Irene Robinson goes home, 1871

Traditionally, individuals born female who lived as males provided authorities with a tale of desperate pursuit of a seducing rascal. Irene Robinson’s seducer hadn’t seduced quite yet; instead, authorities heard a tale of a teenager avoiding an unwanted marriage. Robinson’s adventures in various locations entertained Americans, especially once a New York tabloid interviewed Robinson.

Irene Robinson (from Evening Post [New York, New York] 18 September 1871; p. 2)

Irene Robinson, a young woman who has for two years represented herself as a male, under the name of William Franks, last night confessed her sex at the Sixteenth Precinct station-house, and asked to be sent to her home in Peo[ri]a, Illinois.

Robinson’s appearance before a judge added a romantic twist to the story, as Robinson told of escaping an unwanted marriage and working various jobs before deciding to go back to Peoria.

“Remarkable Adventures of a Young Woman in Male Attire” (from Evening Post [New York, New York] 19 September 1871; p. 2)

The case of Irene Robinson, the young woman who for two years past has dressed in male attire, and who on Sunday night confessed her sex to the police, and asked to be sent to her home in Peoria, Ill., was considered by Judge Shandley yesterday. Her history is remarkable. It appears that her father and mother live in Peoria, where she had a happy home until a schoolmaster of that place asked her hand in marriage. According to her own story, she disliked the man, who was far older than herself. Her parents, who was far older than herself. Her parnets, however, favored his suit, and at last she determined to leave home to escape her unwelcome suitor. In November, 1869, she dressed herself in some clothing belonging to her brother, and, stealing quietly from the house, took the train for Chicago. there, under the name of William Frank, she drove a team, carted lumber, hired herself to a sand contractor, and made fence-posts. But she could not keep her sex a secret. Women invariably discovered her, and she could rarely stay for a month in one place. From Chicago she went to Toledo, from Toledo to Sandusky, from Sandusky to Buffalo; there she drove a two-horse team for two months, hauling wood; but, as usual, the wife of her employer became suspicious, and the so-called William Frank went to Rochester, where she became help in a livery stable. Her next trade was laying railroad ties in Clyde, after which she journeyed to Savannah, where she earned her living by splitting wood. She was apparently doomed to discovery, and like the Wandering Jew, was obliged to keep moving. She paid short visits to Rochester, Syracuse, Troy, Mount Vernon, and finally found her way to this city in a canal-boat. The captain’s wife soon found out that William Frank was a girl, and hastened to inform the police, to whom Irene made full confession.

The indomitable girl is of medium stature, with dark, curly hair, closely cut, clear dark eyes, and a bright, pleasant face, with nothing bold or unfeminine in its expression. The wanderer was handed over to the care of the Commissioners of Charities and Corrections, and is now on her way back to Peoria, clad in the garments of her sex.

A young bride! A detestable bridegroom! Parents forcing the marriage! Years of toil and travels! What magistrate could resist such a tale? The Sun couldn’t resist it either, giving Robinson most of a column:

“A Young Girl’s Disguise: The Extraordinary career of Irene Robinson” (from Sun [New York, New York] 19 September 1871; p. 3)

How She Got Rid of a Disagreeable Lover—The Escape before the Wedding—Seeking Employment in Man’s Clothes.

Two years ago there lived in the suburbs of Peoria, Ill., a family named Robinson, consisting of husband, wife, one son, and several daughters. The son and all but one of the daughters weree married. The youngest daughter, Irene, a pretty girl of 17, was sought by John Stiger, a schoolmaster in Peoria. Stiger’s suit was favored by the old folks, who wished to compel Irene to marry him. Irene’s dislike of the man was undisguised. He was 42 years of age, tall, shambling, and uncouth. Notwithstanding, a day was named for the marriage.

One night in November, 1869, the wedding day being near at hand, Irene dressed herself in her brother’s clothes, and at 2 o’clock in the morning stole down stairs, unbarred the door and struck off for Haynesville. She took a train for Chicago, and there sought employment from a lumber dealer as a driver. The man was loth to give her work. He looked at

HER WHITE FACE AND DELICATE HANDS,

and told her she wouldn’t do for him.

“How do you keep your hands so white?” asked the lumberman.

“Oh, I’ve been working for a tailor,” was the response.

The man was otherwise favorably impressed with young William Frank (that was the name the girl took), and finally hired her at $1 a day. William drove a team, handled lumber, and did a man’s work, though as she said to a Sun reporter:

“It was mighty tough for a while. I used to get splinters in my hands and have lots of trouble, but I finally got used to it.”

William worked for the lumberman about two weeks, and then went to driving a cart for a contrctor who was filling up the streets. Her soft hands were growing brown and hard, and excited less comment. She got along better; but after a stay of three weeks with the sand contractor,

HER SEX WAS SUSPECTED,

and she went to work in the suburbs making fence-posts. Here her sex was again discovered, and one night she quietly made off to Toledo, paying her fare with money she had saved from her labor. In Toledo she worked for one Hawes, building a board fence. She received $1.25 a day, and stayed two months, then her sex was suspected by one of her fellow workmen, and she was again obliged to move on.

This time she reached Sandusky, where she drove a team of one Botfield, who was filling up roads. She had been one month quietly at work, when a girl who boarded in the same house suspected that young William Franks was not what his name implied. William quietly slipped away, and made for a new country. This time she stopped in Buffalo. Here for two months she drove a two horse team for Mr. Eyter, hauling wood. He paid her $1.25 a day, from which she saved money. She did her work satisfactorily, and everything was going on pleasantly when, as usual, a woman

MADE THE OLD DISCOVERY.

As usual the woman told her husband. William began to be the object of unpleasant attention, and again moved on; this time to Rochester, where she worked in Mr. Brewer’s livery stable. She took to the horses, and things went on agreeable, for three months; but she was again discovered by a woman.

“These women,” said Irene to the Sun reporter, “are quicker[’]n lightning, and all there was to do was to go. I used to keep away from them all I could. I would get my meals and get out of the house as soon as I could, but it was no use, they would see through it. And then the women would tell their husbands, the husbands would tell others, and whenever folks began to look at me sharp, I used to quietly get away and go somewhere else.”

From Rochester William went to Clyde, where she was employed by a railroad contractor named Looks. For three months she worked with a gang of men laying railroad ties. It was the old story; her sex was suspected, and she again pulled up stakes and hired out to Tom Johnson, in Savannah, splitting wood. This was late in the fall of 1870.

SHE SWUNG AN AXE

all the following winter. For four months, until the spring of the present year, she escaped detection. Then Tom Johnson’s wife began to be inquisitive, and William made up her bundles again, and went back to Rochester, where she remained but a short time. She next started for Syracuse, where she worked in one of the salt works. From Syracuse she went to Troy, and thence to Mount Vernon, where she arrived in April. There she went to work for William Thompson hauling wood. The other hands suspected her, and she soon went to work for Samuel Johnson. The same fate followed her, and she engaged herself to William Brewer, a gardener, for whom she worked some time digging tomatoes, picking cucumbers for pickles, and getting along finely until the wife of her employer suspected that

THE YOUNG CUCUMBER PICKER

was not so much of a boy as was indicated by the clothes he wore. William was off early in september for Syracuse, where he slept in the station house while waiting for work, finally engaging as a driver on the canal. Thence she went to Troy, and on Friday night she arrived at the pier foot of West twenty-second street.

Late on Saturday night the canal-boat captain’s wife had

THE USUAL SUSPICION,

which culminated in handing the young driver over to the police. William was taken to the Twentieth street police station early on Sunday morning, where she was received by Capt. Killales, who after listening to portions of her remarkable story sent her below, and saw her provided with comfortable blankets.

Yesterday morning the Captain laid the case before Inspector Walling. Clothing more suitable to her sex than that which she wore at the time of her arrest is preparing, and she was yesterday forwarded to her home in the Prairie State.

A VISIT TO THE YOUNG ADVENTURER.

A Sun reporter, who visited the police station on Sunday night, was invited by Capt. Killales to call upon the remarkable girl. Passing down stairs to the cell corridor, the Captain rattled at a door, threw back the lock, and called:

“William!”

“Holloa,” responded a voice, which was slightly sleepy, but pleasant withal; and William threw off the blankets, arose from his bed, stepped out into the corridor, and seated himself in a chair provided by the Captain. William, or Irene rather, is a pretty girl, of about the medium height, and well formed. Her brown hair is cropped, and curls loosely about her head. Her dark eyes are pleasant woman’s eyes. She has even, white teeth, and her cheeks are brown with constant exposure, as, also, her small hands. She wore dark brown pantaloons, a colored flannel overshirt, and a black and red checked undershirt showed its edge above the outer garment. She impresses one on sight as a modest girl and this impression is confirmed by her pleasant conversation. She told the reporter not to write to her folks for she did not want to go back.

