In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C ultural conflict and accommodation were two dimensions of Amish land ownership, yet culture was by no means the whole story. The land itself had an intimate place in the history of twentiethcentury Amish settlements. The Amish never settled a new area by chance. They called themselves plain people, but before making a move they would perform spatial analyses so sophisticated that any geographer would be impressed. When deciding where to go, the Amish compared local land prices and assessed the potential for expansion. Expansion was crucial for Amish communities struggling to establish male children on their own farms. There was a lot at stake, for research showed that when families succeeded in finding land for the next generation, young Amish were much more likely to remain Amish than leave the community.1 In places like Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, or in Geauga County, Ohio, real estate prices were higher than many Amish families could afford. Thus they began migrating to the Midwest. The Amish also examined regional transportation networks, calculating distance to markets for their goods.2 “A rural area with considerable farm land available and not near large cities was their goal,” said Bishop Menno Hershberger, one of the first settlers in Clinton. “Also, they wanted good bus and train service within reasonable distance.”3 Spiritual considerations rested on top of practical analyses. The Amish sought out locations that would allow them to maintain some separation from what they called the world. Cashton, said Bishop Hershberger of the village nearest their first settlement in the Valley, “is not the most desirable atmosphere due to the large number of saloons; but, the grocery stores, lumber mill, implement, feed, and hardware centers are well-stocked and 104 5 An Amish Environment Figure 9. Township of Clinton topography and Amish settlement by 1995. The black lines delineate Amish land. The Amish used sophisticated geographical considerations when deciding where to settle and what land to buy. Here you see that they initially chose land on higher terrain, which was the most productive agricultural land. adequate.”4 The task of Amish groups seeking to relocate was to find a place that permitted social isolation but was not so remote that it created economic isolation.5 Using these measures, the Amish weighed the pros and cons of moving to Clinton in the 1960s. But still they did not have enough information. The landscape also had to be acceptable.6 Above all, the land must sustain their agrarian way of life. The Amish sought what ecologists call a heterogeneous landscape. Heterogeneous simply describes a complex landscape where diverse land cover types coexist in some recognizable pattern. In deciding whether to move from Ohio, the Amish were not looking for a single expanse of cropland to plow; they wanted fields, pasture, and forest, along with ample water from springs and streams.7 “The area near and centered around where the first Amish settled has many hard maple trees,” said Bishop Hershberger, who also noted that “There is an abundance of wildlife here especially deer, fox, coyote, turkey, grouse, coon, beaver, etc.”8 Out of such a landscape came crops, pasture, maple syrup, fuel, timber, and wild game. This was their preferred environmental niche, and it was the reason many Amish communities spread into the Midwest and parts of Canada but not the Great Plains or the American Southwest .9 Landscape, in effect, provided an environmental rationale to veto any place for settlement. The Amish had decided that Clinton’s landscape would meet their needs for a long time. As figure 9 shows, they chose land strategically, concentrating on fertile ridge tops. Less clear than their choice of land was what Amish ownership might mean for their new landscape. Would it change because an Amish community was there? Would the environment benefit from their presence, proving the adage that Amish are light on the land? These were not idle or rhetorical questions. To the contrary, people concerned with the sustainability of family farming had an intense interest in the answers. The same questions came to preoccupy county-based government agencies whose mandates encompassed land use, agriculture, and environmental protection. This chapter explores both the moral economy and the ecological economy of Amish land use in the Kickapoo Valley . In so doing I hope to tackle what seems to me a still more interesting matter. Like other farmers and ranchers, the Amish worked within and even embraced a system of private property. The question is...

Share