Abstract
In this article, we examine the demographic characteristics of the non-Native American settlers in Payne County, Oklahoma, using the 1890 Territorial Census, which includes information on gender, household size and composition, and birth region. For comparison, we use census data from the 1880 Midwest census region to examine whether the household characteristics of the Payne County settlers were unique or representative of Midwestern families from which they emigrated. We find that US-born individuals were more likely to participate in the land run, but that the number and age of children were not significantly different from the Midwestern region.
The history of no other state derived from more fundamentally distinctive natural forces, conditions, trends, and developments—bewildering questions of public policy, difficult problems of reconciling the operation of the laws of nature with Indian rights, private greed, and national honor….
1
Introduction
The land runs in 1889 in Oklahoma were the beginning of a unique regional development story in the United States. In 1889, through negotiations with the various tribes who occupied lands in Oklahoma Territory and subsequent land sales from tribes to the federal government, a portion of the Unassigned Lands was opened for non-Native American settlement on March 23, 1889. 2 The first land run in Oklahoma was held on April 22, 1889. 3 Figure 1 shows the lands allocated to each tribe and the Unassigned Lands in Oklahoma Territory, what would become the state of Oklahoma. The first land run included portions of Canadian, Cleveland, Kingfisher, Logan, Oklahoma, and Payne County. Figure 2 provides a county map of Oklahoma; from the map, it is clear that the Unassigned Lands cover large parts of these modern-day Oklahoma counties. Remaining areas of Oklahoma that were made available to non-Native American settlement were allocated in four subsequent land runs, a lottery, and a sealed bid auction prior to Oklahoma’s statehood in 1907. 6 Figure 1 also provides more information on the number and timing of the land runs.
Map of Oklahoma Land Openings from the Oklahoma Historical Society Research Center.
County map of Oklahoma. Source: County Map, 2017. 5
Prior to the first land run, potential settlers registered to enter the land run and if an applicant qualified for land settlement under the Homestead Act of 1862, they had the chance to join in the run. Interestingly enough, citizenship was not required, and even though women could not legally vote at the time, they were able to participate in the land runs as well.
7
The registrants lined up at the edge of the new area that was to be opened up for settlement, near what would become Stillwater, OK. The scene prior to the start of the run provides a sense of the wide range of people who were hoping for “free land.” They were all there, many thousands strong, the boomer, the settler, the gambler, the speculator, the land shark, the honest home seeker, the adventurer.
8
Once the land run officially ended, the settlement of the area and construction of the new area officially began. Under the Homestead Act of 1862, the settlers paid small fees and then were required to live on the land continuously for five years and improve it before they would officially receive ownership of the land. 12 By the time the town of Stillwater in Payne County was settled, it had a population of approximately 300 people in the town with additional rural settlers in the surrounding area. 13 While these Payne County settlers varied greatly in origin, age, gender, and family composition, the information from the 1890 Oklahoma Territorial Census paints a picture of these families.
In this article, we examine the settler characteristics of the first citizens in Payne County, Oklahoma, using the 1890 Territorial Census of Oklahoma. 14 Payne County was chosen as the county for analysis because a portion of the first and second land runs occurred there. In addition, the starting line for the first land run is in Payne County, near the city of Stillwater.
