Recognizing Mental Problems

Leave a reply

Nervous Prostration Was a Recognized Condition; Ad circa 1895

Not all asylum patients resisted their incarceration. Some recognized that they were struggling with mental issues they could not control on their own, and did not resent the help that an asylum promised to provide. Like Catharine Beecher (see last post), Anna Agnew felt herself falling into a condition where she could not function. In 1876, Agnew remembers that she woke one morning “bathed in a cold, clammy perspiration (with an inexpressibly horrible sensation, as though falling–falling into some dreadful place of darkness!).” She couldn’t speak or move, and felt that a horrible, cold shadow had fallen upon her. She called her condition nervous prostration, and concluded that she was insane.

In her own words, she says that: “Unfortunately, for all concerned, I was not taken to the asylum for a period of several years.” Though this view seem incredible, Agnew explained that if she had been committed earlier or more quickly, she might not have had to eventually stay in an asylum for seven years. She felt that staying at home in her condition caused her to create misery for herself and those around her. Her family and friends treated her sometimes as a willful child, sometimes as a hypocrite, sometimes as a shirker, and sometimes as a woman “not wholly responsible.”

Once inside an asylum, Agnew saw many abuses which enraged her. Still, she appreciated her recovery and the privileges she enjoyed, such as access to the asylum’s medical libraries and the opportunity to earn a small sum through sewing.

Cottage at Willard Asylum

Patients in Sewing Room at Willard Asylum for the Insane

______________________________________________________________________________________

Patients Not Always Coerced

Leave a reply

Catharine Beecher

People who realized they were having problems coping with life often voluntarily sought cures for their mental distress. Catharine Beecher, sister of Harriet Beecher Stowe and later co-author with her of a very successful book entitled American Woman’s Home, or Principles of Domestic Science (1869), found the rigors of earning her living overly taxing. Continue reading →

King George III’s Insanity

Leave a reply

King George III in His Prime, courtesy Library of Congress

King George III may have been a victim of misdiagnosed insanity–proving that even the highest birth and station could not exempt a person from the faulty reasoning of mad-doctors. When he was 50, King George III began exhibiting bizarre behavior which was perhaps triggered by a case of obstructive jaundice. He experienced hallucinations, fits somewhat like epilepsy, and foamed at the mouth after talking incessant nonsense. Court physicians blistered and purged him, kept him in an unheated room during winter, bound him in a strait jacket, or gagged and tied him to a chair. Dr. Francis Willis, who had experience with mental illness, finally began a course of more humane treatment. The king recovered, but slipped back into three more episodes of mental illness that eventually left him hallucinating and talking to unseen persons and to dead people. He died miserably in 1820, blind and deaf as well as apparently insane.

Many researchers have wondered whether or not King George III was actually insane, and evidence seems to lean against it. Though not universally supported, some doctors believe that the king could have had a rare blood disorder called porphyria, which can affect the nervous system. Some of the king’s symptoms indicate the condition, while others do not. One thing that does seem noteworthy is the presence of arsenic in a lock of the king’s hair, analyzed in 2005. Arsenic levels of 1 part per million can result in arsenic poisoning; King George’s hair analysis revealed 17 parts per million. He was probably poisoned through the liberal doses of emetic tartar he received for his varying illnesses, which undoubtedly made all his symptoms of mental illness worse. (At the very least, porphyria is often triggered by the ingestion of heavy metals.)  Sadly, the king was often forced or tricked into taking the very medicine that caused or exacerbated his apparent insanity.

Given Liberally to King George III

Lock of King George III's Hair, courtesy Wellcome Trust and Science Museum

______________________________________________________________________________________

Indian Agencies

Leave a reply

King George III

Native Americans were initially a greater threat to colonists than colonists were to them. The British Crown recognized this, and also realized that good relationships were important both to its trade economy and its position with France, which also had big plans for the New World. Around 1755, the Crown placed control of Indian affairs under its own authority rather than the more haphazard arrangements developed by individual colonies. (See last post.) The government established northern and southern departments and appointed a superintendent for each. By 1763, King George issued a Proclamation which established western boundaries which settlers were supposed to respect, and essentially created an “Indian Country.”

