Student Research

Philip Pierce and Family

There are several families who have made Claypit their final resting place. Among those families are ones whose names have long been associated with Dracut’s history. Families such as the Coburns[1] and Lews[2] are interred at Claypit. However, there is another family found in Claypit about whom little has been written-the family of Phillip Pierce.

According to P. Hildreth Parker, who in 1904 wrote down the epitaphs of the headstones at Claypit, there were several headstones for members of the Pierce family. From the epitaphs it appears as though Phillip and his wife Marcy had several children who all died as children or as young adults. The epitaphs provided a starting point for our research.

Phillip Pierce was born in Chelmsford to Robert and Mary Pierce in 1784. It is believed, according to Dracut Vital records, that Phillip had two older brothers John and Silas. On April 1, 1809 Phillip married Marcy Bradstreet Coburn[3], the daughter of Moses B. Coburn and Leah Coburn. We are not sure how Phillip came to Dracut. Chelmsford is the neighboring town to Dracut (Dracut was originally part of Chelmsford) so it is not surprising that he moved to Dracut. The Pierces and Coburns most likely knew each other. However, he and his family are buried in Claypit because at the time it was the neighborhood cemetery of Pawtwcketville residents including the Pierces and Coburns.

After having been married for just over a year, Phillip and Marcy had their first child, a son named Elexis4. Together they had a total of five children, two boys and three girls. Their children were:

Elexis born Aug. 24, 1810
Mercy H. born Aug. 30, 1812
Coburn born Oct. 28, 1816
Eloisa born Oct. 16, 1821
Laverta born Dec. 1828

Most of their children died young. Only two made it to adulthood, Eloisa who died at the age of 25 of consumption and Elexis who died at the age of 36 of scarlet fever. All the rest of the children died before they reached the age of five.

According to the 1850 census, Phillip was a farmer, living with his daughter-in-law Emeline Butterfield, wife of his son Elexis and his two granddaughters, Annetta M. (age 4) and Emeline L. (age 9), and a laborer, Ruben Ditson (age 20). He was living with these people because his daughter-in-law and granddaughters because they were his only living relatives. His wife had died 29 years earlier of consumption (tuberculosis) and his son Elexis died February 18, 1847 of scarlet fever. It is not clear how Ruben Ditson was connected with the Pierce family. He is listed as a laborer and since Phillip was fairly old Ditson probably helped on the farm. One column on the census record read “Value of Real Estate Owned” and for Phillip that column was blank, his neighbors though had real estate valued between 1,000 and 5,000.

On Dec. 29, 1863, after a relatively long life, Phillip died of heart disease. He was 79 years old. Upon death, Joseph B. V Coburn issued his probate. It stated that Mr. Pierce left no widow and his next kin were his two granddaughters, Emiline L. and Annetta M., (a minor under the age of twenty-one), they were to receive his belongings. They included furniture, such as beds and chairs, hay, knives, chests and shoes to name a few. The price range for his belongings were between $0.25 and over $12. He had also left money to them, over $1,135 and stocks. Since Annetta was a minor her sister, Emiline L. was granted guardianship of her.

The Pierce family is just one of many families we have discovered in Dracut’s oldest burial ground. Little has been researched about this family, but we will continue to uncover the story of this forgotten family of Pawtucketville.

[1] In records found as Coburn and Colburn. It is the same family and we are not sure why there are two different spellings for the same family.

[2] Variation of spellings, sometime Lew or Lue.

[3] Marcy was born in 1787. Her father, Moses B. Coburn, was a Revolutionary soldier. (According to Dracut Vital Records)

Boston’s Reaction to the Fugitive Slave Law Through the Boston Vigilance Committee

Author: Alison Woitunski, BHS Class of 2004

Leave a Comment

In 1850, the United States Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, allowing Southern slave owners the right to recapture their escaped property despite any northern relocation. As a result, Boston, a former haven for free blacks and a hotbed for abolitionist activity, was in turmoil. An immediate response to this law arose by Bostonians in the form of voluntary anti-slavery associations that aimed to protect black fugitives from legal kidnappings. Although these organizations were various in location and membership, one of the most influential and well-known associations that was created was The Boston Vigilance Committee. It is this Vigilance Committee, who, through their detailed records, has allowed us a rare view of Boston’s reaction to the Fugitive Slave Law.

