February 21: Reconstructing disability after the Civil War
Read:
1) Jennifer Davis McDaid, “‘How a One-Legged Rebel Lives’: Confederate Veterans and Artificial Limbs in Virginia,” in Katherine Ott, David Serlin, and Stephen Mihm, eds., Artificial Parts, Practical Lives: Modern Histories of Prosthetics in America (NYU Press, 2002), pp. 119-143 (Blackboard)
2) Douglas C. Baynton, “‘A Silent Exile on this Earth’: The Metaphorical Construction of Deafness in the Nineteenth Century,” American Quarterly 44, no. 2 (June 1992): pp. 216-243 (Blackboard)
3) Nielsen, A Disability History of the United States, p. 78-87 (first section of ch. 5)
Chose one of these questions to answer:
1) Drawing on at least two of McDaid, Baynton, and Nielsen, how do you think the cultural meaning(s) of disability changed in the wake of the Civil War?
2) Alternatively, you can summarize in several sentences (or possibly a short paragraph each) your “muddiest point(s)” in at least two of McDaid, Baynton, and Nielsen.
The Civil War had an incredible impact on American society. In terms of disability, those with physical impairments became much more common in the aftermath of the conflict. As with all wars, a large number of wounded soldiers re-entered civilian life and thus provided a great deal of visibility. As both Nielsen and McDaid point out, these men often found it difficult to perform the manual labor endemic to most men’s lives at that time, and while a few proved financially successful after the war, many more suffered from economic vulnerability. But more importantly, the attitudes of the both the American population and the American state underwent radical revisions in the wake of the Civil War. The country underwent an enormous nation-building project stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Transportation and communication infrastructure improved, and for the first time the United States became more than just a collective of different states under federalism, but a truly unified nation-state established with more uniform and normative value systems across the country. These changes are reflected in the cultural meanings of disability. Whether exemplified as attempts to get veterans prosthetic limbs to allow them to live “normal” lives, or as attempting to teach the deaf to speak rather than use sign language, the cultural attitudes toward disability shifted from accommodation to assimilation.
Kim E Nielsen- This author presents various stories of the results of the wounds men received in the Civil War. There were many kinds of amputations, mostly arms and legs, but there were other kinds of wounds. There were psychological disabilities, facial wounds and others. The growing visibility caused fear and suspicion in the community. The problem of jobs and a living wage for entities presented itself in both the North and the South.
Jennifer Davis McDaid- This author concentrates her history about the Confederate veterans and artificial limbs in Virginia. An 18 year old Confederate soldier lost his leg in a battlefield wound in the start of the Civil War. His short stint as a Union prisoner was ended when he was exchanged for a Union prisoner. His name was James Hanger and he became a manufacturer and inventor of artificial limbs. Most veterans were not that lucky. The North was able in most cases to give pensions to their disabled veterans, but in the South there was a lack of money and veterans had a harder time in surviving, especially with families to support. Legislation in some Southern states began to help those veterans because of the high amount of disabled men.
I believe the cultural meaning of disability changed in the wake of the Civil War when people decided to no longer treat individuals with disabilities as an issue that involved the entire community to provide for their welfare but for the individuals to begin to take care of themselves. People in the communities were no longer accepting that people with a disability were vulnerable, powerless, or unable to care for themselves. Nielson explains, “In the Invalid Corps, in pension programs, and on the streets, people with disabilities, even when disabled as a result of military service, were often looked at suspiciously.” (Nielson 83) After the Civil War people began to look at disabled people as lazy, not physically challenged, but rather it was a disabled person’s choice not to integrate within the community.
We learned from Baynton’s reading that there was a group of Oralist who strongly believed against sign language and finger spellings as a primary communication. Baynton shares, “… oralists charged that the use of sign language encouraged deaf people to associate principally with each other and to avoid the hard work of learning to communicate with people who were speaking English. All deaf people, they thought, should be able to learn to communicate orally.” (Baynton 218) Again, people in the community are suggesting that it is not about an individual’s inability to assimilate with others but a choice of not working hard enough.
