|
It is notable that the images of orphanages in the mind of most Americans are English images--usually Dicksonian characters like Oliver Twist. The image of an orphange in America is overwealming negative. The conventional image of American orphanages is one of abuse directed against the helpless, with government negligence allowing cold, abusive institutions to operate. Thankfully the actual experiences of orphans in America is much more positive. Many good orphanages existed and provided both material and spiritual support for America's orphans. Most orphans were well fed and received basic clothing. Many orphand were better off materially than poor children with their parents. Discipline was often strict, but not unreasonable. Most orphans got a sound basic education, again often better than many poor children. There were also bad orphanages, but horific tales from these facilities have often obsured the largely positive role that most of these institutions played.
English images of orphanges are perhaps important in America because there are no such notabe images of orphans in American literature. The two most notable prphans are girls: Polyana and Little Orphan Annie. Pollyana did not live in an orphanage, but there as one in the town which did not seem such a bad place. Annie of course exprienced a dreadful orphanage.
Orphages developed out of the industral revolution. With the increasing urbanization of society camne a break down in the family and community networks that cared for abandoned children. The answer was a new institution--the orphanage. I think they first appeared in Britain which of course is where the indutrial revolution began. We know less about continental developments. Orphanages in America are largely 19th century institutiions which endured through the first half of the 20th century. Orphanages became the primarily way of caring for indigent children from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century. By the second half of the 20th century foster homes and small instituions like group hommes had largely replaced the orphanage.
Most U.S. orphanages were supported by religious groups, social or franteral organizations, or private endowment. One estimate suggested that local and state governments cared for only about 10 percent of Anmerican orphans.
Child welfare systems varied greatly from state to state. Some northern states devoted considerable resources to the problem. Often Southern states had notably poor facilities.
Indiana sponsored small facilities throughout the state. These small homes were often supported by the local community and the children well and humanely cared for, although much depended on the individual care givers. Similar arrangements were made throughout the Midwest. The smaller size and rural location of county homes often made them more humane facilities than larger, more impersonal urban homes, but again the character of the individual care givers was crirical.
Massachusetts was the first state to endorse "placing out" over institutions. Although there were many private orphanages in Massachusetts, they did not receive public
funding and by mid-century the state had established its own "state schools."
New York: was the state with the largest number of children in orphanages.
The New York legislature subsidized private institutions rather than building its own.
A wide variety of institutions have been referred to as orphanages. An assessment of orphanages in America needs to separate these different kinds of facilities. Most orphanages (but not reformatories) saw themselves as "second homes" which provided
children with food, clothing, shelter, and education until they were placed in families as adolescents ready to learn trades and contribute to the household economy. But the traditional practice of individuals, philanthropists, organizations, and
public welfare workers placing young orphaned children in families as "boarders" or indentured servants also continued throughout the 19th century. These two approaches coexisted as alternatives.
Colorado Institution for Dependants: This Institution was in fact an orphanage, but they also took children whose parents were still alive but could not care for their children. I'm not sure when it was founded, but the boy appear to have worn rough working clothes as everyday clothes.
New York Juvenile Asylum: This institution was, from the moment of its incorporation in 1850, intended for potential delinquents rather than poor orphans.
Orphan Asylum of the City of New York: This was a nonsectarian Protestant orphanage founded by women in 1807.
Many orphanage managers were interested in preserving the child's connection with his or her family of origin. Some historians report that Catholic orphanages were especially interested in maintaining family ties. Most Protestant and Jewish children placed in institutions after 1850 also eventually returned to their surviving parents, siblings, or
other relatives. In fact, by the end of the 19th century, many children who entered orphanages were not orphans at all; they were the children of families in crisis. Parents began using orphanages whichbwere becoming increasingly available for temporary care. One observer notes that parents used the Albany Orphan Asylum for temporary emergency child care (sometimes repeatedly). [Judith Dulberger, Mother Donit for the Best]
By the turn ofvthe 20th century, long-term asylum inmates often had no families to return to or were "diagnosed" with physical, mental, or behavioral problems.
Fraternal societies started 71 orphanages for deceased members
from 1890 to 1922. Most of these orphanages apparently received no
government subsidy and were funded solely from dues and contributions from
each society, which included the Odd Fellows, the Masons, and B'nai B'rith.
These orphanages stressed discipline and tough love; rules for the students
were sometimes petty and rigorously enforced. A few orphans, in fact, left
as soon as they could. But still, the warmth, affection, and permanent ties
received by these homeless children usually prepared them well for later
life. Beito cited one study in particular that showed male and female
graduates of Mooseheart's orphanage were much better educated, better paid,
and more stable as adults than their counterparts in society.
Clothes worn by orphans have generally reflected clothes worn by children from families with moderate means. In America this meant that actual uniforms were unusual. Often children brought clothes with them or clothes were supplied by relatives. One visitor who was in an Indiana orphanage during the 1920s tells me that the lady running the orphanage woukd buy clothes on sale in local stores. The children could select clothes from a large box. At other orphanages there may have been more similarity as clothes were often bought in large lots by the various state homes. Little boys at the turn of the century would often wear white shirts, large bows, and kneepants with long stockings. Infants and toddlers were less commonly found in the orphanages as they were easier to place for adoption.
Government authorities uin recent years have tended to favor foster care and group homes as an alternative over institutional care as offered by orphanages. Social reformers increasingly criticized the impact of institutional regimentation on the personalities of children. Interestingly some of the sane criticisms could be leveled at high-priced private boarding schools attended by the children of affluent parents. The criticisms of orphanages led to the creation of such bodies as the Child Welfare League of America whuch ficused ion ways of eliminating the harmful effects of institutional life. One of the approaches pursued was the organization of orphanages in a "cottage" system in which the children live together in small "family" groups under the care if a house mother or in some cases a husband-wife team. This is similar in some ways to the house system in English boarding sdchools. In Americam cottage-style orphanages, ordinary clothing is worn instead of an institutional uniform. Efforts or made to integrate the children into the life of the surrounding community.
Orphanages were establishe througout the United States in the late 19th centutry. We have collected some information about specific American orphanages in various parts of cthe country.. Here we have some details, but in other instances have little more than an image. Orphanages were sponsored by both state officials and religious authorities.
I was raised in an abusive Catholic orphanage. The story of which I am now writing. I was born in 1933. As a younger boy in the 1930's and 40's we wore short pants with long wool stockings. The stockings were always dark and held up with garters or with garter vests. I wore short pants and the stockings until around age 11. After that, believe it or not, we graduated into knickers which was worn up to the 6th grade. Knickers had rather much gone out of fashion, but we continued wearing them anyway. Long pants came in when we were in 7th and 8th grades, by which time, I actually missed wearing short pants. The problem with wearing short pants is that we got teased by the older boys who were in long pants. I think shorts for males didn't really come into fashion until the early 50's, and then the army started the troops in shorts during the summer around 1955. If I recall, this was shortlived. As a very young boy, I wet the bed frequently, and the nuns made me to wear a dress as punishment, and to cure me of bedwetting, which, incidentally, it never did. I have since discovered that the Sears catologs of the 1920's actually showed dresses for boys up to age 5, or so. This probably explains why I was forced into a dress, but of course it was no longer common to outfit boys in dresses by the 1930s and especailly the 40s. While I was ambarrassed at this age, I actually began to wonder why, around age 8, why boys didn't wear dresses just as the girls did. There was no good answer given.
I was cared for at the Mt. Loretto orphanage/chilren's home in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Mt. Loretto cared for children from 4-18 years of age. We were sent their by family courts or local churches. We wore knickers, f I rember correctly without kneesocks. When the knickers were phased out we wore cordoroys. I remember that we souned like a hor of locusts in our new cords when we marched to school and to the cafeteria.
A second grader recalls how the clothes were issued every morning and how the other children at school would tease the orphans about their ragged or ill-fitting clohing. Based on Roger Dean Kiser, Sr.'s heartrending book, Orphan.
Some useful sources an American orphanages include:
Dorothy M. Brown and Elizabeth KcKeown, The Poor Belong to Us, Catholic Charities and American Welfare (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997).
E. Wayne Carp, "Orphanages vs. Adoption: The Triumph
of Biological Kinship, 1800-1933," in With Us Always: A History of Private Charity and Public Welfare, Donald T. Critchlow and Charles H. Parker, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999).
Matthew A. Crenson. Building the Invisible Orphanage, A Prehistory of the American Welfare System (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998).
Judith A. Dulberger, "Mother Donit for the Best," Correspondence of a Nineteenth-Century Orphan Asylum (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996).
Timothy A. Hasci, Second Home, Orphan Asylums and Poor Families in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997).
Navigate the Historic Boys' Clothing orphanage pages:
[Return to the Main orphanage page]
[]
[Australian]
[Canadian]
[English]
[French]
[Greek]
[Polish]
[Russian]
Navigate the Historic Boys' Clothing Web Site:
[Introduction]
[Biographies]
[Chronologies]
[Style Index]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glosssaries]
[Links]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]
