NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY'S POPULATION: TRENDS AND PATTERNS

At its most basic, the history of Northumberland County is the relationship between a territorial unit and its inhabitants. That history may be told in a variety of ways: how people arranged themselves across the landscape, how they sought to extract a livelihood from soil and sea, how they re-shaped their natural environment, and so on. Yet another way of understanding this human geography is to trace the changing number of inhabitants that, over time, lived on the county's same 192 square miles. Did Northumberland's population grow steadily during the colonial period and then level off, or did it rise and fall? If the latter, what explains the fluctuation? This article first presents the broad picture of Northumberland's population dynamics over the past 350 years. It then looks in more detail at the shifts during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Who Got Counted: People or Workers?

There is, however, another count that local governments in Virginia made before and after Independence for the purpose of assessing state and county taxes. This was the enumeration of "tithables," or able-bodied workers. Every spring, local notables would go through the county, counting free males over 21 years of age; slaves, both male and female over 16 years of age; and free males from 17 to 21 years of age. It was on the basis of these three components that the county tax was levied. Left out of the count were all free women, free males below sixteen, all slaves under sixteen, and other special social categories.[1]

The advantage of the tithable count is that it was done every year, and so allows us to chart population in some detail. The obvious disadvantage is that it does not count people. To rectify this limitation, historians have sought to derive the ratio of tithables to individuals. For seventeenth century Virginia, it appears that there were somewhere over two people for every tithable. During the eighteenth century, as black slaves became an increasing large share the population, the rule of thumb is about three people for every tithable. The ratios for Northumberland for the first three years we have population figures were 1.86-to-1 for 1699, 2.86-to-1 in 1782, and 3.10-to-1 in 1790.[2]

Macro-trends in Population

 SOURCES:  1699:  Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 412-3; 1782:  William Palmer, et al., eds.,  Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. 3 (Richmond, 1875),  412; 1790-1980: John Andriot, comp. and ed., Population Abstract of the United States, vol. 1 (McLean, VA:  Andriot Associates, 1983), 824; 1990:  Virginia Statistical Abstract, 1994-1995 Edition (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Center for Public Service, 1994), 577.

It is worth noting that the white and black populations in Northumberland County were virtually equal for much of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. From 1782, through 1840, the numbers of the two groups differed by no more than two hundred persons (free blacks constituted about one-sixth of the county's black population.) Then, at mid-century, in a development that deserves to be studied, the white share of the population dropped -- to 41.7 percent in 1850 and 38.3 percent in 1860. Because the number of blacks remained fairly constant, fluctuating between around 4,000 and 4,600 from 1790 to 1860, the shift in the racial balance must reflect an out-migration of poor whites after 1840.[4]

From the patterns of the last two centuries, we may therefore conclude that the normal population of Northumberland County before the onset of industrialization and modern medicine was around 8,000 (41.6 persons per square mile). Thereafter, the norm was about 10,000 (52.1 persons per square mile) until a 16.5 percent increase during the last decade of the twentieth century.

Micro-trends: the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries

SOURCES: Northumberland County Order Books, Minute Books, Personal Property Tax Lists.[4]

*This figure, like others for the late 1790s and early 1800s, is from personal property lists. But the figures from the minute book for early 1800s suggest that the 1802-3 figure was 2680; not as big a drop as suggested. That the figure for 1803-4 was virtually the same as the one for 1801-2 confirms that the figure in between was a recording error.

The table shows a variety of patterns. Until the Revolutionary War there was a general upward trend, interrupted every couple of years by a decline. The longest period of growth occurred between 1769 to 1774, when the number of tithables peaked at 3,075 (or, based on a three-to-one ratio, 9,225 people). There was a sharp decline in the first two years of the Revolutionary War, followed by modest growth back to around 2,700 tithables, where the number fluctuated until 1787. There was then apparently an 11.6 percent jump, which was probably the result of counting anomalies. The 9,000-person range was reached again at the time of the first federal census, but there then occurred a general downward trend to 2,692 tithables and 7,803 persons in 1800. With only one exception (1803, perhaps a counting error) the number of tithables then moved between 2,700 and 2,800 for the next fourteen years.

