A Study of Internal Migration and Occupations in Ward 6 of Beverly, MA, 1900-1910

This research paper investigates the immigration of foreign born to the United States and their settlement into different areas of Beverly MA. Occupations of immigrants often were a reflection of their ethnic background, (for example, Italians were businessmen while Irishmen were laborers). Sources include many documents from the US Department of Commerce, census records and other secondary sources.

Contents

List of Tables

Introduction

Statistics

Results

Conclusion

Works Cited

Tables

Table 1 – Nativity Groups (by Number and Percentage)

Table 2 – Second Generation Born in MA by Ethnicity

 

Introduction

Henry J. Fletcher once said that “The closing decades of this [19th] century are witnessing no more remarkable phenomenon than that shown in the migration of population, not so much from country to country, as from place to place in the same country.”1 What Mr. Fletcher is saying here is important to recognizing and understanding the American way of life. Americans have always been on the move. From the first settlement in the New World, there has been open space and room to move. In the first 80 years of the United States government under the Constitution, 1790-1870, the population “expanded tenfold” while the density increased only 2.5 times, because the “national domain quadrupled in those years.”2

This internal migration has always occurred in American History because we have always seemed to have land. The frontier was at one time western Massachusetts, then the Appalachians and it continued on its way westward.3 This kind of internal migration is not limited to colonial or 18th century times; it still goes on today. I’m certain that all of us have lived in at least two different addresses, if not more, within our lifetime. Internal migration has always been, and will always be a part of American life.

We can trace the movement of Americans from state to state through census records. What I will be doing in this paper is studying one ward of Beverly, MA to examine what, if any, patterns are shown in the migration of people from state to state. I will be studying occupational patterns to see if there is equal economic distribution and what jobs may have attracted migrants. What I hope to find out is whether or not where Americans were born had an effect on what job they held.

Statistics

I divided each census year that I investigated for Beverly Farms (1900 and 1910) into six groups . The three largest groups were first generation immigrants and second-generation immigrants born in Massachusetts. The other three, which were significantly smaller in size, were second generation immigrants born out of state, native-born born out of state, and those born in MA with parents born out of state. The chart below numbers and percentages for each group:

 

Table 1: Nativity Groups (By Number and Percentage) 4

From this table, we can see that the population of Ward 6, Beverly Farms, increased by 379 people or 27.1%. We also see that each group, with one exception, had some form of increase. However, the percentages of each group remained relatively the same, which implies that there were no significant changes in the elements of the population. The only group that had an increase worth mentioning was the group that contained those born in Massachusetts with parents born out of state, which went from 4.9% to 6.0%, and that was only a 1.1% increase.

Next, the groups containing second-generation immigrants were divided by ethnic groups:

Table 2: Second Generation Immigrants Born in Massachusetts, by Ethnicity.5

 

The table above shows us that of the second-generation immigrants born in MA, the Irish were the largest group, followed by the English Canadians in 1900 and the English in 1910. The other ethnic groups, though important in their own right, were not large enough to provide enough data to trace patterns. The next group used were the second-generation immigrants what were born out of state. There were 23 in 1900 and 21 in 1910. It was found that in 1900 there were eight Irish that were born out of state, four of them from Maine, two from New York, one from New Jersey and one from Connecticut. Of the English in 1900, there were five total born out of state, one from Maine, three from New York, and one from Pennsylvania. There were four Scottish, two from New Jersey and two from Maine; four French Canadians; one from Maine and three from Vermont. There was also one English Canadian from Maine and one person whose parents were from Prince Edward Island who emigrated from Rhode Island. In 1910, the Irish and the English Canadians were the largest groups among the second generation born out of staters, each with six people. Of the Irish, two were from Maine, three from Vermont and one from Rhode Island. The English Canadians were all from Maine. There was a French Canadian from Michigan, a Cuban from New York, two Chinese from California, a German from New York, a Swede from New Hampshire, one Englishman from New York and two Scots, one from Maine, and the other from Rhode Island.6

The next two groups I studied deal directly with internal migration, meaning, those who were native born, born in another state, or those born in Massachusetts with parents born out of state. In 1900 there were 26 native born from another state from Maine, 10 from New York, 10 from New Hampshire, two from Maryland, two from North Carolina, three from Connecticut, two from Vermont, four from Pennsylvania, four from Connecticut, and two from Virginia, Maryland, Texas, Washington D.C., Louisiana, and Vermont. One person each traveled from Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, Montana, Minnesota, and New Jersey.7

The last group included people born in Massachusetts with parents that were born in other states. This is a good indicator of what states people are coming from to raise families and establish themselves in Massachusetts. In 1900 I found 39 people born in Massachusetts with parents from Maine, nine with parents from New York, seven with parents from New Hampshire, six from Connecticut, two from Ohio, and one each from Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont and Maryland.8

I did not choose to study the Massachusetts native born and the first generation immigrants thoroughly as I did not see that they were necessary in this particular study of internal migration. The basic data gathered from those groups, i.e. the number per group, is necessary simply for population growth and comparative research, which is why it is used in this paper.

 

Results

All of the information given in the last chapter is not useful unless we pull it all together. The fact that each group mentioned, except one, had an increase in numbers means only that the population increased; therefore it was an overall increase, not a localized one. The percentages of each group stayed relatively even through both years and from this we can conclude that there was very little shifting in the diversity of the population. There was not so much ethnic diversity as there was diversity of the categories that are previously mentioned. To summarize, though the population grew in numbers, it did not shift ethnically.