Blacks and whites, males and females were all involved in Bostons struggle against slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law. Although men were typically the leaders of most associations, women were also involved in the abolitionist cause, as evident by their prior formation of the Female Anti-Slavery Society in 1833 [1] . In addition to this pre-Fugitive Slave Law association, women also offered their support and services to male dominated organizations created after 1850.

In the beginning of my research on this topic, I had only a vague idea of what such associations actually did. What were their specific activities? What were they spending money on? What people were involved? What race dominated in the abolition cause? These were all questions that I had yet to find answers to. It wasn’t until I encountered the invaluable Treasurer’s Account of the Boston Vigilance Committee kept by Francis Jackson that I realized the complexity, organization and business-like operations of these abolitionist societies. Black men such as Lewis Hayden and William C. Nell, and white men such as Austin Bearse and Theodore Parker along with many other deeply involved activists powered the Boston Vigilance Committee. In addition to these well-known names, continuous and significant contributions were offered by Samuel May Jr., L. A. Grimes, L. E. Caswell, R. F. Wallcut, Samuel E. Sewall, and Mrs. Charles Williams [2] .

Primarily, the services of the Vigilance Committee included paying the passage fees for fugitives traveling to Canada and other areas, boarding/hiding fugitives, providing legal defense for fugitives, writing/distributing petitions and warning the public of the arrival of slave catchers. The Committee was responsible for sending at least thirty-four groups of fugitives to Canada, two to England, and four to other parts of the United States . In addition to these main services, the Committee also provided assistance in the form of clothing, fuel and furniture donations, small loans, and medical attention. They also provided aid to fugitives that had previously been transferred to Canada. The Vigilance Committee clearly had an extensive and complex system in place for the protection of fugitives in Boston [3] .

Although The Vigilance Committee assisted the Underground Railroad in its attempts to transport slaves as far north as Canada, oftentimes blacks that were considered safe from recapture were assisted by the Committee in finding homes, jobs and creating a stable life. This is evident by the reoccurring names of blacks who received continuous services from the Committee over the course of four or more years . These men and women were not escaping to Canada; rather they were becoming a part of the tight knit black communities located in the West End and Beacon Hill. The inhabitants of these communities were involved with voluntary associations, such as the Vigilance Committee, in the hopes of assisting members of their fellow race in the quest for freedom [4] .

Black Bostonians such as the aforementioned Lewis Hayden and Leonard A. Grimes, James Scott, James Martin, Samuel Flint, Howard Lewis, John Oliver, Elizabeth Peters, Philip Russell, Burrill Smith, Samuel Snowden, John Taylor, Andrew J. Burton, Frances E. Burton, Priscilla Hatton, James Williams, Sarah Ringold, Charles Williams, Wesley Bishop, James Hill, and John Moore were all present in the census of 1850 as residents of Boston, in particular the West End and Beacon Hill neighborhoods [5] . These individuals are also described in the records of Francis Jackson and Harold Schwartz’s Fugitive Slave Days in Boston as either contributors or receivers of benefits from the Boston Vigilance Committee [6] .

A surprising amount of Boston blacks were involved with the Vigilance Committee. The records of the Committee prove that, contrary to popular belief, the Anti-Slavery Movement was not dominated by influential whites. The Vigilance Committee is a perfect example of this with their racially diverse group of members. In addition to the previously named, these Boston blacks were recorded in the records of the Vigilance Committee as continuous contributors and the Boston Athenaeum database of black Boston residents during the 1800s: Caroline Williams, Clara Vaught, Isabella S. Holmes, Charles Mahoney and Mary Parker. This group also proves that women were a driving force in the Abolitionist Movement.

