WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
The Negro at Work in New York City: A Study in Economic Progress cover

The Negro at Work in New York City: A Study in Economic Progress

Chapter 10: FOOTNOTES:
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

About This Book

A systematic empirical study examines the economic lives of Black residents of New York City, documenting population distribution, household structure, occupations, wages, and business ownership. The first part analyzes demographic traits, employment patterns, historical shifts in work, and measures of wages and efficiency among wage-earners; the second part surveys the character, scale, receipts, credit practices, customer relations, and examples of Black-owned enterprises. Combining statistical tables, interviews, and case studies, the work traces progress and persistent constraints in urban labor and commerce and outlines findings intended to guide policy and community efforts toward economic improvement.




FOOTNOTES:

[37] New York Colonial Doc., i, 553.

[38] O'Callaghan, Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands, 1637-1674, p. 81.

[39] DuBois, Some Notes on Negroes of New York City, p. 5.

[40] The writer has testimony of contemporary witnesses of these disturbances.

[41] Vide DuBois, Notes, etc., p. 1.

[42] Diagrams III and IV were made by Mr. Eugene K. Jones, Field Secretary of the National League on Urban Conditions Among Negroes.







CHAPTER IIIToC

General Condition of Wage-earners[43]


I. SEX AND AGE OF NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS

In the 2,500 families composed of 9,788 individuals, the sex distribution and age grouping[44] throw some light upon the life conditions of the wage-earning class. That city life does not look with favor upon a large juvenile element in the population is generally believed. That the city draws mainly those of the working period of life is also generally conceded. The number of children in this Negro group under 15 years of age is 19 per cent, below normal for great cities, and the upper age limit is also quite low, being only 6.6 per cent between forty-five and fifty-four years, and 3.2 per cent over fifty-five years. Thus the bulk of the population, 70.8 per cent, both male and female, excluding 0.4 per cent doubtful and unknown, falls between fifteen and fifty-four years, or within the vigorous working period of life. This is fully set forth in Table XI, which gives the sex distribution and age grouping in assembly districts of the 9,788 individuals in these 2,500 families of the Census of 1905:


Table XI. Sex Distribution and Age Grouping of 9,788 Negro Wage-earners in Manhattan, State Census, 1905.

Age Group. Male. Female. Total.
No. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent
Less than 15 years 949 19.6 910 18.4 1859 19.0
15-24 988 20.4 1155 23.4 2143 21.9
25-34 1543 31.8 1546 31.2 3089 31.6
35-44 889 18.4 809 16.4 1698 17.3
45-54 333 6.9 311 6.3 644 6.6
55 and over 128 2.6 188 3.8 316 3.2
Doubtful and unknown 14 0.3 25 0.5 39 0.4
Totals 4844 100. 4944 100. 9788 100.

Figures obtained from the personal canvass made in 1909 bear comparison with those of the State Census of 1905. Substantial agreement is to be noted between the two enumerations, except for the larger percentage of those under 15 years of age in 1905 (19.6 per cent male, 18.4 per cent female), and the smaller percentages in the grouping thirty-five to forty-four years (18.4 per cent male, 16.4 per cent female). Doubtless this effect is produced because so many of the cases in 1909 were individuals attending evening school, who were required to be above 14 years of age, and because few over forty-five years of age are attracted to such a place. The other small difference in percentages is due probably to the small number of individuals, 365, in the figures for 1909. The sex distribution and age grouping in 1909 is shown in Table XII, which follows:


Table XII. Sex Distribution and Age Grouping of 365 Negro Wage-earners in Manhattan, 1909.

Age Group. Male. Female. Total.
No. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent
Less than 15 years 18 10.2 21 11.2 39 10.7
15-24 35 19.8 37 19.7 72 19.7
25-34 54 30.5 50 26.6 104 28.5
35-44 40 22.6 41 21.8 81 22.2
45-54 11 6.2 21 11.2 32 8.8
55 and over 10 5.6 4 2.1 14 3.8
Doubtful and unknown 9 5.1 14 7.4 23 6.3
Totals 177 100. 188 100. 365 100.

