themes and ideas that we've discussed in our class so far then i'll lecture on the topic for today's class which is disability in the early united states. we will talk about how disability was defined in the years after the american revolution how ableism shaped early national law and have some disabled people push back and fought for greater access and equality. okay. so for our review our class began, but thinking really complexly about the meaning and experience of disability. so we discussed primary models for conceptualizing disability the first was the medical model of disability and this is probably the most common understanding of disability in america today. in this model disability is viewed as an individual problem, right? so if someone has an impairment say a limb difference a visual limitation, this is seen as their disability. in the logic of the medical model disabilities are probably a problems that need to be fixed primarily by western medicine. so the goal of the medical model is to fix the individual right to fix the individuals impairment in order to fix or eradicate disability. the social model of disability stands in stark contrast to the medical model. it was developed by disabled people disability rights activists and it suggests instead that society disables people. people with impairments are disabled by the fact that they are excluded from full participation in main street society right that they experience these physical political social attitudinal barriers to equality. so according to the social model the negative effect negative effects of these socially constructed limitations far outweighs the negative effects of any physical intellectual impairment. as a result the social model is focusing in focused on fixing ableism fixing prejudice and discrimination and decide in society fixing disabled people. so from this beginning we went on to critique both the medical and social models. we decided that the medical model was pretty problematic in the blame and the stigma that it placed on individuals the ways that it view disability as an individual problem. we thought the social model was a lot better, but that there were still some drawbacks and this primary drawback was rooted to the social models glossing over or maybe even a denial of the real physical intellectual a sensory mobility limitations that people experience. many of you pointed out that not all disabilities can be alleviated through social change. others of you argued that some disabled people want to have their bodies fixed. right, they want to have their pain alleviated and this is okay. so as a class, we we decided that combating ableist prejudice and discrimination does not have to mean a rejection of medicine. so many of us in our class settled on tobin siebers theory of complex embodiments as maybe the perfect median between the medical and social models of disability. siebers argues that disability is produced both by social barriers and by physical and intellectual limitations, so it's not one or the other it's both. moreover siebers argues that separating the disabilities that arise from the body and those that arise from society is pretty futile. these factors are inextricably linked so both body limitations and social barriers work together to construct disability. at the same time we developed this really deep and complex understanding of disability. we also thought a lot about ability. able-bodiness able-bindedness many of you were quick to realize that a preference for ability a strong desire for health and capacity a celebration of able bodiness and able mightiness able mindedness this pervades our lives. we are constantly encouraged to be as smart as healthy and as healthy as we can be friends and family members are celebrated when they overcome or persevere past their disabilities and are in our own university. we see perfection and achievement valorist. the preference for able bodiness enable-mindedness is really all around us. but in our class we attempted to question this device desire, right? we worked to think in new ways reading works by authors who claim disability as a positive identity and really a valuable way of living in the world. so we read authors who pushed back and and resisted this impulse to to ability in their lives. in thinking about ability and disability. we also always endeavor to think intersectionally, right? so we discussed how the category of disability is deeply entwined with other social categories, like race gender class sexual orientation. we also discussed how ableism prejudice against disability maybe even described as a preference for able bodiness how ableism is deeply implied with racism with sexism with classism with other systems of an inequality. in fact in our class we discussed how disability often lays at the root of these other forms of prejudice. so for example, many white americans and the antebellum period viewed black people as physically and intellectually incapable of citizenship. white antebellum americans viewed black people as essentially disabled and they use this to justify their political social economic inequality. by noticing these intersections between disability raised class gender sexual orientation other forms of oppression. we realize that combating combating ableism requires also comedic combating sexism racism and other forms of oppression. so from this really rich and complicated understanding of ability and disability. we move to the study of american history and we brought these ideas to this study. a few weeks ago. we began at the moment of contact between native peoples and european colonists and we moved chronologically right up to the american revolution where our class will begin today. in our class before spring break i asked you to think about some of the most important takeaways from your study of disability in colonial america. so i said what conclusions can we draw about disability during the colonial period here's what you said. this is from isabel in colonial america. we saw instances of ableism that served as the foundation of society's current understanding and association of those