# data[].attributes.body
Who came up with this definition?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like us on Facebook, and share this with your friends! http://www.facebook.com/SDCBlueRibbonFoundation Visit our website! http://www.SDCBlueRibbonFoundation.org

# data[].attributes.body
The indigenous people of America had plenty of people living among them that would, these days, be termed as "disabled". Before Europeans started coming to America, Native Americans had no concept of the idea all bodies should look the same. If a person was born blind or with deformed limbs, they just assumed that was the way that they were intended to be formed. They were still seen as a valued member of the community and encouraged to develop their talents. Some people with mental or cognitive disabilities were even held in high regard as spiritual leaders. Their tribe members assumed they had a greater connection to the divine. The only way Native American's thought there was something "wrong" or different about someone is if a person's Spirit, Body, and Mind were no longer in harmony with each other. Mother's whose children were born differently abled were assumed to have been "out of alignment" during their pregnancy.

As a matter of fact, it has been noted that the Native Americans found it hard to look at Europeans for a while. They couldn't understand why they had so much hair on their faces and admitted it had take some time for them to get used to seeing such a "grotesque form".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marisa Leib-Neri is a second year Independent major in Disability Studies. She is fascinated by different cultural conceptions of disability and how disability, health, medicine, and wellness are historically intertwined. Her hobbies include tennis, violin, and re-watching every season of Parks and Recreation.

The modern view of reality is based in straight lines and angles. When someone goes somewhere or gives directions, the method of orientation is based on 'straight ahead', 'turn left' and 'turn right'. But Nature doesn't work that way, and neither does the traditional person. Everything in Nature goes in curves and circles, and the same is true about our going about. -Distant Eagle [1]

Native American culture has a very different concept of reality than dominant western culture as the Iroquois Elder explained in the above quote. Native Americans as a culture are comfortable with the idea that reality is inherently chaotic and believe that true health comes from "finding balance in chaos...truth is not a fixed point, but rather an ever evolving point of balance, perpetually created and perpetually new."[2] These beliefs are sometimes phrased as "Metaphoric Ontology," or plainly, they deny the existence of a single perspective or interpretation.

Native American beliefs are fundamentally rooted in ideas of a multi-layered and ever changing reality. Because reality is ever changing Native Americans have no conception of normal and conversely have no concept of abnormal. It is important to keep in mind that like the larger American population, Native Americans and their respective tribal nations are not entirely homogeneous. However, historians have been able to draw extremely similar conceptions of disability, health, and wellness between tribes. The common thread of many Native American tribes is their ability to embrace difference in a variety of ways.

As Kim E. Nielson notes A Disability History of the United States, Native American conceptions of disability are unique in that they don't really exist.[3] There is no language equivalent or even translatable concept for the word disabled, the closest translatable phrase is simply "being different" .[4] This lack of a disability concept stems directly from the connection of the spiritual realm of religion to tribal community health and medicine. Tribal Medicine is focused on maintaining balance between mind body and spirit. Wellness in Native American culture is defined as a "wholeness of existence," that every aspect of an individual's reality is interconnected and interwoven with nature, community, the spirits, and the elements. [5]

Native American connections of mind, body, and spirit, which stem directly from their religious beliefs, did not create the same stark binary of "normal" and "abnormal" that dominant American culture revolves around. Pre-colonial Native Americans never formed a stringent definition of normality and because of this their culture is disability inclusive in comparison to the colonial culture that would eventually become dominant American culture. To this day Native American conceptions of disability remain much more progressive than dominant culture notions and have changed very little despite the marginalization and cultural destruction that Native Americans have faced in the past.

Native Americans represent one of the most oppressed groups in American history. Native American culture was essentially eradicated by a sheer loss in population numbers caused by disease, war, and later, a systematic destruction of tribal culture. This tumultuous history has forced many tribes into an isolation that has made learning about their cultural history particularly difficult for outsiders. What makes this cultural isolation and consequentially the loss of cultural knowledge particularly upsetting for disability studies scholars is that Native American tribes have a uniquely progressive stance on disability that often falls in line with modern disability study ideas.

Native American cultures believed (and still do to this day) that disability, or difference rather, is the result of "disharmony of the spirit."[6] Through traditional tribal ceremonies an individual's harmony can be restored and the individual is seen as cured-regardless of the physical manifestations or impairments that are still present.[7] Therefore the problem was not in the impairment or disability itself, but rather in what had caused it. Native American communities are also much more tolerant of mental disabilities and disorders because of a deep cultural belief that altered mental states bring better connections to the spirit world. This also comes with an understanding that different mental capacities bring new types of learning into a tribe community.

The cultural practice of Peyote and the altered mental states that it caused was in fact the basis for many tribal religious practices.[8] Peyote practice helped to embrace different levels of consciousness, tribe members willingly chewed or brewed and drank peyote tea to feel the hallucinogenic effects and reach a different level of consciousness. Whether different levels of consciousness were willingly induced, or the result of mental difference, Native American culture made room for difference based on their religious ideals.

Disabled Native Americans faced very little stigma in their community because as long as they maintained their tribal relationships they were unlike any other tribal member. In many different tribes disabled people were heralded members of the community, their "gift" [9] of a different reality "challenged and energized" [10] the rest of the tribe community. These members of the community were called heyoka, they "evoked the magic of chaos" and had an indescribable amount of wakan, a holy, mysterious, or incomprehensible power.[11]

What is incredibly important about Native American conceptions of disability is that they make room for difference, but do not put them on display like a freak show performer. A Lakota elder notes that "Neither the ordinary person nor the heyoka person has a better view of reality; what each sees is universally accepted as fully real by everyone in the nation."[12]

Furthermore, Native American culture became extremely accommodating of difference without making a conscious effort to do so. Most Native American languages have no basis for disability. There are no equivalent words for "cripple" or "handicapped." Cultural uses of language also differ greatly-ability to speak and communicate through spoken language is not the measure of competency like in dominant culture. Silence is an acceptable part of Native American conversation and often conversations are slower. Navajo tribe members with cognitive disabilities were found by ethnographers to have no problems understanding conversations as long as it was within a slow cadence typical to tribal community conversations.[13] Native Americans are also considered to be one of the first groups to incorporate hand signals, similar to that of modern sign language, into their main body of language. This was to accommodate deaf and elderly people into community conversations.

