« AnkstesnisTęsti »
The statistics of the Census bear out this view of the reason of the case. Alabama has 9.05 families to one servant; Arkansas, 14.64; Florida, 9.84; Georgia, 6.42; Louisiana, 5.89; Mississippi, 10.54; South Carolina, 9.32; Texas, 11.28. The apparent exceptions here are Louisiana and Georgia. If, however, we exclude New Orleans, a city which belongs rather to the whole cotton-growing region than to any one State, Louisiana ceases to be an exception. Orleans has but 2.89 families to a servant, and the remainder of the State no less than 9.83.
servant; while a black host of "unattached" | under the good-naturedly shiftless system swarmed through the house, the kitchens, prevailing in the border States. the quarters, the stables, the sties, and overran the fields and roads in every direction. Such having been the custom of the period preceding the war, we shall naturally expect to find it influencing the present situation in these States, despite impoverishment of planter and emancipation of slave, and should look to see here an excess of domestic service, due partly to an accumulation which has not had time to drain off, and partly to the force of habits deeply bred in master and in man. And so we find it. The Census statistics show that in 1870 there were but 4.29 families, high and low, rich and poor, white and black, to one domestic servant in Virginia; in Kentucky, 5.58; in Delaware, 4.83; in Maryland, 4.03.
We have spoken of Virginia. This is the present State of that name. West Virginia has 11.75 families to one servant. Is anything further necessary, to a student of history, to explain the cleavage that took place during the war in the old State-the adhesion of the north-western counties to the cause of the Union, while the southern and eastern counties followed the fortunes of that Confederacy "whose keystone was slavery," than such a contrast as is thus presented in the statistics of domestic service in the two sections of the Virginia of 1860 ?
When we leave the slave-breeding, and turn to the slave-consuming States, the cotton, rice, and sugar-raising regions of the country, we should expect to find, and we do find, a decided change of conditions. The system of human chattelism tended to bring out the same results in the multiplication of domestic servants; but, on the other hand, there was opposed a most substantial and emphatic resistance, in the fact that the colored population of those States was only kept up by continuous importation. Speaking broadly, every able-bodied black represented a direct outlay of from eight to twelve hundred dollars. But more than this: twenty-five per cent. could be realized from that investment in a single season by proper employment. Even the women and the half-grown boys represented a net productive capacity of one or two hundred dollars a year if put into the field. Under such conditions, it was pretty certain that the number of house hands would be kept down to the real demands either of necessity or of luxury, not suffered to increase wantonly and wastefully to the degree of a positive nuisance, as was often the case
We have spoken of all the former slave States except three. Missouri never was more than half a slave State. The practical area of slavery was limited to less than a quarter of its soil. The number of families to a servant in Missouri is 10.8. If we exclude St. Louis, the number rises to 13.61. North Carolina and Tennessee have respectively 7.72, and 9.42 families to a serTheir position in this respect is undoubtedly due to the fact that they lay geographically between the old slave-breeding and slave-consuming States, and, partaking in a degree of the character of both, exhibited some of the characteristics of each.
Leaving now the former slave States, we find among the original free States an even greater variety in the matter of domestic service. The system of human chattelism did not enter here. Domestics were no longer property, to be worked at the will of their owners. Throughout the States we are about to consider, servants were free to go or to stay-free to enter the mill and the shop, free to ask their own price, and free to be just as disagreeable as they pleased. Even the words master and servant were in some sections taken as offensive. It is evident that under such conditions domestic service is never likely to be in excess from sheer indifference to accumulation. In such communities, servants will be employed only as the result of distinct efforts and sacrifices on the part of families to attract and retain them, bidding over the factories and the shops in respect to the amount of wages, or to ease of occupation, or both-such efforts and sacrifices becoming greater in the newer portions of the country, until, as we approach the extreme North-west, domestic service is almost forbidden by the industrial conditions which are there found to
exist. In the Middle and Eastern States | mestic service, having one servant to 8.37 we should expect to find communities employing domestic servants somewhat in proportion to the extent and success of their manufactures and commerce, the presence of a considerable city being almost inevitably indicated by an increase in this form of expenditure.
The facts revealed by the Census correspond in general with great exactness to the reason of the case as we have sought to represent it. Beginning at the extreme East, we have Maine, a State chiefly agricultural, and having no large city to bring up its average, with 11.57 families to one servant. New Hampshire, approaching in its southern parts the industrial conditions of Massachusetts, has but 9.64. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont have, respectively, 7.61, 7.44, and 7.35. If, however, we exclude New Haven and Providence, Connecticut goes up to 8.08, and Rhode Island to 9.33. Massachusetts, with a population two-thirds that of the other New England States combined, has one servant to every 6.67 families. If, however, we exclude the cities of Boston and Worcester, we have for the remainder of the State but one to 8.24.
Of the States known in the geographies of our school days as the Middle States, New York has but 5.79 families to one servant; New Jersey, 6.97, and Pennsylvania, 8.01. If we exclude the seven principal cities of New York, the remainder of the State shows 7.31 families to a servant. If we exclude Philadelphia, Allegheny and Pittsburgh, the remainder of Pennsylvania shows 9.86.
