Baseborn

Illegitimacy and Victorian Sensibilities

Release Date: July 12, 2024

Two Tales of Illegitimacy

In 1891, being born out of wedlock in New England carried a heavy burden, shaping a child's life in ways that depended mainly on their mother’s wealth, status, and social class. The term "illegitimate" was more than just a label; it was a stigma that could follow a child for life, affecting everything from social standing and legal rights to education, marriage prospects and future opportunities.

Life for a child born out of wedlock often started out under a cloud of secrecy and shame. Society's judgment fell hardest on the mom, but the child definitely wasn’t spared, despite having no responsibility for their situation.

If the mother came from a wealthy family, she might be sent away to give birth in secret. She might go on a grand tour of Europe or visit distant relatives far from prying eyes. Another option was to stay at a high-end maternity home or lying in hospital that specialized in keeping such matters discreet.

Once the baby was born, the family might arrange for the child to be quietly adopted, taken in as an orphan by a generous relative, provided for by a legal guardian, or on rare occasions, the mother might choose to raise the child herself. As often happens, financial resources provided choices that allowed families to handle the situation safely, discreetly and without damaging their reputation, or the mother’s future.

The situation for working-class mothers, however, was much different. Without the financial or social means to hide her pregnancy, the birth, or the child, she had few options. She could stay in her community and endure scorn, judgement and humiliation, she could go to live with relatives, or she could take advantage of the growing number of maternity homes and lying-in hospitals which were supported by religious and charitable organizations.

Here's a great piece written by Michael Guignard, Ph.D on his deeply personal connection to Boston’s Talitha Cumi Home, one of the earliest charitable maternity homes and lying-in hospitals established for unwed mothers.

When the child was born, the unwed mother’s options looked a little different than those afforded wealthier mothers. Many maternity homes and lying-in hospitals that catered to poor and working-class mothers offered in-house adoption services, and placed — or sometimes sold — children with married couples. The mother could also choose to raise the child on her own or relinquish the child to a family member or friend. Illegitimate children were often raised in the family home as siblings to their mothers or other relatives. (As a genealogist, anytime I see a large age gap between children my radar goes off.) Another option which many poor unwed mothers resorted to was placing their child in a baby farm, either temporarily or permanently, (More on that option below.)

Beyond pregnancy and birth, the differences between children born to wealthy mothers and those born to working-class or poor mothers continued to have huge impact on outcome.

Illegitimate children of wealthy mothers were often educated in elite boarding schools, many of which built stellar reputations for their discreet handling of everything from financial arrangements to gossip. These private institutions were also familiar with the guardianship system many wealthy families established as a boundary between themselves — and their social standing — and their children born outside marriage.

Fewer options were available for less well-off illegitimate children, many of whom attended school irregularly if at all, having to work to help support the family at an early age. According to one study, ‘by 1911, more than two million American children under the age of 16 were working – many of them 12 hours or more, six days a week. Often they toiled in unhealthful and hazardous conditions; always for minuscule wages.” ¹

Legally, illegitimate children of all social and economic groups had few rights or protections. They were all legally referred to as nullius filius, a Latin term meaning belonging to none, in other words, having no legal relationship with a mother or father. Thus, baseborn children were excluded from inheritance unless specifically stated, and even then, they often faced legal challenges and court battles from legitimate heirs.

Wealthy families often worked around inheritance issues by establishing trust funds to pay for a child’s education and living expenses until they reached adulthood. Working class families didn’t have that option, and often relied on charitable and religious organizations, as well as financial contributions from the father or his family.

In Colonial times, fathers were required to post a Bastardy Bond of a sufficient amount to pay for a child’s birth and early life, usually until they could be apprenticed out or otherwise employed. Although Bastardy Bonds were falling out of favor by 1891, fathers who acknowledged paternity — and many did not, were still required by law to provide financial support. Enforcement was inconsistent, however, and many fathers evaded their responsibilities. Even with outside financial support, poor and working-class single mothers often struggled to meet even the most basic needs of their illegitimate children.

Sounds pretty grim, right?

The good news is that things were already beginning to change. Organizations and individuals advocating for children's rights and welfare emerged in the late 19th century, and began the hard work of establishing legal protections for children born outside marriage.

One of those people was Dr. S.M. Landin, a Philadelphia-based hydropath, author and child welfare activist. In 1895, Dr. Landin gave a lecture in Boston titled, “Should illegitimate Children be Legitimized to Prevent Criminal Malpractice”. In the lecture, he boldly called for Congress to pass a law making all children equal, regardless of the status of their parents.

