|
|
|
Over the Tracks and Up the Hill:
Cooperstown, New York's Working-Class Population, 1900–1910
By Kiernan M. Lannon, Smithtown Historical Society, Smithtown, New York
| Throughout much of its history, the small upstate New York village of Cooperstown has been portrayed in a romantic light as the frolicking grounds of the wealthy and well-to-do. Looking at the beautiful, glassy surface of Otsego Lake and the massive homes that line many village streets, it is easy to understand how the tiny resort community garnered this reputation. This customary view of Cooperstown is further perpetuated by the many volumes of village history that focus solely on the exploits of the upper class "notables" of the rural city.1 |
1
|
|
To tell Cooperstown's story solely in terms of these wealthy, distinguished individuals, however, conveys a history that is incomplete. Other less celebrated figures have also called Cooperstown home. These other individuals are remarkable in that their lives are unremarkable. Among these Cooperstown residents was a thriving working class, a group that in many instances made the lifestyle of the upper class possible. Perhaps at no other time or place in Cooperstown's history was the presence of the working class as apparent as in the Irish Hill neighborhood between 1900 and 1910. Despite the village's reputation as a resort spot frequented by wealthy individuals, the circumstances of early twentieth-century Irish Hill residents prove that a working-class community was firmly entrenched within the confines of Cooperstown.2 |
2
|
|
This article examines the working-class neighborhood of Irish Hill during the first decade of the twentieth century. This decade may provide the first, if not the best, opportunity to study the hill given the availability of historical sources related to the area. Informed by period maps, New York State and U.S. Census materials, deeds, and village directories, this article explores three themes as they relate to the residents of Irish Hill: the working-class occupations of Irish Hill's residents, the occurrence of homeownership versus rental in the neighborhood, and the household population density of the hill's homes. Each theme is additionally studied, for purposes of comparison, through the lens of Chestnut Street, a street that is typical of the village as it played host to a predominantly upper-class population and fairly elaborate homes. |
3
|
|
Irish Hill sits at the far northwest limit of Cooperstown. It was formerly separated from the heart of the village by the Cooperstown-Susquehanna railroad tracks. The residential neighborhood located on the hill is situated on Rock, Hill, and Beach Streets, as well as the northern extension of Grove Street. By any account the rocky, aesthetically unappealing land of the hill is some of the least desirable in the village. |
4
|
|
The area that would eventually become the working-class neighborhood of Irish Hill was first developed in the 1870s. Prior to this development, most of Irish Hill was in the possession of John McNamee, a member of one of the early prominent families of the village. In 1868, Henry F. Phinney, a member of another distinguished family of Cooperstown, purchased most of the land on Irish Hill along with other McNamee holdings for $21,000.3 By 1871, he began to divide the land and sell it, and by 1882, the initial stage of the hill's development was complete.4 |
5
|
|
| |
|
Bird's Eye View of Cooperstown, 1890.
Irish Hill is the neighborhood located at the center of this section of the map. Its openness and quality of housing contrast greatly with crowded lower-class New York City neighborhoods of the same period.
L.R. Burleigh, "Cooperstown," bird's eye view of Cooperstown, New York (Troy, N.Y.: L. R. Burleigh, 1890), http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl (accessed March 16, 2006).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the development of the hill is sufficiently clear and traceable, the origin of the hill's name is something of a mystery. How and exactly when the hill and neighborhood gained the name "Irish Hill" is not definitively known. The first known reference to "Irish Hill" was included in a 1933 article in the local newspaper, the Freeman's Journal, which reported that the area was already commonly referred to by that designation.5 |
6
|
|
How then, did Irish Hill receive its name? There are a few plausible explanations. The first is that the name could have been conferred on the area because the neighborhood was developed from Phinney's McNamee Farm site. After all, both Phinney and McNamee are surnames of Irish derivation. Another possible explanation is that the name was given to the hill because the cemetery located there, which was affiliated with Cooperstown's Roman Catholic Church, served as a final resting place for many people of Irish descent. It is also a possibility that the hill took its name from the large quantity of residents with Irish last names during the first decade of the twentieth century. These individuals were not Irish immigrants; indeed, almost all of them were born in the United States, and, while it is unlikely that there ever was a concentration of Irish-born immigrants living on the hill, it is possible that the hill was named to reflect the ethnic background of these Irish Americans nonetheless. Whatever the reason, it is not exactly clear how or when the locale became known as Irish Hill, yet, today the hill is not known by any other name. |
7
|
|
