A Social History of the Brooklyn Irish, 1850–1900

Stephen Jude Sullivan

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013

ABSTRACT

A Social History of the Brooklyn Irish, 1850-1900

Stephen Jude Sullivan

A full understanding of nineteenth century Irish America requires close examination of emigration as well as immigration. Knowledge of Irish pre-emigration experiences is a key to making sense of their post-emigration lives. This work analyzes the regional origins, the migration and settlement patterns, and the work and associational life of the Catholic Irish in

Brooklyn between 1850 and 1900. Over this pivotal half century, the Brooklyn Irish developed a rich associational life which included temperance, Irish nationalism, land reform and Gaelic language and athletic leagues. This era marked the emergence of a more diverse, mature Irish-

Catholic community, a community which responded in a new ways to a variety of internal and external challenges.

To a degree, the flowering of Irish associational life represented a reaction to the depersonalization associated with American industrialization. However, it also reflected the changing cultural norms of many post-famine immigrants. Unlike their pre-1870 predecessors, these newcomers were often more modern in outlook – more committed to Irish nationhood, less impoverished, better educated and more devout. Consequently, post-1870 immigrants tended to be over-represented in the ranks of associations dedicated to Irish nationalism, Irish temperance, trade unionism, and cultural revivalism throughout Kings County. Unsurprisingly, over 70 of

Brooklyn’s 96 Catholic churches in 1901 were built after July 1, 1870.

The internal diversity of the Brooklyn Irish was extensive. Opportunities and experiences for some Irish differed markedly from those available to others. Gender, county of origin and skill level all served as factors in post-emigration success. Moreover, generation was

especially pronounced as a socioeconomic agent in Brooklyn. Economic prospects for the Irish- born remained as poor in Brooklyn as anywhere in the nation, but improved more rapidly for the

American-born Irish then anyone might realistically have considered possible. Increased opportunities for land ownership seemed to support the socioeconomic prospects of thrifty

Irishmen, but occupational mobility strongly favored the second generation, more so than in other locales.

Why do both popular and scholarly accounts tend to portray all nineteenth century Irish

Americans as either an undifferentiated mass of unskilled proletarians or as nouveau riche “lace curtain” aristocrats when significant variation clearly existed? In Philadelphia, Detroit and

Brooklyn, at least 30 percent of Irish-born male workers in 1880 could be classified as “skilled craftsmen.” In five other major cities, from San Francisco to Providence, the corresponding figure was roughly one-fifth in the same census year. Meanwhile, the Brooklyn Irish displayed a curious pattern of halting socioeconomic progress among foreign-born men (55% nonskilled in

1850  51% nonskilled in 1900) alongside impressive progress for their American-born sons

(35% nonskilled in 1880  22% nonskilled in 1900).

Irish American socio-economic mobility paled in comparison to that of their German peers, especially among the foreign born. Their intra-urban geographic mobility patterns differed as well. Irish Americans, in Brooklyn and other Northeastern and Midwestern cities, tended to move out of the older core wards as soon as they enjoyed a degree of economic success. German

Americans, conversely, seem to have reinvested their new wealth in “a nicer house in the old neighborhood.” Germans tended to separate themselves, whether they lived in the tenement districts of New York’s Germantown and Brooklyn’s Williamsburg, or the single-family homes

of Riverdale just south of the Bronx. By 1890, the Irish were virtually ubiquitous, inhabiting all areas and all housing types of Brooklyn.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction—Who Were the Brooklyn Irish? 1

Chapter 1—From Whence They Came: Geographic, Economic and Cultural Variation in 19th Century Ireland 18

Chapter 2—From There to Here: Irish Emigration Patterns, 1800–1900 45

Chapter 3—Life in the City of Homes: The Brooklyn Environment, 1850–1898 82

Chapter 4—A Fair Living: Work, Housing and Mobility 115

Chapter 5—Kin and Community: Family Structure and Gender Roles 182

Chapter 6—Socialization and Assimilation: Religious and Voluntary Affiliations 256

Conclusion—The Brooklyn Irish: Diversity and Identity 331

Epilogue—The Post-Brooklyn Irish: Ethnicity & Identity beyond the Geographic Boundaries of Kings County, 1919– 358

Sources 374

Appendices—Methodology 416 I: Federal Manuscript Census Files 416 II: Occupational Classification 418 III: Surname Analysis 422

LIST OF TABLES 2-1: Sex Ratio of Irish Emigrants by Provinces, 1851–1910 50 2-2: Males and Females Aged 15–24 as a Proportion of Total Irish Emigration, 1852–1921 51 2-3: Age Distribution of Irish Emigrants, 1852–1921 52 2-4: Ranking of Irish Counties 55 2-5: Irish Emigration per Decade as a Percentage of the Population at the Prior Census: Provinces and Selected Counties, 1851–1910 57 2-6: Irish Emigration, 1851–1910, from Counties with Specified Levels of Irish-Speaking Population in 1891 58 2-7: Irish Emigration from Counties Containing Significant Area Designated as “Congested Districts,” 1851–1910 59 2-8: Occupational Distribution (%) of Irish Emigrants, 1851–55 & 1875–1910 60 2-9: Brooklyn Irishmen’s Top 12 Counties of Origin 70 2-10: Birthplaces of Association Members, 1851–1917 74 2-11: Estimated Irish-Speaking Emigrants in 1851–55 and 1891–1900 75 2-12: Total Irish Emigration, 1851–1920 76 2-13: Percentage Changes in Irish Emigration, 1856–1910 78 3-1: Brooklyn and New York City Population, 1850–1900 85 3-2: Population Growth in Selected Eastern and Western Cities, 1850–1880 86 3-3: Number of Persons per Brooklyn Residential Building in 1865 and 1875 96 3-4: Brooklyn Population by Ethnicity, 1845–1890 97 4-1: Occupational Composition of Bedford in 1870 by Section 118 4-2: Occupational Composition of Bedford in 1855 by Section 118 4-3: Number of Persons per Brooklyn Residential Building in1865 and 1875 119 4-4: Number of Dwellings in Brooklyn 1865 and 1875 With Percentage of Increase 120 4-5: Brooklyn Population by Ethnic Group from 1845–1890 124 4-6: Brooklyn Population by Ethnic Group and Ward, 1855 125 4-7: Brooklyn Population by Ethnic Group and Ward, 1890 126 4-8: Brooklyn Population by Ethnic Group and Ward, 1865 128 4-9: Sex Ratios in “Irish” Wards, 1880 131 4-10: Mean Ages in “Irish” Wards, 1880 131 4-11: Proportion of Irish Adults Married (Age 35) 133 4-12: Endogamous Marriages of Irish-Born Adult Males 133 4-13: Occupational Distribution of Irish Immigrant Workers in Selected Cities, 1880 134

4-14: Occupational Distribution of Brooklyn’s Irish, German & Native-stock Males, 1850–1880 135 4-15: Occupational Distribution of Irish Adult Male Workers by Generation 138 4-16: Occupational Stratification of Ethnic Groups Male Workers, 1880 144 4-17: Irish Immigrant Upper-Class Occupations 1850–1880 146 4-18: Number of Irish-Born Property Holders* 1850–1870 148 4-19: Real Property Distribution by Occupation Level and Ethnic Group 1850 and 1870 149 4-20: Average Total Wealth of Property Holders 149 4-21: Irish-Born Property and Wealth Distribution 1850–1870 151 4-22: Residents Wards 1–5 151 4-23: Number of Dwellings in Brooklyn by Ward 1890 and 1900 157 4-24: Index of Dissimilarity of Major Ethnic Groups In Brooklyn 1890 and 1910 158 4-25: Components of growth of the Brooklyn Irish & German Population 167 4-26: Occupational Distribution of the German Labor Force of Brooklyn, 1844–1860 (%) 168 4-27: Occupational Distribution of the Irish Labor Force of Brooklyn, 1844–1860 (%) 176 4-28: Occupational Distribution of the Irish Labor Force of Brooklyn, 1844–1860 (%) 176 4-29: Career Continuity 177 4-30: Components of Growth: Comparison of Population Growth in Brooklyn & Boston: 1850–1890 178 5-1: Females per 1,000 Males 217 5-2: Women Identified as Earning Money in the Manuscript Census 218 5-3: Women’s Employment by Marital Status 219 5-4: Adults Living as Boarders / Lodgers 219 5-5: Occupational Status of Distributions of Employed Adult Females 220 5-6: Women in the Labor Force 220 5-7: Adult Female Labor Employed in Specified Occupations by Ethnicity 221 5-8: School Attendance 228 5-9: Formal Labor Force by Ethnicity 228 5-10: Never-Married Persons Aged 45–54 232 5-11: Never-Married Persons Aged 25–34 232 5-12: Mean Age at Marriage 235 5-13: Marriage Rate: Marriages per 1,000 Single Persons, 20–44 235 5-14: Endogamy, Married Persons with Spouses of Same Ethnicity 241 5-15: Marital Fertility: Births per 1,000 Wives Aged 15–44 242 5-16: Own Children Residing with Married Women Aged 35–44 243 5-17: Child-Woman Ratios: Children < 5 per 1000 Women 243

iii

5-18: Persons 45–64 Living in Disrupted Marital Status (Widowed, Separated or Divorced) 244 5-19: Percentage of Adult Women Listed as “Family Head” 244 5-20: Females as Percentage of Brooklyn Family Heads 245 5-21: Death Rates due to Accidents and Injuries per 100,000 Workers 245 5-22: Charges in Divorce Proceedings, 1880 248 6-1: Birthplaces of Association Members, 1851–1917 270 6-2: Occupational Levels of Association Members, 1850–1917 271 6-3: Occupations of the Brooklyn Fire Department 312 6-4: Ethnicity of the Brooklyn Fire Department 319 6-5: Occupations (By Ethnicity) of the Brooklyn Fire Department 322 6-6: 1864 Western District Firefighters 324 C-1: Occupational Rank by County of Origin 334 E-1: Irish Stock Population in Flatbush by Section, 1960–70 370

LIST OF FIGURES 2-1: Decade by Decade Percentage of Four Most Common Irish Migrant Destinations, 1851–1911 48

LIST OF MAPS 1848 Map of Ireland 29 1854 Map of Brooklyn [1855 Wards] 90 1866 Map of Brooklyn [1865 Wards] 100 1873 Map of Brooklyn [1870 Wards] 121 1889 Map of Brooklyn [1890 Wards] 127 1878 Map of Brooklyn [1880 Wards] 132 1901 Map of Brooklyn [1900 Wards] 136

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Gradual school is where you go to school and you gradually find out you don’t want to go to school anymore. —“The World According to Garp” (1982); G.R. Hill (director); J. Irving (writer)

A great many people have shown the author enormous levels of support over the past quarter century of this dissertation’s halting progress towards completion. Without the careful reading and brilliantly constructive criticism of my longtime committee members, Sponsor

Kenneth Jackson and Chair Eric Foner, this entire project would have collapsed years ago. And of course, without my first dissertation sponsor and undergraduate advisor, the late James Patrick

Shenton, it is likely I would not have pursued history in the first place. Gentlemen, sometimes you believed in me more than I believed in myself.

It is just as difficult to express the degree of assistance owed to several members of The

New York Irish History Roundtable—especially to Marion Casey, John Ridge, Jim Garrity and

Linda Almeida for everything from inspiration to advice to resources to editorial assistance. The

NYIHR’s recognition of my Master’s essay as worthy of its John O’Connor Award represented a reservoir of confidence I could always draw upon whenever this latest project seemed rudderless.

And how could the support, belief and insights of a group as talented as Tim Gilfoyle, Ed

O’Donnell, Sean Wilentz, Kerby Miller and the late Denis Clark not spur me across the finish line, however belatedly?

I am indebted to my Lawrence High School and Columbia University colleague, Dr.

Marjorie Harrison, among the nation’s finest library professionals. Your gentle criticism, warm support and shining example guided my path. Joseph Coen at the Brooklyn Diocesan Archives was remarkably helpful—and never judgmental when I asked a foolish question or still had not

completed my research years after he had assumed a rational man would have quit. Thanks, too, to Mayra Melendez, Head of Circulation at Columbia’s Butler Library, and Elizabeth White,

Curator of the Brooklyn Public Library’s Brooklyn Collection. And where I be without everyone at the Brooklyn Historical Society, without their expertise, without the unparalleled access to their treasure trove of resources, or the opportunity they offered to “cut my teeth” by doing the background research for the Society’s Volunteer Firefighters Exhibit in 1993? In addition, I would like to acknowledge the generous support of the New York State Archives Administration for their 1993 grant which allowed purchase of a “gently used” microfilm machine and the entire

1850–1900 federal manuscript census microfilm. Their generosity also permitted student interns to digitize the 1850, 1860 and 1870 schedules during the summer of 1993.

In truth, much of the responsibility I felt to complete this study came from my students at

Lawrence High School. Almost from the moment I arrived in Cedarhurst (Fall, 1987), I have been plotting, planning or writing about the Brooklyn Irish. For twenty-five years, I have urged talented youngsters to pursue their dreams and to “never give up”. Of course, mentoring my young scholars distracted progress towards my own goal. But the encouragement of my students, from current freshmen to alumni who have already earned their own M.D.’s, J.D.’s and even

Ph.D.’s, never let me lose sight of the distant goal. So here I am. Many thanks to: CA, KA, RA,

AB, DB, NB, CC, DC, MC, PC, HC, VC, BD, DD, LD, TF, WF, AG, MG, RG, DK, JK, RK,

TK, CL, HL, JL, NL, SL, AM, JM, SM, SP, MR, SR, AS, CS, JS, MS, LT, PT, CV, MV, AW,

JW, SW… Special thanks are extended for recent help generously offered by Lauren Tonetti

(Lawrence H.S. ‘07), who prepared most of the charts and tables, and the husband-wife team of

Rebecca Gedalius-Goldberg (Lawrence H.S. ‘03) and Ami Goldberg who typed and/or formatted most of the manuscript. Michael Thomas Sullivan (MacArthur H.S. ’09) who doubles as

offspring and protégé, offered invaluable geographic assistance. Apparently, when it comes to

G.I.S., you can teach an old dog some new tricks.

Words cannot express the debt I owe to my extended family, beginning with my father, the late Arthur Edward Sullivan, my mother, Regina [Weireter] Sullivan-Fusco, and extending to my in-laws, John Richard Lauda and Catherine [Christie] Lauda. In so many ways you made this possible. Greater still is the pride I feel in the remarkable people who live within my own home, who have inspired me with their own collective work ethic, and supported me again and again when I wanted to throw in the towel. Obstacles small and large never seem to slow down the

Sullivan clan. How could I not finish when so many accommodations had been made by those I love?

vii

This dissertation is dedicated to:

My (almost) always supportive and patient children, Christine Elizabeth Sullivan Michael Thomas Sullivan Jacklyn Marie Sullivan

My wonderful wife, Donna Marie [Lauda] Sullivan, who loves me more than she dislikes history

* * *

The impossible just takes a little longer.

—Regina Sullivan-Fusco [Mom]

viii

INTRODUCTION Who Were the Brooklyn Irish?

“A Social History of the Brooklyn Irish, 1850–1900” will closely analyze the thought, behavior and lifestyle of the Irish community in the city of Brooklyn during the latter half of the nineteenth century. A variety of primary sources will be utilized; methodologies will include both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Like immigration itself, Irish-American historiography seems to arrive in waves. The earliest works bleakly portrayed the lot of “uprooted” families, concentrating on those who settled in older, northeastern cities. Later works analyzed assimilation and social mobility— either praising the newcomers landing civil service and union positions or criticizing them for

“settling” for these “dead-end” jobs. Next came a series of community studies detailing the similarities and differences among Irish-American experience(s) throughout the United States.

Recently, scholars have focused on the differences within the Irish-American community. “A

Social History of the Brooklyn Irish” will follow this last group of scholars in analyzing the diversity of Irish-America on a municipal level. (Working class/ “lace curtain,” first generation/second generation, famine/post-famine, eastern counties/western counties,

Protestant/Catholic, churched/unchurched and of course, male/female appear significant divisions within the Brooklyn enclave.) Thus the main theme here will be the diversity within the local Irish community.

Here then, is my three-part thesis:

1) Before generalizing about Irish-America, we must understand the various Irish experiences throughout the nation. Similarly, the history of the Brooklyn Irish must be broken down into histories of its constituent groups. The attitudes of Brooklyn Irishmen towards local,

2 state and national developments varied according to their socio-economic status, county of origin, religion, nativity, length of residence in America and links to various political, labor and fraternal organizations. These complex often overlapping identifications and allegiances must be carefully sorted out, for they influenced the Brooklyn Irish’s view of the world. It might be useful to categorize these differences into what anthropologists call “ascribed” and “acquired” characteristics. That is, what cultural differences did the immigrants bring from Ireland and what differences did they develop after arrival? And how did this diversity manifest itself in their thought and behavior?

2) Although the Brooklyn Irish were not homogeneous, they had a sense of unity and a group identity. “Being Irish” was important to this group. However, the definition of

“Irishness” varied considerably. While some scholars emphasize the role of socio-economic class in describing diversity of thought and behavior, Timothy Meagher (“Lord Is Not Dead:

Social Change Among the Worcester Irish”) concludes that the best explanation lies within the realm of group identity. He sees a fundamental distinction between “Irish Chauvinists” and

“Catholic-Americanists.” Why did some Irish-Americans join the nationalist Ancient Order of

Hibernians while others supported the assimilationist Knights of Columbus? And why did such groups enjoy more or less success at various points during the nineteenth century? Were the demographic characteristics of Irish-Americans a more significant influence than were local, state or national trends such as transportation developments, industrialization, nativist agitation, etc.? This question of identity is essential to our understanding of the Brooklyn Irish.

3) Despite their disadvantageous background, the Brooklyn Irish were surprisingly successful in constructing institutions and behavior patterns to deal with unfamiliar mid- nineteenth century American urban conditions.

Although their goals and aspirations (i.e., their definition of “success”) were diverse, a large proportion of the Brooklyn Irish sought security and autonomy more than material wealth and social status. David Emmons finds similar aspirations among the Butte Irish for “safe & steady work [at] fair wages,” “a sense of place” and “survival of the [Irish] enclave.” In general,

If we are to include their American-born offspring, the Brooklyn Irish were more successful than their peers in other cities such as Manhattan and Boston. They enjoyed higher levels of homeownership, lower mortality rates, less virulent nativist opposition and earlier political dominance than their peers in most Northeastern communities. Brooklyn’s unique position as both the nation’s third or fourth largest city and as New York’s leading “bedroom” suburb gave residents more options.

In sum, “A Social History of the Brooklyn Irish, 1850–1900” will address three issues: 1) the diversity within the Brooklyn Irish community, 2) the development of religious and fraternal affiliations and 3) drawing conclusions about the uniqueness of the Brooklyn Irish.

* * *

The Irish are becoming one of the most studied ethnic groups. In 1977, Sean Wilentz characterized the field of Irish-American historiography as “underdeveloped”, but since then, a number of fine works have strengthened an extensive literature. Yet, large gaps in our understanding of this important ethnic group still remain. Despite calls by Wilentz and others for a “New Departure” focus on Irish-American labor and radicalism, partisan politics, Irish nationalism and “lace curtain” leadership still dominate the literature. Several of the “social histories” of significant communities are amateur “booster” pieces. Others deal only tangentially

4 with the Irish while pursuing a broader theme. New York City has yet to be systematically studied.

The least understood major city in America, Brooklyn, once had the second largest number of Irish immigrants (fourth largest percentage) anywhere. Only three independent, scholarly studies of Brooklyn as a whole have been published in the last fifty years. A series of commissioned works of varying length and quality appeared in the mid-1970’s. The remaining works about Brooklyn fit into two categories: 1) studies of a specific Brooklyn neighborhood, topic or ethnic group and 2) superficial, polemical and booster literature. Fortunately, the few works dealing with the Brooklyn Irish fit into the former category.

Let us consider two key aspects of Irish-American historiography: 1) the growing number of Irish-American community studies and 2) the relatively few works written which touch on the

Brooklyn Irish. It is also necessary to review the relevant nineteenth-century Brooklyn literature.

“Literary” scholars of the nineteenth century Irish have written a bleak history of a people

“uprooted” from their native land by famine and oppression, ill-prepared for the rigors of modern, industrializing America. Led by Oscar Handlin, these historians portray the Irish as victims of poverty and discrimination, suffering from poor health, early deaths, subsistence wages, intermittent unemployment and overcrowded tenement conditions. Such conditions, it is argued, led to alienation, nostalgia and a firm resolve to free the “old country” from English domination.

Similarly, social-science historians, led by Stephan Thernstrom (Poverty & Progress, The

Other Bostonians), have demonstrated that Irish males clustered in the unskilled, low-paying transport and general laboring jobs. Further, they have concluded that most were unable to climb

5 out of the unskilled ranks during their lifetime. Thus, quantitative measures also point to a bleak reality for the Irish immigrant.

Several other studies of Irish communities have attempted to limit this sweeping negative view, pointing to regional diversity within Irish-America. Jo Ellen Vinyard’s Irish on the Urban

Frontier, Kathleen Conze’s Immigrant Milwaukee and R.A. Burchell’s The Irish in San

Francisco argue that the Irish fared better in Western cities. Dennis Clark, The Irish in

Philadelphia, Earl Niehaus, The Irish in New Orleans, and Dennis Ryan, Beyond the Ballot Box, demonstrate the early development of a small but influential Irish middle class in cities as diverse as Philadelphia, New Orleans and Boston. The Butte Irish, by David Emmons, demonstrates the success of the Irish working class but does not join the “West is best” group;

Emmons readily acknowledges the uniqueness of a mining city. Lynn Lees adds a balanced study of the Irish who settled in London, Emigrants of Erin, showing that their life in the English capital was better than might be expected. All of these writers acknowledge difficult adjustments. They wish only to show that the lot of the “uprooted” Irish was not as universally bad as previously described.

The first question faced by the modern social historian is no longer whether to count but rather what to count and how to best use the resultant numbers. My goal is to strike a balance between the quantitative and the qualitative, to display Lynn Lees’ “happy knack of writing with the charm and style of the traditional historian while unobtrusively lacing [the] text with quantitative insights.” (AHR book review) Clark, Emmons and, to a lesser extent, Burchell also display this balance. Thernstrom, Vinyard, and Conzen sometimes let numbers tell too much of the story. Ryan and Niehaus are pushed by their lack of quantitative data into over-emphasizing the “lace-curtain” class.

The most important contribution of these works is their “discovery” of the regional diversity of Irish-America. Most authors attribute this diversity to the varying “environments” into which they settled. But what about the differences among the immigrants themselves— class, religion, language, province and time of emigration? The flaw of a “community studies approach” was pointed out by John Bukowczyk in his 1980 Harvard dissertation, “Steeples &

Smokestacks: Class, Religion, and Ideology in the Polish Immigrant Settlements of Greenpoint and Williamsburg, Brooklyn, 1880–1929”; emphasis on community cohesion at the expense of community tension and diversity prevents these works from telling the whole story. Such works tend to dismiss or “sanitize” intragroup conflicts over leadership, resources, and values. Since the publication of Kerby Miller’s Emigrants & Exiles, no scholar can ignore the differences among the Irish immigrants. If we can find a way to determine which Irish settled in a given

American city, we could better analyze their experience. Victor Walsh and Patricia Kelleher

(“‘Across the Big Water”: Irish Community Life in Pittsburgh and Alleghany County, 1850–

1880”; “Gender Shapes Ethnicity: Ireland’s Gender Systems and Chicago’s Irish-Americans”) have developed methodologies for doing just this. Since emigration patterns have been accurately described (see Miller’s bibliography or the bibliographic essay in Kevin Kenny’s The

American Irish), and since Irish surnames are remarkably consistent (Special Report of the

Registrar General of Ireland, 1890), tracing the Irish immigrants to their province of origin should allow scholars to draw speculative conclusions about which Irish came to a given city at various times. (Marriage and baptismal records can be used to verify these conclusions.) For example, David Emmons discovered that the Butte Irish were drawn disproportionately from counties Clare and Cork—home to the only significant hard-rock mining operations in nineteenth-century Ireland.

Herein lies the new issue for scholars of Irish-America—the diversity within a given community rather than between the Irish of different American cities. This topic is not really new. In 1979, Dale B. Light’s quantitative dissertation, “Ethnicity, Class, and the Urban

Ecology of a 19th Century City: Philadelphia’s Irish, 1840–1890,” analyzed the diversity of

Philadelphia’s Irish and concluded that socioeconomic class predicted behavioral differences.

Walsh, of course, argued that the Irish of Pittsburgh were influenced more by their regional background and cultural baggage—although he links regional background with social class (in both Ireland and America. As noted earlier, Timothy Meagher’s “Lord is Not Dead: Social

Change Among the Worcester Irish, 1880–1920” views the significant rift as one of identity— between “Irish Chauvinists” and “Catholic-Americanists.” Again, none of this is entirely new:

Burchell distinguishes between “cosmopolitans” and “ethnics;” Emmons and Lees discuss Irish regional variation; and Clark and Ryan focus on the surprising vitality of the Irish middle class.

But these works do not focus on internal diversity and cultural change; Light, Walsh and

Meagher break new ground in this respect.

Clearly, there is room for synthesis of this scholarship. Certainly, the variables they identify were present in Brooklyn as well. The trick will be to integrate cultural baggage and acquired characteristics with individual and communal responses to the various developments in nineteenth-century Brooklyn. Were first or second generation Irish-Americans more interested in the Land League? Was country of origin a major factor in determining whether an individual joined a labor union? Were the unchurched more likely to become socialists? Literally dozens of questions must be posed and relationships analyzed before we can begin to speculate about how Irish responded to the world around them. Curiously, the best current model for addressing this internal diversity is Bukowczyk’s “Steeples and Smokestacks.” This study of Brooklyn’s

Polish community offers not only a Brooklyn focus, but the author’s treatment of the diversity within a local ethnic community serves as an ideal template for my own study.

One final word is in order before discussing the available Brooklyn literature. Of the various Irish-American communities, Philadelphia is best studied, followed by Boston. A plethora of monographs and anthologies tell the story of the Chicago Irish reasonably well. New

York City and Brooklyn remain the most glaring omissions. Thus, systematic analysis of the lifestyle, thought, and behavior of the two biggest Irish communities in America has yet to be conducted.

Before publication of Henry Stiles’ History of the City of Brooklyn and Civil, Political,

Professional, and Ecclesiastical Record of the County of Kings and the City of Brooklyn between

1867 and 1884, students of Brooklyn had little on hand but reminiscences of outstanding events and individuals written by amateur chroniclers who seemed unable to distinguish “Long Island” from “Brooklyn Heights.” Thus, Stiles became the historian of Brooklyn almost by default. His works, although an improvement over earlier histories, remained largely chronological narratives, interspersed with biographical sketches and anecdotes. No overview or interpretive framework is evident. Modern historical standards regarding balance, documentation and critical use of sources are sorely lacking. On the other hand, the sheer amount of information published by Stiles makes his works required reading. Perhaps it is best to consider these works as primary sources since they tell us as much about the era in which they were written as they do about their subject periods.

Three significant, modern studies of Brooklyn date between 1938 and 1959. Each covers a particular time period. Two began as dissertations.

Ralph F. Weld’s Brooklyn Village, 1816–1834 provides useful background. Weld argues that “local history is national history locally exemplified.” (p. viii) He concerns himself mostly with the emerging social pattern of early Brooklyn. His sources and methodology do not conform to recent standards of social history, but his thoughtful insights make this book useful.

His treatment of the Irish focuses mainly on their elites.

Harold Coffin Syrett’s City of Brooklyn, 1865–1898 (1944) is an excellent study of political structure and behavior in the post-bellum period. Syrett’s first chapter describing the economic environment of Brooklyn places the rest of the book in proper perspective. The book’s discussion of the “inevitable” metropolitan consolidation is especially impressive. Although

Syrett’s interest in the Irish does not extend beyond analyzing the McLaughlin machine, he provides a wealth of information about the role of the Irish in city politics. Over forty important

Irish politicians are listed in the index.

Jacob Judd’s The History of Brooklyn, 1834–1855, covers the time period in between

Weld and Syrett. Approximately 80% of this 1959 dissertation was published serially in the

Long Island Historical Society Journal between 1963 and 1969. Like Syrett, Judd’s main interest is politics, but several of his chapters and sections help us understand Brooklyn’s social history as well—“Negroes,” “Antagonisms Against the Foreign-Born,” “Formation of Ethnic

Organizations,” etc. The Irish appear throughout this work as voters, politicians, laborers, priests, victims of nativism and rivals of other ethnics. But neither the Irish nor any other group is systematically described.

More recently, David McCullough’s The Great Bridge (1972) devotes a fine scene- setting chapter to “Brooklyn in that high summer of 1869” and offers clever and colorful insights regarding the politicians, business leaders and engineers responsible for one of the grandest

10 construction projects in modern history. However, as the book’s title suggests, McCullough’s focus is a physical structure. The Irish only appear as laborers, politicians and journalists. The city serves more as setting than as character. Leading roles in McCullough’s narrative are the

Roebling’s and the Bridge itself.

During the late 1970’s, the Brooklyn Rediscovery Alliance sponsored a serious attempt to make the history of Brooklyn “more available” to the public. This effort was rather successful.

Several books of interest to both scholar and general public were written. In addition, several useful bibliographies, photograph collections and archives were developed at this time. The following titles have proved helpful in my study.

David Ment’s Shaping of a City is concise and insightful, which allows one to keep track of major events. Two Cities: New York and Brooklyn in the Year the Great Bridge Opened, by

Margaret Latimer, provides a social, political and economic “snapshot” of these two important cities. Its themes are the actual and symbolic importance of the Brooklyn Bridge and the diminishing differences between the two municipalities. Factories & Foundries, co-authored by

Joshua Brown and David Ment, concentrates on the “Five Black Arts” (printing, glassmaking, iron-working, oil-refining and porcelain manufacturing) that dominated Brooklyn’s industrial economy. The social and political implications of the “lifecycles’ of each industry are nicely detailed. David Ment and Mary S. Donovan, The People of Brooklyn, analyzes the social history of two very different neighborhoods—Sunset Park and Flatlands. Names, events and trends are so well integrated that this seemingly contrived concept tells us a great deal about Brooklyn as a whole. These works allow the general reader to learn a great deal about Brooklyn in a relatively short time. But what is here for the scholar? First, these books outline the basic persons, institutions and trends that have shaped Brooklyn. Second, these works, none of which exceeds

150 pages, provide an amazing plethora of names, dates, events and institutions to pursue in more detail with more sophisticated methodologies.

Several, more specific Brooklyn histories should be identified here. Many of these are area studies which suffer from excessive nostalgia. Others concentrate on an ethnic group or time period inappropriate to my study of the Irish. Among the best are Alter Landesman’s

Brownsville and A History of New Lots; Elliot Willensky’s When Brooklyn Was the World;

Eugene Armbruster’s Brooklyn’s Eastern District; The U.S. Navy’s A Short History of the

Brooklyn Navy Yard; Edo McCullough’s Good Old Coney Island; David Tredwell’s “Flatbush”

LIHSJ; and Brian Danforth’s “Williamsburg in the 19th Century: Failure in Suburban Growth”

LIHSJ.

Books dealing specifically with the Brooklyn Irish include: several articles on Cornelius

Heeney, Henry Cruse Murphy, Bishop John Loughlin and William Cardinal McCloskey. An essay entitled, “Ye Irish Sons and Daughters” is included in Ralph F. Weld’s Brooklyn Is

America. This superficial piece tells us little new about the Irish in America and nothing distinctive about the Brooklyn Irish. Nor does Weld return to the Irish in subsequent chapters to discuss their relations with later immigrant groups. Purcell’s “Political Nativism in Brooklyn” is modeled after Robert Ernst’s comparable New York City article; he details several “serious” outbreaks of nativist violence against Brooklyn Irishmen, but his “striking evidence” pales in comparison to troubles in Boston, Manhattan, and Philadelphia.

Useful studies of machine politics in Brooklyn include Richard DeMao’s 1976 M.A. thesis at St. John’s University, “Hugh McLaughlin: Political Leader of Brooklyn, 1870–1903” and Anna Mary Lanahan’s “Brooklyn’s Political Life, 1898–1916.” Lanahan, in particular, develops a more comprehensive and balanced treatment of the struggle between reformers like

Seth Low and the Democratic machine of Hugh McLaughlin. However, her tight focus on elections, legislation and other “political” activities tends to minimize the relevance of this dissertation for the present study. Here, the oral history of a contemporary political reporter are more helpful. The “Reminiscences” of The New York Herald’s John Heffernan, recorded for posterity in 1950 by Columbia University’s Oral History Project, provide more details about the various “social welfare” programs of the McLaughlin machine. While Heffernan’s recollections of McLaughlin lack the color of Riordan’s 1905 conversations with G.W. Plunkitt, they offer the single best eyewitness account of perhaps the first and certainly longest-tenured Irish bosses in

America.

John Kean Sharp’s two-volume History of the Diocese of Brooklyn devotes a great deal of space to Irish social, economic and political triumphs and travails. But unlike Jay Dolan’s study The Immigrant Church: New York’s Irish and German Catholics, 1815–1865, Reverend

Sharp does not “do history from the bottom up.” His sources are largely ecclesiastical and administrative, and his focus is on the Church itself, not the Irish and German parishioners who peopled it.

John Ridge’s Flatbush Irish traces the settlement, development, and decline of the Irish-

American population in the once-independent Town of Flatbush. By considering the experiences of both first and second generation Irish, he captures much of the flavor of this community. But as the length of this book suggests (44 p.), Ridge only begins to question his data. His census publication and periodical research is thorough, but we are left without complete answers to important questions regarding marriage patterns, social mobility, homeownership and education levels, for instance.

* * *

Initially, “A Social History of the Brooklyn Irish, 1850–1900” will demonstrate that these newcomers were not homogeneous. Second it will suggest that not all Northeastern cities were particularly inhospitable places for the “uprooted” Irishman. Third, it will argue that twentieth century notions of “success” were not shared by many nineteenth century immigrants. Class, ethnicity and cultural baggage played a role in how an individual or group “bought into” the

“American Dream” of material success and socio-economic advancement. The nineteenth century Brooklyn Irish seem to have defined their goals as: “a fair living,” 2) “a sense of place” and 3) cultural survival.

Several important questions must be directly addressed:

1) How significant was the diversity within the Irish-American population?

2) How important was each immigrant’s Irish background (social class, county of origin, date of emigration, etc.) in determining status and behavior within the Irish-American community; how important was American social class (lace curtain vs. working class)?

3) In what ways, and to what extent, did the development of each major Irish institution

(church, political party clubhouses, Irish nationalist movements, labor unions, etc.) influence the others; how did these relationships affect the Irish-American community and the larger society around them?

4) To what extent was the Irish experience in Brooklyn typical of the broader immigrant experience? In what ways was it typical of the broader Brooklyn experience?

* * *

This study is divided into six topical chapters, as well as an introduction, a conclusion and an epilogue.

Chapter 1 offers a survey of the complex social, political and economic pressures encouraging emigration, and a review of the relevant literature.

Chapter 2 provides an examination of several regional and chronological differences within Irish society in addition to a brief analysis of Irish emigration patterns to determine who left Ireland, when and why.

Chapter 3 presents a survey of the political, economic and social scene in mid-century

Brooklyn. Was The Empire State’s “second city” more hospitable and attractive to Irish immigrants than Boston or Manhattan? Was life there better for new arrivals than it was in

Philadelphia, Detroit, or San Francisco? An examination of Brooklyn’s position as fourth largest city and New York’s leading suburb is undertaken and a preliminary analysis of which Irish came to Brooklyn is attempted, using both surname analysis and archival (parish and tombstone) data to establish county of origin.

Chapter 4 asks where and at what trades the Irish worked. Comparisons regarding occupational status, social mobility and homeownership rates are made with a) the Irish communities in other cities and b) the natives and other immigrants (e.g., the Germans) in

Brooklyn. Did the Brooklyn Irish actually own houses in “the city of homes”? How much economic discrimination did these particular Irish suffer? How common were “No Irish Need

Apply” advertisements and the like in Kings County?

Chapter 5 examines the roles open to women in and out of the home; fecundity and child mortality rates; and the typical activities of children (and the extent to which such norms were class-based). Were Irish women more successful in obtaining work, finding husbands, locating suitable quarters and establishing stable families than were other immigrant women in

Brooklyn? Were they more successful in these respects than were Irish men?

Chapter 6 looks at the pivotal role of church and school in the assimilation process. In what ways did religion encourage or impede the transformation of Denis Clark’s “Irish

Countryman” to urban American? Similarly, how did the schools—public or parochial—affect assimilation? Which Irish attended the free public schools directed by the Irish-born Protestant

William Maxwell? How many Irish children attended and what was the Irish share of instructional and administrative positions? In what ways did the curricula and textbooks differ?

How did the parochial and public school programs compare with those in place at a

“progressive” private academy? How might that have affected both the quality of education and the rate and nature of assimilation for Celtic Brooklynites? It also identifies patterns of Irish-

American political, fraternal and religious affiliation. Analyzing who joined which organizations

(temperance, nationalist, literary, labor union, volunteer fire, political clubhouse, athletic, etc.); which groups tended to share members; can tell us a great deal about the hopes, aspirations and behavior of this remarkably diverse Irish community. This section also looks at the social, economic, and spiritual functions of Brooklyn Catholic Church at the parish levels. What was nature of the local Church’s Irish-dominated ecclesiastical leadership with “other” Catholic ethnics? Examining the founding and clustering of new Catholic parishes and the Irish reaction to German, Polish, Italian and Slavic agitation for national parishes is also instructive. Reactions to other events, movements and trends by Brooklyn Irishmen affiliated with different

16 associations are also important. How did different groups view municipal “home rule” and consolidation? What did they think of various contemporary reform movements—such as temperance, compulsory public school attendance, and “good government”? This chapter also touches upon church/nationalist rifts. To what extent did the Brooklyn Irish view national liberation, the Land League and Irish “home rule” as an aid to their own search for

“respectability” and assimilation?

Summing up, how can we characterize the Brooklyn Irish response to local, state and national trends during this period—such as transportation development, urbanization, suburbanization, reform movements, Irish nationalism, trade unionism and nativism? Certainly, the historian must also look towards key events that shed light on Irish thought and behavior in

Brooklyn: the NYC Draft Riots (1863), the Orange and Green Riots (1870–71), the

Emancipation Proclamation (1863), the professionalization of the police and fire departments

(1854, 1869), the annexation of the industrial “Eastern District” (1855), the anti-Negro riot of

1862, the rise of liberal Catholicism in America and the Devotional Revolution in Ireland, the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge (1883), consolidation with New York City (1898) and the

Knights of Labor transit strike (1895).

And lastly, how did “demographics” (class, county, religion, nativity, residence) influence organizational affiliation and response to the trends described above? How did most

Irish-Americans define “Irishness,” what were the major components of their group identity, how important was Catholicism, how important was ethnicity, and how important was class?

The dissertation’s Conclusion, “The Brooklyn Irish: Diversity and Identity,” will ultimately analyze patterns and clusters of diversity within the Brooklyn Irish community, be they economic, demographic, generational, historical or organizational. An anthropologist might

17 ask which traits characteristic of the Brooklyn Irish might be considered ascribed rather than acquired. To what extent is Meagher’s “Irish Chauvinists” vs. “Catholic-Americanists” dichotomy relevant to a study of the Brooklyn Irish? Is Burchell’s “ethnics” vs. “cosmopolitans” dichotomy any more helpful? Does either model fully explain the changing patterns of identity and assimilation apparent among Brooklyn’s Celts? Different members of the community considered themselves “American,” “Brooklynite” and/or “Irishman” at various times during the nineteenth century. What precisely did the Brooklyn Irish want and what did they get? In a sense, this inability of one’s “dream” to match one’s “reality” is hardly new. The Elizabethan play, The Virginian, did little to prepare settlers for “The Starving Times” in Jamestown. But can this dissertation answer the basic questions posed at the outset? Was it “better” to live in

Brooklyn than it was to live in other American cities? How typical were the Brooklyn Irish?

How diverse was the Brooklyn Irish community? In other words, to what extent is it even useful to discuss and categorize “The Brooklyn Irish”?

Chapter 1 From Whence They Came: Geographic, Economic and Cultural Variation in 19th Century Ireland

For to live poor, I can’t endure, There’s nothing here but misery.

“Lamentation for the Loss of Ireland” in The Mercier Book of Old Irish Street Ballads, ed. James N. Heady (Cork, 1969) 4, pg. 62–3

Whether sung by mid-nineteenth century entertainers or written by late twentieth-century historians, one simple truth emerges from a study of Ireland. Prospects for “success” as defined by the Irishmen themselves seemed so bleak at and after mid-century that emigration became part of the normal lifecycle for many citizens. Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century, Irish parents invested in their children’s future success by scraping together the two to four pounds needed to finance a Trans-Atlantic steamship ticket. How could this be? Why was the island nation unable to provide hope for so many of its people?

The answer is at once simple and complex. Simply stated, Irish youth faced a bleak future—few jobs, limited access to land, minimal marriage prospects, and worst of all, no reason to expect imminent improvement. Forces had been at work on the Emerald Isle since well before the Great Hunger, forces less romantic or tragic than the potato blight, but no less powerful and damning. Miller identifies five disturbing trends which render much of Ireland’s labor force superfluous: 1) Irish reindustrialization; 2) a contraction and mechanization of the Ulster textile industry; 3) commercialization of Irish agriculture; 4) a shift from tillage to pasturage and a simultaneous mechanization of Irish agriculture; 5) a change in marriage and inheritance patterns. All five developments began decades before the potato blight of 1845–49 ravaged the overcrowded island and continued for decades afterwards. Thus, it is inaccurate to blame all of

Ireland’s troubles on the fungus which destroyed most of the staple potato crop or on the overpopulation which led so many to rely almost exclusively on tuber cultivation in the first place.1

We cannot study the American Irish without reference to the Great Famine. However, we must not limit our study to Ireland’s most spectacular tragedy. Of course, we cannot ignore a half-decade during which almost a million souls perished from hunger or related diseases. In

1847 alone, one hundred thousand Irish emigrated to the United States. The size of the influx and the poverty of the immigrants dwarfed all earlier American experience with newcomers.

Nor was the seventy-something-year-old republic prepared to absorb and assimilate 1.1 million impoverished, Roman Catholic, unskilled, rural, illiterate, and often Irish-speaking newcomers.

Around mid-century, Irish immigrants often comprised two-fifths of all foreign-born residents in northeastern cities. In 1855 for example, 59.2% of non-natives in Brooklyn and 54.5% of those living in New York City listed Ireland as their place of birth. On the other hand, the 1845–1854 immigrants had relatively fewer established Irish communities upon which to lean than those who came three decades later. According to Emmons, “[t]hose Irish-Americans had to construct a world on hostile ground and with scant resources.”2

In a sense, nineteenth century Ireland was not a place to live, but rather a place to leave.

Archaic farming methods, over-population, subdivided holdings, inflated rents, religious persecution, and the virtual absence of any in-country factory work all contributed to an imbalanced and fragile agricultural economy. Nearly three-quarters of the population lived as cottiers, laborers, or “smallholders,” on plots too small to provide anything but mere subsistence.

Contemporary observers consistently described a wretched peasantry living in shacks unfit for

1 Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles” (1976), 280-304, 363; Diner, H. Erin’s Daughters in America, 33. 2 Ira Rosenwaike, A Population History of New York City, 31, 80; David Emmons, The Butte Irish, 1.

20 human habitation, eking out a meager living on tiny, barren patches of land. During the 1830s,

Frenchman Gustave de Beaumont suggested that Irish peasants were worse off than African slaves. In 1843, J.G. Kohl, a German traveler, was more dramatic: “Heaven forbid my ignorance! Now that I have seen Ireland it seems to me that the poorest among the Letts, the

Estonians, and the Finlanders lead a life of comparative comfort.”3 Tales of fierce competition for land and of rack-renting landlords abound. Official reports issued by the Devon Commission and the Poor Inquiry Commission generally validate more impressionistic tales. Unproductive subdivided land, chronic underemployment, and periodic food shortages were part and parcel of

Irish life. Foreshadowing Franklin Roosevelt’s description of Depression-era America, the

Devon Commission described Ireland’s pre-Famine poor as, “the worst fed, the worst clothed, and the worst housed in Europe.”4

The roots of Ireland’s sorry state were only partially Malthusian. The growth of her rural population between 1781 and 1841 may have been unprecedented. During that 60 year span,

Ireland’s total population had doubled to well over 8 million. Unlike other population booms, this increase was not based on industrialization or some other innovation which enhanced productivity. It was partly due to a shift from pasturage to tillage during the Napoleonic wars and partly due to the increased popularity of the potato as a staple crop. The cultivation of potatoes and grain by means of a large plow was among the most primitive and labor-intensive forms of agriculture ever practiced. In 1815, Rev. Townsend’s survey of Cork reported that the

3 Qtd. in L.M. Cullen, Life in Ireland, London, 1968, 59-60. 4 R.B. McDowell, “Ireland on the Eve of the Famine,” 6-10; Thomas McGee, A History of the Irish Settlers in North America, 135 (quotation); Census Commissioners, 1851, General Reports, Pt. V, XXXI, H.C. 1856, 34.

21 most common agricultural method remained spade cultivation of grain and potatoes.5 Potato cultivation could provide a marginal subsistence on a very small plot of land by a minimally skilled farmer. Young men were thus able to marry as soon as they could lay claim to any tiny scrap of land. Even reclaimed bog or “waste” land could support potato cultivation. The resultant jump in the birth rate led to terrible competition for land, which in turn, encouraged preposterously high rents. According to the 1841 Census, 45 percent of Irish land-holdings were of five acres or less, while a mere 7 percent were of 30 acres or more. Not surprisingly, the rural population density was unmatched anywhere else in nineteenth-century Europe at 335 persons per square mile of arable land. Moreover Ireland was predominately a land of rural dwellers— only 14 percent of the 1841 population lived in towns of 1500 or more.6

Like most peasant societies, Ireland had its own unique social pyramid. At the top were the landowners. A series of English conquests and land redistributions had transferred most Irish lands to Protestant (usually Anglican) hands. Members of Protestant Anglican Church ministries were drawn from this educated, Anglophilic group. Theirs was an alien culture. The gap between rich and poor was measured in more than money. In education, culture, class, and religion, landlords differed from their tenants. Little contact or even understanding existed between the highest and lowest rungs of society. Absentee landlordism was common— especially in West Ireland, where a majority of the population was not literate in any language.

5 Gearoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 292; Lynn Lees, Exiles of Erin, 29-30; Thomas Freeman, Pre Famine Ireland, 68; K.H. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 116; Barbara Solow, The Land Question and the Irish Economy, 94-99; Rev. Horatio Townsend, A General and Statistical Survey of the County of Cork, Vol. 1, 197-98, 556-57, 409; Vol. 2 8-29, 53-54, 87-88. 6 K.H. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 161-62; K.H. Connell, “The Potato in Ireland,” 60; Michael Drake, “Marriage and Population Growth in Ireland”; L.M. Cullen, “Irish History Without the Potato,”; L.M. Cullen, “Problems in the Interpretation and Revision of Eighteenth-Century Irish Economic History,” 21-22; Census Commissioners of Ireland, 1841, General Reports, XXIV, H.C. 1843, 13, 454; Kenneth Kanmeyer, “The Dynamics of Population,” 196-97.

Improvements in agricultural productivity were ignored in favor of the maintenance of acceptable levels of rent payments. The actual collection of rents was left to middlemen who paid a negotiated sum to the absentee owner in exchange for the right to subdivide and sublet their allotment for “whatever the traffic will bear.” The notion of absentee landlordism was not unknown elsewhere in Europe, or the world. However, the event of Ireland’s reliance on middlemen and land agents, and the cultural and religious gulf between Ireland and tenant was unusual.7

These “middlemen” or land agents were often large farmers themselves. Most were

Protestant, but a number of Catholics served in this function as well. These “intermediate landlords” were charged with “managing” the estates of the great (absentee) landholders.

Holding long leases themselves (often 99 years in length), many exploited the land-starved peasantry by subdividing plots, raising rents, and offering only annual leases.

By the eve of the famine, this inefficient system was, in fact, being altered by the absentee landlords. Too much of the rent was enriching the middlemen, while the actual owners were paid at 18th century rates. Many sought to convert their estates to pasturage, a more reliable and lucrative source of income than the rent of the teeming but impoverished cottiers. By 1841, hundreds of estates had been reclaimed from middlemen, but little could be done about the related problem of subdivision and overpopulation. As the Famine approached, few Irishmen

7 Geraoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 146-47; Constantia Maxwell, Country and Town, 77; R.B. McDowell, “The Landed Classes and the Professions, 99-103; T.J. Hughes, “Society and Settlement in Nineteenth-Century Ireland,” 87; Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles” (1976), 71-73.

23 held long-term leases. Fewer still actually owned their own land. Security and goodwill were both in short supply.8

“Snug” or “strong” farmers represented rural Ireland’s closest approximation of a middle class. They comprised eight or nine percent of 1841 landholders and typically held 21 to 31 year leases on property that ranged from 20 acres in the densely inhabited North and West to several hundred acres in the sparsely settled grazing regions in the south central Midlands. “Middling” farmers made up another 10 to 12 percent of landholders. Their leases were generally shorter, their rents were higher, and their holdings were smaller.

Snug farmers lived in relative ease. Their diet included fish, eggs, meat, milk, and potatoes. Their garb consisted of homespun wool and cotton. Slate roofs typically topped stone cottages. Arranged marriages allowed parents to avoid subdividing their land. Social position was jealously defended. Middling agrarians tried mightily to imitate every behavior of their

“strong” farmer betters. An individual family’s ability to do so was viewed as a measure of their social standing.9

Small farmers, cottiers, and landless laborers represented nearly 75 percent of the 1841 population. Small holders, with their short term leases, negotiated through middlemen, ranked just above cottiers on Ireland’s social pyramid. Meager subsistence best described their lives in good times. Tiny plots, lack of capital, fear of eviction, and the constant pressure of overbearing rents encouraged primitive farming methods, which only weakened the mediocre soil. An

8 James Donnelly, The Land and The People, 9-14, 48-51; ibid., Landlord and Tenant in Nineteenth Century Ireland, 5, 19; Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles” (1976), 74; K.H. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 67, 70; Samuel Clark, Social Origins of the Irish Land War, 35-36. 9 E.R.R. Green, “Agriculture,” 105; Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles” (1976), 77; Gearoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 147-48; L.M. Cullen, Six Generations, 7, 33; James Donnelly, The Land and The People, 30-31; Caoimhin O Danachair, “The Dress of the Irish,” 8; Joseph Lee, “Marriage and Population in Pre-Famine Ireland,” 284-85; K.H. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 54- 5.

24 unwillingness or inability to practice single son inheritance led to continuous subdivision. Plots in the Midlands averaged five to 10 acres, while in the West, single-acre farms were common.10

R.R. Green describes cottiers as “essentially under tenancy and customarily laborer status.” Serfdom had been abolished in England centuries earlier, yet an Irish cottier’s lot was almost medieval. He received a cabin and a potato patch from a local snug farmer in exchange for exorbitant rent and personal labor. Rents were quite high, typically twice or thrice the rate paid by the farmer to the landlord, but at least the cottier had consistent access to potato land.

The laborer who held land by the custom known as conacre had nothing more than seasonal use of the land. Rents were due at season’s end and eviction was not only possible, but likely. Day laborers worked an average of twenty-two weeks a year, according to the Poor Inquiry

Commission of 1835–36. Those unable to obtain thirty weeks of steady work were unlikely to earn enough to pay rent alone.11

Seventy-four percent of the dwellings in Ireland were mud cabins with thatched roofs and dirt floors, evenly divided between two to four room cottages (39%) and single room huts (35%).

The potato made up the bulk of the diet for smallholders, cottiers, and laborers. Milk was a common supplement, and fish might be available to those living near a seacoast. The “starving times” of summer were a near annual curse. The rural poor traveled by the thousands to

Leinster, England, or Scotland each fall in search of harvest work, begging all along the way.

Partial or local potato failures were common and damaging to a fragile crop, a fragile economy, and a fragile people. Woodham-Smith counts over thirty separate crop failures since the potato’s

10 Maxwell, 208, 211-2; Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles” (1976), 78-79; George O’Brien, The Economic History of Ireland, 27-32; A. R. Orme, Ireland, 134. 11 E.R.R. Green, “Agriculture,” 92-96 (quotation); James Donnelly, The Land and the People, 16-20; James Donnelly, Landlord and Tenant, 12-13; George O’Brien, The Economic History of Ireland, 11; Thomas Freeman, Pre Famine Ireland, 20, 144-45; Samuel Clark, Social Origins of the Irish Land War, 37.

25 seventeenth-century introduction. Salaman cites over a dozen in the three decades between the

Napoleonic Wars and the Famine alone.12

Clearly, class and social relations cannot be separated from the ethnic and religious strife that dominated Ireland from the twelfth through the nineteenth centuries. Virtually all landlords, most middlemen, and a large majority of professionals and officials were Anglicans. Bankers and merchants were also disproportionately members of this church, which owned the devotion of just over 10 percent of the Irish populace. Membership was highest in South Ulster, Antrim,

Armagh, Down, Tyrone, Donegal, and Dublin; yet the political, economic, and social power of its believers extended well beyond its numbers.13

Descendants of the Scots peopled the other influential Protestant sect, the Presbyterians, who made up 8 percent of the population in 1834. Presbyterian Scots dominated the “middling” ranks—merchants, artisans, and farmer/weavers. This group tended to huddle together in Ulster, providing perhaps a third of the residents of Derry and over half of the inhabitants of Antrim and

Down. Here the Protestant/Catholic tension reached a fever pitch. Calvinist and evangelistic,

Ulster Presbyterians saw the Catholics as sinners and rivals. The competition and conflict was essentially tribal in nature. Orange Lodges, sectarian riots, and annual Battle of the Boyne remembrances inspired hatred and retaliation among Ulster’s Catholics.14

12 T. P. O’Neill, “Rural Life,” 44-5; Census Commissioners of Ireland, 1861, General Reports, Pt. V, LXI, H.C. 1863, 21; E.R.R. Green, “Agriculture,” 85-86; James Donnelly, The Land and the People, 21- 3, 24-6; Redcliffe Salaman, History and Social Influence, 282-88; Constantia Maxwell, Country and Town, 120-2, 124-132; Geraoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 148-9; K.H. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 148, 156; L.M. Cullen, Six Generations, 17; Thomas Freeman, Ireland, A General and Regional Geography, 101-02; Redcliffe Salaman, Influence of the Potato, 6, 20-4; Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, 78. 13 Thomas Freeman, Ireland, A General and Regional Geography, 5, 91, 98; R.B. McDowell, The Church of Ireland, 1869-1969, ix, 5-6; R.B. McDowell, “Ireland on the Eve of the Great Famine,”62-4; Constantia Maxwell, Country and Town, 219; Commissioners of Public Instruction in Ireland, 1-45. 14 See James G. Leyburn, The Scotch-Irish, passim; J. C. Beckett, “Ulster Protestantism,” 159-60; William Forbes Adams, Ireland and Irish Emigration, 51-54, 64; Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles”

Eighty percent of Ireland’s citizens were nominally Roman Catholic. Regional levels ranged from 60 percent in Ulster to over 95 percent in Connaught and Munster. Only Down and

Antrim counties held Protestant majorities. Smallholders, laborers, and cottiers were predominantly Catholics, as were local provisioners—butchers, fishmongers, poulters, and even grocers. A significant minority of strong and middling farmers were also Catholics.15

In Irish-speaking regions of the west, economic and cultural barriers prevented any significant extension of the church’s influence until well after the Famine. The respective roles of the founding of the Maynooth Seminary (1795) and the passage of the Catholic Emancipation

Act (1829) in spurring the church building which characterized Irish Catholicism in the 1830s are not altogether clear. “Modern” Catholicism made significant gains in attendance and institutional presence in the English-speaking countryside of Leister and the Midlands.16

Although “landlords agents were the principal victims…peasant farmers were also attacked for their willingness to take land from which the allegedly less industrious had been rejected,” according to Kenny. Most incidences of rural violence, however, were personal.

Faction fighting was the most common form of rural violence. These were pitched battles between extended kinship groups, often over land disputes or communal insult, and they erupted at all the social events of the rural calendar: the fairs, pilgrimages, wakes, and seasonal festivities. Increased competition for land strained rural class relations during the first half of the nineteenth century. Agrarian violence became more common. Secret agrarian societies such as

(1976), 69-70; A.T.O. Stewart, The Narrow Ground, 29-36, 39; Commissioners of Public Instruction, 1- 45; Stephen Sullivan, “The Orange and Green Riots,” 4-12, 46-59; Michael Gordon, The Orange Riots. 15 Maureen Wall, “The Rise of a Catholic Middle Class,” 95-98, 104-5; Commissioners of Public Instruction, 1-45; S.J. Connolly, Priests and People, 26-28. 16 David Kennedy, “The Catholic Church,” 171-72; R.B. McDowell, “Ireland on the Eve of the Famine, 64-67; Brian Inglis, The Story of Ireland, 193-94; L. M. Cullen, 137; Thomas P. Kennedy, Church Building, 8-12; Geraoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 46-7, 193; Emmet Larkin, “The Devotional Revolution in Ireland,” 626-27, 651-52; S.J. Connolly, Priests and People, 88-97.

27 the Ribbonmen, the Whiteboys, and the Molly Maguires, formed protest organizations to oppose those who violently “oppressed” the poor, usually by violating local landholding traditions.

Kenny argues convincingly that outside Ulster, economic, rather than sectarian or political issues dominated the grievance list: evictions, rack-renting, and land enclosures. Even church tithe complaints were phrased in such a way as to seem more economic than religious in nature. In fact, as far back as 1981, Joseph Lee proposed that the level of agrarian protest in a given region of Ireland may be viewed as a measure of the extent to which that region has undergone agrarian modernization. Kenny suggests that “enterprising landlords…generally initiated the violence by seeking to alter the traditional patterns of estate management in response to the pressures of the market.”17

Beyond religion and class, Irish society and economy varied by locale and geography.

Unfortunately, Ireland’s four official political provinces (Connacht, Leinster, Munster, and

Ulster) are not helpful as labels for discrete social, economic, or geographic regions. For the most part, Ireland’s thirty-two counties offer reasonably distinctive regions. But perhaps more functionally oriented regions (West Ulster, East Ulster, West Ireland, East Leinster, and the

Midlands) can better describe the differing agricultural, social, demographic, and religious characteristics of different parts of Ireland. Certainly most of the rugged county of Donegal had more in common with Mayo and Sligo than Down or Antrim. Surely, the land and the residents of Kildare had more in common with Tipperary than withcosmopolitan Dublin. For the most part, these regions will be employed throughout this study in order to allow examination of the

17 James R. Barrett, “Why Paddy Drank,” 162; Joseph Lee, “The Ribbonmen,” 26-35; Gael Christianson, “Secret Societies in Ireland,” 369-84; Geraoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 138; Cullen, Life in Ireland, 127-8; Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles” (1976), 85-87; Kevin Kenny, The Molly Maguires, 21.

28 link between region of origin and post-emigration success. Just how different were the experiences of Irish immigrants from different parts of the country (regions/counties)?18

Lowlands ideally suited for grazing animals dominated “the Midlands”—Longford,

Meath, Westmeath, Kings, Queens, and Kildare counties in Leinster province, and Tipperary

County in Northeast Munster province. This well-drained region was largely flat and bog-free.

Uncultivated waste land ranged from a low of three percent (Meath) to a high of 17 percent

(Tipperary)—the lowest in any of the five regions. Nearly half of the area’s agricultural land was devoted to pasturage as early as 1841.

18 J.H. Johnson, “The Two ‘Irelands,’” 224-43; Lennox Barrow, “The Use of Money in Mid-Nineteenth Century Ireland,” 81-88; Joseph Lee, “The Dual Economy in Ireland,” 191-201; Patrick Lynch and John Vaizey, Guinness’ Brewery, 9, 17; Barbara Solow, The Land Question, 105.

1848 Map of Ireland

Bourquin, Frederick, Samuel Augustus Mitchell, and Henry S. Tanner, Ireland. [map]. 1848. 1:1,650,000. “A New Universal Atlas Containing Maps of the various Empires, Kingdoms, States and Republics Of The World.” David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. (25 April 2013).

Population densities, especially in Kildare and Meath, were low by nineteenth century

Irish standards. Farms and landholdings were large. In 1841, one-fifth of Meath’s and Kildare’s landowners held over 30 acres. Cattle farming had been common since the enclosure movement took root some 80 years before.19

Longford’s inhabitants were the worst off in the Midlands. Not only were 24 of every 25 farms smaller than 30 acres, and one of five acres boggy wasteland, but the population density of

361 persons per square mile dwarfed Meath’s 70 ppm2. Kings, Queens, and western Westmeath were similarly saddled with smaller holdings, larger bogs, and higher population densities than

Kildare or Meath.20

Moderately sized farms dominated the southern Midlands. This parcel encompassed

Tipperary and northern Cork counties, an arable plain ringed by low, craggy mountains. Grains such as wheat were grown here, but dairy farming was the most profitable choice.21

The post-Waterloo shift in Irish agriculture from tillage (grains) to pasturage (sheep and cattle) was most pronounced in this region of Central Ireland. Exports to England were telling:

Average Annual Exports of Cattle and Sheep (Unit: Heads) 1816–1820 119,578 1850–1854 408,293 (+241%) Average Annual Exports of Oats and Wheat (Unit: Tons)22 1824–1828 370,987 1840–1844 283,468 (-24%)

19 Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 13, 29, 454-5. 20 Secondary figures vary regarding the specific counties included in the mid-nineteenth century Midlands, but there is general agreement on the central Leinster lowlands as the hart of Irish livestock grazing. See E.R.R. Green, “Agriculture,” 104; Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 70, 167; L.M. Cullen, Six Generations, 28; John O’Donovan, Economic History of Livestock, 166; T.J. Hughes, “Society and Settlement,” 90-1; F.H.A. Aalen, “The Origin of Enclosures in Eastern Ireland,” 209-15; T.J. Hughes, “East Leinster,” 230-35. 21 See Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 179-180; Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 13, 29, 454- 5. 22 James Donnelly, The Land and the People, 32, 39, 46-7; John O’Donovan, Economic History of Livestock, 194, 214; Michael Drake, “Population Growth and the Irish Economy,” 70; Redcliffe Salaman,

Not surprisingly, social stratification was most developed in the region which had undergone the most modernization—the Midlands. Absentee landlords and snug farmers held the highest positions there while cottiers and laborers found themselves in the lowest stratum.

Replacing grain crops with grazing animals widened this gap and further impoverished the lowest classes by rendering their labor superfluous. It should also surprise no one that the activities of secret societies were most intense in these “improving,” “consolidating,” or

“modernizing” Central Ireland. When resistance failed, migration was the only alternative. Over a quarter of Dublin’s population had been born in another Irish county, according to the 1841 census. Thirteen percent of Kildare’s 1841 residents and eight percent of Kings’ inhabitants were born elsewhere. Cottiers and laborers dominated this group, as they wandered Ireland in search of work and land.23

East Leister skirted the Midlands region from Louth to eastern Cork. Its fertile river valleys and lowland plains were fractured by coastal mountains. Beyond Wicklow, there was little bogland, and like the Midlands, agricultural wasteland ranged from four percent (Kilkenny) to eight percent (Wexford) to 14 percent (Carlow). Although some variety existed, cereal crops predominated—particularly wheat and barley. Wheat was sold throughout eastern and northern

History and Social Influence, 283; K.H. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 176-82; T.J. Hughes, “East Leinster,” 234. 23 Joseph Lee, “The Ribbonmen,” 27-30; Geraoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 138; James Donnelly, Landlord and Tenant, 32-3; George O’Brien, The Economic History of Ireland, 396-98; W. Steuart Trench, Realities of Irish Life, 48-9; T.J. Hughes, “Societies and Settlement,” 92; L.M. Cullen, “The Irish Economy in the Eighteenth Century,” 17-18; Cullen, Life in Ireland, 146-7; See Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 170, 200-1. Census of Ireland for the Year 1851, General Report, Pt. VI, XXXI, H.C., 1856, 52.

Ireland or exported to England. Barley was sold to distillers, especially in Dublin and Cork City, who produced beer for English or continental markets.24

East Leister was perhaps Ireland’s most prosperous agricultural region before the Great

Hunger. Land values exceeded a pound an acre in areas with easy access to port cities. In other, less accessible areas, an acre cost six to nine shillings. Over half of the region’s farms ranged from six to 30 acres. Most East Leister counties housed a reasonable 150 to 200 persons per square mile.25

There were several economic and social similarities between the Midlands and East

Leister. Mountains and bogs laid waste to relatively little land. Population pressure was hardly

Malthusian. A commercial agriculture dependent on inter-county and international trade predominated in both regions, although East Leister was somewhat more affluent.

Consequently, English-speaking was nearly universal among this market-oriented population, except in parts of Waterford, Tipperary, and Kilkenny. Inter-county migration was high in both areas as cottiers and non-inheriting sons of snug and middling farmers left their home counties in search of better opportunities. Delayed marriage among snug and middling farmer families was a near-universal cultural trait.

Yet, significant differences did exist. Pasturage dominated the Midlands while tillage was most common in East Leinster. With its large farms, the Midlands was more socially

24 Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 191-200; T.J. Hughes, “Society and settlement,” 88-9; ibid., “East Leinster,” 230-1; E.R.R. Green, “Agriculture,” 98; R. Lloyd Praeger, Irish Landscape (Cork, 1961), 37; Patrick Lynch and John Vaizey, Guinness’ Brewery, 40, 49; E.B. McGuire, A History of Distilling, 247, 382-87, 418; James Donnelly, The Land and the People, 35; McGrath, I, 209, 227, 253, II, 13; Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 29. 25 T.J. Hughes, “Society and Settlement,” 81-82; Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 183-98; Patrick Lynch and John Vaizey, Guinness’ Brewery, 16, 18, 25-26; Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 13, 454- 55.

33 stratified than East Leister, where moderate landholdings were more common due to the more labor-intensive nature of the still-dominant grain farming.26

East Leinster was unlike any other region of Ireland in another way—its urban presence.

Although only nine Irish towns housed 15,000 inhabitants in 1841, eighteen could boast of

10,000. Eight were located in East Leister—Drogheda, Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, Waterford,

Kilkenny, Dundalk, and Carlow. Besides Dublin and Belfast, Irish towns were not unlike colonial American cities. Moreover, between 1841 and 1851, the Irish urban population grew by only 7%—well below the urban growth rates of England, France, or the United Staets. Lacking any significant industrial base, Irish ports—river or sea—merely redistributed surplus agricultural goods. Major production facilities were limited to brewing, curing, distilling, and milling—all pre-industrial functions, to be sure. Towns of such limited function could barely absorb those rural migrants displaced by the slow transition from tillage to pasturage. Surely

Ireland’s cities would be hopelessly unprepared for the unfathomable displacements of 1847–

1854. In fact, life for displaced farmers was hardly rosy. The comments of travelers such as

Inglis regarding the pitiful, squalid condition of Ireland’s urban poor were positively Dickensian.

Their image of urban laborers differed little from their description of Ireland‘s rural populace.27

The Atlantic counties of Ireland will be treated here as “the West of Ireland” or “the

West.” Why limit Oliver Cromwell’s infamous damnation of all unrepentant Catholics to “Hell or Connaught”? Was not the harsh geography and Gaeltacht culture of Munster’s Clare, Cork, and Kerry and of Ulster’s Donegal comparable?

26 See L.M. Cullen, Six Generations, 32; L.M. Cullen, Economic History of Ireland, 117-18; Geraoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 130-2; T.J. Hughes, “Society and Settlement,” 94; K.H. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 54-5. 27 E. R. R. Green, “Industrial Decline,” 92-93, 99; Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 27-28, 33; L.M. Cullen, Economic History of Ireland, 120; George O’Brien, The Economic History of Ireland, 303, 311, 321; Henry David Inglis, Journey Throughout Ireland, 35, 51-52, 104-05.

Potato subsistence inevitably led to subdivided holdings. Early marriage, mountainous peninsulas, rainy bogs, Malthusian densities, and incomprehensible poverty characterized the

West. Most of Donegal, Galway, Roscommon, Leitrim, and Cork should be considered the

West, as should all of Kerry, Clare, May, and Sligo. Sixty-four percent of Donegal was wasteland, according to the 1841 census. Kerry just missed earning the dubious distinction of

“most wasteland” by three percent. Mayo held 59 percent wasteland; and Galway residents could only use 55 percent of its farmland.

It should come as no surprise that the impoverished inhabitants of the West turned to the potato for nourishment. The potato was prolific. It thrived in poor soil, lasted well, survived inconsistent precipitation, and required virtually no skill or tools. One English agricultural expert concluded that a family of six needed little more than an acre and a half of marginal land to survive on potatoes alone. At least six acres of wheat would be required by the same family.

Simple to prepare, the potato was also rich in essential vitamins and minerals.28

Among the drawbacks of potato cultivation was its tendency to encourage frequent subdivision, early marriage, and unchecked population growth. One-third of the farms in

Waterford and two-fifths of those in Clare fell into the census-takers “one to five acres” category. Throughout Connaught province, the situation was even more bleak. Two-thirds of the farmers there rented five acres or less. Rural population densities ranged from the improbable (337 ppm2 in Clare, 398 in Leitrim), to the inconceivable (472 ppm2 in Donegal, 475 ppm2 in Mayo). Munster and Connaught were barely touched by the forces of modernization.

28 Thomas Freeman, Ireland: A General and Regional Geography, 329-89; ibid., Pre-Famine Ireland, 76- 77, 270-273; K.H. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 121-22, 140-41, 156-62, 242-44; ibid., “The Potato in Ireland,” 391; ibid., “Colonization of Waste Land,” 47-54; E.R.R. Green, “Agriculture,” 110; Estyn Evans, Personality of Ireland, 34; Redcliffe Salaman, Influence of the Potato, 9-12, Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 29.

Communication was poorly developed. Only Limerick and Cork exported significant amounts of agricultural products, even though 75–80% of the population was directly engaged in agriculture.29

Among the better off snug and middling farmers, marriage was frequently delayed as sons waited for fathers to relinquish control of the family lands. Since only one son inherited the entire farm, other siblings would be forced to further delay and perhaps even forgo marriage.

Naturally, delayed marriages suppressed population growth. For laborers, cottiers, and other smallholders, potato land could be “created” by draining wasteland or by renting a small plot from family or neighbors. With little hope of material advancement and no status to protect, marriage and family offered an escape from the brutal realities of rural life. One Galway cottier summed up this viewpoint to a parliamentary committee, “If I had a blanket to cover her I would marry the woman I liked and if I could get potatoes enough to put into my children’s mouths, I would be as happy and content as any man.”30

Consolidation of holdings had begun by mid-century in eastern Munster province, but lagged behind in Connaught. Hence, Munster was home to more landless laborers engaged in conacre and more strong farmers holding fifteen to thirty acres than was Connaught. Connaught was more homogeneous and more egalitarian. Two-thirds of all farms were of one to five acres and most landlords were absentees. Agrarian violence was also less common here because 1) consolidation was not yet underway and 2) there were few snug farmer landlords available for intimidation. Western secret societies were most active in Clare and Limerick.

29 Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 13, 454-55. 30 Quoted in Kenneth. Connell, The Population of Ireland, 42, 56, 80 (quotation); Thomas Freeman, Pre- Famine Ireland, 218, 221-248; Kenneth Connell, “Land and Population in Ireland.”

However, let us not allow subtle distinctions to obscure the unifying reality of life in the

West—grinding poverty, widespread illiteracy, and dizzying overpopulation. Cabins with mud walls, dust floors, and thatched roofs predominated. In 1861, half of the inhabitants of Clare,

Cork, Galway, and Limerick lived in such structures, as did two of every three persons from

Mayo and Kerry. Lacking trains, canals, and even the pre-industrial market towns of East

Leinster, production and sale of surplus from products was compromised. Only Galway, Sligo, and Tralee boasted more than 10,000 inhabitants.31

Several meager sources of outside income were developed to supplement the potato- based subsistence economy. In Donegal, Leitrim, and Sligo, some grew, spun, and wove flax into linen for transport to Ulster. Of the 12,000 females living on Trinity College’s Kerry estates in 1845, four out of every ten reported “spinning” as an occupation. Others throughout the West planted oats—to sell rather than eat. Illegal poteen whiskey was also produced and sold. Yet the single largest source of “outside income” for the poor of the Irish West was earned outside of

Ireland. Thousands of laborers migrated to England or Scotland in search of seasonal agricultural work. This short-term migration was most common among the poor in Donegal,

Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, and Leitrim. Lees reports that over half of London’s seasonal Irish migrants hailed from Connaught in 1841 and that Mayo contributed immigrants from every 6.6 families while Roscommon sent 1 for every 8.3. Small holders and cottiers from Kerry,

Limerick, and Cork were more likely to travel to the southern Midlands in search of harvest work. Those who lived along the Atlantic coast were more likely to assist commercial fishermen

31 Census of Ireland for the Year, 1861, General Report, Pt. V, LXI, H.C. 1863, 21. Daniel Corkery, The Hidden Ireland, 36; L.M. Cullen, Economic History of Ireland, 117; Six Generations, 17, Life in Ireland, 125; A. R. Orme, Ireland, 151-53; Geraoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine, 130-2; Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 28 and Ireland, General and Regional Geography, 234-7; Thomas Freeman, “The Irish Country Town,” 5-14; Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 454-5.

37 or kelp collectors. Finally, numerous families throughout the West kept pigs and chickens so that they could sell pork and eggs.32

The same craggy mountains and swampy moors that limited economic opportunities for residents of the west isolated them from the modern market economy. By 1851, less than 25 percent of Irish citizens spoke Irish; yet over half of those in the backwards pre-industrial west used the ancient tongue. Nor did language alone separate westerners from the more modern,

Anglicized regions of the Emerald Isle. Despite all the harvest-time movement, migration was seasonal, not permanent. At least 97 percent of the 1841 population of Clare, Cork, Donegal,

Galway, Kerry, and Mayo still lived in the country of their birth. Parochial views and pre-

Christian folk traditions still abounded. Banshees, ghosts, and fairies inhabited the woods and unfamiliar natural phenomena were seen as foreshadowing of doom or good fortune. Only by incorporating superstitions and season-turning rituals could Catholic priests gain the support of the populace for the Roman rite. Even so, priests were often assigned magical powers more commonly associated with shamans than with bishops.33

Perhaps two-thirds of the adults in the west of Ireland were illiterate—or rather preliterate. A rich oral tradition was kept alive by the “shanachie” or Gaelic storyteller. Literacy was only useful in dealing with the “Saxon” or with the commercialized, Anglicized Irishmen of the north and east. For most of the Gaeltacht, reading and writing were not only superfluous, but perhaps even destructive in that it undermined the traditions and culture of the Irish peasantry.

32 Kenneth Connell, Irish Peasant Society, 3-5, 30-42; Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 252; Barbara Kerr, “Irish Seasonal Migration,” 371-4; J.H. Johnson, “Harvest Migration,” 98, 100-10; Report of the Census Commissioners, 1841, 27; Report from the Select Committee on Inquiry into Drunkenness, VIII, H.C., 1834, 73, 231; Lynn Lees, Exiles of Erin, 32, 36, 44-54. 33 Census of Ireland, 1861, 36; Constantia Maxwell, Country and Town, 163-64; Estyn Evans, Irish Folk Ways, 267-68; James Mooney, “The Holiday Customs if Ireland,” 377-427; W. G. Wood-Martin, Traces of the Elder Faiths, II, 1-25, 262-87; Sean O Suilleabhain, Irish Folk Custom, 61-75, 81-90; Ruth Edwards, An Atlas of Irish History, 230.

Three-quarters of Connaught and three-fifths of Donegal, Clare, Cork, and adult Kerry residents were deemed “illiterate” by the 1841 census. Only in the late nineteenth century did the Gaelic tradition decline in the West. The Roman Catholic Church’s Devotional Revolution, the emigration or death of tens of thousands of Irish speakers, and the extension of both the market economy and the Irish school system to all corners of the island ensured this demise.34 By the mid-eighteenth century, single family farms and enclosed pastures were the norm from the eastern shores through the central plain. Yet the older clachan, a kin-based cluster pattern of land-holding remained common in the West. Well after the Famine, the clachan system held out against “improving” landlords on marginal land in a “crescentic belt of receding native culture” which stretched from Donegal in the north through the Atlantic seacoast counties in the West to parts of Cork in the South. Jay Dolan has referred to the pre-Famine Irish as “a rather unchurched lot.” Certainly, church attendance and support before the Devotional Revolution fell well below turn-of-the-century levels. Moreover, if one were to weight an 1841 map of Ireland according to weekly Mass attendance, it would tip so far towards English-speaking Wexford

(72%) and away from the Irish-speaking west (20%) that it might sink into the Atlantic. Scarce funds and general disinterest precluded the construction of little more than “small; mud-walled thatched chapels” in most West Ireland parishes. Many services were performed by traveling priests with a “mass rock.” Peasant folk traditions were also a major impediment to church attendance in the West.35

34 Sean O Suilleabhain, Storytelling, 10-18, 25-34, 48; Seamus O Duillearga, “The Gaelic Story Teller,” 180-81, 191-202, 206-08; ibid., “Once Upon a Time,” 48-54. Report of the Commissioners, 1841; R.H. Buchanan, “Rural Settlement in Ireland,” 152-53; Lynn Lees, Exiles of Erin, 28; Desmond McCourt, “The Dynamic Quality of Irish Rural Settlement,” 131, 137-139. 35 David Miller, “Irish Catholicism and the Great Famine,” 84-91; Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles” (1976), 103-104; Constantia Maxwell, Country and Town, 341-3; “Sketches of the Irish Peasantry,” 350-

East Ulster must have seemed like another world to the nineteenth-century Irish. It was at once the most densely populated and the most prosperous region in the land. In descending order, its counties displayed the following densities (ppm2): Armagh, 551; Down, 403; Derry,

397; and Antrim, 326. Landholdings were small—typically six to 30 acres. Three-fifths in

Antrim farms and approximately one-half in Armagh, Derry, and Downs fit into that census category in 1841. Ulster’s prosperity was generally attributed to its Protestant majority. Its housing stock was superior to other regions of Ireland. Stone cottages with slate roofs housed a large plurality in county Down, and most rural residents rotated their crops, drilled for potatoes, and drained bogland.36

In fact, this prosperity was due to fertile soil, navigable waterways, useful canals, and major seaports which encouraged the development of commercial agriculture. The local inhabitants’ Protestant faith may well have contributed to the area’s material success by allowing commercial alliances with English bankers and merchants which would not have been available to Catholic farmers and exporters. The principal tillage crops were flax, corn, barley, and oats.

Dairy products included eggs and butter. Local town markets dotted the coastline, aiding transfers of farm surpluses to the ports of Belfast, Coleraine, Derry, and Neway.

However, the extraordinary number of Ulsterites involved in cottage industry was at the root of Ulster’s prosperity. The scale and sophistication of Ulster’s part-time textile producers dwarfed the “small potatoes” operations of a few Donegal farmers. It seemed as if every

57; Lady Gregory, Visions and Beliefs, 55-56, 66, 137, 145, 295-301. Jay Dolan, The Immigrant Church, 52-56; personal correspondence, March 1989. 36 Thomas Freeman Pre-Famine Ireland, 277, 291; Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 13, 454-5. T.W. Moody and J. C. Beckett, eds., Ulster Since 1800: A Political and Economic Survey (London, 1954), 40. T. Campbell, Letters on the Condition, 564-65; S. C. Hall, Ireland, II, 453; Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 274, 287. R.B. McDowell, “From Union to the Famine,” 29; Gilbert Camblin, “The Country Towns,” in Moody and Beckett, Ulster Since 1800, 83-4; J.H. Johnson, “Agriculture in County Derry,” 89.

40 farmer’s wife and daughter was involved as a spinner, weaver, or bleacher of cotton, wool, or linen. Most rent was paid through the sale of linen, a cloth neither subject to intense competition from England nor dependent on foreign import of raw materials.

Linen was produced by a combination of hand and power driven methods, all concentrated around East Ulster’s major market towns—Armagh, Belfast, Dungannon, Lisburn, and Lurgan. Growing and harvesting was, of course, performed by family farmers. “Scutching” or separating the fibers required a mill. Wives and daughters spun thread before farmers themselves wove cloth—all by hand. The cloth was next sold to a middleman or brought to a major town for bleaching. Bleaching and softening were capital intensive, large scale operations owned by well-to-do capitalists. Fast-flowing water was required to run such an operation until the use of steam power became widespread.37

The introduction of wet-spinning in 1825 signaled the beginning of the end for Belfast’s cottage linen industry. Steam-powered mills and factory production soon replaced cottage-based spinning, displacing thousands of workers in little over a decade. No longer encumbered by a need for fast flowing water, factories opened in Antrim, Armagh, and Down, which offered excellent transportation and a large pool of potential factory employees. Eighty percent of Irish linen employees came from those three counties. Even more telling, two-thirds lived in

Antrim—most in Belfast. Weaving remained a handicraft until the mid-1850’s, but the die was

37 Estyn Evans, Personality of Ireland, 27; Thomas Freeman Pre-Famine Ireland, 280- 293; J.H. Johnson, “Agriculture in County Derry,” 96-100; J.H. Johnson, “Rural Population Changes,” 119-20; L.M. Cullen Economic History of Ireland, 112-3 and Six Generations, 30-2. See Conrad Gill, The Rise of the Irish Linen Industry (Oxford, 1925), 264-7, 273, 315; Estyn Evans, Irish Folkways, 157-9; William J. Smyth, “Locational Patterns and Trends within the Pre-Famine Linen Industry,” Irish Geography, 8 (1975), 99- 108; E.R.R. Green, The Lagan Valley, 17, 51, 60, 93, 112-23; E.R.R. Green, “The Beginnings of Industrial Revolution,” 28-30; A.R. Orme, Ireland, 145-46; L.M. Cullen Six Generations, 53-57.

41 cast. East Ulster’s linen industry, like her overall economy, would be increasingly town-based and industrial by the 1870’s.38

The development of Belfast into a mid-nineteenth century industrial city had far-reaching implications for Ulster—and for Ireland. If the three most important things in real estate are

“location, location, and location,” then Belfast was triply blessed. It was located 1) at the mouth of the Lagan River, 2) near coal fields and river power, and 3) close to English markets. At mid- century, it boasted 28 flax spinning mills which employed at least 600 workers. Over half of

Belfast’s workers labored in textile-related and/or manufacturing occupations. Consequently,

Belfast became the only Irish city capable of absorbing a significant influx of displaced peasants and farmers/weavers. Like industrializing cities such as Manchester, New York, and Brooklyn,

Belfast thrived as industrialization provided new opportunities to farm laborers. Belfast’s share of rural migrants grew quickly. In 1841, 23 percent of Belfast’s population had been born in other (rural) Irish counties; by 1851, the comparable number was 43 percent. Although still a distant second to Dublin in terms of population, no other Irish city or town was as capable of absorbing displaced rural migrants as Belfast. Most unskilled surplus laborers would have to

“move country” rather than “move county” in order to find steady work.

Like East Ulster, the West Ulster region was majority Protestant and English-speaking.

Its predominant land-holding pattern was small family farms. Unlike its modernizing, prosperous neighbor across the Lough Neagh Basin, West Ulster offered fewer major market towns, significantly more bog and wasteland, smaller redivided holdings, and higher population densities (over 500 ppm2 in south Armagh, and approximately ppm2 in Tyrone, Monaghan, and

Cavan.) Even less market-oriented than Tyrone and Derry counties, the Cavan-Fermanagh-

38 George O’Brien, The Economic History of Ireland, 325-26; Smyth, 108; Gill, 316-20; David Bleakey, “Industrial Conditions,” 123.

Monaghan “border” counties seemed more closely aligned with the northern Midlands. Here farming varied, mixing sheep and cattle herding, cash crop tillage (flax and oats), and potato- based subsistence. Most farms were one to five acres in size—over half in Monaghan, and two- fifths of Cavan, Fermanagh, and Tyrone.

North of this border region, West Ulster agriculture varied somewhat. Oats and potatoes were the most common cash and subsistence crops. Flax was grown wherever the cottage linen industry had not been driven out by East Ulster industrialization. Ironically, the very lack of railroad and canal facilities which retarded West Ulster’s development insulated her domestic spinners and weavers from competition from Belfast’s emerging textile factories.39

West Ulster’s standard of living—measured by the level of illiteracy and the proportion of one-room mud cabins, and the average farm size—fell between the general prosperity of East

Ulster and the poverty of the West. Significantly, the socioeconomic class structure of West

Ulster was closely aligned with sectarian distinctions. Among its fertile valleys, Presbyterian and Anglican snug and middling farmers dominated the higher ranks of society. Roman Catholic tenants filled in the broad base of the social pyramid as smallholders, cottiers, and conacre laborers. In such areas, it was almost impossible to separate the sectarian and agrarian motives

39 A.R. Orme, Ireland, 132; L.M. Cullen, Six Generations, 28; Green, 104-5; Kerby Miller, “Emigrants and Exiles” (1976), 59; Estyn Evans, Irish Folk Ways, 254-62; Estyn Evans, The Personality of Ireland, 27-30; John O’Donovan, Economic History of Livestock, 161-62, 166; Thomas Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland, 27, 173, 211, 218, 224-231, 250-2, 283, 294-6, 302-6; Thomas Freeman, Ireland: A General and Regional Geography, 306, 391-92, 425, 434; Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 13, 454-5. George O’Brien, The Economic History of Ireland, 161-62; J.H. Johnson, “Agriculture in County Derry,” 103; J.H. Johnson, “Harvest Migration from Nineteenth-Century Ireland,” 102; T.J. Hughes, “Society and Settlement,” 95; Gill, 274-5, 325; Estyn Evans, Personality of Ireland, 27; S.H. Cousens, “The Regional Variation,” 25-7; Report of the Commissioners, 1841, 13, 29, 454-5.

43 behind the outbreaks of collective violence which so frequently rocked Armagh, Cavan,

Monaghan, and Fermanagh.40

* * *

Chapter One Summary

Nineteenth century Ireland was not a place to live; it was a place to leave—as so many

Irish did before, during, and after the Great Famine. Outdated farming methods, overpopulation, subdivided holdings, inflated rents, religious persecution, and the virtual absence of any in-country industry all contributed to an imbalanced and fragile agricultural economy.

Five disturbing trends rendered much of Ireland’s labor force superfluous: 1) Irish deindustrialization; 2) a contraction and mechanization of the Ulster textile industry; 3) the commercialization of Irish agriculture; 4) a shift from tillage to pasturage and a simultaneous mechanization of Irish agriculture; 5) a change in marriage and inheritance patterns. Thus, it is inaccurate to blame all of Ireland’s troubles on the fungus which destroyed most of the staple potato crop or on the overpopulation which led so many to rely almost exclusively on tuber cultivation in the first place.

Class and social relations cannot be separated from the ethnic and religious strife that dominated Ireland’s history from the twelfth through the nineteenth centuries. Virtually all landlords, most middlemen, and a large majority of bankers, merchants, professionals and officials were Anglicans—just over 10 percent of the Irish populace. Their political, economic, and social power extended well beyond numbers. Descendants of the Scots comprised the other

40 T.J. Hughes, “Land Holding and Settlement,” esp. 154, 169, 173; John Arwel Edwards, “The Landless in Mid-Nineteenth Century County Louth,” esp. 103-04; James Donnelly, Landlord and Tenant, 29.

44 influential Protestant sect, the Presbyterians (8% of the population in 1834). Presbyterian Scots dominated the “middling” ranks—merchants, artisans, and farmer/weavers. This group tended to huddle together in Ulster, where the Protestant/Catholic tension was most extreme. Calvinist and evangelical, Ulster Presbyterians saw the Catholics as sinners and rivals. The competition and conflict was essentially tribal in nature. Eighty percent of Ireland’s citizens were nominally

Roman Catholic. Regional levels ranged from 60 percent in Ulster to over 95 percent in

Connaught and Munster. Only Down and Antrim counties held Protestant majorities.

Smallholders, laborers, and cottiers were predominantly Catholics, as were local shopkeepers and artisans. Jay Dolan has referred to the pre-Famine Irish as “a rather unchurched lot.”

Certainly, church attendance and support before the Devotional Revolution fell well below turn- of-the-century levels.

Irish society and economy varied by locale and geography. Ireland’s four official political provinces (Connacht, Leinster, Munster, and Ulster) are not helpful as discrete social, economic, or geographic regions. Employing Ireland’s 32 counties as distinctive regions seems unwieldy. More functionally oriented regions (West Ulster, East Ulster, West Ireland, East

Leinster, and the Midlands) can better describe the differing agricultural, social, demographic, and religious characteristics of different parts of Ireland. Regional, religious, chronological, and gender differences between and among various Irish help account for their differing experiences both before and after emigration.

Chapter 2 From There to Here: Irish Emigration Patterns, 1820–1900

In 2011, the Irish Census Bureau reported an increase in the nation’s population for the third consecutive enumeration. An increase for three successive decades was certainly out of character, perhaps even cause for celebration. From the Act of Union to the First World War, approximately eight million souls left the Emerald Isle for good. The size of this exodus matched the total population at its 1841 apex. Remarkably, Ireland became, from 1841 to 1901, the only nation in recorded history to lose population every decade for more than half a century.1

Chapter One examined the “push” behind this large-scale emigration—the forces and factors that encouraged, or even compelled, millions of men, women, and children to “move country.” This chapter will survey the changing patterns of emigration for the nineteenth century

Irishmen. Certainly, such movement required both opportunities abroad (the “pull”) and a chronic lack of opportunity at home (the “push”). What remains to be seen is how such an enormous operation was publicized, financed, and organized. First, a social, economic, and regional profile of the emigrants will be developed. This will be followed by an analysis of factors encouraging or discouraging emigration among different socioeconomic strata, in different regions, and at different times.

Understanding the Irish or Irish-American character requires an understanding of the role emigration played in the nineteenth century Irish lifecycle. Moreover, developing such an understanding requires looking on both sides of the Atlantic. Even if Sir William Wilde’s 1864 characterization of the residual Irish population was unkind and inaccurate (“the poor, the weak,

1 Census of Ireland 2011, iii-x.

46 the old, the sick, the blind, the dumb, the imbecile and insane”),2 those unwilling or unable to emigrate were hardly typical of the Irish populace as a whole. This chapter will offer a synthesis of the rich recent literature devoted to geography, society, economy, and demography of Ireland and the Irish diaspora.

Population displacement was hardly a recent phenomenon as Ireland moved into the nineteenth century. Plantations, invasions, and famines had caused dislocation and hardship for

Irish peasants since the days of Henry II. Seasonal migrations to England by superfluous agricultural laborers had been quite common for several decades before the Act of Union was declared.3 Every failed rebellion, from the Battle of the Boyne (1652) to the 1798 Rising had brought dashed hopes and exiled leaders.

Well before the American Revolution, significant numbers of Irish Protestants had crossed the Atlantic, settling in British-American from Charleston to York (Toronto). This migration was both intermittent and limited to a small region of Eire. However, by 1800, the

Ulster Presbyterians were joined in increasing numbers by Catholics from the southern and eastern provinces. Between the Treaty of Ghent (1815) and the 1848 Rebellions, over a million

Irish citizens “moved country” and Ireland’s most significant export became its people.

Emigration peaked during the famine years, 1846–1855, when almost three million persons left their homeland for destinations abroad. Four million more “moved country” between 1856 and

1914, with the depopulation trend slowing only slightly. Emigration was subject to annual variation, but the push to leave Ireland and the pull to reach North American or Australia were too strong to permit anything more than temporary postponements. Civil war and economic downturns in the United States merely redirected emigrants to other destinations for a time.

2 Wilde, 1864, 40. 3 Arthur Redford, Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (rev. ed., Manchester, 1964), 29-33.

World war discouraged relatively few from leaving. Coming of age in Ireland meant preparing to leave Ireland.

Few English-speaking nations were without significant recent Irish arrivals during the nineteenth century. Smaller communities even appeared in Latin America. By mid-century, several national governments collected enough data about their inhabitants to allow historians to estimate the final destination of most Irish emigrants. In 1890, more than a quarter of all Irish emigrants were resident in the United States, typically in large Eastern or Midwestern cities.

