January 31: Family, community, and disability in antebellum America
Read:
1) Penny L. Richards and George H. S. Singer, “‘To Draw Out the Effort of His Mind’: Educating a Child with Mental Retardation in the Early Nineteenth-Century South,” Journal of Special Education 31, no. 4 (Winter 1998): ppp. 443-466 (Blackboard)
2) Alice R. Wexler, “Chorea and Community in a Nineteenth-Century Town,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 76, no. 3 (Fall 2002): 495-527 (Blackboard)
Please answer one of the following questions:
1) Drawing on Richards & Singer and Wexler, how did family and/or community shape the lived experience(s) and social meaning of disability in antebellum America?
2) Alternatively, you can summarize in several sentences (or possibly a short paragraph each) your “muddiest point” for both readings. Muddiest points should engage with major themes in the readings. If your muddiest point focuses on what might seem to be a minor point, explain why it is a key issue for this topic in disability history.
Family and community, particularly in antebellum America, often served as the primary caregivers for people with disabilities. As Richards and Singer point out, most histories have centered on institutionalization, policy-making, and medical responses to disability while largely ignoring the disabled experience and that of their family or the community at large. In their case study of Thomas Cameron, the mentally retarded son of a wealthy planter family, they illustrated that the disability did not necessarily have to carry on the social stigma that it does today. By essentially treating their son just as their other children they allowed him to have a remarkably successful life. Thus, in terms of lived experience and social meanings of disability, Cameron’s life–while admittedly unique–shows that the disorder did not necessarily stigmatize him or prevent him from having a life comparable to his siblings and the town at large. Much the same is true in Wexler’s article on Chorea in the New England town of East Hampton. Like the above example, people with the disease proved able to become successful in the town, serving in high places of authority in both the church and the town government as well as marrying and raising families. Only later with the rise of the eugenics movement did chorea come to have a negative connotation. Prior to that movement, though, community integration reduced the social effects of the disability.
When reading Chorea in the town of East Hampton I was enlightened by a few things. First, let me say that I do agree with Michael’s response when he wrote, “people with the disease proved able to become successful in the town, serving in high places of authority in both the church and the town government as well as marrying and raising families.” this article tells how society and class were tolerant to a degree of those “afflicted” with chorea. I found it interesting that George Huntington, after studying the disease made the assumption that heredity did not mean destiny. He stated that, “Unstable and whimsical as the disease may be in other respects, in this it is firm,” he wrote; “it never skips a generation to again manifest itself in another; once having yielded its claims, it never regains them.” This meant that some people within affected families could carry on lives and never be burdened with the disease. I also found it interesting that at this time when religion was such a broad topic that people would dismiss Leah Smith’s suicide as a symptom of mental disorder rather than as a criminal act.
The idea that individuals with hereditary chorea has typically been stigmatized and regarded as possessed or guilty of witchcraft by their neighbors, their families ostracized and marginalized and has long been part of the historical narrative of Huntington’s chorea in the United States. The responses to chorea have in fact been variable. The afflicted were not always stigmatized and ostracized of this inherited disease. In 19th century East Hampton, the afflicted families were integrated in the community and many of their members occupied places of status and prestige. It took only one copy of the gene inherited from one parent to pass along the gene, as opposed to both parents passing the gene. This was a feared and hopeless disease. Some unfortunate individuals who inherited the disease would commit suicide before the disease really affected them.
In both of these stories, the outcome is a direct result of outsider’s point of view. For Thomas, not only was his immediate family very supportive of him and trying to make his surroundings typical, outsiders were also as accommodating. Not only did he have friends, but family members would visit him and spend time with him. There was no mention of a negative reaction towards his “mental retardation,” therefore his life was similar to that of his peers.
Those “diagnosed” with chorea, however, were not as fortunate. While it seemed that many came from well-to-do families, there was still a social stigma and isolation that followed them around/ Wexler also states that in the late 19th century, there were legal prohibitions against marrying people with “specified diseases and disabilities.” While these laws weren’t around when Leah Smith walked into the ocean and killed herself, the social stigma was enough for those living with chorea to choose death over the assaults on them and their family.
Both of these situations prove that if the environment is supportive, the lived experience can be extremely positive as well as vice versa.
