PREFACE
Mental health concerns have been a focal area since the turn of the century. Reports in print and electronic media have emphasised the need to live a healthy life. Health is now increasingly being looked at in not just physical but also in psychological terms. Psychological well-being has, in fact, become an important discussion theme in popular discourse. This interest in psychological well-being has twofold implications. On the one hand, it shows an increasing awareness of the need for living a healthy life. On the other, it also indicates that there is an increase in stress in everyday life, which merits attention. Emphasis on competition and success has brought about lifestyle changes, and added to the complexity in relationships, maintaining balance, and finding space, freedom, and meaning in life. All of these highlight the need to address mental health concerns in contemporary times. Nowhere is this need to address mental health concerns felt more acutely than in school settings. Media reports on violence and aggression in school settings have been received with feelings of anxiety as well as awe. Violence and aggression are manifested in many forms. They range from simple, verbal bullying, attitudes of indifference, and defiance towards school and social norms, to more serious forms of assault and attack. In some cases, physical violence towards students and teachers has also been reported. These incidents indicate the direction of impending change, towards a society that is marked by greater intolerance, impatience, and often a complete disregard for others. While there is no denying that there is an urgent need to curb such a trend, teachers and parents alike have expressed
helplessness in being able to deal with it. Many helping professionals while expressing their concern about this growing trend, at the same time, acknowledge that this is often a reflection of feelings of being ignored, not receiving love and acceptance, and not finding an outlet for cathartic expression, often experienced by children and adolescents.
Taking this further, it is also important to recognise that the years that children and adolescents spend in school are usually marked by long hours of studies, heavy school bags, and frequent examinations. Academicians and educationists have long indicated this growing social trend of valuing academic meritocracy over holistic development. Growing children are thus left with little free space to think, explore, and develop as individuals. Instead, they are forced to learn to compete, compare, and value success. The past decade has witnessed changes in the education system in the country. Many private schools now emphasise multifarious exposure and attempt to create opportunities for new experiences across different scholastic and co-scholastic domains. Unfortunately, participation in co-scholastic activities has become as much a matter of competition as in the scholastic domain. As a consequence, children are not just required to excel in academics but also in a variety of other activities. Desires, interests, and a carefree, natural childhood are no longer visible. This is also evident in reality television shows that provide quick and wide exposure to many children who wish to participate. The need for instant, albeit shortlived fame is evident in both the adults and children who are participants in the shows. In turn, this phenomenon has led to mushrooming of music, dance, and sports institutions, along with the overgrowth of academic coaching centres that focus on performance-based studies. Children attending school are often left alone to grapple with the mounting, unchecked, and often unrecognised pressure that may have arisen from what may be wellintentioned advice by significant others at home and school.
The concerns are more complex during the adolescent years. Sex education is still a taboo in most schools despite national bodies across the world advocating its need. Likewise, although it has been
recommended that curricular spaces be provided for Sexuality and Adolescence Education Programmes in schools, in effect they have not received serious attention by most schools. While on paper, most schools are expected to conduct activities and workshops for developing and promoting life skills, these often remain only on paper, especially when teachers are themselves not well prepared to address the relevant concerns. Likewise, most parents experience inhibitions in discussing sexuality-related issues with children. Adolescents then turn to peers and media to meet their curiosities. These may or may not be adequate and accurate sources of information. The result is misinformation, half-baked notions and ideas, and persistent curiosity.
The concerns listed above are only a few common, pertinent aspects of the lives of school-going children. Children and adolescents in fact experience a lot more. Life in contemporary times is marked by independence at home, often with little family time spent together. Nuclear family structures, all members of the family employed in jobs involving long hours, and increasing engagement with technological gadgets are a few of the reasons which account for adolescents not being able to find a listening ear at home. Schools are focused on completing courses and other curricular requirements on time and expect that all children will adjust to this. For the child who is lost, facing difficulties, or is unable to cope with the pace, schools at best employ a single psychologist or counsellor, who would have no time to lend an empathetic ear to every child. S/he would be completely preoccupied with referrals and individual cases. There seems to be neither scope nor space for the promotion of psychological well-being in most children. What usually transpires in schools is that only when everyday concerns become deep-seated problems that they get reported and addressed. As a result, the mental health of children remains a dimension requiring cure, rather than promotion and maintenance.
At the outset, it is important to highlight here that school mental health needs to be looked at from a preventive, promotive, and conservative perspective rather than one based on cure. Along with family, the school serves as an important institution that provides
space for promoting mental health of school-going children. By providing support and guidance to children, the school can provide a healthy space to grow, hone one’s talents, and discover oneself. The teachers, the school environment, and the activities organised in the classroom and school have the potential to promote physical and psychological well-being in children and adolescents. The school must work in tandem with the home towards building a healthy, loving, caring, and supportive environment.
This book is an attempt to address the concerns discussed in the earlier paragraphs. It presents an understanding of mental health not as a medical or cure-intensive model but as one aimed at promoting healthy living. The idea is to help parents, teachers, and significant others involved in caregiving functions towards children, to understand the needs, dilemmas, issues, and concerns that children and adolescents experience. The book runs on two intertwining threads that provide the linkage across the various themes addressed. First, it works on the premise that parents and teachers are joint stakeholders working towards a common goal of providing a healthy environment for the growth of children. Any attempt at preventing, promoting, conserving, or curing mental health issues for school-going children will be incomplete if it is onesided. In other words, the school and home need to collaborate together towards achieving this goal. Second, it is important to understand the experiences of children. The experiences of schoolgoing children need to be understood from their perspective to get deeper insights into their worldview.
The book, accordingly, begins by conceptualising mental health and presenting the theories that form the basis of psychotherapy and mental health practices. It further builds perspective on the mental health of children and the various dimensions of well-being that emerge at home and school. In addition, the book serves as a practice handbook that provides directions and suggestions for what can be done to engage proactively with children and adolescents.
The first chapter begins by describing the historical evolution of the concept of mental health and highlights the nature and need for focusing on mental health in schools. The focus then shifts to the
theories and therapies that underlie mental health practices. The next three chapters present the evolution of theories in psychology. These are represented in the psychotherapeutic traditions of Psychoanalysis, Behaviourism and Cognitive Behaviourism, and Humanism. Chapter 5 provides an overview of alternative therapeutic practices that are commonly used by therapists and counsellors across the world. Chapter 6 presents an understanding of human nature, informed by the theories and therapies discussed. Against this backdrop, the conceptualisation of a mentally healthy personality is also discussed.
Recent trends across the world have emphasised mental health concerns in curricular frameworks and policies. Chapter 7 enables caregivers to understand initiatives and build appropriate environments for children and adolescents to grow and function. The next chapter focuses on understanding the world from the perspective of children and attempts to bridge the gap between adults and children. Chapter 9 focuses on understanding the context in which children live and grow. Often, children in school are understood as a homogeneous group with similar needs, interests, potentials, capabilities, and concerns. The chapter goes beyond this myth to uncover the complexities and uniqueness of the world of each child. This includes concerns at the personal as well as social level, including families, peers, and societies. Chapter 10 is specifically located in the school context. It aims at identifying existing spaces in the school system that provide opportunities for addressing issues and challenges in the domain of school mental health. The discussion in Chapter 11 emphasises taking a proactive stance. This chapter provides broad guidelines for building a school environment that addresses the concerns raised in the earlier chapters.
