Discrimination Against Irish Immigrants in the United States

Tyler Hilbig
04-26-22
Hist 1700

Introduction: For my signature assignment I decided to research one of the topics we covered
this semester that I found interesting but knew very little about. This topic is the persecution of
the Irish during the 19th century. I think that the reason I found this section so interesting is that
we covered a lot of material that discusses the oppression of other ethnic groups, but these
were the Hispanics, Native Americans, and African Americans. I had assumed that the reason
these groups were persecuted was because of their darker skin and the fact that they were not
European, but then we got to the Irish Persecution. I found it odd that the Irish were both
European and had lighter skin and this sparked my interest to look more into the causes and
extent of their persecution. As I began my research, I found conflicting evidence regarding the
historicity of Irish discrimination, which also led me to investigate the authenticity of such
claims. Upon completing my research, I have since determined that the discrimination against
the Irish was a historical event that occurred in the United States as a result of multiple factors.
History: During the mid-1800’s Ireland experienced a disaster in the form of a virulent
pathogen that ravaged an essential crop. This event came to be known as the “Irish Potato
Famine” or the “Potato Blight”. The nationwide loss of potatoes took such a heavy toll on the
Irish population that they began a mass exodus out of the country. As a result, large numbers of
Irish immigrants arrived in the United States. When they first landed in the U.S., they
experienced heavy persecution. A part of this persecution was because that they were Catholic,
and the majority Protestant population already had ill feelings towards Catholics. The Irish were
also seen as uneducated, dirty, and full of crime. Some establishments put up signs saying that
“No Irish need apply”. Other establishments hired them, but at low wages and only for the
most meager of tasks.

Source 1: "NO IRISH NEED APPLY": A MYTH OF VICTIMIZATION

Jensen, Richard. 2002. “‘No Irish Need Apply’: A Myth of Victimization.” Journal of Social
History 36 (2): 405–29. doi:10.1353/jsh.2003.0021.

Summary: This article was written by Richard J. Jensen, a former professor of history at The
University of Chicago. In this article, Professor Jensen argues that the claims regarding “No Irish
need apply” signs were a myth and that discrimination against the Irish was a much smaller
issue than it was made out to be. The article begins by introducing the topic as well as the
author’s stance, then goes on to explore the factuality of the events described by those who
argue in favor that Irish persecution was widespread. Professor Jensen also spends more time
exploring the side of those who held views opposite to his own and goes deeper into their
possible motives and goals. He even cites poems or songs written about experiences of
persecution such as “No Irish Need Apply” by Kathleen O’Neil with lyrics such as “Alas! for my
poor country, which I never will deny. How they insult us when they write, "No Irish need
apply." Now I wonder what's the reason that the fortunefavored few. Should throw on us that
dirty slur, and treat us as they do. Sure they all know Paddy's heart is warm, and willing is his
hand. They rule us, yet we may not earn a living in their land.” He then goes on to refute these
songs with his own evidence, “Did the Irish feel discriminated against before the NINA slogan
became current? First note the last stanza of the 1862 London song shown above. If the NINA
slogan had been current in America surely the songwriter would not have included the line "you
will not deny, A place in your hearts for Kathleen, where 'AH Irish may apply.' (Richard, 2002)
He also draws connections to other instances of persecution toward other races such as the
Chinese and African Americans and compares the overwhelming rates of evidence toward such
races which I found very interesting.

Analysis: This source was quite fascinating to read. Professor Jensen introduced many points
that forced me to broaden my perspective of Irish persecution and I really enjoyed looking
more into what he had to say on this topic. He argues again that Irish persecution is largely a
myth based on the overuse of referencing NINA signs. His investigation of those with opposing
ideas strengthens the authenticity of his argument because he exposes many of the motivations
and prejudices of these sources and cites a large number of their materials before refuting
them with his own counterarguments. I also think that it’s worth pointing out that another
article mentions that “Professor Jensen has been known to have been cited himself by other
scholars. “Scholars often credit Jensen with having debunked the historicity of the NINA
narrative. Tyler Anbinder concludes that Jensen “has argued persuasively that the purported
ubiquity of ‘No Irish Need Apply’ signs in the Civil War era is largely a myth.” And Augusto
Ferraiuolo summarizes Jensen’s findings as providing “overwhelming evidence . . . that such
signs were never publicly exposed” and that “even journal advertisements” using NINA “were
extremely rare.” (Fried, 830). The use of his findings in academic writing help strengthen his
ethos as a credible author. On the other hand, I have also analyzed the writings of others who
oppose his viewpoints and the findings of these articles do lead me to believe that perhaps his
argument is not as credible as it may seem.

Source 2: “No Irish Need Deny: Evidence for the Historicity of NINA Restrictions in
Advertisements and Signs”

FRIED, REBECCA A. 2016. “No Irish Need Deny: Evidence for the Historicity of NINA Restrictions
in Advertisements and Signs.” Journal of Social History 49 (4): 829–52. doi:10.1093/jsh/shv066.

