Religion, Human Capital, and Economic Diversity in Nineteenth-Century Hesse-Cassel

Abstract

We document the religious diversity of the German principality of Hesse-Cassel in the mid-nineteenth century. Over 63% of the villages and towns were majority Protestant, and 13% were majority Catholic. Only 23% of Hessian villages and towns, however, were home to Jews, who typically made up less than 10% of the inhabitants in these places. Still, we find that Jews made up 2.6% of the principality, a larger percentage than has been estimated for Germany as a whole at this time. Our maps show the principality’s extraordinary variety in the different principal Christian denominations, the Jewish population, and minority Christian enclaves. Protestant-majority communities were spread across most districts, as were communities with any Jews. Catholic-majority communities were clustered in two districts, while Christian minorities could only be found in Protestant-majority localities. Meaningful differences in the socioeconomic characteristics of communities existed, with majority-Protestant places a bit more urban than majority-Catholic ones and places with Jews the most urban. We document the occupations of the Jewish population, finding many traders, consistent with the literature, but a surprisingly large number of farmers and fewer moneylenders than might be expected. Hessians were segregated to a large degree by religion, and this was related to various economic, social, and demographic outcomes.

Appendix: Wegge on Murray

Generous of heart and giving of his time and ideas, John E. Murray was truly a special person in the world of academia. For those of us in the field of economic history, he was a great listener, a careful thinker, and a fantastic role model. Scholars young and old flocked to him for professional advice and guidance on their research projects. Journal editors and other intellectual leaders sought him out for editorial board positions, referee reports, and book reviews. When I managed the economics panel for the internal grant competition at the City University of New York in 2009, John assisted me with several referee reports. Others have remarked that he was a superb colleague within his own home institutions and more widely within the economic history profession. His C.V. is a testament to the immense amount of academic service he was involved in, both at lofty and less glamourous levels.

It was a joy to work with John and to speak with him at conferences, partly because he was not only smart and gifted but also humble and approachable. He was a devout Christian, a person devoted to his family, and a person confident in his own gifts and talents. At least this is what I saw outwardly, and I like to think he had no need for more external rewards since well-researched and consummately written scholarship was the ultimate prize. Another reason I and so many other academics enjoyed being around John is that he loved learning, teaching, and writing, and always wanted to do more, whether it was in economics, religion, history, or languages, but especially in all of them at the same time. Over the very long run he found a way to improve his knowledge of math, philosophy, theology, history, and languages. He was always working on his tool kit. John was an academic’s academic, and many of us wanted to be in his orbit and absorb something from the way he looked at the world and operated in it.

In his 26 years as a professor, post-Ph.D., and according to my own counting, John published three books, at least 37 refereed journal articles, numerous other articles in other outlets, and 28 book reviews. It is an admirable record! He had a keen interest in special historical and often marginalized population groups, including the Shakers in Ohio, paupers in Early America, and orphans in Charleston. His research on the Shakers is noteworthy for several reasons. In a series of papers, many with co-authors (especially Metin Coşgel), John analyzed how a religious society that operated as a commune tackled production issues: he and his co-authors studied their production in dairying and swine and examined how they balanced their economic, religious, and cultural priorities, all in a commune. John was ahead of his time in studying the economics of religion and communes.

At the risk of being repetitive, John cared very much about great research, and his Weltanschauung was clearly interdisciplinary. Had he lived longer, I can imagine him being elected as president of the Social Science History Association (SSHA). He would be pleased at the way the Religion network at the SSHA has strengthened over the years and is now sponsoring many more sessions at the annual conference than 10 years ago.

I miss John, his friendship, his spirit, his ideas, and his contributions to academia. I hope that this volume would make him proud. I also hope that this book will bring some collective and communal solace to his colleagues, friends, and family, near and far, who miss him so dearly.