The results above correspond also with those of the United States Census of 1900 for the entire City of New York. Making allowance for some families of professional and business classes, probably not excluded from the Census figures for 1900, and for changes which five years interval may have caused, the agreement with the two preceding tables above confirms the representative character of the data for 1905 and 1909. For the total per cent under fifteen years in 1900 was 19.8; in 1905, 19.0; from fifteen to twenty-four years, 24 per cent in 1900, 21.9 per cent in 1905; from twenty-five to thirty-four years, 25.9 per cent in 1900, 31.6 per cent in 1905; from thirty-five to forty-four years, 16.2 per cent in 1900, 17.3 per cent in 1905; from forty-five to fifty-four years, 8.3 per cent in 1900, 6.6 per cent in 1905, and fifty-five years and over, 5.6 per cent in 1900, 3.2 per cent in 1905.[45]

Here, then, is a wage-earning group made up of persons in the younger and more vigorous working period. The small number of children under 15 years of age calls attention to the fact that the growth of this population takes place largely through recruits from other sections of the Country. They must find industrial and social adjustment to a new environment largely made up of the white population. They are either killed off by the conditions under which they work and live, or drift away from the city at a premature old age.


2. NATIVITY OF NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS

If New York has a Negro population largely composed of immigrants from other regions, the question naturally arises, From what sections or regions do they come? The State Census of 1905 gives nativity by countries only. Consequently, those born within the United States are not specified by State or territory of birth. That large numbers of the Negro population of New York City come from other sections of the United States, mainly from the South, is beyond doubt.

We get the first impression of this fact from the Federal Census of 1900. For the whole State of New York in 1900, out of a population of 100,000,[46] 44.6 per cent were natives, 24.1 per cent were from Virginia, 19 per cent were from other Southern States, with a remaining 12.3 per cent to be drawn from other parts of the United States and from other countries.

These proportions are different from those for New York City, because immigrants make up a larger part of the City's Negro population. The figures of the State Census of 1905, as well as those from a personal canvass, point in the same direction, and the evidence indicates clearly the probable condition.

The West Indian element in the Negro population of the City was noticed first. The British West Indies furnish 5.8 per cent of these foreign Negro immigrants, while the Danish West Indies, Cuba, and those islands not specified, together make up 3.6 per cent, a total of 9.4 per cent West Indian.[47] Table XIII (p. 59) gives a survey of this part of the population and shows its relation to the native born.

We are unable to get from the figures of Table XIII the sections or States of the United States from which the 89.5 per cent of American-born Negroes came. The few straws of evidence afforded by the personal canvass point to the main sources of the stream. The percentages have significance although the figures are few. The Southern States, from which there are easy means of transportation to New York, naturally furnish the larger part. Virginia supplied 29.6 per cent of the 365 Manhattan residents; South Carolina, 11 per cent; Georgia, 6 per cent, and Maryland, 4.4 per cent. Taking the Southern States by themselves, 67.5 per cent of the 365 wage-earners were born in that section. Besides 5.7 per cent of the 365 came from the British West Indies. The West Indies and the Southern States probably furnished 73.4 per cent or about three-fourths of these wage-earners in the Negro population of New York City. Table XIV (p. 60) shows in full the State and country of birth of the 365 wage-earners.


Table XIII. Nativity by Country of Birth of 9,788 Wage-earners, Manhattan, 1905.

Country of birth. No. No. Per cent
The Bermudas 28 0.3
British West Indies 566 5.8
Antiqua 1
Bahama Islands 7
Barbadoes 36
Jamaica 19
St. Croix 46
St. Christopher 20
St. Thomas 8
Trinidad 1
Not specified 428
Danish West Indies 62 0.6
Cuba 14 0.1
West Indies (not specified) 285 2.9
Canada 16 0.2
United States 8,757 89.5
Miscellaneous[A] 36 0.4
Unknown 24 0.2
Total 9,788 100.

[A] The miscellaneous includes the following: Australia 3, England 7, East Indies 1, France 1, Germany 1, Hayti 1, India 2, Ireland 1, Mexico 2, Monrovia, Africa 1, Porto Rico 9, Sandwich Islands 1, Santo Domingo 2, South America 4.


Foreign and native immigrants predominate in the Negro population of the City. With such a stream of immigrants the question arises about their marriage and family relationships. Are they largely single people, or are there large numbers of married, widowed, or divorced persons among them? The discussion next centers upon this point.


Table XIV. Nativity by State or Country of Birth of 365 Wage Earners, Manhattan, 1909.

