>> > yer avg family had some form of servants, for one.
>>
>>How's that possible? How can the *average* family have servants?
>
>"The average family" did not have live-in servants, but Kelley might
>have meant the average bourgeois family or else the average
>suffragette's family???
>From an 1878 Almanac I just bought (porn substitute):
Certainly the average bourgeois family & the average suffragette's family had servants, but the average petit bourgeois family ("traders", "clerks" other than store clerks, teachers). Here are some numbers from the 9th U.S. (1870) census: Engaged in agriculture............................5,922,471 Total non-agricultural employment.................6,583,452
Working class (eyeball approximation).............4,800,000
Domestic servants...................................975,734
All bourgeois & petit bourgeois (residual)..........800,000
And of the "engaged in agriculture" more than half were laborers, & it's safe to say that a very large portion of the owner-farmers had servants.
And in England and Wales as well, from the 1871 census: Total non-agricultural, non-industrial............1,381,257
Professional classes - Under Government............242,777
Other Professions...........441,325
Persons of Independent Means........................168,895
Commercial classes..................................528,260 Domestic servants.................................1,633,514 Industrial classes................................6,140,202 Agricultural classes..............................1,656,938
Things may have changed some by 1900, but I guess not by much.
Michael Perelman asks:
>Could the average family with domestic help have referred to the average
>native born family?
About 15% foreign born in U.S. in 1870, and about 13% 'colored.' So even native born 'white' would still be too large a category. Class does it nicely.
john mage