There is a substantial amount of economic and business history research examining the settlement of the Western United States. This literature focuses on a variety of distinct areas including the role of private property rights in economic development, 15 an examination of the success or failure of federal government policies in efficiently reallocating federal lands, 16 and examinations of economic outcomes, including income, land values, and the subsequent welfare of various settler groups. 17 Previous research on the land runs in Oklahoma is more limited. Specific papers have focused on positing an entrepreneurial theory that is used to explain the opening of the Indian Territory for settlement, 18 on estimating land values across the various land allocations (Bohanon and Coelho 1998), 17 and on an examination of the evolution of property rights in the Cherokee Strip. 19
This is the first article that we are aware of that examines the demographic characteristics of the settler households who participated in the first land run in Oklahoma in Payne County. There is a long history of researchers examining family composition. This literature includes discussions of the influence of newly settled areas on family size and fertility (Easterlin 1976a), 20,21 the evolution of family size and composition in European countries, 22 and the evolution of family size in the nineteenth-century United States. 23
Using the 1890 Oklahoma Territorial Census, we describe the households that took part in this unique opportunity to become territorial landowners. 24 In particular, our analysis of family characteristics follows in a long line of literature examining fertility for families in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in the United States. In Easterlin’s work (1976, 1976a), 20,25 he noted there was a decline in fertility across the nation in the early 1800s despite widespread availability of farmland. He also noted that previous work had found much higher fertility rates in newly formed western states in the early-1800s than in more established eastern states, despite availability of farmland in eastern states (Easterlin 1976a, 50). This well-documented demographic transition, the slowdown in fertility and population growth that occurred in the 1800s in the United States 26 (Easterlin 1976a), was contrary to the Malthusian view of population growth. The Malthusian view was that as long as there was available land and resources, fertility would remain high and populations would continue to grow (Easterlin 1976a, 46). Easterlin finds that there is a pattern of increased number of children in areas with a large amount of available land and a low population density in the eighteenth century in the United States, although the specific factor leading to this pattern is not clear (Easterlin 1976a, 70–71). Easterlin (1976a, 60) provides one argument for an increased number of children in newly settled areas. He argues that in newly settled areas, there will be a larger number of children because child labor is relatively more valuable in new settlements, as would be the case in Payne County. He demonstrates that there was a consistent pattern of population growth in newly settled areas with initially increased number of children followed by a decline to a replacement level (Easterlin 1976a, 70). However, he also notes that in the case of the United States in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there is evidence that child labor is just as valuable to farmers in established areas, so this pattern of increased children in newly settled areas cannot be strictly due to the opportunity costs of children (Easterlin 1976a, 60, 70).
In this article, we examine the household composition of the Payne County settlers, including number of children and number of sons and daughters relative to the 1880 Midwest Region Census sample of rural households. Based on Easterlin’s findings, although settler land by definition had a low population density of settlers and was a less established area than the Midwest region generally, Payne County settlers may not be expected to have increased children relative to similar more established regions in the Midwest. This is due to two factors, first we cannot track the settlers over time, and we analyze whether these rural settlers in the new settlement in Payne County had more children at the time of settlement than the more established Midwest region. Second, according to Easterlin’s argument, child labor may have been just as valuable in the established Midwest region as it was in the newly established Oklahoma Territory.
Our analysis of household composition also follows from previous historical work examining the evolution of household size and composition. Berkner 27 finds that the nuclear family, comprised of mother, father, and children, was the common family structure as far back as the eighteenth century in Europe. Specifically, she examines rural Austrian families and cites the work of Laslett 28 who found the same family composition for a sample of communities in preindustrial England. This work refuted long-held beliefs that industrialization had led to the decline in large intergenerational households and instead indicated that household composition in rural areas of Austria and England had been consistent and included only the nuclear family. In the case of Laslett’s analysis in England, he found that family size had remained relatively constant since the sixteenth century at an average size of 4.75. Ruggles 29 counters this argument and finds that for the United States, there has been a consistent decline in the share of extended or intergenerational families and a rise in the number of childless couples and single individuals. He is able to document these changes back to 1880 using the Integrated Public Use Microdata System (IPUMS) samples of Census data, and he finds a significant shift in family size and composition in the United States between 1880 and 1980, counter to the arguments put forward by Berkner, 30 Laslett, 31 and others that family composition and size was consistent over time. In our work, we use census data to examine the household composition of the settlers in 1890 to see whether the household size is in line with Laslett’s findings, but we cannot examine changes to this group over time. In our findings, we use detailed family composition data for Payne County from the 1890 Oklahoma Territorial Census to describe the family size and composition of rural settlers in Payne County and compare this settler group to the Midwest region from which they largely emigrated. This provides a unique picture of the first participants in the Oklahoma land runs and allows us to examine whether they had a distinctive household composition or were a representative sample of the Midwest region.
The article proceeds as follows: first, in the second section, we provide historical background on the formation of the Oklahoma Territory and the Unassigned Lands. Next, in the third section, we discuss the primary data source that we are examining and the methods that we have used to construct the data set. Then in the fourth section, we present our results and discuss our findings. Finally, in the fifth section, we conclude.