Counting first and second generation Irish-Americans together, the American share exceeds two- thirds. As the century neared its close, only sixty percent of those born in Ireland after the

Napoleonic Wars still resided there. Three million lived overseas. Remarkably, the 1890 figure was not very different from the post-famine situation. In 1855, approximately half of those born in Ireland had settled permanently abroad. At various points, the British colonies of Canada and

Australia-New Zealand housed up to 10 percent of Irish expatriates.4

4 Donald H. Akenson, Small Differences: Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, 1815-1922, an International Perspective (Kingston and Montreal, 1988); The Irish in Ontario: a Study in Rural History (Kingston and Montreal, 1984). Elliot 1983. C. J. Houston and W. J. Smyth, “The Irish Abroad: Better Questions through a Better Source, the Canadian Census,” Irish Geography, XIII (1980), 1-19. R. B. Madgwick, Immigration into Eastern Australia 1788-1851 (London, 1937). Patrick O’Farrell, Letters from Irish Australia 1825-1929 (Sydney and Belfast, 1984); The Irish in Australia (Sydney, 1986). Lynn H. Lees and John Modell, “The Irish Countryman Urbanized,” Journal of Urban History, III, 4 (1977), 391-408. R. Lawton, “Irish Migration to England and Wales in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Irish Geography, IV (1959), 35-54. M.A.G. Ó Tuathaigh, “The Irish in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Problems of Integration,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, XXXI (1981), 149-73. Brenda Collins, “Proto-industrialization and Pre-Famine Emigration,” Social History, VII, 2 (May 1982), 127-46. David Fitzpatrick, “Irish Emigration in the Later Nineteenth Century,” Irish Historical Studies, XXII 86 (1980), 126-43. Marcus Lee Hansen, The Atlantic Migration 1607-1860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1940). Robert E. Kennedy, The Irish: Emigration, Marriage, and Fertility (Berkeley, 1973). Kerby A. Miller, Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America (New York and Oxford, 1985). Arnold Schrier, Ireland and the American Emigration 1850-1900 (Minneapolis, 1958). Philip Taylor, The Distant Magnet: European Emigration to the United States (London, 1971).

Figure 2-1 Decade by Decade Percentage of Four Most Common Irish Migrant Destinations, 1851–1911

Australia 30 United States Canada 20 Britain "Moved County" 10

Sources: Census of the Irish Free State, 1926; U.S. Census Bureau, Reports, 1890–1910; Cowan 1961; Houston & Smyth 1980; D. Fitzpatrick 1980; Lees 1979; Madgwick 1937; Vaughn & A. J. Fitzpatrick 1978.

Apparently, Irish emigrants paid little heed to Ravenstein’s Law linking proximity of destination with likelihood of emigration.5 The Irish were more likely to emigrate to England than to “move county” within Ireland, and likelier still to cross the Atlantic to the United States, especially after Canadian fares were no longer a bargain. The Irish Census shows nearly

500,000 Irish residents living outside the county of their birth between 1841 and 1911. Two- thirds seem to have merely crossed into an adjacent county. Dublin and Belfast were the only spots that experienced significant immigration. Few seem to have left the countryside for

5 E. G. Ravenstein, “The Laws of Migration,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, XLVIII, 2 (1885), 167-227; Tobler 1995, 328-29, 343.

49 medium to large towns. In fact, Irish internal migration and rural-urban drift was quite low by nineteenth-century standards. This was largely due to Ireland’s minimal, shrinking industrial capacity. A chronic inability to compete with less expensive, higher quality, British and

American manufactures limited job creation and thus undermined urban growth and development.6

Irish return migration was also relatively unusual. Although Donegal and Connaught did supply England with seasonal agricultural workers throughout the nineteenth century, those who settled for at least a year rarely repatriated. Nor did transatlantic emigrants return in numbers similar to settlers from Germany or England, let alone akin to the famed Italian “birds-of- passage”. Gould offers the following reverse emigration statistics: English–12 %, German–22%,

Italian–58%, Irish–6%. Unlike most other nineteenth-century emigrants, the Irish tended to go far and stay put.7

6 R. D. Collinson Black, Economic Thought and the Irish Question 1817-1870 (Cambridge, 1960). Brinley Thomas, Migration and Economic Growth (rev. ed., Cambridge, 1973). Census of Ireland, 1911 7 J. D. Gould, “European Inter-continental Emigration 1815-1914,” Journal of European Economic History, VIII, 3 (1979), 593-679, 632.

Table 2-1 Sex Ratio of Irish Emigrants, by Provinces 1851–1910

1851–1880 Males Females Ratio Leinster 257968 236203 1.09:1 Ulster 441510 337038 1.31:1 Munster 476306 441034 1.07:1 Connaught 168926 167534 1.00:1 Total Ireland 1406476 1230711 1.14:1 1881–1910 Males Females Ratio Leinster 123880 107648 1.15:1 Ulster 215528 163118 1.10:1 Munster 267028 272871 0.98:1 Connaught 160729 204383 0.77:1 Total Ireland 768965 781091 0.98:1 1851–1910 Males Females Ratio Leinster 381848 343851 1.11:1 Ulster 657038 533156 1.23:1 Munster 743334 713905 1.04:1 Connaught 329655 371917 0.89:1 Total Ireland 2175641 2011802 1.08:1 Source: Kerby Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 582.

In several other respects, the Irish fail to conform to the nineteenth-century migration model. Most European emigrations were male-dominated. Irish women were at least as likely to leave. Separate studies by Erickson and Mokyr & O’Grada demonstrated that before the Famine, forty percent of Irish migrants to North America were female, but that afterwards, gender parity was more typical.8 Thus, gender rations were not distorted either at home or overseas. Nor was the relative gender parity due to immigration by family unit, a phenomenon quite uncommon among Irish migrants. Typically, European migrations offered a mix of individual and family

8 Joel Mokyr and Cormac Ó Gráda, “Emigration and Poverty in Pre-Famine Ireland,” Explorations in Economic History, XIX, 4 (1982), 360-84. Charlotte Erickson, “Emigration from the British Isles to the United States of America in 1831,” Population Studies, XXXV, 2 (1981), 175-98.

51 unit migration. Irish emigrants were more likely to be young individuals. The propensity of single Irish girls to emigrate alone was atypical. Family emigration was more common before the Famine. From 1820 to 1845, about half of the new Irishmen in New York and Boston arrived as part of a family unit. After 1900, only one-tenth of Irish immigrants were married. In fact, the proportion of children under 15 among Irish immigrants declined from more than 25 percent to less than 10 percent during that same period. For the most part, this pattern reflects the role of emigration in the life cycle of Irish youth. More than two-thirds of Irish arrivals at

North American ports were unmarried young adults aged 18 to 35.9

Table 2-2 Males and Females Aged 15-24 As a Proportion of Total Irish Emigration 1852–1921 Total Females Males 1852–1921 1852–54 23.6 21.4 45 1861–70 21.1 23.3 44.4 1871–80 23.3 23 46.3 1881–90 30 27.4 57.4 1891–1900 35.4 24.5 59.9 1901–10 32.5 26.7 59.2 1911–20 32.6 27.4 60 1921 41.8 20.2 62 Total 27 24.4 51.4

Source: Commission on Emigration and Other Population Problems, 320.

9 S. H. Cousens, “Emigration and Demographic Change in Ireland, 1851-1861,” Economic History Review, XIV, 2 (1961), 275-88; “Population Trends in Ireland at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century,” Irish Geography, V (1968), 387-401. Fitzpatrick, “Irish Emigration in the Later Nineteenth Century.” Cormac Ó Gráda, “Some Aspects of Nineteenth-Century Irish Emigration,” in L. M. Cullen and T. C. Smout (eds.), Comparative Aspects of Scottish and Irish Economic and Social History (Edinburgh, 1977), 65-73; Cormac Ó Gráda, “Across the Briny Ocean: Some Thoughts on Irish Emigration to America, 1800-1850,” in T. Devine and D. Dickson (eds.), Ireland and Scotland (Edinburgh, 1983). C. H. Oldham, “Incidence of Emigration on Town and Country Life in Ireland,” Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, XIII (1914), 207-18.

The year 1900 saw the largest proportion of emigrants aged 20 to 24, forty-four percent,

but more than one-third fit into that category each year from the Famine to the First World War.

The even gender balance and the narrow age group unique to Irish emigration is illustrated in

Figure 2-3 below. Apparently, emigration for most Irish came at a specific time in a young

man’s or woman’s life cycle. If one did not emigrate soon after reaching maturity, one rarely

emigrated at all. As we might expect, girls “settled down” in marriage or “moved country” a

year or two younger than did boys, but for both genders the likelihood of emigration declined

precipitously after age thirty. Forty-five year old emigrants of either gender were rare.10

Table 2-3 Age Distribution of Irish Emigrants 1852–1921

Males 0–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–54 55+ Unknown 1852–54* 22.5% 14.7% 28.1% 21.2% 12.2% 1.1% 0.1% 1861–70 13.7 8.4 33.7 20.1 9.0 9.8 0.9 4.2 1871–80 15.7 17.9 33.8 20.9 10.4 11.8 1.3 0.1 1881–90 13.7 15.1 38.3 15.5 6.4 9.5 1.3 0.1 1891–1900 8.5 11.0 41.6 23.4 6.2 7.9 1.4 0.0 1901–10 9.1 11.6 42.1 21.3 7.8 7.2 1.0 0.0 1911–20 9.2 12.7 41.7 28.1 7.5 0.8 0.0 1921 11.4 12.0 39.8 28.3 7.3 1.2 0.0 Total 13.7 11.7 35.5 27.0 9.9 1.1 1.1 Male Median Age: 22.48 Females 0–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–54 55+ Unknown 1852–54* 22.0% 18.8% 28.4% 16.8% 12.7% 1.3% 0.1% 1861–70 16.1 13.1 34.0 13.3 6.9 10.8 1.2 4.5 1871–80 15.7 17.9 33.8 13.7 7.5 10.0 1.4 0.1 1881–90 13.8 26.0 35.5 10.0 4.8 8.5 1.2 0.1 1891–1900 7.3 22.1 44.1 14.1 4.6 6.7 1.1 0.0 1901–10 8.8 25.2 39.5 14.0 5.1 6.2 1.2 0.0 1911–20 8.8 26.5 39.2 18.4 6.1 0.9 0.0 1921 7.2 25.9 42.6 16.6 5.9 1.8 0.0 Total 14.2 20.4 35.6 18.3 9.3 1.2 1.0 Female Median Age: 21.2 Source: Commission on Emigration and Other Population Problems, 320.

10 Vaughn & A.J. Fitzpatrick 1978.

The overrepresentation of the 20–24 age group among emigrants had roots on both sides of the

Atlantic. Because the labor of non-heirs was deemed superfluous in the Irish economy, marriage and economic prospects were consequently slim. Therefore, many Irish youths chose emigration to North America where prospects were brighter. In this sense, young Irish were “pushed” out at precisely the age most people must make such life-altering choices. On the “pull” side, the industrializing American economy sought young, strong and unskilled workers for its docks, railroads and factories. The experience of a forty-year-old is of little use among the “servants” and “laborers” who dominated the shipping lists and census rolls. Many emigrants left not only in search of their first non-farm employment but also their first paid employment. Before the

Famine few emigrants—male or female—listed occupations higher than “servant” or “laborer.”

In 1880, an increasing proportion of the second generation could boast skilled or low white- collar occupations in cities as diverse as Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Detroit, and San Francisco.

However, recent arrivals from Ireland were still best characterized as 75 percent non-skilled and

33–50 percent young adult. Such levels always exceeded those of German and English immigrants.11

Beyond their narrow age band and general lack of trade skill, the Irish were probably reasonably representative of the diverse regional populations from which they derived in terms of education. Ill-prepared for the unfamiliar urban environment, many Irish were more literate than contemporaries or historians have assumed. Those Irish who had access to the national school system were hardly the illiterate, innumerate Celtic apemen of Victorian caricature. On the other hand, those unable or unwilling to forgo the labor of their children or those who perceived (with some justification) the national schools as agents of Anglo-Saxon oppressors

11 Clark, 1973; Vinyard, 1976; Burchell, 1980.

54 were not only illiterate and innumerate, but less comfortable with spoken English than conventional wisdom would suggest.12 Westerners from Donegal or Connaught counties like

Galway were more likely to be primarily illiterate Irish-speakers than those from Munster,

Leinster, or East Ulster. Moreover, post-Famine Ireland was less overpopulated, better educated, and more Anglicized than ever before. The Devotional Revolution also produced a more pious, church-going populace. Emmet Larkin argues that during the third quarter of the nineteenth century Irish Catholicism experienced a “revival” that made “practicing Catholics of the Irish people.”13 Prior to the Great Famine, the church lacked the human and material resources to address the spiritual needs of its huge, but only nominally Catholic population. Impossibly large ratios of clergy to laity were complicated by lapses of clerical discipline in several dioceses. Lay compliance with sacramental obligations was widespread. Analysis of an 1834 religious census by Miller corroborates this picture by demonstrating that near-universal weekly mass attendance, which had become the norm in Ireland by the time Larkin wrote, was largely confined before the famine to the relatively affluent southeastern countryside and a few scattered towns.14 Larkin attributed the reversal of this situation largely to the island’s reduced population density and to the determined efforts of Paul Cullen, archbishop of Armagh (1850–1852) and later Dublin

(1852–1878). Thus the education (language, literacy, numeracy) of individual emigrants varied as a function of county of residence and date of emigration.

Instead of looking at the aggregate number of emigrants from a given county to assess impact on county of origin, a better approach may be to consider which counties lost the largest percentage of their respective populations during the period under study, 1851–1900. Although

12 Donald H. Akenson, The Irish Education Experiment: The National System of Education in the Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970), 380-383; Curtis, 1997. 13 Emmet Larkin, 1972. 14 Miller, 2000.

their dates do not precisely coincide, Vaughn and Fitzpatrick’s rather comprehensive statistics do

allow effective analysis for 1856–1910.15

Table 2-4 Ranking of Irish Counties Proportion of Emigration Percentage Proportion of Proportion of Families in Rates per Living in Persons in Persons in Third and 1,000 Towns Valuation of Commercial Industrial Fourth Class Inhabitants, (2,000+ Land per Occupations, Occupations, Housing, 1856–1910 people), 1891 person, 1891 1891 1891 1891 (from (from highest (from lowest (from lowest (from lowest (from lowest highest to County to lowest) to highest) to highest) to highest) to highest) lowest) Kerry 1 12 3 15 8 4 Cork 2 28 12 28 22 23 Clare 3 9 8 6 7 14 Longford 4 7 13 3 9 20 Leitrim 5 1 4 1 2 14 Galway 6 13 6 12 4 5 Limerick 7 25 21 25 23 11 Mayo 8 4 1 5 1 1 Teipperary 9 23 25 20 14 25 Cavan 10 2 7 4 6 13 Roscommon 11 6 11 2 3 8 Sligo (tie) 12 14 5 16 5 7 Waterford 12 26 18 30 25 27 Antrim 14 31 15 31 32 32 Tyrone 15 11 9 11 26 10 King’s 16 19 24 19 17 18 Queen’s (tie) 17 15 26 14 13 19 Londonderry 17 27 10 26 28 14 Monaghan 19 5 16 7 10 17 Carlow 20 18 27 17 18 30 Meath 21 9 32 13 19 3 Fermanagh (tie) 22 8 17 10 11 22 Donegal 22 2 2 9 21 2 Armagh 22 24 14 22 30 24 Down (tie) 25 29 19 27 31 31 Westmeath 25 17 31 8 12 21 Kilkenny 27 16 28 18 16 27 Wexford 28 22 22 23 20 26 Louth 29 30 20 29 27 9 Kildare 30 20 30 21 24 12 Wicklow 31 21 29 24 15 29 Source: Kirby Miller, Emigrants and Exiles 578; Vaughn and Fitzpatrick, 261–353.

15 Vaughn and Fitzpatrick (1978).

The counties of Munster and Connaught provinces clearly dominate these unhappy rankings. Not one of the eleven counties lost less than 12.7 persons per thousand per year over a period of more than half a century. Five lost over 14.5: Kerry (18.5), Cork (16.5) Clare (16.1),

Leitrim (14.7) and Galway (14.6). Elsewhere in Ireland, only Longford in western Leinster

(14.9) suffered anywhere close to the same depopulation. Due to its unique combination of high population and high percentage of emigration, County Cork contributed roughly as many aggregate emigrants (454,238) between 1856 and 1910 as Antrim (260,170) and Kerry

(195,085), the second- and third-leading emigrant counties in terms of sheer numbers. Antrim, which contained Belfast, enjoyed a much lower emigration rate but sported a significantly higher population. Kerry suffered the highest emigration rate but was neither as densely populated, nor as large in land area as Cork. Galway (189,936) and Mayo (173,057) in Connaught contributed large numbers due to high depopulation rates. Munster’s Tipperary (159,183) and Limerick

(144,900) follow the Cork-Kerry pattern on a lesser scale. In sum, the only outlier is Belfast- dominated Antrim. Six of the seven top contributors to the aggregate emigrant pool were among the nine counties which suffered the highest rates of population depletion. Moreover, three counties—Kerry, Galway and Mayo—were among the poorest, least market-oriented on the island. All ranked near the bottom of several modernizing measures as late as 1891: a) percentage living in towns, b) proportion in commercial occupations, c) proportion in industrial occupations, and d) proportion of families in 3rd–4th class housing. Cork fared better in this regard; Tipperary and Munster reported median ranks in some categories. Remember these were median scores for Ireland, a nation so ill-equipped to provide for its people that four million of them felt compelled to emigrate between 1841 and 1911.16

16 Vaughn & Fitzpatrick 3-16, 261-353

Table 2-5 Irish Emigration per Decade as a Percentage of the Population at the Prior Census: Provinces and Selected Counties, 1851–1910

1851–55 1856–60 1861–70 1871–80 1881–90 1891–1900 1901–10 Dublin 3.5 2.8 7.6 4.8 5.9 2.6 2.1 Kilkenny 15.7 5.5 10 8.4 13.3 5.6 4.3 Longford 12.9 4.6 18.8 17.8 19.4 9.7 10.8 Meath 12.4 4 14 11.3 12.9 5.8 5.1 Queen’s 13.7 3.9 10.6 11.8 18.7 6.9 4.4 Wexford 11.7 3.3 11.1 9.1 9.7 3.6 2.8 Total Leinster 10.2 3.7 10.2 8.3 10.8 4.2 3.7 Clare 17.6 5.8 19.1 12.7 23 14.6 12.1 Cork 13.9 8.6 22 14.3 16.7 17.7 11 Kerry 16.6 6.3 20.4 13.7 25.2 21.6 14.1 Limerick 16.9 6.6 21.5 11.5 18.4 9.2 7.6 Tipperary 18 6.2 19.1 12.3 16.5 11 7.7 Waterford 15.3 7.9 14.8 10.4 17.3 10.2 8.2 Total Munster 16 7.2 20.2 13 18.9 15.2 10.4 Antrim 6.9 14.8 14.5 14.3 10.3 3.5 6 Cavan 13.7 7 14.8 13.8 16.8 10.8 9.6 Donegal 10.4 4.5 5.1 13.7 14.3 7 7.2 Down 6.2 8.5 9.1 10.7 8.8 3.3 7.5 Tyrone 8.8 6.5 10 13.8 14.7 7.4 7 Total Ulster 8.7 8 10.6 13.1 12.5 5.4 6.7 Galway 11.7 4 14.3 9.5 21.2 17.2 13.8 Leitrim 9.1 5.6 13.5 13.2 23.4 12.6 12 Mayo 7.7 2.8 10.8 10 17.4 18.6 15 Roscommon 11.4 4.3 13.7 9.8 17.6 14.3 10.9 Sligo 6.9 3.3 9.6 10.2 21.2 14.5 10.9 Total Connaught 9.6 3.8 12.5 10.2 19.7 16.3 13.2 Total Ireland 11.4 6.3 14.7 11.5 14.9 9.2 7.8 (including “County Unspecified”) Source: Vaughn and Fitzpatrick, 3–16, 261–353. * Tables 2-14 and 2-16 include complete county by county and decade by decade, statistics of Irish emigration and percent change, respectively.

Unlike earlier emigrations, which tended to favor the more modern north, the 1841–51 migration was heaviest in the backward counties of Connaught province. The slightly more market-oriented counties of western Munster were also very heavily affected. Here, the less educated, less literate population was poorer and less likely to be truly fluent in English. This area remained the most likely source of source of immigrants through the turn-of-the-century,

although western coastline counties increasingly contributed emigrants as the century

progressed.

Table 2-6 Irish Emigration, 1851–1910, from Counties with Specified Levels of Irish-Speaking Population in 1891

Emigration % of Emigration % of Emigration % of % of Irish-Speakers in 1891 1856–80 Total* 1881–1890 Total* 1856–1910 Total* Over 40% Irish- Speaking in 1891 Galway (58.5%) 75161 4.2 114775 7.4 189936 5.7 Mayo (50.4%) 59758 3.3 113299 7.3 173057 5.2 Waterford (46.9%) 45526 2.5 36683 2.4 82209 2.5 Kerry (41.4%) 82306 4.6 112779 7.3 195085 5.8 Total 40+% 262751 14.7 377536 24.4 640287 19.2 Over 30% Clare (37.7%) 62809 3.5 64284 4.1 127093 3.8 Donegal (33.4%) 53551 3.0 55137 3.6 108688 3.3 Cork (31.0%) 249451 14.0 204787 13.2 454238 13.6 Total 30–40% 365811 20.5 324208 20.9 690019 20.7 Total 30+% 628562 35.2 701744 45.3 1330306 39.9 Over 20% Sligo (21.8%) 27908 1.6 46999 3.0 74907 2.2 Total 20+% 656470 36.8 748743 48.3 1405213 42.1 Over 10% Limerick (13.1%) 85910 4.8 58990 3.8 144900 4.3 Roscommon (10.4%) 42892 2.4 50673 3.3 93565 2.8 Total 10–20% 128802 7.2 109663 7.1 238465 7.1 Grand Total 10+% 785272 44.0 858406 55.4 1643678 49.3 Sources: Vaughn and Fitzpatrick, 261–353.; and B. Ó Cuív, Irish Dialects and Irish-Speaking Districts (Dublin, 1971), 77–93 * Total excludes “County Unspecified” emigrants. (See Table 2-16 for complete list of Irish-speakers by county.)

In the most general terms, depletion was greatest in the poorest, least modern, agricultural

areas, lightest in commercial and Anglicized areas of the north and east. This is not to suggest

that the poorest inhabitants of these areas left in the largest numbers, only that for the most part

the poorest counties were hardest hit on a percentage basis.

Table 2-7 Irish Emigration from Counties Containing Significant Area Designated as “Congested Districts” 1851–1910

Emigration % of Emigration % of Emigration % of Emigration County 1851–55 Total* 1856–80 Total* 1881–1910 Total* 1856–1910 Clare 37368 5.0 62809 3.5 64284 4.1 127093 Donegal 26437 3.6 53551 3 55137 3.6 108688 Galway 37609 5.1 75161 4.2 114775 7.4 189936 Kerry 39520 5.3 82306 4.6 112779 7.3 195085 Leitrim 10154 1.4 33032 1.8 39366 2.5 72398 Mayo 21204 2.9 59758 3.3 113299 7.3 173057 Sligo 8911 1.2 27908 1.6 46999 3.0 74907 Total 181203 24.5 394525 22.1 546639 35.3 941164 Source: Vaughn and Fitzpatrick, 261–353. * Total excludes “County Unspecified” emigrants.

Certainly, such simplified general observations cannot account for sub-regional and individual variations, but they do cast doubt on Cousens’ claim that any correlation between poverty, illiteracy, and emigration was a phenomenon unique to the closing decade of the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century, from 1841 on, saw significant emigration from all counties, especially from the West (Connaught and the western parts of the Midlands and the

Golden Vale) where poverty was highest and nonagricultural labor was least available.17

Any number of local variations might be investigated. Female emigration was more common from Connaught and the Midlands than from other regions. Heavy child emigration occurred in western counties like Kerry, Cork, and Galway in the decade after the Famine as cottiers and small holders fled with their families. Perhaps some were assisted by “modernizing” landlords who sought to depopulate their lands to convert tillage to more prosperous livestock operations. After 1880, however, family emigration was more likely in the more prosperous

17 S. H. Cousens, “The Regional Variations in Population Changes in Ireland, 1861-1881,” Economic History Review, XVII, 2 (1964), 301-21; “The Regional Variations in Emigration from Ireland between 1821 and 1841,” Transactions and Papers of the Institute of British Geographers, XXXVII (1965), 15- 30. Cormac Ó Gráda, “A Note on Nineteenth-Century Irish Emigration Statistics,” Population Studies, XXIX, 1 (1975), 143-49.

eastern counties. Perhaps “strong” to “middling” families were reacting to closing opportunities

and limited prospects. It may not be surprising that after 1900, emigrants from prosperous

Leinster and Ulster were more likely to list “farmer” or “artisan” as their occupations than were

those who left poorer areas like Connaught or Munster, but why, then did they leave at all?18

Table 2-8 Occupational Distribution (%) of Irish Emigrants 1851–55 & 1875–1910

1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 Professional 2 * * * * 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.3 1.9 Entrepreneurial 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 1.3 1.2 Skilled 11 8 7 9 11 13.3 7.6 9.5 7.6 11.7 6.2 13.4 18.1 Farmers 8 4 3 6 1 5.1 5.7 4.8 4.6 5.5 0.9 2.1 3.6 Common laborers 50.9 60.4 53.8 54.9 27.2 37.7 27.8 26.5 Farm laborers 79 87 90 84 87 0.3 0.2 — — — 4.6 4.0 9.2 Servants 27.1 24.4 29.6 30.5 52.4 48.9 48.9 37.7 Miscellaneous 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 1.3 1.2 Not Stated 0.2 0.002 0.1 0.02 — — — — Sources: P. Blessing, “West among Strangers” (Ph.D. diss., UCLA, 1976), 70; B. Thomas, Migration and Economic Growth (Cambridge, 1973 ed.), 384. * Less than 1.0%.

It is only by looking at the life histories of those emigrants who settled in various

American cities that the historian can determine the impact of the emigrants’ regional baggage.

Unfortunately, neither city directories nor census manuscripts list county or region of origin for

immigrants. Thus occupations, home ownership, and property accumulation cannot be directly

linked to regional origin or pre-emigration occupation. However, occasionally the records of

churches (Pittsburgh and Brooklyn), fraternal organizations (Butte) and cemeteries (Butte and

Brooklyn) offer some assistance. Moreover, because most Irish surnames are derived from clan

18 S. H. Cousens, “Regional Variations in Population Changes in Ireland, 1881-91,” Transactions and Papers of the Institute of British Geographers, XXXIII (1963), 145-62; “The Regional Variations in Emigration from Ireland between 1821 and 1841.” Fitzpatrick, “Irish Emigration in the Later Nineteenth Century.” Miller, Emigrants and Exiles. Cormac Ó Gráda, “Across the Briny Ocean.”

61 designations, a long list of geographically discrete, county or province specific names can be developed. Using the 1891 Special Report of the Registrar General, 125 Irish surnames were identified, as  75% county/province specific. Using Silinonte’s Tombstones of the Irish-Born at

Holy Cross Cemetery,19 the Marriage Register of St. Agnes RC Church20 and the Marriage

Register of St. Mark’s RC Church,21 we find that nearly 85% of those persons with a known county of origin and a “geographic” Irish surname hail from the predicted province. Clearly, we must eschew statistical certainty, but the utility of surname analysis in establishing general patterns of post-emigration success by natives of different regions of Ireland is evident.22

As noted in Chapter One, county or origin was indicative of all sorts of subtle—and not so subtle—differences. Most Irish Protestants lived in Ulster Province or Dublin City as did most skilled artisans. Potatoes were the dominant crop in Connaught; grains were the principal foodstuff in the Midlands. So, too, did county of origin influence emigrant destination. While permanent emigrants to Scotland were most often born in northeastern counties, those who settled in England typically came from coastline counties in the east and south. More and more seasonal laborers crossed over from less-developed western counties—Donegal, Galway, Mayo, and Roscommon. Yet, only those from Mayo and Roscommon seem to have decided to stay in large numbers according to the 1911 English Census. The Australian Irish tended to come from southwestern and north central counties, while New Zealand drew mostly “Scots-Irish”

Protestants from Ulster as were emigrants to Canada. The American Irish overwhelmed these other migrations in number and impact, drawing the lion’s share of emigrants from every Irish county in every decade of the nineteenth century. However, even here a tilt toward one region—

19 Joseph Silinonte (1992) Tombstones of the Irish-Born at Holy Cross Cemetery 20 Marriage Register of St. Agnes RC Church, 1902-1906. 21 Marriage Register of St. Mark’s RC Church , 1887-1893. 22 Emmons 1989; Rich 2000, 2005; Walsh 1983

Connaught and the West—was evident. Scholars have identified specific origin-destination links which merit comment because they indicate the extent to which “streams” or “chains” of emigration developed—fueled in part by the remittance system which funneled funds in the form of cash or prepaid tickets from future immigrants. . Accepting the premise that emigrants represented a fair representation of their county’s or province’s population, we may make the following general observations. Clare to Australia, Wexford to Argentina, Waterford to

Newfoundland, Kerry to New Zealand, Derry to Philadelphia, Cork to Butte and Galway to

Pittsburgh—how can we account for these sometimes unpredictable ties? Just how important are such specific links? Are they interesting, but not really important, representing several hundred to several thousand emigrants? Emmons points to the impact of some Corkmen’s hard rock mining experience back home in Ireland’s only significant mining region. And does the relatively greater exposure to the market economy that Philadelphia’s Derrymen brought with them account for at least some of their marginally better success relative to other Irish communities? How much was due to the Philadelphia environment and how much was due to

Irish regional variation? Certainly nothing in Galway prepared its cottier emigrants for

“Steeltown”. This multi-faceted question cannot be answered in a study of the Brooklyn Irish, but it is worth posing nonetheless. However, the broader patterns do tell us something about which

Irish sought out which destinations. A more detailed analysis of which Irish settled in the City of

Brooklyn between 1850 and 1900 will be undertaken later in this chapter.23

It is not unreasonable to suggest that differences in regional origin are correlated with differences in the social and economic composition of various emigrant streams. Very localized, often quirky migrant streams often occurred. Permanent emigrants to Britain and Scotland may

23 Emmons, 1989; Clark 1973; Walsh 1983.

63 be characterized as townsmen moving about in a larger urban labor market. As Ireland deindustrialized, Britain offered better opportunities. Those who settled in Australia and New

Zealand were more often semi-skilled farm laborers from more modern counties like Tipperary,

Clare and Limerick whose prospects for employment shrank as more and more acres were converted from tillage to less labor-intensive pasturage operations. Post-Famine Canadians were similar in the sense that their prospects had been limited by changes in the local economy— either the shift to pasturage or the collapse of textile operations in Ulster. However, emigrants to Britain’s Southern Hemisphere dominions hailed from more uniformly Catholic counties than did Canadian newcomers. Although the young, the unmarried, and the unskilled dominated all emigrant streams from the famine until the Great War, after 1880 or so, the Canadian and

Australian Irish were more likely to possess occupational skills than were the emigrants to the

United States. However, during the Famine era, the reverse was probably true because at that time Canadian fares were cheaper and assistance for passage to Australia was more easily obtained. For most of the latter half of the 19th century, the American emigration was dominated by the surplus population of a rural society which had previously subsisted on potato production.

The emigrants were not as homogeneous as previously portrayed, but the stereotype of the marginally literate, unskilled but strong-limbed Paddy was an exaggeration, not an invention. So was Bridget, the loyal, hard-working but unsophisticated servant girl.24

No reliable, systematic accounting of creed is available. However, the preponderance of evidence—statistical and anecdotal—indicates that from the Famine to the Great War, the vast majority were Roman Catholics. Yet pockets of Presbyterians abounded. Two-thirds of the

24 A. Gordon Darroch and Michael D. Ornstein, “Ethnicity and Occupational Structure in Canada in 1871,” Canadian Historical Review, LXI, 3 (1980), 305-33. Bruce C. Elliott, Irish Migrants in the Canadas: A New Approach. (Kingston and Montreal, 1988).

Irish-born in Ontario were professed Protestants throughout the 19th century. The Irish communities of Scotland, New Zealand, and even Pennsylvania were said to be largely

Protestant, although Denis Clark, Dale Light, and Alan Burstein portray Philadelphia’s Irish as mostly Catholic. Margaret Lynch-Brennan provided compelling evidence that the overwhelming majority of Irish domestics across the Northeast and Midwest were Catholic, often to the consternation of their mistresses.25 Concrete statistics can be cited to demonstrate the faith of

New South Wales’ Irish emigrants. Only one-fifth of state-assisted emigrants were Protestant, a figure more or less representative of the county populations from which they were drawn.26

Again, both push and pull factors influenced the religious mix of emigrants to a given destination. Some areas, like Canada, Scotland, and New Zealand, seemed to prefer Presbyterian

“Scots-Irish.” Yet ticket cost, availability of emigration assistance, and the Catholics’ generally lower skill and socioeconomic status combined not only to limit certain options for certain groups at certain times, but also to “push” out different types at various junctions by rendering their skills obsolete and their labor superfluous.27

As early as the 1820’s, emigration seemed like a good thing to many Irishmen—leaders and laborers alike. Irish nationalists were generally opposed but impotent while Roman Catholic hierarchy seemed ambivalent until late in the century. Hence, there was no concerted opposition capable of stemming the tide, even if stemming the tide had been a wise policy.28

25 Margaret Lynch-Brennan (2009) 26 Madgwick, Immigration into Eastern Australia, 1788-1851. 27 Donald H. Akenson, Being Had: Historians, Evidence, and the Irish in North America (Ontario, 1985); The Irish in New Zealand (Wellington, 1990). 28 Oliver MacDonagh, A Pattern of Government Growth 1800-60: The Passenger Acts and their Enforcement (London, 1961); “The Irish Famine Emigration to the United States,” Perspectives in American History, X (1976), 357-446. P.A. Sheehan, “The Effect of Emigration on the Irish Churches,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record, III (1882), 602-15. G.R.C. Keep, “Official Opinion on Irish Emigration in the Later Nineteenth Century,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record, LXXXI (1954), 412-21.

Ultimately, Ireland and England had no policy on emigration. In theory, contemporary political economists saw the unfettered movement of capital and labor in positive terms.

Regional disparities and redundancies would be eliminated and a happy balance struck between labor and capital. Ireland was clearly overpopulated, as Malthus and McCulloch had pointed out repeatedly early in the century. Most contemporaries subscribed to the view that Ireland’s underlying problem was a combination of insufficient capital and inefficient exploitation of resources, namely land. How could emigration cure such fundamental problems? Yet if one accepted that overpopulation itself was an overriding problem, then removing the surplus might well cure all of Ireland’s social and economic ills. The state placed no restrictions on emigration, leaving it to the governments of destination countries to impose restrictions on the “quality” of immigrants. There was no consensus on the role the state should play in the selection or transportation of emigrants. However, emigration was an expensive proposition and few of the

“surplus population” English and Irish leaders hoped to eliminate could be expected to finance their own trips. Should private or state funds be directed toward depopulation? The state may have preferred unregulated but self-financed emigration, but that was neither practical nor sufficient. Malthus argued that encouraging or even sponsoring emigration would merely salve, not cure, the ills of Ireland’s economy and society. However, he and fellow economist

McCulloch did endorse localized state-sponsored emigration in specific cases, in conjunction with measures to promote agricultural consolidation and capital investment. Other, less academic and more self-interested souls like Whately and Senior consistently urged state- sponsored emigration in order to decrease the taxes caused by the “overuse” of workhouses for the poor.29

29 P.P. McGregor. “Demographic pressure and the Irish famine: Malthus after Mokyr.” Land Economics

The most consistent support for sponsored emigration schemes came from “improving” landlords who hoped to remove their excess population and to rationalize or restructure their estates. Naturally, these landlords supported state-funded emigrations, just as elected officials preferred landlord-sponsored schemes. Each seemed to generally support large-scale emigration, but hoped to accomplish that common goal at the other’s expense. It was far simpler to advocate assistance than to provide it.

As the Famine increased the urgency of the over-population problem, a number of landlords did take action to 1) relieve suffering and 2) rationalize/depopulate their estates. Peter

Robinson removed over 2,000 persons to Canada from his estates in Munster. As we might expect, entire families were preferred because this more effectively eliminated land claims and counteracted the subdivision of tenant holding which had occurred over the previous half century. The £20 per head cost, considered exorbitant by contemporaries, encouraged other cheaper schemes. Generally, state-sponsored plans were terribly underfunded. Military prisoners, crown witnesses, and convicts had been helped since early in the century. Four thousand female orphans were removed to Australia, where the male/female ratio immediately improved their marriage prospects. One thousand tenants on estates owned by the British monarch were sent to the United States. Local boards of guardians also used their power to borrow against future poor rate taxes to finance 45,000 trips, mostly to Canada from 1849 to

1906. One of the grandest programs lasted from 1883 to 1891 by which approximately 25,000 residents of western counties were drawn from specific “distressed districts” by a combination of local, state, and philanthropic funds.30

65, no. 3 (August 1989):228-38; Mokyr, 1983. 30 Devon Commission Poor Inquiry, Pt. 3, 1845; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles; McDowell 1956; Woodham-Smith 1962.

Major landlord benefactors included Fitzwilliam (Wicklow), Wandesforde (Kilkenny),

Lansdowne (Kerry and Queens), Bath (Monaghan), Palmerston (Sligo), Wyndham (Clare and

Limerick), Gore Booth (Sligo), Spaight (Clare and Tipperary), de Vesci (Queens), and Mahan

(Roscommon). Because most had significant non-agricultural income, they were able to invest in emigration/restructuring even during the Famine when rent collection was quite difficult.

Another, well-connected Irish landlord, Lord Montengle was able to secure state funds to relieve congestion on his own estates. Several hundred left Limerick for Australia, financed by a combination of state funds and Montengle’s (rarely repaid) personal loans. If we look carefully, however, at the availability of these private emigration funds, it becomes clear that this trend was minimal and short-lived. Landlord assistance can be broken down as follows:

1826–1845 12000 1846–1850 22000 1850–1900 14000 48000 Certainly, countless other would-be emigrants were helped indirectly by sale of tenant rights or rent “forgiveness.” However, in a society desperate for emigration and an economy desperate for fundamental restructuring, landlords did relatively little to relieve suffering or aid the depopulation necessary to “improve” their own holdings.31

Between 1826 and 1829, some private aid was available in every county. However, obtaining private support was most likely in Leinster and Munster before the Famine, and

Connaught and Munster after the Famine. Evidence of 180 landlords and philanthropists helping over 80,000 emigrants has been uncovered. There may have been more. Vere Foster’s fund was only available to remove young girls from Ireland. It helped 23,000 emigrants. The Quaker

31 Devon Commission Poor Inquiry, Pt. 3, 1845; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles; McDowell 1956; Woodham-Smith 1962.

68 banker/philanthropist James H. Tuke financed passage for 10,000 with a portion of each fare paid by state funds. The other 30,000 or so were removed by 10 large landlords, together the owners of hundreds of thousands of acres. Philanthropy played only a small part in motivating these men to aid their tenants’ emigration. Humanity, rather than generosity, appeared to be the watchword. Surplus population would be relieved, allowing “rationalization” of estates.

Turbulence and potential violence would be alleviated. On one estate, those families who did not rent separate houses were denied access to emigration funds on the grounds that their leasing did not help the owner improve his estate by consolidating holdings. Most recipients expressed gratitude and forced emigration was rare indeed. Demand always exceeded supply.32

State and private aid to would-be emigrants was dwarfed by the remittances of family and friends who had already settled in the New World. State funds for emigration throughout the whole of the 19th century totaled approximately £400,000. If we add £1.1 million in colonial funds to support targeted emigration to Australia, £1.5 million of state aid was available to support emigration. Private funds probably never exceeded £500,000. At first glance, £2 million hardly seems miserly. However, two statistics stand out which demonstrate the inadequacy of these funds. First, recall that over four million emigrants left Ireland between 1841 and 1901.

Another two million died from hunger or hunger-related diseases during the famine.

Presumably, most of those poor souls would have opted for emigration had funds been made available. Second, consider that official records indicate that over £34,000,000 was sent to Great

Britain by North American emigrants in the forty-year period, 1848 to 1887. Scholars estimate

85–95% of the total was sent to Ireland. Certainly, some of this “American money” was used to purchase passage to American ports. Apparently, most post-Famine emigrants owed their

32 Devon Commission Poor Inquiry, Pt. 3, 1845; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles; McDowell 1956; Woodham-Smith 1962.

69 passage money not to state or private funding, but to those who had gone before them. As early as 1835, contemporary observers and the immigrants themselves spoke of “chain migrations,” a process by which new emigrants are selected and funded by previous emigrants.33

In 1983, local historian and Brooklyn A.O.H. Division 35 Secretary John Ridge wrote in

The Flatbush Irish:

It is unfortunate that the census records only the county of birth of individuals and not their specific birthplaces… Among the Hibernians of Flatbush, there has always been a sizeable number of members of Co. Clare origin, and certainly many surnames appear which suggest that background, but the population of Irish seems to reflect most of the parts of Ireland which suffered from heavy emigration during the 19th century.34

To what extent does Ridge’s well-informed impression hold true? Surname analysis and

Holy Cross Cemetery tombstone records suggest that between four and five percent of

Brooklyn’s Irish immigrants during the second half of the nineteenth century were born in

County Clare. This would place Clare eighth among Brooklyn’s Irish counties of origin, well within the twelve counties that contributed two thirds of her Celtic populace, but outside the group of six which was responsible for forty-five percent. If we consider that the City of Homes housed approximately 194,000 persons who reported having an Irish parent in 1890, it is fair to suggest that, as the twentieth century loomed, at least 8700 Brooklynites could trace their roots to a single county on Ireland’s western shore. On the other hand, applying the same logic would suggest Cork’s presence to be was fifty percent higher, Donegal’s to be nearly twice Clare’s, and that there were three times as many Longford men and women around and about. Certainly,

Clare was well represented, but so too were perhaps a dozen counties from central and western

Ireland. An analysis of which counties provided the largest shares of Brooklyn’s Irish immigrant

33 Lees & Modell, “The Irish Countryman Urbanized.” (Lynch-Brennan 2009) Miller, Emigrants and Exiles) O’Farrell, The Irish in Australia. Schrier, Ireland and the American Emigration 1850-1900. 34 Ridge, The Flatbush Irish, 1983, 9-10

70 community follows.

Table 2-9 Brooklyn Irishmen’s Top 12 Counties of Origin

Tombstones at Surname Analysis Holy Cross Cemetery Co-Linked With Census 1 Longford 12.2% 256 Longford 12.3% 50 2 Donegal 7.0 147 Cork 7.8 32 3 Tipperary 6.7 141 Donegal 7.4 30 4 Westmeath 6.6 139 Tipperary 6.6 27 5 Cork 5.8 122 Roscommon 6.4 26 6 Roscommon 5.3 112 Westmeath 5.8 24 7 Limerick 4.6 98 Cavan 3.7 15 8 Clare 4.2 88 Clare 3.4 14 9 Cavan 3.7 79 Mayo 3.4 14 10 Mayo 3.4 73 Monaghan 3.4 14 11 Galway 3.3 70 Limerick 3.2 13 12 Leitrim 3.3 70 Galway 3.2 13 Top 12 66.1% 1395 Top 12 66.6% 272 Total 100% 2091 Total 100% 408

By Ecological Region

Midlands 20.5% Longford 12.2 Westmeath 6.6 Galway (East) 1.65* Golden Vale 11.93 Cork (East) 2.9* Limerick (East) 2.3* Tipperary 6.7 West 16.4% Roscommon 5.3 Clare 4.2 Cork (West) 2.9* Limerick (West) 2.3* Galway (West) 1.65* West Ulster 14.0% Cavan 3.7 Donegal 7.0 Leitrim 3.3 Sources: Joseph Silinante, Tombstones of the Irish Born in Holy Cross Cemetery (Brooklyn, 1983); U.S. Manuscript Census, 1850–1900

A province-level analysis of Brooklyn’s Irish emigrants is generally ineffective. The bulk of her Leinster emigrants came from Longford and Westmeath, two of the poorer counties in the northwestern corner of the province. Her Munster emigrants were generally drawn from the southwest, or from areas evenly divided in an agricultural-ecological sense between “the West” and “the Golden Vale” (see Chapter One.) Thus, evaluating Brooklyn’s emigration according to the ecological regions described in the first chapter is more instructive. Most of Brooklyn’s Irish hailed from two areas of the island in ecological terms—the poor, backwards “West” and the agriculturally rich central “Midlands” and “Golden Vale.” In effect, the Brooklyn Irish arrived as displaced agricultural laborers from the poorest counties (Longford, Westmeath and Tipperany) of prosperous regions or as hopeful cottiers resourceful enough to flee the poverty of the desperate West’s least onerous counties. Both Cork and Roscommon were considered partly in the West and partly in Golden Vale or Midlands. None of these five ranked among the top seven counties in terms of government designated “congested districts.” Only Cork reported an over

30% Irish-speaking population, and most of these newcomers were likely were bilingual. On the other hand, Cork ranked fifth behind relatively modern counties like as Dublin, Antrim, and

Down for population percentage living in towns, and for persons employed in commercial occupations. Longford ranked twelfth for proportion of families in third and fourth class housing.

This does not indicate that those characteristics necessarily applied to those who emigrated, only that many Brooklyn Irish had been exposed to those influences in a way that Pittsburgh’s

Galway-dominated emigrants may not have been,35 but Butte’s Corkians no doubt were.36

Similarly, Donegal-born Brooklynites would have lacked such experiences upon which to draw. Donegal, in West Ulster, was among the poorest, most backwards regions in Europe on the

35 Walsh, 1983, 377, 386, 403, 407-408, 410, 416-17, 425 36 Emmons, 1989, 14-17.

72 eve of the Famine. Its emigration rates per 1000 inhabitants were below average from 1851–

1911 largely because its inhabitants were too poor and too isolated to arrange passage. Unlike the rest of the Irish-speaking Gaeltacht, their only commercial connections were to largely

Protestant, generally hostile, Ulster Province. Over one-third of Donegal spoke Irish as late as

1891. Many of these were not bilingual. Donegal had the second highest share of “congested districts,” 3.6% of its total area. It ranked next to last in land valuation, percentage of persons living in towns and percent of families living in third and fourth class housing. The only worthwhile “experience” Donegal emigrants might bring the “the City of Homes” was some exposure to industrial occupations (#12 rank).

In sum, the six counties which by two separate measures appear to have provided

Brooklyn with over two-fifths of her Irish-born population from approximately 1845–1900 included one of the poorest, most backward counties on the island. The other five were of a

“middling sort”—poorer counties from the agricultural heartland or relatively prosperous counties from the barren West. Keeping in mind that the entire island represented the poorest nation in Europe for most of the nineteenth century, it should be understood that the Brooklyn

Irish probably left home at least as well prepared for their new lives as any other group of Irish emigrants—which is to say, not particularly well.

Moreover, the next six counties in terms of emigrant contribution were all generally located in the poorer West—Connaught province or Western Ulster. Eastern Limerick and eastern Galway are ecologically and agriculturally considered part of the Golden Vale and the

Midlands respectively, but Clare, Mayo, Cavan and Leitrim are entirely in the West. Monaghan replaces Leitrim in the surname analysis, but both are located squarely in rural West Ulster.

These six counties add just over one-fifth to the emigrant population, whether measured by

73 surname analysis or tombstone list. As a group, these counties are more consistently poor and backwards than the first six.

The county origins of the various Irish ethnic associations are informative, but certainly not conclusive. The point here is that the six counties that contributed the lion’s share of immigrants to Brooklyn (Longford, Donegal, Tipperary, Westmeath, Cork and Roscommon) are well represented in a surname analysis of surviving membership lists of groups as diverse as the

Knights of Columbus., Ancient Order of Hibernians and Catholic Total Abstinence Union.

Longford contributed one-tenth of C.T.A.U., one-eleventh of A.O.H., and one-fourteenth of K. of C. members. Tipperary and Westmeath men were well represented in the C.T.A.U. and K. of

C., but not in the A.O.H. Corkians were apparently joiners; men from this southeastern seacoast town are strongly represented in all three organizations. Men from Roscommon and Donegal seem slightly more likely to join the A.O.H. than other organizations, but were involved in all three, as might be expected for immigrants from Connaught or West Ulster. Significantly, immigrants from the counties most important to Brooklyn’s emigrant streams were also key factors in her Irish associational life. Brooklyn emigrant counties #7–12 (Limerick, Clare,

Monagahan, Mayo, Galway, and Leitrim) are all located in the West—wholly or in part.

Significantly, emigrants from these counties were involved in Irish fraternal societies, but in every case leaning towards the more laborer-friendly A.O.H. Only Dublin, Antrim and

Waterford provided significant association membership without providing truly great emigrant numbers to the city as a whole. (See Chapter Six for a complete explanation.)

Table 2-10 Birthplaces of Association Members 1851–1917

County / CTAU CTAU AOH AOH Knights of Knights of Province Officials Officials (#) (%) Columbus Columbus (#) (%) (#) (%)

Carlow 0 0 1 .85 2 .94 Dublin 2 5.12 5 4.24 15 7.04 Kildare 0 0 0 0 2 .94 Kilkenny 1 2.56 2 1.69 4 1.88 King’s 1 2.56 2 1.69 4 1.88 Longford 4 10.26 10 8.47 15 7.04 Louth 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meath 2 5.12 1 .85 2 .94 Queen’s 0 0 1 .85 3 1.41 Westmeath 2 5.12 2 1.69 6 2.82 Wexford 0 0 1 .85 1 .47 Wicklow 0 0 0 0 3 1.41 Leinster 12 30.77 25 21.19 57 27.76 Clare 1 2.56 8 6.78 11 5.16 Cork 7 17.95 15 12.71 27 12.68 Kerry 1 2.56 6 5.08 10 4.69 Limerick 2 5.12 3 2.54 6 2.82 Tipperary 4 10.26 1 .85 5 2.35 Waterford 1 2.56 2 1.69 8 3.78 Munster 16 41.03 35 29.66 67 31.46 Antrim* 1 2.56 4 3.39 22 10.33 Armagh 0 0 0 0 1 .47 Cavan 3 7.69 3 2.54 9 4.23 Donegal 1 2.56 8 6.78 10 4.69 Down 0 0 1 .85 2 .94 Fermanagh 0 0 1 .85 1 .47 Londonderry 0 0 2 1.69 6 2.82 Monaghan 1 2.56 6 5.08 8 3.78 Tyrone 0 0 1 .85 4 1.88 Ulster 6 15.38 26 22.03 63 29.58 Galway 2 5.12 9 7.63 7 3.29 Leitrim 1 2.56 4 3.39 4 1.88 Mayo 0 0 7 5.93 3 1.41 Roscommon 2 5.12 10 8.47 10 4.69 Sligo 0 0 2 1.69 2 .94 Connaught 5 12.82 32 27.12 26 12.21 Ireland 39 100 118 100 213 100 Sources: Vaughn and Fitzpatrick, 261–353; U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules 1850–1900; Brooklyn Daily Eagle and Brooklyn Daily Times samples, 1851–1916; CTAU Meeting Reports; K. of C. Council Rosters : insurance books; AOH: DN 24 roster, c. 1895; DN 35 member list drawn from local newspaper reports, in possession of John Ridge, AOH regional historian.

Table 2-11 Estimated Irish-Speaking Emigrants in 1851–55 and 1891–1900 (based on the proportion of Irish-speaking inhabitants in 1851 and 1891)

% Irish-Speaking # Irish-Speaking % Irish-Speaking # Irish-Speaking Inhabitants, Emigrants, Inhabitants, Emigrants, 1851 1851–55 1891 1891–1900 Leinster Carlow 0.4 33 0.3 8 Dublin 0.9 126 0.7 74 Kildare 0.5 46 0.5 11 Kilkenny 15.0 3750 4.5 218 King’s 0.4 63 0.5 19 Longford 1.8 191 0.5 25 Louth 20.7 2588 3.8 107 Meath 6.4 1134 1.9 83 Queen’s 0.2 31 0.3 13 Westmeath 0.8 108 0.5 17 Wexford 0.4 84 0.3 12 Wicklow 0.1 9 0.3 5 Munster Antrim 1.2 289 0.4 60 Armagh 7.0 1043 2.4 173 Cavan 7.5 1792 3.0 361 Donegal 28.7 7587 33.4 4364 Down 0.4 80 0.3 24 Fermanagh 2.3 250 0.8 43 Londonderry 2.8 444 1.8 147 Monaghan 7.7 1282 3.3 175 Tyrone 5.0 1126 3.9 491 Ulster Clare 59.8 22346 37.7 6798 Cork 47.2 42740 27.3 21040 Kerry 61.5 24305 41.4 15980 Limerick 31.4 13949 10.7 1544 Tipperary 18.9 11264 7.1 1353 Waterford 55.4 13889 38.1 3832 Connaught Galway 69.1 25988 62.2 22902 Leitrim 13.4 1361 7.2 708 Mayo 65.6 13910 50.4 20514 Roscommon 26.7 5295 10.4 1699 Sligo 38.3 3413 21.8 3066 Total Irish-Speaking Emigrants 200516 105866 % of Total Emigration* 27.1% 24.4% Sources: Vaughn and Fitzpatrick, 261–353.; and Ó Cuív, 77–93. * Total excludes “County Unspecified.”

Table 2-12 Total Irish Emigration 1851–1920

1851–55 1856–60 1861–70 1871–80 1856–80 Carlow 8157 2482 5396 5450 13328 Dublin 13991 11205 30996 19592 61793 Kildare 9123 3054 7366 5873 16293 Kilkenny 25000 8748 12476 9178 30402 King’s 15765 5102 12177 8754 26033 Longford 10609 3825 13504 11450 28779 Louth 12503 4401 10200 5803 20404 Meath 17515 5618 15406 10671 31695 Queen’s 15334 4396 9643 9080 23119 Westmeath 13455 4931 11377 7345 23653 Wexford 21081 5883 15917 13258 35058 Wicklow 8668 2485 5336 4592 12413 Total Leinster 171201 62130 149794 111046 322970 Clare 37368 12315 31758 18736 62809 Cork 90552 55870 119603 73978 249451 Kerry 39520 14963 40445 26898 82306 Limerick 44423 17217 46667 22026 85910 Tipperary 59597 20622 47686 26499 94807 Waterford 25071 12891 19904 12731 45526 Total Munster 296531 133878 306063 180868 620809 Antrim* 24039 51490 55034 59960 166484 Armagh 14898 14159 17775 19327 51261 Cavan 23893 12247 22385 19391 54023 Donegal 26437 11504 12088 29959 53551 Down 19998 27237 28156 31322 86715 Fermanagh 10878 6279 10966 10452 27697 Londonderry 15844 11667 16719 26876 55262 Monaghan 16651 9866 15079 13342 38287 Tyrone 22513 16665 23782 29674 70121 Total Ulster 175151 161114 201984 240303 603401 Galway 37609 12744 38839 23578 75161 Leitrim 10154 6274 14167 12591 33032 Mayo 21204 7676 27468 24614 59758 Roscommon 19831 7492 21599 13801 42892 Sligo 8911 4216 11986 11706 27908 Total Connaught 97709 38402 114059 86290 238751 County Unspecified 7407 19895 77936 5430 103261 Total Ireland 747999 415419 849836 623937 1889192 * Includes City of Belfast

1881–90 1891–1900 1901–10 1881–1910 1856–1910 1911–20 1856–1920 8090 2629 2417 13136 26464 1112 27576 24816 10959 9479 45254 107047 5557 112604 8337 2145 2602 13084 29377 1771 31148 13215 4894 3407 21516 51918 1531 53449 12465 3749 3315 19529 45562 1273 46835 11833 5084 5056 21973 50752 2458 53210 6939 2826 3007 12772 33176 3510 36686 11301 4432 3422 19155 50850 1525 52375 13707 4481 2539 20727 43846 1082 44928 9757 3418 2579 15754 39407 962 40369 11982 3988 2918 18888 53946 1041 54987 6220 1771 1749 9740 22153 1130 23283 138662 50376 42490 231528 554498 22952 577450 32492 18156 13636 64284 127093 5228 132321 82780 77456 44551 204787 454238 12294 466532 50721 38718 23340 112779 195085 8449 203534 33166 14537 11287 58990 144900 4022 148922 32889 19084 12403 64376 159183 3599 162782 19491 10059 7133 36683 82209 2629 84838 251539 178010 112350 541899 1162708 36221 1198929 46094 14927 32665 93686 260170 17439 277609 20951 7311 8373 36635 87896 5190 93086 21786 12094 9389 43269 97292 4426 101718 29511 13067 12559 55137 108688 6307 114995 23963 7889 15384 47236 133951 10949 144900 10232 5472 3537 19241 46938 2059 48997 23442 8228 9233 40903 96165 4256 100421 13536 5351 4319 23206 61493 2235 63728 29130 12682 10521 52333 122454 5117 127571 218645 87021 105980 411646 1015047 57978 1073025 51345 36852 26578 114775 189936 9854 199790 21127 9937 8302 39366 72398 3823 76221 42494 40835 29970 113299 173057 12043 185100 23252 16298 11123 50673 93565 3710 97275 23642 14197 9160 46999 74907 4175 79082 161860 118119 85133 365112 603863 33605 637468 0 0 71 71 103332 0 103332 770706 433526 346024 1550256 3439448 150756 3590204 Source: W. E. Vaughn and A. J. Fitzpatrick, eds. Irish Historical Statistics: Population, 1821–1971 (Dublin, 1978), 261–353, based on the Returns of the Emigration Commissioners to the Registrar General.

Table 2-13 Percentage Changes in Irish Emigration 1856–1910

1856–60 1891– 1901–10 1881– (% change 1861–70 1871–80 1881–90 1900 (since 1910 since (since (since (since (since 1891– (since 1851–55) 1851–60) 1861–70) 1871–80) 1881–90) 1900) 1868–80) Carlow -69.6 -49.3 +0.1 +48.4 -67.5 -8.1 -1.4 Dublin -19.9 +23.0 -36.8 +26.7 -55.8 -13.5 -26.8 Kildare -66.5 -39.5 -20.3 +42.0 -74.3 +21.3 -19.7 Kilkenny -65.0 -63.0 -26.4 +44.0 -63.0 -30.4 -29.2 King’s -67.6 -41.6 -28.1 +42.4 -69.9 -11.6 -25.0 Longford -63.9 -6.4 -15.2 +3.3 -57.0 -0.6 -23.6 Louth -64.8 -39.7 -43.1 +19.6 -59.3 +6.4 -37.4 Meath -67.9 -33.4 -30.7 +5.9 -60.8 -22.8 -39.6 Queen’s -71.3 -51.1 -5.8 +51.0 -67.3 -43.3 -10.3 Westmeath -63.4 -38.1 -35.4 +32.8 -65.0 -24.5 -33.4 Wexford -72.1 -41.0 -16.7 -9.6 -66.7 -26.8 -46.1 Wicklow -71.3 -52.2 -13.9 +35.5 -71.5 -1.2 -21.5 Total Leinster -63.7 -35.8 -25.9 +24.9 -63.7 -15.7 -28.3 Clare -67.0 -36.1 -41.0 +73.4 -44.1 -24.9 +2.3 Cork -38.3 -18.3 -38.1 +11.9 -6.4 -42.5 -17.9 Kerry -62.1 -25.8 -33.5 +88.6 -23.7 -39.7 +37.0 Limerick -61.2 -24.3 -52.8 +50.6 -56.2 -22.4 -31.3 Tipperary -65.4 -40.6 -44.4 +24.1 -42.0 -35.0 -32.1 Waterford -48.6 -47.6 -36.0 +53.1 -48.4 -29.1 -19.4 Total Munster -54.9 -28.9 -40.9 +39.1 -29.2 -36.9 -12.7 Antrim* +114.2 -27.1 +9.0 -23.1 -67.6 +118.8 -43.7 Armagh -5.0 -38.8 +8.7 +8.4 -65.1 +14.5 -28.5 Cavan -48.7 -38.1 -13.4 +12.4 -44.5 -22.4 -19.9 Donegal -56.5 -68.1 +147.8 -1.5 -55.7 -3.9 +3.0 Down +36.2 -40.4 +11.2 -23.5 -67.1 +95.0 -45.5 Fermanagh -42.3 -36.1 -4.7 -2.1 -46.5 -35.4 -30.5 Londonderry -26.4 39.2 +60.8 -12.8 -64.9 +12.2 -26.0 Monaghan -40.7 -43.1 -11.5 +1.5 -60.5 -19.3 -39.4 Tyrone -26.0 -39.3 +24.8 -1.8 -56.5 -17.0 -25.4 Total Ulster -8.0 -39.9 +19.0 -9.0 -60.2 +21.8 -31.8 Galway -66.1 -22.9 -39.3 +117.8 -28.2 -27.9 +52.7 Leitrim -38.2 -13.8 -11.1 +67.8 -53.0 -16.5 +19.2 Mayo -63.8 -4.9 -10.4 +72.6 -3.9 -26.6 +89.6 Roscommon -62.2 -20.9 -36.1 +68.5 -29.9 -31.8 +18.1 Sligo -52.7 -8.7 -2.3 +102.0 -40.0 -35.5 +68.4 Total Connaught -60.7 -16.2 -24.3 +87.6 -27.0 -27.9 +52.9 Total Ireland -44.5 -27.0 -26.6 +23.5 -43.7 -20.2 -17.9 (including “County Unspecified”) Source: Vaughn and Fitzpatrick, 261–353

* * *

Chapter Two Summary

From 1841 to 1901, Ireland became the only nation in recorded history to lose population every decade for more than half a century. Between 1815 and 1848, over a million Irish citizens

“moved country.” Emigration peaked during the famine years, 1846–1855, when three million left. An additional four million emigrated between 1856 and 1914.

Irish migration was unusual. Transatlantic emigrants rarely returned. Irish women were at least as likely to emigrate as men, even though they typically emigrated as single adults. Unlike earlier emigrations, which tended to favor the more modern north, the 1841–51 Famine migration was heaviest in the backward counties of Connaught province. The slightly more market-oriented counties of western Munster were also heavily affected. This does not mean that the poorest inhabitants of these areas left in the largest numbers, only that for the most part the poorest counties were hardest hit on a percentage basis.

By looking at the life histories of emigrants who settled in various American cities, historians can determine the impact of the emigrants’ regional baggage. Unfortunately, neither city directories nor census manuscripts list immigrants’ county or region of origin. Thus occupations, home ownership, and property accumulation cannot be directly linked to regional origin or pre-emigration occupation. However, some church, fraternal organization and cemetery records offer assistance. Moreover, because most Irish surnames are derived from clan designations, a list of geographically discrete, county or province specific names can be developed using the 1891 Special Report of the Registrar General. The utility of surname analysis in establishing general patterns of post-emigration success by natives of different regions of Ireland is evident, although not within a 95% statistical confidence interval.

Predictable patterns did develop that persisted for decades. For example, permanent emigrants to Scotland were most often born in northeastern counties; those who settled in

England typically came from coastline counties in the east and south. Australian Irish tended to come from southwestern and north central counties, while Canada and New Zealand drew mostly from Ulster. Other, more specific “chain” migrations developed—Clare to Australia, Wexford to

Argentina, Waterford to Newfoundland, Kerry to New Zealand, Derry to Philadelphia, Cork to

Butte, and Galway to Pittsburgh.

In effect, the Brooklyn Irish arrived as displaced agricultural laborers from the poorest counties (Longford, Westmeath and Tipperary) of prosperous regions or as hopeful cottiers resourceful enough to flee the poverty of the desperate West’s least onerous counties. Five of the six most common Brooklyn Irish counties of origin did not rank among the top seven counties in terms of government designated “congested districts.” Cork reported an over 30% Irish-speaking population, but most were probably bilingual. On the other hand, Cork ranked fifth behind market-oriented counties such as Dublin, Antrim, and Down for population percentage living in towns, and for persons employed in commercial occupations. Longford ranked twelfth for proportion of families in third and fourth class housing. This does not indicate that those characteristics necessarily applied to those who emigrated, only that many Brooklyn Irish had been exposed to those influences. Conversely, Donegal-born Brooklynites would have lacked such experiences upon which to draw. Donegal, in West Ulster, was among the poorest, most backwards regions in Europe on the eve of the Famine. Its emigration rates per 1000 inhabitants were below average from 1851–1911 largely because its inhabitants were too poor and too isolated to arrange passage. Unlike the rest of the Irish-speaking Gaeltacht, its only commercial connections involved largely Protestant, generally hostile, Ulster Province. Over one-third of

Donegal spoke only Irish as late as 1891. Donegal had the second highest share of “congested districts,” 3.6% of its total area. It ranked next to last in land valuation, percentage of persons living in towns, and percentage of families living in third and fourth class housing. The only worthwhile “experience” Donegal emigrants might bring the “the City of Homes” was some exposure to industrial occupations (#12 rank).

In sum, the six counties which by two separate measures (surname analysis and tombstone list) appear to have provided Brooklyn with over two-fifths of her Irish-born population from approximately 1845–1900 included one of the poorest, most backward counties on the island. The other five were of a “middling sort”—poorer counties from the agricultural heartland, or relatively prosperous counties from the barren West. Keeping in mind that the entire island represented the poorest nation in Europe for most of the nineteenth century, it is evident that the Brooklyn Irish probably left home at least as well prepared for their new lives as any other group of Irish emigrants—which is to say, not particularly well. For better and worse, there was more diversity among Brooklyn’s new arrivals from the Emerald Isle than many nineteenth century commentators or twentieth century historians have acknowledged. However, few of the “Irish Countrymen” were prepared in skill or temperament for the industrializing

American economy and society they were about to enter.

Chapter 3 The City of Homes: The Brooklyn Environment, 1855–1900

“Brooklyn has cheap and convenient homes for those who transact the business which centers in New York…” (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, May 25, 1876)

“Brooklyn has been transformed from insignificance into metropolitan importance…”1

“Name-calling” in Brooklyn has never been limited to children or comedians.

Sometimes, the exercise seems petty or juvenile. Other times, it involves self-definition. If the city boosters quoted above could not agree on the best way to laud or to “sell” their municipality, then how could typical Brooklynites ever hope to overcome their identity crisis and inferiority complex?

Brooklyn residents chafed whenever Manhattanites retold the old derisive tale about how

General Howe must have conquered Brooklyn first in August of 1777 “so that he might have a place to sleep while taking New York.” Nor was James Fenimore Cooper’s 1828 description much appreciated. Brooklyn, Cooper reported, “is in truth no more than a suburb differently governed.”2 Another particularly galling appellation was “Hashtown,” a term suggesting country bumpkin in both cuisine and mentality.3 Similarly insulting were suggestions that “Plymouth

Church…was actually surrounded on three sides by meetinghouse horse sheds…and that the chief employment of our citizens was to gather and to whittle fence posts.”4 Yet Brooklyn’s own leaders, press, and citizens helped create these misperceptions with their voluminous praise of

1 The City of Brooklyn: a Guidebook, (Brooklyn: 1871). 2 James Fenimore Cooper, (New York, 1828), I 124; Ira Rosenwaike, A Population History of New York City (Syracuse; 1973), 31. 3 Brooklyn Daily Union, May 25, 1869; February 9, 1875 4 Miller’s New York as It Is: New York, 1866, p. 107

83 the city’s “pure air,” its low home prices and rentals, and of course its “facility of access” to New

York City. Perhaps anticipating Betty Smith’s novel, one Brooklynite even wrote glowingly of the “numerous trees which line most of its streets, and impart to it a rural aspect.”5 Clearly, there was some truth to the various “no more than a suburb” observations. In 1865, the New York

State Census collected the nation’s first “commuting” statistics by asking respondents to list their

“usual place of employment.” Nearly eighty-five percent (19,756 of 23,402) of all New York

State residents who lived outside Manhattan but listed New York City as their “usual place of employment” hailed from Kings County. Westchester County was runner-up with a paltry 1757 such commuters.6

Brooklyn’s leading citizens would always be frustrated in achieving for their city the level of respect they felt it deserved, largely because they sought and promoted conflicting ideals. Brooklynites longed for the respect due one of the nation’s leading industrial and commercial cities even as they wooed newcomers with bucolic promises of shady trees, rolling hills, and inexpensive land. Without fully realizing it, the City of Brooklyn sought to be both industrial leader and sleepy bedroom suburb. Remarkably, the “other” East River municipality did accomplish both goals rather well during the last quarter of the 19th century.

On the neighboring shore, the fires from the foundry chimneys burning high and glaringly into the night, Casting their flicker of black, contrasted with wild red and yellow light, with wild red and yellow light, and down into the clefts of streets.

Walt Whitman, “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry,” in Leaves of Grass, 1860, p. 3827

In a sense, the history of the City of Brooklyn begins with its annexation of the formerly

5 Brooklyn Men and their Doings: Brooklyn, 1901, p. 5 6 Rosenwaike, p. 59, Census of the State of New York for 1865, p. xxvi 7 3rd ed. Boston, Thayer & Eldridge

84 independent city of Williamsburg in 1854, and ends with its own annexation by the City of New

York in 1898. Although incorporated as New York State’s second largest city in 1834, Brooklyn became a major industrial municipality overnight by acquiring Williamsburg. In 1850, Brooklyn was the seventh largest city in the United States. A decade later, it was third, behind only New

York and Philadelphia. Brooklyn held this position proudly through the 1890 enumeration, the last time it appeared as a separate entry.

After the creation of “Greater New York” in 1898, “Brooklyn” described only the second largest borough, yet one which maintained a fierce sense of independence. Its city seal was recast as a borough seal incorporating only those changes deemed absolutely necessary.8

Perhaps out of respect for a once grand municipality, the U.S. Census Bureau reported separate manufacturing and population statistics for “Brooklyn” in 1900 for one last time. Even its professional baseball maintained its “Brooklyn” moniker until 1957 when the Dodgers moved to

Los Angeles. Nevertheless, Brooklyn’s days as a sovereign city were numbered as soon as the

New York State Legislature passed the Consolidation Act of 1897.

The city’s population grew at a remarkable 45% per decade from 266,661 in 1860 to

1,166,582 in 1900.9 Its rate of growth from 1850 to 1880 is particularly striking when compared to that of other Northeastern cities during the same interval. As the table below indicates,

Brooklyn’s growth more closely approximates the “boom town” pattern of western cities than the relatively slow growth of older Eastern municipalities. In fact, Brooklyn was one of only two significant East Coast cities whose population more than quadrupled from 1850 to 1880. By contrast, five “western” populations increased by over 300% during those 3 decades. How was

8 Anna Mary Lanahan, “Brooklyn’s Political Life, 1898-1916,” Ph.D. diss., St. John’s University, 1977, 14 9 Rosenwaike, 593

Brooklyn able to maintain this rate of growth despite its rather populous starting point? It is certainly much more difficult for an established city of at least forty or fifty thousand to grow geometrically. After all, during the 1825 to 1860 interval, Kings County’s population increased by over 1900%—from 14,679 to 279,122. This more closely approximates Brooklyn’s “coming of age” as a city.10 Similarly, a graphic comparison of population growth in Brooklyn and New

York City is instructive.

Table 3-1 Brooklyn and New York City Population 1850–1900

Year Brooklyn Percent NYC Percent Population Change Population Change

1850 96,838 515,547 1855 205,250 +112% 629,904 +22% 1860 266,661 +30% 813,669 +29% 1865 296,378 +11% 726,386 -11% 1870 396,099 +34% 942,292 +30% 1875 482,493 +22% 1,041,886 +11% 1880 566,663 +17% 1,206,299 +16% 1890 806,343 +42% 1,515,301 +26% 1900 1,166,582 +45% 1,530,124 +1% 11

By 1865, barely a decade after swallowing up Williamsburg, Brooklyn exhibited a large, dynamic and diversified industrial base. Million dollar industries included distilling, baking, shipbuilding, sugar refining, and the manufacture of cordage, hats, lead, and machinery. The near doubling of industrial output from 1860’s $34 million to 1870’s $61 million can only be partially attributed to the Civil War era economy.12 Brooklyn was already the third largest city in the

United States-not only larger than Chicago, Boston, Saint Louis, Philadelphia, and San

10 Rosenwaike, 50 11 New York Secretary of State, Population Reports for 1855 (Albany, 1857) and 1865 (Albany, 1867); Rosenwaike, 49. 12 Stiles, Henry The History of the County of Kings…N.Y. 1884, II, 668

Francisco, but adding population and acres at a faster rate as well.13 With its unbroken eight mile run of basins, shipyards, wharfs, and warehouses stretching from Greenpoint in the north to

Gowanus in the south, the East River’s western bank offered shoreline facilities unmatched even by those in Manhattan. The piers, elevators, and warehouses of the Atlantic Dock Company alone were valued at over $3 million. Moreover, this same company handled over $50 million worth of upstate and western grain and merchandise in a typical year. Next door, the storehouses and docks of the Erie and Brooklyn Basins overflowed with coffee, molasses, sugar, tobacco, and wool. By 1870, the City of Brooklyn already covered twenty-five square miles, a larger area than Manhattan. It should not be surprising, then, that bulky commodities were directed almost exclusively to the more spacious facilities on the Brooklyn side of New York Harbor.14

Table 3-2 Population Growth in Selected Eastern and Western Cities 1850–1880

City 1850 1880 +/- Eastern Baltimore 169 332 +96% Boston 137 363 +265% Brooklyn 97 567 +585% New York 696 1,912 +275% Philadelphia 121 847 +700% Western Chicago 30 503 1677% Detroit 21 116 552% Pittsburgh 47 235 500% San Francisco 35 234 669% 15

By the turn of the century, Brooklyn had merged with the other four boroughs to form

13 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 5, 1872; Harold Coffin Syrett, The City of Brooklyn, 1865-1898: a Political History, New York, Columbia University Press,1944, 12-15. 14 Stiles Brooklyn, III 574-575, 584; Billard, Brooklyn, 41; Miller’s New York As It Is, 110; Brooklyn Daily Times, January 8, 1867; The Citizens of Brooklyn and Long Island: Brooklyn Report, 1893, 104- 05 15 U.S. Census Population Reports, 1880.

“Greater New York”, but the U.S. Census still reported Brooklyn separately in its 1900 reports.

Thus, at the turn of the century Brooklyn was part of New York City, the second largest city in the world. What many people fail to realize, however, is that throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, Brooklyn was one of the largest, fastest-growing, and most economically vibrant cities in the United States.

Although this “muscular” urban profile hardly fits Brooklyn’s self-image as “the city of homes and churches,” almost all of its factories were concentrated in two areas: 1) along the East

River from the Navy Yard to Red Hook, and 2) in Williamsburg and Greenpoint. This industrial segregation allowed the rest of Brooklyn to enjoy its tree-lined streets and “rural character.”

Perhaps the best explanation for the geometric growth of Brooklyn was its simultaneous status as “back office” and “bedroom suburb” for Manhattan. As Gotham grew, and its real estate values skyrocketed, the warehouses along the East River waterfront required relocation.

As a back office, Brooklyn offered easy access to New York City for workers via ferries, subways, and after 1883, its new bridge. From 1855 to 1875, Brooklyn was the number one place of settlement for people who left New York City. This was a rather dramatic internal shift, as the number of New York City residents who emigrated to Kings County more than doubled from

30,000 in1855 to 69,000 in 1875.16 In 1889, no less than 40 New York City police captains, lieutenants, and sergeants owned houses in Brooklyn. Certainly such homeownership would have been difficult, if not impossible, in Manhattan.17

It is therefore not surprising that Brooklyn became a leading manufacturer of “high bulk” items such as petroleum, books, cast iron, glass and porcelain. Brooklyn refineries peaked in

1875 with more than fifty companies. In 1870, the Astral and Pratt refineries combined to

16 Rosenwaike, 63, 70 17 New York City Civil List for 1889, (Municipal Archives, New York City, 1890

88 produce 2600 barrels per day. Both firms merged in the late 1870’s, and eventually formed the

East Coast backbone of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust. Book publishing was also a big business, represented by several dozen publishing firms. In 1868, the largest, Appleton

Publications, employed over 700 people in its huge printing and binding building in

Williamsburg, which occupied a complete city block. Such an operation would be impractical in

Manhattan; it was more cost-efficient in Brooklyn. Transportation to New York City was cheap and Appleton, which produced dictionaries, fiction, and Spanish-language works, maintained only a sales office there. Two other notable publishers were located in Williamsburg.

McLoughlin Brothers was nationally renowned for children’s books while A.S. Barnes &

Company was among the first firms to specialize in textbooks. All three publishers were leaders in technological innovation and production efficiency. The cast iron industry also prospered in

Brooklyn. In 1845, there were only seven foundries, but by 1860 there were over one hundred- twenty. By 1880, Brooklyn was the nation’s third largest producer of glass, providing over six percent of America’s supply. The last of Brooklyn’s “Five Black Arts,” porcelain, grew dramatically in the decade after the Civil War. The Union Porcelain Works was the only pottery company in the United States capable of making hard paste porcelain, the kind used to make fine “china”. The common thread in Brooklyn’s leading manufactures was their enormous space requirements—needs better satisfied on the less densely populated east bank of the East River.18

Brooklyn had most of the physical and cultural trimmings of a top shelf Gilded Age city.

Its white marble city hall sported Greek columns and a magnificent cupola. Views of Manhattan from the fashionable homes of “the Heights,” or from Greenwood Cemetery or Prospect Park were spectacular. James Stranahan claimed for his hometown, “the most majestic views of land

18 Brown and Ment, “Joshua Brown and David Ment, Factories and Foundries (Brooklyn; 1980) 12-32; 1870 Census Mfct Schedule

89 and ocean, with panoramic changes more varied and beautiful than any to be found within the boundaries of any city on this continent.”19 Several daily and weekly newspapers called

Brooklyn home. Among the prominent newspapers were the Brooklyn Eagle, the Brooklyn

Times, the Brooklyn Union, and the Brooklyn Citizen. Fashionable shops such as China House,

Frederick Loeser’s, and Ovington Brothers could be found on Fulton Street, the main artery of the downtown business district. By the mid-1880s, reformers, progressives, and good government advocates all over the country sought the counsel of Seth Low, a respected reform mayor. The “Brooklyn Model” of municipal organization and Low’s civil service regulations remained popular elsewhere long after the mayor himself had been turned out of office by a resurgent McLaughlin Democratic machine. Low reemerged as mayor of New York and

Columbia University president. Brooklyn had professional police and fire protection and a clean, reliable water supply. The city was among perhaps the first municipalities outside New

England to introduce compulsory public school attendance and to open its own normal school for teacher training.20

Twenty years before consolidation, Brooklyn had much of which to boast. Taxes and gas rates were lower than those in New York, and its public schools were certainly better. Its municipal government was less corrupt—if only because McLaughlin generally practiced “good graft” (i.e., insider trading) rather than “bad graft” (embezzlement). By 1876, Brooklynites could claim with some accuracy that Green-Wood Cemetery had helped inspire the public parks movement and that their own Prospect Park outshone New York’s Central. Brooklyn’s 1864

Sanitary Fair had raised over $400,000 for Civil War medical facilities. Street lights had been

19 Syrett, 123 20 Syrett, 83-88, 142-143, 165-172; Henry Stiles qtd, in Syrett, p. 145; Ment, Building Blocks of Brooklyn, 1979, 25; Samuel Abelow, Dr. William H. Maxwell: The First Superintendent of Schools of the City of New York, Brooklyn: 1934, 28-51

1854 Map [1855 Wards]

Dripps, Matthew. Map of the Cities of New York, Brooklyn, Williamsburgh & Jersey City. [map]. 1854. 1:21,600. “Map of the Cities of New York, Brooklyn, Williamsburgh & Jersey City.” David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. (25 April 2013).

91 introduced in 1849.21

Conversely, some Brooklynites were harshly critical of their city’s relative lack of high culture: “We are called the City of Churches. Why? Because we have nothing but churches.”

However, Brooklyn boasted of an Academy of Music as early as 1861, an Art Association by

1872, and a fine public library by 1878. Furthermore, by 1883, only New York City supported more theaters per capita than Brooklyn. None of the American municipalities often considered

Brooklyn’s cultural superior—Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, or St. Louis—came close.22

Moreover, which of these cities had produced a Walt Whitman, the only mid-century American poet to attract significant European praise during his lifetime? On the other hand, Brooklyn supported too many saloons and too few fine restaurants. The tenements near the Navy Yard were as overcrowded and filthy as any in New York once “the Five Points” was razed. But how many cities could offer Brooklyn’s twin symbols—the Fulton Ferry and the Great Bridge?

Each was celebrated on canvas and in verse. Whitman’s “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry” refers specifically to the Fulton Ferry, but this was but one of the Union Ferry Company’s five distinct lines, all named after their Manhattan destinations—such as Wall Street, South Ferry, and Fulton

Street. In 1870, thirteen boats crisscrossed the East River, from Brooklyn to Manhattan and back again. These double-ended, six hundred ton steamships thus made thousands of individual crossings in a typical week.23

Brooklyn was indeed “the City of Churches” as well as the “City of Homes.” Not only was the city said to support the nation’s largest number of churches per capita, but it also

21 Judd, 42; Syrett, 146-52; Ment, Building Blocks of Brooklyn, 1979, 26-27; Margaret Chalson, ”A Park for the People of Brooklyn: Class Conflicts Over Recreational Space in the City of Brooklyn, 1865- 1900,” NEH Younger Scholars Essay (Washington, DC, 1994), 1-9. 22 Ment, Building Blocks of Brooklyn, 1979, 37; Barbara Parisi, “The History of Brooklyn’s Three Major Performing Arts Institutions,” Ph.D. dissertation, NYU, 11, 34. 23 Syrett, 139

92 employed some of the most charismatic and renowned preachers. Henry Ward Beecher was something of a tourist attraction. Out-of-town visitors in the nineteenth century sought out

Plymouth Church in much the same way modern visitors flock to the Statue of Liberty or the

Metropolitan Museum of Art. Beecher’s oratory once moved a visiting Mark Twain to make the following comment, “He went marching up and down the stage, sawing his arms in the air, hurling sarcasms this way and that, discharging rockets of poetry, and exploding mines of eloquence, halting now and then to stamp his foot three times in succession to emphasize a point.”24 The Brooklyn Eagle wrote in 1869 that, “Our institutions live in him, our thoughts as a nation live in him, our muscular Christianity finds in him the most vigorous champion. He is the

Hercules of American Protestantism.”25

Brooklyn always enjoyed certain advantages because of its close proximity to New York

City. It also suffered indignities because of the inevitable comparisons with its colossal neighbor. How would the self-image of San Francisco, Denver, or Detroit have been affected if any of these cities had been forced to “grow up” in the shadow of Manhattan?

Brooklyn shares one of the finest natural ports in the world. However, until mid-century, its main economic focus was directed towards the island it shared with Queens and Suffolk

Counties. (Nassau County was not incorporated until 1901.) Located on the northwest tip of

Long Island, the City of Brooklyn had easy access to the produce and resources of a vast, largely undeveloped hinterland. Its greatest resource—abundant land—would shape the city’s growth for the next half century. However, in 1850, the city with the nation’s seventh largest population controlled only a fraction of Kings County.

In the decade following Brooklyn’s annexation of Williamsburg, the “walking city” still

24 Justin Kaplan, Mr. Clemens and Mark Twain, Simon & Schuster: New York, 1991, 23-24 25 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 3/10/1869

93 required residents to live near their place of employment. The absence of horsecars promoted a mixture of socioeconomic classes all over the city. The poorest Brooklynites clustered 1) near the East River’s decks and factories where unskilled jobs were available or 2) in shantytowns on the city’s outer edges. Well-to-do residents lived in the established neighborhoods of Cobble

Hill and Brooklyn Heights. In this way, they could walk to their docks, warehouses, or factories, yet avoid both the squalor of their employees’ neighborhoods and the noisy congestion of their own factories.

Curiously, distinct manufacturing and commercial districts began to cluster before residential patterns followed suit. Because import/export establishments and manufacturing firms needed access to the water, they clustered along the East River. The Gowanus Canal vicinity attracted warehousing operations because of its outstanding facilities typified by the piers, storehouses, and basins of the Atlantic Dock Company. Sugar refineries, iron foundries, and breweries proliferated in Williamsburg from Newtown Creek to the Navy Yard.26

During the Civil War era, an underdeveloped mass transit system discouraged the development of suburban wards. Horsecars, generally inefficient and relatively expensive, allowed middle class workers to move from central city homes to newer residential suburbs.

Between 1855 and 1875, “outer suburbs” such as Bedford, Bushwick, and South Brooklyn enjoyed population growth of over 400%. By contrast, Manhattan’s growth rate during those two decades amounted to a “mere” 287%. Before the Civil War, over a quarter of Brooklyn’s residents had lived in the older central city (wards 1–5). By the end of Reconstruction, less than one-seventh lived there.27 Thus, manufacturing further concentrated in the older harbor districts.

26 NYS Manuscript Census Sample, 1855; U.S. Manuscript Census Samples, 1870 & 1880; U.S. Census of Manufactures, 1870 & 1880. 27 NYS Census Population Report, 1855 & 1875.

As in so many other Gilded Age cities, Brooklyn’s outer ring was increasingly reserved for residential functions.

Most American cities underwent tremendous geographic expansion during the second half of the 19th century, but few had access to as much land as did Brooklyn. Situated at the north end of Kings County, the “City of Homes” expanded more than eightfold between 1850 and 1890, from 96,838 to 806,343, by which time it had nearly completed its “conquest” of the entire county. First, the neighboring city of Williamsburg and the neighboring town of

Bushwick were absorbed by 1855, increasing Brooklyn’s acreage by a third from approximately

3000 to nearly 4000. Now occupying approximately one-third of Kings County, Brooklyn soon annexed other, less populous neighbors: New Lots in 1886; Flatbush, Gravesend, and New

Utrecht in 1894; and Flatlands in 1896, ironically only a year before Brooklyn was itself absorbed into “Greater New York.” On the eve of consolidation, then, Brooklyn occupied the whole of Kings County’s 11,000 acres. Its large tracts of relatively underdeveloped land kept prices and rents low, making homeownership a more realistic dream for her citizens than for residents of many other Northeastern municipalities.

Brooklyn’s demography changed as well in response to the city’s residential differentiation. Well-to-do neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill were relatively unaffected by the changes, because they were poorly suited to industrial development.

Downtown areas formerly inhabited by poor or middle class residents like Fulton Street declined as residential space when warehouses and other facilities were expanded. However, wealthy

Brooklynites felt no pressure to leave their lovely downtown neighborhoods.

Unable to afford the daily horsecar fare, the poor increasingly settled in rundown housing in the older districts. As late as 1855, thirty-five percent of the residents of Gowanus and those

95 along Fulton Street owned some property. Just fifteen years later, according to the 1870 Federal

Census, over 96% of residents between Fulton Street and the Navy Yard owned no property.

Similarly, property owners comprised only 15 percent of the Gowanus household heads. For residents of areas like these, the “walking city” was hardly a thing of the past.28

Life for the “middling” classes changed between 1855 and 1870. The rapidly expanding transit system allowed relatively easy access from new suburbs like Bedford to the downtown civic center/business district. From there, the trip to Manhattan via ferry—or bridge after

1883—was easily accomplished. In 1870, Park Slope and Bedford were the most decidedly middle class sections of Brooklyn. More than half, 608 of 1210, of the inhabitants of wards 22 and 7 owned some property, typically $4000–$6000.29

Like Boston, Philadelphia, and other late nineteenth century cities, Brooklyn had developed a ring-core settlement pattern. Socioeconomically similar strata were evident by

1870. Older areas like the Navy Yard vicinity, Furman Street, and Gowanus were filled with poor renters (96%, 75%, and 85% respectively). These areas were encircled by a band of

“respectable” middle class districts. In areas such as Bedford, Crown Heights, and Park Slope, property ownership exceeded 50 percent.30 The only notable exceptions were the older downtown areas still settled by the well-to-do.

In support of these findings, Shoenbaum points out that in 1870 certain “middle class” occupations were better represented in suburban Bedford and Park Slope than others. She suggests an explanation for this clustering. Because so many white-collar jobs were concentrated in Brooklyn’s downtown business district or in Manhattan and because transit lines were

28 NYS Manuscript Census Sample, 1855; U.S. Manuscript Sample, 1870. 29 U.S. Manuscript Census Sample, 1870. 30 U.S. Manuscript Census Sample, 1870

96 typically designed to funnel commuters from suburban homes to downtown business centers, clerks and bookkeepers generally outnumbered the similarly compensated skilled craftsmen in the outer residential rings. Few horsecar lines ran east to west, so it was more difficult to travel from Bedford or Park Slope to industrial districts such as Williamsburg and Bushwick.

Futterman’s parallel analysis concluded that a number of transit extensions actually preceded neighborhood settlement. Chabra noted that the degree to which Brooklyn’s German immigrants intentionally self-segregated themselves in Williamsburg in order to preserve their own language and institutions must be considered. This issue will be discussed later, in Chapter Four.31

Population density, too, became a function of socioeconomic status by 1875. Using person-per-dwelling (PPD) as a measure, we find that congestion in two well-to-do areas

(Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill) and two middle class areas (Bedford and Park Slope) drops considerably. Conversely, poor, working class districts in Williamsburg and Greenpoint and near the Navy Yard increased their population density significantly.32

31 Schoenbaum, 14-18; Wendy Futterman, Which Came First, the Streetcar of the Neighborhood?: The Relationship Between Transit Development and Neighborhood Settlement in Brooklyn, 1860-1940,” Long Island Historical Journal, 5(1), 1992, 92-95; Chabra, 32 New York State Census, 1865, p. 260; New York State Census, 1875, 243-44; Schoenbaum, 25-29.

Table 3-3 Number of Persons per Brooklyn Residential Building in 1865 and 1875

District 1865 1875 Brooklyn Heights 10.19 8.73 Ferry District 12.89 12.29 Cobble Hill 8.78 8.16 Fourth Ward 8.45 8.93 Carroll Hill 11.69 12.50 Seventh Ward 7.47 7.52 South Brooklyn/Park Slope 7.06 6.94 Crown Heights 7.58 8.70 Gowanus 8.91 9.53 Fort Greene 8.57 8.30 Red Hook 9.55 10.47 West Williamsburg 9.85 11.54 Central Williamsburg 8.49 9.53 “Dutchtown” 11.42 15.00 Greenpoint 9.34 10.04 Bushwick 7.36 8.43 Nineteenth Ward 8.97 9.40 Total 9.20 9.76

Source: New York Census, 1865, 260; New York Census, 1875, 243– 244. Note: The 1875 figures have been adjusted to 1865 boundaries. The Seventh Ward in 1865 included Bedford.

The ethnic landscape of Brooklyn changed considerably between 1855 when Brooklyn and Williamsburg merged and 1898 when Brooklyn was absorbed into Greater New York. From

1855 through 1900, three groups dominated the city’s population: native-born whites, Irish immigrants, and German immigrants. Only in 1855 did the native-born population fall below 60 percent of residents (53.3%); only in 1890 did a combination of natives and Irish (immigrants and their children) dip below eighty percent (78.0%), and only in 1890 did the total of Irish,

Germans, and native-born comprise (slightly) less than 90 percent of the city’s population

(89.8%). Hence, discussions of the other 13 census-recognized immigrant groups will be kept to a minimum throughout this section, indeed throughout this dissertation. Analyses which examine at least 90 percent of Brooklyn’s residents in any given census year (Native, Irish,

German) will allow for reasonably complete and reliable conclusions to be drawn. Conversely, only 72% and 84% of New York’s population was accounted for by an examination of that city’s

Natives, Irish, and Germans in 1880 and 1890 respectively.33

Table 3-4 Brooklyn Population by Ethnicity 1845–1890

Nativity 1845* 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880+ 1890+ Total 78,661 205,250 266,661 296,378 396,099 482,493 566,663 806,343 Native 52,286 109,376 162,072 188,527 2851,381 313,633 388,969 544,643 Irish 22,342* 56,753 56,710 57,143 73,985 78,880 78,814 84,738 German 2,229 19,119 23,993 26,467 36,771 53,359 55,339 94,798 Other Foreign 629 35,549 23,886 23,917 33,962 34,707 43541 92,164

*Ireland plus Great Britain and British possessions combined. +includes American-born children of foreign-born mother. Source: Rosenwaike, 42, 51, 67, 70

After the initial influx of the Famine Irish, the proportion of each ethnic group changed relatively little from 1860 to 1880. Native born whites comprised between 61 and 69 percent of the population; Irish immigrants’ contribution decreased gradually from 21 to 14 percent while

German immigrants’ share ranged from nine to 11 percent. However, overall patterns can be deceiving. The primary purpose of this dissertation is to look closely for diversity in the Irish population and in the Irish experience. Certainly, the ward level distribution of Irish and German immigrants and their offspring is not nearly so static. Nor does a close study of which Irish settled in which wards at which times yield such a neat picture. For German immigrants, language and cultural identification most often determined intraurban settlement patterns. Many, if not most, of Brooklyn’s Germans chose to remain in Williamsburg, close to their German schools, churches, shooting clubs, and banks. Often, when Brooklyn Germans improved their socioeconomic status, they moved a few blocks to a nicer home in the same neighborhood. The

33 Rosenwaike 42, 51, 67, 70 [See chart below.]

99 nouveau rich among the Irish were more likely to move out of the old neighborhood to a more prestigious and comfortable suburb such as Bedford. Gender, county of birth, immigrant generation, date of emigration, marketable skills, and associational affiliations all influenced the

Irish immigrants’ choice of residence—on both the city and ward level.34

In discussing demographic changes on a neighborhood level, it is important to note the instability of ward numbers. Because wards were originally constructed for political purposes

(voting districts for the most part), they do not always reflect the neighborhoods recognized by contemporaries. Moreover, as populations grew, old wards were split in two and areas of recent settlement expansion were granted their own designation. Every reasonable effort has been made to discuss the same area when comparing populations from decade to decade. Thus, it will be necessary to describe in some detail the neighborhoods of Brooklyn as they existed from 1855 to 1890. Because the outlying independent towns of Flatbush, Gravesend, New Utrecht, and

Flatlands belonged to the City of Brooklyn for only one to four years, they will be treated more cursively.

