USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 45
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
The methods of licensing and of attempting to control the sale of liquor were frequently changed in the following years. An attempt in local option was begun in 1839, but was brought to an abrupt end. The repeal was based, apparently, upon the argument that temperance
512
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
could be accomplished only by moral sentiment, not by legislation. Legislators were obviously uncertain as to what course to follow. Local option was tried again in 1845 and abandoned the next year. By mid- century, the legal controls of ardent drinking were limited to denying the drunkard the right of purchase and to prohibiting all retailers, ex- cept tavern keepers, to sell liquor for consumption on the premises.40
This failure to take a more determined stand against the sale and use of liquor indicated that opinion had not crystallized on the subject. Those interested in reform were not in agreement as to the most desir- able control. Some favored local option, others state control, and a third group believed that legislation should be limited to that which was necessary for public order. The legislators grew weary of this division of opinion. Reformers continued to instruct as to the evils of drink, and, in 1854, the state experimented with a law which forbade the sale of liquor with few exceptions and was enforceable by invoking strict search and seizure clauses.41
Other social responsibilities faced the state. The Connecticut Asy- lum for the Deaf and Dumb was established as a result of the energetic efforts of the Hartford physician, Mason F. Cogswell. Dr. Cogswell, himself, had a deaf daughter and recognized the need to provide train- ing. He presented his hopes for some type of a school to the General Association of Congregational Ministers, talked with friends, sought out parents of deaf and dumb children, enlisted the support of gentlemen in public life, was instrumental in having ascertained the number of mutes in the state, and interested a recent graduate of Yale, Thomas H. Gallaudet, in directing the undertaking. Gallaudet was sent to Eu- rope to study the methods of teaching the deaf and dumb, and after his return, interest increased. Monies were received from a number of sources, including $6,000 from Boston and Salem, $3,000 from Hart- ford, and $5,000 from a legislative appropriation. Within eight months the Asylum opened, the first of its kind in the United States.42
The change in name of this institution, from the Connecticut to the American Asylum, was indicative of the national significance and growth of the institution. Enrollment grew from seven on opening day to 143 in 1829. Grants were received from private sources, and from the legislatures of other New England States in compensation for train-
513
SOCIAL CHANGES, EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY
ing given to their residents. More than fifty thousand dollars, which were received from the sale of lands in Alabama, were granted to the Asylum by the United States Congress. The average amount provided by the state from 1830 to 1846 was $1,863. The institution quickly be- came the model for similar institutions in the United States. Also, special schooling for this group of afflicted served as an example of what might be done for other groups of society's unfortunates.43
The extent of the state's care for the insane was limited to assisting a private undertaking which did not in any way come close to solving the problem which existed in the first half of the nineteenth century. The approach was strikingly similar to the one followed a century and a half later as a basis for extending services to the mentally retarded. The Connecticut Medical Association, in 1812, discussed the problem but took no action. Three years later, the General Association of Congrega- tional Ministers undertook a "census" of the number in the state who were in any way afflicted with "lunacy." The incomplete returns of 1816 identified 146, although "the best informed observers were con- vinced that the number was much larger."44 Five years later when the doctors of Hartford County brought up the problem again, it was agreed that the first step should be a determination of the number of deranged persons in the state. Seventy towns reported 510 "lunatics and idiots"; 54 towns did not report. It was estimated, then, that there were 1,000 such persons in the state.45
A handful of citizens, the most zealous of which was the Reverend Thomas Robbins, aroused interest in extending help to the insane. Private contributions totaled $20,000 by 1822; the legislature appro- priated $5,000. After at least four asylums for the insane had been established elsewhere in the United States, the Hartford Retreat was opened in 1824. Its initial accommodations for 50 were increased to 90 in 1830.46
The establishment of the Retreat, rather than stimulating the state to provide supplementary facilities, led to the state's placing reliance on the private institution. The 900 insane reported to be in the state and the estimate that 60 persons became insane each year adequately dem- onstrated the need for additional facilities. In 1839, the members of the legislative committee to which consideration of the problem had been
514
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
referred favored the establishment of a separate hospital rather than the building of facilities in proximity to the Retreat, which had offered to care for the patients at the rate of $2.00 a week. It was proposed that a commission be named to select a site, to purchase not less than eighty acres of land, and to select those who would erect a hospital with ac- commodations for 150 patients. The legislature did not grant the re- quested appropriation of $20,000 for the lands and buildings. Instead, another committee was appointed to consider the matter. In 1840, this committee recommended Middletown as the location for a state insti- tution. When a state hospital seemed almost a reality, the Retreat pro- posed that it would care for all indigent insane citizens of the state at $2.50 a week. It was argued that this cost was less than would be re- quired for the operation of a state institution and that a second institu- tion was not needed. The Board of Directors of the Retreat appealed further to Yankee prudence by pointing out that if the arrangements did not work, other arrangements could be made. Two years later the state entered into a contract with the Retreat. In addition, the Retreat contracted with the towns for the care of the insane poor. In 1842, the state limited its liability to the extent of a $2000 appropriation, which provided for 800 patient days. This was raised to $3000 in 1844. Dur- ing the next decade it was reported that 439 state beneficiaries were ad- mitted to the Retreat for varying lengths of time. Approximately one- half of these were discharged as cured. The state's parsimony, however, came to haunt it. In addition to the cost of the care of the patients, the state contributed $19,000 to the Retreat for the construction of build- ings. This amount was only $1,000 less than had been estimated for the establishment of a state hospital.47
