Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:52:48.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“This Enormous Army”: The Mutual Aid Tradition of American Fraternal Societies before the Twentieth Century*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2009

David T. Beito
David T. Beito
Affiliation:
History, University of Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The social-welfare world of the poor has changed considerably since the turn of the century. It is not difficult to find dramatic evidence of progress. Most obviously, there has been a substantial reduction in the percentage of Americans who are poor. Even in 1929, about 40 percent of the population still lived in poverty. The corresponding figure for 1993 was 15.1 percent. The poor have also enjoyed notable material and physical gains in terms of income, diet, health, and housing conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Philosophy and Policy , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , Summer 1997 , pp. 20 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Levitan, Sar A., Programs in Aid of the Poor (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995), p. 480.Google Scholar

2 Charities and Commons, vol. 16 (1906), pp. 488–91Google Scholar; U.S. Department of Labor, Mother's Aid, 1931 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1933), p. 8Google Scholar; Statistical Abstract, p. 387.Google Scholar

3 Buffum, Este Erwood, Modern Woodmen of America: A History, vol. 2 (Rock Island, IL: Modern Woodmen of America, 1935), p. 5.Google Scholar

4 de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America (New York: Random House, 1981), pp. 403–4.Google Scholar

5 Flynn, Maureen, Sacred Charity: Confraternities and Social Welfare in Spain, 1400–1700 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 5, 13, 23, 33, 40, 43Google Scholar; Weissman, Ronald F. E., Ritual Brotherhood in Renaissance Florence (New York: Academic Press, 1982), pp. 66–81Google Scholar; Black, Christopher, Italian Confraternities in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 35, 150Google Scholar; Brigden, Susan, “Religion and Social Obligation in Early Sixteenth-Century London,” Past and Present, no. 103 (03 1984), p. 98Google Scholar; Scarisbrick, J. J., The Reformation and the English People (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984), p. 19Google Scholar; Unwin, George, The Gilds and Companies of London (London: Methuen and Company, 1908), pp. 122, 123.Google Scholar

6 Flynn, , Sacred Charity, pp. 37–39, 44, 49, 51–58Google Scholar; Scarisbrick, , The Reformation and the English People, p. 22Google Scholar; Black, , Italian Confraternities, pp. 14, 163, 184, 223–33Google Scholar; Mollat, Michel, The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), p. 283Google Scholar; and Weissman, , Ritual Brotherhood, p. ix.Google Scholar

7 Mackenney, Richard, Tradesmen and Traders: The World of Guilds in Venice and Europe (Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1987), pp. 71–73Google Scholar; Black, , Italian Confraternities, p. 127Google Scholar; Flynn, , Sacred Charity, p. 41Google Scholar; and McRee, Ben R., “Charity and Gild Solidarity in Late Medieval England,” Journal of British Studies, vol. 32 (07 1993), p. 207.Google Scholar

“Unlike the modern welfare state,” writes Christopher Black, “involvement with confraternities satisfied more than basic physical needs. For donors and recipients, for those praying and those being prayed for, for comforters and patients, the confraternities could satisfy the needs for fraternity, social solidarity and spiritual comfort in this world as they contemplated the possibilities of joining the ultimate fraternity of Christ and his saints” (Italian Confraternities, p. 281Google Scholar).

8 Brigden, , “Religion and Social Obligation,” p. 94Google Scholar; Flynn, , Sacred Charity, p. 16Google Scholar; Black, , Italian Confraternities, p. 270.Google Scholar

9 One of the founders of Londonderry, for example, was a craft guild. Black, Antony, Guilds and Civil Society in European Political Thought from the Twelfth Century to the Present (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), pp. 55–65, 151Google Scholar; Mackenney, , Tradesmen and Traders, p. 7Google Scholar; Epstein, Steven A., Wage Labor and Guilds in Medieval Europe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), pp. 157–58.Google Scholar

10 Ross, Jack C., An Assembly of Good Fellows: Voluntary Associations in History (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976), pp. 175, 194.Google Scholar

