Removing Cultural Identity

Although racism and discrimination had become less prominent in the late 19th century, events involving Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans had shown that acceptance and discrimination remained a major issue. As the government became more involved with the Native Americans of the Great Plains and Buffalo soldiers, their intentions became controversial. This week, as we learned about the Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans of the Great Plains, we were able to develop our own individual opinions as to whether the government’s actions were well-intended or discriminatory. To further develop our opinions, we examined several primary sources about the matter and took notes on various videos from historians. After note-taking and opinion forming, I was able to conclude that the government had both well-intended and discriminatory intentions towards the Native Americans and Buffalo soldiers, easily manipulating, but also somewhat aiding the natives and soldiers.

The majority of Federal policies proved to be discriminatory towards the natives and Buffalo Soldiers. After the Civil War, Americans flooded into the Great Plains removing the cultural identity of the Native Americans, using total war to destroy anything life sustaining. This marked the beginning of the Indian Removal Act, forcing Indians to move west of the Mississippi River to smaller living conditions. American government refused negotiation with the natives, believing that they were superior to them. During the Indian Removal, Americans ignored that Native Americans were protected by the law, having the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. During the majority of the Indian Removal, federal policies manipulated natives, forcing them to leave their homes and destroying native civilization.

However, some federal policies during the Indian Removal were arguably well-intended. The federal government established the Dawes Act in 1887, granting the right to Indians to have land and citizenship if they are willing to become farmers and change to American culture. Stated in the Dawes Act, “To each head of a family, one-quarter of a section; To each single person over eighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section…”. These allotments of land may have been intended to benefit the natives, however, about 90% of the designated land ended up going to the American general public. The Carlisle Schools were established in 1879 by American Government, providing  native children with an education. Although these schools may have been well-intended, they Americanized natives and caused family units to fall apart. The Carlisle Schools may have arguably been an example of a well-intended act on behalf of the American government. However, the majority of federal policies gave unjust treatment to the Indians.

After learning about the federal policies during this time, I have developed the opinion that the American government had mostly discriminatory intentions, despite having few possible well-intended acts. Small acts such as the establishment of the Carlisle schools can not compensate for the unjust treatment given to the natives and soldiers during the Indian Removal. The American government had a sense of superiority towards the natives, believing that they could manipulate the natives, without any consideration for how their federal policies affected the culture and community of the natives.

Max D. Standley. The Trail of Tears. 2007. https://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/test-2/deck/6098052

"Dawes Act (1887)." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2015. Web. 5 June 2015.

Crushing the Competition

During the 19th century, two of America’s greatest businessmen affected the country’s economy, impacting the common worker. These two businessmen, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, gained financial control of industries through the use of monopolies. A monopoly can be defined as a single corporation's actions to control all of a certain product or industry. In order to gain an understanding of how Rockefeller and Carnegie affected the common worker, the class spent this week’s classes analyzing biographies and separating ourselves into small groups to take notes on certain aspects of the two business men.

Image of Rockefeller as an Octopus Crushing Other Industries

Monopolistic leaders such as Rockefeller and Carnegie both negatively and positively impacted the common worker. As great businessmen, Carnegie and Rockefeller took over major industries such as oil and transportation. Due to their impressive abilities to compete with other corporations and thrive in the business world, many employees and corporations went out of business. In this way, Carnegie and Rockefeller negatively impacted the common worker, leaving many workers unemployed. Due to their huge amount of financial success, both Carnegie and Rockefeller were perceived as “robber-barons”. Robber-barons were corrupt or cruel leaders of the industrial growth that were infamous for bribery, hiring personal armies, and buying out rivals. People had controversial emotions towards robber-barons because they helped better the country’s economy, but unfairly eliminated competition.

