SHORT TALK BULLETIN INDEX
Vol. XVII No. 8 — August 1939
How We Grew
With more truth than humor it has been said that all liars may be divided into three classes: plain, damned, and statistical.
The Editor of these pages will not attempt to defend himself if any brother places him in the first two categories, but will vigorously insist to the contrary when his truth-via-statistics is questioned!
The April issue of The Short Talk Bulletin, under the title of “Masonic Population,” attempted to demonstrate, via figures, that in spite of the losses which the Fraternity has suffered since 1929, Masonic population was still ahead of normal expectancy; that in spite of the great war with its increase in initiations, our present Masonic population is greater than growth during the previous thirty years (1888 to 1917) would indicate as normal.
Arose many a critic to call down anathemas upon the head of this Masonic publication! It was wrong because plain ruling was used for the chart instead of geometric or ratio ruling. It was wrong because all gains were, ipso facto, normal gains and must be counted, no matter what the cause. It was wrong because forty-nine grand lodges have, figuratively speaking, wept and gnashed their teeth over diminishing figures from year to year!
Hence the Editor attacked the problem from a new angle. There must be, he reasoned, a relationship between growth of the civil population, and growth of the Masonic population. If the state which had one million people in 1888 and has two million today, had ten thousand Masons in 1888, should it not have twenty thousand Masons today? If the growth of Masonic population were greater in proportion than the growth of the Civil population, figuring in all losses, perhaps his previous figures would he justified and his critics silenced!
The result of these thoughts was a Digest showing the curves for both civil and Masonic populations for each state and the District of Columbia, and for the United States as a whole.
The figures from which this Digest was compiled not only should confound the critics of the previous Digest, “Why Worry,” and Bulletin, “Masonic Population,” but contain so much food for thought and give rise to so many interesting speculations, that this Bulletin seemed a necessity.
In 1888 the United States had a population of 61,665,000. In 1937 (fifty years after) the population was 129,262,000. The growth was, therefore, 2.096+ times.
In 1888 the United States had a Masonic population of 607,365. In 1937, the Masonic population was 2,552,220. The growth was, therefore, 4.202+ times!
In other words, the Masonic population of the United States multiplied four times in fifty years while the civil population multiplied twice.
These figures are for the beginning and ending of the fifty-year period and not for the “peak” years of Masonic population — 1929 and 1930. These figures include all losses, but in spite of all losses, our Masonic growth has been twice what our civil growth has been.
The figures for individual grand jurisdictions show wide variations, although in every grand jurisdiction the Masonic population has increased faster than the civil population. In some states, such as Connecticut, the increase of Masonic growth over civil growth is very small, but it is an increase. In other states — notably Oklahoma — the increase of Masonic growth over civil population is enormous.
The final pages of this Bulletin set forth three tables.
It is not expected that anyone will read them as wholes, but that readers will pick the jurisdiction in which they are particularly interested.
Table I shows the factors of civil population growth: that is, the number of times the civil population has increased in the fifty years from 1888 to 1937. They should be read:
“In the fifty years from 1888 to 1937, the population of (state) has multiplied (here read the figure) times.”
Table II shows the factors of Masonic population growth: that is, the number of times the Masonic population has increased in the fifty years from 1888 to 1937. They should be read:
“In the fifty years from 1888 to 1937, the Masonic population of (state) has multiplied (here read the figure) times.”
Table II shows that the Masonic population increased most in Oklahoma and least in New Hampshire.
As states differ in size and population, as well as “times” of growth, obviously the ratio of growth by which one state can be compared with another must take into consideration both civil and Masonic population growth. The state which triples its civil population and triples its Masonic population has grown no faster, Masonically considered, than the state which doubles its civil population and doubles its Masonic population.
The figures for ratio of growth, giving a fair comparison of the several states, is obtained by working out a proportional equation in which the Masonic growth is to the civil growth as x is to unity.
In simplest terms, dividing the “times” of Masonic growth (Table II) by the “times” of civil growth (Table I) gives the growth ratio by which one state can be compared to another. These growth ratios are set forth in Table III. It shows that during fifty years Oklahoma has had the greatest increase in Masonic population, compared to her increase of civil population, and that Connecticut has had the least increase in Masonic population compared to her increase in civil population.
He is a clever reasoner who can read into these ratios any sectional influences. The three grand jurisdictions showing the greatest Masonic growth in proportion to civil growth are middle west and far west; the three states showing least are middle west and New England. New Mexico and Maryland are almost the same. So are the District of Columbia and Wisconsin. Illinois and Colorado are almost identical, as are Florida and Maine. Something other than geography must be considered as the reason why one state has grown faster Masonically than another.
Revert to the opening paragraphs of this Bulletin: it is submitted that, regardless of the reasons why, these figures show that every state in the Union has increased in Masonic population at a greater rate than in civil population, even with all losses of the last ten years figured in.
It is natural that Masonic population should increase faster than civil population. Ten lodges will naturally attract more petitioners than one lodge, and as lodges grew in numbers so did their populations. But there have been comparatively few lodges chartered in recent years — very few, indeed, during the last ten years. And growth of lodges cannot account for Masonic population growth differences in the several states.
It may be argued that differing rates of growth in different sections are to be accounted for by greater or lesser standards of admission; that some lodges accept all petitions and others reject many.
However attractive such an argument may seem in theory, it falls of its own weight when applied to individual jurisdictions. To suggest that Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, New Mexico, Maryland, and Wyoming — the states with the largest ratio-of-growth factors — have accomplished that growth by lowering standards, while Connecticut, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Florida, Maine and Tennessee — the states with the smallest ratio-of-growth factor — have higher standards of admission, is obviously nonsense. Standards of admission to the fraternity are the same the country over; here and there is a lax lodge or an over-strict lodge, of course, but in the main, all lodges in all jurisdictions accept only men known to be of good character, after careful investigation. The reasons for difference in growth rates is not there to be found!
Nor can this Bulletin answer the question “why do some states grow Masonically so much faster than others?” It is probably a combination of climate, average income, occupations, age, state history, doubtless other factors. These figures can but suggest the train of thought; the reader must hunt the answer for himself.
The following facts, however, seem plain: All states have grown faster Masonically than in civil population. The losses in no grand lodge have been great enough to make its fifty year growth just equal to, or less than, its civil population growth. Twenty-two grand lodges are below, twenty-seven are above, the national average of ratio growth. Had all grand lodges had the average ratio growth (2.004) without losses, every one would have been supremely well satisfied. As the figures, including losses, show more grand lodges above national average than below, and all grand lodges in the plus column (no red ink here!) the previous Digest “Why Worry” — and the previous Bulletin, though its graph was plotted on plain ruling and not ratio paper — are proved to be truthful.
The figures demonstrate that those mournful brethren who think that because depression has caused a great drop in membership, therefore the Fraternity is on the down grade, are mistaken.
The Ancient Craft has more than held its own; the ratio growth figures in Table III are a very definite proof of the right of brethren all to feel encouraged and strengthened with our population position.
Table I — Civil Growth
From 1888 to 1937, each state increased its Civil popula tion by the number of times shown.
| Oklahoma | 9.850 |
| Idaho | 6.334 |
| Washington | 5.469 |
| California | 5.367 |
| Arizona | 5.209 |
| Florida | 4.537 |
| Montana | 4.380 |
| Wyoming | 4.308 |
| Oregon | 3.537 |
| New Jersey | 3.136 |
| Texas | 2.922 |
| Colorado | 2.884 |
| District of Columbia | 2.846 |
| New Mexico | 2.767 |
| Utah | 2.621 |
| West Virginia | 2.536 |
| Connecticut | 2.409 |
| Michigan | 2.407 |
| New York | 2.224 |
| North Carolina | 2.215 |
| Minnesota | 2.193 |
| Illinois | 2.139 |
| Massachusetts | 2.057 |
| Rhode Island | 2.049 |
| Nevada | 2.011 |
| Pennsylvania | 2.006 |
| South Dakota | 1.985 |
| Alabama | 1.975 |
| Louisiana | 1.966 |
| Arkansas | 1.921 |
| Ohio | 1.879 |
| Wisconsin | 1.805 |
| Georgia | 1.732 |
| Tennessee | 1.677 |
| South Carolina | 1.672 |
| Virginia | 1.661 |
| Maryland | 1.643 |
| Indiana | 1.614 |
| Kentucky | 1.605 |
| Delaware | 1.588 |
| Mississippi | 1.586 |
| Missouri | 1.545 |
| North Dakota | 1.527 |
| Nebraska | 1.442 |
| Kansas | 1.385 |
| New Hampshire | 1.375 |
| Iowa | 1.374 |
| Maine | 1.299 |
| Vermont | 1.152 |
Table II — Masonic Growth
From 1888 to 1937, each grand lodge increased its Masonic population by the number of times shown.
| Oklahoma | 109.783 |
| Washington | 16.925 |
| Wyoming | 13.634 |
| Arizona | 13.381 |
| Idaho | 12.193 |
| Montana | 11.724 |
| Utah | 9.936 |
| New Mexico | 9.800 |
| North Dakota | 8.665 |
| California | 8.416 |
| West Virginia | 7.590 |
| Colorado | 6.923 |
| Oregon | 6.824 |
| Florida | 6.223 |
| District of Columbia | 6.187 |
| New Jersey | 6.786 |
| Maryland | 5.605 |
| Louisiana | 5.305 |
| Ohio | 5.304 |
| Illinois | 5.149 |
| Indiana | 4.595 |
| Pennsylvania | 4.536 |
| Minnesota | 4.521 |
| Texas | 4.480 |
| Virginia | 4.187 |
| Rhode Island | 4.174 |
| Wisconsin | 3.911 |
| Michigan | 3.796 |
| North Carolina | 3.773 |
| Nebraska | 3.751 |
| Alabama | 3.712 |
| Kansas | 3.687 |
| Massachusetts | 3.549 |
| New York | 3.538 |
| Delaware | 3.516 |
| South Carolina | 3.502 |
| Missouri | 3.455 |
| South Dakota | 3.372 |
| Georgia | 3.322 |
| Iowa | 3.060 |
| Kentucky | 3.039 |
| Nevada | 2.993 |
| Mississippi | 2.832 |
| Connecticut | 2.458 |
| Tennessee | 2.439 |
| Arkansas | 2.057 |
| Vermont | 2.002 |
| Maine | 1.784 |
| New Hampshire | 1.611 |
Table III — Ratio Growth
Dividing Masonic Growth (Table II) by Civil Growth (Table I) gives these figures:
| Oklahoma | 11.145 |
| North Dakota | 5.674 |
| Utah | 3.790 |
| New Mexico | 3.541 |
| Maryland | 3.411 |
| Wyoming | 3.164 |
| Washington | 3.094 |
| West Virginia | 2.992 |
| Indiana | 2.846 |
| Ohio | 2.822 |
| Louisiana | 2.698 |
| Montana | 2.676 |
| Kansas | 2.662 |
| Nebraska | 2.601 |
| Arizona | 2.568 |
| Virginia | 2.520 |
| Illinois | 2.407 |
| Colorado | 2.400 |
| Pennsylvania | 2.261 |
| Missouri | 2.236 |
| Iowa | 2.227 |
| Delaware | 2.214 |
| District of Columbia | 2.173 |
| Wisconsin | 2.166 |
| South Carolina | 2.094 |
| Minnesota | 2.061 |
| Rhode Island | 2.037 |
| Oregon | 1.929 |
| Idaho | 1.925 |
| Georgia | 1.918 |
| Kentucky | 1.893 |
| Alabama | 1.880 |
| New Jersey | 1.845 |
| Mississippi | 1.785 |
| Vermont | 1.737 |
| Massachusetts | 1.725 |
| North Carolina | 1.703 |
| South Dakota | 1.698 |
| New York | 1.590 |
| Michigan | 1.577 |
| California | 1.568 |
| Texas | 1.533 |
| Nevada | 1.488 |
| Tennessee | 1.454 |
| Maine | 1.373 |
| Florida | 1.371 |
| New Hampshire | 1.171 |
| Arkansas | 1.070 |
| Connecticut | 1.020 |