The chapters that follow use the perspective built in the earlier chapters to provide specific suggestions. The framework developed so far is used to address specific age-related concerns. Chapter 12 discusses some of the behavioural problems that are manifested in school-going children. The focus is on both identification and management. The next chapter addresses addiction and abuse that
are commonly seen in school-going children. It challenges the myth that addiction and abuse are adult problems, not visible in young children. Chapter 14 focuses on addressing interpersonal conflicts. School is an important place for social adjustment. This chapter focuses on helping children understand the perspective of others, particularly elders. It therefore addresses inter-generational conflicts and how to resolve them. The chapter also addresses the need to build skills of expression and articulation, thereby strengthening communication. Chapter 15 addresses a major concern in school education. Sexuality education is an important aspect for schoolgoing children. In the light of changing policies and perspectives, teachers often feel inept in addressing these issues in school. This chapter provides suggestions for age appropriate activities that can be organised in schools. Chapter 16 addresses the overarching theme of self and identity. In this chapter, the focus is on providing specific strategies that would help children develop self-confidence, understand themselves better, and develop a sense of identity that would form the base for their place in society in their adult years. Chapter 17 focuses on stress and anxiety. Tension, pressure, frustration, anxiety, and stress are commonly used terms by schoolgoing children. This chapter attempts to enable teachers and parents to demystify stress and anxiety, identify causes of stress, and enable children to cope with them effectively. In the final chapter, the focus is on parents and teachers as counsellors. Caregivers have to play an important role in helping children to deal with academic, social, emotional, and personal challenges. They, thus, need to develop the skills and techniques for counselling which have been discussed at length in this chapter.
Besides sourcing theories, statistics, and existing research literature, the book also draws heavily from the real-life engagements of school counsellors, teachers, researchers, and experts in the field. These have been presented in the form of case vignettes, narratives, and dialogues. The purpose is to illustrate key areas and highlight the roots of various experiences of children and adolescents at home and school. Most cases presented in the book are based on real-life events and experiences. Names of the persons
involved have been changed wherever necessary, in order to maintain privacy and confidentiality.
It must be remembered that socio-cultural milieu of the contemporary world presents great heterogeneity. Culture, context, and geographical variations across regions abound. The lives and experiences of children and families from urban, tribal, rural, and sub-urban backgrounds are usually quite different. Yet, the boundaries between rural and urban are no longer as clearly defined as earlier, owing to the advent of modernisation and access to technology. Recognising the plurality that exists, while the contents of the present book have an urban thrust, it is hoped that helping professionals would be able to adapt the points and issues raised, to rural contexts and settings as well
Throughout the book, the readers may remember that the notions of mental health and well-being go beyond the curative perspective. In fact, the book will serve to highlight the need and processes involved in maintaining mental and emotional well-being by going beyond the prevention and cure model, focusing on the promotional one instead.
1 CONCEPTUALISINGMENTAL HEALTH
DOI: 10.4324/9781032699431-1
Historical Evolution and Contemporary Notions of Mental Health
Work in the area of mental health started with a focus on mental hygiene. The term mental hygiene was first used by William Sweetzer in the fifteenth century. The mental hygiene point of view works on the assumption that any psychological ill health, when it occurs, has to be dealt with like any other physical illness. Focus has to be on its treatment and on removing the causes and symptoms of ill health. This may be termed as the illness perspective in mental health. Here the emphasis is on cure rather than on maintaining good health. This perspective dominated studies in mental health till the last quarter of the twentieth century.
School-going children regularly face difficulties in adjustment to the changing environment at home and school. Developing friendship bonds, handling academic pressures, changing dynamics in family relationships, sibling relationships, and understanding self are some of the many concerns they face. Any of these areas can become a cause of distress. If unmanaged, this distress can lead to vulnerability to disturbances in a person’s mental health. Any form of disturbance in mental ill health, even if it appears very minor, can
affect the overall functioning of an individual and thus merits attention.
The shortcoming of the curative perspective is that mental health becomes a concern only when something goes wrong! This is somewhat similar to taking medicinal pills when one’s body manifests symptoms of discomfort, such as a headache or fever. In school settings, this translates into an ignorance of students’ needs till the time they convey the same through their words or actions. Thus, a violent child would be complained about, taken to the counsellor, or given therapy. However, till the time a disturbed child does not express his discomfort, he/she may be left unattended. Quiet children, who are not troublemakers, thus, often go unnoticed in class. Their behaviour does not show any overt signs of discomfort and therefore, does not demand attention. This is equally true for children at home. Parents tend to direct attention towards the more demanding child. Consider the following case:
Seven-year-old Grace went for a family holiday during her school summer vacations. On the return journey, their car met with an accident. She was sitting in the back seat with her mother. Both of them escaped unhurt but her father was admitted to the hospital with the help of some local residents. He was later shifted to a hospital close to their home. Although her mother and grandparents attempted to keep her insulated from the turmoil at home, hospital, medicines, death, money, and prayer in hushed, urgent tones, were words that she heard every day. During this time, Grace was hardly allowed to meet him. The one time that she did go to the hospital, she saw various tubes connected to his body, and he was barely able to smile at her. The card that she had made for him was quietly placed at his bedside. Her father eventually recovered after spending a month in the hospital. Her vacations were just getting over and she finally joined school. In school, she did not discuss this accident. Her class teacher noticed that she had become quieter and withdrawn. But her work continued to be undisturbed and she
did not show any trouble. The image of his tired, ill and pale face continued to haunt her for many nights.
Schools often do not recognise their role in helping children cope with stress. Where teachers willingly take on the role of counsellors, they are often clueless about what they can do. It is usually seen that the teacher often only steps in when the situation goes out of hand and the child’s behaviour becomes a source of disruption to classroom processes. In Grace’s case, for instance, the teacher is quite likely to not take any action since she was a regular student, completed her work on time, and did nothing that disrupted the classroom. From Grace’s perspective, in the absence of conversation about the accident, at home or at school, she was left to grapple with the chaos, bewilderment, and sense of insecurity that she was experiencing in her life, all by herself. The relevant questions to ask are: What could be the possible long-term consequences of her experience? Would she have coped better had she been able to talk about it? Was the family’s approach at insulation a healthy way of dealing with the situation? Should the school at all play a role in helping her deal with the stress that she may have experienced? In such situations, parents, siblings, and often members of the extended family would have to show greater sensitivity. Conversations in hushed tones and the apparent attempt at keeping children insulated from disturbing family incidents or impending disturbances can sometimes be counterproductive. The child may not be expressive but may end up feeling lost and disconnected. Care should be taken to ensure that the child is emotionally ready to face the family situation through engaging in conversations with the child and allowing him/her to share concerns, fears, and insecurities if any.
The school’s role becomes all the more significant if we look at the same situation from a mental health rather than a mental hygiene perspective. The mental health perspective not only focuses on dealing with illness but encompasses healthy functioning, social adjustment, emotional balance, and also an ability to enjoy one’s
life! The term is often used interchangeably with behaviour health, with some psychologists looking at mental health only from a biological perspective, thus focusing only on the prevention and cure of pathological mental illnesses such as clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and the like. Behaviour health is seen to include behavioural problems such as substance abuse, violence and aggression, anger management, etc. For the purpose of this book, the term mental health is understood to include not just mental illnesses and behavioural problems, but also maintaining psychological and emotional well-being. It includes conceptualisations of self and identity, self-esteem, coping with developmental changes, and social pressures. WHO provides a holistic perspective on mental health, describing it as a state of wellbeing in which an individual realises his or her own abilities. The individual is able to cope with the stresses of everyday life. Further, the person puts in productive work and contributes to the community.
Thus, the term mental health has both individual and social dimensions. As mentioned earlier, it encompasses social adjustment. At the same time, it also includes how people perceive themselves. Further, mental health is conceptualised as a continuum with illness and wellness on opposite sides. Each individual has the potential to move along the continuum towards illness or wellness depending on his/her experiences and sense of psychological resilience. In other words, the status of one’s mental health is not static. Each person has the potential for improving mental health or lapsing into states of mental ill health, even if temporarily.
