ROBERT M. MENNEL
"The Family System of Common
Farmers": The Early Years of
Ohio's Reform Farm, 1858-1884
In late January 1858, the Hocking
Cottage, the first family
building of the Ohio Reform Farm, was
pronounced "perfectly dry"
and ready for occupancy. Soon thereafter, Acting
Commissioner
(Superintendent) Charles Reemelin
escorted the first inmates, nine
of the "better disposed" boys
from the Cincinnati House of Refuge,
to the Lancaster institution.1 The
school proposed to reform
juvenile delinquents by teaching them
farming skills and providing
moral and common school education in a
family setting under the
supervision of specially chosen
"elder brothers". Though a pioneer
of its kind in America, the Reform Farm
was conceived in the image
of European reformatory philanthropy,
particularly Frederic A.
DeMetz's Mettray (founded 1839), a
French agricultural colony that
drew admiring visitors from many
countries. A lithograph of Met-
tray, displayed at Lancaster, testified
to this debt and to a brief
study of European institutions
undertaken by Reemelin in 1857.
An earlier article in this journal
examining the ideological origins
of the Reform Farm has shown that, while
Mettray provided
organizing techniques, the pedagogy of
reform school education in
Ohio was distinctively American.2 Like
the initiators of the state's
first municipal reform school, the
Cincinnati House of Refuge
(1850), the founders of the State Reform
Farm-the most prominent
being Charles Reemelin, Salmon P. Chase,
and John A. Foot-were
white Protestant males who had come from
New England or Ger-
many and rapidly established their
economic and political status
Robert M. Mennel is Professor of History
at the University of New Hampshire.
He wishes to thank the American
Philosophical Society, the Charles Warren Center
for Studies in American History, and the
Central University Research Fund of the
University of New Hampshire for research
support in the preparation of this article.
1. Ohio. Executive Documents, I
(1858), 277; Ibid., (1856), 618.
2. Robert M. Mennel, " 'The Family
System of Common Farmers': The Origins of
Ohio's Reform Farm 1840-1858," Ohio
History, LXXXIX (Spring, 1980), 125-156.
280 OHIO HISTORY
within Ohio. In seeking ways to use
this power both to fulfill their
sense of moral obligation and to
achieve social order, their own
careers showed them that they could not
simply recreate European
institutions. Mettray colons, for
example, were taught deference to
political and ecclesiastical superiors
and were firmly placed and
supervised in menial occupations. At
the Reform Farm, by contrast,
hard work and proper behavior were
supposed to produce young
men who were, above all,
self-sufficient. Delinquents leaving the in-
stitution were to be free to make the
most of whatever legitimate op-
portunities presented themselves. The
reform school founders
assumed that farming was the most
virtuous occupation, but also
that the basis of virtue was land
ownership. Thus, unlike European
philanthropists, they refused to
indenture inmates as farm laborers.
Contending that laborers would not work
as hard as freeholders,
Reemelin wrote, "God's soil wants
free, industrious, intelligent and
provident laborers who are directly
interested in the proceeds."3
The reform school founders were not
just an elite seeking to im-
pose their values upon poor parents and
their children. Both public
debate and legal definitions of
delinquency included not only the
vagrancy and beggary of the poor, but
also the disorderly behavior
of wealthy youth and the disruption of
both private and public
schools. Moreover, reform school
advocates received broad support
for their plans in the state
legislature. Unlike the debates over
slavery and state finance, no bitter
controversy hindered the
organization of the Reform Farm. It was
an island of consensus in
the sea of turmoil that was Ohio
politics in the 1850s.
In tracing the history of the reform
school during its first quarter
century, various themes of the previous
article are developed.
Ideological analysis is broadened to
include not only the attitudes
and ideas of institution administrators
but also related
developments in state welfare policy
following the creation of the
Ohio Board of State Charities (1867).
The flow of influence from
European institutions is followed to
take into account the impact of
the Reform Farm itself as a model for
other reform schools. Also,
the physical layout of the institution
at various stages of its
development is analyzed as an official
effort to convey values.
The most important aspect of the school-the
psychic and social
experience of the boys who were
confined there-is the most dif-
ficult to portray. The social
characteristics of inmates, drawn from
the institution's statistical tables
over a twenty-three year period
3. Ohio Reform School for Boys (ORSB),
Annual Report (AR) (1858), 27.
Family System of Common Farmers 281
(1858-1880), and samples from case
records and boys' letters to the
Acting Commissioner, help to illuminate
the subject. Although in-
dividuals seldom come to life in
institution documents, these
reports are not totally lacking in
human insight and, when added to
other material such as legislative
investigations, newspaper stories,
later writing of inmates and other
accounts of youth life in Ohio, the
significance of reform school
incarceration in nineteenth-century
America becomes clearer.
This study ends in 1884 when the
institution's change of name to
the Boys' Industrial School symbolized
a shift away from its
agricultural identity. Several
upheavals in the 1870s had reflected
not only the industrial trend but also
other cultural and political
tensions within local and national
society. Conflict continued to
characterize the school in the
twentieth century and thus an
analysis of the first series of clashes
provides another way of
understanding the institution and the
society that produced it.
Administrative Styles: Reemelin's
Fall and the Accession of
George E. Howe
The Reform Farm's first year was not a
happy one. The ordinary
problems of founding a new enterprise
were exacerbated by con-
stant bickering between Acting
Commissioner Charles Reemelin of
Cincinnati and Advisory Commissioner
John A. Foot of Cleveland.
The conflict involved regional
loyalties, personal and perhaps ethnic
differences, but centered upon rival
conceptions of the institution's
future. Foot was anxious to promote the
founding of local non-
residential industrial schools where
homeless and neglected ("worse
than homeless") boys and girls
were to be taught cooking and sew-
ing in order to improve their health
and appearance sufficiently to
allow them to attend either common
schools or "the Roman
Catholic Schools." Foot had helped
to establish an industrial school
in Cleveland which, though privately
organized, was mainly sup-
ported by the city treasury. He urged
his fellow Commissioners to
utilize a provision of the 1857 Reform
School law, giving them
supervisory power over "private
reform schools," in order to en-
courage other localities to follow
Cleveland's example. He implied
that state financial aid would be
forthcoming. "Unlike a Reform
School, this looks to prevention,"
Foot wrote to Reemelin in a hec-
toring letter.4
4. Ohio. Docs. (1857), 628-30; Ibid.,
I (1858), 366-69; Ohio. Laws LIV (1857), 171.
See also, Mennel, Op. Cit., 125-156.
282 OHIO HISTORY
Reemelin was not opposed to industrial
schools; indeed, he later
helped to establish one in Cincinnati.
But he was primarily con-
cerned with gaining a firm commitment
of financial support for the
Farm and, additionally, he knew that
the state legislature was
unlikely to approve a subsidy system
for local institutions. At first,
Reemelin found Foot's ideas merely
annoying. In April 1858,
however, Foot incensed Reemelin by
attempting to block further ad-
missions to Lancaster from the
Cincinnati Refuge. Foot argued that
this policy threatened to give the
Reform Farm the same forbidding
reputation as the Refuge and that it
prevented other localities from
utilizing the state institution. James
D. Ladd, the third Commis-
sioner, sided with Reemelin and
dissuaded him, for the moment,
from resigning. In a report of the
dispute to Governor Salmon P.
Chase, Ladd characterized Reemelin as "eminently
suited" for the
job of Superintendent and Foot "of
no account" to the institution.5
Despite this victory, Reemelin's
influence was in decline and
Foot's was rising. Clauses in the
reform school acts of 1857 and
1858 stipulated that the Acting Commissioner
should reside at the
Farm, but Reemelin visited Lancaster
only occasionally, and
governed the institution through
William E. Davis, a specially ap-
pointed "Superintendent."
Moreover, Reemelin had other matters
on his mind. In May 1858, Chase appointed
him to the special com-
mission investigating the
Breslin-Gibson State Treasury scandal.
Thus during the Farm's first troubles
later in the year, when
steward William H. Jaeger abruptly
resigned and escapes increas-
ed, it was Reemelin's wife, Louisa
Marks Reemelin, who moved to
Lancaster and restored order.6
Reemelin's denouement related also to
the failure of the Reform
School Commissioners to use their legal
authority to develop a com-
prehensive reform school policy for the
state. In 1858 the principal
task was to work out an agreement with
the managers of the Cincin-
nati House of Refuge whereby the Refuge
would agree to receive one
hundred of the state's older and more
accomplished delinquents in
return for an annual subsidy of $100.00
per boy. These negotiations
broke down when the Reform School
Commissioners insisted that
the subsidy would be paid only if the
Refuge confined the inmate for
the entire year. Since the state would
also control the admission of
5. ORSB, AR (1859), 63-66; Ladd to Chase, April 9, 1858, container 32, The Papers
of Salmon P. Chase, Library of Congress
(LC); Ohio. Docs., I (1858), 278; Charles
Reemelin, Life of Charles Reemelin (Cincinnati,
1892), 195, 322.
6. Ohio. Laws, LIV (1857), 172; Ibid.,
LV (1858), 27-28; Reemelin, Life, 146-48.
Reemelin admitted that his wife was
"the better half in my conduct of the State
Reform Farm."
Family System of Common Farmers 283
individuals within this group, Refuge
authorities believed, not
without cause, that their financial
income, and hence the autonomy
of their institution, would be
jeopardized. Reemelin saw the impasse
as an opportunity to expand the Reform
Farm. He proposed con-
struction of a refuge at Lancaster
"upon the solitary confinement
cellular plan" to confine serious
offenders and boys who proved "un-
manageable" in the cottages. By
screening out troublemakers, the
new refuge would insure that the Farm
itself would succeed. Addi-
tionally, Reemelin wanted the refuge to
serve as a reception house
for all new arrivals, thus making
admission into one of the families
"an act of grace." Reemelin
also offered to build a "House of
Refuge for females" in order to
relieve the boys of kitchen work
which, in his mind, defeated
"reformatory purpose." John Foot, ap-
palled by what he saw as a one-man
effort to redefine the purpose of
the institution, signed the 1858 Annual
Report but demurred in
private to Chase, effectively scuttling
Reemelin's plans.7
Reemelin's final source of frustration
was the increasing local op-
position to his policies. The Ohio
Eagle, the Democratic paper in
Lancaster, rebuked Reemelin's policy of
buying supplies from Cin-
cinnati rather than locally. The paper
also condemned "the dic-
tatorial and arbitrary power of the
acting manager," thus agreeing
with Foot who was no ally of Democrats
on most issues of the day.8
Taken together, these conflicts made
resignation increasingly at-
tractive to Reemelin.
Oddly, the end of Reemelin's active
career with the Farm was not
bitter. His letter of resignation in
January 1859 emphasized his in-
ability to reside on the Farm and his
preference for "mercantile pur-
suits." He enthusiastically
approved of the new Acting Commis-
sioner, George E. Howe, even though
Foot had sponsored him. And,
in 1860 Reemelin was specially invited
by the Commissioners to ad-
dress the boys. Over the years,
however, he grew hostile to Farm
policies, particularly Howe's fondness
for grandiose buildings and
his inability to make the institution
self-supporting. "The officers
and their pay receive too much
attention," Reemelin complained
without a trace of irony.9
In 1859 George Edward Howe was a man on
the rise. Born in
Livonia, New York, in 1825, Howe moved
to Ohio at the age of four-
7. Cincinnati House of Refuge, AR
(1857), 8; ORSB, AR (1858), 25-26; Foot to
Chase, November 13, 1859, container 36,
Chase MS, LC.
8. Ohio Eagle, February 3, 1859.
9. Reemelin to Chase, January 29, 1859,
Box 8, Folder 1, The Papers of Salmon P.
284 OHIO HISTORY
teen and graduated from Western Reserve
Seminary in 1843. He
taught common school for awhile and, in
1847, married Frances
Milliken, whose support and ability
materially aided his career. In
1849 he became the principal of
Painesville Academy and thereafter
served as superintendent of public
schools in Painesville and
Hamilton. His teaching and
administrative skill and his ardent
Republicanism impressed John Foot, who
influenced Governor
Chase to appoint him Acting
Commissioner. George Howe con-
trolled the destiny of the Reform Farm
until 1878, when he moved
to Connecticut as Superintendent of the
State Reform School for
Boys at Meriden. He held this post until
his death in 1893.10
In seeking to recreate the fabric of
daily life at the Reform Farm
and of George Howe's career there, one
should note first his role as
the head of his own family and also his
standing in the local com-
munity of Fairfield County. Howe
successfully fostered the idea of
family administration of family
institutions. The Howes had four
children, three boys and a girl, and all
members of the family
worked at the Farm at one time or
another. When George Howe
received his position, Mrs. Howe was
appointed Matron. Soon
thereafter, Howe named as "elder
brother" his own brother, B.F.
Howe. The 1867 payroll listed George
Howe ($1,200.00), Frances M.
Howe ($400.00), and eldest son, G. Worth
Howe ($360.00), as an
"assistant elder brother."
Four years later, Mr. and Mrs. Howe
earned the same salaries, but G. Worth,
now a full-fledged "elder
brother," earned $600.00 and second
son, Frank M. Howe, made
$360.00 as Superintendent of the chair
shop. The family income for
1871 was $2,560.00, and this figure does
not include room and board
which were free.11
The wages and benefits of reform-school
administration helped
Chase, Ohio Historical Society (OHS);
Ohio. Docs., (1860), 144. Today he is com-
memorated by Charles Reemelin High
School at the Fairfield School for Boys, the
name of the institution since 1964.
10. Meriden Daily Journal, November
23, 24, 25, 1893; Meriden Daily Republican,
November 23,25, 1893; Meriden Morning
Record, November 23, 1893; J.L. Rockey
ed., History of New Haven County,
Connecticut, I (New York, 1892), 566-68, 592-94.
John Foot remained an Advisory
Commissioner until 1875. James D. Ladd left Ohio
in 1866 and was replaced by Benjamin W.
Chidlaw, a Welsh-born, Presbyterian
minister from Paddy's Run in Butler
County. Chidlaw, an agent for both the
American Sunday School Union and the
U.S. Christian Commission, had earlier met
John Foot at a summer convention of
Sunday School advocates. See Henry M.
Wynkoop, comp., Picturesque Lancaster
(Lancaster, 1897), 22-23; Benjamin W.
Chidlaw, The Story of My Life (Philadelphia,
1890), 267-76 and An Historical Sketch
of Paddy's Run, Butler County Ohio (n.p., 1876).
11. Howe to Chase [n.d., 1859?], Box 8,
Folder 6, Chase MS, OHS: Ohio. Docs., I
(1867), 152; Ibid., II (1871),
507.
Family System of Common Farmers 285
Howe to attract ambitious young men,
anxious to learn the business
and take charge of their own
institution. By the time he left Ohio,
Howe had placed five "elder
brothers" and their wives as
Superintendents and Matrons of other
state reform schools.12
Together, the heads of these families
advanced the welfare of their
own families as they promoted the
ideals of the family reform
school.
The Howes' origins and their affluence
were a constant source of
tension within Fairfield County. George
Howe was from the
Western Reserve, a moral educator and a
Republican appointee of
Yankee stock, while Fairfield was
heavily Democratic and
populated largely by German immigrants
and Scotch-Irish
migrants from Pennsylvania, Virginia
and the Carolinas. Fun-
damentalism predominated, as did
Copperheadism. The county sup-
ported Vallandigham in 1864 and, in
1867, voted 2 to 1 against giv-
ing Negroes suffrage in state
elections. The predominance of small,
poor farms in areas of Fairfield County
and the inhabitants' disdain
for agricultural expertise were typical
of Copperhead areas.
Easterners were generally distrusted as
advocates of the tariff and
other fiscal policies that were hostile
to debtor groups. Copperheads
also charged easterners with favoritism
to Negroes. The Ohio Eagle,
for example, characterized two blacks
elected to the Massachusetts
state legislature as "thick
skulled, thick lipped, long heeled
Africans" and saw little
difference "between an average
Massachusetts Yankee and a full blown
negro" [sic].13
George Howe and the Reform Farm were
embodiments of these
animosities. As early as May 1860, Howe
admitted a "Colored Boy"
and he consistently supported the
efforts of the Board of State
Charities to outlaw racial exclusion in
institutions such as the Cin-
cinnati Refuge. He also delivered his
own employees as a bloc of
Republican votes every election day and
favored local Republicans
in large purchases, banking services
and building contracts. In
1867, the Eagle instigated a
legislative investigation of the Farm,
charging Howe with extravagance and
corruption in awarding con-
tracts. He was cleared at this time,
but after a similar investigation
12. Wynkoop, Picturesque Lancaster, 23.
13. Frank U. Quillen, The Color Line
in Ohio (Ann Arbor, 1913), 88-104; Frank L.
Klement, "Middle Western
Copperheadism" in Harry N. Scheiber, ed., The Old
Northwest: Studies in Regional
History, 1787-1910 (Lincoln, Nebraska,
1969),
323-40; John L. Stipp, "Economic and Political
Aspects of Western
Copperheadism," Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1944;
Ohio Eagle, November 15, 1867. At the time of the suffrage vote,
Fairfield County
had 315 black residents who constituted
approximately 1 percent of the population.
286 OHIO HISTORY
in 1874 was ordered not to keep state
funds in his own account in
the Lancaster bank of Republican John D.
Martin. While George
Howe was never formally charged with
illegal practices, the Eagle
and its constituents remained convinced
that "honest mechanics"
were shut off from the institution's
business. Howe maintained his
position because the Republican party
controlled the governorship
and hence the power of appointment at
state institutions for all but
two years during the period between 1855
and 1878. He survived
the Democratic interval of Governor
William Allen (1873-75)
because his three-year term was not due
for renewal. John Foot,
however, was replaced at this time and
there were many among the
country people of Fairfield county who
anticipated with relish the
day when George Howe would be brought
down.14
Howe's qualities extended beyond
self-interest and loyalty to the
Republican party. He was a decent
person-"kind-hearted almost to
a fault" by one estimate-and, even
in his early career, he was
acknowledged to be an able pedagogue and
administrator.15 While
he was Acting Commissioner, the
institution grew from an assort-
ment of farm buildings and two cottages
housing 50 boys to a collec-
tion of substantial structures,
including a Gothic chapel and eight
cottages for over 250 boys. To
understand the significance of
Howe's work and the subsequent
development of the institution, his
reports and other official explanations
must be united with an
analysis, utilizing statistical evidence
and literary accounts, of the
delinquents themselves. The aim of this
approach is not to devalue
official attitudes, for these obviously
created the statistical
categories just as they shaped the
letters of the boys, but to join the
generations in a complex and informative
way.
The Farmboys and their Keepers
During the first two decades of the
institution's history, the
typical boy in residence was a thirteen
year old, Ohio-born, Anglo-
American Protestant from one of the more
populous counties, the
exception being Hamilton County, the
state's largest. One or both
of his parents were living and he had
received common schooling
14. Case #180, Case Records, Papers of
the Ohio Reform School for Boys (ORSB),
OHS; Ohio. Docs., II (1867),
245-47; Ohio. House Journal (1867), appendix, 17-23;
Ibid. (1874), appendix, 855-57; Ohio Eagle, January
10, 24, February 14, 28, 1867.
15. Meriden Daily Journal November
23, 1893; Ohio. House Journal (1860), ap-
pendix, 200-03; Ibid. (1861),
appendix, 52-53; Ohio. Senate Journal (1864), appendix,
18-19.
Family System of Common Farmers 287
and often Sunday schooling too. He was
more likely to swear, play
truant and chew tobacco than to drink
liquor. He had been charged
with petit larceny or incorrigible
behavior and his trial had been con-
ducted in probate court. After a stay
of two years and seven mon-
ths, he was released to the care of his
parents or guardians.
These generalizations deserve
elaboration because each conveys
an aspect of the definition of
delinquency and because, in every in-
stance, significant exceptions exist.
The bases for the generaliza-
tions are the statistical tables and
narrative portions of the institu-
tion's annual reports and the
individual case records on file in the in-
stitution's manuscripts (Ohio
Historical Society). There are of
course gaps and inconsistencies in
these sources. Tables, such as
those listing habits and number of
living parents, were periodically
omitted without explanation. Before 1860, case records
were
haphazardly maintained; there is almost
no personal information on
boys admitted in 1859. These obstacles
have been reduced in several
ways. First, I have sampled the available case records
on a regular
basis for the years 1860-80; twenty out
of each one hundred boys
admitted in this period (620 out of
3,100 cases) have been studied in
detail. Second, I have utilized annual
reports to supplement the case
records and, where possible, linked
both sources to the broader in-
formation collected in the decennial
U.S. Censuses. Despite seman-
tic problems, such as the difficulty of
matching the Census defini-
tion of ethnicity with that of Farm
officials, reasonable conclusions
are possible. In two categories, age at
admission and ethnic identi-
ty, I have constructed my own tables.
The end result is a complete
picture of those Ohio's delinquents who
were confined at Lancaster
in its early years.
The typical thirteen year old inmate
did not emerge in the early
years of the Farm's history because of
the founders' initial goal of
removing young men from the
Penitentiary and due to the
vicissitudes of the Civil War. The
early reform school laws permit-
ted the Governor to transfer state
prisoners under eighteen to the
Farm, and Salmon Chase, often acting at
the request of Quaker
reformer John Jay Janney, transferred a
significant number. As
Table 1 indicates, in 1859 nearly 30
percent of the boys admitted
were older than sixteen. In 1859 the
legislature lowered the max-
imum legal age for admission from
eighteen to sixteen, and
although this law was imperfectly
enforced, the admission of older
boys declined steadily. After 1859 over
80 percent of the admittees
were between the ages of ten and
fifteen. The mean age varied be-
tween twelve and one-half and fourteen,
except in 1864 when it fell
slightly below twelve. This deviation
was caused by the Civil War,
288 OHIO HISTORY
as mothers tended to commit unruly young
boys; "Father in Army"
became a familiar entry in case records.16
After the war, Farm officials remained
leery about accepting older
boys and did not want to accept
extremely young boys either. An
1870 law again permitting the Farm to
receive penitentiary inmates
up to the age of eighteen was virtually
ignored. George Howe did
not seem to mind accepting older boys,
but he also promoted the
creation of an "intermediate
school" for first time offenders be-
tween sixteen and twenty-four. Although
Howe hoped that this in-
stitution would "rescue" young
men from the degrading life of the
penitentiary, he also saw it as a place
to dispose of "extreme cases
of incorrigibility that require a
discipline that is antagonistic to the
harmonious and gentle spirit that should
ever pervade a Reform
School." However, as a state
reformatory did not materialize until
the end of the century, the
institution's policy of refusing admission
to boys over sixteen was one way to
screen out troublemakers, and
Howe's claim that a boy should not be
sent to Lancaster "unless he
is really a bad boy" may be viewed with some skepticism.17
If Howe was ambivalent regarding older
boys, he was unen-
thusiastic about younger ones. During
his tenure, boys under the
age of ten comprised approximately 7
percent of the inmate popula-
tion. Howe complained that there was no
place at Lancaster for "lit-
tle boys that merely need a home."
They could not "materially ad-
vance the farming interests" and
were likelier to "relapse" than
older boys who, he contended, could be
more easily impressed with
their peril. Case histories generally
confirm Howe's view of the little
boys' vulnerability. Case #42 (1858),
"a harmless inoffensive little
fellow" with no criminal record,
was discharged and worked around
the institution, as did case #100
(1859), an eight year old vagrant
who was still at the institution in 1906
serving as a night watch-
man.18
16. Ohio. Laws, LV (1858), 27-28;
Ibid., LVI (1859), 73; Case #s 581, 590, 598, and
44, Case Records, ORSB, OHS: Janney to
Chase, June 21, 1859, Chase MS, OHS;
Janney Family Papers, Box 21, OHS.
Annual median ages are either slightly greater
or less than mean ages.
17. Ohio. Laws, LXVII (1870), 24;
ORSB, AR (1866), 10-12; Ibid. (1870), 19; Ohio.
Docs., I (1867), 127-28; Howe to Charles E. Rice, July 10,
1864, Volume X, 18,
Charles E. Rice Collection, OHS; Roeliff
Brinkerhoff, Recollections of a Lifetime
(Cincinnati, 1900), 275-76. The
reformatory at Mansfield was authorized in 1884 but
due to political wrangling and financial
difficulties was not begun until 1892.
Mansfield's opening led to increased
admissions of older boys to Lancaster, the ex-
act opposite of Howe's expectation.
18. ORSB, AR (1873), 13-14; Ohio. Docs.,
I (1860), 136; Case Records, ORSB,
OHS. See also cases #393 (1862), 495
(1863), 597 (1864), 793 (1866), 989 (1868), 1392
290 OHIO HISTORY
Another possible explanation for the
antipathy toward younger
boys was the fear of officials that
older boys would sexually assault
the little ones. George Howe rejected
this view and the related sug-
gestion that the boys should be residentially
segregated by size. Ac-
cording to Howe, this was not necessary
since the Farm did not
have to accept boys who had committed
"all the crimes in the calen-
dar." Despite his optimism, there
were other nervous references to
boys "of naturally bright minds and
cultivated intellects" who had
been influenced by "wicked
companions" to commit an unspecified
crime "of nearly the greatest
magnitude." When a large new
building was completed in 1877, Howe
proclaimed that it would
house the "less hardened" but
that selections would be made on the
basis of "character," not age.
In practice, however, the Ohio
building, removed by a mile from the
other cottages, became home
for younger boys and represented the
beginning of age segregation.
In 1878 a new reform school law limited
admissions to boys between
ten and sixteen and soon thereafter the
cottages were reorganized
by physical size in the hope of ending
the "evils" of "indiscriminate
mixing".19
Despite this escalating official
response, the inmates' homosexual
and autoerotic activity continued. An
1880 state investigation
alleged that many boys had been sexually
abused. Also, John C.
Hite, who was Superintendent on three
separate occasions between
1878 and 1892, employed sadistic
measures to prevent sexual activi-
ty of all sorts.20
Most of Ohio's delinquents were born
within the state's borders.
Only in 1858, when boys were being sent
to Lancaster from other in-
stitutions, and in the war year of 1864,
did the number of inmates
born inside the state fall below 50
percent. In the years before 1874,
this figure varied between 60 and 75
percent; thereafter, it was
above 75 percent. This trend followed
the decennial census reports
which showed Ohio's population born in
the state increasing from
(1871), 1583 (1872), 1697 (1873), 1899
(1874), 2682 (1877). Apparently there were
some tough younger boys such as the two
eight year olds from Cleveland committed
for petit larceny. One was Hungarian, a
"pretty rough little fellow," the other was
Irish-"Hard boy. Father keeps
saloon." See cases #1288 and 1290 (1870).
19. ORSB, AR (1869), 7-8; Ibid. (1865),
13-14; Ibid. (1877), 16-17; Ohio. Laws, LX-
XV (1878), 61; Ohio. Docs., III
(1877), 386; Ibid., II (1880), 493.
20. Ohio. Docs., II (1880),
502-03; Ibid., I (1880), 608-10; Investigation of Reform
School (1891), The Papers of Governor
James E. Campbell, OHS. This investigation
revealed, among other things, that Hite
applied cathartic acetic vesicant, a blister-
ing fluid, to the feet of runaways. On
John C. Hite, see A Biographical Record of
Fairfield County Ohio (New York, 1902), 82-86. See also Ohio State
Journal, January
29, 1881.
Family System of Common Farmers 291
65 percent in 1860 to 84 percent in
1880. Of the scattered number of
boys born outside the state, most were
from New York or Penn-
sylvania. The number of foreign-born
boys was insignificant except
in 1864 when it accounted for 15
percent of the admittees.21
If, instead of birthplace, the ethnic
origins of inmates are con-
sidered, a more varied portrait
emerges. As Table 2 notes, boys
categorized as "American" or
"English" comprised a majority of
those admitted in the years
1858-1880.22 In seven of these years,
this figure exceeded 65 percent and,
though it fell to 43 percent for
the period 1874-77, it again surpassed
50 percent from 1878 to 1880.
Even in 1891, though never thereafter,
these boys formed half of the
inmate population. Thus, the
Anglo-American segment of Ohio
society, which produced most of the
individuals who founded the
Farm, also generated the majority of
inmates, at least during the in-
stitution's early years. Of course,
"Anglo-America" is an amor-
phous concept, encompassing a wide
cultural and socioeconomic
range. The assumption that the founders
were affluent and the in-
mates deprived is generally justified
although there were in-
teresting exceptions, as in case #36
(1858), a fifteen year old mer-
chant's son who "has own
farm" and "attended Delaware College."
A note, added in 1867, reported,
"worth $40,000.00 left him by
relatives . . . Is much of a gentleman."23
German and Irish boys comprised the
bulk of the remaining in-
stitution population. Boys of Irish
origin averaged 16 percent of the
Farm's population while German boys
averaged over 14 percent for
the years profiled in Table 2. For all
years between 1858 and 1880,
the Irish figure is 14 percent and the
German 16 percent, largely
because German admissions exceeded 20
percent six times in the
period 1870-80. Altogether, the
Anglo-American, Irish and German
groups accounted for 85 percent of the
inmates in the years before
1880. Boys listed as
"unknown" and black boys, variously
categorized as "African," "American
(colored)" and "Afro-
American," comprised the balance.
Before 1871 black boys never
accounted for 5 percent of the inmate
population and they did not
21. U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Population
of the United States in 1860
(Washington, D.C., 1862), 618-19; U.,S.
Department of the Interior. Census Office,
Statistics of the Population of the
United States at the Tenth Census (Washington,
D.C., 1883), 473.
22. Unlike German, Irish or black
youths, "English" boys were not consistently
enumerated nor is there evidence that
they were treated any differently than
"native American" inmates.
23. See also cases #5 and 36 (1858), 485
(1863) and 785 (1866), Case Records,
ORSB, OHS.
292 OHIO HISTORY
surpass 10 percent until 1879. From then
into the early twentieth
century their proportion varied between
10 and 20 percent.24
As a prelude to comments on the
significance of these figures, it
should be noted that the Irish boys and
approximately 25 percent of
the German boys were religiously
persecuted and the black boys
suffered racial discrimination.25 In
the period 1859-80, the annual
percentage of Catholic admittees varied
between 15 and 25. By con-
trast, Farm officials were, in most
instances, evangelical Pro-
testants who feared Catholicism and
relentlessly forced their
spiritual views upon all inmates. George
Howe himself was more in-
terested in moral and literary education
than religious instruction,
but several of the elder brothers and
the Advisory Commissioners,
particularly Benjamin Chidlaw, more than
compensated for his in-
difference.26 Two-thirds of
the boys participated in a daily "devo-
tional exercise" while
non-participants were "required to stand
perfectly quiet until the exercise is
over." On Sunday mornings, all
boys attended an hour and a half of
Sunday School, where they
memorized verse and read the King James
Bible. In the afternoon,
Chidlaw or another minister distributed
biblical tracts and con-
ducted a two hour service, attendance
again being mandatory.27
Reform school authorities defended these
practices by contending
that they did not discriminate against
any faith because sectarian
teaching was not allowed. However,
before 1880 Catholic instruc-
tion and the Vulgate Bible were not
permitted either. Even then,
Catholic inmates did not receive regular
visits from a priest,
regulations prescribing only that boys
were to be "visited by some
religious or moral instructor."
Superintendent Hite was a hard-shell
Baptist and probably not inclined to
excessive cordiality with
24. Case records of the
"unknown" boys show no peculiar features and thus
demonstrate only the perfunctory
character of the records themselves in the 1870s.
There were only occasional references to
other European ethnic groups. Cases #494
(1863), 784 (1866), and 1686 and 1687
(1872) were Scotch. Case #1288 was Hungarian
and case #1383 (1871) was French. Case
#392 (1862) was described as "Welch" and
case #890 (1867) as a "Pole."
Case Records, ORSB, OHS.
25. In 260 cases, drawn from a ten-year
period (1862-1872), ten of forty-six Ger-
man boys were identified as Catholic.
Case Records, ORSB, OHS.
26. Ohio. Docs., I (1867),
242-45. In 1869 Chidlaw headed a Cincinnati campaign
against "Romanism and the enemies
of the Bible" after local Catholics had suc-
cessfully pressured the public schools
to ban biblical readings. Not coincidentally,
the Farm's annual report of that year
proclaimed allegiance to "the glorious
teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, as
they are set forth in our own Holy Open
Bible." Chidlaw, The Story of My Life, 293; ORSB, AR
(1869), 16.
27. ORSB, AR (1865), 11-12; Ohio. Docs.,
I (1858), 326. A later report warned of
boys who "galio-like" rejected
the Bible and became "depraved." ORSB, AR (1875),
8.
294 OHIO HISTORY
visiting Catholic priests. Clearly,
Catholic boys, especially Irish
Catholic boys, had a harder road to go
than most other Farm in-
mates. Case #22 (1858), for example, was
described as follows:
"Father, Christian, born in
Germany. Mother (!), born in Ireland,"
while case #496 (1863), a thirteen year
old "American" boy, was,
"Irish in appearance."28
Black boys suffered even more. Although
not residentially
segregated in the early years, they were
assigned special tasks and
also served as the objects of white
merriment. One visitor reported a
black boy "cutting the hair of his
mates," while a newspaper story
on a Farm variety show commended the
talent of two inmates "as
specialists in negro [sic] character and
eccentricities."29 With in-
creasing numbers of black inmates in the
1880s, harsher official at-
titudes began to surface. In April,
1880, for example, a recently
released fifteen year old black boy died
from the effects of a beating
inflicted by an "elder
brother."30 John Hite tolerated black boys on-
ly in menial roles and, as a citizen of
Lancaster, he led a protest
against placing black and white children
together in public school
classrooms. Terming his policy
"Mexicanizing our city on a
Mongrel basis," Hite said:
We are in favor of the elevation of the
rising generation and opposed to forc-
ing upon them the humiliation and
degradation of mutual mixing and
mingling with the negro [sic].
By the early twentieth century,
Lancaster's black inmates were
segregated.31
Black and Irish Catholic boys were
significantly over-represented
at the Farm in relation to their
proportions of Ohio's boy popula-
tion. German boys were proportionately
represented and
American/English boys were
under-represented. In 1880, for exam-
ple, the black "population at
risk" (males from ten to sixteen) com-
prised 2.5 percent of Ohio's male
population of the same age but
28. ORSB, AR (1869), 16; Ohio. Docs.,
II (1880), 501; Ibid., I (1886), 1302; A.A.
Graham, comp., History ofFairfield
County (Chicago, 1883), 102. As late as 1904 the
Sunday routine remained unchanged except
for a monthly service by a Catholic
priest. See Ohio Bulletin of
Charities and Correction, X, No. 4 (1904), 12.
29. Henry Howe, Historical
Collections of Ohio, I (Columbus, 1889), 599; Lan-
caster Gazette, January 23, 1880.
30. Ohio. Docs., I (1880),
608-10. In his annual report for the year, the elder
brother in question concluded, "The
good order heretofore prevailing in my family
has been maintained during the present
year." See Ibid., 508-09.
31. Ohio Eagle, January 13, 1881;
Charles C. Miller, comp., History of Fairfield
County, Ohio and Representative
Citizens (Chicago, 1912), 346-52.
Family System of Common Farmers 295
made up 12 percent of the boys admitted
to Lancaster, a slight drop
from the 14 percent figure for 1879
(see Table 2). The Irish-
American population at risk was
approximately 6 percent for the
years 1860-80; at Lancaster, Irish
admittees averaged 16 percent
for the years outlined in Table 2. For
the same decades, the German
proportion of inmates (14.6 percent)
was slightly less than the
statewide average population at risk
(16 percent), while the
American/English proportion of
Lancaster admittees (54.6 percent)
was considerably below this group's
statewide proportion of the
population at risk which was 70
percent.32
The figures on Irish and German boys
become additionally signifi-
cant when correlated with one aspect of
their hometown residency.
The figures cited above were computed
on the basis of commitments
from throughout the state. Hence, they
include Hamilton County
(by far the largest county before 1890)
where the Cincinnati House
of Refuge absorbed nearly all of the
area's delinquents.33 Two-thirds
of the Hamilton population was
foreign-born or of foreign-born
parents, and, of this total, 60 percent
was German and 25 percent
was Irish. This distribution was
reflected in the Cincinnati Refuge
population which was over 50 percent
German-Irish in 1851 and 75
percent by 1870.34 More
important, however, when Hamilton Coun-
32. Lancaster officials based ethnic
determinations upon both foreign birth and
foreign-born parentage. U.S. Census
reports (1860-80) were age specific in regard to
race and foreign/native birthplace, but
ethnic group sizes and compositions must be
estimated because American-born children
of immigrants were counted as native
and only an aggregate figure for foreign
born/foreign parentage is provided. The
necessity for estimation is illustrated
by the fact that the 1870 Census categorized
14 percent of Ohio's population as
foreign-born but 32 percent with at least one
foreign-born parent. And the 1880 Census
identified as foreign-born only 3 percent
of Ohio's male population between ten
and fourteen. However, among the male
population aged thirty-five to forty-four,
those likely to be the fathers of boys ten to
fourteen, 27.5 percent were
foreign-born. Ohio foreign-born population during these
decades was 50 percent German, 20
percent Irish and 10 percent English. For
several years, a German edition of
Lancaster's Annual Reports was published. See
U.S. Census, The Statistics of the
Population of the United States (Washington,
D.C., 1872), xxix, 318-19; U.S. Census, Statistics
of the Population ... 1880,
618-19; Ohio. Laws, LVI (1868),
410.
33. During the 1860s, Hamilton County,
the state's largest with nearly 10 percent
of the total population, accounted for
an annual average of only 3 percent of the
Farm's new inmates. It may be surmised
that most of the boys sent to Lancaster
lived and/or committed their offenses
outside of the city's corporation limits. These
calculations must be based on counties
rather than their principal cities because
neither the case records nor the annual
reports made precise distinctions. The
proportion of the "population at risk," males
ten to sixteen, living in urban and rural
counties, differed little.
34. Cincinnati House of Refuge, AR
(1851), 15, 26-31; Ibid. (1872), 9-10; Ibid.
(1873), 19-21; John T. Perry, The
Cincinnati House of Refuge (London, 1872), 4.
296 OHIO HISTORY
ty is eliminated from calculations of
the population at risk of being
sent to Lancaster, the German figure
falls from 16 to 10 percent, the
Irish from 6 to 4.5 percent while the
American/English figure in-
creases to 77 percent. The organization
of houses of refuge in
Cleveland (1867) and Toledo (1875), both
cities with concentrations
of German-Americans and Irish-Americans,
accentuates the point.
It may be concluded, therefore, that
German as well as Irish and
black boys had a much greater chance of
spending time in some
reform school in Ohio than did any
Anglo-American boy.
Just as Reform School authorities
believed that they did not
discriminate against any ethnic or
religious group, they thought
that they dealt impartially with the
urban and rural sections of the
state. Every county committed boys to
the Farm at one time or
another and officials attempted to
insure that there was room for
boys from sparsely populated areas.
Nevertheless, commitments
did follow the pattern of urbanization.
As a polycentric state, Ohio
experienced urban growth generally
rather than as a feature of one
or two locations.35 Thus,
Muskingum (Zanesville) and Pickaway
(Circleville) Counties made significant
commitments in the 1860s,
while Clark (Springfield) and Greene
(Xenia) did the same in the
1870s. In later years, when the
municipal refuges either closed or
fell into disrepute, the percentage of
commitments from the urban
counties skyrocketed. In 1900 the five
largest (Cuyahoga,
Hamilton, Franklin, Lucas and
Montgomery), containing 31 percent
of the state population, contributed 66
percent of the Reform School
admittees.36 The official
perception remained that if delinquency
was an urban problem, then it was a
state problem too, not just
because urbanization was widespread but
also due to the perception
35. In Michigan, by contrast, the social
problems of Wayne County (Detroit)
dominated the state and policy favored
the centralization of services for both delin-
quent and dependent children. See
"Michigan Policy for Dependent Children: State
Public School at Clearwater," American
Journal of Education, XXX (1880), 813-16;
"The Michigan System of Child
Saving," American Journal of Sociology, I
(1895-96), 710-24; Dennis Thavenet,
" 'Wild Young 'Uns' in Their Midst': The Begin-
nings of Reformatory Education in
Michigan," Michigan History, LX (1976),
240-59.
36. The Cleveland House of Refuge, which
was never more than a branch of the ci-
ty workhouse, closed in 1891, "a
dismal failure." The Toledo House of Refuge was
burned to the ground by an inmate in
1886. A special train transported 104 boys to
Lancaster. The Cincinnati House of Refuge
continued to function although local
criticism increased in the
early-twentieth century. It eventually closed in 1915. See
Lucia Johnson Bing, Social Work in
Greater Cleveland (Cleveland, 1938), 110;
Toledo Blade, March 13, 1886; Ohio. Docs., I (1886), 770;
Cincinnati Bureau of
Municipal Research, The House of
Refuge (Cincinnati, 1912).
Family System of Common Farmers 297 |
|
that delinquents were distinguished by their physical mobility. In his first report George Howe noted:
It is a remarkable fact that the boys who are sent here are, to a great extent, acquainted . . . and though they are sent from Cleveland, Cincinnati, or Columbus, it is by no means certain that they are residents of those cities. They are emphatically a circulating class, floating about over the state.
Howe's analysis, confirming the earlier view of the founders of the Cincinnati Refuge, left no place immune. Boys such as "Pop Corn," who was "known from Cleveland to New Orleans, and wherever known is considered as one of the worst boys," could show up anywhere.37 Wherever they came from, Ohio's delinquents were likely to have living parents. In the period 1858-1880 an annual average of only 13 percent of the Farm inmates were orphans. Over 40 percent of the boys had both parents while 30 percent had a mother only and 17 percent a father only. Cincinnati Refuge figures were similar. Or-
37. ORSB, AR (1859), 9; Ibid. (1861), 3; Ohio. House Journal (1860), 200-03. Howe's inclusion of Cincinnati again refers to the early but short-lived policy of ad- mitting boys from the Cincinnati Refuge. |
298 OHIO HISTORY
phans were seldom committed for that
fact alone because alter-
native, if seldom satisfactory,
institutions existed. County infir-
maries were officially responsible for
abandoned, mistreated and or-
phaned children and some cities had
private orphanages as well. By
1850 Cincinnati, for example, had five
asylums-two Catholic, one
Protestant, one German Protestant and
one for "colored orphans".38
The limited scope of private
philanthropy combined with the filth
and indiscriminate mixing of young and
old in the infirmaries
were principal reasons for the
establishment of the Board of State
Charities in 1867.39 Board
Secretary Albert G. Byers, armed only
with the authority to inspect and
publicize results, crusaded for the
removal of children from infirmaries
and local jails and for construc-
tion of county homes for dependent
children.40
The magnitude of this effort absorbed
much of the child-saving
zeal in Ohio. State officials, in
comparing the infirmaries and county
jails to the Farm or even the refuges,
found the latter clean, well-
organized and generally free of
problems. To Board officials such as
Byers and Roeliff Brinkerhoff, this
fact seemed more important
than any philosophical differences
between the Farm and the
refuges.41 Accordingly, they were loath
to criticize reform school
management and, in most cases,
sustained institution authorities in
routine and special investigations.42
The Farm School boys were not well
educated, but neither were
they illiterate. Cases marked "no
schooling" like the "dull, de-
38. Charles Cist, Sketches and
Statistics of Cincinnati in 1851 (Cincinnati, 1851),
150-55.
39. The seed of this agency was a
proposal made by Salmon Chase in 1859 that
the trustees of state institutions
gather annually to share information. In 1872 the
legislature abolished the Board but
reestablished it in 1876. A voluntaristic
organization, the Prison Reform and
Children's Aid Association (1874-76), filled part
of the interval. See Ohio. Docs., II
(1859), 48-49; Box 21, Janney MS, OHS; A.G.
Byers diary (1872), Byers Family Papers,
OHS.
40. Ohio. Docs., II (1868),
654-64; Ibid., II (1870), 349-53. By the early twentieth
century, this effort had largely
succeeded with the establishment of fifty county
homes and the same number of private,
often denomenational, orphanages. See
Nelson L. Bossing, "History of
Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925," Ohio Ar-
cheological and Historical
Publications, XXXIX (1930), 285-91;
Samuel P. Orth, The
Centralization of Administration in
Ohio (New York, 1903), 105-29.
41. Ohio. Docs., III (1877),
323-24; Brinkerhoff, Recollections, 356. See also
Chidlaw, The Story of My Life, 370-72.
Although the Farm and the Cincinnati
Refuge severed administrative ties in
1859, the Farm continued to support the
Refuge by buying the products of its
workshop, including palm hats and socks. See
ORSB, AR (1860), 46; Ibid. (1862),
46.
42. Ohio. Docs., I (1883),
1372-74; Ibid., I (1891), 1309-40. In the 1880 investiga-
tion,discussed above, the Board charged
that counties without homes for dependent
children were saving money by sending
boys to Lancaster on trumped-up charges.
See Ohio. Docs., I (1880),
610-12.
Family System of Common Farmers 299
praved" twelve year old or the
fourteen year old who "never did
much of anything but run around the
streets" were exceptions. Case
records are incomplete regarding
education, but beginning in the
late 1860s they do systematically
report Sunday school attendance
and, starting in 1870, the level of
reading ability as correlated to
the first through fourth McGuffey
readers. Of 120 cases sampled in
the 1868-71 period, seventy-four (62
percent) noted either Protes-
tant or Catholic Sunday school
attendance; public school atten-
dance was irregularly listed in 12
percent of the cases, but this
number was probably much higher as an
institution report of a few
years later noted that over 90 percent
of the inmates had attended
some school. In sixty cases in the
years 1870-71, forty-six of the
boys were reading in one of McGuffey's
readers and thirty-seven
were in the second reader or beyond.
The overall impression is that
nearly all the boys coming to Lancaster
could read and perhaps half
could write and do simple sums. Few
were either totally illiterate or
able to read, write and
"cipher" with skill.43
Measurement of individual educational
achievement within the
institution is equally difficult, for
separate school reports were not
filed before 1869. In the first years,
officials considered time spent
working around the farm and learning
the rules of daily con-
duct more important than attainment of
cognitive skills. In 1858,
the boys worked fifty hours per week
and went to school twice for
two and a half hours each time. In 1859
the number of sessions was
doubled, and in 1864 the length of the
daily meeting was also dou-
bled, making a weekly total of twenty
hours of schooling. Work was
reduced proportionately but still took
precedence. A merit system
rewarded manual labor more than
intellectual effort, and in 1865
and 1871 crop demands caused
"short vacations in the school." In
1870 the head teacher had to assure the
legislature that the Farm
School would not cause "evil
effects resulting from hard study" and
that manual labor remained the
fundamental education.44
In the late 1860s Howe organized the
school into four grades, in-
troduced women teachers (who were often
the wives of elder
brothers), and devised a curriculum
built around basic subjects but
43. ORSB, AR (1876), 23; Cases #980
(1868), 1388 (1871), Case Records, ORSB,
OHS. There is no reason to think that
the rate of illiteracy among Farm inmates was
higher than the general rate of
illiteracy among Ohio boys. In 1870, approximately 8
percent of the boys in Ohio between ten
and fourteen were illiterate; by 1880, this
figure had dropped to 4.2 percent. See
U.S. Census, Statistics ... 1870, 425; Ibid,
1880, 919-25.
44. ORSB, AR (1858), 30-38; Ibid (1865),
11; Ibid (1886), 27; Ibid. (1871), 27; Ibid
(1870), 21.
300 OHIO HISTORY
also including algebra, natural
philosophy and physical
geography.45 School
examinations were held every three months but
promotions were not listed on case records, and thus
it is difficult to
assess precise rates of individual or
group achievement. School
reports do permit the tentative
conclusion that most boys learned
fundamental skills but few were able to
handle advanced subjects.
In 1870, for example, there were eleven
boys reading in the primer
and nine in the sixth reader. The
balance were reading in the first
through fifth McGuffey's, though a
majority were in readers three
to five. One hundred forty-six boys
took "mental arithmetic" and
127 took "written
arithmetic," but only nine boys studied algebra
and an equal number took natural
philosophy and physical
geography. Six years later, the number
of grades had increased to
nine but the levels of achievement were similar.
Twenty of 225 in-
mates had not attended school though
only twelve did not know the
alphabet, and by the end of the year
all but twenty boys were
beyond the first reader. In the most
advanced class, twenty-five
boys were in the sixth reader, had
finished Ray's Intellectual
Arithmetic, and also studied grammar
and Brown's Government of
Ohio.46
These seemingly modest attainments
appear more impressive in a
comparative context. In France in 1852
two-thirds of the 6,443
children arrested for delinquency were
illiterate and 20 percent of
the total remained uninstructed during
detainment. At the Mettray
agricultural colony, 50 percent of the
new inmates were illiterate
and approximately 10 percent of those
leaving were either illiterate
or could read only. One half-hour per
day was devoted to schooling,
the chief activity being to read
catechisms and thus "hasten the
time when young colons can make their
first communion."47
By contrast, Lancaster boys had higher
levels of achievement
before and after incarceration as well
as the opportunity to pursue
additional learning outside of their
regular classes. In 1859 George
Howe established a literary society
where the boys could read
newspapers, tracts and books donated to
the institution. Whether
they did so "with a zeal that
indicates a true thirst" is less impor-
45. The school was in session for ten
months per year except for the "primary
department" which met all year.
Howe expected that the women would impart
"softening restraint" and
"higher influences" to the classrooms and make the cot-
tages "more like the natural family
and more home-like." See ORSB, AR (1866), 10.
46. ORSB, AR (1870), 21-23; Ibid (1876),
23-25.
47. Irish Quarterly, IV
(September, 1854), 691-792; Norbert Muller, "La Colonie
Agricole Penitentiarie de Mettray,
1839-1939," Memoire, Universite de Tours, 1976,
17-28; Quarterly Records, Irish
Quarterly, VI (March, 1856), 1xiii-lxxx.
Family System of Common Farmers 301
tant than the range of available
opinions and subjects which includ-
ed not only the publications of the
American Sunday School Union
but also eighteen Ohio dailies or
weeklies, copies of Ohio Farmer and
Ohio Cultivator, and "magic lantern" slides on astronomy and
temperance. Institution authorities
vehemently denied that their
boys were "dull." In 1879 the
Commissioners claimed to have boys
with the potential of "a Pitt or a
Burke, a Clay or a Webster." Ac-
cordingly, officials believed that
education should be promoted not
to teach trade skills or religious and
social obligation but rather to
satisfy the boys' active minds, which
they viewed as the products of
an increasingly dynamic society. In
stressing the Farm's obligation
to conduct "mental training,"
the head teacher contended:
As a nation we are so circumstanced . .
. that it is not absolutely
necessary that a boy should learn any
mechanical trade in order to gain a
living; an intelligent habit of
industry will be sufficient ... but without
giving a proper and sufficient
direction to the activities of these minds,
mere habits of industry would, in most
cases, amount to nothing. The boys
have too much street education to
permit mere industrial habits, joined
even to Christian teaching, to exercise
a full restraining power upon them.48
"Street education" was the
problem. It may have given the boys
their zestful style, but it also landed
them at the Reform Farm.
"Street education" meant
several negative personal and behavioral
traits-swearing, truancy, tobacco
chewing, larceny and drink-
ing-which authorities defined as
individual and group
characteristics as well as reasons for
committal.49 These traits pro-
vide a further clue to adult sensibilities and legal
definitons, and
should be discussed briefly prior to an
analysis of the commitment
charges and procedures themselves.
In the twenty years between 1858 and
1880 when
"characteristics" statistics
were kept, profanity was the leading of-
fense eleven times, truancy six times
and larceny three times.
Authorities were particularly upset by
swearing in the years before
1871 when an average 80 percent of the
incoming inmates were so
stigmatized. The expletives themselves
were decidedly deleted in
school reports, but one may surmise
that an occasional "damn,"
48. ORSB, AR (1859), 12; Ohio. Docs.,
I (1860), 143; Ibid, I (1867), 126. ORSB,
AR (1865), 25; Ibid. (1871),
27-28; Ibid. (1879), 10. Letters from the boys, voluntarily
written, indicate a uniform interest in
the activities of the literary society. See
ORSB, AR (1861), 23-26.
49. Positive comments were few and then
usually stated in the negative: for ex-
amples, case # 993 (1868), "no bad
habits" and case # 1096 (1869), "not a hard boy."
Case Records, ORSB, OHS.
302 OHIO HISTORY
considered offensive in the 1860s,
seemed less so later as the
average of boys perceived as profane
dropped below 40 percent in
the years 1872-78. When the
strait-laced John Hite became Superin-
tendent, this figure rose again to the
60 percent level. The presence
in the 1870s of a significant number of
boys who probably swore in
German might explain the general
decline. Truancy and larceny
were cited as habits of half of the
boys, except from 1872 to 1878
when truancy was listed over 70 percent
of the time. These offenses
pertained to the home as well as the
school and the market place.
Cases #91 (1859) and #986 (1868) were
listed as truant from home
and school while cases #192 (1860), 591
(1864), and 592 (1864) were
committed for stealing from their
parents.
The less frequently noted offenses were
chewing tobacco and
drinking. Tobacco-chewing was common
enough, present in 42 per-
cent of the cases, but drinking was an
infrequent offense,
characteristic of less than 10 percent
of the boys for the twenty
years surveyed. The lower incidence did
not, however, signify less
adult apprehension. The boys were
constantly urged to sign the
pledge. In 1876 those who did so took a
leading role in a Fairfield
County temperance crusade. Also, a
special law forbade the sale of
liquor within two miles of the Farm
property.50
Commitment charges against the boys
also reflected adult anx-
ieties. Incorrigibility-which
encompassed truancy, vagrancy,
parental disobedience, tobacco-chewing
and swearing-plus the
various larceny offenses (petit and
grand larceny, burglary and
housebreaking), accounted for over 90
percent of committals in eigh-
teen of the years between 1858 and
1880. In eight of these years,
this figure exceeded 95 percent and
never was it below 85 percent.
In every year, either petit larceny or
incorrigibility was the principal
reason for commitment. Besides larceny
and incorrigibility, other
commitments were for rape, assault,
arson, mail fraud,
counterfeiting, forgery, horsestealing,
manslaughter, shooting and
liquor law violations. As a group,
these produced more drama but
they seldom accounted for 10 percent of
annual admissions.51
As many of the above offenses
indicated, a boy did not have to
break any particular law to be
committed to the Reform Farm.
50. ORSB, AR (1859), 4-5; Ibid (1868),
33-40; Graham, History of Fairfield Coun-
ty, 182; Ohio. Laws, LXXI (1874), 82-83.
51. Commitment statistics were not kept
in 1859 and 1860 and are incomplete
from 1878 to 1880. Among the more unique
cases was a ten year old, case # 1796
(1873), who was caught "rum
running." In 1871 two boys were committed for
murder, one a nine year old inmate of
the Jefferson County infirmary who had
buried a smaller boy alive. See cases #
1478 and 1496, Case Records, ORSB, OHS.
Family System of Common Farmers 303
Truancy, for example, did not violate a
specific statute. Ohio had no
compulsory attendance law until 1877
and a substantive law was
not passed until 1889. However, any
local court could hear evidence
of a boy's truancy, then declare him
incorrigible and a "fit subject"
for the Farm. The institution's
enabling laws gave the Commis-
sioners guardianship until the youth
was twenty-one unless
managers deemed him
"reformed" at an earlier date. In 1869 this
power was legally challenged by lawyers
for fourteen year old Ben-
jamin Prescott, a Van Wert boy who had
allegedly burnt a barn.
They claimed that Prescott had been
deprived of his liberty without
due process of law because he had been
sent to Lancaster on the
basis of a grand jury finding rather
than following a trial by jury.
In denying this argument and thus
placing the institution's guard-
ianship authority beyond future
challenge, the Ohio Supreme Court
agreed with the State's attorney that
Prescott's commitment was
not punishment but an appropriate
example of "benevolent educa-
tion or apprenticeship for young boys
of evil habits or bad surroun-
dings."52
Young Prescott was forwarded to
Lancaster by the Van Wert
court of common pleas. As local
jurisdictions of equity, common
pleas and probate courts processed the
majority of applications for
reform school admission. In the 1870s
over 90 percent of the boys
came from these courts, with probate
courts alone accounting for an
annual average of 75 percent of
admissions. Before 1870, this issue
was complicated by gubernatorial
commitments from the peniten-
tiary and the Cincinnati Refuge (60
percent of the first year's in-
mates and an average of 5 percent from
1859 to 1865) and by the in-
complete development of the Ohio
judicial system. Probate courts
were not organized until after the
Constitutional Convention of
1850-51 and existed in only 37 of 88
counties by 1860. Of course
common pleas courts, which existed in
every county, could also
make guardianship determinations. But
the principal reason that
commitments from all equity courts did
not exceed 50 percent until
1866 was that parents, by furnishing a
certificate from "three
responsible men of the
neighborhood," could directly commit their
own children. And they did. Between
1861 and 1865 nearly 25 per-
52. Orth, The Centralization of
Administration in Ohio, 53-54; 19 Ohio 184 (1869).
The Prescott case generally followed the
reasoning of an earlier decision vindicating
the parental authority of the
Philadelphia House of Refuge. See, ex parte Crouse, 4
Wharton 9 (1838). Prescott, however, was
a more subtle defense of institutional
authority because it sustained
benevolent intent while at the same time permitting
habeas corpus proceedings in cases when
confinement might have been caused by "a
false and groundless charge."
304 OHIO HISTORY
cent of commitments were by parents or
guardians, with many of
these cases being war-related.53
The remaining legal routes to the Farm
were federal courts and
local police courts, the latter called
mayor's court or justice 's
court in less populous districts. In the
years before 1880, only ten
boys were committed from U.S. District
or Circuit Courts, all for
U.S. Mail offenses. Police court
commitments, which averaged 28
percent until 1865, dropped steadily in
the late 60s and were less
than 10 percent in the 1870s.54
Police court judges, like common pleas
and probate magistrates,
were usually popularly elected and were
not required to have legal
training. Regarding juvenile cases, they
were charged with fulfilling
the traditional role of
chancery-representing the state as a third
party dispensing justice to all who
appeared before them. In the
American context, these judges were
expected to act as neighbors,
rather than as social superiors or
professionals providing expert ad-
vice. Their political dependence upon
citizens appearing before them
may explain their reluctance to
recommend that parents contribute
to the support of boys whom the judge
sent to the Farm. Parental
payments, though encouraged by law, were
infrequent, making up
one-half of 1 percent of institution
income in 1867 and even less in
later years.55 Also,
institution authorities repeatedly had to remind
53. Ohio. Laws, LII (1854),
103-06; Carrington T. Marshall, History of the Courts
and Lawyers of Ohio (New York, 1934), 407-35; ORSB, AR (1859), 24; Ibid.
(1869),
22. See also case #s 393, 394, 395
(1862), 581, 590 (1864), Case Records, ORSB, OHS.
The number of parental commitments after
the Civil War apparently declined rapid-
ly. After 1866 the number never exceeded
4 percent of annual admissions and a
survey of 200 case records covering the
period 1866-1873 reveals only five such com-
mitments. However, beginning in 1866
direct applications were no longer encour-
aged and interested parents were
requested to "apply to probate." There are two
other reasons for thinking that parental
commitments may have been masked in
later years. First, the number of
applications for admission continued to outpace
Farm capacity; in 1870 only one
application in five was accepted. Second, parents or
guardians of children in the Cincinnati
House of Refuge accounted for over 25 per-
cent of admissions in 1879 and 1889. See
ORSB, AR (1865), 6; Ibid. (1870), 17; Cin-
cinnati Refuge, AR (1879), 18; Ibid (1889),
18.
54. Beginning in 1890 police court
commitments again increased following the at-
tachment of truant officers to many
jurisdictions. Also, each year a few boys (an
average of three per year in the 1860s
and 1870s) continued to be transferred, by
Governor's order, from the penitentiary.
And, a few boys were sent by county infir-
maries and orphanages. See cases # 291
(1862), 491 (1863), 783 (1866), Case Records,
ORSB, OHS.
55. Marshall, History of Courts and
Lawyers in Ohio, 349-435; Ohio. Laws, LVII
(1860), 24; Ohio. Docs., I
(1867), 166; ORSB, AR (1869), 20-22. English reform school
authorities, by contrast, displayed real
enthusiasm for the "moral value" of getting
parents to support their children.
Payments in England amounted to nearly 3 per-
cent of reformatory income in the 1860s.
When added to voluntary contributions
and legacies, also negligible in
American institutions, this figure rises to 10 percent.
Family System of Common Farmers 305
municipal and county judges of their
legal obligation to bathe,
clothe and pay transportation costs of
boys whom they committed.
In the final analysis, however, judges
saw little separating their ex-
ercise of parental power from that of
the Reform School Commis-
sioners. In fact, from 1875 to 1879
John M. Pugh of Columbus serv-
ed simultaneously as Reform School
Commissioner and judge of
probate for Franklin County.56
Once they got to the Farm, the boys
stayed a long time. In
samples of seventy-one, seventy-five
and seventy-six cases, drawn
from three separate eras (1862-65,
1870-72 and 1878-79), the mean
incarceration period was over two years
and seven months. This
figure would be higher but it does not
include the additional time
served by twenty-one boys who were
committed more than once.
The 1862-65 sample had a somewhat
higher average (two years,
eleven months) because fifteen boys
stayed longer than five years,
including two boys who stayed eight and
one who remained nine
years. In the later samples, the number
of incarcerations longer
than five years declined to eleven and
five respectively and none ex-
ceeded seven years. An explanation for
the difference may be that in
the Civil War era, released inmates
were viewed as an additional
problem for their already tense home
towns. Following hostile
receptions, several boys chose
voluntarily to return to the Farm
where George Howe welcomed them back.
But he and other institu-
tion officials also condemned the hard
attitudes of the "heartless
many."57
Over the years, most boys leaving
Lancaster were released on
their own recognizance or to the care
of their parents or "friends,"
the latter being a term for relatives
and guardians. There was no for-
mal system of parole supervision,
although the Acting Commis-
sioner could hold a boy's discharge
papers pending a favorable report
on his behavior. Distinctions between the three
categories of release
are difficult to make since they were
merged in various combina-
tions, and in two years (1878-79) no
figures were kept. However, in
the twenty years after 1858,
dispositions to parents, friends and
"themselves" fell below 70
percent only three times and surpassed
See British Parliamentary Papers, XXVI
(1862), 19, 109; Ibid., XXXVI (1867), 18,
157.
56. Ohio. Laws, LV (1858), 30;
ORSB, AR (1869), 22; Ibid. (1870), 19-20; Ohio.
Docs., II
(1884), 100; History of Franklin and Pickaway Counties, Ohio (Columbus,
1880), 591-92.
57. Recommitment figures cannot be
accurately figured since final discharge
dates were often omitted. Ohio. Docs.,
I (1860), 138; ORSB, AR (1866), 24-26. For an
example of a boy who returned
voluntarily, see case #882 (1867), Case Records,
ORSB, OHS.
306 OHIO HISTORY
80 percent thirteen times. Parent/friend
releases comprised the ma-
jority, averaging 70 percent in two
separate periods (1861-65 and
1870-77). Boys who were left to their
own devices averaged 12 per-
cent in these years.58
These figures may be usefully compared
with the French system
of patronage whereby municipal societies
composed of notables
supervised former inmates whether or not
they lived with their own
families. An 1854 survey of inmates
leaving Mettray showed only
24 percent of the boys "returned to
relatives" while 32 percent were
in "situations" as artisans or
agricultural laborers. Thirty percent
were serving in the French Army and the
remaining 14 percent had
"removed themselves" from
patronage, a euphemism for escaped
surveillance.59 To summarize
the difference, Americans were in-
clined not to meddle while Europeans
wanted to fix boys in menial
situations and insure that they stayed
there.
Less frequently employed means of
leaving Lancaster were ap-
prenticeships, escape, death and
transfer to another institution.
During the period 1861-70, 9 percent of
the boys were apprenticed,
and this figure rose to 12 percent in
the eight years from 1871 to
1880 when records were kept. The
increase was due to the
implementation of "hiring out"
in 1871, a disposition which ac-
counted for 8.5 percent of departures in
the 1870s and completely
replaced apprenticeships after 1873. In
one sense, there may have
been little difference between
apprenticeship and hiring out since
there is no indication, either in
institution records or in boys' letters,
that the tradition of apprenticeship-a
pledge to impart specific
trade skills-was honored. Most boys
merely went to live with farm
families, attended school and did
general chores. "Hiring out,"
however, also conveys the impression that institution
officers may
have retained an interest in the
proceeds of a boy's labor, which is
not entirely conjectural, given some of
the other conflicts which
began to characterize the Farm in the
1870s.60
Few boys escaped, though many tried. An
1879 report listed 100
58. These cases could strike a jaunty
note - "Went to Columbus, O. to do for
self" is journal entry-or they
could be pathetic as the poorly clothed, ill-fed boy
who was finally befriended in Urbana
after a week of wandering following his release
from the Farm. See "Table Showing
Boys at One Time in Institution" (imcomplete),
ORSB, OHS; Champaign Democrat, November
18, 1880. The boys required
discharge papers to "prove"
character in later life. See ORSB, AR (1869), 29-36.
59. Irish Quarterly, IV (1854),
361-429; Irish Quarterly, Quarterly Record, VI
(1856), lxiii-lxxx. The figures for
institutions other than Mettray were less reassur-
ing. In 1853 30 percent of the children
being supervised escaped and only 50 percent
were characterized as under patronage
and behaving properly.
60. See below, 313-314, fn. 75-76.
Family System of Common Farmers 307
successful escapes since the institution
opened, approximately 3
percent of the total number of boys
received to that date. Eighteen
of these occurred in years before 1860
when boys, newly transferred
from the penitentiary, took advantage of
the Farm's early
disorganization; an 1859 law, aimed at
the parents and friends of
these boys, made it a misdemeanor to aid
escape from the institu-
tion. Nine escapes in 1863 were
explained as the patriotic reaction of
boys anxious to volunteer in the
aftermath of Morgan's raid in
southern Ohio. Generally, however,
officials contended that few
boys escaped because of the trust
imposed on them by the open set-
ting of the Farm. They quoted the reply
of a Mettray colon who,
when asked why he did not run away,
replied, "because there are no
walls." While it is true that more
prison-like institutions, such as
the Toledo House of Refuge, had higher
escape rates, the main
reason that boys did not escape from the
Farm was that the coun-
tryside was organized to catch them if
they tried. A standing
reward of $5.00 awaited any citizen who
captured a runaway. In
January, 1878, fifty dollars was paid
from this account and in
August, one hundred dollars. A visitor
in the 1880s credited the suc-
cess of the system to the vigilance of
"the rude population yet dwell-
ing in cabins, and called by the boys
'hillikens'."61
A small number of boys died while at
Lancaster, only seventeen of
the 3,173 inmates who were received from
1858 to 1879. This rate
compares favorably with figures from
Mettray where fourteen boys
died of typhoid in 1856 alone. Though
death was an infrequent
visitor at the Farm, it was an educative
opportunity to remind the
boys of their frailty. In 1866, chaplain
J.F. Reinmund hoped that
"some deep and lasting impression
for good have been ex-
perienced . . . at the burial of one of
the boys . .. I know the boys
have not lightly forgotten the departure
of Johnny
Hubschneider."62
A few boys were transferred to adult
institutions. Farm records
show a boy returned to the penitentiary
in 1873 and six years later
an inmate with scrofula was discharged
to the Franklin County in-
61. Ohio. Docs., I (1879),
604-10; Ohio. Laws, LVI (1859), 73; Ohio. Docs., I (1856),
619; ORSB, AR (1865), 12-13; Ohio, Docs., I
(1879), 753, 765-66; Howe, Historical
Collections of Ohio, I, 600. Jean Genet's memoir of Mettray in the 1920s
recalled
that "young countrywomen always
leave a jacket and a pair of trousers on the
clothes-line in the hope and fear that a runaway will
steal them, move the line, which
rings a bell, and so be caught." Jean Genet, Miracle
of the Rose (London, 1965),
13-14. See also Baron William Henry
Leigh, The Reformatory at Mettray (London,
1856), 12.
62. Irish Quarterly, VI (1856),
966-67; ORSB, AR (1866), 25; Ohio, Docs., I (1882),
114.
308 OHIO HISTORY
firmary. During the 1870s six boys were
transferred to the state Im-
becile Asylum, and in 1880 eleven more
were committed. Intellec-
tual incapacity was the stated cause,
but an analysis of the case
records of the boys sent in 1880 shows
that they were committed in
groups of three and eight and that two
had "no bad habits" and nine
had been to school. Three were ten years
old, one was eleven and the
others were thirteen or older. The
intimation is that authorities
viewed the Imbecile Asylum as the proper
place for a ring of boys
engaging in homosexual activity.63
Finally, a small but important group of
boys stayed at the Farm
in official capacities. Case #27 (1858),
was admitted when he was
eleven, fought in the Civil War, was
wounded, and returned as a
teacher in 1866. Case #1095 (1869), a
seventeen year old with a
"good education in Prussia,"
remained as an employee after serving
nearly three years as an inmate. In the
pre-Civil War era there was a
special class of "cadets"-boys
qualified for release but remaining
at the Farm on official invitation in
order to assist the elder
brothers. George Howe consistently
praised the performance of ex-
inmate employees and once boasted:
We have no doubt that the time will come
when it will be judicious to put
the institution entirely under the
supervision of those who have passed
through it as pupils. When thoroughly
reformed and properly educated, we
know of no class of persons that would
be so well qualified to judge correct-
ly of the character of vicious boys.
Such an eventuality was unlikely as long
as the Commissioners hired
their friends and relatives as officers,
but it does demonstrate the
importance of the technique of co-option
in the management of the
institution. As an example of social and
economic mobility, the
policy of hiring ex-inmates, like the
later tradition of having boys
"elect" inmate monitors,
allowed principal authorities to exercise
their powers indirectly.64
Certain aspects of life at the Reform
Farm-the pedagogical
philosophy guiding daily conduct, the
seasonal and occasional
customs of the place and the boys' own
view of their ex-
63. Minutes of Commissioners, March 15,
1880 and "Table Showing Boys at One
Time in Institution," ORSB, OHS.
64. Ohio. Docs., I (1860), 146;
ORSB, AR (1866), 17; Ibid. (1879), 13-14. At Met-
tray, all officers were specially
trained, with a classical education, at the
institution's Ecole Preparatoire. Inmates could serve
as monitors (freres aines) but
could not aspire to a higher position. Irish
Quarterly, VI (1856), 964-65; Muller, "La
Colonie Agricole," 12; Leigh, The Reformatory
at Mettray, 6.
Family System of Common Farmers 309
perience-cannot be conveniently
discussed within the categorical
approach employed thus far, but do
require analysis. The daily
periods of "moral review"
were regarded as particularly important,
the "nucleus" of the
institution according to Charles Reemelin.
These were group meetings conducted in
each cottage by the elder
brothers. The brothers publicly
evaluated each boy's conduct at the
end of the day's work and also called
upon the boys "to pass judg-
ment upon each other." Inmates
were also encouraged to keep
diaries in order to record
"something learned or some good act ac-
tually performed." On the basis of
the review, promises of future
good conduct were elicited and merits
and demerits were awarded.
The review was supplemented by the practice of
"disgracing"
miscreants at meal time. These customs
were powerful inducements
to orderly behavior: One boy who had
violated his pledge begged his
elder brother "to have him whipped and not bring
his case before
the other boys and officers."65
The boys needed merits to qualify for
release. By accumulating
them, each boy progressed through five
behavioral classes, begin-
ning in fourth, working up to first and
thence to "eagle"-a rank
which he had to maintain for three
months in order to be eligible for
discharge. George Howe reinforced the
discipline of daily moral
review by conducting a two-hour review
every Sunday involving the
entire inmate population. Once a month
this ceremony featured
"the changing of the badges."
Thus, ostracism and recognition
rather than corporal punishment were
the preferred methods of
reformation. A whipping post was not
installed until the 1870s. In
the meantime, captured escapees and
other boys who defied institu-
tional authority were reverted to the
fourth class and placed in
solitary confinement on bread and
water.66
Other features of Reform Farm life
supplemented the impact of
moral review. In 1860 military drill
was introduced and, according
to George Howe, "delighted the
boys exceedingly." Their en-
thusiasm undoubtedly related to
anticipated service in the Union
Army, although authorities were
additionally gratified because drill
taught "erect position,
mathematical exactness and implicit obe-
dience."67 The Farm's
"entertainments of a literary character" were
also seen as appropriate pedagogical
opportunities. On one occa-
65. ORSB, AR (1858), 20-39; Ibid., (1860),
12.
66. ORSB, AR (1858), 20-39; Ohio
Eagle, February 14, 1878.
67. Ohio. Docs., I (1860), 143.
Over one hundred boys did serve in the Union army
and a few became officers. Ohio. Docs.,
I (1867), 130-31. See also Ohio. Senate Jour-
nal (1864), appendix, 18-19.
310 OHIO HISTORY
sion, sixteen boys "sustained the
characters of an original
colloquy," portraying:
the vicissitudes through which a boy
would pass in being taken from the
streets, a poor ragged thieving
vagabond, sentenced to the Reform School,
makes several attempts to escape, after
arriving there, finally becoming
aroused to a true sense of his condition
and changing his habits of life, is
finally reformed and honorably discharged,
receiving the blessing of the
school.
At the time of departure each boy
received a Bible, clean clothes and
linen, plus a portion of his earnings
for work performed in the or-
chards or workshops. Fellow members of
his "eagle" class then ac-
companied him "a part of the
way" and bid him "an affectionate
farewell. "68
Special ceremonies and events were an
important part of institu-
tion life. July 4th featured a picnic
and fireworks and the boys were
allowed to vote one of their fellows
free. Usually the boy designated
had been incarcerated for a long time
without making progress "in
overcoming his waywardness." On
other occasions, the boys receiv-
ed free rides on local railroads, once
ending at the Pickaway County
Fair in Circleville where they
impressed the citizens with their skill
in military drill. In 1869 the State
Farm baseball club split a pair of
games with "the most respectable
young men of Lancaster" and,
after the second match, were treated to
supper at the Tallmadge
House. And every year, a special
holiday "of local observance" was
declared in October. The boys were
released to roam across the
largely uncultivated Farm property to
gather chestnuts before
returning for a picnic and celebration.69
In the early years, there is
significant evidence that the Reform
Farm was a success in the eyes of its
inmates as well as its founders.
Each annual report contained pages of
letters addressed to
"Brother Howe," "Friend
Howe" or simply "My Dear Friend."
These generally followed the theme of
C.S., an employee of Ohio
Farmers' Insurance, who wrote: "I
can trace my ascendency from
the time I entered your circle . . . I
received a mental and moral
training there that has fitted me to go
out and take part in the great
68. Ohio. Docs., I (1860), 144; Ibid,
I (1858), 327-28. Individual artistic distinctior
was not encouraged at Mettray. Moral
plays were not performed and even in their
singing the boys were not permitted
"the creation of fine solos" and were "very
much taught to sing in parts, or at least only in masses." Leigh, Reformatory
a
Mettray, 12.
69. ORSB, AR (1861), 8; Ibid. (1863),
8; Ibid. (1866), 15; Ibid. (1869); Ohio. Bulletin
of Charities and Correction, VII (1901), 126. See also Ohio. Docs., I (1860),
144.
Family System of Common Farmers 311
battle of life." Only a few of the
letters had ulterior purposes such as
demands for discharge papers. Most were
voluntarily written, en-
thusiastic testimonies to the purposes
of the institution. Particular-
ly notable were the letters from Civil
War camps and from boys who
had escaped. After a particularly hard
battle, L.M. advised the
Farm boys not to join up while another
former inmate condemned
his Major who "swears and drinks
whiskey." One escapee wrote
that he could not return because he had
to help his mother. Several
others corresponded from other reform
schools, petitioning (unsuc-
cessfully) to be readmitted. "I
thought it was a prison once, but now
I see where I was mistaken," wrote
M.E.P., an inmate at the
Nautical Reform School in Boston. The
Farm boys thus became em-
bodiments of its values as well as
agents for its authority. A.C.M.
wrote that he was "going to be a
minister of the gospel," while
another boy became a clerk, saved $1300.00 and
informed George
Howe: "I am going to let it draw
interest." W. McD. wanted to
know how to prefer charges against a
gang of five boys in his town,
while P.C. informed on E. who was an
escapee working on the canal
"so you can get him if you want
him." And W.S.C. wrote that J.C.,
"gambles, drinks and swears. I
think he will be sent back to the
Farm, soon."70
Further evidence of the boys' loyalty
was demonstrated with the
establishment in 1873 of "The
Alumni Association of the Ohio
Reform School." This group was
founded with George Howe's en-
couragement but also with the active
support of Allen 0. Meyers,
the Farm's best known graduate in the
nineteenth century. On Oc-
tober 16, 1873, thirty-five former
inmates visited the Farm to ram-
ble the hills, talk to the boys and eat
a banquet prepared by Mrs.
Howe.71 However, these boys had been
inmates in the late 1860s and
there is no record of the Alumni Association
after 1874. The group
originated from memories of an earlier
day and even as these young
men met to celebrate, the place itself
was assuming a new identity
which would fail to evoke a similar
commemorative desire. In fact,
by the mid-1870s the Farm School had
begun to disintegrate.
70. ORSB, AR (1861), 23-26; Ibid. (1862),
23-28; Ibid. (1865), 12-13, 32-39; Ibid.
(1866), 44-50; Ibid. (1869),
29-36; Ibid. (1871), 30-34; Ohio. Docs., II(1867), 153-57.
71. ORSB, AR (1873), 15-17; Ibid. (1874),
15-16. Allen O. Meyers, case #380 (1862),
was sent by the Mayor of Circleville for
"threatening to kill." He was committed
again in 1867 (charge not specified)
with the notation: "Will be President of the
United States if he keeps his
health." By the 1880s he did become editor of the Co-
lumbus Democrat and leader of the Democratic party in the state house
of represen-
tatives. He also campaigned ceaselessly
against bossism and the convict labor
system. See Allen O. Meyers, Bosses
and Boodle in Ohio Politics (Cincinnati, 1895)
and Honest Labor versus Ohio's Slave
System (Columbus, 1883); Brinkerhoff,
Recollections of a Lifetime, 274-76.
312 OHIO HISTORY
The Farm in Crisis and Decline
The source of the problem was the
inability of the institution to
live up to its promise as an
agricultural experiment station. There
were several reasons. From the
beginning, state and county
agricultural societies rejected formal
ties with the institution. Occa-
sionally, a group such as the State
Horticultural Society convened
at the Farm, but a sustained commitment
to participate in the train-
ing of the boys or in their placement
was not forthcoming.72 Also,
much of the institution land consisted
of rocky cliffs and ravines un-
suited for any kind of agriculture.
Cereal and hay crops could not be
grown productively even on the better
land, with the result that it
was necessary to purchase these items
at considerable expense in
order to feed the Farm animals. In 1866
the institution could not yet
support enough cows to furnish each boy
with milk every day. The
next year, the legislature authorized
George Howe to search for
"good meadow and corn lands, in
the neighborhood" but then re-
jected as too expensive the parcel he
selected.73 Thus, as the number
of inmates increased, so did the food
bill and not only because of
purchases of processed goods and feed
grain but also due to the
haphazard fortunes of the animals and
fruit crops. In 1866, for ex-
ample, the sheep flock disappeared from
grazing on poison laurel
and from the depredations of foxes. One
year the cherry and grape
crops rotted; several years later the
peaches failed. Strawberries
flourished for awhile, with 1000
bushels "shipped to distant
markets," but by 1880 were poorly
cultivated.74 In sum, agriculture
as practiced at the Farm did not
provide a basis for attaining the
cherished goal of institutional
self-sufficiency.
Efforts to supplement agricultural with
industrial pursuits met
with limited success and, in later
years, contributed to institutional
strife. Industry existed from the
outset at the Farm's blacksmith
72. Mennel, Op. Cit., 148
73. ORSB, AR (1866), 13-14; Ohio. Docs.,
I (1867), 124, 168-71; Ibid., II (1868),
464-65. The prospective farm was located
in Berne Township, four miles from the in-
stitution. Both the Hocking Canal and
Hocking Valley Railroad crossed the proper-
ty. Howe envisioned that an elder
brother and wife and a few of "the trustworthy
boys" could manage the farm, which
would not only produce hay and grain but also
serve as a marketing outlet for all
institution products. In the 1870s Howe and A.G.
Byers of the Board of State Charities
repeated this proposal in different forms, all of
which were ignored by the legislature.
ORSB, AR (1872), 12-13; Ibid. (1873), 8; Ohio.
Docs., II (1870), 34.
74. ORSB, AR (1866), 13-14; Ibid. (1869),
13; Ibid. (1873), 7; Graham, History of
Fairfield County, 64. Klippart notes the decisive shift in grape
production from
southern Ohio to the lake counties. J.H.
Klippart, "Condition of Agriculture in Ohio
in 1876" in Ohio State Board of
Agriculture, AR (1877), 660-61.
Family System of Common Farmers 313 |
|
shop which produced and maintained tools and other equipment and at the brick kiln which supplied a basic material for the institution's expansion. Also, a shoe shop and tailor shop fabricated from pur- chased materials the rough boots, blue jackets and grey pantaloons which everywhere identified Farm inmates. These projects reduced costs and encouraged Howe to propose the development of cane- seating, brush and broom shops. He believed that these enterprises were necessary to fill the times when weather foreclosed field and or- chard labor and to encourage good work habits among boys whose "natural inclinations and tastes" ran to industrial rather than agricultural labor. Accordingly, 12,000 Osier willow trees were planted in 1867, and three years later a substantial shop, described as "an ornament to our pleasant farm village," was opened.75 Howe's plans did not reckon with the depression-ridden marketplace of the 1870s nor with the attitudes of the boys who were to labor in the shops. The broom shop was closed in 1872-73 and accounts were overdue in the chair-seating operation. In 1876
75. ORSB, AR (1859), 7; Ohio. Docs. (1860), 137; ORSB, AR (1865), 9; Ohio. Docs., I (1867), 127; Ohio. House Journal (1868), appendix, 20-22; ORSB, AR (1870), 15. In 1870 the popularity of the workshop idea encouraged the legislature to consider transferring the boys to Delaware where the State Reform School for Girls had just opened. The Delaware institution was to be converted into a full-fledged industrial school and the girls were to be moved to Lancaster to run the Farm. The proposal was rejected because of cost, and because Lancaster "would exceed the physical capabilities of young girls, to say nothing of the incompatibility of such work to tastes and proper education of girls." Legislators also feared that the boys would become demoralized if their work routine were entirely industrial. Ohio. House Jour- nal (1870), appendix, 46-48. |
314 OHIO HISTORY
the chair shop was closed and a suit
was filed against the Lansing
Chair Factory. A series of fires began
in 1871, when the carpentry
shop burned "accidentally."
In 1874 a fire in the barn immolated
four cows and a few days later the
"ornament" was burned to the
ground. An inmate arsonist was
subsequently transferred to the
penitentiary. In 1875 there was another
"accidental" fire in one of
the shops. By this year annual reports
had become increasingly stri-
dent, emphasizing the stolid
indifference and "mental imbecility" of
some of the boys. In 1878 Farm
authorities announced for the first
time that vacancies existed and urged
interested parties to apply.76
Ironically, George Howe's growing
reputation as a reform school
administrator contributed to the demise
of the institution he head-
ed. Beginning in 1870 he was absent
from the Farm for prolonged
periods, attending prison reform meetings
in Europe and America
or consulting with authorities in other
states who were anxious to
adapt or convert their institutions to
the cottage and farm plan. In-
creasingly separated from the boys who
were the presumed
beneficiaries of his policies, Howe
endlessly proclaimed the
superiority of Farm government where
"kindness, honor and
mutual trust are made the underlying
forces."77
During an 1872 journey to the
International Prison Congress in
London, Howe compared the Reform Farm
with several European
prisons and reform schools. Like
Charles Reemelin earlier, he found
English institutions wanting,
particularly Red Hill where he was
appalled by the sight of boys exhausted
from trying to cultivate 300
acres without plows. Reemelin had found
his "mecca" at Mettray.
Howe found his at Johann Hinrich
Wichern's Rauhe Haus, a cot-
tage institution located near Hamburg,
Germany.78 Howe's attrac-
tion to the Rauhe Haus was not
surprising. He was at the end of a
long chain of Yankee pilgrims going
back to Calvin Stowe (who
visited at the request of the Ohio
legislature in 1837) and including
Horace Mann, Charles Loring Brace and
Henry Barnard.79 The
76. ORSB, AR (1872), 13-14; Ibid. (1873), 9; Ibid.
(1876), 7; Minutes of the Com-
missioners, December 2, 1878, ORSB, OHS;
ORSB, AR (1871), 12; Ibid. (1874),
15-16; Ibid. (1875), 8, 11; Ibid.
(1876), 8-9; Ibid. (1877), 16; Ibid. (1878), 13.
77. Meriden Daily Journal, November
24, 25, 1893; Meriden Daily Republican,
November 23, 25, 1893.
78. Ibid.; Transactions of the
First International Prison Reform Congress (Lon-
don, 1872), 454-55; Mennel, Op. Cit.,
140-144.
79. Calvin E. Stowe, Report on
Elementary Public Instruction in Europe (Boston,
1838); Horace Mann, Account of the
Hamburgh Redemption Institute (n.p., 1843);
Charles Loring Brace, Home Life in
Germany (New York, 1853); Henry Barnard, Na-
tional Education in Europe (Hartford, 1854). See also R. Richard Wohl, "The
'Coun-
try Boy' Myth and Its Place in American Urban
Culture: The Nineteenth-Century
Contribution," Perspectives in
American History, III (1969), 108-17.
Family System of Common Farmers 315 |
|
appeal was Wichern himself, his magnetic personality, his intense concern for the children gathered in the small cottages and his abili- ty to inspire the young Lutheran men who assisted at the Rauhe Haus and related institutions, collectively called the Inner Mission. In explaining his work to Horace Mann and others, Wichern em- phasized the value of humble dwellings and manual labor in ac- customing children to lives of "honorable poverty." Also, Wichern made no effort to hide his allegiance to the German monarchy, a defense which he based directly upon Luther's writings on the duties of a citizen to his prince.80 Like the other American visitors, George Howe generally ignored Wichern's belief in an immutable class system and stressed instead the power of his technique of organizing an institution around the idea of "the family as a divine institution." Humble dwellings themselves had no appeal. In reporting on his trip, Howe paid tribute to Wichern's pedagogy and then added, "our school is much 80. Mann, Account, 5. The literature on Wichern and the Inner Mission is im- mense. The best general collection is Peter Meinhold, ed., Johann Hinrich Wichern, Samtliche Werke, 7 vols. (Berlin, 1962- ). Jeremiah F. Ohl, The Inner Mission: A Handbook for Christian Workers (Philadelphia, 1911) outlines the role of the Inner Mission in America. See also William O. Shanahan, German Protestants Face the Social Question (South Bend, Indiana, 1954), 64-94, 202-27, 232-38. |
316 OHIO HISTORY
larger, with better appointments, and we
think has attained and is
attaining higher and better
results."81
Howe was correct on one point. The
Reform Farm was larger than
the Rauhe Haus. Figures (1), (2), and
(3) illustrate the evolution of
the American institution from an initial
collection of Swiss chalet
cottages to the Italianate villas of the
late 1860s and then to the
eclecticism of French Empire buildings
and a Gothic chapel which
began to take shape in the late 1870s.
These changes were not ar-
chitecturally remarkable. They followed
at some distance the
prevailing modes of American domestic
architecture and presented
few problems for local builders who
could utilize house pattern
books containing several variations of
each style. More significant
was the rapidity with which institution
authorities abandoned their
belief in the values which supposedly
inhered in plain construction
and naturalistic landscaping. In the early
years the Commissioners
spoke disdainfully of the "pride
and ostentation" of Houses of
Refuge which they related to the poor
appearance of the inmates
who supposedly did not display
"that degree of buoyancy, and
cheerfulness of spirit, found in our own
School." By 1871, however,
George Howe was requesting a new
"central" building "worthy of
the state." Undoubtedly he believed
that the mansard roofs and the
symmetrical paths and gardens were, like
the original cottages, ex-
pressions of inner good and domestic
feeling. But another observer
of the third lithograph might see in the
ironpicket fence and the ex-
pensive clothes and carriages of the
adults evidence of financial ex-
travagence, official pretentiousness and
the consequent neglect of
the boys themselves.82
By the 1870s many Ohioans were regarding
state penal and
charitable institutions in a more
critical light. The Constitutional
Convention of 1873-74 spent hours
complaining about chicanery in
the letting of contracts, negligence in
controlling costs, inadequate
legislative inspections and phony
letters of testimony from former
inmates. The special objects of the
delegates' ire were the insane
asylums which had experienced several
disastrous fires and many
instances of official malfeasance. But
while the Reform Farm was
81. Connecticut State Reform School, AR
(1880), 17-30; ORSB, AR (1872), 5-6.
82. Vincent Scully, Jr., The Shingle
Style and the Stick Style: Architectural
Theory and Design from Downing to the
Origins of Wright, Rev. ed. (New
Haven,
1971), xxiv-xxx; ORSB, AR (1858), 28; Ibid.
(1862), 10; Ibid. (1871), 12. The Farm
buildings of the 1870s are all gone
today. By contrast, European institutions such as
Red Hill, Mettray, and the Rauhe Haus
have retained or replicated their original
buildings. At Mettray, the Church
occupies the central place as the administration
building did at Lancaster.
Family System of Common Farmers 317 |
|
exempted from particular criticism at this time, George Howe had built a stylish institution and in so doing greatly increased the potential for future conflict.83 In 1874 Howe became politically vulnerable for the first time with the election of Democrat William Allen as Governor. For awhile Allen favored Howe's retention, but he eventually responded to the anti-Howe campaign of the Ohio Eagle (Lancaster) by naming Joseph C. Harper Acting Commissioner. The Eagle's charges were the familiar ones of nepotism, rigged inspections, favoritism in let- ting contracts, and the Howe family's profits from the sale of institu- tion products. The paper also claimed that Howe was excessively lenient with the boys and provided them with a life of comfort unavailable to poor children who had not broken the law. Neverthe- less, the effort to purge Howe failed at this time because Allen re- fused to follow the procedures of the reform school law which required that nominations be ratified by the senate. Also, the Democratic majority in the legislature was too slim to pass a new bill and the
83. Ohio. Official Report of the Proceedings and Debates of the Third Constitu- tional Convention, I (Cleveland, 1873), 164-75, 181-87, 200-337, 453-64. The debate came to nothing since the state voters rejected the Constitution. |
318 OHIO HISTORY
Republican-dominated state supreme court
adjourned without hear-
ing the case. In 1875 the election of
Howe's friend Rutherford B.
