The growth of population in the Chesapeake colonies: A comment

EXPLORATIONS

IN ECONOMIC

HISTORY

18,

399-410 (1981)

The Growth of Population in the Chesapeake Colonies: A Comment* RUSSELL

R.

MENARD

University of Minnesota

In an essay published in this journal, Terry L. Anderson and Robert Paul Thomas offered a new series of population estimates for the Chesapeake colonies from 1635 to 1700 and new findings on the relative importance of immigration and reproduction to the growth pr0cess.l These findings, they contend, contradict arguments that I had advanced earlier. This comment examines those findings and the methodological and empirical work upon which they rest. It suggests that rejection of my argument may be premature. It is useful to begin with a p&is of that argument. Despite the rapid growth of population during the early colonial period, several observers of the Chesapeake region at the end of the 17th century thought the tobacco coast “very ill Peopled.” Those observers had a point, for high rates of immigration obscured an inability of immigrants to replace themselves through biological increase. At century’s end, the white population of the Chesapeake colonies was smaller, by at least 15,000 and perhaps by over 70,000, than the number of European immigrants in the years before 1700. Several characteristics of immigrants limited their ability to reproduce. Immigrants suffered high rates of morbidity and mortality and a severe shortage of women. Those women who did migrate, furthermore, usually did not marry until relatively late in their lives. Consequently, European immigrants to the Chesapeake colonies failed to reproduce themselves fully. They did have some children, however, who transformed the region’s demography. Native-born males lived longer than their immigrant fathers, although Creole women may not have shared the gains in longevity achieved by their brothers. Moreover, the sex ratio among those born along the tobacco coast was roughly equal. * I would like to thank Terry Anderson for helpful comments on a draft of this essay, an acknowledgement that does not imply his persuasion. ’ Anderson and Thomas (1978). 399

0014-4983/81/040399-12$02.00/O Copyri&t 0 1961 by Academic Ress, Inc. AU rights of reproduction in my form reserved.

400

RUSSELL

R. MENARD

Perhaps most important, native-born women married at much younger ages than their immigrant mothers. Creole women had enough children to reverse the direction of reproductive change despite apparently stable age-specific fertility rates, a still unbalanced sex ratio, and a persistent high mortality. The argument is not that the population of the Chesapeake region would have withered away without continued immigration, although the number of inhabitants did on occasion decline during periods when few new settlers arrived and some contemporaries feared that such was the case, that the colonies would “in short tyme melt to nothing for want of supplyes of people.“’ However, much like many preindustrial cities, deaths exceeded births in Maryland and Virginia during most of the 17th century, largely because of the demographic characteristics of immigrants: their shortage of women, high mortality, and late marriages. The native-born, on the other hand, more than replaced themselves in the population, in large part because of the early age at which most creole women married and began to have children. Thus, in region after region in the Chesapeake colonies, but probably in the 1680s for the area as a whole, as the proportion of native born grew and they gradually replaced immigrants as a majority of the inhabitants, the contribution of reproduction to the growth rate rose and that of immigration declined, a surplus of births replaced an excess of deaths, and populations which had suffered a net reproductive decline began to grow rapidly by biological increase. These processes gained speed in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The rate of European immigration dwindled as African slaves replaced indentured servants as the principal source of unfree labor, and Creoles quickly became an overwhelming majority among whites. Rapid population growth among the native born continued as gains in life expectancy more than offset a gradual rise in age at marriage. By the 172Os, the Chesapeake tidewater, once a voracious consumer of immigrants, had become a net exporter of population.3 Anderson and Thomas divide the population into two categories, a reproducing group of paired males and females and a nonreproducing group of unpaired males. Their procedure requires estimates of four population parameters: beginning and ending populations; a death rate for nonreproducibles; a seasoning rate for immigrants; and decadal immigration estimates for both categories of the population. Given these parameters, they are able to estimate the population of the Chesapeake between the beginning (1635) and ending (1700) dates and the rate of * Quoted in Morgan (1975), p. 160. 3 Menard (1977a). I cannot claim full credit (or blame) for this argument, but must share responsibility with several others, especially Walsh (1977a) and Kulikoff (1976). I will not discuss Anderson and Thomas’s treatment of the black population in this comment, but will note that we disagree in several particulars. See Menard (1975a, 1977b).

