In a message dated 8/12/2006 6:00:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, IRL-CLARE- D-request@rootsweb.com writes: <have noticed very many the women on the passenger lists I look at seem to be listed as going to the US to work as a Servant and men as Laborers. This has my curiosity. I know my Grandmother, Catherine Kelly, came to Boston and worked as a house maid for a family on Martha's Vineyard. It was something she wouldn't talk about. > These stories irritate me every time I see them. Maybe some immigrants to North America in the 17th of 18th C. were indentured (I know some Irish deported by Cromwell were taken to New Hampshire by ship captains rather than to slavery in the Barbadoes). Those very lucky persons were often employed as "indentured servants", for a number of years, but stories of Irish immigrants as late as the 19th C. being so employed I believe are largely false or based on a misunderstanding of circumstances and job descriptions. Of course, it's possible for individuals to have entered into probably illegal arrangements, but to suggest that a "domestic servant" was a virtual slave is way off the mark. In Ireland, a review of many marriage registers will show that a large percentage of females described themselves as "servants", which meant simply that they worked as a domestic for some probably well-off neighbor or perhaps their landlord. - often a relative, though of different religion! They were by no means enslaved or held in servitude or bondage. Many Irish in the USA seem so willing to believe the worst, when that was not at all the case. A young woman of a non-landed (read Catholic) family in 19th C. Ireland had few employment options in rural Ireland. A domestic ("servant") was one of the few. If they were unwilling to talk about it, the reason most likely was that they would have been looked down upon in the USA as akin to freed slaves, based on the common perceptions of "servant" at that time. That's not to say there weren't some bad employment situations after immigrating here - but often avoidable, especially after achieving US citizenship. The same applies to males. If one was not of the landed gentry class, there were few occupations that merited any other designation than "laborer"?. Some exceptions I've seen were "carpenter", "farmer", "soldier". There were some others, but most were reserved for the ascendancy. Thus a "laborer" was usually a farm worker, either employed by some other land owner, or working his own farm which was leased from someone else. Catholics could only lease land for periods of 33 years, sometimes renewable especially if there were family ties with the lessor, so some families were able to hold onto property for several generations. If by some chance he were able to own some land outright he would be a "farmer" or maybe even "gentleman farmer" (especially if he had conformed to the state religion) , but otherwise a "laborer". I hope this helps to clarify the matter, Len Keane

I do appreicate your imput here. I had never thought my grandma was a slave just to make that clear. I had never heard of "indentured servants" until just recently. I had never heard of there ever being Irish slaves (like in the 1700's). It was a bit shocking to me. On 8/12/06, Dolmenx@aol.com <Dolmenx@aol.com> wrote: > > > In a message dated 8/12/2006 6:00:41 A.M. Eastern Standard > Time, IRL-CLARE- > D-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > <have noticed very many the women on the passenger lists I look at seem > to > be listed as going to the US to work as a Servant and men > as Laborers. This > has my curiosity. I know my Grandmother, Catherine Kelly, came to Boston > and worked as a house maid for a family on Martha's Vineyard. It was > something > she wouldn't talk about. > > > These stories irritate me every time I see them. Maybe some immigrants > to > North America in the 17th of 18th C. were indentured (I know some Irish > deported by Cromwell were taken to New Hampshire by ship captains rather > than to > slavery in the Barbadoes). Those very lucky persons were often employed > as > "indentured servants", for a number of years, but stories of Irish > immigrants > as late as the 19th C. being so employed I believe are largely false or > based > on a misunderstanding of circumstances and job descriptions. Of course, > it's possible for individuals to have entered into probably illegal > arrangements, but to suggest that a "domestic servant" was a virtual slave > is way off > the mark. > > In Ireland, a review of many marriage registers will show that a large > percentage of females described themselves as "servants", which meant > simply that > they worked as a domestic for some probably well-off neighbor or perhaps > their landlord. - often a relative, though of different religion! They > were by > no means enslaved or held in servitude or bondage. Many Irish in the USA > seem > so willing to believe the worst, when that was not at all the case. > > A young woman of a non-landed (read Catholic) family in 19th C. Ireland > had > few employment options in rural Ireland. A domestic ("servant") was one > of > the few. If they were unwilling to talk about it, the reason most likely > was > that they would have been looked down upon in the USA as akin to freed > slaves, based on the common perceptions of "servant" at that > time. That's not to > say there weren't some bad employment situations after immigrating here - > but > often avoidable, especially after achieving US citizenship. > > The same applies to males. If one was not of the landed gentry class, > there were few occupations that merited any other designation