with disabilities. at the same time. we also saw exception stabilism and ways that able-bodied people and those with disabilities easily lived and harmony through a modicum of accommodation without fear of isolation and discrimination. and from grace disability in the colonial period was determined on one's ability to work. physical differences alone didn't make someone disabled as the often dangerous colonial lifestyle meant that work accidents or illness left. most people impaired at some point in their lives. so long as someone was able to provide for themselves, they weren't disabled. okay. so today we are going to move on to talk about disability in the early united states. as you well know on july 4th, 1776 13 american colonies ratify the declaration of independence officially severing their political ties to great britain by that point military battles were already underway. so the first shot to the revolutionary war were fired and lexington and concord and april 7 to 75 the battle of bunker hill a patriot victory was thought a few months later. so in the declaration of independence thomas jefferson wrote the famous words, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. in our class today, we're going to think about how this original and most fundamental statement of rights came true for disabled americans in the decades after the revolution. so word disabled people able to access these basic ideals of freedom and equality. were they able to reap the promises of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? and importantly, you know, how did gender race in class change the equation so were some disabled people able to access these rights and not others. we will also importantly consider how disabled people. faced with legal political and social barriers how they fought back and fought for greater equality and opportunity. okay, so in my lecture today, i'm going to try to convince you of two main points. these are powerful statements and they are challenging statements. and today. i'm going to marshal evidence in their support. so the first statement is this. our nation is rooted in ableism. in the early united states disability served as a rationale for exclusion from the privileges and obligations of citizenship. so a reminder we've talked about a variety of different definitions of ableism in our class, but for our purposes today ableism is the discrimination of and prejudice against people with disabilities. and i said, i'm going to suggest that this is our nation is rooted in this discrimination and prejudice. my second big claim today is that our nation is rooted in disability rights activism. in the early united states disabled americans challenged these restrictions and they fought for their rights as citizens. okay, so let's go on to the first the first claim here. let's start with how ableism shaped the founding of our nation. and to demonstrate this i'd like to focus on early national law. this is a context where we can really clearly see ableism at work. the first thing to know when looking at american law after the revolution is that it was deeply rooted in the english legal tradition. so the revolution didn't occasion a wholesale rejection of english common law instead. it was only over the course of the early national period that juris began to emphasize the difference between english and american law and that they began to use the law in new ways. so we have this english foundation. let's look first at the legal definition of disability in the early national period this is the legal definition that americans inherited from english law as a comparison today the legal definition of disability would we might look to the ada the americans with disabilities act, but what was the legal definition of disability in early america? and here is the clearest one that i have found. and it is from michael dalton's the country justice which was first published in 1618 and this according from the 1746 edition. dalton was an english juris and he wrote this this text which was widely circulated in the colonies and then the new republic it was probably the most popular legal text in the colonies. and here's what dalton says he gives us two definitions of disability. so first he talks about the person naturally disabled either in which or a member as an idiot lunatic blind lame etc not being able to work. his second definition is the person casually disabled or named in his body as the soldier or labor etc maimed in their lawful colonies. okay a couple things to notice about these definitions. maybe the first thing you've noticed is that dalton is not using words that we consider appropriate anymore. right? he's using words that are offensive today. i will let you know that idiot and lunatic these two words had particularly legal meanings and early america, but really you might have first noticed that the words he's using our derogatory. second you might notice that dalton is identifying a distinction based on when the person's impairment occurred. so he deferentiates naturally disabled people those who have impairments from birth from what he calls casually disabled people people who have acquired impairments. this distinction is important for dalton because it determines how judges it officials apply exemptions based on disability or apply exclusions or restrictions based on disability. these might be applied intermittently temporarily permanently based on an individual's condition. and the third thing you might notice about dalton's definitions. is that what you knights naturally and casually disabled people is their inability to work. and grace in her statement already alerted to that to us to this in the colonial period but as we discussed in incapacity for socially expected labor was the most widely used definition of disability in the colonies and then also in the new republic so disability in the colonies and the early national period disabled people were those who had physical and intellectual impairments that compromised their ability to labor in the ways that were expected of that. and you might already be thinking about how this would mean something