functional value. Physical changes, economic changes and sociologi- cal changes proceeded simultaneously, but not at the same rate. Each affected the other, but not necessarily equally, during the successive stages in the evolution of today's areal functional organization of Ingham County. Sources Information for this study was obtained from various sources. Those of primary importance fall into three cata- gories: l. Unpublished papers, original records of census, manuscript maps, typed and mimeographed capies of records, and personal interviews. 2. Published sources containing statistical, carto- graphic and analytical information, including both United States and Michigan censuses, other statistical publications of national, state and local agencies, county plat books, atlases and maps, and reports of the State Legislature. 10 3. Descriptive sources such as histories of Ingham County, published pioneer accounts, magazine articles, newspaper articles, and theses. (Note - In using official census materials no attempt has usually been made to rationalize minor discrepancies in classifications and areas between successive periods, or between reports produced by the national and state govern- ments. CHAPTER I THE NATURAL SETTING The significance of the physical environment of Ingham County has varied with the changing attitudes, objectives and stages of economic development of the peoples occupying the area. The Indian relied heavily on the animal and floral abundance of the forested wilderness in which he lived, whereas the more advanced culture of the white pioneer enabled him to establish an occupance based on subsistence farming. Over the years that followed, technical developments and human ingenuity assisted man to clear the vegetation and drain the swamp to make room for his expanding and ever-chang- ing settlements. The original landscape has been modified to such an extent that today little semblance of the pre- settlement conditions is visible. In order to acquire a background for interpreting the significance of the patterns of occupancy at various periods, description of the natural environment of the county follows. Climate Ingham.County lies in a transitional zone between the Humid Continental Climate with Long Summers, and the Humid Continental Climate with Short Summers (Dfa and be in the 11 12 1 Koppen classification). In the following discussion the climatic conditions for East Lansing have been taken as representative for the whole county because climatological data for a reasonably long period is available only for this station. Within the county variations in local relief are not pronounced and there are no large bodies of water, so the climatic conditions experienced do not show remark- able difference from place to place. Thus the data for‘ East Lansing can be taken as fairly representative of the county. East Lansing has a mean annual temperature of 46.80, with averages of 22.2° for the coldest and 71.00 for the warmest month.2 As indicated by Table l, extreme tempera- tures as low as -25° and as high as 102° have been record- ed. Large fluctuations of temperature within short periods of time are not unusual, especially during winters, as the county is alternately exposed to colder continental winds from the north or northwest and warmer winds from a souther- ly direction. 1. Dfa climate is characterized by cold winters with the average temperature of the coldest month below 26.6 , and hot summgrs, with the average temperature of the warmest month over 71.6 . The winter temperatures for the be climate also aver- age below 26.60 for the coldest month, whereas the summers are cool6 with the average temperature for the warmest month below 71.6 but with at least four months averaging above 50°. Both climates have no dry season. (Glen T. Trewartha, An Introduc- tion.tg‘Weather and Climate (New'York: McGraw HilI—BooE Co., Inc., )9 PP. 519-5207) 2. All temperature figures are Fahrenheit. 13 .Ammma .qewaeoas .mnanesq enemy .eumm Hwoawoaope5«ao Hmooq .dmonsm nomads; .ooeoaeoo mo .pmoa .m .D I coasom .mmmauJomH doospop munch an we moaned m weaken cooeoooe Haeucfima pmoaoa one one amen an one uaomosmoa anaesaa one Hosanna oudaoun< .m .mmmHIOHma ..seoa we do conned a wastes monsoon moasuenomaop pmosoa use amonmun on» unseen sneasaa can.sssaxes opdaonn< .N .mmmaumoma .neeoh mm no omdaobd one .H ma.: 0H.m mm.» me.e Hm.m. mm.~ e:.e em.e mm.m H~.m e:.e em.m me. :0. mm. mm. we. mo. em. ow. mm. m:. mm. em. mo.Hm mm.a mm.m em.m om.m mm.m Ne.m mm.m me.m me.m ~:.m me.a we.fl mm- ma- 4 ma mm mm m: :m mm m on- mm- ea- Noe am we em em «as mos mm mm mm mm me am m.mm H.mm :.m: m.om >.m> m.om :.mm H.ee w.em m.:m m.o: ~.om m.mm m.em m.mH m.om m.o: o.am w.em m.mm o.mm :.m: n.4m m.mm m.:a m.ma m.m .. .. .. m. . meow .een .boz .poo- .p.om . .n. ..., ... .. . z . I INHNN m.NN u 4 ..ndh. cadre. .62 ..H.< .hdz .90m .92.. zdeHmon .esz24q am< Hazaadas owseobd H owdaoed Amusememfi chfipdeomaoa pdcnaeenam 14 Average annual precipitation for East Lansing is 31.02 inches (Table 1). Though rain falls in all the months, there is a summer maximum with the largest amount usually being received during May and June. Much of the summer rain is of the thunder-shower type. Winter pre- cipitation comes mostly in the form of snow, the yearly average snow fall being 46.9 inches. The city has an average of 143 days of rain, much cloudiness during the winter, and an abundance of sunshine during the summer.5 The usual length of the growing season in the county is about 150-160 days with the first freezing temperature normally occurring in early October and the last in early May.4 Wind storms and tornadoes occasionally cause damage in the area. Hailstorms sometimes occur during the summer, but they seldom do much harm.5 Exceptionally heavy rains, often combined with melting winter snow, result in flood- ing the Upper Grand Basin about one year in every three.6 Surface Configuration _Ingham County lies in the south-central part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, and was therefore covered during 3. Local Climatological Data, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau, East Lansing, Michigan, 1958, p. l. 4. J. O. Veatch et al., Soil Survey 2: In am Count , Michi an, U.S. Dept. BT'AgricuIture cooperat ng w t3 Micfiigan IngcéIture of Experiment Station, Series 1933, No. 36. Issued March 1941.( Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1941), ppe 4-50 5. Local Climatological Data, 22, 2i£., p. 1. 6. Ibid. 15 the Quaternary Period with deposits left by Pleistocene glaciationiy/ The thickness of the glacial drift over the county varies from 15 to 200 feet or more.8 Bed rock, which belongs to the Pennsylvanian System, outcrops in only a few places in the county, and nowhere has directly influenced either the drainage pattern or the character of the soil.9 Present surface features are due almost entire- ly to the depositional activities of the ice and to subse- quent stream action. “In general, three belts of hills, separated by level to gently undulating surface, cross the county from west to east. The hilly areas are parts of four of the recession- 10 a1 moraines included in the Belted Morainic Region of the 11 Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Figs. 4 and 9). Hills in Onondaga, Leslie, Bunker Hill and Stockbridge Townships (Figs. 1 and 4) are the detached outliers of the 7. Frank:Leverett, Surface Geolc and Agricultural Conditions of the Lower PenInsula of MIcHI_an, Michigan Ceol. andBI3._§Ervey, Pub.‘9, GeoIT Ser. 7 (Lansing, Michigan: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., 1912), p. 20. 8. Veatch, 93. 213., p. 39. 90 Ibide, pe 390 ' 10. A recessional moraine, usually referred to as a moraine, may be described as a hilly formation of unstrati- fied drift which is deposited along the stationary front of an active ice sheet, the advance of the ice being counter- balanced by melting along the front. 11. Bert Hudgins, Michi an: Geographical Backgrounds in the Development 23 the Commonwealth, (Ann Ar or, I c gan: ‘EdeFE Brothers:_Inc.,_I9537 , p. 20. 16 INGHAM COUNTY SURFACE Foals nuts I VALLEY IRA/NS I, .‘111 E MAJOR suuP AREAS H94 MONA INES ESKERS fILL PLAINS J.I.I. 60 DUIWSH FLA INS AIVII lI'IIlVY l7 Kalamazoo moraine, the main body of which lies to the south of the county. They are largely composed of a sandy drift and commonly reach elevations 30 to 50 feet above adjacent surfaces. On the north, these latter rise gently towards the Charlotte morainic system.12 /The Charlotte moraine is much better develOped than is the Kalamazoo moraine in the county, and forms the hill belt extending through Aurelius; Vevayy Ingham and White Oakaownships (Fig. 4).15 It has irregular borders, both in the north and south. (At many places, especially along its northern margin, it is indented by swamps and some of these extend nearly through the moraine.14 The maximum relief in the Charlotte moraine is 75 to 100 feet, although few of the 111113 are over 50 feet high and most of them are only 25 feet, or even less. Many of the depressions among the knolls are swampy, but lakes are uncommon.15 In northwestern Ingham County an undulating strip enters southwestern Delhi Township, and leads northeast past Holt to the Red Cedar valley east of Okemos (Fig. 4). The knolls in this strip are low and scattered, and at places it is hard to distinguish them from the swells of 12.Frank Leverett and F.B. Taylor, Th3 Pleistocene of Indiana and Michi an and the Histo of Great Lakes, UT'ST'GEEI'.‘ may, on. tramway? mama—rem Printing Office, 1915), p. 190. 13. For place name location the reader is referred to the In am Count Identification %32, Figure 2. l4. evere andITaonr, 22. gi_., p. 208. 15. Ibid., p. 206. 18 the surrounding plain. In Delhi and Aleiedon Townships there are bordering swamps, but lakes are uncommon. Because this poorly develOped moraine joins the Charlotte moraine on the south, it has sometimes been described as a branch of that morainic system. Others have considered it part of the Lansing moraine to the north, which is similarly slender and at places ill defined.16 (The Lansing moraine forms a portion of the third hilly belt of Ingham County, the one that crosses the northern tier of townships.‘ It is the southernmost of the two parallel bands of surface with greater relief in the northwestern corner of the county. The northern one 1. part of the Grand Ledge moraine (Fig. 4). Entering Lansing Township from Eaton County, the Lansing moraine passes east through the southern part of the city of Lansing to Okemos. It is a weakly developed moraine, broken and irregular, some three fourths of a mile wide, and with a local relief of commonly not more than 10 to 20 feet. Beyond Okemos its exact course is uncertain. EIt may run eastward along the Red Cedar River in a very faint form, to join the morainic area north of lilliamston. A more probable course, however, is north- east from Okemos, to join with the Grand Ledge morainic 17 system in the vicinity of Lake Lansing. 16. Leverett and Taylor, _p. cit., p. 208. 17. Ibid., pp. 239- 240. 19 (The Grand Ledge moraine, entering the northwestern corner of Ingham County, passes east through the north edge of Lansing, broadening to more than a mile in width ‘ and becoming unusually high east and north-east of that city.) In East Lansing, close to Michigan State University, the southern border of the moraine turns abruptly northeast- ward. In this area the moraine is broken by drainage ways, =but within a mile or two to the northeastiit reappears as a strongly defined moraine continuing towards Lake Lansing. Eastward from Okemos and.Lake Lansing, in Meridian, Williamston and Locke Townships, it become aldifficult, 1: not impossible, to distinguish individual moraines. Here, later deposits resulting from the readvance of the ice front have apparently covered earlier ones. Till of not only the Lansing and Grand Ledge moraines, but also of the Ionia moraine seem to be involved.19 In the region of overriding, the morainic features are extremely irregular and the relief becomes much greater, in some places even exceeding 100 feet.20 Depressions are commonly swampy. In general, this is the roughest portion of the county, 1 particularly northern Meridian and Williamston Townships. Four land forms of glacial origin, namely till plains (or ground moraine), outwash plains, valley trains, and eskers occupy the areas between the three morainic belts 18. Leverett and Taylor, 22. cit., p. 240. 19. Ibid., p. 244. "'— 20. “1’51?” pp. 244-247. 20 indicated above. Till plains are the most extensive, with outwash plains and valley trains next in amount of surface covered. Eskers, usually a minor glacial form, are quite numerous in Ingham County and because of the sand and gravel they contain have been of considerable commercial importance. Outwash plains and large marshes cover a significant proportion, perhaps half, of the territorv,between the Kalamazoo and Charlotte moraines in the south of Ingham County (Fig. 4).‘ The largest expanse of outwash in the county lies northwest and north from the village of Bunker Hill, in Bunker Hill, Leslie, Vevay, andiIngham Townships. This extends eastward, almost uninterrupted except by marshlands, through northern Stockbridge Township, to the county border. There is another large area of outwash in the southwest in Onondaga Township. In the southeastern part of this same township, a northern segment of Rives esker is notable, rising to a height of about 40 feet, 21. Till plains are composed of the same mixture of earth and rock material as the recessional moraines, but were laid down by a receding ice front rather than a stationary one, usually in a gently rolling carpet of debris. Outwash plains are commonly composed of debris washed out from the ice by meltwater, sorted, and deposit- ed layer on layer, to form sandy, smooth-surfaced areas sloping gently away from the glacial front. Valley trains are of similar material and origin, but were deposited along the course of well developed drainways carrying the glacial meltwaters. The exact way in which the low, narrow, sinuous ridges called eskers were formed is debatable, but it was apparently by deposition on the beds of streams, either flowing on the surface of, or in tunnels in, the glacier. 21 although much of it is only 10 or 15 feet high. This esker sets in at the Charlotte moraine and extends south- ward in disconnected sections, through Rives Junction in Jackson County, nearly to the city of Jackson.22 There are also several eskers, leading south from the Charlotte moraine in Bunker Hill Township. Except for valley-train deposits, mainly in the north- east along the Red Cedar River and its northern tributaries, and for eskers, several of which will be described later, fthe surface between the Charlotte moraine and the moraine in the northern townships is a broad till plain of low relief (Pig. 4). The till is more clayey than that in the southern part of the county, and although it is more or less stoney,:few large boulders are included.23 A considerable part of the plain is poorly drained, but the proportion of wet land to the total is not as great astetween the Kalamazoo and Charlotte moraines. A notable feature of this till tract is the number of eskers. These occur both as long chains of gravel ridges and as isolated ridges, and range in length from a few rods to more than ten miles. Known locally as the "hogback", the Mason esker is the longest in Michigan, and was among the first to 220 Leverett and Taylor, 930 Cite, pp. 192-1930 250 Ibid., p- 2480 22 be described in North America},4 Its length is not less than 20 miles, from the north end in Clinton County to the southern one in the Charlotte moraine southeast of Mason.‘ For a more detailed discussion than follows, the reader is referred to Leverett's study, the source used.25 The esker is described as it appeared before being greatly changed by extraction of sand and gravel for construction purposes. fiIn Lansing's Mount Hope Cemetary, near the mouth of Sycamore Creek, the esker rises 50 feet above the level on the east and 50 feet above the creek bed on the west. South of here for the first two or three miles the esker consists of short ridges interrupted by longer gaps, one of which gives passage to Sycamore Creek (Fig. 4). Farther south, it is more continuous, although its height varies consider- ably and in places changes abruptly, drOpping off in a few yards from 40 feet to less than 10 feet, or even terminating to reappear a few rods beyond. The width of the esker is only 50 to 100 yards, even when highest, and its lepes are very steep, at places reaching 30 degrees. The ridge is particularly prominent in Sections Swand 6 of Vevay Township, the height here being 20 to 30 feet above the bordering plain. 24. See 0. 0. Douglas, "Report on Ingham and Parts of Eaton and Jackson Counties, Michigan," Second Ang._Rept. State Geolo ist (H. Doc. No. 13 (No. 4), l§59), pp. 66- 7; EIso.L. C. fiooster, "Kames Near Lansing, Michigan," Science, :11: (1884), p. 4. "'""‘“" 25. Leverett and Taylor, pp, git}, pp. 209-211. 23 After passing through the center of the city of Mason, the esker extends south for two miles in a continuous ridge whose height originally varied between 30 to 40 feet. Farther south, in Sections 21 and 22 of Vevay Township, and beyond, the ridge is lower and more interrupted. In the vicinity of the Charlotte morainic system it expands into a plexus of ridges and knolls which inclose swampy depressions, and the moraine itself is gravelly. The next longest esker in Ingham County is the Williamston-Dansville esker. It consists of a string of ridges leading from near Williamston southwards past Dansville, a distance of about ten miles. The ridge near Williamston is about 30 to 55 feet high, but farther south, in.lheatfie1d Township, the esker's height is only 15 to 25 feet and it broadens into a series of knolls. Still farther south, particularly in southern.Wheatfield Town- ship, heights‘of 30 feet are reached in places. The esker seems to be composed almost entirely of sand and gravel.26 In LePoy Township there is an esker about 5 miles long which has a general height of 12 to 15 feet. In constitu- tion it is more 33ndy than either the Mason or Williamston- Dansville esker. Several other small eskers ranging in length from a few rods to three or more miles, are located in the eastern part of the county. The one in northeastern 26. Leverett and Taylor, _p, cit., p. 211-212. 270 Ibid., Do 2120 24 White Oak Township takes the form of parallel ridges separa- ted by swampy tracts and in places is almost 40 feet high.28 In summary, Ingham County has an average elevation of 900 feet above sea level, with the highest point, 1021 feet, in the northwest part of Leslie Township, and the lowest point, 840 feet, in the northwest part of Lansing Township. Although the surface is crossed by belts of morainic hills, there are few really abrupt or bold features. The roughest areas are in the north-central and southwestern parts of the county. For the most part, however, slopes are short, smooth and rounded, rather than angular.29 (There are a few bluffs at points where rivers cross the moraines, or where the eskers run parallel to the rivers. The most prominent of these are in the southwest along the Grand River and in the northwest along Sycamore Creek where it flows along the side of the Mason esker. For the most part, though, the appearance of the surface is undulating, with broad, nearly flat areas between the moraines, low swales and swells of the uplands, and widely distributed swamps and lakes of varying sizes. Drainage Ingham.County lies largely on the west side of the watershed of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, and is a part of the Grand River drainage basin. Portage Creek, 28. Leverett and Taylor, ngp cit., p. 212. 290 Veatch fl £0, 0 0 Ci 25 in the southeastern corner of the county, flows east and Joins the upper reaches of the Huron River. Only short stretches of the Grand River lie within the county, however, extending into the western townships in three places (Fig. l). The Red Cedar is the longest river. It enters the county along the eastern boundary, in northeastern Leroy Township, and follows a westerly course until its conflu- ence with the Grand River in the city of Lansing. The Red Cedar has a very gentle gradient, as it makes a descent of only 50 feet in a distance of some 50 miles within the county.30 There are numerous tributaries Joining it, both from.the north and the south. The southern ones are larg- er and commonly perennial, whereas most of the northern ones are seasonal. The Red Cedar and its tributaries drain most of the county, except the southern townships. The small creeks there flow south to Join the Grand River ianackson County. In general, the streams of the county are small and sluggish, with gentle gradients and winding courses. Their valleys are usually broad, flat bottomed, and often marshy. They commonly have low, gently rising sides, exceptions occurring where an esker borders the stream bed, or where the course is through well-developed recessional moraines. 30. Determined from Fowlerville and Mason (Michigan) ToPOgraphic Quadrangles, U.S. Ge010gical Survey. 26 Although there are a number of lakes in the county, only two are of any size and importance; a part of Lake Lansing in the north, and Lowe Lake in the southeast. The total area of all lakes probably does not exceed three or four square miles. The extent of marsh and other poorly drained land, however, is much greater. It has been estimated that as much as 25 per cent of the surface of the county originally was unsuitable for agriculture, other than for pasture, because of its wet condition}51 Distribution of major swamp areas can be determined from Figure 4. Even today, after much ditching and tiling, a large area in the aggregate is ‘inadequately drained. Soils Ingham County lieédn the Grey-Brown Podzolic Soil Province, which covers most of the northeastern section of the United States.32 Grey-Brown Podsols are the typically mature soils of regions with broad-leaf decidu- ous forest and humid-microthermal climate. The A horizon of these soils is generally stained with brown hydroxide of iron and the admixture of this to the organic matter gives the greyish-brown color from which the group name 310 veatCh et 31:0, 0 e Cite, p. 120 :52. c. F. Mmut, "35117:? the United States," Atlas of American riculture, Part III (Washington: Government Printing Offgce, 1935), Plate 2, between pages 14 and 15. 27 53 is derived. Because of the lithological heterogenity of the parent material and other factors of their origin, Ingham County soils differ widely within short distances in texture, structure, color, chemical composition, moisture content and other qualities. Generalizing, it can be said that sands and loamy sands cover about 7 per cent, sandy loams 35 per cent, loams 45 per cent, and organic soils 15 per cent of the area. Other than the organic soils, some 5 per cent of the total presents special cultivation problems because of unfavorable characteristics, such as high clay content, stoniness, and susceptibility to wind erosion. Not included in this total, are soils whose management is complicated by steepness of s10pe. According to standards for the southern part of Michigan, most of the soils are of medium fertility and productivity.34 Twenty-five different soil types in the county have been described and mapped. Their distribution pattern is very complex. For details the reader can refer to the published survey.35 To simplify the present discussion, two or more soil types have been grouped with associated 55. V. C.(Finch and G. T. Trewartha, ghysical Elements ) g£_Geosraphy, New'York: McGraw Hill Book ompany, Inc., 1949 , '46 o PP° 340 Veatch 212 El" 220 Cite, pp. 12‘14e 35. Ibid. 28 topographic features to form broader natural land divisions. These are described below and shown in Figure 5. The classification is based on an earlier one by Schneiderf56 Land Division 1 covers only a small proportion of the total surface of the county, as it is largely limited to eskers. The principle soils are loamy sands to sandy loams of Bellefontaine and Boyer types. Steepness of slope makes this land very susceptible to water erosion, thus limiting its use for agriculture. Some controlled grazing is possible, but the best use is for trees. Large areas of Land Division 2 are located in both the southern and northern tiers of townships. The undulat- ing to hilly surface of the moraines and bordering till plain included in this division is covered primarily by Hillsdale sandy loam along with some Miami loam and Bellefontaine sandy loam. Muck and poorly drained medium- textured materials are found in the depressions and drain- ways. Since there is a wide range in lepe conditions, the areas in the north being undulating to rolling, while those in the south are rolling to hilly, water erosion is moderate to severe and some gullies have developed. Both the Hillsdale and the Miami are fairly productive and :56. Ivan F. Schneider, “Land Division Map, Ingham County”, Michigan State University Soils Department, 195:5, amp and 3 pages of index (mimeographed). 29 INGHAM COUNTY LAND DIVISIONS Illii 4nd luKA 10nd. Fol! ndlng ridges/eIA'Ii) of loamy ;.ndg dy ’04! 501/}. Long ml and son I. lond. lo.» sandy / l v y L d n A l n n a I 7 d n a l I / I h a I y H I I a .1 U M “v lend. [pen to clay la-n Love! )405} /Ind end A: ll, '0 vol/u“, loin lend finned laws! In hilly land In 14ndy 1nd J's-p; . (rlan 60 l.|.l. Fig.5 50 durable soils and are well adapted to general and sub- sistence farming. Using a scale of I to VII, to grade from best to poorest, most of the soils of this division belong in Land Use Capability Class II and III, with lesser amounts in I and VI. Land Division 5 has the greatest extent of any of the divisions in the county and fortunately includes much of the best land for agricultural use. It is largely of Land Use Capability Class I and II. The level to gently rolling loam and clay loam soils are principally associated with the extensive till plains in the northern half of the county and they are therefore in a good position to the Lansing market. much of the surface is nearly level, with lepes'of ls ss than 6 per cent in the majority. Even so, sheet erosion on steeper places is a land-use problem, as is also proper drainage of numerous low spots which are usually less than an acre in size. Miami loam is the most common soil type, along with smaller areas of Hills- dale sandy loam, Conover loam, and Brookston loam. Large tracts of land, especially in the south central townships, are included in Land Division 4 (Fig. 5). These are areas of medium to poor fertility, being mainly of Land Use Capability Classes IV, III, and VI with some II and VII. The large variety of slope conditions, ranging from valleys to rough, hilly uplands, accounts not only for 51 variations in land use capability, but also for the severe to very severe water-erosion problem. Wind erosion also occurs, particularly on lighter textured soils. The soils are dominantly sands to sandy loams, but there are consider- able amounts of muck and peat. Fox type soil is associated with areas of outwash plain, Bellefontaine and Boyer types with the hilly moraine, and Carlisle muck and Rifle peat with poorly-drained areas. Maintenance of the steeper slopes with permanent pasture or trees, good soil manage- ment on flatter sites, and proper utilization of the wet areas, either as pasture or by drainage for cropland, are the major land use problems. Occupying nearly 15 per cent of the area in Ingham County, Land Division 5 is covered by organic soils. The predominant soil types are Carlisle muck, Houghton muck, and Rifle peat. Carlisle muck originally was forested and a considerable part of it still is, whereas Rifle peat is mainly under a dense growth of sedges and wild grasses. However, these soils are largely of Land Use Capability Class III when properly drained, and they are being success- fully used for the production of truck crops in many places. Because they are characterized both by high water holding capacity and by a lack of surface coherence when dry, they pose related problems of drainage and wind erosion control. Frost hazards, as well as the danger of fire when the soils dry out, add further to use problems. 