OK. I know that this will mark me as a total geek, but I recently came across a copy of Census of 1850, which is the first census with information on Utah. The numbers provide a fun snap shot of the Mormon commonwealth three years after its founding.
In 1850, Utah had a population 11,380. There were 6,046 males and 5,334 females, which puts to rest the tired myth the polygamy was a way of dealing with a surplus of women. Salt Lake was the largest county with 6,157 inhabitants. Toole county was the smallest county with 152 inhabitants. There were 24 “freed coloreds” as well as “26 slaves en route for California” who were in Utah county when the census was taken. The population was relatively young. The largest age cohort consisted of those under the age of 30 and there was no one in the territory over the age of 90. Indeed, there were only 57 people over the age of 70.
In the year prior to June 1, 1850, there were 432 births, 404 marriages, and 239 deaths. There were 2,322 families. I have no idea how polygamy factored into the statistics for birth and families. The doctrine would not be publically taught until 1852, but it was a more or less open secret by 1850. There were apparently no deaf or dumb people in the territory. Utah could, however, boast of 2 blind people, 5 insane people, and only 2 “Idiotic” people.
Utah claimed one college, but that was probably mostly on paper. In addition, the census lists 13 public shcools supported by a whopping $8,200 in tax revenue, as well as $3,312 from “other sources.” In addtion, Utah had 13 “Academies and Other Schools.” The illiteracy rates seems to have been fairly low, with only 154 adults who were unable to read and write. Interestingly, only one of the freed blacks in the territory was illiterate. (There is no entry with regard to the 26 transitory slaves.)
Far and away the most common occupation was farmer (1,570) followed by laborers as a distant second (617). There were a fair number of blacksmiths (114) and carpenters (158). There were five brewers or distillers (Oregon territory, with over 13,000 inhabitants had only one) and three book binders. On the other end of the occupational spectrum, the following professions boasted a single practioner: architects, artists, barbers, boatmen, brokers, brushmakers, daguerreotypists, dairymen, drivers, dyers, gold & silver smiths, grocers, gunsmiths, inn keepers, ironmasters, oilmakers, professors, and ship carpenters. There were five lawyers. Interestingly, twice as many inhabitants of the desert outpost described their occupation as “mariner.”
The entire value of the farm land of Utah in 1850 was set at $311,799. Oxen (5,266) outnumbers horses (2,429) two to one. The biggest crop was wheat (107,706 bushels) and the smallest crops were tobacco (70 pounds grown in Salt Lake county) and hops (50 pounds in Davis county).
Most interesting, perhaps, are the numbers on churches. The census collected the number of churches and the value of their property for Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics. Thus we know that there were 73 Roman Catholic churches in New Mexico holding property valued at $94,100. (There were no protestant churches in New Mexico.) Other than three people who listed their occupation as “clergyman,” however, there is no record in the census numbers of any religion in Utah at all!
Yes, Nate, you are a geek.
There are many interesting facts to be learned from the 1850 Utah census. First, the 11,380 number, I believe, is incorrect. There are dozens of duplicate entries. For example, members of the Iron County Misson are listed twice. If I remember correctly, John D. Lee is first listed as a resident of Salt Lake County, then he appears again in the census as part of the Iron County Mission, en route to Southern Utah. Same with the rest of that group.
Also, the ages of many females in the census are incorrect. In countless entries, plural wives are listed in such a way to appear to be children of the male head of household, when, in fact, they not.
This is fascinating, Nate, is it available online?
As for the “tired myth” about polygamy, showing that a particular polygamist community had more men than women does not show that the reason for polygamy was more women generally. The Book of Mormon says God sometimes justifies polygamy to “raise up seed” unto him (i.e., increase the community’s birthrate), and monogamy-only communities have some women who are childless only because they are unmarried. Because polygamy increases the marriage rate, it would subsequently raise the birth rate in communities that treat marriage as a prerequisite for child bearing.
