To Help or To Hurt?

For our second to last unit of the year we learned about Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans in the late 19th century, and how their lives were impacted by the government at this time. Our set up was the same for the last unit; we all read the same documents and watched the same videos but took down notes according our assigned topic. My group’s topic was ‘Key Terms’. We put all of our topics onto a collaborative google doc and together used what we learned to come up with an essential question that could be debated regarding the topic of Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans. After a lot of thinking, my class came up with the question; “Were federal policies towards Native Americans and buffalo soldiers intentionally discriminatory or well intentioned?” To answer this particular question we had to look beyond our facts and terms that we discovered, and think about the meaning behind it all.

Buffalo Soldiers were African Americans Cavalry Soldiers. African Americans have just recently fought for their rights in the Civil War. The people and government then did not think much of African Americans, mostly treated them like animals than people. But now, in the late 19th century, African Americans were put into Cavalry Troops to fight for their country. This was well intentioned gesture on the government's part. They wanted African Americans to be able to fight and have a job to do because most African Americans did not previously have one. Buffalo Soldiers were given uniforms, duties, and were overall well respected. They were very courageous and eager to fight. The Buffalo Soldiers served in the Indian Wars and the Spanish American War. Although the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers was generally respected some people were intentionally discriminatory. Just coming out of the Civil War feelings were still raw on the topic of desegregation. Many fights broke out between the soldiers, citizens, and some men in the forces, who did not want African Americans to have any type of authority. The Buffalo Soldiers were also given the jobs that no other white soldier would want to do. These actions were intentionally discriminatory.

Group of Buffalo Soldiers
source-http://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/programs/buffalo-soldiers/

Native Americans during this time lived peacefully in the West without White interference. Native Americans and the Federal Government originally had a tranquil relationship. However, in 1830 Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act which made many tribes including the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole tribes, relocate to territory west of the Mississippi River. This was said to be done because it gave benefits to the Natives, not only the whites. However this was intentionally discriminatory to the Natives. It was done so whites could continue to settle west and build onto civilization. Once gold was found on the Natives land the Government ordered the Soldiers to become violent to Natives who resisted them. Things quickly became bloody. The technique of total war was used to wipe tribes. In Helen Hunt Jackson: A Century of Dishonor (1881) it states, “These Indians found themselves of a sudden surround by and caught up in the great influx of gold-seeking settlers, as helpless creatures on a shore are caught up in a tidal wave.” The government also removed the buffalo from Native lands, which was their prime source of everything from food to clothing to tools. This was all done intentionally by the Government that was run on their hunger for gold. The government also wanted to help civilize the Native Americans, which involved putting Native children into white-lead schools. This was done with both a good intention and was also discriminatory. Government thought that they were doing a good deed by giving the children an education and helping them become one with society, when in reality these schools ultimately changed their way of life for the worse. Government wanted to ‘Americanize” the Natives. This was thought to be a good and moral idea on the Government's part at this time, but ultimately was bad for the Natives. While these children were now educated, these schools made the children lose the rich culture and tradition of the Native Americans, which stumped the growth of Native Americans way of life for future generations.

Group of Native American Students at Indian Boarding Schools
source- http://www.accmuseum.org/Boarding-School-Sports

As you can see, the government's intentions were both discriminatory and well intentioned. For example, as stated before, the Government was well intentioned when they had African Americans become a part of the Cavalry units for the United States. This made these Soldiers, the Buffalo Soldiers, proud and excited to fight, even though there was still some discrimination. Sometimes The Government had well intentions, but it turned out to be the opposite, like the schools put in place for Native children. The intention was good on their part to give children education, but it actually made the kids leave all of their Native American culture behind and become “Americanized”. Other times the Government was directly discriminatory, especially with violently removing the Natives off their lands for the benefits of Whites. In conclusion, the government was both well intentioned and also discriminatory toward the Buffalo Soldiers and the Native Americans. I enjoyed the way this lesson was set up. I like being able to focus on one topic, like key terms, instead of struggling to capture everything from the sources. I wish my class would have done more of this type of learning earlier in the year. 