In the early 19th century, little seems to be known about how the community felt and treated someone with either disability mentioned in the stories by Richard & Singer and Wexler (Mental Retardation and Chorea) More, though, seemed to be known about chorea in the story given by Wexler. The story about Leah Smith allows the reader to find out that the community feared this disease more than anything. Huntington’s Chorea is passed down from generation to generation, soo everyone who had chorea (almost always) had an mom or dad with chorea. Chorea kills slowly, but the infected don’t live long. The community never seemed to have an issue with someone who had chorea, though. Those with the disease were still able to hold office (as long as they were not a woman, Indian, or African American) and were able to marry whoever they wanted. By this time, lots of towns people know each other because they were related by others who married their neighbors or cousins. “If there was money, they married in spite of thee magrums” (Wexler, 509). Sadly, many with the disease resulted to suicide.
As for the story presented by Richards & Singer, the community knew little about mental retardation. Many people were “quick to diagnose”. Dads, versus moms, tended to be the ones who took the lead role when it came to education and medical decisions. For Thomas Cameron, his father sent him to the northern states for school in order to “awaken Thomas’s senses” (Richard & Singer, 457). The Cameron’s had high status, too, and lots of wealth/money. This relates to the other stories we have read in class in that the higher status you have, the more resources and assistance you will receive from your community.
The readings clearly show that family and community shaped the lives of those effected by a disability in antebellum America.
In the article, “To Draw Out the Effort of His Mind’: Educating a Child with Mental Retardation in the EarlyNineteenth-Century Town,” we learn the story of Thomas Cameron. Thomas was a the eldest male child born to a wealthy “planter” family in North Carolina in the summer of 1806. His parents were Duncan and Rebecca Bennehan Cameron. Thomas was described as a healthy baby. When Thomas was five, his education began with a tutor. The practice of hiring tutors was common at the time. His parents soon began to greceive comments that he prefers play over books and that he was seriously lagging. It is noted in the article that Thomas could be considered mentally retarded because his resembled the term in his legal status, learning difficulties, his physical manifestations, and that his family and teachers made special efforts to educate him. Thomas, even in adulthood was not completely independent of his parents. He was well mannered and happy but had great difficult with academics such as writing and math. He also had physical motor delays. His family made tremendous efforts to educate him and sent him to special schools in order to meet his needs and “draw out the efforts of his mind.” (p. 449) Thomas was very fortunate, as the article states. His family was wealthy and very connected and he was born into a culture that accomodated for his disability well. Thomas’ family was essentially responsible for his schooling. They used every resource, both personal and financial, to include him in society and find the best and most appropriate schooling for him. On page 450, it states that Thomas family responded to his challenges with “energy, concern, and hope.” Thomas was educated by tutors then sent to Northern school run by Rev. John C. Rudd. There it was said that he made progress and looked healthier. It was also noted that THomas was fortunate to have been educated in a time of enlightenment for new theories of intellectual development. His parents demonstrated high expectations and love for Thomas by seeking out the military school of Alden Partridge. Partridege was reported to offer strong programs in math, writing, and physical strength. It was reported that one of his strongest benefits at the military academy was social skills. Thomas later moved home with his parents but was welcomed back into the society and even served as Postmaster. This story shows the benefit to a person with disabilities of having a family and community that accepts them. Thomas was loved, welcomed, educated, and included. In the case of one without the connections of the Cameron family, the result would have been much different.
The article, Chorea and Community in a Nineteenth-Century Town” describes the story of Leah Smith, an East Hampton resident that apparently committed suicide after discovering she had the disease called chorea, St. Anthony’s dance, or St. Vistus’ dance. This article also demonstrates the benefit of social standing and community support. The disease that afflicted Mrs. Smith produces involuntary movements and mental and emotional issues. The obituary for Mrs. Smith calls her “one of ours” and that she took her drastic step (into the sea to commit suicide) because of her extreme dread of the disease. The disease was considered to be hereditary “like begets like” (p. 503) yet this family produced heirs that married and led fruitful lives and often held esteemed positions. During this time, people considered to be mentally ill were often ostricised but this family was not. They were protected and included by their community. It stated on page 506 that “family and ancestry loomed large” in this town. On page 512 and instance is described where a daugter of a wealthy man married a lower class man that her family was much more concerned with her marrying a lower class than that this family held the inherited trait of St. Vistus’s dance. I found it interesting that the article mentioned a comparison of the East Hampton case in Hawaii where leprosy was not a disease in which people were stigmatized.
Thomas Campbell’s life was positively influenced by his family. Growing up his family was invested in giving him an education. They wanted to see him make improvements. His dad not only expected regular correspondence from his teachers but also sent family to check on him. He not only had the support of his immediate family but also extended family and friends. On page 458 it says that under Rudd’s care Thomas was “welcomed into a surrogate family that took pleasure in his company and was anxious for his well being”. As a first born son he was left an inheritance by his father but it was in the care of siblings due to his mental disability. However, that being said Thomas still “held a position as postmaster for several years, voted, and was free to travel” (447). He was an active member of the community by these accounts.
