In honor of
Disability Awareness Month, I would like to share with you the history of
disability beginning with the housing of individuals with disabilities in
institutions, referred to as institutionalization, and ending with what we see
today in the 21st century. This trip we are taking is a difficult one, there is
no doubt, but it is important to know where we came from so that we never go
back there again. This series will be comprised of 4 parts:
Part I: Institutionalization, Eugenics
and Deinstitutionalization
Part II: Legislation and the Disconnect
between Law and Life
Part III: Disability Awareness - who
"they" are and the impacts disability has on individuals
Part IV: The Present and the Future
WARNING: This
article talks about very abusive situations forced upon people with
disabilities. Please be aware that it may be upsetting to some readers. The
stories that follow are true and absolutely heart breaking.
INSTITUTIONALIZATION
When we think of
civil rights movements the plight of African-Americans, women's suffrage and
gay rights immediately spring to mind. However, there is another group of
individuals who have been fighting for their fundamental rights for even longer
and who have not yet attained the respect of the general population. The
history of the disabled population in the United States is a long and sad one.
Individuals who
either were born with their disabilities or acquired them later in life from
injury or disease were largely ignored and hidden away in institutions. What
began as an attempt by a physician in the late nineteenth century to educate
and train them quickly turned into a movement towards automatic
institutionalization. A stigma never before felt by this population developed
and they became the targets of chronic abuse by their families, the medical
community, and society en masse. Not until the middle of the twentieth century,
or thereabouts, were the disabled regarded important enough to be protected and
supported. The civil rights movement of the disabled brought the atrocities and
low living standards they bore to the forefront of society’s awareness. Through
government legislation, improvements in medicine, journalistic exposés and a
massive public outcry, deinstitutionalization was finally set in motion.
We will see,
however, that often there is a lack of correlation between law rhetoric and the
concrete application of policy. We see that legislation passed with the intent
of assisting a whole class of people does not always work in the way it is
expected to. Unintended consequences are not uncommon and are in fact quite the
norm; what looks good on paper does not translate to affectability in real
life. Furthermore, the way in which the U.S. political system is set up allows
for loopholes to be built in to policies.
Disability
awareness is important to understand how and why this population has suffered
as a result of being segregated from the rest of society. An individual’s
disability can have profoundly disastrous effects on a family and can lead to
isolation, mental health problems that would otherwise not be present and
abuse. Discrimination and stigmatization are the byproducts of a society based
on the concept that everyone must be “normal”.
In order to make
changes, we must first look back to see where things went wrong. We must then
look at what has been done to change this and how we can continue defending the
rights of those that may not have the ability to advocate for themselves, but
deserve to have that protection just as much as non-disabled citizens.
THE BEGINNING
Dr. Samuel
Gridley Howe was a very important historical figure in the mid-19th century.
An abolitionist and physician, he also advocated for the blind and
"feeble-minded". He believed in the idea that these individuals could
be educated and that they could serve a valuable function within society. He
started a small school in his father's home by gathering a handful of local
youths who were blind. It proved successful and soon outgrew the walls of his
family's home. In 1832, he established the Perkins School for the Blind in
Massachusetts. He was its first superintendent and continued to be so,
tirelessly, until his death. He is also seen as the precipitator of what is now
known as the institutionalization movement that began in the 1850's.
The
industrialization of society in the early nineteenth century called for a
more-educated population. Those who did not do well in the newly developed
public education system were labeled "feeble-minded". They were
ridiculed and typically experienced horrific living conditions. Dr. Howe was
sensitive to their lives and headed a legislative commission in 1846 to study
their situation. In all, over 700 "idiots" were identified, half of
whom Dr. Howe felt could be helped with teachers and education geared towards
their specific needs. He believed they could be taught self-care and to do
simple labor. In 1849, his dream was realized and the Massachusetts School for
Idiotic Children and Youth was established in Boston with the use of public
funds. Over the next ten years, similar schools were established in several
states. These schools were intended to have a family feel to them. The objective
was to teach the students skills they could use, such as farm or household
chores, to earn a living when they returned to their original communities.
