ROBERT P. SWIERENGA
Ethnicity and American Agriculture
Ethnic Patterns in Land Settlement
Rural America was never as ethnic as
urban America. The
vastness of the agricultural hinterland
and the traditional family
farm both worked against the formation
and survival of ethnic com-
munities. Nevertheless, ever since
Americans populated the land,
every national and denominational
group, in greater or lesser
degree, is represented in the farming
population. Rural America,
especially the Upper Middle West during
the nineteenth century,
had a remarkable cultural diversity,
traces of which still exist today
in the countryside. Agricultural
historian Allan Bogue has aptly
described the midwestern frontier:
"Farm operators might be
native-born or foreign-born, born to
the English tongue or highly in-
ept in its use. If continental-born,
they might have been raised
among the Rhineland vineyards or
trained to a mixed life of farming
and fishing in Scandinavia, been
emigrants from the grain fields of
eastern Europe or come from many other
backgrounds. If native-
born, they might be Yankee or Yorker,
Kentuckian or Buckeye,
Pennsylvanian or Sucker."1
There were three major ethnic
settlement streams in rural
America-New Englanders, Scotch-Irish,
and Germans-and sev-
eral minor concentrations of
Scandinavians, Canadians, Dutch,
Italians, Czechs, Japanese, and
Mexicans.2 The New England ex-
Robert P. Swierenga is Professor of
History at Kent State University
1. Allan G. Bogue, From Prairie to
Cornbelt: Farming on the Illinois and Iowa
Prairies in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, 1963), 194-95.
2. Excellent descriptions of these major
settlement patterns are: John L. Shover,
First Majority-Last Minority: The
Transformation of Rural Life in America
(DeKalb, Ill., 1976), 38-50; Frederick
C. Luebke, "Ethnic Group Settlement on the
Great Plains," Agricultural
History, 8 (Oct., 1977), 405-30; Randall M. Miller, "Im-
migrants in the Old South," Immigration
History Newsletter, X (Nov., 1978), 8-14;
Hilldegard Binder Johnson, "The
Location of German Immigrants in the Middle
West," Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 41 (1951), 1-41;
Frederick Jackson Turner, The United
States, 1830-1850, The Nation and Its Sec-
tions (New York, 1935).
324 OHIO HISTORY
odus, which began in the early
nineteenth century, carried Yankees
across much of the northern United
States. The New Englanders
migrated in stages, first to upper New
York and northwestern Penn-
sylvania (1800s), then to the
"Burned-Over District" of western
New York and northeast Ohio (1820s),
next to southern Michigan or
northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin,
and Iowa (1840s and 1850s),
and finally to Kansas and westward to
Oregon (1870s). The Yankee
frontiersmen usually arrived first,
chose the richest glaciated soils,
and transplanted intact their culture,
churches, and schools.
While the Yankees moved across the
northern tier of the frontier,
the Scotch-Irish in Pennsylvania and
the Carolinas, half a million
strong by the end of the colonial era,
crossed the mountains into
Tennessee and Kentucky.3 From
the Appalachian valley they fanned
out southward across the Gulf Plains
and northward along the
Ohio valley and eventually west of the
Mississippi River into the
hilly, unglaciated regions of eastern
Missouri and southern Iowa.
Typically, the Scotch-Irish spied out
the "loose-dirt" bottom lands
and sandy uplands with which they were
familiar. Unfortunately,
such hilly terrain often contained
inferior soils. The Scotch-Irish
dominated the interior South and Ohio
Valley and stamped this
region with a common ethnic and
cultural identity that was unique
in the nation. In 1850, 98 percent of
the people in the South Central
states were native-born, a higher
proportion than any other region.
The third major ethnic contingent in
rural America was the Ger-
mans, the largest non-English speaking
immigrant group. Fed by a
continuous stream of immigrants from
the colonial period to World
War I, Germans first settled in the
lowland limestone soils of Penn-
sylvania and then after the Revolution
they moved into the fertile
glaciated oak openings and prairies of
the Midwest from northern
Ohio to Kansas and the Dakotas. Texas
also attracted a large con-
tingent, so that by 1900 almost a third
of the Texans were either
German or of Germanic ancestry.
Nationally, according to the 1910
census report, Germans were
"over-represented" in
agriculture by 51.8 percent. (See Table.) They
comprised 2.7 percent of the total
population, but 4.1 percent of the
nation's farmers. Among the 670,000
immigrant farm operators
they were the overwhelming nationality,
with 33 percent. In 1880,
Germans had made up 36 percent of all
farmers, but in proportion to
their total numbers, they were
under-represented in farming by 2.6
percent. Thus, the German presence in
agriculture, as with the
3. James G. Leyburn, The
Scotch-Irish, A SocialHistory (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1962).
326 OHIO HISTORY
Scandinavians, increased greatly at the
end of the nineteenth cen-
tury.
The Germans preferred to buy
partially-improved farms rather
than open new lands. There were many
exceptions to this
generalization, however. Carl Wittke
reported that Germans
developed 672,000 American farms,
totaling one hundred million
acres. Some of these farms were in
colonial Pennsylvania, where
Germans went to the frontier as
frequently as the Scotch-Irish.4
Wherever they settled, Germans
established the reputation of
developing excellent farms. The German
farmer's regard for his
barn and animals at the expense of his
home and family is prover-
bial in frontier America. Nevertheless,
in the Mennonite county of
Lancaster, stone houses outnumbered
stone barns among Germans,
and small log barns were still the norm
as late as the 1780s. The
large "Swisser" stone barns in
Pennsylvania "Dutch" country ap-
peared only after the farmers had
prospered greatly during the
Revolution.5
The Germans in America comprised three
diverse groups in
language and religion.6 There
were the Anabaptist sects (Volga or
Russo-Germans, Mennonites, Dunkers, and
Amish), Lutherans and
Reformed from northern Germany, and
Catholics from Bavaria and
the south. Each group maintained its
cultural distance and distinc-
tiveness and some, such as the Russians,
spoke languages other
than German. By 1900, the German
immigrant population had
swelled to three million, half of whom
lived in the North Central
states. Many others, such as the
Russo-Germans, clustered
throughout the great plains on land
resembling their native steppes,
where they uniformly introduced hard
winter wheat. Prominent
German areas were Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania; Holmes and
Madison counties, Ohio; Ellis County,
Kansas; Franklin County,
Missouri; and Jefferson County,
Wisconsin. The latter two were 80
percent German in 1900.