His reasoning was simple:

Why should innocent little children, born outside of wedlock, be branded as illegitimate? Have they had a choice in their advent? Have the laws of precreation been sundered through their own acts? ²

Although it would take decades for such laws to be passed, today America recognizes the equality of all children, regardless of the relationships between their parents, taking much of the sting and stigma out of words like illegitimate and bastard. And promising a brighter future for all.

How Far to Keep a Secret

The prospect of others finding out about a teen pregnancy and the existence of an illegitimate child was so unimaginable to some people in the late 1800s that they were willing to do just about anything to protect their secrets. Even commit murder, as was the case with members of the Charles Willett family of Waddams Grove, IL.

Described as “one of the most law-abiding and peaceful neighborhoods in the whole of the West”, Waddams Grove was populated by “hardy Dunkard farmers who hold a puritanic view of life and walk in the straight and narrow way.” ³

By all accounts, Charles and Sarah Willett and their six daughters and two sons fit right in with their neighbors. A closeknit and conservative family, the Willetts had been among the county’s first settlers, and, despite a few wobbles, had a reputation for uprightness and piety.

All that changed, however, in the spring of 1895 when a grand jury was convened to decide if murder charges should be brought against Joseph French and his wife, Lucinda Willett French, in the death of Lucinda’s 18-year-old sister, Lavina.

The case came to the attention of local law enforcement at Lavina’s funeral, at least according to the local paper.

“Miss Lavina Willett, who made her home with Joseph French and wife, [Lucinda] Willett, died on Saturday, March 9, 1895, and was buried on the following Tuesday. The cause of her death was said to have been inflammation of the bowels, but soon after the death and funeral of the young lady ugly rumors were circulated concerning the manner of her death, and finally the matter was brought up before the September grand jury…⁴

The ugly rumors being spread were that Lavina had been forced to undergo a secret – and highly illegal – abortion to keep from bringing shame on her mother, 55-year-old Sarah.

When the grand jury was convened, and, even more so when the case went to trial later that fall, the good folks of Stephenson County filled the courthouse to the rafters. For days, they listened intently as the sad tale of Lavina was told in vivid, and often shocking, detail.

A cousin told the grand jury that Sarah had accused Lavina “of doing something she ought not have done”, “being in a family way” and intentionally destroying the family’s reputation. ⁵

Sarah’s daughter-in-law testified that her mother-in-law was the one who suggested Joseph should “take [Lavina] up home and do something for her”.

Even Lucinda threw her mother under the bus saying the abortion was wholly Sarah’s idea, and that she, Lucinda, was dead set against it and fearful that the procedure would surely kill her little sister.

But it was the testimony of Jacob Miller, a handyman who had lived with the Frenches for several months, that really set tongues wagging.

“I saw familiarities between Joseph French and Lavina Willet two months before she was taken sick. They would lay on the floor and lounge and hug and kiss each other. They were locked up in a room together during the month of December.” ⁶

With each new witness, new and stunning details of Lavina’s last days – and the role Jospeh played in them – were revealed.

He and Lavina had allegedly traveled alone to the nearby town of Freeport for the procedure. And when asked who’d performed the abortion, Joseph had given family members the name of a doctor, yet no doctor of that name could be found. And finally, medical experts who examined Lavina days after the supposed trip to Freeport, testified her condition – which they believed was the result of an abortion – didn’t match up with the timeline of events Joseph had provided.

Instead, testimony revealed that Joseph had studied medicine, including obstetrics, and likely had the knowledge and instruments to perform the abortion himself. A fact which seemed to be confirmed when testimony revealed he was present during the abortion and had later described the baby’s head as being “as big as a walnut.”

Then there was his absolute control over access to Lavina as she lay dying.

Dr. Sadler had attended Lavina in the week leading up to her death. He testified he’d given Jospeh a syringe and told him to administer morphine to Lavina as necessary for pain, but no more than two or three times a day.

But that’s not what Joseph did.

Lavina’s older brother, Frank, claimed to the Grand Jury that, although there were multiple women in the house willing to care for and sit with Lavina, Joseph never allowed any of them to be alone with her. And, on at least one occasion, when Lavina started to share the details of her ordeal with family members in the room, Joseph immediately injected her with morphine, rendering her unconscious and unable to speak. (Frank refused to testify at the trial in order to protect Lucinda, so his Grand Jury testimony was not entered into the record at trial.)

