24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T424,

Virtually no slave family in the nineteenth-century American South was completely safeguarded from forced separation, yet the extent of family breakups throughout the slave states remains far from clear. Much of the historical debate has focused on the domestic slave trade and its effect on slave family stability, thereby downplaying other methods of forced separation, which were surely just as disruptive, such as local sales and estate divisions. Moreover, few historians have approached the issue of forced separation from a comparative perspective. This article examines the threat of forced separation for slave families living in two distinct communities of the antebellum South, namely, northern Virginia and southern Louisiana. Concluding that the threat of forced separation was inextricably linked to the nature of regional slave-based agriculture, this study shows that time and place mattered and that the threat of forced separation varied for slave families living in different communities.

26:T424,

By matching the population registers with the land tax roster, the authors examine how a family's socioeconomic status, represented by the size of landholding, affected fertility behaviors among Korean women in a village of Jeju Island for the period from 1914 to 1925. Landholding is an important indicator of a family's socioeconomic condition, especially for this historical population, the majority of whom were engaged in agricultural work. The authors' discrete-time event history model shows that women in households with larger landholding sizes had a greater risk of birth than their counterparts in households with smaller landholding sizes. However, the relationship is not linear, showing no significant difference between the two highest groups of landholding. The authors interpret the nonlinear relationship in light of economic and agricultural conditions of the island. They highlight potential contributions of their findings for historical studies of population and families in East Asia.

27:T451,

How the relationship between status and divorce shifts over historical time among industrialized countries remains largely unknown. A socioeconomic growth hypothesis posits that a more recent marriage cohort (relative to a previous cohort) in an industrialized country exhibits (1) larger divorce-suppressive effects of husbands' and wives' higher level of education and (2) a shift from a pattern in which only husbands' education substantially influences the couples' likelihood of divorce to a pattern in which both spouses' education influences that likelihood. The