“SHE COULDN’T HAVE STIGER ANYHOW.[”]

Her contact with the world has not given her very favorable views of mankind, and she is in no haste to be married. She said that she didn’t want her folks to know, “because, you know, in the country things spread and are talked about so much, and everybody within miles of Peoria would talk about it.” After some further conversation, Irene went inside her cell, threw herself on her bed, called back to the Captain and the reporter a pleasant good night, and went to sleep.

Yesterday Justice Shandley committed the girl to the care of the Commissioners of Public Charities and Correction.

What happened next with Robinson doesn’t appear in any newspaper. Did Robinson actually make it back to Peoria? Was the story even remotely true? True or not, it’s still a pretty good tale told by a pretty good storyteller.

Walter Huntington gets an education, 1870

“It being about time now for the annual story of the young woman who disguises herself in male attire,” the Leavenworth Daily Commercial groused in February 1871, “Pittsburg, Pa., comes to time.” [Leavenworth Daily Commercial (Leavenworth, Kansas) 16 February 1871; p. 4] And, yes, Pittsburgh certainly did.

Walter Huntington’s story broke in November 1870, a long and elaborate tale of a student at a local “commercial college” found to be wearing men’s clothes on a young woman’s body. The story popped up in various newspapers around the U. S. (The Leavenworth Daily Commercial wasn’t one of them.)

“A Fast Youth” (from Pittsburg Commercial [Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania] 29 November 1870; p. 4)

An Old Sensation Brought to Light—A Young Man From Winchester—What He Did While in the City.

An old sensation, which probably in a few months more would have been buried within the tomb of the forgotten past, was accidentally discovered by a reporter of the Commercial yesterday, and the affair is one of the most singular cases that has ever occurred in this or any other city. The facts in the case, as nearly as they can be ascertained at present writing, are about as follows:

Some three years ago one rainy afternoon a young man, giving his name as Walter Huntington, slightly built, and of feminine voice, called at a highly respectable boarding house kept by Mr. J. W. Wallace, No. 163 Wylie street, and wished to engage board. Terms were agreed upon and the young man obtained a comfortable second story room with two beds, the room being shared by another boarder. Everything passed along quietly for a few months, but the former occupant of the room, who was a painter by trade, found his companion remarkably reticent, and the two did not live on very intimate terms. However, the new comer appeared to be of unexceptionable conduct and was highly respected by all the occupants of the house. He retired early, appeared averse to dissipation, and although frequently attending political meetings with new found friends and visiting places of amusement, he never drank anything or appeared to enter very much into the amusements common to fast young men of the present time. He appeared to have no regular business, but paid all his bills regularly and obtained a place on the assessment roll of the ward, kept by Alderman Butler, as W. Huntington, gentleman, No. 163 Wylie street; paid taxes regularly and voted at the Seventh Ward elections. During the winter for one or two seasons he spent a good share of his time at a cigar store, corner of Wylie and Tunnel streets, and one winter condescended to act as a salesman of the fragrant weed.

Meantime his room mate, the painter, moved out and an employee at the Union Depot moved in, but the young man was as before very guarded in his coversation, and kept his own side of the room. Gradually, over a year ago, he began to be slightly delinquent in the matter of his board bill, and before the suspicions of the landlady were aroused had become her debtor to the amount of about two hundred dollars. He represented that he had wealthy relatives, expected money soon and would certainly pay.

Suddenly, however, strange revelations were made. Some of the relatives of the supposed young man made their appearance in the city sometime in April last, and the startling fact was revealed that the supposed young man was a young lady, who had left her home near Winchester, Virginia, and for some reason unknown to the maiden aunt, with whom she lived, had assumed the pantaloons and led a strange life for the past two years and a half. Nothing whatever is known against the character of the strange young girl, and in consequence of her youth and respectable relatives the name is suppressed. Many of the parties of the cigar store mentioned will doubtless remember her distinctly. She was about twenty-two years of age, small form, and had an effeminate voice, but still her disguise was so perfect that she successfully eluded detection until the arrival of her friends in the city. The painter and the young man from the Union depot, who occupied the same room with her for a long time discredited the story.

More details of Huntington’s life appeared a day later.

“The Fast Youth” (from Pittsburg Commercial [Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania] 30 November 1870; p. 4)

The publication of the item in yesterday’s Commercial in regard to the young lady from Winchester who succeeded for three years in passing at a respectable boarding house for a young man, has brought to light a number of interesting circumstances connected with the affair. She is distinctly remembered by a large number of her companions in the city, who never dreamed of her sex while enjoying the pleasure of her acquaintance. The painter who roomed with her for several months is now employed at Seymour & Bros., Diamond alley near Wood street. Our reporter was informed yesterday upon reliable authority that the girl while at the boarding house made love to a highly respectable young lady, escorted her to church every evening, and finally entered into a matrimonial engagement to keep up the delusion. An ex-teacher at Duff’s Commercial College says that Walter Huntington (the distinguished young lady) went through a complete commercial course at that place, and graduated with honor, and while he often wondered at her girlish appearance, he always considered her as a very precocious boy. The story, as published yesterday, is undoubtedly true, and the half of it has probably not yet been told, although the unthinking may be inclined to doubt the old maxim that “Truth is stranger than fiction——and a great deal more readable.

(This is the story that the Leavenworth Daily Commercial appears to have summarized.) Huntington’s life after this is unknown; this was the last story about Huntington to appear.

Marie Suiste, entrepeneur, 1856-1871

When Marie Suiste petitioned in 1870 to be legally allowed to wear the clothing Suiste already had worn for twenty years, the story found its way into newspapers across the U. S. Most editors appear to have been amused. That Suiste had built more than one business wasn’t of interest; that Suiste had the audacity not to wear clothing that publicly announced the genitals of the body within—and to insist on the right to wear that clothing—was central.

Suiste’s story is difficult to follow, given the creativity with which newspaper editors spelled the name. Marie Suiste was “Marie S. Weize,” “Marie Sweize,” “Marie Suise,” and “Marie Susie”—and probably other spellings I haven’t found.

Unnamed, Suiste had appeared in newspapers at least 15 years earlier, arrested for wearing male clothing on a female body. The story is interesting for a number of reasons: it highlights the “rough times” in California in the early days of the Gold Rush, when a woman needed a “disguise”; it points out that clothing was expected to announce publicly the gender of the body within, and that not doing so was wearing some form of “disguise”; and it emphasizes that once “rough times” were over, individuals with female bodies were expected to adhere to cultural customs—and were arrested for not doing so.

“In Disguise” (from Daily Democratic State Journal [Sacramento, California] 17 September 1856; p. 2)

A French woman, who resides at the Gate, near Jackson, Amador county, was noticed by the police yesterday walking our streets dressed in male apparel. She was not long permitted to travel, however, without being invited to the station house, in order that a knowledge might be obtained as to the motive which induced the attempted disguise. She was much frightened by the arrest, but told a straightforward story, and was released. She resides at the Gate, as above stated, and has not dressed in the apparel of her sex during the past seven years. In early times she labored as a miner, but is now keeping a restaurant. She has become so accustomed to the dress she then adopted, that she has no inclination to discard it, now that the rough times which caused her to assume it are over.

By 1870, Suiste had bought real estate, had built businesses, and was launching another—all while wearing men’s clothing, which was, apparently, still illegal in California and Nevada, where Suiste was operating. Thus the petition to be legally allowed to wear what Suiste had been wearing for twenty years. The article appearing in the 14 September 1870 issue of the Territorial Enterprise (unavailable to me) launched versions across the nation.

“Woman’s Rights—A Strange Petition” (from Territorial Enterprise [Virginia City, Nevada] 14 September 1870; reprinted in Daily Evening Herald [Stockton, California] 17 September 1870; p. 1)

From the Territorial Enterprise, September 14.

A petition from Marie Susie, a French lady, was read at the meeting of the Board of Aldermen last evening, in which the fair petitioner prays to be allowed to wear male attire. She states that she has worn masculine habiliments for twenty years, and wishes to continue to do so. Being about to open an establishment in this city for the sale of California wines, she wishes to be protected against arrest for wearing male attire, against which there is a city ordinance. With her petition she sent a document bearing the signature of the Clerk of the District Court of Amador County, California, which was given to her as a protection against arrest, and which speaks of her as an industrious and virtuous woman, and one possessed of considerable real estate in that county. With this document, which is certified to and countersigned by the French Consul at San Francisco, it appears that she made a trip to France, and other countries in Europe. The document states that she first adopted male attire in 1850, upon her arrival in California; that, not finding anything to do in San Francisco, and not wishing to lead a life of prostitution, she dressed in men’s clothes, and went to work in the mines, where she made money enough to start in business.

