“THE STRANGER IN THE GATES:" EMPLOYER -
REACTIONS TOWARD DOMESTIC SERVANTS IN
AMERICA 1825-1875

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
BLAINE EDWARD MDKINLEY
E1959

. whim-“tie: L-‘Li' '1: ”a?
F} I: 3‘13 we ‘A I? v

Michigan 5:320

University

    
   

MCHIGAN NHIA EU

IIIII IIIIIIII ”I'III

 

 

 

 

 

w ...I IIIIIIII'"

31293 10575 4042_

 

 

 

 

 

4
‘ .
”i

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

"The Stranger in the Gates:" Employer Reactions
Toward Domestic Servants in America, 1825-1875

presented by

Blaine McKinley

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. History

degree in

 

Date November 14, 1969

 

0-169

not!
A.

 

   

We»

W”! I.
W’IIII'

 

”He-In
awe”

W90!
A 3 0 I399

INOV 122003
052410

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
    
   
   
     
  
    
 
 

'I L,
1 d1" ABSTRACT

.HF ‘I'THE STRANGER IN THE GATES:" EMPLOYER
.4?" ~- _ REACTIONS TOWARD DOMESTIC SERVANTS IN
2'3 I" ' AMERICA 1825-1875

I
Isms.
V

17.661? By

Blaine Edward McKinley

'f‘IAlthough more women were engaged in domestic service
.5 *,AIfin any other occupation in nineteenth-century America,

‘ifljfrthrians have given little attention to the social impor-
v

ekflsg5.§ of domestic work. Those who have dealt with service

ficonscious attitude employers began to demonstrate

' their servants in the Gilded Age. In fact, however,
~“firs before 1860 were as class-conscious and as con-
=§1th acquiring obedient and deferential servants as
.hase'of the seventies. In regard to domestic servants,
iilly stratified attitudes and regulations usually
LI‘with'the Gilded Age had deep roots in the earlier
I'§EEE‘nineteenth century.

hissertation explores the attitudes and responses
employers toward their servants during the
Alhfjthe nineteenth century. Domestic serviCe

:oially valuable opportunity to study class

 

Blaine Edward McKinley

  
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Igghips because in their roles as maSter and servant

“Ier in unusually close association. This investiga-

eith‘e’refore provides a case study of the class con-

Employer reactions have been assessed through popular

'Iiications of the nineteenth century. Etiquette books,

 

 

‘denineteenth century employers consciously attempted
.rce social distance between themselves and their
{fis._ They desired and worked to produce domestic

* Lwho would "know their place," bear their burdens

§y, and submit deferentially to the regulations pre-
§Or them. Masters wanted service to be based not on
, e principles but on traditional and stratified

4§£‘master and man. Employers regarded their

'child-like, vulgar, and undisciplined. It was

 

Blaine Edward McKinley

   
  
 
   
    
  
   
   

alize such values as obedience and deference.

EéSes undertook the duty of uplifting the benighted

I
2“ '

.rand training her to be virtuous and "useful." Such

IG and benevolent employer; it was meant to produce

,'
..3'
Its

file domestics who would defer willingly to the superior

t

Egrfgmént of their social betters. The benevolent kindness

3% Thervants advocated by many writers implied no concession

D‘.

gdft‘domestics were to be accepted as social equals.

I"

. :ér and servant also accented and institutionalized the
“differences between the two parties. Such class
“i_ons were apparent in employers' reactions concerning

rs of dress, social etiquette, meals, and the construc-

 

Blaine Edward McKinley

    
  
   
   
  
  
   
  
    
     
   
  
 
 
 

:fiahhied servants access to the family table and planned their
{‘ houses to keep them inconspicuous lest domestics disturb
wemployers or contaminate their children with lower—class

4‘. habits and manners.”

These class—conscious attitudes were intensified by,

".. though not dependent on, the significant place of Irish
i, [f I
g-a

immigrants in domestic service. Important as domestics

as early as the 1820's, the Irish became virtually synony-
.mous with servants after 1850. Because of their peasant
3 background, Catholic religion, and "alien" habits, Irish
servants were regarded with contempt by employers who
preferred native AmeriCan girls, who were assumed to be

.more neat and intelligent. The presence of Irish servants

v

q‘tended to widen the social gap between mistress and maid

. tensions. This process was well under way before 1860.

4 ”’5‘.

‘ £5 In the mid-nineteenth century employers of domestic
;;?§ervants clung to paternalistic assumptions and regulations,

fifléhforced rules which made it clear that the interests of

y of those who served them. These conditions Were as
Eefore 1850 as they were after the Civil War; the
ental attitudes and regulations of employers changed

"between the Age of Jackson and the Gilded Age.

I

 

     
  

“THE STRANGER IN THE GATES:" EMPLOYER
REACTIONS TOWARD DOMESTIC SERVANTS IN
AMERICA 1825-1875

By
Blaine Edward McKinley

i UPI:

AE‘T‘.

:5
,2

-
‘z‘ds
.

‘ ‘ (4‘1,

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
ial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

' I- DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
519-“ ‘- I I
Department of History

x' '55?

Ea. __ 1969

 

PREFACE

   
  
    
 
   
   
   
   

.“:i“hrpomestic service was numerically and socially the
gifiimportant women's occupation in the nineteenth
“fiury. Numerically, more women earned their living by
Magvmenial work in the homes of wealthier citizens than
~ igny other way. Socially, in the roles of servant and
gtgrfthe lower class and the middle and upper classes
:fitogether in uniquely intimate association. The live—

' wdomestic was the member of the lower class with whom

rmiddle and upper classes, especially ladies, had the

,fown homes, the chance to observe and the necessity

'F1 with lower-class persons.
msgious century, it has received scant attention from

1ghs. Most'scholars have simply ignored the occupa-

“studies have addressed themselves in depth to the

‘ sh, The Rise of the Common Man, 1830-1850 and

V. U , 11

 

    
    
        
  

Escan service in historical perspective in the opening

:{Qters of her sociological study Domestic Service.

V};§fith the statements of Americans. Recent popular writers
"'

;at the Butler Saw: Two Hundred and Fifty Years of the

:/t Problem, which is principally devoted to service in

-"dimaterials for the post-Civil War years, each makes
idistinction between the democratic service allegedly
whefore 1860 and the class-conscious service standard
‘Bfié, A consistent and thorough use of American source
é§hroughout the period shows that this sudden, sharp
, is unwarranted. In fact, the conditions of service
cpmsistent and less democratic than these authors

“ed, An occupation employing almost 32,000
iii

.A

 

05.1n New Yerk City alone in 1855 deserves consider-

:p‘mbre historical attention than it has thus far

  
   
   
 
   
  
  
  
    
  
   
  
  
 
  
  

~~Vi§l0~wmis dissertation is intended to open up domestic

b

L .
“I; be as an area of investigation by assessing the
‘7 reactions displayed by employers in dealing with

é'ifibfir domestics. I have explored what seem to me to be

3

‘0‘ ’5 .
gfvhghhmost significant and interesting reactions of

It,

\ “‘fTIIOyers toward those lower-class persons living within
?';}é in homes and performing their household labor. Because

tithe close, daily contact between lower—class employees
55*middle to upper-class employers, the class attitudes

I fresponses of employers were clearly formulated and

fvfased in regard to servants. My examination will

Jfore provide not only an analysis of the nature and

:5’ter of domestic service in the mid-nineteenth century

"":

.i;;{aaso a case study of the class opinions held by the
4‘7 flevelsaof society, and of their actions based on
:»}B§inions, through focusing on their reactions toward
éfric group of lower-class persons with whom they
“igll:acquainted.

ff libroad implications of this study suggest that
glwho were the persons in control of the economic,
itducational, and publishing institutions of
“irehunwilling to accept their poorer countrymen

Qfldls.' The basic assumption of the employing

iv

 

  
     
   
  
   
   
 
   
     

oily, culturally, and morally inferior—-that they were
*.,’ignorant, and undisciplined. On the one hand, this '

-rast between their own refinement and the vulgarity of

Llewer classes made employers think of their social

7 4~gmfleriors" as distasteful persons to be excluded from con—

7?.”fgft with_the polite and genteel. On the other hand, this

. cgsme assumption led to a conviction that the middle and upper

-. I. ,.

'fi397ia38es had a paternal duty to uplift and improve the lower
1

e.
. '.

n ATaSSes by training them in the standards and values which
. Cigar persons thought proper and best for them. Thus religious
' é£fi§truction and vocational education were meant to discipline
;* lower classes and make them satisfied with their sub—

The lower classes were supposed to respond

ldftional concepts of master and man. Furthermore,

'Iinfmany ways successful in enforcing conditions

‘

  
   
  
  
 
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  

3. Most masters and mistresses consistently opposed
'apractial implementation of social equality, clung to
flfigternalistic assumptions and regulations, enforced rules

ifiEhieh made it clear that the interests of the employer

1
I.
:e-

08

‘twene superior to the interests of the employee, required
d}; fifigferential social conduct from domestics, and believed
{:'fi1rmly in the mental and cultural inferiority of those who

fl 1‘serVed them. These conditions were as true during the

aus social commentary in the nineteenth century.

‘ges’ periodicals, general- -interest magazines, household
its, etiquette books, and a variety of other publica—
vcommented on the nature of the master-servant
onship in America and included pieces of advice to
epers on the handling of their servants. This
.“published material dealing with domestic service

;d.the basis of my investigation. Throughout, I
ggive of employer attitudes generally. This

vi

> . x. "
U c.._ V .
.J' - ,

 

  
    
   
    
  
 
 
  
  
  
  

egtitudes and policies of employers agreed as to
. the dominant assumptions and goals of employers
only their evaluation of these accepted facts

Unfortunately, it has been impossible to

‘anéer lower-class groups in nineteenth-century America,
'u-{fijmeStics left little or no record of their own experi-
H Even collections of immigrants' letters have not.
Lséen helpful in this regard. Therefore, this dissertation
‘ mfgé been based upon material written by and for employers
geESeIVes.

3'
- ',;- Several points concerning the limitations of scope

This system, however, was rare in the nineteenth
"for,cooks, chambermaids, waitresses, and nurses.

'I am concerned only with service in the Northern

ifof published information from the previous century

    
 
    
    
    
     
  
  
 
   

LFz‘jtheir male counterparts. Therefore, I have also
. :hfiiéentrated on female domestics. Finally, it should
:‘fl:5r§nderst00d that I have discussed domestic service
3.3ncipally as it existed in an urban or urban—oriented

H

tting where domestics were much more numerous than in

.nral regions. Nineteenth century authors usually
‘Eeated service as an institution of cities, country
?f_7f§wns, and country areas within the social orbit of
ffurban’centers.

-This investigation covers the second and third
”:rters of the nineteenth century, the 1820's through
.v1870'si I have begun with the 1820's principally
muse during that decade there appeared for the first
' large circulation literature written by Americans
'_ designed for the growing number of American women

'eisure time. With the twenties came the gift

sadnessays was The Casket (1826), which later

.‘TTaham's Monthly Magazine. In 1828 Mrs. Sarah

 

 

Wed-in 1836 with Godey's gady's Book, itself
§SEEd in_1830. This expanding body of

i ‘ ,viii

 

'.."
I
v., y'

p

  

    
   
    
    
   
  
    
  
     
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

a“.
~rerature devoted to sentimental fiction and domestic

iics implies that in the twenties American ladies,
:15 through employing servants, were gaining more leisure
.atime for reading and were beginning to constitute a

A g;' substantial literary market. Along with the advice on
.:;§:,30cia1 topics offered by the magazines, manuals on a
.3f'flvariety of subjects written by Americans specifically
~_};gfbr Americans also became more numerous during the

.Jelgitwenties. Americans were exhibiting an increasing
f 1:.goncern for the proprieties and niceties of social and‘
if; .home life. In this decade employers demonstrated a
7;: ?grow1ng awareness of questions involving domestic service,
hfigan awareness reflected in the publication of tracts

1- designed to instruct domestics in their duties and social

~ Afinligations to their employers and in the creation of
v r:J_ _

:hfifiears disappeared from domestic service; henceforth

;' ers were forced to rely, except in the case of
Ekforphans and vagrant children, on free labor.

{“At the Other end of my time span, the 1870's provide
ffil stopping point because the conditions and lines
fitsion concerning service seem to have altered in

pal respects beginning with the late seventies.

ix

 

   
  
  
  
   
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  

égivthing, the decade roughly corresponds with the
a? the period of the closest connection between the
”lb immigrant and domestic service. While the ster-
"f g %9ped Irish Bridget remained the most commonly discussed
“éamestic after 1875, writers began to feel less dependent
_J @fi her; they noted increasing numbers of Scandanavians,
15-,fiegroes, and other ethnic groups entering the occupation.
-Becond, the process of simplifying domestic labor began
to emerge in the late seventies and the eighties.
?,r§1though the greatest triumphs of household mechanization
E-‘fi1fl not occur until the turn of the century, the process
‘fifiich was eventually to eliminate service as a major
'-.£dcia1 question began about 1880. Developments such as
_iiable washing machines, reasonably priced commercial
ldries, and improved bakery products began to lessen
7§ractica1 necessity for the employer to retain
;¥1n service. One reflection of these developments
Lwhat beginning with the late 1870's servants began
Ilgflégpeive more free time than had generally been granted
- ”»§i increasingly domestics were granted portions of
_ys a week for their own use instead of the earlier‘

tion to one evening or "half-day" per week. For

‘ easons, the years after 1875 seem to have brought

 

j u".
r y'. A
2'

- j sing my graduate work and in the preparation of *' , 1

  
 
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
  
 
  

z_ntest debt is to Professor Douglas T. Miller, my

A director, who suggested domestic service as a topic
'hvestigation. Without Dr. Miller's helpful advice
--ghi¢0nstant encouragement, this dissertation could not
been completed. Special thanks are also due to
ssor Gilman M. Ostrander for guiding the earlier

a of my graduate work and to Professors Robert E.

3“ and Marjorie Gesner for their continued kindness
Séssistance. In my research I received special help
‘the courteous staffs of the New York Public Library,
fiewefork Historical Society, the Free Library of
‘~glphia, the Pennsylvania Historical Society, the
égn Philosophical Society, the Michigan State

v, and the libraries of the University of Michigan

\

u ' ~
fihigan,3tate University.

fw : xi

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

     

Page
. C I O O . C I O O I 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
: {EEBIEXTENT AND CONDITIONS OF DOMESTIC SERVICE,
, I“ ;.18 THE MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY . . . . -. . 1
‘ LOYBR PATERNALISM AND THE MASTER-SERVANT
“LATI ON . O C O O O C C O C O 5 5
afithBLE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SERVANTS. . . 99
7 ..H SERVANTS AND THE DESIRE FOR ETHNIC
”3,.H0MDGENEITY. . . . . . . . . . 1u8
5;?"aé DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE HOME . . . . . 191

5 TIC SERVICE AND DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. . . 236

*o; a ESSAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28“

xii

 

LIST OF TABLES

  
 
  
   
  
   
   
    
   

Page {
_~at1c Servants in Major Northern Cities,
1870 ‘I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7
““ton Families Employing Servants, 18N5. . . . 17

x}? $359 Weekly Wages of Domestics, 1850- 1870 . . 22
. '_
"" ups. of Business Reported Annually at the

t ‘hegistry Offices of the Societies for

 : ‘RI1thful Domestics. . . . . . . . . 102

, ‘.
‘ 1.

y1ty of Servants Applying to the New York
society for the Encouragement of Faithful
"' . "Wiles I I I I I I I I I I I I I 151

Q 1ty of Domestic Servants in Northern
hates, 1870.. . .1 . . . . . . . . 15h

.2? “wity of Domestic Servants in Major
Iflgrth‘em Cities, 1870. . . . . . . 155

xiii

 

CHAPTER I

THE EXTENT AND CONDITIONS OF DOMESTIC

 

SERVICE IN THE MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY

‘ .1. In investigating employer attitudes toward servants,
it is necessary first to lOOk into the nature and extent
ijT iof domestic service between 1825 and 1875. This chapter,

therefore, will examine the number of domestic servants,

  
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  

;Hhere they were most common, who employed them, the nature

‘ of their duties and daily routine, and their wages and

‘ ‘ 3hours. The long hours and severely restricted leisure time
‘ef the domestic were especially important points in limiting
:the personal freedom of the employee and in making service
.;;y;n-occupation to be shunned. Finally, attention will be
..Iaimected to employer reactions toward the relatively high

hover of domestic workers.

I

fgIn the nineteenth century more women were employed

.Ajestic service than in any other single occupation.
‘gga1e, the 1870 census recorded 139,271 female

ice for New York state, over half of the 257,039

 

  
  
   
     
     
  
  
   
   
 
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  

New Yerk. Similarly, in New Jersey and Pennsylvania
dker half of all employed women were at service while in
N.::Jfiduestern states such as Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio as
Igti-Vmany as two-thirds of all employed females were domestics.
.“10h1y 1n the industrialized regions of New England did
" damestics make up less than half the total female labor
1*"jgfiorce. In Massachusetts h3,508 of the 128,301 employed
lv'zzwémen were servants; Vermont was the only New England state
W;i:fihere domestics comprised over half of the working female
.“;€populatiOn.l

i;%g?- Large numbers of women in major cities were employed
—;§5‘ servants. Including female residents of all ages, one
':.:at every eleven females in New York City in 1870 was a

5 «u;stic. In Philadelphia it was one of every 15.7 females
' :gfin New Haven one of every 12.5. The proportion of
Iswin service was not very different in the growing
.es‘of the Midwest. In Chicago one of every twelve

es was a servant; in Milwaukee one Of every 1h.8; in

{polis one of every 1N.5. If figures were available

on of females of working age in service would be

irably higher, of course. In Boston in 18H5, for

 

   
     

\
47
I ~‘

I. 31"
.61)

       
  
  
 
    
   

o

» m-

d

g... ,. . .

.‘ .a total of 570,05“ domestics, an increase of 20.5 percent
4

‘1.
1,.

‘nmore to place servants in the houses of the people . . .

.a' -‘
§f¢~H1 Because of varying methods of classification, it is

‘ ffiifificult to compare the figures from the 1870 census with

3 ftfihese from earlier enumerations. For example, writing of

Nthe 1870 census which he had compiled, Francis A. Walker

noted that the sixteen pre—Civil War free states contained
1

'over the 1860 figure for these same states. In the same

'decade, however, the population of these states had grown

.slightly over twenty—seven per cent. Walker mentioned this

failure of the servant population to increase as rapidly
as,the general population with surprise, stating that the

1870 count had been expected to reveal a trend "more and
"3

v

Dart of this lag may be attributed to the fact that whereas

511870. In addition, pre-1870 censuses in rural areas

en counted farm laborers with servants. This was appar-
Iy done in the New York state censuses for 1855 and 1865

,‘prObably also in the 1860 national census for New York.

   
  

5‘ QQTVants in private families in New York City went from

t'C*§gfiut One in every twenty-one New Yorkers in 1855 to one

   
  
 
 
  
   
  
 
  
 
   
  
   
  
  
  

ghineteen in 1870. In 18u5 the city of Boston had A875

- gffigrvants in private homes and a total population Of 11H,336,
"g .

T"

.9; one servant in every 23.5 residents. By 1870, after
waves of Irish immigrants, Boston had one servant in every
‘1‘ eighteen inhabitants. Assuming that ten per cent of all

"IL? Boston servants in l8u5 were males, about one female
’7'.“

. ‘resident in every thirteen was a domestic servant; in 1870
\ ~ ,
r

‘-WN the proportion was one of every ten. However, while sta-

Y'3__%istica11y there had been one servant for every 3.9 private
.%$,FBamilies in Boston in l8u5, in 1870 there was one servant
gigfibr every 3.5 families, a much smaller increase than that

.h ;
1‘,@£.servants to total population.“ These figures suggest

-E‘jfihat, with the influx of Irish immigrants, approximately

{'éfih same proportion of Boston families employed servants in

5 as in 1870 and that the relative increase in the

ifs of servants.
= -Although in 1870 domestics were proportionately most
tons in Boston and New York City, servants were nearly

39 on in Midwestern cities as in most Eastern urban

'for every 5.3 Philadelphia familes. Western cities

9er. of domestics tended to go into the creation of larger

 

    
    
   
  
    
    
 

thic per A. A familes, Chicago one per A.5, and

' ianapolis one per A. 9. The respective ratios of servants '
fi fivflamiles in Albany and Milwaukee, which were of nearly

PEA—W§q§al size, were 1:5.2 and 1:5.5. While Cleveland had only

‘-I
f.rgne'servant for every 6.6 families, Jersey City had only
.I

3"“ ions to every 6.3. Nor were domestics necessarily less

A 1 cemmon in smaller cities than in larger ones. New Haven
5&2,
ff'” “and Indianapolis, for instance, had proportionately as many

t
Y s -
( V

itiéemestics as Brooklyn and more than Philadelphia. Servants

c,

J
I
O

i;

{.I,

   

J

‘nere thus a prominant part of urban life in both Eastern
{ and Midwestern cities, in both large cities and small. It

Seems especially significant that domestics were as numerous

2' $536 social structure of cities such as Chicago,

iianapolis, and Milwaukee may not have been significantly

the ratio fell to one per 7.3 families when the

even largest cities were excluded. Without Boston

‘

 

   
  
  

A‘ii ngSies, Pennsylvania's ratio was one servant to each 9.8
.fl&%F-t g§ilies. The difference was still greater in Midwestern
A "‘%$Stes, where there were fewer towns. Outside Chicago,
-i"wimflinois had only one servant per 12. 7 familes; Wisconsin
iii 5326 Only one per 11.3 excluding Milwaukee. The remaining

P.€
“,.ddmestics outside the major cities were probably concen-
u .V

‘éffihted in country towns and in suburban and "country"

  
     
  
  
  
  
  
  

éareas within the orbit of the major cities. Suburban areas

‘

lead” ..V :

idround Boston, New York, and Philadelphia included the

-u§§cpuntry seats" of many substantial citizens. Servants were

.‘
l

_ r
I

.
_ ' ~30

§t§marily a feature of urbanized areas and were uncommon
Ifeiclusively rural regions. William A. Alcott's comment
it "the custom of keeping servants has not yet found its
Tyery far beyond the precincts of our cities, towns,
ivillages" was probably about as true in 1870 as when
g:t made it in the 1830's.6
While it is very difficult to discuss the economic

,¥='§On of those who employed domestics, the 18A5 Boston

 

.pHthmQ how pmmhw zan¢a50fipuwn ma hogan on»
mzuwo comm pom omopoomh mm: mpcm>pom no A0953: swan zHQMCOmmoacs cm mmsmomn omvsaoxo comp o>wn
chm>Hmmccom .scmnwmfifi< ecu cmwficofiz .sfiotpoo .nomumsp .Qg .HHxxx mflpme.mmmouapm .qq .>xx magma

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

. mm .a .Hxx magma .Amswfi .cOpwcfinmmzN‘mmwmpm empficp map 2H :oauMasmom co monumfipapm 029 .H
.mmpho om wsmcoou .mmpmpm woods: on» mo msmcmo sunfiz one ..QEoo .meamz .< mHosmnm Seam
m.m H mmm.m m.ma H oos.0m ow:.H mm mmm.a moa.az ampmoogozk
0.: H ssm.w m.mH H mmm.am o¢m.a 22H smm.fi Hmo.m: mascotsm
o.s H mom.m o.om H mmo.sm mmH.H HmH smm.fl mmz.m: .sope
m.: H oom.a m.:H H mmm.mm mmm.H wmm mmm.H znm.m: mfiaoamcmflocH
m.: H mm:.oa m.mH H mam.mm . smo.m HOH mma.m o:m.om. cm>mm zwz
m.m H MHN.NH s.ma H mmfi.mm oam.a am 3mm.fl mmm.mm. .amummsoom
m.m H msa.:fl m.:H H mmm.mm mmm.m mwm o:w.m :om.wm mocmefi>opm
m.m H moa.:a m.:H H mfiw.mm mH:.m mom :ms.m mm:.mm . scmnfl<
m.m H mmm.:a m.sH H mmfi.mm mmz.m 02H msm.m 0:3.Hs mmxzmzafiz
m.m H www.mfi :.mfi H :sm.H: :mm.m NHH mom.m m:m.mm spfio sumams
w.m H mwfi.mfi m.mH H :mm.mz :mm.m mHm smm.m mso.mm swasnmppflm
7. m.m H HH:.mH mafia mmo.m: mam.m mam sws.m mmm.wm ccmao>mao
H.m H Hmo.Hm Hmufi mae.mm mam.m Hmfi oww.m mmo.moa xnmzmz
m.m H mmm.mm m.sH H moo.mm smm.m mmw mom.: :HN.NHH onmmsm
1.: H mmm.om mHNH Hmm.mm mmo.z mzsm oom.o . ms=.msd oowfiocmpm cam
o.m"H smm.mz s.ma H sms.mOH mHo.w mom mmm.w mmm.oam Hpmccfiocfio
m.m fl mwfi.ws N.OH H mom.oma wm5.ma mmmfi mmo.nfl mmm.omm .copmom
m.: H sm:.mm mama m=H.m:H www.mH Ham www.ma sem.mmm owNOHno
m.: H . mmo.om m.mH H Hso.mom mmm.ma mam mom.ma mmo.mmm czaxootm
m.mHH mas.sma ~.mH H m:m.mmm mmz.mm ommfi moa.:m mmo.:sm mfignflmumaficm
s.m H mms.mma m.HH H msfl.mw: mam.mz sons 0:3.m: www.msm x90» :02
£903 JN .dQSdH .ddTm UH OW SO .d
8309 EH 0099? 030 03. 08 30 .W
mmwm mw mammm wwm mm mm “w n
T950 Ia .LeWIO IIT. ST. s as T..
Tug TrJ 9w 3 93 1.3. A» U3. 9. .
83.1.0 3 1.91. O 1. Tr Tr 3T: 3
8901.. so ITS J I. o a so I
T... 03 O S S .0 .
M . u u . u

 

osma .mofipfio anunpnoz scam: eugunawtsymw

L

 

    
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

shy an occupant. Of these 3361 units, 2525 were single
_y homes and another 661 were two family houses.7 Thus
~"Were only 3186 families occupying one and two family

‘ ififiees which theyhowned. The number of home owners and of
Employers of servants were approximately the same, the ‘
f’T‘finilies employing domestics slightly exceeding the number
{get owner-occupying families of one and two family units.

H I! comparatively few Boston families employed servants, so
:- also did relatively few own their own homes. While some

' I

éh'ienters surely hired servants and some home owners did not,
'iflt seems fair to assume that there would be a high degree
;§ 3%? correlation between home ownership and the hiring of
':.:N.rvants since home owners would be, in general, the most

. :néially secure portion of the community and the most

e. to afford live-in domestics.

While only a minority of American families employed
ts, domestics were probably nearly universal among
Ԥ-at the upper income levels. Servants were standard

. g the families of the well-to-do and the more substantial
.ts of the urbanized middle class. However, architects
ntly added a servant's room to relatively modest

:of six or seven rooms which would seem to indicate
:Lrvants were often hired by middle—class families with
tively "moderate" incomes. Writers discussing the
’problem tended to connect the employment of domes—

‘the "middle class" and the families of "moderate

finch statements indicate that writers thought

   
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
 
   
  
  
  
  
  

g39d as an important part of the life of the urban and

, [:6mi-urban middle and upper—middle classes. Hired primarily

7‘

'f

i P§ professional and commercial families, servants were

’

.7" I 1"
I? f;

firebably uncommon among clerks, shopkeepers, and independent

tradesmen, who might be considered to comprise the lower

middle class.

II

rudgery." In the mid-nineteenth century few laborsaving
vices eased household labor. Carpets had to be swept
j:brooms, reliable washing machines had not yet been
loped, and the preparation of meals was long and

' lved. The term "lady" was reserved for women possessing
ieisure time, and in cities and towns it was considered
geary to employ one or more domestics to provide the

as with time for reading, calling, engaging in church,
able, and social activities, and otherwise maintaining
ition as a "lady." While their husbands went to work
is considerable numbers of middle and upper-class women

"ning substantial leisure time by employing

   
 
 
   
  
   
   
  
    
   

10

.-Q '
‘ ”3'
\9'3

1.4%: According to the idealized nineteenth—century theory

:;-£f§@éomplish her special "mission" within the home. The
'5; F<”;,»:';a.1‘¢3;l.a.l task of the wife and mother was to shape the
w‘;w‘iéfiaracter and habits of her husband and children; her moral
';};gjand‘spiritual influence was to be the purifying agent in
-I: the household. Women could most effectively influence

' Tiéficiety at large by improving their own husbands and off-
'I;-.'s\,p-ri::ng'.~ The lady should strive to make her home a "Garden
fish Eden," a pure "sanctuary" where her husband could retire

‘1 JR r refreshment from the cares and evils of the world of

L.Vpufiiness. With her "moral influence" a mother was respon—

‘aible for instructing and nurturing her children in the
vinghest duties of morality, religion, and republicanism.

flflrs. Graves put it, the housekeeper's principal function

'fng f? and "soften and refine and elevate" the character

0

   
   
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
    
  
  
     

ll '

99the menial work of the household. She needed leisure
NJ H‘ $§§Me to care for and instruct her children, improve her own
inh‘bellect so as to be a better companion to her husband,

_ and attend to the small refinements which made home life
.;k more enjoyable. This argument was the most often expressed
' {fr rationale for hiring domestics. Without servants the
Iixmistress would have to become a mere "drudge," and her
‘-;more elevated responsibilities would go unfulfilled; she
t“fiould be unable to develop the finer aspects of home life
i: or her own nature. Mrs. Graves argued that "the highest
duties of the mother, therefore, and 'the maid of all work'
”I:wou1d appear to be incompatible." It was impossible for
?$;the Iady to do her own housework "with her own hands, and
pave time for the more important duties resting on her as a

",:.&ife and a mother. " Virginia Townsend, the editor
v” '1‘“

Wthur'S Home Magazine, agreed that the woman who did her

  
   
  
  
   
  
    
  
     
  

V housework

‘3.1'has usually little time or strength left for mental
' g“ar social improvement. The probabilities certainly
<6: rare that she could more wisely expend her time than
:in an absorbing round of household duties, be a
;.~w1ser and more agreeable companion for her husband,
’58 more competent and truer mother to her children by
I,« enriching her own intellect . . . .

'1 of education and wealth should be "something more than

-s in soap suds . . . and turners of the spit."

‘hey can afford to hire others to perform
. ‘There is every reason, on the contrary,
1 hey should not. With the superior education

12

   
 

. they are presumed to possess, they ought not

. to be so absorbed with the smaller, as to have
no time to engage in the greater labors of life,
of which they may be capable . . . . It is not
creditable—-it is, in fact, quite the reverse--
‘for a woman with the means and opportunity to

. accomplish greater things, to have it in her

5;.I, I. power to boast that she has done for herself

' '. ‘ what any poor and ignorant creature would havell

been very glad and able to do for her . . . .

.; . Carried one stop further this argument led to the
[FBE' position that "the existence of civilization" itself was
'{fi dependent "on the existence of a class of servants." As
I I: (one tract for domestics explained,

--_; ,; if there were no mechanics and no servants, then

‘ ” preachers and writers, and all such as have gained

a good education, would have to get their own food

and clothes, and do housework for themselves. And

, that would keep them busy all day long, and every
3,. 'day; so that they would not have time to preach

. ‘” >.and write books, and spread knowledge and religion.

    
 
  
  

12

American families, however, usually retained fewer
“\

.

1“‘iEng‘lish family would have four. Few American establish-

ugh in later years the typical upper-middle-class,

    

inn, city resident might have employed two, three, or

 

IV

a"

13

     
  
 
    
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
    
    
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  

""{“Where only one domestic was kept, she was RDOWH as a

‘de—of-all-work." In her 1857 book on domestic economy,

§ 2§311y routine expected from the maid- of—all-work She was
, % 'td rise early, about 5:30 a. m., in order to complete the
4:4

fdirtier work in the morning so she would be neat and pre—

m.
. “Séntable fer the mistress's afternoon callers. "Before

‘ the family come down" to breakfast, the girl was to clean

h E amd-polish the stove, sweep the first-floor carpets, dust
the furniture, sweep the front steps, shake the mats,
:wprepare the breakfast, and set the table. While the family
[hwate, the domestic was to make the beds and dust the
Uéfifiédrooms. Each family chamber was to be thoroughly cleaned

éfiee a week, "the carpets taken up and shaken, the floor

;51
‘gerubbed the curtains shaken, and the furniture cleaned. "1”

fl; ' After eating her own breakfast, washing the dishes,

ifinishing the upstairs work, it was time for whatever
iial duties belonged to that day of the week. Although
.‘ es varied, the week's work might be organized in the
,éwing manner: washing on Monday, cleaning the attic
piking on Tuesday, ironing on Wednesday, finishing the
% and‘doing odd Jobs on Thursday, sweeping and dusting
I"Ior and dining—room on Friday, and cleaning the
»fialls, and stairs on Saturday. Unless a laundress

'oyed on a daily basis, the mistress cooked and

fighter work on washing and ironing days.15 The

 

1n

   
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
   

servant then prepared the dinner, set the table, and waited
on the table during the principal meal of the day.

Although one handbook for domestics advised them to
be prepared to receive callers by noon or one o'clock, this
would seem to have been impossible for a maid-of—all-work
since dinner was not served until perhaps one or two
o'clock. After dinner the pace of her duties eased consid-
erably; she had only to run errands, attend the front door,
prepare and serve tea or supper, and answer miscellaneous
calls. By mid-afternoon, however, she had already put in
an exacting day.16 I
A maid-of-all—work did not release the employer from
all housework although she did provide her mistress with

a good deal of leisure. While one maid could do most of
'the work for a family of two or three, in a family of five
or six the mistress still had to do much of the lighter
work. Being able to do the work of a family of six "with
.ease," two domestics left the lady of the house generally
free of household labor.l7
When there were two or more domestics, the work load
,was subdivided and made easier for each servant. Domestics
leansidered situations where there were several servants
f3fimre desirable because of the easier labor. If there were
Ljfiflo servants, the cook prepared the meals and was respon-
n; lelfor cleaning thekitchen,rear hall, pantry, cellar,
:1 kitchen stairs. She also washed the dishes and kitchen

113. The other servant functioned as a general

‘

15

     
     
   
  
   
  
 
   

Shambers. She also set the table, waited at the
31y meals, tended the front door, and swept the walk
'_ ya front steps. If no washerwoman were employed, both

'.ih‘cégfimetics were to aid in the washing though the principal

‘t3fi'r.

;, 'i,§esponsibility was generally the cook's.l8

I‘ ‘ .11 I I
3f 5-5“ When a third servant was added, she was referred to
.,2.'.

- 6 :fi‘g.& ”waiter," parlor maid, or "second girl." She cared

Tier the parlor and dining room, set the table, served as .

c. r .
gfihiter at meals, attended the front door, and was respon-

"1

v§§gv§inie for washing and caring for the china, glassware, and .

“Jifiiluer. With three domestics the upstairs girl or chamber-

7d_usually assisted with the family sewing. When there

writer of a household column for The Christian Union,

 

It it would reduce the dislocation and chaos of washing

3 the service areas. Since doing the laundry was a

i15‘work, the servant who did the washing should be

 

   
  

.. ‘-${s, and also doing some of the family sewing. City ‘ 1
1 V Ektablishments of four servants generally consisted of a
{

‘fitcook, parlor maid, chambermaid, and nurse.19
'I

y." Although male servants were always a rather "small. 1
1.. 1
‘ '-c1ass," they could be found in both country and city .
[households. Medium-sized establishments in country houses

‘ f .frequently consisted of two or three female servants plus

;-..

Ia man or boy who drove the carriage, worked in the stable,
- Land perhaps waited at the family table. In Boston, New York,

:§H~ and Philadelphia male servants were also quite numerous.

:Citerstablishments might consist of two or three women

  
  
  
    
  
  
  
   
    
 
  
  

j: along with a footman or waiter who waited at the table,
3i? attended the door, and ran errands.2O
.._ c Men—servants were more common in what E. L. Godkin
1"dalled "rather large, expensive, and complicated" house-

? n!

' i fimdds than in medium—sized establishments. Wealthy families

g8 dozen. Such households might include a butler,
:hman, footman, housekeeper, ladies' maid, scullion,
stress, and laundry maid in addition to a cook, one

jfio nurses, and one or more housemaids. An 18U5 author

rteen servants. As mansions at Newport, along the

and on Fifth Avenue increased in dimensions and osten-

iin number and in size. Writing in 186N, Robert

Ited that

A

 

1?

  
  

(
74"; o

IBut a few years since it would have been rare
to find the wealthiest housekeeper not satis-
fied with three or four [servants]. Now the
. ordinary citizen's wife, whose husband may enjoy
a fair business income for the present, . .
can not do without a complete domestic estab—
lishment from butler to scullion. Laundresses,
ladies' maids, and French bonnes, of whom our
American grandmothers had only read of in
I fashionable novels of the day, have bgiome the
' : . ‘ necessities of their granddaughters.

   
   
 
   
   
   
  
  

h

$ . .
5': f The staffs of servants listed by Lemuel Shattuck in
;” iBeston in 18N5 were smaller than those described as common
’gf: in.major cities after the Civil War. In l8h5 Boston the

s

#875 domestics in private families were distributed among

the 19,037 families:

 

hiring no servants 15,77A

hiring 1 servant 2,19“
hiring 2 servants 729
hiring 3 servants 20H
hiring U servants 91
hiring 5 servants 31
hiring 6 servants . 8
hiring 7 servants u
hiring 8 servants 2

 

ding" town house residents. In addition, there

requently a parlor maid; a nurse was considered

 

18

    
     
   
   
   
  
  
       
  
  

Even many town houses regarded as "small" were " 1
. l

éfitended by three servants. One employer, speaking pri— ‘

,u;

““garily of cities, maintained that

.0

.‘:¥

d-_

.—

D

at least a couple of servants are indispensable
... in any family where the mistress does not take
. on herself a considerable amount of housework;
. _ . and even the staff of many moderate, middle—
‘ class houses includes cook, house-maid, parlor—
,maid, and one or two nurses, each with definite
and specific duties, and this division of labor
6 y is continually being carried further.
,.E0uses built in Boston's Back Bay section in the 1860's
always included at least three small individual rooms for

.':?Bervants, and three seems to have been the usual number
r':

l-idI-servants retained in these houses.22 As was mentioned

v
.

jzhbove, the number of servants in Boston grew faster than

ase. By the 1860's the staffs of town houses in large

III

8 as room and board. The wages obtained by domestics

V§»generally stable between the 1820's and 1850. In

5‘: "r 19 '

    
    
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

fengflaeeived eight to twelve dollars a month. In 1830 Carey

I a” figurther concluded that $1. 25 was the average weekly wage

1.: for a Philadelphia maid-servant. In New York City wages
.;::Were said to have risen from four or five dollars a month

. 1ni$26~to six dollars in 1835. An 1832 study, however,

‘1; ifOund servants' wages in the city to average $1.25 a week

1 while the price of labor elsewhere in the New York state

‘ varied from 75¢ to one dollar. The average rate of $1.05
a week given by the 1850 census for New York state is about

1

vs the same as the rate given by the 1832 evaluation. Wages

.

‘3;; 1n New York City in 18N5 were said to range from four dollars
A .3: month for raw maids- of—all—work to eight to ten dollars

.: : experienced cooks, nurses, and ladies' maids; good
fig? neral housemaids received five or six dollars, what they

ites for domestics remained more stable. Virginia
towever, gave the wages of New York domestics as
y employment offices for 1857, the year of the panic,

.flgllars for raw maids—of—all-work, five dollars

20

 
   
   
   
 
  
   
  
   

;1average" housemaids, six or seven for good ones,

lfifia seven or eight dollars for good cooks, approximately

V‘-$§e same rates as those given in 1835 and 18115.2“ I

3 "7‘5- As indicated by Table 3 wage rates varied widely
‘from state to state in 1850. Outside of California, wages
for female domestics were highest in New England, where

. industry offered serious competition for workers. Average

‘i‘ Weekly wages were considerably lower in the Mid—Atlantic

i..states, especially in Pennsylvania. In the Midwestern free

‘gstates wages ranged from 96¢ a week in Ohio to $1.27 in

‘1‘,

.Misconsin but remained below those obtainable in most of
Jriflé" England. By 1860 wages had become more uniform although
”fer England's were still the highest and those of the Mid—
igéélantic region the lowest.

-E-AIJ Servants' wages rose rapidly during the Civil War

‘the following years. In the 1860's wages went up from
Qekly average of $1.50 in New England in 1860 to $2.h5

$810, a sixty—three per cent increase; in the Mid-

 

tic states wages rose sixty-eight per cent, from $1.2“

' 08 a week. Although servants' real wages surely

:.in real income. Nationally, consumer prices stood

 

21

   
  
  
     
   
  
  
  
   
   
   
  
  
  
   
   
  

in the North. Since fuel, food, and lodging were

¢ laVided for the servant in addition to wages, the price ‘
\~1,L’

A§?*elothing is especially important for evaluating the

Tv
:5”: ;reél Wages of domestics. During the war years clothing '

3 feasts rose more than those of other items, reaching a

. yieVél of 261 in 186“. Thereafter, however, the price of
c1othing dropped more rapidly than that of other goods.

QTjInsrelation to 1860 prices, by 1870 clothing costs were

' g? feta level of 11:1 while the price of food was at 157.

‘Gehsidering this estimation,Northern servants probably made
25

n
-E::‘80me modest gains in real wages for the decade as a whole.
1 ’ 1 They made more rapid advances in the next five years,
hawever because wages continued to rise from 1870 to 1875
E Qhough consumer prices steadily declined. In 1870 wages
Einquw York City ranged between ten and fourteen dollars,
-';{§¥ by 1872 James McCabe gave the rates of a New York

Tn} rmaid as from twelve to fifteen dollars with cooks

VG d011ars in 1875. According to one estimate, wages
isylvania went from $7.88 a month in 1870 to $8.H0 in
:qIn these same years the index of consumer prices,

$860 as the base year of 100, dropped from 157 in 1870

saduring these years. By the mid—seventies cloth-

'f-which continued to decline more rapidly than

 

  

22

. .—-Average weekly wages of domestics, 1850-1870.

 

 

  
   
   

1850 1860 1870

:.% England $1.35 $1.50 $2.u5

gffi 1.09 1.32 2.53

‘m; aw Hampshire 1.27 1.63 2.58

3, 13; 1.19 1.31 2.uu

‘ %; asachusetts l.h8 1.58 2.37

.fl~';.4flhede Island 1.u2 1.50 2.78

' l‘lQonnecticut 1.63 1.50 2.4M

.LJw-e Atlantic .96 1.2u 2.08

' a men York 1.05 1.25 2.22

... new Jersey .97 1.23 2.05

'w Pennsylvania .80 1.22 1.83
rt"?

central 1.06 1.33 2.1“

'.96 1.22 1.98

.90 1.28 2.11

1.1” 1.N6 2.19

1.10 l.u0 2.30

1.27 1.30 2.05

 

 

 

From Stanley Lebergott,
ibis n Record Since 1800

Man ower in Economic Growth:

.Tfi2___

ew York,

,p-

 

23

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  

“1Mflfioughout the century wealthy families, of course, paid

\

Efiigher than average wages in order to secure the most able
:=.and experienced domestics.27
' VWages by no means comprised the employer's total
Lexpense in maintaining a live-in domestic. In addition
to her wages, the servant received her room and board, a
‘f;8ubstantial expense to her employers. One 1835 calculation
‘ was that the food and lodging of a servant were worth
L—fl»“§etween eighty and one hundred dollars a year; Sarah Hale
lestimated these costs at about two dollars a week in the
3 Same decade, more than the weekly wages of most female
servants. Mrs. Ellet advised her readers in 1857 that "$100,
HF‘exelusive of wages, is the lowest at which the keep of a
abrvant can be estimated". per year. The expenses involved
in keeping a servant also rose sharply after 1860.
1112s Loring Brace figured the total cost of retaining a
ambermaid in New York in 1865 at $258, $108 in wages
.:;§150 in keep. In 1869 Catherine Beecher and her sister,

 

2n-

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
    
    
  
  

The wages of the domestic consistently compared
fiayorably with those available in the other principal
,9ecupation open to relatively unskilled female labor, the
$ewing trades. Writers were no doubt correct when they

. pointed out that a seamstress could earn more money if she
fvfia' went into service and that the domestic had a much better

I opportunity to save for the future. In New England's cotton
-_ mills wages were about the same as those obtainable in

:4 irservice; but in the case of the needle trades, when the
costs of room and board are considered, the financial advan—
tage clearly lay with service, In 1828 Mathew Carey,
shocked at discovering a large number of destitute sewing
.women in Philadelphia, launched a campaign in behalf of the
;: Seamstresses who worked from dawn until dark to earn $1.00

'3? or, at most, $1.25 per week. Carey pointed out that a woman

u.
1

-1L??fi§id the highest rate for piece work, 12.5¢ per shirt or

w". 2..

;u this she paid fifty cents per week in rent, leaving
,2} $32.50 a year for food, clothing, and fuel, the last a
tfirgexpense in winter months. Few sewing women worked
IRly, however, because unemployment was frequent among
'In addition, many of them had children to support
their meager earnings. Furthermore, comparatively few
women received l2.5¢ per item, the government rate;

-5 or less was the rate paid by private employers.

 

:1
.Iflu‘"~ I 25

[5&1 group of prominent Philadelphia ladies supported Carey,

   
 
 
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  

’Tflfimguing that the best paid seamstresses had only sixty—five
.jiikoents a week for food, clothing, and fuel and that piece
ifnates of eight and six cents were common. At the same

,:,- time Carey's lowest estimate of a domestic's wages,

3a.: :seventyéfive cents a week, assured her of at least thirty—
gfj nine dollars a year with food and fuel provided in addition.
.'.§ While a seamstress had to pay room and board from her 90¢ to
t"_$EL.25 a week, a servant received 75¢ to $1.50 a week with
} room and board furnished.29
' Over the years the relative position of the needle

woman improved only slightly. As William Sanger observed

_1n 1857, the seamstress had to house and feed herself "out

;,,$2.50 a week; some women were said to receive only a
wlar.' In these same decades average servants received
Tiben $1.25 and $1.50 per week plus room and board worth
réieast as much. In 1868 Sarah Payson Parton wrote that
l§y seamstresses obtained only $3.00 or $3.50 a week,
“was barely enough to pay for their room and board.