Despite its strong sense of collective self, Brooklyn is made up of a hundred distinct neighborhoods—communities with their own identities and histories. Not only are Flatbush,

Bensonhurst, Williamsburg and Brooklyn Heights imprinted on the souls of Kings County residents, these communities are well known to non-Brooklynites and even non-New Yorkers as well. Informal sampling of two hundred suburban New York State residents who had “never lived in Brooklyn” and one hundred Disney World visitors who had “never lived in New York” was conducted in 2001. Over ninety-five percent of the “New Yorkers” sample was able to

34 Rosenwaike 42, 51, 67, 70; Vikram Chabra, “Social and Spatial Mobility of Irish and German Immigrants in Brooklyn in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Long Island Historical Journal, 16 (1-6), 168- 173.

100

1866 Map [1865 Wards]

Johnson, A.J. Johnson's New York and Brooklyn. [map]. 1866. 1:33,000. “Johnson's New Illustrated Family Atlas Of The World.” David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. (25 April 2013). name at least two Brooklyn neighborhoods yet only one in five could name two communities in

Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, or San Francisco. Nearly sixty percent of “non-New

101

Yorker” respondents were able to successfully name at least two Brooklyn neighborhoods while less than a third could do likewise for other American cities unless they themselves had lived there. Apparently, all the movies set in Brooklyn have taught the nation a thing or two about

Kings County. Eli Kazam’s “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” (1931) was set in Williamsburg;

“Saturday Night Fever” (1977) took place in Bensonhurst; Spikes Lee’s “Crooklyn” (1994) is based in Bedford Stuyvesant; while the setting of “The Lords of Flatbush” (1974) is self-evident.

When we also consider the obligatory neighborhood reference by a Brooklyn GI in virtually every World War II film ever made, it becomes clear that Hollywood has done a fine job of providing filmgoers with lessons in Brooklyn geography.35

Not surprisingly, the neighborhoods most often cited by respondents, especially by non-

New Yorkers, are those most often highlighted on the silver screen—Flatbush, Williamsburg,

Bensonhurst, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Coney Island, Greenpoint, Brooklyn Heights, Brighton Beach, and Sheepshead Bay. New Yorkers occasionally offered additional communities like Park

Slope, Red Hook, Crown Heights, Brownsville and even Windsor Terrace36.

Thus, a brief “neighborhood history” of Brooklyn and Kings County will be undertaken.

Because several outlying towns merged with the City of Brooklyn at different points during the nineteenth century, the community discussions will generally proceed in the order in which each developed. Within the original boundaries of the Village of Brooklyn, ward numbers 1 through

5 were assigned in more or less the order in which the area developed.

Brooklyn’s development from “a flourishing village which has arisen...from next to

35 Author-conducted poll (Nassau, Suffolk & Westchester, NY: Spring, 2001); author-conducted poll (Orlando, FL: Spring, 2001); Eli Kazam (dir.) “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” (1931); John Badham (dir.) “Saturday Night Fever” (1977); Spike Lee (dir.) “Crooklyn” (1994); Martin Davidson (dir.) “The Lords of Flatbush” (1974): Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) 36 Windsor Terrace was featured in James L. Brooks (dir.) “As Good as it Gets” (1997).

102 nothing…which in itself contains 10,000 souls” in 1828 to its exulted 1870 status as third largest

American City began with its incorporation as a village in 1834. By 1839, nine wards had been established, the five oldest concentrated along the waterfront from the Navy Yard to Atlantic

Avenue. The farthest point of any of these wards was within a mile and a half of New York

City’s Mercantile exchange just across the East River, if not “a stone’s throw”, certainly a short ferry ride away (1840 map).37

Brooklyn Heights was and remains among the finest residential neighborhoods in the

United States. Sitting atop a bluff on the west shore of the east river, the “panoramic” views and the “clean air” were spectacular. Easy access to New York City was available via several ferry lines. In 1836, one prominent resident wrote of Fulton Street as the great dividing line, “on its east live the masses…[and] on the westerly side reside the…silk stocking gentry.” West of

Fulton Street, one finds Brooklyn Heights. Apparently, “The Heights” had been well-regarded for decades. During the 1790’s, several boosters had suggested the area for a national capitol site: “Where could a situation be found for the capitol and other public buildings comparable to the heights of Brooklyn?” Among the earliest developers was Hezekiah Pierrepont, shipping entrepreneur and grandson of the Yale University founder. It was he who obtained ferry rights for all of Brooklyn in 1814. Soon, his partner and friend Robert Fulton had cut the Brooklyn to

Manhattan commute from 20 to 12 minutes. Twenty-five foot lots were advertised as early as

1823. Advertisements targeted Manhattanites: “All the advantage of the country with most of the conveniences of the city.” Soon the civic and cultural amenities required by ambitious, well- educated and enterprising suburbanites were added to the local scene. An Apprentice Library was founded in 1823 to uplift the working class, “to cultivate a taste for reading…[to] improve

37 Cooper, I, 124; Syrett, 28; Judd, 20

103 their morals and make them eminent in their several stations and professions.” By the end of the

Civil War, the renamed Brooklyn Institute was joined by the Mercantile Library (1857), the

Brooklyn Academy of Music (1861), and the Long Island Historical Society (1863). This lovely brownstone neighborhood occupied approximately half of the first ward. According to Edward

Pessen, more than two-thirds of the city’s wealthiest families lived within a single square mile in

1841. The rest of the First Ward was made up of more modest waterfront lodging— boardinghouses and small wood-frame structures inhabited by Irish and German immigrants.

Hence, the historian must be careful not to use “Ward 1” and “Brooklyn Heights” interchangeably.38

Northeast of the Heights was the Ferry District, named of course for the commuter ships made famous by Walt Whitman. A decidedly working class neighborhood from the 1840’s until century’s end, the area’s primary housing stock changed only marginally from cheap, poorly- maintained boarding houses in the 1850’s to “predominantly tenements” in 1890. (Vital

Statistics, 1890). As early as 1855, 36 percent of the Second Ward’s inhabitants had been born in Ireland. Although the Irish-born share of the population dropped a few percentage points after the war, the Irish community (Irish born and American born of Irish mothers) accounted for nearly half (47%) of the ward’s population in 1890. Laborers and waterfront workers dominated the occupational ranks throughout the 19th century.39

Wards Three and Four contained most of the downtown business and shopping district.

After 1883, when the Brooklyn Bridge opened, virtually all major retail shops, law firms, and

38 Stiles, History of Brooklyn, 142; Lamb and Harrison, History of the City of New York, II, 372; Pessen, Edward. “The Egalitarian Myth and the American Social Reality: Wealth, Mobility and Equality in the ‘Era of the Common Man,’” American Historical Review 76(4) (1971), 1006-1008. 39 US Census Manuscript Schedules 1850, 1880, 1900; US Bureau of the Census, Special Report: Vital Statistics for New York City and Brooklyn (Washington 1891).

104 banking operations were centered around the Classical Revival-Style City Hall at Joralemon and

Court Streets. The Packer Collegiate Institute, Brooklyn Collegiate and Polytechnic Institute, and St. Francis Academy opened nearby to offer excellent private secondary and post-secondary education to Kings County boys. In 1901, Brooklyn’s first law school was founded—also located on Joralemon Street. William Maxwell’s progressive Board of Education was located on

Livingston Street in the Third Ward. Similarly the city’s most exclusive retail outfits were all located on Fulton Street: Wechler and Abraham, Ovington’s, and Baldwin’s. Residential areas varied widely in character—from the brownstones of the well-to-do to the frame row houses of the middle class, to the tenements of the poor. Native born whites comprised two-thirds of the population from 1855 through 1865 while Irish and German newcomers combined for approximately one-quarter. By 1890, second and third generation immigrants dominated the census rolls, taking the places of more well-to-do natives who had withdrawn to quieter streetcar suburbs40.

The Brooklyn Navy Yard was a defining place in the old Fifth Ward—alternately known as “Vinegar Hill” (after a 1798 Irish Rebellion battlefield), “Irishtown” (after the immigrants themselves) or “Olympia” (by a short-lived real estate development venture). The Navy Yard provided waterfront jobs for thousands of unskilled workers, many of them recent arrivals from

Ireland. Housing was consistently substandard. Blocks upon blocks of run-down tenements were reported by the Census Bureau in 1890. Mortality rates here were rivaled only by those in industrialized tenement sections of Williamsburg (3092 deaths per 100,000 persons in Ward 5 vs. 3382 in Ward 16, district D). The terms “Irishtown” and “Vinegar Hill” are reflective rather than defining. In 1855, wards seven and twelve contained a significantly higher proportion of

40 Ment, The Shaping of a City, 23-40; US Manuscript Census Sample 1880; NYS Census Reports 1855 & 1865 Census Reports; U.S. Census Vital Statistics, 1890.

105

Irish-born (52 and 48% respectively). Its Irish population was comparable (34–35%) to four other wards (1, 2, 6 & 14). By 1865, Ward 5 ranked third in Irish concentration, behind only

Ward 12 (Red Hook) and Ward 2 (Ferry District). The Seventh Ward had undergone redistricting and demographic change. By 1890, Irishtown deserved its name, in that it housed the largest concentration of Brooklynites who reported Irish parentage (45%). Thus the wards’ population was largely Irish-born and/or born of Irish parents until the equally poor and unskilled Italians began to move into the area after the turn of the century.41

If Northwestern University can be located in Illinois, why not continue to call the Red

Hook section of Kings County, “South Brooklyn”? After all, each has retained an anachronistic label which indicates that it was once situated at the outer limits of a frontier. Like most of

Brooklyn’s shoreline neighborhoods, Red Hook attracted both waterfront industries and unskilled immigrants. The immigrant population of Brooklyn’s sixth and twelfth wards was respectively 34% and 48% Irish-born in 1855; 38% and 19% Irish-born in 1865. Forty-six percent of the residents of both the north and the south sections could claim Irish parents in 1890.

Housing in the southern section (designated Ward 12 after 1850) was consistently substandard— antebellum boardinghouses were simply replaced by Gilded Age tenements. The sixth ward, however, contained Cobble Hill, a fine residential area second only to Brooklyn Heights among desirable addresses. It was here, amidst the stately brownstones, that philanthropist Alfred

Tredway White built his model homes. For the working class in 1877, the Home Buildings, the

Tower Buildings, and the Working-Men’s Cottages on Hicks Street were New York State’s first low-rent subsidized housing. They boasted cast-iron facades, open courtyards, and good ventilation. White hoped his project, modeled after Victorian London apartments, would inspire

41 Rosenwaike, 50; NYC Landmark Commission Report (New York: 1997).

106 similar projects in cities throughout the United States.42

Parks figure prominently in the history of Brooklyn. Greenwood Cemetery opened in

1840—nearly 500 acres of shady trees, grassy hills, and peaceful ponds, on what was then the outskirts of the settlement. Its hills also offered outstanding views of New York Harbor.

Greenwood became so popular as a destination for “respectable” recreation that an omnibus company offered a daily route from the ferries to the cemetery as early as 1844. Next, the 1867 completion of Prospect Park spurred construction of middle class homes nearby. Single-family brownstones and elegant apartments predominated. Lastly, Sunset Park was created in 1891, again on the outskirts of contemporary settlement bounded by Forty-First and Forty-Fourth

Streets and Fifth and Seventh Avenues. In 1903, an additional ten acres was added, leaving nearly twenty-five acres in a “pristine natural state.” By that late date, development had begun in earnest.43

Soon after the Civil War, Park Slope (Ward 8 until 1880, Wards 22 and 8 thereafter) slowly developed on the land which slopes westward from the future site of Prospect Park to the

Gowanus Canal. Until it was renumbered Ward 8 and renamed “Sunset Park” in 1891, the relatively undeveloped area south and west of Greenwood Cemetery was also considered part of

“the Slope.” As late as the 1880’s, Park Slope was a sparsely-populated rural area, broken every now and then by a few row houses. The entire area was owned by the Litchfield brothers, whose

Italianate mansion sat on a hilltop which would become part of Prospect Park. After the park opened, Litchfield sold his property in large tracts to developers who built hundreds of neat four- story brownstone rowhouses for the middle class. Nearer the turn of the century, developers offered more modest two-story, single-family frame houses farther from the park, affordable by

42 Rosenwaike, 51; NYS Census Reports, 1855 and 1865; US Census Vital Statistics Report, 1890. 43 David Ment and Mary Donovan, The People of Brooklyn, 23-26.

107 the Irish and Italians employed in various waterfront and light industrial occupations. Such houses cost perhaps a third of the brownstones. Materials were cheaper; detailing and amenities were simpler; and land costs on the “lower slope” (from Fifth through Eighth Avenues) were significantly lower than on the “upper slope” (nearer Prospect Park West or Ninth Avenue).

Some companies built modest wood frame dwellings and made them available to employees at reduced rates—an early form of subsidized housing. The Ansonia Clock Company’s wood frame rowhouses on Thirteenth Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues were perhaps the best example of this style and this trend. “Bush’s Folly” was built in 1890 along the waterfront from

32nd Street to 41st Street—perhaps the first “industrial park” in the United States, although creator Irving Bush called it a “city within a city.” After Bush expanded his industrial complex to include his own freight depot and pier facilities, his own railroad and 200 acres of warehouse space, locals began to call it by its proper name, “Bush Terminal.”44

The rapid growth of Park Slope is clearly evident in the census figures. In 1855, Ward 8 contained only 5132 persons, making it the second smallest ward in the city. Over half (54%) were native-born, one-third were Irishmen, while only four percent were German immigrants. A decade later, nearly two-thirds of Ward Eight’s 6051 population was now native-born, suggesting an influx of an even wealthier group.45 Irish immigrants now comprised only twenty percent and the German population share was nine percent. By 1890, however, the combined population of Wards 22 (Park Slope) and 8 (Sunset Park) was 89,496, a nearly 1500% increase in a quarter century. The ethnic mix of Ward 22 (Park Slope proper) was now 44% third generation native, 21% of Irish parentage, and 14% of German parentage. If we consider that perhaps 25 to

44 Chalsen 8-12; Futterman 94-46; Ment, The Shaping of a City, 46-48; U.S. Census Population Report, 1880. 45 Ment, The Shaping of a City, 45-47; Brown and Ment, Factories and Foundries, Brooklyn,1980, 25-26; Rosenwaike 31, 50.

108

50% of those with Irish or German parents were likely born in the U.S.A. themselves, perhaps only the Germans significantly increased their presence. A 10% sample of the 1880 census supports this conclusion for approximately one-third of the Irish community and two-fifths of

Germans in Ward 22 are second generation. Moreover, there was a greater tendency for

American-born Irish to live closer to the park than for the Irish-born. There was also a greater tendency for Germans (first and second generation) and natives (third generation) to live on the

“upper slope” than for the Irish of either generation. Less than two percent of the 1890 population of Wards 22 and 8 could claim Italian mothers. But apparently there were enough

Poles in these and nearby wards to obtain a Polish language (“national”) church, Our Lady of

Czenstochowa on 25th Street. 46

The neighborhood due east of the Navy Yard is a bit more difficult to characterize.

Eventually known by its less-than-colorful ward label, “Ward 19” is the only section of the old city north of “Division Avenue,” the road often mistaken as the dividing line between the pre-

1855 municipalities of Brooklyn and Williamsburg. Economically, the ward was often linked to

Williamsburg as well. In fact, the area became so closely tied to Williamsburg by as 1863, the area was considered part of the “Eastern District” by the Brooklyn Volunteer Fire Department

(ED Engine Co 3 is located on Montrose Street). Moreover, an 1878 map held in the Library of

Congress collection places Williamsburg’s wards 13, 14, 15, and 16, Greenpoint’s Ward 17, and

Bushwick’s Ward 18 and Ward 19 within a single “Eastern District.” Finally, a 1970’s neighborhood guidebook produced by the borough president lists “Greenpoint/Williamsburg” as

46 Kenneth T. Jackson (ed.), The Neighborhoods of Brooklyn, 2nd ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 61-62, 68-71; U.S. Manuscript Census, 1880; NYS Census Reports, 1855 & 1865,

109 one of 20 modern Brooklyn neighborhoods. Its borders include the old 19th Ward.47

In 1865, Irish immigrants in Ward 19 slightly outnumbered recent German arrivals, 12% to 11%, while the native-born contributed 69% of the ward’s population. By 1890, however,

German immigrants and their offspring contributed a share of the local population equal to that of third-generation natives, 35% each. First and second generation Irish comprised only 1% towards the end of the 19th century. 1855 statistics are unavailable because the neighborhood was considered part of Ward 11—Western Bedford—at the time.48

For a half-century after its merger with Brooklyn, Williamsburg retained some of its previous independence. Fire and police protection was organized separately for the Eastern

District (Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and Bushwick), more or less conforming to the old city and town borders. The ethnic composition of three of four Williamsburg wards was significantly more German than the rest of Brooklyn. Approximately 40% of Brooklyn’s German immigrants lived in one ward (16) from 1855 through 1865, while nearly 16% of first and second generation

Germans lived there in 1890. 49

The Williamsburg section was heavily industrial by 1890, helping Brooklyn become the nation’s fourth largest in terms of annual industrial product. Kings County’s ten thousand factories, employed 110,000 workers and produced $269 million in goods according to the 1890

Census. Monitor Street, located in Williamsburg’s northeast corner, is named after this neighborhood’s most famous contribution to the Civil War—the ironclad vessel which battled with the Confederacy’s own Merrimack in 1863. In 1875, Williamsburg and Greenpoint alone

47Map of the City of Brooklyn, 1878; Office of the Brooklyn Borough President, “Brooklyn’s Neighborhoods” (New York: 1973). 48 Rosenwaike, 31, 50. 49 NYS Census Reports, 1855 and 1865, U.S. Census Special Report: Vital Statistics, 1850; Rosenwaike, 31, 50.

110 were home to more than 50 oil refining companies, including the sprawling Pratt Astral Oil

Works. Pratt’s company would soon spearhead takeovers by Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, which essentially reduced the number of firms to one by the mid-1880’s. Many Williamsburg industries required significant levels of skill and innovation. Moreover, northern Brooklyn offered space for the large, modern plants essential for industries such as petroleum refining and book publishing. The concentration of skilled craftsmen (mostly native or German born) was attractive to firms which sought to produce glass, porcelain, or cast iron. Administrative and sales offices were often maintained at more fashionable addresses across the East River. The two largest publishing firms in Williamsburg, D. Appleton and Company (Kent Avenue) and

McLoughlin Brothers (S. Eleventh Street) had such arrangements—publication plants in

Williamsburg and sales offices in Manhattan. A.S. Barnes, a major publisher, built his six-story

Brooklyn factory “Downtown” on Nassau Street while maintaining his editorial office in

Manhattan. “Rags-to-Riches” oil refiner Charles Pratt chose the Williamsburg waterfront at

Bushwick Creek as the best site for his Astral Oil Works. Most of his local competitors built their factories nearby. Pratt’s Astral Oil Kerosene was considered among the safest of the era and his modern refinery was promoted as a model of safety and efficiency by Scientific

American magazine in May, 1872. Pratt’s Astral apartments, built as model housing for his workers in 1886, still stand today on Franklin Street in Greenpoint.50

Brooklyn’s cast iron manufacture was also centered in the Williamsburg/Greenpoint wards. The Hecla Architectural Iron Works grew until it occupied “thirty-five city lots” from

North 10th to North 12th Streets. Wisely, Hecla maintained a sales office on 23rd Street in

Manhattan or perhaps their work would not grace the entrance of the St. Regis Hotel on Fifth

50 Syrett, 46-50, 135; Brown, Factories and Foundries, 14-17, 38-39, 43-53; Stiles, History of Kings County … NY, 1884, 692.

111

Avenue or the Dakota Apartments on Central Park West. Founder Niels Poulson’s work on his own home (“the Copper House”) in Bay Ridge—a new neighborhood in Kings County’s

Southwest corner—drew praise from The American Architect and Building News as “one of the most interesting [buildings] in America.”51 Similarly, Cheney and Hewlett kept offices in

Manhattan but built its plant on Green Street in Greenpoint.

Although we might expect to find substandard housing throughout an industrial area like

Williamsburg/Greenpoint, this was not the case. Housing quality was diverse in all five 1890 wards. Census Bureau employees characterized ten of the eighteen subwards (sanitary districts) as primarily “tenement” areas, two as “middle class” districts, and six as “mixed housing” neighborhoods. Population density was relatively high—ranging from 15A’s 73 persons per acre to 16D’s 211 ppa in Greenpoint. Remember that Williamsburg had been an independent city until 1855; certainly, several middle and upper class districts had developed in the years prior to its annexation, and German-American residents were less likely to move completely out of the old neighborhood upon achieving a measure of success. The extent to which Williamsburg itself resisted the suburban ring around the industrial/business/lower class central city core may be a factor here as well. Cause and effect are sometimes tough to ascertain. The only significant concentration of Irish in the Eastern District was in Ward 14, Northwest Williamsburg. This waterfront ward was 35% Irish-born in 1855, 25% Irish-born in 1865, and 36% Irish parentage in

1890. Additionally, a third of Greenpoint’s residents reported Irish parentage in 1890.52

Although Bushwick did not enjoy the transportation advantages of Brooklyn’s shorefront neighborhoods, it nonetheless developed a significant base of light industry by the immediate

51 Brown, Factories and Foundries, 1980, 57-61; American Architect ad Building News, 18, 1893. 52 NYS Census Population Reports, 1855 and 1865; U.S. Census Special Report: Vital Statistics. 1890; Rosenwaike 31, 50.

112 postbellum period. Oil, sugar, glue, and rope were important, but the neighborhood’s signature product was beer. Company names like Rheingold and Schlitz reflected the dominant immigrant group. From 1855 through 1865, between 18 and 19 percent of Bushwick inhabitants were

German-born. More striking, the 1890 census reports that 54 percent of the area’s inhabitants claimed German parentage. The Irish and Irish-American community of Bushwick was small in comparison, and shrank further as the Germans’ numbers increased (1855: 15% Irish-born, 1865:

11% Irish-born, 1890: 9% Irish parentage). Coupled with Williamsburg and Greenpoint, the region known as the city’s “Eastern District” might just as easily have been called

“Kleindeutschland” (Little Germany). Except for districts 18d (137.8) and 18e (106.2), population density (ppa) in Bushwick was lower than the city-wide mean (7.1 to 74.6) and housing stock was acceptable (4 tenement, 1 mixed, and 5 middle class districts in 1890).

Typical middle class brownstones are found on tree-lined streets like Chauncey, and finer mansions still stand along Bushwick Avenue between Decatur Street and Myrtle Avenue. A dozen legitimate theaters served the Eastern Districts’ middle and upper class citizens. Most were located in Bushwick, but the finest, the Amphian, was in Williamsburg. With a seating capacity of two thousand, this theater was famous not for its productions, but rather as the first

American theater to install electric lights.53

East New York/New Lots became Brooklyn’s Ward 26 in 1886, leaving only four remaining independent Kings County towns—Flatbush, Flatlands, Gravesend, and New Utrecht.

Settled in 1670 as Ostwout (“East Woods”) by Dutch homesteaders, the twin settlements of East

New York and New Lots remained largely rural through the Jacksonian Era. John Pitkin’s grand scheme to build a great city to rival New York was undermined by the remoteness of the location

53 Jackson, The Neighborhoods of Brooklyn, 24-25; Ment, Shaping of a City 1978, 47-48; Brown, Factories and Foundries, 1980, 59-63; U.S. Census, Special Report: Vital Statistics, 1890.

113 and the Panic of 1837. When the Town of New Lots was chartered in 1852, absorbing East New

York, Cypress Hills, and much of Brownsville, most residents were still farmers or employees of

Pitkin’s shoe factory. In 1886, when New Lots joined Brooklyn, a significant German-American community had developed (34% of German parentage in 1890). Many were apparently employed at the Union Course Race Track just across the Queens border. Irish-Americans comprised only 12% of Ward 26’s residents, while third generation natives equaled the German-

American population share (34%). The extension of the Fulton Street El (1889) and the opening of the Williamsburg Bridge (1903) brought thousands of Eastern European immigrants to Ward

26, especially to Brownsville—known as the “Jerusalem of America” by the 1920’s. However, little of this demographic change was evident in 1890 when Russian-Polish and Hungarian immigrants contributed less than two percent of the Ward’s residents. Nor does a 10% sample of household heads from the 1900 census reveal a great change in population characteristics. It is impossible to accurately estimate the percentage of Jews among the German-American population, but Rosenwaike convincingly argues that it was minimal. Thus, we must conclude that the massive migration of Eastern European Jews to Brownsville and New Lots was a 20th century, Borough of Brooklyn phenomenon.54

* * *

Chapter Three Summary

Brooklyn’s leading citizens were frequently frustrated in achieving for their city the level of respect they felt it deserved, largely because they sought and promoted conflicting ideals.

54 U.S. Census Special Report: Vital Statistics, 1890, U.S. Census Reports, 1880, 1900, Rosenwaike, 50, 70, 83, 86-87, 94-96.

114

Brooklynites longed for the respect due one of the nation’s leading industrial and commercial cities even as they wooed newcomers with bucolic promises of shady trees, rolling hills, and inexpensive land. To a surprising degree, the “City of Homes” did accomplish both goals during the last quarter of the 19th century. The city’s population grew at a remarkable rate of nearly 45% per decade from 266,661 in 1860 to 1,166,582 in 1900. Brooklyn was one of only two significant

East Coast cities whose population more than quadrupled from 1850 to 1880. Its industrial output nearly doubled between 1860 and 1870 (from $34 million to $61 million). This placed

Brooklyn third nationally, ahead of Chicago, Boston, Saint Louis, Philadelphia. and San

Francisco. By 1890, “The City of Churches” had become the second leading East Coast port.

Both its economic success and its “bucolic” nature were due to its unusual abundance of urban (and suburban) land. Homeownership was within reach for white collar—and even skilled blue collar—residents blessed with stable employment. Industrial outfits that required large facilities—either by their very nature (petroleum) or as back office/production for executive offices in New York (book publishing)—found Brooklyn’s inexpensive land and modern shipping facilities ideal.

Brooklyn was and remains a city—and a borough—of neighborhoods. The unique character of each was both influenced by and an influence on the development of the various ethnic communities who lived and worked there. However, from the outset the Irish community’s settlement pattern was more dispersed and their presence more ubiquitous than other groups such as the Germans. Therefore, their impact on Red Hook, Williamsburg,

Bedford, and even Vinegar Hill (“Irishtown”) differed in both degree and kind.

115

Chapter 4 A Fair Living: Work, Housing and Mobility, 1850-1900

This could be a whole life,” she thought. “You work eight hours a day covering wires to earn money to buy food and to pay for a place to sleep that you can keep living to come back to cover more wires. Some people are born and kept living just to come to this. Betty Smith, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, p.364

Although Brooklyn’s Irish-born were unable to dramatically improve their occupational standing for the city’s entire half century of independent municipal life, the “City of Homes” offered one opportunity to which few Irish immigrants who settled in Boston or Manhattan could realistically aspire—property ownership. By 1870, property ownership rates matched natives among both German and Irish immigrants. Although the mean value of Irish-born property holdings was lower than any group except Blacks, the meaning to a nation of renters ostensibly

“exiled” by famine and tyranny should not be lightly dismissed.

Like Philadelphia and several western cities such as Chicago and Detroit, Brooklyn offered seemingly unbounded potential for spatial expansion, and in 1855, the recently merged

Brooklyn-Williamsburg entity occupied a mere 31.3% of Kings County’s 71 square miles. By

1855, the City of Boston had completely occupied its current municipal boundaries. Manhattan had settled as far north as Sixth Avenue and 86th Street (22 of its eventual 24 wards). To wit, it is impossible to consider the social and occupational advancement of the Brooklyn Irish

(immigrants and their offspring) without simultaneously examining the spatial development of their community and their city.

Omnibuses dominated urban public transportation at mid-century. These urban stagecoaches were costly and inefficient. Consequently, few were willing or able to ride them on a regular basis. For most people the practical limits of their living environment were defined by a

116 comfortable walking distance from their home. Most people worked within a half-mile of their residence. Few regularly walked much farther than that distance in the course of a day’s activities. Frequent contact between people living in different parts of the city would therefore have been largely limited to those social classes able to afford public or private transportation on a regular basis. 1

Transportation innovations after mid-century were accompanied by a dramatic spread of population throughout the county, but this expansion tended to increase the social differentiation of the city. Costs were still too dear to allow most Brooklynites to make frequent use of public transport. Those who could afford to ride the horse-drawn rail cars on a daily basis were increasingly separated from those who could not. The location of industry outside the old downtown city center occurred in piecemeal fashion because much of it had been already centered in once-independent Williamsburg. Thus, the distinct industrial and commerce areas common in postbellum American cities were already developing by the outbreak of the Civil

War. The introduction of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883 hastened and redirected this development. With the development of a commercially-based central business district well underway, the last third of the nineteenth century saw more homogeneous residential tracts emerge in which those Brooklynites able to afford public transport lived apart from the noisy, dirty city. Industrial workers, still tied to their worksites, came to reside in neighborhoods differentiated by economic function. As the tables below indicate, construction between 1855 and 1870 moved at a rapid pace.2

1 Sam Bass Warner, Streetcar Suburbs; Brooklyn Historical Society, Scrapbook vol. 112, 8; Lois Gilman, “The Development of a Neighborhood,” 14; Brooklyn Historical Society, Montgomery Queen Scrapbok. 2 Brooklyn Historical Society, Scrapbook vol. 112, 156; Brocket, “Advantages of Brooklyn”, 8; New York Times, March 25, 1854; James Wyckoff, “Real Estate Bulletin”, June,1869, BHS Archives; New York Times, March 28, 1869; Our Neighborhood, March, 1878.

117

But not all activities were restricted to the neighborhood in 1880. Although many

Brooklynites could not afford to use the horsecars for daily transportation, they could ride them occasionally for recreation, for shipping in the emerging central business district, or for other social purposes. With the development of the horse-drawn streetcar some aspects of the social isolation of neighborhoods were diminished. However, it should be emphasized that the daily existence of most persons was still carried on within a severely restricted geographical and social space.3

Similarly, not all of Brooklyn’s unskilled and semi-skilled (nonskilled) laborers lived downtown in the older core wards 1–5. The city’s unusual geography—an extremely long commercial waterfront, combined with the 1855 merger of two distinct Kings County municipalities—encouraged workers to find work and housing “opportunities” wherever possible. The Navy Yard offered literally thousands of jobs to workers with little to bargain but brawn and will. As rents in the rowhouses of Wards 5 (Irishtown) and 14 (West Williamsburgh) grew dear, a number of Irish laborers, skilled and nonskilled “settled” Bedford, in “suburban”

Ward 7. Transit was lacking, but rent was cheap. Housing was of mediocre to poor quality. But the area was less crowded to be sure. By 1855, Ward 7 was the “most Irish” district in the City.

As more paved roads were laid out, streetcar lines were established and the “squatter suburb” became a more genuine “streetcar suburb”, the Irish disappeared. Owners sold. Tenants sought more affordable leases. The Irish laborers’ paradise had lasted less than a decade, but a pattern of “moving out” to the suburbs at the first opportunity, of seeking refuge from the dirt, noise and disease of the older, decaying core neighborhoods would form a theme for the Brooklyn Irish.

This remained powerful throughout their tenure in the city (and borough). Tables 4-1 through 4-

3 Henry R. Stiles, The History of Brooklyn and Kings County, Brooklyn, 1867, 569; Montgomery Queen Scrapbook, Brooklyn Historical Society; New York Times, December 8, 1866.

118

4 illustrate both the general outward migration of the city’s population, and the specific Bedford example noted above. Both macro trends and micro developments influenced the spatial and socioeconomic development of Brooklyn over the half century under study.4

Table 4-1 Occupational Composition of Bedford in 1870 by Section

a b North South Total Category No. % No. % No. % Unskilled 82 21.6 45 15.7 127 19.0 Semi-skilled 80 21.1 49 17.1 129 19.4 Skilled 88 23.1 83 29.0 171 25.7 Low White 94 24.7 76 26.6 170 25.5 Collar/Proprietary High White 36 9.4 33 11.6 69 10.4 Collar/Professional Total 380 100.0 286 100.0 666 100.0 Source: U.S. Census 1870 Ms. Census. aThe northern section is defined as the 21st ward about Myrtle Avenue. bThe southern section is defined as the 21st ward below Myrtle Avenue. Table 4-2 Occupational Composition of Bedford in 1855 by Section

North* South* Total Category No. % No. % No. % Unskilled 50 31.2 26 22.9 76 27.7 Semi-skilled 38 23.8 17 14.6 55 20.1 Skilled 44 27.5 24 21.1 68 24.8 Low White 12 7.5 26 22.9 38 13.9 Collar/Proprietary High White 16 10.0 21 18.5 37 13.5 Collar/Professional Total 160 100.0 114 100.0 274 100.0

Source: New York State Ms. Census, 1855. * The northern section is defined as the 21st ward above Myrtle Avenue. ** The southern section is defined as the 21st ward below Myrtle Avenue.

4 Because downtown was accessable via transit, the average property value in northern Bedford in 1870 was $4900; in the less accessable south, the median values dropped to just below $4000; see George Rogers Taylor, Building an Inter-urban Transportation Systems,” 135-137; Wendy M. Futterman, “Which Came First, The Transit Line or the Neighborhood?”; Clyde Griffin, “Workers Divided”; Peter R. Knights, “Population Turnover, Persistence, and Residential Mobility in Boston, 1830-1860”; Eleanora Schoenbaum, “Emerging Neighborhoods.”

119

Table 4-3 Number of Persons per Brooklyn Residential Building in 1865 and 1875

District 1865 1875 Brooklyn Heights 10.19 8.73 Ferry District 12.89 12.29 Cobble Hill 8.78 8.16 Fourth Ward 8.45 8.93 Carroll Hill 11.69 12.50 “Seventh Ward” 7.47 7.52 South Brooklyn/Park Slope 7.06 6.94 Crown Heights 7.58 8.70 Gowanus 8.91 9.53 Fort Greene 8.57 8.30 Red Hook 9.55 10.47 West Williamsburg 9.85 11.54 Central Williamsburg 8.49 9.53 East Williamsburg 11.42 15.00 Greenpoint 9.34 10.04 Bushwick 7.36 8.43 Nineteenth Ward 8.97 9.40 Total 9.20 9.76 Source: New York Census, 1865, 260; New York Census, 1875, 243–244. Note: The 1875 figures have been adjusted to 1865 boundaries. The Seventh Ward in 1865 included Bedford.

120

Table 4-4 Number of Dwellings in Brooklyn 1865 and 1875 With Percentage of Increase

District 1865 1875 % of Increase Brooklyn Heights 601 1,1851 207.9 Ferry District 2,044 2,235 7.8 Cobble Hill 1,012 1,937 91.4 Fourth Ward 1,361 1,412 3.7 Carroll Hill 2,258 2,724 25.3 “Seventh Ward” (incl. Bedford) 2,152 9,881 359.3 South Brooklyn/Park Slope 1,391 4,300 209.1 Crown Heights 3,090 1,568 -49.2 Gowanus 3,214 3,607 18.8 Fort Greene 3,739 5,227 41.7 Red Hook 1,370 1,673 14.9 West Williamsburg 3,422 6,365 77.8 Central Williamsburg 1,348 2,229 65.3 Eastern Williamsburg 2,133 2,613 22.5 Greenpoint 1,095 2,389 118.1 Bushwick 822 2,069 151.7 Nineteenth Ward 897 2,330 159.7 Total 31,950 54,410 70.2

Source: New York State Census, 1865, 1875. Note: The 1875 figures have been adjusted to 1865 boundaries. The Seventh Ward in 1865 included Bedford.

By 1855 Brooklyn’s Irish were fairly well dispersed throughout the city and were not, as has often been assumed, concentrated into ethnic “ghettos” (See Table 4-6). In 1855, twenty- three percent of the Irish-born lived in areas where their countrymen constituted no more than than one fifth of the local population; nearly half (forty-two percent) lived in areas where less than one-third of their neighbors were Irish. Only eleven percent (Ward 7) lived in areas in which a majority of the population was Irish-born. Ten years later, no single ward housed over thirty-six percent Irish immigrants. By 1890, despite an enormous increase in population, only seven of twenty-six city wards reported greater than forty percent Irish, including both first and second generations. Over time the residential dispersion of Brooklyn’s Irish increased. Only moderately segregated from the rest of the city’s population in 1850, the Irish became even less

121

1873 Map [1870 Wards]

Beers, F.W. The City of Brooklyn [map]. 1873. 1:21,500. “Atlas Of Long Island, New York. From Recent And Actual Surveys And Records Under the Superintendence of F.W. Beers.” David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. (25 April 2013).

122 concentrated spatially in succeeding decades. The dispersion of Brooklyn’s Irish population did not take place at an even pace. Prior to the Civil War, population growth, especially immigration, raced well ahead of building construction. Although the construction of houses increased dramatically both in Brooklyn and throughout the United States, the rate of immigration rose even more quickly. New arrivals, principally Irish and German immigrants, were therefore forced to congregate in whatever housing was available. This was usually poor housing on the perimeter of the downtown area, although shacks and shanties appeared in back streets and alleys throughout the city. Still from 1855 to 1865, the Irish-born population of

Brooklyn began the trend towards lower residential concentration which would continue throughout the nineteenth century. In 1855 roughly one in three Irish lived in a ward with an

Irish born population of at least 33 percent. By 1865 the proportion had increased to approximately one in four. (See Table 4-8.) School construction, on the other hand, remained a significant problem. It lagged so far behind population growth that double sessions were conducted in most districts throughout the 1880’s and 1890’s.5

The growth of Brooklyn’s Irish immigrant population slowed after 1860. Between 1845 and the beginning of the Civil War Brooklyn’s Irish-born population had grown from 22,342 to

56,710—an increase of 253.8 percent. During the 1860’s, however, the increase was less dramatic. In 1870 the Irish population of the city totaled 57,143, an increase of only 0.8%. The

1870’s represented a modest increase. By 1880, Brooklyn’s Irish-born population stood at

78,814, an increase of 37.9% over the previous decade.6

5 Ira Rosenwaike, Population History of New York City, 31, 51; New York State Census Reports 1855- 1865; Samuel Abelow, Dr. William H. Maxwell: The First Superintendent of Schools of the City of New York, Brooklyn: 1934, 28-51. 6 Ira Rosenwaike, Population History of New York City, 51, 63.

123

In the years after the Civil War, housing construction proceeded more quickly than the influx of Irish immigrants. As new areas of housing were developed, the Irish moved to occupy them. These “emigrants” were most often the second generation. This was especially true after the Civil War, when outward movement of Irish freed up room for the commercialization of the new Central Business District. As a result of the dispersion of Irish throughout the city, the immigrant population came to exhibit a degree of differentiation over space more like that of the city’s general population. Irish living in different areas of the city experienced a variety of social influences and developed more diverse economic interests. The extent of this diversity manifests itself in several interesting areas. For example, household structure differs in neighborhoods of varied ethnic concentrations.

In other ways, Irish residents tended to behave much like native-born residents in the same neighborhood in which they lived. This was not necessarily true of Germans, who continued to self-segregate despite earlier and greater socioeconomic success. Of course, the

Irish population of Brooklyn represented a diversity of interests and experiences. The Irish were dispersed, but not evenly spread throughout the city. As early as 1850 specific areas of Irish residential concentration had become apparent in the city. The ethnic neighborhood, often misrepresented as a “ghetto,” has featured in accounts of the Irish in America. The Irish neighborhood has been characterized as a receiving station for immigrants, a place of refuge for the oppressed, a crucial way-station on the road to assimilation, and the focus for the establishment of Irish-Catholic communities in America. The ethnic neighborhood was all of these things and more, but residents of Irish neighborhoods by no means typified the Irish in

American cities (Rosenwaike 51, 63; New York State Census, 1865, 1865, 1875).

124

In Brooklyn distinct concentrations of the Irish population could be found, but it would be a mistake to designate these “Irish” neighborhoods as “ghettoes.” The concept of an ethnic ghetto implies a degree of homogeneity not found in Brooklyn’s areas of Irish residential concentration. Unlike “German” districts, Irish neighborhoods typically housed only a plurality of the Irish-born and their children. For example, “Irishtown,” the Fifth Ward tenement district which abutted the Navy Yard where so many immigrants found work, was never the single most heavily Irish-born district in the city in any census year [see Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-8].

Table 4-5 Brooklyn Population by Ethnic Group from 1845–1890

Nativity 1845 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1890 Total 78,661 205,250 266,661 296,378 396,099 482,493 566,663 806,343 Native 52,286 109,376 162,072 188,527 2851,381 313,633 388,969 544,643 Irish 22,342* 56,753 56,710 57,143 73,985 78,880 78,814 84,738 German 2,229 19,119 23,993 26,467 36,771 53,359 55,339 94,798 Other Foreign 629 35,549 23,886 23,917 33,962 34,707 43541 92,164

* Ireland plus Great Britain and British possessions combined. Source: Ira Rosenwaike, Population History of New York, 31, 51, 60, 70.

125

Table 4-6 Brooklyn Population by Ethnic Group and Ward, 1855

Ward Total Pop. Acres % Irish % German % Native White % Foreign-born 1 6,441 173 34.6 5.3 51.5 48.5 2 8,383 98 35.4 2.9 50.4 49.6 3 8,900 68 22.1 3.9 70.9 29.1 4 12,282 111 19.9 3.5 64.9 35.1 5 16,352 119 34.4 3.2 51.6 48.4 6 18,490 303 35.0 5.7 47.8 52.2 7 12,523 872 51.7 7.4 30.0 70.0 8 5,318 3,205 32.3 4.0 52.0 48.0 9 9,133 3,609 26.8 14.2 49.1 50.9 10 21,749 319 30.8 5.5 53.2 46.8 11 22,213 714 22.4 3.3 62.9 37.1 12 6,990 663 47.7 7.7 50.9 49.1 13 14,044 230 14.5 5.4 69.4 30.6 14 12,414 283 34.8 5.3 51.8 48.2 15 6,559 245 13.3 17.4 59.2 40.8 16 15,350 245 5.5 50.8 37.7 62.3 17 5,508 823 17.5 6.3 65.4 34.6 18 2,601 2,158 14.9 18.3 58.5 41.5 Brooklyn 205,250 27.7 9.3 52.8 47.2

Source: Ira Rosenwaike, Population History of New York, 51, 63.

126

Table 4-7 Brooklyn Population by Ethnic Group and Ward, 1890

Rank US US Ire. Ire. Ger. Ger. Irish Ward Neighborhood Density Housing Total % % T % % T % % T Wards 1 Heights/Furman St. 88.3 T/MC 20040 38 2.8 35 3.5 9 0.1 9 2 Ferry District 94.6 Tenem’t 8988 16 0.5 47 2.1 10 0.4 2* 3 Cobble Hill 117.2 MC/T 16754 36 2.4 22 2.1 18 1.7 16 4 Fourth Ward 118.9 T/MC 12324 33 1.5 30 1.9 19 0.7 13* 5 Irishtown 188.9 Tenem’t 20175 29 6.1 49 4.4 8 1.8 1 6 Red Hook N 122.3 T/MC 37093 21 3 46 2 19 2 4* 7 Bedford W 127.3 MC/T 35726 21 3 46 2 19 2 4* Middle 8 “Sunset Park” 27.8 Class 31239 28 3.2 30 4.8 19 3 13* 9 Crown Heights W 47.7 T/MC 17898 27 1.8 47 4.2 9 0.8 2* 10 Gowanus 118.1 T/MC 34031 25 3.2 42 7.2 12 2.1 7 11 Fort Green W 128.9 T/MC 22693 34 2.8 32 3.7 10 1.1 11 12 Red Hook S 51.5 Tenem’t 27368 17 1.7 46 6.4 12 1.7 4* 13 Williamsburg SW 95.7 T/MC 21826 42 3.4 18 2 22 2.4 18 14 Williamsburg NW 97.3 Tenem’t 27246 25 2.4 36 4.9 24 3.3 8 15 Williamsburg NE 110.1 MC/T 27830 30 3.9 15 2.2 32 4.5 20* 16 Williamsburg SE 182.9 Tenem’t 45720 19 3.2 4 0.8 68 15.8 26 17 Greenpoint 54.9 T/MC 41424 33 5 31 6.3 23 4.7 12 18 Bushwick 38.6 MC/T 74960 28 7.7 9 3.5 54 20.6 25 19 Nineteenth Ward 85.9 MC/T 36244 35 4.8 15 2.8 35 6.5 20* 20 Fort Green E 79.7 MC/T 24136 46 4.2 24 2.9 10 1.2 15 21 21st Ward 185.5 MC/T 50116 33 6.1 17 4.4 37 9.2 19 22 Park Slope 59.8 MC/T 50250 44 8.2 21 5.4 14 3.5 17 Middle 23 Bedford E 78.5 Class 29348 62 6.7 13 2 9 1.3 23 24 Crown Heights E 24.2 MC/T 16771 35 2.1 33 2.8 11 0.9 10 Middle 25 25th Ward 54.6 Class 44638 50 8.1 14 3.8 17 3.8 22 Middle 26 New Lots 7.1 Class 29505 34 3.7 12 1.1 34 5.2 24 * tie

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Special Report: Vital Statistics for the Cities of New York and Brooklyn, 1890.

127

1889 Map [1890 Wards]

Cram, George Franklin. Map of Brooklyn. [map]. 1889. Scale not given. “Cram's Standard American Atlas Of The World.” David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. (25 April 2013).

128

Table 4-8 Brooklyn Population by Ethnic Group and Ward, 1865

% Native % Foreign- Ward Total Pop. Acres % Irish % German White born 1 6,128 173 29.9 4.6 59.2 40.8 2 8,760 98 33.0 3.7 51.8 48.2 3 8,890 68 19.7 4.7 67.5 32.5 4 11,506 111 16.3 4.2 69.0 31.0 5 17,820 119 31.6 3.2 57.0 43.0 6 26,407 303 29.2 5.8 56.7 43.3 7 15,968 458 19.4 2.9 69.1 30.9 8 9,829 3,205 19.7 6.2 61.6 38.4 9 23,443 3,609 13.2 9.4 68.3 31.7 10 18,668 319 21.4 6.7 63.1 36.9 11 18,242 253 19.0 3.2 69.3 30.7 12 13,085 663 37.6 7.5 48.7 51.3 13 17,791 230 9.9 7.2 74.3 25.9 14 15,425 283 24.4 6.6 61.3 38.7 15 11,449 245 8.9 12.0 71.4 28.6 16 24,379 245 3.4 38.5 53.9 46.1 17 10,234 823 17.9 6.8 66.9 33.1 18 6,319 2,158 10.7 17.2 65.7 34.3 19 8,055 414 11.9 10.5 69.9 30.1 20 13,980 461 13.8 2.6 75.0 25.0 Brooklyn 296,378 19.3 8.9 63.6 36.4 Source: New York State Manuscript Census, 1865.

Residents of Irish neighborhoods did differ from Irish in other parts of the city in several significant ways. Most important were the distinctive demographic profiles of the ethnic neighborhoods and differences in the extent of interaction with the general population of the city.

In this sense, the Irish within heavily ethnic neighborhoods were atypical of the Irish population of the city as a whole. A demographically distinctive feature of Brooklyn’s Irish neighborhoods was the relatively high proportion of the people residing in these areas who lived as members of family units. This situation resulted from differing spatial distributions of employment opportunities for young men and women. Young single people of both sexes tended to live

129 disproportionately outside Irish clusters; young women displayed even greater residential dispersion than did young men. Young women seeking employment as live-in domestic servants were drawn out of Irish neighborhoods into other areas of the city with the result that Irish living in areas of ethnic concentration exhibited more balanced sex ratios than those living in other parts of the city [see Table 4-9]. This selective distribution of young women was also reflected in the distinctive age structures of the Irish neighborhood. In each “Irish” neighborhood the average age of Irish women was higher than that of men. The reverse was true of the Irish population as a whole [see Table 4-10].

Within heavily Irish neighborhoods a greater proportion of adult men were found to be married than elsewhere in the city indicating that single men, as well as women, tended to live outside the ethnic clusters, although to a lesser extent [see Table 4-11]. Young Irish men were much more likely to leave the city entirely in search for work on Western railroads, mines, etc.

Brooklyn’s employment opportunities were more spatially concentrated for young men than for young women, and for that reason young men exhibited less residential dispersion than women.

Irish neighborhoods can thus be seen as areas of relatively intense familialism. There, a relatively high proportion of both men and women lived within family units, while Irish men, and especially young women, in other areas of the city were disproportionally unattached.

Demographic variations point to important differences in lifestyles between the Irish clustered in ethnic neighborhoods and those residing in other parts of the city. More significant for the purpose of this study, however, is the difference between exogamy rates within and outside areas of Irish concentration [see Table 4-12]. Exogamy, or marriage outside one’s own group, in the words of one prominent authority is “the surest… most infallible index” of the assimilation of an

130 ethnic group into the dominant culture.7 Another source views exogamy as “a severely realistic index of the social distance between distinct groups and peoples within an area…, the most concrete measurable data on the relations of population groups and elements to each other.”8 In

1880, the Irish living outside the ethnic neighborhoods exhibited significantly higher exogamy rates than those living in close proximity to their countrymen. At mid-century the inadequacy of public transportation restricted the personal contacts of most people to a limited geographic area.

Persons living in heavily Irish neighborhoods, therefore, had significantly fewer opportunities to form intimate contacts with persons outside their own ethnic group than did those who lived in more ethnically diverse areas of the city. Transportation innovations after mid-century brought about more extensive use of public transportation for recreational purposes although high fares continued to deny most of the laboring population access on a daily basis. Recreational use greatly increased the potential range of occasional interpersonal contacts available to individuals, thus expanding the “marriage pool” to a degree. At the same time occupational diversification extended the range of social contacts available to Irish immigrants and their children. These changes were reflected in higher exogamy rates. (See Ch. 5, Table 5-14; Ch. 4, 4-12.) However a difference between residents of Irish neighborhoods and other Irish immigrants was readily apparent in 1880, indicating that restrictions imposed by both physical and social geography were still important measures of the social universe within which the Irish lived.9

7 Ruby Jo Reeves, “Single or Triple Melting Pot,” 331. 8 James Bossard, “Nationality and Nativity as Factors in Marriage,” 792. 9 US Census Manuscript, 1880.

131

Table 4-9 Sex Ratios in “Irish” Wards, 1880

Females/1000 Males Females/1000 Males 1850 1880 Ferry District (Ward 2) 0.857 0.895 Williamsburg NW (Ward 14) 0.740 0.813 Red Hook (Ward 12) 0.892 0.882 Irishtown (Ward 5) 0.825 0.926 All Irish 0.975 1.049

Table 4-10 Mean Ages in “Irish” Wards, 1880

Males Females Ferry District (Ward 2) 38.7 40.8 Williamsburg NW (Ward 14) 40.1 42.7 Red Hook (Ward 12) 42.2 41.2 Irishtown (Ward 5) 39.5 41.1 All Irish 42.0 40.1

Source: U.S. Manuscript Census, 1880.

The populations of Irish neighborhoods thus differed in significant ways from the larger, more dispersed immigrant population, but these systematic differences should not mask a high degree of variation among the ethnic neighborhoods themselves. Relative dominance was an important characteristic distinguishing areas of Irish concentration from each other. In Wards 7 and 12, where approximately half of the local population was Irish, individuals on some blocks were essentially isolated from non-ethnic influences on a day-to-day basis. This was also true to a lesser extent in Ward 5 (“Irishtown”), Ward 6 (“Red Hook North”) and Ward 8 (“The Slope”).

In these somewhat less homogeneous neighborhoods (30–33% Irish born) Irish immigrants and their children were exposed to a number of daily cross-cultural contacts and influences.

Interestingly, Irish and German populations rarely lived together, given the tendency of

Brooklyn’s German population to cluster together, particularly in the Eastern

132

1878 Map [1880 Wards]

Gray, Ormando Willis; G. Woolworth Colton. New York City, Brooklyn, Jersey City, Hoboken, etc. [map]. 1878. 1:749:000. “The National Atlas. Containing Elaborate Topographical Maps Of The United States And The Dominion of Canada, With Plans Of Cities And General Maps Of The World.” David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. (25 April 2013).

133

District.10

The occupational profiles of Irish neighborhoods varied greatly. On a vertical scale they ranged in 1880 from Ward 6, where two-thirds of the Irish adult male immigrants were employed in skilled trades or white collar positions, to Ward 5, where four-fifths worked at unskilled jobs.

Table 4-11 Proportion of Irish Adults Married (Age 35)

Women Men Irish Wards 61.2% 49.3% All Irish 69.8% 45.4% Source: U.S. Manuscript Census, 1880.

Table 4-12 Endogamous Marriages of Irish-Born Adult Males

Proportion in 1880 Ferry District (Ward 2) 94.5% Williamsburg NW (Ward 14) 92.5% Red Hook (Ward 12) 93.6% Irishtown (Ward 5) 94.2% All Irish 90.2% Source: U.S. Manuscript Census, 1880.

In 1880, each of the Irish clusters maintained a great deal of its economic distinctiveness.

Red Hook (Ward 12) was still dominated by dockside labor. Irishtown (Ward 5) was dominated by the light industry associated with the adjacent Brooklyn Navy Yard. A variety of occupations were common among Ward 6 (Red Hook North) residents, Irish stock or native-born. A significant number of workers there worked in the emerging CBD downtown. A few commuted by ferry to Manhattan, but this would only become a common practice for low-white-collar types after the opening of the Great Bridge three years hence.11

10 Ira Rosenwaike, Population History of New York City, 51, 63; New York State Census Population Reports 1855, 1865; U.S. Census Bureau Population Reports 1880, Special Report: Vital Statistics, 1894. 11 U.S. Census Manuscript Sample, 1880

134

Table 4-13 Occupational Distribution of Irish Immigrant Workers in Selected Cities 1880

Males City White Collar Skilled Labor Nonskilled Labor 1 Worcester 5.2 18.9 75.7 2 Boston 12.0 21.0 67.0 3 Pittsburgh 13.8 19.8 66.6 4 Providence 12.6 22.6 64.7 5 San Francisco 19.9 18.6 61.5 6 Chicago 21.0 20.0 59.1 7 Brooklyn 17.6 32.3 50.1 8 Philadelphia 19.5 31.8 48.7 9 Detroit 26.0 30.0 45.0 Females City White Collar Skilled Labor Nonskilled Labor 1 Chicago 14.3 10.7 75.0 2 Brooklyn 10.1 11.6 78.3 3 Poughkeepsie 4.0 15.0 81.0 4 San Francisco 8.2 1.3 90.5

Sources: U.S. Manuscript Census, 1880; See Timothy Meagher, “The Lord is not Dead”; Stephan Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians,1964; Victor Walsh, “Across the Big Water,” 1983; Robert Burchell, The San Francisco Irish, 1850–1880, 1980; Patricia Kelleher, “Gender Shapes Ethnicity: Ireland’s Gender Systems and Chicago’s Irish-Americans,” 2005; Dennis Clark, The Irish in Philadelphia, 1840–1880, 1973: JoEllen Vinyard, The Irish on the Urban Frontier, 1850–1880, 1976; Clyde & Sally Griffin, Natives and Newcomers: The Ordering of Opportunity in Mid-Nineteenth Century Poughkeepsie, 1978; Joel Perlman, “Working-Class Homeownership and Children’s Schooling in Providence, Rhode Island 1880–1925,” 1983.

In Philadelphia, Detroit and Brooklyn, at least thirty percent of Irish-born male workers could be classified as “skilled craftsmen.” In five other major cities from San Francisco to

Providence, the corresponding figure was roughly one-fifth (18.6%–22.6%) [see Table 4-15].

Why then do so many popular and scholarly accounts continue to portray nineteenth century

Irish-Americans as either an undifferentiated mass of unskilled proletarians or as nouveau riche

“lace curtain” aristocrats?

135

The Brooklyn Irish displayed a diversity of social and economic conditions that precludes

any simple characterization. An understanding of the economic constraints under which

individuals live must underlie systematic analysis of the relationships that develop between

them. Although one’s place in an economic system may not proscribe one’s options, it

profoundly influences them. People at different points in an economic structure are faced with

different sets of resources, opportunities and limits upon which to base their behavior. The

Brooklyn Irish lived in a variety of economic environments and faced a range of possibilities

based on their economic circumstances.12

Table 4-14 Occupational Distribution of Brooklyn’s Irish, German & Native-stock Males 1850–1880

Irish German Native 1850 1880 1880* 1900 1900* 1850 1880 1880* 1900 1900* 1850 1880 1900 HWC 1.2 1.4 3.9 2.0 7.7 2.5 2.0 4.3 3.2 7.9 12.0 10.5 12.1 LWC 12.1 16.2 20.9 12.2 24.6 13.8 22.9 22.8 21.8 26.0 22.0 27.8 29.6 SL 30.5 32.3 39.8 34.4 45.3 46.9 50.4 52.1 51.0 50.3 50.2 44.9 43.7 SS 20.1 20.2 20.4 19.9 12.3 21.5 16.7 12.5 13.8 10.0 11.0 12.3 10.2 US 35.1 29.9 15.0 31.5 10.1 15.3 9.0 8.3 10.2 5.8 4.8 4.5 4.4 *American-born sons of Irish mothers Source: U.S. Census Manuscript Schedules for 1850, 1880 & 1900

Economic differentiation within Brooklyn’s Irish population was reflected both in

differences in occupational status and in inequalities in the economic resources upon which

individuals could draw. Economic differentiation is far more accessible to the historian.

Economic resources can only be estimated. Yet it was differential access to economic resources

that most profoundly separated Irish immigrants from each other and from their native-born and

German-born neighbors. The range of economic inequalities in a nineteenth century city and

their impact on the Irish immigrant population could be quite significant. Brooklyn’s Irish-born,

12 U.S. Census Manuscript , 1880.

136

1901 Map [1900 Wards]

Cram, George Franklin. Brooklyn. Greater New York (City). [map]. 1901. Scale not given. “Cram's Standard American Railway System Atlas Of The World.” David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. (25 April 2013).

137 and to a lesser extent their children were overrepresented in unskilled occupational categories.

At mid-century unskilled workers accounted for 35.1 percent of the Irish adult male workforce.

Semi-skilled workers accounted for another 20.1 percent bringing the total proportion of nonskilled workers to 55.2 percent [see Table 4-14]. Thirty years later non-skilled workers totaled

50.1 percent of the Irish-born workforce. By contrast, only 18.8 percent of German immigrants and 15.8 percent of native whites toiled at non-skilled jobs.13

Interestingly, when Edward Pessen wrote his ground-breaking critique of the “egalitarian myth” of the “so-called era of the common man,” he pointed out that just two of sixty-five of

Brooklyn’s wealthiest men had enjoyed a rags-to-riches ascent. One was an Irish Catholic.

During the age of allegedly social fluidity the overwhelming majority of wealthy persons appears to have been descended of parents and families who combined affluence and high status… Cornelius Heeney and John Dikeman were the only wealthy Brooklynites [worth $60,000 or more in 1845] of truly humble origins, with sixteen percent born into middling status, and the remaining eighty-one percent of wealthy or high status families

Pessen’s point is well-made. Few laborers, of native or immigrant stock, could muster the drive and develop the skill to succeed as Heeney did. Fewer still would do so while serving as devout church-going role models for newly arrived Catholic Irish. Heeney was the closest thing to Andrew Carnegie that Brooklyn’s Irish had to look towards. Heeney’s philanthropy and public behavior reflect a keen understanding of his own place. However, both he and his less successful cocommunicants were also keenly aware of the uniqueness of his story and of his rise.14

13 U.S. Census Manuscript Sample, 1880 14 Edward Pessen, “The Egalitarian Myth and the American Social Reality: Wealth, Mobility, and Equality in the ‘Era of the Common Man,’” The American Historical Review, 76(4), 1971, 1006-1014, quote on p. 1012.

138

This relative concentration of Irish immigrants in the ranks of unskilled labor has obscured the fact that nearly half of Irish-born immigrant workers were not non-skilled workers.

In both 1850 and 1880 non-skilled workers were only barely outnumbered by those holding skilled, white collar, proprietary and professional positions. Within the second generation, nonskilled workers accounted for approximately one-third of the adult male workforce.

Approximately half of the adult male Irish population held artisanal, white collar and proprietary positions, a small but significant improvement from the 45% in 1850. This fact alone illustrates the growing strength of the Irish middle classes in the “City of Homes.” Between

1850 and 1880 the skilled level within the immigrant workforce increased slightly, as did the low white collar and proprietary segment. There was no real movement of immigrants into the professional ranks, but their sons did make some inroads. There was a marked discrepancy between the occupational patterns of the first and second generation of Irish men. By 1880, the first year for which systematic data on the second generation was available, the sons of immigrants regularly achieved significantly higher occupational rankings than their fathers [see

Table 4-15]. Although second generation Irish had not achieved occupational status levels equivalent to the city’s native white population or its German-Americans, they were moving in that direction.

Table 4-15 Occupational Distribution of Irish Adult Male Workers by Generation

1880 1900 Occupational First Second Native First Second Native Level Generation Generation White Generation Generation White White Collar 17.6 24.8 38.3 14.2 32.3 41.7 Skilled 32.3 39.8 44.9 34.4 45.3 43.7 Nonskilled 50.1 35.4 15.8 51.4 22.4 14.6

Source: U.S. Manuscript Census, 1880.

139

General occupational categories such as “skilled”, “unskilled”, “semi-skilled”, “white collar” and other ways of describing horizontal occupational levels in the workforce are useful indicators of the position of Irish immigrants relative to other groups in the city’s population.

However, these broad categories conceal a great deal of the internal differentiation of the immigrant workforce. Broad occupational labels tell us little concerning the quality of life experienced by different strata. Occupational strata embrace a wide range of incomes, life styles and status levels. They also overlap each other, creating artificial distinctions between equivalent occupational positions. Moreover, they are essentially ahistoric, conveying no sense of changes in the work content undergone by specific occupations. It is therefore useful to undertake a more detailed examination of the occupational distribution of the Brooklyn Irish.

Nonskilled labor occupies the bottom of any scheme of occupational classification. Yet, the category masks a high degree of internal variation. In nineteenth century America

“nonskilled” labor included a number of income levels, each with a distinct life style. They ranged from unattached transients living from day-to-day, for whom life must have been a perpetual crisis. There were also participants in a family economy who may have achieved some degree of stability through mutual effort. Lastly, there were well-paid industrial workers whose steady employment allowed life on the fringes of bourgeois respectability.

Unskilled labor accounted for roughly one-third of the Irish adult male workforce in both

1850 and 1880. Within this group approximately two thirds were married in 1880 and one tenth were dependent children living in their parents’ home. Thus, roughly three fourths of the casual labor force lived within and could draw upon the resources of the family economy. One fifth of the workforce was listed as “boarders” or “lodgers” in a non-kin household. These individuals can reasonably be presumed to have lived outside the family economy and to have depended

140 solely upon their wages for support. Casual laborers with family attachments thus outnumbered their unattached counterparts by a factor of almost four to one.

The distinction between individuals who lived within a family economy and those who could not is important. Casual laborers worked at short-term jobs and were often unemployed at various times during the year. Unless they had access to economic resources other than their own limited wages, these marginal laborers faced a fragile existence.

Lack of a reliable income source introduced a degree of impermanence into the lives of casual laborers that made them, more than any other segment of the population, subject to the whims of local economic conditions. Effective planning for the future was impossible without a steady paycheck. Property accumulation was unlikely, and the vagaries of the labor market must have led to an anxious existence. For many workers, particularly the young, casual labor meant transience, a lack of permanent attachments to the local community, a lack of social status, and even de facto disenfranchisement from the political process.

Not all casual laborers had to make do on their own. Many had access to the pooled resources of family members. A study of the family economy in 1880 shows that Irish children customarily remained at home for several years after leaving school and entering the workforce.

(See Ch. 5, Tables 5-8, 5-9.) By the age of sixteen most Irish boys had left school and begun work, but most continued to live with their families into their mid-twenties. Most young women worked, but a significant minority of them remained “at home” performing domestic chores.

Failure to enter the labor force, however, did not mean that young girls did not contribute to the family economy. By performing domestic duties, they freed other members of the family to take outside work and helped the family with boarders.

141

Children were thus an important economic resource for immigrant families—both Irish and German. They worked and contributed to the family income whenever necessary. Other non-nuclear kin also contributed to the general welfare of the household, often as an alternative to putting children to work. The presence of children and non-nuclear residents correlated negatively with children’s participation in the workforce, indicating that the two were typical alternative strategies for supplementing the family’s income.

The family economy was particularly important near the bottom of the occupational spectrum. The wages of most unskilled workers fell short of the minimum necessary to support families and it was therefore necessary for men, women and children to work together to survive.

As the income of the head of household rose, the family economy became less important.

Children’s participation in the workforce was inversely related the father’s occupational status.

Increasing income freed members of the family to pursue alternatives to work such as education.

(See Ch. 5, Notes 81 & 82.) It was even possible for some casual laborers to accumulate savings and to acquire real property.

The “unskilled” and “semiskilled” categories masked other distinctions based upon changes in Brooklyn’s industrial structure. Industrial development; in the middle decades of the nineteenth century was accompanied by changes in the scale of enterprises, rationalization of work processes and the application of technological innovations such as mechanization and steam power. The most obvious of these transformations was a change in the scale of certain workplaces. Even though New York and Brooklyn were noted for smaller firms than rival cities in the Northeast or Midwest, by 1880 one worker in six labored in a firm employing more than one hundred persons while approximately one-third toiled in firms employing more than fifty persons. The work world was nothing like that of 1850. Along with an increase in size went

142 increasing differentiation of the semiskilled workforce. Larger aggregations of workers were organized into specialized units and this specialization required the elaboration of hierarchical structures of foremen and supervisors. Thus, new occupational categories were created and new opportunities for advancement emerged, even as some “bastardization of craft” eroded the status of certain skilled workers. One of the effects of industrial development was to alter the wage patterns of the city’s workforce. Certain skilled and non-skilled workers benefitted from employment in the new large industrial plants. Wage rates for semiskilled labor in larger firms in the emerging industries often approached the levels earned by traditional craftsmen working in small firms.15

As often as not, the Brooklyn Irish benefitted from these changes in industrial organization. Although immigrants were largely excluded from the emerging managerial class, the second generation of Irish made significant inroads among what today would be termed

“entry-level positions.” In terms of wages the Irish had made considerable gains by 1880. A close examination of several Brooklyn industries in that year indicates that the Irish tended to be overrepresented in occupations with reasonably good wage levels and underrepresented in lower paying industries [see Table 4-11].16

Within individual industries mechanization and the emergence of the factory system provided Irish immigrants with some opportunities for advancement. By the 1870’s Irish immigrants and their children were well represented in high-paying trades—carpenters, masons, contractors, plasterers, etc.—skilled positions which required little capitalization.17

15 Ronald Mendel “Workers in Gilded Age New York and Brooklyn,” 24. 16 Ronald Mendel “Workers in Gilded Age New York and Brooklyn,” 60-62; U.S. Census Bureau, Special Reports: Employees and Wages, 1900. 17 L.A. O’Donnell, “From Limerick to the Golden Gate”; Bryan Palmer, “Social Formation and Class Formation in North America.”

143

High wage rates and regular employment alleviated the worst aspects of the subsistence life styles forced upon many casual laborers. Regularity of income allowed planning for the future, savings and property accumulation. By 1870 non-skilled workers with specified occupations showed rates of property holding that compared favorably with those of skilled craftsmen. A number of Brooklyn craftsmen were listed among the depositors at New York’s

Emigrant Industrial Saving Bank.18 Others appear among depositors at the Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn.19 In addition, the names of numerous non-skilled industrial workers appear in the rolls of insurance and beneficial societies. In short, the relatively high wage rates paid to some industrial workers and tradesmen allowed them to enjoy a degree of “respectability.”

18 See Kevin Rich, Irish Immigrants of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank 1850-1853—Volume I, New York: 2000; Irish Immigrants of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank 1854-1856—Volume II (New York: 2005. . 19 See Brooklyn Historical Society archives.

144

Table 4-16 Wage Levels and Irish Concentrations in Select Industries

Index of Index of Average Disproportion Disproportion Industry Yearly Wages 1st Gen. 2nd Gen. Iron $625 2.2 3.7 Hardware $530 1.2 3.0 Printing and Publishing $535 3.7 6.7 Machine Tools $485 2.0 3.3 Boots & Shoes $465 0.5 0.3 Harnesses $460 0.3 0.2 Textiles $450 1.2 1.9 Building and Construction $475 6.9 9.7 Furniture $455 0.3 0.9 Metals $440 0.3 1.2 Baking $425 0.5 0.3 Meat $395 0.2 0.5 Clothing $345 1.2 1.9

* Index of Disproportion = percent of group in industry/percent in total population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Special Report on Employees and Wages (Washington: 1900).

It is just as difficult to gauge the size of this emergent class of relatively comfortable industrial workers as it is to determine the number of hand-to-mouth casual laborers. Real property holdings provide some indication of the proportion of the non-skilled workforce who achieved and maintained wage levels which permitted some discretionary income. This was a small group of workers, accounting for only 2.0 percent of the total Irish immigrant workforce in

1850 and 4.5 percent in 1870, but despite their scarcity they indicate the existence of a relatively affluent segment within the non-skilled ranks whose life style stands in sharp contrast to the marginal existence experienced by many casual laborers. It also points to the importance of property ownership as a goal and a value among Brooklyn immigrants. Germans accumulated property at an even more impressive rate (2.5% and 6.3%). German-born laborers were even more likely to hold property than their native-born peers in 1870. (See Table 4-20.)

145

The changes in industrial structure that benefited certain categories of non-skilled labor affected skilled workers as well. In the course of these changes traditional skills were frequently undermined or “diluted” as tasks became simplified and individual craftsmen were replaced by machines semiskilled labor. In many trades craftsmen were reduced to the status of machine- tenders or labored at simplified and specialized tasks under supervised factory conditions.

The decline of skilled trades affected Brooklyn’s Irish population less than it did Irish workers in other Northeastern cities. The “bastardization of craft” could sometimes undermine the resources of those Irish who practiced skilled trades and limit opportunities on the part of the

Irish to penetrate skilled labor markets as craft organizations adopted exclusionary practices aimed at preserving advantageous wage structures.

However, no single Brooklyn industry denominated her economy as did Philadelphia’s textiles or Pittsburgh’s steelmaking. In Philadelphia for example, transformations in the textile industry alone account for most of the decline in the number of Irish skilled workers between

1850 and 1880. The city’s large community of Irish weavers was devastated by technological innovation. Between 1850 and 1870, weaving gradually moved into the factory and increasingly was taken over by power looms. By 1880, handloom weaving had virtually disappeared.20

Most of Brooklyn’s skilled Irish craftsmen were spared a comparable decline in status simply because the two industries in which they were most concentrated were among the least susceptible to skill dilution. Building tradesmen work on-site with hand tools. Not until the

Sears “kit houses” of the 1920’s and the Levitt phenomenon of the 1950’s was the “site-built” structure endangered in any meaningful way. In addition, despite the high capitalization and heavy investment in technological innovation, newspaper and book printing was still highly

20 Bruce Laurie, The Working People of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 1980, Chapter 2.

146 dependent on skillful typesetters and workers with related skill sets. New technology allowed skilled humans to work better and faster; it could not replace a well-trained technician.21

Table 4-17 Occupational Stratification of Ethnic Groups Male Workers, 1880

Occupational Irish German Native White Level 1880 1880* 1900 1900* 1880 1880* 1900 1900* 1880 1900 % White Collar 17.6 24.8 14.2 32.3 24.9 27.1 25 34.9 38.3 41.7 % Skilled 32.3 39.8 34.4 45.3 58.4 57.1 58 50.3 44.9 43.7 % Nonskilled 50.1 35.4 51.4 22.4 18.8 15.8 17 14.8 15.8 14.6

Source: U.S. Manuscript Census, 1880

Irish immigrants made modest gains in moving from non-skilled to skilled labor strata between 1850 and 1900 (30.5; 32.3; 34.4, respectively). Their sons fared better from 1850–1900

(39.8; 45.3, respectively). In light of the small-firm/skilled-labor nature of the Brooklyn economy, it is a little surprising that Brooklyn’s second generation Irish made more headway in penetrating white collar occupations (+7.5%) than the skilled trades (+5.5%). (See Table 4-19.)

Even ignoring differences within crafts, a remarkable degree of variation in wages between crafts existed. Some craftsmen were able to earn twice the wages paid to others. For example, plasterers and plumbers commanded more than $2.75 per day in 1880, while cigarmakers and tanners only made $1.25–$1.75. At the bottom of the skilled category, there was little difference, either in the quality of work or in financial rewards between skilled and non-skilled workers. Bartenders and teamsters typically earned $1.50 per day. At the other end of the scale, many building tradesmen earned as much as or more than many white collar workers. This observation is particularly relevant to a discussion of small proprietary positions.

21 Katherine Stevenson et al., Houses by Mail, Ch. 1; Ronald Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age New York and Brooklyn,” 504-505; U.S. Dept. of Labor, Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928, 164-171, 202-205, 208-211.

147

In fact, it has been argued that, in light of the high failure rates for small businesses, skilled labor was often superior in terms of economic reward and security to petty entrepreneurship.22

Some sort of crude estimate of the differences in lifestyles afforded by the variance in skilled wage rates should be ventured. If a family of four required an income of $650.00 per year, then industrial workers in Brooklyn who worked 260 days out of the year would have had to earn $2.47 a day to maintain this minimum standard of living. For families in which the head of household earned significantly less than the minimum subsistence wage, all the resources of the family economy must have been committed to the subsistence struggle. As wages approached the minimum, however, family resources could be turned to nonessential items such as luxury purchases, savings, the acquisition of property or the purchase of leisure time.

Children’s labor could be withdrawn and their time and energy invested in education. (See Ch.

5, Tables 5-8, 5-9.) At the top of the blue-collar segment of the workforce there was little to differentiate the skilled craftsman from his contemporaries who occupied lower-level white- collar and proprietary positions.

Variations in incomes and lifestyles were reflected in working class organizations. As far back as 1971, Bruce Laurie documented exclusionary practices based upon income and life styles for working class associations in antebellum Philadelphia. He concluded that class

(defined in terms of wealth, regularity of employment and life style) was a more important determinant of organizational patterns within the city’s working class than was ethnicity during the first half of the nineteenth century. John Ridge23 pointed to more ethnically oriented “litmus

22 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928, 164-171; U.S. Census Bureau, Special Report on Employees and Wages, 1900. 23 John Ridge, The Flatbush Irish, 1983; Ridge, “The Irish County Societies in New York, 1880-1914, in The New York Irish, Ronald H. Bayor & Timothy J. Meagher, eds., Baltimore: 1995, 297.

148 tests” among the A.O.H. in Brooklyn, but acknowledged that The Knights of Columbus was inherently “Catholic, not Irish.” Timothy Meagher24 argues the same point persuasively about

Worcester’s A.O.H., temperance and K. of C. chapters. Just as important as formal declarations, most Brooklyn Irish community organizations required standards of behavior of their members that would have been difficult for unskilled individuals living on a subsistence income to maintain. Therefore, only the white collar ranks and upper levels of the immigrant working class could gain access to many ethnic formal associations. (See Chapter 6 for a more complete discussion.)

Table 4-18 Irish Immigrant Upper-Class Occupations 1850–1880

Occupational Level Percent of Group 1850 1880 High White Collar 0.7 2.0 Professional 10.1 5.2 Proprietary 56.2 70.9 Low White Collar 33.0 21.9

Source: U.S. Census Manuscript Schedules, 1850 & 1880

By 1880, the American-born children of Brooklyn’s Irish immigrants moved rapidly into white collar and proprietary positions. For the most part these were young men occupying low white-collar occupations such as “clerk”, “bookkeeper” or “accountant,” and small proprietors serving neighborhood markets. However, even among immigrants, this sector expanded. White collar, proprietary and professional occupations accounted for 13.3 percent of the immigrant workforce in 1850 and 17.6 percent thirty years later. At mid-century slightly more than half of the individuals in this occupational rank held proprietary positions while two-fifths were

24 Meagher, 1979, 545-608.

149 employed in white collar occupations and less than a tenth were professionals [see Table 4-18].

Over the next thirty years the proprietary sector expanded dramatically and by 1880 accounted for more than three fourths of the upper ranks.

Table 4-19 Number of Irish-Born Property Holders* 1850–1870

% Change % Change Size of Holding N (1850) 1850–1860 N (1860) 1860–1870 N (1870) > $5000 330 -1 320 171 870 $1501–$5000 530 -1 510 169 1370 $500–$1500 560 1 570 78 1010 $1–$500 300 1200 2380 12 2660

*One-tenth sample x 10 = N Source: U.S. Census Manuscript sample, 1850, 1870

Most of the growth of the proprietary sector was confined to small property owners.

Table 4-19 demonstrates the dramatic increase in small property ownership in the decade beginning at mid-century. Much of this increase was due to the expansion of small proprietorship within the immigrant population, although some certainly reflects home ownership. After the

Civil War, moderate and large property holdings increased at a spectacular rate as both Irish and

Germans moved towards the upper levels of Brooklyn’s economic hierarchy.

Table 4-20 Real Property Distribution by Occupation Level and Ethnic Group 1850 and 1870

Percent Holding Real Property Occupational Level Irish German Native White 1850 1870 1850 1870 1850 1870 White Collar 16.8 32.4 13.8 30.5 19.4 21.5 Skilled 5.1 16.0 7.0 19.0 10.5 11.8 Nonskilled 4.3 11.9 4.3 10.0 4.5 5.8

Source: U.S. Census Manuscript sample, 1850, 1870

150

As the number of small property holders expanded in the years after mid-century

Brooklyn’s Irish population achieved levels of property ownership akin to those of the native white majority. In fact, if comparisons are made within the two higher occupational levels,

Brooklyn’s Irish had, by 1870, achieved higher levels of property ownership than native white

Americans [see Table 4-20].

Simple proportions of property owners hide an important difference between immigrants and native Americans, however. Although natives did not hold property in greater proportions than immigrants, they accumulated much larger fortunes. Among those who reported owning property, at mid-century the size of native holdings averaged more than $12,500 while Irish and

German immigrants averaged less than half of that sum [see Table 4-21]. Twenty years later, due to a vast increase in the number of small property holders, the averages for both native and immigrant groups dropped, but native holdings still averaged more than twice the value of immigrants’. The disparity between native and immigrant property holdings indicates that

Brooklyn’s Irish, despite significant gains, had not been able to penetrate in large numbers to move into an economic position of sufficient security to wield real economic power. Irish property holders remained, throughout the middle decades of the nineteenth century essentially a population of home and small shop owners. This position represented overwhelming success relative to where most had come from. However, competing with native-born whites on equal footing was still well out of reach for most members of their community.

151

Table 4-21 Average Total Wealth of Property Holders

Irish German Native Black 1850* 5164 5993 12751 2473 1860** 2115 2642 6285 927 1870** 4185 4487 9468 2280

* Includes real property only. ** Includes both real and personal property.

This is not to say that the Irish middle class was not internally stratified. On the contrary, the distribution of wealth within the immigrant population formed the classic socioeconomic pyramid, much like that of the larger society, but on a smaller scale. Table 4-22 reveals some of the dimensions of inequality of wealth within the immigrant population. In 1850, although significant numbers of property holders were found in all occupational strata, wealth was enormously concentrated within the White collar segment of the workforce. In that year roughly one-seventh of the Irish-born population controlled just one-third of the property, but fully four- fifths of the wealth. Over the next two decades small property ownership increased dramatically

[see Table 4-14], but this had little effect upon the concentration of wealth. In 1870 the same one-seventh of the Irish population still controlled a third of the land and three-fourths of the wealth.

Table 4-22 Irish-Born Property and Wealth Distribution 1850–1870

Occupational % Irish % Irish % Irish Level Workforce Property Holdings Total Wealth 1850 1870 1850 1870 1850 1870 White Collar 13.3 14.4 36.3 33.4 80.5 74.9 Skilled 30.5 31.4 38.0 32.4 15.0 17.4 Nonskilled 55.2 54.2 25.7 34.2 4.5 7.7

Source: U.S. Census Manuscript sample, 1850, 1870

152

A closer look at property owenership in three Brooklyn wards in 1850 is instructive.

While not as widespread among the Irish-born as among natives or Germans in 1850, accumulation of real property by Irish immigrants was not unknown in “The City of Homes”.

According the the 1850 Federal Manuscript Census for Kings County, immigrant property ownership varied widely by ward. In the First Ward, a waterfront district dominated by “The

Heights”, but not without its cheap immigrant boardinghouses, only a handful of Irishmen listed real estate holdings. Wine merchant Patrick Mackey topped the list with a $14,000 claim, and prosperous grocer Dennis Farnan could boast of his $7,000 home, but lighterman Geogre

Sweeney’s $2,200 assets were much more typical of those who reported real estate assets.

Carter, Leddy, Lyon and another Farnan complete the 1850 list of 1850 Irish-born homeowners in Ward 1. In a ward which contained nearly 2000 Irish-born souls, perhaps 500 of them heads of household, only seven reported real estate assets to the census-takers. Apparently, the finer homes in Ward 1 were too dear for Irish budgets, as were the multifamily dwellings in which so many lived. Moreover, nearly a quarter of the dwellings in the district housed at least one Irish family, yet only a handful were Irish-owned. To be fair, only a dozen German-born residents reported real estate assets, but their presence was also less significant—4% German vs. 35%

Irish.25

The “American Dream” of homeownership was realized by even Irish-born sons (and daughters) with far more regularity in Ward 2. Although the numerical presence of the Sons of

Eire was just a percentage point higher than in Ward 1, the area around Fulton Ferry was viewed throughout Brooklyn as decidedly Irish in character. This area of cheap row houses, tenements and small shops offered more affordable alternatives for Irishmen willing and able to scrape

25 U.S. Census Manuscript sample, 1850.

153 together a down payment and to maintain steady employment. During the summer of 1850 over a third of the district’s dwellings housed at least one Irish family. Thirty-one Irish-born heads of household listed real estate assets valued from $700 to $36,000. The physician George Gilfillian and the minister Mitchell Bull might be expected. Tavern-keepers George Sweeney, John

McHaulhery and William Madden may have been predictable. Perhaps the five grocers and the liquor store owner should not have been so surprising, but what of the carpenters, blacksmiths, carmen and ferrymen—several of whom managed to amass three to five thousand dollars in real estate? Some names like Potts and Steel are not particularly Celtic—i.e., Catholic. Clearly, Rev.

Bull, the Methodist minister, is not. However, several of these Irishtown property owners are not

Scots-Irish—i.e., Protestant Irish, but members of an oppressed underclass of Catholic Irish.

How did they manage to acquire so much real estate in the midst of the nativist agitation which swept the Northeast during the late 1840’s? The degree (%) and scale (value) of property ownership in Ward 2 compares reasonably well with German-born residents, but not the native- born—in particular the value.26

Based on what can be determined from the manuscript census and the city directories, the occupational skill level of Irish-born property owners is only marginally linked to their property’s listed value, although no “Laborer” owns property in two of thes three wards .

Curiously, some carpenters, ferrymen, blacksmiths and carmen report large real estate holdings, while proprieters’ assets range from $700 to $8000. The Pearson’s R associating occupational status with wealth was <.100., p>.05.

Among wards with a significant 1850 Irish presence (29.6%), Ward 10 seemed to offer the best prospects for the Brooklyn Irish to acquire real property. It was in this inland

26 U.S. Census Manuscript sample, 1850.

154

“suburban” neighborhood of tidy row houses and “respectable” tenements and boarding houses that the Irish-born accumulated the most real estate—both in number (80 Irish-born property owners) and value ($ average reported asset). It seems unlikely that 17 year-old Bridget

Canahan could have earned her $500 property in service, although many domestics did use their earnings to accumulate dowry/down payments over several years. She probably inherited it. On the other hand, “servant” Bridget McGaffrey was already 28. Could her $1000 be the savings of a recently retired maid? Ann ****** (illegible surname), 27, “At Home”, has acquired $4000 in real estate; it seems unlikely that such a significant sum could come from even careful savings and shrewd investment of a decade of service. Clearly, fifty-seven-year-old James Hampen amassed his $112,000 real estate empire from a lifetime of umbrella-making and shrewd investing. Laborer William McCue’s ability to squirrel away $15,000 is quite impressive.

Perhaps he was related to prominent lawyer and socialite Andrew McCue who also lived in

Ward 10? The remarkable variety of the Ward 10 Irish homeowners is fascinating. The diverse occupations and traits of those who “made it”, who found their way out of whichever waterfront ward in which they started their life in America, is pretty remarkable. Here we find the

American dream—laborers with $200 homes and tailors with $600 shops. Maybe the former fixes up a tiny, rundown rowhouse, the latter perhaps lives above his shop. John Sweeney’s

$1800 place must have been “fair to middling”, but just how many properties did John

Dougherty, the builder, own—all $26,000 worth? The census-taker’s notations do not indicate whether the builder John Hughes’ own home was included in his $40,000 real estate fortune.

And just how different were the lives of the two furriers, Robert Catewell ($25,000) and John

Kerry ($2600)? A similar question might be asked about masons North ($1000), Kahan ($1400),

155

Kelly $3000) and Welch ($18,000). The variety of occupations represented here is unmatched, but are the property holdings as egalitarian as in Ward Two?27

As the new century approached, several trends in Brooklyn economic life promoted further change in the city’s housing and demographic patterns. The opening of the Bridge, the construction of “the el” and the rise of Brooklyn’s shipping (at the expense of Manhattan’s overcrowded, neglected piers) set in motion a chain reaction of business openings, closings, expansions, and relocations the likes of which the city of Brooklyn had never seen before seen in a 15 year period (1883–1898). Institutions as diverse as The Brooklyn Academy of Music, The

Brooklyn Museum, and the Wholesale Produce Market moved out of the old City Central

Business District. It should come as no surprise to learn that the process of in-county suburban flight—from older core wards of Brooklyn to newer, less settled wards of Kings County—would be accelerated. The middle class led the parade, but the poor were often displaced by this turn of the century “gentrification” and for perhaps the first time a surprising number of well-to-do

Brooklynites now found their “quiet, tree-lined streets” less than ideal. A few second-generation

Irish were among the middle class emigres. In Bedford, most Irish-born who were directly involved were unskilled or semi-skilled movees, displaced from cheap, unsettled areas on the outskirts of town as wealthier sorts moved in.28

By 1910, the heart of wards 1–4 had evolved into a more or less modern central business district (CBD) even as Brooklyn’s independence was nullified by its 1898 merger with New

York City. Its mid-century mixture of residential and commercial space was long gone.

However, the nexus of this CBD shifted several blocks in 1883 with the opening of “The Great

27 U.S. Census Manuscript sample, 1850. 28 See G.W. Bromley & Co., Atlas of the City of Brooklyn; Belcher & Hyde, Atlas of the Borough of Brooklyn; ibid., Atlas of the City of Brooklyn; David Ment, The Shaping of a City, Brooklyn, 1979.

156

Bridge,” from Fulton Street near the East River shoreline to the area between City Hall and the intersection of Washington and Sands Streets where the Bridge terminated. The trollies no longer ended at the ferries, but redirected their lines to the Bridge landing. The old business district was obsolete within a few years. In 1894, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported that property value had declined by 28% from 1888. Major financial institutions built impressive structures on Montague

Street (Brooklyn Bank, People’s Trust and the Real Estate Exchange) and on Fulton (The

Mechanics Bank). The city’s primary daily paper, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, relocated from

Fulton and Front near the water to the new civic center. One luxury hotel was constructed at

Clinton St. and Fulton St., another at Montague and Court Streets.. Landmarks St. Ann’s Church,

Polytechnical Institute and the Brooklyn Museum were all razed to make way for the Bridge.

This compromised the “residential integrity” of northern Brooklyn Heights. The increased noise and traffic made the area unsuitable for residential life in the minds of many.29

To make matters worse, the elevated railroad was completed in 1888. The “el” ran above

Fulton Street from Clark to Broadway. While construction of this “homewrecking contraption” led to the razing of relatively few structures, its smoke, cinders, shadow and noise made its immediate vicinity unsuitable for anything but retail space. Here, too, home values fell and residents moved. Large stores like Aberdeen and Strauss moved in, as did countless smaller establishments. Commercial rents skyrocketed along Flatbush Avenue on Schermerhorn Street as well—in many cases tripling in 1891 alone.30

Clearly such transportation developments had a significant effect on the commercial development of Brooklyn from 1880 to 1900. However, their impact on the residential character

29 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 9, 1995; New York Times, September 5, 1892, September 11, 1892, April 15, 1890; David McCullough, The Great Bridge, 32. 30 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, August 18, 1901; Brooklyn Historical Society, Scrapbook, Vol. 128, 55 & 71; New York Times, August 16, 1891.

157 of the oldest wards of the “City of Homes” was somewhat less positive. Even its small civic center was scattered to the wind. The long planned cultural center, consisting of a centrally located Museum of Art, Central Library and Academy of Music—all clustered around the monumental municipal buildings like Borough/City Hall and the State Supreme Court was not to be. The Museum of Art, razed to make way for Bridge landings, was rebuilt on the Flatbush border near Prospect Park. The Academy of Music, destroyed by fire, found its new home in

Ward 20’s well-to-do Fort Greene neighborhood, near Washington Park. There was simply no room for grand (and spacious) cultural institutions in Brooklyn’s new downtown CBD.31

The city’s wholesale produce market now found itself overwhelmed by the congestion and confusion of its location at the very foot of the Bridge landing, it relocated to a site on

Washington Avenue rented from the Navy Yard on Wallabout Bay. The fruit and vegetable wagons, later trucks, wreaked havoc on the once-quiet streets of tree-lined Washington Avenue.

Home values plummeted over the next two decades as well-to-do residents migrated to newer, quieter districts. (According to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, home prices had dropped over 10% on both Washington and Clinton Avenues between Deklab and Willoughby Streets.)32

The decline of the old core wards (#1–5) as residential space is indisputable. The expansion of the retail district was the main beneficiary of transit improvements while a dip in residents appears to have been a consequence.

Table 4-23 Residents Wards 1–5 1865 1890 1900 1905 53,104 80,279 78,271 (-2008) 74,500 (-3771)

31 Brooklyn Daily Eagle Almanac 1904, 587; New York Times, September 15, 1890; David Ment, The Shaping of a City, Brooklyn, 1979, 42-43. 32 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 15, 1884, August 17, 1905.

158

Table 4-24 Number of Dwellings in Brooklyn by Ward 1890 and 1900

Ward 1890 1900 1 1,930 1,939 2 626 591 3 2,080 1,915 4 1,223 1,109 5 1,510 1,419 6 3,054 3,213 7 4,389 4,637 8 3,688 5,315 9 1,855 4,250 10 3,116 3,335 11 2,411 2,338 12 3,451 2,490 13 2,232 2,386 14 1,931 1,953 15 2,559 2,653 16 2,849 2,939 17 2,407 4,230 18* 6,704 10,815 19 3,497 3,477 20 3,150 3,128 21 4,814 5,200 22 6,170 7,138 23 4,257 8,348 24 2,110 2,790 25 5,937 5,667 26 4,412 7,950 27 ------2,816 28 ------6,375 29 ------3,759 30 ------4,007 31 ------2,362 32 ------1,522

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Eleventh Census 1890, Population, I, 888–889; U.S. Census Bureau, Twelfth Census 1900, Population, II, 651. *By the 1900 the 18th Ward had been divided into the 18th, 27th and 28th Wards.

