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.

 

 

 

Jackson for The People?

Is Andrew Jackson's long- standing reputations as "the people's president" deserved? That was the essential question of the day. To answer this question the class split up into 3 groups and assigned a topic to research. Each topic dealt with Andrew Jackson and the things that he did. The topics were the Indian Removal Act, the Spoils System, and the Bank War. By researching what each topic was, what Jackson did, and how it affected the people we could find out if Jackson really was "the people's president" or not. Each group created a Google slide show and presented their findings to the class. The answer to the essential question depends on which one of the three topics you are referri8ng to. For the Indian Removal Act, Andrew Jackson was "the people's president" for Americans, but was not considerate for other people, such as the Indians. Jackson wanted to move the Indians west so that there was more land for the white people and ensured the Indians that moving west was a good idea for them because other Indian tribes have died out living near white people. The Indians however did not want to leave their native land but Jackson eventually forced them out and law and many died on the march to their new land. For the topic of Spoils Andrew Jackson was certainly not "the people’s president". When he was elected president he instated the spoils system in which he removed people from their current government jobs and instead gave them to people who have helped him get elected. This was disastrous because it took 919 people out of their jobs and replaced them with unqualified people. This did not only affect the 919 people that lost their jobs but the rest of society who had to suffer as well. Jackson's main goal was to protect the people during the Bank War but in the end it only created problems. Jackson wanted to protect the average business man by not letting rich people get too ahead in their businesses, but that only created a divided between the rich and poor. My groups topic was The Indian Removal Act and our project is shown below. 

Rise of Democracy

Today in class we did something different and made a poster to display the unit and the essential questions. The essential questions were; How should we define democracy? How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s? To show the answers to these questions we used various documents and wrote summaries. In the early 1800's democracy was just beginning to become popular. Democracy is a form of government where the people can vote for the elected representative of their choice. Although, during the 1800's the "people" who could vote only included white male land owners. Below is attachments of my groups final poster. 

The Race to Equality

Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? That was the essential question of the day. This question is basically asking why we should value human beings no matter what race they are. This question is important to think about because throughout history race has always been an issue and it still is today. In class we studied the impact of race of the Latin American revolutions for independence. We looked at a pie chart of the percentages of certain races of that time and also the social rankings according to race. The basic idea, the more white you are the more power you have. Full whites, the Peninsulares, were on top of the social ranking but only a very small percentage of the populations. On the bottom of the social ranking, before slaves, were the Indians, who made up approximately half of the population. We then studied the effects and outcomes of the Brazilian, Mexico, and Gran Colombian revolution. Each group made a timeline with important dates of the revolution they were assigned which was later shared with the rest of the class.

timeline of the Gran Colombian revolution

Upon sharing timelines we found some commonalities and differences. All three revolutions' primary goal was to have independence and each was successful. The differences are that the revolution of Gran Colombia resulted in several independent countries while Mexico and Brazil resulted in one. Also, the Brazilian revolution was not very violent while the other two revolutions were. Even though all three revolutions took different routes to independence each one had the issue of race inequality. In Brazil, once Pedro became King he only aloud Peninsular to become members of his cabinet. People became very unhappy and Pedro became unpopular amongst the population and later stepped down from the thrown. In Mexico the priest that launched the revolution stated three reasons to launch it, and one of those reasons was to have racial equality. Simon Bolivar united anyone who wasn't enslaved in Gran Colombia into one army to fight against the common enemy, the Spanish. Race played in all three revolutions, and in the end the banding together of other races to fight as one ended up with success. But people made judgments about different races and didn't treat them like they were important but when they all came together they victoriously fought to their common goal.

There is still judgment based on race in today’s society. For example there is a big controversy in Ferguson Missouri. A white police officer shot a black man, Michael Brown, and the jury is deciding whether or not to put the officer on trial. The police officer says that he was threatened by Michael and that is why he had to shoot while people in the neighborhood are saying Michael did not threaten the officer and was shot anyway. Michael Browns friends, family, and community are raged because they think that because the police officer is white and Michael is both black and deceased that the police officer will get off without a trial. This is one example of many race related issues going on in the United States today. People should not be judged or given certain privileges based on their race. The issue of race today is still important to acknowledge, not just in the United States but in the world as well.

