Population of the British Colonies in America Before 1776: A Survey of Census Data 9781400871735

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
List of Tables
Preface
Bibliographical Abbreviations
I Subject, Sources, and Methods
II The Northern Colonies
III New England
IV The Middle Colonies
V The Southern Colonies
VI The Island Colonies
VII Colonial Patterns
VIII Household Size and Composition
Index

Citation preview

The Population of the British Colonies in America before 1776

Robert V. Wells

The Population of the British Colonies in America before 1776 A Survey of Census Data

Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

Copyright © 1975 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, Princeton and London All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data will be found on the last printed page of this book This book has been composed in Linotype Caledonia Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

Contents

List of Tables

vi

Preface

ix

Bibliographical Abbreviations

xi

I

Subject, Sources, and Methods

3

II

The Northern Colonies

45

III

New England

69

IV

The Middle Colonies

110

V

The Southern Colonies

144

VI

The Island Colonies

172

VII

Colonial Patterns

259

VIII

Household Size and Composition

297

Index

335

List of Tables

Table 1-1 1-2 III II-2 II-3 II-4 II-5 II-6 II-7 III-l III-2 III-3 III-4 III-5 III-6 III-7 III-8 III-9 111-10 III-ll 111-12 111-13 111-14 111-15 111-16 111-17

Colonial Censuses Census Taking by Time and Region Newfoundland, 1675-1775 Servants and Children: Newfoundland, 1675-1775 Sex Ratios: Newfoundland, 1675-1775 Average Household Size and Composition: Newfoundland, 1675-1775 Servants and Boats: Newfoundland, 1677 Factors Affecting Household Size: Newfoundland, 1677 Birth and Death Rates: Newfoundland, 1730-1775 Age Distribution—Males: New Hampshire, 1767-1775 Sex Ratios: New Hampshire, 1767-1775 Marital Status: New Hampshire, 1767-1774 Distribution and Race: Massachusetts, 1764 Age Composition: Massachusetts Whites, 1764 Sex Ratios: Massachusetts, 1764 Massachusetts Households and Families, 1764 Size, Growth, and Distribution: Connecticut, 1756-1774 Age Distribution: Connecticut, 1774 Sex Ratios: Connecticut, 1774 % Married by Age: Connecticut, 1774, Whites Only Population: Rhode Island, 1708-1774 Racial Composition: Rhode Island, 1708-1774 Age Composition: Rhode Island, 1755 and 1774 Sex Ratios: Rhode Island, 1755 and 1774 Household Size and Composition: Rhode Island, 1774 Household Composition by Region: Rhode Island, 1774

Page 8 14 47 50 53 54 57 57 59 72 74 76 81 83 85 87 90 92 93 95 98 100 102 103 104 105 vi

Table 111-18 IV-I IV-2 IV-3 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-IO IV-Il V-I V-2 V-3 V-4 V-5 V-6 V-7 VI-I VI-2 VI-3 VI-4 VI-5 VI-6 VI-7 VI-8 VI-9 VI-IO VI-Il VI-12 VI-13 VI-14 VI-15

vii

Page Household Composition by Race of Head: Rhode Island, 1774 New York Population, 1698-1771 Age Distribution: New York, 1698-1771 Detailed Age Distribution: New York, 1698 Sex Ratios: New York, 1698-1771 Mean Household Size and Composition: New York, 1697-1714 Household Variations: New York, 1697-1714 Composition of Household by Size: New York, 1698 New Jersey Population, 1726-1772 Age Composition: New Jersey, 1726-1772 Sex Ratios: New Jersey, 1726-1772 Household Size and Composition: West New Jersey, 1772 Maryland Population, 1701-1762 Age Composition: Maryland, 1704-1755 Sex Ratios: Maryland, 1704-1755 Mean Family Size and Composition: Maryland, 1704 Virginia Population, 1624-1703 Age and Sex Composition: Virginia, 1625 Georgia Population, 1738-1756 Bermuda Population, 1698-1774 Age Composition: Bermuda, 1698-1774 Sex Ratios: Bermuda, 1698-1774 Bahamas Population, 1722-1773 Mean Household Size and Composition: Bahamas, 1731-1734 Household Composition: Bahamas, 1731-1734 Household Size and Composition by Race and Sex of Head: Bahamas, 1731-1734 Jamaica Population, 1661-1774 Population by Parish: Jamaica, 1730 Age Composition and Fertility—Whites: Jamaica, 1661-1730 Mean Household Size and Composition: Jamaica, 1680 Household Size and Composition by Place and Sex of Head: Jamaica, 1680 Population in the Leeward Islands, 1678-1756 Racial Composition: Leeward Islands, 1678-1756 Ethnic Background of Whites: Leeward Islands, 1678

107 112 116 117 122 124 126 132 135 137 139 140 147 152 154 156 161 163 170 173 176 177 183 185 189 191 196 198 200 203 204 209 212 213

Table VI-16 VI-17 VI-18 VI-19 VI-20 VI-21 VI-22 VI-23 VI-24 VI-25 VI-26 VI-27 VI-28 VI-29 VI-30 VII-I VII-2 VII-3 VII-4 VII-5 VIII-I VIII-2 VIII-3 VIII-4 VIII-5 VIII-6 VIII-7 VIII-8 VIII-9 VIII-10

Page Age Composition and Fertility: Leeward Islands, 1678-1756 Sex Ratios: Leeward Islands, 1678-1756 Mean Household Size and Composition: Leeward Islands, 1678-1756 Household Size and Composition by Sex of Head: Leeward Islands, 1678-1729 Mean Household Size by Age: St. Christopher, 1707 Household Size by Economic Status: Nevis, 1678 Correlations of Wealth and Households: Montserrat, 1729 Wealth and Occupation: Montserrat, 1729 Household Composition by Occupation: Montserrat, 1729 Barbados Population, 1676-1773 Age and Sex Composition of Whites: Barbados, 1676-1773 Household Size and Composition by Sex of Head: Barbados, 1715 Average Household Size and Composition by Age of Head: Barbados, 1715 Population of the Neutral Islands Age and Sex Composition of Blacks: Neutral Islands, 1747-1775 Size and Growth of England's Colonies Racial Composition of the Colonies Comparisons of Age Composition and Fertility Comparisons of Sex Ratios Estimated Population of Colonies in 1775 by Region Mean Household Size Total Household Size Household Composition Total Slaves per Household Inequality of Distribution of Persons in Households White Children per Household Household Size by Race of Head Mean Household Size by Age: St. Christopher, 1707 Correlation of Total Whites and Total Slaves Total Whites per Household

216 219 221 223 226 228 229 232 233 238 242 248 249 253 256 260 265 269 272 284 299 304 306 309 311 315 321 323 329 330

Preface

The origins of this study go back to my days in graduate school. In seeking an appropriate topic for a dissertation in demographic history, I gave considerable thought to exploring census materials before deciding that a study based on family reconstitution of Quaker records would be more practical. However, once my work on the Quakers was completed, I found my interest in the colonial censuses was still great. In fact, after studying only 276 families, the thought of examining the demographic patterns of large numbers of colonists was most appealing. While my interest in the colonial censuses goes back a number of years, the idea for this book grew during the summer of 1971, while I was in London studying the censuses. As more and more evidence came to light, it became apparent that I had unearthed the sources for a full-scale comparison of population patterns in virtually all parts of England's empire in America before 1776. It seemed natural to write the book. The eight chapters which follow can be divided into three parts, each of which grew out of a somewhat separate interest. The first chapter makes up the first part. In it, I have sought to explore the origins of the censuses and to establish the fact that they are adequate, if not perfect, sources. At the same time, however, I was seeking at least a partial answer to the question of how and why governments begin collecting data that had never before been of interest. The second part of the book includes chapters II through VI. In this section, the population patterns of each colony for which a census was available have been treated in detail. My purpose here has been to provide data on population to historians of individual colonies; at the same time, I have tried to set the stage for a comparison of demographic patterns among various parts of the empire. The last two chapters make up the third part. In them I have sought to describe, explain, and consider the significance of intercolonial differences and similarities in population trends. This study provides an exhaustive survey of census data, but it does not end the need for further research in the demographic history of the colonies. As will be seen below, the available evidence raises some fasIX

Preface cinating questions about population trends which can only be answered by family reconstitution studies in a wide variety of locales. Equally interesting would be comparisons of population trends among the Eng­ lish, French, and Spanish colonies. Such studies should be possible, since records indicate that censuses were taken in parts of the French and Spanish empires. Suffice it to say that while this book provides consid­ erable evidence on early American population, it should also act as a stimulus to further research in areas of demographic history which now appear important. In the course of this work I have been helped by a number of people and institutions, among them the staffs of the Public Record Office and the British Museum in London, and the historical archives section of the New York State Library in Albany. At various times Steven Levy, Esther Miller, Ellyn Roth, Nancy Renzi, and Peter Weger have pro­ vided considerable aid in data processing. My progress has been more rapid because of the funds (and time) made available by grants from the Penrose Fund of the American Philosophical Society, the Child Health and Human Development Council of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (grant number HD 06846-01), and the faculty research funds of Union College. Finally, my wife, Cathie, deserves special thanks, not only for having typed the manuscript but also for having put up with me while I was living with her and in the seven­ teenth and eighteenth centuries as well. Portions of chapter VIII are reprinted with permission from The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, iv (1974), copyright 1974, by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal of Interdisciplinary History.

χ

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Andrews, Colonial Period

Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial Period of American History, 4 vols. (New Haven, 1934-38)

B.M.

British Museum, manuscript as follows

Coale and Demeny, Model Life Tables

Ansley J. Coale and Paul Demeny, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations (Princeton, 1966)

C.O. 1/1/1, etc.

Colonial OfBce Group, Class 1, Piece 1, folio 1, Public Record Office, London

Century of Pop. Growth

Bureau of Census, A Century of Growth (Washington, 1909)

CSPC

W. N. Sainsbury, et al., eds., Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 43 vols. (London, 1860-)

Demos, "Bristol"

John Demos, "Families in Colonial Bristol, Rhode Island: An Exercise in Historical Demography," WMQ, 25 (1968), 40-57

Dunn, Sugar and Slaves

Richard Dunn, Sugar and Slaves (New York, 1972)

Gipson, British Empire

Lawrence H. Gipson, The British Empire before the American Revolution, 15 vols. (New York, 1936-70)

Greene and Harrington, American Population

Ε. B. Greene and V. D. Harrington, American Population before the Federal Census of 1790 (New York, 1932)

Laslett, ed., Household and Family

Peter Laslett, ed., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972)

Lockridge, "Land, Population"

Kenneth Lockridge, "Land, Population and the Evolution of New England Society, 1630-1790," Past and Present, 39 (1968), 62-80

Molen, "Population in Barbados"

Patricia Molen, "Population and Social Patterns in Barbados in the Early Eighteenth Century," WMQ, 28 (1971), 287-300

Population

Bibliographical

Abbreviations

MoIIer, "Sex Composition and Culture Patterns"

Herbert Moller, "Sex Composition and Correlated Culture Patterns of Colonial America," WMQ, 2 (1945), 113-53

NYCM

New York Colonial Manuscripts, New York State Library, Albany, New York

2V.Y. Docs.

E. B. O'Callaghan and B. Fernow, eds., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, 15 vols. (Albany, 1856-87)

Potter, "Growth of Population"

James Potter, "The Growth of Population in America, 1700-1870," in D. V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley, eds., Population in History (Chicago, 1965), 631-88

Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns"

Robert V. Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns in a Colonial Perspective," WMQ, 29 (1972), 415-42

WMQ

William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series

xa

The Population of the British Colonies in America before 1776

I Subject, Sources, and Methods

Between 1607 and 1775 the British empire in America underwent striking growth and diversification. From the first primitive settlement at Jamestown in Virginia, the empire expanded until by the time of the American Revolution it encompassed over thirty colonies stretching from Newfoundland in the north to Barbados and Tobago in the south.1 Although the over three million people living in these colonies by 1775 were all part of the same empire and shared similar forms of government, important variations in the style of life from one colony to another were produced by different environments, economies, and societies.2 Virtually all historians of the period would recognize as valid such sectional divisions as Canada, New England, the Middle Colonies, the South, and the West Indies. Indeed, some might argue that important social and economic differences existed within each of these regions.3 Clearly, the English possessed a complex assortment of colonies by 1775. In view of this, the demographic characteristics of the various parts of England's American empire are of considerable interest. Was the population in Newfoundland of the same type as that of New York or Jamaica? Did the population of Barbados in 1673 look the same as it did a century later? Any historian with a knowledge of the racial composition of the colonies would quickly answer, "No," to both questions. However, he might be less quick to reply if he were asked to state pre1

The exact number of colonies is open to some question, depending upon whether one counts separate settlements or administrative units. Charles M. Andrews refers to "some thirty or more colonies," in The Colonial Background of the American Revolution (New Haven, 1931), 25. I have relied on his figure. 2 For the 17th century colonies, Andrews, Colonial Period, provides a wealth of information about the different colonies. The 18th century empire is thoroughly covered by Gipson, British Empire, but see especially vol. 13, 171-215 for an overview of the empire. The estimate of 3 million people in the colonies is my own, see below, p. 284. 3 See, for example, J. B. Brebner, Canada (Ann Arbor, 1960), 26-103; or Carl Bridenbaugh, Myths and Realities (Baton Rouge, 1958).

3

Population of the British Colonies

cisely what the differences were. Furthermore, the fact that the propor­ tions of whites and blacks in America varied considerably from one colony to another tells us little of other demographic characteristics. Was there a common age and sex structure shared by all colonial pop­ ulations? Or did different times and different places produce different demographic characteristics? Historians have recently begun to explore a number of interesting questions about population in America in the seventeenth and eight­ eenth centuries. By using lists of births, marriages, and deaths to re­ construct families, students of early American history have greatly in­ creased our knowledge of the size and structure of colonial families, as well as of marriage patterns in early America.4 Other studies have made use of local censuses to examine the demographic characteristics of small regions, often focusing on family size and structure.5 Because of the pioneering nature of these works, the emphasis has often been on describing what colonial populations were like. But occasionally attempts have been made to relate population to events such as the Salem witchcraft trials or even to the origins of the American Rev­ olution.® In spite of the interest that this work has generated, it has been difficult to generalize about the population of the colonies. In part, this is a result of using sources and methods which restrict a scholar to studying only one community, or a small group of people at a time. It is also true, however, that differences in questions and definitions have limited the comparisons which can be made from one study to another. Only Sutherland's study of population distribution in colonial America, Moller's survey of sex ratios in early America, and Potter's exploration of population growth between 1700 and 1860 cover a large number of 4 The list of works is rapidly expanding, but among the most important studies based on family reconstitution are: John Demos, A Little Commonwealth (New York, 1970); Philip Greven, Jr., Four Generations (Ithaca, N.Y., 1970); Kenneth Lockridge, "The Population of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1636-1736," Economic History Review, 2nd Ser., 19 (1966), 318-44; Daniel S. Smith, "The Demography of Colonial New England," Journal of Economic History, 32 (1972), 165-83; Harry S. Stout, "University Men in New England 1620-1660: A Demographic Analysis," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 4 (1974), 375-400; Robert V. Wells, "Family Size and Fertility Control in Eighteenth Century America," Population Studies, 25 (1971), 73-82; and id., "Quaker Marriage Patterns," 415-42. 5 For example, see Demos, "Bristol"; Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, 126-31, 172-81; Molen, "Population in Barbados." 6 John Demos, "Underlying Themes in the Witchcraft of Seventeenth-Century New England," American Historical Review, 75 (1970), 1311-26; Kenneth Lock­ ridge, A New England Town (New York, 1970); id., "Land, Population."

Subject, Sources, and Methods

colonies and colonists.7 However, even these authors have devoted their attention to the provinces which became the United States, ignoring in the process over half of England's colonies in America. It would obviously be interesting to describe and compare demo­ graphic patterns in as many of England's colonies as possible in the period before 1776, and therefore the recent discovery of 124 censuses covering 21 American colonies between 1623 and 1775 is exciting. These documents make it possible, for the first time, to establish some of the basic demographic patterns in the American colonies in the sev­ enteenth and eighteenth centuries. Ultimately, a complete knowledge of the demographic history of the colonies will require studies utilizing vital statistics and other sources in addition to censuses.8 But the emphasis in this book will be on the latter. By concentrating on the censuses, I shall hope to establish the contours of colonial populations and suggest just what demographic patterns need to be explained by further study on the local level. Prag­ matic reasons also have helped to limit the scope of this work. The task of analyzing 124 censuses is such as to preclude any time-consuming explorations into other contemporary sources for population history, such as lists of births, marriages, and deaths, tax lists, or esti­ mates of population. Occasionally I will refer to studies which have already been made, or will utilize easily accessible information to sub­ stantiate conclusions reached on the basis of data included in the cen­ suses. But my main concern is with the evidence in the censuses. 7 Potter, "Growth of Population"; Moller, "Sex Composition and Culture Pat­ terns"; Stella Sutherland, Population Distribution in Colonial America (New York, 1936). R. Thompson, "Seventeenth-Century English and Colonial Sex Ratios: A Postscript," Population Studies, 28 (1974), 153-65 expands on Moller's thesis. Two older works provide useful collections of data, but make no attempt to analyze it: Century of Pop. Growth, 149-85; Greene and Harrington, American Population. Two recent studies have attempted generalization, but their conclusions are still based on rather small numbers of colonists: Lockridge, "Land, Population," and Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns." 8 For examples of some excellent studies which have utilized a variety of sources to get at detailed demographic patterns, see: John K. Alexander, "The Philadelphia Numbers Game: An Analysis of Philadelphia's Eighteenth Century Population," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 98 (1974), 314-24; James T. Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Country (Baltimore, 1972), 1-41, 71-97; Russell R. Menard, "The Maryland Slave Population, 1658-1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties," WMQ, 32 (1975), 29-54; Russell R. Menard and Lorena S. Walsh, "Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 69 (1974); and Gary B. Nash, "Slaves and Slaveowners in Colonial Philadelphia," WMQ, 30 (1973), 22356.

Population of the British Colonies Before embarking on a full-scale study of what these documents tell us of population in early America, it is necessary to explore their history to gain a fuller understanding of what exactly the censuses contain, as well as of the strengths and weaknesses that may be inherent in them. 9 At the outset it seems desirable to define what will be meant here by the word "census," for the censuses of the colonial period are far simpler than today's multi-volume productions. Yet one basic fact un­ derlies both: they aim to be counts of every individual living within a given set of boundaries at a particular time. What is specifically ex­ cluded by this definition is that vast array of information on colonial populations which comes from guesses, or estimates based on tax or militia rolls.10 Table I-l presents a chronological list of censuses for each American colony in which the people were counted before 1776. It shows the type of information included in each census, and a refer­ ence to where it may be located. While all these censuses involved at­ tempts to count the total population, there are major differences be­ tween them; these arise both from the various categories into which the populations were divided when they were counted, and from the ravages of time and man which have preserved some censuses more fully than others. Information which might be included in a particular census ranged from details on race, sex, age, degree of freedom, and marital status to data on military manpower, household units, and the population of lesser political divisions, whether parish, county, or town. Figures on agriculture, shipping, manufacturing, and arms were some­ times presented with the population totals, and the censuses obviously varied in complexity. Highly specific reports are available on Montserrat in 1729 and New Jersey in 1772; rather brief summaries exist for the Bahamas in 1773, or Georgia in 1753. It is possible, however, to over­ emphasize the differences among the censuses, for within a given col­ ony like Newfoundland or New York the information reported re­ mained much the same for a century. Undoubtedly the quality of these 9 There are several general accounts of the history of census taking. Among the best places to start are Hyman Alterman, Counting People: The Census in History (New York, 1969); and P. Hauser and O. D. Duncan, eds., The Study of Popula­ tion (Chicago, 1959), 124-79. Census taking in the colonies has been treated briefly in James H. Cassedy, Demography in Early America (Cambridge, Mass., 1969). The experience of the French colonies seems to have been quite similar to that of the English; see A. J. Pelletier, "Canadian Censuses of the 17th Century," Canadian Political Science Association, Proceedings, π (1930), 20-34. 10

Much of this has been collected in Greene and Harrington, American Popula­ tion. It might be noted that much of what will be said below applies to this infor­ mation, as well as to the actual censuses.

6

Subject, Sources, and Methods counts varied as well. But any attempt to assess their accuracy will be postponed until after consideration of why they existed in the first place. Because England did not begin to count her citizens at home on a regular basis until 1801, it is rather surprising to find that the first Eng­ lish attempts to collect precise data on a colonial population occurred in Virginia between 1623 and 1625. The incipient collapse of the Vir­ ginia Company, coupled with the Indian massacre of 1622, had raised serious questions about the strength of that colony. As the royal gov­ ernment became increasingly involved, it sought to inform itself on the state of Virginia; at the same time the Company was seeking informa­ tion to assist in keeping its charter. The censuses of 1623-24 and 1624-25 were the result of this comprehensive examination of Virginia's affairs.11 But the Crown continued to be concerned with Virginia's status even after assuming control of the colony. From 1625 until 1635 Governor Harvey was responsible for a series of estimates of population that culminated with another actual census in 1634.12 With that, however, census taking lapsed for almost seventy years. Virginia's experience was exceptional. Only rarely before 1670 did the English show an interest in the population of a colony, and in those cases the interest was shortlived. Even though Virginia's censuses were somewhat unusual for the first seventy years of the colonial period, the reasons for taking them were basically the same as for all the counts made in the eighteenth century. On the one hand the English govern­ ment was seeking to inform itself about a new possession; on the other, it was vitally concerned to know whether Virginia was a viable com­ munity, particularly in the military sense. The government wanted to know if Virginia was strong enough to defend itself. This concern with the military strength of the colonies was to remain closely tied to cen­ sus taking until the outbreak of the American Revolution. Between 1650 and 1670 the English government (first under Crom­ well, and then under Charles II) moved to collect information about the colonies on a more regular basis. Much of the responsibility for this change ultimately lay with Thomas Povey, a London merchant with interests in the West Indies, who in 1654 drew up a list of forty-seven suggested instructions for a proposed council of trade and plantations.13 11 CSPC, i, 43, 57, 72; Greene and Harrington, American Population, 136, 14344; Susan M. Kingsbury, The Records of the Virginia Company in London (Wash­ ington, 1935), iv, 131-36, 153, 158-59, 215, 519-51. 12 CSPC, i, 100, 117, 201. 13 Charles M. Andrews, British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1622-1675, xxvi (1908), of Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 106-8, 129.

TABLE 1-1 COLONIAL CENSUSES Place

Date

Information

Location (For full citation, see below)

The key for the types of information given in addition to the total population is as follows: R = Race, S = Sex, A = Age, F = Degrees of freedom or servitude, Mar. = Marital status, Mil. = Military manpower, H = Household or family, P = Political subdivisions. Bahamas

Barbados

1722 1731 1734 1773

R, Mil. R, S,A, H R, S, A, F, H

1673 1676 1680 1684

CSPC, 1669-1674,495 C O . 29/2/4-5, 28 C O . 1/44/134-378 B.M., Sloane MSS, #2441, ff. 12, 17-19 R, S, A, F, Mil., H, P CO. 28/14/21 R, S, A, H, P C O . 28/16/100-377 C O . 28/18/162-200 R R, S, A, Mil. C O . 28/24/53 R, S, A, F, Mil., P C O . 28/29/25 R, S, A, Mil., P C O . 28/31/16-17 R, F, P C O . 28/51/77 R, S, A, F, Mil., P C O . 28/55/82

1712 1715 1724 1734 1748 1757 1768 1773 Bermuda

R

C O . 23/1/no. 45 C O . 23/3/4-9 C O . 23/3/128-132 C O . 23/22/86

R, S R, S, A, Mil. F, H, P R, S, A, F, Mil., H, P

1698 1721 1723 1727 1729 1731 1749

R, R, R, R,

1756 1762 1764 1768 1773

R, S, A, Mil., P R, S, A, Mil., P R, S, A, F, H, P R, S, A, Mil., P R, S, A, Mil., P

Canada

1762

R, S, A, F, Mar., Mil., H, P

B.M., King's MSS, #205, ff. 129-130, 144,157

Connecticut

1756 1762 1774

R, P

R R, S, A, Mar., P

CPG, 164 C O . 5/1276/250 CPG, 166-169

1763 1773

R, A R, F, Mil.

C O . 101/1/92 C O . 71/4/74

Dominica

S, A, Mil., P S, A, Mil, P S, A, Mil., P S, A, Mil., P

R R R, S, A, Mil., P

C O . 37/2/197-198 C O . 37/10/146 C O . 37/11/48 C O . 37/12/9-10 C O . 37/12/46 C O . 37/12/93 B.M., King's MSS, #205, f. 395 C O . 37/18/May 5, 1756 C O . 37/19/Mar. 31,1762 C O . 37/19/Oct. 22, 1764 C O . 37/20/Aug. 4, 1768 C O . 37/36/42

8

TABLE 1-1 (cont.)

Date

Georgia

1738 1740 1750 1753 1756

R R R

Grenada

1747 1763

R, S, A, F, Mar., Mil., P CO. 101/8/4 R, A CO. 101/1/6

Jamaica

1661 1673 1680 1730 1774

R, A, S, Mil. R, A, S R, S, H, P R, S, A, F, P R, F

CO. 1/15/192 Dunn, 155 C O . 1/45/96-109 C O . 137/19 (Pt. 2)/48 C O . 137/70/94

Leeward Islands

1678 1707

R, S, A, H, P R, S, A, F, H, P

1711 1717 1720 1729

R, R, R, R,

1734 1745

R, S,A, P R, P

1753 1756

R, S, A, H, P P R, S, A, F, Mil.,

C O . 1/42/195-240 C O . 318/2/1-2; C O . 152/7/nos. 46-47 C O . 152/9/305-314 C O . 152/12/no. 67 C O . 152/13/159 C O . 152/18/20, 22, 42, 46-49 C O . 152/20/149-166 B.M., King's MSS, #205, ff. 424-425 C O . 152/27/Oct. 8,1753 C O . 152/28/Feb. 20, 1756

1701 1704 1708 1710 1712 1755 1762

P R, R, R, R, R, R

G & H , 128 G & H , 128 C O . 5/716/no. 54 G & H , 128-129 G & H , 129 CPG, 185 C O . 5/1276/25

Massachusetts

1754 1764

R, S, P R, S, A, H, P

CPG, 156-157 CPG, 158-162

Newfoundland

1675 1676 1677 1698

S, A, F, Mar., H S, A, F, Mar.,,P H S, A, F, Mar.,,P H S, A, F, H, P

1699 1700 1701 1706 1730

S, A, F S, A, F, P S, A, F, Mar.,,P H

C O . 1/35/149-156 C O . 1/38/239-240 C O . 1/41/157-166 C O . 194/1/262; C O . 389/17/264-266 C O . 389/17/264-266 C O . 389/17/264-266 C O . 389/17/264-266 C O . 194/3/565A-565B C O . 194/9/59-60

Maryland

Information

Location (For full citation, see below)

Place

CO. 5/711/16 CO. 5/711/44 CO. 5/643/20 G & H , 181 CO. 5/645/71

S, A, H, P S, A, H, P P S, A, F, Mil., S, A, F, H, P

S, A, F, Mil., H, P S,A, F S,A, P S,A, P S, A, F, P

TABLE 1-1 (cont.) Place Newfoundland (cont.)

Location (For full citation, see below)

Information

Date

Mar., H, P Mar., H, P Mar., H, P

CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO.

F, Mar., P F, Mar., P F, Mar. Mil., P

CPG, 149-150 CPG, 150-151 C O . 5/938/p. 299 CPG, 152-154

S, A, F, S, A, F, S, A, F, S, A, F, F, H S, A, F, F, H S, A, F, S, A, F, S, A, F,

New Hampshire

1767 1773 1774 1775

R, R, R, R,

New Jersey

1726 17371738 1745 1772

R, S,A, P

CPG, 184

R, S, A, F, P S, A, F, P R, S, A, H, P

CPG, 184 CPG, 184 C O . 5/992/p. 11

1698

R, S, A, H, P

1703 17121714

R, S, A, H, P

CPG, 170; NYCM, vol. 42, pp. 52-62 CPG, 170-180

R, S, A, F, H, P

1723 a 173P 1737 1746 1749 1756 1771

R, R, R, R, R, R, R,

1762

S, A, H, P

1766

H, P

C O . 217/18/263, 272; C O . 217/19/140 C O . 217/21/272

1708 1730= 17481749 1755 1774

R, F, Mil., P R, P

CPG, 162 G & H , 66

R, P R, S, A, Mil., P R, S, A, H, P

G & H, 66 C O . 5/1274/118-119 CPG, 162-163

New York

Nova Scotia

Rhode Island

S, A, S, A, S, A, S, A,

S, A, S,A, S, A, S,A, S,A, S,A, S,A,

Mar., H, Mar., H, Mar., H, Mar., H,

P P P P

194/10/15 194/10/99-100 194/10/148-149 194/13/28 194/13/46-47 194/13/113-114 194/13/196-197 194/13/238-239 194/32/54 194/32/97

1735 1738 1739 1751 1752 1753 1755 1757 1774 1775

Mar., H, P

F, P P P P P P P

CPG, 181; NYCM, vol. 57, pp. 176-180, vol. 59, pp. 17-19 CPG, 181 C O . 5/1055/215-225 CPG, 182 CPG, 182 CPG, 182 CPG, 183 CPG, 183

10

TABLE 1-1 (cont.)

Place St. Vincent Tobago June, Sept., April, May, Oct., Oct., Sept., Virginia

Location (For full citation, see below)

Date

Information

1764

R, A, F, Mil., H, P

CO. 101/1/152-153

1770 1771 1771 1772 1773 1773 1774 1775

R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R,

CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO.

16231624 16241625 1634 1699 1701 1703

S, H, P S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S, A S,A, P

101/14/126-127 101/18 (Pt. 3)/33 101/18 (Pt. 3)/33 101/18 (Pt. 3)/33 101/18 (Pt. 3)/33 101/18 (Pt. 3)/33 101/18 (Pt. 3)/33 101/18 (Pt. 3)/33

R, S,A, P

Hotten, 165-188

R, S, A, F, Mar., H, P P P

Hotten, 199-265 G & H, 145 G & H, 145-146 G&H, 147-148 Oldmixon, 426

S, A, Mil., P

α This census was also sent to London in 1726. It differs slightly from the earlier version and may be found in C O . 5/1054/80-81. b The published copies of this reflect some serious errors in transcription. A corrected copy can be found in Robert V. Wells, "The New York Census of 1731," New York Historical Society Quarterly, 57 (1973), 255-259. c This has also been published in CPG, 162, but has been mislabeled as 1748. The location given here is for the best copy available for each census. Whenever a published source is given, it has been checked against the original whenever possible. Additional locations for some of the censuses can be found in the footnotes. Locations have been abbreviated as follows:

B.M. C O . 1/1/1, etc. CPG CSPC Dunn G&H Hotten NYCM Oldmixon

11

British Museum, manuscript as follows. Colonial Office Group, Class 1, Piece 1, folio 1, Public Record Office, London. Bureau of Census, A Century of Population Growth (Washington, 1909). W. N. Sainsbury, et al, eds., Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and the West Indies (43 vols., London, 1860-). Richard Dunn, Sugar and Slaves (New York, 1972). E. B. Greene and V. D. Harrington, American Population before the Federal Census of 1790 (New York, 1932). J. C. Hotten, ed., The Original Lists of . . . Emigrants . . . to the American Plantations, 1600-1700 (New York, 1874). New York Colonial Manuscripts, New York State Library, Albany, New York. James Oldmixon, The British Empire in America, ι (London, 1741).

Population of the British Colonies

An early draft of this proposal makes it clear that Povey's interest was primarily with the West Indian trade, but by the time the document was ready for submission to Cromwell it had been broadened to in­ clude American affairs in general.14 Of interest here is the fact that the council was to be responsible for collecting data from the colonial governors on a variety of subjects, including population. Although there was hope that some of the more lethargic governors might be "rouzd upp" by the request for general reports, the main interest in specifics about population was military. The Council was instructed to find out "what numbers of men" resided in each colony, as a means of judging military strength. This instruction was repeated under Charles II, when the Council for Foreign Plantations was established in 1660.15 These instructions presumably directed the Council's attention to all the colonies, but they produced remarkably few results. Only Jamaica received any extensive requests for data, and that was because of her special situation.16 Jamaica had recently been captured from the Span­ ish, and hence was both a military risk and an unknown possession. But of equal importance in explaining the fascination with that island is the presence of men like Povey and his business associate, Martin Noel, on the Council. Their financial investments in Jamaica meant that they had little interest in the other colonies, and the Council's activities re­ flected that fact.17 Furthermore, the basic trading interests of these men meant that, by 1664, even the Jamaican population was no longer a matter of great concern; commercial matters took precedence.18 None­ theless, it was the merchant community in general, and Thomas Povey in particular, who first interested the English government in statistics on colonial affairs. About 1670 there was a marked change in the government's attitude towards statistics in general and demographic data in particular. After twenty years of following the merchants' advice on colonial policy, the royal government finally gave evidence of wishing to shape its own policy and rule the colonies more strictly.19 Information was, of course, fundamental to policy formulation. In establishing the machinery to collect the desired reports, the government adopted the old methods 14

B.M., Additional MSS, #11411, f. 3; and Egerton MSS , #2395, if. 99-100. Andrews, British Committees, 68-69. 16 CSPC, i, 429-30, 492. " See Add. MSS, #11411; and Egerton MSS, #2395, ff. 136-37, 157-58, 283-86. These are Povey's letters and papers dealing with colonial affairs. 18 CSPC, τ, 429-30, 492. 19A. P. Thornton, West-India Policy under the Restoration (Oxford, 1956), 6-7, 15, 17. 15

Subject, Sources, and Methods first proposed by Povey, but also instituted some new procedures de­ signed to produce a more regular flow of information. In 1670 a new Council for Foreign Plantations was created to deal with colonial affairs.20 On the surface, this body was very similar to the earlier Councils created at Povey's suggestion. The instructions of the members of the new Council reflect the old military concern, as they were asked to study the population of the colonies so that they might better provide for the Defence, Welfare, and Security of the said Plantations. [Furthermore] if you shall find any of the said Plantations to be so thinly and weakly inhabited as that it may endanger the losse of them, you are to consider how and which way they may most conveniently be supplyed. . . . 2 1 But in one important way the new Council was different. Rather than requesting information on an ad hoc basis, as the earlier bodies had done, the Council of 1670 sought to insure regular reports from all the colonies. Starting in 1671 with the Leeward Islands and ending in 1702 with Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey, the governor of virtually every royal colony received instructions to trans­ mit yearly accounts of the population of his colony. This was soon fol­ lowed by a request for the vital statistics of each colony.22 Even the type of information to be collected was specified. The numbers of men and women, children and adults, masters and servants, free and not free, the yearly growth, and the number of militia were all to be part of the information forwarded by the governor to London. 2 3 Initially, the governors in several of the colonies responded to the new call for demographic data: as Table 1-2 shows, ten censuses were taken in the period between 1671 and 1684. Although not every royal colony produced a census in this period, the output was remarkable in contrast to the modest results of the previous fifty years. However, as the Stuart monarchy moved toward the crisis of 1688, and the Privy Councillors sitting on the Council of Trade and Plantations were re20

Andrews, British Committees, 96, 102-3. Ibid., 118. 22 Leonard W. Labaree, ed., Royal Instructions to British Colonial Governors, 1670-1776, π (New York, 1935), 746-47. 23 In 1672 the Council for Trade and the Council for Foreign Plantations were combined into one body. The instructions of this group, although written by the Earl of Shaftesbury and his secretary, John Locke, were still based on Povey's proposals of 1654. See Andrews, British Committees, 102-3, 107-8, 118, 129. 21

13

TABLE 1-2 CENSUS TAKING BY TIME AND REGION Region Period 1623-1670 1671-1675 1676-1680 1681-1685 1686-1690 1691-1695 1696-1700 1701-1705 1706-1710 1711-1715 1716-1720 1721-1725 1726-1730 1731-1735 1736-1740 1741-1745 1746-1750 1751-1755 1756-1760 1761-1765 1766-1770 1771-1775 TOTAL

North America

West Indies

All Colonies

3 1 2

1 2 4 1

4 3 6 1

— —

-

-

-

-

-

5 6 4 2

1

1 3 2 6 1 4 8 4 5 2 9

3 1 3 5 3 12

6 6 5 5 2 5 7 7 6 2 7 9 7 10 5 21

68

56

124

—

-

1 3 2 4 4 5

i

quired to devote their attention to matters more pressing than colonial population, census taking died out. Not a single count was made be­ tween 1685 and 1698. Before examining the reasons behind the renewal of census taking in 1698, it seems necessary to comment on the surge of counting which occurred between 1671 and 1684. There can be little doubt that these censuses were taken because men living in Engand asked for them. Indeed, one historian has suggested (probably correctly) that the col­ onists, if left to themselves, would never have enumerated each other.24 Who then, in England, found it desirable to count the colonists? Had Povey and his associates been alone in seeking data on the colonies, it would seem probable that once interest in Jamaica declined, so too would the efforts to acquire statistics. Fortunately, however, by 24 Stella H. Sutherland, "Colonial Statistics," Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, 2nd Ser., ν (1967), 74-75.

Subject, Sources, and Methods

the middle of the seventeenth century an intellectual climate had de­ veloped throughout England that was generally conducive to questions of population The idea of national wealth as measured by the sum total of the country's resources, including people, was on the rise, but this position conflicted with the older idea of measuring wealth strictly in monetary terms. As a result, ideas about population and related government policy were reexamined. The first few years of British colonial expansion had coincided with an attitude that viewed many of England's social problems as a result of overpopulation. By the middle of the century this idea came into conflict with the newer mercantilist position that all population benefited the nation, and was indeed a prime measurement of national wealth. The colonies were a major is­ sue in this debate. As long as England had been seen as having too many people, colonies were clearly a benefit as they siphoned off some of the dangerous excess. However, the concept of people as a prime source of national wealth raised serious questions about the value of colonies. If population was indeed wealth, the nation could ill afford to let any but the most undesirable elements leave for the New World.25 By the second half of the seventeenth century the atmosphere was favorable for the study of colonial population; all that was needed was someone to suggest it be done. No one person was clearly responsible for arousing the government to action in collecting demographic data in the 1670's. But a number of men in or close to the government at that time were known to have an interest in what was then called Political Arithmetic. Men like Sir William Petty, John Graunt, or Gregory King were early students of demographic factors, and all had at least limited access to power.26 Perhaps more important was the fact that the Earl of Shaftesbury, who dominated colonial affairs in the 1670's, took an active interest in colo­ nial population, especially with regard to the Carolinas, of which he was a proprietor.27 Certainly it is possible to suggest men who might 25 Mildred Campbell, " 'Of People Either too Few or too Many'; The Conflict of Opinion on Population and its Relation to Emigration," in W. A. Aiken and B. D. Henning, eds., Conflict in Stuart England: Essays in Honour of Wallace Notestein (London, 1960), 171-201, provides an excellent discussion of attitudes toward population with regard to migration in 17th century England. I am indebted to this study for my comments on population attitudes. 26 For studies of the influence of these men, see Hauser and Duncan, eds., Study of Population, 124-30, 190-91; D. V. Glass, "Two Papers on Gregory King," in Glass and Eversley, eds., Population in History, 159-220; E. Strause, Sir William Petty: Portrait of a Genius (London, 1954). 27Andrews, British Committees, 96, 102-3, 107-8, 118, 129; Campbell, "Of People Either too Few or too Many,'" 187-98.

Population of the British Colonies have been instrumental in having colonial censuses taken, even though, at present, no particular individual can be named as the responsible party. At the end of the seventeenth century a marked change occurred in the counting of colonial Americans. From a rather spasmodic procedure, census taking became, in the eighteenth century, a relatively common occurrence in America, and in colonies such as Barbados, Bermuda, Newfoundland, and New York it became almost regular. The reason for this change was primarily bureaucratic. 28 Before 1696 the various committees which supervised colonial affairs were made up of members of the Privy Council, or at least reported to the Privy Council for final decisions. Given the fact that the Privy Council had a great deal else to worry about besides colonial population, it is not surprising that attention to that subject was somewhat erratic. However, the creation of the Board of Trade and Plantations in 1696, independent of the Privy Council, gave England a committee whose sole responsibility was to deal with colonial affairs, even if domestic problems or European wars were more critical to the country as a whole. 29 With the establishment of the Board of Trade the royal officials had only to ask that the governors follow the Board's instructions, in order to collect an impressive array of statistics, including data on population. The result, as can be seen in Table 1-2, was a tremendous increase in colonial censuses; 88.7¾ of all colonial head counts were taken after the Board of Trade was established. The growth of English interest in matters of population is a subject of considerable interest, but it tells very little of the actual manner by which Americans were counted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Since the way in which a census was taken obviously influences its accuracy, and hence its usefulness, it is necessary to examine the question of how these censuses came into being. Every census listed in Table 1-1 grew out of a request from England for information on population. Some of them originated from a governor's adherence to his instructions to send regular accounts of the people under his jurisdiction.30 But most of them came from specific 28

It is only fair to note that England took her first census in 1696. However, there seems to be little relationship between this enumeration and the colonial documents. Unlike the colonies, this was to be England's last census until 1801. For a discussion of the Census of 1696, see David V. Glass, "Introduction" to London Record Society, Publications, π (1966), "London Inhabitants within the Walls, 1695,'" ix-xvii. 29 Andrews, British Committees, passim. s» C O . 28/29/23; C O . 37/10/142; C O . 194/9/59-60; C O . 5/1041/259.

16

Subject, Sources, and Methods requests from the Board of Trade. In some cases the Board asked for a census in only one or two colonies, but in other instances they sent requests for such data (and other information as well) to every colony in the empire. Table 1-2 shows the effects of such circular letters in 1721, 1731, 1755, and 1773.31 In the years following each of these letters there was a rise of census taking in the colonies. While the Board of Trade was responsible for transmitting requests for information to the various colonial governors, the desire for that data can often be traced to other government bodies. The King, the Privy Council, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords all asked the Board at various times for reports on colonial affairs. And it was to provide the substance for these reports that the Board sent out its "Queries."32 To some extent the Board (or at least some of its members) may have resented being forced to collect reports from the colonies,33 but they tried to do a thorough job nonetheless, putting as much pressure as possible on dilatory governors. Almost every governor who received a circular letter with Queries was reminded of the need to hurry, because the King or Parliament should not be kept waiting.34 Most of them tried to respond promptly. Those who did not either sent worried explanations of why they had not yet taken their censuses, or received letters like the one sent to Governor Hamilton of the Leeward Islands in 1719 threatening to inform the King of "your neglect of this part of your duty. . . ."33 It is precisely this kind of prodding which best explains the number of censuses taken after the Board of Trade was created. It was a rare governor who could afford to ignore his superiors' requests for long without an adequate reason. The actual queries dealing with population were surprisingly general in nature. Typical of the questions asked of the governors are those sent to the various West Indian colonies in 1723. Only two of seventeen queries about the colony dealt with population, and they asked merely: 8 What is the Number of the Inhabitants Whites & Blacks? 9 Are the Inhabitants increas'd or decreas'd of late, & for what Reasons?36 31

For examples of such letters, see CO. 324/11/pp. 10-14, 31, 153-56. Ibid., f. 10; Arthur H. Bayse, The Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, Commonly Known as the Board of Trade 1748-1782 (New Haven, 1925), 3-4. »8 CSPC, 1734-1735, #592 (ii). ** Ibid., #184-86; CO. 324/11/10. 35CO. 152/20/142; CSPC, 1719-1720, #162. 36 CO. 324/11/10. 32

17

Popuhtion of the British Colonies As is apparent from Table 1-1, most governors gave considerably more detail than they were asked for. Many relied on their instructions for guidance in counting the colonists under them, dividing the inhabitants by sex, age, and degree of freedom (or race) as requested. 37 Others took advantage of the rather vague requests sent out by the Board of Trade to indulge personal whims—what they thought ought to be included in a proper account of the inhabitants. 38 Still others may have followed the example of their predecessors in that particular colony (for censuses within a given colony are remarkably similar). In a few colonies, notably Virginia, governors were able to substitute rather detailed tax lists for censuses, though such behavior was rare. 39 But the end result was a set of documents which are remarkably different in the details included. Once a governor received a request for a census he had to figure out how to get the people counted. In most instances local officials were made responsible for the actual counting of heads. In New York and Maryland the sheriffs of each county were responsible for making up returns from lists provided by the various constables under them. 40 In Rhode Island, the Governor and Provincial Assembly joined together to pass on the burden of counting their residents to the various towns. 41 In Massachusetts, in 1763, the selectmen were required to enumerate the inhabitants; New Jersey's county tax assessors were given the same responsibility in 1772.42 In the West Indies parish officials were often asked to count the local inhabitants, though Governor Fitzwilliam of the Bahamas was forced, in 1734, to order all persons to report themselves to the Secretary's Office in order to complete the census that year.43 As might be expected, the process of taking a census was slow, and, as will appear later, reliance on local officials was not always satisfactory. But eventually the governor would receive the lists he had asked for from the various parts of the colony. Furthermore, these lists 37

See above, pp. 8-11. For example, see the New Jersey Census of 1772 which includes a considerable array of material not asked for by the imperial officials. 39 See Greene and Harrington, American Population, 123-55, for examples of such lists. 40 CO. 5/1053/211/ CO. 5/715/no. 32. 41 John R. Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, 10 vols. (Providence, 1856-65), iv, 32-33, 438-39. 42 Josiah H. Benton, Early Census Making in Massachusetts (Boston, 1905), 10-64; W. A. Whitehead, et al., eds., Archives of the State of Netv Jersey, 30 vols. (Newark, etc., 1880-1906), x, 445. 43 For censuses taken on a parish level, see Barbados or Bermuda in Table 1-1. The Bahamas situation in 1734 is described in CO. 23/3/116. 38

18

Subject, Sources, and Methods were often quite similar, for the governors seem to have specified how they wanted the census taken, although few went as far as Francis Nicholson (Virginia, 1699) or William Franklin (New Jersey, 1772) in providing printed forms for the listing of residents.44 After the governor had collected the figures on population he forwarded the results to London, sometimes with comment, but more often without. 45 Most governors summarized the material they had received into a table of one or two pages and sent that to London. A few, however, sent the lists they had received from the local officials with no comment or attempt to synthesize the mass of material involved.46 As might be expected, the Board of Trade was not happy to have a large amount of undigested material dumped in its lap. In the first few years after 1696 the Board had been required to ask the governors for fuller reports. Edmund Andros in Virginia was informed that " 'Many' and 'Few' are too indeterminate expressions" to be used in his reports, while Francis Nicholson of Maryland was chastised for his attempts to submit tax lists in place of a full census.47 But the Board was no happier to have too much material. In 1701 Governor Blakiston, who had succeeded Nicholson in Maryland, was informed by the Board that "The lists of inhabitants you have sent us are only too particular and voluminous. We have no need of the names of every child and every slave. . . . The main thing is that we may know the increase or decrease of the people, and more particularly of such as are fit to bear arms."48 In fact, the Board did not even keep Blakiston's lists, but drew up an abstract of them, sending him a copy for future reference.49 After 1715, however, the chief executives in the colonies knew they were expected to provide a summary account of their province and did so with little fuss. But it is important to note that the original lists submitted by the local officials have occasionally survived in American archives.50 The greater detail on these local lists is of considerable interest to demographic historians exploring a variety of questions. 44 For an example of similar lists, see the Bahamas census of 1734, CO. 2 3 / 3 / 129-32. The printed forms from Virginia and New Jersey are to be found in CO. 5/1310/177 and CO. 5/992/p. 109 respectively. 45 For an analysis of the governors' comments on the censuses, see below p. 23. 46 For example, see the Barbados Census of 1715, the Maryland Census of 1701, and the Virginia Census of 1699. Only the first of these has been preserved in full, but it alone takes up 277 folios. 4T CSPC, x, 594-95. William H. Browne, ed., Archives of Maryland: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland 1698-1731 (Baltimore, 1905), xxv, 9; CSPC, x, 596-97. 48 4 CSPC, 1701, p. 498-99. ^ Ibid.; CO. 5/715/no. 32 (ii). 50 The New York Censuses of 1698 and 1703, and the Rhode Island count of 1774 are fuller in American archives than in London.

