The undersigned having been appointed by the President of the United States, Agent for Vaccination, hereby gives notice that the genuine vaccine Matter will be furnished to any physician or citizen of the United States who may apply to him for it. The application must be made by post, and the requisite fee, five dollars (in the current bank paper of any of the middle States) forwarded with it – When required, such direction, etc. how to use, will be furnished with the matter as will enable any discreet person, who can read and write, to secure his own family from the small pox with certainty, without any trouble, danger, or expense. All letters on this subject to or from the undersigned, and not exceeding half an ounce in weight, are carried by the United States mail free of any postage, in conformity to a late act of Congress entitled “An act to encourage Vaccination.
This public notice appeared in Concord's New Hampshire Patriot on July 6, 1813. It had only been seventeen years since the relatively safe inoculation against small pox using the related, but weaker, cow pox virus had been developed. In 1813 the United States Congress passed the Vaccine Act to promote public health. Up to this time the only reliable method of inoculation had been to use infectious small pox material. It was risky. A minority of the inoculated died, and until the virus ran its course they were contagious. Well off citizens in the 18th century who could afford the procedure to protect their own lives ran risks with the lives of poorer citizens around them - a fact that led to riots and the passage of anti-vaccination laws in many American colonies. The invention and promotion of a safer, more affordable vaccine was part of the greater social transformation underway, from colonies to nation.
0 Comments
By the Spring of 1813 the War against Great Britain had given its Democratic supporters nothing but grief. Two invasions of Upper Canada had not only failed, but the United States had lost control of most of Michigan. In vain, the N.H. Patriot, printed in Concord, tried to rally Democrats prior to the March gubernatorial elections. This excerpt was published on February 16, 1813. Their efforts failed and the Federalist John Gilman entered the first of three one year terms on an upswell in anti-war sentiment. While they couldn't stop Gilman, the themes sounded in this passage - that the Federalists were traitors to the nation who wished to foment a civil war for partisan advantage - would ultimately drive the party out of existence. Gilman was the last Federalist governor to hold office. While many of our most respectable citizens – some of whom fought our battles in the revolution which severed this nation from the tyranny of Britain – have volunteered their services again to humble the haughty tone of the insolent and overbearing nation – have left their homes and their firesides to encounter the toll and the perils of the tented field – shall we who remain at home sleep at our posts? Shall we tamely and indifferently suffer that faction which exults in the success of our enemies and rejoices in the defeat of our own arms – that faction which openly avows its wish and determination to sever the Union and involve this nation in civil devastation and blood – that faction which hypocritically arrays itself under the banners of WASHINGTON, while, disregarding the dying advice of that great and good man, it fills the country with seditious and inflammatory publications calculated to fan the flame of party and excite the North to place itself in battle array against their brethren of the South; shall we quietly permit that faction to seize the reins of government? Shall we suffer them to kill the spirit of the country, by adding to the influence they already possess the influence of office? During first months of the War of 1812 Tecumsah's pan-Indian uprising along the western border of American settlement merged with the struggle against Great Britain. I found this letter, re-published on October 20, 1812 in the New Hampshire Gazette notable because it was by a future president, to a future president. In it Zachary Taylor, then an army captain, describes an Indian attack on his fort to then Indiana Territory governor William Henry Harrison. From Capt. Taylor Continued below the fold -
By June of 1812, when the United States declared war on Great Britain, the situation in the mid-west was deteriorating fast. Tecumsah had returned from his sojourn among the Southern Indian tribes having convinced some to join his pan-Indian uprising against American settlers from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. By August he had joined forces with British forces marching from Canada to force the surrender of American soldiers garrisoning Detroit. This update on the situation appeared in the Concord newspaper the New Hampshire Patriot on June 16, 1812: Indian War One of the central ironies of the War of 1812 is that its ostensible causes were over maritime shipping and trade issues with Great Britain - but the coastal Americans involved in those industries tended to oppose the war and vote Federalist. Inland farmers who happened to vote Democratic strongly supported the war. As the war unfolded, it turned out the fighting was a lot less over who ruled the sea and a lot more about who controlled Canada and the western territories that farmers were interested in settling. Surprise! Along the entire length of the expanding United States were Indian nations that were not keen on expansion. For much of the 18th century they had been able to play the British and French off against each other. After the French were expelled from North America in 1763 their position was weakened, but at least the British were somewhat interested in keeping things orderly and tried to avoid warfare. After the American Revolution, things became very violent in the upper mid-West. By 1811 a powerful leader had emerged named Tecumsah, who rejected the authority of bribed chiefs to sell land, and attempted to weld the Indian nations along the length of the Western frontier from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico into a confederacy of resistance that could roll back further inroads. This conflict merged with the War of 1812, with the British enlisting the natives as allies. The following letter (this is how international news got around in those days) was printed in Portsmouth's New Hampshire Gazette on September 10, 1811 as tensions mounted: By Mail Continued below the fold -
