Ohio History Journal

OHIO POPULATION TRENDS, 1920-1940

 

BY RANDOLPH C. DOWNES

 

From the point of view of population figures, Ohio has almost

stopped growing. The following table1 taken from the 1940 cen-

sus report shows that the increase of 260,915 in the 1930's is the

smallest 10-year growth since the first decade of the eighteenth

century and the smallest percentage of growth in Ohio's entire

history.

Census                          10-yr. Increase                              10-yr. Increase

Year                                  Population       In Numbers  In Percentages

1940                                   6,907,612                                  260,915                                    3.9

1930                                   6,646,697                                  887,303                                    15.4

1920                                   5,759,394                                  992,273                                    20.8

1910                                   4,767,121                                  609,576                                    14.7

1900                                   4,157,545                                  485,216                                    13.2

 

1890                                   3,672,329                                  474,267                                    14.8

1880                                   3,198,062                                  532,802                                    20.0

1870                                   2,665,260                                  325,749                                    13.9

1860                                   2,339,511                                  359,182                                    18.1

1850                                   1,980,329                                  460,862                                    30.3

 

1840                                   1,519,467                                  581,564                                    62.0

1830                                   937,903                                      356,469                                    61.3

1820                                   581,434                                      350,674                                    152.0

1810                                   230,760                                      .........          ......

Ohio's population decline has taken another epoch-making

turn in that, for the first time in the State's history, more people

have left Ohio than have come into it. This is shown by the fact

that the excess of births over deaths during the 1930's was greater

than the increase in the State's population. The excess of births

 

1  All Ohio population figures for the first four tables are taken from the pamphlet,

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 16th Census of the United

States, 1940, Population, First Series, Number of Inhabitants Ohio (United States

Government Printing Office, Washington, 1941).

(219)

• 1
 

220    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

over deaths was 286,300; the increase in population was 260,915.2

Hence in order to make room for the 25,385 extra babies, the

same number of adults had to leave. It is clear then that in so far

as Ohio is concerned the 150-year migration is over. Ohio has

settled down.

For its population increase Ohio is now solely dependent

upon the fact that its birth rate is higher than its death rate. How

long this condition will prevail is problematical. The birth rate

has declined from an annual 22.1 per 1,000 in 1921 to 16.7 in

1940, and was as low as 13.8 in 1933. At the same time the death

rate has remained practically the same, being 11.3 for the years

1921 and 1940 and not straying far from that figure at any time.

In other words, the excess of births over deaths has declined

from 501,412 in the 1920's to 286,300 in the 1930's. If the trend

continues at the same rate for another twenty years the grim reaper

will be hot on the heels of the stork; twenty years after that the

old gentleman with the scythe will be in the lead. Moreover,

the death rate is soon due for a rather sharp rise as a result of the

fact that those born in the heyday of population increase of two

generations ago will begin to cross the great divide in very great

numbers. Nor should too much blame be placed upon the depres-

sion for the decline of the birth rate. If the birth rate had stayed

at the depression low of 13.8 in 1933 for every year of the 1930's,

the population of Ohio would have been reduced by only 97,307.

Declining birth rates are the result of much more devitalizing

forces affecting the child-bearing population than economic depres-

sions. These devitalizing forces may change, but they have not

begun to do so yet. Indeed, the promise of a long war justifies one

in expecting an accentuation of them.

So far this study has dealt with the population of Ohio as a

whole. A consideration of sub-groups offers the following bases

of division: (1) by geographical regions, (2) by age division, and

(3) by sex division.

Taking geographical regionalization first, it is to be observed

that population increase has disappeared in half of Ohio's so-called

 

2 All birth  and  death  figures are taken  from  the mimeographed  annual reports

issued by the State of Ohio Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics.

• 2
 

OHIO HISTORY CONFERENCE, 1942                     221

 

"big eleven" cities, and has entirely disappeared if their aggregate

population in the 1920's and 1930's is compared. These are the

cities in Ohio's ten metropolitan districts as defined by the United

States Census Bureau. The following table compares their popu-

lation totals for the 1920's and the 1930's:3

1920-30  In-                     1920-30 In-           1930-40 In-  1930-40 In-

crease in Nos.                     crease in %           crease in Nos. crease in %

Akron .......  ?? 46,605 ??22.4                         -10,249                     -4.0

Canton   ..... ?? 17,815                                   ??20.5                          ?? 3,495                        ??3.3

Cincinnati ... ?? 49,913                                 ??12.4                          ?? 4,450                        ??1.0

Cleveland .... ??103,588       ??13.0          -22,093          -2.5

Columbus ...                   ?? 53,533                   ??22.6                       ??15,523                                 ??5.3

Dayton   ..... ??              48,423                      ??31.7                          ?? 9,736                        ??4.8

Hamilton-

Middletown ?? 18,899                           ??29.9                          -   356                             -0.4

Springfield .. ?? 7,903                                   ??13.0                          ?? 1,919                        ??2.8

Toledo ......?? 47,554                                      ??19.6                          -       8,369                                --2.9

Youngstown . ?? 37,644                                 ??28.4                       -                  2,282                     -1.3

Total .......?? 431,877   ??18.1                         -                             8,226              -0.3

It is true that the suburbs of these cities did not show a net

decline, but it is also true that their rate of increase in the 1930's

declined considerably. The suburban increase of the 1920's was

64.0 per cent (377,350) compared with 11.1 per cent (106,833)

for the 1930's.