As Nielsen states, “Wartime made disability heroic-but only for male veterans, and only for men with physical, and visibly exhibited disabilities.” She goes on to note that although heroic, it wasn’t always socially accepted or financially secure. McDaid discusses this as well. She gives several examples of soldiers that were impoverished from their war wounds. I think the war showed society that disability can stem from being valiant (rather than sin or impurity). Both readings also displayed the outrageous amounts of poverty and lack of provision for the men who fought (and their devastated families). Although time proved to be equally unfriendly to both parties, there evolved a distinction in society between valiantly disabled and those not disabled from the war.
In the wake of the Civil War it seemed that nationalism played a role in how disability was perceived. For example, in the Baynton document, there was a debate between manualists and oralists over sign language. Oralists viewed sign language as isolating the deaf from the rest of the nation. They took this argument so far as to say that sign language made deaf people appear foreign because “deaf people existed apart and isolated from the life of the nation” (230). There was even action to try and take sign language out of the schools.
In Nielsen, veterans disabled in war were considered brave in some cases but still struggled to survive, “many disabled Civil War veterans found that re-creating an economic and social life with a newly disabled body could be very difficult” (81). They struggled to find work and fit into a society where “the growing visibility of people with disabilities caused fear and suspicion” (80). However, pensions, the creation of the Invalid Corps, homes, and the raising of money for prosthetics appeared to be ways in which the government and citizens attempted to bring aid to those who were disabled.
The cultural meaning of disability changed after the civil war because many that had a disability also had to be considered heroes. Many individuals that were wounded in the civil war were not able to return to their previous way of life. The government made provisions to supply prosthetics and severence pay but it was not enough. Soldiers were left to re-train themselves and find a new way to support themselves and their families. Some were able but most were not as succcessful. In many cases, it depended on who you were and what injury you incurred, as to how your disability was viewed.
In “How a One-Legged Rebel Lives: Confederate Veterans and Artificial Limbs in Virginia” we learn the stories of several soldiers wounded in the war. The article begins by telling the story of James E. Hanger, who lost his left leg in the war. Hanger went on to lead a successful life as the “war’s first amputee” and as an inventor and manufacturer of artificial limbs. The government passed laws to supply veterans, who applied, with artificial limbs, education, and pay but could not keep up with the demand. The article stated, “after the war, a missing limb served as a badge of bravery and sacrifice.” “How a One-Legged Rebel Lives” was a story written by John Robson. It tells the story of his disability, attempts to work hard to make a living, and his hopes that this story would provide needed income. Most veterans; the article states “found economic survival and physical mobility as difficult as the war itself.” While there was a change in the way “disability” was viewed, there were not services in place to aide those in need.
In, A Disability History of the United States,we learn about the government’s attempts to solve the employment needs of disabled veterans and about the establishment of the “Invalid Corps” which was designed to allow able bodied men to fight and disabled men to perform other labor. The government made attempts to aide disabled soldiers but claims from disabled African American soldiers and soldiers with “non-apparent” disabilities were less likely to receive pensions. The book states, “despite sometimes being unable to perform manual labor, disabled veterans embodied a unique disability status.” Nielsen states at the end of the chapter, wartime made disability heroic – but only for some.
I think that after the civil war disabilities became more common. After the war a lot of people came back with injuries. It became so common that the governments were trying to help out the injured soldiers. They were getting help to buy artificial limbs to help them try and get back to living their life as normally as possible. They also helped create pensions to help if they were unable to do any work after the war. It was not looked down upon because they received the injury doing war which made it look more heroic then if they had not.