Scandinavians numbered more than 1.2
million in 1910 and were
concentrated in the heavily wooded,
forest and lake country of the
Upper Mississippi Valley, which
resembled their homeland. Min-
nesota and Wisconsin were the primary
areas, but scattered
4. Carl Wittke, We Who Built America:
The Saga of the Immigrant (New York,
1946), 208. Wittke describes the
settlement patterns of all of the major immigrant
groups which are described in this and
succeeding paragraphs.
5. James T. Lemon, The Poor Man's
Country: A Geographical Study of Early
Southeastern Pennsylvania (Baltimore and London, 1976), 177.
6. This and the following paragraphs
rely heavily on Wittke, We Who Built
America.
Ethnicity 327
Swedish, Norwegians, Danish, and
Finnish settlements also sprang
up in Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.
The Norwegians were the
most rural and clannish of the
Scandinavians. As late as 1940, over
half of all midwestern Norwegians lived
on farms or in small
villages. Indeed, they were the only
immigrant group with a lower
proportion of city-dwellers than the
native Americans. Swedes also
led in the conquest of the rolling
prairies. By 1925, they had cleared
and opened an estimated twleve million
acres. The 1910 census
counted 156,000 Scandinavian farm
operators, the second largest
immigrant nationality. Indeed, the
Scandinavians were over-
represented in agriculture by 123
percent in 1918 (Table), which was
more than twice the proportion among
Germans. In 1880, the Scan-
dinavians were the only major
foreign-born group over-represented
in agriculture. The Scandinavians truly
sought after the land.
Other sizeable immigrant groups in the
midwestern farm popula-
tion were Canadians, English, Irish,
Swiss, Dutch, Czechs (Bohe-
mians), and Poles, but no group was
over-represented in proportion
to its total numbers. The Canadians,
English, Irish, and Swiss were
widely scattered in the Upper Great
Lakes, but were especially
strong in Michigan. The Swiss in
northern Wisconsin laid the basis
for the Swiss cheese industry in the
1840s and 1850s. The Dutch
were concentrated particularly in the
lake and woodland regions of
southwestern Michigan, northern
Illinois, and southern Wisconsin,
but several thousand also settled on
the prairies of Iowa and
neighboring states. The Czechs
preferred prairie land; the major col-
onies were in Wisconsin, Nebraska, and
Texas. The latter state had
50,000 Czechs in 1910, mainly farmers.
By that date one-third of all
first generation Czechs in America
followed agricultural pursuits.
Among the southern and eastern European
immigrants, the Czechs
considered farming an ideal way of
life.7 Poles were more inclined to
head for the cities, but some managed
to acquire low-priced
"cutover" timber land in
northern Wisconsin and Minnesota or
abandoned farms in the East. Many began
as farm tenants or
worked in the sawmills, mines, and
quarries as day laborers before
they became land owners. Polish farmers
were less familiar with
modern farming techniques than other
immigrants, and therefore
imitated their neighbors more than
most.
7. In addition to Wittke, We Who
Built America, 409-16, sociological analyses of
specific Czech farming communities are:
Robert L. Skrabanek, "The Influence of
Cultural Backgrounds on Farming
Practices in a Czech-American Rural Communi-
ty," Southwestern Social Science
Quarterly, 31 (1951), 258-62 and Russell Wilford
Lynch, Czech Farmers in Oklahoma: A
Comparative Study of the Stability of a
Czech Farm Group in Lincoln County,
Oklahoma ... (Oklahoma Agricultural
and
Mechanical College Bulletin, 39
[June, 1942]), 107.
328 OHIO HISTORY
The high proportion of northern European
immigrants in rural
midwestern communities was a result of
several factors: the coin-
cidence of their arrival and the opening
of the frontier, the influence
of the Homestead Act of 1862, the
promotional efforts of railroad
agents and immigration bureaus, their
relative prosperity that
enabled them to become farm owners, and
the geographical similari-
ty of the Midwest to their native lands.
Later immigrant groups had neither the
opportunity and capital
to obtain farm land nor the experience
and temperament to confront
a lonely and often hostile environment.
But some southern and
eastern Europeans could be found in the
countryside, especially as
truck farmers near coastal metropolises.
Jewish farmers were pro-
minent in the borscht belt of New York's
Catskills, and among
chicken ranchers in Petaluma, California
and Vineland, New Jersey.
Italians raised fruit and vegetables in
the East, and in the Pacific
Northwest they engaged in dairying,
fruit raising, and built
wineries in California (notably the
Italian Swiss-Colony).
California's Italians competed for prime
farm land with Yugoslavs,
Japanese, Portuguese, Armenians,
Basques, and various northern
European groups. The Portuguese
distinguished themselves as
dairymen in the San Francisco Bay and
Sacramento areas. The
Armenians were prominent in Fresno
County as market gardeners.
One developed the largest fig ranch in
the world.8
The role as seasonal farm laborers of
Orientals, Eastern Euro-
peans, and Spanish-Americans, was also
crucial to agricultural
growth. The Chinese and Japanese
provided the initial pool of
"stoop" labor in the far west
until the Oriental exclusion acts shut
the door between 1882 and 1907.
Filipinos and especially Mexicans
had a near monopoly thereafter, except
during the depression of the
1930s when tens of thousands were
repatriated. The quota law of
1921 did not apply to Mexico and during
the 1920s more than a
million and a half Mexicans crossed the
border. Most settled in the
Southwest, but many moved into the large
midwestern cities of
Chicago, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and
St. Paul. These migrants
on the fruit and vegetable farms of the
sunbelt and the midwest
generally moved northward following the
harvest in three main
streams: from Florida to New Jersey,
Texas to Michigan and Min-
nesota, and up California's Salinas and
Sacramento-San Joaquin
Valleys. The peak year of dependency on
foreign farm workers was
8. Theodore Saloutos, "The
Immigrant Contribution to American Agriculture,"
Agricultural History, 50 (Jan., 1976), 60-62.
Ethnicity 329
1960 when the federal government
admitted 460,000 for harvest
labor.9
The Immigration Commission Reports give
the rural concentra-
tion of the major immigrant groups in
1900. In descending order,
the percentage of foreign-born, male
bread-winners following
agriculture pursuits was Norwegians
fifty, Czechs thirty-two,
Swedes thirty, Germans twenty-seven,
British-Canadians twenty-
two, English eighteen, Irish and French
Canadians fourteen, Poles
ten, Italians six, and Hungarians
three. These percentages would in-
crease an average of five points if
sons of the foreign-born were in-
cluded. Thus, most ethnic groups were more than half
urban at a
time when the national percentage was
45 percent. The census of
1910 further indicates the low
incidence of immigrant farmers: only
12 percent of the nation's farm
operators were foreign-born.10
The geographical distribution of
immigrant farmers was striking-
ly uneven. In 1910, nearly seven out of
ten lived in the Midwest,
where they comprised 20.5 percent of
all farm operators. However,
in Minnesota and North Dakota more than
half of the farmers were
foreign-born, and in Wisconsin and
South Dakota over 30 percent.
