She talks about the motivations and charity work of mid18thcentury north american and british philanthropists and humanitarians. This event was cohosted by the Woodrow Wilson center and National History center. It is just under 90 minutes. All right. It is great to have such a large crowd here on this day for the before the election, as we are all sort of anxiously awaiting what happens. It is a genuine pleasure for me to be able to introduce amanda to you. She is the associate director of the National History center. I have worked with her for the past 2. 5 years. I could sing her praises ad nauseam. I will simply say she has been indispensable to the operations and success of the center over the years. For someone who is so young, she has had a really interesting and varied career. Before she became an historian, she was a pastry chef and worked at some prominent restaurants. Then got her phd at the university of michigan and a postdoc at yale. At the same time, she has continued her interest in food history. She has taught historical cooking classes. She has a blog called just desserts. But in addition to that, of course she has her mainstay as a historian, her work on the origins of humanitarianism and that has led to the book from book, from empire to humanity the American Revolution and origins of humanitarianism, which was published by Oxford University press which she will be speaking to us about today. Amanda . Amanda thank you very much for the kind introduction. I am really delighted to speak at this seminar. One of the many gratifying aspects of working at the National History center and the American Historical Association over the past couple of years has been that it is so intellectually broadening. The washington history seminar has played an especially big role in that. The opportunity to hear topics outside my own area of focus each week is incredibly stimulating. It is a real pleasure to work with eric christian, who is not here. I apologize for not being the ideal presenter in terms of email communication. Amanda perry and especially dane, so thank you all very much. This seminar explores the historical background to Current International and national affairs. You may be wondering what someone who studies benevolence in the 18th century is doing here, beyond the fact that i had an in with the director . [laughter] amanda there is many to send say in conversation about philanthropy today. A journalist asked me that question, framed slightly differently. He wanted to know whether i thought leaving american foundations should be spending more at home. Were big foundations focusing too much abroad at the expense of needs here in the United States . That question is part of a larger debate today about how to Balance National and international priorities. That is playing out in various political contexts both here and abroad. It is a debate in part about perceptions of community and results of understandings and moral responsibility. Americans in the revolutionary era wrestled with similar issues. Rather than address the issue of what philanthropists today should be doing, i would like to start by explaining how i came to explore revolutionary era debates about this question. 19 years ago when i was casting about for a dissipation project, i was reading sources on late 18th century charitable activity. I was struck that leading philanthropists often knew each other and corresponded amicably about their projects. They borrowed ideas from one another, suggested charitable projects to each other, and kept each other abreast of progress and challenges in various causes. They were cooperating and doing so pretty intensely. That seemed incongruous to me since the American Revolution had only just fractured the angloamerican polity. Philanthropy reflects perception s of community. We exercise our moral responsibility within circles we feel connected to. So i was surprised in the wake of the war of separation americans and britain felt , morally invested in the welfare people who were now foreigners illegal strangers. If you are familiar with the literature on the rise of humanitarianism, you may be wondering why i found caring for strangers surprising. Scholars have explored the expansion of moral responsibility in the late 18th and early 19th centuries often focused on the Antislavery Movement. While, the rise of the Antislavery Movement along with the burgeoning of other charitable and reform causes was economic. The rise of capitalism, he argument has gone, gave rise to humanitarianism. The wellheeled thought to train the lower sorts for industrial economy. The reform institutions worked similarly to factories and the welloff generally sought to remake other classes. Another argument has been that economyeasingly global responsibility. As people engaged in longdistance commerce, they realized they could have an impact far away at a distance time. They made a contract now for something that was going to happen in a years time in a distant place and that helped them to understand that if they were consuming sugar produced by slaves, that they had a moral connection and by not consuming sugar could morally improve the situation. That has been the argument. But these works have often focused on particular movements, most particularly antislavery and Prison Reform. We have gained many insights from them. Gnawed at me was what at me was these studies often start their story after the revolution and that seemed to me to be beginning to late. The americans and britons who were leaders in philanthropy were middleaged by that point. They had grown to young adult hood in the vibrant, successful, and interconnected British Empire before the American Revolution. I wanted to know about the world they had grown up in and the they hade institutions grown up with. I wanted to know how they had experienced the American