In the first decade of the twentieth century, the nearly 38 percent growth in Muhlenberg County's population was the highest of all the counties in Western Kentucky. 1 With this growth, Muhlenberg, by 1923, had the second-highest population density (but not total population) of the twelve counties in the Western Coalfield. Although Muhlenberg possessed much lower population density than Daviess County (the highest, with the medium-sized city of Owensboro), Muhlenberg’s density was significantly higher than all the others in the coalfield, including Henderson and Hopkins counties, the third and fourth highest, respectively, and both with greater total populations. 2 This overall high density of the population in Muhlenberg in the early part of the twentieth century markedly differs from the county today.
However, of even greater curiosity is that the rural population density of Muhlenberg was by far the highest of all the twelve regional counties in 1923. (Rural population is defined by residence outside incorporated places of 2,500 or more inhabitants.) From 1900 to 1910, the rural population of Muhlenberg increased in the range of 25 to 50 percent. At the same time, McLean grew between 5 and 15 percent; Hopkins, Ohio, and Webster by fewer than 5 percent; and Christian, Todd, Logan, Butler, Daviess, and Henderson all decreased in rural population, the latter by a substantial 20 percent. 3
To recap: Between 1900 and 1910, Muhlenberg experienced the highest percentage of population growth of all the counties in Western Kentucky and the highest rate of rural population density. Furthermore, an additional 16.1 percent increase in the rural Muhlenberger population occurred from 1910 to 1920.
Remarkably, this second decade of growth occurred when all the other counties either gained a negligible amount or decreased significantly. For example, in Hopkins, the rural population grew by only 0.2 percent. However, Ohio dropped by 4.2 percent, McLean fell by 5.6 percent, Daviess decreased by 6.7 percent, Henderson by 13.7 percent, and Webster a whopping 20.8 percent. 4
Which factors explain the exploding rural population in Muhlenberg in the early twentieth century, while eleven of the other twelve counties in the coalfield decreased in their rural population numbers? Burroughs, the head of the State Geological Survey, does not provide a direct answer. However, the likelihood of many people moving to Muhlenberg as agricultural migrants was unlikely because, according to his data, Muhlenberg experienced a net loss of 9,391 acres of cultivatable land during the 1910-1920 decade. Besides, Muhlenberg has never had a high percentage of choice agricultural land, especially for row-cropping. For these reasons, farming probably could not support such a sizable influx of rural dwellers.
Instead, the most likely cause for the startling population boom in Muhlenberg in the first two decades of the twentieth century was the opening of new coal mines with their adjacent mining camps. Indeed, in the early twentieth century, Muhlenberg transformed its cultural landscape into a virtual mining camp.
When applying for a U.S. Post Office at Beech Creek in March 1906, mining operator Anderson D. Kirkpatrick explained that the Beech Creek Coal Company was “just opening mines and the place will be a village soon.” 5
That Muhlenberg and surrounding counties in the Western Coalfield had so many settlements was noted, in 1931, by the principal of Graham High School, Clyde Earl Vincent. “The development of the coal mines is probably the cause of the development of so many towns,” Vincent argued. “Where there was enough coal to open a mine, there was reason for a town to spring up.” 6
Since coal seams underlay so much of Muhlenberg, many places were suitable for coal mines and their settlements occupying the landscape.
Besides the geological potential, it was also a simple business-demographic formula applicable countywide and throughout the region: Open a mine, and the people will come.
_______________________________________________ 1. U.S. Census 1910, vol. 2, 704, maps.
2. Wilbur Greeley Burroughs, The Geography of the Western Kentucky Coal Field (Frankfort: Kentucky Geological Survey, 1924), 147, map.
3. Burroughs, 148, map. Burrough’s map is a choropleth with data shown as numerical ranges.
4. Burroughs, 148, map.
5. Anderson D. Kirkpatrick, quoted in Paul Camplin, A New History of Muhlenberg County (Greenville, KY: Caney Station Books, 1984), 1.
6. Clyde Earl Vincent, “History of Education in Muhlenberg County,” Master’s thesis (University of Kentucky, 1931), 24.
Thanks go to Benjamin Durall for this photo.
Yorumlar