I've always found it interesting to watch how a defeated political party explains to itself why it was just rejected by a majority of voters. How do you reconcile defeat with belief in democracy? This short piece was published November 17, 1812, as the pro-Democratic editor of the New Hampshire Gazette tried to come to grips with the upsurge in support for Federalist candidates. A few short months after James Madison and congressional Democrats declared war on Britain, seriously disrupting New England's maritime trade, anti-war candidate such as political newcomer Daniel Webster won a number of offices. The Gazette's editor chalks the loss up to out of state influences and misinformation. Sounds familiar. DeWitt Clinton challenged Madison for the Presidency that year. Luckily he was defeated and became governor of New York instead, pushing through the Erie Canal project which connected the Northeast to the upper Midwest. The spread of settlers and commerce westward through the Great Lakes and onto the Plains was key to the development of the industrial North - and the outcome of the Civil War. Much as we regret the probable result of the last election in this state, we cannot say we are greatly disappointed. We had seen too long the apathy which generally prevails among the republicans, and knew too well the indefatigable industry of the friends of base submission, and peace on any terms, however humiliating to American pride. We knew too that the state was inundated with addresses, in pamphlets and handbills, from the supporters of the New York candidate, and knowing the baseness of their mode of warfare, could scarcely expect but that an impression would be made on public opinion by this double attack – against open, avowed Federalism we had nothing to fear – the people knew its character, and how to meet it – they knew how to defeat the machinations of the British agency, but to the disguised warfare of Clintonianism being new and possibly more ignoble in its mode of contest, they were strangers and not prepared to guard against an assault. When they saw the name of a man who has ever affected to be a firm republican placed at the head of a ticket pretendedly formed to support Dewitt Clinton, (who too has affected republicanism as the surest conductor to the height to which his ambition aspired) and field the pressure which this double hypocrisy prompted to alleviate, it is no wonder many were deceived, and gave an indirect support to a cause they despise. In the first month of the War of 1812 the Federalist Party was in the awkward position of riding high on a wave of opposition to the war within New England, while trying not to be (or seem) disloyal to the nation - a charge leveled early and often by the Democrats. In this July 7, 1812 piece the editor of the pro-Federalist Constitutionalist, published in Exeter, tried to walk the line. Other parties would be in this position many times in future decades, but it's worth remembering that at this particular moment, it was the first time, and that Americans had not learned to make a firm distinction between an opposition party and a conspiracy against the government. “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalist” – This canting expression of a very canting gentleman is in a fair way to become serious truth. It is believed, that not one in ten of the citizens of New Engalnd and New York, if now called upon to express their unbiased opinion, would approve the War. Such union of sentiment is cause of gratitude, and does honor to the patriotism and generosity of free men. But while we disapprove the mad and wicked measures of administration, let us not think of obtaining relief by resistance to the laws. Let us seek our remedy in the choice of wiser and better men, to conduct the destinies of the nation. If we united in calling into public service our most intelligent, virtuous and patriotic citizens, the history of divine providence authorizes us to hope for reasonable relief. The quote at the beginning is a jab at Thomas Jefferson's famous inaugural address, which you can read here.
On July 14th, 1812 the pro-Democratic New Hampshire Gazette laughed off the suggestion by anti-War Federalists that the President did not have the authority to mobilize state militias following the recent Declaration of War. This illustrates the lengths some Federalists were willing to go to in order to block the hostilities they felt were a disastrous mistake, the confusion over how the relatively young Federal Government was supposed to orchestrate a national war and the enduring Democratic suspicion that Federalists were less a legitimate loyal opposition than a treacherous fifth column. You can read more about the British spy John Henry that this passage refers to here. BY Mail On June 30th, 1812 the editors of the pro-Federalist newspaper the Constitutionalist, published in Exeter, swallowed hard at the news that President Madison had declared war on Great Britain. The War was unpopular throughout New England and rising star Daniel Webster would soon be lifted to Congress on the basis of his opposition to it. Inexperienced with both popular politics and organized parties, Americans on both sides were struggling hard to define exactly what a loyal opposition looked like and whether it was politically legitimate - which is why I found this excerpt noteworthy. The Point of Honor As war fever peaked among New Hampshire Democrats just prior to the beginning of the War of 1812, so to did their paranoia that the Federalists were preparing a pro-British revolution in response to the regionally unpopular war. The proliferation of Washington Benevolent Societies in Federalist circles was particularly alarming. In the event, the societies proved to be more dedicated to legal grassroots organizing for elections than armed plotting. Both the societies, and the Democratic reaction to them, speak to the growth of popular politics in the early United States and the relative inexperience of Americans with democratic contests between organized parties. In Gilmanton, a month before war was publicly declared, a group of local Democrats pledged themselves to oppose any counter-revolution. Their declaration was reprinted in the NH Gazette on June 30, 1812: At a time like the present – when the Independence of our country is exposed to new and unparalleled dangers; when the administration of our country have taken a bold and decisive stand for the vindication of our National Sovereignty; it must be a subject of pleasing consolation to the friends of our country to find that the hallowed flame which was kindled in our revolution is not yet extinguished – that there is a firmness implanted in the American people which will bear them in triumph through the “rugged scenes” to which they have arrived. |