19

Population of the British Colonies The whole process, from a request to the Board of Trade for a report until the censuses were actually received and read in London, took anywhere from six months to two years. Often the censuses arrived too late to be of use to the Board for their original purpose (how they were actually used will be considered later). But given the difficulties of communication in the eighteenth century, especially in an empire that was largely frontier, it is perhaps surprising that the censuses were taken at all. It is relatively easy to sketch the normal way in which a census should have been taken in seventeenth and eighteenth century America; in practice, difficulties often arose. Some governors actively resisted attempts from London to inform themselves on colonial population. In 1709, Connecticut's governor reported the number of inhabitants in that colony as "about four thousand."51 However, evidence on the size of the militia in that year, plus later reports on population, make it clear that the governor did not mean the same thing by "inhabitants" as the Board of Trade did. The Board wanted to know the total number of people living in the colony, in order to estimate what it should be worth to the empire, but the governor apparently reported only those people who were legally admitted "inhabitants" of towns, suggesting a rather weak province hardly worth England's attention. In 1731 Major Gordon reported from Pennsylvania that he could not furnish the Board with much data on the demographic characteristics there, since "This Government has not hitherto had Occasion to use any methods that can furnish us with an exact Estimate. . . ."52 This tendency for Pennsylvania officials to use past apathy to justify their laxness continued, for in 1773 John Penn reported that he was presently unable to answer the Queries sent by the Board since the subjects on which information was desired had "been very little attended to by any Persons in this Country. . . ."53 When he finally did send his report to London a year and a half after it had been requested, Penn's comments on population were no more than guesses.54 Most governors, however, tried their best to secure an accurate count of the colonists under them. But they encountered an amazing variety of obstacles, perhaps the most common of which was resistance from the colonists themselves. The need to rely on ignorant and illiterate local officials for enumerators caused some problems, 55 and serious opposition arose out of religious superstition. Both II Samuel 24:1-25 and I Chronicles 21:1-27 tell the story of David numbering his people 52 si CO. 5/1264/161. CO. 5/1268/109. 53 CO. 5/1285/5. 54 Q o . 5/1286/18-34. 55 Browne, ed., Archives of Maryland, xxv, 255.

20

Subject, Sources, and Methods and thereby bringing a plague on them. In both New Jersey and Massachusetts the colonists seem to have threatened violence if a census was taken, on the ground that they too would be visited by plague. 5 6 It is of interest to note, however, that the first census was taken in each colony with no violent outbreaks, 57 and only in New York was there active hostility on Biblical grounds. In June of 1712 Governor Robert Hunter wrote London to apologize for the poor qual­ ity of his information in the census of that year. Although he had issued orders for a census he was having trouble getting it taken. The citizens of New York were apparently reluctant to cooperate with the Gov­ ernor, having observed "that the sickness follow'd upon the last num­ bering of the people. . . ." 5 8 This difficulty plagued Hunter; three years later he was again forced to inform the Board that his task was un­ finished for the same reason. 59 Occasionally the men responsible for doing the actual counting re­ fused to do it, or at least delayed as long as possible. In 1749 Governor Clinton of New York was forced to bring legal pressure to bear on the constables to get them to make their counts. His political opposition in the province had taken advantage of the lack of pay for census tak­ ing, to encourage carelessness.80 Governor William Franklin of New Jersey was forced, in 1773, to send a census to London in which all the East Jersey counties were missing. The county tax assessors there had simply refused to do the job free. 61 In Massachusetts Governor Bernard had a three-year struggle with the legislature to overcome "groundless fears & jealousies" insinuated by "a few wicked persons," before he had complete compliance in 1765 with his request for a census. 62 It is probably an open question how accurate the returns were that Bernard sent to London, considering that many legislators were enumerators. New Hampshire and Georgia experienced similar difficulties in 1774 and 1750 respectively, 63 and in 1768 the Governor of Barbados offered evidence suggesting that the churchwardens had been lax in counting Negroes for the census that year. 64 Violence, or the threat of it, was a further hindrance to census taking in the colonies. In New York, in 1746, the enumerators were 56 New Jersey Archives, n, 777; Benton, Census Making in Massachusetts, 10-64. For a similar situation in New Hampshire in 1768, see CO. 5/928/118. 57 On the other hand, religious fears may have plagued census taking in New Jersey in 1737-38; see CO. 5/974, Lewis Morris to Board of Trade, 10 June, 1743. 68 59 N.Y. Docs., v, 339-40. Ibid., 459. 60 61 Ibid., 509, 524-25. New Jersey Archives, x, 445. 62 American Statistical Association, Collections, ι (1847), 123-27; C O . 5/891/ 490. 63 C O . 5/938/p. 150; CO. 5/643/20. "4 c.O. 28/55/83.

21

Population of the British Colonies unable (or unwilling) to get to Albany County because of the threat of war. 65 Thirty years earlier, Governor Hamilton had been prevented from reporting on some of the Leeward Islands because pirates were in control there and he did not have the power to drive them out. 0 6 And last, but not least, was the lawless nature of some of the colonists, which led them to disregard the efforts of some governors to take a count. 67 Even when a governor was able to have a census taken without opposition his problems were not entirely over, for he still had to report his findings. Most of the time the documents sent to London seem to have been accurate resumes of the local lists, but occasionally errors crept into the transcripts. 68 Once a transcript was made, however, the governor faced the physical task of transmitting the document intact from the New World to the Old. Lord Cornbury, who governed New York and New Jersey during the first decade of the eighteenth century, had particular difficulty in sending information, since there was war during all of his administration. In 1703 he had a census taken in New York which has survived in American archives, although no copy of it seems to have reached England. Indeed, the years between 1703 and 1708 seem to have been unusually hard on Cornbury's correspondence; the Board of Trade noted the loss of some enclosures, while Cornbury himself mentioned the capture of some of his reports by the French. 6 9 Among other things that apparently were lost was a census Lord Corn­ bury claimed to have had taken in New Jersey about 1705.70 Perhaps because of his other failings, Cornbury was continually reminded by the Board of Trade of his duty to send information on population, 71 but the existence of the New York Census of 1703 lends credence to his protests that he was trying his best. Furthermore, it is possible that the Board of Trade lost his reports, for in 1726 Governor Burnet (also of New York) was asked to send the census taken three years earlier. He obliged London with a second copy, commenting rather testily that "if Search be made" in his letter of 16 December 1723 he had no doubt "but it will be found." 72 Burnet, incidentally, was right; the census is 65

N.Y. Docs., vi, 392. ββ c . O . 152/12/no. 67. The censuses of 1734 in both the Bahamas and the Leeward Islands seem to have suffered from this problem; see C.O. 23/2/116; C.O. 152/20/142. 68 The most notable case of inaccurate reporting was the 1731 New York Census; see C.O. 5/1055/215-26. For a more detailed description of the errors involved, and for an accurate copy, see Robert V. Wells, "The New York Census of 1731," New York Historical Society Quarterly, 57 (1973), 255-59. 6 9 C O . 5/1048/no. 60 ( i ) ; C.O. 5/1049/19. ™ C.O. 5/970/no. 77. 71 Public Record Office, Journal of the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations (London, 1920), n, 104, 300, 304. " C O . 5/1054/76. 67

22

Subject, Sources, and Methods still there today.73 Other governors in other provinces shared the same worries about getting information to London. Many resorted to sending duplicates of their reports.74 But not even that solution could solve the problems faced by Colonel Lambert, Lieutenant Governor of St. Christopher, who was asked to give an account of his island even though many public papers had recently been destroyed by an enemy invasion and a hurricane. 75 This account of the differences between the theory and practice of census taking in England's American colonies is intended to make those who use the documents under study here somewhat cautious in their analysis; it is not intended to discourage their use altogether. In fact, my overall impression is that most governors tried quite honestly to provide an accurate count of the people in their province. And in some cases they succeeded within reasonable limits. Central to an understanding of how these censuses came to be taken and how reliable they may be is the question: how were the censuses studied here used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? The first point is that the governors responsible for having the counts made seldom, if ever, bothered to analyze the results. In the vast majority of cases the censuses were sent to London with little or no comment beyond noting their inclusion in a packet of letters. Some governors did warn the Board of Trade when they thought their information was inaccurate. Only rarely did a governor go as far as George Thomas did in 1753 and 1756, when he claimed the censuses of those years pointed out the incapacity of the Leeward Islanders to defend themselves.76 Most preferred to let the English authorities draw their own conclusions. Until the last decade of the seventeenth century, the census materials (and other reports on population) were used by the various bodies supervising colonial affairs mainly to check on the viability of particular plantations. We have already seen that the Virginia censuses of 1623-24, 1624-25, and 1634 were motivated, in part, by a desire to see whether the colony was still strong enough to survive. Under the Committee for the Affairs of America, established on Povey's suggestion in 1654, Jamaica received much the same sort of attention. In October 1657 a report of the Committee to the Privy Council recommended sending servants to that island in order to make it a useful part of the empire; three months later a similar communication reported that 73

CO. 5/1053/214-15. CO. 37/11/49; C O . 137/19 (Part 2)/48. 73 CO. 152/9/294. ™ CO. 152/27, letter of 8 Oct., 1753; CO. 152/28, letter of 20 Feb., 1756. M

23

Popuhtion of the British Colonies Jamaica had too few people to care for both her agricultural and her military needs, while observing on a more general level that it was "impossible that any good can bee affected in America without people. . . ."77 In January of 1661 the Committee of Foreign Plantations, which had assumed supervision of colonial affairs after the Stuart Restoration, considered the question of "Whither the English now upon Jamaica may yet probably bee understood to bee a Collonie."78 The answer (basically, no) was probably based on a report of November 1660, and it showed a remarkable amount of sophistication about demographic affairs.79 While the Committee was worried about the size of the population, they realized that numbers were not everything. Equally troubling was the fact that for defensive purposes the people were poorly distributed about the island. Furthermore, there were occupational imbalances in the inhabitants; in particular, the soldiers outnumbered the planters. This analysis is extremely interesting, for it meant that the English understood that the social and geographic distribution of a population was often as important as its size. This concern was expressed again in the seventeenth century, when a report of about 1680 called for the establishment of towns in Virginia in order to make the colonists living there more productive. 80 Nonetheless, survival of the colonies was still the first concern, and the censuses underlying a report made in 1676, which showed 9,720 French able to bear arms living in the Caribbean, compared to only 3,582 English, must have done little to comfort the men responsible for colonial security.81 After 1690 the English attitude toward colonial population changed noticeably. It seems clear that information from the censuses taken between 1698 and 1715 was at least partially responsible for the shift. The outbreak of war with France in 1689 had created some serious problems in the colonies. While New York, of all the mainland colonies, was clearly the most exposed geographically, the threat from the French in Canada was such that London tried to make all the colonies come to her aid. In spite of the fact that Maryland and Virginia were the two most populous colonies, after Massachusetts, they had consistently claimed to be too weak and small to send the required men and money to New York.82 Similar protests of weakness were received from 77 B.M., Egerton MSS, #2395, ff. 136-37, 157-58. These are only two of a number of documents considering how best to people that island. 7 » Egerton MSS, #2395, ff. 289-90. 79 Presumably the Jamaican census of 1661 listed in Table 1-1 resulted from the Committee seeking population information; see CSPC, 1574-1660, p. 492; see also George W. Roberts, The Population of Jamaica (Cambridge, 1957), 2-3. 8 81 ° Egerton MSS, #2395, f. 666. Ibid., ff. 522-34. 8 ^ CSPC, 1693-1696, 379, 560-61, 605-6, 636-37, 712-13; CSPC, 1701, #893.

24

Subject, Sources, and Methods other colonies as well, and were apparently believed; although a set of quotas for aiding New York had been established in 1694 they had not been enforced by 1696.83 As long as colonial affairs remained in the hands of the busy Privy Councillors this impasse was allowed to persist, but the Board of Trade, within four months of its commission, took steps to solve the problem. To begin with, the Board of Trade did not believe the colonial protests of having too few people. In a report to the Privy Council in September 1696, the newly formed group stated bluntly that His Majesty has subjects enough in those parts of America, not only to defend themselves against all the attacks they may apprehend from the French in Canada, and the Indians joined with them, but even to drive them out from thence. . . . It is almost incredible that his Majesty's Governor of New York in the middle of above forty thousand English that he has in his neighborhood should say as he does, that he has but the four Companies his Majesty sent, and are in his Majesty's pay, there to rely on for the defence of that frontier, in case of any attempt from the French.84 The assumption was clear throughout this report that the colonies were strong and rich enough to defend themselves; all they lacked was unity.85 The Board was apparently conscious, however, that its report had little substance behind it, for no census had been taken since 1684. To remedy this defect they began immediately to seek such information from all the colonies, giving special attention to the replies from New York, Virginia, and Maryland.86 The results of these and subsequent inquiries were most gratifying from the English point of view: the twenty-two censuses taken in the colonies between 1698 and 1715 ended any worry that the plantations were about to collapse. From then until 1776, the English government worked on the assumption that the reports on the population of the colonies indicated that they were going to survive. The first two decades of the eighteenth century saw some significant changes in the way the Board of Trade used its information on American population. Rarely were figures given; rarely were data analyzed; the main use of the population reports in this period was as propaganda. To begin with, the seventeenth century association of popula83

CO. 323/1/27-29; CO. 5/1114/7-8, 56-59, 88-91; N.Y. Docs., iv, 227. s* N.Y. Docs., iv, 227. ss ibid., 228-30. S& CSPC, 1696-1697, 2-3, 141, 145-46, 169-70, 418-28, 454-58, 594-97; CSPC, 1697-1698, 389; Browne, ed., Archives of Maryland, xxv, 9, 255-59.

25

Population of the British Colonies tion with military affairs declined sharply, as demographic data vir­ tually disappeared from reports on the defensive state of the colonies.87 Instead, population became tied up with discussions of how to get the maximum economic benefit from the American peoples. It is well known that one of the main goals of the Board of Trade during its first twenty years of existence was to introduce a greater degree of control over the colonies, especially those existing under proprietary or corporate charters. Their use of census materials reflected that desire. As early as 1701 the Board complained to the House of Commons that the proprietary colonies were taking advantage of their relative freedom from English control over trade to entice many plant­ ers away from the provinces "more beneficial to England." 8 8 In the same vein, in a report of 1702, the Board accused New Englanders of fishing off Newfoundland primarily for the purpose of carrying off "Numbers of handy-crafts Men, Seamen and Fishermen" to the char­ tered colonies, where they would be of less value to England. 8 9 Later reports worried about the tendency of loosely administered colonies to produce goods which competed with English commodities, and to avoid their share of military expenditures. 90 Underlying all these re­ ports was the feeling that the English colonies in America were doing very well, as the censuses showed, but that administrative reform was needed before the mother country could gain full benefit from her offspring. Certainly the Board was aware of the census materials, but the nature of its concerns before 1720 made it unnecessary to cite specific figures. The attempts of the Board to reform the imperial system petered out after 1715, for reasons of no concern here, but as part of their last ef­ forts to interest the government in reform they produced two docu­ ments which demand attention. 91 The first was a recommendation, made in 1718 to the Privy Council, that the proposals of Sir Robert 92 Montgomery for a new colony south of South Carolina be denied. While the Board was sensitive to the fact that it would be militarily helpful to occupy that ground, they felt that the difficulties which would arise from creating a new proprietary government would more than offset any military gain. This recommendation is of interest for two reasons. First, it is clear that the Board was confident enough of " CO. 389/17/pp. 235-97, esp. 268-97; CSPC, 1702, #55, #348. 88 CO. 389/17/p. 172. 89 c.O. 389/17/p. 263. so Bulletin of the New York Public Library, χ (1906), 275; χι (1907), 469-70. 91 For the story of the Board's early activity and subsequent decline, see An­ drews, Colonial Period, iv, 368-428; and Bayse, Board of Trade, 24-31. 82 C.O. 5/1293/68, 73-74.

26

Subject, Sources, and Methods the basic strength of the colonies to withstand pressure for a colony to be governed by an undesirable means. At the same time, however, their acceptance of the military argument for such a plantation shows their continuing awareness that numbers alone were not enough, but that the location of the population was also important. The second report pertinent here was made to the King in September 1721. It is a long document dealing with the continental colonies, and is of interest because it makes the most explicit use of census materials of any report between 1700 and 1735.93 The report itself is organized on a geographic basis, treating each colony separately in a north to south sequence. Nonetheless, several important themes regarding population are apparent throughout. To begin with, numbers alone were not considered terribly important, for in the case of both Rhode Island and New York relatively recent census findings were not included. What apparently interested the Board were the qualitative aspects of population. They took pains to note those colonies where there were types of people who might presumably be unfriendly to the crown. Thus the French in Nova Scotia, the Irish in New York, Quakers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and Negroes in all the colonies were subjects of interest to the Board of Trade. As part of the attempt to arouse interest in imperial reform, which was the basis for this report, a new theme with regard to American population was sounded which was to remain important until 1776. The overall emphasis of this document was to awaken interest in the colonies by demonstrating their potential value to England. One of the ways this was done was to stress the remarkable growth of the colonial population. Whenever it was possible, census figures were given to show the amazing pace of increase; along with these figures went estimates of the economic worth of the colonies. But most important of all was the clear sense that growth was good and ought to be encouraged. In addition to equating the rapid increase in numbers with a flourishing state, the Board actually suggested means of fostering the trend. They made it clear that settlement of the interior of North America should be encouraged as soon as the present colonies were full. They also suggested that governors actively urge marriages between whites and Indians as a means of peopling the country, though this reflects, at least in part, as much a concern to curtail emigration from England as a desire to see the colonies grow. Nonetheless, the rapid growth of the colonial population was vividly portrayed, reflecting an awareness of what the censuses showed. 93

The document may be found in a number of different places. I have used the copy in N.Y. Docs., v, 591-630.

27

Population of the British Colonies Ironically, the next forty years saw the Board of Trade become more efficient at collecting censuses, and less willing to act on the abundance of material available to them. Between 1721 and 1760 a total of fifty enumerations were made in the American colonies, apparently indicating a continuing interest in the population of the New World. Yet the interest must have been academic, for with two exceptions the reports of the Board of Trade for those forty years are largely barren of demographic data. Two representations by the Board, one made in 1735 and the other twenty years later, illustrate the rather sterile use which was made of this material. In the 1730's both the House of Lords and the House of Commons requested a series of reports on American affairs. In spite of the fact that the Board was collecting censuses during that period, by and large such information was ignored in their reports. 94 Only in 1735, in a report on the defensive state of the British islands in America, did the Board bother to include information on population. In this instance figures for the white population were cited extensively, indicating, incidentally, a greater fear of the French and Spanish than of the slave population of the islands.95 It is of interest to note that the figures in the most recent count were given with accuracy in this report, indicating that the censuses were consulted when necessary. The conclusion of this study was that Jamaica and the Bahamas could use a few more inhabitants, but that the other islands were able to care for themselves. Perhaps the fate of this document best explains why the Board seldom bothered with such detail later on, for the House of Lords referred it to committee on its receipt, and it was never heard of again.96 It was twenty years before the Board again utilized its census materials as fully. As war with France became more and more certain after 1754, the Privy Council apparently decided it wanted to know what aid could be expected from the colonies. Accordingly, it sent a request to the Board of Trade on 26 August, 1755, for a report on the population of the colonies. This request, and the reply made three days later, mark the only time that the English government dealt with population statistics independent of other material. 97 In spite of this fact, the report 9* CO. 324/11/pp. 243, 253-302, 308, 314-70; CSPC, 1734-1735, #20. as CSPC, 1734-1735, #457. 96 See L. F. Stock, ed., Proceedings and Debates of the British Parliaments respecting North America, iv (Washington, 1937), 245. Other reports must have met similar fates for there is little or no mention of them in published records. 97 The report is in both CO. 5/7 (Part 3)/pp. 365-69, and CO. 324/15/pp. 423-25. Cf. the table in CO. 318/2/19-20, which appears to be from the same

28

Subject, Sources, and Methods

is one of the least interesting and unsophisticated uses of the censuses to be found. The Board contented itself (perhaps time was a problem) with giving the total population (to the nearest 5,000) in each of the continental colonies. With the exception of Georgia, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, figures were also presented on military manpower. But in no case was anything said about the island colonies; nor did the Board bother to analyze its data. Apparently it felt that its role was to collect and forward information when asked, but policy recommenda­ tions were avoided. The end of the war with France in 1763 brought with it the last great change in British attitudes toward American population before 1776. In 1696 the long-held fear for the survival of the colonies had been replaced by confidence in their strength; this had in turn been fol­ lowed in 1721 by a positive glorification of the rapid increase in the number of Americans. But by 1763 the English were beginning to worry. The Board of Trade's report of 1755 had shown more than a million people living in North America alone, and, as the censuses clearly suggested, growth was rapid. In addition, a number of new colonies had been added during the recent war. For the first time Eng­ lishmen began to look at the colonial censuses and wonder if there might not be too many Americans. At least two studies were made early in 1763 which reflected on the implications of American population growth for the future of the Brit­ ish empire. Neither was made by the declining Board of Trade, and neither can be clearly attributed to any one author. But together they illustrate the concern in England with the size of the American popu­ lation, although they differed radically on how to control it.98 Both essays agree on three basic points. First, that colonies ought to be com­ mercially useful to the mother country. Second, that some of the burden of the recent war (and any wars in the future) ought to be shifted to the thriving colonies. And third, and most important, that the popula­ tion of the American colonies, and hence their strength, had increased to such an extent that England must take steps to prevent their inde­ pendence. This latter point was of prime importance, for without de­ pendent colonies the first two propositions were at best idle speculation. period. Its origins, however, are uncertain, and its purpose is more clearly propa­ ganda. 98 The two essays are "Hints Respecting the Settlement for our American Prov­ inces," 9 Feb., 1763, and "Some Thoughts on the Settlement and Government of our Colonies in North America," 10 March, 1763. They are to be found in B.M. Add. MSS, #38335, ff. 14-33 and 68-77 respectively. The first has been edited by T. C. Barrow and published in WMQ, 24 (1967), 108-26.

Population of the British Colonies The question was how best to keep the colonies under control. The answers were quite different. The first essay assumed that any movement of the population across the Appalachians would be dangerous to the unity of the empire and would put the people out of reach of British traders. The author therefore suggested restricting the population to the area east of the mountains, where it could be more easily controlled and engaged in trade. To aid this policy, he suggested an end to British emigration to America and restrictions on land grants, both of which would help to reduce the rate of increase of the people to a manageable level. The second essay, written about a month after the first, approached the problem quite differently. This author saw nothing inherently worrisome in the size of the American population. Rather, he suggested, the need for concern arose because so many of the people were clustered in cities, towns, and villages in the Northern colonies, where their strength far exceeded what it would be if they were scattered about as in the Southern plantations. As he saw it, the solution lay not in restricting growth or the area of settlement, but in actively fostering the spreading of the colonists. By this means all the weaknesses and hostilities among the colonies would be perpetuated; there would be no danger of unity, and hence, no danger of independence. Perhaps this second plan would have been no better than the first in warding off the American Revolution; it could not have been worse. The real interest of both these essays, however, is the fear of American strength which permeates them, a fear which stemmed from an awareness of what the previous sixty-five years of census taking had shown. Although thirty-six censuses were taken in the American colonies between 1761 and 1775, governmental utilization of these documents was minimal. Only occasionally did a report deal with matters of population, and then it was in very general terms. Concern with the size and growth of the colonies died down by the end of 1763. English population policies for the next thirteen years were restricted to discouraging emigration from Great Britain (in part to insure a ready supply of labor), while at the same time letting the colonies grow. It is of interest to note that a number of suggestions were made for the active encouragement of foreign Protestants to move to America. Apparently the officials in London had decided that colonial growth was not bad, so long as it did not interfere with English increase. Some attempts were made to control migration to the interior, but that was more out of concern with keeping the Indians friendly than to insure the dependence of the colonies. On the whole, the fears expressed in 1763 remained, but drastic action was no longer recommended as a 30

Subject, Sources, and Methods counter to growth." In fact, policy making seems to have become increasingly separated from the collection of information after 1763. As the Secretaries of State gradually replaced the Board of Trade as the main channel of imperial communication in the 1760's, the use of the census materials (and other parts of the governors' reports) altered.100 No attempt was made to synthesize or analyze the data. Rather, it seems to have been collected into roughly chronological volumes where it could be consulted by anyone concerned.101 But the absence of references to these documents suggests that no one cared very much. The suspicion arises that if English officials had been asked after 1730 why they wanted censuses taken in the colonies, they would have been hard pressed to answer. Once started in the seventeenth century by men who had an interest in the subject, inquiries into American population may well have continued more out of bureaucratic inertia than from any well-developed sense of what the information showed. One question remains. How did the Americans use the censuses? On the whole, the conclusions drawn from these documents were much the same in the New World and the Old.102 After the initial seventeenth century fears about survival, Americans had by the 1720's begun to remark with pride on their extraordinary growth.103 Only after 1763 was there a divergence of opinion on the two sides of the Atlantic. With well-known Americans like Benjamin Franklin and Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, commenting favorably on the growth of population in the colonies, it was only natural that North Americans continued to take pride in their rapid rate of increase at a time when the English were beginning to view the phenomenon with alarm.104 In fact, as the English had feared in 1763, the rate of increase was beginning by 1775 99 This paragraph has been based on reports by the Board of Trade found in C O . 5 / 5 6 3 / p p . 121-26; C O . 5/1346/15-18; C O . 5/661/166-73; C O . 5 / 3 2 6 / 9 2 93; C O . 5/326/104-6. 100 Bayse, Board of Trade, 104-219. 101 For two such documents, see "General Reports of the State of the American Colonies," B.M. King's MSS, #205; and "Present State of the British Colonies in America," in the Downshire Papers, Berkshire Record Office, Trumbull Add. MSS, # 1 4 1 . The former collection deals largely with the early 1760's; the latter includes all the reports sent in answer to the Queries of 1773. 102 p o r a broader view of American attitudes toward population, see Cassedy, Demography in Early America, especially Chaps, iv and vni. 103 CSPC, 1574-1660, 92, 182, 194, 212, 240, 284; King's MSS, #205, ft. 46-60. 104 Benjamin Franklin, The Interest of Great Britain Considered With Regard to Her Colonies and the Acquisitions of Canada and Guadeloupe. To which are added, Observations concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, ire. (Boston and London, 1760); Ezra Stiles, Discourse on the Christian Union (Boston, 1761); C O . 5 / 9 9 2 / p . 102; C O . 5/1276/250; C O . 5/1286/21-22.

31

Population of the British Colonies

to lead to thoughts of independence. In that year Edward Wigglesworth, Harvard Professor of Divinity, calculated the future population of America, and concluded that by 1825 more Englishmen would be living in the New World than in the Old.105 His message to his fellow colonists was clear—even if Great Britain wins the present struggle, we will win in the not too distant future. It must be noted, however, that this pride in growth, and its accom­ panying thoughts of independence, were found only on the North American continent. The island colonies drew a very different conclu­ sion from their own censuses. This was especially true in Jamaica. Although Jamiaca was in basic sympathy with the continental colonies in their resistance to Parliament, the findings of her censuses discour­ aged her from any thought of rebellion. In a petition written in Decem­ ber 1774 the Jamaican Assembly requested that the King protect them from Parliamentary interference, but went on to assure George III of their continued loyalty to him.100 There is no doubt that this "loyalty" came from a fear of their slaves, and that the Jamaica whites, out­ numbered by their slaves by 192,787 to 12,737, had no intention of setting a bad example by starting a revolt.107 They were only too aware that their census showed that what was politically feasible on the North American continent would be tantamount to suicide in the islands. Fears of a sort quite different from those expressed by the English in 1763 kept the West Indies in the empire after 1776. There can be little doubt that these fears were given substance by the enu­ merations taken at the request of London.

What can be done with these censuses today? Of first interest is how reliable they are. Only after it has been determined that the sources are reasonably accurate can the methods used in analyzing the data be discussed. A potential source of error in any census is that the people respon­ sible for producing it may have reason to distort reality. In view of this, it is reassuring to note how little the censuses appear to have meant to the officials in London. After 1720 direct reference to them in public reports declined noticeably, yet the majority of the censuses were taken after that date. Yet it is precisely this rather offhand contemporary atti105 Edward Wigglesworth, Calculations on American Population, with a Table for Estimating the Annual Increase of Inhabitants in the British Colonies: The Manner of its Construction Explained: And Its Use Illustrated (Boston, 1775), 7. 108 C.O. 137/70/29-31. 10 ' Ibid,·, C.O. 137/70/94-95;/ C.O. 137/69/57-58.

Subject, Sources, and Methods tude that makes the documents all the more valuable today. Few, if any, colonists would have had reason to lie to an enumerator, since the reports on population were never used to harm an individual or a colony. Likewise, the governors neither knew nor cared why the counts were being made, and so had no reason to edit them to suit the Board of Trade's tastes. Of course, it is probable that some of the counts were carried out in a haphazard fashion, but on the whole most governors seem to have tried to do their best. The censuses themselves offer evidence that they were made with some care. Most notable is the fact that in a number of instances the actual name by name, or house by house listings of the population in a particular colony survive today. The Board of Trade desired only a summary statement of population rather than detailed lists of the inhabitants of a province. Governors who wished to shirk their responsibilities could easily have estimated the number of people in their territory and sent in a sentence or two describing their "findings." Thus there was no need to provide detailed lists (or even complex tables), yet such exist, testifying to the fact that serious efforts were made to count the colonists. In addition, the tables themselves suggest that they were based on actual counts rather than estimates. Englishmen of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were prone (as we are today) to round off guesses of population, 108 but since virtually all the documents used here have a considerable number of entries ending in ones, sixes, nines, etc., it seems reasonable to conclude that they were the results of actual counts. It is my opinion, however, that some governors occasionally rounded off the results of an actual census. Since I have chosen to omit statistics which appear to be estimates, it may well be that a few reports have been excluded which offer an accurate portrait of a colony's people. 109 Before analyzing the censuses, all the addition performed by the governors or provincial secretaries was checked. In the process, my confidence in these documents increased notably; in most cases there were very few errors, and most errors were small. The only mistake I found which significantly affected the demographic picture was in the New York Census of 1731.110 In this instance the detailed reports from 108

See, for example, Greene and Harrington, American Population, passim. Occasionally, I have included a report in which the figures were rounded off, but which appear to have been based on a head count. This has been done only when other data are scarce, or when the evidence fits well with data derived from definite censuses. In any case, when such a doubtful report has been used, it has been duly noted. 110 Wells, "The New York Census of 1731," 255-59. 109

33

Population of the British Colonies

which the summary was prepared were carefully preserved, allowing corrections to be made. Occasionally governors sent partial reports to London, but they generally tried to complete them later. Insofar as possible, I have tried to use the most complete census for a colony at a given date. Once again, the impression which results from these checks on the data is one of censuses drawn up with enough care to make the enumerations useful sources for demographic analysis. Although in general the censuses are sufficiently accurate to give a reasonable picture of colonial demography, two types of errors were probably present in most of the counts. The first, and perhaps most important, is that these documents clearly did not include every last individual living in a colony. Unfortunately it is not possible, at pres­ ent, to say what proportion of the population was omitted, or even if the proportion omitted remained roughly the same.111 Thus precise calculations of growth rates for particular colonies seem impossible at the moment, although something may be learned about the relative rate of growth. The governors themselves often complained that they were unable to make a complete count, putting much of the blame for their inaccuracies on a highly mobile society which made it easy for persons to pass unnoticed.112 Only rarely did a governor feel, as Ed­ ward Trelawny of Jamaica did in 1741, that his information was too poor to send to London.113 Most adopted the attitude that while their censuses were not perfect they were considerably better than nothing. And they were right then, just as they would be today. A possible second type of error which should be mentioned may have stemmed from the underlying military nature of the censuses. Because of the desire to know the military manpower available in a colony, many censuses divided males (and often females) into those under sixteen and those sixteen years and older. In other words, they were separating those eligible for militia duty from those still too young to carry a gun. This undoubtedly minimized the possible confusion over age in a population where knowledge of age may have been approxi­ mate. However, there is no way of knowing whether persons seeking to avoid military service offset any tendency of enumerators to inflate the figures of those eligible for militia duty. It seems likely, however, that a general reliance on local rather than royal officials as enumera111 One attempt to assess the accuracy of a colonial census may be found in Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, 90; see also Russell R. Menard, "Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland" (unpubl. Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1974), Chap. 8. 112C.O. 37/18, letter of 5 May, 1756; C.O. 1/45/1; C.O. 137/19 (Part 2)/48; C.O. 29/2/28; C.O. 137/70/94. 113 C.O. 137/23/149.

Subject, Sources, and Methods

tors would give the benefit of the doubt to local opinion and tend to overstate those under sixteen. In a similar vein, a number of men may have evaded the enumerators altogether. Nonetheless, the military aspects of the censuses do not seem to have materially hurt the accu­ racy of the counts. The evidence on the age and sex composition of the colonial populations as portrayed in the censuses (see below) is consistent enough with other demographic evidence to preclude much worry about biases in data on the age and sex of individuals. In the end, most of the censuses listed here are probably reasonably accurate with regard to such items as racial balance, sex ratio, and age structure (the age structure of the men can always be compared to that of the women, who had no reason to prefer being fifteen to six­ teen). The data on household and family composition are also prob­ ably fairly reliable. Only the size of the population should be treated with unusual caution, for, as happened in New York in 1746, whole counties could be missed, let alone towns or villages.114 But it is pre­ cisely because omissions tended to be based on geographic factors, rather than demographic characteristics such as age, sex, or race, that more confidence can be placed in conclusions regarding the latter traits. In sum, the censuses appear to be sound enough to use as demo­ graphic sources, although small errors undoubtedly exist. Dramatic change over a short period of time without supporting evidence as to a possible cause should be treated with caution. Nonetheless, the re­ markable consistency of the evidence presented below, coupled with the size of the differences which emerge, preclude any worry that most of the patterns to be described were the result of inaccurate documents rather than real variations. The figures presented in the tables may not reflect reality to the second decimal place (or even to one decimal place), but they clearly indicate the basic demographic structure as it existed in the various colonies in England's first empire. Since the censuses seem safe to use, the question now becomes "What exactly can be done with them?" Because of the absence of a standard form which shaped all the enumerations, and because some colonies counted their people more often than others, the information varies in completeness from one settlement to another. Nonetheless, most of the following demographic patterns may be indicated for those colonies for which data exist: size of the population at different dates, growth rate, geographic distribution, racial (and occasionally ethnic) composition, extent of slavery and servitude, age composition, number 114 For other examples of whole regions being omitted, see, C.O. 5/928/118; C.O. 5/938/pp. 150, 299; C.O. 5/992/p. 101; C.O. 194/13/46-47.

Population of the British Colonies

of children per woman, sex ratio, marital status, and household size and composition. Occasionally other data were included, such as the num­ ber of militia or the numbers of recorded births and deaths; when such information is available it will be presented below. Since the primary goal of this book is to provide a description of colonial population characteristics to scholars with a wide variety of interests, I have tried to organize the evidence to insure the maximum use of this study. Each colony for which there is a census has been treated separately, starting with Newfoundland in the north and work­ ing south to Tobago. The topics listed in the previous paragraph (which will be considered in detail shortly) have been dealt with for each colony in the order given above. I hope this will allow students interested in the demographic history of a particular colony, or inter­ ested in comparing the colonial patterns of a topic such as the sex ratio, to find what they want without having to wade through a lot of extraneous material. In order to avoid considerable repetition, I have minimized comparisons when dealing with the individual colonies, and have devoted the final two chapters to comparing their demographic patterns. In discussing some of the colonies included here, not all the topics mentioned above are touched upon, because the census (or cen­ suses ) for that particular colony had no evidence on the topic in ques­ tion. Likewise, a few of England's American colonies are missing below; they are those for which censuses taken before 1776 do not exist. Every colony for which I could find a census has been included. Finally, I have included a very brief historical sketch of each colony for which a census exists, but have consciously avoided trying to relate population trends to the social, economic, and political developments within a colony. In part this was to keep the size of this work manageable, and in part it was a recognition of the fact that my knowledge of the detailed history of particular colonies varies considerably in complete­ ness. The two final chapters indicate what are to me some of the most interesting of the broader implications of population trends within the empire. I have left the detailed history of how population relates to the development of specific colonies to others whose knowledge of local and provincial history is greater than mine. In describing and analyzing the demographic structure of the col­ onies, I have been guided by two factors as to what to include and what to omit. Insofar as possible, I have tried to touch on all topics which modern demographers consider to be of importance.115 At the 115 Since this is not a textbook in demography, those who need to study the sig­ nificance of these topics should consult any one of several standard texts: Donald Bogue, Principles of Demography (New York, 1969); William Petersen, Population

Subject, Sources, and Methods

same time, I have been limited by the type and extent of detail which men of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries deemed important. The colonial censuses are clearly not the equal of today's enumerations, but it is apparent that the colonists were sensitive to the fact that the composition of a population was often as interesting and important as its overall size. The first topic to be considered in dealing with each of the colonies is the size of the population. According to Τ. H. Hollingsworth, the main concern of historical demography is to establish "the ebb and flow of the numbers of mankind in time and space."116 While this view may be unnecessarily limited, it is clear that population size is a central concern of any demographic study. The strength and well-being of a particular colony are at least partially related to the numbers of people present. Likewise, as the size of a population increases so too does the opportunity (if not the necessity) for complex social, economic, and political arrangements. In presenting the figures on the size of the population in the various colonies at different times, I have always given the total recorded in the appropriate census (subject to correc­ tions in addition). I noted earlier that the size of the population may be the most unreliable of the statistics; while this is true, it is equally clear that there is no way to correct for probable undercounts, and so it seemed wise to let the data stand unaltered. However, the figures on total population should be viewed as minimums. Interest in the total number of people living in a colony leads natu­ rally to a consideration of how fast the population was increasing or decreasing. In general, two sets of figures will be included below; one indicates the average, annual rate of increase between the first and last available census, while the second set of figures presents the yearly rate of increase between two successive censuses.117 Obviously these (2nd ed., London, 1969); Ralph Thomlinson, Population Dynamics (New York, 1965); or Warren S. Thompson and David T. Lewis, Population Problems (5th ed., New York, 1965). Also of interest are: United Nations, The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends (New York, 1953); Hauser and Duncan, The Study of Population; and Joseph J. Spengler and Otis D. Duncan, Demographic Analysis (Glencoe, 111., 1956). 116 T. H. Hollingsworth, Historical Demography (Ithaca, N.Y., 1969), 37. 117 For both sets of figures, growth was assumed to be exponential (i.e., com­ pounding continuously) and the calculations were done according to the procedure outlined in George W. Barclay, Techniques of Population Analysis (New York, 1958), 32. The natural logarithms used here were taken from Department of Com­ merce, Table of Natural Logarithms for Arguments Between Zero and Five to Six­ teen Decimal Places (Washington, 1953), and Department of Commerce, Table of

Population of the British Colonies latter figures would be seriously affected by any one count which was noticeably better or worse than those immediately before or after it. Thus dramatic, short-term fluctuations in the rate of increase from one census to another must be interpreted with some caution. However, the governors' reports often include comments which indicate whether a sudden change in the growth rate was real, or whether it was the result of an unusually good or bad count. On the other hand, the average rate of increase between the first and last census was probably less affected by these problems. However, as will be seen below, the evidence for most colonies suggests that short-term deviations from the overall average rate of increase were common. Whenever possible, consideration of the total size of a colony's population will be followed by a survey of the distribution of that population by county or parish. The principal concern in doing this is to see whether differences in geography had any effect on demographic patterns. Therefore I have compared the frontier to older regions, cities to rural areas, and have considered differences in terrain as a possible influence on population. The uneven distribution of population in a colony was only one of several intriguing geographic variations, for the composition of the population also could differ from one part of a colony to another. I have limited my comments to the most obvious local demographic patterns, and my remarks in this regard should not be taken as exhausting the subject. Much remains for local and regional historians to do before a complete picture of the complexities of population in the colonies emerges. While questions of size are dealt with first below, of equal interest are questions about what kind of people made up the population of a colony. Because virtually all the censuses studied here divide people into whites or blacks, regardless of what other information was presented, the racial composition of the population will be treated next. A few enumerations also allow study of the ethnic background of the white population. The obvious reason for studying the racial composition of the colonial populations is the existence of race slavery in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Blacks and whites held very different positions in colonial society, and it is of considerable interest to know whether slaves or freemen dominated a particular colony. Just as the censuses reflect the Americans' concern over the extent of slavery in the colonies, so too they show the clear association of race and Natural Logarithms for Arguments Between Five and Ten to Sixteen Decimal Places (Washington, 1958).

38

Subject, Sources, and Methods status. The terms "black," "Negro," and "slave" are used interchangeably by colonial census takers; whites were generally called just that, though occasionally the term "Christian" was used instead of "white." Apparently the key distinction in the mind of the colonists was between slaves and all others. Although white servants were present in many colonies, often they were not recorded separately from free whites. However, when white servants were mentioned, I have duly recorded their presence. Likewise, at least some of the census takers seem to have been puzzled as to how to record free blacks. Before the second half of the eighteenth century, the few free blacks in a colony were occasionally listed as whites rather than Negroes,118 but the censuses taken after about 1750 began to distinguish free blacks and mulattoes from slaves and whites. Since these counts indicate that the proportion of free Negroes was generally quite small, I have assumed that the number of slaves in a colony was roughly indicative of the racial composition as well. Although this was clearly not perfectly true, it seems unlikely that the error introduced by such an assumption would change the proportions of whites and blacks in a colony by more than 1 or 2%. A far more serious error may have resulted from white planters failing to report all their slaves, in order to avoid paying taxes. Certainly some of the governors felt that the number of blacks reported was less than the true total in the colony.119 While the governors may have had their own reasons to claim more slaves (increased taxes among others), it seems wise to treat the proportion of blacks in a colony's population as a minimum. In spite of their care to distinguish whites from blacks, the men who took the early censuses made little effort to record the number of Indians in a colony. There are a few exceptions, like the Massachusetts Census of 1764 or the report on population made in 1708 in South Carolina, but generally Indians were omitted from the head counts. The reasons for such omissions were never recorded, but it seems probable that in most instances the Indians were considered as outside the legal jurisdiction of a colony even though they lived within its borders. As persons who were not clearly part of the British empire they were of little interest to London, and hence were counted only rarely. Thus the documents themselves severely limit discussion of the Indian part of the colonial population. The age of individuals is also a subject of considerable interest to any demographic study. The physical and mental capacities of indi118

In particular see the Bahamas Census of 1731, pp. 183-84 below. CO. 137/19 (Part 2)/48; CO. 29/2/28; CO. 28/31/16-17; C O . 28/51/77; CO. 28/55/83. Some of these reports also suggest an undercount of whites. 119

39

Population of the British Colonies viduals are closely related to age, and for these and other reasons a person's place in society changes as his age advances. Thus societies with a high proportion of children are likely to be quite different in their structure and needs from communities where adults predominate. The reason is simple: children are generally dependents and consumers, adults have greater freedom and responsibilities, and produce more as well. In the colonial censuses people were generally divided into two age groups—children and adults. By and large, children were those under sixteen years of age, while adults were all those who were sixteen or older. The political and social responsibilities of militia duty and paying taxes often began at sixteen, and hence marked the transition from child to adult. It is interesting that, although only white men served in the militia, the censuses often divided white females and slaves into the same age groups. There are, however, a few instances where different age groupings were used. For reasons which are not clear, the New York censuses of 1731 and 1737 used the age of ten to distinguish children from adults, even though the eight other counts made in the colony used the more standard dividing line. A few censuses included more detailed information on age. In Connecticut, in 1774, the population was divided into the following age groups: 0-9, 10-19, 20-70, above 70. However, such unusual age classifications were rare, and the few that occurred have been noted below. In some colonies militia duty ended at the age of sixty, in which case the number of persons who had reached that age was duly recorded. Most remarkable of all are parts of the New York Census of 1698 and the Barbados enumeration of 1715, in which the exact age of each individual was recorded. Such detail, however, was extremely rare. Although this evidence will be discussed fully later, it is of interest to note here that the Barbados Census of 1715 clearly shows that the colonists used the term "child" to describe a young person. In that census offspring who were still living at home, but who were sixteen or older, were almost always listed in the column for adults. On the other hand, the term "child" included all those under sixteen, whether or not they were the offspring of the couple with whom they were living. In the absence of migration into or out of a population, the age distribution will be determined primarily by the level of fertility.120 However, in many of the American colonies migration was common in both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Thus, in order to determine 120

Ansley J. Coale, "How a Population Ages or Grows Younger," in Ronald Freedman, ed., Population: The Vital Revolution (Garden City, N.Y., 1964), 47-58.