“Industrious and virtuous” or not, Suiste wasn’t safe from arrest in California; Suiste’s crime seems tame in comparison to the other recorded in the column:

“Latest Telegrams: From San Francisco” (from Gold Hill Daily News [Gold Hill, Nevada] 19 April 1871; p. 2)

[SPECIAL TO THE GOLD HILL DAILY NEWS BY THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH LINE.]
FROM SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco, April 19—1 P. M.—J. C. Horan, for many years a merchant in San Francisco, died suddenly last night. He was a native of Ireland, aged forty-four.

A fight among primary politicians occurred at the Mint Saloon, on Commercial street, last night, in which Wm. Higgins flogged J. M. Verdinal in the face, drawing blood freely. Higgins and a friend then drew pistols, and Verdinal broke for the street, when the police arrested Higgins.

Marie S. Weize was arrested in a saloon on Broadway last evening, dressed in men’s clothing. She claims that she has been wearing male apparel eighteen years, working much of the time as a miner at Jackson, Amador county.

Suiste’s appearance in police court before Judge Sawyer was highlighted in a long and entertaining description of the criminals appearing that day.

“Sawyer’s Bench: A Female Miner in the Police Court” (from San Francisco Chronicle [San francisco, California] 20 April 1871; p. 3)

The Usual Choice Selection of Petty Malefactors.

Business was lively in the Police Court yesterday morning; sentences were pronounced, cases continued, and the characters of respectable (?) people exposed. In fact, it would be impossible to describe the rich evidence and spicy debates that enlivened the session of the Police Court between the hours of 9 and 12 o’clock. A number of cases were continued and the following

SENTENCES PASSED.

…

A WOMAN IN MAN’S ATTIRE.

Mary Sweiz is a woman with a determined look upon her sun browned countenance, and hands hardened by twenty years toil in the mines of Amador, handling the pick and shovel, and working at the windlass and pump, with all the energy and perseverance of an “honest miner” himself. To accomplish her work with greater safety and case, she donned male apparel, and while she resided in Amador was allowed by the authorities to retain her male attire, known among the people in the vicinity as “Mary Pantaloon;” but when she left Amador for a short stay in Virginia City some time since, she was arrested on a charge of misdemeanor. The Judge, before whom she was brought for trial, believing her story and admiring the record of her twenty years’ toil and hardship, dismissed the case, and she returned to her mines. Again she left Amador, this time for San Francisco, still dressed in the apparel she had been in the habit of wearing. While “seeing life” in this city, she was arrested on the same charge of misdemeanor as before, and yesterday morning was arraigned before Judge Sawyer. She alleged that she came to the city for the purpose of selling her mines, and that she was having clothes made, the clothing she wore in the Court-room having been borrowed. Judge Sawyer imposed a very light fine upon her, namely, $5, and she left the City Hall, having learned that justice is not quite as indulgent in the metropolis as it is in some parts of the country.

A BARBARY COAST IDLER.

Mary Berry is quite a different character, for work to her is like pulling one of her eye teeth, and although she stated in a very loud voice and emphatic manner that she was not a vagrant, and almost yelled, “Everybody knows my husband,” she was proved to be an idle and dissolute creature, roaming from cellar to cellar on Barbary Coast, and ordered to appear for sentence to-day.

…

The New York Daily Herald seems most fascinated by Suiste’s clothing and managed to work in the always-crucial critique of Suiste’s appearance. Also hinted at just why 19th-century authorities were so very focused on keeping female bodies in women’s clothing.

“A Woman Eighteen Years in Trousers” (from New York Daily Herald [New York, New York] 7 May 1871; p. 14)

It appears, says the Virginia Enterprise, that Marie Suiste, the woman who was engaged in business for some months in this city in male apparel, has been fined five dollars in San Francisco by Judge Sawyer, and required to doff her masculine toggery and don the proper habiliments of her sex. In this city she kept a wine store on B street, where she sold the products of a large vineyard owned by her in California. Soon after making her appearance here she applied to the Board of Aldermen for permission to be allowed to wear male attire. The matter was left discretionary with the Chief of Police, he having authority to arrest her at any time, should he think proper. She was in business here for several months and was never arrested, though some of the other “sole traders” of her sex were very uneasy about her for several weeks. It came out at last that there were many of these persons who felt that they also ought to be allowed to wear the breeches, in case they should desire to do so. As in San Francisco, Marie Suise [sic] stated here that she had dressed as a man for eighteen years, had worked in the mines with men in Amador county, California, and had even made a trip to France and tarried for some months in European countries dressed in male attire. It is said that she looks much better in male than female habiliments. We should suppose so. She had not the face or figure to set off a Grecian bend; she was sailor-built. She will be apt to get out of San Francisco and into Amador county and her breeches as speedily as possible.

The “sole traders” convinced they should be allowed to wear trousers were no doubt sex workers, but it’s entertaining to think that Suiste’s example was too tempting to women in general to be allowed by authorities. (And “sailor-built” is surprisingly vivid.)

Did Suiste go back to Amador County and trousers? Unknown. Suiste doesn’t appear in later newspapers, under any spelling of the name.

Johnny Gardner gets along, 1870

Given that even a teenaged boy could earn more than a woman could, more than one individual with a female body put on men’s clothing and went out to work. Johnny Gardner supplemented income by stealing and became another of those persons later generations learn about only because an arrest record. Gardner’s story was reprinted in newspapers across the nation.

A discovery was made (from Ashland Times [Ashland, Ohio] 11 August 1870; p. 3)

A discovery was made in our jail the other day. A boy prisoner, apparently about sixteen years of age, who was arrested for stealing $107 in Sullivan from a farmer there, was discovered to be a young woman of about twenty-three years of age. She has for the past three years successfully disguised herself, passing for a boy. For over a year, we understand, she was a bell-boy at the Burnett House, Cincinnati, and has worked on a farm in other parts of the State, always passing for a boy, and doing a good day’s work. How she has so successfully evaded discovery so long is a mystery. Her reason assigned for adopting male attire is, that a boy can get along through the world so much easier and better than a friendless girl. It is said she is good looking in female attire, and is smart. She assumed the name of Johnny Gardner.

Billy McGee earns a fortune, 1870

Nineteenth-century American women were very conscious that their earnings as women would be much less than their earnings as men; a woman in Minnesota in 1853 realized that “[s]he could command, as a woman, about four dollars a month” and worked as a male cook in a logging camp for six weeks, earning “nearly as much … as she would have received in somebody’s kitchen in St. Paul’s for a whole year.” [“A Female Adventurer.” Alexndria Gazette [Alexandria, Virginia] 24 June 1853; p. 2]

So it was, perhaps, no surprise that an unnamed young woman in Ohio would go out to work as a young man in the Pennsylvania oil fields, in order to support her financially bankrupt parents. The story appeared in the Pleasantville, Ohio, Gaslight, unavailable to me.

“Respect for Parents—Striking Constrast” (from Gaslight [Pleasantville, Ohiio]; reprinted in Reading Times [Reading, Pennsylvania] 30 June 1870; p. 2)

The Pleasantville, (Ohio) Gaslight is responsible for the following story: There is a young lady in Cleveland, the only child of a bankrupt Syracuse, N. Y., merchant, who is now supporting her parents in affluence on a small fortune she made in the Venango oil region. When misfortune overtook her parents—that was in 1866—and she saw her father, whom she fondly loved, bending under the weight of want and declining health, she secretly resolved that with her own fair hands she would earn a competence for his declining years. With that thought pervading her whole being and in full possession of her faculties, she provided herself with male attire, severed the beautiful locks which had been the pride and the admiration of numerous beaux, stained her face and hands to the bronze color of a farmer boy, and with a small sum of money which she realized from the sale of trinkets, she made her way to Pioneer [R]un, where, under the name of Billy McGee she soon ingratiated herself into the good will of a crew of drillers, who first learned her to turn a drill, and then secured her position on a drilling well. From drilling for wages, she went to drilling for small working interests, by which she became owner of interests in several fair wells. Having accumulated a little money she ventured to put down a well on her own account, succeeded, tried another, again succeeded, and at the end of two years she left Shamburg with $13,000, retired to Cleveland, provided a good home from her profits, resumed female attire, and now with hands and feet enlarged by toil, she passes in her promenades the worthless butterflies of fashion, with a proud consciousness of her superior worth.

What an inspriring story! ($13,000 in 1870 would be about $308,800 in 2022.) Was it true? It certainly sounds suspiciously too perfect to be entirely accurate. It does work, however, as a moral tale, contrasting the devoted daughter giving her all in order to support her parents with the “worthless butterflies of fashion” unwilling to make similar sacrifices. (“Who is she? our Cleveland people will ask as they read the following paragraph,” the Cleveland, Ohio, Plain Dealer pointed out, introducing its reprinting. “We know we have thousands of snappy, wide-awake, beautiful and industrious girls in our city, but we never before have heard of this one, whose fictitious name was ‘Billy McGee’ ”. [“An Oil Romance.” Plain Dealer 25 June 1870; p. 3])

What’s interesting for 21st-century readers is the contrast between the individual as female and the individual as male. The daughter cuts her hair and darkens her skin—that skin darkened by toil in the sun was considered masculine appears in a number of these stories. Afterward, the daughter’s hands and feet are “enlarged by toil”; large hands often appear in descriptions of female bodies wearing men’s clothes.