Others, however, confirmed Frank’s testimony, saying that Joseph injected Lavina with morphine “any time she would start to come to,” and sometimes as often as every hour.

Even Dr. Sadler testified to Joseph’s absolute control over Lavina, noting he was not allowed to examine Lavina without Joseph being in the room.

There had been, however, one short moment of unsupervised interaction. Dr. Sadler had paid an unannounced visit to his patient, and gone directly to the sick chamber, avoiding family members who were in another part of the house. The doctor testified Lavina was conscious and alert, and the two engaged in a brief conversation in which he learned that an abortion had been performed, and that it had been performed against Lavina’s wishes. Midway through the conversation, the doctor testified, Jospeh came rushing in and ended the conversation, and immediately injected Lavina with morphine.

He also noted that on future visits, the doors to the sick chamber were locked, Lavina was continually guarded, and Joseph kept her heavily sedated. ⁷

Midway through the murder trial, the local press weighed in:

“Is Joe French a fiend in human form? Has he for years employed his meager knowledge of medicine and surgery in ruining the lives of many young girls? Evidence is beginning to pile up against this man who is in the county jail and charged with the murder of his sister-in-law, Miss Lavina Willetts. Evidence of such a revolting nature which if true will stamp him as one of the greatest villains of the age. Some of it is circumstantial, come is direct. It is believed that there is sufficient of the latter to convict the prisoner. If such is a fact, he will end his existence on the gallows or in prison. ⁸

It seemed a done deal that Joseph would be found guilty of murdering his sister-in-law to keep her pregnancy, and his part in it, from becoming know. As for Lucinda, her fate was tied to her husband’s as an accessory to Lavina’s murder, though few believed she had any choice.

So, imagine the shock and outrage when, on October 18, seven months after Lavina’s death and following a grand jury indictment and weeks of damning testimony, Joseph French was acquitted!

The conclusion: Although Joseph’s actions were highly suspicious, evidence against him was circumstantial and no definitive proof that he’d committed the abortion which led to Lavina’s death had been presented.

For their part Joseph and Lucinda claimed the entire case had been fabricated out of spite, telling reporters it was the work of their former handyman, Lucinda’s sister-in-law, and a teacher who had previously worked under Joseph and held a grudge.

Not surprisingly, four months after their acquittals, Joseph and Lucinda left Waddams Grove and moved to Sharpsburg, MS. Some 800 miles due south. Testimony in the trial had brought up rumors of Joseph’s involvement in previous abortions and other victims, and leaving Illinois likely seemed a good idea. ⁹

In 1899, Lucinda died from lingering complications of childbirth. Days later, her infant son, Guy McCoy French, died, as well.

Following her death, Lucinda’s and Joseph’s children, six-year-old Sarah and four-year-old Earl, were placed in a local orphanage. No records have been located to tell their tale.

As for Joseph, he seems to have disappeared as well, taking his secrets with him.

A Different Kind of Farm

As I was researching what it meant in 1891 to be born “on the wrong side of the sheet” I kept coming across references to so-called “baby farms”. I’d never heard the term before, so I was curious.

And what I found was shocking.

Baby farming emerged in the mid-19^th century in response to the increasing number of illegitimate births across America and elsewhere. There were a lot of different factors which played into this increase. Rural folks were leaving the strict moral influences of family, home and close-knit community and going to urban centers in search of work. At the same time, immigrants were flooding into America and bringing with them often very different outlooks on sex, marriage and legitimacy.

Rapid changes in everything from where people lived and how they interreacted with others to how and where they earned money, led to a lot of economic uncertainty and hardship, especially among those already struggling to get by. Throw in the vulnerability of domestic servants, and a general lack of rights, welfare protections and services for women, and the result was more and more pregnant and unmarried women and girls left with few good options when it came to dealing with their baby.

One of those options was a baby farm, though few people of the day considered it a good one.

Although some farms were affiliated with or even run by charitable or religious organizations, most were operated by single women in private homes and small boarding houses. The number of babies taken in varied widely, as did the quality of the space, level of care and sanitation.

Here’s how it worked: Discrete and often coded advertisements were placed in local newspapers and tacked to community message boards offering services such as “infant adoption” “long-term infant care”, or even “baby boarding”. Word of mouth was also used, especially among domestic workers and other low-wage jobs. And sometimes, a physician, midwife or do-gooder would refer a mother to a baby farm.