At the same time, there were 400 fewer buildings available for habitation in 1900 in wards 1–5 than there had been in 1890. In the nearby 11th and 20th wards, a similar phenomenon was underway. Almost 100 fewer dwellings were available for residential use because of the

159 relocation of The Wallabout Market and other commercial encroachments into areas that were once almost exclusively residential.33

Meanwhile, industrial developments continued to change the shape of the Brooklyn in which the Irish community lived and worked. Immigrants were largely responsible for

Brooklyn’s population growth. Moreover, on a scale unlike most American cities’ immigrants, they provided the labor that helped to generate the city’s industry, commerce and transportation.

Most of Brooklyn’s immigrants earned their livelihoods as wage earners. However, some ethnicities were more deeply involved in labor-intensive manufacturing industries than the Irish- born or their American-born offspring. Between 1890 and 1900, the overwhelming majority of

Brooklyn’s labor force, both male and female, were first generation immigrants and their native- born offspring. In 1890, excluding white-collar types, over four-fifths of Brooklyn’s gainfully employed men were immigrants or their native-born sons; approximately seven-eighths of the female labor force consisted of foreign-born mothers and their daughters. Within the manufacturing trades, immigrant workers were even more prominent; nearly nine-tenths of

Brooklyn’s goods producers of both genders were immigrants. By 1900, the percentages had changed little.34

This tendency for certain immigrant groups to gravitate to particular occupations was not specific to Brooklyn. Both first- and second generation Irish had established footholds in

Chicago and Philadelphia textile mills. Second generation Irish were especially strong in the building trades in both Chicago and Philadelphia. German immigrant workers in Chicago from

1880 to 1900 filled skilled craft positions in disproportionate numbers. Brooklyn’s immigrant

33 Brooklyn Daily Eagle Almanac 1907, 163; U.S. Census Bureau, Eleventh Census, 1890, Vital Statistics of New York City and Brooklyn, 888-889; U.S. Census Bureau, Twelfth Census 1900, Population I, 279. 34 U.S. Census Bureau, Twelfth Census, 1900: Special Reports. Occupations, 634-641; Ronald Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age New York and Brooklyn,” 74-75.

160

Germans dominated trades such as butcher, baker, cigarmaker and tailor. They only left when some of these trades became less attractive due to changes in production methods which eroded skill, status and wages. Cigarmaking and tailoring were particularly hard-hit. Meanwhile, second generation Germans tended to enter the more specialized divisions of furniture-making and metal trades. Fancy wrought-iron work was one of Brooklyn’s “Five Black Arts.”35

The complex relationship of class, ethnicity and gender affected occupational

“clustering.” Germans numerically dominated goods-producing occupations (e.g. bakers, butchers, cabinet makers, woodworkers, and tailors). The Irish stood out in the building trades— plastering, plumbing, masonry and stone cutting—and in transportation and goods-handling.

Many were employed as steam and street railway workers, teamsters, draymen and packers.

Recently arrived immigrants from Eastern, Southern and Central Europe flocked to the expanding garment trades to work as tailors, dressmakers and cloakmakers. They also found work in cigarmaking, as new production methods led skilled German craftsmen to seek better opportunities elsewhere.36

The composition and occupational distribution of the female workforce in New York City and Brooklyn differed from that of husbands, fathers and brothers. While a similar proportion of women wage earners were employed in manufacturing as men (36 percent), manufacturing industries depended more on foreign-born men relative to their proportion of the wage-earning labor force than they did on foreign-born women. The lower rate of participation in the manufacturing labor force among foreign-born women was largely due to gender-defined roles as wives and mothers, which restricted many to household-based labor. The Irish view of

35 David Ment, The Shaping of a City, 35-41; David Doyle, “Unestablished Irishmen,” 193-220; Hartmut Keil, “Chicago’s German Working Class in 1900,” 26-29. 36 U.S. Census Bureau, Eleventh Census 1890, Population, II, 640-641, 704-705; Hartmut Keil, “Chicago’s German Working Class in 1900,” 26-29.

161 women’s work varied from that of other ethnic groups in this regard. Just how much and why will be discussed at length in Chapter 5.

Not surprisingly, single young women were more likely wage earners than married women. However, native-born single women—both those whose parents were native-born and first generation immigrants—were less likely to perform wage labor than foreign-born counterparts. This difference in labor-force participation among single young women reflected the economic status of the male heads of households. Native-born men found greater employment opportunities in skilled manual work and white collar positions, jobs which offered primary wage earners higher incomes. By the turn of the century, German and Irish immigrants had begun to experience occupational mobility as recently arrived immigrants from Eastern and

Southern Europe supplied many industries with relatively unskilled labor. In short, as the income of fathers and husbands rose, the overriding need for their daughters to work declined.

However, immigrant women and their native-born daughters played a larger part in

Brooklyn’s labor force than counterparts in Chicago, Philadelphia or Boston. Only in New York

City and Brooklyn did immigrants represent so large a proportion of the overall population in the late nineteenth century. In the United States generally, and especially within the 15–24 age group, the number of second generation women was typically double that of first generation immigrant women. Therefore, the majority of ethnic women who worked as wage earners regardless of age were most often native-born daughters of the foreign-born. However, in the

East River municipalities, first generation immigrant women outnumbered second generation women in virtually every blue collar occupation. In New York the gap between first and second generation exceeded 30,000; Brooklyn’s was approximately two thousand. Although New

162

York’s gap seems to dwarf Brooklyn’s, it is important to note that in no other major city did this pattern exist at all.37

Female immigrant workers were most conspicuous among service occupations. Nearly

19,500 of Brooklyn’s 26,000 servants, housekeepers, stewardesses and laundresses were foreign- born. Irish girls still dominated the live-in ranks, but more and more work involved non-resident help. Not only did this indicate that Brooklyn’s domestic workforce was overwhelmingly foreign-born, but that domestic service represented the major source of wage income for foreign- born women. Over sixty-eight percent of Brooklyn’s foreign-born workers were employed as domestics. In contrast, second generation women depended less on service work and more on manufacturing and white collar work (as saleswomen, clerks and typists). In 1890, approximately one-half of the wage-earning second generation women in Brooklyn worked in manufacturing. Only one-sixth toiled as domestics. Overall, three of four female wage earners found employment in service or manufacturing, while the remaining 25 percent acquired jobs in the growing white collar sector. Only a fraction of foreign-born women became white collar workers.

The relative growth of white collar and manufacturing work and the relative decline of service work among women workers was rooted in structural economic and social changes—in

Brooklyn and throughought the urban Northeast. The exponential growth in the employment of women as clerks, typists and sales personnel developed as a result of the increasing importance of financial, commercial and insurance activity. Manufactures had to be marketed. Capital investment required credit. Expenses and earnings of firms needed recording. All of this created an accelerating demand for labor not directly involved in goods-producing work but whose skills

37 David Ment, The Shaping of a City; Ronald Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age New York and Brooklyn,” 84-86; U.S. Census Bureau, Eleventh Census 1890, Population, II, 640-641, 704-705.

163 nonetheless were crucial for a rapidly industrializing economy. Throughout the last quarter of the nineteenth century, dozens of manufacturing companies maintained their corporate headquarters in New York and their production facilities across the East River in Brooklyn where land was cheaper and modern warehouse facilities were readily available. Large retail stores, known as department stores, sold a wide variety of merchandise. The volume of business conducted by Brooklyn’s banks and insurance companies also expanded exponentially. The countless transactions necessitated by this economic activity called forth a labor of a new type— of workers with specific skills. The ability to do basic arithmetic, to spell and to punctuate and to maintain an office was not exclusive to women, although in the 1890’s women earning a high school degree outnumbered men throughout the Northeast.38

Other factors encouraged the hiring of women in sales and office work. Department store owners and office managers could hire women with comparable skills and education for lower pay rates than those required by men, on the premise that women were not the household’s primary wage earners. In this context, the introduction of the mechanical typewriter also encouraged the employment of women. Throughout the nineteenth century, most clerical skills were firm-specific. However, during the late Gilded Age, an increasing number of a clerical worker’s tasks, such as filing and typing, had become general to most offices regardless of firm or type of business. The development of a standardized clerical labor process meant that employers no longer had to assume the primary responsibility of training employees. Office

38 Margery Davies, Woman’s Place is at the Typewriter, 51-78.

164 managers were encouraged to hire women who, typically, showed higher rates of labor turnover.

Lower wage rates provided a significant incentive.39

Second generation Irish women faced fewer constraints and claimed more resources that broadened their occupational choices. For one, they lived at home, thereby reducing the necessity of domestic service. Manufacturing and white collar work offered women an opportunity to earn more and to realize a degree of freedom from their parents. Literate in

English and familiar with American dress fashions and hair styles, second generation Irish girls found it easier to secure employment where interaction with the public was intrinsic to the job.

They not only possessed the necessary social skills required by retail sales, clerical and secretarial work but also had more extensive educational opportunities which allowed them to choose work other than domestic service or manufacturing. Furthermore, such women showed a preference for the “moral” and clean work environments that offices and stores offered.

Secretarial schools and trade publications emerging late in the nineteenth century stressed such attitudes in order to recruit women into white collar employment. Broadly stated, between 1880 and 1900 first generation immigrant women’s role in the manufacturing labor force grew as the role of second generation women declined. Irish girls not only followed this curve; they may have helped set the trend.40

At the same time, shifts in the composition of manufacturing occupations became more apparent among the male offspring of immigrants from Germany and Ireland who moved into trades marked by craftsmanship and higher earnings. This occupational movement during the

1890’s among second generation men was apparently facilitated by the accelerated influx of

39 Elyce Rotella, “The Transformation of the American Office”; W. Elliot Brownlee and Mary M. Brownlee, Women in the American Economy, 32-33; Richard Edwards et al., Labor Market Segmentation, 286. 40 Seech, 5.

165 immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe that furnished Brooklyn’s industries with their entry level, relatively nonskilled, manual labor.

The Irish immigrant arriving in Brooklyn after 1880 differed from the Southern and

Eastern European arrivals in two major respects. Generally fluent in English, an increasing percentage of Irish immigrants were also literate (by 1890, 90 percent). This provided them with a potential advantage in competing for work where language skills were required and otherwise were an asset in adapting to American urban-industrial life. Probably more important was that in late Gilded Age New York recently arrived Irish immigrants entered a maturing Irish-American community. Some previous Irish immigrants had already become employers in manufacturing, transportation and retail trade and were thereby in a position to hire Irish newcomers. However, most were petty proprietors themselves—e.g., grocers and liquor store owners. The Irish had also assumed leadership if not outright control of Brooklyn’s Jefferson Hall Democratic machine and New York’s Tammany Hall. Both cities’ district-by-district organization—whose candidates under the Democratic party ticket regularly captured three-quarters of the municipal offices, from mayor to sheriff to alderman—gave the well-placed Irish politician an opportunity to award contracts, grant licenses and to assign jobs to his loyal friends and supporters. It is important to remember that there were always fifty job-seekers for every opening, but Diocesan historian Rev. John Sharp did point to McLaughlin’s impact on the civic job market in 1891:

In that year an Irishman presided over the Board of Alderman, and half the members bore German or Irish last names. Of 383 other city officials,153 bore Irish names, as did 6 0 of 144 county officers; 15 of 50 in the Kings County judiciary; 24 of 76 the city judiciary; and 24 of 49 city police officials. The City Board of Education listed 10 Irish names among its 45 members, while of 432 chief officers, school principals, heads of departments, special teachers and committee members, 77 bore Irish or German names. In contrast to this, of the 96

166

town and county officers listed for Queens and Suffolk only seven had Irish names.41

New York’s German immigrant population possessed both “pre-industrial” and urban- industrial backgrounds. In their original homelands many resided in towns; many had sustained themselves and their families through wage labor in traditional and less mechanized trades such as carpentry, the manufacture of furniture and musical instruments, baking and cigarmaking among others. Some of Germany’s skilled craftsmen were specifically recruited by U.S. manufacturers to work as machinists, toolmakers and glassblowers. The Brooklyn Germans’ initial success in skilled crafts and relatively rapid ascension to petty proprietorship and land- ownership indicate the accuracy of this “truism.”

In short, although German immigrants knew wage labor intimately, they arrived in the

United States as neither a displaced rural proletariat, nor as redundant factory hands. In

Brooklyn, German immigrants demonstrated a similar occupational clustering evident in other cities, such as Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia, where they constituted a significant proportion of the industrial labor force. Germans were “over-represented” in the consumer trades as bakers, butchers and brewers and the handicraft occupations as carpenters, cabinetmakers, upholsterers and piano makers. Clearly then, German immigrant workers gravitated to lines of work in their adopted homeland for which they were well-prepared in their homelands.

Recently arrived immigrants, especially during periods of economic downturns, often encountered resentment by earlier immigrant workers already “entrenched” in their occupations.

In the building trades, for example, New York’s bricklayers’ union (whose executive council included several Irish-Americans, one from Brooklyn, as the union-represented workers in both municipalities), reacting to the seasonal influx of migrant masons from Great Britain and Ireland,

41 Sharp I, 154.

167 required that all members be U.S. citizens, and officials of the Irish-dominated painters’ union complained of cheap competition from Russian and Swedish immigrants. The diversity of

Brooklyn’s working class entailed many implications for labor activity. Building tradesmen in particular used their common experience and the common heritage of so many of its members to forge a “shared” experience within their trade. The decentralized nature of their field was both problematic and advantageous.

Table 4-25 Index of Dissimilarity of Major Ethnic Groups In Brooklyn 1890 and 1910*

Ethnic Group 1890 1910 Russians 14.12 30.72 Irish 19.66 15.86 Italians 18.71 20.64 Germans 19.55 17.20 Total First and Second Generation Americans in Brooklyn 25.12 27.66

Source: U.S. Census, Eleventh Census, 1890,Vital Statistics for New York City and Brooklyn, II, 242–245; Walter Laidlaw, Statistical Sources for Demographic Studies of Greater New York, 1910 (New York, 1912) II, passim. * The index includes both first and second generation because of ethnicity in the 1890 census is based on the birthplace of the mother.

By 1890, the “old immigrant” populations of Brooklyn—both Irish and German—had grown numerous enough to spread to every corner of the City. Although the German-born and their offspring reported an index of dissimilarity quite similar to that of their Irish-American peers in 1890 and again in 1910, they still dominated Williamsburg and Bushwick in a way that the Irish had not numerically dominated any section of the city since the antebellum period. As

“new immigrants” from Southern and Eastern Europe found themselves more and more concentrated in the older, run-down core wards of the city, it may be worth pointing to a time when Irish and German residential patterns were quite different.

168

One final question is worth pondering. Irish-American socio-economic mobility paled in comparison to that of their German peers, especially among the foreign born. To what extent did their intraurban geographic mobility patterns differ as well? There is a host of anecdotal evidence to suggest that Irish-Americans, in Brooklyn and other Northeastern and Midwestern cities, tended to move out of the older core wards as soon as they enjoyed a degree of economic success. German-Americans, conversely, are thought to have reinvested their new wealth in “a nicer house in the old neighborhood.” Was this, in fact true for Brooklyn NY in the mid- nineteenth century? The 1890 census showed Brooklyn’s German population (i.e., residents who claimed a German-born mother) at its peak of 196,000 since it already contained the bulk of the two great waves of German migration: the 1850s and the 1880s. Between 1855 and 1865, differences in Irish and German migration can be seen in census figures. There was only a minimal increase in the Irish population since the Irish had generally come in largest numbers in the late 1840s and 1880s, while the Germans arrived more gradually, decade by decade. This is illustrated in the table below.

Table 4-26 Components of growth of the Brooklyn Irish & German Population

Irish-born German-born 1855 Population: 56,753 1855 Population: 17,902 1865 Population: 57,323 1865 Population: 26,048 Total Change: 570 Total Change: 8,146 Percent Change: + 1% Percent Change: + 45.5%

The new influx of Germans helped to expand and augment the ethnic group’s social structure, reinforcing older institutions and creating new ones, forging the German-America which many seemed to think had always been there. There was a vast array of social organizations to suit every interest. Neighborhoods overflowed not only with German churches and newspapers, but also with German banks, confectioners, insurance companies, grocers, and

169 taverns. Weekends offered a variety of “German-Sabbath” picnics, excursions and dances, all supported with an abundance of German beer. Schaefer and Rheingold were only the most famous reminders of the “golden age” of Brooklyn’s breweries when each closed up their

Brooklyn operations in the 1970s. The institutional structure of German-America, based on a booming population, was further enhanced by the relative prosperity of the group. As explained above, German workers were more frequently found in the skilled and semi-skilled trades, giving a solidly middle-class base to the German immigrant community. It is probably not inaccurate to call the resulting structure of German-America, “the most successful effort of an immigrant group at establishing its institutions in America” even as we acknowledge in retrospect how fleeting this achievement was.42

In both Manhattan and Brooklyn, the German and the Irish community each exhibited its own distinctive settlement pattern. The Germans tended to separate themselves, whether they lived in the tenement districts of New York’s Germantown and Brooklyn’s Williamsburg, or the single-family homes of Riverdale just south of the Bronx. By 1890, the Irish were virtually ubiquitous, inhabiting all areas and all housing types of Brooklyn. In Brooklyn, no single ward housed more than 9% of the city’s Irish-born and their offspring, whereas 36% of Kings County

Germans lived in just two of 26 wards.43

Brooklyn’s Irish, more than any other group, tended to be the most evenly dispersed throughout the municipality. Curiously, according to the 1890 census Vital Statistics Report the least Irish districts had much higher population densities (119.3 persons per acre) than heavily

42 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 11, 1893; Brooklyn Daily Times, July 14, 1889; Mary Jane Corry. "The Role of German Singing Societies in Nineteenth-Century America," 155-168, in E. Allen McCormick, ed., Germans in America: Aspects of German-American Relations in the Nineteenth Century. New York, 1983; David Ment, The Shaping of a City, 91-92. 43 U.S. Census Bureau, Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890: Vital Statistics.

170

Irish areas (89.1). Yet, tenement housing was prevalent in both Irish and non-Irish districts.

These two seemingly contradictory relationships support the hypothesis that the Irish presence was widely dispersed by the end of the nineteenth century. In addition, an inversely proportional relationship existed between German and Irish populations. Particularly in Brooklyn, the groups kept to their own areas. Perhaps this was due to the city’s unique history—i.e., the heavily

German Williamsburg had been an independent municipality until 1855. In fact, there was a more predictable coexistence between Irish and native-born populations; they were more likely to live among the native-born than the Germans. In New York City, the Irish lived most often in ten of the waterfront tenement areas. They did show some inclination for living among the newly arrived Italians in New York’s Ward 10. (In Brooklyn, the Irish and Italians mixed freely in Ward 2.) However, the Irish did not live with the Russian-Polish, for they were nowhere to be found in Manhattan’s Ward 6. In Manhattan, the Irish who successfully traveled up the socioeconomic ladder found themselves primarily in the northern Bronx (Ward 24) and in Wards

22 and 19. Here in “suburbia,” the Irish and Germans seemed to mix, but this was not so in tenement areas where these two groups lived apart, each in into their own rundown districts.

Perhaps their rivalry was intensified by job competition in the poor neighborhoods.44

The German population in Brooklyn was unlike that of other ethnic groups in that they seemed to purposely segregate themselves. In particular, Williamsburg’s Wards 15, 16, 18 and

19 housed nearly 50% of the city’s German population. As we shall see, this self-segregation seems to be the result of successful Germans moving from lower-class German homes to upper class sections of the same predominantly German wards. Consequently, many of Brooklyn’s

Germans became concentrated in a handful of wards, isolating themselves from most other

44 U.S. Census Bureau, Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890: Vital Statistics.

171 ethnic groups. Here they worked, prayed, and learned their native tongue. In New York, too, the

Irish and native-born were each less likely to live with Germans. However, the voluntary segregation of the Germans (due to strongly ethnic German churches, schools, fire companies, etc.) was especially pronounced in Brooklyn.45

In a sense, the impressive institutional variety of German-America was also reinforced by the diversity of the Germans themselves; not only were their recreational and social interests reflected in a myriad of societies, but their religious, ideological and even sociological differences had organizational effects as well. But while this diversity might foster growth, it naturally inhibited the solidarity that many German leaders sought.46

Religious divisions and distrust often foiled cooperative German efforts, since the one third to one half who called themselves Roman Catholic often stood aloof from the Protestant brethren. Even the Protestant Germans of various sects often found issues to quarrel about among themselves. A growing minority of urban radicals was vocally critical of those Germans who participated willingly in “spineless and servile” American partisan politics. Most of all, the two separate generations of immigrants who made up the population of German-America at the end of the century regarded each other as different—more often perhaps on temperamental than on political or ideological grounds. Whereas the newer immigrants might be more influenced by the nationalistic spirit of the Germany they had left behind, the older ones might still cherish the image of their generation as spokesmen for liberalism and idealism in politics. Moreover, those who migrated before 1850 or 1860 often identified more parochially with a particular German

45 U.S. Census Bureau, Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890: Vital Statistics. 46 Most Holy Trinity RC Church Centennial Mass and Dinner Journal, Brooklyn: 1949; McCormick, 3-4.

172 principality rather than with the unified nation, which emerged only after the 1870 Franco-

Prussian War.47

The sample employed in this project was drawn from Brooklyn immigrants found in the

1850 or 1860 census and at least two Brooklyn City Directories. For 1850 names, we traced forward. For 1860 names, we traced back three, then six years. Occassionally, we looked at the

1847 directory if a target could be found in the 1853, but not 1856 or 1857 book. To enhance accuracy, only names considered “typically Irish” or “typically German” were considered for inclusion. (Typically German names were drawn from a genealogy website— http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/surnames.htm—“German Names in America”.

Characteristically Irish names were found in an 1891 Special Report of the Registrar General).

Each subject’s name, occupation, and address were recorded. City Directories only include heads of households. Individuals were then traced from address to address and from job to job over 3-year intervals. Thus, ethnic patterns of social and geographic mobility could be established at the level of the individual. As previously noted, ward level analysis seems to support the conventional notion that the Irish “moved ward” upon achieving prosperity whereas

Germans generally only “moved block.” Following several hundred individuals from each ethnic group over a six to twelve year period lends further support.48

Ultimately, the data provides empirical evidence that more Irish moved out to a different ward when they obtained better jobs than Germans, who more often simply moved to a different

(presumably better) home in the same ward. Yet, these wonderfully specific case studies present their own unique problem. By their nature, City Directory entries do not provide the property

47 Brooklyn Daily Times, March 27, 1864; August 14, 1868; August 16, 1868; September 1, 1870; September 3, 1870; February 8, 1871; March 14, 1878; September 12, 1882; September 13, 1882; July 27, 1888; April 3, 1889; December 16, 1894. 48 Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844-1860.

173 values associated with tax assessments or census manuscripts. It was impossible to trace a representative sample from the 1850 census to the 1860 census, catching each person two or three times in city directories along the way. Thus, the researcher accepted the premise that when a household head obtained a better job, and moved, it was likely to a better home. Three logical options existed for the upwardly mobile: movement to a) a nicer home in a similar ward, b) a nicer home in a wealthier ward, or c) a nicer home in the same ward. (See Tables 4-27 to 4-

29.)

Generally, the Germans “moved out” less frequently than the Irish did. Approximately

40% of the German sample moved ward in the 1850’s, a decade during which well over 60% of the Irish moved ward. Even more telling, upwardly mobile Germans moved ward far less frequently than did upwardly mobile Irish. Of the Germans in the sample who improved their job status during the three decades under study, 84.2% moved from their original domicile, but only 6.9% of these “improving” Germans moved to a ward with a lower German population share. Most stayed in the same ward or moved to a nearby ward that was just as heavily

German. Even those who were not upwardly mobile displayed a similar pattern. Most moved to a ward with at least as high a German concentration or moved to a new address in the same ward.

Of the 94 Germans who did not change occupation from year 1 to year 7, only one moved “out” to a less German ward. Fifty one remained at the same address while forty three moved elsewhere in the same ward or to a nearby and similarly German-dominated ward. In sum, most of Brooklyn’s Germans chose to remain in the heavily German wards of central Williamsburg, rarely straying far from “home”—even those who attained sufficient material success to move elsewhere.49

49 Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844-1860..

174

The Irish, on the other hand, displayed much more geographic mobility when they “made it”—i.e. when they obtained better job status and presumably earned more money. Over 79% of upwardly mobile Irish-Americans left their pre-success homes, a proportion not unlike their

German counterparts. However, among the Irish “up and comers,” 38.3% moved to wards of lower Irish concentration, generally to more affluent outlying wards. Like their German counterparts, 46% of those Irish who were not upwardly socially mobile and who did move, relocated within their original ward or to an area of similar or greater Irish concentration. The typical Irish household head had more room for improvement and promotion than did his

German peer. One might conclude that “Paddy” often had more opportunity to move up in the social ladder than did “Karl,” since he had begun his life in America several rungs lower on the socioeconomic ladder. This, however, was not the case. Furthermore, a great deal of economic

“improvement” among German craftsmen and shopkeepers can be missed by the historian who chooses to employ City Directories because wealth and property holding is unrepresentative. For example, a “butcher” who doubles his business and hires three assistants would still be listed as a

“butcher” three or six years later. However, the German pattern of staying put even as fortunes improved might be even more pronounced among such successful proprietors who could be expected to remain near their regular customers.50

Even over the relatively short span of six years, Irish and German individuals drawn from the Brooklyn sample appear to have moved from one occupational to another with surprising frequency. Approximately 54% of household heads in the sample drawn from the city directories changed occupational status over any given six-year time span. Only a handful of

50 Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844-1860..

175

Brooklynites in the sample suffered downward social mobility, so virtually all movement appears to be towards better jobs and higher status.51

Specific examples of typical Irish and German geographic movement help breathe a little life into the cold statistics presented above. The case of James O’Neil, a carpenter traced from

1850 to 1857 shows the Irish-American propensity to frequently relocate. First found in ward 3,

O’Neil was located again in ward 6 and three years after that in ward 10. On the other hand,

Charles Pfizer represented German stability rather well. A “chemist” in 1857, Pfizer was listed as a “chemists’ manufacturer” in 1860 and again in 1864, yet he had only moved a block and a half after his fortunes improved. Although Pfizer “moved up” socially, he did not “move out” like his Irish counterparts. In fact, the second Pfizer home on North Flushing Avenue was improved and expanded several times as Charles and his family developed the pharmaceutical giant, which still bears his name. Irishmen like the carpenter Charles McChesney generally

“moved out” as soon as they earned sufficient income to do so. McChesney appears in several city directories as a carpenter, from 1847 to 1857. In 1847, he lived in Ward 2; Brooklyn’s busy, run-down ferry district. Tenements predominated and the area had a heavy Irish presence.

Three years later, McChesney lived in Ward 5. Ironically, “Irishtown” was slightly less Irish, but just as poor. Again after another four years of carpentry experience, and perhaps additional financial success, McChesney moved to a nicer home on Lafayette Street and Hudson Avenue in

Brooklyn’s Twentieth Ward. Ward 20 was a much more affluent inland ward than either Wards

Two, or Five which both lay along the waterfront. Ward Twenty also held a significantly smaller

51 Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844-1860..

176

Irish population. In this case, knowing more about McChesney’s fortune in 1854 would have helped solve the mystery. He reported no real property in 1850.52

Table 4-27 Occupational Distribution of the German Labor Force of Brooklyn, 1844–1860 (%)

1844– 1847– 1850– 1853– 1856– 1859– 1845 1848 1851 1854 1857 1860 White Collar 59 77 73 73 73 84 Professions 0 10 10 9 7 10 Other White 59 67 63 64 66 74 Collar Blue Collar 41 23 27 27 27 16 Skilled Manual 19 13 10 6 10 13 Semiskilled and 0 0 3 6 6 3 Service Unskilled Labor 23 10 14 15 11 0 Source: Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844–1860

Table 4-28 Occupational Distribution of the Irish Labor Force of Brooklyn, 1844–1860 (%)

1844– 1847– 1850– 1853– 1856– 1859– 1845 1848 1851 1854 1857 1860 White Collar 38 42 41 38 25 29 Professions 2 4 2 2 2 3 Other White Collar 36 38 39 36 23 26 Blue Collar 62 58 59 62 75 71 Skilled Manual 15 13 15 16 14 21 Semiskilled and 12 14 9 7 12 7 Service Unskilled Labor 35 32 35 39 49 44

Source: Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844–1860

The degree of career mobility in Brooklyn in the 1850s was significantly higher than the degree of social mobility in Boston in the 1880s. This is because opportunities in the 1850s were probably better than in the 1880s. Society as a whole was less stratified at mid-century than during the Gilded Age. Also, Boston did not enjoy the degree of economic, demographic and

52 Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844-1860..; David Ment, The Shaping of a City.

177 spatial growth as Brooklyn from 1850 to 1900. it is not unreasonable to expect more social mobility in this rapidly growing city. The overall percentages of career continuity in Boston from 1880–1900 were 79.5%, but the continuity of blue-collar workers lagged behind at 64.5%.

A majority of blue-collar Bostonians was still found in the same manual trade ten years later.

Among the sample of Irish and German workers in Brooklyn, only 35% of the population remained in the occupational stratum where they started. Furthermore, for every 2.3 persons in

Boston who moved socially upward, one moved down. In Brooklyn, for every 8.9 people who moved up, one moved down. Of course, only those Irish- or German-born persons who remained in Brooklyn for six consecutive years are included in these statistics. Those whose businesses failed are unrepresented if they left the city (see table below).53

Table 4-29 Career Continuity: percent of sample holding job in same stratum at start and end of time period observed

Irish German Overall (Irish and German) Career Continuous 34.2% 26.2% 31.6% Career Mobility 65.8% 73.8% 68.4%

Source: Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844–1860

Thernstrom wrote of Boston that “[t]here was…balance between upward and downward movement between middle-class and working-class occupations. In the decade 1880–1890, the two types of mobility were in equilibrium; 12 percent of the white-collar workers in the city skidded to a manual job by 1890, while 12 percent of the blue-collar employees found their way into a white-collar job” (55–56). By no means did this equilibrium exist in mid-nineteenth century Brooklyn. Not only was continuity in Brooklyn was significantly lower, but virtually all

53 Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844-1860..; Stephan Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians, 57, 65.

178 social mobility was upward as the city’s economy and population grew at astonishing rates.

Only 3.2% of the Irish and German workers in the sample moved down while 28.4% moved up.

From 96,838 to 1,166,582, Brooklyn’s population grew eleven-fold from 1850 to 1900.

Boston’s growth on the other hand was relatively slower; it quadrupled during the same half century (see table below).54

Table 4-30 Components of Growth: Comparison of Population Growth in Brooklyn & Boston: 1850–1890 Year Brooklyn Brooklyn Percent Boston Population Boston Percent Population Change Change 1850 96,838 -- 138,881 -- 1900 1,166,582 1105% 560,892 304%

It has been almost a half century since Thernstrom wrote The Other Bostonians, defining the field of social mobility studies. His work has inspired a widespread literature on social mobility, but interestingly there have still been very few studies of intraurban geographic mobility among nineteenth century immigrants. Hopefully this brief sidebar offers some empirical evidence to support something many historians have long “known” intuitively about

Irish or German settlement patterns.

* * *

Chapter Four Summary

Brooklyn’s Irish-born were generally unable to dramatically improve their occupational standing for the city’s entire half century of independent municipal life. However, the “City of

Homes” offered one opportunity to which few Irish immigrants who settled in Boston or

54 Manuscript Census Schedules, 1850 & 1860; Brooklyn city directories. 1844-1860; Stephan Thernstrom,The Other Bostonians, Cambridge, MA, 1964, 55-56.

179

Manhattan could realistically aspire—property ownership. By 1870, property ownership rates matched natives among both German and Irish immigrants. Like Philadelphia and some

Midwestern and Western cities such as Chicago, Detroit and San Francisco, Brooklyn offered excellent potential for spatial expansion, and consequently for property acquisition by those of moderate means.

By 1855 Brooklyn’s Irish were well dispersed throughout the city, rather than concentrated into ethnic “ghettos.” Only eleven percent (Ward 7) lived in areas in which the majority of the population was Irish-born. By 1890, only seven of 26 city wards reported a percentage of Irish greater than forty, including both first and second generations. However, this does not imply an even population distribution. Irish within heavily ethnic neighborhoods were atypical of the Irish population of Brooklyn overall. In Brooklyn’s Irish neighborhoods there was a high proportion of people who lived as members of family units. This was due to differing spatial distributions of employment opportunities for young men and women. Young singles, especially women, tended to live disproportionately outside Irish clusters. Consequently, in ethnic neighborhoods the average age of Irish women was higher than that of men. In addition,

Irish living outside the ethnic neighborhoods exhibited significantly higher exogamy rates.

Why do both popular and scholarly accounts tend to portray all nineteenth century Irish

Americans as either an undifferentiated mass of unskilled proletarians, or as nouveau riche “lace curtain” aristocrats when significant variation clearly exists? In Philadelphia, Detroit and

Brooklyn, at least 30 percent of Irish-born male workers in 1880 could be classified as “skilled craftsmen.” In five other major cities from San Francisco to Providence, the corresponding figure was roughly one-fifth in the same census year. At the same time, the Brooklyn Irish display a curious pattern of halting socioeconomic progress among foreign-born men (55%

180 nonskilled in 1850  51% nonskilled in 1900) alongside impressive progress for their

American-born sons (35% nonskilled in 1880  22% nonskilled in 1900).

Irish American socio-economic mobility paled in comparison to that of their German peers, especially among the foreign born. Their intraurban geographic mobility patterns differed as well. Irish Americans, in Brooklyn and other Northeastern and Midwestern cities, tended to move out of the older core wards as soon as they enjoyed a degree of economic success. German

Americans, conversely, seem to have reinvested their new wealth in “a nicer house in the old neighborhood.” There was a vast array of German social organizations, far more exclusive than their Hibernian counterparts. Neighborhoods overflowed with German churches and newspapers, but also with German banks, confectioners, insurance companies, grocers and taverns. Weekends offered a variety of “German-Sabbath” picnics, excursions, and dances, all supported with an abundance of Brooklyn-brewed German beer. In both New York and in

Brooklyn, the German and the Irish communities each exhibited a distinctive settlement pattern.

The Germans tended to separate themselves, whether they lived in the tenement districts of New

York’s Germantown and Brooklyn’s Williamsburg, or the single-family homes of Riverdale just south of the Bronx. By 1890, the Irish were virtually ubiquitous, inhabiting all areas and all housing types of Brooklyn. In Brooklyn, no single ward housed more than 9 percent of the city’s

Irish-born and their offspring, whereas 36 percent of Kings County Germans lived in just two of

26 wards.

The Brooklyn Irish, then, can be said to have lived a life different from other groups that might serve as foils—the Germans in their own city and the Irish in other cities around the nation. However, their own internal diversity was also apparent. Economic prospects for the

Irish-born remained as poor in Brooklyn as anywhere in the nation, but improved more rapidly

181 for the American-born Irish then anyone might realistically have considered possible. Increased opportunities for land ownership seemed to support the socioeconomic prospects of thrifty

Irishmen, but occupational mobility strongly favored only the second generation, more so than in other locales.

182

Chapter 5 Kin and Community: Family Structure and Gender Roles, 1850-1900

Everyone said it was a pity that a slight pretty woman like Katie Nolan had to go out scrubbing floors. But what else could she do considering the husband she had, they said.

Betty Smith, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, p. 12

Large gaps still exist within our understanding of Irish America. Among the most glaring is the omission of any comprehensive discussion of gender relations. Much of this is due to a dearth of available data on 19th century women in general (and Irish women in particular.) In the years preceding 1840, women were not named in the manuscript census, merely counted. Up until 1880, women were excluded from printed census reports. Their rich history has, however, been recorded in letters, diaries, newspapers, songs, and poetry.1

There is significant evidence that the legacy of a distinctively Irish gender system formed a set of cultured norms to which Irish-Americans of both genders looked for guidance in their new homeland. Emigrants to the United States devised survival strategies in response to the extraordinary pace of nineteenth-century social changes.

The notion that gender interacts with ethnicity is almost a given. Even though the meaning of gender in an American context was undergoing modifications, it was so deeply embedded in everyday patterns of cooperation that it seemed quite natural. The Catholic Irish were the survivors of a tragic history. Within that heritage of trauma and cultural destruction, which encompassed even the loss of their own language, gender had a special resonance. For

1 Betty Smith, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (New York: 1943 [2005]) p. 10; Erin’s Daugthers in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century. (Baltimore: 1983), p. 30; Bureau of the Census, Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Compendium.

183 both men and women, gender expectations provided a sense of continuity and comfort. Gender functioned as one of the richest resources in the immigrants’ heritage.2

In nineteenth-century America, gender and ethnicity were not additive elements of individuals’ or groups’ identities. They were interactive and mutually supportive elements of one’s being. There was no such thing as “a man” or “a woman” outside of a specific cultural context—just as there were no nineteenth-century German-Americans who were not also women or men.

Gender interacts with ethnicity, supplying a framework and a symbolic resource for their collective “sense of peoplehood.” Whether this is as true of Brooklyn’s Polish community or of

Buffalo’s Italian immigrants is beyond the scope of this investigation. This is not an a priori, universal statement that gender is a defining characteristic of ethnic distinctiveness. It is a suggestion that Irish-American gender norms were sufficiently distinctive to help define Irish-

American identity, i.e., “Irishness.”3

Two fine monographs examine the lives of Irish women in America. Hasia Diner’s Erin’s

Daughters in America and Janet Nolan’s Ourselves Alone address questions central to an understanding of the inter-relationship between gender and “Irishness” in America. However,

Nolan romanticizes women’s status in pre-Famine Ireland and asserts that women’s primary motivation was obtaining for themselves in America the treasured role of wife and mother so difficult to achieve in post-famine Ireland. Nolan recognizes that the nineteenth century was an era of turmoil and change in Ireland. Diner mistakenly views the 1840–1900 time period as a

2 xxx 3 John Bukowczyk,"Steeples and Smokestacks: Class, Religion, and Ideology in the Polish Immigrant Settlements in Greenpoint and Williamsburg, Brooklyn,1880-1929." (Harvard: Ph.D. dissertation: 1980); Virginia Yans-McLoughlin, Family and Community: Italian Immigrants in Buffalo, 1880-1930, (Champaign: 1982).

184 static and traditional backdrop for immigrant women’s decisions. On the other hand, she does not overly idealize women’s lives in either country. Diner paints a generally bleak picture and asserts that women’s motivation in emigrating was primarily, and narrowly, economic. Her argument that marriage was a secondary consideration is consistent with her perception that hostility permeated Irish gender relations and most Irish marriages were unhappy. Diner and

Nolan agree that Irish women were strong-willed and practical-minded. Both Nolan and Diner implicitly propose that since women’s and men’s experiences differed in profound and systematic ways, their outlooks reflected those differences.4

Although the supply of unskilled opportunities for Irish men in American cities and towns was often unpredictable, work was rarely scarce for the female Irish immigrant.

Conditions considered undesirable to native and second- generation working women did not deter “Bridget”. Many of these women reveled in their economic independence and appreciated the “luxury” of supporting their families back home. Domestic service became a key factor in the shaping of the experience of the Irish-American woman. The effect of domestic service on

Irish women reaches into unexpected facets of their life—health, social mobility, marital pattern, etc..5 For this reason, it is worth considering the findings of the 1900 Census Reports on women’s occupations, and three leading works on American domestic service: Seven Days a

Week, by David Katzman (1978), Serving Women, by Faye Dudden (1983) and Domestic

4 Diner, 18-21, 45, 50-70, 150; Janet A. Nolan, Ourselves Alone: Women’s Emigration from Ireland, 1885-1920 (Lexington, KY: 1989), 2-3,11, 32-34, 78-83, 92, 96. 5 Faye Dudden, Serving Women: Household Service in Nineteenth Century America (Middletown, CT: 1983); David Katzman, Seven Days a Week:Women and Domestic Service in Industrializing America (Chicago: 1978); Margaret Lynch-Brennan, The Irish Briget: Irish Immigrant Women in Domestic Service in America, 1840-1930 (Syracuse: 2009); Louis Maynard Salmon, Domestic Service: American Women. Images and Realities (New York: 1890 [1972]); Bureau of the Census, Women’s Work: 1900.

185

Service, by Louis Maynard Salmon (1897). Margaret Lynch-Brennan’s The Irish Bridget (2009) directly addresses Irish girls’ live-in service during the period under study.

Women’s childraising duties were also central to concepts of Irish masculinity and femininity. For instance, considerable evidence suggests that Irishwomen’s conventional mothering styles encouraged personal agency in daughters. Women and men did not develop categorically different, sex-defined personalities. People were individuals, but clearly defined styles of masculinity and femininity did exist. For example, Irish men often demonstrated a conscious awareness of themselves as emotional beings.6

On January 27, 1880, Lewis Doyle wrote to his cousin in Co. Carlow:

“Well John I am Sorry enough to cry when I read about the Condition of poor old Ireland...

In May 10, 1851, Patrick Hanlon wrote from Pennsylvania to his father in Co. Down:

“Dr Father... my thoughts wander without much effort to you whom I have loved more than I have ever dared to express...”

At the same time, Irishwomen’s assertiveness was often reported by American sources;

“indomitable will” was repeated so often it became something of a catch phrase. Irish girls saw the same trait in temselves. Mary Hanlon wrote from New York City to her mother about her decision to emigrate: “I am sure you thought me cold & hard hearted when you talked to me not to go... I have an iron will.”7

These quotations illustrate two points. 1) Irish-American masculinity and femininity contrasted in many respects with stereotypical Victorian norms. 2) Although Irishmen were

6 Diner writes that Irish daughters were "less scathed" than sons, that "...mothers dominated and manipulated them less.", p. 19. 7 Patrick Hanlon, Pennsylvania, to his father, Co. Down, May 10, 1851 (K. Miller Collection); Lewis Doyle to his mother, Ireland, Jenuary 27, 1880 (K. Miller Collection); Mary Hanlon, New York City, to her mother, Ireland, Fall, 1871 (Miller Collection).

186 hardly “feminine” or Irishwomen “masculine” per se, within the Irish gender system, emotionalism was a normal component of Irish masculinity and self-assertion was a normal component of Irish femininity.

Irish and Irish-American gender concepts operated in ways that fostered the development of gendered outlooks. Irish women and men never shared exactly the same circumstances.

There were structured differences, rooted in the division of labor by sex, that shaped their experiences, attitudes and aspirations. As a result, gender influenced how women and men perceived their situation, psychologically coped with challenges and cooperated with others. It is important not to underplay male dominance or the harshness of most women’s lives, but it is also clear that gendered worldviews did not irrepressibly generate conflict or mutual incomprehension.

Both Diner and Nolan tend to overestimate the socio-cultural distance between women and men as well as women’s autonomy. In part, their conclusions reflect their focus on the latter part of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century when, in Ireland, the etiquette governing interaction between the sexes was becoming increasingly “Victorian” (i.e., repressive).

Moreover, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the degree to which women operated in self-contained networks. As their respective book titles suggest, Diner and Nolan focus narrowly on women rather rather than on the overall gender system. For example, both authors assert that

“female chains” brought women to the U.S. Yet, even the strong-willed founder of the Chicago teachers union Mary Hanlon migrated by way of New York within a trans•Atlantic family

187 network which her uncles had pioneered. Generally, a woman’s (or a man’s) emigration was a negotiated family decision.8

Gender outlooks were real, and they affected historical change. Gender was evolving in

Ireland as well as the United States. Variations and subpatterns had always existed, of course.

Still, Irish gender practices retained enough coherence to systematically differentiate the meaning and experience of “Irishness” for women and men. Yet, women’s and men’s gendered perspectives and lives were bounded by a common history and culture. Both sexes behaved, in fact, in ways that were distinctively Irish.9 Their gender legacy endowed the Irish in America with broadly shared commitments to mutual responsibility, with sex-based training in needed skills, and with established forms of co-operation and rituals for building trust.

For example, masculine drinking customs introduced strangers into the group. By drinking, a male newcomer could immediately demonstrate his sense of belonging, i.e., his adherence to Irish manhood norms.10 Operating within the broader context of Irish culture, gender committed women and men to both inter- and intragender obligations encouraging solidarity both between and among men and women.

Fundamentally, gender and ethnicity are interactive socio-cultural systems that organize cooperative social relations and promote collective and individual survival. In Irish-America

8 Diner uses the term "female chains" on p. 38 of Erin’s Daughters. Nolan uses the phrase "female network" in Ourselves Alone, 92. Both recognize but underestimate male involvement in migration networks. However, these scholars highlight the historical significance of the degree to which Irishwomen’s ability to gain a degree of financial independence played a pivotal role in promoting and financing emigration. 9 See Diner’s “Comment on Sydney S. Weinberg's 'The Treatment of Women in Immigration History'," in which she caution against over•emphasizing the differences between men and women within ethnic groups. 10 Victor A. Walsh, “’Drowning the Shamrock’: Drink, Teetotalism and the Irish Catholics of Gilded Age Pittsburgh,” Journal of American Ethnic History 10:1-2 (Fall, 1990-Winter, 1991) 60-79; Richard Stivers, A Hair of the Dog: Irish Drinking and American Stereotype (University Park: 1976), 15-19, 34-48, 74-77, 124-128.

188 gender was an integral part of Irish-Americans’ lives; it played an especially strong role in defining Irishness in America.

The evolving Irish gender system shared broad similarities with other European gender systems and with the dominant American system. All of these systems helped their practitioners cope with the expansion of market capitalism, the commercialization of agriculture and the rise of industrial forms of production. However, in other ways, the Irish historical experience and cultural legacy was unique.

The roots of the traditional Irish gender system lay in Celtic folk culture. The Catholic

Irish used aspects of the older culture as well as threads borrowed and adapted from bourgeois

British origins as they struggled to reweave their social and cultural fabric during the transitional era from 1840 to 1880. Catholic Irish emigrants came from a variety of regional and class backgrounds. Their patterns of emigration reflected the stage of Irish and U.S. history at the time of their departure. All background factors, including gender outlooks, influenced migrants’ attitudes toward leaving their homeland and their responses to U.S. conditions. Clearly, the

Brooklyn Irish under study in this dissertation had already left Ireland before the stereotypical early twentieth-century Irish gender system had become entrenched.11 Individuals in both

Ireland and the U.S. were confronted by a great deal of change. A variety of survival strategies helped them adjust to vastly different circumstances. Under all conditions, however, their gender provided a repertoire of patterns for interpersonal relations and behavioral norms.

By 1880, a truly “Irish-American” ethniciy existed in “The City of Homes”. Parochialism in Irish-America was quite common from before the Famine through the Civil War. While they

11 Robert E. Kennedy, Jr., The Irish: Emigration, Marriage and Fertility (Berkeley: 1973), 139-205; Art Cosgrove, ed., Marriage in Ireland (Dublin: 1985), esp. Brendan M. Walsh, “Marriage in Ireland in the Twentieth Century”, pp. 138-147.

189 shared an awareness of a common culture, regional loyalties carried weight and could easily pit

Irish against Irish in competition for jobs.12 As late as 1880, local attachments still retained emotional, cultural and social significance. They were anchors for migration chains and resource networks for jobs, housing and other forms of assistance. Just as an increasing national consciousness was developing in Ireland, mass identification with a broader “Irish” nationality was growing in the cities, industrial towns, and work camps of Gilded Age America. That consciousness was heavily tinged with a working-class perspective.13 Ethnicity is an ongoing historical process as people selectively employ elements of their heritage and a sense of common loyalty as resources to cope with an alien environment. Over time, the content of ethnicity evolved as conditions changed and immigrants and their children incorporated their American experiences into their personal and collective perspectives. An “Irish-American” phase was followed in the early decades of the twentieth century by a “Catholic-American” phase which is often portrayed as dominted by exteme concern for respectability, and middle class in orientation if not attainment. That stereotype has some validity, but it should not be read back into the 1880s. The Irish-American phase deserves study in its own right. It was not an intermediate stage toward a pre-ordained result. The postbellum era was an unsettled time for the American Irish. A range of possibilities existed.

Most of Brooklyn’s Irish (immigrants and their children) were still working class, and their economic position remained precarious in 1880. By the time they were first specifically separated by census enumerators, Brooklyn’s American-born Irish were among the most

12 John Ridge, in The Flatbush Irish (Brooklyn: 1983) and “Irish County Societies in New York, 1880- 1914.” in Ronald Bayer and Timothy Meagher, eds., The New York Irish (Baltimore: 1996), pp. 275-300, covers lingering county ties and rivalries in Kings, New York and Bronx Counties in great depth. 13 Eric Foner, "Class, Ethnicity & Radicalism in the Gilded Age: The Land League & Irish-America,” in Eric Foner, ed., Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: 1980), pp. 150-200.

190 accomplished in America. Less than 10% of the men were “laborers or domestics”, but the disproportionate concentration in the skilled building trades led to continued—if not increased— levels of occupational accidents.

There was never one monolithic model of Irish ethnicity. A range of “Irish” types reflected gender, class and regional background variables in Ireland as well as differences in people’s experiences by sex, class and region in the United States.

The direction that Irish-American ethnicity took reflected outside pressures, changing circumstances and people’s choices. Emigrants left Ireland with gendered views, and their experiences in America only reinforced these perspectives. Women’s role in the development of

Irish•American ethnicity was particularly strong for three reasons. First, they were unusually assertive in championing their own goals relative to women of other ethnic groups. Second, in sheer numbers, women made up an unusually high proportion of the immigrant population.

Third, as the primary socializers of the American-born “Irish” second•generation, they were strategically placed to pass on their perspectives and mold children’s accommodation to U.S. society. Not only did women’s role as the primary influence on their own children expand during the late nineteenth century, the dramatic increase in educated female teachers (in both public and parochial schools) dates to this period. Second-generation Irish girls were seemingly as common among these new public school teachers as immigrant Irish girls were among domestics a generation earlier. Other than Chicago, nowhere was this trend more evident than in

William Maxwell’s Brooklyn Public Schools.14

14 Samuel Abelow, Dr. William H. Maxwell: The First Superintendent of Schools of the City of New York (Brooklyn: 1934), pp. 28-40.

191

This is not to suggest that women dominated Irish-American ethnicity. The point is that gender was crucial. Men’s experiences and viewpoints also shaped Irish-American ethnicity.

The Irish case is particularly interesting, however, because men’s perspectives were not hegemonic. Men and women negotiated or co-operated. They were neither complete masters of their own fates nor hapless victims. Their joint efforts shaped an Irish/Catholic ethnicity that remained a recognizable and meaningful social category to adherents and outsiders alike well into the twentieth century. Even the changing stereotypes of the Irish were highly gendered as they shifted from depictions of “Paddy”, the drunken, brawling laborer, to Spencer Tracy’s

“Frank Skeffington”, the more socially established, smooth-talking, corrupt politician; and from

“Bridget”, the backward, stubborn domestic servant, to A Tree Grows in Brooklyn’s “Miss

McDonald”, the rigid, old-maid school teacher. It was obvious to Irish-Americans and outsiders alike that two genders were hard at work creating their own social•cultural reality, and in the process, making American history.

Rather rigid norms regulating the relationships between men and women developed throughout rural post-famine Ireland. Women were encouraged to spend their time with members of their own sex. While traveling to Mass or sporting gatherings, ladies were expected to travel in their feminine cliques. Certain social functions, such as dances and related celebrations, required a mixing of the sexes but as a rule, a woman or man who spent most of her or his time in the company of the opposite sex was considered suspect. Non-inheriting men had few responsibilities to distract them from spending their evenings in a public house. These pubs were centers of rural male socialization where events of the day would be discussed, and work could be solicited; a political, economic and social hub for the rural Irish male. Married men, too, were freed from their farm work in the evenings. There was little to hold a man at home with his

192 wife and children. He belonged to a culture in which “leisure time ought not to be spent with women.”. There were no similar social groups for women, who would catch up on family doings and local gossip as they passed each other at the market.15

“Matches” occurred in both strong and small farm communities. In both cases, some attention was paid to the wishes of the marrying couple; but the weight given to the parental and filial choice varied between strong and small farmers. For the strong farmer, no marriage could take place without a suitable trade of dowry and land. In this case the family interests in the union overshadowed the wedding couple’s wishes although two people would not be forced into matrimony if their personalities were incompatible. In a sense, the children could exercise a veto over their parents’ choice. These “snug” farmers had too much to lose by allowing an ill- considered “romantic union”16

Among the cottiers and cabin dwellers, where property was rarely at stake, romance and

“choice” were larger factors. As long as some general plan for feeding themselves was in place, the young couple could easily obtain their parents’ blessing. Here, the parents exercised a veto over the children’s choice. The poor themselves sang of their disregard for financial worries:

I have no silver, I have no gold, I have no coat, I have no shirt; Have no penny in my pocket—and may the Son of God relieve me... My sweetheart, my affection be faithful and be firm, And do not forsake the secret love of your inner heart on account of him to be poor; I would take the Bible (as oath) or any other things on earth, That the Son of God will give us our nights’ portion to eat. If I had a blanket to cover her, I’d marry the woman I liked, and if I could get the potatoes enough to put into my children’s mouths, I would be as happy and content as any man.17

15 Conrad Arensberg and Sonan Kimball, Family and Community in Ireland (Cambridge: 1968), p. 171; Diner, p. 25; R. F. Foster, Modern Ireland (London: 1988), pp. 221-23. 16 Arensberg and Kimball, pp. 156-173; Foster, pp. 58, 74-77; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America (New York:1985), pp. 54-55, 57-60. 17 Diner, p. 12; Lynn Lees, Exiles of Erin (Ithaca: 1979), p. 146; Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), “First Report from Her Majesty’s Commission for Inquiring into the Condition of the Poorer

193

A priest, complaining of the recklessness of the local marriage market, exclaimed that

“He that is destitute hardly waits at all.” If a son was not waiting for land, community sanction for an early marriage was automatic. The rural Irish marriage ceremony was a time of communal celebration, a rite of passage during which the community, openly sanctioned the marriage and reaffirmed their basic values. All strata of society attended—gentry, “snug” farmer, small farmer, cottier and beggar. The affair was festive but not extravagant, performed by a priest in a local barn or cabin, rather than in a church. The feast was as splendid as could be afforded; the guests often helped to cover much of the affair’s cost. For hours, the guests would eat, drink, and dance jigs or reels; the last dances of the evening always paired off the unmarried guests. For luck, groups of local men might come disguised in costumes to toast the couple’s health and prosperity.18

The marriage ceremony signaled a transition into adulthood and was often accompanied by a transfer of land from the parent to the child. For the woman, marriage also meant a departure from her family of origin and a redefinition of her household role. The man’s responsibilities increased as head of the household, but his actual role and duties changed little, since he had served as apprentice to his father for years. He performed the same tasks, in the same way, for and with the same people. The new wife, however, needed to honor and respect her new mother-in-law, whose sanctioned role was to constructively criticize the “new woman’s” work for the first several years of marriage. Conflicts often arose between a man’s parents and his wife. The boundaries of domestic control sparked heated debates. In such instances, the

Classes in Ireland”, 1835, p. 32; “The Coolun”, in Douglas Hyde, Love Songs of Connaught. (London and Dublin: 1905), p. 73. 18 Arensberg and Kimball, p. 178-182; Lees, pp. 144-45; Mr. and Mrs. S. C. Hall, Ireland, Its Scenery and Character, Vol. I. (London, 1841), pp. 169-70; Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), “Report from Her Majesty’s Commission for Inquiring into the Condition of the Poorer Classes in Ireland”, 1836, p. 33.

194 husband would typically either remove himself quietly from the fray, or interestingly, side with his wife. An Irish husband rarely sided actively with his mother against his wife. The bond between a husband and wife was apparently stronger than the bond between a son and his parents. The wife generally assumed as much control as she could over the house, the animals, the garden, and eventually, the children. As the elderly parents grew more dependent on the younger couple, power shifted from the father to the son and from the mother-in-law to the daughter-in-law.19

Irish misery forms a type by itself, of which neither the model not the imitation can be found any where else. In all countries ... paupers may be discovered, but an entire nation of paupers is what never was seen until it was shown in Ireland. To explain the social condition of such a country, it would only be necessary to recount its miseries and its sufferings; the history of the poor is the history of Ireland. Gustave de Beaumont, Ireland: Social, Political and Religious, 183920

Irish immigrants were not merely “pushed” out of their native land but also “pulled” to

America by tales of opportunity and freedom. Many who came during the post-famine era did so not to escape famine or persecution, but rather to increase their economic prospects. There were few opportunities in Ireland for those without reliable access to land. America’s large cities were able to offer better job opportunities for those with the will and the resources to emigrate.

What is especially notable about the Irish as an emigrating group is the unusually large female representation among them. Ireland was the only country to send a higher percentage of women than men during the nineteenth century.28 Moreover, a remarkable proportion of those females were single. The average age of women emigrating to America was 21.2 years—

19 Arensberg and Kimball, p. 185; Foster, p. 168. 20 Gustave de Beaumont, Ireland: Social, Political, and Religious, Harvard University Press (Cambridge: 2007[1837]), p. 130.

195 significantly younger than Ireland’s mean age for marriage. In the last quarter of the 19th century, married couples represented only 16% of the emigrating Irish population.21

The widening gap between the number of women and the number of men between the ages of 15 and 24 directly followed the pattern of shrinking opportunities for young women in

Ireland. During the 1860’s, 21.1% of Irish migrants were young (15–24) females; 23% of the population were young males within that same age group. Over the next decade, men and women arrived in similar numbers. Between 1881 and 1890, the tide turned as young women made up

30% of the exodus, while their male peers accounted for just 27%. In the last decade of the century, 35.4% of the Irish population in America were females between the ages of 15 and 24; the percentage of men of that age group shrank to 24.5%.22

A vast majority of these women hailed from the rural areas of Ireland, for those from the more commercialized areas, such as Dublin or Belfast, could offer their services as seamstresses or work in other home-based jobs which allowed them to avoid emigration. Women from the rural west were not so fortunate.23 (See Chapter 2 for details of county of origin for Brooklyn

Irish.)

In rural Ireland, the “flower of the population” was leaving in droves. Most men could scrape together a decent living working as farm laborers, at least on a seasonal basis. Women’s best economic options lay abroad. The consequently disproportionate emigration of women brought about a “defeminization” of rural western Ireland.

Among other migrant groups, the father often emigrated first and worked to raise enough money to finance the trip for his family back home. This pattern was uncommon among the Irish.

21 Diner, 30-34. 22 Diner, pp. 35-38. 23 Foster, p. 92; Miller, 350-51.

196

Young Irish women were at least as likely as their brothers to emigrate first, then bring relatives to America. Resettled girls stayed in close contact with relatives back home. Ties between sisters were particularly strong, but those between a girl and her aunt, cousins and friends were also important. Exciting letters home told of adventures to be had in America and sparked keen interest. A migration chain was developed in which a woman’s passage to America was covered by an aunt or cousin. Once in America, “Brigid” began to save money to sponsor the trip of her sister or brother.24

It is also wise to consider the perils which might confront a single female travelling alone to a foreign city thousands of miles from home. Even if she had arranged to meet with friends or family, ship, trolley or even work schedules were notoriously unreliable. The new urban landscape was as unlike rural Ireland as Jules Verne might have concocted in a popular novel. In

1890, a Boston settlement house worker retold the story of greenhorn Mary Mitchell’s frightfully unfortunate first day in America in 1875: “[Mary] went to Brooklyn on the 22nd of April in search of her brother who she had heard lived on Bolivar Street, and was a policeman. In

Madison’s Liquor Store on Myrtle Avenue she was told that one Mitchell lived at 15 on that street. Four who eyed her in the saloon followed her into Bolivar Street. There they brutally assaulted her.” Mary Mitchell must have left Brooklyn at some point, resettled in Boston and sought some sort of help at Rutland House. Perhaps she never found her brother. No policeman named Mitchell appears to have resided on Bolivar Street according to the census or city diectories. There were six to twelve Mitchells on the Brooklyn force in any given year. He may have lived somewhere else.. He may have been gone, or she may have been mistaken.

24 Diner, p. 34; Timothy J. Meagher, "'The Lord is Not Dead:' Cultural and Social Change among the Irish in Worcester, Massachusetts" (Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University: 1982), pp. 220-223; Barbara Wertheimer, We Were There: The Story of Working Women in America (New York: 1947), p. 233.

197

Assertiveness is a virtue, but confidence without know-how is not a consistent avenue to success.

This took time and support.25

Single women who left their rural homeland were certainly not migrating with the idea of resettling on American farmland. These women, to an even larger degree than their male peers, rarely left America’s urban centers. Irish “ghettos” grew in ports of arrival such as Boston, New

York, Philadelphia and Brooklyn. Traveling farther inland required greater resources than most

Irish had available. Young men were much more likely to continue on in search of steady work.

Moreover, the “remittance system” which could finance emigration or forestall eviction of family members back home, required immediate employment of the first emigrant. By the mid-1850’s, however, there was a significant Irish representation in every region of the United States.

As late as 1880, Irish-born men and women generally found themselves on the lowest rung of the social order. Over two-fifths of Brooklyn’s Irish-born males were employed as unskilled or semi-skilled laborers. Most still lived in substandard housing in tenement districts.

The life of such a resident was grim and certainly did not offer the opportunities for which immigrants had left their homeland. Charles Mullen had been in Brooklyn just a few years when he wrote to his aunt back in Ireland of his frustrations with the American job market:

Dear Aunt This country is not what I thought it was I was waiting from week to week to see would things mend My father has not done two weeks work since he came to the country and I have done very little myself I am sorry now I ever came I have been very ill lately and there is hardly a week but there is some one sick My father and Mother are disgusted with the place (page 2) that is the reason I took no interest in writing they intend to return to Sligo as soon as possible (there are hundreds here who would be glad to get back to Ireland if they could)... Charles Mullen, Letter from Brooklyn to Mary Ann Mullen in Ireland (K. Miller Collection)26

25 “Report of the Temporary Home for Women,” 1890, Folder 52, Rutland Corner House Papers, Harvard University Special Collections.

198

Yet far fewer single Irish women lived in these tenement districts. Most women there were married, widowed or deserted. Their lives were perhaps even more disheartening. Finding work, even for the most menial pay, was a difficult task for one with an armful of children. Irish families headed by women were not uncommon in industrialized cities. The death rate among

Irish men was higher than among any other foreign or native group. Irish men often took jobs with the greatest risk of injury. Even the fairly well-compensated skilled building trade jobs which the Irish and particularly their offspring came to dominate towards the last quarter of the nineteenth century were labor-intensive and dangerous. Of course, those who held even unpopular jobs were still luckier than the substantial number of men unable to find steady work.

Those overwhelmed by the shame of being unable to support their family were apt to desert their wife and children in search of work or to escape the pain the tenements instilled.27

We did not know where the money was coming from to pay for coal or the grocer...but with as little help from father or uncle... and what Lizzie made in the way of dressmaking seemed to keep us agoing...I tell you that many a time I felt so discouraged that I was on the point of shooting myself... Alexander Wilson letter from Brooklyn to his sister in Ireland, November 13, 1900 (K. Miller Collection)28 Yet both single and married women entering the cities often expressed pleasure at the relatively high number of opportunities available to them. Because Ireland’s economy was agriculturally based, job opportunities among the rural middle class included requiring heavy labor. A majority of Irish women married quite late, especially later in the century. Thus, they remained a burden on their fathers’ farms. Since respect and status within the Irish household was often equated with financial contribution to the family, these women, even as they reached the age of 40, were still referred to as “girls”. More and more, a job, one’s own home and

26 Charles Mullen, Brooklyn, to Mary Ann Mullen, Ireland, 1872 (K. Miller Collection). 27 Alexander Wilson, Brooklyn, to sister Maggie, Atrim, 1897 (K. Miller Collection). 28 Alexander Wilson, Brooklyn, to sister Maggie, Antrim, Nov. 13, 1900 (K. Miller Collection).

199 perhaps even a husband were slipping beyond “Brigid’s” immediate grasp. Among the rural

Irish, the decision to leave was just as often inspired by feelings of uselessness as by pangs of hunger. If a woman could arrive in a American city and make enough money to put food on the table, America was indeed a land of opportunity.29

I am shure (sic) if the employment was as good at home as here, we would do as well I would not advise any one to Come here that Can live Comfertable(sic) yet there is work for every person No female that Can handle a needle May be idle Dear Laurence, John Daniel James would advise you to keep your situation as long as you can as there is nothing for any man coming here in the commencement but hard labour. Ellen Roantree, Brooklyn, NY, to her brother, Laurence Roantree, Dublin, March 23, 1852 (Miller Collection)30

...all you people in Ireland are deceived, or at least you deceive yourselves in the opinion of this Country. I am not going to enter into any particulars, all that I will say is that persons coming here will find as much hardships and difficulty as they ever experienced at home.... I have suffered more than I thought I could endure. Daniel Roantree, City Hotel, Washington, D.C., to his brother, Laurence Roantree, Dublin, March 23, 1852 (K. Miller Collection)31

Dear Aunt, I am sure you remember Cristina poor girl we buried her this time a year ago with phnemonia a few days sickness and dear little Agnes we buried her 10 years ago Amelia our youngest Sister we also buried 4 years ago... Sorry to tell you that Henry has been ailing for the past Eight Years is now confined to his bed and dont expect him to live much longer.” Bernard Mallon, Brooklyn, to his Aunt Kitty, Ireland, December 9, 1889 (K. Miller Collection)32

In the tenements of Williamsburg or Irishtown, it was no doubt difficult to implement precisely—or at all—the condescending, but well-meaing, advice of Irish (Catherine Alexander’s

Friendly Advice to Irish Mothers, 1834), English (Eliza Warren’s How I Managed My Children from Infancy through Marriage, 1865) and American (Andrea Proudfoot’s A Mother’s Ideals,

1897) authors. Irish writer Phyllis Whately (Words for Our Mothers’ Meetings) was particularly

29 Arensberg and Kimball, pp. 35-38; Foster, pp. 349-367. 30 Ellen Roantree, Brooklyn, to her sister, Mrs. Butler, Ireland, 1851 (K. Miller Collection). 31 Daniel Roantree, Brooklyn, to his sister, Mrs. Butler, Ireland, 1851 (K. Miller Collection). 32 Bernard Mallon, Brooklyn, to his Aunt Kitty, Co. Tyrone, 1889 K. Miller Collection).

200 unforgiving: “How I wish people would keep their rooms clean and tidy. It is not necessary for them to be dirty just because they are poor” (1863, p. 60). Misdirected blame aside, disease was perhaps the most serious problem faced by the tenement Irish. Living conditions and curious child-raising practices among tenement dwellers combined to contribute to inconceivably high mortality rates. The Census Bureau studied rates of death due to consumption in Brooklyn over the six year period from 1884–1890. The findings show that first and second generation Irish made up the largest single group to die from the disease.33 This fact alone should be alarming.

However, consumption is just one of nine diseases for which the Irish mortality rate overshadowed the city’s mean death rate. For each contagious disease studied, the Irish death rate surpassed both native and foreign-born death rates. Irish death rates fell below the city’s average only for long-term, genetically-based diseases such as cancer, tumors and heart disease.

The shocking Irish death rates can be traced to the wretched circumstances under which many lived. The tenement slums, which housed tens of thousands of the laboring Irish, presented deplorable living conditions. In 1875, one doctor noted, that hallways reeked of urine and excrement because of broken toilets. Such flats were breeding grounds for diphtheria. Poor nutrition was another leading factor weakening the tenement Irish. According to one public health official, mothers were forced to feed their infants whatever food they had on hand, often things as inappropriate as cucumbers, beans, or even beer and gin. Most Irish mothers breast fed their young, and kept this source of nourishment up for as long as two and a half years. Not only did this practice sidestep the problem of obtaining pure milk, but it also perpetuated the myth that breastfeeding prevented unwanted pregnancies. High fecundity rates continued, even among the most desolate of Irish women. Native born Americans often viewed the Irish as “reckless

33 U.S. Census Bureau, Special Report: Vital Statistics for New York City and Brooklyn, 1886-1900.

201 breeders.” Such behavior was condemned as a contributor to Irish poverty. The national bird of the Irish was said to be the stork, for Irish women with the health and means to do so might give birth to an uncommonly large families. This is certainly not reflective of the Irish society at home or second generation Irish-Americans, where the late age of marriage served to limit family size somewhat.

When I came to. . . and saw the looks of the girls in the large stores and the familiarity of the young men, I preferred to go into a respectable family where I could have a home.34 In retrospect, domestic service appears to have been an useful economic situation for many single women in the nineteenth century, especially for foreign girls with limited prospects.

Service offered decent housing for those whose only other option was a tenement settlement.

Other attractions included: a life apart from disease and overcrowding rooms, a respectable environment; an opportunity for long term social mobility, and familiar work. Significantly, young Irish women’s most commonly stated reasons for entering the pool of domestic servants was the fact that the service trade was perhaps the only occupation which allowed unskilled workers to accumulate savings. From 1819 to 1847, one-half to two-thirds of all “unskilled” depositors—male or female—at the New York Bank for Savings, were domestic servants.

Comparable figures have been culled from the Test Books of New York City’s Emigrant

Industrial Savings Bank between 1816 and 1883, an institution whose depositors were overwhelmingly Irish.35

“I choose housework in preference to any other, principally because for that I receive better pay. The average pay for store and factory girls is eight and nine dollars a week.

34 Diner, p. 62; Salmon, p. 133. 35 Kevin J. Rich, Irish Immigrants of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 1850-1853, Vol. 1 (New York: 2000); Irish Immigrants of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, Vol. 2 (New York: 2005); “Test Books” (1850-1868) and “Transfer and Signature Books” (1850-1883) of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank (New York Public Library Archives).

202

After paying board and room rent, washing, etc., very little is left, and what is left must be spent for dress—nothing saved.”36 “Housework gives me a better home than I could make for myself in any other way.”37 Service work was readily available for Irish girls. Such jobs were unpopular with native and second generation working women. Those who knew where to find other work generally did, thus leaving domestic jobs available for the Irish. Domestic service was perhaps as good an economic opportunity as any of these laboring Irish would see. Housekeeping was one of the few skills these rural Irish farm girls possessed—the only one they could exploit in an industrial,urban environment. Domestic service offered shelter within a safe and respectable environment, in a physical space undoubtedly superior to the tenement conditions available to the masses of laboring immigrants.38

Dale Light describes Philadelphia’s extreme surplus of women in certain sectors, particularly those still in the prime working age groups. This was also true in Brooklyn from

1860 through 1900, due in lare part to differential employment opportunities in the expanding

American city. Like “The City of Brotherly Love”, “The City of Churches” offered more reliable employment opportunities for young women in domestic work and other forms of light industry than it did for young Irish men who were merely added to the city’s bloated casual—and seasonal—labor pool.

Among the other factors young maids cited as reasons they engaged in domestic service was that the workplaces of domestic servants were substantially healthier than the crowded, dirty

36 Irish maid qtd. in Salmon, p. 132. 37 Maid qtd. in Salmon, p. 132. 38 Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class Struggle in New York, 1789-1860, (Chicago: 1986) pp. 155-178.

203 and unventilated factories and stores of the Irish slums. Four of Salmon’s most interesting survey responses are quoted below:

We are not as closely confined as girls who work in stores, and we are usually more healthy. I chose [domestic service] because I thought it was healthier. There is no healthier work for women It was the healthiest work I knew.39 The domestic servant, unlike her Irish brothers, lived and worked among an educated upper class. She was taught and expected to present herself in a clean, tidy, respectable manner typical of these higher classes. There is some evidence, albeit fragmentary, that domestics had a somewhat greater chance at social mobility through marriage than her peers employed in factories of the surrounding tenement districts. A freshly-scrubbed, well-spoken, neatly dressed

Irish servant, with perhaps a bit of dowry money, might be a more attractive match for one of the skilled workers called upon by their upper- or middle-class employers. Significant anecdotal evidence to this effect from the 1920’s to this effect exists. More compelling is the turn of the century Marriage Registers from two different Roman Catholic churches located in Gowanus and Gravesend.40

Irish immigrants were preferred over most other foreign groups for most Irish girls arrived with at least a functional knowledge of the English language. There was generally a servant’s position of some sort open for every Irish girl who desired one. As Ellen Roantree wrote from Brooklyn to her brother back home in 1852, “ No Female that Can handle a needle may be idle.” Of course, native Americans were preferred. They were not stereotyped as “saucy

39 Four servants qtd. in Salmon, p. 130. 40 Dale B. Light, “Class, Ethnicity and the Urban Ecology in a Nineteenth Century City: Philadelphia’s Irish, 1840-1890” (University of Pennsylvania Ph.D. dissertation: 1979), pp. 18-24; The Church of St. Agnes, Marriage Register, 1888-1906; St. Mark’s Roman Catholic Church, Marriage Register, 1887- 1893.

204 and dim-witted” as were Irish girls. And they were generally not Catholics. But native maids were unavailable. The social stigma attached to the service profession were deeply entrenched and, the jobs considered unattractive. Very few native girls with any opportunity for alternative employment chose to work as domestics.41

We leave our world behind when we go into service. A teacher or cashier, or anybody in a store, no matter if they have got common sense, don’t want to talk to associate with servants. Somehow you get a sort of smooch. Young men think and say, ‘Oh, she can’t be much if she hasn’t got the brains enough to make her living outside of the kitchen.’ You’re just down, once and for all if you go into one.42 Most domestic servants agreed that their title was among the worst aspects of their trade. Salmon relates the responses of more servants:

I don’t like to be called a menial. No woman likes to be called a ‘hired girl’. American girls don’t like the name ‘servants.’ I know many nice girls who would do housework, but they prefer almost anything else rather than be called ‘servants’. I don’t know why we should be called ‘servants’ any more than other people.43 It is sad to see hundreds of our country men impoverished in a great City like New York; but is a fact—nevertheless. (page two) There is little chance for unskilled laborers in America, because of the fact that the Italians are numerous, and work very cheaply. This they can do, as they are satisfied with food, and poor shabby surroundings which our people would not eat or submit to. Trades men have some chance, but even they are not as successful as the people at home are led to believe.... I would strongly urge our young men in Ireland to consider well before leaving the Land of the Shamrock. W.H. Downes, Brooklyn, to Michael O Shaughnessy, Pallas Kenry, March 24, 1887 (K. Miller Collection)44

41 Ellen Roantree, Brooklyn, to her brother in Ireland, 1852 (K. Miller Collection); David Katzman, Seven Days a Week: Women and Domestic Service in Industrializing America, (Chicago: 1978), p. 10. 42 Former maid, now a shop girl, qtd. in Helen Campbell, Prisoners of Poverty: Women Wage Workers, their Trades and their Lives (Boston: 1887), pp. 228-229. 43 Salmon, p. 134. 44 William H. Downes, Brooklyn, to Michael O’Shaugnessy, Ireland, 1887 (K. Miller Collection).

205

Domestic service played a significant role in many Irish women’s positive outlook on

America. This trend held true in many other occupations as well, for as noted earlier, single women from Italy, Germany, etc., simply did not emigrate in the same numbers. Nor did they consider work to be as important—to their family’s success or to their own self-concept. These opportunities allowed one woman in Brooklyn to write to her relatives in Ireland, “I really think you will do better than in Dublin”.45 The same did not hold true for Irish men, for foreign men arrived at a much higher rate than did the women of their respective countries, nor were Irish- born males given any sort of preference in the job market.46

You see, things are done so differently here, they will hire you for one day and they pay you and then let you go. I have had an experience that way I was home sick for a week, and when I went back to work, I was laid off and another in my place at smaller wages, so I am out now this is the third week. Alexander Wilson, Brooklyn, to his sister Maggie in Ireland, November 13, 1900 (K. Miller Collection)47

Irish men suffered a great deal more than did the women from the stereotypes and generalizations Americans thrust upon them. Conventional wisdom accused them all of drunkenness and laziness. Later in the century, many jobs were filled by Eastern Europeans simply because they would accept lower pay.

We are continually harrowed with tales of sufferings of distressed needle-women, and yet women women will encounter all these chances of ruin and starvation rather than make up their minds to permanent domestic service. Now what is the matter with domestic service?48 But let us not paint too rosy a picture of women “living out” in domestic service. Many enjoyed their work, but so many more found a great deal of trouble accompanying the duties of a

45 Ellen Roantree, Brooklyn, to his sister, Mrs. Butler, Ireland, 1851 (K. Miller Collection). 46 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Classified Advertising Samples, 1870 & 1880; Oscar Handlin, Boston’s Immigrants: A Study in Acculturation (Boston: 1959 [1991]), p. 142. 47 Alexander Wilson, Brooklyn, to his sister, Maggie, Ireland, Nov. 13, 1900 (K. Miller Collection). 48 Stansell, 162.

206 servant. Beyond the serious concern regarding what today would be characterized as “sexual harrassment”, the most common gripe was the feeling of loneliness. The servant lived in someone else’s home; she longed for a place of her own. At least operatives could live with their families in their wretched hovel. They were not “outsiders” in the house.

Ladies wonder how their girls can complain of loneliness in a house full of people, but oh! it is the worst kind of loneliness. Their share is but the work of the house, they do not share in the pleasures and delights of a home.... I belong to the same church as my employer, yet have no share in the social life of the church.49 Domestic servants had very little free time for themselves; that was the essence of any agreement between a mistress and her live-in maid. Young girls were expected to perform all assigned tasks, from dawn till bedtime. Her work day usually began at 5:00 A.M., an hour before the family rose, and it ended at 9:00 or 10:00 P.M.; when there were young children in the house, a servant was on call all night.

You are mistress of no time of your own; other occupations have well-defined hours, after which one can do as she pleases without asking anyone. Sunday in a private family is usually anything but a day of rest to the domestic, for on that day there are usually guests to dinner or tea or both, which means extra work. I suppose the reason why more women choose other work is they would rather work all day and be done with it, and have the evenings for themselves.50 Those households that were financially able, would divide the household work among a cook, a waiter and a maid. But most commonly, a more modest family would hire a “maid-of- all-work”, alone responsible for all chores. Certain duties never befell a family member so long as at least one domestic servant was employed. Included in these was cooking, serving and washing up after each of the three meals, and tea, as well as all of the menial labor found in most households (cleaning, washing, etc.). Despite freeing their mistresses from these labor-intensive commitments, young maids were “universally complained of” and “generally and unhesitatingly

49 Qtd. in Salmon, p. 151. 50 Katzman, p. 7; qtd. in Salmon, pp. 141-42, 145-46.

207 denounced, even in their very presence [as] pests and curses.”51 This was often a manifestation of the deeply set class differentiation in the country’s larger cities. Ladies who were perhaps a bit insecure about their competency as the women of the house could assert judgment upon their servants of lower-class standings, and thus be reassured of their own position and status.52

Despite domestic service’s reputation as unskilled labor, the profession required quite a bit of know-how. A servant was expected to be “an extension of her mistress’ sensibility”; however it was often necessary for the maid to make her own decisions. Each task, therefore, carried its own conflict potential. Tensions between a mistress and her servants was common, even inevitable. Trouble flowed nturally from the ambiguity of certain assignments. For example: “Should she polish the doorknob to a high shine, or the highest?” or “Was her dishwater too greasy for the remaining dishes, and should she bother to heat more?”53 According to hatter James Burns, an employer of a number of girls over the years:

The principal difficulty a newcomer had to contend with is that of getting fairly initiated into, what is to her, a new system of housekeeping.54 Rural Irish women flooded the domestic service market in America. Most were reasonably well- equipped with basic housekeeping skills. Very few, however, were prepared for the tasks demanded of them within the upper class Victorian household. In Ireland, women were not exposed to the East Coast feminine ideology of placing great weight upon the appearance of one’s home. Irish servants were quickly informed of the quality that was expected of them. Nothing less would be tolerated.

51 Stansell, 158. 52 Katzman, pp. 152-56; Lynch-Brennan, 68-69; Salmon, pp. 54, 61. 53 Lynch-Brennan, 109-113; Stansell, p. 162-63. 54 Qtd. in Stansell, p. 157.

208

Male absence, whether through desertion or death, was a significant problem for

American Irish families during the nineteenth century. Advertisements were often placed in the newspapers inquiring about missing family members. The New York-based, but nationally-read,

Irish World published such listings each week in a “Missing Persons” feature. Year after year, over sixty percent of such listings were placed by residents of New York City or Brooklyn. Most were placed by parents, siblings and friends—searching for both men and women. From January to March, 1874, eight women reported a missing husband. In six of these eight cases, the man had deserted his wife; fatal accidents were suspected in the other two cases. No ad was placed by a husband looking for his missing wife. Perhaps a certain shame was attached to losing ones wife. This is not to say that some shame did not exist for women, for although eight women did publicize their new situation, the numbers are very small as compared to the fifty-four mothers searching for their sons and the 354 sisters in search of a missing brother. Even more common than women looking for their lost male relatives is the number of men looking for other men.

One hundred fourteen fathers placed an ad to find a son and 420 brothers hoped to find a kinsman. It is true that fewer women left families behind than men, for they were not subject to the same dangerous conditions at work. This cannot explain away the fact that no husband advertised the search for his wife, for a number of women were being searched for by their families. Eighteen mothers and eighteen fathers had placed ads. However, significantly more ads were placed by their siblings. Ninety sisters and one hundred thirty-eight brothers had “lost” a sister.55

This ethnic unity acted to cushion the Irish immigrants’ settlement in America.

Intermarriage clearly violated the principles of this community unity, yet did exist in different

55 New York Irish World, January 1 – March 31, 1874 sample.

209 concentrations depending upon the character of each community. To closely examine these marriage patterns, data from baptismal and marriage records was collected. Both forms of official documentation give the names of the wedding couple or parents of newly baptized infant.

Through a surname analysis, the numbers and percentages of Irish, German, and intermarried couples could be tallied.

Most Holy Trinity, the first of six Brooklyn parishes examined for this section was located in Williamsburg’s Ward 16. As the city’s first “national parish,” “Trinity” was dominated by the German community to an even larger extent than was its surrounding ward; the church served a huge, largely homogeneous population. The parish was just one facet of an intertwined social network which included German-run schools, political clubs and fire companies. It serves as a perfect foil to Irish patterns of the same period. The marriage records for this particular parish were readily available and remarkably well-documented. During the three years between 1899 and 1901, 148 marriages were recorded. To demonstrate the ethnic exclusivity of the parish, only three non-Germans had married into the parish. Two of these

“exceptions” were first generation French immigrants and the third was Mary Ellen Reilly. Born in the United States, Reilly married a second generation German-American. Among the 296 member sample, only seven individuals were listed as non-Catholics. Each of these non-

Catholic members were born in America. Thirty-seven percent of the couples married at Most

Holy Trinity around the turn of the century were born in Germany. Forty-five percent of the grooms were born in Germany, while only 28% of the women were first generation Germans; this pattern may have developed simply because there were greater numbers of immigrating males than females.56

56 Most Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church (German national parish), Marriage Register, 1870-1890.

210

Similarly detailed information is not documented at the predominantly Irish parishes examined. One such parish, St. Agnes, was located in “Gowanus” in Ward 10. This area, located halfway between the waterfront and Prospect Heights, was divided between pockets of middle class residences and industrial areas dominated by warehouses and railroad yards.

Occupations represented in this parish ranged widely—from assemblyman (a member of the

McLaughlin machine) to laborer. There was no significant male or female majority in this part of South Brooklyn. There was, however, an Irish representation of nearly 50%. Yet ethnic diversity was reflected in the congregation of St. Agnes. Because of the absence of detail and the smaller congregation, the sample for this parish spanned longer period of time. Between the years 1888 and 1906, well over half of St. Agnes’ marriages took place between an exclusively

Irish couple. However, there was a significant representation of purely German marriages and inter-ethnic combinations. The Irish did not create an isolated world submerged in Irish culture as the Germans did. This is not surprising given that relatively few Irish spoke Gaelic and that the Irish-born Bishop of Brooklyn posed no threat to their culture. Unfortunately, most of the

Irish clerics and clerks lacked the Germans’ record-keeping initiative. One secretary or clerk did record wonderfully complete Marriage Register records from 1904–1906, including parents’ place of birth and bride/groom occupation. Of the 1273 marriages studied, 61% took place between two Irishmen; 12% united two Germans; 17% mixed members of various undistinguishable ancestry, and a significant 10% took place between Irish and Germans.

Interestingly, within the number of mixed marriages between the Irish and German, exactly 50% of the Irish women married German men and vice versa.57

57 The Church of St. Agnes, Marriage Register, 1888-1906.

211

Another predominantly Irish parish, Visitation, was located in South Brooklyn, or “Red

Hook” in Ward 12. This waterfront area was largely populated by laborers, living in multifamily dwellings nearby the light industrial areas, warehouses, docks and railroad yards. Occupations represented in this parish probably ranged from low white collar to casual laborer, but those on the lower end were undoubtably more common than in other congregations. Irish surname representation among brides and grooms was well above the ward’s proportion of Irish-born in any census year. Between the years 1855 and 1865, seventy percent (175) of the 250 marriages sampled took place between exclusively Irish couples. Exclusively German marriages represented twenty-one percent (52) and inter-ethnic combinations just three percent (8).

Visitation may have been the “most Irish” of the geographic parishes sampled. Here, among the mixed Irish-German marriages, exactly 5 of the brides (sixty-three percent) were Irish.58

The Church of the Assumption was another small parish with a predominantly Irish congregation located Downtown near Fulton Ferry in Ward 2. Its make-up was in many ways typical of an Irish parish. From 1850–56, 140 (70%) of the 200 marriages took place between

Irishmen only, 10 (5%) of the marriages were exclusively German, sixteen were of mixed/unknown nationalities, and 18 (9%) of the marriages were inter-ethnic between German and Irish parties. Within this parish, a significant gap existed between the percentages of Irish women intermarrying and those of Irish men for 61% of Irish/German exogamic marriages, an

Irish woman took a German groom to be her husband.59

St Paul’s in Ward 1 was another “geographic” parish with a predominantly Irish congregation. Although the church was located the proverbial “stone’s throw” from some of

Brooklyn’s most exclusive real estate—the Heights, the Promenade, Court Street, etc.—St.

58 Visitation Church, Marriage Register, 1854-1866. 59 The Church of the Assumption, Marriage Register, 1850-57.

212

Paul’s congregants were more likely to reside in the two- to four family frame houses closer to the ferry and the future site of the Great Bridge. Nineteenth century parishes were designated as either “national” (dedicated to the interests of a specific national/language group such as

Germans, Italians, Poles or Lithiuanians; most prayers were said in Latin, but the sermon, etc. was offered in the specific vernacular ) or “geographic” (no specific group was favored; prayers were in Latin and English; the numerically superior Irish tended to dominate). Its make-up was heavily Irish—presumably because it was located in the Fifth Ward (i.e., “Irishtown” near the

Navy Yard). In 1871–77, 120 (79%) of the152 marriages took place between exclusively Irish couples, 7 (5%) were exclusively German pairs, 17 (11%) were of mixed/unknown nationalities, and 7 (5%) of the marriages were exogamic unions of German and Irish individuals. No significant difference existed between the percentages of Irish women intermarrying and those of

Irish men—4 Irish woman took a German groom, 3 Irish men took a German bride.60

St. Mark’s Church in Gravesend was another geographic (“Irish”) church. Despite its location beyond Brooklyn’s 1865 city limits, the same ethnic marriage patterns held firm. In

1866–72/1889–92, sixty-five percent of the marriages registerd there took place between Irish couples, 10% of the marriages were exclusively German, 15% were of mixed/other/unknown nationalities, and 10% of the marriages were inter-ethnic between German and Irish parties.

Within this parish, a significant gap existed between the percentages of Irish women intermarrying and those of Irish men for 59% of Irish/German exogamic marriages, an Irish woman took a German groom to be her husband.61

Irish women maintained mass migration into large cities (areas of opportunity) throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. Irish women numerically dominated Irish

60 The Church of St. Paul, Marriage Register, 1870-1878. 61 St. Mark’s Roman Catholic Church, Marriage Register, 1866-75, 1887-1893.

213 men in Boston, Lowell, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Brooklyn. Women flocked to these cities; jobs in their factories and mills were readily available. Ideally, an Irish woman would work for a few years before blissfully marrying a fellow Irish native, removing herself from the job market to raise a family. However, Irish women in these cities greatly outnumbered their male counterparts, so such a situation was an impossibility for all women. Permanent celibacy or cross-ethnic intermarriage were the obvious solutions to the gender imbalance.

Exogamy became more common as the necessity increased. Irish women could choose from among the large number of German Catholics who did not arrive with equivalent numbers of females. Later in the nineteenth century, Italian, Polish and Lithuanian Catholics became acceptable marriage candidates.

Marriage for the nineteenth century American Irish was rarely enveloped by twentieth century romantic visions of a blissful partnership. Mature love among this group certainly existed. However, for the Irish-American woman, marriage initiated a dramatic change in both social and economic roles. The foreign-born dropped out of the work force after marriage at a significantly higher rate than either natives or Americans with close foreign ancestry. Middle class women, once employed to accumulate a dowry or to fund a relative’s voyage, were now expected to direct their energies towards maintaining “respectable” households. Among the poorer classes, marriage presented more serious concerns. These women often resided in horrendous tenement environments. As noted earlier, the health status and sanitary conditions of the Irish fell considerably below those of other foreign-born groups let alone the native-born.

But disease was not the sole cause of the unparalleled rates of Irish widowhood. Occupational

214 injury and death was far more common among the Irish males than for any other foreign division. This threat of losing the male breadwinner left the new wife understandably tense.62

Studies of Irish marriage patterns in New York, Boston, Brooklyn, and Worchester all document the Irish tendency to marry reluctantly. The Irish were unique among all immigrant groups in their remarkably low marriage rates and high marriage age. Only one Irishman in fifty married in 1850 Boston; the Germans nearly doubled that level. In 1873, ten of every 1000 Irish

New Yorkers married, a remarkable contrast to the 42 per thousand rate among German residents who “tied the knot” that same year.

Further evidence of these unusual Irish marriage models can be found by looking at Irish- born men. Of these Irish sons, 24% were still single after the age of 45. Only 3.8 of the second generation Irish were still single after that age. Irish-American women shared their brothers’ marriage trends. Between 1877 and 1882, the average age of marriage among Irish women in

Buffalo, New York, was thirty-one.63

American-born Irish daughters retained their parents’ ideals and deferred marriage with the strength of earlier generations. In 1910, using Lawrence textile employees as examples,

97.7% of second-generation Irish women were unmarried in their twenties, and 66.7% of those between the ages of 30 and 44 were still single. But let us not overgeneralize. Most Irish women pulled out of the workforce and refused to work for wages after marriage. Domestic service was not the leading women’s occupation in Lowell, Massachusetts. Female mill operatives and dressmakers outnumbered all other occupations in the city. Foreign-born mill operatives did not leave the workforce after marriage as did their sisters in domestic service. Twenty-one percent

62 U.S. Census Bureau, Special Report: Vital Statistics. 63 Diner, p. 48-49, 53.

215 of foreign mill workers were married, as compared to the 18% natives and 12% second generation among married mill operatives.64

Data on female mill workers offers stark contrast to the numbers on married domestic servants in the workforce. A pattern of foreign-born women’s departure from domestic service work after marriage is noted in every major city, including Brooklyn. In turn of the century

Brooklyn, among the 19,471 foreign-born women employed as domestic servants, only 3% remained in the workforce after marriage. Ten percent of all native-born Americans maids, and

4% of the second generation servants remained employed after marriage.65

In 1870, among the families of Philadelphia, female headed households were more common among the Irish than for any other white group. Seventeen percent of the Irish households were female-headed as opposed to but 6% of the German households, and only

14.3% of the native Americans. Presumably, a good percentage of these native white Americans were of Irish stock. In Buffalo at mid-century, 18% of all Irish households were headed by unfortunate mothers. However many households were headed by women, the vast majority of family situations did not. The Irish, in America and in Ireland, stood by the concept of ultimate male leadership within the family, at least in theory. Inside the Irish home, one might find a very different distribution of control than one would expect of a traditionally patriarchal family

Women exerted tremendous influence upon their families. Irish women carried an intense

64 Diner, p. 53; Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, “Population”; Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, “Population”; Bureau of the Census, Women’s Work: 1900; Bureau of the Census, Special Report: Occupations, 1900; Bureau of the Census, Special Report: Occupations, 1910. 65 Diner, p.61; Bureau of the Census, Women’s Work: 1900; Bureau of the Census, Special Report: Occupations, 1900; Bureau of the Census, Special Report: Occupations, 1910.