POPULATION

IN THE CHESAPEAKE

COLONIES

401

natural increase for the reproducing portion of the population. The result of this process, they contend, “contradicts Menard’s speculation . . . : net additions to the reproducing population exceeded losses in the nonreproducing population for all but the 5-year period from 1635 to 1639.“4 Two aspects of the procedure are immediately jarring to a social historian concerned with Chesapeake demographic patterns. The first is the artificial distinction between “reproducibles” and “nonreproducibles,” which, however useful mathematically, obscures a fascinating set of strategies adopted by residents of the tobacco coast to deal with high mortality and the severe shortage of women, strategies which were not without impact on the growth process.’ Second, and more important to the issue at hand, the procedure assumes a constant rate of reproductive change once the impact of the sex ratio is eliminated, an assumption which is seriously misleading. Indeed, one could argue that the measurement of regional and temporal variations in the rate of reproduction is a central question in Chesapeake population studies: to assume it constant is to miss an important point. However, before taking up that issue in greater detail I will examine the several estimates used by Anderson and Thomas, for their conclusions can be no more reliable than the empirical work upon which they rest. Base Populations. I have no serious quarrel with the estimates of population used by Anderson and Thomas for 1635 and 1700, although they did make some curious decisions. For 1635 they have done the best they could with the evidence, but for 1700 they chose to ignore persuasive criticism of the data and have almost certainly underestimated total population, probably by at least 5000. Still, this is a minor point since a proportionately larger underestimate of the black population leaves their figure for whites, the group at issue here, about right, and since, as they note, “the estimated rates of natural increase do not appear to be especially sensitive to the final benchmark figures.“6 Seasoning andDeath Rates. The mortality estimates used by Anderson and Thomas are more problematic. They assume a constant rate of seasoning mortality of 35% for the period 1635 to 1700. Unfortunately, a method of measuring deaths due to seasoning (operationally, the seasoning rate is the difference in age-specific mortality between recent arrivals and others in the population) has yet to be discovered. However, it is possible to gain at least a rough idea of its level and to identify both the direction and approximate timing of change during the early colonial ’ Anderson and Thomas (1978), p. 303. ’ Some of which are discussed in Carr and Walsh (1977), Walsh (1979), and Menard (1977a). 6 Anderson and Thomas (1978), pp. 295-296. Compare their treatment of the tum-ofthe-century census data with Morgan (1975), pp. 395-405, Menard (1975b), pp. 3%-414, and Menard (1980).

402

RUSSELL

R. MENARD

period. The data suggest that the seasoning rate was neither as high nor as constant as Anderson and Thomas assume. Scattered observations suggest that rates of mortality were very high among recent arrivals during the first half of the seventeenth century. According to the Dutch merchant De Vries, an occasional visitor to Virginia in the 1630s and early 164Os, June, July, and half of August are very unhealthy for those who have not lived there a year. The English die there at this season very fast, unless one has been there over a year, by which they say he is seasoned; that is, he is accustomed to the land.

