Dorothea Dix' Prison Reforms

'The family though enjoying the means of decent livelihood, when unburthened by extra expenses, have not the means of sending him to a distant Hospital. The rich may partake the benefits such institutions afford: the poor must suffer, agonize, and bear heavily out, by slow‐ killing tortures, their unblessed life! Are there no pitying hearts, and open hands that can be moved by these miseries?...'

 Dix, Dorothea. "Dorothea Dix Pleads for a State Mental Hospital." University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. November 1, 1848. Accessed January 26, 2015. http://www.edline.net/files/_AFCQx_/b85cbe6b6962af6c3745a49013852ec4/DixDocumentPDF.pdf.


 In this document, Dorothea Dix protests the deplorable treatment of people with mental illnesses in the nineteenth century.  She was trying to get state hospitals so that poor family members of the mentally insane could get treatment for their loved ones without having to pay an arm and a leg for it.  The document recounts some stories of the horrible conditions in which many people with mental illnesses were forced to live, and contains many testimonials from doctors who have experience working with the mentally insane, making it quite reliable.  At the time when this was written, many people who developed mental illnesses whose families were too poor to send them to hospital were jailed or otherwise confined.  Dix brings to light some of the truly awful conditions these people were forced into (chained to beds, confined in dark, dirty rooms, unbathed).  Some of the descriptions really illuminated the plight of the mentally insane in the nineteenth century.  Dorothea Dix' protests are well-planned, citing ways to change the ways that people with mental illnesses were treated in the 1800s.  However, this document fails to propose a way to pay for Dix' proposed state hospitals.  Dorothea Dix attempted to get better treatment for people with mental illnesses because she felt that the ways in which they were being treated were horrible.  She uses stories and descriptions of the conditions that many insane people were in, as well as testimony from doctors and people who have been around those with mental illnesses.  She fought to convince others that state hospitals should provide care for people with mental illnesses regarding the financial circumstances of their family, and throughout the document, one can see that she truly believed that the ways in which the mentally insane were treated should be changed and that state hospitals were the way to go.

Paved with Good Intentions

Andrew Jackson has long been known as the 'people's president.'  He was dedicated to helping the common man instead of the rich, but the fact remains that many of his choices made while in office and during his campaign were not good ones.
During Jackson's campaign, he offered government positions to people in exchange for their support.  He fired over nine hundred officials to make room for the new ones, claiming that he was rooting out corruption in the government.  It soon became evident, however, that this was not his true goal.  Jackson appointed Samuel Swartwout, a man with criminal tendencies, to a very important financial position against all logic, and he became a laughingstock when Swartwout made off with $1,222,705.09 (the biggest theft the country had ever seen).  Jackson's appointment of government officials based on political support instead of competency negatively affected the country for years to come.
Jackson also supported Indian removal, which ended up causing the Trail of Tears.  He violated all of the treaties previously made between the United States and Indian nations.  In his message to Congress December 7, 1829, Jackson claimed that he thought it would be a calamity if Native American nations were to be overtaken by white people, and 'suggested' that they should move voluntarily to a territory set aside west of the Mississippi.  For all of his claims that it would be cruel to force the Indians to move from their land, he essentially forced them to move when he declared that any of the Native Americans who remained within the boundaries of the states would be subject to the United States' laws and taxes. 
Andrew Jackson believed that the Second Bank of America was an unconstitutional institution, and that it solely served the rich.  He thought that too much power lay in the hands of the rich men who controlled the bank, and that they could potentially influence the political process because they held so much money (because he didn't influence the political process through bribery, definitely).  Jackson tore down the bank, resulting in massive inflation.  He intended to make life easier for the 'common man,' but Jackson ended up making the worst financial decisions of any president - and that's saying something. 
While Andrew Jackson claimed to be all about helping the common man, his actions prioritised a very select portion of the US' population.  While his act of dissolving the Second Bank was well-intentioned, it ended up making life much more difficult for the group of people that he intended to help.  He hated Native Americans, and while he claimed to be protecting them, to the Indians, he became the equivalent of Hitler.  His use of the spoils system showed that Jackson was more concerned about gaining power than making good decisions for the country.  Many of his decisions can be summarised this way, putting his own image before the actual good of the people and the country.