Other cultural practices also make room for cognitive difference. Autism isn't seen as an issue like in western culture. A typical symptom of autism is lack of eye contact, but in Native American culture lack of eye contact is seen as paying the utmost respect for your elders. It is common in conversation for people to be looking at the sky, the ground, anywhere but the eyes of the person you are directly addressing.[14] Much of this has to do with the child rearing practices of Native Americans-there is very little emphasis on conformity. A child is allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are contributing to the overall community in some way. The level of tolerance for "deviant" behavior is much larger because there is no real range of "good" behavior a child is supposed to emulate or conform to.

Dominant culture upholds an idea of the "other"-whether that other is a persona of non-normative race, sex, class, or ability status, does not matter as long as the other is maintained. Disabled individuals fill a specific form of the "other," the abnormal form that is either literally marked by their bodily impairments or marked by their actions, which often differ from the acceptable norm. Dominant culture attaches negative meanings and ideas of personal failing to disabled individuals, which ostracize them from society. Or conversely, disabled individuals are put on display for the entertainment benefit of society; this is the only realm where positive characteristics are attached to disability historically.

Native Americans do not prescribe to ideas of othering simply because there can be no other in their concepts of reality. Nature is a constantly changing so "normalcy is an ever changing process of coming to balance." Disability is therefore seen as a difference that can be integrated into society. Disability is "only an element of the individual's existence, not the defining element."[15]

As academic fields begin to recognize and study the intersectionality between various marginalized groups, the area of disability studies has risen as a vital narrative. The disabled experience, especially within the context of American history, is deeply intertwined with race, sex, and class struggles. Disability studies has led the way for redefining current conceptions of disability, starting with the social model of disability, and has opened up spaces in which different cultural conceptions of disability can be discussed and potentially adopted. Native American progressive conceptions of disability are one such alternative that needs to be explored further.
[1] James D. Audlin, Circle of Life: Traditional Teachings of Native American Elders. Santa Fe, N.M.: Clear Light Publishers, 2006.
[2] Lavonna Lovern, "Native American Worldview and the Discourse on Disability." Philosophy of Disability 9, no. 1, 2008.
[3] Kim E. Nielsen, A Disability History of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012.
[4] Martha Gorospe, "Overcoming Obstacles and Improving Outcomes: American Indian Children with Special Needs." Bilingual Review 24, no. 1 (1999): 95-105.
[5] Lovern, 4.
[6] Kathy Dwyer, Ladonna Fowler, Tom Seekins, Carol Locust, and Julie Clay, "Community Development by American Indian Tribes: Five Case Studies of Establishing Policy for Tribal Members with Disabilities." Community Development Society. Journal: 196-215.
[7] Jeanne L. Connors, and Anne M. Donnellan, "Citizenship and Culture: The Role of Disabled People in Navajo Society." Disability, Handicap and Society: 265-80.
[8] Joseph D. Calabrese, A Different Medicine: Postcolonial Healing in the Native American Church. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
[9] Nielsen, 3.
[10] Audlin, 61.
[11] William S. Lyon, Encyclopedia of Native American Healing (Santa Barbara, Calif., 1996), 305.
[12] Audlin, 61.
[13] Conners & Donnellan, 273.
[14] Lovern, 5.
[15] Ibid., 6.

Further Reading:
Audlin, J. (2006). Circle of life: Traditional teachings of Native American elders. Santa Fe, N.M.: Clear Light.
Lyon, W. (1996). Encyclopedia of Native American healing. Santa Barbara, Calif.
Nielsen, Kim E. A Disability History of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Everything in Nature goes in curves and circles": Native American Concepts of Disability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marisa Leib-Neri is a second year Independent major in Disability Studies. She is fascinated by different cultural conceptions of disability and how disability, health, medicine, and wellness are historically intertwined. Her hobbies include tennis, violin, and re-watching every season of Parks and Recreation. The modern view of reality is based in straight lines and angles.

# data[].attributes.headline
Did the Europeans Coming to America Get Along with the Indigenous People?

# data[].attributes.subject
Did the Europeans Coming to America Get Along with the Indigenous People?

# data[].attributes.body
Native American's interaction with Europeans is much longer that the traditional "American History Narrative" we are all taught in elementary school. Europeans from different countries saw their relationship with Native Americans from different perspectives. French and Spanish Europeans saw America as a kind of trading post. Therefore the culture and location of its inhabitants did not matter much to them. However, the British came to America to start a new nation free from religious persecution. They intended on staying here after their voyage and wanted their new neighbors to conform to their ideology and "sense of order". The colonists made it clear that they had no intention of leaving which lead to conflict among them and the Native Americans. There were also a lot of cultural misunderstandings, as explained in this video about the way Thanksgiving actually happened.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Know About Thanksgiving is WRONG | Decoded | MTV News

# data[].attributes.body
Differences in life experiences and perceptions is eventually what lead to the invention of the idea of being "disabled". In European societies, being "able-bodied" came into importance when people started to sail on these long expeditions to "The New World". Even healthy men did not always survive them so captains were only willing to take strong, healthy men along with them. Women had to stay behind to care for children and people who had any impairments were not seen as "able" to come along for the voyage. This is where the distinction of people who were able to contribute and people who were thought of as an "inconvenience" was conceived amongst the Europeans. This way of thinking traveled across the oceans with them. When they interacted with the indigenous people, they were amazed that no one thought differently of people who looked different from other people. The indigenous people were amazed that they looked at what was wrong with someone first instead of helping them discover their strengths and talents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Europeans Brought More than New Ways of Thinking With Them