Although
institutionalization began as a humanitarian effort, it soon took a turn in
another direction. The communities from which these individuals came were not
accepting of them upon the completion of their schooling. The feebleminded were
viewed as a social burden and “normal” society felt they were better off living
at the schools permanently. Dr. Howe staunchly opposed permanent
institutionalization. In his final report to the trustees of the Massachusetts
School for Idiotic Children in 1874 when he retired, Howe warned of the
permanent segregation of the "feebleminded," insisting that they
should be integrated into society. "Even idiots have rights . . . !” he
wrote. It would be another half-century before others began to believe in
this vision. The school eventually came under direction of Walter Fernald who
was a supporter of segregating "idiotic" children from the rest of
society. The tragedy that unfolded resulting from the incarceration of
feeble-minded, mentally retarded, disfigured or otherwise abnormal individuals
was set in motion.
INSTITUTIONS
Our history is
riddled with atrocities that the "hidden" population was subjected
to. One such story begins with Fernald and the Massachusetts School. It was
found that a large number of mentally impaired children being
"treated" at this school actually scored in the normal range in their
IQ tests (Walter E. Fernald State School). There were many reports of physical
and sexual abuse which were not exclusive to this institution. Throughout the
country, for the next fifty years, institutions initially intended to serve
those that had a disability became overcrowded, horrific institutions referred
to as "snake pits". States maintained these dilapidated monstrosities
through "legislative penny-pinching" (Maisel, 1946) under the guise
of public service when in actuality they cast aside the needs of those who
needed the most assistance.
The abuse
endured by this population stemmed from several causes. There was found to be
severe understaffing and high turnover rates at all of the institutions
investigated. The number of physicians, nurses and attendants available were
far below the minimum state standards.
At a hospital in Warren, Pennsylvania, for example, the average daily
patient load was twenty-three percent above what it was actually capable of
handling (Maisel, 1946). There were four physicians – one for every 640
patients – when the official schedule called for 12 and any decent standard
would require from 18 to 25 (Maisel, 1946).
The base pay of
attendants, less than $900 a year, was far below the beginning pay rate of
$1950 for prison guards even though the attendants' job was more dangerous and
less pleasant (Maisel, 1946). Many doctors were incompetents, alcoholics and
psychotics who could hold no position in well-run institutions where cure is
the objective (Maisel, 1946). It was extremely rare to find a case of a doctor
who was genuinely interested in curing or helping these patients; it was more
of a case of keeping these patients "in line".
These factors,
along with the stigma of being "feeble-minded", perpetuated the
accepted practice of shutting away these people by any means necessary.
Patients were confined to restraints for days and weeks at a time. These
restraints consisted of thick leather handcuffs, locks and straps, and
restraining sheets that were used to tie ankles, necks, and chests to beds,
benches and chairs. In a high number of hospitals, chemical restraints were
also used. Drugs that would normally only be prescribed and administered by
doctors and nurses even in those times were being used haphazardly by untrained
attendants. There was a reported case in a Pennsylvania state hospital of a man
in his mid-20's who was over-sedated by attendants as their method of keeping
him under control. He ultimately died because his sedation was not overseen by
a doctor; rather, there was a "free hand" administration of drugs
rampant in this particular hospital (Maisel, 1946).
Many hospitals
did not properly feed their patients. The food served was likened to what could
be found in garbage cans. At a New Jersey hospital an attendant noted that he
had "seen cole-slaw salad thrown loose on the table, [and] the patients
[were] expected to grab it as animals would…”(Maisel, 1946) There were many
cases where the patients starved to death because of not receiving the minimum
nourishment necessary to sustain life. Many could not feed themselves, and the
shortage of workers meant residents often did not eat properly (Dugger, 1993).
Byberry Mental
Hospital was an infamous institution known for its decrepit building conditions
and treatment of patients. The wards were overcrowded to the point that the
floors could not be seen through the rickety cots, while thousands more slept
on the bare floors (Maisel, 1946). Hundreds of patients were not given a stitch
of clothing and were forced to live in bare rooms with concrete floors. They
were not given anything to occupy their days or even have chairs or beds to sit
in. They lived in filth; the rooms smelled of urine and feces. Daylight was
their only source of light and even that was filtered in through half-inch
holes punched into steel-plated windows; cloudy days and nightfall meant hours and
days of blackness with no relief. The cries of the insane echo[ed] unheard from
the peeling plaster of the walls (Maisel, 1946).
