Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:32:37.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm Labor and Power Politics: Germany, 1850–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Frank B. Tipton Jr.
Frank B. Tipton Jr.
Affiliation:
Wesleyan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Understanding the political impact of economic growth requires knowledge of the timing of structural changes within a national economy. The decline of agriculture's share in the national economy and variations in regional economic structures are of particular importance. The corrected figures on farm employment discussed in Section II indicate that between 1861 and 1907 the share of agriculture in national employment in Germany declined considerably more rapidly than appears in the census results; regional shares also tended to diverge from each other and from the average throughout the period. New international competition and the thrust of urban and industrial development required regional readjustments within German agriculture. They also made it progressively more difficult for agricultural regions to compete for resources and markets without outside help. In the absence of internally generated pressure from commerce and industry, the elite in the eastern regions of Prussia opposed outside help whenever it threatened the local economic structure. The result was to increase the dependence of the region's labor for jobs on relatively declining regional industry. The response of the landowners to these changes in turn strongly influenced national political groupings. The whole experience laid a foundation for the reaction in German political life to the social discontents and economic miseries of the First World War and decades following.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 1974 , pp. 951 - 979
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This essay has profited at various stages from the advice and criticism of Simon Kuznets, David Landes, Stanley Lebergott, Allan Mitchell and the referees and editor of this Journal, and from financial support provided by Wesleyan University.

1 Williamson, Jeffrey G., “Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development: A Description of the Patterns,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, XIII (1964–1965), supplement, pp. 1–84.Google Scholar

2 See for instance North, Douglass C., The Economic Growth of the United States, 1790–1860 (1961; New York: Norton, 1966)Google Scholar; Leff, Nathaniel H., “Long-term Brazilian Economic Development,” Journal of Economic History, XXIX (1969), 473–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 On the pre-Civil War United States, see Moore, Barrington Jr, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966; Boston: Beacon, 1967), pp. 111–155.Google Scholar On the internal origins of late nineteenth-century German imperialism, see Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Bismarck und der Imperialismus (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1969).Google Scholar The analysis offered here parallels Moore's account, though differing in detail and emphasis. It is suggested that in Germany one of the internal divisions projected outward was a split between regional economies and cultures similar to that emphasized by Moore in the American case.

4 For an introduction to the literature on international organizations, see Lindberg, Leon N. and Scheingold, Stuart A., eds., Regional Integration: Theory and Research (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar, much of which considers the applicability of these concepts to sub-national regions as well.

5 Moore, Social Origins; Berdahl, Robert M., “New Thoughts on German Nationalism,” American Historical Review, LXXVII (1972), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 For comparative figures, see Kuznets, Simon, “Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations: II. Industrial Distribution of National Product and Labor Force,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, V (1957), Supplement, pp. 82ff.Google Scholar In the United States, though the share of agriculture declined rapidly, agricultural employment continued to increase until 1910. United States, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Cobnial Times to 1957 (Washington, D. C.: G.P.O., 1960)Google Scholar, series D-58. The Imperial Statistical Office thought the 1871 figures reflected confusion on. the part of local enumerators as to the definition of miscellaneous laborers. Statistik des deutschen Retches, XIV (1875), Heft 3, Abteilung 3, pp. 189ff. The Imperial census of 1871 used the same set of categories as the Prussian census of 1867, however, and therefore many of the 1871 enumerators in these regions should have been familiar with the definition from previous experience. Both censuses were taken in December, but the boom conditions of 1871 provided more nonagricultural employment opportunities than the depressed winter of 1867. To some extent, therefore, the confusion of the figures seems to reflect a confusing and rapidly changing reality, not merely the incompetence of the enumerators.

7 Avereck, W., “Die Landwirtschaft unter dem Einffusse von Bergbau und Industrie inv rheinischen Ruhrkohlengebiet” (Diss., Leipzig, 1912)Google Scholar; Croon, Helmuth, “Die Versorgung der Grossstädte des Ruhrgebietes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,” Jahrbücher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik, CLXXIX (1966)Google Scholar; Schrader, H., “Ueber die landwirtschaftlichen Verhaltnisse in der Umgebung von Berlin” (Diss., Jena, 1907)Google Scholar; Schmieder, Eberhard, “Wirtschaft und Bevöflcerung,” in Herzfeld, Hans, ed., Berlin und die Provinz Brandenburg im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (West Berlin: W. deGruyter, 1968), p. 311Google Scholar; Gebauer, Heinrich, Die Volkswirtschaft im Königreiche Sachsen (3 vols.; Dresden: W. Baensch, 1893), I, 85ffGoogle Scholar; Kollmann, Paul, “Die Bedeutung der Landwirtschaft für das Königreich Sachsen,” Zeitschrift des königlichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus, LI (1905)Google Scholar, LII (1906).