After Independence from Britain, America’s Continental Congress also forbade settlement on Indian lands. Congress later made its intentions clear with the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. The Ordinance stated that: “The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians, their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress.” The Ordinance added that from time to time, Congress would also make laws to prevent wrongs being done to Indians, and which worked toward friendship and peace.

Map of North America in 1763, courtesy digitalhistory.uh.edu

Leaders of the Continental Congress from a painting by Augustus Tholey, 1894, courtesy Library of Congress

______________________________________________________________________________________

Rights Versus Reality

Leave a reply

Though the four primary groups of people settling in the New World (Spanish, French, English, and Dutch) recognized the rights of Native Americans to their land, their relationships with Native Americans developed differently. The

Father Joseph Pierre Bonnecamp and Native Americans, courtesy Indiana University of Pennsylvania

French, who were heavily dependent on Native Americans for their furs, generally had the best relationship. Intermarriage was not uncommon, and many fur traders established very friendly relationships with their trading partners. The Dutch were also heavily involved in the fur trade, and though their relationships were not so close, they also tended to rein in practices that would disrupt profitable trade. And, even though the Spanish conquistadors committed atrocities in the New World, Spain’s legal stand was to offer Indians protection as wards of the Crown. This paternalistic attitude often did not translate into reality, and the Spanish frequently  forced both government and religion upon native peoples.

The British seemed to differ significantly from the other three nations in their attitude toward Native Americans. The English recognized native peoples’ right of occupancy, but did not recognize them as equals, or even as particularly worthwhile human beings. To a great extent, the British Crown left actual Indian policy development to each of the colonies; this resulted in drastically different approaches, interactions, and results when thirteen separate colonial governments dealt with Native Americans. Additionally, English settlers on the frontier acted in ways which were advantageous to them, no matter what the Crown or their particular colonial leaders desired. English frontiersmen who wanted more land usually regarded Native Americans as impediments to their own dreams and goals, and developed a hostile attitude toward  them. These attitudes continued to play out once Americans gained their independence from England.

Map of Hudson River Area of New Netherland

British and Native Americans Clashing During the Seven Years' War, courtesy Library of Congress

______________________________________________________________________________________

Any Rights?

Leave a reply

Pope Paul III

Settlers to the New World had a lot to mull over when they discovered that the land they had discovered was already inhabited. What rights would these inhabitants have, since colonists did not consider native peoples to be as advanced as European citizens? (See last post.) Could Europeans feel justified in sweeping in to do whatever they wanted in this new territory? Or, did the native peoples have inalienable rights that even so-called “superior” civilizations had to  acknowledge?

In 1537,  Pope Paul III made a proclamation to the rulers of Europe in his Bull Sublimis Deus, which stated: “We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord . . . consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic faith, but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it.” The proclamation further stated, ” . . . the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they may be outside the faith of Jesus Christ . . . nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and of no effect.”

This proclamation should have made all the difference in the way Native Americans and newcomers interacted; unfortunately, its intent was continually subverted.

Antonio Margil de Jesus, Known as the Apostle of New Spain

Baptisms in the New World

______________________________________________________________________________________

Insensitivity the Norm

Leave a reply

Europeans Meet Native Americans, courtesy missouristate.edu

Native Americans met with cultural insensitivity from almost everyone who arrived in the New World. Though many individual friendships developed over the years, actual government policy from colonial times and continuing after U.S. independence, was based on the premise that Indian culture was inferior to the incoming European ones.

Colonists saw much to fault with Native American culture, from their religious practices to the considerably different gender practices they saw. However, one difference which allowed European newcomers a rationale to exploit Native Americans was their different attitude toward property ownership. Native Americans had a relationship with land and animals that Europeans could not understand, since the latter believed in outright ownership of nearly any asset that could be owned.