40

Subject, Sources, and Methods whether differences in the age distribution from one colony to another, or in one colony over time, were the result of changing patterns of childbearing or variations in migration, I will show below the ratio of children under sixteen to adult women in the population, for both whites and blacks, whenever the data are available to allow this figure to be calculated. Because men constituted the overwhelming majority of migrants in the American colonies, any change in the age distribution resulting from movement should not greatly alter the ratio of children to women; in contrast, if differences in fertility were producing variations in the age composition of populations, then the number of children per woman should reflect this fact.121 If fertility rose, so too should the proportion of young in the population. The relative proportions of males and females in a population also help to determine the characteristics and capacities of a society;122 therefore it is of some interest to calculate the ratio of males to females as recorded in the various colonial censuses. Insofar as the data allow, this will be done for children and adults, whites and blacks. The standard way that demographers deal with the sex ratio is to divide the number of males present in a population by the number of females. Less common is the way the results are reported. Some prefer to report, for example, that there were 105 males for every 100 females.123 Others express the same result by describing a sex ratio of 1.05 to 1.00, or even more simply, by saying the sex ratio was equal to 1.05. I have used all three expressions to introduce variety into the text. A few of the censuses include information on the marital status of individuals. In an earlier study, I suggested that marriage patterns in colonial America were determined, in part, by the sex ratios in the various provinces. In addition, the evidence seemed to suggest that the unusually large American families were in turn the result of the patterns of marriage in the colonies.124 Thus it seemed only logical to follow the discussion of fertility and sex ratios in the colonies with a consideration of marriage patterns when appropriate evidence was available. In view of the interest historians have recently shown in the subject, 121 The surplus of males among migrants in the colonies is shown in Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, 56, 7 1 , 110; and Moller, "Sex Composition and Culture Patterns," 113-29. 122 See Moller, "Sex Composition and Culture Patterns," 129-53, and below, pp. 271-76, 293-96. 123 xhis, incidentally, is what the sex ratio is at birth. That is, there are generally 105 boy babies born for every 100 girls. 124 Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns," 428-42.

41

Population of the British Colonies it is pleasant to find that several of the censuses are full enough to allow detailed exploration of the size and composition of households in the colonies. Although even the most general evidence on this subject is limited to thirty-five censuses covering about half of England's colonies, eighteen of those counts list over 15,000 separate colonial households. This extraordinary array of data allows study of the composition of families living in the colonies in some detail, touching on who lived in a household, as well as on factors closely related to the development of households. In fact, this information is so rich that, in addition to discussing households in individual colonies, I have devoted the last chapter to a study of household size and composition in the colonies in general. The definition of a "household" or "family" in colonial America is of some interest here. Both terms were used by the men who took the colonial censuses, but they never bothered to make a distinction between them, and may have considered them the same. Although it is not certain, the evidence suggests that when the colonists referred to a family or a household they meant an independent, economic unit, the members of which lived in one dwelling or in close proximity. The members of such a unit included all those who lived under the control of the "master of the family." Such a definition clearly differs from our modern conceptions of the terms family (which implies kinship) and household (with the emphasis on a common residence, but with no notion of control). 125 It is thus apparent that between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries a considerable evolution in the definition of household and family has occurred. However, the words will be used below in the way in which the colonists understood them; and, following the practice of the eighteenth century, they will be used interchangeably. There is a broader issue regarding definitions which must be noted. It is clear that the way in which I will use the terms household and family does not conform to current sociological usage. Faced with the alternatives of risking confusion by using these familiar terms with an eighteenth century definition, or inventing a new word to describe what I have studied, I have chosen the former. This course seemed most desirable, in part because the invention of new words risks confusion in its own way, but also because I feel it is important for historians and sociologists to be aware that concepts such as household or 125 Cf. the classic study by Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Family (rev. ed., New York, 1966) for another study which found the colonists referring to both kin and co-residents as family.

42

Subject, Sources, and Methods family have evolved over time. To introduce a new term here would do injustice to the past. At the same time, it would also obscure, rather than emphasize, the fact that the concepts of family and household have changed markedly in the last 200 years.126 A few of the censuses included information which appeared only rarely (if at all) in the others. For example, data on military preparedness, economics, religion, housing, and the numbers of births and deaths in a colony were all included in one or more censuses. When such information is given, and seems relevant, it has been included at the end of the section dealing with the particular colony in question. Because this kind of information is so scarce, I have omitted any extended mention of these topics in the last two chapters where comparisons are made of the demographic patterns as they emerged in the various colonies. As far as methods go, I have adopted a very eclectic approach. This seems to me to be the soundest way to approach demographic history. Demographers are often so concerned with the regularities of population patterns that they tend to view peculiarities in census data as errors. Historians, on the other hand, frequently stress the unique, and generally resist attempts to "correct" colonial data on the basis of more recent experience, unless there is evidence to show that such a procedure is warranted. Since my research has turned up instances of both census errors and actual changes which produced dramatic shifts between censuses, I have avoided adopting the practices of either demographers or historians. Rather, I have tried to examine whatever other material was available in order to see whether an unusual pattern was the result of error or was an actual change. Having found instances of both, I have been reluctant to do more than note unusual features of particular censuses, in the absence of other data to suggest a probable explanation. The result of this rather cautious approach has been an emphasis on simple rather than sophisticated techniques. To facilitate comparisons between colonies with populations of different sizes, as well as to show trends within a given colony in which the total number of inhabitants was constantly changing, I have presented most data in the form of percentages, ratios, averages, frequency distributions, and cross-tabulations. A few times I have used regression analysis to show the correlation between two or more sets of figures (e.g., wealth and house126 My position here obviously differs from that of Laslett, ed., Household and Family, 23-40, in which a variety of definitions are discussed. Of the terms Laslett considers, that of "houseful" would probably best fit here (pp. 36-39).

43

Popuhtion of the British Colonies hold size). Demographic theory has been applied to check whether the various patterns which emerge from the censuses are consistent.127 But in general, this kind of analysis has been limited. 127

The books mentioned in n. 115 discuss most of the important demographic theories, but see also Coale and Demeny, Model Life Tabhs, Pt. i; and United Nations, Le Concept de Population Stable (New York, 1966). The latter work is of special interest since it indicates how theory can be utilized to extract the fullest amount of information from limited sources.

44

The Northern Colonies

NEWFOUNDLAND

Of the various parts of modem Canada which were held by Great Britain before 1775, Newfoundland demands first attention, partly be­ cause of England's long involvement in the island, and partly be­ cause more censuses were taken there than in any other British colony in America. Beginning with an effort by Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1583 to colonize the island, the English maintained an interest in Newfound­ land for most of the period under study here.1 In spite of the attraction of the fisheries, and the strategic importance of the island at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, English control was rather fitfully exercised. The grant of the Avalon Peninsula in the southeast corner of the island in 1623 to the Calvert family showed early promise of successful English colonization there. But as the Calverts turned their attentions to Mary­ land, interest in settling the island waned, and Newfoundland became the site of England's cod fisheries, shared with the French, and gov­ erned rather sporadically. Not until 1729 was a royal governor finally commissioned, and even he held oifice for one year at a time, coming out from England with the annual fishing fleet. However, it is precisely because the government of Newfoundland was not settled in the island that our knowledge of the population of that colony is as complete as it is anywhere. Between 1675 and 1775 at least nineteen censuses were taken which survive today. In most cases the enumerations were made as part of the report on the state of the fisheries which the governor was asked to bring back with him. These reports involved detailed surveys of the island, focusing mainly on the volume and value of fish produced, and the number of ships and sailors involved in the enterprise. Matters of population were generally dealt with at the end of these reports. 1 The comments on Newfoundland are based on Andrews, Colonial Period, i, 300-19; and Gipson, British Empire, HI, 248-72.

Population of the British Colonies Size and Growth The first Newfoundland census of which we have a record was taken in 1675. At that date there were already 1,653 persons living on the parts of the island controlled by the English.2 A century later the population living in Newfoundland the year round had risen to 12,438. Because of dependence on cod fishing, the population of the colony had a seasonal variation that was unique among all the colonies studied here. Many of the fishermen came to the New World only for the summer and returned to England during the winter. Thus, by 1698, it was recognized that a true portrait of Newfoundland's population should include both the summer migrants and those hardy persons who stayed for the winter. Table II-l presents the data on both the summer and winter populations, the annual rate of increase for each, and the proportion of the summer's peak who remained on the island the whole year. Examination of the size and growth of the population indicates that both the summer and winter totals increased rather markedly during the period under consideration. The summer population grew from 1,653 in 1675 to 10,796 in 1757, the last year in which different totals were given. The annual rate of increase over this period was 2.3%.3 The number of permanent residents of the island grew somewhat more rapidly, with an average increase of 2.8% per year between 1698 and 1775. As a result, the 1,416 persons who stayed the winter in 1698 had risen to 12,438 by the end of the period under consideration. As might be expected, the proportion staying all year increased from 53.6¾ in 1698 to 85.1% by 1757. Although there is no way to be sure, it seems plausible that earlier in the seventeenth century an even higher proportion returned to England each fall, while the absence of different totals after 1757 suggests that by the second half of the eighteenth century migrants no longer had an important impact on the population. 4 In addition to the striking seasonal fluctuations in population, Newfoundland experienced some rather dramatic short-term shifts in the rate of increase. For example, the records show that between 1751 and 2

Although the English and French shared Newfoundland for much of the colonial period, the censuses clearly refer only to that part of the island which was under English control. Occasionally comments were made on the numbers of French thought to be present, but such remarks were neither precise nor frequent. 3 There are several ways to express a growth rate. The standard adopted in this study (2.3¾) is equivalent to a growth rate of .023 per year, or 23 per 1000. 4 Before 1680 the west country fishing towns in England sought to prevent competition by discouraging permanent settlement in Newfoundland. However, in 1680 French activity became so ominous that a governor was appointed and settlement encouraged; see Sir George Clark, The Later Stuarts, 1660-1714 (2nd ed., London, 1961), 340-41.

46

The Northern Colonies 1752 the population increased at a rate of 42.8¾, but between 1701 and 1706 the summer population actually declined from 3,575 to 1,997, a rate of decrease of 11.6% a year. It is of interest to note that the rate of increase between the censuses of the peak population exceeded 10% five times, exactly the number of times that a decline in numbers occurred. It is tempting to explain this fluctuation in the growth rate by TABLE II-l NEWFOUNDLAND, 1675-1775 Per Cent

Population Summer Staying the Population Winter

Year 1675 1676 1677 1698 1699 1700 1701 1706 1730 1735 1738 1739» 1751 1752a 1753 1755» 1757 1774 1775 a

1,653 1,678 1,879 2,640 3,099 3,773 3,575 1,997 2,721 3,995 4,978 4,899 6,233 9,565 9,194 7,990 10,796

Percentage of Summer Population Staying the Winter

1,416

53.6

2,088 3,250 4,069 4,126 4,588 7,240 7,156 5,594 9,185 10,939 12,438

76.7 81.4 81.7 84.2 73.6 75.7 77.8 70.0 85.1 (100.0) (100.0

Average, Annual Rate of Increase Since Previous Census Staying the Total Population Winter 1.1 11.1 1.6 16.3 19.7 - 5.4 -11.6 1.3 7.7 7.3 - 1.6 2.0 42,8 - 4.0 - 7.0 15.0

1.2 8.8 7.5 1.4 0.9 45.6 - 1.2 -12.3 24.8 10 12.8

Returns for the year were incomplete.

the numbers of people who did or did not come from England in a given summer. However, the rate of increase among those living permanently on the island varied just as much. From 1751 to 1752, the permanent part of the population increased at a yearly rate of at least 45.6¾ while the period from 1739 to 1751 saw an increase of only 0.9% a year. In seeking an explanation for these sharp changes in the rate of growth one thinks first of possible errors in the censuses. Undoubtedly 47

Population of the British Colonies enumerations made during a busy fishing season were less than perfect. But close examination of the history of this colony suggests several factors which might actually have produced rather striking, short-term changes. Some of the fluctuation may have occurred because more men came out to Newfoundland to fish in some years than in others. Equally important, however, were the fortunes of war. Recall for a moment the location of Newfoundland at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. While the island was useful militarily to the English during the French wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was also very much exposed to attack. Thus it is not surprising to find that during the war years of 1701 and 1706 the population declined. Likewise, Great Britain was at war in 1739, and was preparing for conflict between 1752 and 1755. In contrast, years of peace such as 1699, 1700, or 1752 showed remarkable increases in the population. However, other factors may also help to explain the years of apparent decreases. The decline in 1739 may well be the result of an incomplete census, rather than small numbers; while the decrease in the early 1750's may reflect uncertainty on the part of the inhabitants over the attempt of the Calverts to reclaim the colony as their own.5 Clearly Newfoundland was exposed to a set of forces, mostly beyond her control, which produced a continual state of flux in her population. Undoubtedly Newfoundland society was adjusted to accommodating the summer influx without undue social strain, but it seems probable that the short-term fluctuations of population produced some rather severe shocks. It is necessary to keep in mind that the forces which disrupted the population may also have had a similar effect on census taking, raising the possibility that the degree of change may be overstated. Unfortunately we cannot, at present, determine the extent to which shifts in population may have appeared greater than they actually were. The location of the population also reflected the tie to the sea in Newfoundland in the colonial period. Although places like St. John's, Harbour Grace, and Placentia were larger than the other villages, every cove or bay suitable for harboring boats and drying fish was likely to have a few families living in it. The English dominated the south shore while French influence was strong on the east and west coasts. While the summer residents were widely scattered, the home of many of the permanent inhabitants, including the non-fishermen, seems to have been St. John's. There, servants were relatively scarce, and the population actually increased during the winter months. But elsewhere scattered groups of men fished during the summer and then retired indoors or to England for the winter. 5

Gipson, British Empire, in, 264-72.

48

The Northern Colonies Race and Ethnic

Characteristics

Perhaps the most striking characteristic about the racial and ethnic make-up of Newfoundland's population was its European nature—if Negroes or Indians lived on the island they were not mentioned. However, the English were not alone—until the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, England and France shared Newfoundland in an uneasy partnership. Although the victories won by Marlborough during Queen Anne's War left the island in the hands of the British, the French maintained fishing and curing rights. As late as 1774, 7,637 Frenchmen were reported at their fisheries.6 The English communities were fairly homogeneous (with the possible exception of Irish servants), but they shared their island with a foreign, and often hostile, population. And apparently this hostility was felt, for the number of Roman Catholics (possible French allies) was carefully recorded as 4,138 in 1774. Freemen and Servants In many colonies, racial and ethnic factors were closely associated with various types of bond labor. The most obvious example is, of course, Negro slavery, but many Irish and Germans came to the New World as servants bound for a number of years.7 In Newfoundland slavery seems never to have gained a foothold, for the censuses make no mention of slaves throughout the entire period under study. Instead, white servants dominated the island's population before 1775. The proportion of servants in the summer population of 1676 reached 76.6% of the total, the highest figure on record. From 1675 to 1701 roughly three out of every four Newfoundlanders was a bondsman. By 1706, however, the proportion of servants in the population had fallen to 59.1¾. Only in 1753, when the proportion reached 70.3%, did servants again constitute more than two of every three islanders. Although, as Table II-2 indicates, servants underwent a relative decline in the eighteenth century, they continued to account for over half the population as late as 1775. Thus, the central element of Newfoundland's population in 1775 was the servants, just as they had been a century earlier. About one-third to one-fourth of the servants seem to have returned to England every fall, contributing greatly to the seasonal variations in population. This is of interest in its own right, but also because it raises the possibility that servitude in the Newfoundland fisheries was often 6

CO. 194/32/55. Abbot E. Smith, Colonists in Bondage (Chapel Hill, 1947) offers the best treatment of white servitude. 7

49

Population of the British Colonies of shorter duration than elsewhere. The records do not show it, but it is possible that many of the servants in this colony contracted for only one year at a time. If so, then the transient aspect of the servant population would be even greater than in those colonies where bondage lasted for four to seven years.

Age Colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have traditionally been thought to have a very young population. While this is true for many of the colonies to be studied later, it needs considerable qualification in Newfoundland. An examination of the census data in Table II-2 indicates that children constituted a surprisingly low proportion of the population. In the seventeenth century children made up 10.8¾ to 14.3% of the people in Newfoundland in the summer. After 1701 children were more common, but even then they formed only 16.3% to TABLE II-2 SERVANTS AND CHILDREN (NEWFOUNDLAND, 1675-1775)

Year 1675 1676 1677 1698 1699 1700 1701 1706 1730 1735 1738 1739 1751 1752 1753 1755 1757 1774 1775

Servants in Summer Population («)

Children {%) In Summer Excluding Population Servants

Children per Woma (Excluding Servants)

75.5 76.6 72.0 71.7

11.3 10.8 14.3 10.8

46.8 46.2 51.0 38.3

2.56 2.38 2.51 1.63

75.5 59.1 59.0 55.8 66.1 53.4 64.7

7.0 21.1 20.8 26.4 17.3 20.0 18.7

28.5 51.5 50.8 59.1 51.0 56.8 52.9

1.51 1.96 2.58 3.45 2.43 2.65 2.58

70.3

16.3

52.8

2.46

60.1 63.5 50.1

25.3 16.1 30.7

63.5 44.0 61.5

4.24 1.82 3.86

50

The Northern Colonies 30.7¾ of the total, considerably less than in many of the other colonies or in contemporary England. 8 The reason for the relatively small proportion of children was the presence of large numbers of servants, who made up over half of Newfoundland's population in every census studied here. However, because the vast majority of the servants were men, and because colonists in general tried to keep female servants from becoming pregnant, it is of some interest to see whether children were a larger part of the free population. As Table II-2 shows, about half (or a little more) of Newfoundland's free population were children. Although there was a slight tendency for the proportion of children to increase from the seventeenth to the eighteenth century, the change was not great. From a low of 46.2¾ in 1676, the proportion of the population under the age of sixteen increased to between 50.8 and 59.1% of free persons in the first half of the eighteenth century. It is interesting that throughout much of the period covered by these censuses the number of children per woman remained very stable, with the average about 2.5. Two periods stand out as exceptions to these trends. In 1698 and 1701 the proportion of children recorded in the free population fell to 38.3¾ and 28.5¾ respectively. At the same time the ratio of children to women declined to 1.63 in 1698 and 1.51 in 1701, about one child less per woman than before or after. The reasons for this are not clear, but two possibilities suggest themselves. One is that the governor in those years simply used a different definition of children. Occasionally, governors in other colonies defined childhood as ending at the age of ten rather than sixteen. While there is no way to be sure that this is what happened, the fact that the number of children per woman also declined tends to support the argument. 9 The second explanation is that during the threat of war some children were sent back to England. Evidence to be presented below regarding household size supports this idea. If the definition of "child" changed, one would expect an increase in the number of adults. Yet the average number of adults in a household in 1698 remained much as in 1677 or 1730, while in 1698 alone the number of children declined sharply. Likewise, a marked increase in 8

See the discussion of age in any of the mainland colonies below; Peter Laslett, "Size and Structure of the Household in England Over Three Centuries," PopuL·tion Studies, 23 (1969), 217 shows that 42.6¾ of the population of England were children between 1574 and 1821. 9 The change which occurred here is similar to that of New York in 1731, where children under ten made up 39.3¾ of the population, compared to 48.1% in 1723 when children included all those up to the age of 16; see below p. 118.

51

Population of the British Colonies the sex ratio of free adults in 1701 suggests that some children may have gone to England, accompanied by their mothers (Table II-3 below). While it is plausible that the threat of war might have caused some temporary depopulation, conflicts later in the eighteenth century produced no such dislocations. The second deviation is more puzzling. After half a century of relative stability, the proportion of children in the free population increased to 63.5¾ in 1757, declined to 44.0% in 1774, and returned to 61.5% in 1775. The number of children per woman fluctuated equally severely, rising to 4.24 before dropping to 1.82, and increasing again to 3.86. One possible explanation for these changes is that in 1757 and 1775 the term "child" was applied, not according to age, but to marital status—with all single offspring being termed "children." This view is supported by the evidence on household size, for from 1677 on (1698 excepted) the average number of free persons in a household was between 3.2 and 3.6. Thus in 1757 there was a sharp decline in adult householders and an equally marked increase in children. While alterations in definitions may explain part of this change, there is at least TABLE II-3 SEX RATIOS (NEWFOUNDLAND, 1675-1775) Year 1675 1676 1677 1698 1699 1700 1701 1706 1730 1735 1738 1739 1751 1752 1753 1755 1757 1774 1775

All Adults

Free Adults

9.53

1.92 1.78 1.41 1.61

6.46

6.16 6.84 7.27 7.04 6.45

2.78 0.84 1.50 1.39 1.33 1.02 1.29

6.62

1.20

7.59 5.22 4.74

1.44 1.32 1.41

52

The Northern Colonies

one other possibility. The wars of the eighteenth century may have loosened morals enough so that women servants began to have chil­ dren more often than before.10 When female servants are added to free women the ratio of children per woman falls to 2.88 in 1757 and 2.54 in 1775, much like the earlier years. While increased illegitimacy offers a plausible explanation for this change, there is no way to check it without a close study of local records beyond the scope of this book. Thus for both periods when the proportion of children changed sig­ nificantly we have the possibility of real differences in demographic patterns or varying definitions. At present there is no way to decide which is correct. Sex Ratio

One of the dominant features of Newfoundland's demographic history before 1775 was the great preponderance of men. As is indicated in Table II-3, there were 9.53 men for every woman in the adult popu­ lation in 1675. By 1677 men outnumbered women by only 6.46 to 1, and until the 1770's there were between 6 and 7.5 men for each woman on the island. By the 1770's the ratio dropped slightly, as men outnum­ bered women by 5.22 and 4.74 to 1 in 1774 and 1775 respectively, but even this was a striking surplus of males. The reason is clear. Servants made up the majority of the population, and they were generally men. In 1677, only 1.1% of those in bondage were females; in contrast, about 5.0¾ of all servants were women in the first half of the eighteenth century. Only in 1774 did women amount to as much as 8.2¾ of all servants. But while men were clearly the dom­ inant element among servants, the free adult population also showed a surplus of males. In the seventeenth century the number of men per woman dropped below 1.5 only in 1677. During the early eighteenth century the sex ratio among free adults fluctuated sharply, rising to 2.78 in 1701 and falling to 0.84 in 1706. The latter is associated with a sharp decline in the population, and may reflect a combination of restricted economic activity and military action taking men elsewhere. By 1730, however, the numbers of men and women were in better bal­ ance, and remained so. From 1735 until 1775 there were rarely less than 1.20 or more than 1.40 men to each woman in the free part of the population. The censuses did not bother to distinguish between male and female children, except in 1675 and 1677. In the former year there were 1.23 10 The Bristol, Rhode Island, prenuptial pregnancies increased dramatically after 1740; see Demos, "Bristol," 56-57.

Population of the British Colonies boys for each girl, but by 1677 the ratio had declined to 1.07, about what would normally be expected. Unfortunately, there is no way of telling what happened in the eighteenth century. Suffice it to say that if any part of the population had a balance between the sexes it was the children; among free adults and servants, men predominated. Households and Families One of the most fascinating aspects of the Newfoundland censuses is the amount of data they contain on household size and composition. Table II-4 presents the average size and composition of households for TABLE II-4 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND COMPOSITION (NEWFOUNDLAND, 1675-1775)

Total Size Adults Children Servants Number of Households

1675

1677

1698

1730

1738

1757

1775

11.3 1.5 1.3 8.6

11.5 1.6 1.7 8.3

9.3 1.6 1.0 6.7

8.5 1.7 1.8 5.1

10.6 1.8 1.8 7.0

9.0 1.3 2.3 5.4

6.5 1.2 2.0 3.2

146

163

284

322

472

1,193

1,928

seven different years. And for the census of 1677 the actual householdby-household listing still exists, allowing some detailed study of Newfoundland families. Between 1675 and 1775 households in Newfoundland declined from an average of 11.3 to 6.5 persons. This decline seems to have occurred in two stages. The first came in the late seventeenth century when household size fell from over 11 to between 9 and 10 persons on average. After 1757 another decrease occurred; the average household in 1775 contained only 6.5 persons. The most obvious reason for this change was a decrease in the number of servants in an average family. In 1675 there were 8.6 servants in a household; by 1775 the comparable figure had fallen to 3.2. After remaining steady throughout the period up to 1738, the number of adults in a household also began to decline, falling to 1.3 in 1757 and 1.2 in 1775. Only an increase in the number of children in a family in the eighteenth century kept household size from shrinking even more. With the exception of 1698, which may reflect the insecurities of war, the number of children in a household rose from an average of 1.3 in 1675 to 2.3 in 1757. Although there was 54

The Northern Colonies a slight decline to an average of 2.0 children in a family in 1775, this number was still above that found in every census before 1757. Recall, however, the possibility discussed above that a changing definition of a child produced this shift. In both 1757 and 1775 the decline in the number of adults was almost exactly the same as the increase in the number of children, suggesting that single persons over sixteen may have been classified as children after 1750, whereas earlier they had been considered adults. The household-by-household lists for the census of 1677 offer, in some detail, data on family size and structure. Until such time as com­ parable information is available for other periods, it should not be assumed that the situation in 1677 was the same as earlier or later. Indeed, it is already evident that family size changed over time in Newfoundland, and it is reasonable to expect that structure did too. Table II-4 shows that the 163 households enumerated in 1677 had the largest average size (11.5 persons) of any of the years studied. Servants dominated the family, with each household having 8.3 bondsmen on average. In contrast, the mean number of adults was 1.6, while the comparable figure for children was 1.7. Considerable variation existed in these families, however. The largest household in Newfoundland at this time contained 33 persons, the smallest had only one. The most common size for a household was five persons; such families made up 9.8% of the total. On the other hand, the median household had eleven people in it. As might be expected from the high average, small households were relatively uncommon. Only 15.3¾ of the families numbered between 1 and 4 persons; in con­ trast, households with 15 or more made up 28.2¾ of the total; families with 5 to 14 persons made up the bulk of Newfoundland households, 56.4¾ of the total. One of the most surprising features about these households was the fact that 41.7¾ contained only one free adult, and that the remaining 58.3% had only two. Equally interesting is the fact that almost half (45.4%) of all households had no children. As might be expected, house­ holds with only one adult were childless 77.9% of the time, whereas exactly the same proportion of families with two adults present had children. In no case, however, did the number of children exceed eight. Only 9.8% of all households had five or more children, and all but one of these included two adults. Obviously, given the small number of free adults and children in most households, most of the variation in size from one family to an­ other depended upon the presence or absence of servants. Virtually all households in Newfoundland in 1677 had bondsmen. Only 3.7¾ of all

Population of the British Colonies families were without servants, a striking contrast to the 45.4% which were childless. The households with servants, however, varied considerably. The numbers of households with 1 to 4 or 5 to 9 servants was exactly the same, with 48 families (29.4%) in each group. Another 35 households (21.5%) had 10 to 14 servants, while the remaining 26 families (16%) had 15 to 27 servants. Not surprisingly, the correlation of servants with the total size of the family was at the rather high level of .95. It is of considerable interest to know why some families had more servants than others, and one thinks first of possible economic factors. Fortunately, the census of 1677 indicated the numbers of boats, houses, and animals owned by each household, allowing us to explore the association of servants and economic factors. In addition, it is worth looking at the relationships of all these factors to the numbers of children in a family. Traditionally historians and demographers have argued that pre-industrial households were large because of a need for labor. If this is true, then it might be expected that when children were present in a family there was no need for servants.11 Central to the colony's economy was fishing, and central to fishing was labor for boats. Thus it is only natural to find that householders with large numbers of boats also had large numbers of servants. A glance at Table II-5 makes this clear. Every householder with no boats had fewer than five servants. As the number of boats owned increased, so too did the number of servants. Every household head with at least three boats had five or more servants, while those who owned more than three boats had at least ten servants living with them. Likewise, of the 26 households containing 15 or more servants, 25 had three or more boats. Among families with four boats, 36.4% had 20 or more bondsmen, while the comparable figure among families with five boats was 100%. Only 66.7% of the households with six boats had over 19 servants, but that is still a marked contrast to the families with 0-2 boats, where no one had that many servants. Put another way, the correlation of boats and servants is .88. As noted earlier, the number of servants in a household declined steadily between 1675 to 1775. The reason seems to have been that each household owned fewer boats during the course of the century. Whereas each family owned an average of 2.1 boats in 1677, the figure had dropped to 1.4 boats by 1698, and by 1757 was down to 0.8 boats per household. It seems apparent that as the demand for labor decreased 11 See for example Lutz Berkner, "The Stem Family and the Developmental Cycle of the Peasant Household: An Eighteenth Century Austrian Example," American Historical Review, 77 (1972), 398-418.

56

The Northern Colonies TABLE II-5 SERVANTS AND BOATS (NEWFOUNDLAND, 1677) Servants per Household

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-27

Number of Boats 0

1

100.0

78.9 21.1

2

3

7.3 60.0 30.9 1.8

6 —

11.5 50.0 34.6

36.4 27.3 36.4

33.3 66.7

33.3 33.3 100.0 1.8¾

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

33.3 100.0

35.0¾

33.7¾

16.0¾

6.7%

3.7¾

3.8

100.0 All Households 3.1¾

5

4

along with the number of boats, householders no longer found it neces­ sary to have large numbers of servants. Since households with many servants would require more housing and food than smaller families, it is not surprising to find that the num­ ber of houses and the number of animals owned by an individual tended to increase along with the number of servants employed. How­ ever, the relationship here was not as strong as in the case of the boats. The correlations of servants with both houses and animals (Table II-6) were .44 and .42, respectively, well below the figure for boats. Thus it appears that the need for labor may have required servants, but the TABLE II-6 FACTORS AFFECTING HOUSEHOLD SIZE (NEWFOUNDLAND, 1677) Total Size

Total Size Servants Children Boats Houses Animals

1.00

.95 .49 .84 .43 .49

Servants

.95 1.00 .20 .88 .44 .42

Correlation of: Children Boats Houses

.49 .20 1.00 .18 .12 .35

.84 .88 .18 1.00 .47 .40

.43

.44 .12 .47 1.00 .40

Animals

.49 .42 .35 .40 .40 1.00

Population of the British Colonies presence of servants did not require equal efforts to feed and house them.12 In spite of what might have been expected, the presence of children in a household does not seem to have lessened the need for labor. In fact, the correlation of children and servants of .20 indicates that, if anything, there was a slight tendency for larger numbers of children to be found with the bigger groups of servants. While servants were clearly the factor most closely related to the total size of the family, Table II-6 suggests that they were not the only influence. However, the data in that table must be interpreted with caution. It is already evident how closely related servants were with boats, and to a lesser extent with houses and animals. Thus it is possible that the correlations of these economic indicators and total household size works through servants rather than independently. In fact this seems to be true, for when control is exercised for the numbers of servants in a household, any remaining relationship between boats, houses, and animals and the total size of the family virtually disappears. Instead, once servants have been considered, the number of children in the family becomes much more important in determining its ultimate size. Allowing for servants, the correlation of children and the total size of the household jumps from .49, in Table II-6, to .98. Equally interesting is the fact that the presence of children in a household was only slightly associated with economic factors. Evidence to be presented below from other colonies suggests that the age of the head of the household, rather than his wealth or need for labor, was the most important factor in determining how many children lived in a household. The sex of the head of the household seems also to have had an influence on the size of the family. In 1677 women were the heads of 7.4% of all families, almost double the figure of 4.0¾ of households headed by females two years earlier. This fact is of some importance, for it is clear that households headed by women were smaller than those with male heads. In the case of children, there was little difference in the proportion childless: 50.0¾ of the women and 45.0¾ of the men had no children in their families. However, no woman had more than two children living in her household, in contrast to the men whose families contained three or more children 31.8¾ of the time. Servants also were less common in the women's families. Only 2.7¾ of the male heads of households had no servants, compared to 16.7¾ among the women. Fully 58.3¾ of the females had three servants or less, over twice the 12 The same pattern emerges from a comparable analysis of the Montserrat Census of 1729; see below, p. 229.

58

The Northern Colonies proportion found among the men, where only 25.8% had so few bondsmen. Surprisingly, the proportion of households with 15 or more servants was almost equal, 16.7% of the women's families, and 15.9% of those of the men. However, no woman had more than 17 servants, while 10.6% of the men had between 18 and 27 bondsmen. Although the number of households headed by women was not large, it is clear that the presence of a few such families made the overall average smaller than it would have been otherwise. Birth and Death Rates Beginning in 1730, the Newfoundland censuses began to include the number of births and deaths in the colony since the last visit of the fishing fleet. Because of the seasonal fluctuations in population, two sets of birth and death rates have been calculated from these figures, the first using the summer maximum, and the second using those people staying for the winter. They are presented in Table II-7. TABLE II-7 BIRTH AND DEATH RATES (NEWFOUNDLAND, 1730-1775)

Year 1730 1735 1738 1739 1751 1752 1753 1755 1757 1774 1775

Rate per 1000, Summer Birth Death Rate Rate 17.3 18.0 22.7 24.9 23.1 27.2 17.0 32.0 28.0

33.8 15.3 11.5 15.3 20.7 13.5 7.4 8.3 9.0

Rate per 1000, Winter Birth Death Rate Rate 22.5 22.2 27.8 29.6 31.4 35.9 21.8 45.8 32.9 22.9 20.9

44.1 18.8 14.0 18.2 28.1 17.8 9.5 11.8 10.6 8.0 12.1

Two points become clear. First, except in 1730, births always exceeded deaths in the period covered. Second, both the birth rate and the death rate varied considerably from one year to another, emphasizing again the volatile nature of Newfoundland's demographic history. It seems unwise to go further at present, for colonial birth and death registration was never terribly efficient even among rather stable 59

Population of the British Colonies groups like the Quakers or the Puritans, and there is little reason to expect a better performance in Newfoundland. In addition, uncertainties caused by the fluid population make such rates suspect, until such time as it is clear how the seasonal variations in numbers affected the totals of births and deaths. Thus it would be unwise to consider the rates given here as precise. Perhaps, more than anything else, the figures serve as a reminder of the value of family reconstitution in the accurate study of fertility and mortality. NOVA SCOTIA

The history of Nova Scotia runs parallel to that of Newfoundland in many ways.13 The location of the colony made her important in the fisheries and a military threat to both Quebec and New England. Early French attempts at settlement gave way in the 1630's to the efforts of Sir William Alexander, a Scottish favorite of James I. In spite of British successes in planting a colony, however, diplomatic considerations led to the return of the region to France in 1633. France was not allowed to colonize in peace and faced continual pressure from both the English and the Dutch, until she finally turned Acadia (as" the colony was known) over to the English in 1713, after the Treaty of Utrecht. Nova Scotia remained in English hands from then on, but continued to be an area of some conflict, partly because of the large French fortress of Louisbourg on nearby Cape Breton Island (He Royale), and partly because most of the French settlers of Acadia chose to remain as "neutrals" until their forced expulsion in 1755. In addition, Nova Scotia shared with Newfoundland the dubious distinction of having no provincial assembly throughout most of the period covered by this book. Only in 1758 was Nova Scotia granted some say in her own political affairs. While Nova Scotia and Newfoundland had much in common before 1775, one thing they did not share was a tradition for taking censuses. Only two enumerations are known to have been made in Nova Scotia, and both of them came toward the end of the period under study here. The first was made in late 1761 and early 1762, and was sent to England as part of the Chief Surveyor's "Description & State of the New Settlements." At first glance this census seems to be an estimate of population, since all but one of the entries for the towns have been rounded off to end in zero. However, fragmentary returns for the towns of Lunenberg, Yarmouth, and Barrington indicate that an actual count 13 In addition to the works by Andrews and Gipson cited in n. 1, I have also used J. B. Brebner, Canada (Ann Arbor, 1960) for historical background.

60

The Northern Colonies was made, even though the surveyor rounded off the totals. The second census, taken in 1766, was a counting of the English inhabitants, but did not include anyone else. The implications of this will be considered later. Size and Growth Between 1762 and 1766, the recorded population of Nova Scotia grew from 7,744 to 11,272, a rather startling 9.4% increase per year. The best explanation for this growth is the movement of New Englanders onto the land recently taken from the Acadians after the Peace of Paris in 1763. In the absence of other censuses it is impossible to say much about the population before or after this period. Nonetheless, the conflicts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, coupled with the expulsion of the French and the ensuing movement of New Englanders into the vacated territory, suggest that Nova Scotia's population fluctuated sharply, much as did Newfoundland's. By the 1760's the geographic center of population was clearly Halifax, with Lunenberg its only rival. Together they contained 31.1% of the total population in 1766, with 16.9% living in Halifax. Annapolis, on the other hand, was by then an insignificant village, ranking ninth in size among the twenty-six localities listed; the old French settlement was only about a fifth as large as Halifax. Everywhere the tendency was toward small communities. The two largest towns were the only ones with more than 1,000 inhabitants (Halifax had 1,900), while 18 communities (69.2% of the total) had fewer than 500. Wilmot was the smallest, with only 43 residents. Racial and Ethnic

Characteristics

Little can be said about the racial and ethnic background of Nova Scotia's people, since the census did not categorize them in this way. It seems unlikely that there were many slaves, but if any were there, they were not mentioned. Indians did live in Nova Scotia; the census of 1766 mentions 1,500 of them scattered around the colony. For some reason, however, they were excluded from the regular count. An additional 500 French and 50 men coming yearly to fish were also noted as present, but were not counted with the permanent residents who would be loyal to England in time of crisis. Thus, while the total population of Nova Scotia in 1766 was actually about 13,322, the English government was more interested in counting the 11,272 individuals who provided military manpower and the prospect of trade. 61

Popuhtion of the British Colonies Freemen and Servants The absence of detail in these two censuses makes it difficult to say much about bound labor in Nova Scotia. The fishing industry undoubtedly required the presence of servants there, just as in Newfoundland. However, the size of households in Nova Scotia (to be discussed later), the fact that farms were a significant part of the economy, and the fact that only 50 men were recorded as coming out from England to fish in 1766 all suggest that servants were not as common there as in her northern neighbor.

Age Data on the age composition of the population is generally missing from these two censuses, but a fragmentary return for Lunenberg in 1762 reports the number of children aged zero to five, and six to twelve. Of the total population, 42.6% were under twelve years of age, while fully 24.9% were five or younger. These figures are consistent with eighteenth century Newfoundland, where just over half the free population was under the age of sixteen.14 Thus it seems likely that Nova Scotia's population was about half children and half adults.

Sex Ratio The principal data on the balance between the sexes also comes from the more detailed evidence for Lunenberg, and is restricted to the population aged twelve and younger. Among this group there were 96 boys for every 100 girls. However, among the children under six there were 108 boys for each 100 girls, a marked contrast to the comparable figures of 81 per 100 found in the age group of six to twelve. Data on the ratio of men to women is generally missing, but there is a suggestion in the evidence from Yarmouth and Barrington in 1762 that more men than women lived in Nova Scotia at that time. Out of a population of 502 persons living in these two localities, 106 were single males living alone. Perhaps some of these men were migrants who later brought their families, but for the short term, at least, men were more common than women in these communities. 14

See Coale and Demeny, Model Life Tables, 41. Adjusting for differences in the age groupings, the figures for both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia fit nicely into a pattern with an implied rate of natural increase equal to 3% a year.

62

The Northern Colonies Household Size Since both the censuses for Nova Scotia list the total number of families as well as the total population it is a simple matter to calculate the average size of families, but the detail necessary to a study of household composition is missing. In 1762 the average family in Nova Scotia included 4.7 persons. In addition, each family had 13 acres of cleared upland and 76.9 acres of salt marsh on the average to support itself. Both of these figures exclude Halifax from consideration, because the total number of families was not given for that town. In the case of family size there should be little difference, since the data to be presented for 1766 indicates that households in the principal town were much the same as those found elsewhere. However, in the case of farm land, only 70 acres were listed in Halifax, while the number of families was probably about 500. Clearly, Halifax was more than an agricultural community. The figures for Yarmouth and Barrington in 1762 offer some interesting detail on family size. Overall, 176 households were listed, with an average membership of 2.9 persons. However, 106 of the households were single men, and if they are excluded, the remaining 70 families, which ranged in size from two to nineteen persons, contained a mean of 5.7 individuals. By 1766 the size of the family had risen slightly, as households averaged 4.9 persons, .20 of a person larger than in 1762. Of interest is the fact that the two principal towns diverged from the colony's norm in opposite directions. In Halifax households averaged 4.8 persons, in Lunenberg (a farming community) 5.3 persons. In this instance, at least, there was no tendency for the larger communities to have smaller families, as is common in the modern world. On the other hand, while Halifax and Lunenberg were large in the context of Nova Scotia in the 1760's, they were still rather small villages by today's standards.

FRENCH CANADA

For most of the period covered by this book, the St. Lawrence river valley was controlled by the French. But in 1760, after almost a century of conflict, the English seized the region. And, following a sharp debate in government circles, the British decided to retain Canada after the Peace of Paris in 1763. In keeping with the tradition stemming from Virginia and Jamaica in the seventeenth century, the English government apparently ordered a survey of the conquered Canadian territories to see what they had 63

Population of the British Colonies obtained. In 1762 the Governors of Quebec, Trois Rivieres, and Montreal submitted reports on the regions under their command, including censuses. This information was undoubtedly of more than passing interest at the time, for the English were trying to decide whether to keep Canada or Guadeloupe and Martinique in the West Indies. A census was also taken in Martinique in 1762, presumably to aid in the making of the decision, though there is no record that the Canadian and Martinique enumerations were ever specifically compared.15

Size and Growth One of the most striking features about the Canadian population was its relatively small size. Although Quebec had been settled the year after Jamestown, and before any other English colony, the Canadian population grew more slowly than that of her neighbors to the south. The total of 79,094 Canadians counted in 1762 had been surpassed by each of the following British colonies: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Jamaica, the Leeward Islands (as a group), and Barbados.16 Although the census of 1762 is the only one in English archives for the period under consideration, it is clear from earlier censuses taken by the French that the rate of natural increase was high (about 3% or more each year), but that so few Frenchmen migrated to the New World that the total population remained much smaller than in many of the English colonies.17 The population was distributed rather unevenly. Over half (55.3%) of the 79,094 Canadians lived in the region around Quebec in 1762, about 13,000 (17.1%) south of the St. Lawrence, and 38.3% north of the river. Montreal was the second largest administrative unit, with 36.5% of the population living in or around that city. The region governed from Trois Rivieres was a distant third, containing only 8.2% of the 15

The Martinique Census of 1762 can be found in CO. 166/2/128-29. See below, and Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States (Washington, 1960), 756. 17 The early French censuses and analyses of them can be found in J. N. Biraben, "Le Peuplement du Canada Franeais," Annales de Demographie Historique, 3 (1966), 105-38; Jacques Henripin, La Population Canadienne au Debut de XVHIe Steele (Paris, 1954); Jacques Henripin and Yves Peron, "The Demographic Transition of the Province of Quebec," in D. V. Glass and R. Revelle, eds., Population and Social Change (New York, 1972), 213-31; A. J. PeIIetier, "Canadian Censuses of the 17th Century," Canadian Political Science Association, Proceedings, ii (1930), 20-34; and M. C. Urquhart and K. A. H. Buckley, eds., Historical Statistics of Canada (Toronto, 1965), 54. 16

64

The Northern Colonies people. The parish of Quebec was clearly more heavily populated than the surrounding regions. The number of people living in Quebec totaled 3,497, a marked contrast to neighboring parishes where the population exceeded 1,000 only twice out of fifty times, and the average community had just over 800 people. The detail by parish is missing for the region around Montreal, but in the Trois Rivieres area the situation was much like that in Quebec. Most people lived in very small communities. Trois Rivieres was the principal town, with 672 inhabitants, over twice the average of 323 people for neighboring parishes. Racial and Ethnic

Characteristics

The population of Canada was predominantly European in origin (and the vast majority were of French background). Of the people living in and around Montreal, fully 96.2% were whites. The non-whites were divided between Indians and blacks, 3.1¾ and 0.7% respectively. Elsewhere the evidence is less clear, but it still points to a preponderance of whites. The Governor of Trois Rivieres, Ralph Burton, reported that about 500 Indians lived under his administration, but they had not been counted in the census. If they are added to the 6,492 whites living there, then the Indians residing near Trois Rivieres made up 7.2% of the total population. The data from Quebec does not mention either blacks or Indians specifically. However, 5.9% of the people living there were categorized as "strangers." Given the similarity of this figure to the proportion of non-whites in Montreal and Trois Rivieres, and given the fact that most whites would have fallen into one of the other categories, it seems plausible to assume that Indians and blacks made up, at most, 5.9% of the Quebec people, though there is no way to be sure. Regardless of how the data for Quebec is interpreted, it seems obvious that the Canadian population was predominantly white. Perhaps one of every twenty residents was a black or an Indian. Freemen, Servants, and Slaves Both slavery and other forms of servitude existed in parts of Canada on a modest scale. The Montreal enumeration of 1762 has entries for males and females, "Slaves, or Negro," both adults and children, but it is not clear whether the black 0.7% of the population were all slaves, or only some of them. However, slavery was associated with blacks, and blacks alone. In addition to slaves, white servants were present in parts of Canada. In Trois Rivieres 6.5% of the population were servants (3.7% were male and 2.8% female); Quebec listed 4.2% 65

Population of the British Colonies of her population as "domestics" (2.4¾ male and 1.8% female). It is of interest to note that in Montreal, where slaves were listed, there was no mention of servants. Conversely, the other two regions have a category for servants or domestics, but do not include slaves. Possibly the terms were interchangeable in Canada in a way they had not been in the other colonies since the seventeenth century. But it is also possible that Canadians might have had slaves, or servants, but not both, and that local custom would determine which. Whatever the case, it seems safe to say that in 1762 less than 10% of the Canadian population lived in bondage. Age and Marital Status One of the most interesting aspects about the Canadian Census of 1762 was the use of both age and marital status when it came to defining children.18 In Quebec, for example, males were divided into three categories according to age. Among the males, just over half (50.3¾) were under the age of sixteen; another 44.7% were in the ages where militia duty was expected—sixteen to sixty; men over sixty added 5.0% to the total males. The females were divided into only two groups, women and girls, 37.0% and 63.0% respectively. Apparently the term woman was applied only to married females; all single females were girls. This is evident in the data from Montreal, where married women and widows were distinguished from girls under twelve and girls over twelve. In this instance, the proportions of women and girls were almost identical to those found in Quebec. While Quebec and Montreal were similar in having just over a third of all females married, and hence considered women, the male populations were quite different. In contrast to Quebec, where half the males were under sixteen, only 37.6% of the Montreal males were that young. As might be expected from the lower proportion of youths, old men were relatively more common in Montreal than in Quebec, making up 5.7% of the males. The greatest difference, however, came in the military ages. Fully 56.7% of the Montreal men were between the ages of sixteen and sixty, 12.0% more than in Quebec. In Trois Rivieres the ratio of married women to "females, unmarried and children" was the same as elsewhere. In every case just over one-third of the females were married, while the rest were single females. Marriage might have been necessary for a female to be considered a woman rather than a girl, but most females were 18

Only the New Hampshire censuses of 1767 and 1773 seem to have been similar to the Canadian count in this regard. It is interesting that the results were much the same (see below).