#:11ars might be paid to skilled dressmakers. In the

 

26

in the late sixties in tailoring and ready-made clothing
establishments ranged from three to eight dollars a week.30
In these same years a New York servant would usually
receive $2.50 to $3.50 a week in addition to room and
board worth more than her wages and also superior to those
obtained by most sewing women. If it were cheerless and
inconveniently located, the domestic's room was in a better
constructed and more sanitary dwelling than a slum tenement.
For a girl without great skill in sewing, the material
advantage doubtless lay in domestic service. Mrs. Stowe
was probably not far wrong in saying that, for most girls,
service was the only occupation in which they could earn
one hundred dollars a year in addition to room and board.31
Despite the financial advantages available in service,
large numbers of women, especially native Americans, pre-
ferred sewing to housework because they considered the latter
degrading. As early as the 18M0's it was observed that
American girls would rather work in the needle trades at
wages barely adequate to purchase the necessities of life
than become servants. The principal drawback to service
was the loss of personal freedom which it entitled. More
than any other occupation, domestic service demanded that
the worker subject himself or herself to the control of the
employer, control not only over the work to be done but
also over the personal life of the servant. This control

by the employer was inherent in the nature of the role of

27

the live-in domestic but was also, as shall be seen in the
next chapter, furthered by the paternalistic ideal of
employers. Writers agreed that in other occupations the
worker was more "her own mistress," as Mrs. Spofford put
it, girls did not want to "put their necks under the
tangible yoke of a daily and hourly mistress."32
Other aspects of this control will be discussed in
later chapters, but one important part of the lack of
personal freedom involved in service was the long work day
coupled with a lack of leisure time. Needle women gener-
ally worked between ten and fourteen hours a day six days
a week. These hours were fairly constant from the 1820's
through the seventies although hours do seem to have
dropped slightly after the Civil War. In the sixties and
seventies many writers implied that the average working day
for women in the sewing trades was ten or twelve hours.
Sewing women and shop girls had Sundays off and "entire
personal freedom" after six or seven in the evening. Lucy
Larcom, who had worked at Lowell, thought girls preferred
working in the mills to going out as "help" because they
found factory labor a "freer kind of work" and because"the
feeling that at this new work the few hours they had of
every-day leisure were entirely their own was a great satis—
faction to them." "Fanny Fern" reminded her readers that

seamstresses worked at starvation wages rather than go into

service because as sewing women "when six o'clock in the

28

evening comes, they are their own mistresses, without
hindrance or questioning, till another day of labor begins.
They do not sit in an under-ground kitchen, watching the
bell-wire, and longing to see what is going on out-of—
doors." Still another employer wrote that many a girl
rejected service to go into a job in which "when her day's
work is over she is free to spend her time as she chooses;
she can go out with her young man without asking any body's
leave."33 8
‘The servant's working day, the time she spent on
duty, generally lasted about fourteen hours, from about
six in the morning until eight or later in the evening.

George G. Foster, a writer on New York life and customs for

the New York Tribune, noted that servants were frequently

 

on duty from five a.m. until ten at night. Parker Pillsbury
argued that it was no wonder girls preferred working in
sewing shops to becoming domestics because the servant
"works seven days in the week, and from twelve to fifteen
hours in a day on the average." In the early eighties
Maud Nathan found that ”a maid's working day began at six
a.m. and didn't close until she went to bed at night."3u

Of course, the bulk of the hard work was done in the
nmrning and early afternoon, and much of the servant's work-
ing day was spent at light tasks or merely waiting in the
lutehen for a possible summons. As one employer writing

tharper's Bazar pointed out, in a well regulated house

29

"though a servant's liability to be called on to do
something or other may be extended over a long day, her
actual work is by no means continuous ."35
The essential point, however, is the domestic's time
‘was not her own; by the nature of the contract virtually
all of a servant's time belonged to her employers. Unlike
other occupations, service required that the worker
surrender an indefinite and unlimited amount of time to
the mistress. The live-in servant was expected to remain
on duty most of the day and was subject to call at any
time, including her mealtimes and the middle of the night.
As E.L. Godkin observed, "there is no real end to the day"
in domestic service; the employment "confines them[servants]
all day long to another person's house, and at her beck
and call, and gives them no control over their own time."
Lacking definite and limited hours of employment, the servant
was through for the day at no certain time; when her
specific work had been completed she was still liable to
further duties. One author stated that a domestic was hired
for "continuous service" and was therefore "liable to be
rung up at all hours" whenever the bell rang.36 The comfort
of the servant counted for little when weighed against the
convenience of the family.
In the 1830's Eliza Farrar found that many mistresses
expected servants "to hold every moment at the command of

their employers . . . ." Certainly authors of tracts of

30

advice for servants expected this from domestic workers.
"All your time" belongs to your employers counseled an 1827
guide for men-servants; "your time or your ability is no
longer your own, but your employers'; therefore, they have
a claim on them whenever they choose to call for them.”
Another manual for servants repeated that the employer had
a prior claim to "all" the domestic's time and a right
"whenever she wants any thing done, to call upon the girl
who lives with her to do it for her . . . ." Besides accom-
plishing her regular, daily duties, the girl "must be
willing, any time, to put her hand to any other little thing

that the lady wishes to have done."37

The general presump-
tion was that "all'of a domestic's time belonged to the
employer and that whatever leisure time she recieved was
given as a privilege rather than as a right. Those who
advised mistresses to grant free time to servants did so
on the grounds that by conceding such "privileges" domestics
would be made more contented and loyal. The mistress's
trouble'Will be amply rewarded in their faithfulness and
attachment," suggested one writer.38
In other jobs the employer's authority over the worker
ended at a stated hour, but in service once a domestic was
off duty for the day she was expected to spend whatever
evening hours remained at home in case her employers desired

further attendance. Those who counseled mistresses on the

proper treatment of domestics often recommended that they

31

be given free time in the evenings to do their own sewing
in order to be neatly dressed while at work. Others found
that the servant, though on call and confined to the house,
actually had "a good deal" of time in the evenings to sew
or read. Frank and Marian Stockton, for instance, contended
that in well managed households domestics had "nearly all"
their evenings free for private activities within the
house.39
The opportunities for the servant to socialize outside
the house were severly restricted, however, again in order
that she would be present when needed. Although customs
varied, servants' free time was generally limited to either
one evening or "half day" (part of the afternoon plus the
evening) per week. Sometimes this evening or half day was
granted only every other week. However, in the late
seventies some mistresses began to allow their domestics
both a part of Sunday and one other evening during the week
for their own use. Because of their importance and bargain—
ing power, cooks were sometimes able to secure more free
time than the other domestics of a household. The half—
day off was accompanied "with the usual understanding that
there shall be no neglect or omission of duties, which must
be performed either before going out or after her return."
In general, the rule prior to the mid-seventies seems to
have been to give the servant one half—day or evening per

week of free time. This rule held not only in families where

32

there was only one domestic but also in households with
two or more servants. If a girl wished to leave the

house at any other time, it was necessary for her to ask
special permission.”0

The domestic was thus dependent upon her employers
for the privilege of seeing her friends and relatives.

To a considerable extent, servants were denied normal out—
side social contact with friends, lovers, and family.
Compared to needle women, domestics were in a position of
social isolation from their associates. Jane C. Croly
wrote that the servant "sees life only through the kitchen
bars; she is denied participation in social life . . . ."
Mrs. Spofford agreed that the Irish maid-of—all—work, who
was from a gregarious background, must have felt "lonely"
since whe was "bound down to nearly day long solitude."ul
No doubt one of the advantages of serving where there was

a large staff of domestics was the added companionship
offered by such a situation over the comparative social
isolation of the maid-of—all-work.

The most common time provided the servant for her own
use was a part of Sunday, usually a half-day beginning in
the mid-afternoon after the dinner had been served. George
Foster found Broadway crowded on Sunday evenings by servant
girls with their friends and beaux. The girls, said Foster,
waited eagerly all week for this one chance "for a few hours

to enjoy the luxury of being free to do as they please." If

the half-day was not given on Sunday, it might be allowed

33

on Thursday, which fell between Wednesday's ironing and
baking and Friday's cleaning. Another alternative was to
give a part of Thursday afternoon in addition to Sunday
evening. In the 1870's the Stockton's recommended that
"an occasional afternoon or evening for visiting her
friends" he added to some portion of each Sunday. Maud
Nathan found in regard to the time off of New York
servants in the early eighties that "every other Sunday
afternoon and evening and one evening a week was the
inevitable rule."142

Despite warnings that Christian employers should not
demand service from their domestics on Sunday and accompany-
ing recommendations that cold dinners be served on that day
in order that "the least possible amount of service be
required from those who serve you on Sunday," few domestics
received the entire day off. With its large dinners and
frequent visiting, Sunday could be one of the most trying
days in the week for servants. "It is a well—known fact,
that girls who do housework have nearly as much work to do
on Sunday as on any other day of the week," wrote one

“3

servant to Arthur's Home Magazine.

 

One problem was whether to permit servants to go to
church on Sunday. While many allowed their domestics to
attend one service, many others restricted this privilege.
Some employers begrudged this liberty since it removed the

cook from the house at the time she was needed to prepare

3D

the Sunday dinner. William A. Alcott considered it
"unchristian" to keep servants at all because they were
often "kept at home from church on Sunday, and from the
lecture on week days." The problem was heightened when

the bulk of servants became Irish Catholics. The image

of the bad Irish domestic included her determination to
attend mass even if it was inconvenient for the family

to spare her. Where there were two Catholic girls in

the house, they often went to mass on alternate Sundays so
that the family was never without a servant. The usually
pious Mrs. Spofford was diSpleased by the desire of Irish
cooks to attend church every Sunday; every other Sunday was
Sufficient, she thought. While ministers advocated maintain-
ing the Sabbath as a day of rest and religious observance,
some men of the cloth denied these privileges to servants.
An American "kitchen girl" wrote in 1870 that she had worked
for a Methodist minister who "severely reprimanded me for
attending church on Sunday." Much earlier William Ellery
Channing noted that he had heard disconcerting complaints
that Boston domestics were "neglecting their duties and the
interests of their employers in their anxiety to attend
religious meetings." Such servants were sadly misguided,
thought Channing; they failed to understand "that it is a
stronger sign and expression of piety to perform hard work
cheerfully as the appointment of providence" and work faith-

fiflly in their vocation "than to be excited by an ardent

35

preacher." The girl should realize that "home is thetrue
place for exercising and manifesting her religion.” The
servant could best fulfill her duty to God by doing the work
of her employer. Thus although Sunday was to be a day of
leisure and religious Observances for employers, servants
had no guarantee of either worship or leisure on the Sabbath.uu
Among employers, no complaint was more frequent than
the lament that servants were imbued with "habits of restless-
ness." There is no way to measure or even confidently estimate
the actual physical mobility of domestics, but whatever the
actual rate of turnover it seemed too high to employers,
who desired a stable work force. Many girls entered service
only until they received an offer of marriage; such domestics,
of course, did not regard themselves as permanent workers.
The "abrupt" departure of a servant to be married was a
common complaint of employers. In addition, many girls no
doubt left service for occupations offering more personal
freedom and leisure. Those who remained longer in service
changed their places frequently. For one thing, employers were
repeatedly dismissing servants for real or imagined incom—
petence or impertinence. There seems to have been a rather
large number of transcient domestics who changed situations
often and satisfied none of their successive employers.
Servants themselves changed jobs for several reasons. Some

nmved'because of employers thought to be harsh, arbitrary,

36

or exacting while others reportedly went to places con-
sidered more desirable because they offered higher wages,
more privileges, lighter duties, or more companionship.
Mistresses sometimes complained that they had no sooner
made an efficient domestic of an ignorant girl than she
left for a wealthier family offering higher wages and
keeping several servants. This often led to charges
that servants were "mercenary" or "ungrateful." Often
the "good neighbors" and "kind friends" of an employer
approached her best servants with better offers and lured
them away, a practice Eunice Beecher thought no better than
theft. Many of those who advised employers on how to deal
with servants felt it necessary to remind their readers
that in America a servant's aspirations to move to a
"better" place or to become a housekeeper herself, if only
for a poor Irish laborer, were legitimate and proper,
something employers apparently often forgot.“5
Employers were always quick to complain concerning
what one 1869 writer referred to as the "excessive fondness
for change" displayed by domestics. Before 1850, however,
authors were more eager to cure the servant problem by
preaching against such evils and awakening domestics to
the perils of "restlessness." The mobility of domestics
violated employers' notions of proper social order and
stability and also interfered with their hopes for a docile

and faithful servant class. The tendency to change places

37

was irksome to those who wished servants to be obedient and
whose model was the legendary "old family servant" who
served one employer faithfully for many years. This concern
about the "instability and love of change" among domestics
was the primary motive for the founding of Societies for
the Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants in New York
and Philadelphia in the 1820's.Ll6
From the 1820's through the forties authors were
especially anxious to advise servants on their duties and
to exhort them to conform themselves to employers' concep—
tions of the proper place of domestics. Those who counseled
servants on the proprieties of their position seldom failed
to point out the alleged dangers of frequently changing
situations. "To keep roving about from one place to another"
was very dangerous Catherine Beecher warned servants; "stay
where you are, and try to make those things that trouble
you more tolerable, by enduring them with patience." A
tract for servants written by Joanna Bethune, the wife of
a prominent Dutch Reformed clergyman in New York City, and
published by the New York Society for the Encouragement of
Faithful Domestic Servants cautioned that "servants that
often change their situations are always poor." Mathew Carey
suggested the following to servants: "Let it be your pride

to live for years with the same family." Parlour and Kitchen,

 

a tract for domestics published by the American Sunday School

Union in 1835 and still in print in 1876, contended that

38

domestics who went from one situation to another got a bad
reputation, failed "to make friends of their employers,"
and became "unsteady" of character.147

A number of conclusions can be suggested concerning
the character of domestic service as an occupation in the
nineteenth century. Service was the largest single
employment for women and tended, at least in cities, to
grow at a slightly faster rate than the population. Much
of this increase in servant population went into the creation
of larger domestic establishments. Servants were concen—
trated in urban and urban—oriented regions throughout the
country and were comparatively rare in rural areas.
Especially common among the well-to—do and the more substan—
tial portions of the middle class, servants became an integral
part of the life of the urbanized middle class. Most
American employers hired a staff of between one and four
domestics; although the maid-of—all-work faced a wearing
and busy daily routine, the servant's duties in larger
establishments were lighter and more specialized. The
domestic's wages increased only slightly between the 1830's
and the Civil War but climbed steadily thereafter. When
room and board are considered, the financial rewards of ser-
vice compared favorably with the wages obtainable in the
needle trades, the second largest female occupation. The
principal drawback of service was not financial; it was the
loss of personal freedom it involved. The domestic was at
the constant call of her employers and received only

éiscant half-day a week which was really her own.

39

Regulations governing the hours of employment were made

with regard to the possibility that the employer might
require or desire service at any time and gave comparatively
little thought to the comfort or convenience of the domestic.
The girl was required to surrender most of her evenings to
the family on the chance that they might call on her. Not
surprisingly, the servant population tended to shift and

move often, a fact many employers found disturbing of order.

DHUTWZS

1Francis A. Walker, comp., The Ninth Census of the

 

United States,[Census Reports] 1, The Statistics of Popula—

 

St t c (Washington, 1872), Table XXVII
(8). pp. 686—687.
2;p;g., Table XXXII, pp. 782—79u; Lemuel Shattuck,
Report to the Committee of the City Council Appointed to

_A

Obtain the Census of Boston for the Year lBUS (Boston,

 

18U6), Appendix, p. A3.
3Francis A. Walker, "Our Domestic Service,"

Scribner's Monthly, December, 1875, p. 27H.

 

”Census of the State of New York for 1855 (Albany,

 

1857), p. 191; The Ninth Census, 1, pp. 778, 793; Shattuck,

 

The Census of Boston for the Year 18U5, pp. 8A-85,

 

Appendix, p. U3.

5The Ninth Census, 1, Table XXXII, pp. 775—799;

 

"Letter to the Editor,” Arthur's Home Magazine, May, 1863,

 

p. 30“. These ratios of servants to families are only
statistical. Since many employers hired two or more
domestics, fewer than one in four New York families
actually employed servants, for example.

( . , . n . . .
’Walker, "Our Domestic Seerce;‘Scrlbner's Monthly,

 

December, 1875, p. 27M; William A. Alcott, The Young

 

Housekeeper; or, Thoughts on Food and Cookery (Boston,

 

1838), p. 28.

A0

Al

7Shattuck, . . . Census of Boston for the Year 18A5,

 

pp. 5A—55, 8A-85. Note that although statistically there
was one domestic for every 3.9 Boston families, only one
in 5.8 actually employed servants. The figure 2525 for
owner-occupants of one family houses is somewhat too high
since it includes many of the owners of the 138 Boston
hotels and boarding houses.

8"Domestic Service," Old and New, September 1872,

 

p. 366. For other examples of references to "middle class"

i

and "average means' in regard to employers see William A.

Alcott, The Young Wife; or, The Duties of Woman in the

 

Marriage Relation (Boston, 1837), p. 15A; Elizabeth Ellet,

 

ed., The Practical Housekeeper: A oyclopaedia of Domestic

 

Economy (New York, 1857), p. 30; "Maids of All Work,"

Godey's Lady's Book, March, 1857, p. 286; "Domestic

 

H

Service, Harper's Bazar, May 2, 187A, p. 28A;[Edwin

 

H

Lawrence Godkin],"Waiters and Waitresses, The Nation,

 

November 26, 187A, p. 3A6;[Jane C. Croly} "Household

Needs," Demorest's Monthly Magazine, May, 1869, p. 188.

 

9Arthur w. Calhoun, A Social History of the

 

American Family from Colonial Times to the Present (New

 

York, 19u5), II, pp. 225—230.

10Mrs. A. J. Graves, Woman in America: Being an

 

Examination into the Moral and Intellectual Condition of

 

American Female Society (New York, 18AM), pp. 29—30, also

 

pp. 60-68; "Female Influence," The Ladies' Repository,

 

A2

October, 18AA, p. 312; Clara Augusta, "Home," Arthur's

 

Home Magazine, July, 1858, p. 15; "Home,” American

 

 

Ladies' Magazine, April, 1830, pp. 217—218; "Woman's

 

Sphere," American Ladies' Magazine, May, 1835, p. 263;

 

William A. Alcott, The Young Housekeeper; or, Thoughts

 

on Food and Cookery (Boston, 18A6), pp. 21—2A, 35-37,

 

87, 93; Rev. Jessie T. Peck, "The True Woman," The

Ladies" Repository, August, 1853, pp. 338—339; Edwin H.

 

Chapin, Duties of Young Women (Boston, 1853), chapt. v;

 

William Greenleaf Eliot, Jr., Letters to Young Women

 

(Boston, 185A), pp. A7—A8, 53—55; [Jane C. Croly], Talks

on Women's Topics (Boston, 186A), pp. 31—33; Jessie H.

 

Atherton, "Home as It Should Be," Godey's Lady's Book,

 

May, 1866, p. A37; [Josiah Gilbert Holland], "Home and

It's Queen," Scribner's Monthly, February, 1871, p.

 

A52; "Woman's Duties," Godey's Lady's Book, February,

 

1873, p. 166. Mrs. Graves and many other writers

thought that woman's place was in the home. While ladies
should have servants to relieve them of household
drudgery, they should not engage in a constant search

for outside social activity. Leisure time should be
devoted principally to improving the quality of home life
rather than to the "idleness and folly" of fashionable
society.

llGraves, Woman in America, p. 75, also pp. 72, 7A;

 

Virginia Townsend, "Schools for Domestics," Arthur's

A3

Home Magazine, March, 1865, p. 20A; "Doing Our Own Work,"

 

Happer's Bazar, August 2, 1873, p. A82; Robert Tomes, The

 

Bazar Book of the Household (New York, 1875), p. 153; also

 

see Catherine Beecher, Letters to Persons Who Are Engaged

 

in Domestic Service (New York, 18A2), p. 59; "Domestic

 

Happiness," The Ladies' Companion, August, 183A, p. 159;

 

[Mary Abigail Dodge], Woman's Worth and Worthlessness

 

(New York, 1871), pp. 55, 60; Joseph Bardwell Lyman and

Laura E. Lyman, The Philosophy of Housekeeping: A

 

Scientific and Practical Manual (Hartford, 1869), p. AA8;

 

Harriet Prescott Spofford, The Servant Girl Question

 

(Boston, 1881), pp. 129—130; E. Elcourt, "The Persecuted

Woman," Lippincott's Magazine, January, 1870, pp. 29—31;

 

"Housekeepers and Housekeeping,‘ Arthur's Home Magazine,

 

September, 1869, p. 160.

In this regard it is informative to notice the lack
of interest of the woman's rights movement in improving
the conditions of domestic service. Whereas Susan B.
Anthony and Elizabeth Cadyffixnmxnldemonstrated real con—
cern for the plight of seamstresses and shop girls, they
paid little attention to the problems of servants. Miss
Anthony founded the Workingwomen's Association of New
York, the first of several such organizations, to
coordinate union activities among women and agitate for
the political rights thought necessary to give women the

power to improve their situation. The Revolution, the

 

AA

weekly publication of the Anthony-Stanton feminists, gave
wide coverage to the problems of factory girls and called
for higher wages and better working conditions, but the
magazine virtually ignored domestic servants. Of the few
articles dealing with servants, the majority were
restatements of conventional employer positions and
attitudes. The only really forceful article on the
servant question was written by the periodical's only
male editor, the former abolitionist Parker Pillsbury.
Most feminists were middle—class women who held
typical middle—class opinions on most questions,
partiCularly those which supported their own social
position. The women's rights advocates sought to remove
middle-class women from the restrictive confines of the
home and involve them in such professions as music,
journalism, medicine, and law. Wider spheres of activity
outside the household should be opened to women of talent
and education. No more than other writers did feminists
wish to burden the superior woman with the drudgery of
housework. Indeed, if the lady were to have the leisure
necessary to fulfill herself in the larger world of
affairs, it was essential that domestics continue to

do the menial work of the household. The Revolution

 

approvingly quoted Jane C. Croly that many women allowed
their abilities to wither while they wasted their time
doing household chores when they should have left "the

druflgery to some one who could do only that, and filled

A5

up their time with something better and more satis-
factory . . . ." Junius Henri Browne, a male sympathizer
of the feminist cause, noted that a woman's opposition to
doing her housework
is natural and laudable. It evinces the possession
of ideals, the cherishment of aspirations. Such
vulgar usefulness arrests her growth, defeats the
promise of her future. In order to do worthy work,
she needs culture, training, development; and these
must come from a higher source than the saucepan or
the needle . . . . Let servants' chores be done by
servants, or by those who relish them! Let women
of finer mold and loftier aim gather whatever fruit

their arms can reach; ascend whatever eminence their
strength can mount.

The outlook of the feminists seems to have emphasized
elevation of middle and upper-class women, who could
achieve their deserved prominence in the larger world
only if servants did their menial work.

Alma Lutz, Susan B. Anthqpy: Rebel, Crusader,
Humanitarian (Boston, 1959), pp. lA9-157 discusses the
New York Workingwomen's Association; Eleanor Flexner,
Century of Struggle: The Woman's Rights Movement in the

United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), p. 119; Aileen

 

S. Kraditor, ed., Up from the Pedestal: Selected
Writings in the History of American Feminism (Chicago,
1968), p. 10; Jane C. Croly, "Woman's Rights and Woman's

Duties," quoted in The Revolution, September 23, 1860,

 

p. 181; Junius Henri Browne, "Women as Workers," The

Galaxy, May, 1873, p. 685.

A6

12[Sidney George Fisher], "Domestic Servants,"

North American and United States Gazette [Philadelphia],

 

May 23, 1857; Parlour and Kitchen; or, The Story of

 

Ann Connover (Philadelphia, 1835), p. 20; also see Graves,

 

Woman in America, p. 7A.

 

l3Olive Logan "English Domestics and Their Ways,"

Lippincott's Magazine December, 1877, p. 760; Ellet, ed.,

 

The Practical Housekeeper, p. 28; "Maids of All Work,"

 

p. 286; D[avid] Meredith Reese, ed., Thomas Webster and
Mrs. Francis Parkes, An Encyclopedia of Domestic
Economy: Comprising Such Subjects as Are Most Immediately

Connected with Housekeeping (New York, 18A5), p. 365;

 

Harriet Prescott Spofford, The Servant Girl Question
(Boston, 1881), p. 20. Although not published in book
form until 1881, these essays originally appeared in only

slightly different form in Harper's Bazar between 1873

 

and 1875.
l"Ellet,ed., The Practical Housekeeper, pp. A2—AA.
151p1Q., p. AA; Frank R. Stockton and Marian
Stockton, The Home: Where It Should Be and What to Put
lp_lp (New York, 1873), pp. 101-106; Mary Hooker

Cornelius, The Younngousekegper's Friend (Boston, 18A6),

 

pp. 16—16.

16The Domestic's Companion (New York, 183A), p. 31;

 

Ellet, The Practical Housekeeper, p. AA.

 

17Stockton and Stockton, The Home, p. 107.

A7

18Sarah Josepha Hale, The New Household Receipt
Book: Containing Maxims Directions, and Specifics for
Promoting Health, Comfort, and Improvement in the Homes

of the People (New York, 1853), p. 251; Catherine

 

Beecher, Miss Beecher's Domestic Receipt Book (New York,
18A6), pp. 2A7-250; "Maids of All Work," Godey's,
March, 1857, p. 286.

19"Maids of All Work," p. 286; Eunice Beecher,

Motherly Talks with Younngousekeepers, (New York, 1873),

pp. 3-6.

2O[Edwin Lawrence Godkin], "Waiters and Waitresses,’

The Nation, December 10, 187A, p. 379; Plain Talk and

 

Friendly Advance to Domestics; With Counsel on Home

Matters (Boston, 1855), p. 38; Bainbridge Bunting, Houses

of Boston's Back Bay: An Architectural History, 18AO-
1911_(Cambridge, Mass., 1967), p. 137; A Philadelphia
Perspective: The Diary of Sidney George Fisher Covering
the Years 183A—l87l, ed. by Nicholas B. Wainwright

(Philadelphia, 1967), p. 236. San Francisco is a special

case because of its large number of Chinese men-servants.

21[Godkin], "Waiters and Waitresses," p. 379;
Reese, ed., Webster and Parkes, Encyclopedia of Domestic
Economy, p. 365; Ellet, ed., The Practical Housekeeper,
p. 28; Robert Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's New

Month1y Magazine, June, 186A, p. 56.

 

I

A8

22Shattuck, . . . Census of Boston in the Year 18A5,

 

p. 8A; Olive Logan, "English Domestics and Their Ways,"

p. 760; James D. McCabe, Jr., Lights and Shadows of New

 

York Life; or, The Sights and Sensations of the Great

 

City (New York, 1872), p. 711; "Domestic Service,"

Harper's Bazar, May 2, 187A, p. 28A; Bunting, Houses of

 

 

Boston's Back Bay, p. 137.

 

23Mathew Carey, "Essays on the Public Charities of

Philadelphia," in Miscellaneous Essays (Phildelphia,

 

1830), p. 193; Stanley Lebergott, Manpower in Economic

 

Growth: The American Record since 1800 (New York, 196A),

 

pp. 281-283, 5A2; Young America January 2A, 18A6; U.S.,

 

Congress, Senate, Report on the Condition of Woman and

 

Child Wage—Earners in the United States, S. Document

 

6A5, 6lst Cong., 2nd. sess., 1910, IX, Helen Sumner,

History of Women in Industry in the United States, pp.

 

179—180.

214Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth, p. 5A2;

 

Virginia Penny, The Employments of Women: A Cyclopedia

 

of Woman's Work (Boston, 1863), pp. A26—A27.

 

25Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth, pp. 160,

 

5A9.

26Sumner, History of Women in Industry, p. 180;

 

McCabe, Lights and Shadows, p. 711; Bureau of Labor

 

Statistics of Massachusetts, Sixteenth Annual Report

 

(Boston, 1885), p. 129; Pennsylvania Bureau of Industrial

A9

Statistics, Reports, l87A-l875 (Harrisburg, 1875), p.

 

118; Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth, p. 5A9.

 

27Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy

 

for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and at School (New

 

York, 18A2), p. 206; McCabe, Lights and Shadows, p. 711;

 

Robert Tomes, The Bazar Book of the Household (New York,

 

1875), p. 1A0.

28Parlour and Kitchen; or, The Story of Ann

 

Connover (Philadelphia, 1835), p. 1A; [Sarah Josepha

Hale], "Hiring a Servant," The American Ladies' Magazine,

 

November, 1833, p. 517; Ellet, ed., The Practical

 

Housekeeper, p. 26; [Charles Loring Brace], "The

 

Servant Question," The Nation, October 26, 1865, p.

 

528; Catherine Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe, The

American Woman's Home; or, Principles of Domestic

 

Science (New York, 1860), p. 318.
29Mathew Carey, "Report on Female Wages," in

Miscellaneous Essays, p. 267; Mathew Carey, "Wages of

 

Female Labour," p. [l], in Miscellaneous Pamphlets

 

’J(Philade1phia, 1831); Mathew Carey, "To the Ladies Who
Have Undertaken To Establish a House of Industry in

New York," pp. 1—2; in Miscellaneous Pamphlets; "Female

 

Wages," American Ladies' Magazine, June, 1830, pp.

 

329—330, for a good discussion of Carey's efforts see

Sumner, History of Women in Industry, pp. 123—133.

 

50

30William W. Sanger, The History of Prostitution:

 

Its Extent, Causes, and Effects Throughout the World

 

(New York, 1921, originally published 1858), p. 527;

Norman Ware, The Industrial Worker 18A0-1860 (Chicago,

 

196A), pp. A9—50, 55; Wirt Sikes, "Among the Poor Girls,"

Putman's Monthly Magazine, 2st ser., April, 1868, pp.

 

' A33—AA5; Sumner, History of Women in Industry, pp.

 

1A6—1A9, 262; [Sarah Payson Parton], Folly As It Flies:

 

Hit at by Fanny Fern (New York, 1868), pp. 219—229.

 

31[Harriet Beecher Stowe], The Chimney Corner

 

(Boston, 1868), p. 12.

32Reese, ed., Webster and Parkes, An Encyclopedia

 

of Domestic Economy, p. 366, Catherine Beecher, Letters

 

to Persons Who are Engaged in Domestic Service (New

 

York, 18A2), chapts. v, vi; Spofford, The Servant Girl

 

Question, p. 1A8.

33Ware, The Industrial Worker, pp. A9—50; Sumner,

 

History of Women in Industry, p. 262; Lucy_Larcom, A

 

New England Girlhood (New York, 1961), p. 199; [Parton],

 

Folly As It Flies, p. 222; "Domestic Service," Harper's

 

Bazar, May 2, 187A, p. 28A; see also "Woman's Work and
Woman's Wages: Shall American Girls Become Servants,"

Arthur's Home Magazine, July, 1870, pp. 29—30; Penny,

 

The Employments of Women, p. A26; "Domestic Service for

 

Women," The Revolution, February 10, 1870, p. 86;

 

Melusina Peirce, "Cooperative Housekeeping," Boston

Daily Advertiser, July 7, 1869.

 

51

 

3"George G. Foster, New York in Slices: By an

Experienced Carver (New York, 18A8), p. 87; Parker

 

Pillsbury, "Domestic Service," The Revolution, August 12,

 

1869, p. 88; Maud Nathan, Once Upon a Time and Today

 

(New York, 1933), p. 81; see also Alice B. Neal, "Mrs.

!

West's Experience,‘ Godey's Lady's Book, November,

 

1853, p. A35; Bunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay,

 

p. 138.

35"Domestic Service,” Harper's Bazar, May 2,

 

187A, p. 28A; also Ellet, ed., The Practical House-

 

keeper, p. AA.

36[Edwin Lawrence Godkin], "The Morals and Manners

of the Kitchen," The Nation, January 2, 1873, p. 7;

 

[Godkin], "Waiters and Waitresses," The Nation, December

 

10, 187A, p. 380; "Domestic Service," Harper's Bazar,

 

May 2, 187A, p. 28A; also Graves, Woman in America, p.

 

80; Todd S. Goodholme, ed., A Domestic Cyclopedia of

 

Practical Information (New York, 1877), p. A76; Penny,

 

The Employments of Women, p. A27.

 

37Eliza Farrar, The Young Lady's Friend (Boston,

 

1837), p. 232; Robert Roberts, The House Servant's

 

Directory, or a Monitor for Private Families: Comprisipg

 

Hints on The Arrangement and Performance of Servants'

 

Work (Boston and New York, 1827), pp. x, xiii; Parlour

and Kitchen, p. 1A.; also Plain Talk and Friendly Advice

 

 

to Domestics: With Counsel on Home Matters (Boston,

 

1855), p. 18A.

52

38Cornelius, The Younngousekeeper's Friend, p. 19;

 

see also Goodholme, ed., A Domestic Cyclopedia, p. A76;

 

Stockton and Stockton, The Home, p. 97; Penny, The

Employments of Women, p. A02.

 

39Stockton and Stockton, The Home, p, 97; also Ellet,

ed., The Practical Housekeeper, p. 30; Catherine Beecher,

 

Letters to Persons Who Are Engaged in Domestic Service,

 

pp. 32, 8A; Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, pp. A8,

 

162; Stowe] The Chimney Corner, p. 125.

 

uoCatherine Beecher, Letters to Persons Who Are

 

Engaged in Domestic Service, p. 111; "Our New Cook Book:

 

Servants," Arthur's Home Magazine, March 1870, p. 181;

 

"Woman's Work and Woman's Wages: Should American Girls

Become Servants," Arthur's Home Magazine, July, 1870 pp.

 

29-30; "Domestic Service," Old and New, September, 1872,

 

p. 366; Julia McNair Wright, The Complete Home: An

 

Encyclopedia of Domestic Affairs (Philadelphia, 1879),

 

p. AA9; Parlour and Kitchen, p. 122; Catharine Sedgwick,

 

Live and Let Live; or, Domestic Service Illustrated

 

(New York, 1837), p. A9; Foster, Slices, pp. 99—100;
REiChanJREOdgersl Bowker, "In Re Bridget--The Defense,"

Old and New, October, 1871, pp. A98, 500.

 

ul[Jane C. Croly], ”Household Service," Demorest's

 

Monthly Magazine, January, 1873, p. 16; Spofford, The

 

Servant Girl Question, pp. 36, 37. While contemporaries

 

sometimes noticed the socially isolated position of the

53

domestic, the most perceptive discussion of this aspect
of service is Jane Addams, "A Belated Industry,"

American Journal of Sociology, 1 (March, 1896), pp.

 

5A3-5A7. Although written later in the century, this
article's point is equally valid for the earlier period.
u2Foster, Slices, pp. 99—100; Stockton and

Stockton, The Home, pp. 97, 10A; Nathan, Once Upon a

 

 

Time, p. 81; also Sedgwick, Live and Let Live, p. A9;

 

Parlour and Kitchen, p. 122.

 

u3Cornelius, The Young Housekeeper's Friend, p.

 

19; "The Servant Question," Arthur's Home Magazine,

 

April, 1870, p. 236; see also Farrar, The Young Lady's

 

Friend, pp. 2A7—2A8.

““Alcott, The Young Wife, p. 167, Plain Talk and

 

 

Friendly Advice, p. 59; Young_America, January 2A, 18A6;

 

 

Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, pp. 30-31; "The

 

Servant Question," Arthur's, April, 1870, p. 236;
William Ellery Channing, "Letter to the Editor of the

Christian Palladium," The Christian Register, February 25,

 

1837; also see Catherine Beecher, Letters to Persons Who

 

Are Engaged in Domestic Service, pp. 123—12A.

 

u5"Letter to the Editoress," Godey's Lady's Book,

 

August, 1865; p. 17A;[Sidney George Fisher} "Domestic

Servants," North American and United States Gazette

 

[Philadelphia] May 23, 1857; Reese, ed., Webster and

Parkes, Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, p. 365;

5A

Eunice Beecher, Motherly Talks with Young Housekeepers

 

pp. 112-115; Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic

 

Economy, pp. 206-207; Sarah Josepha Hale, The Good

Housekeeper; or, the Way to Live Well and to Be Well

 

While We Live (Boston, 1839), pp. 112, 116; Joseph

 

Bardwell Lyman and Laura E. Lyman, The Philosophy of

 

Housekeeping: A Scientific and Practical Manual

 

(Hartford, 1869), p. A99.

“6First Annual Report of the Society for the

 

Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants in New York,

 

(1826), pp. 3-A; First Report of the Board of Managers

 

of the Society for the Encouragement of Faithful

Domestics (Philadelphia, 1830), p. 3; see chapter 111

 

below.

u7Catherine Beecher, Miss Beecher's Domestic Receipt

 

Book, p. 280; [Joanna Bethune], "Friendly Advice to

Servants," in First Annual Report . . . New York, p. 31;

 

Mathew Carey, "Essay on the Relations Between Masters and

Mistresses and Domestics," Godey's Lady's Book, June, 1835,

 

p. 2A5; Parlour and Kitchen, p. 10A, chapt. viii,

 

Catherine Beecher, Letters to Persons Who Are Engaged in

 

Domestic Service, p. 168.

 

CHAPTER II

EMPLOYER PATERNALISM AND THE

MASTER—SERVANT RELATION

Historians discussing pre-Civil War American Society
have generally emphasized its equality and openness; one
support for this View has been the alleged democratic nature
of domestic service in the Northern states. Writers who
stress the egalitarian nature of Northern service usually
rely on the comments of European travelers, who sometimes
over-generalized those things which struck them as unusual.
Both these travelers and subsequent writers have tended to
universalize the distinctively rural system of "help" and
treat it as the general type of American domestic service.1
In fact, however, the "servant" or "domestic servant" was
a common sight in American cities and towns as early as
the 1820's. Furthermore, throughout the century employers‘
tended to be hostile to the implications of democracy in
regard to domestic service.

Pre-1860 authors were as concerned as post-Civil War
writers with instilling obedience and submission into their
servants and with extending the mistress's control over the

personal life of the domestic through paternalistic

55

56

regulation. Although middle and upper-class Americans
accepted the theories of political democracy, they by no
means abandoned their efforts to make their fellow men,
particularly the lower classes, conform to their own ideas
of proper morality and orderly society. Indeed, it has
been convincingly demonstrated that the benevolent, tract,
and moral reform societies common in America before the
Civil War were principally concerned with purposes of
social control.2 Similarly, servants, who were often
regarded as wards intrusted to the care of the family,

could be subjected to social control through benevolent
paternalism within the home. Employers hoped to make the
master-servant relationship more "affectionate" and lasting
than the sort of contract made with mechanics and tradesmen.
The morally superior and better—educated employer had a

duty to uplift the ignorant and child-like domestic. At

the same time, the servant had a duty to submit obediently
to the direction of the employer. Allegedly such submission
would ultimately result in the girl's improvement. Pater—
nalism and obedience were regarded as reciprocal obligations
to be exchanged by employer and employee.

Contemporaries concerned about the servant problem
generally fell into one of two groups. First, there were
those writers who favored a clearly subordinate postion for
the domestic through paternalism and submission or other

forms of discipline. Secondly, a smaller, and apparently

57

less influential, group of authors tried to remain more
true to the spirit of democracy and condemned paternal-
istic assumptions and the entire outlook of the majority
of American employers in regard to the master-servant
relationship. In the pre—war years this latter group
included Eliza Farrar, William A. Alcott, and Caroline
Kirkland; the chief post-war critic was Robert Tomes,
who was sometimes assisted by Harriet Beecher Stowe.3
It might first be useful to look at the difference
in the nature of service between rural and urban areas.
Domestic service actually existed in two different forms
throughout the nineteenth century; while rural areas had
their "helps," cities and towns had their "servants." The
system of "help" was closely associated with rural New
England during the first half of the century but was also
common in other agricultural regions. Under this method
of securing household assistance, a farm family contributed
a daughter to work in the home of a wealthier neighbor in
need of "help." In return for her labor the helper
received not only wages but also a postion approaching
equality within the employing family. The girl was from
the same neighborhood, her family knew the employers, and
employer and domestic usually shared the same religious and
cultural background. The helper attended church with the
family, often ate at the family table, and could entertain

her beau in the kitchen.Ll

58

Such a system existed in rural areas in the mid-
nineteenth century. James Stuart, a knowledgeable English
traveler, recorded his encounter with an upstate New York
boarding house chambermaid, an American girl from a nearby
village, who was permitted to attend evening lectures and
even kissed the mistress when the girl returned from a
visit to her family. American authors also treated the
"help" as a real type of servant. Caroline Gilman's

Recollections of a Housekeeper (183“), which was based on

 

actual incidents, related the fictional experiences of a

New England mistress with a series of sometimes uncomfort-
ably democratic "helps." In an IBM” article Elizabeth Ellet
wrote of a domestic in western New York who quit because

her employers, who had recently arrived from New York City,
were reluctant to permit her to sit at the family table.

The girl did not mean to be impertinent; she "had sturdy
notions of equality instilled into her . . . . The acting
out of such independence is rather troublesome, but can we
help admiring it in the abstract?" Such views were said to
be prevalent among domestics in western and rural areas; it
was common for a "help" to illustrate "her idea of indepen-
dence by asserting her social equality with her

employers . . . ." These writers agreed that once a mistress
adapted her attitudes, demands, and expectations to these
conditions, she would be well served by these independently

minded Americans. Catharine Segwick observed that the good,

59

rural New England domestic was a "republican independent

dependent" and was "the very best servant, . . . provided

we are willing to dispense with obsequiousness and servility,

for the capability and virtue of a self-regulating and self-

respecting agent."5
Care should be taken, however, not to confuse these

conditions of service and employer's apparent acceptance

of them with the attitudes of employers in the growing

cities and towns of the North, where domestics were far

more common. As early as the 1820's very different attitudes

toward servants prevailed among employers in American cities.

Frances Wright and many later Europeans noted that domestics

"in Atlantic cities" were usually foreign-born "servants"

rather than native "helps." The term "help," in fact, was

hardly ever used in connection with urban servants; there

the terms "servant" and "domestic" were in general usage

throughout the century. American—written books and tracts

for domestics, such as A Friendly Gift for Servants and

 

Apprentices (1821) and The House Servant's Directory (1827)

 

 

unashamedly preached the subjection of the servant to
the will of the employer and made no concessions
whatever to the independence of "helps." Although when

she wrote of New England in A New England Tale, Catharine

 

Sedgwick implied that "helps" did exist, they were notably
absent from her 1837 novel of domestic service in New York

City, Live and Let Live. Advice books published in the 1830's

 

60

by William A. Alcott, Eliza Farrar, and Sarah Josepha Hale,a11
New Englanders, treated domestic service without reference

to any real equality between master and servant. Indeed,

the first two authors condemned the typically imperious

manner and presumption of social superiority on the part

of employers while Mrs. Hale took care to lecture servants

on their duties and obligations. Later, the anonymous

author of Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics (1855)

 

explained that his description of the "help" was designed
to assist uncomprehending city readers in understanding
what rural, New England service was like. Apparently the
system of "help" was absent from large cities in the 1820's
and seemed irrelevant to even many New England authors of
the 1830's.6
The "help" still existed, however, in rural areas in
the 1870's; some authors pictured service in "the fartherest
nooks and crannies" as being a relation of equality. There
the domestic was described as "the daughter of a neighbor,
and almost, or quite, the social and intellectual equal of
her mistress, and [who] enjoys privileges and immunities
which would seem scarcely less than appalling to a resident
of the city," including sitting at the family tale and using
the front door. A western employer remarked in 1863 that
whereas in Illinois cities and towns mistresses successfully

imposed "whatever conditions" they chose upon servants, in

the rural areas of the state domestics demanded and received

61

social equality.7

Cities and towns, however, were the
locations where servants were concentrated, and the bulk

of material discussing servants in the mid-nineteenth
century was written by and for employers in or near large
cities or country towns. This material indicates that most
employers were by no means ready to concede that the
servant was an equal partner to a business contract similar
to the contract made with other employees. The master-
servant relationship desired and promoted by these employers
was far removed from the rural system of equality and
"helps."

Many foreign visitors to America, accustomed to
European domestic service, were impressed with the seeming
social equality between master and domestic. One of the
aspects of American service which was especially striking
to Europeans was the businesslike character of the contrac—
tual relationship between the two parties. Such a contract
seemed enlightened and democratic to travelers such as
Harriet Martineau, who found service to be "a matter of
contract, an exchange of recompense, the authority of the
employer extending no further than to require the performance
of the service promised . . . ." Thomas Grattan wrote that
employers and employed had a "common understanding" that
service was "a mere matter of business." Employers, said
Grattan, clearly realized that the contract gave them "no

right to any undue assumption of power . . . ." Tocqueville

62

concluded in regard to northern white servants that
"masters require nothing of their servants but the faithful
and rigorous performance of the covenant: they do not ask
for marks of respect, they do not claim their love or
devoted attachment; it is enough that, as servants, they
are exact and honest."8
Such statements are misleading and inaccurate. There
was no general "understanding" on the part of American
employers that they ought to have no control over the per-
sonal life of the domestic or that the contract was or
should be a "mere" business transaction. Nor was Tocqueville
correct that American masters and mistresses neither wanted
nor expected "respect" and "devoted attachment" from their
servants.
American employers widely denounced the contractual
basis of the master-servant relationship, blaming it for
the lack of loving, permanent connections between employers
and their domestics. To judge from the public statements
of employers, Grattan and Tocqueville misjudged the attitudes
of American masters and mistresses and attributed to them
a receptivity to democratic concepts of service which they
did not deserve. Finding the existing relationship to be
"cold" and "mercenary," employers again and again called for
infusions of "warmth" and "affection" into the connection.
The New England postess Lydia Sigourney wished "our contract
with them [servants] were less mercenary in its

nature . . . ." Writing in 1837, William Ellery Channing

63

thought that master and servant "should be bound to one
another by a holier tie than self-interest. Their connection
should be hallowed by Christian love." A magazine written
and published by New York City charity workers denounced
"this heartless and mercenary connection" between employer
and domestic, lamenting that "there are no ties of long
attachment between us and them, connecting each to each from
generation to generation, by the endearing links of infancy
and old age, of birth and death . . . ." Yet another
writer noted sadly that the "delicate and sacred offices”
of home life "are farmed out to be done for the lowest and
most mercenary considerations." Post—Civil War authors
continued in the same vein. For example, Joseph Lyman, a
prominent agriculturalist, and his wife hoped that the
servant could "be lifted above the mere sordid consideration
of earning her wages" and serve instead from motives of
devotion and affection. Writers bewailed the lack of
"sympathy" between servant and employer; efforts should be
made to "attach a domestic to you personally." Mrs. Spofford
hopefully looked toward a type of service which would bring
back "a pleasant reminisence of old feudal love and service."9
Even authors genuinely concerned with the welfare of
the lower classes held to an ideal of the faithful servant
who remained devotedly attached to one family for many years.

