The Experience of Nineteenth-Century Female Inmates in
Pennsylvania’s State Penitentiaries
Erica Rhodes Hayden
Abstract
Finding a 'successful' way to punish criminals has been a continuous problem in
history. The development of the penitentiary system in the United States was one
way in which reformers tried to improve punishment for all inmates, male and
female, young and old. The Pennsylvania or ‘separate system’ of discipline kept
inmates in total silent isolation using individual cells for each inmate. In theory,
the Pennsylvania system would allow both male and female offenders to be
punished in the same manner. When the state of Pennsylvania opened the doors of
the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia and Western State Penitentiary in
Pittsburgh in the 1820s, however, the prison officials were not prepared to deal
with the small population of female inmates that would enter the institutions' doors.
What happened in actuality to the female inmates of the state penitentiaries went
against the standard disciplinary protocols for the institutions. This paper seeks to
explore the daily experience of female inmates in the early years of Pennsylvania's
state penitentiaries to understand their different treatment than male inmates by
looking at how they were treated by prison employees, special privileges the
women may have received, or how they may have experienced institutional
neglect.
Key Words
penitentiary, female inmates, neglect, Pennsylvania
*****
Eastern State Penitentiary inmate Julia Moore, shortly before her death in 1843,
said to a female visitor shortly before her death in 1843, ‘I want no better home
upon earth than I have here, though the prison walls are around me and the doors
fastened upon me.’1 In this statement, Moore seems contented with her plight in
Pennsylvania’s premier penitentiary, protected from the squalor and evil of her
former life. Moore’s comment describes in part the rehabilitative nature of
Pennsylvania’s penitentiary program. Moore, however, did not experience a typical
incarceration. Most of Pennsylvania’s female inmates in the early nineteenthcentury experienced inequality and neglect.
Pennsylvania used a system of discipline that kept inmates in silent, solitary
confinement at all times. This system would enable prison officials to treat all
inmates, regardless of sex, race, or crime, in exactly the same fashion. By
examining prison records, I have found that this aim was not successful. Prison
2
The Experience of Nineteenth-Century Female Inmates in Pennsylvania’s State
Prisons
_____________________________________________________________
officials failed to uphold their goals of treating female inmates the same as male
inmates. Records indicate that prison employees often neglected the needs of this
small inmate population and inconsistently enforced prison rules when dealing
with female inmates.
Female inmates constituted a significantly smaller prison population than did
male offenders. Because of this difference, prison officials often ignored the
discipline program of the penitentiary for this small group. Events that occurred
behind the penitentiaries’ walls indicate that officials wanted to, or felt they needed
to, treat these inmates differently, resulting in inconsistent punishment experiences
for female offenders and a failure to help them rehabilitate. I see this inconsistency
as an initial sign that Pennsylvania’s system of discipline was doomed to fail in its
goal of being the most successful way to punish offenders.
Two state penitentiaries opened in Pennsylvania in the 1820s. Western State,
located in Pittsburgh, opened in 1826; and Eastern State, in Philadelphia, opened in
1829. In the early years of these two penitentiaries’ existence, female inmates
received special treatment and did not have to uphold the prison protocols. I view
this special treatment as neglect on the part of prison employees because they did
not make the women participate in the Pennsylvania penitentiary program of
isolated, silent reformation. It is almost as if prison officials believed that these
females could not be rehabilitated and decided not to waste resources on them.
The Pennsylvania penitentiary system was designed to give each inmate a
separate cell to enable individual inmate reflection. In practice, however, isolation
was not always upheld. On April 2, 1827, convict Hiram Lindsay escaped the
confines of Western State. Officials discovered that a ‘colored woman’ who ‘from
feelings of humanity, on the part of her Keepers was not confined to her cell’ 2
aided Lindsay in his plot. At the time of escape, Maria Penrose, who was convicted
of larceny, was the only woman incarcerated at Western.3 Penrose’s relative
freedom in the prison demonstrates the struggles prison officials had with
enforcing the Pennsylvania system’s discipline of silent isolation on female
inmates because they may have appeared to employees to be non-threatening.