What about Ohio's cities and villages in general?   The fol-

lowing table summarizes the population change figures for all of

Ohio's incorporated communities :4

Change in 1920's                Change in 1930's

Numbers     Percent              Numbers     Percent

Big Eleven (including Hamilton-

Middletown   ................431,877       18.1      8,226      0.3

Cities of 20,000-71,000 (exclud-

ing Hamilton-Middletown .... 169,162          31.7                               10,150                            1.4

Cities of 10,,000-20,000 ........93,496                   32.1                               28,049                            7.0

Cities of 5,000-10,000. .........66.706                    21.6                               30,387                            8.1

Villages of 2,500-5,000 ........ 36,849                   19.6                               14,835                            6.5

3  The plus sign signifies an increase; the minus sign a decrease. During the

1920's and 1930's the boundaries of some of the cities were enlarged. This means that

increases tend to be less than shown and decreases tend to be larger.

4 In all tables involving the comparison of groups of communities in the 1920's

and the 1930's newly created communities have been included in the totals, only when

they could be compared with their status ten years before. In other words the 1930

population of the new communities created in the 1920's was not added to the totals

for the 1920's, but was added to the totals for the 1930's. The 1940 population of the

new communities created in the 1930's was not added to the totals for the 1930's.

• 3
 

222    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

This table shows that to some degree the larger the cities the

harder they fell. Although the population increase of the small

cities slowed down in the 1930's, it made a better showing than

was the case with their larger brothers.

This relationship continues as we approach the farm areas.

The Census Bureau reports that the population of Ohio's urban

area increased 22.6 per cent in the 1920's and only 2.3 per cent in

the 1930's, as compared with a 2.7 per cent rural increase for the

1920's and a 7.3 per cent increase in the 1930's. This is the first

time in Ohio history that the rural areas have increased at a

greater rate than the urban ones. If the Census Bureau reports

are dissected by subtracting all city and village population from

the total, thus getting a "pure farm" figure, the change is even

greater: a 0.2%  increase in the 1920's and a 6.1%  increase in

the 1930's. Tabulating these areas with the small villages achieves

the following results:

l920's In-    1920's In-                        1930's In-     1930's In-

Villages         crease in Nos. crease in %          crease in Nos. crease in %

2000-2500 .......8,928                        18.5                4,909                  8.6

1500-2000     .......6,801                                           10.1                           7,279                             9.1

1000-1500     .......5,809                                           6.5                             7,907                             7.9

500-1000      ........5,086                                        3.9                             7,957                             6.1

Under 500 ...... 683                                                   0.8                             5,306                             6.1

Farm area ......2,648                                                    0.2                             84,565                           6.1

Just how much the two preceding tables prove is uncertain. It

seems justifiable to assume that in the 1920's villages and cities

received migrants in percentages that varied directly in propor-

tion to their size, except that the middle-sized cities enjoyed the

most advantageous position. As for the 1930's it can be said that

population increase became somewhat more uniform, the cities and

large villages dropping their great increases and the farms and

small villages assuming small ones. It would seem more justifi-

able to conclude that migration slowed down rather than changed

its course or direction. More evidence to this effect will be pro-

duced from other sources.

The first of these sources is to be found in a comparison

county by county of the population increase with the excess of

• 4
 

OHIO HISTORY CONFERENCE, 1942                     223

 

births over deaths. If the population increase of a county was

greater than the excess of births, there was a migration to the

county; if the population increase was smaller than the excess of

births, there was a migration away from the county. This evidence

justifies the following general conclusions:

1. A back-to-the-farm movement accounts for only a part

of the change.

2. To a large degree the rural areas showed an improved

population   record   because the city-ward      migration

slowed down rather than stopped or was reversed.

3. Many of the more densely populated areas continued

to increase by migration during the 1930's, but at a

slower rate.

4. A   few  densely populated areas increased their rate

of increase by migration.

5. A very few rural areas increased their rate of decrease

by migration.