Nielsen described in chapter 5 how the Civil War had a major impact on disability which generated new devices and medical advances for those who had disabilities. The cultural meaning changed for the wake of the Civil War as far as having two ways of society seeing it. A part of society either realized that after the Civil War, people who had disabilities were going to be a part of the community. On the contrary, the other part of society felt fear and suspicion. However, race and gender were very important factors on establishing the difference between disabled valiantly and those who were unable to claim status of hero. Upper and middle class white women were “incapable” of performing wage labor. Neilsen states, “Emancipation meant new experiences of disability for African Americans, and renewed debates about race and the health of the nation” (p.80).
In Baynton’s reading, an oralist group was strongly against the use of sign language because everyone in the community was required to communicate orally. This reading brought me up a lot of questions on Martha’s Vineyard because they lived on an island where everyone knew sign language and did not find it unusual. However, in this case I found it very interesting that the case was vice versa. I really think that these oralists were misinformed because they went in and out of everyone’s way just to take away sign language including attempting to prohibit it in schools. “Deaf people were cut off from the English-speaking American culture, and that was the tragedy” (p.217). I definitely found this statement interesting because it defeats the purpose of what we have today, globalization, and the variety of languages.
From what I could suffice from the reading, in the wake of the civil war people with disabilities started to become more prominent. Disability was no longer a minority due to the fact that there were a lot of injured veterans. However this changed society’s view of the disabled and in the long run, it influenced communities across America in many cultural ways. People no longer considered the disabled as “retards” they didn’t see them as helpless, weird or stupid. I think that the wake of the civil war changed much of the cultural aspect because within that time frame America needed to rebuild and move forward and everyone whether disabled or not paid their part in helping the country do so. I think that this changed the cultural meaning of disability because the American people had to work together to rebuild the nation.
After the Civil War, there seems to have been less emphasis on trying to cure disabilities and more on habitation. This was particularly true for disabled veterans. Many disabled veterans were unable to work after the war, but there were some who still could. The general thinking at the time seems to have been that if a person was disabled badly enough to get compensation, than they were too badly injured to work. There were disabled veterans who managed to get compensation and still worked for a living after returning home.
Another possible impact of the Civil War may have been a greater desire for national unity. This attitude was further emphasized by the increasing number of immigrants. The country had just been through a devastating, divisive war and anyone or anything that threatened to interfere with the new sense of unity was considered a threat.
The Civil War made a lot more people disabled, with missing limbs, who were fine before. Since there were more of the disabled veterans around, people grew more concerned with trying to embrace that person more. During the Civil War there were two distinct points of view but it only talked about one’s race, not their disability. This completely changed people’s perspective’s on disability. In McDaid, the development of the artificial limb greatly impacted war amputee’s and helped with their mobility so they could return to working and providing for their families.
Just like Alejandra stated, I too thought of Martha’s Vineyard when I was reading the Baynton article. In Martha’s Vineyard, everybody used sign language even if they could hear. The whole community embraced it, whereas in Baynton’s article it stated how the deaf community were required to learn a more oral way of communicating and that outraged them. I believe, for a good reason because why should they have to conform to how society wants them to be? It made me think that society was uncomfortable with seeing, a person who is deaf, use sign language. It was unusual and foreign to them because they didn’t know what they were doing so instead of letting them do that they chose to force them to learn how to speak.
I like the comment Michael makes in one of the earlier responses where he mentions a shift from accommodation to assimilation. I agree there were accommodations made, but the assimilation according to my understanding of the reading, was far more difficult because the majority of injured soldiers were lacking in the ability to continue their prewar occupations. What is clear is that the wounded veterans had the backing of their local governments with respect to artificial limbs and vocational assistance to help them provide for their families through alternative means where physical labor was no longer feasible. Another thing of note is that these accounts are from a devastated South. The economic hardships faced by many regardless of ability or disability, contributed to the lack of coverage for some.