Occupation was what made the residents and neighborhood of Irish Hill working-class.6 For the purpose of this study, working-class occupations are defined by three main factors: skill level, variability of work, and manner of employment. The level of skill that an individual needed to possess in order to complete his or her occupational tasks was a determining factor in classifying that person as working-class; working-class occupations were those that did not demand a high skill level. Variability of work was also a factor that aided in conceptualizing the working class. If an individual held a job in which there were not clearly defined, day-to-day tasks, roles, or responsibilities, but rather was working at a series of odd jobs, then the individual was considered part of the working class. Another consideration was the manner in which an individual was employed. Whether an individual worked for him- or herself or as an employee for an employer or corporation factored into work status, reflecting a hierarchy privileging employers and individual proprietors. The intertwined aspects of skill level, variability of work, and manner of employment are used here to show that Irish Hill was a neighborhood inhabited by members of the working class. |
8
|
|
Limiting the definition of the working class strictly to those who performed manual labor would provide an incomplete picture of the laboring class who lived on Irish Hill in the early 1900s. There are certain routine nonmanual occupations that fall into the working-class structure. People who worked as waiters, chauffeurs, and in other similar service-sector occupations toiled at the same social and economic level as most manual laborers. The workers who provided the basic legwork for domestic services essentially facilitated a portion of the elite lifestyle. These employees, however, were unable to actively participate in this leisured way of life, and because of this, they occupied decidedly lower positions on the social scale than their employers. |
9
|
|
Taken together, nearly two hundred different people lived on Irish Hill at some point between 1900 and 1910. According to census and village directory information, about ninety of the neighborhood's two hundred total residents held a job for which they received wages at some point during the decade.7 The most prevalent occupation among Irish Hill workers was that of day laborer. Day laborers, or common laborers, ranked at the bottom of Cooperstown's occupational structure; they occupied a place beneath skilled and semi-skilled manual laborers and far below nonmanual workers.8 They possessed little, if any, technical skill or training and essentially provided bodies to complete the ultimate in workplace drudgery.
Table 1
| Day Laborer (27) Mill Hand (2) Machinist (2) Butcher (3) Chauffeur (1) Carpenter (8) Dressmaker (1) Ice Dealer (1) Clerk (2)Shoe Black (1) Teamster (3) Driver (2) Waitress (2) Mason (5) Printer (4) Nurse (1) Bookkeeper (1) |
| WORKING CLASS |
PROFESSIONAL |
Spectrum of Occupations held by Irish Hill Residents, 1900–1910.
The most prevalent occupation among Irish Hill workers, "day laborer," is listed in bold text. The number of Irish Hill residents who took part in each profession as their primary occupation is listed in parentheses. Compiled from: 1900 U.S. Census; 1905 N.Y. State Census; 1910 U.S. Census; "Williams' Cooperstown Directory,1905"; "Becker's Cooperstown Directory, 1908"; "Becker's Cooperstown Directory, 1910–1911."
|
10
|
|
The 1910 U.S. Census, through its "general nature of industry" column, is the first record to provide a glimpse into the arena in which the unskilled day laborers of Irish Hill toiled.9 For example, Edward Moore of 15 Hill Street was consistently listed throughout the directories and censuses as a day laborer or laborer. The 1910 Census, however, revealed that Moore, at least in 1910, was a day laborer at a corporation.10 This could have meant that Moore did any number of things for this business. It is likely, however, that Moore earned his wages through the completion of menial tasks such as custodial work, loading or unloading, or perhaps even basic grounds keeping; it would have depended on the nature of the corporation at which he was employed. In all likelihood, if Moore's job called for even a moderate degree of technical skill, the census probably would have listed the specific job he did. |
11
|
|
In some sense, the experience of many day laborers in Cooperstown was as much characterized by the variety of the occupations they held as by the skill level each laborer possessed. The lot of the day laborers of Irish Hill was that they would take whatever job would get them through the year. For example, Bernard J. Brady participated in a series of odd jobs to earn a living between 1905 and 1910. In the 1905 village directory he was listed as a teamster.11 In the 1908 directory he was described as a laborer.12 The 1910 edition of the village directory listed him as a butcher.13 The 1910 Census confirmed the 1910 directory's assessment and added that he worked in a "meat market."14 His work as a teamster and also as a butcher presumably required different skill sets of a certain level of complexity above that needed for ditch digging and custodial work, for example. While this sense of the occupationally nomadic odd jobsman may best describe the Cooperstown day laborer of the early twentieth century, it is extremely hard to definitively pinpoint the exact nature of the work in which the majority of the laborers participated. Most are simply listed as laborer or day laborer in the various directories and census records without additional information to illuminate exactly what the designation entailed. |
12
|
|
The varied occupational experience of workers was not limited exclusively to those who were explicitly identified at one point or another in the records as laborers or day laborers. Many of the working-class residents of Irish Hill actually worked at a variety of jobs throughout the first ten years of the twentieth century. The best examples of this were two of the Ballard brothers. The censuses and directories listed Harry J. Ballard as having been a worker in the knitting mill, a packer, a plumber, and a musician. The 1910 Census even identified him as both a plumber and a musician.15 His brother Isum was no less a jack-of-all-trades. In the various documents he was listed as being a mill hand, a lineman, and a chauffeur for a private family. These brothers are not alone in their varied job experiences; many of the Irish Hill residents shared similar experiences during the course of the first decade of the twentieth century. |