Willowbrook
State School was a New York state-supported school for children with mental
retardation from the 1930's through 1987. An exposé in 1972 showed that it,
too, was overcrowded, housing over 6,000 children when the mandated maximum was
4,000. It became known as a warehouse for New York City's mentally disabled
children (Willowbrook State School). As many as sixty extremely disabled people
were packed into one big locked room during the day, for years on end, with
only a few attendants to supervise (Dugger, 1993). A close investigation showed
patients were forced to live with inadequate sanitary facilities which virtually
guaranteed the spreading of disease.
A researcher
from New York University, Dr. Saul Krugman, proposed research that appeared
promising in distinguishing between strains of Hepatitis and in developing a
vaccine (DuBois). However, his study design involved feeding children local
strains of live Hepatitis – deliberately infecting them (DuBois). The claim
was, only children whose parents gave informed consent were used in the
questionable study. However, critics asserted that the dangers of the
experiment were downplayed to parents. Also, because the school was
overcrowded, the only rooms available were in the experimental wing which left
parents with no options other than to consent to subjecting their children to
the study (DuBois). A public outcry brought the study to a halt but not until
hundreds of non-infected children were made sick and were physically abused by
members of the school's staff (DeBello, 2008). The grandmother of a patient
there recounts seeing the condition of her four-year-old granddaughter who was
admitted there, "You could smell her. Her little toes would be so chafed I
had to pull them apart. I had to cut her hair short it was so matted."
(Dugger, 1993)
EUGENICS
Eugenics is
another despicable part of the history of the disabled community. This trend,
which had its inception towards the late 1800’s, attempted to improve the
quality of American citizens by implementing restrictive social policies that
discouraged marriage and/or reproduction of individuals who were presumed to
have inheritable undesirable traits. This movement sought to link social ills
such as crime, prostitution, poverty, juvenile delinquency and promiscuity to
people with cognitive disabilities (Snyder & Mitchell 624-625). It is also
in this movement the term “feeblemindedness” was created. There was a tiered
hierarchy of defectiveness developed in order to be able to categorize
different levels of feeblemindedness. Idiots referred to individuals with a
mental age of two years or less; imbeciles represented those with an arrested
mentality of three to seven years; and morons referred to those attaining a
mental age of no more than twelve years of age (Snyder & Mitchell
624-625).
Using this pseudo-science as a
rationale, prominent figures of the early twentieth century attempted to purify
the American race by passing legislation legalizing compulsory sterilization of
individuals believed to be "feeble-minded", epileptic, or otherwise
“socially inadequate” individuals. Because this latter criterion was so broad
the number of people who were at risk of falling into this category was almost
infinite. Those who were institutionalized were almost guaranteed to be
sterilized. Approximately 60,000 Americans were sterilized due to compulsory
sterilization of institutionalized patients. Although it was a topic of
interest throughout the world, the United States was among the less than a
handful of countries most involved with this pseudo-science. Between 1907 and 1937 thirty-two states required
sterilization of various citizens viewed as undesirable: the mentally ill or
handicapped, those convicted of sexual, drug, or alcohol crimes and others
viewed as "degenerate"(McCarrick & Coutts, 2010).
The most
infamous case of eugenic sterilization was that of young Carrie Buck. Shortly
after her birth, her mother was placed in an institution for the feebleminded.
Carrie was raised by foster parents and attended school until the sixth grade.
At 17, she became pregnant. Her foster parents committed her to an institution
on the grounds of feeblemindedness and promiscuity. She gave birth to a
daughter who was adopted by her foster parents. The child died at the age of
eight due to complications resulting from the measles. Soon after being
committed, Carrie was picked as the first patient to undergo forced
sterilization after the enactment of the Eugenical Sterilization Act in
Virginia. Officials claimed that Carrie and her mother shared the hereditary
traits of feeblemindedness and promiscuity therefore Carrie was the
"probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring."
(Lombardo) In Buck v. Bell (1927) the Supreme Court of the United States upheld
the sterilization law, with Justice Holmes infamously proclaiming in his
opinion “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Carrie Buck, along with
her daughter, Vivian, was sterilized.