# data[].attributes.subject
Europeans Brought More than New Ways of Thinking With Them

# data[].attributes.body
In addition to their new viewpoint of the world, Europeans brought virulent diseases with them. When the men would debark from their ships, they were in terrible health. Anyone who got near them who had never been exposed to European germs probably got sick immediately. European diseases spread like wildfires through Native American communities, at times killing every member of a tribe. This unfortunately changed the dynamic between the colonist and settlers and the Native Americans. So many Native Americans were wiped out, they were suddenly dependant on these new comers to their land. Not only did they have to change the way they lived out their everyday life, they would have to look at people in their communities that had impairments in a new light as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Native Americans Didnt Wipe Out Europeans with Diseases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
→Subscribe for new videos every day! https://www.youtube.com/user/TodayIFoundOut?sub_confirmation=1 →How "Dick" came to be short for 'Richard': https://youtu.be/BH1NAwwKtcg?list=PLR0XuDegDqP2Acy6g9Ta7hzC0Rr3RDS6q Never run out of things to say at the water cooler with TodayIFoundOut! Brand new videos 7 days a week! More from TodayIFoundOut Keanu Reeves Gives Away Millions ...

# data[].attributes.body
People with disabilities amongst colonists were generally allowed to continue to be members of society. They would make any adaptations necessary and would work along their able-bodies neighbors. At first, people with mental or cognitive disabilities were accepted along with everyone else as well. But as the populations of colonies grew, so did the issue of controlling people deemed to be insane or idiots. In order to give families and communities some relief, Almshouses were created. These were the first government funded institutions were family members deposited loved ones they could no longer care for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For a limited time receive the free novelette, The Shadow Patriots

# data[].attributes.headline
The Revolutionary War Brings About Change...to What it Means to Be Disabled

# data[].attributes.subject
The Revolutionary War Brings About Change...to What it Means to Be Disabled

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to the Revolutionary War, people with impairments usually were born with them, or were the remnants of some disease they had survived. After the Revolutionary War, people with disabilities also consisted of injured War Veterans. Their injuries were not looked down upon and men who were able to go back to work did so. However, men who were no longer able to work due to their injuries were given money from the government know as an invalid pension. Unfortunately not all veterans were treated equally. Black men who had been freed from slavery to fight in the war often found it difficult to qualify for their pensions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Edward F. Waite
An Article from Harper's new monthly magazine (Volume 86, Issue 512, January, 1893) Text from: Library of Congress American Memory Collection

The pension system of the United States, which, including the appropriation for the current year, has taken from the Treasury more than a billion and a half of dollars (over 94 per cent. having been paid out since 1861), had its rise August 26, 1776, in a resolution of the Continental Congress providing that every commissioned officer, non-commissioned officer and private soldier who shall lose a limb in any engagement, or be so disabled in the service of the United States of America as to render him incapable of afterwards getting a livelihood, shall receive during his life or the continuance of such disability the one-half of his monthly pay from and after the time that his pay as an officer [or soldier] ceases. The monthly pay of a captain of infantry in active service was $26, and that of a private was $6. The benefits of the resolution were also extended to officers, marines, and seamen serving upon armed vessels. Claims were to be adjusted through the legislative bodies of the States where the applicants resided, which were authorized to make proportionate allowances in cases of less than total disability. In 1782 a maximum pension of $5 per month was granted to disabled privates and non-commissioned officers in lieu of half-pay. On account of the inability of Congress to raise money by taxation, the States, in 1785, undertook the payment of pensions, until the adoption of the Constitution made it possible for the general government to perform this function.

Since the original resolution of 1776 pension legislation has been voluminous, and down to the revision of the pension laws in 1873 may be justly termed chaotic. This paper will attempt only to outline some of the general features. In order to do this the more clearly the various grants of pensions may be divided into four classes, viz.:

I. Pensions based upon disability incurred in service, or the death of the soldier from such cause.
II. Pensions based upon service and indigence, without regard to the origin of existing disability, or the cause of the soldiers death.
III. Pensions based upon service only.
IV. Pensions based upon disability, without regard to the origin of such disability or the pecuniary circumstances of the beneficiary.

Disability, within the meaning of the pension laws, may be defined as the effect of any disease, wound, or injury, by reason of which a person is at a disadvantage in the performance of ordinary unskilled manual labor, as compared with a perfectly sound person; or would be, if compelled thus to earn a living.

Laws granting pensions of the first class have, as a rule, antedated the service in which the pensionable disability might be incurred, and have been designed to encourage enlistments; while with a partial exception in 1780, hereafter referred to, those providing for the other classes have always followed the service on which the right to pension is predicated. Although the Supreme Court has held that the first did not constitute a contract, it is evident that so far as they offered inducements to voluntary enlistment, they are of a quasi contractual character; while pensions of the other classes are, in their legal aspect, pure gratuities.
Class I.
The resolve of August 26, 1776, remained the basis of the pension rights of Revolutionary soldiers until the act of April 10, 1806, which repealed all previous legislation on the subject, and pensioned all persons unable to procure a subsistence by manual labor on account of known wounds received during service in the Revolution, granting half-pay to commissioned officers, and $5 per month to others.

Invalid pensions on account of disability incurred after the Revolution, began with the act of April 30, 1790, creating The Military Establishment of the United States, and promising pensions to officers and enlisted men who should be wounded or disabled in the regular service, at rates fixed under rules to be established by the President, not to exceed half-pay for commissioned officers, and $5 per month for others. This provision was extended by subsequent enactments to volunteer troops raised for special purposes, including the war of 1812, the Florida and Mexican wars, and the late rebellion. In 1816, rates for disabilities of the highest degree were graduated from $17 per month for first lieutenants, down to $8 for non-commissioned officers and privates. By appropriate legislation, officers and enlisted men in the navy and marine corps were kept on a substantial equality, with respect to pension, with those who served in the army.