13
|
|
It is clear that regardless of exactly what they did, the vast majority of Irish Hill residents were not skilled enough to be working in their own shops or on their own account. Both the 1905 New York Census and the 1910 U.S. Census have a column delineating whether a worker was an employer, employee, or working on his or her own account.16 There were no instances of employers living on Irish Hill and only a few instances of people working on their own account. Only Bridget Stowell, engaged in "fancy work;" Mary Clinton, a dressmaker; John Hooper, a shoe black; Mary Butler, a laundress; and Mortimer D. Keough, a barber, were listed as working on their own behalf.17 None of the carpenters, gardeners, or masons was listed as working on his own account. |
14
|
|
As the above examples suggest, the experience of the women who lived on Irish Hill varied somewhat from the overarching male experience. As such, it will prove insightful to delve more deeply into the role that females played within the community. For the most part, women in the neighborhood did not work outside the realm of their own homes. The primary occupation listed in the 1905 New York State Census for females was "housework."18 When women appeared in village directories, it was typically because they were widows. |
15
|
|
It was not the experience of every Irish Hill woman to be labeled solely as a widow or houseworker, however. There were a few women—including both married and single women—who did participate in wage-producing professions. Eleven of the eighty-three females living on Irish Hill held a paying job at some point during the first decade of the twentieth century. The majority of Irish Hill women participated in working-class vocations. However, there were also a few who did not, including Bridget Stowell, Margaret Graham, Mary Clinton, and Lily Gillett, a nurse. For the most part, these four women appear to be exceptions to the experience of Irish Hill women. Their presence does, however, create a situation where the ratio of women holding jobs that were not classified as working-class to women holding working-class occupations is greater than similar ratios among Irish Hill workers in general and far greater than the same ratio among the male population of the hill. Comparing working Irish Hill women to working Irish Hill men, then, a greater proportion of the women had higher than working-class occupations than was the case with the men. On the other hand, these occupations were sometimes sporadic and short-lived. |
16
|
|
It appears that, for the most part, women on Irish Hill only worked when it was necessary to do so. For example, Bridget Moore, who later became the fancy worker Bridget Stowell, lived at 15 Hill Street in 1900.19 Sometime after the 1900 Census was recorded she married a Mr. Stowell. By 1908, however, her husband had died and she was listed in the village directory as a widow.20 By 1910, she moved back to 15 Hill Street to live with her father Edward Moore, and began working at the fancy work trade.21 1910 is the only year in which Bridget was listed as having an occupation. |
17
|
|
It may have been the case that Bridget's situation necessitated that she find a job. After all, she had to provide for her four-year-old daughter Doris, and her father Edward Moore did not have adult male children living with him whose earned income would have helped to offset the cost of living. The 1900 Census listed Moore, his daughter Bridget, and his older brother Patrick in one household. By 1905, Moore was living by himself; his brother had either left or perhaps died, and his daughter married into the Stowell household. By 1910 as Bridget returned to her original home on Irish Hill, she may have felt that the situation obligated her to find a job in order to support her father and her daughter. |
18
|
|
Despite the few exceptions, it is clear that, for the most part, women on Irish Hill stayed at home to care for the household and family and did not seek jobs. When women did work outside the home, the majority of them plied their trade as working-class laborers. However, there were a few women who were able to hold down more skilled occupations. Overall, though, only a few women worked outside the home, and when they did find outside work, they typically did so for no more than a few years at a time. |
19
|
|
For the most part, the children of Irish Hill rarely worked before they were at least sixteen years of age. The life of children between the ages of five and sixteen was largely, rather, a life of schooling. According to the 1900 and 1905 Censuses, the occupations of nineteen different residents were listed as "at school."22 In addition, the 1910 Census enumerates another eighteen individuals who had "attended school [at some time] since Sept. 1 1909."23 Each of the students the censuses recorded attended school for nine months out of the year. Additionally, each was between the ages of five and sixteen save for Owen Moore, who was listed as a four-year-old school student in 1910.24 |
20
|
|
Taken together, thirty-seven children attended school at some point during the first decade of the twentieth century. What is more telling, however, is that this number represents nearly all school-aged children living on Irish Hill during this time frame. There were only six instances recorded in the census records where a child was of age to attend school but for some reason did not. James McGinley, Genevieve Harding, Louise Keough, and three of Frederick Grubey's children were each old enough to attend school, but each, according to census data, never attended classes. |
21
|
|
