Like many of her background, Louisa May Alcott had strong prejudices against Irish immigrants. While we remember her for Little Women, Alcott was a frequent contributor to the periodicals of her day.
When Alcott fired her servant, an Irish woman, she bragged about her “No Irish Need Apply” solution to her readers in an article published in 1874. Alcott’s article is online here. The title of the essay is “The Servant-Girl Problem: How Louisa M. Alcott Solves It.” It is a first person account of discrimination against Irish women that Alcott is proud to share. Alcott says she fired her Irish maid because of “the faults of her race.” The Irish were considered a race apart, and Alcott saw the Irish race as incompatible with her own.
Alcott wrote that after firing her maid “for a month I did do the work myself, looking about meantime for help. ‘No Irish need apply,’ was my answer to the half-dozen girls who…did come to take the place.” The fact that Alcott openly admits this, and does so without apology, indicates that she did not expect condemnation from her readers.
Alcott then sets out strategies in her article for hiring non-Irish servants and concludes that if her instructions are followed, a woman will “never again have…your home invaded by foreign incapables.” In other words, Alcott thinks that far from disapproving of her discrimination against Irish workers, she believes that her readers will welcome her strategic advice for maintaining an Irish-free work environment. Here is the opening paragraph of her article:
In her next paragraph, which I reproduce in part, Alcott announces her “No Irish Need Apply” policy entirely explicitly. You will note that Alcott refers derogatorily to her Irish maid as “Biddy.” This was a common epithet used to describe Irish servants. It is a shortened form of the name “Brigid,” at that time one of the most used names by Irish parents for their daughters. Calling all maids “Biddy” in 1874 would be akin to calling all housekeepers “Maria” in 2019.
This cartoon by Thomas Nast depicts the Irish woman as apelike.
Newspapers of the day carried advertisements from maids seeking work. Often native-born women seeking work would advertise that fact of nativity along with the claim that they were white and Protestant, three advantages in those bigoted days. The problem for Alcott was, that of the five advertisements placed by “American women” (apparently Irish immigrants did not qualify as “American), one was a “widow,” apparently thereby disqualifying her, one appeared to be mainly interested in marrying Alcott’s father, and the others seemed unwilling to work. In other words, immigrants appeared to being doing the work that Americans were unwilling to do!
“Miss Annie,” whom Alcott also refers to as “S.” was hired, and Alcott claims to have made her one of the family. Alcott says that “Miss Annie” felt that she had found a home with the Alcott’s but oddly enough, given Louisa May Alcott’s prejudices, the author has to confess that like many native-born women, hard work did not agree with Annie and Alcott actually had to hire an Irish woman to carry out some of the chores of the cherished “Miss S”!
In spite of Alcott’s proclamations about creating a real home for “Miss S.,” the prized, if incapable, servant left after just a few months.
Irish maids were often called “Biddy” no matter what their actual name was. Biddy is a contraction of Brigid. It is analogous to calling all Latinas “Maria.”
Alcott says that her experiment in hiring native-born women and treating them as members of the family was so successful that she used it to secure three other servants. She apparently had four women hired and then depart in about a year! Hard to see that as a measure of success. And, from the paragraph below, these women were hardly “part of the family.”
In the final paragraph, Alcott sums up her message; Treat American servants, no matter how lazy they are, like family, to avoid hiring the Irish.
There are a few takeaways from this. First, even beloved authors can be bigots. Second, a lot of respectable native-born women must have shared Alcott’s prejudices for her to present her recipe for discrimination publically and in print. Third, while women complained about their Irish maids and yearned for native-born servants, the “American” women were either too lazy or too proud to do this sort of work. In this case, immigrants were “stealing the jobs” Americans did not want anyway. Fourth, No Irish Need Apply was not restricted to signs and ads. For Americans like Alcott, it was a way of life.
I encourage you to read Alcott’s article. It is in the lower right corner of the newspaper I linked to. There are notes of satire in it as well as heaping spoonfuls of bigotry.
Postscript: I first became aware of this article during an antagonistic exchange with University of Illinois Professor Richard Jensen. He thought it was evidence that Irish workers had not encountered “No Irish Need Apply” signs. Don’t ask me why he thought this article supported his position.
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
Great that Saoirse Ronan got the gig. No mention of this bigotry in the saccharine movie. Soft propaganda? I sold copies of an old NINA sign from Boston in Harrisburg Pa. great article go raibh míle maith agat.
Are you judging Louisa May Alcott as a woman of her time or by 21st century standards? Her article certainly exhibits prejudice, but bigotry? There is an ambiguity about some of her statements that suggests she’s not entirely against the idea of having an Irish servant. Clearly she had a problem with “Biddy’s” work, which may have coloured her opinion. I just have a problem with portraying someone from another era as staunchly bigoted based only on an article they once wrote. She may well have changed her views but once in print her article had a life of its own.
Then find evidence that she grew. Just because it was “a different time” doesn’t mean it isn’t bigotry (spoiler: it is).
Otherwise, read the whole thing, because your comment indicates you haven’t.
You’re very sure of your facts, Sherlock. How very satisfying for you, except that I did read the whole thing, I know the meaning of the word ‘bigotry’ (you might refresh your memory), I appreciate that a historian does not judge someone from the past out of context, and it’s not up to me to produce evidence beyond what’s presented by the author. But feel free to be offended by Louisa May Alcott.
Out of context…the whole thing is right there for everyone to read. A bigot is a bigot no matter how you excuse her. She had no problem defaming an entire ethnic group who at the time were discriminated against terribly. She is the definition of a bigot regard;less of time frame.
Technically, this unfortunate attitude is not an example of bigotry. Had she and her housekeeper engaged in a rollicking argument about the Virgin Mary or the role of priests, yes . . . But demeaning somewhat because of race or ethnicity or gender is not, really bigotry. No clash of ideas, here, simply uneducated bad behavior. Given her father and his teachings (and her own, most of the time), Alcott’s behavior is surprising,.
It is really really tricky to go about deciding that all artists must be above reproach to enjoy their art. It is also interesting how willing people are to assume they would have known/been better had they been in their shoes at that time. What if an artist starts off wonderfully well and then ‘goes bad’…do you only enjoy their early works, or do you throw it all out because of the later deterioration? It is a bit different now when everyone is clearly able to be ‘woke’ and should/can do better but still fail…so maybe we can hold upcoming artists to a higher standard. Personally am much more worried about persons in higher office…
Excellent thought! It is one I challenge myself on all the time. I have rarely thought “with the crowd” but I am also a product of the mid & late 1900s. I was raised by parents that did not use derogatory terms about other ethnic groups. But set me back 100 years and then what. By all means, I’m not defending her stance. She was an odd & different person, was she not? One might ask themselves if their parents or grandparents called all (black) train porters “George” and then move on from there.
big·ot
/ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. Sorry, yes. Alcott qualifies as a bigot AND prejudiced.
I agree!! She was totally a bigot. We are another race? How can you miss the bigotry there?
Unfortunately, being well-over 50% Irish and fairly well-read, our own brothers insists we are indeed a different race and Superior to others.
Sometimes there seems to be a lot of wallowing in the past.
As a proud 3rd generation of 71% Irish descent, I knew about Irish or Catholics need not apply, but I did not know the author of one of my childhood books was so anti Irish.
After reading this, I took my copy of Little Women and threw it in the trash. Alcott be damned!
Feel exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason.
Good on you Kathleen as a proud 3rd generation Irish myself I applaud you.
Alcott appears to have had great difficulty in retaining any staff, regardless of their origin. She comes across as a very unpleasant lady, I’m afraid. That is very disappointing as I loved all her books when I was young.
I don’t know Paul, she seemed to have a lot of problems with all of her servants because none of them stayed very long, even the incapable ones left after a few months. Is it possible that Alcott was the problem. Her “article” clearly displays she has issues.
A “lady” at that time would not publish such a damming article but it appears she did not have a problem in doing so. Perhaps because she was published, she felt it was her right. It just speaks of her lack of class and unladylike behaviour, I read that she had a bad temper – interesting.
Are you serious???? not bigotry… “The faults of her race seem unconquerable” is not bigotry…. You must be a Wasp for sure as you have no problem with her demeaning an entire ethnic group….you are a bigot yourself for defending this woman’s disgusting opinions.
www would appear to have googled it and not read past the first sentence that came up.
“Bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”
But lo, right there in Merriam-Webster, the second listing on the page, the definition goes on to specify:
“One who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
But that’s the second sentence in the second listing, so….
I can only imagine that the task of hiring a stranger who you invite into your home entailed a deep trust not only in their ability and willingness to do work but an expectation of good behaviors and trustworthiness. Many Irish immigrants that flooded the States during this time period were poor, farm workers with little education and training. They were poorly understood, culturally different and religiously persecuted. Alcott’s attitude toward the Irish was not uncommon. President Lincoln himself made numerous bigoted comments about the Irish.
‘Flooded’ is such a problematic word. And it’s very difficult for it to appear neutral.
Pretty obviously bigotry, with a good strong seasoning of classism. Similar language was used by southern plantation mistresses towards their enslaved domestic servants. To be fair to Little Women, I don’t recall any negative stereotypes about Irish servants.
Fun fact, self made heiress Lizzie Borden referred to her Irish maid as “Maggie,” her generic name for Irish maids, the woman’s actual name being Bridget.