66

The Northern Colonies unwed, largely because so many of them were young. Trois Rivieres differed from the other two regions when it came to categorizing males. Instead of using the age categories found in Quebec and Montreal, men were recorded according to marital status, like the women. As might be expected, there was little difference between the sexes in this regard, with 36.9% of the male population being "housekeepers," compared to 37.0¾ of the females listed as married women and widows. It is of interest to note that although ages were not included for the men in Trois Rivieres, a separate column was devoted to "men able to bear arms." The potential military strength was reckoned at 1,391 men, or 21.4% of the local population. Among the non-white population children seem to have been less common. In Montreal, only 34.9% of the Indians and 31.4% of the blacks were under the age of sixteen. These figures are only slightly below that of 37.6% for white males in Montreal, but well under the 50.3% of the male population under sixteen in Quebec. Sex Ratio Among the French Canadians who came under English rule in 1760, the balance between the sexes was almost perfect. Quebec and Trois Rivieres had a few more men than women, with 102 and 103 men for each 100 women respectively. In Montreal women were slightly more common, with a ratio of 97 men to 100 women. While the overall numbers of men and women were almost equal, there were marked imbalances among some of the special groups. Among servants, for example, men outnumbered their female counterparts by 135 and 132 per 100 in Quebec and Trois Rivieres respectively. In contrast, women were more often found in the black and Indian populations. There were only 88 black men and 86 Indian men for each 100 women of their own kind. Of special interest is the fact that the religious orders in Montreal (comprising 0.6% of the population) were predominantly female. There were only 58 priests for every 100 nuns in Montreal. Finally, a list of christenings in Trois Rivieres indicates that 105 boy babies were born for every 100 girls, exactly what would be expected today. Household Size Information on household size is limited in this instance to the region around Trois Rivieres, where 1,217 "housekeepers" were listed in a total population of 6,492. Thus the average household size was 5.3 67

Population of the British Colonies persons. Because this census classified people according to marital status rather than age, it is difficult to say much about the composition of households. It can be determined that an average household contained two married persons, three single individuals, and 0.4 of a servant (presumably unwed), but the number of young members in a family is open to question. If the age distribution was the same as in Quebec, then each household would have had an equal number of adults and children under sixteen, each group averaging about 2.5. On the other hand, if the age pyramid was more like that of Montreal, then households in Trois Rivieres would have had 3.1 adults and 1.8 children on average. Lack of data prevents a decision, although a study based on family reconstitution for the early eighteenth century suggests more children rather than more adults.19 Birth and Date Rates Included in the report sent to England in 1762 from Trois Rivieres was a list of christenings and burials between September 1760 and April 1762, a period of nineteen months. By calculating the number of these events which occurred in a twelve-month period and dividing by the total population, it is possible to arrive at some crude rates of birth and death. 20 The rates are surprisingly high. Christenings occurred at a yearly rate of 61.1 per 1,000 persons, while the burial rate was 34.4 per 1,000. Christenings exceeded burials by a rate of 26.7 per 1,000 in the period under study. Males were christened and buried slightly more often than females: the sex ratio of the former was 105 per 100 and that of the latter 106 per 100. Although these rates seem unusually high by modern standards, or even compared with Newfoundland's experience in the eighteenth century, they are in keeping with other data on the population of French Canada before 1775.21 19

Henripin, La Population Canadienne, 50, 59-69 describes one of the largest completed family sizes (8.4) and one of the highest levels of reproduction known to man. 20 Because the total population comes from the end of the period under study, rather than the midpoint, and had presumably grown over time, these rates will be slightly lower than if the midpoint population were used as the denominator as it should have been. 21 Urquhart and Buckley, eds., Historical Statistics of Canada, 54; the figures in Henripin and Peron, "Province of Quebec," 218, are somewhat lower, but are not far out of line with those given here.

68

Ill New England

N E W HAMPSHIRE

Throughout the seventeenth century the affairs of New Hampshire were often in a state of flux. The efforts of proprietors, like Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason, to expand from the early fishing villages in the first half of the seventeenth century met with little success, in part because their schemes may have been too grandiose, and in part because of opposition from Massachusetts Bay. The annexation of the New Hampshire region by Massachusetts in 1652 solved little, for the Bay colony was just beginning a forty-year feud with the English government that ultimately left New Hampshire independent again, but with a royal governor. By 1767, however, when the first census was taken in that province, life in New Hampshire was much more stable. The turmoil of the seventeenth century was replaced in the eighteenth century by years of steady development under the influence of the Wentworth family.1 Somewhat surprisingly, this royal colony was the last province in New England to take a census, but the first one, made in 1767, was quickly followed by enumerations in 1773, 1774, and 1775. These four censuses are less useful than might be expected, however, since they cover a span of only eight years. Size and Growth Rate The 1767 initial census showed a population of 52,700. Apparently Governor John Wentworth felt considerable pressure to provide this information for London, for his report counted only 51,144, with 2,000 more "scattered in the Wilderness."2 The total of 52,700 was a 1 The best study of 18th century New Hampshire is Jere R. Daniell, Experiment in Republicanism: New Hampshire Politics and the American Revolution, 17411794 (Cambridge, Mass., 1970). For the 17th century see Andrews, Colonial Period, I-IV, passim. 2 CO. 5/928/118, 132-35.

69

Population of the British Colonies corrected figure, arrived at only after Amherst, Merrimac, and Rindge had submitted their returns. Wentworth, however, seems to have felt no need to send this corrected copy to London; it is to be found only in American archives.3 By 1773 the number of people living in New Hampshire had risen to 73,097. While the rate of increase of 5.5% a year for these seven years is indicative of an "exploding" population (modern growth rates of 2.5% to 3.0% a year are considered high), it is explained convincingly by Wentworth as the result of rapid natural increase plus a high rate of immigration of settlers on crown lands." The report for 1774 is rather suspicious, listing only 73,198 persons, an increase of 101 people in a year. Governor Wentworth indicated that sixteen towns had been omitted from the count, and that if they and recent settlers were added on, the total would come to 80,898 at a minimum.5 This estimate seems a bit high, since the population had reached only 81,300 by 1775. The rate of increase from 1773 to 1775 was 5.3%, just under the growth rate for the years 1767 to 1775. Over the eight years covered by the censuses, population grew at an annual rate of 5.4%, a rather steady increase which suggests that the population in 1774 was probably about 77,000. The impact on New Hampshire society must have been significant, as almost 30,000 new persons were added to the provincial total of 52,700 in less than a decade. Population characteristics varied distinctly among the five counties in the province.6 In addition, the city of Portsmouth seems to have differed demographically from the rest of New Hampshire. Data will be presented below regarding geographic variations in the age, sex, racial, and marital composition of the population in 1773. Suffice it to say at this point that the seaboard county of Rockingham contained almost half (48.9%) of the colony's total population. The neighboring counties of Strafford and Hillsborough had 14.8% and 18.5% respectively. Further inland, another 13.0% of the people lived in the Connecticut river valley county of Cheshire. The northern, frontier county of Grafton had only 4.9% of the inhabitants; fewer than in Portsmouth, where 6.0% of the people of New Hampshire lived. Only slight changes occurred over time in the distribution of the population from one county to another. In Portsmouth, however, the population increased by less than 130 people in eight years, with the result that the number living in the capital declined from 8.5% of the total in 1767 to 5.7% in 1775. 3

See Century of Fop. Growth, 149-50. CO. 5/938/p. 150. s c.O. 5/938/pp. 298-99. 6 For those colonies which became part of the United States, Century of Fop. Growth, 61-70, provides a useful guide to local administrative units. i

70

New England Race The population of New Hampshire was overwhelmingly white in 1767, and became more so by 1775. Negroes accounted for only 1.2% of the total population in 1767, and by 1775 the comparable figure had dropped to 0.8%. Presumably there were Indians living in the province, but they were not included in any of the censuses. Although we cannot be certain, the heading in the 1775 census of "Negroes and slaves for life" suggests that virtually all blacks in New Hampshire were slaves. Of the slaves, over half lived in Rockingham County, where in 1773 they accounted for 1.3% of the people. In Portsmouth 3.7% were slaves in that year. Of the other counties, only Strafford had as much as 1.0% of the population made up of blacks; in both Hillsborough and Grafton counties the comparable figure was 0.6%. Few slaves lived in the Connecticut river valley, as only 9 out of the 9,493 residents of Cheshire County (0.09%) were black bondsmen. Age Only the men were grouped by age; the women were categorized by marital status. Thus this discussion of the age composition of the population will refer exclusively to males. One of the most obvious facts about the men in Table III-l is their relative youth. About half the males in the colony were under sixteen years of age, and the proportion under sixteen increased during the eight years of census taking, from 49.2% in 1767 to 50.9% in 1775. The jump from 49.9% in 1773 and 1774 to 50.9% under the age of sixteen in 1775 may reflect the desire of some youths to avoid military service, as the count made in 1775 was clearly concerned with the military capacities of the colony. Whatever the reason, the change was small, and the picture of a young population remains intact. As might be expected, there were relatively few old men in New Hampshire in the second half of the eighteenth century. The proportion of 4.4% over the age of sixty in 1767 was the highest on record. Although the decline in the proportion above sixty was not great, it still meant that more than nineteen out of every twenty men in the colony were less than sixty years old. The conclusion that old men were not common is further confirmed by the fact that only 8.4% of the men had passed the age of fifty in 1775. Most adult males were between the ages of sixteen and sixty. In fact, men of these ages were almost as common as those under sixteen, making up about 46.0% of the total. In addition to the information on age, the censuses of 1767, 1773, and 71

Population

of the British

Colonies

TABLE III-l AGE DISTRIBUTION—MALES (NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1767-1775) Under 16

16-60 Unmarried

Year 1767 1773 1774 1775

49.2 49.9 49.9 50.9

17.2 17.1 16.6

SO+

60+

48.4 49.9 52.8 52.3 46.6

16.7» 17.0 14.0 15.8 21.8

29.2 28.9 29.4

46.4 46.0 46.0

4.4 4.2 4.2 8.4

By County in 1773

Year 1767 1773 1775

16-60 All

Colony

County Rockingham Strafford Hillsborough Cheshire Grafton

16-60 Married

29.4 a 29.1 30.3 29.4 29.6

46.1 46.1 44.3 45.2 51.4

5.5 4.1 3.0 2.5 2.0

Portsmouth 44.1 44.5 48.8

21.6 19.0 a

31.3 31.7 a

3.0 4.8

52.9 50.7 9.2

a In 17Θ7, the numbers of married and unmarried men between 16 and 60 in Portsmouth were 641 and 440, respectively. The census of 1773 lists the numbers in the same two categories as 371 and 617. Since only moderate changes had oc­ curred in the other parts of Portsmouth's population, I have assumed that these two figures were reversed in transcription. The data here, and in Table III-3, reflect the fact that I have shifted the two figures for 1773 to what I assume to be their correct position.

1774 also n o t e d h o w m a n y m e n b e t w e e n t h e ages of sixteen a n d sixty were married, a n d h o w m a n y were single. Although this will b e dis­ cussed in greater detail below, it is w o r t h noting here t h a t only about one-third of all males w e r e married. Assuming t h a t all t h e m e n over sixty w e r e m a r r i e d ( a n d t h a t seems unlikely) a n d a d d i n g t h e m to mar­ ried m e n b e t w e e n t h e ages of sixteen a n d sixty, it is still true t h a t t w o of every t h r e e males w e r e unwed, mostly because they were too y o u n g to h a v e started a family. 7 7

The average age at first marriage for men in the colonies was about twenty-five or older; see Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns," 429. It is interesting to note that a population with proportions under sixteen and over sixty similar to that of New Hampshire would have about 18¾ of all males between the ages of fifteen and 72

New England

When the age composition is examined county by county, it becomes clear that New Hampshire experienced some significant regional vari­ ations in the age structure of her male population in 1773. Table III-I shows that the coastal county of Rockingham had the oldest popula­ tion. The proportion of 48.4¾ under the age of sixteen in that county was the second lowest in the colony. Only in Grafton County, on the northern frontier, were there fewer male children, as the comparable figure in that region was only 46.6%, well below the 52.8% under sixteen found in Hillsborough County. Although Grafton County had propor­ tionately fewer children than Rockingham, it still seems likely to have had a younger population. On the coast, fully 5.5¾ of all men were over sixty, over twice the proportion of 2.0% found in the interior. In con­ trast, too, were the number of unmarried, adult males. In Grafton County 21.8% of the total fell into this category, while only 16.7% of the Rockingham men were over sixteen and single. It should be noted here, however, that only Grafton had a higher proportion of adult males than Rockingham, suggesting that when New Hampshire men left home to seek their fortune they went to sea or to the frontier, with the sea probably the first choice.8 The other three counties were fairly similar; each had relatively more children than Grafton or Rocking­ ham, and each had more old men than the frontier, but less than the sea coast. The proportion of single, adult males suggests that more young men were leaving Hillsborough County than any other region. Portsmouth, the capital city and trading center of the province, pro­ vides an interesting contrast to the rest of the colony. Although the number of old men was much the same as in the colony as a whole, the number of children differed markedly. Before 1775 less than 45% of the population in the city was under sixteen, a figure below that of any county. By 1775 the proportion under sixteen had increased to 48.8% of the total, but in that year only Grafton County had relatively fewer adult men (48.5%). Another interesting feature of Portsmouth's age structure was the number of adult men between the ages of sixteen and sixty. The proportion in this group of 52.9% in 1767 was well above the colony's average; in 1773, 50.7% of the males in the city were in this category. Perhaps Governor Wentworth should have added commerce to crown lands when he wrote of the economic factors attracting peo­ ple to his colony. twenty-four, a figure very close to the proportion over sixteen, but unmarried, in New Hampshire; see Coale and Demeny, Model Life Tables, 140, r = 2.5-3.5. 8 The lure of the sea, and of ocean-borne commerce, is illustrated by the fact that in Portsmouth the proportion of males over sixteen was higher than in any other part of the colony.

Population of the British Colonies Sex Ratios

The numbers of men and women living in New Hampshire be­ tween 1767 and 1775 were much the same. Table III-2 indicates that a few more men than women resided in the colony, but the difference was not great. Among the whites, the greatest imbalance of the sexes occurred in 1774 when there were 107 men for each 100 women; the male surplus in the other years was even smaller. Among the blacks TABLE III-2 SEX RATIO (NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1767-1775) Whites

Blacks

Year 1767 1773 1774 1775

1.02 1.03 1.07 1.04

County Rockingham Strafford Hillsborough Cheshire Grafton

By County in 1773 1.26 0.96 1.68 1.05 1.03 1.08 3.50 1.12 1.26 0.82

Year 1767 1773 1775

Colony 1.54 1.28 1.32

Portsmouth 0.91 0.86 0.88

1.97 1.67

the sex ratio was much less balanced. While this undoubtedly had an important effect on family life among the Negroes, the overall impact on New Hampshire society would have been small since there were so few slaves in the colony. The sex ratio of 1.54 for the black population in 1767 declined to 1.28 and 1.32 in 1773 and 1774 respectively. Even so, there was still a significant surplus of black men over black women by the end of the period under consideration. While the sexes were relatively well balanced within the whole colony, the same cannot be said for the various regions of the province. In Rockingham County, for example, women outnumbered men by 100 to 96. While the sex ratio in Portsmouth of 0.86 in 1773 undoubted-

New

Enghnd

Iy contributed to the female surplus in the county, it is still true that there were slightly more women than men in the rest of Rockingham County (the sex ratio, excluding Portsmouth, was 0.98). As will be seen below, the reason for this excess of women over men seems to have been the unusually large number of widows living in the coastal regions, rather than an influx of single females comparable to the movement of single men noted earlier. The standard image of a frontier population (or for that matter, any people with a heavy influx of migrants) is one which is predominantly male. Certainly the sex ratios of 1.12 and 1.26 in Cheshire and Grafton counties, respectively, support this view, but it is somewhat surprising that the difference was as small as it was. 9 Among the blacks, the sex ratio varied from a low of 0.82 in Grafton County to a high of 3.50 in Cheshire. However, since these two coun­ ties combined contained only twenty-nine slaves, little can be made of these differences. In the areas where most slaves lived (Rockingham and Strafford counties), men exceed women by a considerable amount. The male surplus was most evident in Portsmouth, for in that town there were 197 male slaves for each 100 female slaves in 1767. Although the ratio had fallen by 1773, it was still a surprisingly high 1.67. Marital Status Except in 1775, the New Hampshire censuses divided women into groups according to marital status, making it possible to calculate the data presented in Table III-3 regarding the proportion of women who were unmarried, married, or widowed. In addition, the number of single men between the ages of sixteen and sixty was given. By com­ bining this total with the number of males under sixteen, it is possible to estimate the proportion of men who were unwed at the time of the census, and to compare this figure with the proportion of unmarried 10 women. Among the women, there seems to have been little variation over time in the proportions married. In the late eighteenth century, about one-third of all women were married at any given census. Like9

Moller, in "Sex Composition and Culture Patterns," gives striking evidence of much greater imbalance in the 17th-century colonies, at times of high immigration. In Virginia men outnumbered women β to 1, while the ratio in New England was 3 to 2. In contrast, the Grafton sex ratio appears well balanced. 10 Obviously any men who married before the age of sixteen would bias this estimate, but few males seem to have married that young; see Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns," and the evidence on marital status from Connecticut below. Likewise, the small number of lifelong bachelors over sixty would appear to be small. Widowers need not be included here, for widows were counted separately among the women.

75

Population of the British Colonies TABLE III-3 MARITAL STATUS (NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1767-1774) Males (%)

Females (%) Married

Widowed

Unmarried'1

16-60 Unmarried

61.9 62.3 61.2

32.8 33.3 34.4

Colony 5.3 4.4 4.4

66.4 67.0 66.5

37.0 37.1 36.0

Rockingham Strafford Hillsborough Cheshire Grafton

62.6 61.6 62.2 63.0 60.1

31.7 34.0 34.7 35.1 38.8

Year 1767 1773

59.9 59.5

30.3 30.1

Unmarried Year 1767 1773 1774 County

By County in 1773 65.P 5.8 66.9 4.4 66.8 3.1 68.1 1.9 68.4 1.1

36.2 b 36.8 31.6 35.0 42.4

Portsmouth 9.8 10.4

65.7 63.5"

40.7 37.5 b

a The proportion of unmarried males equals the proportion under age sixteen, plus single males between sixteen and sixty. b See note a, Table III-l.

wise, the majority of all females (just over 60¾) were unmarried. While over half the men were also single at any given point in time, the proportion single seems to have exceeded that of the females by about 4 to 5%. Perhaps this is best explained by the male surplus which may have been caused by migration into the colony in search of land. On the other hand, women tended to marry younger than men and so were shifted into the married category sooner. There can be little doubt that most of the unmarried persons were too young to have wed, but it is of interest to note that over a third of all males who had passed the age of sixteen were single. In addition to those women married or waiting to marry, the census indicates that 4 to 5% of all females were widows. If we assume that most of the single women were too young to have married, the proportion of widows among the adult female population increases to about 10%. The New Hampshire censuses did not list widowers, but evidence presented below from Connecticut suggests that they would have been much less common than widows. 76

New England

Elsewhere I have suggested that marriage patterns in the colonies were often affected by changes in the sex ratios.11 Thus it is of consid­ erable interest to find that both marital status and sex ratios varied noticeably from one region to another. Among the men, the proportion single rose slightly but steadily as the distance from the seacoast in­ creased. In Rockingham County single males accounted for 65.1% of the population, but in the interior counties of Cheshire and Grafton the similar figures were 68.1¾ and 68.4% respectively. No such pattern seems to have occurred among the women, for the frontier counties had both the highest and lowest proportion single. This is somewhat surprising, for we might expect that large numbers of potential husbands would mean few available brides. Yet even when we examine the variations in the proportion single among the adult men there seems to be little relationship to the presence or absence of single females. Indeed, the proportion of unmarried women seems to have been remarkably con­ stant from one region to another. The most significant variations occurred among married and wid­ owed females. Furthermore, they seem to have been closely related to the changing balance between the sexes. The proportion widowed de­ creased dramatically among those people living furthest from the coast. Portsmouth seems to have been a haven for widows, for about 10% of all the women living in the port city had outlived their husbands and had not married again. In Rockingham County 5.8% of all women were widows; the neighboring counties of Strafford and Hillsborough showed comparable figures of 4.4% and 3.1% respectively; widows were almost nonexistent on the frontier, accounting for only 1.9% of the women living in the Connecticut river valley, and 1.1% of those on the northern frontier. As might be expected, the proportions married in­ creased as the widowed element decreased. In Portsmouth only 30.1% of all women were currently married in 1773, a striking contrast to the comparable figure for Grafton County of 38.8%. As the proportion of married women increased, so too did the unmarried men—a fact not too surprising in view of the male surplus which existed in those coun­ ties with relatively large numbers of married women (see Table III-2). What is rather surprising is that, when faced with a shortage of avail­ able brides, New Hampshire men did not seem to marry younger wom­ en; instead they seem to have married widows when they were avail­ able. The evidence clearly suggests that if a man of marriageable age was faced with the choice of a very young wife or celibacy, he often chose the latter. In Portsmouth the proportion of single men between 11

Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns," 434-39.

Population of the British Colonies the ages of sixteen and sixty remained relatively high, in spite of the presence of an unusually large number of widows; significantly in the port city the proportion of young, single women was lower than anywhere else in the colony. Military Status One of the fondest images of early America is the rifle hung over the mantelpiece in every home, ready to be taken down by a citizen army. However, data from the New Hampshire Census of 1775 suggests that some qualification is needed. This particular census was clearly taken with military needs in mind, for little attention was paid to women and blacks, while the military status of men was noted, along with a count of available arms. Of course it is possible that the count was in error, but it is rather startling to find that only one firearm was reported in the census for every 2.5 men between the ages of sixteen and fifty. Had the normal age of sixty for the end of militia duty been used the imbalance would have been worse. It must be noted, however, that persons actually in the army were well armed, as 2.7 guns were counted for every soldier. In addition to the lack of arms, the census clearly suggests that a relatively small number of people were actually in the army, only 6.1¾ of the males in New Hampshire in 1775. Even if we look only at men eligible for military duty the figure is hardly more impressive. Among the males between the ages of sixteen and fifty, only 14.8¾ were actually in the army. Clearly, many men stayed at home during the first years of the Revolution, perhaps at least partially because weapons were lacking.

MASSACHUSETTS

By the time Massachusetts took her first census in 1764 and 1765, the colony had grown considerably from the early days of settlement. The original Massachusetts Bay Company had controlled only a small part of the land making up the province in the eighteenth century. Although religion played a central role jn the establishment of this colony, so too did the desire for land. As a result, the settlements around Boston had extended their influence, by 1700, to include the slightly older Plymouth colony, parts of the Connecticut river valley to the west, and an eastern frontier in what is now the state of Maine. By the end of the seventeenth century, Boston was the dominant town on the North American continent, and one of the leading commercial centers in the British empire. Although Philadelphia and New York challenged her 78

New

Enghnd

commercial primacy in the eighteenth century, trade was still an important part of the economy of eastern Massachusetts. Given the importance of Boston and the fact that Massachusetts was among England's three largest colonies in the New World, it is surprising to find that her first complete census was begun as late as 1764. Ten years earlier a census of slaves had been taken, but no one else was counted at that time. In explaining this long delay in enumerating the population, one thinks first of Massachusetts' tradition of opposition to the British government. However, since both Virginia and Pennsylvania (the other largest colonies in America) were equally lax in counting their people, there seems little reason to attribute the failings of Massachusetts in this regard to her imperial relations. On the other hand, no alternative explanation is apparent at this time. With this history, it is rather surprising that even one census was made in Massachusetts. Perhaps the best way to explain it is to credit Governor Bernard with unusual perseverance in the matter. In spite of continual opposition, the governor pressed for a census from 1763 until the final returns were submitted in 1765.12 Why Bernard felt the enumeration was so necessary is not clear, but it seems obvious that he persuaded the residents of Massachusetts to do something they were not inclined to do. His success is all the more remarkable in view of the strained relations with Great Britain produced at this time by the Sugar Act and Stamp Act. Obviously any census taken over a period of two (or possibly three) years and without the full cooperation of the inhabitants is not likely to be very accurate regarding the total population, but an analysis of the document suggests that other demographic characteristics were probably reasonably well presented. Size and Growth As reported in the census of 1764, the population of Massachusetts stood at 245,698. Given the difficulty Bernard encountered in making the count, this total is probably on the low side, though there is no way to know how low. In the absence of any other counts it is impossible to calculate any intercensal growth rates for the total population. 13 However, in 1754 a census showed 2,712 slaves in the colony, and by 1764 the number of Negroes and mulattoes had risen to 5,235. If one assumes that all blacks were slaves, the rate of increase for this group 12 Bernard's reports on his struggle to get the census taken are found in CO. 5/891/pp. 427-28, 490. 13 For an estimate of the rate of increase in Massachusetts, see Potter, "Growth of Population," 639.

79

Population of the British Colonies was 6.6¾ a year over the ten years in question. However, such a rapid growth of the slave population seems unlikely; it is more probable that a number of blacks in Massachusetts were freemen, and so were counted in 1764 but omitted in 1754. Although we cannot be certain how rapidly the people of Massa­ chusetts were increasing, we do know where in the province they lived. To facilitate geographic comparisons, the counties have been arranged into five different groups according to section. The counties of Suffolk, Essex, and Middlesex were the heart of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Along with Plymouth, Barnstable, and Bristol, which are roughly the site of the Plymouth Colony, they make up the coastal counties. Dukes and Nantucket counties included the fishing islands off the southern coast. To the west the counties of Hampshire, Worcester, and Berk­ shire made up the interior frontier, while York, Cumberland, and Lin­ coln (modern Maine) constituted a northern, coastal frontier. Finally, Boston has been treated separately, to see if rural-urban differences in demographic characteristics existed in eighteenth century Massa­ chusetts. As the data in Table III-4 make clear, the population of Massachu­ setts was unevenly distributed. Almost half (46.3¾) of the people lived in the counties of Suffolk, Essex, and Middlesex. When the rest of the old coastal counties are added to this total, the eastern concentra­ tion becomes clear, as 67.9¾ of all residents lived near the seacoast. Somewhat surprisingly, the western frontier (including the old Con­ necticut river valley settlements) contained 20.7% of the total. There were striking contrasts in the county totals in the west, with Worcester having almost ten times as many people as Berkshire. This is quite different from the east, where population was more evenly distributed within a given region. The northern frontier held 8.9% of the province's total population; the fishing counties were the smallest of the lot, as the combined total for Dukes and Nantucket was only 2.5¾. Boston alone, with 6.3¾ of the colony's people, was larger than seven of the fourteen counties. And Hampshire, Bristol, and the rest of Suffolk County outside the city were not much larger. Race In 1764 the population white; 97.2¾ of the population ity of this group was either of The French neutrals who had only whites listed separately,

of Massachusetts was overwhelmingly was of European origin. The vast major­ English background or well assimilated. been ousted from Nova Scotia were the but they made up a very small part of

New England the total population, contributing only three out of every 1,000 inhabitants. Of the non-white population, Negroes and mulattoes were three times as common as Indians, the former group amounting to 2.1¾ of the total, the latter only 0.7¾. Although no county had more than 3.7% of its population made up of blacks, there were still important regional TABLE III-4 DISTRIBUTION AND RACE (MASSACHUSETTS, 1764) County

Popuhtion in Colony {%)

White

Negro and Mulatto (S)

Indian {%)

Suffolk Essex Middlesex

14.8 17.8 13.7

96.1 97.6 97.4

3.7 2.4 2.5

0.2 0.02 0.1

Plymouth Barnstable Bristol

9.1 5.1 7.4

96.9 93.9 97.9

2.1 1.9 1.6

1.0 4.2 0.5

Dukes Nantucket

1.1 1.4

86.7 94.4

1.7 1.3

11.6 4.3

Hampshire Worcester Berkshire

7.0 12.4 1.3

98.9 99.0 90.5

1.1 0.9 2.7

0.1 6.8

York Cumberland Lincoln

4.4 3.0 1.5

97.9 98.8 99.3

2.1 1.2 0.7

— —

Colony

100.0

97.2

2.1

0.7

Boston

6.3

94.6

5.2

0.2

variations in the distribution of this group. By and large, the six old coastal counties had a higher proportion of blacks than elsewhere. Only in Bristol did the figure fall much below 2¾, and in that instance it was 1.6%. Somewhat surprisingly, blacks made up over 2% of the population in the frontier counties of York and Berkshire, but elsewhere, away from the coastal counties, the comparable figure rarely exceeded 1.3%. The greatest concentration of blacks was in Boston, where they made up 5.2¾ of the total. Although the Indian population was smaller than the black, the distribution of the Indians may have given them considerable impact in several counties. It is surprising that the greatest concentration of 81

Population of the British Colonies Indians was often in southeastern Massachusetts, rather than on the frontier. For example, 11.6% of the people living in Dukes County (Martha's Vineyard) were Indians, and over 4% in both Barnstable and Nantucket. On the far western frontier the proportion of Indians in the total Berkshire population was 6.8¾, but Hampshire and Worcester counties had few, if any, Indians. It is puzzling to find Indians missing from the lists for the northern frontier. It seems likely that this reflects the fact that Indians there were not subject to Massachusetts' authority, rather than that they were absent from the region. Outside of the counties mentioned above, Indians were relatively scarce, accounting for 1.0% or less of the remaining population. The predominant group in Massachusetts was the whites. Only in Dukes County (the smallest in the colony) did non-whites account for over 10% of the population—the exact figure was 13.3% Elsewhere colonists of European origin made up over nine out of every ten people. In fact, only four other areas besides Dukes had less than nineteen whites out of every twenty people: Berkshire, 9.5%; Barnstable, 6.1%; Nantucket, 5.6%; and the city of Boston, 5.4%. Freemen and Slaves The census of 1764 is detailed, but information on slaves or servants is not included. Some comments can be made, however, regarding the presence of slaves in Massachusetts, because of the 1754 count. In that year, 2,712 black bondsmen were recorded as living in the colony. In the absence of fuller data, it cannot be known precisely what proportion of all blacks were held as slaves, but some educated guesses are possible. First, scholars have estimated that the white population of Massachusetts was increasing at about 30% each decade from 1750 to 1770.14 If we assume that the rate of increase among blacks was the same as among whites, then the slave population in 1754 should have increased to about 3,525 slaves in Massachusetts in 1764. However, the census of 1764 recorded 5,235 Negroes and mulattoes as living in the province. Unless the ratio of slaves to free blacks had changed in the course of these ten years, or unless a sudden surge of slave importation had occurred, this suggests that about two-thirds of all blacks were slaves.15 14

The decennial increase was assumed to be 30¾; see Potter, "Growth of Population," 639. 15 If the increase among blacks was only 20%, then the proportion held as slaves falls to 62¾; an increase of only 10¾ in ten years implies that slaves still made up 57¾ of all blacks in Massachusetts.

82

New England Much more precision is possible regarding the location of slaves within the colony. Almost half the slaves (47.0¾) living in Massachusetts in 1754 resided in Suffolk County. Most of these were inhabitants of Boston, for 36.5% of all the slaves in the colony lived in the capital city. When the counties of Essex and Middlesex are added to Suffolk, the number of slaves in this region was 76.5% of the provincial total. In contrast, Nantucket had no slaves in 1754, while only 0.3% of the black bondsmen lived in Dukes County. The remaining counties each held between 2.7% and 5.4% of the slaves, but there seems to have been little regional variation that falls into any pattern among this group. Age The initial impression given by the data on age, presented in Table III-5, is that of a young population. In the colony as a whole 47.9% of the people were under sixteen, but close examination shows that there was significant variation from one region to another. The TABLE III-5 AGE COMPOSITION (MASSACHUSETTS WHITES, 1764)

83

County

White under 16(%)

Children per Woman

Suffolk Essex Middlesex

50.3 44.9 46.9

1.88 1.50 1.67

Plymouth Barnstable Bristol

47.2 46.8 48.5

1.68 1.68 1.80

Dukes Nantucket

45.9 46.2

1.64 1.74

Hampshire Worcester Berkshire

48.4 49.7 50.8

1.88 1.95 2.21

York Cumberland Lincoln

48.4 50.9 52.4

1.78 2.18 2.24

Colony

47.9

1.76

Boston

55.3

2.25

Population of the British Colonies

frontier regions and Boston had much younger populations than else­ where. Of the frontier counties, Hampshire and York, with figures of 48.4¾, had the lowest proportion under sixteen—in both instances above the colonial average. Over half the people living in Berkshire, Cumber­ land, and Lincoln counties were children. Surprisingly, the highest proportion under the age of sixteen was in Boston, 55.3%, while the older, coastal counties and the islands had an older population. Only in Bristol and Suffolk counties did the proportion of children exceed the provincial average. In Bristol, however, the proportion of 48.5¾ was almost equal to the lowest figure found in the frontier regions. The population of Boston was largely responsible for the relatively youthful nature of Suffolk's people, for if the city is excluded the proportion under sixteen in the rest of the county falls to 46.6¾, in line with the other older settlements. In Newfoundland it was evident that migration had an important effect on the proportion of children in the population, but in Massa­ chusetts the number of children per woman in the population was lower in the older settlements than in the city or the frontier. Among the first eight counties listed in Table III-5, the number of children per woman ranged from a low of 1.50 in Essex County to a high of 1.88 in Suffolk. In contrast, the similar figures for the frontier counties and Boston varied from 1.78 in York to 2.24 in Lincoln County, and 2.25 in Boston. Only in York County did the ratio of children to women fall below the highest figure for the older counties. The reasons for these variations are not clear at present, though two possibilities suggest themselves. First, the proportion of adult females who were married may have differed from one region to another. Thus, if there were more spinsters than widows in the older regions, as was the case in New Hampshire, the number of children per woman would have been lower, even though each wife had the same number of children as did wives on the frontier. The second possibility (which could have existed along with the first) is that childbearing within marriage was lower in the older regions than in the newer settlements. Other eighteenth century people were able to control their fertility, and presumably New Englanders could too, if they so desired.16 Certainly Massachusetts was getting crowded in the late eighteenth century, a factor which often led to reduced childbearing at other times in American history.17 16 See Robert V. Wells, "Family Size and Fertility Control," Population Studies, 25 (1971), 73-82. 17 See Lockridge, "Land, Population," 62-80; and Colin Forster and G. S. L. Tucker, Economic Opportunity and White American Fertility Ratios, 1800-1860 (New Haven, 1972).

New England Sex ratio In examining the evidence on the sex ratio given in Table III-6, it becomes clear that regional variations existed here, too, but that they may have been less important than differences in the number of males per female between various parts of the population. Among the whites, TABLE III-6 SEX RATIOS (MASSACHUSETTS, 1764)

Counties

Whites Under Over 16 16

Total

Blacks

Indians

Suffolk Essex Middlesex

1.01 1.01 1.02

0.87 0.85 0.89

0.94 0.92 0.95

1.52 1.40 1.29

1.12 1.67 0.55

Plymouth Barnstable Bristol

1.07 1.03 1.10

0.88 0.91 0.91

0.97 0.97 1.00

1.11 1.41 1.29

0.51 0.76 0.69

Dukes Nantucket

1.04 1.02

0.94 1.02

0.98 1.03

1.19 1.20

0.66 1.26

Hampshire Worcester Berkshire

1.08 1.10 1.03

1.00 0.98 1.14

1.04 1.03 1.08

1.66 1.21 1.32

0.79 0.96

York Cumberland Lincoln

1.07 1.07 1.08

0.90 1.10 1.04

0.98 1.08 1.06

1.14 1.38 2.43

Colony

1.05

0.91

0.97

1.36

0.76

Boston

1.02

0.81

0.93

1.69

1.31

for example, the sex ratio for those under age sixteen was 1.05, com­ pared to a figure of 0.91 for the adults. Every county showed an excess of boys over girls, but the sex ratio of adults varied considerably from one county to another. By and large the coastal and island counties had more women than men. Only in Nantucket did the number of men ex­ ceed the number of women, and the difference in that instance was not great. Of the six frontier counties, three had a surplus of males (the sex ratio in Berkshire was 1.14), one (Hampshire) had an almost per­ fect balance, while two (York and Worcester) had slightly more wom­ en than men. The sex ratio in Boston of only 81 men for every 100

Population of the British Colonies

women is rather startling in and of itself. But it is even more surprising in view of the high number of children per woman, for one would expect such a sex ratio to produce an unusually large number of spin­ sters, and hence lower the child-woman ratio. Perhaps husbands absent at sea, an unusually high level of illegitimacy, or the presence of ap­ prentices from outside the city can explain these figures, though all these suggestions must be considered speculation at this point. The non-white population had sex ratios quite different from those of the whites, but the blacks and Indians varied in opposite directions. Among the blacks, men were clearly in the majority, with 1.36 men for each woman living in the colony in 1764, almost exactly the same as the sex ratio among slaves whose sex was noted in 1754. In that year, there were 1.35 male slaves for each female. Every county had a sur­ plus of black men over black women, though variations in the degree of imbalance were considerable. In Plymouth, for example, the sex ratio was 1.11, a marked contrast to the figure of 2.43 found in Lincoln County (where, incidentally, there were only 24 blacks in all). The male surplus among the blacks is emphasized by the fact that among the whites only the adults living in Berkshire County had a sex ratio higher than the Plymouth blacks. The Indians living in Massachusetts showed a preponderance of women, with only 76 men present for each 100 females. However, the sex ratio in any given county could be quite different. The lowest ratio of males to females (0.51 in Plymouth) was strikingly different from the figure of 1.67 in Essex County. Clearly, the impact of the balance between the sexes on the life of Indians varied greatly according to region. However, the relatively small number of Indians in each of the counties makes it dangerous to stress these differences. It can only be said that the few Indians living under the jurisdiction of the Massa­ chusetts government were more often female than male. Households and Families

The Massachusetts Census of 1764 is unusual in that it gives data on both the number of houses and the number of families in the prov­ ince. Thus it is possible to calculate, as in Table 111-7, the average household size, average family size, and the number of families per house.18 There were 41,160 families listed as living in the colony in 1764, with an average size of 6.0 persons. Of these 5.8 were whites (3.0 adults and 2.8 children), and 0.2 were non-whites on average. House18

For an interesting use of this data, see David H. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England (Charlottesville, Va., 1972), 44-84, esp. 46-55.

New England holds were less numerous, 34,193. The average number of persons in a household was 7.2, 20% larger than an average family. In the case of an average household, 7.0 of its members were white, and 0.2 were black or Indian. Of the whites, adults accounted for a mean of 3.6 members of a household, and children 3.4 persons on average. TABLE III-7 MASSACHUSETTS HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES, 1764 Persons per . House

Persons per Family

Families per House

Suffolk Essex Middlesex

7.9 7.6 6.9

6.6 5.5 5.8

1.21 1.38 1.20

Plymouth Barnstable Bristol

7.2 7.1 6.9

5.9 5.9 5.8

1.22 1.19 1.19

Dukes Nantucket

8.3 8.5

7.5 5.9

1.11 1.46

Hampshire Worcester Berkshire

6.7 6.7 8.1

6.1 6.0 6.6

1.11 1.11 1.22

8.4 11.6 6.4

6.2 6.4 6.3

1.36 1.82 1.02

Colony

7.2

6.0

1.20

Boston

9.3

7.5

1.23

Counties

York Cumberland Lincoln

Household and family size varied considerably from one county to another, especially household size. The smallest households were in Lincoln County, where the average was 6.4; in Cumberland County the comparable figure was 11.6 persons per household, almost twice as many as in Lincoln. Unlike some of the demographic characteristics discussed above, household size does not seem to have been markedly different in the coastal settlements and the frontier. Both regions showed considerable variety, though the range was greater on the frontier. While the mean family size also differed, the range was smaller than for households. Essex County had the smallest families (5.5 on average); Dukes County and Boston had the largest with means of 7.5. However, most of the counties were remarkably similar, with average family sizes of 5.8 to 6.6 persons.

Population of the British Colonies Of special interest is the number of families per house. This gives not only a measure of the difference between household and families, but also a measure of crowding and the lack of privacy.19 Perhaps the first point to note is that in every county in Massachusetts in 1764 the number of families exceeded the number of houses. For the colony as a whole there were 120 families for every 100 houses. Some of the doubling up which resulted may have been from choice, as when sev­ eral generations lived together, but it is also possible that poverty and expensive building materials kept some Massachusetts families from living in their own houses. In most of the counties the number of fam­ ilies per house ranged between 1.11 and 1.38. Only Lincoln had a lower figure (1.02); only Nantucket (1.46) and Cumberland counties (1.82) exceeded this range. It seems obvious that crowding was the rule in Massachusetts, in part because families were large in comparison to today, and in part because households often contained more than one family. CONNECTICUT

Although Connecticut did not receive a charter from the King of Eng­ land until 1663, settlement had been under way in that region for the previous thirty years. The pioneers were strongly motivated, by reli­ gion and by the desire for land, with the result that the early years were somewhat turbulent. The Charter of 1663 consolidated the colony politically, and by the eighteenth century conditions had become some­ what more stable. It is important to note that Connecticut's charter was one of the most advantageous given to any American colony, for control from England was at a minimum and local authority at a maximum.20 One result of this political autonomy was to delay the taking of the first usable census until 1756. In fact, it is not clear why Connecticut bothered to count her people then, or again in 1762 and 1774. Pressure from England was no greater than before for census taking, and, unlike Massachusetts, the colony was without a royal governor who might push it. Only once before, in 1708, had Connecticut made any attempt to count her people. But in that year relations between the colony and England were such that the reliability of the census was apparently 19

Ibid. The history of Connecticut as a colony has been well studied in Andrews, Colonial Period, N, Chaps, III-V; Richard Dunn, Puritans and Yankees (Princeton, 1962), 59-190, and passim; and Richard L. Bushman, From Puritan to Yankee (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), among others. 20

New England damaged. At the end of the seventeenth century England began to tighten control over her empire, and one target of this policy was the Connecticut Charter of 1663 which left most of the power in the hands of the colonists. Thus in 1707, when the colony received a request for a report on her population, she was also being threatened with a revocation of her charter. In this situation one would hardly expect full cooperation from the colonists, and apparently it was not given. The standard request to a colony for demographic data asked for the number of "inhabitants," meaning all persons living in the colony. Yet when Connecticut reported in 1709 the definition of "inhabitant" used by the colony seems to have been that of an admitted member of a town, for the numbers of freeholders, militia, and inhabitants were surprisingly close.21 Perhaps the definitional confusion was honest, but it clearly served Connecticut's political ends to report a population that was so small as to make the colony hardly worth bothering about. Size and Growth When the first reasonably accurate enumeration was made in 1756, the population of Connecticut was already 130,612. As Table III-8 indicates, it continued to increase during the next eighteen years, rising to 145,590 in 1762, and 197,842 by 1774. The people of Connecticut were aware of this growth and took a virtuous pride in it. With every census, the governor of the colony reported the rapid increase of the people "under the Divine Benediction," helped out by "An Industrious, temperate Life, and Early Marriage."22 In fact, the people were so impressed by the growth of their colony that the population was reported as doubling every twenty-four years, implying a growth rate of 2.9% a year. In fact, while the population did increase quickly, it grew at the slightly lower rate of 2.3% a year between 1756 and 1774. The increase was somewhat uneven, with the period 1756 to 1762 showing a growth rate of 1.7%, while the increase between 1762 and 1774 was at an annual rate of 2.5%. The distribution of the population was surprisingly even. In 1774 only Hartford County was noticeably larger than the others; it contained just over one-quarter of all the inhabitants of Connecticut. The other five counties were very similar, each having between 13.6% and 17.0% of the total population. The largest town, New Haven, held less than one of every twenty Connecticut residents, emphasizing the small 21 CO. 5/1264/160-63. Inhabitants were reported at "about four thousand," while of them freemen made up 2,000, and the militia 3,500. 22 CO. 5/1274/165; CO. 5/1276/250; CO. 5/1285/120.

