JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL, VOL. 39 (9), 1591-1606, 1978. THE INSTITUTIONAL PHASE OF THE WASHINGTONIAN TOTAL ABSTINENCE MOVEMENT A Research Note Leonard U. Blumberg SUMMARY. Many of the practices and beliefs of the Washingtonian Total Abstinence Movement were adopted by reformatory homes for "drunkards" that were established in Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia in the mid-1800s. IN A BALTIMORE TAVERN on 5 April 1840 the Washingtonian Total Abstinence Movement began as a working-class anti-alcoholism and temperance movement. As a distinct social movement the Washingtonian Total Abstinence Movement had a relatively short life; it had largely lost its dynamic qualities in most parts of the country by late 1844 or early 1845. Within those few years it had a growth curve that may be characterized by the following stages: 1. The movement had a "gestation" period in Baltimore of about 6 to 9 months. Such an inconspicuous beginning and an initial slow development are typical of social movements. The early development was along friendship networks; the six founders of the group agreed that at the next meeting after they established themselves as a society they would each bring two friends who were also drunkards or heavy drinkers. 2. This was followed by a growth spurt and the group held a public meeting in November 1840. To date no newspaper announcement or broadsheet has been located, so that while we know that the Washington Total Abstinence in Baltimore "went public" we do not know the exact mechanism which linked the society with its projected public. But clearly a second component had been added to the way that the group reached out to find those relevant to its concern; this probably included the press (both newspapers and broadsides) as well as the existing temperance organizations in Baltimore. 3. There followed a period of relatively rapid expansion to the major population centers of the United States during 1841 and 1842. This expansion from Baltimore was initiated by the existing temperance societies which wrote to the Baltimore Society and asked for speakers. The Baltimore group facilitated the process by sending "missionaries" to New York, Boston (by way of Worcester), Philadelphia and elsewhere. One of the most prominent of these early missionaries was John Hawkins, a hatter who had become a drunkard and then had been persuaded to stop drinking by the Baltimore Washingtonians; he proved to be a persuasive speaker and his story of his "experiences" was melodramatic (1). Hawking was a star on the temperance-prohibitionist lecture circuit for many years, having been ordained as a Methodist minister with the understanding that he would specialize in temperance work. There were others such as John Gogh, who were caught up in the movement, became powerful speakers and also achieved middle-class status as a consequence. 4. A high point was achieved during the spring and summer of 1842. The expansion into the major cities was quickly followed by a tendency toward regionalization. That is, Washingtonian missionaries were invited to small towns and villages of a region; they went because they were filled with the zeal that was created by their own conversion and by the Washingtonian caring philosophy. Local temperance groups provided both publicity and places to meet. It was during this dynamic period that locally and regionally prominent persons, such as Abraham Lincoln, were called upon (and found it expedient) to give speeches at the Washington Is Birthday and Independence Day parade-picnic-demonstrations that were sponsored by the local Washingtonian Total Abstinence Society. The theme of these speeches was the denunciation of "King Alcohol" and an analogy between the declaration of independence from the British crown and a declaration of independence from King Alcohol. Often there was a rallying cry for the mobilization of the army of the righteous against King Alcohol, for alcohol was not only anthropomorphized, but a devil figure as well. The excitement about the Washingtonian Movement was sufficiently great within some localities that the local temperance societies (which were probably never very large in numbers in that period despite their vociferousness) were no longer able to function. In Boston, for instance, the local temperance society was unable to conduct its affairs during this period and discontinued its monthly meetings, the members having voted to join and become active in the Boston Washingtonian Total Abstinence Society. (While aimed primarily at drunkards and heavy drinkers, the Washingtonian societies were open to all persons who signed the pledge.) Thus, the local temperance organizations not only provided the previously existing network of relationships for the rapid expansion of the Washingtonian Movement, a phenomenon suggested by others, but, to use political language, the previously existing temperance societies "co-opted" the Washingtonians and colonized the Washingtonian societies also. 5. There followed a curve of decline into obscurity; most local groups apparently became moribund in the succeeding years, but there is reason to believe that Washingtonian societies continued in Boston (at least into the 1860s), Worcester and possibly in Illinois into the 1870s. Although a social movement my be highly controversial and may even be objectively a "failure" because it did not completely convert the populace to its program, nonetheless more conservative elements of the population may adopt programmatic elements or "fragments" of a movement. Once these programmatic elements become institutionalized as autonomous entities outside the movement organizations, they have their own course of development which eventuates in programs which are quite different from the methods or concerns of the movement. Thus, Hawkins and Gough, who started as Washingtonian moral suasionists, became prohibitionist speakers, although they continued to be strongly sympathetic to drunkards. The Sons of Temperance, a fraternal order, continued the warm fellowship of the Washingtonians, and Christian temperance revivalists continued "telling experiences"; but they had Protestant church support and thereby undercut the anti-clericalism of some of the Washingtonians (and other temperance-prohibitionist) speakers. In the 1870s the Reynolds and the Murphy ribbon campaigns, while different in important aspects from the Washingtonian Movement, emphasized a missionary approach, telling experiences, the pledge and total abstinence. Reynolds was a physician and Murphy was a former saloon-keeper; both were former drunkards who had had conversion experiences. The best recent treatment of the Washingtonian Movement is Maxwell's 1950 article (2). His summary of the movement I s practices and ideology includes the following points: (1) alcoholics helped each other; (2) the needs and interests of alcoholics were kept central; (3) there were weekly meetings of members of the various societies; (4) the fellowship of the group and its members was always available to fellow alcoholics, whether members of the local Washingtonian society or not; (5) there was a sharing of "experiences," that is, alcoholics told each other of their past lives, how they had bested King Alcohol, and the good things that had come of it (in a way that Americans have come to label a "Horatio Alger" success story); (6) there was a reliance on the power of God; and (7) total abstinence from alcohol was advocated as the only way to meet the problem. To these should be added the following: (8) advocacy of moral persuasion rather than prohibition legislation or condemnation of liquor dealers as the means to fight King Alcohol; (9) heavy emphasis on a total abstinence pledge; (10) a style of spreading the "good news' through traveling delegations that followed the biblical model of the Apostles' going two-by-two to spread the gospel and convert the sinners; (11) organizational decentralization - the basic unit was the local society, although within several years, at least in the Boston area, some country organizations and a state convention also evolved; and (12) a distinct working-class appeal, although persons of the middle classes also joined and often were prominent at the country and state conventions. Since the movement had a short life, these higher organizational levels were not widespread.   SOURCES OF INFORMATION The discussion which follows is based on a synthesis of materials which vary considerably in completeness and are not equally available for all institutions. The single most important type of source was the annual report; the annual runs were more complete for some periods and institutions than for others. These reports, as well as various ephemeral publications, are available at the Boston Atheneum, the Library and Archives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Historical Society, the Chicago Historical Society, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the Rhode Island Historical Society, the New York Public Library, the New York Historical Society, and the Countway - Harvard University Medical School Library. Some more recent annual reports as well as some minutes of Boards of Directors' (Executive Committee) meetings were made available by administrators or staff members of the Boston Washingtonian Hospital and the Martha Washington Hospital in Chicago. Information about the Boston Washington Hospital in the early 1940s has also been obtained from the Merrill Moore manuscript collection in the Archives Collection of the Library of Congress. Some records of the Franklin Reformatory Home are on deposit with the Pennsylvania Historical Society. Records and annual reports of the Women Is Prison Association are available at the Isaac T. Hopper Home in New York City. A number of ephemeral publications about the Boston and Chicago institutions were made available by institutional administrators or staff members. In addition to these more or less internal documents, there were occasional references to these institutions in the Quarterly Journal of Inebriety and the Journal of the American Temperance Union. In addition, a number of commentaries and bits of legal testimony throw some light on how the institutions and their leadership were perceived. This investigation has involved the following kinds and sources of materials: (1) The American Association for the Study and Cure of Inebriety, Proceedings and Journal, 1870-1917; (2) annual reports and Journal of the American Temperance Union, 1837-62; (3) New Washingtonian (monthly newspaper of the Washingtonian Rome of Chicago) 1876-93; (4) Maine Temperance Gazette and Washingtonian Herald, 1840s; (5) Washingtonian speeches, Washington's Birthday and Independence Day, 1842, by Abraham Lincoln (from the Sangamo Journal) and by others; (6) all available annual reports of the institutions discussed; (7) archival materials such as minutes, day-books and ledgers, correspondence and memoranda (mostly of the Boston Home and Hospital) but also of the Chicago Home and Hospital; (8) relatively current materials in organization files, pamphlets, board minutes and miscellaneous reports (mostly of the Boston Home and Hospital, the Chicago Home and the Hopper Home); and (9) interviews with executives of institutions and agencies in Boston, Chicago and New York. In addition to the Washington Total Abstinence Societies, which met weekly or oftener, there also developed residential institutions that were at first called "asylums" and later called "homes" (or "reformatory homes"). While briefly mentioned in Maxwell's 1950 article, the best published description of the Washingtonian reformatory homes is Arthur's description in 1877 (3). The present report is intended to extend