different right the labor with that it was expected of different types of people. this would have meant different standards, right? so a different standard for a wealthy white man as opposed to a poor white man a free black woman as opposed to an enslaved black woman, right so labor meant something different based on social political economic expectations. okay, so i think i might pause for a moment for questions. i don't know if anyone wants to put something in the chat. they have any questions so far. oh, wait, just a minute or so. yeah, that's a great question. meg is asking what dalton meant by lawful callings. this is a great question. so he he means the mode of employment right there occupation, right? so and he may have referred to guild work, right which is work that your family kind of is is part of trade work over over many generations, but really, i think he just means that the employment that was expected at this person, but excellent question. okay, great. so, let's move on and let's bring this this definition dalton's definitions to a study of early national law. okay, we're gonna move on. so so again my goal and my windows perfect. okay, so remember one of my goals today is to suggest that disability served as a rationale for the exclusions. sorry rationale for exclusion from the privileges and obligations of citizenship, right so that there's this ableism that is rooted in our early national law. but what do i mean by the privileges and obligations of citizenship? you know, why do i use those words? well, we don't think about this too often in our everyday lives but citizenship actually entails both duties that we have to the state and protections or rights that we receive from the stage. so for example our right to trial by jury is linked to our obligation to serve fundraise. are right to enjoy protection in our defense is connected to our obligation to serve in the military or to bear arms in the nation's defense. citizenship involves both duties or obligations that we owe to the state as well as rights and privileges that we receive from the state. in the early united states disabled people were excluded from both. or maybe more clearly disability served as a justification for excluding people from both civic duties and rights. okay, so, let's see how this actually worked. here is an example of an immigration restriction in delaware in 1797. this act requires and i'm going to read from it any old persons infants maimed lunatic or any vagabond or vagrant persons who want to settle in the state. they're required to be examined by government offices officers who are to determine their capacity for labor. if these newcomers are found to be unable to labor. or likely to become unable to labor in the future right likely to come to rely on state assistance. they are ordered to be sent back to where they came from unless they can pay a surety so a sum of money for their future support. it's important to know that immigration restrictions were not specific to delaware. so nearly all colonies and then states had similar restrictions. some of them were established as early as the 17th century. as you think about this exclusion you might notice the importance of labor here to the distinction of disability and to the distinction of who could settle and who could not. you might also notice how the categories of age class and disability are entwined right? so disabled people were excluded just as were elderly people poor people and minors. okay, here's a marriage restriction from massachusetts in 1824. according to this act courts can and really should annull marriages if one of the parties experienced idiot see or a sand insanity at the time of the contract so intellectual incapacity invalidated a marriage contract leading to it's annulment. again, massachusetts is not unique here marriage restrictions based on intellectual and capacity date all the way back to roman law and they were implemented in early modern england and nearly all american colonies and states. it will also note that there's a long history of marriage restrictions based on physical capacity capacity for sexual intercourse for both men and women and these were all so enforced in colonial and early national law. again, it's important to think intersectionally. so this law doesn't mention it. but who else was excluded from marriage in the colonies? miners men and women under the age of consent also enslaved people were prohibited from marriage, right? so we're seeing the ways that disability to category disability can intersect with categories of race free slave status as well as age, so here's a voting exclusion from virginia and 1830 the amended constitution of virginia excluded people of unsound mind from voting. again, virginia is not unique nearly all colonies and states excluded people deemed to be intellectually incompetent from suffrage important again to think intersectionally, right who else is excluded from voting in this constitution people of unsound mind are listed along with poppers. so people poor people who are receiving state aid as well as soldiers and people convicted of crimes. an unstated exclusion here. the constitution doesn't mention it, but women also are excluded from the vote as our black indigenous and enslaved people as well as miners, right? so large numbers of people excluded including those of unsigned. again, here is a military exclusion based on disability. and this one is from the continental congress in 1776. so colonial and state militias as well as the continental army excluded disabled people from service. so this order requires recruited officers to be careful to enlist none, but healthy sound and able-bodied men and not under 16 years of age. along in addition women and free and enslaved black men were excluded from the army or the constantial army and the latter until washington was persuaded to retract their formal exception a few years later because of dire military consequences, but race gender and disability all are rationales for exclusion from the army. and guardianship so you may be a little bit familiar with guardianship based on britney spears