But this
“justice” was in actuality an abuse of government and law which by extension
was abuse of “degenerate” citizens. Carrie was not promiscuous; she was raped
by a nephew of her foster parents who sought to cover up the family
embarrassment by institutionalizing her. At her trial, “experts” who had never
even met with Carrie testified to her feeblemindedness and moral inadequacies (Lombardo).
Not only was her defense attorney childhood friends with the prosecuting
attorney, he was also a longtime supporter of sterilization and a founder of
the colony to which she was committed (Lombardo). School report cards showed
that Carrie had passed each year with very good marks and Vivian had made the
honor roll (Pitzer, 2009). She and countless others were the victims of corrupt
individuals who used their education and standing in society to abuse the
judicial system in order to reach personal political ends.
Fortunately, we
have seen the end of compulsive sterilization albeit more than a little late
for the more than 65,000 people in the United States alone who were forced to
endure this procedure. The Nazis’ cited the American eugenics ideology as their
model behind their “ethnic cleansing”. The systematic murder of over 250,000
disabled people between 1939 and 1945 helped to finally dilute the fierce
support for engineering a master human race here in the U.S.
DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
SOCIAL MOVEMENT
The population
of people with intellectual disabilities in public institutions peaked at
194,650 in 1967 (Community for All Tool Kit, 2004). Starting around the 1970’s,
we began to see the deinstitutionalization of what is regarded as the disabled
population. Between 1970 and 1984, 24 institutions in 12 states were closed, by
1988, 44 institutions in 20 states had been closed, and by 2000, there were 125
closures, or planned closures, in 37 states (Community for All Tool Kit, 2004).
One reason for this new trend is that in the first half of the 1940’s,
psychiatrists treating war veterans for combat-related mental illnesses began
to realize that treatment for mental illnesses in civilians would be best
treated outside traditional institutions (United States). Also, conscientious
objectors during World War II refused to serve in the military based on
religious and moral reasons. As alternatives, roughly two to three thousand
were sent to work in institutions and asylums that were understaffed (Deinstitutionalization).
They witnessed firsthand the abuse suffered by the institutionalized and began
to log their experiences. If not for them, the reality of institutional life
described earlier would likely not have been brought to the forefront of
people’s awareness. In 1946, Life magazine printed an explosive account,
“Bedlam 1946: Most U.S. Mental Hospitals are a Shame and a Disgrace”, that
depicted the atrocities endured by the institutionalized. This particular exposé
was based on photos and information gathered by the conscientious objectors and
on the firsthand witnessing of the reporter Albert Q. Maisel.
At the same time
the exposé was published, a public campaign to improve the living situations
and overall care and treatment of people with mental illness was launched by
the National Mental Health Foundation (NMHF), an extremely influential entity
to the cause. Articles announcing prominent figures such as former Supreme
Court Justice Owens and Eleanor Roosevelt as supporters of this movement were
sent to newspapers across the nation (Taylor, 2003). Mrs. Roosevelt even met
with the Conscientious Objectors personally and supported them through her
national newspaper column, “My Day” (Taylor, 2003). Throughout the late 1940s
and into the 1950s, NMHF conducted aggressive public awareness campaigns to
change public attitudes toward people with mental illness (Taylor, 2003).
A social
movement sprung to life. More and more exposés in the following years peeled
back the layers of secrecy shrouding these abominations of our country’s
history such as the one at Willowbrook Hospital by Geraldo Rivera. Furthermore,
doctors and parents outraged over the treatment of patients in this institution
began going public. They picketed the administration building, blocked traffic
on the street and talked to reporters (Dugger, 1993). Communities were shocked
to learn of the horrific environments the disabled were being forced to live
in. Public sentiment towards the disabled began to change.
GOVERNMENT ACTION
The powerful
philosophy of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s opened up the eyes of the
United States government. By this time important political figures, such as
Senator Robert Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy, were formally denouncing
the revolting circumstances of the nation’s asylums and called for federal
policy changes in the treatment of those with mental illnesses. Rosemary
Kennedy, one of the President’s sisters, was described as slow and possibly
dyslexic and mentally retarded. Her family chose to place her in an
institution. Perhaps this was the strongest motivator in the Kennedys’ fight
for equal rights for the disabled. “The time has come for a great national
effort,” stated President Kennedy (Kennedy, 1963).