Ben R. McRee writes that confraternities even at their apex constituted “but one link in the chain of medieval poor relief,” which included “hospitals, help-ales [cooperative feasts], monastic alms, family aid, individual acts of charity, handouts to mourners at funeral and obit services, and parish assistance” (“Charity and Gild Solidarity,” p. 224).Google Scholar

11 Flynn, , Sacred Charity, pp. 138–39Google Scholar; Black, Christopher, Italian Confraternities, p. 22Google Scholar; Black, Antony, Guilds and Civil Society, pp. 123, 128, 167Google Scholar; Ross, , An Assembly of Good Fellows, pp. 138–39Google Scholar; Brigden, , “Religion and Social Obligation,” pp. 101–2Google Scholar; Scarisbrick, , The Reformation and the English People, pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

A good measure of the waning health of English confraternities and guilds was a fall-off in bequests from wills, a major source of funds. From 1522 to 1539, 23.6 percent of wills in London included such bequests, but between 1539 and 1547 this figure declined to just 8.5 percent; see Brigden, , “Religion and Social Obligation,” p. 101Google Scholar. While the grand totals of will bequests to charity of all types continued to increase after the Chanceries Act, such bequests did not recover in per-capita terms until the 1650s; see Stack, Paul, Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London: Longman, 1988), pp. 164–65.Google Scholar

12 Brigden, , “Religion and Social Obligation,” pp. 104–7Google Scholar. A leading form of organized mutual aid during this period was the “help ale” (or cooperative feast); see Bennett, Judith M., “Conviviality and Charity in Medieval and Early Modern England,” Past and Present, no. 134 (02 1992), pp. 19–41.Google Scholar

13 Hamill, John, The Craft: A History of English Freemasonry (Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire: Crucible, 1986), pp. 15–16, 21Google Scholar; Lipson, Dorothy Ann, Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), pp. 35–37Google Scholar. For another recent study, see Jacob, Margaret C., Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

14 Hamill, , The Craft, pp. 27–40Google Scholar; Stevenson, David, The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590–1710 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 7, 22, 123–24, 156, 197–98, 216–33.Google Scholar

Originally, “Free Mason” was a contraction of “freestone mason.” The term referred to a specialist “who worked in freestone—usually limestone—capable of being immediately carved for decorative purposes” (Hamill, , The Craft, p. 27).Google Scholar

15 Schmidt, Alvin J., Fraternal Organizations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), pp. 119–39Google Scholar; Stevenson, , The Origins of Freemasonry, pp. 228–33.Google Scholar

16 Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage Books, 1966), pp. 418–19Google Scholar; Gosden, P. H. J. H., Self-Help: Voluntary Associations in the Nineteenth Century (London: B. T. Batsford, 1973), pp. 6, 27–30.Google Scholar

17 Gosden, P. H. J. H., The Friendly Societies in England, 1815–1875 (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1967), pp. 71–93Google Scholar; Lipson, , Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, p. 201.Google Scholar

18 Gosden, , The Friendly Societies, pp. 17, 230Google Scholar; Thompson, , The Making of the English Working Class, p. 421.Google Scholar

19 Baernreither, J. M., English Associations of Working Men (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1889; reprint, Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1966), p. 162Google Scholar; Thompson, , The Making of the English Working Class, p. 419.Google Scholar

20 Lipson, , Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., pp. 50–62; Wright, Conrad Edick, The Transformation of Charity in Postrevolutionary New England (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992), pp. 106, 213–19Google Scholar; Bullock, Steven C., “The Revolutionary Transformation of American Freemasonry, 1752–1792,” William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 47 (07 1990), pp. 360–63Google Scholar; Huss, Wayne A., The Master Builders: A History of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Pennsylvania, Volume 1, 1731–1873 (Philadelphia: Grand Lodge F. & A.M. of Pennsylvania, 1986), pp. 286–91.Google Scholar

Bullock argues persuasively that the schism between the “Modern” and “Ancient” factions of American Freemasonry speeded the occupational shift in the composition of the membership. The Moderns drew almost wholly from the mercantile and professional classes, while the Ancients attracted large numbers of artisans. The Revolution served to discredit the Moderns, who tended to be Tories, thus assuring the spread of the more-inclusive Ancients. The split had originated in England in the 1730s after the Ancients had accused the Moderns of corrupting the original meaning of the ritual. See Bullock, , “The Revolutionary Transformation of American Freemasonry,” pp. 348–49.Google Scholar

