Domestic Servants and the Color Line

December 7th, 2006

There are two main types of academic literature on domestic servants in the United States. The first was generated by social scientists mainly from 1890 to 1920 and related to a failed progressive-era movement to reform domestic service in response to a shortage of servants – the “servant problem.” The second – the main subject of this work - is a body of social history starting in the late '70s with David Katzman's Seven Days A Week and continuing to the present. Since the publication of Katzman's work a number of subsequent works have come out, a few disagreeing with him, but most elaborating on his argument, examining aspects he did not cover, or using sources he didn't use. Race relations, particularly black-white race relations, played a key role in the evolution of domestic service in the US, especially in the transition from live-in to live-out service. Most works on domestic servants focus specifically on “free” workers (wage-laborers) and exclude enslaved servants and indentured servants, sometimes by definition. This essay follows the same convention.

The first major work to examine black domestic servants was W.E.B. DuBois' The Philadelphia Negro, intended as a sociological analysis of then-contemporary Philadelphia, not as a historical work. The book is based on interviews with black Philadelphians and a statistical analysis of the results. DuBois views African-Americans' social problems as a result of enslavement, capitalism and racism. The last section is a “Special Report on Negro Domestic Service in the seventh ward” authored by Isabel Eaton.

Due to racial discrimination the majority of blacks, and the immense majority of black women, were employed in domestic service. Racial discrimination also pushed large numbers of black men into an otherwise female occupation. Servants objected to the poor living quarters, lack of autonomy, racism, low wages, long working hours, lack of leisure time and sexual violation involved in service. DuBois's and Eaton's works were a part of the original social science literature on domestic service appearing around the turn of the twentieth century, although they paid more attention to race than many other works.

In 1984 Bettina Berch pointed out many of the flaws of the original social science literature “'The Sphinx in the Household': A New Look at the History of Household Workers.” The reformers and their social scientist allies believed the servant shortage was caused by the social stigma attached to domestic service, not poor wages or long working hours. They argued the proper solution to the servant problem was not to increase wages or improve working conditions but to change attitudes and professionalize domestic service in order to remove the stigma attached to it.

Focusing on Lucy Salmon's classic Domestic Servants, probably the most influential of the social scientists' works, Berch expose the multiple problems with this thesis. Salmon's work was based on a survey of virtually anyone involved with domestic service, from employers to servants to Salmon's friends & family members to people who's mother used to be a servant. She failed to take proper steps to obtain an unbiased sample, and mostly failed to solicit servants' responses. Salmon also engages in statistical tricks to exaggerate how much servants were paid while underestimating how much other female workers were paid (such as by adding the cost of room and board to servants' pay while subtracting it from teachers' pay).

Probably the most damaging criticism of Salmon is her failure to take servants' much longer working hours into account. Though the gross pay of servants was comparable to other jobs open to women at the time, the longer working hours meant they were paid very poorly on an hourly basis. Thus the social scientists over-emphasized the role of social stigma while underestimating the impact of poor working conditions. The social historians who later began writing the history of domestic servants used these social scientists' studies as a source, and consequently some of the problems with their work has crept into some of the histories of domestic servants.

After 1920 interest in domestic servants declined until 1978 when David Katzman published Seven Days A Week. He describes his work as a piece of historical sociology which aims to bring the “new social history” to the study of domestic servants and to introduce historical elements to the sociology of work. His work focuses on the period 1870-1920 “because it was the period of most rapid American industrialization and urbanization” and also saw a major transition in the nature of domestic service. [1] Katzman uses both quantitative sources and more traditional written sources, including census records, bureau of labor statistics, contemporary investigations by social scientists, magazines, newspapers, housekeeping guidebooks and autobiographies of servants. Katzman appears ambivalent about whether or not servants were paid more than other female occupations, probably because of his reliance on those social scientists' studies that emphasized the stigma of domestic service over its long hours.