In Wexler’s article it seemed like the members with chorea were initially integrated into society. They held prominent positions within the town, were married, and had families. However, over time the view on the disease changed and soon it became something to be hidden. On p. 517 it states that with the arrival of tourists it made “the afflicted more hesitant about appearing in public, subject to the gaze of strangers, and their families more anxious to protect them from the scrutiny of outsiders”. So, it does seem like the families played a protective role in the lives of those with the disease.
Drawing on Richards & Singer and Wexler, how did family and/or community shape the lived experience(s) and social meaning of disability in antebellum America?
In the two readings, the communities both provided guidance and inclusion for the protagonists of these tales. Social interactions typically differed very little from those seen with persons unafflicted by the disease. In the case of Thomas Cameron, a powerful urge to see his son included in society led his father to send the young man away to a perceived better climate to the north that presented the family with instruction for a child that was lacking in outward appearance and a proper level of education for his age. His great benefit was being born to a family of means that showed the desire to “help” him become the productive member of society that his place in the family demanded. The Smith reading brings a much larger community around those that had the disease and their families that very likely carried the traits as well. Here, the community allowed for these carriers to take positions of great respect and influence. They weren’t seen as pariahs and were generally accepted in terms of marriage with those that did not carry the trait.
In both these readings, we have an individual and a group of people that are different from the rest of the population. Instead of exclusion, we see compassion and the embrace from the community affected through the interactions with these people. In these two instances the social model is clear as each group that is different has had the boundaries and limitations to inclusion lifted so as to synthesize with the unafflicted making the disability obsolete.
Disability was not seen as a bad thing in both family and community lives in both articles. In Wexlers article it talked about how the community that had Chorea did not see it as a bad thing. They accepted the illness because they were used to seeing it in their community. Other people outside their community said it scared them but this was most likely because they did not know anything about the illness. In Richards and Singers article about Thomas Cameron it showed that both the family and community together care and help someone who has a disability. In this article it showed that his family really wanted him to improve on his academic skills. They sent him to various schools to help get the most out of him. Each school that he went to treated him differently and helped him in various ways that he did improve. Unlike schools today at this time they did not have specific ways to teach kids with disabilities. Instead they had to learn how the student learned best and adapt to their style. I know from experience that when the teacher teaches in one specific style that helps everyone else learn I would not be able to understand. I never got special help because my disabilities were not noticed growing up. Instead I learned on my own how to understand the material because I was too afraid to ask for help because I did not want to be made fun of or for anyone to think I was stupid. Just like Thomas I have problems with short term memory and this makes taking notes difficult because I cannot remember what was just said. I also have trouble spelling words without copying the word. Just like Thomas I also try spelling the words phonetically because that was how the rest of the kids got taught. Thankfully like Thomas’s family mine is supportive. When I finally was able to find out what was wrong my family understood that I was always doing my best but I just learn differently than from the specific ways that teachers teach.
Both readings show that family played a crucial role in 19thcentury America when it came to disability. Although it was not understood as well as it is today mental illness often did not carry the same stigma as it sometimes does in modern culture. Singer and Richards point out that Thomas Cameron’s family made every effort to educate him, in fact that suggests they believed that he could be educated and did not need to be locked away or institutionalized like those previously considered “insane”.
In contrast, Wexler’s reading suggests that disability is something to be stigmatized and if possible eradicated altogether. Chorea was a feared disease, possibly as it is supposed to connection to suicide. The fact that many families with this disease were encouraged not to have many more children illustrates that family was only valued in this culture if all family members were not disabled. In my opinion this method of eradicating disability was completely futile since most people with this particular disease did not show symptoms until they had already had children.
Based on the readings, a family’s economic and social status had a significant impact on how family members with disabilities were treated. The example of Thomas Cameron in “To Draw Out the Effort of His Mind” shows that a family with resources can better provide for a disabled family member. Because his family was able to pay for his schooling he was able to have teachers who could make the extra effort to improve his studies. However, Thomas was also able to interact well with his teachers and fellow pupils. If he had a disorder that made it more difficult for him to learn and interact with others, I do not think his schooling would have gone as smoothly. Also, if his family had been from a lower class it would have been much harder for him to have access to that amount of education.