What are the possible explanations for the periodic reductions in Northumberland's population? The first is a major social or political event that caused a significant outflow of people. The beginning of the American Revolution was such an event. Over a hundred Northumberlanders were recruited for Continental units between early 1776 and early 1777, and a significant share of those men -- over 40 percent, in fact -- died from disease in camp, fell in battle, or were taken prisoner. During the same period, an unknown number of slaves fled to enemy ships. Thus, the sharp decline in the number of tithables in 1776 and 1777 may be attributed to the war (but not completely, as we shall see below). The decline in 1781 may reflect increased recruitment for the Virginia line and raids on the county when slaves were taken or escaped.[5]

The second possible explanation for these population declines is economic. The number of tithables did, after all, represent the size of the work force, more than half of which was slaves. In periods of low prices and contracting credit, planters would be unable to buy new slaves or might have to sell the ones they had. Poor and middle-income white farmers might respond to hard times by leaving the county for greener pastures. Large-scale out-migration, voluntary or otherwise, would reduce the population or slow its growth, particularly after the end of the war and the opening of the frontier.

Yet if we compare economic and population fluctuations, there is little correlation between the two. The years of deepest recession in America during the second half of the eighteenth century were 1750, 1753-5, 1760, 1764, 1768-9, 1774, 1778, 1780, and 1783-8. Yet the number of Northumberland tithables increased in eight of those years, relative to the year before. In contrast, the number declined in the relative boom years of 1751, 1758, 1762, 1766, 1792, 1793 1795, and 1796. Economic conditions may have been secondary factor in population fluctuations in the late eighteenth century, but not the most important. (As discussed above, economic forces may have stimulated large-scale out-migration between 1840 and 1860.)[6]

The economic hypothesis may be tested more closely by looking at the changing number of adult white males, which exists for the 1782-1800 period. Table III presents the numbers, along with those for slaves over 16.

 

Year	White Males	White Males	White Males		Slaves		Trend
	0ver 21	betw. 16-21	Total
1782	765 (est)				1862
1783	749				1824		same
1784	705				1818		same
1785	706				1797		different
1786	655				1852		?able year
1787	793	176	969		1982		same
1788	781	163	944		1992		different
1789	776	160	936		1991		same
1790	787	157	944		2002		same
1791			936		2061		different
1792			909		1987		same
1793			886		1949		same
1794			915		1970		same
1795			856		1947		same
1796			792		1956		different
1797			865		1879		different
1798			875		1858		different
1799			864		1835		same
1800			849		1843		different

 

The overall pattern is jerky, with repeated movements toward peaks of 900-plus white male adults. That would not occur if economic opportunities in the county were in serious decline. And, in more years than not, the number of slaves moved in the same direction as the number of white male adults. Because the white males who might leave the county because of poverty were not likely to be significant slave-holders, we should not expect parallel movement of the two totals if economic factors were primary. Thus, even though there was out-migration from the county, it was probably not the cause of the general decline in population in the 1790s.

If political or economic explanations are not compelling, perhaps the declines in Northumberland County's population in some years a medical cause: diseases of epidemic proportions. Indeed, medical historian Steven Kunitz asserts that a "jagged, saw-toothed" pattern of population change is characteristic of a pre-modern disease environment with periodic epidemics.[7]

The main way to test this hypothesis for Northumberland County is to search for evidence of epidemics to see if they match periods when the county's population fell. The available information tends to support the hypothesis.