The figures for each county follow:5

 

Excess              Popula-        Popula-                Popula-

of                 tion                tion In-                  tion De-

Births             Increase        crease by crease by

Total                    Total                Over                                  or                            Migra-  Migra-

County       Births     Deaths             Deaths            Decrease tion                               tion

 

Adams 1920's          160            2,588        1,572    - 2,022 .........     3,594

1930's        4,170         2,452        1,718    ?? 1,424........               294

Allen .......               15,285       9,095        6,190    ?? 1,196.......     4,994

13,428            9,798        5,630    ??  3,884.........   1,746

Ashland   ....   4,733          3,231                1,502               ??         2,240                  738.........

4,615         3,320        1,295    ??  2,918            623........

Ashtabula ...   12,932                8,652        4,280    ??  2,816 ......... 1,464

10,016        8,667        1,349    +              313 .........    1,036

Athens......    10,496        6,349               4,147               -    6,255 ..........10,402

8,201               5,819          2,382        ?? 1,991 .........                             391

Auglaize ....    5,373   3,004          2,369          - 1,493 ......... 3,862

3,993          2,997                    996      ?? 3 .........                     993

5 The migration figure for each county should not be considered absolutely accurate

but approximately so. The main difficulty is that in the metropolitan areas some

mothers crossed county lines to have their children born in city hospitals. This would

tend to show a greater migration away from the metropolitan counties than actually

occurred. This inaccuracy should not be exaggerated, however, because of the total

number of mothers going to city hospitals relatively few are considered to have

crossed county lines in so doing.

• 5
 

224     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

 

Excess        Popula-   Popula-       Popula-

of           tion            tion In-    tion De-

Births        Increase   crease by      crease by

Total            Total       Over         or              Migra-         Migra-

County            Births           Deaths    Deaths        Decrease        tion          tion

 

Belmont ....            21,548        10,543    11,005       + 1,526       .........           9,479

15,756        10,210  5,546   +   895       ..........           4,651

Brown ......               3,740          2,845    895         - 2,473     ..........           3,368

2,981         2,610            971      +  1,490        519            .........

Butler ......              24,129        11,931     12,198       +27,059      14,861          .........

21,479        12,699       8,780        + 6,165     .........           2,615

Carroll .....               2,686          1,611         1,075      +115         .........             960

2,129         1,605            524      + 1,392           868             .........

Champaign ..            4,318          3,327          991      -  968           .........             1,959

3,986         3,289            697        + 1,155          458         .........

Clark .......               15,063      11,029       4,034         +10,208        6,174          ........

13,761        11,428       2,333         + 4,711         2,378          .........

Clermont....              4,962         3,794        1,168        +1,495             327         .........

4,306          3,851          455         + 4,323        3,868           ........

Clinton .....               3,663         2,965          698         - 1,489           .......            2,187

 3,238        2,837          401         + 1,027            626           .........

Columbiana              18,568       10,655       7,913         +3,353       ........             4,560

  15,977       10,623       5,354         + 3,637       .........            1,717

Coshocton ...            5,906         3,586         2,320          - 619         ........             2,939

 5,166         3,742        1,424        + 1,618          394.            ...........

Crawford ...               6,190        4,235         1,955          -709           ........            2,664

  5,624        4,497    1,127        +226           .........           901

Cuyahoga ...            112,618   115,985  96,633      +257,960       161,327           .........

   168,516   122,836     45,680      + 15,795           .......             29,885

Darke ......               7,427         4,557       2,870   -4,902          .........             7,772

6,312          4,469         1,843        + 822         .........                1,021

Defiance ....             4,738           2,864        1,874        -1,835          .........             3,709

4,269          2,762         1,507    + 1,653            146              .........

Delaware ...             4,411            3,462         949              +3         .........                   946

3,893           3,380          513          +754              241                 .........

Erie .....                   7,152    6,044           1,108  +2,344          1,236               .........

6,009        5,697            312       +1,068           756                   .........

Fairfield ....              8,779         4,954          3,525    +3,526             1                   .........

8,028        5,206           2,822     +4,480             1,660                   .........

Fayette .....              3,867            2,607         1,260      -763                .........           2,023

3,457        2,560            897      + 635                .........               262

Franklin ....             63,285      45,301         17,984     +77,104          59,120          .........

   57,580    49,804     7,776   +27,657              19,881          .........

Fulton ......               4,674        2,822         1,852      + 321             ........                1,820

4,111        2,116         1,195      + 149              .........                1,046

Gallia           ......     4,243         4,321           78            -261                .........               183

4,565        4,763          198        +1,880             2,078                .........

Geauga .....             2,152          1,773          379        + 378                .........                 1

1,969        1,858            111      + 4,016             3,905                .........

Greene .....             5,514          4,052         1,462        + 2,038             576                .........

      1,780           3,810         970   +2,604              1,634               .........