Background
The history of Oklahoma begins much earlier than the first land run with the passing of the Indian Removal Bill on June 30, 1830, requiring that all Native Americans be relocated, often forcibly to land that was west of the Mississippi River. 32 The legislation did not require that Native Americans be settled in the land that would become Oklahoma, but given existing settlement, it was the “logical location for the five Southern tribes,” 33 which included the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes. 34 These tribes were located in various regions throughout the Southeastern United States prior to the removal, and white settlers viewed these Native American lands as an untapped resource and were lobbying for and moving into areas designated as Native American territory even before the Native Americans emigrated west. 35 The emigration west was an arduous journey filled with illness and death, and the lands they were moved to in Oklahoma Territory presented their own challenges as other Native American tribes already occupied them. Between 1834 and 1837, treaties were enacted providing agreements for the existing residents and the new Native American immigrants to share the land 36 conflicts over Native American land allocations were far from resolved, however.
The 1830s treaties were destroyed along with much of the Native American settlements by the Civil War (1861–1865) in which some tribes supported the Union Army and some supported the Confederate Army. 37 After the Civil War, the Treaty of 1866 was signed in order to provide a framework for reestablishing relationships between the US Government and the various tribes. This agreement led to further reduction of Native American lands, allocated specific lands for each tribe, and set aside land in which to relocate other tribes (Foreman 1945, 134–9). 38 The land that was set aside for relocation of other tribes was known as the Unassigned Lands and was approximately 2 million acres situated in the center of the lands allocated by treaty to other tribes. 39 Figure 1 shows the lands allocated to each tribe and the Unassigned Lands in Oklahoma Territory, what would become the state of Oklahoma.
The opening of the Unassigned Lands to white settlers through various land runs was intended to resolve a contentious period in the history of what would become the state of Oklahoma as settlers demanded access to Native American lands in Oklahoma Territory. 40 After the Treaty of 1866, white settlers were not allowed to claim land in Indian Territory. 41 Enforcing the laws to keep settlers out proved to be a challenge, becoming increasingly difficult as more and more people set their eyes on the new territory. 42 In 1880, there were a reported 6,000 white settlers living in Indian Territory, and by 1886, the number had reach 36,500. 43 These settlers were allowed to live on territorial lands through various arrangements including marriage, rental of farmland, cattle ranching, through either a Native American leasing system or illegal uncompensated grazing, providing services to the Native Americans such as mechanics, or in conjunction with the expansion of the railroads (Goins and Goble 2006, 116–117). 44,45 These various solutions proved untenable, as the Federal Government later deemed many illegal, such as the leasing of farmland and grazing rights (Goins and Goble 2006, 116-117). 46
Prior to the land runs, illegal settlers began encroaching on the Unassigned Lands. These settlers were often called boomers, the name given to settlers who were demanding the opening of the Indian Territory for non-Native American settlement. 47 Boomers came from a variety of occupations, doctors, lawyers, barbers, farmers, ranchers, and so on. One of the most infamous was David L. Payne. 48 Payne would routinely take groups of illegal settlers into the Oklahoma Territory, usually to be kicked out by the military. 49 While there had been small boomer incursions into the unsettled and legally unavailable land before, Payne played a large role in forcing the issue of territorial land settlement in the US Congress. 50 On January 23, 1885, after petitioning Congress and following several major victories in the courts, the US President recommended the opening up of Indian Territory. 51
Data
To provide information on the demographic characteristics of the Payne County settlers and their families, we used the 1890 Oklahoma Territorial Census, available from the Oklahoma Historical Society. 52 The 1890 Oklahoma Territorial Census is not part of the official US census records, which were largely destroyed in a fire in 1921. 53 The territorial census was a territorial sponsored census that covered the six counties that were part of the first land run in the Unassigned Lands: Canadian, Cleveland, Kingfisher, Logan, Oklahoma, and Payne County. 54 The 1890 Oklahoma Territorial Census for Payne County (PCC) includes 1,782 households and 6,872 individuals. The PCC includes demographic information including the age, gender, race, place of birth, marital status, length of time in the United States, age and gender of each individual. 55 In the PCC, each head of household (HoH) is identified using the relationship category, Head. 56 Wives, children, and other members of the household are listed in the same grouping alongside their Head in the census with relationship information included for each individual, such as Wife, Son, Daughter, Mother, Brother, and so on. We calculated the number of children, number of sons, number of daughters, and household size information by counting individuals in each household. Household size included every individual in the household group, both related and nonrelated. If there were more than one person in the household, we identified those as married by whether or not they included a spouse. In the PCC, if there was a spouse, it was always a wife.