22 Huss, , The Master Builders, p. 61Google Scholar; Lipson, , Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, p. 210.Google Scholar

23 Huss, , The Master Builders, pp. 62–63.Google Scholar

24 Lipson, , Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, p. 207Google Scholar; Bullock, Steven C., “A Pure and Sublime System: The Appeal of Post-Revolutionary Freemasonry,” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 9 (Fall 1989), p. 368.Google Scholar

25 Wright, , The Transformation of Charity, pp. 63, 66Google Scholar; Gosden, , The Friendly Societies, p. 5.Google Scholar

26 Brown, Richard D., “The Emergence of Voluntary Associations in Massachusetts, 1760–1830,” Journal of Voluntary Action, vol. 2 (04 1973), pp. 69–70Google Scholar; Wright, , The Transformation of Charity, pp. 55–56.Google Scholar

27 Davids, Karel, Towards an Ecology of Associations, Working Paper Series, Number 54 (New York: New School for Social Research, 11 1987), p. 47Google Scholar; Doyle, Don Harrison, The Social Order of a Frontier Community: Jacksonville, Illinois, 1825–1870 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978), p. 189Google Scholar; Clawson, Mary Ann, Constructing Brotherhood: Class, Gender, and Fraternalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 25.Google Scholar

28 The six societies were the Scots' Charitable Society of Boston, the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association, the Charitable Irish Society of Boston, the Boston Marine Society, the Episcopal Charitable Society of Boston, and the Massachusetts Charitable Society. Copies of the original bylaws from the eighteenth century can be found in The Constitution and By-Laws of the Scots' Charitable Society of Boston (Boston: Press of Farrington Printing Company, 1896), pp. 36–40Google Scholar; Buckingham, Joseph T., Annals of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association (Boston: Press of Crocker and Brewster, 1853), pp. 6–9Google Scholar; The Constitution and By-Laws of the Charitable Irish Society of Boston (Boston: James F. Cotter and Company, 1876), pp. 22–26Google Scholar; Baker, William A., A History of the Boston Marine Society, 1742–1981 (Boston: Boston Marine Society, 1982), pp. 302–3, 308–9Google Scholar; “The Articles and Rules of the Episcopal Charitable Society in Boston” (1724), in Shipton, Clifford K., ed., Early American Imprints, 1639–1800 (Worcester, MA: American Antiquarian Society, 1967–1974)Google Scholar; and Massachusetts Charitable Society, “Rules and Articles” (1762), in Shipton, ed., Early American Imprints.Google Scholar

29 The Constitution and By-Laws of the Scots' Charitable Society of Boston, pp. 22, 24–25, 29.Google Scholar

30 Baker, , A History of the Boston Marine Society, pp. 302–3.Google Scholar

31 Clawson, , Constructing Brotherhood, p. 107Google Scholar; Wright, , The Transformation of Charity, pp. 209, 213–19.Google Scholar

32 Gosden, , The Friendly Societies, pp. 88–93, 224–28.Google Scholar

33 Stevens, Albert C., The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities (New York: E. B. Treat and Company, 1907), p. 113Google Scholar; Greenberg, Brian, Worker and Community: Response to Industrialization in a Nineteenth-Century American City, Albany, New York, 1850–1884 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985), pp. 89–93Google Scholar; Ridgely, James L., History of American Odd Fellowship: The First Decade (Baltimore: James L. Ridgely, 1878), p. 234Google Scholar; Schmidt, , Fraternal Organizations, pp. 243–45.Google Scholar

American Freemasonry never fit the definition of an affiliated order. State lodges were the highest level of authority, and proposals to establish a national grand lodge after the Revolution never advanced beyond the planning stage. It would be more proper to characterize Freemasonry in the United States as a confederacy of state grand lodges rather than as a distinct organization.