Other associations in Massachusetts were doing equally important work during the mid-1800s to protest the Fugitive Slave Law. The New England Freedom Association (NEFA) was founded on July 4th 1842 in hopes of raising money to aid fugitive slaves. Much like the Boston Vigilance Committee, the members of the NEFA turned to the people of Beacon Hill and the West End for support. An advertisement appearing in The Liberator, in January of 1845 stated that a meeting would be:

“…held in the Tremont Chapel… for the benefit of the New-England Freedom Association. Tickets, fifty cents-to be had at the following places, namely:-Henry Forman,…Patten Stewart, Endicott-street; Henry Watson and James L. Giles, Southack-street; Charles Mahony, Fruit-street place; John J. Smith, Wilson’s Lane, Robert Wood, Fruit-street. The object of this Association is to afford relief to all destitute fugitives that come to Boston; and it is hoped that all the friends of humanity will be present.” [7] .

Another advertisement, appearing earlier in The Liberator, reveals that the organization was struggling due to a lack of financial support:

“Fugitive slaves are constantly presenting themselves for assistance which we are at times unable to afford, in consequence of the lack of means. We…solicit…in the name of the panting fugitive, the countenance and support of all who ‘remember those in bonds as bound with them.'” [8] .

These two advertisements are clear evidence of the New England Freedom Association’s involvement in the fight against slavery. The members listed in the first advertisement are all names of blacks living in or around the Beacon Hill and West End neighborhoods. This all-black association had a strong hold on the African American communities of Boston.

Through discovering the racial and gender diversity of the Boston Vigilance Committee, I came to the conclusion that for the association to be as successful as it was, diversity was a necessity. Black males and females contributed a love for their race and a deep-seated desire for freedom that could not be replicated by any other race. Whites were equally important to the struggle because they had the means and access to things that the average black citizen did not. Connections with sea captains such as Austin Bearse played an important role in the emancipation of many fugitives. Each group involved in the movement — whites, blacks, males and females — brought something different to the mix, resulting in the incredible success of the Committee.

In addition to their involvement with the black communities of Boston, the members of the Vigilance Committee were also responsible for various influential petitions presented to the Massachusetts Senate and House of Representatives, both before and after Congress’s passing of the Fugitive Slave Law. An example of this early involvement in the abolitionist cause is the case of George Latimer in 1842. A runaway slave from Norfolk, Virginia, Latimer came to Massachusetts by way of the Underground Railroad. His owner, James B. Gray, eventually located the fugitive in Boston and had him arrested while he simultaneously planned for Latimer’s return to the South [7] .

Outraged by the idea of a black man being taken back to slavery after having successfully traveled to the free states, thousands of Bostonians, black and white, showcased their abolitionist beliefs through literary publications, protests and petitions. Future Vigilance Committee supporters, Samuel E. Sewall, William Lloyd Garrison and others created a petition calling for:

“A law [to be] passed, forbidding all persons who hold office under the government of Massachusetts, from aiding in or abetting the arrest or detention of any person who may be claimed as a fugitive from slavery…If a man is claimed by another as his slave, escaped from bondage, were to be considered a criminal, he would be entitled by the seventh amendment above quoted, to a public trial, by an impartial jury. If he were regarded as a mere piece of property above the value of twenty dollars, still, by the seventh amendment, the fact of ownership would require the judgment of a jury. It is not enough that he is ‘claimed’ under the second section of the fourth article, to strip him of almost every privilege.” [8]

Despite the introduction of the Fugitive Slave Law seven years later, this petition acquired more than 65,000 signatures and was widely supported by the public. [9]

In addition to the earlier petitions created by Committee members are the petitions formed after 1850. In 1851, William C. Nell presented his petition to the House of Representatives , calling for funds to erect a statue in memory of Crispus Attucks.

“The petitioners ask the appropriation, on the ground that Crispus Attucks, a colored man, who was killed in the Boston Massacre, on the 5th of March, 1770, was the first martyr to the struggle which terminated in the separation of the American colonies from the mother country.” [10]

Although a monument was not erected to honor Crispus Attucks until thirty years later after the submission of William C. Nell’s petition, each petition nonetheless exhibits a profound involvement in the abolitionist and equal rights movements.

