Why Large Families Were More Common in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Back then, Western society was much more primitive, with limited access to modern amenities and resources compared to today. Even in today's world, you can observe that primitive populations tend to have large families. The lack of effective contraceptive measures and weak social security systems often mean that children are seen as essential for economic and social support.

Primitive Populations and Family Size

One of the primary reasons for large families in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the widespread lack of reliable contraceptive methods. In many societies, only the wealthy had access to long-term contraception. When effective methods were available, they often required significant care and accessibility, such as devices made from catgut or animal skin.

There were also fleeting mentions of methods like the use of a "cattlesmock," which is a sheath of catgut or calves' skin, or the seed coitus interruptus (withdrawal method) and douching to flush out the vagina after intercourse. However, most other methods were considered unreliable or even harmful, such as certain herbs like pennyroyal or blueberries, which were not recommended for women who were menstruating.

Economic and Social Factors

Another critical factor was the high child mortality rate. In those times, the survival rate of children into adulthood was much lower than it is today. Given this context, parents had to have as many children as possible to ensure that at least some would survive to adulthood and contribute to the family economy.

The economic advantages of having a large family were significant, particularly for both the rich and the poor. For the rich, children could be seen as an asset, providing labor for the farm or factory. However, for the poor, children were essential for their survival and welfare, as they could work on the farm or help with domestic tasks, significantly reducing the need for additional support.

Salvaging an Advantage with Numerous Offspring

Given the higher child mortality rate, the simple truth is that most parents had no choice but to have many children. Economic advantages were a critical factor, but the reality was that survival was the primary concern. With poor sanitation and limited medical care, many children did not make it past their infancy or childhood.

The mechanics of survival were complex. For example, if the father could keep up with the agricultural work or factory tasks, having multiple boys to help on the farm or in the factory and a few girls to assist with domestic chores was a reasonable strategy. This arrangement ensured that the family had more labor available and could maximize productivity.

Conclusion

In summary, the prevalence of large families in the late 19th and early 20th centuries can be attributed to a combination of limited access to contraception, high child mortality rates, and the economic and social advantages that large families provided. While modern societies can and should improve family planning and access to healthcare, it is essential to understand the historical context that shaped family sizes in the past.