Category Archives: Canton Asylum for Insane Indians

Canton Asylum for Insane Indians in South Dakota was also known as Hiawatha. It opened in December 1902 and closed in 1934 after charges of neglect and abuse were validated. Dr. Harry Reid Hummer and Oscar Sherman Gifford were its only two superintendents. Its only patients were Native Americans, typically called Indians. It was the only federal insane asylum created solely for an ethnic group and served only Indians.

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

______________________________________________________________________________________

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

______________________________________________________________________________________

What Do They Say?

Leave a reply

American Journal of Insanity

Their own writings provide fascinating insights into the mental health profession’s ever-changing understanding of insanity and how to treat it. Although it was not the only vehicle by which to express current thoughts on the topic, the American Journal of Insanity did have the backing of many authorities in the field. Articles in it ranged from purely practical matters to theoretical speculation concerning the root causes of insanity. My next few posts will give a sampling of what was on the minds of leading alienists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

In 1863, Dr. John Bucknill wrote an article, “Modes of Death Prevalent Among Insane,” in which he advocated consistency in the way asylum superintendents registered cause of death. Bucknill found that the term exhaustion served as a catchall word that gave little clue as to the actual disease or condition that  took a patient’s life. Reading from asylum obituary tables, Bucknill noted that at one asylum a physician attributed 30% of deaths to exhaustion. “In another report, I find a number of deaths attributed to ‘prostration,’ which is perhaps a synonym for exhaustion; while in another report the terms ‘gradual decay’ or ‘general decay’ appear often to be used to express the same facts.”

The vagueness of words like exhaustion and decay kept asylum physicians from keeping accurate records concerning causes of death among their patients. Bucknill urged physicians to give the names of the disease that killed their patients, and then simply add the precise mechanism that shut them down if they wished. Bucknill gave an example of a patient who died from refusing food because of his delusions. Under the system he currently saw, doctors would say the person died of exhaustion, but Bucknill urged, instead: “Let us say that the patient died of acute mania, or acute melancholia, adding, if we think fit, that the mode of death was anemic syncope from refusal of food.”

Though Bucknill’s concerns might seem trivial today, he was part of a movement to bring consistency and order to a field which had little science or tradition behind it. Because psychiatry was a new field, early practitioners had to hammer out details on such fundamental issues as how to build insane asylums, what to call them, and then how to classify the illnesses they saw within their walls. Actual therapeutic treatment was then another huge issue.

Dementia Praecox Patients, from Emil Kraepelin's textbook, 1899 edition

Religious Melancholia and Convalescence, from John Conolly's book, Physionomy of Insanity, 1858, courtesy Brown University

______________________________________________________________________________________

Oversight in Vain

Leave a reply

Dr. Harry Hummer

Though the Canton Asylum for Insane Indians did not receive visits and inspections as regularly as most other asylums (see last post), some of the inspectors who visited had a strong sense that something was wrong. When Charles L. Davis inspected the asylum, he found it practically roiling with anger and rebellion, with almost all its employees ready to quit. In a report written in late 1909, Davis determined that Dr. Harry Hummer was not a good choice as superintendent for the asylum. Though quite a number of charges had been made against Hummer by the staff and his own assistant superintendent, Davis did not feel that any one of them quite warranted Hummer’s dismissal from the Indian Service. Instead, he advised the Indian Office that Hummer was simply temperamentally unsuited for his position. “In view of the facts developed through my investigation . . . there is nothing left but to recommend another man be placed in charge of the Asylum,” Davis wrote.

Twenty years later, in April, 1929, the facing sheet (a government form) of Dr. Emil Krulish’s latest report on the asylum said in the subject block: Reports on unsatisfactory conditions brought about by conduct of the supt. Dr. Hummer.” Dr. Emil Krulish ended this short follow-up to a prior inspection with: “. . . I desire to state that my last visit has more fully convinced me that a change in the management of this institution is imperative for the sake of harmony and efficient service.”

Dr. Hummer stayed on.

Advertisement for an Asylum

Staff of Arizona State Asylum, 1914

______________________________________________________________________________________

Long Distance Oversight

Leave a reply

William A. Jones was Commissioner of Indian Affairs When the Canton Asylum Opened

Few people ever wanted to enter an insane asylum, no matter how well run or up-to-date it was. And, like all institutions run by fallible human beings, asylums were not immune to mistakes and misjudgments on the part of their staffs. One problem the Canton Asylum for Insane Indians faced that St. Elizabeths and McLean didn’t (see last few posts) came as direct consequence of its long-distance oversight.

The Canton Asylum for Insane Indians was not under a trustee or board of visitors system like the other two asylums, though it is certainly untrue that this establishment was never inspected or investigated. However, the asylum was managed for the most part from thousands of miles away. The asylum’s superintendent in Canton reported directly to the commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington, DC, and the seven commissioners who held the position during the time the asylum was open very seldom, if ever, actually visited the place.

Agents or inspectors from the Indian Office did come by fairly regularly, but none of these men were psychiatrists. They found it difficult to determine how well the patients were being treated  for mental health issues, and usually confined themselves to commenting on the state of the buildings and how efficiently the superintendent ran his farming operation. Medical staff from the Indian Office eventually began visiting much more often as the asylum grew in size and came to the notice of the commissioner through complaints. Dr. Emil Krulish became a frequent visitor and made numerous criticisms that honed in on treatment and the way the superintendent, Dr. Harry Hummer, managed his personnel and patients. However, his voice was ignored and Hummer continued to thrive in his position.

House of Indian Agent Will Hayes, circa 1920-1940, courtesy Library of Congress

Home of Indian Agent William Shelton, circa 1910, courtesy Denver Public Library

______________________________________________________________________________________