“Very fast,” unfortunately, is hardly precise, and De Vries’ earlier analogy, “that their people who have lately arrived from England, die during these months, like cats and dogs,” is of little help. De Vries did mention the deaths of 15 of 36 ship captains in the summer of 1636, while two later commentators reported that five of every six and four of every five new arrivals fell victim to seasoning.’ However, 1636 was clearly a year of unusually high mortality and both commentators were arguing for a decline in mortality since Virginia’s early years which perhaps led to some exaggeration.* Seasoning rates approaching 80% were perhaps reached before 1625, but it is doubtful that they were typical and unlikely that they persisted into the 1630s. Biographical studies of two groups of indentured servants who arrived in Maryland before 1652 can serve as a basis for a somewhat firmer estimate of seasoning rates. Of 277 male servants brought into Maryland before 1643, 160appeared in the records as free men. Simply by assuming that all of the 117 not discovered in the records after completing their service died immediately they arrived, we can place an upper bound on the rate of seasoning mortality: 42% for this group of servants. However, such an assumption is extreme and the rate can be lowered. If it is assumed that those servants were bound for an average of 5 years, that the normal mortality rate for young men was 20 to 25 per thousand, and that between 10 and 20% survived servitude but were not discovered in the records, then the rate of seasoning mortality fell between 15 and 30%.’ The experience of a second group of servants, 137men who arrived in Maryland between 1648and 1652, suggestsa similar range.” Of course, it is possible that there were sharp regional variations within the Chesapeake colonies and that other areas along the tobacco coast were more ’ DeVries (1857), pp. 37, 75, 77, Plantagenet (1648), p. 2, Berkeley (1671), p. 198. a Morgan (1975), pp. 159-160. ’ Menard (1973a), pp. 39, 40. Anderson and Thomas (1978), p. 298, interpret these data as suggesting a seasoning rate of 60%. I0 Menard (1975b), pp. 224-241.

POPULATION

IN THE CHESAPEAKE

COLONIES

403

destructive of new arrivals, but a seasoning mortality in the range of 15 to 30% during the period from the dissolution of the Virginia Company to about mid-century seems more likely than the much higher rates reported in the casual comments of contemporary observers. There is evidence that the rate of seasoning mortality declined about mid-century. In 1648, one “Beauchamp Plantagenet” noted that earlier in Virginia’s history, “generally Five of six imported died, and now in June, July, and August chiefly, one in nine dies imported,” while John Hammond, John Oldmixon, and William Berkeley offered similarly optimistic accounts of the region’s mortality history.” These assertions, although they doubtless capture the direction of change, may overstate its magnitude, for there is evidence of occasional high rates of seasoning mortality in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, evidence which can itself be countered with frequent (and somewhat defensive) assertions of the general healthiness of the region.‘* The data are thus ambiguous, but on the whole indicate a seasoning rate neither as high nor as constant as Anderson and Thomas assume. Recently, H. A. Gemery has suggested a seasoning rate that began at 20% in the 1630sand then fell continuously until it reached 5% in the 166Os,where it remained for the rest of the century.” This is not necessarily more accurate than the constant 35% of Anderson and Thomas, but it is at least as reasonable a guess, captures the direction of change, and seems more compatible with the scanty evidence. And, substitution of Gemery’s rates for theirs substantially alters their calculations. Anderson and Thomas also included in their seasoning rate an estimate of outmigration, which they set at 15% for the entire period 1635to 1700. There are several difficulties with this assumption. First, it strikes me as too high, although I would be hard-pressed to prove it, because it confuses migration from an area within the Chesapeake with migration from the region as a whole. Second, it assumes that those who left did so immediately they arrived, an especially unlikely pattern since most were servants bound for a term of years and, unless their masters left or they escaped, would have had to complete their service before moving elsewhere. Third, it assumes that all categories of immigrants were equally likely to leave, whereas the evidence suggests that young, unmarried males (their “nonreproducibles”) were much more prone to do so than most groups in the population. Fourth and finally, it ignores evidence of a substantial jump in the rate of outmigration in the late 17th ” Plantagenet (1648), p. 2, Hammond (1656), pp. 287, 288, Oldmixon (1741), p. 328, Berkeley (1671), p. 198. ” For evidence of continuing high rates of seasoning see Carr and Menard (1979). For assertions of healthiness see Beverley (1947), pp. 297, 298, 205-207, Jones (1956), p. 85, Tinling (1977), p. 260. I3 Gemery (1979).