In both readings of Nielsen and McDaid, there is great emphasis on how America reacted to the ideas of the disabled in terms of war aftermath. These men who fought in the war suffered many different kinds of impairments after the last shot had been fired. As Florence stated in her post, these men underwent a radical change from what used to be the norm of their previous life before the fighting. Those who actually survived the war were now going into an entirely different battle. Many underwent the process of what it meant to adapt physically and many also had to administer to a method of handling their psychological impairments that had also been introduced at this point. In the case of the soldier James Hanger, there was great prosperity and opportunity made to him to further help the war effort and then when the war was over he still continued to prosper. Compared to the many of thousands of men and their families that did not receive such a blessing this was very hard. In my opinion I believe that as a nation America became one in the banding together to help minimize the hardships of those who suffered so much for the different causes. The United Stares at this point showed great strength in the face of adversary. To a point they had no choice. The country was still somewhat young and needed the people to find a common ground after so many differences. Both the union and the revel soldiers had that one thing in common now. The idea of disability whether physical and or mental was seen on both sides now.
In her article Jennifer McQuaid seems to paint disability in more of a heroic light focuses more on the popularity of adaptive aids such as artificial limbs after the Civil War. This is mostly due to an aesthetic reasons according to McQuaid. Soldiers even went so far as to recommend artificial limbs to each other. Sometimes manufacturing them themselves. On the other hand, after the war disabilities became much more visible which in some instances caused apprehension. Kim Nielsen mentions one woman who broke off her engagement simply because her fiancé had become deformed in the war. According to Nielsen there was also a racial stigma with regard to disability. For example, if you were an African American veteran who had become disabled were much less likely to receive a pension from the US government.
In the face of reconstruction, of redefinition, and of the attempts to create a sense of solidarity and nationalism amongst the recently torn apart country, post Civil War America became intensely attuned to that which was other, more so than before the war. Antebellum views of disability certainly had a sense of otherness attached to them, but after 1865, this otherness took on a sharp and defined, nearly hostile tone. Baynton describes this evolving worldview as “the creation of national unity and social order through homogeneity of language and culture” (p220). While he writes specifically of the Deaf, post-war Americans did not distinguish so neatly between types of disabilities. Reeling from the north versus south conflict, from blue versus grey, from the deaths of so many soldiers on either side of the war, the national psyche attempted to create and maintain some semblance of togetherness and oneness. In these attempts, there was little room for otherness. After the civil war, those with disabilities were marginalized more than ever, left to fend for themselves, pushed into poor houses and asylums. According to McDaid and Neilsen, even those with disabilities acquired during the war were not always protected from these emerging cultural ideals. Those with disabilities were the unwanted other; they represented an undesired diversity. Cultural notions of a strong, capable and whole nation, isolated those who were viewed as neither strong nor capable nor whole.
I believe that after the Civil War there was an increased concern for unity amoung the citizens in the United States. In the article by Baynton, it shows that the deaf community became feared for there ability to communicate in a way that the rest of the population could not. It also became increasingly important for all citizens to be united by language and religion. Although, it was acknowledge that individuals could not be educated on the religion aspect until they learned the language, there was an incredible push for everyone to speak english and the removal of all other forms of communication was banded through the educational process. However, McDaid showed that it matter what kind of disability one had and how is was acquired. Again, physical disablitlyity was more socially excepted. Although, due to economic hard times it became increasing difficult for these individuals to obtain work, their communities, families, and friends appeared to be more willing to help provided for them due to their service to the country. Even when there was no funds from the government the individuals that had been disabled by the war could still find financial security within there communities. The Cival War seemed to have made a shift in how people with disabilities where viewed. It was acceptable to be disabled if it was a physical injury and it accrued within the war. However, the fear of the disabled (and all individuals that spoke a foreign language) increased and they were veiwed as not being as American as others that spoke english.