89

Population of the British Colonies

TABLE III-8 SIZE, GROWTH, AND DISTRIBUTION (CONNECTICUT, 1756-1774) Total Population

Whites

Negroes

Indians

Year

(%)

(%)

(%)

1756 1762 1774

130,612 145,590 197,842

97.2 96.9 96.7

2.3 3.2 2,6

0.5

County

Windham New London Hartford New Haven Litchfield Fairfield Colony Town of New Haven

—

0.7

By County, 1774 (%)

14.2 17.0 26.2 13.6 13.8 15.2

97.8 93.9 97.7 96.6 98.4 96.0

1.7 3.6 2.1 3.2 1.2 3.8

0.6 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2

100.0

96.7

2.6

0.7

4.1

96.7

3.2

0.1

town, rural orientation of the colony. The distribution of the popula­ tion, moreover, changed very little over the eighteen years covered by the censuses. Litchfield County, in the northwest corner of the prov­ ince, grew most rapidly, increasing its share of the colony's total popu­ lation from 9.1% in 1756 to 13.8% in 1774. The other counties and New Haven changed but little. Growth was spread evenly across the prov­ ince. Race

As in the other New England colonies studied so far, the popula­ tion of Connecticut was almost exclusively white. In 1774 only 3.3% of the residents in the colony were non-white, 2.7% Negroes and 0.7% Indi­ ans. Because it is not clear whether Indians were counted in the census of 1762 it is hard to determine how the non-white population changed. In 1756 only 2.3% of the persons enumerated were blacks and 0.5% were Indians; the proportion of blacks had climbed to 3.2% in 1762. This clearly suggests that the black part of the population was growing more rapidly than the white, but it may simply be the result of Indians being counted as blacks in 1762. The fact that the census of 1774 combined Indians and Negroes into Total Blacks supports this possibility. If this

New England

is so, then the racial composition of Connecticut remained virtually the same throughout the period studied. Although the geographic distribution of Negroes and Indians was different from that of the whites, they remained a small part of most counties. The proportion of blacks in the population ranged from a low of 1.2¾ in Litchfield County to a high of 3.8¾ in Fairfield. The three coastal counties of New London, New Haven, and Fairfield all had populations which were at least 3.2¾ black. The three interior counties had fewer Negroes, with Hartford County having the highest propor­ tion at 2.1%. Indians were concentrated in New London County, in the southeast part of the colony, where they made up 2.5% of the popula­ tion. In the other counties Indians never exceeded 0.6% of the total. In fact, 61.8% of all the Indians recorded in the census lived in New London County. The town of New Haven seems to have been much the same as the rest of the colony regarding racial composition. Whites dominated. When the racial composition of the counties in 1774 is compared to the situation in 1756, little change seems to have occurred. Only in Litchfield and New Haven counties was there a significant increase in the proportion of Negroes. In the former, the proportion of blacks in the total population increased from 0.5% in 1756 to 1.2% in 1774; in the latter the change was from 1.2% to 3.2% in the same period. Age

Information on the age of Connecticut residents was included only in the census of 1774, but what there was of it was unusually detailed. Among the whites, for example, four groupings were used, as the pop­ ulation was divided into those under ten, between ten and twenty, between twenty and seventy, and those over seventy years old. In addi­ tion, both Negroes and Indians were divided into those under and over twenty years of age. The reasons for this detail, and for the unusual age groupings chosen are obscure. The detail is appreciated by demograph­ ic historians, but comparisons between the age composition in Connec­ ticut and elsewhere are difficult. Table III-9 gives the proportions of whites, blacks, and Indians in the various age groups. Once again the emphasis is on youth. In the colony as a whole, 32.0% of the white population was under the age of ten; an additional 24.5% were between ten and twenty years old, mak­ ing the proportion under twenty equal to 56.5%. Persons between ages twenty and seventy accounted for 40.9% of the whites. Individuals who

Population of the British Colonies TABLE III-9 AGE DISTRIBUTION (CONNECTICUT, 1774) Whites (%) County

Negroes (%)

Under 10

10-20

20-70

70+

Windham New London Hartford New Haven Litchfield Fairfield

31.8 32.9 32.3 31.6 34.2 28.8

24.9 24.0 24.1 23.4 22.2 28.4

40.5 40.9 41.3 42.8 38.9 40.9

2.8 2.1 2.5 2.2 1.5 1.9

Colony

32.0

24.5

40.9

Town of New Haven

31.4

21.9

44.6

Indians (%) Under Above 20 20

Under 20

Above 20

43.7

51.7 48.7

56.3 49.4 52.2 52.6 48.3 51.3

57.0 54.2 52.5 64.8 58.7 42.6

43.0 45.8 47.5 35.2 41.3 57.4

2.2

48.4

51.6

54.7

45.3

2.1

51.9

48.1

81.8

18.2

50.6 47.8 47.4

lived to the age of seventy were rare, as high fertility and mortality combined to keep the proportion which reached that age at 2.2¾ of the whites. Like other demographic characteristics, the age distribution was much the same from one county to another. The western counties were the only regions where less than 2¾ of the population was over seventy. Likewise, Litchfield had the highest proportion under ten, while Fairfield had relatively more people between ten and twenty than any other county. But no consistent pattern differentiates one sec­ tion from another. Even the major town was much like the rest of the colony, though the 53.3% under age twenty in New Haven was slightly lower than elsewhere, while persons between the ages of twenty and seventy were relatively more common. The age distributions of the non-white populations are of considerable interest. The Indians, for example, were much like the whites with re­ gard to the proportion under twenty. Of the former, 54.7% were under twenty, while we have already seen that the comparable figure for the latter was 56.5¾, less than 2¾ higher. Although the Indian populations of New Haven and Fairfield counties differed considerably from the colony as a whole with regard to age, these variations must be treated with caution since the combined number of Indians in both these re­ gions was only 132 individuals. The Negro population, on the other hand, was somewhat older on average than either the whites or the Indians. Only 48.4¾ of the blacks were under twenty, about 8% less than the whites and 6% less than the Indians. Some regional differences are

New England apparent in Table III-9, but they seem to be patternless. It should be emphasized that although blacks were older, on average, than the other groups, the median age of Negroes must have been just over twenty, well below the figures for twentieth century America. Sex Ratios The detail given in the census of 1774 allows sex ratios to be computed by age and race for the entire Connecticut population: the results are given in Table 111-10. Among the Negroes, males were more TABLE III-10 SEX RATIOS (CONNECTICUT, 1774) Whites

Negroes Under Over 20 20

Indians Under Over 20 20

Under 10

10-20

20-70

70+

Windham New London Hartford New Haven Litchfield Fairfield

1.06 1.03 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.08

1.09 1.07 1.07 1.12 1.06 1.07

0.92 0.95 0.94 1.00 1.11 1.03

0.85 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.90

1.57 1.19 1.11 0.97 1.16 1.04

1.21 1.31 1.84 1.48 1.62 1.53

0.91 1.20 1.00 1.42 1.00 0.44

0.84 0.58 0.71 0.56 0.73 1.19

Colony

1.04

1.08

0.98

0.91

1.12

1.50

1.10

0.65

Town of New Haven

1.08

1.06

1.09

1.24

0.94

1.25

3.50

0.00

County

common than females. Under the age of twenty there were 1.12 males for each black female; over twenty, the sex ratio increased to a rather surprising 1.50. Regionally, only the county and town of New Haven showed any evidence of a surplus of black females, and in both cases the excess was in the group under twenty years of age. Among the Indians, there was a surplus of males among those under twenty, and an even more marked excess of women in the group over age twenty. The sex ratios of the two groups were 1.10 and 0.65 respectively. The differences which existed between one county and another were real, but seem to have been without any pattern, and may best be explained by random variations associated with small numbers. The sex ratio among younger whites was similar to younger nonwhites, with males more common than females. However, among the 93

Population of the British Colonies whites between the ages of zero and nineteen, the sex ratios were better balanced than among either Negroes or Indians. Whites under ten years of age had a sex ratio of 1.04, while the comparable figure among those persons age ten to twenty was 1.08. In both groups, geographic variations were much smaller than among the non-whites, and they too seem to have been without apparent order. Among the older whites, females gradually came to predominate. The sex ratio of whites between the ages of twenty and seventy was 0.98; above the age of seventy women outnumbered men by 100 to 91. Whether this was the result of better health among the women or the emigration of males cannot, at this point, be definitely determined. However, it is apparent that males were more common than females in the age group twenty to seventy in the western counties and in the south central region around New Haven. This contrasts with the slight female surplus in the other three counties, and suggests that adult men in Connecticut may have been moving from the northeast to the southwestern part of the colony. Above the age of seventy, women outnumbered men in every county, and were in the minority only in the town of New Haven. This latter fact is rather surprising, given the preponderance of women in the adult populations of both Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and Boston. Perhaps since New Haven was relatively smaller than the other port cities it was less attractive to widows. Marital Status One of the most unusual aspects about the Connecticut Census of 1774 was that the marital status of every white individual above the age of ten was recorded. Table III-ll presents an analysis of this data. The first point to note is that relatively few persons of either sex married before the age of twenty. Only 0.9% of the males and 3.1% of the females between the ages of ten and twenty were married in 1774. If we assume that at least 15% of this age group must have been eighteen or nineteen, the extent to which marriage was postponed until after age twenty becomes obvious. The highest proportions married in this group were in Litchfield County, Connecticut's last frontier, but even there most persons waited until they were at least twenty before they married. Among whites between the ages of twenty and seventy, about threequarters of all the people were married, regardless of sex. Males in this age group were wed 74.8% of the time, while the comparable figure for the women was 73.5%. In keeping with patterns of marriage which seem to have been common in the colonies, the proportion of adult 94

JVeio Enghnd men who were living with their wives remained fairly constant from one region to another, while considerable contrasts occurred among the women.23 The proportion of males in this age group who were wed ranged between 73.2¾ and 76.5¾; the similar figures for women of the same age showed a minimum of 69.8¾ and a maximum of 80.9%. Relatively more men than women were married in the three northeastern TABLE III-ll PERCENTAGE MARRIED BY AGE (CONNECTICUT, 1774, WHITES ONLY)

County

Age 10-20 Male Female

Age 20-70 Female Male

Age 70+ Female Male

Windham New London Hartford New Haven Litchfield Fairfield

0.5 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.4 0.8

2.4 3.4 2.8 2.8 4.9 2.8

74.4 73.2 73.6 73.4 75.9 76.5

69.8 70.3 70.9 74.0 80.9 78.7

75.6 74.1 70.7 65.9 73.2 74.5

40.2 40.7 44.8 38.7 46.0 41.9

Colony

0.9

3.1

74.8

73.5

72.2

42.2

Town of New Haven

0.1

2.9

66.9

72.7

52.2

32.4

counties, whereas the opposite was true in New Haven, Litchfield, and Fairfield counties. Just as in New Hampshire, and probably elsewhere as well, the explanation for this regional pattern and the greater variation in the proportions wed among women seems closely tied to changes in the sex ratios.24 As was observed above, women outnumbered men in the northeastern part of the colony, and were in a minority elsewhere in the age group between twenty and seventy. Thus men appear to have married at a fairly constant rate throughout the colony, but the chances of a woman marrying depended on the number of eligible males present. When men were relatively common more women married, but when men were scarce there were more spinsters and widows. It is interesting that men over seventy had wives about as often as younger adult males, but only 42.2¾ of the women over seventy were wed, a sharp contrast to the proportion in the group between twenty and seventy. While the surplus of women in this age group clearly accounts for part of this difference, it does not explain all of it. If all 23 24

Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns," 428-34. Ibid., 434-39; see above pp. 74-78.

95

Population of the British Colonies the married men who were seventy or older had wives of the same age group, then the proportion married of the old women would have been 65.7%. What this clearly suggests is that widowers remarried more than widows, and that when the men remarried they took younger wives.25 Two further points should be mentioned. First, in almost every instance the proportions married in New Haven were the lowest, or nearly so, of any region in the colony. Perhaps the attraction of the city for single persons was present even in 1774. Second, 68.3¾ of all males and 67.5¾ of all females in the white population were single in 1774. The figure for the men is very close to the similar proportion of 65.5¾ found in New Hampshire in the same year. But Connecticut women seem to have married less often than their New Hampshire counterparts, as only 61.2% of the latter were without husbands in 1774. Here, too, the sex ratio may explain the difference, for men were in the majority in New Hampshire, but in Connecticut potential brides outnumbered the available husbands, with the result that fewer women married. RHODE ISLAND

Rhode Island, like Connecticut, was founded by religious dissidents and land-hungry men who found Massachusetts Bay too confining. The turbulent and uncertain first years of the colony ended, at least partially, in 1663 when Rhode Island received recognition as a colony by royal charter. This charter was much like that of Connecticut, giving the Rhode Islanders considerable power over their own affairs. Perhaps the settlers of Rhode Island were more individualistic than the other New Englanders, or perhaps their economic dependence on trade forced them to take stands on imperial issues, but whatever the reason, Rhode Islanders took advantage of their local autonomy to be one of England's least cooperative American provinces. Suitably enough, Rhode Island ended her ties with Great Britain by a unilateral declaration of independence two months before the rest of the colonies took action.26 2 5 Ibid., 433-34. 26 Rhode Island's colonial history has not received the detailed treatment of other New England colonies, but readers should find Andrews, Colonial Period, 11, Chaps, ι and 11, and Dunn, Puritans and Yankees, passim, helpful for the early years. For the 18th century, James B. Hedges, The Browns of Providence Planta­ tions: Colonial Years (Cambridge, Mass., 1952); and David S. Lovejoy, Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution (Providence, 1958) are helpful.

96

New England In view of Rhode Island's history of going her own way, it is rather surprising to find that more censuses were taken in that colony than in any other New England province. Surprising, too, is the fact that the first count was made in 1708, when the Board of Trade was trying to curtail the powers of colonies like Rhode Island.27 Censuses also exist for the years 1730, 1748-49, 1755, and 1774.28 Why the colonial leaders cooperated with the requests for information on population is a mystery. Perhaps they felt that by going along with requests which seemed unimportant, they would find it easier to oppose policies of more consequence to them politically and economically. Although no other reasons suggest themselves, such an explanation for Rhode Island's five censuses is clearly speculation at present. Size and Growth Between 1708 and 1774 the population of Rhode Island increased over eightfold, from 7,181 to 59,607, as is shown in Table 111-12. The average rate of increase for the total population in this period was 3.2% a year. However, the rate of growth before 1755 seems to have been somewhat higher than after the outbreak of the French and Indian War. The growth rate among the whites, which had been over 3% a year between 1708 and 1755, fell to an average of 2.2¾ between 1755 and 1775. The rate of increase among the black population appears to have been rather erratic. However, as will be seen shortly, there is reason to believe that the census of 1748 omitted some blacks, while the 1755 count may have grouped Indians and Negroes together. If this is so, then the rates of increase among whites and blacks were much the same. Over the entire period studied here the growth rates for whites and blacks were 3.2% and 3.3% a year respectively; the comparable figures between 1730 and 1774 were 2.9% and 2.4%. Apparently the Indian element of the population did not share the conditions conducive to rapid increase, for the 985 Indians counted in 1730 had increased to only 1,479 in 1774, a period during which the white population increased almost fourfold. In looking at the geographic distribution of population in Rhode Island, we will concentrate on the demographic characteristics of the leading cities of Newport and Providence. County-by-county breakdowns were not included in the censuses, and so are omitted here. As 27

Demos, "Bristol," shows that at least one local census was taken in that colony as early as 1689. There is, however, no evidence to suggest this was part of the count covering the whole province. 28 The Rhode Island Census of 1730 is printed in Century of Pop. Growth, 162, but is erroneously labeled as the 1748 count; see CO. 5/1268/38.

97

7,181 17,935 31,778 40,536 59,607

Total Population

Excluding Indians.

1708 1730 1748-49 1755 1774

Year

3.9 3.3 4.1 1.9

Total Population'1

3.7 3.4 3.3 2.2

Whites

6.1 1.3 11.6 -1.3

Blacks

Average Annual Rate of Increase Since Previous Census 1

0.6

—

1.4

Indians

POPULATION (RHODE ISLAND, 1708-1774)

TABLE III-12

30.7 25.9 17.4 16.7 15.3

Percentage in Newport

20.1 21.8 10.9 7.8 7.3

Percentage in Providence

49.2 52.3 71.8 75.5 77.3

Percent­ age in other Towns

New England is evident in Table 111-12, Newport and Providence dominated the colony throughout the first part of the eighteenth century. In 1708 over half of the population lived in those two towns, with 30.7% in Newport alone. By 1730 the majority lived outside the two main towns, but Newport with 25.9% of the total population and Providence with 21.8% were still the centers of life in Rhode Island. By 1748-49, the proportion of the people living in these two cities had dropped to 28.3%, and by 1774 to only 22.6% of the total. This change was rather sudden, occurring mostly between 1730 and 1748. The obvious reason is that the number of towns increased in the eighteen years between these censuses from ten to twenty-four. Presumably much of this was the result of old communities recognizing the awkwardness of their growth and subdividing for the sake of convenience.29 The average number of persons in a town fell from 1,794 to 1,324 in the same period. But some of this change must also have been related to a movement away from Narragansett Bay into the interior. Nonetheless, even in 1774 Rhode Island was dominated by her two main towns in a way no other New England colony was, with Newport alone more important demographically in her colony than Boston was in Massachusetts. Race As in the rest of New England, most of Rhode Island's population was white. But the dominance of the whites was less complete here than in the colonies discussed above. Table 111-13 indicates that, as early as 1708, 5.9% of the population was black. Thereafter non-whites increased rapidly to 14.7% of the total population in 1730, before decreasing slowly to 8.6¾ by 1774. Unfortunately the censuses are somewhat erratic in the way they treated the non-white population. The proportion of blacks in Newport in 1748 is so different from that of any other year that it suggests many Negroes were omitted from that census. Similarly, the rise of blacks in 1755 may be real, but it may also have been the result of counting Indians and Negroes together, since the ratio of whites to blacks in that year was virtually the same as the ratio of whites to blacks and Indians combined in 1748-49 and 1774. Although the exact proportions may be in doubt, it is clear that the non-white people of Rhode Island were more prominent than were their brothers elsewhere in New England, and that Negroes outnumbered Indians, even though the latter were relatively more numerous in Rhode Island than elsewhere in New England. Actually, the num29

Kenneth Lockridge has described such a situation in Massachusetts in A New England Town (New York, 1970).

99

Population of the British Colonies bers of Indians living there is to be expected, in view of the fact that neighboring counties in both Connecticut and Massachusetts also contained relatively large numbers of red men. Whether the early example of Roger Williams' friendly relations with the Indians was still remembered by the middle of the eighteenth century is an open question, but for some reason the Indians who lived in New England tended to concentrate in the area where Williams lived and worked. TABLE 111-13 RACIAL COMPOSITION (RHODE ISLAND, 1708-1774) Year

White

Black

Indian

{%)

{%)

(%)

1708 Colony Newport Providence

94.1 90.0 99.5

5.9 10.0 0.5

—

'30 Colony Newport Providence

85.3 82.8 94.7

9.2 14.0 3.3

5.5 3.2 2.1

48-49 Colony Newport Providence

89.5 96.8 92.0

6.6 2.0 6.5

4.0 1.2 1.5

'55 Colony Newport Providence

88.4 81.7 91.7

11.6 18.3 8.3

—

'74 Colony Newport Providence

91.4 86.0 91.4

6.2 13.5 7.0

2.3 0.5 1.6

The racial composition of the two main cities is a study in contrasts. Except in 1748, when the count may have been faulty, Newport had consistently larger proportions of non-whites than did the colony as a whole; Providence, on the other hand, tended to have fewer blacks and Indians than the colony throughout most of the period covered by the censuses. The two cities were rather similar in the proportion of Indians present, both having less than the provincial average. Newport 100

New England always had far more blacks in her population than did Providence, though by 1774 the latter town was catching up. Freemen, Servants, and Slaves While the numbers of blacks were regularly included in the censuses, the enumerators failed to distinguish between slaves and free blacks. In fact, only in 1708 was reference made to servitude of any kind. In that year the 426 blacks listed in the census were all described as black servants (presumably meaning slaves), and 55 white servants (0.8% of the total population) were also listed as residing in the colony. Little can be made of this beyond the fact that black servants outnumbered white servants by 7.75 to 1. Clearly Rhode Island had turned to Africa rather than Europe as the source of her bound labor by 1708, and there is little reason to assume that this pattern changed later. While the Rhode Island censuses did not distinguish slaves from free blacks, evidence from the census of 1774 suggests that not all blacks were slaves. In that year, 7.4% of the blacks were living in households headed by a black man or woman. Although it cannot be certain, it seems plausible that these Negroes were probably free. Even if this is true, however, slavery was the lot of most Rhode Isand blacks as late as 1774. Age Data on the age composition of the Rhode Island population were included only in the censuses of 1755 and 1774, and that of 1755 was more comprehensive; information was given for the total population, whereas only the age of whites was given in the last census. As Table 111-14 shows, about half the white population was under the age of sixteen in 1755. Of interest is the fact that the proportion of children in the population declined from 49.4% in 1755 to 46.0% in 1774. Since it seems unlikely that a large immigration of adults occurred at this time, the most plausible alternative explanation is that fertility began to decline, resulting in fewer children and an older population. This interpretation would fit well with the evidence on the growth rate discussed earlier, where it was shown that the rate of increase declined after 1755, perhaps as the result of fewer births. A decline in fertility is also suggested by the fact that the number of children per woman in the white population fell from 1.99 in 1755 to 1.63 in 1774. 101

Population of the British Colonies The age composition of the black population in 1755 was also heavily weighted toward children, but the proportion of 45.9¾ under the age of sixteen was 3.5% less than the comparable figure among the whites. Likewise, the ratio of children to women among blacks (1.70) was also lower than the comparable figure for whites in 1755. Recall, however, that the census of 1755 may have grouped Negroes and Indians to­ gether as blacks, and thus may obscure significant differences in each of the separate groups. TABLE III-14 AGE COMPOSITION (RHODE ISLAND, 1755 AND 1774) Whites (%) Underl6

Over 16

1755 Colony Newport Providence

49.4 39.7 48.6

50.6 60.3 51.4

1774 Colony Newport Providence

46.0 40.3 42.6

54.0 59.7 57.4

Blacks {%) Under 16

45.9 40.0 43.9

Over 16

54.1 60.0 56.1

When the evidence of the age pyramids in the cities is examined, the relatively old population in Newport stands out. Among whites and blacks, in 1755 and 1774, the proportion of children in Newport was 5 to 10% less than in Rhode Island as a whole. The age structure in Providence in 1755 was much closer to the provincial standard than it was to Newport's, although by 1774 the Providence population had aged considerably, bringing that city closer into line with Newport, and much less like the rest of the colony. The ratio of children per woman suggests that fertility in Newport was below the provincial norm. In 1755 there were only 1.34 children per woman and in 1774 the figure had fallen to 1.23, in both cases well below the Rhode Island averages of 1.99 and 1.63 respectively. Providence, however, had much the same ratios as the colony in this regard, 1.90 in 1755 and 1.60 in 1774. Sex Ratios In view of the changing age composition noted above, the evidence on the balance between the sexes takes on added interest, for it too

New England suggests declining fertility rather than immigration as the cause of the change. As is indicated in Table 111-15, the sexes were very closely balanced in 1755. Among the whites, the sex ratio was 0.97 for children TABLE III-15 SEX RATIOS (RHODE ISLAND, 1755 AND 1774) Whites Under 16 Over 16 1755 Colony Newport Providence

0.97 1.01 0.87

1.03 1.04 1.01

1774 Colony Newport Providence

1.03 0.95 1.02

0.91 0.80 1.16

Blacks Over 16 Under 16 1.06 1.01 0.80

1.01 1.17 0.96

,

and 1.03 for adults. There was a slight surplus of black males among both children and adults, amounting to only 6 extra boys for each 100 girls, and 1 extra man for each 100 women. If changes in the age distribution were caused by immigration, one would expect to find the adult white sex ratio rising, reflecting an influx of males. In fact the opposite occurred. The sex ratio of adult whites dropped sharply from 1.03 in 1755 to 0.91 in 1774. If, as seems probable, this reflects the emigration of males either to the west or to the sea, then a general decline in fertility might well have followed, the result of fewer women with the opportunity to wed. The sex ratios in the cities differed from the colonial average, from each other, and over time, but the changes which occurred seem to be without any clear pattern. In Newport, for example, a slight male surplus in 1755 gave way by 1774 to a predominantly female population. The sex ratio of 0.80 among the adults in the latter year is one of the lowest figures observed so far for any white population. In Providence, in 1755, females were in the majority, as the almost perfect balance between the sexes among the adults was added to a large excess of girls over boys. By 1774 the sex ratios in Providence had moved in the direction opposite to those in Newport. More males, instead of less, characterized the Providence population by 1774. The sex ratio among children in that town was 1.02, while among adults the comparable figure was 1.16. Perhaps in this instance the aging of the Providence 103

Population of the British Colonies population can be better explained by an influx of adult males, rather than by reduced fertility, especially since it has already been seen that the number of children per woman in Providence was close to the Rhode Island average in both 1755 and 1774. Although no data exist which would make it possible to trace changes in the black sex ratios over time, it is interesting to observe that in 1755, at least, the sex ratios of the white and black populations were much the same in each community; Newport had a male surplus, while women were more common in Providence.

Family Size and Composition When the census of 1774 was taken, household-by-household lists were drawn up, and were preserved. They provide an opportunity to study in detail the size and composition of Rhode Island families just before the Revolution. Table 111-16 presents the average number of persons present in a household for the colony and for the two cities. The 9,450 families TABLE 111-16 HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND COMPOSITION (RHODE ISLAND, 1774) Means of Total Family Size Total White Adult White White Children Non-Whites Blacks N=

Colony

Newport

6.3 5.8 3.1 2.7 0.5 0.4

5.8 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.8 0.8

6.6 6.0 3.5 2.6 0.6 0.5

9,450

1,590

655

Providence

living in Rhode Island at that time contained an average of 6.3 persons. In Newport the mean family size was 5.8, while in Providence the comparable figure was 6.6. As would be expected from the racial composition, the majority of family members was white. Only in Newport, where the average number of blacks per household reached 0.8, did Negroes account for more than one person for every two families. Among whites in the colony as a whole, there were 3.1 adults and 2.7 children in an average household; in the cities, however, the average household had one more adult than child. 104

New England While figures on the average size and composition of families are of interest, they do not include a figure on how often families of a particular size were found. Nor does Table 111-16 indicate, for example, whether the higher average number of slaves in Newport households was the result of more slaves in a family or more families with slaves. In order to explore these and other questions, detailed evidence on household size and composition is given in Table III-17. Because the detailed lists for several towns have not survived, this information is based on only 9,092 families.30 Since the average size and composition of these TABLE III-17 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION BY REGION (RHODE ISLAND, 1774) Percentage Households with

Rhode Island

Newport

Providence

Rural Regions

1 Person 2-4 Persons 5-9 Persons 10 or more Persons

Total Size 1.4 3.6 30.2 39.0 51.2 43.4 15.8 13.9

32.0 51.2 17.0

1.1 29.8 53.0 16.0

No Whites 1-4 Whites 5-9 Whites 10 or more Whites

Total Whites 2.2 3.5 35.1 46.9 50.8 42.2 12.0 7.7

3.0 33.9 50.6 12.7

1.8 32.3 52.9 12.9

No Blacks 1-4 Blacks 5-9 Blacks 10 or more Blacks

Total 84.4 13.0 2.1 0.3

80.5 17.2 2.4

88.7 9.2 1.8 0.2

No Indians 1-4 Indians 5-9 Indians 10-11 Indians

Total Indians 95.0 97.1 4.3 2.8 0.6 0.1

95.3 4.1 0.7

94.5 4.6 0.7 0.2

7.2

75.0

Percentage of All Households in Region 30

100.0

Bhcks 68.0 28.1 3.3 0.6

17.7

The lists have been published in John R. Bartlett, arrang., Census of the Inhabitants of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (Providence,

105

Population of the British Colonies Rhode Island households, however, was found to be the same as the figures using the full 9,450 families listed in the census, I have assumed that these data are representative of the whole population. Perhaps the first point to note is the rarity of households with only one person. In the colony as a whole, only 1.4% of the households had one member. Although the comparable figure in Newport was 3.6%, the other principal city had no households with fewer than two persons. Large households (ten or more persons) were much more common, accounting for 15.8¾ of the total, and seem to have been found with relatively equal frequency in all parts of the colony. While both very large and very small households were relatively evenly distributed throughout Rhode Island in 1774, there were marked contrasts within the colony. In Newport, families of two to four persons were almost as common as those with five to nine members. Elsewhere, families of five to nine accounted for just over half the household, while those with only two to four members were always less than one-third of the total. As to the racial background of family members in Rhode Island, it is clear that, with regard to white members, households were very similar throughout the colony. This is in striking contrast to the frequency with which families had either blacks or Indians present. It has long been known that slavery was more common in Newport than anywhere else in New England, a view clearly substantiated in Table 111-17, where we find that 32.0% of all Newport households had slaves, and 3.9% had five or more. In contrast, the proportions of families with slaves in Providence and in the rest of the colony were 19.5% and 11.3% respectively. While Newport families were more likely to have slaves than other Rhode Island households, the opposite was true with regard to Indians. Only 2.8% of the Newport households had Indians present, and in no case were there more than two. In Providence, on the other hand, 4.8% of all households included Indians, and one had as many as seven. Rural families were even more likely to have Indians present, as 5.5% of the households outside of the cities had such members. The reasons for the differences in household size and composition are interesting. It has already been shown that living in colonial cities could produce patterns different from those found in the country. In addition, the information in the 1774 census allows exploration of the extent to which the race and sex of the head of the household may 1858; repr. Baltimore, 1969). In addition to using slightly fewer families, this detailed analysis was based on 1,612 Newport and 657 Providence households. These totals were larger for both towns than those given in the summary of the census, though the difference was not great.

106

New England

have been related to the numbers and kinds of persons living under him or her. Table 111-18 indicates that the race of the head of the household clearly influenced the composition of the family. To begin with, houseTABLE 111-18 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION BY RACE OF HEAD (RHODE ISLAND, 1774) Percentage Households with

All Rhode Island

Race of Head White

Black

Indian

Total Size I Person 2-4 Persons 5-9 Persons 10 or more Persons

1.4 30.2 51.2 15.8

1.4 31.1 51.5 16.1

8.7 54.8 33.4 3.3

3.2 44.7 47.9 4.3

No Whites 1-4 Whites 5-9 Whites 10 or more Whites

Total Whites 2.2 35.1 35.7 50.8 51.9 12.0 12.3

98.9 1.1

100.0

No Blacks 1-4 Blacks 5-9 Blacks 10 or more Blacks

Total Blacks 84.4 85.2 13.0 12.7 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.3

No Indians 1-4 Indians 5-9 Indians 10-11 Indians

Total Indians 95.0 96.0 4.3 3.9 0.6 0.1 a 0.1

Percentage of All Households a

100.0

97.9

65.6 31.3 3.3

95.7 3.3 1.1

1.0

91.5 8.5

47.8 47.9 4.2 1.0

One household headed by a white had ten Indians.

holds headed by whites were larger than those headed by blacks or Indians. The few households headed by non-whites were more likely to have only one person, or at most two to four people, and were less likely to have five or more members than were white families. Although most householders had under them only those who were members of

Population of the British Colonies the same race, it was more common for white heads to have non-white members under them than for blacks to have whites or Indians, or Indians to have blacks or whites under their control. This is not surprising in view of the presence of racial prejudice and race slavery in eighteenth century America. Just as race had an effect on the household, so too did the sex of the head. Families headed by women accounted for 8.9% of the total, and tended to be smaller than those headed by men. Whereas households of only one person accounted for only 0.7% of those headed by men, the comparable figure among the women was 9.1%. Likewise, 60.3% of the men's families had at least five members, and 17.1% had ten or more. Only 33.9% of female householders had five or more persons under them, and only 2.7% had a minimum of ten members. Much of this difference was the result of the presence or absence of children. While 19.1% of all Rhode Island families were childless, the comparable figures for men's and women's families were 16.6% and 44.8% respectively. As might be expected from these figures, only 3.2¾ of the women householders had five or more children compared to 23.0% among the men. It is interesting that the presence or absence of blacks or Indians in a family seems to have had little relationship to the sex of the head. Women heads had Indians in their families 6.0% of the time; men had them 4.9% of the time. Women had blacks living under them in 18.6% of all cases; 15.3% of the male householders had blacks present. Although families with ten or more blacks or the same number of Indians were rare, they were all headed by men. Military Status As war with the French threatened in the mid-1750's a number of colonies took stock of their military might. Rhode Island was no exception, and the census of 1755 reflects this concern. The population data were given in a table which also reported the men able to bear arms, enlisted soldiers, small arms, swords, pistols, powder, and balls. 31 An analysis of this data supports the conclusion reached above from the New Hampshire Census of 1775—namely, that many adult males were not ready to become part of a citizen army. The numbers of small arms and pistols in Rhode Island were less than the number of adult males. In fact there were only 62 firearms for each 100 white men over age sixteen. Swords were even scarcer, averaging only 0.26 per adult male. The supply of arms may well have helped to determine the size s 1 The full report is in C O . 5/1275/118-19.

108

New England

of the army, for there were 1.07 firearms for each enlisted soldier re­ corded in 1755. Swords were in short supply even in the army, for only 46 of each 100 soldiers could have had such a weapon. Thus the evidence once again suggests that every adult white male was not ready to go to war, in part, at least, because he was unarmed.

IV The Middle Colonies

N E W YORK

The colony which was to become New York was established by the Dutch West India Company in 1624. The first settlement of the province known as New Netherlands was at Fort Orange (Albany), where fur trading could be easily carried on with the Indians. Unfortunately for the Dutch, their colony was located between English settlements and hence vulnerable to expansion, especially from New England. Although only Virginia and Plymouth existed before the permanent settlement of the Dutch, the English colonies quickly proved stronger largely because they attracted immigrants, while a restrictive land policy and the dominance of the fur trade in New Netherlands discouraged most of the inhabitants of the Low Countries from moving to the New World. Finally, in 1664, the bitter commercial rivalry between the Dutch and English led Charles II to allow his brother James, Duke of York, to capture and keep the Dutch settlements which were dividing the English colonies. This initial, proprietary grant came to an end in 1685 when James became King of England, and the colony became a royal one.1 The change from a proprietary to a royal colony was followed in 1686 by a request from England for a census.2 Although some evidence remains to indicate that a few communities counted their inhabitants, little is known of the actual population of New York in 1686. After a special census taken in Albany County in 1697 to determine the losses in that region from war, the population of the whole colony was counted in 1698.3 From that date until the outbreak of the American Revolution, New Yorkers were subjected to repeated enumerations. 1

Andrews, Colonial Period, in, 35-137; Patricia Bonomi, A Factious People (New York, 1971), and A. C. Flick, ed., History of the State of New York, 10 vols. (New York, 1933-37) provide an adequate introduction to early New York history. 2 The history of the early New York censuses may be found in Franklin B. Hough, ed., Census of the State of New York for 185S (Albany, 1857), iii-viii. 3 Ibid., iv; the Albany Census of June 1697 is a list of all households in the county, and may be found in NYCM, vol. 42, 34. It will be used below in the analysis of households.

110

The Middle Colonies

The ten censuses taken in New York between 1698 and 1771 are tlie most extensive examination of population in any of the colonies on the North American continent.4 In fact, aside from the regular counts taken in Newfoundland, only Bermuda with eleven censuses and Barbados with ten paid such close attention to their population. The reasons for the frequent counting of the people of New York seem obvious. Most important was the fact that as the French replaced the Dutch as Eng­ land's chief foe after 1689, the burden of colonial defense on the con­ tinent fell on New York. The Hudson-Champlain valley made a natural military route to and from Canada, and the New York censuses may well reflect an interest in the manpower available to fight the French. In addition, the governors of New York were often military men, and hence may have carried out the requests of the Board of Trade for enumerations just as they would have obeyed any order. Finally, the population of New York was more heterogeneous than that of any other colony, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania after about 1750. The English government may have had a particular interest in following the growth and development of this foreign element, given the peculiar military burdens New York had to bear. Size and Growth

Between 1698 and 1771 the population increased over ninefold, as is evident from Table IV-1. The 18,067 people living in the colony in 1698 had risen to 168,007 just 73 years later, a rate of growth over the entire period of 3.1¾ a year. This rapid increase is of some interest in view of the oft-held assumption that large land grants in New York kept down the population, but in fact the censuses suggest that growth took place just as rapidly in the eighteenth century as it did in most other colonies. However, New York's total population remained lower than that of Massachusetts or Pennsylvania, largely because no largescale immigration occurred in the early years of the colony's history. While the rate of growth was relatively high between 1698 and 1771, 4

All ten New York censuses have been printed in Century of Pop. Growth, 17083. Minor errors have been discovered for the counts of 1723, 1737, 1746, 1756, and 1771 and have been corrected here. However, in most instances, these errors would not change the demographic picture in any significant way. In addition, detailed data for Kings County in 1712 was added from NYCM, vol. 57, 176, 179. The census of 1731 was copied from Rip Van Dam's abstract of 1731 with only one minor mistake. However, Van Dam himself made some serious errors in tran­ scribing the data from the sheriffs' reports. Thus a corrected copy has been made from the sheriffs' counts which Van Dam sent to England and which are in the Public Record Office C.O. 5/1055/215-25. See Table I-I above.

Ill

Population of the British Colonies TABLE IV-I NEW YORK POPULATION, 1698-1771 Average Annual Rate of Increase Since Previous Census {%)

Year

Total Population

White (%)

Black (*)

Total Population

1698 1703» 1712-1411723 1731 1737 1746 c 1749 1756 1771

18,067 20,665 22,630 40,564 50,242 60,437 61,589 73,348 96,584 168,007

88.0 89.1 87.0 84.8 85.7 85.2 85.2 85.6 86.2 88.2

12.0 10.9 13.0 15.2 13.3 14.8 14.8 14.4 13.8 11.8

2.7 0.9 5.8 2.8 3.1 — 1.6 3.9 3.7

Whites

2.8 — 3.2 2.8 3.0 — 1.6 4.0 3.8

Blacks

1.9 — 4.8 1.9 3.6 — 1.4 3.3 2.7

By County, 1749 County New York Richmond Kings Queens Suffolk Westchester Orange Ulster Dutchess Albany a b c

Percentage of Total 18.1 2.3 3.1 10.8 12.8 14.6 5.8 6.6 10.8 14.5

White (%)

Black (%)

82.2 81.0 65.7 83.3 86.3 89.2 91.5 79.1 94.7 86.1

17.8 19.0 34.3 16.7 13.7 10.8 8.5 20.9 5.3 13.9

Lists 125 persons over age 60 without indicating race or sex. Details on composition missing for Richmond Co. No data for Albany Co.

the evidence suggests that it may have fluctuated from one period to another. Between 1703 and 1712-14 the yearly increase in population was only 0.9¾, while the corresponding figure for the period between 1712-14 and 1723 was 5.8¾. It is possible, however, that these swings in the growth rate are more the result of errors in the censuses than a reflection of real trends. For example, Governor Bellomont reported in 1698 that some Justices of the Peace had neglected to count children 112

The Middle Colonies

and slaves,5 and both in 1703 and 1712-14 popular opposition arising from superstition and war prevented the enumeration from proceeding as planned.6 While the censuses were finally finished in both instances, it is possible that they were incomplete. Thus it may well be that the 1723 count of New York's population was more complete than earlier efforts. While it is my opinion that most of the uneven growth in the early years of census taking was the result of problems in trying to count everyone, it is possible that the growth rate did decline during Queen Anne's War, and recovered after the Peace of Utrecht in 1713. After 1723 the accuracy of the enumerations seems to have improved, except in 1746, when war prevented any count in Albany County. Dur­ ing the fifty years between 1723 and 1771, three cycles in the rate of increase seem to have occurred. Between 1723 and 1737 population grew at a rate equal to the overall average for the period 1698-1771. Between 1737 and 1749 the rate of increase slackened, perhaps be­ cause of war on the frontier, but after 1749 the number of people living in New York rose rapidly; the annual increase was just under 4.0¾ per year between 1749 and 1771.7 The result was a surge in the total popu­ lation of the colony from 73,348 to 168,007 in twenty-two years. It may well be that the quarter-century before the War for Independence saw a more rapid increase than at any other time in New York's history before 1775. Table IV-I also includes a county-by-county breakdown for the year 1749. The counties have been arranged as follows: New York City made up all but a minute part of the total population of New York County; hence the first entry may be seen as representing the city.8 Staten Island and the western end of Long Island constituted the coun­ ties of Richmond, Kings, and Queens, while the eastern part of Long Island was known as Suffolk County. Immediately north of the city was Westchester County, while across the Hudson on the west bank was Orange County. Ulster County was north of Orange, and Dutchess up the Hudson above Westchester. Albany County included the north­ ern frontier and the oldest settlement (Albany) in the province. One of the most interesting aspects about the geographic distribu5

C.O. 5/1041/269. C.O. 5/1048/no. 59; C.O. 5/1050/no. 51. 7 N.Y. Docs., vi, 509, 524-25 indicates that Governor Clinton had some difficul­ ties in getting the census of 1749 taken without pay, and that these problems may have led to careless counting. This may, however, have been Clinton's grumbling because the population characteristics in that year are in accord with other data for the 18th century. 8 For example, in 1712, out of 5,841 persons living in New York County, only 24 lived outside the city; NYCM, vol. 57, 180. 6

Population of the British Colonies

tion of population in New York was the lack of dominance of any one region in 1749. New York City and County contained 18.1¾ of the total population, only slightly more than Westchester and Albany counties. The four counties most distant from the city (Suffolk, Ulster, Dutchess, and Albany) held 44.6% of the inhabitants. Only Richmond, Kings, Orange, and Ulster counties were significantly smaller than the rest, and two of them were in the neighborhood of the city. While the pop­ ulation in 1749 was relatively evenly distributed, this was not always the case. In 1703, for example, the area around New York City was dominant. New York County, with 21.2% of the total, and Queens, with 21.3%, were larger than any other counties. In fact, these two political subdivisions, along with Kings and Richmond counties, held 54.2% of all New Yorkers. This, added to the 16.2% of the people living in Suf­ folk County, meant that only 29.6% of the people lived north of New York City. By 1771, however, a remarkable change had occurred. The four counties which had held over half the people in 1703 had their share of the population reduced to 23.4%. The proportion living north of the city had risen to 68.8%, with Albany County alone containing 25.4% of the people. In fact, the frontier regions of Albany, Dutchess, and Ulster counties, plus those areas claimed by New York in what was to become Vermont, held 49.8% of all the colony's inhabitants. Thus the eighteenth century saw a clear trend for the people of New York to move up the Hudson, away from New York City and Long Island, the earlier centers of population. Of equal interest is the fact that this movement seems to have left the composition of the popula­ tion of each county untouched. The same regions had more blacks, men, and old people in 1771 as in 1703, with few exceptions. Thus, to avoid repetition, the detail presented below will focus only on the census of 1749.

Race

When the census was taken in 1698, at least 12.0¾ of the people of New York were Negro slaves. This figure is in all probability a mini­ mum, since Governor Bellomont indicated that some slaves were omitted in the counts that year. The censuses used the terms Negro, blacks, and slaves interchangeably, indicating that racial composition also reflects the extent of slavery in this colony.9 Although the peak proportion of slaves of 15.2% came in 1723, blacks made up 14.8% of 9 This conclusion is supported by the fact that of 1,956 households analyzed here, only two were headed by free blacks. Both of them were in New York City.