Summary: This article contains Rebecca Fried’s analysis of the writings of Professor Richard
Jensen, who challenged the concept that Irish persecution was a widespread and noteworthy
issue. Professor Jensen provided multiple explanations and arguments throughout his writings,
many of which call attention to the lack of thorough evidence for the “No Irish Need Apply”
signs. His findings have since become a somewhat controversial topic. Rebecca Fried makes an
effort to refute his findings by citing evidence other than the concept of NINA signs heavily
covered by Professor Jensen. She also directly evaluates points used by Professor Jensen to
argue his thesis and exposes flaws or shortcomings that may render his arguments unreliable.
Many of these instances take the following form. “In short, while Jensen believes that
Confederate propagandists “did not mention job discrimination or NINA—probably because the
Poole song had not yet reached Richmond,” 100 such propaganda did indeed exist as Jensen
opines it should have if NINA was a real and pervasive phenomenon. By Jensen’s own
reasoning, then, this strongly supports the widespread reality of NINA restrictions in the
Northern States during the Civil War era” (Fried, 2016). A lot of the writing of this source is
directly taken from Richard Jensen’s research which allows readers to read his own words and
compare them to Rebecca Fried’s argument.

Analysis: After reading Professor Jensen’s article suggesting that anti-Irish discrimination was
largely a myth, I had to read the works of his opposers. I turned directly to the article written by
Rebecca Fried, a young girl who disagreed with Professor Jensen’s research and published a
rebuttal 13 years later. Rebecca Fried argues that Professor Jensen’s article falsely paints the
Irish persecution as a myth. She believes that the events did occur and tries to convince others
after she herself had first been led to believe Professor Jensen’s claims before performing her
own research. As mentioned before, a large portion of this source is directly taken from the
research of Professor Jensen. This does increase the credibility of Fried’s argument since you
are able to see the exact references in front of you and get a strong feel for Professor Jensen’s
writing style and tone, though I would have liked to hear more from Rebecca about her own
research in areas not directly tied to refuting another argument. Overall, I would say that I
believe this source to be fairly credible as many sources are cited and the evidence can be
traced down those lines. I have also seen that other articles reference this to be credible,
though when I looked into the author, I came to find that Rebecca Fried was a rather young and
inexperienced author which does provoke questions regarding her credibility due to
inexperience and lack of education.

Source 3: NO IRISH NEED APPLY: PATTERNS OF AND RESPONSES TO ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION

IN THE LABOR MARKET

Gitelman, H. M. 1973. “No Irish Need Apply: Patterns of and Responses to Ethnic Discrimination
in the Labor Market.” Labor History 14 (1): 56–68. https://search-ebscohost-
com.libprox1.slcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=4559249&site=ehost-
live&scope=site.

Summary: In this article, the author, H.M. Gitelman uses multiple sources to reference the
persecution of the Irish within the workforce. The author mainly relies on primary documents
such as censuses. A central point is the discrimination against the Irish regarding the ability to
find work as well as the types of jobs they were to do if they were hired. I think this was one of
the most interesting points because the concept of NINA signs has been covered so heavily that
it was interesting to see more evidence of discrimination against those who were employed.
One particular passage describes the working conditions of Irish within a chemical company
plant. It says “…there was a lot of hauling to be done. Barges loaded with sulfur imported from
Sicily had to be unloaded and the other constituent elements of sulfuric acid had to be fed into
retorts. The fumes emanating from the works must have been offensive to those obliged to
work in their midst; the same must have been true at the bleachery” (Gitelman, 1973).
Gitelman also explores the relation of treatment of other non-Irish Catholic groups and any
discrimination in those categories.

Analysis: Gitelman’s writing is very straightforward, and the primary sources are great because
not only are they easy to trace back, but he has included pictures of many of them which make
his evidence glaringly clear. I think that this article is a very interesting one because it gives
more details on the situation of the Irish in the workforce and the effect that it had on their
families, something that I felt received far less coverage by Professor Jensen or Rebecca Fried. I
think that due to the strength of the primary documents combined with Gitelman’s factual and
non-argumentative approach I believe this source to be credible. Its non-controversial approach
shows evidence that the author is truly sharing their findings through research in a raw and
natural form without having undergone any screening or filter to conform to their own personal
beliefs or prejudices as commonly seen in strongly argumentative writing.