Let us pause here and revisit Grace’s case that we had discussed earlier. If we look at the same case from a mental health perspective, the teacher would probably not wait for signs of distress in a student’s behaviour. For instance, an informal discussion about the vacations in class, or a simple class task asking students to write or speak about their experiences during the vacations, may have initiated conversation for Grace. The more important aspect here is for parents and teachers to develop personal bonds with students so that they feel comfortable in approaching them to share and discuss
important events and experiences in their lives, their fears, anxieties, and emotional states. Creating spaces for the same is a significant first step in this direction. We will discuss how to do this in greater detail in subsequent chapters.
If we closely examine the central idea addressed in both the mental hygiene and mental health perspectives, we would see that the emphasis is on understanding what is considered ‘normal’. Let us explore this notion of ‘normalcy’ a little more.
Let’s look at who is considered to be mentally healthy. We would see that the emphasis is on social adjustment. In simpler words, people who behave and live within socially acceptable norms are considered to be normal. Any deviation from social norms is considered ‘abnormal’ or away from normal. For instance, in many cultures across the world, boys are not expected to have long hair. In schools in particular, length of hair is seen as an indicator of hygiene as well as disciplinary norms. There are of course exceptions to this norm, for people from particular religious and cultural backgrounds. But by and large, a young boy, adolescent, or man will not be expected to have long hair, or even be accepted if he chooses to wear his hair long. Similar notions are also associated with the choice of clothes where it is seen that girls/women experiment more with colours and prints than boys/men. It is not uncommon for people to stop on the streets to stare at individuals who have defied social norms. These norms extend to notions of dressing, eating, behaving, interacting, sexuality, etc. Other examples of normalcy include well-defined and often predetermined ways of coping, demonstrating emotions, and behaving in specific settings and occasions, which an individual is expected to have. Any digression from the social norms with respect to these evokes labels of being odd, abnormal, peculiar, non-conformist, maladjusted, etc. from the lens of society.
The notion of mental health also includes the dimension of personal adjustment within it. Emotional and psychological wellbeing thus are also subsumed in the concept of normalcy. It is expected that in addition to being socially well adjusted, a ‘normal’ person would be able to live in comfort and peace with oneself. This
means that besides maintaining an outward persona to meet social norms, the person should be able to live an honest and fulfilling life. Look at the following case.
Samuel studies in class ten and is popular among his friends. He is considered a star student in school as he is well behaved and excels in all fields, including academics, sports, debate, and theatre. He is particularly good at mathematics and science and has a school record of always scoring above 95% in both subjects. His teachers and peers often attribute it to his family lineage. Both his parents are renowned scientists. His teachers and family have never doubted that he would take up science post class ten and make a career in the field.
Samuel is happy with the appreciation that he gets. But he has never been interested in science. He wants to take up humanities and study history. He is fascinated by ancient civilisations and reads avidly about them. His social science teacher is aware of his interest but has never encouraged him to take up humanities in senior classes. In a way, his career path has been pre-decided even without asking him. Torn between personal and social desires, Samuel has developed a friends’ circle away from home and school. He meets them on the pretext of having all night study groups and engages in alcohol and mild recreational drugs. He feels happier with his new friends, than with his family and friends from school.
Do you think Samuel would be happy studying science in senior classes? What could be the possible reasons because of which he is not able to voice his interest in humanities? What will be the consequences if he is not able to study humanities? These are some of the concerns that emerge from Samuel’s case. Part of the stress that Samuel is experiencing is due to pressure created by parents and teachers for performing well. On the outside, Samuel is a welladjusted teenage boy. However, his own thoughts would reveal
some serious dilemmas that he would be dealing with, often with little help from his social circle. He lives a dual life where his school teachers, peers, and family are as yet unaware of his coping through substance misuse. Looking at all aspects of his case, we can see that Samuel is using unhealthy coping mechanisms to deal with his struggles. Would we consider Samuel, who appears socially well adjusted, to be normal? The answer is no. A healthy, normal person would be able to accept his concerns and express them to and address them with the help of family and friends. He would thus not need to lead a secret life that serves as an escape mechanism and can lead to serious mental and physical consequences in the long run. Thus, normalcy would include both personal as well as social adjustment.
Models of Normality
The discipline of mental health draws heavily upon psychology. With the changing perspectives that have marked the evolution of the discipline of psychology, there have been parallel shifts in mental health as well. Here, we will discuss how these transitions in perspectives, along with new advancements have changed the notion of what is considered normal over a period of time. However, it is important to understand that with the advent of new notions, older conceptualisations only get added to and enriched. None of the notions is entirely wrong, nor have they died down with age. Instead, new additions and understandings have helped to broaden the field. At present, the notion of normality can be understood from three main perspectives: biomedical, statistical, and socio-cultural. The biomedical model of normality is akin to the mental hygiene perspective. It identifies a person to be normal when the person is physically fit and does not show symptoms of illness. An absence of clinical psychological illnesses, such as depression, bipolar disorders, etc. and physical ailments, is considered to be a sign of good health. In this model, a person diagnosed with illness can move to normality after ‘cure’ through medicines and therapy. Cure would refer to absence of behavioural manifestation of abnormality.
In the statistical model, individual behaviour which is in consonance with the behaviour of the majority of the population is considered to be normal. It works on the concept of the normal probability curve (NPC). Nearly 70 per cent of the population lies within one standard deviation from the mean under the NPC. Behaviour that is akin to the behaviour of the population in this range is considered normal. The greater the deviation from this standard, the greater would be the abnormality. Persons who are two standard deviations away from the mean are considered to be mentally unhealthy. The simplest example of this is a study of intelligence. On a standardised test of intelligence, people who score significantly lower or higher than the average intelligence level of the population are considered to be abnormal. Those scoring lower than 70 on a standardised IQ test are considered to be intellectually deficient. Those scoring above 130 likewise would also be considered as possessing higher ability since their score is also significantly at deviation from the normal.
The biomedical and statistical models work on predefined definitions that apply to all universally. The socio-cultural model locates normality within the context of the person being studied. Thus, normality would be defined according to the context. In other words, what is considered normal in a particular time and place may not be considered normal in another social and temporal context. Clothes, hairstyles, colours, eating habits, rituals, and religious practices are some of the examples of culture-specific behaviour. An example of this is the practice of dowry. For centuries, India was unique in considering the practice of dowry as normal. Although it is illegal now, asking and giving gifts as dowry at the time of the daughter’s wedding is not an uncommon practice in India. It is seen as culturally acceptable. The same would not be considered normal in other social settings. When people from abroad visit India, they try to adapt to local settings in terms of clothes and eating habits so that they do not stand out and are well accepted in the cultural setting. The same is true for Indians travelling abroad.
Key Debates in Mental Health
The discussion of the different models of normality raises some interesting debates in mental health. If we believe that normality is rooted in cultural settings, then there will be no universal definition of what is considered normal, as against the statistical and biomedical models. This raises the universalism versus cultural relativism debate in mental health. Do we believe that there is one universally applicable definition of a mentally healthy person that is valid across cultures and social settings, or do we believe that notions of mental illness will vary across time and place? The debate was initiated in the early 1950s when social cognition theorists challenged the biomedical model of mental illness that likened mental illnesses to physical illnesses. Subsequently, sociological and anthropological definitions significantly contributed to the study of human societies and cultures, highlighting similarities and differences across cultural practices. Cultural relativism provides the freedom to each culture to practice what is relevant to that society without an imposition of what may be relevant to the dominant, outside culture. Here all cultural beliefs are equally well respected. Universalists in contrast argue that biological similarity and unity among all human beings supersedes cultural differences.