Guernsey ...             8,662         4,862           3,800       -3,866                .........         7,666

6,128        4,195         1,433   -          2,664            .........              4,097

• 6
 

OHIO HISTORY CONFERENCE, 1942                   225

 

 

Excess      Popula-       Popula-        Popula-

of         tion    tion In-          tion De-

Births      Increase crease by crease by

Total            Total          Over          or                      Migra-       Migra-

County            Births            Deaths       Deaths       Decrease tion          tion

 

Hamilton ...          100,881   76,092       24,789       ?? 95,678         70,889 .........

93,505        81,286       12,279       ?? 32,631          21,352 .........

Hancock ....       7,138               4,690         2,448  ?? 2,010      ......                    438

6,003                 4,798         1,205         ?? 389  ......                    816

Hardin   .....     5,262                 3,743         1,519  -         1,532     ......          3,051

4,672        3,584         1,088  -                  574       ......            1,662

Harrison  ....     3,626    2,352                    1,274                -                         781            ......                   2,055

3,079                 2,126,           953  -         1,469     516 .........

Henry   ......     4,995                 2,512         2,483  -                  838       ......                            3,321

3,826               2,325                1,501 ?? 232 ......                                      1,269

Highland   ...     4,394  3,573                                               821         -   2,194              ......                   3,015

4,474        3,644            830  ?? 1,683     853 .........

Hocking  .....     5,203   2,403                    2,800                -   2,884 ......                       5,684

4,096               2,325                1,771      ?? 1,097            ......                                 674

Holmes   .....     3,955       1,828         2,027  -     239       ......              2,266

3,863        1,830         2,033  ?? 1,150      ......                    883

Huron   ......     6,404                4,865         1,539         ?? 1,276    ......      .                             263

5,926        5,013            913  ?? 1,100           187  .......

Jackson  .....     5,775                3,051         2,724  -   2,302  ......    5,026

5,006         3,040         1,956  ?? 1,964                   8  .........

Jefferson  ...    18,273               9,530         8,743         ?? 10,727          1,984    .........

17,035        9,256         7,779  ?? 9,822           2,043       .........

Knox   .......     5,094                3,900    1,194  -                  242  .......                1,436

4,703       4,180            523            ?? 1,686         1,163    ........

Lake   .......     6,596                 4,161         2,435         ?? 523       13,007     ........

6,106                4,824         1,282            ?? 8,346         7,064    ........

Lawrence  ...    10,257              5,431         4,826            ?? 5,001         175  ........

9,095               5,187         3,908            ?? 2,164  .......            1,744

Licking .....     10,289               7,472    2,817     ?? 3,536           719    ........

8,609        7,814            795    ?? 2,317            1,522                         ........

Logan   ......     4,937                3,795         1,142         ?? 1,123    .......         2,265

4,601        3,862     739  ?? 643         .......                   96

Lorain  ......   20,536                10,635   9,901    ?? 18,594    8,693   ........

16,342           11,028       5,314    ?? 3,184    .......       2,130

Lucas   ......    63,363  38,712                  24,651                  ?? 71,988       47,337        ........

53,328            39,780       13,445          ?? 3,376 .......         16,821

Madison   ....     4,083  2,357                    1,726                     ?? 591        1,135          ........

3,335        2,348            987  ?? 1,558         571  ........

Mahoning    ...   52,045            22,939       29,106          ?? 49,832          20,726   ........

37,944           22,598       15,346          ?? 4,109  .......                  11,237

Marion    .....    8,664               5,320         3,344         ?? 3,416              72     .......

7,744        5,391         2,453  -                  522       .......     2,975

Medina    .....    5,216               3,356         1,860         ?? 3,610            1,750    ........

4,900        3,587         1,313  -     3,357        2,044   ........

Meigs     ......   4,579                 3,079         1,500  -         2,228     .......         3,728

3,865                2,558         1,307            ?? 143            .......      1,154

Mercer    .....    5,712               2,737         2,985    ?? 1,776    .......             1,209

4,595                2,746         1,849       ?? 1,160 .......                   689

• 7
 

226     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

 

Excess            Popula-              Popula-   Popula-

of                        tion             tion In-     tion De-

Births           Increase crease by crease by

Total                  Total                Over                     or                 Migra-               Migra-

County                       Births             Deaths            Deaths       Decrease            tion                     tion

 

Miami .....             9,459        6,593        2,866 ?? 2,873                       7        .......

9,094      6,602        2,492 ?? 1,331 .......   . 1,161

Monroe .....      3,728             2,060           1,608  _{-   2,}234 .........  3,902

3,163      2,066           1,097 ?? 215   .........     882

Montgomery       43,210        31,4561    11,754  ?? 63,949         52,195 .........

44,633     35,062    9,571 ?? 21,999        12,428 .........

Morgan   ....    2,380              2,002     378 -     972 .........   1,350

2,416      2,025           391 ?? 644                  253 .........