The remaining three-tenths were nearly
evenly divided between the
Northeast and Far West regions, but
their small absolute members
were noticed more in the West where
they comprised 23 percent of
all farmers, compared to 11 percent in
the East. A mere 12,000 im-
migrant farmers (.06 percent) settled
in the South because of its
reputedly inferior soils, slavery or
its legacy, and the absence of
friends and relatives. The immigrants,
in short, chose the cities
rather than the countryside, and those
who opted for farming
headed for the midwestern and plains
states.
To what extent climate, ethnic
idiosyncracy, and the pull of
already-established communities
accounted for the distribution of
the immigrant groups is unknown. In
general, however, immigrants
first gathered in and near the large
seaport cities of the Atlantic
Coast, especially in the Middle
Atlantic states, and to a lesser
measure, near the Pacific harbor
cities. They gradually spread out
over the northern, central, and western
sections of the country
wherever transportation and job
opportunities in agricultural and
industry beckoned. Usually the
immigrants clustered around com-
munities of their compatriots. Some
sought certain climates or soil
9. Louis Adamic, A Nation of Nations (New
York and London, 1944), 62-65;
Saloutos, "Immigrant
Contribution," 63-65.
10. U.S. Immigration Commission, Reports
(Washington, GPO, 1911), Vol. 28,
60-62. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 13th
Census, 1910, Vol. 5, Agriculture, 178.
330 OHIO HISTORY
areas that resembled their homelands,
while others preferred urban
life. Many who joined the frontier
movement to the cornbelt and
prairies eventually were swept back into
the cities by the strong ur-
ban tide of the Industrial Revolution.
Cultural Patterns in Farming
Throughout the history of settlement in
the American wilderness,
European immigrant farmers had to deal
with a variety of un-
familiar soils, weather conditions,
vegetation, and terrains. The
fields of Europe had been cleared or
drained for generations, if not
centuries, and land was farmed
intensively and with great variety of
grains, fruits, vegetables, and
livestock. The American frontier,
whether forests or prairies, was
strikingly different. It required that
immigrant farmers adapt themselves to an
alien land.
The degree to which the varying cultural
backgrounds of the im-
migrants influenced their choice of
settlement areas and affected
their farming practices and success rate
has long intrigued
Americans. The literature of rural
history is replete with contem-
porary comments and observations about
the relationship between
cultural background and farming
behavior. Bogue identifies two
key propositions in accounts of
midwestern agriculture.11 The first
is that various ethnic groups, when
learning to farm in America, in-
itially drew upon their particular Old
World skills and modes of
husbandry, thereby introducing specific
crops and farming tech-
niques into American agriculture. The
second hypothesis is that cer-
tain ethnic groups in the same
geographical region farmed for
generations in ways significantly
different from their neighbors,
within the limits of the common
constraints imposed by climate and
soils in each region. He finds the first
proposition more plausible
than the second, but neither has been
sufficiently tested by
systematic research. Only recently have
scholars attempted com-
parative studies of ethnic cropping
patterns, animal husbandry,
technological skills, tenure
differences, and mobility and per-
sistence rates, based upon census
records, tax lists, and estate in-
ventories.12
11. Bogue, Prairie to Cornbelt, 237-38.
12. See, for example, Bogue, Prairie
to Cornbelt 25, 237-40; John G. Gagliardo,
"Germans and Agriculture in
Colonial Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania Magazine of
History and Biography, 83 (1959), 192-218; James T. Lemon, "The
Agricultural
Practices of National Groups in
Eighteenth-Century Southeastern Pennsylvania,"
The Geographical Review, 56 (Oct. 1966), 467-96; David Aidan McQuillan,
"Adapta-
tion of Three Immigrant Groups to
Farming in Central Kansas, 1875-1925" (Ph.D.
Ethnicity 331
Many of the traditional generalizations
about ethnic behavior in
agriculture have been tainted by
stereotypes of "national
character" or frontier
mythologies. Benjamin Rush, Benjamin
Franklin, and other scientists of the
Revolutionary era, for example,
believed that agricultural traditions
of national groups were
distinct. They cited as evidence the
supposed superior farming prac-
tices in the eighteenth century of the
Germans, as compared to their
English and Scotch-Irish neighbors.13
German farmers were literally
described as "earth animals,"
superior to all other nationality
groups in land selection, agricultural
skills, animal husbandry, barn
construction, product specialization,
soil conversion, consumption
habits, and labor-intensive family work
teams.14
The classic statement of this
"national character" genre is from
the pen of Benjamin Rush, the renowned
Philadelphia physician and
one of the early advocates of German
agricultural practices. Ger-
man farms, said Rush in 1789, "may
be distinguished from farms of
other citizens . . . by the superior
size of their farms, the height of
their inclosures, the extent of their
orchards, the fertility of their
fields, the luxuriance of their
meadows, and a general appearance of
plenty and neatness in everything that
belongs to them."15 The
Frenchman J. Hector St. John de
Crevecoeur agreed with Rush.
"Whence the difference arises I
know not, but out of twelve families
of emigrants of each country, generally
seven Scotch will succeed,
diss., University of Wisconsin, 1975);
John G. Rice, Patterns of Ethnicity in a Min-
nesota County, 1880-1905 (Geographical Reports, 4, Norway, University of Umea,
1973); Rice, "The Role of Culture
and Community in Frontier Prairie Farming,"
Journal of Historical Geography, 3 (1977), 155-75; Terry D. Jordan, German Seed in
Texas Soil: Immigrant Farmers in
Nineteenth Century Texas (Austin,
1966); Robert
Ostergren, "Rattvik to Isanti: A
Community Transplanted" (Ph.D. diss., Universi-
ty of Minnesota, 1976); E.D. Ball,
"The Process of Settlement in 18th Century
Chester County, Pa.: A Social and
Economic History" (Ph.D. diss., University of
Pennsylvania, 1973).
13. Lemon, "Agricultural
Practices," 467-68, 495-96; Lemon, Best Poor Man's
Country, xiv.
