Why were all those people on the Neal side Hoosiers? What was it about Indiana anyhow? And what was Indiana like during the many decades they lived there?
In part, Indiana just happened to be the place where abundant and cheap public land was available at the time these families were moving westward. More precisely, that Indiana land became available just as a generation of Kentucky men and women in their twenties were starting – or about to start – their families. As a result, an entire cohort of couples of a similar age (Vanderpools, Neals, Zinks, Shakes, Chastains, Starks, and others) decided to do so above the Ohio River in the new Territory of Indiana because they were in Kentucky at this time. Their offspring intermarried and the rest was history – the Neal history. In addition, the land situation in Kentucky, where most of these families found themselves toward the close of the 18th century, was in a mess, with competing and overlapping land claims, inaccurate surveys, conflicting boundaries, and dispute after dispute over all of these. All this was a major disincentive to land ownership: fewer than half of all Kentucky households in 1790 possessed land.
Many settlers, having failed to prove their claims or otherwise obtain land of their own, thus were ripe for leaving Kentucky. Monetary inflation and rampant speculation drove Kentucky land values artificially high, too. Many of those in Kentucky were, therefore, legally landless, perhaps renting but probably squatting. It should be no surprise that many of them decided to cross over into the new territory of Indiana as soon as – or even before – Indian claims could be "extinguished," as these claims were in southern Indiana by about 1815 and the government began to sell this virgin land. Here there was plenty of good public land, not controlled by speculators – and cheap ($1.25 an acre after 1820).
Compounding the situation in Kentucky was a rapidly rising population that made the chances of getting sufficient good land there look increasingly unfavorable. From 1784 to 1788, the population of Kentucky increased dramatically, and by 1790 there were 73,000 persons living where practically no one at all had lived just a dozen years earlier. By 1792 the population of Kentucky had grown to 100,000 persons, and it had doubled that number by 1800. Given all of these factors, when Indiana opened for settlement at about this time, the eager families we have met in this family history flocked into it and put their roots down.
The particular circumstances that brought these people to Indiana helped to shape the nature of that state, too. The relative absence of speculators and the arrival of large numbers of families in a short period of time meant that Indiana would become predominantly an area of small, independent farmers. In time, they would do a healthy business supplying their surplus crops to the states surrounding Indiana in return for commodities the people of those states could grow or manufacture. Yet another consequence was Indiana's position as one of the least-urbanized states of the Union: its largest city as late as 1840 (New Albany) had but 4,226 residents, and even ten years later that city had barely crested 10,000 inhabitants.1
Southwestern Indiana, beyond which none of these families ventured, was heavily wooded but not exceptionally fertile, outside the river bottoms and hilltops, and some portions of the area were rather rugged. Northern migration into Indiana having been stalled by circumstances ranging from a barrier of hostile Indian tribes to transportation difficulties to misconceptions about the nature of the soil of northern Indiana, most of the newcomers to that territory and state were generally from the Southern uplands: Kentucky frontier types who moved west out of habit or farmers unsympathetic to the development of the plantation. (Southeastern Indiana, settled in large part from Ohio, had more families that had originated in the Mid-Atlantic states.) Although they were southern in their outlook and culture and language, these people who settled most of this part of Indiana were generally not sympathetic to the planter ethos or a slave economy. They were nearly all small landholders and democrats by background who had no love for the Southern aristocracy.
An oddity about how Indiana was settled, observable even today in Indiana, is the fact that the early movements into the state rose northward to a line approximately where U.S. 40 (and now I-70) crosses the state, not far from the north-south midpoint of the state, and then stopped. As late as 1840 more than 80% of the population of Indiana lived in that southern portion. Whereas most of those who settled here were from the South or perhaps the Mid-Atlantic states, those who (generally later in the 19th century) migrated to northern Indiana were predominantly from New England and the Mid-Atlantic region. (After 1828, though, Ohioans increasingly moved westward into southern Indiana by way of the Whitewater Valley, and in time there would be as many of them in Indiana as there were Southerners.)
The newcomers picked out their land, purchased2 it (for our families, that was probably at the United States land office in Vincennes), and began to settle in. Some preferred level ground, others hilly; some liked the dark limestone soil, others the sandy loam; some would not think of being far from a spring, others were content to dig a well; some nestled their houses in amongst the trees, others insisted on a clear patch out of the woods. Undoubtedly the families we have met in this family history narrative shared these prejudices and attitudes and chose their places accordingly.
Throughout the nearly two centuries of Indiana life we have had in view, life in rural Indiana did not change very dramatically until the latter part of the 20th century. At the outset of the settlement process, during the first couple of decades of the 19th century, families moved onto new land using rough traces and the waterways to reach it. Frequently the adult males moved ahead of the others in order to build a rude shelter and to get a crop started. Since the land had been purchased – not from speculators as in Kentucky and other areas, but from the natonal government, probably on credit (a few dollars down with four years to complete payment and receive a patent signifying ownership), improvements could begin immediately. The most urgent work was clearing a little land, acre by acre, by girdling the trees and removing the brush. A one- or two-room log house with a dirt floor would be the next major project, one perhaps completed with help from other families nearby. Subsistence farming was the norm at this stage since there were no markets or stores close by – and since money for purchases was scarce anyhow.
The strenuous work of primitive farming occupied the time of virtually every adult and child; corn, hogs, vegetables in season, nuts, berries, game, and perhaps some chickens or ducks supplied the food, and much else besides. The lucky family had some oxen or a horse, perhaps a milch cow – and lots of children. Sooner or later some corn would be transformed into alcohol, easier than corn to transport. More corn would be used to fatten up hogs, which usually roamed free in the woods feasting on mast before being slaughtered. Eventually a crossroads or mill in the area would bring close enough a blacksmith, a post office, and perhaps a small store. Often a distillery (another destination for a corn crop) would be nearby, and tanneries and brickyards were also scattered across the countryside.