8 Quante, Peter, Die Flucht aus det Landwirtschaft (Berlin: K. Vowinckel, 1933), pp. 14Google Scholar, 17. Terminology varied from district to district.

9 Clapham, J. H., The Economic Development of France and Germany, 1815–1914 (4th ed., 1936; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), pp. 195–231Google Scholar; Frauendorfer, Sigmund von, Ideengeschichte der Agrarwirtschaft und Agrarpotitik (Munich: Bayerischer Landwirtschaftsverlag, 1957), pp. 364–365.Google Scholar

10 Dreyfus, François G., “Bilan économique des Allemagnes en 1815,” Revue d'histoire économique et sociale, XLIII (1965), 453.Google Scholar

11 Preussische Statistik, V (1864), 30, 42.

12 Lütge, Friedrich, Geschichte der deutschen Agrarverfassung vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: E. Ulmer, 1963)Google Scholar; Schumacher, Bruno, Geschichte Ost- und Westpreussens (4th ed.; Würzburg: Holzner, 1959)Google Scholar; Büsch, Otto, Militärsystem und Sozialleben im alten Prussen (West Berlin: W. deGruyter, 1962)Google Scholar; Ucke, Arnold, Die Agrarkrise in Preussen während der zwanziger Jahre dieses Jahrhunderts (Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1888)Google Scholar; Bondi, Gerhard, Deutschlands Aussenhandel, 1815–1870 (East Berlin: Akademie, 1958).Google Scholar

13 Averages for 1861–65 and 1881–85 computed from data in Mitchell, B. R. and Deane, Phyllis, Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 100–101.Google Scholar

14 Appendix Table III; industry totals from Preussische Statistik, V (1864), Ibid., XVI (1869), and Statistik des deutschen Reiches, XIV (1875). Industry includes all mining, manufacturing and construction employment, whether of “artisan’ or “factory” workers. Ernst Engel, director of the Prussian statistical office, considered the distinction as employed by the Zollverein essentially meaningless. Preussische Statistik, V (1864), 49.

15 Statistik des deutschen Reiches, XXXIV (1879)p Ibid., n.F., VII (1886); Görlitz, Walter, Die Junker (3rd ed.; Limburg/Lahn: C.A. Starke, 1964); pp. 287–289Google Scholar; Raupach, Hans and Quante, Peter, Die Bilanz des deutschen Ostens (2nd ed.; Würzburg: Holzner, 1956), pp. 51–52Google Scholar; see also Franklin, S. H., The European Peasantry: The Final Phase (London: Methuen, 1969).Google Scholar

16 Computed from data in Hoffmann, Walther G., Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (West Berlin: Springer, 1965), pp. 178–180Google Scholar; Broesicke, Max, “Die Binnenwanderung im preussischen Staate,” Zeitschrift des koniglichen preussischen statistischen Bureaus, XLVII (1907), 30.Google Scholar

17 Rogmahn, Heinz, Die Bevölkerungsentwicklung im preussischen Osten in den letzten hundert Jahren (Berlin: Volk u. Reich Verlag, 1937), p. 106Google Scholar; Konopatzki, Siegfried, “Die innerdeutsche Westwanderung der ostpreussischen Bevolkerung” (Diss., Leipzig, 1936), pp. 28–31Google Scholar; Germany, Statistisches Reichsamt, Die deutsche Landwirtscnaft: Hauptergebnisse der Reichsstatistik (Berlin, 1913), p. 21.Google Scholar

18 Quante, Flucht, pp. 222–223, 238–246; Borcke-Stargordt, Graf Henning von, Der ostdeutsche Landbau zwischen Fortschritt, Krise und Politik (Würzburg: Holzner, 1957), pp. 26Google Scholar, 82–89.