Because servants lived and worked in their mistresses' homes, on call seven days a week, they tended to develop a highly personalized relationship, in some cases developing bonds of affection despite the class conflict inherent in their relationship. Employers didn't just buy a servant's labor; they hired the worker herself. Mistresses often assumed a protective-guardian role (“maternalist” not “paternalist” because this was one of the few occupations where women were predominantly both employer and employee) for themselves, yet that did not prevent them from harshly overworking their servants, especially by middle-class mistresses who often expected the work of multiple servants out of a single servant. The eventual shift to live-out work removed some of the personalized nature of service, but did not significantly alter servants' wages, working conditions, or low status. In the south most mistresses were white and most servants blacks, making domestic service an important part of what Katzman calls “the racial caste structure.” [2]

Katzman correctly sees race as playing a key role in the evolution of domestic service. After emancipation blacks in the South largely refused to work as live-in domestic servants, insisting on living out instead, because they associated live-in work with slavery. Live-in servants lived with their employers while live-out servants had their own homes, separating their work from their lives. The daywork house cleaner is a common image of live-out servants. Living away from their employers gave servants more control over their lives, ensuring she was outside the direct control of her mistress for at least part of the day. Live-out work also provided servants with more autonomy.

In addition to live-in service's association with slavery, structural pressures on black women encouraged live-out service. Given the tendencies for racial discrimination to crowd black women into domestic service by denying access to most other occupations – turning blacks into a servant race - and for black women to continue working after marriage it would have been very difficult to force all black women into live-in service. Living with one's employer as a servant made marrying and raising a family difficult if the employer even allowed it; outside the south domestics left service when they got married (and thus were generally younger than their southern counterparts). Because most black women could not afford to leave service after marriage requiring live-in service from them would interfere with their ability to raise a family, something black women obviously would not accept. Live-out service was the only way to have such a large number of black women working as servants. In addition, Katzman argues the physical difference between white and black dwellings was lower in the south than in the North, making live-in service easier by reducing travel time. [3]

Most women found domestic service undesirable due to its low status, isolation, lack of autonomy, difficult work, the servility and deference required, personalized mistress/servant relationship, lack of privacy, and the requirement of being on call seven days a week. As a result, those who could tended to avoid service, causing those with fewer options – immigrants, blacks, and other people of color – to make up an increasing proportion of servants. As factory and other non-domestic jobs expanded through the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century women, especially the native-born white protestant women employers preferred, fled and the proportion of women in service declined. In 1870, when Katzman's study begins, half of all employed women worked in domestic service but by 1920, when Katzman's study ends, that percentage had fallen to 16 percent. [4]

As blacks migrated out of the South they brought their preference for live-in service with them, eventually transforming the occupation. When the main sources of immigration shifted after 1890 employer prejudices against the new immigrants resulted in a reduction in the proportion of immigrant servants and a corresponding increase in the proportion of black servants. After Congress cut off the flow of immigration in the '20s the proportion of immigrant servants declined even more, leaving blacks as the dominant group of servants. European immigrants tended to be servants for only a temporary amount of time until marrying, while blacks remained servants even after marrying, making up a pool of permanent servants.

The lack of new immigrants to replace retiring immigrant servants, the fleeing of native-born whites from service, and the migration of African-Americans out of the south left blacks as the main group in service nationwide. Black preferences for live-out work thus became a nationwide preference, resulting in the transformation of the occupation from mainly live-in work to mainly live-out work and the growth of commercial laundries and bakeries. [5] Katzman argues this transformation did little to remove the stigma attached to domestic service. The reduction in the availability of domestic servants – of any race or ethnicity – also encouraged the mechanization of the home as a response to the shortage of servants. He calls this process “modernization in the household” but the term “modernization” is flawed because it assumes history inevitably flows towards something like modern-day US & Europe, projecting the present onto the past. [6]

Katzman's argument is largely correct, but his claim that “the influences of status, race and ethnicity, and sex are more salient features in household labor than are economic factors” over-emphasizes non-economic factors. [7] His own data shows the evolution of labor markets, patterns of immigration, and the rise of capitalism, including the transition to wage labor, were important factors in the evolution of domestic service. One of the reasons domestic service differed from other occupations was the lack of the profit-seeking motive that drove other industries. Servants were not intended to generate a surplus for their employers, causing the nature of the industry to deviate from most other industries where employees were supposed to generate a surplus. Non-economic factors were clearly very important, but so were economic factors.