404

RUSSELL

R. MENARD

century as a stagnating tobacco industry and an accompanying decline in opportunities persuaded many former servants to try their luck in another co1ony.‘4 Unfortunately, I can offer no improvement on their assumption: as is the case with the seasoning rate, a good deal of close empirical work is needed before reliable estimates of the pace and pattern of emigration will be forthcoming. To construct a death rate for unpaired males who survived seasoning, Anderson and Thomas rely on the Walsh-Menard life table. While this is the best information now available for life expectancy of seasoned immigrant males, it is based on the experience of a small group who arrived in one region of the Chesapeake during only part of the 17th century. By relying exclusively on it, Anderson and Thomas implicitly assume it captures the average mortality of immigrants, thus ignoring the real possibility, indeed likelihood, of substantial temporal and regional variation.” Again, I am unable to offer an alternative, although use of a range of death rates would be an improvement, but can only insist upon the necessity of more research. Zmmigmtion. Anderson and Thomas follow a long tradition by attempting to use counts of headrights as a proxy for immigration, The most thoughtful of these attempts has been W. F. Craven’s.‘6 Through a count of headrights, Craven placed an outside limit on the total number of immigrants to Virginia in the 17th century and described their distribution over time. However, as Craven noted, the Virginia headright entries contain serious weaknesses as a source for the study of immigration. Some immigrants do not appear at all in the records, others appear more than once, while some appear who were not immigrants. While Craven suspects that the Virginia headright entries overstate the number of immigrants, he offers no evidence in support of his suspicion and provides no estimate of the magnitude of overstatement. In addition, he argues, abuses of the headright system gradually corrupted the land records, making them progressively less reliable as a measure of immigration as the 18th century is approached. Since the headright system is often misunderstood, a brief description of its operation is necessary before proceding to an analysis of the usefulness of such records in the study of migration. With some minor variations, Virginia and Maryland shared the system. A right to land was granted for every immigrant to the colonies, the gift going to whomever paid the immigrant’s passage. The headright was not a grant of land, but a grant of a right to land. If the owner of a headright wished to use it I4 On patterns of outmigration see Menard (1975b), pp. 398,399, Carr and Menard (l979), Walsh (1977b), pp. 116, 117, Kelly (1972), pp. 22-24. ” On this possibility see Gemery (1979), Earle (1979), Rutman and Rutman (1976), Smith (1978), Walsh and Menard (1974). I6 Craven (1971). For evaluations of this effort see Morgan (1972) and Menard (1973b).

POPULATION

IN THE

CHESAPEAKE

COLONIES

405

to acquire a tract, the land had to be located and surveyor’s and clerk’s fees paid to have it laid out and patented. Many immigrants chose not to use their rights, while others sold them, often to a dealer with a largescale brokerage operation. Headrights soon became a commodity traded in the open market. As a result, the granting of land was not as closely tied to immigration as the creators of the system planned or as historians have assumed. This was in the interest of colonial officials. Quit rents, surveying, and clerical fees associated with the granting of land were an important source of revenue. A policy that placed artificial restraints on land distribution would limit income. In both colonies the separation was at least condoned if not encouraged. In Virginia, officials overlooked abuses such as multiple claims for a single immigrant or the invention of purely fictitious settlers. Most of these abuses were avoided in Maryland, but the proprietor achieved the same end by giving warrants for huge tracts to those he wished to favor. The separation of the headright system from immigration creates obvious difficulties, difficulties exacerbated by the particular records Craven used. In Virginia during the 17th century, records of headright grants were kept locally, by the clerks of the several county courts, and only appear in the records of the central government when the right was actually used to patent land. Since Craven used the patent records kept by the colony’s land office, two additional and potentially severe distortions plague the data. First, many headrights registered in the county courts were not used to acquire land and thus do not appear in the patent records. Edmund Morgan was able to find the names of only 446 of 672 persons claimed as headrights in Charles City County in the mid-1650s in the patents, while my work with Norfolk and Lancaster yielded similar results: roughly a third of the headrights were simply not used and thus do not enter Craven’s count.” Since many immigrants did not take even the first step and register their right with the county clerk (the evidence suggests that as many as 37.5% of all immigrants were not claimed as headrights), this raises serious questions about Craven’s belief that a count of headrights in the patent records overestimates the number of migrants, despite such abuses as multiple counting, fictitious settlers, and the like. Second, the appearance of a person in the patents is separated from the date of arrival not only by a gap of unknown duration between arrival and the establishment of a claim, but as well by a gap (often of several years) between the claim and its use in a patent.‘* The Virginia records are not a reliable guide to the pattern of immigration over either the short or long run. Maryland’s headright records have several advantages over those of ” Morgan ” Morgan

(1972), (1972),

p. 363. p. 365.