Morrow   ....     2,369                1,905    464    -   1,081 .          ..      1,545

2,196        1,793        403 ?? 1,157               754 .........

Muskingum        12,933            8,698    4,235 ?? 9,418            5,173 .........

12,039   9,020  3,019 ?? 2,397           .            ...       622

Noble ......     2,828                   1,692    1,136 -                    2,8881 .........         4,024

2,404   1,544        860     -                   374 .........       1,234

Ottawa .....      4,633              2,655           1,978 ?? 1,916 .........           62

3,032,     2,586           446 ??       251 .........                     195

Paulding ....     3,050            1,681        1,369      - 3,435 .........        4,807

2,501    1,617        884 ?? 226 .........     658

Perry  ......    6,698       3,344        3,354 -            4,653 ........               8,007

4,443      3,155           1,288 -                    358 .........       1,646

Pickaway ...     5,227              3,468           1,759 ?? 1,450 ..     .            309

4,592   3,63             961 ?? 651.........     310

Pike ........     3,345                   1,705        1,640  -                   275 .........       1,915

3,284        1,572      ?? 1,712       2,237         525.........

Portage .....     6,996                                 4,715               2,281 ??    6,413                         4,132.........

5,784      4,785      999 ?? 3,978                    2,979 .........

Preble ......    3,797                 2,781           1,016 ?? 783 .........     233

3,063      2, 584          479 ?? 874              395 .........

Putnam  .....     5,996      2,687           3,309        -             2,677          ......       5,986

4,100        2,245    1,855  -                   58 ...1,913

Richland ....    11,414                7,155        4,259 ?? 10,724     6,465 .........

11,612   7,749      3,863 ?? 7,951              4,088          ......

Ross ........     9,790                   5,534    4,256 ?? 3,625 .........           631

9,947        5,947    4,000 ?? 6,966     2,966 .........

Sandusky ...     6,807                 4,236      2,581 ?? 2,622                       41  .......

6,266                4,335        1,931 ?? 1,283        .........          648

Scioto ......   19,260                  9,000      10,260  ?? 18,371        8,111 .........

17,005        9,498        7,507 ?? 5,344 .........   2,163

Seneca ......    8,986                   5,912      3,074 ?? 4,765     1,691 ........

7,915      6,650     1,259 ?? 558 .........    701

Shelby  .....    6,302       2,717    2,585  -     999 .........   3,584

4,472      2,850        1,622 ?? 1,147 .........    475

Stark .......   42,946                24,174      18,772 ?? 44,566       25,794 .........

35,146      25,411         9,7351      ?? 13,103 3,368 .........

Summit .....     67,544             27,089      40,455   ?? 58,066        17,611........

51,787      28,715      23,072   -                   4,726 .........  27,798

Trumbull ...     22,375     10,760      11,615 ?? 39,143     27,528 .........

17,526      10,834      6,692 ??   9,252         2,560...

• 8
 

OHIO HISTORY CONFERENCE, 1942                 227

 

 

Excess          Popula-  Popula-    Popula-

of             tion         tion In-     tion De-

Births           Increase crease by crease by

Total            Total       Over           or           Migra-      Migra-

County            Births          Deaths    Deaths  Decrease      tion               tion

 

Tuscarawas .          15,399        7,868      7,531 ??        4,615 .........              2,916

11,445          7,934      3,511 ??        623 ........              2,888

Union ......     3,376                  2,342         1,034  - 1,726 ........               2,760

2,715        2,226         489 ?? 820      331...

Van Wert ..     4,634                 2,809         1,825   -    1,937 .........  3,76

3,676        2,781         895            486.......       409

Vinton  .....   2,451                   1,208         1,243  -     1,788 ........           3,031

2,269        1,241         1,028 ?? 1,286            258 .........

Warren .....     4,617                 3,205         1,412 ??    1,632        220 .........

4,078        3,116         962 ??       2,546        1,584 .........

Washington .     8,383              5,282      3,101 ?? 612    ..                            2,489

7,269            5,693         1,576 ?? 1,100 .........             476

Wayne ......     8,599                 5,064      3,535 ?? 5,678               2,143 .........

7,773        5,293         2,480 ??  3,496           1,016 .........

Williams ....    4,539                 2,790         1,749 -     311 .           .....  2,060

3,772        2,936         636 ?? 1,194               558 .........

Wood.......      9,373                 5,133         4,240 -   5,428           1,288 .........

7,602        5,204         2,398 ??    1,476 ........               922

Wyandot ....    3,728                2,157         1,571-       445 ........              2,016

2,811        2,150         661 ??       182 ..                        479

Totals 1920's l,244,213  743,455           500,758  +887,303  386,545 .........