Katzman sees his conclusions as hypotheses needing be tested at the local level by individual case studies.8 Since the publication of Seven Days A Week a number of case studies have been carried out, some confirming his hypotheses, others contradicting them. Susan Tucker's “A Complex Bond: Southern Black Domestic Workers and their White Employers” complements Katzman's analysis of the relationship between white mistresses and black servants while elaborating on aspects he ignored. Tucker's analysis is based on 100 interviews with black and white women; her use of oral history sources allows her to give a more detailed and personal portrayal than Katzman. Tucker notes racial prejudices and stereotypes clouded mistresses' views of their servants, including stereotypes of blacks being strong, healers, and therapists. Between servants and mistresses silence about racial and social issues prevailed.

Elizabeth Clark-Lewis's Living In, Living Out, published in 1994, mostly supports Katzman's argument while nuancing it and using other sources. Katzman relies on a mixture of quantitative and traditional sources, but neglects oral history as a source – a deficiency Clark-Lewis corrects. She interviewed 97 female domestics who migrated from the South to Washington, D.C. The transition impacted both the migrants and their new occupation. Most migrated as children on the orders of parents or family as a response to economic and/or racial oppression. Parents/family sent them to meet other family members, who helped them find a job as a servant. They were to use their jobs to help support the family financially. Sending the children north was a survival strategy, a way to help the family stay afloat financially.

At first they worked as live-in servants, but resented the lack of privacy, lack of control and the difficulty of participating in community and family life. As a result they sought to escape live-in work and transition to daywork. Although their goal obviously involved resistance against their employers – who generally preferred live-in servants – often it also involved resistance against family members because they were expected to keep their live-in job in order to contribute financially to the rest of the family.

Penny savers clubs, “African-American mutual-benefit associations that provided social activities and sickness and death benefits to members,” were an important mechanism by which black servants were able to escape from live-in service. [9] Local banks would not accept servants' deposits because they were too small but penny savers clubs allowed them to deposit and save money without a bank, giving them economic leverage they could use to escape from live-in work. Once they had saved enough money it became easier to find a job as a live-out servant, since live-out service generally paid less. Laundresses also played an important role, “providing both a role model [since laundresses did not live-in] and a support network.” [10] All but two of the servants Clark-Lewis interviewed used their contacts with laundresses to escape live-in work. [11] Clark-Lewis's book largely complements Katzman's work. Her work serves as a useful case study of the national trends Katzman examines, supporting his argument with additional sources and a more detailed, personal view.

Tera W. Hunter's “Domination and Resistance: The Politics of Wage Household Labor in New South Atlanta,” published in 1993, gives a more detailed view of black servant resistance in Atlanta. Resistance took many forms, ranging from occasional strikes to more covert forms. One example of successful resistance was black servants' insistence on “living in their own homes rather than with their employers.” [12] Black servants commonly resisted by quitting, violating employers' ideal of the loyal obedient servant. Employers attempted to use the state to suppress worker resistance, often by attempting to restrict or inhibit their right to quit. Threats of state action were more common than actual action, probably because employers were reluctant to literally bring the state into their own homes.

As black workers left the south employer attempts to undermine servant mobility increased, peaking during the Great Migration during World War One. Employers used the war as a pretext for “work or fight” laws to coerce black women into domestic service. These attempts at forced labor only served to intensify migration, failing to buttress employers' authority as intended. Hunter relies mainly on newspapers, NAACP records and election campaign literature. The lack of sources from the servants themselves is a weakness of the paper, although its argument fits well with the arguments advanced by Katzman and Clark-Lewis.

