Jb
Thanks for your comments. O.K., I'll take the challenge. Here's my sales pitch!
Fire away.
Suppose I should have mentioned that when I started there was no information available about my g-grand, Mathias, through the family. Actually, no one even knew his name.
Then you have done commendable work.
In my family, unless you asked, you weren't told.
This seems to be a trait found in many German households. The truth though is that this state of affairs can be found practically everywhere, regardless of race or culture. If such information isn't forthcoming from those 'in the know', then it isn't sought by the youngins until it is too late and the elders are all long gone! And so it goes on Terra Mater... [sigh]
Given this, there is some conjecture here and that is pointed out in my preface that you obviously didn't see.
I read the preface.
We might have some semantic differences. I believe my conclusions are true using common sense and the history that I've learned.
This may be true, but I say be careful betting the barn on your conclusions here.
When I stated, <more people stayed in the cities than had intended after they emigrated, restrained either by poverty or prosperity> I meant this not literally but ironically.
Fair enough. Perhaps it got lost in translation.
Most came here as farmers but many also had some skills.
Again, I'd suggest being careful in your phrasing choices. Most farmers had (have) their own unique skills. They all ran (run) their own businesses, and - as is still the case today - they kept (keep) the rest of us city slickers fed. Farming and soil management skills are not immodest either.
Remembering that St Louis was an embarkation point for the West and much of the Midwest, those with skills found out that they could make a good living in a rapidly growing city.
Understood. But by that very definition, anyone should have found employment rather handily, regardless of the degree of work skills they possessed. Those with higher or in-demand skills simply would be able to pull in more income, which is no different than we find today, especially in areas where jobs happen to be plentiful.
This work was certainly easier than farming and the pay was regular.
Now I'm not sure what <work> you are referring to here. If you mean working in a packinghouse during the winter and at a brickyard during the summer, well I'm not sure than was necessarily easier (though farming is not for the meek, that's a given). The pay being more regular was probably true though (as a straight wage earner).
Therefore, they were, "trapped." Those without money were also, "trapped" as they were forced to go to where the work was.
Well I suppose my biggest quibble would be with the use of some of the buzzwords you have chosen to use. 'Trapped', 'forced', 'restrained' are all rather forceful words, leaving little room for maneuvering. Tour de force words, if you will. As I see it, to be "trapped" (literally -or- figuratively) in a city work environ (or anywhere for that matter), you would have to show evidence somewhere that it was not born of free will, or that Mathias begrudged his lot in being there. Do you know this to be a fact? Is there a passed-down letter perhaps that reflects such sentiments? On the other hand, are you sure he wasn't content to have found quick and gainful employment in America, especially having little command of the extant language, and with but minimal experience with the new customs about him? Though you may be right, you may also be wrong in your conclusions you are drawing here.
When Mathias & cousin arrived, there was a premium on marriageable women and if a spouse died most hustled to remarry as soon as possible. Love was a secondary consideration.
Sad but true more often than not (except in the movies). 
If unsuccessful (as in Mathias's cousins case), the children were placed in an institution.
"Unsuccessful". That word not only presumes a lot, it suggests a lot. Also begs the obvious question: What is success? The amount of money someone manages to squirrel away? Or maybe the power or influence we cast? Or perhaps it is no more than simple happiness? Or knowledge? Enlightenment? Is success the art of serving yourself, or country, or others? Is it the CEO of a Fortune 500 company implementing an outsourcing policy while handing out pink slips from a penthouse suite, or the guy standing in the cold at the supermarket ringing the bell for Salvation Army over the holidays? Seems to me it always comes down to what side of the fence you happen to be standing on.
In your ancestor's case, if he recently lost his wife, had four young mouths to feed, and did not have immediate family who could come to his assistance, then his children might be placed (wisely) in temporary foster care, as many Christian organizations of the day often provide. So many unknown factors though... Was he barely making ends meet as it was? Was he unemployed, or in and out of employment? Did he have personal problems (e.g. drinking or drugs), or a unruly temper that interfered with his duties? Was his health less than perfect? On and on it goes. Or could it have been simply that having to work from sunrise to sunset, he had no one to look after his young children adequately (this might point to a lack of family members in his immediate area to pitch in). The fact that when he remarried his children joined him again suggests the foster care may have been a temporary 'fix' or situation. You may be putting too much stock in his supposedly "unsuccessful" state.
These institutions were not readily available in rural areas. Therefore, he was, "trapped" again.
Well if he was trapped, then perhaps it was self imprisonment. Only you and I don't know this to be a fact. I say again, if you could produce some evidence of his unhappiness at being a day laborer, or something that indicates he dreamt of being a farmer from the time he hit American shores but it took 14 long years to get there, I would say you may be onto something. If not, it remains mere supposition, and not fact. Makes for a nice story line, but it may not be true or valid. And isn't that what we strive for in chronicling our past, at least to get as close to the "truth" (admittedly a slippery concept at best) as we can? Even with our best efforts, we can only begin to touch the surface of our ancestor's lives. We will never have a suitable crystal ball to see things in the kind of depth we might otherwise wish. If something remains unknown or unclear, I say SO BE IT. Better to leave a blank or two or three than to fill such voids with roses.
I always ask myself HOW DO I KNOW THIS? [emphasis on KNOW]. Thus my belief in letting the data collected tell as much of the story as possible. Everything else should be cited as ^So-and-so states/recalls.., or ^My take/hunch is... or ^This may suggest ... etc, etc. The devil, as always, remains in the details.
Don't answer this for a while - enjoy your vacation!
LOL. It's only due to my vacation time that I can lob out so many missiles STOP! YOU'RE KILLING US! PLEASE RELENT!
Gary, I do admire your all that you've accomplished to date. The work you are doing to document your ancestors' lives speak volumes. I think you will find that in most families, very few will ever take the time to walk down these inspiring, but often trying, paths. Salute!
Jb