In order to provide context for the demographic characteristics of the Oklahoma settler households, we have used the 1880 Census data for the Midwest region provided by IPUMS-USA. 57 The data set was restricted to rural, nonmetropolitan, single- or two-family households in order to better match the Oklahoma territory region in 1890. 58
Results
In our analysis, we describe the demographic characteristics of the first settler households in Payne County. 59 In the first set of analyses, Table 1, we examine the HoH structure of the Payne County settlers as compared to the rural HoHs in the 1880 Midwest Census sample (MWC). Next, in Composition of Settler Marriage and Children subsection, we examine the family composition of the settler households in terms of marriage and children as compared to the 1880 Midwest sample. Then, we focus on describing the regional composition of Payne County settlers as compared to the 1880 sample (Regional Characteristics: Where Settlers Came From subsection).
Head of Household (HoH).
Note: Solo indicates that there is only one household member. There are twenty-three households in the 1890 PCC that do not have a place of birth indicated and are therefore excluded from all region results. There were 247,791 head of households in the 1880 Midwest Region sample and 1,209,584 individuals. PCC = Census for Payne County; MWC = Midwest Census sample.
Table 1 categorizes Payne County settler HoHs based on gender and whether they traveled alone (Table 1). Table 1, column II, indicates, as expected, men headed approximately 96 percent of households and 22 percent of them were traveling alone. For women, the numbers are much lower, women were heads of approximately 4 percent of the households, and as column I shows, surprisingly, given the restrictions on women’s participation, twenty-four women did participate in the land run as single-person households. The group of women allowed to participate included widows, single women, and those who were legally separated from their husbands. 60
Table 1, column III, shows that the HoHs in Payne County were largely from the Midwest, between 62 percent and 71 percent of each group were from the Midwest. For comparison with the PCC data in column II, column IV includes the distribution of HoHs from the 1880 MWC. This comparison indicates that the settler HoHs in Payne County had a significantly larger share of single men than the Midwest Region generally, 21.6 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. There were also fewer multiperson households, households that had more than one individual, headed by women who settled in Payne County as compared to the Midwest Region generally, 2.86 percent and 6.95 percent, respectively. Given the data, it is not possible to determine why there is a difference in the gender composition of the settler HoHs, but one may posit that the individuals who selected into the land run were more risk-taking, that is, willing to take a chance on a lottery and, for men, to travel alone. Clearly, the restrictions placed on women in terms of both social and economic opportunities generally, in addition to the specific restriction preventing married women from participating in the land run, also played a role.
Composition of Settler Marriage and Children
Table 2 examines the composition of settler households in terms of whether they included a spouse and children. Table 2, column II, indicates that the majority of settler households were comprised of married couples with children, 57.29 percent. This is lower that the percentage of married couples with children in the MWC, Table 2, column IV, which is 71.37 percent. This may indicate that there is an opportunity cost to traveling with children. There is also a large difference between the percentages of nonmarried individuals without children. Table 2, column II, indicates that 24.13 percent of the settler households were not married and without children as compared with 6.02 percent for the MWC. According to Easterlin (1976a), households in established farming regions had a high demand for child labor and this finding supports that theory.
Household Composition.
Note: There were 247,791 head of households in the 1880 Midwest Region sample and 1,209,584 individuals. Those spouses who were not present were not included in the census. It is possible that some of the individuals listed as not married had a spouse who did not relocate with them. There were 19 of the 6,872 individuals in the PCC who did not have age information. PCC = Census for Payne County; MWC = Midwest Census sample; HH = household.