Maxwell's work and, in doing this, to describe the institutional phase of the Washingtonian Movement and its organizational transformation in the years that followed Arthur's ascription. The Washingtonian homes were residential facilities for persons with serious alcohol problems. In those days "drunkard" was the commonly used term, though medical specialists and other professionals sometimes referred to the condition as "oenomania" (pronounced "winomania") and "dipsomania"; "alcoholic" later came into vogue. The first Washingtonian residential facilities in Boston were purely ad hoc. The Washington Total Abstinence Society of Boston was organized in April 1841. There was an early concern for the "reformed men," and a few committed temperance workers offered to take care of them for a few days until they could take care of themselves. But this proved too burdensome and the society rented some rooms near Marlborough Chapel, where they held their meetings. This also proved too expensive for the society and was given up (4, 1860). The funds that had been solicited for an "Asylum Fund" were used otherwise: "After much thought various calculations were made, it was found to be the cheapest and the best course to pursue the system of boarding out those who might be thrown upon their [the society's] hands, and thus save the expense of house-rent, furniture, keeper, and help in the house, fuel, and many other heavy expenses. They accordingly selected three good boarding-houses, kept by discreet members of the Society, who have thus far given entire satisfaction: charging no more than the actual time the boarders have remained" (5,p.4). In addition, the reasoning of the Boston Washingtonians was that those so boarded were aware that it cost money, and this was believed to be a pressure to find work and be self-supporting. There was no "treatment" program because those who were cared for undoubtedly were expected to take full part in the activities of the Washington Total Abstinence Society under whose care they were. This set of arrangements did not last very long. In 1844 the society rented a former museum as a meeting hall and in the basement "fitted up accommodations for men who were drunkards and had no homes to go to. It was a rough, rude place- bunks built up by the side of the wall, cheap but strong - the bedding clean, yet very plain - the table made of an old chest which contained the cast off clothes begged by the society - the dishes, what few there were borrowed from an adjacent eating house - a small stove and kettle to heat water, and tin cup or two, constituted the principal fitting up of the place" (4, 1867). The society was unable to raise enough money to support its asylum and it was closed in 1845. A somewhat similar development took place in New York which had "houses of refuge" where "miserable inebriates were taken out of the gutter, and washed, and clothed, and lodged, and fed, and kept until they came to their right mind; when they were suffered to depart in peace, often having some regular employment provided for them" (6, p.58). These houses of refuge did not last through 1842. The Washington Total Abstinence Society lingered on in Boston until at least 1860, although its principle of moral suasion was substantially eclipsed by the now invigorated absolutist prohibitionist branch of the temperance movement. There seems to have been no organized continuity between the Washington Society's Asylum, which closed in 1845, and the Home for the Fallen which opened in Boston in November 1857. There was ideological continuity, however. The Home for the Fallen was organized at the urging of Reverend Phineas Stowe, minister of the Mariners' Bethel in the North End of Boston. Four of the officers of the home, including Stowe, had been active in the Washington Total Abstinence Society in the 1840s. The plan to establish a "Retreat for Inebriates"initially received little support from "old and tried friends of the Temperance cause [who] looked askance at the movement as utopian in its character, and destined to a speedy failure" (4, 1860). A one-term Massachusetts legislator, and longtime superintendent of the home, Albert Day, was instrumental in getting the attention of other legislators; the temperance prohibitionist legislators were organized into the Massachusetts Legislative Temperance Society, a quasicaucas, and a group of "reformed men" from the Home for the Fallen "addressed their meeting with much power" (7, p.64). The legislature incorporated the home in 1859 as The Washingtonian Home and gave the institution a small grant-in-aid for about 12 years (8). It is not clear why the legislature changed the name at the time of incorporation, but presumably it was because the name that Reverend Stowe had chosen suggested that it was an institution for "fallen women"; the Washingtonian label, by the same token, was self-explanatory during that period. The Washingtonian Home in Boston went through a variety of vicissitudes and still exist today as the Washingtonian Center for Addictions - a medical and psychiatric center for alcohol and drug addicts. While it proudly upholds the name, the Washingtonian ideology and practices disappeared from the institution many years ago. At this point it is necessary to consider a conceptual problem that these data have inadvertently raised. All the currently available evidence indicates that, with a few possible exceptions, the Washington Total Abstinence societies had disappeared into the temperance - prohibitionist movement by the time of the Civil War. There is no evidence of organizational continuity between the Washingtonian societies of the 1840s and the Washingtonian reformatory homes, despite the fact that both in the Boston Worcester area and in Illinois there continued to be Washingtonians after the homes were established. Duis (9, pp.368-375) argues that by the time of the Civil War the term "Washingtonian" had come to be the generic term for drunkard reform. If one takes his approach, the homes are to be regarded simply as manifestations of the temperance - prohibitionist movement. Since the Chicago home was started and received its earliest support from the temperance prohibitionists, this is a reasonable conclusion. But reference group theory suggests an alternative one, and it is that alternative position that is taken in the present discussion. Reference group theory makes a distinction between membership groups, i.e., groups to which one belongs at a particular time and place, and groups which are referents for one's behavior and attitudes. One need not be actively affiliated with a reference group to adopt its principles and practices; indeed, the reference group may no longer exist. That is, one may be unconnected with a reference group in both time and place. One "belongs" to a reference group as evidenced by identification, by behavior, and by the statements that one uses to justify one's behavior. Thus, if we assert that the Washingtonian reformatory homes were the institutional phase of the Washingtonian Total Abstinence Movement, we are saying that the homes had the movement as a reference group. According to Sosensky (10) we are thereby asserting an analogy and, he argues, analogies must be demonstrated by a statement of "respects," i.e., in what respect are the two elements in the equation the same or similar? The closer the respects, the more nearly the analogy is correct until we approach the final case where the two elements are identical. The fewer the respects, the more inappropriate the analogy. The assertion of a reference group relationship, then, is the assertion of an analogy, and, in the present case, rests on the fact that the first nine aspects of the Washington Total Abstinence Movement's practices and ideology that are listed above were also applicable to reformatory homes in their earlier years. Not only is the Washington Home in Boston the oldest such institution in the United States but it was the model or principal influence for the others that subsequently developed. Thus, on Sunday evening, 31 January 1864, at a public meeting (that is, one open to nonresidents as well as residents) Albert Day, superintendent of the home in Boston, announced that another Washingtonian Rome had been started in Chicago. The Washingtonian Home in Chicago had opened earlier in the month, and its prime mover, Rollo A. Laws, a printer and publisher of temperance materials, may well have been in the room when Day made his announcement. Laws visited the Boston Washingtonian Home about that time and it would have been peculiar for him to have gone all that distance and not to have stayed for the weekly public meeting at the Boston Home. A committee was appointed and subsequently an "address" was prepared and sent: "The Graduates and Inmates of the Washingtonian Home, Boston, to the inmates of the Washingtonian Home, Chicago, Men and Brethren: - We have heard, with profound emotions of gratitude and pleasure, that a Washingtonian Home for the cure of drinking habits has been established in the great city of Chicago; and it has appeared to us meet and proper that we send greetings and congratulations to you upon a fact so encouraging" (11). The address then goes on to recite the principles of the Washingtonians reform including moral suasion and total abstinence. ("Beware the first glass! It is that which does the mischief. Beware the first glass. It contains the seeds of death. Beware the first glass, and you are safe. No power can make you a drunkard again, if you are resolute to refuse the first glass.") It ends with a claim of fellowship with the Chicago Washingtonian inmates, and a hope that the "peace of God rests upon the Washingtonian Home of Chicago." The inmates of the Washingtonian Home of Chicago wrote a response which began: "Words will fail to express the depth of gratification we have felt on receiving your cordial welcome. Separated though we may be by hundreds of miles, yet we feel we are one in purpose, one in determination. To accomplish the great work upon which we entered, required, as you well know, a powerful and active exercise of the will, and a spirit of self-denial unknown to those who have never become wedded to the Use of intoxicating liquors." Several years later, when the Chicago Washingtonian Home ran into financial difficulties and began to solicit lifetime memberships, Albert Day became a member of the Chicago Washingtonian Home. While there were differences between the Boston and Chicago institutions, it is clear that at the very beginning the inmates and administrators identified with each other and with the Washingtonians Movement and perceived themselves as manifestations of that movement. Over time the circumstances of the two as well as differences in practice and interpretation had radical consequences. Although women occasionally stayed at the Boston Washingtonian Home, it remained essentially a men's institution. On the other hand, the need for facilities for women was recognized early by the Chicago Home. In the annual report for 1867 of the Chicago Washingtonian Home there is a recommendation that a women Is unit be opened, and in June 1869 rooms were made available in the home of Charles J. Hull, a prominent Chicago merchant. (This building was given to Jane Addams in 1889 and under the name of "Hull House" became the center for her social welfare activities.) In May 1870 the Female Department of the Washingtonian Home of Chicago was moved into the east end of the Madison Avenue building which also housed the Men Is Department. The Female Department was discontinued sometime between 1872 (when the great fire of 1871 led the City Council to withhold its grant-in-aid) and 1875 (the old wooden Bull's Head Hotel, which had been