The entire population of Iron county was only listed at about 360, so even if every single person in the mission was double counted it would not dramatically effect the totals. On the other hand, I would be absolutely shocked if the information in the census was NOT inaccurate. The polygamy angle is interesting. How do you verify the claim? Are there antecdotal accounts? A parallell profile of the population from some other source? Just curious…
Actually, Matt the data seems to suggest that polygamy depressed female fertility. Part of this was probably economics. In some cases it may also have been the result of decreased levels of sexual activity between husbands and plural wives, e.g. a husband with wives in several geographically dispersed locations.
“only 2 “Idiotic” people.”
Obviously that number has increased substantially.
I find it difficult, however, to believe that in 1850, Utah had a lower population than Oregon. Can that really be so?
The total population for Oregon territory is listed at 13,294. It’s important to remember that Oregon Territory included present day Oregon, Washington, and (I think) much of Idaho.
Who collected the census data? Gentiles, Mormons, or was the territorial government responsible for reporting data collected as they saw fit?
Nate, I’ve heard before that polygamy lowered Utah’s birth rate, but haven’t seen the studies. Do you know where I can find them? Assuming the studies are right, it is probably due to the regulations placed on Utah polygamy. Polygamy should increase birth rates in a marriage market where women (1) choose their husbands and (2) want children. Otherwise, we seem forced to interpret Jacob 2:30 as saying God uses polygamy to increase the fertility of polygamist men, which polygamy presumably does spectacularly well, at the expense of the community’s birth rate.
Steve said “I find it difficult, however, to believe that in 1850, Utah had a lower population than Oregon. Can that really be so? ”
Steve,
Although there were close to 15,000 saints in Nauvoo, many did not come west immediately. Also, the mass migrations from Europe did not hit full steam until the mid 1850’s with the initiation of the Perpetual Emmigration Fund. To see the record for the decade would be fascinating.
Matt, that last interpretation is not at odds with Jacob 2:30 because of the key qualifier that the children are to be raised up `unto the Lord.’ In this view, who (i.e. which fathers) the children are born to is the key, not the total birthrate. This idea was featured in certain infamous comments in Orson Pratt’s public announcement in 1852.
Interesting. And you were marked as a geek for me when you admitted to having read the entire appendix of latin phrases in Black’s law dictionary.
It is truly absurd that the census did not contain any record to religious persuasion at all in Utah. Utah was only inhabited at the time because Latter-day Saints fled there. Presumably it would have close to 100% LDS in 1850.
A. Greenwood – I’m not 100% positive, but I believe Thomas Bullock recorded most of 1850 Utah census data. I will verify this evening.
“Obviously that number has increased substantially.”
Thanks. That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while. But then I don’t get out much.
Matt, Christian’s interpretation of Jacob is consistent with the dynastic/political interpretation that is currently in vogue among many polygamy scholars (as opposed to Brodie’s sex hypothesis, which has lost a lot of ground and may well be the minority viewpoint nowadays). The other viewpoint is takes D&C 132 entirely at face value, which is common within the church, but not a popular scholarly approach.
Nate, your data set is inconsistent.
You sad there, were only two “idiotic” people, yet you listed five lawyers….
Nate, your data set is inconsistent.
You said there were only two “idiotic” people, yet you listed five lawyers . . . .
Four of the lawyers were halfwits and the fifth was mindless.
No inconsistency after all.
‘Interestingly, twice as many inhabitants of the desert outpost described their occupation as “mariner.”’
I had a pioneer ancestor who gave up his life of the sea to join the saints. He was proud of the adventures of his former life, and so I would not be surprised if he was one who listed his profession as “mariner”, even though once he was in Utah he worked at all sorts of jobs, none of them involving boats.
I think that Utah is a big place.
Arturo, you seem to imply that the interpretation of Jacob I gave in #11 is inconsistent with a “face-value” reading of D&C 132. Why is that?
Matt, I believe the best demographic study of polygamy in Utah during the 19th century can be found in The New Mormon History. I forget the name of the article that was reprinted there.
