Making yellow fever American: The early American Republic, the British Empire and the geopolitics of disease in the Atlantic world

Abstract

Between 1793 and 1822, a series of successive yellow fever outbreaks ravaged the eastern seaboard of the United States. The outbreaks generated not only the biggest public health crisis in that period but also one of the most pressing and contentious disputes in medical theory. Often told as a national story, this article re-examines that controversy by situating it in the context of outbreaks, research, and debates in other parts of the anglophone Atlantic. It argues that American responses to disease were shaped by the young republic's post-imperial relations to both Great Britain and the West Indies. On a broader level, this study challenges current approaches in the formation of American natural knowledge and identity during this period. It looks beyond both national boundaries and relations to former metropolitan centers, locating some of the above developments in a more “multi-centered” Atlantic world.

Keywords:

• yellow fever
• United States
• West Indies
• Great Britain
• Atlantic world
• medicine
• politics

Notes

1. K. David Patterson offers an excellent overview of the outbreaks together with approximate mortality levels during this period. New York suffered 11 epidemics and Philadelphia 10. Baltimore, a growing center for international trade, was hit by seven outbreaks. The worst epidemic, and the one that has received the most attention from scholars, was the 1793 outbreak in Philadelphia. Patterson estimates that at least 5000 people died. See Patterson, “Yellow Fever Epidemics”; see also Blake, “Yellow Fever.”

2. The scholarship on yellow fever is vast. For two well-known, extensive studies of the 1793 outbreak, see Estes and Smith, Melancholy Scene of Devastation and Powell, Bring out Your Dead. Martin Pernick's analysis is particularly renowned. Pernick maps the debates over the source of the disease to the fights between the nation's emerging political factions. Hamiltonian Federalists, he argues, endorsed the view that the disease was contagious and subject to quarantine – a view that reflected their discontent with the arrival of French refugees from the West Indies. Republicans believed the disease originated locally, their views guided by fears of the moral and medical enervation of urban spaces. See Pernick, “Politics, Parties, and Pestilence”; see also Finger, “Epidemic Constitutions”; Miller, “Passions and Politics”; Stevenson, “Putting Disease”; and Taylor, “‘We Live.’”

3. Chisholm and Haygarth, Letter to John Haygarth.

4. Mark Harrison discusses Colin Chisholm's career in Great Independence of Mind, 381–2. I am indebted to Mark Harrison for letting me use his manuscript. For a general overview of Haygarth's professional career, see Booth, John Haygarth.

5. Booth, John Haygarth, 6.

6. There are many examples of this in scholarship on the history of American medicine. For some of the most recent work, see Rosner, “Thistle on the Delaware”; Rosner, “Student Culture”; and Yokota, “‘To pursue the stream.’” While investigating a slightly later period, John Harley Warner's work centers on the influential role of European medicine on American medicine. See Warner, Against the Spirit.

7. Goudie, Creole America; Rugemer, Problem of Emancipation.

8. See Delbourgo, Most Amazing Scene, esp. 165–99. Here, Delbourgo analyzes the work of Edward Bancroft, a natural historian who circulated between the Caribbean and North America. Susan Scott Parrish and Jan Golinski also reveal connections between the West Indies and North America in studies of both climate and botany. See Parrish, American Curiosity and Golinski, “American Climate,” esp. 151–63.

9. Kathleen Murphy's chapter on natural history, “Patriotic Science and Transatlantic Patriots: Natural History in the Age of Revolution,” presents an initial attempt to explore the character of this phenomenon post-independence. See Murphy, “Portals of Nature,” chap. 5.

10. Geggus, “Yellow Fever”; Watts, Epidemics and History, esp. chap. 6. For a much more extensive discussion of the outbreaks and their impact on British imperial projects, see McNeill, Mosquito Empires.

11. Harrison, Great Independence of Mind, 372–3. Among the most popularly referenced sources was an officially endorsed treatise published by the Royal Physician Richard Mead in 1720. He wrote the treatise, in part, at the behest of leading figures in Parliament and the Crown; the treatise went through nine editions. Arnold Zuckerman discusses Mead's position as well as the dominance of contagionist theory in relation to the profound influence of Mead's work over the course of the eighteenth century, including in yellow fever discussions. See Zuckerman, “Plague and Contagionism.”

12. Harrison, Great Independence of Mind, 376–84; see also Harrison, Climates and Constitutions.

13. Booth, John Haygarth; Harrison, Great Independence of Mind, 377–82.

14. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever (1795).

15. Booth, John Haygarth, 63–71, 110–113.

16. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever (1799).

17. Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser, August 4, 1802; Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, August 4, 1802; Commercial Advertiser [New York], August 6, 1802.

18. Hosack, Observations on the Laws. Hosack expressed his indebtedness to both men's comments in the preface of the volume.

19. Currie, Impartial Review, 10; Currie, Memoirs, 134; Currie and Palmer, Observations, 24. Currie praised Richard Mead's work as unsurpassed, calling him “the most learned physician of this or any age.” See Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser, February 15, 1799.