Table 3, column II, indicates that 16.95 percent of the multiperson households had no children. This is representative of the Midwest generally when compared with the MWC, 16.78 percent had no children. Contrary to the Malthusian theory, settler households were not more likely to have children. There is no evidence that Payne County settlers had significantly larger numbers of children in order to provide labor and assistance with the settlement of the land when they emigrated than the rural areas of the Midwest included in the1,880 MWC.
Multiperson Households without Children.
Note: By definition, solo men and women did not have children in their household at the time of the census. There were 385 solo men and 24 solo women (see Table 1). There were 247,791 households and 239,309 multiperson households in the 1880 Midwest Census Sample and 1,782 households and 1,373 multiperson households in the 1890 PCC. PCC = Census for Payne County; MWC = Midwest Census sample.
Table 4 provides data on the average household size of the Payne County settlers, both for all households, 3.74 individuals, and restricted to households with children, 5.05 individuals. These data are in line with the theory posited by Berkner (1972) and Laslett 61 that the nuclear family was the norm. Laslett’s average family size of 4.75 is larger than the average for all households, but given that the settlers were comprised of a larger portion of nonmarried households without children (see Table 2) than the larger MWC region, that is not surprising. As the data in Table 4 show, the average household size in the PCC and MWC for those with children was similar, 5.05 and 5.51, respectively. This provides some evidence to support the argument that the nuclear family was the typical family composition, but to investigate further, we have collected data on multigenerational households (Table 2).
Children per Household (HH).
Note: 1890 PCC: total households: 1,782. Total households with children: 1,141. 1880 Midwest Census sample: total households: 247,791. Total households with children: 199,164. The Children per HoH statistics exclude no child households. In the 1890 PCC, sons include stepsons and daughters include stepdaughters. HoH size includes all individuals in the census group including relatives and nonrelatives. PCC = Census for Payne County; MWC = Midwest Census sample; HH = household; HoH = head of household.
Overall, 8.1 percent of the PCC households included a senior individual, someone over the age of sixty-two, and 6.2 percent of the seniors were the HoH. 62 Table 2 presents findings for all multigenerational families; Table 2, column III, indicates that overall the settlers were significantly less likely to have an individual living with them than the MWC group. This is particularly pronounced for married couples with children and unmarried individuals without children. In the PCC data, 3.72 percent of married couples with children resided with a senior individual, while for the MWC sample, the percentage was 7.64, nearly twice the rate. For unmarried individuals without children, 6.75 percent of settler households had a senior member, while in the MWC, the share was 18.82 percent. The results for the MWC sample are largely consistent with the findings for the United States presented in Ruggles, 63 which indicate that approximately 20 percent of white families lived with a relative other than spouses and children in 1880. Overall, the household size data support the theory of Berkner (1978) and Laslett 64 that the nuclear family was the norm in these samples, but the high share of multigenerational households in the MWC supports Ruggles 65 argument that multigenerational households were more common, and as compared to today, household composition has evolved.
In Table 4, we also describe the number of children per household for households that had children and the average household size. Our analysis indicates that in the PCC data, there is a statistically significant difference between the number of sons, 1.66 on average, and daughters, 1.39 on average; households with children have on average significantly more sons. This is true in the MWC as well, 1.70 sons and 1.53 daughters on average, respectively. Interestingly, the total number of children and number of daughters in the PCC is significantly less than average for families in the Midwest. 66 It does not appear that settler households selected into the land runs based on an abundance of offspring. An alternative hypothesis might be that children were a burden, and so there were fewer children in settler households. This is not supported by the age data presented in Table 5, however. Table 5 shows the data for the two censuses categorized by age, and the percentages in the PCC are similar to those found in the MWC.
Children by Age Category.
Note: There are nineteen children without age information in the 1890 PCC. The 1890 PCC data indicate that there were 3,653 children under the age of thirty traveling with their families, 1,975 sons and 1,678 daughters. PCC = Census for Payne County; MWC = Midwest Census sample; HoH = head of household.