Any number of reasons, including illness, inconvenience, distrust of the system, or religion, could have prevented these children from going to school. It is also possible that age could have been a factor. Both Louise Keough and Genevieve Harding were fifteen years old and at the upper limits of the school-age spectrum when they were listed as not attending school, and James McGinley, at age five, was at the lowest end of the age spectrum. Perhaps the parents of these children believed that school was either no longer appropriate or not yet appropriate for their children. Whatever the reason, the only pieces of information that the censuses revealed were that even though these six children were of school age, they did not attend school, and none of them was employed in lieu of their attending classes. |
22
|
|
While the census records did not list any occurrence of a school-aged child forgoing class to work, the 1910 Census recorded two instances where children had gotten jobs seemingly in addition to going to school. The 1910 record documented both Jeremiah McGinley, Jr. and Paul McGinley as having occupations. These jobs were listed in addition to their having attended school at some point since September 1 of the previous year.25 Neither of the jobs that these two students held was very glamorous: Jeremiah was a box maker at the creamery and Paul was a helper in a florist's shop.26 However, it appears that both held their jobs at the same time they were attending school, although it may have been the case that their schooling came to an end at some point during the time between September 1909 and June 1910 when the census information was gathered. |
23
|
|
The occupational experience of Cooperstown residents living on Chestnut Street—men, women, and children—was vastly different from the experience of those inhabiting Irish Hill. While the bulk of Irish Hill citizens held working-class occupations, the majority of Chestnut Street inhabitants did not hold such jobs. According to the census and directory information, over sixty percent of Chestnut Street residents took part in more professional occupations. |
24
|
|
The differences did not extend only to the numbers of working- versus non-working-class professionals. There was a marked difference in the quality of jobs in which Chestnut residents participated. Being a merchant, an occupation which did not appear at all in the Irish Hill records, was the most predominant profession among Chestnut Street residents. In contrast, serving as a common laborer was among the most infrequently occurring professions of Chestnut Street workers.27 Additionally, other people with professional occupations who appeared among Chestnut residents included lawyers, physicians, publishers, and bookkeepers. |
25
|
|
The experiences of women and children living in the Chestnut Street neighborhood also differed, albeit more subtly, from the experiences of their counterparts on Irish Hill. The most defined difference among women was the frequency with which adult daughters held jobs. The 1905 New York State Census listed thirteen adult daughters on Chestnut Street as having occupations.28 By contrast, there were only four such examples on Irish Hill during the entire decade. To contrast even further, none of the daughters living on Chestnut Street toiled in working-class occupations. On Irish Hill, however, three of the four working adult daughters participated in laboring-class professions. Indeed, the most common job for the adult daughters of Chestnut Street was that of school teacher. None of the women on Irish Hill were ever identified as teachers. |
26
|
|
In general, the experience of school-aged children was similar in both neighborhoods. The majority of children aged five to sixteen were in school for nine months out of the year in both areas of Cooperstown. The one significant difference between Chestnut Street and Irish Hill was the age at which children stopped attending class. No child over the age of sixteen residing on Irish Hill was listed as still attending school. On Chestnut Street, however, the censuses listed the occupations of several seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds as "at school," and they even listed some older students as "at college."29 Education for Irish Hill children apparently ceased at the earliest possible point; college was not in the future of any of these children. |
27
|
|
These differences in occupational experience between Irish Hill and Chestnut Street residents illustrate that there were at least two levels of society coexisting in the village of Cooperstown during the first decade of the twentieth century. The upper class, characterized by the skilled vocations in which both men and women labored and the advanced levels of education their children could receive, prospered in the crux of the village. At the same time, a working-class community segregated from the mainstream village atop Irish Hill thrived in its own right. Occupation and geography, however, were not the only factors that served to define the experiences of these two different communities. |
28
|
|
Another indicator that is useful in characterizing a neighborhood is the occurrence of homeownership. In general, working-class neighborhoods feature a low occurrence of homeownership and a relatively large number of home renters. Indeed, Irish Hill exhibited this trend. While the goal of homeownership was not entirely foreign to inhabitants of the hill, home renters dominated the landscape of the neighborhood. In other areas of the village such as on Chestnut Street, however, home-owners proved to be predominant; more of these residents possessed the means to acquire their piece of the "American Dream." The reality of Cooperstown's working-class neighborhood, on the other hand, was that the heads of household simply, in most cases, did not possess the resources to fulfill this basic aspiration; atop the rocky terrain of Irish Hill, the dream of homeownership was rarely realized.