Community attitude towards disability had an effect on Thomas Cameron in terms of acceptance because his disability, while visible, was relatively minor. The examples in “Chorea and Community” were much more debilitating. Long and frequent exposure to the disease in a small community seems to have lessened the stigma in terms of social interaction, at least in the case of Leah Smith’s children. However, that was before eugenics became a more popular social and medical theory. Integration is easy when the community is willing to include a disabled person, but when stigma and fear are present it is much harder for disabled people to be accepted.
During 19th century America, family and community greatly shaped the lived experiences of disability. In Richards and Singer’s account of Thomas they take great care to reveal that Thomas’ case is certainly not the norm, however I believe that it would have been had each family received the same amount of social and monetary assets possessed by the Cameron’s. The increased consideration, accessibility, and flexibility provided towards each stage of Thomas’ education was extremely vital towards his cognitive growth. This entirely accommodating nature expressed by Thomas’ parents only accounts for one of the reason’s why Thomas was able to learn so rapidly however, without a nurturing and patient educating staff his journey would have been much more difficult. Wexler’s account of chorea in 19th century America also reinforces the idea that with a large and consistent community involvement helps to lessen the effects of disability greatly, however it strikes me ironic as to how quickly stigma can become attached towards a natural ailment.
In Wexler’s article, “Chorea and Community in a Nineteenth Century Town,” she wrote about how Huntington’s chorea or “St. Vitus’ dance,” was such a horriffic diagnosis to receive. The part where Huntington stated, “St. Vitus’s dance had always been deeply dreaded…..the affected families spoke of it “with a kind of horror,”and never alluded to it “except through dire necessity, when it is mentioned as ‘that disorder.’” This showed how families didn’t want to be around with a diagnosis like this. People viewed this disease as an automatic death sentence because the person that had it often committed suicide. It seems to me that the view of the author doesn’t agree with disability. They would rather get rid of it once and for all. They put fear into individuals and family that lived outside of their community because they weren’t exposed to it the way the townspeople were.
In the second article, the thing I noticed was if you are a family of means you can get your child the help they need no matter the cost. Thomas’ family had the money to pay for all the different schools he attended and for the teacher’s to pay special attention to him. The help that Thomas received helped him to achieve some social skills that made his schooling go well. This worked out pretty good for him but it made me think that if he was from a family with lesser means this story wouldn’t have turned out so good and his progress would’ve been slowed greatly. Having a supportive family and community is everything in these two articles and the outcome would’ve been much different had the local communities not supported them. People are afraid of the unknown but if we are around it and taught more about it then we are less likely to be afraid.
The events described in “Chorea and Community in a nineteenth-Century Town” reflect a mixed feeling about disability Huntington’s chorea. Leah Smith and her generational family are the illuminated as main victims of Chorea. Unfortunately, these people belonged to a wealthy class- this societal placement alone could suppress any genuine attitudes that ‘Hamptonians’ may have held towards Chorea. I wish the focus of discussion was on regular Hampton’s Chorea patients. The stigma of having Chorea was traumatizing. Additionally, “…some individuals reacted with resignation, others like Leah Smith, did seek medical treatment… Occasionally they took refuge in suicide…” (Wexler A. Pg 505) The Hampton community integrated both stricken and potential victims of Chorea. Some Chorea victims were very successful. “One indicator of these meanings is the public participation of Leah’s male descendants over several generations, as reflected in their patterns of holding office.” (Pg 506-507). On the flip-side, there were some discriminatory attitudes and behaviors towards people with Chorea. Parents threatened to disown their children who married into Chorea-suffering families. Others victims were mistaken to be alcoholics and upgraded to severe alcoholics when Chorea started to debilitate them. Overall residents of Hamptons were compassionate yet curious towards victims of Huntington’s chorea. This disease was new and even most physicians were puzzled.
The events surrounding Thomas Cameron’s disability are astounding. Duncan Cameroon undertakes aggressive efforts to ensure that his son does not lag behind in education. This father diversified learning experience for his son in every way. “In the earlier stages of Thomas’ education, Duncan’s network of kin and professional contacts were tapped. His legal expertise would attract young aspiring lawyers, and in exchange such young men would agree to serve as tutor to the judge’s young son for a time.” Duncan’s efforts paid off since Thomas eventually became post-master. (Richards Penny and Singer George Pg. 451). Thomas Jefferson’s sister who had a mental retardation was privately tutored. Randolph Jefferson had learning disabilities and turned out to be a prosperous citizen. This article is a proof that antebellum America firmly-integrated people with disability and by tapping available resources to achieve this vision. However, the cases recorded in this article concern wealthy families- I am left to wonder the fate disabled people who belonged to ordinary families
From both of today’s readings, it can be seen that family and community were able to provide resources and support in some cases for persons who had disabilities.
In the Singer article, comparisons were made between the economic resources of the Cameron family, making a comparison to the family of Thomas Jefferson. One point that was implicit throughout the article but not as drawn out as I would like was the ability to care for Cameron due to their status. Would the family have been as accepting, say, if they were of a lower economic class and were struggling to survive? The Cameron family seemed to be protective of Thomas, and educated him as much as they could, as well as providing care for him after he was injured during his duties as a postmaster. Would they have been this accepting if they were poor? The text does not elaborate on this.
In the Wexler article, there seemed to be limited acceptance from the community, in that the families who had Huntington’s disease held prominent roles in the society and members could still marry and raise children in the community. This acceptance, however, may be in part because families who had the gene were some of the founding families, so the community was protective of its own, in that sense. If a newer family to the community began manifesting chorea, would this still have held?
I found the same theme through out the two papers we read. I noticed that disabled people have more social protection and physical/emtional protection than in a highly competive society. As in Richards and Singer paper I found that the family strived to protect Thomas and even when he was unable to be educated with his brother, they found him a school that was best for physical, education, and emotional needs. As Thomas changed over time and new evaluations where made about it abilites they quickly adjusted there educational plan for him. It seemed that everyone they knew loved and supported Thomas through out his educational changelles. Throuh Wexler I noticed that gender played a large role in how the family provided after the illiness. It was financally easier for the family if the mother/women in the family became ill. I also noticed like Martha’s Vineyard that the increased number of cases created an exceptance. However, with his illiness the knowledge they had also created fear for the individuals that became ill. Although each reading was about a different family struggles with disabilities, again I notied that social exceptance was high but financailly it effects different social classes very differently.
Microhistories, like case studies, often lend themselves to great criticism, as a larger historical truth/reality is built upon the premise of a single, often extraordinary, case. The Richards and Singer article is essentially a microhistory of Thomas Cameron’s life with mental retardation in the antebellum (before the war) South. As the eldest son of a wealthy plantation family, Cameron’s life was in no way average. That his family made such efforts on his behalf, for his education, seems remarkable, if not almost anachronistic. Because of their wealth, the Cameron family was able to hire a tutor for their son, and later send him to military schools. All of these details, while crucial to the Cameron case, seem to illustrate what an extraordinary case he was, rather than just another example of mental retardation in the antebellum South. Had Thomas been a female, it is likely that this story would have been completely different, or indeed, there might have been no story at all. If the Cameron family was not wealthy, it would have been a vastly different story. If the family had not been as loving, caring, attentive to or accepting of their son, it would have been a different story. Richards and Singer write that “until more biographical studies are undertaken, we cannot assert that Thomas was an extremely unusual case…” (p 463). Their assertion, though, should rather be the opposite. As far as the evidence presented in their argument suggests, there is no reason to view the Cameron case as anything but unusual and exceptional.
The Wexler article, on the other hand, presents a very different type of article. Although it too is a type of microhistory, focusing specifically on the community of East Hampton, NY, Wexler describes a group of affected/afflicted persons whose disease is stigmatized in indirect proportions to their wealth and status. The “Smith” family seems to have been inoculated from stigma and scorn due to their Gentry heritage, while others with Huntington’s Disease of lower social class and rank were openly subject to stigma. Perhaps because it was more often the women of the “Smith” family who had HD, they were relieved of public scorn. Wexler suggests that as women who suffered from the disease, the family was less economically affected (p 524). The protection their class afforded them, what Wexler referred to as “the prestige of priority” is compared to the deaf of Martha’s Vineyard (p523). In drawing this parallel, Wexler makes the argument that, to a certain extent, familiarity breeds acceptance. In this same vein, he also notes that the Smith descendents were considered “one of ours” and thus shielded from stigma, at least compared to the relative “Other” of those in the community who were African Americans, Jews, Catholics, etc.
I think it is hard to answer this question because we only have a limited view of life at this time. The story of Thomas Cameron shows how he led a very normal life, with his family seeking the best education possible for him. He was loved and embraced by his family and his community in every situation he was put in. He was able to function with good social skills and was self aware. In my opinion it was almost as if his family had over looked his disability by trying to give him every opportunity to succeed as they did his younger brother. This was a wealthy family that had the resources to provide these educational opportunites, however we do not know about the life of a poor person in this time period. The story does not focus on how the poor would have been educated or the opportunities they were given being disabled.