Today, minor children are defined as individuals under eighteen years of age, but due to the large number of older children, we have included statistics beyond minors. Given the difficult work of settlement, one may expect many settlers to have older children and possibly more sons but that is not clearly the case (Easterlin 1976, 1976a). In one age category, twenty to thirty, there is twice the percentage of sons, 10.49 percent as daughters, 4.97 percent in the PCC sample, while the difference in the MWC sample is much smaller, 12.61 percent and 8.58 percent, respectively. This group, however, comprises only 8 percent of the children who were part of the settler households. In fact, in Table 5, A, B, and C of column I indicate the three largest categories are children between five and ten, 27 percent, children between one and five, 24 percent, and children between ten and fifteen, 22 percent. Many of these children would require more care than they would provide assistance in maintaining a settled piece of land, so the cost of these children at the time of settlement would seem to outweigh the benefits in terms of output. While there are differences in the age distribution between the two censuses, there is no clear evidence that settlers selected into settlement based on a particular age distribution that is distinct from a typical Midwestern family (see column II, A, B, and C). The lack of evidence that child number or distribution across age or gender was a significant factor in determining which families selected into the first land run in Payne County could be due to several factors. One plausible theory is that the policy for opening the land run was implemented in a short enough period of time that settler households were not able to alter their decisions regarding children, particularly in terms of increasing the number of older children. It is also plausible that Easterlin’s previous finding in other US states hold for Oklahoma as well, that rural households required labor regardless of whether they were in a newly or established settled region (Easterlin 1976a).
Regional Characteristics: Where Settlers Came From
In addition to household family structure characteristics, another area of analysis readily available using census data is the geographic history of the settlers and their families. As discussed previously, the censuses include information on the place of birth for each settler. In order to analyze the data, we have grouped the settlers by census region with the following additions, a region has been added for those born in a region in Indian Territory and three regions have been added for those born outside the United States (Table 6; see Appendix Table A1 for more details).
Region of Birth.
Note: N.A. = Native American (those already in and around the Native American lands surrounding the Unassigned Lands; see Figure 2). In the 1890 PCC, there are 1,759 HoHs and 6,798 individuals with a reported birth region. There are 247,791 HoHs in the 1880 Midwest Region Sample and 1,209,584 individuals. PCC = Census for Payne County; MWC = Midwest Census sample; HoH = head of household.
aThese are the share of each sample in each region.
The data in Table 6 show that the PCC settlers and those in the MWC are predominantly from the Midwest Region, 67.25 percent and 42.70 percent, respectively. One could argue that settlers emigrated from the Midwest region simply due to proximity to the Oklahoma Territory, but as column II indicates, families in the South region, which includes neighboring states such as Texas and Arkansas, comprise a significantly smaller share of settlers, 18.08 percent (see Appendix Table A1 for a list of states in each region). Second, as opposed to those in the MWC, settler HoHs were comprised of significantly fewer European immigrants, 23.59 percent of the Midwest HoHs were born in Europe as opposed to only 4.43 percent of the settler HoHs. One may be tempted to conclude that settlers were comprised of a younger cohort making them largely second-generation Americans, those born in the United States whose parents immigrated to the United States, but on average settler HoHs were 39.25 years old, while the Midwest HoHs were 43.09. The HoHs in the Midwest were significantly older, but based on the less than four-year difference in average age, it is not clear that settler HoHs were more likely to be second-generation Americans than Midwest HoHs. Clearly, Table 6 indicates that those born in the United States were significantly more likely to emigrate, but it does not provide a reason. It may be because US citizens were more willing to undertake a significant relocation, as compared to European immigrants who had already invested in one significant relocation in their lifetime.