Table 2
Head
Edward Moore
William Clinton
James A. Jackson
Mortimer Keough
Edward Grove
John Graham
James Brady
Marcus Kesby
Austin Knapp
Frank Gillett
Ansel Thayer
Sanford Ballard
Ellsworth Harvey
Edward L. Moore
Jeanette Goodenough
Newton Truax
John Champion
Anthony Scott |
Rents, Owns Free, Owns with Mortgage
Owns Free
Owns Free
Owns with Mortgage
Owns with Mortgage
Owns with Mortgage
Owns with Mortgage
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents |
Occupation
Day Laborer
Printer
Ice Dealer
Mason
Gardener
Farmer
Day Laborer
Hostler
Grocery Clerk
Day Laborer
Farmer
Day Laborer
Day Laborer
Day Laborer
None
Day Laborer
None
Day Laborer |
Homeownership vs. Rental, 1900 Census for Irish Hill.
1900 U.S. Census.
|
29
|
|
The 1900 and 1910 Census records best illuminate the issue of home-ownership on Irish Hill. Each of these documents designated whether a head of household rented his home, owned it free, or owned it with a mortgage. The 1900 Census listed eighteen different heads of households who lived in the Irish Hill neighborhood.30 Twelve of these heads of household were designated as home renters; this amounted to roughly sixty-six percent of the households. Six individuals were listed as home-owners. Only two of these were listed as owning their homes free of mortgage.
Table 3
Head
Edward Moore
Mortimer Keough
William Clinton
Elbridge DeWitt
Sanford Ballard
Frank Quackenbush
Charles Knapp
Jeremiah McGinley
Edward L. Moore
Dean W. Phillips
William Harding
George Knapp
Bernard Brady
Dorr E. Butler
Frank Butler
Orville Seeger
Burton Roberts
William Ayers |
Rents, Owns Free, Owns with Mortgage
Owns Free
Owns Free
Owns Free
Owns with Mortgage
Owns with Mortgage
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents
Rents |
Occupation
Laborer
Mason
Printer
Mason
Laborer
Teamster
Carpenter
Helper–Print Shop
Laborer
Painter and Mason
Engineer
Jeweler
Butcher
Printer
Teamster
Laborer
Cheesemaker
Teamster |
Homeownership vs. Rental, 1910 Census for Irish Hill.
1910 U.S. Census.
|
30
|
|
The 1910 Census revealed results similar to the 1900 Census. In 1910, there were eighteen individual heads of household listed.31 Seventy-two percent, or thirteen, of the heads of household were designated as renters. Two of the remaining five heads owned their houses, but paid a mortgage, and only three owned their homes freely. This occurrence of working-class homeownership was facilitated by heads of household who had staked out land on the hill early in its development, or by families that included multiple wage earners. Clearly, however, these homeowners constituted a minority on Irish Hill. |
31
|
|
While most of the Irish Hill inhabitants rented their homes during the first decade of the twentieth century, in large part, these residents did not live in the neighborhood for very long once they moved there. Indeed, the renters seemed to be transient people. The reasons behind the transience of the renters are not entirely clear. What is evident, though, is that of the original eleven renters designated by the 1900 Census, only two remained on Irish Hill at the time of the 1910 Census; nine renters vanished from the hill in the course of the decade.32 |
32
|
|
Age and other opportunities may have played roles in the disappearance of the majority of the 1900 renters by 1910. Yet the legacy of renting property on the hill did not fade away with the departure of the original renters from the records. By 1910, twelve fresh renters had taken their places, and Irish Hill, continuing to lag behind in achieving the "American Dream" of homeownership, remained a renters' neighborhood.33 |
33
|
|
While home rental may have been the norm for the residents of Irish Hill between 1900 and 1910, home ownership was much more prevalent on Chestnut Street. In 1900, forty-three heads of household were living on Chestnut Street. Thirty-one of these heads owned their home, including twenty-four who owned their property without the burden of a mortgage.34 By 1910, the population, in terms of heads of household, increased to sixty-two. Again, the vast majority of these heads owned their homes. Forty of the sixty-two heads of household owned their property, and thirty owned without a mortgage.35 These figures essentially reflect the opposite experience of Irish Hill, where sixty-five percent of the 1900 heads of household and seventy-two percent of the 1910 heads of household were renters. Likewise, the overall mobility rate in the neighborhoods did not compare favorably. Over fifty percent of Chestnut Street residents remained on the street throughout the decade.36 By contrast, only twenty-nine percent of the heads of household living on Irish Hill were present in both census records. The Chestnut Street community was far more stable when compared to the constant upheaval and replacement of Irish Hill residents throughout the decade. |
34
|
|
The experience of homeownership, or lack thereof, serves to draw a sharp distinction between the two communities. Irish Hill, with its ever-changing roster of residents took on an unmistakably working-class feel. Chestnut Street, however, with its preponderance of stability and homeownership projected the essence of a more upper-class neighborhood. The number of people crowded into these homes, whether they were rented or purchased, serves to further sharpen the distinction between the professional and working-class communities of the village. |