Despite their reputations and financial success, both businessmen helped to advance the economy, promoting growth and contributing to society. Raised in poverty, Carnegie demonstrated how to gain success and rise from “rags to riches”. From his own experience, Carnegie had an understanding of life in poverty and treated workers with respect. Carnegie was a philanthropist and donated millions of dollars to advance education, establish public libraries, and promote world peace. Within the steel industry, Carnegie created a stronger steel for lower price than other steel companies in America, promoting the nation’s economy. Rockefeller, also a philanthropist, donated much of his money to charities and educational systems, assisting in the cure to yellow fever. As part of his philanthropic beliefs, he believed that his life should be composed of two stages: the accumulation of wealth and then the distribution of that wealth back to the community. In an interview with William Hoster, Rockefeller stated, “I believe the power to make money is a gift of God … to be developed and used to the best of our ability for the good of mankind. Having been endowed with the gift I possess, I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow man according to the dictates of my conscience”. Rockefeller also helped the advancement of the economy, but was despised in society for his greedy attitude.Both Carnegie and Rockefeller, though envied for their wealth, significantly benefited the country’s economy through their business talents. Both with competitive attitudes, Carnegie and Rockefeller strongly believed in Social Darwinism, the idea that people needed to compete as much as possible in order to improve themselves. Though negatively perceived in society, both Carnegie and Rockefeller made drastic improvements that the 19th century may not have otherwise been able to achieve.

Although Carnegie and Rockefeller positively and negatively impacted the common worker, I believe that the majority of their actions benefitted the community. Most negative perceptions of the two businessmen were derived from envy rather than disdain. Instead of looking down upon these two men, we should consider the important choices and selfless acts that the men have made in order to benefit our country. Without these two businessmen, America’s economy may not be nearly as advanced or competitive as it is today.

Interview quote- John T. Flynn. God’s Gold, 1932, http://www.edline.net/files/_EfHIe_/5b6412732dc698573745a49013852ec4/Doug_Ernst-Inquiry_Lesson-Robber_or_Captain.pdf

Rockefeller Octopus- Udo J. Keppler, Puck, 1904, http://www.edline.net/files/_EfHIe_/5b6412732dc698573745a49013852ec4/Doug_Ernst-Inquiry_Lesson-Robber_or_Captain.pdf

Power to the She and He

This week during class we learned about freedom of slaves coming from all levels of the social and economic pyramid. The essential question for this lesson is: Who gave freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans? In the 1800’s, almost all Americans of color were enslaved and worked on plantations. This week in class, we did various activities to help understand the enslavement during the 19th century. First, the class wrote our interpretations of dialogue for images of slaves and their owners. Next, we discussed what each of us thought what “freedom from above” and “freedom from below” meant. To understand Lincoln’s involvement in slavery, we read and analyzed each of the four Lincoln documents and watched a video about slavery in the Civil War on PBS.com. After completing all of the activities, the class was able to further our understand how people from different social classes can make a societal impact.

Throughout the nineteenth century, slaves were mistreated and deprived of freedom. It was hundreds of years until people began to take a stand and come face-to-face with the issue of slavery. Slaves themselves began to fight for justice, as well as larger public figures. In 1863, president Abraham Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln decided not to pass this act until the Union began to win more battles in the Civil War to prevent the proclamation from appearing as a final, desperate cry for justice. By waiting until the Union was likely to win the war, the proclamation would be perceived as a victorious establishment of freedom. This act enforced the freedom of slaves in any state and states that all slaves may be freed. However, all slave owners refused the Emancipation Proclamation to keep all slaves from leaving their plantations. Lincoln continued to fight for slave justice in his Second Inaugural Address and Gettysburg Address. In Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, he states, "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” This well-known Lincoln quote supports the abolition of slavery and reminds the country of the rights granted to all in the Constitution. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address also supports these rights, stating, “While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war-seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation….These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than restrict the territorial enlargement of it.” Lincoln recognizes that slaves are desperate for justice and have caused a Civil War in doing so. Lincoln’s words as president made a large impact on the abolition of slavery, having been the large public figure that he was.