Black Women in America: An Historical Encyclopedia, edited by Darlene Clark Hine, contains two entries on black domestic workers. The first, by Elizabeth Clark-Lewis, is on domestics in the north and reiterates much of what her book said. In the mid-nineteenth century immigrants began replacing African-Americans in domestic work. After 1870 blacks made up a rising percentage of servants as the increased availability of factory work gave some immigrants and even more native-born whites alternatives to service. Black migrants were sent north by their families and joined penny savers clubs to escape live-in service, as discussed in her book. In the Great Depression “the situation deteriorated greatly” as unemployed white women took jobs as domestics, driving wages down and making many black women unemployed. Low unemployment during World War Two reversed the situation, giving domestics alternatives to service and giving those who remained in service a better bargaining position. At the end of the war white women were encourage to take care of their homes and families, while black women were encouraged to become domestics again and take care of whites' homes and families. [13]

The second entry, by Tera Hunter, discusses African-American domestic workers in the south. Employers refused to hire blacks in almost all occupations except agricultural work and domestic service. As noted earlier, most black servants in the south did not live with their employers, unlike their northern counterparts. This allowed southern black servants to participate in community life, including involvement in the church and mutual aid societies, both popular among servants. Servants were often compensated with food in addition to wages; sometimes servants would take food from their employers without their approval.

Daniel Sutherland's Americans and their Servants, published in 1981 (only 3 years after Katzman), discusses multiple “servant problems” which he claims ultimately derive from from the 'belated' nature of domestic service. For employers there was a shortage of good servants who could meet their high standards of perfection, while for servants there was a shortage of good employers. He writes, “service was out of date ... American attitudes towards service, servants' conditions of labor, and above all, the master-servant relationship made it so, marking domestic service as one of the nation's slowest changing, least attractive occupations.” [14] He argues the “servant problems” stemmed from the social stigma attached to domestic service, the semi-feudal master-servant (as opposed to employer-employee) nature of the occupation, and employers and reformers belief in a mythical “golden age” of cheerful and obedient servants. [15] Sutherland claims racism and xenophobia were key reasons for domestic service's social stigma. Most servants were blacks or immigrants, causing the occupation to become associated with them, stigmatizing it. Sutherland views the transformation which domestic service underwent in the early twentieth century - mainly the decline in the proportion and number of servants - as a partial solution to the “servant problems” (“solving” the servant problems by eliminating servants). Sutherland claims the decline in the number of servants was due to technological changes which reduced the need for household labor and partly to cultural changes that encouraged worker flight to other occupations.

There are a number of weaknesses in Sutherland's work, especially when compared to Katzman's. His book is intended to be about the entire US, yet by his own admission he mostly focuses on cities east of the Mississippi, ignoring rural areas and the west. [16] In his manuscript sources he relies excessively on sources written by employers. Although employers left far more writings than servants, greater use of those few servant writings that exist would have strengthened his work. Sutherland over-emphasizes the role of social stigma, probably a result of his reliance on the early social science literature. Compared to Katzman or Clark-Lewis Sutherland does not pay as much attention to race and ethnicity, although he does a better job of this than with gender.

Sutherland does a poor job taking gender into account. For example, Sutherland discusses the role of racism and xenophobia in contributing to domestic service's low status but fails to extend a similar analysis to sexism. Since the large majority of servants were women, one would think that would have a similar effect on the occupation's status as its association with blacks and immigrants, but Sutherland ignores this. Compared to the impact of race and immigration, the impact of the fact that it was women's work on domestic service's low social status may have been even greater because the work was not only done by women it was also done for women, possibly magnifying the effect. At minimum, the low social status of domestic service raises questions about how valued women's work is that Sutherland completely ignores.

Sutherland attributes the decline in the number of domestic servants by the '20s to the mechanization of the home, but he has cause and effect reversed; mechanization was a way of compensating for the shortage of servants. The percentage of workers in domestic service was in decline even before the mechanization of the home began due to the expanding availability of jobs in factories and other alternative occupations. Nor did mechanization lead to a decline in servant wages, which you'd expect if it were throwing servants out of work.

Another weakness of Sutherland's work is pointed out by Faye Dudden's Serving Women, published two years later in 1983. While Sutherland portrays domestic service as largely unchanging through the nineteenth century, Dudden points out a major transition from 'help' to 'domestics' in mid-century. 'Help' was employed on a mostly casual basis to assist in housework or household production. It was more of a part-time activity than full-time occupation. As capitalism in America grew service slowly transitioned from 'help' to domestics, a more formal full-time occupation demanding greater subordination. She claims the transition was “neither rapid nor complete ... but ragged and unsystematic;” the same individual might move back and forth between each role. [17]

Work became more demeaning as employers began to demand longer hours and greater discipline from their servants. Sutherland portrays memories of an earlier form of domestic service as a myth. While those memories clearly romanticize 'help' (it wasn't even close to a golden age), Dudden shows there was in fact a different form of domestic service earlier in the century. Katzman also ignores the existence of 'help', but his book mainly covers the period 1870-1920 and 'help' had already declined by 1870.