No important changes were made in the invalid pension laws until the act of July 14, 1862, which provided that all officers and enlisted men disabled since March 4, 1861, by reason of any wound received, or disease contracted while in the service of the United States and in the line of duty, should receive pension proportionate to the degree of their disabilities, the highest rate for total disability being fixed at $30 per month for lieutenant-colonels and all officers of higher rank in the army and marine corps, and captains and other officers of corresponding degree in the navy; and at gradually decreasing sums for lesser officers, down to $8 per month for enlisted men.

A few years later pensioners for disability incurred prior to March 4, 1861, were placed on the same footing as to rates with pensioners under the act of 1862. The rates established in the latter act have continued to be the totals of the respective ranks. But the term is misleading; it has never been restricted to cases of total inability to perform manual labor, though for a few years the rates of 1862 were the highest granted in any instance.

A class of specific disabilities i.e., disabilities of fixed degree for which special rates are expressly provided by law arose under the act of July 4, 1864, which granted $25 per month for loss of both hands, or the sight of both eyes, and $20 for loss of both feet, in cases where the total of the pensioners rank was a less sum.

Since 1864 a great number of laws have been enacted affecting rates of pension, all in the direction of increased liberality; and many additions have been made to the specific class. The lowest strictly specific rate now allowed is $30 per mouth for total deafness, or loss of a hand or foot; and the highest is $100, for loss of both hands. By Pension Office usage the total rates prescribed in 1862 are given for anchylosis of the wrist and equivalent disabilities. There is obvious difficulty in comparing a gunshot wound in the head, or a case of heart-disease, or partial loss of sight, with a stiff wrist, yet this is precisely the sort of problem presented in the rating of the great majority of disabilities. For non-specific disabilities greater than total, there are allowed rates varying from $10 to $24.

On June 30, 1891, invalid pensioners under laws prior to the act of June 27, 1890, and under special acts of Congress, were drawing 134 different rates, varying from $1 to $100. Of 419,046 such pensioners, 20 were drawing $1 per month; 17,036, $2; 62,318, $4; 83,- 299, $8; 46,097, $12; 20,246, $24; 14,834, $30; 3210, $36; 3161, $72; and 36, $100. The average monthly rate was $15 16; while among 676,160 pensioners of all classes it was $11.

(Footnote: The total number of pensioners on the roll June 30,1892, was 876,604. It will doubtless exceed a million at the close of the present fiscal year.)

In 1780 the Continental Congress granted half-pay for seven years to the widows of officers dying in the Revolutionary service.

But the system of pensions to widows and orphans really began under the act of June 7,1794, which gave a half-pay pension for five years to widows, or, if no widow survived, to the children under sixteen years of age of officers who should thereafter die of wounds while still in the service.

The act of April 16, 1816, extended this allowance to widows and minor children (under sixteen, which has remained the limit of pensionable age) of officers and enlisted men dying, after discharge, of wounds received in action.

No provision was made for cases where the soldier died of disease until 1848, when a five-years half-pay pension was granted to widows and minor children of officers and enlisted men who died, of either wounds or disease, during service in the Mexican war. By later statutes there were included cases where the soldiers died at any time after discharge by reason of disabilities incurred in the war, and the pensions were continued for a term of five years.

In 1858 they were confirmed to widows for life or until re-marriage. In 1866 and 1868 widows whose right to pension accrued after the Revolution and prior to the rebellion were granted equal rates with those pensioned under acts passed since March 4, 1861.

It will be observed that the early pensions to widows and orphans were confined to cases in which the soldier held an officers commission. Half-pay pensions to widows of enlisted men began during the war of 1812, when special inducements were needed to secure enlistments. Legislation of this sort was restricted to widows of volunteers and militia-men until 1848, when it was extended to widows of regular army soldiers who died of disabilities incurred in the Mexican war. Its benefits did not embrace the regular army equally with. volunteers until 1853, in which year the soldiers of all wars since 1790 were placed on the same footing with respect to the pensioning of their widows.

The act of July 14, 1862, above referred to, was the foundation of the colossal pension system of the last thirty years. The rebellion had been in progress more than a year, and the end was not yet in sight. Troops were needed, and it had become evident that if citizens were to be induced to voluntarily leave their homes and expose themselves to the perils of active service, more liberal provision must be made for the families to which they might never return. It was accordingly enacted that if any officer or enlisted man had died since March 4, 1861, or should thereafter die, by reason of any wound received or disease contracted while in the service of the United States and in the line of duty, his widow should receive the total pension of his rank, to continue during life or until re-marriage; and if no widow survived, or in case of her remarriage, a like pension was granted to his minor children.

In 1868 these pensions were increased by two dollars per month for each minor child; and in 1886 the eight-dollar rate of widows, minors, and other pensionable dependents of enlisted men was increased to twelve dollars. Dependent relatives of soldiers, other than widows and children, were first pensioned under the act of July 14, 1862, which gave the mother, in case no widow or minor child survived, the same pension which a widow, had there been one, would have received; and a like provision was made for orphan minor sisters. Fathers and orphan brothers were included in similar legislation in 1866 and 1868. The dependence contemplated by these statutes might be partial only, but must have existed at the date of the soldiers death. Under the act of June 27, 1890, it is sufficient that a parent shall be in dependent circumstances at the time of applying for pension, without regard to his condition when the son died; but pension under this act begins at the date of filing the application, instead of from the soldiers death, as in cases established under former laws.
Class II.
Pensions of the second class were first granted nearly thirty-five years after the close of the Revolution, by the act of March 18, 1818, which provided that every officer, soldier, sailor, and marine who served nine months in the Revolution, and who was or should become in need of assistance from his country for support, should be pensioned for life, officers at *20 per month, and enlisted men at $8. There was no further legislation of this general character until the act of June 27, 1890, which grants to the widow of every officer and enlisted man who served ninety days or more in the war of the rebellion a pension of $8 per month, with *2 additional for each child of the soldier under sixteen years of age, in case she is without other means of support than her daily labor. When the widow dies or remarries, the right survives to the minor children, as under former laws, and pension is continued during life to children who are insane, idiotic, or otherwise permanently helpless.
Class III.
On October 21, 1780, the Continental Congress resolved that the officers who shall continue in the service to the end of the war shall..., be entitled to half-pay during life, to commence from the time of their reduction.