Revolution, which was an event that changed their world. Most of all, i wanted to know why people who had just experienced the civil war collaborated so closely in beneficent projects after their separation. I made a generation the center of my investigation. The men i studied were born in north america, the british isles, and they are almost all men. Women did not get involved in Public Charitable organizations until the very end of the 18th century. Public mores frowned on womens leadership in these roles. The people i study are almost all men. They include men like Benjamin Rush on the left. He was a philadelphian doctor. John coakley lettson. Born in the british west indies, at sixr, went to england for schooling and stayed in england for the rest of his life. He was a leader in londons philanthropic scene. John crawford on the left. Crawford was born in northern ireland, school at trinity college, and he joined the east India Company as a ship surgeon and served on a couple of voyages to the east indies. He then got a post at a British Military hospital in barbados and was in barbados for several years. From there, he moved to south america and eventually, he moved to baltimore, where he lived for the last 15 to 20 years of his life. Crawford is interesting because he founded medical charities in barbados and the same types of medical charities in baltimore. Henry on the right, he was a scotsman. He went blind as a toddler. That is why he has the black glasses. He was an itinerant lecturer in chemistry and natural philosophy, science. He was a popular lecturer around the british isles. And in the mid1780s, 1784, he came to the United States and is spent a couple years here, giving lectures on science and also promoting the founding of humane societies, which were charities that promoted the rescue and resuscitation of drowning victims. Thomas russell, he was a bostonian, a merchant. He was the First American after the revolution to send a commercial ship to russia and a leader in bostons charitable landscape. He was the president of a number of charities in boston. This is sir thomas bernard. Bernard,r was princess a real governor of new jersey and massachusetts, the last royal governor of massachusetts, so he spent much of his childhood growing up in the colonies. He began his College Education at harvard but when the imperial crisis heated up, his father left and went back to england where he was involved in various charitable causes. He founded the society for bettering the condition of the poor, a leading clearinghouse for ideas about poor relief at the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century. These are some of the people featured in my book. The book follows this group of leading philanthropists and others as they came of age in the prerevolutionary world, face remade theirar and ties after the war for independence. What i found was that the revolution was not a starting point in humanitarianism. It was a turning point. Before they broke their political bands, americans and britons had shared an imperial approach to charitable ventures. The civil war and american independence unsettled the familiar convention. In the postwar years, as it they adjusted to being foreigners, americans and britons embraced the universal approach in philanthropy. Though not without tensions. Their legacy was to make the care of suffering strangers routine. I would like to delve deeper into this history by talking about the best connected philanthropist in the early United States, Benjamin Rush. Let me tell you about the world that Benjamin Rush grew up in. When rush was born in philadelphia in 1746, great Great Britain and its north american colonies were growing closer. Transatlantic trade grew markedly in the early to mid century. Americans were appointing their homes with more and more goods manufactured in britain. For instance tea sets, hairpins , and tobacco. And they were consuming more produced by slaves in the colonies. Americans and britons material lives were becoming more similar. Communication across the atlantic increased too. , periodicals were putting britons around the world in better touch with each other. It is a world of expanding commerce and communications. It was also a world of warring empires. Britain fought its french and spanish foes repeatedly over the centuries. This strategic situation influenced charitable agendas and made benevolence a cause to tie them together. Britons and americans alike looked to charities to strengthen the British Empire. This was done differently on both sides of the atlantic. 18thcentury britain saw a wave of hospital foundations, which were typically charities in this era. This is a picture of the foundling hospital, a very wellknown london charity. It was established in 1739 to care for children born out of wedlock. The man who founded it, a key prime founder of it was thomas, who had spent 10 years living in the north american colonies at the beginning of the 18th century and was active in a number of charitable schemes that had imperial ends. The hospitals were established in part because charities would preserve lives and help strengthen britain militarily. The strength of the country was in its population. That was a commonplace thing of the day. Saving lives preserves them to be expended, i guess, by the army or navy later on. [laughter] amanda in the american colonies, hospitals have an imperial agenda. In the american colonies, britons and americans similarly founded and supported charities aimed at bolstering britains military strength. One person who participated in this event was george whitfield, who you see here. Whitfield was an anglican clergyman and is remembered best for helping to propel the religious revivals known as the great awakening in the midcentury. He traveled throughout the colonies, preaching his revival message to huge crowds