Writing of the distress among Philadelphia working women,

Mathew Carey suggested that families hire destitute females

6A

as domestics; they would be grateful for the employment

and would profit by the example set by the homes of
"respectable citizens." Carey went on to remark that
"perhaps there are few ties in common life more binding than
those that are found to exist between a benevolent master
and mistress, and a faithful female servant who has grown

up under their own eyes, and under their care and protection,
and that of their descendants." Similarily, in 1869 Parker
Pillsbury, former abolitionist and woman's rights advocate,
concluded an article highly critical of the treatment of
domestics in city homes with the wistful observation that
"no more refreshing spectacle blesses one's eyes than to

see employers and employed growing old together, and in

mutual confidence, respect, and esteem ."10

III

The attempts of employers to bring more "affection"
into what they thought to be a "mercenary” relationship
with their servants were clearly evident in their paternal-
istic attitude toward live—in domestics. The personal life
of the live—in servant could, of course, be closely controlled
because the nature of her occupation dictated that she
remain within the employer's house in the evening and
surrender "all" her time to the direction of the employers.
Authors justified the regulation of the servant's life on
two grounds. First, such restrictions were essential to an

orderly household. Second, the benevolent advice and

65

direction of the mistress was for the child—like domestic's
own good. It was believed that the servant was unable to
make decisions properly on her own and required the wise
guidance and control of her employer, who was better able
to judge what was best for the girl than the domestic was
able to judge for herself. For example, Frank and Marian
Stockton thought that the mistress should extend "the same
surveillance and authority" over the servant that she would
over the visiting daughter of a friend. The novelist and
his wife admitted that it was "probable" that the servant
would resent such control, but it should be imposed none
the less for her own good because the domestic lacked "the
careful culture to keep her from evil."11 Throughout the

. mid-nineteenth century authors again and again argued for
paternalistic direction of servants in hOpes of producing
more devoted and "attached" domestics.

'The basic assumption of this argument was that mentally
and morally servants were much like children, lacking the
ability to make correct judgments concerning their lives.
Domestics were regarded as being "wretchedly defective" in
"that education which gives perception of truth, insight,
the power of generalization . . . ." References comparing
servants to children on the basis that both had "untutored
minds" were common. Harriet Beecher Stowe found that
"servants in general are only grown up children." Jane C.

Croly, newspaperwoman and editor of Demorest's Monthly

 

66

Magazine, agreed that servants "are like children, they are
unacquainted with natural laws, they do not trace effects
to their causes or reason from cause to effect . . . ."
Others made such statements as servants "should be treated
with kindness and firmness, like children" and "in manners
and social training servants are as children."12

Being child-like, the domestic was thought to be of
malleable nature and might be molded by the wise mistress.
As one author noted, the domestic was, like a child, very
"susceptible to the moral influences under which she may
be brought . . . ." Mrs. Spofford similarly felt that "the
young Irish girl comes to us as plastic as any clay in the
world . . . . She is completely ready to be moulded to our
wish."l3

Since "in many regards our servants come to us on the
plane of children," Julia McNair Wright advised her readers
to consider themselves "the girl's God-ordained guardian
while she is with you." Like children, servants required
training and should be taught how they might "improve;" a
parental duty many authors took seriously. One book advised
the mistress that "you stand in stead of parent to them,
and are responsible for their good conduct, and the correc-
tion of their faults . . . ." Catherine Beecher recommended
that employers attempt "so far as may be, to supply the place
of parents." Since the girls' own parents were "unqualified"
to teach them properly, the mistress "is bound to exercise a

1A

parental care over them" in a variety of matters.

67

writers repeatedly urged the "uplift" of servants
as a means to improve them as workers and as people. Most
etiquette books and advice manuals for ladies included
chapters on the feminine duties of charity and benevolence;
'these chapters usually reminded readers that "charity begins
at home." Benevolence was a major social obligation of the
lady, and the proper place to begin was within her own home
with her "weak and neglected" female servants. By this
reasoning domestic service was made into a benevolent
activity which could involve every mistress in charitable
work within her home. No lady need lack for deeds of
charity; every employer had "in her own household a field
for usefulness . . . ." Such advice to mistresses was
common before 1860. Lydia Sigourney wrote that mistresses
should regard servants "as brought under our roof, not
merely to perform menial offices, but to be made better,
to become sharers in our kind feelings, recipients of our
advice, subjects of our moral teachings . . . ." The most
persistent theme in Miss Sedgwick's novel Live and Let Live
was that servants could be uplifted within "home missions"
if employers regarded Servants "as 'unfortunate friends'
whom it was their religious duty to instruct, to enlighten,
to improve, to make better and happier." Providence had
placed the domestic under the guidance of her mistress who

was charged with the responsibility "to check the growth

68

of evil habits! to encourage the formation of good ones!"
through her wise advice and counsel.15
Post-Civil War authors, though generally less inclined
to moralisms than pre—war writers, also emphasized the mis-
sionary duty of thenfistreSSto the servant. The employer
had a special "mission to her dependent sister" within the
home; R.R. Bowker advised an attitude of "missionary
enthusiasm" toward "your own heathen" in the kitchen.
Servants should be thought of by employers as "wards
entrusted to their care," as people "to be lifted," thought
Mrs. Spofford. Julia McNair Wright, one of the strongest
proponents of employer paternalism, wrote that the employer
should give the maid the same "friendly counsel" she would
provide her own daughter.16
According to this line of reasoning, the employer's
home was a school for the servant to receive instruction
not only in domestic economy but also "in virtue and reli—
gion." The household functioned as a "primary school" for
the servant's "ignorant and feeble mind." Several authors
thought it to be the duty of the mistress to teach the
servant to read and write if she entered the home illiterate.
It was also the employer's responsibility to see that the
domestic read only moral and wholesome literature. But much
more than reading might be taught; one might instill "in
the untutored mind the heavenly lessons of order, neatness,
and all the advantages gained by contact with superiority in

mind and manners."17

69

By providing the maid with education, the employer
was benefiting the whole nation because she was preparing
slovenly and foolish women to be "useful" and skilled
workers if they remained in service, or good homemakers
and mothers if they married. Mrs. Stowe thought mistresses
had a "missionary" duty to train domestics to be valuable
members of society and prepare them to be "good wives and
mothers for the Republic." Her sister Catherine Beecher
agreed that "the Christian woman's kitchen is a training-
school of good servants, where ignorant heathen come to
be guided heavenward, and prepared to raise healthful and
Christian families of their own." If mistresses failed to
instruct and advise their domestics, warned Mrs. Wright
darkly, female servants would bring into the world "a brood
of semi-beggars, filthy, ragged, and unschooled, to be the
criminals and paupers of a generation to come."18

Such benevolent and paternal motives applied with
special force to the immigrants so common in service. Here
was an excellent opportunity to promote assimilation and
school the foreign girl in the ways of American life. One
enthusiatic author noted that while in service the immigrant
received "unconscious education" through her contact with
her employers. One example of the benefits thus produced
was that "an Irish girl who has been in an American family
for a year will have so much changed her accent, that, when

the rest of her family follow her from Ireland . . . . they

scarcely recognize her speech." Catharine Sedgwick, Jane C.

7O

Croly, and others considered it the obligation of American
mistresses to receive immigrant girls into their homes and
prepare the "ignorant, undisciplined waifs" to be "useful"
citizens. Mrs. Hale summarized this argument in her 1839
cook book.

Those who do employ and carefully instruct this

class of persons [Irish domestics], perform a

most benevolent act to the usually destitute

exiles, and also a good service to the community,

by rendering those who would, if ignorant, become

a burden and a nuisance, useful and often respect-

able members of society.
Identical arguments were still being presented in the
seventies by Mrs. Croly, Eunice Beecher, and Julia McNair
Wright with regard to the socialization of the immigrant
19

through household beneVolence.

IV

Paternalism was a concrete program as well as a vague
intention. Such control entered the actual life of the
servant in several areas. Each specific measure not only
guarded the girl from her own poor judgment but also, it
was frequently pointed out, increased the peace and quiet
of the family, an important consideration. Paternalistic
rules further subjected the domestic to the will of the
employer and, no doubt, strengthened the alleged feeling of
servants that they were not "their own mistresses." From
what critics considered the typical and general treatment

of servants, it seems that most employers acted on

71

paternalistic impulses and created fairly rigid rules to
which their domestics were expected to conform.

The most sensitive and "perplexing" issue was the
"privilege" of the servant to receive visitors, particu—
larly male "followers." Because their social life outside
the house was very restricted, domestics apparently con-
sidered it a most important liberty to be permitted to
receive guests. Visitors in the kitchen, however, were
generally regarded by employers as "a great nuisance"
because of the noise and disruption they caused. On the
question of allowing servants to have guest, mistresses
were divided, and practices concerning the matter varied
widely. In the name of maintaining a "quiet kitchen" some
employers simply forbid their domestics to have any visitors
at all. A much larger number permitted female guests
(although these might be "darkly frowned on") but prohibited
male guests, or "followers." It was noted that "many
mistresses" enforced this rule against male visitors. Part
of the reason for this regulation was probably to restrict
love affairs which might deprive the mistress of a valuable
assistant. Eliza Farrar found that "some ladies frown upon
all lovers, and consider the indulgence of a matrimonial
project in the kitchen as a wrong done to them." An employer

writing in Harper's Bazar on the other hand, defended her

 

rule of "no followers allowed" as necessary for household

order. While in households where there was only one servant,

72

it might be possible to allow "a specially licensed
follower under certain conditions," this was impossible
in homes employing two or more domestics. To allow each
servant to receive male guests would lead to "awkward"
situations as well as undesirable noise and confusion.20
Restrictions against guests were meant to promote the
comfort of the family, even if they interfered with the

life of the servant.

Others advocated permitting servants to entertain
visitors and "followers" at specified times though, of
course, there should be limitations as to late hours."

The "privilege" of having visitors should be limited to
certain times because "it is very inconvenient to have the
quiet and regularity of one's household broken in upon by-
frequent visits paid to servants by friends or

relatives . . . ." Mrs. Wright wrote that the domestic
should be clearly told "that you do not like much company"
but that she might have in her "relatives and nice quiet
friends at proper times" if they were not noisy and left

at the closing hour for the house, ten o'clock in most
households. On the evenings when she was allowed to go out,
the domestic also had to be home by the closing hour estab-
lished by the mistress.21

The paternalistic assumptions of employers were

especially evident in the belief that they should guide the

maid in her choice of "proper" friends. The mistress was to

73

judge the character of the girl's friends and determine
those with whom she should associate. All of a domestic's
friends were to be "well chosen," but such regulation was
particularly important in the case of male'followers,"

who were often considered dangerous to both the morals of
foolish girl and the property of the employer. Followers
were to be permitted in the house only if they were of
"good character;" if one were deemed "vicious" by the
mistress, he should be forbidden from the kitchen and the
girl should be warned of the dangers of such associations.

A lady wrote in Arthur's Home Magazine that, although she

 

believed domestics should be able to have male guests, she
refused admittance to those she decided were "objectionable."
"Guard their acquaintships" and "inform yourself of the
character of her associates" advised writers.22
Another important area of possible paternalistic
influence was religion. Although many servants were unable
to attend church because of the work necessary on Sundays,
some writers recommended that mistresses encourage or even
"induce" servants to go to church, providing adequate
arrangements could be made concerning the preparation of
dinner. Much in the way of religious instruction could be
done within the home by the mistress herself, however, if
she took her role as a home "missionary" seriously. Since

the girl's soul was divinely intrusted to the care of her

employers, the mistress should attempt to inculcate Christian

7“

principles by example and counsel and lead the servant

"to Christ and to Heaven." By providing a Bible and suitable
tracts and by talking "earnestly" with the maid about
religion, one could add to the girl's religious knowledge.
If the domestic was not religious at all, her employer
should try to win her soul for Christ. If the mistress was
Protestant and the servant Catholic, the employer could
still do much to "direct and encourage" the belief of the
domestic without resorting to heavy—handed lecturing or
dictation which would seem offensive to the girl. Several
authors implied that Protestant employerssometinws inter-
fered with the religion of their Catholic servants and tried
to promote their own beliefs. Catherine Beecher strongly
opposed overt interference but was more favorable to more
subtle means of persuasion.

However wrong, or however pernicious we may regard
‘their [servants'] system of faith, we should remem-
ber, that they have been trained to believe that it
is what God commands them to obey, and so long as
they do believe this, we should respect them for
their conscientious scruples, and try not to tempt
them to do what they suppose to be wrong. If we
lead an ignorant and feeble mind to do what it
believes to be wrong, in regard to that most scared
of all duties, those owed to God, how can we expect
them to be faithful to us?

The only lawful way to benefit those whom we regard
as in error, is, not to tempt them to do what they
believe to be wrong, but to give them the light of
knowledge, so that they may be qualified to judge for
themselves. And the way to make them willing to
receive this light, is to be kind to them.23

 

The parental employer might also intervene in the

saving and spending habits of the live-in domestic. Authors

75

counselled domestics to be frugal and put their money into
banks; employers were advised to "induce" servants to save
rather than spend their money foolishly. Catharine Sedgwick,
for instance, pointed out that it was the duty of the mis—
tress "as far as she was qualified by superior judgment,
to regulate their [servants'] expenses." Special care was
to be taken to warn servants against buying fancy or
expensive clothing.2u

Through parental guidance and "kindly teaching them

' employers hoped to win the

[servants] how to improve,‘
"affection and gratitude" of servants, thus overcoming the
"mercenary" quality of the contract relationship. Some
authors assured their readers that they could "secure steady
service" through "benevolent interest" in the lives of their
domestics. Right-minded servants would realize their own
limitations, would be grateful for the advice and interest,
and would respond with loyal and affectionate service "which
money cannot buy and which money cannot reward." As Joseph
Lyman and his wife put it, the good mistress "comes to regard
the servant more as she would a child, and such a feeling,
she may be sure, will create reciprocal confidence, affection,
and devotion on the part of the employee."25
This added up to a theory and system of paternalism
which reached into thousands of American homes. Regulations

restricting the personal freedom of the domestic were

thought necessary to guarantee an orderly household and to

76

guide and control the foolish and child-like domestic who
required protection from herself. Under the influence of
the wiser and more experienced mistress the servant could

be made better——could be taught useful womanly skills,
instructed in religion, and led to personal virtue. She
would be improved, and society would receive a valuable
member rather than a potential pauper or criminal. Through
paternalism, employers hoped to create a more stable and
submissive household labor force obedient to the rules and
will of the mistress. In these respects the combined
benevolence and social control of the household resembled
other instances of employer paternalism in the nineteeth
century, including Lowell and later company towns and even
the slave plantation. In fact, the rationale of Northern
employers, which emphasized the child—like nature of the
worker, the wisdom and benevolence of the mistress, and the
home as a school of knowledge and virtue, did not differ
greatly from the pro-slave argument in defense of the
plantation system. What is particularly significant is that
such paternalistic attitudes toward lower-class workers were
not limited to plantation owners or a few large industrial—
ists but were also part of employer attitudes toward servants
and entered many thousands of middle and upper-class

Northern homes.

77

V

The reverse side of paternalism was the servant's
duty of submission to be given in return for her employer's
wise benevolence. Reminders of the domestic's obligations
of obedience were especially common in the tracts and books
of advice published for the "betterment" of servants before
the Civil War. Such material aimed directly at social
control and was closely related to the activities of the
major tract societies in exhorting men to conform to a
particular set of moral and social values. Servants were
advised to submit willingly to the regulations and guidance
of the employer because such direction was really best for
them. The master made the rules of the household, and
"every servant must conform to those [regulations] of the
family where he takes up his residence, without demur or
hesitation." One tract's model servant tells her friends
that she always follows the advice of her mistress because
her mother "wouldn't let us work where the lady didn't look
after us, and see what company we kept." Ann Connover, the

heroine of Parlour and Kitchen, desired a mistress who would

 

take "charge and care" of her and give her "good care and
instruction." Ann's aunt Jane, a long-time faithful servant,
considered her mistress a "kind friend" who advised her
concerning what clothes she should buy and about "where I
should visit, and about what company I should keep; and, in

short, in every thing I took her advice." The tract further

78

recommended that the mistress should be regarded as one's
"chief friend and counsellor" because employers "are in the
way to know more than we do; and they are altogether wiser
and better able to judge." Such were the words to be
spoken by the right—thinking domestic who realized the
superior judgment of the employer; such was the attitude
employers hoped servants would display.26

Religion proved a useful device inexhorting servants
to the duty of submission. Authors were fond of quoting
such Biblical injunctions as "Servants, be obedient to them
that are your masters, with fear and trembling;" "Servants,

' and "Servants, obey your

obey in all things your masters;'
masters, for it is right." Other suggestions for proper
deference and submission were also heavily infused with the
idea that a just and wise God had assigned each person to
his proper and rightful "place" or "station" in life. One
tract recommended that domestics remember that "God appoints

to all of us our proper places; and we ought to be satisfied

with what he appoints, and say 'Lord, it is good for us to be

here.'" Another advised that God
has given each one his or her own place . . .
It is God's will that you should mind your
employers, and do them service . . . . You are

then to try to mind and serve them because it
is the will of God . . . . God has given the
master and mistress of every house command
over the children and servants of that house;
and you must obey your employer as children
obey their parents.

Since God had assigned the girl to her proper station in

life, she should be contented with her lot and not become

79

dissatisfied or restless. "Be clothed with humility; put
on the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit: . . . be content
with such things as ye have . . . ," suggested one writer.27

Other statements were also used to remind servants of

their proper relation to their employers. Parlour and

 

Kitchen, the tract issued by the American Sunday School
Union, suggested that if a girl disliked a place, she could
leave it, but as long as she remained "she must obey the
master and mistress of that family" completely in every
matter. "The mistress has a right to order and command as
she pleases; and the servant must obey." Another author
contended that "it is the duty of every servant to be sub-
missive and obedient to their employers." A third tract
suggested that "it is their [employers']duty to command,
and yours to obey."28
In a lengthy newspaper article on service the
Philadelphia conservative Sidney George Fisher propounded
the idea that the master-servant relation is "founded in the
laws of man's nature, which, by endowing some with greater
moral and intellectual force than others, decree that some
are born to govern and others to obey, and that each should
find his best happiness in his appropriate sphere." In
service "equality is impossible" because when one party to
the contract is rich and cultivated and the other party is
poor and ignorant "the claim to equality is absurd." It is

true that each party to the contract has duties, but the

80

duties of the master are those "always linked with power
and superiority" such as justice and protection while the
duties of the servant are "those which belong to weakness
and ignorance" including obedience and deference.29
The most complete theory of subordination and sub—
mission was developed by Catherine Beecher, the eldest child
of Lyman Beecher. Miss Beecher was a pioneer in the move-
ment to provide higher education for young ladies and train
women for the teaching profession. She also led the way in

making domestic science an element of the school curriculum.

In 1842 her book Letters to Persons Who Are Engaged in

 

Domestic Service appeared, the avowed purpose of which was

 

to promote the "usefulness and happiness" of domestics,
apparently in that order. She further hoped, she told her
humble readers, "to make you more useful and more contented
with your lot." The founder of several seminaries for young
ladies recommended service as an excellent occupation for
building character because in it "persons form a habit of
submitting their will to the will of another, with readiness
and cheerfulness."3O
In her book Miss Beecher preached a doctrine of the
supremacy of the employer reminiscent of divine right
theories of kingship. She instructed servants that the
Lord "put you in your lot, and he it is that requires you

to be obedient to those that have rule, and . . . be

cheerful, industrious and content with your lot." Later

81

she_went on to discuss the nature of the authority which
men should obey, asserting that "it is by God's will and
appointment that even bad men gain power to rule over others.
And when they have gained this power . . . God
requires . . . honour and obedience to be rendered to them"
even if they abuse their authority. Whenever "men have
power to make laws, customs, and ordinances, we must submit
to them . . . in order to please and obey God" whether
the men be good or evil. In case the maid missed the point,
Miss Beecher noted that God had given the same directions
to both servants and the subjects of civil magistrates. Of
servants specifically:

Their employers are appointed by God, as the

rulers and overseers of the family, and those

they hire are under obligation to obey, in all

matters relating to family work, just as a

citizen is under obligation to obey rulers . . .

The master and mistress of a family are rulers of

their house, just as magistrates are the rulers of

the people . . . . Whether the rulers of a family

be wise or foolish, whether they make good or bad

rules about their work, domestics, as long as

they agree to serve them, should submit to their

directions . . . . 'Obey them that have rule over

you' is the law of God, given to domestics in the

family state, as much as it is to subjects of the

political state.31

Miss Beecher's emphasis on servants remaining in awe

of their divinely ordained employers should not be considered
apart from her injunctions to mistresses to extend "parental
care" over the domestic. The two obligations went together;

each party to the contract had a duty--benevolent paternalism

was offered by the mistress in exchange for the reciprocal

82

duty of submission by the employee. According to Sidney
Fisher, in the ideal relationship the domestic gave
"cheerful, respectful obedience" in return for her employer's

32

"kindness and protection." Furthermore, only the servant
who was submissive to the will and direction of the mistress
could be completely open to the improving influences of wiser

and morally superior employers.

VI

Before 1860 authors generally minimized the possibility
that domestics might be "ungrateful" for the beneficience
of the mistress in guiding the girl's life, but thereafter
some began to notice, or perhaps admit, that servants were
frequently hostile to paternalism. Those who advocated
parental concern often attributed this ungrateful attitude
to the foolish and perverse nature of servants. As mentioned
previously, the Stocktons advised "surveillance and authority"
despite the fact that domestics would probably resent them.
One writer concluded that servants wished to be responsible
for their own lives and did not want to be "cared for" by
kindly employers. "Fanny Fern" thought that domestics failed
to understand the benevolent motives of employers and hence
resisted the efforts made to "civilize" and "humanize" them.
Instead, maids wanted to be "let severely alone;" the fault
lay not with the charitable, "right-minded" mistress but
instead with the "savage" and "unscrupulous" domestic.

Similarly, Eunice Beecher believed that few servants were as

83

grateful as they should have been for the "benevolent
guidance" supplied them. Mary Virginia Terhune, better
known to her readers as "Marion Harland," warned that
"ignorant and illogical" domestics would reject proffered
assistance and kindness, for "there is always a suspicion--
more or less apparent-—that you have a single eye to self-
interest in all your regulations and counsels."33
Some authors, however, were highly critical of the

paternalistic assumptions of employers and the effects
such ideas had on domestic service. Those who attacked the
regulation of the girl's personal life went on to condemn
the entire master—servant relationship as it was interpreted
by most employers. In the years before the Civil War a few
observers complained that mistresses were generally
unwilling to permit the implications of democracy to govern
their attitudes and relations toward domestics. In the
1830's Eliza Farrar found that under "the influence of aris-
tocratic feeling" and

spirit of domination . . . ladies often talk as

if they were living in olden times and had a right

to govern with absolute sway those whom they hire.

They talk of contracts made with house servants, as

if the obligations were all on one side, and as if,

in consideration of the wages paid, the hired

person were to lose all free agency
Caroline Kirkland thought Americans, instead of treating
servants as "fellow citizens," were guilty of undue "assump-

tion" and "enforcing caste in our treatment of

domestics . . . ." Such notions and conduct seemed to her

8A

to be in open conflict with "our profession of democratic

principle;" one day Americans would have "to harmonize more

nearly our political theory and our social practice" in
relation to servants. William A. Alcott condemned the
keeping of servants as "highly anti-republican . . . . By
having a class of persons about them whom they are accus-
tomed to regard as inferiors," employers were, he believed,
"fostering in their own bosoms, as well as cherishing in
the bosoms of their children . . . a feeling which is as

contrary to true republicanism as light is to dark-
"3'4

ness . . .
After the Civil War at least four authors concluded
that paternalism and control were basically undemocratic
and that domestic service could be improved only after these
aspects had been eliminated and the entire nature of the
master-servant relation altered. These critics found
paternalism to be an important part of the connection between
employer and employed. One critic noted that

the relations between mistress and servant are
unlike those of employer and employed in any

other department of labor. Between employer

and employed, the pledges and exactions are
mutual; whilst the mistress exacts everything

from the servant and yields nothing, or as

little as possible, to her . . . . Most mis-
tresses lay down restrictions and regulations

for their servants not only in matters concerning
their work, but in things entirely of a personal
nature with which they have no right to interfere,
which they would find simply unbearable if imposed
*upon themselves or their daughters. Their
incomings, their outgoings, their dress, their
friends are all subjected to rules and restrictions
to an unwarranted extent.

85

Another found "a general disposition to regard them

[servants] as owing not only a peculiar deference but a

sort of personal allegiance to their employers."35
Among those who attacked existing conditions was

Harriet Beecher Stowe, who claimed to see in many of those

who were kind to their domestics "a latent spirit of some-

thing like contempt for the position. That they treat

their servants with so much consideration seems to them

a merit entitling them to the most prostrate grati-

tude . . . ." These mistresses were astonished and hurt that

servants would want better conditions "as a mere matter of

~common justice" rather than as benevolence. The author

of Uncle Tom's Cabin concluded that the situation would be

 

improved only when the contract for service was made for
clearly defined duties and limited hours.

A vast deal of trouble among servants arises from
the impertinent interferences and petty tyrannical
exactions on the part of employers. Now the
authority of the master and mistress of a house

in regard to their domestics extends simply to the
things they have contracted to do and the hours
during which they have contracted to serve; other-
wise than this, they have no more right to interfere
with them in the disposal of their time than with
any mechanic whom they employ. They have, indeed, a
right to regulate the hours of their own household,
and servants can choose between conformity to these
hours and the loss of their situation; but, within
reasonable limits, their right to come and go at
their own discretion, in their own time, should be
unquestioned.3

The most complete attack on the nature of domestic
service in America was launched in the 1870's by Robert

Tomes. Tomes was a writer on questions of manners and

86

and morals, as well as health, for the publishing empire
of the Harper Brothers and was a frequent contributor to
the most fashionable ladies' magazine of the period,

Harper's Bazar. According to him, "the mutual relation

 

between the employer and the employed is considered one
of caste and not of social convenience;" employers demanded
not-only service but also "the show of its subjection."
The only way "the degrading concessions exacted" from
domestics could be completely nullified was by abolishing
live-in service altogether and having servants live outside
and come to the house daily. By thus giving the girl more
personal freedom domestic service would be made more like
other occupations and would be more attractive to a better
grade of workers.

Servants would be relieved from the constant

interference with their independence, that

worrying surveillance, and that insufferable

consciousness that they are never, for any

single moment, in free possession of themselves.

Their contact with an overbearing superiority

would be diminished, their feelings would be

proportionately less irritated by the grovoking
reminders of their own lowly position. 7

 

Such arguments, however, seem to have had little impact at
the time they were presented, and the advocates of pater-
nalism and social control held sway into the eighties. The
type of service relationship desired by Tomes and Mrs. Stowe
began to come only at the turn of the century when house-

hold technology began to replace the live-in domestic.

87

In conclusion, it seems that the comments made by
Tocqueville and Grattan concerning the attitudes of American
employers were inaccurate when compared with the statements
of Americans themselves. Americans either displayed
attitudes far different from those described by these
travelers or condemned what they felt to be the dominant
spirit of undemocratic superiority preached and practiced
by most Americans in regard to their domestics. Americans
often opposed and worked against the contract relationship,
striving to introduce the "warmth" of paternalistic control
and ready obedience into the connection, based on the
conviction that they were obliged to guide and "train-up"
the ignorant domestic. The middle or upper-class home could
provide useful "uplift" and social training for lower-class
domestics. Furthermore, according to critics, employers
thought of servants, not as equal partners to a contract,
but in terms of subordination and "caste." Surely the
paternal ideal of the obedient and faithful domestic submit-
ting to the superior judgment of the employer bears little
resemblance to the democratic ideal. American acceptance
of political democracy does not necessarily mean acceptance
of social democracy in all areas. Although virtually all
Americans professed support and even reverence for political
democracy, many were very reluctant to permit the spirit of

democracy to intrude into their households.

NOTES

1See Lucy Maynard Salmon, Domestic Service (New

 

York, 1897), pp. 55—60; Russell Lynes, The Domesticated

 

Americans (New York, 1962), 156—161; E. S. Turner, What

 

The Butler Saw: Two Hundred and Fifty Years of the

 

Servant Problem (New York, 1963), chapt. xii.

 

2Clifford S. Griffin, Their Brothers' Keepers:

 

Moral Stewardship in the United States (New Brunswick,

 

1960), especially chapt. vi; Charles I. Foster, An

Errand of Mercy: The Evangelical United Front, 1790—

 

1837 (Chapel Hill, 1960), especially chapt. 1; Joseph

R. Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the

 

American Temperance Movement (Urbana, 1963), chapt. ii.

 

Griffen's thesis and work is the most complete; a
concise statement of his position may be found in his
article "Religious Benevolence as Social Control, 1815-

1860," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIV

 

(December, 1957), pp. A23—AAA.

Here and in the next chapter I have used the term
"social control" to refer to educational efforts and
programs designed to mold outlook, values, and conduct.
Specifically, the term is used to mean the activities
of employers to shape the attitudes and behavior of
servants to conform with employers' ideas of what was

proper for a domestic. In the following chapter on

89

charities, "social control" also refers to efforts to
prepare people for, and direct them into, certain,
prescribed social roles or occupations, in this case
domestic service.

3In her House and Home Papers (1865) Mrs. Stowe

 

criticized the nature of service in America and the
undemocratic attitudes of employers. In later books,

however, especially The Chimney Corner (1868), she was

 

more favorable toward service and employer paternalism.
In the second book she encouraged American girls to
enter service because of the many advantages it offered
over other occupations.

"Salmon, Domestic Service, pp. SA—SS.

 

5James Stuart, Three Years in America (Edinburgh,

 

1833), I, pp. 505—506; Elizabeth Ellet, "Helps," Godey's

Lady's Book, April, 18““, pp. 193—195; Catharine Sedgwick,

 

Home: Scenes and Characters Illustrating Christian Truth

 

(Boston, 1835), pp. 71—72; also Plain Talk and Friendly

Advice to Domestics: With Counsel on Home Matters

 

(Boston, 1855), p. 102.

6Frances Wright, Views of Society and Manners in

 

America, ed., Paul R. Baker (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), p.

238;-William A. Alcott, The Young Wife; or, Duties of

 

Woman in the Marriage Relation (Boston, 1837), pp. 155-

 

157; Eliza Farrar, The Young Lady's Friend (Boston, 1837),

 

p. 232; Sarah Josepha Hale, The Good Housekeeper; or, The

 

90

Way to Live Well and To Be Well While We Live (Boston,

 

1839), pp. 112—115; Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to

 

Domestics, p. 103.

 

7Mary Dean, "The Doings and Goings—On of Hired

Girls," Lippincott's Magazine, November, 1877, pp. 589-

 

591; "Woman's Work and Woman's Wages: Shall American

1

Girls Become Servants,’ Arthur's Home Magazine, July,

 

1870, p. 32; "Letter to the Editor," Arthur's Home

 

Magazine, May 1863, p. 30“.

8Harriet Martineau, Society in America (New York,

 

1837), II, p. 2A8; Thomas Grattan, Civilized America

 

(London, 1859), p. 258; Alexis De Tocqueville, Democragy

 

in America, ed., Phillips Bradley (New York, 1963), II,

 

p. 183, also see p. 181.

9Lydia Howard Sigourney, Letters to Mothers (New

 

York, 18A6), p. 197; William Ellery Channing, "Letter to

the Editor of the Christian Palladium," The Christian

 

Register, February 25, 1837, p. 31; Five Points Monthly

 

Record: The New Charitable Monthly; or, What is Done

 

for the Poor, August, 185A, p. 113; Young America,

 

 

July 2“, 18A6; Joseph Bardwell Lyman and Laura E. Lyman,

The Philosophy of Housekeeping: A Scientific and

 

Practical Manual (Hartford, 1869), p. A52; "Our Help,"

 

Arthur's Home Magazine, October, 1870, p. 227; Harriet

 

Prescott Spofford, The Servant Girl Question (Boston,

 

1881), p. 161. See [Sidney George Fisher], "Domestic

91

Servants," North American and United States Gazette

 

[Philadelphia], May 23, 1857 for an extended discussion of
the position that making service a "mere" bargain between
debtor and creditor destroyed its proper role as a "domestic

institution."

10Mathew Carey, "Report on Female Wages," Miscellaneous

 

Essays (Philadelphia, 1830), pp. 271-272; Parker Pillsbury,

"Domestic Service," The Revolution, August 12, 1969, p. 89.
ll

 

Frank R. Stockton and Marian Stockton, The Home:

 

Where It Should Be and What to Put in It (New York, 1872),

p, 93.

12"Domestic Service," 01d and New, September, 1872,

 

p. 362-363; Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Little Foxes," The
Atlantic Monthly, February, 1865, 227; [Jane C. Croly],
"The Cellar," Domorest's Monthly Magazine, April, 1874, p. 132;

Helen R. Cutler, "Journal of a Housekeeper," The Ladies'

 

Rgpositogy, April, 1866, p. 217; "Maids and Mistresses,"
Scribner's Monthly Magazine, September, 1873, p. 628; also

[Jane C. Croly], "The Kitchen," Demorest's Monthly

 

Magazine, May, 187“, p. 178; [Margaret Cockburn

Conkling], The American Gentleman's Guide to Politeness

(New York, 1858), pp. 103-10A; Lyman and Lyman, The Philosophy

 

of Housekeeping, p. A5“. The Lymans discussed the "training
of servants and children" together in the same chapter.
l3Alice B. Neal, "The Servant Question," Godey's

Lady's Book October, 1857, p. 327; Spofford, The Servant

 

 

Girl Question, p. A1.

 

92

1"Julia NcNair Wright, The Complete Home: An

 

Encyclopedia of Domestic Life and Affairs (Philadelphia,

 

1879), p. AA7; Plain Talk and Friendly Advice, pp. 120-

 

121; Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy

 

for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and School (New York,

 

18A2), pp. 207, 210; see also Sigourney, Letters to

 

Mothers, p. 198.

15"The Christian Mistress," The Ladies' Repositogy,

 

June, 1868, p. A65; Sigourney, Letters to Mothers, p.

 

197; Catharine Sedgwick, Live and Let Live; or, Domestic

 

Service Illustrated (New York, 1837), p. 120, also p. vi;

 

'

Godey's, October, 1857, p.

Neal, "The Servant Question,‘

327; also see Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic

 

Economy, pp. 207, 210, 213; Catherine Beecher, Miss

Beecher's Domestic Receipt Book (New York, 18A6), p. 271;

 

Elizabeth Ellet, ed., The Practical Housekeeper: A

 

Cyclopedia of Domestic Economy (New York, 1857), p. 31.

 

16[Sarah Payson Parton], Folly as It Flies: Hit

 

at by Fanny Fern (New York, 1868), p. 116; R[1chapd]

 

R[odgers] Bowkerfln Re Bridget.--The Defense," Old and

New, October, 1871, p. 501; Spofford, The Servant Girl

 

Question, p. Al; Wright, The Complete Home, p. ““7.

 

l7Sedgwick, Live and Let Live, p. 92; [Fisher],

 

"Domestic Servants," North American and United States

 

Gazette, May 23, 1857; Mary Hooker Cornelius, The Yougg

 

Housekeeper's Friend (Boston, 18A6), p. 19; Robert

 

93

Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's New Monthly

 

Magazine, June, 186A, 58; Bowker, "In Re Bridget,"

Old and New, October, 1871, p. 501; Grace A. Ellis,

 

"Our Household Servants," The Galaxy, September, 1872,

 

p- 353-

18[Harriet Beecher Stowe], House and Home Papers

 

(Boston, 1865), p. 219; Catherine Beecher, Miss Beecher's

 

Housekeeper and Healthkeeper (New York, 1873), p. A39;

 

Wright, The Complete Home, pp. A37-A38; see also

 

[Charles Loring Brace], "The Servant Question," The
Nation, October 26, 1865, p. 528; Lyman and Lyman, The

Philosophy of Housekeeping, pp. AA9, A57; Patience Price,

 

"The Revolt in the Kitchen," Godey's Lady's Book,

 

February, 1868, p. 1AA.
19Mrs. C. A. Hopkinson, "The Poor in the Cities,"

Atlantic Monthly, July, 1868, p. 56; Sedgwick, Live and

 

 

Let Live, pp. 70-71; Hale, The Good Housekeeper, p. 12A;

 

[Croly], "The Kitchen," Demorest's, May, 187”, p. 178;

 

Wright, The Complete Home, p. A58; Eunice Beecher,

 

Motherly Talks with Younngousekeepers (New York, 1873),

 

pp. 2H8—2A9; also Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's,

 

June, 186A, p. 59.
2OMathew Carey, "Essay on the Relations Between

Masters and Mistresses and Domestics," Godey's Lady's

 

Book, June, 1835, p. 2A5; Bowker, "In Re Bridget," Old

and New, October, 1871, pp. A98, 500; "Domestic Service,"

9A

Old and New, September, 1872, p. 365; "She," Scribner's

 

 

Monthly Magazine, November, 1871, p. 118; Maud Nathan,

 

Once Upon a Time and Today (New York, 1833), pp. 81-82;

 

[Sarah Payson Parton], Folly As It Flies: Hit at Qy

 

Fanny Fern (New York, 1868), p. 116; "Our New Cook Book:

 

Servants," Arthur's Home Magazine, March, 1870, p. 181;

 

Farrar, The Young Lady's Friend, p. 233; "Domestic

 

Service," Harper's Bazar, May 2, l87A, p. 18A. Robert

 

Tomes criticized the prohibition of followers, a regu-

lation "not infrequently" enforced. The Bazar Book of

 

Decorum (New York, 1870), pp. 231—232.

21[Parton], Folly As It Flies, p. 116; "Our New

 

Cook Book: Servants," Arthur's, March, 1870, p. 181;

Wright, The Complete Home, p. AA5; Nathan, Once Upon a

 

 

Time, p. 81; Stockton and Stockton, The Home, p. 93;

Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, p. 59.

 

22Neal, "The Servant Question," Godey's, October,
1857, p. 327; "Our Biddy: Cousins and Courting,"

Arthur's Home Magazine, March, 1865, p. 185; Stockton

 

and Stockton, The Home, p. 933 Wright, The Complete

 

Home, pp. A37, AA7.

23Ellet, ed., The Practical Housekeeper, p. 31;

 

Neal, "The Servant Question," Godey's, October, 1857, p.

327; Bowker, "In Re Bridget," Old and New, October,

 

1871, p. 501; "The Christian Mistress," The Ladies'

 

Repositogy, June, 1868, p. A65; Catherine Beecher,

 

95

Miss Beecher's Domestic Receipt Book, pp. 272—273. In

 

her House and Home Papers Mrs. Stowe presented a more

 

forceful statement opposing any and all "controversial
interference with the religious faith of our servants."
Expressing respect for the depth of Christian conviction
on the part of Irish Catholic domestics, Mrs. Stowe
found that employers should confine themselves to
encouraging servants "to be good Christians in their
own way" rather than point out the errors of their faith
to them(pp. 220—221).

2"Carey, "Essay on the Relations . . . ," Godey's,

June, 1835, p. 2A5; Farrar, The Young Lady's Friend, p.

 

2A6; Ellet, ed., The Practical Housekeeper, p. 32;

 

Stockton and Stockton, The Home, p. 9A; Sedgwick, Live

and Let Live, p. 11A.

 

25Catherine Beecher, Treatise on Domestic Economy,

 

p. 207; Lyman and Lyman, The Philosophy of Housekeepipg,

 

p. A5A; see also Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, p.

 

23; Wright, The Complete Home, p. A37; Ellet, ed., The

 

Practical Housekeeper, p. 32.

 

26Robert Roberts, The House Servant's Directopy,

 

or a Monitor for Private Families: Comprising Hints

 

on the Arrangement and Performance of Servants' Work

 

(Boston and New York, 1827), p. 15A; Plain Talk and

 

Friendly Advice, p. 60; Parlour and Kitchen; orLAThe

 

 

Stopy of Ann Connover (Philadelphia, 1835), pp. 50,

 

96

57, 97, 99—100. On the general activities of the tract

societies see Griffin, Their Brothers' Keepers, chapt.

 

vi.

27Parlour and Kitchen, pp. 15, 63-6", 83-8"; Plain

 

Talk and Friendly Advice, p. 10; A Friendly Gift for

 

 

Servants and Apprenticee_(New York and Baltimore, 1821),

 

p. 10; see also Roberts, The House Servant's Directory,

 

pp. x, xiii, "Masters and Servants," Godey's Lady's Book,

 

August, 1856, p. 188. The last contains advice for
servants reprinted from a 17A3 English book which the
editors of Godey's, Sarah J. Hale and Louis Godey,
considered "as applicable today as in the hour in which
it was first published."

28Parlour and Kitchen, pp. 82—8A; Roberts, The

 

House Servant's Directory, p. 70; A Friendly Gift,

 

 

p. 15.

29[Fisher], "Domestic Servants," North American

 

and United States Gazette, May 23, 1857.

 

3OCatherine Beecher, Letters to Persons Who Are

 

Engaged in Domestic Service (New York, 18A2), pp. 10, 71.

 

311bid., pp. 9A—95, 100—101, 102.

'J . ‘ o
J2[F1sher], "Domestic Servants," North American

 

and United States Gazette, May 23, 1857.

 

33For the earlier treatment see, for example,

Catherine Beecher, Treatise on Domestic Economy, p. 207;

 

Stockton and Stockton, The Home, p. 93; "Domestic

97

Service," Old and New, September, 1873, p. 363; [Sarah

 

Payson Parton], Ginger—Snaps (New York, 1871), pp. 21—

 

23; Eunice Beecher, Motherleralks, p. 2A9; [Mary

 

Virginia Terhune], Common Sense in the Household: A

Manual of Practical Housewifery (New York, l87A), p. 377.

 

3MFarrar, The Young Lady's Friend, p. 232;

 

Caroline M. Kirkland, The Evening Book (New York, 1851),

 

pp. 168—169, William A. Alcott, The Young Wife, p. 166.

 

35"Woman's Work and Woman's Wages: Shall American

Girls Become Servants," Arthur's Home Magazine, July,

 

1870, pp. 29, 31; Todd S. Goodholme, ed., A Domestic

 

Cyclopedia of Practical Information (New York, 1877),

 

p. A75. The question of the dress of servants will be

considered in a later chapter.

36[Stowe], House and Home Papers, pp. 213—21A,

 

21A—215. In 1877 Mrs. Stowe's advice was reprinted,

without acknowledgment, in Goodholme, ed., A Domestic

 

Cyclopedia, p. A76. Where Mrs. Stowe wrote "Now that"

 

in the second sentence of the above quotation, the
Goodholme book substituted "It would be well if it
were clearly and generally understood that

The succinct conclusion of the 1877 writer was that

"a household servant should be recognized as one who

has contracted to do a certain specified or well-
understood work, and when she has done it her obligations

H

to her employer and his rights over her cease.

98

37Robert Tomes, The Bazar Book of the Household

 

(New York, 1875), pp. 127, 132, 13A, 136—137.

CHAPTER III

CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES RELATING

TO SERVANTS

The impulse to improve and at the same time mold the
servant which led to paternalism within the individual
home was also institutionalized in the creation of charitable
organizations concerned with domestics. In the purposes,
philosophy, and activities of benevolent agencies dealing
with servants, there existed an interplay of motives. Such
charities proposed to "uplift" lower-class servants and
also to serve the interests of the middle and upper-class
supporters of the institutions, who as employers wanted
loyal and efficient domestics. Improving domestics morally
was virtually synonymous with improving them in their capacity
as servants. This happy coincidence of philanthrophy and
self—interest shaped the rhetoric and programs of these
societies. The organizations discussed in this chapter
considered themselves benevolent enterprises assisting the
poor, but much of their charity consisted of providing
employers with faithful, docile domestics. To a large extent,

they were societies for the assistance of housekeepers.

99

100

I

The earliest American philanthropic organizations
concerned exclusively with servants were the Societies for
the Encouragement of Faithful Domestics founded in the
1820's in New York and Philadelphia. The Society for the
Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants in New York
was established in 1825 and issued annual reports through
the eleventh in 1836, apparently its last. By then income
from subscriptions had fallen off, some activities had been
curtailed, and a third of the revenue was derived from a
lease which would seemingly soon expire.l The Philadelphia
Society for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestics began
operation late in 1829 and was closely modelled on the
New York society, most of the rules being identical with
those of the earlier organization. Because of more restricted
financial resources, however, the Philadelphia society
engaged in a more limited range of activities. This group
was still operating in 1833 and issued a report in 183A,
but no information on its operations after 1831 appears to
exist.2 There is no indication that either survived after
the mid—thirties. Similar but less significant societies
existed briefly in Boston and Albany.3

The New York society was less a distinctive response
to problems peculiar to American cities than a reproduction
of a London society founded in 1813, The Society for the

Encouragement of Faithful Female Servants. The New York

lOl

managers retained the goals and programs, and even many of
the specific rules,of the London group. The New Yorkers
made it clear that they were drawing carefully on the expe—
rience of the society in London. The roots of such societies
to promote fidelity among servants go back to eighteenth-
century Britain and the Society for the Encouragement of
Good Servants founded in either 1789 or 1792. The programs
of this organization were much like those of the later soci-
eties in the New World."

The American societies engaged in two principal activ-
ities, operating registry offices or employment agencies
for servants and giving monetary awards to domestics who
had faithfully served the same subscriber for a year or more.
Commercial employment agencies, known as "intelligence

1

offices,’ usually charged the mistress and the domestic
each fifty cents for the services of the office. Patrons of
the societies, however, paid five dollars a year for the use
of the office, but they could then obtain as many domestics
as they needed from the society. Unlike commercial offices,
the societies' agencies were free of charge to domestics.
However, only servants who could produce written "satisfactory
evidence of good character" were permitted to be enrolled on
the books of the office.

The managers of each society reported the annual volume
of business at their offices. Seemingly the average patron

had need for the office about three or four times a year,

indicating a considerable turnover in household servants.

102

 

 

wmm omwa mm: mama Hmwa
mam Hmm Nam mam omma
maeaaeeeaaea
waom ommm .m.c 00mm omwa
mmza mmam mom maom mmma
QQMH mnam mu: mwma omwa
mwza mmmm Hzm mmzm wmwa
sHmH smmm mam swam smwa
mow swam mam :mmH mmwa
show zmz
mom: mmomHm msmnfisomnsm
mpcmsmwmmcm sou mpcm>smw msmcfisomnsm mo mpcm>pmm
czocm mo mCOHpmofiaam< wo Lonezz Lou mcowumofiadd<

 

mofipmosom asmcuamm mom mmaumfioom
one mo mmoasdo aspmflmmm mcp pm zaamscc< oopsoamm mmmcflmsm mo oESHo>II.: mqm<e

103

Both societies pointed out that the number of engagements
actually made was considerably larger than the number given
since many employers failed to inform the office when an
agreement was reached with a domestic supplied by the
registry.5

These figures indicate that although the New York
society lasted only a decade, it provided a significant
share of the city's domestics while in operation. In 1830
the population of Manhattan Island was 197,122; by 1855 it
had more than tripled to 629,810 including 31,7A9 domestics.6
Assuming that the ratio of servants to general population
remained constant, there could scarcely have been more than
10,000 servants in New York City in 1830. At this time the
society was receiving an average of 2000 applications a year
from employers and 3200 or 3300 applications from servants.
The society served more than just New York City; some members
came from Brooklyn and the surrounding countryside. Never—
theless, it seems certain that the society supplied an
important share of the servants in the New York area.

