Okay...let me introduce you to some more FACTUAL HISTORY!
In the last couple of decades of the 19th century, there was recessions, bank closures, and one GIGANTIC depression, that I doubt you have ever heard of. Throw in strikes and deaths due to now curable illnesses and work related incidents or maiming ones, and it adds up to some people having less children, which has been THE NORM, since time began.
Some people ( upper middle to wealthy ) people, of that era could get a form of contraceptive product; however, it was male oriented.
But people in the early years of the 20th century, could and were JAILED for trying to supply/advocate female contraceptives. And it was impossible for a unmarried woman to get one. Which only left illegal abortions as their "way out". The latter choice either leaving the woman dead or sterile.
And no, I am NOT "advocating" abortion; so you can forget about attempting to smear me with that canard.
Some people, for one reason or another have always been sterile.
Some may have had children; however, since many children once died before reaching adulthood, some couples, though they had children, wound up childless.
Then throw in war and illness, which removed one spouse from another, or took away the men whom women were or hoped to marry and never did remarry/marry anyone else...which nipped in the bud having more/any children.
So, diddums, it is YOU who are playing games re your own agenda; not I.
Good bye. When you've read up we can have a chat.
Part of the equation your are referring to, also, was the genuine need to have children when we were more dependent on small farms. 150 years ago a son could be an asset in a completely practical economic and logistical sense by the age of 10 or 12, to a degree that even the most perfect kid couldn’t be now. Not to mention that with the infant mortality rate many parents needed to have 5 kids so that 2 or 3 made it to adulthood.