As an alternate method of examining region of birth, we used birth region for the youngest child as an indicator of the region from which settler households were relocating just prior to the land run. 68 Table 7, columns I and II, indicate that settler households were locating closer to the Unassigned Lands prior to the land run; the number of youngest children born in the Midwest increased significantly from 67.25 percent to 86.28 percent and the number born in the Native American Territories around the Unassigned Lands increased from essentially 0 percent to nearly 5 percent. This is of particular note, given that non-Native American settlement in these lands was illegal. If we examine the share of youngest children born in the Midwest between the two censuses (Table 7, columns II and IV), it becomes clear that settlers were not establishing their households in the Midwest at greater rates than Midwesterners generally. In fact, Midwesterners are significantly more likely to have their youngest child in the Midwest than the settlers, 90.82 percent and 86.28 percent, respectively. In addition, Table 7, columns II and IV, indicates that youngest children from settler households were significantly more likely to have been born in the South region, 4.85percent, or West region, 2.56 percent, than those from the Midwest region, 1.64 percent and 1.58 percent, respectively. From this information, one can infer that the boomers who immigrated to Payne County were clearly attempting to settle the lands near and in the Indian Territory prior to the land run just as historians have previously documented for Oklahoma generally. 70
Region of Birth Youngest Child in HH.
Note: In the 1890 PCC, there are 1,759 HoHs, 6,798 individuals, and 1,093 households with a reported youngest childbirth region. There are 1,209,584 individuals in the 1880 Midwest Region Sample 247,791 HoHs and 164,792 households with a reported youngest childbirth region. 69 N.A. = Native American; PCC = Census for Payne County; MWC = Midwest Census sample; HH = household; HoH = head of household.
Conclusion
In this article, we have examined the demographic information for the settlers in Payne County, Oklahoma, who participated in the first land run in April 1889 and remained in Oklahoma through the Oklahoma Territorial Census in May 1890. We analyzed the composition of the Payne County settlers relative to the Midwest region from which most of them emigrated. We find that the settlers were more likely to be single men and less likely to have a female HoH, which is not unexpected, than those in the Midwest region. However, we did not find a great disparity in the number or age distribution of children. This suggests that those families that selected in to the land run did not do so based on their family size or composition in terms of their children. We also found that the Payne County settlers were less likely to have a senior individual living in their household. This may indicate that the opportunity costs of settlement were higher for multigenerational families. Future work examining the family composition changes over time in Payne County relative to the more established Midwest region would shed light on whether the Malthusian theory would hold and the settlers would have increased fertility as compared to the Midwest region or not. An examination of the family composition over time would also add evidence to the discussion of the evolution of family composition and whether multigenerational families were the norm historically.
In addition to family composition, we analyzed the relative birth regions for both the Payne County settlers and the Midwest region sample. In terms of birth region, it is clear that the settler HoHs were less likely to be immigrants from Europe than those in the Midwest generally, indicating that US-born individuals were more likely to participate in the land run. It is also interesting to note that based on the birth region for their youngest child, settlers had indeed begun to relocate prior to the opening of Indian Territory as the historical work on the boomers indicates.
Future work on this topic will examine the remaining counties that were part of the first land run and are included in the 1890 Census in order to determine whether the settlers of Oklahoma generally mirrored the demographic and composition of Payne County.
Footnotes
Appendix A
HoH Summary Statistics.
| 1890 PCC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | N | Mean | Minimum | Maximum | SD |
| Children (number) | 1,141 | 3.07362 | 1 | 11 | 1.9116 |
| Sons | 1,141 | 1.65557 | 0 | 9 | 1.36486 |
| Daughters | 1,141 | 1.39439 | 0 | 6 | 1.22422 |
| Age | 1,778 | 39.2548 | 15 | 87 | 12.5458 |
| 1880 MWC | |||||
| Children (number) | 199,164 | 3.22498 | 1 | 15 | 2.00095 |
| Sons | 199,164 | 1.69501 | 0 | 11 | 1.38109 |
| Daughters | 199,164 | 1.52997 | 0 | 10 | 1.29639 |
| Age | 247,791 | 43.0936 | 3 | 105 | 13.7611 |
| Birth place Midwest | 247,791 | 0.427 | 0 | 1 | 0.49464 |
| Race | N | Black | Native American | White | Chinese |
| 1890 PCC | 1,782 | 1.57 | 0 | 98.43 | 0 |
| 1880 MWC | 247,791 | 2.96 | 0.22 | 96.82 | 0.01 |
Note: PCC = Census for Payne County; MWC = Midwest Census sample.
Authors’ Note
1890 Oklahoma Territorial Census for Payne County (Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Historical Society).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study has been supported by the Economic History Association through the Cole Grant 2012.