32 Land Division 6 is made up of areas of outwash plain. These are largely confined to the four southern townships (Figs. 4 and 5). Soils are mostly well-drained, light- brown sandy loams of Fox and Oshtemo types, with some muck in wet depressions. They are of medium natural fer- tility and as a result most of the division is of Land Use Capability Class II and III. Susceptibility of level sur- faces to wind erosion, and of steeper slopes to water erosion are important land use problems. Though limited in size, Land Division 7 is very import- ant because it includes the best agricultural land in Ingham County. It is of Land Use Capability Class I. The soil is mostly Conover loam, with some Brookston and Miami loams, and is generally high in fertility. Due to the nearly level surface of the associated till plain, erosion is of importance only on lepes along drainage ways. Proper soil management and drainage are sometimes problems. Three areas comprise this division: (1) in Lefioy Township, (2) in Wheatfield Township, and (5) along the border of Vevay and Leslie Townships. Land Division 8 coincides with the rougher part of the moraine in the north-central townships of the county (Fng4 and 5). It includes both sandy hills and swampy swales, and has primarily Coloma and.Hillsdale soils, along with considerable amounts of Rifle peat. Generally low in natural fertility, organic matter, and moisture holding 55 capacity, or else poorly drained, the land of this division is largely of Land Use Capability Class IV and VI with some III and VII. Cultivation causes both wind and water erosion problems. Natural Vegetation All of Ingham County with the exception of lakes and some marshes, together comprising only two to three per cent of the total area, was originally forested. Today this is true of only about 15 per cent of the surface.37 Study of the nature of these remnant areas, observing the various combinations in which the different species live and correlating these with soil types, or with natural land divisions, makes possible a description.bf the approximate condition of the forest at the time the first settlers arrived. J. O. Veatch has used such correlations, supplemented and complemented by historical data and other information, as the basis for reconstructing and mapping the presettle- ment forest in Michigan.58 Figure 6, showing the natural forest cover of Ingham County, and the discussion of it that follows are largely adopted from this study. 3'70 VOQtCh 2E £0, fig- 0115-, p. 39- 58. J. o. Veatch, ( ap EFT Presettlement Forest 32. Michi an, (East Lansing: Department of Resource Develop- ment, Michigan State University, 1959), 2 map sheets. 54 Writing about Ingham County's forest in another source, Veatch said: It is evident that a single Species of plant may be widely distributed and grow on a large number of individual soils, but differences exist in its rela- tive abundance, its form, and its rate of growth. It appears that oaks were most abundant on the deeper and drier sandy soils; sugar maple and beech on the clayey soils and soils of intermediate texture, medium to high in fertility, and fairly well to well drained; elm, ash, basswood, shagbark hickory, swamp white oak, and silver maple on the heavier textured and darker colored sandy loam to clayey soils under poor drainage; aspen, tamarack, birch, and black Spruce were almost entirely restricted to muck and peat soils; sycamore, cottonwood, tulip tree, hackberry, walnut, and butter- nut grew most abundantly on alluvial soils, but some of these species also grew on the darker more limy semiwet loams and sandy loams of the upland.359 As shown by the map (Fig. 6) the original forest of Ingham County can be classified into four major divisions: (l) Oaks, (2) Oaks-Hickory, (5) Oaks-Hickory-Maple, (4) Southern Deciduous and Deciduous Wet Sites. Both the Southern Deciduous and Deciduous Wet Sites division and the Oaks-Hickory-Sugar Maple division have three subdivi- sions. Thus, a total of eight forest typeshre distinguish- ed, eaoh determined by the kind and relative abundance of dominant and other species in the tree association. Natural forest type 1 was comprised primarily of oaks, with black oak dominant and red and white common. 59. J. O. Veatch et a1. Soil Surve In ham Count Michi an, U.S. Dept. dT'AgYiéuItfiYe perfitéfig_wItfi“I’ Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Series 1955, No. 56, Issued March 1941 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1941), p. 41. 35 OAKS ll'll IIII‘CI I -1. (”/ch at! dour/amt, red (amnion. Hug/mun Jug-r booth. In/rrqupnr uh”: OAKS- HICKORY 2. INGHAM COUNTY NAIURIL FOREST COVER NI ”' OAKS. chxoav - SUGAR MAPLE ~nd whit: J. Suyhr ntp/e-ovtth; o-hi-h/(Aary, mop/e ma 0/1, boss-wood and uh. ”In" .74. Oaks-thus, red md b/uA, huhary. Sugar pap/e, been: mfromon'. 01h: dolinnnf. HIllIOFIOS (canon 3b, ”a" 'I' "h' b""""""v “"0" ‘ on! diversify of doc: . hickory, swlnp wh/fe Sug‘vr Annie and teeth , an, 0r(ulanv/ duvul :plevs. SOUTHERN DECIDUOUS AND DECIDUOUS-WET SITES 5]., stinr nip/o. . on. bus-road, shsgrvA syn-arc, canon-road. ro swuwp whim -. u 5. (by, up, r-1 nap/r, smut; wh/re oak, hlckary, uren, Ion-rnh. 'hlfe pm: Infra-MOI” 11 'nd bur ash , d sup/e, s/Ivrr nap/e,vsh, syrvmare. (alien-road, ru/Ip. buffernuf 1 each. 1,1.I. 60 Fig.6 36 Small amounts of sugar maple and beech, and infrequently white pine, were also found growing with the oaks. This associationabounded on the level sandy loam land of the outwash plains in the south and on the mixed level to hilly sand and sandy loam lands and swamps of certain of the morainic areas, both in the southern and north- central parts of the county. Open groves of oaks, called.ggk openings, were most commonly encountered in this forest type. These were usually on Fox soil and were therefore largely limited to southern Ingham County. In forest type 2 oaks were dominant, but hickories were also common and there was a diversity of other deciduous Species. The oak-hickory association appears to have been mostly confined to the southeastern quarter of Ingham County, on the mixed level to hilly sand and sandy loam lands and swamps of the moraine and till plain in Land Division 4 (compare Figs. 4, 5 and 6). Forest type 5 probably covered the largest area of the county. In this subdivision of the Oaks-Hickory-Sugar Maple division, the hardwood forest of dense stands of medium to large trees with little undergrowth, had sugar maple, beech, white oak, and hickory as the dominant trees, along with large numbers of elm, basswood and ash. This kind of forest was common over much of Land Division 5, 57 the level to gently rolling loam to clay loam lands of the till plains in the central, western, and northwestern portions of the county (Figs. 5 and 6). Miami loam was most common associated soil. Forest type 5a, a second subdivision of the Oaks- Hickory-Sugar Maple division, was almost as extensive as type 5. In this forest of medium sized trees, white, red and black oaks and hickory were dominant, with sugar maple, beech, and elm much less numerous than in forest type 5 described above. It correlated with the undulating to hilly sandy loam lands of the moraine and till plain in the northern and southern parts of the county that were included in Land Division 2. Hillsdale sandy loam is the principal related soil type. In forest type 5b, the other subdivision of the Oaks- Hickory-Sugar Maple division, elm, ash, and basswood were more common in relation to oaks and hickory than in either of the other two subdivisions and there were only occasional sugar maple and beech. This forest was linked with level loam to clay loam soil, primarily of Conover type and was mainly associated with till plain in the northeastern quarter of the county. It covered all of Land Division 7 (Fig. 5), as well as considerable adjacent area. Forest types 4, 5 and 6 belong to the Southern Decidu- ous and Deciduous Wet Sites division. Elm, silver maple, ash, swamp white oak, basswood, shagbark hickory, sycamore, 58 cottonwood, red and burr oak were the common association on areas occupied.by forest type 4. This growth develop- ed on wetter sites with sandy loam soils, and was most extensive on the valley train deposits in the northeast, adjacent t) the Mason esker southeast of Mason, and along the inner margin of the Charlotte moraine in Ingham and White Oak Townships. The elm, ash, red maple, swamp white oak, aspen, tamarack and infrequent white pine combination of forest type 5 was largely restricted to muck and peat soils of the major pwamp areas of the county (Figs. 4 and 6). Growing along the valleys of the Grand River, the Red Cedar River and Sycamore Creek, primarily in Lansing Township, were the elm, red maple, silver maple, ash, sycamore, cottonwood, tulip, butternut and beech trees which composed forest type 6. This association grew most abundantly on semi-wet alluvial soils. Many kinds of shrubs and grasses no doubt formed a thick undergrowth on the more poorly drained parts of all four forest divisions. Especially was this true in forest type 5, where shrubs such as red osier, dogwood, winter berry, huckleberry, and chokeberry were common. On the wettest sites, marsh grasses and sedges were prevalent, along with various shrubs, tamarack, and willow. In strongly acid bog areas there was usually a species combina- tion dominated by leather leaf, blueberry, and hypnum and 59 Sphagnum mosses. Minerals With the exception of timber and some good soil, Ingham County was poorly endowed with natural resources. There were some deposits of coal beneath the surface, and a little coal has been mined near Williamston and else- where, but because of the poor quality and quantity of the resource operations soon terminated. Sand and gravel for road building and construction purposes, and shale for making brick and tile have also been quarried in the area. The production of large amounts of sand and gravel from numerous and widely scattered pits has been by far the most important mineral industry. The Mason esker, because of its location in reference to the Lansing market, has been particularly productive of these materials. Other than this, however, mineral production has been of no consequence in Ingham County. In summary, when man came into what is today Ingham County, he entered an area characterized by cold winters, warm summers, and no dry season. It was a land of gently rolling surface formed by morainic hills, esker ridges, and outwash and till plains. Because of low relief, large areas were poorly drained. Elsewhere, a variety of soils were covered by unbroken stands of hardwood forest. The thick vegetation and the extensive swamps made the county 40 hard of access and in places unhealthy. The abundance of timber, the variety of soils, the presence of game and fish, and the availability of water power sites, however, were assets which sooner or later contributed to man's occupying the area. Different groups of men at different times interpreted the value of these resources differently. Before the pioneer white settlers, there were the Indians. CHAPTER II THE PIONEER YEARS AND BEFORE White men are only the few most recent of many generations of humans who have occupied Ingham County. Archeological records, for example, indicate that the county was once occupied by the Mound Builders, as at least five mounds, resembling those found in other parts of Michigan, have been discovered (Fig. 7). They are believed to represent either burial places or structures built for military defense. Two of the mounds, one in Aurelius Township (SE% Sec. 25) and the other in Leslie Township (NE& Sec. 17), were opened and were found to contain human bones and arrow heads, and in the case of the Leslie mound a wooden construc- tion meant to shield human bodies was also discovered.1 The once widely accepted view that the Mound Builders were a race Who preceeded the Indian by hundreds of years, 2 is no longer accepted by archeologists. It is considered 1. F. L. Adams, Pioneer Histor of In am Com (Lansing, Michigan: W mkoop H len ecE_Craw ord 50., 1924), pp. 51- 32. 2. J. R. Swanton, "The Interpretation of Aboriginal Mounds by Means of Greek Indian Customs," Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, (Washington: U. S.fi Government Printing Office, 1937), pp. 495-496. 42 INGHAM COUNTY AIOIIGINAL FEAIUIES -_~ e """<:, A'"l IIIIIALI : ~. . N -' 5“." b”. .'I : kuf-~. O r- : M, : . : . ‘9 f 1 II'. "I '5 - I " : " .... . .l .I. . / a, ..... - ._ .9 1‘ :0. ”I. e ‘ g o \ '- \ i : (D ‘ G, 2 '. 1 . o 1 z s 4 s HILES © VILLAGE — MAIL . uouwo on vat/~05 ............ IRA IL ”max/u Iuy Locum © swarms anowvo o CIRCULAR III/CLOSURE 4.1.I. 60 FHJ 45 more probable that the mounds are the work of early red men with a mound culture. The greater concentration of mounds close to the sites later occupied by the Indian, strengthens the belief that the mounds of Ingham County are the work of a pe0ple akin to Pottawattomdes. What- ever their race, the Mound Builders neither left much trace on the landscape, nor made any lasting impact on the economic develOpment of the county. Indian Occupancy The south-central part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan was peOpled by Chippewas, Pottawdttemies, and Ottawas, collectively known as Saginaw tribes. These Indian tribes were more or less intermingled and at one time of another all of them occupied the land later included in Ingham County.3 When the first white settlers came, however, they found bands of migratory Pottawthtmies in possession of the area (Fig. 8).4 For the most part the county seems to have been used as a summer resort, and a battle ground, rather than as a place of permanent abode. However, pioneer accounts speak of two kinds of settlements: villages and camping grounds. __. 5. S. W. Durant, Histor of I ham and Eaton Counties, (Philadelphia: D. w. Ens gn and-0%., BUT,- p. 62. 4. Bert Darling, Cit $2 the Forest, (New York: Strat- ford House, 1950), p. 5. EL r: 44 995 on .....n 830v cacao“ Z>>>> .1 a mwglaaxsilxba kc SIDERKSQ B TE .5153. xxzbau iitbkx E KQQ\ {\Qkuw. « on on o coon coo. nu.~_a >u>¢=m zaq m uaoadon oofianm cases a unmade: m shadesOh anonm ahehfipodMSnd: oonm a poem m ceased: a nanoaeagsH Huaspdsoaawd m unclean a expo; noaH Hepom N oneanpoausnds Haas madam a gasm .ma nonopm m enema omuhoaooo onannanAoa Hdaonoc a unooc men n apnea m uaonnannsm .upcow a unounvoao undefinepem enacted a ocean .aooe .neam m panacea oceanoe s sumac m uaoaaon eposconm does a Aegean Ha moanoxem m nnonm udooo assumed a uuonAdm a enemas: puma .moaaoooac N aheadon m unopaadm a whoanawOpOnm a henspodusnda amaoam a OwdHnAdo m nonopm hadnoapepm a xoom Ha access a enoucoaawo .mhonadsm N enopdaam a uaonnaaazm w uueawwsna H nhoadon acooo mnauaoam NH annuanon 8 unapoon H unedson nuspom a neon mN nauah eosdnsenH a cannon deem m neonm oneness waauom as seeds pun w nOAOpm endssaa one ehdlcndm .4 wanna .dsma.z .Ahaoo eoaHHeoeoHav . 0 ma «as HBOHE no epepm one we eSmdoo .epepm no .onQ .m .D «cannon .oaaoom :m cud moaaafidm one awaaaaeso Ha .manmnsoa_adnwnH ad OHHH>hoacHM moaaooa mp one moaaaam ha .nmnfiaaoso ma .mHanBOB ddaoanoz ad eoaoxo «OHaoomHmmvbam mOHHHsdm 55 .mwuHHHesw my mom Amundsoa he>o> Gardenez,.omma GH * weapoe u. m m m Hacm ..m u- m m." o. .m H, (mmzm Hmz, HQ: 24mo2H NH com com .M H . m H HmH :m :m nonnaeHHHH; mam mom HHm we mmH mmH mom m m cam mm on see oeHn; Hms HsH HmH mam NHH NHH Hmm mm mm mm eHoHueooea Hmmm mmm omm mHMH mmm emmm H e ozH o:H mm 4: .4: he>o> mam oom emH Hmm m H wwH e m mmH mmH mmm me we oonsoaeoem emmH new mm meH mHm mHm mHm :zH NJH m m Hm Hm eweonono NMH mom mm com MPH emeH eon no me AeoeoHeHa eHv neHoHeoa HHH wow New : w mmH m H Hmm mm mm AeoeeeeHHHH; eHv oaeoH emmH om: m: mmmH :mm m m new mmH mmH Hmm we we .HHnoH mam mmH :mH Hmw omH mHH :mm H: H: oHH om om hoeoH mmHH Haw 0mm >H one; mmmH me H m mm :MH PPH HHH one; mmHH m m m m mOH m H mmH HH one; HmmH Hmm Hm mmOH. omm mmm H one; m HmOH 86H mHHmc oHe new aeHo wnHeneH m 06H mmH um: mm HoH mmmH Hmm anoeoHeH< eHv meHneeH mm H mmm mmm FHNH New anew any 0 H o H new we we .aenwnH mmmH mom mom mwm mnH weH me we we aunwnH nH. HnHon nmm mmH omH New mH mmH :n H» H» m mH mH HHHm moanem womH mHm on moHH mm mmm Hem m mm m:H e a usHHoeee menu mom uwm omm, mnH, mnH, nomoHeHm .588 .58 .HHohn .938 :37 .325 .685? .eea .HHonh finesse (bpmH oomH omnH e mNmH-o:mH zo> pom om emH mnH NH mmH ammw mm“ oeH pm oonneaooom mew mm :Hm mmm m omm e me mom NH emeenoeo pom mu JMH m:H Hm HHH .oem mom mm m:H m eeHeHeoa owm . m: Hm mum NH mm Hmm mHm mmw mmH m oaeoH on mm mm m m H :m swam won Hmm mmH mm oHHeoH pm H wmm mw 4H Hem somm mmm emH MH 0H aosoH mam Hmm mmH m M weHeeeH mHm H: meH mmH m mmH mmm mHm MHN omH H paeeweH Hmw mm moH mH m o H Hmm mom omm mmH w HnHon mmm o mmH om mm omH ammH mmH :om HHH m HHHm eoansm .m HHH HHm Mfim mm mmm :mmn emu : m mNm mH eeHHonn< we we mom mm mm mom emm o m :mm oeH 6H noeoHeH< mHo.: Hom :HH.m «Hz.» mam mHH.m mmm.: m m.m m :.m mom.m oom apesoo_aeemeH Heeoa seem seem Hosea icon Hendm, eh: Om H Shem .3Adm ado: was a Gama ode ommHummmH .z4onoHa .Hazpoo aemezH m mamas mmmH :smH mmmH_ mmwd .mndmeufiom gm mo mama: 95 the number of dwellings increased more than eleven times between 1840 and 1870. The total number of dwellings in the county for decennial census years is shown in Table 4. The number of rural dwellings in 1858, 1859, and 1874 is given in Table 5. The distribution of these in the county can be determined from Figures 12, 15 and 14. The total of 5,454 dwellings of all kinds in 1860 (Table 4) was 946 more than the number of rural dwellings in 1850 (Fig. 15 and Table 5). Since the 1860 figure includes 607 houses in the city of Lansing, there was apparently a gain of 559 rural dwellings in a year. This figure is indicative of the rapiditynof settlement at that time. Except for Lansing Township, which included the city of Lansing, Vevay Township had the largest pOpulation (2551) and the most dwellings (550) in 1870. The numbers were al- most as big in Leslie Township (Table 4). The greater size of population and housing in these two townships reflected the growth of the villages of Mason and Leslie, and the influence of location along the main road and railroad between Lansing and Jackson. The townships having the least number of people and residence units in 1870 were Bunker Hill, Stockbridge, Leroy, White Oak and Wheatfield. Each had less than 1000 inhabitants and all but White Oak Township had fewer than 200 dwellings. Wheatfield was smallest with 781 people and 181 houses (Table 4). 96 INGHAM COUNTY RURAL DWELLtNGS AND ROAD PATTERN. I859 97 A partial answer to why these five townships lagged behind the others in growth was that none had a railroad by 1870. More significant, perhaps was the fact that none except Stockbridge~had a village of any size within its boundaries (Fig. 14). Subtraction of the number of rural dwellings in 1874 (Table 5) from the total number of dwellings in 1870 (Table 4), gives some indication of the number of village residences in each township. It is significant that the numbers of dwellings in Wheatfield, Leroy, and White Oak Townships were practically the same in 1874 as in 1870, rather than being less, and that there was a slight increase in Bunker Hill Township. This suggests that in these townships there were few, if any, houses in villages. The largest villages, other than Mason and Leslie, were Dansville in Ingham Township and Williamston in Williamston Township. Still another very important factor influencing the rate of settlement and the distribution of farmsteads was the amount and location of poorly drained land in each township. Blank spots on the map showing rural dwellings in 1859 (Fig. 15) correlate closely with major swamp areas of the county (Fig. 4). This is particularly true in Bunker Hill, Stockbridge, Leroy and White OaK Townships, but is also notable in Vevay, Leslie, and Delhi Townships. Subsequent to 1860 the State of Michigan Followed a policy of encouraging the conversion of swamp lands to agricultural use and as a result of this and other factors, considerable 98 INGHAM COUNTY RURAL DWELLINGS AND SELECTED CIRCULATION FEATURES | 0 E3 . 10.... 0.... ‘I I r.-. ’o e 0" .... {.0 ‘0‘; .0 '. .{I HILIS loads abandoned subsequent to 1050 IIII I In; . "I. a v r o '- 0| .0! c luds added subsequent to use H—h-O Railroads J.‘.U.60 If!!! IEERS 99 wet land in Ingham County that was vacant in 1859 had been occupied by 1874. i The map of rural dwelling distribution in 1874 (Fig. 14), however, shows that there were still large areas in Bunker Hill, Stockbridge, White Oak and Leroy Townships that were bare of settlement because they were poorly drained. It can be concluded, therefore, that the existsnce of extensive swamps in these four townships was a major factor in retarding their growth before 1874. The fact that Wheatfield had the smallest 1874 population of any township in the county is hard to explain in the same way, however, for it had much smaller amounts of wet land than did the other four, and was an area with level Surface and excellent soils, at least by present-day standards. Other than with the swamp lands, correlations of the distribution of population and rural dwellings with the natural environment are difficult to make from a study of maps. One that can be readily seen, however, is the lack of dwellings in 1874 (Fig. 14) in the area of rolling to hilly sandy land and swamps around Lake Lansing in the north-central part of the county (Land Division 8, Fig. 5). Settlers probably tended to avoid areas of steep slope, especially those with sandy soils which were droughty and susceptible to erosion, as for example along esker ridges, and to favor the level to gently rolling loam to clay loam III I . . 100 lands of Land Division 5 (Fig. 5), but this is not easy to determine from the maps used. The settlement pattern of 1859 and 1874 (Figs. 15 and 14) was remarkably different from the haphazard distribution of 1858 (Fig. 12). With few exceptions, the pattern in 1874 had assumed a rectangular shape. This was because houses were built along the county roads which had been constructed along section lines, except where swamps, marshes, and rivers, or rough topography interferred. The continuity of the rectangular pattern was often also broken near urban centers and along the state roads. Radial develOpment resulted from the tendency to string homesteads along the routes converging on urban centers. This was particularly true near Mason and Lansing. TranSportation Between 1840 and 1875 there was a remarkable change, both in the modes of travel and in the mileage of travel routes in Ingham County. As horse drawn vehicles replaced those pulled by oxen, more new roads were Opened than during any other comparable period in county history. A similar growth was true of railroads. Establishment of the State Capital in the northwestern part of Ingham County was a large factor in bringing about this rapid improvement of transportation since the railroads and main highways focused on it. lCl Roads The attention of the State, County and Township Governments was directed to the vital need for road building early in the history of the county. In 1845 the State authorized the construction of a plank road20 from Howell to Lansing which became known as the Detroit and Grand River Turnpikef“l The charter for construction was granted to the Detroit and Grand River Plank Road Company which had recently completed a plank road between Detroit and Howell. Specifications were that the road was to be made of three-inch—thick oak planks not less than 8 feet in length, and that the bed was to be wide enough for two tracks.22 This plank road followed the Old Territorial Road for the entire distance and passed through Fowlerville, Webberville, Williamston, and Okemos to Lansing. It was opened for traffic as a toll road, probably by the end of 1852.23 There were two toll gates, one at Howell and the other at Lansing, with half- toll gates at five intermediate points. It is interesting 20. Plank roads were constructed by laying planks, preferably of oak, eight to sixteen feet long and three to four inches thick across "sleepers" or "stringers" which were placed parallel to the direction of the road. They were a refinement of "corduroy" roads built in swampy areas by placing logs twelve feet or more long, as close together as possible across the roadway so as to provide a solid base. 21. R. M. Hodges, Reclamatigg'qf the State Turnpike Line No. 16, Near Williamston. Thesis submitted for the degree—of_B.S. at Michigan Agricultural College, 1925, pages not numbered. 22. Turner, 22. cit., p. 105. 25. Durant, 22. cit., p. 95. 102 that Sunday traffic and trips for other religious purposes were free. road The Lansing-Howell plank/provided a through route to Detroit and thus brought business advantages to the central part of the state. A constant stream of traffic passed over it until 1858 when the completion of the Detroit and Milwaukee Railroad attracted away a large portion of its business. After the first few years of use the planks became warped by the heat, loosened and decayed, and the road began to need constant costly repair. Plans for improvement were soon put into opera- tion and about 1870 the entire road from Lansing to Detroit became a gravel turnpike.24 Another main road traversed Ingham County from Lansing through Delhi, Mason, and Leslie. This was the principal route used by south-bound traffic, since it extended on through Jackson, Washtenaw and Monroe Counties, to Lake Erie. For the convenience of stage coaches and other vehicles serving Lansing and Jackson, this road was 25 planked, or else corduroyed, but only through the swamps. 