35
|
|
While it is inappropriate to compare the experience of immigrants eking out an often cramped living under the roofs of severely overpopulated New York City tenements to that of the working class that resided in Cooperstown during the first decade of the twentieth century, greater household population density among the lower class as compared to the upper class did occur in Cooperstown. The houses of Irish Hill were often significantly smaller—measuring 1,500 square feet or less—than those standing in other parts of the village such as on Chestnut Street.37 Often, however, the same number of people, or in some cases more people, were living under the roofs of Irish Hill homes despite the difference in dwelling size between the two neighborhoods. Simply put, the density of people living in Irish Hill homes was greater than the density of people living in other parts of the village, such as on Chestnut Street. |
36
|
|
Houses on Irish Hill were, for the most part, of uniform type. Most of the homes were of simple design with basic footprints. The footprint typically consisted of square, rectangular, or L-shaped units. Most of the homes were either one-and-a-half-story or two-story structures, and in virtually every instance these were small houses. |
37
|
|
| |
|
14 Grove Street, 2006.
This one-time home of the Keough family is an example of housing stock on Irish Hill from 1900 to 1910.
Photograph by Cynthia G. Falk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The density of people living in the houses of Irish Hill was rather high. Despite the simplicity and size of the dwellings, these homes often housed five or more people. For example, the 1900 Census listed sixteen Irish Hill households. Of these households, only seven provided shelter for less than five people.38 More common were houses that included more than five people, such as the Clinton house at 3 Hill Street, which was home to nine people. Throughout the decade, more large families with at least five people in them moved to the neighborhood. It is important to note, however, that the large households of Irish Hill were typically composed of nuclear families; rarely did Irish Hill residents house extended family or boarders. |
38
|
|
An example serves to underscore the typical degree of household density that the majority of households of Irish Hill experienced. Mortimer Keough was the head of the household located at 14 Grove Street. During the period from 1900 to 1910, the Keough house played home to five or sometimes seven people.39 Given the size of the structure located at 14 Grove Street, the household density the Keoughs experienced was relatively high. According to a 1909 Sandborn insurance map, the home at 14 Grove Street measured roughly 1,150 total square feet, including both floors.40 As five people were the typical composition of the Keough household, if the total square footage were divided equally, each person would have 230 square feet of space. This, however, is something of a theoretical number. In reality, household space is never divided equally among each member living in the home. Kitchens and other common areas were typically shared by all members of the household. This resulted in each individual member of the family having significantly less space than the household density number indicates. |
39
|
|
In general, the inhabitants of the Chestnut Street neighborhood lived in houses that dwarfed those on Irish Hill. The footprints of the Chestnut Street homes were overwhelmingly larger and more complex than their counterparts located on the hill.41 There was not one typical style or form of house; each one was rather individual. There were, however, some similarities among these Chestnut Street homes. Most of the houses on Chestnut Street were large, and many were comprised of at least two stories, though some had more. |
40
|
|
The number of people making up the Chestnut Street households was typically smaller than that on Irish Hill. Twenty-eight of the forty-five homes listed on the 1900 Census housed less than five people.42 Furthermore, the percentage of Chestnut Street households composed of less than five family members actually increased throughout the first decade of the twentieth century. The composition of Chestnut Street households also differed from Irish Hill households. There was a greater occurrence of Chestnut Street households that included unrelated members, extended family, or both unrelated members and extended family. The unrelated members of the household were typically servants, but some Chestnut Street homes took in lodgers and boarders as well. |
41
|
|
As the Chestnut Street neighborhood was the location of both larger houses than appeared on Irish Hill and smaller families, the household density in this area was obviously lower. For instance, Tolman Smith, the head of a household of three people, lived at 60 Chestnut Street in a house of roughly 3,505 square feet.43 Given this measurement and the size of Smith's family, the household density was about 1,168 square feet of space per individual. This was a massive measurement compared to the density measurements of Irish Hill, which were typically closer to 200 square feet per person. It would stand to reason the lower concentration of people allowed for more privacy and personal space, a luxury that Irish Hill residents likely could not afford. |