outdoors. And he was probably the bestknown person in the colonies. As a youngster, Benjamin Rush met him and then again, as a young man he encountered him. Besides his religious mission, whitfield also had a charitable mission. One reason he initially ventured to america was to found an orphanage in georgia. The orphanage was called bethesda, house of mercy, and it was based on a famous orphanage in germany. If you are not lit with 18thcentury benevolence you may , not be familiar with the foundation. This was a suite of charitable organizations that were enormously influential in the protestant charitable world in the 18th century. Whitfield drew explicitly on them as a model. Whitfield raised funds throughout the colonies and in britain for the orphanage. Religion motivated him, but his charitable projects also had other aims. One reason he established the orphanage was to lure poor settlers to georgia. Inrgia had just been settled the 1730s. It became a colony in the 1730. Presence of the charity would assure settlers to georgia that if they died in their new home, someone would care for their children. What has this got to do with the empire . Georgia was a new colony, on the border with spanish florida, at and attracting settlers was important for establishing the colony and making an effective buffer. Charitable activists like whitfield and Benjamin Franklin also sought to Found Charity schools to integrate cultural outsiders into protestant christianity and british culture. Rush also knew franklin. Americans and britons were deeply concerned about cultural outsiders in the colonies. Two catholic rivals, france and spain, bordered the north american colonies and many protestant americans and virgins feared that native people, people of african descent, german colonists, and others them as allies. British security could be threatened. The response was to found Protestant Missionary organizations and Charity Schools to try and integrate outsiders. Typically, these missionary organizations and Charity Schools were collaborative transatlantic undertakings. This is the world that rush and his contemporaries grew up in. He and other philanthropic leaders of the late 18th century came of age in this culture where charitable projects often thought to bolster charitable aims. After the revolution, rush and his contemporaries would continue to believe that charitable activity had a political tenor. Benjamin rushs own experiences as a young man further integrated him into this world of transatlantic connection. He went to the college of new jersey and after graduating, he got some medical training in philadelphia and then he headed to edinburgh for medical school, aspiring american doctors typically went to edinburgh for medical school. Medical schools were only beginning to be founded in the colonies in the 1760s rush remembered his time in edinburgh as the happiest period of his life. It was intellectually stimulating and socially rewarding. He developed relationships with young men from all over the British Empire while there. Budding british doctors also had similar experiences at this stage in their life of meeting fellow doctors or fellow doctors in training from around the empire. After he received his degree in edinburgh, rush went to london, where he trained in the cities hospitals. One of the hospitals he trained that was a small inoculation smallpox inoculation hospital. It was near the foundling hospital. He may well have been familiar with that. He was certainly familiar with other hospitals in the city. Rush did not think he would learn much at londons hospitals , but he did think his time would enhance his reputation. He appreciated more the connections he forged in london. Among others, you got to know the quaker to know from the british west indies. That led him to become a lifelong partner of his in philanthropy. When rush returned home, he was highly trained and wellconnected. He anticipated a life of usefulness and benevolence. For comfortable ambitious men that meant among other things , joining voluntary associations , and rush did. He was a devout man and one of the groups he joined in 1768 was the society for promoting religious knowledge. A group of dissenting protestants had set up the charity in london in 1750 to distribute the bible and other religious works to the poor. The way it worked was this. Members paid their annual subscriptions and received their allotments of books to distribute to the poor in their neighborhoods. Londonbased members picked up their books at the monthly meetings while different arrangements were made for subscribers outside the metropolis to get their books. By 1769, 46 people in america had joined out of about 700 subscribers so 6. 5 of the total. By joining this group, rush was embracing the conventions of collaborative transatlantic charitable projects he had grown up with. From the early 18th century to the 1760s, those conventions had flourished. It is true that some criticized aid to distant people within the empire. There were great needs close to home they pointed out that should have greater claims to peoples resources. This is what the fundraisers for the colonial colleges heard when like Kings College heard when they went to britain in the 1760s to raise funds so there were critics. But many on both sides of the atlantic felt connected enough to donate to help distant members of the empire in distress. For instance, after hurricanes or fires. Many also give to charities like whitfields orphanage or missionary charities that sought to promote the british interest. The American Revolution interrupted that shared charitable tradition. Because the conflict began as a civil war, it would raise perplexing questions about how former compatriots who were now foreigners would relate to one another. First, the imperial crisis and the war alienated and angered