24o Durant, 9g. 93-20, pe 950 25. According to some pioneer accounts the entire route between Lansing and Jackson was planked (Adams, 92. cit., p. 755), but from official documents it seems that CTEnd River Road was the only complete plank road ever built to Lansing (Durant, 223 cit., p. 94). IIIIIIII'l 105 A third plank road passing through part of Ingham County was the one built from Jackson, through Onondaga, to Eaton Rapids sometime during the fifties.26 Essential- ly this road followed the Indian trail which had been used by early settlers to reach Onondaga Township (Fig. 12). It was a narrow toll road, built of planks eight feet long. A parallel dirt road was added along its entire length for the use of slow, heavy vehicles. Stage coaches, running at regular intervals, used this route until 1870, when most of the business was taken over by the newly built Grand River Valley Railroad. As shown by Figure 15, a very large road mileage had been built in the county by 1859. In fact, the road pattern had assumed much of its present day form by that date. Special care was taken to lay the county roads on survey lines (township lines, range lines, section lines, etc.) of the Ordinance Survey. Existing roads not follow- ing these lines were eliminated. Roads abandoned between 1859 and 1874, as well as those added during the same period, are indicated in Figure 14. A glance through the successive series of maps (Figs. 14 to 19) indicates that the largest mileage addition of roads after 1859 was made between then and 1874. The years 1858 to 1874 can truly 26. Adams, 22. cit., p. 713- 104 be called the period of road building in Ingham County. Although a rectangular pattern of roads had been established, some exceptions to the rule are notable (Figs. 15 and 14). Major departures from.this layout were in the poorly drained sections of the county, especial- ly in Stockbridge and Bunker Hill TownShips, where the roads either bypassed the swamps or were not built until a later date. Examples where rugged surface retarded the building of roads, or caused their construction to depart from the rectangular pattern, can be noted in the south- eastern quarter of the county and in its north-central part. Other exceptions were routes converging on Lansing and Mason, which assumed a radial pattern, and main inter- county roads, which followed more direct courses between important villages and towns than were afforded by roads built along survey lines. Except for the main roads already mentioned, all roads in the county were dirt covered. Travel was very inconvenient as these became quagmires in spring and were dusty and often badly rutted during dry weather. However, their very existence was a tremendous improvement over the travel facilities of 1858 and an indication of the quicken- ing life of the county. Railroad Building Period, 1861-1875 Transportation conditions in the county in 1859 have been described as follows: 105 ...there were no railroads in Ingham County in 1859, not even the old "Ramshorn" being in Operation. This was a serious drawback to the prosperity of the county, to say nothing of the inconvenience. All products of the county (maple sugar and black salts) had to be carted to Jackson, a distance of twenty-five miles. The road was through a dense swamp for a long distance, and this was bridged with logs, forming what pioneers knew as corduroy road....it took two days with a good team to make the trip, and often the third day saw them still on the road.27 The first railroad in the county was the Amboy, Lansing and Traverse Bay Railroad which followed in part the plann- ed route shown in Figure 15. It was completed in 1861 from North Lansing to Owosso, where it joined the Detroit and Milwaukee Railroad, and thus provided rail connections with Detroit, St. Johns, Ionia, Grand Rapids and Grand Haven.28 The line was extended from North Lansing to Lansing, a distance of one mile, in 1865. Construction south of Lansing along the planned route (Fig. 15) was never accom- plished. In 1866 the northern portion of the railroad was incorporated into the Jackson, Lansing and Saginaw Railroad. Construction of the Jackson, Lansing and Saginaw Rail- road was begun in 1865. This line was to run from Jackson through Leslie, Mason, Delhi, and Lansing, to North Lansing 27. D. B. Harrington, "Pioneer News Papers of Ingham County," written for Ingham County News in 1874 and reprint- ed in Adams, 220 Cite, p0 1540 28. Manual for the use gf the Legislature 2f the State 3; Michigan, I875-Z§.(Lanslng: W. 8. George &_Co., 1875), Map between pp. 196 and 197. I ll l.|III.l|l|[4[ 106 a distance of 58 miles. It was opened as a single-track line in June 1866.29 The Detroit, Lansing and Lake Michigan Railroad began operation between Lansing and Ionia in December, 1869, and between Lansing and Detroit in August, 1871.50 After com- pletion it had a length of 160.6 miles of single track from Detroit, through Lansing, to Ionia, where it joined the Detroit and Milwaukee Railroad. The Peninsular Division of the Chicago and Lake Huron Railroad was completed as a single-track line and put into operation by 1869. It joined Lansing, through Battle Creek, Cassopolis and Niles, to Chicago, and by a branch to South Bend. The Grand River Valley Railroad was a single track line Opened for traffic in 1870 between Jackson and Grand Rapids. It passed through Onondaga, Charlotte and Hast— ings,31 and had important bearing on the development of commercial agriculture in Onondaga Township. Southwest of Lansing a short stretch of the Northern Central Michigan Railroad was built in Lansing Township. This railroad extended from Jonesville, through Albion and Eaton Rapids, to Lansing and was completed in 1875. It 29. For further details see: Joint Documents of the State 2: Michigan, 1875 (Lansing: W. 3. George and-COTT_1876) Vol. 1 Document,No. 6, and Durant, 22. 333,, p. 96. 300 D'urant, 22o Cite, p. 970 :51. Manual of th'e‘Te islature 93 the State 3; Michigan, 1875-1876, 22. cIt.:_Ep. TOE-208 and the map:3? railroads, between pp. lse‘lfiv. 107 followed a slightly different route in Ingham County than had been planned for the previously mentioned Amboy, Lansing and Traverse Bay Line south of Lansing (Figs. 15 and 14). Thus, by 1875 the county had nearly 75 miles of single- track iron rails, all with a standard gauge of 4'8%", and 547 acres of railroad right of way. As most of the rail- roads either passed through Lansing, or terminated there, the capital city became an important railroad center, next only to Detroit and Grand Rapids in Michigan.32 Except for subsequent name changes, the double tracking of some stretches, the extension of the Chicago and Lake Huron Railroad northeast of Lansing, and the addition of short spurs, the Ingham County railroad pattern of 1875 was essentially the same as it is today. No new railroads were built in the county after 1875.55 The earliest railroads lacked the speed and most of the comforts of modern trains. The name of the Amboy, 52. Beers, o . cit., p. 10. 55. H. F. Wagling, Atlas of the State of Michigan (Detroit; R. M. & S. T. Tackabury::l8v5 5), contains a discus- sion of "The Railroads of Michigan, by Ray Haddock, Esq., pp. 29- 55; a map of Michigan railroads, pp. 26- 27; and a map of Ingham County showing railroads, p. 99. Beers Atlas of 1874 shows the Chicago and Lake Huron Railroad completed only to Lansing by 1875. The stretch between Lansing and Flint was completed in 1879. Therefore the remaining por- tion of the railroad appears on the 1895 map (Fig. 15). 108 Lansing, and Traverse Bay Railroad, abbreviated to A.L. & T. B., was jokingly interpreted as meaning "Awfully Long and Terribly Bumpy".34 Regardless of jests the building of the railroads tremendously stimulated and changed the economic organization of the county in a few years time. Breaking the isolation of the area, the railroads hastened the develOpment of commercial agriculture and manufacturing industries. Trains carried agricultural products as outgoing freight and brought back all kinds of mdnerals and needed raw materials, as well as manufact- ured goods. Production of grain, pork, butter and cheese in the rural areas of the county increased substantially, as now perishable farm products could quickly be hauled by train to the Lansing, Detroit and Grand Rapids markets and less perishable goods could be transported to points much more distant than before. Away from the railroads communication was still slow and tedious, however. Ox Carts were often used for haul- ing heavy freight such as timber and wheat. For passenger travel and mail transportation, horse-drawn coaches were used. These coaches, traveling an average of 8% miles an hour, were in some cases commodious enough to carry as many 55 as twenty passengers. 540 Darling, 220 Cite, pe 55c 350 Durant, 9E0 Cite, pe 950 109 Agriculture The settlers soon realized that the greatest natural asset of Ingham County was its soil. As pOpulation in- creased and transportation improved, every effort was made to increase the income from this resource. Not only was a larger and larger acreage brought under the plow, but improved farm implements were put into use. The production of cash grain crops and livestock rapidly replaced the pioneer subsistence type of agriculture, and early attempts at fruit growing, vegetable gardening, and poultry farming were made. Although much of the public land in Ingham County had passed into private ownership prior to 1858, it went largely into the hands of land speculators, so that actual cultivation and development of a major part of it was not made until later. Between 1858 and 1859 a flood of settlers ,occupied the land. The number Of farmsteads increased from 200 to 2,508. By 1874 the total had grown further to 5,496 (Table 5). Consideration of these statistics becomes even more interesting when we note that at no time in history have there been many more than 4,229 farmsteads?6 This fact makes it evident that occupation of much of the agricultural land of Ingham County was accomplished by 1859 56. The number in 1910. 110 and most of it by 1874. The pioneers settled on all kinds of soils except those of swamps and marshes, the breeding places of malaria-conveying mosquitos. The "Shakes", or malaria, which slowly sapped the vitality of persons who contract- ed it, was an affliction common in the vicinity of poorly drained areas of Michigan. Since uniform settlement of land was desirable both for the development of good com- munications and for enhancing land values, efforts to encourage and speed development of the poorly drained lands were made early in the history of the state. Prior to 1851 the National Congress had conferred 5,794,508.5737 acres of swamp land on the State of Michigan with a view of securing a more certain and speedy sale of these remaining portions of the public domain.38 The act of Congress making the grant provided for the control of swamp lands as state property, and the creation of a separate fund from the proceeds of their sale, This fund was to be used, "for the specific purpose of the drainage and improvement of lands so that they may be fit for cul- tivation."59 57. Joint Documents of the State of Michigan, 1870, (Lansing: W. S. George & CO.) Vol. 2, 57 58. 58. Documents Accompanyipg the Journal of the State of Michiggn, 1859, (Lansing: Hosmer & Kerr, I859), Document fi- 5, p0 T0 59. Joint Documents of the State of Michigan, 1856, N00 (Lansing: Hosmer & Fitch,-185T), DocumEHt , pp. 15-14. 111 In Ingham County the total grant of swamp lands amounted to 16,699.02 acres,40 and by 1875 some 16,159.02 acres had been sold at prices varying between $1.25 and $2.00 per acre.41 The Ordinance of 1787, passed by the government of the Northwest Territory, provided that Section 16 in every township be withheld from sale and set apart for the support of public schools.42 School lands were opened for sale only after the townships had gained enough population to warrant the establishment of schools. A law of 1827 required that the citizens of any township having fifty householders should provide themselves with a school teacher. Since few townships in Ingham County had fifty householders prior to 1858, and because of a general absence of land entries in Section 16 of the different townships by this date, it can safely be concluded that much of the county school lands were not sold for home- 45 steading until after 1858. However, by the end of 1875, 40. Joint Documegtg‘gf the State 9: Michigan, 1870, 22. cit., Vol. 2, p. 57. _4T. Joint Documents of the State Of Michi an, 1875, "Annual Report of the Commfssioner_OT'the-Statgfifiand—Office," (Lansing: W. 3. George & Co., 1876,) V01. 1, pp. 2, 4 and 55. 42. Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Michigan: 5 History 22 Governments, (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin CO., The Riverside Press, Cambridge, 1905), p. 508. 45. According to a list of original land entries, Sec. 16 of Alaiedon, De hi, Lansing, Leroy, Locke, Meridian, Wheatfield, White Oak and Williamston Townships had not been sold before 1858. Information concerning the dates of dis- posal of Sec. 16 in the remaining townships is not available. 112 except for 200 acres of primary school lands, all school lands had passed into private hands.44 They were sold at prices varying from $1.25 to $4.00 an acre. Both the number of farms and the total acreage in farms had increased remarkably by 1874. Between 1850 and 1874 the number of farms in Ingham County grew from 991 to 2,980 and the land included from 117,989 to 262,145 acres (Table 6). Since the increase was proportionally greater in the number of farms, average size of the farms decreas- ed from approximately 120 acres in 1850, to 111 in 1860 and to 88 in 1874. Leslie Township with 279 farms, had the greatest number in 1874 and was followed in order by Alaiedon, Aurelius, and Onondaga Townships, each with more than 250 farms. Of the other townships, Lansing, with 155 farms, had the smallest number and Williamston Township was next with 145 farms. The number of farms in the different townships indicates the degree to which the rural area of each had been occupied by 1874. Out of a total of 540,277 taxable acres of land in Ingham County that year, 262,145, or 77 per cent, was land in farms. Acres included in farms varied from 21,727 in Onondaga Township to 11,197 in 45 Lansing Township where the city covered a sizeable area. 44. Joint Documents of the State of Michi an, 1875," Annual Report of the CommTEsiOHer of t3? State Land Office," 22- 912-. p- 51- 45. Census of the State 2: Michigan, 1874, 223 £13., ppe 163 and 1290— II I All-I'll I III I In I I I 115 TABLE 6 NUMBER OF FARMS & ACRES IN FARMS, 1850 - 1878 Ingham County, Michigan ‘1850 ‘1860 1878 Farms Acres Farms Acres Farms Acres in in in Farms Farms Farms Ingham County 991 117,989 1,576 178,886 2,980 262,185 Townships Alaiedon 78 7,806 :33 18,559 ur u .9 s A eli s 117 11 187 20 002 Bunker Hill 101 18,588 Not given Delhi 70 7,271 205 20, 09 Ingham 130 18,875 209 19, 06 Lansing 12 7,690 155 11,197 Lansing City l,h62 Leroy 7 7,5 6 176 20,27 Leslie 12 12,9 8 279 17,65 Locke 71 6,606 205 ,257 Meridian 90 10, 52 18 1 ,755 Onondaga 128 15, O5 25 21,722 Stockbridge 151 16,5 175 16,18 Vevay 102 12,7 2 212 18,036 Wheatfield 50 5,061 188 18,6 0 White Oak 102 12,858 175 15,06 Williamston 86 9,569 185 15,09 Sources: Seventh Census 2; the United States: 185 , p. 8973 Census an a 3 cs 0 e e e‘2_ chi an: 1860, p. IIU; Census of EEO StEte of MI'EHTgan: 1878, p. 165. 114 Comparison of the rate of increase in farm totals and land in farms in the different townships for uniform periods of years would be interesting, but statistics available permit this only for the years 1860 to 1874 (Table 6). During this time the greatest increase in number of farms was in Alaiedon Township where 181 were added. The next most attractive townships for settlement and the number of farms added in each were: Leslie, 151; Delhi, 155; Locke, 152; and Aurelius, 151. The gain in acres in farms was greatest in Delhi, 15,658; Leroy, 12,929; Alaiedon, 10,755; Wheatfield, 8,815; and Aurelius, 8,815. A glance at Figure 5 reveals considerable correlation of settlement activity with townships having large areas of level to gently rolling loam.to clay loam land. This was probably due to the growing recognition of the value of this kind of land for cash grain and livestock agriculture which was replacing the earlier subsistence farming. It is interesting that Stockbridge Township, one of the first to receive pioneer settlers, but one with much sandy soil and poorly drained land, had the smallest increase in land in farms between 1860 and 1874. As a consequence of the shift to commercial agriculture, wheat became the most important cash crop in Ingham County. Land devoted to it increased to 11,094 acres in 1855, to III I I I III II I I II. III I 'l' I III III I 'l' I l I I l I III. 115 46 18,684 acres in 1865, and to 54,944 acres in 1874. Wheat output increased more than twenty times between 1840 and 1874, when 478,922 bushels were harvested (Table 7). Corn was planted on 15,518 acres in 1875 which was almost double the 8,995 acres devoted to this crop in 18657 The yield of 621,725 bushels in 1874 was more than three times as great as in 1864, the result not only of increased acreage planted, but of the introduction of high-yielding seed strains. Production in 1840 had been only 18,925 bushels. The great increase is an indication of the degree of expansion of the livestock industry, since most of the corn was used as animal food and was marketed in the form of pork and other animal products rather than as grain. Combined output of oats, rye, barley and buckwheat was 572,458 bushels in 1874.48 Oats formed a major part of this total because of its increasing use to feed the grow- ing number of horses. The production of barley had also risen, whereas that of the pioneer crOps, buckwheat and rye, had declined (Table 7). The trend in the growth of potatoes was up, as the population consuming them increased, even though the yield fell more than 50 per cent between 1870 and 1874. This fall 46. Census 2: the State 2: Michigan, 1874, 22. gi£., pp. 184 and lxx . 47. Census 3: the State 3i Michigan, 1874, Op. cit., pp. lxxiv and 184. 480 Ibide, pe IXVIie 49. I513., p. lxvii. l (1" l I Ilullllill I. I'll“ [III II." 'II'. pa.— 116 II. .rmwwme .da .meH memmmwwmuuo cream on» no menace memuHmm .an .ommH anemHnoHs no spasm on» we uoaumapspm One usudoo «mnNnHDNIhea was.hhmpmmOo ednfihom mowpmmmswm spam Oman momma enema” HmmumeIn a .mmelamm.HmOHE mo opmwm_omm mo uOHpmesp as udmdop «MHH uNHH .em .ommH.hmeImeHE.mo spasm O we mommmeemm wamIMOMMODIMHHH .e .mmmd «as Hmoax no oueum can no nausea “40m .m .0 ma aneuspm OopHnD on» no nausea nanopow «mooasom mHH.m oo:.mm ssmH smm.m mam zen Hom.m omo.m www.mm mmm.: osmH mm».HmH mm. m somH mm: mm:.H omm.m :Hm.o H :mm.H mm:.mH ommH HHm.mm moo.mH :mmH mam :mm.mH Hmm.H acm.meH own mam an .m mmo.H ommH mm ozmH umdhw nospo hosom a ecumeaos .no>OHo Nd; com no newsm edge: Ream seem hem ansom uses no .nnq meHHdw Ho .unq no .nnn Ho.nnu Ho acos neem.ne§m meow mm .msm m m.mmH mms.Hmm mmm. a: :smH : . HmH.m omm.mH mmm.mmm wsm.Hmm mom.mmm heme Hon.ms: osmH mmo.oHH Hmw.mm mm .mmH mom.Hmm :mmH ms:.m smm.: so .m .mmm ems.m0H mmw.s m:o.o H o mH ssm.mm .m S .:OH mom.m : mH smm.mH new m m.om Hm>.:m :mm.mm ppm. m ommH. m: Hmm.:~ mmm.mH s:m.oH smH. m. osmH nacho neon; , noopdpom choc scape HHa -aeem soanm acorn one neHeaH area can race; so .nnem .deem .nnem nuHaH .nnem no .nedm .nnem .nudm Ho .nuem use» ssmHuoemHazaeHmoHs awazpoe aamqu .mopoomm Hamperono< s mamas [ {II II I I.I [III II‘ III.I.I III.. 117 was less, however, than that in the state as a whole dur- ing the same period. It may be explained either by a bad crop year in 1874, or by a less thorough census that year than was taken in 1870. In general, hay and clover production had also steadi- ly gained and reflected the increasing importance of cattle and horses in the farm economy. A decrease in hay production between 1870 and 1875, like that in potato production, was less than the states average decrease and is no doubt explainable in the same way as in the case of potatoes.50 The production of flax grown for homespun had complete- ly ceased by 1875, as textiles could now be easily imported. Likewise, the importance of maple sugar, molasses, honey and bees wax had diminished as shipped in sugar became cheaper and easier to obtain (Table 7). The local produc- tion of sweetening materials was no longer profitable. As might be expected, fruit growing and gardening developed as the population of Ingham County grew. The products were for local and home consumption, however, as the first recorded shipmgpts of fruit out Of the county was not made until 1875. Facts concerning the status of horticultural activities in the county in 1874 are given 50. Census 2f the State ngichigan, 1874, op; cit., p0 1XV1110 510 AdamS, 220 Cite, p0 1060 118 in Table 8. Apple trees occupied the largest orchard acreage and yielded 182,561 bushels of fruit in 1874. Much of each apple crop was used for making cider, 6,851 barrels being pressed in 1875.52 Leslie, the township with the largest rural population, had the largest acreage of orchards and harvest of apples in 1874 (Table 8). The change in number of domesticated animals in Ingham County up until 1874 can be determined from Table 9. Horses and mules, which were used on the road as well as in the fields, increased from 112 to 7,679 between 1840 and 1874, Their number became greater than that of oxen, the most important work animal up to that time, about 1860, After 1864 the number of oxen decreased rapidly, dropping from 2,148 in 1864 to 959 in 1874, as they were replaced by horses. The count of milk cows more than trebled between 1850 and 1874, when there were 8,697, reflecting the tendency towards dairy farming. Because of the lack of refrigeration, however, sale of fresh milk was limited. Surpluses over farm needs were made into less perishable butter and cheese and marketed in that form (Table 10). Thus, butter production increased from 218,652 pounds in 1854 to 1,025,059 in 1874 (568 per cent) and cheese output 52. Census 2: the State 2f Michigan, 1874, pp. cit., p. lxxv. 119 .JNN .e .imma ”semanoaz mm ouepm www.mm nausea ”cannon m wMH HHm.oH Hem acaceeHHHH; mmH oom mH mm mm~.mH m are ceHn; m: oem.m : mm eHcHuaeon; om» m m «OH.mH m mew ae>o> mm:.H mmm Hm om :so.mH o: om.m we oonaeaeoam mm .H mmH msm.mH Nmm emeeaoeo mm .mH 4H NH mam. mH mH.mH m naHeHaoz mm mmH w: .m wmm esooH mm mm.mH mam oHHcoH pm m .:H meH.m ms.m mmH noaoH mmm.H mmm am oo.: mm aaHe mcheeH H .m mmH m on mmm.> m: om.:H Ham meHnaeH m::.H Hem an no .sH oo.m mH .sunweH mm o: .m 60H om HeHon mmw mHH mH N: mm .mH m om.o Hmm HHHm scream mm .HH mHm nsHHons< mmm.H HwH s we :wm.m n om.H we: eoeoHeH< msm.Hm ems.H Hm mmm Hem.mmH new mm.:: mH:m nuance eanwaH unashm madam nosed nosed honpo aOHssono Ode andom eoaem4 canspewo> nosed noose HHd monosom, a eonmsm hsaem khaono a Seam Ooospoam upasam Ho mdonusm unoaos a casheda> .Aeom .oammw semH .zaonon .wazpoo samozH .mmpeHDOHemom m mqmda 120 II .mmw AmnumNmH .naanoHa mmloeaem one no nuance aozmummm .ad .osmH «:OmHnOHE mo O Opm Om» mo OwHumemelmmmlmpmaOo«dowumbmlwmm UGO Amoazwfim ozma .MIw «mmlmmwflfilho opmum esp mo Oompmapmpm was numdo “HHH .m .bme «nmrwfimwfilmo ouepm on» mo OOH m Opm UGO OsmsOp “MHHWNHH .mm .mmma «as Hmoaz HO open On» mo OOHpOHpOum uwmm .m .0 ma «mopepm Oopanp On» mo Osmcoo gazebom «noondom .AO>O Odd Odo peek Ono OHOEHGO usonm .O .AObO use Odo mnpcoa KHO tho Osonm .n .oauueo neon OO Oasoh hOmpo you Ononp «canvas sonpo OO UOHOQOH one? Omens .e mm.HH m m. m em .m mmm omm.m as .s smH ammm.0H anm.MO :mm.m oom.H ammo.m emsm.m usmH emmm.m a:ms.mw onm.m mmH.m :mm.m onmp.m :mmH wee. orm.mm mmm.m m m.H «Ham. mms.m ommH name. we .mH no . Hm.m mom.m e4sm.H :mmH m H.m m: .0H mam.~ mHm.H anom.m HHm cmmH mmm.: msH mHm.m mHH oemH onioo Odd demo mean; was oflahm Goofim @300 Mag ECHO 3H0? 3H. H0590 Odvudo noum< anomhom HGOH ssmHaosmH .zaeHmoHa awezpoo samozH zH names 20 MooemmsHH m mqmae 121 from 12,945 pounds to 114,205 (780 per cent) over the same period (Table 10). TABLE 10 DAIRY PRODUCE AND WOOL, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN, 1850-1874 Dairy Produce ‘Year Butter Cheese Cream Milk IWOOI lbs. lbs. _gallons lbs. 1850 155,281 - - 28,447 1854 218,652 12,945 52,947 1860 400,055 57,788 89,805 1864 520,670 51,580 206,540 1870 780,056 17,985 15,158 279,069 1874 1,025,059 114,205 257,169 Sources: Seventh Census of United States: 1850, p. .905; Statistics of the State oT‘Michi“‘?‘I85ZT‘Epz 1123145; Census and Sfatistics of_The Stafie of MIchigan: 1860, p. 115; Census and Statistics'af the State of Michigan: 1864, pp.202- 205; Census and Statistics of the State of Michigan: 1870, 185. Hog raising gained popularity as is shown by the increase from 4,558 head in 1840 to 11,588 in 1874 (Table 9), and the 1,208,072 pounds of pork marketed in the latter year, as against 442,275 pounds sold in 1865.53 A tremend- ous stimulus to pork production between 1865 and 1875 55. Census gf the State g£_Michiggn; 1874, 22. cit., p0 1mi- 122 was given by the Opening of the railroads which could quickly haul this commodity to city markets.' Although the sheep industry had been rapidly gaining importance, as elsewhere in the state, the number of sheep in Ingham County appears to have temporarily decreased from 65,659 to 54,545 between 1870 and 1874. The decline is unaccountable as the woolen mills at Lansing and in other parts of Michigan provided a ready market for wool. This may be still another illustration that the results of censuses conducted by the national government and by the state government are not strictly comparable. The next census in 1880 recorded 76,498 sheep and goats in the county (Table 21). A glance through 1854 to 1875 issues of the Farmer's Companion an§_the Horticultural Gazette, both published in Detroit, indicates the growing interest in poultry raising. Information on better breeds of chickens and cures for poultry diseases were published regularly. From the pioneer accounts it is evident that there were no special poultry farms at that time, but that chickens were reared as side items on every farm to produce eggs and meat for home consumption and for sale to make some extra money. Although the average size of the farms decreased during the years considered in this chapter, the amount of 125 land per farm that was cropped and in pasture no doubt increased. In 1870, farms in Ingham County averaged 87.85 acres in size, of which 47.66 acres were improved land and 40.19 acres were woodland.54 Since labor was expensive, improved implements became a necessity as the amount of cultivated land per farm increased. Better plows, feed mills, stump pullers, reapers, mowers, har- rows, seeders, and other farm machines were perfected .and came into common use.55 Oxen were replaced by horses as motive power in the fields. From the beginning land in Ingham County had been sold in rectangular plots. By 1875 the county was a checker board of fields, delineated either by stump, brush and dead wood fences, or by rail fences. The dead wood fence was a natural product of the forest clearing process. It was composed of stumps pulled from the ground and windrowed along the edges of the field. If there was an inadequate supply of stumps, the fence was filled out with brush and limbs that would otherwise have to be burned. After the number of cattle, 54. Michigan, Department of State, Statistics of the State of Michi an, 1870, (Lansing, W. S. George and 00. I873), p0 0X71 55. An interesting account of the fraud that was inflicted on the farmers as a consequence of their great interest in new machines and techniques is, W. Hayter, "Mechanical Humbugry Among the Western Farmer, 1860- -70, Michigan History Magazine, Vol. 34, (March, 1950), p. 15. I.) (f '- 124 hogs and sheep increased, and more of the forest was clear- ed, an improved type of fence called the Virginia rail, or rail, fence became pOpular. These zig-zag fences were simply constructed, used only farm produced wooden rails, and required little or no metal and no post hole digging.56 As the height of the zig-zag fence was 4 to 5 rails, they were visible from a distance and became a remarkable part of the landscape. They were no doubt the most common kind of fence in Ingham County in 1875. The farmsteads of 1875 looked very different from those of 1859. Large barns to shelter cattle and horses and store their winter food, pig pens, chicken coops, and wind mills became usual features associated with the farmstead. The farm homes often resembled those of New York and the New England States, reflecting the origin of the folk who lived in them. They were usually roomy and well constructed of finished lumber and had large fireplaces and brick chimneys (Plate 5). The commodious barns with high gabled roofs were also built of sawed lumber but the planks were not planned and finished as was the case with the lumber used in homes (Plate 4). Plates 1 and 2 show a log cabin built in the 18403 with 56. John Fraser, Hart and Eugene Cotton Mather, "The American Fence", Landscapg (Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1957), V01. 