14. The "earth animals" quote
is from Adolph Schock, In Quest of Free Land
(Assen, Netherlands, 1964), 131. Major
traditional stereotypical studies are: Walter
M. Kollmorgan, "The Pennsylvania
German Farmer," in Rudolph Wood (ed.), The
Pennsylvania Germans (Princeton, 1942), 27-55; Stevenson Whitcomb Fletcher,
Pennsylvania Agriculture and Country
Life, 1640-1840 (Harrisburg, 1950);
Richard
H. Shryock, "British Versus German
Traditions in Colonial Agriculture," Mississip-
pi Valley Historical Review, 26 (1939), 39-54. Similar perspectives regarding
nineteenth-century German farmers are
Joseph Schafer, "The Yankee and Teuton in
Wisconsin," Wisconsin Magazine
of History, 6 (1922), 125-45, 261-79, 386-402; Ibid.,
7 (1923), 3-19, 148-71; William H.
Gehrke, "The Ante-Bellum Agriculture of the Ger-
mans in North Carolina," Agricultural
History, 9 (July, 1935), 143-60; Marcus Lee
Hansen, The Immigrant in American
History (Cambridge, Mass., 1940), 61-63;
Saloutos, "Immigrant
Contribution," 45-67.
15. Quoted in Saloutos, "Immigrant
Contribution," 48.
332 OHIO HISTORY
nine Germans, and four Irish.. "16 Methodical,
frugal, and in-
dustrious, German farmers rapidly
achieved self-sufficiency, accord-
ing to these accounts. They raised
other cereals to supplement their
principal cash crop, wheat, and perfected the
Conestoga wagon and
bred the Conestoga horse to carry their products to
market. Scotch-
Irish farmers, on the other hand, were
said to mine their land and
leave livestock and machinery to
weather the winter elements un-
protected. James Lemon is correct in
viewing the origins of such at-
titudes as an English colonial import,
stemming from a set of
stereotypes held by Englishmen about
the superiority of German
peasants and the inferiority of Celtic
peoples in agricultural prac-
tices.17 Once fixed, the
beliefs were reinforced by late-nineteenth
century ethnic societies and
filiopietistic historians.
In marked contrast to the ethnic
apologists, frontier historian
Frederick Jackson Turner, the most
respected scholar in the early
twentieth century, completely rejected
the nationalist views of
Rush, Franklin, and other
European-oriented historians. The fron-
tier, for Turner, was a democratic
melting pot, the great economic
leveller, a place that destroyed the
European "cultural baggage" of
the immigrant pioneers. The land and
not the culture of the im-
migrant was the significant factor in
acculturation. After a very
short period of settlement, immigrant
farmers became in-
distinguishable from American-born
neighbors in the operation of
their farming businesses.18
Several modern studies, based upon the
manuscript population
and agricultural census lists, seem to
confirm Turner's thesis of
rapid assimilation and cultural
conformity among immigrant
farmers. In a study of early settlement
in a Wisconsin county
(Trempealeau), Merle Curti compared the
socioconomic structure
and relative economic success of all
major nativity groups, for the
census years 1850, 1860, 1870, and
1880. Initially, Americans and
English-speaking foreign-born farmers
owned better land, had more
implements and livestock, obtained
higher crop yields, and were less
transient than the Continental-born
farmers. This was largely due
to their lateness of settlement and
inadequate financial resources.
16. J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, Letters
from an American Farmer and
Sketches of Eighteenth-Century America
(New York, 1963), 79. This is quoted
in
Crevecouer's famous essay, "What is
an American?"
17. Lemon, "Agricultural
Practices," 493-94; Lemon, Poor Man's Country, 17-18.
18. Frederick Jackson Turner, "The
Significance of the Frontier in American
History," American Historical
Association, Annual Report for the Year 1893
(Washington, G.P.O., 1894), 199-227.
Turner elaborated his thesis in The Frontier in
American History (New York, 1920).
Ethnicity 333
Continental-born farmers arrived after
the Anglo-Americans had
picked the choice prairie lands.
Gradually, however, the poorer im-
migrant groups-Irish, Poles, and
Germans-made steady gains
and within a generation their farm
valuations approached the level
of the Americans. The only group to lag
behind was the
Norwegians, who arrived last and
selected hilly, wooded slopes
resembling their homeland. Even this
difference was only in degree,
not in kind; and Curti stressed the
essential similarity of all ethnic
groups in frontier Wisconsin.19
In his study of pioneer farming in
Illinois and Iowa, Bogue
specifically addressed the issue of
whether ethnic groups in the
same region farmed differently over a
considerable period of time.
The conventional wisdom was that
Germans and Swedes raised
more pigs than did Yankees. Charles
Towne and Edward Went-
worth, in their history of the pig,
state that these two nationality
groups pulled themselves "out of
the red" with a "combination of
pluck, perspicacity, and pigs. .. .
Less skilled in the management
of horses, sheep, and beef cattle than
the English and native
Americans, they concentrated with
dogged tenacity on their
hogs."20 In his
statistical analysis of hog production in Hamilton
and Bremer counties in northcentral
Iowa in 1880, Bogue found
that foreign-born farmers actually
owned fewer swine than native
farmers, a direct contradiction of the
prevailing wisdom. In their
crop production, however, immigrant
farmers conformed to the
general observation. Immigrants raised
more wheat and less corn
than natives and they hired more farm
hands, an indication that
they practiced a more intensive type of
agriculture.21 Thus, the
native-born farmers in Iowa anticipated
the future corn-hog sym-
biosis more than did immigrant farmers,
but neither group differed
substantially.
Additional midwestern studies bear out
this conclusion of
semblance. Seddie Cogswell compared
livestock valuation and the
number of farm animals in six eastern
Iowa counties (1850-1880)
and concluded that "for the most
part there was essential similarity
between the farms of native-and foreign-born. . . .
[They] did not
differ very much, either in the numbers
of the various farm animals
or in their mix."22 The immigrant
farmers had a slightly lower in-
19. Merle Curti, The Making of an
American Community: A Case Study of
Democracy in a Frontier County (Stanford, Cal., 1959), 80-83, 91-97, 179-97.
20. Quoted in Bogue, Prairie to
Cornbelt 237.
21. Ibid., 238.
22. Seddie Cogswell, Jr., Tenure,
Nativity and Age as Factors in Iowa
Agriculture, 1850-1880 (Ames, Iowa, 1975), 75, 78.