On the other hand, slaves did their part of fighting for their justice to eventually gain freedom from below. Slaves began to make a nuisance for the army and officers, eventually making themselves figures to the U.S. and congress and forcing the government to consider slavery policies. Fugitive slaves began to swarm and loot the cities, grabbing the attention of all. These large publicity stunts contributed immensely to the eventual freedom from slavery. By persevering through discrimination, slaves were able to declare freedom for themselves from below.

One example of freedom from above today is the recent Bruce Jenner incident that has spread worldwide. Bruce Jenner recently explained his intentions to become a woman in a recent interview. As a former Olympic athlete and step father of the Kardashians, Bruce Jenner is a huge public figure. Having revealed his sexuality publicly has caused a lot of controversy within the media, but has made a great impact on how sexuality is perceived. Being a public figure and role model,  Bruce Jenner has focused attention and brought support to the topic of gender identification. Just as Bruce Jenner has gathered support for the cause of gender identification, public figures such as Abe Lincoln were able to attract support towards slave freedom. Oftentimes, because someone is famous or perceived as a role model, they can impact our decisions and opinions about certain topics based on their own actions and opinions. Continuing to be proved today, change can be brought about by people from all different social levels. Regardless of social class, people can make a difference through determination and perseverance to change history.


Citations:
http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF3y_/4a7b01df19db2ad63745a49013852ec4/Freedom_to_the_Slaves.jpg

http://pagesix.com/2015/01/28/bruce-jenner-to-discuss-transformation-on-tv/

Why Did the Union Win the Civil War?

Last week in class, we completed a scavenger hunt around the school to gather information about the battles of the Civil War. To prepare for the game, each student was assigned a battle and created a Google doc briefly summarizing their battle, listing the battle name, date, location, theater, and victor. Students then created a QR code to scan into the document to allow others to scan the code during the scavenger hunt. After racing through the school to scan into various documents, the class reviewed the information. As a class, we used Padlet to discuss the essential questions and various battles. I enjoyed last week’s lesson as I felt that it gave us an unusual hands-on experience and allowed us to combine the use of technology with a game to learn about historical battles of the Civil War.

During the Civil War, there were three theaters known as the Naval, Western, and Northern Theaters. These theaters were solely based on the location of the battle. The naval theater was primarily dominated by the Union as a result of the Confederates not having enough money or naval power. For example, the Battle of Ironclads in 1862 was held in the naval theater and resulted in a Union victory. This battle was between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia. The CSS Virginia faced a defeat due to their short supply of ammunition and their fear of fighting during low tide. In the Northern Theater, the Confederates gained dominance. However, it was not until the latter part of the Civil War that the Confederates began to take control. The Confederates were able to gain dominance by the end of the war as a result of their strength and war tactics used on terrain. For example, during the Battle of Cold Harbor, the Union did not have a clear view of the Confederate positions due to the heavily wooded, uneven terrain. As a result, the Confederates were the ultimate victors. In the Western theater, the Union became the victors due to their insightful war strategies. For example, in the Battle of Shiloh, the Union surrounded the Confederates until they were forced to surrender, leading to a Union victory. Due to the Union victories in both the Western and Naval battles, the North was able to win the Civil War. Although the Union ended up being the overall victor of the war, the Confederates had their share of victories of battles and provided the Union with a worthy opponent.

Many of the results of these battles shared similar reasons for their outcomes. Often, the success or failure of military strategies determined the results of the battles. In the Battle of Bull Run, the Union military commander had overly complicated plans that were difficult for his troops to carry out, resulting in a Confederate victory. On the other hand, during the Appomattox Campaign, the Union army was able to defeat the Confederates by using responsive strategies. In this situation the Union army knew the Confederate army's intentions and beat them to Pittsylvania County where the Confederate soldiers planned on getting needed supplies.