The New York Times got even more moralistic, warning women that success wasn’t assured and contrasting the energetic young Cleveland woman with a woman less lucky.

Female assumptions of men’s clothes (from New York Times [New York, New York] 3 July 1870; p. 3)

Female assumptions of men’s clothes in order to earn the reward of masculine work, are not attended with uniformly good fortune. The Pleasantville Gaslight tells a romantic story of the daughter of a bankrupt merchant of Syracuse, N. Y., who, in 1866, when misfortune overtook her parents, started for the Venango oil region, and donning male attire, began, under the euphonious pseudonym of Billy McGee, the career of a driller, from which she gradually obtained working interests in sundry wells, and at the end of two years retired with a fortune of $13,000, which enabled her to support her parents in comfort. A less fortunate heroine was brought before the Mayor of Richmond the other day. This lady was a native of Virginia, and had come from Washington in search of employment as a seamstress. Unable to obtain this, she assumed the appropriate garb and found employment as a journeyman tailor. After some time her sex was suspected, and being convicted on her own avowal, she was brought before the Mayor. Her conduct had been most exemplary; and, as her case excited much compassion, she was leniently dealt with.

Were either story anything other than fiction? I haven’t found anything in a newspaper about a seamstress turned tailor being arrested in Richmond, Virginia, in 1870. Surely the New York Times seemed to feel that young women needed to know that, yes, a woman working as a man might have good fortune, but it was just as likely that she wouldn’t. So don’t assume that assuming men’s clothing would solve any of their problems.

Frances Louise Siegel, veteran, 1870

Hundreds of Civil War soldiers on both sides were born female. Some were discovered while serving in the military; some weren’t. Frances Louise Siegel enlisted with her husband and managed to get through the entire enlistment. Only when necessity demanded after the war did Siegel reveal participation in the Union army. The Republican emphasizes Siegel’s more stereotypically masculine features: she is tall and flat-chested, and can achieve a “feminine appearance” only by tight-lacing a corset.

“An Extraordinary Woman: She served in the United States Army” (from Meriden Daily Republican [Meriden, Connecticut] 5 January 1870; p. 2)

On Monday evening a masculine looking woman named F. L. Siegel came to Meriden and asked for assistance from the members of the Grand Army of this city. She was directed to S. A. Smith, Quartermaster of Merriam Post, and a committee investigated her claims. Her papers were found to be quite correct, and the Post paid her board for the nigh and her fare as far as Hartford. Her case is a very extraordinary one, and she is a very extraordinary woman, if all told of her be true. She is a German by birth, but speaks good English, is about thirty-five years of age, stands nearly six feet high, has dark hair and eyes, is of a rough weather-beaten complexion, chews tobacco and swears like a pirate. Her story is this: The beginning of the war found her and her husband in Missouri, and ill prepared for the bad time coming, so she dressed herself in male attire and joined the 18th Missouri Union Cavalry as a private. She served two years, and her sex was never suspected. She fought in the battles of Shiloh and Stone River, and took part in eighteen skirmishes, being once wounded in the arm. The gentleman who favored us with our information, inquired if her sex was not then discovered. She answered in the negative, and, baring one of her brawny arms, displayed a muscle a navvy might envy. Her general development is like that of a man, being flat breasted and having scarcely any waist. She admits that it is only by tight lacing she can make herself at all of a feminine appearance. During her career in the army, she had a muss with one of her comrades, and they fought it out, the woman proving best man. She was discharged at the end of two years’ service and produced her papers to our informant for examination, together with other documents from well known men in support of her story. On obtaining her discharge she procured an engagement in the government detective service, in which she continued a year, arresting bounty jumpers and deserters, excepting three months of the time, when she was employed as nurse on board the United States ship Tamerlane, stationed at Galveston, Texas. We had omitted to state that between her discharge and employment in the detective service she was taken prisoner by rebel guerrilas and kept for fifteen days. She was then permitted to go on to Missouri. Her husband is now in New York, sick and without employment, and she is striving to obtain funds to emigrate to the West. For this purpose she is now on her way to friends at Nashua, N. H., where she expects to obtain assistance. A short time ago she was insulted in the streets by a New York ruffian, but she administered a terrific left hander on the eye and put the orb into eclipse. Both she and her assailant were arrested and taken before a Police Court. The Police Judge inquired with what weapon she had struck the insulting individual, and she replied, “with nature’s weapon,” displaying a fist that would fell an ox. The Judge presented her with a hawthorn billy, loaded with lead, he had just received from a prisoner, and told her to use that in future when molested. She handles the weapon like a Trojan and displayed it to great advantage among the astonished boarders of the hotel where she stopped last night. She leaves this morning on the 8:45 cars to Hartford, where she will apply for further assistance to aid her in reaching Nashua. Our informant desires us not to mention her [sic] name, as he is afraid of “that billy” if she should stop this way on her return to New York. For his sake we will keep it a secret.

The piece was reprinted in newspapers across the country; some titled it “Entitled to Vote: A Woman Who has a Right to Talk of Suffrage.” (Others sarcastically titled it “One of the Gentler Sex.”) The Ellsworth American, of Ellsworth, Maine, reprinted most of the story on page 1 of the issue for 3 February 1870; the reprint omits the end, starting with “Our informant.”

Then the American had a visit from Siegel which left the editor unimpressed. Or maybe intimidated.

A few weeks since (from Ellsworth American [Ellsworth, Maine] 3 March 1870; p. 3)

A few weeks since we published an account of a woman who has the right to talk of suffrage, she having served in the army two years as a soldier, dressed in male attire, and one year as a detective. All our readers will recollect the account published Feb. 3d. Well, this veritable character dropped into our office one day last week, dressed in female attire, and looking for all the world as if she had seen hard times, and as if she had learned some of the vices of males, for we noticed that the “vile weed” was a favorite with her.

The American’s paragraph was summarized in various other newspapers nation-wide, as Siegel (not named) visiting the American and wearing female attire, but unfemininely using tobacco.

Sometime later a piece appeared in the “N. O. Times” (currently unidentified).

“A Cavalry Woman” (from N. O. Times; reprinted in Bangor Daily Whig and Courier [Bangor, Maine] 16 September 1870; p. 4)

Mrs. F. L. Siegel, a woman whose career as a soldier in the western army has attracted considerable attention, is now in our city endeavoring to raise means to take herself and husband, who is blind, to Minnesota, where they have friends in humble circ[u]mstances. She last evening visited Phil. Kearney Post, G. A. R., and a considerable amount was raised for her assistance. She states—and her story is corroborated by documentary and by other evidence—that herself and husband enlisted as brothers early in the war in a Missouri cavalry regiment, and that she participated in the battles of Stone River and Shiloh, in addition to sixteen smaller battles and skirmishes. In the battle of Stone River her husband was instantly killed at her side, being struck in the breast by a shell. After two years of active service, she was detailed to hospital duty, and afterward acted as a spy. Being captured by the rebels she was sentenced to be hung, but managed to make her escape. She subsequently married a Minnesota soldier, whose eye-sight was destroyed by an accidental explosion, and who she is now desirous of getting back to his friends in the west. She was a member of the G. A. R. under the old ritual, but has not taken her degrees under the new code. Mrs. Siegel would easily pass for a male when dressed in that attire, as she has a masculine appearance, and in her actions gives no indications of her effeminacy.

[N. O. Times.

Earlier stories imply that Siegel’s current husband is the one who enlisted with Siegel in Missouri. So, has Siegel’s story changed? or are readers simply getting more details? Difficult to know. If “Siegel” is the name of the second husband, it’s unknown under what name Frances enlisted.

Did Siegel and husband manage to get to Minnesota? Where did Siegel travel next? All unknown; Siegel vanishes from the newspapers.

Mary of a thousand names, 1869-1872

Ah, Florence/ Alexander/ Frank/ Charles/ Mary Goldsborough/ Smith/ Belden/ Davis/ Baker. A thousand names; a very focused criminal career.

Goldsborough was a street-car driver, a steamboat cook, a driver on a canal, a farmhand, but always a thief. Pocket-picking, daylight house-breaking, stealing from employers, “till-tapping”—whatever worked. Given the regularity with which Goldsborough was arrested, the career as a thief might have been a poor choice; but given that Goldsborough appears to have taken every single opportunity offered, stealing may have been quite profitable.

So much about Goldsborough’s career is unknown, because Goldsborough used so many names. Goldsborough’s career as a captured criminal may have begun in Columbus, Ohio, around 1862, when Goldsborough might have been 16. (See “A Female Shark,” below.) Goldsborough’s age was always unclear, and the name being used then is unknown. Goldsborough’s (recorded) crimes took place in Ohio: Worthington, Columbus, Cincinnati, St. Clairsville, Cleveland. But they were reported across the country.

What fascinated 19th-century Americans was that Goldsborough wore men’s clothing on a female body. And, apparently, had done so since childhood; Goldsborough claimed to have never worn women’s clothing and may have identified as male. Certainly clothing was at the heart of the pieces about Goldsborough in 1869 and even intrigued an eccentric lawyer in another state.

A Cleveland girl (from Cincinnati Daily Enquirer [Cincinnati, Ohio] 27 December 1869; p. 4)

A Cleveland girl, who gave her name as Mary Goldsborough, was brought up before Judge Cummings, in the Police Court at Toledo on Thursday, on the charge of appearing in male attire. She was fined $13 20. In the account which the girl gave to the Court of herself, she stated that she had dressed in man’s garments for the past seven years, and that she had never been detected before. Within the time mentioned, she had driven street-cars in Cleveland for two years, and for a time she was employed as driver on a canal. Her parents died when she was quite young, and since she had become large eough she had supported herself. The girl is said to have been of a very modest appearance.

A modest orphan girl just trying to get by was fodder for newspapers. When Goldsborough was arrested as Alexander Davis in Cleveland, Ohio, for the Plain Dealer the incident rated two pieces appearing on the same page. The first story is the longest and at the top of the page in column three; It’s likely that readers would have read about a “young Amazon” who had stolen $9.60, before seeing the paragraph buried under “Municipal Court.” The description of “Davis’s” clothing—the clothing of a working man—is contrasts with the clothing of Charlie Morgan, the wealthy man of fashion arrested a year before. This story was reprinted in various American newspapers and led to the misinformation that Goldsborough had been arrested and fined only for wearing male clothing.

“A Young Amazon” (from Plain Dealer [Cleveland, Ohio] 31 December 1869; p. 4)

An Ohio Girl in Boy’s Clothing for Seven Years—She Drives Street Cars, Cooks on a Steamboat, Works on a Farm and Chews Tobacco.

Last evening Officer White, of the West Side, arrested a person on suspicion of having stolen $9,60. On being taken to the Station House this person gave the name of Alexander Davis, and the age of 16 years. This morning, however, Davis’ sex was doubted, and it was then ascertained that the prisoner is a girl. She was tried before the police court for petit larceny and discharged, but retained in prison for wearing male apparel.

This is the same girl who was arrested in Toledo a few days since for disguising herself in this manner. She was allowed by the police of that city to go, on promising to leave town. She then came here, and wandered about the city until arrested as stated above.

Her career has been a romantic one. She was born in Zanesville, and her right name is Florence Baker. At the age of 11 years she ran away from home to “seek her fortune.” Thinking that she could get along better if she wore boys’ clothing, she donned male apparel, and states that her sex was not discovered until after passing for a young man for seven years she was arrested in Toledo. When she left her home she went to Columbus, and obtained employment as driver of a street car. She was large of her age, and having masculine features and short hair, easily passed for a boy of about sixteen. For six months she worked in this capacity, and then went to Cincinnati. There she was hired on the steamboat Alaska as second cook and sailed four trips between that city and New Orleans. She generally slept alone, and no one on the boat mistrusted that she was a girl. Leaving the boat she came to Cleveland and went to work for a farmer living about nine miles west of the city.

But to trace her through all her wanderings would take too long. Suffice it to say that she has been engaged at masculine labor constantly, much of the time having been employed at farming.

She is now 18 years old, but in her costume appe[a]rs like a boy of 16, and gives that as her age. Her hair is black and shingled close. She wears a black suit, no shirt collar, a slouch hat, goes with her pants in her boots, and chews enormous quids of tobacco. Her voice is coarse and her manners correspond. The police are, as yet, undecided what to do with her, and in the meantime she is retained in prison.

In column five and further down the page was the report of those appearing in the Cleveland municipal court, including a paragraph on Davis.

“Municipal Court, Dec. 31” (from Plain Dealer [Cleveland, Ohio] 31 December 1869; p. 4)

Petit Larceny—Alexander Davis, a woman in man’s clothing, was arrested on a charge of stealing $9,60 from J. E. Woodbury. She was discharged.

In the eyes of the Blade (unavailable to me), Goldsborough was a good deal more delicate, blushing before an audience of roughs in the courtroom. And readers were given the all-important physical description, which emphasized delicacy of stature.

“A Toledo Sensation: A Cleveland Girl in Male Attire” (from Blade [Toledo, Ohio]; reprinted in Racine County Argus [Racine, Wisconsin] 20 January 1870; p. 1)

The Toledo Blade, of Monday, says: “Quite a sensation case came before justice Cummings for adjudication in the police court this morning, it being that of a girl charged with wearing men’s clothing. The name of the girl as given to officer Barnes, who arrested her last evening at the St. Charles’ hotel, is Mary Goldsborough. The girl pleaded guilty to the offence to which she was charged, and the court fined her $13 20. On paying $5, and promising to leave the city for Cleveland to-day, suspended the balance of the fine and released the defendant. In the account which the girl gave to the court of herself, she stated that she had dressed in men’s garments for the past seven years and that she had never been detected before. Within the time mentioned, she had driven street-cars in Cleveland for two years, and for a time she was employed as driver on a canal. Her parents died when she was quite young, and since she has become large enough she has supported herself. The appearance of the girl was extremely modest, and while relating her history she bowed her head, and a deep blush mantled her face. In size she was less than the ordinary height, and rather slim. In complexion she was of the brunette, with a large, dark eye, black hair, cut short, and parted on one side, and skin bearing the effects of outdoor exposure. The outlines of her face were, in every respect, effeminate and girlish. Her voice was like that of a boy’s, and in her manner and expression she seemed like a lad about fourteen years of age. She was dressed in a black sack coat with a dark vest revealing between its lappels [sic] a white shirt bosom, and dark pants cut in style. Immediately after her trial, which was witnessed by a gaping crowd of roughs, she left the court room and disappeared.”

One of the newspapers reprinting “A Young Amazon” was the Buffalo Express [Buffalo, New York; 10 January 1870; p. 2]. The article sparked there a discussion of the legalities of women wearing men’s clothing. Le Grand Marvin was one of Buffalo, New York’s, favorite eccentrics, known for being a “volum[in]ous correspondent to the public press” and for litigations that lasted for years; one case was decided months after his death. Marvin was a lawyer who “made a specialty of knowing what no one else cared to know. … Nothing delighted him better than to tangle up a judge or minister by some knotty and hitherto unheard of point that lay in their respective provinces.” [“Passed Away.” Buffalo Commercial (Buffalo, New York) 3 December 1887; p. 3] So of course he weighed in on the legality of women wearing men’s clothing.

“ ‘Wearing the Breeches’ ” (from Buffalo Morning Express [Buffalo, New York] 14 January 1870; p. 4)

A Legal View of Woman’s Right to Wear Male Attire.

[We have received from Le Grand Marvin, Esq., the following valuable communication throwing light upon the much misunderstood right of women to wear the apparel of the masculine sex:]

For Buffalo Express:

Has a woman a right to wear a costume, conformed (adapted) to ther anatomy: of course, to her convenience, comfort, strength and health?

Has she a right to wear man’s apparel to-wit, what men,—intelligent, scientific, practical men, have adopted, wear and advise as so adapted to man’s anatomy, and health,—and to his convenience, comfort and strength?

In our Buffalo Express of Jan. 10, was copied from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of Dec. 31,—a statement therein—of the arrest for larceny of one “Alexander Davis”—after appearing to be a woman “Florence Baker”: that the proof being insufficient for the alleged larceny, she was “retained in prison” at Cleveland, [O]hio, for “wearing male apparel”.—

A letter of Jan. 11. from the Cleveland Superintendant of Police,—states that she was retained under arrest to be sent, and was sent Jan. 10,—to Columbus,[O]hio, on a charge for grand larceny.

Therein the “male apparel” seems not to have been the cause of her being so retained under arrest;—thereby that statement aided to sustain the erroneous impression of many,—perhaps of the most people—that the wearing by a woman of clothing, known as the “American costume”—or any other apparel—similar to men’s apparel,—was a crime and a sufficient cause of her arrest.—

That cause of arrest, seems to be not only questioned, but that it is planned to prosecute for “false imprisonment”—all police, and other officers, making, or aiding, or retaining arrest of any woman—for such a cause.

The Enquirer was more sympathetic, likening the magistrate to Shakespeare’s self-important constable, Dogberry. Or perhaps the Enquirer simply saw a chance to take the authorities to task; after all, phrases like “judicial donkey” and “magisterial blockheads” seem to rather hint that the editor was trying to imply something …

A young girl (from Cincinnati Daily Enquirer [Cincinati, Ohio] 6 January 1870; p. 4)

A young girl calling herself Mary Goldsborough was arrested in Toledo the other day for appearing on the streets dressed in masculine apparel. She admitted that she had worn such garments for years, and said she adopted them because in that garb she cought more easily earn her living, and that her disguise had never before been detected, although she had been employed as a driver on the street-cars and canal, and in farm work. This admission evidently aggravated the poor girl’s offense in the eyes of the astute magistrate before whom she was taken, for he imposed a fine of $13 20 upon her; but, be it recorded, he mercifully consented to let her go, on handing over five dollars—all the money she had in the world. Where she should turn after that for food or shelter, this pharasaical Dogberry did not stop to inquire. And now, if it would not be considered impertinent, we would like to ask, was there not in all Toledo a lawyer, able or willing, to tell the judicial donkey that the luckless girl had committed no offence known to the laws of Ohio, and that he was morally, if not legally, guilty of robbery in taking her money? It is about time for magisterial blockheads to learn that the fashion of men’s or women’s garments, so long as they are not indecent, is not to be decided in police courts. By the way, our exchanges furnish the natural and expected sequel to the story. The plundered girl—her real name is Florence Barker, and she was born in Zanesville eighteen years ago—stripped of the trifle of money she had, succeeded in reaching Cleveland, and was there again taken into custody; this time on a charge of larceny—probably forced to the crime to escape starvation. The stern virtue of the officers of the law will doubtless be satisfied when they have driven her into a brothel. That seems to be what they are striving for.

Goldsborough, however, was not going to waste time in some brothel when there was something to be appropriated.

“Arrested Again” (from Cleveland Leader [Cleveland, Ohio] 8 January 1870; p. 4)

The girl dressed in boy’s clothing, who was arrested last week in this city, was arrested again last night, in accordance with orders received from Columbus. She gives her name as Mary Goldsborough, but her real name is Florence Baker.

This time, Goldsborough had allegedly stolen considerably more than $9.60.

“From Columbus” (from Cincinnati Daily Gazette [Cincinnati, Ohio] 12 January 1870; p. 3)

Special Dispatch to the Cincinnati Gazette.

Columbus, O., January 11.

…

Mary Goldsbury, alias Florence Baker, who raised some excitement in Cleveland by appearing in male attire, was before the mayor of this city to-day, charged with stealing one hundred and twenty dollars from Mr. Schneider, with whom she had engaged as a boy. She was committed to jail in default of three hundred dollars bail.

…

In 1872, Goldsborough was arrested again, though not for stealing. (Note that the women were all jailed and fined, instead of being simply fined as most of the men were.)

“Municipal Court, April 22d” (from Plain Dealer [Cleveland, Ohio] 22 April 1872; p. 3)

Intoxication—Joseph Elmer, Albert Lemke, Gustave Ehrard, Mike Gillan, Samuel Braumagem, Robert O’Brien, John Connors, Patrick Sweeney, Jacob Wilson, Chas. McCarthy, John Ashton, Peter Murphy and Patrick Nolan were fined $3 and costs; John Hamilton, William Higgins and Henry Dawson, $5 and costs; Walter Collins, Homer Smith, Mrs. Baker, Edward Bragg, Mollie Myers, Mary Goldsborough and Lizzie Brunner were sentenced to the house of correction and most of them were fined from $5 to $10 in addition.

In December, Goldsborough was back, for theft. And under a new set of initials.

J. F. Goldsborough (from Daily Dispatch [Columbus, Ohio] 4 December 1872; p. 4)

J. F. Goldsborough, alias Charles Smith, alias Charles Beld[e]n, a girl of twenty-five summers, who has been in the habit of wearing men’s clothing for several years, is in jail, charged with having stolen a watch from a freight conductor. The case will be investigated by J. P. Remmy, Justice of the Peace, December 6th.

The editor of the Dispatch knew a good story when it appeared, so Goldsborough’s life story was offered to readers.

“Fast Girl of Muskingum” (from Daily Dispatch [Columbus, Ohio] 5 December 1872; p. 4)

Her Adventures in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati—Dressed in Male Apparel—Capturing Female Hearts and R. R. Conductors; Gold Watches.

A brief notice of the arrest of J. F. Goldsborough, alias Charles Smith, alias Frank Belden, charged with stealing a gold watch from Michael Henry, who is a conductor on the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, while riding on his train from Zanesville to Columbus, was made in The Dispatch of Wednesday. The prisoner is a woman and her true name is Mary Goldsborough. Her advent into this world occurred near St. Clairsville under the usual circumstances. But Mary is a queer girl, notwithstanding the advantage she enjoyed in having poor and pious parents. The exact date when Mary first dressed in the garb of naughty men is not made very clear by her biographer. It is generally understood that when she and her only brother were at home, basking in the sunshine of happy childhood, the brother was compelled to bask without his pants about half the time, as Mary, though two years younger than John, was an early riser and a perfect tiger in the settlement of juvenile difficulties.

It made but little difference whether John got out first in the morning or not, Mary would capture his clothing and take the wind out of her father’s sails in fifteen seconds when he offered to correct any irregularities between the children. Her early training in bifurcated garments proved to be of great value in the first days of womanhood, when Mary adopted the occupation of bar-tender, canal driver, and general utility business in the dens and dives of Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. She made her debut before the courts of Columbus January 10th, 1870, charged with stealing $400 from a saloon-keeper whom she had been serving as bar-tender, and with whom she lodged, strange as the statement may appear, without knowledge on his part that she was not what she represented herself to be—a boy. Her subsequent exploits of this character are not justified by any matrimonial record in the office of Probate Judge of Franklin county. The record of the Common Pleas Court states that Mary was discharged from custody in the month of February fellowing her arrest, no bill having been found against her by the Grand Jury. Mary has lost much of her former popularity. Her familiarity with watch fobs and vest pockets worked this change. She is perfectly cool; says she never wore petticoats since she was a woman, and never will. She makes no attempt at concealing her age, another knock down argument as to the influence of dress over the mind.

After Mary left the freight train from which the watch is alleged to have been stolen, she went to Cincinnati, and was on her return to Cleveland when she was arrested at the depot in Columbus. Boylike, she ventured into the field of “wanted correspondence, for fun, love or matrimony,” and received letters from Kitty O’Neil, a resident of the Forest City. Kitty inclosed locks of hair in her letters, and wrote extraordinary assurances of “yours till death.” Pawn tickets found upon her person reveals the fact that she deposited the conductor’s watch with her “uncle” in Cincinnati. Officer McEwen has gone after it. Meanwhile Mary occupies a room in the brown stone front on Mount street; smoking and chewing, and receiving such attention as is usually accorded to people there by vigilant deputy sheriffs.

The Journal (unavailable to me) had a more detailed account.

“A Female Shark: How a Feminine Dead-Beat Ran a Checkered Career” (from Columbus Journal [Columbus, Ohio]; reprinted in Cincinnati Enquirer [Cincinnati, Ohio] 6 December 1872; p. 2)

[From the Columbus Journal, 4th.] [Note: square brackets original]

J. F. Goldsborough, alias Charles Smith, alias Frank Belden, has been incarcerated in the County Jail. The incarcerated individual wears bifurcated garments, but in this case the clothing is no indication of the sex. She has for a long time worn men’s clothing, and under the disguise has perpetrated many thefts. A depredation on a railroad conductor is what brings her into particular notice.

Mary Goldsborough (her true name), who is now about twenty-five years old, came originally from St. Clairville, where her father died some years ago. She adopted the trade of a thief, and first came to notice in Columbus about nine years ago, when she was arrested for till-tapping, and was punished by the means usually resorted to in Police Court. Her next appearance was in 1870, by which time she had donned the habiliments appropriate to the masculine gender, and she enacted her assumed character so well that she secured a situation as bar-keeper in a saloon, and continued in the service of her employer, and occupied a part of his bed for a month before, it is alleged, he learned that she was not a man. Even after that she continued in his employ, and to share his domestic comforts till she found an opportunity to lay hands on about four hundred dollars of his money, when she absented herself in a very precipitate manner. She was arrested, but the evidence was not regular, and the Grand Jury did not find a bill against her.

On the 16th ultimo this extraordinary female adventuress turned up at Zanesville, where she took passage for Columbus in the caboose-car of Conductor Michael Henry’s freight train. As usual, she was attired as a man, and her make-up was well calculated to deceive. The train arrived at Columbus in the night, and she got permission to sleep in the caboose till morning. During the night she found an opportunity to steal a gold watch and chain, valued at $250, belonging to the conductor, who was also sleeping in the car. She got away with the watch before the conductor discovered his loss, and took an early train for Cincinnati.