Through legal defense, medical aid, personal loans, petitions, literature, boarding, paying passage fees and numerous other services, the Boston Vigilance Committee was a powerhouse in the fight against slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act. The involvement and settlement of blacks in the West End and Beacon Hill neighborhoods created a tight-knit, abolitionist community, out of which came influential movement leaders such as Lewis Hayden. By working on both macro and microscopic scales, the Boston Vigilance Committee left a lasting impression on the history of Boston and the United States.

[1] Wilbur H. Siebert, The Underground Railroad in Massachusetts . (American Antiquarian Society, 1935), 50.

[2] Francis Jackson, The Treasurers Accounts. (The Boston Vigilance Committee, 1850), 6-32.

[3] Jackson, 6-32.

[4] Primaryresearch.org, 5 January 2004, www.primaryresearch.org (5 January 2004)

[5] African American’s in Boston’s Beacon Hill & West End, 1848-1853 .

[6] Harold Schwartz. “Fugitive Slave Days in Boston,”The New England Quarterly, 27 (1954): 193-211.

[7] Robert Wood, “Notice,” The Liberator (Boston), 17 January 1845.

[8] William C. Nell, Henry Weeden, Thomas Cummings, James L. Giles, “New England Freedom Association,” The Liberator (Boston), 12 December 1845.

[9] Asa J. Davis, “The George Latimer Case: A Benchmark in the Struggle for Freedom”, Rutgers University (Jan. 2004), http://edison.rutgers.edu/latimer/glatcase.htm. (5 Jan. 2004).

[10] Massachusetts Legislature. House Reports, 1843. No. 41. Fugitive Slaves in Massachusetts . (31 Jan. 2004). <

[11] Asa J. Davis.

[12] “Petition of William C. Nell”. Massachusetts Legislature. House Reports, 1851. No. 100.

The Relationship Between Crime and Poverty in Black Antebellum Boston

Author: Ryan Morse, BHS class of 2004

Leave a Comment

In antebellum Boston, crime was a serious issue. With the freedom of blacks and the high crime rates during the antebellum time period, many people believed that most of the crime in Boston at that time was caused by the poor black population, by unchecked intemperance, and sudden moral lapses. In reality the major causes of crime in Boston at that time were not due to poverty as much as intemperance and moral lapses.

Poverty was thought to be the most prominent cause of crime. However, this sentiment influenced many people to form voluntary associations to aid the poor and keep them out of prison. Their reasoning was that the poor need or want what others possess and will resort to crime to achieve these things. On the surface this connection seems solid, but when it is studied more closely, it becomes evident that it may not be the best perspective from which to view the situation.

Of particular interest are the lists of people receiving financial aid payments in 1839, from the city of Boston . Records of the aid distributed revealed that 67% of the African American population living in Boston’s wards 2 through 6 who were receiving aid were women. Also of interest are lists of people receiving outdoor relief in 1842 from the city of Boston . These lists show that a small percentage of the people receiving aid were African Americans and that of this small percentage the majority were women. It may have been theorized that because many African American women were receiving aid, many were poor, and as a result, there must be a high percentage of African American women in prisons. In reality, the average number of women in state prisons in the Northeast was 12.25 (including women of all nationalities). The one exception to this was Sing Sing, an all women’s prison in New York. An argument could be made that women were typically placed in houses of correction rather than state penitentiaries, explaining the low numbers of women in prisons. Even so, the average number of women placed into houses of correction was 24 per state in 1839. The main houses of correction in Massachusetts were located in Middlesex, Essex, and Suffolk Counties. This means that there was a shockingly low population of women in each of the three facilities, an average of eight women per location in Massachusetts. [1] This is a far cry from the hundreds of men placed in prisons per state, per year. As of January 1, 1821, there were roughly 147 black male inmates in the Massachusetts State Prison, while there were 2,140 white male inmates. If poverty did in fact create crime, the majority of prisoners would be black, since they were the majority who received financial aid payments, therefore labeling them as the poor population. As is evident by the figures presented, this is not a true statement.

In such cases it is also essential to view the types of crimes committed. Crimes such as arson, vandalism, and destruction of property, cannot be associated with poverty. This is simply because they are of no relation. There is no reason to believe that a poverty stricken individual is more likely to vandalize property. Crimes such as theft, robbery, assault, and murder should merit some attention in matters of linking poverty and crime. These crimes are potentially fueled by the lack of goods and the need to obtain those goods. Theft and robbery are directly related to poverty for obvious reasons. Assault and murder can only be linked when there is an intention to rob.