Throughout the Civil War, the Union and Confederate armies used a variety of military tactics that resulted in both successes and failures. With strategic tactics and strength, the Union army was able to defeat the Confederates throughout a series of battles, resulting in a Northern triumph. After this week’s lesson and activity about theaters and battles of the Civil War, I have a much greater understanding about why the Union won the Civil War and how each opponent used various strategies to achieve successes.

F Block Padlet:

Union Victory- Civil War

Created with Padlet

http://thesouthwontriseagain.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/6/3/25637700/5466441_orig.jpghttp://thesouthwontriseagain.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/6/3/25637700/5466441_orig.jpg

Explaining the Story of the Election of 1860 Through Artwork

 The essential question for this unit was, "How were the results of the  Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions  over slavery?" To answer this question we watched a Crash-course video by John Green to learn the basic concepts of the Election of 1860 and how the topics of the Fugitive Slave Law, railroads, republicans, Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott vs Sanford, and John Brown impacted the Civil War. The Election of 1860 was the main cause of the Civil War. Northern and Southern states (the Union and the Confederacy) disputed over the authorization of slavery. We analyzed a map that depicts which states voted for each president. The map shows how the majority of Northern states voted for Lincoln, a republican against slavery. He felt strongly that slavery should be contained. Southern states voted for Breckenridge, a Southern democrat who believed that there should be no limits on slavery. The votes for president clearly indicated that pro-slavery states voted for Lincoln, a pro-slavery president and anti-slavery states voted for Breckenridge, a pro-slavery president. My group also referenced Civil War In Art to analyze civil war artwork and understand events that led to the war. Through watching the Crash-course video, analyzing electoral votes, analyzing Civil War artwork, and creating a reflective Educreations video, we were able to fully understand how and why the nation was divided over the slavery debate and how events led to the battle of the Civil War.

My Group's Educreation Video

A Map of State Votes

The Civil War: Statistics, Strategies, and Advantages

The Civil War: Statistics, Strategies, and Advantages | Create infographics

Making an Infographic was a challenging process. It involved a lot of trial and error and research to create a detailed presentation. The first element of the Infographic is the pictorial bar which provides the percentage of U.S. citizens in the North and South in 1860. I chose to present this information to give the viewer an idea of where the majority of slaves were located in the U.S. The next element of the Infographic is the Resource Percentage Chart. This chart shows the percentages of the resources produced in the North and the South. This information is useful to know to better understand the advantages that the North and South had during the Civil War. The next element of the Infographic is the Types of Labor Chart. The bar graph shows how dominant cotton production was in the 1850’s compared to all other types of slave labor. The next part of the Infographic depicts the advantages of both the North and South during the Civil War. These advantages help give a better understanding as to why the Union was able to defeat the Confederacy. The last element of the Infographic illustrates the war strategies of the North and the South and an explanation as to how the strategy of the Union was stronger than that of the Confederacy. By creating this Infographic, I was able to understand the situations faced by the Union and Confederacy at the start of the war. Once statistics and strategies were reviewed, it became evident that the Union was the stronger opponent despite the few important advantages held by the Confederacy.

Citations:

Strengths of North and South-

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBWz_/5d02a07fa6fb59973745a49013852ec4/Strengths_of_the_North_and_the_South_Reading.pdf

Slavery By the Numbers-

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBWZ_/bef00892623842283745a49013852ec4/Slavery_by_the_Numbers.pdf

Resources- http://www.edline.net/files/_CDHeg_/85a5db5beaf605393745a49013852ec4/Resources_Pie_Charts.pdf

The Elephant in the Room

In the early 19th century, the issue of slavery was often overlooked as the American economy began to prosper.  All legal compromises or acts were created in an effort to shut down abolitionists and avoid controversy regarding the prominent issue of slavery. In class, we analyzed several events of 19th century which greatly impacted the evolution of slavery and created a timeline of important historical events pertaining to the issue.  Analysis of these documents provides evidence that legal compromises, acts, and legislation were created to avoid the social and ethical controversy which often surrounded the topic of slavery and  enabled the government to continue to attain financial success from slave labor.