The Middle Colonies

the total as late as 1746. After that the number of slaves increased more slowly than that of the whites, until by 1771 blacks accounted for only 11.8% of New York's inhabitants. As Table IV-I suggests, the number of Negroes continued to increase at a brisk pace, but they were unable to match the surge in the white growth rate after 1749. The racial composition of the New York counties varied considerably in the eighteenth century. In 1749, for example, over a third of all the inhabitants of Kings County were blacks, a marked contrast to Dutchess County, where only 5.3¾ of the people were Negroes. By and large, the counties around New York City and on Long Island tended to have relatively more slaves than the northern regions. Of the counties in the Hudson river valley only Ulster, with 20.9¾ of its population black, and Albany County with a similar figure of 13.9¾, were comparable to the five southern counties in racial composition. The image of slavery declining outside of the New York City area is further substantiated by the fact that Suffolk, on the eastern end of Long Island, had the lowest proportion of slaves. Although the exact proportion of blacks in each county changed with the colonial total, the conclusion that slavery was more common around New York City than up the Hudson river valley seems valid for the entire period covered by the censuses. Of all the counties, only Orange, Ulster, and Queens showed any marked change between 1703 and 1771. In Orange County the proportion of blacks declined steadily from 12.6¾ in 1703 to 6.6¾ in 1771; in Queens the trend was just the opposite, with Negroes making up 9.7¾ of the total in 1703 and 20.4% in 1771. The population of Ulster County was only 8.9% black in 1703, but by 1749 the proportion had more than doubled to 20.9%. Appar­ ently, however, the experiment with slavery there was only temporary, for by 1771 the proportion of slaves in Ulster's population was down to 14.0%. Age Composition

Information on the age distribution of New York's colonial popula­ tion is especially abundant. In addition to dividing the population into adults and children, at the age of sixteen, several of the censuses indi­ cate the proportions under ten and over sixty. This information is given in Table IV-2 and in the text below. Furthermore, several of the lists made during the count of 1698 give the exact age of each person. These data, given in Table IV-3, not only allow study of the age pyramid in greater detail, but also help to clarify several points of uncertainty which arise from the aggregated census data.

43.1 49.0 40.7 48.1 49.6 50.0 53.0 45.3 50.2 47.9

38.7 52.7 49.1 48.1 49.1 47.9 47.6 46.2

notes Table IV-1. females.

b Includes

a See

New York Richmond Kings Queens Suffolk Westchester Orange Ulster Dutchess Albany

County

1698 1703 1712-14 1723 1746 1749 1756 1771

Year a

Under 16

56.9 51.0 59.3 51.9 50.4 50.0 47.0 54.7 49.8 52.1

61.3 47.0 50.9 51.9 51.0 52.1 52.4 53.8

Whites (%) Above 16

3.5 4.1 7.9 4.6 6.0 4.5 3.3 5.5 4.1 6.5

5.2 4.8 6.4 5.6

—

4.26

Males over 60

42.9 44.3 47.1 41.2 46.4 46.8 40.6 41.3 39.4 43.5

By County, 1749

36.7 35.3 35.3 45.9 43.6 45.4 42.6

Under 16

57.1 55.8 52.9 58.8 53.6 53.2 59.4 58.8 60.6 56.6

62.4 64.7 64.8 54.1 56.4 56.1 57.4

Blacks (%) Above 16

AGE DISTRIBUTION (NEW YORK, 1698-1771)

TABLE IV-2

3.7 9.2 4.2 5.9 5.9 10.3 9.3 8.8 7.5 6.2

7.8 6.4 6.5 8.0

Males over 60

1.44 1.97 1.56 1.79 2.04 2.14 2.28 1.76 2.15 2.10

1.32 2.32 1.88 1.89 2.01 1.90 1.89 1.79

Whites

1.45 1.85 2.48 1.56 2.04 1.94 1.42 1.73 2.10 1.76

1.21 1.30 1.20 2.06 1.74 1.89 1.63

Blacks

Children per Woman

The Middle Colonies

TABLE IV-3 DETAILED AGE DISTRIBUTION (NEW YORK, 1698)

Age

0- 4 5- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+ Age ending in

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Even Odd N=

Bedford and New Rochelle (?) (All inhabitants)

19.5 16.6 11.7 6.2 7.5 4.4 9.1 5.2 4.9 2.6 3.9 2.6 3.9 1.0 0.3 0.5

Westchester County (?) (Adult Males only)

10.0 21.6 17.0 13.9 6.2 12.0 8.5 0.8 3.1 5.8 0.8 0.4

Persons with ages ending in a given number (%)

15.6 9.1 14.0 10.1 12.0 11.7 7.5 7.8 7.5 4.7 56.6 43.4 385

24.7 5.8 8.1 5.4 10.4 12.7 11.2 6.6 9.7 5.4 64.1 35.9 259

SOURCES: New York Colonial MSS, vol. 42, pgs. 58 (1-3), 60a (1-3), 60b (1-6).

Two points stand out regarding the age composition of the New York population. The first is simply that New York was similar to the other colonies examined so far in having a large number of children present. The second point is that among whites, at least, the proportion of the population under the age of sixteen declined steadily from 52.7%

Population of the British Colonies in 1703 to 46.2¾ in 1771, with the exception of a slight rise in 1746. The figure for 1698 suggests a much lower proportion of children than in later years, but this is probably the result of children having been omitted by some of the men doing the counting. In fact, manuscript returns for that year which give the exact age for 385 individuals show that 49.9¾ of the population was under sixteen. In addition to almost half the population being under sixteen in most years, about one of every three persons was under the age of ten. In 1731 and 1737 the traditional age categories were abandoned, for some unknown reason, in favor of groupings under and over ten. In 1731 the proportion under 10 was 32.8¾, while six years later it had fallen slightly to 32.6¾. This decline is in keeping with the evidence on changes in the proportions under sixteen, and had probably been going on for some time, since the detailed data in Table IV-3 for 1698 shows that 36.1¾ of the people studied there were under 10, 4¾ more than in the 1730's. It is of some interest to note that, after 1703, the number of children per woman in the white population remained much steadier than the proportion under sixteen. In 1712-14, 1723, 1749, and 1756 there were between 1.88 and 1.90 children for each adult woman among the whites. Yet the proportion under sixteen decreased from 49.1¾ in 1712-14 to 47.6¾ in the count of 1756. Possibly declining fertility helped reduce the proportion of children by 1771, but before that women seem to have had children at much the same rate throughout the eighteenth century. One possible explanation for an increased proportion of adults with no decrease in childbearing is the immigration of adult males. Evidence on the sex ratio suggests that such a movement did occur (see below), but such a conclusion is also suggested by data on age. Normally, when almost half the population is under sixteen and migration is very minor, the proportion of the population over sixty will be under 4.0¾ when growth is as rapid as it was in New York.10 Yet in New York roughly 5 to 6% of the males were listed as over the age of sixty. This apparent superabundance of older men suggests that the adult male part of the population was being reinforced from outside the colony. It is interesting that the one census (1712-14) which also listed women over sixty separately showed the lowest per cent over that age—the figure was 4.2¾. There was a more normal (smaller) proportion over sixty for women than for men, perhaps because the women were not being reinforced by immigrants. Hence, when the two sexes are treated together, the proportion over sixty falls to a more normal level. The possibility of immigration is further borne out by the data in Table IV-3. In populations which are growing without the aid of immigra1

O Coale and Demeny, Model Life Tables, 138, r = 30.00.

118

The Middle Colonies

tion, it is normal to find that older age groups comprise a smaller proportion of the people than younger groups. Yet among the people from Bedford and New Rochelle the proportion between thirty and thirty-nine was considerably above that of those forty to forty-nine, and higher than those aged twenty to twenty-nine. This clearly sug­ gests that there was an influx of middle-aged persons in those two communities. While migration may account for peculiarities in the age distribution, it is also possible that they were at least partially the result of uncer­ tainty about age. The data from 1698 on the age of each individual suggest that knowledge of age was imprecise, particularly among older persons. If age was accurately reported, then we should expect to find about 10% of all people with ages ending in zero, another 10¾ with ages ending in one, 10% ending in two, and so forth. However, as the bottom of Table IV-3 shows, some ages were clearly given much more often than others. In Bedford and New Rochelle 15.6¾ of all persons were reported as having an age ending in zero. Another 14.0% had ages ending in two. In contrast, persons whose reported ages ended in six, seven, eight, or nine were underrepresented in the population. Even more striking was the concentration of Westchester adult males into ages ending in zero; 24.7% of these men reported themselves as having an age evenly divisible by ten, with 11.6% indicating they were forty or sixty. Ages ending in even numbers were preferred by 64.1% of the men. While it cannot be determined whether such concentrations into rela­ tively few ages arose from choice or ignorance, it is clear that all New Yorkers did not report their true age. It would be unwise, however, for historians of colonial America to overemphasize the importance of small abnormalities in age distribution. The colonists clearly had some idea of their ages, but it was not always precise. Fortunately the New York censuses also included data on the age composition of the blacks. One of the first points to note from Table IV-2 is that children were less common among the black population than among the whites. This was true in every year a census was taken, even though the proportion of slaves under sixteen increased from about 35% in the first quarter of the eighteenth century to about 45% by mid-century. The black population became more like the whites in this regard, but remained older nonetheless. As the number of children per black woman suggests, childbearing among the slaves was lower than among whites (except in 1746), and hence it is not surprising that children were less common in the population in bondage. Here, too, the pattern changed over time toward a greater similarity between whites and blacks. More surprising than the lower fertility of blacks

Popuhtion of the British Colonies is the proportion of male slaves over sixty. Betweeen 6.4¾ and 8.0% of all black men were reported as above sixty after 1746. Perhaps this was the result of heavy importations of adult males as slaves, but it may also be true that the age of Negroes was even less accurately recorded than that of whites. The only evidence about the age of Indians living in New York comes from Suffolk County in 1731, when 715 Indians were listed. The age distribution of the group put them between the white and black populations, as 31.6% of the Indians in Suffolk County were under ten in that year, compared to 32.8% of the whites and 30.2% of the blacks. The differences in the age composition of the various New York counties in 1749 are of some interest. The oldest white populations were in New York and Kings County, where the proportions under sixteen were 43.1% and 40.7% respectively. The other southern counties were actually slightly above the provincial norm of 47.9% for 1749, but none of them had as many as half the people between the ages of zero and fifteen. Only in the Hudson valley counties of Westchester, Orange, and Dutchess were more than 50% of the people under sixteen. It would be wrong to conclude that all the northern counties had a relatively high proportion of children, since the figure for Albany County was the same as the provincial average for 1749, while in Ulster there were even fewer children in relation to the adults. Nonetheless, there seems to have been some trend among the white population for the counties north of New York City to have a higher proportion of children than the counties near the city or on Long Island. There seems to be no particular pattern to the differences in the proportions of men over sixty, however. Among the black part of the population the situation was reversed. The southern counties, around New York City, generally had a higher proportion of slaves under sixteen than did the counties up the Hudson. Of the northern counties, only Westchester had a higher proportion of slave children than the colony as a whole, while New York and Queens were the only southern counties to fall below the provincial average in this regard. At least part of the reason for differences in age composition was variation in childbearing, as the data on the number of children per woman indicate. Four of the five northern counties with younger white populations (and which were growing faster too) had over two children per adult white woman. In contrast, of the five southern counties only Suffolk, on the extreme eastern end of Long Island, had such a high number of children for each woman. In New York City fertility seems to have reached a provincial low, as there were only 1.44 chil120

The Middle Colonies dren for each woman in the city. Childbearing among the blacks does not seem to have had the same effect on the age distribution of that group. High and low numbers of children for each slave woman can be found both around the city and on Long Island, and up the Hudson as well. This suggests that the age distribution of the blacks was determined both by the purchasing of adult male slaves by masters and by the fertility patterns of Negroes themselves; among the whites fertility was predominant. It is of particular interest to note that in six counties (New York, Richmond, Suffolk, Westchester, Ulster, and Dutchess) the fertility of black and white women was almost identical, even though the proportions of children in the white and black parts of the population were quite different. Sex Ratios We have argued above on the basis of growth rates and age composition that New York may have received an influx of adult, white males after about 1740. The ratio of men to women in Table IV-4 supports this conclusion. With the exception of 1703, boys always outnumbered girls in the white population. The situation was different for the adults, however, as the sex ratio fluctuated between a surplus of men and a dominance of women before 1746. Between 1737 and 1746 a slight surplus of women ended, and by the latter year there were 109 men for each 100 women. From then until 1771 the sex ratio for adult whites ranged between 1.07 and 1.09, higher than at any time since 1703. What the censuses seem to suggest is that migration produced a surplus of adult males in the late seventeenth century. For some reason, however, the first four decades of the eighteenth century saw this pattern change as women became the majority, a position they retained until the probable migrations into New York after 1740 once again led to a male majority. The black population was even more heavily weighted toward men than were the whites. The only instance of a female surplus came in 1746, when there were 100 girls for each 89 boys. Otherwise, the ratio of boys to girls among the Negroes was close to or greater than that among the whites. However, the most obvious difference was in the balance of men and women. The highest sex ratio attained by the whites was 1.09, in 1746 and again in 1771. With the exception of 1703, black men outnumbered black women by at least 120 to 100. In 1731 and 1746 there were at least 140 adult male slaves for each 100 women in bondage. Apparently importations of slaves continued to bring extra men into New York until the War for Independence. 121

Population of the British Colonies As with age, the only evidence of the sex ratios of the Indian population comes from Suffolk County in 1731. Among the children under ten the ratio was 0.93, while among the adults men outnumbered women by 1.10 to 1.00. TABLE IV-4 SEX RATIOS (NEW YORK, 1698-1771) Whites Year11 1698 1703 1712-14 1723 1731 1737 1746 1749 1756 1771

Blacks

Children

Adults

Children

Adults

0.95 1.08 1.06 1.11 1.01 1.01 1.06 1.09 1.04

1.08 1.08 0.95 b 1.04 0.97 0.99 1.09 1.07 1.08 1.09

1.22 1.07 1.18 1.08 1.09 0.89 1.06 1.18 1.09

1.01 1.37 1.21 1.40 1.31 1.42 1.25 1.34 1.20

0.83 0.95 1.69 1.22 1.04 1.27 0.74 1.10 1.63 0.93

0.93 1.33 1.78 1.23 1.35 1.20 1.08 1.46 2.23 1.29

By County, 1749 County New York Richmond Kings Queens Suffolk Westchester Orange Ulster Dutchess Albany a b

0.99 1.02 0.89 1.05 1.05 1.11 1.07 1.13 1.10 1.05

0.90 1.05 1.28 0.93 1.07 1.14 1.03 1.13 1.13 1.28

See notes Table IV-I. Sex ratio of those over sixty equals 1.08.

One of the most interesting aspects of the sex ratios in the various counties in 1749 was that New York City had a surplus of women in every category—adult or child, white or black. The only other instances of females being in the majority were among the white children of Kings County, the white adults in Queens, and the Negro children in Richmond, Orange, and Albany counties. By and large, men were more common than women outside of New York City, regardless of age or race. Apparently the tendency for women to predominate in the city 122

The Middle Colonies affected the neighboring counties as well. Of the counties closest to the city, only Richmond had a majority of males among both white children and white adults. But the highest sex ratio there was only 1.05. Females made up over half the white children in Kings County and the white adults in Queens. In the remaining political subdivisions, farther from the city, the only cases in which the sex ratio dropped below 1.10 among the whites was in both children and adults in Orange County, and in Albany County among those under age sixteen. Thus those regions which were the fastest growing and had the youngest white populations also tended to have relatively more men than elsewhere. This association should not be surprising, given the relationships observed earlier between the sex ratios, marriage patterns, and fertility in Connecticut and New Hampshire. In view of the overall sex ratio among the blacks, it is not surprising that males predominated in every county except Orange and New York. In Orange County there were relatively few slaves of either sex (187 females, 173 males). The situation in the city is more startling, for slavery was relatively common there, but women were clearly preferred to men. Perhaps this reflects a greater use of house slaves in the city, and the fact that women were preferable for this kind of work. Certainly in the other counties, where slaves would be used as farm labor, adult male slaves outnumbered women, though only in Dutchess County did the sex ratio of blacks over the age of sixteen exceed 2.00. Although Kings and Orange counties were exceptions to the rule, the trend among blacks was for the sex ratio to rise as the distance from New York City increased. However, this trend was less pronounced among the blacks than among the whites, perhaps in part because males were so numerous in the slave population in general. Household Size and Composition Although no New York governor ever reported the number of families or households in the colony to London, fragments of the censuses in New York contain house-by-house lists which allow examination of family size and structure in some detail. Information exists for parts of the colony for 1697, 1698, 1703, and 1712-14. As noted earlier, the 1697 census focused exclusively on Albany County and was concerned with the impact of war on that region. The lists from the census of 1698 cover parts of the western end of Long Island plus areas of Westchester County; the data for 1703 are for New York City only; while the information for 1712-14 is from Orange and Dutchess counties.11 11

All these lists were preserved in American archives rather than being sent to

123

Population of the British Colonies Since only seventeen years separate the earliest from the latest list, it is possible to treat them together. The advantage of this is that every geographic region in the colony is represented by the 1,956 households studied here. In addition, the possible existence of rural-urban differences in household patterns can be explored, not only by contrasting the families in New York City to those found elsewhere, but also by taking advantage of the fact that the census of 1697 distinguished the families "in the corporation" of Albany from those outside the town. The study of New York families will begin by examining the size and composition of an average household, and turn later to the varitions in size and structure. Table IV-5 presents evidence on what averTABLE IV-5 MEAN HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND COMPOSITION (NEW YORK, 1697-1714) New York City 1703

Orange County 1712 Dutchess County 1714

0.04

6.2 5.4 2.0 3 3.2 a 0.2 b 0.8

5.4 4.5 2.2 2.2 — 1.0 0.7 0.3

6.7 6.1 3.0 3.1 — 0.6 0.4 0.2

316

690

818

132

Albany County 1697

Long Island and Westchester Co. 1698

Total Size Total Whites Adult Whites White Children Servants Total Slaves Adult Slaves Slave Children

4.6 4.6 2.1 2.5

N = a

N = 437

t> N = 380

age New York households were like around the start of the eighteenth century. The smallest households recorded here were those found in Albany County in 1697, where the average was only 4.6 persons. Initially this is somewhat surprising, in view of household sizes in New England and in the rest of New York. However, the explanation seems London. The 1697 and 1698 lists are in NYCM, vol. 42, 34, 52a (2-6), 52b, 53 (1-3),54,56,58 (1-3), 60a (1-3), 60b (1-9); vols. 57, 177 (1-2) and 59, 17 (1-2) contain the data for 1712-14. The information on 1703 was once in this collection, but was burned, and hence the published version is the only one we have; see Century of Pop. Growth, 170-80. The catalog of the New York State Library indicates that lists for 1771 also once existed, but they too were burned.

124

The Middle Colonies apparent. The census was taken at the end of a war to assess damage in Albany. Since the county had lost about 500 persons out of a total of about 2,000 in 1689, it is to be expected that household size might be somewhat smaller than usual.12 Incidentally, the average household in the town of Albany contained only 4.2 persons, compared to a figure of 5.2 in the rest of the county. It is tempting to see this difference as the result of a greater impact of war on the town of Albany, but data from the rest of the colony suggest that similar rural-urban differences were present elsewhere. In New York City the average size of the household was 5.4 persons. This was considerably smaller than Hudson valley households, which contained 6.7 persons on average. The households in the counties near the city fell between these two extremes, averaging 6.2 persons. Much of the difference observed here can be explained by the number of whites present in a household. The average in the various regions ranged from 4.5 to 6.1, a difference of 1.6 persons. The average number of whites per household in New York City and Albany County was almost identical, but the same was not true of slaves. Families in the city had more slaves on average than any other region in the province, while in Albany there were fewer. In fact, only seven families in Albany County had any slaves at all, and they all lived outside the town. In the end, however, perhaps the main point about slaves is that they were not present anywhere in large numbers. It might also be surmised that by 1703 households in Albany were much larger than in 1697, because the wartime losses in population had been made up by that year. Close examination of Table IV-5 shows that the numbers of white children and adults were rather closely balanced in the families living in New York City and up the Hudson. In contrast, in Albany, Long Island, and Westchester County children were more common than adults among the white members of households. Evidence on the number of adults and children among the black part of the population exists only for New York City and Dutchess and Orange counties. In both regions families contained about twice as many adult slaves as they did black children. In addition to studying the composition of an average household, it is also of some interest to examine how often small, medium, and large families occurred. Table IV-6 presents such a study. In the section of the table which deals with total size of the household, one is struck with the fact that about half of all New York households had from five to nine persons living in them. In New York City the proportion 12 Hough, ed., Census of 1855, iv; Greene and Harrington, American Population, 92, note b.

125

Popufotion of the British Colonies TABLE IV-6 HOUSEHOLD VARIATIONS (NEW YORK, 1697-1714) Neio York City 1703

Orange County 1712 Dutchess County 1714

Total Size 6.1 27.8 50.8 15.2

5.0 40.1 44.5 10.2

3.0 28.0 50.8 18.1

11.7 37.6 48.8 1.8

Total Whites 6.6 32.4 53.1 7.9

6.0 51.2 40.8 1.9

3.0 30.3 56.8 9.9

No children 1-4 children 5-9 children 10 or more

24.7 55.0 19.9 0.3

White Children 17.8 53.5 27.7 0.9

22.3 63.8 13.5 0.2

16.7 59.9 22.0 1.6

No slaves 1-4 slaves 5-9 slaves 10 or more

97.8 1.9 0.3

Total Slaves 66.1 30.4 3.2 0.2

58.7 36.7 4.2 0.3

75.8 20.5 3.1 0.8

Percentage Households With

Albany County 1697

1 person 2-4 persons 5-9 persons 10 or more

11.4 37.3 49.2 2.1

1 white 2-4 whites 5-9 whites 10 or more

Long Island and Westchester Co. 1698

of families with this many people was 44.5%, only 6.3% below the figure for the rural regions with the most families in that group. If we add families with two to four persons to those with five to nine members, we find between 78.6% and 86.5% of all households included in such a group. Rarely did persons live alone in New York around the start of the eighteenth century. Only in Albany County did the number of single-person households reach 11.4%. This may have been the result of husbands sending away their families in time of war, a conclusion which is borne out by the fact that there were more households without children in Albany than in any other region (see below). The other three regions studied here showed no more than 3.0 to 6.1% of all households with only one member. Except in Albany in 1697, families with ten or more members were more common than were single-mem126

The Middle Colonies ber households. Of the three regions unaffected by war, the lowest proportion of large households was in New York City, where only 10.2¾ had more than nine members. More of the rural households were as large as this. On Long Island and in Westchester 15.2¾ of all households had at least ten persons in them; the comparable figure for the Hudson valley was 18.1¾. In both these rural areas the largest households had twenty-three persons in them; in the city the biggest family was composed of twenty-one individuals. In Albany, where only 2.1¾ of all households had at least ten members, the largest contained thirteen. The image of smaller families in the city is borne out by the fact that 45.1¾ of all urban households had one to four members, whereas in the rural regions outside of Albany County no more than 33.9¾ of the families had less than five persons in them. Within Albany County the same pattern existed. In the corporation 58.4¾ of the households had one to four persons; outside the town, such small families accounted for only 37.1¾ of the total. When the figures for the total number of whites in a household are compared to those on total family size, the results appear to be remarkably similar. The most striking difference is that, when whites alone are considered, the proportion of households with ten or more individuals dropped markedly. On Long Island and in Westchester, in New York City, and in Orange and Dutchess counties the respective proportions of households with ten or more whites were 7.9%, 1.9%, and 9.9%; the corresponding figures for total size of the household were 15.2¾, 10.2%, and 18.1% respectively. Albany had so few large families that little change could occur in this regard. Apparently many of the larger households were big because they included slaves. This seems especially true in the city, where less than 2% of the families had over nine whites, but 10.2% of the households had at least ten members. It is interesting that very few single whites had blacks living with them, for the proportions of one-person households are much the same whether total size or total whites in a family are considered. Because of the youthful nature of New York's population, it is obviously of interest to inquire into the numbers of children in the colony's households. Although it may seem somewhat surprising to find that 16.7% to 24.7% of all households were childless, given the fact that about half the population was under sixteen, these figures are remarkably lower than the proportions of households without children in the island colonies which will be examined later. Also of interest is the fact that over half the families in each of the three regions studied here contained only one to four children. Households with large numbers of 127

Fopulation of the British Colonies children were not common, as only 0.2% to 1.6¾ of the families had ten or more children present at the time of the census. Even households with five or more children present were relatively youthful in the context of colonial society. This is especially true in the city, where only 13.7% of all households had five or more children. The rural areas also tended to small numbers of children, although families in each of the other three regions had five or more children present at least 20% of the time. In Albany County, households with more than four children accounted for only 16.2% of the total in the town, a figure well below the 25.2% of rural families with that many children. Given the low average number of slaves present in New York families, we might expect to find a sizable part of the population without slaves, and very few owners with large numbers of slaves. The bottom section of Table IV-6 supports these conclusions: the majority of all households had no slaves, regardless of the region studied. However, the proportion of slaveless households in the city, 58.7%, was well below the comparable figure for Albany County, 97.8%. In no region did the slave owners with ten or more slaves make up even 1.0% of all families. The largest number of slaves owned was twenty, by a family in the Long Island and Westchester group. The proportion of families with five or more slaves was highest in New York City, where the figure was 4.5%. In Orange and Dutchess counties the number of households with more than four blacks made up only 3.9% of the total; the comparable figures for Long Island and Westchester County, and Albany County were 3.4% and 0.3% respectively. Among New Yorkers who held slaves, the most common practice was to own between one and four blacks. Variations in household size and composition such as those observed above raise questions as to why the differences existed. It has become evident that location had some influence on family patterns, but equally important was who the head of the household was. Figures are available on the influence of the sex, age, and ethnic background of the head of the household on the size and structure of the family. Because the information on the sex of the head of the household is more complete, it will be discussed first. In view of the differences in families headed by men and women (see below), it is of some significance that 16.7% of the households in New York City were headed by women. This contrasts sharply with the rural regions, for women headed only 9.2% of the households in Albany County, 7.7% of the Long Island and Westchester households, and 4.5% in Orange and Dutchess counties. These differences are particularly interesting in view of the fact that women tended to have smaller households than men. For example, in Westchester County and 128

The Middle Colonies on Long Island 24.5% of the families headed by women had only one or two members; only 5.7% of the females had ten or more persons in their households. In contrast, males who headed families had only one or two members 11.4% of the time, while they had ten or more people in their households 16.0% of the time. In New York City, families with one or two members occurred 22.8% of the time when the head was female, but only 13.9% of the time among male heads of households. Large families, with ten or more persons, were found 6.6% of the time when the head was a woman, and in 11.0% of the cases when a male was in charge. The situation was the same in Orange and Dutchess counties. Families headed by women had under three or more than nine persons 16.7% of the time. Relatively fewer men (9.5%) headed small families, and more (18.4%) headed large households. In Albany County every household with ten or more persons was headed by a man. Almost half (48.3%) of the women headed households of one or two members, while only 22.7% of the men's households were that small. The tendency for women to have smaller households was the result of having fewer adult whites, white children, and slaves in their families than the men had. When the census was taken in Albany in 1697, one item noted was the ethnic background of all non-Dutch householders. Thus it is possible in this instance to see whether the ethnic background of the household head had any relationship to what his or her family might look like. Although English, Scotch, and French residents were noted separately, they have been treated here as a group (non-Dutch) simply because they accounted for only twenty households (6.3% of the total). The data indicate that non-Dutch households were larger, on average, than were Dutch families. The figures for the two groups were 5.6 and 4.6 persons respectively. The reason for this difference was largely the result of Dutch households containing an average of 2.5 children, while the non-Dutch families had 3.4 children on average. Non-Dutch households did have 0.1 more adult whites on average than did their Dutch counterparts, but this difference is not great. In contrast, all the slaves were owned by the Dutch, but the numbers were so small that the effect on variations in family size was negligible. In light of this evidence, it is tempting to assume that, in the context of the colony as a whole, the smaller Albany County families were the result of ethnic differences in family patterns rather than the ravages of war. However, in view of both the frequency of Dutch names in the other lists and the decline and subsequent recovery of population in Albany County between 1686 and 1703, such an explanation does not seem as plausible as that relating the small family size to war. 129

Population of the British Colonies The last factor to be considered here which clearly had an effect on household size is the age of the head. Although the available data is limited to thirty-two families recorded in the census of 1698, it is presented here because it is in agreement with similar and fuller information from St. Christopher and Barbados. The pattern which emerges is simple. When the head of the household was between the ages of thirty and fifty-four, families tended to be large. When the head was younger or older, families were smaller. The reason for this is equally clear— and is related to the presence of children in families. Every household headed by a person under thirty or over fifty-four had between zero and two children. In contrast, seventeen of the twenty-two (77.3%) householders between the ages of thirty and fifty-four had at least three children. Among the heads of families between the ages of forty and forty-four, every one had at least five children. This is to be expected, since heads of families of that age group would have been married long enough to have had most of their children, yet few children would have married and left home. The fact that only one family had one slave makes it impossible, in this instance, to examine the influence of age on the presence or absence of servants or slaves. However, it is clear from the data that the age of the head had little effect on the presence of white adults. Thus, in these thirty-two New York families in 1698, the age of the head of the family was related to household size, largely because age was also connected to the number of children born into and currently living in a family. It has often been assumed that most agricultural societies tended to favor large numbers of children to provide labor on the farm. Since slaves also provided labor in the English colonies in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it is of interest to see whether large numbers of slaves were present only when children were absent. Although there was a tendency for families with larger numbers of slaves also to have more children, the relationship was slight.13 Nonetheless, it does indicate that slaves and children were not alternative sources of labor. Perhaps of even greater importance is the fact that most households had relatively few of either. Families with zero to four children and zero to three slaves included 67.3% of all households in Westchester County and on Long Island. In Dutchess and Orange counties the comparable figure was 72.7%; for Albany County it was 79.4%. In the city, 80.3% of all households had less than five children and fewer than four slaves. Information on how many children and adults, how many blacks and « See below, Chap, vm, Table VIII-9.

130

The Middle Colonies whites lived in colonial households is in general all that can be retrieved from the colonial censuses. Yet it is entirely possible that such evidence obscures the complexity of colonial families. For example, two adults in a household would often be a husband and wife, but it could also be two brothers, an elderly parent and his adult child, or some other combination. One fascinating fragment of the census of 1698 allows us to explore for one small community some of the complex arrangements that households may assume. In counting the inhabitants of Bedford the enumerator noted down not only the name and age of each person in the town, but also the relationship of each individual to the head of the house in which he lived.14 The structure of the thirtytwo households in question has been summarized in Table IV-7. Of particular interest is the fact that, in addition to varying in size, households with equal numbers might be quite different in composition. Although it might be expected that larger families would be more varied than smaller ones, the opposite was actually the case. None of the households containing one to five persons were the same. If a nuclear family is defined as a husband and wife plus their children, but no one else, it appears that only seventeen of the thirty-two households (53.1%) fitted this pattern. However, fourteen of the seventeen families (82.4%) with five or more members were nuclear in their makeup. Three-generation families which included grandparents might be expected as the reason for the sizable proportion of non-nuclear families; in fact none existed in the particular community studied here. Only one case could be found where an elderly parent was living with a married child. This evidence clearly suggests that household patterns were far from standard in colonial New York. Presumably this had considerable impact on other social institutions at the time, but it is beyond the scope of this work to examine what the effects might have been. Two other points regarding the nature of family relations can be gleaned from the evidence from Bedford. First, the impression is clear that males dominated New York society in 1698. Children were listed after the father and mother, but almost always as "his." The one exception to this rule was in the household of an older couple where the eldest daughter was listed as "hers." The fact that three other girls were entered as "his" suggests that the oldest daughter was the result of an earlier marriage by the wife. In addition, in every family with sons the boys were listed before any girls, regardless of whether they were older or younger than their sisters. The second point is political. i" NYCM, vol. 42, pg. 58 (1-3).

131

TABLE IV-7 COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLD BY SIZE (NEW YORK, 1698) Households

with

1 person a. A single male, aged 26 2 persons a. Husband and wife in 60's b. Husband aged 32, wife aged 47 c. Widow of 35 and daughter d. Two single males in 20's e. Widow of 52 and son aged 24, son head of household f. Father of 75 and son aged 27, son head of household 3 persons a. Widow aged 29, two children aged 5 and 7 b. Husband of 24, wife of 19, and husband's mother, aged 60 c. Husband and wife in 20's, one child d. Two brothers in 50's and son of one, aged 20 4 persons a. Single man of 47, housekeeper of 57 and her two children b. Husband and wife in 30's, two children c. Husband and wife in 60's, daughter of 34, and a servant aged 13 d. Husband and wife in 20's, two children 5 persons a. Husband (33), wife (22), and three children b. Husband and wife in 30's, three children 6 persons a. Widower of 38 and five children b. Husband and wife in 30's, four children c. Husband and wife in 50's (remarried), four children d. Widow of 39, five children e. Husband and wife in 30's, four children f. Husband and wife in 40's, four children 7 persons a. Husband b. Husband c. Husband d. Husband e. Husband f. Husband

(40) and wife (37), five children and wife in 30's, five children of 50, wife aged 36, three children, one orphan, one slave and wife in 30's, five children (36), wife (29), five children and wife in 30's, five children

8 persons a. Husband (54), wife (36), six children b. Husband and wife in 40's, six children 11 persons a. Husband (43), wife (38), nine children

The Middle Colonies Of the individuals listed, twenty-four were noted as freeholders, with two in one family. Thus 71.8% of all households had at least one vote, though only 15.4% of the people were freeholders. By and large, the oldest male in the household was the freeholder, but exceptions occurred on occasion. In one instance a woman was the freeholder in her household, while in several other families the political rights had apparently been passed from older parents to mature sons. N E W JERSEY

The only other of the Middle colonies for which census data survive is New Jersey. The information in this instance is limited to three full censuses taken after 1726, and an enumeration of part of the province for 1772.15 The early history of New Jersey is particularly interesting here, for it helps to explain why no count was made before 1726, and indicates the logic behind the geographic comparisons to be made. The early years were unsettled, to say the least. Although a few Dutch, Swedes, and English had moved to the territory before 1664, it was only in that year that New Jersey became a separate colony. Originally in the hands of the Dutch and Swedes, New Jersey fell under English control at the time New York was conquered. Rather than keeping the land, James, Duke of York, granted the territory between the Hudson and Delaware rivers to two of his old friends, John, Lord Berkeley, and Sir George Carteret. Within twenty years of the initial grant both of the proprietors, or their families, had sold out to other groups. West Jersey came under the control of the Quakers in the 1670's and was settled by them. The eastern part of the colony was sold after Carteret's death in 1680 to another group of proprietors, again largely Quaker. But in East Jersey the population was much more mixed, for Dutch, English, New Englanders, and Barbadians all came to reside there. The fact that each of these groups settled in their own communities, coupled with a confused series of land grants and bad relations with 15

There are suggestions that at least two censuses were taken before 1726, but no record of them now remains. Daniel Lee's Almanack for 1701 gives the number of freeholders in West Jersey in 1699, evidence which may have come from a census in that year; see CO. 5/970/no. 23. In 1708 the governor of the colony, Lord Cornbury, reported that he had sent lists of population two and one-half years earlier, and was busy with a new census at the time; see CO. 5/970/nos. 12, 77. Neither of these enumerations has been preserved, if indeed they were ever made. Cornbury produced very little data for the Board of Trade, but in his defense it must be noted that some of his papers may have been lost in transit because of war. He was responsible for the 1703 count in New York, where he was also governor, and the only copy of that census was preserved in American archives.

133

Population of the British Colonies

the proprietor, left East Jersey in constant turmoil in the seventeenth century. The Quakers of West Jersey also ran into difficulties, as ques­ tions arose over who had the right to govern. By 1702 the situation was so confused that the Crown assumed control of both East and West Jersey, and appointed a royal governor for the colony as a whole. Because the governor was also Governor of New York until 1745, New Jersey received relatively little attention from her executive officers in the early part of the eighteenth century—running New York was a full-time job. As a result, even though censuses were taken in New York in 1703, 1712-14, and 1723, it was only after the Board of Trade specifically asked for information on New Jersey's population that the governor bothered to count the people in that part of the territory under his control.16 Size, Growth, and Distribution

When the first census was taken in 1726 the colony already had 32,442 inhabitants, 55.7% in East Jersey, and 44.3% in West Jersey (Table IV-8). The census of 1737-38 showed an increase of just over 14,000 people in under twelve years, a growth rate of 3.2¾ per year. The balance between East and West Jersey remained much the same as in the first census. After this census population increased at the rate of 3.7% a year until in 1745 there were 61,403 persons living in the colony. In addition, the majority of the population (52.0%) now lived in West Jersey, while the proportion living in East Jersey fell from 55.2% to 48.0%. The final census, taken in 1772, covered only those counties making up West New Jersey, since, as the governor reported, the county assessors in the other counties refused to enumerate the people without compensation. It may be that Governor William Franklin's idea of a census was too much for these men. Franklin showed the curiosity of his famous father, Benjamin, and requested more demographic data than was required in any other colonial cen­ sus.17 Quite possibly the assessors found it simpler to refuse to coop­ erate than to make such a thorough investigation. However, the returns for West Jersey indicated that 69,827 people were living in that part of the colony.18 The growth rate between 1745 and 1772 for West 16 N.Y. Docs., v, 777. Volume HI of Andrews, Colonial Period, contains a good short account of New Jersey's early years. For a fuller treatment, see the books by John Pomfret entitled, The Province of West Jersey, 1609-1702 (Princeton, 1956), and The Province of East Jersey, 1609-1702 (Princeton, 1962).

" C.O. 5/992/p. 101-2, 109. 18 The total cited here differs slightly from the version published in Potter, "Growth of Population," 659. In adding up the rows and columns, I discovered

The Middle Colonies TABLE IV-8 NEW JERSEY POPULATION, 1726-1772 Average Annual Rate of Increase Since Previous Census (%) Negro Total Whites Negroes {%)

Year

Total Population

1726 Total East Jersey West Jersey

32,442 18,062 14,380

100.0 55.7 44.3

92.0 89.4 95.4

8.0 10.6 4.6

1737-38 Total East Jersey West Jersey

46,676 25,776 20,900

100.0 55.2 44.8

91.5 88.1 95.6

8.5 11.9 4.4

1745 Total East Jersey West Jersey

61,403 29,472 31,931

100.0 48.0 52.0

92.5 89.2 95.5

1772 West Jersey

69,827

95.3

a

Percentage of White Total (%)

—

—

3.2

3.1

3.8

7.5 10.8 4.5

3.7

3.8

1.9

4.7

2.9a

2.9a

3.1 a

—

Rate of increase based on West Jersey totals only.

Jersey alone was 2.9% a year, a rapid increase by most standards, but below that of the colony as a whole during the first half of the eighteenth century. Given their geographic proximity, it is interesting to find that New Jersey's peak growth came during the slowest increase in New York's history, and vice versa. This seems to suggest that migration between New York and New Jersey may have had some effect on the population of both colonies in the middle of the eighteenth centuiy. Race In addition to the population totals, Table IV-8 indicates its racial composition. If the headings used in the censuses are at all indicative, the racial composition of the population also gives us some indication several errors in addition which have been corrected here. Potter used a copy of this report which is to be found in the Downshire Papers, Berkshire Record Office, Reading, England; I have made use of the copy in the Public Record Office, CO. 5/992/p. 111.

135

Population of the British Colonies of the numbers of freemen and slaves. As in New York, census takers in New Jersey use the terms "Negro" and "slave" interchangeably, clearly suggesting that to be black in eighteenth century New Jersey meant one was a slave. In 1726, 8.0% of New Jersey's inhabitants were Negroes. In the census of 1737-38 the black proportion was slightly higher (8.5%), but by 1745 only 7.5% were slaves. By and large, the racial composition of New Jersey's people remained fairly steady during the period covered by the censuses. The greatest difference in racial composition was geographic rather than chronological. Although data exist for individual counties, the homogeneous nature of East and West Jersey allows all important geographic comparisons to be made using only a twofold division. In East Jersey, between 10.6% and 11.9% of the population was black between 1726 and 1745. Only Bergen County, settled by the Dutch and Barbadians, had a significantly different racial make-up. In that county 20.5% of the people were blacks in 1745, an increase of only 2.1% over the comparable figure for 1726. However, since Bergen held only 4.9% of the colony's population, the impact of this unusual racial mixture on the overall average was small. In West Jersey, however, blacks made up only 4.4% to 4.7% of the total inhabitants between 1726 and 1772. In both regions, the ratio of blacks to whites remained very steady throughout the period studied here. The reasons for the regional variations in racial composition (and presumably slaveholding) are not clear. Quaker opposition to slavery, which emerged in the eighteenth century, does not seem to have had any noticeable effect on the presence or absence of blacks. The census of 1745, which noted the numbers of Quakers in each county, indicates that Monmouth County in East Jersey, which had the third highest proportion of Quakers of any county in the colony, also had a population which was 10.4% Negro. In West Jersey the counties with the highest proportion of Quakers (Burlington and Gloucester) also had relatively more blacks than their neighboring political units. On the other hand Salem County, with the fourth highest proportion of Quakers in the colony, had the second lowest ratio of blacks to whites. Apparently religious opposition to slavery had little effect on the racial composition of New Jersey counties, but the true explanation is at this time beyond our reach. Age Composition Examination of the age pyramid in eighteenth century New Jersey, as presented in Table IV-9, indicates a remarkably steady situation from 1726 to 1772. Just under half the white population was 136

The Middle Colonies between the ages of zero and fifteen, but at no time did the proportion of children fall below 47.6¾ or rise above 49.3% of the total. In every census the similarity between East and West Jersey was striking. The census of 1772 included a more detailed breakdown of adults by age than any of the others: 43.6¾ of the people were between the ages of TABLE IV-9 AGE COMPOSITION (NEW JERSEY, 1726-1772)

Year

Whites (%) Under Above 16 16

Negroes (%) Under Above 16 16

1726 Total East Jersey West Jersey

48.6 48.6 48.6

51.4 51.4 51.4

41.8 42.1 41.0

'37-38 Total East Jersey West Jersey

47.6 49.0 46.1

52.4 51.0 53.9

40.8 41.2 39.6

'45 Total East Jersey West Jersey

49.3 49.4 49.3

50.7 50.6 50.7

72 West Jersey

49.3

50.7

Children per Woman Whites

Negroes

58.2 57.8 59.0

2.02 1.98 2.08

1.71 1.76 1.59

59.2 58.8 60.4

1.90 1.89 1.91

1.63 1.65 1.56

2.04 2.04 2.04 44.6

55.4

2.04

1.88

sixteen and fifty; 6.9¾ were at least fifty but not yet eighty; while only three out of every 1,000 inhabitants had reached eighty. The black population tended to be somewhat older than the white. In 1726 the proportion of all Negroes who were under sixteen was 41.8%; the comparable figure for 1737-38 was 40.8%. In spite of the fact that blacks made up a much larger part of the population in East Jersey than in West Jersey, the age structure among slaves was much the same in both parts of the colony. Although evidence for 1772 is limited to the western part of the colony, it does suggest that black children were present in unprecedently large numbers. The proportion of Negroes under sixteen in that year was 44.6%, 5.0¾ higher than the figure for West Jersey in 1745. The figures on the number of children per woman indicate that childbearing among the whites seems to have been remarkably con137

Population of the British Colonies stant in New Jersey, regardless of time or place. Each census recorded about two children for each adult female. Apparently the older average age of the black population was caused, at least in part, by lower fertility among the Negroes. However, by 1772 this situation was changing, for in that year there were 1.88 black children for each woman, the highest ratio recorded in any New Jersey census before 1776. The effect on the age distribution was obvious, and it is possible that an even larger part of the Negro population was under sixteen after 1772, given the fact that the rate of childbearing among whites and blacks had become very similar just before the War for Independence. In fact, the onset of family limitation among part of New Jersey's people after about 1775 may have reversed the trend earlier in the eighteenth century for the white population to be younger than the black.19 Sex Ratios The sex ratios in New Jersey, presented in TableTV-10, are much steadier for the black population than for the white. Although some small variations did occur from one census to another, the normal pattern among the blacks was a small excess of boys over girls (about 110 to 100), with a much larger surplus of men to women (about 130-140 to 100). In 1726 and in 1737-38 the sex ratio among white children was much the same as for blacks under age sixteen. By 1745, however, the numbers of boys and girls among the whites were becoming more equal, and by 1772 there were only 102 white boys for each 100 girls. Although the sex ratio among white adults remained fairly steady for the colony as a whole between 1726 and 1772, this stability masked some interesting changes on a regional level. Before 1740 West Jersey seems to have had a more marked male surplus than East Jersey. In fact, in the census of 1737-38 there were slightly more women than men among the white adults in the eastern part of the colony. In 1745, however, the two sections of the colony were almost identical in this regard. Although complete data are lacking for 1772, it is clear that the sex ratio of adult whites in West Jersey was still lower than it had been before 1740. Barring a drastic change in East Jersey, the two sections would have had very similar sex ratios for this group in 1772. In view of the oft-held assumptions about higher female mortality because of childbearing, it is of interest to examine the sex ratios 19

Robert V. Wells, "Family Size and Fertility Control," Population Studies, 25 (1971), describes the beginnings of family limitation in the middle colonies in the late eighteenth century.

138

The Middle Colonies TABLE IV-IO SEX RATIOS (NEW JERSEY, 1726-1772) Year

Whites Children Adults

Negroes Children Adults

1726 Total East Jersey West Jersey

1.09 1.07 1.11

1.14 1.09 1.20

1.09 1.08 1.13

1.38 1.42 1.28

'37-38 Total East Jersey West Jersey

1.10 1.09 1.10

1.08 0.96 1.24

1.10 1.10 1.09

1.36 1.35 1.39

'45 Total East Jersey West Jersey

1.04 1.01 1.06

1.10 1.09 1.11

72 West Jersey

1.02

1.10

(1.28) (1.32) (1.19) 1.13

1.33

among the various groups of adults distinguished in the census of 1772. The evidence indicates a slight tendency for the sex ratio to rise as age increased, at least among the whites. Among those between the ages of sixteen and fifty the sex ratio was 1.10, the group from fifty to eighty had a sex ratio of 1.12, and the comparable figure among those over eighty years of age was 1.14. If men had a greater life expectancy, it was not much greater, since the sex ratios were very similar between one age group and another. In addition, the slight male surplus among those over eighty might well have been the result of males moving into the colony in its early years, when that group was much younger. But it is more likely that the variations were caused by the small numbers involved, rather than by any major differences in the life expectancy of men or women. The sex ratio of white children in the 1772 census was 1.02, an almost perfect balance of boys and girls. It is thus rather surprising to find that the sex ratio at birth among whites born between July 1, 1771, and July 1, 1772, was 1.14, higher than one would normally expect.20 In all probability this was the result of boys being more diligently recorded in birth registers than girls. The omission of some children from the birth registers seems all the more likely, given the surpris20

This figure is based on 2,061 births recorded in the census of 1772.