19 Germany, Statistisches Reichsamt, Landwirtschaft, p. 21; Konopatzki, Westwanderung, p. 29; Allendorf, Hans, Der Zuzug in die Städte (Jena: G. Fischer, 1901), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

20 In 1895, women made up 39 percent of the industrial labor force (Berufsabteilung B) in Berlin and 36 percent in Saxony, but only 13 percent in the Ruhr. Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., CXI (1899), Uebersicht 15. See also Weber, A., Die Entwicklungsgrundlagen der grossstädtischen Frauenindustrie (Schriften des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, LXXXV, Leipzig, 1899).Google Scholar

21 The interquartile coefficient of variation of the per capita incomes of Prussian Regierungsbezirke (excluding Berlin) rose from 0.24 in 1853–55 to 0.39 in 1894–96, while the range between the high and low districts increased from 60 to 258 marks. Computed from data in Thissen, Otto, Betträge zur Geschichte des Hartdwerks in Preussen (Tübingen: H. Laupp, 1901), p. 17.Google Scholar

22 Hoffmann, Walther G. and Muller, J. H., Das deutsche Volkseinkommen, 1851–1957 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1959), p. 20Google Scholar; Germany, Reichsamt, Statistisches, Das deutsche Volkseinkommen vor und nach dem Kriege (Berlin, 1932), pp. 32–33Google Scholar, 72.

23 Computed from data in Orsagh, Thomas J., “The Probable Geographical Distribution of Income in Germany, 1882–1950,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, CXXIV (1968), 280–311.Google Scholar Estimates for the early years are based on regression equations relating regional income to occupational structure in later years, not on direct measurement. Hesse, Helmut, “Die Entwicklung der regionalen Einkommensdifferenzen im Wachstumsprozess der deutschen Wirtschaft vor 1913,” in Fischer, Wolfram, ed., Beiträge zu Wirtschaftsutachstum und Wirtschaftsstruktur im 16. und 19. Jahrhundert (Schriften des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, n.F., LXIII, Berlin, 1971), pp. 261–279Google Scholar, considers several proxies for total income which seem to indicate relative convergence after 1880.

24 See Kelley, Allen C., “Demographic Cycles and Economic Growth: The Long Swing Reconsidered,” Journal of Economic History, XXIX (1969), 633–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Werner, Felix, Der Handel und die Kreditbanken in Ostpreussen (Jena: G. Fischer, 1917), pp. 146–148Google Scholar; Metz, Georg, “Das Gewerbe in Ostpreussen’ (Diss., Königsberg, 1918), p. 222.Google Scholar

26 See the detailed results of the 1907 industrial census, Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., CCXVIII (1909).

27 Ross, Colin, Die Entstehung von Grosseisenindustrie an der deutschen Seeküste (Berlin: J. Springer, 1911).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Richter, Friedrich, Preussische Wirtschaftspolitik in den Ostprovinzen: der Industrialisierungsversuch des Oberprüsidenten v. Gossler in Danzig (Königsberg: Ost-Europa Verlag, 1938).Google Scholar

29 Ibid., pp. 48–52.

30 Görlitz, Junker, pp. 279, 296–304.

31 Stolberg-Wernigerode, Otto Graf zu, Die unentschiedene Generation: Deutschlands konservative Führungsschichten am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1968), pp. 186–187.Google Scholar

32 Tirrell, Sarah R., German Agrarian Politics after Bismarck's Fall (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951), pp. 144–167Google Scholar, 299–333; Puhle, Hans-Jürgen, Agrarische Interessenpolitik und preussischer Konservatismus im wilhelminischen Reich, 1893–1914 (Hannover: Verlag für Literatur u. Zeitgeschehen, 1966), pp. 226–237Google Scholar; Gerschenkron, Alexander, Bread and Democracy in Germany (1943; New York: Fertig, 1966), pp. 51–55Google Scholar, 68–70; Nichols, J. Alden, Germany After Bismarck: The Caprivi Era, 1890–1894 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Horn, Hannelore, “Die Rolle des Bundes der Landwirte im Kampf um den Bau des Mittellandkanals,” Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel und Ostdeutschlands, VII (1958), 318ff.Google Scholar

34 Puhle, Interessenpolitik, pp. 239–246; Frauendorfer, Ideengeschichte, p. 373; Gerschenkron, Bread and Democracy, pp. 56–64.

35 Stolberg-Wernigerode, Die unentschiedene Generation, pp. 238–247; Huber, Ernst R., Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789, IV: Struktur und Krisen des Kaiserreichs (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), pp. 380–383.Google Scholar

36 Gürlitz, Junker, p. 314.

37 Quoted in Born, Karl E., “Der soziale und wirtschaftliche Strukturwandel Deutschlands am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, ed., Moderne Deutsche Sozialgeschichte (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1966), p. 278.Google Scholar

38 Berdahl, Robert M., “Conservative Politics and Aristocratic Landholders in Bismarckian Germany,” Journal of Modern History, XLIV (1972), 1–20Google Scholar; Huber, Verfassungsgeschichte, pp. 352–358.