334 OHIO HISTORY
vestment in livestock, but this was
more than offset by a greater
amount of machinery. Donald Winters
likewise found that native or
foreign-born tenants in Iowa were not
distinguishable in terms of
rental arrangements, farm practices, or
success rates.23
In a pathbreaking study, Robert
Ostergren compared cropping
patterns and livestock enterprises
among Old Americans, Germans,
and Scandinavian farmers in Isanti
County, Minnesota, in 1880. He
concluded that cultural factors had a
minimal impact on crop deci-
sions compared to the overrriding
effects of geographic and en-
vironmental conditions in the
community. Only in the case of
secondary crops such as oats and
livestock such as sheep did
cultural traditions have an impact.24
The economic status of the
various ethnic groups in Isanti
measured by land and wealth data
likewise revealed few striking
differences not explained by length of
occupance.25 Ostergren
traced one group of Isanti Swedes back to
their Old Country parish of Rattvik and
compared their farming
practices before and after migration.
This thoroughly innovative
technique revealed that in Rattvik
barley had been the primary
crop, with oats a secondary crop. In
Minnesota, by contrast, wheat
(which had never been raised in Sweden)
was the primary crop and
oats a secondary one. The Rattvik
colonists transplanted their in-
stitutions, Ostergren concluded, but
not their farming practices.
"When it came to making a living
it seems that the immigrants
were faced with little choice but to
adapt as quickly as possible to
the American system." "In
fact," said Ostergren, "there is little
evidence that there ever was much
resistance to the dictates of the
new environment and the local market
economy. The situation was
so different from home, that one
probably did not even seriously
contemplate farming in the same
manner."26
David McQuillan used a different
technique to assess the adapta-
tion process among immigrant groups in
the more arid region of cen-
tral Kansas. He selected three ethnic
groups-Swedes, Mennonites,
and French-Canadians-and compared
farming practices not only
between the groups but within the
groups by selecting one township
in which the group was clearly dominant
and one township in which
the particular immigrant group was a
minority among native-born
farmers. Rural segregation of the
ethnic groups had no significant
impact on farming practices, McQuillan
concluded. Only the Men-
23. Donald L. Winters, Farmers
Without Farms: Agricultural Tenancy in
Nineteenth-Century Iowa (Westport, Conn., 1978), 77, 88, 135.
24. Ostergren, Rattvik to Isanti, 107-21.
25. Ibid., 121-28.
26. Ibid., 140.
Ethnicity 335 |
nonites diverged from the American norm by operating smaller farms of higher value, by diversifying their crop and livestock enter- prises, and by owning debt-free farms rather than rentals.27 Religious values may have been the determining factor in the case of the Mennonites, although McQuillan does not pursue this intrigu- ing lead. In brief, the immigrant farmers of frontier Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota adjusted rapidly and without apparent dif- ficulty. From the earliest period of settlement, they made greater gains than the native-born, obtaining a proportionate share of the land and developing unsurpassed commercial farming businesses. Instead of the common picture of the relatively "poor" and traditional-bound immigrant farmer, the census research indicates that measured by farm size, livestock, crops, and machinery, Euro- pean immigrants quickly adopted the best practices of the region and they had the financial resources to do so. At least at the broad level of the nationality group, economic differentials did not mark immigrant farmers from natives. This midwestern picture is repeated in Terry Jordan's detailed comparison of German and Anglo-American farmers in Texas (1850-1880). Although the Germans clung to Old World cultural traits that made them distinctive for generations among Texas
27. McQuillan, "Adaptation of Three Immigrant Groups to Farming." |
336 OHIO HISTORY
farmers, in other important ways they
"became Southerners almost
from the first." The Germans were
more attracted to the soil and
committed to commercial agriculture.
They farmed with greater in-
tensity and productivity, were less
mobile, and had a higher rate of
landownership. They diversified more by
actively pursuing market
gardening near the major Texas towns, by
producing wine and
white potatoes (in a sweet potato
region), by cultivating small
grains, and by using mules instead of
horses as draft animals. But
the similarities between Germans and
southern-born farmers were
"even more striking than the
differences." The Germans were im-
itators rather than innovators. They
introduced no new major crops
or livestock practices, but rather began
cultivating the three
southern staples-corn, cotton, and sweet
potatoes. They adopted
the southern farmstead architecture and
open range system, with
no barns for wintering stock. They
neither dunged their fields nor
stall-fed their livestock.28
In a German settlement in the Missouri
Ozarks dating from the
1890s, Russell Gerlach compared agricultural
land use and crop pro-
duction in 1972 in four sample counties
that contained clearly de-
fined German and non-German farming
regions.29 As in Texas, more
Germans were full-time farmers and they
worked their land more in-
tensively, but their crops, farm size,
yield per acre, and tenancy
rates did not appreciably differ from
that of the Old Stock
Americans who had emigrated from
Appalachia to the Ozarks in the
last century. The major difference is
cultural. Germans are more
traditional and share a deeper
commitment to an agrarian way of
life than the native Americans, but
their farming behavior is barely
distinguishable.
Jordan suggests a four-class typology of
the "survival
tendencies" of imported
agricultural systems by immigrant
groups.30 (1) Old Country
traits never introduced, such as the Texas
Germans' failure to dung fields and
winter livestock in barns. (2)
European traits introduced but not
successfully implemented. For
Texan Germans these included
viticulture, European fruit trees, the
farm village plan and communal herding
on the West Texan plains,
and small grain production in the east
Texas cotton belt. (3) Euro-
pean traits that survived only the first
generation. These included
28. Jordan, German Seed in Texas
Soil, chaps. 4-6. The quotes are on p. 195.
29. Russell L. Gerlach, Immigrants in
the Ozarks: A Study in Ethnic Geography
(Columbia and London, 1976).
30. This paragraph and the four
following are summarized from Jordan, German
Soil in Texas Soil, 194-203.
Ethnicity 337
small-scale farm operations, German
farmstead structures, and the
free-labor system in east Texas. By the
1850s, some Germans in
East Texas were purchasing slaves. (4)
Long-lived traits. Texas Ger-
man farmers were distinguishable for
generations by their labor-
intensive, highly productive, stable,
diversified agriculture.
The determinant factors in these various
outcomes were the
physical and cultural-economic
environments. The mild Texas
climate, for example, obviated the need
for large barns and winter
quartering of livestock. Without barns,
manure was lost. The
economic milieu likewise encouraged
immigrants to adapt farming
practices of the region because those of
the native Southerners were
proven superior. For example, Germans
shifted from small family
farms to large-scale commercial
agriculture common to the region.