In his first
year in office, President Kennedy established the President’s Panel on Mental
Retardation. Six task forces were created and charged with conducting an
“intensive search for solutions” to the problems experienced by people with
mental retardation (Minnesota Governor). The 1962 report of the Panel on Mental
Retardation heralded the beginning of federal involvement and fiscal aid to
states (Minnesota Governor). The report contained 112 recommendations under the
headings of research…a new legal and social concept of mental retardation,
increased educational opportunities to learn about mental retardation, and
public education and information programs (Minnesota Governor).
The Community Mental Health
Act of 1963 (CMHA) was legislation passed by Kennedy’s administration
which played a large part in the deinstitutionalization trend. The CMHA
provided grants to states for the establishment of local mental health centers,
under the overview of the National Institute of Mental Health
(Community Mental Health Act). In 1965, an Intermediate Care Facility
(ICF) program was set up for the elderly and disabled adults under the Social
Security Act (Lakin, Larson, Salmi, Scott, 2009).
Three outcomes were intended by
proponents of this legislation: 1) to provide substantial federal incentives
for upgrading the physical environment and the quality of care and habilitation
being provided in large public ID/DD facilities; 2) to neutralize incentives
for states to place persons with ID/DD in nonstate nursing homes and/or to
certify their large state facilities as SNFs; and 3) to provide a program for
care and habilitation (“active treatment”) specifically focused on the needs of
persons with ID/DD rather than upon medical care. Although the population of
state facilities continued to decrease on a yearly basis states overwhelmingly
certified their public institutions to participate in the ICF program (Lakin et
al., 2009).
Proponents of community based
services used statistics generated by the ICF program to propel their argument.
They argued that the program provided an incentive to maintain large state
facilities by offering federal funding. Funds that could have been diverted to
develop and support community services and programs were instead used to
renovate large facilities in order to receive these federal funds. This model
also promoted a single standard for care for ICF residents regardless of the
nature of their disability or degree of capacity for independence.
Section 2176 of
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981 created the Medicaid Home
and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waiver program. This was passed in order to
provide non-institutional services to individuals who are disabled that were in
or at risk of being placed in institutions. However, many in the advocacy field
began to get a sense that there were many more people with ID/DD living in
nursing homes than were appropriately served in them (Lakin et al., 2009).
Congress attempted to rectify the situation by passing the OBRA of 1987 which
restricted the criteria for patients permitted to enter a Medicaid approved
nursing facility to ensure that only individuals needing the nursing and
medical services offered would be admitted.
The OBRA of 1986
proved to do very little as the barrage of court cases of the 1990’s suing
facilities in violation proved. There have been court cases over the course of
the last half century that has given rights to those who are disabled and their
families. There have also been cases in which people or entities have been
found guilty of discrimination based on disability even after legislation has
been passed in order to end this type of discrimination.
A landmark
example is the Olmstead decision (Olmstead v. L.C
and E.W). In 1999, two women, institutionalized by the state of Georgia,
fought for their right to live in their own home in their community without
losing government benefits. Georgia claimed that by allowing these women to
move into the community, it would lead to the closing of state-run facilities
and disrupt government funding to individuals in these facilities. However, the
Supreme Court found that forcing individuals to remain in institutions in cases
where their attending physicians felt it was unnecessary violated their rights
as written in Title II of the ADA. The 'integration mandate' of the Americans
with Disabilities Act requires public agencies to provide services "in the
most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with
disabilities." (Supreme Court Upholds ADA 'Integration Mandate' in
Olmstead decision) The Court noted that confinement in an institution severely
diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals – including family
relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational
advancement, and cultural enrichment. (United States, 2000) It further found that
it was a violation of a person’s rights as written in Title II of the ADA to
force them to be institutionalized in order to receive their Medicaid benefits.
Medicaid is the largest health insurance program used by low-income persons
with disabilities. Approximately twenty percent of the American population with
severe disabilities has no other health coverage. This means that Medicaid
serves over five million consumers who have no other way of covering their
life-sustaining needs. This ruling increased the momentum of
deinstitutionalization and began a trend towards home and community-based
services (HCBS) (Stroman, 2003).
However, it was
apparent that not enough had been done. Society made disabled people
"invisible by shutting them away in segregated facilities" Rep.