The other main program of both societies was furnishing
graduated premiums to faithful domestics. In its early years
the New York organization selected among the servants nom-
inated for their past faithful services and awarded premiums
ranging from five to twenty dollars to those chosen. This

system proved unsatisfactory, however, because many worthy

domestics went unrewarded; the managers confessed that they

10A

had found "a much greater number of old and faithful domestics"
than they had anticipated. Moreover, it was thought that
this method of awarding premiums failed to encourage young
servants who faced the most temptations. Therefore, in 1828
the organization adopted the system of the London society,
reduced the size of the awards, and promised a premium to
"every nominated servant." Each subscriber was given the
privilege of nominating one servant who would then be eli-
gible for an award at the end of the following twelve month
period. At the end of the year each previously nominated
domestic who had remained in the same home and could produce
a statement of good conduct received an award. The premiums
varied from a Bible or, if he or she had a Bible, two dollars
for one year's service up to ten dollars for the fifth and
every succeeding year of loyal attendance. Additional ser-
vants could be nominated at five dollars a piece. The society
believed that this system offered more incentive to beginning
servants and recommended that subscribers nominate young
domestics. The servants receiving premiums were also given
certificates of good conduct. If a domestic received premiums
for ten years, she would obtain a total of seventy—seven
dollars, probably more than equal to a year's wages. By
these cash awards the managers hoped to provide incentives
for long service.7
The New York society, having greater financial resources
than the Philadelphia organization, offered additional benefits

to loyal servants receiving premiums. The New Yorkers gave

105

those domestics receiving awards who had a bank account

a prize of one per cent of their balance. Servants getting
five year awards were entitled to gratuities of twenty
dollars, later reduced to ten, if they later married with
the approval of their employers. If she became incapicated
or indigent, the five year award winner was promised an
annual sum of up to ten dollars.

Both societies complained that only a small percentage
of eligible subscribers made use of the privilege of nomi-
nating a servant for a premium. Although nomination cost
the patron nothing, the New York managers reported in 1830
that only about 100 of the A78 subscribers had named a
servant for an award.8 This would seem to indicate that
employers regarded the society principally as an agency for
obtaining servants rather than as a benevolent organization
to reward loyal domestics.

The leaders of the societies included men active in
other benevolent enterprises. Each society was directed by
a set of officers and a Board of Managers. In addition,
each had a Board of Patronesses, composed of charitable
ladies, who visited the registry offices and reported to the
managers on the operations of the societies. John Pintard,
the first vice-president of the New York organization, was
the recording secretary and later vice—president of the
American Bible Society. One of the New York managers was
Arthur Tappan, who was active in almost every moral reform

organization in America. Tappan was, among other things, a

106

manager of the Bible Society and the chairman of the power-
ful finance committee of the American Tract Society. Another
manager of the New York society was Moses Allen, a treasurer
of the Tract Society. Through men such as Pintard, Tappan,
and Allen the aims and activities of the organization were
linked to the operations and philosophy of the major religious
benevolent groups. These interdenominational societies, it
has been demonstrated, were interested principally in social
control through persuading men to conform to what the socie—
ties thought to be proper conduct.9 A major figure in the
Philadelphia society was Mathew Carey, the publisher, writer,
and philanthropist, who served as vice—president. Carey
seemed to regard the society as an integral part of the char—
itable activity of Philadelphia. He provided publicity for
the benevolent organization through a series of promotional
pamphlets stressing first the need for such a society and
then its activities. Carey also wrote the annual reports.10
Along with the benevolent, the New York society attracted
the elite of the city. Among the subscribers listed in each
annual report were the Haights, Livingstons, Jays, Schencks,
Schermerhorns, Beekmans, Van Cortlandts, and Lorillards.
Philip Hone, General Winfield Scott, James Kirke Paulding,
Cornelius Vanderbilt, Stephen Whitney, John Coster, Samuel
Ward (who was also active in other benevolent societies),
Alexander Stewart, and John Jacob Astor were all members at

one time or another.

107

The societies had several goals and "benevolent pur—
poses," the foremost of which was the hope that its labors
would produce a more loyal and stable group of servants.
In its first report the New York organization stated that
the chief obstacle to good employer—domestic relations was
the "restlessness of mind and love of change" among servants.
Thus

their ability to be useful is lessened; they are

exposed, by the variety of scenes and associates

which they encounter, to powerful temptations, to

evil conversation, to the contraction of habits

inimical to the interests of their employers, and

opposed to their own happiness. They become impa—

tient of control, or of advice, negligent of their

duty, and, after wandering from place to place, ‘

deteriorating at every change, they not infrequently

end their days in the miserable haunts of vice.
Through their regulations and premiums the society tried to
counteract these tendencies and encourage servants to be
respectable "by acting well the parts which Providence has
assigned to them. . . ." For true domestic harmony, thought
the managers, there must be lasting ties between employers
and their servants; "permanency" in a good place "has ever
been regarded by the Society as an object of primary impor-
tance." The Philadelphia promoters were likewise concerned
with eliminating the "roving disposition" among domestics
"which is so injurious to their best interests and to their
' own comforts."ll
A second aim of these organizations was to assist both

employers and servants by offering the services of honest

and well regulated employment agencies. The societies

108

warned that commercial intelligence offices were dishonest

in their dealings with both mistress and maid. The agencies

conducted by the societies were meant to remedy this situa-

tion. By "a proper investigation" into the habits of applying

servants and the registry of only those with good references,

the managers attempted to assure mistresses of obtaining

trustworthy domestics of high character. Employers might

have "a choice" among good servants. 0n the other hand,

the good domestic could be sure of a place in a respectable

family free of expense. Being conducted "upon the principles

of.justice and benevolence," the registry offices operated

by the societies would protect inntcent girls from fraud

and deception; they would be places "where inexperienced

females coming from the country might safely apply for infor-

mation, and in which their ignorance and youth would be their

security, not their snare. . . ." This feature of an agency

where employers could be relatively certain of getting good

servants and where domestics could obtain places without

charge probably proved the greatest attraction to both mis-

tresses and maids. The New York managers admitted that

many of their patrons subscribed only because of the immed-

iate need of a servant.12
Another important purpose of these charitable societies

was "to ameliorate the moral condition and character" of

the servants assisted. Like other nineteenth-century bene-

volent and moral reform organizations, these societies saw

reform and charity principally in terms of the improvement

109

of morals and "character." To improve character and promote
morality were the highest, and the only really effective,
forms of charity. The managers in both cities spoke contin—
ually of the moral reform of servants. In a typical state—
ment the Philadelphia group contended that the prime objects
. of their efforts were "to ameliorate the condition—-improve
the morals—-and elevate the character" of domestics. The
most complete statement of this gospel of uplift was the
message "To The Public," which the New York managers used as
a preface to their annual reports. According to this
declaration, the objectives of the society were "to prevent
vice, . . .to encourage a virtuous behavior among the inferior
ranks of society," and "to promote the moral and religious
improvement of domestic servants. . . ." The society intended
to foster "morality" among servants and "aid in the mainten-
ance of virtuous habits." The managers argued that they
could advance their aims only through "the moral and religious
improvement of domestic servants."l3
Along with imparting "virtuous habits" the societies
hoped, at the same time, to make better employees. In this
way the organizations united benevolence, moral reform, and
social control. The New York society's function was a dual
one--"to ameliorate the moral condition, and to increase the
usefulness" of domestics. The two things went together;
by improving the character of domestics, the managers assumed
they were making them more "useful" to employers. The New

York society believed that the only way to produce "better

110

servants" was by first making them "better men and women."
When their morals and habits were bettered, servants would
improve "not only in their moral qualities, but in the
duties of their station." The Philadelphia promoters were
equally aware that a morally purified domestic was a valuable
domestic. They promised that while they were reforming and
assisting servants they would "inculcate principles and 3
encourage habits calculated to promote their [servants'] own
happiness and to make them more useful to their employers."lu
Although the New York society referred to itself as a
15

"charity" and "a benevolent institution," the appeal to
the self—interest of the subscriber was clear. The managers
pointed out that the patron would receive increased security,
order, and comfort from his uplifting efforts. The moral
reform of "To The Public" was tempered by the comment that
"the money subscribed will return with increase into our

own families" because of the improvement in the quality of
domestics. In this charity the subscribers would "reap

the immediate benefit of their own personal endeavors."

The report for 1830 announced that "while a great moral

good has been effected among our servants, it is evident to
the managers, that the tranquility and comfort, the good
order and domestic enjoyment of its patrons has also been
increased, and that their liberality has returned threefold
into their own bosoms." Thus philanthrophy would benefit

the charitable patron. An address signed by Mathew Carey

and seven others which advocated a society for Philadelphia

111

recommended the enterprise "not merely to the benevolence,

but also to the self—interest" of potential patrons. Much

of the "charitable" activity engaged in by these "Christian

philanthropists" consisted, not of assisting servants, but

of promoting the interests of employers. Here was a "charity"

meant "to assist its subscribers in procuring competent and

faithful servants. ."16
The New York society, which was more active and ambitious

than its Philadelphia counterpart, worked in several specific

ways to "improve” domestics. These activities were directed

toward conforming servants to the organization's stated

concept of good servants—~"those who reverence the name of

God, and are sober, honest, and industrious, in the stations

they occupy."17

Since servants were "often ignorant of
their true interest" and generally "ill—advised," they needed
"the prudent and salutary advice" offered by the agent of
the office and the patronesses who visited the registry. The
partonesses praised the agent and his wife for the guidance
they provided domestics using the office. On their visits
the ladies might also give useful counsel "to the humble and
often friendless" servants at the registry.18

The organization clearly recognized the value of religion
in forming a more obedient labor force. Devoutly religious
servants tended, the managers found, to remain longer in
their places, and those domestics who were nominated for the

longest periods of service "are represented to be as remarkable

for their piety, as for the faithful discharge of their secular

112

duties." Any scheme for the improvement of domestics, stated

the First Annual Report, must "directly" aim at making them

 

"wise unto salvation, and to point their view beyond their
obscure lot in this world, to the eternal holiness and happ-
iness of heaven, where there is neither master nor ser—
vant. . . ." In 1830 Jonathan Steele, the secretary of the
society, wrote to the clergymen of New York that "servants
who are(3xnistians indeed, will, it is believed, be better
servants (other things being equal) than those who have not
the fear of God before their eyes."19
In line with such ideas the society engaged in the dis-
tribution of printed material, including the Bible, which
would lead the domestic to become a better and more religious
person as well as a better worker. In the early years of
the organization every servant receiving an award was given
a Bible, but later Bibles were given only to first-year
recipients who did not already have a copy. The managers
thought it important that every domestic have a Bible because
it contained "divine counsel" on the relation between master
and servant. The Scriptures taught masters to treat servants
as fellow human beings "though in an inferior station" and
taught servants "faithfulness, diligence, and obedience to
their master in all lawful things."20
A closely related project was the publication and dis-
tribution of tracts.fllittle messangers of usefulness."

Many servants wanted "to acquire knowledge becoming their

sphere in life" and would like to read. Employers were

113

advised to provide domestics with "well-selected" literature,
including tracts, hymnals, and "light moral tales." A
judiciously chosen "kitchen library" would provide moral
reading and would keep the girl away from "injurious publi-
cations" and "less innocent enjoyments." The society itself
published tracts intended "to promote the diffusion of good
counsels. . . ." During its early years of existence the
society awarded annual prizes of thirty dollars for the best
tract submitted for the instruction of domestics "in their
moral and religious duties." The first winner was Mrs. Joanna

Bethune for her short offering Friendly Advice to Servants,

 

of which three thousand copies were printed. Later tracts
published by the organization included Sarah; or, The Victim

of Pride and A_Father's Advice to His Daughter on Going Out

 

to Service. They also reprinted Poo§_Richard to help instill

lessons of thrift and repress extravagance.21

 

 

This venture into publishing involved the society closely

with the larger benevolent and moral reform organizations
engaged in similar operations. Some of the society's tracts
were sold, others were given away to domestics at the office,
and still others were distributed by the New York City Tract
Society. The agent also gave away to servants other tracts
supplied by the City Tract Society. The society's tracts
and annual reports were printed by Daniel Fanshaw, a member,
who did the printing for both the American Tract Society and
the American Bible Society. In later years the society

reduced its publishing operations, although therewere continued

11A

printings of Poor Richard, and relied on distributing at

 

the office tracts provided "on generous terms" by the
American Tract Society. Interlocking leadership in the
persons of Tappan and Allen led to interlocking activities.
In 1836 the managers especially recommended that employers
supply their servants with the American Sunday School Union's

"valuable little book for servants," Parlour and Kitchen,
22

 

which preached the virtues of submission and obedience.
Despite the fairly constant rate of applications for
servants per subscriber (except for the especially heavy
demand reported in 1827), the New York managers felt sure
they were actually accomplishing their purposes. The
replies to a circular sent to subscribers to ascertain the
character and conduct of domestics obtained through the
office led the society to conclude "that the moral character
of servants has greatly improved—-that they are rising to
higher degrees of moral elevation, in respect for their own
reputation, the duties of their calling, and the rights and
interests of their employers. . . ." In several reports the
managers claimed that domestics were staying longer in their
places because of the efforts of the society. In 1830, when
the rate of applications was at its lowest, the managers were
especially confident in the value of the organization and
pointed to the decreasing need of subscribers to apply to
the office. At least one of the leaders, John Pintard,
agreed privately as to the worth and success of the society.

When two of his domestics received premiums in 1827, Pintard

115

wrote to his daughter that "this Society is rendering great
services to reform the character of servants of both sexes
and if continued to be supported, will continue as it has
already become a resort for domestics whose character can

be relied on." A short time later he added that "the Society
has done and if patronized will continue to do a great deal

of good."23

Although the initial response of domestics seems to have
been somewhat suspicious, in every year after the first over
3000 servants in search of jobs made use of the registry,
probably because it was free of charge and perhaps more

honest than commerical offices. In the FirsE_Annual Report

 

the managers complained that stories were circulating
among servants that the society was hostile to their inter-
ests. The following year the patronesses encouraged sub-
scribers to counteract the "false and injurious suggestions"
that "tend to prejudice the minds of servants against an
institution designed for their benefit. . . ." In subsequent
reports, however, the managers seemed satisfied that domestics
duely valued the labors of the society. Indeed, servants
were credited with appreciating the society more than New
York's householders.2u

Two pieces in labor newspapers give some indication of
the charges made against the societies by critics. Although
printed in workingmen's papers, the articles themselves

seem to have been written by men from more substantial

elements of the population. A correspondent to the Mechanics'

 

116

Free Press of Philadelphia, who claimed to know various

 

members including Carey, said that he had declined member-
ship in the society because he "believed its tendency

rather to degrade than to elevate the character of the vir-
tuous and industrious females whom it is intended to
benefit, and think a society to encourage 'faithful employers'
more likely to attain the end desired." During his twenty
years as an employer, the anonymous writer had come to con-
clude that if treated as "rational" beings, servants were
generally as honest and virtuous as employers. He thought
that "there is in this country less to be complained of on

the part of the employer than the employed."25

On the same day that this letter appeared in the Phila—

delphia press, a more biting attack in New York's Workingman's

 

Advocate complained that the members and directors of the
New York society

are more concerned for the spiritual interests of
those who are under the necessity of hiring them-
selves to do the work of others, than for their
temporal prosperity in this world. By the religious
tracts issued by the society, it appears that heavenly
treasures are held out to laborers as a better reward
for their services than high wages.

This writer quoted at length from an earlier assault on the

organization from The Christian_lnquirer of May 6, 1826.

 

The earlier article is especially critical of the undemocratic

nature and assumed superiority of Mrs. Bethune's Friendly

 

Advice tngervants, findinglmukiChesterfield to be comparatively

 

enlightened when contrasted with the writer of the tract.

The 1826 author concluded that the duties advocated by the

117

society were "too much on one side, tending more to be the
advantage of the hirer than the hired;" servants were to
be "meek and humble" under any and all impositions. He
charged that "the society appear to think that there is a
certain species of mankind, born for the use of the remainder;
and they talk of improving them as they would a breed of
horned cattle."26
These criticisms contain a real element of truth.
Societies to encourage faithful domestics were combined
employment agencies and moral reform associations. Their
emphasis was on reforming;tkm2habits and character of ser—
vants in such a way as to benefit employers. The philan—
thropic work of the organizations was closely connected with
goals of social control; moral reform and improvemnt were
equated with making the girl a "useful" and obedient worker.
In leadership and in the distribution of tracts the New York
society was closely linked with the religious and moral reform
groups which Clifford Griffin has shown to have been princi-
pally interested in spreading their own standards of morality
and bringing social order and stability. Moral reform and
social control often marched hand in hand. Householders were
encouraged to join these societies out of harmonious motives
of benevolence and self-interest. The managers tried, they
wrote, "to secure to faithful domestics such encouragement
as they deserve, confident, at the same time, that they have
promoted the interests of their patrons." In the final analysis

the basic goal of each of these societies was to further

118

"the peace and order of those families on whose patronage
it must depend."27
Although these societies disappeared after only a
decade of existence, their outlook, attitudes, and programs

continued, appearing in later benevolent endeavors. After
the collapse of the New York society, a number of benevolent
organizations in the city set up employment agencies which
were free of charge to servants. Because many commercial
intelligence offices were thought to be corrupt and to send
unsuspecting girls to "evil houses," The American Female
Guardian Society opened an office for domestics in 1837

28

which lasted until the 1880's. The survival of the values
displayed by these societies for faithful domestics can be
best demonstrated, however, through an analysis of other

types of benevolent enterprises dealing with servants.

II

A related type of institution designed expressly for
domestics was the servants' "home," which provided both
lodging and jobs for those out of a place. Ambivalent goals
and motives also characterized these charitable "homes."
One example, The Christian Home for Female Servants, was
founded in New York in 1853 and was said to be "a noble
enterprise, at once expedient and philanthropic, in a high
degree." Girls who were destitute were given their room and
board gratuitously. While lodging servants, the home also

conducted a registry office, free to domestics, to supply

119

girls with jobs and mistresses with servants. Along with
places, the girls in the home were given "affectionate,
maternal advice and religious instruction appropriate to
their circumstances." All the inmates, including those
who were Catholics, were expected to attend the home's daily
devotions every morning and evening. It was explained that
the "Christian philanthropist" who gave servants "kindness
and instruction" could gain extensive influence over them
and communicate to them "new and better ideas of the qual-
ificiations of a domestic servant." Those who wished to
apply to the office for domestics were assured that the
home's charity "attracts very large numbers of candidates
for the employer's choice" and that its "parental interest"
in the girls "tends to sift out the hardened and depraved,
by mutual repulsion, and to attract the well-disposed and
manageable. . . ." In its first eighteen months of operation
the home found places for over a thousand girls.29
A similar institution which felt it was filling "a
charitable need" was St. Joseph's Home for Sick and Destitute
Servant Girls, a Roman Catholic organization founded in
Boston in 1866. Servants out of a place were given respect-
able lodgings at a small cost; those in need of medical
attention received it free of charge. In 1869 the home
reported that while its major purpose "is to provide a
temporary home for poor, friendless, and homeless women. . .,
the managers also desire to discourage idleness by finding

occupations for its inmates as soon as may be, and to assist

120

housekeepers, at the same time, in obtaining reliable
domestics." The managers hoped to be "of actual service

»to those benevolent persons" who were always willing to
contribute to worthy charities. These philanthrOpic persons
were reminded that the home offered "the means of obtaining
every kind of female servant at the shortest notice."

Between 1866 and 1869 the home took in about 1200 inmates.30
Both of these institutions openly appealed for support on

the basis of the advantages they could offer employers.
Helping servants was as much a means to assist employers as

it was an end in itself.

111

One important type of nineteenth-century charitable
enterprise was the institution providing temporary shelter,
training, and finally a "Christian home" for young orphans
or the children of indigent or unfit parents. Orphanages
and children's homes customarily either indentured or
"placed out" under somewhat less rigid arrangements their
charges until they were eighteen. The children were expected
to pay for the homes they received with work, the boys becom—
ing apprentices or farm laborers and the girls becoming
domestic assistants. By having the girls themselves do the
general housework of the institution, the home provided them
training to be domestics in the families in which they were
placed. These asylums and homes believed that through this

system the girls were being placed in a "useful" calling

121

under the close control and ennobling influence of pious,
respectable, middle—class homes. It was thought that the
Christian family was the best institution for the long-
range control of vagrant youth. On the other hand, mis-
tresses were furnished with servants who were dependent on
their benefactors, who would find it difficult to change
their places, and who had been schooled in both housework
and the virtues of obedience by the charitable institution.
Here again, philanthrophy worked to the advantage of those
seeking domestics.

Orphanages and children's homes or societies were
created to provide separate care for dependent children, to
remove them from the control and authority of public alms-
houses where they were mixed with adult paupers and criminals.
An orphanage for girls was opened in Boston in 1800, and
asylums for children of both sexes were founded in New York
in 1806 and Philadelphia in 181A. Such facilities expanded
rapidly beginning with the thirties. During the decade
groups in Cincinnati, Bangor, Maine, New Haven, Providence,
Brooklyn, Buffalo, Rochester, Troy, and Utica set up local
asylums. All of these were private institutions although
many of them received some public support. While it had
established orphanages in New York, Boston, Philadelphia,
and Brooklyn by 1831, the Roman Catholic Church was active
in organizing asylums, usually for girls only, in most
upstate New York cities in the 18A0's and 1850's. In all,

at least seventy-seven orphanages and other institutions

122

devoted to child care were in operation by 1850, including
homes in several western cities, notably Cincinnati (1833
and a German Protestant Orphan Asylum in 18A9), Chicago
(18u9), and Indianapolis (1851). After 1850, such homes
and institutions multiplied rapidly throughout the nation.31
Writers who called upon housekeepers to take part in
home charity by taking girls from these homes and orphanages
"to bring up" stressed both the duty of paternal benevolence
and the tangible benefit to the mistress. The New York
Society for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestics noted
that the trouble involved in raising a girl of "vicious and
improvident parents” would "generally be richly repaid by
the capability and attachment of the servant." The patron-
- esses expressed the hOpe that the society would be able to
open a training school for the purpose of "educating young
and friendless females, and qualifying them for respectable
places of service. . . ." Under existing conditions, the
ladies complained, mistresses were forced to attempt to train
grown women "and do not find them very docile." PreSumably
"young and friendless" girls would be more "docile."
Catharine Sedgwick similarily pointed out that a young girl
was more malleable than a grown servant; "young subjects
can be remoulded and taught" more easily. The employer
would be "amply paid" in good service for her efforts in
giving the girl "a moral and religious education." Lydia
Sigourney suggested that to'train up" a young girl "in use-

fulness and piety" was "an act of benevolence;" "a deed of

123

mercy." By such endeavors the girl could be "moulded into
an ally" who would render the sort of loving service "which
could not be purchased with money."32 In the minds of these
persons charitable uplift was inseparable from acquiring a
useful domestic servant. A similar interplay of motives,
including a large supply of self-interest, was, no doubt,
present in the minds of those who applied to institutions
for girls.

Most asylums and homes for children readily cooperated
with this desire for young, dependent servants, at least up
to the point where the employer's self—interest turned into
blatant exploitation. From their beginning, institutions
for children generally disposed of girls over ten by placing
them as domestic assistants in private homes. These wards
were entrusted to the care of the family until they were
eighteen. In return for her work the girl was to receive
board, clothing and "a certain amount" of education. Writing
about the Boston Female Asylum in 18AA, an author indicated
that throughout the institution's history from 1800 to 18AA
most of its inmates had been sent out as servants. The
third annual report of the New York Orphan Asylum Society,
which had been established in 1806, reported that an important
part of its plan was

to bind out the girls as servants from the time they
can read and write until they are eighteen; and the
boys, when equally instructed, are to be put out as
servants till the age of fifteen, at which time they
are to be returned to the trustees of the asylum, who

will then bind them as apprentices to virtuous mech-
anics.33

12A

Nor were such activities confined to the largest urban
centers. William P. Letchworth's study of institutions for
children throughout New York state in 1876 makes it clear
that the practice of indenturing or placing girls as domestics
was typical in every part of the state. Almost every home
discussed by Letchworth trained its girls in domestic work
before sending them to private homes. St. Vincent's Female
Orphan Asylum in Buffalo reported that "most" of its charges
entered service, and other upstate homes implied the same.
The situation was similar in the state-operated institutions
for children created in Michigan, one of the first states
to set up such homes. The Michigan State Public School for
Dependent Children, which opened in 1871 in Goldwater, trained
its girls in domestic skills; the superintendent noted that
he had "no trouble whatever in finding homes for the girls;
in fact, the demand is greater than the supply." The Mich-
igan State Industrial Home for Girls (1881) bound out its
inmates only after they had been "given a thorough education
in all branches of household work."314

Two organizations which seem to have been typical in
their programs, aims, and outlook were the Industrial Home
for Girls, located in Philadelphia, and the Girls' Lodging
House, one of the institutions operated by the New York
Children's Aid Society. These two charities have been
chosen for extended examination because their reports were
especially complete and explicit concerning their aCtivities

in training girls as domestics. Although both were located

125

on the Eastern seaboard and neither opened before 1855,
their programs and objectives seem to have been representa-
tiveof similar benevolent enterprises throughout the North,
some of which were in operation as early as the first decade
of the nineteenth century.

The Industrial Home for Girls was opened in the fall
of 1857; its attention was directed toward girls from twelve
to seventeen, though girls younger than twelve were sometimes
accepted. Some of the inmates were orphans, but most came
from "vicious" or unworthy families who provided no "whole-
some example" or "watchful care." The home indentured its
girls in "respectable" families until they reached the age
of eighteen. The home was a rather small institution and
bound out fewer then twenty girls per year. Aware of the
heavy demand for children and teen—age girls as domestics,
the home gave its inmates enough instruction in ordinary
housework (by having them do the labor of the house) "to
satisfy those who make application for them as domestics in
their families. . . ." The managers thus felt that they
were accomplishing "a two—fold benefit. . .to a large class
of young girls, and to the public in general. . . ." The
managers of the home indicated that one of their major
objectives was to meet "the demand for young girls in private
families" by channeling into service those who would other-
wise "grow up in idleness and sin" and probably become paupers.
Although it was said that the girl would be trained in "what-
ever" skill or trade she showed promise, in fact, the vast

35

majority of the girls indentured were put out as domestics.

126

When the house appealed for money, the campaign was
based heavily on its ability to supply indentured domestics,
apparently in the belief that this aspect of its work would
attract support. In 1868, while commenting on the efforts
to raise money the previous year, the managers stated that
despite continued lack of space and funds "the plan for
making the home more of a training school for servants, etc.,
which was much dwelt upon at the time of the appeals for
money to build, is not at all abandoned."36

Although the managers believed that the "quiet dis-
cipline" of a Christian family was the best influence over
a girl, they also recognized their own ability to "improve"
their charges. The matron provided daily religious instruc-
tion, and the girls "all regularly attend church and Sabbath-
school." In addition to lessons in housework and religion,
the girls received an elementary education and were "suffic-
iently well instructed for their condition in life." When
the managers decided to retain the girls in the home longer
to give them more household training and a more complete
"common education," worried patrons were assured that such
a "practical" education did not conflict with the ends of
good domestic service.

The girls are educated and fitted for service, not
for ambitious effort to rise above their station in
life; they will be better servants. . .by having
their minds awakened to know something of the world
in which they live, and their relations to it.

They [the girls] are in school daily, not with a.
view of raising them above the station in which God
has placed them, or of giving them what is called an

127

'education,' but in order that they may use the

mental powers that their Creator has given them,

for their own improvement and the good of others.37

"One of the greatest difficulties" of the institution

was in finding good homes where the girls would be treated
with kindness and patience, homes where the desire for a
servant was tempered by true benevolence. Early reports
reminded masters and mistresses that they were to care for
and instruct the child, duties which it was implied many
recipients of girls failed to fulfill. Neither were mis-
tresses to expect the child to do the same amount of work
that a mature, hired servant could perform. In later reports
the managers became more barbed in regard to applicants
with little or no concern for the welfare of the child.
When the home decided to keep the inmates longer, an action
taken largely because so many subsequent masters neglected
their responsibility to educate them, many applicants were
unable to obtain girls. Some of these people, stated the
next report caustically, "could not quite understand that
the good of the girl was, in the minds of the Managers,
paramount to the supply of the pressing necessities of those
wanting them as servants." The following report again noted:

It is the wish of the Managers to prevent this from

ever becoming an intelligence office for servants.

Their main object is to promote the good of the girls

under their care, and they desire this to be prominent

also in the minds of those who take them into their

families--not merely a desire to get service at a cheap

and easy rate.

Thus there were limits to how far the home would go in pro-

moting the interests of masters and mistresses. Nevertheless,

128

training and furnishing domestics to applicants such as
those criticized above remained the principal activity of
the institution.38

Similar work in supplying domestics was undertaken by
The New York Children's Aid Society under the leadership of
its founder and Secretary, Charles Loring Brace. Brace firmly
believed that "no relief can be of permanent value to society,
or to the poor themselves, without influence in some form,

on character. . . ." The great object of the society was

therefore "the permanent change 93 character of the children

 

of the poor." The only way to accomplish such a complete
alteration, and to keep the vagrant and deliquent children
of New York from threatening the foundations of social
order, was by removing them from the pernicious influences
and associations of the city and sending them to rural homes
where Christian training and healthful work would make
possible the requisite moral reform. The Children's Aid
Society did not indenture its children; it "placed" them in
families under a foster home plan. Although less legalistic
than indenture, the placement system still demanded that

the youth work for his support. For those girls sent to
farm areas through the society's general placement work,
this meant doing "the common kinds of housework" in their
new homes.39

Apart from those placed as domestics in this manner,

one of the society's institutions, the Girls' Lodging House,

129

was especially concerned with preparing servants. The
goals of the Lodging House, which was established in 1862,
conformed to the general philosophy of moral reform and self—
help preached by Brace and the society. The matron of the
house noted that the purpose was to improve the "moral and
religious condition" of poor girls. The aim was to train
girls "in habits of neatness and industry, bring them under
good moral influences, and then, as soon as possible, pass
them through to a place." The house was not to be thought
of as an asylum or "home" but rather as "merely a stepping-
stone to getting on in the world." Once placed_in a respect—
able, Christian family, the uplifting influences of self-
help, regular work, and a stable home life would begin to
do their work. According to Brace, the house was meant "to
reform habits and character through moral and material
appliances. . . ." He explained that

we hoped to begin the work of improvement with

these young girls, and then leave them to the

natural agencies of society. To teach them to

work, to be clean, and to understand the virtues

of order and punctuality; to lay the foundations

of a housekeeper or servant; to bring the influences
of discipline, of kindness, and religion to bear

on these wild and ungoverened creatures. . .then
some good home or respectable family were to do
the rest.

The house was intended for "homeless and friendless"
girls under eighteen. Except in cases of special hardship,
those over eighteen were excluded in order to protect the
girls from hardened young women of "doubtful character" and

confirmed bad habits. While most of the girls admitted

130

were between fourteen and eighteen, many girls as young as
ten passed through the house. Apparently girls of fifteen
and under were usually placed in foster homes whereas the
older ones were assisted in finding employment. Some girls
.stayed only a night or two, but others remained several
weeks. By the mid—seventies 1300 girls a year passed through
the house, seven to eight hundred of whom were directly
placed in situations by the institution.“1

The large majority of girls admitted to the house
became domestics, due in part to the urging of the society.
The first matron noted in 1863 that the girls were taught
that "nothing was so honorable as industrious house-work"
in hopes of breaking down their reluctance to becoming
servants. The second matron reported that "great efforts
have been made to induce the girls to go into domestic
service. . . ." Such labors paid off; it was said of the
girls who had gone through the house in l87A—1875 that "nearly

."U2 Encouraging

all have gone into domestic service.
girls to enter service fit into the society's philosophy

of placing girls as completely as possible under the wise
and benevolent control of a Christian family. Of course,

it also coincided with the desire of employers for young,
manageable domestics. To the disappointment of the society,
however, few Lodging House girls wanted to go to the West
with its especially beneficial influences; most went to

A
situations "in the city and adjacent country towns. ." 3

131

In addition to enforcing work—related virtues such as
"order and punctuality," the Lodging House undertook paternal
guidance aimed at forming the personal habits of the girl
so as to make her a more agreeable domestic in a middle or
upper-class home. On their entry into the house "the first
effort was to teach the girls something like a habit of
personal cleanliness. . . ." Also required was the salutary
’discipline of "early rising and going to bed at a reasonable
hour," i.e. nine o'clock. "A great deal of stress, of course,
was laid on religious and moral instruction," wrote Brace.
Lessons of "neatness and sobriety" were instilled into the
girls. The matron and staff provided helpful advice, and
one of the society's trustees, B. J. Howland, went to the
house twice a week to instruct the girls in "the principles
of morality and religion" and act as a "father and coun-
selor. . . ." Religious instruction was given every morning,
and prayers were held each evening at 8:A5. Services were
conducted every Sunday morning and evening; the evening
services were sometimes led by Brace himself.uu

A crucial part of the reformation process provided by
the house was vocational training, in this case principally
teaching the girls to be domestics. Besides instructing
the girl in how to do the work, the training provided valuable
discipline in essential work habits such as punctuality and
obedience to authority. The girls who could afford the
nominal cost of daily room and board spent their day outside

seeking employment. Those who could not afford to pay, the

132

large majority, paid for their lodging by doing the domestic
labor of the house, mostly scrubbing, sweeping, and other
types of general housework although some attention was given
to simple cooking and laundry work. This was called the
"training class" and was regarded as a service to provide
the girls with "some training before going to situations"
as servants."r5
The Lodging House also had a program for teaching
machine sewing on machines given to the society. The instruc—
tion was free of charge to girls. Most of those in the sew—
ing class, however, were not staying in the house but were
girls who came in daily from the outside. Of those who were
actual inmates of the house, most were trained in domestic
work. In 1875 the matron indicated something of the pressure
on the house to concentrate its efforts on service. Some-
what defensively, she pointed out that there was a real need
to train girls in sewing as well as domestic work. Supporters
were assured that "we recognize fully the arguments in favor
of domestic service for girls, and faithfully combat the
growing distaste for it, giving it the position of importance
and honor it deserves, by throwing the weight of our efforts
in that direction. ."U6
For a time it was intended to create a "servants' train-
ing school" which would provide a complete and thorough
course in cooking, washing, and other aspects of household

labor for a few girls. In the very early seventies some

girls do seem to have been extensively trained under such a

133

program, but little actually resulted from the effort. By
the mid-seventies the "training school" had become synonymous
with the "training class" for the bulk of the girls. Even
when the "training school" was in operation, most girls
continued learning the elementary branches of housework
through the work they did for their board. One reason why
girls could not be more completely trained was because of
the heavy demand for them as domestics coupled with the
house's resolve to put them out "as soon as possible." The
matron explained that "the applications [for girls] are so
numerous that we seldom keep one until she is thoroughly
trained, ladies being ready to take them in any stage of
development rather than go to intelligence offices."u7
When appealing for support and publicizing the Lodging
House, Brace himself emphasized its role in supplying
domestics. The original circular concerning the house, "A
Plan for an Institution for Poor Young Girls," stressed,
according to Brace's daughter, "the great need of a trained
domestic service. . . ." The secretary and his associates
intended to train destitute girls in housework and prepare
them as servants. Emma Brace reported of her father's plan
that "it was hoped that this class of young girls, growing
up in idle and vagabond habits, would learn a useful indus-
trial calling, and might be brought under the best personal

influence." In his later statements Brace continued to

emphasize this aspect of the institution. In The Dangerous

 

Classes of New York he wrote of the training program for

 

13A

servants that "nothing is more needed among this class
[poor and vagrant girls], or by the public generally. . . ."
Apparently referring to the short—lived, more specialized

"Training School" in an article in Harper's New Monthly

 

Magazine, Brace pointed out that the efforts of the house
would benefit needy mistresses as well as needy girls.
The "benevolent managers" of the Lodging House "have taken
pity on our housekeepers," he wrote. "They have remembered
the troubles which every family undergoes from awkward and
ignorant domestic service. . . ." The house was attempting
"to remedy this evil" by training domestics in hopes that
"the experiment may result in producing a class, which is
the greatest necessity in this country, of thorough-trained
servants." In his calls for support the secretary was care-
ful to remind readers that their desire for skilled and
obedient domestics had not been neglected.“8

Brace's personal attitudes toward servants and the
occupation for which his organization was training girls
was not very favorable. Three years after his "Plan for

an Institution for Poor Young Girls," he contributed an

anonymous article to The_Nation on the general servant

 

question. Brace found that it was perfectly understandable
that American girls avoided service.

The relation itself [of master and servant] is an
unnatural and difficult one. It needs a somewhat
irregular, dependent, and unambitious person to be
willing to sacrifice all privacy, independence, and
chances of rising in the world, and labor on in the
hap—hazard way which American households require.

135

A servant in America is usually an inferior sort

of person, morally considered, when compared, for

instance,with the class keeping their own homes.

The work is not hard, but it is exactingugnd en-

tirely invades privacy, and is ill—paid.
This from a man whose associates made "great efforts.
to induce girls to go into domestic service. . . ." Such
was the secretary's Opinion of the occupation in which he
was training and placing unfortunate and "friendless" girls.
The statement also indicates something of Brace's attitude
toward the girls he was helping. Apparently, he felt that
these children were suited to becoming domestics because
their moral inferiority and "irregular" and "unambitious"
character meant that little else could be expected of them.

In view of the official doctrine of work and self-help

advocated by the Children's Aid Society, Brace's comment
that domestics forfeited all "chances of rising in the world"
is especially interesting. The consciences of Brace and
his co—workers seem to have been untroubled by placing girls

dependent on them into such a lowly occupation from which

their chances of rising seemed to them so poor. The reasoning

was that if the child of poor and unfit parents were left in
a city slum, she would have no chance of rising whatsoever;
the limited opportunity for advancement offered by the efforts
of the Lodging House was far more than she would have other-
wise. The first matron of the house noted in her journal

that a former inmate had gone West and was now married to a
snail farmer and that "her prospect here [in New York] never

lwould have been above a garret or cellar." In one of the

136

annual reports the matron stated proudly that many of the
girls "have risen to good positions as domestics."50
Philadelphia's Industrial Home for Girls subscribed
to the same view that becoming a servant was itself a step
up for these degraded "creatures." The home indentured one
of its inmates because it was "the only chance she could
have of improvement." Being a useful domestic servant, it
was thought, was surely better than the life of vagrancy
or crime the girl would almost certainly lead otherwise.
The managers of the home pointed to one inmate who had
"proved herself a good, faithful, Christian servant" and
congratulated themselves that through their labors "this
girl was lifted from pauperism to a position of respecta-
bility and comfort."51
The philanthrophy of the Industrial Home for Girls
and the Girls' Lodging House, which were typical of the many
charitable organizations dealing with destitute girls, con-
sisted largely of training their inmates to be domestics and
then finding homes for them (and conversely supplying these
young domestics to mistresses) and at the same time reforming
the morals and habits of the girls. In practice this latter
activity meant schooling the girl in the values of her
benefactors and teaching her habits which would make her a
better and more humble servant. The social control in

these attempts to shape the values and habits of the girl

is clear.

137

The programs of these institutions represented social
control in another sense also. The main concern of the
charity was to place girls under the close, beneficent con—
trol and uplift of a respectable family; to achieve this the
girl was prepared as a domestic. The institutions channeled
poor girls into service, a menial occupation which even
Charles Loring Brace, one of the nineteenth—century's chief
apostles of self—help, conceded offered comparatively little
chance for mobility. These agencies thus knowingly directed
and assigned girls dependent on them to lower—class roles in
society.

They furthermore placed girls under the control of
masters and mistresses whose self-interest was clearly
expressed. The charities themselves admitted that the self-
serving motives of mistresses in securing girls often out-
weighed their kindness. As with the societies for faithful
domestics, the public statements of these organizations
connected, and indeed fused, benevolence with the interest
of the employer. As Brace noted in his article in Harper's,
much of the "pity" of these institutions was bestowed on
housekeepers. Such philanthrophy on the part of the middle
and upper classes was hardly disinterested. In turn, the
institutions kept in mind the needs and desires of'those who
financed their work and harmonized their goals with the goals
of their supporters, who were interested in getting capable
and devoted servants. In the cases of societies for faithful
domestics, "homes" for servants, and asylums for poor girls,

the ultimate recipient of the charity was the giver.

NOTES

1Eleventh Annual Report of the Managers of the

 

Sociepy for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestics in

 

New York (1836), pp. l3—1A. Six of the reports were
located and examined——the first, 1826; second, 1827;
third, 1828; fifth, 1830; eighth, 1833; and eleventh,
1836. Among the libraries possessing one or more of
these reports are the New York Public Library, the
New—York Historical Society, the Pennsylvania Historical
Society, the American Antiquarian Society, the Library
of Congress, and the Detroit Public Library.

The Reports of the Philadelphia society for 1830
and 1831 were available at the Pennsylvania Historical
Society and the American Antiquarian Society as well
as the Library Company of Philadelphia. Each of these
institutions also has some of the promotional pamphlets
issued by the backers of the society. The New York
Public Library is supposed to have a copy of the report
issued in 183A, but it was unavailable and apparently
missing.

3Fifth Annual Report of the Managers of the Society

 

for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants in

 

New York (1830), p. 1A; Eighth Annual Report of the

 

Managers of the Society for the Encouragement of Faithful

 

Domestic Servants in New York (1833), p. 15.

 

138

139

"First Annual Report of the Society for the

 

Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants in New York

 

(1826), pp. 11, 15, 16-19; Second Annual Report of the

 

 

Managers of the Society for the Encouragement of Faithful

Domestic Servants in New York (1827), p. 5; Third Annual

 

 

Report of the Managers of the Sociepy for the Encour-

 

agement of Faithful Domestic Servants in New York (1828),

 

p. 21; J. Jean Hecht, The Domestic Servant Class in

 

Eighteenth—Century England (London, 1956), pp. 93—9A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5First Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 8, 10;
Second Annual Report . . . New York, p. 11; Third Annual
Report . . . New York, pp. 16-18; Fifth Annual Report

.. New York, p. 7; Eighth Annual Report . . . New
Yegg, p. 12; Eleventh Annual Report . . . New York, p. 15;

 

First Annual Report of the Managers of the Society for the

 

Encouragement of Faithful Domestics (Philadelphia, 1830),

 

pp. 3, 6; Second Annual Report of the Managers of the

 

Society for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestics

 

(Philadelphia, 1831), pp. A, 6.

6Robert Ernst, Immigrant Life in New York, 1825-

 

1863 (New York, 19A9), pp. 191, 215.

7First Annual Report . . . New York, p. 11. For

 

the change in system see especially Third Annual

 

 

 

Report . . . New York, pp. 12-21.
8Fifth Annual Report . . . New York, p. 9; also
Second Annual Report . . . . (Philadelphia), p. A;

 

for a similar report.

1A0

9Clifford S. Griffin, Their Brothers' Keepers:

 

Moral Stewardship in the United States; 1800—1865 (New

 

Brunswick, New Jersey, 1960), especially chapt. vi; also
see Griffin's article "Religious Benevolence as Social

Control, 1815—1860," The Mississippi Valley Historical

 

Review, XLIV, December, 1957, pp. A23, A38-AAA.
10The series of pamphlets on the Philadelphia

society consist of Observations on the Utility of

 

Establishing a Society in Philadelphia for the Encour-

 

agement of Faithful Servants (n.d.); Address to the

 

 

Public, May 6, 1829; Committee Report on the Subject

 

of Formation . . . , May 13, 1829; "To The Public,"

 

April 12, 1829, in Mathew Carey, Miscellaneous Pagphlets,

 

(Philadelphia, 1831); and Address To The Public, July 20,

 

1830. Those of May 6, 1829 and April 12, 1830 were
certainly written by Carey and, judging from the repe-
tition of ideas and even phrases, so were the others.
Part of the first Philadelphia report is reprinted in

Mathew Carey, Miscellaneous Essays (Philadelphia, 1830),'

 

 

pp. ASS-A57.
11First Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 3—A;
Eleventh Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 7-8, Obser-

 

vations on the Utility, pp. 2, 6.

 

12First Annual Report . . . New York, p. 18;

 

Second Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 6, l3; Obser—

 

 

vations on the Utility, pp. 5-6.

 

*1

1A1

13First Annual Report . . . New York, p. 7;

 

[Mathew Carey], To The Public, May 6, 1829, p. 5; "To

 

 

 

' The Public," Second Annual Report . . . New York, p- 33
also p. 9.
luFifth Annual Report . . . New York, p. 15;
First Annual Report . . . New York, p. 16; Observations

 

 

on the Utility, p. 6; see also Address To The Public,

 

 

July 20, 1820, p. 1.

15First Annual Report . . . New York, p. 22;

 

Third Annual Report . . . New York, p. 20; Fifth Annual

 

 

Report . . . New York, p. 7.

 

15"To The Public," Second Annual Report . . . New

 

York, p. 3; Fifth Annual Report . . . New York, p. 7;

 

[Carey], To The Public, May 6, 1829, p. 8; Eighth Annual

 

 

 

 

 

Report . . . New York, p. 12; see also Second Annual
Report .'. . . (Philadelphia), p. A.
17Third Annual Report . . . New York, p. 8; In

 

1833 the managers noted that "the external qualities
which the Society seeks to promote among domestics"
included "neat and tidy dress and respectful

deportment . . . ." Eighth Annual Report . . . New

 

York, p. 10.
18Fifth Annual Report . . . New York, p. 1A;

 

Eleventh Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 13—1A.

 

19First Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 1A,

 

16; Fifth Annual Report . . . New York, p. 15.

 

20Third Annual Report . . . New York, p. 9.

 

1A2

21Eleventh Annual Report . . . New York, pp.

 

12-13; First Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 1A-15;

 

Second Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 9—10.
22

 

Third Annual Report . . . New York, p. 10;

 

Eleventh Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 12—13.

 

23Third Annual Report . . . New York, p. 11; Fifth

 

Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 7, 13; John Pintard to

 

Eliza Davidson, March 22, 1827 and April 13, 1827 in

Dorothy C. Barck, ed., Letters from John Pintard to His

 

Daughter Eliza Noel Pintard Davidson, 11, Collections of

 

 

the New York Historical Society, LXXI (New York, 19A0),

 

pp. 3A0, 3A6.