converted into the Washingtonian Home facility, was torn down and replaced with a new brick building). There was discussion of the reestablishment of the Female Department in 1878, but it was decided to postpone that step because the Board of Directors was still $25,000 in debt for the new building. Finally, in 1882 the board purchased the 10-acre campus of a former boys' military academy in northwestern Chicago for $15,000 and reopened a woman's unit well away from the Madison Avenue location, which, after the fire, became the area in which Chicago's Skis Row developed. The Women's Department, known as the Martha Washington Home, continued to operate as a separate facility until the mid-1920s when both the men's and women's work were combined at the campus location and became the alcoholism treatment unit of the Martha Washington Hospital, a general hospital serving the neighbouring community. The Franklin Reformatory House for Inebriates in Philadelphia was organized in the Spring of 1872. The original plan had been to establish a reading room for temperance men and to "afford [daytime] temperance shelter for inebriates. However, the discussion quickly turned to a residential institution and the group was organized within several months. During this initial formative period the "Committee of 1511 who undertook the project were in correspondence with Dr. Albert Day, who is quoted as saying "Hire a house in some convenient neighbourhood; place it in the charge of one who has the heart and soul for the work and trust to Providence, time and experience for the rest" (12, p.108). (By this time Day had drifted somewhat away from the Washingtonian position, and this was reflected in his advice.) The committee of 15 also had in hand copies of annual reports of the Washingtonian Home in Boston as they framed the Franklin Home's constitution and bylaws. The delegates from the Franklin Reformatory Home who went to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Cure of Inebriates in early October 1872 in New York City were readily classified as "Washingtonian" home delegates along with those from Boston and Chicago. Thus, Dr. Theodore L. Mason in his presidential address to the 1876 annual meeting of the association (in which he tried without success to smooth over the schism which by that time had developed between the Franklin Reformatory Home and the other members of the association) observed that "The [Boston] Washingtonian Home has been the pioneer for that class of asylums in cities, as those in Chicago and Philadelphia, which, although situated in dense populations, do not profess to use physical restraint as a means of cure, but seek to control their patients by the moral influence of kindness, cheerful associations and amusements, by intellectual occupations, and by the powerful influence of religious sentiment" (13, p.10). In short, not long after they began, these institutions were perceived as similar in their therapeutic ideologies and practices. But why wasn't the Philadelphia institution labeled by its directors the "Washingtonian Reformatory Home for Inebriates," if that is the case? Those who know Philadelphia will find the following explanation plausible: Given the practice of naming moral reform societies after cultural heroes, Benjamin Franklin was a greater hero than George Washington in Philadelphia. There were political overtones, as well, for Washington was a Federalist in his sympathies and Philadelphia for many years was a Democratic-Republican city. Thus, during the height of the Washingtonian Movement in the early 1840s, Philadelphians chose to honour Jefferson as their model rather than Washington. The Franklin Reformatory Home disappeared as an operating institution in 1935, merging with the Sunday Breakfast Association, a Skid Row gospel Mission which was a competitive "spin-off" from the Franklin Home in the 1880s. Aside from the Female Department of the Washingtonian Home of Chicago, there was one institution for women which warrants inclusion as a "Washingtonian" institution. The New England Home for Intemperate Women was opened late in January 1879 in Boston. In 1881 it was incorporated as the Massachusetts Home for Intemperate Women, and its annual report at the end of that year says that "The object is to do a work for women similar to that of the Washingtonian Home for men, and from the first the institution has been filled, a proof of the need for it" (14). Over the years the Massachusetts Home for Intemperate Women had major financial and community relations difficulties similar to those of the men's institutions. The institution's official transformation took place when the name was changed to the Massachusetts Home and Hospital in 1917; under that name it undertook long-term (a year minimum) treatment of women alcoholics and drug addicts. This was a transitional development for in 1920 the name was changed again and it became the Massachusetts Home. Since that official label apparently needed some clarification, the institution was identified still further in the Boston City Directory as "for Elderly Ladies"(1927-31), "for Needy Worthy Elderly Ladies" (1932-35), and "for Needy Worthy Women (1936-58). Unlisted thereafter, the corporation that was legally responsible for the Home was dissolved in 1964. The Massachusetts Home for Intemperate Women originally identified itself as Washingtonian, but its administration found it necessary to compare its work defensively with that of other institutions, and the initial impression that one gets is that these were also Washingtonian. It is necessary, therefore, to clarify the issue before we "close the books" on this inventory of the Washingtonian institutions. The 1888-1889 annual report of the Massachusetts Home for Intemperate Women (14) mentions similar institutions in Chicago, New York, Providence and New Hampshire, and observes that "All of these homes follow the plan we have found so successful in drawing women from habits of intoxication into better living, the combination of home influences with regular habits of life and through industrial training for the work to which they are adapted." The report goes on to say that, "although we meet with many discouragements in our work, we find upon comparison with reports from similar institutions that our results make very favourable showings, notably in connection with the Martha Washington Home in Chicago and with the Isaac Hopper Home in New York. Our income exceeds theirs, notwithstanding the fact that these homes have every facility for work, while our work is accomplished within the limits of a house built for a private family." The Isaac T. Hopper Home in New York began as the "Tempor,3rv Home" of the Female Department of the Prison Association of New York and was reorganized and renamed in 1858 as the residential unit of the Women's Prison Association of New York. Although it began just as the Washingtonian Movement died back, and for many years most of those cared for by the Women's Prison Association had been jailed for public intoxication or on "drunk-and-disorderly" charges, the program of the Womenlls Prison Association of New York was not Washingtonian. Neither its annual reports nor its other records refer to the Washingtonian ideology or to the Washingtonian practices. The orientation was to crime and delinquency rather than drunkenness, for the association and its home developed out of a concern for crime prevention, prison reform and the rehabilitation of women rather than for temperance or prohibition; it was a manifestation of the great 19th-century Moral Reform. (there was, of course, a great deal of overlap between participants in various elements of the Moral Reform.) The comparison between the Massachusetts Home and the Hopper Home apparently was based on the fact that at the time both institutions served women who were heavily involved with alcohol and both had an "industrial" program in which the women inmates worked in the institution's laundry, both as a kind of job training and as a way to pay for their keep. Both institutions also placed women in private homes as housekeepers, cooks and seamstresses. It appears that the similarity between the two institutions was superficial rather than fundamental. The unnamed institution in Providence referred to in the above quotation from the Massachusetts Home annual report was probably the Sophia Little Home. Initially this was the project of the Women's Society for Aiding Released Female Prisoners, which was an auxiliary of the Prisoner's Aid Society of Providence. The group found it necessary to organize separately because the Prisoners' Aid Society was divided on the subject; however, once the home was underway and the initial financial hurdles crossed, the opposition was sufficiently mollified to permit the consolidation of the two groups in 1883. (This never happened in New York.) The leadership was strongly religious and oriented toward the temperance prohibition movement but apparently was not Washingtonian: "The last few years have witnessed a rapid increase in the agencies employed to remedy evils of intemperance and other vices. Public sentiment has become more widely and intelligently aroused. The truth is likewise become everywhere accepted that the Gospel offers the only sure and effective method of securing the restoration of victims bound by fetters too strong to be broken without Divine aid. It is to this end that the truths of the Gospel are daily sought in our Home; not with reference to any creed, but simply a heart-belief in the Lord Jesus Christ manifested by obedience to his command" (15, 1886). Although the Franklin Reformatory Home also had a strong religious emphasis, there is no evidence of a Washingtonian orientation in the annual reports of the Sophia Little Home. By 1894 the concerns of the Sophia Little Home had begun to shift: "[from] helping released female prisoners and other women desiring reformation, we have come to feel that our work should include not only those who have grown old in evil doing and who would otherwise be sent to State Farm or Prison, but to young girls to whom wrong is yet new - to those who, having sinned once, would find here a safe refuge, and who after a stay in an atmosphere of moral purity, strengthened and fortified, could go into the world better prepared to fight its evils and live correctly. Each one who comes to us pledges herself to stay a year, for a shorter time we realize would avail little or nothing" (15, 1894). In 1915 this shift in orientation was made official; thereafter the Sophia Little Home was chiefly interested in delinquent girls, a large number of whom were unwed mothers. It is the current orientation of the home, which still operates in Providence. Despite the fact that Sophia Little, the founder of the home and a major figure in the establishment of the Prisoners' Aid Society was active in a local Martha Washington society in the 1840s the available annual reports suggest that, although the home and the society were partial attempts to bridge Sophia Little's concerns for prisoners and the temperance - prohibition movement, the Home itself was not conceived as Washingtonian in ideology or practice. This does not deny that there was some minimal Washingtonian influence; the annual report for 1886 mentions a visit to the Massachusetts Home by the leadership of the Sophia Little Home (15, 1886). As in the case of the Women's Prison Association and the Hopper Home in New York City, the Sophia Little Home was initially oriented to female "delinquents" (who often were heavy drinkers); it, too, was a manifestation of the 19th-century Moral Reform rather than a part of the institutional phase of the Washingtonian Total Abstinence Movement. The identity of the