americans and charity showed it. The society for promoting religious knowledge had been gaining support in the colonies in the 50s and 60s. One reason for its appeal was that it seemed to treat american members on par with british members in a way that the other transatlantic missionary charities did not. Americans had supported other missionary charities but they had been junior partners in them. There was no doubt about that and that was not true for this society. After 1759, however when the , British Government policies increasingly dashed colonists expectations of equal membership in the empire, americans stopped joining the society for promoting religious knowledge. That was a bellwether even though it was not apparent at the time. In patriots were not advocating 1769, independence. A few years later, when americans did decide for independence, rush was at the forefront of the patriot cause. He signed the declaration of independence and during the war, he served in public offices including the medical department of the army for a time. He burned with fury at british mistreatment of american prisoners during the war, including his fatherinlaw, who was also a continental congressmen and had been abused by the british who held him. Yet when a scottish friend, someone rush had met while he was in edinburg died in the , battle of princeton, fighting for the british army, rush wept for the first time for a victory gained over british troops. Even a few years into the fighting, even as an ardent patriot, rush could experience the conflict of the civil war. How do you pick up from a civil war that ends with the political separation . As soon as the war was over, all old friends across the atlantic reached out to one another. Their interruption the less the introduction of correspondence by the unhappy disputes wrote a quaker meeting difficult. Rush was unsure about how to relate to former compatriots. Before the United States and britain had signed a final peace treaty, rush wrote to a british friend to ask him to solicit donations for a new college and in carlisle, pennsylvania. His friend, richard price, a british clergyman who had been supportive of the revolutionary cause replied no, he would not help raise funds for the new american college. America, price hoped, would learn to take care of itself. The imperial breakup did not lead fellow nationals to turn away from one another. But it did stoke uncertainty in and inappropriate expectations about the transatlantic relationship. It raised the question of what the boundaries and more responsibilities were when political boundaries changed. Britons wrestled with this question first during the war. Thehe book, i explore society of universal goodwill that developed plans to work on a global scale. It was developing the plans as its president was struggling with the civil war which was not just dividing the empire but this mans family. For him, thinking about moral responsibility as political boundaries change was intensely personal. For americans, this reckoning with the boundaries of community and moral responsibility came once the war was over. Rich wartime experimenting with the universal approach in charitable activity was a harbinger of things to come after the revolution. It was philanthropist experiences as well before the war that made the shifts possible. They revealed this when they looked back a few decades later on their experiences as rush did. Comingofage in the Atlantic World had nurtured cosmopolitanism. Rush had socialized with protestants of many stripes. He reflected in his later years that these interactions had helped him to overcome his prejudices to different denominations. Rushs fellow philanthropist dealt with experiences before the revolution and helped set the groundwork for cosmopolitanism after the war. It allowed them to intensify the exchange of charitable knowledge familiar from their youth. There had been that initial bumbling as they try to pick up right after the war was ending. In a short time, rush was corresponding with fellow philanthropists in britain and the United States about a range of charitable institutions and causes. Outpatient clinics for the working poor, the Humane Society movement, which promoted the rescue and resuscitation of drowning victims, hospitals for people with certain types of infectious diseases, temperance, antislavery, and other philanthropic initiatives. This shows the plan of the philadelphia dispensary, the first one founded in the United States in 1786 based on a london model. In their missive, rush and his associates explained their latest charitable undertakings and encouraged their friends. To found a dispensary or establish a soup kitchen. Along with their letters, they sent detailed information about how to set up charitable institutions and charity news about innovations for existing charities and reported on the progress of their causes to spur action elsewhere. It was also true in medical philanthropy which has not received as much attention in a transatlantic context. Philanthropists sent pamphlets and books and medical equipment or other materials and sometimes shared recipes for nutritious economical dishes for feeding the hungry. This is an example, very typical, of the kind of information philanthropists sent to one another. Its the floor plan for a soup kitchen that was established in london in the late 18th century. John coakley had written up a pamphlet about it and at the end of the century, had published a charitable howto manual to collect a number of pamphlets. This shows the layout for soup kitchens and where you should come in and to the line, where you pick up the soup. A philanthropist could look at this and have detailed information about how to set up this institution. Rush and his correspondence worked locally. There aims are never confined to their cities. For cosmopolitan