Interesting that in the 1994 version of LW, Hannah is clearly Irish and Catholic. When Beth has scarlet fever you can hear her saying the Hail Mary if you turn up the sound enough.
Feel exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason.
By implication, no men need apply either.
To be fair, men wouldn’t have been applying anyway, as this kind of work at the time would have been considered demeaning, below their dignity. It was women’s work, whereas a man’s calling was to more “important” matters. such as providing for his family financially, or if he belonged to a class that would have been employing household servants, then his role was providing those job positions to lower class individuals, influencing government, “maintaining proper social order”, etc. Men did take service roles, often as footmen, butlers, coachmen, stable-boys, and so on, but to be a kitchen maid, or even housemaid (as LMA was looking to hire) was considered below a man’s worth. It was not due to discrimination against men as a group that they went unconsidered for the job, but if anything, quite the opposite….
In defense of LMA:
I would not be able to actually understand the difficulty that was faced by the New Englanders back in the 19th Century with any particular race (nor that I will understand today’s difficulties) but I would certainly try to defend the woman under this pathetic trial. Evidently, she did use such words which could demean any person in today’s generation and thus could amount to libel or slander.
But in the generation she was writing this she was clearly aware of the fact that people from the Irish “race” were poor and seeking work in households to earn their living. What we see here is one of the feats of temper that LMA was known to have, and we are unable to understand the reason behind such an action being taken by LMA.
She was living in a society where Irish housemaids were known for all the acts she claims her “Miss S” not committing. And we are also missing out on the point that she certainly was a celebrity by the time the article was published and any “gossip” could render serious prejudice to her character and she might have heard of such a gossip being spread by her previous maid, who happened to be Irish and in return have a bad reputation of gossiping and do such other acts which were not considered “lady-like.”
In defense of the Irish:
Once the Irish traveled across the ocean to find work in the American mainland. They were foreigners and clearly needed acceptance and thus prevailed into gossip with one another (most common way women generally engage themselves in conversation) thus was easy for them to make friends in foreignland.
The worst part about Alcott’s statement was that she insulted a whole race in conclusion to her experience with few Irish maids. That was not justified. When a person has a voice they should check what is being said by them, whether it would hurt people’s sentiment or whether it is in general a word that needs to be spread out.
What hurt me most by reading this post was that I idolise this Woman. To most she might be a Subject, but to me she is a Master.
But to be frank, anyone, having a sense of judgment, should consider twice before spreading such hatred out in the open. LMA prejudiced an entire race with this particular article, but that does not necessarily mean that we overlook all the good things she has done. In spite of this particular article or any other of such article she had written, LMA was an Idol to me and would so remain to be.
Very thoughtful comment. I really enjoyed the book “Little Women,” as you can see from my review below:
https://thereconstructionera.com/book-review-little-women-by-louisa-may-alcott/
When I read it, I already knew about Alcott’s “Irish Essay.” I also admire much of her life and writing. I have posted about a dozen pieces in recent months on Alcott, her writing, and the movie. I am definitely not an Alcott Hater, however, I inadvertently found this article by her five years ago and thought it worth drawing attention to now. I had posted a link to it when it first came to my attention on another platform, but I thought a more complete look at it was in order.
BTW, I am open to more info on this article. It appears to be referenced in only a few works, but perhaps there is more background to it that I am not aware of.
The article by Alcott makes it abundantly clear where she stands on anti-Irish racism which was no more acceptable then that it is now. Worse then if anything. It also betrays a a nasty and stupid little mind. No literary author of any intelligence would pen such offensive tripe.
I will be binning her garbage from my bookshelves.
Your defense of LMA is no defense. Her comments are inexcusable.
I am sympathetic with your views, but here is the rub: we need one standard for everyone. We can’t be pillorying Margaret Mitchell, Dr, Seuss and Harper Lee for using the language and conventions of their time and then give Louise May Alcott a pass simply because her offenses are against the Irish.
This is disheartening. I never liked the series when I was forced to read it as a youngster. I won’t be giving it another chance either. She was a racist and seemed harsh to those in her employ. I feel so sad for what my ancestors went through. With people like her making it even more difficult for them. We can’t change the past, but can make the future and present the best possible for each other and for our children. Go out and be kind. Always try.
The Sterrett Academy, which is the public middle school that my daughter attended, is located in the Point Breeze section of Pittsburgh. Point Breeze was once an extremely wealthy neighborhood, On the upper floor of that school is an elegant dining room complete with fine China and real silverware, which once was used to train the young Irish girls from the nearby St. Bedes Church school to become maids in wealthy households.
Thanks for that Clint. Hope you are well.
Little Women has so many versions in films and series. It includes a Japanese anime and s Venezuelan Soap Opera, changing the American Civil War for our own Civil War, called Federal War, fought almost at the same time (1859-1863).