A large portion of the battle between poverty and crime is the effect of certain voluntary associations whose goals were to see that these criminals were being treated fairly, to prevent crime by attacking it at its roots, or to help reform free convicts and therefore improve society as a whole. One of these associations was the Prison Discipline Society whose goal it was to ensure that the prisoners were treated fairly and kept in livable conditions.

The Prison Discipline Society of Boston Massachusetts played a huge role in the development of the prison system in the United States from 1825 to 1854. They established their own constitution by which the members were to follow. Through extensive research and visits to prisons, the Prison Discipline Society was able to influence national and international governments to improve their facilities and practices. Many prominent members of society were associated with the Prison Discipline society, including Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustav de Beaumont, both of whom contributed to spreading the program to Europe. The Prison Discipline Society examined prisons in the United States, Canada, England, France, and Australia. They also inspected prisons in countries as remote as Malta, Sardinia, and Egypt. One of the pioneers in these prison visits was Louis Dwight, the founder of the Prison Discipline Society.

The organization was founded on June 30, 1825 with the intentions of promoting the improvement of public prisons. They developed branches in many states as well as some foreign countries. A membership fee was developed in order to provide funding for their efforts. Membership was open to everyone for an annual fee of 2 or a lifetime membership fee of 30. There were twelve members on the Board of Managers, six of which were clergy, who paid 10 annually or a lifetime fee of 100. The only requirement for membership is that each person paid the annual fee. The society did not specify whether race was a deciding factor in acceptance into the organization. [2]

The society addressed many issues which they felt affected the conditions in which the prisoners lived. These issues were plainly stated in a list titled, “Subjects of Inquiry Concerning Prisons.” This list addresses nineteen issues concerning the treatment of prisoners, the facilities in which the prisoners are kept, and the rights of the prisoners. These issues included such important topics as day and night cells, location of prisons, hospitals, food, clothing, exercise, and punishments, as well as many others. Also on this list is the “Admission of Prisoner’s Friends,” concerning who is admitted, at what times, and under what circumstances.

The first publication of their findings covered January 1st through June 2nd of 1826. Six editions were published in this year, followed by three editions of the second volume, and two editions of the third and fourth volumes. When the fifth and sixth volumes were published, they were all combined in a single volume edition, of which 2000 copies were made. This volume included all 29 reports published by the Prison Discipline Society. The publication entitled “Reports of the Prison Discipline Society of Boston” included reviews of prisons they visited and new techniques to improve prison life and health of the prisoners.

The Society for Aiding Discharged Convicts was involved in reforming former convicts who had served their time and were released. It was formed in April of 1846. Once again, anyone who paid the annual membership fee was considered a member, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. Being a national organization, they had state agents in many of the northeastern states. The agent for Massachusetts was Dr. Augustine Taft who led all involvement of the organization in Massachusetts state prisons.

The purpose of the organization was to give discharged convicts another chance at life. They began by obtaining the names of convicts being discharged each month. They checked the history of each prisoner, including their conduct while in prison, their characteristics, and their trade skills; race or ethnicity was not a factor in the aid distributed. When the convict was released, they were allowed to apply for aid from the society. If they qualify, the society found jobs for the convicts and on many occasions assisted them in other ways. The convicts were required to live in a boarding house where they were allowed no contact with their former life or their former criminal contacts. They also give some convicts clothing, food, and lend them small but substantial amounts of money. Many of the convicts wrote to the society to update them on their progress and to express their sincere gratitude. Many of the convicts began to return the money lent to them promptly and faithfully.

Many citizens were opposed to the acceptance of convicts back into society. They were fearful of relapses and sudden waves of crime. To this, the society argued that the convicts would be under strong moral obligation to make amends, by the society, by the public, and by his conscience. The rate of convicts recommitted to prison was 15%, which was considered a small portion of those released. The society aided 90 convicts from April, 1846 to January 1847. The society believed that the money used to aid the released convicts would more than make up for itself in the lack of damages created by any released, unaided convicts and the manpower which would be used to control them.