34 Gilkeson, John, Middle-Class Providence, 1820–1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), p. 156Google Scholar; Greenberg, , Worker and Community, p. 93Google Scholar; Blumin, Stuart M., The Emergence of the Middle Class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 223–25.Google Scholar

At the same time, Blumin warns against too readily labeling American Odd Fellowship during its subsequent history as “middle class.” He finds no evidence that “bourgeois values were brought to the order by businessmen and taught to workers” and asserts that “it is possible to find within the repeated assertion of a class-free brotherhood and hierarchy of merit a hint of the old working-class radicalism, if not of the Ricardian then at least of the ‘Jack's as good as his master’ variety” (The Emergence of the Middle Class, p. 225).Google Scholar

35 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, part I (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), p. 165.Google Scholar

36 Case, Albert, “The Principles of Odd Fellowship,” The Gavel, vol. 1 (01 1845), p. 128Google Scholar. Expanding on this point in the second installment of this article, Case commented that “by observing the rule of life prescribed by Odd Fellowship, we shall be honest, frugal, temperate, and industrious, and thereby be most likely to secure enough to enable us to be as charitable as others, aside from our dues to the Lodge.” See Case, Albert, “The Principles of Odd Fellowship” (Concluded), The Gavel, vol. 1 (02 1845), p. 154.Google Scholar

37 Ridgely, , History of American Odd Fellowship, pp. 16, 233Google Scholar; “Editor's Table,” The Gavel, vol. 2 (09 1845), p. 64Google Scholar; “Educating the Orphan,” The Emblem: An Odd Fellows Magazine, vol. 1 (05 1856), p. 444Google Scholar; “I.O.O.F. Orphan Asylum,” The Gavel, vol. 2 (05 1846), pp. 284–86.Google Scholar

38 “The Order of Odd Fellows, and the Pittsburgh Sufferers,” The Gavel, vol. 2 (05 1846), pp. 287–88Google Scholar; “Editorial,” The Emblem, vol. 1 (11 1855), p. 201.Google Scholar

39 “Board of Relief of Boston Lodges,” The Emblem, vol. 1 (08 1855), pp. 53–54.Google Scholar

40 Clinton, G. W., “Objections to Our Order Answered,” The Gavel, vol. 2 (09 1845), p. 29Google Scholar. As might be expected, of course, the widespread appeal of ritualism during this period was multifaceted and defies simple explanations. For a provocative discussion of the role of psychological factors, including gender, see Games, Mark C., Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

41 Sackett, M. W., Early History of Fraternal Beneficiary Societies in America (Meadville, PA: Tribune Publishing Company, 1914), p. 25.Google Scholar

The Knights of Labor was founded in 1869, only a year after the AOUW. For a discussion of some similarities between these organizations, see Clawson, , Constructing Brotherhood, pp. 138–43.Google Scholar

42 Sackett, , Early History of Fraternal Beneficiary Societies in America, pp. 27, 130–33Google Scholar; Basye, Walter, History and Operation of Fraternal Insurance (Rochester, NY: Fraternal Monitor, 1919), pp. 10–14.Google Scholar

Beginning in the 1870s, the AOUW slowly shifted away from an assessment approach in favor of graded rates for new members. Not until the turn of the century, however, did it complete the transition; see Sackett, , Early History of Fraternal Beneficiary Societies in America, pp. 147–96.Google Scholar

43 Landis, Abb, Life Insurance (Nashville, TN: Brandon, 1914), pp. 105, 107.Google Scholar

44 Fraternal Monitor, vol. 18 (02 1, 1908), p. 22Google Scholar; Basye, , History and Operation of Fraternal Insurance, p. 16Google Scholar; Stalson, J. Owen, Marketing Life Insurance: Its History in America (Bryn Mawr, PA: McCahan Foundation, 1969), p. 553.Google Scholar

45 Dickson, Harris and Mantz, Isidore P., “Will the Widow Get Her Money? The Weakness in Fraternal Life Insurance and How It May Be Cured,” Everybody's Magazine, vol. 22 (06 1910), p. 776.Google Scholar

By this time, large commercial legal reserve companies, such as the Equitable and Metropolitan, had been well established for decades.