Moreover, those traits that did survive,
either intact or modified,
such as intensive farming methods,
cheese-making, and cultivating
white potatoes, were those that did not
interfere with or undermine
the economic viability of Texas
agriculture.
Many of these surviving traits were
curiously absent in the
earliest years of settlement but emerged
later in what Jordan calls a
"cultural rebound." The
initial shock of adjustment to a new en-
vironment apparently inclined immigrants
to ape indigeneous
American practices. But gradually this
initial "artificial" assimila-
tion was reversed and unique dormant
traits reappeared. The Ger-
mans were an alien group in Texas
confronting an agricultural socie-
ty that had evolved over two hundred
years. The uniqueness almost
guaranteed the survival of their
"Europeanness."
Whether the "built-in" traits
of agricultural immigrants from
northwestern and central Europe suvived
in American farm com-
munities depended largely on the
disimilarity to their Old Country
environment. The more alien the cultural
environment, the more
defensive and persistent the group.
Since the southern United
States was not as congenial to
European-born farmers as the north-
ern regions, immigrants in the South
retained their distinctiveness
more than did their compatriots in the
North. On the other hand,
German wheat farmers in Kansas, Rhine
winegrowers in California,
and Norwegian dairymen in Wisconsin
risked losing their ethnic
identity quickly because they blended in
with their neighbors from
the beginning.
The rapid assimilation of immigrant
farmers was due to more
than a familiar cultural environment.
Before leaving Europe, im-
migrants often purchased crude farming
manuals and guide books
to ease their introduction to America.
They also sought direct con-
338 OHIO HISTORY
tacts with American neighbors to learn
proven farm methods in the
area. Many unmarried young men and women
"hired out" to
Americans as field hands and domestics.
If fellow-ethnics had
previously settled the region, newcomers
naturally sought their aid
and served "apprenticeships"
under them. Despite the rapid ac-
culturation, foreign-born farmers, of
course, always faced a greater
adjustment than natives.
The Texan farmers of German ancestry
today still retain some
distinctive social-cultural traits, but
Jordan concluded that dif-
ferences in agricultural practices are
largely "invisible," if they per-
sist at all. As farmers and ranchers,
the Germans in Texas are
businessmen first and foremost; they are
ethnics only in the farm-
house, in church, and in social clubs.31
This finding agrees with
Bogue's assessment of midwestern ethnic
farmers: Cultural dif-
ferences "were more apparent than
real-most obvious in food
ways, dress, and lingual traits, and
less important when the farmer
decided on his combination of major
enterprises."32
The census research summarized here is
seminal. It provides the
first solid evidence regarding ethnic
patterns in agriculture. But all
of these studies suffer from two
limitations, which are inherent in
the census sources. The first is that
all farmers of a given nationali-
ty are lumped together, without taking
account of local and regional
differences in the motherland. The
censuses only record the country
of birth, of course, and it would be a
herculean task to link the cen-
sus with foreign records at the local
level. Yet in nineteenth century
Europe, farming practices, life styles,
and even languages often dif-
fered widely between two adjacent
provinces in the same country, or
even between two parishes in the same
province. Secondly, the early
studies slight the importance of
religious group differences, again
because the censuses do not report
religious or denominational af-
filiation. Thousands of close-knit,
church-centered, ethnic com-
munities dotted the landscape of rural
America a century ago.
These homogeneous clusters of people
often had common origins in
the Old Country and they deliberately
sought to create isolated set-
tlements in hopes of preserving their
cultural identity and retaining
the mother tongue for generations to
come. Such cohesive sectarian
communities differed greatly from
settlements composed of a mix-
ture of main-line "church"
groups, even if all were Protestant.33
31. Ibid., 203.
32. Bogue, Prairie to Cornbelt, 238.
33. This is the perceptive approach of
Marianne Wokeck in her dissertation ir
progress at Temple University. See
Marianne Wokeck, "Cultural Persistence and
Adaptation: The Germans of Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania, 1729-76," in Pau
Ethnicity 339
There are several recent micro-studies
that take into account the
parish background of American immigrant
farmers. These are
highly rewarding and suggestive of the
direction of future research
in agricultural history. John Rice
studied farming patterns in a six-
township area of frontier Minnesota
(Kandiyohi County), which was
settled by Swedes, Norwegians, Irish,
and Americans from the
East.34 Each of the
nationality groups was diverse in origin, except
for one group of Swedes who came from
the same parish-Gagnef in
Dalarna Province. Two other Swedish
settlements were more
diverse, comprising people from many
parishes, yet all from the
same provinces. Moreover, each of the
three subnational Swedish
culture groups was affiliated with the
three major church com-
munities in the sample townships. Thus,
Rice was able to compare
agricultural practices of Swedish
cultural groups defined at the na-
tional, provincial, and parish levels.
Rice's findings, based on both Swedish
and American sources,
reveal that farmers from all the
nationality groups, except the
Swedes of Gagnef parish, were similar
in their cropping patterns,
livestock holdings, persistence rates,
and economic status. All the
groups concentrated on wheat. The
Scandinavians (including the
Norwegians) raised more livestock,
especially sheep, than the Irish
and Americans, and the Swedes were more
persistent. But the
Gagnef parishioners stand out as
unique. They retained their oxen
as draught animals into the 1880s, long
after the other farmers in
the area had switched to horses. The
Gagnef community was the
most stable by far, and it prospered
economically, advancing from
the poorest of the Swedish settlements
to the wealthiest. In sum,
the agricultural experience of the
church-centered Gagnef group,
transplanted en masse from Dalarna,
differed markedly from the
neighboring immigrant settlements,
including those of Swedes and
Norwegians. Religion and its cultural
trappings, not nationality per
se, determined farming behavior among
Minnesota Swedes.
The impact of religion on immigrant
farmers was not unique to
Swedes. A century early in southeastern
Pennsylvania, sectarian
"plain folk," Mennonites from
the Rhine Valley and Switzerland,
Friends (Quakers) from England and
Wales, and German Baptist
"Dunkers" and Moravian
Brethren similarly occupied and used the
land differently than immigrants from
mainline European chur-
Uselding, ed., Business and Economic
History Papers Presented at the Twenty-
Fourth Annual Meeting of the Business History
Conference (Urbana, Ill., 1978), n.p.
34. The findings of this paragraph and
the next are from Rice, "The Role of
Culture" and "Community in
Frontier Prairie Farming," 166-75.