42
|
|
Clearly, a working-class community thrived in Cooperstown during the period from 1900 to 1910. This neighborhood was characterized by three dominant trends: the working-class occupations of its residents, the predominance of renters among Irish Hill heads of household, and the high population density within the homes of the neighborhood. These working-class experiences stand in stark contrast to the lifestyle of the more well-to-do Chestnut Street residents. |
43
|
|
Since the first decade of the twentieth century, Cooperstown has become even more recognized as a pristine, old-fashioned village. Even as the prominence and presence of baseball-related tourism has increased in recent decades, the village has actively promoted itself according to the vision of the past that people want to imagine: peaceful, quaint, and classless. As the case of Irish Hill from 1900 to 1910 indicates, however, there was a distinct community and a neighborhood that played home to an identifiable class—one that deviated from the popular image of professional residents and well-to-do summer visitors that contemporary inhabitants and tourists find so romantic. |
44
|
|
A closer look at the records, though, reveals that to recognize the existence of the working class of Cooperstown in only one section of the village would be near-sighted. |
45
|
|
The lower class of Cooperstown found homes in many parts of the village. The records show that working-class individuals and families lived along side the wealthier populace even in places such as Chestnut Street. While the overwhelming majority of Chestnut Street residents experienced an elevated standard of living, their numbers within the area were not absolute. Members of the working class were living side-by-side with their wealthier counterparts. In this way, the village of Cooperstown at the turn of the twentieth century reflected traditional patterns of housing in face-to-face communities and differed from most urban centers. |
46
|
|
Urban areas such as New York City and Philadelphia have been marked by widespread class separation since the late eighteenth century. In these urban locations, inhabitants have traditionally "clustered in different areas of the city according to class, race, sex, and occupation."44 In Cooperstown, however, people from all walks of life could still commingle with each other at the beginning of the twentieth century, although that trend was becoming less common. Irish Hill is one of a growing number of examples of class segregation within this rural community. |
47
|
|
In many instances, the labors and resulting notoriety of the upper class are supported and even made possible by the lower class. This was certainly the case in Cooperstown in the first decade of the twentieth century. How would many of Cooperstown's architectural landmarks that claim the attention and delight of area residents and visitors have come into existence without the labors of Irish Hill residents like the mason Mortimer Keough, or the carpenter Charles Knapp? The working class does impact and help shape society; its members are players in the production of village or city life. As such, they need to be included in the histories of places such as Cooperstown. |
48
|
|
Since the 1960s, academic historians have been studying traditionally marginalized populations in American society. As the histories of places like Cooperstown suggest, however, this focus has not permeated every area of history. As scholarship and study of places like Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia have become more complete in terms of class, histories of smaller communities such as Cooperstown have often been left unchanged. This work should provide a helpful point of departure in the process of forming more inclusive histories of the countless rural areas similar to Cooperstown that appear across the American landscape. With this brief documentation of Cooperstown's working-class neighborhood, Irish Hill, the broader history of this small rural city has become more complete. |
49
|
|
1. For example see: Ralph R. Birdsall, The Story of Cooperstown (Cooperstown, N.Y.: Arthur H. Crist, 1917); James Fenimore Cooper, Samuel Shaw, Walter R. Littell, and Harold Hollis, A History of Cooperstown (Cooperstown, N.Y.: New York State Historical Association, 1976).
2. For a more thorough analysis of Cooperstown's Irish Hill neighborhood in the early twentieth century see: Kiernan M. Lannon, "The Other Side of the Tracks: Cooperstown, New York's Irish Hill, 1900–1910," (master's thesis, Cooperstown Graduate Program, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 2006).
3. Deed book, liber 149, p. 500, Otsego County Office Building, Cooperstown, N.Y. The subsequent deeds cited throughout this work were all accessed at the Otsego County Office Building in Cooperstown.
4. Deed books, liber 160, p. 76; liber 161, pp. 333, 359, 471; liber 163, p. 459; liber 164, p. 320; liber 167, p. 174; liber 170, pp. 182, 183, 466; liber 172, pp. 340, 361; liber 175, p. 202; liber 177, pp. 227, 479.
5. "Village Votes to Lease Lake Front Grounds...," The Freeman's Journal, May 3, 1933.