Life was simple, and so were life's pleasures. Worship (at first in homes, only later in dedicated structures) was the center of social life. Schooling, when it was offered (and when children could attend), might last six or eight weeks of classes during the late fall and winter; Indiana did not have a comprehensive public school system until the late 1860s. The family Bible might be the only book at hand, and "culture and the arts" as we think of them did not exist. Once or twice a year the family might go to the county seat for court day or militia mustering or some other occasion. as we think of it did not exist. Once or twice a year the family might go to the county seat for court day or militia mustering or some other occasion.
By the 1840s, Indiana farming had become reasonably prosperous and progressive. Judging from probate records of the time, most farmers had a variety of animals (cows, sheep, hens, horses, and pigs) and modest farm equipment. In part this was owing to the overall prosperity of the state, but in addition farmers in pre-industrial Indiana had to be relatively self-sufficient. A typical farm might (as one inventory shows) have "pickling barrels, meat tubs, wood planks of walnut and pine, a coffee mill, cobbling equipment, horseshoes, barrels of nails, carpenters equipment (mortising chisel, gouges, augers, planes, saw, hammers, and grindstones), blacksmith equipment, sheep shears, bridles, saddles, wagon covers, wagon parts, rifles and guns, and barrels of soap." Inventories also show "an abundance of stored food and storage equipment (pickled pork, lots of bacon, barrels of salted meat, tubs of lard, barrels of salt, dried fruit, lots of wheat, corn, sugars, and butter churns)." Farmers, wives, children – all had to learn how to use these tools and prepare these foods.
Household inventories also reflect a growing prosperity as the 19th century wore on. Lots of children meant numerous beds, though never enough for everyone to have his or her own. Other typical household items might include a fiddle, "clocks and brass cogs to repair the clocks, [a] set of plates, a few cups and saucers, heavy jugs and mugs made of stoneware and earthenware, large canning jars, skillets, kettles, several trunks, whiskey kegs, books in algebra, grammar, history, and a Bible." Since stores were few and ill-stocked, what the farm could not make it had to do without or improvise for; what it bought and wore out had to be rebuilt or reconditioned for further use.3
Such was life in rural Indiana during the nearly two centuries in which our families lived there. What was the effect of a long-term exposure to such a life? I think George Kennan, the noted historian whose own early family lived on similar farms (though not in Indiana), captured the impact quite well when he wrote of the small family farm:
"It bred, or tended to breed, strong people – strong both physically and emotionally. It effectively ruled out for married couples the escape hatches of separation and divorce; and in this way it encouraged the cohesion of the family. If it discouraged, as it plainly did, flights of speculation on more abstract and theoretical questions, and could thus be seen as restricting intellectual development, it engendered, in place of all this a certain simplicity and practicality of outlook and expression that had its own charm and eloquence, contrasting favorably with most of the artificialities of urban culture. It left enduring marks on succeeding generations. . . . Beyond which, the inescapable discipline of the small family farm inculcated in its devotees certain qualities of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and pride of land ownership that played a unique role in the shaping of character."
Later, Kennan extended his point by adding this comment about the effect of the small family farm on character and outlook:
"Now, extreme personal independence of this sort implied and demanded, of course, the forfeiture of such support as could have been had from closer association, commercial, professional, social, or what you will, with others. . . . And it was, in these circumstances, not surprising that when these [Kennans] and members of later generations of the family turned to the problem of selecting long-term professional involvements, it was to what might be called the lonely ones – the farm, the law, the pulpit, the pen, and the scholar's dedication – that they gave precedence. These callings, whatever their implicit burdens, presented a measure of defense against interference or domination from outside."
Can it be any coincidence that with farming no longer a viable option the chosen (if not eventual) occupations of my grandfather, father, self, and two sons were, respectively, minister, writer, professor, actor, and firefighter – all intensely individualistic and independent callings?
Previous | Table of contents
rev. 7/11/08
Notes
1Another product of this development is the stereotype of the "back-country Hoosier," which one – sympathetic – expert wrote "might be dismissed as a piece of subjectivism were it not for striking parallels to objective fact." Return to text
2United States land statutes changed several times during the span of time that saw these families show up and get settled in Indiana, the first state where these laws were applied to an entire new state of the Union. (They had been applied in part in Ohio but not at all in Kentucky, Tennessee, or Vermont.) The land law of 1804 sold public land for $2 per acre, with a quarter of the purchase price due within forty days and the remainder to be paid after the second, third, and fourth years. Purchasers paid interest on what they owed but could receive a discount if they paid off their balances early. Economic distress and the inability of purchasers to complete payment induced Congress to require cash purchases in 1820, but this change was accompanied by a reduction in the sale price to $1.25 per acre. The minimum purchase, which had been reduced to 160 acres in 1804, was further reduced to 80 acres in 1817 and 1820. It was reduced to 40 acres in 1832. Return to text
3I recommend additional reading that enlightens those of us living in modern America about the ways of rural life, specifically the largely self-sustaining family farm and how it functioned. A sound understanding of life on such a farm will enable us to avoid viewing that life as either consistent enjoyment or unending drudgery. (In truth, there were elements of each.) Two books in particular provide a good introduction: Bob Artley's Once Upon a Farm and Wheeler McMillen's Ohio Farm. Although neither book is set in Indiana, the life each depicts (in Iowa and Ohio, respectively) is similar enough to what our family members experienced in Indiana from the early 1800s into the 20th century that we can profit greatly from reading them. Return to text
Previous | Table of contents
Copyright © 2000-2011, Donn C. Neal. All rights reserved.
donnnealATyahoo.com