340 OHIO HISTORY
ches-Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and
Presbyterian. The sect
groups valued discipline and
cooperation. The Moravians lived com-
munally in agricultural villages,
following the European "open-
field" system, but the Mennonites
and Quakers lived on family
farms. The sects were tightly clustered
geographically, owned the
most valuable farms, and were least
transient. Although most
farmers in Lancaster and Chester
counties were involved in general
mixed agriculture with an emphasis on
wheat, the Mennonites and
Quakers farmed more intensively, sowed
more wheat acreage, and
possessed more livestock than other
national and denominational
groups.35 Thus, in a
relatively homogeneous agricultural region, the
only significant differences in farming
behavior derived from
religious, rather than ethnic origins.
The seven Amana villages in
Iowa and numerous Spanish-American
peasant villages in New
Mexico, the latter antedating the
Mexican war of independence
from Spain in the 1820s, provide
additional examples of religiously-
based communities that to this day use
the open-field system of
agricultural settlement. In all of
these communities, behavioral
distinctions in farming can be
determined only through microscopic
local studies.
Contributions
Not only did immigrant farmers bring to
America a willingness to
confront an alien land, they also made
specific contributions to
agriculture.36 The most
general contribution of farmers from the ad-
vanced nations of northern Europe was
simply their dedication to
farming as a way of life and their
skill in farm techniques, animal
husbandry, and cropping practices. The
extent to which the ideal-
ized family-sized farm has survived the
forces of modernization is
largely due to the determination of
third and fourth generation im-
migrants to maintain their traditional
life style and values.
In animal husbandry, immigrant farmers
throughout the north-
ern part of the country consistently
set the standard for livestock
winter care, utilization of manure, and
selective breeding. The Penn-
sylvania Germans by the late eighteenth
century had demonstrated
the necessity of huge, functional
barns, but native-born farmers
were exceedingly slow to emulate them.37
As late as 1849, a Dutch
35. Lemon, Poor Man's Country, 63-64,
81-85, 174, and passim; Lemon,
"Agricultural Practices,"
467-96.
36. The best survey is Saloutos,
"Immigrant Contribution," 45-67. The 91 notes
also provide an extensive bibliography.
37. Perry Wells Bidwell and John I.
Falconer, History of Agriculture in the North-
ern United States, 1620-1860 (Washington, D.C., 1925), 107-08, 122-23.
Ethnicity 341
immigrant in central Iowa reported to
relatives in the Province of
Friesland: "Americans do not have
barns. . . As a rule the cattle
here are not as heavy as in Friesland,
and as far as I can see, this is
caused by the fact that they are left on
their own during the winter.
Calves are not placed in the stable and
no colts are taken inside, so
livestock suffers terribly."38
From their firsthand knowledge, im-
migrants, especially those from the
British Isles, introduced in the
half century after Independence the
improved varieties of animals
developed in Europe, such as the Spanish
Marino sheep and English
cattle and hogs-the Herefords, Shorthorns,
Durhams, and Devons.
Indeed, as with the Industrial
Revolution of the nineteenth century,
English agricultural reforms of the
eighteenth century came a
generation or two earlier than in
America and provided the impetus
for change, especially in livestock.39
Immigrant farmers also contributed to
the introduction of new or
improved varieties of plants and crops
that were so important in the
development of American agriculture. In
the Carolina and Georgia
tidewater region in the eighteenth
century, French settlers led in the
introduction of the more esoteric
agricultural products such as
grapes, silk-worm and mulberry trees,
olives, and indigo.40 The
Frenchmen, Lewis Gervais, Lewis St.
Pierre and Pierre Legaux, suc-
cessfully transplanted native French
grapevines and established the
vineyard industry in North America.
Similarly, Andrew Deveaux
was the provincial indigo expert whose
efforts raised the quality of
American indigo to that of the best
French product. Farmers of
English-stock in New England and the
Middle Colonies, meanwhile,
introduced the cultivation of grasses
and legumes for animal forage
and hay. The fact that early clovers
were simply called "English
grass" testifies to their origin.
Notable nineteenth century plant imports
were Grimm alfalfa and
Turkey Red wheat. A German immigrant to
Carver County, Min-
nesota in 1857, Wendelin Grimm, brought
a twenty-pound bag of
alfalfa seed from his homeland. Over a
number of years the alfalfa
acclimatized to withstand winterkill
until it became the prime
38. Robert P. Swierenga, ed., "A
Dutch Immigrant's View of Frontier Iowa"
(Sjoerd Aukes Sipma, Belangryke
Berigten uit Pella, in de Vereenigde Staten van
Noord-Amerika [Important Reports from Pella, in the United States of
North
America], 1849), Annals of Iowa, 3rd
Series, 38 (Fall, 1965), 95, 89.
39. Rodney C. Loehr, "The Influence
of English Agriculture on American
Agriculture," Agricultural
History, 11 (Jan. 1937), 3-15.
40. Arthur H. Hirsch, "French
Influence on American Agriculture in the Colonial
Period With Special Reference to
Southern Provinces," Ibid., 4 (Jan., 1930), 1-9. See
also Arthur P. Whitaker, "The
Spanish Contribution to American Agriculture,"
Ibid., 3 (Jan., 1929), 1-14.
342 OHIO HISTORY
forage crop of the Northwest.
Agricultural historians have stated
that "its permanence, enormous
yields, high protein content,
economy as a crop, and value as a soil
builder and weed throttler is
almost without parallel in plant
history."41 No wonder that farmers
called it the "everlasting clover
seed!" Mennonite settlers from the
Crimea introduced Turkey Red wheat in
south-central Kansas in
1873, and this hardy winter wheat and
other durum varieties
became within a generation the great
cash crop of the semi-arid
regions of the northwestern plains. Ten
years earlier, Russian im-
migrants had brought durum wheat to the
Dakotas. In the 1890s,
other Russian peasants brought to the
United States from their
native steppes the seeds of kabanka and
arnautska wheat and also
special rye and sunflower seeds, all of
which became widely
cultivated on the plains.42 The
white potato is another plant that ad-
ded variety to the American diet because
of the persistent efforts of
German and Irish farmers to cultivate
it.
Farmland reclamation was another
immigrant specialty, especial-
ly among those groups who arrived
penniless after the great
homesteading era had ceased. "The
foreign-born take the marginal
land," Edmund de S. Brunner
declared, "hoping that their energy
and muscle will overcome other
handicaps."43 The Poles, Russians,
and Finns were notable examples. Between
1870 and 1920, three
million Polish peasants migrated to the
United States. They were
unskilled and poor but willing to work
hard and accumulate sav-
ings. With these meager savings some
750,000 Poles purchased
farms abandoned by New Englanders in
Massachusetts, the Con-
necticut Valley, and upstate New York.
