Eastern State Penitentiary’s story cannot be told in isolation as several other incarceration facilities also in operation at the time contributed to the racial disparities evidenced in the admissions data. One reason for this racial disparity is the House of Refuge, an institution established in 1826 by prominent 19th century Philadephians as a reaction to the growing number of “delinquent” children. The House of Refuge served as an alternative to prisons for children and adolescents determined to be societal degenerates by the court system or by recommendation of parents or friends (Frey 17). However, until the establishment of the House of Refuge for Colored Children in 1849, only white children and youth were sent to the House of Refuge, meaning children and youth of color were treated as adults and sent to Eastern State Penitentiary. 

The number of children of color incarcerated at Eastern State Penitentiary demonstrates the impact that race had and continues to have on the criminal justice system and prison reform in Philadelphia and across the nation. Delving into the data of the Eastern State Penitentiary admission books ultimately reveals how issues of race, gender, and age influenced the landscape of incarceration in Philadelphia in the early-mid 19th century and into the 20th century. 
 

Eastern State Penitentiary’s architectural design reinforced the founders and managers’ philosophical belief in isolation, labor and the prison’s overarching goal in reforming society’s “degenerates.” Incarcerated persons at Eastern State Penitentiary were completely isolated from one another in individual cells with limited time allotted for interpersonal interaction. In fact, from 1829-1913, inmates spent 23 hours a day in their cells. “Repent, reflect and reform” was the primary aim of Eastern State under the direction of prominent penal reformers, such as Dr. Benjamin Rush, a physician and humanitarian who was also a founding member of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons. 

Although inmates were not allowed to regularly interact with each other, they were expected to meet weekly with “moral instructors.” Moral instructors were ministers whose primary obligation was to spend “six to eight hours every day of the week in visiting the sick, instructing the ignorant, and imparting to all, as opportunity offers, moral and religious knowledge” (246).

Often all we know about inmates comes from the notes kept by the moral instructors who, ultimately, monitored the reform efforts at Eastern State Penitentiary. As evidenced in the chart below, they often made damning judgments about an incarcerated person’s fate, including whether he believed they were “hopeless,” of “no hope,” or, rarely, possessing “some hope” at the time of their release from the prison.  
 

Notably, whereas 45% of those 21 years old and older were regarded as having “no hope,” that percentage actually increases for inmates under 21 years old as 64% of that demographic were considered to be of “no hope.” These numbers stand in stark contrast to Eastern State’s mission and purpose considering the prison reform efforts, spearheaded by organizations like the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, House of Refuge, and House of Refuge for Colored Children, that foregrounded rehabilitation over punishment, especially for children and youth who were considered to be more malleable due to their young age. 

The moral instructor was tasked with keeping detailed records of each inmate incarcerated at the prison, including their name, age, ethnicity, religion, gender, occupation, birthplace, prisoner number, admission date, sentencing location, offense, sentencing length, number of convictions, ability to read and/or write, discharge note, and a general description. But the records kept by the moral instructor are riddled with gaps, particularly in consistently recording personal information about the incarcerated, most notably their ethnicity, religion, and/or occupation. Often the moral instructor indicated when an inmate was “black” or “mulatto” and various other iterations of this ethnic identity, but did not regularly nor explicitly indicate when the inmate was white. 

The moral instructor also recorded several additional racial identities beyond the aforementioned racial identities, including those inmates who were Irish, German and Swedish. He distinguishes these identities from the few inmates that he does mark as “W” or “white.” Yet, the majority of the inmate entries do not include an explicit racial identification marker. These gaps, or rather silences, in relation to whiteness reverberate throughout the archive. For the purposes of this project, the inmate is assumed to be white where the moral instructor deliberately does not mark a distinct racial identity.
 

Although the moral instructor’s notes provide some insight into the lives of the incarcerated, it is important to understand how the philosophical and religious views of the moral instructor impacted the data presented in the three Eastern State Penitentiary admission books. 

Thomas Larcombe, the first moral instructor at the prison, united with the First Baptist Church in Philadelphia in 1807 at the age of 16, and was ordained a minister in 1821. He was pastor at churches in New Hopewell and Bordentown, N.J., and later at Colebrook, Conn., and he served at Eastern State from about 1837 into the 1850s. Three of the earliest Admission Books (A, B, and D) appear to have been kept by Larcombe. He provided brief comments on the moral condition of each prisoner, indicating whether they were repentant, resistant, religious, or recalcitrant. His subjective running commentary affords fascinating insight into cultural attitudes toward crime, criminality, race, gender, and incarceration itself.

Because of their perceived “plasticity,” children and youth remained a primary target for prison reformers’ efforts to rehabilitate versus punish inmates, especially those inmates under 21 years of age. Both prior to and after the opening of the House of Refuge and the House of Refuge for Colored Children, children were steadily incarcerated at Eastern State Penitentiary. According to the records written and kept by the moral instructor from 1835-1850, 294 children and youth were incarcerated at Eastern State Penitentiary. 

For the purposes of this project, children and youth are considered to be under the age of 21 as historically the House of Refuge and later the House of Refuge for Colored Children accepted individuals up to 21 years of age (Kopaczewski). Because of this project’s focus on Eastern State Penitentiary in relation to the broader landscape of incarceration in Philadelphia, it is crucial we define children and youth in relation to the other incarceration facilities that housed them.