6’ NO. 3’ p. 60 125 Plate 1 Log cabin on Shaftsburg Road, Williamston Township. The cabin was built in 1840; the roof was replaced about 1910. Plate 2 Log Cabin built in 1840 with an annex added in the middle 1870's. The two structures indicate the improved use of lumber accomplish- ed within thirty five years. 126 Plate 5 Farmhouse built in 1875, on Zimmer Road, Section 10, Williamston Township. Plate 4 Barn on Haslett noad, Williamston Township, dating from 1875. 127 an annex that was built around 1875. Plates 5 and 4 show a house and a barn built between 1874 and 1880. These buildings, were all still in existence on three different centennial farms in Williamston Township visited by the writer in 1960. The contrast between Plates 1, 5 and 5 is indicative of the vast improvement in materials used, and in the size and utility of buildings which was achieved in Ingham County between 1858 and 1875. In short, the build- ings constructed during the latter years of this period were infinitely better than the rude shelters for men and beast raised by the pioneer before 1858. Rural Service Centers Between 1858 and 1875 the rapid expansion of the rural population stimulated the growth of agricultural service centers. The more important of these developed around saw mills erected on the banks of creeks where enough water power to run the machinery could be obtained. Usually a grist mill was also established, and in some cases planing, matching and moulding departments were added to the saw mill, thus laying the foundations of nucleated settlements around which villages were platted at later dates. By 1875 Ingham County had five such places which had grown into sizeable villages: Mason, the county seat after 1840, Stockbridge platted around 1840, Williamston platted in 1845, Dansville platted in 1859, Leslie platted in 1866, l l Il.[l|l" [[l I! It ‘ III II II]. 128 57 and Webberville platted in 1871 (Fig. 1). Although manufacturing activities of these villages varied, each had at least one saw mill, one grist mill, and one establish- ment that made harness and farm implements. Manufacturing was often combined with repair services, as in blacksmith shops, which fabricated as well as repaired farm imple- ments and carriages. Butter and cheese factories and fruit drying activities were to be found in some of the villages also. Village commercial enterprises generally included one or more bars, a hotel or two, and several grocery. stores, drug stores and general merchandise stores, one of which usually housed the post office. The number and nature of stores varied from village to village, those with railroad service usually having more establishments and a greater variety. Between 1865 and 1871 Mason, Leslie, Williamston and Webberville all became railroad st0ps and this increased their size and importance. Near the rail- road depot grain elevators, and other storage facilities were erected, and grain, livestock, fruit, pork and other 58 farm products were brought here to be shipped out. 57. The information about the villages was obtained from Durant, pp. 213., pp. 221, 228, 248-249, 255, 265-267, 285-285, 501, 558 and 542. 58. Michigan Gazetteer, 1875, op. cit}, pp. 496-541. II III I'll-ll II I ll Illl‘ l ['1' I'll . till [I I ll A (I! 129 Skilled, as well as unskilled, labor resided in the villages, and professional services of doctors and lawyer could be obtained. The civic life of the surrounding farming neighborhood centered around the school, the church, or the tavern in the village. In addition to the city of Lansing and the five larger villages a number of hamlets were also established during this period.59 These smaller settlements developed primari- ly because they performed either, or both, of two functions: they were post offices or they were railway stops. Hamlets such as Aurelius Center, Bunker Hill, and Fitchburg became post offices and grew because of this and because of their locational advantages at major road crossings. Along the tracks of the Detroit, Lansing and Lake Michigan and the Lansing, Jackson and Saginaw railroads, stops were made and depot facilities were erected at approximately six miles intervals. Chapins Station, (now called Eden), Delhi Station (now called Holt), and Okemos are good examples (Fig. 1). Although these stations served as post offices too, they gained importance mainly as rail- road stops and functioned primarily in the storage and shipv ment of agricultural goods brought from nearby farms. A grain elevator, warehouses, and a stock loading pen were 59. Information about the hamlets was gathered from Beers, Atlas 92 Ingham.County, 1874, 22. cit., and Adams, 2.2. 0113- I" I'll!" li‘llll'lll'l,'llllllll I! l l‘lIllll 150 usually constructed along the tracks adjacent to the depot. Sometimes a few homes were built and a store or two was established to cater to the farmer patrons of the station. Occasionally a school was also located in such places. Extractive Industries Forest Products The first white settlers saw the forest as an obstacle to be removed as rapidly as possible so as to get on with the job of tilling the soil. Soon mans' attitude began to change, however, but not before large areas of the forest had been felled and burned without putting the trees to any good use. Then for a few years before the development of commercial agriculture, a major part of the settlers cash income came from the sale of forest products. Good money could be obtained for black walnut and other quality woods when they were carted by the farmers to Jackson or Dexter, the nearest markets. Black salts, or potash, was obtained from wood ashes on almost every pioneer farm. This product brought good prices because the lye leached from the ashes was used in soap making. As the population increased commercial lumbering activities did likewise, although the larger absolute value of the forest products declined relative to the expanding income from sale of agricultural products. Soon the forests of the southern townships were largely cleared. Lumbering activities then moved to the northern townships, from whence lumber was delivered as III I! ‘Illllll ll I'll {A II III [I ll'll' ll '1'. III‘ I I'll' 151 far as Grand Rapids and Chicago, but here too the best stands of trees were rapidly removed. The amount of lumber sawed in the mills of Ingham County rose from 1,600,000 feet in 1850, to 11,418,000 feet in 1860, and to 15,297,000 feet in 1874. Thus, by 1875 the lumber industry in the county was near its peak of activity with some 50 saw mills operat- ing and employing 126 men (Table 12). The availability of cheap German potash had, however, made the manufacture of black salts for sale unprofitable. Charcoal, obtained by charring wood in an earth covered kiln, continued to be a forest product of some importance, this “coal“ being used by blacksmiths, tinners, and other metal workers. Coal Although coal underlies parts of Ingham County, the only mine ever of any consequence was in Section 16, Williamston Township. lining of a small amount for black- smithing purposes was started in 1846-4'7.60 Encouraged by the opening of the plank road, mining for a wider market began in 1852. In 1855 some 60 tons, valued at $180.00, were dug.61 In 1870 there were eight6gersons employed at an average wage of $56.00 per month. The mine was given new life in 1875 when two men from Ohio made an investment 60. Adams, 22. cit., p. 825. 61. Michigan, D-e_t. of State, Census 23 1:33 State 2; Michi an, 1854 (Lansing: Geo. W. Peck), p. 147. 52. Census and Statistics 2: the State 33 Mid1igan, 1870, gpf‘g£§., p. 551 I ll Isl-[Ill II‘ I‘ III I l [l'v 'Illll [III II I (I‘ll! A 'In 152 in it of $45,000. The labor force was raised to 50 men and 9,000,000 pounds of coal were unearthed that year.63 The lower stratum of coal in this locality was said to be two to three feet thick and of a very good quality for ordinary purposes.64 The mine was in full production at the end of the period under discussion, the tonnage extracted in 1874 being worth $18,000. Quarries and Mineral Wells In 1875 there were at least two gravel quarries in Operation: one on Section 16, Vevay Township and the other at Lansing. In 1874 there was a production of near- ly 79,800 cubic feet of stone at Lansing.65 A stone crusher had been installed near Mason at an earlier date and this provided farmers in the vicinity with a ready market for stones gathered from their land. After being crushed the stone was used for road building. Perhaps the first use of any considerable amount of gravel from the Mason esker was by the Jackson, Lansing, and Saginaw Railroad who apparently Opened a pit two miles south of Mason to obtain ballast either about 1866, when the roadbed was being built, or a few years later.66 No doubt there were other gravel quarries Opened before 1875, but no record Of these was found. 65. Census of the State g£_Michigan, 1874, 22. 213., pp. 387- 64. Durant, o . cit., p. 542. 65. Census 2_ th3_3tate 33 Michigan, 1874, 22. 313., p- 588. p 1536. Census g£_the State gf Michigan, 1874, pp. cit., 155 The use of mineral wells whose waters could supposedly cure skin diseases because of their medicinal qualities also became a source of income during this period.67 One of the most popular of these was in Lansing at the conflu- ence of Grand and Red Cedar Rivers. It was 1,400 feet deep and discharged 1,500 gallons of water per day. Another spring frequented by a large number of resorters was at Leslie.68 Hotel accomodations and bath houses were provid- ed at both places. Smaller wells of more local importance were located in Onondaga and Mason. Manufacturingrindustries Manufacturing concerns of Ingham County increased at least 800 per cent in number between 1850 and 1874, and much more in value of product and number of pe0ple employed, as is indicated by the figures in Tables 11 and 12. In 1850 there were only 11 mills processing locally produced grain and lumber in the county. These were small one or two man establishments using either man or water power.69 By 1860 the number of mills had increased and they were distributed over a wider area. Employment had grown but the kind of manufacturing activity remained much the 67. Michigan State Gazetteer and Business Directogy, 1875, O . cit., p. 541. 6 . GT-R. Tuttle, General Histo 2; Egg State 3;, Michigan,(Detroit: Tyler and 00., I875), pp. 658:659. 69. Records of the Original Census 2: 1850, pp. 213., pages not num5ered. 'llflllll \ (I Ail.ll L'Alllllll \ 'lllll‘llllllll'l'l'llll ||ll 15h owed one: so concapnoo - u u 3 a a. 000.00: a a a scaasssaaa; 000.0ma 3 A a eacauasos; 00.00m 3 H a 000.0mm ; a H swscacao 000.00m 3 m a asaeaacs om m m 000.00m ; m m ceases e u H H accesses um - m m n - u a m m 000a000.a s s 0 haasco asamaH ance asoam coospoam ocasoam soap .Haam asses «0 0050 .Hasm asses access 0050 .Hasm asses nmsuomxaoaomimwswmhmo.oz .nmsmlaosomispasmVJMMhMZIIIMO poem hosom ousmmwmo.oz amanussoa assesses aaaasnaacas, assaslmsm 0mmeI|u 000d 8 0mma.zs0H00Hs .Mezpoo semczH .mmmsaosmpzsz HA @0049 135 .mHHLHHH . 001......3 chMhommenfimEanMIo MMPMIM 95E 05 33.0 one .:0002 as .Ome «hassOo asnwcH no ndmcoo on» no anoom HanmHno «nooasom m 00H.0 H H u - u u u . seaassHHHHs m 000.00m H H 980 opHs; 000.00: H m 0HcHeascas mm 000.: H H 000.00 H H H cmaHHH> scams : 000.00 H H asaca m omcHaasccpm MH 00m.H H H 000.mHm H m m smacacso 000.0 H H 000.000.H H H cwsHHH> acscso nouaomom poz asHOHaos : 000.0mm.H m H oases Hm :mm.H H H 000.000 H m .HHacH 0 000.000 H H hoses. 0mm 000.m N m 000.000.m m H m aaHo waHaasH 0 000.00 H H waHassH 0H 00H.0 H H 000.00 H H asswsH 0 000.0 a m m HcHoo m 000.0 H H HHHm acsssm m 000.000 m m asHHcas< 000.m~ H H soeoHsH< mH: :mm.Hm m m 0 000.0 .HH : Hm mm assaco asamaH acasacsescss .082 aaoHa a m aHHHs .0oaa acasaH a 0 .HHHs HHs aH [Inmlhmmmmnlmweot.ac .0: mmnpmmarllmwsmallnmlhmz aaHnaasca ecaOHasm 50:80 .HHHs ascHa .HHHz 3.0 ome 000H 8 0mmH.z<0Hm0Hs .Hezooo ssm0zH .mmm0004mpzsa Acuflfldpnoov HA mqm¢6 Illl‘ Ill-l l||I.II| [‘.All‘ (111‘ I III. III"! [I vlll I‘ III I lalllllllll ‘I‘l'lll l' I! 156 omen anon :0 OossHpaoo 000.m m N N 000.mi m, H H sopassHHHH3 000.0 H H au>o> 00: H H owcHanaccam 00N : H H asHsHaos 000.mH mN N N 000.mH :N m n 000.0H HN H H aaHo wnHoson oomaH .3 H H .ssawmw N +3 in 000nm 0 He .00 8.an possess .H as .3 0 seasons .H as 3 0 seasons .H as 3 m Mp osHo>,mmmsm, nosom,.oz mo osHs>x spasm porch, .02, mo onHob, upcmm notch .02 Imowm oaHnooS a nowaopnsomw ooaaouoo&,owounhoo nmnoEonHH Hwa§MHsonmwy 000.00 «H 0 H H N H~:.m m, H H scaasuHHHHa 000.00 m N N s00 cpHn3 000.00m H H 0HcHopacs3 00m.H 0 N N 000.00 .H HN H _: m 000.0H N N asses 000.0H om H H 000.00N m H H 000.0H m H H swscscao 000.m m N N 000.000 0 N N 00m.m N H H asHeHacs 000.NH m H H 000.000.H 0H H H oHccH m0¢.mN no N N 000.N0H.H 0H m 0 000.0 s H H .HHacH 000.0H 0H H H 000.0mH.H mH m m 00m N H H scacH 000.: m3 H H 000.000.H HH H H N 00m.3H NH N H m haHo deenoq 000.000 0 H H 000 m H H _suswsH 000.m 0.H 0H m m HsHon 000.0 H N H H HHHm assess 000.0H» 3 N N asHHcas< .0...0 m H (H acmcHs ..a . . . .0. FE . . . d. . w 0 HH .obfid possess .H.sm 3 m senses .H.am 3 0 ascHa no .H.sm 3 m mo 23.0? 002033 .3308 .E0 pooh spasm hobo? Obi omaaom 005m .HosoE . can meow w mmwooom,.o>owm17 uHHHS JMMw uHHHs MSOHh ssmH.z<0Hm0Hs 3333000 34303H 30 mumpaosmpz spasm hoses .03 ous>ymosem,ao3omx.bz omHe> spasm nosom .oz‘ osHm>.nosmm,ao3omw.oz acHacpcsm 0aHHm um .Hoou.nmom cm .2323 03.80.00.“ .2003 ozoosoHHoomHE ooHHOpoomlsOHopB, mswnamfioso wcmuoflm Odo oasvfisnsm H Hs>c> 000 H H oweHansccpm 000 N H H swseacso 000.03 mm H H 00N.:H m m apHo mchsoq . 000.HH m: m N NaHasmu 000 Hi H, 000 N7 H) H, 0004mm! 0MH7 1w. 00N.sH ,3, Us, .00 assNaH posooam posooam posooam podoonm no .Hasm no .Hasm 3 0 no .Hasm 3 m we osH0> endow..oz, osz> spasm aosom,.ozw.pad spasm ao3omw.oz ofimmbinpcom awn nucaasm s cstsm .HHH3,onsHsm .pem3,cHH3 s Hthmw aoHacscam JNNH.z«0H30H37s332000 asmozH 30 033330333233 ecsaHusoo NH mHm000 0HHm0N 0W 000000 000H000 0mm :0: H000H0000000 3 H 00000000000 00N 0H:.H 00000 waHeHHam s 0000HH00 0m NHO 00H00000000003 00H 000003 00000 0 scHam a H mmo.m hapmspsH aonpo omH noanosaom 0:0 mma hhpososH noaoaom .mnpflamxooam 00HHH0 s waHcham .00000 0 N 0000000H 0HH0000 N0 000H000 N00 000.3 0300000H H00Hz0 sassHHHHa s 0000HHHH0 -0003 s 0000000000003 H NH oaspHsasa 0.000s0H : 00 0000003 H0000 0 soaH m oaOpoaoQo heaoad 00 Hmo.m . _ uaoaonoq m aaopsaomo oaaz 0000 HzH 0080000000 HH. 00H0000000 H0000H0 one nhoomho>o .soaoaHm :0 00000H00 s 000HHH0 : 0N 000000 m whooaawsm w cosponesq 0 maopmoaom mm naooussm N mm macaonmq Sash HNOHapooam 0 oquOHauoon . PH maoaawh HmN H .000 .000000008000 .00000800000 0 00H 000000000 H00H00 020 .{00000000 .0009H00H000 Hmm.N 00:0HH ecwcHNsm H0000 H00.NHN 000.0H 00H00H0000,H000a 0HmH..z00H00H3 .00H000H 000H30a0000 00000H00 0H 0000mm0 0000 020 00003 003 00H00H0000 00000 148 Functional complexity had become characteristic of Lansing. The capital city offered the best professional and personal services in the county. Ample educational opportunities for children, including the blind and juvenile delinquents, were available in the city.5 Instructions in other vocations such as fine arts, danc- ing and sewing were also provided. Recreation was offer- ed regularly through the hotels, theatres and art societies, and by festivities associated with various state affairs. In short, by 1910 the capital city had also become an industrial and market center, and the cultural hub not only for ingham County, but also for Eaton County and Clinton County as well. By virtue of its location in the northwest corner of ingham.County, Lansing was equally accessible to the people of Eaton, Clinton and ingham Counties. It offered economic, social and cultural opportunities non-existent in the other towns and villages of the tri-county area. Population Between 1874 and 1910, Ingham County was character- ized not only by a population increase that was largely 4. Chilson McKinley & Co., Lansing City Directo , 1911, Lansing: Wynkoop Hallenbeck rawford Co., 1911 , '01. n, p. 7. 149 in the city of Lansing, but also by the beginning of growth of a rural non-farm population and by a decline in the number of people living on farms. During this period the county grew from 29,193 to 55,310 in population (Tables 3 and 15). Actually, between 1874 and 1900 the rate of growth was somewhat less than it had been before 1874, but after the turn of the century a more rapid increase was resumed (Fig. 2). This coincided, as has already been indicated, with the development of the automobile industry in Lansing. From 1900 to 1910 Ingham County showed a population gain of 33.8 per cent. This was far in excess of that experienc- ed in most counties of the state. Among the southern tier of Michigan counties, the rate of growth in Ingham County was exceeded only by that of Wayne County, which because it included Detroit, recorded a gain of over 50 per cent during the same period.5 ingham County had a gross density of 96.4 peOple per:square mile in 1910, but there were only 39.9 people per square mile in the rural areas. The population increase between 1875 and 1910 evidently resulted primarily from a high natural increase within the county. Only a relatively small number of 5. U.S., Bureau of Census, Statistical Atlas of the United States, 1914, (Washington: Government Printing ce, , Plate No. 38. 150 persons migrated here from elsewhere in the United States. As was true during previous periods, most of the newcom- ers were from the eastern states, with others mainly from Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. A small number of Negroes lived in Ingham County during this period, but their total did not change much and they remained below one per cent of the entire population. Only a few Negroes owned or rented farms; most of them resided in Lansing where they worked, usually as unskilled labor (Table 16). Among the foreign born, 1,804 Germans and 1,572 Canadians formed the two largest groups. Next in numbers were 551 people from the British Isles, 232 from Russia and 155 from Turkey. Smaller groups came from other parts of Europe and 27 people were from non-European countries.6 In 1910, persons of foreign extraction in the county comprised 10.2 per cent of the total. Seventy- three per cent of these lived in Lansing (Table 16).7 The growth of Lansing's population has already been discussed. The population of the county outside of Lansing reached a peak of 25,557 in 1880 and there- after slowly declined to 22,081 in 1910 (Fig. 2). Thus, 6. U. 3., Bureau of Census, Abstract of the Thir- teenth Census of the United States, 1915 (With Supplement for Michigan), p._EU2. ' 7. U.S., Bureau of Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910, Population, vol. II, p. 959. It! 1 trill! (I 151 TABLE 15 POPULATION, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN, 1880-1910 1880 1884 1890 1894 1900 1904 1910 Ingham County 55,676 54,959 57,666 59,689 59,818 45,607 55,510 Alaiedon 1,474 1,559 1,287 1,266 1,172 1,095 955 Aurelius 1,478 1,515 1,489 1,505 1,587 1,275 1,165 Bunker Hill 1,099 1,068 1,012 '924 920 902 881 Dblhi 1,558 1,507 1,504 1,576 1,467 1,455 1,412 Ingham. 1,411 1,410 1,252 1,219 1,155 1,052 1,002 Dansville* (440) (450) (566) (562) (574) (517) (549) Lansing 1,209 1,265 1,422 1,578 1,555 1,844 1,760 Lansing ' City 8,519 9,774 15,102 15,847 16,485 20,276 51,229 Leroy 1,911 1,725 1,572 1,456 1,441 1,577 1,297 Webbervillefi (404) (555) (545) (545) (549) Leslie 2,501 2,505 2,557 2,115 2,220 2,159 2,014 Leslie ' Villagefi (1,115)(1,150) (1,058) (988)(1,114)(1,096)(1,052) Locke 1,494 1,485 1,265 1,282 1,248 1,107 1,045 Meridian 1,550 1,682 1,720 1,750 1,625 2,027 1,592 East Lansing ‘ 802 Onondaga 1,455 1,585 1,592 1,421 1,264 1,156 1,051 Stockbridge 1,005 1,145 1,276 1,296 1,589 1,551 1,294 Vevay 1,207 1,118 1,151 955 925 917 817 Mason 1,809 1,884 1,875 1,761 1,828 1,955 1,742 Wheatfield 1,207 1,162 ‘929 908 882 844 724 White Oak 1,181 1,077 1,070 967 1,026 899 841 Williamston 1,852 1,881 2,051 2,103 2,033 2,980 1,909 Williamston* (982)(1,080) (1,139)(1,120)(1,113)(1,1oe)(1,042) *Included in township totals. Sources: U.S.,'Department Of State, Tenth Census of the United States: 1880, Population, Vol. I, pp. 215-216; -' Michigan, fiepartment 3? State, Census of the State of Michi an: 1884, Vol. I, pp. 58-59; U.S., DEpartmEfit’E? SEaEe,‘ElevenEfi Census of the United States: 1890, Vol. I, pp. 186-58 ; 'fiiEEigaETHEEEartment of State, Census of the State of Michigan: 1894, 701. I, pp. 162-164 and 6327‘UT‘37,‘530ET'6?‘§EAte, T§eiveth Census of the United States: 1900, Population, Vol. I, pp. 124-126 and I86?—Eficfiigan, ESpartméfit—of State, Census 2; the State of Michi an: 1904, Vol. I,p. 26; U. So, Bureau of FEE Census:_Th rteenth Census 23.3hg.United States: 1910, Vol. II, p. 909. """ ‘-‘-'--- --- 152 In. .m m can mm: .88 .HH .Ho> . HmH|maoumpmeop a on» no mamcop :pNWoannB « ad mm: .ma: .mm .H pnwm .aoapmafimom .omma ”mopwum oouaqp one no usmcoo apno>oam .unmaoo no neondm ..m.D unconzom N w P m dd : nhonpo 4mm mmm adm do: ca: mm: :o: osmoz www.0m mma.wa mm>.ma mam.mm mo:.mm mom.em www.mm open; mem.m owm.m wwm.a 0:4.m :ma.: mw:.: Hmm.m quom qweosom mmm.am mm:.ma moa.ma mam.m oam.mm mam.mm www.8m www.mm .qom Hence came bmma omwal omma came! .oomH 8mmH, ommH» nwmcwg, (Nuqsoo EdnwnH oamauomma wezpoo semqu 924 oszzdg .zOHaeqpmom mme mo weH>Haaz 02¢ wo .pHmH ”mowwum moumgp one mm.usmqoo nonoouasne moss .a .HH .Ho> .moma m .:d muofifi no omwwm obnlho msmcoo «rumnmmw pod m .99 .N use «Gonstmom hHH .Hoo .oomH «Mprum means: on» no nausea np0>H0$E maze . . .Ho . mH «do anomzlho owwpm 0mm mo mamcoo u mm .HNm .mm .H ham .domonsflWh . «mopmww womHCS on» no nsmaoo npso>oam «Hmum .ma .H .Ho> . mad «as «nods no ouwpm on» no udmcoo «noonaom .mazmcsoa Mao span; one hpao comes no 0>Hmdaoxm .s 8.: 2: 81m. 53 min was 30.8 833 83 m:.: me.: asm.m sam.~ mm.m mm.: :ms.m mom.m omma :m.: mm.: mmo.m 4m:.m mo.: mN.: Hom.m msm.m :mma msm.m sow.m mmo.oa mom.m coma mH.: :m.: oam.: mmm.: mm.m 80.: mmo.aa HMN.OH some mum.s m:m.w mo.m 0mm.ma omm.ma came assess .Haoso Nwfissm .aaoao s on a on a on a on anomaom aconnom moHHHSdm .Haosm acomnom anomaom nowadadm .HH03Q owmno>wwowsaoew Mo .1291Hho .02, owmnoea owsno>< mm .02, mo .om \wnwmsdql, hpqsop‘adnwcH oamanzmma weapon 2on u mmmmwmma .aa 1easpaseae< halfipté .cm Hnoma mo1omspm one no undue .ogg .HH oHO a mmM.WIQ n H and LH mo emu .Hoo Snoop uncoopAHIB on» Ml. opspm one no uflmceo .mopspm doanp1onp mo msmcoo mmbwose. Tbmw mmm .mm Mum Leland. Ere LIN. e Houcleno HE mo ommpm one no uzmneo o uflncob space ”moonzomi, wwm m Hmm1somT egos mmo1> mom1H: MMW1N: moped owdaom Aom ham mm ”OH wmm1: OmH1m .jww11mflmfim anoHst nemnsHoE mm1mmm1m H amm1m 11mm nuance newsm eases mama om1 .mmM1H mmm m~m1a .Henesm m: m m de nommw . . a mmm1smm mdm1mmm smo1mam msm1mma smo1mmm ms1mwe .Oms1mom .Heeesm ea1m moe1m mmo1m 881m oma1m _ 81m mas1m nosed moopspom mma1qmm mmo1mm mmm1mm Hsm1sm mzm1: .Honesm ooo1m Haw1osm1m mmm1ma .mmm eumwwm mm1omm1> cs 1 mm1s mo mm1a .mem1m .Henesm wms m mmm m» 4 New :Hsdqa am now noses . peeneeeem :am1sm msm1mm 0851ma omm1ma mmm1>m .mma1ma ~Hm1sa .Heeeem :wo1m Hem1a mam cam mmm1m mos ass Mmmmwm mm. me o op o 1 1 Hmm1om ms1~ m 51a .Heneem mmw1m 4 mms1: cum ea .mmm»m: mmm1m an em modem . o m m o1msm Hmm1mmo1a omm1m s mmo1smm mso1amm ses1mmm Hao1ma: eaeeeem HNm1m~ mmm1mm mmm11am me1om sem1mm saz1_:H mzm1aa noses undo mm 1mmm1H ase1mom1a o 1mam mmm. m mmm1mm>1mmm 8881158 .Hoeesm mflm11mm mom1mm 1mm mmw11wm cme1mm “mg mwm1fi neeee . EGO ddfiUGH m1msa sow H 051888 m1msw o 81mmm e 1 a 4 m1~mm .Heeeem mzm1s mmm1mum mmm11mm .mmm11mm m 1pm mdm1mm smm1m: noses pumma Ilnpwma somH coma, :smwa. amps .dmma, .IIDmmH. OdelommH I z 1zmmw wmewaneea mo oumpm on» Mo mamcoo n . H H0P|1bmmH «mowmwm UcpHGD one no memcoo neaoeoam «Hum .6 1HH 1H6> 1 mma,1 QaHo Gd HnOHEImo madam 02p.mo mquoo «moohdom .mmN1H mHo1H nosed I meHnspowo> mmd1H scone 9:2 doo1me ceosoohm uHonmsm NNH nosed messes Hesse ooosooam mmo1mm oms1sm oom1m sedate no eeesem dom1: nonH> maHAdom . eonshodH> mmo1m mmm mm1m mmm1> eeeseoem maeeesm m:m1m .omm1m mm. as .osm1ma noose weeeeem . ueHanono mmm m::1m mmm1a m::1a eeeseeem .Heeesm mam1m mms1s .mma1mm .smp1m noose meeeeem noghm dad agflm .m:o1m mm1m Hmm1m mmm1m m-1m eeeseeem .Heeesm mad1m sm1 azs1om .osm1s .mma1w .oena weeeeem madam meo1a Hom1m mo1a mmm1m >m>1a ose1m eeeseeem .Heeesm mmm1ma smm1mm . m1mmm m1 H mmm1w amm1m noose meaaaem , eohdnono nosom m~m1msm omo1ss: osm1~ m pos1m: mem1mue mom1mme eeeseeem .Heeesm mmm1msa m 01mmH mm 1m m som1mmm mmo1mmm noose weeeeem ucnsnoao oHaad cams some eooma :mma omma dams cemenemmfl z¢UHmOHE .NBZDOO EdmozH 1HDDQOmm mqm QZ¢ BHDmm ON Hands 165 concluded that the largest acreage was used for fruit production around the turn of the century. After that the number of fruit trees and the production of fruit declined as specialized fruit areas, located where grow- ing conditions were near optimum, developed elsewhere in Michigan and in other parts of the United States. Except for consumption on the farm where it was produced,the Ingham County fruit encountered increasingly stiff compe— tition with fruit shipped in from the specialized pro- ducing regions. Apples remained the most important fruit crop in Ingham County in 1910 (Table 20). The shift of the farm economy of the county to dairying is indicated by the increase in milk cows from 8,687 in 1874 to 15,489 in 1910 (Tables 9 and 21). This addition of 4,792 head compares with one of 9,972 cattle of all kinds, including milk cows, during the same period. Thus, 48 per cent of the rise in number of cattle was accounted for by milk cows. Cattle rearing for meat also gained importance, but more largely as an adjunct to the dairy industry, rather than as a primary activity. Some 15,177 cattle were sold or slaughtered in 1910 (Table 22). Most of these animals were probably either male calves, or over-age milk cows, and were thus a by-product of the dairy industry. Faster transportation, the growth of a ready market in Lansing, and the perfection of refrigeration making 166 TABLE 21 DOMESTIC ANIMALS, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN 1880-1910 1880 18885 1890 1894 1900 1910 Total Cattle 21,876 21, 5 22,551 22, 261 29, 788b 28, 58 Milk Cows 9,218 9, 0 10,920 10, 601 11,711,b 15, 89 Other Catt1ea 11,80h 11,606 11,278 11,6tg 18,07h 15.0h9 Work Oxen 85h 280 155 Horses, mules & asses 10, 218 12,191 15,500 15,650 15,011 12,557 Goat & Sheep 76,u98 107, 51898 ,867 125, 7270 106 .098 107, 751 Swine 29,101 26,919 2,551 25,5m 2h,991 50, .132 Poultry 195, 5 7 Colonies of Bees 2,h25 A. Generally includes steers, bulls, calves, and yearling heifers b. Only cows two years and over in age c. All sheep included d. Excludes spring lambs Source: Tenth Census of the United States: 1880, General Statistics, pp. 155-1375—03nsus of the State of MIC HI an: 1 01. II, p. 693 Eleventh Census of the United States: ,Agriculture, Vol. V, pp.'2523335; Census 0? the Sta Is 0 ichi an: 189g, Vol. II, pp. 7u-75; TWEITETh‘Census‘Ef" tHe—UHIt§d_States: 1 00, Vol. v, Part 1, pp.