 

 

 

2"First Annual Report . . . New York, p. 5;
Second Annual Report . . . New York, p. 8; Third Annual
Report . . . New York, p. 17. I

 

25Mechanics' Free Press [Philadelphia], January 9,

 

1830.

26Workingman's Advocate [New York], January 9, 1830.

 

27Griffin, Their Brothers' Keepers, pp. 99-100;

 

Eleventh Annual Report . . . New York, p. 8; Fifth Annual

 

 

Report . . . New York, p. 1A.

 

28Flora L. Northrup, The Record of a Century,

 

183A-193A (New York, 193A), p. 21. This short book is

 

a history of the American Female Guardian Society.
29"What Is Done For the Poor: Female Servants,"

Five Points Monthly Record: The New Charitable Monthly;

 

1A3

or, "What Is Done for the Poor," August, 185A, pp.

11A—115.

 

30First Annual Report of the St. Joseph's Home

 

for Sick and Destitute Servant Girls (1869), pp. 12—

 

13, 15.

31Henry W. Thurston, The Dependent Child: A

 

Study of Changing Aims and Methods in the Care of

 

Dependent Children (New York, 1930), pp. A2, 55, 59,

 

6A, 86—87; Homer Folks, The Care of Destitute, Neglected,

 

and Deliquent Children (New York, 1902), pp. 52-5A, 55;

 

William P. Letchworth, Homes of Homeless Children: A

 

' Report on Orphan Asylums and Other Institutions for the

 

Care of Children (Albany, 1876), pp. 33, A8, 123, 152,

 

”ll: “57, “73: “92-u93-

32Second Annual Report . . . New York, p. 1A;

 

Third Annual Report . . . New York, pp. 12-13; Catharine

 

Sedgwick, Live and Let Live; or, Domestic Service

 

Illustrated (New York, 1837), pp. 90-91; Lydia H.

 

Sigourney, Letters to Mothers (New York, 18A6), pp.

 

199-201; for similar arguments for the post-1860 period

see Mrs. Chatwitt, "Domestic Help," Godey's Lady's

 

Book, September, 186A, p. 2AA; Eunice Beecher, All

Around the House; or; How to Make Homes Happy (New York,

 

1878), pp. 312—313.

BBIAbby 1. Wales], Reminiscences of the Boston

 

Female Asylum (Boston, 18AA), pp. 58—EQ; the report of

 

1AA

the New York Orphan Asylum Society is quoted from Folks,
The Care of Destitute, Neglected, and Deliquent Children,
p- A7.

3"Letchworth, Homes for Homeless Children, pp. 3A,

 

A9-51, 66—67, 125, 153—155, Al2-A1A, A56, A57-A60, A7A,
A9A; First Annual Report of the Board of Control of the
[Michigan] State Public School for Dependent Children

(187A), p. 3A; Third Annual Report of the Board of

 

Control of the [Michigan] State Public School for

 

Dependent Children (1876), pp. 39, A3; Levi L. Barbour,

 

"Corrections and Charities," The Semi—Centennial of the
Admission of the State of Michigan to the Union (Detroit,
1886), p. 299.

35First Report of the Industrial Home for the
Instruction of Girls in the Arts of Housewifery and

Sewing (1859), pp. 3—A; Second Annual Report of the

 

Industrial Home for Girls (1860), p. A; Tenth Annual

 

Report of the Industrial Home for Girls (1868), p. A.

 

36Tenth Annual Report of the Industrial Home, p.

 

37Third Annual Report of the Industrial Home for
Girls (1861), p. 6; Eighteenth Annual Repprt of the

Industrial Home for Girls (1876), p. 5; Fifteenth Annual

 

 

Report of the Industrial Home for Girls (1873), p. 5;

 

Seventeenth Annual Report of the Industrial Home for

Girls (1875), p. 5.

 

 

1A5

38Fifth Annual Report of the Industrial Home for

 

Girls (1863), p. A; Sixth Annual Report of the

 

Industrial Home for Girls (186A), p. A; Fifteenth Annual

 

 

Report of the Industrial Home, pp. A-5; Sixteenth Annual

 

 

Report of the Industrial Home for Girls (l87A), p. 5.

 

Other institutions reported similar difficulties with
the "benevolent" persons who took girls. A writer for
the Boston Female Asylum complained in 18AA that "it
is true that some who apply for them [girls] may have
little other purpose than that of obtaining a selfish
convenience; the most service at the least price at
which it can be procured; that in the idea of servant
some may have lost sight of the eplle . . . . That
disappointed in their expectation of finding an obedient
and useful domestic, some [masters and mistresses]
become impatient and unmindful of their obligations."

[Wales], Reminiscences of the Boston Female Asylum, p.

 

60. Thirty years later the Buffalo Orphan Asylum
reported to an investigator that some applicants for
girls expected "to procure a girl out of whom they

make a perfect drudge." Letchworth, Homes of Homeless

 

Children, p. 125.

39Second Annual Report of the New York Children's

 

Aid Society (1855), p. 5; Fourth Annual Report; NYCAS

 

 

(1857), p. 7; Thurston, The Dependent Child, pp. 92,

 

102. The last phrase quoted is from the society's

1A6

circular "To Farmers, Mechanics, and Manufacturers in

the Country," quoted in Thurston, The Dependent Child,

 

p. 101.

1”Tenth Annual Report, NYCAS (1863), pp. 13, 16;

 

Twelth Annual Report, NYCAS (1865), p. 1A; Charles

 

Loring Brace, The Dangerous Classes of New York; and

 

Twenty Years Work Among Them, 3rd. ed. (New York, 1880),

 

pp. 303, 309. Brace's book was first published in 1872.

ulBrace, The Dangerous Classes, p. 307; Twenty-

 

Third Annual Report, NYCAS (1875), p. 1A.

 

”2Tenth Annual Report, NYCAS pp. 13, 16; Twenty-

 

First Annual Report, NYCAS (1873), p. 12; Twenty-Third

 

 

Annual Report, NYCAS, p. 1A.

 

U3Twenty—Third Annual Report, NYCAS, p. 1A; also

 

Eleventh Annual Report; NYCAS (186A), p. 12; Twenty-

 

First Annual Report, NYCAS, p. 1A.

 

"uBrace, The Dangerous Classes, pp. 309—310;

 

Twenty—Fourth Annual Report, NYCAS (1876), p. 39; Tenth

 

Annual Report, NYCAS, pp. 1A, 16; Thirteenth Annual

 

 

Reporti NYCAS (1866), p. 12; Nineteenth Annual Report,

 

 

NYCAS (1871), p. 16.

"SSee Twenty-Third Annual Report, NYCAS, p. 15;

 

Twenty-Fourth Annual Report, NYCAS, p. A0.

 

u6Twenty-First Annual Report, NYCAS, p. 16.

 

"7Seventeenth Annual Report, NYCAS (1869), p. 12;

 

Twentieth Annual ReporterYCAS (1872), p. 8; Twenty—

 

1A7

Fourth Annual Report, NYCAS, p. A0; Twenty—Third Annual

 

 

Report, NYCAS, p. 15. In 1873 the matron had similarly

 

stated that girls "seldom stay long enough to get
thoroughly trained. The applications for girls are so
numerous that we have to let them take situations."

Twenty-First Annual Report, NYCAS, p. 15.

 

"BEmma Brace, ed., The Life of Charles Loring

 

 

Brace: Chiefly Told in His Own Letters (New York,

189A), pp. 251—252; Brace, The Dangerous Classes, p.

 

315; Charles Loring Brace, "The Little Laborers of New

York City," Harper's New Monthly Magazine, August,

 

1873. p. 329.
149[Charles Loring Brace], "The Servant Question’w

The Nation, October 26, 1865. p. 528.

 

50Journal of the matron quoted in Brace, The

Dangerous Classes, p. 313; Fifteenth Annual Report,

 

 

NYCAS (1868), p. 15.

51Tenth Annual Report of the Industrial Home for

 

Girls, pp. 6, 7.

CHAPTER IV

IRISH SERVANTS AND THE DESIRE
FOR ETHNIC HOMOGENEITY

Other attitudes toward servants besides pater—
nalism rested upon the basic assumption of the mental,
educational, and cultural inferiority of domestics as
compared with employers. In addition to the desire to
direct the servant toward certain habits and values,
there was widespread revulsion and contempt for the
seeming ignorance and boorishness of domestics. Much
of the assumed backwardness and inferiority of servants
was linked to the fact that a large proportion of
America's domestics were immigrants from the lower
classes of Europe. Some wealthy families were able
to hire skilled "professional servants" from Europe,
but most immigrant domestics were rude peasant girls.
This was especially true of the Irish who made up the
largest bloc of foreign—born servants and who epitomized
the problems involved with unskilled immigrants in
service. In the mid—ninteenth century, and particularly
after 1850, the public discussion of the servant

question was closely and uniquely connected with the

1A8

1A9

figure of the Irish domestic. Attitudes toward servants
and service became intertwined with attitudes toward
the Irish. In books and national magazines Irish Bridget
became the typical servant even though many native whites
as well as substantial numbers of Germans, English, and
Negroes were also engaged in service. This misrepre-
sentation of actual conditions was probably due to the
fact that most writers came from cities and towns east
of the Allegheny Mountains, the places where Irish
domestics were particularly common. Nevertheless, it
seems significant that in nationally distributed material
the Irish girl became the stereotyped servant after 1850.
Although Irish immigrants were initially welcomed
as a new source of domestic labor, many Americans turned
against them as servants because they were untrained and
ignorant and also because they were Catholics and seemed
strange and "alien" as members of the household. The
divergent ethnic and religious backgrounds of master and
servant no doubt contributed to an increased awareness
of the cultural differences and social gap between
employer and employed. To cure this problem and bring
the two parties together, there was talk of maintaining
ethnic and cultural homegeneity within the home by
encouraging native American girls, who were thought to
be suffering in the overcrowded sewing trades, to enter

domestic service. If American girls would not become

150

servants, writers hoped to bring Chinese domestics, who
had a reputation for being efficient and docile, into

American households.

I

Even before the massive Irish immigration after
18A6, which reached its peak between 18A7 and 185A,
immigrant girls made up a major portion of the servant
population in seaboard areas. An 18A2 writer found
that "a native—born white servant was a novelty;" a New
York author noted in 18A5 that "Irish and German
domestics are almost universally employed in Northern
cities." Of the 5706 servants counted by Lemuel
Shattuck in Boston in 18A5 (the figure includes domes-
tics in both private homes and boardinghouses), 380A
were foreign-born while only 1902 were native
Americans.l

Even in these years the Irish made up the largest
group of immigrant servants. The New York Society for
the Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants reported
each year the nativity of domestics applying at their
office. While American—born servants may be under-
represented because they were in greater demand and
better acquainted with persons able to assist them, and
therefore less in need of the services of an employment
agency, the figures of the society indicate that Bridget

was very important in service in New York as early as

151

TABLE 5.——Nativity of Servants Applying to the New York
Society for the Encouragement of
Faithful Domestic Servants

 

 

Total Irish— German- English- Negroes Native-born

Domestics born born born Whites
1826 216A 1279 15 126 A60 259
1827 3327 1681 18 102 A77 995
1828 3383 1859 20 128 510 813
1830 3179 1673 19 , 137 537 739
1833 3196 2063 17 139 380 511
1836 3920 25A9 17 2AA 5A2 AA9

 

the mid-twenties. These statistics reveal a clear prepon-
derance of Irish domestics; only in 1827 did half as many
native whites as Irish apply to the registry. The numbers
of German and English—born applicants were consistently
low. Employers using the office, and these included many
of the first families of the city, had to choose from
among principally Irish servants. According to an 18A6
estimate there were between 10,000 and 12,000 female
domestics in New York City (the figure is probably too
low); of these between 7,000 and 8,000 were thought to be
Irish while another 2,000 were said to be Germans.
Throughout the century German servants tended to be less
visible to native writers than the Irish because the
former usually worked in German-speaking families because
of the language barrier.2

It is impossible to determine with complete accuracy

the exact importance of the Irish within the total servant

152

population after 1850. To many Americans it seemed as
though Irish girls virtually mononpolized the employemnt.
While this was an overstatement for many areas of the
country, in eastern cities during the 1850's the Irish
vastly outnumbered any other group of servants and did
come close to mononpolizing the occupation. A partial,
but probably representative, count of Boston servants in
1850 found that of 3107 domestics 2227 had been born in
Ireland and only 551 in the United States. A more
complete survey of New York City in 1855 recorded 31,7A9
domestics in the city; of these 23,386 were Irish-born,
AA93 were Germans, 665 were English, and 1025 were
Negroes. Only 1225 were American-born whites, a very
small fraction of the total.3

The first complete compilation of data on the
nativity of persons in occupational categories was made
in the federal census for 1870. When writing of the
findings of this census, Francis A. Walker pointed out
that the statistics showed many more American—born
domestics than had been anticipated. The reason was
that by 1870 the second—generation Irish, born in
America but Irish by culture, had begun to enter service
in large numbers. Although these girls were natives by
the census definition, "our general instictive feeling,"
wrote Walker, "testifies that they are not wholly of

H

us. Because of their different customs, their

153

clannishness, and "the jealousy of their spiritual
teachers toward our popular institutions, . . . we
speak of them and think of them as foreigners."

Thus the figures for American-born domestics do not
accurately represent this group of second-generation
Irish who still seemed more Irish than American to
employers. Although the percentage of Irish—born
domestics in Boston and New York was much lower in
1870 than it had been in the fifties, the proportion
of those of Irish extraction and background may have
been as high.” Surely writers in the seventies agreed
with those from the earlier period that few non-Irish
servants were available.

Nevertheless, although many domestics listed as
native-born were actually second-generation Irish, the
1870 figures indicate that in many parts of the country
girls of Irish extraction did not comprise a majority
of the domestics and that in rural and Western areas
large numbers of native American girls must have been
at service. In only four states-—California,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island-—did foreign—
born servants outnumber those born in the United States,
and in only California and Massachusetts were there more
Irish than native—born persons in service. Even in
states such as New York and New Jersey, Irish domestics

seem to have been concentrated in urban areas. In the

15A

.scsumms .oa .xxx ocha .HmsmH .cocwcHsnesv

 

 

mopmpm oceans one CH coHpmHsdom mo moHpmHumpm one .H .mmusomom mamcmou

 

.mmpmpm nouHCD one no mamcoc :HCHZ one ..QEOo .pomeB .< mHocmpm song

 

 

0 so: Hoe.m seo.H Hms.OH HeH.mH chcoomHz
o me e was smm.s mmm.m crosso>
o mmH Hm ome.m msm.m Hom.e eceHnH ceocm
H oa:.H Hme.m Hme.cH amp.He mem.em eHcc>Hsnccci
H mam osm.m smm.m emm.oa mmm.mm oHco
AH emm.m 0mm.OH osm.mm oom.ms omH.mmH sac» 3px
m Hmm mam.H pHm.m cmm.eH mem.em senses so:
0 om OH ems mme.e Hm:.s cchmasem scz
0 mm sea mam ems.m emm.m eponcccHz
m mmo.H mam cam.Hm mem.mH oss.m: mesonssoenmes
o NOH HH mHm :em.m Hmm.HH osHes
0 Op mmH ssH wHH.mH mms.mH csoH
o mmH mmH.H meo.H oem.mH msm.mm eseHecH
H smo.H mop.m pem.p ewc.mm mom.es mHocHHHH
: HHm mam Hmm.e mmc.s 20H.mH esoHccossoo
mam.s mm: Hmo.H Hma.s msm.m mse.mH echocHHeo

.mCHSO Ucm mmHmB Ucw hCMEchO UcmHmLH mmpwum UmpHCD mOHpmmEOD

cmamh CH Show Ucmecm CH CLOm Cw CcHom CH CcHom CH.” Cpom HmpOB mumpm

 

.ommfi “newspm CLmSQLOZ CH mucm>hmm owpmmEOQ mo mpfi>fipm2Il.w mqm<e

155

.som-mss .do .HHxxx cHhms

.HmsmH .cocmchmnzv possum oochs one sH :oHcmHsood so noHcchncm are .H .Hmesoocm

mamcmog .mmpmpm oouHCD one mo monsoo cchz one ..Qsoo

.pomez .¢ mHocmsm Eopm

 

 

o Hm a mam mmc mcm.H socncosoz
e we mm mmm mam smm.H sons
0 so meH woe mom emm.H omeocssm
cmm.H Hmm Hem eso.m mam oom.e ocmHocese new
0 mm HHH mmm Hmm.H smm.H scomccoom
o as mm msm.H mom osm.m ccscoH>osa
O we mmm mmm mse.H smm.m swssenccHa
o som mmm.H 3:0.0H mom.HH moH.:m eHsaHooeHHsa
a mom woe.m mem.em mmm.sH ose.me ego» so:
0 mm 30H emH.H emm mcH.m co>em 3c:
o om 2mm mmm.H mmm omp.m scheme
0 mm 0mm mmm mmo.H msm.m ccesezHHz
0 cm msH mme.H mmc eee.m soHo senses
0 am oeH 0mm wmm.H mmm.H mHHoomccHocH
o meH me Ops Hpo.H sme.m oceHo>cHo
o opH smo.m mom.m Hmm.m mmm.m HcecsHocHo
0 0mm emo.m mom.m mms.m mam.mH omeoHco
o OHH mam ems som.m aom.e onucam
m mm: smH.H woe.oH msm.m mom.eH csHsoosm
o mam msH mam.s Heo.: emo.sH cocwom
0 am HeH mmm.H AOH.H ems.m scecHa
MCHQU Ucm mmHm3 Ucm hCMELmO UcmHmLH mmpmum UmpHCD moflummEOfl

smash CH atom ocmamcm CH atom CH cpom CH Cpom

cH ssom Hecoe cream

 

osmH .moHcHo csoscsoe sows; cH acce>som ochchm co soH>Hcczuu.s mHmae

156

principally rural states of northern New England and the
Midwest, the large majority of the servant population
was American-born. For example, in Ohio there were eight
native-born domestics for every one of Irish birth and
nineteen for every one in Indiana. Even allowing for
second-generation immigrants, most servants in these
states were surely native Americans.5

Immigrants were much more common as domestics in
urban centers, however. In every city along the east
coast, except Philadelphia, where Negro servants were
especially common, there were more Irish—born than
American—born domestics. In Boston, Brooklyn, Jersey
City, Providence, and Troy the margin in favor of the
Irish was very wide, reaching almost four Irish—born
domestics to every one American in Troy. When second-
generation Irish are included, the large majority, and
in some cases virtually all, of the servants in the cities
east of the Alleghenies must have been of Irish extrac-
tion. In the largest Midwestern cities—-Chicago,
Cincinnati, and Cleveland—-native—born domestics were
outnumbered by the combined total of Irish and Germans.
While in every city west of Troy and Albany, except
San Francisco, there were more American-born than Irish-
born servants, in only three cities——Buffalo, Indianapolis,
and Rochester——were a clear majority of domestics of
American rather than foreign birth. In only Indianapolis

and Rochester were most servants probably native

157

Americans rather than first or second-generation
immigrants.6 Writers, who generally reflected the
standards of urban areas, certainly perceived Irish
dominance in the occupation and made Bridget the
standard servant character in material written after
1850.

Prior to the massive Irish immigration of the late
18A0's, there was much sympathy in America for the
victims of alleged British opression although even then
Irish immigrants were regarded as "poor, dirty, and
ignorant." Americans were attracted to the humerous,
generous, and warm-hearted impulses of the Irish. In
the forties many sentimental tales appeared romanticizing
the heroism and virtue of the simple, peasant immigrant.
Lydia Maria Child was one who found much that was poetic
in the imaginative soul of the Irish. Admiring their
"glowing hearts and reverent credulity," she mused "I
love the Irish. Blessings on their warm hearts and their
leaping fancies!" Samuel Griswold Goodrich, "Peter
Parley" to his young readers, called upon Americans to
welcome the sufferers of English tyranny. Through all
their trials, the Irish retained their "keen sense of
justice," their gallant hope, and their cheerfulness;

they therefore deserved American compassion.7

Since, according to Americans, the English had

left the Irish ignorant and unskilled, it was said to

158

require much energy and patience to make a newly arrived
Irish girl into a valuable domestic. Catharine Sedgwick
and Sarah Josepha Hale, who both apparently considered
Irish servants to be common in the 1830's, thought the
effort involved in training an immigrant girl was
worthwhile since the appreciative domestic would almost
surely repay such kindness with loyalty. Mrs. Hale wrote:
I am aware that it is the fashion with many ladies
to disparage Irish domestics, call them stupid,
ignorant, impudent, ungrateful, the plagues of
housekeeping. That they are ignorant is true
enough; it does require skill, patience, and judg—
ment, to teach a raw Irish girl how to perform the
work in a gentleman's family; but if they are
taught in the right manner, they prove very capable,
and are most faithful and affectionate domestics.
As Mrs. Hale noted, however, Irish servants had already
acquired a reputation for being ignorant and useless.
Timothy Shay Arthur, best remembered for his temperance
stories, agreed that Irish girls need not be "slovenly
and dirty." If the mistress were kindly and forbearing
and gave detailed instruction, an immigrant girl would
be anxious to please her.8
Firmly established in domestic service before 18A6,
Irish girls became still more common as servants after
large—scale immigration began. Prior to the late
forties writers sometimes complained of "the scarcity
of domestics." Catherine Beecher expressed concern that

the increasing wealth of America meant that more and

more families wanted to hire a servant but that fewer

159

and fewer women found it necessary to enter menial work.
Only "the supply of poverty—stricken foreigners"
enabled every family wanting one to have a domestic.
Whatever shortage may have existed was alleviated by
the influx of single girls of working age, who made up
a significant part of Irish immigration. Accordingly,
the Irish immigrants were initially welcomed as a large
body of hopefully docile domestics who would keep wages
down. An English traveler found that Irish girls were
indispensable and "solved an immense difficulty." Irish
servants, he reported, "are here received with a sigh of
delight" in spite of their lack of skill. In later
years Harriet Prescott Spofford, though disgusted with
"the Irish occupation of the household," admitted that
"when they first came into our homes we hailed them
with open arms." Another woman agreed that since the
Irish had arrived at just the time when American women
were beginning to move out of serviceinto factory work
and the sewing trades, the immigrants "were looked upon
as a Godsend . . . ."9

Despite the initial welcome extended to the Irish
in hopes that they would solve America's servant problem,
employers rather quickly became disillusioned with and
even hostile toward the foreigners who had become such an
important part of their households. Ethnic differences

helped to increase the consciousness of the social gap

160

between employer and employed, led the mistress to view
the domestic as culturally inferior and disagreeably
alien, and, in general, fostered an growing sense of
class consciousness as ethnic differences reinforced
class divisions. Irish characteristics and lower-class
attributes and occupations tended to become synonymous.
Because of their alien ways,servants seemed more and
more apart from and inferior to the middle and upper
classes of America. Class lines became more clear and
more fixed as lower—class occupations, including service,
became associated with a particular and easily distin—
guishable ethnic group, the Irish.10

To many people the degradation of menial service
and the degradation of the Irish immigrant who made her
living at service reaffirmed one another. The Irish
seemed more lower-class because they were in domestic
labor, and the work itself seemed more menial because
the Irish dominated it. Immigrant girls gravitated
toward domestic work because it offered relatively high
wages to unskilled workers. In turn, some writers began
to think that only "servile," unspirited, and "inferior"
persons would enter service at all. Domestic work was
said to be looked down upon because of the type of
vulgar, backward Irish who were so common in it. Mrs.
Croly thought the occupation would be more respected

when more respectable women engaged in it. One of the

161

principal reasons given why American girls avoided
becoming servants was that they did not wish "to asso-
ciate and be ranked with common Irish servants."11
Although it was usually agreed that an immigrant
girl would be able to earn more money as a servant in
America than in her homeland, writers pointed out that
social equality and acceptance were not extended to the
Irish in their adopted country. Speaking specifically
' of servants, Sidney George Fisher found that the Irish
"have taken the position of an inferior race in the
business of life, because by nature and education fitted
for it." As to the immigrant Irish, "the theoretical
equality of our law is denied by practice and opinion."
Their coming to the United States "has gradually and
silently built up in the North an aristocracy of
race . . . . It is not yet represented in our politics
and law, . . . but it is felt and understood, and acted
on universally, and rules the working of society in all
its departments." Fisher noted that the occupations
engaged in by foreigners were those which "imply
inferiority and subjection to the will of another."
The growth of the Irish population, "an inferior race
and class theoretically equal," was said to "have created
orders of society as distinctly marked in disparity of
education and habits as those of Europe." Fisher thus

concluded that mass immigration had sharpened class

162

lines in America. Writing in 1859, E. L. Godkin, who
had been born in Ireland of English parents, agreed
with this assessment. "The prodigious influx of Irish
during the last twenty years," he wrote, "has created
a large Irish class, apart from the rest of the people,

poor, ignorant, helpless, and degraded, contemned by

the Americans . . . ." Godkin went on to state that
immigration, "instead . . . of effacing all distinction,
has traced it more deeply." He explained that "the

line of demarcation between the English colonist and the

'mere Irish' of the seventeenth century in Ireland was

hardly more strongly marked than that which today

separates the Irish American from the native American,

political inequalities of course excepted."12
Many authors writing for the middle and upper

classes were disturbed by the immigrant's failure to

understand the proper difference between political

equality and social equality. Writers often complained

that ignorant Irish girls took "high flown" ideas of

social equality much too literally. With her "exaggerated"

notions of equality, Bridget was said to believe herself

"as good as a lady" and "as good as anybody" despite her

"rude tongue" and "uncouth manners" simply because she

was in America. Authors considered such notions absurd;

mistresses viewed such "high—notioned" girls as assertive,

impertinent, and presumptuous. Foreigners entertained

163

"strange ideas of what is meant by all being 'free and
equal;'" they did not "know their places" and even
demanded "privileges." According to Eunice Beecher,
these "erroneous views" of liberty and equality soon
turned the recently arrived "modest stranger" into a
bold and wilful girl who resisted direction. Mrs. Stowe
noted that the "vague notions of freedom and equality
entertained by immigrant domestics were frequently
"unreasonable."13

Of the several factors which had eroded American
sympathy for the Irish generally, wrote Godkin, "one
of the most prominent, and probably most powerful--[was]
the conduct of the Irish servant girl in the American
kitchen." The meals ruined by Irish blunders had
prepared Americans to believe the very worst of the
race; "it is in the kitchen that the Irish iron has
entered the American soul . . . ." It was generally
agreed that most Irish—born domestics were dirty, vulgar,
ignorant, and awkward. Coming from a rural, peasant
background, Irish girls were totally unacquainted with
the manners and comforts of urban, middle—class life.
Mistresses, who had to spend much time patiently training
these girls and supervising them closely, complained
constantly of their ignorance and carelessness. Unless
and until the employer made great efforts to instruct

the girl in housework and watched over her closely, Irish

16A

domestics were said to be wasteful, indelicate, careless,
"uncleanly," and virtually worthless. Even after she had
been trained, Bridget retained a reputation for breaking
dishes, ruining meals, misusing utensils, and generally
making a shambles of domestic comfort. In short, it was
a standard complaint, voiced by author after author, that
Irish servants were incompetent and very inadequate for
American needs.lu

This awkwardness and unskilled blundering provided
writers with a source of material for comedy pieces which
often had an unfriendly sting. As Charles Dickens'

magazine All The Year Round noted concerning American

 

servant humor:
Comic writers and artists have 'shown up' 'Biddy'
and her belongings in all sorts of ridiculous,
absurd, and odious lights; finding in her ignor-
ance, stupidity, impulsiveness, irascibility, and
. . . crude notions of self-assertion, an apparently
inexhaustible mine of subjects. All her foibles
have been descanted upon, illustrated, and laughed
at, sometimes in a not very generous or considerate
spirit.
Even a didactic writersnufii as T. S. Arthur, whose stories
often called for a more compassionate attitude toward
servants, was unable to resist recounting, under pseu-
donyms, rather unfriendly "laughable stories" about Irish
domestics "for the reader's amusement . . . ."15
Such comedy was common in fiction and cartoons from

the forties through the seventies, but it was most

prevalent and most unsympathatic in the 1850's, when

165

Know-Nothingism was at its peak. In these humorous
sketches Bridget's stupidity and failings were exaggerated
for comic effect. Much of the humor of these stories
depended on the bewildered girl's tendency to take her
mistress's instructions too literally. One employer who
had Just hired a raw Irish girl tells the new domestic
"we'll have some sausages with the tea;" the uncompre-
hending servant, who "went ahead of everything for
ignorance," boiled the sausages in the kettle with the
tea. While Bridget's greatest failure was in the kitchen,
where she did "not know the difference between a bean and
a pumpkin," she was also puzzled by the door bell and
even the use of drinking glasses. The Irish domestic's
presumptuous assertiveness was also ridiculed; her efforts
at fashionable dress and polite manners were shown to be
vulgar imitations. One girl could not understand that she
was not permitted in the parlor and could not "thump" on
the employer's piano. Such efforts at social equality
were made at appear ludicrous.l6

One of the principal obstacles to acceptance of
Irish domestics was their Catholicism. Godkin found the
religious division the "crowning and damning" difference
which kept Irish and native Americans apart. Religion
was a major factor in accentuating the gap between the
parlor and the kitchen. One writer on the servant

question decided that Catholics were often "spoken of

166

in terms almost of hatred by other Christians." Such
feelings were fed by warnings such as that issued by
Josiah Gilbert Holland, an advocate of self—help and

later the editor of Scribner's Monthly, that Catholic

 

servants thought of their employers as contemptible
heretics destined for damnation. Anti-papal and anti-
Catholic speakers and writers warned mistresses not to
employ Catholic domestics, "lest they turn out to be
'Jesuit spies." A Catholic writer asked rhetorically:

How many a good Protestant lady has heard from

her pulpit and read in her religious weekly,

that her servant Bridget is a committee of one

from this society [the Jesuits] to report the

affairs of the family to the priest, who, in

turn, will report to the bishop, whose duty it

will be to lay the whole matter before the Pope!
Robert Tomes observed that "there are still many fastid-
iously pious folks, who, seeing in every Catholic
servant a Jesuit in disguise, believe that their own
faith can only be secured by having their dinners cooked
and beds made by Protestant hands."17 While a few
newspaper advertisements for servants placed by employers
stipulated "Ho Irish need apply," it seems to have been
far more common to advertise specifically for Protestant
girls. In the papers of major cities a very large share
of the advertisements for servants after 1850 stated
that only Protestants would be considered for the
situation.

The Irish domestic was not entirely without her

defenders, however. Mistresses were requested to be

167

patient and sympathetic, bearing in mind the lack of
opportunities for education and refinement open to the
girl in her homeland. Americans were particularly
impressed with the way Irish girls diligently saved

money in order to send remittances to their poor
relatives still in Ireland. This example of thrift and
generosity to those left behind led some to overlook
"many of their serious defects of training and character"
and even the fact that they "generally make but sorry
domestics." Furthermore, a variety of commentators agreed
that Bridget was industrious, willing, eager to please,
cheerful, and "almost invariably chaste." Virginia

Townsend, editor of Arthur's Home Magazine, found Irish

 

domestics to be generally warm—hearted and well—
intentioned; if carefully and patiently trained they
could be loyal and capable servants. Other writers
similiarly concluded that a wise and benevolent mistress
could fashion a good domestic from the simple peasant
girl if she were willing to take the necessary trouble
to teach her.18

By the 1870's, however, many writers seem to have
given up entirely on awkward and inefficient Irish
servants, denouncing them as generally incapable of all
improvement. Not one Irish woman in a hundred, wrote
Eunice Beecher, "can by any amount of care, patience, or

, indefatigable teaching, be transformed into a neat,

168

energetic, faithful, truth—telling servant." Jane C. Croly
attacked Bridget as a household "pest," calling her "the
destroyer of peace and comfort." While Godkin himself
thought that much of the feeling against Irish domestics
was unwarranted, he admitted that most employers accepted

the statement, quoted from The Atlantic Monthly, that the

 

Irish servant had shown "a lack of every quality which

makes service endurable to the employer, or a wholesome

life for the servant." This article further charged that
Bridget had proved herself to be "in obedience, fidelity,
care, and accuracy, the inferior of every kind of servant
known to modern society." Godkin noted that "this indict-
ment is a tolerably fair rendering, if not of the actual
facts of the case, at least of the impression the facts have

left on the mind of the average employer."19

II

Two divergent and indeed contradictory proposals were
suggested as means to alleviating American dependence on
the Irish and securing more faithful and capable servants.
First, there was widespread discussion of attracting larger
numbers of poor, native American girls into service. Others,
however, eagerly awaited the expected day when Chinese men-
servants would replace Bridget. Many writers wanted to
obtain domestics sharing more of their own values and habits
while others desired servants still more alien than the A

Irish, but who would be more docile and efficient.

169

Many writers expressed the desire to remove "the
alien and the stranger" from the kitchen and replace them
with native servants who would have the same religion
and cultural background as the employer. While this
argument was made before the Civil War, it became more
common from the mid-sixties on. American girls, it was
believed, would be better domestics and would also be
more desirable and amenable candidates for employer
paternalism. It was thought that native American girls
were concentrated in the overcrowded sewing trades, in
which they lived under miserable conditions and worked
for subsistence wages. Authors pointed out the many
advantages these girls would presumably enjoy if they
went into domestic work. Service was actually pleasant
and healthful; only "foolish" notions of pride and
respectability kept American girls out of such an

agreeable occupation. In her book The Chimney Corner,

 

Harriet Beecher Stowe emphasized the advantages of
domestic labor for native girls. She summarized her
argument as follows: While many American girls live in
poverty as seamstresses

there is lying, neglected and despised, a call—

ing to which womanly talents and instincts are
peculiarly fitted,-—a calling full of opportunities
of the most lasting usefulness,-—a calling which
insures a settled home, respectable protection,
healthful exercise, good air, good food, and good
wages,--a calling in which a woman may make real
friends, and secure to herself warm affection

170

This pleasurable employment was, of course, domestic
service.20

Many others agreed with Mrs. Stowe that service
was better paying, more healthful, actually easier, and
more warmly affectionate in character than sewing work.
Mistresses were described as "loving friends" offering
comfortable homes, protection, sympathy, and a chance
to associate with refined persons to those native girls
who would rescue employers from the "plague" of Irish
servants. The daughters of American farmers, laborers,
and mechanics were advised to give up their "senseless
prejudice" against service and take advantage of these
opportunities. "Intelligent and neat-handed" Americans
would be warmly welcomed into the homes of employers in
place of stupid and dirty foreigners. The girls them—
selves would be better off in this "safe and useful"
occupation which offered "light, healthy exercise" and
kind treatment. In fact, Robert Tomes and others calling
for reform of the nature of service to give more personal
freedom to domestics did so largely in hopes of thereby
attracting American girls into domestic work.21

An important part of the rationale for this call
for native girls to enter service was the presentation
of an idealized and nostalgic version of the delights

of service for all concerned in the dimly remembered days

when most servants had allegedly been native "helps."

171

Men who had grown up in rural areas but now lived in the
city recalled a paternalistic and patronizing picture of
service in their rural youth; in this picture there
appeared a faithful, obedient type of native servant who
was an excellent worker and a paragon of domestic virtue
and propriety. It seems unlikely that American "helps"
in the early years of the century had always been the joy
to manage that they were fondly remembered to be. Earlier
Americans had found them often assertive and inconven-
iently democratic in manner. But such republicanism was
now forgotten, replaced by a glow of warm paternalism
and ethnic homogeneity. Tomes, for one, asserted that
at one time domestic life had been marked by "a sympathy
which softened the harshness of service into the
gentleness of companionship." American girls were said
to have served faithfully for long periods; there was
then, wrote Samuel Griswold Goodrich in 1856,

a perfectly good understanding and good feeling

between the masters and servants. The latter

were not Irish; they had not yet imbibed the

plebian envy of those above them, which has since

so generally embittered and embarrassed American

domestic life . . . . Our servants, during all‘

my early life, were of the neighborhood, generally

the daughters of respectable farmers and mechanics,

and respecting others were themselves respected

and cherished. They were always devoted to the

interests of the family, and were always relied

upon and treated as friends

James Russell Lowell presented a similar view; in

"former" days service

172

was not seldom an inheritance, nor was household
peace dependent on the whim of a foreign armed
neutrality in the kitchen. Servant and master
were of one stock; there was decent authority
and becoming respect; the tradition of the Old
,World lingered after its superstition had passed
away.
This golden age of domestic efficiency and tranquility
could be restored, it was believed, if only native
Protestant girls would again enter middle and upper—class
homes as servants.
Mary Abigail Dodge thought that the lives of New
York mistresses, "who are annoyed, hindered, and injured
by the incapacity of-foreign servants," might be made
"smooth and peaceful" if their domestics were Americans.
A faithful, efficient native girl "could speedily become
an honored and valued member of the family, and secure
herself a home that would last as long as the family
held together." She also pointed out that more social
equality between mistress and servant might be possible
if they were of homegeneous background. Domestics, she
thought, were not treated as equals and were not
permitted to eat at the family table because
it is not reasonable to expect that an intelligent
American woman [the mistress] should be willing to
consort with low and ignorant foreigners. But it
would scarcely be hazardous to predict, that if
intelligent American women would go into American
kitchens, they would quickly drive out the unintel-
ligent foreigners; and, for the rest, the matter
of equality is simply trivial. Social position
adjusts itself where there is social worth.2

A more complete argument concerning this point that

American servants would be accepted and assimilated into

173

American households more readily than the Irish was
presented by Harriet Prescott Spofford. In regard
to the Irish, she found,

the different nationality of the maid, her
unlettered state, her strange habits of speech,
her wild traditions, her outlandish custom of
wakes . . . may make her seem something like a
creature of another race, a rougher and more
primitive race . . . , a creature whom one with
difficulty feels to be an individual of the
family, or recognizes as the possessor of sensi-
bilities as delicate as one's own . . . .

Mutual forbearance goes a great way between
mistress and maid, native and foreigner, Catholic
and Protestant; but when the elements are
naturally so antagonistic, and the interests so
utterly apart, union is hardly possible, there

is always something foreign in the household,

and there is disintegration at the very foundation
of home; but with servants of our own race,
religion, and habits, the family is complete.

Because they would understand the manners, institutions,
and wishes of American employers better than Irish girls,
native domestics "who sympathize with us religiously and
as a people . . . could be infinitely more agreeable
members of our families than those now in place there

." American girls would be "capable of resolution
into that household, as the present servant is not
capable." If the daughters of poorer natives would only
become domestics,they could have more pleasant jobs and

the life of the wealthier classes would be improved.”4

This argument assumed that an American girl would
always "make herself one with the household in feeling."

Mrs. Spofford thought that "the good and faithful

17“

American servant is always part of the family; she makes
its interests her own, and identifies herself with
it . . . ." "Knowing her place and keeping it," such a
domestic would never be rudely "self—assertive" but
would follow the will of her employers. Thus, with
American domestics the paternal ideal of master and
servant could be fulfilled. The domestic would seem
"more like a relative than a servant, and will be cared
for in her old age with something like veneration."25
Judging by the continuing lamentations on the
absence of American domestics, employers apparently felt
that their appeals met with little success. Any
seamstress who did contemplate switching to service
might have been dissuaded if she had read Louisa May
Alcott's story "How I Went Out to Service," published
in 187“. The tale was largely autobiographical, being
based closely on Louisa's experiences in l851 when at
age eighteen she went out as a domestic to prove her
independence. Here was the story of a native girl in
service, a girl from a well—known and respected family.
Louisa's employer was a minister who "set forth the
delights awaiting the happy soul who should secure this
home. He described it as a sort of heaven on earth."
She was told she would "be one of the family in all
respects, and only required to help about the lighter

work . . . ." Ostensibly hired as a companion for the

175

minister's frail sister, Louisa actually received
"endless" demands for service (she was to cook, wash

the dishes, and scrub) and much scolding from "the
reverend tyrant." When she balked at becoming a
companion to the minister, who wanted Louisa to read

to him and sympathize with his problems, "even the
roughest work" was given to her. She became responsible
for such duties as carrying water and splitting fire-
wood. Upon quitting after seven weeks of hard and
disagreeable work, she was paid the "paltry sum" of

four dollars. Miss Alcott's first biographer noted

that if this was the experience of the daughter of an
esteemed Boston family in the home of a minister, surely
much worse awaited many other girls.26 It may be that
American girls who resisted the argument that they
should go into service were wise in their skepticism
toward the promises made by employers.

Not everyone advocated that American girls enter
kitchens in order to solve the problem of domestic labor.
The small number who argued against this suggested
panacea did so on a variety of grounds. Occasionally
someone indicated that it was a myth to believe that
American girls would be devoted domestics. Godkin wrote
that "those who have ever tried the experiment of late
years of employing a native American as a servant have,

we believe, before it was over, generally come to look

176

upon Bridget as the personification of repose, if not
of comfort . . . ." Native girls were even more forward
and demanding than the Irish and might even want to sit
at the employer's table. A second, related reason to
oppose the proposal was put forward by Virginia Townsend,
who pointed out that an employer would always be afraid
of wounding the feelings of an American girl whereas
Bridget was less sensitive and more willing to accept
whatever treatment she received. "Could you put just
the same sort of drudgery . . . on your countrywoman's
shoulders? In short, give precisely the same orders to,
and make the same demands on her that you do on your
Irish girl?" Others suggested that if the sewing trades
were indeed overcrowded, American girls, who were presumed
to have more intelligence and ability than foreigners,
should leave menial work to the immigrants and enter the
new occupations opening up for women as saleswomen,
clerical workers, and skilled workers such as florists.
These jobs offered higher status, greater independence,
and frequently higher wages than domestic work. Most
American girls "have really abilities which, if rightly
cultivated and directed, might lead them far higher"
than service. Native girls equipped for "better things"
should not be advised to go into a menial employment
where they would lose their personal freedom.

I cannot believe that an influx of American girls

will prove an advantage either to the service or
to the girls themselves. The system will remain

177

the same, and, until this is changed, all its

evils will cling to it; and the girls, instead

of being able to elevate the standard of

domestic service, will find themselves crowded

down to its present level.
Moreover, immigrant women were said to be generally unfit
for any occupation other than menial housework; if
American girls with their "more acute perceptions" pushed
the Irish out of domestic service, as they surely would,
these foreigners would be forced into destitution or
crime.27

If American girls refused to become domestics,

mistresses would turn instead, claimed Mrs. Spofford, to
"the machine, the Chinese machine, the imitative and
accurate worker" for relief from Irish maids and cooks.
She and others concluded that eventually "without doubt
the oriental must come." Except in California, he
never did come, however, and little actually resulted
from such discussion; only thirty-one Chinese servants
were counted in all the Northeastern states in 1870.
Writing in 1875, Francis Walker noted that "the great
domestic revolution which was heralded in the newspapers
and magazines with so much noise five years ago, as about
to follow the advent of the Children of the Sun, has,
like many another announced revolution, failed to come off."
Virtually all the Chinese domestics in the United States

remained on the West Coast, but in the late sixties and

early seventies there was widespread talk of the wonderful

178

days which lay ahead if and when every American family
could enjoy the comfort of a Chinese houseboy.28

California was the state with the largest number of
Chinese servants, who were all males, and much of the
testimony taken in San Francisco in 1876 by Congress'
Joint Special Committee to Investigate Chinese Immigration
dealt with their usefulness as domestics. Although a few
. of the California citizens who testified said that Chinese
domestics were dishonest, most agreed that they were
industrious, cleanly, intelligent, systematic, meticulous,
and generally compared very favorably with the Irish.
DeSpite their ignorance of the English language and
American ways of life, the Chinese were said to make
excellent servants; a houseboy was a "mere machine" who
would faithfully and exactly carry out the instructions
given him. They were reputed to be imitative and very
quick to learn. While Irish and American domestics were
obtainable in San Francisco and some of the larger towns
in California, virtually all the domestics in the more
remote areas were Chinese.29

Favorable reports from California led Easterners
to yearn for the day when they might acquire a Chinese
houseboy to replace their troublesome Bridgets. Although
a few pointed out that the Chinese were also likely to be
provoking and were, on the whole, not much better than

any other group of servants,30 many writers thought they

179

saw a solution to all their domestic worries in the
Chinese. The quick, efficient Chinese would offer
competition to the Irish and would certainly drive
out the latter so that a mistress need no longer depend
on a series of "dirty" Irish girls. It became an article
of faith that houseboys had all the attributes of perfect
servants, that they were faithful, thrifty, orderly, and
neat. At the same time Bridget was denounced for her
failure in all these areas. The "deft hands" of the
Chinese would replace "the curse of Irish servants" who
made "housekeeping a prolonged misery." Moreover, that
the Chinese "are not Roman Catholics and can never be
made so, is a gain not to be disputed." If the choice
was between a Catholic and a non-Christian with his
"diabolical Observances," many stood ready to choose
the heathen as a more acceptable member of the
household.31

The Chinese were also believed to be properly
"docile" and "tractable" because of the servile conditions
they had grown accustomed to in China. They were
described as a long-suffering race who did not quickly
rebel in the face of oppression and who were used to
obeying directions and orders. Writers agreed that they
were deferential and even "servile;" one woman with a
Chinese cook found him "blindly obedient and

contented . . . like a good automaton." The frequent

F‘
(D
C.)

It ‘ v H

references to the Chinese as 'saChihes indicate that
they were thought to be controllable servants who
responded automatically to orders and made no trouble.
After experiences with allegedly high—noticned” Irish
domestics, many mistresses looked forward hopefully to
the happy day, which never came, of the Chinese houseboy

who would be decently respectful to authoritv.

With the development of a large number of Irish
domestics, ethnic tensions complicated the master—servant

relationship. The close association of service with the

n 1

Irish, who were often regarded as ignorant and uncleanly,‘
worked to lower the status of both the occupation and the
immigrant. In the eyes of employers, Irish entrance into
domestic work widened the social and cultural distance
between the mistress and the maid and thereby increased
class consciousness within the house. Irish girls
stigmatized themselves socially by engaging in menial
work; service, on the other hand, became thought of

as the province of vulgar, inferior foreigners. To
restore the status of the occupation and obtain domestics
who would seem more like themselves and hence more
desirable, American employers wistfully talked about
bringing more native girls, the daughters of poorer
fellow countrymen, into their homes. Few doubted that

American girls were better people and better workers than

the Irish; this assumed superiority was used to argue both

181

for and against inducing American girls to enter service.
In their desperation to be rid of Bridget, employers
looked hopefully toward the Chinese who, though strange
and alien, were thought to be intelligent, efficient, and
docile. But best of all they simply were not Irish, and
it seems to have been believed that any change would have

to have been an improvement.