Country. No. Per cent No. Per cent
Bermuda 4 1.1
British West Indies 21 5.7
Antiqua 3
Barbadoes 8
Grenada 1
Jamaica 1
Nassau 1
St. Croix 3
St. Kitts 1
Trinidad 1
Island Unknown 2
United States 307 84.2
Georgia 22 6.0
Maryland 16 4.4
New York 40 11.0
North Carolina 35 9.6
South Carolina 40 11.0
Virginia 108 29.6
Other States[A] 46 12.6
Miscellaneous[B] 4 1.1
Unknown 29 7.9
Total 365 100

[A] The other states of the Union are: Alabama 2, Arkansas 2, Delaware 2, District of Columbia 7, Florida 7, Illinois 1, Kentucky 4, Massachusetts 4, Missouri 3, Ohio 2, Pennsylvania 3, Tennessee 2, Texas 2, Michigan 1, New Jersey 1, Rhode Island 1, Porto Rico 2.

[B] Miscellaneous: St. Martin 1, Ontario 1, British Guiana 2.


3. MARITAL CONDITION OF WAGE-EARNERS

The State Census of 1905 did not ask about the marital condition, but only stated relationships to the head of the family, so that the conjugal condition of women reported as heads of families, of lodgers, and of adult sons and daughters or other relatives in the family could not be ascertained. Therefore, no attempt was made to give statements about conjugal condition based on these returns. However, in the personal canvass of 326 individuals, fifteen years of age and over, the marital condition was obtained. The small number of cases included in Table XV makes the figures and percentages presented valuable for pointing only to what a larger body of data would probably make certain. It is important, therefore, to note that 113 out of 159 males, or 71.1 per cent, and 106 out of 167 females, or 63.5 per cent, were single, excluding those unknown. This suggests what the age grouping would lead us to expect, viz., that the Negro group in New York City has a large proportion of unmarried persons. Table XV, which follows, indicates this conclusion:


Table XV. Marital Condition of 326 Negro Wage-earners, Fifteen Years of Age and Over, Manhattan, 1909.

Marital Condition Male. Female. Total.
No. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent
Married 26 16.3 30 17.9 56 17.2
Single 113 71.1 106 63.5 219 67.2
Widowed 9 5.7 27 16.2 36 11.0
Divorced 3 1.9 3 0.9
Unknown 8 5.0 4 2.4 12 3,7
Total 159 100. 167 100. 326 100.

Now that the marital condition of the individuals has been indicated, we may profitably inquire into the composition of the families.


4. FAMILIES AND LODGERS

An illuminating sidelight is thrown upon the general condition of wage-earners by a study of the sizes of families and the relation of lodgers to those families. The figures used are those of the State Census of 1905 only, as the number of complete families secured in the personal canvass was too small. The points of importance are the size of the economic family, which includes lodgers and all others living under one head, and size of the natural family when lodgers are excluded. The census returns of 1905 showed relationship of each dweller in the household to the head of the family. It was thus easy to separate lodgers, except in some cases when relatives may have been lodgers but were not so designated. Taking the 2,500 families as a whole, with 9,788 individuals, the average size of the family was three and nine-tenths persons. Of these, 2,631 individuals, 26.9 per cent were lodgers, and 7,157, or 73.1 per cent, were natural members. But these aggregates do not portray actual conditions. A true picture may be obtained from a more detailed study of the figures which show that 119, or 4.8 per cent, of the economic families (which includes all persons living under one head) consisted of an individual living alone; 576, 23 per cent, of two persons; 531, 21.2 per cent, of the families had three members, while 478, 19.1 per cent, were composed of four members. Above four, the percentages of families rapidly declined; 13.4 per cent of economic families had five members; 8.3 per cent, six members; 5 per cent, seven members, down to 2.2 per cent, eight members; 1.4 per cent, nine members, and 1.6 per cent, ten or more members. But the composition of these economic families is even more striking. To illustrate, of a total of 576 economic families with two members, 488 had no lodgers, and this was 36.1 per cent of all the families without lodgers; out of 531 families of three members each, 173 had one lodger, or 37.7 per cent of all families having one lodger, and 67 families had two lodgers each, or 20.6 per cent of all the families having two lodgers. Further, 478 families of four members each contained 133 families with two lodgers, 40.9 per cent of all families having two lodgers, and 48 families had three lodgers, 27 per cent of all families having three lodgers, while only 84 families had one lodger, and 213 families, less than one-half, 44.6 per cent of all families of four members each, had no lodgers. Taking the entire 2,500 families, only 1,353 families, or 54.1 per cent, had no lodgers; 459, or 18.4 per cent of the total families, had one lodger only; 325 families, or 13 per cent of the total, had two lodgers only, while 320 families, or 12.8 per cent of the total, had from 3 to 5 lodgers. This left 45, or 1.7 per cent, with 6 to 9 lodgers. In a phrase, the increase in the size of the family means, as a rule, an increase in the number of lodgers, and the relative proportion of natural members probably decreases as the size of the family increases, the proportion of lodgers increasing with the size of the economic family.