improvement minded men, having an impact further afield was almost as important as having an impact locally. They thought to respond charitable institutions spawn charitable institutions elsewhere. He tried to speed one in boston with donations and information and offered founding of one in baltimore. He discussed antislavery. Among the other topics of philanthropic topics he wrote about and discuss with people. Organizations worked similarly. Humane societys had one of the thumbs networks of any philanthropic movement, comparable to antislavery. Humane societys exchanged letters and in his official capacity as president , rush wrote to his counterparts in other Humane Societys. The societies sent each other their annual reports which included information on improvements in technology, the number of lives that had been saved and much more. Likewise, when rush gave a speech to the philadelphia Humane Society, the Philadelphia Group sent it to the royal Humane Society in london which reprinted the speech. The royal Humane Society was a clearinghouse for all of this material that it received from other societies and sent it back out to other Humane Societys in britain, the caribbean, the United States and europe. In this way, rush and his contemporaries worked together to disseminate knowledge about effective benevolent programs. And this picture shows the reference to the Humane Society shows a few people rescuing a drowning victim. Humane societys were very well known and popular and there was associated with them. Doctors were at the forefront of this charitable cooperation. They were well organized and oriented for trafficking in charitable knowledge. Their knowledge was useful. Their ruling principle was active benevolence. Selfserving note was, doctors sensibility incline them towards philanthropic motivation. Giving their time to medical charities helped them to burnish their reputation. Moreover, doctors deemed correspondence with their colleagues to be essential to progress in medical knowledge. As a result, they regularly traded letters with polys, covering all sorts of medical matters including charitable project they were involved in. More mundanely but as important, many delete doctors had met during their student years or at least shared mutual acquaintances. They had therefore the strong bonds that gave body to a farflung community. The republic of medicine which is a term rush used, withstood the imperial rupture while the breakup tested religious communities which had been seen as important for cooperation. They have the professional imperative and the network to structure a longdistance conversations about philanthropy. Rush and his correspondents moral concern came from religious beliefs. Many who had grown up with charities sought to strengthen the empire could not divorce this from politics. They could not separate their thinkings about to watch their thinking about politics. These are men who had lived through wars that had changed the world. Once but twice in the last three decades. First, the seven years war, the french and indian war had made the American Revolution possible. The revolution itself, the politics of nations and empires absorbed their attention. In the years after the revolution, the filled their letters with questions. Activists bandied about their thoughts on matters political. They also wove them together with discussions of philanthropy cured they would write about a philanthropic issue, talk about politics and then returned to philanthropy. Philanthropy had a political valence. Moreover, their way of thinking was not subconscious. Rather, their presumption that an assistance has beneficence has political import that pertain to the crafting of a new peaceable statecraft for the Atlantic World. Underlying philanthropists told that they wanted to cultivate the arts. In the 1780s, into the 90s, individual philanthropists and charitable organizations made similar points. They had grown up familiar with the idea americans and britons were trying to figure out how to relate to each other as foreigners. The earlier experiences of moving around the heterogeneous british world and learning to relate to people of different backgrounds had nurtured cosmopolitanism. It was an intellectual and emotional resource that they could draw on. As they trafficked in charitable knowledge after the revolution, americans and britons were not only aiding strangers but also pursuing statecraft for their reordered world. Americans and britons charitable exchanges were not always harmonious. In the book, explore their frustrations and their efforts to cooperate. After the loss of the 13 colonies, britons began defining the empires humanitarian as paternalistic. They claimed caring for nations is a uniquely british trait. Americans challenged these pretensions to a unique universal benevolence. Americans insisted through their cooperation that the former compatriot jointly pursued a shared universal and evidence. Benevolence. The british were claiming a unique british benevolence. Americans were saying it was a shared project of universal benevolence. For a time, that idea of a universal benevolence did hold sway. People on both sides of the atlantic agreed that flynn tropic cooperation was a force for transatlantic reconciliation. Philanthropic cooperation was a force for transatlantic reconciliation. Commentators on both sides of the atlantic attacks the ideal of universal benevolence, which had been a morally strong position for a time. Feelings changed markedly. The newly nationalistic move did not disrupt philanthropists longstanding practices. American, british, and european philanthropists built on earlier experiences to collaborate. Smallpox vaccination have been discovered at the very end of the 18th century by edward jenner, and philanthropists built on their experience in the Humane Society movement