NOTES

l"Domestic Servitude," The Knickerbocker, June,

 

18A2, p. 52“; D[avid] Meredith Reese, ed., Thomas Webster
and Mrs. Francis Parkes, An Encyclopedia of Domestic
Economy: Comprising Such Subjects as Are Most Imme—
diately Connected with Housekeeping (New York, 18A5),

p. 366; Lemuel Shattuck, Report of the Committee of the
City Council Appointed to Obtain the Census of Boston

for The Year 18U5 (Boston, 18A6), p. 85.

 

2The yearly figures from the New York society are
given in each of its annual reports. Young America,
January 2“, l8U6; Robert Ernst, Immigrant Life in New

York, 1825—1863 (New York, 18U9), p. 66; "The Greatest

 

Plague in Life," Arthur's Home Magazine, June, 1860,

 

p. 363.
3Oscar Handlin, Boston's Immigrants: A Studygin

Acculturation (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), p. 253; Ernst,

 

Immigrant Life in New York, pp. 2lA-215.
"Francis A. Walker, "Our Domestic Service,"

Scribner's Monthly, December, 1875, p. 277. In the 1970

 

census no distinction was made between Negroes and Whites
of American birth. The inclusion of Negroes further
inflated the statistics for native-born domestics.

5Ibid.; see Table 6.
6See Table 7.

182

183

7Frances Wright, Views of Society and Manners in
America, ed., Paul R. Baker (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), p.

)238; Lydia Maria Child, Letters from New York, first

 

series (New York, 18AA), pp. 2A3-2AM; Samuel Griswold
Goodrich, "A Sympathetic View of the Irish Immigrant,"

in Edith Abbott, ed., Historical Aspects of the Immigration

 

Problem: Select Documents (Chicago, 1926), pp. 739-7A2.
For typical sentimental stories dealing with Irish
immigrants in this decade see, for example, Catharine

Sedgwick, "The Post Office," Graham's Magazine, August,

 

l8u3, pp. 61-67; Lydia Maria Child, "The Irish Heart,"
Fact and Fiction: A Collection of Stories (New York,
18A6), pp. 77—90.

8Catharine Sedgwick, Live and Let Live; or,

 

Domestic Service Illustrated (New York, 1837), pp. 70-71;
Sarah Josepha Hale, The Good Housekeeper; or, The Way to
Live Well and To Be Well While We Live (Boston, 1839),
pp. 122-123; Timothy Shay Arthur, "Hiring a Servant,"
Godey's Lady's Book, March, 18A2, pp. l66—l7l.

9Eliza Farrar, The Young Lady's Friend (Boston,

 

1837), p. 231; Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic

 

Economy, for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and at
School (New York, 18U2), pp. AO-Ul; Handlin, Boston's

Immigrants p. 61; William Chambers, Things as They Are

 

 

in America (London and Edinburgh, 185“), pp. 188-189;

 

Harriet Prescott Spofford, The Servant Girl Question

 

18u

(Boston, 1881), pp. 5, 30; "The Housekeeper's Millennium,"

Lippincott's Magazine, July, 1869, p. 80.

 

10For a general discussion on the impact of
immigration on class structure in New York City see

Douglas T. Miller, Jacksonian Aristocracy: Class and

 

Democracy in New York, l830-186O (New York, 1967), pp.

 

99-105-

 

11[Harriet Beecher Stowe], The Chimney Corner

(Boston, 1868), p. 1“; Robert Tomes, The Bazar Book of

 

the Household (New York, 1875), pp. 121—122, 125-127,

 

133; [Charles Loring Brace], "The Servant Question,"

The Nation, October 26, 1865, p. 528; [Jane C. Croly],

 

"Household Needs," Demorest's Monthly Magazine, May,

 

1869, p. 188; Lula Gray Noble, "A Small Part of the
Woman Question," Scribner's Monthly, February, 1872,

p. A85.

 

l2[Sidney George Fisher], "Domestic Servants,"

North American and United States Gazette [Philadelphia],

 

May 27, 1857; Life and Letters of Edwin Lawrence Godkin,

 

ed., Rollo Ogden (New York, 1907), I, pp. 182, 18“.

Godkin's letter was written March 16, 1859.

13Sarah E. Henshaw, "The Kitchen," Lippincott's

 

Magazine, September, 1868, p. 312; Tomes, The Bazar

 

Book of the Household, pp. 131-132; Eunice Beecher,

 

MotherlygTalks with Young_Housekeepers (New York, 1873),

 

p. 30“; [Fisher], "Domestic Servants;" Virginia Penny,

185

The Employments of Women: A Cyclopedia of Woman's Work

 

(Boston, 1863), pp. A26-U27; [Jane C. Croly], "Household

Service," Demorest's Monthly Magazine, January, 1873,

 

pp. 15-16; [Harriet Beecher Stowe], House and Home Papers

 

(Boston, 1865), p. 210; Spofford, The Servant Girl

 

Question, p. 89; Abby Sage Richardson, "A Plea for

Chinese Labor," Scribner's Monthly, July, 1871. p. 289.

 

1“[E. L. Godkin], "The Morals and Manners of the

Kitchen," The Nation, January 2, 1873, p. 6. Denun-

 

ciations of Irish incompetence can be found running
throughout the literature of the servant question
written after 1850. For representative examples see

[Harriet Prescott Spofford], "Bridget," Harper's Bazar,

 

November 11, 1871, p. 706; [Croly], "Household Service,"

Demorest's, January, 1873, p. 16.

 

15"Servants in America," All the Year Round,
October 3, 187“, p. 585; [Timothy Shay Arthur], "Cooks,"

Godeyjs Lady's Book, May 1852, p. 395.

 

l6[Arthur], "Cooks," p. 395; Kate Harrington,

"Irish Blunders," Godey's Lady's Book, September, 1855,

 

p. 2U7; Virginia De Forest, "Biddy's Blunders," Godev's

Lady's Book, April, 1855, p. 329. For several other

 

such sketches by Arthur see his stories "Something More
About Cooks," "Lots of Things," and "Pavement Washing

in Winter" all in Confessions of a Housekeeper

 

(Phi1adelphia, 1852).

186

17Life and Letters of Edwin Lawrence Godkin, I,
p. 183; "Parlor and Kitchen," Lippincott's Magazine,
August, 1869, p. 210; [Josiah Gilbert Holland], Letters
to the Joneses, (New York, 1863), p. 9b; Carl Wittke,

We Who Built America: The Sagg of the Immigrant (New

 

York, 1939), p. A89; Rev. James O'Connor, "Anti—Catholic

Prejudice," American Catholic Quarterlngeview, I,

 

January, 1876, p. 13; Robert Tomes, "Your Humble Servant,"

Harper's New Monthly Magazine, June, 186“, p. 57. For

 

an example of the type of literature which warned against
Catholic servants as Jesuit spies, see the American
edition of the English book The Female Jesuit; or, The

Spy in the Family by Jemima Thompson Luke (New York,

 

1851). See especially pp. vii—ix which purport to prove
that Catholic chambermaids in America sometimes kept
notes on the finances, politics, religious attitudes,
and general character of the families for whom they
worked. These detailed notes were allegedly sent to the
Jesuits and eventually to Rome.

l8"Our Irish Immigrants," Arthur's Home Magazine,

 

October, 185“, pp. 2U5-2H6; "Editor's Table," Godey's

Lady's Book, August, 1860, pp. l7A-175; [Stowe], House

 

and Home Papers, pp. 219—220; John Francis Maguire,

 

The Irish in America (New York, 1868), pp. 315-319,

 

333-337; Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," {arper's, June,

186“, p. 57; Virginia Townsend, "Our Irish Girls,"

187

Arthur's Home Magazine, November, 1875, pp. 668-669;

 

Thomas Low Nichols, Forty Years of American Life, 1821-

 

1861 (New York, 1937), p. 155.

19Eunice Beecher, Motherly Talks, p. 2A9; [Croly],

 

"Household Service," Demorest's, January, 1873, p. 16;

 

[Godkin], "The Morals and Manners of the Kitchen,"

The Nation, January 2, 1873, p. 6.
20[

 

Stowe], The Chimney Corner, p. 17.

 

21Elizabeth Ellet, ed., The Practical Housekegper:

 

A Cyclopedia of Domestic Economy (New York, 1857), p.

 

30; "Honorable Service," Harper's Bazar, December 19,

 

1869, p. 9U6; Letter from Eleanor Kirk, The Revolution,

 

June 11, 1868, p. 358; "Table Talk," Putnam's Magazine,

 

May 1868 p. 6A8; Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, "What Shall

They Do?," Harper's New MonthlyyMagazine, September,

 

1867, p. 521; Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's,

June, 186A, p. 59; Tomes, The Bazar Book of the House-

 

hold, pp. 132, 137; "Editor's Table," Godey's Lady's
hook, April, 1863, p. 397.

22Tomes, The Bazar Book of the Household, pp. 121—

 

122; Samuel Griswold Goodrich, Recollections of a

 

Lifetime (New York and Auburn, 1856), I, pp. 8u—85;

James Russell Lowell, Works, 11, Literary Essays,

 

(Boston and New York, 1892), p. 290; see also [Stowe],

The Chimney Corner, pp. 50-51; Grace A. Ellis, "Our

 

Household Service," The Galaxy, September, 1872, p. 352;

 

188

[Fisher], "Domestic Servants," North American and United

 

States Gazette [Philadelphia], May 23, 1857.

 

23[Mary Abigail Dodge], Woman's Wrongs: A

 

Counter—Irritant (Boston, 1868), pp. 118—119, 127, also

 

see pp. 123-12“.

2“Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, pp. 8A-85,

 

146-1u7, 158, 160.
25Ibid., pp. 159-161; [Harriet Prescott Spofford],

"The Last Resort," Harper's Bazar, February 27, 1875,

 

p. 38.

26Louisa May Alcott, "How I Went Out to Service,"

The Independent, June A, 187A, pp. 1-3; Ednah D. Cheney,

 

ed., Louisa May Alcott: Her Life, Letters, and Journals

 

(Boston, 1889), p. 67.
27[Godkin], "The Morals and Manners of the Kitchen,"

The Nation, January 2, 1873, p. 7; Towsend, "Our Irish

 

Girls," Arthur's, November, 1875, p. 668; "Woman's Work
and Woman's Wages: Causes of Suffering Among Seam—

stresses," Arthur's Home Magazine, March, 1870, p. 151;

 

"Woman's Work and Woman's Wages: Shall American Girls

Become Servants,’ Arthur's Home Magazine, July, 1870,

 

pp. 29‘30, 31-32; Parker Pillsbury, "Domestic Service,"

The Revolution, August 12, 1869, p. 88. Virginia Penny,

 

confronted by the argument that American girls should
enter domestic work, replied that she would "prefer to

see our present class of servants fit themselves better

189

for the discharge of their duties, and American girls
enter occupations of a more refined and exhalted

nature." The Employments of Women, p. “02.

 

288pofford, The Servant Girl Question. p. 181;

 

[Spofford], "Bridget," Harper's Bazar, November 11,

 

1871, p. 706; [E. L. Godkin], "Social Distinctions

from Bridget's Standpoint," The Nation, August 5, 1869,

 

p. 107; Walker, "Our Domestic Service," Scribner's,

 

December, 1875, p. 278. See Table 6.

29U. S. Congress, Senate, Report of the Joint

 

Special Committee to Investigate Chinese Immigration,

 

Senate Report 689, ““th Cong. 2sd sess., 1877, pp. “3,
5“) 5059 572: 622’ 733, 897'898-
30Sarah E. Henshaw, "California Housekeepers and

Chinese Servants," Scribner's Monthly, September, 1876,

 

pp. 736—7“2; Thomas J. Vivian, "John Chinaman in San

Francisco," Scribner's Monthly, October, 1876, p. 868.

 

31Mary Hosmer, "Mary Ann and Chyng Loo," Lippincott's

 

Magazine, October, 1870, pp. 355-357; Abby Richardson,

 

"A Plea for Chinese Labor," Scribner's Monthly, July,
1871, p. 289; C. C. Coffin, "China in Our Kitchens,"

The Atlantic Monthly, June, 1869, p. 750; Minna Wright,

 

"My Chinese Cook," The Ladies' Repository, April, 1870,

 

pp. 302-30“; "Table Talk," Putnam's Magazine, July, 1869,

 

127. Some mistresses, no doubt, regarded "the benighted

coolie" as an object for household missionary work.

190

Hopes of converting the houseboy probably entered the
minds of many. However, two mistresses who had enter—
tained such hopes wrote that their Chinese servants
had no interest in Christianity and thought their own
religion superior. See Hosmer, "Mary Ann and Chyng
Loo," p. 359; Minna Wright, "My Chinese Cook," p. 30“.

32Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, p. 165;

 

Frank H. Norton, "Our Labor System and the Chinese,"

Scribner's Monthly, May, 1871, pp. 69—70; Minna Wright,

 

"My Chinese Cook," pp. 302—303.

CHAPTER V

CLASS DISTINCTIONS WITHIN
THE HOME

Nineteenth-century middle and upper—class Americans,
whose social position and status were principally based
on wealth, were deeply concerned with the proprieties of
social conduct. The businessman and his wife wanted to
learn what behavior would assure them the reputation of
being a true "gentleman" and "lady." Authors responded
with a deluge of books and articles describing acceptable
rules governing the details of social behavior. This
literature dealt not only with polite manners but also
with the proper forms regulating a variety of social
relationships, including the relationship between the
lower-class servant and the middle or upper—class
employer. Advice on this relationship generally appealed
to the class consciousness of employers. Class dis—
tinctions were taken seriously; servants were frequently
referred to as social "inferiors," and domestics were
told to be humbly respectful toward their social
"superiors." Writers went into considerable detail

concerning both the proper forms controlling the master—

191

192

servant relation and the forms actually employed by
many families. In their discussions authors attempted
to institute and maintain social distance and social
distinctions between employer and employee. In their
actual treatment of domestics employers seemed equally
concerned with indicating, formalizing, and preserving

differences based on social class.

I
Foreign visitors and Americans agreed that wealth
was the key to the class structure in the United States,
a class structure regarded as fluid but very real.
Money, rather than birth or education, was the principal
standard of social position. That wealth was the route
to the middle class or the "aristocracy" in America was
understood and remarked upon by many contemporaries.
In 18“9 one woman wrote:
a certain line of distinction has been drawn in
society, and has been assuming a greater and
greater stringency . . . . It is not the
aristocracy of family and birth . . . nor yet
the true aristocracy of intellect and moral
worth-~but the peculiarly American aristocracy
of money! Caste, determined by the possession
or non—possession of estates and bank—stock,
is scarcely more rigidly guarded on Hindoo
ground than here . . .
Thomas Grattan, an English traveler, observed that birth
and other marks of distinction were "only valued while
. allied with money."1
Wealth alone, however, did not inevitably or

automatically guarantee acceptance as a "gentleman" or

193

"1ady;" if a merchant or broker and his wife were to
receive social recognition in keeping with their income,
they were expected to exhibit refinement, good—breeding,
and self-assurance in their social conduct. The desire
to be regarded as a "gentleman" accounted for the great
popularity of etiquette books during the nineteenth
century. From these books the newly prosperous could
learn the social manners of the well-bred and cultured.
Wealth required confirmation through careful attention
to approved social conventions, including both proper
conduct toward servants and the correct forms of deference
to be demanded and required from domestics.

In a further effort to legitimatize and consolidate
their social position, the fortunate labored to convince
themselves and others of their importance through openly
asserting, and thereby reaffirming,their social superi-
ority. Francis Grund discovered that in republican
America men were frequently "more eager after aristocratic
distinctions" than were more self-confident Europeans.
According to Grattan, Americans in "fashionable society"
were engaged in a "struggle to maintain their mock
dignity . . . ." Thus the relative fluidity of class
lines paradoxically increased class consciousness by
heightening anxiety concerning one's position. Men
sought to confirm their status through securing deference

from those whom they regarded as social "inferiors." As

19“

one often reprinted etiquette book stated, because
position was more secure in Europe "there does not
exist the same necessity for a jealous guarding of
the barriers [of social class] as there does here."2
Such conditions applied with special force to

domestics, the social "inferiors" with whom employers
had the most intimate contact. If a man could not
command the respect and deference of his own servant,
from whom could he claim it? Grattan perceptively
observed that because employers had "no security of
position," they were very apprehensive that the domestic
"may not have a fitting sense of the difference between
them——may not treat them with sufficient difference--
may take undue liberties with them." As a result, while
the incompetence and unfaithfulness of servants were
heartily condemned, the greatest sin a domestic could
commit was "impudence."

Among all the transgressions which these

obnoxious persons [servants] are guilty of,

I have observed that there is none which

causes such general distress among mistresses,

as a failure on the part of the servant to

'know her place.' A little negligence, or

incapacity, or even a few wilful errors the

lady can tolerate, but any forgetfulness of

the vast difference between her own position

and that of her handmaid, not at all.3

In case the domestic was in any doubt concerning

her proper place within the household, employers

presented continual reminders of the relative status

of mistress and maid. "Manners" and forms regulating

195

the master-servant relationship emphasized the disparity
in class between the two parties. As Robert Tomes found,
"forms of reverence and awed silence" were expected from
the servant; "a great deal that is humiliating in service
comes from the ceremonial observances exacted from it."
These customs and attitudes indicate that, in relation to
domestics, the egalitarian implications of political
democracy broke down. "While extolling freedom," noted
one critic, "we are unwilling to accept the disagreeable
petty issues of republicanism." This was certainly true

in the case of domestic service.”

II

Two items which showed the class consciousness of
employers and their anxiety concerning their status were
the usage of the term "lady" and the manner in which
domestics dressed at home and particularly on the street.
In regard to the former, employers were aggravated and
offended because domestics sometimes referred to
themselves or other lower—class females as "ladies," a
term properly reserved for mistresses. The terms "lady"
and "gentleman" on the one hand and "woman" and "man"
on the other were used with a definite and limited
meaning which corresponded with class distinctions.
Catherine Beecher pointed out to servants that "we find
that it is common to call persons who have wealth and

education 'ladies,' and persons who have no education,

196

and labour for a support 'women.'" A "lady" would feel
very offended, she added, to be called a "woman" because
"persons whom she_regards as below herself are so—called."
A writer often sympathetic to servants noted that a
"lady" was "a woman whom circumstances and inclinations
do not compel to work for a living . . . . The masses
of working women are not ladies by nature or education."
It was thus an assault on what employers considered
proper social distance for a domestic to call herself a
"lady," as servants sometimes did in newspaper advertise—
ments or conversation. Robert Tomes found it "vulgar"
and ludicrous for the term "lady" to be applied to
servants. One tract for servants advised them "not to
assume names conferred only upon the well—bred and
highly educated." Domestics were told to "distinguish
properly" between such terms and to use them with correct
discrimination-~an egg woman or washerwoman was not to be
called a "lady" and the wife of an important person was
not to be referred to as a "woman."5

In the matter of dress within the house, employers
made it clear what type of apparel they desired servants
to wear while on duty, but few made any real effort to
impose a distinctive uniform on female servants.
Basically, domestics were to wear neat, simple, modest
clothing in keeping with their duties. Torn, soiled, or

ragged clothing should not be worn about the house; a

197

"slovenly" girl was said to be "an object of positive
disgust." The waitress was to take special care to be
neatly attired while serving the table; she was not to
wear the same clothes for serving which she had worn
for her dirtier chores. On the other hand, it was
equally objectionable for a maid to be "too finely
dressed" while working about the house. For one thing,
a showily dressed girl called attention to herself when
she was supposed to be inconspicuous and unobtrusive.
Furthermore, as a domestic went about the house, a long
hoopskirt "knocks over articles, and catches in doors,
and trips up the unlucky worker doing her housework, or
waiting on table."6
Americans seldom went beyond such general statements
or requirements about the dress of domestics on duty,
largely because of opposition by servants. In contrast
to Europeans, American employers rarely advocated
specific regulations which smacked of a uniform or
"livery" for maids. Waiters, male and female, were to
wear white gloves while serving the table, and female
domestics were expected to wear an apron, but few
employers made more stringent demands. Sarah Josepha
Hale did suggest that domestics be required to follow
the English custom of wearing a cap or handkerchief,
but Caroline Kirkland reported in 1851 that few

mistresses attempted to enforce any such regulation.

198

Since few American domestics were willing to wear a
plain costume supplied by the employer, only "a few"
employers insisted on the usual English costume of
white cap, white apron, and plain black dress for
nurses and house—maids. American girls were thus
responsible for supplying their own work—clothes
whereas in England and a few larger American establish-
ments these clothes, usually a standard uniform, were
provided by the employer.7

What really disturbed and irritated class—conscious
mistresses, however, was what the maid wore on her time
off when away from the house and largely beyond the
control of the employer. With her room and board supplied
in addition to her pay, the servant had a comparatively
large share of her wages available to spend on clothing
and could afford some outfits which were "elegant" and
the height of current fashions. In a nation where status
was dependent chiefly on the appearance and display of
wealth, the domestic could erase or threaten to erase
much of the social distance between herself and her
mistress simply by dressing to look like a "lady." In
public the servant could appear to be the social equal
of her employer. Such threats to class distinctions
between mistresses and maids were deeply unsettling to
employers, who wanted servants to dress and look like

servants and to preserve class differences among females

199

in matters of dress. Servants, it was said, "have a
great fancy for copying their mistress in dress
Mistresses complained along with Harriet Prescott Spofford
that domestics took on "airs of gentility, with assumption
of equality in dress." Eunice Beecher grumbled that "it
requires keen eyes to distinguish across the street the
millionnaire from her cook, as far as dress is con—

cerned . . . ." Other ladies made similar comments and

so did some men. One male writer observed that on Sunday
domestics arrayed themselves in clothes "that would not
disgrace the neatest carriage in Hyde Park." Robert

Tomes found that on her day off the servant looked like
"as fine a lady as her mistress and might easily be
mistaken for her."8 Such statements from men could
scarcely have been comforting to insecure "ladies."

In order to reassure themselves that real distinc-
tions did exist between the true lady and the "over-
dressed" servant on the street, mistresses sneered that
the dress and ornamentation of the domestic was only a
"vulgar imitation" of the fashions worn by ladies. It
was suggested that persons of real refinement and
discrimination would not be misled by the cheap copies
worn by the domestic into imagining her to be‘a lady.
According to female writers, servants' ribbons were
always "dirty" or "greasy," their artifical flowers

"soiled," their jewelry "tawdry," their finery "faded"

200

and "gaudy." In their pathetic and futile ambition to
"hide their social position," domestics strove to appear
"as much as possible" like their social superiors. But
even with her bows, ruffles, and lace, the domestic's
costume allegedly remained "bedraggled." Servants were
very wrong if they thought they were "indistinguishable"
from "ladies," whose clothes were always "dainty and
fresh." Mrs. Parton claimed that when a poor woman

wore "a stunning, glaring outfit, . . . the truth she
would conceal, is patent to every beholder . . . ."
Moreover, writers pointed out that in the servant's

quest to keep up with fashion she foolishly purchased
expensive dresses and trimming rather than durable work—
clothes, decent underclothing, or warm winter garments.
Mrs. Graves thought that few finely dressed domestics
"possess such useful articles of apparel as are requisite
for health, comfort, and true respectability." Mrs.
Parton agreed that although the maid had gay bonnets,

her showy skirt hid "dilapidated and soiled underclothing,.
and a very questionable state of shoe and stocking." A
true lady, of course, would not spend her money so
imprudently, saw such things in proper perspective, and

was always ladylike from head to toe.9

In line with the desires of employers, tracts for
domestics sought to instruct servants in what was deemed

"proper" in regard to dress and to discourage girls from

201

dressing like those above them in station. "Foolish" spend—
ing for "expensive" and "useless" muslin and silk dresses was
opposed; calico was ”more proper and becoming" for a servant.
Girls should concentrate on purchasing useful garments and
avoid copying the styles worn by the young ladies of the

family. In her Letters to Persons Who Are Engaged in

 

Domestic Service, Catherine Beecher reiterated several times

 

the point that "if a woman has a small income, and yet
appears in dresses and ornaments that are suitable only
for persons of great wealth, every one pities or laughs at
her for her want of taste and propriety." Another such book
suggested to domestics that "as expensive houses, rich
furniture, and showy equipage belong, or should belong,
exclusively to the rich, so should feathers, flounces, laces,
and the expensive superfluities of dress." The maid should
dress modestly; to attempt to imitate the fashions of the
mistress or her daughters would only expose a domestic to
the "mirth and witty jest" of the family. Efforts at such
imitation indicated that the servant possessed "a tawdry and
vulgar taste." One tract advised that it was deceitful, and
therefore obnoxious in the sight of God, for a servant—girl
to dress in such a way as to appear to be anything other than
a servant. A domestic should wear clothing "proper for a
person in her situation."10
In regard to such advice and other discussions of servants'
dress by status-conscious employers, Tomes observed that
mistresses were motivated by "a desire to repress-the

uppishness, as it is termed, of the dependent,

202

to keep her in her appropriate place." He charged that
the employer, who was alarmed by attempts at "outward
assimilation" on the part of servants, regarded current
fashions "as belonging exclusively to those of her own
rank." Mistresses displayed the desire, if not suf-
ficient authority, to enforce class distinctions in
street dress. Although regulations concerning the public
clothing of domestics were difficult to enforce, many
mistresses allegedly interferred to the extent of giving
irritating "advice" and "suggestions" on matters of
"appropriate" dress to their employees. Tomes commented
on the "frequent interference" by mistresses in these
matters; Catherine Beecher advised ladies that the "most
successful" way to "interfere" in questions of servants'
dress was to first gain their confidence and then dis—

seminate proper "views of propriety and economy ."11

III

Etiquette books, books on domestic economy, and
numerous magazine articles advised employers on how they
should conduct themselves toward domestics in order to
secure willing compliance with directions. Throughout
the century most authors found it necessary to condemn
the haughty arrogance of manner and the "severe and
imperious mode of giving orders" which impressed
observers as all too common. William Alcott explained

the reasons behind such rudeness and arrogance by noting

203

that those with only a "precarious" hold on their status
feared losing it through "any apparent condescension."

Where nobility is hereditary, no one fears

that a little condenscension will injure

him . . . . But as what I call our nobility,

here, is usually acquired, and may therefore

be lost, our nobles are more cautious with

whom they associate. And it is this cautious

spirit . . . which makes republican nobles so

much more proud, and haughty, and intolerable

than monarchical ones.
Such conduct toward domestics was, Alcott pointed out,
common not only among American "nobles" but also among
those in moderate circumstances able to hire only one
servant or even only a washerwoman once a week. Indeed,
women in the middle classes were likely to be especially
"haughty" since they were less sure of their position
than were "nobles." Most American writers followed
Lord Chesterfield in recommending "perfect self—command"
and "steady assurance" in one's manner toward domestics,
but those who felt insecure in their social position
must have found such relaxed self—assurance difficult
to maintain. For their lack of confidence, employers
often substituted overbearing arrogance. In 1835
Mathew Carey condemned those "whose deportment is
tyrannical; whose orders are given in a style becoming
an eastern despot . . . ." During the Civil War another
writer attacked the many employers "who seem to imagine
it adds to their importance to treat domestics with

rudeness and incivility, especially in the presence

of others."12

20“

Americans frequently failed in their relations with
domestics, noted one critic, "in the matter of little
politenesses." Employers neglected the subtle signs of
social respect; they did not say "good morning" to
servants; they did not apologize when they walked in
front of a maid; they did not say "please" when they
wanted some service. Several authors indicated that
many employers did not use the terms "please" and "thank
you" when dealing with servants. Tomes, for example,
found that these phrases "seldom pass the lips of our
fine ladies when they command their servants;" such
details of social intercourse pointed up the existing
"social distance between the employer and the employed,"
he thought. It was said that such courtesies were denied
to domestics because they were generally thought unworthy
of them; but one writer reminded readers that servants,
like other persons, "value such little proofs of regard,
if offered as from equal to equal . . . ."13

Such rude conduct was criticized as serving only
to demonstrate the vulgarity of the employer and unneces—
sairly antagonize the servant. It should be noted,
however, that these criticisms were not democratic in
tone. Politeness was a means to secure "obedience;"
furthermore, many of these who recommended a more polite
and kindly demeanor toward servants also assumed that

domestics were social "inferiors." As Samuel Wells told

205

the readers of his etiquette book, "there is no surer
sign of inherent vulgarity than a needless assumption
of the tone of authority and a haughty and supercilious
bearing toward servants and inferiors in station
generally." Virginia Terhune agreed that "if you can
only maintain your position by haughitness and chilling
disregard for the feelings of inferiors, your rank is
false and you unfit to hold it." In dealing with
domestics and other "inferiors in social position,"
stated another writer, one should be pleasant and use
"the language of request" rather than that of command;
this would elicit "more ready as well as cheerful
obedience . . . ." Advocates of politeness to domestics
usually agreed with Robert Tomes that servants would
"seldom fail to respond with a more zealous service and
a readier obedience to exactions and commands rendered
less harsh and domineering by a soft word and subdued
mastery."lu
If arrogance and rudeness were condemned, so also
was the opposite "evil" of "undue familiarity."
Pampering a servant would only fill her "with burnings
for the higher station she can never occupy" and "lead
to contempt and general disobedience of orders." A
girl treated with familiarity would become disrespectful,
make fun of the "indiscreet" mistress, and become
contemptuous of the weak employer. If she yielded "her

proper authority and control," the mistress would find

206

herself under the domination of the servant. To make a
maid a sort of "companion" would only degrade the
mistress in the eyes of her subordinate and lower her
to the level of the servant. "On no account be familiar
with them," was the motto of those concerned with
maintaining proper deference and social distance.15

Lest they be thought to be suggesting familiarity
or social equality, authors calling for politeness toward
servants carefully disclaimed any intention of subverting
"the due subordination necessary for a well-ordered
household . . . ." Politeness did not imply any con—
cession of equality. While one's manner should be
kindly and polite, it should also be firm and determined
so that the domestic clearly understood that the mistress
was in charge and would tolerate no rebellion. One
article calling for more politeness toward servants
opened with the statement that "our readers must not infer
that we would advocate the abolishment of any proper dis-
tinction between the employer and the employed
[Politeness] is perfectly consistent with a course that
would ever command the most perfect deference."l6

Such qualifications were also possible in discussions
which were more general than those dealing with manners
toward servants. One of the most critical articles on the
usual nineteenth—century treatment of domestics was

written in 1871 by Richard Rodgers Bowker. Bowker

207

attacked the restrictions on the personal freedom of
servants, their lack of leisure time, the limitations
on visitors, and the poor lodgings provided them.
Severely critical of the "inhumane" way domestics were
treated, he argued that motives of "charity" and
"selfishness" should combine to encourage a more
benevolent and considerate attitude on the part of mis—
tresses. Discipline and deference were to be retained,
however. Although they were entitled to humane kindness,
"there is no call to treat servants, socially, as any
thing but inferiors . . . ." Bowker asked rhetorically,
"Would I have you treat servants as your social equals?
Would I have them eat at your own table, using your
piano, occupying your parlor and your front chamber?
Nothing of the kind."17

A related concern was the proper treatment of
servants and other lower-class women in public. Authors
were divided on both the prevailing behavior of men toward
such women and what the conduct in such cases should be.
While an English traveler found American men to be polite
and deferential to even "poorly-dressed" women on the
street, an American remarked that courtesy was "not often
seen" to lower-class women in public. Another writer
found that men seldom offered the courtesies to servants
which they extended to other females. Whatever the

actual situation, it seemed excessively democratic to

208

some who favored open class distinctions in etiquette
with one standard of conduct for "ladies" and another
for "women," particularly domestics. The first edition
of one popular etiquette book, published in 1836, noted
concerning the etiquette of travel that

when women appear at the door of the coach to
obtain admittance, it is a matter of some

question to know exactly what conduct it is
necessary to pursue. If the women are servants,
or persons in a low rank of life, I do not see
upon what ground of politeness or delicacy you

are called upon to yield your seat. Etiquette,
and the deference due to ladies have, of course,
no operation in the case of such persons.

Chivalry . . . was ever a devotion to rank

rather than to sex . . . . Such persons have
nerves considerably more robust than you have,

and are quite as capable of riding backward, or
the top, as you yourself . . . . The only reason
for politeness in this case is, that perhaps the
other passengers are of the same standing with

the woman, and might eject you from the window if
you refuse to give place . . . . If ladies enter—-
and a gentleman distinguishes them in an instant-—
the case is altered.

 

In later editions the anonymous author apparently decided
that the chances of being thrown from the coach were great
enough to alter his recommendation, if perhaps not his
real opinion. Subsequent editions simply stated the more
democratic principle that "if women apply at the door,
when you are occupying the best seat in the coach, you
must give place to them."18

Others, however, were equally ready to argue for a
more class—conscious approach to public etiquette and
voiced objections to democratic manners. Eliza Leslie

expressed disgust at the custom in hotels and board-

209

inghouses whereby mothers sometimes sent their nursemaids
with the babies to sit in the drawing room. The "ladies"
were "thus liable to have a vulgar and obtrusive servant
girl, most probably 'from the old country,' boldly taking
her seat in the midst of them . . . ." Such conduct was
similarly condemned by Nathaniel Parker Willis who
thought that "true politeness" depended upon proper
"discrimination" between those females worthy of such
attentions and the unworthy, including servants. All

too often in public, felt Willis, "the lady and the
house—drudge are put upon a level—-the first as much
robbed of her proper distinctive deference, as the other
is over-honored and absurdly complimented." By showing
respect to a domestic, one dishonored the mistress;
"selection" should be made between "your friend's dainty
daughter and your neighbor's greasy cook" if the lady

was to receive the full measure of respect due her. A

man wrote to the feminist periodical The Revolution that

 

lower—class women should not be surprised if a gentleman
did not yield his seat to someone as strong and as able

to stand as he. Men would never "grant such an implied

confession of superiority unless to one of his own or a

higher class." Complaints about the public rudeness of

American men, the correspondent thought, generally came

from "those who by attempted assumption of rights and

privileges beyond their legitimate sphere, are thus

210

publicly brought to grief . . . ." Parker Pillsbury
replied that a real gentleman would give his seat to

a tired washerwoman or cook as quickly as he would to

a "lady."19 Public etiquette was difficult to regulate
according to class, of course, especially when servants
were dressed like their employers. Differentiated codes
of conduct could be more easily enforced within the

home.

IV

Whatever forms of etiquette were advisable for the
employer, a rigid code of deference was expected in return
from the servant. A writer in Godey's stated that the
average mistress insisted "on her right to respect on
account of her position . . . ." "As to the term of
social intercourse," wrote Mrs. Stowe, "it seems some-
how to be settled in the minds of many employers that
their servants owe them and their family more respect
than they and the family owe to servants." If familiarity
on the part of the mistress was thought unwise, that on
the part of domestics was considered the height of
impertinence. Employers could freely comment on or
question a servant's personal affairs, but the girl could
not reciprocate such familiar treatment. Mistresses
could be rude and discourteous to domestics "while yet
they require that the dissatisfaction of servants shall

be expressed only in terms of respect . . . ." Among

211

those who thought along these lines was Mrs. Stowe's own
less republican sister, Catherine, who believed that in
the relations of "superior" and "subordinate," including
the relations of master and servant, the superior could
"command" while the subordinate could only "request."

It is suitable for a superior to take

precedence of a subordinate, without any

remark; but not for an inferior, without

previously asking leave, or offering an

apology. It is proper for a superior to

use language and manners of freedom and

familiarity, which would be improper from

a subordinate to a superior.

A good example of such differentiated etiquette can
be seen in the forms of address between employer and
employee. Employers were advised to "always address them
[servants] by their Christian names." This seems to have
been the universal rule throughout the century; in
dialogue and discussions writers almost invariably spoke
of servants by their first names, even if the servant
was older than the mistress. 0n the other hand,
domestics were to address their employers and their
guests "in a style which is appropriate to their relative
positions." In addressing an employer only a very

impertinent servant, who placed no great value on

retaining her job, would reply in a manner of "unbecoming

familiarity." A servant who "knew her place" would always
use the prefixes "Mrs.," "Miss," and "Mr.," when referring
to a "superior in station." "Sir" and "Ma'am" were always

to be used in speaking with an employer. One tract

212

warned domestics that "it is a great breach of good
manners to reply 'Yes,' or 'No,' omitting the 'Sir,'
or 'Ma'am,' to questions addressed to you by your
superiors." In the dialogue between servants and
employers included in articles, domestics, including
those inclined to insubordination, always used the
proper terms of respect, indicating that such phrases
were generally employed by domestics.21

General suggestions on the proper demeanor for
servants show the humble deference they were expected
to give their masters. While these were included in
books of advice for servants published before the Civil
War, such expectations no doubt continued after 1860
and constituted what Robert Tomes called the "antiquated
forms of servility" connected with domestic service.
There were manners deemed specifically suitable for
domestics; the correct attitude was one of humble respect.

Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics contained an

 

entire chapter on proper etiquette for servants. It was
explained that "good manners require that you should
treat your superiors with respect, your employers with
deference . . . ." The maid was not to imitate the
polite manners of the parlor because that would be
"ridiculous" and "unbecoming your station." Correct
deportment for domestics included silence, humility,

and promptness; the "polite" servant was one who served

213

her employer cheerfully and efficiently. Another tract
found Biblical support for recommending that the maid
treat the employer "with perfect respect" at all times
and under all circumstances. Catherine Beecher expected
servants "to regard the heads of a family as superiors
in station, and treat them with becoming respect" just
as children treat their parents or citizens their
rulers.22

It was considered very rude for a domestic to be
at all forward in conversation with her employers or
their friends. A girl was not to gossip with them,
intrude into their discussions, or initiate a conversation
with them. It was thought "forward and disrespectful" for
a domestic to break into the conversation of her betters
with opinions or remarks of her own on the topic. It was
also "a very impertinent thing to strive to force a
conversation on your superiors . . . ." The employee was
to talk with employers only when they first spoke to her.
Unless spoken to, she was to remain silent. Familiarity
in conversation would not be tolerated; Mrs. Spofford
found that among most employers if the servant were to
"jest with her mistress, it would be [considered] an
unpardonable liberty, overthrowing all disci-
pline . . . ."23

When the maid entered a family room to ask

questions or receive instructions, she was to "stand

21“

modestly inside the door . . . ." The servant would
remain standing unless or until invited by the employer
to sit down. "Remember always to stand in the presence
of master or mistress, or their guests and friends,"
stated one tract. A man-servant was "always to stand

in the presence of any of the family . . . ." Such rules
seem to have continued after the Civil War. One 1872
critic of etiquette toward domestics indicated that
employers seldom rose in the presence of their standing

servants or requested them to be seated.2u

V

One important area in which class distinctions were
effectively made within the home was in relation to
meals. Throughout the nineteenth century domestics in
cities, towns, and surrounding areas generally ate at
the "second table" located in the kitchen rather than at
the family table in the dining room. This condition
seems to have existed in well-to-do homes even in the
early years of the century. Samuel Griswold Goodrich
remembered that during the first decade of the century,
in his youth in Ridgefield, Connecticut, "in families
where all were laborers, all sat at the table, servants
as well as masters . . . . In families where the masters
and mistresses did not share in the labors of the house-
hold or the farm, the meals of domestics were had

separate." Elizabeth Ellet and Catharine Sedgwick both.

215

indicated that in seaboard cities servants did not eat
at the employers' tables in the 1830's and 18“0's
although it was said to be done often in rural, western
areas. William Alcott found that in Massachusetts in
the 1830's a lady worried about her dignity "will no
more let her [the servant or washerwoman] eat at the
same table, than if she were of some other race of
animals . . . ."25

Two plans were used in feeding domestics at their
"second table." In many cases servants took "their
meals immediately after and on the remains of the
family meals." This method of feeding servants on "the
remains and natural waste of the family table," whereby
dishes were sent to the kitchen after the family had
eaten the portion they desired, was especially common
in establishments of one, two, or three domestics.
Servants, of course, could not eat until after the
family because the cook and waitress were busy while
the family was eating. In larger households there was
often "separate food for separate tables." In this case
domestics did not share in the expensive desserts, fresh
fruits, and other "table dainties" which might be served
in the dining-room; many employers bought cheaper cuts
of meat, sometimes called "servants' meat," for the
kitchen table. One lady defended this system, pointing

out that while "servants do not always partake of

216

exactly the same dishes as their master and mistress . .
[and] although the servants' table is not furnished.
with the delicacies of the season, their fare is
usually more abundant and not less nutritious than that
served up stairs."26
Some, however, objected to these usual systems of

feeding servants, calling them offensive reminders of
the "subordinate" status of the domestic. One article
alleged-that supplying servants with "coarse and insuf—
ficient viands," as many employers were said to do,
produced "discontent by the painful contrast between the
luxurious appointments and well supplied family table,
and the meager fare provided for the kitchen department."
The system commonly employed in smaller households was
attacked by Robert Tomes who suggested that

by proper management, the common impression

that . . . , the scraps of the table are

thrown out, as it were, to the servants,

might easily be avoided. A proper division

of the food, and a setting apart of the

portion allotted for the kitchen, before the

upper table is served, would tend to lessen

this humiliation.
Mrs. Spofford noted that maids—of—all—work generally had
to "eat of the scraps in loneliness."27

Employers went to some pains to explain why

domestics were not permitted to eat with the family,
usually attributing it to a desire to maintain family

privacy against the unwanted presence of the "stranger"

within the home. Employers said they felt unable "to

217

talk freely of their private affairs" at meals when
"restrained by the constant presence of a stranger."
This argument was first presented by Catherine Beecher,
but it was most completely stated by Mary Abigail Dodge
in the following passage:

Anyone can see that the table is often the only

place where the family can meet, and a stranger's

presence destroys the confidence and freedom

which make the charm of family life . . . .

[Employers] are quite right, family seclusion

can scarcely be too sacredly guarded; and the

woman who wishes to encroach upon it-—who is

so blind that she cannot see that there is

anything to be encroached upon——shows by that

token her unfittness to share it.
Thus domestics who would want to eat with the family were

dismissed as forward and boorish.28

None of those who put forth this argument for
prohibiting servants from eating at the family table
expressed any objection to having a girl wait on the
table, however, although a waitress would also be able
to overhear family discussions. One writer, Eliza
Leslie, did point out that some families preferred not
to have servants wait on the table "considering them
a restraint on the freedom of conversation," but those
authors who were so concerned about domestics sitting
with the family expressed no such apprehension about
having a waitress serve them. Indeed, Mrs. Spofford,
one of those who advocated exclusion, noted that a

servant would be unable to sit at the table with

218

comfort because she was expected to change courses,
make trips to the kitchen, and generally wait on the

table.29

Authors supporting the prohibition of the domestic
from the dining room sometimes emphasized that "the
family does not object to the servant's presence
necessairly because she is not equal to themselves,
but because she is not one of themselves." Harriet
Beecher Stowe also disclaimed any class feeling in these
regulations, stating that "there are quite other reasons
than the asumption of personal superiority for not
wishing to admit servants to the family privacy."3O

Nevertheless, class consciousness does seem to
have been one component in such rules. Many servants
were said to consider it an important symbol of social
equality within the house to be permitted to eat with.
the family. Mrs. Stowe found that such permission
might be sought by self-respecting girls "as signs that
they are deemed worthy of respect and consideration-

. ." Therefore, the denial of the privilege took
on the aspects of a class issue. Furthermore, the
typically lower-class behavior and manners of the
domestic contributed to her relegation to the kitchen
table. Mrs. Stowe implied that there would be no .
objection to a girl being at the table if she did not

act like a lower—class person but instead "sat at the

table and observed all its decorums with the modest

219

self—possession of a lady." A minister wrote that his
wife was worried that if a servant-girl were allowed
to eat in the dining-room, she would be ignorant of the
typics being discussed and would commit such impro-
prieties as "eating her dinner with her knife; talking
bad grammer . . . ." The minister himself suggested
that a servant would be welcome at the table only if
she behaved like a member of the middle class, if she
were a girl "of taste and refinement." Finding such
a refined girl in a distinctly lower-class occupation
was no doubt most difficult. Because everyone at the
table was expected to be neatly and cleanly dressed,
have their hair in place, and "abide by all the rules
of propriety," the domestic, it was argued, would
actually feel more comfortable eating in the kitchen
where proper etiquette was not required and the girl
"could talk, eat, and dress, as she pleased." Mary
Abigail Dodge did not think that permitting a servant
to eat with the family showed a lady's generosity or
sense of justice; rather "it is far stronger presumptive
evidence of lack of discrimination and delicacy than
anything else."31

The desire for physical separation from servants
expressed in excluding them from the family table and,
as will be seen in the next chapter, from the family

portions of the house generally was related to the

220

distastefulness of having lower—class persons, who
behaved in a lower-class rather than a middle-class
way, around employers. The lines of "class" depended
on such things as "culture" and "good breeding;" social
behavior was the visible sign of class standing. "There
is nothing that tends more to a separation of classes
than difference of manners," said Miss Sedgwick. "This
is a badge all can see." Domestics were thought
undeserving and unworthy of social equality because
they were "vulgar," lacked "good-breeding," and did not
abide by middle and upper—class proprieties.32
Such ideas can be seen in some of the statements

cited previously in connection with forbidding servants
to eat at the family table, but they were most generally
expressed by Catherine Beecher. Distinctions within
the home, she wrote, were necessary because of the
domestic's rude manners, lack of education, and generally
lower—class behavior.

If domestics neglect their persons, if their

dress is negligent and untidy, if they are

rough and coarse in their manners, and rude

and disrespectful in address, if they use

incorrect language and neglect the rules of

propriety at table and in society, there is

a very good reason for excluding them from

the table and parlour, where their example

would injure children and be offensive and dis—

agreeable to visitors.

These were the reasons "why there often is a necessity

 

of making so much difference between the situation of

employers and domestics, as is generally seen in the

most worthy and intelligent circles." A person with
"good education and good manners" always deserved and
received, she thought, more respect than a person
"who is ignorant, rude, vulgar, and ill—mannered."
Employers would alter their attitudes toward servants
and accept them as social equals only if somehow "all"
domestics "were suddenly changed into refined, well
bred, well educated persons . . . ." Such unlikely
and impossible requirements effectively kept domestics
in a subordinate position within the house as people
to be kept apart from the family.33

A number of other authors agreed with Miss Beecher
that because servants were "of low birth" and "without
refinement," they should not be allowed to have extensive
contact with or influence over the children of the family.
One writer pointed out that nurses and other domestics
"are but little else than a compound of ignorance,
coarseness, passion, and vulgarity." From contact with
such persons children might become "vicious" in manners
and mind. The impressionable and imitative child might
learn incorrect grammer, "vulgar" manners, and "rude"
or even immoral habits from the "unwholesome" example
of the servant, warned authors. William A. Alcott
cautioned darkly that domestics "besides setting a bad
example, . . . do sometimes inculcate, directly, such

habits, and practices, as should make any virtuous

parent shudder." Years later, Jane C. Croly believed
that "the children of very wealthy, and even cultivated
parents, sometimes by their association with servants,
acquire rude, untidy, and authoritative ways, that they

1
find it difficult afterwards to get ride of . . . ."31

In the details of social interaction employers mani-
fested a class—conscious attitude toward the domestics
who resided with them. Both the terms and the concepts
of social "superior" and "inferior" were pervasive, even
among those who called for a kindly demeanor toward servants.
In matters of dress, employers had definite ideas on the
proper apparel for domestics, emphasizing that they should
not dress to look like their social betters. In matters
of meals, employees were excluded from the family table
and ate either left—overs or less "dainty" food. Writers
frequently regarded servants as vulgar, ill—mannered people
whom it was desirable and necessary to remove from the
family because of their distasteful, lower—class character—
istics. In matters of etiquette and deportment, many
employers were said to be arrogant and rude. Those authors
who criticized this approach emphasized, however, that the
servant was an "inferior" and that politeness did not mean either

familiarity or social equality. Forms of etiquette and various

223

household regulations were instituted which emphasized
social distance, compelled outward respect, and
reminded the girl of her proper "place" within the
home. Taken as a whole, these attitudes and rules
show an effort to institutionalize and formalize class
differences and thereby elicit deference from the

servant.

NOTES

ers. M. J. B. Browne, "Jessie Lincoln," Graham's

Monthly Magazine, September, l8“9, p. 16“; Thomas

 

Grattan, Civilized America (London, 1859), p. 198; also

 

see Thomas Hamilton, Men and Manners in America

 

(Edinburgh, 1833), p. 109; Robert Tomes, "The Houses

We Live in," Harper's New Monthly Magazine, May, 1865,

 

p. 736; Douglas T. Miller, Jacksonian Aristocrapy:

 

Class and Democragy in New York, 1830—1860 (New York,

 

1967): pp. 57’ 158-16“, 170) 172‘173-

2Francis Grund, Aristocracy in America: From

 

the Sketch—Book of a German Nobleman, ed., George E.

 

Probst (New York, 1959), pp. 22, 52, 170; Grattan,

Civilized America, pp. 209—210; The Laws of

 

 

Etiquette; or, Short Rules and Reflections for

 

Conduct in Society (Philadelphia, 1836), pp. 10—11;

 

also see Miller, Jacksonian Aristocracy, p. 60; William

 

T. Coggeshall, "American Aristocracy," The Ladies'

 

Repository, June, July, 1857, pp. 337-339, “21—“23.

 

The Laws of Etiquette pointed out that in the United

 

States in remodelling the form of administration,
society remained unrepublican. There is perfect free—
dom of political privilege, all are the same upon the
hustings or at a political meeting; but this equality

does not extend to the drawing room or the parlour.

225

3Grattan, Civilized America, p. 261; "Servants,"

 

Godey's Lady's Book, March, 186“, p. 286; also see,

 

[Harriet Beecher Stowe], House and Home Papers (Boston,

 

1865), p. 210; Robert Tomes, The Bazar Book of the

 

Household (New York, 1875), pp. 128-129. One lady

 

reported that again and again I have heard ladies say,
'Impudence must be put down. No servant should be
allowed to stay a day after being saucy.'" The author
concluded that although all other shortcomings could
be forgiven, "it has come to be an accepted idea with
many mistresses that impudence is never to be passed

over." "Parlor and Kitchen," Lippincott's Magazine,

 

August, 1869, pp. 208—209.

“Tomes, The Bazar Book of the Household, pp. 125,

 

l“9; "Domestic Service," Old and New, September, 1872,

p. 363.

 

5Catherine Beecher, Letters to Persons Who Are

 

Engaged in Domestic Service (New York, 18“2), pp. 16“-

 

165; "Woman's Work and Woman's Wages: The Dress of

Working Women," Arthur's Home Magazine, February, 1870,

 

p. 91; Robert Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's

New Monthly Magazine, June, 186“, p. 55; Plain Talk

 

 

and Friendly Advice to Domestics: With Counsel on

 

Home Matters (Boston, 1855), pp. 128, 130-131; also

 

see Abby Sage Richardson, "A Plea for Chinese Labor,"

Scribner's Monthly, July, 1871, p. 289; "Domestic

 

Servitude," The Knickerbocker, June, 18“2, p. 521.

 

226

6Parlour and Kitchen; or, The Story of Ann

 

Connover (Philadelphia, 1835), pp. 75—76; Catherine

Beecher, Letters to Persons Engaged in Domestic Service,

 

p. l“8; Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics,

 

pp. 10“, l“3—l“7; [Sarah Payson Parton], Ginger—Snaps

 

(New York, 1871), pp. 169—170; also see Robert Roberts,

The House Servant's Directory, or a Monitor for Private

 

Families: Comprising Hints on the Arrangement of

 

Servants' Work (Boston and New York, 1827), pp. 15-16;

 

Etiquette for Ladies; With Hints on the Preservation,

 

Improvement,L and Display of Female Beaupy (Philadelphia,

 

1838), p. 9“; Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," p. 55;

Eliza Leslie, The House Book; or, A Manual of Domestic

 

Economy (Philadelphia, 18“9, p. 261.

7Mrs. Sophie Orne Johnson, A Manual of Etiquette

 

with Hints on Politeness and Good Breedipg (Philadelphia,

 

1873), p. 71; Sarah Josepha Hale, The New Household

 

Bgcipe Book: Containing Maxims, Directions, and

 

Specifics for Promoting Health, Comfort, and Improvement

 

in the Homes of the People (New York, 1853), p. 25“;

 

Sarah Josepha Hale, The Good Housekeeper; or, The Way To

 

Live Well and To Be Well While We Live (Boston, 1839),

 

p. 115; Caroline Kirkland, The Evening Book (New York,

 

1851), p. 166; [Parton], Ginger—Snaps, p. 169; Tomes,

 

"Your Humble Servant," p. 155.
In regard to male servants, liveries for coachmen

and footmen seem to have become increasingly common in

227

large cities as the decades past. While James Fenimore
Cooper and many Europeans commented on their absence in
the 1820's and 1830's, Lydia Maria Child reported them

to be increasing yearly in New York in the l8“0's and

Mrs. Kirkland found them worthy of extended discussion

in 1851. By the late 1860's and 1870's liveries were

a not unusual sight in New York although still scarce

by English standards. American writers were hostile to
this form of "public advertisement" of a man's "servitude"
and "servility." These degrading "badges of menial
service" were said to rob the wearer of his manly
independence. Mrs. Parton condemned American liveries

as "servile and badly executed imitations of old-country
flunkyism," and Mrs. Stowe regarded a servant in a livery
as "a mere appendage of another man, to be marked like a
sheep with the color of his owner." Despite these attacks,
the number of liveries apparently grew steadily, as those
who wanted to achieve an elegant, aristocratic look for
their establishments put their men—servants into showy

uniforms. JamesPenimore Cooper, Notions of the

 

Americans (New York, 1963), I, p. 162; Harriet Martineau,

 

Society in America (New York, 1837), II, p. 25“; Lydia

 

Maria Child, Letters from New York, second series (New

 

York, 18“5), p. 279; Kirkland, The Evening Book, pp.

 

16“, 166-167; Maria Thersa Longworth, Teresina in America

 

(London, 1875), I, p. 6; George Makepeace Towle, American

228

Society (London, 1870) I, pp. 309-310; [Sarah Payson

Parton], Folly as It Flies: Hit at by Fanny Fern (New

 

York, 1868), pp; 197-198; [Stowe], House and Home Papers,

 

p. 221.

8Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy

 

for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and School (New York,

 

18“2), p. 209; Alice B. Neal, "Mrs. West's Experience,"

Godey's Lady's Book, November, 1853, p. “33; Harriet

 

Prescott Spofford, The Servant Girl Question (Boston,

 

1810, p. 88; Eunice Beecher, All Around the House; or,

 

How to Make Home Happy (New York, 1878), p. 275; Thomas

 

Low Nichols, Forty Years of American Life, 1821—1861

 

 

(New York, 1937), p. 256; Tomes, "Your Humble Servant,"
Harper's, June, 186“, p. 55; also see [Parton], Folly

as It Flies, p. 110; Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to

 

 

Domestics, p. 10“; [Jane C. Croly], Talks on Women's

 

 

Topics (Boston, 186“), pp. 109—111; Mrs. A. J. Graves,
Woman in America: Being an Examination into the Moral

and Intellectual Condition of American Female Sociepy

 

(New York, 18“3), pp. 109—110.

9[Sarah Payson Parton], Fresh Leaves (New York,

 

1857), pp. 295-296; "Dress: Now to Adorn the Person,"

Godey's Ladyjs Book, March, 1860, p. 231; "Servants'

 

Dre"s," Harper's Bazar, March 1“, 1868, p. 315; [Parton],

 

Folly as It Flies, pp. 81, 110; "Woman's Work and Woman's

 

Wages: The Dress of Working Women,’ Arthur's Home

 

229

Magazine, February, 1870, p. 92; Graves, Woman in America,

pp. 109—110; [Parton], Ginger-Snaps, p. 170; Parlour and

 

 

Kitchen, p. 152; [Harriet Beecher Stowe], The Chimney
Corner (Boston, 1868), p. ““.

lOParlour and Kitchen, pp. l“9—150, 152—153;

 

Catherine Beecher, Letters to Persons Who Are Engaged

 

in Domestic Service, p. l“7, also pp. 1“8, 173—17“, 177;

 

Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics, pp. 1“0—l5l,

 

1““; A Friendly Gift for Servants and Apprentices (New
York, and Baltimore, 1821), pp. 9-10; also see Hale, The

Good Housekeeper, p. 115; Mrs. L. G. Abell, The Skillful

 

 

Housewife's Book; or, Complete Guide to Domestic Cookery

(New York, 1857), p. 161; Roberts, The House Servant's

 

Directopy, p. 77. The last book cited makes the same

 

point in regard to men-servants——the servant who would
try "to outvie his master" in dress "does not know his

H
0

place

llTomes, The Bazar Book of the Household, pp. l“5-

 

1“6; "Woman's Work and Woman's Wages: Shall American

Girls Become Servants," Arthur's Home Magazine, July,

 

1870, p. 31; Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic

Economy, p. 209.

12Catherine Beecher, Miss Beecher's Domestic

 

Receipt Book (New York, l8“6), p. 269; William A. Alcott,

 

The Younngife; or; Duties of Woman in the Marriagp

 

Relation (Boston, 1837), pp. l5“-155, 157; The American

 

230

Chesterfield (Philadelphia, 1828), pp. l“2, l“6; Mathew

 

Carey, "Essay on the Relations Between Masters and

Mistresses and Domestics," Godey's Lady's Book, June,

 

1835, p. 2““; "Don't Scold," Arthur's Home Magazine,

 

March, 1862, p. 185. At least one other author agreed
with Alcott that middle—class ladies were more likely

to want "extreme submissiveness" in their servants

than upper—class employers. Wealthy "ladies do not feel
compelled to be constantly on the alert, to convince
themselves and others that they have any authority."

"Servants," Godey's Lady's Book, March, 186“, p. 286.

 

l3"Domestic Service," Old and New, September, 1872,

 

p. 36“; Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's, June,

186“, p. 58; also see Samuel Robert Wells, How to Behave:

 

A Pocket Manual of Republican Etiquette (New York, 1856),

 

p. 65; [Mary Virginia Terhune], Common Sense in the

 

Household (New York, 187“), p. 379. Tomes noted that

 

even if one could not use the terms of politeness out of

real respect, it was still expedient to do so, for this

"cheap courtesy . . . is surprisingly grateful [sic] and
provocative and good service." "Your Humble Servant,"
p. 58.

1“

Wells, How to Behave, pp. 6“-65; [Terhune],

 

Common Sense in the Household, p. 380; Robert Tomes,

 

The Bazar Book of Decorum (New York, 1870), pp. 230-233,

 

23“; [Margaret Cockburn Conkling], The American Gentle—

 

231

man's Guide to Politeness and Fashion (New York, 1858),
pp. 102-103; for similar statements see Etiquette for
Ladies, p. 9“; Eliza Farrar, The Young Lady's Friend
(Boston, 1837), p. 236; "Treatment of Servants," Godey's

Lady's Book, November, 1855, p. “2“; "The Family Circle,"

 

The Ladies' Repository, October, 1865, p. 630. This last

 

article was reprinted under the title "Politeness to
Servants," in Godey's in November, 1865.
15[Terhune], Common Sense in the Household, pp.

37“-376; Catherine Beecher, Miss Beecher's Receipt

 

Book, p. 270; "The Family Circle," The Ladies' Repository,

 

October, 1865, p. 630; Etiquette for Ladies, p. 93; for
other cautions against "undue familiarity" see Rev. Jessie
T. Peck, "The Kitchen," The Ladies' Repository, January,

1858, p. 3“; The Laws of Etiquette, pp. 121—122.
16

 

Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's, June,
186“, p. 58; Catherine Beecher, Miss Beecher's Receipp

Book, p. 270; [Conkling], The American Gentleman's Guide

 

to Politeness, pp. 102—103; "The Family Circle,"

 

Ladies' Repository, October, 1865, p. 630.
17

 

R[ichard] R[odgers] Bowker, "In fig Bridget.—-The

Defence," Old and New, October, 1871, pp. “98, 501.
18

 

David W. Mitchell, Ten Years in the United States:

 

Being an Englishman's View of Men and Things in the North

 

and South (London, 1862), p. 265; [C. E. Norton], "Good

 

Manners," The Nation, May 3, 1866, p. 571; "Woman's Work

 

232

and Woman's Wages: Shall American Girls Become Servants,

Arthur's Home Magazine, July, 1870, p. 31; The Laws of

 

 

Etiquette, first edition, 1836, pp. 106-107; The Laws of

 

 

Etiquette, "new edition," 1836, pp. 191-192.

 

19Eliza Leslie, The Behaviour Book (Philadelphia,

 

1853), p. 296; Nathaniel Parker Willis, The Rag—Bag: A

 

Collection of Ephemera (New York, 1855), pp. 167-172;

 

Parker Pillsbury, "Lady Versus Woman," The Revolution,

 

October 22, 1868, p. 250.
2O"Servants Godey'S, March, 186“. p. 286; [Stowe],

House and Home Papers, pp. 215-217; Catherine Beecher, A

 

Treatise on Domestic Economy, p. l“1.

 

21Etiquette for Ladies, p. 95; Plain Talk and

 

 

Friendly Advice to Domestics, pp. 127-128, 186; Parlour

 

and Kitchen, p. 87; Roberts, The House Servant's

 

 

Directory, p. 69; Catherine Beecher, Letters to Persons

 

 

Engaged in Domestic Service, p. l“3.

 

22Tomes, The Bazar Book of the Household, p. 125,

 

128; Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics, pp.

 

123-125; Parlour and Kitchen, p. 86; Catherine Beecher,

 

A Treatise on Domestic Economy, p. 208; also see

 

Catharine Sedgwick, Live and Let Live; or, Domestic

 

Service Illustrated (New York, 1837), p. 39; Roberts,

 

The House Servant's Directopy, p. 69.

 

23Parlour and Kitchen, pp. 87, 88-89, 93; Plain

 

Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics, p. 135;

 

233

Roberts, The House Servant's Directory, p. 69; Spofford,

 

The Servant Girl Question, p. 38.

 

2“Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics, pp.

 

136, 186; "Domestic Service," Old and New, September,

 

1872, p. 36“; see also Sedgwick, Live and Let Live, p.

 

110; Carrie Carrol, "Six Months in the Kitchen," The

Ladies' Repository, August, 1861, p. “77.

 

25Samuel Griswold Goodrich, Recollections of a

 

Lifetime (New York and Auburn, 1856), I, p. 8“; Elizabeth

Ellet, "Helps," Godey's Lady's Book, April, 18““, p.

 

19“; Sedgwick, Live and Let Live, p. “5; Alcott, The

 

Young Wife, p. 157.

 

26Elizabeth Ellet, ed., The Practical Housekeeper:

 

A Cyclopedia of Domestic Economy (New York, 1857), p.

 

28; Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's, June, 186“,

p. 56; Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics,

 

p. 38; "Domestic Service," Old and New, September, 1872,

 

p. 365; Sedgwick, Live and Let Live, p. “5; "Domestic

 

Service," Harper's Bazar, May 2, 187“, p. 28“.

 

27"Our Cook Book," Peterson's Magazine, August,

 

1859, p. l“9; Tomes, The Bazar Book of the Household,

 

p. l“7; Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, p. “8;

 

also see The Workingman's Advocate, January 9, 1830.

 

28Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy,

 

pp. 208-209; [Mary Abigail Dodge], Woman's Wrongs: A

 

Counter-Irritant (Boston, 1868), p. 128. This argument

 

23“

can also be found in Catherine Beecher, Letters to

 

Persons Engaged in Domestic Service, p. 88; [Stowe], House

 

and Home Papers, pp. 217—218; Spofford, The Servant Girl

 

 

Question, pp. 153-15“.

29Eliza Leslie, The House Book; or, A Manual of

 

Domestic Economy (Philadelphia, l8“9), p. 267; Spofford,

 

The Servant Girl Question, pp. 153—15“.

 

3O[Dodge], Woman's Wrongs, p. 128; [Stowe], House

 

and Home Papers, p. 218; also see Catherine Beecher, A

 

Treatise on Domestic Economy, pp. 208-209.

 

31[Dodge], Woman's Wrongs, p. 127; [Stowe], House

 

and Home Papprs, pp. l“1, 218; Rev. Eli Hartness,

 

"Wanted: A Domestic," Old and New, October, 1871, p.

 

“93; Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy,

 

pp. 208—209; [Mary Abigail Dodge], Woman's Worth and

 

Worthlessness (New York, 1871), p. 101. Speaking of

 

Servants, Mrs. Croly found that such qualities as
"cleanliness, system, accuracy, [and] good judg-

ment . . . can hardly be expected in ignorant persons
of the most ordinary parentage." The mistress could
be presumed to have these traits, however, because of
her "superior culture." [Jane C. Croly], "Household

Needs," Demorest's Monthly Magazine, May 1869, p. 188.

 

32Catharine Sedgwick, Home: Scenes and Characters

 

Illustrating Christian Truth (Boston, 1835), p. 39.

 

See, for example, Abby Sage Richardson, "A Plea for

Chinese Labor," Scribner's Monthly, July, 1871, p. 289.

 

235

33Catherine Beecher, Letters to Persons Who Are

 

Engaged In Domestic Service, pp. 67-68, 86-87, l“2.

 

Miss Beecher's statements make no reference to the
Irish or to immigrants in general and suggest class—
based discriminations and distinctions quite apart
from ethnic considerations, though these doubtless

reinforced class consciousness.

3“Mrs. Helen Brown, The Mother and Her Work (Boston,

 

1862): Do 973 J. 3- Tomlinson, "On Female Influence,"

The Ladies' Repository, March, l8“l, p. 77; Alcott, The

 

Young Wife, pp. 163—16“; [Jane C. Croly], "The Dining

 

Room," Demorest's Monthly Magazine, December, 187“, p.

 

“59.

CHAPTER VI

DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE AND
DOMESTIC SERVICE

In 18“2 Andrew Jackson Downing published his

Cottage Residences, the first of a number of house—plan

 

books to include lengthy explanations of the architect's
floor plans. As increasing numbers of persons desired
professionally designed residences, more such books
appeared in the fifties and sixties. These plan books
provide a comprehensive discussion of the ideas which
entered into the arrangement of houses in the mid-
nineteenth century.

Attempts by middle and upper-class employers to
define and institutionalize the lower social position
of the servant included not only exclusion from the
family table and differentiated forms of etiquette,
but also entered into the planning and construction of
the house shared by mistress and maid. Expectations
that the residents of a house would have one or more
lower-class employees who would live within the dwelling
influenced the architect's arrangement of many aspects

of the nineteenth—century house. As we have seen,

236

237

employers were well aware of the differences in class,
manners, and education between themselves and their
servants. Such feelings increased as the Irish, who
were regarded as especially rude and "alien," became
more important in service. Not surprisingly, employers
appeared anxious to keep their "dirty," "ignorant,"

and "vulgar" servants at arm's length within the house.
Servants were to be kept inconspicuous and unobtrusive
for, as Catherine Beecher noted, their presence could be
disagreeable to guests. Furthermore, in the allocation
of space within the house, the comfort and convenience
of the servant were concerns of small importance when
balanced against the ease and "seclusion" of the family.
Architects carefully took into account such matters

and explained to their customers that the presence of
the domestic had been taken into due consideration in

their floor plans.

I
The outstanding feature of houses built in the
nineteenth century for those "in comfortable circumstances"
was their large size. Suburban and rural houses of nine
to twelve rooms, including attic bedrooms, were common;
and large villas and country houses might contain fifteen
or more rooms. Representative of these larger houses

was Nathaniel Willis's home on the Hudson, Idlewild, which

238

had fifteen rooms, eleven of them bedrooms.1 From one
to three of the bedrooms in these houses were usually
planned for the use of servants. Large additional
amounts of space in these homes were devoted to a
room—sized main hall, side passages, and stairways. As
will be shown, much of this hall space was planned in
relation to the presence of servants.

Town houses contained a similar number of rooms
although narrow city lots, usually of twenty—five feet
or less, forced them to extend upward rather than
outward. City dwellings were of one basic type——the
narrow row house. Rooms were distributed two or three
deep over four, five, or six levels, including the attic
and the basement. The latter contained the kitchen and
also usually the dining room or another family apartment
in the front basement. The only windows in these houses
were at the narrow front and back; the sides abutted the
neighboring houses. Throughout this period what James
McCabe referred to as the "moderate sized" New York
house consisted of between nine and eleven rooms spread
over four floors, including attic and basement. More
ambitious row houses covered five or six levels and
including eight to eleven family rooms in addition to
the kitchen and at least three small servants' rooms
in the attic, for a usual total of between twelve and

sixteen rooms.2

239

The labor connected with these large houses fell,
not upon the housekeeper, but upon her servants. While
the presence of domestics increased the size of the 2
houSe because of the rooms they required, such spacious
residences were made possible only because servants
existed to do the work they entailed. Without lower-
class labor, houses of such size and design would have
been impossible to maintain. A minimum of two servants
was considered necessary to keep up a town house.
James McCabe stated that his "moderate sized" house
"will require the services of at least two women . .

By the 1860's the usual number of domestics in town
houses seems to have been between two and four.3

Architects wrote that because of the difficulty
of obtaining good servants, it was important to plan
liouses compactly and conveniently in order to save labor;
but designers and builders apparently paid little heed
to their own advice in this regard. Writers complained
(of the large and poorly planned houses that made it
iqecessary to hire several servants. Mrs. A. J. Graves,
inriting in the 18“0's, lamented that ladies were unable
to do without domestics because of "large and incon-
'veniently constructed houses, and a greated number of
apartments than is needful." Thirty years later
zanother critic charged that houses of "the middling

class" contained "useless rooms" and were planned with

2“0

little attention to the functional arrangement of
apartments.“
The most inconvenient dwelling was the town house.
A recent student of Boston Back Bay domestic architecture
has concluded that fashionable row houses were planned
without regard to efficiency or convenience. The great
number of steps was the worst thing about these houses.
Having only two or three rooms on a floor, the town
house was, charged James Richardson, "little else than
a string of stairs, with more or less extended
landings . . . . To go from one room to another, costs
a climb of from twenty to a hundred steps." According
to Richardson, the steps and "the endless drudgery of
ill-planned [town] houses" forced American women, the
vast majority of whom were physically unable to do the
work of a city residence, into dependence on their
more muscular Irish servants. Realizing that she was
essential, Bridget became assertive and demanding.
Servants WOUld become more tractable when they became
less necessary and could be dispensed with, thought
Richardson.5
By the 1870's the demand for more compact and
"sensibly constructed" city living units produced
apartment houses in Boston and New York. An important

argument in favor of apartment living was that it

permitted the family to reduce the number of live-in

2“l

servants necessary. One advocate wrote that with
apartments "the great servant-question is to some
extent solved. A system which enables us to dispense
with half the usual service may well be rejoiced at."6
Few urban, middle-class families lived in
apartments, however, and most housekeepers had to learn
to live with their servants in more traditional row and
free-standing houses. The rest of this chapter will
deal with the planning and construction of the single-

family, middle or upper—class house in relation to its

lower—class inhabitants.

II

To the domestic the most important room in the
house was the kitchen. The province of the cook, it
was also the place where other servants waited while
on duty for the ring of their employer. Further, the
kitchen functioned as "the servant's evening sitting
room." Here she ate her meals, spent her evenings,
and entertained her friends. A separate room for
these purposes, the so-called "servants' hall," was
comparatively rare in American houses. It was most
common in large city mansions and sprawling villas
such as those in Newport. Henry Hudson Holly, a
prominent architect, advocated servants' halls in all
houses where more than two servants were employed, and

architects occasionally included them in their more

2“2

expensive designs. However, few domestics in even such
fashionable areas as Back Bay Boston had any room other
than the kitchen available for social life. Gervase
Wheeler called the servants' hall "a very necessary,
though not usually provided apartment." The kitchen
must often have been a most unattractive place for
meals and evening hours of leisure. Harriet Beecher
Stowe found the kitchen frequently to be "the most
cheerless and comfortless place in the house." Other
observers made similar comments.7

The kitchen might be located either in the basement
or on the main floor. Partially underground basement
kitchens were the rule in urban houses and were also
common in suburban and country homes, especially those
built in the l8“0's and 1850's. Although Andrew Jackson
Downing noted in 1850 that in country houses the basement
kitchen was "giving way to the more rational and conven—
ient mode of putting it on the first floor," basement
kitchens continued to appear in some plans for free-
standing houses during the 1860's and 1870's. Basement
kitchens were best suited to hill-side lots where one
side of the basement would be entirely open and above
ground level. In houses of seven to nine rooms located
on sloping lots, the servant's bedroom was frequently
also placed in the basement, next to the kitchen.8

In suburban and country designs it was always a

matter of choice where to place the kitchen. The

2“3

advantages of the first—floor kitchen were added con—
venience and fewer stairs. Placed on the main floor,
kitchens were closer to the vigilant eye of the mistress.
First—floor kitchens were also better lighted and less
damp than those in the basement; houses with main floor
kitchens sold or rented more easily than those with
domestic offices in the basement.9

On the other hand, there were certain advantages
to a basement kitchen in detached houses. Most impor—
tantly, it made the home cheaper to build by eliminating
the cost of an additional wing. Second, basement
kitchens did not block off the view from the family's
rooms in any direction, an important consideration in
senic locations. Third, they were more convenient to
food storage areas in the basement. In addition, a
kitchen below the family rooms meant that "the noise
and disagreeable odors from the kitchen are more
effectually excluded from the main house." Apparently
employers did not consider their kitchens to be very
agreeable or pleasant rooms. An important related
advantage was the opportunity to keep the servants apart
from the family. Henry Hudson Holly found that "many
persons, especially if brought up in cities, claim that
there is a greater degree of privacy when the kitchen
and offices are below . . . ." In an earlier book

Holly himself, in discussing one of his designs in

2““

which both the kitchen and the servants' bedrooms were
located in the basement, mentioned that by this plan
"the servants have apartments so removed that they are
not brought into immediate contact with the family
Andrew Jackson Downing admitted that basement kitchens
were less convenient, but they were "more elegant."
With the domestic offices in the basement, each depart—
ment of the household intruded "itself but little on
the attention of the family or guests when not required
to be visible . . . ."10

Basement kitchens were standard in row houses.
Restricted space was probably the principal reason for
this uniform plan, but the arrangement had the additional
advantage of keeping the servants separated from the
family. As Holly observed above,urban residents were
especially anxious to have basement kitchens in detached
dwellings, probably because of the privacy they had
come to expect by having the servants below stairs in
row houses. Mrs. Jane C. Croly thought that because
domestics were noisy, troublesome,and disagreeable, city
families were glad to have them in the basement, as
remote and isolated from the family as possible.11

The typical urban kitchen was in the rear basement
below the main, family floor. Although the basement was
partially underground, the kitchen opened at the back

onto a walled area excavated below the level of the

2“5

kitchen floor. The rear area provided the service
entrance for domestics and tradesmen, except in New
York City, where this entrance was placed in the front
of the house, below the main entrance. The natural
lighting of these kitchens was poor, especially when
architects placed first—floor verandas or other pro-
jections over all or part of the area. Many basement
kitchens received some illumination from a narrow light'
well served by a skylight high above on the roof. These
basement kitchens were usually pictured in highly
unpleasant terms. Parker Pillsbury, writing in Tm:

Revolution, the woman's rights periodical of which he

 

was an editor, described the
low, dark,hot, subterranean kitchen into which
the sun never looked and never can . . . . In
many, if not in most of the larger houses in
cities, everywhere, the kitchen is a dismally
dark, unventilated, uncomfortable out-of-the—way
place, with sink and all other odorous and
disagreeable appointments festering about
it . . . .
Robert Tomes found city kitchens to be "infernal quarters"
full of "reeking odors." He went on to write that in
these kitchens it was "difficult to secure that supply
of air and light especially necessary for a room where
there must be a superabundance of heat at all seasons,
and an accumulation of various odors to be got rid

of . . . ." Other writers, such as Henry Hudson Holly,

Harriet Prescott Spofford, and Sarah Josepha Hale, agreed

2“6

that underground kitchens were generally "damp," "gloomy,"
"close," and "hot."12

The significance of the servant's low social
position in relation to the fact that her place of work
was often in the basement did not escape contemporaries.
Tomes remarked that "the single pair [flight] of stairs
which leads from the parlor to the kitchen would seem
to separate, as it were, by an unfathomable abyss, the
woman above from the woman below." Similarly, Parker
Pillsbury found that "labor in the city at once gravitates
to class and caste, and the kitchen girl, like the place
where she does her work, is the lowest of all, and she is
~ respected accordingly."l3

When the kitchen emerged from the basement, efforts
to exclude its odors, noise, and inmates from the family
did not cease. When located on the first floor, the
kitchen was commonly placed in a separate wing at the
rear of the house. If there was no wing, it was located
in a rear corner of the house. Kitchens were placed in
the rear because they were meant to be hidden. Especially
should attention be paid to disposing the plan so that
the kitchen and its offices should be placed upon a
screened or blind side, or one that can be easily con—
cealed by planting," wrote the popular architect Andrew
Jackson Downing. Calvert Vaux added that "the inferior

rooms and offices" should always be placed, if possible,

2“7

in "the uninviting north or northwest corner of the
house, and thus occupy that portion of it which can best
be spared from the living rooms."]14
Although lighter and better ventilated than their
basement counterparts, rear, first-floor kitchens provided
a view that was scarcely better than looking into an area.
Kitchen windows in country houses, noted Mrs. Spofford,
commanded "lively views of the barn—yard." In another
portion of her book, she indicated that she thought some
servants were sensitive to such arrangements; she wrote
that servants would have more self-respect when they came
to understand that "if the kitchen itself is in the rear
of the house, it is for the sake of convenience to pump
and shed and cellars, to avoid obtruding household
economies upon the street or upon guests, and not for
casting a slur on labor."15
The internal arrangement of cottages and villas
was designed to further disconnect and separate the
kitchen from the rest of the main floor. Again, employers
seemed to think of kitchens as foul-smelling and dis—
agreeable rooms to be hidden from View and excluded from
the thought of the family and guests. To shut off the
"occasionally offensive . . . sound, sight, and smells"
of the kitchen from the family rooms, architects placed

back halls, rear entries, and cross passages between the

kitchen and the main hall and family rooms. A rear

2“8

passage usually separated the kitchen from the principal
hall; these passages had a door at either end or side
so that the kitchen could be closed off more completely
and effectively from the family portion of the floor. As
Andrew Jackson Downing explained, this passage removed
"the kitchen, with its concomitant noises and odors, to
some distance from the main hall, and these may be still
further lessened in effect by having a door at both ends
of this passage . . . ." While it was most common to
have two doors between the kitchen and the main hall,
a rear lobby or entry was sometimes included, adding a
third door between the kitchen and the front part of the
house. If the main hall was divided by a door into a
front hall and a stairway hall, there might be as many
as five doors between the kitchen and the parlor.
Gervase Wheeler hoped to position the kitchen "conven-
iently near the main body of the house, and yet so shut
off, by means of double entries and other separation,
as to be of no annoyance." When the kitchen was located
in a corner of the main house, rather than in a wing,
halls, passages, and doors could be placed so that the
kitchen's "contiguity to the principal rooms does not
interfere with the privacy that properly belongs to the
apartments in constant use by the family."16
The family room closest in function, and usually

in location, to the kitchen was the dining room, and

‘6' “.1: ‘i‘sim N

I.

2149

care was taken to disconnect these two rooms. "It is
undesirable that any dining-room . . . should be directly
connected with the kitchen," thought Calvert Vaux. Either
the private or the main stairs were often placed between
the two rooms, which provided a measure of separation and
space. Generally, communication between the kitchen and
dining room was by a butler's pantry, walk-through
closet, or short passage, with a door at each end,
positioned between the two rooms "so as to shut off the
view of the kitchen." Similarly, architects of town
houses placed closets, stairs, and pantries between the
kitchen and the family room in the basement, which was
often the dining room. By such planning "any noise and
unpleasantness in the culinary apartments" would not
disturb or bother the family.17
By shutting off the kitchen's undesirable sounds
(principally the noise made by servants) and odors,
architects also shut off and separated the servant from
the family, relegating the domestic to portions of the
house which the employers considered distasteful. The
practical effect of this was to accent the dissimilarity
of mistress and maid, minimize contact between them, and

isolate servants in less desirable parts of the building.

III
"It may be that the worst thing, so far as the

physical and material part of her [the domestic's]

 

250

situation is concerned, is her sleeping-room," suggested
Mrs. Spofford. As with the kitchen, servants' rooms
were placed in the least valued locations, locations
which would keep servants inconspicuous and protect
cherished family privacy. Mrs. Spofford pointed out
that the servant's room was "usually the worst and most
cheerless and remote in the house." Pillsbury accused
families of providing domestics with rooms "in whatever
garret, or other space is not, and cannot, possibly be
otherwise appropriated!"18
The most common place to put the servants' rooms
was the attic. Attic rooms for servants were standard
in city row houses of four or more levels and were also
very common in suburban and country designs. In both
free-standing and four level row houses attics frequently
contained spare family bedrooms as well as the servants'
rooms. Although short—term guests or even occasionally
a family member might be lodged in the attic with the
servants, attic rooms were considered less desirable
than others and were always closely associated with
domestics, their principal inhabitants. In five or six
level row houses the only sleeping rooms in the attic
were those for servants; there were usually at least
three small servants' rooms in these attics, four or
five flights of stairs above the basement.19

These attic rooms were deficient in several

respects. For one thing, attics had no plumbing

251

facilities; they lacked even wash basins with running
water. In major cities the convenience of running water
was readily available to employers by the late l8“0's.
Philadelphia had installed an efficient water system in
1822 and many private houses in the city and its suburbs
had bathrooms by 18“0. John Hall's designs for Baltimore
row houses, published in 18“0, included upstairs water
closets and bathrooms which drew hot water from the
boiler in the kitchen or wash room. In New York, bath—
rooms and running water were rare until l8“2 when
Croton reservior began to supply water to the city and
an efficient water system was constructed. By the late
18“0's or early 1850's all well-designed town houses,
and many suburban ones, in the major cities contained
running water and upstairs plumbing. These facilities
never extended to the attic, however.20

In suburban and country homes whatever plumbing
conveniences were located within the house were apparently
available "for general use," but this was not the case
in city houses. There, plumbing facilities on the
family floors were seemingly denied to servants, who
were expected to use the water closet in the basement.
As the attic had no wash basin, a domestic had to wash
and comb in the kitchen unless the mistress provided
her with a pitcher and bowl for her room. Even in this

cuise, the servant still had to go to the basement

252

kitchen to enjoy the comfort of hot and cold running
water. This convenience was often brought directly
into the chambers or the adjacent dressing rooms of
her employers.21

Nor did servants always share in the advances
made in heating the employer's home. By the 18“0's
individual room stoves were rapidly replacing fire—
places. While room stoves were common by 1850, hot
air furnaces were becoming popular during this same
period. Many city and suburban houses had furnaces
installed during the late l8“0's, and most urban, middle—
class housing built in the 1850's included furnaces.
These early furnaces were inefficient, however, and could
heat only the first two family floors; only in the 1870's
did furnaces powerful enough to heat attic rooms begin to
come into use. Prior to the installation of these
improved furnaces, detached houses sometimes had fire—
places in some or all of the attic rooms, and four
level row houses might have fireplaces in the larger
attic rooms, though not in the smaller ones likely to
be occupied by servants. Larger town houses, where only
servants inhabited the attics, had no fireplaces in attic
rooms. Thus, in town houses individual stoves were the
only means available to heat servants' rooms until the
1870's.22

Although it is impossible to be certain how often

employers actually permitted servants to use room stoves,

 

253

attic rooms had the reputation of being cold and unheated.
In Catharine Sedgwick's 1837 novel Live and Let Live, the
inconsiderate Mrs. Ardley says blithely, "Servants are
accustomed to cold rooms . . . ." Statements from the
1870's indicate that domestics were still expected to
sleep in unheated quarters. In 187“ Mrs. Croly referred
to ”freezing attics" for servants. Frank and Marian
Stockton advised that some method, preferably central

heating, be used to warm servants' rooms in winter

E‘Vmfl" .90 u- ".T'n
.

because far too many domestics had to sleep in cold rooms.
Individual room—stoves would be much cheaper than central
heating, but the novelist and his wife warned that only
the most reliable servants could be trusted with stoves
in their rooms. Henry Hudson Holly observed in 1878 that
”it is generally thought that to warm their [servants']
rooms is treating them with far too much consideration,
and placing them beyond the sphere to which they
belong ."23
Furthermore, servants' rooms in row house attics
sometimes had no windows. Bedrooms lighted from a
skylight were often placed in the center of the attic
with no access to front or rear windows. The worst
aspect of these windowless rooms was that they were
very poorly ventilated. Although family rooms in row
houses also often lacked windows, their absence detracted
further from the cheerfulness, comfort, and livability of

2H

the servants' rooms.

25“

In country and suburban houses where there was no
attic or where the attic was left unfinished, servants'
rooms were generally placed on the second floor of the rear
wing, above the kitchen. When there was a finished attic
accessible by the back stairs, servants usually went to the
attic rooms,and the bedrooms on the wing were used by the
family. However, domestics remained in the wing rooms if
the private stairs were also in the two—story wing and did
not extend to the attic. The "inferior rooms" on the
second floor wing, which might or might not have fireplaces,
were commonly designated as servants' rooms in plans and
descriptions. As the kitchen ceiling was lower than the
height of the other rooms on the main floor, the servants'
rooms over the kitchen were "on a level with the landing of

the main stairs,”

a few steps below the family chambers on
the second story of the main wing. The bedrooms on this
”half—story" were reached by a back hall or passage leading
from the landing of the main stairway and also by the back
stairs, which were often placed in the wing. The second
floor of the wing also usually contained the bathroom, which
was apparently available for the domestic to use.25
Occasionally a detached house had neither a finished
attic nor a kitchen wing. In this case servants' rooms
were placed on the second floor in the rear corner
over the kitchen. Designers were careful that these

rooms, which were on the same level as the family bed-

rooms, be "disconnected with the other apartments," or,

255

as another architect said, "shut off from the other
chambers . . . ." Such rooms were approached from a
door and a side entry rather than directly from the
main hall. Inner halls and private stairs also
frequently served to separate these servants' rooms
from those of their employers. The same techniques
could be used in attics to divide servants' rooms
from the spare family bedrooms.26

In some row houses, usually small ones of three
levels without an attic, the servant was given a tiny
basement room next to the kitchen. Mrs. Spofford des-
cribed.such a room as "a little black hole" beside the
kitchen "at least two flights of stairs away" from the
family.27 Some servants did not receive even these
minimal accomodations but had to sleep in the kitchen
itself on a bunk settee or other makeshift bed.28

Other matters of design and construction, beside
the frequent absence of heat and running water, served
to make domestics' rooms uncomfortable wherever they
were located. Whether in attic or rear wing, servants'
rooms were often immediately beneath the roof and
could become hot in summer due to the poor insulation
of nineteenth-century houses. Architects often put
an air chamber or low storage garret between the attic
and the roof, but this was not always done. In some
town houses very little, if any, space was left between

the attic ceiling and the nearly flat roof. The sides

256

of a sloping roof which bordered directly on the servant's

room offered very little protection from the sun's heat.29
Secondly, although servants often had individual

rooms, at other times two or three domestics shared one

room, little or no provision being made for individual

privacy. Although these shared rooms were sometimes

quite large, they were frequently small and oVercrowded.

One critic charged that in houses ”regulated like the

‘r »
D
e

most" as many as three girls were packed into one of the

 

smallest bedrooms in the house. There were complaints
that respectable girls had to share rooms and eVen beds
with "distasteful" or "odious" fellow servants.30
Further, domestics' rooms were sometimes built without
closets, and servants had only pegs ornaiISLwlwhich
to hang their clothes. Finally, although the furniture
provided for these rooms varied greatly, they were
often pictured as carpetless, barren, half—furnished
with decrepit beds and bureaus, and without any cheerful
appointments.31
Several writers felt that poor sleeping accomoda—

tions, as well as uncomfortable kitchens, provoked much
discontent among domestics. An 1877 work on ddmrstic
economy advised that the inadequate living and working
apartments provided for domestics contributed to

the position of contemptuous inferiority to

which servants feel themselves consigned, and

which in this country at least they are certain
to resent . . . . Everything and every place

257

provided for their use is generally not only
inferior to, but in marked contrast with, the
rest of the house.

Although servants were generally better housed
than other lower—class working women, they were poorly
housed in comparison to the other residents of the
dwelling in which they lived. Authors noted that
servants had the opportunity to compare their own rooms
with those of the ladies of the house. As Mrs. Spofford
put it, "We say to ourselves that, bad as it [the
servant's room] is, it is infinitely better than any
thing she ever had before; but she has already seen the
difference between our own rooms and that.” One of
Catharine Sedgwick's characters, the chambermaid Martha,
tells Lucy Lee that uncomfortable and unpleasant rooms
"show which way the wind blows; what rich folks think
of poor folks." Martha adds that the elegant rooms of
the ladies present "something of a contrast to our sky—
rooms! It gives one thoughts to think of it, and
feelings too."33

Since the provision of poor accomodations was
thought to have "justly excited rebellion" among
domestics, it was believed that many problems with
servants would be eliminated or reduced if they were
given dry, light kitchens and warm, cheerful rooms.

Such appeals for improved quarters were particularly

prevalent after the Civil War. Good rooms would attract

 

258

better servants, would make "them satisfied to remain

longer in one place,’ and would "create in them habits

of order and cleanliness . . . ." Robert Tomes thought
that good accomodations would help produce ”more docile,
contented, faithful, and intelligent servants."3M

But although mistresses were advised to be more
humanitarian and considerate in providing comfortarie
facilities for their servants, social distinctions were
to be maintained. iany things could and should he done
to improve the comfort of the domestic, but social
equality was not to be acknowledged or conceded. Thus,
although their rooms should certainly be comfortable,
”it 's not to be expected, of course, that servants shai
share in all the luxuries of the family . . . .” In
comparison to the rooms of the young ladies of the
house, servants' rooms should be, recommended Mrs.

Spofford, ”if not, of course, so luxurious, at least

proportionately as decent and cheerful . . . ."35

IV
In other respects also, houses were planned to
keep servants from being obtrusive. In the arrangement
()f sentrwincenz, :ztaiics, 21nd.lial ls, th6> nrwflxitxéct, LP(flllHV‘
the servant's presence in mind, strove to provide
maximum privacy for the family. Domestics were to
enter and leave the house by the back entrance, the

1

"servants' entrance;' it was considered very impertinent

259

for a domestic to go in or out at the front door. One
tract for servants advised them that "you should
remember, at all times, to go in and out at this [back]
door, and instruct your friends, who are likely to call
upon you, to do the same. You may save yourself much
mortification by knowing at once your position in the
house, and being willing to take it." Back entrances
were placed to provide for maximum family seclusion.
While discussing a design for a suburban residence,
Calvert Vaux pointed out that the servants' entrance
"is shut off by its position from interfering with the
privacy of the veranda." If servants showed "excessive
sensibility" to social distinctions such as separate
entrances and as a result became "forward and disre-
spectful," they should be reasoned with by "better—
educated minds," thought Catherine Beecher.

They should be taught that domestics use a

different entrance to the house, and sit at

a distinct table, not because they are inferior

beings, but because this is the best method for

securing neatness, order and convenience. They

can be taught . . . that these very regulations

really tend to their own eaag and comfort, as

well as that of the family.

Another feature of the house which was related to
live-dxizzervants vans the 'finrivate" stunimnise for I?K?lxfle
of domestics. Hack stairs became increasingly popular
in the years prior to the Civil War. New York row houses

built in the 1820's and early 1830's usually had only one

staircase, but thereafter back stairs became standard in

260

these dwellings. In the 1830's and forties well—known
architects such as Andrew Jackson Downing and Alexander
Jackson Davis planned detached houses of ten, eleven,

or twelve rooms—~including servants' bedrooms-—with only
one staircase. By the 1850's, on the other hand, it

was usual to place two staircases in houses of eleven

or twelve rooms; steadily increasing numbers of eight
and nine room houses could also boast a second flight of
stairs. By the sixties back stairs were being included
in all town houses of five levels and most of four
levels as well as most free—standing of more than nine

I’OOIHS . 37

Private stairs were considered to be an important
addition to a residence. Although essential for large
houses, private stairs also added "greatly to the comfort
and privacy of even small villas," wrote Downing in 1850.
In the 1870's Henry Hudson Holly recommended that "except
in houses of very small dimensions, we consider the back
staircase indispensable." Holly added that a back
staircase adds to the convenience of the lady of the
house, saves wear on the main stairs, and "keeps the
servants retired . . . ."38

These "narrow, crooked . . . steep and dark”
service stairs were usually located in or near the back
passage leading from the main hall to the kitchen. With

the back staircase in this position, the upper floors

261

were "easily accessible to servants, without using the
exhibited flight of the main stairs" and without them
using the exposed main hall. Domestics at work would
not be seen on the prominent main stairs or in the
principal hall by family or guests. The servants would
not have to make a "thoroughfare" out of the front part
of the house, which could be more effectively reserved
for the family. One author implied that employers
installed these "separate and obscure ways" for servants
because they and their guests took "offence" at meeting
domestics on the main stairway.39
Architects pointed out that with proper planning,

one staircase could suffice nearly as well as two for
keeping servants out of the front hall and the front
part of the house. In detached houses the single stair-
case could be placed, not in the main hallway, but in a
shielded side passage. Thus placed, the stairs were
"sufficiently retired to be used by servants without
incommoding the family." Andrew Jackson Downing wrote
that by such an arrangement

the servants are enabled to go from the basement

to the chamber story without passing through the

principal hall; thus making this single staircase

to serve the purposes, in a great measure, of the

two frequently seen in the [sic] villas, viz.,

the stairs in the hall used by the family, and

the private stairs used chiefly by the domestics.“O

A back staircase located in the kitchen wing,

however, provided an additional benefit which was impos—

262

sible to duplicate with only one flight. Henry Hudson
Holly explained as follows:

The main advantage of this arrangement is that,

when the family are absent, the domestics may

be out completely off from the main portion of

the house, by simply locking the doors of the

wing on each story, free access still being

allowed them to their own apartments.
As Holly pointed out, this same system worked very well
also in town houses. There, only the private stairs
extended to the attic; by locking one door on each floor
the servant could be "utterly excluded" from all the
family rooms."ll

The installation of private stairs was probably
the most conscious part of the effort to separate employer
Eand employee. Basement kitchens and attic bedrooms com—
bined motives of economy with those of exclusion, but in
the case of back stairs employers spent additional money
to keep servants removed from the family portions of the
house. Servants' stairs were especially costly, and
indeed wasteful, in town houses, where floor space was
scarce and valuable.