What is not yet mentioned is the occupational aspect of this population. From each group, each person’s occupation was also recorded along with the state of birth, etc. This data was to be listed here in hopes of finding a pattern occupations by ethnicity but no such pattern was found. There were jobs that were more common, but not ones that were specific to a nativity group. It doesn’t seem to matter whether a person was born in Massachusetts of foreign- or native-born parents or if one was born in another state. There are pages and pages of lists of occupations by states and countries, but it is not needed to prove this point.

The reason that Ward 6 of Beverly, or Beverly Farms, was chosen is because of who lived in Beverly Farms. The Farms once catered to people looking for temporary, seasonal summer homes. Because of this, one would think that the diversity of this area would not be great, but it is in fact the opposite. Since wealthy people were coming to live just for the summer, there had to be someone to take care of the estates and homes while the owners were away. These people were not wealthy; they were of a lower class and stayed all year round. I was hoping to find that there would be a certain ethnic group that this seemed to attract the most.

First the economic situation needs to be addressed. There were no conclusive patterns found in the economic structure of Beverly Farms. The most common jobs were carpentry, gardening for private estates and some form of servant. Also common were day laborers, farm laborers, plumbers, show makers, merchants, and bookkeepers. There were several rarities, such as doctors and lawyers. Most of the jobs were either servile or manual labor jobs. As far as the distribution of occupations goes, there was no pattern. They seemed evenly distributed among the people and there appeared to be equal economic opportunity.

The Irish were, be far, the largest group in Ward 6. There was an overwhelming amount of second generation Irish in Ward 6. Of the second generation immigrants born in MA the Irish accounted for 62% in 1900 and 66% in 1910. The numbers were not so overwhelming in the category of second generation born out of Massachusetts. The Irish, still the largest group, only accounted for 34% of this category in 1900 and 28% in 1910, but this is because within this group there were more ethnic groups as they were coming from all over the country, not just Massachusetts. The English and Canadians were the next largest groups, though there were far behind the Irish. The Irish that migrated from other states seemed to consistently come from New England and the North Atlantic Coast. In 1900, 50% of the second generation immigrant Irish born in other states came from Maine, 25% from New York, 12.5% from New Jersey and 12.5% from Connecticut. In 1910, 50% of this group came from Vermont, 33.3% from Maine, and 16.6% from Rhode Island. The English Canadians made up a substantial amount of the second-generation-born out of staters. They were only 4% of this group in 1900, with 100% of them coming from Maine, but in 1910 they consisted of 28%, again with all of them coming from Maine. The English and Scottish also migrated from the Atlantic coast, though they seemed to come from the central part rather than the northern.9

Speaking strictly about internal migration, the most amount of people seem to have migrated to Beverly Farms from contiguous areas. In 1900, of those born out of state, 40% were from Maine, 15.4% from New York, 15.4% from New Hampshire, 6.1% from Pennsylvania, 4.6% from Connecticut, and 3.1% from Vermont and Maryland. There was also 3.1% from Ohio and North Carolina and 1.5% from farther away states such as Louisiana, Illinois and Michigan. In 1910, 43.5% of those born outside of Massachusetts were from Maine, with the next largest group from New York (14.5%), then New Hampshire (11.5%), then Pennsylvania (7.2%), and then Connecticut (5.8%). There were insignificant numbers of people from Texas, Montana, Minnesota and other distant states.10

The last category to be addressed is the category of those born in Massachusetts with parents born out of state. In 1900, 57% of this category were those with parents in Maine, 13% from New York, 10.2% from New Hampshire, and 9% from Connecticut. In 1910, 40.7% were from Maine, 16% from New Hampshire, and 10.6% from New York. Other states included were Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Louisiana.11

 

Conclusion

What all of this tells us is that there were significant amounts of people that were attracted to Beverly Farms from outlying areas. There were people from Louisiana, Ohio and Montana residing in Ward 6, all of whom had to have reason from coming. There was equal economic opportunity and seemingly plenty of jobs.

To understand what this really means is to connect it on a larger scale. If we look at the nation at the time we see that it was in the middle of change. In 1900, 21.8% of the nation lived outside of their state of birth and from that point on this percentage has been steadily increasing.12 All over the United States, at the time, towns were becoming cities, and there was an industrial movement at hand. Jobs were becoming less agricultural and more industrial.13 Beverly was becoming more of a city and therefore attracting more diverse people. There was a factory that employed many people and the city was growing. People were coming from all over the country looking for jobs and a place to raise a family. Through this internal migration Beverly was on its way to becoming a more culturally and ethnically diverse city.

 

---

Works Cited

Curti, Merle, et al., eds. American Issues: the Social Record, vol. 2. New York: J.P. Lipincott Company, 1971.

—. Henry J. Fletcher. From: The Drift of Population to Cities: Remedies.

Gill, Richard T., Nathan Glazer, Stephan A. Thernstrom, ed. Our Changing Population.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, part 1 and 2. September, 1975.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Twelfth Census of the United States: 1900- Population. June, 1900.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910- Population. April, 1910.

 

---

Footnotes

1. Curti, Merle, et al., eds. American Issues: the Social Record, vol. 2. (New York: J.P. Lipincott Company, 1971.), 165 —. Henry J. Fletcher. From: The Drift of Population to Cities: Remedies.

2 & 3.  Gill, Richard T., Nathan Glazer, Stephan A. Thernstrom, ed. Our Changing Population. (New Jersey:  Prentice Hall, 1992.), 63.

4.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Twelfth Census of the United States: 1900- Population. June, 1900.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910- Population. April, 1910.

5.  Ibid.

6.  Ibid.

7.  Ibid.

8.  Ibid.

9.  Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11.  Ibid.

12.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, part 1. (September, 1975), 89.

13.  Curti, Merle, et al., eds. American Issues: the Social Record, vol. 2. (New York: J.P. Lipincott Company, 1971.), 165