• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) Summer 8-19-2014 Robber Barons and Humbuggers: The Rise of Philanthropic Museums in Nineteenth-Century New York Meaghan O'Connor [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations Part of the American Art and Architecture Commons, American Material Culture Commons, Inequality and Stratification Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Social History Commons, Social Work Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation O'Connor, Meaghan, "Robber Barons and Humbuggers: The Rise of Philanthropic Museums in Nineteenth-Century New York" (2014). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 1959. https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/1959 Robber Barons and Humbuggers The Rise of Philanthropic Museums in Nineteenth-Century New York Meaghan O’Connor Approved By:____________________________________ Martha Easton, Ph. D. Thesis Advisor A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Museum Professions Seton Hall University May 2014 O’Connor, 1 Copyright © 2014 Meaghan O’Connor All Rights Reserved O’Connor, 2 Table of Contents: Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………3 Chapter 2: Recipe for Reform……………………………………………………………………..6 Chapter 3: Christianity and Character………...………………………………………………….15 Chapter 4: A Brief History of Pre-1870 Museums in the U.S…………………………………...23 Chapter 5: Dime Museums………………………………………………………………………29 Chapter 6: Rise of the Philanthropic Museum…………………………………………………...40 Chapter 7: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………52 O’Connor, 3 Chapter 1: Introduction It is easy to make the mistake in believing that the museum field in America did not take hold until after the Civil War. After all, the most recognizable American institutions like the American Museum of Natural History and the Metropolitan Museum of Art did not come into being until 1869 and 1870, respectively. The New-York Historical Society grew to prominence around this time as well, opening in its own building for the first time in 1857. Museum historians as recognizable as John Cotton Dana, founder of the Newark Museum, and Joseph Henry, the first Secretary of the Smithsonian, made the same mistake of dismissing previous iterations of museums in the United States.1 However, post-Civil War museums, which are often considered the standard by which other American museums are measured, were not the first museums to make an impact in the fledgling country, although they were markedly different from the institutions that existed at the time—institutions which their founders wished to replace. Unlike the museums that were then open to the public, these new museums would rely on philanthropy from the upper classes whose means were rapidly growing disproportionately to the rest of the population. This new class of American pseudo-royalty would take on the role that the nobility assumed in Europe of donating private collections that would become the basis of a temple-like museum. The collections contained therein were meant to inspire the visitor and promote the “refinement of public taste.”2 The most “refined” nineteenth-century New Yorkers perceived the poorer classes as dirty, hungry, and morally corrupt immigrants in need of such an institution to complement the strong push for reform already in place. Contemporary accounts of New York’s poorest neighborhoods describe filthy, bustling, dangerous streets filled with uncivilized drunkards, prostitutes, and beggars who would sooner give their loyalty to a foreign O’Connor, 4 pope than gave it to their country.3 Protestant reformers saw in these neighborhoods an opportunity for cultivation. Museums by the rich for the poor were one solution. Existing museums, it seemed, were not doing the job. Dime museums, the prevalent type of museum in existence in nineteenth-century New York, were for-profit institutions and thus, while ethical in name, were ultimately more concerned with making money than with the moral well-being of their visitors. P.T. Barnum’s American Museum, and others based on the same model, competed to find exhibits and performances that would draw the biggest audience. Many times this meant pandering to the decency of the public by transforming the taboo theater into a literal stage for ethical soapboxing. At other times, however, the public was more interested in gawking at “freaks” or discerning the inconsistencies in a purported mermaid. Prominent New Yorkers openly discredited these institutions for their lack of intellect and reliance on the public’s sense of morbid curiosity. In response, more high-minded museums based on the European model were proposed and opened whose collections could educate and transform the lower classes to model the Protestant upper class ideal. While this seems a noble ambition, further examination reflects a less wholesome side of the movement. Large philanthropic museums were founded almost exclusively by men of the highest social order. During the second