39 Croner, Johannes, Die Geschichte der agrarischen Bewegung in Deutschland (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1909), pp. 58–59Google Scholar; Hardach, Karl W., “Die Haltung der deutschen Landwirtschaft in der Getreidezoll-Diskussion 1878/79,” Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie, XV (1967), 33–48.Google Scholar

40 Croner, Geschichte, pp. 131, 148–149; Haushofer, Heinz, Die deutsche Landwirtschaft im techinischen Zeitalter (Stuttgart: E. Ulmer, 1963), pp. 205–219Google Scholar; Tirrell, Politics, pp. 69, 132–134, 141–143; Frauendorfer, Ideengeschichte, pp. 367–370.

41 Görlitz, Junker, pp. 274–281.

42 Muncy, Lysbeth W., “The Prussian Landräte in the Last Years of the Monarchy: A Case Study of Pomerania and the Rhineland,” Central European History, VI (1973), 299–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Bergsträsser, Ludwig, Geschichte der politischen Parteien in Deutschland (10th ed.; Munich: Isar, 1960), pp. 190ffGoogle Scholar; Huber, Verfassungsgeschichte, pp. 49ff, 63ff.

44 Huber, Verfassungsgeschichte, p. 35; Booms, Hans, Die Deutsche Konservative Partei (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1954).Google Scholar

45 Muncy, “Landräte,” pp. 305–306.

46 On the “Polish question” see Bernhard, Ludwig, Die Polenfrage (3rd ed.; Munich: Duncker & Humblot, 1920)Google Scholar; Güntzel, Walter, Die nationale Arbeit der polnischen Presse in Westpreussen und Posen, 1900–1909 (Lodz: Verlagsgesellschaft “Libertas,” 1933).Google Scholar

47 Richter, Wirtschaftspolitik, p. 28.

48 Mollwo, Carl, Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung der Industrie im deutschen Osten (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

49 Richter, Wirtschaftspolitik, p. 50.

50 Nichtweiss, Johannes, Die ausländischen Saisonarbeiter in der Landwirtschaft … 1890–1914 (East Berlin: Akademie, 1959), pp. 15Google Scholar, 18–19.

51 Richter, Wirtschaftspolitik, pp. 13–22; Hansen, Johannes, Die Landwirtschaft in Ostpreussen (Jena: G. Fischer, 1916), pp. 40–55Google Scholar; August F. Sartorius von Walter shausen, Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1815–1914 (2nd ed.; Jena: G. Fischer, 1923), pp. 482–485.Google Scholar

52 Tirrell, Politics, pp. 144–206; Puhle, Interessenpolitik, pp. 213–254; Nipperdey, Thomas, Die Organisation der deutschen Parteien vor 1918 (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1961), pp. 241–264.Google Scholar

53 Puhle, Interessenpolitik, pp. 38–39, 63, app. 2–5.

54 Ibid.., pp. 72–140; Frauendorfer, Ideengeschichte, pp. 373–377; Gerschenkron, Bread and Democracy, pp. 28–32, 75–76; Born, “Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Strukturwandel,” in Wehler, Moderne Deutsche Sozialgeschichte; Hans Rosenberg, “Die Pseudodemokratisierung der Rittergutsbesitzerklasse,” Ibid., pp. 287–308. The need to adjust to mass electorates was not unique to conservatives and agrarians, of course; see the review of Puhle by Hamerow, Theodore S., American Historical Review, LXXIII (1968), 846.Google Scholar

55 Frauendorfer, Ideengeschichte, p. 383.

56 On light industry, white collar, and peasant organizations, see Nussbaum, Helga, Unternehmer gegen Monopole (East Berlin: Akademie, 1966)Google Scholar; Müffelmann, Leopold, Die moderne Mittelstandbewegung (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913)Google Scholar; Bühme, Karl, Deutsche Bauernpolitik. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem Bund der Landwirte (Würzburg, 1910).Google Scholar The detailed account of Stegmann, Dirk, Die Erben Bismarcks: Parteien unid Verbände in der Spätphase des Wilhelminischen Deutschlands (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1970)Google Scholar, emphasizes the unity of agrarian and industrial interest groups, but much of the evidence cited actually contradicts the thesis. See the review by Nipperdey, Thomas, Historische Zeitschrift, CCXV (1972), 165–170.Google Scholar

57 Puhle, Interessenpolitik, pp. 272–273; Roth, Gunther, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany: A Study in Working-Class Isolation and National Integration (Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press, 1963).Google Scholar

58 Raupach, Hans, “Der interregionale Wohlfahrtsausgleich als Problem der Politik des Deutschen Reiches,” in Conze, Werner, ed., Die Staats-und Wirtschaftskrise des deutschen Reiches 1929–33 (Stuttgart: Klett, 1967), pp. 13–34Google Scholar, shows the continuity of some of these themes in the Weimar period.