Mothers who took advantage of baby farms often fell into three flawed categories: those who needed a temporary place to care for their babies until they got back on their feet and could take on the responsibilities of motherhood on their own, those who sought a better life for their babies through permanent adoption, and those who may have abandoned their babies on the street if not for the baby farm.

Most services were paid for in cash and in advance, however, mothers who planned on coming back for their babies often paid a weekly fee. Ostensibly, the fees covered basic care including feeding, bathing, and a place to sleep, however again, quality in those areas varied wildly.  Additional fees were charged for everything from medical care to finding a couple willing to adopt the baby. Interestingly, most adopting families were also charged a fee.

Some baby farm operators were, of course in it for the right reasons. For example, in Boston, one baby farm was run by a woman referred to only as Mrs. Smith. During the 15-year period between 1877 and 1892, Mrs. Smith claimed to have found good homes for 1,200 children, of which just 29 were illegitimate. In defending her business, Mrs. Smith stated her belief that, “illegitimate children … should receive tender care and be brought up in virtuous surroundings.” And it appeared she practiced what she preached. ¹⁰

Others, in fact the majority, were not nearly as scrupulous. Or even humane.

In 1891, Board of Health Physician Greene of Buffalo, NY, was charged with licensing and monitoring baby farms, and what he found was a system which led to “brutality, inhumanity and death.”

 “These farms almost invariably starve the children [most of whom are illegitimate]. The keepers dose them with opium, paregoric and soothing syrups to keep them asleep, feed them milk out of half clean bottles and otherwise derange the weak digestive organs of the little ones so that death takes them out of the way in a short time. I don’t say the women kill them, but I know the death rate is alarmingly high.” ¹¹

And alarming it was. In reviewing dozens of newspaper articles and publications of the day, the mortality rate for babies placed in baby farms was in many cases well over 80 percent.  

Copyright 2024 Lori Olson White

It’s estimated nearly 40 percent of children born in America today are born outside of marriage, and that number continues to grow. How do you think social class and economic status influence the experiences of single parents and their children in today's society? And what parallels do you see with the way things were in 1891 when Aimee was born?

The Lost & Found Story Box is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.

---

Call Me A Bastard is a weekly serialized book that tells the true and scandalous story of Aimee Henry and Mary Martha Parker. New chapters are released each Tuesday beginning June 25, 2024. Subscribe for free today, and we’ll deliver Call Me a Bastard and a bunch of other fantastic free content to your email each week! 

If you’d like additional content, or just want to support The Lost & Found Story Box, we’d love to have you as a paid subscriber. Your paid subscription helps support Call Me a Bastard and future project, and gives you access to exclusive content like Author Q&A Sessions, Guest Features, Fan Engagement Opportunities, Virtual Wrap-up Parties, Unlimited Access to the Story Archives and more.

Read Call Me a Bastard from the beginning.

---

Endnotes

^{1 “}Hansan, J. (2011). The American era of child labor. Social Welfare History Project. Retrieved from https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/child-labor/

^{2 “}Illegitimate Children: Dr. Landis Thinks They Should be Legitimized by Statute,” Boston Post, Boston, MA, December 23, 1895, P.8.

^{3, 4, 5, 6 “}Are Free once More. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph B. French Have their Hearing today; The Evidence not Strong Enough. Justice Marvin Decided that He Could Not Hold them for Murder”, Freeport Daily Bulletin, Freeport, IL, October 18, 1895, P.4.

^{7, 8} "Looks Blue for French: Prosecution has Such Strong Evidence that He will Likely Be Found Guilty: Charges of Other Crimes are Made, And the Proofs Even More Strong: The Mysterious Death of Mary French,” Freeport Daily Bulletin, Freeport, IL, September 9, 1895, P. 5.

⁹ “Can Charges be Proven: People’s Important Witnesses in the French Murder Case may leave the States; Evidence in Grand Jury Can’t be Used”, Freeport Daily Bulletin, Freeport, IL, September 20, 1895, P. 4.

¹⁰ “Defense has its Say: Supreme court Reporter Hooker of Hartford Makes His answer to Mr. Fowler’s Charges against Mrs. Smith”, The Boston Globe, Boston, MA, September 24, 1892, P. 10.

¹¹ “Babies Starved and Dosed: With the Treatment They Get at the ‘Baby Farms” It is a Wonder any of the Friendless Tots Ever Survive”, The Buffalo News, Buffalo, NY, July 23, 1891 p. 1.