139

Popuhtion of the British Colonies ingly low birth rate (to be discussed shortly) which these figures imply. The sex ratio at birth among black children was even higher (1.27) than for the whites, but since only 118 Negroes were born in the period in question, this figure may be the result of variations in small numbers. Household Size and Composition The census of 1772 noted 10,930 dwelling houses in West Jersey. Dividing the number of persons by the number of houses gives the average household as 6.4 persons, of which 6.1 were white and 0.3 black. Among the white members of the household adults and children were very evenly balanced, whereas black adults were more common in families than black children. The county-by-county breakdown of family size is given in Table IV-Il, and two points of interest emerge. TABLE IV-Il HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND COMPOSITION (WEST NEW JERSEY, 1772)

County

Total Size

Whites per Household Total Adults Children

Negroes per Household Total Adults Childr

All West Jersey

6.4

6.1

3.1

3.0

0.3

0.2

0.1

Sussex Hunterdon Burlington Gloucester Salem Cumberland Cape May Morris

6.3 6.1 6.9 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.4 6.8

6.1 5.6 6.5 6.2 5.7 5.7 6.0 6.6

3.0 3.0 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.2

3.1 2.6 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.4

0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2

0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.3 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.1

N = 10,930 First, there is remarkable variation in household size, considering the rather homogeneous nature of West Jersey's population. Apparently the availability of housing differed considerably from one region to another. The second point is that explanations for the differences in household sizes are hard to come by. Geography, length of settlement, total population, and other demographic characteristics all show little relationship to the size of the household in this instance. 140

The Middle Colonies Religion

In the twentieth century religion has often been linked to differ­ ences in demographic patterns. Obviously it would be interesting to see whether religion was also related to demographic behavior in the eighteenth century. Although evidence is sparse, the New Jersey Cen­ sus of 1745 did note the number of Quakers living in a particular county. Thus it is possible to determine if counties with a high pro­ portion of Quakers had significantly different demographic patterns from those areas where few Friends lived. The proportion of Quakers in a particular county varied strikingly, from Morris and Essex where in each case only 0.5% of the people were Friends, to Burlington and Gloucester where Quakers accounted for 47.6% and 41.0% respectively of the total population. When information on the age, sex, and racial composition in the various New Jersey counties was considered along with the presence of Quakers, it was clear that the demographic com­ position of counties with large numbers of Friends was much the same as in those where Quakers were relatively few. It would, of course, be preferable to isolate Quaker families and individuals and compare them to known non-Quakers, but the evidence is lacking for such a study and the census data are the best available. The evidence, how­ ever, suggests that religion was not an important factor in determining demographic behavior in mid-eighteenth century New Jersey. Birth, Death, and Marriage

When Governor Franklin asked for the census of 1772, he re­ quested that the numbers of births, deaths, and marriages during the preceding year be reported along with the population counts. This data can be divided by the appropriate population to calculate birth, death, and marriage rates for both whites and blacks. Among the whites the birth rate, as derived from the census, was 31 per 1,000, for the blacks 35.6 per 1,000. The death rates were 10.2 and 15.7 per 1,000 for the whites and blacks respectively. In view of the rapid growth of the New Jersey population and the high proportion under sixteen, these figures seem surprisingly low. A population with a 3.0% growth rate (New Jersey was growing at 2.9%) and with 47.9% under age of fifteen (the proportions under sixteen in New Jersey were 49.3% for the whites and 44.6% for the blacks) would normally be expected to have a birth rate of 45 to 50 per 1,000, and a death rate of 15 to 20 per 1,000.21 Of the figures derived from the census only the death rate 21

Coale and Demeny, Model Life Tables, 42.

Population of the British Colonies among the blacks comes close to these expected levels. Clearly this suggests that some births and deaths were omitted from the census of 1772. The evidence from the census which listed burials by the age of the deceased tends to support this contention. Of special interest is the fact that just under half the deaths involved those under sixteen years of age. This is below the proportion of 62 to 67% which would normally be found in such a young and fast-growing population, even if life expectancy at birth was 40.0 years. In fact, given the rate of growth of New Jersey's population, the proportion of deaths of children observed in the 1772 census would imply a life expectancy at birth of 57.5 years, a level not reached by the United States population as a whole until after 1920.22 It seems apparent from this evidence that the birth and death rates which can be calculated from the census of 1772 are considerably below the actual rates for the second half of the eighteenth century, largely because the births and deaths of some children went unrecorded. The evidence on marriage shows that among the whites six weddings occurred for each 1,000 people in the year before July 1, 1772. No marriages were recorded for the black population, a fact which supports the view that slavery was particularly damaging to family life among Negroes. If, as might be expected, black men and women were united on a temporary basis, this may explain why fertility among the slaves was slightly lower than among the free. Migration Perhaps the most unusual data recorded in the census of 1772 were the numbers of families moving in and out of West Jersey. In the year before the census was taken, eighty-six families containing 498 persons left West Jersey, while forty-five families with a total of 255 members moved in—a net loss of forty-one families, a very small number compared to the total number of households of 10,930. Even if the numerators missed half or two-thirds of the migrants, the picture would still be one of a comparatively settled population. The families who did move tended to be smaller than the colonial average. Families moving into West Jersey averaged 5.7 members, while those leaving the region contained 5.8 persons on average. Both figures are well below the regional norm of 6.4 persons per household. Among those who moved, men were slightly more common than women. The sex ratio of those leaving West Jersey was 1.14; the comparable figure for immi22 Ibid., 43, 56-57; Bureau of Census, Historical Statistics of the United States (Washington, 1960),25.

142

The Middle Colonies

grants was 1.22. These figures are both above the adult, white sex ratio for 1772, but are considerably below the sex ratios observed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries among the groups migrating across the Atlantic.23 PENNSYLVANIA

Although Pennsylvania was one of England's largest colonies in Amer­ ica, she managed to avoid taking a census before 1776. Certainly the Board of Trade tried to procure information on population, but they always failed to get an actual count made. In 1731 Major Gordon re­ plied to the "Queries" from London about population by observing "This Government has not hitherto had Occasion to use any methods that can furnish us with an exact Estimate [of population]."24 Appar­ ently this comment was both an historical observation and an excuse, since Gordon maintained the tradition of avoiding exact estimates. In 1773 John Penn, Deputy Governor of Pennsylvania, reported to Lon­ don that he would need some time to provide information on popula­ tion and other matters. He observed that the data requested "have been very little attended to by any Persons in this County. . . ."25 However, when he finally sent the report in January of 1775 the pop­ ulation statistics included only an estimated 300,000 whites and 2,000 blacks, along with comments on rapid growth from immigration and a tendency to "Marry earlier and more generally here than is usual in Europe."26 It is uncertain whether Pennsylvanians were unusually ob­ stinate about being counted or whether London simply did not press the matter of a census. Whatever the reason, the result is the lack of census data on one of the most important of England's colonies on the North American continent. However, enough other records exist to allow some study of population patterns in Pennsylvania on a local level.27 23 See

Moller, "Sex Composition and Culture Patterns." 5/1268/109. He did estimate the Pennsylvania population at 45,000 whites and 4,000 blacks. 25 C.O. 5/1285/5. 26 C.O. 5/1286/18-34, but esp. ff. 21-22. 27 In addition to my own work on Quaker families which has included data from Pennsylvania, see the recent studies by John K. Alexander, "The Philadelphia Numbers Game," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 98 (1974), 314-24; James T. Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Country (Baltimore, 1972), Chaps. 1 and 3; and Gary B. Nash, "Slaves and Slaveowners in Colonial Philadelphia," WMQ, 30 (1973), 223-56. 24 C.O.

V The Southern Colonies

Of the five regions of the British empire in America treated in this book, the Southern mainland colonies are the most frustrating to study. Fewer censuses were taken there than in any other section; and what censuses there are often suffer from severe limitations. Thus conclusions about population in the Southern colonies must be considered more tentative than those reached regarding other areas. Several peculiarities in the pattern of census taking in the South increase the need for unusual caution in interpreting results. In Virginia and Georgia many of the censuses were taken in the early years of settlement, when the populations were small and the colonies subject to unusual pressures. For reasons unknown, the governors of the Southern colonies were often allowed to substitute tax lists for censuses, producing even longer periods between enumerations than was common elsewhere. And, as will be seen below, inexperienced and almost illiterate officials frequently produced documents which, when not containing errors, used categories for counting the population which make comparisons difficult. Perhaps most frustrating of all, however, is that such censuses as there are suggest the existence of some interesting demographic patterns, about which it would be very desirable to know more.

MARYLAND

In the early years of English colonization, one family which showed a special interest in America was the Calverts. George Calvert (Lord Baltimore) was an officeholder under Elizabeth I and James I, and a favorite of the King. He was therefore able to translate his interest in the New World into a grant of land and the power to govern. In 1623 Calvert received a royal charter to part of Newfoundland, an island where he had already invested some money. However, the climate there soon proved more than Calvert and his settlers could deal with, and he began to look elsewhere for land. One region which attracted his attention was the northern part of Chesapeake Bay, above 144

The Southern Colonies the Virginia settlements. Calvert began to seek land in this area as early as 1628, but opposition from the Virginians and Lord Baltimore's death delayed the grant. Finally in 1632 Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, received a charter to colonize Maryland.1 The grant was a generous one, giving the proprietor control over the land, and almost unlimited powers to govern. Unfortunately Balti­ more's notions of government and society were better suited to the fourteenth than to the seventeenth century. Although the land was rich enough to attract colonists, Calvert soon found that many of the settlers were unwilling to accept his strict and rather feudal control over the colony. To this resentment was added religious friction. Balti­ more, as a Roman Catholic, had hoped that Maryland might provide a refuge for men of his faith, just as Massachusetts was the land of the Puritans. But while some Catholics moved to the New World, the majority of Maryland's people were Protestant. Seventeenth century Englishmen did not wish to tolerate men of different faiths, and the Maryland Protestants were no exception. However, they found them­ selves forced to live with the Catholics because of Calvert's policies, and, even worse, they found that Catholics dominated the Proprietor's government. By the 1680's economic difficulties had been added to the social, political, and religious tensions in the colony. The result was a rebel­ lion in 1689, triggered by the Glorious Revolution in England, but hav­ ing its roots in American soil. Two years later William and Mary, the Protestant rulers of England, rescinded Baltimore's rights of govern­ ment and brought Maryland under the control of the Crown. Even­ tually some limited powers to govern were returned to the Calvert family, now Protestant, in 1716. But they never again had the freedom to rule as they wished, as they had before 1691. The period of royal control between 1691 and 1716 is of special interest here, for five of the seven censuses taken in Maryland fall within these years. It seems apparent that royal governors were more responsive to requests for demographic data than were proprietary officials. Once the government reverted to the Calverts, census taking disappeared in Maryland until 1755, when the impending war with France produced pressure on all the colonies to count their people. Perhaps the attitude of the proprietary governors toward census taking is best expressed by Governor Janssen, who reported in 1733 that he was not going to count the people, and furthermore could find no 1 For an introduction into the early history of Maryland, see Andrews, Colonial Period, n, 274-379; and W. F. Craven, The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 1607-1689 (Baton Rouge, 1949), 183-309.

Population of the British Colonies

evidence that there had ever been an enumeration in Maryland.2 He could not have looked very hard! Size, Growth, and Distribution3

The first census was taken in 1701. By then the colony already had 32,258 inhabitants, as Table V-I shows. Even though detailed lists of the people of Maryland were drawn up in that year, all that survives today is the total population figure, divided into taxables and untaxables. Apparently the Board of Trade discarded the fuller lists after chiding Governor Blakiston that "The lists of inhabitants you have sent us are only too particular and voluminous. We have no need of the names of every child and every slave. . . ."4 Between 1701 and 1712 five censuses were taken, and the picture which emerges at the start of the eighteenth century is one of steady growth: in eleven years the people of Maryland grew from 32,258 to 46,147. Only in 1708 was there any sign of a decline in population, but there is reason to believe this was more apparent than real; Colonel Seymour, the governor at the time, reported that "The last List was so ill taken that there can be no fair estimate made thereof being found very erronious."5 After 1712 the habit of counting people lapsed until 1755, when 153,505 persons were found living in the colony.® The last census taken before the Revolution was made in 1762 and showed a total of 164,007 inhab­ itants, over five times the number in 1701. Between 1704 and 1762, the average rate of growth of the population was 2.7¾ a year. However, as Table V-I indicates, the growth was uneven, both over time and between blacks and whites. The most rapid growth occurred between 1704 and 1712, when the black popu­ lation was increasing dramatically. Between 1704 and 1710 whites in­ creased at an annual rate of 2.2¾, but the black part of the population 2

C.O. 5/1268/121. The numerical growth and distribution of the people of this colony has been dealt with by Arthur E. Karinen, "Maryland Population: 1631-1730: Numerical and Distributional Aspects," Maryland Historical Magazine, 54 (1959), 365-407. 4 C.O. 5/715/no. 32ii; CSPC, 1701, p. 498. 5 C.O. 5/716/no. 54. 6 The actual total of the Maryland population is open to some debate. No copy of this census remains in the Public Record Office; and the one I have relied on is in Century of Pop. Growth, 185, and comes from a version printed in^he Gentle­ man's Magazine in the 18th century. It was selected for use here because it offered greater detail than either of the other versions. Except for the possible omission of about 1,000 black women in Prince George County (to be discussed later), this document differs only slightly from the two versions cited in Greene and Harring­ ton, American Population, 125-26. 3

Ii

Total Population

32,258 34,912 33,883 42,741 46,147 153,505 164,007

Year

1701 1704 1708 1710 1712 1755 1762

14.1

86.0

8.9

Rate of increase for 1704-1710.

6.9 10.6 14.7 26.0 9.3 19.3

93.1 89.4 85.3 74.0 90.7 80.7

12.7 5.5 13.1 10.3 10.1 8.6

10.9 5.3

89.1 94.7

12.1 6.4

8.5 8.4

91.5 91.6

6.7 5.4

b

2.2a 4.1 2.4 0.8

9.6a 2.8 3.9 1.3

(%)

19.2 28.6 24.7 34.1 23.1 36.6 20.4 25.3 41.8 45.1 33.4 38.0 37.9 13.8

White

(%) 80.8 71.4 75.3 65.9 76.9 63.4 79.6 74.8 58.2 54.9 66.7 62.0 62.1 86.2

(%) 5.0 6.2 7.3 5.6 7.7 5.7 6.6 11.2 8.6 3.7 7.3 8.5 7.6 9.1

5.6 1.2 2.5 4.5 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.6 2.6 3.3 3.3 2.6 1.1

(%)

13.6 27.4 22.2 29.6 21.7 34.8 18.8 23.4 40.2 42.6 30.1 34.7 35.3 12.8

(%)

12.9 12.7 11.1 9.8 4.2 1.5 1.5 12.0 11.6 8.3 6.2 10.6 6.3 5.4

(%)

County Population 1755 Black and Whites Who Mulatto Mulatto Black were Servants

3.4a 3.8 2.8 0.9

2.6

Average, Annual Rate of Increase Since Previous Census (%) Total White Black

Colony Total

12.8 13.7 18.6 18.2 29.5 b 30.3

(%)

Black

Mulattoes made up 8.0% of the black population.

87.2 86.3 81.4 81.8 70.5 69.7

White (%)

County Population 1704 Colony White Black Total (%) (%) (%)

Cecil Kent Queen Ann's Talbot Dorchester Somerset Worchester Baltimore Ann-Arundel Calvert St. Mary's Charles Prince George Frederick

County

TABLE V-I MARYLAND POPULATION, 1701-1762

Population of the British Colonies added 96 new persons a year for every 1,000 people. It is possible that the rate of growth in the early eighteenth century is overstated. At least one scholar has suggested that slave children were omitted from the census of 1704.7 If this were so, the total population in that year would be too low, while the increase of blacks between 1704 and 1710 would appear larger than it actually was. At the same time it is important to note that growth between 1701 and 1704 was not unusually low, and that the former census had been criticized for excessive detail by the Board of Trade since it contained the names of all children and slaves. This clearly suggests that, in spite of possible omissions, the census of 1704 does not greatly distort the picture of Maryland's population at that time. After 1712 the rate of increase may have subsided somewhat. Between 1712 and 1755 the population grew at 2.8% per year, while between 1755 and 1762 the growth rate fell even further to 0.9%. If it had not been for the blacks in the colony, the growth of Maryland would have been slower, since Negroes increased at a rate which was roughly 1.5 times that of the whites during the fifty years after 1712. Presumably some of this difference was the result of the importation of slaves, though it will be shown below that fertility among the slaves was higher than among the whites. Two censuses, those of 1704 and 1755, present enough detail to allow examination of the geographic distribution of the Maryland population. Probable omissions in the 1704 census may have understated the black part of the population in that year. However, since the same group was apparently omitted in all the counties (with the possible exception of Calvert), the patterns described below should not have been seriously affected. The bottom part of Table V-I presents this data. The first seven counties listed (Cecil to Worchester) were on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake, and are arranged from north to south. The other counties were west of the Bay, with Baltimore to St. Mary's lining the shore (again from north to south); the three counties at the bottom of the table did not touch on the Chesapeake, and they are arranged from south to north. If there was a frontier county, it was Prince George in 1704, and Frederick in 1755. The majority of the population lived west of the Chesapeake in the eighteenth century, 56.7% in 1704, a figure very similar to the 55.9% found in the same part of the province in 1755. Allowing for the two new counties established 7

For an extended criticism of the census of 1704 and the other Maryland headcounts, see Russell R. Menard, "Economy and Society in Early Maryland" (unpubl. Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1974), Chap. 8. I am indebted to Menard for sharing his findings with me via personal correspondence. Menard suggests that the true number of slaves in 1704 was about 1.5 times as large as the census figures.

148

The Southern Colonies in the first half of the eighteenth century, the population of the eastern shore remained remarkably stable. From Cecil to Worchester, the counties had roughly the same proportion of the population in 1755 as in 1704. Although the counties west of the Chesapeake had about the same proportion of the total population in both censuses, there were several major changes in the relative numbers living in each political unit. Baltimore County more than doubled its share of Maryland's people, as the proportion living there rose from 5.5% in 1704 to 11.2% in 1755. The frontier also increased its share, from the 8.9% living in Prince George in 1704 to the 16.7% found in Prince George and Frederick fifty years later. The most dramatic loss of population was in Calvert County. In 1704 that region held 10.3% of the colony's people, but by 1755 only 3.7% lived there. The proportions in Ann-Arundel and St. Mary's also declined, but not as much. Thus the eighteenth century saw a gradual movement of the population westward, away from the Chesapeake, and to some extent to the region around the burgeoning city of Baltimore. Race, Freemen, Servants, and Slaves In the years between 1704 and 1762 the racial composition of the Maryland population changed considerably. The census of 1704 indicates that 12.8% of the population was black, a figure very similar to that found in New York at the same time. However, by 1710 the proportion of Negroes had jumped almost 6.0% in six years, to 18.6%. The extent to which this increase was the result of slave children having been omitted in 1704 is unknown. But by 1762 fully 30.3¾ of the people living in Maryland were blacks. Most of them were slaves. The census of 1755 divides the non-white population into blacks and mulattoes, and indicates the numbers of free and slave in each group. Among the blacks 99.1% were slaves; only 59.5% of the mulattoes were slaves, but they accounted for only 8.0% of the non-white population. Thus a non-white living in Maryland in the eighteenth century was almost assuredly a slave. It is an easy assumption that slaves replaced white servants as a source of labor in Maryland in the eighteenth century. Yet the data suggest that such a view should be qualified. In 1708 servants accounted for 10.3% of the white population. Four years earlier, 10.7¾ of all white children had been in bondage. Surprisingly, servants accounted for 8.2% of the white population in 1755. The proportion of children who were servants had fallen to 2.9% in that year, but among adult whites, bondsmen accounted for 13.3% of the total. Thus in 1755, 149

Vopulation of the British Colonies as in 1708, servants were a significant part of the white population of Maryland (perhaps more than intended, since 22.4¾ were convicts in 1755). The picture which emerges from these data is one of slaves being added to the labor force in Maryland in addition to, rather than in place of, servants. Yet this may not be entirely correct. While Maryland residents were active purchasers of servants throughout the first half of the eighteenth century, it is possible that for a number of years the supply did not equal the demand. Until the large-scale importation of convicts began in 1748 Maryland planters may have had a hard time finding the servants they wanted. 8 Thus, while the censuses suggest that servants made up a rather constant part of the population between 1700 and 1750, they actually may have declined in the middle of this period, before their numbers increased again with the addition of convicts to the supply of regular servants. Certainly the most rapid increase in the proportion of slaves in the colony came just when we might expect the proportion of white servants to be at a minimum. 9 The geographic distribution of slaves, mulattoes, and servants was uneven, as Table V-I shows, but the three groups were scattered in different ways. Both in 1704 and 1755 the population of counties on the eastern shore tended to have a lower proportion of blacks than counties to the west of the Chesapeake. In 1704 the four counties with the fewest blacks relative to the whites were Cecil, Kent, Dorchester, and Somerset; the four with the highest proportion of slaves were Ann-Arundel, Calvert, Charles, and Prince George, all on the western shore. Fifty years later five of the six counties in which the proportion of slaves exceeded 30.0¾ of the total were west of the Bay, while six of the eight counties in which slaves made up less than 30.0¾ of the people were on the eastern shore. It is interesting that in 1755 the three counties which were closest to Pennsylvania had a lower proportion of slaves than any other unit in their respective regions. Unfortunately there is no certain explanation for this fact, although Quaker influence, the possibility of escape, or a ready opportunity to acquire the servants arriving in Philadelphia may have made slaveholding undesirable in the counties of Cecil, Baltimore, and Frederick. 8 For figures on servants in general and convicts in particular imported into Maryland, see Abbot E. Smith, Colonists in Bondage (Chapel Hill, 1947), 310, 312, 323-29. 9 Apparently the growth rate among blacks after 1762 was much more like that of the years 1755 to 1762 than 1704 to 1755. In 1790, Negroes accounted for 34.7% of the Maryland population; see Century of Pop. Growth, 82. Russell R. Menard, "The Maryland Slave Population, 1658-1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties," WMQ, 32 (1975), 29-54, has some valuable insights on factors affecting the growth of the slave population.

150

The Southern Colonies The distribution of mulattoes does not seem to have followed any readily apparent pattern. It is of interest to note, however, that the presence of mulattoes was unrelated to either a high or a low proportion of blacks. For example, the proportion of mulattoes in the total population was much the same in both Worchester and Ann-Arundel, yet in the former county blacks accounted for 18.8% of the people, compared to 40.2% in the latter. Servants, in 1755, seem to have been more common in the northern reaches of the Chesapeake than they were farther south. On both the eastern and western shores a noticeable decline in the proportion of white servants occurred as distance from the Pennsylvania border increased. It is tempting to see this as a result of varying accessibility to the servants arriving at Philadelphia, though of course there is no way to be sure. The fact that the presence of servants varied along north-south lines, while there were more slaves in the west than in the east, does suggest that slaves and servants were not alternate sources of labor. The factors which determined whether servants or slaves would be present seem to have been, at least in part, independent of each other. Age Composition In the first half of the eighteenth century the white population of Maryland gradually became younger: Table V-2 shows that the proportion of whites under the age of sixteen rose from 40.2% in 1704 to 49.3% in 1755. Much of this increase occurred during the first decade of the century. In the eight years between 1704 and 1712 the proportion under sixteen increased by 6.5%, while the next forty-three years saw a rise of only 2.6%. The reasons for this change are not clear. As the ratio of children to adult women among the whites shows, childbearing remained at a fairly stable level after 1708. Perhaps the best explanation is that servants were more common in the seventeenth than in the eighteenth century. If this were so, the population in the early eighteenth century might well have had more old people than would have been the case if most of the growth were due to childbearing. 10 And, as the century progressed, and the older people who had come as servants died, the children born in Maryland would make up a larger part of the population. The only year in which the ages of blacks were recorded was 1755, when the census indicates that 53.2% of the Negroes were under the 10 See Table V-6 below for the effects of immigration on the early Virginia population.

151

Topulation of the British Colonies TABLE V-2 AGE COMPOSITION (MARYLAND, 1704-1755) Whites (%) Year

Under 16

Above 16

1704 1708 1710 1712 1755

40.2 37.8 44.3 46.7 49.3

59.8 62.2 55.7 53.3 50.7

Bhcks {%) Under Above 16 16

53.2

Childrer, ι per Woman Whites Bhcks

46.8

1.71 2.03 1.86 1.94 2.07

49.9 49.0 49.6 50.8 46.4 41.6 43.6 49.5 49.7 45.4 47.5

2.00 1.93 1.95 1.77 2.09 1.74 2.09 2.18 2.22 2.40 1.85

48.0 37.6 47.0

1.92 2.02 2.70

2.79

By County, 1755 County Cecil Kent Queen Ann's Talbot Dorchester Somerset Worchester Baltimore Ann-Arundel Calvert St. Mary's

47.3 46.9 47.7 46.0 51.3 46.8 52.0 48.5 48.9 53.6 48.9

51.5 51.1 46.4 51.1

50.1 51.0 50.4 49.2 53.7 58.4 56.4 50.6 50.3 54.7 52.5

Charles Prince George Frederick

46.6 49.4 54.0

53.4 50.7 46.0

52.0 62.4 53.0

52.7 53.1 52.3 54.0 48.7 53.2 48.0

2.35 2.51 2.21 2.11 2.66 3.07 2.91 2.52 2.52 2.65 2.43 2.53 12.61 2.79

age of sixteen, about 4.0% more than among the whites. This rather high proportion of children is consistent with the ratio of 2.79 children for each woman; and both indicate an unusually high level of childbearing among black women. While these figures are well within the range of possibility, it is worth noting that virtually all blacks over the age of sixteen were subject to taxation. Possibly some masters found it eco­ nomically desirable to report their slaves as younger than they actually were, but there is no way to determine the effect this might have had on the age distribution among the blacks. Suffice it to say that even if there were more adult slaves than the census indicates, the propor­ tion under the age of sixteen of both whites and blacks in 1755 was probably rather similar. The bottom half of Table V-2 indicates the age composition in the various counties in Maryland in 1755. Similar evidence for the whites 152

The Southern Colonies was also available for 1704, but since the patterns were virtually the same it has been omitted here. The first point to note is that, among the whites, the proportion under sixteen ranged from a low of 46.0¾ in Talbot County to a high of 54.0¾ in the frontier county of Frederick. Considerable variation occurred among the counties on both eastern and western shores of the Chesapeake, though children may have been slightly more common in the west. In five of the seven counties on the eastern shore children accounted for less than 48.0% of the whites, while only Charles County on the western shore had such a low proportion of children. Furthermore, the two counties with the youngest populations (Calvert and Frederick) were west of the Bay. The ratio of children to women also tended to be higher on the western than on the eastern shore. Every county in which there were more than 2.10 white children for each woman was western. The only counties with fewer than 1.85 children per woman lay east of the Bay. When similar data on the age composition of the blacks is examined, no clear pattern emerges. As with the whites, the relative age or youth of the population varied remarkably, but no geographic region seems to have had consistently more or less children than any other. This is especially true if we regard the rather striking figures for Prince George County as wrong. Although we cannot be sure, it seems probable that a more reasonable figure for the proportion under sixteen in that county would be about 50.8%, while the ratio of children to women was approximately 2.26 rather than 12.61.11 In every county the ratio of children per woman was higher among blacks than among whites, and only in Frederick County was the proportion under sixteen higher among the whites than the blacks. Sex Ratios Information on the balance between the sexes is somewhat limited. As Table V-3 shows, only the census of 1755 included enough detail to allow examination of the sex ratio among groups other than white adults. In the early eighteenth century men clearly outnumbered women in this group. From a high of 154 men for every 100 women in 11

The two references in Greene and Harrington to the 1755 census (see n. 6 above) and a letter from the governor of Maryland in 1756 ( C O . 5/1274/155) indicate about 1,000 more blacks in Maryland than does the census used here. Unfortunately none of these have detail by county, but if we assume that it would have been easy for a clerk to copy 1,151 black women as the 151 indicated in the version used here, we may be able to account for the discrepancies. The corrected figures for Prince George County are the result of adding 1,000 to the total number of adult black women in that county.

153

Population of the British Colonies 1704, the sex ratio declined rapidly until in 1712 there were only 122 men for every 100 women. By 1755 the ratio was 113 to 100. The reason for the remarkable surplus of men over women among the whites in the first decade of the eighteenth century was the presence of white servants. In 1708 there were only 112 men per 100 women among the TABLE V-3 SEX RATIOS (MARYLAND, 1704-1755) Blacks

Whites Year

1704 1708 1710 1712 1755

Children

Adults

Free Adults

Children

Adults

1.54 1.12 1.09

1.34 1.22 1.13

•

0.96

1.00

1.35

By County, 1755 County

Cecil Kent Queen Ann's Talbot Dorchester Somerset Worchester

1.12 1.11 1.12 1.14 1.07 1.09 1.00

1.23 1.18 1.13 1.08 0.98 0.97 0.94

1.16 1.03 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.98 0.93

1.04 0.98 1.03 0.88 0.98 0.98 1.10

1.29 1.30 1.11 1.11 1.19 1.12 1.09

Baltimore Ann-Arundel Calvert St. Mary's

1.08 1.16 1.18 1.05

1.31 1.28 1.08 0.94

1.04 1.04 0.99 0.90

0.92 1.00 1.03 1.02

1.38 1.39 1.08 1.10

Charles Prince George Frederick

1.04 1.11 1.05

1.20 1.07 1.30

1.12 0.93 1.27

0.98 1.08 0.99

1.28 6.12" 1.40

a Assuming the same error in transcription which was considered above in note 11, the correct figure for the black, adult sex ratio in this county would be 1.10, and the sex ratio for the same group in the colony would be 1.21.

free white adults. At the same time, the sex ratio for all white adults was probably between 154 and 134. In view of the proportion of adults who were known to be servants at the start of the eighteenth century, it is possible to estimate that among servants there were about 500 men for every 100 women. The rather marked decline in the surplus of men over women between 1704 and 1755 appears rather puzzling.

The Southern Colonies It was shown above that the proportion of servants in the white population in 1708 was much the same as in 1755, yet the sex ratio had dropped considerably. This fact tends to reinforce the suggestion made earlier that perhaps servants were a smaller part of the white population around 1730 than either before or after. In 1708 the sex ratio may have been high not only because of current servants, but also because of the presence of extra men who had once been held in bondage. In contrast, if servitude were on the upsurge in 1755 it would have some effect on the sex ratio, but not as much as if extra men had been migrating into the colony for twenty or thirty years. In addition the evidence suggests that the sex ratio among servants may have been lower in 1755 than it was earlier. By 1755 the sex ratio among adult, white servants was 3.89, well below the estimate made above for the first decade of the century. Servants still had some effect on the balance between men and women (the ratio among free white adults was 0.96; among all whites it was 1.13), but by 1755 the impact was smaller than it had been half a century earlier. The census of 1755 is the only count which indicated the sex of white children, and of adults and children among the blacks. Boys and girls, whether white or black, were fairly evenly balanced. Among Negroes there was one boy for each girl, while the white children showed a comparable ratio of 1.09. If we exclude from consideration the 2.9% of the white children who were servants the difference becomes even smaller, as the sex ratio of free white children was only 1.06, much the same as among the blacks. The highest sex ratio in 1755 was 1.35, found among black adults. This was well above the comparable statistic for adult whites at that time and very similar to the adult white sex ratios of the early eighteenth century. It clearly suggests that importation of slaves brought in more men than women, and was high enough in 1755 to have a significant impact on the ratio of adult black males to females. When we look at the sex ratios in the various counties in 1755, as presented in the bottom part of Table V-3, the most obvious patterns which emerge involve both black and white adults. In each group the sex ratio tended to decline as the distance increased from the Pennsylvania border, whether the counties were east or west of the Chesapeake. Apparently immigration (forced, and perhaps voluntary) provided an extra number of men in Cecil, Kent, Baltimore, Ann-Arundel, and Frederick counties. Of the more southern counties only Charles, lying inland along the Potomac river, had adult sex ratios equal to those found in the northern part of Maryland. This pattern holds true among the whites, regardless of whether all adults or only free adults are con155

Population of the British Colonies sidered. It is of interest to note, however, that the southern counties where the proportion of servants was low (see Table V-2) had more women than men among whites, even if bondsmen are included. Apparently, as the proportion of servants varied from one county to another, so too did the sex ratios. More persons in bondage meant more men in the population. Among children, both black and white, the balance of boys and girls differed from one county to another, but this variation seems to be without a discernible pattern. Family Size and Composition When the population of Maryland was counted in 1704, special attention was given to the "masters of families." In all, 5,172 masters of families were counted, in a total population of 34,912. Thus each family contained an average of 6.8 persons, as indicated in Table V-4. Of the family members, on average 0.9 were black, while the 5.9 whites included 2.4 children.12 Considerable variation occurred in the size of families among the eleven counties in Maryland at that time. The TABLE V-4 MEAN FAMILY SIZE AND COMPOSITION (MARYLAND, 1704) County

Total Size

Total Whites

White Children

Total Slaves

5.7 7.2 5.9 7.3 5.5

5.2 6.6 5.3 6.9 5.1

2.0 2.5 1.9 2.9 1.9

0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4

Baltimore Ann-Arundel Calvert St. Mary's

5.3 6.0 11.7 8.4

4.7 5.1 8.7 7.6

1.9 2.0 3.8 2.9

0.6 0.9 3.0 0.8

Charles Prince George

7.3 7.5

5.9 6.5

2.8 3.0

1.4 1.0

Colony

6.8

5.9

2.4

0.9

Cecil Kent Talbot Dorchester Somerset

12

If Menard's estimates of the extent of the undercount of slaves in 1704 is correct (see n. 7 above), the average number of blacks per family rises to 1.4, and total family size is increased to 7.3. Compared to the number of slaves per household in the Caribbean (see Chaps. VI and VIII), these figures are still remarkably low.

156

The Southern Colonies smallest average family size was 5.3, found in Baltimore County, but in Calvert County families contained an average of 11.7 persons. The largest families were those found in the southern part of the western shore (Calvert, St. Mary's, Charles County) and on the frontier (Prince George). Families in these four counties had more children and more slaves, on average, than did households elsewhere in the colony. Only in Kent and Dorchester County, on the eastern shore, did the average family size approach the smallest mean for the four counties in the southwest and on the frontier. One point of interest which emerges from the 1704 census is the number of adult white males without families. Even if we assume that all masters of families were men (and they probably were not), only 46.9% of the adult white men had a family under them. It is impossible to determine how many of the men without families were servants, but it is clear that family responsibilities were not automatic for men once the age of sixteen was passed. Delayed marriage and bondage kept many men under the control of others. Military Status Although concern for the military strength of the colonies was important in the start of census taking in America, the only Maryland enumeration specifically to list those "fitt to bear arms" was the count of 1704. In that year the military manpower of Maryland was listed as 11,386, or 32.6% of the total population. Almost one out of every three persons was considered available to fight, but it is curious that the military lists included 360 more persons than were reported for masters of families, freemen, and servants combined. It is possible that some error in counting occurred, but there is no way to be sure. In the absence of fuller data, however, the evidence suggests that either some of the bigger boys or some of the more trusted male slaves may have been considered eligible for military duty in an emergency. Economic Status Information on the economic status of the Maryland population is sparse, but there are several points worth mentioning. First, in 1701 37.9% of the population was listed as taxable, almost the same figure as that found in Virginia at the same time (see below). On the other hand, almost two-thirds of the inhabitants were exempt from taxes because of age (under sixteen) or sex and race (a white woman was not taxed). By 1755 only 32.5% of the population was taxed, reflecting both 157

Population of the British Colonies the increased proportion of children and the declining sex ratio which raised the proportion of women in Maryland. Although their impact on the tax structure was not great, 2.2¾ of the adult males were too poor to pay taxes, while 1.9% of the blacks were "past labor or crippled." An additional thirty-five men were clergy, and hence tax-exempt. Since there were 4,386 persons in the colony for every Anglican preacher, the burden of support cannot have been too great on any individual. Far more burdensome was the number of persons who contributed little to economic production in the colony. If the taxable part of the population is taken as those who produced most of the wealth (and this clearly excludes the economic contribution of the domestic labors of women), then there were in Maryland in the first half of the eighteenth century about two persons dependent upon every one person engaged in productive labor. In such a situation economic growth, either within a family or for the colony as a whole, becomes extremely difficult.13

VIRGINIA

It is appropriate that the first census for an English colony in America was taken in Virginia in 1624. After the establishment of the Jamestown settlement in 1607 the population of Virginia grew sporadically for the next fifteen years. Because of local disorders, as well as inexperience among the company officials in England, the first few years of the Virginia settlements were unstable, and hence were not conducive to population growth from immigration.14 However, reforms in the government of the colony in 1618 made the province more appealing, and people began to show some interest in moving to Virginia. This was a promising development for the London Company, which after twelve years of investment was anxious for some returns. Unfortunately, before the increased population could contribute significantly to the economic well-being of the company, the Indians rebelled, and in March 1622 massacred a sizable proportion of those who had survived the rigors of the early "starving times" and the unfamiliar diseases. At least 347 persons were killed by the Indians in that raid, leaving only 1,275 inhabitants two years later.15 Since England had sent about 6,000 people to the colony since, 1607, there was growing concern that the London Company was unable properly to provide for the 13

Ansley J. Coale, "Population and Economic Development," in Philip M. Hauser, ed., The Population Dilemma (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963), 46-69. 14 The story of Virginia is familiar, but the following works are suggested: Andrews, Colonial Period, i, 98-213; Craven, Southern Colonies, 60-182. 15 Craven, Southern Colonies, 147.

158

The Southern Colonies people's health and welfare.10 After several years of investigations and studies, the Crown revoked the company's charter and assumed control over the colony. Thus Virginia became, in 1624, the first royal colony, and remained one until 1776. The years after the massacre of 1622 and the early period of control by the Crown are particularly interesting to the demographic historian. First, the various investigations regarding the capacity of the London Company to control them produced two lists of the inhabitants. The first, taken in February 1623/24, was a list of all those still living, as well as those who had died since the previous April. This was the first colonial census. The second list, taken a year later in January 1624/25, reflects concern for the survival of the colony: it is a collection of the muster rolls of Virginia—rolls which included, however, women and children, along with men eligible for military duty and lists of available weapons. 17 These documents are of unusual interest, not only because they were pioneer counts, but also because they occurred early in Virginia's history. In every other colony, except Jamaica, the first censuses were taken well after the first settlements had matured and stabilized. Here, however, as in the Jamaica Census of 1661, is presented the demographic profile of a colony still struggling for survival. The early censuses in Virginia did not establish a tradition of population counts. After an enumeration in 1634, from which virtually no detail survives, the next census was taken in 1699. It was mentioned in Chapter I that this count was made, only after considerable pressure was applied by the Board of Trade, to ascertain the military manpower available to aid New York against the French. The census of 1699 must have been a remarkable document, for Governor Nicholson sent a printed form to all the sheriffs asking for the following eight entries: 1) Masters and Mistresses' names, 2) Christian men and women, free, 3) Christian boys and girls, free, 4) Christian men and women, 16 W. F. Craven, White, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth Century Virginian (Charlottesville, Virginia, 1971), 3. This work is extremely interesting, and covers much of the 17th century when no censuses were taken. 17 Although summaries of both these documents are in Greene and Harrington, American Population, 143-44, the lists may be found in J. C. Hotten, The Original Lists of Persons . . . Who Went from Great Britain to the American Plantations, 1600-1700 (New York, 1874), 169-265, or more fully in A. L. Jester and M. W. Hiden, eds., Adventurers of Purse and Person: Virginia, 1607-1625 (Princeton, 1956). Some of this data is summarized in A. C. Quisenberry, ed., "The Virginia Census, 1624-1625," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 7 (1899-1900), 364-67. The lists have recently been utilized for interesting social research by Edmund S. Morgan, in "The First American Boom: Virginia 1618-1630," WMQ, 29 (1972), 469-78, and by Irene W. D. Hecht, in "The Virginia Muster of 1624/5 as a Source for Demographic History," WMQ, 30 (1973), 65-92.

159

Population of the British Colonies servants, 5) men and women, slaves, 6) boys and girls, slaves, 7) number of tithables, and 8) number of untithables. When these lists were completed they were sent to England, but all that remains are the entries of tithables and untithables. 18 Perhaps, as with the Maryland Census of 1701, the Board of Trade had no desire for the names of every person in Virginia, and so discarded the lists. Only two more censuses were taken in Virginia before the outbreak of the American Revolution. In 1701 and again in 1703 every inhabitant was counted. After that, however, the colony was allowed to forward tax lists and militia rolls to London, without having to include everyone in the colony. Given the economic and military concerns which gave rise to census taking in the first place, this was a sensible procedure and it is somewhat surprising that the other colonies did not follow suit. Perhaps, since Virginia had granted a permanent revenue to the Crown in the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion, they had no reason to hide their tax lists from the Crown. Other colonies, which maintained control over their pursestrings, may have found it preferable to send full censuses to London rather than tax lists. In any case knowledge of the population of Virginia after 1703 is rather limited, since the most populous of all of England's colonies had no census for much of the eighteenth century. This, coupled with the lack of censuses for Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, suggests that the largest colonies were so clearly strong and prosperous that England felt she knew enough about them. Size and Growth When the first census was taken in 1624 the population of Virginia was 1,275. Given the massacre two years earlier and the uncertain political situation at the time, it seems probable that this figure was lower than before March 1622. As Table V-5 shows, the population in 1625 was fifty-seven persons less than in the previous year. It is impossible to know precisely when the numbers began to increase again, but by 1634 a total of 4,914 individuals were living in the colony, almost four times as many as ten years earlier. The rate of growth during this period of recovery was a startling 15.5% a year. After 1634 the rate of increase subsided to about 3.8¾ a year, but that was sufficient to provide Virginia with 58,040 inhabitants by 1699. During this period both natural increase and immigration contributed to growth.19 Between 18

CO. 5/13/10/30-31, 177; CO. 5/1312/123, 134-35. Craven, White, Red, and Black, makes some penetrating remarks on immigration during the 17th century. 19

160

The Southern Colonies TABLE V-5 VIRGINIA POPULATION , 1624-1703 Total Population

Year 1624 1625 1634 1699 1701 1703

1,275 l,218a 4,914 58,040 57,596 60,606

White {%)

Average, Annual Black Rate of Increase {%) Since Previous Census (%)

98.3 98.1

1.7 1.9

87.0b 87.0» 87.0"

13.0b 13.0" 13.0b

-4.6 15.5 3.8 -0.4 2.5

a The standard figure for Virginia's population in 1625 has been 1,232. However, as Hecht has shown, "Virginia Muster," 70, several "musters" were listed twice, and if they are only counted once the true population falls to 1,218. b Racial composition estimated from Maryland censuses of 1701 and 1704; see text for explanation.

1699 and 1701 the population appears to have declined slightly, but by 1703 the total was 60,606, forty-seven times larger than in 1624. From the first to the last census included here, the rate of increase averaged a remarkable 4.9% a year. Clearly the seventeenth century had seen tremendous increases in the population, once the first troubled years were past. This growth is all the more remarkable when it is compared to that of the eighteenth century. By 1790 the population was only twelve times larger than in 1703, even though the actual time involved was slightly longer than the period between the first and last of Virginia's colonial censuses. However, the growth rate of the eighteenth century is low only by comparison to that of the seventeenth—today it would be considered explosive. Race When the first two censuses were taken in the 1620's the number of Negroes was relatively small, slightly less than 2% of the population. However small this may seem in comparison to the proportion of Negroes in the Virginia population at later dates, it is surprisingly large in view of the fact that the first blacks had arrived only in 1619. The later censuses neglected to specify race; until 1790 there was no census in Virginia which indicated the relative numbers of blacks and whites. However, it is possible to estimate the racial composition of the population at the start of the eighteenth century. In 1699 and 1701 the 161

Population of the British Colonies censuses divided the population into tithables and untithables. The results were remarkably similar, showing between 37% and 38% of the population as eligible to pay taxes. These figures are virtually the same as those found in the Maryland Census of 1701, which reported 37.9% of the people as taxable. Likewise, if we add to the number of white males indicated as living in Maryland in 1704 the number of adult blacks (estimated here as 60.0% of all blacks), then the taxable part of the Maryland population was 39.3% of the whole, much the same as in contemporary Virginia. Although it is not certain, the evidence clearly suggests that the demographic structure of the two Chesapeake colonies was much the same in 1700. Thus, on the basis of Maryland's population, I would estimate that a minimum of 13.0% of Virginia's population was black at the start of the eighteenth century. Freemen and Servants Although the proportion of servants in the population clearly must have declined later, 41.6% of Virginia's residents were servants in 1625; most of them had come from England, since 91.6% of the people were immigrants. 20 Age and Sex Composition One of the most fascinating aspects about the population of Virginia in its early years was the unusual age and sex composition of the first settlers. While these topics have been treated separately in other colonies, the peculiarities of these figures for early Virginia make it desirable to treat them together here. The census of 1624 gives some indication of the unusual nature of the population of a settlement in its early years. Of the 1,253 whites counted in that year, 983 (78.2%) were adult males. Another 225 (17.9%) were women, while only 45 (3.6%) children were recorded. In view of the evidence to be presented shortly from the census of 1625, the number of children seems rather low. The enumerators used a variety of terms such as infans, puer, puella, puis, fillia, fils, and "Boy of," to indicate a child, and what age each of these words signified is unclear. It is certain, however, that about three of 20

Hecht, "Virginia Muster," 71-72. I had analyzed this census from Hotten before Hecht's article appeared. Generally, I have chosen to use her data rather than mine since she has clearly worked with more reliable copies of the census. In any case, the errors in Hotten were not great enough to alter the fundamental picture of early Virginia society. For example, using Hotten, my calculations showed 40.5% of the people were servants, and 91.0¾ were immigrants, much the same as the figures from Hecht.