Universalism, as discussed above, puts forth the view that concerns and notions in the area of mental health are applicable across the world, irrespective of cultures. Understanding the notion of normality through this perspective gives rise to the statistical perspective. The statistical perspective to mental health understands normality on the basis of averages that may be found through research studies that analyse data, generally collected through large samples that transcend boundaries of space or time or both. Results from such research are considered valid if they apply to large populations and hold true in most settings. Findings from these researches are considered generalisable. While such research serves an important function in itself, it takes away the focus from individual contexts and situations. Mental health is as much personal and subjective as it is social and warrants that each individual be
understood in his or her context. So, while generalised research studies may apply to large populations, an ideological perspective would, in contrast, focus on understanding the concerns within specific local contexts. The focus would be on understanding particular cultures, family types, schools, or individuals.
This debate is also addressed as the idiographic versus nomothetic perspective. The nomothetic perspective attempts to understand large groups of people to arrive at general laws of behaviour that apply to all. As against this, the idiographic perspective attempts to understand individuals’ personal stories and do an in-depth analysis of their lives to arrive at a detailed understanding of the same. The nomothetic perspective can thus be seen as an extension of universalism, where general laws are seen to apply to large groups of people. The bottom line in this approach is that a common set of mental health issues, concerns, and dilemmas will be seen to apply to all human beings. As against this, the idiographic approach celebrates the uniqueness of each individual. Each of these approaches has its basis in different schools of thought and carries its own sets of advantages and disadvantages.
The nomothetic approach is more suitable when arriving at generalisations about behaviour, through scientifically valid experiments. It is rooted in behaviourism, social cognition, and psychiatric approaches. It is helpful when studying, for example, discrimination and prejudices against particular communities, religions, castes, classes, or other groups of people. Where behavioural modification or control is the target, such approaches work best. The disadvantage of this approach is that it does not celebrate or even acknowledge the identity of each individual.
In the idiographic approach, the focus is on studying a person, or a small group of individuals to arrive at a holistic understanding of that person or group. Findings from such studies are usually localised to specific groups or individuals with specific socio-cultural contexts. They are not used for generalisations to large groups. However, they sometimes serve as initiating points for further large group studies. The works of Piaget and Freud are prominent
examples of such approaches. Universal theories were generated on the basis of their studies on a small, select group. Case-based longitudinal approaches work well in such studies.
While both approaches have their own merits, and theories that are based on either of the two approaches are significant, when it comes to school settings, wherein teachers are expected to understand each individual student, probably an idiographic approach would prove to be more useful. In this, the teacher would interact with every individual and try to make sense of his/her point of view and experiences. This will serve to provide a contextual dimension to the teacher-student interaction and generate knowledge that is specifically useful to that particular student, school, class, and situation.
Need for Focusing on Mental Health in Schools
Although not an emerging area, mental health still warrants more attention than it enjoys at present. The overview section of this book highlighted some issues of contemporary relevance that highlighted the need to give greater attention to mental health concerns in school settings. To reiterate briefly, growing violence and aggression in schools, changing family structures and home dynamics, urbanisation, prevalence of sexual crimes, and the influence of media and technology on growing children, demand immediate attention. Schools and teachers have often expressed a sense of helplessness in helping children and adolescents deal with these issues. In this backdrop, mental health of children and adolescents becomes an area of immediate concern for schools.
Almost everyone is aware of the utility of over-the-counter medications for headaches, common colds, muscle sprains, cuts and bruises, etc. But do we pay as much attention to managing our mental health on an everyday basis? Do children and adolescents need help, support, and encouragement to handle mental health concerns? Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists are only contacted when the behavioural manifestations of problems become excessive and demand professional attention. There are many physical
illnesses that medical practitioners are unable to locate in bodily malfunctioning. The causes are diagnosed by them to be psychosomatic in nature. What may be inferred from this is that psychological distress often manifests itself in the form of physiological symptoms like diminished appetite, frequent unexplained headaches, general weakness, immunity loss, etc.
Goals of Mental Health
The next crucial question then is: What should be the goals of mental health? The overall goal of mental health is to live a happy, well-adjusted, and fulfilling life. Let’s briefly discuss what such a life would entail.
Although happiness is a relative term, it is quite obvious that it is of primary importance in mental health. Being happy does not mean not experiencing sadness, or bouts of feeling low. Mental health would in fact mean openness to experiencing all emotions. Happiness then is not a finite goal to achieve. It is not an unchanging state of mind but depends on the perception of an individual towards various events and situations. It is a subjective state of mind. Of particular significance is the fact that happiness is often contagious. Happy parents and teachers lead to happy children, which is often reflected in their enthusiasm and confidence.
PersonalandSocialAdjustment
Adjustment refers to having a harmonious existence. It permeates both personal and social life. A very significant component of personal and social adjustment is emotional intelligence. The term refers to individual’s capability to refer to one’s own and others’ emotions and identify different kinds of emotions (Goleman, 1995). It helps to guide individual behaviour appropriately and engage with others better. People with higher emotional intelligence, in other words, have better interpersonal relations and performance. This view has also been supported by Gardner’s work on multiple intelligences (1983). Thus, being personally well adjusted involves
being aware of one’s preferences, making choices, and being confident of decisions made. At the same time, it also includes being aware of one’s weaknesses and accepting them. A well-adjusted person should feel worthy and loved. In terms of social adjustment, it refers to harmonious relationships with those around us. While a person should not feel compelled to act according to social pressures, a socially well-adjusted person would not behave in a manner that disrupts relationships, is hurtful, and antithetical to the well-being of others. Such a person is also accepting of society.
Living a Fulfilling Life
A fulfilling life refers to working efficiently, achieving one’s capacities, and feeling good about it. While different psychological theorists have used different terms to define what a fulfilling life is, in simplest terms, it refers to working to one’s potential and evincing a sense of joy from it. A person who does a lot of work by breaking social contact, or falls ill due to overwork, would not be considered mentally healthy. Instead, an efficient work attitude would be where one is able to live a balanced life while fulfilling personal, professional, and social commitments.
Guidance, Counselling, and Mental Health
The three terms addressed here are important functions that parents and school teachers perform to help students move towards the goals of mental health that have been discussed above. Teachers often feel overburdened with teaching and tend to look at guidance and counselling as additional tasks that they are required to do. On the contrary, teachers who are focused on developing sound mental health in their students would find improvements in behaviour and learning of students when they accept the tasks of guidance and counselling as part of their everyday school experience and subsume it in their role profile. In this scenario, mental wellness would lead to better-adjusted students, who would in turn be able to learn better.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
indicts them; it stamps the whole cry as without any foundation; it derides the issue as a false and scandalous and partisan makeshift.
What then is the real motive underlying this movement? Senators on that side, democratic orators on the stump cannot make any sensible set of men at the crossroads believe that they are afraid of eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers distributed one to each county in the South. The minute you state that, everybody sees the utter, palpable and laughable absurdity of it, and therefore we must go further and find a motive for all this cry. We want to find out, to use a familiar and vulgar phrase, what is “the cat under the meal.” It is not the troops. That is evident. There are more troops by fifty per cent. scattered through the Northern States east of the Mississippi to-day than through the Southern States east of the Mississippi, and yet nobody in the North speaks of it; everybody would be laughed at for speaking of it; and therefore the issue, I take no risk in stating, I make bold to declare, that this issue on the troops, being a false one, being one without foundation, conceals the true issue, which is simply to get rid of the Federal presence at Federal elections, to get rid of the civil power of the United States in the election of Representatives to the Congress of the United States. That is the whole of it; and disguise it as you may there is nothing else in it or of it.