institution in New Hampshire alluded to in the 1888-89 annual report of the Massachusetts Home for Intemperate Women remains unknown. No record of an institution bearing the Washington label in New Hampshire has yet been found, and we are left in an even more speculative position than in the Providence case. Mercy Home (now Boylston Home) in Manchester is the likeliest candidate. It was established in 1889-90 under the care of the New Hampshire Woman's Christian Temperance Union; it was oriented to homeless and friendless girls, and it apparently had an industrial program. While the Boylston Home seems not to have been oriented to Washingtonianism, further research is needed. In summary, there were four identifiable Washingtonian institutions located in Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia. While they had a common identification as "Washingtonian," there were differences between them almost from the very beginning with respect to the application of the Washingtonian ideology to residential therapeutic practice. Over time the ideologies and social characteristics of the leadership, the populations they sought to serve and the professional beliefs and practices of physicians involved in their programs led to the further differentiation of these institutions. As with all institutional settings, their activities had a tendency to become routinized, but organizational routines were upset by conflicts involving the clientele that the homes sought to serve as well as by members of the board and the administrators. In addition, there were fundamental challenges to the viability of the organizations as a consequence of changes in the concept of drunkenness (dipsomania, alcoholism), changes in the public support of the homes as treatment facilities, and, above all, by major events such as the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Depression of the 1930s. The organizational transformation of the homes was accompanied by an ideological drift so that the institutional phase of the Washingtonian Movement has died out even though the Washingtonian name is still carried by the two remaining institutions in Boston and Chicago. REFERENCES   1. Hawkins, W.G. Life of John Hawkins. Boston; Dutton; 1863. 2. Maxwell, M.A. The Washingtonian Movement. Q.J. Stud. Alcohol 11: 410-451, 1950. 3. Arthur, T.S. Strong Drink; the curse and the cure Philadelphia; Hubbard; 1877. 4. Washingtonian Home. Annual Reports. Boston; 1860-. 5. First quarterly report of the auditor of the [Parent] Washington Total Abstinence Society with address of the president. Boston; Lewis; 1841. 6. Journal of the American Temperance Union, 22 April 1858. 7. Journal of the American Temperance Union, 23 April 1859. 8. Clapp, 0. Prevention, as a means of reducing the material, social and moral burdens and devastations of intemperance; address to the Corporation of the Washingtonian Home at the annual meeting. 29 April 1872. Boston; Wright & Potter; 1872. 9. Duis, P. The saloon and the public city; Chicago and Boston, 1880 - 1920. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago; 1975. 10. Sosensky,I. The problem of quality in relation to some issues in social change. Boston; Houghton Mifflin; 1964. 11. Graduates and Inmates of the Washingtonian Home, Boston. Address to the inmates of the Washingtonian Home, Chicago, with a response. 1884. 12. Godwin Association of the Franklin Reformatory Home of Philadelphia. The life of Samuel P. Godwin. Philadelphia; Traegar & Laub; 1889. 13. Mason, T.L. Anniversary address. Q.J. Inebr. 1: 1-24, 1876. 14. Massachusetts Home for Inebriate Women. Annual reports. Boston; 1881-. 15. Sophia Little Home. Annual reports. Providence, R.I.; 1886-. JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL, VOL. 41,(L), 1980.   THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ALCOHOL PROHIBITIONISTS FOR THE WASHINGTON TEMPERANCE SOCIETIES With Special Reference to Paterson and Newark, New Jersey Leonard U. Blumberg* SUMMARY. The establishment and activities of the Washington Temperance societies in Paterson and Newark are described, and the role of the temperance-prohibitionists in their decline is analyzed. THE WASHINGTON TEMPERANCE SOCIETIES of the 1840s used a self help conversion approach to drunkards and heavy drinkers, assuring them that they could once again become prosperous and respectable members of the community, reassume their socially mandated responsibilities for their wives and children, liberate themselves from their subservience to King Alcohol, relieve themselves from the terrible fate of eternal damnation and renew the prospect of heavenly salvation if they would only sign the pledge that, as gentlemen, they would no longer drink intoxicating beverages. Maxwell (1) and Blumberg (2) have noted the similarities between Alcoholics Anonymous and the Washingtonians. However, the fact that they developed in different societal contexts may explain the greater stability, success and significance of Alcoholics Anonymous compared with the Washingtonians. The Washingtonians were associated with the nineteenth-century moral reform movements, especially the temperance - prohibition movement,* while A.A. has articulated with the medical profession in its mental health and public health manifestations. The present essay deals with the significance of the temperance - prohibitionist groups of the 1840s for the rise and decline of the Washingtonian societies. It is the thesis of this paper that, while a number of other elements were involved in the decline of the Washington temperance societies, a major factor was the relationship between the Washington temperance societies and the temperance - prohibitionists.** * Usually referred to as the (alcohol) temperance movement, the movement by the 1840s had become committed to prohibition. The present paper emphasizes this prohibitionism rather than personal abstinence from alcohol. ** The thesis is similar to the conclusion of Tyler (3,pp. 338-346). Tyler's conclusion is undocumented, however, and must be regarded as hypothetical. The advocates of temperance had already conducted a considerable agitation campaign by 1840, and the Washingtonians may be regarded as one of the major results of the efforts by the temperance advocates to define the consumption of alcohol in their own terms. Thus, the Baltimore Washingtonian Temperance Society developed after a discussion among six friends as Chasels Tavern about an announced temperance lecture; two of their number agreed to go and hear the speaker and to report back (4). They discussed the matter further and agreed that they would give sobriety and total abstinence a try - but on their own terms. In its organizational beginnings, therefore, the Washington Temperance Society of Baltimore was autonomous from the local temperance societies in Maryland; it was working-class oriented, while the temperance societies were middle-class in origin and predominantly in composition; it was dominated by artisans, while the temperance societies were dominated by ministers. Further, the Washingtonians pledged themselves to exclude politics and religion from their meetings (in order to minimize the sectarian divisiveness of the era and to keep attention focused on the enemy - alcohol), while the temperance societies made a considerable effort to create a link between their cause and religion. From the 1840s on, the temperance societies advocated governmental intervention in the sale of alcohol in order to protect the community and to preserve the family. The founders of the Washingtonian Temperance Society of Baltimore decided to use the practice of telling their "experiences" as the basic agenda (i.e., they witnessed to the destructive effects of alcohol and how abstinence had been beneficial both financially and in terms of respectability) and thereby provided a basis for the rapid spread of Washingtonianism among a population that was ready for it. This growth was facilitated by the recruitment procedures of the Washingtonians from the earliest meetings in Baltimore, it was agreed that members would seek out other drunkards and heavy drinkers and tell them about the society and how it had helped them. From this evolved a missionary or evangelistic style; delegations of at least two would go to other cities and towns to tell the story of how others could be saved from drunkenness and degradation. While a New Testament model is suggested by these practices, it is just as reasonable to suggest that the Washingtonians went in pairs as a way of helping each other over the rough spots of total abstinence. Further, traveling in pairs made it easier to certify that neither had been drinking privately (although it did not guarantee it); the temptation was overpowering at times and alcohol was omnipresent during the period. Sometimes the Washingtonian missionaries operated as itinerant moral reformers who came into town and began telling their experiences to anyone who would listen; in the bigger towns and cities, however, they were usually invited by local residents who had heard them elsewhere or who had read about them in the local or temperance press. The audience was often sympathetic to begin with. In addition, a number of curious heavy drinkers and "rum sellers" would come, some to scoff and jeer and some hoping to be convinced and converted. The persons who invited the Washingtonian missionaries were deeply involved in the local temperance organizations - they were already committed to a moral cause, which, from their point of view, was of the first magnitude. As committed people they seized upon the Washingtonians as an opportunity to broaden their impact on the community. This was especially important because in the late 1830s the temperance movement was divided as the consequence of a rift between the relativists (who objected only to the use of distilled spirits) and the absolutists (who were against any use of alcohol.) Their network existed in the cities and towns, and they seized upon this chance to mobilize a population that they had been unable to reach - the drunkards and heavy drinkers. By the time the Washingtonian movement began to fade, the absolutists had captured the temperance movement (with the help of the Washingtonians) and had converted it into a prohibitionist movement. An organizational approach is useful in the analysis not only of the diffusion of the Washington phenomenon, but also of its decline. Whatever their socioeconomic backgrounds, the heavy drinkers and drunkards who were recruited into the local Washingtonian total abstinence societies were not respectable, although they could gain or regain respectability, while the temperance - prohibition advocates who joined the Washingtonian societies were eminently so. That is, one way to view what happened after November 1840, when the Baltimore Washingtonians began to have meetings which were open to the general public, is that a substantial number of temperance - prohibitionists came to the meetings. The temperance - prohibitionists chose to define their activities with respect to the Washingtonians as "lending support;" in political language we might say that the respectables had "infiltrated" the Washingtonian societies. While in the early period it is clear that they did not "take over," the temperance prohibitionists did seek to influence the attitudes of the converted drunkards and heavy drinkers as well as the policies of the societies. I will examine the process as it took place in two north New Jersey societies, pointing out how the temperance prohibitionists sought to shift the emphasis of the Washingtonian temperance societies from "moral suasion" to "legal suasion.11 Further, when it became possible to do so, the temperance - prohibitionists bypassed the Washingtonians