Toussaint Louverture

Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery in the United Stated and is widely known for this achievement. While Hitler was an effective leader, he is rightfully known for the terrible and immoral things that he has done. Great leaders are remember by their greatest achievements and the decisions that they make, some can be despised like Hitler and some can be idolized like Lincoln. All noble leaders make mistakes, like George Washington bringing his men to Valley Forge. These small mistakes are not what define them. Toussaint Louverture started as a doctor to the troops in Saint Domingue in 1791. In the midst of the slave revolt Toussaint gains the peoples trust and works up the ranks to later became the leader of the only successful slave revolt in history. With the prior guidance of Louverture, after he died in 1803, Haiti declared independence from France in 1804. Louverture, like other great leaders, had some mistakes, but these are not how he should be remembered. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as a liberator of slaves, military commander and a Ruler of Saint Domingue.

 

Primarily the most important aspect that should be remembered of Toussaint Louverture was that he was a liberator of slaves. Throughout the whole revolution he always fought on the side of the salves. In 1794 under Robespierre, the revolutionary French government abolished slavery in France. Toussaint and his troops stopped their revolt and now supported the French (A). Louverture always stayed true to his aspiration of having freedom for slaves, even in that meant switching sides in a revolt. Toussaint also stood up freedom rights even in other countries. He wrote a letter to the French government once he heard that they were going to reinstate slavery. In that letter he stated “Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look calmly while it is taken from them!” (B) and “We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it” (B). Louverture confronted the French government saying that they cannot take away these peoples freedom after they have already been free. He is sticking up for slaves that are not even in his country. He also threatened the French in the last statement, basically saying that he and his troops are not afraid to fight them for the French peoples independence. This shows that Toussaint Louverture was passionate for freedom for the whole world, not just people of his race or land. In 1801 Toussaint signed the Saint Domingue Constitution. In this constitution article 3 stated that “There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French” (C) . This article was to enforce that slavery will never be reinforced. Louverture put this in place to make sure that what he and his troops fought for will never be taken away. Under any means Toussaint Louverture always fought for the liberation of slaves.

 

Toussaint was also a wise ruler of his land of Saint Domingue. Although some people would not agree. In 1801 Toussaint Louverture set a Proclamation to address the fact that even though the slaves are now free they still have to work and work at the plantation they are assigned. A Lot of people either tries to leave and not work or run away to other plantations with better conditions. Louverture set this proclamation to keep the land economy afloat. The sugar production is the main source of financial support of Saint Domingue and without it the economy would crash. As the ruler, Toussaint set this proclamation to become more organized and strict about working so that Saint Domingue as a whole does not suffer. In order to keep the plantations going Toussaint placed stricter consequences for runaway workers or ‘vagabonds’. Such threats included that “Vagabond cultivators arrested . . . shall be taken to the commander of the quarter, who will have them sent to the gendarmerie [local police] on their plantation” (D). The citizens obviously did not like working on plantations because it was too similar to when they were slaves, but if they did not work then Saint Domingue would fail. These stricter laws were a smart idea on Toussaints behalf because it ensured better working numbers and outcomes. Now that people were afraid of the consequences they would work, which was beneficial to not just Saint Domingue but the rest of the world that count on its sugar imports.

 