Others acquired lower quali-
ty lands in the Midwest and Texas. By
dint of toil and thrifty
management, Poles restored numerous
farms to a productive state.
By 1940, some 30,000 Russian immigrants
were also in the land,
many in the East on abandoned farms.44
The Polish and Russian
story is repeated among the Finns, who
were too poor to buy choice
farms.45 By working first as
the lowest-paid laborers in the mills,
41. Saloutos, "Immigrant
Contribution," 66; Peter C. Marzio, ed., A Nation of
Nations: The People Who Came to
America as Seen Through Objects and
Documents Exhibited at the
Smithsonian Institution (New York,
1976), 148.
42. Adamic, Nation of Nation, 155.
43. Edmund de S. Brunner, Immigrant
Farmers and Their Children (Garden City,
N.Y., 1929), 44.
44. Wittke, We Who Built America, 421,
428-29; Saloutos, "Immigrant Contribu-
tion," 56-57.
45. A. William Hogland, "Finnish
Immigrant Farmers in New York, 1910-1960,"
in O. Fritrof Ander, ed., In the Trek
of the Immigrants: Essays Presented to Carl
Wittke (Rock Island, Ill., 1964), 141-55.
Ethnicity 343
mines, and forests of the East coast or
Midwest, they slowly ac-
cumulated enough capital to buy the
"cutover" lumber lands of
northern Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Minnesota. These areas had
thin, rocky soil and required much
back-breaking labor to root out
the stumps before the land could be
farmed. In 1920, 90 percent of
the Finns in Wisconsin agriculture were
in the cutover area. Other
Finns purchased abandoned farms in the
old agricultural regions of
New England and New York. The Finnish
historian, A. William
Hogland, has described one such group
of several hundred Finns
who in 1910, at the behest of local
real estate agents, began settling
on abandoned land in New York's hill
country. The farms sold for
$500 to $3,000. The Finns eventually by
1950 numbered over five
hundred and dominated the agriculture
of three townships. Most
had little farming experience; yet they
developed profitable dairy
farms and during the 1930s turned to
large-scale poultry raising.
The Finns played a major part in the
agricultural revival in New
York after World War I.
Although most immigrant farmers brought
less capital with them
to the frontier than the native-born
farmers, at least one group of
Italian farmers in California, led by
Amadeo Peter Giannini, found-
ed the Bank of Italy which subsequently
became the Bank of
America. The credit operation of the
Bank of America had a pro-
found impact on the agricultural
development of the state. An im-
migrant from Russian Poland, David
Lukin, likewise strengthened
the marketing mechanism of American
farmers by protecting their
export markets in Europe through the
creation of the International
Institute of Agriculture (now the
United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization). This
organization served as a clearing
house of information on European crop
production and prices,
which enabled American farmers to
compete in the world market.46
Conclusion
The forces of change in modern life are
breaking down the local
ethnic and cultural distinctions in
American agriculture; they are
tending to "homogenize rural
society." But in the past local condi-
tions varied greatly and the process of
acculturation was uneven.
Unfortunately, the ethnic variety in
rural America remains an
enigma because the subject of ethnicity
and agriculture is virtually
unexplored. Marcus Lee Hansen's 1940
list of "suggestive subjects
for investigation" remains intact.
Hansen urged the study of "the
46. Saloutos, "Immigrant
Contribution," 66-67.
344 OHIO HISTORY
immigrant as an outright [land]
purchaser, the rise of the hired land
to ownership; the immigrant as renter
or mortgaged debtor; occupa-
tion of abandoned farms by any race;
the different racial customs in
providing for the second generation;
the immigrant as a market
gardener, cotton planter or tobacco
grower, as a fruitman, rancher
or ordinary prairie mixed-farmer; the
employment of farm hands
and older sons in lumbering, ice
cutting and other seasonal labor;
the attitude toward improvements and
scientific farming."47 Com-
parative local studies of specific
ethnic groups, considering topics
such as these, would greatly enlarge
our understanding of rural
America and the impact on ethnic groups
of the forces of moderniza-
tion since the early days of
settlement.
47. Hansen, Immigrant in American
History, n200.
ROBERT P. SWIERENGA
Ethnicity and American Agriculture
Ethnic Patterns in Land Settlement
Rural America was never as ethnic as
urban America. The
vastness of the agricultural hinterland
and the traditional family
farm both worked against the formation
and survival of ethnic com-
munities. Nevertheless, ever since
Americans populated the land,
every national and denominational
group, in greater or lesser
degree, is represented in the farming
population. Rural America,
especially the Upper Middle West during
the nineteenth century,
had a remarkable cultural diversity,
traces of which still exist today
in the countryside. Agricultural
historian Allan Bogue has aptly
described the midwestern frontier:
"Farm operators might be
native-born or foreign-born, born to
the English tongue or highly in-
ept in its use. If continental-born,
they might have been raised
among the Rhineland vineyards or
trained to a mixed life of farming
and fishing in Scandinavia, been
emigrants from the grain fields of
eastern Europe or come from many other
backgrounds. If native-
born, they might be Yankee or Yorker,
Kentuckian or Buckeye,
Pennsylvanian or Sucker."1
There were three major ethnic
settlement streams in rural
America-New Englanders, Scotch-Irish,
and Germans-and sev-
eral minor concentrations of
Scandinavians, Canadians, Dutch,
Italians, Czechs, Japanese, and
Mexicans.2 The New England ex-
Robert P. Swierenga is Professor of
History at Kent State University
1. Allan G. Bogue, From Prairie to
Cornbelt: Farming on the Illinois and Iowa
Prairies in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, 1963), 194-95.
2. Excellent descriptions of these major
settlement patterns are: John L. Shover,
First Majority-Last Minority: The
Transformation of Rural Life in America
(DeKalb, Ill., 1976), 38-50; Frederick
C. Luebke, "Ethnic Group Settlement on the
Great Plains," Agricultural
History, 8 (Oct., 1977), 405-30; Randall M. Miller, "Im-
migrants in the Old South," Immigration
History Newsletter, X (Nov., 1978), 8-14;
Hilldegard Binder Johnson, "The
Location of German Immigrants in the Middle
West," Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 41 (1951), 1-41;
Frederick Jackson Turner, The United
States, 1830-1850, The Nation and Its Sec-
tions (New York, 1935).