and thereby accelerated their decline. While the discussion that follows will focus on Newark and Paterson, New Jersey, it is necessary to begin with some attention to the beginnings of the Washington Temperance Benevolent Society of New York, for the origins of the Newark and Paterson societies were both related to the missionary activities of the New York society. As reported in the Journal of the American Temperance Union, we can trace the beginnings of the New York Washington Benevolent Society to news about events in Baltimore. In a letter to the editor in the January 1841 issue of the Journal of the American Temperance Union, John Zug reports that from 5 April to 12 December 1840 the membership of the Washington Temperance Society of Baltimore grew from the original 6 founding members to about 300 members, two-thirds of whom were said to have been "reformed drunkards." In the same issue of the Journal there is a report of a speech by a Mr. Pollard at a Maryland Temperance Convention held late in 1840. We know now that Pollard was a Washingtonian, but the editor of the Journal, apparently unaware of this fact, made no connection between the reference to Pollard and the letter by Zug, which was printed several pages later. In the February 1841 issue of the Journal of the American Temperance Union, an unsigned letter from Baltimore dated 19 January 1841 states that "Benevolence, philanthropy, patriotism and piety have united in the erection of the proudest monument which has ever graced the most favored city of Christendom. Men, women and children fired with a holy seal, are employed assiduously in collecting materials for this noble work, whose base shall rest upon the rock of truth and whose top, though not expected to 'reach to heaven, I shall be guided by the unclouded rays of truth, and glitter in the effulgence of a 'sun that shall go down no more. The author of the letter adds that there had developed in Baltimore (by inference as a consequence of the Washingtonian activity) a network of "local and auxiliary associations...formed on the aggressive principle, and meet every, and some of them twice in each week, where crowded assemblies, with an enthusiasm rarely seen on any subject, listen to and applaud their deliberations and plans of operations, which hundreds are coming forward, anxious to participate in the honors of this bloodless triumph." This, then was the dramatic news from Baltimore to New York where the Journal of the American Temperance Union was published. By late February or early March the Baltimore Washington Temperance Society had grown to 1200 members with several auxiliaries numbering about 1500 more. These data are taken from a circular letter of the Baltimore Washington Temperance Society that was published in the March 1841 issue of the Journal of the American Temperance Union Announcing plans for a grand temperance celebration on 5 April 1841, the first anniversary of the Baltimore society. Among the members were drunkards, habitual drinkers, moderate drinkers and those previously committed to total abstinence who were part of the organized temperance movement. Further, we know from the letter of 19 January 1841, cited above, that the membership included juveniles as well as adults. It seems evident, then, that once the Washington Temperance Society of Baltimore "went public" in November 1840 there were substantial numbers of persons involved in the society who were not drunkards or even heavy drinkers. We must, therefore, regard the report of the New York Herald of 1 February 19841 that the Washington Temperance Society of Baltimore had a thousand members "consisting entirely of reformed intemperate individuals" as an exaggeration, an exaggeration that was repeated in the Journal of the American Temperance Society in the report on events in New York City. The reports of the activity in Baltimore excited the interest of the Executive Committee of the New York Temperance Society, and they invited the Washington Temperance Society of Baltimore to send a delegation of reformed men (5). The visit began on 26 March and continued for more than a week; more than 20 meetings were held in the largest churches in the city and in the park; nearly 2000 persons signed the total abstinence pledge for the first time, and on 29 March 1841 the Washington Temperance Benevolent Society of New York City was formed. By 4 October 1841, it claimed to have 2263 members, 4 city auxiliaries with 600 members and 4 "country" auxiliaries with 1280 members; in that 6-month period it had sent out 62 speakers. Several of these speakers went to Paterson and Newark. Clearly, the New York City temperance society was able to mobilize energy and talent for its cause on a much greater scale than had ever been done before, and this activity was directed not only to the city but to the surrounding areas as well. PATERSON The response to the efforts of the New York Washingtonians was rapid. The "friends of temperance" in Paterson met in the Second Baptist Church on 16 April and that "The Committee appointed to wait on the Delegation from Baltimore," report that "they are now in Boston" (6). (1)Among these "friends of temperance" were Joseph Perry (Schoolteacher) and Alex H. Freeman (sheet metal and stoves), both of whom were later active in the organization of the Washingtonians in Paterson. (2) The senior partner and editor of the Paterson intelligencer, D.H. Day, who was sympathetic to the cause, seized the opportunity to keep interest alive by reprinting an article from the Boston Journal which described, in glowing terms, the visit of the Baltimore delegation (7): "Our friends in the country will be rejoiced to know that there never has existed so much healthy excitement on the subject of temperance, in our city, as at the present moment. - Meetings are held every evening and are crowded to overflowing," it reported. "The mass of people listen with breathless attention to the speakers, and every man goes away with a new zeal in the prosecution of the holy enterprise...Mr. Hawkins, at the Bethel [North Square, Boston] spoke for one hour with tremendous power, and carried his audience captive at his will. Now a deep and solemn silence pervaded the house; now was heard the hushed sob; and now again the outpouring of acclamation, like a cataract's roar. Mr. Wright spoke with more interest and power than he had yet done in our city; and this saying much. After his address four hundred and fifteen came forward and signed the pledge!"So it is no surprise that when Hawkins and Wright (2 of the original Baltimore delegation to New York City), along with several speakers from the New York Washington Temperance Benevolent Society, conducted a series of meetings in Paterson that May they were well received. The Paterson Intelligenc6r commented (8) the "the lectures had formerly been, according to their own statements, drunkards of the worst sort, and the accounts they gave of their own sufferings, and the sufferings of their families, were painful beyond description. Their lectures were strictly practical, and therefore had a greater effect upon the minds of the hearers than all the temperance addresses by persons who knew nothing of the subject from experience" As a consequence, 300 people signed the Washingtonian pledge; on 10 May the Paterson Washington Temperance Benevolent Society was formed by 30 of those who had signed the pledge, using both the name of the New York Society and its constitution (9). ("Temperance Benevolent" was the New York style, in contrast with Baltimore's "Temperance" and Boston's "Total Abstinence.") The Paterson Intelligencer (8), in its comments on the initial formative meetings in Paterson observed that "The ardor of the new fledged total abstinence is truly exhilarating; it seems to them that nothing has hitherto been done in the glorious cause; instead of opposing, as hitherto, they now will take the lead, and as old soldiers turn aside, as a relieved corps, they will go on to certain victory." Ultimately, the "old soldiers" found this enthusiasm a source of irritation as well as satisfaction, because the temperance-prohibitionists had been "labouring in the vineyard" for a long time and wanted what they regarded as their justly deserved reward of community recognition. At the time, however, all were caught up in a glowing and expansive enthusiasm that is evidenced in the report from Paterson printed in the Newark Daily Advertiser of 1 July 1841: "We have known many plans devised for the prosperity and improvement of our towns; laws enacted, companies formed, and new projects to facilitate business carried out - but they all sink into insignificance, both in moral and pecuniary point of view, by the side of the work we are now speaking of." Such dynamism and exaggerated expectations are not atypical of movements for social change in their early growth periods. In its original form, the Baltimore Washingtonian pledge read as follows (4): "We, whose names are annexed, desirous of forming a society for our mutual benefit, and to guard against a pernicious practice, which is injurious to our health, standing and families we do pledge ourselves as gentlemen, not to drink any spirituous or malt liquors, wine or cider." The pledge used by the New York and Paterson societies reflected the influence of the temperance prohibitionists (10): "We, whose names are hereunto annexed, believing that the use of Intoxicating Liquors as a beverage, is not only needless, but hurtful to the social, civil and religious interests of men - that it tends to form intemperate habits - and that while it is continued, the evils of intemperance will never be done away - do, therefore , pledge ourselves that we will not drink any spirituous or malt liquor, wine or cider, and that in all suitable ways we will discountenance the use of them through the community." While this pledge seemed to support nonpolitical moral suasion (the Washingtonian position) its wording also provided the opening wedge for an explicit legal suasion - prohibitionist position. The same dynamism that galvanized the Baltimoreans, the New Yorkers and the Bostonians was immediately evident in Paterson. During the first quarter-year, the Paterson Washingtonians conducted 9 mission meetings, which led to the formation of 3 new societies in nearby communities. We know the name of only 1 of these, the Manchester Washington Temperance Benevolent Society, which continued through the years to have a close relationship with the Paterson group. Their activity increased during the second quarter, when 39 mission meetings were held, and continued at least to the middle of June 1842, when delegates were sent to towns in Rockland County, New York, some 20 miles away. Street meetings were held from time to time in Paterson during the same period. A special delegation was even sent to "Cheap Josey's," a tavern "situated between Paterson and Bloomfield ... where shoemakers, tailors, pacemakers, cotton and woolen factory boys, and farmers, met together to drink, gamble and fight" (11,p.5). This dynamism was also manifested in the personal lives of the artisans and workingmen who signed the pledge and joined the Washingtonians. For instance, John Broughton, a tailor, advertised that he had taken the pledge of "total abstinence from all that intoxicates and in consequence am restored to my sober senses again," and he appealed to his fellow townsmen to give him their "confidence and esteem as a consequence of his constant and sober application to his craft"(12). The enthusiasm was also evidenced organizationally. By 23 June 1841, there was a [Boys] Juvenile Washington Temperance Benevolent Society of 50 members (13), who recited the following form of the pledge: A pledge we make, By drinking gin; No wine to take, Hard cider, too Nor brandy, red, Will never do. To turn the head, Nor brewer's beer, Nor whiskey hot, Our hearts to cheer, That makes the sot, O quench our thirst, we always bring Nor fiery rum, Cold water, from the well or spring. That ruins home; So here we pledge perpetual hate. Nor will we sin, To all that can intoxicate.(3) The junior society had about 130 members by the time of the Independence Day celebration. The Fourth of July was a time of special significance to the Washingtonians because in the past it had been the occasion for drunken sprees which disrupted the annual civic parades and embarrassed the respectable citizenry who saw it as a quasi-religious occasion for rededication to freedom and morality. Thus the Independence Day celebration in 1841 was different from previous ones; in the morning the town's Sunday School students paraded, and in the afternoon members of the Paterson Washington Temperance Benevolent Society marched in procession to the Congregational Methodist Church and were presented with a banner by the women church members which read "Total Abstinence from all that Intoxicates." They proceeded to what is now known as Totowa and then to an island in the Passaic River where they heard orations, most of which were by local ministers and ministers from New York (who, we may infer, were temperance-prohibitionists). The brass band of the Passaic Guards, a local voluntary militia group, played music, After a collation, the group met in the Second Presbyterian Church, where some Washingtonian experience speeches were given and some pledges were taken. The Washingtonians were, of course, celebrating their freedom from bondage to alcohol; the temperance-prohibitionist preachers were exhorting their listeners to free the country from its bondage to the rum sellers and rum makers; the contrast with past Independence Day celebrations was stark indeed! Another sign of vitality was the existence of an active relief committee. The society's constitution provided that when they found a "poor drunkard in distress, from poverty, and unable to provide for his immediate necessities, to furnish him with food, rainment and shelter, or any of them, at his own discretion or if need be, with medicine and medical advice, provided always, that such relief shall in no case be granted unless there be reasonable grounds to believe that such poor drunkard will sign the pledge and reform...11 (10, Art.VI). The relief committee was active in the town although its actual cash resources were very limited. It's work was supplemented by that of the Martha Washington Temperance Benevolent Society, which in the quarter ending 3 August 1842 handed out $7.72 in cash, 23 articles of clothing and sundry provisions to families of reformed inebriates. The first directress at that time was the wife of Joseph Perry, the school-teacher who was also active as a temperance-prohibitionist. By mid September 1841, the Paterson Washingtonians felt strong enough to call for a countrywide mass temperance meeting. The meeting was held on 19 November; had there not been a snowfall of several inches, the Martha Washingtonians of Paterson would have marched in the procession under their banner with a slogan that made their position quite clear: "Total abstinence or no husband! 11 Forty years later, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union used a similar slogan: "Lips that touch wine will never touch mine." Finally, membership and financial data give us an additional assessment of the strength of the Paterson Washingtonian society in its formative period, although it is certainly not a clear one. By the end of the first quarter year of its existence, the Paterson society had 290 members and had gotten 1245 pledges, including 230 from the junior society. During the second quarter, the recording secretary claimed that 504 had joined the society, making a total of 1730 members. (4)These membership statistics must be viewed with caution because it seems probable that the distinction between members of the Paterson society and those who had signed the society's pledge had been obfuscated; it seems more likely that the 504 reported new members were those who had signed the pledge during the quarter and that 1730 was the total number of persons who had signed the pledge up to that time. Later data supported this interpretation: in March 1842 it was reported that the Paterson society had 2572 members; during the ensuing week 77 persons signed the pledge, and there was then a report of 2649 members. This confusion makes it impossible to assess the significance of membership statistics. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that through mid-1842 the Paterson society continued to grow; what is in doubt is the rate of growth and the numbers during this period of maximal growth. The financial data also gives us a mixed picture of the vitality of the Paterson Washingtonians. In the first quarter, the society had a cash income of $28.35 and an expenditure of $19.56 for the use of a local Presbyterian church as a meeting place and for the relief of "poor drunkards." But, with a cash balance of $8.69, the society also had "accounts receivable" (my term) of $54, some of which was due from members and the balance of which had probably been given as loans rather than as cash grants to drunkards. The financial problem continued into the second quarter when the recording secretary commented in his report that the society was having problems collecting fees and dues owed to it; he recommended the formation of a special committee and also that a collection be taken at each meeting. By November 1842, a resolution was adopted "that some means may be devised to liquidate the debt of the Society, and report some plan to keep out of debt in the future..." (15). The procedure apparently adopted was one common for the period, subscriptions (regular contributions) were solicited among the citizens of Paterson. The Washington Temperance Benevolent Society of Paterson continued to have considerable vitality at least through Independence Day. In May, the first anniversary of the society was celebrated with a public parade attended by delegates from Manchester, Aquackanonk, Hackensack, Godwinville, New Prospect, Jersey City, Newark, Boonton, Morristown and Mattewan. A company of Washington Temperance Guards with its own band came from New York City. Several weeks later, a group from New York City Hose Company Number 33 came to Paterson "with a view of giving our citizens a Specimen of Temperance song singing," and there was "an overflowing meeting assembled to hear this celebrated company exercise their vocal powers. Their performance was received with great eclat by the audience and gave universal satisfaction. One of them related his experience of the sad effects of drunkenness, and several of our cold water army made short addresses..."(16). They also successfully persuaded the members of the Paterson Company Number 3 to sign the pledge as a group. Sometime in April a group of Temperance Guards, including a choral group that sang regularly at the meetings of the society, was formed in Paterson.The combined Independence Day celebration of the Paterson and Manchester societies went well and was the major celebration in the town. The Washingtonians apparently continued to perceive themselves as the leaders of the temperance movement, judging by the toast to "Reformed Drunkards" (17), which went as follows: "The great Pioneers, who in front of the army of truth, are now successfully cutting the way through the Alcoholic wilderness of inequity and crime ..." The last pledge of the celebration, however, reflected both the continued concern for heavy drinkers and a recognition that the bloom had begun to fade: "To Backsliders - We pity them - May they again sign the pledge, and 'beware of the first glass."' This note of realism contrasts with the congratulatory tone of the recording secretary's comments at the close of the second quarterly report of the Paterson society (18): "Before closing this Report, it seems proper to notice the fidelity and perseverance with which the reformed have kept their pledge, and the blessed results to which this conduct has led, whether considered in reference to their own characters, the comfort and well being of their families, their influence in society, or their business affairs; also to invite the temperate and moderate drinker to cooperate with us in the endeavor to put an end to drunkenness." At this time Nathaniel Lane (sheet metal worker and stove merchant) was president of the society and his partner, Alex H. Freeman, was a member of the standing (executive) committee. (Lane was elected town tax collector on the Whig ticket in 1844. Joseph Perry was treasurer and John K. Flood, a storekeeper who short became town clerk, had been recording secretary and was now corresponding secretary. In addition, the arrangements committee included David H. Day, publisher of the Paterson Intelligencer, Abraham Van Blarcom, a temperance-prohibitionist, and John Avison, shoemaker, who was an activist in antislavery politics, a temperance-prohibitionist, and the town post-master. There can be no doubt that the temperance-prohibitionists were in positions of dominance in the society at this time. By that summer, however, the new recording secretary commented in the quarterly report (19) that "There has been for a short time past, at least it seemed to me, a suppression of spirits among our veteran troops of this town; nor indeed with a reflecting mind is this to [be] wondered at, for preparatory to the great and glorious battles of the 10th of May and the 4th of July last, both resulting in signal victory over the enemy, their exertions, both physically and mentally, was excessive from exercise; marching, countermarching, raising and manning batteries, with a thousand or more etceteras, together with pains of scars (for their were no lives lost on the side of the Temperance Army) which are consequent to the battlefield." He continued, "Our spirits and wounds now healed up, let the victories of the past encourage to redouble our exertions, in not only guarding against the insidious movements of the deadly foe, but in making secure preparations for the next pitched battle, which will be fought on May 10th, 1843." Still using military language, he urged the society, "not to retire to our camps in the flush of victory... 