The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

In the Late 19th and early 20th century the American economy drastically switched from relying on farming to industry. This time period was known as the age of industrial growth. The lucky businessmen who knew how to do business created monopolies at this time. A monopoly is when a single corporation controls all of a product or industry. The monopolistic leaders at this time were crucial in the success of the economy as a whole. The actions of these leaders affected the common worker, but did their actions affect in a good or bad way? That was the question of the day. In order to search for an answer we were given many sources to read and analyze, such as biographies of big time leaders and video lessons of that time period. As a group, we put all of the components from these sources together to figure out how the actions of monopolistic leaders altered the life of a common worker. 

John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were two of the wealthiest names at this time. John D. Rockefeller was the co-founder of the Standard Oil Company. Rockefeller business practices were cut-throat and he was able to wipe out almost all of the rival oil companies. He did this by lowering and raising his prices often so surrounding companies could no longer compete, then he bought the fallen company and turned it into part of his own. Andrew Carnegie was also a tough businessman. Carnegie started off in a poor family but soon became one of the wealthiest men in America. After working as a bobbin boy and a messenger for a telegram office, Carnegie went into the steel business. He noticed that the steel production industry was struggling. Carnegie invested in this business and made a stronger, cheaper version of steel. He managed every process of producing the steel, which added dramatically to his bank account.   

John D. Rockefeller
source-http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h957.html

Rockefeller and Carnegie did not keep the money to themselves. Along with using it to invest more in their companies, and using it to their advantage during the Great Depression, their money was also given to the public. Both men were philanthropist. Philanthropist are people who seek to promote welfare in others, especially by donations of money. Carnegie wrote his beliefs and believed that a person's life should have 2 stages: accumulation of wealth and then the distribution of that wealth back to the community. Rockefeller and Carnegie were active in giving back and donating to education, medicine, science, and other things in the communities. Not just the average worker, but the average citizen benefited from these men's generous actions. The American economy also benefited from these large companies the men lead. But these leaders’ reputations did not stay sweet for long.

Andrew Carnegie
source-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande01.html

Over time Rockefeller and Carnegie were referred to as ‘Robber barons’ and were attacked by the media. Robber Barons are cruel leaders during the industrial growth who gained their fortune by unfair ways and crushing the competition. Other business men loathed Rockefeller because they believed his ways were too cut- throat and many lost their businesses. People became to think these men were run by greed. During the time of being criticized by the public, Rockefeller continued to donate to several charities. In 1892 a strike arose in one of Carnegie's mills, the Homestead. Carnegie wanted to get rid of the Homestead Union and bring in Strikebreakers, people who are hired to replace the people on strike, after he said that he would never do such a thing. The Homestead workers were furious and knew about Carnegie's plan. The workers attacked the Pinkerton soldiers that were hired to guard Homestead and the Strikebreakers that were coming in. This ended in a bloody battle. The world press scolded him and the event scared Carnegie for the rest of his life. These actions and accusations enraged the average workers and made them resent the big leaders. Some were directly affected by either the strike at Homestead or losing a business.

As you can see, the Monopolistic leaders, such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, both hurt and helped the average worker. Both men monopolized their industry so it was very difficult for men already in the oil and steel business to stay afloat. Carnegie hurt his workers during the Homestead Strike, and both he and Rockefeller were later criticized by the public and media. At the same time their monopolies helped better the economy. Although they were said to be people only influenced by greed they continued to donate to charity and help better people's lives.

The sources given, I found to be very reliable and helpful. I thought the way we organized the research in our class was the most efficient way possible. Each group read each source but focused on different topics, like important people, key terms, etc. We then had a combined google doc to share all of our information. It was very easy to learn about this time period and these people through this process. You could read about the same information but in different ways, a way of learning that I find very effective. I would recommend this style of analyzing text for future research activities. 

Nonsense for Notice

Who 'gave' freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? That was the essential question of the week. ‘Above’, in this case, means that freedom was able to come about for the slaves because of actions of those on top of the social pyramid. This includes Military officers, the President, and other high status individuals. Freedom from ‘below’ refers to the slaves themselves taking control of the situation and gaining freedom by their actions.  To see if freedom was given from above or from below we analyzed documents of Abraham Lincoln from different stages of the war, and read about slaves actions they took for their freedom. Also we looked at two different pictures that depicted how the slaves got their freedom. One picture indicated freedom from above and the other from below. These pictures were used to get us thinking about which side really did give the freedom. 