46 Beito, David T., “Mutual Aid, State Welfare, and Organized Charity: Fraternal Societies and the ‘Deserving’ and ‘Undeserving’ Poor,” Journal of Policy History, vol. 5 (1993), pp. 420–21.Google Scholar

The NFC had been formed in 1886 at the instigation of the Ancient Order of United Workmen and eventually represented the leading life-insurance orders. Some other early members were the Knights of Columbus, the Royal Arcanum, and the Knights of Pythias. The NFC did not include representatives from secret orders, such as the Masons and the Elks. See Basye, , History and Operation of Fraternal Insurance, pp. 71–72.Google Scholar

47 Landis, , Life Insurance, p. 107Google Scholar; Landis, Abb, “Life Insurance by Fraternal Orders,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 24 (11 1904), p. 481Google Scholar; Landis, Abb, Friendly Societies and Fraternal Orders (Winchester, TN: Abb Landis, 1900), pp. 67, 71Google Scholar; Life Insurance Independent, vol. 16 (10 1904), p. 235Google Scholar; Life Insurance Independent, vol. 17 (03 1905), p. 93Google Scholar; Basye, , History and Operation of Fraternal Insurance, p. 26.Google Scholar

After the turn of the century, some leading British friendly societies experimented with life insurance (as opposed to simple burial insurance). By 1908, for example, the Manchester Unity offered a policy which was equivalent to 1,000 U.S. dollars. Even so, such examples were fairly rare. See Fraternal Monitor, vol. 19 (09 1, 1908), p. 20.Google Scholar

48 Kip, Richard de Raismes, Fraternal Life Insurance in America (Philadelphia: College Offset Press, 1953), pp. 30–31Google Scholar; Stalson, , Marketing Life Insurance, pp. 451–52, 553Google Scholar; Basye, , History and Operation of Fraternal Insurance, p. 29Google Scholar; Myers, R. J., “The Effect of the Social Security Act on the Life Insurance Needs of Labor,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 45 (10 1937), pp. 682–83Google Scholar; “The Cheapest Insurance,” World's Work, vol. 11 (04 1906), p. 7398Google Scholar; Landis, , Life Insurance, p. 88Google Scholar; Zelizer, Viviana A. Rotman, Morals and Markets: The Development of Life Insurance in the United States (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1983), p. 93Google Scholar; Carnes, , Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America, p. 1.Google Scholar

49 Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Report (1892), part III, pp. 71, 617.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., pp. 71, 617. The national estimate is based on an extensive, but nevertheless incomplete, tabulation of fraternal membership by Stevens, Albert C. in 1907Google Scholar; see Stevens, , The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities, p. 114.Google Scholar

51 Stevens, , The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities, pp. vi–vii, 70–72, 388–94Google Scholar; Carnes, , Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America, pp. 6–9Google Scholar; Gist, Noel P., “Secret Societies: A Cultural Study of Fraternalism in the United States,” The University of Missouri Studies, vol. 15 (10 1, 1940), pp. 32–33, 48Google Scholar; Schmidt, , Fraternal Organizations, pp. 38, 197Google Scholar; Clawson, , Constructing Brotherhood, pp. 136–38Google Scholar; McMath, Robert C., American Populism: A Social History, 1877–1898 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), pp. 58–59, 63, 70.Google Scholar

Historian Michael W. Fitzgerald writes that the ritual of the Union League, an organization dedicated to protecting the civil rights of blacks in the South during Reconstruction, “resembled that of the Masons from which it clearly derived; like those of many fraternal organizations, it extolled civic virtue, universal brotherhood, and other worthy causes.” See Fitzgerald, Michael W., The Union League Movement in the Deep South: Politics and Agricultural Change during Reconstruction (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989), p. 114.Google Scholar

52 Harger, Charles Moreau, “The Lodge,” Atlantic Monthly, vol. 47 (04 1906), p. 494.Google Scholar

53 Statistics of Fraternal Benefit Societies (National Fraternal Congress of America, 1906–1986).Google Scholar

54 See also Beito, David T., “The ‘Lodge Practice Evil’ Reconsidered: Medical Care through Fraternal Societies, 1900–1930,” Journal of Urban History, vol. 23 (07 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar