When the English arrived in the colonies they brought with them many practices and cultures, this included an interest in providing support to the poor through the English Poor Law of 1601. Although the Poor Law was extremely primitive, it did in part lead to more economic security and can be considered an ancestor to Social Security. Below is a history from Social Security about how the Poor Laws connected to Social Security. As you will see, although these Poor Laws provided some sort of support for the less fortunate, there was little dignity in how the less fortunate were treated.
The English Poor Laws
As the state began to assume responsibility for economic security, the English began the development of a series of Poor Laws adopted to provide help to the poor, as the problem of economic security was seen primarily as a problem afflicting the poor.
The English Poor Law of 1601 was the first systematic codification of English ideas about the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of its citizens. It provided for taxation to fund relief activities; it distinguished between the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor; relief was local and community controlled; and “poor” houses were eventually established to house those on relief. The law was at once both generous and harsh. Generous in that it acknowledged the government’s duty to provide for the welfare of the poor, but harsh in that it viewed the poor as highly undesirable characters and treated them accordingly.
There were a series of changes and reforms of the Poor Laws over the years, but this essential structure was the tradition the pilgrims brought with them when they journeyed to the New World.
Economic Security In America
When the English-speaking colonists arrived in the New World they brought with them the ideas and customs they knew in England, including the Poor Laws. The first colonial poor laws were fashioned after those of the Poor Law of 1601. They featured local taxation to support the destitute; they discriminated between the “worthy” and the “unworthy” poor; and all relief was a local responsibility. No public institutions for the poor or standardized eligibility criteria would exist for nearly a century. It was up to local town elders to decide who was worthy of support and how that support would be provided.
As colonial America grew more complex, diverse and mobile, the localized systems of poor relief were strained. The result was some limited movement to state financing and the creation of “poor” houses to “contain” the problem. For much of the 18th and 19th centuries most poverty relief was provided in the poorhouses and charity houses. Relief was made as unpleasant as possible in order to “discourage” dependency. Those receiving relief could lose their personal property, the right to vote, the right to move, and in some cases were required to wear a large “P” on their clothing to announce their status.
Support outside the institutions was called “outdoor relief” and was looked upon with distrust by most citizens. It was felt that “outdoor relief” made things too easy on the poor who should be discouraged from the habit of poverty in every way possible. Nevertheless, since it was expensive to build and operate the poorhouses, and since it was relatively easy to dispense cash or in-kind support, some outdoor relief did emerge. Even so, prevailing American attitudes toward poverty relief were always skeptical and the role of government was kept to the minimum. So much so that by as late as 1915 at most only 25 percent of the money spent on outdoor relief was from public funds.
