Why be illiterate?

[Hank Trent]

Not sure how to begin researching this. Psychology papers on the history of literacy? Academic social science writings? I've been thinking about it since my role at Westville.

Why would an adult white male in his 40s still be marked as unable to read and write on the census in the 1860s? Of course, I'm speaking broadly about typical reasons, since it's hard to know about any particular individual.

Yes, the easy answer is, he never went to school. But what would make a person not naturally teach himself to read and write as the decades passed, living in a literate society, seeing signs and handbills and labels, seeing newspapers on the table at the store or tavern, being asked to write notes or messages, etc.?

Would middle-age illiterate white people tend to only be dyslexic, have poor eyesight, be of below-normal intelligence, or have some other handicap that would make literacy difficult? Or could a person of normal or above-normal intelligence and ability just not be interested enough in the written word to absorb any of it?

Portraying someone who was illiterate had a lot of complications that I hadn't thought of beforehand. Would an illiterate person typically be able to make puns and wordplay with the English language, as long as the joke didn't involve the spelling of a word? What about numbers? Would a typical illiterate person be able to do math problems in his head, like "if 10 boarders pay 50 cents for three meals, will a $2 chicken be profitable to purchase for one meal?"

I portrayed the role as if I could do those things, but then I wondered, if I was so smart, why didn't I teach myself to read and write sometime in the last 30 years?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[lukegilly13]

Re: Why be illiterate?

Hank, I have some sources that I would like to post but I will have to wait until this evening when I can access my books in my classroom on illiteracy. However, for the time being, you peaked my interest and I am wondering if your research thus far has turned up any references to resistance of the census? I know that currently it is sometimes very difficult to get people to fill the census records out and folks end up coming door to door only to have people hide in their living rooms and not answer. Could it have been in the 1860's that some folks just said "i can't write" out of resistance? Certainly this would only be a few...but I'm just curious as to how accurate the census information is.

I'd also like to add that working with several children over the years that were dyslexic, it was quite normal that they had good math skills. Again, I can't get to my sources but dyslexics tend to think in symbols (according to Ronald Davis). Check out this Website. Thinking in symbols would not negatively effect your math skills...especially your mental math skills.

I'm not sure what I can dig up, but as soon as I can get to my bookshelf at work (election day...the school is closed) I have a book on the history of literacy that might have some good information. I know I have a couple too that talk about the effects of illiteracy on the learner that might be helpful.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Why be illiterate?

However, for the time being, you peaked my interest and I am wondering if your research thus far has turned up any references to resistance of the census? I know that currently it is sometimes very difficult to get people to fill the census records out and folks end up coming door to door only to have people hide in their living rooms and not answer. Could it have been in the 1860's that some folks just said "i can't write" out of resistance?

Now you've piqued my curiosity, because I just assumed the questions were all asked verbally on a personal visit by the census taker, with no mail-in forms at all, so he, not the individuals, did the writing, and therefore claiming to be illiterate wouldn't really get one out of anything. I did a quick search, and here's a humorous anecdote that does show resistance to a census taker, but implies the questions were in verbal question-and-answer form (lower left hand column): http://books.google.com/books?id=OBtGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA60

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Why be illiterate?

Now you've piqued my curiosity, because I just assumed the questions were all asked verbally on a personal visit by the census taker, with no mail-in forms at all, so he, not the individuals, did the writing, and therefore claiming to be illiterate wouldn't really get one out of anything. I did a quick search, and here's a humorous anecdote that does show resistance to a census taker, but implies the questions were in verbal question-and-answer form (lower left hand column): http://books.google.com/books?id=OBtGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA60

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Some years back Victoria Mescher published an article on literacy using the 1860 census as a basis I don't remember her exact conclusions, but I dug up the Census, did my own tabulation and came with a national illiteracy (free, over 20 and "can not read or write") of about 9%, which ranged from 7% in the north to 16% in the south. That's attached, and the instructions (which do seem to infer that the census taker simply asked) are here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/pol02marv-pt2.pdf

I think that functional illiteracy must have been even higher than reported.