Since she was the only female inmate, the guards may not have felt it necessary to
lock her up. Her freedom to roam around the prison caused a major problem to the
institution when she aided Lindsay’s escape and indicated a failure of the
employees to help Penrose reform her behavior by not upholding the isolation
rule.4
The 1835 legislative investigation of practices at Eastern State Penitentiary
sheds light on just how difficult it was for officials to treat female inmates equally
to males. Testimony from the investigation details the experiences of the female
inmates at Eastern State and demonstrates that they were sometimes exploited and
their reform was neglected. At the time of the investigation, only four women were
incarcerated. In April, 1831, Amy Rogers and Henrietta Johnson were admitted for
Erica Rhodes Hayden
3
____________________________________________________________
three years and six years, respectively, for committing manslaughter. In December,
1831, Ann Hinson and Eliza Anderson were sentenced to two years each for
manslaughter.5 These women were of African ancestry, and Amy Rogers was noted
as being a washerwoman. All four were relatively young, being in their twenties
upon their entry to Eastern State.6
Several prison employees offered testimony, and many noted the involvement
of these four women in actions that helped lead to the investigation.7 A gatekeeper
told the investigating committee that the warden, Samuel Wood, used as ‘his own
housekeeper, one colored woman, a prisoner’8 and other female inmates cooked in
the warden’s private kitchen. 9
Another employee, Leonard Phleger noted that Amy Rogers and Henrietta
Johnson had been allowed out of their cells to cook. Phleger stated that Rogers
received extra provisions, including ‘apples, eggs, roast beef, ham, apple butter,
preserves, milk.’10 She was also seen out of her cell, doing washing for the warden
and other prison employees. Considering that she was by trade a washerwoman,
this may not be surprising. That she was consistently out of her cell interacting
with prison employees and performing personal tasks for them goes against the
prison protocols.11
Some prison officials allowed female inmates to drink liquor and attend parties,
further ignoring the rules of the prison and ignoring the inmates’ moral
reformation. Employee William Griffith observed Ann Hinson at a party. She
‘appeared to be sitting looking on - dressed in a calico dress with a turban about
her head.’12 He later noted that after one of these parties, a different inmate, ‘a
black woman by the name of Eliza…was so much intoxicated that she was scarcely
able to walk alone.’13 On another occasion, Griffith found Ann Hinson ‘lying drunk
in the kitchen.’14
One former inmate, William Parker, testified, noting that he had seen ‘convict
females with other than prison clothes on standing at Mr. Wood’s gate.’15 He
continued, ‘I have seen three or four female prisoners - one dancing and swearing
at Mr. Wood’s gate. She was a dreadful wicked woman.’ 16 Not only were female
inmates out of their cells, but they were not forced to wear prison clothing. This is
a substantial privilege considering that prison clothing was part of the rehabilitative
process that removed the individuality of the inmate to evoke personal reform and
protect the anonymity of the inmates.
Being out of their cells, casually interacting with prison officials, and being
permitted to have liquor, different clothing, and extra provisions did not disconnect
these women from the outside world or evoke penitence. These inmates were not
forced, as dictated by prison protocol, to stay in their cells and remain in constant
silent reflection. Prison officials ignored their duty to help these inmates
rehabilitate. This investigation raises several questions regarding the treatment of
female inmates. Did the minimal female population cause employees not to care
about upholding prison rules? Did their race have anything to do with their
4
The Experience of Nineteenth-Century Female Inmates in Pennsylvania’s State
Prisons
_____________________________________________________________
differential treatment? I think the answer is yes, to some extent, for both questions.
The small population probably made it easier for employees to treat women
differently than the male inmates, but all the female inmates were treated equally to
each other. That they completed domestic tasks suggests that employees considered
it acceptable to make the female inmates perform these duties. Before the Civil
War, nearly one-third of the black population in Philadelphia worked in servile
positions.17 This number suggests that prison officials may have assumed that these
four female inmates would be suited to domestic work and may have used their
race as a reason to justify their exploitation.18 Even with these suggestions, one
must not forget that all four women were convicted of manslaughter; they were
dangerous and violent women. Since prison employees gave them special
privileges, it seems that the employees viewed these women as less dangerous than
the male inmates.
The small population of female inmates in the state penitentiaries resulted in
experiences of institutional neglect, exploitation, and a failure on the part of
employees to help them rehabilitate. Prison officials focused more on controlling
and reforming the male population. The experience of female inmates in both state
penitentiaries illustrates that officials either saw these women as unthreatening or
deemed them too broken to be reformed.
Pennsylvania’s prison reformers suggested that women could be treated in ways
similar to male prisoners, without needing separate facilities. Evidence from
Western and Eastern State shows that employees did not try very hard to test this
theory and indicates a failure of the Pennsylvania system of discipline because
prison employees showed little care for the welfare and rehabilitation of female
inmates. Female prison reformers wanted to help incarcerated women because
respectable society ‘is closed for ever against the erring girl.’19 These female
reformers visited female inmates to teach them and provide friendship in order to
aid them in their reform. These benevolent women drove the movement to
establish separate facilities for female inmates after observing the neglect women
faced in the state penitentiaries. After decades of work by reformers to try to gain
equal treatment for female inmates, Pennsylvania finally created a separate female
institution in 1913.
1
Notes
An Account of Julia Moore, A Penitent Female, who died in the Eastern Penitentiary of Philadelphia, in the year 1843, 2nd
ed. (Philadelphia: Joseph and William Kite, 1844), 11.
2
Eugene E. Doll, ‘Trial and Error at Allegheny: The Western State Penitentiary, 1818-1838,’ The Pennsylvania Magazine of
History and Biography 81, no. 1 (1957): 14.
3
‘Convict Docket, 1826-1859,’ Record Group 15, Department of Justice, Bureau of Corrections, Western State Penitentiary.
Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
4
Although this event illustrates some initial problems with imprisonment at Western State Penitentiary regarding Penrose’s
role in the escape by being out of her cell, this instance provides a glimpse into exploring the humanity of the inmates. In a
place where anonymity and isolation was to be the norm, this escape can also be interpreted as Penrose showing pity and
compassion towards a fellow inmate. Maybe she felt that her quasi freedom in the prison enabled her to help Lindsay in his
escape and provide him with his own freedom. Penrose manipulated her privilege from the keepers to help thwart the
system in Lindsay’s escape. While we do not know whether she aided Lindsay out of her own compassion for him or
whether she had intentions aimed at hindering the penitentiary discipline, her actions indicate that some prisoners had the
opportunity and the capacity to work against their punishers. Penrose used her advantage of being the sole female inmate to
act against the prison system.
5
It is unclear whether these women were convicted of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, since the prison records only
note manslaughter. Looking at the penal code for Pennsylvania, voluntary manslaughter held the punishment of
imprisonment at hard labor for no more than ten years, and involuntary manslaughter was punished by imprisonment at hard
labor for no more than two years. It can be deduced then, that Rogers and Johnson are the only two whom, according to the
code, would have committed voluntary manslaughter, and the other women, Hinson and Anderson, with a sentence of two
years, could have been convicted of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. See Report of the Commissioners on the
Penal Code, with the Accompanying Documents, read in the Senate, January 4, 1828 (Harrisburg: S.C. Stambaugh, 1828),
122.
6
‘Descriptive Registers, 1829-1903,’ Record Group 15, Department of Justice, Bureau of Corrections, Western State
Penitentiary. Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
7
The fact that the only four women incarcerated in the penitentiary were central to the investigation raises the issue of
prisoner agency. Because the prison records are written from the keepers’ and reformers’ perspectives, the documents do not
indicate that these four women manipulated the employees into receiving their special privileges. Suggesting this in the
records would indicate a failure of the prison system in controlling the inmates. By focusing the charges on a few
individuals, such as the warden and Mrs. Blundin, the watchman’s wife, the records make it seem that the inmates were
treated more like pawns of these few individuals as opposed to having power over their own imprisonment.