*un8- 9; IBEtrIcE of the Thir eenth Census of the United Bates: 2229 ( wItE‘BupplemenE Tor MICEIg 'T—_ p. 6E5. r , l'l [III I {I'll | 7. 6 l I|_mo nummwb.wwcoownmm8 on» no pewnpnnd u no spasm esp no eseseo ammmlsm .m seem . npo>aoaa «Nam .9 .HH .Hoo 09$» 50 am . “mmm-pmfl .68 .HH .He> .omma ”ssmfisesz .mme .e .Ammmmmesm sec unseeasssm nasal oama .eepes H: egg QHH OHCD u am. ._ saw. owfisw on» HMMEIHmeE a «nowprImomHhm esp no nzmnow mH «mopemm wmwmdn ow» mo mSmnoo npaopoam no opmum can no msmcoo apnea ”mooHSom 43.32% as: 3.255 no case 0:» Son“ mpqaoeoh one Uohopnwsdan no oaom endow no @0020 mwmemm one .esfise mHo.mm,.eHMpse spews mmm.m,.es>HeexmmHsm esp: seen» .OHmH as oeH«s zsonOHs ewazpoo 24mmZH .mopmomm_mmH4o NN mqm¢8 .mwm.ww owm.mm mm .wm A.ezv snesm oeeeam mom ow Renal escapesm as; m m.p om~.mm Assay peespesm aesem m.m w A.ezv paew emmm pmH.HHH A.ezv paem aspasem mom.:mm 5.621 possum headsem mam.w mam . legal edem eeosno pm.m cam was omo.m pma.m Assay peeseesm eeeeso mm.mmw mmm.HMm mpm.mam Aenqv caem possum . 0 .mp0.” mmo.m :.H awm.omm.a mm>.omo.a a~>.:om.lenqv eeespesm neppsm mm.:m legal paem peuseppsm m:~.am mpa.m om.m , Assoc paem seeeo m:m.wmo.m w» .mmm.m a .mmm.a omH.HmH Assay eHem mafia msp.m>m.m mm .Pmo.m sma.:aa.> msa.mm>.m Assay peeseesm mafia scams sows, coma, ommH mama onH-ommH 168 longer storage of perishable products possible were all factors contributing to an expanding sale of dairy products. The combined sale of all dairy products by farmers was no doubt greater in 1910 than at any previous time, Although the amount of milk produced and the amount of butter made and sold by the farmers was larger in 1904, according to the census of that year (Table 22). The decrease in amount of butter sold off the farm between 1904 and 1910 was at least partly offset by increased sales of cream and butterfat. Since 1904 the amount of butter made on farms has decreased to almost nothing, as the manufacture of creamery butter expanded. The decrease in production and sale of milk between 1904 and 1910 (Table 22) is difficult to explain except on the basis of an overstatement in the census of 1904, this being a state census rather than a national one. The increase between 1904 and 1910 in the amount of cheese made and sold by the farmer is still another aspect of the expanding dairy industry. No oxen were recorded by the census after 1894, when 46 were counted (Table 21). This number compared with 959 in 1874 (Table 9). The number of horses, mules and asses, however, increased from 7,679 in 1874 to 15,640 in 1894. The all time peak in number of these animals in the county was reached around 1894; at about the same time the use of oxen as work animals ceased. 169 After this, a decline in the number of horses set in. They were replaced by automobile passenger car and truck transportation in both the city and the country and by increasing use of tractors and gasoline engines on the farm. There were 12,557 horses in Ingham County in 1910 (Table 21). Although the numbers of swine and of sheep and goats in Ingham County fluctuated from one census year to another between 1874 and 1910, there were many more of both kinds of animals at the end of the period than at the beginning (Tables 9 and 21). The count of swine jumped from 11,588 in 1874 to 29,101 in 1880, a figure that was not exceeded in any subsequent census until 1910 when there were 50,132 head. Strict comparison of the numbers of sheep and goats at different times is difficult because in some census years lambs were included and in others they were excluded. The 54,545 head recorded in 1874 had increased to 107,741 in 1910. The increase was most rapid between 1874 and 1884 when there were 107,518 animals excluding spring lambs. Possibly, the total number of sheep reached a peak in 1894 when 125,727 were tabulated. The importance to the farmers of Ingham County of the sale of animals and animal products is apparent from the statistics of 1910. That year 6,192 calves, 8,925 other cattle, 53,012 swine, and 39,275 sheep were 170 sold or slaughtered and receipts from the sale of these animals totaled $1,035,371. There were also 67,666 fleeces shorn and 11,187 poultry and 752,543 eggs sold (Table 22). Comparative statistics for earlier years are not available. The largest number of farms and the largest acreage in farms ever recorded in ingham County was by the census of 1900. At that time there were 3,815 farms and 346,444 acres in farms, or an average of nearly 91 acres per farm (Table 23). A reduction in number of farms subsequent to 1900 was paralleled by an increase in average size of farms. In 1910 there were 3,508 farms. These averaged almost 95 acres in size and 71 acres of improved land each. Because of increasing use of mechanized equipment the farmer was now able to take care of a larger acreage with less work and more profit than had previously been possible. This was probably one reason why the number of tenant operated farms increased from 414 in 1880 to 739 in 1910, while owner Operated farms decreased from 3,059 to 2,736 in the same period (Table 23). The greater productivity of the farm.in 1910 made it possible for it to support both an owner and a tenant. Also, by 1910 many of the original owners had retired and were living in Lansing or one of the villages of the county. In still other 171 nmdo one mm npzoopsflae awmnmm .mc .HH . o -mmluad «H_wmwm .b .Hop hpo H ”mouapm confine on» no assume nmwaosevaom.a .HH . o .mmma «mammaoas mo opspmlwap no usmcoo amww can mmaummd .ma . H .H0 Il.umopwum mopaCD 029 Mo menace mmco>onIMHN .9 .HH .Ho: . HRH DH H «wwwmwm momH:D_MmM mm.unm:oo .mg .Acmwanoas you coaowmmfin wm m H p .mmma sea “nos: mo mwepm one mo mamaoo “m4: .mwm was t .osspammaswe 0 ma «as among Ho cream on» no mamnoo «mwlmm .mg .HHH .Ho> .omwa ”mopmpm copanb on» no namcoo apnea «moonsom mama ooponmEqu ca nonzaocHs . o.m> .m.mh :.am 40.05 .m.Nm _N.mm m.mm nanmm copdhomo nacho Ho owmpaoonom mm mm voudpomo howsnda amp up me New mmm . n: ma: capstone nausea .mm>.m MJe.m m .m we .m upm.m mo.m mo.m capstone compo mom.m mm.m Hm.m mam.m . mom.m mw:.m m>:.m magma no .02 H.:m nandm Ga damn Mo owspnoohom .Jmm.mm www.md *mmw.:w eoao< naaam ca cadaoooa mmm.om mam.mm mmm.~: oam.am ::H.moa nono< cause . aH Uddq Uo>oaqaanp mmo.mmm ma:.mmm 44:.mzm aam.>am ,mow.mam mm:.mmm nonoe uahsm nu mama cama doma coma dmwa omma dwaa omma oamanomwa zemeon .xezpoo zemezH .m2m4m mo mNHm mad mmmspz nz4 mpe .mnauaom .omma «magnum oopacb on» no azanoo nuaoopmam .nzaqoo on» no fisoadm .m.b «cannon .nmanmcsou chopmosnpaoz comma omen» ca one: mmma cam oama nooSpon oopozauwnoo hadfioo on» :a span: wcaaaose ame.:m aspen one so use >mo.mm use» pcsoaeacmam ma pa .aaanmqsoe anaon can .caaoaaoz .wsamcwq mo caucuses poanpmam cduaaomonpoz wcamcwq ones ads mwa 0:5 moo.m oop.w mmm.: _::m.m mm:.m mmm.m smo.m~ spoaaumam wcaman wma osa ms mem.a mam :ma mom mma 08m :sm.a spam aussm mma moa mom m a.a mam mam mam.a mma.a m:m.~ mmm.m sues-aoz amuse 0 ma 0 m m m a ow mm mm we m some: aa m :aa m mm as: mma men mes.a mnamssa seam amm ama mm: o:m.> moo.m mm.m mm:.m mmo.a was mom.:a mcameea emm 4a: mwm.a www.0a mm. maa.m ms~.m mow.m mmm.m ame.:~ season sanwca oopsosom owma mwwa mama.w mama ‘dmma mama :mma mmma mmuoama _ no: open osoeom -omma uomwa uoama uomma ammma -omma ummma aupoe zaoamoas .Mazpoo 24m82a osma 2a czaamaam mBHZD czaaaman mo exae zoaeopmemzoo mm mam . camsom a mouspm couacb onu no admcoo uncoopnobom ”nooHSom .coumz no: pan .woad oonacdpAD hpqzoo Goudaao odd .doa¢ mouacmnab ponpo .wcamcmq pmmm .wcancdq ca spans noosaoca send couacdpnb wnamqwq Ao .qupop hundoo amnmcH Ga ooosaoca no: can use .moa4 Uouaddpyp wcamcmq asupaasn haemoao o£u_uo when and moan: hadfloo copcaao ca muaqs wcaaaoxn An .aoaasocdop opdnomaoo hams» opamuao pan .wdamsmq puum one wnamcdn op usoosnod moons asupaadn haemoao :a span: mnaaaosn as mm:.aa oma.oa mma.m msm.~ omo.m mmm.:m wma.mm Aoudoad oouasdQAD wcamcdq m: an 08m m: oma mm: mam season nounaao :a mega AnvpouacmDAD weanedq osm.m as: men oma mmm mmw.m mam.m Assam aunsm no .a omm.a oma.a m w msm.a mmm.m mmm.> snaauaoz aansm mmm mpa o mm 04a moo.a ama.a some: omm oam oo:.a mam mam.a omo.m mes.m asaos< oceansnsp sonso mum mmm mos mum mm .a mem.m mmm.m wuamasa page mm0.oa oem.m on.m o :.a oa .a m>:.m~ www.mm wcamcaa oom.ma mmm.aa o .m ofi:.m oem.m mam.ms m .om apnsoo aunmca omma mmma mmma :zma mama weapsomam usage anagram? upmmH ..ommfi Hosea 93:? RES 8.me zeuamoae .wazpoo 24mmza 0mma za cZHBmaxm meaz: 82aaamzo so mzas zoaeopmemzoo on mam .ao> .mwspasoaaw< . .Wflla oasmHaaoaawH Imo .o a ”nausea panama oww mo mamfimp a «momsmm ocean: oapImo .a> .ao> .oaspasoaams .0a a «mousse oceans one so nausea uncoopsana OMHH “mm on“ «m meanwh.nowmmm wochD «paw .Q .H chum .HH .Ho> npnmopamm «HasImmm: .aa .a spam cannon :Phoommsom «mam .Hmw .qm «mooadom .ooUSHona pod one: can 080: you «mono nephew go mad cooSanm nmoao owsaou can he: 02» mo mofiam> on» .:dma use mmma pom anon» spas candammEoo oaoE newsman oxsa op uaommo as Ga mam .oHou uuodooam no ends» can» panama noaponpoam no 05Hm> Au :am.am mam.oa « s « uposeosm summon :mm.awm.a mma.mmo.a a e aem.mmo.a posse omm.m mm:.amm amw.::: amm.mmm msm.mom ooseosm mspasom a apaaom oom.mom.m mmm.m o.a mam.mmm.a smm.ooa.a amm.mo: ooseoam spasm ::~.m:a.m mm .m m.m « s m: .m:w.a cannons soopmosaa use soopmosaa aa< mmm.mma m m.:ma II II II uoaaaaaaoomm.psom mmo.am m m.m a www.moa a a:m.mma a omo.mma apes s spasms m.s:: mem.m a amm.omm a m m. :w a m m.mma .oanapowo> ewm. mom.m m . sam.aom.a a w m.mo .m a amm.mma.m emote eaoaa m m.omm.a mm~.a m a mm:.mma.m . m m.wm:. a m m.mm:.m cacao aa< wmm.:mm.w mmm.:am.m s a « nauseous swam aa4 :Jma mmma mmma mama moma dqma I moma z mdgqom am mamas 222 TABLE 32 FARMS, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN 1910-1954 Year Number County Land Land In Average Size of In Farms* Farms of Farms Farms (fer Cent) AjAcres) (Acres) 1910 3,508 94.1 333,095 95.0 1920 3,224 91.4 323,196 100.2 1925 3,447 90.2 319,316 92.6 1930 2,961 86.0 304,243 102.8 1935 3,218 88.7 313,892 97.5 1940 2,999 84.7 303,076 101.1 1945 2,966 85.6 306,157 103.2 1950 2,531 81.4 291,041 115.0 1954 2,328 79.5 284,440 122.2 *County area was considered to be 353,920 acres before a new calculation in 1940, which determined it to be 357,760 acres. Sources: Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910, Agriculture, Vol. VI, p. 783; Fifteenth Census 9; tHe UnIted States: 1930, Agriculture, Vol. II, Part p. 6623 Part 6, Vol. I, 1. United States Census of Agriculture: 1935, Vol. I, United States Census 3? Agriculture: 1945, Vol. I, p. 243'United States CEhsus g£_Agriculture: 1954, Part 6, p. 4:60 225 mamaoo mopdpthopwsb .mww .m .H paw adenoo :pcooaxam .mEH .m .H .Ho .a pawn aa .ao> .osspasoaa 0 .Ho .oASpHSoaaw «m0 6 .8: .oaafiasoaawH Mlo 3850 oopmpm 00325 ..:N .q Io pawn WIMWW. I4 Q Q ;wmw .oaspasoaa L.Mm Ad .uomswm H .oafiwasomnwu kilnsmzo n nowmwm we mm: D Nm.g cum-wag EaIEoopmam .mm mo was D on» so .Anopmpw caonpaoz onavH puma . NH nonspHSoaa no udmcoo nopmpm ponds: «noohfiom mmm.:oa mam am mmm.mm men mm. amm.mom mm.sa omo.mm mom N am ooa com m: mmm mm mmm m mwo mm mm:.am om “mm mm amm.mm mao.mma@ mm eoa mam.:: mam.mm oma m mem.:m a ame ma mam.sm mo mm mma III III mmm.:m III mm.mom wmm ema mmm.m: : 2mm mma om.om Nma.m: oem.mm owe.» oaaI ow gm Maw.m~ awe a M:% Mom.ms mam om amm.mm www.ma mm mm mm oom.m~ o .:m wmm m %m m .me mma mm ama.mm amm.ma oo .ma mm oom mam.ma mmm.mm wan m a: cssabooa Roz CCdH Oohfipmdm Inoao poz coaspumm ho moumo> snapusm mom oadpmmm snapmmmmcmaooos poz coadpumm UGmeoao Iamm uoz hano can: oopmoeamm ampoa awmpo Hence osmaooosIKVGMHmooaI Hanna wsdeoaD .wGMHQoao chHQoAD, anoaosv 4mma I mmma zaeamoas .wezpoo s .oasaase a . «mapaem meemep aha mo mmmewp mmeoepamm «www .mp6 .ea .H pate .Ww .Ho>,.ea:easeamr« pmmw «hepepm eoaaeb.ohp mm nfimsoo npcoopma . .m a new . H ”onfipwmwmml. mo nfimmmb mopwmm.pwuanba.mmd.mm .H .Ho> .oaauddoaa «1.0 "mopepm oopacu omWImmlmeuno nuaoopasoml, amp Nmu .H> .Ho> .oaseaseaaw4 .OHMH «mopapm cause: one do nausea encoopnaea ”nooasem q a mono . am one «mama ad douoo N oajww “mood :« oaou demon me wmr an mmma H anmeam a as o o nnpcoa m_mo>o oaonp can» heaven news Add an Ad mmea son : coumoaoaa pan» on neoaboam nook aoh noapudpdpme emm.maw mmm.amm mma.mm: «mm. : Non.” m « .aaunav :aoam Hoe; mem.om omn.a¢ gem. m mem.mm Hmm.mm mmm.>m sheen eeeem om .emm.a 0mm. ew.a oom.e~m.a om. ~.a n mam.a o.an M¢m.mmo.a *Aaoev coeaeoam awmm a moo. NH « mmm.a a :Mw.mm mH.HHH sedan acesoaho Mm:.mma Hmm.mma pmm.omfl m .4 a m m.mom « usem no neoaeaeo we.omm Hem.mo: a ow .mam oem.wm: smm.:m taehav each pen noupem mmo.mH :wm.mm a eoa.mm mm . ma :mm.mmw taaeav caem aeaesm HH:.oam.m om:.os:.e « mm.a m.m mm .:em.m m:~.mmo.~ aaaawv each sass eo~.mmm.aa mm:. Ho.oa msm.swm.m mo.mmm.m oam.smm.m s.m>m.m *.Haw ceeseoae seas m:m.m mew. a mm .m H m.m mm .HH w m.ma amass a noeaom Hmm.a o.m mmm.m m.~ a « aoaaom has; magma emu.mfl a m.ma w .oa m>.oa mm”. m mmH.om swam a «mom ms .om mmm.m: mm .mm mom.me Hmm. m mm:.>oa eases a eoohm amt .ma azme.ma amm .ma ammo.ma mem.ma m .ma aseo mafia :mm. m Hmm.em mem.wm :mm.~m Hom.mm m .mm oaeeao fleece .msma, odma, mmma ommam ommH yoama smdmaumama humane”: .wezpoo zHq 924 Mooemm>Hq mm names 234 TABLE 37 HAY CROPS INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN 1919-1954 1919 1929 1939 1944 1949 $1954 Hay Cut-Acres 51,216 45,095 42,302 43,858 34,560 39,340 Alfalfa and Alfalfa Mixes acres 1,016 10,744 21,655 19,969 19,257 22,615 tons 1,899 20,945 34,042 33,344 33,967 46,206 Clover,Timothy & Mixed Grasses acres 46,319 31,799 15,671 20,679 14,080 14,664 tons 58,224 40,921 17,869 29,669 17,597 23,842 Small Grain Hay acres 164 178a 383a 56a 230 67 tons 166 273 429 76 245 64 Wild Hay acres 2,307 1,713 1,157 650 ? 193 tons 2,994 2,102 1,327 746 ? 247 Annual Legumes including Soy Beans acres 217 174 1,501 436 78 38 tons 281 187 2,279 683 119 90 Other Hay b acres 1,148 487 1,935 2,068 1,262 279 tons 1,211 524 2,434 2,959 1,684 410 a) In these (and probably in other) include oats cut for feeding unthrashed, 287 acres in 1929, to 124 acres in 1939, 1944. b) Probably excludes grass cut for silage which, for example, totaled 116 acres and 505 tons (green weight) in 1949, and 1522 acres and 9,164 tons in 1954. years does not this amounting to and to 217 acres in Sources: Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920, Agriculture, 701. VI, Pa rt I, ._44I_5FIfteentE Census of the United States: 1930, Agriculture, Vol. II, Part I, p. 687;— Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940,ricu1ture, VoI. I, Part I, p. ; United States Censuso IAgriCulture: 1945, 'Vol. I, Part 6, p. 64; United States:Census of Agricul- ture: 1954, Vol. I, Part 6, pp. 117,121. 255 em:.mm mmm.~: www.me msm.mm n Ho~.:m mam.mm uoaee .m o.m m .mam a who a o a moo and; 9 one Hem an mam a aoaoaasmufiw www.mm aesoa em.a m o.m « o o m mam N am cause new eaoo m . . .HH uaehasm mma mwm a mma com me .oaeq peeeaaesm www.ma ms>.m mam.m mm.om Hmm.ma mma.>wm cachesm mm mmm hem Hm.a wmm.a www.mm uoae mo:.:m> we .Hmm one :mm mmo mo: 8 mm anon“ meaaam . a a e onudm emm.mm mea.mm mm .om mom.:a m:~.ma mmm. H ooao< anon; popes; mmm.sa Hmm.mm mma.m~ Hmo.~oa .Hohuam em: Mme mm» omw.m ensue nonpowoe atone cameo awmmw, yimsma dame mmmH mmma mHmH :mma-mama zm .Hoa .eaaeaseaawe .omma o a a a . . ..|.. . . mma .NHH cam MOH mm a was a o .mwmm «enadeomawH mo camcoo nepspm vegans .:w mm mm o wmmm H Hem . hfideoma K umIMSmaop mopmpm Woman: .oow o a «monspm copmcDerp mo udmaow npnoopudm «HJJ .Q «nepaum menus: on» go nausea coopHSom ”noonsom ndonmdn can» Masada amen canon OCH .0 .:mma as use» mmw.mm amsma :« econ mmw.>m MmNmH :« ado» Nwaamm «mama :« use one: owadam qaoo Ho neon madame “o .naonmfip Hmmawmm coospoam madam you copmobadn_uoaod 440.:H on» .neuomazm Ham hon nonmo>awn :aoo mo uoaos:mmamm one: ones» can: .:mma ca .aopsa chuck o>am an .nwonk hangar ad ConfiaocH Ad Nmm.:m mmm.mma mmm. m amm.mna mm:.moa www.ma aaohasm mm mew :ao.a Hmm.~ omo.m mma.m «thee mm .: :mm.m mmm.m mm.aa o.m oomwwmom mm Hmm mpm mms.a mm: oms .oae4 mmm.aa e :w:.mm mmo.mm mmm.mma Hmw.mda mwm mm uaMMMhmmmsm c u mmm.a ma:.m mmH.m mm:.m waa.ma Hm:.m aoaee m ma m o m m m mmm ma mmm m: ahaom ”mmeMMMao wmfi Q Q A :mm mmm smw dam « a uoaa< eddem non unsonhom mum mmm mom.” Hmw.m msm mma.~ .oae4 . nonoaasm Had nasonhom e oom.~ o 44m.m a a e :mm.m . e mnm.» uoae< owsaam hon deco emma mzma :JmH mmma mmma mama Aeoseaaeoov mm mqm .oJmH ”noudum venues on» mm.nau:oo nuaoopnam «cannon .nooabhom Hdnoahom uaooadaaooada cad «coaaaom and noupaonoom .pnoabusad «maahn a wnaadoao.hnuasdq «noodnm waawooq cad manpom nouafloaH # Acosaapaoo. mm mqmaom aonpo a m.om mma.m >.m o .m was.” ms~.m uaoaunmaom H m.» mm:.m m. o .3, ms~.~ mm.” ooaaaom a Hacoaumoaonm Am m.mm H.” 0.4, :Mm.a mm>.a m ooapaom oapuoaoa Ac m.mM m m m.H _: m Hm» uooa>hom haunom a nmoaamsm Am a. onm.a m.m :m .H owe :mo.a opauum Adam .oocdHSmQH .ooadsam Am m.ms a: .m m.s mmm.m Ho:.a mmH.m undue Haauom gonna . >.mw co :.m mmo.a am sac.” .oaaamsm s uoaanoaopq< . m.M mm m.~ mm.” amp 4mm noouam wnaaaaan a mnapum .~ m. N do.” ~.m m :.a mom mma.a uposcoam auaun a coca .H .H mam.m m.ma «mm.> mam.~ mam.: conga ”dupes .n ~.mw who ~.~ ram and mam conga oauuoaons o m. mm w.H 645 gm mom aoapaaapp . m.m~ omm m.o m m do“ ma uncapaoaasaaoo . a. s mma .o m N am am noaaapaoauaoae gonna . m.am mom H.H omm we eon ooapaom waaxosna .m m. :ma m.o pom 6 How uoaoaaaam .a s.mm .:mmua .we: mma.m amm mmm.a uoaaaaaapawawmmmMmumw Mm O O Q Q." N mm mmd a _: No m w maannpoausndznaoz nausea dance anoo fiance .Huaom odds pace ham maauadq ham hpcsoo :2 :.mm mmo.m m.m ogw.m ”mm mom.m noaposnpuaoo A4 5 mafia» enhanazucoz .4 m.om 4m ~.o woe cu m .muz uoaaaooam no: a guano o o.sm em «.0 as” MN and ”woe a asoaoapam .naaoaaono . Auoaaaas mcaznaansm .mcapnanm . «.Hs mam :.H Mam mmw mama upozooam codaa< a aoaam . m.mm m H.o m mm mm Hoauanq s oaauuoa .m ~.m m m o.a mmw mad m uaauooam conunau s coca .H m.~m a H.H ~.m mm .a om: sm.a acooo oanansa-noz Am m.mm om." m5 NNm mm ...EN howwwpw.mummaw .thMSSMoum up ”.m: we ~.o Mwa m pad A a “no; a wwnmuw .m . m mom.a .m .H Ha m s.a uposeoam Hana: . N.Mm mwm m.a smm waa wmm buoaanona .m m.mm mm H.o mm m ms uncanasuu unequaaae gonna .~ m.mw mmm.m m.m~ o m.:a mmm.a mm~.na «pang a uoaanoaouza .a 0.6m mwo.ma .sm Hmm.ma m.a 6mm.MH acooo canan:n_a< m.m mm.ma m.om mma.om mmm.~ Hm». H wnanspoauscus dance .o ma H.o m m waahaauaa a mafia“: “.mm wma m.: may.m ”ma mmm.~ a onsmwswamm< . m .o mme Hm w m o n >.mm m ”.mm o.ooa mum. m omm.ma mmo.o: nanscaH m-uo ca am s.sm m m.a o.~ nmm.n m m 6:4.m ago; maaaoom Au ¢H.sm .mm sa.o pa and *mwa ago; hocownoam oaansm no Am s.m mma.mm m.sm aw.mm o m.ma mmo.q: cohoagam A4 w.mm o . o.o: H.a w .om mmm.m: ooao aonmnlmw m.mm mma.m o.ooa m.m a Hmm.mm omm.mm naauaas om annoy uwnsoo dance dupes 356 now magnum? anon .uom @5500 oHdaoUP on? coma .z4ch5 I .cszzqq nz<.wazpoo a .owma «noadpm Uovafip mm.nzunoo nvnoopcopom .aonuo :« mam ecu aoapaosom opupaam :« mmm .aoapmosum adagam :a “as.” .npaaom can onaoaogs nu mmw.a nouaaoaa Hanna madness .nonpo ca moo.” on. .aoauuosem oau>anm ma :5: .qoauaosem oaansm ca sHm.m .npflaom can oaaoacoa ca :mm.~ nousaona dance h£38 .uooaphom Hudoahom unconddaoouas was «doudaom and soap Hansonaom nooa>nom coah4 ..oxa «cannon N Idopoom .pnoaon584 «muahn a wuaqdoao .haonswu «nooaam wadwcoq cad adopom nouaaocH at .3. aaoo hem muaocdq 9:00 mom hansoo Aooauauaoov o: mgm.H mm mum oopaonom poz hapuscaH :.m. mawgd mom 0 m.N mH.H m .H ## noou>nom honpo Ah >.m mm.m o.» . mom.m me.N NMJ.~ pzosdaoaoo AH u. N .: .ma. K a o. mmm.: m H.: copmaom a Husoaumomoam Am m.ow w .H w o m mm ocabhom caumoaon Ac p.m m m I .m I «mm.a mam m ~.H oooapnom nausea a auoaansm an :.o oom.a a.m mm .m med.” sum.” opapnm Adam .ooadASuaH .ooqmnam Am m.mm desd b.0H wm0.> N:m.~ dwm.d scape Adduom nonpo . I I I I I I noaamgsm a uoaangaouad . m.mm m.a H.m o.~ med.” mam .ooaam mqaanapa a weaves .m z. w om.a H.m o.~ om 46:.H naoaeonm space a coon .a m. 6 mac.» m.ma maa.aa mo .: oas.m conga adapom an «.:m m .H m.~ ~mm.a msw MN:.H cease cannoaon; o m.o mmm :.H Hm HNH p uoapaaaup . 6.” ms: o.H on awn 45m .aoauuoaasaaoo .m n.m mm m.o amn an 4mm aoapmaaoauqaaa gonao . o.m mm: .a Hmm op amp ooa>nom wuaaosna .m .mm cam 6.6 a pa 4mm .uaoaaaam .H .mm msa.m m.: wma.m mom omm.~ .oapaaapp s paoaacaaa Am Hanson dupes Hupoa nausea can: 257 of food and kindred products lead, but employed only 669 individuals. As to be expected, the largest proportion of those employed in non-manufacturing activities were occupied in retail trade. They numbered 7,432 persons, or 16.3 per cent of the county's workers. Some 5,312, or 71.5 per cent of those were employed in Lansing. At the time, there were 1,576 retail establishments in the county; 1,112 in Lansing, 57 in East Lansing, 62 in Mason, and 345 scatter- ed elsewhere in the county.32 The number of workers and the percentage of total county employment in each of the other non-manufacturing occupations can be determined from Table 39. The dispro- portionally large numbers engaged in government and in professional and related services were due to the state capital being in Lansing and Michigan State College in East Lansing. Of the 3,980 people employed in government, 2,596, or 80.2 per cent resided in Lansing and many of the others commuted there to work. Of the 4,240 employed in professional and related services, on the other hand, only 2,438, or 57.5 per cent lived in Lansing, and some of these worked at the college in East Lansing, the largest single employer of this category of labor. 32. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Retail Trade, Vol. 1, Part 3, p. 527. ‘."‘. 'nl. till 258 Enrollment at Michigan State College reached 2,314 students by 19252and then grew to 6,967 in 1940, a peak up to that time.U3 During the war years which followed, civilian enrollment dropped greatly because most of the young men were in the armed services. This decrease was largely balanced, however, by the stationing of military personnel on the campus for academic training. Civilian enrollment totaled 3,833 in 1943. Later, in 1945, there were 5,329 students and 901 staff members, including ex- tension workers.54 The same year approximately 34,765 children and young people between 5 and 19 years of age were being educated in other schools of the county. These consisted of 92 one-room, 7 two-room, and 56 three-or-more-room public schools and three non-public schools.55 The war years were ones of full employment because of the emergency demands for manufactured goods. Although many of the men were called into the armed services, their jobs were filled at home to an increasing extent by women. That the employment of women was not uncommon before this is shown by the 11,848 women among the 45,722 gainfully 33. Financial Report, 1959-1960, Michigan State University Publication, Vol. 55, No. 8 (jan., 1961), p. 3. 34. Data provided by the Registrar's Office, Michigan State University. 35. The Summary Annual Statistics and Financial Report for the Year Ending June,*l945, compiled by the Commissioner of Schools. Now at Record Center, Dewitt Road, Lansing. 259 employed persons in Ingham County in 1940. That year 2,513 women were employed in retail trade, 2,275 in pro- fessional and related services, 1,785 in domestic service and 1,702 in government, but only 1,200 in all manufactur- ing industry combined (Table 39). Because of the war, the kinds of work done by women became more varied. Their employment in manufacturing establishments in particular increased. As a consequence, total employment in these plants was considerably greater in 1945 than in 1940 (Table 26), in spite of the shortage of male workers. Ingham.County, 1945 iost of the significant trends which characterized life in Ingham County between 1910 and 1945 were initiated in the latter years of the previous period and have continu- ed in the present one. The two World Wars and the Great Depression for the most part caused only fluctuations in these trends, rather than permanent changes in their direct- ion, or their termination. In 1945, total population, city population, and rural non-farm population of the county were all much larger than in 1910, but farm population had declined greatly. Farms were larger, better equipped, more productive and more com- mercial than ever before, although they were fewer in number and contained less total acreage; the latter because of increases in the size of the cities, in rural non-farm 260 living, and in the area used for other non-agricultural purposes. Urbanization and industrialization had expanded hand in hand. Trade and industry had grown phenomenonly. Road and highway transportation had continued to improve, tremendously so. In other aspects of transportation, however, there had been some notable changes in trends. One was the rapid decline and termination of use of electric interurbans and street cars. Another, was the rise in use of the airplane. In 1945, Ingham County stood on the threshold of the post-war period with a greater productive capacity in the form of people, capital, factory, farm, and transportation than at any previous time. The pent-up demand for goods and services for peace-time living was enormous. The rapid adjustment of the economy from a war-time basis so as to satisfy these demands greatly strengthened many major trends of the previous period, but these are matters to be discussed in the next chapter. CHAPTER'VI POST-WARWYEARS AND CORCLUSION Close to the end of World War II it was predicted by some that the termination of war demands would lead to reduced output of industry. They thought that unemploy- ment and depression would result.1 Contrary to these fears, the post-war years in Ingham County have, in general, been prosperous ones, characterised by greatly increased produc- tion, a growing gainfully occupied labor force, and profit- able business activity. These trends have been interrupted mainly during the years 1948-1949, 1955-1954, and 1957-1958, when there were slight nationally-felt recessions, and currently (1961), when a more severe restriction of economic activity is being experienced. Perhaps in the future, however, these first fifteen post-war years will be remembered as much, if not more, as ones of "population explosion" and of Ithe exploding metropo- lis", than as ones of great economic development and ”good times“. In all of these regards, Ingham.County has mirrored especially well conditions in the nation as a whole, mainly 1. V. C. Brown Highways and Byways 2: Michigan July 1945, p. 2, and the,fee gs genera 1y expressed by the ’ writings of government officials and city planners around 1944. 