216 determination to sustain a family’s upward mobility. The Irish rural tradition of strong, assertive female characters was hardly diminished in America’s new urban setting.66

Irish America certainly stressed the domestic responsibilities expected of each mother— cooking, cleaning, and raising well-disciplined children. Well-disciplined children were taught obedience and respect for their elders. Mothers were encouraged to decorate the home with religious figures of divine purity. The blessed Virgin Mary was often a role model presented to girls exhibiting “the first few signs of womanhood.” To help cultivate a “wholesome imagination”, teenagers were withheld the “literary poisons” of romance novels and the “carnal pleasure” of the waltz or polka. “You cannot lessen a sin by setting it to music,” according to one

Irish magazine. Irish mothers generally avoided all discussions of sex with their children, paralleling such discussion to “dropping lighted matches in a powder factory.” Careful guidelines were set forth in Catholic childrearing manuals to address the topic, should it arise.

The accepted answer to a child’s inquiry about where babies came from was “found in the time honored stories of the stork and the doctor.” A more accurate explanation was given only to those children who would not buy the first response; however, “any full and accurate description of the sex act was omitted from the discussion.” Masturbation was the topic of yet another chapter in the Catholic childrearing manuals. “Tampering” with oneself supposedly led to nervousness and memory loss. Females, upon reaching adolescence, were discouraged from inserting any foreign substance into the vagina for the purpose of feminine hygiene for 1) it destroyed the evidence of virginity and 2) it might serve as “a stimulus for masturbation.” For

66 Lees, 94; Lynch-Brennan, pp. 114-17; Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (London: 1831 [2003]), pp. 180-181; “Veritas”, Boston Daily Evening Transcript, Trouble in Families: Servants as They Are Nowadays”, 2/2/1852; 2/4/1852; 2/9/1852; Patricia Kelleher, “Gender Shapes Ethnicity: Ireland's Gender Systems and Chicago's Irish-Americans” (University of Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. dissertation: 1995), 260-266, 378, 394.

217 women, purity was, of course, mandatory for religious reasons; but Irish mothers had a second motive for insisting upon it: “a sound title to position can only be got by merit, not matrimony” and forced marriage closed off any and all such options.67

Although American popular culture stereotyped “Brigid, the foolish and impetuous housewife,” it nonetheless held Irish women in considerably higher esteem than it did the typical

Irish man, “Paddy, the lazy drunkard.” In the eyes of the the American, Irish women carried out their family duties more consistently and more honorably than did Irish men. These women were applauded for their strength and self-sacrifice—and for their tolerance of ineffectual husbands. Of course, these praiseworthy Irish women did occasionally fall short of such high expectations. Records of Irish female alcoholism and criminal arrests certainly exist.

Immigrants’ gender and age composition shaped group dynamics. In simple numerical terms, women maintained a stronger presence among Irish immigrants than among Germans or native whites.

Table 5-1 Females per 1,000 Males

All Ages Young Adults (Age 15–24) Irish, 1st Gen. 1,049 1,432 German, 1st Gen. 959 1,082 Native White 990 1,147 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880 Women outnumbered men among young adults in each group, but neither the native whites nor the Germans matched the sheer magnitude of women’s dominance among young

Irish immigrant adults. Women predominated among Brooklyn’s young adults both 1) because urban areas provided wage•earning opportunities for females and 2) because promises of work

67 Arenberg and Kimball, 190-191.

218 lured young men to hinterland sites such as lumber, mining and railroad camps. Young Irish- born adults’ sex ratio in Brooklyn reinforces the point made earlier in Chapter 4—that earning money was the primary immediate goal for young immigrants of both sexes.68

While Irish immigrants’ gendered outlooks, their ages and regional and class backgrounds were generally the most significant influences on their approaches to community- building, there were other factors.

Table 5-2 Women Identified as Earning Money in the Manuscript Census

Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White Employed 25.2 13.0 19.8 Percentage of those classified as “not 12.0 7.1 13.5 employed” who took in boarders Employed or Keeping Boarders* 34.7 19.1 31.1 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880 Census takers, however, overlooked a portion of women’s compensation. Women of all nationalities could engage in informal income-generating work—selling produce, taking in sewing, etc. The manuscript census is silent on on much of this informal economic activity, but does provide information that permits the identification of women who earned money by providing services to boarders.

68 For example, the Brooklyn Daily Times’ May 1, 1879 “Help Wanted” section contained advertisements by several employment agencies seeking perhaps two hundred railroad workers for “opportunities” in western states. Later that year, the September 1 issue of the same paper carried nearly one hundred listings for domestic dervants—almost entirely female “situations”. There were also advertisements for over one hundred and fifty clothing workers. All of these jobs were located in Brooklyn or in one of the neighboring Kings County towns.

219

Table 5-3 Women’s Employment by Marital Status

Irish 1st Irish 2nd German 1st German 2nd Native Gen. Gen. Gen. Gen. White Single 82.1 58.6 72.3 65.7 41.5 Married (Husband 2.3 0.6 2.1 1.7 2.7 present) Disrupted Marriage 28.5 35.4 17.5 25.0 32.2 (widowed, separated or divorced) Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Taking in boarders increased women’s already heavy homemaking work, but Irish culture and economic necessity encouraged female workforce participation whenever possible.

Considering the sorts of jobs that were generally available to women in 1880, native white women conceded dominance in labor force participation to the Irish. On the other hand, native whites were slightly more likely to take in boarders. This pattern could indicate that native white women had more housing space “to let” than other women, but it also reflects an under-studied aspect of native-white living styles. As of 1880, a great many native whites were not exemplars of commitment to the privatized bourgeois family. Native whites were more inclined to live outside families as “boarders” (including lodgers, roomers and hotel residents) than were members of the other groups.69

Table 5-4 Adults Living as Boarders / Lodgers

Irish 1st Irish 2nd German German Native Gen. Gen. 1st Gen. 2nd Gen. White Men 20.5 14.8 12.7 13.6 26.1 Women 2.1 6.2 1.8 3.2 10.3 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

69 U.S. Manuscript Census Sample, 1880; Dennis Clark, The Irish Relations: Trials of an Immigrant Tradition (Rutherford, NJ: 1982), 37-38; Nancy Folbre, "Women's Informal Market Work in Massachusetts, 1875-1920," Social Science History 17:1 (Spring, 1993), 135-160.

220

Brooklyn offered women a much narrower range of occupational opportunities than were available to men. Table 5-6 shows information that parallels Table 5-5.

Table 5-5 Occupational Status of Distributions of Employed Adult Females

Low Manual Skilled White Collar Irish. 1st Gen. 78.3 11.6 10.1 German, 1st Gen. 65.1 19.4 15.5 Native White 42.7 23.1 34.2 Irish, 2nd Gen. 50.7 30.8 18.5 German, 2nd Gen. 58.6 32.6 8.8 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Table 5-5 displays a considerable degree of variation among these women. However, with the exception of the second-generation Irish, each subset of women coped with distinctly lower occupational status distributions than their male counterparts. If women’s jobs were less dangerous than men’s, most women’s work was lower paid and more monotonous. Table 5-6 reveals women’s clustering in a few occupational areas. Aside from textile manufacturing which was not a trade dominated by the Brooklyn Irish, immigrant Irishwomen crossed an ocean and half a continent to find the same sorts of jobs that women held in Ireland. America’s attractions were the availability of work and higher wage levels, not a wider choice of occupations.70

Table 5-6 Women in the Labor Force

Age Group Irish Irish 1st Irish 2nd German German German Native Pop. Gen. Gen. Pop. 1st Gen. 2nd Gen. White 15–19 49.0 75.6 43.1 63.0 67.8 61.6 23.5 20–24 60.6 65.8 57.9 35.8 30.5 40.0 35.8 25–29 41.5 45.1 38.5 9.3 7.4 16.8 16.8 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

70 Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, “Population.”

221

Table 5-7 Adult Female Labor Employed in Specified Occupations by Ethnicity

Irish 1st Irish 2nd German 1st German 2nd Native Gen. Gen. Gen. Gen. White Servant 62.2 33.3 38.5 32.8 20.8 (living in or out) Laundress 5.6 1.2 8.5 0.5 3.1 Garment 15.2 38.6 17.5 47.5 21.5 Trades Total 83.0 73.1 64.5 80.8 45.4 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Not surprisingly, native white women were the least concentrated in service work.

Employed immigrant German women were also less likely to work as servants than their Irish counterparts, and German servants were less inclined to live where they worked. On the other hand, the Irish showed a dramatic inter-generational drop in the proportion engaged in service work, while the decline among German women was fairly modest. Clothes washing was among the least desirable occupations, and native white women and the second generations avoided it more successfully than immigrant women. In many respects, second-generation German- and

Irishwomen’s shift to the garment trades represented an upgrading status, if not necessarily work conditions. Even though many of the sewing occupations are rated as “skilled,” overall the pay was poor, hours long and the work was seasonal. Most white-collar work offered women higher pay as well as more prestige than they could gain in any blue-collar occupation. Second- generation German women’s occupational perfomance did not suggest that they would enjoy the level of inter•generational advances scored by their Irish counterparts. With 10.1% in clerical and sales work and another 6.9% teachers (or nuns), second-generation Irish women still lagged behind employed native white women of whom 13.0% held clerical and sales jobs and 12.1% were teachers. But American-born Irish women were gaining ground. By 1896, just under half of the women employed as primary school teachers by Brooklyn’s Board of Education bore Irish

222 surnames. In 1886, the Celtic share had been approximately two-fifths. Irish-stock Catholic women were already positioning themselves to become the city’s stereotypical public school teachers.71

Women and men seldom held the same types of jobs. When they did, a “customary difference” in average earnings was maintained even if there was no difference in “the nature of the work or the skill required...” In his 1897 New York State Commission of Labor Statistics

Report James McDonough concluded that the “present wages of female workers in this State are from 30 to 50 percent lower than the wages of male workers engaged in similar activties.”

This followed an investigation initiated by Commissioner McDonough at the request of The

Working Women’s Association of New York. The State Labor Bureau found that “while

[women’s] wages had decreased generally, the cost of living remained the same…[and] that the wages of the working girls had been reduced and that their lot appears to be extremely hard.

Very few are earning enough to support themselves.” In January, 1899, McDonough reported statistics of the previous seven quarters (January, 1897 – September, 1898), demonsrating that working women’s average quarterly days of employment trailed men’s only marginally (63.9 vs.

60.7), but their average salary was dwarfed ($167.14 vs. $87.00). No solution was proposed at this time.72

71 Information on specific occupations is drawn from manuscript census samples; see also Ellen Skerrett, "The Catholic Dimension," The Irish in Chicago, ed. Lawrence J. McCaffrey,(Urbana: 1987), pp. 44-46; and Abelow, pp. 38-39. Information on public school teachers is drawn from two Brooklyn Civil Lists, 1886 and 1896, each published the following year. Because is impossible to determine with any precision just how many Smiths or Mitchells are of Irish stock, the 39% (1886) and 45% (1896) figures probably represent minimum Irish-American involvement in the public schools. The influence of “Boss” Hugh McLaughlin in all sorts of public hiring must not be underestimated. Superintendent Maxwell, Protestant Irish himself, certainly did not. Brooklyn’s Normal School was offered to candidates after hiring from 1865-1868. Its classes were taught by BOE principals for several years, not independent professors. 72 Reported in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 2/21/1898, 11/15/1896, 1/23/1899.

223

Nearly two thirds of employed Irish immigrant women accepted “situations” as servants.

It was hard work. Typically, servants in private households worked seven days a week, with 11 to 12 hours of “busy” time and another 1 or 2 hours “on call” during “full” workdays. They might have one afternoon and a different evening a week off when they were free to leave the house. The work itself involved drudgery, monotony, time pressure, and supervision.

“Mistresses” were often intrusive, suspicious, and supercilious. As Dudden notes, the mistress- servant relationship within a home “...was the locale for the most direct contact between women across class lines.” On occasion, women formed close, affectionate bonds, but not often.73

While many servants resided in hotels and large boarding houses, most lived and worked as

“outsiders” in family households. Nearly three-fifths of Brooklyn’s young Irish immigrant women aged 15–24 held the status of “servant.” In comparison, less than 7% of native white young women accepted positions as servants. Irish servants’ work was arduous; it separated them from their own kind and often put them in intimate contact with people who disdained them. Among women household servants, 66.7% of first-generation Germans worked for

German or Austrian household heads; and 80.5% of native whites had native white (73.4%) or

British (7.1%) employers. The majority of immigrant Irish household servants worked for native whites (59.8%) and over two-thirds (68.6%) were employed by native-white, British or

Canadian-stock household heads. Only 19.3 had Irish•stock employers. Carl Degler, Colleen

McDannell and others have stressed the acculturating effects of Irishwomen’s work as domestics. Certainly Irishwomen learned a great deal from their exposure to the native-born,

73 Dudden, p. 168; Katzman, pp. 106-183; Lynch-Brennan, pp. 93-95, 100-114; Ann McNabb, “The Story of an Irish Cook,” The Independent 58 (March 30, 1905), 715.

224 especially as the more regimented Victorian Age evolved, but the conclusions servants drew were probably more ambivalent than these scholars imply.74

The tensions between American mistresses and Irish servants typically stemmed from conflicitng attitudes, assumptions and behavioral norms. In 1870 and 1880, Brooklyn’s “Help

Wanted” advertisements for female servants conveyed significantly more anti-Irish prejudice than did those for men of any job description. During May of 1870 and 1880, several Brooklyn

Times or Brooklyn Daily Eagle advertisements for men expressed nationality preferences (but never the dreaded ethnic prohibition:“No Irish”); but specified qualifications usually mentioned characteristics such as skill, strength and, especially, sobriety. The level of concern about character would reasonably be higher for a person hired to live with and care for a family. The majority of advertisers for domestic servants simply described the position and contented themselves with bland character and competence requirements such as “good.” However, requests for specific nationalities were not uncommon. Several listed English-speaking as a requirement, generally an advantage for Irish girls over some foreign competitors. Yet, other ads’ intent to discourage Irish applicants was clear. Three advertisements in 1880 explictly stated “No Irish;” many positively requested that women from one or two specific subgroups apply. The litany of preferences for Germans, Scandanavians, English, Scots, Canadians,

“colored,” Protestants or Americans made the point. Native-born women turned criticizing and belittling Irish maids into a social past-time during the second half of the nineteenth century.75

74 U.S. Manuscript Census Samples, 1880; Carl N. Degler, At Odds: Women and the Family from the Revolution to the Present (Oxford: 1980), 288; Dudden, 226-242; Colleen McDannell, The Christian Home in Victorian America, 1840-1900 (Bloomington: 1986), 73. 75 Each “Help Wanted” advertisement printed in the Brooklyn Times and Brooklyn Daily Eagle during the months of May, 1870 and May, 1880 were examined; Dudden, 68-69; Katzman, 162-165; Lynch- Brennan, pp. 73-74.

225

For their part, Irishwomen earned their reputation for wage-consciousness; and many could stage confrontations that unnerved mistresses. John Francis Maguire’s 1868 defense of the Irish girl in America praised her “purity and honour.” He continued that she may be “...rude,

[i.e., unrefined] undisciplined, awkward...she may be hot tempered, difficult,...perhaps a little

‘turbulent’...but she is cheerful and laborious, virtuous and faithful.”76

Cultural factors help explain Irishwomen’s concentration in domestic service despite the work’s negative attributes. Irish immigrant women were willing to live outside of kin groups, and Irish families seemd more prone to trust girls’ sense of duty and “honor” than elders of other nationalities. Traditionalist Irishwomen were not housekeeping mavens, and many immigrant women resented their employers’ condescension. While newcomers appreciated the security of living in bourgeois homes, the dominant “cultural” influence was not some Old World orientation to housekeeping or acceptance of hierarchical status relations but rather the traditionalist, and expecially transitional, gender systems’ perception of women as economic actors. Domestic employment was widely available, and the provision of room and board facilitated saving.

Moreover, having one’s own money contributed to a sense of independence. Control over money augmented women’s power. Maguire’s sentimental depiction of daughters toiling as servants and working their lives away so they could dutifully send remittances home describes some women’s fate but distorts the dynamics within many families. Most sources agree that daughters were more reliable providers of remittances than sons.

For other women, the balance between distress and satisfaction in making sacrifices for their families was more positive. The fact that a woman lived away from her family did

76 Diner, 88-89; Dudden, 65-66; Lynch-Brennan, 71-72; John Francis Maguire, The Irish in America Vol. 1 (New York: 1868), 333-34.

226 attenuate her practical and emotional involvement. Women gave advice and made decisions that altered relatives’ lives. They might send passenger tickets, or they could change the work dynamics in their natal households. Some women from Co. Galway sent money home to buy horses so beasts—not women and girls—would carry the heavy burdens. Not all immigrants sent remittances, and generally the men and women who did so tapered off their contributions after a few years. Ideally, younger relatives would take their place as remittance providers. Those who remained in Ireland probably never fully realized the effort and sacrifices that remittances represented. For all the work and drudgery, however, earning money gave women the option to be generous. Helping relatives could confirm women’s sense of competence and self-regard.77

Wages also provided women with the opportunity to be selfish if they chose to be.

Generally, women and girls were more poorly clad than males in Ireland. Young Irish immigrant women were notorious “clothes horses”. Many delighted in dressing in a manner that, in their eyes, was elegant and stylish. It would be a mistake to interpret servant girls’ fashions as nothing more than pathetic attempts to ape their mistresses. Dressing up offered young women a wonderful combination of self-indulgence and defiance. In terms of Irish gender dynamics, spending money on themselves was an affirmation of feminine self•worth. In terms of class dynamics, fancy dress could challenge class privilege.78

This may have been an easier step for Irish girls to take precisely because, unlike most other American ethnic groups, the Irish’ assumptions about men’s and women’s appropriate

77 George R. C. Keep, “The Irish Migration to North America in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century,” (University of Dublin Ph.D. dissertation: 1951), pp. 148-151; Maguire, pp. 314-15, 321-22; Arnold Schrier, Ireland and the American Migration, 1850-1900 (Minneapolis: 1958), 106-122, 167-168; Carol Groneman, "Working-Class Immigrant Women in Mid-Nineteenth-Century New York: The Irish Woman’s Experience," Journal of Urban History 4:3 (May, 1978), pp. 269-270. 78 Diner, 141-142; Kathy Peiss, Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York (Philadelphia: 1986), 56-76; Rita M. Rhodes, Women and the Family in Post-Famine Ireland: Status and Opportunity in a Patriarchal Society (New York: 1992), 309-310; Schrier, 30-31, 133-134.

227 economic roles were less differentiated by gender. This set of assumptions extended beyond women’s commitment to earning money. Women were also committed to controlling money, and in so doing exercising more control over their lives in general. Lizzie McCann, a

Minneapolis hotel servant, explained to her sister why she sent a small remittance. McCann’s explanation offers insight. She was highly conscious of the sex differential in pay. The letter criticized her brother, Mike:

“·..Dear sister if i had only the half of the mony he has had & erend i would not have forgoten you So long as i have but i am very fond of dressing my Self & i spent a good deal on dress & Evry thing is so Dere that it is not very Easy to save mony hear except you have pretty good wages...”79 Lizzie McCann, letter from Minneapolis to her sister in Ireland, March 20, 1888 (K. Miller Collection).

By turns, empathetic and self-centered, McCann made her own decisions. Women’s sense of their economic rights (and by implication, their personal autonomy) sometimes generated tension in Irish-American families. Typically, single immigrant women exercised control over their earnings. Many wives also asserted control over money they considered their own.

Chicago’s Hibernian Bank presumably understood this market when it advertised in the Western

Catholic that “Married Women... May Deposit in their Own Name, Subject to their Order Only.”

No specific rule of this sort was ever advertised by The Emigrant Savings Bank in New York, where thousands of first and second generation Irish-Americans from both sides of the river kept their hard-earned savings. However, there appear to be a number of “Mrs.” accounts among the

“Test Books”, both with and without “widow” or “husband deceased” indications. The de facto practice may have been quite common among both the New York and the Brooklyn Irish between 1868 and 1883.

79 Lizzie McCann, letter from Minneapolis to her sister in Ireland, March 20, 1888 (K. Miller Collection); Carol Turbin, Working Women of Collar City: Gender, Class, and Community in Troy, 1864-86 (Champaign: 1994), 38-39.

228

The Brooklyn Daily Times legal column offered additional evidence of the independence

of some Irish wives when it reported in 1875 that James O’Reilly was sentenced in Brooklyn in

June for beating his wife “...because she would not give him money which she had earned...”80

Irish views on women’s appropriate roles contrasted with the views of the Germans and

the native whites, sometimes markedly so. The decisions parents made about adolescents’

employment and schooling reflected families’ economic status, their sense of realistic

expectations for youngsters and their aspirations. Tables 5-7 and 5-8 show school attendance

and employment by age, sex and ethnicity for the second generations and native whites.

Table 5-8 School Attendance

Age 13–14 Age 15–16 Males Females Males Females Irish, 2nd Gen. 68.5 83.9 31.0 38.2 German, 2nd Gen. 73.8 42.8 19.7 7.4 Native White 77.3 80.3 47.8 72.0 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Table 5-9 Formal Labor Force by Ethnicity

Age 13–14 Age 15–16 Age 21–22 Males Females Males Females Males Females Irish, 2nd Gen. 26.9 6.8 66.7 21.9 97.8 62.0 German, 2nd Gen. 17.8 24.0 77.2 62.0 98.9 41.2 Native White 17.5 10.0 60.9 11.5 97.5 42.1 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Among 13-and-14-year-old boys, Germans and native whites were quite similar in school

attendance and employment. Probably because of the higher level of poverty among the Irish,

second generation Irish boys seem to have been slightly less likely to attend school and slightly

more likely to work than the others. By age 15–16, however, all boys’ school attendance had

80 Rich, 2001; Rich, 2005; Brooklyn Daily Times, 6/25/1875; Western Catholic, 9/29/1873.

229 dropped. Second• generation Irish youths’ patterns were closer to native whites’ while adolescent Germans led in labor force participation and trailed in school attendance. In general, however, 13–16-year-old boys adopted roughly similar school attendance and employment regimens. 15–16-year-old Germans’ lower school attendance in comparison with native whites stood out as statistically significant.81

Second-generation German girls followed a pattern that differed much more from the native whites and Irish than did German boys. German-stock girls received much less schooling and nearly one fourth of the 13–14-year• olds were in the labor force. By age 15–16, three fifths were employed, compared with about one fifth of second• generation Irish girls and one tenth of the native whites. These patterns are starkly different. Immigrant German parents took girls out of school and put them into the workforce. Germans had their own networks and strategies in which formal education in American schools was not as important and early labor force participation was not uniformly disadvantageous. Obviously, the Irish community’s expectations for girls contrasted with the Germans’. Second-generation Irish girls were more favored than 13–

14-year-old boys in terms of foregoing wage-earning and attending school. Even at age 15–16, girls maintained slightly higher school attendance and much lower labor force participation than their male peers. Employment rates at age 21–22 suggest some of the reasoning behind these patterns. While three fifths of the 15–16-year-old second-generation German girls were in the labor force, the participation of 21–22-year-olds dropped to two fifths. The Irish pattern showed movement in the opposite direction with three fifths of second-generation 21–22-year-old women in the labor force. These patterns suggest that the Irish lacked the same depth of resources or skills as the Germans. Even as late as 1880, a high proportion of the work available

81 T-tests demonstrate a significant difference between second generation Germans and native whites’ 15- 16 year-olds respective school attendance rates (p<.01).

230 to Irish-stock men required strength but not much formal education. A girl with little schooling could find work, but an unschooled young woman would draw much lower wages than an unschooled young man. Irish girls were expected to work for a fair length of time. If a family could afford to forego her immediate earnings, a girl (and her family) might benefit if extra schooling gave the girl access to better-paying work. The native white pattern reflects class and gender considerations. Parents shielded girls from early participation in the female labor market, and the adult status distribution of the native white women who took on paid work reflects the advantages of their social networks and longer schooling. Given the extreme differences in overall class status of the two populations, it is not surprising that 15–16-year-old native white girls were more likely to be in school and less likely to work than were second-generation Irish girls. Still, given that overall class gap, Irish solicitude for girls’ economic prospects is impressive. Many of the second-generation girls who stayed in school would have had mothers who worked as servants during the 1850s and 1860s. Table 6-9 suggests that American-born daughters benefited from the decisions that Irish immigrant women made regarding their own work experiences.82

82 Unpaired comparisons (t-tests) show strong, statistically significant differences in 13-16-year-old second•generation German girls' school attendance as measured against second-generation Irish girls and native whites. In all comparisons, p< .001. While 15-16-year-old second-generation Irish girls' school attendance was significantly lower (p<.001) than native whites', there was no significant difference between the two groups in 13-14-year-olds' attendance levels (P<.05). Second-generation 13-14-year-old German girls had a significantly (.01) higher level of labor force participation than their second- generation Irish age-peers (p=.01), but the difference was not significant in comparison with native whites (P>.05). By ages 15-16, second generation German girls were significantly more likely to be employed than second-generation Irish girls or native whites (each comparison is significant at the p<.001 level). In contrast, 13-16 year-old second•generation Irish girls were not significantly more likely to be a member of Brooklyn’s labor force than native white girls (P>.05). These patterns shift among women aged 21-22. At that age, second-generation Germans and native white women's labor force participation levels were virtually identical and second-generation Irish women were significantly more likely to work than either group. In both cases, p<.05.

231

In 1880, Brooklyn’s Irish—particularly the Irish-born—remained a predominantly a working-class people. Their survival strategies reflected the options Brooklyn’s economy offered, their relatively meager stores of capital and job skills and their perceptions of appropriate behavior for women and men. Almost all Irishmen worked. Women’s relatively high involvement in income-generating activities complemented men’s efforts. Brooklyn’s Irish immigrants would have been even poorer, and they would have faced even greater difficulties in sustaining an ethnic community and providing a springboard for the next generation if a significant proportion of immigrant women had not earned money. Yet, Irish immigrants had to do more than earn income in order to survive as individuals and maintain their community across generations. For the Irish as well as the Germans and native whites, marriage and parenthood was the normative strategy for insuring inter-gender cooperation and group continuity. Irish immigrants’ approach to family formation reflected their distinctive gender legacies as well as the realities of their situation in Brooklyn.

A comparison of Irish immigrants’ marriage and fertility patterns in Brooklyn with that of Germans and native whites is instructive. So too is a comparison with the Irish back home.

The statistical information reveals similarities and differences in groups’ patterns of behavior.

Group members’ understandings of appropriate norms influenced their responses to practical pressures. Individuals made choices as they negotiated their needs and desires. The data show commonalities across groups but also demonstrate that the sum of individual group members’ choices produced discernible group differences in styles of living. The percentage of the population aged 45–54 that never married is commonly taken as a measure of the prevalence of marriage within a group.

232

Table 5-10 Never-Married Persons Aged 45–54

Ireland Brooklyn 1880 1841 1881 Irish 1st German Native Gen. 1st Gen. White Men 10.2 17.1 8.7 5.0 5.5 Women 12.5 17.1 7.6 1.3 2.9 Ireland: Percentages calculated from information in Vaughan and Fitzpatrick, Historical Statistics, 87–89. Brooklyn: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880.

Most of Brooklyn’s older middle-aged adults had married. While Irish immigrants had higher permanent celibacy rates than Germans or native whites, over 90% of all three groups’ members married; and Brooklyn’s Irish displayed higher marriage rates thantheir contemporaries in

Ireland. The proportions of never-married persons at age 25–34 shows more variation among groups.

Table 5-11 Never-Married Persons Aged 25–34 Ireland Brooklyn 1880 1841 1881 Irish 1st German 1st Native Gen. Gen. White Men 42.6 60.0 54.6 28.0 49.2 Women 28.9 43.1 30.2 2.9 19.7 Ireland: Percentages calculated from information in Vaughan and Fitzpatrick, Historical Statistics, 87–89. Brooklyn: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880.

The Irish in Brooklyn had a higher percentage of never-married young men and women than any comparable American group. But German-Americans were unique in their own right.

The proportion single among Irish men and women were more akin to the native whites’ than the native whites’ proportion single was to that of the Germans. Table 5.10 suggests that

Brooklyn ‘s Irishmen delayed marriage for about long as did Irishmen in contemporary Ireland, while immigrant women were marrying at a rate that more closely resembled Ireland’s pre- famine era than the 1880’s.

233

Age at marriage estimates of 28.8 years for Brooklyn’s immigrant Irish grooms and 24.5 for brides. A variety of historical and demographic sources suggest that these estimates may be too high.83

Age at first marriage information for over 800 Brooklyn Catholics who bore Irish surnames and married at any of five geographic (i.e., “Irish”) Roman Catholic churches during the sampling period may offer more reliable data than the estimates based on census enumerations, albeit less representative of all wards of the growing city from 1850–1906. Here the average (mean) age of grooms was 25.2. Brides’ mean age was 22.8. Both men and women who had wed before 1875 tended to be younger at marriage (24.5; 22.4) than those who married during the later portion of the era (25.6;23.3).84 There does appear to be a difference in the mean age of Irish brides who took German grooms (23.4), but it was not statistically significant.

Also interesting is the dramatically higher mean age at first marriage of the small sampling of domestic servants from St. Agnes parish who “married up” socioeconomically between 1902 and

1906 (26.5). These sixteen maids must have carefully saved their earnings, setting aside their own nestegg or dowry. Certainly this made them a far more attractive match for a one of the carpenters, masons, electricians or other skilled tradesman who visited their middle and upper class homes to do repairs or make improvements. Also significant, nearly a third (5) of these unions were exogamous—three with German grooms. During the same four year time period, not one unskilled or semi-skilled worker married a groom of skilled status.

The St. Agnes data was necessarily fragmentary. Occupational data is rarely included in parish marriage records. At St. Agnes, occupational and county of birth records were recorded

83 Marriage estimates employed John Hajnal’s technique for determining the proportion single for persons in each group aged 15-49. Hajnal describes his approach in great detail in “Age at Marriage and Proportions Marrying,” Population Studies 7:2 (November, 1953), 111-36. 84 The manuscript census did not directly provide age at marriage until the early twentieth century.

234 for 46 months. At St. Mark’s, one clerk kept meticulous occupational data during an early period; another recorded county or region twenty years later. More systematic and comprehensive information on ages at marriage is available thanks to census enumerators.

However, this information is not nearly as accurate, because respondents were not specifcally asked about their age of marriage. In 1880, enumerators were instructed to note if respondents had married during the census year (i.e. between June 1, 1879 and May 31, 1880). Yet hundreds of enumerators failed to collect that information. For Brooklyn, perhaps 20% of wards seem to have been asked the question. This leads to additional problems. Just how representative is this data if entire streets, districts and wards may have been omitted? Thus, another fragmentary set of data was added to the necessarily incomplete marriage registers from the eight parish marriage registers (seven geographic [Irish] parishes and one national [German] parish).

Information was recorded for every Irish, German or native couple that the enumerator had recorded as “recently married” and also listed no child over the age of one. Couples age 50 or over were eliminated as were couples with older children in order to best isolate/estimate age at first marriage. These figures tend to inflate average ages at marriage because about half of the respondents could have had a birthday between their marriage during the census year and the enumeration date. Coupled with the omitted blocks and wards, the inflated age at first marriage is perhaps not surprising.85

85 The census allows calculation of proportion single by age groups. Age distributions of he recently married are based on as many Irish, German, or native stock couples as could be located in the 1880 Manuscript Census Schedule; census marriage age estimations often do not match mean ages of brides and grooms sampled at Roman Catholic churches: Most Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church (German national parish), Marriage Register, 1870-1890; The Church of St. Agnes, Marriage Register, 1888-1906; Visitation Church, Marriage Register, 1854-1866; The Church of the Assumption, Marriage Register, 1850-57; The Church of St. Paul, Marriage Register, 1870-1878; St. Mark’s Roman Catholic Church, Marriage Register, 1866-75, 1887-1893; the Marriage Registers may be accurate, but nonrepresentative

235

Table 5-12 Mean Age at Marriage

Ireland Brooklyn 1880 1841 1881 Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White Men 25–26 30–31 28.8 27.1 27.9 Women 23 26 24.5 22.3 22.0 Ireland: Percentages calculated from information in Vaughan and Fitzpatrick, Historical Statistics, 87–89. Brooklyn: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880.

A crude measure of marriage rates was employed. Information was based on the number of marriage licenses issued in Kings County (City of Brooklyn Wards only) in 1879 and 1880.

Allowing that 10% of all marriages were not first marriages, we can roughly estimate was that the enumerators captured approximately one fourth of newlyweds. By multiplying the numbers of brides and grooms by four and dividing that result by the sample estimates of the never- married population in each group, the estimates of marriage rates below are produced. Table 5.12 displays the results.

Table 5-13 Marriage Rate: Marriages per 1,000 Single Persons, 20–44

Ireland Brooklyn 1880 1881 Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White Men 47.0 70.2 145.5 85.5 Women 53.2 62.2 250.2 109.8 Ireland: Percentages calculated from information in Vaughan and Fitzpatrick, Historical Statistics, 88, 246 and 1881 Census, General Report, p. 106. Brooklyn: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880.

Reviewing the information in Tables 5-5 through 5-8 highlights the non-Irish groups’ patterns of cooperation. The Germans’ commitment to a natal family cooperative and sharing strategy stands out. Germans clearly designated the natal family as the primary arena for

in that six of 96 Roman Catholic churches may comprise a small sampling. Together, the census and the Registers are especially interesting.

236 women’s work and contribution to group welfare. Single German women participated heavily in the labor force but, as their marriage rate indicates, the ranks of single Germans women thinned rapidly. Second• generation German women were somewhat less extreme in pacing their shift to marriage, but they followed the pattern laid out by first-generation women fairly closely.

Parents’ decisions about girls’ education and employment were consistent with communal expectations about women’s survival arrangements.

Native whites’ behavior varied more than the Germans’. Native white men had a mean age of marriage not all that much higher than the immigrant Germans (27.9 vs. 27.1), yet nearly two fifths failed to marry by age 34, compared to just 28% of German-born men.

In terms of marriage rates (estimated marriages per 1,000 of the single population aged 20 through 44), native white men and Irishmen were more similar to each other than either was to the German population. Native-born women fell midway between the German’s preference for early marriage and the Irish tendency to delay. Almost a third or Irish women were single at 34. So were a fifth of native white women. However, 97% of

German-born females married before that age.86

Comparing Irish immigrants’ patterns with those of other Brooklynites suggests that an interplay of economic pressures and cultural influences shaped Irish decision•making. First- generation Brooklyn Irish married at somewhat older ages than German immigrants or native whites. Of course, the Irish displayed variation in their marriage ages. While Irish immigrant women scored the highest mean age at marriage for women, certainly many first-generation Irish

86 U.S. Manuscript Census Sample, 1880.

237 brides were teenagers. Still, the typical Irishman and -woman delayed marriage longer than their

German or native white counterparts.87

Presumably, difficulties in securing the resources required to support a family would inhibit men’s inclination to marry. About one third of prime-age (25–44) native white men were single, but the never-married native whites had a much lower occupational status profile than their married counterparts. On average, single and married Irish immigrant men aged 25–44 held lower status jobs than did the first-generation Germans or native whites with the same marital status. See Table 5-6.

Both Irish and German immigrant married-men had higher occupational status than their single counterparts, but the occupational gap was smaller between married and single first- generation men than among native whites. In other words, norms about appropriate behavior at given stages of life influenced immigrant men. Less than one fifth of German immigrants aged

25–44 had not married. As measured by occupational status, married Irishmen in that age group were somewhat better off than single Irishmen but not extraordinarily so. Presumably, high levels of economic insecurity contributed to the decision-making that left one-third of prime-age immigrant Irishmen unmarried, but this age group also included a considerable proportion of hard-pressed men who went ahead and married anyway. Despite the fact that Irishmen as a group were much poorer than native whites, the two groups of men married at about the same rate.88

Immigrant Irishwomen displayed a much lower marriage rate and a considerably higher age at marriage than other Brooklyn groups. While differences in sex ratios contributed to the higher marriage rates among German and native white women, surely economic distress within

87 U.S. Manuscript Census Sample, 1880. 88 Men’s occupational status, organized by marital status is also derived from manuscript census data.

238 the Irish community influenced Irishwomen’s decision-making. The Irish seemed to view marriage and formal labor force participation as an either/or choice. Besides cultural norms, job- holding was infeasible for most women who had to care for young children. Wage-earning competed with marriage and motherhood. Young immigrant women might feel an obligation to continue sending remittances home. Less altruistically, women valued independent access to and control over money. Giving up a job to marry a man with insecure prospects was a gamble.

Clearly, Irishwomen delayed marriage to earn money. Table 5-6 shows that 45.1% of

25–29-year-old first-generation Irishwomen were employed compared with 7.4% of immigrant

German women and 16.8% of native whites. Delaying marriage, however, does not amount to rejecting marriage. Yet, delaying too long could eliminate marriage opportunities. It is unlikely that many Irishwomen during this era deliberately decided against marriage save for those who chose religious life.89

A reconsideration of the traditional gender systems and emigration patterns back in

Ireland helps place Irish immigrants’ behavior in perspective. The extreme demographic patterns brought to light by the Irish Free State’s first census (1926) have distorted the our perceptions of nineteenth-century Ireland and Irish immigrants. In the 26-county area, men’s average age at marriage was 34.9. Approximately one third of the men aged 45-through-54 men had never married. Women’s average age at marriage was 29.1; one fourth of all 45–54-year- olds were still single. That 1926 pattern was neither predictive of future Irish cultural patterns, nor descriptive of past historical demography. It did not reveal deep-rooted Catholic Irish essence. People’s behavior in Ireland in 1881 varied by class and region and was not nearly so

89 Kerby A. Miller, David N. Doyle and Patricia Kelleher, "For Love and For Liberty: Irishwomen, Emigration, and Domesticity in Ireland and America,1815-1920," in Irish Women and Irish Migration, ed. Patrick O'Sullivan, Vol. 4(London: 1995), pp. 41-65.

239 extreme. In some measure, the Free State’s demographic and cultural dynamics reflected the absence of the very sorts of people who had emigrated to Brooklyn and other American ports.90

Specific Brooklyn emigration patterns can be found in Chapter 2: From There to Here.

Brooklyn’s immigrants were largely the sons and daughters of laboring and small-holder families. The Catholic emigrants from the 1840s to 1880 did not represent the classes that were undergoing embourgeoisement. Some of Brooklyn’s immigrants hailed from traditionalist strongholds. More typically, they hailed from areas that had been scarred by over a generation of commercialization and folk resistance. In particular, early post-famine emigrants included a large contingent of people whose evolving mentality merged heightened individualistic aspirations with quasi• traditional gender views. These people showed initative and fortitude, behavior reflected their Irish legacy as well as their situation in America. As bad as things were in Brooklyn, Irish immigrants typically had more opportunities to make choices than they would have had in Ireland. While many immigrants’ hopes were disappointed, we can still make some inferences about their motivations and goals by studying what they did. The disagreement between Hasia Diner and Janet Nolan over whether women emigrated primarily to earn money or to marry ignores men’s motivations. Men, too, wanted to marry. The marriage rates shown in Table 5-13 suggest that men improved their chances to marry by emigrating even more than women did. A man might hope that a wife would bring some savings to a marriage, that she would be resourceful in managing and sometimes augmenting a family’s budget and that she would produce children who would help provide a secure old age. Husbnds benefited from wives day-to-day domestic work—clothes washing, shopping, cooking and a thousand other tasks that wives performed. But marriage offered more than practical benefits. Irishmen

90 Ireland (Eire), Commission on Emigration and Other Population Problems 1948-1954, Reports (Dublin: 1954), 69, 72.

240 understood marriage as a symbol of full adulthood—the manly and dignified status that many could not have achieved within Ireland’s socio-economic framework. While men enjoyed and valued masculine comradrie, the “comfort” of a wife referred to more than physical comfort.

Ideally, a wife would be a trusted partner-in-life.91

The obvious answer to the questions that Diner and Nolan raise about women’s motivation is that most women wanted to improve their economic standing and to marry.

Marrying and mothering, becoming the “woman of the house,” brought full adult status. If first-generation Irishwomen’s behavior is measured against German immigrants’ and native whites’, the Irish married less and later. But if the comparison is drawn between Brooklyn’s

Irish and women in Ireland, the tables throughout this chapter suggest that immigrant women married more and earlier. Those tables hint that Brooklyn’s immigrant women’s marriage patterns resembled the late pre-famine era more closely than the patterns women followed in the

Ireland of 1881. Brooklyn’s Irishwomen (and men) were not recreating Gaelic Ireland. But as opportunities and young people’s autonomy were becoming more constricted in Ireland, immigrants faced an array of options as well as pressures. Immigrants’ choices reflected aspirations that were rooted in Irish gender traditions but flowered in America’s freer atmosphere. Irish women’s traditional assertiveness placed them in a good position in America’s complex environment, and gave them sufficient self-confidence to make their own decisions.

While fathers’ authority over daughters’ marriage prospects was increasing in Ireland, young

91 Diner, p. 50; Nolan, pp. 74-75; Emigration Commission, Reports, p. 66; Albert Gibbs Mitchell, Jr., “Irish Family Patterns in Nineteenth Century Ireland and Lowell, Massacusetts” (Boston University Ph.D. dissertation: 1976) pp. 290-94.

241 immigrant women expressed their autonomy with forthright self-interest. Marriage, on their own terms, appealed to Irishwomen.92

The Brooklyn data supports this from 1860–1890 in one city. Anecdotal information and studies conducted in various other communities, in particular studies that focus on the turn of the century and later, report higher ages of marriage and higher levels of “permanent celibacy” among Irish immigrants, and especially among the second generation. Context and timing matter. Irish immigrants married more and younger in post-Civil War Brooklyn than the scholarly literature would lead us to expect. Despite Hasia Diner’s unrelentingly negative portrayal of Irish-American gender relations, they not only married, they married one another.

Table 5-14 Endogamy Married Persons with Spouses of Same Ethnicity

Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White Men 90.2 93.0 74.5 Women 87.2 95.6 79.7

Ireland: Percentages calculated from information in Vaughan and Fitzpatrick, Historical Statistics, 88, 246 and 1881 Census, General Report, p. 106. Brooklyn: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880.

Differences in sex ratios and the fact that more Germans than Irishwomen would have married before emigrating help account for the very low level of exogamy among German immigrant women. Diner marshals considerable evidence to support her contentions. The earlier comments related to Most Holy Trinity, and the approximation in Chapter Four that as many as forty percent of Brooklyn’s German Catholics may have worshipped at German national parishes is instructive. Certainly, a proportion of Irish marriages did turn out very badly.

But perhaps, the high level of endogamy might be taken as some indication of grass-roots

92 Mary Murray Delaney, Of Irish Ways (Minneapolis: 1973), 126; Lizzie McCann, letters from Minneapolis to her mother in Ireland, March 20, 1888 and July 17, 1888 (K. Miller Collection).

242 mutual endorsement between Irishwomen and men. After all, people were voting with their futures.93

It is fortunate that Irishwomen valued motherhood, because Irish immigrant wives in

Brooklyn bore many children. Brooklyn’s Irish carried on the Irish tradition of high marital fertility. Table 5.21 provides marital fertility estimates. The 1881 estimate for Ireland was constructed by dividing all births in 1881 by the number of wives aged 15–44. The Brooklyn estimates are less straight-forward. Department of Health birth figures are often criticized, but represent the best measures available. Some contemporaries—especially the editor of the

Brooklyn Daily Eagle—complained that Brooklyn’s Health Department was more interested in keeping records than promoting public health.94

Table 5-15 Marital Fertility: Births per 1,000 Wives, Aged 15–44

Ireland Brooklyn 1880 1881 Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White 291 248 236 133

Ireland: Calculated from information in Vaughan and Fitzpatrick, Statistics, 88, 246 and 1881 Census, General Report. p. 106 Brooklyn: Calculated from information provided in Brooklyn Board of Health, Annual Report for 1880, (Brooklyn: 1881).

Irish and German immigrant women maintained approximately the same levels of marital fertility. Native white women’s lower fertility stands out. Once again Table 5.16 shows that in terms of numbers, first-generation Irish and German women’s childraising burdens were similar.

Table 5.15 indicates that Irish immigrant women’s marital fertility was somewhat higher than

German women’s. A variety of fertility measures were employed. Table 5.16 best conveys the

93 Diner, pp.43-69; Carpenter, pp.217-218; Meagher,114-117; Mitchell, pp. 289-295. 94 Report of the Registrar of Vital Statistics to the Brooklyn Board of Health for the Year 1879, p. 45; Report of the Registrar of Vital Statistics to the Brooklyn Board of Health for the Year 1880, p. 51; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 11/13/1879, 1/3/1880, 11/10/1880.

243 notion that the overall difference between immigrant German and Irish women’s marital fertility was not dramatic.

Table 5-16 Own Children Residing with Married Women Aged 35–44

Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White 3.52 3.20 1.75 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Irish immigrants valued the mother’s role. The child•woman ratios presented in

Table 5.17 convey the most telling fertility difference between women in Brooklyn and

Ireland. The main reason that the Brooklyn ratio is much higher than Ireland’s is that a higher proportion of women in Brooklyn married. The stark difference between Irish and

German households is also interesting, due no doubt, to the greater number of Irish spinsters.

Table 5-17 Child-Woman Ratios: Children < 5 per 1000 Women Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White Men 8.8 7.0 9.5 Women 34.2 25.3 26.7 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Considering how economically disadvantaged they were as a group, Brooklyn’s

Irish immigrants succeeded pretty well in forming natal families to organize the division of labor by sex and produce succeeding generations. This basic strategy appealed to them as the proper way to live as men and women. On the other hand, their contemporaries as well as later commentators have often rated the quality of their family life as seriously lacking.

It is beyond dispute that there was a considerable amount of marital disruption as well as conflict in Irish-American families. The real challenge lies in finding a way to place this

244 within a broader framework that does not lampoon the entire Irish race by focusing entirely on the negative.95 We begin by examining patterns of marital disruption.

Table 5-18 Persons 45–64 Living in Disrupted Marital Status (Widowed, Separated or Divorced)

Ireland Brooklyn 1880 1881 Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White 495 638 825 352 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Older, middle-aged women in all three groups were much more vulnerable than were men to living in a disrupted marital status. There was, however a marked difference among the groups in the likelihood that a woman would head a family.

Table 5-19 Percentage of Adult Women Listed as “Family Head”

Irish 1st Gen. German 1st Gen. Native White All Family Heads 14.0 6.1 8.9

25–44 8.9 3.9 7.1 45–64 18.8 8.8 10.9 65+ 27.9 14.8 12.8 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Heading a family was never typical for any of the women in these groups, but it was more common among Irish immigrants than among Germans or natives. Among women aged 45–64 whose marriages had been disrupted (nearly all such women classified themselves as widowed),

60.5% of the Irish immigrants headed their own families compared with 42.3% and 44.5% of the

Germans and native whites respectively. Either Irish women were more likely to assert authority or they had fewer options to live as dependents in relatives’ families. Overall, the proportion of

95 Diner, pp. 43-69, 106-111.

245 all family heads who were women differed across groups but not to the degree that stereotypes about Irish males as deserters would lead us to expect.96

Table 5-20 Females as Percentage of Brooklyn Family Heads

Irish First German First Native White Gen. Gen. All Family Heads 14.0 6.1 8.9

25–44 8.9 3.9 7.1 45–64 18.8 8.8 10.9 65+ 27.9 14.8 12.8 Source: U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, Brooklyn, 1880

Table 5-21 Death Rates due to Accidents and Injuries per 100,000 Workers

Nativity Death Rate Ireland 23 England 17 Germany 15 United States 14 Scandanavia 9 Source: U.S. Census Report, 1900

No doubt the higher proportion of women among Irish family heads reflects desertions, but it also reflects male mortality and Irish widows’ propensity to maintain independence as family heads. A review of Tables 5-18 through 5-20 shows that Brooklyn’s Irishwomen coped with higher levels of marital disruption and family headship than German immigrants and native whites, but the magnitude of the differences (see Table 5-20) should not be exaggerated.

Those terrible Irishmen, so astonishing with their poverty and their cruelty, their patriotic flume and vindictive rage, their eloquence and their drunkenness, their spirit of enterprise and disorder, it is noteworthy that the caricaturists only show the drunkenness and disorder ... it is an Irishman coming home intoxicated, whose state the sketcher represents by multiplying the head of his wife seven times, as she looks at her husband and out of her seven mouths says:

96 U.S. Manuscript Census Sample, 1880.

246

“If you saw yourself as I see you, you would be disgusted.” “And if you saw yourself the way I see you,” replies the drunkard, “you would be astonished.” Sometimes it is a domestic quarrel in which everything gives way, the man assaulting his wife with a chair, and she retorting with a flatiron.97

To what extent did the Irish in America preserve another of Ireland’s traditional marital trends—higher reported levels of domestic violence than elsewhere in Europe? . Throughout

Ireland’s history, relations between the sexes were strained by the sex segregation and gender animosity which permeated society. In America, this tension may have been exacerbated by the new strains of urban life. Domestic violence in America took a toll on Irish women. Hasia

Diner hypothesizes that the primary cause, or at least the major contributor, to this new internal strife was the Irish males’ dependency on alcohol.

Bedad sir, I wouldn’t hurt a hair of her head only the dhrop was in me. Jemmy O’Brian, charged with attempted murder of his wife

A casual reader of Brooklyn’s “American” newspapers in 1880 might conclude that the

Irish held the franchise on domestic violence. To a degree, Irish fighting traditions carried over to

Brooklyn. Family conflicts often centered on money issues and/or the husband’s (and sometimes the wife’s) drinking habits. Drunkenness often preceded physical assaults. It was not unusual for an Irish wife to confront her abusive husband, defending herself by striking her own blows.98

an’ Malachai was winnin’ when Mrs. Duggan she r-run him into a clothes closet and shtood ga-ard at th’dure like a sinthry. “Come out,” says she, “an fight” she says, “ye Limerick buthermilk” she says.99

On occasion a woman started a fight with a man, but the responsibility for nearly all marital assaults lay on men’s shoulders. Irish “rows” made good news copy and the write-ups

97 Charles Bourget, Notes sur L'Amerique (Paris: A. Lemerre, 1895), 295, qtd. in Hasia Diner, Erin's Daughters, p. 57. 98 Brooklyn Daily Times and Brooklyn Citizen samples, 1/1/-3/31, 1870, 1880; Brooklyn Daily Eagle sample, 1/1/-3/31, 1860, 1870, 1880. 99 Diner, 55-59, quotes from pp. 56-57, 59; Charles Fanning, ed. Mr. Dooley and the Chicago Irish (New York: 1976), p. 164.

247 played to anti-Irish stereotypes. News articles on family violence, however, were often highly selective. There is no way to measure the actual prevalence and severity of violence within

Brooklyn’s Irish families by a close reading of nineteenth century news coverage.100

However, the legal notices of divorce proceedings are another matter. To put Irish marital woes in a broader context, every divorce case listed in the daily Court Proceedings columns of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and the Brooklyn Times for the 1880 calendar year was recorded. Of the 937 divorce cases (filed and/or granted} 121 or 12.9% involved plaintiffs with Irish

(Catholic) names. Generation could not be identified. Approximately two-thirds of the divorce actions among both the “Irish” and the “non-Irish” were initiated by women. Consider that the

Catholic Church prohibited divorce, and legal costs typically amounted to $100. In addition, a petitioner faced publicity, months of delay and possibly community pressures. Although the

Irish were under-represented among those seeking divorce, the very fact that there were a significant number of Irish petitioners is significant. Clearly, not all “Irish Catholics” took direction from the Catholic Church. Irish petitioners must have been highly motivated to have paid the financial and personal costs of divorce proceedings.101

100 Brooklyn Citizen sample, 1/1-3/31/1870 & 5/1/-5/31/1870, 1/1-3/31/1880 & 5/1/-5/31/1880; Brooklyn Daily Times sample, 1/1-3/31/1870 & 5/1/-5/31/1870, 1/1-3/31/1880 & 5/1/-5/31/1880; Brooklyn Daily Eagle sample, 1/1-3/31/1870 & 5/1/-5/31/1870, 1/1-3/31/1870 & 5/1/-5/31/1870, 1/1-3/31/1860 & 5/1/- 5/31/1860. 101 Brooklyn Daily Times sample, 1/1/1880-12/31/1880; Brooklyn Daily Eagle sample, 1/1/1880- 12/31/1880.

248

Table 5-22 Charges in Divorce Proceedings, 1880

Charge Women Against Men Men Against Women Irish Names Non-Irish Names Irish Names Non-Irish Names Cruelty 32.1 [1] 33.5 [1] 42.5 [1] 55.3 [1] Drunkenness 29.6 [2] 14.7 [3] 27.5 [2] 24.7 [2] Desertion 27.2 [3] 32.8 [2] 22.5 [3] 8.8 [3] Adultery 8.6 [4] 12.0 [4] 2.5 [5] 6.6 [4] Miscellaneous 2.4 [5] 6.9 [5] 5.0 [4] 3.5 [5] N 81 475 40 340 Source: Brooklyn Daily Eagle & Brooklyn Daily Times, Jan 1 – Dec. 31, 1880.

A charge of “cruelty” indicated serious physical assault. For example, Ellen O’Leary asserted that her husband “··.has been guilty of beating, kicking, and choking [her]…” Keep in mind that we are discussing divorce proceedings. Formal charges do not always accurately reflect the sources of marital discord. Typically, people chose from among those grounds for which divorces were most commonly granted and considerations of persuasiveness and avoiding

(or inflicting) embarrassment may well have have influenced the selection of charges. However, it may be significant that a higher proportion of Irish ranked drunkenness as a basis for divorce than did those with non-Irish names. Generally, however, the only absolute certainty established by this review of divorce cases is that a considerable number of non-Irish couples experienced also severe marital problems. The Irish share of divorce actions (12.9%) was actually significantly lower than thieir proportion of Brooklyn’s population in 1880 would predict (32%

“Irish mothers”). Brooklyn was something of a divorce mill, but it was surprising to find that

Brooklyn’s newspapers listed 12% as many divorce actions as Kings County County issued marriage licenses in 1880 (973 : 8105). This information will not permit more accurate

249 estimates about the prevalence of specific behaviors among the various groups, but, clearly, the

Irish did not monopolize domestic violence or marital disappointment in Brooklyn.102

This serves to highlight ways in which Irish-Americans’ gender and ethnicity were mutually constitutive. The “quality” of relations between women and men form one part of the whole. One of the main points is that timing and context matter. Gilded Age Irish emigrants left a social world that differed considerably from the Ireland that their fathers and mothers had left in 1841 or their sons and daughters would leave in 1910. Gender shaped immigrants’ identities and outlooks. Their experiences and options differed. The Brooklyn of 1850 to 1900 was in some ways both a brutally harsh and and extraordinarily open environment. The nature of relations between Irish• American men and women reflected their social context in America and their Irish traditions. Ideally, their sense of individual responsibilities and prerogatives were complementary; in reality, they could clash. At times, tension between the genders was palpable as Irishwomen drew on their traditional assertiveness to champion their own needs and aspirations against men’s preferences for domestic authority. Sometimes the interactions between men and women were unpleasant. However, the information on divorces (see Table

5.22) and several scholarly studies demonstrate that domestic violence was not peculiar to the

Irish. For example, Pamela Haag finds an association between financial stress and the incidence of extreme domestic violence in post-Civil War New York City. Since the Brooklyn

Irish were overwhelmingly working class and poor, they, too, were vulnerable to severe economic pressures. Certainly, class and ethnic factors operated to heighten the potential for violence in Irish families; but even when those influences operated together, they did not make

102 Brooklyn Daily Times sample, 1/1/1880-12/31/1880; Brooklyn Daily Eagle sample, 1/1/1880- 12/31/1880.

250 domestic violence inevitable.103 This was no “irrepressible conflict”. Both sexes perceived marriage as a positive goal. Economic insecurity and—particularly in women’s case— opportunity, could delay and even preclude marriage. Still, these people were not “marriage- shy.” Irishmen and -women generally socialized within, and drew emotional support from, same-sex networks. Yet, brothers and sisters, children and parents, and other relatives, often loved and assisted one ander lines.

Moreover, young people did engage in mixed-sex socializing, flirting and courting.

Marital love was possible. Lizzie Lough, an Connecticut immigrant maintained a deep emotional bond with her mother and sisters, but she clearly loved Dan Walsh.

I had the rumatic an tyford feaver...There are very few that recover that sickness here only that I hat such good care...Dan Staid home When I Was the Worst...We hat to have a hired Woman most all Winter...Dear Mother it Cost us a lot of money to pay all expencies while I was sick but Dan tells me not to fret about it so long as I got Well he did not car if it was five thousand if he had it There never was a Kinder man, but he has got fresh trouble now poor fellow he had a letter last night of his Fathers Deat he feels real bad he cryed most all night cryed When he did we allways share each others troubles...104 Lizzie Lough, letter from Connecticut to her mother in Ireland, January, 31, 1877 (K. Miller Collection). Lizzie Lough’s marriage was neither more typical, nor more atypical than those miserable domestic battlegrounds that the Brooklyn newspapers so gleefully reported. The point is that that

Lizzie’s marriage was just as real. Whether marriage was dreadful, disappointing, or wonderful, participants in Irish-American community life could still maintain fulfilling emotional relationships with kin and friends of their own gender and with relatives of the other gender. A

“happy” marriage was not a prerequisite for community participation. On the other hand,

103 Pamela Haag, "The 'Ill-Use of a Wife': Patterns of Working-Class Violence in Domestic and Public New York City, 1860-1880," Journal of Social History 25:3 (Spring, 1992), 447-477; Elizabeth Pleck, Domestic Tyranny:The Making of Social Policy Against Family Violence from Colonial Times to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987) 49-69, 88-121. 104 Lizzie Lough, Connecticut, to her mother, Ireland, January 31, 1877 (K. Miller Collection).

251 enjoying emotional comfort and mutual respect within one’s marriage was recognized as a positive good.105

Notwithstanding gender differences in perspectives, the men and women of post-Civil

War Irish-America were more cooperative and both sexes were more resilient than the stereotypes admit. Despite economic hardship and personal stresses Irish-Americans sustained an ethnic presence that was diverse, dynamic—and a force in American history.

The contemporary media image of Irish-American women in the nineteenth century differs markedly from the image we have presented here. Victorian women were rarely appreciated for their strength and achievements. They were caricatured in newspapers and magazines as flaky, illogical, and easily distracted by inconsequential matters Irish-American newspapers were no different from the native press in this regard. Curiously, Partick Ford, editor of The Irish World and Industrial Liberator used his influence to promote respectability among the nation’s Irish women. Wives and mothers who could afford to stay out of the work force certainly ought to do so. It was improper for a woman to devote any significant amount of energy to matters unrelated to her home and family. Popular reading material reflected these ideals and stressed to both well- and marginally-educated audiences the importance of spotless houses and homemade bread. Merchants and advertisers realized the buying power of these readers. Each week, dozens of advertising columns in The Irish World and The Irish-American were devoted to highlighting respectable products, from imported coffee beans to the latest in dusting technology. The very same paper that solicited $1 donations to Clan Na Gael’s

“Skirmishing Fund” for the violent liberation of Eire, also published a weekly “Recipes” feature,

105 Mary Frances Keating, "Marriage-Shy Irishmen," in The Vanishing Irish, ed. John A. O'Brien (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953), 170-182; Groneman, pp. 263-267; Stansell, p. 60.

252 which included suggestions for chapped hands, instructions for “pretty desserts,” and new ideas in flower arranging.106

Coupled with the Irish woman’s “respectable” image came a more common and more demeaning stereotype. Women were fragile, frivolous beings who brought a bit of amusement and distraction to a man’s otherwise serious existence—or so many “lace curtain” men preferred to believe. The stereotypes developed a romanticized picture of the middle class family.

Throughout the Gilded Age, the Irish-American featured weekly fiction columns. These melodramas were the equivalent of modern soap operas. Women were never excluded; however, their limited role seldom changed. One example is excerped below:

A fresh color was in [Nina’s} cheeks. Her oval Spanished eyes shone darkly and brilliantly, etc.... She was thinking of Randal Rainsford... “Dashed from the Lips” Irish-American February 23, 1884 107

The ambitious, intellectual woman is never depicted. Female “ambition” is always romantically oriented. The docile, the obedient and the dependent woman, however, is all too familiar in the newspaper. Clearly, these Irish-America editors wished to portray “ideal” female decorum. A humor feature titled “Fireside Scraps,” was interestingly, but not very surprisingly, directed towards society’s middle class—typically at the expense of middle class women. Curiously, like many of the abolitionists of the 1840’s and apparently most of the Beatniks of the 1950’s, the reform impulse did not extend across genders.

“El Mahdi has eighteen wives and says he went to war for a little quiet and rest.” New York Irish World, May 17, 1884 “Mrs. Squint: ‘Dear me, Mrs. Blunt, how is it you contrive to hold your age so well?’

106 New York Irish World, 1874-1884 sampling; New York Irish-American, 1872-1884 sampling; Diner, 48; Stansell, 60. 107 New York Irish-American; examples are from “Fireside Scraps” and “Recipes”, 2/16/1874, 2/23/1874.

253

Mrs. Blunt: ‘I don’t know, unless it is that I escape a great deal of care by attending to nobody’s business but my own.’ Mrs. Squint: ‘Poor thing, you can’t find much pleasure in living, can you?’” New York Irish World, May 10, 1884 “Ella wants to know if we can tell her what the ‘Knights of Bath’ are. Usually Saturday nights, Dear”. New York Irish World, May 17, 1884 “Connecticut has refused women the right of suffrage. She will still be permitted to make wooden nutmegs, however.” New York Irish World, May 10,1884 “No indeed! I wasn’t afraid of the bug,” said Miss Fussanfeather after she had recovered from her fainting spell at the church picnic the other day, “but I am now such a horrible shade of green, I wouldn’t harmonize with my new pink dress.” New York Irish World, July 19, 1884 108

* * *

Chapter Five Summary

Not enough is understood about gender diversity or gender relations in Irish—America.

A distinctively Irish gender system formed a set of cultural norms which guided Irish-Americans of both genders in their new homeland. Emigrants to the United States used these norms to develop survival strategies in response to the extraordinary pace of nineteenth century social changes. Within the Irish Catholic heritage of trauma and cultural destruction, gender expectations provided a sense of continuity and comfort. In nineteenth-century America, gender and ethnicity were interactive and mutually supportive elements of one’s identity.

Although the supply of unskilled opportunities for Irish men in American cities and towns was often unpredictable, work was readily available for the female Irish immigrant. Many

Irish women welcomed their economic independence and appreciated supporting their families back home. Domestic service became a key factor in the experience of many Irish-American women. Irish-American concepts of masculinity and femininity contrasted in some respects with

108 New York Irish World, 5/10/1884, 5/17/1884, 7/19/1884.

254 stereotypical Victorian norms—i.e., although Irishmen were hardly “feminine” or Irishwomen

“masculine” per se, within the Irish gender system, emotionalism was a normal component of

Irish masculinity and self-assertion was a normal component of Irish femininity.

Irish-American gender concepts operated in ways that fostered the development of gendered outlooks, rooted in the division of labor by sex, that shaped their experiences, attitudes, and aspirations. For example, masculine drinking customs introduced strangers into the group.

By drinking, a male newcomer could immediately demonstrate his sense of belonging, his adherence to Irish manhood norms. Rather rigid norms regulating the relationships between men and women developed throughout rural post-famine Ireland. Women were encouraged to spend their time with members of their own sex. Even the changing stereotypes of the Irish were highly gendered as they shifted from depictions of “Paddy”, the drunken, brawling laborer, to

Spencer Tracy’s “Frank Skeffington”, the more socially established, smooth-talking, corrupt politician; and from “Bridget”, the backward, stubborn domestic servant, to A Tree Grows in

Brooklyn’s “Miss McDonald”, the rigid, old-maid school teacher.

Exogamy rates at five geographic (i.e., “Irish”) parishes scattered around the city were significantly higher during the period 1850–1902 than at the most prominent German national parish, Most Holy Trinity in Williamsburg. The exogamy rate at Trinity was < 1% (only one

Irish-American bride among 296 marriages over three years). The German-Irish intermarriage rates for Visitation, St. Pauls’s, Assumption, St. Agnes, and St. Mark’s ranged from 3% to 10%.

Certainly, all Germans did not self-segregate, but those at national parishes certainly did in a way the Irish did not. Exogamy has been called “the surest sign of assimilation,” but marriage to a

German, Italian, or Polish Catholic was also a viable alternative to lifelong celibacy. Irish marriage age was quite high, but so, too, was fertility among married adults.

255

American popular culture, stereotyped, “Brigid, the foolish and impetuous housewife”; it nonetheless held Irish women in considerably higher esteem than it did the typical Irish man,

“Paddy, the lazy drunkard.” In the eyes of the the American, Irish women carried out their family duties more consistently and more honorably than did Irish men. Irish women worked more often than German or native women, but married Irish women were less likely to work than either of their counterparts. By 1880, Irish-born women remained mired in non-skilled positions

(78%) while the German-born (65%) and Native-born (43%) fared better. However, among

American-born daughters, the fortunes of the Irish (51%) improved more than the Germans’

(59%).

In 1880, Brooklyn’s Irish—particularly the Irish-born—remained largely a working-class people. Their survival strategies reflected the options Brooklyn’s economy offered, their limited capital and job skills, and their perceptions of appropriate behavior for women and men. Almost all Irishmen worked. Women’s high involvement in income-generating activities complemented men’s efforts. Brooklyn’s Irish immigrants would have been even poorer, and they would have faced even greater difficulties in sustaining an ethnic community if a significant proportion of immigrant women had not earned money. Until the turn of the century, a high proportion of the work available to Irish-stock men required strength but not much formal education. An unschooled young woman, conversely, would draw much lower wages than an unschooled young man. Irish girls were expected to work for a considerable length of time. If a family could afford to forego her immediate earnings, a girl (and her family) could benefit considerably if extra schooling gave the girl access to better-paying work. Gender and economic realities shaped conscious decision-making among Brooklyn’s Irish community during the period under study.

256

Chapter 6 Socialization and Assimilation: Religious and Voluntary Affiliations, 1850-1900

Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations... associations of a thousand kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restrictive, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner, they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, II, 489-92

The social and economic geography of Brooklyn sustained and promoted spatial and social parochialism within the Irish population. Yet this very parochialism posed a barrier to coherent political or labor organizations. There was tension between locals and organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church, Irish nationalist associations, large industrial unions and political parties. Only the tendency of these larger groups to organize first on the local level— parish, division, local and ward, respectively—mitigated most issues before they became insurmountable problems.

To command the loyalty of the Irish, regional and national institutions had to couch their appeals in terms relevant to immigrants’ immediate circumstances. After 1850 a massive building program made Catholicism a presence in every neighborhood.1 Each parish was the center of a constellation of affiliated fraternities, associations, clubs, institutes and societies,

1 Sharp, I, 169, 180, II, 77, 88.

257 some of which were quite large.2 The Catholic Total Abstinence Union claimed memberships of several thousand in Brooklyn alone, including thirty local associations in 1880.3

The church provided recreation, economic support, education, and moral as well as allowing participation in communal functions and opportunities, although they represented a universal institution, the parish was, in essence, a neighborhood organizations. Similarly, political machines were organized on a ward and even a block level. Brooklyn’s most prominent politicians of the nineteenth century began their careers as representatives of neighborhood factions and maintained these local attachments throughout their political careers.4 Hugh

McLaughlin began as a “Boss” laborer at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, organizing work schedules and resolving disputes with management—“taking care of the boys.” Political parties were complexes of contending interests. The foundation of boss power was its ability to deliver services to neighborhoods and to maintain close personal contacts with individuals.5

Fire companies were particularly important social institutions in antebellum Brooklyn, ranging from street gangs to female auxiliary associations. Highly organized and extremely visible, they provided foci for mass participation and opportunity for individuals to gain status in the eyes of their associates. Their popularity and social significance was such that volunteer fire companies became “the premier workingmen’s clubs of the nineteenth century.”6 Like parish

2 Sharp. I, 79, 142, 205, 212-216, II, 107, 111-112, 115. 3 Joan Bland, The Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America Washington, 1951; Joseph C. Gibbs, History of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America (Philadelphia, 1907), p. 206; Sharp, I, 136, 231-232. 4 Steven Erie, Rainbow’s End, ; Richard DeMao, “Hugh McLaughlin: Political Leader of Brooklyn, 1870-1903,” M.A. thesis, St. John’s University, 1976 , 23-48; Anna Mary Lanahan, “Brooklyn’s Political Life, 1898-1916,” Ph.D. Diss., St. John’s University, 1977 , 52-67. 5 DeMao, 28-33 ; Lanahan, 55-67, 90-99. 6 Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788- 1850. New York, 1984.

258 churches, they were organized on a neighborhood basis and participated extensively in local social activities.7

Several Irish nationalist associations laid claim to mass followings after 1860. These included the Fenian Brotherhood in the 1860’s and 1870’s, the Irish Land League and the Irish

National League, in the 1880’s. The Ancient Order of Hibernians came to prominence in the

1870’s and reached its peak around 1884. Their decline was not as precipitous as in New York

City. A few years later, Brooklyn could claim more divisions than Manhattan and the Bronx combined. The A.O.H. boasted as many as forty associations, although not all were active at any one time. Division 35 (Flatbush) was the only one still around to celebrate 100 years of continuous existence in 1983.Moreover, the A.O.H. did have staying power in Kings County despite demographic changes which seemed to conspire against them. By 1904, only New York

(27), Kings (17) and Buffalo (11) could muster more than four Hibernian divisions. Even though the nationalist groups all had citywide and even international governing structures, they were clearly organized on the local level. At the height of their power, the Fenians claimed eight branches in Brooklyn while the Land League in 1881 operated through locals.8

The Knights of Columbus, a “broadly Catholic” organization with a narrowly ethnic membership base, was similarly organized. The first Council (No. 60 in 1893) was followed by

7 Stephen J. Sullivan, “From Citizen to Civil Servant: The Transition of Brooklyn’s Volunteer Fire Department to Paid Status, 1840-1869,” Brooklyn Historical Society Exhibition Catalog, 1994, 2-4; Augustine Costello, Our Firemen: A History of New York Fire Departments, Volunteer and Paid. New York: 1887, 3-8; David D. Dana, The Fireman: The Fire Departments of the United States, Boston: 1858, 8-12; Violet Sieder, "The Historical Origins of the American Volunteer," in William A. Glaser and David L. Sills (eds.) The Government of Associations, Towota, N.J.: 1966, 4-12; Stephen F. Ginsberg, “The History of Fire Protection in New York City, 1800-1842.” PhD diss., New York University, 1968, 22-24. 8 Ridge, Erin’s Sons in America, 46-49; New York Irish Citizen, 3/18/1871; 7/15/1871.

259 twelve others between 1894 and 1900. In all cases, large scale organization was predicated upon the neighborhood.9

The same could be said for most other institutional and organizational features of

Brooklyn’s Irish. In each case, the fundamental unit upon which city-wide or larger organizations were built was the neighborhood. With few exceptions, then, the formal associations in which the Irish participated testified to the importance of neighborhoods as bases for social organization. In America, as in Ireland before, the Irishman was an intensely

“parochial” person.

There were exceptions to the general pattern of neighborhood organization. Affluent ethnics could afford to travel throughout the city and were therefore able to organize on a broader basis. The Erin Fraternal Benevolent Association, the Emerald Society and the

Brooklyn Benevolent Society drew members from all parts of the city. The EFBA was composed of Protestants as well as Catholics. “Brooklyn” was the local chapter. Differential access to transportation thus created a wide gulf between the association patterns exhibited by different economic levels, and so reinforced a sort of de facto segregation based upon diverging economic interests. For most of the city’s Irish, the arena within which social, economic and political activities were staged was the local community. For the Irish elite Brooklyn was different. Not only did they sit in rented, assigned pews at Sunday mass, they could skip parochial meetings altogether and associate with their socioeconomic peers if they chose to do so. Spatial differentiation thus reinforced economic differentiation.10

9 Brosnan interview July 13, 1999; Knights of Columbus Archives, “New York State Councils” typewritten list; Sharp, I, 237, II, 133, 157. 10 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 7/2/1841; 3/8/1843; 3/14/1844; 3/18/1853.

260

The primary purpose of ethnic associations was to create organizational and institutional structures capable of promoting and sustaining ethnic consciousness in an unfamiliar environment. Associations were originally organized on the basis of ethnic exclusivity, developing and enforcing specific norms for recruitment, initiation and behavior that served to define the ethnic community. They promoted the concept of the Irish as a separate group within the general population, bound together by a shared experience, heritage or faith.

Through analysis of the memberships of such organizations, it is possible to locate these organizations within the social structure of Brooklyn’s Irish. By studying expressions of ethnic consciousness within the context of a diverse population, some of the interplay between class and ethnicity in nineteenth-century America becomes clear.

Ethnic associations represented not only ethnic, but class, interests. This realization forces a close examination of their significance, both for the immigrant population and for the city as a whole. Ethnic organizations and institutions serve as more than simple repositories of a particular heritage; they can be active agents of ethnic consciousness. Moreover, since ethnic institutions also incorporated the dominant values of Protestant culture, ethnic associations could serve as a vehicle by which that culture was transmitted—and translated—to immigrants.

Finally, study of these organizations reveals the ambivalent relationships that developed between the working-class Irishman and the ethnic elite who concurrently aspired to higher social standing.

Irish ethnic clubs, societies, celebrations, religious and political organizations all bore testimony to ethnic solidarity. Yet these expressions of community actually represented two very different paradigms of identity derived alternatively from Irish secular nationalism and

Roman Catholicism. It was not until World War I that an effective synthesis of these two

261 elements of was forged. It took some time for the two sides to realize that they really represented two sides of the same coin.

Catholicism and nationalism were thus central to the development of Irish self- consciousness, but they followed different lines of institutional development. As organizations and institutions based upon religion and nationalism proliferated in the nineteenth-century city, they inevitably generated conflict between the alternative concepts of Irish ethnic identity that they represented. Before discussing the implications of such conflict, it is necessary to chart the organizational expressions of Catholic and Irish nationalist sentiment in Brooklyn.

Catholic institutional growth centered around the parish. Prior to 1836, only two

Catholic churches had been constructed in the city, but in the 1840’s, another nine parishes were created. Eighteen fifty to nineteen hundred saw the erection of an additional 85 churches. The skyline of “The City of Churches” was no longer dominated by Protestant steeples. Construction coincided closely with residential development and, in the middle decades of the nineteenth century, the Catholic Church established a presence in every neighborhood. It is also worth noting that 62 of the city’s 96 nineteenth-century churches were built after 1870. This was no doubt affected by the growing wealth of second-generation Irishmen, but the religious revival back home known as the “Devotional Revolution” should not be discounted. New arrivals were significantly more pious than their parents had been.11

Each church was the center of organizations related to the activities of the parish. The

Church sponsored religious fraternities as well as temperance, beneficial and literary societies.

Prior to the Civil War, the formation of such organizations was primarily the responsibility of the

11 “Chronological Listing of the Churches in the Diocese of Brooklyn” (typewritten, 1988) Brooklyn Diocesan Archive; “The Devotional Revolution in Ireland, 1850-1875,” American Historical Review 77 (June 1972): 625-652.

262 parish priest, although in the mid-1850’s, Bishop John Loughlin took a personal interest in the organization of Catholic temperance societies throughout the city. The Bishop travelled as far as

Jersey City and even Albany to speak on behalf of temperance. He was openly critical of various

Protestant groups who sought to “contemptuously dictate” to his flock, but Loughlin’s devotion to Catholic-directed temperance and other self-improvement schemes was very genuine.12

The largest of these associations in the immediate postwar period was the Catholic Total

Abstinence Union (C.T.A.U.), which claimed five thousand members in the mid-1870’s. Its local chapters were allowed a great deal of autonomy. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the C.T.A.U., with its organizing theme of total abstinence, competed for attention and support with parish “temperance and literary guilds” and with the remnants of Father Mathew’s

Society. Unlike Philadelphia and Baltimore, where citizens flocked to national organizations,

Brooklynites seemed most comfortable with local organizations, or local chapters of national groups. The Irish Catholic Benevolent Union, racked by internal struggles and facing strong competition from other Catholic fraternal and beneficial orders, declined all over the country. It never really stood a chance in Kings County.13

The decline of the I.C.B.U. was matched by the expansion of other Catholic beneficial unions. The most important of these was the Catholic Knights of America which, after 1879, spread rapidly throughout the city, due in part to Bishop Loughlin’s personal endorsement and active support.14

12 See: Bishop John Loughlin to Bishop Bayley, 10/13/1854, was quoted in Edwin V. Sullivan, “An Annotated Copy of the Diary of Bishop James Roosevelt Bayley, First Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, 1853-1872,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottowa, 1956, 68 , expressing strong and specific opposition to Protestant temperance leadership as “not of our own”; Sharp, I, 160-163, 289. 13 Bland, The Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America, 47, 184; Gibbs, History of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America, 206, 314-15; Kauffman, 89; Sharp, I, 238, II, 129. 14 Kauffman, 89-90; Sharp, I, 237, II, 133.

263

Additionally, a number of Irish and Catholic building associations were founded in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. The associations served, in the absence of more formal credit institutions, to provide (in George Baileyesque fashion) opportunities for “men of limited means” to acquire homes or small businesses. By 1870 there were over one hundred such associations within the city.15 None grew into “the largest savings bank in the United

States,” as the Emigrant Savings and Loan Association in New York eventually would, but the idea was similar.

Catholic literary institutes were also widespread in mid-nineteenth century Brooklyn.

Literary institutes were organized in individual parishes beginning in the early 1850’s. A city- wide group called the Roman Catholic Library Association attracted some of the wealthiest

Brooklyn Irish to lectures, book discussions and concerts. A Symposium Club was organized for

“young men belonging to the Roman Catholic Library Society.” A February 5, 1863 affair was highlighted by the “well-known tenor Mr. Downey” singing, “The Harp that Once through

Tara’s Hills.” Significantly, no mention of a “Symposium Club” appears again after that summer’s draft commenced. The Roman Catholic Library Association remained active through at least 1870.16

But for the most part, Brooklynites were fiercely parochial. Most parishes had a literary guild, debating club and amateur dramatic society to go along with its temperance association.

There were also several status-defining organizations to join, or roles to play in lesser organizations that were specifically identified with the Catholic population. Members of the

Catholic elite had long provided direction for Catholic charities. Affluent Catholics supported and served as directors of organizations such as St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, St. John’s Hospital

15 e.g., Constitution and By-Laws of the Curran Building Association of Brooklyn, 1858. 16 Brooklyn Daily Times 12/5/1861; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 2/6/1863.

264 and St. John’s Industrial Home. These early benevolent associations required only infrequent social interaction between their directors.17

Charity balls and celebrations were held in support of Catholic charities, and wealthy

Irishmen like Cornelius Heeny and Henry Cruse Murphy were deeply involved in the planning and execution of these events from the 1820’s on. At times it seemed as if more time and effort were spent planning social and fundraising events than on the affairs of the charities themselves.

More coherent association networks developed towards the middle of the nineteenth century. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, founded in Paris in 1833, became established in

Brooklyn only in 1853 with the appointment of Bishop Loughlin. It was headquartered at St.

James Cathedral, and considered high-priority by diocesan leaders. By 1880, there were twenty conferences, each associated with a particular parish. Unlike other benevolent associations, the

Society of St. Vincent de Paul required frequent meetings of its membership and personal service through “home visits to give advice, encouragement and financial aid to the poor and sick.”

Thus, to the normal benevolent functions of such an organization was added the dimension of personal involvement and interaction with one’s peers and with the wider Catholic community.18

After the Civil War new Catholic organizations appeared, the main purpose of which seemed to be defining the status of their members. The Brooklyn Benevolent Society was organized on a city-wide basis. With no locals or divisions, transportation to meetings or events

17 See: St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Guild, “Membership List, 1881-1896”, “By-laws and Constitution”, A Brief History of St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society of Brooklyn, New York, 1884; St. Agnes’ Literary & Temperance Society, “Membership List”, “Constitution and By-laws”; Constitution and By-Laws of the St. Thomas Aquinas Temperance and Literary Association, 1875; Constitution and By Laws of St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Total Abstinence and Literary Society, 1882.; Constitution and By-Laws of the Visitation Total Abstinence Beneficial Society, 1873; “Employment Roster,” St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, 1880; “Inmate Roster,” St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, 1880. Sharp, I, 74-75, 135-136. 18 Sharp, I, 211-214, II, 121-123.

265 downtown could be costly and inconvenient, even for skilled workers. The organization sponsored dinners, lectures and receptions for visiting dignitaries and prided itself upon being an organization of Catholic gentlemen. Some events were even held in mid-afternoon, a time that only the self-employed or otherwise secure could muster.19

The quest for distinction trickled down to the younger generation with the 1877 chartering of the Bristol Club. This was a purely social club with the announced purpose of providing an appropriate avenue for fellowship among “young men” belonging to the “most respectable Catholic families in the Seventh and Twenty-first Wards.” The boys’ fathers included judges, congressmen, prominent merchants and bankers. Last names were overwhelmingly Irish: Sullivan, Kerwin, Gaynor, O’Brien, Gill, Conner, Brennan. However, wholesale butcher Samuel Doerick’s and university professor Webber’s boys were among the prominent German offspring on hand. The Bristol Club was mentioned three times in the

Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 1878–79. They seemed to do little beyond planning balls, picnics and cotillions. Curiously, the Bristol Club stressed the fact that it was “unaffiliated” with any other

Roman Catholic literary, temperance or charitable organizations. “Being seen” as a way of identifying oneself as important or elite is apparently nothing new.20

Demographic trends and the broadening role of the American church meant that a significant and increasing number of Brooklynites self-consciously identified themselves as

Catholics. At the same time, Irish nationalist organizations offered newcomers an ethnic identity based on nationhood.

Those who participated in ethnic organizations in the nineteenth century were not typical of the Irish population as a whole. Rather, they represented the economically secure elements of

19 Sharp, I, 87, 106, 143, II, 121 20 Brooklyn Daily Eagle 7/8/1878; 1/8/1879; 6/24/1879

266 that population. As seen in Table 6-2, in every case where a representative sample could be obtained, most members held white collar, professional or proprietary occupations. Some of these organizations included a minority of artisans, most notably the Ancient Order of

Hibernians. But none contained a significant number of unskilled or even semi-skilled laborers.

Associations directly linked to a specific parish may have included a higher proportion of working class members, but these organizations were still disproportionately middle class.

Nonskilled workers accounted for nearly half of the immigrant population, but for less than one- quarter of any organization except the A.O.H. [See Table 6-2.]

Occupational differences between members of the ethnic community organizations and the Irish population at large are important because they indicate that the most successful immigrants clearly felt a distinctive ethnic identity. Social differentiation within the ethnic community manifested itself in economic inequality. Incomplete records and the fact that most organizations were local at their base makes it impossible to draw definitive conclusions about residential patterns or property ownership. However, sufficient records for several organizations allowed either direct or indirect analysis of occupational data.

Among the most prestigious associations dominated by Irishmen was the Roman Catholic

Library Association, a self-consciously elite group organized on a city-wide basis. Other groups such as the Bristol Club, the Emerald Society or the Brooklyn Benevolent Society were similarly exclusive, but no membership lists have survived. However, most Irish associations drew their primary membership from the upper middle classes—low white collar and proprietary types.

Self-consciously Catholic organizations in mid-nineteenth century Brooklyn also exhibited a high degree of economic stratification. From the early nineteenth century, wealthy

Catholics in Brooklyn maintained barriers between themselves and their less affluent

267 coreligionists. Cornelius Heeney’s generosity to the church was legendary—precisely as he intended it to be when he donated “six prime lots on Middagh Street” for eventual dedication of

St. James Cathedral. Most striking was the system of pew rentals by which social separation was physically expressed even during religious services. Individuals reserved specific pews for their own use. The cost varied; those pews near the altar rented for as much as $100 a year. Affluent parishioners did not have to worship with the poor but, instead, sat with members of their own class. Thus religious observance, which served as a common denominator for Brooklyn’s

Roman Catholic community, separated elements of that community even as it provided them with a common frame of reference.21

Within the Catholic population, as elsewhere, economic inequalities led to further inequalities of opportunity. Ironically, the development of a Catholic school system contributed to the perpetuation of status differences across generations. Prior to the 1840’s, parochial schools were virtually nonexistent. The sons and daughters of the Catholic elite, trained at private tuition schools run by Irish or French schoolmasters. In fact, a decade after the

Brooklyn’s first common school law was passed only 200 children attended the public schools, while 937 studied at various private academies.22

Tuition at the best academies excluded the children of “respectable mechanics” and even most of the emerging middle class. Parochial schools did little to equalize educational opportunities. Beginning in 1844, parish schools were erected in virtually every neighborhood of the city. At mid-century, ten schools were in operation; twenty more were added in the succeeding two decades. Tuition academies continued to function, though, and the church in

21 Pessen, “The Egalitarian Myth and the American Social Reality,” 1006; Dolan, The Immigrant Church, 52-56; Thomas Meehan, “A Self-Effaced Philanthropist: Cornelius Heeney, 1754-1858,” Catholic Historical Review, vol. 4, 1818, 4; Sharp, I, 70-71, 82-86. 22 Sharp, I, 139; Abelow, Dr. William H. Maxwell, 4.

268 effect maintained two systems which served different constituencies.23 In scale, the Brooklyn parochial school system outstripped those of Philadelphia and Baltimore, but lagged far behind

New York City.

The difference between the academies and the parish schools was reflected in their curricula. In the typical parochial institution, working and middle class children were offered a course of study similar to that of the city’s public schools, consisting of English, grammar, spelling, geography, arithmetic, history and religion. In the academies, the elite studied a classical curriculum consisting of Greek, Latin, rhetoric, mathematics, poetry and religion for boys; and foreign languages, painting, drawing and music for the girls.24

Immigrants arriving in the 1870’s encountered pre-existing ethnic social structures within the community in which privilege and status were formalized and perpetuated across generations. Literary associations, which appealed primarily to young men, showed a similarly high occupational profile, even though many of these 20–30 year olds might not yet have reached their occupational high point. [See Table 6-2.]

In contrast, the nationalist A.O.H. drew its membership largely from the ranks of small proprietors, lower white collar workers and artisans. This was certainly not a collection of proletarians, but neither was it the Erin Fraternal Society, founded in 1808. The Columbians, formed right before the turn of the century as a Catholic but not clerically-run men’s club, was dominated by the low white collar and proprietary ranks (46.6%). The councils studied also initiated similar numbers of high white collar/professionals (28%) and skilled artisans (23%).

Only a handful of policemen and bartenders was admitted (3%). [See Table 6-2.]

23 Sharp, I, 75, 139, 203, II, 103, 223. 24 Sharp, I, 186-200.

269

In fact, almost every group was dominated by clerks, bookkeepers and small shop owners. Such men were more common in Brooklyn than anywhere else except New York City.

However, the nature of ethnic associationalism also attracted these men. Many were young.

Most were ambitious, and sought the company of other like-minded men in a respectable setting away from wives, parents or lower class saloons.

270

271

Ironically, despite all the posturing and self-segregating by Brooklyn’s “lace curtain” would-be aristocrats, no question seemed more difficult for the Irish to answer at the turn of the century than the simple notion of who they were. Loyalties to native land tugged at them from one direction, while their pride in being “loyal Americans” pulled at them from another. Their

Catholic faith also complicated efforts to sort out their allegiances. Their fidelity to Catholicism led many in the United States to suspect them of being disloyal to their new land.

Table 6-2 Occupational Levels of Association Members 1850–1917 R.C. R.C. St. Agnes St. Agnes CTAU CTAU Library Library Lit. & Lit. & Officials Officials Assoc. Assoc. Temp. Temp. AOH AOH K of C K of C Occupational (#) (%) (#) (%) Guild (%) Guild (%) (#) (%) (#) (%) Level 1887 1887 1864 1864 1884 1884 1897 1897 1898 1898 High White 9 30.0 22 59.5 5 20.0 8 10.3 52 27.8 Collar & Professional Low White 16 53.3 15 40.5 13 52.0 36 46.2 92 31.5 Collar & Proprietary Skilled 5 16.7 0 0.0 5 20.0 31 39.7 47 29.6 Labor Semi-skilled 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 8.0 11 14.1 17 12.2 Labor Unskilled 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 5.1 0 0.0 Labor Total 30 100 37 100 25 100 78 100 208 100

The American Irish sought to overcome their problem of multiple allegiances with rhetoric. On St. Patrick’s Day, Independence Day and any other suitable occasion, Irish-

American leaders spoke of their people as Irish, Catholic and American. But despite ingenious metaphors and complicated philosophical analyses, they were never quite able to adequately explain how they might be all three at the same time.

The Irish problem of multiple allegiances was too complex and deep-rooted to be resolved by rhetoric or sophistry. In answering the question of who they were, the Irish were

272 also affirming a commitment to a host of values and attitudes, to an entire outlook on their life in

Brooklyn, which involved not only their loyalties to their new home, their old country, and their faith, but their relationships with their neighbors as well.

As Meagher points out in his study of Worcester, MA, by the turn of the century, two divergent ideologies had emerged in Irish-America. The more cosmopolitan viewpoint emphasized devotion to the Church, American patriotism, an openness in dealing with people of different ethnic backgrounds, and moderate to conservative economic views. Irish ethnic exclusivity stressed allegiance to Ireland and Irish culture. This worldview was suspicious of both the Church heirarchy and non-Irish groups, Catholic as well as non-Catholic. Political and economic policies tended toward liberal or radical solutions. In Burchell’s study of the San

Franciso Irish, this dichotomy—cosmopolitans vs. ethnics—points to the way in which external events can influence an inherently intramural struggle over the community’s identity and place in the American republic. Meagher specifically identified a link between assimilationist ideology and a uniquely Irish-American approach to Catholicism. This was certainly a factor in the development of the American Irish community in Brooklyn. The terms “cosmopolitan” and

“chauvinist” are problematic. Meagher and Burchell’s cultural nationalists express an unbounded, often uncritical, pride in their community and their culture. They squabble with non-Irish neighbors, and even with Irish neighbors whom they perceive as unwilling to squabble appropriately themselves. “Cosmopolitanism” suggests a broadness of vision that few in the immigrant community possessed. On the other hand, “chauvinist” implies superiority and contempt. The Irish were only in a position to display true disdain or contempt for Blacks, and in some areas, Chinese. However, for the sake of simplicity throughout this chapter, ethnic

273 nationalists or cultural nationalists will be considered as foils to the more respectability-oriented cosmopolitan assimilationists.25

One or the other of these two ideologies dominated Irish thinking in various cities from

1880 to 1910. As might be expected, the assimilationists drew their support largely from the second generation and the upwardly mobile, while the ethnic nationalists were more attractive to immigrants and lower class elements. Assimilation did become Brooklyn’s dominant ideology after the turn of the century, but not as a result of a gradual and predictable shift from ethnic nationalism. Rather, assimilationists emerged as truly dominant only after the Irish community engaged in a struggle of wills between a broader Catholic assimilationism and a more specifically Celtic cultural nationalism. The existence of a strong Gaelic League complicated matters, since Michael Logan’s group was at once bourgeois in membership and “old country” in its cultural leanings.

The nonlinear course of changing ideologies in Brooklyn’s Irish community and the ease with which some Irish moved back and forth between them reveals the complexity of the multiple allegiances issue. The balance between the two ideologies cannot be explained simply in terms of the growing numerical strength and material success of the American-born generation in the Kings County population. Rather, these shifts in ideology were prompted by a host of influences and conditions, some local, but others national or even international in origin. The ability of Irishmen after World War I to espouse both melting-pot assimilationism and strident

Irish nationalism is beyond the scope of this paper, but it does suggest that the Irish did not see the two ideologies as mutually exclusive. It also demonstrates an increasing comfort level on the

25 Meagher, 545-608; Burchell, 142-158.

274 part of the broader Brooklyn society to accept such multifaceted loyalties. Perhaps Brooklyn’s

Irish came to believe that the question of who they were was one which had no definitive answer.

Throughout the 1880’s and early 1890’s, the institutions and associations of the Irish subculture remained overwhelmingly Irish in composition. The few parish and society membership lists or records of parish schools that do exist confirm not only that virtually all founders and leaders of these institutions and societies were Irish, but so too were almost all members and clients. Only occasional German names appeared on the lists of such clubs as the

St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society.26 Moreover, the city’s first Italian immigrants temporarily worshipped at geographical (Irish) churches near the Navy Yard (St. Anne’s in the

5th ward and St. Peter’s in Williamsburg). By 1891, the flood of Italian newcomers provided them with sufficient numbers and financial resources to build their own national churches clustered around the Navy Yard: Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, St. Michael’s and Sacred Heart.

However, the orphanage and temperance societies, which laid down no specific ethnic criteria for their members, were almost entirely Irish. For example, in 1880, twenty-two of twenty-six nuns at St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum were Irish-born or American-born of Irish parentage. All eight non-professional staff members were Irish, as were 283 of the 364 girls in residence.