than > "laborer"?. > Some exceptions I've seen were "carpenter", "farmer", "soldier". There > were > some others, but most were reserved for the ascendancy. Thus a "laborer" > was usually a farm worker, either employed by some other land owner, or > working > his own farm which was leased from someone else. Catholics could only > lease land for periods of 33 years, sometimes renewable especially if > there were > family ties with the lessor, so some families were able to hold onto > property for several generations. If by some chance he were able to > own some land > outright he would be a "farmer" or maybe even "gentleman > farmer" (especially > if he had conformed to the state religion) , but otherwise a "laborer". > > I hope this helps to clarify the matter, > > Len Keane > > > > > > ==== IRL-CLARE Mailing List ==== > If you just want to subscribe to this list or unsubscribe from it, send > e-mail to IRL-CLARE-L-request@rootsweb.com > or (for the digest list) IRL-CLARE-D-request@rootsweb.com and put the word > subscribe or unsubscribe in the message body. > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > >

Len, I agree with you re: the term indentured servant. Pre 19th century, there were people in Europe, who signed on of their own accord to work for a stipulated amount of time for someone in the 13 colonies in order to have their fare paid. After the contract was fulfilled they were free to go on their way. In no way were they slaves but in many incidences the circumstances were less than good. I doubt if by the time of our Civil War that there were any or very few indentured servants. The terms, servant, laborer for young men & women who emigrated in the 19th and early 20th century were to designate an occupation. The term spinster was often used in place of servant. Also, there may have been people in 1st class who employed those in steerage. In my & my husband's family we have found those terms used for ancestors on passenger lists, City Directory, census. The idea that they were indentured servants never entered our minds. Many young Irish women, worked in homes as maids, cooks, etc. Today, there are young European women who sign on as "Au Pair" and come to the USA. As in the past, some "luck" out and have a good experience, others have found themselves in very bad and sometimes compromising positions. Mary Ellen Chambers Dolmenx@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 8/12/2006 6:00:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, IRL-CLARE- D-request@rootsweb.com writes: be listed as going to the US to work as a Servant and men as Laborers. This has my curiosity. I know my Grandmother, Catherine Kelly, came to Boston and worked as a house maid for a family on Martha's Vineyard. It was something she wouldn't talk about. > These stories irritate me every time I see them. Maybe some immigrants to North America in the 17th of 18th C. were indentured (I know some Irish deported by Cromwell were taken to New Hampshire by ship captains rather than to slavery in the Barbadoes). Those very lucky persons were often employed as "indentured servants", for a number of years, but stories of Irish immigrants as late as the 19th C. being so employed I believe are largely false or based on a misunderstanding of circumstances and job descriptions. Of course, it's possible for individuals to have entered into probably illegal arrangements, but to suggest that a "domestic servant" was a virtual slave is way off the mark. In Ireland, a review of many marriage registers will show that a large percentage of females described themselves as "servants", which meant simply that they worked as a domestic for some probably well-off neighbor or perhaps their landlord. - often a relative, though of different religion! They were by no means enslaved or held in servitude or bondage. Many Irish in the USA seem so willing to believe the worst, when that was not at all the case. A young woman of a non-landed (read Catholic) family in 19th C. Ireland had few employment options in rural Ireland. A domestic ("servant") was one of the few. If they were unwilling to talk about it, the reason most likely was that they would have been looked down upon in the USA as akin to freed slaves, based on the common perceptions of "servant" at that time. That's not to say there weren't some bad employment situations after immigrating here - but often avoidable, especially after achieving US citizenship. The same applies to males. If one was not of the landed gentry class, there were few occupations that merited any other designation than "laborer"?. Some exceptions I've seen were "carpenter", "farmer", "soldier". There were some others, but most were reserved for the ascendancy. Thus a "laborer" was usually a farm worker, either employed by some other land owner, or working his own farm which was leased from someone else. Catholics could only lease land for periods of 33 years, sometimes renewable especially if there were family ties with the lessor, so some families were able to hold onto property for several generations. If by some chance he were able to own some land outright he would be a "farmer" or maybe even "gentleman farmer" (especially if he had conformed to the state religion) , but otherwise a "laborer". I hope this helps to clarify the matter, Len Keane ==== IRL-CLARE Mailing List ==== If you just want to subscribe to this list or unsubscribe from it, send e-mail to IRL-CLARE-L-request@rootsweb.com or (for the digest list) IRL-CLARE-D-request@rootsweb.com and put the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the message body. ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx