Help me understand these statistics

[James B White]

This link should take you right to the chart: https://books.google.com/books?id=9ACdjfz6hcEC&pg=P***

It shows "Religious Adherents by Denomination," and I'm interested in 1850, the black bars. What are the percentages indicating? It says "Percentage of all Religious Adherents." I thought that would mean that 34.2% of all church members were Methodists. But the percents total to more than 100, to 123.7 actually.

So what are the Methodists 34.2% of? What does the percentage beside each denomination mean?

 

[Mild53]

I work with data presented in charts and graphs and I too am a bit confused by this.

I read this as, among those who adhere to a religion, what percentage adhere to a specific religion. I interpret this to mean that it does not include those with no religion.

The light and dark bars compare the years 1776 and 1850.
If you add up the light bars they total 76.3%
If you add up the dark bars they total 87.7%

The remainder could be the total of other small denominations such as shakers and quakers, and it could include religions that could not be determined.

The best way to present data like this is to show the totals adding to 100% using an other and explaining what is in other.

The graph should also cite the source. I find it hard to believe that this information was collected by the census.

Thanks for the challenge!

 

[E_just_E]

. I find it hard to believe that this information was collected by the census.

Believe it or not the census collected information and calculated things as "ages of whites deaf and dumb" (see page 59) and "ages of whites idiotic and insane" (see page 60). Reference here. ("Free Colored Deaf and Dumb" and "Free Colored Idiotic and Insane" are in pages 77 and 78, btw)

You can find the Church and religion data here. Page 137 is where the denominational stuff starts

 

[AndyHall]

I get the same result as @Mild53. These bars are showing (especially) the tremendous growth of Methodism and Catholicism in this country over its first 75 years -- Methodism as a result of vigorous evangelizing (above), and Catholicism largely as a result of immigration.

 

[James B White]

If you add up the light bars they total 76.3%
If you add up the dark bars they total 87.7%

Oh, I am an idiot! I added the totals wrong. I was getting over 100, but I redid it and, obviously, got the same as you did. Don't know how I got it wrong before. I was using Google's built-in calculator instead of a "real" one, and I think it blew my mind.

The remainder could be the total of other small denominations such as shakers and quakers, and it could include religions that could not be determined.

I think that's exactly what it is. Though like you said, we shouldn't be required to guess what the extra religions are, or why there isn't a "miscellaneous" bar.

 

[Nathanb1]

Good grief. I can do statistics!

Simply, it's comparing participants in each religion during two census years. Everything else shrinks beside Methodism, those pesky Baptists (my Dad's family apparently was a mish-mash of Quakers and Puritans who became Baptists by the late 1820's, at least) and Catholicism. As the others pointed out, there was a tremendous change in Catholicism, but I would guess it would be accounted for by immigration and expansion...from 1776 to 1850, the US added territory once held by the French and Spanish, who would have been predominantly Catholic.

 

[E_just_E]

.from 1776 to 1850, the US added territory once held by the French and Spanish, who would have been predominantly Catholic.

You can take that predominantly away. There was no separation between the Church and the State in those countries. The official religion was Catholicism

 

[AndyHall]

would be accounted for by immigration and expansion...from 1776 to 1850, the US added territory once held by the French and Spanish, who would have been predominantly Catholic.

Yes, my typing got ahead of my thinking.

 

[Nathanb1]

Yes, my typing got ahead of my thinking.

I can't type, period...let alone think.

 

[Mild53]

Oh, I am an idiot! I added the totals wrong. I was getting over 100, but I redid it and, obviously, got the same as you did. Don't know how I got it wrong before. I was using Google's built-in calculator instead of a "real" one, and I think it blew my mind.



I think that's exactly what it is. Though like you said, we shouldn't be required to guess what the extra religions are, or why there isn't a "miscellaneous" bar.

No, no you're not an idiot at all. The chart should be an illustration that makes it easier to understand the text. Instead the really important point about the prevalence of different religions is lost. If a chart requires posts on this forum, it's too confusing.

 

[Mild53]

I can't type, period...let alone think.

I like your new tag line about labels.

 

[Mild53]

Believe it or not the census collected information and calculated things as "ages of whites deaf and dumb" (see page 59) and "ages of whites idiotic and insane" (see page 60). Reference here. ("Free Colored Deaf and Dumb" and "Free Colored Idiotic and Insane" are in pages 77 and 78, btw)

You can find the Church and religion data here. Page 137 is where the denominational stuff starts

Nice find. I didn't think that the census ever collected information on religion, given the seperation of church and state in the constitution.