Tuesday evening she came back to Columbus, and while at the ticket-office at about two o’clock yesterday morning, purchasing a ticket for Cleveland, she was recognized by policeman McEwen, and taken into custody. She was before Justice Remmy yesterday, and was committed to jail to wait examination to-morrow.

The woman tells a remarkable story about herself. She became accustomed to men’s clothing, and found them to be most advantageous in her thieving operations. She was not always successful in this line of business, however; sometimes she found it necessary to engage in manual labor or clerical service. At one time she drove horses on the Mahoning Canal, and at another time secured a second clerkship on a steamboat, and continued in that situation for some weeks, but was finally discharged for drunkenness.

During her recent visit to Cincinnati she was engaged as waiter in a saloon, but lost her situation after a spree, and struck out for Cleveland, where, it appears she has been toying with the affections of an innocent damsel named Kitty O’Neal. On her person was found a letter from the infatuated Kitty, inclosing a lock of her hair and communicating the most extraordinary assurances of undying affection. The Goldsborough declares that she captured Kitty’s affections in the character of a nice young man; and if Kitty takes the State Journal, as all good little girls ought to, this paragraph will give her the first information that she has had of the gross imposition practiced on her.

The prisoner confesses that she stole Henry’s watch and chain, and says she pawned them at two different places, getting but eight dollars on one of them. The pawn tickets found in her pocket-book verify her statements, and Policeman McEwen started to Cincinnati last night to secure the articles. Meanwhile she will “keep company” with old Ann Clark in jail. She plays her part well. Dressed in a new suit she presents rather a respectable appearance, and with hardened hands and short hair looks decidedly masculine. She smokes, chews tobacco, and before her arrest was seen by some policemen standing up to a counter in a saloon and tossing off drinks with the sang-froid of “one of the boys.”

Goldsborough appeared before the judge, but couldn’t make bail.

“The Girl-Boy” (from Daily Dispatch [Columbus, Ohio] 6 December 1872; p. 4)

J. F. Goldsborough, as the girl named Mary Goldsborough calls herself when dressed in men’s clothing, was brought before Justice Remmy at two o’clock, waived examination, and was held in the sum of $300 to appear before the grand jury. The watch stolen from Michael Henry was valued at $250. It was recovered from a pawn-broker in Cincinnati, who loaned the girl about $20 on it. The girl was returned to jail for want of bail.

Arraigned, Goldsborough pled guilty on 11 February 1873.

“Court of Common Pleas” (from Daily Dispatch [Columbus, Ohio] 12 February 1873; p. 4)

The prisoners in jail were arraigned before Judge Olds on Tuesday, and their cases were disposed of as follows:

Florence F. Goldsborough, grand larceny; plea, guilty. Sentence deferred.

Elijah Coleman, burglary and larceny; further time for plea. Judge Rankin appointed to defend.

The sentence removed Goldsborough from public view for a year.

On last Friday (from Belmont Chronicle and Farmers, Mechanics and Manufacturers Advocate [St. Clairsville, Ohio] 6 March 1873; p. 4)

On last Friday in the Court of Common Pleas, at Columbus, Judge Steel sentenced the “boy-girl” Goldsborough to one year’s imprisonment in the Penitentiary, for grand larceny. It will be recollected by many that the party referred to above was sentenced by the judge of the Common Pleas Court of this County, several years since, to a three years’ term in the same boarding house.

But Goldsborough was back in business on 17 March 1874, this time with an accomplice.

“Municipal Court: Before Judge Abbey” (from Cleveland Leader [Cleveland, Ohio] 19 March 1874; p. 7)

…

House Breaking—Mary Goldsborough and Brook Goldsborough, $150 and costs, committed till paid, and thisty [sic] days in the work house.

As described on the next page of the paper, the crime was—shall we say—a doozy:

“Mary Goldsborough” (from Cleveland Leader [Cleveland, Ohio] 19 March 1874; p. 8)

Mary Goldsborough, who has made herself notorious by her assumption of male attire and character, has again brought herself into public notice by a raid upon the residence of Judge Hessenmueller. She, with her brother, broke into that gentleman’s house on Tuesday, in broad day light, and after appropriating about thirty dollars worth of clothing were making their escape when they were discovered by the house servants and handed over to the police.

They were tried upon a charge of “house breaking” in the Police Court, Wednesday morning and found guilty. They received a sentence of sixty days’ imprisonment in the Workhouse, and were each fined $150 and costs, committed till paid.

Mary appeared in her usual costume and with her bluff, off-hand manner, and scientific mode of chewing tobacco, made an admirable counterfeit of a fast young man.

She did not appear to be at all crestfallen by the prospect of a long seclusion from the world, and maintained a cheerful deportment which, bearing in mind the fact that she has but recently been released from the penitentiary, was highly creditable to her philosopy.

A judge. Goldsborough and brother broke into a house and robbed a judge. In broad daylight. Given that they were immediately caught, it appears that as thieves they were not exactly the most brilliant.

What crime did Goldsborough commit after this stint in jail? Another robbery: a farmer who had hired a “boy about 17” to do chores around the house and farm. [“A Girl Dressed in Boy’s Clothing Hires Out to a Farmer and Robs Him of $500.” Stark County Democrat [Canton, Ohio] 3 June 1875; p. 7] Goldsborough was at least consistent.

This robbery is the last time Goldsborough appears in American newspapers. At least as Goldsborough. After all, there were thousands of under names under which a good (or even mediocre) thief could make a living.

Charlie Morgan has friends, 1868

Of the Charlies of 19th-century America there seems to have been no end. Many had calm, ordinary lives, but others were … memorable.

One of these was Charlie Morgan, whose arrest in 1868 was the usual arrest for wearing male clothing on a female body. Then it turned … complicated. Charlie, it was learned, received money from a prominent banker (never named), who had for four years funded Charlie’s life and travels. Charlie lived in luxury, hosting champagne parties, wearing the current male fashions, and patronizing New York’s brothels. Charlie led an active life, driving a stylish team of horses and enjoying the attentions of young women.

Charlie’s story broke on 1 June 1868 in four different newspapers which had four different versions of the story. The Brooklyn Union was laconic, simply announcing that someone had been arrested, though noting that Charlie dressed “fashionably.”

A woman was arrested (from Brooklyn Union [Brooklyn, New York] 1 June 1868; p. 4)

A woman was arrested for appearing in the streets in male attire. She would give no explanation why she done so, but that she had been in the habit of assuming the male appearance for some time. She was dressed very fashionably.

The Eagle introduced more details: Charlie’s name, the banker, the nephew-hood, the dissipation. (“[F]orms of dissipation regarded by rapid youths as the realization of extreme felicity” is probably the haziest way of stating “went to brothels” that is possible.) That Charlie was “under the protection” of a banker hints at a much more intimate relationship. (That Charlie was introduced as the banker’s “nephew” is an entertaining variation on the tradition that a man’s mistress was introduced as the man’s “niece.”)

Yesterday’s New York police records (from Brooklyn Daily Eagle [Brooklyn, New York] 1 June 1868; p. 2)

Yesterday’s New York police records disclose a remarkable case of sexual deception. It seems that for four years a young woman, said to be under the protection of a wealthy banker who supplied her liberally with money, has assumed the dress and manners and adapted the habits of a man. She has lived at first-class hotels under the name of Charles F. Morgan, and been introduced in reputable society by the banker as his nephew. In company with young men who like to be considered as fast she has engaged in the forms of dissipation regarded by rapid youths as the realization of extreme felicity. Thus the story runs. Julia, as her best friends call her, excited the suspicions of the police, and yesterday she was arrested for appearing in public in male attire. Influences were employed in her interest which procured her discharge by a magistrate.

The hint of prostitution was more overt in the Herald, who introduced Charlie as a member of the “demi-monde.” (And here we get the delightful synonym maisons de joie for brothels.) Charlie’s fashionable clothing also gets a mention—and influential friends make an appearance.

“Arrest of an Eccentric Female” (from New York Daily Herald [New York, New York] 1 June 1868; p. 5)

A well known member of the demi-monde has been in the habit during some time past of robing herself in male attire and cutting quite a dash in various parts of the city, especially in the maisons de joie, and so complete was her disguise and so manlike her demeanor that she baffled detection. By some means, however, her eccentricity became known to the police, and yesterday afternoon she was found by Sergeant Fields, of the Fifteenth precinct, sporting around dressed in the most exquisite style as a young gent, and was taken to the station house. It being after court hours she was locked up, but after some strenuous exertions by influential friends she was released from custody. She has been known as Charles F. Morgan, alias Ward, alias Julia, and she claims to be the mistress of a wealthy stockbroker.

Trust a tabloid, though, to give us allll the details, from how Charlie behaved to exactly what Charlie wore. Also the names of some of the “influential” people who secured Charlie’s release. And the location of one of New York’s houses of prostitution. The story is, in fact, a geyser of information.