Race was an important component in the transition from 'help' to domestics. Free blacks were never 'help'. Their status in the early 19th century was closer to domestics, foreshadowing the future transformation of the occupation, but their status also underwent changes. Many entered into client relations with a wealthy benefactor, providing service in exchange for protection. She notes, “the same expansion of the labor market and market relations in general that would result in the transition from help to domestics probably tended to erode most such client relationships as well.” [18] Native-born whites began to leave domestic service as the transition from 'help' to domestics made service more demanding and demeaning. Those who had few other options – predominantly immigrants and blacks – took their place and made up an increasing percentage of servants.

The wave of Irish immigration to the US from the 1820s to 1850s resulted in large numbers of Irish servants. Immigrants tended to push free blacks out of service, reducing the number of blacks in service during the mid-nineteenth century. The immigrant, especially the Irish immigrant, became the stereotypical servant. Conflict between employers and servants, exacerbated by the transition from help to domestics, often resulted in employers blaming their problems with servants on the Irish race (or other races/nationalities, in areas where they were common), encouraging the spread of anti-Irish, anti-immigrant prejudice and stereotypes. Stories circulated among employers about the “Biddy” Irish servant who shouted through keyholes and walked down stairs backwards because she was used to ladders. Class conflict partially manifested itself as racial/ethnic conflict. [19]

Even though she focuses on a different time period, Dudden agrees with Katzman's argument about the transition from live-in service to outwork. After emancipation, there were attempts to recruit southern blacks for work as servants in the north, but employers insisted on live-in servants and would not allow servants families to live with them, which inhibited the degree of migration as blacks “having suffered cruel separation ... were loathe to break up their families.” [20] Living out was easier and more common in the south than the north. [21] As Katzman shows, this became a nation-wide pattern when blacks migrated out of the south and became the main ethnic group in service. [22]

Dudden relies on “family papers, women's diaries, letters, and reminiscences” as her main source. [23] This is a potential weakness as these are predominantly sources written by employers, although she attempts to compensate by using servant writings where possible and by taking into account the biases of employer sources. She attempts to use quantitative sources where possible, but uses relatively few of them because of limitations in the census, including its early failure to record women's occupations, the fact that it usually didn't record 'help' due to its casual and part-time nature, and problems with accurate reporting of women’s employment. [24] Although her reliance on written sources makes it harder to access the servant's perspective and is a potential problem for her work, given the time period she is looking at it is difficult to see what else she could do to handle this problem.

Although she does not draw the connection, Jane Lancaster's “Encouraging Faithful Domestic Servants: Race, Deviance, and Social Control in Providence, 1820-1850” in some respects complements Dudden's argument. Lancaster argues that powerful and wealthy citizens in Providence, Rhode Island attempted to increase social control over blacks and domestic servants as part of a common nationwide response in Jacksonian America to urbanization and social change. As factory work became more available white women left domestic service, intensifying a servant shortage and increasing the percentage of black servants. At the same time economic prosperity and the establishment of “separate spheres” for men and women encouraged middle and upper class households to hire more servants.

In response to this situation and other problems emerging from urbanization employers created organizations intended to promote “faithful” (obedient) servants. They also founded an orphanage for black children which attempted to discourage deviance and trained many to be servants. Not all the children in the orphanage were without living parents; some parents were judged “vicious” and their children taken to the orphanage. Lancaster argues these actions were part of “the Jacksonian response to crime, deviancy, and dependency” but they can also be seen as part of services transition from 'help' to domestics which resulted in the changes in domestic service Lancaster describes.

Bogart R. Leashore's “Black Female Workers: Live-in Domestics in Detroit, Michigan, 1860-1880,” published in 1984, provides a statistical overview of live-in black servants in Detroit. He argues domestic service for black women was rooted in sexism and racism. Not surprisingly, most were young unmarried females.