Beyond the fair treatment of prisoners were the associations who aimed to abolish capital punishment in Massachusetts. Much of the support for this cause came as a result of convictions of criminals for crimes caused by moral lapses. Many people believed that some of the convicted criminals had experienced moral lapses and were not likely to commit crimes upon their release from jail.

Moral lapses result in all types of crimes, some of which include theft, murder, rape, and vandalism. In most cases the church was essentially responsible for reforming criminals who became victims of moral lapses. Church officials and other interested parties would hold meetings to discuss topics such as moral lapse and prisoner’s rights. There were also numerous voluntary associations who fought for the abolishment of the death penalty because of the possibility that a criminal who had experienced a moral lapse, was an otherwise law abiding citizen.

One of the most influential associations for this purpose was The Massachusetts Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. The organization established a constitution in which it stated its purpose and its goals. The society declared that there would be no restrictions placed upon membership to the society. This left membership open to blacks as well as whites. The society also put no restrictions on those they aimed to help. They believed that they were required to abolish capital punishment in Massachusetts. The abolishment would not be selective. They aimed to free all people of the horrors of capital punishment, regardless of race, religion, or gender.

In addition to the voluntary associations devoted tothe abolition of capital punishment, there was also a newspaper, The Hangman. It advocated for prisoners who had been wrongly accused or were otherwise good citizens. It published advertisements for meetings of voluntary associations who promoted the same cause. It also published advertisements promoting the sales of the paper and encouraging subscription. One of these advertisements outlined the release dates and prices of upcoming issues.

The theory that crime is a direct result of poverty does not seem to have much to back it, but two questions remain: what is the cause of crime? What is the cause of poverty? One argument says that crime creates poverty. At first glance this proposal seems improbable; how can crime create poverty? Instead of viewing crime as a means to fuel substantial need, perhaps it is better viewed as a means to fuel an addiction. Instead of resorting to crime to feed or clothe themselves, people of antebellum Boston committed crimes to feed expensive habits. Stolen goods or money would be used to buy expensive products such as alcohol or tobacco. The peddlers of these substances would make profits on the stolen wealth of others, yet not enough to be considered wealthy. The criminals themselves would spend their earnings on these substances, would be no better off than before, and in most cases would be caught and jailed. The victims of these crimes find no consolation even when the criminals are caught. Their wealth had already been spent and could not be reimbursed. Therefore, the victims slowly become poor, the criminals fed their addictions, and the merchants of these goods made enough money to live comfortably. Overall, crime is simply a redistribution of wealth, from the rich upper and middle classes to the poorer merchant class.

Alcoholism was a major problem in antebellum Boston, resulting in the creation of many voluntary associations and movements to make progress towards temperance. Alcoholism caused many problems including crime. It also contributed greatly to poverty, as previously described. It also caused cases of domestic violence, aggression towards law enforcement officials, and public drunkenness, all of which was cause for imprisonment. Intemperance was identified as a huge contribution to crime, and as a result, many voluntary associations were formed to push for temperance.

The most important of all were the black temperance societies who worked to reform society in order to reduce crime and poverty. The first organized black temperance societies were the New Haven Temperance Society of the People of Color and the New York Temperance Society, which were established in 1829.

There were other smaller organizations which contributed to the colored temperance movement. One of these groups was the Delevan State’s Temperance Union. This association met in irregular patterns, especially in the north. An advertisement for one of their meetings was published in The Liberator on June 30, 1848. The announcement told of the purpose of the meeting, who would be speaking, and the issues they would be touching upon.

Colored temperance societies were not confined to Massachusetts. The New York temperance Society was a very large, well respected gathering of temperance blacks of the time. This society specifically helped blacks and extended its aid to no other group of people. Agents from this organization traveled to smaller cities and towns with hopes of gaining support and starting new, smaller societies. Many of these meetings were held in small towns where the society would most likely gain support. These meetings were simply ways of spreading their ideas and gaining support, which worked quite well. Origen Bacheler, an agent for the New York Temperance Society, reported his success in a statement written on December 3, 1831. He makes a point to report a spike in support by giving a detailed account of the amount of new support the society had received on different occasions.