59 Appendix Table II.

60 Reynolds, Lloyd G., Labor Economics and Labor Relations (4th ed.; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), pp. 318–328.Google Scholar

61 Computed from yearly series in 1913 prices in Hoffman, Wachstum, pp. 204–205, 236, 270–289, 331–332. See also Berndt, Traugott, “Untersuchung über die Höhe und Bewegung der Roherträge im deutschen Getreidebau und ihre Ursachen seit etwa 50 Jahren” (Diss., Berlin, 1928), pp. 12, 32–77; Haushofer, Landwirtschaft, pp. 192–205, 222–223.Google Scholar

62 Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., CCXI (1913), 84–89. The Imperial Statistical Office itself admitted that the sudden increase in female family workers might lead to the “suspicion” that a “considerable portion” of the rise resulted from their “better identification” in 1907, but insisted nonetheless that “in view of the extremely violent shift of the figures, the real direction of development cannot be mistaken.” Germany, Statistisches Reichsamt, Landwirtschaft, pp. 26–28, 65–66.

63 Mendelson, M., “Die Entwicklungsrichtungen der deutschen Volkswirtschaft nach den Ergebnissen der neuesten Statistik,” Zeitschrift fur Sozialwissenschaft, n.F., III (1912), 262Google Scholar, 769; Brauckmann, Hermann, “Der Aufwand an menschlicher Arbeit in der Landwirtschaft” (Diss., Konigsberg, 1914), pp. 13–14Google Scholar; Wygodzinski, Willy, “Die rheinische Landwirtschaft,” in Hansen, Joseph, ed., Die Rheinprovinz, 1815–1915 (2 vols.; Bonn: Marcus & Weber, 1917), I, 290.Google Scholar

64 When, indeed, they used them at all; Lütge, Friedrich, Deutsche Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (3rd ed.; West Berlin: Springer, 1966), pp. 512–516, and Haushofer, Landwirtschaft, pp. 179–180, typify the general tendency toward concentration on the history of government agricultural policies rather than analysis of the sector itself.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Quante, Peter, “Die Mithelfenden in der deutschen Landwirtschaft und ihre Entwicklung seit 1882,” Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv, XXII (1932), 211–228. The argument is summarized in Raupach and Quante, Bilanz, pp. 77–78, 95–97.Google Scholar

66 Hoffmann, Wachstum, p. 183.

67 Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., CCII (1909), 3*, 9*; Ibid., CCXI (1913), 35–36. For the 1882 and 1895 definitions see Ibid., II (1884), 165*, 168*; Ibid., CII (1897), 3*.

68 For instance, that no females under age 14 were reported by their families as full-time workers, or that families began to report females working on farms operated on a part-time basis as full-time workers. There was no space provided for the latter on the Occupational Census (Berufszählung) forms from which these figures come.

69 Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 183, 205, 210.

70 The problem is insoluble in any final sense; the results of any census will be imprecise to the extent that respondents are unsure of their situation, and this will most likely be the case when the society is changing as rapidly as Germany in the late nineteenth century. For other purposes, an extrapolation of the 1882 and 1895 results, an a priori judgment as to the fraction of the female agricultural population available for work or an emphasis on family production units might be preferable. What seems impermissible is the simple acceptance of the series of official results when it is known that the enumerators had changed their definition from one census to the next.

71 Germany, Statistisches Reichsamt, Landwirtschaft, pp. 18–19, 35, 44–49.

72 Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., VII (1886); CXVIII (1898); CCXIX (1909); Zeitschrift des königlichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus, XXV (1879).

73 For all regions in Germany, the coefficient of rank correlation of rates reported in 1895 with those reported in 1907 is .76, significant at the .95 level. A change in employment conditions should have produced a much greater differential impact, in view of the great dissimilarities among regions.

74 Rehbein, Franz, Gesinde und Gesindel: Aus dem Leben eines Landarbeiters im wilhelminischen Deutschland (East Berlin: Tribüne, 1955)Google Scholar; Quante, “Mithelfenden,” p. 211. In the United States a family member must work only 15 hours per week to qualify as a full-time worker. United States, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics, p. 67.