406

RUSSELL

R. MENARD

Virginia. There is no evidence that the abuses that plagued the Virginia system were a serious problem in Maryland, the records of the provincial government list all grants of headrights, not merely those used in patents, and the entries contain the settler’s actual date of arrival in a substantial proportion of cases. Most important, it is possible to estimate the number of duplications and omissions and thus determine the approximate relationship between the number of headrights and total immigrants. Tests described elsewhere suggest that roughly 6% of the entries in the headright index are second, third, and fourth listings of persons who had already appeared, but that as many as 37.5% of all immigrants were not claimed as headrights. That is, by applying multiples of 0.94 and 1.6 to the total number of Maryland headright entries one can generate a range for immigration that should surround the actual figure.‘9 Anderson and Thomas attacked the problem by using an unadjusted count of headrights to generate a low estimate for migration and a multiple of 1.5 to create a high estimate. This is adequate for Maryland, but not for Virginia. In the older colony one must confront not only the slippage between immigration and the claim of a headright, but the additional slippage between the claim of a headright and its use to acquire land. That is, to create a legitimate high estimate, one that certainly captures the possibilities, one must multiply the figures reported by Craven by 1.5 to account for headrights not used in patents and then multiply by 1.6 to account for immigrants not claimed as headrights, or, simplifying, multiply Craven’s figures by 2.4. To do so, to entertain the possibilities realistically contained in the data, indicates that migration to Virginia from 1635 to 1700 fell between 82,000 and 197,000, clearly a range too large to be of much use, and one that would wreak havoc on all of Anderson and Thomas’s calculations. The problem of an appropriate multiplier does not exhaust the difficulties Anderson and Thomas have with headright records. They assume that Craven reported only white immigrants in the Virginia series, but he clearly included more than 4000 blacks, while they apparently undercounted the Maryland headrights by about 3000.20 They ignored the extensive migration between the colonies and arrived at total net immigration figures for the region by simply summing the two series, despite the fact that many individuals were thus counted twice.” They failed to entertain the possibility of temporal and group bias in the headright records; since the Maryland data suggest a temporal decline in comprehensiveness and a bias against women, the patterns they report are I9 Menard (1977a), p. 90. 2o Craven (1971), p. 17, Menard (1977a), p. 90. The apparent undercounting of the Maryland headrights may represent an attempt by Anderson and Thomas to eliminate duplications. ” On movement between the colonies see Menard (1975b), pp. 213, 224.