20. See Golinski, “American Climate,” 153–6, and Parrish, American Curiosity, 77–89.

21. Booth, John Haygarth, 119; see also Cash, Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, 114–21.

22. See, for example, Letter to John Coakley Lettsom, 13 May 1804, in Rush and Butterfield, Letters of Benjamin Rush, 2: 880; see also 917 and 1045. Rush had met Lettsom in London in 1768 while Rush was studying and traveling in Great Britain. They remained good friends and colleagues. Lettsom also served as a critical channel through which Rush submitted work to be published and endorsed in England. Lettsom also hosted students of Rush who left to study medicine in Great Britain for a few years. See Rush and Butterfield, Letters of Benjamin Rush, 2: 313.

23. College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Facts and Observations, 20.

24. Chisholm belonged to learned societies in both England and the United States. See Goodwin, “Chisholm, Colin.”

25. Letter to Colin Chisholm, New York, 9 July 1808, in Letters and Papers of David Hosack, 1795–1835, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. See also Letter to Colin Chisholm, 12 August 1809 and Letter to Colin Chisholm, 31 October 1810.

26. Goudie discusses the ways in which Americans thought about features of their climate and constitutions in relation to the West Indies. See Goudie, Creole America, 86–7, 180–6; see also Golinski, “American Climate,” 160–3.

27. Susan Scott Parrish, Kathleen Murphy, and James Delbourgo have all identified exchanges and travels that took place between these peripheral settings in the study of nature. See Parrish, American Curiosity, 128–35; Murphy, “Portals of Nature,” esp. chap. 5; and Delbourgo, Most Amazing Scene, 165–99.

28. Rush, Account, 163–4.

29. Letter to John Coakley Lettsom, 13 May 1804, in Rush and Butterfield, Letters of Benjamin Rush, 880; see also 917 and 1045.

30. See, for example, Letter to Dr Dancer of Jamaica, 19 September 1809 [copy], in the Letters and Papers of David Hosack, 1795–1835, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

31. The College of Physicians of Philadelphia was established in 1787 by some of the most influential and well-known physicians of Philadelphia, including Benjamin Rush and John Redman. Of course, Rush broke off from the college during the yellow fever debates. In addition to other professional activities, the college advised local authorities on public health regulations. See Bell, College of Physicians, 1–39.

32. Benjamin Rush commented on this phenomenon in his letters to his colleagues. He wrote to Noah Webster in 1799: “Our printers and booksellers (one excepted) are among the believers in the importation of the yellow fever, and hence they cannot easily be persuaded duly to appreciate your opinions.” See Rush and Butterfield, Letters of Benjamin Rush, 2: 811.

33. Letter to Dr Currie, 16 August 1809. Hosack makes reference to Coleman's assistance in his correspondence with Currie. See Letter to Dr Currie, 30 October 1809. Both these letters can be found in the Letters and Papers of David Hosack, 1795–1835, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia

34. Rush commented on the foundation and purpose of the organization in a letter to Ashton Alexander, a physician in Baltimore . See Rush and Butterfield, Letters of Benjamin Rush, 2: 796–7; see also “Charles Caldwell.” For a comment on Charles Caldwell's orations, see Stevenson, “Charles Caldwell.”

35. Webster, Currie, and Spector, Noah Webster, 13.

36. Smith and Cronin, Diary, 383–6, 388, 391.

37. Booth, John Haygarth, 120–2. A review of Rush's Account appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine, no. 64 (1794): 838–40.

38. Kahn and Kahn show that the Medical Repository was enjoying subscriptions in 14 states in 1797, the highest number being in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. The journal would thrive until 1824. See Kahn and Kahn, “Medical Repository.” Articles from the Medical Repository appeared in reprint and commentary in such major journals as the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal and the London-based Medical and Philosophical Journal. See, for example, Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, no. 7 (1805): 422, and Medical and Philosophical Journal, no. 2 (1800): 568.

39. Harrison, Great Independence of Mind, 385.

40. London Morning Chronicle, January 17, 1799; reprinted in Lloyd's Evening Post, January 23, 1799.

41. Caldwell, Semi-Annual Oration.

42. Haygarth recalled most of this exchange in an 1806 letter to John Coakley Lettsom. See John Haygarth to John Coakley Lettsom, 8 October 1806, in Lettsom Correspondence, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London.

43. Chisholm and Haygarth, Letter to John Haygarth, 1.

44. Chisholm and Haygarth, Letter to John Haygarth, 8.

45. Chisholm and Haygarth, Letter to John Haygarth, 6.

46. See Delbourgo, Most Amazing Scene, 232–8; Lewis, “Democracy of Facts”; Parrish, American Curiosity, 118–35; and Yokota, “‘To pursue the stream,’” 184–211.

47. The impact of political economy on debates over quarantine – in particular American seaports’ reliance on Atlantic trade – merits further study. Merchants played a critical role in local public health politics, and there is evidence that their ideas about quarantine policy were, in part, informed by practices of critical ports in other parts of the Atlantic world. For an initial investigation into this, see Arner, “Preserving the Republic.”