11 and to "stand aloof from all political manoeuvring" for he observed that the society was being wooed by "wiley politicians" whom he called "wolves in sheep's clothing." The latter history of the society suggests that he was referring to the "respectables" who had joined the society. Civic life during this period was intensely political, and there can be little doubt that efforts were made to manoeuvre what seemed to be a strong and vital group to express positions favourable to the election of Whig, Anti-Slavery or Loco-foco (Democrat) candidates. The recording secretary had pointed to what proved to be a recurring problem for the society. In contrast to his predecessor in the post, the recording secretary, who warned his fellow Washingtonians of the dangers of alcohol and the need to continue to fight, apparently had an alcohol problem of his own; he was unceremoniously dropped from office on 28 October 1842 because he had broken his pledge, a fact that he acknowledged in a written communication that he requested be placed in the minutes of the society. Other incidents of recidivism began to receive attention, and there was an occasional report in the Paterson Intelligencer. Such a case was that of a 33-year-old man who after 18 months of abstinence, went on a spree and, despite the best efforts of a representative of the society (similar to Twelfth-Stepping in Alcoholics Anonymous), finally drowned himself in the Passaic River. The annual report of the Manchester Washington Temperance Benevolent Society (20), published just before Christmas, 1842, indicated that the falling off of interest and "backsliding" were not unique to Paterson. The Manchester Society claimed 102 members when it was organized, some having dual membership in the Paterson society. Participation apparently had never been heavy, even among those who signed the pledge and were considered members, but with the help of the Paterson society, the total number had grown to 642. Two of the three taverns in Manchester had closed down, all 4 of the town's grocery stores had stopped selling spirits, and reclaimed members were now observing the Sabbath in church. Notwithstanding this, Benjamin Geroe, the recording secretary and an active temperance-prohibitionist, commented that some of the officers as well as some of the members "have not paid that attention to so good a cause as they might have done, and probably through their inattention in a measure, may be ascribed the cause of some falling away or returning to their cups." He concludes, nonetheless, with the hopeful statement that "of late a new impulse appears to be given to the standard of Teetotalism, as if they were determined on nothing less than complete victory." Meanwhile the society rapidly became routinized; its meetings apparently were about the same week after week and much of the early excitement dissipated. Some of the extra-organizational efforts of the society were given up. Both the Junior Washington Temperance Benevolent Society and the Temperance Guards projects were abandoned sometime after the Independence Day celebration. Appeals were made to "make some extra efforts to produce a more lively interest in the cause of Temperance"(15), and a week-long series of meetings, similar to those held in the formative period of the society, was organized. Prominent speakers from New York and Philadelphia were "engaged" for these meetings; special meetings were held as often as possible to hear popular "Washingtonian lectures," for a degree of specialization had begun to emerge. That comment that "If the above named gentlemen do not draw full houses, we don't know who can" (21), makes clear that recruitment was uppermost in the minds of the sponsors. A drift away from Washingtonian practices appears to have begun; at the last meeting in November 1842, a motion was passed that thereafter the pledge would not be circulated at meetings but would be available for those who wished to sign. Evidently most of those who now came to the meetings had signed the pledge; for all practical purposes, the membership recruitment process had reached its peak and only a few who were eligible to sign the pledge were now coming to the meetings. Further, "experience meetings," which were a central feature of Washingtonian practice, had apparently fallen off during mid-1842, because a motion was passed to hold experience meetings "in order to bring out new speakers to keep up the interest of the meetings" (22). But these experience meetings were to be held on Thursday nights while the regular meetings were held on Friday nights (both were held in the basement of the Methodist Episcopal church). A trial of King Alcohol was scheduled for February 1843 in order to pique the interest of persons who might not otherwise be attracted to the meetings. For a time the weekly meetings were dropped, but they were begun again in the hope that they would attract more members and greater participation. The second anniversary celebration of the Washington Temperance Benevolent Society of Paterson, on 10 May 1843, was a more subdued affair than the previous one, although there was a procession through Paterson and Manchester. The Independence Day celebration that year included the Washingtonians, but they did not dominate it as they had in the two previous years. The incoming president, Samuel A. Van Saun, was a grocery store keeper, a member of the Township Poor Committee, and a warden of the Paterson Fire Association; the incoming recording secretary was Dr. J. Nightingale; the treasurer was William Moyle, a public accountant and bill collector, who was also an active antislavery advocate; and John Avison was on the standing committee. Given this kind of top leadership in the Paterson society, it is not surprising to find that on 18 June 1843 there was a lecture by Reverend Warren, agent of the New Jersey State Temperance Society, and that on the next day Warren suggested organizing a juvenile band to be coordinated with the activities of the Washington Society. That is, the temperance-prohibitionists now proposed to pick up the juvenile program that the Washingtonians had abandoned. The liaison with the temperance-prohibitionists intensified in 1844. Until this time, the Paterson Washingtonians had largely ignored the meetings of the county and state temperance societies, but now a delegation was appointed to attend the State Temperance Convention to be held in Trenton on 17 January 1844. Among the delegates were Benjamin Geroe the longtime recording secretary of the Manchester society (which was now an auxiliary of the Paterson society), Nathaniel Lane, Samuel A. Van Saun and Horatio Moses, the incoming president of the Paterson society. The third anniversary celebration of the Paterson Washingtonians on 10 May 1844 was a relatively subdued evening service held in the Methodist Episcopal church. "The audience was large and respectable, "said the Paterson Intelligencer, (23), "principally ladies, whose presence and strict attention, enlivens and cheers a meeting of any description.', One of the principal speakers was the Reverend E. Cheever, of Newark, secretary of the Essex County Temperance Society, who gave an address "well calculated to invigorate teetotalers with new life and to reward action." Horatio Moses was the new president; Samuel A. Van Saun was now treasurer, John Avison and Benjamin Crane, an antislavery activist, were members of the executive committee and Wright Flavell, also an antislavery activist, was on the relief committee. The speaker at the 9 August 1844 meeting was the Reverend Mr. Wise, agent of the New England Temperance Society, whose subject was "the moral character of the traffic in intoxicating liquors; in which he showed by convincing arguments, that it could not be carried on in obedience to the divine commandments, but was productive of much injury to mankind, producing crime, disease, degradation, and death to a great extent" (24). This was followed by a speech on 30 August 1844 at which a Mr. Root spoke "of the necessity of Christians aiding the Temperance Cause" (25). Root also discussed his theory that evil spirits exert influence over men suffering from delirium tremens (26), which is referred to as a "disease" in the newspaper report. All of this built to a meeting on 15 November at which the members of the society were asked to circulate a petition to the legislature calling for prohibition of the sale of alcoholic drinks on the Christian Sabbath; the members of the Washington Temperance Benevolent Society of Paterson had now been brought around to political activism contrary to the original Washington stance and in line with the temperance-prohibitionist political strategy of incrementalism. The principal speaker, the Reverend Mr. Russell, further "spoke of the influence of Public Sentiment in Republican governments, and showed that in order to sustain good laws we must continue to sow the seeds of truth and thus get public sentiment right in regard to the subject of Temperance, that it will sustain good laws" (27). His speech, in conjunction with those of other recent speakers, provided the basis for a justification of political temperance activity-prohibitionism. From this point on, reports of the Washington Temperance Benevolent Society become more and more sketchy. The affiliation with the state temperance society had become regularized is suggested by the fact that three of the four delegates sent to the January 1845 convention had also been to the 1844 convention. Informal ties were developed with the Ancient Order of Rechabites, a temperance fraternal order. In March 1846 the Paterson Washingtonians moved another step, toward the temperance- prohibitionist approach with the passage of a resolution stating "That in the opinion of this Society, the Court of Common Pleas, at its present session in granting licenses, have not only violated the strict letter and spirit of the law, but have shown themselves destitute of common morality" (26). This resolution, ostensibly a commentary on who should or should not receive licenses, moves close to prohibitionism when it denounces the members of the court as "destitute of common morality"; only by a refusal of all licenses would the court have been in accordance with the concept of "common morality," which the group now seemed to espouse. The Paterson Washington society was almost moribund by 1846, but there was still enough life in it for a major controversy, one which illustrates that, for all practical purposes, it had been absorbed into the temperance-prohibitionist camp. This was so, despite the fact that on 18 March 1846 it published a resolution to the effect that it was neutral with respect to moral, political or religious questions and that it did not attempt to control the individual acts of its members in any respect outside of its business in the Temperance Hall. This was obviously in anticipation of a letter printed in the Paterson Intelligencer of 25 March 1846 by S. Tutle, a member of the executive committee of the society, in which he tendered his resignation from the committee on the grounds that the society had become political. "There were some," he wrote, "who were slow to embrace the principles of Total Abstinence, and Washingtonians, forgetting the secret of their success (moral suasion), resorted to political action, to force those men into compliance with their principles. From that time to the present, a shameful course of hypocrisy and double-dealing has been pursued by many of the professed friends of Temperance. They care no more for the progress of Temperance principles than they do for the religion of Mohamet; and they only mount the Temperance hobby, hoping to ride over the ruins of the Whig party." Tuttle went on to point out that at a recent county temperance meeting called at the behest of the Paterson Washington society a resolution was adopted that "we, as lovers of the principles set forth in the previous address [i.e., temperance-prohibitionist principles], will not give our suffrage to any persons who is not pledged to Total Abstinence," thereby proscribing every unpledged candidate and raising up a powerful opposition to the temperance cause. Tuttle argued that the Paterson Washington society had called the meeting and that the resolution had been passed unanimously, and so the Paterson Society, was inconsistent in now claiming that it had not taken a political position. Tuttle further claimed that one of the objects of the meeting was to take action to support the formation of a temperance ticket for town officers at the ensuing town meeting. Tuttle argued that such a ticket could not win but could only lead to the defeat of the Whigs. To which some participants of the convention reportedly replied "God speed" before Tuttle could point out that the major consequence of the plan would be the election of the Democratic slate. When he did point that out and offered a counterrevolution, he was voted down by those who were committed to political action. He charged that "The Society has now sanctioned the political juggling of its