In part, the failure of the state to provide adequate facilities was partially compensated by the revolutionary improvement in humane care which was inaugurated at the privately operated institution. Bolts and keys were replaced with an adequate number of attendants who were to accompany the patient in his work and play and to encourage him to participate in the many activities. The attendants were in- structed to treat the patient with kindness and respect and to try to convince the patient that he was surrounded with friends.48
There were humanitarian reasons for establishing a new state
515
SOCIAL CHANGES, EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY
prison, but the ultimate decision to do so was based in part upon eco- nomic considerations. The notorious conditions at Newgate had been improved only slightly after 1800 by the construction of new buildings and by the abandonment of the use of the underground caverns except for hardened criminals. Governor Trumbull had recommended an im- provement in the method of handling criminals. Experiments in soli- tary confinement and in the grouping of prisoners engaged in the same trade had been tried in other parts of the country. In Connecticut only the desirability of religious instruction for prisoners was attended. A legislative committee reported to the Connecticut General Assembly in 1826 that "the pit" was not a fit place for the confinement of fellow men. Also, the Newgate Prison had cost the state annually an average of $8,400 during the preceding ten years. It was believed that a Wethersfield location nearer the markets and the possibility of the em- ployment of convicts at brickmaking would enable the institution to run at a profit. The new prison was opened at Wethersfield early in 1828. It fulfilled the hopes of its sponsors. For the first eighteen months, the officials reported little sickness, no deaths, and no escapes. There was a profit, too, of $3000 during the first year.49 The net profits from the state prison from 1827 to 1846 were $108,477. Monies were given to prison benevolent societies, and a thousand dollars was given to each of four counties of the state for a county jail. After paying all expenses and distributing funds rather liberally, the prison returned $63,000 to the state treasury during the twenty-year period.50
The basic principle that relief of the poor was primarily the re- sponsibility of their town of settlement was not altered.51 In 1820, when the early distinction between resident and inhabitant may have become blurred and the determination of legal settlements complicated by the new settlement laws, especially those based on commorancy, the state by explicit statement excluded from its responsibility anyone born in Con- necticut or adjoining states, anyone who had ever been an Inhabitant of a Connecticut town, and anyone for whom any individual or town was responsible. It has been suggested that towns were loosely charging against the state costs which they should have assumed in these cases and overcharging where the state was responsible. State aid was further limited to a maximum of $1 a week for those over 14 years and to fifty
516
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
cents a week for those under 14. They were, however, to be cared for actually by contract with the lowest bidder. Even for unsettled persons, for whom it did assume liability in this limited amount, the state lim- ited its responsibility to a three-month period except in the case of an illness beginning in this period and lasting longer. After this period, the town was responsible, unless it had the person removed.51a
The amount spent by the state steadily decreased during the period. In the years 1826-28, support of paupers had decreased to $2,600 and continued to decrease; in 1829-1833 to $2000, in 1834-36 to $1800, in 1837-42 to $1700, in 1843-46 to $1500, and in 1847-50 to $1100.51b
In 1821, the responsibility of the town was increased to include former inhabitants who had established a settlement in another state, but who returned and came to want.51c Towns assumed responsibility only if they had no relatives to assume the burden and no estate suffi- cient for their support. It was provided further that the estate of a town pauper when not exceeding $30 could be disposed of by selectmen for use of the town, if no one took out administration within ninety days.51d
By the early nineteenth century there had come to exist three methods of town relief: in one's home, in the almshouse or other place designated by the town, or by the contractor for the town poor.51e The selectmen were overseers of the poor and were required to furnish aid to all in need, even though the person were not an inhabitant. In the latter event, the selectmen were to notify the town responsible if this were known. If a selectman failed either to give the needed help or to notify the proper town, he was fined $7. After 1813, a general authori- zation for towns to establish workhouses replaced the separate grants to individual towns. Beggars and vagrants, deserters of families, fakirs, and prostitutes and drunkards were to be confined in these workhouses. Sen- tences were for 40 days on the first conviction, and additional time, not exceeding 40 days, for a second offense. Also, stubborn and rebellious minors could be sentenced for a maximum of 30 days. The object of a workhouse was the reformation of a prisoner, and there was a confidence in the efficacy of the workhouse to do this. Therefore the master was obligated to compel the prisoner to work, even if the prisoner promised to pay for his food. No limits were placed upon the authority of the
517
SOCIAL CHANGES, EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY
towns to make contracts for the town poor and no security that ade- quate care would be provided was required.51f
The interests of nineteenth-century humanitarians, if not of all periods, ranged across the whole of society's problems, and services pro-
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
SHARON-HOME OF ADMIRAL THOMAS HART, PHOTO 1952
vided in one area frequently advanced the cause of the other. There is no better example of this than the emergence of the woman as a force in the social and educational life of Connecticut. The state of infidelity which was presumed to exist in the early part of the nineteenth century provided them the opportunity to come forward in the service of the Lord and to gain experiences in Bible societies. Here the women began to play new roles and there emerged a new consciousness of their im-
518
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
portance and approbation for their efforts. The editor of the Religious Intelligencier regarded it as a peculiar honor of the age that "women have discovered, and extensively entered the path, in which their pe- culiar glory is to be found."52 The "active cooperation of the female sex," the editor wrote in 1822, was "one of the most delightful features of the present age."53 From these beginnings, women emerged to in- fluence most of the reforms of the first half of the nineteenth century.