48. Webster's uniquely American dictionary and spellers are two famous examples. See Brückner, “Lessons in Geography”; Cmiel, “‘Broad Fluid Language,’” 921; and “Noah Webster.”

49. Webster, Brief History, 26–7.

50. Even when relations between both countries grew very rocky in the 1810s, Caldwell deprecated the hostilities and hoped “that Englishmen and Americans may again salute each other as friends – friends in a national as well as in a personal and literary capacity.” See Charles Caldwell to John Lettsom, 12 June 1810, in Lettsom Correspondence, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London.

51. In addition to the example that follows, Caldwell famously presented yellow fever as an example of the “greatness” of American nature. See Caldwell, Oration.

52. See Waterman, “Arthur Mervyn's Medical Repository,” esp. 222–4.

53. For more on this strategy in the partisan gazettes, see Robertson, “‘Look on This Picture.’” I also draw on Goudie's Creole America and Rugemer's Problem of Emancipation, which integrate the role of West Indian slavery politics into the ways in which Americans constructed imagined reader communities.

54. “Review of A Treatise,” 374.

55. Webster, Brief History, 26–7. Similar examples may be found in “MEDICAL & PHILOSOPHICAL NEWS,” 225, and “Review of An Act,” 50.

56. “Circular Address,” 20–2.

57. Haygarth and Percival, Letter to Dr. Percival, 144.

58. Haygarth and Percival, Letter to Dr. Percival, 141.

59. Haygarth and Percival, Letter to Dr. Percival, 155.

60. Caldwell, Reply, 10–11.

61. Caldwell, Reply, 10–12.

62. Rush, “Facts,” 156.

63. Rush, “Facts,”.

64. “Review of A Reply to Dr. Haygarth,” 330–4.

65. “Review of A Letter to Dr. Percival,” 180.

66. Caldwell, Reply, 16; “Review of A Letter to Dr. Percival,” 182.

67. Caldwell, Reply, 47–8.

68. Caldwell, Reply, 46–7.

69. Medical Repository 2 (1802): 199.

70. Medical Repository, 200.

71. In his diary, Smith recorded studying it with great intensity and meeting with Webster to discuss it. See Cronin, Diary, 384–400.

72. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever (1795).

73. Smith and a number of his colleagues had been very active lobbyists in the New York Manumission Society. See Cronin, “Elihu Hubbard Smith,” 478. For the role of the West Indies in early national discourse on the slave trade (particularly in the northern sector), see Goudie, Creole America, 175–99, and Rugemer, Problem of Emancipation, 42–72.

74. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever, 83 (1795).

75. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever, 83 (1795).

76. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever, 487–8.

77. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever, 495.

78. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever (1801). Long excerpts from Chisholm's new piece appeared in “History of the Origin and Progress of the Yellow Fever” in the New York Evening Post, September 1, 1803 and September 2, 1803; reprinted in Poulson's Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], September 5, 1803 and September 6, 1803; also reprinted in the New York Herald, September 5, 1803.

79. See, for example, Davidson, “Practical and Diagnostic Observations” and Rule, “Considerations.” I am indebted to Mark Harrison for directing my attention to these activities.

80. Eckard, “Correction of Chisholm's Misstatement”; see also Rush, “Facts,” 156. Harrison also discusses the ways in which West Indian non-contagionists attacked Chisholm within the British Empire. See Harrison, Great Independence of Mind, 390–1.

81. Caldwell, Reply, 12.

82. Rush, “Facts,” 156.

83. Miller, “Report,” 146–9.

84. “Review of A Letter to Dr. Percival,” 200 . Harrison elaborates on this political performance among colonial officers, arguing that they portrayed the theory as a “badge of professional identity” – an attempt to establish the primacy of first-hand experience over what they regarded as the speculative hypotheses of metropolitan physicians. See Harrison, Great Independence of Mind, 372.

85. See John Haygarth to John Lettsom, 18 October 1806, in Lettsom Correspondence, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London.

86. Letter to Colin Chisholm, New York, 9 July 1808.

87. Chisholm, Malignant Pestilential Fever, xiii–xxi (1801).

88. Chisholm and Haygarth, Letter to John Haygarth, 7–8.

89. Chisholm, Manual.

90. For more on British colonial figures, see Harrison, Great Independence of Mind, 398–404. William Coleman has written on the expeditions of several French medical writers to Spain, where they observed and generated conflicting views on the cause of a series of outbreaks between 1819 and 1822. Subsequently, one of those physicians, Nicholas Chervin, traveled along the eastern seaboard of the United States in order to survey American opinions as proof for his own theory that the disease was not contagious and imported. See Coleman, Yellow Fever. For an overview of the survey, see Waserman and Mayfield, “Yellow Fever Survey.”

91. American opinion on yellow fever began entering French medical print via both traveling Americans and Frenchmen like Chervin. See, for example, Chervin, De l'Opinion des médecins, in which Chervin addressed American activities in both the United States and Paris. Exchanges also continued between Americans and British colonial figures. This is reflected in Hosack's correspondence during this period as well as the works of other physicians. See, for example, a Baltimore-based physician's attack on British contagionist Edward Bancroft in 1821: Davidge, Essay.