Now this showing is not the effect of lodging-houses run as business enterprises, except probably in the families ten members or more, which constitute only 1.6 per cent of the total 2,500 families. This condition is most probably due in part to the fact—which both Census returns and personal observation indicated but could not fully determine—that many of the lodgers consisted of married couples, sometimes with one or two children, and of parts of broken families. Furthermore, the high rents[48] which Negroes have to pay, the limited area in which the opposition of whites allows them to live, together with the small income power due to the occupational field being largely restricted to domestic and personal service, play a large part in forcing families and parts of families to live thus crowded together. This last point about income will be referred to again in Chapter IV on Occupations and in Chapter V on Wages. It is a cause for serious concern that only 54.1 per cent of the families had no lodgers, and this percentage here will probably hold for the entire Negro population of the City. If we exclude the 119 individuals living alone, the families having no lodgers fall to 51.8 per cent.

This last phase of the lodger condition is emphasized if presented in another way which shows the number of families having a specified number of members, exclusive of lodgers. For the same 2,500 families, it brings out from another point of view the relation of the family to the lodgers. There is presented both the number and percent of families that had a specified number of lodgers, and also, the number and percent of families that had a specified number of members exclusive of lodgers. For example, 178 families had three lodgers each, which was 7.1 per cent of the total 2,500 families. And of these 48 families had only one other member; 57 had two other members; 36 had three other; 23 four other; 9 five other; 3 six other, and 1 seven other. Out of 1,353 families that did not accommodate lodgers, 898 families, 67.8 per cent, had three members or less. Of 1,147 families that did accommodate lodgers, 606, 52.8 per cent, had more lodgers than natural members. And if we take the totals, 392, 15.7 per cent, of the families had besides lodgers only one natural member; 909, 36.4 per cent, of the families had in addition to lodgers two members only, and 508, 20.3 per cent, had besides lodgers three members only; 329 families, 13.2 per cent of the total, had four natural members; 325, 12.9 per cent, had five to seven natural members, and 38, 1.5 per cent, had eight or more natural members. This makes it clear that 1,809 of the 2,500 families had three natural members or less, if lodgers are not counted. To take a statement in a percentage that probably will be applicable to the whole City, one may say that, even including relatives who may have been lodgers, 72.6 per cent of Negro families had three members or less, if the lodgers are excluded—a fact of almost startling social significance. All this is a cause for serious concern, and any constructive steps for social betterment should give attention to the causes and remedies for this condition as one of the first and most urgent problems.

To sum up the general condition of wage-earners: The Negro population has increased decade by decade, except from 1840 to 1850 and from 1850 to 1860, preceding and during the Abolition and Civil War crisis. It is made up of young persons and adults in the vigorous working period, and has a small number of children under fifteen years of age. The population is recruited largely by immigrants from the South and the West Indies, who do not survive or remain in the City to a very old age. Among the wage-earners probably single people predominate. Largely because of high rents and low incomes, lodgers made up of married couples, parts of broken families and of individuals seriously interfere with normal family life. The families are usually very small in size, from two to four persons, and an increase in the size of the family generally means an increase in the number of lodgers.




FOOTNOTES:

[43] The term "wage-earner", for want of a better, is used to designate the group of persons belonging to families whose heads are actual wage-workers. This includes children and some other family members not in gainful occupations.

[44] Cf. Bailey, Modern Social Conditions, (New York, 1906), pp. 67-89.

[45] Cf. Twelfth Census, Bulletin 8, Negroes in the United States, Table 31.

[46] DuBois, Notes, etc., p. 2.

[47] In a study of Negro Craftsmen in New York City made by Miss Helen A. Tucker in 1907 (Vide, Southern Workman, 1907, 36: 9, p. 550), she reported the most reliable estimate of the proportion of West Indians in New York City as about one-tenth of the total Negro population. The figures above substantiate such an estimate. Of the 385 men in Miss Tucker's study, 29.09 per cent were born in the West Indies. Among the 94 who claimed to know a trade, 57 or 60.64 per cent were born in the West Indies. Cf. ibid., 37: I, p. 45. This wide variation of percentage from that given for 9,788 individuals in 1905, probably arises because (1) of the larger number of cases in the latter instance, (2) the returns are from two other districts of Manhattan besides "the Sixties" of Miss Tucker's canvass, (3) Miss Tucker canvassed male craftsmen only; the figures of this text cover the whole population.