“Adventures Extraordinary” (from World [New York, New York] 1 June 1868; p. 5)

Arrest of a Woman in Man’s Attire—Her Career at the Watering-Places and in New York—Four Years in Borrowed Costume—Female Flirtations with Women.

For some four years past a young female, the particular protege of a wealthy and preminent banker of this city, has been practising a most surprising and successful deception on the community at large, by assuming the dress and apeing the manners of one of the sterner sex, but unfortunately for herself she came to grief yesterday by an ignominious arrest at the hands of a lynx-eyed sergeant of police. This young woman, known to her intimate female friends as Julia, but rejoicing in the cognomen of Charlie Morgan among her deceived male acquaintances, is a beauty of the brunette order; but her features are, as may be supposed, of the masculine type, yet not sufficiently so to render her at all less good-looking. She is of the medium height, well formed, yet has none of that peculiarity of form which renders deception in such cases almost impossible. She wears her hair cut short, and parted at the side and back, and usually has it brushed well forward. If the stories about this remarkable woman are to be credited, and they come from authentic sources, she has not worn the usual dress of her sex for nearly four years past but has constantly appeared both in public and private in male attire of the latest style and most expensive materials. During all this time she has been in the company of the wealthy banker, mentioned above, who has lavished large sums of money upon her to gratify her peculiar whims of counterfeiting a fast young man. As the nephew of the banker she has been introduced into some of the best families in this city, and has necessarily been on intimate terms with the fast young bloods about town and has been their companion in many a “spree.” In the character she assumed she spent her money freely, drank champagne cocktails, and smoked cigars with the fastest of her boon companions, and occasionally indulged in a “swear.” Her “uncle” supplied her with the needful to gratify her extravagant tastes, and many of the bloods about town will remember the champagne suppers succeeding visits to the opera at which “Charlie Morgan” acted the host with such natural felicity that her real sex was not for a moment suspected. During the summer the “uncle” accompanied by his charming “nephew” made the rounds of the watering places where the nephew paid such court to the fair ladies as to cause many a heartache. Her team was the fastest and the most stylish on the road, and she handled the ribbons with such a masterly hand, that a ride behind her spanking team was considered so great a [b]oon that the ladies almost fought for the privilege.

Another singular phase of the case is, that Charlie Morgan was always a favored and acceptable visitor at the fashionable “maisons de joie” in this city, and there is no doubt that some of the queens of the demi-monde were in her secret.

But her career was doomed to an abrupt termination. Some time ago this enterprising young female was a guest at the New York Hotel, registered as Charles F. Morgan, and was a frequent visitor at the haunts of the demi-monde in the Fifteenth Ward. During her perambulations by night and day, she attracted the attention of Sergeant Lucien P. Fields, of the Fifteenth Precinct, who thenceforward kept a strict watch upon her movements whenever she went abroad. Becoming convinced that Charlie Morgan, who was well-known by reputation throughout the ward, was a woman in male attire, he determined to arrest her on the first opportunity, and yesterday afternoon the Sergeant carried his resolution into effect. “Charlie” had just left the fashionable resort kept by Louise Walcott, in Neilson place, when she was seen by the Sergeant, who at once arrested her.

She treated the arrest very coolly, laughed at the absurd idea that she was anything but what she appeared to be, and so nonchalant was she, and so perfect her disguise, that the Sergeant was for a moment staggered. He however took her to the Station-house where she gave her name as Charles F. Ward, to which the police added the aliases of Morgan and Julia. By order of Captain Caffrey she was locked up in one of the rooms of the station-house. She was attired in a black broadcloth frock coat, dark vest, cut low to show a broad plaited shirt-bosom adorned with handsome diamond studs, light cassimere pantaloons, patent leather boots, and fine black Derby hat. All these articles were of the finest quality and most exquisite cut. She also wore a heavy gold neck-chain and an elegant gold watch. Her entire outfit was perfect, and her appearance would stand the closest scrutiny. She really appeared to be a fast beardless youth of perhaps eighteen summers. She persisted for some time that she was a man, but on a proposition being made looking to a personal examination she admitted the truth. In the meantime her friends had heard of her mishap and were making extraordinary efforts to procure her release. Miss Louise Walcott called and had a long interview with her, and numerous other friends called. Finally the services of Justice Ledwith were procured and that official called at the Station-house to order her discharge, but that being contrary to police regulations, the magistrate proceeded to the Jefferson Market Police Court, where he opened court and ordered the prisoner to be brought before him. Captain Caffrey produced the prisoner, and after hearing the complaint of Sergeant Fields, the magistrate reprimanded Julia and discharged her. She left the court-room accompanied by a bevy of friends, and it is thought will not be caught in such a scrape again. This is one of the most remarkable cases of the kind on record, and it is almost incredible that the girl could have practiced the deception to such an extent and for so [l]ong a time without detection.

Whither Charlie after this? The newspapers remained mum.

A prisoner, 1868

Some people we learn about only because they were arrested. This unnamed individual was arrested twice: once for “disorderly conduct” and again for wearing female clothing on a male body. As usual, newspaper editors waxed comical on the subject—and danced around the hint that the individual was acting as a sex worker. The story is a mine (and minefield) of 19th-century slang and colloquialisms.

“Didn’t Play It This Time” (from National Republican [Washington, Dictrict of Columbia] 5 February 1868; p. 3)

Some time since a party was arrested by one of the police force for disorderly conduct—such conduct as was calculated to attract the attention of some of our rather fast young men, who are on the qui vive for crinoline, and sich. The case underwent magisterial scrutiny, and a fine was imposed. The “sugar” not being forthcoming, the female boarders at Castle Douglass (the work-house) received an addition to their numer. It was not long, however, before the sharp eyes of Mr. Douglass led him to conclude that this new comer did not behave in a very lady-like manner—not very. There was a little too much familiarity and intimacy by a good deal with the females who had went there before, so the new acquisition was changed to another and more appropriate chamber, and was required to crawl into a pair of breeches and a jacket—more becoming to his sex. Yesterday the same party was arrested by Officers Hopkins and Price, of the Sixth precinct, again in female rig, and was taken before Justice Clark, who fined him $5. In default he was sent to the farm again, but Commander Douglass will provide him with proper habiliments before assigning him to quarters this time.

The Slaters, 1866

When Lucy Slater and the daughter of Daniel Perry left a New York almshouse in 1865 to set up their household, Lucy became James Slater in order to mitigate the curiosity of neighbors. Unfortunately, it didn’t work, and the two were separated less than a year later.

Who was the daughter of Daniel Perry? Daniel Perry (born 1783; died in Abington, Massachusetts, in 1875), had several daughters: Maria (born 1 April 1815; probably died before 1830), Frances (born 2 April 1818), an unnamed girl (born 2 February 1826; probably died as an infant), Caroline (b. 31 Aug 1830), and Maria Louisa (born 1 April 1833). [See Massachusetts, U.S., Compiled Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1700-1850. database on-line at ancestry.com] Caroline married Levi Cox on 13 December 1857. (See Massachusetts Vital Records, 1840–1911. New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts.Massachusetts Vital Records, 1911–1915. New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. online at ancestry.com) Caroline married Henry Clapp on 13 October 1844. (See Vital Records of Abington, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850. Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1912. vol 1; p. 154.)

Maria Louisa Perry never married; she died in Abington, Massachusetts, on 20 November 1890 and was buried next to her parents in Colebrook Cemetery, Whitman, Massachusetts. (See Massachusetts Vital Records, 1840–1911. New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts.Massachusetts Vital Records, 1911–1915. New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. at ancestry.com. See record at findagrave.com)

Was Maria the daughter mentioned? Possibly. She doesn’t appear in census records for 1870-1880—at least under “Maria Perry” (or under “Maria Slater” … ). Perhaps she lived the rest of her life under another name. And perhaps she found a partner with whom to live it.

“Married and Single” (from New Bedford Mercury [New Bedford, Massachusetts]; reprinted inm Fall River Daily Monitor [Fall River, Massachusetts] 27 April 1866; p. 2)

We are constantly remin[d]ed that truth is stranger than fiction. About a year ago a daughter of Major Daniel Perry, of Abington, who is somewhat deranged, disappeared and wandering off, was at last lodged in the Sullivan County Alms House, New York, as a vagrant. Here she met another monomaniac by the name of Lucy Slater, and the two becoming very much attached to each other, decided to become man and wife. They left the Alms House last summer and returned to Abington where they have lived in the bonds of wedlock, as supposed by the neighbors, Lucy alias James Slater wearing male attire up to the present time. She was arrested last Monday and brought before Justice Hersey, of Abington, for this offence, and sentenced to the Plymouth Hosue of Correction. It would be more proper to send them both to the Asylum at Taunton.—New Bedford Mercury.