Proceeding westward to Ohio and Michigan, we find, as we should expect, a smaller number of domestic servants in these States, the ratios being but one to 9.73 and to 9.74, respectively, or, if we exclude Cincinnati and Cleveland in Ohio, and Detroit in Michigan, but one to 10.92 and 10.31, respectively. Ohio and Michigan are, however, much older States than Illinois, which shows but one to 10.57, or, excluding Chicago, but one to 12.72. Indiana, a State of equal age, but of a more exclusively agricultural population, shows but one to 14.02 families. This is nearly the ratio of Iowa (one to 14.14). Wisconsin, with larger manufacturing interests, has one to 10.46, or, excluding Milwaukee, one to 11.26.
The six States remaining may be passed over with brief mention. California, with its great body of "Chinese cheap labor," naturally shows a large proportion of do
families, though, if we exclude San Francisco, the remainder of the State has but one to 11.32 families, which is very close to the ratio for Nevada (one to 11.13), where, also, the Chinese element largely enters. Three of the other four States show the condition proper to pioneer communities, where luxuries are not expected, and labor is scarce and high. Nebraska has but one servant to 16.92 families; Kansas, one to 16.18; Oregon, one to 22.29. Minnesota, however, forms a distinct exception, and one not easily explained. The ratio of domestic service here (one to 9.64 families) is precisely that of New Hampshire, and exceeds by a trifle that of Ohio. Unless the cause of this be found in the proportion of Swedes and Norwegians within the State, it must be left to some social investigator on the spot, to account for this indulgence of the far Minnesotians in the luxury of domestic service so much beyond the customs of their neighbors.
Heretofore we have had under consideration the domestic servants in the several States, and in certain important cities, in their aggregate number only.* But it may not be without interest to follow this general class into the details of its nationality, and inquire what races and countries contribute, and in what measure severally, to this total of 951,334 persons, big and little, male and female, white, black and yellow, who minister in the households of our people.
At sight the statements of the Census in this respect appear scarcely credible. Thus, at the outset, we meet the assertion that 704,780 of the 951,334 were born within the United States. To one who has been accustomed to think of pretty much the whole body of domestic servants as of foreign birth, the first feeling must be that of incredulity. What, can it be true that all the Irish, Germans, Swedes, Canadians and Chinese, who make so much of a figure in our daily lives, and in the literature of the time, constitute little more than one-fourth of the entire number of servants?
In the first place, of the persons employed
* Another popular delusion, which is exploded by the Census, is that Joseph Smith introduced polyg amy into his religious system merely as an indirect solution of the problem of domestic service; a shrewd device, at once to keep his handmaidens under discipline, and to defraud them of their rightful wages. The Census shows that, while Utah has fewer servants to population than the Territories of Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming, it has more than Colorado, Dakota, Idaho and Montana.
as domestic servants, who were born in the United States, not less than 353,275 are found in the former slave States and the District of Columbia, nineteen-twentieths of them being colored. This would leave but 351,059 from the old free States, including the Territories.. But of the total number of domestic servants in these States, 53,532 are males, while 34,099 are females under 16 years of age, nearly all of whom were born here. Making deductions on these accounts, we have, in round numbers, 280,000 females, 16 years of age and upward, natives of the country, among our domestic servants, against a somewhat smaller number of all other nationalities. But can it be true that more than one-half our adult female domestic servants in the Northern States are native, are American? It is true, and it is not true. According to the strict sense of the word native, the sense in which the Census uses it, it is true; according to its popular meaning, nothing could be further from the truth. These Irish and German girls, as we are accustomed to call them, who are in our families as second girls, as nurses, and even as general servants, what proportion of them ever saw Ireland or Germany? They are, in fact, of the second generation. They are one remove from foreigners. Yet, though born among us, our general instinctive feeling testifies that they are not wholly of us. So separate has been their social life, due alike to their clannishness and to our reserve; so strong have been the ties of race and blood and religion with them; so acute has been the jealousy of their spiritual teachers toward our popular institutions, that we speak of them, and we think of them, as foreigners.
It must be remembered that, so far back as 1850, there were resident in the United States 573,225 Germans, and 961,719 Irish, while the total number of persons of foreign birth was at that time 2,210,839. Many of these had then been residing long in the country. It is from the descendants of this class, scarcely less than out of the directly immigrating class, that our domestic service is supplied. It is clear that it will not be long before these home-made foreigners will far outnumber the direct immigrants, in the ranks of our domestic service. Already the children born in this country of foreign parents nearly equal those who were born abroad. Another Census will see the balance strongly inclined to the side of the former class; while their preponderance in
our households will undoubtedly be effected even earlier by the preference naturally given to them over new arrivals.
Of those domestic servants who were born in foreign countries, the Census assigns to Ireland, 145,956; to Germany, 42,866; to British America, 14,878; to England and Wales, 12,531; to Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, 11,287; to China and Japan, 5,420; to Scotland, 3,399; to France, 2,874; to all other countries, 7,343.
The States of the North and West, in which the Irish, as compared with the domestic servants of any other foreign nationality, are in excess, are Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and California; those in which the Germans are in excess, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin; those in which the Scandinavians are in excess, Kansas and Minnesota; those in which the British Americans are in excess, Michigan and Vermont; those in which the Chinese are in excess, Nevada and Oregon. The Chinese, however, very nearly approach the Irish in California, the numbers being 4,343 against 4,434. Illinois has 3,950 Scandinavians, and 5,603 Germans, against 6,346 Irish. Michigan has 1,755 Germans, and 1,748 Irish, against 2,456 Scandinavians. Ohio has 5,270 Germans, against 5,587 Irish. In Indiana, the Irish very nearly approach the Germans. In Maine, the British Americans nearly equal the Irish. In the remaining States, the preponderance of the foreign element first specified, is generally decided.
Considering the number of "French cooks" we have in this country, it may seem surprising that so few of our domestic servants should have been born in France. It is known, however, that French cooks differ from the cooks of other nationalities in this, that they may be born anywhere, and speak English with any sort of accent. Of the real Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who have entered our domestic service, the great majority, as might be anticipated, are found in towns, obeying, even on our happy soil, the strongest instinct of their people. Thirty cities have the honor to comprise 1,630 out of the total of 2,874 domestic servants born in France. Of these, 449 are found in New York; 368 in New Orleans; and 286 in San Francisco.
Two foreign elements which are likely to make an even greater proportionate showing in the domestic service of 1880 than in that of
1870, are the Swedes and the British Americans, if, indeed, by that time, we have not gratified our national passion by annexing the New Dominion, making thus the Canadians not foreigners, but natives. Speaking broadly, the Swedes are all found west of Lake Michigan, in Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The systematic efforts made to induce immigration from Sweden are not unlikely to yield considerable results in the immediate future. All the social and industrial conditions of the North-west are natural to this people, except only as being more favorable than their own at home. The British Americans, on the other hand, are substantially all east of Lake Michigan. They have overspread, more or less densely, the New England States, have colored deeply the northern borders of New York, and form an important element in the population of the peninsula of Michigan. the latter State and in Maine the men of this nationality are lumbermen and raftsmen; in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, they are cotton spinners and shoemakers, forming, indeed, the bone and sinew of the redoubtable order of the Knights of St. Crispin. And, if ever our cooks get on a strike and go a parading the streets with bands and banners, breathing defiance to domestic tyranny, be sure it will be because the French Canadian women among them have formed the order of Ste. Coquula.
Of the natives of the Celestial Empire who cook and wash for our people, very few have yet ventured across the Rocky Mountains. Here and there at the East, an almond-eyed angel "stands and waits" in the house of a master who is considerably more than half afraid of him, with his cat-like step, his diabolical observances, his inscrutable countenance, and his well-known toxological accomplishments; but thus far, at least,
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. Of the total number of 5,420 Chinese servants in the United States, 4,343 are yet to be found in California, 503 in Nevada, and 268 in Oregon.
Is the Chinaman to be the domestic servant of the future? Will another census show him stealthily supplanting the European in our households, and setting up his gods on the kitchen mantels of this Christian land? I stoutly believe not. The Chinese, whether miners or menials, are hardly more numerous in the United States than they were five years ago. Forty centuries" have been too much for Mr. Koopmanschoop and his emigrant runners. Even when the Chinaman comes to the States, he leaves his wife and children behind him; he comes here with no thought of resting until he can rest at home; his supreme wish is ever to return to his native land, and if he be so unhappy as to die in exile, his bones at least must be borne back to sacred soil. Surely, a great element among us is not to be built up by immigration of this kind. tion of this kind. Masses of foreign population thus unnaturally introduced into the body politic, must sooner or later disappear like the icebergs that drift upon the currents of our temperate seas, chilling the waters all around them, yet themselves slowly wasting away under the influence of sun and wind, having in themselves no source of supply, no spring of energy, no power of self-protection; helpless and inert amid hostile and active forces; their only part, endurance; their only possible end, extinction.
"Wisdom," quoth the sage,
"If like cures like," quoth Bibulus athirst, "Each second glass must surely cure the first." Alas! he missed his count, and, sad to see, The drinks came out uneven-so did he!
Now when the landscape lies all hushed and stilly
Sometimes I marvel, dazed by doubt and distance,
To help me over uttermost despair.
1 bring to other birthdays kiss and token,
Year after year I think of her as older,
And muse upon her growth, and softly speak : Now without stooping I could clasp and hold her, And now her golden head would reach my shoulder, And now her sweet white brow would touch my cheeks.
Would earthly years have had the power to render
And those clear eyes, so luminous and tender,
Would they have kept undimmed their depths of splendor, Amid these heavy clouds of grief and care?
I wonder, when I see my locks grown duller
By blighting years, and streaked with silvery strands,
Smoothing its shining waves with loving hands.
While time has aged and saddened me so greatly,
In the full prime of perfect angelhood?
In that far dwelling, where I cannot reach her,
An untaught babe, a tender little creature,—
Oh, if her baby face has waxed no older,