Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the great book Alexander Hamilton by historian Ron Chernow, there is an interesting section on the yellow fever epidemic of 1793 in Philadelphia (p. 448-451). It was a horrific disease that killed about 1 in 10 residents of the city. It causes a ghastly jaundiced tint to the skin of victims, hence the name.
In 1793, they had no idea that the disease was actually spread by mosquitoes. In Sept 1973, Treasury Secretary and Revolutionary War hero Alexander Hamilton came down with a case of yellow fever, soon to be followed by his wife Eliza. They were treated by his childhood friend (possibly half-brother), physician Edward Stevens, who had moved to Philly from the islands. Hamilton and wife both recovered in about 5 days.
From this there emerged a "Federalist" (Hamilton's party) regimen for treating yellow fever, and a "Republican" regimen. Prominent physician Benjamin Rush was the chief proponent of the Republican remedy. He was a close ally of Thomas Jefferson, a leading anti-federalist, or "Republican" of the time.
The remedies of Rush involved heavy blood-letting, enemas, and other forms of purging. The remedies of Stevens involved quinine, aged Madera wine, cold baths, brandy, and oil of peppermint.
A letter war ensued. Rush wrote: "Col. Hamilton's remedies are now as unpopular in our city as his funding system...." Jefferson piled on, blaming Hamilton and Stevens for the deaths of hundreds.
Eventually the approach of Rush fell out of favor. Jefferson appointed him treasurer of the US mint after his medical practice fell off. His methods are now considered to have been counter-productive, and likely caused the deaths of many patients. A vaccine for yellow fever was developed in 1937 by African American scientist Max Theiler.
Rush is considered the father of modern psychiatry. To this day, the seal of the American Psychiatric Association bears an image of his profile. He was nonetheless a patriot who was active in the 'Sons of Liberty' organization that led to the revolution, and was an early advocate of abolition of slavery.
Neither were political, but both were regional. The only "politics" involved was that both were cured by Northern Urban money and scientists (Jewish from NYC, in the case of Pellagra). But that's not really political at all...except that these days ignorance of science is considered a plus by some.
I don't think it's fair to insert modern political parties onto those who were of either no party or of an ancient one. There was definitely always a north/south split (Mason-Dixon Line) in terms of most of what we call industrialization, science and progress, but it's hard to express in politics.
Jefferson, for example would be consider super-liberal for these traits:
1. Didn't believe in the Divinity of Christ, but did believe in the morals and ethics.
2. Innovators and thinker
3. Lived the life - a Francophile, wine lover, lover of "liberal" things (elite, so to speak).
4. Sexually liberal - as in going to Paris and partying with his slave, etc.
Ben Franklin, being a City fella from further north, would also be a super-liberal. Totally into the "sexual revolution" lover of drink and opium and into science and innovation and thinking.
I know there were the Federalist and anti-Feds, but the Strong Central Government won out. Jefferson was against it but as soon as he attained the POTUS office he went big government too (the La. purchase was arguably the first big government move ever in the USA, and Jefferson also allowed the Central Bank, etc.).....
It's hard enough to know what is going on today without inserting political parties onto folks 240 years back.
Well, was it really partisan driven or ignorance driven?....
Obviously it was both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It was clearly partisan-driven in that there was a "Federalist" solution and an "anti-Federalist" solution (I will no longer use the word "Republican" in this thread so as to not further trigger semantic flim-flammers).
Neither side quite knew what they were doing (regarding yellow fever) in 1793, so yes it was also ignorance-driven.
Obviously it was both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It was clearly partisan-driven in that there was a "Federalist" solution and an "anti-Federalist" solution (I will no longer use the word "Republican" in this thread so as to not further trigger semantic flim-flammers).
Neither side quite knew what they were doing (regarding yellow fever) in 1793, so yes it was also ignorance-driven.
As you know, the Founders talked about Science - but in terms of medicine the "Medical Revolution" did not start to occur until a couple decades after that time period.
So, basically, most anything before then was superstition. There were exceptions such as the use of bark to tamp down Malaria and many plant remedies, etc.
BUT, until germ theory and the scientific method were combined with optics (microscopes) and other inventions, it was largely impossible to really suss things out.
We can even look at modern times though. If one thinks paying homage to a Lord or giving money to a diety or priest cures a certain disease, they are not exactly using the Scientific method (see: Templeton).
My take is that the anti-vax thing, at first, was more to the Right...but at this point it's crazy people of all stripes who bought into it (and I know some of them personally...even friends!).
...in 1793 the republicans were not who you think they were..and neither were the democrats
Don't tell that to James Bond. He thinks that Somalia is a "conservative" country, and appears to think that the anti-federalists were equivalent to the GOP of today.
Obviously it was both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It was clearly partisan-driven in that there was a "Federalist" solution and an "anti-Federalist" solution (I will no longer use the word "Republican" in this thread so as to not further trigger semantic flim-flammers).
Neither side quite knew what they were doing (regarding yellow fever) in 1793, so yes it was also ignorance-driven.
It is an interesting anecdote but I do not really see a lesson to apply to today's situation. In 1793 there was no organization that was charged with answering questions such as what treatment should be applied to Yellow Fever. Today we do have such bodies, like NIH for health related questions and the National Academy of Science for more general science questions. But the problem is, some politicians have decided that they know better than the very organizations they created to do the research for us. It makes no sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