Obviously, the Ancient Order of Hibernians was also entirely Irish in composition.

Despite overwhelmingly Irish memberships, some of these early societies and institutions advocated a form of pan-Catholic assimilationism. Chief among these was temperance which had a long history in Brooklyn’s Irish community dating back to 1849 when the Father Mathew

Society was founded. Composed largely of immigrants, independent of the clergy, interested both in the preservation of Irish culture and in freedom for their native land, the Father Mathew

26 Membership List, St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society, 1864; A Brief History of St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society of Brooklyn, New York. 1884.

275

Society resembled cultural nationalism groups more than the parish-based temperance associations of the late nineteenth century. All were founded in the late 1870’s or early 1880’s.

By 1890, they had enrolled perhaps three thousand members. In contrast to the Father Mathew

Society, their members were primarily second generation adults. They were supported by the clergy, and they displayed only passing interest in the politics of their homeland.27

As their titles suggest, the parish societies were closely affiliated with the church. Most were founded by the pastors or priests who retained tight control. The societies usually met in parish halls, and clergy often initiated or vetoed society resolutions and activities. Although conflicts sometimes arose between temperance men and their clerical sponsors, many societies developed fierce loyalties to the priests who supervised them. The men of the St. Thomas

Aquinas Temperance Society, for example, frequently sought advice from their founder, Rev.

John Fitzpatrick, even after he had been transferred to the Church of the Assumption in 1892.28

The temperance societies, then, were first and foremost “Catholic” organizations, as the

St. Mark’s Literary and Temperance Guild proclaimed in 1884. But they also sought to help their members adapt to the American environment As might be expected, they sponsored educational programs, literary presentations and, of course, promoted abstention from alcohol.29

Moreover, they did little to encourage the preservation of Irish culture or cultivate interest in

27 See: St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Guild, “Membership List, 1881-1896”, “By-laws and Constitution”, A Brief History of St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society of Brooklyn, New York, 1884; St. Agnes’ Literary & Temperance Society, “Membership List”, “Constitution and By-laws”; Constitution and By-Laws of the St. Thomas Aquinas Temperance and Literary Association, 1875; Constitution and By Laws of St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Total Abstinence and Literary Society, 1882.; Constitution and By-Laws of the Visitation Total Abstinence Beneficial Society, 1873; “Employment Roster,” St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, 1880; “Inmate Roster,” St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, 1880. Sharp, I, 74-75, 135-136 28 Catholic Examiner 8/22/92. 29 A Brief History of St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society of Brooklyn, New York. 1884; Charter and By-Laws of the St. Agnes Literary and Temperance Guild, 1876; Charter, Constitution, and By-Laws of the St. James Catholic Association. 1872.

276 their homeland’s politics.30 The temperance societies often staged debates focused on American, rather than Irish, political and economic issues. Over half of the parish temperance associations mentioned in the Brooklyn Eagle between 1882 and 1902, employed “Literary” in their titles.31

The men attracted to the temperance societies appear to have been clerks and skilled workers, typically young and American-born. Most applicants to the St. Mark’s Guild from

1881 to 1896, for example, were skilled blue-collar workers (54%). Sixty-two percent of the members of St. Agnes’ Literary and Temperance Society in 1896 were skilled workers. Thirty percent were white-collar types, mostly clerks and bookkeepers.32

While cosmopolitans gained momentum during the early 1890’s, Irish nationalism was hardly dormant. Its most representative vehicle was the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which grew only haltingly from 1870 to 1888, due in part to the opposition of Bishop Loughlin, who equated Hibernians with potential terrorists. As the associational “descendants” of Ireland’s agrarian secret societies, they were too easily associated with the Molly Maguires and recent labor violence in Pennsylvania.33 The Order’s true strength is difficult to estimate, but by 1890, the A.O.H. could muster no more than two thousand men in ten active divisions, barely more than the seven divisions it had boasted in 1860.34 Their numbers fell well short of the organizational high-water mark of twenty-one active divisions and approximately six thousand members who had matched New York City’s turnout at an 1870 parade to support released

30 A Brief History of St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society of Brooklyn, New York. 1884. 31 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1/1/1882-6/30/1902 Sunday sampling; A Brief History of St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society of Brooklyn, New York, 1884. 32 See Table 6-2; St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Guild, “Membership List,” 1881-1896; St. Agnes’ Literary and Temperance Society, “Membership List,” 1896. 33 (Rev.) John Kean Sharp. History of the Diocese of Brooklyn, 1853-1953: The Catholic Church on Long Island, New York, 1954, I, 261. 34John Ridge, Celebrating 250 Years of the New York City St. Patrick’s Day Parade. New York: 2011, 24-28

277

Fenian exiles Rossa and Devoy. Although several new charters were granted during the 1878

1884 period during which the Flatbush A.O.H. (Division 35) was organized in Flatbush, according to Hibernian historian John Ridge, “only a dozen or so [divisions] were active at that time.”35 It seems as though proponents of ethnic exclusivity were never as strong as they appeared at their height, nor as weak as they appeared at their nadir. The process was never linear, but the direction was clear; they were losing ground to assimilationists.36

Perhaps the best indication of the ethnics’ weakness was their inability to gain control of

Brooklyn’s nationalist movement, an area where they would seem to have a natural advantage.

Throughout the eighties the Irish community was deeply involved in agitation to give their homeland independence from British rule. This agitation was New York City-based, directed by the indomitable Irish World editor Patrick Ford. His “skirmishing fund” attracted thousands and thousands of dollars from all over the country for the twin purposes of financing radical, force- of-arms nationalism and wholesale land redistribution in Ireland. Most donations arrived in sums less than $1.00, and Brooklyn’s “skirmishers” were no exceptions. While A.O.H. members were undoubtedly among Ford’s contributors, neither the national nor local organizations played an official role.37

Ancient Order of Hibernians leaders may have been hesitant to provoke a repeat of the jurisdictional disputes which splintered both the Brooklyn and New York City delegations between 1854 and 1857. The struggle by Williamsburg Irishmen for separate recognition proved especially troubling to Peter Gaynor, who led the Kings County A.O.H. and was its delegate to

35 Ridge, The Flatbush Irish, 1983, p. 21. 36 Ridge, The Flatbush Irish, 17-22; Erin’s Sons in America, 32-33, 47-49. 37 The Irish World, 1877-1884 sample; Rodechko, James P., Patrick Ford and His Search for America: A Case Study of Irish-American Journalism, 1870-1913. New York: 1976; 23-26, 35-36, 48-50; Eric Foner, “The Land League and Irish America,” 159-173.

278 the national convention from 1855–58. Gaynor, a resident of N. 3rd Street, Williamsburg, successfully insisted that the regional Convention of Irish Societies refuse recognition of the

A.O.H. of Williamsburg since the A.O.H. of Brooklyn was “the only chartered society in the

County of Kings entitled to that name.” At that point, Brooklyn had only recently absorbed

Williamsburg in 1855, forming a single city.38

In addition, throughout the eighties and early nineties, cultural nationalists such as

American Gaelic League co-founder Michael Logan promoted a moderate Irish nationalist agenda. Perhaps in response to the failure of Parnell’s moderate constitutional reform movement, some considered radical reform unwise. Promoting pride in the language and cultural heritage of Ireland was a safer alternative to “skirmishing.” Moreover, the cultural nationalists may have promoted the Irish language, but their membership consisted largely of

American-born, petty bourgeoisie, not immigrant laborers like most A.O.H. members.39

Despite their stalled growth and inconsistent nationalist support, the ethnic exclusivists steadfastly attempted to hold their ground in the one Brooklyn Irish organization which brought together men from societies of every ideological position: The Convention of Irish Societies.

Although its primary responsibility was to organize city-wide celebrations of St. Patrick’s Day, the Convention also discussed and passed resolutions on questions of interest to all of Brooklyn’s

Irish. Here, the ethnic nationalists struggled vainly to win the community’s official endorsement of extreme nationalist positions. They fought to promote and expand the community’s most important symbolic manifestation of allegiance to the culture and nationality of their forefathers:

The St. Patrick’s Day parade. They did this at times by focusing on a Brooklyn parade, but after

38 John Ridge, Erin’s Sons in America: the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Brooklyn, 1986, 20-23. 39 Una Ni Bhroimeil, “The American Mission: The Gaelic Revival and America, 1870-1915,” Ph.D Dissertation, Lehigh University, 1998, 20-25.

279 the turn of the century many Kings County Irish seemed content to turn out in force at the larger

New York City parade. Their occasional success in this latter effort suggested that they, athough on the defensive, had not yet capitulated to the gathering power of pan-Catholic assimilationism.

However, the cultural nationalist approach was never completely out of favor. Despite demographic changes occurring among the Brooklyn Irish, which seemed to favor cosmopolitan organizations, ethnic-oriented societies did not completely disappear during the mid-1890’s.

A.O.H. domination of the St. Patrick’s Day parades on both sides of the river became more evident after 1895.40

Although the number of A.O.H. divisions slipped from its 1884 high of forty, to a reported the Gaelic League and the Gaelic Athletic Association. In addition, the birth of new societies, such as the revolutionary nationalist Clan Na Gael, shows nationalist fervor. Between

1896 and 1902, twelve new divisions of the A.O.H. appeared in Kings County. The A.O.H., which seemed barely able to muster two thousand members in 1890, boasted nearly twice that number by 1902. Less is known about the size of other cultural and revolutionary nationalist societies. The Clan Na Gael, founded in 1893, was naturally secretive about its activities and its membership. As the American wing of an organization dedicated to the violent resistance to

British rule in Ireland, secrecy was essential to their survival.41 Estimates of membership are also difficult to make for the other new societies, the Gaelic Athletic Association and the Gaelic

League. To what extent do mere participants in athletic associations count as members if they cannot be located in roll books or organization minutes? So, although several hundred Gaelic

League and Gaelic Athletic Association members marched in the St. Patrick’s Day parade each

40 Ridge, Erin’s Sons in America, 48. 41 Clan na Gael, 1894-1906.

280 year, it is impossible to determine if those numbers reflected organizational strengths.42 The dramatic growth of the A.O.H. and the founding of new Brooklyn units of the Clan Na Gael, the

Gaelic League and the Gaelic Athletic Association between 1895 and 1905 do suggest, however, that cultural nationalist ideology had achieved a renaissance.

Ethnic nationalists’ relationships with conservative Brooklyn Bishops Loughlin (1853–

92) and McDonnell (1892–1921), and with the rest of the Diocese’s clergy, were not always ideal in the nineteenth century. The A.O.H., for example, proclaimed its loyalty to “Mother

Church” even when it was at odds with the clergy. Although never overtly anti-clerical, the

A.O.H. traced its mythological roots back to secret peasant societies in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Such groups as the “Defenders” and the “Whiteboys” were lauded as protectors of the people—and the church—from British oppression.43 The Church did not see things the same way. Not only had the 1775–1825 Irish church condemned secret societies and sectarian violence, so did the nineteenth century American church. “Tribal” Catholicism—i.e. the Protestants vs. Catholics ethnic rivalry with little or no involvement in sacramental obligations—undermined the mission and the authority of the institutional Catholic Church.44

In the 1870’s, A.O.H. branches were accused of sympathizing with, the Molly Maguire conspiracies then ravaging the coal fields of Pennsylvania. Until 1883, Bishop John Loughlin kept the A.O.H. on the Brooklyn Diocese’s list of banned organizations.45 Complaints about

42 Ridge, Erin’s Sons in America, 47-49. 43 Maureen Wall, “The Whiteboys.” In Secret Societies in Ireland, edited by T. Desmond Williams, 13- 25. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1973.

44 Sharp, I, 261; Dolan, The Immigrant Church, 51-56 45 Sharp, I, 261; Ridge, AOH, 50-52; Sharp. I, 237.

281 clerical indifference to the preservation of Irish culture suggested a continued estrangement of the Hibernians and other Celtic-oriented groups from clerical leaders.46

One reason for this estrangement appeared to be the cultural nationalists’ emphasis on the

Irish, rather than Catholic identity. The A.O.H. and similar groups were vitally interested in the promotion of Irish history and the Gaelic language. In 1904, Michael Logan wrote to New York

City Superintendent of Schools William Maxwell on behalf of the Gaelic League, but with the clear support of A.O.H. divisions throughout all five boroughs of the city. Logan urged that Irish history be included in the curriculum of all public schools, and that the Irish language be offered as one of the Board of Education’s second language options, on equal footing with French,

Spanish, German, Greek, etc. Curiously, Logan did not make mention of Maxwell’s shared Irish heritage, perhaps because he was Protestant.47 Meanwhile, the Brooklyn Hibernians lobbied

Bishop McDonnell and the Diocese of Brooklyn to require Irish history and language classes in all parochial schools where the Irish were numerous. It is unclear whether Maxwell ever responded. The Diocese thanked the Hibernians politely and explained that all curricular matters were decided by the Church’s professional and ecclesiastical staff.48

Overall, Gaelic League efforts to promote the Irish language were more effective among adults. To a certain extent, both the A.O.H. and the Gaelic League shared a common interest in promoting an ethnic nationalist agenda. However, the socioeconomic gulf which separated their members was sometimes too wide to bridge. Despite these differences, the preservation of Irish culture and Irish identity in America remained a prime goal which the A.O.H. and the other like societies frequently reaffirmed over the turn-of-the-century period.

46 Sharp, I, 261; II, 14. 47 Ni Bhroimeil, 86-87. 48 Abelow, 36; Ni Bhroimeil, 86-87; Sharp, I, 212.

282

Particularly important to the ethnic pride advocates was the independence of their homeland. The A.O.H. often disavowed any role in the debate between moderates who sought

Home Rule for Ireland through peaceful constitutional measures, and radicals who dreamed of an independent Ireland won by violent revolution. Moderates and non-Irish papers, however, often alleged that the A.O.H. favored the radicals.49 The failure of the moderates to establish a viable nationalist movement in Brooklyn may have been due in part to the failure of Parnell’s moderate movement at home in Ireland, or it may have been due to the unfocused interests of the growing

Irish middle classes. When the A.O.H. National Convention condemned Home Rule in 1906 as

“the lotus food of British concessions,” essentially accusing moderates of either weakness or duplicity, many Brooklynites with an eye to Irish affairs seemed to agree. Home Rule, a dream in the 1880’s, was by the turn of the century seen as an unacceptable crumb by many American

Irish. Gaelic League leader Michael Logan longed for a return to Gaelic as well as the establishment of an independent Ireland. The temperance societies and the Knights of Columbus thought first of America. Clan Na Gael was less restrained in proclaiming sympathy for radical nationalism.50

Cultural nationalists were interested in American domestic politics as well. In this regard, they seemed to clash with the cosmopolitans’ positions. Irish Catholic nationalists were closely aligned with organized labor; several Knights of Labor officers were Hibernians. Evidence of sympathy for labor appears in Hibernian rhetoric. In 1902, the A.O.H. extended “sympathy to the striking coal miners of Pennsylvania who are ground down by the avarice and selfishness of a corrupt and political example of the trust system, and are now waging an industrial battle to prove that the future of American manhood does not mean serfdom.” The echoes of past

49 Ridge, Erin’s Sons in America, 30-32. 50 Ridge, Erin’s Sons in America, 31-36; 39-41, Ni Bhroimeil, 79-87

283

Hibernian support for Pennsylvania miners (i.e., Molly Maguires) was not lost on the Diocesan hierarchy. Similarly militant class rhetoric appeared frequently in A.O.H. toasts reprinted in local papers. In 1900, the president of A.O.H. Division 24 railed against the “talons of monopoly.” The following year, Division 33 condemned the “Capitalist Imperialism.”51 The radicalism of the A.O.H. was more than just rhetoric. From time to time, the order followed up criticisms of the American political and economic order by urging such reforms as the nationalization of coal mines and municipal ownership of all gas, electricity and transportation utilities.52 The cultural nationalists displayed this same faith in the efficacy of threats and power politics in the pursuit of other goals. In 1901, for example, they threatened to boycott local shopkeepers who sold insulting St. Patrick’s Day trinkets. The Gaelic League also made a point to oppose “offensive Celtic stereotypes.”53

The scattered lists of members from the cultural nationalist societies that have survived suggest that this blend of militant nationalism, economic radicalism and aggressiveness appealed primarily to semiskilled and skilled laborers, workers “of the better sorts.” Even less data exist to detail the generations and family situations of the ethnic nationalists. Membership lists from

Division 35 of the A.O.H. for the years 1896 to 1904 and Division 24 from 1898 to 1902 were traced into the census manuscripts for 1900. These offer further insights into the type of men who joined. This source, despite its limitations, is informative. Unlike the members of the St.

Mark’s Temperance and Literary Guild over three-quarters of Division 24 Hibernians were immigrants. Most came to America between 1880 and the early 1890’s, and unlike the

51 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 3/2/1900; 3/8/1900; 3/18/1900; 7/6/1900; 11/14/1900; 4/2/1901; 7/18/1901; 3/15/1902; Catholic Review, 3/25/1900; 3/17/1901; 3/24/1901; 3/2/1902; Ni Bhroimeil, 10-11; Ridge, Erin’s Sons in America, 36-39. 52 Brooklyn Daily Times, 3/20/1902. 53 Ni Bhroimeil, 95-103.

284 temperance men, most Hibernians were at least thirty. Many were married with established households.54

But not all cultural nationalists were poor immigrants. Some distinguished American- born Irish participated enthusiastically in the A.O.H., the Clan Na Gael, or the Gaelic League.

Lawyers Michael Byrne and James Sheridan, and physicians John O’Keefe and Joseph Lawlor were cited in the Brooklyn Citizen at various times. Indeed, the Clan Na Gael in 1897 boasted that it counted men of almost every social class within its ranks, while the Irish World reported the interest of the second generation in the A.O.H. as “extensive.”55 The Gaelic League was clearly for educated, literary sorts. However, the available evidence suggests that the bulk of

A.O.H. support came from the working-class. [See Table 6-2.]

If cultural nationalism appealed primarily to immigrants then its mid-1890’s revival is curious. Why did this worldview enjoy even a brief renaissance when the proportion of foreign- born in the Irish community was declining? Cosmopolitan assimilationism continued to grow with the birth of the Knights of Columbus, but the influence of church-sponsored temperance societies clearly stalled. The reasons for the paradoxical resurgence of Irish cultural nationalism between 1895 and 1905 appears to lie in events and trends of the 1890’s, which stimulated this ideology while temporarily slowing across the board growth of an assimilationist worldview.

Perhaps the most important of these trends was the heightened ethnic tension between the

Irish and other groups throughout metropolitan New York in the mid-nineties. A combination of renewed nativist hostility and Irish ethnic assertion seemed to encourage Irish aggressiveness.

Similarly, the rise of the American Protective Association led many Brooklyn Irish to embrace

54 K of C Co. 60 “Insurance Book” & “Minutes”; A.O.H. Div. 24 “Membership List”; K of C Co. 497 “Insurance Book”; A.O.H. Div. 35 “Membership List” 55 Brooklyn Citizen 3/18/1880; 9/10/1885; 2/28/1887; 3/19/1887.

285 the A.O.H., the Clan Na Gael, and similar groups. Rising Irish and Catholic political power also bolstered a new Irish assertiveness. Brooklyn’s Irish-dominated political machine had been in place for far longer than in any other major American city. “Boss” Hugh McLaughlin had been in control of the Jefferson Street Democratic machine since Reconstruction, the first Irish “boss” with unchallenged power. Yet Brooklyn never elected a mayor of Irish birth or parentage during its entire history as an independent city.56

At the same time, Church officials in Rome had become wary of the concessions made by liberals, such as Cardinal James Gibbons and Archbishop John Ireland, to American culture and its non-Catholic majority. The Vatican, therefore, began to take a harder line with the church in

America, demanding that it conform more closely to Catholic teaching and approach relations with non-Catholics more cautiously. The effects of this policy change on Irish Catholics are difficult to judge since neither priests nor laymen directly commented about it.57 Nevertheless, the national prestige of cosmopolitans suffered somewhat. The Vatican even condemned a vaguely defined heresy called “Americanism” in 1899. This seemed to undermine the confidence of pan-Catholic assimilationists all over the United States, including Brooklyn. In truth, conservative Bishops Loughlin and McDonnell had presided over the Diocese from 1853–

1921, leaving little room for “Americanist” heresies to develop in the first place.58

All of this encouraged the cultural nationalists. The fall of Parnell in 1890 and the subsequent factionalism which racked his Home Rule Party left moderate nationalists in Ireland and America befuddled. In 1892, Brooklyn’s temperance men lost a good friend in Bishop

Loughlin, a strong opponent of Protestant-led prohibition but a strong supporter of self-help,

56 Ridge, Erin’s Sons in America, 31-33; Sharp, I, 40, 154 280, II, 51, 57-58. 57 Catholic Review, March,1895-1902 sampling. 58 Catholic Review, 5/5/1895; Thomas T. McAvoy, The Americanist Heresy in Roman Catholicism: 1895- 1900, Notre Dame, IN: 1963, 227-258; Sharp, I, 161, II, 15-20, 34-36, 53-59.

286

“moral suasion” Catholic societies. The Knights of Columbus was more interested in

Catholicism than in freeing Ireland from British shackles. They had no stomach for dynamite nationalism. The leadership void among moderates left a free hand to more radical nationalist groups such as the Clan Na Gael to solicit funds and recruit members. Moreover, a Gaelic revival in Ireland was underway, symbolized by the founding of the Gaelic Athletic Association in 1885 and the Gaelic League in 1895 by Douglas Hyde. These nourished powerful attempts to resuscitate Irish culture on both sides of the East River. Michael Logan’s Gaelic League was especially strong in Brooklyn, while New York City boasted both an active Gaelic Athletic

Association and Gaelic League. Hyde himself visited Brooklyn in 1905 to raise funds and to raise awareness about the Gaelic League.59

Another important reason for the ethnic nationalist renaissance may have been the 1893 depression. Like much of the industrial northeast, the economic downturn devastated Brooklyn, bringing industry to a halt and throwing thousands out of work. Beliefs in individual self- improvement must have seemed weak indeed to those whose lives had been shattered by an economic cataclysm beyond their control or comprehension. Several church-based temperance societies folded during the depression; others simply held less frequent meetings or no meetings at all. Meanwhile, workers became restless and labor conflict increased in both the nation and the city. Cosmopolitans viewed such labor activity with suspicion. Irish groups with strong ties to labor, and those known for advocating economic reforms, undoubtedly won sympathizers among the discontented.

59 Christopher J. Kauffman, Faith and Fraternalism. New York: Harper and Row, 1982, 57-86; Una Ni Bhroimeil, The American mission: The Gaelic Revival and America, 1870-1915, Ph.D. Diss., Lehigh University, 1998, 3-7, 27-28.

287

Cultural nationalists profited from the turbulence of the nineties, but the progress of the assimilationist approach was only momentarily slowed. Even at the height of the cultural nationalist renaissance in the nineties, a number of new Irish-backed institutions and societies emerged which served both Irish and non-Irish Catholics. This trend gained momentum through the early years of the twentieth century and even became common practice among some older

Irish institutions. By 1907, assimilationists were fully dominant in the Irish community, a supremacy which grew increasingly more secure by World War I.

The short-lived Catholic Knights of America had quite a following for several years.

Assimilationist and parish-based, it laid a firm foundation for the more important and long- standing Knights of Columbus. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle gives a sense of the Knights’ numerical strength in a September 3, 1855 article describing a Labor Day picnic.

Two thousand Catholics attended a picnic in Myrtle Avenue Park. Nearly all the… local chapters were represented…. St. James, St. Ann’s, St. Charles’, St. John the Baptist, St. Agnes’, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Rose of Lima, St. Anthony’s, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, St. John the Evangelist, St. Paul, Our Lady of the Rosary, St. Patrick’s and Our Lady of Perpetual Help. There were also Knights present from St. Gabriel, Cardinal McClosky, Xavier, Archbishop Corrigan and St. Vincent Ferrer Branches.”

It is noteworthy that the branches are grouped by parish, and that the only exceptions are named for New York religious leaders or Saints. Also interesting is the ethnic mix—Sheeny and

Shields are joined by Marone and Hefferman. The band leader was McInerney, but he was said to play “a variety of dance music.” There were “also games of all descriptions.” And what could be more assimilationist than ending the day with a rousing game of “base-ball”?60

By 1890, Irish societies began to cooperate with Catholics of other nationalities. The bylaws of the ethnically-oriented A.O.H and the Clan Na Gael restricted their memberships to the Irish-born or Irish descendants, but other associations such as the parish temperance societies

60 Brooklyn Daily Eagle 9/3/1895.

288 did not formally exclude non-Irish Catholics. Such societies in the 1880’s had been almost exclusively Irish due to custom or parish affiliation. By the mid-nineties names such as

Esposito, Dopfer and Kowalski appeared on the membership rolls of St. Agnes’s Total

Abstinence Association and the Assumption Literary and Temperance Guild. More important, however, for the future of inter-ethnic Catholic cooperation in Brooklyn was the 1893 founding of the Knights of Columbus Council No. 60 at Hartung Hall, Fifth Avenue and 19th Street. The

Knights explicitly sought to attract members from all nationalities. At first, the bulk of their membership was the American-born sons of Irish immigrants. By 1910, there were 29 councils scattered throughout the city. None was specifically affiliated with a Catholic church, an independent streak which led Bishop Loughlin to favor the Catholic Knights over the K. of C., until it was clear that the Columbians had greater staying power. The Knights of Columbus did solicit a chaplain for each council, so loose alliances with local parishes were formed. This became important after 1900, when ethnic heterogeneity became something more than a noble goal.61

In November, 1910, the Knights boasted 29 councils and well “over 12,000 members in good standing.” Even among “Irish” councils, a handful of German, Polish and Italian surnames appear, often in rough proportion to the local Catholic population. For example, the 1899

Council No. 60 membership list is approximately 60% Irish, 20% German, 10% Polish and 10%

Italian, based on identifiable surnames. Sanitary District 6A (1890) in which Council No. 60 is located represents a low density, middle class area with 45% Irish (1st and 2nd generation), 28%

Native-born (3rd generation+), 12% German, 5% Italian and 3% Russian-Polish. Hence, the

61 Aims and Objects of the Catholic Knights of America,1895; Kauffman, 76-77; Sharp, I, 237, II, 133; Knights of Columbus Council Records, “New York State Councils” typewritten to 1968, K of C Archives, New Haven, Conn.

289 preponderance of Dunns, Reillys and Carrolls reflects little more than the composition of the local population. Most street addresses included on K. of C. rosters were local. Susan Brosnan, national Knights of Columbus archivist, indicates that this remains typical into the late 20th century. “Commuting” to meetings was likely a consequence of maintaining council membership after changing one’s home address “for fellowship.” As early as 1892, the

Connecticut Catholic, a journal closely aligned with the New Haven Diocese and the Knights of

Columbus founder, expressed great optimism in the future of the K of C in Brooklyn, in part because “nearly all of the [Brooklyn] members are total abstainers.”62

Soon enough, councils in heavily German or heavily Italian neighborhoods were chartered. Ex officio affiliations with national churches tended to lead to even more homogeneous rosters of Knights. With so many Irish councils nearby, why would a Sullivan or a

Fitzgerald join predominantly Italian Florentine Council No. 304 in Williamsburg or the geographically-named, but homogenously German, Bushwick Council?

The Bushwick Council No. 132’s roster is ethnically exclusive, as were most organizations associated with German national parishes. Although “only” 53% of the Bushwick population reported having German mothers in the 1890 census, the 1897 Knights of Columbus roster sports a seemingly exclusive Teutonic membership. This is true even though all minutes and notations were taken in English. Because each K. of C. council required a chaplain, they were often affiliated with a specific parish church. National parishes were organized to avoid rapid assimilation and absorption. Thus, the language-based organizations affiliated with

German, Italian, Polish or Lithuanian national parishes tended to remain more exclusive than those organized in geographic (Irish) parishes. No minutes from Florentine Council No. 304,

62 Brosnan interview July 13, 1999; “New York State Councils” typewritten list; Council No. 60 “Insurance Book, 1898-1900” and “Membership List, 1899”; Connecticut Catholic, 9/4/1892.

290 loosely affiliated with Our Lady of Mount Carmel R.C. Church in west Williamsburg were deposited in the K. of C. archives in New Haven, so it is impossible to tell if meetings were conducted in English or Italian, or in what language minutes were recorded. However, the insurance register indicates a disproportionate (80% K. of C. vs. 3% Ward 14) Italian concentration. O.L.M.C.’s Marriage and Baptismal Registers were not available for inspection, so it is impossible to tell if the 80% Italian share of the Knights of Columbus membership was a fair representation of the parish as a whole. Services were performed in the Italian vernacular, but it is important to remember that approximately 90–95% of the prayers during a 19th century

Catholic Mass were recited in Latin whether the communicants resided in Paris, Prague or

Pittsburgh.63

The introduction of non-Irish and non-German Catholics into many of the original “Irish”

Catholic churches between 1880 and 1910 indicates how pervasive this trend had become.

Italians had worshipped at St. Ann’s, St. Patrick’s and St. Peter’s from the 1870’s to the 1880’s, while waiting for the opportunity to build their own churches. By 1890, a growing number of

Polish Catholics filtered into Irish churches such as St. Anthony’s in Greenpoint and St.

Michael’s in Gowanus. Although they too soon had national churches, many remained as parishioners at geographic churches. Some no longer spoke Italian or Polish, or did not want their children to do so. They no longer required the services of a national parish. As one Italian petitioner who joined St. Agnes on Sackett Street stated in 1902, language was irrelevant since

“we all worship the same God.” Irish pastors of formerly homogeneous churches found themselves ministering to more and more ethnically mixed parishes by 1900. In 1906, St.

Mark’s Baptismal Register included a significant number of Rossi’s, Giordano’s and Kowalski’s

63 Bushwick Council No. 132 “Insurance Book,”1897-1898 and “Minutes”, 1901-1903; Florentine Council No. 304 “Roster,” 1901, and “Insurance Book,” 1900-1902.

291 among the scores of O’Brien’s, Murphy’s and O’Sullivan’s who had been mainstays of the

Church since the 1860’s. Seemingly overnight, the parishes in which many Irish community organizations were rooted became more ethnically heterogeneous.64

Meanwhile, the Knight of Columbus became Brooklyn’s most powerful Irish society by

1906. By that date, Kings County had nineteen K. of C. councils, and claimed over 10,000 “full and associate members”. The Borough of Brooklyn supported the Knights of Columbus better than most American cities—or states.65

With the rise of the Knights of Columbus, cosmopolitan assimilationism emerged as the dominant ideology in the Irish community. Turn-of-the-century cosmopolitans stressed loyalty to church and country over fidelity to nationality. From 1900 to 1910, many assimilationists paid scant attention to the cause of their homeland and preservation of an Irish identity. This changed only after World War I. For now, they focused on celebrating United States patriotism, even becoming enthusiastic supporters of the American melting pot. Even David Hyde’s inherently apolitical visit in 1905 to promote the Gaelic revival in Ireland failed to raise anywhere near the funds either he or Brooklyn leader Michael Logan had hoped.66

The very names chosen by Knights of Columbus councils are instructive, generally falling into three broad categories. Geographic names like “Brooklyn,” “Bedford,” “Long

Island” or “Montauk” described specific locations or connected members to the broader community. Catholic titles such as “[Pope] Leo,” “Loyola,” “Archbishop John Hughes,”

“Immaculate” or “St. Paul” identify the Knights with their Catholic roots and higher purpose.

Such patriotic titles as “Lafayette,” “Commodore Perry,” “Lexington” and, of course,

64 Sharp, I, 49, 77, 81, 173, 175, 189, 360. 65 Brosnan interview July 13, 1999; “New York State Councils” typewritten list. 66 Una Ni Bhroimeil, The American mission: The Gaelic Revival and America, 1870-1915, 126-150.

292

“Washington,” ground the Knights in American culture, reasserting their dedication to the noble republican experiment. Significantly, there were no “O’Donovan Rossa” or “Wolfe Tone” or

“Vinegar Hill” Councils. The only Irish names are “Sheridan” (patriotic), “Loughlin” and

“Hughes” (Catholic) and “Carroll” (geographic). Some names are colorful. Some are dull. All were chosen quite carefully.67

In its celebration of American patriotism and fidelity to the Church, the K. of C. shied from the radical economic solutions advanced by cultural nationalist societies like the Ancient

Order of Hibernians. Instead, they condemned socialism, supporting only more limited welfare state measures consistent with the church’s social justice teachings. Turn-of-the-century

Americanists expressed one sentiment which distinguished them from their 1870–1890 predecessors. They no longer believed in accommodating American Protestants. Rather, they professed a militant Catholicism and committed themselves to a separate Catholic community.

Never again would they be victimized by the sort of vitriol hurled by the American Protective

Association during the early 1880’s.68

Loyalty not only to the Church but to America took precedence over allegiance to

Ireland. The Knights of Columbus consistently ignored efforts to free the homeland. In 1906, for example, the Knights of Columbus national organization tabled indefinitely a motion that suggested that the Knights organize a reception for Irish Nationalist members of Parliament touring America.69 Until the close of World War I, the Knights carefully avoided direct involvement in Irish nationalist efforts. Here and there a toast might back full independence for

67 Brosnan interview July 13, 1999; “New York State Councils” typewritten list. 68 The Tablet, 3/11.1894, 4/15/1894 ; 8/21/1898; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 12/20/1899. 69 Knights of Columbus Flatbush Council Meeting Minutes, Sept. 19, 1906.

293

Ireland, but for the most part the Knights counseled patience and peaceful agitation, not

“unnecessary violence,” as the best means of achieving an independent Ireland.70

Significantly, the terms “melting pot” and “assimilation” appeared frequently in Knights of

Columbus patriotic rhetoric.71 Typically assimilationists used such terms to apply to “new immigrants” from Southern and Eastern Europe—Italians, Poles and Lithuanians. The assimilation of these Catholic newcomers became an important goal of the K. of C. by 1910. As early as 1908, the organization had established night school classes to teach immigrant adults

English. Classes were open to all, but the expectation was that Catholic newcomers were the target clientele. Msg. James Walsh, pastor at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and the chaplain of local

K. of C. Council Florentine Council, introduced a Sunday school program intended to turn the

Italian immigrant children at his national parish into “Catholic-American citizens.” It was considered such a success that it expanded to Sacred Heart (Italian), St. Michael Archangel

(Italian) and Our Lady of Czenstochowa (Polish), but significantly, not to German parishes.72

Cosmopolitans were more circumspect about the assimilation of their own people. Their approach to the preservation of Irish culture and identity was similar to their handling of Irish nationalist issues; they generally ignored them. The Catholic Review occasionally reprinted articles promoting the teaching of Irish history in the schools, most often in mid-March.

However, it lent no significant editorial support. The Tablet, which began publication in 1908 an

70 Paul Kennedy Sr., Personal interviews, July 14-15, 1991; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 3/18/1893; 7/6/1893; 3/18/1894;7/6/1894; 3/18/1895; 7/6/1895; 3/18/1896;7/6/1896; 3/18/1897; 7/6/1897; 3/18/1898;7/6/1898; 3/18/1899; 7/6/1899; 3/18/1900;7/6/1900; 3/18/1901; 7/6/1901; 3/18/1902;7/6/1902; 3/18/1903; 7/6/1903; 3/18/1904;7/6/1904; 3/18/1905;7/6/1905; sampling of St. Patrick’s Day and July 4th toasts. 71 Kauffman, 185-86. 72 The Tablet, 9/20/1908; 9/12/1909; 9/11/1910; 10/18/1911; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 9/7/1908; 9/12/1910; Brooklyn Daily Times 9/24/1908; Sharp, II, 161, 317, 321, 360.

294 independent Catholic paper before becoming the official Diocesan organ the following year, was silent on the matter.73

K. of C. loyalty to America and fidelity to Church ideals was rooted in its commitment to

American principles. However, assimilationists did not oppose reform per se. They were willing to advocate labor’s cause within a capitalist framework. Progressive reforms such as old age and widow’s pensions were compatible with Catholic notions of charity and justice.

However, assimilationists like the Knights were oriented to bourgeois values. For example, they supported old age pensions as a means of helping preserve the family, not as a mechanism for redistributing wealth. Moreover, the K. of C. revived the commitment to self-improvement.

While not requiring members to abstain from alcohol, the organization did prohibit saloonkeepers, bartenders and liquor salesmen from joining their order.74 The K. of C. required members who in the eyes of the public were men of sobriety, progress and public spirit, living good home lives and raising their children to serve God and country.75

The Knights of Columbus consistently criticized socialism, perhaps in order to highlight its support of American values. This near-obsession with socialism may have been due to socialists’ apparent threat to everything the Knights held dear: democracy and Catholicism.

Their campaign against socialism usually combined celebrations of American capitalism, individualism and opportunity, with assaults on “socialist atheism”.76 Just as in the eighties and nineties, the wealthier segments of the Irish-American community seemed particularly attracted to the assimilationist ideology. Two sets of data from Knights of Columbus membership lists

73 The Catholic Review, 3/17/1895; 3/21/1897; 3/6/1898; 3/20/1898; 3/18/1900; 3/16/1902; 3/20/1904. 74 Kauffman, 76.

75 Kauffman, 45-59; Brosnan interview July 13, 1999. 76 Kauffman, 86-101; Brosnan interview July 13, 1999; Flatbush Council Meeting Minutes, 1899-1906 [incomplete].

295 indicate that most Knights were white-collar or skilled blue-collar workers. [See Table 6-2.]

More detailed information on the generation and marital status of K. of C. members is available only for the men who joined between 1896 and 1904 and could be traced into the 1900 census manuscripts. Like their counterparts in the temperance societies, most were American-born.

However, their average age was higher than those who “took the pledge” a decade earlier.

Nearly half were older than thirty, and probably married in light of the “never married” statistics cited in Chapter 5.

More important were similarities. Clearly this ideology continued to appeal to successful and American-born members of the Irish community. As these segments of the Irish population continued to expand, assimilationist ideology grew as well. There was another important reason for Americanism’s exponential growth after 1900. The American-born had seized control of the

Irish community’s most vital institution: the Church. As early as 1885, a majority of Irish pastors in the “City of Churches” were American-born. By 1900, so too were virtually all

Diocesan priests. A significant percentage of ordered priests were Irish-born, but their numbers and influence were small. Perhaps ethnic nationalists might have found more powerful allies among the clergy if immigrant priests had continued to dominate Brooklyn’s Roman Catholic pulpits.77 It seems unlikely, however, since few of Brooklyn’s Irish-born priests had ever expressed much interest in labor issues or radical nationalism. Certainly, neither the County

Down-born Bishop Loughlin nor his Manhattan-born successor McDonnell did.78 Prominent

77 Harry M. Culkin, (ed.) Roman Catholic Priests and Parishes of the Diocese of Brooklyn: 1820-1990, Vol. I, 1990.

78 Sharp, I, 40-63,

296 second-generation priests such as Msgrs. William McGinnis and Jerome, though interested in

Ireland’s cause, were devoted first to the forging of an American church, as was McDonnell.79

Moreover, Irish and Irish-American clerics in Brooklyn did little to preserve the culture of their homeland. While German, Italian, Polish and Lithuanian pastors established national churches and vernacular-tongue parochial schools to ensure survival of their native languages and customs, the Irish cultural nationalists’ years of agitation could not convince their own clerics to teach Irish history or language in Catholic schools dominated by the Irish. Irish-run church institutions simply did not promote any degree of identification with Ireland. By and large, they were pan-Catholic organizations run by leaders who happened to be Irish. Church leaders focused their gaze on the advancement of the Church and of American ideals.

One difference between 1880 and 1900 was that the new assimilationists were more suspicious of their non-Catholic neighbors than of other Catholics. They no longer completely embraced the “melting pot” imagery. Irish Catholics could be quite belligerent in their relations toward Protestant “threats.” The ethnic and religious tensions of the nineties were still fresh in their minds. This very issue had led to increased membership in ethnic nationalist societies in the late nineteenth century. “APAism” was equated with “Know-Nothingism.” Political careers were launched by anti-Protestant rhetoric. Recurrent Protestant antagonism was seen as responsible for strained Catholic-Protestant relations, just as English tyranny was responsible for

Ireland’s oppression and poverty.

Paradoxically, the virulent anti-Catholicism of the late 1890’s combined with new papal and episcopal restrictions on the American Church to alter many Irish views on assimilation.

Commitment to a separate parochial school system, prohibition of Catholic involvement in

79 Sharp, I, 130-131,155, 226, 269.

297

Protestant-dominated secret societies, and official condemnation of “modern” American ideas forced changes in the assimilationists’ approach. Both the attacks of their enemies and the tightening discipline of their own church produced a new rigidity in Catholic thought. While they might embrace American ideals, they no longer sought to accommodate their non-Catholic countrymen. To the extent that it had ever existed in the Brooklyn of Loughlin and McDonnell,

“liberal” Catholicism was dead; “militant” Catholicism was emergent. 80

Despite the fact that the Irish had always been the one ethnic group most likely to live in mixed neighborhoods among native-born neighbors, they began to work towards strengthening the bonds which tied them to their coreligionists of different ethnic backgrounds, rather than to

Protestants. Turn-of-the-century assimilationists seemed much more conscious of Catholic neighbors. Earlier, they rarely talked about other Catholic groups. When they did discuss them, it was often to disparage attempts by these non-Irish Catholics, such as the Germans, to preserve their national cultures.81 The Irish had always valued generic assimilation. Why did the

Germans self-segregate? After 1895, Catholic assimilationists seemed more interested in linking other Catholics to the well-established Church which they already dominated. The Tablet, by

1909 an established and respected diocesan organ was more outspoken on the matter than the

Catholic Review had ever been.82

Their interest was both pragmatic and well-intentioned. There were simply many more

Catholics of diverse ethnic backgrounds, as the 1890 and 1900 censuses demonstrate. Catholics had probably comprised a majority in the city for decades. The Irish-born alone made up nearly

80 Sharp, II, 40-63; Thomas T. McAvoy, The Americanist Heresy in Roman Catholicism: 1895-1900, Notre Dame, IN: 1963, 227-258] 81 McCormick, 4-8. 82 The Catholic Review, 3/13/1898; 3/18/1900; 3/23/1902; 3/4/1906; The Tablet, 3/8/1908; 3/28/1909; 3/27/1910; 3/6/1910; 3/12/1911.

298

30% of the population in 1855. The Irish and German (1st and 2nd generation) communities in

1890 comprised over half. According to contemporaries, over half of Brooklyn’s Germans were

Roman Catholics throughout the period under study. Now, Irish Catholics could look to the new

Catholics—Italians, Lithuanians and Poles—to help support their orphanages, hospitals and newspapers. The Irish seemed fascinated by the potential power these non-Irish Catholic groups might offer to a unified American Catholic Church. Indeed, much of the turn-of-the-century assimilationist rhetoric, for example, when supporting a Columbus Day Parade, dwelt on the prospective power of a coalition made up of many nationalities, all unified under the banner of

American Catholicism. This does not mean, however, that Irish-Americans meant to share leadership positions or real power. What they offered was membership.

It is not clear how many seriously believed that such an accommodation could be made in a society like Brooklyn, so long fragmented along ethnic and religious lines. A close examination of Knights of Columbus Fourth Degree Knight listings for Brooklyn finds only one non-Irish member who achieved this highest of honors before 1910, German-American August

Schmidt of homogenous Bushwick Council No. 132.

The emergence of assimilationism as the preferred ideology of the Brooklyn Irish community does not imply complete abandonment of Irish ethnic loyalties. New York- and

Boston-based “national” Irish-American papers which closely covered Irish issues and causes enjoyed widespread circulation in Brooklyn—both city and borough. The Knights of Columbus organized the city’s (then borough’s) Columbus Day celebration up through World War I, but they marched in the A.O.H.-sponsored and organized St. Patrick’s Day parade. Brooklyn’s separate parade did not survive the War, so the borough’s Hibernian divisions frequently worked with their New York brethren to plan the event. Of course, all societies hosted St. Patrick’s Day

299 dinners and related festivities. By 1917–20, the toasts and musical selections described in the

Brooklyn Daily Eagle were interchangeable. Two decades before, K. of C. toasts lionized

Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the Minutemen rather than Wolfe Tone. Thomas Moore’s

“slow airs” were the most popular tunes, followed by American numbers. A.O.H. celebrations featured traditional music and dancing, tin whistles and toasts to “the heroes of Vinegar Hill” in

1798. Significantly, not a single name overlapped on the membership lists for the (1897–1902)

Div. 24 A.O.H. and (1893–1900) Council 60 Knight of Columbus despite their geographic proximity in Ward 8. By 1916–21, nearly fifteen percent of the members of the Flatbush

Council No. 497 were also members of Div. 35 (Flatbush) of the Hibernians.83

Clearly, the competing ideologies of Irish cultural nationalism and Catholic-Americanism were not viewed by contemporary Irish-Americans as mutually exclusive. Moreover, this complementary view seemed to grow over time as the Irish community developed a better collective sense of self.

Before concluding our discussion of Irish-American fraternal involvement, we would do well to remember de Tocqueville’s observation that Americans in general… “Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions [and clearly not just the Irish] form associations... associations of a thousand kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restrictive, enormous or diminutive.”84 In light of their socio-economic class, Irish-Americans, whether immigrants or their American-born sons, were more likely to join a volunteer fire company than they were a temperance and literary guild, a Knights of Columbus council or even an A.O.H. division.

Moreover, fire companies fit the model of local organizations being the backbone of the urban

83 P. Kennedy, Sr., personal interviews 11/1/1981; 7/14/1991; 7/15/1991; K of C Co. 60 “Insurance Book” & “Minutes”; A.O.H. Div. 24 “Membership List”; K of C Co. 497 “Insurance Book”; A.O.H. Div. 35 “Membership List.” 84 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1863, II, 129.

300 community. As one official history explained, “The nature [and] history of the Department is largely that of the companies comprising it.” Modern historians agree. Each company “chose its own members, generally from among near neighbors, friends, and relatives and thus directly reflected the social composition of the several wards.”85

Ironically, membership in such a quintessentially American institution simultaneously offered an alternate route to assimilation and a public opportunity for criticism, even scorn. The reputation of volunteer fire protection service all around the nation suffered significantly due to its inability to deal effectively with a variety of factors related to industrialization. In sum, a professional fire service was required. However, if one read any New York, Brooklyn, Boston or Philadelphia daily paper during the 1860’s, it would become clear that it was the caliber of the firemen that was to blame. A near linear relationship was drawn between increased Irish (or

Catholic or lower class) fire company membership and soaring property losses due to fire.

Unfortunately, the Irish had arrived at the party just before the Paddy wagon. Logic was irrelevant to those who sought to point fingers.

Brooklyn’s volunteer firemen were lionized for the first four decades of the 19th century—hailed as heroes and paragons of “republican virtue.” Yet by 1850, these same “noble and selfless citizens” were almost universally derided as rowdy, licentious thugs “who never

[spoke] three words without an oath, and who [were] never content unless engaged in a fight, or disturbance...” Calls for a paid fire department became commonplace. After years of often bitter struggles, the “vollies” were mustered out in 1869. How did Brooklynites’ view of the “typical” fireman go from Benjamin Franklin to “Mose the cartman” in so short a period of time? Had the quality of the department’s recruits declined so precipitously? Were less qualified men signing

85 Our Firemen, 283; Cricco, 8-12.

301 on? Were more firemen foreign-born? Did the department contain more unskilled laborers and less property-owners? To what extent and in what ways had the fire department’s rank-in-file changed between the 1820’s and 1860’s? Could such changes account for the declining performance and status of the Department?86

Were they wrong? Answering this question requires both anecdotal and statistical approaches. By briefly examining the comments of foreign and native observers throughout the

1820–1869 period, it becomes clear what contemporaries thought was happening to the fire department. Such an approach needs no elaboration.

Quantitative analysis is more complex. Names drawn from department rosters and Chief

Engineer’s Reports were liked with the closest U.S. Manuscript Census or with Brooklyn city directories to create an occupational and ethnic profile of the Brooklyn Fire Department at various points during the 19th century. Nativity cannot be determined from the Kelly Collection

BVFD materials alone. The 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D. lists all firemen by company, together with their age, occupation, and address; a Western District “Firemen’s Register, 1852–

64” provides similar information for the previous decade; “Chief Engineer’s Report, E.D., May

4, 1862” and “Revised Roll, Brooklyn Fire Department, Eastern District, 1843–69” adds

Williamsburg figures; an 1828 “Firemen’s Roll” does not list occupations but the town’s population was then still small enough to allow us to effectively use Spooner’s Brooklyn

Directory; the alphabetical 1891 “Roster of the Brooklyn Fire Department,” published in Our

Firemen, can be analyzed for ethnicity of the paid department but lacks addresses; a random sample of “Personnel Cards” from the 1898–1915 consolidated F.D.N.Y. includes addresses and prior occupations for most department members; “Flatbush Roll of All Companies, 1894”

86 America’s Own editorial, Oct. 27, 1899

302 provides information about an independent, outlying section of Kings County; and lastly, a roster of the BFVA from its 1889 minutes permits discussion of the make-up of this veterans association.

In the eighteenth century, an individual might be called upon to perform any number of social roles. While earning his living as a carpenter or grocer, he could also serve simultaneously as chimney inspector, constable, watchman, militia member, or any one of the numerous unsalaried public offices. The incentive to perform these minor and often annoying duties was the creation and maintenance of a “well-ordered society.” The office of “fireman” was added to the list of public functionaries by a 1772 village ordinance. This new position was to be filled, as were all others, by the town’s citizens. However, the job of fireman would persist as a civilian, voluntary service well into the nineteenth century—well after the simplicity of the eighteenth century community had passed away, and unpaid chimney inspectors, constables, and watchmen had disappeared from the streets of Brooklyn. Thus, the volunteer fireman came to symbolize both the strengths and weaknesses of the city’s fire protection system. For those thrilled by the notion of selfless heroism, undertaken with no thought for financial gain, departmental organization represented all that was best in American society. Many saw the volunteer fireman as the last vestige of “republican virtue” in a rapidly changing industrial world. For those who admired organization, discipline, and a scientific approach to the problems of controlling fire in a modern urban environment, the volunteer fire department was an unwanted, primitive survival from an earlier era. It was a dysfunctional reproach to the citizens of a thriving commercial city.87

87 Brooklyn Fire Department, Our Firemen: The Official History of the Brooklyn Fire Department (Brooklyn: 1892) 25-7.

303

The model for the durable volunteer fireman was rooted in concepts of citizenship and public service peculiar to the well-ordered community of the eighteenth century. Not surprisingly, the early firemen were merchants and tradesmen. With this designation came not only commercial and political privileges, but specific duties and a sense of social involvement as well. The oath taken by the first six firemen in 1772 required fealty to the king, obedience to city officials, submission to calls for watch duty, taxes, and “all other charges, bearing your part as a freeman ought to do.” All six of Brooklyn’s first firemen were “tradesmen” and there was

“not a Gentleman nor a Merchant nor a Professional Man among them.” Presumably, the strongest and most-able bodied freemen were to be found among the city’s artisans.88

The two dozen or so firemen selected to protect the village of Brooklyn before the turn of the nineteenth century were among Brooklyn’s “finest citizens” and the department among its most admired institutions. The mayor praised its “extraordinary exertions and good order” at a

1791 fire, noting “the important services of the firemen.” A newspaper editor credited “the great alertness of the firemen and citizens” for preventing the spread of a dangerous 1793 blaze. And a 1797 fire might well have reduced the town “to one incendiary pile” had not the “well- regulated fire companies” performed “feats of valor.” Another observer’s comments made it clear that Brooklyn’s citizens had come to expect a high level of performance by 1800—“by the usual exertions of the firemen, it was extinguished without any considerable damage.”89

88 Our Firemen, 26-7; J. Frank Kernan, Reminiscences of the Old Fire Laddies of New York and Brooklyn (New York: 1885) 613-17. 89 Comments reprinted in America’s Own, June 1, 1854; high social status of firemen in emphasized by Pomerantz, New York, p. 239; Kernan, p. 622; Our Firemen, p. 30-31; one dissenter from this view is the Scottish Dawson, “Incidents,” who saw the firemen as “plebeian” and “tradesmen, mechanics, and workingmen.” Certainly the founding of the Widows and Orphans Fund sometime before 1817 suggests a certain economic humility among the men of the force.

304

As fire became more of a menace, appreciation for the labors and perils of the volunteers grew. One newspaper stated that their efforts were “neither known nor appreciated as they deserve”. In 1830, another editor confessed he was “unable to account for the extraordinary devotion of the [volunteer] Fireman.” Later that year, he wondered why firemen did not

“abandon so poorly requited a service.”90

Asa Greene, author of a metropolitan New York Guidebook for 1836–7, found the fireman’s exemptions “but small compensation for all their toil and exposure.” The English novelist Frederick Marryat, during his 1837 tour of America, assessed the rewards offered against the claims made upon the firemen—particularly the effects of exposure and exertion on their health—and concluded that “they pay too dearly for their privileges.” One sympathetic journal remarked bitterly in 1849 that the volunteers could “work the very last drop of blood out of their body” and yet receive no more than a “bad name” from the very public they were protecting.91

Despite all the naysayers, the department still managed to attract and enroll sufficient numbers of young men. Occasional worries about understaffing notwithstanding the departmental ranks rose from sixty-six in 1816 to over seventeen hundred by 1864. Clearly, fire service held some special attraction beyond the legally prescribed privileges. In 1832, a young

90 New York Herald, September 1, 1828; L.I. Star, May 2, 1830 and December 14, 1830. 91 Asa Greene, A Glance at New York, p. 206; Frederick Marryat, Diary, p. 38; America’s Own, August 11, 1849; Wortley, Travels, I., p. 301; Joel Ross, What I Saw, p. 36; Mackay, Life and Liberty, p. 36. See, for example, Mackay’s description of the opulent elegance of one fire house he visited. Zophar Mills, a New York volunteer estimates that seven years’ service with Eagle Engine Company #13 had cost him $300 on company or department-related expenses. The men contributed $171.56 for its engine and house out of their own pocket; Henry Patterson mentions that “over two hundred dollars” was spent by Hose Company #12 in fitting out its hose cart while J.J. Sturtevant describes a “silk glove company”--New York City’s Number 19--whose hose reels were painted by a local artist, at a cost of $500, and whose lounge was fitted out with velvet carpeting, lace-curtains, marble-topped tables and silk-upolstered furniture. See Patterson, Diary, September 29, 1842; Sturtevant, Recollections of a Citizen of New York, 1835-1905, 29-30.

305 fireman explained his membership as his desire to see himself in heroic poses, receiving the praise and recognition of the fairer sex. Three years later, the Long Island Star praises the courage of the firemen, explaining their motivation as “the consciousness of having well- performed a most arduous duty.”92

General J.W. DePeyster of the New York State Militia—a prominent fire “expert” and professional department advocate—argued in 1854 that, because of its voluntary nature, fire duty had become, for its practitioners, a labor of love. The young volunteers found “attraction in the very fatigue, exposure, hurrah boys of a fireman’s career” and for this reason they volunteered.

Or, as another observer put it, volunteer firemen were “not merely active and able, but possessed of an extraordinary zeal in their occupation, or rather their recreation, as they make a severe task.”93

Indeed, fire service was distinctly enjoyable to many of its practitioners, as their own reminiscences suggest. For John Bryce, a proud old volunteer, “the grandest and most exciting affair that could be improvised was the various engines working in a line at a fire, when the flames were aggressive and like that ‘damned spot’ on Lady MacBeth’s hand would not “out.’”

Another veteran recalled that “the pleasantest thing about being a fireman was to have a big fire and to go to work and put it out.” James Flynn conceded that it was the “fun and excitement” of fire service that kept department ranks full. Political Boss Hugh McLaughlin, who had begun his

92 Long Island Star, April 4, 1832; May 3, 1835. Understaffing such as that reported by the L.I. Star, August 22, 1838, was generally mentioned to spur public awareness of the “energy and public spirit” of the firemen--qualities without which they “would not long continue to discharge [their] duties.” Stephen Ginsberg, “A History of Fire Protection in New York City, 1800-1842” (NYU dissertation, 1968), p. 31, states that most companies had something “tantamount to a waiting list” of applicants. John Duncan, a Scottish visitor to this country in 1818, also wrote of “the abundance of volunteers to supply vacancies.” See Duncan, Travels Through Part of the United States and Canada in 1818 and 1819 (Glasgow, 1823). 93 DePeyster’s remarks from his military journal, The Eclaireur, I no. 8 (March 1, 1854) 67; Mackay, Life and Liberty, p. 35; America’s Own,august 13, 1854.

306 fire-fighting career as a “runner” at age 13, recalled that such was the love of duty among his youthful colleagues that the sound of the alarm bell would cause them to interrupt any activity to dash for the engine house. Carlisle Norwood, a Brooklyn fire insurance executive whose membership in the New York city Fire Department had begun in 1830, explained that as a young man he “would sooner go to a fire than to a theater or any other place of amusement.”94

And the Brooklyn Daily Times, even as it advocated replacement of the volunteer department with a paid force in 1860, conceded that “the Fire Department is no doubt a great popular educator. It promotes courage and self-sacrifice among young men, and is the greatest enemy of effeminacy to be found among our institutions.”95

The kind of incentives to duty which evolved from the romantic image of the fireman may have kept the ranks full, but they did not always promote good order. Dashing, bold, and competitive firemen were also frequently noisy, rowdy, and inefficient. After 1830, a favorite way of expressing public disillusionment with the behavior of the firemen was to point to their social backgrounds. (After 1850 ethnicity became an even more popular “flaw”.) The character of the force, these critics argued, had changed. One journal looked back nostalgically to a time when the department was staffed by men “known to the whole community” and lamented that their modern counterparts were “little known or cared for” by the public it served. When complaints of Sabbath breaking against firemen surfaced in 1836, the Common Council responded by “deprecating such proceedings as derogatory to the character of the Fire

94 J. Tyler, Reminiscences of the Volunteer Fire Department (Long Island, 1878) and J.F. Kernan, Reminiscences of Old Fire Laddies of New York and Brooklyn (New York, 1885) provide much valuable information in the form of interviews with old volunteers. Their recollections--even allowing for some embellishment--constitute as good a source of first hand comment on the nature of fire service as we are likely to find. See also, “Brooklyn Firefighters Veterans Association Minutebook” (Kelly collection ledger # 58) and Brooklyn Eagle, May 15, 1882. 95 Marryat, Diary, p. 39; America’s Own, June 9, 1849; L.A. Jullien, “Dedication of the ‘Fireman’s Quadrille’” (1857); Brooklyn Daily Times, February 9, 1860.

307

Department and annoying to the quiet inhabitants” and ordering the Chief Engineer “to urge upon the foremen of the respective companies that they...use their influence and authority to put an end to the cause of this complaint.” In 1839, the Council’s Fire Committee charged that engine houses were being allowed by company members to become “places of resort for the dissolute and idle.” Some firemen were accused of using their position “as an opportunity to pilfer to a great extent.” Others were charged with “riotous, insulting and profane behavior and other assorted forms of wickedness and depravity.” A particularly outrageous tale, recounted in the Brooklyn papers, involved a N.Y.C. minister who had been threatened by “individuals associated with” neighboring fire companies for refusing to ring his church bell whenever an alarm was sounded. One editor expressed amazement “that any part of our once well-regulated and respected fire department can have lowered themselves to so degraded a level as these people.”96

By 1842, the Council’s Fire Committee had drawn the sad conclusion that certain station houses were the sites of “gross scenes of outrage and abuse.” A Brooklyn Daily Times editorial proclaimed in 1842 that the department had fallen into “an awful and disgraceful state owing to the number of idle vagabonds, rioters, butt-enders, and blackguards connected with it.” A year later, the paper called the department “a sort of city of refuge to the worst vagrants and rowdies in the city.” Even Chief Engineer Stryker had to admit in his 1848 Annual Report that although the rowdies were few, they were “capable of great disorder and trouble” by provoking the good men to emulate their poor example.

96 “Minute Book of the Fire Department Committee, 1828-29,” Clerk’s Papers; Report of the Fire Committee, November 4, 1834; thievery alleged in a letter from Ex-Alderman to the Brooklyn Daily Times, August 12, 1836; January 26, 1838 letter to L.I. Star.

308

The causes of disorderly and unlawful conduct among firemen were clearly evident to critics. The quality of the department’s recruits must have declined from its earlier lofty standards. Firemen had always come from the working classes, but this fact was now an item of reproach. Consider the snide observations of New Yorker Henry Patterson on a ball held in a local saloon: “the fantastic and ridiculous dresses; the nature of the company and their manners, being composed of sailors, butchers, firemen, &c. all in full dress.” An even better example of this snobbish contempt for the working class firemen is found in the character of Mose, the character from Benjamin Baker’s popular 1848 play, A Glance at New York. A butcher-cart driver, or cartman, Mose was the pre-automotive era’s answer to the stereotypical modern figure of cultural opprobrium—the “truck driver.” Crude, blustery, uneducated, short-tempered, and overly aggressive, one could easily overlook his good-heartedness. Indeed, it is instructive of the public’s feeling that audiences took no particular exception to the fact that Mose was a fireman, or “fireboy,” as the drama labeled him. Edward Tailer of New York City, upon seeing the play, pronounced Mose “a true specimen of one of the B’hoys.” Though firemen and their supporters decried the demoralizing effect of this character upon impressionable youngsters as well as upon public opinion, Mose continued to strut the boards of the Bowery Theater and to reinforce an image of the fireman quite convenient to his critics. Edmund Child, editor of America’s Own, charged that characters like Mose tended to perpetuate slanderous myths about the volunteer, presenting him as a “coarse, bloated, sort of a personage...[who] never speaks three words without an oath, and who is never content unless engaged in a fight, or disturbance of some description.” But the character of Mose was actually a symptom, rather than a cause, of declining fire department prestige. He offered a handy symbol of all that was wrong with volunteer fire service. By 1854, his image was invoked by the Boston Herald as the perfect

309 example of “the plundering, fighting crew who ‘run wid der masheen’,” through the streets of

America’s cities.97

Defenders of the volunteers responded by presenting the department’s working class orientation as its basic strength. Old Jacksonian faith in the wisdom and virtue of the common man provided an ideological framework for the firemen’s allies. To America’s Own, the issue was clearly one of class hatred. In 1851, the journal challenged its readers to compare a fire company’s ball to an aristocratic cotillion. Among the “middling classes” and the “sons and daughters of workingmen” in attendance at the former, one would find true gentility, modesty, and reserve. At the latter, however, amidst all the “haughty, proud and supercilious” apers of

European fashion, one would find only rich speculators indulging in false pride. A year later, the journal’s editor expressed his belief that, though “none of the pampered sons of aristocracy” could be induced to join the fire department, the department was better off in the hands of the

“sons of labor,” who were after all, “best suited in every respect for the job.” Certainly, the class issue in Brooklyn never became as ugly as it did across the East River where one newspaper, in

1854, charged that the death of a merchant struck by a fire engine should have been tried as murder; the Wall Street Journal insisted that the lives of every member of the offending company “were not worth one-half” that of the deceased. Yet Brooklyn’s firemen spent a great deal of time and energy combating the assumption of moral superiority by the rich over “a class of men who earn their living by hard labor.”98

97 “Patterson Diary,” December 11, 1842; Benjamin Baker, A Glance at New York (New York: 1848). Baker’s character was based upon the actual Mose Humphries, a well-known brawler who had served with Lady Washington Engine #40 in the early 1840s. See Augustine Costello, Our Firemen, 155 and 178 for sketches of the real Mose. America’s Own, October 27, 1849; Boston Herald’s comment reprinted in Sunday Mercury, August 27, 1858. 98 America’s Own, January 18, 1851 and September 11, 1852;. The charge that critics of the department came generally from among the upper class mimics of European society found broad expression in

310

Ultimately, the bitter debate over the social composition of the fire department was merely a symptom of the real problem. Blame had to be affixed for the soaring fire losses of the mid-nineteenth century and firemen seemed logical candidates. If one believed that all volunteers were but variations of Mose, the responsibility was that much easier to assign. On the other hand, if the public believed that most firemen were heroes, they might be inclined to look for villains elsewhere. So the rhetorical posturing and the image creation was a critical, albeit tangential, struggle. But, beyond all this talk of the declining character of the firemen’s ranks, the root of the fireman’s fall from favor was his apparent inability to deal with fire. Nowhere is this cause and effect relationship more clearly illustrated than in a pair of Long Island Star editorials written just three years apart. On September 2, 1847, after watching the conquest of a particularly stubborn fire, the firemen were praised as an “orderly, considerate, well-bred sort of fellows,” notwithstanding a little post-fire overindulgence in ale. Just three years later, on March

12, 1851, after a disastrous series of fires, the same editor castigated department personnel, observing that “a large part of the firemen do nothing but bustle around in their caps, swear at everybody and try to look tremendous; the engines are never worked for five minutes in succession, and everything in short is as badly conducted as possible.”99

The situation which really disturbed the public had little to do with the fireman’s social status. Just how much truth was there to charges that the Brooklyn Fire Department had fallen out of touch with those who depended on it for protection from fire? Was it, by the 1840s, solely the province of the working classes? Was the fire department “too Irish”? How much had the personnel of the department changed in social character over the years? Or had the character of

Johnson’s play, The Fireman, in the guise of Mrs. Waddletongue. This thoroughly detestable character’s pathetic attempts to reflect British culture made her an object of ridicule, especially when compared with those she denigrated as working class. 99 Long Island Star, September 2, 1847 and March 12, 1851.

311 the department remained stable and only the attitudes of society changed—in reaction to the

Jacksonian notion of the wisdom of the common man and to the increasing inability of the force to contain the spread of fire?

Most nineteenth century observers drew the same general conclusions as to the occupational make-up of the American volunteer fireman. Scottish traveler John Duncan described the 1818 New York department as composed of “young men in the middle rank of life,” His countryman, Charles Mackay found, in 1859, the same mix of shopkeepers, clerks, and artisans—offspring of “respectable, honest families.” It was only natural, argued David

Dana in his 1858 volume, The Fireman, that volunteer departments should draw most heavily on

“those who follow laborious pursuits,” since “men of sedentary employments, and pursuits entirely mental, have not the physical capacity to discharge the duties of firemen.” A famous friend of the Brooklyn volunteers, the minister Henry Ward Beecher, asked in a sermon whether the public would prefer that “a company of French dancing masters come with polite airs to extinguish fires?” Of course, Beecher continued, the “rough and strong” firefighters were predominantly working class; the very nature of fire service required men used to labor. Indeed, there were individual “silk stocking companies” [like the Pacific Engine #2] boasting the names of “many young men of our best families” on their rolls, but the vast majority of the rank and file were consistently described as wage-earners.100

Statistical analysis of the fire department’s rank-and-file from 1816 to 1900 confirms nineteenth century conventional wisdom—that the volunteer fire companies were, and had

100 Duncan, Travels in Part of the United States, II, p. 240; Mackay, Life and Liberty, p. 35; David Dana, The Fireman (Boston: 1858), p. 16; Beecher quoted in George Foster, New York in Slices, By an Experienced Carver (New York: 1849), p. 49.

312 always been primarily working-class institutions. Moreover, company-level analysis indicates that most were ethnically representative of the neighborhoods they protected.

Table 6-3 Occupations of the Brooklyn Fire Department

Occupation 1828 1854 1855 1862 1864 1886 1894 c. 1900 Level (W.D.) (W.D.) (E.D.) (E.D.) (W.D.) (BVFA) (Flat) (FDNY) high white collar # 2 4 4 2 5 1 5 0 % 2.7 .4 .6 .3 .5 .9 3.0 0 low white collar # 21 264 98 104 330 25 48 5 % 28.3 23.9 15.1 16.1 31.7 21.4 28.9 5 skilled laborer # 36 608 433 410 514 59 60 53 % 48.6 55.0 66.8 63.4 49.4 50.4 36.1 53 semi-skilled/ # 10 158 106 122 147 21 44 34 service % 13.5 14.3 16.4 18.9 41.0 17.9 26.5 34 unskilled laborer # 5 71 7 9 45 11 9 8 % 6.7 6.4 1.1 1.4 4.3 9.4 5.4 8

Totals 74 1105 648 647 1041 117 166 100

Sources: Spooner’s Brooklyn City Directory; 1828 “Firemen’s Roll”; Western District “Firemen’s Register, 1852–64”; “Revised Roll, Brooklyn Fire Department, Eastern District, 1843–69”; 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D.; “Chief Engineer’s Report, E.D., May 4, 1862”; 1891 “Roster of the Brooklyn Fire Department,”; “Flatbush Roll of All Companies, 1894”; 1889 BVFA Roster; NYPD Personnel Cards.

Let us turn first to the overall occupational statistics (Table 1). The 1828 roster was linked to Spooner’s Brooklyn City Directory. The 1854 and 1855 rosters were linked to the 1850

U.S. Manuscript Census, either for the City of Brooklyn or the then independent City of

Williamsburg, wards 1–3 or the Town of Bushwick. The 1862 and 1864 rosters were linked to the U.S. Manuscript Census for Brooklyn. Surname analysis was used for 1886 BVFA roster and

1900 FDNY sample. Flatbush roster rather conveniently listed address, occupation and nativity of all members.101

101 Spooner’s Brooklyn City Directory; 1828 “Firemen’s Roll”; Western District “Firemen’s Register, 1852-64”; “Revised Roll, Brooklyn Fire Department, Eastern District, 1843-69”; 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D.; “Chief Engineer’s Report, E.D., May 4, 1862”; 1891 “Roster of the Brooklyn Fire Department,”; “Flatbush Roll of All Companies, 1894”; 1889 BVFA Roster; NYPD Personnel Cards.

313

In 1828, the Fire Department of Brooklyn Village was composed of approximately one half skilled craftsmen, nearly one third clerks and petty proprietors, and only one fifth “lower sorts” (semi-skilled and unskilled laborers). By the 1850s, Brooklyn’s Western District had more clerks (24%) and less skilled workers (53%) than the Eastern District’s respective 15 and

67 shares; yet, the W.D., site of the old village, employed more unskilled laborers than its eastern

(Williamsburg) neighbor. Overall, the Western District’s membership was much broader.102

During the Civil War years, the Williamsburg branch of the BFD still utilized more skilled laborers (63%–49%) but the Western District housed a remarkable 32% low white collar workers! Paradoxically, the W.D. still counted as members 45 common laborers (4.3%)—but most of these were over 40, presumably less active holdovers from 1854 when the unskilled accounted for 6.4% of the fire service.103

What conclusions might be drawn at this point? First, we may safely state that the

Eastern District’s labor base remained stable. The net loss of skilled craftsmen was evenly split between upward movement into the clerk/grocer ranks and slippage into semi-skilled occupations. Trends in the western half of the city are more complex. The level of low white collar membership shrank between 1828 and 1854, but then expanded markedly in the next decade. This is only partially explained by the emergence of the Pacific Company #14 as the elite engine house around 1859; this company alone accounts for both “gentlemen” and almost one-sixth of the clerks and merchants in the entire district. Skilled labor’s loss was offset by a sharp grocer/clerk increase while semi- and unskilled laborers maintain constant numbers. There was a significant decrease in the involvement of Brooklyn’s true elites (high white collar types) between 1828 and 1854. These gentlemen, manufacturers, and merchants never did return to the

102 Spooner’s Brooklyn City Directory; 1828 “Firemen’s Roll.” 103 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D.; “Chief Engineer’s Report, E.D., May 4, 1862.”

314 force. Yet, they were never a significant factor—not even in 1828. In fact, it appears as though the volunteer firemen of Brooklyn Village were drawn more equally from all social strata. After

Brooklyn’s incorporation as a city in 1834, no more than .6% of Brooklyn’s “better sort” were enrolled as members; nor was the unskilled contingent ever higher than the 6.7% who served the village. The Williamsburg volunteers in particular, shunned such “undesirables,” admitting but

16 laborers during the entire period under study.

Yet another way to interpret at the data is to look at how many “respectable and useful” workingmen were involved. If we consider only the skilled and semi-skilled workers (categories

III & IV), those who seem most likely to have possessed the skill, energy, and strength necessary to pull engines and climb ladders, an interesting pattern emerges. The Western and Eastern

Districts show remarkable internal consistency, yet differ markedly from each other. From 1828 to 1864, the combined percentage of skilled and semi-skilled workers hovers around 63% in the

W.D. (specifically, 62%, 64%, 64%). The firemen of the E.D. fall into these categories at a rate of 83, then 82 percent. Clearly, the “vollies” were primarily workingmen. Before moving on, it is worth noting the most common occupations within each occupational level: I-merchant, gentleman; II-clerk, grocer; III-carpenter, blacksmith, cooper; IV-painter, stone cutter; and V- laborer, sailor. For the most part, these are occupations which can be set aside for a couple of hours, then resumed when the fire or other crisis has been handled. [See Table 6-3.]

Thus far, we have not discussed the final three columns in Table 6-3. “BFVA” refers to a veterans organization, the Brooklyn Firefighters Veterans Association. “FLAT” indicates the volunteer force of the still-independent town of Flatbush. The “FDNY” figures were computed from a sample of Brooklyn-based members of the New York Fire Department soon after

315 consolidation in 1898; the occupations listed are the ones firemen gave up in order to join the department.

We might expect the membership of a voluntary veterans association to be skewed towards the higher social classes, reasoning that most nineteenth century fraternal orders courted those of the highest status available. This, however, was not the case. The “old vamps” were already a tight-knit group and its poorer members were unlikely to let go of their claim to mutual aid and death benefits. Hence, the BFVA actually admitted the highest percentage (9.4%) of unskilled laborers of any group studied. The minutes of almost every meeting contain at least one discussion of benefits in general , or of an individual or individuals’ claims.104

The Flatbush Fire Department remained in operation as an independent volunteer group for a score of years after its Brooklyn counterpart had been mustered out. Curiously, the vollies who protected this quiet, suburban/agricultural town were most reminiscent of the lot that served the village of Brooklyn in 1828. Three percent of its members were merchants or “gentlemen”— quite similar to the 2.7% Class I firemen of Brooklyn Village. The figures for other social strata are similarly close: II (28.9%–28.3%) and V (5.4%–6.7%). Flatbush had fewer skilled and more semi-skilled workers than did Brooklyn Village, but the “respectable and useful” combination referred to earlier yields strikingly similar results: Flatbush III/IV, 62.6%; Brooklyn Village

III/IV, 62.1%. Apparently, a municipality’s level of social, political, and industrial sophistication is reflected in institutions such as its volunteer fire department.105

The occupational data for of the consolidated Fire Department of New York around the turn of the century clearly reflects the fact that this was now a paid profession, rather than a volunteer service. Culled from a collection of “personnel cards” which indicate the fireman’s

104 1889 BVFA Roster. 105 “Flatbush Roll of All Companies, 1894.”

316

“prior occupation,” the figures tell an interesting story. Since the position of “Fireman” offered good pay and civil service job security, it was attractive to all able-bodied workingmen. In 1891, the salary for firemen ranged from $900 to $1150 per annum. Police officers earned comparable money and most government clerks earned $1250. Clearly, clerks and petty proprietors were unlikely to leave their higher paying jobs for the long hours of a fireman. (As late as 1931, firemen worked an 84 hour work week; efforts to obtain an eight hour day were branded as

“radical. Yet the glamour of fire service—and perhaps the tedium of their current jobs—did lead some clerical types to sign on—enough to make up 8% of the force. Certainly, it was easier for these men to pass the civil service examination than it might be for the blue collar types that dominated the department. It may also have been easier for the former clerks to advance since promotion, too, was governed by competitive examination. Contrary to popular belief, the position of fireman was not a “dead-end” job. The $1600 salary of an assistant engineer (1891) was well within the reach of most firemen, and the engineer’s prestige and $2000 stipend was not out of the question for talented, dogged workers. Positions beyond this level were filled by political appointments and, hence, beyond the grasp of most firefighters.106

As one might expect, former skilled workers dominated the paid force (53%) as they had the volunteer service. Income for such men was comparable to the salaries earned by firemen.

The attraction of the fire department—beyond the glory and excitement—was its security. In an era of rapid industrial change, skilled crafts might become obsolete in a relatively short time. A fireman need not worry about technological unemployment; a large part of his job was learning how to use the latest equipment. For semi-skilled workers, the salary and security of a civil service position was attraction enough. By definition, unskilled laborers rarely possessed the

106 NYPD Personnel Cards; Brooklyn Civil List, 1889, Municipal Archives.

317 skills or education necessary to pass the civil service examination needed to become a fireman.

Only 5% of Brooklyn-based 1898–1900 firemen listed their prior occupation as “laborer,”

“porter,” etc.

Although imperfect and open to some political manipulation, the civil service system introduced by Seth Low between 1883 and 1885 significantly improved the quality of the government’s workforce. Since the base salary for firemen was increased at the same time competitive examinations were introduced, the pool of talented applicants must have increased markedly. Of course, loopholes remained. Since all current Fire Department employees were

“grandfathered,” the literacy rate of the department remained “embarrassing[ly]” low.

Promotions were similarly grandfathered until after consolidation in 1898. Even then, the rules governing the hiring of new recruits allowed a degree of flexibility for those with the right connections. The Fire commissioners were required to select new firemen from among those who had passed the civil service examination; but they were allowed to choose from among the top five scoring candidates for each vacant position. If twelve positions were to be made available at once, who was to say that applicants # 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60 could not be selected?107

On the other hand, those unable to pass the civil service examination were ineligible—no exceptions were made. Most complaints involved alleged unfair grading of exams, rather than the hiring of those who actually flunked the test. The test for firemen and police officers varied somewhat from most civil service examinations—for clerk or “typewriter”—in that it included a rigorous physical trial. By 1885, firemen were rated in the following manner: Reading (10%);

Handwriting (10%); Writing from memory (5%); Arithmetic (5%); Rules & regulations relating

107 Syrett, 135-142; Lanahan, 47-55; Annual Report of the Mayor, Brooklyn: 1885.

318 to duties of position (15%); City information and knowledge of buildings (5%); Physical qualifications (20%); General character (10%); Experience (5%); Obligatory subjects (15%).

Nor were the “obligatory” questions particularly easy: 1) Describe a “Bartholomew” hydrant. Describe a “man and beast” hydrant 2) How is the Department of Fire organized? What are the duties of a fireman? 3) If 13 men can build a wall in 84 days, in what time should 78 men do the same work? 4) What is the title of the legislative department of the City of Brooklyn? What is the title of its chief officer? Is he an appointed or elective official? 5) What, approximately, is the population of the City? 6) Is Williamsburgh within the city limits? Is Morrisania? Is Ridgewood? Is Gowanus? Is Red Hook? Is Greenwood Cemetery? Is New Utrecht? Is Coney Island?108

In sum, from 1828 to 1869, Brooklyn’s Volunteer Fire Department was staffed by less than one percent merchants and gentlemen; twenty-three percent clerks and petty proprietors; fifty-seven percent carpenters, blacksmiths, and masons; sixteen percent painters and stone- cutters; and four percent laborers and porters. Any way one looks at it—96% “middling sorts”

(II,III,IV) or 73% “respectable and useful” mechanics (III, IV)—the Brooklyn fire department was dominated by workingmen: young men (21–35 years old) with the skills, energy, and acumen to “run wid der macheen.” (Mose) From 1870 until the introduction of the civil service reforms of 1883–85, the department’s $600–700 salaries suggested semi-skilled status. The higher salaries—and standards—introduced by the Low administration indicate a higher, skilled labor status. This status was such that the department was even able to attract a few white collar types to apply for membership. [See Table 6-3.]

108 Report of the Civil Service Commission, Brooklyn: 1888.

319

Table 6-4 Ethnicity of the Brooklyn Fire Department

Ethnicity 1817 1828 1854 1855 1862 1864 1886 1894 1891* (Bkln) (Bkln) (W.D.) (E.D.) (E.D.) (W.D.) (BFVA)(Flat) (Bkln)

Native White # 61 136 742 255 288 665 65 112 270 % 91.0 89.4 67.1 39.4 44.5 63.9 55.6 46.4 41.9 Irish # 3 8 222 127 131 332 34 55 318 % 4.5 5.3 20.1 19.6 20.2 31.9 29.1 23.0 49.3 German # 3 8 141 266 227 44 18 73 57 % 4..5 5.3 12.8 41.0 35.1 4.2 15.4 30.5 8.8

Totals # 67 152** 1105 648 647 1041 117 239** 645

* Includes all firemen listed on departmental rolls, whether or not complete occupational information was available ** Includes only those firemen for whom occupations were available *** Sample of occupations held by firemen before joining force

In 1817, Brooklyn was protected by 3 engine companies and 67 firemen. In a town whose entire alien population was less than 8%, it is not surprising to find but 3 Irish and 3

German firemen. In fact, Doughty, Garrison, and Murphy were all Protestants—Scots-Irish who typically denied any connection to their more numerous Catholic brethren. By 1828, the Irish and German contingents in the BFD had grown to eight apiece—both groups together made up barely 9% of the force. This is again unsurprising given the Brooklyn population in 1825—8.8% foreign, mostly Irish and Germans.

By 1855, the City of Brooklyn included heavily-German, formerly independent

Williamsburg. Like the city itself, the Brooklyn Fire Department was divided into two districts,

Eastern and Western. We have followed that pattern in our calculations and analysis. The 1855 and 1862 statistics fail to reflect the growth of either the Williamsburg area or the Eastern

320

District fire companies; this is so because the 1855 numbers include the entire department whereas the 1862 numbers include only the engine companies. The fragmentary records do not contain rosters of the hose or hook and ladder companies. But the ethnic trends shown here are consistent with the area’s population patterns. Williamsburg was known as a German enclave in the nineteenth century. Indeed, the German population of some areas (Wards 18 & 21) approached two-thirds as late as 1890 (see Table 6-4). Yet, other groups did live and flourish here—natives and Irishmen before 1890, Italians and Russian and Polish Jews after that date.

These people, too, formed their own institutions—churches, schools, temples, temperance societies, and of course, volunteer fire companies. Sometimes these companies—whether

German, Irish, or native—petitioned for new houses; sometimes they just took over preexisting ones. As noted earlier, these were primarily neighborhood, and by implication, ethnic institutions. In one particularly interesting case, E.D. Engine Companies 2 and 4 were located just one block apart. Company Two’s membership was over two-fifths German-born. Another fifth had German surnames, presumably American-born sons. Meanwhile, Company Four was one-third Irish-born and another third Irish-named. There is no evidence in the Brooklyn papers of altercations at local fires, but a rivalry must have existed.109

In the Western district, the Irish and Germans showed markedly different membership trends. As the nineteenth century progressed, Irish membership in the volunteer department grew at a slightly faster rate than did their share of Brooklyn’s population. It jumped exponentially when firefighting became a profession—even as their proportion of Brooklyn’s population began to shrink. Germans, on the other hand, left the BFD Western District even as their population grew. Their poor representation in the paid department (8.8%) is particularly

109 Western District “Firemen’s Register, 1852-64”; “Revised Roll, Brooklyn Fire Department, Eastern District, 1843-69”; 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D.; “Chief Engineer’s Report, E.D., May 4, 1862.”

321 striking at a time when they had come to represent the largest ethnic group in the city. Perhaps this is due to their increasing tendency to cluster in Williamsburg and Bushwick. (The Irish show a distinct diffusion pattern for the same time period.) Or maybe it is a consequence of preferential hiring by the Irish-dominated Fire Commission.110

110 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D.; “Chief Engineer’s Report, E.D., May 4, 1862”; 1891 “Roster of the Brooklyn Fire Department,”; NYPD Personnel Cards.

322

Table 6-5 Occupations (By Ethnicity) of the Brooklyn Fire Department

Occupation 1828 1854 1855 1862 1864 1886 1894 Level (W.D.) (W.D.) (E.D.) (E.D.) (W.D.) (BFVA) (Flat)

Native White high white collar # 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 % 1.8 .2 .4 .7 .3 0 1.3 low white collar # 25 206 32 47 248 15 22 % 22.5 27.8 12.5 16.3 37.3 23 28.9 skilled laborer # 64 393 177 183 298 35 28 % 57.6 53.0 69.4 63.3 44.8 54 36.8 semi-skilled/ # 9 108 43 53 95 10 22 service % .1 14.6 16.9 18.3 14.3 15 28.9 unskilled laborer # 8 33 2 4 22 5 2 % 7.2 4.4 .7 1.4 3.3 8 2.6

Irish high white collar # 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 % 0 .5 .8 0 .6 0 2.6 low white collar # 0 28 11 11 68 7 7 % 0 12.6 8.7 8.8 20.5 21 18.4 skilled laborer # 0 140 84 89 191 16 12 % 0 63.1 66.1 67.9 57.5 47 31.6 semi-skilled/ # 1 29 31 29 49 6 14 service % 50 13.1 24.4 22.1 14.8 18 36.8 unskilled laborer # 1 24 0 2 22 5 3 % 50 10.8 0 1.5 6.6 15 7.9

German high white collar # 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 % 0 .7 .8 0 2.3 6 1.9 low white collar # 2 30 55 46 14 3 15 % 33 21.3 21.2 20.3 31.8 17 28.8 skilled laborer # 2 75 172 140 25 8 23 % 33 53.2 66.2 61.7 56.8 44 44.2 semi-skilled/ # 2 21 32 38 3 5 10 service % 33 14.9 12.3 16.7 6.8 27 19.2 unskilled laborer # 0 14 5 3 1 1 3 % 0 9.9 1.9 1.3 2.3 6 5.8

Totals 74 1105 648 647 1041 117 164

323

If we hypothesize that Brooklyn’s volunteer fire departments were primarily neighborhood organizations, it stands to reason that Brooklyn’s 18 engine companies would draw members by nativity in roughly the same proportions as were present in the local area. To what extent was this true in mid-nineteenth century Brooklyn? This question can be tentatively answered in the affirmative—with some important exceptions. In most cases, the ethnic makeup of firemen attached to a given engine company was similar to that of the surrounding area. (The

German sample is too small to draw firm conclusions but, so was the German population of the

Western District.) The firemen’s social class (measured by occupation) tended to be more concentrated in the “middling ranks”—skilled laborers, clerks, etc.. Nativity is not too difficult to determine when the census search begins with each target’s name, age, occupation and street address already known. Parentage can be surmised with some accuracy for Irish offspring.

Surname analysis is quite reliable for the Irish (approximately 85–90% according to the 1894

Special Report of the Registrar General; nineteen of the twenty most common surnames in nineteenth century Ireland are “distinctively Irish” as are 45 of the top 50, etc.) so determining second generation identity is not difficult. Such an approach is less reliable in identifying

Germans. For certain surnames, one is only confident when a distinctively German first name is also present. The federal census did not inquire about parentage until 1880. Printed census materials give us nativity percentages for each ward.111

111 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D.; “Chief Engineer’s Report, E.D., May 4, 1862”; 1891 “Roster of the Brooklyn Fire Department,”; “Flatbush Roll of All Companies, 1894”; 1889 BVFA Roster; NYPD Personnel Cards; U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, 1860, 1900; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland, Dublin, 1968.

324

Table 6-6 1864 Western District Firefighters

Company Level Analysis of Ethnicity and Occupational Statistics Ethnicity # %

Total 1048 Irish 336 32.1% 2.93 German 45 4.3% 2.77 Native White 667 63.6% 2.90

Occupational Hierarchy: 1–High White Collar 2–Low White Collar 3–Skilled Laborer 4–Semi-Skilled/Service 5–Unskilled Laborer Irish-born and “ethnic Irishmen” (those with distinctively Irish surnames) joined the fire department in a proportion similar to their representation in the Brooklyn population. Their 2.93 occupational index (the mean of their respective ranks on the occupation scale) was surprisingly strong vis a vis their “American” (Native White) counterparts’ 2.90. Apparently, both groups were comprised mainly of men from the “middling ranks.” The German contingent is by far the weakest statistically. The sample is small because most of Brooklyn’s Germans lived in the Eastern District (Williamsburg and Bushwick). The Germans’ strong occupational showing is impressive but it is probably not statistically significant.

Especially interesting is the diversity within the Fire Department of the Western district in 1864. Since the results are listed by company, the makeup of each engine house was linked with the known characteristics of their respective neighborhoods. The following examples demonstrate the ethnic and class diversity of the 18 engine companies serving Brooklyn in 1864.

Analysis of the ethnic and occupational makeup of Brooklyn’s western district firemen in 1864 reveals a surprising degree of diversity among the various engine companies. Ethnicity ratios varied widely, from 3.9% Irish in Co. 21 and 4.3% Irish in Co. 14 to 70% Irish in Co. 7 and 64%

Irish in Co. 2. Occupational level, too, varied significantly, from the 86.9% white collar

325 membership of the “silk stocking” Pacific Engine Co. 14 in exclusive Brooklyn Heights to the

88% working class composition of Protector Co. 6 located in the industrial second ward.112

From its founding, Pacific Company #14 was renowned as a “silk-stocking” outfit. It recruited the sons of Brooklyn’s “best families” and supplied them with the best equipment and facilities. While most members lived near the Brooklyn Heights engine house, a significant minority lived a bit further away in other “upper class” neighborhoods such as Fort Greene, “the

Hill,” etc.. Like the population around them, members of “the glorious Fourteenth” were predominantly white collar workers (87%) and largely descended from Native White stock

(90%). Anecdotal evidence suggests that many came from “Old Brooklynite” families. Every member located in the census was native-born. We can fairly state that these firemen were typical of the neighborhood’s residents but their unusually wide dispersion prevents us from concluding that Engine Co. 14 was a neighborhood organization.113

Putnam Engine Company #21 served the narrow strip between Greenwood cemetery and the East River docks. It was an unusual area in the 1860’s. A number of unskilled laborers were employed at the docks and warehouses along the shore but few lived in the area filled with rowhouses and “respectable apartments” just a block or two east of the water. The areas’ residents, then, tended to be “American” skilled and clerical workers. This was precisely the makeup of the local fire company—67% skilled, 33% low white collar, and 90% native stock.

112 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D; U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, 1860, 1900; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland, Dublin, 1968. 113 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D; U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, 1860, 1900; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland, Dublin, 1968.

326

Only a handful of distinctively “Celtic” surnames are found on the roster. Almost all firemen lived within a few blocks of the engine house.114

Perhaps the Constitution Engine Company #7 ought to have been renamed the “Hibernia”

Engine Company, for its membership, like the “Vinegar Hill” neighborhood it served, was two- fifths Irish born percent Irish-born, 70% “Irish” if the native-born with distinctively Irish surnames are included. The first home for many of Brooklyn’s Irish, “Vinegar Hill”—or

“Irishtown”—certainly had its share of foreign-born. Not surprisingly, 74 of the company’s 76 members lived within a few blocks of their engine. The fire department must have attracted the area’s “better sorts,” for this poor, working class neighborhood was not typified by the skilled laborers which filled its ranks.115

This concentration of firemen into the “middling ranks” of society appears to be common in both rich and poor areas; both have larger numbers of skilled laborers than does the surrounding area. The attraction of skilled laborers to fire duty is discussed in detail in the main body of this essay. Perhaps skilled laborers enjoyed the flexible work schedule necessary to pursue fire work. Maybe the opportunity to work with the latest mechanical equipment was part of the attraction. Or perhaps fire duty simply fit the self-image of these “artisan republicans.”

Whatever the reason, these men made up the bulk of the department in the Western District throughout the 1860’s. It seems unlikely that the social class of Brooklyn’s firemen was ever significantly higher.

Analysis of the Ethnicity/Occupation statistics above yields two interesting trends: 1) a class gap between Germans and their native and Irish peers and 2) an occupational difference for

114 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D; U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, 1860, 1900; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland, Dublin, 1968. 115 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D; U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, 1860, 1900; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland, Dublin, 1968.

327 the Irish and Native White between the Eastern and Western Districts. First, it is apparent that the German volunteers were socially superior to their Irish and native colleagues. This is particularly true in the E.D. where the numerically superior Germans are lumped (85%) into occupation levels II (low white collar) and III (skilled laborer). This is also true of Flatbush, where the “respectable” Germans represent 73% of their number. Comparable figures for the

Irish (75% ED, 50% Flatbush) and the Native White (80% ED, 65% Flatbush), are much weaker than those of the Eastern District Germans or those exhibited by Irish and/or natives in the

Western district (Irish 78%; Native White 82%). In other words, although skilled labors of all ethnicities dominated the fire department in all areas and at all times, Germans are always better represented by low white collar types than by semi-skilled workers, whereas the Native White and the Irish firemen were more likely to be semi-skilled in the Eastern District and Flatbush but more likely to be clerk/grocer types in the W.D.. A thorough investigation of the cause of this discrepancy is beyond the scope of this essay. However, we might speculate that the preponderance of higher status Germans in the E.D. and in Flatbush suggests one of the following: 1) that German social and economic dominance of Williamsburg has manifested itself in a variety of institutions, including the volunteer fire department or 2) that Brooklyn’s

Germans are of a higher class in general—i.e., the fire department is merely a reflection of the larger society.116

In the end, the Irish and the German firemen were held accountable for increased fire loss primarily because they were laborers, because they were unable to live up to an imaginary golden age of republican virtue. However, the chance to serve their new nation in a positive and

116 1864 Chief Engineer’s Report, W.D; “Chief Engineer’s Report, E.D., May 4, 1862”; 1891 “Roster of the Brooklyn Fire Department,”; “Flatbush Roll of All Companies, 1894”; U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, 1860, 1900; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland, Dublin, 1968.