POPULATION

IN THE CHESAPEAKE

COLONIES

407

distorted.22 And, although they argue that use of a lo-year average diminishes the distortion produced by gaps between arrival and appearance in the headrights, they fail to estimate the impact of those gaps upon short-term patterns, even if the short term is as long as a decade. In sum, Anderson and Thomas are a long way from transforming the seriously flawed headright records into adequate proxies for the pace, pattern, volume, and composition of immigration. An Implicit Assumption. Essential to the procedure used by Anderson and Thomas is the assumption that the rate of reproductive change among paired males and females was constant during the 17th century. This assumption fits poorly with the evidence. Immigrants, even paired males and females, because they married late and died early, had difficulty replacing themselves in the population. Reconstitution studies for Charles and Somerset counties, Maryland, during the seventeenth century illustrate the difficulty.23 In Somerset, the typical marriage in which the wife was an immigrant produced 3.9 children, in Charles, 3.5. Given the prevailing rates of infant and childhood mortality, 1.6 to 2.4 of those children would reach age 20. That is, the generational increase rate from “reproducible” immigrants to their children probably hovered around zero. Creoles, on the other hand, married earlier and lived longer, and thus reproduced at much higher rates. In Somerset, the typical marriage in which the wife was a Creole produced 6 children, in Charles, 5.1. Given prevailing rates of infant and childhood mortality, 2.8 to 3.6 of those children would reach adulthood, indicating a generational increase rate of about 60%. Assuming a generation of 25 years in length, simply replacing a female population made up entirely of immigrants with one consisting entirely of creoles would increase the biological growth rate among ‘ ‘reproducibles” from 0 to 1.9% per year. And something approaching that replacement occurred in the Chesapeake region during the colonial period. Over time, as the children of immigrants matured and had children of their own, the native born gradually became the overwhelming majority of the population and the rate of biological increase rose accordingly, until, probably in the 1680sbut with significant, patterned, regional variations, it proved sufficient to overcome the limits to reproduction set by the demographic characteristics of immigrants. The empirical weaknesses in the Anderson-Thomas essay are severe, sufficiently so to undermine their population estimates, their description of the pattern of immigration, and their assessment of the relative importance of migration and reproduction in the growth process. While z The 872 servants brought to the county courts of Charles and Talbot counties, Maryland, from 1662 to 1680 were more likely to appear in the headright records if they arrived early rather than late and if they were male rather than female. u The calculations that follow are based on data from Walsh (1977a), chapter 2, Menard (19753, and Walsh and Menard (19741, pp. 219-223.

408

RUSSELL

R. MENARD

their effort can be defended on the grounds that historians of population must make full use of mathematical demography to fully exploit weak data, they ignore a cardinal principle of that position: the necessity of paying close attention to the range of possible outcomes implied by the evidence and of asking how robust those outcomes are. Anderson and Thomas are more concerned with central tendency than spread and too confident of the reliability of their results. Furthermore, when confronted with alternatives-high or low estimates of immigration, seasoning mortality, and emigration, variable or constant rates of reproduction-they consistently took positions that biased the results against my hypothesis. Small wonder they found it wanting! If any of the principal parameters are changed, if, that is, one uses higher rates of immigration, lower estimates of seasoning mortality and emigration, or variable rates of reproduction-and a case can be made that all should be changed-my hypothesis becomes stronger, theirs weaker.” Still, Anderson and Thomas have made an important contribution to the debate on the demographic history of the Chesapeake colonies by pointing out the potential of a rigorously mathematical approach to the process of population growth. By following their lead it may be possible to work out more fully the implications of various findings, to test arguments for internal consistency, and to construct better estimates of the population of the Chesapeake colonies and an improved understanding of the dynamics of growth. But their effort is premature: we still know too little to estimate the several parameters with the precision their model demands. Eventually such techniques may help us, as their concluding sentence argues, “emerge from the statistical dark age which has covered this important period of our history. ” Perhaps, but not until intensive grubbing among beemingly intractable sources provides those techniques the firm empirical foundation needed to begin the job. REFERENCES Anderson, T. L., and Thomas, R. P. (1978), “The Growth of Population and Labor Force in the 17thCentury Chesapeake.” Explorations in Economic History, 15, 290-312. Berkeley, Sir William (1671), Colonial Oflice l/26, 198, Public Records O&e, London. Beverley, R. (1947), The History and Present State of Virginia. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. Carr, L. G., and Menard, R. R. (1979), “Immigration and Opportunity: Servants and Freedmen in Early Colonial Maryland.” In T. W. Tate and D. L. Ammerman (Eds.), u It is worth noting that their adjusted immigration figures produced an excess of deaths over births that persisted into the 169Os, results that support my hypothesis. Their table 6 (p. 303), which summarizes these findings, contains an error in compu&&n. Columns II and IV report deaths among nonreproducibles and are severely understated, apparently because Maryland residents were omitted from the base population. Columns I and III, however, which present net natural additions to reproducibles, are based on the population of the entire region, including Maryland. This error introduces further bias against my hypothesis.