You simply want to get rid of the supervision by the Federal Government of the election of Representatives to Congress through civil means; and therefore this bill connects itself directly with another bill, and you cannot discuss this military bill without discussing a bill which we had before us last winter, known as the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill. I am quite well aware, I profess to be as well aware as any one, that it is not permissible for me to discuss a bill that is pending before the other House. I am quite well aware that propriety and parliamentary rule forbid that I should speak of what is done in the House of Representatives; but I know very well that I am not forbidden to speak of that which is not done in the House of Representatives. I am quite free to speak of the things that are not done there, and therefore I am free to declare that neither this military bill nor the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill ever emanated from any committee of the House of Representatives at all; they are
not the work of any committee of the House of Representatives, and, although the present House of Representatives is almost evenly balanced in party division, no solitary suggestion has been allowed to come from the minority of that House in regard to the shaping of these bills. Where do they come from? We are not left to infer; we are not even left to the Yankee privilege of guessing, because we know. The Senator from Kentucky [M . B ] obligingly told us—I have his exact words here—“that the honorable Senator from Ohio [M . T ] was the chairman of a committee appointed by the democratic party to see how it was best to present all these questions before us.”
We are told, too, rather a novel thing, that if we do not take these laws, we are not to have the appropriations. I believe it has been announced in both branches of Congress, I suppose on the authority of the democratic caucus, that if we do not take these bills as they are planned, we shall not have any of the appropriations that go with them. The honorable Senator from West Virginia [Mr. H ] told it to us on Friday; the honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. T ] told it to us last session; the honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. B ] told it to us at the same time, and I am not permitted to speak of the legions who told us so in the other House. They say all these appropriations are to be refused—not merely the Army appropriation, for they do not stop at that. Look for a moment at the legislative bill that came from the democratic caucus. Here is an appropriation in it for defraying the expenses of the Supreme Court and the circuit and district courts of the United States, including the District of Columbia, &c., $2,800,000: “Provided”— provided what?
That the following sections of the Revised Statutes relating to elections—going on to recite them—be repealed.
That is, you will pass an appropriation for the support of the judiciary of the United States only on condition of this repeal. We often speak of this government being divided between three great departments, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—coordinate, independent, equal. The legislative, under the control of a democratic caucus, now steps forward and says, “We offer to the Executive this bill, and if he does not sign it, we are going to starve the judiciary.” That is carrying the thing a little further than I have
ever known. We do not merely propose to starve the Executive if he will not sign the bill, but we propose to starve the judiciary that has had nothing whatever to do with the question. That has been boldly avowed on this floor; that has been boldly avowed in the other House; that has been boldly avowed in democratic papers throughout the country.
And you propose not merely to starve the judiciary but you propose that you will not appropriate a solitary dollar to take care of this Capitol. The men who take care of this great amount of public property are provided for in that bill. You say they shall not have any pay if the President will not agree to change the election laws. There is the public printing that goes on for the enlightenment of the whole country and for printing the public documents of every one of the Departments. You say they shall not have a dollar for public printing unless the President agrees to repeal these laws.
There is the Congressional Library that has become the pride of the whole American people for its magnificent growth and extent. You say it shall not have one dollar to take care of it, much less add a new book, unless the President signs these bills. There is the Department of State that we think throughout the history of the Government has been a great pride to this country for the ability with which it has conducted our foreign affairs; it is also to be starved. You say we shall not have any intercourse with foreign nations, not a dollar shall be appropriated therefor unless the President signs these bills. There is the Light-House Board that provides for the beacons and the warnings on seventeen thousand miles of sea and gulf and lake coast.
You say those lights shall all go out and not a dollar shall be appropriated for the board if the President does not sign these bills. There are the mints of the United States at Philadelphia, New Orleans, Denver, San Francisco, coining silver and coining gold—not a dollar shall be appropriated for them if the President does not sign these bills. There is the Patent Office, the patents issued which embody the invention of the country—not a dollar for them. The Pension Bureau shall cease its operations unless these bills are signed and patriotic soldiers may starve. The Agricultural Bureau, the Post Office Department, every one of the great executive functions of the Government is threatened, taken by the throat,
highwayman-style, collared on the highway, commanded to stand and deliver in the name of the democratic congressional caucus. That is what it is; simply that. No committee of this Congress in either branch has ever recommended that legislation—not one. Simply a democratic caucus has done it.
Of course this is new. We are learning something every day. I think you may search the records of the Federal Government in vain; it will take some one much more industrious in that search than I have ever been, and much more observant than I have ever been, to find any possible parallel or any possible suggestion in our past history of any such thing. Most of the Senators who sit in this Chamber can remember some vetoes by Presidents that shook this country to its centre with excitement. The veto of the national-bank bill by Jackson in 1832, remembered by the oldest in this Chamber; the veto of the national-bank bill in 1841 by Tyler, remembered by those not the oldest, shook this country with a political excitement which up to that time had scarcely a parallel; and it was believed, whether rightfully or wrongfully is no matter, it was believed by those who advocated those financial measures at the time, that they were of the very last importance to the well-being and prosperity of the people of the Union. That was believed by the great and shining lights of that day. It was believed by that man of imperial character and imperious will, the great Senator from Kentucky. It was believed by Mr. Webster, the greatest of New England Senators. When Jackson vetoed the one or Tyler vetoed the other, did you ever hear a suggestion that those bank charters should be put on appropriation bills or that there should not be a dollar to run the Government until they were signed? So far from it that, in 1841, when temper was at its height; when the whig party, in addition to losing their great measure, lost it under the sting and the irritation of what they believed was a desertion by the President whom they had chosen; and when Mr. Clay, goaded by all these considerations, rose to debate the question in the Senate, he repelled the suggestion of William C. Rives, of Virginia, who attempted to make upon him the point that he had indulged in some threat involving the independence of the Executive. Mr. Clay rose to his full height and thus responded:
“I said nothing whatever of any obligation on the part of the President to conform his judgment to the opinions of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, although the Senator argued as if I had, and persevered in so arguing after repeated correction. I said no such thing. I know and I respect the perfect independence of each department, acting within its proper sphere, of the other departments.”
A leading democrat, an eloquent man, a man who has courage and frankness and many good qualities, has boasted publicly that the democracy are in power for the first time in eighteen years, and they do not intend to stop until they have wiped out every vestige of every war measure. Well, “forewarned is forearmed,” and you begin appropriately on a measure that has the signature of Abraham Lincoln. I think the picture is a striking one when you hear these words from a man who was then in arms against the Government of the United States, doing his best to destroy it, exerting every power given him in a bloody and terrible rebellion against the authority of the United States and when Abraham Lincoln was marching at the same time to his martyrdom in its defense! Strange times have fallen upon us that those of us who had the great honor to be associated in higher or lower degree with Mr. Lincoln in the administration of the Government should live to hear men in public life and on the floors of Congress, fresh from the battle-fields of the rebellion, threatening the people of the United States that the democratic party, in power for the first time in eighteen years, proposes not to stay its hand until every vestige of the war measures has been wiped out! the late vicepresident of the confederacy boasted—perhaps I had better say stated—that for sixty out of the seventy-two years preceding the outbreak of the rebellion, from the foundation of the Government, the South, though in a minority, had by combining with what he termed the anti-centralists in the North ruled the country; and in 1866 the same gentleman indicated in a speech, I think before the Legislature of Georgia, that by a return to Congress the South might repeat the experiment with the same successful result. I read that speech at the time; but I little thought I should live to see so near a fulfillment of its prediction. I see here to-day two great measures emanating, as I have said, not from a committee of either House, but from a democratic caucus in which the South has an overwhelming majority, two-thirds in the House, and out of forty-two Senators on the other side of this Chamber professing the democratic faith thirty are from the South—twenty-three, a positive and pronounced majority, having themselves been participants in the war against the
Union either in military or civil station. So that as a matter of fact, plainly deducible from counting your fingers, the legislation of this country to-day, shaped and fashioned in a democratic caucus where the confederates of the South hold the majority, is the realization of Mr. S ’ prophecy. And very appropriately the House under that control and the Senate under that control, embodying thus the entire legislative powers of the Government, deriving its political strength from the South, elected from the South, say to the President of the United States, at the head of the Executive Department of the Government, elected as he was from the North—elected by the whole people, but elected as a Northern man; elected on Republican principles, elected in opposition to the party that controls both branches of Congress to-day—they naturally say, “You shall not exercise your constitutional power to veto a bill.”