Hayes defused the issue for the moment.84
The delay only made the change more
traumatic. Hayes' con-
tested election to the Presidency
followed by the railroad strike and
other industrial conflict combined to
insure a substantial victory for
Ohio Democrats in 1877. The legislature,
with the approval of
Governor Richard Bishop, rewrote the
reform school law to provide
for a five-man board of commissioners
who would "elect" a
superintendent to manage the
institution.85 The Eagle renewed its
attack on "Lord Howe" for his
entertainment "only for the elite of
Lancaster's famed society" and for
buying "butts of wine for
legislative committees." Howe was
portrayed as "Big Injun" who
ran "one of the grandest villas in
America," but who exhibited the
"whining piety of a puritan"
when criticized.86 The new board ar-
rived on April 4, 1878, and named as
superintendent John C. Hite, a
local school teacher and former editor
of the Eagle. Hite had also
been county auditor and was described as
"a zealous Odd Fellow."
Howe departed immediately, refusing to
meet with "Butternuts," a
reference to Hite's Negrophobia and his
support for Vallandigham.
Pandamonium ensued as the boys tried to
make good on Howe's
boast that they would follow him. The
local militia was called out to
guard the property and capture runaways.
Hite admitted some in-
itial "unruly" behavior,
although he emphasized the boys' "im-
provement in cheerfulness and
docility." Another report, however,
catalogued "40 knives, corncutters,
billeys, pieces of iron, etc." in
the shakedown of one family, and the
Farm's medical bill for April
and May was substantial.87
84. Ohio Eagle, February 10, 17,
24, 1870, August 27, 1874, February 18, March
18, April 1, 22, 29, July 8, 1875; Lancaster
Gazette, April 29, 1875.
85. Ohio. Senate Journal (1878),
36, 40, 196-99; Ohio. House Journal (1878), 333,
493; Ohio. Laws, LXXV (1878),
60-64. Rotation was insured by the stipulation that
Commissioners would "hold their
office respectively for the term of one, two, three,
four and five years, in the order of
their appointment." Bishop insured political con-
trol by appointing three Democrats -
Charles Mains, Jacob Cherryholmes and
Henry J. Reinmund - to sit with Reverend
Chidlaw and John Pugh, a previously
appointed Democrat.
86. Ohio Eagle, February 14, 21,
28, March 7, 1878. "Fairfield," the nom de plume
of Howe's most biting critic, often
indulged in hyperbole but struck with some ac-
curacy in this parting shot: "I
leave you to that active reformatory brain of yours.
What a workshop of reformation it must
be! It has culled and gleaned the wisdom of
past ages and will take the future by
surprise." Ohio Eagle, February 28, 1878.
"Fairfield" may have been John
Hite.
87. Biographical Record of Fairfield
County, 82-86; Ohio Eagle, February 14, 28,
April 11, 1878; ORSB, AR (1878), 8;
Ohio. Docs., I (1878), 758-59.
Family System of Common Farmers 319
This conflict marked the point at which
the episodic unrest of
Howe's last years became characteristic
of the Farm. The next
decade and a half was an era of
unparalleled violence, repression, in-
cendiarism and official corruption.
Hite's first term as superinten-
dent lasted fifteen months, during
which time several shops were
burned and the Farm accountant was
fired for juggling the books.
Further causes of Hite's dismissal were
his insistence upon a
separate dining room and better food
than the rest of the employees
and his objection to the continued
employment of a woman who was
probably the mistress of one or more of
the Commissioners.88 His
successor, Gustavus Swan Innis, had
been Warden of the Ohio
Penetentiary and was a firm believer in
the value of corporal punish-
ment. During Innis's one-year tenure, a
black boy was beaten to
death and large orders were placed at
Richard Bishop's Cincinnati
grocery in a futile attempt to keep it
from failing. An 1880 expose
written by E.L. Small, superintendent
of the tailor shop, empha-
sized the cruel and pervasive
punishments, the sexual abuse of
younger boys, the high number of
attempted escapes, and the prac-
tice of forcing boys to write favorable
letters to their parents.89
Small's charges were largely sustained
in a legislative investiga-
tion but the tenor of life on the Farm
did not change. Republicans
again revised the reform school law in
1880, allowing them to ap-
point Charles Douglass of Toledo as
superintendent. But whether
Douglass or Hite (the Democratic
superintendent) was in charge,
the atmosphere was grim. This visitor's
account from the 1880s of
the musical marching ceremony performed
by the younger boys
before retiring illustrates the point:
A boy passed me completely transformed:
he marched stiff, head thrown
back, arms stiff by his side, his face
transfused, expression intense, and he
seemed completely as if under the
influence of melody and rhythm. In a mo-
ment another went by in like manner
affected, and then another, and so in
that long string of marchers about one
in five were thus possessed.
The visitor related this behavior to
the "power ... of music, to lift
the soul ... to the spirit-world,"
but a modern observer might
recognize the symptoms of catatonia.
The harsh daily routine could
88. ORSB, AR (1878), 5; Minutes of
Commissioners, August 24, September 3, 30,
1878, February 10, March 10, 31, June
29, 1879, ORSB, OHS.
89. William A. Taylor, Centennial
History of Columbus, I (Chicago, 1909), 520-24;
Ohio. House Journal (1878),
appendix, 1229-31; Ohio. Docs., I (1880), 608-10; Ibid, II
(1880), 584. I have been unable to
locate Small's pamphlet, An Inside View of the
320 OHIO HISTORY
produce such a reaction. In 1885, a new
classification system was in-
troduced whereby boys were initially
assigned from four to six thou-
sand demerits, according to the
seriousness of their offense, and
then were required to work these off in
order to qualify for parole.
Tight supervision and the rule of
silence prevailed both in the shops
and at meals where boys had to
communicate with hand signals.
School lessons were to be memorized and
diaries were no longer
kept.90
The enforcement of silence may be
related to the requirements of
efficient workshop production, but also
it can be viewed as a
necessary defense of adults whose own
behavior probably seemed
hypocritical to youthful observers. For
example, inmates were for-
bidden from chewing tobacco and yet had
to clean the spittoons of
the trustees and officers. Boys who were
brutally punished for sex-
ual offenses knew about the mistresses and
the liaisons. Inmates
who had been committed for minor
offenses saw Frank Shugert, the
Farm telegrapher, shoot another employee
and then heard that he
was not prosecuted because the wound was
not serious and because
Shugert's father was a "very worthy
citizen." And what reaction
other than ridicule could the boys have
when the Farm lock-up was
rebuilt and then renamed the
"chamber of reflection"?91
The boys' principal response to the
increased cruelty and incon-
sistency of adult authority was escape.
E.L. Small estimated that
each year 150 boys attempted to run
away, although less than five
succeeded. Recaptured inmates were
brutally whipped in the
"chamber of reflection." The
boys continued to express their opin-
ion of the workshops by burning them
down, and in 1887 an inmate
nearly killed a shop overseer with a
wheat cradle scythe. As a
superintendent of a later era admitted,
by 1890 the institution's
reputation was "strained to the
point of breaking." Stability of a
sort was achieved following the final
dismissal of John Hite in 1892.
More cottages and facilities were built
and a manual training pro-
gram teaching specific skills replaced
some of the contract labor
shops as the institution sought to
fulfill its new identity as an in-
Ohio Reform School, or a Year Behind
the Scenes. Portions of it were
published in
the Cincinnati Commercial, November
11, 1880. See also Ohio Eagle, November 18,
1880; Champaign Democrat, November
18, 1880; Ohio State Journal, January 29,
31, 1881.
90. Ohio. House Journal (1881),
appendix, 1046; Ohio. Laws, LXXVII (1880),
203-05; Howe, Historical Collections
of Ohio, I, 599; Ohio. Docs., I (1886), 1302-03;
Ibid., II (1887), 331-33.
91. Minutes of Commissioners, July 1,
1878, ORSB, OHS; Ohio. Docs., I (1886),
1302; Ohio Eagle, May 29, 1879;
ORSB, AR (1878), 11.
Family System of Common Farmers 321
dustrial school. Former army officers
assumed the principal posi-
tions and introduced military
organization and discipline. Punish-
ment became more predictable in that it
was graded to the
seriousness of the infraction.
Institution life thus became more
orderly without becoming more humane.92
In these years the boys themselves
became less accessible, with
their days now rigidly regulated and
their letters and opinions no
longer solicited. Most continued to be
committed for trivial offenses
such as petit larceny or truancy. They
probably behaved in rough
ways which, in aggravated instances,
could escalate to violence
against their keepers. The monitorial
system insured that the boys
did most of their fighting with each
other, but in any case it is dif-
ficult to believe that their behavior
was substantially worse than
that of many Ohio boys who were not
incarcerated. In A Boy's
Town, William Dean Howells vividly portrayed the pervasive
fighting, stone-throwing and truancy of
youths growing up in
Hamilton in the 1840s, while Mary
Hartwell Catherwood's novel
Craque-O-Doom noted similar behavior in a small central-Ohio town
modeled after Hebron. And Howard Good's
recent account of life in
northwest Ohio in the 1890s recalls the
routine nature of violence in
Van Wert and the canal towns in Wood
County.93
In the last analysis, one must wonder
more about the adults who
created and sustained the Farm than
about the boys who were con-
fined there. Before 1850, Ohio adult
society dealt casually with ex-
trafamilial juvenile crime and
misbehavior. Howells remembered
that the two constables in Hamilton
"acted upon Dogberry's ad-
vice, and made and meddled with rogues
as little as they could."94 In
the increasingly volatile and diverse
economy of the later-
nineteenth century, Dogberry was not
good enough. Men who exer-
cised power felt a growing need to
achieve social order by compell-
ing obedience to their sense of proper
behavior. An institution like
the Reform Farm, replete with images of
the pioneer era, was an
ideal way to advertise simultaneously
their authority, optimism,
and benevolent intent. Perhaps because
the founders initially con-
92. Cincinnati Commercial, November
11, 1880; ORSB, AR (1887), 4-6; Ibid.
(1889), 5-9; Ibid. (1892), 4-9;
Ohio. Docs., II (1887), 331-33; Ohio. Bulletin of Charities
and Correction, VII, No. 4 (1901), 125-33. Hite and his steward, Daniel
B. Kumler,
left $24,000.00 in unpaid claims.
93. William Dean Howells, A Boy's
Town, in Henry Steele Commager, ed.,
Selected Writings of William Dean Howells (New York, 1950); Mary Hartwell
Catherwood, Craque-O'-Doom (Philadelphia,
1881); Howard E. Good, Black Swamp
Farm (Columbus, 1967).
94. Commager, ed., Writings of...
Howells, 739-41.
322 OHIO HISTORY
ceived of their institution as being
applicable to all social classes,
they exercised their authority with some
reference to the per-
sonalities and opinions of the boys who
were sent there. In time,
however, the institution received few
boys who were not deprived,
while administrators prospered from the
pay and benefits of their
positions and from reputations gained by
implementing an
agricultural routine and cottage plan.
Appropriations for grandiose
buildings and attendance at charity
conferences became more im-
portant than personal attention to
individual boys or even moral
review of their conduct. By the
mid-1870s the Reform Farm had
achieved its own reason for being.
ROBERT M. MENNEL
"The Family System of Common
Farmers": The Early Years of
Ohio's Reform Farm, 1858-1884
In late January 1858, the Hocking
Cottage, the first family
building of the Ohio Reform Farm, was
pronounced "perfectly dry"
and ready for occupancy. Soon thereafter, Acting
Commissioner
(Superintendent) Charles Reemelin
escorted the first inmates, nine
of the "better disposed" boys
from the Cincinnati House of Refuge,
to the Lancaster institution.1 The
school proposed to reform
juvenile delinquents by teaching them
farming skills and providing
moral and common school education in a
family setting under the
supervision of specially chosen
"elder brothers". Though a pioneer
of its kind in America, the Reform Farm
was conceived in the image
of European reformatory philanthropy,
particularly Frederic A.
DeMetz's Mettray (founded 1839), a
French agricultural colony that
drew admiring visitors from many
countries. A lithograph of Met-
tray, displayed at Lancaster, testified
to this debt and to a brief
study of European institutions
undertaken by Reemelin in 1857.
An earlier article in this journal
examining the ideological origins
of the Reform Farm has shown that, while
Mettray provided
organizing techniques, the pedagogy of
reform school education in
Ohio was distinctively American.2 Like
the initiators of the state's
first municipal reform school, the
Cincinnati House of Refuge
(1850), the founders of the State Reform
Farm-the most prominent
being Charles Reemelin, Salmon P. Chase,
and John A. Foot-were
white Protestant males who had come from
New England or Ger-
many and rapidly established their
economic and political status
Robert M. Mennel is Professor of History
at the University of New Hampshire.
He wishes to thank the American
Philosophical Society, the Charles Warren Center
for Studies in American History, and the
Central University Research Fund of the
University of New Hampshire for research
support in the preparation of this article.
1. Ohio. Executive Documents, I
(1858), 277; Ibid., (1856), 618.
2. Robert M. Mennel, " 'The Family
System of Common Farmers': The Origins of
Ohio's Reform Farm 1840-1858," Ohio
History, LXXXIX (Spring, 1980), 125-156.