6. Stephan Thernstrom, Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964), 84, 91. Thernstrom uses a multi-tiered approach to explain the different occupational classes. His tiers included unskilled manual laborers, semi-skilled manual laborers, skilled manual laborers, and nonmanual workers. While these categories are useful to explain social mobility within occupational class structures, they are not designed to delineate the differences between working-class and non-working-class occupations. It will be more informative to this study to group all three tiers of manual laborers into one component of the "working-class" category.
7. 1900 U.S. Census, Village of Cooperstown, Town of Otsego, County of Otsego, microfilm, New York State Historical Association (NYSHA) Library, Cooperstown, N.Y.; 1905 N.Y. State Census, Village of Cooperstown, Town of Otsego, County of Otsego, microfilm, NYSHA Library; 1910 U.S. Census, Village of Cooperstown, Town of Otsego, County of Otsego, microfilm, NYSHA Library; "Williams' Oneonta and Cooperstown Directory, 1905," NYSHA Library, Local History Room; "Becker's Oneonta and Cooperstown Directory, 1908," NYSHA Library, Local History Room; "Becker's Oneonta and Cooperstown Directory, 1910–1911," NYSHA Library, Local History Room. What is meant by primary occupation is the occupation that the individual is most associated with throughout these records. Some individuals are listed as having different occupations in different records. Their primary occupation is the one that they held for the longest, or most consistently, throughout each of the records.
8. Thernstrom, Poverty and Progress, 92–93.
9. 1910 U.S. Census.
10. Ibid.
11. Williams' Cooperstown Directory, 1905," 201.
12. Becker's Cooperstown Directory, 1908," 208
13. Becker's Cooperstown Directory, 1910–1911," 195.
14. 1910 U.S. Census.
15. Ibid.
16. 1905 N.Y. State Census; 1910 U.S. Census. The term "own account" referred to a worker who made a living independent of a corporation or multi-employee shop. A laborer on his or her own account essentially was the entire business. He or she was not responsible for anyone nor would he or she have to answer to anyone but his or her self.
17. 1905 N.Y. State Census; 1910 U.S. Census.
18. 1905 N.Y. State Census.
19. It is unclear whether the Stowells moved from the Moore residence at 15 Hill Street. Presumably, the Stowell whom Bridget wed was Alfred Stowell who made a brief appearance in the records via an entry in the 1905 village directory. Stowell's address in this record is merely listed as Hill Street. In the 1905 State Census, however, neither Bridget nor Alfred is listed as living on Irish Hill. This leads to the belief that Bridget had moved off the Hill briefly, perhaps before the directory was finalized but after the census was recorded.
20. Becker's Cooperstown Directory, 1908.
21. 1910 U.S. Census.
22. 1900 U.S. Census; 1905 N.Y. State Census.
23. 1910 U.S. Census.
24. Ibid.
25. 1910 U.S. Census.
26. Ibid.
27. 1900 U.S. Census; 1905 N.Y. State Census.
28. 1905 N.Y. State Census.
29. 1900 U.S. Census; 1905 N.Y. State Census.
30. 1900 U.S. Census.
31. 1910 U.S. Census.
32. 1900 U.S. Census; 1910 U.S. Census.
33. 1910 U.S. Census.
34. 1900 U.S. Census.
35. 1910 U.S. Census.
36. Ibid.
37. "Small homes" is, of course, relative. In some communities 1,500 square feet may not be entirely too small, but in Cooperstown, where many of the homes in parts of the village other than Irish Hill measure 3,000 total square feet or more, the homes standing on the hill were comparatively small.
38. 1900 U.S. Census.
39. Ibid.; 1905 N.Y. State Census; 1910 U.S. Census. In 1900, the census listed Bartholomew Rogers as a boarder at the Keough home as well as Mortimer and Sarah's nineteen-year-old daughter Katie; this was the only record in which either was present.
40. Sandborn Map and Publishing Company, "1909 Insurance Map of Cooperstown, Otsego County, New York," (New York: Sandborn Map and Publishing Company, 1909), map 9, NYSHA Library, Special Collections.
41. Sandborn Map Company, "Map of Cooperstown," map 10.
42. 1900 U.S. Census.
43. "Becker's Oneonta and Cooperstown Directory, 1908," 235; Sandborn Map Company, "Map of Cooperstown," map 10.
44. Mary M. Schweitzer, "The Spatial Organization of Federalist Philadelphia, 1790," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24, no. 1 (1993): 31–57, http://www.jstor.org (accessed January 23, 2006), 36; Elizabeth Blackmar, Manhattan for Rent, 1785–1850 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989), 72–108.
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|