recent court case, but basically guardianship is a total loss of legal political economic rights because of intellectual capacity incapacity. so in early america people with intellectual as well as a physical incapacities actually as well. we're also placed we're all placed under guardianship and not all of them but some someplace under guardianship if their family members or other community members requested it, so this act is from north carolina in 1836 those described as lunatics or idiots. we're assigned legal guardians who manage their legal political financial affairs. people under guardianship have almost no legal rights outside their ability to contest their guardianship. and then this is actually quite debated in the early national period of whether you could contest to be released from guardianship. again guardianship is not limited to north carolina. it was also not limited to those deemed to be intellectually or physically incapable miners were under the guardianship of their parents and caregivers married women were under the guardianship of their husbands and in the early national period and many states, especially in the south free black men and women were legally required to have white male guardians. so guardianship again extends beyond disability to include age gender and race. these are just a few of the restrictions and exclusions that disabled people faced in the decades after the revolution other restrictions include settlement settlement and in town being able to testify in court being able to sue hold public office your ability to pay taxes for enslaved people. also the ability to be manumitted rested on their capacity. of i can't cover all those now, but the last one i do want to talk about is confinement. so all of the restrictions that i've described to you so far, we're actually all so enacted in early modern england and the american colonies. these were all restrictions already in place at the time of the american revolution and that early national american simply continued. however in the decades after the revolution some of these exclusions based exclusions based on disability also intensified and you read about this a bit in your reading for today, but our nation is a republic which means that it relies on citizens being able to make reasoned political decisions. it also relies on the physical labor of inhabitants to make the nation productive economically viable. as a result in the early national period disability and disabled people became intensely threatening. these were people whose bodies and mind seemed that minds seemed to be fundamentally unfit for citizenship, right the fact that disabled people could not work in the language of the law seem to threaten the entire national experiment. so in the years after the revolution disability became especially threatening resulting in the tightening of restrictions. so this tightening is most clearly seen in the impulse to confine and institutionalize disabled people. on the actress seen on the right hand side of your screen is from massachusetts and 1797. it orders lunatic people. and those so furiously mad as to render them dangerous to this piece and safety of the good people. to be confined in town or county jails and alms houses. so many people were confined to the next few decades that the state established a lunatic hospital in worcester of 1830. by 1836 there was kind of so many people here that the state orders. idiot and lunatic are insane persons including those who are not furiously mad to the institution. so these latter individuals did not threaten harm in any way, but they again alongside. those furiously mad from previously on they were all required to report to worcester again, massachusetts isn't unique here. so nearly all states. established a silence and institutions for disabled people and the mid 19th century. other institutions were established to schools and asylums for those described as blind deaf and dumb as well as those with intellectual impairments were established also institutions for people convicted of crimes right more prisons were built as well as more alm sauces those for those who are poor or who receive state aid, and we're going to talk more on thursday in in this class about this impulse this institution building impulse in the early national period and this desire to fix or treat disability in conjunction with other seeming social problems. okay, i might pause just for one minute or two for some more questions. i don't know if anyone has anything burning here. okay, great. let's keep going then. so the final part of my lecture today is focused on how disabled people resisted. so remember i argued that our nation is rooted and ableism, but i also suggested that it is rooted in disability rights activism. and i argued that in the early united states disabled americans challenged the restrictions they faced and thought for their rights as citizens. so disabled people fought back against all the different exclusions that i outlined before and more right so they can test it immigration marriage and voting restrictions. they lied or simply ignored military, exclusions and many physically resisted confinement. so in a whole host of ways people challenged restrictions based on disability and advocated for their rights as citizens. today i want to show you how this worked in one small case in one small community. so this is just one individual person and her story of resistance. so meet lydia hoops, we really don't know too much about her life. we think that she was born in 1785 and i we do know that she lived in east bradford, pennsylvania in 1810 the population of east bradford was about a thousand people. so this is a really small tight knit community. and 1814 avaya hoops whose lydia's brother moves to place her under guardianship for intellectual incapacity and you'll see on the screen her his petition for her guardianship and i'm gonna read you a bit of what he he writes. so he writes to the judge of the court of the common pleas and says for the space of three years past lydia has been deprived of the exercise of her rational faculties and understanding