It was through efforts for educational reform that women next found an opportunity to express their opinions and to exercise their talents. The literature of the educational reform movement made mild, but eloquent, pleas for the hiring of female teachers.5+ Catherine Beecher, the eldest daughter of Lyman Beecher, expressed the case for women teachers.55 After a short experience in a private institution for young ladies and a love affair which ended with the tragic death of her fiance, she "dedicated her life to the service of society." She ap- parently regarded teaching as a stepping stone to a larger and richer public career. She observed in a letter to her father in 1824 that "there seems to be no very extensive sphere of usefulness for a single woman, but that which can be found in the limits of a school-room; but there have been instances in which women of superior mind and acquire- ments have risen to a more enlarged and comprehensive boundary of exertion."56 She, then, returned to the role of teacher, and established the very respectable Hartford Female Academy in 1824.57 She believed that women with "an intimate knowledge of feelings, affections, and weaknesses . . . which it is not practicable or proper for one of the other sex to attain" are best equipped to educate those of their own sex.58 Intelligence and virtue were indispensable, she believed, to the security of democracy and called upon American women to supply the necessary teachers.59
Emma Willard and Almira Phelps, contemporaries of Catherine Beecher, had already established national reputations as leaders in the education of women and in the development of female seminaries. These two women were members of the prominent Hart family of Ber- lin, where there had been established a tradition of good schools. Emma had returned to her home town in 1839 when the Kensington School Society defied one tradition by creating the office of Superintendent of
519
SOCIAL CHANGES, EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY
Schools and another by naming a woman, Emma Willard, to the posi- tion. She successfully revived the languishing school system and de- veloped a climate of opinion sympathetic to the improvement of the common schools.60
The feminists of Connecticut were not to make a direct attack on the position of the male, but through the education of his daughters were to dethrone him. "We mean to force men to resign their gold," wrote Catherine Beecher, "and even to forge chains for themselves with it; and when we have trained their fair and rosy daughters, we will en- force a 'Pink and White Tyranny' more stringent than any earthly thraldom ... under the Great Taskmaster, the Lord of love and hap- piness."61 Whether from design or conviction she did not claim equal pay or equal abilities for her sex. It was readily acknowledged that women were inferior to men in knowledge and that the male would turn to the more honorable and lucrative endeavors. She called upon women, however, to place the "most important things first in atten- tion."62 "It was right, and a duty for a woman to attend to domestic affairs; but, except in cases of emergency, it is not right to devote all her time to this alone."63 She proposed placing domestic economy on an equality with other sciences in the female schools, not as a practical art, but as a science taught in the same manner as political economy. Miss Beecher designed a course and wrote a text embracing physiology, modes of performing all family duties, and the use of time and money. The text was widely adopted by female institutions and was proclaimed "a book extremely suited to be used as a textbook in schools for young ladies."64 Through such education, Miss Beecher hoped to relieve some of the sufferings and hardships stemming from poor health, poor do- mestics, and a defective domestic education which plagued beset young wives and mothers, and particularly those of the wealthier classes.
To Miss Beecher, however, training was merely a first step in free- ing women. She was identified as the spiritual leader of a movement to secure specific legislation to improve the position of women in Con- necticut life. It was decreed in 1826 that women would no longer be imprisoned for debt and in 1845 that the real estate which a woman held at the date of her marriage could not be taken for her husband's debt. The next year the law was extended to exclude wages made either
520
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
before or after her marriage.65 Efforts during the first half of the century to exempt the personal effects of the wife from seizure were futile.66 The ultimate success of women in gaining a new status and influence is not measured solely by protective legislation, but also by their efforts in other fields, such as the abolition of slavery.