Cultural meaning of disability took a positive turn in the wake of the Civil War. According to Nielsen, “Fought between 1861 and 1865, the war killed more than 620,000 people.” This level of carnage suggests presence of massive cases of disabilities. Faced with challenges to overcome amputation due to war, James E. Hanger, a confederate veteran successfully pioneered a prosthetic leg. (Nielsen, pg 85). He turned his misfortune to commercial success. (McDaid, Jennifer 2002, pg135). Massive disability as a result of the Civil War injuries stirred technological revolution to contain effects of disabilities. Production of prosthetics started as experimentation for selected veterans and eventually hit massive productions by 1870s. Eye prosthetics are also mentioned during post-Civil War period. Organized groups came up to raise funds and other resources to help disabled veterans. Programs like improved health care and federal pension programs emerged. However, “Wartime made disability heroic-but only for male veterans, and only for men with physical, and visibly exhibited disabilities.” (Nielsen, pg 87).On the other, drawing from Baynton, Douglas, the misconceptions surrounding deaf people and sign language took ‘U-turn’. Marriages between deaf people, deaf clubs and associations thrived. Oralism which earlier threatened sign language was no more by 1970. (Baynton, Douglas pg.237).
Bases on Mcdaids depiction, the war left many limbless, so the definition of disability was based on more of a commodity to make prosthetics for war veterans missing arms and legs. They went so far as to say that many where proud of their battle wounds, along with the ladies appreciating the battle scars.
Nielsen shows a slightly different angle such as the ones who often did bot receive pension such as the poor and African Americans. Along with the idea that disabled was “the inability to perform manual labor”.
On the other hand, the Banton article show that often the deaf community was treated as shunned “animals” that most of society even many up until the 1970’s and further disposed foreign language and did not want the deaf to communicate because they where not speaking English.
I believe that based on the civil war if your type of disability did not impedance on the American way of life, than you where okay and society would be of assistance to you. i also believe many americans did not want another division of the americas therefore creating a more need for them wanting a consolidation of beliefs ideas and language, which therefore causing some (like the deaf to suffer) therefore because of it.
The cultural meaning of disability changed after the Civil War in part due to how the visibility of persons with disabilities greatly increased for a time as a result of the American Civil War, since so many veterans on both sides were injured, many of whom lost limbs or eyes as a result of their injuries. Some body parts were able to be replaced by a prosthetic of some sort, but even so, the prosthetic may have been uncomfortable and still may have made it visible that a disabling injury had occurred. As injury does not Beyond the visible injuries, there were also psychological ones as well, and the treatment for some veterans with head injuries and mental disorders was to treat them as lunatics, with some being placed in lunatic asylums (Freeberg, p. 84).
Efforts were made to help improve the lives of veterans, such as with the offering of pensions to ones who were wounded, though whether the pension would be awarded was not always a sure thing (McDaid, p. 127). Depending on the type and extent of injury, it was more difficult in some cases for disabled veterans to find work, thus making the production and use of prosthetic limbs an important line of business, with one veteran in particular turning his disability into a profitable family business producing prosthetics, but most disabled veterans were harshly economically affected by their injuries and diminished employment prospects (McDaid, p. 135-136). Disability became a larger part of the fabric of daily life, due to the vast numbers of persons who participated in the war. A nation torn apart was now a nation working towards even greater levels of unity, and this produced religious and cultural change as well. Persons who were deaf were affected as well, because the rise of oralist education was due in part to the desire to have a more unified nation, and manualism was seen to cause division (Baynton, p. 220). The idea of a distinct group with their own culture and language was not considered acceptable by many in the new push for national unity and order.
1) Drawing on at least two of McDaid, Baynton, and Nielsen, how do you think the cultural meaning(s) of disability changed in the wake of the Civil War?
The cultural meaning of disability changed in the wake of the Civil War dramatically. As McDaid states in her article of “How a One-Legged Rebel Lives”, “After the war,the demand for artificial limbs in the former Confederacy was overwhelming” (p.122). Of course there were people who were injured before the war that had disabilities, but the overwhelming injuries during the war had a need to be met. This was true in the case of Sidney Turner from 1882.