to structure the exchange of both information and smallpox vaccination material to pursue what was really a global undertaking that vaccinated thousands upon thousands of people in the early 19th century. Rush died in 1813. The smallpox Vaccination Campaign was their generations last big humanitarian as undertaking. They had adapted to becoming foreigners by making the care of suffering strangers customary. Later generations had built on this. 18th century Philanthropists Network 18th century philanthropists had worked in philanthropic communities. The trouble to investigate faraway charitable institutions and promote their causes. They institutionalize their causes by founding world organizations to coordinate their efforts. The early 20th century saw a new organizational form for improving the lot of suffering strangers, the foundations promote the wellbeing of mankind throughout the world. They have the resources to improve the condition of humanity not to networks and international associations, but in their own right. Foundations are distinct and important ways but their work abroad builds on the centuriesold philanthropic tradition of reaching across borders. The rise of mass giving us another development of the 20th century and watchable donors have used their gifts of time and money to improve the lot of distant strangers. Americans have continued to adapt models of philanthropic and human rights institutions from abroad. A couple weeks ago, marc bradley talked about how americans in the 1970s imported human rights and ideas from european. I was struck when he mentioned that Human Rights Watch has a budget of 69 million and a staff of 400. A return to the question that journalists ask me about whether foundations should spend less abroad and more at home. That question presumes americans pursue philanthropy at home and abroad in two distinct fears. Spheres. The question this history leads me to ask is if they influence each other today. The domestic and foreign war of a piece. Apiece. Americans and bridges developed the culture of to stray aid to strangers. They laid the foundational structures of global humanitarianism. They built the americans ontopic infrastructure as part of the same project. Thank you. [applause] thank you, amanda. We are going to our question discussion period. We have a few ground rules. Please wait until the microphone reaches you. Please use the microphone. Please identify yourself as you begin to speak. D thank you. Don with the wilson center. I thought it was very rich. I learned a lot. A couple weeks ago, you made passing reference, we had the talk on how human rights was an nextdoor from europe that did not take hold in the u. S. Until the 1970s and then you raise a question, and i want to export that. Held you differentiate, and here we are talking about humanitarianism being an export how do you differentiate between humanitarianism and Human Rights Concerns . And relatedly, im wondering why it is that we hear a lot about how in europe, there is not the same concern or outlook for philanthropy and humanitarianist . What happened to the tories that fled to canada . Amanda in terms of how to differentiate between humanitarianism and human rights, in the 18th century, that distinction really i do not think was made. I do not think it would have made sense. Maybe scholars will disagree with me, but the term that was used was philanthropy and that had a broad meaning of love of mankind and encompassed a lot of different activities that we would distinguish today. When i tried to emphasize and what i asked marc bradley about a couple weeks ago is that people who were involved in these different campaigns were often the same people and their understanding they are understanding a moral responsibility and that led them to engage in different kind of campaigns. What i think is that in the 18th century, there was an expansion of moral responsibility to strangers that lays the groundwork of what became humanitarian and human rights causes. In terms of the european tradition, i think the growth of the welfare state in europe is a big reason why there is less of the philanthropic activity we have in the United States, but certainly, europe has a strong philanthropic tradition and i think that it is not a good argument that the United States has a voluntary tradition that is distinct. Right here . Sonja michelle from the university of maryland. Fantastic, amanda. I have been led to believe this book would be very rich and you have obviously demonstrated it is. A couple of questions sort of related. Really building on what don was asking about welfare states. What was the relationship between these early charities and the existing system of relief in the colonies . The. Become strong after the revolution and lead to the nationalistic orientation and create this tension in the transAtlantic World . The other that was related is, you mentioned religion in passing, but im wondering how important religious motivations were in founding the charities and whether that enabled a split between secular and statesponsored charities on the one hand and these charities on the other and third, one question, really women were not involved in this . Have i been wrong in thinking that women were a lot of these charities were in the name of men because women could not own property or have transactions of money. Were women not involved in the rank and file of these organizations . Hold on to the mic there because you might have to repeat one of these questions. Amanda a lot of men that i focus on or religious and religion was an important motivation were religious and religious was an important motivation in their involvement in charities. I think it essential to understanding them as individuals and their motivation. In terms of women, women do not lead and found organizations in their own right until the