328 meaningful way was attractive. Moreover, the opportunity to learning gender- and class- appropriate norms of behavior in the company of both ethnic and non-ethnic peers was not really all that different from the reasoning which led clerks and printers’ assistants to join the more

“lace curtain” Knights of Columbus.

* * *

Chapter Six Summary

Just because the Brooklyn Irish quickly distanced themselves from their old “core wards,” does not imply that they had become fully integrated into the social world of the “Old

Brooklynites.” The Brooklyn Irish maintained their own subsocieties, expanding their own institutional networks—religious and secular—throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In fact, the growth of Irish Catholic institutions in Kings County towards the turn of the century can be seen as part and parcel of a more general organizational development of

Catholicism during these years. Most of the largest national Catholic fraternities—and several important secular ones—were founded or experienced their most profound growth after 1870.

Moreover, of the ninety-six churches offering sacraments to Kings County Catholics in 1900, sixty-one were consecrated after January 1, 1870.

Brooklyn was fairly typical. Temperance society development lagged behind Baltimore.

Nationalist fervor trailed New York City. Every American city admired Philadelphia’s Irish

Catholic fraternal and institutional development. Brooklyn could boast of its preservation of the

Irish language among immigrants and promotion of the native tongue among their educated offspring. Perhaps most important, Irish-Catholics in Brooklyn trailed only New York City,

Baltimore, and Philadelphia in the building of parish schools. Primary education in “the City of

329

Homes” was quite Irish and quite good. Robert Maxwell’s overcrowded but innovative

Brooklyn Public School system was led by an Irish Protestant and disproportionately staffed by

American-born Irish Catholic daughters. The early and strong presence of several Irish and

French teaching orders of nuns allowed Bishops Loughlin and McDonnell to maintain parochial school staffing at a level and quality unsustainable in many other cities.

No adaptation made by the Brooklyn Irish was more characteristic than the late nineteenth-century shift from a narrowly exclusive ethnic Irish definition of their identity to a more cosmopolitan American Catholic viewpoint. Although hardly a smooth or even linear transition, this new self-concept became more common as the new century beckoned and was generally more evident among the American-born and upwardly mobile members of the community. The ethnic and cosmopolitan ideologies adopted by various elements of Brooklyn’s

Knights of Columbus throughout the country, the emergence of federations of Catholic societies linking cities, and the rise of a nation-wide Catholic anti-socialist crusade suggest that some elements of Brooklyn’s turn-of-the-century version of cosmopolitan Catholicism existed elsewhere.

There were several similarities between the acculturation of the Brooklyn Irish by the turn-of-the-century and that experienced by other American Irish. Perhaps these particular

Irishmen were not entirely typical of Irishmen throughout the United States. Irish men and women must have adapted differently to Chicago or San Francisco because the conditions they

330 faced differed. The Irish who chose those cities differed in degree, if not kind, from those who settled in Brooklyn. Yet the Brooklyn Irish had much in common with the Irish in other cities.

331

Conclusion The Brooklyn Irish: Diversity and Identity

I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who.

Rudyard Kipling, Just So Stories (1902) [London & New York: McMillan & Co.]

Who? What? When? Where? Why? Every Journalism student knows the “Five W” questions that anchor a good news story. In the case of the Brooklyn Irish, these same questions help explain the varied experience between this community and other Irish enclaves around the country, and significantly, the variance within one of America’s largest, yet least studied, Irish populations. Which Irish came to Brooklyn, and at what point during the nineteenth century did they do so? What did they do for a living upon arrival, and did they remain in the same occupation for their entire careers? Where did they live, and how likely were they to move to new neighborhoods? Did they arrive, singly or in family groups—even if family is broadly defined to include brothers, sisters and extended kin reassembled over a decade or more? Were they fleeing impending doom or chasing opportunity? As any reporter knows, such questions do matter.

Who?

The discussion in Chapter Two suggests that most of Brooklyn’s Irish hailed from two areas of the island—the poor, backwards “West” and the agriculturally rich central “Midlands” and “Golden Vale.” In effect, the Brooklyn Irish arrived as displaced agricultural laborers from the poorest counties (Longford, Westmeath and Tipperany) of prosperous regions or as hopeful

332 cottiers resourceful enough to flee the poverty of the West’s least onerous counties. Both Cork and Roscommon were considered halfway in the West and halfway in Golden Vale or Midlands.

None of these five ranked among the top seven counties in terms of government designated

“congested districts.” Only Cork reported an over 30% Irish-speaking population, and most of those were bi-lingual. On the other hand, Cork ranked fifth behind such counties as Dublin,

Antrim and Down for population percentage living in towns, and for persons employed in commercial occupations. Longford ranked twelfth for proportion of families in third and fourth class housing. This does not indicate that those characteristics necessarily applied to those who emigrated, only that many Brooklyn Irish had been exposed to those influences in a way that

Pittsburgh’s Galway-dominated emigrants may not have been, but Butte’s Corkians no doubt were. Moreover, there is no evidence that the typical birthplaces of Brooklyn’s Irish-born changed as the century progressed to the extent that Walsh describes among Pittsburgh’s increasingly West-of-Ireland immigrant population.1

Donegal-born Brooklynites would have lacked such experiences upon which to draw.

Donegal, in West Ulster, was among the poorest, most backwards regions in Europe on the eve of the Famine. Its emigration rates per 1000 inhabitants were below average from 1851–1911 largely because its inhabitants were too poor and too isolated to arrange passage. Unlike the rest of the Irish-speaking Gaeltacht, their only commercial connections were to largely Protestant, generally hostile, Ulster Province. Over one-third of Donegal spoke Irish as late as 1891. Many of these were not bilingual. Donegal had the second highest share of “congested districts,” 3.6% of its total area. It ranked next to last in land valuation, percentage of persons living in towns and

1 Joseph Silinonte, Tombstones of the Irish-born at Holy Cross Cemetery, Brooklyn: 1994; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland, Dublin, 1968; U.S. Census Manuscript Schedules, 1850, 1880, 1900; Walsh, 1983, 377, 386, 403, 407-408, 410, 416-17, 425; Emmons, 1989, 14-17.

333 percent of families living in third and fourth class housing. The only worthwhile “experience”

Donegal emigrants might bring the “the City of Homes” was some exposure to industrial occupations (#12 rank). [See Tables 2-6 and 2-7.]

In sum, the six counties which by two separate measures appear to have provided

Brooklyn with over two-fifths of her Irish-born population from approximately 1845–1900 included one of the poorest, most backward counties on the island. The other five were of a

Irish probably left home at least as well prepared for their new lives as any other group of Irish emigrants—which is to say, not particularly well. [See Table 2-9]

Moreover, the next six counties in terms of emigrant contribution were located in the poorer West—Connaught province or Western Ulster. Eastern Limerick and eastern Galway are ecologically and agriculturally considered part of the Golden Vale and the Midlands respectively, but Clare, Mayo, Cavan and Leitrim are entirely in the West. Monaghan replaces

Leitrim in the surname analysis, but both are located squarely in rural West Ulster. These six counties add just over one-fifth to the emigrant population, whether measured by surname analysis or tombstone list. As a group, these counties are more consistently poor and backwards than the first six.2

A comprehensive occupational analysis of the data based on county of origin was not possible due to small sample size. However, a comparison of male immigrants, aged 30–49 from three of the most common counties of origin was undertaken as a preliminary study. Twenty-

2 Silinonte, Tombstones of the Irish-born; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland; U.S. Census Manuscript Schedules, 1850, 1880, 1900.

334

seven emigrants from Donegal were located in the 1850–1900 manuscript census. Forty-three

Longford emigrants and thirty-one Corkians were similarly identified. Mean ages were 40.2,

41.5 and 38.9. A three-tiered occupational distribution for each group is displayed below. No

significant differences emerge between Cork and Langford immigrants, but newcomers from

Donegal seem to be somewhat less successful. However, the sample size is too small to draw

definitive conclusions.

Table C-1 Occupational Rank by County of Origin

Cork (1850–1900) Donegal (1850–1900) Longford (1850–1900) Occupation Level White Collar 16.1 11.1 16.3 Skilled 32.3 33.3 34.9 Nonskilled 51.6 55.6 48.8 Total 31 27 43 Source: U.S. Census Manuscript Schedules, 1850, 1880, 1900; A History of the Milesian Families of Ireland.

What?

“The rising tide raises all boats.” Irish proverb

“Yeah, but what good does it do if you can’t steer or swim?” —Michael Thomas Sullivan, age 6, 1997

Much has been made of the impact the “new immigrants” from Southern and Eastern

Europe may have had on the Irish and Germans who preceded them as the primary supply of

unskilled and semiskilled labor in urban America. Some suggest that the competition led to their

involvement in urban politics and labor activism. Others suggest that the new immigrants took

on the undesirable unskilled positions which once went to the Irish, freeing them to take better

paying, higher status jobs in the skilled and low white collar stratum. This did happen in the case

of American born sons and daughters of Irish immigrants. For Irish newcomers, little had

335 changed as far as occupational opportunities. Whether it was 1850, 1880 or 1900, fully half of the adult male workforce toiled in nonskilled (unskilled or semiskilled) positions. Their sons made dramatic headway, from one-quarter to nearly one-third white collar between 1880 and

1900. Their daughters may have only worked for a few years before marriage, but their movement into teaching, nursing and clerical work was significant, even profound. [See Table 4-

14.]

On the other hand, property ownership among immigrants was widespread, even reaching down to the nonskilled ranks. By 1870, ownership rates were nearly as high among the Irish as among Native Whites. Property values lagged far behind, but progress is always incremental.

There were exceptions of course. The R. G. Dunn credit reports are full of exceptional cases of

Irish immigrants successful enough to merit a credit review. Notes about credit worthiness are curious by modern standards. Almost every report involving a proprietor with an Irish surname contains comments about his sobriety and/or his membership in a temperance association. (Some note the lack thereof.) Every file examined related to an Irish immigrant mentioned alcohol in one way or another. The file on the various members of the McManus Funeral Parlor (1895–

1998) was so thorough, the author wonders if the investigator attended Holy Cross Temperance and Literary Association meetings and Knights of Columbus meetings with patriarch Thomas just to keep tabs on him.3

3 R.G. Dun & Company Collection, Kings County, 1847-1895, Harvard Business School Archives; McManus & Sons Funeral Directors, “Business Records” and “Miscellaneous Papers”, 1888-1985, BHS Archives; Knights of Columbus Flatbush Council “Insurance Book” and Membership Roll,” 1902-1912.

336

When?

Those who arrived after 1880 appear to be more likely to be young, single and female, as the tide of emigration shifted in that direction. With the possible exception of some Donegal newcomers, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, emigrants were more likely to be literate, as the reach of the National School System was now near universal. Moreover, “Irish

Catholic” was no longer an ethnic, tribal label. The unchurched emigrants of the Famine Era had undergone a remarkable revival movement at home, known as the “Devotional Revolution.”

They consequently expected an active Church in Brooklyn. In return, they participated sacramentally and associationally at an astounding rate. Economically, their generosity was out of scale to their resources. Between 1870 and 1900, over 60 churches were constructed throughout Kings County. No longer did the American Church, in Brooklyn or elsewhere, have to look to Ireland or France for clergy. New York’s Archbishop John McClosky, the first

American cardinal, was Brooklyn-born. Kings County’s second bishop, Charles McDonnell

(1892–1921), was born in Manhattan. Over ninety-five percent of Brooklyn’s priests appointed between 1888 and 1900 were American-born. Most exceptions were sent to work at Polish,

Italian and Lithuanian national churches and a handful of parishes run by religious orders such as

Benedictines or Franciscans.4

Post-1880 immigrants entered a city far more industrialized than the one the Famine generation had known. It was a city more residentially segregated by class than by ethnicity, especially for the Irish and their offspring. Brooklyn was also a city with a mature Irish community, whose successful individuals offered both opportunities and obstacles to

4 Sharp, I, 31, 85, 202, II, 40-63.

337 newcomers. As demonstrated in Chapter Six, the Irish ethnic community had its own hierarchy, and there were some who jealously guarded access to its upper reaches.

Where?

In nineteenth century Brooklyn, “everyone knew” the location and the identity of the

Irish neighborhoods. On the other hand, most people failed to realize just how atypical or at least how transitional life in an “Irish” ward really was for most immigrants and their offspring. In

1855, no single neighborhood (i.e., ward) held more than twelve percent of the Irish population in the city. That is only twice what one would expect if 100% was simply divided by 18, the number of city wards. In 1865, Ward 6 contains fourteen percent of the city’s Irish, just under triple the random expectation since there were now 20 wards. In 1855, eight wards were over one-third Irish-born. By 1865, only four held that many, but another eight contained at least

18%. In 1890, seven wards sported over two-fifths Irish (first and second generation), while another contained over thirty percent. No ward housed more than seven percent of the city’s

Irish. Meanwhile, 25% of the city’s natives lived in just three suburban wards (18, 25 & 22) and

46% of Germans lived in the same three wards they had preferred since before the Brooklyn-

Williamsburg merger (16, 15 &21). Ward 21 was rezoned Williamsburg, part of Brooklyn’s borderland. [See Tables 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8.]

Irish neighborhoods were neither “ghettos” in a traditional sense (i.e. based on governmentally or socially-sanctioned discrimination), nor a self-segregating sense (i.e., as practiced by Brooklyn’s Germans). The Irish seemed to see their neighborhoods as conveniences, or means to an end. If it made more sense for young, unmarried girls to “live out” in the homes of middle and upper class families to save money and increase employment

338 options, then that approach was certainly pursued. If an opportunity to purchase a lot or a business elsewhere in the city presented itself, the fact that one’s family might have to live among non-Catholic neighbors seemed a small price to pay. Squatting in the area which would soon be known as Bedford, only to be displaced once the streetcars lines were extended?

Apparently, free land and relatively easy access to Navy Yard work was worth the

“unsanctioned” and insecure occupation, for the Irish population of the area was 51% in 1855, but only 19% in 1865. Even accounting for adjustments in ward boundaries, this “gentrification” process seems precipitous. [Compare the respective Ward Seven populations in Tables 4-6 and

Table 4-8.]

As the second generation moved up in occupational status, they almost invariably moved out physically from the old waterfront wards. Irishtown’s (Ward Five’s) 1890 population was still 49% “Irish”, including immigrants and their children, but it contained comparatively few

American-born of any ethnicity. At the same time, Crown Heights West (Ward 9) housed a more suburban mix of middle class and tenement-dwellers, 47% of whom had Irish-born mothers.

Similarly, Red Hook (tenement) and Bedford (middle class) had similarly sized “Irish” populations in 1890. The 1900 manuscript sample demonstrates that the 1890 definition of

“Irish”: is misleading. Red Hook’s Irish were much more likely to be Irish-born. When

Brooklyn’s Irish achieved occupational mobility, it was typically accompanied by residential mobility as well. Unlike the city’s Germans, they rarely bought a nicer house on a better block, or even in the same ward. They typically “moved ward.” More recently, the Brooklyn Irish have moved county, in the process ceasing to be the Brooklyn Irish in anything more than a mystical, nostalgic sense. [See Epilogue for more comprehensive discussion.]

339

Moreover, the Irish “ghetto” was hardly the “hellish slum” contemporaries, or even the

American-born Irish who fled the core wards at the first opportunity, would have posterity believe. Closely examined, “Irishtown” seems as diverse socioeconomically as the Five Points neighborhood so well described by Tyler Anbinder. The predominance of Irish-Americans in the area had given the neighborhood both of its popular names: “Irishtown” and “Vinegar Hill”

(after a famous battle during the ill-fated 1798 Rising). Shifting immigration patterns in the late nineteenth century were reflected in the population of the area. The long-established Irish,

English, and African populations were joined first by Germans, then later by Norwegians,

Swedes, Poles, Italians and eastern European Jews. The 1885 city directory lists 6347 names on neighborhood streets. An 1866 map shows just over 1,900 dwellings in the area, primarily small tenements and modest row houses. In 1885, 666 retail outlets, providing 110 different kinds of products and services, lined the streets to the north of Nassau Street east of Fulton Street. The bulk of these, 257 in all, were stores selling food of some kind, such as groceries, bakeries, and fish stores. Next came liquor establishments, mainly saloons, which numbered 110. There were also 42 variety stores, 35 shoe stores, 23 cigar shops, 19 barber shops, ten restaurants and a hotel.

Also common were blacksmiths, horseshoers, liveries, pawnbrokers, toy stores and florists. In addition, 13 doctors, eight of whom were located on Sands Street, and one dentist served the neighborhood. Twenty-two percent of the men who had jobs listed their occupation as laborer.

Most women listed in the directory were widows, 573 in all, but there were also a few school teachers, boarding house proprietors, and grocers. Besides the Navy Yard and the local shops,

140 factories, warehouses, and supply yards provided employment. These included 11 coal yards; seven iron foundries; seven white lead producer; six brass foundries; six chemical plants

(including Squibb, still a major New York metropolitan employer in 2010); five steam pump

340 manufacturers; five machine shops; a spice producer (Durkee, now a subsidiary of “Tone

Brothers, …the largest spice production facility in the world, headquartered in Ankeny, Iowa”); two sugar refineries; two vinegar works; four multi-purpose warehouses; and several additional warehouses specific to coffee, agricultural products, and hominy respectively. The neighborhood also included manufacturers of iron railings, tin plates, linseed oil, paint, wire, and several other products. The Brooklyn Gas light company’s offices were located in the ward, as were the homes of Patrick Keeley, nationally renowned church architect, a Congressman, a state assemblyman and two aldermen. “The Heights” it was not, but neither was “Irishtown” the den of iniquity or the unmitigated hellhole reformers and residents sometimes described to suit their own purposes.5

Why?

Describing the arrival of each immigrant or group of immigrants in Brooklyn has thus far proved elusive. Despite the wonderful collection of emigrant letters generously shared by Kerby

Miller, relatively few were written to, or from, Brooklynites relative to peers in Philadelphia or

Chicago for example. This does not necessarily suggest that the Brooklyn Irish lacked family connections. It just means that we have no way of documenting which emigrants did and which ones did not. Such an investigation might be more profitably pursued for Manhattan, where there are so many more letters to examine. Of course tying such letters to the manuscript census might be daunting, in light of the size of the New York Irish population. On the other hand, with improved technology and the increasing tendency of various archives to put census, genealogical

5 Brooklyn City Directory, 1868; Tyler Anbinder, Five Points: The 19th Century Neighborhood that Invented Tap Dance, Stole Elections, and Became the World’s Most Notorious Slum, New York: 2001, 76-80; New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Vinegar Hill Historic District Designation Report, New York, 1997.

341 and historical newspaper materials online, potential might just become a reality in the not so distant future. Similarly, census materials cannot identify in aggregate precisely why individuals or discrete groups chose to “move country” in 1850, not 1870 or 1880. There are several dozen letters—personal correspondence, letters to newspapers, etc. which help piece this together. We also have the decisions made to join societies, churches, unions, etc. Once again, the internal diversity of the American Irish, of the Brooklyn Irish is wonderfully rich.6

After six chapters devoted to the diversity of the immigrant experience, let us venture a synthesis. As John Bodnar (1985) suggests in The Transplanted, nineteenth century immigrants were caught up in the stresses and opportunities posed by international capitalism. But circumstances in the homeland, the timing of migration and the regional economic and population characteristics of areas of settlement varied considerably. This shaped migrant responses to American conditions and the outcomes of their efforts. And so it was for the Irish in Brooklyn between 1850 and 1900. Ethnicity and assimilation do not operate in a vacuum of social mobility and generational succession. Such processes are not crudely deterministic.

Individuals operate as agents of change. Their choices may be constrained by cultural norms or material limitations, but human beings do not follow laws of behavior like rats in a maze. Strategies for improving conditions tend to be collective, not individualist. Transplanted or hyphenated Americans tended to operate as members of kin groups that pooled resources and provided psycho-social support. Members of ethnic communities often joined in larger religious, nationalist, political, benevolent, labor and other such organizations to express their

6 Miscellaneous Irish emigrants’ letters (1840s-1910s), collected by and in possession of Professor Kerby Miller, University of Missouri, Columbia.

342 identifications and further their interests. The emigration experience differed for each group, and to a certain degree, for each individual, but that does not reduce its collective value.7

Symbols of Ireland and America mixed freely whenever the Brooklyn Irish community gathered together between the antebellum era and the turn of the century. The consecutive numbering of the Brooklyn Volunteer Fire Department’s Columbia and Hibernia Engine

Companies became less significant after the BFD transitioned to paid status in 1869, but

Companies 3 and 4 continued to march together in virtually every parade, even as decommissioned “veterans”. Celtic parade participants sported both the harp of Ireland and the

American republic’s red, white and blue regalia, often entwined. Irish association representatives held aloft the Stars and Stripes just yards away from kinsmen who marched with the green flag of Eire at the head of parades sponsored by the Brooklyn Irish community. Kings County Irish delegations to other locales as near as New York City or as distant as Philadelphia mixed similar

American and Celtic symbols and garb. Invariably, Irish rhetoric on such occasions glorified both nations, alternately lauding both the land and the people of the “republic of liberty” and the

“fair and green isle, the loveliest spot on god’s good earth.” Toasts to Washington, Jefferson,

Paine [and even Lafayette] were invariably followed by salutes to O’Connell, St. Patrick, and other heroes.8

The Brooklyn Irish, then, self-consciously reminded themselves that they were both

American and Irish at every opportunity. However, repeated allusions to the two nations forced a confrontation of sorts. It was impossible to wholly ignore the difficulty of meshing their Irish past to their American present. Sometimes, when tying red, white and blue streamers to a

7 John Bodnar, The Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America, Bloomington: 1985, 3-8. 8 Brooklyn Daily Citizen, 3/18/1881; 3/18/1882; 3/18/1884; 7/5/1884; 3/18/1886; 7/5/1886; 3/18/1888; 3/18/1889; 7/5/1890; 3/18/1891; 3/18/1892; 7/5/1892; 3/18/1893; 3/18/1894; 3/18/188495; 7/5/1896; 3/18/1897; 7/5/1897.

343 flagpole bearing a “golden harp on a green field” or singing the “Star Spangled Banner” in

Gaelic, the attempt to fuse the two heritages became an exercise in symbolic assimilation. Could the American Irish really make “St. Patrick’s Day become the Fourth of July” as the contemporary vaudeville song promised? At other times, Irish symbols suggested a less ambitious goal: to see their lives neatly compartmentalized. Carrying Irish flags next to

American ones at the head of the line on March 17th, or decorating their homes with Irish saints but their workplaces with American heroes was sufficient for many. The 1892 quip attributed to journalist William Corcoran that most American Irish wish to be “Irish on St. Patrick’s Day and

American the rest of the year” has been repeated so often that few know its origin.9

Resolving this dilemma was reasonably simple at the symbolic level, but accommodations crumbled when confronted by everyday life. Being Irish and American in one’s daily life required a complex and unceasing process of individual and group adaptation.

Here the Irish neither moved forward on a single course of assimilation nor uniformly resisted the pressures of their new environment in order to preserve their Irishness. There were those, of course, who acculturated quite readily and those who stubbornly resisted even the most minimal cultural adjustment among Brooklyn’s Irish throughout the era from Famine to Great War. For example, the second generation and the more upwardly mobile Irish in the city clung to Old

World church norms condemning family limitation. American-born Irish couples, and especially those of white-collar status, married later in life but displayed relatively high fertility rates. [See

Tables 5-16, 5-17 and 5-21.]

Other trends evident among Brooklyn’s Irish population by the late nineteenth century suggest assimilation. The rise of a powerful parish-based temperance movement and the

9 Brooklyn Daily Citizen, 3/18/1889; 7/5/1890; 3/18/1892; 7/5/1892; 3/18/1893; 3/18/1895; 7/5/1896; 3/18/1897; 7/5/1897.

344 emergence of a more cosmopolitan, pan-Catholic world view among American-born Catholics both support this premise. Irish temperance crusades expressed sensitivity to native American norms. “Respectability” and “success” were watchwords in their opposition to the excesses of alcohol. However, this temperance movement had Irish as well as American roots (e.g. Father

Matthew Theobald). It was a powerful movement, rather than an offshoot of Yankee anti-saloon agitation. Both lay and clerical leaders expressed strong and specific opposition to Protestant leadership as “not of our own”10 or not “looking towards [Catholic] interests”11 Similarly, although cosmopolitans loudly asserted their American patriotism, they were generally sympathetic to the Irish independence movement. Just as important, these assimilation-minded

Irish-Americans were generally as zealously Catholic as they were patriotically American.

On the other hand, extended length of residence by many Irish-born in “Irish” wards such as Red Hook or Irishtown might be seen as an attempt to maintain Celtic influence and culture.

So, too, could the late age of marriage by the second generation be viewed as a revival of “Auld

Sod” traditions. However, economic considerations were a significant factor in both instances.

As noted earlier, Brooklyn’s “Irish” wards were never the homogeneous “ghettos” of stereotype and myth. Not only did young women “live out” as domestics, but entire families “moved ward” as soon as socioeconomic opportunities allowed, sooner in most cases than German families of similar status. Moreover, the tendency of American-born sons and daughters to remain at home, delaying their marriages, was often a family economic decision. Educational and work opportunities for single Irish-American women were significantly better than they were in

Ireland, so it becomes clear that similar behavior may in fact stem from myriad roots. [See

10 Bishop John Loughlin to Bishop Bayley, 10/13/1854, quoted in Edwin V. Sullivan, “An Annotated Copy of the Diary of Bishop James Roosevelt Bayley, First Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, 1853-1872,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottowa, 1956, 68. 11 Brooklyn Daily Eagle 4/3/1874.

345

Tables 4-6, 4-8 and 4-9.]

To describe the experience of the Brooklyn Irish from 1850–1900 in terms of either assimilation or cultural resistance oversimplifies the complexity of the changes experienced by individuals and by the community as a whole. Changes occurred simultaneously in many aspects of their lives—families, jobs, organizations and identity. These shifts were shaped by diverse influences and produced contradictory results. No neat summary can sufficiently describe assimilation or cultural resistance—for the Brooklyn Irish, for the American Irish, or for immigrants writ large. The transformation of the Brooklyn Irish between 1850 and 1900 is best viewed as a thousand different adjustments made by a half-million individuals who shared many, but not all traits and experiences. “The Brooklyn Irish” is neither an unworkable construction nor an invalid generalization. But neither is “the Corkian Americans” who settled in large numbers in a hundred towns and cities from New York to Butte to San Francisco. Just as conceptually useful are “female Irish-Americans, “post-Devotional Revolution emigrants,” etc.

Temperance and moderation must be applied to historical judgment as well as to alcohol consumption.

Although the Brooklyn Irish’s adjustments are impossible to categorize simply, four key conditions or influences seemed to be critical in shaping most of them. The first of these influences was the Catholic Church. Among the legacies that the Brooklyn Irish inherited from their ancestral homeland, the Church and the norms it promoted were the most enduring. Even those Irish who expressed alternate visions such as socialists, labor activists and dynamite revolutionaries were pressed by the weight of public opinion to directly confront or cleverly circumvent church views. Throughout the half-century under study, Mother Church served as a principal guide for Brooklyn’s Irish as they struggled to adjust to their new home. At times,

346 clerics urged the Irish to resist change; family limitation was vehemently condemned, as were all such “radical” ideas. At other times, the church endorsed change; temperance was promoted, as long as it was temperance “of, by and for” the interests of its Catholic flock. Just as important as the church in determining individual and group adjustments by the Brooklyn Irish were the conditions of their new environment. Perhaps the most significant was the generally low economic status of the Irish within Brooklyn’s emerging industrial economy.

Members of Brooklyn’s Irish were immigrants or the children of immigrants attempting to understand and negotiate their new lives in an urban environment different from the one their ancestors had known. In addition, they were a largely working-class people, struggling to survive in what was often an unstable industrial system. Many of the adjustments they made, whether choosing when to marry or where to live, reflected their own cold calculations of economic necessity.

Third, the Irish were the largest, but hardly the most successful ethnic group in a city which housed an increasingly diverse population as the nineteenth century waned. The attitudes and relative economic power of their native-born and German-stock neighbors often impacted their behavior. The hostility of native-stock Protestants may have seemed mild by comparison with that faced by the Boston or Philadelphia Irish, but the Celt was hardly welcomed to “the

City of Churches” with open arms. Nativism’s effect on Irish occupational mobility, organizational life and self-concept was profound.

Irish background was the fourth, and last, significant factor shaping acculturation and success in the new environment. Emigrants from more modern, more commercialized counties were more likely to adjust quickly to industrializing Brooklyn. This was reflected in both occupational success and organizational involvement of all sorts.

347

There were other influences which affected Irish adjustment during the last half of the nineteenth century. These influences were as diverse as the rise and fall of a series of Irish nationalist movements back home, the expansion of Brooklyn’s transportation system, and the development of the nation’s first truly “Irish” political machine under “Boss” Hugh McLaughlin, the American-born son of Irish immigrants. However, the relative impacts of Church guidance, low socioeconomic status (especially among the Irish-born), the hostile attitudes among native- and foreign-born neighbors, and pre-emigration background was evident in many Irish accommodations to life in the “City of Homes.”

To what extent were these adjustments unique to the Brooklyn Irish, and in what ways were they part of the common experience of Irishmen all over the United States? It seems likely that the lot of Irishmen in other regions would be different, if only because most settled in towns and cities smaller than Brooklyn, the third-largest municipality in American from 1880 until its merger with New York. Certainly, many worked in different industries, or lived in “less foreign” or “less Irish” cities. Many historians of the American Irish have pointed out that the Irish living in northeastern cities like Boston tackled very different environments from countrymen who settled in midwestern or western cities. If the economies of western cities were more dynamic and their social structures more fluid as some have suggested, then the Detroit Irish, the

Milwaukee Irish and the San Francisco Irish would naturally have enjoyed greater social and economic opportunities than the Irish back east. Perhaps Irish immigrants would be spared the most severe anti-Irish and anti-Catholic nativism so common in the Northeast from Philadelphia to Boston.12 On the other hand, much of the study of the Brooklyn Irish can be painted with the

12 Oscar Handlin, Boston’s Immigrants, 1790-1880, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941, 124-150, 178-206; John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925, New

348 same broad brushstrokes as the tales of the Irish in other American cities, whether in the West or

New England.

Several trends seem to distinguish the Brooklyn Irish. Certainly, their desire for security manifested itself in a strong desire for property ownership, but it was the relative success in obtaining small shops or houses that distinguished the Brooklyn Irish from all but their

Philadelphia brethren. The relative socioeconomic progress of the Irish-born from 1850–1900 lagged behind that of the American Irish in several other cities. Yet American born sons, and significantly, daughters as well, moved up more quickly than elsewhere. Thus, the gap between the climb of first- and second-generation Irish seems particularly extreme on the East River’s eastern shore. This may have been due to the availability of relatively inexpensive land—at least for those with access to several years of family savings. The relative strength of both public and parochial schools was also helpful for those immigrant families willing and able to keep their

American-born children in school. The increasing bureaucratization of the maturing industrial economy of Gilded Age Brooklyn and New York seems to have rewarded such a strategy.

Despite Brooklyn’s failure to provide a truly independent normal school, salaries were high enough to attract graduates of the upstate normal schools established by the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. [See Tables 4-14, 4-19 and 4-20.]

Later in the nineteenth century, changes in cultural behavior appeared among Irishmen throughout the nation. Historians, contemporaries and federal census records all demonstrate four social and economic trends. First, there was a sharp increase in the marriage age. Second, the 1870–1900 period saw a steady increase in marital fertility. Both were evident in Brooklyn by 1880. Third, Irish occupational achievement continued to lag behind both native whites and

Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955, 3-105; Michael Feldberg, The Philadelphia Riots of 1844: a Study of Ethnic Conflict, Westport, Ct.: Greenport Press, 1975.

349

Germans. In Brooklyn, this was particularly true for the Irish-born, less clear for their American- born sons and even unmarried daughters. The increasingly rigorous distinctions made between proper roles for married and unmarried women can be seen in the higher education and employment levels of unmarried daughters relative to married women, especially among the second generation. Similarly, the newfound yearning for respectability said to be characteristic of the American-born Irish is found in their temperance society memberships and in the editorials of the Irish World and Irish-American.

The transition from early to late marriages between the first and second generation occurred among Irishmen in several cities throughout the United States and even Canada.

Patricia Kelleher found disparities between the marriage ages of first- and second-generation

Irish in late nineteenth century Chicago. Michael Katz found the same in mid-late century

Hamilton, Ontario. Albert Mitchell’s study of the Irish in Lowell and Mary Jo Mattis’ analysis of Irish families in Buffalo support the same conclusion. Mitchell’s conclusion that many, if not most, Irish immigrants boarded out before marriage while the second generation lived with their parents until they wed is particularly interesting. He suggests that Irish immigrant parents resisted letting their American-born children leave home and marry early because the parents hoped to retain the economic contributions of their wage-earning children for as long as possible.

Just as important in light of “snug farmer” behavior in Ireland, Irish-born parents may have hoped to exercise a greater degree of influence over their children, protecting them from an early or “bad” match. Meagher and Kelleher find similar phenomena in New England (Worcester) and Midwestern (Chicago) samples. Mitchell’s emphasis on the effects different household situations common to each generation had on average marriage age seems to apply to the

Brooklyn sample as well. Economic pressures and goals were at least as important as cultural

350 baggage in determining behavior. This conclusion seems even more likely when federal census data on the marriage ages of other ethnic groups is considered. Overall, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, American-born children of foreign-born parents tended to marry later than immigrants. However, marriage delay among second-generation Irish, as evidenced by Brooklyn data from 1880, was particularly profound.13

After marriage, second-generation Irish couples produced more children than native-born

Brooklynites in 1880. Similarly, Immigration Commission Reports using data from the 1900 census manuscript found that first- and second-generation wives in New York bore more children than their native-stock counterparts. Research by John Modell, Tamara Hareven, Maris

Vinoskis, Patricia Kelleher and Daniel Walkowitz also demonstrate that Irish-American fertility rates and family sizes generally exceeded those of native-stock Americans in multiple cities from

1880 to 1920. There is disagreement over the relative fertility rates of first- and second- generation Irish women. Modell and Kelleher dispute the contemporary notion that ethnic and religious norms were the key determinant of high Irish fertility. Modell attributes high fertility in the late nineteenth century to the dependence of Irish families on the earnings of several children.

As the Irish moved up the economic ladder, he argues, fertility declined. This is true to an extent in Brooklyn. However, the desire—and opportunity—for land ownership among Brooklyn’s

Irish may have promoted economic strategies unique to the Kings County environs. As Chapter

5 indicates, Brooklyn’s Irish-born seemed well-aware of the benefits of working children, but

13 Patricia Kelleher, “Gender Shapes Ethnicity: Ireland's Gender Systems and Chicago's Irish-Americans,” Ph.D. Diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1995, 363-379; Michael Katz, The People of Hamilton West: Family and Class in a Mid-Nineteenth Century City, Cambridge, MA: 1975, 279-290; Albert Mitchell, “Irish Family Patterns in Nineteenth Century Ireland and Lowell, Massachusetts,” Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1976, 293; Mary Jo Mattis, “The Irish family in Buffalo, New York, 1855-1875: A Socio Historical Analysis,” Ph.D. Diss., Washington University, 1975, 52-56; Timothy Meagher, “Lord is Not Dead,” 614-15.

351 they also seemed to consider questions of family limitation in moral terms as well. The persistence of these attitudes seemed to produce high fertility rates among the second generation, even the upwardly mobile.14

Irish occupational mobility in the second half of the nineteenth century has received an enormous amount of attention from historians. However, historians have disagreed sharply on both the amount of occupational progress made by the Irish in the middle-to-late nineteenth century, and the conditions and influences which were most responsible for the pace of that progress.

The Irish-born in Brooklyn made slow progress up the occupational ladder, but it is unclear whether this poor performance was typical of the Irish throughout the United States or among those in the Northeast. Moreover, historians are not even certain of their definition of

“Northeast” in relation to Irish immigration. Should New England, where progress was particularly halting, be treated differently from New York, Brooklyn and Philadelphia? And what are we to make of the relatively strong progress of Brooklyn’s American-born Irish by

1880, and especially by 1900? Stephan Thernstrom’s studies of social mobility in Boston and

Newburyport offer strong evidence of Irish occupational stagnation in those cities relative to non-Catholic groups. Thernstrom argued that Irishmen advanced very slowly in most other parts

14 Patricia Kelleher, 379-386; John Modell, "Patterns of Consumption, Acculturation and Family Income Strategy in Late Nineteenth Century America" in Tamara Hareven and Maris Vinoskis (eds.), Family and Population in Nineteenth Century America, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1978, 212-214; Tamara Hareven and Maris Vinoskis, “Marital Fertility and Occupation in Urban Families: An Analysis of South Boston and the South End in 1880,” Journal of Urban History, Vol. I, No. 3, 1975, 293-343; Daniel Walkowitz, "Working Class Women in the Gilded Age: Factory, Community and Family Life Among Cohoes, New York Cotton Workers," Journal of Social History, Vol. 5, No. 4, 478.

352 of the country as well.15

The host of community studies produced between 1973 and 2012 qualify this generalization, but do not challenge Dennis Clark’s basic premise that “the Irish Countryman” struggled to adapt to his new urban environment. Moreover, some of the “new synthesis” generalizations can be just as misleading if left unqualified. Certainly, Irish occupational achievement in Boston or Worcester is not representative of the achievements of Irishmen throughout the country. Numerous historians have argued that the Western and Midwestern Irish were much more successful in finding well-paying, high-status jobs than those Irish who remained in New England or New York.16

If these historians are correct, the relatively slow advancement of the Irish in established cities was typical in New England, if not the entire Northeast, but not of Irishmen everywhere in

America. But can a simple “west is best” thesis ever tell enough of this evolving tale? What of the striking disparities between opportunities for Irish women in two “western” cities, Chicago

(91% nonskilled) and San Francisco (75% nonskilled)? [See Table 4-13.]

A more important question in this debate over occupational mobility is why so many

Irishmen found it difficult to climb from the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. And why were Irish immigrants’ struggles so much greater relative to the American-born in Brooklyn?

Historians who contend that Irishmen in the West were more successful point to a lack of opportunities in the Northeast. Trapped in economies which were growing slowly compared to

15 Stephan Thernstrom, Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City, Cambridge, MA, 1964; The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, Cambridge, MA, 1973. 16 See Clark, The Irish in Philadelphia; Vinyard, The Irish on the Urban Frontier; Blessing, “The West among Strangers”; Kathleen Neils Conzen, Immigrant Milwaukee: Accomodation and community in a Frontier City, 1836-1860. Cambridge, MA: 1976; Burchell, The San Francisco Irish; Kelleher, “Gender Shapes Ethnicity…”; Walsh, “Across the Big ‘Wather’…”; among others.

353 those in the West, and discriminated against by established elites which simply did not exist in the newer Western cities, the Irish of the Yankee-dominated Northeast were dealt a poor hand from the outset. [See Tables 3-2, 4-13 and 4-30.]

In some ways, Brooklyn did not fit the Northeast model described above. From 1850–

1900, its economy expanded at a rate matched by only a few smaller, western cities. Its natural spatial limits were not reached until 1897, just months before consolidation. Nativism was certainly a concern, but Brooklyn never experienced seminary- and church-burnings, as in New

York, or large-scale rioting as in Philadelphia’s Kensington section in 1844. Yet the presumably greater opportunities available in Brooklyn seemed to manifest themselves in greater success predominantly for the American-born. To a certain degree, the poverty of skills that the

Brooklyn Irish brought from Longford, Cork, Donegal, etc. restricted their occupational mobility, just as Clyde and Sally Griffin pointed out among the Poughkeepsie Irish.17 The history of social mobility in Brooklyn suggests that it was never solely environment nor solely

Irish heritage that left so many Irish-born toiling among Brooklyn’s nonskilled labor force as late as 1900, while their American-born sons, and even daughters, advanced. Non-advancement was due to combination of these factors, but also to a conscious decision to devote resources to the prospects—and in many cases the education—of their children. Was Betty Smith’s Jonny Nolan so very atypical in this regard?18

To contemporaries and to historians, no characteristic distinguished the late nineteenth century Irish more from their famine-era forebears than their seemingly unquenchable thirst for respectability. Turn-of-the-century satirists from Edward Harrigan to Finley Peter Dunne lampooned the pretentions of these “lace curtain Irish.” Historians from William Shannon to

17 Clyde & Sally Griffin, Natives and Newcomers. 18 A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, New York: 1943, 168-176.

354

Thomas Brown to Kevin Kenny have identified concerns for their image as a central theme in post-1880 Irish life. The concerted campaign against the “stage Irishman” began earlier than did protest against “Jim Crow.” The power and persistence of national and parish-based temperance societies demonstrated a desire among white-collar types and by the American-born to assimilate on their own, parallel terms.19

The Irish in Brooklyn may at first appear to have been less spatially segregated than

Irishmen elsewhere in America. However, these differences may be less meaningful than they at first appear. Most Irishmen settled in America before the development of the modern socioeconomically segregated city. As Sam Bass Warner points out, the Irish were typically dispersed throughout the various neighborhoods of most American cities soon after arrival— much more so than later groups would be. Brooklyn’s segregation index for the Irish-born in

1870 was 19.6. The segregation index for the Boston Irish in 1855 was 15; Philadelphia’s Irish scored 20 according to 1860 census data. Segregation indices were higher in Milwaukee and

Worcester: 35 (1850) and 44 (1880), respectively. However, lower segregation scores were certainly more common. The Milwaukee and Worcester figures were computed from enumeration district statistics, while the cities reporting lower segregation indices used ward level data. Perhaps the finer calculations produced higher measures of clustering.20

Simply because “Irishtown” never actually held a true majority (>50%) of Irish-born residents, and just because the Brooklyn Irish quickly distanced themselves from their old “core wards,” does not imply that they had become fully assimilated: fully integrated into the social

19 Charles Fanning, Finley Peter Dunne and Mr. Dooley: The Chicago Years. Lexington, Ky.: 1978, 87- 89, 292-299, 313-314; William Shannon, The American Irish, 86-95, 141-150; Thomas Brown, Irish- American Nationalism New York: Lippincot, 1966, 24; Kevin Kenny, The American Irish, London: 2000, 172-173, 246-260. 20 Sam Bass Warner, Jr., and Colin Burke, "Cultural Change and the Ghetto," Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 40, No. 4, 1969, 178, 181-183; Conzen, 127, 131, 148-153; Meagher, 624-626.

355 world of the “Old Brooklynites.” The Brooklyn Irish maintained their own subsocieties, even expanding their own institutional networks—both religious and secular—throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In fact, the growth of Irish Catholic institutions in

Kings County towards the turn of the century can be seen as part and parcel of a more general organizational development of Catholicism during these years. As John Tracy Ellis, John Cagley and Aaron Abell have pointed out, Catholic schools, churches and charitable institutions mushroomed throughout America between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the

Great War. Moreover, most of the largest national Catholic fraternities—and several important secular ones—were either founded after 1870 or experienced their most profound growth during this very period. It is also worth pointing out that of the ninety-six churches offering sacraments to Kings County Catholics in 1900, sixty-one were consecrated after January 1, 1870.21

In this regard, Brooklyn was more or less typical. Temperance society development lagged behind Baltimore. Nationalist fervor could not compete with New York City, where county societies far outstripped and eventually absorbed their cross-river rivals. And every

American city looked in awe at Philadelphia’s Irish Catholic fraternal and institutional development. Brooklyn could perhaps lay claim to co-leadership in preservation of the Irish language among immigrants and promotion of the native tongue among their educated offspring.

Perhaps most important, however, Irish Catholics in Brooklyn trailed only New York City,

Baltimore and Philadelphia in the building of parish schools among the nineteen largest dioceses in the nation. In fact, primary education in “the City of Homes” was quite Irish and quite good.

William Maxwell’s overcrowded but innovative Brooklyn Public School system, led by an Irish

21 John Cogley, Catholic America, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1974, 66-94; John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969, 104-105; Aaron Abell, American Catholicism and Social Action, 1865-1950, Garden city, NY: Hanover House, 1960, 27-53.

356

Protestant and disproportionately staffed by American-born Irish Catholic daughters, added a

Celtic flavor unknown anywhere but Chicago. The early and strong presence of several Irish and

French teaching orders of nuns allowed Bishops Loughlin and McDonnell to maintain parochial school staffing at a level and quality unsustainable in New England.22

Irish community, and the changing ways in which the Irish conceptualized their own individual and group identities, were rooted in their own ethnic heritage and historical circumstances. Yet, they were by no means popular among Irishmen only in New York. Eric Foner has shown that many Irish nationalists throughout the United States, like many of Brooklyn’s ethnic exclusivists, sympathized with economic radicalism. The broader cosmopolitan view was also popular throughout the United States. The growing power and prestige of the Knights of Columbus throughout the country, the emergence of federations of Catholic societies linking cities, and the rise of a nation-wide Catholic anti-socialist crusade suggest that some elements of Brooklyn’s turn-of-the-century version of cosmopolitan Catholicism existed elsewhere.23

22 Sharp, I, 24-25, 32-33, 46, 75-76, 90-91, 130-130, 139-141, 155, 161-162, 181-182, II 20-22, 30, 40- 41, 59-60; Samuel Abelow, Dr. William H. Maxwell: The First Superintendent of Schools of the City of New York, Brooklyn: 1934, 28-51. 23 See Meagher’s discussion of Worcester, 1880-1920, Burchell’s study of San Francisco, 1850-1880, and McAvoy’s more general comments about the United States in the late 1890s.; Thomas T. McAvoy,The Americanist Heresy in Roman Catholicism: 1895-1900, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963, 83, 227-258.

357

The acculturation of the Brooklyn Irish by the turn-of-the-century and that experienced by other American Irish was similar in some ways. However, these particular Irishmen were never entirely typical of Irishmen throughout the United States. Irish men and women must have adapted differently to Chicago or San Francisco because the conditions they faced differed, and the Irish who chose those cities differed in degree, if not kind, from those who settled in

Brooklyn. Yet the Brooklyn Irish (or even the Flatbush Irish or the Red Hook Irish) had much in common with the Irish in other cities, even those two hundred miles to the north or two thousand miles to the west. As might well be expected, all discussions of Brooklyn must almost inevitably find their way to the City’s own ex officio poet laureate, Walt Whitman:

Old Ireland Far hence amid an isle of wondrous beauty, Crouching over a grave an ancient sorrowful mother, Once a queen, now lean and tatter’d seated on the ground, Her old white hair drooping dishevel’d round her shoulders, At her feet fallen an unused royal harp, Long silent, she too long silent, mourning her shrouded hope and heir, Of all the earth her heart most full of sorrow because most full of love. Yet a word ancient mother, You need crouch there no longer on the cold ground with forehead between your knees, O you need not sit there veil’d in your old white hair so dishevel’d, For know you the one you mourn is not in that grave, It was an illusion, the son you love was not really dead, The Lord is not dead, he is risen again young and strong in another country, Even while you wept there by your fallen harp by the grave, What you wept for was translated, pass’d from the grave, The winds favor’d and the sea sail’d it, And now with rosy and new blood, Moves to-day in a new country. Leaves of Grass, p. 292

358

Epilogue

The Post-Brooklyn Irish: Ethnicity & Identity beyond the Geographic Boundaries of Kings County, 1919–

“Well that was a grand day for the Bronx Irish! And the Brooklyn Irish too!”

These statements seemed a curious way for the DiNorcia clan to discuss their Nassau

County-born daughter Kerry’s impressive double victories in the 2006 and 2007 United States’ oireachtasai, accomplishments which earned her consecutive trips to compete in Ireland’s national feis while in ninth and tenth grades at MacArthur High School in Levittown. (Miss

DiNorcia placed in the Irish Nationals as a sophomore.) Certainly, successive international- caliber step dancing victories by a young lady with an Italian surname is fascinating in its own right, as is the remarkable 35 year dominance of a Nassau County school of Irish dance—the

Schade Irish Dance Academy of East Rockaway and Levittown. However, what is most instructive in this tale is the expression by both DiNorcia parents that the magical triumph of a young lady who had never lived in either Brooklyn or the Bronx had somehow upheld the honor and boosted the fortunes of all the Hibernians who had once lived there, who lived there still in spirit.1

But what of the Irish in the future, and more specifically, of the Brooklyn Irish of the middle and later decades of the twentieth century? Did they, too, have something in common with their forefathers, the turn-of-the-century Brooklyn Irish? The Irish in Kings County after

1920, just as before, continued to adjust to changing conditions but the legacy of the adaptations made in the turn-of-the-century era endured for years to come. Indeed, certain patterns of cultural

1 Kerry DiNorcia is a friend of the family. The oireachtasai story was recounted at a parental gathering, 6/2006; Mary Lon Schade, personal interview, 7/22/2012.

359 and social behavior and certain conceptions of identity forged in the Gilded Age became fixed as features of Irish life in Brooklyn for the ensuing half century. The continuity, in fact, was so striking that it suggests that the era may have been a crucial transition period for the Brooklyn

Irish in their transformation from an immigrant people to an American ethnic group. Not until the end of World War II or perhaps even until the 1960’s did the Irish people of Brooklyn, and perhaps other cities, begin to alter the patterns set at the turn of the century and readjust critical aspects of their everyday lives.

After WWI, as before, Irishmen in Brooklyn and elsewhere continued to marry later, yet bear more children then native-stock Americans or members of other ethnic groups. Brooklyn

College educational psychology professor Robert Smith, himself the grandson of Cork and

Donegal emigrants, grew up in Holy Cross parish between the Stock Market Crash and

Hiroshima. He recalled how Irish parents in his parish urged both sons and daughters “to delay marriages as long as practicable,” until a “good match” was found. According to Smith, this involved not only economic, but also moral suitability. His findings are consistent with the work of sociologist Ellen Biddle, an Irish-American who grew up in a similar Worcester,

Massachusetts neighborhood. As late as 1970, national survey data indicated that Irishmen of the third and even fourth generation tended to marry later than comparable members of most other ethnic groups2

National survey data also have demonstrated that Catholics, particularly Irish Catholics bore more children up until the 1970 census. Just as important, sociologist and priest Andrew

2 Robert Smith, personal interview 11/4/1981; R. Brooklyn College EDU 8041 lecture notes Fall, 1980; R. Smith, C.C.D. (religious education/Confirmation-7th Grade) lesson plans c. 1974-1979; Ellen Horgan Biddle, "The American Catholic Irish Family," In Charles Mindel and Robert W. Habenstein ed., Ethnic Families in America New York: Elsevier Press, 1976), p. 107; Andrew Greeley, The Irish-Americans: The Rise to Money and Power (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p. 124).

360

Greeley noted that Irish Catholics expected to have more children than other White Americans.

Robert Smith, who like many Irish moved from Holy Cross to St. Vincent Ferrer Parish after marriage, sang in the choir with the author. Dr. Smith recalls that Catholic norms prohibiting contraception and abortion were made explicitly clear to members of his Brooklyn parish in the

1930’s and 1940’s. The author can attest to the fact that all parishioners—Catholic school students, public school students who attended weekly religious education classes each

Wednesday, or adults who were regulars at Mass—were reminded frequently of sacramental obligations and moral prohibitions through August, 1978.3

The manuscript census cannot measure Irish occupational achievement in Brooklyn after

1920 in the same way it did before the turn of the century, but national surveys and oral history interviews suggest that that the Irish continued to make slow but steady progress up the occupational ladder. National data from the 1950’s indicated that most Irish-American Catholics seemed clustered in low white collar positions. Smith recalls that his father and most of the other men in Holy Cross parish seemed to work at skilled blue collar or low white collar jobs between the wars. Daniel Marshall, a decade older than Smith, described a similar pattern among the parents in St. Teresa of Avila parish in the Old Ninth Ward (Bedford), where he had grown up before marrying and buying a brick semi-attached house on East 40th Street in “St. Vinny’s” parish. Dan, the choir’s distinguished silver-haired baritone, commuted to his institutional sales position with a Joralamon Street insurance firm. He always felt that the men’s choices of occupation involved a combination of choice and opportunities available within the Brooklyn economy. “My generation had more opportunities to finish high school than our parents did. My boys had opportunities to go to college or to enter trades that Irish boys never dreamed of when I

3 Robert Smith, personal interview 11/4/1981; Andrew Greeley, The Irish-Americans: The Rise to Money and Power (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p. 124-125.

361 was young or when my father was a boy.” Without using the term, both Smith and Marshall suggested that Irishmen of both their fathers’ and their own generations were somewhat risk- adverse. Regular hours and steady pay may have best suited a people buffeted by famine and nativism. Dan’s wife Ann offered additional perspective. Ann Marshall, whose parents were both

Irish-born, reported greater opportunities for the American-born “even now [1981]” because it is so very difficult for immigrant boys to make the necessary adjustments, to understand all the ins and outs. The idea that new boys work harder than Americans is just old-timers complaining, talking about the old days as if they really remember… The Americans go to college and work in offices. The Irish boys work outdoors so their sons can have it better. It’s been that way forever.

And that’s alright. …[F]or the girls, well you don’t know. Are they working til they want to marry? Marrying involves the head as well as the heart so the Irish girls and the American girls may not be so different. The match is a funny thing.”4

Notions of appropriate women’s roles also appear to have remained unchanged after

1919. According to Ellen Biddle, the dichotomy between married and unmarried women continued. Single women worked, and were encouraged to work. However, married women did not. Social expectations that a woman would leave work almost immediately after marriage were so clear that “going away” parties were planned by coworkers as a matter of course, as if the engagement announcement also served as formal resignation notice as well. Regina Sullivan

Fusco (ne: Weireter and the author’s mother) recalls that this habit led to a rather embarrassing incident in 1948 when she shocked coworkers at her own surprise party, by announcing that she

4 Glenn D. Norvall and Ruth Hyland, "Religious Preference and Worldly Success: Some Evidence from National Surveys," American Sociological Review, Vol. 22 (1),Feb., 1967, p. 75; Beverly and Otis Duncan, "Minorities and the Process of Stratification,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 23 (3) June, 1968, p. 361; Bernard Rosen, “Race, Ethnicity and the Achievement Syndrome,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 24 (1), Feb. 1959, p. 60; R. Smith, personal interview 11/8/1981; D. Marshall, personal interview 11/15/1981; A. Marshall, personal interview 11/15/1981.

362 had never seriously considered leaving. “None of the girls would eat cake with me.” With her ex- medic husband Arthur embarking on a new career in nursing, Regina had no intention of resigning her “interesting, well-compensated position” as a ship-to-shore telephone operator

“until Art was promoted to nursing supervisor or at least head nurse…or until I had a baby at home to take care of.” Sullivan [Fusco] was quick to point out that she earned “more than a New

York City teacher even without a college degree.” Besides, there was skill and significant prestige involved in being the alpha female among the operators at Ma Bell’s Downtown

Brooklyn office: “I connected calls for President Roosevelt—twice!” To underscore how unusual

Sullivan’s tale was, Biddle recalls that in Massachusetts, even during the Second World War many wives in her home parish did not enter the work force, choosing to help the war effort through volunteer activities.5

The occupational achievements of single Irish women in the 1920 to 1950 period are difficult to measure in the absence of census-based statistical data. Biddle suggests that parents in the Massachusetts Irish community showed more interest in the careers of their sons and provided them with greater financial support for higher education. However, the number of all women’s Catholic colleges in the Borough of Brooklyn and the continued gains of unmarried

American-born daughters of Irish stock in “nurturing” professions such as nursing and teaching suggest this was not the case in Kings County. In 1950, every Kings County Catholic hospital was staffed with nuns of obvious Irish surnames. Non-Catholic hospitals (even Lutheran and

Methodist Hospitals) employed dozens of single Irish Catholics—“Miss Brady”, “Miss Lynch”,

“Miss O’Reilly”, etc.—as did seemingly every New York City public elementary school.

Catholic elementary schools were, of course, staffed by nuns. Significantly, very few elementary

5 Biddle, "The American Irish Catholic Family," p. 116; Regina Sullivan [Fusco], personal interview 11/14/1981.

363 school principals were of Irish stock. Since a decade or more of experience would be required to rise to such a position of authority, Irish girls who invariably sought marriage and motherhood would generally be passed over or choose not to apply for promotion. The Irish Catholic community did aspire to withdraw its wives from the workforce after marriage, but the value placed on education and “an honest day’s work” had not dissipated as the community matured.

The contribution of young women to their families and to their own dowries remained intact.6

The distinction made between married and unmarried women appears still to have remained important in social lives of Irish women in Brooklyn as well. The emphasis on the wife’s role as homemaker and mother continued to be a powerful norm among the Irish through the 1950’s. James Keanneally points to the Roman Catholic Church for its failure to adjust its teachings to the dramatic changes in the role of women brought about by the Nineteenth

Amendment and subsequent social and economic transformations of the pre- and postwar eras.7

The attitudes of the Brooklyn Irish towards the theater, drinking and holiday celebrations are more complex. Brooklyn’s Irish Catholics applauded the favorable stereotypes produced by

Hollywood in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. In 1945 and again in 1950, the Bing Crosby films

Going My Way and The Bells of St. Mary’s were praised by The Tablet in nearly identical terms:

“…a fine Catholic picture.” (1945) and “…as fine a Catholic film…” (1950). Although “hokey” and “clichéd even by the standards of the day” according to modern reviewers, the Fighting 69th touched a nerve among Brooklyn Irishmen. Jimmy Cagney’s Jerry Plunkett was a wannabe

Brooklyn tough guy who failed miserably, then upon earning a second chance he certainly did

6 The Tablet 1/7/1951; The Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1/8/1951; 4/2/1951; Biddle, 107-08; Paul Kennedy, Jr., personal interview 11/1/1981; Paul Kennedy, Sr., personal interview 11/1/1981, 7/14/1991 & 7/15/1991; R. Smith, personal interview 11/8/1981; A. Marshall, personal interview 11/15/1981. 7 James Kenneally, “Eve, Mary and the Historians: American Catholicism and Women.” Horizons 3(2) 1976, 187-202; R. Smith, personal interview 11/8/1981; A. Marshall, personal interview 11/15/1981).

364 not deserve, saved the day. Mix in more or less true to life characters—patient, saintly Father

Duffy, Medal of Honor Winner “Wild” Bill Donavan and a poet-soldier-martyr Joyce Kilmer— and Brooklyn’s theaters could have run 24 hour sessions. The best quote in the film comes when

Major Donavan tells this to Father Duffy to underscore the priest’s powers of persuasion: “Well, it’s a fortunate thing you’re not a crook! You could sell the Brooklyn Bridge to the police department!” In fact, Joseph Curran argues in Hibernian Green on the Silver Screen that the

1930–1960 period—Hollywood’s heyday when American motion pictures attained technical maturity and enjoyed their greatest popular influence—may have been a high point for the

American Irish in regards to cultural identification with the mainstream media. During this period the Irish (in Brooklyn and beyond) made their biggest gains both in the movies and the nation. Screen personae such as the Irish priest, the antihero, and the Irish All-American entered popular culture. James Cagney, Spencer Tracy, John Ford, Gene Kelly, and Grace Kelly are just a few of the Irish-American movie heroes who rose to prominence. Irish success in the movies facilitated and mirrored their steady (albeit less mercurial) rise in America and helped to transform them from outsiders to a no-longer readily distinguishable ethnic minority. At the same time, however, the Church’s Legion of Decency crusaded against films it considered

“likely to undermine the moral character…of our youth.” The Legion published weekly ratings of films in local papers across the country from the mid-forties through sixties, including

Brooklyn’s diocesan organ, The Tablet.8

It is generally true that Brooklyn’s Irish continued to move out of the old core neighborhoods well after the close of World War I. Increased socioeconomic prospects,

8 imdb.com; turnerclassicfilms.com; The Tablet 1/28/1940; Joseph Curran, Hibernian Green on the Silver Screen: The Irish and American Movies, New York 1989, 52-108; The Tablet sample, 1/1/1943- 3/31/1943; 1/1/1946-3/31/1946; 1/1/1949-3/31/1949; 1/1/1952-3/31/1952; 1/1/1955-3/31/1955; 1/1/1958- 3/31/1958; 1/1/1958-3/31/1958; 1/1/1961-3/31/1961.

365 particularly for the American-born brought opportunities to live almost anywhere in the borough.

However, as the status of more and more members of the Kings County Irish community “made it”, a degree of reclustering took place, around parishes founded after the war. The migration tended to lead the new emigrants in a more or less southeastern direction. The independent town of Flatbush had long housed a considerable Irish population, centered around Holy Cross parish on Church Avenue (formerly East Broadway). By the 1960’s the considerably larger Celtic population of Brooklyn’s Flatbush neighborhood had shifted to two parishes further south: Little

Flower (St. Theresa de Lisieux) and St. Vincent Ferrer, located on Ave. D &Troy Ave. and

Glenwood Rd. and E. 37th St. respectively, both south and east of Holy Cross. By the 1980’s, movement continued along the same southeasterly axis as St. Columba’s (Batchelder St. & Ave.

S) and Resurrection (Gerritsen Ave.) drew away Irish from central Brooklyn. Both parishes are located within the historic boundaries of the town of Flatlands. Between 1970 and 2000, a rapid population shift has seen the departure of a significant proportion of the Irish community from

Kings County to nearby suburbs. The lion’s share headed to New York’s Nassau, Suffolk and

Westchester counties, but others crossed the Hudson to various parts of New Jersey, or ventured north to Connecticut.9

This dispersal of the Irish to the southernmost reaches of the borough, and eventually beyond its geographic limits was well underway by the late 1920’s, and continued throughout the era between the wars. However, it is wise to recall that as early as 1865, the Irish had been the most widely dispersed ethnic group in the city. It should come as no surprise that nearly a century later (1960) fifteen churches and their affiliated elementary schools located in once-Irish neighborhoods had merged or closed outright. Just as telling, two well-regarded boys academies,

9 U.S. Census, Population Reports, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; Ridge, Flatbush Irish, 14-16.

366

Brooklyn Prep (Jesuits) in Crown Heights and St. John’s (Vincentians) in Bedford-Stuyvesant abandoned their Brooklyn campuses in 1972 as their largely Irish clientele moved away.

Brooklyn Prep shut down; St. John’s moved to Astoria, nearer to the university and the growing

Celtic population of Queens and Nassau counties. At the same time, the Church continued to grow. New parishes were founded to meet the sacramental needs of population growth in

“suburban” areas of Kings County. Nineteen of the twenty churches dedicated in Kings Between

1921 (St. Ephram) and 1967 (St. Columba) were located outside the 1890 boundaries of

Brooklyn City. However, the real growth during this era was just a few miles to the east. Another twenty-two parishes were founded in Queens during an eight year period. This nearly doubled the number of churches the Brooklyn diocese administered in that borough.10

The steady stream of Irish immigrants to the City of Churches continued up to World

War I. The Great War, and the revolutionary agitation which followed at home in Eire, dramatically reduced the pool of potential emigrants. Old patterns were slow to recover.

“Modern” Irish immigration to Brooklyn arrived in three waves, the first from the late 1920’s through the early 1930’s, the second during the 1950’s and the most recent during the late 1980’s through the early 1990’s. Many, if not most, who settled in Brooklyn took up residence with relatives already here. In the 1920’s, this meant Flatbush, particularly the “Old Ninth Ward” which began at the northeast corner of Prospect Park. St. Teresa of Avila parish, founded in

1874 at Sterling Pl. and Franklin Ave., was especially hospitable. But so was Little Flower (St.

Theresa de Lisieux, founded in 1926 on Avenue D &Troy Avenue.11

10 Ronald Herzman, “Catholic Education: Brooklyn Prep and Catholic Education since the 1960’s,” First Things, October, 2000; www.stjohnsprepschool.org/history; “Chronological Listing of the Churches in the Diocese of Brooklyn” (typewritten,1988) Brooklyn Diocesan Archive. 11 Ridge, Flatbush Irish, p. 14-16; R. Smith, personal interview 11/8/1981.

367

Prospect Park served as a key gathering place for the Irish communities that surrounded it, especially from 1930–1960. “Donegal Hill”, a site which overlooked the northern half of the park, was so-named as a nod to the significant presence of families from that county, but it became a focal point for family picnics regardless of clan or birthplace. Old friends and newcomers mingled freely. Irish football and hurling, both formally sanctioned and informally organized, were ubiquitous. Evenings brought Brooklyn Hibernians indoors. The pubs clustered along Nostrand Avenue from DeKalb to Flatbush Avenues featured Irish music every weekend from dusk until closing. Traditional tunes played on instruments such as the tin whistle, fiddle, button accordion and “cordeen” welcomed visitors and offered a comfortable reminder of home.12

Brooklyn’s Irish dance halls, most located north of the park (now Park Slope), had closed down by the outbreak of World War II. However, at their height, a typical Friday night in

Brooklyn would pack in thousands at such colorfully named establishments as: Tammany Hall,

Koch’s Hall, Erin’s Isle and the Pride of Erin. Many immigrants met spouses at such weekly dances; all shared Irish music and dance. Without the dance halls, “house parties” grew in popularity—gatherings in private homes where singing and the playing of traditional folk instruments remained a chief attraction. Most musicians were local men. Some moonlighted as band members at weddings or other social functions. No house party was complete without step dancing, typically performed by children of the Irish-born who had learned the traditional dances from an Irish-born dance master who held classes at his or her home. By the 1960’s, few Irish boys “stepped” in Brooklyn. Unlike Chicago, the birthplace of Michael Flatley (the first

12 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 2/9/1891; 7/25/1891; 8/19/1893; Simon, “Brooklyn at Play” M.A. Thesis, Brooklyn College, 1960, 18-21; Chalson, “A Park for the People of Brooklyn,” 3; Ridge, Flatbush Irish, 23-24.

368

American-born Irish National Feis champion) and cultural home of Irish America’s

“Riverdance” revival, Kings County Irish step has been a more or less female endeavor since at least the 1950’s.13

Widespread Gaelic language instruction disappeared with the dissolution of Michael

Logan’s Gaelic League after World War I. A search of The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, The New York

Times, The Brooklyn Tablet and The Irish Echo finds no record of formal Irish language courses offered in Kings County between 1917 and 1980. However, oral histories attest to the continued interest of the Donegal-, Mayo- and Galway-born in maintaining their traditional tongue.

Growing up, the author heard Irish spoken from time to time. More frequently, Gaelic songs were sung at social gatherings, or common Gaelic phrases were used. Greetings or blessings were the most common. The children of the Irish-born generally knew a few phrases, but only rarely were these passed on to the third generation intact.14

The 1970–2000 period has seen tremendous change in Brooklyn’s Irish community. One

Catholic parish after another has undergone ethnic turnover. Most formerly Irish congregations in central Brooklyn and Flatbush had become predominantly Latino or Haitian by 1980. St.

Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Genoa and Holy Cross now offer more masses in Spanish than

English in order to better serve their parishioners. Little Flower and St. Theresa of Avila offer services in Haitian creole and Spanish. St. Jerome’s is perhaps the most important Roman

Catholic church in the Haitian-American community. Two of its pastors have been elevated to auxiliary bishop during the past three decades. St. Vincent Ferrer remained an “Irish parish” through the mid-1970’s, but developed a Haitian minority later in the decade,. By 1982 weekly

13 Mary Lou Schade, personal interview 7/22/2012. 14 The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, The New York Times, The Brooklyn Tablet and The Irish Echo, 1917-1980 sampling.

369 communicants were so overwhelmingly Haitian that Masses were offered in creole both Saturday night and Sunday morning. A new hymnal was introduced, and a Haitian priest was sent to shepherd the newcomers. Father Emanuel got along famously with Msgr. Brady, the cranky old

Irish pastor who seemed to save his barbs for old timers who he deemed unwelcoming to the newcomers. Mrs. Sullivan [Fusco], long-serving president of the SVF Rosary Society, saw Brady as “open-minded.” Dr. Smith, who had moved south into the area of Good Shepherd parish

(Flatlands) after his divorce, suggested that the pastor simply “knew who was buttering his bread now.” Paul Kennedy Jr. felt “unwelcome in his own neighborhood… [N]ow even the priests are pushing us out.” Kennedy, a police sergeant, retired on the twentieth anniversary of his oath, moving out to Suffolk County. He and wife Carol were among the first of the East 39th Street

Irish to sell their semi-attached frame house and flee to the suburbs at the first sign of a “Haitian invasion”. Either way, the racial and ethnic transition in St. Vincent Ferrer was swift, and relatively smooth—at church and on the blocks. There was neither violence, nor significant vandalism. The rapidity with which houses were advertised and sold was remarkable. The physical presence of all things Irish vanished as quickly as the potato crop in the 1840’s— seemingly here today, gone tomorrow. With the Irish moving out of the old neighborhoods, traditions such as Irish dance were reduced to a single night in March—and only at Little Flower and at St. Vincent Ferrer through the mid-1990’s.15

Emigration to new communities offers two choices. Many have elected to pull up stakes entirely, establishing a completely new way of life in the suburbs. But for those who enjoyed the neighborliness and closeness of landsmen from the same Old world culture, such change is often

15 Harry M. Culkin (ed.) Roman Catholic Priests and Parishes of the Diocese of Brooklyn: 1820-1990, Volumes I and II, Wm. Charles Printing Co., 1990; R. Sullivan [Fusco] personal interview 11/14/1981; R. Smith personal interview 11/8/1981; P. Kennedy, Jr., personal interview 11/1/1981.

370 too jarring. While the suburbs can provide such emigrants with greater “elbow room” and better schools, increased distance from friends and family can require significant adjustment. Many chose to remain “Brooklyn Irish” by relocating along the aforementioned southeasterly axis, to

Marine Park or Gerritsen Beach, or to Breezy Point or Belle Harbor in Rockaway, Queens.

There, a sizeable portion of the population remained Hibernian. Family and social links can be better maintained than in Levittown or Lynbrook (no matter how directly derived from

“Brooklyn” the name may be.

In The Flatbush Irish, John Ridge closely examined the 1960 and 1970 federal census reports. He demonstrated a dramatic change in Flatbush’s Irish population over that single decade for this key section of Kings County. For convenience, the traditional borders of Flatbush

Town were divided into three relatively equal parts: Flatbush Central—bordered by Flatbush

Ave., Church Ave., Utica Ave. & Ave. I (location of author’s childhood home); Flatbush

North—bordered by Church Ave., Flatbush Ave., Empire Blvd. & Albany Ave.; and Flatbush

West—bordered by Flatbush Ave., Foster Ave., E. 8th St. and Parkside Avenue. The table below details the number of Irish-stock (Irish-born and their offspring) in each area in 1960 and 1970.

Census Year Flatbush Central Flatbush North Flatbush West Total 1960 7345 3103 2726 13174 1970 5118 1274 2054 8466 % change 30% 59% 25% 36%

The greatest suburban flight occurred in Flatbush North, followed by Flatbush Central and lastly Flatbush West. The subsequent censuses base ethnicity on different criteria, but

Ridge’s estimates for 1980 (four thousand Irish-born and their offspring in the same three sections) seem reasonable.

Four score years ago, Irish-American settlement could be traced on a map of Brooklyn from Atlantic Avenue southeast from Flatbush Avenue, across Prospect Park through Flatbush

371 all the way to the county’s south shore. The greatest concentration would be found in the northern portion of that range. By 1980, what remained of a Brooklyn Irish concentration was grouped together in the extreme south, with an adjunct in Bay Ridge, another shoreline community to the West. Some of this was the remnant of old timers, children and grandchildren from “St. Teresa’s” in “The Old Ninth Ward” or “Little Flower” or “St. Vinny’s” in Flatbush

Central. Between 1960 and the mid-1980’s few newcomers arrived to replenish the community, literally and culturally. Significantly, many of the 1980’s–1990’s immigrants were again single

18–25 year-olds. A surprising number arrived on student visas and remained illegally after their expiration. At one point during the early 1990’s—before President Clinton’s Amnesty programs—Ireland was reportedly ranked as the number two source of illegal immigration behind Mexico. The Irish pubs which lined Fourth and Fifth Avenues in Bay Ridge were said to hire “‘Spic’ illegals in every kitchen, ‘Mick’ illegals in the front of every house” throughout the period.16 With the arrival of the newcomers, many of whom were able to stay due to the generous (critics said “targeted”) nature of the Clinton Administration’s amnesty programs, a revival in Irish culture was born throughout the New York metropolitan area. The New York

Irish History Roundtable was founded in 1984.17 One of the group’s most popular walking tours involves Greenwood Cemetery. Another is current NYIHR President John Ridge’s biannual

“The Irish in Brooklyn Heights” tour which has recently included sites in Cobble Hill.18 Joseph

Silinonte’s Tombstones of the Irish-born at Holy Cross Cemetery became one of the better-

16 (personal interview, “J.F.”, manager of a Fourth Avenue restaurant, 1990; Mary P. Corcoran, "Ethnic Boundaries and Legal Barriers: The Labor Market Experience of Undocumented Irish Workers in New York City", New York Irish History, 1988: vol. 3; Linda Dowling Almeida, "The Lost Generation: The Undocumented Irish in New York City in the 1980s", New York Irish History, 1989: vol. 4) 17 See www.irishnyhistory.org. 18 Jane Walsh, “New York Irish History Roundtable to Host Walking Tour in Brooklyn Heights”, Irish Voice, 11/29/2012.

372 selling genealogy books in the 1990’s. A “Gaelic Gotham” exhibit began a long run at The

Museum of the City of New York in 1998.19 N.Y.U.’s Glucksman House was established to promote Irish and Irish-American Studies. Mick Moloney’s ethnomusicology and the Clancy

Brothers’ traditional performances have become popular beyond the boundaries of March.20 The

Great Irish Fair has been held at Floyd Bennett Field or in Coney Island for over three decades, an annual weekend-long event that draws up to ten thousand.21 Irish studies courses are offered at St. Francis College, St. Joseph’s College—Brooklyn campus, Long Island University—

Brooklyn campus, Brooklyn College and Queens College.22 Significantly, Irish culture in Nassau and Suffolk counties is alive and well. Molloy College, Hofstra University, L.I.U.’s C.W. Post campus, St. Joseph’s—Suffolk campus and SUNY-Stony Brook all introduced or expanded Irish studies offerings during the late 1980’s College.23 The Garden City Irish Cultural Society and the

Baldwin Irish-American Society are flourishing.24 The Nassau County Feis and Festival has been held every year since 1973; however, a spike in interest and in the quality of participation since

1990 has led organizers to seek larger and larger venues. For nearly two decades, the traditional dance and music competitions which highlight the feis have been held each autumn at university

19 Joseph Silinonte, Tombstones of the Irish-born at Holy Cross Cemetery (Brooklyn: 1994); Paul Goldberger “How the Irish Came, and Overcame” New York Times, March 15, 1996. 20 http://irelandhouse.fas.nyu.edu/object/mick.moloney.html; Hamill, Denis, NY Daily News, 12-22-2009, “Last Clancy brother Liam is buried, but clan leaves impression on Irish music”; “World-acclaimed Irish singer, Tommy Makem, dies in N.H.” Boston Globe. 8-2- 2007. Through 2006, a series of Senate Judiciary Committee "earned-legalization” proposals favoring educated, middle income undocumented aliens who overstayed student or tourist visas led to a host of “Legalize the Irish” rallies attended by prominent politicians, in all of the traditional and predictable Northeastern and Midwestern cities; For Illegal Irish Immigrants, a Time to Test that Luck,” New York Times, 3/17/1989; New York Times, 3/9/2006.” 21 The Tablet, “The 31st Annual Great Irish Fair of New York: Benefitting Catholic Schools in Brooklyn and Queens [A Special Pullout Section],” 9-7-2012. 22 www.sfc.edu; www.sjcny.edu; www.liu.edu/brooklyn; www.brooklyn.cuny.edu; www.qc.cuny.edu. 23 www.molloy.edu; www.hofstra.edu; www.liu.edu/post; www.sjcny.edu/suffolk-campus; www.stonybrook.edu. 24 www.irish-society.org.

373 sites, most recently Hofstra University. Long Island step dancing is not only popular, but highly competitive. In 2007, a Levittown high school sophomore placed in her age group at the National

Feis in Dublin.25 Five of the eight Nassau County A.O.H. divisions and three of the five Suffolk county A.O.H. divisions offer free Irish language lessons to Long Island residents. There is a waiting list in some towns.26 It is worth noting that the traditional rules for membership in the

Ancient Order of Hibernians have been amended somewhat to address changes in Irish-

American demographics: “Membership is open to men over 16 years of age of either Irish birth or decent and must be practicing Roman Catholics.” The once fiercely-secular organization now requires a religious affiliation—at least in Nassau County—but no longer insists that members’ parent or even grandparent have been born in Ireland.27 Curiously, a yearning for cultural connection, for revivalism and tradition seems to have been inspired, or at least encouraged by the youthful immigrants of the Bush-Clinton years.28

25 http://www.nassauaohfeis.com. 26 http://www.nassauaoh.com; http://www.aohdiv7.org/History_Suffolk%20County/Shamrocks_In_Suffolk. 27 http://www.aohdiv7.com; i.e., on paper the author would have been ineligible for membership in Flatbush A.O.H., Div. 35 at age 16 in 1976 on ancestral grounds—my maternal great-grandfather emigrated from Kerry while my paternal Celts involved great-greats and great-great-greats from Cork and Clare. Apparently, any church-going Sullivan can join the Wantagh Div. 7 A.O.H at their next meeting without regard to his “American” roots. 28 Linda Dowling Almeida, "The Lost Generation: The Undocumented Irish in New York City in the 1980s," New York Irish History, 1989: vol. 4, 25-56; Mary P. Corcoran, "Ethnic Boundaries and Legal Barriers: The Labor Market Experience of Undocumented Irish Workers in New York City," New York Irish History, 1988: vol. 3, 21-28; Marion R. Casey, "Twentieth Century Irish Immigration to New York City: The Historical Perspective," New York Irish History 1988: vol. 3, 29-38.

374

Sources

Primary

Articles, Books, and Pamphlets

Baker, Benjamin. A Glance at New York: A Local Drama in Two Acts. New York: S. French, 1848.

Barr, Amelia E. “The Servant-Girl’s Point of View.” The North American Review 154 (June 1892): 729– 732.

Beecher, Catherine E. and Harriet Beecher Stowe. The American Woman’s Home. New York: J.B. Ford and Company, 1869. Reprint, Hartford, CT: The Stowe-Day Foundation, 1994.

Beeton, Mrs. Isabella. Mrs. Beeton’s Book of Household Management. London: S.O. Beeton, 1861. Reprint, London Chancellor Press, 1982.

Brandt, Lilian. Five Hundred and Seventy-Four Deserters and Their Families: A Descriptive Study of Their Characteristics and Circumstances. New York: The Charity Organization Society, 1905.

“Bridget.” Harper’s Bazaar, November 11, 1871, 706.

Bromley, G.W. & Co. Atlas of the City of Brooklyn, 1880. Philadelphia: 1880.

Brooklyn Fire Department. Our Firemen: The Official History of the Brooklyn Fire Department, from the First Volunteer to the Latest Appointee. Brooklyn, N.Y: 1892.

Campbell, Helen. Prisoners of Poverty: Women Wage-Workers, Their Trades and Their Lives. Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1887. Reprint, 1889.

Campbell, T. Letters on the Condition of the People of Ireland. London: Chapman & Hall, 1847.

Cusack, Mary Frances (Sister Mary Francis Clare). Advice to Irish Girls in America, by the Nun of Kenmare. New York: A.A. McGee, Publisher, 1872.

DeForest, Virginia. “Biddy’s Blunders.” Godey’s Lady’s Book, April 1855, 329–330.

DePeyster’s remarks from his military journal. The Eclaireur I, no. 8 (March 1, 1854).

Deshon, Rev. George. Guide for Catholic Young Women, Especially For Those Who Earn Their Own Living, 31st edition, revised. New York: The Catholic Book Exchange, 1897. Reprint, New York: Arno Press Inc., 1978.

Desmond, H. J. “A Century of Irish Immigration.” The American Catholic Quarterly Review XXV (1900): 518–530.

______. Democracy in America, Volume II. 1840. Reprint, New York: Vintage Classics, 1990.

Dickens, Charles. “American Volunteer Firemen.” All the Year Round, March 16, 1861, 537–541.

______. “Servants in America.” All the Year Round, October 3, 1874, 584–588.

375

Dorian, Hugh. The Outer Edge of Ulster: A Memoir of Social Life in Nineteenth-century Donegal. Edited by Breandán Mac Suibhne and David Dickson. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001.

Duncan, John M. Travels Through Part of the United States and Canada in 1818 and 1819. Glasgow: Glasgow University Press, 1823.

An Exposure of the Reprehensible Means Employed by John Fitzgerald of Lincoln, Neb. and Alexander Sullivan of Chicago, Ill. to Prevent Mr. William O’Brien from Lecturing for the Irish National League of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1887).

Foster, George G. New-York in Slices; by an Experienced Carver... New York: W. F. Burgess, 1849.

Frazer, Elizabeth. “The Servant Problem.” The Saturday Evening Post, February 25, 1928, 10–11, 36, 38, 40.

Froude, James Anthony. “Romanism and the Irish Race in the United States.” North American Review 129, no. 277 (December 1879): 519–536.

Greene, Asa. A Glance at New York: Embracing the City… New York: A. Greene, 1837.

Guilday, Peter, ed. The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy, 1792–1919. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1954.

Hall, Mr. & Mrs. S. C. Ireland: Its Scenery, Character, &c. In Three Volumes. Volume I & II. A new edition. London: Virtue and Co. 1860s (?).

Hyde, Belcher E. & Co. Map of Brooklyn, 1880. New York: 1880.

______. Map of Brooklyn, 1886. New York, 1886.

______. Atlas of the Borough of Brooklyn. Brooklyn, 1903–1905.

______. Atlas of the City of Brooklyn, 1911. Brooklyn, 1911.

Inglis, Henry David. A Journey Throughout Ireland during the Spring, Summer, and Autumn of 1834. London: Whittaker, 1835.

Johnson, Jeremiah. Recollections of Long Ago: Read Before the “Old Brooklynites.” Brooklyn, N.Y.: Society of Old Brooklynites, 1894.

Johnson, Samuel D. The Fireman: A Drama, in Three Acts. New York: S. French, 1856.

Kernan, J. Frank . Reminiscences of the Old Fire Laddies of New York and Brooklyn. New York: M. Crane, 1885.

Laidlaw, Walter. Statistical Sources for Demographic Studies of Greater New York, 1910. New York, 1912.

Luddy, Maria. Women in Ireland, 1800–1918: A Documentary History. Cork: Cork University Press, 1995.

Maguire, John Francis. The Irish in America. New York: D.J. Sadlier & Co., 1868.

“Mistress and Maid.” Donahoe’s Magazine, May 1885, 442–444.

376

More, Louise Bolard. Wage-Earners’ Budgets: A Study of Standards and Cost of Living in New York City. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1907. Reprint, New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1971.

Neal, Alice B. “The Servant Question.” Godey’s Lady’s Book, October 1857, 325–330.

O’Carroll, Ide. Models for Movers: Irish Women’s Emigration to America. Dublin: Attic Press, 1990.

O’Donovan, Jeremiah. Irish Immigration in the United States: Immigrant Interviews. Originally published in 1864 under different title. New York: Arno Press, 1969.

O’Leary, John. Recollections of Fenians and Fenianism. Vol. I and Vol. II. London: Downey & Co., Ltd., 1896.

“On Fire Engines, Hose, and Some Other Apparatus Manufactured and Used in Philadelphia, for the Purpose of Extinguishing Fires.” Journal of the Franklin Institute 3, no. 5 (May, 1827): 281–288.

Perris, William. Atlas of Brooklyn, 1855. Brooklyn, 1855.

Ross, Joel H. What I Saw in New-York; or, A Bird’s Eye View of City Life. Auburn, N.Y.: Derby & Miller, 1851.

Rossa, Diarmuid O-Donnovan. Rossa’s Recollections 1838–1898. New York, 1898; reprint, Shannon: Irish University Press, 1972.

Sadlier, Mrs. J. (Mary Anne Madden Sadlier). Bessy Conway; or the Irish Girl in America. New York: D. & J. Sadlier, 1861. Reprint, New York: D. & J. Sadlier, 1863. The hypertext address is: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/SADLIER/Bessy/Bessy.htm.

Salmon, Lucy Maynard. Domestic Service. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1897.

Schmandt, Raymond, comp. “A Selection of Sources Dealing with the Nativist Riots of 1844.” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society 80, nos. 2–3 (June and September,1969): 68–113.

“The Servant Question.” The Nation, October 26, 1865, 527–528.

Sherwood, Mrs. M.E.W. “The Lack of Good Servants.” The North American Review 153 (November 1891): 546–558.

Sewell, William. “Sketches of the Irish Peasantry.” Quarterly Review 68 (1841): 3–42.

Stowe, Mrs. Harriet Beecher. “Ireland’s Daughters in their New Homes.” Donahoe’s Magazine, January 1879, 53–55.

Sullivan, Alexander. “The American Republic and the Irish National League of America.” American Catholic Quarterly Review 9 (January–October, 1884): 35–44.

Taylor, Henry. New York As It Was Sixty Years Ago: Reminiscences. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Nolan Bros. Print, 1894. de Tocqueville, Alexis. Alexis de Tocqueville’s Journey in Ireland: July–August, 1835. Translated and edited by Emmet Larkin. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990.

______. Democracy in America. Edited by Phillips Bradley. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945.

377

Townsend, Horatio. A General and Statistical Survey of the County of Cork. Cork: Edwards & Savage, 1815.

Trench, William Steuart. Realities of Irish Life. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1869.

“What is thought of our Irish girls abroad.” Donahoe’s Magazine, May 1880, 437.

Woods, Robert A. and Albert J. Kennedy, ed. Young Working Girls: A Summary of Evidence from Two Thousand Social Workers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1913.

Wright, Carroll D. “An Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 1 (1887): 137–168.

Government Publications

United States

Brooklyn Municipal Building. Brooklyn Building Permits, 1870–1930.

Brooklyn Historical Society. Auction Notices, 1850–1910.

______. Brooklyn Block and Lot Index, 1776–1896.

______. Flatbush Manuscript.

______. Montgomery Queen Scrapbook

______. Scrapbooks, Vols. 1–165.

Brooklyn, N.Y. Health Department. Annual Report, 1886, 1887, and 1889.

______. Police and Excise Department. Annual Report, 1886 and 1890.

______. Tenement House Department. First Report, 1902–1903.

Kings County Clerk’s Office. New York State Manuscript Census, 1855–1875.

______. United States Manuscript Census, Kings County, 1850–1900.

Most Holy Trinity RC Church Centennial Mass and Dinner Journal, Brooklyn: 1949;

New York. Report of the Department of Labor Statistics. Albany: 1897.

New York Record. Annual Assessed Valuation of Real Estate in New York City, 1906–1930. New York, 1906–1930.

New York State. Bureau of the Census. 1855 Census.

______. Bureau of the Census. 1865 Census.

______. Bureau of the Census. 1875 Census.

______. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Annual Report, 1886–1899.

______. Labor Department. Factory Inspection Bureau. Annual Report, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1895, and 1898.

378

New York State Assembly. Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Female Labor, 1896.

______. Report of the Tenement House Committee, 1895.

New York Tenement House Commission. Reports, 1901–1934. New York, 1901–1934.

Report of the Board of Health of the City of Brooklyn for 1895 and 1896. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1897.

U.S. Bureau of Labor. Fourth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1888. Working Women in Large Cities.

______. Thirteenth Annual Report, 1898. Hand and Machine Labor. 2 Volumes.

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Report of the Committee on Manufactures and the Sweating System, 52nd Congress, second session, 1895.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, Part I. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.

______. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860.

______. Ninth Census of the United States, 1870.

______. Tenth Census of the United States, 1880.

______. Tenth Census of the United States, 1880: Occupations.

______. Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890.

______. Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890: Vital Statistics.

______. Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890: Vital Statistics of New York City and Brooklyn.

______. Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890: Manufacturing in Cities.

______. Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890: Population, Part II.

______. Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900.

______. Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900: Manufactures, Part II.

______. Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900: Population, Part I.

______. Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900: Special Reports. Occupations.

379

______. Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900: Special Reports. Statistics on Women at Work.

______. Twelfth Census (1900). Abstract of the Twelfth Census of the United States 1900. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904.

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928. Bulletin No. 499. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1929.

U.S. Industrial Commission. Volume 15, Reports on Immigration. Washington, D.C.: 1901.

Walker, Francis A. A Compendium of the Ninth Census (June 1, 1870). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offic, 1872. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1976.

Great Britain—Parliamentary Papers

The Census of Ireland, 1841, “Report of the Commissioners,” (1843) XXIV.

Census of Ireland, 1851, Part VI, “General Report,” (1856) [2134] XXXI.

Census of Ireland, 1871, Part III, “General Report,” (1876) [c. 1337] LXXI.

Census of Ireland, 1881, Part II, “General Report,” (1882) [c. 3365] LXXVI.

Census of Ireland, 1901, Part II, “General Report,” (1902) [cd. 1190] CXXIX.

Commissioners of Public Instruction in Ireland, First Report, XXXIII, H.C. 1835.

“First Report of the Commissioners Inquiry into the Condition of the Poorer Classes in Ireland,” (1836) Appendix (D.) XXXI, Appendix (E.) XXXII, Appendix (F.) XXXIII.

“Fourth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, In England,” (1842) [423] XIX.441.

Ireland

[Irish Free State]. Department of Industry and Commerce. Census of Population of the Irish Free State on 18th April, 1926, “Preliminary Report.” Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1926.

Newspapers, Periodicals, Almanacs and Directories

America’s Own and Fireman’s Journal], 1838–1899.

Boston Pilot.

Brooklyn Business Directory, 1850–1910.

Brooklyn Citizen, 1860–1900.

Brooklyn Citizen. The Brooklyn Citizen Almanac, 1894.

Brooklyn Citizen. The Brooklyn Citizen Guide to Brooklyn and Long Island, 1893.

Brooklyn City Directory, 1850–1910.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1841–1917.

380

Brooklyn Daily Eagle. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Almanac. 1880–1910.

Brooklyn Daily Times, 1836–1900.

Brooklyn Elite Directory, 1850–1910.

Clan-na-Gael.

Irish World, 1870–1890

King, Moses. Handbook of New York City, 1892–3. Boston: Moses King, 1894.

Long Island Star, 1830–1851.

New York Evening Post, 1825.

New York Herald, 1828–1900.

New York Times, 1841–1910.

Our Neighborhood, 1878.

Real Estate Bulletin, 1868–1872: James Wyckoff (ed.)

Realty, 1927.

Spooner’s Brooklyn Directory, 1828.

Sunday Mercury, 1853–1858.

Valentine’s Brooklyn City Directory, 1864.

Western Catholic, 1873–1882.

Internal and Miscellaneous Publications

Act of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Terms of Admission of St. Joseph’s Female Orphan Asylum. 1873.

Act of Incorporation and By-Laws of St. Vincent’s Home for Boys. 1891.

“Address of Rt. Rev. J.F. Regis Canevin, D.D., at the Catholic Total Abstinence Convention at Wilkes- Barre, Aug. 9, 1905”. 1905.

Aims and Objects of the Catholic Knights of America. 1895.

A Brief History of St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society of Brooklyn, New York. 1884.

The Citizens of Brooklyn and Long Island: Brooklyn Report, 1893, 104–05

Catalogue of the Books Belonging to the Roman Catholic Library Association. 1864.

Charter and By-Laws of the St. Agnes Literary and Temperance Guild. 1876.

Charter, By-Laws, Rules and Regulations of the St. Patrick’s Social Club of Kings County. 1863.

Charter, Constitution, and By-Laws of the St. James Catholic Association. 1872.

381

Constitution and By-Laws of the America Hose Company # 17. 1870.

Constitution and By-Laws of the Assumption Beneficial Society of the City of Brooklyn. 1884.

Constitution and By-Laws of the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul Total Abstinence Benevolent Society of Brooklyn. 1887.

Constitution and By Laws of the Erin Beneficial Society of Brooklyn. 1877.

Constitution and Rules of Order of the Pacific Hose Company. 1864.

Constitution and By-Laws of the Constitution Fire Company. 1865.

Constitution and By-Laws of the Columbia Hose Company. 1862.