In 1783, at the instance of the officers of General Washington's army, this half-pay for life was commuted to full pay for five years.

In 1828, officers who served in the Revolutionary army as provided in the resolution of 1780, and enlisted men who performed like service, were granted their full monthly pay, no officer, however, being entitled to higher pay than that of captain.

By the act of June 7, 1832, equal benefits were extended to those who had served two years in the Revolution; and one who served a term or terms in the whole less than the above period, but not less than six months, was authorized to receive out of any unappropriated money in the treasury, during his natural life, each according to his term of service an amount bearing such proportion to the annuity granted to the same rank for the service of two years, as his term of service did to the term aforesaid. This latter provision is interesting as embodying the principle contended for by the advocates of the cent-a-day bill which was introduced in the Fifty-first Congress.

An additional stipend of $100 a year, granted in 1864, completed the measure of the nation's bounty to the boys of 76. The last Revolutionary soldier borne upon the pension roll died in 1869.

A service pension was first granted to widows in 1836, by legislation which gave to the widows of persons entitled under the act of June 7, 1832, the same pensions which the husbands drew or might have drawn, provided marriage took place before the expiration of the last period of service. This was the first allowance of pension of any sort to the widows of Revolutionary soldiers after the seven years half-pay of 1780 to the widows of officers, nor were children of these soldiers ever pensioned in their own right except by special acts of Congress. The limitation as to marriage was from time to time moved forward, and repealed altogether in 1853.

In 1867 the additional annuity of $100 given to Revolutionary veterans in 1864 was extended to their widows, and in 1878 all widows of soldiers who served fourteen days in the Revolution or were in any engagement were pensioned at $8 per month. Twenty widows of this class were still on the roll at the close of the last fiscal year.

In 1871 pensions of $8 per month were granted to surviving soldiers of the war of 1812, without regard to rank, who served sixty days in that war or had been honorably mentioned in a resolution of Congress for service therein, and who had not espoused the cause of the late rebellion, and to their widows in cases where marriage occurred prior to the end of the war.

In 1878 the requisite term of service was reduced to fourteen days or participation in an engagement, and the limitation as to the date of marriage was removed.

In 1887 a like provision was made for survivors of the war with Mexico and their widows, sixty days service being required, or engagement in a battle, or honorable mention in a resolution of Congress. This was made applicable, however, only to persons who were or should become sixty-two years of age, or subject to any disability [not incurred while voluntarily abetting the late rebellion] or dependency equivalent to some cause prescribed or recognized by the pension laws of the United States as a sufficient cause for the allowance of a pension. This apparent restriction may seem to bring the law within our second class; but when it is remembered that persons who were twenty-three years old at the close of the Mexican war were sixty-two in 1887, it will be seen that the act granted practically a mere service pension. At any rate, such has been its effect in its administration.

Class IV.

The only pensions of this class, for disability without regard to its origin or the pecuniary circumstances of the applicant, are granted by the act of June 27, 1890, which provides that all persons who served ninety days or more in the military or naval service of the United States during the late war of the rebellion, and who have been honorably discharged therefrom, and who are now or may hereafter be suffering from a mental or physical disability of a permanent character, not the result of their own vicious habits, which incapacitates them for the performance of manual labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support, shall..., be placed upon the list of invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive a pension not exceeding twelve dollars per month, and not less than six dollars per month, proportioned to the degree of inability to earn a support. This act is substantially the same as the so - called dependent bill, vetoed by President Cleveland in 1887, save in three particulars: the earlier bill provided for a uniform rate of $12 per month, excepted cases where the disability was due to the soldiers gross carelessness, as well as those where it resulted from his vicious habits, and extended its benefits only to those who were dependent upon their daily labor for support. In his veto message Mr. Cleveland construed this last provision as requiring not that the applicant should be wholly dependent upon his daily labor, but only that labor should be necessary to his support in some degree. This construction was fully warranted by that which had been given to the Revolutionary dependent act of 1818, and by the existing practice of the Pension Bureau in the claims of dependent relatives. In the administration of the act of June 27, 1890, actual dependence on manual labor for support, in any degree, is not deemed a requisite. To all pensions granted prior to the rebellion, it was essential that the soldier should have been honorably discharged from the service. Under post-rebellion laws this has been necessary for pensions of our second, third, and fourth classes, but not for those of the first class. A soldier who deserted during the late war in the face of the enemy and was drummed out of the service, or an officer who was cashiered for embezzlement or cowardice, stands on an equal footing, with respect to pension for disability incurred in the service, with his comrades who served honorably from Bull Run to Appomattox. Early legislation fixed the commencement of pensions at the date of the termination of service, and a limitation of two years for the filing of claims was established. This limitation was soon removed, and the pension was made to commence at the date of the completion of the proof.

This was the law until the act of July 14, 1862, which dated pensions of the first class from the discharge of the soldier when the claim should be filed within a year after discharge; otherwise from the filing of the application. The limitation was afterwards extended to three years, and later to five; and it was provided that no claim not prosecuted to a successful issue within five years after the date of filing should be allowed except upon record evidence from the War or Navy Department of the disability on which it was based.