This document has numbers accumulated by region that similarly show a much higher rate of illiteracy among southern vs. northern whites: http://books.google.com/books?id=mY3...teracy&f=false

Maybe the difference had to do with common schools being more widespread in the north, as well as commercial and industrial activity generally. But combined with the rate of illiteracy among blacks, it had to have seriously affected the Confederate army's ability to operate, particularly when you think of the accounting needed to feed and equip large numbers of troops, let alone the paperwork required by the Regs.

[Virginia Mescher]

Re: Why be illiterate?

This is Virginia's (not Victoria's although the two names are close) spouse posting.

Nothing to add about the illiterate people and their mindset but if anyone wants to read the article on literacy, it is on our website raggedsoldier.com Go to the menu item "Articles: Virginia's Veranda" and go to the archived articles. Scroll down and it's the fourteenth article in the listing.

Michael Mescher

[RCR001]

Re: Why be illiterate?

I suggest you investigate illiteracy in society today. It exists. Here and Now, don't think it don't.
I reckon illiterate people have the same excuses now as they had back then. Only maybe more of 'em.

[lukegilly13]

Re: Why be illiterate?

William S. Potts while at Princeton Theological Seminary makes many comments on encountering men and women (during missionary work) who appeared unable to read. However, Potts was careful to not categorize illiterate as unintelligent although he did note that they were unsaveable through reading holy scripture. So he makes a connection between illiteracy and probable damnation but notes "specifically of a lad of uncommon smartness only unable to read." (1826).
In 1844 David Eakins as a student at the same Seminary reported that in the same community "there was very little if any taste for reading" among those encountered.
These studies were done in the New Jersey Pines.
An 1859 article in Atlantic Monthly published research that illiteracy was intergenerational. They link illiteracy to not just a moral failure "but to a more general failure of a local culture to thrive."
Source: Mortensen, P. (1996). Illiterate Sorrows: Misrepresenting Literacy and Intelligence.

So this source touches on two ideas. 1. Illiteracy is a (for lack of better term) family tradition. If your parents are illiterate, then they see no need for their children to be and children have less motivation to learn (and less opportunity). 2. At least in 1826 it was not necessarily a measure of intelligence. One could seem very intelligent and be unable to read/write.

[Brandon]

Re: Why be illiterate?

I honestly would look at the person upbringing, not just their social standing at the time but the individuals families social standing during the persons childhood. Also look at the occupation this person might have. Think about this, Mr. Trent at Westville your impression was that of a boarding house keeper, and I am sure that you were very busy not only during the day but I'm sure you could have found a million other things that needed to be done at night, and then you would have to rise early the next morning before everyone else. I say this to say if you did not learn as a child most likely you would not have had the time as an adult with responsibilities. This explanation came to mind due to the fact that my Grandmother who was born in 1906 and lived her life as a sharecropper could hardly read or write because she was not able to attend school as a child and simply did not have the time to learn as an adult on a farm and with children. Good luck in your research, I would be very interested in hearing what you find.

[toptimlrd]

Re: Why be illiterate?

One thing of note as well as I have been reading a number of period letters recently (many in relation to Westville as well) and it is interesting to note that even those who were "literate" had a very poor command of the written language. This is in no way scientific but I do seem to note that the more literate people were the more likely they were to progress in rank within the military. When reading letters written by those who moved up I see much better command of the English language even when they were privates. Of course the officers who were either formally schooled or wealthy (or likely both) had a fine command of the language. It would be of interest to look regionally by social class as well. An agrearian person was probably very wise to planting and math (need to know how much of a crop a certain land mass will yield) but probably less well read as much of their time was spent worrying about the planting cycle. A business man who needed to review invoices and contracts would likely be much better read. Finally bear in mind how books were considered more a luxury in the day and they were treated as treasures in most homes.

Once again I am not speaking with any expertness in the subject but as one who could see such divisions and this will hopefully help direct the research; i.e. food for thought.

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Why be illiterate?

Illiterate parents not only may not care about literacy; they are also unable to pass it along. Even if a parent dearly wishes for a child to learn, s/he can't help much at home. Literate parents do this without thinking about it; we read out loud at times whether or not we mean to, our kids see us writing, and there are generally books and writing materials available in the home. It's less a conscious "I'm going to teach little Johnny to read" than a fact of life. This is why so many development programs focus on teaching young mothers to read, write and do basic arithmetic; teaching the child teaches that child, while teaching a mother teaches all of her children.

