DOCSLIB.ORG

American University Library

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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.
Recommended publications
  • ARCHITECTURE, POWER, and POVERTY Emergence of the Union

    ARCHITECTURE, POWER, and POVERTY Emergence of the Union

    ARCHITECTURE, POWER, AND POVERTY Emergence of the Union Workhouse Apparatus in the Early Nineteenth-Century England A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Gökhan Kodalak January 2015 2015, Gökhan Kodalak ABSTRACT This essay is about the interaction of architecture, power, and poverty. It is about the formative process of the union workhouse apparatus in the early nineteenth-century England, which is defined as a tripartite combination of institutional, architectural, and everyday mechanisms consisting of: legislators, official Poor Law discourse, and administrative networks; architects, workhouse buildings, and their reception in professional journals and popular media; and paupers, their everyday interactions, and ways of self-expression such as workhouse ward graffiti. A cross-scalar research is utilized throughout the essay to explore how the union workhouse apparatus came to be, how it disseminated in such a dramatic speed throughout the entire nation, how it shaped the treatment of pauperism as an experiment for the modern body-politic through the peculiar machinery of architecture, and how it functioned in local instances following the case study of Andover union workhouse. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Gökhan Kodalak is a PhD candidate in the program of History of Architecture and Urbanism at Cornell University. He received his bachelor’s degree in architectural design in 2007, and his master’s degree in architectural theory and history in 2011, both from Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul. He is a co-founding partner of ABOUTBLANK, an inter-disciplinary architecture office located in Istanbul, and has designed a number of award-winning architectural and urban design projects in national and international platforms.
  • Almshouse, Workhouse, Outdoor Relief: Responses to the Poor in Southeastern Massachusetts, 1740-1800” Historical Journal of Massachusetts Volume 31, No

    Almshouse, Workhouse, Outdoor Relief: Responses to the Poor in Southeastern Massachusetts, 1740-1800” Historical Journal of Massachusetts Volume 31, No

    Jennifer Turner, “Almshouse, Workhouse, Outdoor Relief: Responses to the Poor in Southeastern Massachusetts, 1740-1800” Historical Journal of Massachusetts Volume 31, No. 2 (Summer 2003). Published by: Institute for Massachusetts Studies and Westfield State University You may use content in this archive for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the Historical Journal of Massachusetts regarding any further use of this work: [email protected] Funding for digitization of issues was provided through a generous grant from MassHumanities. Some digitized versions of the articles have been reformatted from their original, published appearance. When citing, please give the original print source (volume/ number/ date) but add "retrieved from HJM's online archive at http://www.westfield.ma.edu/mhj. Editor, Historical Journal of Massachusetts c/o Westfield State University 577 Western Ave. Westfield MA 01086 Almshouse, Workhouse, Outdoor Relief: Responses to the Poor in Southeastern Massachusetts, 1740-1800 By Jennifer Turner In Duxbury, Massachusetts, local folklore emphasizes that before the current Surplus Street was named, it was called Poverty Lane because it led to the “poor” farm, and before it was Poverty Lane, local residents knew it as Folly Street, over which one’s folly led to the Almshouse.1 Although such local folklore suggests a rather stringent attitude towards giving alms to the poor in colonial society, the issue of poor relief absorbed much of the attention of town officials before and after the American Revolution. Throughout the colonial period and early republic, many Massachusetts towns faced growing numbers of needy men, women and children in need of relief.
  • Almshouses 1731 to 1964

    Almshouses 1731 to 1964

    Newton’s Almshouses 1731 to 1964 Michael J Clarke 1/12/15 Time Line 1731 Vote to establish Workhouse 1734 Board of Overseers of the Poor established 1763 Vote to build Workhouse 1818 Poorhouse established in Auburndale at former home of John Pigeon 1840 Almshouse & Poor Farm moves to Waban 1842 Dorothea Dix visits Waban Almshouse 1880 Poor Department established 1881 Newton Cottage Hospital founded as part of Poor Department 1886 Newton Cottage Hospital opens as a private institution 1890 Poor Farm land purchased on Winchester St. next to Working Boys Home 1898 Poor Department becomes Charity Department 1899 Almshouse built at 525 Winchester St. 1900 Almshouse inmates move to Winchester St. 1905 Board of Overseers of the Poor replaced by a single Overseer 1909 Almshouse becomes City Home 1917 City Home expanded 1929 Charity Department becomes Department of Public Welfare Overseer of the Poor becomes Director of Public Welfare 1938 Brick and stone toolhouse built behind City Home 1941 Board of Public Welfare commences meeting 1946 City Home becomes City Infirmary 1956 City Infirmary barn and piggery destroyed by fire. New barn built. 1964 City Infirmary closes 1968 Department of Public Welfare and Board of Public Welfare abolished Infirmary Land and buildings transferred to the Recreation Commission 1974 Community Gardens established on Infirmary Lands 1980 Purchase of land from Xaverian Brothers Working Boys Home 1987 Nahanton Park established by combining Poor Farm with WBH land Cover: The Misfortunes of Old Age – On the Way to the Poorhouse, wood engraving by John N. Hyde, published in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, September 9, 1882.
  • The Road Beyond Suffrage: Female Activism in Richmond, Virginia Denise Gammon Virginia Commonwealth University

    The Road Beyond Suffrage: Female Activism in Richmond, Virginia Denise Gammon Virginia Commonwealth University

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by VCU Scholars Compass Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2012 The Road Beyond Suffrage: Female Activism in Richmond, Virginia Denise Gammon Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons © The Author Downloaded from http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/2749 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Road Beyond Suffrage: Female Activism in Richmond, Virginia A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of history at the Virginia Commonwealth University by Denise Marie Brooking Gammon Bachelors of Arts: History, Virginia Commonwealth University, December 2009 Director: Dr. Thurber Associate Professor--twentieth-century United States History Department Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia May 2012 Acknowledgments I would like to thank everyone who lent me their eyes and ears throughout the creation and development of this thesis. A special thanks to the Maymont Foundation volunteers and staff, Karen Shepherd, Leanne and Matt Overstreet and my wonderful thesis advisor, Dr. Kneebone, my fantastic parents and Steven Hubbard, and in memory of
  • Man, Myth, Or Monster

    Man, Myth, Or Monster

    the magazine of the broadSIDE SUMMER 2009 Man, Myth, or Monster A COLLABORATIVE EXHIBITION PRESENTED BY THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA AND THE POE MUSEUM, page 2 broadSIDE THE INSIDE STORY the magazine of the LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA Nurture Your Spirit at a Library SUMMER 2009 Take time this summer to relax, recharge, and dream l i b r a r i a n o f v i r g i n i a Sandra G. Treadway hatever happened to the “lazy, hazy, crazy days of l i b r a r y b o a r d c h a i r Wsummer” that Nat King Cole celebrated in song John S. DiYorio when I was growing up? As a child I looked forward to summer with great anticipation because I knew that the e d i t o r i a l b o a r d rhythm of life—for me and everyone else in the world Janice M. Hathcock around me—slowed down. I could count on having plenty Ann E. Henderson of time to do what I wanted, at whatever pace I chose. Gregg D. Kimball It was a heady, exciting feeling—to have days and days Mary Beth McIntire Suzy Szasz Palmer stretched out before me with few obligations or organized activities. I was free to relax, recharge, enjoy, explore, and e d i t o r dream, because that was what summer was all about. Ann E. Henderson My feeling that summer was a special time c o p y e d i t o r continued well into adulthood, then gradually diminished Emily J.
  • Site Report: 1619 and 1711 King, 2018

    Site Report: 1619 and 1711 King, 2018

    HYATT CENTRIC, 1619 AND 1711 KING STREET ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA PREPARED FOR: MHF KING STREET V LLC 300 CENTERVILLE ROAD, SUITE 300 EAST WARWICK, RI, 02886 401.562.2229 PREPARED BY: HEATHER CROWL, MA, RPA PETER REGAN, MA, RPA SCOTT SEIBEL, MSC, RPA PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: SCOTT SEIBEL, MSC, RPA AECOM 12420 MILESTONE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 150 GERMANTOWN, MD 20876 301.820.3000 JULY 2018 Page Intentionally Blank Abstract AECOM conducted archaeological investigations within two parcels at 1619 and 1711 King Street in Alexandria, Virginia, proposed for construction of the Hyatt Centric hotel that together amount to approximately 0.5 acres. Work was conducted pursuant to the City of Alexandria’s Archaeological Protection Code (1989) and in accordance with the City of Alexandria Archaeology Standards (Alexandria Archaeology 2007). The archaeological investigation included demolition monitoring, mechanical excavation of 12 test trenches, and hand excavation of six shovel test pits and one 3-x-3-foot test unit. The investigation resulted in recovery of 349 historic artifacts, documentation of two historic features, and identification of one historic site: 44AX0234. Site 44AX0234 is a multi-component historic site dating from the late eighteenth through mid- twentieth century. The site components are stratigraphically distinct. The late eighteenth to early nineteenth century component consists of a yard scatter identified within a truncated buried A horizon and a small soil stain (Feature 2). The mid-nineteenth through mid-twentieth century component includes a mixed yard deposit likely associated with two former dwellings in the vicinity and a demolition debris pit (Feature 1) associated with a third former nineteenth century dwelling.
  • Life on Poorhouse Knob: Poor-Relief in Montgomery County, Virginia, 1830−1860

    Life on Poorhouse Knob: Poor-Relief in Montgomery County, Virginia, 1830−1860

    Life on Poorhouse Knob: Poor-relief in Montgomery County, Virginia, 1830−1860 Jennifer A. Gallagher In 1850, a twenty-seven-year-old woman named Maria Rose resided atop Poorhouse Knob in the Montgomery County (Virginia) Poorhouse, sharing the dwelling with eleven other “paupers,” the supervisor of the poor, and his wife and four children.1 A full decade later, Maria’s economic circumstances had apparently not changed, as she was still living on Poorhouse Knob. She was now, however, surrounded by entirely different people. In 1860, she was keeping company with only six other “paupers,” a different supervisor, and his wife and five young children.2 As is often the case for society’s most vulnerable citizens, history has only left us the barest glimpse of Maria’s life. She lived in the poorhouse during the prime of her life, at least from ages twenty-seven to thirty-six, and possibly longer. She could read and write, and she was a native Virginian. She most likely had a daughter living with her in the poorhouse because in 1850, an eleven- year-old named Amanda Rose was listed as a resident.3 Although we can speculate on what life may have been like for Maria and her daughter on this rural poor farm in southwestern Virginia, their actual daily experience cannot be retrieved from the depths of more than a century. Taken together with other historical fragments, however, our limited history of Maria Rose can provide a window into how rural, southern communities understood and addressed poverty in the nineteenth century.
  • American Women's Suffrage Movement

    American Women's Suffrage Movement

    RESOURCE GUIDE: AMERICAN WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT On July 18, 1848, women and men gathered to launch the women’s suffrage movement in the United States at the Seneca Falls Convention, held in Seneca Falls, New York. This struggle would last seven decades, with women gaining the right to vote in 1920. The women’s suffrage movement, also called woman suffrage, gave women the opportunity to express themselves to the general public, which had rarely been done prior. Not all women supported women’s suffrage. Women who opposed suffrage believed that it would take them away from their families and homes, and that women would be tainted by “dirty” politics. In 1909, the Equal Suffrage League of Virginia formed to campaign for women to gain the right to vote in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Founding members included Lila Meade Valentine, who would be elected as the organization’s leader; artists Adele Clarke and Nora Houston; writers Ellen Glasgow and Mary Johnston; and physician Kate Waller Barrett. These women traveled throughout Virginia handing out literature, giving speeches, hosting suffrage teas, and lobbying men and General Assembly members to grant women the right to vote. Following the formation of the Equal Suffrage League, its members decided to become a part of the national suffrage movement by joining the National American Woman Suffrage Association. The Equal Suffrage League of Virginia and National American Woman Suffrage Association members supported the fight for women’s suffrage on a state level, while other suffrage organizations supported a constitutional amendment. While the National American Woman Suffrage Association and its affiliated groups were making progress in their individual states, some suffragists became frustrated by the slow pace of the movement.
  • Agrarian Capitalism, Poor Taxes, and Village Conflict In

    Agrarian Capitalism, Poor Taxes, and Village Conflict In

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography Economic History Review, 00, 0 (2017), pp. 1–26 An old poor law on the Continent? Agrarian capitalism, poor taxes, and village conflict in eighteenth-century coastal Flanders† ∗ By THIJS LAMBRECHT and ANNE WINTER Poor relief provisions in early modern Europe are often considered to have been characterized by a divide between a uniform, compulsory, tax-based, and relatively secure and generous poor law ‘system’ in England, and the more haphazard, voluntary, relatively parsimonious, insecure, and predominantly urban relief practices on the Continent. In this article we challenge these assumptions by arguing that the spread of agrarian capitalism in coastal Flanders fostered a reorganization of poor relief that displayed many features considered unique to the English old poor law, including the levying of poor taxes. By exploring the introduction, diffusion, and effects of poor taxes in the rural district of Furnes in the second half of the eighteenth century, we demonstrate that poor taxes were not unique to England, and sharpen our comparative understanding of the causes, implications, and conflicts associated with this particular way of raising revenue for the poor. This supports our more general contention that the influence of the normative framework should not be overstated: more than differences in legislation, similarities in socio-economic development can explain variations in relief practices in preindustrial Europe. hile levels of social spending in early modern Europe were low when W compared to the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, preindustrial poor relief played a vital role as a safety net for individuals and a safety valve for society.1 One aspect crucial to its societal implications was how poor relief was financed.
  • Alexandria Library, Special Collections Archive and Manuscript Collection Index - 2004

    Alexandria Library, Special Collections Archive and Manuscript Collection Index - 2004

    Alexandria Library, Special Collections Archive and Manuscript Collection Index - 2004 Subject Location A. B. & D. TRANSIT SCHEDULES, 1965 BOX 240A VF TRANSPORTATION A. B. & W. TRANSIT COMPANY PENDLETON, WYTHE, ROYAL AND PITT STREETS, 1943 OFFICE FLAT FILE 15 A. P. W. PAPER CO. NORTHERN VIRGINIA HOTEL CORPORATION RECORDS BOX 178-182 A.L.I.V.E! ALEXANDRIANS INVOLVED ECUMENICALLY BOX 300 ABINGDON APVA BOX 124A KAYE, RUTH LINCOLN BOX 232 AUDIOCASSETTES MEASURED DRAWINGS, 1928 MAP DRAWER 21 ABINGDON DRIVE 1200 BLOCK MOUNT VERNON BOULEVARD, 1116-1256, 1943 OFFICE FLAT FILE 12 ACCOUNT BOOKS ACCOUNT OF RENTS DUE EST. OF A.C. CAZENOVE, 1851-1853 BOX 240 VF ACCOUNT BOOKS ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE RECORDS, 1833-1866 BOX 026A-26E ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE, 1834-1862 BOX 026 ANONYMOUS, 1835-1861 BOX 208 ANONYMOUS, 1856-1861 BOX 211 BALLINGER SHOE AND BOOT FACTORY, 1841-45, 1858-71 BOX 153 BANK OF ALEXANDRIA - ACCOUNT WITH ANDREW AND WILLIAM RAMSAY, 1796-1801 BOX 012 BEACH, JAMES HENRY-MISC. ACCOUNTS, ca. 1935-1938 BOX 240A VF ACCOUNT BOOKS BEVERLEY HILLS WOMEN'S CLUB, 1959-1974 BOX 298 BOOTHE FAMILY PAPERS, 1870-1886 BOX 169 BOOTHE FAMILY PAPERS, 1888-1895 BOX 165 BOOTHE FAMILY PAPERS, 1938-1955 BOX 167 BROWN, W.H., 1885-1918-REAL ESTATE BOX 240 VF BUSINESSES CAMERON MILL, 1892-1899 BOX 096 CAZENOVE & CO, LEDGER G, 1857-1861 BOX 293 HELEN NORRIS CUMMINGS PAPERS BOX 072R HEWES, ALEXANDER, 1806-1830 BOX 209 HODGSON, WILLIAM AND SANDERSON, JAMES, 1801-1805 BOX 240A VF ACCOUNT BOOKS JAMES F. CARLIN & SON, 1863-1870, 1873 BOX 112 JAMES H.
  • Emails Posted Nov. 30

    Emails Posted Nov. 30

    Emails Posted Nov. 30 *************************************************** From: Paul Fleisher <[email protected]> Date: Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 12:30 PM Subject: Barbara Johns deserves a place in the U.S. Capitol To: <[email protected]> I encourage you to recognize the heroism, courage and leadership of Barbara Johns by selecting her to represent Virginia in the National Statuary Hall Paul Fleisher 2781 Beowulf Ct. Richmond VA 23231 www.paulfleisher.com *************************************************** From: Dave & Jane Kearney <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 10:35 PM Subject: Request for Proposals; Virginia's U. S. Capitol Statue Commission To: <[email protected]> To: Virginia’s U.S. Capitol Statue Commission From: David and Jane Kearney, Richmond, Virginia [email protected] Date: November 27, 2020 _____________________ In response to your request for proposals, our top three suggestions for the “second” of Virginia’s statues in the U.S Capitol’s National Statuary Hall Collection, to replace the statue of Robert E. Lee, are, in no particular order: · Abraham Lincoln · Pocahontas · Maggie Lena Walker The strengths of the foregoing three proposed candidates have been covered very well by many others. We would stress the following elements: Abraham Lincoln As researched and pointed out by Virginia’s Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Subcommittee, Abraham Lincoln had “deep Virginia roots.” The Subcommittee noted that Lincoln’s great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents lived in Virginia; his parents met, married; and lived for a time in the Shenandoah Valley; and his great-grandparents and multiple relatives are buried in Virginia in the Lincoln Cemetery at the Lincoln Family Homestead in Rockingham County.
  • HISTORY of 19Th CENTURY AMERICAN POORHOUSES

    HISTORY of 19Th CENTURY AMERICAN POORHOUSES

    HISTORY Sunday, October 20, 2013 11:53 AM OF THE AMERICAN POORHOUSE SYSTEM HISTORY OF 19th CENTURY AMERICAN POORHOUSES The Workhouse WHAT WERE POORHOUSES? This is a wonderful website about the (often also called Poor Farms -- and several similar terms -- British or referred to with the older term -- Almshouses) poorhouse system The Victorian Poorhouses were tax-supported residential institutions to which people were Poorhouse required to go if they could not support themselves. They were started as a method of providing a less expensive (to the taxpayers) alternative to what Famous People in the we would now days call "welfare" - what was called "outdoor relief" in those Poorhouse days. People requested help from the community Overseer of the Poor ( sometimes also called a Poor Master) - an elected town official. If the need The Poorhouse in was great or likely to be long-term, they were sent to the poorhouse instead Literature of being given relief while they continued to live independently. Sometimes they were sent there even if they had not requested help from the Overseer Poorhouses in the of the Poor. That was usually done when they were found guilty of begging in Middle Ages public, etc. [One misconception should be cleared up here; they were nottechnically "debtors' prisons." Someone could owe a great deal of money, but if they could still provide themselves with the necessities for remaining independent they might avoid the poorhouse.] BEFORE POORHOUSES Prior to the establishment of poorhouses the problem of what to do with paupers in a community was dealt with in one of three ways: 1.