POPULATION

IN THE CHESAPEAKE

COLONIES

409

The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. Pp. 206-242. Cat-r, L. G., and Walsh, L. S. (1977), “The Planter’s Wife: The Experience of Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 34, 542-571. Craven, W. F. (1971), White, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth-Century Virginian. Charlottesville: The Univ. Press of Virginia. DeVries, D. P. (1857), “Voyages from Holland to America, A. D., 1632 to 1644.” New York Historical Society, Collections, 2nd Ser. 3, 9-136. Earle, C. V. (1979), “Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia.” In T. W. Tate and D. L. Ammerman (Eds.), The Chesapeake in the Sevenfeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 96-125. Gemery, H. A. (1979), “Emigration from the British Isles to the New World, 1630-1700: Inferences from Colonial Populations.” Research in Economic History, 5. Hammond, J. (1656), Leah and Rachel, Or, The Two Fruitful Sisters Virginia and Maryland. In C. C. Hall (Ed.), Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684. New York: Scribner. Pp. 277-308. Jones, H. (1956), The Present State of Virginia. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. Kelly, K. P. (1972), “Economic and Social Development of Seventeenth-Century Surry County, Virginia.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. Kulikoff, A. L. (1976), “Tobacco and Slaves: Population, Economy, and Society in Eighteenth-century Prince George’s County, Maryland.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University. Menard, R. R. (1980), “Five Maryland Census Returns, 1700-1712: A Note on the Quality of the Quantities.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser. 37, 616-626. Menard, R. R. (1977a), “Immigrants and Their Increase: The Process of Population Growth in Early Colonial Maryland.” In A. C. Land, L. G. Carr, and E. C. Papenfuse (Eds.), Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 88-110. Menard, R. R. (1977b), “From Servants to Slaves: The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System.” Southern Studies 16, 355-390. Menard, R. R. (1975a), “The Maryland Slave Population, 1658 to 1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties.” William and Mary Quarter1 y, 3rd Ser. 32, 29-54. Menard, R. R. (1975b), “Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa. Menard, R. R. (1975c), “The Demography of Somerset County, Maryland: A Preliminary Report.” Unpublished manuscript, Stony Brook Conference on Social History, Stony Brook, New York. Menard, R. R. (1973a), “From Servant to Freeholder: Status Mobility and Property Accumulation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser. 30, 37-64. Menard, R. R. (1973b), “Immigration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century: A Review Essay.” Maryland Historical Magazine 68, 323-329. Morgan, E. S. (1975), American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. New York: Norton. Morgan, E. S. (1972) “Headrights and Head Counts: A Review Article.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80, 361-371. Oldmixon, J. (1741), The British Empire in America. London. Plantagenet, B. (l&$8), A Description of the Province of New A&ion. London. Rutman, D. B., and Rutman, A. H. (1976), “Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in the Early Chesapeake.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser. 33, 31-60.

410

RUSSELL

R. MENARD

Smith, D. B. (1978), “Mortality and Family in the Colonial Chesapeake.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8, 403-427. Tinling, M. R. (1977), The Correspondence of the Three William Byrds of Westover, Virginia, 1684-f 776. Charlottesville: The Univ. Press of Virginia. Walsh, L. S. (1979), “ ‘Till Death Us Do Part’: Marriage and Family in Charles County, Maryland, 1658-1705.” In T. W. Tate and D. L. Ammerman (Eds.), The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essnys on Anglo-American Society. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. Pp. 126-152. Walsh, L. S. (1977a), “Charles County, Maryland, 1658-1705: A Study in Chesapeake Social and Political Structure.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. Walsh, L. S. (1977b), “Servitude and Opportunity in Charles County, Maryland, 1658-1705.” In A. C. Land, L. G. Carr, and E. C. Papenfuse (Eds.), Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Pp. 11l-133. Walsh, L. S., and Menard, R. R. (1974), “Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland.” Maryland Historical Magazine 69, 211-227.