Viewpoint Synthesis: While the topic of Anti-Irish discrimination has encountered its share of
controversy, it can be safely assumed that many of the events described such as the “No Irish
need apply” signs and unfair working treatment did occur. For years, it was widely accepted
without question that these events were historically accurate. It wasn’t until 2002 that
Professor Richard Jensen published his article claiming that the discrimination was mostly
mythological. The bulk of Professor Jensen’s argument is that the lack of evidence indicates that
the claims were largely fabrication based on very small or specific instances. The problem with
this argument is that it sets itself up to be disproved. My grandfather always said, “Inexistence
of proof is not proof of inexistence.” That rings true in this situation in which Professor Jensen’s
indication of little evidence does nothing to prove that the stories are fabricated. While he
makes some good points throughout his writing and creates a fairly convincing argument, the
refutation of Rebecca Fried is stronger.
Rebecca was a student in the eighth grade when she came across Jensen’s article “No
Irish Need Apply’: A Myth of Victimization”. As she looked into the matter herself, she found
evidence that seemed to suggest that Professor Jensen’s argument was not fully supported by
the evidence, and she later published her findings in the same journal that the original article
had been published. Her research has since been widely accepted as an accurate correction of
Professor Jensen’s initial findings.
Fried carefully addresses many of Jensen’s points of evidence and explains what makes
these points false or misleading. For example, Professor Jensen argues that there was only one
NINA ad for men that was discovered and that the newspapers were virtually barren of
evidence in favor of the idea that NINA ads were prevalent. In Rebecca’s article, she explains
that “Many nineteenth-century newspapers are not included in readily accessible electronic
databases, and digitization of text often introduces textual corruption that defeats text
searching even for included articles. The existing record actually documents its own
incompleteness; a number of articles quote NINA-restricted advertisements that are not
themselves returned in the searches” (Fried, 2016). This is a clear and well-written rebuttal to
Jensen’s argument that undermines the idea that evidence does not exist by pointing out the
technological complications of his method of research. She then shares the findings of Macraild
who helps dispute the claim that physical signs did not exist. Macraild argues that “there is
almost no prospect of discovering extant examples of these usually temporary, sometimes
hand-written, signs in the period before the widespread use of photography,” and that “this
does not mean they never occurred.” (Fried, 2016).
Unlike Professor Jensen however, Rebecca Fried does not conclude her argument by
claiming that lack of evidence is proof. She goes on to cite the numerous examples and
evidence that she was able to discover through her own research on the topic. These include
lawsuits regarding NINA publications, restrictions on housing solicitations, the use of such NINA
signs in confederate propaganda, and the responses of the Irish citizens who experienced the
NINA discrimination. Such responses were argued by Jensen to have been a “psychological”
phenomenon, but when placed next to Fried’s findings they appear to be much more than that.
While Fried’s argument focuses heavily on attesting that the discrimination against the
Irish was a historically accurate event and that Jensen’s research is saturated with flaws,
another article written by Professor H.M. Gitelman of Adelphi University backs her argument by
introducing new pieces of evidence that can be considered while also holding a more neutral
point.
Gitelman’s research regarding the cause of Irish immigration explores some of the proposed
causes and evaluates their credibility. For example, Gitelman points out in his article that the
persecution of the Irish cannot be attributed to the high rates of in and out migration since it
was not unique to their population. He points out that Yankee immigration rates were also
quite high and claims that they were equal by 1890. Gitelman also covers the concept of
religion, a point frequently mentioned to explain the persecution of the Irish. Gitelman explains
that during this time period there was an absence of recorded religious affiliation in Waltham, a
site of large Irish immigration as well as records of persecution. The significance of this is that
religious affiliation could only be inferred based on nationality which would paint a less
accurate picture of a population’s demographic, and likely labeled an unknown quantity of Irish
Protestants as Catholics.
A claim that I found particularly interesting in Gitelman’s writing was the claim that the
Irish were “consigned to the most taxing, the dirtiest, and lowest paying jobs” (Gitelman 1973)
as a result of their unskilled background as opposed to their Irish heritage. This would indicate
that the job selection of the Irish workers was not a discriminatory practice, but a logical
practice carried out by employers in order to make good business decisions. Despite this point,
however, Gitelman does not deny the existence of NINA signs, a practice that would surely be
considered a form of discrimination.
Conclusion: Overall, it’s Gitelman’s neutral style and clear, unbiased writing that
presents a convincing balance between the two polarized articles I first analyzed. I feel that in
order to understand the persecution of the Irish, reading these three articles together was a
huge help. Had I just read one of the first two I would have felt that it was either a myth or a
large issue that was being concealed. Understanding the causes of the controversy and the
refutations is critical, and Gitelman’s information only reinforces the strength of the theory. In
conclusion, it can be determined that the Irish did experience persecution in the form of NINA
signs largely as a result of their unskilled background and that while these events did occur,
there are likely instances that have been suppressed and instances that have been exaggerated.
 Works Cited

FRIED, REBECCA A. 2016. “No Irish Need Deny: Evidence for the Historicity of NINA Restrictions
in Advertisements and Signs.” Journal of Social History 49 (4): 829–52. doi:10.1093/jsh/shv066.

Gitelman, H. M. 1973. “No Irish Need Apply: Patterns of and Responses to Ethnic Discrimination
in the Labor Market.” Labor History 14 (1): 56–68. https://search-ebscohost-
com.libprox1.slcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=4559249&site=ehost-
live&scope=site.

Jensen, Richard. 2002. “‘No Irish Need Apply’: A Myth of Victimization.” Journal of Social
History 36 (2): 405–29. doi:10.1353/jsh.2003.0021.