As for why polygamy decreased the birth rate, most women had only one or two children – mainly due to the husband not living with the wife. (Often they had their own homes and the husband would visit for a while) Contrast this to monagamists of the era where women typically had numerous children. Thus the view is that polygamy doesn’t effectively make use of the capabilities of women to have children.
The problem with this is that the analysis seems biased towards men with several wives. As I recall most men who practiced polygamy did the minimal amount. i.e. two wives or less frequently three. Having more than three wives was fairly unusual. So I think the analysis neglects too much two women living in the same home (or close by).
But it’s been years since I last read the studies. So I may be misrecalling some facts. (i.e. don’t quote me on this)
My studied guess is that the ten mariners were in Utah mostly for the purpose of keeping the ship carpenter in business.
Don’t forget the census did not count any Native Americans living in the territory and they were there.
David: Excellent point.
Christian Cardall Arturo, you seem to imply that the interpretation of Jacob I gave in #11 is inconsistent with a “face-value” reading of D&C 132. Why is that?
I realize that what I said earlier left some ambiguity as to what exactly I take to be inconsistent with a face value reading of D&C 132. So let me be perfectly clear: I take the dynastic/political interpretation to be inconsistent with a face value reading of D&C 132. On the one hand, I take the dynastic/political interpretation to understand that polygamy a practice introduced to produce a prophetic bloodline and confer status. On the other hand, I take a face value reading of D&C 132 to mean that polygamy is in some sense necessary to reach exaltation.
As far as my take on your interpretation of Jacob, I meant only to indicate that it is consistent with a prevalent scholarly viewpoint; specifically, dynastic/political view of polygamy. I do not find it to be necessarily inconsistent with a face value reading of D&C 132, and, of course, I have no way to tell at this point where your opinion lies in respect to D&C 132.
One problem with polygamy, anywhere it is practiced, is that it leaves a surplus of men unable to find wives. If men already outnumbered women in Utah, polygamy would have compounded the problem. From the comments above, it doesn’t seem like polygamy a) married off women who couldn’t find husbands or b) resulted in higher birth rates. If I might be permitted to speculate on a topic about which I know very little:
1. Perhaps the point of polygamy was not wives or children at all, but increase the numbers of unmarried men.
2. Unmarried men can more easily be sent on long-term missions (although married men were sent too).
3. There’s more than one way to raise up a people, and procreation might not be the fastest way.
Is there anything to this?
I adore the census records. After subscribing to Ancestry.com and finally having unrestricted access to census images, I spent the first six months sleeping maybe 3 or 4 hours at night because I pored over those census records all night long! There is soooo much in them. Not just geeky data, either (though I love that, too!), but amazing personal stories. They really are like a snapshot of that time period.
And as for those desert-bound mariners, I can only say once a mariner, always a mariner. My husband’s roots all go back to Ireland, via Newfoundland, and to master mariners on both sides of the family. My husband is technically an engineer/analyst, but he could navigate his way through any storm, I’m sure of it. It is in his genes. He looks out our balcony and points to all the cities and hills and names them for me (he just moved to So. Calif. a couple of years ago!) but I know I’ll never remember. (I’m lost without him!)
Arturo, it’s been a few years since I read Compton. I remember not being particularly convinced by dynasty angle, but I’d have to look at the argument again. What seemed most obvious to me that finding wives through his inner circle (and using the lure of entering the inner circle) was simply the easiest way—in practical terms—to carry out a manifestly difficult program.
Also, I don’t think it was so much about expanding the prophets’ seed over that of the rank and file, but expanding the seed of righteous over that of the Gentiles (and maybe the slackers).
I agree that DC 132 was originally understood as requiring polygamy for exaltation.
Clever, Jonathan, never thought of that. If it were up to me to choose how to raise up seed—procreation, or knocking on doors in the face of constant rejection… Hmm, tough choice, I’ll have to think about that for awhile.