Of course, adults learn to read all the time. The problem in CW days, in some areas, would be to find someone able and willing to teach an adult. As has already been pointed out, adult chores took a lot of time back then. The best chance for a farmer to learn would be to have someone literate teach him in winter or, in summer, between planting and harvest. In our area, given reports in several period diaries and two memoirs I've read, it wasn't uncommon for young men to go to school in winter or "the slack" of summer to get whatever education they could manage.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Why be illiterate?

Also look at the occupation this person might have. Think about this, Mr. Trent at Westville your impression was that of a boarding house keeper, and I am sure that you were very busy not only during the day but I'm sure you could have found a million other things that needed to be done at night, and then you would have to rise early the next morning before everyone else. I say this to say if you did not learn as a child most likely you would not have had the time as an adult with responsibilities. This explanation came to mind due to the fact that my Grandmother who was born in 1906 and lived her life as a sharecropper could hardly read or write because she was not able to attend school as a child and simply did not have the time to learn as an adult on a farm and with children. Good luck in your research, I would be very interested in hearing what you find.

Ironically, it was the occupation of boarding house keeper that made me wonder about this. The man I was assigned was just a "laborer" in the census, and for the first event, I'd been the McDonalds' gardener. In that case, I think the sharecropper analogy would fit. Doing any kind of physical work, you wouldn't really need to read and write, nor would you have the opportunity, nor would it matter to most of those you'd socialize with, since they'd be similar. The same might have been true for just cooking at the boarding house.

But when Linda and I unexpectedly inherited the boarding house (literally), the need for reading and writing increased. It fits with what Terre said, about having a person to help; we decided one of us would have to portray someone at least marginally literate for record-keeping if nothing else, and Linda picked that role.

But being in town, surrounded by written things and people who were literate, interacting with literate boarders, needing to keep records, manage money and be responsible for buying things on a regular basis, I'm wondering if that was a case where someone would have started to pick up at least marginal literacy.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Moose]

Re: Why be illiterate?

Mr. Trent,

I believe that your concept of functional literacy is more correct then you think. The prime example I can give is my own great grad-parents. Now, one must take this with a grain of salt, since they were from Italy and the schools there were not as good. Both moved to New York City in the early 1900s. Neither of them could read nor write Italian or English. More over they only spoke a dialect of Neapolitan Italian. However, they ran a bakery in Brooklyn their whole lives. They did have eight children, whom I'm sure like Mrs. Lawson pointed out, helped with the reading and writing, but someone had to do it before the kids were able too. One, might also argue that not being able to read has nothing to do with the ability to do math (i.e. one loaf of bread costs $1).

That being said, I'm sure one could run a business, such as a boarding house, while being 'illiterate.'

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Why be illiterate?

As people have noted, you could get by, even today, with not knowing how to read and write. Less and less well, but you could still get by. I think Hank's original question as to why you'd want to remain illiterate has several answers touched on above. The biggest might be how normal it was for your group -- your extended family in the country, your fellow day-laborers, &c. But I think it's particularly interesting that the 19th century norm was increasingly one of literacy, and for good practical reasons.

This discussion came up some time ago, and I just found my response to the last time someone asked why, say, a simple farmhand would need to know how to read and write. It might still have some value:

Several answers occur immediately. These include, to read Scripture and the Word of God or, contrarily, to read the pamphlets of the International Workingmen’s Association. Clearly, anyone might also want to read messages from relatives, or to send notes to a loved one:

My pen is poor my ink is pale
My luv for you shall never fale.
Yours affeckshnitly,
Si Klegg

Other reasons will occur when one recollects that even a “mere” farmhand belongs to a community, with its full range of economic and social relationships, and that life in the 19th century did not always prove so simple as we might think. Less cluttered with taco stands and outlet malls, perhaps, but still complex. And in parsing life’s complexity, an ability to read could make a great difference in several key life activities.

I found examples of this in an interesting book called Every Man His Own Lawyer; or, the Clerk and Magistrate’s Assistant, published in Poughkeepsie in 1838. It contains more than 300 pages of legal documents and forms, quite a few of which would be useful even to a farmhand.