Some gentleman may rise and say, “Do you call it revolution to put an amendment on an appropriation bill?” Of course not. There have been a great many amendments put on appropriation bills, some mischievous and some harmless; but I call it the audacity of revolution for any Senator or Representative, or any caucus of Senators or Representatives, to get together and say, “We will have this legislation or we will stop the great departments of the Government.” That is revolutionary. I do not think it will amount to revolution; my opinion is it will not. I think that is a revolution that will not go around; I think that is a revolution which will not revolve; I think that is a revolution whose wheel will not turn; but it is a revolution if persisted in, and if not persisted in, it must be backed out from with ignominy. The democratic party in Congress have put themselves exactly in this position to-day, that if they go forward in the announced programme, they march to revolution. I think they will, in the end, go back in an ignominious retreat. That is my judgment.
The extent to which they control the legislation of the country is worth pointing out. In round numbers, the Southern people are about one-third of the population of the Union. I am not permitted to speak of the organization of the House of Representatives, but I can refer to that of the last House. In the last House of Representatives, of the forty-two standing committees the South had twenty-five. I am not blaming the honorable Speaker for it. He was hedged in by
partisan forces, and could not avoid it. In this very Senate, out of thirty-four standing committees the South has twenty-two. I am not calling these things up just now in reproach; I am only showing what an admirable prophet the late vice-president of the Southern Confederacy was, and how entirely true all his words have been, and how he has lived to see them realized.
I do not profess to know, Mr. President, least of all Senators on this floor, certainly as little as any Senator on this floor, do I profess to know, what the President of the United States will do when these bills are presented to him, as I suppose in due course of time they will be. I certainly should never speak a solitary word of disrespect of the gentleman holding that exalted position, and I hope I should not speak a word unbefitting the dignity of the office of a Senator of the United States. But as there has been speculation here and there on both sides as to what he would do, it seems to me that the dead heroes of the Union would rise from their graves if he should consent to be intimidated and outraged in his proper constitutional powers by threats like these.
All the war measures of Abraham Lincoln are to be wiped out, say leading democrats! The Bourbons of France busied themselves, I believe, after the restoration, in removing every trace of Napoleon’s power and grandeur, even chiseling the “N” from public monuments raised to perpetuate his glory; but the dead man’s hand from Saint Helena reached out and destroyed them in their pride and in their folly. And I tell the Senators on the other side of this Chamber,—I tell the democratic party North and South—South in the lead and North following,—that, the slow, unmoving finger of scorn, from the tomb of the martyred President on the prairies of Illinois, will wither and destroy them. Though dead he speaketh. [Great applause in the galleries.]
The presiding officer, (Mr. A in the chair.) The Sergeantat-Arms will preserve order in the galleries and arrest persons manifesting approbation or disapprobation.
Mr. B . When you present these bills with these threats to the living President, who bore the commission of Abraham Lincoln and served with honor in the Army of the Union, which Lincoln restored and preserved, I can think only of one appropriate response from his
lips or his pen. He should say to you with all the scorn befitting his station:
Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?
Speech of Roscoe Conkling.
On the Extra Session of 1879. What it Teaches and what it Means. In the Senate of the United States, April 24, 1879.
The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 1) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other purposes—
Mr. C said:
Mr. P : During the last fiscal year the amount of national taxes paid into the Treasury was $234,831,461.77. Of this sum one hundred and thirty million and a fraction was collected under tariff laws as duties on imported merchandise, and one hundred and four million and a fraction as tax on American productions. Of this total of $235,000,000 in round numbers, twenty-seven States which adhered to the Union during the recent war paid $221,204,268.88. The residue came from eleven States. I will read their names: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia. These eleven States paid $13,627,192.89. Of this sum more than six million and a half came from the tobacco of Virginia. Deducting the amount of the tobacco tax in Virginia, the eleven States enumerated paid $7,125,462.60 of the revenues and supplies of the Republic.
Mr. H , of Georgia. Will the Senator from New York allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. C . If the Senator thinks that two of us are needed to make a statement of figures I will.
Mr. H , of Georgia. Two no doubt can make it better.
The P O . Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Georgia?
Mr. C . After the expressed opinion of the Senator from Georgia that the statement needs his aid, I cannot decline.
Mr. H , of Georgia. I will not interrupt the Senator if it is disagreeable to him, I assure him. I ask if in the computation he has made of the amount paid he does not ascribe to the States that adhered to the Union, to use his language, all——
Mr. C . Having heard the Senator so far, I must ask him to desist.
The P O . The Senator from New York declines to yield further.
Mr. C . I have stated certain figures as they appear in the published official accounts: the Senator seems about to challenge the process or system by which the accounts are made up. I cannot give way for this, and must beg him to allow me to proceed with observations which I fear to prolong lest they become too wearisome to the Senate.
The laws exacting these few millions from eleven States, and these hundreds of millions from twenty-seven States, originated, as the Constitution requires all bills for raising revenue to originate, in the House of Representatives. They are not recent laws. They have been approved and affirmed by succeeding Congresses. The last House of Representatives and its predecessor approved them, and both these Houses were ruled by a democratic Speaker, by democratic committees, and by a democratic majority. Both Senate and House are democratic now, and we hear of no purpose to repeal or suspend existing revenue laws. They are to remain in full force. They will continue to operate and to take tribute of the people. If the sum they exact this year and next year, shall be less than last year, it will be only or chiefly because recent legislation favoring southern and tobacco-growing regions has dismissed twelve or fourteen million of annual tax on tobacco.
This vast revenue is raised and to be raised for three uses. It is supplied in time of severe depression and distress, to pay debt inflicted by rebellion; to pay pensions to widows, orphans, and cripples made by rebellion; and to maintain the Government and enforce the laws preserved at inestimable cost of life and treasure.
It can be devoted to its uses in only one mode. Once in the Treasury, it must remain there useless until appropriated by act of Congress. The Constitution so ordains. To collect it, and then defeat or prevent its object or use, would be recreant and abominable oppression.
The Constitution leaves no discretion to Congress whether needful appropriations shall be made. Discretion to ascertain and determine
amounts needful, is committed to Congress, but the appropriation of whatever is needful after the amount has been ascertained, is commanded positively and absolutely. When, for example, the Constitution declares that the President and the judges at stated periods shall receive compensation fixed by law, the duty to make the appropriations is plain and peremptory; to refuse to make them, is disobedience of the Constitution, and treasonable. So, when it is declared that Congress shall have power to provide money to pay debts, and for the common defense and the general welfare, the plain meaning is that Congress shall do these things, and a refusal to do them is revolutionary, and subversive of the Constitution. A refusal less flagrant would be impeachable in the case of every officer and department of the Government within the reach of impeachment. Were the President to refuse to do any act enjoined on him by the Constitution, he would be impeachable, and ought to be convicted and removed from office as a convict. Should the judges, one, or some, or all of them, refuse to perform any duty which the Constitution commits to the judicial branch, the refusal would be plainly impeachable.