The servant was also to be guarded against while
engaged in her duties about the family rooms on the first
floor. No feature of the nineteenth—century house is
more prominent than the large amount of space allocated
for the main hall, back halls, and other passageways.

An important function of these halls was to allow

servants on duty to go about the house without going

263

through any of the family rooms. The main hall was
connected with the kitchen and private stairs by the
back hall or entry. Every room on the first floor
opened onto this system of hallways. Even in narrow
row houses, a hall seven feet wide ran most of the
length of the house, connecting every room, the front
door, and the private stairs. As Samuel Sloan wrote
concerning a suburban house, "All the principal rooms,
the kitchen included, are reached . . . Without the
necessity of making a thoroughfare of any room ."
The connecting halls permitted a servant to answer the
front door or answer a call in any family room without
going through any other room and thus intruding on the
family. "The passages passing through the whole depth
of this house, make all rooms private," pointed out
the Baltimore architect John Hall in relation to one
of his designs for row houses. Gervase Wheeler wrote
that the main hall and back passage combined to form
"means of access for the servants to the front
door ."u2
A good discussion of this point was provided by
George E. Woodward, a New York architect who advocated
country and suburban living. Many people, especially
those from cities, objected to a reduction of hall

space and to interconnecting rooms because with a more

compact arrangement "the servants, in attending the

26H

front door, must pass to and fro through either dining-
room or living-room." While he agreed that intercon-
necting rooms could be annoying in town houses, Woodward
thought the difficulty was less important in country
houses, where there were fewer visitors than in town
houses, "and thus only a possible chance exists of both
rooms being occupied at the same time in such a manner
that the servant's presence would be offensive." Unlike
many of his clients, Woodward himself saw nothing
disagreeable or improper about having a servant walk
through the dining room on her way to the front door;
after all, the same domestic waited on the family table
in that very room.l43

Nor was the servant to even pass through the
family halls if it could be avoided. As previously
mentioned, the back stairs were intended to keep servants
out of the prominent front hallway. Dumbwaiters and
pantries were also included partly to exclude servants
from halls. If the kitchen was in the basement, a
dumbwaiter is essential, thought Andrew Jackson Downing,
"or the privacy of the hall is unnecessarily intruded
Upon by the repeated coming and going of domestics
arranging the dinner." Similarly, pantries and walk-
through china closets with doors at each end between
the dining room and the kitchen provided the servant

with a means of direct communication between these two

265

rooms' "without loss of privacy” to the family. Calvert
Vaux added one pantry because he considered it "incon—
venient to have halls and passages that belong to the
other apartments occupied several times a day by the
servant whose business it is to prepare the table and

AA

clean away afterward."

These arrangements represented a conscious effort
to minimize contact between employers and their domestics,
to protect the family from intrusions by their lower-
class employees. The exclusion of the domestic as a
motive in planning can be clearly seen in Andrew Jackson

Downing's Cottage Residences. Its clearest articulation

 

and most consistent application came later, however,
especially in the writings of Calvert Vaux and Henry Hudson
Holly. The latter combined rigorous exclusion of the
servant from the family rooms with pleas to make servants
more comfortable in their own portion of the house.
Certain advantages also accrued to the servant
as a result of such arrangments. Domestics doubtless
frequently found it more convenient to use the back
staircase than to go through the front of the residence.
Where the domestic's bedroom was over the kitchen, for
example, the servants' stairs formed an easy access
between her room and the kitchen. Similarily, the

separation of the kitchen and the family rooms gave

266

the maid increased privacy when she had visitors. On

the other hand, she must have been aware that she was

not welcome in the front portion of the house and that
employers did not like her using the front stairs even

if this was more convenient for her purpose. Furthermore,
considerations of the comfort and convenience of servants
were not often mentioned when architects explained the
purposes behind their plans to middle and upper—class
readers. Employers appeared more anxious to know how

the domestic would be kept apart from them than they

were to know what provisions had been made for her
comfort. The explanations provided by architects for
back stairs and separated kitchens emphasized the con-
venience and interests of employers, not servants. The
reason actually given for these arrangements was to
remove the domestic from the family; whatever advantages
domestics received from them was incidental to their
stated purpose.

For the servant to appear in the family portion of
the house, even while at work, was considered an annoying
necessity or an intrusion. Residents were anxious to
maintain their cherished seclusion from the lower-class
employees living within the house; architects naturally
strove to satisfy this desire. Designers explained
their designs in terms which would assure emplOyers that

care had been taken to separate master and servant.

267

Kitchens, stairs, hallways, entrances, and bedrooms
were all planned with a view toward making the servant
inconspicuous. The physical space between the kitchen
and the parlor, and the several doors between, accented
the social gap between mistress and maid; each was to
have her own Separate part of the house. Given the
construction of these houses, it is not surprising that
Harriet Prescott Spofford wrote that domestics "remain
almost literally the stranger within our gates.“45
Furthermore, domestics were given uncomfortable,
"out—of—the-way" places in which to work and sleep.
They received the least desirable rooms in the house.
These rooms were generally markedly inferior in location
and comforts to those of their employers, a fact which
emphasized the class distinctions existing within the
house. Even those who thought masters should give
better quarters to their servants were quick to point
out that social equality was not to be recognized. As
in other aspects of their relationship with their
servants, employers imposed class distinctions and
continual reminders of social differences upon those

in their employ.

NOTES

1Calvert Vaux, Villas and Cottages: A Series of

 

Designs Prepared for Execution in the United States

 

(New York, 1857), pp. 2A6, 251.

2James D. McCabe, Jr., Lights and Shadows of New

 

York Life; or, The Sights and Sensations of the Great

 

City (New York, 1872), p. 711; Montgomery Schuyler,

"The Small House in New York City," The Architectural

 

Record, VIII, nos. 4—6 (April-June,-l899), pp. 357—360;

Talbot Hamlin, Greek Revival Architecture in America:

 

Beinggan Account of Important Trends in American

 

Architecture and Life Prior to the War Between the States

 

(New York, 19AM), pp. 127-130; Bainbridge Bunting, Houses

of Boston's Back Bay; An Architectural HistoryJ 18HO-

 

$211 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967), pp. 129, 136—137.
The house described in 1872 by MCCabe is little changed
from that characterized by James Fenimore Cooper in
the 1820's as "a species of second-rate, genteel
houses" occupied by "merchants or professional men, in

moderate circumstances . . . ." Notions of the Americans,

 

I, (New York, 1963), p. lU3. For complete plans of
typical row houses see especially Samuel Sloan, City and

Suburban Architecture: Containing Numerous Designs and

 

Details for Public Edifices, Private Residences and

 

Mercantile Buildings (Philadelphia, 1859), designs X,

 

XV, XVII.

268

269

3McCabe, Lights and Shadows, p. 711; Bunting,

 

Houses of Boston's Back Bay, p. 137.
A

 

Vaux, Villas and Cottages, p. 3A; Andrew Jackson

 

Downing, Cottage Residences; or, A Series of Designs

 

for Rural Cottages and Cottage Villas and their Gardens

 

and Grounds Adapted to North America (New York, 18U2),

 

p. 5; Mrs. A. J. Graves, Woman in America: Being an

 

Examination into the Moral and Intellectual Condition

 

of American Female Society (New York, 1843), p. 76;

 

"Living Rooms and Back Stairs," Arthur's Home Magazine,

 

December, 1876, p. 6““.

5Bunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay, p. 138;

 

James Richardson, "The New Homes of New York,"

Scribner's Monthly, May, 187”, p. 67.
6

 

P. B. Wright, "Apartment Houses Practically Con-

sidered," Putnam's Monthly Magazine (2d ser.), September,

 

1870, p. 309; also see Richardson, "The New Homes of

New York," Scribner's Monthly, May, 1874, p. 67. Before

 

apartment living became a reality, many urban, middle-
class families, especially young couples, resorted to
living in boarding houses in order to escape thecare
and expense of maintaining a town house. A principal
factor in boarding-house living was the young wife's
desire to avoid the trials of housekeeping, particularly
the duties of managing servants. Moralists condemned

the boarding house as destructive of family life, a

270

threat to the very institution of the family. Writers
blamed troublesome, incompentent domestics for forcing
families into boarding houses and thus endangering home
life. Servants were charged with being "responsible for
one of the worst evils of American life——an evil which
is not only corrupting but fast extinguishing the chief
source of personal and national virtue--domestic exist—
ence." Robert Tomes, "Your Humble Servant," Harper's

New Monthly Magazine, June, 186A, p. 5A; also Graves,

 

Woman in America, pp. 132—133; J. Dana Howard, "The

 

Standpoint of the Boarding House," The Atlantic Monthly,

 

Fevruary, 1867, pp. 248-250; [Jane C. Croly], "A Happy

Household," Demorest's Monthly Magazine, September, 1866,

 

p. 231; Rev. William Aikman, "The Evils of Boarding

House Life," Arthur's Home Magazine, February, 1870, pp.

 

109—110.
7Frank R. Stockton and Marian Stockton, The Home:

Where It Should Be and What to Put in It (New York, 1873),

 

p. 77; Henry Hudson Holly, Modern Dwellings in Town and

Country Adapted to American Wants and Climate (New York,

 

1878), p. 93; Bunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay, p.

138; Gervase Wheeler, Rural Homes; or, Sketches of

 

Houses Suited to American Countrerife (New York, 1852),
p. 83; [Harriet Beecher Stowe], House and Home Papers
(Boston, 1865), p. 213; also Todd. S. Goodholme, ed.,

A Domestic Cyclopedia of Practical Information (New

 

271

York, 1877), p. U77, [Sarah Payson Parton], Folly as It

 

Flies: Hit at by Fanny Fern (New York, 1868), p. 112.

 

8Andrew Jackson Downing, The Architecture of

 

Country Houses: Including Designs for Cottages, Farm

 

Houses, and Villas (New York, 1850), p. 272. For base-

 

ment kitchens in the 1860's and 1870's see, for example,

Isaac H. Hobbs and Son, Hobbs's Architecture: Containing

 

Designs and Ground Plans for Villas, Cottages, and Other

 

Edifices (Philadelphia, 1873), designs 9, 16, 19, 21, 2“,

 

5“, 55-
9Hclly, Modern Dwellings, p. llu.

 

10Henry Hudson Holly, Holly's Country Seats:

 

Containing Lithographic Designs for Cottages, Villas,

 

Mansions, etc., with their Accompanying Outbuildinga

 

(New York, 1863), p. 53; Holly, Modern Dwellings, p.

11“; Downing, Cottage Residences, p. 3; also see George

 

E. Woodward and F. W. Woodward, comps., Woodward's

 

Country Houses (New York, 1865), p. 1A6.

 

11[Jane C. Croly], "The Kitchen," Demorest's

 

Monthly Magazine, May 187“, p. 177.

 

l2Parker Pillsbury, "Domestic Service," The

Revolution, August 12, 1869, pp. 88—89; [Robert Tomes],

 

"The Kitchen," Harper's Bazar, October 5, 1872, p. 650;

 

Harriet Prescott Spofford, The Servant Girl Question

 

(Boston, 1881), p. 38; Holly, Modern Dwellings, p. 11“;

 

Sarah Josepha Hale, The Good Housekeeper; or; The Way

 

272

to Live Well and to Be Well While We Live (Boston,

 

1839), pp. ll3-llu.

13Robert Tomes, The Bazar Book of Decorum (New

 

York, 1872), p. 231; Pillsbury, "Domestic Service,"

The Revolution, August 12, 1869, p. 89.

 

l“Downing, The Architecture of Country Houses,

 

p. 271; Vaux, Villas and Cottages, p. 176.

 

15Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, pp. 38, 153.

 

l6Downing, Cottage Residences, pp. A, 130; Gervase

 

Wheeler, Homes for the People, in Suburb and Country:

 

The Villa, the Mansion, and the Cottage, Adapted to

 

American Climate and Wants (New York, 1850), p. 71;

 

Vaux, Villas and Cottages, p. 1A9; see also Downing, The

 

Architecture of Country Houses, p. 287; Holly, Holly's

 

Country Seats, p. 122.

 

l7Vaux, Villas and Cottages, p. 1&9; Samuel Sloan,

 

The Model Architect: A Series of Original Designs for

 

Cottages, Villas, Suburban Residences, etc., II (revised

 

ed., Philadelphia, 1868), p. 89; Holly, Modern Dwellings,

 

p. 112; John Hall, A Series of Select and Original Modern

 

Designs for Dwelling,Houses, for the Use of Cagpenters

 

and Builders (2nd ed., Baltimore, 18UO), p. 9.

 

l8[Harriet Prescott Spofford], "Bridget," Harper's
Bazar, November 11, 1871, p. 706; Pillsbury "Domestic

Service," The Revolution, August 12, 1869, p. 89.

 

273

lgBunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay, p. 137;
Hamlin, Greek Revival Architecture in America, pp.
127-128.

20Robert E. Riegel, Young America, 1830-1840

 

(Norman, Oklahoma, 1949), p. 50; Hamlin, Greek Revival

Architecture in America, p. 129; Hall, A Series of

 

Select and Original Modern Designs, pp. 7, 9-10, 12;
Bunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay, pp. 137-138.

Both Pittsburgh and Cincinnati had water systems in
operation by 1830. Richard C. Wade, The Urban Frontier:
The Rise of Western Cities, 1790-1830 (Cambridge,

Massachusetts, 1959), pp. 294—295, 297.
21Vaux, Villas and Cottages, p. 183; Bunting,

Houses of Boston's Back Bay, pp. 135, 138; Julia McNair

 

Wright, The Complete Home: An Enqyclopedia of Domestic

Life and Affairs (Philadelphia, 1879), p. 449; Catherine

 

Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy, for the Use of

Young Ladies at Home and School (New York, 1842), p. 315.
22

Bunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay, pp. 138—
129, 278; Hamlin, Greek Revival Architecture in America,

p. 127. For early discussions of heating see: Downing,

The Architecture of Country Houses, pp. 461-484; William

 

H. Ranlett, The Architect: A Series of Original Designs
for Domestic and Ornamental Cottages and Villas, I, (New
York, 1847), pp. 27-28.

2
3Catharine Sedgwick, Live and Let Live; or, Domestic

 

Service Illustrated (New York, 1837), p. 116;

 

274

[Jane C. Croly], "The Sleeping Room," Demorest's Monthly

 

Magazine, November, 1874, p. 415; Stockton and Stockton,

The Home, pp. 95—96; Holly, Modern Dwellings, p. 115.

 

2“Pillsbury, "Domestic Service," The Revolution,

 

August 12, 1869, p. 89; Samuel Sloan, City and Suburban

 

Architecture, design XV, plate 75; R[ichard] R[odgers]

Bowker, "In Re Bridget.——The Defence," Old and New,

 

October, 1871, pp. 498-499.

25Vaux, Villas and Cottages, p. 298; Holly, Holly's

 

Country Seats, p. 98.

 

26Vaux, Villas and Cottages, p. 175, 189, 287;

 

Wheeler, Rural Homes, p. 153.

 

27Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, p. 39. See,

 

for an example, Charles D. Lakey, Lakeyjs Village and

 

Country Houses; or, Cheap Homes for all.Classes (New York,

 

1875), design 42, plate 57. In this plan a three level
row house has a basement room for the servant the
measurements of which are 7' l" by 8' 6".

28Catherine Beecher, Miss Beecher's Domestic

 

Receipt Book (New York, 1846), p. 255; Pillsbury,

 

"Domestic Service," The Revolution, August 12, 1869,

 

p. 89.

29Bunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay, p. 273,

 

fig. 183.
3OBowker, "In Re Bridget," Old and New, October,

 

1871, pp. 498-499; Catherine Beecher, A Treatise on

 

Domestic Economy, p. 206.

 

275

31Bowker, "In Re Bridget," Old and New, October,

 

1871, p. 499; Sedgwick, Live and Let Live, p. 191;

 

Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, p. 39; Robert

 

Tomes, The Bazar Book of the Household (New York, 1875),

 

p. 149; Wright, The Complete Home, p. 449; Russell Lynes,

 

The Domesticated Americans (New York, 1957), p. 157.

 

32Goodholme, ed., A Domestic Cyclopedia, p. 477.

 

33Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, p. 39;

 

Sedgwick, Live and Let Live, p. 191; see also [Stowe],

 

House and Home Papers, p. 218.

 

3“Goodholme, ed., A Domestic Cyclopedia, p. 477;

Holly, Modern Dwellinga, p. 114; [Tomes], "The Kitchen,"

 

Harper's Bazar, October 5, 1872, p. 650; also [Stowe],

 

House and Home Papers, p. 218.

 

35Goodholme, ed., A Domestic Cyclopedia, p. 477;

 

Spofford, The Servant Girl Question, p. 158.

 

36Plain Talk and Friendly Advice to Domestics:

 

With Counsel on Home Matters (Boston, 1855), pp. 18,

 

104; Vaux, Villas and Cottages, p. 174; Catherine

 

Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy, p. 208; also

 

see Carrie Carrol, "Six Months in the Kitchen," The

Ladies' Repository, August, 1861, p. 473.

 

37Compare Hamlin, Greek Architecture in America,

 

pp. 127, 129 with Bunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay,

 

pp. 131, 136. For large houses from the 1840's without

back stairs see Downing, Cottage Residences, designs

 

276

VI and VIII; Downing, The Architecture of Country

 

Houses, pp. 292-294.

38Downing, The Architecture of Country Houses,

 

p. 272; Holly, Modern Dwellinga, p. 113.

 

39Samuel Sloan, Sloan's Homestead Architecture:

 

Containing_Forty Designs for Villas, Cottages, and

 

Farm Houses (Philadelphia, 1861), p. 75; Sloan, City

 

and Suburban Architecture, p. 99; Vaux, Villas and

 

 

Cottages, p. 260; "Living Rooms and Back Stairs,"
Arthur's, December, 1876, p. 644.
"OHenry Hudson Holly, "Designs for Houses,"

Harper's Bazar, July 3, 1869, p. 418; Downing, Cottage"

 

Residences, p. 53.

”lholly, Modern Dwellings, pp. 112-113, 150; also

 

 

see Bunting, Houses of Boston's Back Bay, p. 136.

u2Sloan, Sloan's Homestead Architecture, p. 249;

 

Hall, A Series of Select and Original Modern Designs,

 

pp. 7, l3; Gervase Wheeler quoted in Downing, The

Architecture of Country Houses, p. 331.

 

u3George E. Woodward and F. W. Woodward, comp.,

Woodward's Architecture and Rural Art, No. II (New

 

York, 1868), p. 73, pp. 73-74. This work was

republished ca. 1873 as George E. Woodward, Woodward's

 

Suburban and Country Homes.

 

uuDowning, Cottage Residences, p. 52; Vaux, Villas

 

and Cottages, p. 150.

 

-..r. \ “v-5! ‘II!
‘A

277

uSSpofford, The Servant Girl Question, p. 36.

 

CONCLUSION

The middle and upper classes of nineteenth—
century America consciously attempted to enforce social
distance between themselves and their servants. The
basic assumption of employers was that domestics were
inferior to themselves in character, habits, and mental
abilities. Servants were regarded as child—like,
undisciplined, and vulgar. These attitudes rationalized
and supported a variety of employer responses to domestic
servants.

Employers hoped that with proper "instruction"
servants would internalize such values as obedience,
deference, and faithfulness. Mistresses undertook the
duty of uplifting the benighted domestic and training
her to be virtuous and "useful." Such paternal guidance
was based on a sharp dichotomy between the foolish and
irresponsible servant and the wise and benevolent
employer; it was meant to produce docile servants who
would defer willingly to the Judgment of their social
"superiors." The benevolent kindness advocated by many
writers implied no concession that domestics were to be
accepted as social equals. Rather, by emphasizing the

servant's childish and foolish nature, paternalism was

278

279

one way to formalize the social gap between parlor and
kitchen. Efforts to instill "proper" attitudes in
servants were especially evident in the tracts for
domestics published before the Civil War and in the
programs and objectives of charities dealing with
servants throughout the century.

Any domestic who failed or refused to internalize
the duties of submission and deference still had to
accept continual reminders of her lowly social position.
The servant was at the constant beck and call of other
people. Her_employers retained the right to regulate
her social and religious life as well as her hours of
employment; whatever liberties she received in such
matters were granted as "privileges" which existed at
the sufferance of the mistress. The social forms
regulating the interaction between master and servant
also institutionalized the class difference between the
two parties. The domestic was to say "Sir" and "Ma'am"
to persons who addressed her in terms of familiarity;
she was to eat the family's left-overs; she was to come
and go by the back door; she was to remain inconspicuous
within the house and was assigned to rooms regarded as
undesirable or unpleasant. Servants were excluded from
places and situations where they might disturb employers
or contaminate their children with lower—class habits

and manners. "Unrefined" domestics were considered

280

disagreeable associates for genteel persons and were not
thought worthy of the marks of social respect shown to
members of the middle and upper classes. Again, a clear
distinction was drawn between the cultured and refined
employer and the vulgar domestic. In these ways masters
sought to define and enforce social distance between
themselves and servants.

Such efforts to maintain social distinctions and
deference were as prevalent before 1850 as after the
Civil War. It has been traditional to refer to the
years between the political triumph of Andrew Jackson
and the 1850's by such terms as "The Age of the Common
Man." According to the interpretations based on such
assumptions, the 1820's, thirties, and forties con-
stituted a period of democratic class structure and social
equality which contrasted sharply with the stratified
social structure and conventions of the Gilded Age.

Fixed class divisions and class consciousness emerged

only during the 1860's because of the combined pressures

of immigrant labor, industrialization, and a new
"plutocracy." Such general interpretations have influ-
enced most of the previous work done by social historians
on domestic service. Writers have tended to distinguish
clearly between the egalitarian nature of service allegedly
general before 1860 and the class differences employers

began suddenly imposing on domestics after 1865. The

281

evidence, however, does not support such conclusions
about domestic service during the nineteenth century.

In actuality, the attitudes and practices of
employers in cities and towns changed little during
the two middle quarters of the nineteenth century.
Employers of the Jacksonian era were as interested in
formalizing social distance and making servants
obedient and deferential as were those of the seventies.
Arguments in favor of employer paternalism made by
Catharine Sedgwick, Lydia Sigourney, and Sarah Josepha
Hale in the thirties and forties were identical with
those advanced in the seventies by Julia McNair Wright,
R. R. Bowker, and Jane C. Croly. Domestics possessed
no more personal freedom or control over their own lives
before 1850 than they did in the post—Civil War years.
In the early decades of the century orphan asylums were
already sending out their charges as domestics to
mistresses whose motives combined benevolence and self-
interest; in the twenties and thirties supposedly
"charitable" Societies for the Encouragement of Faithful
Domestic Servants in New York and Philadelphia attempted
to promote standards of social order among domestics and
to make them more "useful" to employers. Tracts for the
advice and "instruction" of servants had similar purposes
of control; these publications stressed the duty of the

servant to submit deferentially to her employer.

282

Differentiated forms of social etiquette between employer
and domestic were already established. Employers were
said to be rude and arrogant to their domestics.' As
early as 1842 Andrew Jackson Downing was explaining how
his house designs would exclude servants from the family
portions of the residence. Such were the attitudes and
conduct of employers during the Age of Jackson, the
alleged height of American democracy. Even before the
massive Irish immigration of the late forties and
fifties, masters desired to enforce social distinctions
and stability.

The movement of large numbers of Irish girls into
domestic service intensified many of these reactions,
especially those based on feelings of hostility and
revulsion. The influence of the Irish was felt well
before 1850; they were a very important element of the
servant population in the New York area as early as
the 1820's and had acquired a reputation for being
ignorant and slovenly by the late thirties. Furthermore,
the greatest impact of Irish servants came between 1845
and 1860 rather than after the Civil War. After 1850
domestic servants and the Irish became virtually
synonymous. Because of their peasant background,
Catholic religion, and "alien" habits, Irish girls
were especially open to charges of being vulgar and

undesirable residents of the home. With these "half-

283

barbaric" girls in service, it doubtless became more
imperative to separate them from the family table and
family rooms. The presence of Irish servants tended

to widen the existing social gap by reinforcing class
divisions with ethnic, cultural, and religious tensions.
As noted by E. L. Godkin and Sidney George Fisher in
the late fifties, however, this process was well under
way before 1860.

The basic responses of employers were carried
over from the Jacksonian period into the post—war
years. Social attitudes remained essentially the same,
stressing the child-like and vulgar characteristics of
domestics. Regulations designed to accent and insti—
tutionalize social separation also antedated the Civil
War. It is clear that in regard to domestic servants
the class-conscious attitudes and regulations generally
associated with the Gilded Age had deep roots in the

earlier decades of the nineteenth century.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY

The bulk of the material for this study has come
from contemporary printed sources—-especially period-
ical literature, household and etiquette manuals, and
essay collections. Comparatively few secondary
sources have been of assistance in either the formula-
tion of ideas regarding the topic or specific points
of information. There is a rather surprising lack of
historical discussion regarding domestic service, the
most common female occupation of the nineteenth
century. No historical study provides an in-depth or
comprehensive discussion of the historical nature of
service in America. The standard work on the servant
problem in the late nineteenth century is Lucy Maynard

Salmon, Domestic Service (New York, 1897). Miss Salmon

 

was a professional historian, but her book is principally
an attempt to apply the nascent methods of social science
to domestic service in the 1890's. The historical

portion of her discussion is based largely on the accounts
of European travelers and overemphasizes the democratic
aspects of the master—servant relation in the United
States earlier in the century. Two more recent, popu-

larized accounts which maintain a similar emphasis are

285

286

E. S. Turner, What the Butler Saw: Two Hundred and

 

Fifty Years of the Servant Problem (New York, 1963),

 

an account of service in England with two chapters on

the New World, and Russell Lynes, The Domesticated

 

Americans (New York, 1957), a general study of American

 

manners. Lynes's book contains some insightful and
useful material on domestic architecture as it related
to servants and on the life of the domestic, but both
of these authors follow Miss Salmon in suggesting that
service was generally a democratic relationship which
varied little between backcountry and urban center.
All three writers lead the reader to view the "help"
as the typical servant in both city and country before
the Civil War. All also tend to make a sharp distinction
between the democratic nature of service before 1860
and the suddenly class-conscious service of the post—
war years. This dichotomy seems unwarranted; the
actual division was between urban and rural service
throughout the century.

A more scholarly and accurate picture is presented
in the few pages addressed to the history of service in

the excellent early study by Helen Sumner, History of

 

Women in Industry in the United States, volume IX of

 

Reportcnl Conditions of Woman and Child Wage-Earners in

 

the United States (Senate Document 645, 6lst cong.,2d_

 

sess., 1910). Miss Sumner made extensive and careful

287

use of early labor newspapers; her findings are partic-
ularly helpful in regard to wages and criticisms of the
activities of the New York and Philadelphia Societies
for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestics. Her
analysis is a good starting point for anyone interested
in the conditions and problems of working women in the
nineteenth century. Three more recent books have also

been of valuable assistance. Robert Ernst, Immigrant

 

Life in New York City, 1825—1863 (New York, 1949)

 

contains some useful material on domestics in America's
largest city. Douglas T. Miller, Jacksonian Aristocracy:

Class and Democracy in New York, 1830—1860 (New York,

 

1967) includes suggestive comments not only on domestic
service but also on the general nature of class rela-
tionships in nineteenth-century America. Stanley

Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth: The American

 

Record Since 1800 (New York, 1964) is a helpful and

 

readable quanitative study which provides a detailed
analysis of the money wages and, for the period after
1860, the real wages of servants.

Turning to contemporary published materials,
books devoted exclusively to the servant question were
uncommon in America. [The most important books on the
topic were the tracts published for servants before
the Civil War. These books of advice were intended

to guide and instruct servants in their duties and

288

the proper ways to please their employers. A short,
early example of this type is the pamphlet A Friendly

Gift for Servants and Apprentices (New York and Baltimore,

 

1821). Robert Roberts, The House Servant's Directory;
or, A Monitor for Private Families: Comprising Hints on
the Arrangement and Performance of Servants' Work (New
York and Boston, 1827) is a book of advice for men—
servants allegedly written by a worthy Boston servant.
Although it contains much material relevant to my
analysis, most of it is devoted to recipes and the
proper way to carryout the details of domestic work.
There are three especially useful tracts which provide
extended discussions of the behavior and attitudes
employers desired to cultivate in their servants. One
of these is Parlour and Kitchen; or, The Story of Ann
Connover (Philadelphia, 1835), a tract issued by The
American Sunday School Union which was in print as late
as 1876. The others are Catherine Beecher, Letters to

Persons Who Are Engaged in Domestic Service (New York,

 

1842) and the anonymous Plain Talk and Friendly Advice

to Domestics: With Counsel on Home Matters (Boston,

 

1855). Each of these books sets forth a notion of the
master-servant relation emphasizing the duties of
obedience and submission owed by the grateful and rather
awed employee to the benevolent employer.

Two other book-length treatments deserve special

notice. Catharine Sedgwick's didactic novel Live and

289

Let Live; or, Domestic Service Illustrated (New York,
1837) contains much useful material on the

life of the urban domestic in the 1830's as well as
Miss Sedgwick's personal views. The only extended
contemporary analysis of the servant problem is Harriet
Prescott Spofford, The Servant Girl Question (Boston,
1881). Though published in 1881, her book actually
represents a viewpoint of the early and mid-1870's,

for it is a compilation of essays originally published

in Harper's Bazar between 1873 and 1875. The New England

 

writer and poetess made few important changes between the
articles and the book although the latter contains
stylistic revisions and some additional material.

An especially important source of information
for this study has been the large body of periodical
literature of the nineteenth century. Most monthlies
included an index or detailed table of contents in each
volume, facilitating their use. These magazines contain
a wealth of material dealing with social and home life.
Of the popular ladies' monthlies the most valuable for
my investigation have been Godey's Lady's Book (1830-
1876), the largest circulation monthly prior to the
Civil War, edited by Louis Godey and Sarah Josepha Hale
and Arthur's Home Magazine (1852-1876) edited by Timothy
Shay Arthur and Virginia Townsend. Both of these

Philadelphia publications contain many didactic and

290

descriptive essays on a wide variety of topics; Arthur's
carried an especially large number of articles concerning
domestic servants during 1870. Some useful articles may
also be found in Mrs. Hale's early Boston venture, The

American Ladies' Magazine (1828-1826) which she edited

 

before she went to Philadelphia to work for Godey. The

Ladies' Repository (1841—1876), a publication sponsored

 

by the Methodist Church, presented an evangelical view—
point and a more Midwestern flavor than any other national
monthly. It was published in Cincinnati for many years;
even after the periodical moved to New York, many Ohio
writers continued to contribute to its pages. After the
Civil War, New York magazines became more important in
the women's market. The foremost of these new publica-
tions based in New York were Demorest's Monthly Magazine
(1864-1876) and the very successful weekly Harper's
Bazar (1868-1876). The Bagag was the most important
fashion magazine of its time, but its editorials, many
of them written by Harriet Prescott Spofford, Robert
Tomes, or Mary Abigail Dodge, frequently condemned the
ostentation of the day. Harper's Bazar is not indexed,
but the editorial page appears at regular intervals in

the sixteen—page weekly. Demorest's proved useful

 

chiefly for the spirited regular column contributed by
Mrs. Jane C. Croly under the pen-name "Jennie June."

Two other long-lived Philadelphia ladies' periodicals

291

proved disappointing—-Graham's Monthly Magazine (1826-

1858) and Peterson's Magazine (1842—1876), the latter

 

being the most popular women's monthly after about
1860. Graham's was composed principally of literature
and travel narratives and contained comparatively few
essays on social manners or the household. Peterson's
was devoted almost exclusively to low-quality sentimental
and melodramatic fiction and presented few essays of
any sort.

A number of general interest periodicals were also
very valuable, largely for the post-Civil War years.

The most helpful general magazines were Harper's New

 

Monthly Magazine (1850—1876) and Scribner's Monthly

 

(1870-1876). Scribner's contained an especially large

 

number of articles on social topics; almost every
volume included material dealing with service. E. L.

Godkin contributed several informative articles on

 

domestic servants to The Nation (1865—1876), for which,
there is a separately published index for the years

prior to 1917. The Unitarian monthly 01d and New (1870—

 

1875) edited by Edward Everett Hale has some useful

articles as does Lippincott's Magazine (1870-1876).

 

The most important pieces in Old and New were critical

 

of the existing attitudes and behavior of employers
toward their domestics. Boston's general magazine

The Atlantic Monthly (1857—1876) included the house-

 

292

hold essays by Harriet Beecher Stowe later collected
into her books on domestic life, but it is generally
less useful for the social historian than its New
York rival, Harper's. More complete sketches of each
of these magazines may be found in the first three
volumes of Frank Luther Mott, A History of American

Magazines, first published in 1930 and 1938.

 

Aside from the periodicals of the time, the most
helpful type of source relating to servants was the
cook book or manual of domestic economy. A useful
bibliography of pre-Civil War publications is found
in Waldo Lincoln, "Bibliography of American Cookery
Books, 1742-1860," Proceedings of the American

Antiquarian Society, new series, volume XXXIX, October,

 

1929. While some cook books, including the large
number written and compiled by Eliza Leslie, contained
little or no material on domestics and others took
their advice on service from more influential American
or English volumes, many of the frequently reprinted
books included a chapter on the management of servants.
The most important family in diffusing information on
domestic economy in the nineteenth century was the
Beecher clan. Catherine Beecher, the eldest child of
Lyman Beecher, led the way with A Treatise on Domestic
Economy, for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and School,
which first appeared in 1841 although what became the

standard edition was issued by Harper Brothers in 1842.

293

Miss Beecher, who thought every girl should study
cooking and domestic economy, followed this book with

Miss Beecher's Domestic Receipt Book: Designed as a

 

Supplement to her Treatise on Domestic Economy (New

 

York, 1846) containing additional advice to both
mistress and maid. Both of these books were reprinted

a number of times. In 1873 there appeared Miss Beecher's

 

Housekeeper and Healthkeeper (New York), in which the

 

recommendations concerning servants were largely reprinted
from Miss Beecher's books of the 1840's. During the Civil
War Catherine's sister Harriet Beecher Stowe brought out

her House and Home Papers (Boston, 1864). Mrs. Stowe's

 

outlook was generally less rigid and authoritarian than
that expressed earlier by her sister. Together the two

sisters co-authored The American Woman's Home (New York,

 

1869), a popular book which was actually little more than,
a sissors-and-paste compliation of material from their
earlier books. In their chapter on servants advice from
each author was reprinted, but that of Mrs. Stowe
predominated. Another Beecher who advocated firm dis-
cipline in dealing with servants was their sister-in-law
Eunice Beecher, the wife of Henry Ward Beecher. Mrs.
Beecher wrote a column of household advice for Tn:

Christian Union, the evangelical weekly edited by her husband,

 

Two useful collections of her articles appeared during

1870's, Motherly Talks with Young Housekeepers (New York,

 

294

1873) and All Around the House;gor, How to Make Homes
Happy (New York, 1878).

Other household manuals of the pre4Civil War
years with helpful discussions of domestic service were

Mrs. Elizabeth Ellet, ed., The Practical Housekeaper:

 

A Cyclopedia of Domestic Economy (New York, 1857) and

 

the often-reprinted Mrs. Mary Hooker Cornelius, The

Young Housekeeper's Friend (New York), which first

 

appeared in 1845 but retained the same advice concerning
servants through expanded editions lasting into the
1870's. Another valuable source was David Meredith
Reese's American edition of the English volume by Thomas
Webster and Mrs. Francis Parkes, An Encyclopedia of
Domestic Economy: Comprising Such Subjects as Are Most

Immediately Connected with Housekeeping (New York, 1845).

 

Following the English authors' remarks on service,
Reese, a New York physician, included his own observa-
tions on American servants. The editor of Godey's,
Mrs. Sarah Josepha Hale, published several books on
cooking and domestic economy; for the purposes of this
study the most useful was The Good Housekeeper; or, The
Way To Live Well and To Be Well While We Live (Boston,
1839). The same advice was later reproduced in

Mrs. Hale's The Ladies' New Book of Cookery (New York,
.1852).

Useful chapters on servants appeared in a number

of housekeeping manuals written after the Civil War.

295

The first of these to appear was Joseph Bardwell Lyman

and Laura E. Lyman, The Philosophy of Housekeeping: A

 

Scientific and Practical Manual (Hartford, 1869). Books

 

from the 1870's included Julia McNair Wright, The Complete

 

Home: An Encyclopedia of Domestic Life and Affairs

 

(Philadelphia, 1879) and Mary Virginia Terhune, Common

Sense in the Household: A Manual of Practical House—

 

wifery (New York, 1874), the first of several books of
domestic advice Mrs. Terhune wrote under the name "Marion
Harland." The writer or writers of the essay on servants

in Todd S. Goodholme, ed., A Domestic Cyclopedia of

 

Practical Information (New York, 1877) combined their own

 

advice with some unacknowledged borrowings from Mrs. Stowe.
The novelist Frank Stockton and his wife Marian Stockton
included a valuable chapter on domestics in The Home:

Where It Should Be and What To Put in It (New York,

 

1873). Robert Tomes, The Bazar Book of the Household

 

(New York, 1875) offered the most complete contemporary
attack on the nature and conditions of domestic service
although he agreed that some form of household
assistance was essential. Tomes's views expressed in
this book show an interesting development from his more_
moderate and conventional, as well as highly informative,
article "Your Humble Servant" presented in Harper's in
June, 1864. Tomes was much more aware than most con—
temporaries of the subtleties involved in the social

relationships between employer and employee.

296

Another fruitful source of information has been
the etiquette book or behavior manual, a type of
publication which was extremely popular in the nine-
teenth century. A good general study of the content
of this literature is Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Learning
How to Behave: A Historical Study of American Etiquette
Bppga (New York, 1947). A helpful guide to the books
themselves is Mary Reed Bobbitt, A Bibliography of
Etiquette Books Published in America Before 1900 (New
York, 1947). The Bobbitt bibliography, however, omits
many volumes which offered advice on social manners and
relationships but which were not strictly speaking
etiquette books. Among those she does not list which
were useful are William A. Alcott, The Young Wife; or,
The Duties of Woman in the Marriage Relation (Boston,
1837), one of his numerous books on proper conduct, and
Mathew Carey, Philosophy of Common Sense: Containing
Practical Rules for the Promotion of Domestic Happiness
(Philadelphia, 1838), which included his 1835 article
in Godey's, "Essay on the Relations Between Masters and
Mistresses and Domestics." Alcott recommended that
householders not employ servants for a variety of
reasons—-they were expensive, they encouraged idleness
in the family, they were denied Christian privileges,
and they fostered anti-democratic attitudes in employers.

Typical statements on domestics can be found in Etiquette

 

297

for Ladies: With Hints on the Preservation,. Improvement,

and Display of Female Beauty (Philadelphia, 1838), Samuel

 

R. Wells, How to Behave: A Pocket Manual of Republican

Etiquette (New York, 1857), and Margaret Cockburn

 

Conkling , The American Gentleman's Guide to Politeness

and Fashion (New York, 1857). Each of these volumes was

 

reprinted a number of times. Eliza Farrar, The Young

 

Lady's Friend (Boston, 1837) was reprinted into the
seventies and was particularly sympathetic to servants.
On the other hand, an especially class-conscious and
firm attitude was advocated by The Laws of Etiquette; or,

Short Rules and Reflections for Conduct in Sociepy

 

(Philadelphia, 1836) which was reproduced fourteen times

under a variety of titles. One of the most popular

 

etiquette books of the 1870's was Robert Tomes, The Bazar

Book of Decorum (New York, 1870), a book compiled from

 

articles in Harper's Bazar and which was generally
sympathetic to domestics. I V

In the nineteenth century the increasing number of,
female journalists and writers frequently collected their
scattered articles into more easily available volumes.
Probably the most popular and prominent of these lady
writers was the outspoken "Fanny Fern," Mrs. Sarah
Payson Parton. Her books of essays are Fern Leaves from

Fanny's Portfolio (first series, Auburn, New York, 1853)

 

which was followed by a second series under the same

298

title in 1854, Fresh Leaves (New York, 1857), Folly as
It Flies: Hit at by Fanny Fern (New York, 1868),-

 

Ginger-Snaps (New York, 1871), and Caper-Sauce: A

 

Volume of Chit-Chat, About Men;_Women, and Thinga (New
' York, 1872). Every volume contains useful essays on a
wide range of social topics, but the books which were
most useful for this study were Folly as It Flies and

Ginger—Snap;. Another important lady journalist was

 

Mary Abigail Dodge, known to her readers as "Gail
Hamilton," who wrote spirited, often caustic, essays
for a variety of newspapers and magazines. Two of her
books, WOman's Wrongs: A Counter—Irritant (Boston,

1868) and Woman's Worth and Worthlessness (New York,

 

1871) have been especially helpful. The former was
written as a reply to Rev. John Todd who had advocated
the continued social subordination of women; the latter
book is a collection of articles which originally
appeared in Harper's Bazar. A collection of Jane C.
Croly's newspaper articles preceding her column for

Demorest's is available in her book Jennie Juneiana:

 

Talks on Women's Topics (Boston, 1864). Harriet Beecher

 

Stowe, The Chimney Corner (Boston, 1868) is a volume of

 

essays on domestic life originally appearing in The
Atlantic Monthly. In this book Mrs. Stowe advocated
domestic service as a pleasant, warmly paternal occupa-

tion for girls, a reversal of some of her earlier,

299

more critical comments in House and Home Papers. A

 

helpful article comparing English and American servants

is included in Caroline M. Kirkland, The Evening Book

 

(New York, 1851). Mrs. Kirkland was the editor of the

short—lived Sartain's Union Magazine (1847—1852) in

 

which this material first appeared.
Two other general, contemporary books deserve

special mention. Mrs. A. J. Graves, Woman in America:

 

Being an Examination into the Moral and Intellectual

 

Condition of American Female Society (New York, 1843)

 

attempts a comprehensive discussion of the place of
various types of women in American society. Another
significant volume is Virginia Penny, The Employments

of Women: A Cyclopedia of Woman's Work (Boston, 1863).

 

Miss Penny's book contains a wealth of detailed infor—
mation on hundreds of female occupations. It is very
poorly organized, with sentences coming in no particular
logical order, but it is indispensable as a descriptive
guide to the jobs open to women in the nineteenth
century.

The most valuable sources for the charitable
organizations discussed are, of course, the annual
reports cited in the text. Some of the difficult—to—
obtain material on the Philadelphia Society for the
Encouragement of Faithful Domestics can be found in

two more accessible publications by Mathew Carey.

300

There is an extract from the society's first report

included in Carey's Miscellaneous Essays (Philadelphia,

 

1830), and one of his promotional leaflets for the

organization is collected in his Miscellaneous Pamphlets

 

(Philadelphia, 1831). Two books are particularly
illuminating on the activities of the New York Children's
Aid Society. The foremost of these is Charles Loring

Brace, The Dangerous Classes of New York and Twenty Years

 

Work Among Them (New York, 1872). Brace was a constant

 

promoter of the society, of which he was the founder and
Secretary. Much additional and otherwise unavailable
"material may be found in a book by his daughter--Emma

Brace, ed., The Life of Charles Loring Brace: Chiefly

 

Told in His Own Letters (New York, 1894). Two sources

 

which are valuable for their general information concern—
ing charitable activities for children, and which are
useful for an understanding of the motives behind them,
should be noted. A comprehensive and careful study of
the institutions dealing with children throughout the
state of New York in the 1870's is William P. Letchworth,
Homes of Homeless Children: A Report on Orphan Asylums
and Other Institutions for the Care of Children (Albany,
1876). This informative contemporary volume by the
Commissioner of the New York State Board of Charities
indicates how widespread the custom was of training

and sending out girls from institutions as domestics.

301

The most significant secondary source is Henry W.

Thurston, The Dependent Child: A Story of Changing

 

Aims and Methods in the Care of Dependent Children

 

(New York, 1930). In this rather old though valuable
book, Thurston traces the transition of institutional
care from the almshouse to the orphan asylum to various
foster home plans such as Brace's "placement" system.
He rightly stresses the continuity between Brace's
methods and the indenture system.

In regard to architectural history, the best
sources are naturally the plan books by Andrew Jackson
Downing, Calvert Vaux, Samuel Sloan, Henry Hudson
Holly, and others mentioned in the text. A comprehensive
bibliography is supplied by Henry—Russell Hitchcock,
American Architectural Books: A List of Books, Portfolios,

and Pamphlets on Architecture and Related Subjects

 

Published in America Before 1895 (Minneapolis, 1946).

 

Most of the important contemporary books on architecture,
including all of those used in this analysis, are fortu—

nately readily available on microfilm in The American

 

Culture Series of University Microfilms. Two secondary

 

works merit particular mention. One of these is the

comprehensive study by Talbot Hamlin, Greek Revival

 

Architecture in American: Being an Account of Important
Trends in American Architecture and American Life Prior

to the War Between the States (New York and London,

 

302

1944). The other is a recent local study~~Hainhridge

Blnltirng, Ihlusens of‘ldosixan':3 Baflfl{ Baizr lhiuflgwfilltigatinjal

 

 

History, 1840m19l7 (Cambridg , Mass., 1967). This
excellent book should serve as a model for furture
investigations; unlike many architectural historians,
Bunting provides detailed information on the floor plans

of the urbarllknmmslueing examined.

"llllllll'llllllll“