• During the French and Indian War, in which some Northumberlanders fought, smallpox was said to have been common in the army fighting in the west. In addition, there were some deaths from smallpox in Virginia in 1758, the year that Northumberland's tithables declined 1.6 percent. That was also the year that malaria may have been particularly virulent on Northern Neck.[8]
• The county's tithables declined 1.9 percent in 1766 and 1.0 percent in 1768. In both years, there were reports of smallpox in Williamsburg and, in 1768, in other parts of Virginia.[9]
• The number of Northumberland's tithables increased by less than one percent in 1770 and 1772. Next door in Richmond County, Landon Carter had a number of slave children die from "tumified throats" in the 1770 and a high number of hospital cases in 1772.[10]
• In 1776 and 1777, when Northumberland's tithables declined by 4.6 and 13.3 percent, there were several outbreaks of disease. An epidemic of some sort hit the state in the fall, bringing low many soldiers in the Virginia Continental army. During the winter, smallpox was a serious problem in the main camp in New Jersey, and there were rumors that the disease was getting back to Virginia. Thus disease plus the war's demand for men served to reduce the county's workforce.[11]
• The tithable figure for 1781 was 3.2 percent below the previous year. That decline may reflect not only military recruitment and enemy raids, but also the effect of an epidemic of some kind that occurred in the fall of 1780.[12]
• In October 1788 there was a report of "more illness than usual" in Virginia and of putrid fever (diphtheria) in Richmond. In 1788-89, Northumberland tithables declined by 0.3 percent.[13]
• The 1793 figure for tithables, established in mid-year, was 2.0 percent below that for 1792. In January 1793, George Lee Turberville of Richmond County wrote James Madison that even though the winter had been mild, "Still it has been fatal to numbers more hearty young men and greater numbers of people have gone off precipitately with violent peripneumonies than were ever known--before three Physicians have gone off & Doctor [Walter] Jones . . . has had a narrow escape & is just recovering."[14]
• In 1795, there was a yellow fever epidemic in Norfolk that was so serious that a quarantine of ships was ordered and precautions were taken as high up as Alexandria. There were similar alarms in the next five years, and in all six, the number of Northumberland tithables declined. In addition, there was a mass inoculation for smallpox in Fredericksburg in the summer of 1795.[15]

We conclude, therefore, that once Northumberland County achieved population stability in the middle of the eighteenth century, subsequent declines in population were probably the result of diseases of epidemic proportions. That suggests, by the way, that individuals who died during those years may have died of the disease in question.

The exception to the rule is the period of the Revolution. The reduction in tithables in those years is an indication of the war's impact on the county labor force. (And once soldiers joined the army, death tended to come from disease rather than combat.) The exception that proves the rule came between 1814 and 1815, when the number of county tithables dropped by 27 percent from 2738 to 2000. The secondary cause of this decline was slaves escaping to join British invaders. But the primary cause was a pandemic, "the severity of which has never been equaled before or since in Northumberland County." Based on the three-to-one rule of thumb, around 2200 people departed or died in one year. Knowing as we do how little the tithable total fluctuated in normal years, we gain some appreciation of the profound catastrophe this virulent disease wrought on the people of the county.[16]