end of the 18th century. There are women involved as staff in charities. Some women and hospitals were getting training as nurses. There are women who are subscribers to charities. They were supporting charities but these were usually a small minority of charities and typically, if you subscribe to a charity, you have the right to vote at the annual meeting, and women typically could not vote in public at the annual meetings, so British Charities had rules requiring women to vote by proxy. They could vote in the annual meeting elections, but by proxy. Same role for aristocrats. Women and aristocrats were potentially not independent. So it is not until the end of the 18th century that women are founding and leading charitable organizations. In terms of the relationship between these charities and poor relief, from the perspective of a recipient, someone using these institutions, i think the distinctions have mattered the least. They saw charitable and the structure landscape as possible support and would cap bit of tap the different institutions as they could to meet their needs. Organizations or complement complementary, and i think that is also true for the managers. When a hospital could no longer provide for a person, shift them over to the alms house. They are interrelated and complementary. One thing to keep in mind for charities is that for much of the 18th century, relief provided aid based on having a settlement, a legal residence in the community, and in the case of charities, it typically depended on religious connections are belonging to the same occupation as the charity and there might be charities for carpenters were clergymen, or whatever, so if you did not fall into any one of these categories, the charitable instructor did not serve you and that is one thing that changes as part of this universal approach. Microphone forward to jim. James banner. Amanda, i found this very interesting, and one of the themes, central theme in fact is the role of doctors in medicine. I think that has been much too little stressed in the literature. There is an extraordinary population of doctors on both sides of the atlantic who are very central to this and i think you are absolutely right. That said, rush died by the end of the napoleonic wars. You dont associate medicine and doctors with what comes to be known as reform in the continuing part of the 19th century. Reform, by the way, unless im mistaken, is not a word that slipped from your lips. Youre talking about benevolence, philanthropy, charity, and so on, but do we get to reform, and by reform, i mean the passage of laws and state legislatures. I dont think there was any National Reform legislation at all. As medicine fades away, as a Strong Influence in charity, benevolence, humanitarianism i think of the people who took up the reform heralds that there is few of them are doctors and certainly, they are religious people and so on, but those and the laws being passed for alms houses, insane asylums, they are not centrally medical issues. I am interested in how you would see the transformation if that is what it is between the medicallybased philanthropy and what becomes more nonmedical, seems to me, after that. Amanda one thing that changes for doctors is that once medical schools established in the United States, they dont need to go abroad. They do go abroad, but for shorter periods in time, and dont develop the stronger relationships. Doctors networks will not be as strong as they were. I think that could be part of what would explain this weaker network. They would not have the same role to play that they did in this period, i think. There are some doctors involved, but yeah. I think theres something distinct about the 18th century for the role of doctors. What is distinct for humanitarian benevolence and reform . Amanda keep in mind that antislavery and Prison Reform were growing concerns in the late 18th century. There are efforts to reform poor relief in the 18th century so it is partly a terminological shift, left right. There are some reform causes in the 18th century. A shift to a more legal approach. I know the 18th century i can speculate, but it is passed my area of expertise. [laughter] we have a question about here. Amanda my name is eddie becker. I have done something called the chronology on the history of slavery. Im approaching this from that perspective. What i have seen is that a lot of these Charity Hospitals catered to people who were enslaved and did extensive experiment station and let us take cap talks, smallpox experimentation, and let us take cox pox, smallpox, and test vaccines on people who were enslaved to see if they lived. Did he come across this . Did you come across this . There was this kind of, in order for them to do these kind of experiments, they had to create, not a humanitarianism, kind of like a way of viewing people, if you read jeffersons notes on virginia, you see that he sees people of color as not being human, so it develops within the medical profession and also the political profession, very much, a much more racist approach based on science to people of color, which is unique to the United States in that this institution had to end with the civil war, unlike in other places, and of course, medicine has a great i mean, you can do more spare mentation here than in europe experimentation here than in europe,. Anyway, i would like to hear how you were able to avoid this messy subject. [laughter] amanda absolutely, you are right. Enslaved people on voyages in the early 18th century were subject to smallpox inoculation through, in terms of, both enslaved people and the poor work spam to it on for these new were experimented on for these new vaccinations. The Humane Society which promoted the resuscitation of drowning victims could be used by slavers, who saved lives of captives, to put them on sale for the colonial