261 262 because it contained the already large city of Lansing with- in its borders. Lansing The population of Lansing, which was 78,753 in 1940, grew to 92,129 in 1950 and to 108,128 in 1960, a gain of 37.3 per cent in twenty years (Table 27). Most of this growth came after the end of World War 11. While it was partly due to the higher rate of natural increase (excess of births over deaths) which characterized the nation as a whole during the post-war period, it was largely the result of the areal growth of the city through annexations of sub- urbs. Annexations occurred in 1949, 1950, 1955, 1957, and 1958, the largest ones being made to the south of the city in 1949 and to the southwest and the northwest in 1958 (Fig. 19). These extended the city limits in their north- western and southwestern corners as far as the Clinton and Eaton County boundaries. Absorbtion of pockets of settle- ment between Lansing and East Lansing on the east gave the two cities a common boundary. Thus, in January 1960 Lansing included more than 20.6 square miles of the territory of Lansing Township and touch- 2 ed township boundaries on three of its sides. Lansing and 2. Data Greater Lansin Michi an 1959 (Chamber of Commerce, Greater Lansing 15.3.; ’ ’ 265 East Lansing together covered most of Lansing Township and East Lansing extended into adjoining Meridian Township (Fig. 20). The built-up area associated with the two cities spread well beyond their incorporated limits, however, cover- ing considerable parts of Meridian and Delhi Townships in Ingham County, Delta Township in Eaton County, and DeWitt Township in Clinton County. In 1955, Lansing had 547 manufacturing establishments according to the Directory gf Michigan Manufacturers.3 This was over three times the number reported by the same source in 1944. The proportion of the city's labor force employ- ed by industry, however, has changed but little. In 1940 and 1950 it was a little under 50 per cent and in 1959 Just over 50 per cent.4 In 1940 there were 10,285 Lansing residents engaged in manufacturing out of the employed labor force of 29,667; in 1950 it was 15,255 out of 59,189. The automobile and automobile equipment industries hired the most workers-- 7,551 in 1940 and 9,955 in 1950. The numbers of persons liv- ing in Lansing employed in other kinds of manufacturing and in other occupations, as well as the percentages these were of total county employment of the same categories,can be deter- 5. Directory 23 Michi an Manufacturers, 1955 (Detroit: Manufacturing Publishi—ng 'c'os'T. , ”7219-5—25. “"" 4. 1959 information received personally from the Lansing Chamber of Commerce. 264 LANSING CITY GROWTH ! ! Imposed is be Inn-Ind ! ! I"! L . I ' -- f ..... ,, e - Z s I o i ' an E ‘ | Q l flrlllnn ‘ < \ i seem all] MICHIGAN AVE. m7 \ TRW l! 5375 M Mums . \ . ”55 ”55 ‘1“ I |_.. .. - ‘ L__. 1 Proposed to be annexed 4.}. 9‘ ‘ ‘5 use a 11 Z ‘3 , o ‘_ t l .l o 2 I 'i 2 22 UILES V E You at Annexation \\\\ ‘MIHNOM |||7 Annulucnx I“! D lnnunlons "5| W Annunluns I015 Mnunienx use E Annex-tions llll Ann-"(Inns I." - Annuationx ”5| J.A.M. I960 265 CITY GROWTH ' 5N3“. H .—‘e e . . I I - _ I i. l.— 3 i i i 5“ n . I ”En 4y: i. I I . . I LA“ I RAIL A0 i ! I We I o 400 soo 1200 En! “using ”01 E [MIMI] Annexation: I!“ 4|" Annexation: ”SO-l"! JAM l960 266 mined for 1940 from Table 59 and for 1950 from Table 40. Census data for 1960 of like character is not yet available. The commercial activities of the city have also expand- ed remarkably during the post-war years. Although figures for 1960 have not yet been released some estimate of the increase can be made from the 1954 report. During that year Lansing business establishments included 1,094 retail stores with 8,975 employees, 524 business places offering other services with 2,214 employers, and 251 wholesale houses with 2,650 employees.5 An idea about the amount of business done can be had from the estimated income of $542,617,000 from retail sales in 1959,6 placing the city among the top eighty markets of the nation. Lansing today is entered by seven major highways, which have been greatly improved to accommodate the rapidly grow- ing traffic since 1945. The city is linked to Detroit, Grand Rapids, Port Huron and Chicago by the Chesapeake & Ohio, the Grand Trunk, and the New'York Central Railroad systems. It is served by the Capital and the North Central Air Lines. A new terminal building, erected at the Capital City Airport in 1958, provided Lansing with one of the finest terminals 5. U.S. Bureau of Census, Count; gag Cit Data Book, 1956, (Washington: Govt. Printing ice, p. 112. 6. Data collected from the files of the Chamber of Commerce of the Greater Lansing Area, dated Oct. 5, 1959. 267 in a city of similar size in the United States.'7 Educational facilities present in the city in 1958 included forty public schools with an enrollment of 22,751 pupils, eleven parochial schools with one of 4,240, and a new community college with 415 students.8 In addition, some 270 children attended the School for the Blind and 575 youths were on the roll at the Boys' Vocational School.9 The economy of Lansing is based upon a variety of activities: industrial, commercial and administrative. Its industrial importance largely originated with the es- tablishment here of the automobile industry, and to it is tied a considerable proportion of the city's present pros- perity. The future fortunes of Lansing likewise depends largely upon the trends in the automobile industry. Since much of the commercial activity in the city has been stimu- lated by the industrial growth in the past, its well-being has fluctuated with the depression or prosperity encountered by the manufacturing plants. Because of this relationship, industry and commerce will tend to follow parallel trends in 7. Annual Re ort, 1955-56, (Lansing: Michigan Aeronau- tic Commission), p. I . 8. Statistics obtained from the Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan. The figures are for 1958. 9. Data, Greater Lansing, Michigan, 1959, 22, gig., p.5. 268 the future. The correlation between the two is less close than in most industrial cities, however, because Lansing is the state capital. Administrative activities have been and probably will continue to be the most stable ones in the city, thereby lessening the effect on business in general of oscillations in the industrial sectors of the economy. Population Population of Ingham County increased at an even more rapid rate during the post-war years than did that of Lansing. Between 1940 and 1960 it grew 81,018, rising from 150,616 to 211,654. This was an increase of 62 per cent, as compared to one of 57.5 per cent in Lansing. The number of persons added was 165 per cent more than in the previous twenty-year period of greatest growth, 1920-1940, and was almost equal to the total population of the county in 1920 (Tables 27 and 41). The increase in number was a little greater between 1940 and 1950 than between 1950 and 1960, but the rate of growth was considerably greater during the first decade (Table 41). Most of the growth resulted from the natural increase within the county. Although in-migration expanded with the larger demand for labor during the booming auto-building years of 1955-1955, this contributed relatively little to the 10 permanent rise of county population. When employment 10. The State Journal, Lansing, Michigan, Wednesday May 18, 1960', P- 20 TABLE 41 269 NUMBER AND PER GENT OF POPULATION GROWTH INGRAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN, 1940 - 1960 1940- 1515“"?- 1 40- 1940- 1950- 1955- 1960 1960 1950 1950 1960 1960 Gain Gain Gain Gain Gain Gain Number Number )6 Number 1 Alaiedon 959 85.0 554 51.5 585 59.4 Aurelius 524 24.6 166 12.6 158 10.7 Bunker Hill 451 55.4 208 24.2 225 20.9 Delhi 9,782 145.5 5,554 49.9 6,428 65.8 Ingham. 254 21.4 108 9.9 126 10.5 Danville (101) (28.8) (82)(25.4) 19) (4.4) Lansing ~51 -0.2 5,555 25.5 -5,584 -l9.2 Lansing City 29,575 57.5 15,576 17.0 15,999 17.4 LeRoy 298 20.0 129 8.7 169 10.4 Webberville (157) (50.9) (92)(18.1) (65)(10.8) Leslie 794 55.5 408 18.5 586 14.6 Village (527) (41.2) (262)(20.5) (265)(17.2) Locke 510 52.0 45 4. 467 5. Meridian 9,611 201.6 4,541 91.1 5,270 57.9 E.Lansing 25,906 409.4 14,487 248.1 9,420 46.5 Onondaga 342 26e5 157 12e1 185 12e4 Stockbridge 827 51.2 527 52.6 500 28.8 Village 1 2 2 7 (-1)(oo.o) Mason 1,625 56.6 647 22.6 976 27.8 lheatfield 75 9.1 -60 -7.9 155 17.7 White Oak 157 18.6 105 12.5 52 5.5 Williamston 1,464 54.6 544 20.5 920 28.5 Village (484) (28.4) (547)(20.4) (157) (6.7) Ingham County Summary Total 81,018 62.0 42,525 52.4 58,695 22.4 Urban 54,904 62.8 28,599 52.7 26,505 22.7 Total Rural 26,114 60.5 15,726 51.8 12,588 21.8 Rural Non- Famm 27,052 95.0% 14,464 50.8 12,588* 29.5* Rural Farm. -958 -6.8* -758 -5.5 -200* -1.4* *Estimate Source: Calculated from data given in Table 27, page 205. 270 dropped during the recession and steel strike in 1957-58, emigration increased and tended to balance somewhat the earlier movement in from other states. The proportion of foreign born in the county by now is very low. It was less than 4 per cent in 1950. Out of the total 7,044 foreign born enumerated that year, the largest groups were 1,654 Canadians and 1,084 from the British Isles. The other foreign born came mostly from test European countries and Russia, with only 91 from.Latin American and 598 from Asia.11 Although the gain in Lansing residents was only 57.5 per cent between 1940 and 1960, the urban population of the county increased 62.8 per cent. The number of city dwellers added was 54,904. Obviously, the other three cities of Ingham County together grew at a faster rate than did Lansing. This was particularly true of East Lansing where the population increase was 409.4 per cent and of Mason where it was 56.6 per cent, but in Williamston the growth was only 28.4 per cent (Table 41). In the rural areas, there is little question that the farm population declined considerably after 1940. The number and per cent of decrease shown in Table 41 is only 11. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth Census of the United States, 1950 (Washington:-Govt."Printing UffIEb, 1952), Vol. VI, Part 22, pp. 97-154. 271 an approximation, however, since farm population statistics for 1960 have not yet been released. In view of the de- crease in farm population and an increase of 26,114 in total rural population, it can be concluded that the rural non-farm population increased 95 to 100 per cent between 1940 and 1960, or at a materially higher rate than the in- crease in the county as a whole. If the proportion of total county population of each class in 1940,1950, and 1960 is considered, the trend away from the farm and towards rural non-farm living is quite apparent. Interestingly, the share of urban pOpulation of the total has changed very little during the last twenty years. In 1940 it was 67.0 per cent; in 1950 it was 67.1 per cent; and in 1960 it was 67.5 per cent. Percentages of farm population the same years were respectively 11.5, 831, and an estimated 6.4; for the rural non-farm population they were 21.7, 24.8, and an estimated 26.5. Because of the growth of Lansing and East Lansing and of the rural non-farm pOpulation close to these cities, the three northwestern townships (Meridian, Lansing, and Delhi) which had nearly 80 per cent of the people of the county in 12. The numbers of people and percentages given for 1960 differ from those shown in F1 res 2 and 5 which were based completely on estimated, rat er than in part on census data for 1960 recently made available. 272 1940, had over 87 per cent of them in 1960. In 1960 these three townships also had the greatest rural non-farm popula- tion, the numbers being 16,505 in Delhi, 14,575 in Meridian, and 14,245 in Lansing (Table 27). Between 1940 and 1960 the rural non-farm population increased in every township except Lansing Township where there was a decrease of 51 persons. The less here was due to the great areal expansion of Lansing and East Lansing during the period,this taking in many people who in 1940 were classed as rural non-farm. Other than in Delhi and Meridian Townships, which had a gain of 9,782 and 9,611 persons respectively, the largest increases in rural non- farm residents were 1,464 in Williamston Township (includ- ing 484 in Williamston Village) and 959 in Alaiedon Town- ship (Table 41). This is as might be expected, since these are townships that are most accessible for commuting to Lansing and East Lansing. Vevay Township, which also has high accessibility to the two cities, likewise had a large population increase. This totaled 1,980, but 1,625 of these people were in Mason rather than in the rural area. Table 41 shows that there was considerable variation in numerical growth and rate of growth in different parts of the county between 1940 and 1950 as compared to that between 1950 and 1960. The population of the county as a whole had a slightly larger increase during the first 275 decade, than it did during the following one. This was mainly due to less rapid numerical growth during the latter period in Lansing Township (including the city of Lansing), and in Meridian Township (including East Lansing), but also in Aurelius, Leslie, Stockbridge and White Oak Townships. All other townships had greater gains in population between 1950 and 1960 than during the previous ten years (Table 41). ‘ Since their increases were largely in rural non-farm pOpula- tion and most of these people were supported by Jobs in Lansing, this is evidence of the "exploding metropolis." The approximate location in 1950 of all rural dwellings outside the principle villages and the immediate environs of Lansing and East Lansing is shown in Figure 21; that of rural non-farm dwellings in Figure 22. Comparison of Figures 18 and 22 is instructive, since it indicates the extent and distribution of the increase in rural non-farm dwellings between 1940 and 1950. In 1940 there were only 299 of these in the county, excluding those in the rural sections of Lansing, Delhi and Meridian Townshipsfor which no count could be made, and in the villages (Fig. 18). By 1950 the number had risen to 901, with the largest increases being 111 in Aurelius Township, 98 in Alaiedon Township, 88 and 75 respectively in the parts of Delhi and Meridian Town- ships for which information was available, and 72 in Williams ston Township (Fig. 22 and Table 5). It is apparent that the 274 greatest increases were in the townships most accessible to the cities in the northwestern corner of the Countyép. Between 1940 and 1950 there was a gain of 12,462 dwell- ing units in the county (Table 28). Of these, 5,618 units were added in Lansing, 1,975 in East Lansing and 269 in Mason, or a total 7,862 in the cities. Since farm residences, including those in urban areas, decreased only 9 in number, there was an increase of approximately 4,600 new rural non- farm homes. Many of these were in the urbanized area around Lansing and East Lansing, so are not shown in Figure 22. The total number of dwelling units in this area in 1940 is not known, but in 1950 there were approximately 91 farm and 5,745 non-farm.units here (Table 28). As indicated by Table 50, nearly half of the new dwelling units in Lansing were built between 1940 and 1945 and the rest after 1945. Elsewhere, in East Lansing, Mason, the urbanized area, and rural non-farm areas, the proportion of construc- tion occurring after 1945 was much greater. For the county as a whole residential construction during the last half of the decade, 1940-1950, was two times that during the first half. Judging from the population increase between 1950 and 1960, about as many new homes must have been built during these years as during the previous decade. MOst of the construction was outside of Lansing and East Lansing, however, and more of it occurred‘before 1955 than after. The number of houses in Lansing and East Lansing increased much more 1a 1‘. 'll . I .- ...! i I III! III in: I‘ll ‘III I] llll. lllldl. 2'75 INGHAM COUNTY RURAL DWELLINGS AND SELECTED CIRCULATION FEATURES l950 .|.1 ....... .|.|.|.|.|. ..... I..._....| ..... . .|.ml..|.4. ....... II}.-|.I|.I1.IuI—.II.I.In.Io .- .ISI — .. on _. . u. u. . ...IWNM ...4 . ...._ fl... . .... . ...... . .._Usfi . . 4.12....» .7. ..m. ...i .. . . ..m . ._ .. .._...... . .. ._ . H. ._ - mini... .... __ ... ..._—..H. ...:T. .. .. ... +4.... ...._ . H. . ... .H. .. "a ..:. .. 4. .. . .. _... L. .... .. _.. . u... . ....4 n. n i ..._... . . ..I.~. _..... . . n. u a. . . . . . — . PM . .. . .14.... ts..q.....u..l..L..luL. . . :I..1....I. . .. .. J w..%......-..l. . .. .. . . 4-...-. ..H .... ...._ . _ 2 - .._.... H. .n M H . .. u. ._... . . _. ... :...... . : 3 . 3 . '.. .. ‘0 .... .. _JI—l—L .. . . .. .Z 'z : ._.—..n.._-.--_'.-u. 3|J&£.{I...r...ml. .4: . . ....\\\\\\\\ .F . . .4 .. . ... .. .. . . + I 1 I I :1 - "-:;l' H] I I I I I. I I I ... “m ... In... 7 . . ... .. .- L ._ .-.~-.= 1’! _ 4 . ......_ -_ _ . .... m. ... mm u ..\ ..... I. ......fi. .\_ _ ...i... .. . . ”..._: ...... _ ... .n.W\§’-.H :... n . . H.. I. . "....h _ .H II .H n _ Ilvfl l .L... . ..:.: I.” 4 444.” J‘ A; u- .I II M . _ ._ . w." _ .. -...” u. H......._. II......L_.. . .._ .. + .:.; r x. .... ..-_ ...... 4. .... u ..M_4!...r ...:..“! :......._. n . . ...._ u ....i.._. _. . ....u. .. ..._ ..:.... .. I; H_. ”3.”. .... .43.." u. H. .. . . .._ .I.ml..I1Lu».-I....l..lr..lbu..nrh...lr-4H“.Er~ml..lfl.I...r.I.rl...F...I.H.L—r_ I e I "(~ ‘340 Hztllhuhcu not VVJIIJI Dullm: I. Fall In“? S! «is ‘3-0. 179.: Shit ‘1'PIJYI \V - you HAP 2'76 INGHAM COUNTY RURAL NON FARM DWELLINGS, l950 IIIIH.luI_hIII.I.|llII —o|lll on on e u o _. . . . .. _u m : _ m . _ s to. to. — O o _ O .0. — O _. .. ._ .1 1......1.-........1....1.1.4+-- _..!!!“ s on no.“ on. e no a. _ 1111-11-11-11." . . _ m m _ ml. u." " ..:.. I- 11.11.141-11. .............. 41------ . u . . . - _ O U _ u .I ”I. . n..." _ "so see _ _ m .. _ _ “...4 .F _ h . . w Me Oh my. mu 1n ..II .. .u .. _. .Il mum; le-Nl [Rib OINF‘1L Fig. 22 277 through annexations of previously built-up territory, than it did through new construction. Immediately beyond the expanding limits of the cities, however, there was great activity, not only in Ingham County, but also in the parts of Glinton County and Eaton County adjacent to Lansing. The establishment of new subdivisions and of rural non-farms homes has been greatest along the main highways leading into Lansing and East Lansing, and in areas tribu- tary to these highways. In Ingham County, as a consequence, growth has been most significant to the east towards William- ston and south towards Mason (Plate 11). Construction of all these new homes, along with that of other buildings and of highways, has not only provided much employment (Table 40), but also a market for sand and gravel, the only natural resource in the county other than soil that is of any consequence (Plate 12). Transportation Highway transportation gained unprecedented popularity in the post-war years. Inside Ingham Bounty commuters in increasing numbers were traveling greater distances than ever before to reach their Jobs in Lansing or East Lansing, while use of the highways by those from outside the county also expanded greatly. .Never-the-less only 57 miles of road were constructed in the county between 1940 and 1958. Most of this was due to the multi-laning and relocation of main 278 highways, especially US-127 to the south, but the condition of many more miles of road was improved. By 1958 there were 1,290 miles of roads of all classes in the county, with 700 miles of these hard surfaced.13 The popularity of road travel can be estimated by the amount of traffic on the major arteries. In 1958 over 16,000 vehicles used US-16 (Grand River Road) daily and nearly 12,000 used 08-127. The daily average on US-27 was 10,000, on Route 45 the same, and on Routes 78, 99, and 36 it was 6,900, 4,000 and 1,000 respectively.14 Because of new divided highways in Ingham and adjoining counties it had become possible by early 1961 to travel from Jackson to Lansing in 50 minutes, Ithaca to Lansing in 40 minutes, Charlotte to Lansing in 20 minutes, and Ionia to Lansing in 55 minutes. Inside Lansing traffic is speeded via one-way streets. A recent survey completed for the Tri-County Plan- ning Commission indicates that a perimeter joining the far points from which Lansing can be reached.by automobile in 50 minutes now encompasses 627 square miles of territory.15 Travel time to Lansing from more distant points will be further lessened when divided highways now under construction are completed. 15. Mileage figures obtained from the State Highway Department, Lansing, Michigan, on Oct. 6,1959. 14. Michigan State Highway Department, Ma of Average 24 Hour Traffic Flow on the Trunkline System_ for— 19 .LansIng Sta te —Jo rna w, l, p.w 279 Railroad facilities in 1960 remained about the same as in 1945, except there was less passenger service avail- able because of a great decline in demand for it. Air travel had become increasingly common on the other hand, as had also the transportation of mail and other freight by air. In 1956, for example, there were 71,849 passengers, 246,597 pounds of mail, and 828,055 pounds of other freight moved into or out of the county by airplanes.16 Agriculture After 1945 there was impressive change in agriculture in Ingham County, although much of this was the continuation of trends set into motion during the previous period. The dollar value of farm products sold increased from $6,654,566 in 1944, to $11,442,730 in 1954 (Table 42). Much of this growth was due to monetary inflation, but there was a con- siderable increase in quantity production of some products. In 1955 there were 586 less farms in the county than in 1945 and there were 21,717 fewer acres included in farms. The farms were, never-the-less, larger than ever before, averaging 122.2 acres in size, while farm tenancy was down to 8.5 per cent (Tables 52 and 55). The farms were also better equipped than at any previous time, as can be deter- mined from Table 54. l6. Lansing and Ingham County Economic Data, 1956, p.5. 280 The percentage of land of the county that was in farms had dropped from 85.6 to 79.5 in a decade (Table 52). This was the result of the diversion of farm land to other uses such as sites for housing to shelter the rapidly growing pOpulation and right-of—way for the new divided highways. Some land in Ingham and Bunker Hill Townships was also taken out of farm use and converted into State game area (Fig. 21). The 284,440 acres remaining in farms in 1954, were com- prised of 200,859 acres of crOpland, 55,121 acres of wood- land, and 22,199 acres of pasture (Table 55). Since this was 1,976 acres more cropland and 5,261 acres more woodland than there had been in 1944, the tenryear loss in agricul- tural land to other uses was largely accounted for by a decline of the amount of pasture land. If only true pasture, excluding cropland and woodland used for pasture, is consid- ered there was a loss of 22,955 acres; if all land used for pasture is included there was a loss of 21,951 acres (Table 33). ' This decline of pasture acreage was compensated for in part by the continued decrease in the number of horses, from 5,248 in 1945 to 706 in 1954, and in the number of sheep and lambs, from 50,878 to 17,012 during the same period (Table 45). The raising of cattle and the dairy industry, however, became more important than ever. Head of cattle of all kinds in- creased 4,255 between 1945 and 1954. Although there was a 281 TABLE 42 VALUE or FARM PRODUCTS SOLD INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN 1944-1954 1944 1949 1954 All Farm Products 6,654,566 9,006,455 11,442,750 All Crops 1,470,558 2,595,865 4,104,507 Field Crops 824,247 2,057,588 5,575,526 ‘ Vegetables 447,967 251,648 564,845 Fruits & Nuts 71,086 85,605 115,462 Hort. Specialities 127,258 201,026 252,874 All Livestock and Livestock Produce 5,142,244 6,586,468 7,295,855 Dairy Produce 2,707,600 5,262,645 5,914,741 Poultry and Poultry Produce 575,590 698,855 705,584 Other 1,861,254 2,424,972 2,675,710 Forest Products 21,814 26,122 42,588 Sources: United States Census of égriculture: 1945, Vol. I, Part 6, pp. 98, 115; United Sta es ensus gfhégricul- ture: 1954, Vol. I, Part 6, p. 67. ' "- decrease of some 728 milk cows during these same years, the output of dairy products rose significantly; an indication of the better care being given better cows. Milk sold increased from 9,910,411 gallons in 1944 to 15,154,585 gallons in 1954. Sale of farm made butter was now a thing of the past, however, and pounds of butter fat sold had dropped from 220,765 to 78,654 during the same decade (Table 45). Thus, fluid milk accounted for most of the value of dairy products sold in 1954. Dairy products 282 in turn were the most important of all the livestock and livestock products marketed, and these accounted for much of the value of all farm products. The value of dairy products was $5,914,741 in 1954; that of all livestock and livestock products was $7,295,855; that of all farm products was 11,442,730 (Table 42;. The previously mentioned loss in pasture land was also compensated by an increased cutting of hay. This was accom- plished, even though there was a reduction of 4,515 acres of hay land harvested between 1944 and 1954, by shifting from the production of clever, timothy, and mixed grass hays, to heavier yielding alfalfa and alfalfa mixed hays (Table 57). There is little indication, however, that there was much increase in acreage of corn cut for silage, although the amount of land planted to corn for grain increased materially,rdsing from 55,549 to 45,248 acres during the post- war years ending in 1954. Production rose even more. The yield of 2,065,806 bushels in 1954 was nearly twice that of 1944, reflecting the much greater productivity of new corns now being cultivated (Table 58). No doubt the greater har- vest of corn is reflected in the increase in number of cattle and the production of milk, and both help to account the expansion in the number of swine raised in the county (Table 45). Corn remains the leading.field crop of the county in terms of acres devoted to its growth. 