All these checks were swept away by the arrears acts of 1879, which granted pension from the discharge or death of the soldier in all late war claims of the first class which had been or should thereafter be allowed, provided that application should be filed prior to July 1, 1880; otherwise, from the date of the application. This limitation was in turn removed with respect to the claims of widows in 1888. Service pensions, requiring little or no proof beyond that furnished by the official records, have been made to commence from the dates of the several acts by which they have been granted.

In 1887 Commissioner Black thus summarized the results of an inquiry into the pension systems of the European governments: Two bases have been recognized out of which a claim for pension might rightfully arise in the case of almost every civilized power. The first is the mere fact of service of the state in a military capacity, and the second is disablement in that service. The service to be the basis of pension must have been of a very great length, rarely less than ten, and oftener of twenty-five and thirty years. A noticeable feature in all of these pension systems is that they were manifestly prepared only for regular service troops, although no discrimination is made between the regular service troops and the war levies.... No instance can be found where pension is allowed for services dishonorably terminated or marked by a dishonorable record.... The foreign pension codes are based upon this idea of. .. . the right of the state to demand the service of every man capable of bearing arms, without regard to any other than a disability pension, and that the pension itself is a mark of extreme honor, reward of long service, or distinguished ability.

The foreign systems have but one class of pensions in common with our own, those for disability incurred in the service. In its other branches our system is unique. Our service pensions do not at all correspond to the service pensions of other governments, ours being for brief and often merely nominal service, while theirs are for long and actual service. Our retirement on pay of officers and enlisted men of the regular army is more closely analogous to the foreign service pension than are the pensions grouped above in the third class. The principle which is the basis of pensions for disability incurred during service and in the line of duty is too plain to need statement here, and justifies itself at once to all right-thinking minds. Such pensions honor both the nation and the beneficiary. Annuities after long and faithful service are obviously wise in countries where standing armies are required, as furnishing an incentive to such service.

But the sentiment of gratitude affords the only legitimate reason that can be urged for any of our service pension laws since the resolution of October 21, 1780. To this sentiment has been added as a ground for our pensions of the second class, in which the indigence of the beneficiary is a requisite, the consideration that the nations defenders and their dependents ought not to be abandoned to want, or the humiliation of alms, from whatever cause their need may have arisen.

But the principle upon which pensions of the fourth class were granted by the act of June 27, 1890, is not so clear. So far as relief is given under this law to needy persons, or to those who are suffering from disabilities probably due to military service, but not provable to be so, and it was the existence of. many such cases that furnished the chief argument for the measure, the principles above cited apply.

But another group of pensioners is being added to the rolls under this act, those who are not in needy circumstances, and whose disabilities are not even colorably due to military service. On what principle are these pensioned for their disabilities? If from gratitude, why discriminate in rates ac- cording to the degree of the disability? Would not length or character of service be the proper criterion? If the well-to-do business man, who served ninety days in the commissary department, sustains today a serious and permanent injury while exercising his favorite horses, why should he receive an expression of public gratitude, if he choose to ask for it, to which he would have had no title yesterday? And why should he have $12 per month, while his coachman, who served four years at the front, injured in the same accident, but only half so severely, can get but $6? One year after the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, 391,431 invalid claims had been filed under its provisions, of which 236,362 were in lieu of pensions or applications under previous laws, the remaining 155,069 coming from new claimants. How many of these claims have been made by men who are far from indigent, and whose disabilities are in no wise due to service in the army or navy, let the reader judge from his own observation.

Some curious anomalies have arisen under this latest experiment in pension legislation. Men who, after serving under the stars and bars, enlisted in the Union army, are rewarded by a grateful nation for wounds received while bearing arms against her. The thrifty bounty-jumper who entered the service with a concealed disability, which, after three months of wearing the blue, he used to secure his discharge, may, upon a full showing of the facts, receive a pension for that very disability. A woman who served a term in a penitentiary for poisoning her husband now claims a pension on account of his military service and death, and no reason is known why she may not have it.

The current of ever-increasing liberality which has flowed through our pension legislation may also be traced in the administration of the laws. In the earlier years there were some attempts to throw about the adjudication of claims certain judicial safeguards, which gradually fell into disuse. An act of 1792 provided for the attendance of each applicant and the production of his evidence before the United States Circuit Court of his district, and the court was required to make a personal examination of the disability, and forward the papers to the Secretary of War with a report and recommendation.

The following year it was enacted that whereas the act last referred to was found by experience inadequate to prevent the admission of improper claims to invalid pension, and not to contain a sufficient facility for the allowance of such as may be well founded, therefore all evidence relative to invalids (the requisite evidence being minutely prescribed) should be taken upon oath or affirmation before the judge of the district in which such invalids reside, or before any three persons specially authorized by commission from said judge; and this evidence was to be transmitted to the Secretary of War for final action. This office of the courts came to be discharged in a perfunctory way, and by degrees evidence submitted in pension claims assumed a wholly ex parte character.

Proceedings of this sort always open the door to fraud, and it is only saying that citizens of the pensionable classes have not maintained among themselves a higher level of integrity than prevails among their fellows, to say that fraud and imposition have here found a peculiarly inviting and profitable field. In the debate on the Revolutionary service pension act of 1832 the extensive frauds committed under former acts were referred to as matters of common knowledge. The compiler of the first digest of pension laws, in 1854, a late chief clerk of the Pension Office, attributed to the chaotic state of pension legislation, and to the ex parte system of adjudicating claims, the perpetration of innumerable frauds against the government.

In 1872 Commissioner J. H. Baker said, in his annual report: . So long as pensions are to be granted upon evidence which (except record evidence) is purely ex parte, so long frauds will continue to exist.... In our system the record of the soldier is too meagre at best, and during the late war the hospital records were illy kept, very frequently, as the experience of the office daily shows, so indefinite as to be utterly worthless in determining the origin and character of the alleged pensionable disability; hence the law authorizes a resort to parol evidence.... in which the government has not exercised the right of cross-examination, and upon which a decision could not be had in any court of justice. General Baker suggested that a special pension court should be established in each congressional district, in which there should be opportunity for open cross-examination of witnesses.