Colonists saw this difference in ownership as proof that Native Americans were not as civilized as their own European cultures, in which ownership issues had been hammered out long ago. They also believed that Native Americans did not use their land to advantage, since they did not raise crops or domesticate large herds of animals. Since they had a “better” way of managing land, British colonists in particular felt little compunction in taking over desirable land through purchase, dispossession (squatting on land and refusing to move), removal (forcing Indians to leave their own land so the newcomers could use it), or outright war to seize it.

These colonial attitudes and their resulting government policy resulted in much cruelty toward Native Americans.

French and Indian Leaders Meeting

Colonists Building Their Own Structures

______________________________________________________________________________________

Labels

2 Replies

Inmates at the Imbecile Asylum, Burlington NJ, circa 1886, courtesy National Library of Medicine, Image A019401

Men and women who were not insane could be labeled as such when authorities viewed their actions through inappropriate cultural filters that did not allow for deviations in behavior due to a non-Anglo upbringing. (See last two posts.) Immigrants and Native Americans were particularly vulnerable to this type of misdiagnosis, but the medical community’s enthusiasm for labeling put many other people at risk for possible imprisonment. People who seemed “slow” or had different ways of learning also risked labeling; feeble-minded, moron, or idiot were common terms for those who seemed to lack intelligence.

Society often wanted to segregate people they considered of lesser intelligence from the mainstream. Many people feared that those with lesser intelligence would pass on that undesirable trait to their children if they were allowed to marry “normal” partners. Some people feared that the unscrupulous would prey on these weaker members of society unless they were in an institution and under the care of  its staff. Most states set aside special homes for citizens they deemed unable to care for themselves due to a lack of intelligence. Unlike insanity, most authorities did not consider it possible to recover from feeble-mindedness or idiocy. Dismissal to a home designed to care for minds of lesser ability was usually a true life sentence.

Caning Chairs at a Massachusetts School for the Feeble-Minded, 1903, courtesy Harvard Art Museums

Laundry Class in Massachusetts Home for the Feeble-Minded, 1903, courtesy Harvard Art Museums

______________________________________________________________________________________

Language Barriers

1 Reply
Public Health Service Staff Inspecting Immigrants. All idiots, insane persons, etc. were to be excluded from the country, courtesy National Institutes of Health

Public Health Service Staff Inspecting Immigrants. All idiots, insane persons, etc. were to be excluded from the country, courtesy National Institutes of Health

As asylums grew larger and lost their ability to integrate mentally ill or temporarily distraught citizens back into society, they became warehouses for people who could not cope with or mesh into the current culture. Most asylums assumed a custodial role, rather than a therapeutic one. Continue reading →

Attitude Is Everything

1 Reply

Officials Wanted to Keep Unfit People Out of the U.S., courtesy missouri.edu

Many people, both lay and professional, passionately debate the very essence of insanity. Some people believe that insanity is mainly a social construct, which can change over time as society itself changes. That is, what was once considered insane is now accepted as normal, or vice versa. Are there truly “insane” behaviors which every society, in every time period, agrees are insane? If not, how can insanity really be established if its definition changes over time?

This societal construct particularly gave trouble for those who didn’t fit mainstream society and weren’t protected by laws or tests which took culture or country into account. Early immigrants often faced criticism as they tried to integrate into American culture. Their different ways were either seen as merely odd or “foreign” and tolerated, or were actively disdained and suppressed. The real problem arose when someone with particularly odd behavior came to the attention of authorities. When the question of insanity arose, the standard that immigrants were judged against was not their own culture and what was accepted within it, but by the Anglo-based white culture in their new country. When immigrants came before an insanity commission or a typical alienist, they often did not present themselves to advantage. If the suspected lunatic could not speak English well, acted out nervousness and fear in odd ways, or refused to answer questions due to fear or confusion, he  helped build a case for his insanity.

Ellis Island, courtesy Library of Congress

Immigrants Waiting Examination, courtesy Library of Congress

______________________________________________________________________________________