This picture shows Lincoln giving freedom from 'above' to the slaves.

This picture shows slaves rejoicing after struggling for their freedom. This illustrates freedom from below.

Some documents that we looked at indicated freedom from above while others indicated freedom from below. Most of the Lincoln documents indicated freedom from above. For example, in the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln states that he considers slaves to be free. The Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free any slaves, however this proclamation did create a segue for freeing the slaves in the future from the power of ‘above’.  Another example is from “Excerpt from President Abraham Lincoln’s Reply to an Open Letter from Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, 1862”. Lincoln wrote, “...I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” Again, while this did not actually free any slaves it foreshadowed that somewhere down the line Congress would grant slaves their freedom.

While these documents suggested that the freedom came from above, other sources strongly suggested that the freedom more likely came from below.In the Letter from General Ambrose E. Burnside to Secretary of War , General Ambrose E. Burnside talks about fugitive slaves that are looting the city and taking up residence. The General asks congress what to do with them saying, “ I hope to report to you a definite policy in reference to this matter, and in the mean time shall be glad to receive any instructions upon the subject which you may be disposed to give”. The slaves did these things to get the attention they wanted. They made themselves an annoyance to the Generals so that the Generals would have no choice but to write to Congress for help. This then made Congress pay attention to the fugitive slaves. This was the outcome the slaves were striving for. We also analyzed an engraving called “Slaves from the plantation of Confederate President Jefferson Davis arrive at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi,”This engraving shows slaves making an annoyance of themselves, yet again, to the townspeople. They do this so that the townspeople note it and ask higher up status what to do. By getting the attention of higher up power that meant that a change could possibly happen, and in the slaves case the change was their freedom.

Engraving of the slaves in the town

I believe that any type of social change comes from the people below. While in legal issues, like the freedom of slaves, the overall freedom legally happens from above. But, if the slaves and people below did not make a nuisance out of themselves and got to the attention of above no changes would occur. If there is no problem or action taken in society then the people above do not have anything to change. Social change still happens today. In Baltimore there is a big conflict with the police force after unlawful deaths of black men in the community by police. People are rioting to get attention from above so adjustments can be made to the possible racial issues with the police in their town. These riots have certainly grabbed the attention of Congress who is trying to find a solution. Like I said before, the legal action of change happens from above but there would be no change if the people from below did not protest and make their issues known. This is just one of the many examples of the average people from 'below' rising up and making a change happen.

Searching for Victors

This week in class we had a battle scavenger hunt. Each person in the class was given one battle of the Civil War. Once you searched the web and learned about the battle you created a Google doc that had four components; the title of the battle, the victor, the theater, and two bullet points describing the battle. The "theater" simply means where the battle took place; either the eastern theater, western theater, or naval theater (involving any body of water). Once the Google doc was made we each then made a QR code to our goggle doc using a qr generator. The QR codes were printed out and put in various placed through out the school. On the bottom of each Google doc were the instructions of where to find the next battle QR code. After finding and scanning the QR code you record the information from the Google doc into Evernote. After the scavenger hunt the class collaborated and created a Padlet on the patterns we found while taking notes of the battles.

Created with Padlet

Above is the class padlet


The essential question of the week was, "Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war; East, West, or Naval?", and "What are some commonalities you can identify in the reason for the result of battles?" As you can see on the class padlet, the Union dominated most of the western theater and naval theater while the eastern theater was primarily dominated by the Confederacy. For example the Union dominated the naval theater in battles such as the battle of Fort Henry and the battle of Fort Donelson. The Union had ships ready to fight so they were able to dominate the Naval theater. In the Western theater the Union were able to win many battles such as the battle of Shiloh and the battle of Chattanooga. The Union were able to surround and outnumber the Confederates in many battles, which caused them to dominate this theater. The Confederates were able to dominate the eastern theater because they were well supplied and more composed than the Union. Many battles
were won by the Confederates in the eastern theater such as the battles of Chancellorsville and Chickamauga. Overall it is shown that the Confederates were well supplied in the east while the Union had ships handy and well composed plans for the west. It was because of these commonalities throughout the battles that they dominated the theaters that they did.