George Miller (D.-Calif.) said in a Congressional debate on the ADA bill in
1989. (Supreme Court Upholds ADA 'Integration Mandate' in Olmstead Decision)
Out of sight, out of mind had been a long time standard for how to “deal with”
individuals with mental and physical disabilities. Medicaid has been referred
to having an “institutional bias” because it has historically preferred
nursing-home facilities, such as ICF’s, to community-based long term care
(LTC). In 2005, Medicaid paid $101 billion
for LTC services, the majority of which was for institutional care (63
percent). (Coffey, 2008) In 2008, nationally, HCBS recipients made up 84.9
percent of the total HCBS and ICF recipient population but used only 65.1
percent of total HCBS and ICF-MR expenditures (Lakin et al., 2009). The
per-person expenditures for recipients of HCBS services were lower in every
state than those for ICF recipients (Lakin et al., 2009).
The Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) helped to further deinstitutionalization by making
very significant changes to state Medicaid coverage of long-term care services.
States now have the option to provide home and community based services (HCBS)
as a state plan benefit (Coffey, 2008).
States can
provide HCBS benefits in three ways:
·
An optional
1915(c) HCBS waiver
·
A mandatory home
health benefit
·
An optional
state plan personal care services benefit
Since its
inception, the number of people requesting HCBS has steadily risen. In 2006,
280,176 individuals were on a waiting list for HCBS services, up from 206,427
individuals in 2004 (Crowley & Risa, 2003).
The DRA also enacted the Money
Follows the Person program (MFP) which is a program intended to help
individuals currently receiving services in institutions transition into their
communities and allow them to self-direct their care plan. The government
provides a cash incentive for states to expand their HCBS program funding. The
Medicaid dollars will “follow the person” so that these individuals will be
able to retain their Medicaid coverage and have it delivered through HCBS
programs. It already matched at least half of state Medicaid expenses. Under
MFP, states will receive an enhanced match for the HCBS services provided for
the first twelve months to each individual transitioned under the program
(Coffey, 2008).
A state plan option allows for states to
provide HCBS waiver services without needing to get a waiver for individuals
with disabilities up to 150 percent of the poverty level. As promising as these
options appear to be, they are very narrow in scope and do not allow for all of
those who wish to live in their communities to do so. Furthermore, few states
have taken up the state plan option to date (Crowley & Risa, 2003).
However, there is still an institutional bias
in the Medicaid system. What this means is that the way Medicaid has been set
up promotes the institutionalization of individuals as opposed to home and
community based services (HCBS). In June 2008 an estimated 51.8 percent of HCBS
recipients received services in settings other than the home of natural or
adoptive family members (Lakin et al., 2009). While there has been a trend for
wanting deinstitutionalization the numbers show that a large number of disabled
individuals have no choice but to enter an institution. In 2005, 59 percent of
Medicaid spending on long-term care and support services was spent on
institutions whereas the national average of the same type of spending on home
and community based services was only 37 percent (Crowley & Risa, 2003).
There is currently a large movement towards person-centered planning, where the individual chooses what to do, where to go and who to be with. We will discuss this further in Part IV. Next week, Part II, we will look at legislation that has been passed in the areas of accessibility and education.
Photo credits:
theladdschool.com
http://www.exceptionalcatholicmn.com/we-remember.html
Sources:
DeBello, Vanessa.
"History." Willowbrook State School – A Voice Behind the Wall.
Blogspot,
DuBois, James. "Hepatitis
Studies at the Willowbrook State School for Children with Mental
Retardation." Ethics in Mental Health Research. Saint Louis
University and Missouri
Institute of Mental Health, n.d. Web. 20 May 2010.
<http://www.emhr.net/download.php?id=4>.
Dugger, Celia. "Big Day for
Ex-Residents Of Center for the Retarded." New York Times (1993):
Maisel, Albert. "Bedlam 1946:
Most U.S. Mental Hospitals are a Shame and a Disgrace." Time
Life Magazine. 6 May 1946: Print.
Pfeiffer, David. "Samuel
Gridley Howe and 'Schools for the Feeble-minded'." Ragged Edge
Online. Advocado Press, 2003. Web. 4 September 2010.
"Samuel Gridley
Howe." FamousAmericans.net. Appleton's Cyclopedia of American
Biography,