In 1853, the U.S. paid $15 million for all of Nevada, California, Utah, and much of Arizona and New Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition, the United States paid $10 million for a much smaller strip of land known as the Gadsden Purchase only 5 years later. This land was used to promote slavery through the construction of the southern transcontinental railroad and “fix” any further conflict lingering after the Mexican-American War.  In an attempt to diminish tensions from the war, the United States made a significant effort to find a southern route for a transcontinental railroad as the only viable route through Mexican territory.  This new land paved the way for the southern transcontinental railroad and allowed plantation owners and slaves to come to the U.S. ultimately boosting the economy through their labor.

The Dred Scott Decision occurred in 1857. Dred Scott was an enslaved man who lived in the free state of Illinois and Wisconsin before moving to the slave state of Missouri.   In the hopes of being granted freedom, Scott filed a suit against his owner in the U.S. Supreme Court.  He argued that he and his wife were free because they had once lived with their owners in states and territories where slavery was illegal. This decision established that slaves were denied the right to sue in court because they were not citizens, enslaved people could not win freedom by living in a free territory or state, ruled The Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional, and established all territories open to slavery. This decision supported a law which was unjust and without fair justification as to why men such as Dred Scott could not be granted freedom. If Scott were granted freedom, there could be potential uprisings and protests from other slaves, putting the economy in danger without the support of its laborers. Despite this ruling, many abolitionists such as Frederick Douglas believed that this decision would ultimately bring slavery to the attention of the nation and closer to destruction.

John Brown was an abolitionist who believed in the overthrow of the slavery system. He assisted slaves by housing escaped slaves in Harper's Ferry. He also attempted to attack a government arsenal to capture weapons in hope that he could arm local slaves to rise up against local slave owners. However, Brown and his men were captured and killed and Brown was accused of treason. Instead of taking matters into consideration, Brown was shut down and killed most likely in an effort to prevent further uprisings, causing potential danger to cotton production. At this point in time, many northerners began to support the militant abolitionists like Brown.

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act opened new lands for settlement. It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act served to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act angered those in the North who considered the Missouri Compromise to be a binding agreement. In the pro-slavery South, it was supported. By establishing Kansas and Nebraska as popular sovereignty, the northern railroad was becoming more attractive to southern slave owners, coming to the states to promote slavery. This act provides another example of how laws were used by the government to promote slavery in an effort to secure financial gain in a united nation.

Websites Used:

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/gadsden-purchase

The Growth of Slavery

In colonial America, slavery was an large aspect of society. Africans were enslaved and sold to slave owners across America. At the height of slavery, 25% of all southerners owned slaves. Those who owned 20 or more slaves controlled the social, political, and economic power of the south. In the eighteenth century, government was based on race and created laws to establish a slave’s value and essential rights. For example, in The Founder’s Constitution, part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states that a slave is worth ⅗ of a person and Native Americans do not count as part of the population. This ⅗ Compromise allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. This ⅗ Compromise was necessary to allow unity of the states. However, this race-based governmental system diminishes human dignity. Anyone enslaved of color is told that they have little or no value in society, taking away all self-respect or rights that they have as a human being.

In the eighteenth century, cotton became an economically profitable plant for the nation. Cotton production was initiated in the southern states on the east coast expanded production in the south as demands for cotton production grew with the helpful invention of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin. By 1860, cotton became 57% of the nation’s total export revenue and became an integral aspect of our nation’s economy. However, high demands for the product called for laborers to work the fields. Slavery began in the northern states but shifted into southern states such as Alabama and Mississippi once there were demands for cotton. With cotton being the nation’s leading export revenue, making over 190 million dollars, slavery became entrenched, relying on slave laborers to assist in the process of making the highly demanded cotton. Southern cotton planters felt economically powerful and politically confident that the national government at Washington could not afford to alienate them and lose their support. With the demands for their slaves’ work, slavery would continue to remain for many years to come.

