Matrilocality … and Bullers 6 (and last)

The preceding posts on partible, bilateral inheritance (the Mennonite practice of partitioning an estate so that each heir of any age—male and female alike—received an equal share) and matrilocality (the marital arrangement in which a husband moved lived near or with his wife’s parents) have explained, or at least provided background to, a number of incidents in our family history.

1. Why did Peter D and Sarah Siebert Buller live near and with her parents? Peter D’s father David neither owned nor had access to his own land; Sarah’s parents Johann and Katharina owned a full plot that would support, apparently, Peter D and Sarah and their family as well.

2. Why did Peter P and Margaretha move to the Epp farm when they married? Further, why did Peter P’s older brother Johann move to his wife Anna Thieszen’s family farm when they married? It seems that both sons did not think it likely that they had a future staying with the Peter D farm, so each one joined his wife’s family.

3. Ironically, when Peter D passed away several years later, Peter P did take over the family farm. Just as ironically, when Anna Thieszen’s parents died, Johann and her did not take over that family farm. It seems they were unable to buy the shares of the other heirs in the distribution of the estate.

4. Why is Margaretha Epp Buller named as owner of a quarter of land, not her husband David, the brother of Peter P? In all likelihood, her parents passed over the property while they were still alive as as sort of living inheritance. Since the land was passed directly to her (not purchased by the couple), her name remained on the title. (Does anyone else find it odd that so many of Peter D’s sons took the matrilocality route?)

All these events in our family history make perfect sense when viewed as particular instances of the Mennonite practices of partible, bilaterial inheritance and/or matrilocality—with a little premortem estate distribution thrown in for good measure. It is this latter practice that deserves further thought here, since it seems that this is what Peter P and Margaretha did for their children.

The details are a bit unclear, but one gets the impression that Peter P and Margaretha expanded their land holdings so that they could set up each child—male or female—with some means of subsistence, some land on which to raise a family and build a life.

We first noticed their land acquisition nearly two years ago (see here). We observed that, by 1924, “Peter P and Margaretha farmed 560 acres of their own land, just 80 acres shy of a full square mile.” At the time we marveled how fortunes had changed for the Bullers from Molotschna to Nebraska. However, it appears that Peter P and Margaretha acquired this land not for themselves but for their children, who would receive it as a living inheritance at the start of their married lives.

For example, one notices in the 1924 plat map below of Hays Township in York County that Peter P owned the north 80 acres of the southeast quarter of section 7 and the 40 acres southeast across the road. Who owned the south 80 acres of the southeast quarter? Klaas and Margaretha Buller Friesen, otherwise known as Peter P and Margaretha’s daughter and her husband Klaas. What is interesting to note is that the entire 160 acres + 40 acres were owned by Casper Salmen in 1911. Margaretha and Klaas married in 1912, and by 1924 they owned the south 80 acres and Peter P owned the rest. We cannot know for certain, but a reasonable explanation is that Peter P and Margaretha bought all 200 acres, then gave half of the south 80 acres to Klaas and Margaretha and allowed them to purchase the other half on their own (see below for supporting evidence).

I suspect that Klaas and Margaretha farmed the remaining 120 acres, even though it technically was owned by their parents. In other words, this may well be an instance of a living inheritance being passed on, in this case to both husband and wife! Notice that neither the husband alone (as often) nor the wife alone (as with Margaretha and David Buller here) owned the land. Klaas and Margaretha owned the land jointly, which offers yet another variation on the inheritance practices that we have seen.

I assume the same practice was followed with the other children. I have been told that, when Peter P and Margaretha moved to California in 1936, they turned over the farm to their son Peter (Uncle Pete, as Dad calls him). How much of the farm he owned and how much he simply farmed is unknown to me.

We also reported earlier that Peter P and Margaretha gave Grandpa Chris and Grandma Malinda land when they were married. Specifically, they gave the newlyweds 40 of the south 80 acres of the farm south of Lushton and allowed them to purchase the other 40 acres of the south 80 (see further here). My memory also hints that Aunts Sarah and Maria owned the north 80 acres, and I would not be at all surprised if Peter P and Margaretha gave each of their unmarried daughters half of that 80, which was then farmed by Grandpa and Grandma.

Whatever the particulars, I suspect that, if we had the time and resources to look, we would discover that other children of Peter P and Margaretha were provided (access to) land, so that they were able to build their lives and raise their families early on, rather than having to wait for an uncertain future at the passing of their parents. In this regard, Peter P appears (!) to have acted quite differently from his own father Peter D, who seems to have followed a more traditional practice of Mennonite inheritance and land acquisition.

Despite differences and variations, the actions of our near and distant ancestors fit comfortably within the practices and traditions associated with Mennonite partible, bilateral inheritance, matrilocality, and the distribution of assets to children prior to the death of the parents. Our family was Mennonite in orientation and practice, even as it put its own stamp of family values on the actions it took.