[48] Real estate agents, who have handled properties during the change from white to Negro tenants, testified that Negro families upon moving in pay from $2.00 to $5.00 more per apartment. Others corroborated their statements. Vide also, Chapin, Standard of Living in New York City, pp. 76-77.







CHAPTER IVToC

Occupations of Wage-earners


I. AN HISTORICAL VIEW OF OCCUPATIONS

In the New Amsterdam Colony as early as 1628, slaves were sought as a source of labor. These slaves were employed mainly in farm labor. In that year the Dutch West India Company agreed to furnish slaves to the colonists and the Company's largest farm was "cultivated by the blacks."[49] Individuals were at liberty to import slaves for the same purpose.[50] Both slaves and freedmen were used as stevedores and deckhands for the Company's vessels. The slaves were also used in building and repairing the public highways and in the repairing of Fort Amsterdam.[51] In 1680, mention is made of Negroes being used in housebuilding.[52] About the same time Negro slaves were carrying hod for wages, and in 1699 it was said that about the only servants (probably meaning domestic servants) in the Province of New York were Negroes. Freed Negroes were indentured or hired for similar service.[53]

Negroes were mustered into the Colonial army as early as 1698, and in the battle of Lake George in 1755, the "blacks behaved better than the whites."[54]

Under the Dutch government enfranchised and slave Negroes were allowed to acquire and hold land. Some took advantage of this privilege. But with English possession of the colony it was expressly prohibited.[55] Some few Negroes were seamen as shown by the records of the so-called Negro plot of 1741, and one Negro doctor, Harry by name, was among those executed during the time of that insane public excitement.[56]

From about 1835 until 1841 a weekly newspaper, The Colored American, owned and published by Charles B. Ray, Philip A. Bell and others, was published in New York. It had an extensive circulation from Boston to Cincinnati. From this source a number of employments and business enterprises of Negroes in the New York of that period were ascertained. The occupations included three carpenters and joiners, five boot and shoe-makers, five tailors, two music teachers, four teachers of private and evening schools, one newspaper agent, one engraver, one watch and clock-maker, one sign-painter, two dress and cloak makers.[57]

In this period between 1830 and 1860, there were many engaged in domestic and personal service. Most of the smaller hotels of the times had colored waiters. The Metropolitan had about 60 or 70; other hostelries like the Stuyvesant House, the Earls, the Clifford, and a number of restaurants employed colored waiters. Some cooks and barbers, who also applied leeches, treated corns, and did other minor surgical services, were among this class of wage-earners.

Three dentists, P.H. White, John Burdell, and Joshua Bishop, two physicians, James McCune Smith and W.M. Lively, and three ministers, H.W. Garnet, Chas. B. Ray, and Peter Williams, were prominent persons of the period.

But these facts should not give the impression of unalloyed opportunity in the trades and professions, for the columns of this same Negro newspaper were filled with articles, editorials and appeals which indicate the difficulties in that direction. This is further borne out by the testimony of Charles S. Andrews, the white principal of the Manumission Society School for Negroes. He said his graduates left with every avenue closed against them and spoke of difficulties those who had trades encountered, many being forced to become waiters, barbers, servants, and laborers.[58] That domestic and personal service furnished employment for a large number of Negroes is further shown by the organization of the United Public Waiters' Mutual Beneficial Association. This effort was first started by twelve Negro caterers as a corporation to control and keep up the quality of service both by looking after the efficiency of the many waiters they employed and by preventing "irresponsible men attempting to cater at weddings, balls, parties, and some hotels on special occasions." Originally their constitution, framed in 1869, stated the objects of the organization to be "to consolidate the business interests of its members; to encourage and promote industrial pursuits followed by them; to give preference in patronage to its members."[59]

Five of the original corporators, among whom were George Morris, George E. Green, and Charles W. Hopewell, owned imported silver, china, and other caterers' "service" ranging in valuation from about $1,000 to $4,000, and all of them had ability to manage large banquets and other social functions, supplying waiters, cooks, etc. First smaller caterers, then waiters, were taken into the organization until the membership increased to more than a hundred. And in 1872 they added the mutual benefit features, "to insure both medical and brotherly aid when sick and to assist respectably interring its deceased members." One of the caterers of the early corporation, W.E. Gross, is yet in the business at the Bowery Savings Bank and still serves for special occasions, now mainly among Colored people. The organization as a benefit association continued with varying fortunes down to 1905, when it was dissolved by its remaining 33 members.

That there were many other waiters and servants of the time is certain. A head-waiter of that day estimated the number of colored hotel and restaurant waiters at between 400 and 500 in 1870.