At first when I heard that we were doing a scavenger hunt I thought it was an online scavenger hunt like we have done in he past. This type of scavenger hunt was very fun and more interesting. It was nice to be able to get out of class and walk around while still learning about the battles. Creating was fun too. Once my google doc of my battle was done I made the QR code. It was fun to make my own QR code and to put it someplace in the school. One downside of this activity was the wifi. One day the wifi did not work so well so tying to scan into codes went very slow, but that was not in our control.  Another minor setback was students making mistakes on their google doc. The whole class then had to rescan their code to get the correct notes.  Making a padlet was also a new activity. Although a bit disorganized it was nice to have all of our items on one page to share. Overall this lesson was a fun and exciting way to learn.

Dissension of the Election

The essential question of the day was "How were the results of the Election of 1860 representative of the deep division over slavery?" To learn the answer to this question we first watched a Crash Course video by John Green to get some quick information. Then we looked at a map of the Election of 1860 to see who was most popular where. In the South, Breckenridge, who believed that there should be no limits on slavery, won the popular vote. This is quite obvious because the South relied on slavery and wanted to keep it to keep their lives and economy afloat. The North votes were dominantly for Lincoln, who believed that slavery should be abolished. The North hated slavery and was fighting to change it so it makes sense that they voted for Lincoln. States between the North and South voted differently. In some states Bell was the popular vote. He wanted to preserve the Union as it is while keeping slavery. Present day Missouri’s popular vote was for Douglas, who believed that popular sovereignty should determine the expansion of slavery. This represents the division over slavery because the majority of the North voted for a leader who is against slavery and the South voted for someone who was all for slavery. The states in the middle voted for people who didn't have a firm stance on to either have or abolish slavery. Also, in class we read about art created during the time of the Civil War and how it helps tell the story of the Election of 1860 and where people stood in their beliefs. In groups using the civil war art, the information given, and other picture resources, we created a video on how these pictures help tell the story. Below is my group’s video.

Civil War art and information found at - http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces
Other sources are credited at the end of the video.

Info-So-Easy

In class we looked at statistics, facts, and strategies of the North and the South during the time of the Civil War. The assignment was to create an infographic to show how the differences between the two effected each strategy and the outcome of the war. I chose the statistic of population, railroad mileage, industrial workers, and percentage of slave owners. I chose population, mileage and industrial workers of the North and South because these statistics also show the advantages and disadvantages. The North exceeded the South in all of these areas which, in turn, became advantages for the North. They had more people to fight, could transport supplies and troops faster, make goods that were needed and had money from the industries. Since the South fell less in these areas the North had the upper hand. I also chose the statistic of the percentage of slave owners in the South to show how much slavery was used and valued in the region. This also showed their reason to fight. This process was a fun way to see the differences and problems that the North and South faced. I first made graphs of the different statistics to show a 'background' of what each region had during this time. Then I decided to explain the strategies after the graphs to show how the statistics effected those strategies. The infographic was a helpful and cool way of presenting data and simply explaining the topic at hand. I would recommend this method for future projects.

 

Success In The Civil War | Create infographics

The Never Addressed Elephant

We have all heard the saying ‘the elephant in the room’. This is a metaphorical saying for an obvious truth that is being either ignored or unaddressed. In the 19th century the debate over slavery was most definitely the ‘elephant in the room’ for American politics. In class we learned about important people and events during this time such as John Brown, the Compromise of 1850, and Bleeding Kansas. As we learned about these events we created a timeline. Events and or people that dealt with the idea of anti slavery went about the timeline and those of pro slavery went below. This timeline can help show how the topic of slavery was under addressed.

group timeline

 

 

Description of events

During the 19th century a big controversy of slavery arose. The North was against slavery and the South was pro slavery. With new land coming to be apart of the United States the two sides fought each other for the new land to be either pro slavery or free. In the beginning, due to the Missouri Compromise, there were 11 free states and 11 slave states, keep each side of the North and the South content. But, in 1850 California requests to join the union as a free state. Many were concerned because that would destroy the even balance between free and slave states and southerns were concerned that Free states would have more representatives in the Senate. To settle this, Henry Clay proposes a 5 Part Compromise, known of Compromise of 1850. These 5 parts dealt with the topic of slavery so that each side would be satisfied. One such of these parts was the Compromise in Washington D.C., were slave trade was abolished but owning slaves was not. The compromise of the territories stated that the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized with no mention of slavery. As you can see the topic of slavery was sort of awkward for politicians; no one wanted to deal with it or pick a side overall but just compromised all together to keep the North and the South quiet.