The Census information in link doesn't actually provide counts of members, rather "accommodations" , which is "capacity to accommodate worshipers at one time" (See middle of p137).

Still this is interesting data. Is it the source of the information in the chart?

 

[Mild53]

The narrative suggests that the information in the charts represents church members or adherents. But I interpret the chart is really demonstrating that some religions expanded and not that others declined.

The chart shows the percentage of the total. However the US population grew tenfold 1776 to 1850, from 2,500,000 to 23,000,000.

It may not be that some religions declined or lost members, but that the "new" population was made up of different denominations and the greatest growth was in these new religions.

For example, congregationalists made up 20% of 2.5 million in 1776 or 500,000. In 1850 they made up 4% of 23 million or 920,000.

I suspect that the constitution and freedom it mandated affected religious affiliation. I live in a place where Episcopalians and Congregationalists dominated colonial religion. I understand that at at one time, citizens had to make mandatory tax payments to the church in my town. No doubt this stifled competition. Choice was limited.

I don't quibble with the book's assertion that religious diversity increased after 1776. Swedenborgian is listed in the 1850 census as a religion with in 1850 with 5475 accommodations. Religion was so important that obscure theologies attracted significant numbers of adherents.

Obviously, old mainline religions were losing dominance in total members. However, did the mainline religions lose their political control? I suspect not, politics was still dominated by Presbyterian, Episcopalian and Congregationalist white men.

 

[James B White]

The narrative suggests that the information in the charts represents church members or adherents. But I interpret the chart is really demonstrating that some religions expanded and not that others declined.

There's another chart here https://books.google.com/books?id=9ACdjfz6hcEC&pg=PA16 in the same book, which gives "rates of religious adherence" and shows the percent doubled from 17% to 34% in the period, not even counting the actual population increase. So it seems like you said that there was an expansion, probably due to the revival/camp-meeting era, where Methodists started the sing, shout, jump recruiting of rural working class converts, and some of the Baptists and Presbyterians followed, but Episcopalians just couldn't bring themselves to stoop to such embarrassing displays.

I don't quibble with the book's assertion that religious diversity increased after 1776. Swedenborgian is listed in the 1850 census as a religion with in 1850 with 5475 accommodations. Religion was so important that obscure theologies attracted significant numbers of adherents.

There was also that strange period 1820-1840s, where new religions sprung up like mushrooms after rain, mostly in New England: Transcendentalists, Mormons, Millerites, the various utopian societies like Brook Farm, Oneida Society, Spiritualists, Shakers got a foothold...

I suspect not, politics was still dominated by Presbyterian, Episcopalian and Congregationalist white men.

Yes, a lot of the camp meeting converts were from the lower classes.

The Census information in link doesn't actually provide counts of members, rather "accommodations" , which is "capacity to accommodate worshipers at one time"

The online Historic Census Browser has the information available, and I've always found it frustrating that you can't get what everybody wants to know: How many Baptists were there? (Or whichever religion.) Ministers, buildings, accommodations are okay for comparative work, but even then there's the problem that a lot of poor, fast growing denominations had circuit riders who might preach once or twice a month while laymen filled in the other Sundays, and they might meet in someone's house. So it's not apples-to-apples with an Episcopal church with its own dedicated preacher.

My whole purpose in this is to get a handle on how various Christian sects compared in numbers in around 1830-1860, so I can say it's a big deal, or not, when the Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists split over slavery.

 

[Mild53]

I read a bit about the Mehodist movement. Dramatic growth in the first half of the 19th century. The Congregationalists looked down upon them, apparently because they had ministers who did not have the rigorous theological training that they had. Professioanal jealously, imagine that.

As for your frustration with the lack of data about the number of babtists. There are a couple issues.

First someone has to collect this information. Because of separation of church and state the federal government ha no dog in this hunt. So I suppose we'd need to rely o on the religions themselves - but why would they share this, unless they were growing rapidly.

Second, the definition of adherents is a problem. Who do you count? Folks who go to a church, who committed or signed a pledge to a religion, who were baptised in a religion, etc.

If you could find out the source of the information about "the churching of America" that might be as good as it gets. You might have to buy or borrow the book to see the footnotes.