quarter of the nineteenth century, New Yorkers with means were moving further and further away from the downtown area as omnibuses allowed businessmen to commute from the “purer” neighborhoods uptown. To say that they were out of touch with the public is a gross understatement. In fact, they viewed themselves as so different from the poor living in neighborhoods like the Five Points, that “slumming” was a common phenomenon among the city’s wealthy, and “Slumming Novels” became a popular form of literature to explore this exotic world.4 Just as patronizing justifications for colonization O’Connor, 5 inherently dehumanized the native population, the intention towards “cultural uplift and civic improvement”5 as directed by the upper class infers that the wealthy are capable of defining what is uplifting and what constitutes improvement. Philanthropic museums, as evidenced by their prominence today, would win out at the expense of the popular dime museums. Although some form of the dime museum is still present today, the institutions that follow this model are seen as inherently less legitimate cultural institutions. This paper will explore the environment in which philanthropic museums would rise and subsequently cause the downfall of dime museums. First, an exploration of the social conditions in mid-nineteenth century New York City will demonstrate the growing divide between the rich and the poor and the subsequent disconnect between the two classes. Then a discussion of American museums predating the large philanthropic museums will illustrate a tradition of intellect and curiosity that would influence both the philanthropic museums and the gaudier dime museums. A detailed look at dime museums will make clear the objections raised by later museum founders. The general culture of reform and philanthropy will then be analyzed and finally the philanthropic museums will be placed into that context. All of these factors will show that the philanthropic museums did not develop in a vacuum but were the product of the American museum tradition in the context of the nineteenth-century reform and philanthropy movement. O’Connor, 6 Chapter 2: A Recipe for Reform It is not at all surprising that reformist attitudes took such a strong hold in nineteenth- century New York. The city at the time was rampant with vice from gambling, to prostitution, to alcoholism. Especially downtown, mortality rates were much higher than the norm and disease was a constant presence.6 Before scientists fully understood germ theory, these attributes were inextricably linked in the middle and upper class psyche. Bad health was indicative of bad moral fiber and poverty was due to a lack of character. It was at this time, as well, that New York became home to waves of immigrants. The poorest segments of the population of Ireland, Germany, and later eastern and southern Europe made their homes in Old New York. Again, the miscorrelation was made by many established families that the “foreignness” of the immigrants led to their degradation, when it fact it was carried over from their poverty across the Atlantic. Middle and upper class, mostly Protestant, reformers were exposed to the plight of the poor and wanted to improve the situation. Despite what were likely the best of intentions, reformers showed themselves to be disconnected from the populations that they aimed to serve, a characteristic that will become clear again later in the discussion of philanthropic museums. Wealth Disparity The United States, as a fledging nation, certainly had distinctions between the most affluent and most destitute families. It was, however, too young to have the great disparity of Europe. As the country approached its centennial, however, differences between the rich and the poor became more pronounced. In 1800, the wealthiest 10% of the nation’s population owned O’Connor, 7 45% of the nation’s wealth. By 1860, the year before the Civil War, the same percentile owned 60%.7 The rich were getting richer and nowhere was this more apparent than in New York, the nation’s financial capital. In New York, the rich were pulling away from the poor even faster. By 1845, two thirds of the city’s wealth was in the hands of a mere 3% of the population, with three fifths of the entire city’s wealth belonging to just one percent.8 Much of this wealth disparity was due to the rise in big business and industry. The population growth of the city provided industrialists with the labor that they needed to make a fortune. Elizabeth Gray writes that, “the labor of these new arrivals facilitated the rise of tycoons, making American society more hierarchical,” 9 but New Yorkers worried that industrialization, and the growth of the lower class, made the city immoral.10 It was no secret that the richest New Yorkers were becoming increasingly detached from the population. George Lippard titled his 1853 novel New York: Its Upper Ten and Lower Million.11 Economic distance led to an emotional distance as well.

Load more

  68

Copy Link