Slavery was hardly a direct factor in Connecticut life. It was con- sidered, rather, as a condition characteristic of another section of the country and could be judged by certain immutable principles which did not have to be directly applied to the realities of Connecticut living. In general, Connecticut residents opposed the institution of slavery in the South and opposed its extension into the territories. Abolition, rather than the condition of the slave in Connecticut, was of first im- portance to the Connecticut reformer, although the latter received some attention. It is estimated that there were not more than forty slaves in the state in 1830, by which time slavery in the state had been limited by several acts although it continued its legal existence until 1848.67
In the first decades of the nineteenth century there had been mod- erate, but important, anti-slavery expressions and activity by a small group of Congregational ministers. Samuel J. Mills, the son of a Con- necticut minister and a graduate of Andover, travelled through the South and became alarmed at the spiritual and intellectual depravity of the Negro. He was active in the establishment of the American Colonization Society in 1817-1818. His career came to an untimely end in the latter year, when, on a trip to Africa to locate a suitable place for the colonization of Negroes, he contracted a tropical fever from which he never recovered. Soon after his graduation from Yale in 1818, Ralph Randolph Gurley of Lebanon became an officer in the American Col- onization Society and an editor of the African Repository. Leonard Bacon, minister of Center Church in New Haven, wrote a report "On the Black Population of the United States" while a student at Andover and became a leader in the anti-slavery movement.68
Connecticut continued to hold a moderate course on slavery during the 1830's, endorsing colonization as the method by which the Negro was to be ultimately freed. The Connecticut General Association of Congregational Churches endorsed the idea of colonization of Negroes in 1825 and three years later the Connecticut Colonization Society was
521
SOCIAL CHANGES, EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY
formed. Newspapers of the state subscribed to the gradual approach. The Religious Intelligencier followed the lead of the Congregational ministers and in general subscribed to the idea of colonization while the Connecticut Observer was even more conservative. In an effort to keep the issue of slavery from being controversial and at the same time to show that the freeing of the slaves was safe and practical, Leonard Bacon established in New Haven, in 1834, the Journal of Freedom. The program of moderation reached its height, perhaps, in 1835 when the American Union for the Relief and Improvement of the Colored Race was formed in Boston. From the beginning, this association seems to have been controlled by conservative ministers, including those from Connecticut.69
The issue of slavery and antipathy for extremists reached new heights in 1833, when Prudence Crandall attempted to establish a school for "young ladies and little misses of color." Miss Crandall, an experienced teacher and a Quaker, "gave great offense" to the residents of Canterbury when she admitted to her well regarded school a young Negro girl. Then, in response to her patrons' objections, she an- nounced her intention of establishing a school exclusively for colored children, a storm broke over the village. The counsel of friends, the visitations of committees, and a town meeting which drew up a series of resolutions protesting the school failed to stop the spirited Prudence. The school was begun and a second town meeting was called to author- ize a committee to draw up a petition "deprecating the evil conse- quences of bringing from other states . . . people of color." The pro- test was not merely a general objection to increasing the number of Negroes in the state, but was a specific opposition to any agency uphold- ing proposals contrary to the doctrine of colonization as a solution.70
The continuance of the school was forbidden by Connecticut's "Black Law" passed in 1833. The architect of this bill was undoubtedly Andrew F. Judson, a neighbor of Miss Crandall's, the "great man of the town," and a leading Democrat who had sworn "that nigger school shall never be allowed in Canterbury." The Connecticut law forbade the instruction or education of colored persons who were not residents of the state in any town except with the consent of a majority of the civil authorities and of the selectmen of the town. Miss Crandall was
522
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
arrested, her trial set for the August session of the Superior Court, and bail required to avoid being lodged in jail. The abolitionists desired for Miss Crandall to don martyr's robes, and, to gain the desired public reaction, refused to provide bail until the jail house door was closed. Money was advanced the next day and Miss Crandall resumed her teaching while awaiting trial.71
Miss Crandall's arrest gained her legions of sympathizers and the financial support of Arthur Tappan, who wrote to Samuel J. May, one of Prudence's ardent supporters, saying, "Consider me your banker." The legal counsel of Calvin Goddard and W. W. Ellsworth were worthy of the issue. They based their defense on the unconstitutionality of the law. The prosecution charged that Miss Crandall had instructed colored children without first getting permission of the inhabitants of the town. After the first trial resulted in a hung jury, the case was promptly rescheduled for the October session of the court. There, the jury, in response to a direct charge of the judge, returned a verdict of guilty. This was immediately appealed to the Court of Errors where it was argued in July, 1834. Whether because the evidence was contrary to the personal wishes of the members of the court and the prevailing climate of opinion or for other reasons, the court reserved its decision until a later time.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.