There were also many occasions in which the colored temperance societies sponsored dinners or hosted fairs to promote their cause. Announcements were published in local papers such as The Liberator, for dinners like the one held on August 1, 1839. A Temperance fair announcement also appeared in The Liberator on October 27, 1843. Events such as these were common and were often announced in the Liberator and other black-sympathizing newspapers. There was also a movement towards a temperance boarding house. A meeting was held at which the people in attendance could subscribe to live in the boarding house, in an alcohol free environment in order to become sober.

At the Black National Convention in 1833, members concluded that intemperance was hindering the progress of the blacks as a people. They believed that intemperance was threatening the nation’s social, civil, and religious organizations. They believed that strict moral reform would cure the nation of its intemperance problems. It was proposed at the Third National Convention that by enforcing strict temperance principles, blacks would gain the respect of the whites and therefore diminish prejudicial feelings held by whites. They also considered removing the undesirable blacks from the neighborhoods, but quickly eliminated this option because they felt it would give strength to the argument that blacks were not capable of living in freedom. An interesting idea was presented in The Transformation of the Black Temperance Movement, 1827-1854: An Interpretation, by Donald Yacovone and was stated as follows:

“The shift away from modern temperance and to total abstinence in 1836 marked the beginning of black independence from white reform, although whites began to adopt teetotalism during the same period. Acceptance of total abstinence coincided with the adoption of political action as a reform measure and generally of greater militancy among blacks. By rejecting all alcohol, blacks not only sought to establish their personal integrity but they saw themselves as promoting the interests of the larger black community by offering practical and symbolic resistance to the forces of racism and slavery.”[3] This statement shows that the people of black antebellum society were genuinely interested in making a change. They believed that by initiating a temperance movement, they would gain the respect of the whites and therefore reduce acts of discrimination. The problems of poverty and crime can be most directly linked to problems with intemperance. The black temperance movements were established to diminish discrimination against blacks, but instead had more of an effect on the intemperance of members of the community who were of all ethnic backgrounds. Their efforts to diminish discrimination were not completely successful but their efforts to reform society succeeded, indefinitely.

The voluntary associations involved in determining the causes of crime, preventing crime, or reforming citizens who had committed crimes played a huge role in bettering the black community by helping all of its residents feel safe. Many of these voluntary associations contributed to aiding the suffering black population of Boston. These associations extended their aid to the black population and many allowed membership to black citizens. These groups all aided the process of liberating blacks and helping them to integrate into antebellum society.

1 Reports of the Prison Discipline Society, Seventeenth Report, 1842, pp. 143-147.

2 Annual report of the Board of managers of the Prison Discipline Society, Prison Discipline Society, Boston Mass, 1827-1854, XVIII-XIX.

3 Yacovone, Donald. The Transformation of the Black Temperance Movement, 1827-1854: An Interpretation. p. 286

Sources:

Annual report of the Board of managers of the Prison Discipline Society, Prison Discipline Society, Boston: 1827-1854, XVIII-XIX.

Yacovone, Donald. The Transformation of the Black Temperance Movement, 1827-1854: An Interpretation.

List of persons receiving payments by ward, 1839. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston Massachusetts

List of persons receiving outdoor relief by ward, 1842. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston Massachusetts

Annual report of the Board of managers of the Prison Discipline Society, Prison Discipline Society, Boston Mass, June 2, 1826

Constitution and By-laws of the Boston Society for Aiding Discharged Convicts. Boston: White and Potter printers, 1847.

Haynes, Gideon, Pictures from prison life: An historical sketch of the Massachusetts state prison. Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1869.

Buried form the world: inside Massachusetts state prison, 1829-1831. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society: Disributed by New England University Press, 2002

« Previous Page

Philip Pierce and Family

Boston’s Reaction to the Fugitive Slave Law Through the Boston Vigilance Committee

The Relationship Between Crime and Poverty in Black Antebellum Boston

Projects

Student Research

Guides

Library

Contact us