Congress is not amenable to impeachment. Congressional majorities are triable at the bar of public opinion, and in no other human forum. Could Congress be dissolved instantly here as in England, could Senators and Representatives be driven instantly from their seats by popular disapproval, were they amenable presently somewhere, there would be more of bravery, if not less of guilt, in a disregard of sworn obligation. Legislators are bound chiefly by their honor and their oaths; and the very impunity and exemption they enjoy exalts and measures their obligations, and the crime and odium of violating them. Because of the fixed tenure by which the members of each House hold their places and their trusts, irreparable harm may come of their acts any omissions, before they can be visited with even political defeat, and before the wrong they do can be undone. A congressional majority is absolutely safe during its term, and those who suffered such impunity to exist in the frame of our Government, must have relied on the enormity and turpitude of the act to deter the representatives of the people and the representatives of States from betraying a trust so exalted and so sacred as their offices imply.
Mr. President, it does not escape my attention, as it must occur to those around me, that in ordinary times obvious aphorisms, I might say truisms like these would be needless, if not out of place in the Senate. They are pertinent now because of an occasion without example in American history. I know of no similar instance in British history. Could one be found, it would only mark the difference between an hereditary monarchy without a written constitution, and a free republic with a written charter plainly defining from the beginning the powers, the rights, and the duties of every department of the Government. The nearest approaches in English experience to the transactions which now menace this country, only gild with broad light the wisdom of those who established a system to exempt America forever from the struggles between kingcraft and liberty, between aristocratic pretensions and human rights, which in succeeding centuries had checkered and begrimed the annals of Great Britain. It was not to transplant, but to leave behind and shut out the usurpations and prerogatives of kings, nobles, and gentry, and the rude and violent resorts which, with varying and only partial success, had been matched against them, that wise and far-seeing men of many nationalities came to these shores and founded “a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.” Such boisterous conflicts as the Old World had witnessed between subjects and rulers—between privilege and right, were the warnings which our fathers heeded, the dangers which they shunned, the evils which they averted, the disasters which they made impossible so long as their posterity should cherish their inheritance.
Until now no madness of party, no audacity or desperation of sinister, sectional, or partisan design, has ever ventured on such an attempt as has recently come to pass in the two Houses of Congress. The proceeding I mean to characterize, if misunderstood anywhere, is misunderstood here. One listening to addresses delivered to the Senate during this debate, as it is called, must think that the majority is arraigned, certainly that the majority wishes to seem and is determined to seem arraigned, merely for insisting that provisions appropriating money to keep the Government alive, and provisions not in themselves improper relating to other matters, may be united in the same bill. With somewhat of monotonous and ostentatious iteration we have been asked whether incorporating general
legislation in appropriation bills is revolution, or revolutionary? No one in my hearing has ever so contended.
Each House is empowered by the Constitution to make rules governing the modes of its own procedure. The rules permitting, I know of nothing except convenience, common sense, and the danger of log-rolling combinations, which forbids putting all the appropriations into one bill, and in the same bill, all the revenue laws, a provision admitting a State into the Union, another paying a pension to a widow, another changing the name of a steamboat. The votes and the executive approval which would make one of these provisions a law, would make them all a law. The proceeding would be outlandish, but it would not violate the Constitution.
A Senator might vote against such a huddle of incongruities, although separately he would approve each one of them. If, however, they passed both Houses in a bunch, and the Executive found no objection to any feature of the bill on its merits, and the only criticism should be that it would have been better legislative practice to divide it into separate enactments, it is not easy to see on what ground a veto could stand.
The assault which has been made on the executive branch of the Government and on the Constitution itself, would not be less flagrant if separate bills had been resorted to as the weapons of attack. Suppose in a separate bill, the majority had, in advance of the appropriations, repealed the national-bank act and the resumption act, and had declared that unless the Executive surrendered his convictions and yielded up his approval of the repealing act, no appropriations should be made; would the separation of the bills have palliated or condoned the revolutionary purpose? In the absence of an avowal that appropriations were to be finally withheld, or that appropriations were to be made to hinge upon the approval or veto of something else, a resort to separate bills might have cloaked and secreted for a time the real meaning of the transaction. In that respect it would have been wise and artful to resort to separate bills on this occasion; and I speak, I think, in the hearing of at least one democratic Senator who did not overlook in advance the suggestion now made. But when it was declared, or intended, that unless another species of legislation is agreed to, the money of the people, paid for that purpose, shall not be used to maintain their
Government and to enforce the laws—when it is designed that the Government shall be thrown into confusion and shall stop unless private charity or public succor comes to its relief, the threat is revolutionary, and its execution is treasonable.
In the case before us, the design to make appropriations hinge and depend upon the destruction of certain laws is plain on the face of the bills before us,—the bill now pending, and another one on our tables. The same design was plain on the face of the bills sent us at the last session. The very fact that the sections uncovering the ballotbox to violence and fraud, are not, and never have been separately presented, but are thrust into appropriation bills, discloses and proves a belief, if not a knowledge, that in a separate bill the Executive would not approve them. Moreover both Houses have rung with the assertion that the Executive would not approve in a separate measure the overthrow of existing safeguards of the ballot-box, and that should he refuse to give his approval to appropriations and an overthrow of those safeguards linked together, no appropriations should be made.
The plot and the purpose then, is by duress to compel the Executive to give up his convictions, his duty, and his oath, as the price to be paid a political party for allowing the Government to live! Whether the bills be united or divided, is mere method and form. The substance in either form is the same, and the plot if persisted in will bury its aiders and abettors in opprobrium, and will leave a buoy on the sea of time warning political mariners to keep aloof from a treacherous channel in which a political party foundered and went down.
The size of the Army and its pay, have both been exactly fixed by law—by law enacted by a democratic House, and approved by a second democratic House. It has been decided and voted that the coast defenses and the Indian and frontier service, require a certain number of soldiers; and the appropriations needed for provision and pay have been ascertained to a farthing. Nothing remains to be done, but to give formal sanction and warrant for the use of the money from time to time. This was all true at the last session. But a democratic House, or more justly speaking the democratic majority in the House refused to give its sanction, refused to allow the people’s money, to reach the use for which the people paid it, unless
certain long-standing laws were repealed. When the Senate voted against the repeal, we were bluntly told that unless that vote was reversed, unless the Senate and the Executive would accept the bills, repealing clauses and all, the session should die, no appropriations should be made, and the wheels of the Government should stop. The threat was executed; the session did die, and every branch of the Government was left without the power to execute its duties after the 30th of next June.
We were further told that when the extra session, thus to be brought about, should convene, the democrats would rule both Houses, that the majority would again insist on its terms, and that then unless the Executive submitted to become an accomplice in the design to fling down the barriers that block the way to the ballot-box against fraud and force, appropriations would again be refused, and again the session should die leaving the Government paralyzed. The extra session has convened; the democrats have indeed the power in both Houses, and thus far the war and the caucus have come up to the manifesto. So far the exploit has been easy. The time of trial is to come; the issue has been made, and of its ignominious failure, there can be no doubt if the Executive shall plant itself on constitutional right and duty, and stand firm. The actors in this scheme have managed themselves and their party into a predicament, and unless the President lets them out they will and they must back out. [Laughter, and manifestations of applause in the galleries.]