 

Another event was the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This Act was meant to to convince people to settle in the unorganized territories. The Kansas- Nebraska Act stated that the statehood would be determined by popular sovereignty. This Act then leads to what is known as “Bleeding Kansas”. This opportunity to populate territories was too good for the North and the South to pass so there was a rush of settlers to go there to state their dominance. Unfortunately, once settlers starting coming there was a violent outbreak. Many died fighting for their belief of either pro or anti slavery. This was yet another poorly handled event. The politicians let the statehood up to the people so they did not have to deal with it and in turn it ended in bloody battles.

 

Finally, in the midst of these battles and haphazard decisions, Abraham Lincoln became president. Lincoln had a set plan for the whole country, unlike any other politician before, and that was to abolish slavery. Lincoln was a very passionate man who believed strongly in the value of human rights. He believed that the majority should not have the power to deny the minority (slaves) their rights and lead the country through the civil war. Unlike before, Lincoln firmly addresses the issue of slavery and tried to change it for good and not just let the people fight amongst themselves to decide.

As you can see the topic of slavery did not get the attention it deserved in the 19th century. It was quite the ‘Elephant in the Room’; no one wanted to deal with the cold hard facts. Through all of the compromises and acts no one paid attention to the fact of what slavery was and how it was wrong. Instead, it dealt with making things equal so both and North and the South could be happy. This also included letting the people fight amongst themselves to become either a free or slave state. Not until Lincoln became president was there a firm universal stand for the country. Even though that stand was not accepted but all at first, history slowly changed itself into the free country we are today.

With the Good Comes the Bad

Slave; a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. Slaves and the system of slavery have been a part of society ever since the early 1600s. Slavery most always has to deal with race. In the Americans situation Africans, who were captured and brought from Africa, were the main source of slave labor. In the 19th century the economic system of slavery became entrenched. Entrenched means firmly established or unlikely to change. With the new way of life coming about in America the use of slaves became to be very dependent on the country’s wealth and seemed unlikely to change. Not only did slavery affect the economics of America but it negatively impacted the African race as a whole.

In the 19th century there was a dramatic growth in cotton production. What once used to be 1.5 million pounds a year, in 1790, turned into 2.28 billion pounds per year by 1860. The reason behind this remarkable growth is due to the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney in 1793.The cotton gin was a machine that sorted the seeds from the fibers, which had to be done anyway but this machine only took a fraction of the time it would take to do it by original methods. With a faster way of sorting the cotton, the cotton industry boomed. As the cotton industry grew larger and began to spread across the southern region of America in the 19th century, so id the system of slavery. More slaves were needed to keep up with the growing demand of cotton. The cotton business was so strong that cotton sales in 1860 made up 57% of the nations export revenue. Because there was such great success with cotton, and the production of cotton was based on the need slaves, slavery seemed to be firmly established at this time.

On the other side of this great economic boom was the negative impact it had on the African slaves. Africans had their dignity stripped from them and were treated more like animals, where the value of a human was not as important as how much work got done. The African race was looked down upon which affected the race as a whole. To learn more about this, in class we watched Prince Among Slaves, a movie based off the true story of an African prince, Abdul-Rahman, who was captured in war and was brought to America to be enslaved. Slavery greatly affected  Abdul-Rahman’s dignity. Being born a prince he expected his life to be lavish and to greatly rule his people of Futa Jallon, but that reality was quickly changed. Rahmans master, Tomas Foster, did not listen to what Rahman had to say and even cut off Rahmans' hair to show authority. Rahman was devastated, he had his identity ripped from him and after that came to terms with himself that he would never return to be a prince and was set for a life of obeying a white man’s wishes.

Abdul-Rahman
source- https://islaminhistory.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/prince-of-slaves/

 

 

While Abdul-Rahman had a more elaborate story, the same feelings went for the other slaves who individual lives did not matter to society anymore. American society during this time claimed that people deserve liberty and freedom yet they ignore the fact that slaves are humans too, and still condone slavery.