Constitution of the Irish National Land and Industrial League of the United States. 1880.

Constitution of the Holy Cross Beneficial Society of Flatbush. 1882.

Constitution and By-Laws of the St. Thomas Aquinas Temperance and Literary Association. 1875.

Constitution and By-Laws of St. Malachy’s Beneficial Society. 1870.

Constitution and By Laws of the St. Patrick Benevolent Society. 1804.

Constitution and By Laws of St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Total Abstinence and Literary Society. 1882.

Constitution and By-Laws of the Visitation Total Abstinence Beneficial Society. 1873.

Constitution and By-Laws of the Church of the Most Holy Trinity Beneficial Association. 1881. “Employment Roster,” St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, 1880.

Financial Report of the Treasurer of the Fenian Brotherhood. February, June, November, and December, 1868, Brooklyn Diocesan Archives.

General Report of John J. Hynes, Secretary of the Irish National Land League of America. 1882–1883.

“Inmate Roster,” St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, 1880, Brooklyn Diocesan Archives.

Membership List of St. Mark’s Temperance and Literary Society of Brooklyn, New York. 1881–96.

Platform and Constitution of the Irish National League of America. Boston: 1884.

Report of the Second Annual Convention of the Irish National League. Boston: 1884.

Report of the Third General Convention of the Irish National League. Chicago: 1886.

Society of St. Vincent de Paul Handbill for Convention Delegates. 1876.

Unpublished Primary Sources

“Chronological Listing of the Churches in the Diocese of Brooklyn” (typewritten, 1988) Brooklyn Diocesan Archive Dolan, Jay. Personal correspondence, March 1989.

382

Fleming, Courtney. Interviews by author on 8 April and 14 July 1989, tape recordings of interviews. Mr. Fleming was great-great-grandson of “Boss” Hugh McLaughlin.

Kennedy, Paul Thomas Sr. Interviews by author on1 November 1981 and 14–15 July 1991 with Mr. Kennedy, tape recordings of interviews. Born in the Red Hook section of Brooklyn, Paul T. Kennedy, Sr. moved in with his son and daughter in law after his wife’s death. Kennedy owned and operated a tobacco and confectionary store in Coney Island after his retirement from the NYPD and was a long-time member of the Coney Island Chamber of Commerce. He was a fiercely proud member of Div. 24 of the Ancient Order of Hibernians for five decades, and Secretary from 1966 until his death in 1997.

Kennedy, Paul Thomas Jr. Interview by author on 1 November 1981 with Mr. Kennedy, tape recording of interview. Paul T. Kennedy, Sr. was a sergeant with the NYPD, assigned to the Police Academy until his retirement in 1985. He was born and raised in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn.

Knights of Columbus Council Records. (Knights of Columbus Archives, New Haven, CT.) -Various “Insurance Books,” “Membership Rolls,” “Membership Lists,” “Programs,” “Miscellany” for over eighty-five percent of Kings County Councils, 1892–1910 (19 linear feet) -Personal interview with K of C National Archivist Susan Brosnan (July 13, 1999) -typewritten list of New York State Councils (location & founding) up to 1968

Marshall, Daniel. Interview by author on 15 July 1981 with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall, tape recording of interview. Daniel Marshall sold insurance for an institutional broker in downtown Brooklyn. He retired to New Jersey in 1982, and passed away soon thereafter. He was born and raised in Brooklyn. Marshall sang in the St. Vincent Ferrer choir with the author for several years.

Marshall, Ann. Interview by author on 15 July 1981 with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall, tape recording of interview. Annl Marshall worked as a school librarian before marriage, “retiring” at 25 to keep house for Dan. For the next 55 years. After Daniel passed away in 1983, Ann moved in with her daughter to “help out with the grandbabies.” Born and raised in Brooklyn, Ann also sang in the St. Vincent Ferrer choir with the author for several years, but gender segregation was common for practical as well as cultural reasons. [S-A-T-B]

Miscellaneous Irish emigrants’ letters (1840s–1900s), collected by and in possession of Professor Kerby Miller, University of Missouri, Columbia. McManus & Sons Funeral Directors, “Business Records” and “Miscellaneous Papers”, 1888–1985, (BHS Archives). R. G. Dun & Company Collection. Kings County, 1847–1895. (Baker Library, Harvard Business School). “Signature Books” (1860–1893) of the Dime Savings Bank [Brooklyn, NY] (Brooklyn Historical Society Archives). Smith, Robert, Ed.D. Interview by author on 8 July 1981 with Dr. Smith, tape recording of interview. Robert Smith taught undergraduate and graduate courses in education and educational psychology at Brooklyn college. With a colleague in the sociology department, he also taught continuing education classes race and ethnicity to nonmatriculated adults covering. He retired in 1988. He was born and raised in Flatbush. Smith sang in the St. Vincent Ferrer choir with the author for several years.

Sullivan [Fusco], Regina. Interview by author on 14 November 1981 with Mrs. Sullivan [who did not add the Fusco until her 2001 second marriage], tape recording of interview. Subject is, indeed, author’s mother. Sullivan worked as a ship-to-shore telephone operator before marriage, “retiring” only to raise children—raising a few eyebrows along the way. Later, Mrs. Sullivan was very active in parish affairs, retaining Rosary Society leadership even after ethnic makeup of parish had changed markedly in late 1970’s. Returned to work at college registrar’s office. Several years after death of first husband, Mrs.

383

Sullivan moved to New Jersey to be near her daughter. Remarried widower James Fusco. Of mixed German-Irish stock, was born and raised in the Bronx, arriving in Flatbush as a teen.

“Test Books” (1856–1888) of the Dime Savings Bank [Brooklyn, NY] (Brooklyn Historical Society Archives)

“Test Books” (1850–1868) of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank (New York Public Library Archives)

“Transfer and Signature Books” (1860–1893) of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank (New York Public Library Archives) Secondary

Articles, Books and Dissertations

Aalen, F. H. A. “The Origin of Enclosures in Eastern Ireland.” In Irish Geographical Studies in Honour of E. Estyn Evans, edited by Nicholas Stephens and Robin E. Glasscock, 146–183. Belfast: Queens University of Belfast, 1970.

Abell, Aaron I. “The Reception of Leo XIII’s Labor Encyclical in America, 1891–1919.” Review of Politics VII (October, 1945): 464–495.

Abelow, Samuel. Dr. William H. Maxwell: The First Superintendent of Schools of the City of New York, Brooklyn: Scheba Publishing Co., 1934.

Abramson, Harold J. “Assimilation and Pluralism.” In Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, edited by Stephan Thernstrom, 150–160. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.

______. Ethnic Diversity in Catholic America. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973.

Adams, William Forbes. Ireland and Irish Emigration to the New World from 1815 to the Famine. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932.

Akenson, Donald H. The Irish Education Experiment: The National System of Education in the Nineteenth Century. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970.

Almeida, Linda Dowling. “The Lost Generation: The Undocumented Irish in New York City in the 1980’s” New York Irish History 1989, 4, pp. 25–56 Anbinder, Tyler. Five Points: The 19th Century Neighborhood that Invented Tap Dance, Stole Elections, and Became the World’s Most Notorious Slum (New York: Free Press, 2001)

Andrews, Janet. “The Italian Communities in South Brooklyn and Ft. Greene, 1880–1917.” Unpublished Manuscript, Fordham University, 1974.

Andrews, J.H. “A Geographer’s View of Irish History.” In The Course of Irish History, edited by T.H. Moody and F.X. Martin, 17–29. Cork: The Mercier Press, 1967.

Appleton’s Dictionary of New York and Vicinity. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1898.

Archdeacon, Thomas J. Becoming American: An Ethnic History. New York: The Free Press, 1983.

______. “Problems and Possibilities in the Study of American Immigration and Ethnic History.” International Migration Review XIX:1 (Spring, 1985): 112–134.

384

Arensberg, Conrad, M. The Irish Countryman: An Anthropological Study. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937. Reprint, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1959.

Arensberg, Conrad, M. and Solon T. Kimball. Family and Community in Ireland. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1940.

Bade, Klaus. “German Emigration to the United States and Continental Immigration to Germany in the Late Nineteenth Century and Early Twentieth Centuries.” In Labor Migration in the Atlantic Economies, edited by Dirk Hoerder. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Baer, William. The Economic Development of the Cigar Industry in the United States. Lancaster, Penn.: The Art Printing Company, 1933.

Bangs, Charlotte Rebecca Woglom. Reminiscences of Old New Utrecht and Gowanus. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Brooklyn Eagle Press, 1912.

Baron, Ava. “Women and the Making of the American Working Class: A Study of the Proletarianization of Printers.” Review of Radical Political Economics 14 (Fall, 1982): 23–42.

Barrett, James R. “Why Paddy Drank: The Social Importance of Whiskey in Pre-Famine Ireland,” Journal of Popular Culture 11 (Summer 1977), 155–66.

Barrow, Lennox. “The Use of Money in Mid-Nineteenth Century Ireland,” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 59 (Spring 1970); 81–88.

Barrows, Robert. “Beyond the Tenement: Patterns of American Urban Housing, 1870–1930.” Journal of Urban History 9 (August, 1983): 402–418.

Barton, Joseph. Peasants and Strangers: Italians, Rumanians and Slovaks in an American City, 1890– 1950. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.

Bayor, Ronald H. and Timothy J. Meagher, ed. The New York Irish. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Beames, M.R. “The Ribbon Societies: Lower-Class Nationalism in Pre-Famine Ireland.” In Nationalism and Popular Protest in Ireland, edited by C.H.E. Philpin, 245–263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

______. “Rural Conflict in Pre-Famine Ireland: Peasant Assassination in Tipperary, 1837–1847.” In Nationalism and Popular Protest in Ireland, edited by C.H.E. Philpin, 264–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Beckett, J.C. The Making of Modern Ireland 1603–1923. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966.

______. “Ulster Protestantism.” In Ulster Since 1800, Second Series: A Social Survey, edited by T.W. Moody and J.C. Beckett, 64–80. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1957.

Bell, Stephen. Rebel Priest and Prophet: A Biography of Dr. Edward McGlynn. New York: The Devin- Adair Company, 1937.

Berg, Barbara J. The Remembered Gate: Origins of American Feminism: The Woman and the City, 1800–1860. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Biddle, Ellen Horgan. “The American Catholic Irish Family,” In Charles Mindel and Robert W.

385

Habenstein ed., Ethnic Families in America New York: Elsevier Press, 1976), pp. 91–116.

Billington, Ray Allen. The Protestant Crusade 1800–1860: A Study of the Origins of American Nativism. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1938.

Bland, Joan. Hibernian Crusade: The Story of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1951.

Bleakey, David. “Industrial Conditions in the Nineteenth Century.” In Ulster Since 1800, Second Series: A Social Survey, edited by T.W. Moody and J.C. Beckett, 48–63. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1957.

Blessing, Patrick J. “Irish Emigration to the United States, 1800–1920. An Overview.” In The Irish in America: Emigration, Assimilation and Impact, [Irish Studies, 4], edited by P.J. Drudy, 11–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Blumin, Stuart. The Emergence of the Middle Class: Social Experience in the American City 1760–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

______. “Mobility and Social Change in Antebellum Philadelphia,” in Nineteenth-Century Cities: Essays in the New Urban History, edited by Stephan Thernstrom and Richard Sennet. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1969.

Bodnar, John. The Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.

______. Workers’ World: Kinship, Community and Protest in an Industrial Society, 1900–1940. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins Press, 1982.

Bossard, James. “Nationality and Nativity as Factors in Marriage.” American Sociological Review 4 (1939): 792–98.

Brown, Joshua and David Ment. Factories, Foundries and Refineries: A History of Five Brooklyn Industries. Brooklyn Educational and Cultural Alliance, 1980.

Bourke, Joanna. Husbandry to Housewifery: Women, Economic Change, and Housework in Ireland 1890–1914. Oxford: Clarendon Press Oxford, 1993.

Boyle, John W. “A Marginal Figure: The Irish Rural Laborer.” In Irish Peasants: Violence and Political Unrest 1780–1914, edited by Samuel Clark and James S. Donnelly, Jr., 311–338. Madison, Wis. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

Bradley, Anthony and Maryann Gialanella Valiulis, eds. Gender and Sexuality in Modern Ireland. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, in cooperation with the American Conference for Irish Studies, 1997. de Breffny, Brian. Irish Family Names: Arms, Origins, and Locations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1982.

Brissenden, Paul F. Earnings of Factory Workers, 1899 to 1927: An Analysis of Payroll Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1929.

Broehl, Wayne G., Jr. The Molly Maguires. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964.

386

Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Consolidation Number. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1898.

______. The Eagle and Brooklyn: The Record of the Progress of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle... Edited by Henry W. B. Howard. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1893.

______. Live in Brooklyn, the Home Borough. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1911.

______. The Pictorial History of Brooklyn. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1916.

Brooklyn League, Committee on Industrial Advancement. Brooklyn: A National Center of Commerce and Industry. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Committee on Industrial Advancement of the Brooklyn League, 1914.

Brooklyn Trust Company. Rambles about Historic Brooklyn: A Collection of the Facts... Brooklyn, N.Y.: Brooklyn Trust Company, 1916.

Brooklyn’s Call to Home Seekers: Articles Showing Brooklyn’s Characteristic Sections... Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1908.

Brooklyn’s Garden, Views of Picturesque Flatbush. Brooklyn, N.Y.: C.A. Ditmas, 1908.

Brown, Thomas N. Irish-American Nationalism 1870–1890. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1966.

______. “Nationalism and the Irish Peasant, 1800–1848.” The Review of Politics 15:4 (October, 1953): 403–445.

______. “The Origins and Character of Irish-American Nationalism.” The Review of Politics 18:3 (July, 1956): 327–358.

Browne, Henry J. “Terence V. Powderly and Church-Labor Difficulties of the Early 1880’s.” in Catholic Historical Review 32, no. 1 (April, 1946): 1–27.

______. The Catholic Church and the Knights of Labor. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1949.

Brownlee, W. Elliot and Mary M. Brownlee. Women in the American Economy: A Documentary History, 1675 to 1929. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.

Brunelle, Joseph. “The Last Mayor of Long Island City: Patrick Jerome Gleason,” New York Irish History (1986: vol. 1), 5–10

Buchanan, R.H. “Rural Settlement in Ireland.” In Irish Geographical Studies in Honour of E. Estyn Evans, edited by Nicholas Stephens and Robin E. Glasscock, 146–163. Belfast: Queens University of Belfast, 1970.

Burns, R.E. “Parsons, Priests and the People: The Rise of Irish Anti-Clericalism 1785–1789.” Church History 31:2 (June, 1962): 151–162.

Burchell, Robert A. The San Francisco Irish, 1848–1880. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.

Burstein, Alan N. “Immigrants and Residential Mobility: The Irish and Germans in Philadelphia, 1850– 1880.” In Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family, and Group Experience in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Theodore Hershberg, 174–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

387

______. “Residential Distribution and Mobility of Irish and German Immigrants in Philadelphia, 1850–1880.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1975.

Byrne, Anne and Madeleine Leonard, eds. Women and Irish Society: A Sociological Reader. Belfast: Beyond the Pale Publications, 1997.

Byron, Reginald. Irish America. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

Callender, James H. Yesterdays on Brooklyn Heights. New York: The Dorland Press, 1927.

Carpenter, Niles. Immigrants and Their Children. No. 7, U.S. Census Bureau Monographs. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1927; reprint, New York: Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969.

Casey, Marion R. “Twentieth Century Irish Immigration to New York City: The Historical Perspective,” New York Irish History (1988: vol. 3), 29–38

Casey, Marion R. “Victor Herbert: An Irishman and the New York Philharmonic,” New York Irish History (1987: vol. 2), 6–10

Cassidy, James F. The Women of the Gael. Boston: The Stratford Publishers, 1922.

Chabra, Vikram. “Social and Spatial Mobility of Irish and German Immigrants in Brooklyn in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Long Island Historical Journal, 16 (1–6), 160–175.

Chandler, Alfred, Jr. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Cheape, Charles. Moving the Masses: Urban Public Transit in New York, Boston and Philadelphia, 1880–1912. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Christianson, Gael E. “Secret Societies in Ireland, 1790–1840,” Agricultural History XLVI (July 1972): 19–42.

Chudacoff, Howard. Mobile Americans: Residential and Social Mobility in Omaha, 1880–1920. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Cities Census Committee, Inc. Population of the City of New York, 1890–1930. New York: Cities Census Committee, Inc., 1932.

Clancy, Patrick, Sheelagh Drudy, Kathleen Lynch and Liam O’Dowd, eds. Irish Society: Sociological Perspectives. Dublin: the Institute of Public Administration, 1995.

Clark, Dennis. “Letters from the Underground: The Fenian Correspondence of James Gibbons.” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society 81, no. 2 (June, 1970): 83–88

______. “Folk Memory of the Urban Irish”, New York Irish History (1986: vol. 1), 24–31

______. “The Irish Catholics: A Postponed Perspective.” In Immigrants and Religion in Urban America, edited by Randall Miller and Thomas Marzik. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1977.

______. The Irish in Philadelphia: Ten Generations of Urban Experience. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973.

______. The Irish Relations: Trials of an Immigrant Tradition. East Brunswick, N.J.: Associates University Presses, Inc., 1982.

388

______. Hibernia America: The Irish and Regional Cultures. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.

______. “Muted Heritage: Gaelic in an American City.” Eire-Ireland 6 (Spring, 1971): 3–7.

Clark, Samuel. Social Origins of the Irish Land War. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979.

Clark, Victor. The History of Manufacturing in the United States. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution, 1929.

Clarkson, L.A. “Irish Population Revisited, 1687–1821.” In Irish Population, Economy and Society, edited by J.M. Goldstrom and L.A. Clarkson, 13–25. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Clawson, Dan. Bureaucracy and the Labor Process: The Transformation of U.S. Industry, 1860–1920. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1980.

Clear, Caitriona. Nuns in Nineteenth-Century Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1987.

______. Women of the House: Women’s Household Work in Ireland, 1926–1961: Discourses, Experiences, Memories. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2000.

Cleland, Sherill. The Influence of Plant Size on Industrial Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955.

Coleman, Walter. The Molly Maguire Riots: Industrial Conflict in the Pennsylvania Coal Region. New York: Richmond-Garrett and Massie, 1936.

Commons, John R. “New York’s Building Trades.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 18 (1904): 409– 437.

Concannon, Mrs. Thomas. The Queen of Ireland: An Historical Account of Ireland’s Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Dublin: M.H. Gill and Son, Ltd., 1938.

Connell, Kenneth H. “The Colonization of Waste Land in Ireland, 1780–1845.” Economic History Review 2[3] (1950): 278–89.

______. Irish Peasant Society: Four Historical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

______. “Land and Population in Ireland 1780–1845.” In Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography, edited by D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley, 423–433. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., 1965.

______. “Peasant Marriage in Ireland: Its Structure and Development Since the Famine.” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 14:3 (April, 1962): 502–523.

______. “Peasant Marriage in Ireland After the Famine.” Past & Present 12 (November, 1957): 76–91.

______. The Population of Ireland 1750–1845. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1950.

______. “The Potato in Ireland.” Past & Present 23 (November 1962): 57–71.

Connolly, S.J. “Aftermath and Adjustment.” In A New History of Ireland, V, edited by W.E. Vaughan, 1–33. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

389

______. “Illegitimacy and Pre-Nuptial Pregnancy in Ireland Before 1864: The Evidence of Some Catholic Parish Registers. Irish Economic and Social History 6 (1979): 5–23.

______. “Law, Order and Popular Protest in Early Eighteenth Century Ireland: The Case of the Houghers.” In Radicals, Rebels & Establishments [Historical Studies, XV], edited by Patrick J. Corish, 51–68. Belfast: Appletree Press, 1985.

______. “Marriage in Pre-Famine Ireland.” In Marriage in Ireland, edited by Art Cosgrove, 78–98. Dublin: College Press, 1985.

______. Priests and People in Pre-Famine Ireland 1780–1845. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982.

______. Religion and Society in Nineteenth-Century Ireland. [Studies in Irish Economic and Social History, No. 3] Dundalk: Dundalgon Press, Ltd., 1985.

Conzen, Kathleen N. “The German Athens: Milwaukee and the Accommodation of Its Immigrants 1836– 1860.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1972.

______. Immigrant Milwaukee, 1836–1860: Accommodation and Community in a Frontier City. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.

Corcoran, Mary P. “Ethnic Boundaries and Legal Barriers: The Labor Market Experience of Undocumented Irish Workers in New York City,” New York Irish History (1988: vol. 3) 21–28

Corkery, Daniel. The Hidden Ireland: A Study of Gaelic Munster in the Eighteenth Century. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan Ltd., 1924.

Corry, Mary Jane. “The Role of German Singing Societies in Nineteenth-Century America,” in E. Allen McCormick, ed., Germans in America: Aspects of German-American Relations in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Brooklyn College Press, 1983, pp. 155–168.

Cosgrove, Art, ed. Marriage in Ireland. Dublin: College Press Ltd., 1985.

Costello, Augustine. Our Firemen: A History of New York Fire Departments, Volunteer and Paid. New York: A. E. Costello, 1887.

Coulter, Carol. The Hidden Tradition: Feminism, Women and Nationalism in Ireland. Cork: Cork University Press, 1993.

Cousens, S.H. “Emigration and Demographic Change in Ireland, 1851–1861.” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 14, no. 2 (December 1961): 275–288.

______. “The Regional Variation in Emigration from Ireland between 1821 and 1841.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37 (December 1965): 15–30.

______. “The Regional Variations in Population Changes in Ireland, 1861–1881.” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 17, no. 2 (December 1964): 301–321.

Crawford, E. Margaret, ed. Famine: The Irish Experience 900–1900: Subsistence Crises and Famines in Ireland. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd., 1989.

Crispino, James A. The Assimilation of Ethnic Groups: The Italian Case. Staten Island, New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1980.

390

Cullen, Louise M. An Economic History of Ireland since 1660. London: Batsford, 1972.

______. “The Irish Economy in the Eighteenth Century.” In The Formation of the Irish Economy, edited by L. M. Cullen, 9–30. Cork: Mercier Press, 1968.

______. “Irish History Without the Potato.” Past & Present 40 (July 1968): 72–83.

______. Life in Ireland. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1968.

______. “Population Growth and Diet, 1600–1850.” In Irish Population, Economy and Society, edited by J.M. Goldstrom and L.A. Clarkson, 89–112. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

______. “Problems in the Interpretation and Revision of Eighteenth-Century Irish Economic History.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, 17 (1967), 1–22.

______. Six Generations: Life and Work in Ireland from 1790. Cork: Mercier Press, 1970.

Culkin, Harry M. (ed.) Roman Catholic Priests and Parishes of the Diocese of Brooklyn: 1820–1990, Volumes I and II, Wm. Charles Printing Co., 1990

Curran, Joseph. Hibernian Green on the Silver Screen: The Irish and American Movies, Praeger: New York, 1989.

Cullen, Mary. “Breadwinners and Providers: Women in the Household Economy of Labouring Families 1835–6.” In Women Surviving: Studies in Irish Women’s History in the 19th and 20th Centuries, edited by Maria Luddy and Cliona Murphy, 85–116. Dublin: Poolbeg, 1990.

Curran, Robert E. Michael Corrigan and the Shaping of Conservative Catholicism in America, 1878– 1892. New York: Arno Press, 1978.

Curtin, Chris, Pauline Jackson and Barbara O’Connor, ed. Gender in Irish Society. Galway, Ireland: Officina Typographica Galway University Press, 1987.

Curtin, Chris, Mary Kelly and Liam O’Dowd, ed. Culture and Ideology in Ireland. Galway, Ireland: Officina Typographica Galway University Press, 1984.

Curtis, L.P., Jr. Apes & Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971.

Daly, Mary and David Dickson, ed. The Origins of Popular Literacy in Ireland: Language Change and Educational Development 1700–1920. Dublin: Department of Modern History, Trinity College Dublin and Department of Modern Irish History, University College Dublin, 1990.

Dana, David D. The Fireman: The Fire Departments of the United States. Boston: J. French and Company, 1858.

D’Arcy, William. The Fenian Movement in the United States: 1858–1886. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947.

Davies, Margery. Woman’s Place is at the Typewriter: The Feminization of the Clerical Labor Force. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982.

Davis, Allen F. and Mark H. Haller, eds. The Peoples of Philadelphia: A History of Ethnic Groups and Lower-Class Life, 1790–1940. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973.

391

Dawson, Andrew. “The Paradox of Dynamic Technological Change and the Labor Aristocracy in the United States, 1880–1914.” Labor History 20 (Summer, 1979): 325–351.

De Forest, Robert W. and Lawrence Veiller. The Tenement House Problem, Volumes I and II. New York: Macmillan, 1903.

Degler, Carl N. At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Delaney, Mary Murray. Of Irish Ways. Minneapolis: Dillon Press, Inc., 1973.

Diner, Hasia R. “Comment.” Journal of American Ethnic History 11, no. 4 (Summer, 1992): 54–59.

______. Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.

______. Hungering for America: Italian, Irish and Jewish Foodways in the Age of Migration. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Dinnerstein, Leonard and David M. Reimers. Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration. 4th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Dolan, Jay P. Catholic Revivalism: The American Experience, 1830–1900. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978.

______. The Immigrant Church: New York’s Irish and German Catholics, 1815–1865. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Donnelly, James S., Jr. “The Administration of Relief, 1846–7.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801– 70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 294–306, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. “The Administration of Relief, 1847–51.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801– 70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 316–331, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. “Catholic New Yorkers and New York Socialists, 1870–1920.” PhD diss., New York University, 1982.

______. “Excess Mortality and Emigration.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801–70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 351–356, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. “Famine and Government Response, 1845–6.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801–70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 272–285, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. “A Famine in Irish Politics.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801–70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 357–371, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. The Land and the People of Nineteenth Century Cork: The Rural Economy and the Land Question. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975.

______. Landlord and Tenant in Nineteenth Century Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1973.

392

______. “Landlords and Tenants.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801–70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 332–349, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. “Productivity, Prices and Exports, 1846–51.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801– 70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 286–293, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. “The Social Composition of Agrarian Rebellions in Early Nineteenth-Century Ireland: The Case of the Carders and Caravats, 1813–1816.” In Radicals, Rebels and Establishments [Historical Studies, 15], edited by Patrick J. Corish, 151–169. Belfast: Appletree Press, 1985.

______. “The Soup Kitchens.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801–70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 307–315, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. “The Whiteboy Movement, 1761–5.” Irish Historical Studies, 21, no. 81 (March, 1978): 20–54.

Donnelly, James S., Jr. and Kerby A. Miller, ed. Irish Popular Culture, 1650–1850. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1999.

Donohue, Joan. “The Irish Catholic Benevolent Union.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1953.

Doyle, Crissie M. (C. Maire Ni Dubgaill). Women in Ancient and Modern Ireland. Dublin: The Kenny Press, 1917.

Doyle, David N. “The Irish and American Labor, 1880–1920.” Saother: Journal of the Irish Labour History Society 1 (May, 1975): 42–53.

______. “Unestablished Irishmen: New Immigrants and Industrial America, 1870–1910.” In American Labor and Immigration History, 1877–1920: Recent European Research, edited by Dirk Hoerder. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983.

Doyle, David N. and Owen D. Edwards, ed. America and Ireland, 1776–1976: The American Identity and the Irish Connection, The Proceedings of the United States Bicentennial Conference of Cumann Merriman, Enni, August 1976. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980.

Drake, Michael. “Marriage and Population Growth in Ireland, 1750–1845.” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 15, no. 2 (December, 1963): 301–313.

______. “Population Growth and the Irish Economy.” In The Formation of the Irish Economy, edited by L. M. Cullen, 65–87. Cork: Mercier Press1968.

Drudy, P.J., ed. Irish Studies 2: Ireland: Land, Politics and People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

______. Irish Studies 4: The Irish in America: Emigration, Assimilation and Impact. London: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Dubofsky, Melvyn. When Workers Organize: New York City in the Progressive Era. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts, 1968.

Duis, Perry R. The Saloon: Public Drinking in Chicago and Boston 1880–1920. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983.

393

Dudden, Faye E. Serving Women: Household Service in Nineteenth-Century America. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1983.

Edwards, John Arwel. “The Landless in Mid-Nineteenth Century County Louth.” Journal of County Louth Archaeological Society 16 (1969): 16–19.

Edwards, Richard C., Michael Reich and David M. Gordon, eds. Labor Market Segmentation. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1975.

Edwards, Ruth Dudley. An Atlas of Irish History. London: Methuen, 1973.

Edwards, Ruth Dudley and T. Desmond Williams. The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845–52. With a new Introduction and Bibliography by Cormas O Grada. Browne and Nolan Ltd., 1956. Reprint, Dublin: The Lilliput Press, Ltd., 1994.

Eisenstein, Sarah. Give Us Bread, But Give Us Roses: Working Women’s Consciousness in the United States, 1890 to the First World War. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.

Emmons, David. The Butte Irish: Class and Ethnicity in an American Mining Town, 1875–1925. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Erickson, Charlotte J. “Emigration from the British Isles to the U.S.A. in 1841: Part I. Emigration from the British Isles.” Population Studies 43, no. 3 (November, 1989): 347–367.

______. Invisible Immigrants: The adaptation of English and Scottish immigrants in Nineteenth-century America. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1972.

Eris, Steven P. Rainbow’s End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840– 1985. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Erlich, Mark. “Peter J. McGuire’s Trade Unionism: Socialism of a Trades Union Kind?” Labor History 24 (Spring, 1983): 165–197.

Ernst, Robert. Immigrant Life in New York City 1825–1863. New York: King’s Crown Press, 1949. Reprint, Syracuse University Press, 1994.

Evans, E. Estyn. Irish Folk Ways. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1957. Reprint, New York: Routledge, 1989.

______. The Personality of Ireland: Habitat, Heritage and History. 1973, 1981. Reprint, Dublin: The Lilliput Press Ltd., 1992.

Fahey, Tony. “Nuns in the Catholic Church in Ireland in the Nineteenth Century.” In Girls Don’t Do Honours: Irish Women in Education in the 19th and 20th Centuries, edited by Mary Cullen, 7–30. Dublin: Argus Press, 1987.

Fallows, Marjorie R. Irish-Americans: Identity and Assimilation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979.

Fanning, Charles. Finley Peter Dunne and Mr. Dooley: The Chicago Years. Lexington, Ky.: The University Press of Kentucky, 1978.

Fanning, Charles, Ellen Skerrett, and John Corrigan. Nineteenth Century Chicago Irish: A Social and Political Portrait. Chicago: Center for Urban Policy, Loyola University of Chicago, 1980.

394

Fein, Albert, ed. Landscape Into Cityscape: Frederick Law Olmstead’s Plans for a Greater New York City. New York: Van Nostrand, 1981.

Feldberg, Michael. The Philadelphia Riots of 1844: A Study in Ethnic Conflict. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1975.

______. “Urbanization as a Cause of Violence: Philadelphia as a Test Case.” In The Peoples of Philadelphia, edited by Allen F. Davis and Mark H. Haller. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973.

Fink, Leon. “Labor, Liberty and the Law: Trade Unionism and the Problem of the American Constitutional Order.” Journal of American History 74 (December, 1987): 904–925.

______. Workingmen’s Democracy. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1983.

Fitzpatrick, David. “Emigration, 1801–70.” In Ireland Under the Union, I (1801–70), edited by W.E. Vaughan, 562–622, Vol. V. in A New History of Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

______. “Marriage in Post-Famine Ireland.” In Marriage in Ireland, edited by Art Cosgrove, 116–131. Dublin: College Press, 1985.

______. “The Modernisation of the Irish Female.” In Rural Ireland 1600–1900: Modernisation and Change, edited by Patrick O’Flanagan, Paul Ferguson, and Kevin Whelan, 162–180. Cork: Cork University Press, 1987.

______. “’A Share of the Honeycomb’: Education, Emigration and Irishwomen.” Continuity and Change 1, no. 2 (1986): 217–234.

Fitzpatrick, Joseph P. “The Importance of Community in the Process of Immigrant Assimilation.” International Migration Review 1 (1966): 6–16.

Folbre, Nancy. “Women’s Informal Market Work in Massachusetts, 1875–1920.” Social Science History 17, no. 1 (Spring, 1993): 135–160.

Foner, Eric. “Class, Ethnicity and Radicalism in the Gilded Age: The Land League and Irish-America.” Marxist Perspectives 1, no. 2 (Summer, 1978): 6–55.

Foner, Eric. “Class, Ethnicity and Radicalism in the Gilded Age: The Land League and Irish-America,” in Eric Foner, ed., Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War New York: Oxford, 1980, 150–200.

“For Illegal Irish Immigrants, a Time to Test that Luck,” New York Times, 3/17/1989.

Foster, R.F. Modern Ireland, 1600–1972. London: Penguin Books, 1988.

______. The Oxford History of Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989; reprint, 1992.

Fox, John W. “Irish Immigrants, Pauperism, and Insanity in 1854 Massachusetts.” Social Science History 15, no. 3 (Fall, 1991): 315–336.

Freeman, Thomas. W. Ireland, A General and Regional Geography. London: Taylor & Francis, 1969.

______. Ireland: Its Physical, Historical, Social and Economic Geography, London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1950.

______. “The Irish Country Town.” Irish Geography 3 (1954): 5–14.

395

______. Pre-famine Ireland: A Study in Historical Geography. Manchester, Eng.: Manchester University Press, 1957.

Frevert, Ute. Women in German History: From Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation. Translated from the German by Stuart McKinnon-Evans. Oxford: Berg, 1989.

Futterman, Wendy. “Which Came First, The Transit Line or the Neighborhood?: The Relationship between Transportation and Neighborhood Settlement in Brooklyn.” Long Island Historical Journal 5, no. 1 (Fall 1992), 91-100.

Gabaccia, Donna R. From Sicily to Elizabeth Street: Housing and Social Change Among Italian Immigrants, 1880–1930. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1984.

______. From the Other Side: Women, Gender, and Immigrant Life in the U.S., 1820–1900. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1994.

______. “Immigrant Women: Nowhere at Home.” Journal of American Ethnic History 10, no. 4 (Summer, 1991), 61–87.

______. “Kinship, Culture and Migration: A Sicilian Example.” Journal of American Ethnic History 3, no. 2 (Spring, 1984): 39–53.

______. We Are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the Making of Americans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.

______, ed. Seeking Common Ground: Multidisciplinary Studies of Immigrant Women in the United States. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1992.

Gaffney, Sean and Seamus Cashman, ed. Proverbs and Sayings of Ireland. Dublin: Wolfhound Press, 1995.

Gavigan, Kathleen. “The Rise and Fall of Parish Cohesiveness in Philadelphia.” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society 86 (1975): 107–131.

Gibbs, Joseph C. History of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America. Philadelphia: 1907.

Gilman, Lois. “The Development of a Neighborhood: Bedford, 1850–1880.” M.A. thesis, Columbia University, 1971.

Ginsberg, Stephen F. “The History of Fire Protection in New York City, 1800–1842.” PhD diss., New York University, 1968.

Glasco, Laurence A. “Ethnicity and Social Structure: Irish, Germans and Native-Born of Buffalo, N.Y., 1850–1860.” PhD diss., State University of New York at Buffalo, 1973.

Glassberg, Eudice. “Work Wages and the Cost of Living: Ethnic Differences and the Poverty Line, Philadelphia, 1800.” Pennsylvania History 46, no. 1 (January, 1979): 17–58.

Glazer, Nathan M. “Ethnic Groups in America: From National Culture to Ideology.” In Freedom and Control in Modern Society, edited by Morroe Berger, Theodore Abel, and Charles Page, 158–173. New York: Van Nostrand, 1954.

Glazer, Nathan M. and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1963.

396

Gleason, Philip. “American Identity and Americanization.” In Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, edited by Stephan Thernstrom, 31–58. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Glenn, Susan. “The Working Life of Immigrants, 1880–1920.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1983.

Goldin, Claudia. “Family Strategies and the Family Economy in the Late Nineteenth Century: The Role of Secondary Workers.” In Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family, and Group Experience in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Theodore Hershberg, 277–310. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Goldschmidt, Eli. “Labor and Populism in New York City, 1891–1896.” Labor History 13 (Fall, 1972): 520–532.

Goldstrom, J.M. “Irish Agriculture and the Great Famine.” In Irish Population, Economy and Society, edited by J.M. Goldstrom and L.A. Clarkson, 155–171. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Gordon, Linda. Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence: Boston, 1880– 1960. New York: Viking, 1988.

Gordon, Michael. “The Labor Boycott in New York City, 1880–1886.” Labor History 16 (Spring, 1975): 184–229.

______. The Orange Riots: Irish Political Violence in New York City, 1870 and 1871. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993.

Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Graziosi, Andrea. “Common Laborers, Unskilled Workers, 1890–1915.” Labor History 22 (Fall, 1981): 512–544.

Greeley, Andrew M. That Most Distressing Nation: The Taming of the American Irish. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1972.

______. The Irish-Americans: The Rise to Money and Power. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.

Green, E.R.R. “Agriculture.” In The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845–52, edited by R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams. Dublin: Brown and Nolan Ltd., 1956.

______. “The Beginnings of Industrial Revolution.” In Ulster Since 1800: A Political and Economic Survey, edited by T.W. Moody and J.C. Beckett, 34–57. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1954.

______. “The Great Famine (1845–50).” In The Course of Irish History, edited by T.W. Moody and F.X. Martin, 263–274. Cork: The Mercier Press, 1967.

______. “Industrial Decline in the Nineteenth Century.” In The Formation of the Irish Economy, edited by L. M. Cullen, 89–100. Cork: Mercier Press, 1968.

______. The Lagan Valley, 1800–1850; A Local History of the Industrial Revolution. London: Faber & Faber, 1949.

397

Green, Harvey. The Light of the Home: An Intimate View of the Lives of Women in Victorian America. New York: Pantheon Books, 1983.

Green, James J. “American Catholics and the Irish Land League, 1879–1882.” Catholic Historical Review 35 (1949, 1950): 19–42.

______. “Organization of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America.” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society 61 (1950): 71–97.

Greenberg, Stephanie. “Industrialization in Philadelphia: The Relationship Between Industrial Location and Residential Patterns, 1880–1930.” PhD Diss., Temple University, 1977.

Gregory, Lady Augusta. Visions and Beliefs in the West of Ireland. Geralds Cross: G. P. Putman’s sons, 1920.

Gribben, Arthur, ed. The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America. With an Introduction by Ruth-Ann Harris. Boston: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Griffin, Clyde. “Occupational Mobility in Nineteenth-Century America: Problems and Possibilities.” Journal of Social History (1972): 310–330.

______. “Workers Divided: The Effect of Craft and Ethnic Differences in Poughkeepsie, New York, 1850–1880.” In Nineteenth-Century Cities: Essays in the New Urban History, edited by Stephan Thernstrom and Richard Sennet, 49–97. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1969.

Griffin, Clyde & Sally. Natives and Newcomers: The Ordering of Opportunity in Mid-Nineteenth Century Poughkeepsie, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.

Griffin, William D. The Irish in America, 550–1972: A Chronology and Fact Book. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1973.

Grimes, Robert R., S.J. How Shall We Sing in a Foreign Land? Music of Irish Catholic Immigrants in the Antebellum United States. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996.

Groneman, Carol. “Working-Class Immigrant Women in Mid-Nineteenth-Century New York: The Irish Woman’s Experience.” Journal of Urban History 4, no. 3 (May, 1978): 255–273.

Grover, Kathryn, ed. Dining in America 1850–1900. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1987.

Grover, Kathryn. Hard at Play: Leisure in America 1840–1940. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.

Guinnane, Timothy W. The Vanishing Irish: Households, Migration, and the Rural Economy in Ireland, 1850–1914. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Gutman, Herbert. Power and Culture: Essays on the American Working Class. Edited by Ira Berlin. New York: Pantheon Books, 1987.

Haag, Pamela. “The ‘Ill-Use of a Wife’: Patterns of Working-Class Violence in Domestic and Public New York City, 1860–1880.” Journal of Social History 25, no. 3 (Spring, 1992): 447–477.

Haber, William. Industrial Relations in the Building Trades. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930.

398

Hajnal, John. “Age of Marriage and Proportions Marrying.” Population Studies 7, no. 2 (November, 1953): 111–136.

______. “European Marriage Patterns in Perspective.” In Population in History, edited by D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley, 101–143. London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1965.

Halttunen, Karen. Confidence Men and Painted Women: A Study of Middle-Class Culture in America, 1830–1870. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Handlin, Oscar. Boston’s Immigrants: A Study in Acculturation. Rev. ed. New York: Atheneum, 1970. First published, 1941.

______. The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations That Made the American People. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1951.

Hareven, Tamara and Maris Vinovskis. “Marital Fertility, Ethnicity and Occupation in Urban Families: An Analysis of South Boston and the South End in 1880.” Journal of Social History 8 (Spring, 1975): 69–93.

Hartmann, Edward George. The Movement to Americanize the Immigrant. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948.

Healy, James N. Love Songs of the Irish. Dublin: The Mercier Press, 1977.

Henry, P. L. ed. and translator. Danta Ban: Poems of Irish Women, early and modern. Dublin: The Mercier Press, 1991.

Hershberg, Theodore, ed.: Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family, and Group Experience in the Nineteenth Century: Essays Toward an Interdisciplinary History of the City. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Hershberg, Theodore and Robert Dockhorn. “Occupational Classification.” Historical Methods Newsletter 9 (1976): 59–98.

Hershberg, Theodore et al. “The Journey to Work: An Empirical Investigation of Work, Residence and Transportation, Philadelphia, 1850 and 1880.” In Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family and Group Experience in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Theodore Hershberg, 128–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

______. “A Tale of Three Cities: Blacks, Immigrants and Opportunity in Philadelphia, 1850–1880, 1930, 1970.” In Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family and Group Experience in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Theodore Hershberg, 461–491. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Herzman, Ronald. “Catholic Education: Brooklyn Prep and Catholic Education since the 1960’s,” First Things, October, 2000, n.p.

Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860–1925. With a new Afterword, 1955. Reprint, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1988.

Hiley, Michael. Victorian Working Women: Portraits from Life. London: The Gordon Fraser Gallery, Ltd., 1979.

399

Hill, Myrtle, and Vivienne Pollock. Images and Experience: Photographs of Irishwomen, c. 1880–1920. Belfast: The Blackstaff Press, 1993.

Hobsbawm, Eric. Labouring Men: Studies in the History of Labour. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964.

Holt, Glen E. “The Changing Perception of Urban Pathology: An Essay on the Development of Mass Transit in the United States.” In Cities in American History, edited by Kenneth T. Jackson and Stanley K. Schultz, 324–343. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1972.

Hoyt, Homer. One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago: The Relationship of the Growth of Chicago to the Rise in its Land Values, 1830–1933. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933.

______. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939.

Horn, Pamela. The Rise and Fall of the Victorian Domestic Servant. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1975.

Hughes, T. Jones . “East Leinster in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” Irish Geography 3 (1958): 227–241.

______. “Land Holding and Settlement in the Cooley Peninusla of Louth.” Irish Geography 4 (1961): 149–174.

______. “Society and Settlement in Nineteenth-Century Ireland,” Irish Geography 5 (1965): 79–96.

Huss, Richard. The Development of Printers’ Mechanical Typesetting Methods, 1822–1925.

Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Press, 1973.

Ibson, John Duffy. Will the World Break Your Heart? Dimensions and Consequences of Irish-American Assimilation. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.

Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Industries and Wealth of Brooklyn. New York: American Publishing and Engraving Co., 1890.

Inglis, Brian. The Story of Ireland. New York: Faber & Faber, 1956.

Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Jackson, Pauline. “Women in 19th Century Irish Emigration.” International Migration Review 18, no. 4 (Winter, 1984): 1040–1080.

Johnson, James H. “Agriculture in County Derry at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century.” Studia Hibernica 4 (1964): 95–103.

______. “Harvest Migration from Nineteenth Century Ireland.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41 (June 1967): 97–112.

______. “Rural Population Changes in Nineteenth-Century Londonderry.” Ulster Folklife 15/16 (1970): 95–103.

400

______. “Studies of Irish Rural Settlement.” The Geographical Review 48, no. 4 (1958), 554– 566.

______. “The Two ‘Irelands’ at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century.” In Irish Geographical Studies in Honour of E. Estyn Evans, edited by Nicholas Stephens and Robin E. Glasscock, 231–253. Belfast: Queens University of Belfast, 1970.

Jordan, Donald. “Merchants, ‘Strong Farmers’ and Fenians: The Post-Famine Political Elite and the Irish Land War.” In Nationalism and Popular Protest in Ireland, edited by C.H.E. Philpin, 320–348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Kammeyer, Kenneth C.W. “The Dynamics of Population.” In Irish History and Culture, edited by Harold Orel, 189–223. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1976.

Kane, Eileen. “Man and Kin in Donegal: A Study of Kinship Functions in a Rural Irish and an Irish- American Community.” Ethnology 7, no. 3 (July, 1968): 243–258.

Kane, John. “Philadelphia’s Irish, 1840–1880: A Study in Accommodation and Conflict.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1950.

Kasson, John F. Amusing the Million. New York: Hill and Wang, 1978.

______. Rudeness & Civility: Manners in Nineteenth-Century Urban America. New York: Hill and Wang, 1990.

Katz, Michael B. The People of Hamilton, Canada West: Family and Class in a Mid-Nineteenth Century City. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.

Katz, Michael B., Michael J. Doucet, and Mark J. Stern. The Social Organization of Early Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982.

______. “Migration and the Social Order in Erie County, New York: 1855.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8 (1978): 669–701.

Katzman, David M. Seven Days a Week: Women and Domestic Service in Industrializing America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Keating, Mary Frances. “Marriage-Shy Irishmen.” In The Vanishing Irish, edited by John A. O’Brien, 170–183. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953.

Keenan, Desmond J. The Catholic Church in Nineteenth-Century Ireland: A Sociological Study. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1983.

Keep, George R.C. “The Irish Migration to North America in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century.” PhD diss., University of Dublin (Trinity), 1951.

Keil, Hartmut. “Chicago’s German Working Class in 1900.” In Hartmut Keil and John B. Jentz, eds., German Workers in Industrial Chicago, 1850–1910: A Comparative Perspective. Dekalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1983.

Kelleher, Patricia. “Gender Shapes Ethnicity: Ireland’s Gender Systems and Chicago’s Irish-Americans,” Ph.D. diss. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1995.

401

Kelleher, Margaret and James H. Murphy, eds. Gender Perspectives in Nineteenth-century Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1997.

Kenneally, James J. “Eve, Mary and the Historians: American Catholicism and Women.” Horizons 3(2) Fall 1976, p 187–202.

Kenneally, James J. “Sexism, the Church, Irish Women.” Eire-Ireland 21, no. 3 (Fall, 1986): 3–16.

Kennedy, David. “The Catholic Church.” In Ulster Since 1800, Second Series: A Social Survey, edited by T.W. Moody and J.C. Beckett, 42–53. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1957.

Kennedy, Liam. “Farmers, Traders, and Agricultural Politics in Pre-Independence Ireland.” In Irish Peasants: Violence and Political Unrest 1780–1914, edited by Samuel Clark and James S. Donnelly, Jr., 339–373. Madison, Wis. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

Kennedy, Robert E., Jr. The Irish: Emigration, Marriage and Fertility. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.

Kennedy, Ruby J. Reeves. “Single or Triple Melting Pot? Intermarriage Trends in New Haven, 1870– 1940.” American Journal of Sociology 49, no. 4 (January, 1944): 331–339.

Kennedy, Susan Estabrook. If All We Did Was to Weep at Home: A History of White Working-Class Women in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979.

Kennedy, Thomas P., Church Building. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan, 1970.

Kenny, Kevin. The American Irish: A History. New York: Pearson Education Limited, 2000.

______. Making Sense of The Molly Maguires. New York: Oxford, 1998.

Kerr, Barbara M. “Irish Seasonal Migration to Great Britain, 1800–1838.” Irish Historical Studies 3 (September 1943): 365–380.

Kessler-Harris, Alice. Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Kessner, Thomas. The Golden Door: Italian and Jewish Immigrant Mobility in New York City, 1880– 1915. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Kinealy, Christine. This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845–52. Ireland: Gill & Macmillan Ltd., 1994. Reprint, Boulder, Colorado: Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 1995.

King, Horatio. Reminiscences of Brooklyn. Brooklyn, 1891.

Kipling, Rudyard. Just So Stories. London & New York: McMillan & Co., 1902.

Knights, Peter. “Population Turnover, Persistence, and Residential Mobility in Boston, 1830–1860”. In Nineteenth-Century Cities: Essays in the New Urban History, edited by Stephan Thernstrom and Richard Sennett. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1969.

Knights, Peter and Leo Schnore. “Residence and Social Structure: Boston in the Antebellum Period.” In Nineteenth-Century Cities: Essays in the New Urban History, edited by Stephan Thernstrom and Richard Sennett. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1969.

402

Kobrin, Frances E. and Calvin Goldscheider. The Ethnic Factor in Family Structure and Mobility. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1978.

Lancaster, Clay. Old Brooklyn Heights: New York’s First Suburb. Rutland, Vt.: C.E. Tuttle Co., 1961.

______. Prospect Park Handbook. New York: Long Island University Press, 1972.

Lapham, James. “The German-Americans of New York City, 1860–1890.” PhD diss., St. John’s University, 1977.

Larkin, Emmet. “Church, State, and Nation in Modern Ireland.” American Historical Review 80, no. 5 (December, 1975): 1244–1276.

______. “Church and State in Ireland in the Nineteenth Century.” Church History 31, no. 3 (September, 1962): 294–306.

______. “The Devotional Revolution in Ireland, 1850–1875,” American Historical Review 77 (June 1972): 625–652.

______. The Roman Catholic Church and the Creation of the Modern Irish State, 1878–1886. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1975.

Latimer, Margaret. Two Cities: New York and Brooklyn the Year the Great Bridge Opened. Brooklyn Educational and Cultural Alliance, 1983.

Laurie, Bruce. “Fire Companies and Street Gangs in Southwark: The 1840’s.” In The Peoples of Philadelphia, edited by Allen F. Davis and Mark H. Haller. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973.

______. “The Working People of Philadelphia, 1827–1853.” PhD Diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1971.

______. The Working People of Philadelphia, Temple University Press: Philadelphia, 1980.

Laurie, Bruce, Theodore Hershberg, and George Alter. “Immigrants and Industry: The Philadelphia Experience, 1850–1880.” Journal of Social History (1975): 219–248.

Laurie, Bruce and Mark Schmitz. “Manufacture and Productivity: The Making of an Industrial Base, Philadelphia, 1850–1880.” In Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family, and Group Experience in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Theodore Hershberg, 43–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Lee, Alfred. The Daily Newspaper in America. New York: Macmillan, 1937.

Lee, Joseph. “The Dual Economy in Ireland, 1800–1850.” Historical Studies 8 (1969): 191–201.

______. “Marriage and Population in Pre-Famine Ireland.” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 31, no. 2 (August, 1968): 283–295.

______. The Modernisation of Irish Society, 1848–1918. 1973. Reprint: Dublin: Gill and Macmillan Ltd., 1989.

______. “On the Accuracy of the Pre-Famine Irish Censuses.” In Irish Population, Economy and Society, edited by J.M. Goldstrom and L.A. Clarkson, 37–56. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

______. “The Ribbonmen.” In Secret Societies of Ireland, edited by T. Desmond Williams, 26–35. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1973.

403

______. “Women and the Catholic Church Since the Famine.” In Women in Irish Society, edited by Margaret MacCurtain and Donncha O’Corrain, 37–45. Dublin: Arlen House Ltd., 1978.

Lees, Lynn H. Exiles of Erin: Irish Migrants in Victorian London. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1979.

Leinenweber, Charles. “Immigration and the Decline of Internationalism in the American Working Class movement, 1864–1919.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1968.

Leyburn, James G. The Scotch-Irish: A Social History. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1962.

Loft, Jacob. The Printing Trades. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1944.

Lopata, Helena Z. “The Functions of Voluntary Associations in an Ethnic Community: Polonia.” In Contributions to Urban Sociology, edited by Ernest W. Burgess and Donald J. Bogue, 203–223. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.

Luddy, Maria. “Prostitution and Rescue Work in Nineteenth-Century Ireland.” In Women Surviving: Studies in Irish Women’s History in the 19th and 20th Centuries, edited by Maria Liddy and Cliona Murphy, 51–84. Dublin: Poolbeg, 1990.

Lynch, Patrick and John Vaizey. Guinness’ Brewery in the Irish Economy, 1759–1876. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Lyon, David. “The World of P.J. McGuire: A Study of the American Labor Movement, 1870–1900.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1972.

Lyons, F.S.L. Ireland Since the Famine. 2nd ed. Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1973.

Mattis, Mary Jo. “The Irish Family in Buffalo, New York, 1855–1875: A Socio Historical Analysis,” Ph.D. Diss., Washington University, 1975.

McAvoy, Thomas T. “The Formation of the Catholic Minority in the United States.” The Review of Politics 10 (1948): 13–34.

McCaffrey, Lawrence J. “The Irish-American Dimension.” In The Irish in Chicago, edited by Lawrence J. McCaffrey et al., 1–21. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987.

______. The Irish Catholic Diaspora in America, revised edition. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1997.

McCaffrey, Lawrence J. et al. The Irish in Chicago. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987.

McConachie, Bruce and Daniel Friedman, eds. Theatre for Working-Class Audiences in the United States, 1830–1980. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985.

McCormick, E. Allen (ed.). Germans in America: Aspects of German-American Relations in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Brooklyn College Press, 1983.

McCourt, Desmond. “The Dynamic Quality of Irish Rural Settlement.” In Man and His Habitat: Essays Presented to E. Estyn Evans, edited by R.H. Buchanan, et al., 126–145. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1971.

404

McCullough, David. The Great Bridge. New York: 1972.

MacCurtain, Margaret and Donncha O Corrain, ed. Women in Irish Society: The Historical Dimension. Dublin: Arlen House, The Women’s Press, 1978. Reprint, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1979.

McDannell, Colleen. The Christian Home in Victorian America, 1840–1900. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1986.

MacDonagh, Oliver. “Irish Emigration to the United States of America and the British Colonies During the Famine.” In The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845–52, edited by R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams, 319–388. Dublin: Brown and Nolan Ltd., 1956.

McDowell, R.B. The Church of Ireland, 1869–1969. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.

______. “From Union to the Famine.” In Ulster Since 1800, Second Series: A Social Survey, edited by T.W. Moody and J.C. Beckett, 184–194. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1957.

______. “Ireland on the Eve of the Famine.” In The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845–52, edited by R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams, 1–86. New York: New York University Press, 1957.

______. “The Landed Classes and the Professions.” In Ulster Since 1800, Second Series: A Social Survey, edited by T.W. Moody and J.C. Beckett, 142–151. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1957.

McGee, Thomas D’Arcy. A History of the Irish Settlers in North America, from the Earliest Period to the Census of 1850. Boston: P. Donahoe, 1855.

McGregor, P.P. “Demographic pressure and the Irish famine: Malthus after Mokyr.” Land Economics 65, no. 3 (August 1989): 228–38.

McGuire, E.B. Irish Whiskey: a History of Distilling, the Spirit Trade and Excise Control. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan, 1973.

McKenna, Edward E. “Marriage and Fertility in Post-famine Ireland: A Multivariate Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 3 (November, 1974): 688–705.

McLennon, Gregor. “The ‘Labour Aristocracy’ and ‘Incorporation’: Notes on Some Terms in the Social History of the Working Class.” Social History 6 (January, 1981): 71–81.

McLoughlin, Dympna. “Workhouses and Irish Female Paupers, 1840–1870.” In Women Surviving: Studies in Irish Women’s History in the 19th and 20th Centuries, edited by Maria Luddy and Cliona Murphy, 117–147. Dublin: Poolbeg, 1990.

MacLysaght, Edward. A guide to Irish Surnames. Dublin: Helicon Ltd., 1964.

______. Irish Families: Their Names, Arms and Origins. 4th ed. Blackrock, Co. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1985.

______. More Irish Families. Blackrock, Co. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1982.

McMahon, Sean. A Short History of Ireland. 1996; Reprint, Chester Springs, Penn.: Dufour Editions, 1997.

405

McNamara, Robert F. “Trusteeism in the Atlantic States, 1795–1863.” Catholic Historical Review 30 (1944): 135–154.

Mageean, Deirdre M. “Emigration from Irish Ports.” Journal of American Ethnic History 13, no. 1 (Fall, 1993): 6–30.

Mahon, Brid. Land of Milk and Honey: The Story of Traditional Irish Food and Drink. Dublin: Poolbeg Press, 1991. Reprint, Dublin: Mercier Press, 1998.

______. Rich and Rare: The Story of Irish Dress. Dublin: Mercier Press, 2000.

Mandelbaum, Seymour J. Boss Tweed’s New York. New York: J. Wiley, 1965.

Martin, Linda and Kerry Segrave. The Servant Problem: Domestic Workers in North America. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1985.

Maxwell, Constantia. Country and Town in Ireland under the Georges. Dundalk, Ireland: G. G. Harrap & Company Ltd., 1949.

May, Martha. “Bread Before Roses: American Workingmen, Labor Unions and the Family Wage.” In Women, Work and Protest: A Century of U.S. Labor History, edited by Ruth Milkman. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985.

Meagher, Timothy J., ed. From Paddy to Studs: Irish-American Communities in the Turn of the Century Era, 1880 to 1920. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.

______. “’The Lord is Not Dead’: Cultural and Social Change among the Irish in Worcester, Massachusetts.” PhD diss., Brown University, 1982.

Mendel, Ronald. “Workers in Gilded Age New York and Brooklyn, 1886–1898” PhD diss., City University of New York, 1989.

Ment, David. The Shaping of a City: A Brief History of Brooklyn. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Brooklyn Educational and Cultural Alliance, 1979.

Ment, David and Mary S. Donovan. The People of Brooklyn: A History of Two Neighborhoods. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Brooklyn Educational and Cultural Alliance, 1980.

Merwick, Donna. Boston Priests, 1848–1910: A Study of Social and Intellectual Change. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Meyerowitz, Joanne J. Women Adrift: Independent Wage Earners in Chicago, 1880–1930. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Miller, David W. “The Armagh Troubles, 1784–95.” In Irish Peasants: Violence & Political Unrest 1780–1914, edited by Samuel Clark and James S. Donnelly, Jr., 155–191. Madison, Wis. University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

______. Irish Catholicism and the Great Famine.” Journal of Social History 9, no. 1 (Fall, 1975): 81–98.

______. “Mass Attendance in Ireland in 1834.” In Piety and Power in Ireland 1760–1960: Essays in Honour of Emmet Larkin, edited by S.J. Brown and David W. Miller. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, 2000.

406

Miller, Kerby A. “Assimilation and Alienation: Irish Emigrants’ Responses to Industrial America, 1871– 1921.” In The Irish in America: Emigration, Assimilation and Impact [Irish Studies 4], edited by P. J. Drudy, 87–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

______. “Class, Culture, and Immigrant Group Identity in the United States: The Case of Irish- American Ethnicity.” In Immigration Reconsidered, edited by Virginia Yans-McLaughlin, 96–129. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

______. Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. (Originally Published as “Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and Irish Exodus to North America, from Colonial Times to the First World War.” PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1976.)

______, with David N. Doyle, and Patricia Kelleher. “For Love and For Liberty: Irishwomen, Emigration and Domesticity in Ireland and America, 1815–1920.” In Irish Women and Irish Migration, edited by Patrick O’Sullivan, The Irish World Wide Series, IV. London: Leicester University Press, 1995.

Miller, Roger. “Time-Geographic Assessment of the Impact of Horse-Car Transportation in Philadelphia, 1850–1860.” PhD Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1978.

Miller, Zane. Boss Cox’s Cincinnati: Urban Politics in the Progressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Mintzer, Julius. A Neighborhood Study of the Park Slope Community in Brooklyn. New York: Brooklyn Council for Social Planning, 1941.

Municipal Club of Brooklyn. Brooklyn, the Home Borough of New York City: Its Family Life, Educational Advantages, Civic Virtues, Physical Attractions, and Varied Industries. Brooklyn, N.Y., 1912.

Mitchell, Albert Gibbs, Jr. “Irish Family Patterns in Nineteenth-Century Ireland and Lowell, Massachusetts.” PhD diss., Boston University, 1976.

Mitchell, Brian R. and Phyllis Deane. Abstract of British Historical Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.

Modell, John. “The Fruits of Their Toil: The Family Economy of American Workingmen in the Late Nineteenth Century.” In Family and Population in Nineteenth Century America, edited by Tamara K. Hareven and Maris A. Vinovskis. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978.

Modell, John. “Patterns of Consumption, Acculturation and Family Income Strategy in Late Nineteenth Century America” in Tamara Hareven and Maris Vinoskis (eds.), Family and Population in Nineteenth Century America, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1978, 212–214

______. “Suburbanization and Change in the American Family.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 9 (1979): 621–646.

Modell, John, Frank F. Furstenberg, and Theodore Hershberg. “Social Change and Transitions to Adulthood in Historical Perspective.” Journal of Family History 1 (1976).

Mokyr, Joel. Why Ireland Starves: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy, 1800– 1850. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983.

407

Mokyr, Joel and Cormac O’Grada. “New Developments in Irish Population History.” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 37, no. 4 (November, 1984): 473–488.

______. “Poor and Getting Poorer? Living Standards in Ireland before the Famine.” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 41, no. 2 (May, 1986): 209–235.

Montgomery, David. Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans. New York: Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, 1967.

______. “Labor and the Republic in Industrial America, 1860–1920.” Le Mouvement Sociale III (April–June, 1980): 201–215.

______. “Labor in the Industrial Era.” In A History of the American Worker, edited by Richard Morris. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.

______. “The Shuttle and the Cross: Weavers and Artisans in the Kensington Riots of 1844.” Journal of Social History 5 (1972): 411–446.

Moody, T.W. “Fenianism, Home Rule and the Land War (1850–91).)” In The Course of Irish History, edited by T.W. Moody and F.X. Martin, 275–293. Cork: The Mercier Press, 1967.

Moody, T. W. and F. X. Martin. The Course of Irish History. Dublin: The Mercier Press, 1967. Reprint, revised and enlarged edition, Colorado: Roberts Rinehart Publisher, 1995.

Mooney, James. “The Holiday Customs if Ireland.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society XXVI (July–December 1889): 377–427.

Moorhouse, H.F. “The Marxist Theory of the Labour Aristocracy.” Social History 3 (January, 1978): 61–84.

Morawska, Ewa. “The Sociology and Historiography of Immigration.” In Immigration Reconsidered, edited by Virginia Yans-McLaughlin, 187–238. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Motley, James. “Apprenticeship in the Building Trades.” In Studies in American Trade Unionism, edited by Jacob Hollander. New York: H. Holt and Company, 1906.

Nasaw, David. Going Out: The Rise and Fall of Public Amusements. New York: Basic Books, 1993.

Neilly, Andrew. “The Violent Volunteers: A History of the Volunteer Fire Department of Philadelphia, 1763–1871.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1959.

Nelli, Humbert S. From Immigrants to Ethnics: The Italian-Americans. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

______. Italians in Chicago, 1890–1930: A Study in Ethnic Mobility. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Newman, William M. American Pluralism: A Study of Minority Groups and Social Theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Niehaus, Earl F. The Irish in New Orleans, 1800–1860. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1965.

408

Nolan, Janet A. Ourselves Alone: Women’s Emigration from Ireland 1885–1920. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky Press, 1989.

Norman, E.R. The Catholic Church and Ireland in the Age of Rebellion 1859–1873. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1965.

O’Connor, John C. “The Shamrock of New York, the First Irish-American Newspaper,” New York Irish History (1989: vol. 4) 5–6.

O’Brien, George. The Economic History of Ireland from the Union to the Famine. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1921.

O’Brien, John A., ed. The Vanishing Irish: The Enigma of the Modern World. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1953.

O’Danachair, Caoimhin. “The Dress of the Irish.” Eire-Ireland 2 (Autumn 1967): 5–11.

______. “Marriage in Irish Folk Tradition.” In Marriage in Ireland, edited by Art Cosgrove, 99–115. Dublin: College Press, 1985.

O’Donnell, L.A. “From Limerick to the Golden Gate: Odyssey of an Irish Carpenter.” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review (Spring–Summer 1979): 76–91.

O’Donovan, John. The Economic History of Livestock in Ireland. Dublin: Cork University Press, 1940.

O Duillearga, Seamus. “The Gaelic Story Teller; with Some Notes on Gaelic Folk Tales.” Proceedings of the British Academy XXXI (1945): 1–47.

______.“Once Upon a Time.” In Studies in Folk Life: Essays in Honour of Iorwerth O. Peate, edited by Geraint Jenkins, 42–60. New York: Ayer Company Publishers, 1969.

Oestreicher, Richard. “A Note on the Knights of Labor Membership Statistics.” Labor History (Winter, 1984): 102–108.

O’ Flaherty, Rev. Patrick. “The Irish Brigade at the Battle of Fredricksburg”, New York Irish History (1987: vol. 2) 33–38.

O’Flanagan, Patrick, Paul Ferguson and Kevin Whelan, ed. Rural Ireland 1600–1900: Modernisation and Change. Cork: Cork University Press, 1987.

O Grada, Cormac. Ireland: A New Economic History 1780–1939. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

______. Ireland Before and After the Famine: Explorations in Economic History, 1800–1925. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988

O’Neill, Kevin. Family and Farm in Pre-Famine Ireland: The Parish of Killashandra. Madison, Wis. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1984.

______. “’Man Overboard’: Change and Stability in Post-Famine Ireland.” In From Paddy to Studs: Irish-American Communities in the Turn of the Century Era, 1880–1900, edited by Timothy J. Meagher, 27–51. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1986.

O’Neill, T.P.. “Rural Life.” In Social Life in Ireland, 1800–1845, edited by R. B. McDowell, Cork: Colm O Lochlainn, 1957, 44–53.

409

Orme, A.R. Ireland. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1970.

O’Shea, James. Priest, Politics and Society in Post-Famine Ireland: A Study of County Tipperary 1850– 1891. Dublin: Wolfhound Press, 1983.

Ostrander, Stephen M. Brooklyn, Past and Present. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1883.

______. A History of the City of Brooklyn and Kings County. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1894.

O Suilleabhain, Sean. Irish Folk Custom and Belief. Dublin: Cultural Relations Committee of Ireland, 1967.

______. Irish Wake Amusements. Translated by the author from the original Irish Caitheamh Aimsire ar Thorraimh, published by An Clochomahar, 1961. Dublin: Mercier Press, 1967, 1997.

______. Storytelling in the Irish Tradition. Cork: Cultural Relations Committee of Ireland, 1973.

O Tuathaigh, Gearoid. Ireland Before the Famine, 1798–1848. Dubin: Gill and Macmillan Ltd., 1972.

______. “The Role of Women in Ireland under the New English Order.” In Women in Irish Society, edited by Margaret MacCurtain and Donncha O’Corrain, 26–36. Dublin: Arlen House, Ltd., 1978.

Palmer, Bryan D. “Social Formation and Class Formation in North America, 1800–1890.” In Proletarianization and Family History, edited by David Levine, 229–304. Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.

Peiss, Kathy Lee. Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn of the Century New York. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986.

Perlman, Joel. “Working-Class Homeownership and Children’s Schooling in Providence, Rhode Island 1880–1925,” History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1983), pp. 175–193.

Pessen, Edward. “The Egalitarian Myth and the American Social Reality: Wealth, Mobility and Equality in the ‘Era of the Common Man,’” American Historical Review 76(4) (1971) 989–1034.

Petersen, William. “Concepts of Ethnicity.” In Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, edited by Stephan Thernstrom, 234–242. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Poirteir, Cathal, ed. The Great Irish Famine. Dublin: Mercier Press, 1995.

Potter, George. To the Golden Door: The Story of the Irish in Ireland and America. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1960.

Powderly, Terence V. The Path I Trod: The Autobiography of Terence V. Powderly. Edited by Harry J. Carman, Henry David and Paul N. Guthrie. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

Reference Book (and Key) Containing Ratings of Merchants, Manufacturers and Traders Generally Throughout the United States and Canada. R.G. Dun and Company, 1895.

410

Real Estate Record Association. History of Real Estate, Building and Architecture in New York. New York: Record and Guide, 1898.

Rhodes, Rita M. Women and the Family in Post-Famine Ireland: Status and Opportunity in a Patriarchal Society. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1992.

Rich, Kevin Irish Immigrants of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank 1850–1853—Volume I (New York: 2000)

Rich, Kevin Irish Immigrants of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank 1854–1856—Volume II (New York: 2005).

Ridge, John. Celebrating 250 Years of the New York City St. Patrick’s Day Parade. New York: Quinnipac University Press, 2011.

Ridge, John. Erin’s Sons in America: the Ancient Order of Hibernians. The Ancient Order of Hibernians: Brooklyn, 1986.

Ridge, John. The Flatbush Irish. The Ancient Order of Hibernians: Brooklyn, 1983.

Ridge, John. “The Hidden Gaeltacht in Old New York: 19th Century Preaching in the Irish Language,” New York Irish History (1992–93: vol. 6) 13–17

Ridge, John. “The Irish County Societies in New York, 1880–1914, in The New York Irish, Ronald H. Bayor & Timothy J. Meagher, eds., Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995, pp. 292–304.

Riis, Jacob. A. The Children of the Poor. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1899.

______. How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of New York. 1890. Reprint, With a new Preface by Charles A. Madison and 100 Photographs from the Jacob A. Riis collection, the Museum of the City of New York. New York: Dover Books, 1971.

Robert, Paul E.W. “Caravats and Shanavests: Whiteboyism and Faction Fighting in East Munster, 1802– 11.” In Irish Peasants: Violence and Political Unrest 1780–1940, edited by Samuel Clark and James S. Donnelly, Jr., 64–101. Madison, Wis. University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

Rodechko, James P. “An Irish-American Journalist and Catholicism: Patrick Ford of the Irish World.” Church History 39 (1970): 524–540.

Rodechko, James P. Patrick Ford and His Search for America: A Case Study of Irish-American Journalism, 1870–1913. New York: Arno Press, 1976.

Roediger, David R. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. London: Verso, 1991.

Rogers, Cleveland. Our Brooklyn. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Kings County Trust Co., 1954.

Rollins, Judith. Between Women: Domestics and their Employers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985.

Roohan, James E. “American Catholics and the Social Question, 1865–1900.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1952.

411

Rosen, Ruth. The Lost Sisterhood: Prostitution in America, 1900–1918. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1982.

Rosenberg, Roaslind. Beyond Separate Spheres: the intellectual roots of modern feminism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.

Rosenwaike, Ira. A Population History of New York City. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1972.

Rosenzweig, Roy. Eight Hours for What We Will: Workers & Leisure in an Industrial City, 1870–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Rosner, Charles. Printers’ Progress: A Comparative Study of the Craft of Printing, 1851–1951. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951.

Ross, Steven. “The Culture of Political Economy: Henry George and the American Working Class.” Southern California Quarterly LXV (Summer, 1983): 145–166.

Rotella, Elyce J. “The Transformation of the American Office: Changes in Employment and Technology.” Journal of Economic History 41 (March, 1981): 51–57.

Salaman, Redcliffe N. The History and Social Influence of the Potato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970 [1949].

Schoenebaum, Eleanora. “Emerging Neighborhoods: The Development of Brooklyn’s Fringe Areas, 1850–1930.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1976.

Schrier, Arnold. Ireland and the American Emigration 1850–1900. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958.

Shannon, William V. The American Irish: A Political and Social Portrait. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1963 & 1966.

Shea, John Gilmary. A History of the Catholic Church within the Limits of the United States. New York: J.G. Shea, 1890.

Sharp, (Rev.) John Kean. History of the Diocese of Brooklyn, 1853–1953:

The Catholic Church on Long Island, I & II. New York: Fordham University Press, 1954.

Sieder, Violet M. “The Historical Origins of the American Volunteer.” In The Government of Associations: Selections from the Behavioral Sciences, edited by William A. Glaser and David L. Sills. Towata, N.J.: The Bedminster Press, 1966.

Silinonte, Joseph . Tombstones of the Irish-born at Holy Cross Cemetery, Brooklyn: Heritage Books, 1994.

Skerrett, Ellen. “The Catholic Dimension.” In The Irish in Chicago, edited by Lawrence J. McCaffrey et al., 22–60. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987.

Skolnick, Richard. “The Crystallization of Reform in New York City, 1890–1917.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1964.

412

Stone, William L. History of New York City from the Discovery to the Present Day. New York: Virtue & Yorston, 1872.

Smith, Robert J. “Festivals and Calendar Customs.” In Irish History and Culture, edited by Harold Orel, 129–145. Lawrence, Kansas: The University of Kansas Press, 1976.

______. “Irish Mythology.” In Irish History and Culture, edited by Harold Orel, 1–24. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1976.

Solow, Barbara Lewis. The Land Question and the Irish Economy 1870–1903. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Speek, Peter Alexander. “The Single-Tax and the Labor Movement.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, 1915.

Spengler, Edwin. Land Values in New York in Relation to Transit Facilities. New York: Columbia University Press, 1930.

Steckel, Richard H. “The Quality of Census Data for Historical Inquiry: A Research Agenda.” Social Science History 15, no. 4 (Winter, 1991): 579–599.

Stevens, Albert C., ed. The Cyclopædia of Fraternities, 2nd ed. New York: E.B. Treat, 1907.

Stevenson, Katherine and H. Ward Jandl. Houses by Mail: A Guide to Houses by Sears, Roebuck, and Company, New York: John Wiley, 1996.

Stewart, A. T. O. The Narrow Ground: Aspects of Ulster, 1609–1969. London: Faber, 1977.

Stiles, Henry R. The Civil, Political, Professional and Ecclesiastical History and Commercial and Industrial Record of the County of Kings and the City of Brooklyn, N.Y. from 1683 to 1884. New York: W. W. Munsell & Co., 1884.

Stiles, Henry R.. The History of Brooklyn and Kings County. McLoughlin & Co, Brooklyn, 1867.

______. A History of the City of Brooklyn. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1870.

Sullivan, Stephen. “The Orange and Green Riots.” New York Irish History 6 (1991–92): 7–8, 19.

Sullivan, Stephen J. “From Citizen to Civil Servant: The Transition of Brooklyn’s Volunteer Fire Department to Paid Status, 1840–1869,” Brooklyn Historical Society Exhibition Catalog, 1994

Swan, Herbert S. The Housing Market in New York City. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1944.

Syrett, Harold Coffin. The City of Brooklyn, 1865–1898: A Political History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944.

Taylor, George Rogers. “Building an Inter-urban Transportation System.” In The Urbanization of America: an Historical Anthology, edited by Allen M. Wakstein. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1970.

Tentler, Leslie. Wage-Earning Women: Industrial Work and Family Life in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

413

Thernstrom, Stephan. The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880– 1970. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.

______. Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth-Century City. New York: Atheneum, 1969.

Thernstrom, Stephan and Peter Knights. “Men in Motion, some Data and Speculations upon Population Mobility in Nineteenth Century America.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 1 1970.

Tilly, Charled. “Transplanted Networks.” In Immigration Reconsidered, edited by Virginia Yans- McLaughlin, 79–95. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Tilly, Louise A. and Joan W. Scott. Women, Work, and Family. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.

Tomasi, Silvano. Pity and Power: The Role of the Italian Parishes in the New York Metropolitan Area, 1880–1920. New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1975.

Trachtenberg, Alan. Brooklyn Bridge, Fact and Symbol. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Tucker, G.S.L. “Irish Fertility Ratios before the Famine.” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 23, no. 2 (August, 1970): 267–284.

Tygiel, Jules. “Tramping Artisans: The Case of the Carpenters in Industrial America.” Labor History (Summer, 1981): 348–376.

Ussher, Arland. “The Boundary Between the Sexes.” In The Vanishing Irish, edited by John A. O’Brien, 156–169. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953.

Vaughan, W.E. and A.J. Fitzpatrick, eds. Irish Historical Statistics: Population 1821–1971. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1978.

Vecoli, Rudolph. “Contadini in Chicago: A Critique of The Uprooted.” Journal of American History 51 (1964): 407–417.

Vinyard, JoEllen M. “The Irish on the Urban Frontier: Detroit, 1850–1880.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1972.

Vinyard, JoEllen. The Irish on the Urban Frontier, 1850–1880, Arno Press: New York,1976.

Wall, Maureen. “The Age of the Penal Laws (1691–1778).” In The Course of Irish History, edited by T.W. Moody and F.X. Martin, 217–231. Cork, The Mercier Press, 1967.

______. “The Rise of a Catholic Middle Class in Eighteenth-Century Ireland.” Irish Historical Studies 21 (September 1958): 91–115.

______. “The Whiteboys.” In Secret Societies in Ireland, edited by T. Desmond Williams, 13–25. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1973.

Walsh, Brendan M. “Marriage in Ireland in the Twentieth Century.” In Marriage in Ireland, edited by Art Cosgrove, 132–150. Dublin: College Press, 1985.

______. “Marriage Rates and Population Pressure: Ireland, 1871–1911.” Economic History Review, 2nd sr. 23, no. 1 (April, 1970): 148–163.

414

______. “A Perspective on Irish Population Patterns.” Eire-Ireland 4, no. 3 (1969): 3–13.

Walsh, Victor A. “Across the Big Water.” PhD Diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1983.

______. “‘Drowning the Shamrock’: Drink, Teetotalism and the Irish Catholics of Gilded Age Pittsburgh.” Journal of American Ethnic History 10, no. 1–2 (Fall, 1990–Winter, 1991): 60–79.

______. “‘A Fanatic Heart’: The Cause of Irish-American Nationalism in Pittsburgh During the Gilded Age.” Journal of Social History 12, no. 2 (Winter, 1981): 187–204.

______. “Irish Nationalism and Land Reform: The Role of the Irish in America.” In The Irish in America: Emigration, Assimilation and Impact, edited by P.J. Drudy, 253–269, Vol. 4, Irish Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Ward, David. Cities and Immigrants: A Geography of Change in Nineteenth Century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

______. “The Emergence of Central Immigrant Ghettoes in American Cities, 1840–1920.” In Cities in American History, edited by Kenneth T. Jackson and Stanley K. Schultz, 164–176. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1972.

Ward, Margaret. Unmanageable Revolutionaries: Women and Irish Nationalism. London: Pluto Press, 1973.

Walkowitz, Daniel. “Working Class Women in the Gilded Age: Factory, Community and Family Life Among Cohoes, New York Cotton Workers,” Journal of Social History, Vol. 5, No. 4, 464–490.

Walsh, Victor. “Across the Big Water,” Ph.D. diss. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA., 1983.

Warner, Sam Bass, Jr. “Innovation and the Industrialization of Philadelphia, 1890–1850.” In The Historian and the City, edited by Oscar Handlin and John Burchard. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963.

______. The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968.

______. “A Scaffolding for Urban History.” In The Urbanization of America: an Historical Anthology, edited by Allen M. Wakstein. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1960

______. Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston, 1870–1900. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970.

Warner, Sam Bass, Jr. and Colin Burke. “Culture Change and the Ghetto.” Journal of Contemporary History 4 (1969): 173–187.

Way, Peter. “Evil Humors and Ardent Spirits: The Rough Culture of Canal Construction Laborers.” Journal of American History 79, no. 4 (March, 1993): 1397–1428.

Weber, Adna F. The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century: A Study in Statistics. New York: 1899.

Weinberg, Syney Stahl. “The Treatment of Women in Immigrant History: A Call for Change.” Journal of American Ethnic History 11, no. 4 (Summer, 1992): 25–46.

Weld, Ralph Foster. Brooklyn is America. New York: Columbia University Press, 1950.

415

______. Brooklyn Village, 1816–1834. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.

Wilentz, Sean. Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788– 1850. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Willis, Houghton and Charles Ditmas. Flatbush: A Study in Transportation. New York: 1920.

Wood, Helen Lanigan. “Women in Myths and Early Depictions.” In Irish Women: Image and Achievement, edited by Eilean Ni Chuilleanain, 13–24. Dublin: Arlen House, 1985.

Woodham–Smith, Cecil. The Great Hunger, 1845–1849. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.

Wood–Martin, W. G. Traces of the Elder Faiths, II. London: Longman’s, Green & Co., 1902.

Wright, Robert L. Irish Emigrant Ballads and Songs. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1975.

Government Publications

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Vinegar Hill Historic District Designation Report, by Donald G. Presa. New York, 1997.

416

Appendices Methodology

I. Federal Manuscript Census Files

Most statistical information presented in this dissertation was drawn from files created between 1992 and 1999 by the author and several student assistants at Lawrence High School in

Cedarhurst, NY. Data on Brooklyn’s Irish and the rest of the City’s population was organized in two discrete ways: 1)) “census ethnicity files” containing a 1/10 sample of individual males over age seventeen listed in the federal manuscript census schedules for 1850–1900, and 2)

“household files” composed of total census information on all individuals living in one-tenth of the households in the discrete census years: 1850, 1880, and 1900.

The census ethnicity files include data about Irish, Germans, Blacks, Native Whites, and various other ethnic groups living in Kings County in any given census year. After 1880, it is possible to distinguish second-generation immigrants from the rest of the populace. Thus, census data can be obtained for first-generation Irish males each census year, but in 1880 and

1900 a sample of second-generation adult males can also be examined. Similarly, the addition of the second-generation distinction adds a great deal to analysis of the “household files” as well.

Only after 1880 can relationships of individuals to the head of the household be accurately determined. Thus, only the 1880 and 1900 files were used to examine family relationships.

However, household files for all three years were used to calculate age and gender distributions of the immigrant population. This loosely follows the original approach of the Philadelphia

Social History Project outlined by Hershberg. However, coding the complete Kings County

417 manuscript census for 1850–1900 was beyond the resources and scope of this project, even with a generous grant from the State Archives and Records Administration in 1992.1

Individuals’ birthplaces, fathers’ birthplaces, and if possible, paternal grandfathers’ birthplaces were used to classify Brooklynites into ethnic categories. All Irish and Germans in the Kings County sample are White. All native-stock Americans used for comparison are White.

Blacks are considered separately for particular analyses.

Definitions

Native-stock: Born in U.S., father born in U.S.—except identifiable third generation. “Native-

stock white” is often shortened to “native white” in the text. “Native white” always

means born in the United States to a U.S.-born father.

First generation: Born in Ireland or Germany.

Second generation: Born in North America (U.S. or Germany), father born in Ireland or

Germany.

Third generation: Born in North America, living with second-generation father.

The 1880 manuscript census supplies information on place of birth for each individual and for both of his or her parents. The paternal line was used to classify the population into groups.

The 1890 U.S. Census Vital Statistics Report (NYC and Brooklyn) uses maternal birthplace to categorize aggregate statistics, but the 1890 manuscript census was destroyed by fire.

1 Theodore Hershberg, “The Philadelphia Social History Project,” Historical Methods Newsletter, 9, (1976), pp. 43-58.

418

II. Occupational Classification

Quantitative studies of class structure in nineteenth century America suffer from a variety of conceptual problems, controversy remains regarding the criteria used to define class in nineteenth century terms. Debate still rages over the impact of industrial change on the class structure. A research model flexible enough to reflect changes in the era’s occupational structure would be valuable indeed. For example, a shoemaker who fashioned shoes by hand in 1850 and one who made only part of the shoe, aided by a pegging machine in 1880, would be classified in the same occupational level although the nature of the craft had changed markedly in the intervening years. For the shoemaker, the reorganization of work and the introduction of labor- saving machinery reflected a clear dilution of skill, the loss of artisanal status, and a likely decline in real income. Moreover, any effective classification scheme must assess not only variation across, but also within occupations according to skills, earnings, and status.

Occupationally derived hierarchies require specificity and precision.

Much of the difficulty is due to the nature of the source material. The population manuscript census schedules did not record many occupations with great specificity. For example, was a given “retail merchant” the owner of a large, successful enterprise, or the proprietor of a small marginal shop? Was a particular “tailor or “shoemaker” a self-employed artisan, a journeyman, or merely a factory operative? How extensive was the range of variation within as well as among different businesses in terms of the value of manufactured goods and the size of the workforce?462

462 See Clyde Griffen, “Occupational Mobility in Nineteenth-Century America: Problems and Possibilities,” Journal of Social History, 5 (1972), 310-33; Michael B. Katz, “Occupational Classification in History,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 3 (Summer, 1972), 63-88 and The People of Hamilton, Canada West: Family and Class in A Mid-Nineteenth Century City (Cambridge/London, 1975), 51-4; Stephan Thernstrom, “A Note on the Historical Study of Social Mobility,” Comparative Studies in

419

The current study followed the vertical occupational classification scheme pioneered by

Thernstrom and other scholars of class and mobility in the 1970’s.463 This study was based on a one-tenth stratified sample of the workforce extracted from the 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, and

1900 federal census population schedules for Brooklyn. Each occupation was assigned a hierarchical ranking in terms of its occupational stratum and class. (See table A-1.) The five occupational rankings are: I. high white collar, II. low white collar, III. skilled worker, IV. semi-skilled worker, V. unskilled worker. In several places throughout the text, a three-tier classification is utilized. Tiers I and II are collapsed to “white collar”; Tier III remains as

“skilled worker”; Tiers IV and V are combined to create “nonskilled worker.”464

To differentiate large- and small-scale proprietors, the author relied on property ownership. Proprietors who reported owning at least $3000 in real estate were assigned high white collar status. Those owning less were ranked as low white collar. This figure was selected because less than 10% of the city’s male workforce owned property valued at $3000 or more.

Although to a lesser degree than in other nineteenth century cities, property ownership tended to define economic success. Less than a quarter of Brooklynites owned land in 1850; this figure improved by 1870, but the general pattern persisted.

Like proprietors, Brooklyn’s artisans represented a broad range of occupations and socioeconomic conditions. To differentiate master artisans from journeymen and apprentices,

Society and History, 10 (January, 1968), 159-72; Bruce Laurie, Theodore Hershberg, and George Alter, “Immigrants and Industry: The Philadelphia Experience, 1850-1880,” Journal of Social History, 9 (Winter, 1975), 212-22. 463 See Stephan Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880-1970 (Cambridge, 1973), Appendix B, 289-302; Michael B. Katz, People of Hamilton Appendix 2, 343-8; Clyde and Sally Griffen, Natives and Newcomers: The Ordering of Opportunity in Mid- Nineteenth- Century Poughkeepsie (London/Cambridge, 1978), esp. ch. 3, 50-83; Kathleen Neils Conzen, Immigrant Milwaukee, 1836-1860 (Cambridge, 1976). 464 See Theodore Hershberg, et al., “Occupation and Ethnicity in Five Nineteenth-Century Cities: A Collaborative Inquiry,” Historical Methods Newsletter, (June, 1974), 174-216.

420 individuals drawn from the census population schedules who were also listed in the manufacturing manuscript schedules were listed as low white collar. Those artisans not found in the manufacturing census as well were listed as skilled workers.

Using property ownership to distinguish petty proprietors from large manufacturers was impossible for the 1880 and 1900 census years because the U.S. Census Bureau eliminated that question from its schedules after 1870. Therefore, no fully acceptable method for sorting proprietors into high and low white collar has yet been determined.

Analyses of the respective class structures of Brooklyn in 1880 and 1900 was more fruitful. These involved searches similar to the 1850 hunts for artisans in the manufacturing census schedules. Those listed were deemed low white collar; individuals who could not be located were assigned skilled worker status. This approach was particularly useful in Brooklyn because of the persistent nature of the city’s small workshops and artisanal crafts. Many remained essentially small handicraft operations, more reliant on skilled hand power than the large scale industries that developed in other Northeastern and Midwestern cities. (See Chapter

4.)

421

Table A-1 OCCUPATIONAL RANKINGS (MODIFIED THERNSTROM HIERARCHY) BROOKLYN, 1850–1900 I. High White Collar

Professionals: Rank 1 architect, clergyman, commission merchant, editor, lawyer, manufacturer, physician, scientist, teacher, veterinarian

Major Proprietors, Managers, and Kindred Types ( w/ Real Estate Holdings in the City’s top 10%) or Petty Proprietors, Managers, and Kindred Types (w/ Real Estate Holdings below top 10%) [final rank—1 or 2—to be determined later by examination of tax lists] banker, boarding house keeper, contractor, dealer, dry goods/fancy goods merchant, farmer, grocer, hotel/inn keeper, merchant, restauranteur, storekeeper/shopkeeper, tavern/saloon keeper, tobacconist, victualer

II. Low White Collar

Clerks and Salesmen: Rank 2 accountant, agent, auditor, bank teller, bookkeeper, broker, cashier, clerk, salesman

Semi-Professional: Rank 2 athlete, dentist, draftsman, druggist, embalmer, entertainer/musician, foreman, journalist, librarian, nurse, optician, photographer, surveyor, writer

Self-Employed Artisans (listed in Manufacturing Census) or Skilled Workers (not listed—i.e., not self-employed) [final rank—2 or 3—to be determined later by examination of tax lists] baker, blacksmith, bookbinder, brewer/distiller, brickmaker, butcher, cabinetmaker/chairmaker, carriage/coachmaker, cigarmaker, confectioner, coppersmith, electrician, furrier, glazier, hatter, jeweler, painter, plasterer, plumber, printer, saddler, shoemaker, silversmith, stonemason, tailor, tanner, tinsmith, tool-and-die maker, upholsterer

III. Skilled: 3 boat captain, boilermaker, bricklayer/brickmason, caulker, carpenter, conductor, cooper, cordwainer, dyer, engine builder, engineer, engraver, fireman (locomotive) , gasfitter, glassblower, heater, joiner, lithographer, machinist, millwright, moulder, nailmaker, paperhanger, patternmaker, puddler, roofer, ship carpenter, steamfitter, stone cutter, turner, typesetter, wheelwright

IV. Semi-Skilled And Service Workers: Rank 4 apprentice, barber, bartender, brakeman, carman, carter, cook, deliveryman, dressmaker/seamstress, driver/teamster/chauffeur, elevator operator, factory operatives, fireman (city) (3/skilled after 1884), fisherman, hospital attendant, janitor/custodian, lineman, longshoreman, meatcutter, milkman, motorman, peddler, policeman (3/skilled after 1884), servant/domestic/maid, stevedore, steward, switchman, waiter, watchman, weaver, welder, “works in shop”

V. Unskilled and Menial Service Workers: Rank 5 boatman, ferryman, gardener, hostler/liveryman, laborer, porter, quarryman, railroad worker, sailor/seaman/soldier, servant/domestic/maid,

VI. “Keeping House”: Rank 6

VII. “At School”: Rank 7

422

III. Surname Analysis

Census manuscripts, city directories, and other aggregate sources useful in analyzing nineteenth century Brooklyn do not specify county or province of birth for Irish immigrants.

Therefore, the author relied upon surname analysis to estimate regional origins. In A

Genealogical History of the Milesian Families of Ireland, a 1968 reprint of an 1864

Parliamentary report by the Registrar General of Ireland which lists by county and province all surnames of 1890 live births, colinking these surnames with respective one-tenth samples of the

Irish male workforce listed in the manuscript census (immigrant in 1850, community in 1880 and

1900) produces a success factor of 81.5%. 1652 of 2028 cases were located among the surnames in the 1894 Report.1

Despite the high level of colinkage, conceptual problems persist in employing a surname analysis. Irish counties and provinces are arbitrary political boundaries. As such, they do not conform well to distinctive geographic regions regarding cultural or economic traits. James

Johnson’s study of Derry and James Donnelly’s examination of Cork demonstrate that no single county or province of Ireland marked a truly distinct rural economy, landholding pattern, cultural heritage, or cohort depletion rate. Variable differences existed both across and within county and province boundaries. As explained in Chapter 1, mid-nineteenth century Ireland can be effectively divided into six ecological regions precisely to address this conceptual dilemma: East

Leinster, the Golden Vale, the Midlands, the West, East Ulster, and West Ulster.

In addition, considerable time had passed between the period under study and the date of the Registrar General’s Report, roughly forty years. However, other than counties Carlow,

1 A Genealogical Report of the Milesian Families of Ireland (Dublin: 1968). See the Census of Ireland… 1851, General Report, Pt. VI, H.C. 1856, (2134), XXXI, 52; Census of Ireland… 1861, General Report, Pt. V, H.C. 1863, (3204-iv), LXI, xxxix; Census of Ireland… 1871, General Report, Pt. III, H.C. 1876, (c-1377), LXXXI, 94; Census of Ireland… 1881, General Report, Pt. II, H.C. 1882, (3365), LXXVI, 266.

423

Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Westmeath, and Wicklow, permanent intercounty migration consistently fell below 12 percent per decade from 1851–1901. Thus, it seems unlikely that surname distribution changed markedly over those decades.