If, for example, he should ever have enough money to build a house, page 7 provides “An agreement for building a House.” If he had a little plot of land on which to raise a crop for his own use, page 11 provides “Minutes of an agreement on a sale of Wheat.” Should he wish to marry, page 30 has “Articles of Marriage.” Should it not work out, page 31 has “Separation between a Man and his Wife.” Perhaps he can only afford to lease a house; page 108 has a form for that. Perhaps his landlord tries unjustly to evict him: page 177 provides “Proceedings for Forcible Entry and Detainer.”

Maybe he just wants to be left alone in the countryside with no company but that of his faithful dog. In that case, he might still want to read the documents brought by the Sheriff, and covered on pages 219 and 220, including: “Notice to the Owner of a Dog killing or injuring Sheep,” with the appended “Fence Viewer’s Certificate upon the killing of Sheep by Dogs,” “Affidavit upon application to Supervisors for the amounts of Damages,” and “Order of a Justice that a dangerous Dog be killed.”

Undoubtedly large numbers of Americans passed their lives as illiterates, and even larger numbers as functionally illiterate, but at all levels of society they were at a relative disadvantage compared to their fellow citizens who could read.

[Busterbuttonboy]

Re: Why be illiterate?

More often then not apprenticeships typically included the development of reading, arithmetic and writing pertinent to the trade or commercial operation. My apologies for not providing a primary source at the moment but its interesting to consider that while traditional educational methods may have "missed" some socio-economic classes at home, on the job training learned up many at the workplace.

The eighth census reports;
"Although these returns have not yet been reduced to a tabulated form, enough is ascertained to authorize that statement that not far from 5,000,000 persons received instruction in the various educational institutions of the different states in the year ending June, 1860, or about one-fifth of the entire free population of the country." pg 19- Education.

Industrious in Their Stations: Young People at Work in Urban America, 1720-1810 by Sharon Sundue UVA Press 2009-
While slightly earlier then our time period of interest, her notes concerning literally rates as previously assumed by 'academics' only takes into account traditional educational attainment records and not work place training.

Reluctant Rebels: The Confederates Who Joined the Army after 1861 by Kenneth W. Noe UNC Press 2010-
In his sample of 209 men who wrote letters 43% were slave owners themselves or came from slave-owning families (which does not mean they were upper crust)- His charts and graphs while only covering 209 soldiers, they come from a large array of backgrounds. Noe breaks down their professions, total wealth, etc. For purposes of this thread gives us an idea that these literate men come from a variety of backgrounds.

The Origins of the Southern Middle Class, 1800-1861 by Mitchell Snay UNC Press 2004-
Snay's text would benefit our community in a number of ways, but for purposes of this thread it should be noted she talks about educational obtainment, the workplace and directly literacy in a few places.

[Silvana Siddali]

Re: Why be illiterate?

Drew's observations are very helpful here I'd also like to add a couple of points on the history of literacy. First, modern Americans have a different definition of functional literacy than did our mid-19th century ancestors. Today, functional literacy is defined as the ability to read and understand a newspaper. Mid-19th c census takers typically defined literacy as the ability to sign one's name to a legal document. This means that some persons were considered literate even though they could not read a newspaper, Bible, or novel with ease. On the other hand, most educational historians believe that about 90 percent of most northerners, and about 80 percent of most white southerners, were at least able to spell their way through a printed source. Many were also able write a basic letter, though of course that would have represented a significant struggle.

What I'm saying here is that according to Lawrence Cremin & other educational historians, most white Americans would at least have the basic ability to labor their way through a letter, legal document, newspaper, and the like. No one can say with certainty exactly what percentage of the population was literate, certainly not by our modern standards. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, census takers asked the head of the household whether he/she was literate, and had to be satisfied with a spoken response. Would the average American have been embarrassed to admit that he/she could not read or write? I would assume so.

There are some excellent sources on the history of literacy out there, but most of them examine New England -- which of course is not representative (since there was so much more emphasis on education in the NE states than in most other parts of the country.)

You might check out Lawrence Cremin's American Education: the National Experience.

Long post short, I would say that there's no reason for even a common laboring man to be completely illiterate. I would speculate that he could at least spell his way through a document pr a newspaper, and sign his own name long-hand.