8
Thomas B. McElwee, A concise history of the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania, together with a detailed statement of
the proceedings of the committee, appointed by the legislature, December 6th, 1834, for the purpose of examining into the
economy and management of that institution, embracing the testimony taken on that occasion, and legislative proceedings
connected therewith (Philadelphia: Neall & Massey, 1835), 145.
9
Ibid., 146.
10
Ibid., 151.
11
Ibid., 168.
12
Ibid., 172.
13
Ibid., 173.
14
Ibid.,184.
15
Ibid., 214. Parker was the only former inmate to testify. He had been out of his cell to work for Warden Wood a few times
during his incarceration. Although Parker is an example of a male inmate out of his cell to work, the entire female
population worked for prison employees and appeared to get more special privileges than those male inmates who had
worked outside of their cells.
16
Ibid., 214.
17
W.E.B. Dubois, The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study (Philadelphia: Published for the University, 1899), 47. In 1820,
the black population in the city of Philadelphia made up only 11.88% of the total city population. In 1840, the statistic was
at 11.21%; and by 1850, it had dropped to 8.8%. Dubois, The Philadelphia Negro,136.
18
Furthermore, the race of these four women illustrates an overall problem with the criminal population in Philadelphia: that
is, a higher percentage of black inmates. W.E.B. DuBois notes that “the problem of Negro crime in Philadelphia from 1830
to 1850 arose from the fact that less than one fourteenth of the population was responsible for nearly a third of the serious
crimes committed.” Dubois, The Philadelphia Negro, 238.
19
‘Female Penitentiaries,’ Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy 3, no. 4 (1848): 190.
Bibliography
An Account of Julia Moore, A Penitent Female, who died in the Eastern Penitentiary of Philadelphia, in the year 1843. 2nd
ed. Philadelphia: Joseph and William Kite, 1844.
Colvin, Mark. Penitentiaries, Reformatories, and Chain Gangs: Social Theory and the History of Punishment in
Nineteenth-Century America. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997.
Department of Justice. Bureau of Corrections. Record Group 15. Western State Penitentiary. Pennsylvania State Archives,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
DeTocqueville, Alexis and Gustave de Beaumont. On the Penitentiary System in The United States and Its Application in
France. Translated by Francis Lieber. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard, 1833.
Doll, Eugene E. ‘Trial and Error at Allegheny: The Western State Penitentiary, 1818-1838.’ The Pennsylvania Magazine of
History and Biography 81, no. 1 (1957): 3-27.
Dubois, W.E.B. The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. Philadelphia: Published for the University, 1899.
‘Female Penitentiaries.’ Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy 3, no. 4 (1848):189-197.
Kann, Mark. Punishment, Prisons, and Patriarchy: Liberty and Power in the Early American Republic. New York: New
York University Press, 2005.
McElwee, Thomas B. A concise history of the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania, together with a detailed statement of
the proceedings of the committee, appointed by the legislature, December 6th, 1834, for the purpose of examining into the
economy and management of that institution, embracing the testimony taken on that occasion, and legislative proceedings
connected therewith. Philadelphia: Neall & Massey, 1835.
Meranze, Michael. Laboratories of Virtue: Punishment, Revolution, and Authority in Philadelphia, 1760-1835. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Rafter, Nicole Hahn. Partial Justice: Women in State Prisons, 1800-1935. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1985.
Report of the Commissioners on the Penal Code, with the Accompanying Documents, read in the Senate, January 4, 1828.
Harrisburg: S.C. Stambaugh, 1828.
Erica Rhodes Hayden is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. She is currently writing her
dissertation on nineteenth-century female criminality and punishment in Pennsylvania.