Evelyn Nakano Glenn's Issei, Nisei, War Bride, published in 1986, shifts the focus away from the black-white divide to the role of Japanese-American servants. Glenn views domestic service as closely integrated with the development of capitalism and labor markets, and affected by institutional racism and patriarchal subordination within the family. She takes a dialectical approach, looking at relations of dominance, including race, class & gender stratification, as well as resistance to that domination. She sees “labor exploitation and control as central to all three axes of oppression.” [25]

Her work correctly views capitalism as organized to maximize profit while maintaining gender and race advantages for native-born white men. The labor market is divided hierarchically, with separate jobs and wage scales for different groups. The structure of the labor market “profoundly affects the family and cultural systems of workers.” [26] Women's poorer position in the labor market reinforces patriarchal subordination in the home by making them economically dependent on their husbands and forcing them to “accept an unequal share of domestic responsibility.” [27]

The model used by Glenn to understand migrant servants is probably superior to others. The “advanced” capitalist nations exploit “backwards” nations whose economies have been disrupted by Western imperialism and/or the rise of capitalism by drawing large numbers of laborers to immigrate to the more “advanced” nations where they are used as a reserve army of cheap labor. Immigrants take jobs shunned by native-born whites because of low pay, low social status, long hours, lack of freedom, or other undesirable characteristics. Domestic service has those undesirable characteristics in abundance, while the “absence of specific job qualifications” and the “incessant demand for household help” made it accessible to immigrants. [28]

For European immigrants this proved to be a short term phenomenon. Most European immigrant women worked as servants only until they married, and subsequent generations were able to move up and leave domestic service entirely. Racial minorities, including the three generations of Japanese immigrants she studies, were unable to move up the ladder in the same way due to racial discrimination barring them from better jobs. Financial need meant they often had to continue working after marriage, turning domestic service into a life-long occupation.

Gender played a significant role in shaping Japanese immigrants experience, and was influenced by the labor market. Most Japanese women came from rural economies where women did not work for wages; their shift into wage labor once immigrating to the US changed their role and the family as a whole. Their work was “no longer under the control of husbands, and their contribution gain[ed] individual visibility.” [29] The labor market is segmented by gender, as well as by race and ethnicity, restricting women to certain less desirable occupations including domestic service. In addition, women were expected to perform a number of activities to reproduce and maintain the current labor force, by feeding and clothing family members and nurturing and socializing children.

Glenn believes Japanese immigrants provide an ideal case study for examining the role of women's labor in immigration, that many of her conclusions can be generalized to apply to other racial minorities. One reason is that the treatment of the Japanese varied from one extreme to the other. Before World War Two the Japanese were treated harshly, culminating in their internment during World War Two. After the war, their treatment and image improved considerably, although a lower degree of racial oppression continued. She also believes the Japanese make a good case study because their history is divided into distinct generational cohorts that can be easily separated from each other: Issei, the original immigrants who came to the US from 1909-1924, Nissei, their children, and War Brides, post-World War Two immigrants who immigrated as a result of marrying US soldiers stationed in Japan.

Glenn uses a mixture of sources, including written, quantitative and oral sources. A major source are the 81 interviews she conducted with Japanese-American former domestics. She also used the census, early surveys, community directories, church documents, newspaper files and government records. Her mix of a variety of sources strengthens her work.

Domestic service went through several phases, with race playing an important role in each. Originally domestic service took the form of 'help' but gradually transitioned into domestics over the nineteenth century as a result of the rise of capitalism. This transformation made service less desirable, resulting in many native-born whites choosing to leave it. Those who remained servants were predominantly those who had difficulty finding other work due to racial discrimination or immigration, especially Irish immigrants. As the industrial revolution advanced it became easier for women to find jobs outside service, causing a lower percentage of women to work in service and resulting in the “servant problem” - a persistent shortage of servants (especially of the native-born white protestant servants employers preferred) through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

In the progressive era there were a number of reformers who looked for ways to solve the “servant problem” but their efforts were ultimately ineffective. Despite their failure domestic service underwent a major change anyway, brought about by servants themselves. Blacks became the main group of servants nationwide due to their migration out of the south, the cutting off of new immigration to the US, and the increasing availability of alternative jobs for women. African-American servants caused the occupation to switch from predominantly live-in servants to live-out work, by struggling to extend the same standard of live-out work they had in the south since emancipation. The total number of servants also declined as a result of those with other options leaving the occupation (blacks didn't have other options due to racial discrimination), resulting in the mechanization of the home and the virtual disappearance of servants from middle-class households.