285 TABLE 43 LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN 1944-1954 1945 1950 1954 Total Cattle 54,824 52,208 59,079 Milk Cows 16,462* 14,896a 15,754a Sheep & Lambs 50,878 16,558 17,012 Hogs & Pigs 15,756 18,587 26,747 ' Farms with Horses 1,521 601 507 Horses & Mules 5,248 1,561 706 Milk Produced (Gal.)1l,585,707* 1 ? Milk Sold (Gal.) 9,910,411* 9,595,486* 15,154,585 Butter Fat Sold(lbs.) 220,765* 155,965* 78,654 Chickens On Hand 188,454 155,065 182,475 Chickens Sold 7 149,940* 205,942 (Doz.) Eggs Sold 1,567,550*b 1,044,214* 1,199,650 Sheep Shorn 50,878* 12,624* 11,469 Wool Shorn (lbs.) 218,597* 102,422* 97,752 *Statistics for year previous to that indicated in the headin . a? Not strictly comparable with figure in 1945 column ‘which includes all cows milked during any part of 1944, whereas numbers in 1950 and 1954 are for milk cows including dry milk cows and milk heifers that have calved. b) Dozens of eggs produced in 1944 rather than those sold. Sources: United States Census of ggriculture: 1945, ‘Vol. I, Part 6, pp. 98, 115; UnItedTSta es ensus g; Agricul- ture: 1954, Vol. I, Part 6, pp. 86, 95. Next in importance is oats, followed by winter wheat. These were grown on 25,489 acres and 25,257 acres respective- ly in 1954, the acreage of oats being down 2,596 and that of ‘winter wheat up 2,805 as compared to that in 1944. Barley is the most important of the other grain crops, but only 284 1,047 acres of it were grown in 1954. Harvests of potatoes and sugar beets are new small as compared to past peaks, and have not changed significantly during the post-war years. Attention should be directed, however, both to the great decrease in acreage of dry beans without a corresponding drop in their production, and to the small increase in soy- besn acreage with a large gain in bushels harvested, for these provide examples of the greater operating efficiency and the use of higher yielding varieties which characterizes modern agriculture. In 1940 agriculture employed 5,579 people in the county (Table 59). By 1950 the number had dropped to 2,772 (Table 40). Today there are even fewer persons working the farms. Mechanization has progressively enabled fewer hands to take care of larger acreages with less effort. Life on the farm has become much easier. By 1954 approximately 99.8 per cent of Ingham County farms had electricity, 87 per cent had telephones, 92 per cent had running water, 72 per cent had television, 86 per cent were cultivated with tractors, and nearly 88 per cent had automobiles. In addition, there had been by then, and since continued, a phenomenal increase in the number of grain combines, corn pickers, hay bailers, milking machines, and other labor saving equipment on the farms (Table 54). 285 Since dairying is so important and corn is the leading crop, large barns, machinery sheds, silos, and corn cribs are usual features of Ingham County's rural landscape. Out of a total of 2,528 farms enumerated in the 1954 census, 654 were classed as dairy farms, 446 as cash grain farms, and 456 as field crop farms. The rest were mostly non- specialized farms.l'7 For the most part, the layout of the farmsteads has changed only little in recent years, but there has been considerable addition to, and replacement of, old build- ings. New barns built have often been larger, a response to the increased size of the farms and the greater interest in cattle and the dairy industry (Plate 15). Additions of machinery sheds and feeding pens to old barns are more and more commonly being made in the form of one-story, metal- roofed and sided structures (Plate 10). These, as well as the newer style silos being erected (Plate l5),have added some variety to the farmstead's appearance during the modern period. Manufacturing and Other Occupations In 1954 there were 209 manufacturing establishments employing 29,594 people in Ingham County. This was an increase of twenty-eight concerns, and 5,542 employees 17. United States*_Census of A riculture: 1954, Michigan (WasEIngEon: Governmefit r n ng fice, I956), 0 e , art 6, ppe 122’155e 286 over the number in 1947 (Table 26). Among the industrial plants thirty-eight were engaged in making various machines, thirty-eight in processing food and kindred products, thirty-five in turning out fabricated products and the re- maining ones in the production of diversified goods ranging from the manufacture of primary metal goods to stone, clay, and glass products.18 The great majority of the establish- ments were small. Only 55 employed more than 100 persons. Tables 59 and 40 show that in 1950 manufacturing em- ployed 20,186 workers, or 50.8 per cent of the employed labor force of the county, as compared to 14,687, or 52.1 per cent of the employed labor force in 1940. Since there has been no great change in the occupational structure it is likely that manufacturing engages about 50 per cent of the gainfully employed today. Significantly, durable goods manufacturing occupied the great majority of those working in the manufact- uring, this being 27.8 per cent of all employment in 1940 and 27.9 per cent of that in 1950. It probably accounts for an almost equally large share of total employment at present. A better industrial balance is desirable. In the words of a recently published study, "Further relative increases in its durable goods manufacturing sector would only make the local economy more susceptible to wide fluctuations in 18. U.S. Department of Commerce, Count and Ci Data Book, 1956 (Washington: Govt. Printing Office, 19 , p. I42. 287 Plate 11 Rural non-farm home built in 1950, Iilliamston Township. Plate 12 Large gravel pit currently operating on the Mason Esker in Delhi Township. 288 Plate 15 Large, modern barn built in 1960, Williamston Township. Note new-style silos. Plate 14 One of Oldsmobile's Lansing plants. Constructed during World War II for production of military goods; it is now used in making automobiles. 289 income and employment. While this is not a suggestion that the area would or should discourage growth in durables, it does suggest that every effort be made to encourage the entry and growth of other types of establishments for whose products or services demand is growing and not subject to 19 wide variation . Automobile manufacturing is the largest single employer in the county, normally engaging some 20 per cent of the working labor force. This being true, and since most of the other divisions of durable goods manufacturing in the area are largely dependent on this industry, the economic health of Ingham County varies with the fluctuating demand for cars and trucks. In 1956 Oldsmobile held fifth place among the various makes of cars produced, the company contri- buting some 7.5 per cent of the automobiles built in the nation (Plate 14). In 1955, the peak year of motor vehicle manufacture in America, Oldsmobile turned out 645,459 units and had 14,000 workers on the payroll?0 Reo Company the same year produced 5,190 buses and trucks and had 1,566 em- ployees. The next year, however, Reo's output was only 5,789 units, providing an example of the changeable fortunes 19. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Michigan state University, Economic and Population Base Stud of the 58. Lansin Tri-County Area (East Lansing: 1965), p. _This JnEerIndu'Stry re atIons analysis summarizes the character of the present economy of the Tri-County Area and makes projec- tions and recommendations for the future. 20. Wards Automotive Year Book, 1955 (Detroit: 1956), 18th edItT—‘on, . . 290 of the industry. Employment in manufacturing in Ingham County apparent- ly reached its highest point just before the 1955-54 reces- sion, and has not exceeded this since, even during the peak automobile building year of 1955. This has in part been due to increased automation, especially of the automobile industry, and in part the result of changes in American consumption patterns. Because of the relative increase of children and old people in the total population, there has been a rise in the share of money spent that goes for the purchase of such things as medical care, education, and recreation.21 A low point after 1950 was reached during the 1958 recession when 25,555 wage and chlary workers were engaged in manufacturing in Ingham.County and Olds- ' mobile built only 310,795 automobiles. Other than automobile manufacturing, the durable goods industries of significance are those producing non- electrical machinery and fabricated and primary metals. The non-electrical machinery production is mostly farm machinery, and metal working machines. Meet of the primary metal products of the drop forge companies go into automobile manufacturing. The establishments making fabricated metal products are quite small and they turn.out a variety of items. 21. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Michigan State University, 32. cit., pp. 65-70. 291 Some of the better known durable goods producers, other than Oldsmobile and Reo, are Motor Wheel Corporation, Lansing Drop Forge Company, and Lansing Stamping Company. The non-durable goods manufacturing industries primarily serves the local market. Meat packing, bakery and beverage industries are probably most important as a group, but may still be surpassed today in employment by the printing, publishing and allied industries, just as they were in 1950 (Table 40). Printing and publishing has prospered because of the increasing demands of Michigan State University and of the state government. Particularly noteworthy among facts concerning the non-manufacturing occupations is the importance of employ- ment in government and in professional and related services (Table 40). This is, of course, due in considerable part to those working for the state government in Lansing and at Michigan State University in East Lansing. The post-war growth of the university to one of the largest educational institutions in the nation is discussed below. £3252.Centers In addition to Lansing, with its population of 108,128 in 1960, three other centers in Ingham County should be ‘mentioned. These and the number of people living in them in 1960 were East Lansing,29,745; Mason, 4,490; and Williams ston, 2,188. 292 East Lansing between 1940 and 1960 showed a dramatic growth, both in population and areal expanse. The popula- tion increased from 5,859 to 29,745 (Table 27). Some 14,487 persons were added during the decade preceding 1950 and 9,420 following that (Table 41). Before 1950 the growth was largely internal, but by that year most of the available building sites inside the city had been occupied and external expansion became the more important factor. There were two territorial annexations, however, which materially aided population increase before 1950. One was to the southwest; the other was a newly created subdivision in the high-class residential section to the northwest (Fig. 20). The addition to the southeast was of non- residential property owned by the University. Between 1950 and 1958 annexation of residential land to the east and northeast of the city accounted for most of the additional population, although the expansion to the southwest also played a part, particularly since it brought in new married housing areas that had been established by Michigan State University (Fig. 20). In 1940 East Lansing was not only a college town, but an important high-class residential suburb for Lansing. By 1960 it has assumed more the character of a twin city to Lansing, although many of its employed worked in Lansing. This was because of the growth of Michigan State University. 295 After the end of World War II, enrollment quickly expanded to 16,255 in 1949. The next two years the number of students was smaller, dropping to 15,595 in 1951, but subsequently there has been an increase every year to an enrollment of over 21,000 in the fall of 1961. University authorities forecast continued climb to 50,000 or more students in the not distant future. The name was changed from Michigan State College to Michigan State University in 1955. Today, the university ranks as the eighth largest in the nation. While remaining one of the world's outstand- ing institutions in teaching and research of agriculture and related sciences, this is only one of a number of areas of interest at present, and is overshadowed by instruction and research in science and arts and in business and public service. In 1959 approximately 20 per cent of the total enrollment of 20,555 students was in the graduate school.22 That same year operating expenses totaled $61,540,906. Of this, $29,675,199 was paid out for general university operatdon. Some $17,182,865, largely in staff salaries, went for student instruction, this being 57.9 per cent of genernd.university expense. There was a teaching faculty 22. Financial Report, 1959-1960, Michi an State University Publication, Vol. 55, No. 8 (Jam, 1961'): pp. 4-5, 294 25 of over 1,400 and a large non-teaching staff. Obviously, much of the money outlay was in Ingham County. If some $25,000,000 to $55,000,000 personal expenditures by the students enrolled is added to this, the great impact of the university upon the economic life of Ingham County bacomes clearer. Dollars spent by the university in 1959 were twice the amount ten years earlier and the same was no doubt true of those spent by the students. The recent growth of East Lansing then, is primarily a reflection of the growth of Michigan State University. The_city now spans an area of some 7 square miles. There are no manufacturing plants in the city, but commercial establishments have increased in number and amount of busi- ness done as the population rose. In 1956, there were 95 retail stores with a total of 668 employees. Included among these, were 18 food stores and eating places and 21 general merchandise, apparel and furniture stores. Some 42 business places, with 182 employees, offered personal 24 services. The population of Mason, the third city in size in the county, increased 56.6 per cent between 1940 and 1960) ‘with.the gain being somewhat greater during the second decade than in the first (Table 41). The major function 230 Ibidc pe 7c 24. Eansing and Ingham County Economig_Data, 1956, pp- 2‘4- \M N H ...-_....._: 295 of the city is administration since it is the county seat, but its stores and shOps service not only the local popula- tion, but the nearby rural population. Most of the recent population increase, however, has been because of the city becoming a living place for persons who commute to their jobs in.Lansing or East Lansing. The town of Williamston likewise owes its population growth largely to the same reason. Here the post-war in- crease was 28.4 per cent. The expansion of the surround- ing rural non-farm population was even larger, since the pOpulation of the township as a whole gained 54.6 per cent (Table 41). Conclusion White men are only the most recent of many generations of humans who have occupied Ingham County. When they first arrived they found bands of semi-migratory Pottawattomie Indians in the area, living by hunting and fishing, supple- mented by some agriculture. The number of Indians was small. The distribution of their villages indicates they were con- centrated mainly along the Red Cedar River in the north and on the shores of several lakes in the southeast corner of the county. The Indian mode of occupance disturbed the natural landscape but little. They did clear small areas for gardens, however, and established trails through the forest. Both were important, the trails particularly so, in opening the 296 county for white settlement. Although Ingham County was surveyed and laid out by 1829, it was not organized politically until 1858. The first permanent white settler arrived in 1854. By 1857, the year Michigan became a state, the population of the area had grown to 822, some 200 farmsteads had been estab- lished, and several thousand acres of land cleared. Near- ly 70 per cent of the newcomers were from the New England states and New York. They entered the county from the southeast over the "Dexter Trail" and from the south, traveling north from Jackson along the Grand River valley. Approaching the county, as well as within it, Indian trails were important in guiding the early lines of travel. The Grand River Road that was later to become so significant as a travel artery was of no consequence in settlement of Ingham County before 1840. By the end of 1858 all of the present townships of Ingham County had at least one resident white family, with settlement being least in the northern tier of townships and in Bunker Hill Township in the south. An economy pri- marily based on subsistence agriculture was established. Farmsteads were dispersed. Since variation in productivity of soil was then largely unknown, it was natural drainage, water supply, choice timber, and proximity to neighbors, to routes of travel, and to already established service centers such as Dexter and Jackson)that were the important considera- 297 tions in locating places to live. The rectangular land survey was not yet apparent from field and road patterns, since only small areas of land had been cleared and the few roads and trails departed little from those establish- ed by the Indians. Several mills and taverns were the only representatives of commerce and industry. Limited as they were, however, the visible alterations of the land- scape evidenced the introduction of a more advanced stage of culture, which was in sharp contrast to that of the Indians who previously occupied the area. Using conditions in 1858 as a starting point, it might be more enlightening in conclusion to briefly trace subsequent changes in individual aspects of occupance through time to the present, rather than summarizing the previous text discussion of changes which occurred during each period. Population of the county, for example, increased steadily, each successive decade having a greater numeri- cal gain than the previous one up until 1880 when a slow- ing occurred. During the 1880's, 5,990 persons were added, and during the 1890's only 2,152. After 1900, however, the climb in population became steeper than ever, except dur- ing the 1950's when there was a gain of 14,029 as compared to 55,055 the previous decade. The gain of 58,695 during the 1950's was also less than that of 42,525 during the 1940's. 298 Farm population reached a peak around 1880. Up to that time the major part of the county's population in- crease had been in the rural areas. Since then it has been in urban and in rural non-farm inhabitants. There is little question but that farm population after 1880 slowly decreased, decade by decade, except during the 1950's when there was a temporary increase due to some city dwellers returning to the country during the depres- sion. Urban population became greater than that in rural areas of the county between 1900 and 1910. People living on farms in 1960 were estimated to number about 15,750, as compared to some 21,000 in 1880. Lansing was established as a result of the location here of the state capital in 1847. By 1874 the city had ‘become the focus of economic life of the county, as well as the seat of state government, and was home for a quarter of the county's people. By 1900 it had a popula- tion of 16,485, or nearly 44 per cent of that of the county. Between 1900 and 1910 growth was particularly rapid, inhabitants increasing 14,744, or nearly 90 per cent in a decade. This growth coincided with the rapid expan- sion.of the automobile industry in the city and gave it 58.6 per cent of the county's population. In 1940 Lansing Ihad.about 60 per cent of the county's people, but in 1960 only 51 per cent. Thus, although the city added 29,575 jpeople between 1940 and 1960, giving a population of 299 180,128 in 1960, the gain was even greater outside of Lansing. Most of this was in East Lansing and in rural non-farm population, with the rest in Mason and the several villages; the farm population declined. Michigan State University, or Michigan Agricultural College as it was then known, was established in what was later to become East Lansing in 1855. Growth of the college was such that by 1910 there were over a thousand students and East Lansing had some 800 permanent residents. Already some people living here were commuting to jobs in Lansing. During subsequent years this number increased rapidly. East Lansing had a population of 5,859 in 1940. Over the next twenty years growth was spectacular, especially dur- ing the 1940's, so that by 1960 there was a pOpulation of 29,745. Part of the increase was due to greater employment at Michigan State University, where enrollment had grown to over 21,000, and part of it was due to expansion of East Lansing's function as a residential suburb of Lansing. During the post-war period a sizeable part of the gain in population of both Lansing and East Lansing has been due to annexations of built-up areas whose inhabitants were previously classified as rural non-farm people. Rural non-farm dwellers in the county increased rapidly after 1910, as more and more people who worked in Lansing established homes outside the city. The rural non-farm population has 'always been greatest in the northwestern corner of the county, l 1.! III 500 but as ease of commuting increased it has spread farther and farther away from Lansing and East Lansing, especially along the main highways leading into the two cities. This growth and spread has been especially pronounced during the post-war years. There has been an increase of some 27,000 in the rural non-farm population, not counting the large number of rural non-farm dwellers who were taken into the cities by annexation, during this time. Because of the growth of Lansing and East Lansing and of the rural non- farm population around the two cities, the three north- western townships had 87 per cent of the county‘s people in 1960, as compared to about 80 per cent in 1940, and less than 55 per cent in 1900. Changes in number and distribution of dwelling places has followed these changes in population. About 1880 when farm population was at its peak, house distribution outside of Lansing and the villages had essentially a rectangular pattern, this being determined by the dispersed location of the farmsteads, the use of the Congressional System of land survey, and the fact that the major part of the road mileage had already been built. Subsequently, most of the new residence construction was in the northwestern corner of the county in and around Lansing and East Lansing, with more recent activity occurring farther and farther out from there along the main highways and in the close-in interstaces between these highways. 501 Although farm population reached a peak about 1880, the number of farms and the amount of land in farms were not highest until around 1900. In that year there were 5,815 farms and 546,444 acres of land in farms. In 1954, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the figures were 2,528 farms and 284,440 acres. The loss in acreage has been caused primarily by the increase in city size and in rural non-farm living, but also by conver- sion of some land to wild life and recreation areas, high- way right-of-way, and other uses. As the farms'became less numerous, they became larger, averaging 122.2 acres in size in 1954. More important, they became much.better equipped, especially after 1940, so that today fewer farmers, produce more, with less labor, on fewer acres than at any time in history. Meanwhile, there has also been a change in the nature of agriculture in Ingham County. This shifted from the subsistence farming of the pioneer, to cash grain farm- ing of wheat which remained the dominant crop up to 1900, and then more and more to the mixed farming and dairy farm- ing of today. In the transportation sector, the first remarkable changes, both in the modes of travel and in the mileage of travel routes in Ingham County came between 1858 and 1875. Horse drawn vehicles soon largely replaced those pulled by oxen, and more new roads were opened than during any com- 502 parable period in county history. The road pattern had assumed much of its present day form by 1859, and the larg- est part of the mileage added after this was built before 1874. With the exception of a few main inter-county routes, especially those converging on Lansing, the roads were laid on the rectangular pattern of the land survey lines. As in the case of roads, the present pattern of railroads had also been fixed in the county's landscape by 1875. The first track was put into use in 1861, and except for double- tracking, the addition of spurs, and the extension of one line northeast of Lansing, no new railroad was built in the county after 1875. The opening of the railroads, in parti- cular, hastened the change to commercial grain agriculture already mentioned. Improvement of the roads built before 1874 was slow in coming. Although the year 1896-1897 can be used to mark the beginning of the good roads movement, because it was then that the State Government established a committee to consider public agitation for better roads, rapid progress was not made until about 1910. After that mounting pressure, as a result of ever increasing use of the automobile, brought continuous betterment of road conditions. This took the form of paving, widening, rebuilding with better engineering, and more recently relocation of some main arteries as divided, limited-access highways, rather than much addition to total mileage. All of this has greatly increased the efficiency tall" I: III I [luv-'1'. 505 of automobile travel and therefore the distance that rural non-farm dwellers can travel to their jobs. Meanwhile, the first means of transport largely used by these commuters has disappeared from the scene. This was the electric interurban car, which began operation in 1909. For a few years use of this mode of travel increas- ed rapidly and then almost as quickly declined. The last interurban line in the county was abandoned in 1929 and street car service in Lansing, which had started in 1886, ceased in 1955. Both were victims of increased use of the automobile. This, along with the airplane which has be- come important in the post-war period, has also caused a large reduction in railroad travel. The factories of Lansing played a leading part in the dawn of "the automobile age" and the tremendous economic and social changes which followed. In 1891 Ransom E. Olds made the first recorded sale of an American-manufactured motor car, one built in Lansing. This had been preceded by experiments in his father's machine shop which resulted in production of a horseless carriage as early as 1885. Pri- marily because of Old's activities Lansing became the first American city to reach quantity production of the automobile. The two chief automobile producers of the nation before 1910, namely the Oldsmobile Company and the Reo Motor Company, were both located at Lansing. 504 This was the period Lansing began more rapid growth and launched its reputation as an industrial center. Before 1885, it is true, the city had gained some renown outside the county for the making of carriages and agricul- tural implements, but otherwise the manufacturers still catered to the local market, providing goods for everyday living from locally produced raw materials. By 1894, how- ever, at least four engine and machine shops had been es- tablished, one of these being the Old's Gasoline Co. These works not only provided laboratories for the development of the automobile engine and other power machinery, but soon made Lansing one of the World's leading gasoline engine manufacturing centers. The city's importance in this regard is today largely in the past, but its reputation as an auto- mobile center continues, even though leadership in the number of cars produced has long since been lost. During the present century Lansing's automobile industry has steadily grown in size and has come to be the largest single source of livelihood in the county. In 1940 it em- ployed 10,491 persons or 71.4 per cent of all those working in manufacturing and 25 per cent of the gainfully employed in the county. In 1950 there were some 14,950 automobile workers and the percentage these were of total county employ- ment was 22.8. In the future it is probable that the percent- age of total gainfully employed working in the industry, and in other manufacturing as well, will continue to decline even 505 though the output of products and number of employees in- creases. This is because of rapid automation, causing an increasing proportion of new jobs to be in the service occupations. The automobile industry, however, promises to continue as the backbone of Ingham County's industrial consequence and the largest single source of its liveli- hood. In concluding, it can be said that nature restricted and directed man's activities most the earlier the stage of settlement. As his technology and knowledge improved he was more and more able to escape these restrictions and to adjust his activities to them. Even so, the course of settlement and the occupance patternfwhich have evolved in Ingham County since the arrival of white man have been quite different from that in neighboring counties where the natural environment is similar and the techniques and know- ledge available the same. The differences are largely the result of three human decisions which have tremendously influenced the past, and will the future, of the county. These were the decision to locate the state capital at Lansing, Michigan Agricultural College at East Lansing, and the automobile industry in Lansing. APPENDIX I LIST OF SETTLERS IN INGHAM COUNTY BEFORE 1859 Sources: Adams F. L. Pioneer Histogy of Ingham.County. Lansing ’ MiChIgan: Wyn oop EIlen eo raw ord Co., 1924, VOle ‘10 Cowles, A. E., Past and Present of the Cit of Lansi and In ham Count , MIOEI an. ansIHg, MIcEIgan: TE? MICHIgan s or ca lishing Association, 1905. Durant S. H., Histogy of Ingham and Eaton Counties Michi- , g . P i adeISh a: . We Ensign & Co., I825. Hammell G. L., Pioneer Families of Iggham County Michi an ' (a type erEten paper sale no u es a Copy of tEe original 1840 census, the list of resident tex- payers in 1844 and the original 1850 census. This was available at the Michigan State Library, Lansing, Michigan). Turner F. N. An Account of In ham County from Its Organiza- , tion,TVOI. III OFTH stor c ich_gan, ed. G. N. FEIIer (5 Vols.). 7Lansing, Michigan: National Historical Association, Inc., 1924. Procedure: Names of the settlers were collected from Adams, Cowles, Durant, and Turner and were then checked against 1840 census, and the 1844 list of the resident tax payers. For determining the exact location of the homesteads the Cei 1, Harley and Siverd, To 0 raohic Ma 2; the CountieEUgf Ingham and Livingston, PhiIadeIfifiia, I559, proved very useful.._EOwever, where settlers had moved to other locations and their names were not mentioned on the 1859 map, homesteads were located at the most probable location as determined from the pioneer accounts. 306 I.|.Ii.| Ill I‘ll-I- 'll: I II. | III I." It. Alaiedon Township, Settler's Farmstead Settlement Land Entry In Tax Name Location Year Year 1840 Payer Census 1844 1. Bentley, Major M.Not known 1858 x x 2. Blain, N.(W%,SE})Sec.l7 1858 No date x x 5. Carl, S. Not known 1857 x x 4. Chandler, E. SE} Sec. 24 1857 x x 5. Child, W. Sec. 50 1857 1857 x 6. Dubois, J. W%,Sfi)3ec. so 1858 x x 7. Dubois, u. (winswec. 25 1858 1856 x x 8. Havens, H. Sec. 21 1858 1858 x x 9. Hudson, J. (3714,3714) Sec. 7 1858 x x 10. Lewis, L.Qmfl) Sec. 29 1857 x x 11. Leek, w. 0471133393“. 3 1857 1857 x x 12. Overacker, A. Sec. 28 1857 1856 13. Pattison, E.w.(s§,NE})Sec. 28 1857 1856 x x 14. Phillips, J. Sec. 50 1856 1856 x, 15. Strickland, J. (SE13NE‘BSec. $1838 1856 x x 16. Strickland, J.B. Sec. 19 1857 1856 x x Aurelius Township 1. Barnes, J. Sec. 26 1857 1856 x x 2. Bullen, R.R. Sec. 4 1858 1856 x x 5. Freeman, J. Sec. 55 1856 1856 x x 4. French, J.M. Sec. 51 1858 x x 5. Hayward, R. G. Sec. 55 1857 1857 x x 6. Huntington, J.L. Not known 1857 x x 7. Isham, W. Sec. 22 1856 1856 x x 8. Morse, S.D. Sec. 29,52 1858 1856 x 508 Aurelius Township Cont. Settler‘s Farmstead Settlement Land In Tax Name Location ‘Year Entry Census Payer Year 1840 1844 9. Olmstead, A.D. Sec. 28 1858 1856 x 10. Ranney, E. Sec. 52 1858 1857 x 11. Rebinson, 0.0. Sec. 25 1858 No date 12. webb, o. B.(E%,NE})Sec. s 1856 1857 x 13. wilcox, E. (6843134) Sec. 29 1858 1856 x Bunker Hill Township 1. Fuller, D. Sec. 7 1857 x 2. Vickary, I. See. 55 1858 1845 x 5. Wood, Henry Sec. 1 1858 1856 x lehl.Township l. Luther, F.R.(W%,NE})Sec.9 1858 1857 x 2. Morton, P. Sec. 251858 1858 x 5. North, H.H. Sec. 5 1858 1859 x 4. Norris, J.(E%,SE},) Sec.55 1857 1857 x 5. Wait, D. Not known 1857 6. Wilson, J. Soc. 551857 1857 x Ingham Township 1. Atwood,z.(W%,NEi-)Sec. 24 1857 1836 x 2. Avery, B. , Sec. 25 1858 1856 x 5. Beers, M.(W%,NW})Sec. 15 1856 1856 x 4. Bennet, J. Sec. 24 1856 1856 x 5. Brown, Janna) Sec. 13 1856 1836 x 6. Carr, 0. Sec. 1 1856 1856 x 509 Ingham Township Settler's Farmstead Settle- Land In Tax Name Location ment Entry Census Payer Year Year 1840 1844 7. Carr, W. Sec.12 1856 1856 x x 8. Dakin, John Sec.26 1858 1856 x x 9. Dakin,Jacob Sec.25 1858 1856 x x 10. Davidson Not known 1856 x x 11. Dean, J.(E%,NW%) Sec. 13 1856 1856 x x 12. Ferguson,H. Not known 1858 x x 15. Greer, M. (N%) Sec. 24 1857 1856 x x 14. Hendee, J.L. Sec. 33 1858 1856 x 15. Lobdell, J.B. Not known 1858 x x 16. Searl, N. (Ni) Sec. 10 1856 17. Waldo, S.(N§,NE&) Sec. 24 1856 x x 18. Winchell, A.(S{,NW})Sec. 15 1856 1856 x x 19. Whipple, R. Sec. 9 1856 1856 x x Lansing Township 1. Cooley, J.(SE&,SW}) Sec. 50 1857 1857 x x 2. Jones, C.G.(N%, ww})Sec. 4 1858 1857 x x 3. North, J.E.(W%, NW%)Sec. 32 1858 x x 4. North (Father of J. E. North) Sec. 55 x x EEEEZ Township 1. Alchin, E. Sec. 55, 52 1858 Adams, p. 608, says he settled in the 40's. 2. Carmer, Mrs. Sec. 28 1857 3. Dana, O. Kw} Sec. 9 1858 1856 x x 510 LeRoz Township Cont. Settler's Farmstead Settle- Land In Tax Name Location ment Entry Census Payer Year Year 1840 1844 4. Huffman Sec.50 1858 1856 x x 5. Lee, H5 (NE%,NE}) Sec. 20 1858 x x 6. Meech, E. Sec.18 1858 1856 x x 7e Putnam, Re SCCeSO 1838 1836 X x 8. Rosencranse,J. Sec.20 1858 x x 9. Wilcox, w. (N131) Sec.18 1838 10. Wilcox, D. B. Sec.9 1856 x x Leslie Township l. Ackley, D. Not known 1858 x x 2. Armstrong, J.(w%,sw§ )Sec.9 1837 x x 5. Backus, N. Sec. 16 1857 No date x x 4. Butler, F.J. Leslie Village 1858 x x 5. Calvin, E. Leslie Village 1858 x 6. Clark, Th. Sec.52 1858 1856 x x 7. Convert, M. Leslie Village 1858 8. Critchett, E. Sec.2l 1858* 1856 x 9. Davis, 8. (8%). Sec.20 1856* 1856 x x 10. Dewey, H.H. Sec.2 1858 1856 x x 11. Doty, W. Lot 4 1858 1856 x x 12. Dwight, W.F. Sec.2l,22 1858* 1856 15. Elmer, F. Leslie Village 1858 x 14. Fiske, H. Leslie Village 1858 x 15. Gardner, C. Not known 1858 x 16. Godfrey, E. (or Godfrey, J) Not known 1856 x * What was later called Leslie Village .................. ....... Leslie Township Settler's Farmstead Settle- Land In Tax Name Location ment Entry Census Payer Year ‘Year 1840 1844 17. Graves, C. Not known 1858 x x 18. Grout, E.K. Not known 1858 x x 19. King, H. Not known 1856 x 20. Kirby, S. Sec.2 1857 1857 x x 21. Loomis, J. Sec.9 1858 1857 x 22. Meeker, H.H. Sec.28 1858 x x 25. Miner, L. (or Miner,J.) Sec.25 1858 1856 x 24. Nims, J. Not known 1858 x x 25. Norton, N.(E%,SE}) Sec.25 1858 x x 26. Powell, V.H. Not known 1858 x x 27. Rice, 13.2. {SE},NE})Sec.29 1856 1856 x x 28. Royston, J. Sec.8 1858 1856 x x 29. Russell, S.O. Sec.19 1858 1856 x x 50. Sanders, I. Not known 1858 x x 51. Sanders, G. Not known 1858 x x 52. Squires, T. Sec.8 1857 1856 55. Tuttle, J.J. Sec.7 1858 x x 54. Walcott, J.' Not known 1857 55. loodworth, E. Sec.17 1857 1856 x x 56. Wortman, A. Sec.21 1856 1856 ng§§_Township 1. Phelps, 0. (SE}) Sec.25 1858 1856 2. Pitts, R. Mrs. 386.24 1858 1857 Meridian Townshigfi 512 Settler's Farmstead Settle- Land In Tax Name Location ment Entry Census Payer Year Year 1840 1844 l. Bayard, L. Sec.11 1837 1837 x x 2. Marshall (312%) Sec-5 18:58 No date (2brothers) 3. Mee, 8. Sec.12 1838 1837 x 4. Mathews, G. Not known 1857 x x 5. Mathews, D. Sec.13 1857 1857 x x 6. Hiram, Ira Not known 1838 Onondaga Township 1. Allen, H. ( wgssi) Sec.29 1854 x x 2. Baldwin, M. Not known 1858 x x 5. Baldwin, T.P. Not known 1838 x x 4. Booth, 0. Sec.29 1834 x 5. Cranson, P.(SW¥SW})Sec.2l 1834 1836 x x 6. French, o.(s§,Nw}) 39.3.29 1857 x x 7. Frye, J. (E%,SWi-) Sec.29 1834 x x 8. Lane, David Sec.22 1838 1836 x x 9. Rossman, B.‘S}) See.30 1857 x x 10. Sibley,Martin Not known 1838 x x ll. Steel, Amos Not known 1838 x 12. Tuttle, J. Sec.23 1858 1836 x x Stockbridge Township_ 1. Bowdish, J.R. Sec.19,30 1837 1857 x x 2. Dublis, c.n.(wi,ns?pec.2 1855 1835 x x 5. Felton, A.D. Not known 1837 4. Forbes, H.H. Sec.26 1837 x x 313 Stockbridge Township cont. Settler's Farmstead Settle- Land In Tax Name Location ment Entry Census Payer Year Year 1840 1844 5. Force, 0. Sec.29 1837 1836 x x 6. Gillespie, C. Sec.21 1836 1836 x x 7. Gregory, 0. Sec.2 & 11 1836 1836 x x 8. Lowe, H. Sec.2 & 3 1835 1835 x x 9. Lowe, P. Not known 1836 1836 10. Mathewson,J.(W%NWf) Sec.22 1836 1836 x 11. Petrie, L Sec.22 1836 1836 x 12. Proctor,s.c.(Nw}) Sec.l 1836 1835 x x 13. Seek, J. Not known 1836 14. Sill, G. Sec.36 1836 1834 15. Smith, w. Sec.30 1836 1836 x x 16. Soules, J. (NEi) Sec.12 1836 x x 17. Steffy, J. (nw4uwi) Sec.23 1836 1837 x x 18. Standish,A.K. (SEi) Sec.15 1836 1836 x x 19. Stevens, R. (w%) Sec.ll 1836 1836 x x 20. Stocking,S.H.( 884) See.3&131836 1835 x x 21. Reason,G. (w4ssi) Sec.17 1836 1836 x x 22. Rice, O.F. Sec.2? 1836 1836 x x 23. Rogers, David (u4) Sec.36 1834 1837* x x 24. Towner, A.(NE}NE%) Sec.28 1836 x x 25. Townsend, M. Sec.13 1837 1837 x x 26. Webster, E.B.« Sec.28111836 x x 27. Wheaton, H. Sec.9&4 1837 1835-37 x x 28. Iced I. Sec.2? 1836 1836 x x *The {and entry in Sec. 36 is under a Mary Ann Rogers in June 1837. 514 Vevez Township Settler's Farmstead Settle- Land In Tax Name Location ment Entry Census Payer Year Year 1840 1844 1. Austin, H. Sec.29 1837 1836 x In Leslie 2. Bartlett, A. Sec.2? 1837 1837 x x 3. Conversc,H. Not known-a county officer 4. Dogget, J. Not known x 5. Danforth, E.B. In Mason 1836 x x 6.Fi\field, H.E. _ Sec.17 1838 1836 x x 7.Grey, c. (W%SE%) Sec.14 1837 1836 x x 8.Hawley, H.A.(NW}) Sec.23 1836 1836 x x 9.Howe,E. Sec.29 1836 1836 x x lO.Hurd, H.(S§SE}) Sec.25 Not known x 11.Horton,'I.H. (NEi) Ses.5 1835 x x 12.Jackson, A. School teacher 1838 l3.Lacy, L. In Mason 1836 l4.Linderman, P. Sec.4 1836 1836 x x 15.McRObert, M. Sec.8 1838 1839 * 16.Parker, a. (sag-sag) Sec.13 1836 1836 x x 17.Rolfe, E. 1836 1836 x x 18.Rolfe, B. (Secs. 29, 30, 32) 1836 1836 x x 19.Ro1fe, N. 1836 1836 x x 20.Rolfe, I. 1836 1836 x x 21. Smith, R. H. Not known 1836 x * Mr. MCRobert is mentioned in the census of 1850. In 1844 he was a tax payer in Aurelius Township. 315 Wheatfield Township Settler's Farmstead Settle- Land In Tax Name Location ment Entry Census Payer Year 'Year 1840 1844 1. Countryman, J. Sec.18 1837 1836 x 2. Countryman, D. Not lmown Not known 3. Drown, W. Not known 1837 x x 4. Gorsline, D. Sec.34 1836 1836 x x 5. Hammond, W. Sec.2 1838 x x 6. Jubb, E.H. Not known 1837 - x 7. William, O.B. Sec.11 1838 1836 x 8. William, J.M. Not known 1838 x E§i£g_0ak Township 1. Clements, J. 1836 x x 2. Clements, H. Secs.28,29 1836 1836 x x 3. Dagget, E. (33%) Sec.32 1837 1836 x 4. Dryer, W. Sec.35 1838 1836 x 5. Dryer, D. Sec.21 1838 1836 x 6. Dubois, J.(E%W%) Sec.35 1837 x 7. Dutcher, D. Sec.35 1835 - 1835 x 8. Howard, A. Sec.4 1836 1836 x 9. Hynes, J. Sec.36 1836 1835 x 10. Post, Cyrus Not known 1836 x 11. Post, I. Not known Not known 12. Phelps, H.(NE}) Sec.29 1834 x 13. Rathbun, J. Sec.1l 1838 x 14. Stevens, S. 1838 x 15. Van Buren, A.(SW}) Sec.34 1837 x 16. Smith, E. Sec.24 1836 x 316 White Oak Cont. Settler's Farmstead Settle- Land In Tax Name Location ment Entry Census Payer Year Year 1840 1944 17. Thomas, Jonathan Sec.3O 1836 1836 x x 18. Wilson, L. 1838 x x 19. Wilson, J.B. Sec.32 1838 Williamston Township 1. Putnam, Joseph Sec.35,36 1835 2. Putnam, Hiram Sec.3S,36 1835 Notes Regarding Other Early Settlers Individuals listed below were named as early settlers in the source books consulted. For some the date of arrival was found to be after 1838 and is indicated; for others the date of arrival is uncertain, except that it was supposedly before 1841; also some who arrived did not become permanent residents of Ingham County. It is probabla that most of those for whom the date of arrival is not clear came after 1838, rather than before. Alaiedon Township 1. Ketchum, William. Took up land in Sec. 21 in 1837, but is not mentioned in 1840 Census, 1850 Census, or listed as taxpayer in 1844. Supposedly established a lumber busi- ness. A. L. Ketchum born in 1835, moved to Alaiedon when he was eight years old, and went to work for an uncle who had located there earlier. Aurelius Township 1. Butler, Lewis. Moved to Jefferson City in 1837 but there is no land entry in Sec. 29 under this name. 2. Dunn, John. Settled first in Delhi; not mentioned in 1840 Census, but a tax payer in 1844. 3. Dunn, Samuel. Settled first in Delhi; not mentioned in 1840 Census, but a tax payer in 1844. 4. Dunn, Simeon. Settled first in Onondaga; taxpayer in 1844. 5. Markham, S. Settled in Sec. 32; did not come until late in 1840; not in 1840 Census or 1844 tax payers list. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 1. 2. 317 Norris, J. Settled in See. 33 in 1840. Turner, W. Not mentioned in 1840 Census, but tax payer in 1844 and listed in 1850 Census. Turner, R. and Turner, James. Neither one is mentioned in 1840 Census or afterwards. William Turner and Melzer Turner are listed as tax payers in 1844 in Meri- dian Township, but are not in the 1840 Census. Waggoner, Alexander. Not mentioned in 1840 Census, but appears as the resident tax payer in 1844. Willoughby, L. Resident tax payer in 1844, but not in the 1840 Census. Witter, W. Settled in White Oak after 1840; he is not mentioned in the Census of 1840, but listed as a re- sident tax payer in 1844. Wright, J. Entered land in Sec. 34, in 1841; listed as resident tax payer in 1844; not mentioned in 1840 chsule Bunker Hill Township Archer, Job. Claims to have been in Bunker Hill Town- ship as early as 1837 and that her father's house was the first one built in the township, it being finish- ed before the organization of the township in March, 1839. There is no land entry under that name bu Sections close to Bunker Hill Center where the house was located. Most of the land in these sections was taken in 1836 and 1837. Mr. Archer is not in the Census of 1840, but a Bezaleel Archer was a resident tax payer in 1844. It is probably that arrival date was after 1840. a 3. Bunker, Joab and Jonathan. It has been said that these two came to Bunker Hill Township in 1837 with the Mr. Archer mentioned above and that Mr. Bunker helped to build the first house in the township. He, along with J. Harkness, D. Hodges, and William'Vickory, was hired for the Job by Mr. Noah Clerk, and the house was built in the NE} See. 33 on land entered by Mr. Clerk in 1836 (see Adams, pp. 334-335). The house was not occupied by the owner, but acted as a resting place for passers by. Mr. Bunker is not mentioned in 840 Census, but was a resident tax payer in 1844. 4. Eaton, C. Has been mentioned as an early settler, but did not come until 1842. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 318 Earl, J. Entered land in Sec. 25 in 1836; was a resident of Bunker Hill in 1840 and later, but he is not men- tioned among the pre-1838 settlers. Dean B. Settled 1844. Harness, James. Although he helped Mr. Bunker build the house, he resided in Leslie in 1840 and later. Hodges, D. Not mentioned as an early settler anywhere; no land entry under this name; not in the Census of 1840. A Hiram Hodges is listed as a resident tax payer of Leslie in 1844. O'Brien, J. Entered land in Sec. 10 in 1839. Accord- ing to Adams he entered in Sec. 25. O'Brien is men- tioned as a resident of LeRoy Township in 1840 and 1844., He moved to Bunker Hill in 1850. Markey, J. In township by 1840. Moore, P. In township by 1840. Case, Lewis. In township by 1840. In early 1839 when the township was first organized there were not enough people to fill all of the offices, so some individuals were chosen for more than one position. The officers selected were 1) David Fuller, 2) U. C. Taylor, 3) Henry Wood, 4) T. Smith, 5) G. Taylor, 6) H. Taylor, 7) E. Whittemore, 8) B. Hoyt, and 9) Job Earl. Only David Fuller and Henry Wood are definitely known to have been in township before 1839, and possib- ly also Job Earl. B. Hoyt, H. Taylor, and E. Whitte- more are listed in Census of 1940, but U. C. Taylor, G. Taylor, and T. Smith are not included. Ingham Township 1. 2. In 1838 Ingham Township also included the territory of the present townships of White Oak, LeRoy, and Wheat- field. A town meeting was held in the house of Caleb Carr in the spring of 1838. There were about 25 men who claimed the right to vote (Adams, p. 397). The names of those elected to office in 1838, their residence place in terms of present township divisions and other facts follow (Durant, p. 347). 1. Atwood, Zenas (Ingham) g. fifiif'cE1.éI?§E§fiém) 4. Clements, John (White Oak) 5. Countryman, Daniel (Wheatfield) 6. Dakin, John (Ingham) 7. Dakin, Jacob (Ingham) 319 8. Dryer, W. (White Oak) 9. Gorsline, David (Wheatfield) 10. Ferguson, H. (Ingham) 110 Hendee, J0 L0 (1118118111) 12. Huffman, James. No land entry, but in 1840 Census 130 Jbe, E0 He (Wheatfielf) 14. Lee, H. (LeRoy) 150 LObdell, Jo Be (Ingham) l6. Meech, Epharium (LeRoy) 170 POSt, JO (0?) (White Oak) 180 POSt, We (White Oak) 19. Rathbun, James (White Oak) 20. Smith, H. H. Not in 1840 Census, but mentioned as resident tax payer in 1844. Ssme name appears as pre-1838 settler in Vevay Township. 21. Stevens, Andrew, and Stevens, Thomas. Both are listed as resident tax payers in 1844, but a 8. Stevens only is listed above as early settler in White Oak Township. 22. Wilson, Lucius (White Oak) 23. Winchell, Amaziah (Ingham) 24. Thomas, Jonathan (White Oak) 3. Both J. Post and W. Post are mentioned as early residents of White Oak Township, but no land entries were found under their names. Land was entered by Clerk Post in Sec. 23 and.by E. Post in Sec. 25 in 1836. 4. Crossman, John and Ebenezer are mentioned in 1840 Census, but there are no land entries under these names. Samuel Crossman located on Sec. 14 and he is said to have locat- ed in Dansville in 1836. It is even said that Dansville was named after his son, but Durant on p. 248 says that S. Crossman came in 1839. Lansing Township 1. More than one member of the North family located land in Lansing Township prior to 1838, but when they visited they stayed with the one North who was in the township already. The others established their homesteads here later on. Meridian Township 1. Davis, Chauncey. Settled in 1837, according to Adams, p. 673, but not mentioned in the 1840 Census although appears as a resident tax payersip 1844. It seems he did not settle until after 1840 Ea$h~land was entered in Sec. 11 in 1840. Onondaga Township 1. Allen, H. No land purchase but mentioned in 1840 Census. 2. Abbey, Frederick. Land entry Sec. 30 in 1836 and in the 320 Census of 1840. 3. Darling, John. In the Census of 1840;land entry on Sec. 5 in 1836. 4. Day, Chauncey. No land entry and not in the Census of 1840. 5. Hunt, Adney. Land entered in Sec. 22,but the Census of 1840 does not mention’although a Almer D. Hunt is men- tioned. 6. Frye, Hiram. Came in 1838, but lived with his brother until 1839. 7. Johnston, Barney. The meeting of 1838 was held at the home of this man, but he is not mentioned in the Census of 1840 although.he is in the list of 1844 tax payers and in the Census of 1850. 8. Montgomerys. They were never residents of Onondaga Town- ship, but lived in Eaton County where they had a major part of their property. 9. Lane, Marcus. Entered land in Sec. 22 in 1836, but accord- ing to the history of Lane Cemetary that land was owned by David Lane, who is mentioned in the Census of 1840. 10. Sherman, Lowing. Not mentioned in the Census of 1840, but as a resident tax payer in 1844. StockbridgegTownship l. Beebe, Silas. Not mentioned in the 1840 Census. He came in Ingham County in January 1838 and located in the town- ship in the same year, according to the report given by his son. He is supposed to have purchased land by the end of 1838 from a Elijah Smith. 2. Force, Peter. In township in 1840 according to Census and a tax payer in 1844. No land entry. 3. Force, John. Not mentioned in 1840 Census or as tax payer in 1844, but supposed to have been in township. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, F. L. Pioneer Histo g; In ham.Count . Lansing: WynkoOp Hallen eck Crawford 0., 19 4. Beal W. J. Histo 2; Michigan Agricultural Colle e. ’ East Lansing: Agricultural CoIIege, I915. Beers F. W. Count Atlas of I ham Count Michi an. ’ New or : F. W. sasr. and Co., 36 esey reet, 1874. Blois, J. T. Gazeteer of the State of Michigan. Detroit: Sydney I. Rood—and Co., 1838. Calkins E. A. Old Trails of In ham Count . Lansing: , Michigan State Libiary, I9 9. Chamber of Commerce of Greater»Lansing Area, Industrial Directory 2£_Metrppolitan.Lansing. Lansing: circa 1957. Chase, A. Rural Michigan. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1922 Cooley, J. M. Michigan: A Historé 32 Governments. New York: Houghton Mi flin o., 5. County and City Data Book. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print- ing Office, 1952. Cowls, A. E. Past and Present of In ham Count and the Ci of Lansin . Lansing: Michigan Historical iEEing Issociation, 1905. Darling, B. Cit in the Forest. New York: Stratford H0”. 89, 5500 Decker, K. M. "Early Pioneer Homesteads in Michigan,I Pa ers g; the Michi an Acade 2; Science, Arts and erm, vTo . War—fl. ——- — "" Directo of the Centennial Farm Owners in Michigan. "““‘£I'BahEIflET'—UIEEIEIhiBIEt3?i?EI'33mmission, Series No. 98, 1958. 321 322 Directory of Michi an Manufacturers, 1955. Detroit: Michigan Manufacturers and Financial Record Co., 1956. Dunbar, W. F. Michi an Throu h the Centuries. 3 vols. New'YorE: Lew s s oricaI—Pfibiiifiing Co., Inc., 1955. Durant, S. W. Histo of In ham and Eaton Counties. Phila- delphia: L. W: s gn and Co., 1880. Edmond, J. P. The Gasoline Ag . Lansing: Franklin DeKleine 00., m2. . Earl Lansing Histoyy. Lansing: Franklin Dem-51% Os, 0 Economic and Population Base Study of Lansing Tri-Coungy Area. East—Lansing: urEEu of usiness and Economic Research, College of Business and Public Service, Michigan State University, 1960. Farm Plat Book Ingham County Michi an. Rockford Illi- nois; oc or ap’Pu ers, 4525 Forest View Ave., 1957. Farmer J. Ma s of the Surve ed Parts pg Michigan. New ’ Yor : TFom 1832 to 1846. Fuller, G. N. Economic and Social Be innin s 22 Michi an: A Stud’ 9? the Settiement o e ower Peninsuia ‘Durigg the Territorial Peri3d, 1855:i§57. Lan- sing, Michigan: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., 1916. Hammell G. L. Federal Census g£_1850, Ingham.County , Michi an. Typewritten Paper, ansing, M c igan State Library (copied from the original at the county clerk's office, Mason, Michigan). Highway Needs in Michigan, Michigan Good Roads Federation. Hinsdale, W. B. Archeological Atlas of Michi an. Handbook Series‘NSi 4. Ann’ArBOr: Universiiy of Michigan Press, 1931. Historical Collections Made b the Michi an Pioneer and Historical Sbciet . VoI. . Lansing: Winkoop Hallenbec Crawford Co., 1912. 323 History of the Early Life and Business Interests of the Viiia e and Townshi of Lesiie, Ingham.Chunt , Michi an. Elijah refit Chapter, Daughters oi the Ag erican Revolution, 1914. Hodges, R. M. Reclamation g; the State Turnpike Line Np, 16 Near Wiiiiamston. Thesis submitted for the dzgree of 3.3. at Michigan State College, 1923. Hudgins, B. Michigan Geographic Background $E_the Develo - ment of the Commonweaith. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwarderothers, Inc., 1953. James, P. E. ALGeogrgphygg Man. New York: Ginn & Co., 19 51 . "'""' James, P. E., and Jones, C. F. American Geography Inven- to and Prospgct. Syracuse Un vers y Press, Joint Documents 2; the State of Michi an, 1856. Lansing: K Hosmer and Fitch, StZte Frihters:-1857. Joint Documents 2; the State 25 Michi an, 1870. 2 vols. Linsing: W. 3. George and 50., 1871. Joint Documents 2; the State g£_Michi an, 1875. 2 vols. Lansing: W. 3. George an o., 1873} Lansing City Directogy, 1911. wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford 0, O O Lansing Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, 1909-1910. Leverett, F. Surface Geolo and Agricultural Conditions of the Lower Peninsuih_o?Michigan, Michigan Ghoihgicai and Biologichi Survey, Pub. 9, Geo- logical Series 7, Lansing: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., 1912. Leverette, F., and Taylor, P. B. The Pleistocene of Indiana and Michi an and—the Histo of Cheat Lakes. Washington: D. . Governmen Phinting me, 1915. Local Climatological Data, 1958. East Lansing: U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. McGaugh, Maurice E. The Settlement of the Sa inaw Basin. The University of Chicagoffiehfitmnt of Geo- graphy, Research Paper No. 16. Chicago: Dec- ember, 1950. 1' In". I .. I.‘ I. I! .I? II II?! . (IL. ...I' I I I III- I I'll! I ‘1! : 324 Manual for the Use of the Le islature for the State of Mithigan,_1875-1876. Lansing: George and—Co., Marbut, C. F. Atlas of American A riculture. Washington: Government Phinting Uffice, 1935. Michiggn Economic Re ort. Vol. 1, No. 2. Bureau of Eco- nSmic Research, College of Business and Public Service, Michigan State University, 1959. Michigan Guide to the Wolverine State. Oxford University “Frees:_194I. A Michigan Hizgory.19g3nsing: Michigan Historical Commission, 0 ’ C ' Michigan Histogy M azine. Vol. IV. Lansing: Michigan is orica ommission, 1920. Michigan State Gazetteer and.Business Directo for 1875. Detroit: The Tribune Printing Co., 1875. Michigan Postwar Hi we Needs. State Highway Department Michigan. no date of publication). ' Modern Hi hwa s of Michi an. A Report of the Michigan Legislhtive highway Study Committee. Lansing: Automobile Safety Foundation, 1955. Old Timers News. 3 vols. New York: The Old Timers, Inc., January, 1946. Pound, A. The Turnin Wheel. Garden City, New York: Douhle ay ran and Co., 1934. Rae, J. P. American Automobile Manufacturers. New York: Ch-Ti t—‘Ton o., 1959. Raphael, E. H. Histo of Haslett-Lake Lansin Area, Meridian Township, Ingham Coun y. , Irhor: Edwahd Brothers;_Inc., circa 1959. Rogers, F. F. Histo .2; the Michi an State Hi way De- partment, i505-1933. ans ng:—Mi3h gan; 1933.. Soil Map, Ingham County. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. Surveyed 1933 and issued 1941. Stockman, L. Histo of Road Construction in Michi an. A thes s su‘fiitted at Miéhigan Agticuiturgi College for the degree of B.S., 1915. 325 Standard Atlas of Ingham Count Michi an. Chicago: Geo. I. OgIE & 0., I34 Van Buren Street, 1895. Thaden, J. F. The Lansing Re ion and Its Tributary Town- Count Communities. Mich. State Agricfiiturai CoIIege, —Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing. Spec. Bull. 302, March, 1940. Turner, F. N. 53 Account pf Ingham County from Its Organi- zation. 3 voIs. Lansing: National Historical Issociation, Inc., 1924. Tuttle, C. R. General Histogy g: the State 33 Michigan. Detroit: Tyler an Co., I873. Veatch J. O. et a1. Soil Surve of Ingham Count Mich- , igan.'—Washington: . .‘Uovernment Printing CO , 1941 e Walling, H. F. Atlas of the State of Michigan. Detroit: R0 M0 and SOTO TachahuryTl 0 Wright, W. J. History of Stockbridgg Township and Stock- brid e a rmanuscript used atTh_e Ar‘Kf-c ves o? the Historical Commission). R8011 USE ONLY HICHIGeN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 1|HIV“)WWWI“)I)1|“)WI“MINIMUM 31293102119686