American University Library
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REFUGE FROM WANT?: VIRGINIA’S ALMSHOUSES, 1870-1930 By Mary Ellen Henry Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In History Chair: Dr. AlanM. Kraut Dean ol the College Dr. William A. Link D in e 2006 American University Washington, D. C. 20016 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3218576 Copyright 2006 by Henry, Mary Ellen All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send 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. ® UMI UMI Microform 3218576 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © COPYRIGHT by Mary Ellen Henry 2006 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFUGE FROM WANT?: VIRGINIA’S ALMSHOUSES, 1870-1930 BY MARY ELLEN HENRY ABSTRACT The rural county poorhouse as it appeared in a southern setting focuses this study analyzing the institution’s role during a period of enormous change in poor policy administration. Almshouses, commonly called poorhouses, existed in almost every county and city in Virginia by 1870. Despite their ubiquitous presence and remarkable longevity, these facilities have remained relatively invisible in the historical landscape. Progressive Era reformers seeking their demise effectively used a pejorative rhetoric that pictured filthy, wretched places inhabited by the “dregs of humanity.” An unsavory reputation associated with large urban institutions served to further cloud their role in sparsely populated country communities. In order to determine what, if any, useful purpose the poorhouse served, this study examines the institution and how it functioned in six Virginia localities representing the five geographical regions of the state: Alexandria, Caroline County, Highland County, Mecklenburg County, Rockbridge County, and Shenandoah County. Census data, county records, and annual reports to the General Auditor from the Overseers of the Poor, among other sources provide a look inside the facility, what was actually a poor farm, to determine its relative value to the community it served. ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the late nineteenth century, almshouses functioned variously as hospitals, homeless shelters, and long-term care facilities for the aged and feeble-minded. In addition they provided temporary haven and relief for families and single mothers, both widowed and unwed. Essentially a paternalistic institution run by the superintendent and his wife, these farms, meant to be self-sufficient, developed their own sense of community. In the complicated southern racial picture, these rural poorhouses uniquely created a space open to both blacks and whites. Progressive reformers in the early twentieth century sought to close the poorhouses in favor of consolidated institutions for the aged as well as new state institutions for the epileptic, feeble-minded, and tubercular. Counties persuaded by their arguments, closed their almshouses beginning in 1926. However, these state measures served to harden racial lines with strict segregation, denied the feeble-minded basic rights, and left many poor in rural counties to shift for themselves. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful thanks go first and foremost to my dissertation advisor, Professor Alan M. Kraut, whose ever constant support and unwavering belief in this project’s merit have buoyed me over the course of research and writing. His cheerful presence and thoughtful commentary both encouraged and sustained my efforts. The Department of History further supported this study through the gracious award of a College of Arts and Sciences Dissertation Fellowship. That grant provided both material aid and an intellectual imprimatur for which I remain indebted. In addition, both faculty members and fellow graduate students created a challenging and supportive environment that helped move me forward. Many thanks go as well to my Dissertation Committee members, Dr. Pete Daniel and Dr. William Link. Reading their clear-eyed works on the South continues to inspire my own studies. They never fail to illuminate the complicated history of this distinctive region in meaningful ways. Their probing questions have deepened my own understanding immeasurably. For mentoring and support of women graduate students, my gratitude extends to Dr. Sarah Larson and Dr. Melissa Kirkpatrick, graduates of the history program who generously offered their friendship and time. Ever willing to wrestle with an idea or provide a forum for surviving the process, they have given unselfishly of both their time iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and considerable talents. When serious illness waylaid my research, they physically made it possible for me to get to the archives and finish gathering the necessary primary documents. Many heartfelt thanks go out to them both. Finally, my family has supported my graduate study in many ways large and small. My sister, Susan Casey, has cheerfully accompanied me on trips to Virginia archives. Babysitting while I researched, employing her considerable photographic talents, and simply joining me in the pursuit, she has aided and enriched my journey. James, Chris, and Will have all experienced moments of mom’s divided attention, but have never failed to offer their support and encouragement. Belief in me underscored by love has been their gift, but especially that of my husband Doug. With his patience and faith, he enabled my work making the dissertation a reality. v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................ iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 II. ALEXANDRIA: VIRGINIA POOR POLICY IN TRANSITION.....................23 III. POOR HOUSE IN THE COUNTRY....................................................................65 IV. ALMSHOUSE FOR THE ILL AND DYING....................................................119 V. THE GOOD STEWARD........................................................................................154 VI. REMAINS OF THE POOR HOUSE.................................................................. 194 VII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 228 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................240 vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Winter in 1870 Alexandria, Virginia was a hard one. As if to underscore the prevailing desperation, two horses were stolen from the local almshouse. The thieves were caught and given harsh sentences in part for the subsequent killing and skinning of one of the animals, but also for robbing an institution that the judge characterized as a city owned place for “the relief of the aged, infirm and destitute.”1 Not only had the theft deprived the poor farm of valuable stock worth approximately $800.00, but deprived the inmates of transportation for themselves and the fetching of supplies. The victims were a slaughtered horse, the poor farm staff and residents, and the tax paying citizenry who furnished the horses and who, after all, provided for the institution in the first place. While the incident highlights the local community’s strongly felt stewardship for the poor, it is harder to discern how far that sense of responsibility translated beyond the fiduciary. What sort of balance existed between meeting the needs of the poor and the subsequent financial obligation incurred? Virginia communities had weighed the costs and benefits of poor relief since the colony’s seventeenth century beginnings. While poor relief policy in Virginia devolved from the English poor law, its fullest expression came in the nineteenth century in the many and various city and county institutions officially known as “The Place of General 1 Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, January 7, 1870, page 1. 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.