Sources
Bank War:
Andrew Jackson, Bank Veto Message to Congress, July 10, 1832, http://www.edline.net/files/_6YGyF_/ab0fb7a998a0f4f83745a49013852ec4/BankWar1.jpg
yhshistory, Jackson Bank Wars, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0pc7eH41vY&feature=youtu.be
Indian Removal:
The History Channel, Andrew Jackson - Trail of Tears, http://www.schooltube.com/video/10ab73bc9f1d4dc89014/AndrewJackson-TrailofTears/
Spoils System:
Robert V Remini, The Life of Andrew Jackson, 1988, http://www.edline.net/files/_6YG4b_/0cdf3b8baade74333745a49013852ec4/SpoilsSystem2.jpg

The Song Remains the Same

Democracy.  Seems so simple, but when you think about it, what does democracy really mean?  Is the United States' system truly democratic today?  Has it ever been? According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, here is the definition of democracy:

-a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
-an organisation or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

According to the first definition, the United States is a democracy.  But according to the second, it has never been.  In the 1800s, when the US was a new country, even the voting process was sometimes questionable.

Votes were recorded orally with no secrecy, candidates were allowed to try and influence people's votes just before the election, and votes were sometimes bought with money or alcohol.  Many elections were won under rather suspicious circumstances.  Very few people could vote at that time.  Only white men were allowed to vote, and many states had restrictions that voters had to own property or pay taxes.  When a man named Thomas Dorr tried to get a new constitution in Rhode Island, which still operated under a royal charter in the 1830s, he provoked an incident known as the Dorr War.  This was the only violent instance in the United States' transition to universal white manhood suffrage (which still isn't anywhere near universal, but it was a step).  Most people didn't have human rights in the US in the 1800s, whereas the ideal democracy grants rights and suffrage to all.  By this right, the United States in the 1800s was not very democratic.  Slavery still existed, and women were oppressed, and anyone who was not white and male was very much at a disadvantage.  While the United States is not truly a place of equality and universal rights even today, we have come a long way from the 1800s.

Race and Latin American Revolutions

During this unit, we looked at some of the revolutions in Latin America that resulted from Napoleon's conquest of Europe.  In particular, we looked at the roles race played in these revolutions and why they are evidence that it is necessary to recognise everyone's value regardless of race.  The issue of race and people's refusal to look past it has been an issue for a long time, and continues to be a problem today.  We studied the revolutions in Brazil, Mexico, and Gran Colombia and the ways that they were affected by race by splitting into groups.  Each group studied a different revolution (my group focussed on the revolution in Gran Colombia) and created a timeline of the major events in their chosen revolution.  Then all of the groups compared their timelines and found two similarities and two differences between all of the revolutions.

This is our timeline of the revolution of Gran Colombia, detailing the events and actions of revolutionary Simon Bolivar.  Here are some similarities and differences between all of the Latin American revolutions.

Similarities:

• All of the revolutions began with discontent in the lower classes.
• All of these revolutions gained independence from European rule, but none of them ended up with racial equality.

Differences:

• The Brazilian revolution was mostly peaceful, while the other two were violent.
• In the Mexican revolution, the Royalists were the ones who gained independence.

 In Gran Colombia, the Spanish colonists of present-day Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador wanted independence from Spain.  Simon Bolivar, leader of the revolution, gathered an army of lower classmen who were discontent because they were treated as less than colonists born in Spain.  In Mexico, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla led an army primarily made up of Indians and Mestizos to gain independence and racial equality.  In the end, however, Mexicans with any Indian blood still had fewer rights than those of Spanish descent.  At the beginning of the revolution, Joaquim Jose da Silva Xavier, the only lower class member of the conspiracy which started the revolution, was blamed for the whole thing.  He was hanged and became a martyr for the revolution.  The new emperor of Brazil became unpopular when he filled his cabinet with Portuguese-born members.

Today, racism is less prominent than in the 18- and 1900s.  However, it is still very much a problem in society.  Just a few months ago, in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown (an 18-year-old black man) was shot by a police officer multiple times after stealing a few cigars from a local store.  There are many accounts of what happened, and it is unclear whether Brown had his hands raised in surrender or was moving towards or away from the officer.  It is clear, however, that the policeman fired twelve rounds, about 6 of which were hits - and Michael Brown was unarmed.  Defenders of the police officer stated that Brown was 6 feet 5 inches, weighed almost 300 pounds, and was moving toward the officer threateningly.  They have neglected the fact that the shooter, an Officer Darren Wilson, is 6'4", weighs over 200 pounds, is ten years older than Brown was at the time of his death, and (being a police officer) is trained in combat.  Moving towards someone threateningly is absolutely no reason to be shot six times.  What's more, Officer Wilson was not indicted.  These events sparked nationwide protest, and in Ferguson, the police responded with military force.  The whole affair sounds as though we have gone back in time to the Civil Rights Movement.  This is one of many things that show that racism is not a problem that we have overcome.  Race (and differences in general) is something that humanity is still trying to come to terms with.  However, as a Unitarian Universalist, I believe that each person has inherent worth and dignity, and that is a belief that I stand by firmly.  It is extremely important to stand up for minorities, because everyone deserves human rights.  By recognising everyone's value regardless of the colour of their skin, we can start on the path to freedom and free will for all.

Summary of the Brazilian Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCE3_/1f9c3cf44b98eaea3745a49013852ec4/Brazil_Summary.pdf
Summary of the Mexican Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCF5_/b4c681dc17802a623745a49013852ec4/Mexico_Summary.pdf
Summary of the Gran Colombian Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCFi_/1d4b498f9f8c12db3745a49013852ec4/Gran_Colombia_Summary.pdf

I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

I haven't got a smartphone, and I don't use social media much.  I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, and I don't text much.  Does this make me a Luddite? 

Luddite protestors smashing a textile making machine.

Not in the traditional sense, no.  The word Luddite has come to mean someone who doesn't use much or isn't very good with technology, but originally, the Luddites were a group of protestors in Industrial-Revolution-era Britain.  They targeted factories and broke machines, but they weren't necessarily opposed to technology itself as much as the way that technology was used.  They were fine with machines as long as they were operated by responsible workers who were trained and paid decent wages, and so long as they didn't take over people's lives completely.  Their protests were well-orchestrated, supposedly led by a man named Ned Ludd, who turned out to be fictional.  Some of the protestors cross-dressed, and the protests had a playful and lighthearted feel that made them memorable, even as the Luddites were protesting very serious issues, some of which still remain today.  For our exploration of the Luddites, we wrote a RAFT essay - a mock primary source letter from someone experiencing the Luddites' protests during the industrial revolution. Here is a factory girl's letter to a cousin in America.

Dearest Cousin Addy,

     You know that I have recently gotten a job at a factory in Manchester.  I like it here, and I fear that my father would bring me home if I told him what has been happening here, but I need someone to confide to.  There are groups of protestors who have been rioting against the factories, smashing machines and killing mill owners.  There have been some shots fired, and I am afraid.  None of the protests have been against the factory where I am working yet, but I fear that that may change soon.  Soldiers have been sent to protect the factories, and I am afraid of getting caught in the crossfire.
     Factory work can be dangerous, I know that.  Many girls have had terrible accidents and been injured, and I have been very fortunate to avoid something like that.  The work is long and hard and the wages are not stellar, but it is nice to be around other girls of my own age and to be able to send money home to my family.  I enjoy working here.
     I think that these Luddites are right to ask for better wages and working conditions, but the violent protests and the retaliation of the soldiers is frightening.  I wish sometimes that I was brave enough to protest for better wages, but that would surely lose me my job, and I might get hurt in the protests.  I'll leave the violence to others for now.

Love, Mary

Image: Conniff, Richard, What the Luddites Really Fought Against, smithsonian.com
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/?no-ist=&c=y%3Fno-ist&page=1