In addition with liberator of slaves and a ruler Louverture was a noble military leader. In 1802 Napoleon sent 21,000 soldiers to try to reinstate slavery in Saint Domingue. Knowing this, Louverture gathered his troops and burned down the port city of Samana, where Napoleon's troops were headed. He did this because he knew that once Napoleon's troops came they would take over the city and utilize its resources and by burning it down, once they got there they would have no other resources. He then had everyone flee to the mountains and hide. Toussaint chose to have everyone in the mountains for two reasons; one, it was a good place to hide and two, his citizens knew the mountain range more than Napoleon and his troops did which brought them to an advantage. This was very wise of Toussaint to do. Although,a year earlier in 1801, Toussaint louverture did something that many consider to be quite ignorant. In 1801, Hyacinthe Moyse, Toussaint adopted nephew, believed that Toussaint was wrong to support plantation farming. Hyacinthe then organized a rebellion against Toussaint policies in agriculture. On the night of the rebellion in October of 1801 many whites were massacred. The war cry of the rebels of Hyacinthe Moyse was “General Moyse is with us- death to all whites” (E). Toussaint was raged when he heard this news and had some of the men summoned. He then had a firing squad kill the rebels. He had his nephew arrested and had him confined and then had him “brought before a firing squad, Moyse himself gave the order to fire”(E). The measures Toussaint took after the rebellion were very extreme. It is horrific that he would have his own nephew arrested and killed for his rebellion but this event should not override all of the good that Toussaint has done. Aside from this Toussaint Louverture was a very respectful military leader.

 

Although Toussaint Louverture did have some immoral actions he was still a noble man and should be remembered as one. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered primarily as a liberator of slaves, but also as a great ruler and military leader. Toussaint has proved himself through his actions and words that he is both knowledgeable and is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in. Toussaint Louverture achieved great things and has affected history. His legacy should never be forgotten.

 

Sources:

Document A - Timeline created from various sources 

Document B - Toussaint Louverture, "Letter to the French Directory, November 1797"

Document C - The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. Signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

Document D- Toussaint Louverture, "Proclamation, 25 November 1801." 

Document E - Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007

Documents F - William Wells Brown, "A Description of Toussaint Louverture," from The Black Man, His Antecendents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, 1863. Engraving of Toussaint Louverture, 1802. 

Not All Failures

Some historians say that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were a failure but were they really? That was the essential question of the day. To learn the information needed to answer this question we split into groups with each group assigned one revolution. We read many sources and learned about our revolutions and then made a SurveyMonkey. A SurveyMonkey is an online survey that you can create and it shows the submitted answers of the class on various pie charts. Each group would make a survey and one at a time the other groups would answer each of the other groups survey after reading their documents. After each groups survey was taken by the rest of the class they would go over the answers and important pieces of information. This way we were able to learn about the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 without taking up too much time.

My group had the revolution of Hungary in 1848. The Hungarian movement began in Vienna were the whole idea was to spur nationalism but people also wanted some liberal reforms from the Austrian Monarchy. Metternich, who was in power of the Austrian monarchy, was conservative and also not willing to recognize Hungarian national independence. Naturally, the Hungarian people wanted him out of power. In source number 1 it states "Metternich, who had dominated Austrian politics for more than 30 years, tried to silence the students who took to the streets. But when workers supported the students, Metternich resigned and fled in disguise. The Austrian emperor then promised reform." So eventually the people got their wish and Metternich was out of power. There was a big meeting held to decide about the government and this was called the Diet. All in all the revolution as a whole was a partial failure; all of the Hungarian rebels were eventually killed or imprisoned by Austria with the help of Russia. But the people were able to get Metternich out of power. I think that the class really learned from our SurveyMonkey.

screen- shot of the results from the  Hungarian SurveyMonkey 

As you can see from the screen shots most if not all the students got the right answers.

Overall I do not think that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were huge failures, except for Decembrist. Some revolutions, while having many down sides, did get some things accomplished. For example, even though in the end mostly all the Hungarian rebels were killed or imprisoned they still got Metternich out of power. In the Frankfurt Assembly in 1848 the people wanted all states to be under one constitutional monarchy, the Frankfort Assembly was held to decide if they should have a constitutional monarchy or not. The people asked the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm to become their king, but he declined. While what they set out to do was not successful they did have good attempts of trying to succeed and in the end it was not a big tragedy. The one revolution that is safe to say was a complete failure was Decembrist. The people did not want Nicholas, the son of Alexandar, to rule because he was very strict and unprepared. There were revolts because people wanted to end serfdom as well but in the end nothing changed and the rule stayed the same, not to mention that a lot of people died in the effort of the revolt. But overall there were some mild stone achievements in these revolutions that made them not as much as a failure as historians set them up to be.