Explore the Eastern Apps to further explore and visualize this historic prison data: diglib.amphilsoc.org/labs/eastern-apps/. Search the records yourself for those children and youth under the age of 21.

Meet John Maxfield, an 11-year-old black boy convicted and sentenced to 5 years at Eastern State Penitentiary for arson, and the youngest inmate recorded in the admission books that include over 1700 individual inmate entries. The moral instructor included the following note in relation to Maxfield: “A very small black boy charged with burning a barn. Tis said to be the second time he has done the act. He denies his guilt. Seems to be a bad boy. Don't appear to regard his punishment much. Idiotic evidently.” Although the moral instructor determines John to be a bad boy and even “idiotic,” he does note in the discharge note that he possesses “hope of change.”

Yet, 5 years later, John Maxfield re-enters Eastern State Penitentiary for the second time. Only this time, he is 17 years old and now sentenced to 1 year in prison for larceny. Considering this is Maxfield’s second offense, the moral instructor’s discharge note has drastically changed to indicate him as having “no hope.” The moral instructor also notes, “Mother living. Was sentenced for arson 5 years and served out his time here, and tried to set fire to the prison when here. Left Aug 21, 1845 Back Sept. 2 1846 for Larceny. No religious education No Sunday school. Learned to read in Prison. Stole a gun worth 6 $. Guilty. Religious education nothing.” 

This is the unique story of John Maxfield; yet, his story is only one of many that reflect the rate at which children and youth of color were disproportionately incarcerated and reincarcerated at ESP, especially prior to the establishment of the House of Refuge for Colored Children. Maxfield’s story also demonstrates the commonality of recidivism amongst inmates within Eastern State Penitentiary and beyond within the broader network of incarceration facilities across Philadelphia. 

Of the 294 children and youth incarcerated at ESP between 1835-1850, 146 were identified as “black,” and various iterations of this ethnic identity, including “light black,” “mulatto,” “black and mulatto,” “dark mulatto,” “light mulatto,” “very light mulatto” and “sambo.” Of the 294 children and youth incarcerated at ESP, 29 were identified as “female” and even more specifically 22 were identified by the moral instructor as both black and female. 
 

This first data visualization shows the 1840 census numbers, which were collected and published by the U.S. Census Bureau. The total population for the state of Pennsylvania was approximately 1.7 million people, with black people only making up 3% of the state’s population.  Yet, as the chart on the right indicates, whereas black people only made up 3% of the state’s population, they made up 32% of ESP’s prison population. These numbers demonstrate the importance of contextualizing the data found within the Eastern State Penitentiary admission books with additional archival materials, like the 1840 Census materials. 

For those incarcerated persons, who were 21 years old and older (rather adults), 28% of that population were marked by the moral instructor as black and 72% were white. For the prison population under 21 years old, the numbers dramatically shift as 49% of those incarcerated children were black and 51% were white. With girls under 21 years of age, black girls were disproportionately incarcerated at Eastern State Penitentiary, making up 76% of the girls occupying the prison. 

In his general description, the moral instructor would often determine, in his assessment, the guilt. For 16-year-old Elizabeth Harris, the moral instructor went as far as to note that she was “innocent.” He wrote the following: “Parents dead, father when a child. Mother 15 months ago. Innocent. Was called out of court by a lawyer who told her to confess and the judge would not then convict her. She did so and was sentenced, don’t know how long. Seems to be simple and imposed upon. Mother Methodist.”

Elizabeth Harris was admitted to Eastern State on July 18th,1846, convicted and sentenced to 3 years for larceny although the moral instructor denies her guilt. Yet, Harris would never be exonerated nor released from prison as she died February 6th, 1847, in Eastern State Penitentiary, “Died Feb. 6 1847 Indifferent to the last. Mind possibly affected.”

Founded on February 7, 1826, the House of Refuge predates Eastern State Penitentiary by three years. Modeled after the New York House of Refuge and Boston House of Refuge, Philadelphia’s House of Refuge prioritized rehabilitation over punishment through strictly regimenting each day the child spent in its facilities as its aim was the “moral, intellectual and physical improvement” of its occupants. While in the House of Refuge, the occupants’ time was split between labor and learning and included vocational training based on traditional gender roles.

Yet, despite its rehabilitation over punishment philosophy, the House of Refuge often did not succeed in its mission as several children represented in the records at Eastern State Penitentiary were once housed at House of Refuge. Notably, the references to the House of Refuge in the moral instructor’s notes were only in relation to white boys. Eastern State Penitentiary was not the only option available to white children and youth accused and convicted of crimes in the Philadelphia area as the House of Refuge provided an alternative to these troubled young people. 

In fact, it was not until December 1849 that the House of Refuge for Colored Children opened and accepted its first class. The House of Refuge and House of Refuge for Colored Children remained segregated in separate facilities into the 20th century. 

The Eastern Apps provides users with an entryway into admissions data kept at Eastern State Penitentiary and offers an overview of larger trends to be found within the data. It also allows users to go from the broad to the granular in exploring trends and addressing their own research questions. My project uncovered the lives of children who were imprisoned at ESP and revealed underlying attitudes and experiences that black children in particular had at that institution.