Student Research

“Poorhouse”, “Almshouse”, “Workhouse”, “Poor-Farm”, “City Home”. All of these words refer to the same thing: relief for the poor , or at least a small portion of it. “Indoor relief” has been the greatest means of relief for the poor for the last 500 years.

Contrary to modern beliefs about the poor and public relief, poverty has not always been regarded as such a disgrace. Aiding those in need was seen as an opportunity for the wealthy to exercise the virtue of charity.1 The destitute of the town were not chastised and ridiculed for their social and economic standing. Instead, they were given the aid they needed without harassment and embarrassment. It was not long, however, before the stereotypes and hard feelings towards the poor that we are guilty of today began to arise.

According to some social economists, three major occurrences are responsible for the decline of charity and unconditional giving to the needy. “The ravages of the bubonic plague that swept Europe in the fourteenth century, the enclosure of common farmland for sheep in England in the fifteenth century and the seizure of all church property by Henry VIII in the sixteenth century completely disrupted the system of the poor law.”2
One of the earliest laws for dealing with the poor was the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601. This became the basis of poor relief in England and served as the foundation of the poor-relief system that was developed in the American colonies and which still exists to this day. The Elizabethan Poor Law established three principles: local responsibility for the poor, the requirement that people provide support to their poor and the idea that towns were liable only for their own residents.3

During the early seventeenth century a popular method of aiding the poor was to contract them with private individuals, usually farmers, and auction off the poor. Those who were auctioned (often referred to as “paupers”) worked for their meals and their stay at the master’s house.
The establishment of poorhouses was another method of providing relief for the poor. Poorhouses had very clear goals; they were supposed to check the expense of pauperism through cheaper care and deter people from applying for outside relief. Poorhouses were also supposed to transform the behavior and character of their inmates.4

The first poorhouse in New England was built in Boston, Massachusetts in 1660. Similar to the philosophy of auctioning off paupers, those aided in poorhouses were also obligated to work for their stay at the house. However, poorhouses and pauperism were not exactly as successful as they were hoped to be. In 1766, Benjamin Franklin expressed his feelings about the situation of public aid, poorhouses in general, actually revealing many truths about the institutions in his opinion.

“There is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken and insolent. The day you passed that act (The Elizabethan Poor Law) you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality and sobriety by giving them a dependence of something else than a careful accumulation during youth and health support in age and sickness.”5

A Massachusetts legislator shared similar views with Franklin a few years later reporting, “poorhouses are [the poor’s] inns, at which they stop for refreshment. Here they find rest…and medical aid when they are sick… and as they choose not to labor, they leave…and pass from town to town demanding their portion of the states allowance for them as their right.”6

Not only were there complaints about the purpose and philosophy of the poorhouse and this form of poor relief, but also there were complaints about many poorhouses themselves. Poorhouses became a human dumping ground into which derelicts of every description were thrown. By the mid-nineteenth century, almost every poorhouse in the country had failed to come even close to meeting their original goals. They had degenerated very badly.7 According to an 1896 New York State Senate report on the state’s poorhouses, “they may be generally described as badly constructed, ill-arranged, ill-warmed and ill-ventilated. The rooms are crowded, the air is noxious and good health is an impossibility. Men and women mingle freely resulting in the offspring of illicit connections.”8 Extreme reports clearly depicted the way of life in more than half of America’s poorhouses at the time. A report from a Sandusky, Ohio poorhouse claimed that:

“Building very old and dilapidated; walls in terrible condition; no screens; swarms of flies everywhere; no comfortable chairs; rooms very dirty; inmates do the work; food very poor. The so-called hospital is a miserable place more like a prison. Am impeccable women’s; only bed is an old box filled with straw and a dirty quilt. A disgraceful place.”9

With the disgustingly unsanitary condition of the majority of poorhouses, a fear for the safety of children and adolescent inmates rose. Poorhouses were entirely unsuitable for the upbringings of children’s futures were certainly not promising if living in these institutions. “Degrading and viscous influences surrounded [children] in these poorhouses. They fall into habits of idleness, their moral and religious training is entirely neglected, self-respect is almost extinguished and residence in a poorhouse leaves upon them a stigma, which will cling, to them for years.10

As a result, individual poorhouses across the country began removing children from the poorhouses and into orphanages or foster homes. In New York in 1875, the State Legislature passed the Children’s Act. This act ordered all children aged between two and sixteen years be removed from poorhouses. Due to this large decrease in young inmates, poorhouses were becoming more and more like old-age homes.
The 1900 record of a poorhouse in Beverly Massachusetts prove this fact to be true. Located on 18 Cedar Street and referred to as the City Home (See Appendix, Figure 3), the Beverly poorhouse sat high on a hill near the present day Hurd Stadium (See Appendix, Figure 4). Now extinct, the original poorhouse was destroyed by a fire and rebuilt in 1870 (See Appendix, Figure 2).

According to the Population Schedule of the 1900 Census for Beverly Massachusetts, there were thirty-two inmates living in the town’s poorhouse, (not including the superintendent, Walter Farnham, who also lived there). Eleven of these thirty-two inmates, fourteen were male (43%) and eighteen were female (56%). The average age of the inmates was forty-four years, with no children inmates. This might be a result of the fact that none of the inmates were married. All thirty-two of the inmates were white and the majority were literate. Twenty-four (75%) of the inmate could read English, twenty-three (72%) could write English and thirty-one (97%) could speak the language. These statistics are surprising considering the fact that twelve of the inmates (38%) were foreign born. Seven inmates were born in Ireland (22%), three born in Scotland (9%), one born in Germany and one born in France (3% respectively). Native -born inmates totaled nineteen (59%). Seventeen inmates were born in Massachusetts (53%), one born in New York and one born in Maine (3% respectively).

Another surprising fact about Beverly’s poorhouse was its somewhat efficient management and fine condition. According to the Overseers of the Poor Report Form 1905, “the manner in which [Beverly’s poorhouse] is managed is worthy of much praise”.12 Those running the poorhouse claimed they “have tried to make a real home for the unfortunate. They are warmly housed, clothed, furnished with good food and required to observe proper sanitary regulations. The house and grounds are kept clean and in good order.”13 In 1905, a total of $5,811.05 was expended at the poorhouse (See Appendix, Chart 1). Fortunately, Beverly’s poorhouse had not yet sunk to the low level that a majority of the country’s other institutions.

Today’s public relief has greatly changed from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Outdoor aid (pauperism and the sporadic housing of the poor) had almost completely vanished, as have traditional poorhouses. Overnight shelters and “meal houses” are forms of relief similar to those 200 years ago. Applying for public welfare and receiving aid from the state is also a present day relief method. Although the tactics and procedures of poor relief have changed (certainly the fourteenth century idea of unconditional charity), the philosophy of poor relief has remained constant over the years. It is unfortunate, however, that such a stigma had developed for those receiving aid from the program.

Expenses for Beverly’s City Home (1905)
Superintendent and Labor	$1,680.84
Groceries and Supplies	2,402.64
Repairs and Furnishings	693.93
Medicine and Burials	171.46
Shoes and Clothing	218.66
Incidentals	643.52
	$5,811.05 (Total)
Adapted from the 1905 City Records

Beverly City Home “Inmates”
Inmates (total)	32
Male Inmates	14 (44%)
Female Inmates	18 (56%)
Caucasian Inmates	32 (100%)
Married Inmates	0 (0%)
Average Inmate Age	44yrs Old
Able to Read	24 (75%)
Able to Write	23 (72%)
Able to Speak English	31 (97%)
Nativity in MA	17 (53%)
Nativity in ME	1 (3%)
Nativity in NY	1 (3%)
Nativity in Ireland	7 (22%)
Nativity in Scotland	3 (9%)
Nativity in Germany	1 (3%)
Nativity in France	1 (3%)
American Born Inmates	12 (38%)
Foreign Born Inmates	19 (59%)
Adapted from the 1900 United States Census for Beverly Massachusetts

1 Kosmisar, Lucy. Down and Out in the USA. (New York: Franklin Watts, 1973), 2.

2 Ibid., 23.

3 Ibid., 6.

4 Katz, Michael B. In The Shadow of the Poorhouse (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1986), 22-3.

5 Bremner, Robert H. The Public Good (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), 17.

6 Komisar, 21.

7 Lens, Sidney. Poverty: Yesterday and Today (New York: Thomas Y Crowell Co., 1973), 38.

8 Katz, 27.

9 Komisar, 41.

10 Katz, 104.

11 1900 United States Census, Population Schedule, Beverly Massachusetts.

12 Beverly’s City Records for 1905 (Beverly, MA: The Allen Print, 1906), 45.

13 Ibid., 45.

The right of women to vote was not an opportunity that knocked suddenly out of nowhere. In fact, it was a long hard struggle for many woman suffragists. Not only was getting the actual right to vote difficult, but once it was attained there was the question of how women would be attracted to exercise this right. However, while there were thousands of eligible voters who did not vote, there were also thousands of them who did nationwide. Over two thousand of these daring feminists who cast their votes were from Beverly, Massachusetts. In doing this, these women became part of the first voter registration performed by females in this area of the country. Also, not only wealthy native born women participated in the election. Among these voters there were foreign born women as well as native born, and working as well as non-working women. There are several possible reasons for the numbers of each from the four categories. Also, there were great circumstances which led to the addition of the Nineteenth Amendment which granted women the right to vote.

In the years between 1848 and 1920, women struggled, and were often times dragged down for their vote. They were up against men, the mindset that women should have no place in government, and opposition by fellow women. There was a split in the woman’s movement in 1869. There were those women who continued on the trail towards equal suffrage rights, and those who took the other route towards anti-suffragism. Woman anti-suffragists, although constituting a relatively small minority, nonetheless managed to develop twenty-five state organizations, as well as the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage.[1] Despite the existence of these organizations however, anti-suffragism never became a mass movement, and women moved onto be granted suffrage.[2]

Another reason for the intiation of the woman’s suffrage movement branched from the emancipation of the slaves in the late 19th century. Woman leaders felt that if the right to vote could perhaps be passed on to free blacks then it might be a milestone that would bring suffrage closer within their reach.[3] Woman’s rights leaders had put aside their cause during the Civil War, but when peace time came, they hoped to restart it. They hoped that suffrage would be attained with the aid of the Republican party. In the end, the Republicans in the Senate decided to support the Nineteenth Amendment, and women voters did not forget this. The increase in the Republican majority was due to the woman’s vote may be indicative of their appreciation of the Republicans for voting in their favor.

However united woman suffragists were in their struggle, their motives leading up to the struggle differed from woman to woman, depending on a variety of factors. From women in church societies to organizations of working women, the suffragists worked towards a common purpose which would lead to their individual goals.

The Republican victor of the 1920 presidential election was Warren G. Harding. He didn’t really have a distinct view regarding woman’s suffrage. Instead, he tended to vote in favor of puplic opinion rather than conscience.[4] While in the Senate, when the vote for the Nineteenth Amendment came up, and Harding went along with the other Republicans. Due to the increasing number of people in Ohio who voted for woman’s suffrage, the Republicans in the Senate decided to support the Nineteenth Amendment, Harding included.

The Senate finally agreed to the passage of the suffrage amendment on June 4, 1919, and it went into effect in time for the 1920 election. Republican women tended to go to the polls more often than the Democratic women, and this attributed to the election of Harding. [5]

Once granted the right to vote, women in general tended to vote much like their male counterparts. [6] Overall, after the suffrage amendment went into effect, women seemed to show little interest in voting.[7] Those who continued their interest in politics helped to increase the Republican vote, allowing for the election of President Harding, even though their vote may not even have existed as a separate vote. Also, despite the efforts of women’s clubs and the League of Women voters to get women involved in their newfound civic opportunitiy, female candidates for office were few.[8] In spite of the hardships of the struggle however, the introduction of woman suffrage would prove to be one of the greatest achievements of women in history.

Beverly women in 1920 took an interest in politics. Women from all nationalities and social classes went to the polls. Out of 5,508 eligible female voters, 47% actually voted. Twenty-two percent of these women were foreign-born, and 78% were native born. A possible explanation for this large difference might be that the majority of immigrants had not yet been nationalized, making it impossible for them to vote. Thirty-three percent of these women were of the working class, while 37% were non-workers. A possible explanation for this difference may be that there just weren’t that may working women at that time (there was a relative lack of jobs available to woman at that time).

Whether or not the number of women who voted out of those eligible was as expected, it was the first year of their suffrage, and the beginning of a new era for women. It placed the women of Beverly in one of the greatest rights movements of all time.

The woman’s suffrage movement attracted thousands of women across the country, including women in Beverly. Their intiative to vote paved the way for future female voters in Beverly. Looking back now, in 1997, it makes me proud to see how members in our community helped change history.

Notes:

1 Dorothy and Carl J. Schneider. American Women in the Progressive Era, 1900-1920 (New York: Doubleday, 1993).

2 Ibid.

3 Eleanor Flexnor. A Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1959)

4 Andrew Sinclair. The Available Man (New York: Macmillan Company, 1965)

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Frederick Lewis Allen. Only Yesterday (New York: Harper & Row, 1931)

8 Ibid, 96.

The History of the Poorhouse

Women Voters in Beverly, Massachusetts During the 1920 Election in Connection to the Woman’s Suffrage Movement

Projects

Student Research

Guides

Library

Contact us