Should the Executive interpose the constitutional shield against the political enormities of the proposed bills, and then should the majority carry out the threat to desert their posts by adjournment without making the needed appropriations, I hope and trust they will be called back instantly and called back as often as need be until they relinquish a monstrous pretension and abandon a treasonable position.
The Army bill now pending, is not, in its political features, the bill tendered us at the last session a few days ago; it is not the same bill then insisted on as the ultimatum of the majority. The bill as it comes to us now, condemns its predecessor as crude and objectionable. It was found to need alteration. It did need alteration badly, and those who lately insisted on it as it was, insist on it now as it then was not. A grave proviso has been added to save the right of the President to
aid a State gasping in the throes of rebellion or invasion and calling for help. As the provision stood when thrust upon us first and last at the recent session, it would have punished as a felon the President of the United States, the General of the Army, and others, for attempting to obey the Constitution of the United States and two ancient acts of Congress, one of them signed by George Washington. Shorn of this absurdity, the bill as it now stands, should it become a law, will be the first enactment of its kind that ever found its way into the statutes of the United States. A century, with all its activities and party strifes, with all its passionate discords, with all its expedients for party advantage, with all its wisdom and its folly, with all its patriotism and its treason, has never till now produced a congressional majority which deemed such a statute fit to be enacted.
Let me state the meaning of the amendments proposed under guise of enlarging liberty on election day—that day of days when order, peace, and security for all, as well as liberty, should reign. The amendments declare in plain legal effect that, no matter what the exigency may be, no matter what violence or carnage may run riot and trample down right and life, no matter what mob brutality may become master, if the day be election day, any officer or person, civil, military, or naval, from the President down, who attempts to interfere, to prevent or quell violence by the aid of national soldiers, or armed men not soldiers, shall be punished, and may be fined $5,000 and imprisoned for five years. This is the law we are required to set up. Yes, not only to leave murderous ruffianism untouched, but to invite it into action by assurances of safety in advance.
In the city of New York, all the thugs and shoulder-hitters and repeaters, all the carriers of slung-shot, dirks, and bludgeons, all the fraternity of the bucketshops, the rat-pits, the hells and the slums, all the graduates of the nurseries of modern so-called democracy, [laughter;] all those who employ and incite them, from King’s Bridge to the Battery, are to be told in advance that on the day when the million people around them choose their members of the National Legislature, no matter what God-daring or man-hurting enormities they may commit, no matter what they do, nothing that they can do will meet with the slightest resistance from any national soldier or armed man clothed with national authority.
Another bill, already on our tables, strikes down even police officers armed, or unarmed, of the United States.
In South Carolina, in Louisiana, in Mississippi, and in the other States where the colored citizens are counted to swell the representation in Congress, and then robbed of their ballots and dismissed from the political sun—in all such States, every rifle club, and white league, and murderous band, and every tissue ballot-box stuffer, night-rider, and law-breaker, is to be told that they may turn national elections into a bloody farce, that they may choke the whole proceeding with force and fraud, and blood, and that the nation shall not confront them with one armed man. State troops, whether under the name of rifle clubs or white leagues, or any other, armed with the muskets of the United States, may constitute the mob, may incite the mob, but the national arm is to be tied and palsied.
I repeat such an act of Congress has never yet existed. If there ever was a time when such an act could safely and fitly stand upon the statute book, that time is not now, and is not likely to arrive in the near future. Until rebellion raised its iron hand, all parties and all sections had been content to leave where the Constitution left it the power and duty of the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
The Constitution has in this regard three plain commands: The President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Again, “The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States.”
“The actual service of the United States” some man may say means war merely, service in time of war. Let me read again, “Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia.” For what? First of all, “to execute the laws of the Union.”
Yes, Congress shall have power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union.” Speaking to lawyers, I venture to emphasize the word “execute.” It is a term of art; it has a long-defined meaning. The act of 1795, re-enacted since, emphasized these constitutional provisions.
The election law came in to correct abuses which reached their climax in 1868 in the city of New York. In that year in the State of New York the republican candidate for governor was elected; the democratic candidate was counted in. Members of the Legislature were fraudulently seated. The election was a barbarous burlesque. Many thousand forged naturalization papers were issued; some of them were white and some were coffee-colored. The same witnesses purported to attest hundreds and thousands of naturalization affidavits, and the stupendous fraud of the whole thing was and is an open secret. Some of these naturalization papers were sent to other States. So plenty were they, that some of them were sent to Germany, and Germans who had never left their country claimed exemption from the German draft for soldiers in the Franco-Prussian war, because they were naturalized American citizens! [Laughter.]
Repeating, ballot-box stuffing, ruffianism, and false counting decided everything. Tweed made the election officers, and the election officers were corrupt. In 1868, thirty thousand votes were falsely added to the democratic majority in the cities of New York and Brooklyn alone. Taxes and elections were the mere spoil and booty of a corrupt junta in Tammany Hall. Assessments, exactions, and exemptions were made the bribes and the penalties of political submission. Usurpation and fraud inaugurated a carnival of corrupt disorder; and obscene birds without number swooped down to the harvest and gorged themselves on every side in plunder and spoliation. Wrongs and usurpations springing from the pollution and desecration of the ballot-box stalked high-headed in the public way. The courts and the machinery of justice were impotent in the presence of culprits too great to be punished.
The act of 1870 came in to throttle such abuses. It was not born without throes and pangs. It passed the Senate after a day and a night which rang with democratic maledictions and foul aspersions.
In the autumn of that year an election was held for the choice of Representatives in Congress. I see more than one friend near me who for himself and for others has reason even unto this day to remember that election and the apprehension which preceded it. It was the first time the law of 1870 had been put in force. Resistance was openly counseled. Democratic newspapers in New York advised that the officers of the law be pitched into the river. Disorder was afoot. Men,
not wanting in bravery, and not republicans, dreaded the day. Bloodshed, arson, riot were feared. Ghastly spectacles were still fresh in memory. The draft riots had spread terror which had never died, and strong men shuddered when they remembered the bloody assizes of the democratic party. They had seen men and women, blind with party hate, dizzy and drunk with party madness, stab and burn and revel in murder and in mutilating the dead. They had seen an asylum for colored orphans made a funeral pile, and its smoke sent up from their Christian and imperial city to tell in heaven of the inhuman bigotry, the horrible barbarity of man. Remembering such sickening scenes, and dreading their repetition, they asked the President to protect them—to protect them with the beak and claw of national power. Instantly the unkenneled packs of party barked in vengeful chorus. Imprecations, maledictions, and threats were hurled at Grant; but with that splendid courage which never blanched in battle, which never quaked before clamor—with that matchless self-poise which did not desert him even when a continent beyond the sea rose and uncovered before him, [applause in the galleries,] he responded in the orders which it has pleased the honorable Senator from Delaware to read. The election thus protected was the fairest, the freest, the most secure, a generation has seen. When, two years afterward, New York came to crown Grant with her vote, his action in protecting her chief city on the Ides of November, 1870, was not forgotten. When next New York has occasion to record her judgment of the services of Grant, his action in 1870 touching peace in the city of New York will not be hidden away by those who espouse him wisely. [Applause in the galleries.]
Now, the election law is to be emasculated; no national soldier must confront rioters or mobs; no armed man by national authority, though not a soldier, must stay the tide of brutality or force; no deputy marshal must be within call; no supervisor must have power to arrest any man who in his sight commits the most flagrant breach of the peace. But the democrats tell us “we have not abolished the supervisors; we have left them.” Yes, the legislative bill leaves the supervisors, two stool-pigeons with their wings clipped, [laughter,] two licensed witnesses to stand about idle, and look—yes, “a cat may look at a king”—but they must not touch bullies or lawbreakers, not if they do murders right before their eyes.
