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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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...
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
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.
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
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
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
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.