As you can see slavery was a big part of the 19th century. Without it the growth of cotton and the American economy would not have been so successful. But, with the growth of cotton came the growth of slaves and overlooking human life. All Africans in America, free or enslaved were affected by slavery. No one wants to see their family and race forced into labor and owned by another person. The dignity of these enslaved people during this time was most definitely wounded.

.

Woman's Fight for Women's Rights

For centuries women have been treated like they were beneath men. From the start of civilization, in society, men have had more authority than women. In the mid-19th century this was no different. Women were overlooked in society and were treated more like property than an actual human being. Once a women got married she was her husband's property. In Laws and Practices in The Rights of Women it states the laws and conditions affecting the women of the United States at this time. For example, it states that “ women were not allowed to own property in any state in the United States”,and “women may not vote in any state in the union”.  Other societal norms at this time included that it was improper for a women to speak in public, and men could beat their wife “in order to keep his wife from nagging”, and many other things that we would find unacceptable in today's society. It was believed that the woman's only job was to take care of the home, kids, and her husband, and that they were unfit for anything like politics or starting debates. If a women did have a job it would most likely be a school teacher, but even then they were only paid 30-50% of what men are paid for doing the same job.


Over time women were sick of being treated this way and were ready to fight for their rights; thus creating the Seneca Falls Convention in the fight for women's rights. Out of the Seneca Falls Convention came the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, a document that stated resolutions to the Practices in The Rights of Women. The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions was a very controversial piece, it was the first time women had out-lashed against society, and the declaration got a lot of attention. Reactions to this declaration were both positive and negative. One article in the newspaper the Oneida Whig had a negative and sarcastic response. They responded with statements such as, “If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows?” The Oneida Whig is poking fun at the Declaration saying that if women become more involved with society, then who will make their dinner? Not all newspapers reactions were negative, the National Reform had many positive comments on the subject and cheered on the women for making their wants known to the public. The National Reform said that “Their standard is now unfurled by their own hands. The convention of Seneca Falls has appealed to the country.” Society reacted very much like these newspaper articles, some were for and some were against this women’s rights movement. 

Today, in the 21st century, society still reacts differently to men and women but on a less noticeable scale. Women today have the same amount of rights that men have, they can own property, speak in public, and have very important jobs. Women are no longer viewed as solely the care giver and are generally widely respected. Although womens rights have grown immensely, society still judges and subconsciously labels women at times. A Pantene commercial shows this discrimination in how women are viewed differently than men in the same situations.

 

Over the years to course of womens rights have greatly changed to become what women have today. Although the rights of men and women have equalized, society can still label women differently than men.  

Understanding The Ill

 

Dorothea Dix was a nurse  who saw the horrifying conditions that the mentally ill lived when they were placed in prisons and almshouses and wanted to change it. In the prisons the mentally ill had “… unsuitable connections with criminals…adverse to the own physical and moral development…outrage upon humanity.” (pg 1-2) She fought for the rights of all mentally ill when she worked for prison reform and spoke to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1843. Her reasoning for that speech was to give the legislatures a clear explanation of the troubles of the mentally ill in prisons. She hoped the Legislature would change the law about sending the ill to prisons with criminals. The source is a primary document Dated January 1843 and gives the street that the speech was given on , Mount Vernon Street in Boston Massachusetts. The document gives pages of examples of mistreatment of the mentally ill, then called idiots and insane. It describes them being chained, beaten, sleeping in stalls and even wandering the streets alone. She told the audience that they would hear words and stories that would make them uncomfortable and were difficult for her to say, but they were true, graphic and necessary. Dix thought mentally ill should not be treated as criminals. She believed they needed medical care, jobs and people to care for them and about them.

The document does tell us both sides of the issue. She mentions that it is not the fault of those working in prisons or almshouses that these people are poorly cared for ,but the state and the staff and legislatures inexperience with mental health. She even realizes that most of the Legislature had no idea of what goes on in the prisons. She understands there are few “asylums” for the mentally ill to live in, but she would blame the Legislature for not doing anything from the time that she spoke to them . “You have the ability to use your position as lawmaker to change this problem…Your action upon this subject will affect the present and future condition of hundereds and of thousands.” (p31)

Dorthea Dix, Memorial to the Legislature of Massachusetts 1843, in the archive.org, accessed January 11, 2015, http://www.archive.org/stream/memorialtolegisl00dixd#page/n4/mode/1up.