1930's 1,056,927 770,627         286,300 +260,915 ......... 25,385

 

The interpretation of this table may be assisted by grouping

the counties into the 54 more rural ones (outside metropolitan

districts) and the 34 more urban ones (inside metropolitan dis-

tricts). In 29 of the 54 rural counties there was migration away

from the area in the 1930's, but at a slower rate than during the

1920's (123,264 for the 1920's and 35,642 for the 1930's). In 22

of these counties the 41,572 decline of the 1920's became an in-

crease of 18,002 for the 1930's. Only three counties showed a loss

by migration in the 1930's greater than the 1920's. These were

Hancock (438 to 816), Ottawa (62 to 195), and Pickaway (309

to 310).

In 13 of the 34 urban counties the 1930 gains by migration

were smaller than the 1920 gains (270,556 to 79,064). Four-

teen counties switched from migration increases to losses: an

aggregate gain of 287,113 for the 1920's and a 101,422 loss for

the 1930's. Seven counties showed greater gains in the '30's

• 9
 

228     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

than in the '20's These were Clermont (327 to 3,868), Fairfield

(1 to 1,660), Greene (576 to 1,634), Jefferson (1,984 to 2,043),

Licking (719 to 1,522) Medina (1,750 to 2,044), and Warren

(220 to 1,584). It should be emphasized that in all cases the

amount of migration is very small.

All that can be said at present about the quality of this migra-

tion centers around certain differentials in regard to age and sex.

These are summarized in the following tables:6

 

A. OHIO POPULATION CHANGES BY AGE GROUPS

1920-1940

I. FARM POPULATION

Change in 1920's                Change in 1930's

Age Group                           Numbers                    Percent                              Numbers                       Percent

Under 5                                 -       31,730                -26.6                               ??           336                     ??0.04

5-9                                           -       13,354                -11.0                               -   19,089                                  -17.7

10-14                                     -                                    8,813 -                           7.0                                      -      9,138                           -                       7.9

15-19                                     -                                    3,454 -                           3.2          ?? 9,714            ??   9.4

20-24                                     -                                    13,644                           -16.7                                  ??  14,717                         ??21.6

25-44                                     -                                    55,692                           -19.5                                  ?? 23,183  ?? 10.1

45-64                                     -                                    8,481 -  3.8                   ?? 28,407                         ?? 13.3

65 and over                          ?? 5,742                     ?? 7.8                             ?? 17,570                         ??22.1

 

II. RURAL NON-FARM       POPULATION

Change in 1920's                Change in 1930's

Age Group                           Numbers                    Percent                              Numbers                              Percent

Under 5                                 ?? 9,904                     ??  9.5                    -      1,955                  -      1.7

3-9                                   ??  23,207                         ?? 23.6                              -                                       17,403        -14.3

10-14                             ?? 19,513                          ?? 22.0                          ??                                       2,720          ?? 2.5

15-19                             ??           20,222                ??27.4                           ??                                       15,061        ?? 16.0

20-24                              ??           16,541                ??23.9                           ?? 12,431                         ?? 14.5

25-44                              ?? 48,344      ?? 18.7     ?? 46,371                     ??15.1

45-64                             ??  34,713                         ?? 2.0                             ?? 22,454                         ??10.09

65 and over       ?? 14,317        ??17.4               ??  12,629                    ?? 13.1

 

 

 

 

6 The population figures for 1920 and 1930 are from U. S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930, Population,

Volume Ill, Part 2, Reports by States Montana-Wyoming Composition and Characteris-

tics for Counties, Cities and Townships, 458-60; for 1940 the press release dated March

28, 1942, entitled U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth

Census of the United States, 1940, Population: Characteristics of the Population, 1940,

Series P-6, No. 44.

• 10
 

OHIO HISTORY CONFERENCE, 1942                           229

 

III.  URBAN      POPULATION

Change in 1920's                    Change in 1930's

Age Group           Numbers    Percent                         Numbers                                 Percent

Under 5                                      ??   8,854                       ?? 2.2                            -       55,551                         -14.9

5-9                                             ??                 80,617          ?? 24.5                         -108,586                        -27.1

10-14                                        ??93,739                        ??31.7                             -                   30,172                     -                                               7.7

15-19                                         ??                 96,721          ??34.1                          ??   23,164                         ??                            6.1

20-24                                        ??                 60,697          ??17.4                          ?? 5,614                         ??         1.3

25-44                                           ??209,047                                        ??16.5               -           6,425                        - 0.4

45-64                                           ??205,688                                        ??32.9                            ??187,188                                      ??22.5

65 and over                              ?? 75,340                       ??46.1                             ?? 89,840                      ??37.6

 

B. OHIO POPULATION CHANGES BY AGE AND SEX

GROUPS--1920-1940

I. FARM POPULATION

Changes in 1920's                Changes in 1930's

Males           Females         Males           Females

Age Group         Numbers             Percent Numbers Percent Numbers Percent Numbers Percent

Under 5             -16,192               -29.8           -1.53,8            -26.7           - 1,638         - 3.7             ?? 1,974        ?? 4.6

5-9                      - 6,346                -10.2           - 7,008         -11.8             - 9.946         -17.9            - 9.143          -17.5

10-14                 - 4,455                - 6.9            - 4,358            - 7.3            - 4,897         - 8.2             -4,241           - 7.7

15-19                 -     5                   0.0              - 3,459            - 6.9            ?? 4,907        ?? 8.6            ?? 4,807        ??10.8

20-24                  - 3.793                -8.8             - 9,851            -25.4           ?? 8,165        ??20.9           ?? 6,552        ??22.9

25-44                 -28,386            -19.8             -27.306        -19.4             --16,307       ??14.2           ??6876               - 6.0

45-64                  - 5,930                - 4.9            - 2,551            - 2.5            ??14,160       ??12.3           ??14,247            ??14.5

65 and over        ?? 4,865              ??11.9         ??877            ?? 2.7             ?? 9,394        ??20.6               ??8,176     ??24.1

 

II. RURAL NON-FARM POPULATION

Under 5            ?? 5,170           ?? 9.8             ?? 4,734          ?? 9.2          -                   194  - 0.3     - 1,761          - 3.1

5-9                      ??12,293           ??24.8            ??10.914         ??22.3         - 8,442         -13.6            - 8,961          -15.0

10-14                 ??10,039           ??22.3            ?? 9,474          ??21.6         ?? 1,662        ?? 3.0            ?? 1,058        ?? 2.0

15-19                ??11,008           ??29.8            ?? 9,214        ??25.0            ?? 7,327        ??15.3           ?? 7,734        ??16.8

20-24                 ?? 8,711            ??25.2            ?? 7,830          ??22.6         ?? 6,272        ??14.5           ?? 6,159        ??14.5

25-44                   ??24,588           ??18.2            ??23,756         ??19.2         ??23,443       ??14.7           ??22,928       ??15.5

45-64                 ??19,250           ??21.5            ??12,635         ??18.8         ??12.635       ??11.6           ?? 9.819             ??10.0

65 and over ?? 6,979                      ?? 1.7          ?? 5,150          ??18.0         ?? 5,150        ??10.6           ?? 7,479             ??15.6

 

III. URBAN POPULATION

Under 5            ?? 4,865            ?? 2.2             ??3,989  ?? 2.2                   -27.844        -14.8            -27,707         -15.1

5-9                     ??441,155         ??25.0            ?? 39,462 ??24.1                -53,412        -21.2            -55,174         -26.5

10-14                 ??47,373           ??32.2            ?? 46,366 ??31.3                -14,221        - 7.5             -15.951         - 8.2

15-19                 ??43,830           ??31.1            ?? 53,391 ??36.8                ??14,120       ?? 7.7            ?? 9,044        ?? 4.6

20-24                   ??19,809           ??11.2            ??40,888 ??21.6                 ?? 477           ?? 0.2            ?? 5,137        ?? 2.4

25-44                 ??78,258             ??11.7         ??130,789 ??22.0               ??30,972       - 4.1             ??24,547       ?? 3.4

45-64                 ??98,856           ??30.7            ??106,832 ??35.4               ??91,251       ??21.6           ??95,937       ??23.5

65 and over ??34,244                   ??46.5         ??41,096 ??45.7                 ??40,318       ??33.4           ??49,522            ??37.8

The facts to be deduced from         these tables are as follows:

I. Migration to the city begins in the late teens and reaches

the largest proportions in the age groups between 20 and 44. This

is shown by a comparison of the farm population decreases in the

1920's with the increases in the 193O's. The continued decrease in

• 11
 

230    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

the 1930's of the age group 10-14 is to be attributed to other

factors than migration during that period.

2. In 1930 the number of farm persons between the ages of

20 and 24 inclusive was smaller than the number in 1920 by 13,644

(16.7%); in 1940 the number of farm persons between 20 and

24 was greater than the number in 1930 by 14,717 (21.6%). This

means several things. In the first place it means that the increase

in the 1930's was not entirely a movement back to the farm

because those who were 20-24 in 1940 were only 10-14 ten years

earlier and were not of migrating age. To be sure some may have

left in the 1920's with their parents and returned with them in

the '30's, but it is reasonable to suppose that a large number of the

increase in 20-24-year-olds noted in 1940 were of those who had

not migrated to the cities because of the depression or for such

reason as the government agricultural policy. It should be noted

that the urban figures for this age group fit in with the country

figures. The 1920's showed an increase of 60,697 (17.4%) and

the 1930's an increase of merely 5,614 (1.3%).