162

The Southern Colonies every four Virginians was an adult male. Males outnumbered females by 4.37 to 1 among the whites, and 4.50 to 1 among the blacks. In 1625 more detail was included in the census. In addition to the names of most persons (which allows an estimate of the sex of the individual), age was noted for 765 persons. Table V-6 shows the comTABLE V-6 AGE AND SEX COMPOSITION (VIRGINIA, 1625) 0-9

Males Females Total Sex Ratio

5.5 27.6 9.0 1.03

10-15

6.2 11.4 7.1 2.86

40-49

50 +

N =

Percentage by Ag OX

1—1 05 OI CO 00

Bahamas 1734

to to • O bd d r to M s 2 H L1 1 d w Cfi N

M

St. Christopher 1707 Bahamas 1731

9,092

Island

Household Size and Composition portion was 1.4¾, deviated greatly from this pattern. Households with fewer than five members varied just as greatly. In the Newfoundland census just mentioned, only 15.3¾ of all families were that small; whereas in Montserrat, in 1678, 68.9% of all families had between one and four persons. Although one might expect colonies where the average family size was high to have a relatively small proportion of households with fewer than five people, this does not seem to have been necessarily so. New York families in 1698 averaged only 6.2 persons, well below the comparable figures of 13.6 and 20.6 found in St. Christopher in 1707 and St. John's, Jamaica, in 1680, respectively. The 33.9% proportion of households with less than five persons found in New York, however, was only 2% more than in St. Christopher, and actually 2.4% less than in St. John's. Only in Montserrat are we able to link the proportion of households of a given size to changes in the average size. There, as the mean rose from 4.9 in 1678 to 28.2 in 1729, the proportion of families with fewer than five members fell from 68.9 to 18.8. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to assume that a large average size meant few small households. In contrast, every colony which achieved a large average family size also had a high proportion of households with ten or more persons. For example, Montserrat in 1729 had the highest average family size of any of the colonies for which there is detailed evidence; the proportion of families with ten or more persons, 61.6%, was also the highest. In all four of the colonies studied here which had average family sizes of over ten, at least 36.4% of the households had more than nine persons. In none of the colonies where the average family size was under ten did more than a fifth of the families have over nine people. The three cases where the mean household size was less than five were the only instances where the proportion of households with ten or more individuals fell below 10.0¾ of the total. The composition of the family comes next. Who lived in a colonial household? Did children or adults predominate? How many slaves were there on average? How often were white servants present? Did variations in size also mean differences in the composition of the household? Much of the difference in the average size of the household naturally depended upon the number of slaves or servants present. On the mainland, where the average size of the family was relatively small, there were few servants or slaves. As the evidence presented in Table VIII-3 shows, none of the continental colonies studied here had more than one slave per family on average. The absence of data for the 305

Population

of the British

Colonies

Southern colonies in the late eighteenth century undoubtedly biases this finding, b u t the United States Census of 1790 shows no more t h a n 4.1 slaves per household in South Carolina. 1 3 W h e n this figure is contrasted with slaveholding patterns in the islands, it is clear that even in the stronghold of slavery on the continent the n u m b e r of slaves in an average household was relatively small. As for the n u m b e r of slaves in island families, the same conclusions emerge as for the total family size: the average n u m b e r per household was larger in the islands, and the difference b e t w e e n the continental a n d island colonies increased during the eighteenth century. As early as the 1680's there were already colonies where the average n u m b e r of TABLE VIII-3 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION Average Number per Household of Total Slaves

Total Whites

Virginia, 1625 Newfoundland, 1675 1677 1698 Nevis, 1678 Antigua, 1678 Montserrat, 1678 Jamaica (St. John's),1680 (Port Royal), 1680 Barbados (Bridgetown), 1680 1683 Rhode Island (Bristol), 1689 New York (Albany County), 1697 New York, 1698

1625-1700 0.1 — — — 4.3 3.8 1.7 15.4 1.6 3.6 11.5 — 0.04 0.8

3.9 11.3 11.5 9.3 3.8 4.1 3.3 5.2 4.0 3.7 4.8 6.0 4.6 5.4

— 1.3 1.7 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.1 1.5

1.5 8.6 8.3 6.7 — — — 2.0

0.9 — 3.3 2.5 3.2

1.2 0.6 0.8 — 0.2

New York (City), 1703 1712-1714 Maryland, 1704 Nevis, 1707 St. Christopher, 1707 1711 Barbados, 1715 Small Leeward Islands, 1717

1701-1725 1.0 0.6 0.9 10.4 9.1 10.0 — 6.5

4.5 6.1 5.9 3.1 4.5 4.7 3.6 4.8

2.2 3.1 2.4 — 2.0 2.1 1.5 2.6

— — — — — 0.1 — —

Place and Date

13

White Children

White Servants

Greven, "Average Size of Families," 552.

306

Household

Size and

Composition

slaves p e r household exceeded ten. T h e figure of 15.4 slaves per family in St. John's, Jamaica, is the largest known average in the seventeenth century, though Barbados' m e a n of 11.5 in 1683 was not far behind. Elsewhere the major commitment to slaves came later. Slaves were already more common in the L e e w a r d Islands by 1678 t h a n they w e r e in N e w York or Maryland twenty-five years later. However, the average n u m b e r of slaves per household in Antigua, Nevis, a n d Montserrat in the seventeenth century seems small in comparison to the figures found in those islands in the eighteenth century. In Antigua the average household increased its n u m b e r of slaves from 3.8 in 1678 to 30.4 in 1753-56; in Montserrat the increase was from 1.7 to 23.5 in the fifty TABLE VIII-3 (Continued) Average Number per Household of Place and Date

Montserrat, 1729 Newfoundland, 1730 1738 Bahamas, 1731 1734 Antigua, 1753-1756 Newfound Jand, 1757 1774 Canada (Trois Rivieres), 1762 Nova Scotia, 1762 1766 Bermuda, 1764 St. Vincent, 1764 Massachusetts, 1764 Tobago, 1770 New Jersey, 1772 Rhode Island, 1774

United States, 1790 low (Maine) high (South Carolina) 1970 England, 1574-1821 SOURCES: See Table VIIM. 307

Total SZat>es 1726-1750 23.5

1.5 1.5 1751-1775 30.4

4.6 14.0 0.2 40.6 0.3 0.5 Comparisons 0.8 0.2 4.1

Total Whites

White Children

4.8 8.5 10.6 3.2 2.4

2.3 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.1

3.4 9.0 5.7 5.3 4.7 4.9 5.1 3.5 7.0 3.1 6.2 5.8

0.9 2.3 0.9 (2 to 3)

5.8 5.5 5.4 3.2 4.8

a.2.7

White Servants

0.4 5.1 7.0

5.4 3.6 0.4

0.02 3.4 0.0 3.1 2.7

a.1.0 a.2.0

Population of the British Colonies years after 1678; Nevis showed a similar increase from 4.3 to 10.4 slaves per household in only thirty years. It seems apparent that by 1750 households in most of the islands had at least ten slaves on average. Only Bermuda and the Bahamas differed markedly from this pattern. In the latter, the average of 1.5 slaves per family in the 1730's is not very different from that of the mainland colonies, but in Bermuda the average holding of 4.6 slaves in a household is on a par with South Carolina in 1790, and is small only in comparison with the other islands. As might be expected from the evidence on total household size, the average number of slaves per family varied considerably from city to country. In the seventeenth century families in both Port Royal in Jamaica and Bridgetown in Barbados had far fewer slaves than did rural households in those islands, and the same was probably true in the eighteenth century.14 On the mainland the situation was just the opposite: urban families generally had more slaves than did their rural counterparts. This is clear not only from the evidence from New York shown in Table VIII-3, but also in data from Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In Boston in 1764 there were 0.4 slaves in an average family, four times as many as in the colony as a whole, where the comparable figure was 0.1. In Rhode Island in 1774 both cities had more slaves in a household than did the colony as a whole, where the figure was 0.4. Households in Newport had 0.8 slaves on average, in Providence 0.5. The only exception to this rule was in Albany County, New York, in 1697, where all fourteen slaves in the county lived outside the city of Albany. The differences in the average number of slaves in a household raise a number of interesting questions. How common was slaveholding? Did most families have a few slaves, or were most slaves concentrated on large plantations? Here again those censuses with detail on individual households provide some answers. The data presented in Table VIII-4 clarify several important points. A great many colonial households had no slaves at all. In ten of the thirteen censuses included in the table over half the families had no slaves. The same situation was true in early Virginia, and Albany County, New York, in 1697, but it has been mentioned before that both of these regions were subject to unusual external pressures at the time of the census, and hence may have had fewer slaves than normal. But 14

Although house-by-house listings are not available, evidence presented above on Jamaica in 1730 and for the Leeward Islands in the late 18th century, see Elsa V. Goveia, Slave Society in the British Leeward Ishnds at the End of the Eighteenth Century (New Haven, 1965), 240-41, indicates that in comparison to the rural parishes, blacks were relatively rare in the island cities.

308

Mean

25 or more Slaves

10-24 Slaves

5-9 Slaves

1-4 Slaves

o to

No Slaves

1 1 |

co o to 05

h-' t—' Ol oo to

CO 05 v> O ® >—• b

05 Ol o A. 05 oo '-i co to to o co o Ol 00 i—1 in 00 tfx h-1 to H< -J CD I—1 00 4X w 1—' h-1 to to 4X o 05 co to

1 1 1 1 oo1—1 1—" 05 05 05 00 CO oo O w 00

M Ol CD 00 co co

in

to Ol 4^ CD 4^

to Oi 1—' 00 OX 01 o to OX 4^

to CD oi "ox o

(—1 )—1 to CO o H-1 or ^ oo 05 CD CD

^ CO -a CD to i—' 00

to 1—' to l-< to CD CO 00 to to bi

to w w

to to w ^ m bi

1—• 00 to — i • to h^ co CD f—1 Ol

to J—' to 05 -H

.87

57.2

77.0

23.0

.38

.33

26.4

24.3

15.9

50.7

49.5

13.7

22.9

26.2

of All Whites

.84

54.5

71.1

28.9

In

of All Slaves In

P a0-b C cr •• < a 0 a1

CJI a>

18 " a3> Ia> ^ Cfi rhB CD rtO 1-tEvi

a. o B o f-to •a £

3,080 9,092

I—1 o o o

02 ' 00 o CD 02 &

cn 02 p 02 1—i 00 "-a

1—' VI to 00 o

to 00 to b

02 to

® E

M < >3 K

i—i

W h—1 O ® a C/3 M S3 O f

a

St. Christopher 1707 Bahamas 1731 Bahamas 1734 Barbados 1715 Rhode 1774

Island

Household Size and Composition to very large and very small households. Households with only one white member ranged from a low of 1.7¾ of the total in Rhode Island in 1774 to a high of 44.3¾ in the Bahamas in 1734. While these may be exceptional cases, at least three of the censuses included in Table VIII-IO show about 6.0% of all households to have had only one white. The proportion of households with only one white member was even lower in Newfoundland in 1677, in New York in 1712-14, and in Bristol, Rhode Island, in 1689.31 Another four censuses (plus the Barbados enumeration studied by Dunn and the Virginia census which Hecht analyzed) show more than a fifth of the households to have had only a single white member. 32 The contrast among large families is equally striking. In at least two censuses there were no families with as many as ten whites recorded. The 57.7¾ of Newfoundland households with ten or more whites is clearly the result of many servants, but in rural New York, Jamaica (St. John's), Montserrat (1729), and Rhode Island in 1774 we still find about 8.0% or more of the households to have had ten or more whites present. Two suggestions can be made which may help to explain these differences. First, customs may have varied from one colony to another regarding the desirability of family government. In New England, where this tradition was strong and society discouraged single individuals from living alone, there was a notable absence of single householders. 33 Perhaps elsewhere a less stringent moral code allowed individuals to live by themselves if they so desired. Second, economic factors may have influenced the numbers of whites living in a household.34 The residence patterns described here may simply reflect the availability of housing in the various colonies. In poor colonies, or in places where satisfactory building materials were hard to obtain, pressure would obviously have been placed on individuals or even on some families to share the houses of others. Certainly in Montserrat in 1729 there was a clear tendency for the poorer families to have no housing of their own. And in 1764, at a time when Massachusetts was beginning 31

Demos, "Bristol," 44, shows 1.5% of all households to have had one white. Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, 107; Hecht, "Virginia Muster," 76. 33 John Demos, A Little Commonwealth (New York, 1970), Pt. Two and p. 194. As Philip Greven, Jr. has shown in Four Generations (Ithaca, N.Y., 1970), adult offspring often remained in the parental household out of loyalty and economic coercion. See also the data cited above for Rhode Island in 1774; David H. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England (Charlottesville, Va., 1972); and Wells, "Quaker Marriage Patterns," 436-37. 34 For some interesting remarks on social attitudes and their effects on families and households, see Bernard Farber, Guardians of Virtue: Salem Families in 1800 (New York, 1972), esp. pp. 46-52. 32

331

Population of the British Colonies to feel population pressure on her natural resources, there were only eighty-three houses for every hundred families.35 Perhaps the most important point to emerge from this survey of household size and composition in the English colonies in America before 1776 is the tremendous complexity and diversity in New World families. Size and composition of households varied significantly within and between colonies, as well as over time. Wealth seems often to have been positively associated with large households, as men of property sought hands to work their fields or boats, but the sex, race, and age of the household head each played a role in determining the character of the family. It would be ideal at this point to be able to indicate the extent to which each of the above factors shaped the household, but the evidence is not full enough to permit it. Certainly the data reveal the variety of household patterns. Yet they may also obscure the extent of the differences, and in so doing may underemphasize the problems faced by individuals in trying to adjust to family living. Historians have recently become aware that families go through life cycles of their own, as they are formed, grow, change, and finally dissolve; at each step members of the family must adjust to a new set of relationships and new behavior patterns. Thus a member of any household discussed here experienced family life with different numbers in the household, and often with different members as well.36 Furthermore, it is possible that families with the same number of members may have followed distinctly different life cycles. Of special interest here are thirty-two families from New York in 1698. Enough detail about these families was included in the census to allow comparison of household structure among families of the same size (see Table IV-7). Seventeen of these families (53.1%) could be called nuclear and complete, in that a husband and wife lived together with their children, but no one else. Surprisingly, there were no three-generation households in this group, and only one instance of an elderly parent living with a married child. The most obvious explanation is that there were not many old people then in the colony (only 5.7% of the population in question were over sixty). A few families included outsiders such as servants, slaves, or orphans, but most of these New York households, unlike those of other colonies, were comprised of 35

Century of Pop. Growth, 158-62; Lockridge, "Land, Population," 62-80. For two recent works dealing with the life cycle of the family from a historical perspective see Berkner, "Stem Family," and Robert V. Wells, "Demographic Change and the Life Cycle of American Families," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2 (1971), 273-82. 36

332

Household Size and Composition

blood relatives. Surprisingly, large households were more often nuclear and complete than small households. Of the seventeen families with five or more individuals, fourteen (82.4%) consisted of a husband and wife, plus their children, but no one else, while only 20.0% of the house­ holds with less than five persons fell into this category. Among the smaller families there was wide variety of structure for any given size. For example, four households had three members, none of them alike. One family was headed by a twenty-nine-year-old widow with two children; another included a young couple with no children, but with the husband's mother; a third was made up of a couple in their midtwenties and their only child; two brothers in their fifties, and the son of one of them (aged twenty), lived in the fourth. Families with two or four members were equally varied in their composition. To live in a colonial household was no easy task. It called for con­ siderable adaptability on the part of individuals who had to adjust to the ever-changing nature of the family. Men and women migrating from the Old World to the New were confronted with new household arrangements which differed considerably, not only between England and America, but also from one colony to another. It may well be that one of the greatest difficulties facing a colony was to build a new soci­ ety on the institution of the family, in spite of the fact that few indi­ viduals would ever have shared the same experience. Certainly the emphasis must have been on flexibility and adjustment. A rigid social order based on assumptions of shared family experiences could not have survived in the New World.

Index

Acadia, 60-61 acres, 229-30, 232, 326-27 Act of Union, 213 Africa, 290 age composition, 34-35, 39-41; comparisons of, 268-71, 280, 282; definitions of children and adults. 40; detailed, 117, 119, 242-43; economic significance of, 287-89; exact knowledge of, 117, 119; in Bahamas, 184, Barbados, 241-43, Bermuda, 176-77, Canada, 66-67, Connecticut, 91-93, Jamaica, 200201, Leeward Islands, 214-17, Maryland, 151-53, Massachusetts, 83-84, Neutral Islands, 255-57, Newfoundland, 50-52, New Hampshire, 71-73, New Jersey, 136-38, New York, 115-21, Nova Scotia, 62, Rhode Island, 101-102, South Carolina, 168, Virginia, 162-64; by race, 91-93, 102, 116, 119-21, 13738, 151-53, 168, 176, 184, 200, 214-16, 243, 255-56, 268-70; by sex, 162-64; political significance of, 287 Albany County, 22, 110, 123-29, 299301, 303, 306, 308, 313-14, 320 Alexander, Sir William, 60 American Revolution, 4, 30, 267-68, 273, 285, 291; and population growth, 261, 283-87; and racial composition, 286-87 Amherst, New Hampshire, 70 Andover, Massachusetts, 165 Andros, Edmund, 19 Anglican clergy, 158 animals, 56-58, 229-30, 232, 326-28 Annapolis, Nova Scotia, 61 Antigua, 207, 260-63, 265, 267, 269, 272, 274-75, 291, 299-302, 304, 306-307, 309, 311-13, 315-18, 32930. See also Leeward Islands Appalachians, 30 Avalon Peninsula, 45

335

Bacon's Rebellion, 160 Bahamas, 6, 8, 18, 28, 181-84, 206, 260-63, 265-66, 269-70, 272, 27879, 284, 291, 300, 302-304, 307309, 311, 313-17, 320-22, 329-31; age composition in, 184; households in, 185-93; military status in, 194; racial composition of, 183-84; sex ratios in, 185; size, growth, and distribution in, 182-83 Barbadians, 133, 136 Barbados, 8, 16, 21, 40, 64, 111, 130, 173, 194, 207-208, 236-51, 259-63, 265-69, 272, 274-76, 278, 281, 284, 286, 291, 294, 298-99, 301-302, 306-308, 313-17, 319, 322, 324-25, 330-31; age composition in, 241-43; birth and death rates in, 250-51; freemen, servants, and slaves in, 241; households in, 245-50; marital status in, 245; military status in, 250; racial composition in, 240; regional patterns in, 246-48; sex ratios in, 242-45; size, growth, and distribution in, 237-40 Barrington, Nova Scotia, 60, 62-63 Bellomont, Governor (Coote, Richa r d ) , 112, 114 Berkeley, Lord John, 133 Bermuda, 8, 16, 111, 172-81, 260, 262-63, 265-66, 268-70, 272, 27475, 278-79, 284, 300, 302-303, 307308, 312-13; age composition in, 176-77; birth and death rates in, 181; economic status in, 180-81; families in, 179; freemen, servants, and slaves in, 175-76; men at sea, 177-88; military status in, 179-80; racial composition of, 174-75; regional patterns in, 179; sex ratios in, 177-79; size, growth, and distribution in, 173-74

Index Bermuda Company, 172 Bernard, Francis, 21, 79 Biblical story of David, 20 bills of mortality, 281 birth, place of, of Leeward Islanders, 213-14 birth rate, 281; in Barbados, 250-51, Bermuda, 181, Canada, 68, Leeward Islands, 235-36, Newfoundland, 5960, New Jersey, 141-42 blacks, 38-39. See also free blacks, racial composition Blakiston, Nathaniel, 19, 146 Board of Trade, 16-23, 25-29, 31, 33, 97, 111, 133n, 134, 143, 146, 148, 159-60, 167, 172-73, 235, 252 boats, 56-58, 180-81, 271, 327-28, 332 Boston, 78-85, 87, 94, 99, 277, 303, 308 Bridgetown, Barbados, 240, 246, 299, 302, 306, 308, 314, 319 Bristol, Rhcxle Island, 298-99, 306, 314, 331 British, 170, 207, 255 burials, see death rates Burnet, William, 22 Burton, Ralph, 65 Calvert, Cecilius, 145 Calvert family, 45, 48 Calvert, George, 144-45 Canada, 8, 24-25, 63-68, 111, 26062, 264-65, 268-70, 272-74, 281, 284, 300, 307; age composition in, 66-67; birth and death rates in, 68; freemen, servants, and slaves in, 65-66; geographic distribution in, 64-65; households in, 67-68; marital status in, 66-67; racial and ethnic composition of, 65; sex ratio in, 67; size and growth in, 64-65. See also Newfoundland, Nova Scotia Cape Breton Island, 60 Carlisle, Earl of (Hay, James), 207, 236 Carolinas, 15, 181, 261, 269, 27273, 284. See also North Carolina, South Carolina Carteret, Sir George, 133 censuses, definition of, 6; description of, 6, 8-11; errors in, 112-13, 142, 146, 148, 153n, 186-88, 239, 247; how taken, 16-23; how used by Americans, 31-32; how used by

English, 23-31; origins of, 7, 12-16, 145; reliability of, 23-35; resistance to, 20-22, 143, 182, 239; use today, 32-43; when taken, 14 Charles II, 7, 12, 110, 166 child, definition of in early Virginia, 162 child/woman ratio, 41, 315-16; com­ parisons of, 269, 278-79; in Bahamas, 184, Barbados, 241-242, 245, Bermuda, 175-77, 181, 241-42, Jamaica, 200, Leeward Islands, 216-17, Maryland, 151-52, Massa­ chusetts, 83-84, 86, Neutral Islands, 255-56, Newfoundland, 50-52, New Jersey, 137-38, New York, 116, 118-21, Rhode Island, 101-102. See also fertility christenings, see birth rates Christian, synonym for white, 39 churchwardens, 21 circular letters, 17. See also queries cities, see rural-urban differences; and Albany, Boston, Bridgetown, Kingston, Montreal, New Haven, Newport, New York, Port Royal, Portsmouth, Providence, Quebec, St. George's, Trois Rivieres Clinton, George, 21 Columbus, 194 Committee for the Affairs of America, 23 Commons, House of, 17, 26, 28, 287 Connecticut, 8, 20, 29, 40, 64, 76, 88-96, 100, 123, 260-63, 265, 26970, 272, 274, 284, 294; age com­ position in, 91-93; geographic distribution in, 89-90; marital status in, 94-96; racial composition of, 90-91; regional patterns in, 90-96; sex ratios in, 93-94; size and growth in, 89-90 Connecticut Charter of 1663, 88-89 constables, 18 convicts, 150, 169, 182 Cornbury, Lord, 22, 133n Council for Foreign Plantations (of 1660), 12, 24 Council for Foreign Plantations (of 1670), 13 Courteen, Sir William, 236 Cromwell, Oliver, 7, 12, 194 Cuba, 194 David, story of, 20

Index death rate, 277, 281-82; in Barbados, 250-51, Bermuda, 181, Canada, 68, Leeward Islands, 235-36, New­ foundland, 59-60, New Jersey, 14142 Declaration of Independence, 261 Delaware River, 133 Demos, John, 298 digital preference, 33 domestics, 66. See also servants Dominica, 8, 251-57, 260-61, 263, 265, 269, 284. See also Neutral Islands Dunn, Richard, 195, 218, 239, 298, 314 319 331 Dutch, 60, 110-11, 129, 133, 136, 208, 211, 213, 267, 320 Dutch West India Company, 110 East Jersey, 21, 133-39. See also New Jersey Elizabeth I, 144 emigration, 27, 30, 175, 180, 217, 244 England, 7, 16, 22, 26-27, 49, 52, 61, 68, 88-89, 158, 160, 162, 169, 172, 208, 237, 252, 261, 285-86, 292, 300-302, 307, 316, 328, 338. See also Great Britain, London English, 60, 110, 129, 133, 181-82, 193-94, 207, 211, 213, 246, 253, 255, 263, 267, 285, 287, 291, 297, 313, 319-20 epidemic, 182, 184, 186-88. See also death rates, mortality ethnicity, 319-20; comparisons of, 267-68; in Barbados, 246, Canada, 65, Georgia, 170, Leeward Islands, 211, 213-14, Nova Scotia, 61, Neutral Islands, 254-55, Newfound­ land, 49, New York, 129 families, 331-32; in Bermuda, 179, Maryland, 156-57, Massachusetts, 86-88; and sex ratios, 295. See also households family limitation, 138, 279 family reconstitution, 279, 298-99, 316 Federal Census of 1790, 261, 268, 274, 306 fertility, 40-41, 84, 103, 178-79, 220, 264, 270, 277-82, 294, 316. See also age composition, child/woman ratio first settlements, population in, 271, 273

fisheries, 45-49, 60, 62, 80, 271, 302, 313, 327 Fitzwilliam, Richard, 18 Florida, 181 foreign protestants, 30, 170, 267 Fort Orange, 110 France, 24, 28-29, 49, 60, 145, 208, 252 Franklin, Benjamin, 31, 134 Franklin, John Hope, 293 Franklin, William, 19, 21, 134, 141 free blacks, 39, 291, 320-21; m Baha­ mas, 184, 186, 188, 192-93, Barbados, 241, 245, Bermuda, 175, Jamaica, 196-200, 207, Leeward Islands, 214, Massachusetts, 80, 82-83, New York, 114n, Rhode Island, 101; listed as whites, 184 freeholders, 133 French, 22, 24-25, 27-28, 45-46, 48-49, 60-61, 63-64, 80, 108, 111, 129, 159, 182, 208, 211, 213, 25154, 267 French and Indian War, 97 frontier, 271 fur trade, 110 George III, 32, 287 Georgia, 6, 9, 21, 29, 144, 169-71, 260-61, 263, 265, 267, 284-85, 288; racial composition in, 170-71; size and growth in, 169-70 Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 45 Gini Index, 310-11 Glorious Revolution, 145 Gordon, Major, 20, 143 Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, 69 governors, 17-21, 23, 27, 33-34, 38-39 governor's instructions, as source of demographic data, 13 Graunt, John, 15 Great Britain, 30, 48, 79, 96, 213, 251-52, 286-87. See also England, London Grenada, 9, 251-57, 260-61, 263, 265, 269, 284. See also Neutral Islands growth of population: American pride in, 31-32; comparisons of, 260-64, 280-82; economic significance of, 287-89; fear of in Jamaica, 32; in Bahamas, 182-83, Barbados, 237-40, Bermuda, 173-74, Canada, 64-65, Connecticut, 89-90, Georgia, 16970, Jamaica, 195-96, Leeward Islands, 208-11, Maryland, 146-

Index growth of population (cont.) 49, Massachusetts, 79-80, Neutral Islands, 252-53, Newfoundland, 46-48, New Hampshire, 69-70, New Jersey, 134-35, New York, 111-14, Nova Scotia, 61, Rhode Island, 97-99, South Carolina, 16768, Virginia, 160-61; measurement of, 34, 37-38; political significance of, 283-87; reasons for, 264; and revolutionary activity, 261, 283-87; seen as good, 287; as threat to empire, 29-31 Guadeloupe, 64, 251 Halifax, Nova Scotia, 61, 63 Hamilton, Lord Archibald, 17, 22 Harvard, 285 Harvey, Sir John, 7 Hecht, Irene, 298, 331 Hispaniola, 194 Hollingsworth, T. H., 37 households: by age of head, 130, 226-27, 249-50, 322-25, 327-28; complexity of, 131-32, 332-33; definition of, 42-43, 298; difference between families and, 87-88; effects of availability of housing on, 32932; effects of customs on, 329-32; effects of need for labor on, 130, 193, 230, 327-29; by ethnic background of head, 129, 246, 319-20; in Bahamas, 185-93, Barbados, 24550, Canada, 67-68, colonies, 299316, Jamaica, 202-206, Leeward Islands, 220-35, Massachusetts, 86-88, Neutral Islands, 257-58, Newfoundland, 54-56, New Jersey, 140, New York, 123-33, Nova Scotia, 63, Rhode Island, 101, 104-108, Virginia, 165-66; and kinship, 131-32; male dominance in, 131; by occupation of head, 23034; by race of head, 107-108, 19193, 319-21; by sex of head, 58-59, 108, 128-29, 186, 190-92, 204-206, 223, 225, 232, 248-49, 317-19; by wealth of head, 56-58, 227-34, 325-28, 332. See also families houses, 56-58, 229-30, 232, 326-28 Hudson River valley, 111, 113-15, 120, 125, 133 Hunter, Robert, 21 illegitimacy, 86 immigration, 70, 101-102, 118, 139, 151, 154-56, 158, 162, 170, 175,

196, 218, 239, 244-45, 256-57, 263, 267, 270-71, 274-75, 277-78, 280, 282, 288, 290, 292. See also emigration, migration imperial reform, 26-27 Indians, 25, 27, 30, 39, 49, 61, 65, 67, 166, 169; in Barbados, 241, colonies, 264-65, 270, 274, Connecticut, 90-94, Jamaica, 194, 198, Massachusetts, 81-82, 86, Neutral Islands, 252, 254-55, New Hampshire, 71, New York, 120, 122, Rhode Island, 97-100, 102, 107-108, 321-22, South Carolina, 167-68. See also racial composition "inhabitants," use of term in Connecticut, 89 Irish, 27, 211, 213, 267 Jamaica, 9, 12, 14, 23-24, 28, 32, 34, 63-64, 159, 194-208, 260-62, 265, 267, 269, 271-73, 275-77, 281-82, 284, 286-87, 290, 297-99, 30113, 315-18, 329-31; age composition in, 200-201; geographic distribution in, 196-99; households in, 202-206; military status in, 206-207; race, freemen, servants, and slaves in, 197-99; regional patterns in, 197-206; sex ratios in, 201-202; size and growth in, 19596 James I, 60, 144 James II, 110, 133 Jamestown, 64, 158, 166, 172 Janssen, Governor, 145 Jews, 246, 319-20 Jordan, Winthrop, 178, 293, 295 justices of the peace, 112 King, Gregory, 15 King of England, 17, 27, 32, 88 Kingston, Jamaica, 198-99, 201 labor, need for, effects of, 56-58, 130, 193, 230, 327-29 Lambert, Colonel, 23 Laslett, Peter, 297 Leeward Islands, 9, 13, 17, 22-23, 64, 194, 207-36, 241, 260-62, 265, 267-69, 272, 277-78, 281, 284, 286, 292, 307; age composition in, 21417; births and deaths in, 235-36; freemen, servants, and slaves in, 214; households in, 220-35; military

338

Index status in, 235; racial and ethnic composition of, 211-14; regional patterns in, 211-25; sex ratios in, 218-20; size, growth, and distribution in, 208-11. See also Antigua, Nevis, Montserrat, St. Christopher, Virgin Islands life cycle of family, 332. See also household, by age of head London, 19-23, 34, 69-70, 123, 143, 160, 180, 206, 235, 250. See also England, Great Britain London Company, 158-59 Lords, House of, 17, 28 Louisbourg, 60 Low Countries, 110 Lunenberg, Nova Scotia, 60-63 Maine, 78, 80, 300, 307 marital status, 41; and fertility, 279; in Barbados, 245, Canada, 66-67, Connecticut, 94-96, New Hamp­ shire, 72, 75-78, New York, 123, Virginia, 164-65; and sex ratios, 293-94 Marlborough, 49 marriage rate, in New Jersey, 142 Martinique, 64, 251 Maryland, 9, 18-19, 24-25, 45, 64, 144-58, 160, 162, 167, 169, 194, 213, 260-63, 265-66, 268-69, 27274, 284, 288, 299, 301, 306-307, 313; age composition in, 151-53; economic status in, 157-58; families in, 156-57; geographic distribution in, 146-49; military status in, 157; race, freemen, servants, and slaves in, 147, 149-51; regional patterns in, 150-57; sex ratios in, 153-56; size and growth in, 146-49 Mason, Captain John, 69 Massachusetts, 9, 13, 18, 21, 24, 39, 64, 78-88, 99-100, 111, 145, 160, 194, 207, 260-62, 265, 267, 269, 272-74, 277, 284, 286-87, 291, 300, 303, 307-308, 313, 331; age composition in, 83-84; freemen and slaves in, 82-83; geographic distribution in, 80-82; households and families in, 86-88; racial composition in, 80-82; regional patterns in, 80-88; sex ratio in, 8586; size and growth in, 79-80 Massachusetts Bay Colony, 69, 80, 96 Massachusetts Bay Company, 78 mercantilism, 283

Merrimac, New Hampshire, 70 methods, 43-44 migration, 30, 46, 64, 84, 119, 121, 142-43, 174, 176, 197, 239, 259, 264, 273, 277-78, 282. See also emigration, immigration military strength, 286; concern for as source of census error, 34-35; in Bahamas, 194, Barbados, 250, Bermuda, 179-80, Canada, 67, colonies, 25, 27-29, Jamaica, 24, 206-207, Leeward Islands, 235, Maryland, 157, New Hampshire, 78, Nova Scotia, 61, Rhode Island, 108-109, Virginia, 166; near South Carolina, 26; as reason for censustaking, 7, 12-13, 111, 159-60 miscegenation, 294 Molen, Patricia, 243-44, 247, 298 Moller, Herbert, 293-95 Montgomery, Sir Robert, 26 Montreal, 64-68 Montserrat, Θ, 207, 226-34, 260-63, 265, 267-69, 272, 274-75, 278, 286, 299-301, 304-307, 309-15, 317-19, 326-31. See also Leeward Islands mortality, 138-39, 158, 188, 196-97, 218, 239, 244, 259, 264, 270, 27782, 327. See also death rates natural increase, 277, 281-82. See also birth rates, death rates Navigation Acts, 237 Negroes, 27, 39. See also blacks, racial composition, slaves Neutral Islands, 251-58; age com­ position in, 255-57; households in, 257-58; racial and ethnic com­ position in, 254-55; sex ratios in, 257; size and growth in, 252-54. See also Dominica, Grenada, St. Vincent, Tobago Nevis, 207, 226-29, 260-63, 265, 267, 269, 272, 275, 286, 299, 301, 303304, 306-309, 311-12, 315, 326, 329-30. See also Leeward Islands Newfoundland, 6, 9-10, 16, 26, 36, 45-62, 68, 84, 111, 144, 163, 173, 193, 260-65, 267, 269-73, 278, 281-82, 284, 290, 297, 299-300, 302-307, 309, 312-13, 315-17, 327-28, 330-31; age composition in, 50-52; birth and death rates in, 59-60; freemen and servants in, 48-59; geographic distribution in, 48; households in, 54-59; race

Index Newfoundland (cont.) and ethnicity in, 49; sex ratio in, 52-54; size and growth in, 46-48 New Hampshire, 10, 13, 21, 69-78, 95-96, 108, 123, 259-61, 263, 265, 269, 272, 284-85, 288, 294; age composition in, 71-73; geographic distribution in, 70; marital status in, 75-78; military strength in, 78; race in, 71; regional patterns in, 70-77; sex ratio in, 74-75; size and growth in, 69-70 New Haven, 89-96 New Jersey, 6, 10, 13, 18-19, 21-22, 27, 64, 133-43, 167, 260-62, 26467, 269, 272-74, 276, 281, 284, 307, 313; age composition in, 136-38; birth, death, and marriage in, 141-42; geographic distribution in, 134-35; households in, 140; migra­ tion in, 142-43; racial composition in, 135-36; regional patterns in, 135-40, 142; religion and popula­ tion in, 136, 141; sex ratios in, 138-40, 142-43; size and growth in, 134-35. See also East Jersey, West Jersey New Netherlands, 110 Newport, Rhode Island, 97-100, 102107, 277, 303, 308 New Providence Island, 183. See also Baliamas New York, 6, 10, 13, 16, 18, 21-22, 24-25, 27, 33, 35, 40, 64, 110-36, 159, 167, 173, 250, 260-66, 26970, 272-74, 276, 284, 286, 291, 299-300, 302, 304-309, 311-20, 322, 324-25, 329-32; age com­ position in, 115-21; geographic distribution in, 112-14; households in, 123-33; racial composition in, 114-15; regional patterns in, 11516, 120-30; sex ratios in, 121-23; size and growth in, 111-14 New York City, 78, 113-15, 120, 12229, 299, 302, 304, 306, 309, 311, 313-17, 329-30 Nicholson, Francis, 19, 159 Noel, Martin, 12 North Carolina, 64, 166-67, 301. See also Carolinas Nova Scotia, 10, 27, 60-63, 80, 26065, 268-69, 272-73, 284, 300-301, 307, 313; age composition in, 62; freemen and servants in, 62; geographic distribution in, 61-63;

households in, 63; racial and ethnic composition in, 61; sex ratio in, 62; size and growth in, 61 nuclear families, 131, 332-33 occupation, of household heads in Montserrat, 230-34 Oglethorpe, James, 169 omissions, census, 34-35 orphans, 332 parish officials, 18 parish registers, 281 Parliament, 17, 32, 287 Peace of Paris, 1763, 61, 63, 25152, 254 Penn, John, 20, 143 Pennsylvania, 20, 27, 79, 111, 143, 150-51, 160, 194, 261, 266, 268, 284 Petty, Sir William, 15 Philadelphia, 78, 150-51 Pilgrims, 207 Pitman, F. W., 281 place of birth, 267 Plymouth, 78, 80, 110, 207 political arithmetic, 15 population: American pride in growth of, 89, 285-86; characteristics of interest in, 13, 17, 27; comparisons of, 260-77; economic benefits of, 15, 26-27; and economic growth, 287-90; estimates of in 1775, 28384; fear of in England, 283, 285; fear of in islands, 286-87; in first settlements, 271, 273; geographic distribution of, 24, 27, 30, 38; ideas about in En­ gland, 15, 23-31; importance of geographic differences in, 276; patterns in, 277-96; and politics, 283-87; and religion, 136, 141, 267, 293-96; seasonal variations of in Newfoundland, 46-47; and social structure, 290-96; turnover in Bahamas, 187-88; turnover of blacks in islands, 281 in Bahamas, 183, Barbados, 240, Bermuda, 174, Canada, 64-65, Connecticut, 89-90, Jamaica, 19699, Leeward Islands, 209-11, Mary­ land, 146-49, Massachusetts, 8082, Newfoundland, 48, New Hamp­ shire, 70, New Jersey, 134-35, New York, 112-14, Nova Scotia, 61, Rhode Island, 97-99

Index Port Royal, Jamaica, 198-99, 201206, 299, 302, 304, 306, 308-10, 317-18, 330 Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 70-77, 94 Potomac River, 155 Povey, Thomas, 7, 12-14, 23 Privy Council, 13, 16-17, 23, 25-26, 28 Providence, Rhode Island, 97-107, 303, 308 Public Record Office, 247 Puritans, 60, 145, 293 Quakers, 27, 60, 133-34, 136, 141, 150, 267, 293, 297 Quebec, 60, 64-68 Queen Anne's War, 49, 111, 250 Queries, 17, 20, 143, 167. See also circular letters racial composition, 38-39; comparisons of, 264-68, 282; economic significance of, 289-90; in Bahamas, 183-84, Barbados, 240, Bermuda, 174-75, Canada, 65, Connecticut, 90-91, Georgia, 170-71, Jamaica, 197-99, Leeward Islands, 211-14, Maryland, 147, 149-51, Massachusetts, 80-82, Neutral Islands, 254-55, Newfoundland, 49, New Hampshire, 71, New Jersey, 13536, New York, 114-15, Nova Scotia, 61, Rhode Island, 98-101, South Carolina, 167-68, Virginia, 161-62; political significance of, 286-87; and revolutionary activity, 286-87; and social structure, 29093. See also growth of population religion, and population, 136, 141, 145, 267, 293-96; and sex ratios, 295-96; and slavery, 136, 293. See also Puritans, Quakers, Roman Catholics Report of 1721, 27 Rhode Island, 10, 18, 27, 29, 96-109, 260-62, 264-66, 269, 272-73, 277, 284, 298-300, 303-304, 306-309, 311, 313-17, 320-22, 329-31; age composition in, 101-102; freemen, servants, and slaves in, 101; geographic distribution in, 97-99; households in, 104-108; military strength in, 108-109; racial composition in, 98-101; regional patterns in, 100, 102-106; sex ratios

341

in, 102-104; size and growth in, 97-99 Rindge, New Hampshire, 70 Roberts, George W., 195 Roman Catholics, 49, 145, 213, 267 rural-urban differences, 276-77, 302303, 308. See also cities, regional patterns in Barbados, Bermuda, Connecticut, Jamaica, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island St. Christopher, 23, 130, 207, 226-27, 250, 260-63, 265, 267, 269, 272, 275, 291, 299, 304-306, 309-11, 314-15, 317-18, 322-25, 329-30. See also Leeward Islands St. Eustatius, 213 St. George's, Bermuda, 174, 179 St. John's parish, Jamaica, 197, 200, 202-206, 299, 301-307, 309-10, 313, 315-17, 330-31 St. Lawrence River, 45, 48, 63-64 St. Lucia, 251 St. Vincent, 10, 251-57, 260-61, 26566, 269, 284, 300, 307. See also Neutral Islands Scotch, 129, 211, 213, 267 Secretaries of State, 31 Secretary's Office, Bahamas, 18 selectmen, 18 servants, 39, 271, 312-13, 328, 33132; in Barbados, 241, 244, Bermuda, 175-76, Canada, 65-66, Jamaica, 197-99, 201-202, Leeward Islands, 214, 217-18, 220, 233-34, Maryland, 149-51, 154-57, Newfoundland, 48-59, Nova Scotia, 62, Rhode Island, 101, South Carolina, 168, Virginia, 162, 164-66 sex ratios, 41; by age, 85-86, 93-94, 103-104, 121-23, 138-39, 154-55, 162-64, 177-78, 218-19, 242, 244, 272-76; at birth, 139-40, 236; comparisons of, 271-76, 279; of deaths, 218, 236, 244; economic significance of, 289-90; and family life, 295; in Bahamas, 185, Barbados, 242-45, Bermuda, 177-79, Canada, 67-68, Connecticut, 93-94, Jamaica, 201-202, Leeward Islands, 21820, Maryland, 153-56, Massachusetts, 85-86, Neutral Islands, 257, Newfoundland, 52-54, New Hampshire, 74-75, 77, New Jersey, 138-40, 142-43, New York, 121-23,

Index sex ratios (cont.) Nova Scotia, 62, Rhode Island, 102104, South Carolina, 168-69, Virginia, 162-64; and marital status, 77-78, 220; political signifi­ cance of, 287; by race, 74-75, 85-86, 93-94, 103-104, 121-23, 138-40, 154-55, 168, 177-78, 185, 201, 218-19, 244-45, 257, 27276; and racial attitudes, 294-95; and religion, 295-96; and social structure, 293-96 Seymour, Colonel, 146 Shaftesbury, Earl of, 15 sheriffs, 18, 159 size of population, see growth of population slave importations, see immigration slavery and religion, 136, 293 slaves, 28, 32, 39; Indians as, 16768. See also blacks, racial com­ position Somers, Sir George, 172 South Carolina, 26, 39, 64, 166-69, 172, 260, 262, 264-66, 268, 270, 273-74, 279, 300-301, 306-308; age, 168; sex ratios in, 168-69; size and racial composition in, 167-68. See also Carolinas Spanish, 12, 28, 166, 169, 182, 194, 198, 206-208, 271 Stamp Act, 79 Stiles, Ezra, 31 Sugar Act, 79 Swedes, 133 tax assessors, 18, 21, 134 tax lists, 160, 261 Thomas, George, 23 three-generation households, 131, 332 Tobago, 11, 36, 194, 251-57, 25966, 269, 271-73, 284, 300-301, 307. See also Neutral Islands

Trelawny, Edward, 34 Trois Rivieres, 64-68, 300, 307 United States, 259, 268, 277, 283, 300, 307 Utrecht, Treaty of, 49, 60, 113, 208 Vermont, 114 Virgin Islands, 207, 260-63, 265, 267-69, 272, 274-76, 278, 299, 306, 313-14. See also Leeward Islands Virginia, 7, 11, 18-19, 24-25, 63-64, 79, 110, 144-45, 158-67, 172, 19495, 260-63, 265-66, 268-69, 271-73, 278, 284, 286, 298-301, 306, 308, 313, 331; age and sex composition in, 162-64; freemen and servants in, 162; households in, 165-66; marital status in, 164-65; military status in, 166; racial composition in, 161-62; size and growth in, 160-61 Virginia Company, 7, 172 Warner, Thomas, 207-208 wealth of households in Leeward Islands, 227-34 Wentworth family, 69 Wentworth, John, 69-70, 73 Wesley, John, 169 West Jersey, 133-40. See also New Jersey whites, 27-28, 38-39. See also racial composition widows, 75-76. See also marital status Wigglesworth, Edward, 32, 285 William and Mary, 145 Williams, Roger, 100 Wilmot, Nova Scotia, 61 Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, 60, 62-63

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Wells, Robert V 1943The population of the British colonies in America before 1776. Bibliography: p. 1. America—Population—History. 2. Great Britain—Colonies—America. I. Title. HB3501.W45 301.32'9'73 75-4976 ISBN 0-691-04616-6