Bibliography

Berch, Bettina. “'The Sphinx in the Household': A New Look at the History of Household Workers.” Review of Radical Political Economics 16, no. 1 (1984): 105-120.

Clark-Lewis, Elizabeth. “Domestic Workers in the North.” In “Black Women in America,” ed. Darlene Clark Hine, volume 1, 340-342. Brooklyn, New York: Carlson Publishing Inc, 1993.

Clark-Lewis, Elizabeth. Living In, Living Out. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994.

Clark-Lewis, Elizabeth. “'This Work Had a End': African-American Domestic Workers in Washington, D.C., 1910-1940.” In “To Toil the Livelong Day,” ed. Carol Groneman and Mary Beth Norton, 196-212. Ithaca and Lond: Cornell University Press, 1987.

DuBois, W.E.B. The Philadelphia Negro. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1899. Reprint, 1996.

Dudden, Faye E. Serving Women. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1983.

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. Issei, Nisei, War Bride: Three Generations of Japanese American Women in Domestic Service. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986.

Hunter, Tera. “Domestic Workers in the South,” In “Black Women in America,” ed. Darlene Clark Hine, volume 1, 342-345. Brooklyn, New York: Carlson Publishing Inc, 1993.

Hunter, Tera “Domination and Resistance: The Politics of Wage Household Labor in New South Atlanta.” Labor History 34, no. 2 (1993): 205-220.

Katzman, David. Seven Days a Week. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Lancaster, Jane. “Encouraging Faithful Domestic Servants: Race, Deviance and Social Control in Providence, 1820-1850.” Rhode Island History 51, no. 3 (1993): 70-87.

Leashore, Bogart R. “Black Female Workers: Live-In Domestics in Detroit, Michigan, 1860-1880.” Phylon 45, no. 2 (1984): 111-120.

Lindsey, Judith W. “Main House, Carriage House: African-American Domestic Employees at the McFaddin-Ward House in Beaumont, Texas 1900-1950.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 103, no. 1 (1993): 16-51.

Sutherland, Daniel. Americans and their Servants. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981.

Tucker, Susan. “A Complex Bond: Southern Black Domestic Workers and their White Employers.” Frontiers 9, no 3 (1987): 6-13.

Notes

1 David Katzman, Seven Days A Week: Women and Domestic Service in Industrializing America (Oxford University Press, 1978), p. vii.

2 Katzman, p. 185.

3 Katzman, p. 198-199.

4 Katzman, p. 271.

5 Katzman, p. 271-273.

6 Katzman, p. 275.

7 Katzman, p. vii.

8 Katzman, p. ix.

9 Clark-Lewis, Living In, Living Out, (Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994), p. 136.

10 Clark-Lewis, p. 140.

11 Clark-Lewis, p. 141.

12 Tera Hunter, “Domination and Resistance: The Politics of Wage Household Labor in New South Atlanta,” Labor History, v. 34, no. 2 (1993), p, 208.

13 Hine, p. 342.

14 Sutherland, Americans and their Servants, (Louisiana State University Press, 1981), p. xii.

15 Sutherland, p. 3.

16 Sutherland, p. xiii.

17 Faye E. Dudden, Serving Women: Household Service in Nineteenth-Century America (Wesleyan University Press, 1983), p. 72.

18 Dudden, p. 34.

19 Dudden, p. 60-71.

20 Dudden, p. 223.

21 Dudden, p. 225.

22 Dudden, p. 240.

23 Dudden, p. 8.

24 Dudden, p. 9, 73-75.

25 Evelyn Nakano Glenn, Issei, Nisei, War Bride: Three Generations of Japanese American Women in Domestic Service (Temple University Press, 1986), p. xii.

26 Glenn, p. xii.

27 Glenn, p. xiii.

28 Glenn, p. 4.

29 Glenn, p. 15.