In his report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875, Commissioner H. M. Atkinson said: The development of frauds of every character in pension claims has assumed such a magnitude as to require the serious attention of Congress... From the nature of the system under which the right to pension is determined under existing laws, viz., upon ex parte evidence, the successful prosecution of many fraudulent claims cannot be prevented, even though the utmost caution be exercised. The lapse of time since the war, and the consequent unreliability of parol proof relating to facts at this remote date from their occurrence, afford the most forcible argument for the adoption of a more thoroughly organized system of adjudicating these claims. By actual test in cases taken from the files of this office it is shown that a large percentage of the affidavits filed in support of claims for pension are signed and sworn to without being read over to affiants, and without their having a full and proper knowledge of the contents, though accompanied by a certificate of the magistrate before whom they are executed that the witnesses have been fully informed of the purport.

In his report of 1876 Commissioner John A. Bentley presented a forcible indictment of the ex parte system, and recommended a plan by which testimony should be taken viva voce in all cases, and subjected to proper tests. A measure known as the sixty surgeons bill, embodying this recommendation, was introduced in Congress, but failed of passage. In 1878 he said, I am convinced that a great number of persons have been pensioned who have no just title, and that the number of that class is being constantly increased in the settlements which are now going on. In 1879 he presented a table showing that in 500 cases dropped from the rolls since July 1, 1876, there were 3084 false affidavits out of 4397 affidavits in all, and 92 forgeries. More than half a million dollars had been paid to these pensioners before the frauds were discovered. He said in 1880, The number of frauds discovered year after year, when it is considered that the attention of the office was attracted to them through accident or some suspicious circumstance, or by the statement of a volunteer informer, is very great, and renders it certain that but a very small percentage of the frauds committed come to the knowledge of the office.

In 1862 the Commissioner of Pensions was authorized to detail a clerk, with power to administer oaths, for the personal investigation of cases of suspected fraud. Such special investigation was found necessary and effective in a growing number of cases, and additions to the force of employees assigned to this duty were made from time to time.

In 1882 it was greatly augmented, and the special agents or examiners instead of making their headquarters in Washington, as before, were stationed in different parts of the country, each with a definite district. A marked increase in the quantity and thoroughness of the work performed by this branch of the Pension Bureau was thus effected. Commissioner Dudley said, in his report of 1883: The means taken to prevent the successful consummation of fraud are reasonably efficient to that end, and it may be easily demonstrated, I think, that such claims [i.e., claims without merit] are, to be found mostly in our rejected files. If it be doubted whether the rejected files have gathered in so large a proportion of the unworthy claims as this opinion would indicate, it is at least safe to say that instances of gross fraud have become comparatively rare. The ratio of the cases specially investigated in any year to the whole number of pending claims is always very small. Of those that are tested in this way, it is probable that few dishonest ones pass the ordeal successfully; and it is certain that the presence throughout the country of agents of the government charged with the detection of violations of the pension laws has a deterrent effect upon those who would otherwise resort to fraudulent practices.

On June 30, 1891, there were 110 special examiners in the field. Not only are cases of suspected fraud referred to them, but also many cases of probable merit in which the evidence filed by the applicant does not warrant allowance, and there is reason to believe that a more explicit showing of the facts would establish their merit, the government thus practically undertaking to supply the deficiencies in the prosecution of the case by the claimant and his agents. The benefit of this procedure to worthy claimants is apparent from the fact that during the last fiscal year over two thousand claims were admitted after special investigation, most of which must have been rejected if settled upon the original ex parte evidence. And it is a fact indicative of either a high average of merit in the pension claims of the present day, or great liberality on the part of the Bureau, or both, that the proportion of specially investigated cases finally allowed during the last two years to those rejected was eight to one.

The question of the sufficiency of evidence is obviously an individual one in every claim, but this general statement may be ventured, that the requirements of the Pension Bureau have since the late war undergone a steady reduction. That this Bureau has been, on the whole, as honestly and intelligently conducted as any administrative branch of the government, no one who is conversant with the facts will deny; but an effective public sentiment has demanded a constant liberalization of the process of adjudicating claims, just as it has by legislation increased rates, removed limitations, and created new groups of pensioners. No course has been open to the officials of the Bureau but compliance, and though all safeguards that the people will tolerate are still retained, thousands of pension claims are annually allowed upon evidence which would not draw one dollar from the pocket of a prudent business man, however anxious to satisfy all just demands. A prima facie case is made out in every instance, to be sure; but there is generally a very high degree of probability that the affidavits exceed the real knowledge of the witnesses concerning the facts in question. It is notorious that a great proportion of the ex parte affidavits in pension cases, even when made by men who in ordinary business are distinguished for strict integrity, are made with shameful lack of care and scruple. Statements are drawn up by the agents of applicants containing such averments as the exigencies of the case demand, and in numberless instances these are signed by persons who not only have no knowledge of the facts recited, but are not even aware of the contents of the writing; while many magistrates habitually take acknowledgments of pension affidavits without administration of the oath. If this prevailing laxity could have any excuse, it would lie in the fact that some of the matters * required to be proved, especially those elating to symptoms of disease shown by the applicant in the service, or from time to time since discharge, are such that an ordinary memory cannot retain them with certainty; and witnesses, fearing that a just claim may fail through their forgetfulness, are ready to blindly assent to the averments of the parties in interest, or at best assume as an original and positive recollection what they should know to be a mere untrustworthy impression. But there is no excuse. The sanction of an oath should be no less in an ex parte pension affidavit than in a court. proceeding. It must not be supposed that reckless swearing in pension claims is more prevalent among ex-soldiers than other classes of citizens. The average comrade or officer is neither a more scrupulous nor a more unscrupulous witness than the average neighbor or family physician.