A government based on race tends to ignore and overlook characteristics such as intelligence or virtue of a slave. People of color were enslaved and forced to labor in the fields to maintain the demands for cotton and support the growing economy. This race-based government identifies and defines people by the color of their skin, overlooking important qualities of a human being such as intelligence and virtue. Race and inequality have shaped our nation since the beginning of the American colonies’ quest for freedom and economic and political liberty. Our society was founded on inequality and the denial of freedom for slaves. Perhaps a government that focused less on economic success and more on the value of the individual would have produced greater results. If important qualities of a slave such as intelligence had been recognized, they could have potentially contributed to a more profitable plantation. If slaves had been treated with more respect and had been identified regardless of their race, we could have had a more humane way of reaching financial success.

Christy, Howard. Scene of the Signing of the Constitution of the United States. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States. 2/24/15

Women In Society

In July 1848, over 300 men and women gathered at Seneca Falls, New York for the first women’s rights convention. This convention declared the rights of women in an attempt to abolish all laws and practices limiting women’s rights. These laws limited rights such as divorce rights, the right to own property, the right to raise children if the father should die, the right to vote, and the right to obtain an equal income to men.

Two of the most thought provoking newspaper responses were those of Oneida Whig and The Mechanics Advocate, Female Department. Oneida Whig states, “...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.” Although Oneida Whig encourages women to fight for their natural rights, it also focuses on the selfish effects they may have on men. The article states, “If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows?” The men in the article lack consideration to the limitations of women’s rights. As they first state that it is the right of women to defend themselves and defy the unjust government, they then contradict their statement by arguing that their dinners would not be cooked and household chores would not be done. Chores such as making dinner and stitching stockings should not be perceived as a job set aside only for women. If women had been given more rights and had not been limited to housekeeping, there be no just reason why a man cannot complete these tasks as well.

The Mechanics Advocate presents illogical reasoning as to why women should not be provided with equal rights as men. The newspaper article states, “But there were two most potent reasons why women should be in subjection: 1. Adam was made before Eve. 2. Eve sinned before Adam. Now, there is no escape for women here for if she is older than her husband, then of course she must be subject to him because she must have sinned first. If on the contrary she be made younger, she must be subject to him because he was made first.” This article presents a completely irrational argument as there is no situation in which women would be able to gain freedom from their husband. The article also fails to present any biblical evidence as to why a man could be subject to his wife. These two biased reactions to the Seneca Falls Convention prove that there are no legitimate reasons as to why women should not be granted rights.

Although women’s rights have significantly expanded and women are perceived much differently than women in the 19th century, women continue to feel limited as to what they can and cannot do in society. For the most part, women have been granted the same rights as men however, there are many expectations that women must fulfill that naturally lead to labels and discrimination.

Regarding personal traits and characteristics, women are often judged by their personality simply because of the traits that their gender must uphold. For example, women often feel inclined to wear makeup to look feminine. However, this feminine appearance often prevents women from gaining respect. A woman’s feminine appearance can cause men to perceive them as weak or unintelligent. As a society, we have superficial expectations that a woman must attain to maintain a “feminine” figure, but these expectations can ultimately prevent a woman from being perceived for who they truly are and gaining respect in a man’s world.

Although we have made great progress in equalizing men and women’s rights in a legal sense, we still have to make progress towards providing women with more respect in a social sense. If women were to be judged more on their merit and moral integrity, and less on their appearance, than perhaps women would be granted more opportunities in our male-dominated society.