3. The figures for the rural non-farm or village population of

the 20-24-age group are an increase of 16,541 (23.9%) for 1930

and an increase of 12,431 (14.5%) for 1940. In both years the

increase is much larger than the increase of the cities in that age

group. This seems to point to the fact that the migration tends

to be first to the small towns, and that such migration continued

in the 1930's with only a mild slow-down.

4. The figures and, therefore, the deductions for the age

group of 25-44 are very similar with the following qualifications.

The farm increase of the 1930's was much less than that of the

20-24-year-olds, 23,183 (10.1%); the migration to the small

towns showed even less of a decline (from  18.7%  to 15.1%);

while the cities showed an actual decline of such persons.

5. The age groups above 45 show strong increases in the

1930's in all sections with the cities still in the lead. The fact

that the city increase has declined (from 32.9% in the 1920's to

22.5% in the 1930's for the age group of 45-64 and from 46.1%

to 37.6% for the oldsters over 65) while the farm population of

these ages has shown a striking increase (from a 3.8% decline to

• 12
 

OHIO HISTORY CONFERENCE, 1942            231

a 13.2%  increase for the 45-64-year-olds, and from a 7.8%  to

22.1% for those over 64) would seem to indicate a return to the

country of a number who found on the old farm a security in

declining years more desirable than the depression relief of the

cities. The same is true of the relation of the small towns to the

country, the 1930 increase of the former being 17.4%  as com-

pared with 13.1% for 1940.

6. The figures for the children are significant for they reflect

the migration status of their parents. In 1930 the farm popula-

tion under 5 years of age showed a decline of 26.6%; in 1940 the

babies just held their own, showing a .04% increase. This con-

trasts with a 2.2% increase in the cities in the 1920's and a 14.9%

decline for the 1930's. (In the small towns the 1920 increase

was 9.5% and the 1930 decrease was 1.7%.) All of these figures

reflect the decline in the birth rate but the striking rural change

reflects the presence of many parents who either returned from

the cities or decided not to go to the cities. The fate of the age

group of 5-9 is even more striking. Here the country shows a

seemingly paradoxical reversal of form in the 1930's. From an

11.0% decline in the '20's the rural youngsters showed a greater

drop of 17.7% in the '30's. This is largely a result of the great

migration of the 1920's to the cities of the farm population of

child-bearing age. The fate of this group in the cities and small

towns is quite startling. In the cities a 24.5%  increase in the

1920's became a 27.1% decrease in the 1930's; and in the small

towns the change was from an increase of 23.6% in the '20's to

a decrease of 14.3% in the '30's.

7. In the age group of 20-24 in the 1920's, rural decrease was

3,793 for males and 9,851 for females, indicating that in the

migration from farms the girls led the way. The reverse rela-

tionship is to be observed in the 1930's. The men show an in-

crease of 8,165 and the females an increase of only 6,552, indicat-

ing that the girls were still leaving home, but in smaller numbers

than the boys. This tendency is also observable in the late teen-

age group.

8. In the age group of 25-44 the rural male decline for the

1920's slightly exceeded the rural female decline by 28,386 to

27,306 whereas in the 1930's the rural male increase exceeded the

• 13
 

232 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

rural female increase by 16,307 to 6,876. This probably means

that a man may migrate to the city and marry a city girl and

expect to bring her back to the farm in hard times, but that a

country girl who goes to the city and marries a city man cannot

expect to return to the rugged rural virtues.

9. In the age group of 65 and over, the rural men showed an

increase of 4,865 in the 1920's as compared with an increase of

only 877 (11.9% as compared with 2.7%) for the women. In the

1930's the women's increase was greater than the men's: 20.6%

for the men and 24.1% for the women. This would seem to indi-

cate that in the days of prosperity Ohio's farm widows found a

haven in their declining years with their successful city sons and

daughters, whereas in the years of the depression they had to stay

on the farm and, perchance, welcome their unsuccessful sons and

daughters to the old homestead.

10. It should be observed that these migrations were not

large. In other words, most of the people of Ohio "stayed put"

during these years or, if they moved, stayed in the same city, vil-

lage, or township.

Further definition of the nature of this migration depends on

information not as yet explored. The following questions sug-

gest the directions such exploration might take:

1. What are the qualities of those who migrate as compared

with those who stay home?

2. Where do the migrants go--how far from home do they

go--and what kind of employment do they find?

3. Is the return to the farm a return to the parents' farm or

to another?

4. To what extent has the government agricultural policy

been responsible for inducing many to stay on the farm or to

return thereto?

5. To what extent has the government relief policy affected

migration ?

It is to be hoped that these and other questions will soon be

receiving the research attention of Ohio historians. There is no

time like the present to discover the meaning of the history of the

recent past.

• 14