INFORMATION to USERS the Quality of This Reproduction Is
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI fihns the text directly fiom the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in ^pewriter fiue, while others may be firom anytype o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy suhmitted. Broken or indistinct prmt, colored or poor quality illustrations and photogrtyhs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing fi-om left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerogr^hically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy ftrr an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bdl & Howell iDfinination Qmipai^ 300 North Zed) Road, Aim Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/5214)600 PROKT AMD FENITMMCM AM AEMZMZ8TMASXVB EISTORY Of THE 08X0 FBUnHTZARr FROM 1815 TO 1885 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the History Department at The Ohio State University By Dona M. Reaser, M.A. Ohio State University 1998 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Warren Van Tine, Adviser Approved b Dr. Paul Bowers Dr. Steven Conn History Department UMI Number: 9822359 UMI Microfonn 9822359 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT On the evening of December 9, 1997, demolition of the Ohio Penitentiary began. Profits and Penitence explores the administrative development of the Ohio Penitentiary between 1815 and 1885. Staying within the walls of the prison, this seminal work revolves around the twin objectives of profit for the state and reformation of the prisoner. This study utilizes primary source material from the reports of the Boards of Directors, wardens, acts and reports from the General Assembly, and previously unused special reports and pamphlets. The administrative history of the Ohio Penitentiary is divided into seven chapters. These chapters are arranged both chronologically and thematically. Chapter One gives a brief background on the formation of the two primary prison systems in the United States, Auburn and the Pennsylvania plans. Chapters Two and Three discuss the formative years of the Ohio prison from 1815 to 1850. Chapters Four to Six examine four major subheadings: politics, improvements, discipline, and prison labor. These four areas detail the successes and failures by the prison administration in ii trying to fulfill the legal directive to keep the prisoners working at hard labor, while trying to improve the character of the convicts. Chapter Seven details the sweeping penal reform laws of 1884 and 1885 enacted by the General Assembly. The old methods of discipline and labor changed completely. With these innovations, this work ends. Since Profits and Penitence is limited to activities within the prison walls, opportunities for further exploration of this material are available. A monograph could be written on Chapters Two through Seven by expanding the focus to the wider population. Another research possibility includes a discussion the younger population of prisoners and the building of the Mansfield Reformatory. Xll Dedicated to my mother, Juanita Powers, and my son, Bruce Reaser IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank my adviser, Warren Van Tine, who made me believe that I could do this; and all my friends who listened, and kept listening: Mary Jane Brown, David Fisher, Chandra Grantham, Paul Graves, Dianna Kardulias, Denise Riley, and Rose Thomas. VITA EDUCATION: San Jose State University............ 1974 . B. A. History San Jose State University............ 1983 . M. A. History EXPERIENCE: 1992 - Present ......... Assistant Professor of Humanities Columbus State Community College, Columbus, Ohio 1988 - 1992 ........... Adjunct Instructor of Humanities Columbus State Community College, Columbus, Ohio 1 9 8 7 ................... Adjunct Instructor of History Brookhaven Community College, Dallas, Texas PUBLICATIONS: D. M. Reaser. Retrieving the American Past, Reader. Needham Heights, Mass.: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, 1996. D . M . Reaser. The American Experience: A Sourcebook in Modem American History, vol 2. Needham Heights, Mass.: Ginn Publishing, 1994. FIELDS OF STUDY: Major Field: History vx TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A b s t r a c t ........................................... ii Dedication......................................... iv Acknowledgements.................................... v V i t a .............................................. vi Table of Contents ................................. vii Chapters : Introduction ..................................... 1 1. The Formative Forces 1774 to 1800 ............... 10 2. First Efforts and First Failures 1815 to 1834 . 38 3. Reestablishing the Ohio Prison System 1832 to 1850 66 4. Stagnation and Incremental Change 1850 to 1859. 97 5. The Ohio Penitentiary in an Era of Crisis 1860s and 1870s ............................................... 152 6. The Old Order Crumbles 1860s and 1870s........... 166 7. Reinventing the Ohio Penitentiary System 1880 to 1885. 210 Conclusion........................................ 23 9 Bibliography...................................... 245 vxi INTRODUCTION Not all the men in prison are nameless or faceless. One famous man confined to the Ohio Penitentiary wrote a well-known Christmas story. It was the tale of a young woman who sold her hair to buy her husband a fob for his watch, while her husband sold his watch to buy combs for his wife's hair. O Henry wrote The Gift of the Magi, that beautiful story of self-sacrifice, while behind bars for embezzlement ! One infamous man in the Ohio Penitentiary was the Confederate General John Hunt Morgan. In November 1863, he and six of his men tunneled out of the prison and into the Ohio history books. His escape embarrassed the prison, on one hand, and visitors flocked to see where he did it, on the other. These two anecdotes exemplify the twin themes of Administrative History of the Ohio Penitentiary between 1815 and 1885 -- profit and penitence. Morgan and his men worked to get out of the prison and 0 Henry was paying for his crimes. Penal theorists believed that the way to reformation was through "hard labor." They wanted to grind the prisoners honest. These same ideas became part of the discipline at the Ohio Penitentiary. This study will look specifically at the Ohio Penitentiary to see how it applied these two objectives. The early history of the prison, between 1815 and 1834, was an experimental period. Legislatively and institutionally no one was sure how to manage the prisoners or their labor. After 1834, the administrators carried out policies to apply reformatory, profitable discipline and reconcile the tensions between the two. The purpose of using the Ohio Penitentiary as a case study in administrative history was that most penal writings since the 1960s followed the example of Michel Foucault. His seminal work. Discipline and Punish, focused on the abuses of prisons instead of an administrative look at how penitentiaries really function. This study harkens back to earlier works on the development of prison management. This dissertation ends in 1885. Sweeping changes in the governance laws in 1884 and 1885 brought an end to one era and started another. After fifty years of contracted convict labor, the Ohio Penitentiary instituted the state- use and piece-price plans of inmate work. These same acts also introduced new ideas in prisoner reformation. With the introduction of the parole and convict classification systems, the state began to view criminals as capable of rehabilitation rather than brutal and intractable. The penitentiary system in the United States followed either the Pennsylvania or the Auburn model. These models form the foundation to the discipline used at the Ohio Penitentiary. Interestingly several sources on these disciplines came from foreign visitors and their observations of the United States and its penitentiary practices. Gustave de Beaumont and Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s looked at American prisons in their On the Penitentiary. Systems in the United States and its Application in France. They visited New York's Auburn Prison, Pennsylvania's Walnut Street Prison and the Ohio Penitentiary and reported on their relative strengths and weaknesses. Also in the 1830s, Englishman William Crawford came to the United States to examine the American penitentiaries for the British government. His Report on the Penitentiaries in the United States detailed twenty-two of the major prisons, including the Ohio Penitentiary. Crawford discussed the history and the current condition of each institution. These observations added a different dimension to the discussion on the effectiveness