Citations:

Oneida Whig: 

August 1, Edline, http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc006199.jpg, 2/1/15

The Mechanics Advocate: 

Tanner, John, "Women Out of Their Latitude", Edline, http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc006200.jpg, 2/1/15

Pantene Commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K2kfgW7708&feature=youtu.be

Insane Asylum Reform

1880 The New York Times Newspaper Article, "Out of an Insane Asylum"

"On undressing for his bath, his two attendants treated him roughly because he did not remove his clothing as quickly as they thought necessary. He told them not to be so harsh, as he was still ill from fever, and was suffering from a blister on his back, which was covered with a plaster. One of the men said: 'Oh, we've heard of you before,' and, taking hold of the plaster, tore it from his back, pulling the skin of the blister with it. In giving him his bath, they rubbed his raw back with a flesh-brush, unmindful of his pleas and suffering.....About 8 o'clock in the evening Harper and two others came to the cell and wanted me to take some medicine. I was afraid it was poison, and refused. Then I was beaten, but still refused to take the medicine. This was followed by more kicks and knocks, and then the medicine poured down my throat.....Why didn't you give the "trailing sign" when you were abused?, he asked me. I told him I did not think of it. When the keepers found out that I was an Odd-fellow I was treated better than the other patients."

In this 1880 The New York Times article, the author does not have a major position in the presentation of the story. The author simply paraphrases and records the experience told by John Carroll. The author’s purpose is merely to explain the background of Carroll’s story, paraphrase Carroll’s explanations, and to interview him about his experience in the insane asylum. The author produced this document in an effort to make the conditions of the asylums known around the town. The author may have believed that publishing an interview with a patient about the inhumane treatment may initiate an opposition to the conditions of the asylums. John Carroll, one of the victims of the insane asylums, seems like a trustworthy source as he refers to himself as an odd-fellow, having a respectable position in society. An odd-fellow was a member of a global altruistic and benevolent fraternal organization derived from the British Odd-fellows service organizations of the 18th century. In the 1800's, the mentally ill were held in asylums in unhealthy environments, with no compassion or respect given to them. Those in asylums were perceived as “animals” and creatures that had no sense of feeling. In these morbid environments, patients were often left isolated in cells with no source of heat or light. In this New York Times newspaper article published in 1880, the author describes one of John Carroll’s daily occurrences with the workers of the asylum stating, “He told them not to be so harsh, as he was still suffering from fever, and was suffering with a blister on his back, which was covered with a plaster. One of the men said: ‘Oh, we've heard of you before’, and taking hold of the plaster, tore it from his back, pulling the skin of the blister with it. In giving him his bath, they rubbed his raw back with a flesh-brush, unmindful of his pleas and suffering.” The workers give inhumane treatment to their patients, causing physical pain, among their patients. Carroll states, “About 8 o’clock in the evening Harper and two others came to the cell and wanted me to take some medicine. I was afraid it was poison, and refused. Then I was beaten; but I refused to take the medicine. This was followed by more kicks and knocks, and then I was choked and the medicine poured down my throat.” Patients were even scolded and beaten for making decisions out of fear for their life. However, later in the article, Carroll mentions, “When the keepers found out I was an Odd-fellow, I was treated better than the other patients.” Due to Carroll’s respectable position as a part of a fraternal organization, his conditions in the asylum were noticeably better than those of other patients. Although all patients in the asylum had a mental illness, some may have been viewed as less of a brainless, comical “animal” as a result of one’s social status.
This document depicts the unjust, hazardous conditions and treatment given to the patients because of a mental illness. As if the patients were not sick enough, workers took advantage of most, causing injuries to the “creatures”. The discrimination between social class goes to show the lack of logic and reason used in treating the patients. Although the author of this article did not provide much of an opinion towards the story of Carroll, publicizing the interview shows that he had the intention of creating resistance against the treatment of the patients by spreading word through the newspaper.

Citation:
The New York Times, “Title: Out of an Insane Asylum- Released Patient's Remarkable Story of Cruel Treatment,”New York Times, March 26, 1880.