1. The elements of the county levy are revealed in personal property lists. They deviated from this standard definition in the early 1780s (see footnote for Table II for details). Until 1787, the state levy was made up the first of these two elements; see Netti Schreiner-Yantis and Florence Speakman Love, The 1787 Census of Virginia, vol. 1 (Springfield, VA: Genealogical Books in Print, 1987), xiv. Thereafter, it was based on the same figures as the county levy.
2. For a thorough discussion of tithables and the person-to-tithable ratio, see Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: W W Norton, 1975), 395-405. Morton estimates that for seventeenth-century Virginia as a whole, the ratio of people to tithables was 2.69-to-1. He would probably attribute the low ratio for Northumberland County in 1699 to an undercount of non-tithables.
3. The author's great-great-grandfather and great-grandfather left Northumberland County for Texas in 1853.
4. METHODOLOGICAL NOTE: The figures for tithables are given as they occurred in the county order book, with the exception of the figures from 1783 through 1786. These are adjusted so that their component elements are the same as for the years before and after. As noted above, the tithable figure in county records was normally made up of up to three components: the number of white males over 21 years of age; the number of slaves over 16 years of age; and the number of white males from 17 to 21 years of age. Through 1787, the state levy was based on the first of these two elements. According to the personal property tax records for the 1780s, the number of white males over 21 usually fluctuated between 700 and 750; the number of white males between 16 and 21 was around 155; and the number of slaves over 16 (male and female) was usually in the 1800s or 1900s. (Which makes sense: the number of whites and slaves in the county was about equal, and the number of white males over 16 would be around half of all slaves above 16). Yet the total number of tithables in the county order book in the 1780s is not consistent with the information in the personal property tax records on each of the components for that figure.
   • In 1783, 1784, and 1785, the total of components 1 and 2 exceeded the figure for the county levy by 179 in 1783, 182 in 1784, and 82 in 1785.
   • In 1786, however, the county tithable number exceeded the state levy figure by 113.
   • 1787, the county tithable figure was made up of components 1 and 2 (i.e. it was based on the same number of tithables as the state levy.
   • Thereafter, both the county and state levies were made up of components 1, 2, and 3 (white males and all slaves over 16).
   What explains these irregularities? The unusually low figures for the county levy in 1783-85 may reflect a decision on the part of the county court to base the tax only on whites and slaves over 21, although why it would do so is not clear. There may also have been deliberate undercounting to reduce the state quota. These after all were times when county sheriffs had great difficulty in their tax collections. That would be the most plausible explanation of the 11.1% increase from 1786 to 1787. The figures in the table adjust the totals for the mid-1780s. We ignore the figure for the county levy in the order book and take as a starting point the total of components 1 and 2 (white males over 21 and blacks over 16) as reported in the personal property lists. To that number we add 150 to cover white males from 16 to 21. As a result, that the numbers for those years are consistent in their make-up with the years before and the years after.
5. See my "`Awake, Rouse Your Courage, Americans Brave': Companies Raised in Northumberland County For the Virginia Continental Line, 1776 and 1777," The Bulletin of the Northumberland County Historical Society, 29 (1992): 3-25, and "Revolution and Community in Northumberland County, Virginia: 1776-82," Op. cit., 30 (1993):14-37 for details.
6. John J. McCusher and Russell R. Menard, The Economy of British America: 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Press, 1985), 63. It is conceivable that the purchases and sales of slaves might lag economic conditions, yet it seems unlikely, at least for slaves. The trading of slaves would have to occur outside of the county to affect the population level, and it seems that economic upturns or downturns were general throughout the colonies. Changes in the number of tithables could also be the result of faulty record-keeping, yet the enumeration system appears to have been institutionalized by the late eighteenth century and therefore less prone to error.
7. Steven Kunitz, "Diseases and Mortality in the Americas since 1700," in Kenneth F. Kiple, Cambridge World History of Human Disease, (New York: Cambridge U. Press, 1993), 331.
8. John Duffy, Epidemics in Colonial America (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1953), 98, 91; Darrett B. Rutman, Charles Wetherell, and Anita H. Rutman, "Rhythms of Life: Black and White Seasonality in the Early Chesapeake," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 11 (1980):46.
9. John Duffy, Epidemics in Colonial America , 100.
10. Jack P. Greene, ed., The Diary of Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, vol. 1 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1965), 377, 657-669.
11. John E. Selby, The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1988), 128.
12. Selby, The Revolution in Virginia, 253.
13. Joseph Jones to James Madison, 10/20/88, William T. Hutchinson, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (17 vols.; Chicago and Charlottesville: University of Chicago Press and University Press of Virginia, 1962 to 1991; hereafter PJM) 11:308.
14. Turberville to James Madison, 1/28/93, PJM, 14:444-5.
15. In volumes 8 and 9 of Palmer, et al., Calendar of Virginia State Papers, there are a number of entries in each summer of the late 1790s relating to yellow fever. For the smallpox inoculation, see PJM, 16:14.
16. James F. Lewis and J. Motley Booker, comps., Northumberland County Virginia: Wills 1793-1816 and Administration 1790-1816 (Heathsville, VA: Northumberland County Historical Society), iii. [NOTE: See article on "Pandemic in Northumberland County, 1814-15," for reasons why diphtheria was not the cause of the epidemic.]