If pension legislation has been too lavish, and the administration of the laws too loose, the responsibility lies upon the whole country. In the solicitude with which they have regarded the soldier vote our law-makers have but reflected the sentiments of their constituents; and the tendency toward a wide-open policy in the adjudication of claims has been in accordance with the manifest will of the people. In numerous communities throughout the land respectable citizens believe that they have among them some flagrant instance of dishonest pension; and yet information of supposed fraud is rarely volunteered except when prompted by motives of personal hostility, and even when sought is denied or given with reluctance. There is a growing conviction that the government is being shamefully plundered through the pension system; and the existence of this belief, whatever the fact, with acquiescence in the supposed abuse, cannot but have a most demoralizing influence on the public conscience. It is all too easy at best to regard the national Treasury as a public grab-bag; and the sight of A. drawing with impunity, year after year, a stipend from the government known or even believed to be obtained by dishonest means, is a most potent incentive to B. to try his hand at the same trick. Hardly less deplorable is the gradual lowering in the general esteem of the veterans of the late war as a class. The suspicion is abroad that a mercenary spirit, incompatible with that lofty sense of honor which the popular imagination would fain attribute to its military heroes, is spreading among them. This suspicion may be unjust, but its increasing prevalence is no less sure than it is unfortunate.

For years to come our pension system must be an impressive object-lesson to rising generations of Americans, and to those who come to us from other lands. Should they learn from it that here the citizen owes no duty to the state for which he may not demand compensation in hard cash? Or, scattering abroad its bounty with a generous but discriminating hand, should it teach that while the nation will not forsake her true defenders in their time of need, nor look on with cold indifference when they are handicapped in the race of life by the lasting infirmities of camp and field, her real debt to them is not to be reckoned in dollars, but in boundless gratitude and honor?

It is not probable that any backward step will ever be taken in pension legislation, nor that in the administration of the laws the lines will ever be more closely drawn than public sentiment shall require. If in the unparalleled munificence of our pension system there lurk serious evils, there seems to be no remedy save through an awakening of the public conscience and a shaking off of that easy-going acquiescence in abuses which is one of the most conspicuous vices of the American character. Reckless legislation may thus be prevented in the future, and a more just and honest distribution of the nations bounty under present laws may be secured. Let the great and rich Republic be liberal even lavish, in comparison with less-favored nations with her deserving veterans; she will never do too much for them. But let her not forget that if she is blind to the plain distinctions between truth and falsehood, need and greed, genuine military service and holiday campaigning, this is not liberality, but prodigality, which brings reproach upon herself and unmerited discredit upon every worthy soldier who accepts her aid.

Source: Library of Congress American Memory Collection - http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/moahtml/snctitles.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Edward F. Waite An Article from Harper's new monthly magazine (Volume 86, Issue 512, January, 1893) Text from: Library of Congress American Memory Collection The pension system of the United States, which, including the appropriation for the current year, has taken from the Treasury more than a billion and a half of dollars (over 94 per cent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Veterans from the Civil War get a Different Reception

# data[].attributes.subject
Veterans from the Civil War get a Different Reception

# data[].attributes.body
Veterans of the Civil War were not as well received as their brothers who fought in the Revolutionary War. The North was becoming more industrialized which meant laborers had to be able to perform the duties that the jobs called for. In many instances, these jobs did not lend themselves to the disabled. The Invalid Corps was formed but instead of being honored, people looked down on its members. Society was now beginning to be suspicious of people with disabilities and in some instances saw them as a burden upon society. The pension system became more stringent and was used to determine what counted as a "valid" disability and what did not.

# data[].attributes.body
With the development of science and scientific theories, society became obsessed with personal appearance and mental capabilities. It was decided that factors such as criminality, feeble-mindedness, sexual perversion, immorality, leadership, responsibility, and proper gender expression were all "genetic traits" that could be inherited and passed down. A popular pastime was to go to "Freak Shows" and stare in amazement of individuals who had be born deformed as a result of some "past sin of their parents". As a result, America began to tighten down on their immigration policies and started instituting the sterilization of citizens deemed "unfit".

# data[].attributes.body
Much of the changes that have come about with America's views and treatment of people with disabilities came about by the Polio Epidemic. For a large portion of the beginning of the 20th century in America children were plagued by the virus. For many years people did not know how their children were contracting the virus or what they could do to stop it. Many children survived but were left with numerous disabilities. The parents of these children and the people affected by polio demanded that they be treated like everyone else and given the same opportunities as able bodied people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
David Oshinsky, the author of "Polio: An American Story" reflects on the history of polio and the final push needed for eradication. http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Topics/Health/Polio-An-American-Story-Interview-with-David-Oshinsky

# data[].attributes.body
The most popular demonstration for equality of people with a disability came about in the 1960s during the Disability Rights Movement. Inspired by all of the other movements of women, blacks, latinos, and the LGBTQ, people with disabilities wanted their voice to be heard too. During this time, through various protests and sit-ins, some legislation was passed. The Architectural Barriers Act was passed in 1968, and the Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1973. Up until this point, schools had the ability to turn away students due to their disabilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disability Law, Policy and Civil Rights Movement

# data[].attributes.body
In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, making it illegal to turn down an applicant due to their disability. Although many milestones have been crossed for people with disabilities, their fight will never be over. With every new administration comes the risk of these hard fought freedom being taken away or no longer enforced. People within disability culture and community must remain vigilant to ensure they are given the same rights and liberties as everyone else in American Society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protesters Arrested Following Republican Health Care Bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Police forcibly removed protesters from outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office. The activists, many of whom had disabilities, were protesting Senate Republicans' health care bill, which includes deep cuts to Medicaid. "The senate version of Trumpcare is even meaner than the house bill," said New York Senator Chuck Schumer.