members, by telling them in effect, that it will have nothing to do with politics, and that they may come into their Hall and hold a Temperance Benevolent meeting, and then go right into the next room, or any other place and hold a Temperance Political meeting, and it will be all right; and if any man charges the Society with political movements, then he is an artful and designing man! I think, sir, that the Temperance Society, as a body, is secretly in favour of these political movements, and therefore I have declined acting as one of its Business Committee." He goes on to say that after the meeting one member admitted that he wanted the Whig party to lose at the next election and that he was a Loco-foco (Democrat). An unsigned reply the following week argued that Mr. Tuttle had intruded into a private meeting called expressly to form a caucus (and, by inference, that was not a Washingtonian meeting) and so he was out of order. Efforts were made to resolve the serious disagreement that had arisen within the Paterson Washington Temperance Benevolent Society but they were not very successful. The society went on with its annual meeting and the Independence Day celebration was conducted in conjunction with the Rechabites and the Sons of Temperance. At one meeting in June not enough members were present to provide a quorum. The struggle came to a head when, at the mid-August meeting, Abraham Van Blarcom, a temperanceprohibitionist, offered a resolution that the society support a local option license law similar to the one in New York State and that the members of the society would not support anyone who was "not known as the open and decided friend of such a law" (29). The motion was tabled, to be brought up at the mid-September meeting. Tuttle offered an amendment to strike out the clause about withholding the vote, and the support of local option licensing passed. There ensued an indecisive struggle between the advocates of withholding the vote and those opposed. The resolution of this struggle was not publicly reported, but it is clear that the temperance-prohibitionist position in favour of legal suasion had been accepted even by those who were opposed to withholding the vote; the struggle was over the next steps of political activity rather than the principle that Washingtonians would refrain from efforts to prevent the consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages through legislation. That the Paterson Washington Temperance Benevolent Society was now largely irrelevant to the temperance movement in Paterson is evidenced by the fact that in early November 1847 a series of temperance meetings were announced in the various churches in town - the Methodist Episcopal, Baptist and Free Presbyterian. The meetings were strongly legalistic and linked morality to a legislative approach. The Washingtonian society was not a sponsor of these meetings; it had been bypassed. There is even some question as to whether the organization any longer existed except in a nominal sense, for reports of its activities were no longer published in the Paterson Intelligencer, which had been strongly supportive from its very inception. NEWARK On 21 July 1841 the Paterson Intelligencer made the following proud commentary on the effect of the Washington temperance reform, which was then in its triumphant first flush in Paterson (30): "We question whether there is now a town in the state which can boast of a more sober, quiet and industrious population than our own. Nearly all who but a short time since spent most of their time in idleness about taverns and other places of resort, have become steady industrious citizens, and are busily employed in their daily vocations, while their families, who formerly suffered for the want of the necessaries of life, are now made comfortable and happy." Paterson was a rapidly growing industrial town, and this was a frank statement of the values of its dominant manufacturing and merchant class of this period. These were also values of the temperance-prohibitionists, who used the Washingtonian phenomenon for their own purposes. This statement of civic pride implied that Paterson was the moral leader of the State, that it was ahead of Newark. This contrast to Newark was made explicit by the editor, who went on to say that "In Newark the subject of Temperance has been permitted to sleep, until within a week or two back, when a deputation from New York held a meeting in one of the churches in the city, at which one hundred and sixty attached their names to the pledge." On 12 July 1841, A Washingtonian Temperance Benevolent Society was founded with 119 members. While the Washingtonian missionaries came to Newark about 2 months later than to Paterson, the editor of the Newark Daily Advertiser, who was also a "friend of temperance," was already mobilizing his readers for the temperance reform. And, while he gave little attention to it during the Washingtonian period, the editor was prepared to accept the fact that the substantial Catholic Total Abstinence Movement, which was also growing during that period, was another valid approach to temperance. For the period, this was surprisingly broad-minded, but a perusal of the Journal of the American Temperance Union in the early 1840s will show that the temperance-prohibitionist leadership highly esteemed and fully reported the work of Father Theobald Matthew in Ireland, England and (later) in the United States. "I had heard much during the week of the triumphs of the Temperance cause, or rather total abstinence, among the people who "worship" at an unnamed local Roman Catholic church, he wrote (31). "I confess that owing either to my Protestant prejudices or some other cause, I previously felt misgivings as to any permanent good likely to result from the pushing of the multitude under what I supposed a mere temporary excitement to 'take the pledge.' But the scene I there witnessed entirely dissipated all my fears ... The clergyman officiating ... preached of Temperance and Righteousness, and Judgments to come. I have heard many temperance addresses, but none I think that could exceed the impressive, fervid, and thrillingly eloquent appeals to his auditory, in the strength of God, to fly the destroying angel - Intemperance. 11 He continued, "The effect was powerful. Upon countenances could be traced sore indications of judgements convinced; and the calm and deliberate manner in which they surrounded the alter, and there solemnly pledged themselves to Total Abstinence from all that intoxicates, gave pleasing proof of the deep and sincere convictions that they would be kept faithful to their high resolve..." That there are few if any reports in the Newark Daily Advertiser in subsequent years, given the fact that the editor had abandoned his prejudices with respect to Catholics (in this respect, in any case), suggests that local parish priests did not seek publicity. Perhaps the rising controversy over public education, religious education, Catholic education and the use of public funds soured the situation. In any case, the editor had come around to the view that taking pledges of total abstinence was perhaps not as useless as he had believed and he was, therefore, prepared to receive the Washingtonians in a positive manner. There is good reason to believe that he was aware of the Washingtonians by mid-May, for on 12 May there was a report about the meeting of the American Temperance Union which was held in Newark that year (32). Theodore Frelinghuysen, lawyer, former U.S. senator, chancellor of the University of New York, soon to be nominated for vice president of the American Temperance Union, gave the major speech. In it, Frelinghuysen not only mentioned the total abstinence movement in Ireland and in Europe, but the "strong, and in good degree, successful efforts of the drunkards themselves in various cities of the U.States to emancipate themselves of intemperance." He also reported that 15,000 drunkards had been reformed in the country within the last 6 months - probably an exaggeration. The following week there was a favourable review of a pamphlet by Dr. David Reese entitled "Plea for the Intemperate," which argued that intemperance is a disease" and that the subject should be treated, not harshly, but medically and with great kindness" (33). (This was not an uncommon medical view during the period.) The reviewer went on to say that "Mr. Hawkins confirms this view of the matter in his effective practical addresses, and in the plea of Dr. Reese we find a medical man of large experience sustaining the same position, and arguing the question like a man of sense as well as a physician." The reviewer also remarked on the number "reclaimed" in Baltimore, New York, Boston and "cities farther east" due to the efforts of drunkards, along with "friends of the cause," who were encouraged "to extend an encouraging voice and benevolent hand to the reclaimed." He contrasted this with the past when drunkards were simply given up as lost. "Now they are becoming not only temperate, but the preachers and ministering agents of the cause." On 5 June 1941 reports from the Baltimore Transcript summarized in the Newark Daily Advertiser (34) noted that "no idea can be formed of the enthusiasm which pervades that city on the subject of Temperance. It is the all-pervading topic, and the moral revolution which has been effected mainly by the drunkards themselves, is almost past belief." So it came as no surprise to the readers of the paper when it was announced that there would be a meeting to promote the temperance cause on Friday evening, 9 July 1841, in the Free (Second) Presbyterian Church, and that a delegation of reformed drunkards from the Washington Temperance Benevolent Society of New York would attend: "Friends of Temperance and persons addicted to drinking habits and the drunkard, dealers and vendors of liquor, are respectfully invited to attend" (35). The New York Washingtonians continued to have a close relationship with the Washington Temperance Benevolent Society of Newark after it was formed on 12 July 1841; speakers from New York frequently came to Newark. Wright, Pollard and Hawkins of the Baltimore society also visited Newark when they were in New York. When the Newark society called a convention of Washington temperance societies for 17 September 1841, speakers from Paterson, New York and Brooklyn came; the Newark society reciprocated when it attended en masse a Washingtonian convention in New York City on 13 October 1841. When the Newark society dedicated its own hall on 9 December 1841, a speaker from the New York City society was among those who addressed the meeting. When a banner was presented to the North Ward Washingtonians on 28 July 1842, the presentation speech was made by Dr. Reese of New York and the acceptance speech for the Washingtonians of Newark was made by Reverend E. Cheever, of Newark, who was Secretary of the Essex County Temperance Society and pastor of the Free (or second) Presbyterian Church. Information about the Newark Washington Temperance Benevolent Society and its auxiliaries is Sketchy and sporadically available because there evidently was an editorial policy against reporting the activities of local groups. There seemed to be such a policy in Paterson also, but the owners apparently contributed space in the announcement section and also published an occasional article of interest; the Newark Daily Advertiser was less generous. What we have then, are bits and pieces that are suggestive but often not definitive. Available evidence suggests that the Newark Washingtonians quickly evidenced the same kind of organizational activity that developed elsewhere. We have substantial information on the Martha Washington Temperance Union which was formed on 14