so as to be all together incapable of governing and protecting herself or managing her affairs. a bio went on to give a few examples of lydia's inabilities. he says she frequently discourses in a wild incoherent manner alarming her friends without cause and denying that her brothers are such. and that the house she now lives in is not the house. she was born in although it is a fact that she was born in the house that she now lives in. he also suggests that she frequently tears and destroys her clothes without cause so after this initial letter this initial assessment of her incapacities the court orders and inquisition to evaluate her ability. so the local sheriff summons 17 what he describes as good and lawful men to evaluate her abilities these men meet with lydia. we don't know exactly know where but maybe maybe her house or maybe a local tavern or in and they ask her a bunch of questions, right? they ask her we don't know exactly what they asked her, but it could be about her her the names for example for family members in native neighbors. it might have been about her property right the land that she owns the money that she owns they might have asked her to complete simple tax tasks like counting to 10 writing her own name. the men soon found lydia to be of unsound mind. and so the court placed her under the guardianship of her brother a bio. so under guardianship lydia lost all her legal political economic rights as a single woman, so she couldn't use the money. she had to her own name by or sell property make contract sue testify in court. she really lost some of the most basic rights of citizenship. and in fact one of the only rights that she did retain as her ability to contest her guardianship. and so she did in 1824. lydia sent a petition to the court of common pleas asking to be released from guardianship. in her letter to the court. she argued that she was now restored to her reason and soundness of mine and she attached three different testimonials from neighbors and townspeople and these people confirmed that lydia was was fully and completely in her senses that she was as capable of taking care of her person and the state as she ever was. someone writing so the court launched a major investigation. they heard testimony from at least 24 men and women in the small community of east bradford. these men and women came to court and testified about lydia's abilities. their testimonies were extraordinary detail extraordinarily detailed. they were called past interactions with lydia their observations of her before during her guardianship. these testimonials they describe her clothing her contact her conversation her manners. and always, you know their perceptions of her ability to manage herself and manage the money and the land that she owns. residents were very divided on her case. so some argued that she should be released from guardianship. so i have one example from amos worthington. i'm just going to read it to you her conduct and conversation has been much the same as any other person in the ordinary walks of life so much so that if he this is amos had not heard that she was once of unsound mind. he should not have supposed that she ever was. other residents were a little bit less favorable, right? so they suggested that lydia's mind still continued to be weak or not, right? mary canard for instance explain that lydia's whole conversation appeared light and trivial totally different from what it was when i first knew her her conversation was not that of a rational person. canard concluding so after this detailed investigation the court decided that lydia was still of unsound mind and they decided that she was unfit for independence. and so she petitioned again. two years later she writes a second letter to the court of common pleas. and this letter is quite amazing. she describes herself as grievously vexed and disquieted. she argued that at the time of the tape of at the said time of taking the said inquisition. she was not of einstein mind. so she disagreed with the original inquisitions finding she argued that she never was i'm recording here before or after taking the said inquisition nor is she now by reason of any unsoundness of mind incapable of managing herself and her estate. she is capable of the governance of herself. she and this time the court approved to request. we don't know what made them change their mind the court file. it doesn't contain any new testimonials from townspeople or relatives, but lydia obtained release from guardianship as well as greater legal political and economic freedom. so i've concluded our lecture today with lydia's case because i really think an exemplifies those two big points that i wanted to share with you today. first our nation is rooted in ableism right in the early united states disability served as a rationale for exclusion from the privileges and obligations of citizenship. and finally, our nation is rooted in disability rights activism. in addition to ableism we have this history of disability rights activism in the early united states disabled americans challenge these restrictions and fought for their rights as citizens. okay, i'll stop here again for any other questions if you want to put them in the chat. and no pressure. yeah, so meg is asking where guardians usually family members they were. they could also be members of the town. so sometimes community members say like local officials. would place someone under guardianship, but primarily guardians where family members or or close friends neighbors? absolutely. a great question okay, great. well, thank you so much everybody excellent job today, and i will see you back here on thursday. thanks again. as many of you know, the most divisive perhaps one of the most divisive elections in our nation's history was the election hundred president john adams ultimately lost to vice president thomas jefferson. and while the transfer of power was ultimately peaceful. adams did forego his successors inauguration. i think that's also happened another time or two, but i won't bring that up. and those two men actually remained at odds for many many years. it wasnl