market. That is an aspect of this history. Thank you. Amanda, thank you so much. It is really great. I have a comment and question. The comment goes back to dons question. I think it is really important to differentiate between what you describe as philanthropy, meaning an impulse to be kind to people who dont have things and rights, which stem from their very essence as human beings, and if you look at the term right in American History, right up until the Second World War, it is used primarily as identity politics. There are the rights of black people and women, but no notion of universal human rights, and you dont get a lot of that in europe until the Second World War and the, that was created by the Second World War. Question was, as one of the sources of impetus for philanthropy, if you look at all of the education of the people involved, because so many of them got a classic education, with an emphasis on the obligation of the citizen, that factor aside from the professional of the just . Impetus . Amanda iraqi that as much. I see them citing the parable of the Good Samaritan i dont see that as much. I see them citing the parable of the Good Samaritan. I did not see that as much. So, i have a question that has to do with what makes these folks tick. And it is about motivation. If your subject had been antislavery explicitly, passion would be on full display, a passion about rights, passion stemming from evangelical christianity, but there is passion. Resuscitation is a different issue. When a medical professional or other person comes to the issue of reviving drowning victims, what is it that brings them to that that gets them up in the morning to write articles about this and get others to contribute to a fund to spread the word to create funds to pay people, to help people recover from drowning . Those are very different had the causes in my mind, and i understand the motivation on rights and the christian impulse with regard to antislavery. I do not fully understand or recognize the spirit that would make someone invest lots of energy in resuscitation. Maybe this is an early 21st century issue, but if you could transport us back to the late 18th century, could you recreate the mindset that would inform and help to motivate someone who makes resuscitation their cause. They were very passionate about resuscitation. Advocates of that cause were laid in reviving people when jesus was raising lazarus. Just to bring someone back from the brink of death was incredibly exciting and incredibly empowering. Remember, this is a world in which possession resuscitation is something that is custom. We can save lives. This was a new cause and it was seen as a potentially blasphemous. He result back from the dead was playing with gods will. To be able to do it medically was very stimulating. It was also a way of fostering the netherlands. Fostering benevolence. Encouraging people to save joni victims was a way to make society more humane and the benevolent. There was a reason that it didnt want to save drowning victims. People could not swim. It was crazy to jump in to a river and save someone. Second of all, if you took a half drowned body into your house and you were legally liable to the expenses. There was good reason to be careful about it. Putting this new cause on the agenda attracted a lot of excitement. I am are needed jones. How limited was the scope for the englishspeaking world . Amanda that is what you focused on. You have any sense of what was going on in other places . Amanda the one reason i was talking about the foundations in germany was because i wanted to make the point that americans and britain were connected to european counterparts. Europeans had typically a stronger type to europe and americans learn about european charitable practices and institutions through britain. Certainly, they did have connections and knew what was going on. The low countries. But also in france and italy. Italy was very influential on european philanthropists. They were part of a larger european world. The Anglo American bond is quite strong. Hi i am actually with philanthropy magazine. Thank you for promoting religious knowledge. You said it was before the revolution, is that right . Amanda there was a trajectory of americans joining. Then i stopped. Which groups survived the revolution and which ones died off . Amanda humane societies were founded after the revolution so in britain the first one was founded in 1774. Then in the United States in 1780 and in the next decade. The revolution does interrupt his formation of charities. A lot of historians and ontopic Institution Testing the revolution as a starting point. In part because of interruption. Americans were adopting european and british institutions and founding institutions up into the revolution. Then there was a break and some new excitement after the revolution that was the picking up of things that had been dropped before the revolution. I was wondering if i could ask you amanda, to expand on the Historical Context of your book. And your intervention and the subject. You do so at the beginning of your talk to some degree. I am struck in particular about the title. From empire to humanity. There is obviously as you know a very influential book about Michael Barnett who blurbs your book. It is called the empire of humanity. I am wondering if the choice of title reflects a decision to position yourself relative to michael. Does that set it apart . If you could expand on that. Amanda sure. What i said at the beginning was that i want to emphasize that a lot of historians have looked at humanitarianism as beginning in the late 18th century. It shapes how we understand it because we dont know what came before. We dont take the extensive early 18th century charitable activity seriously enough. As enough as a result, we dont see the American Revolution as important and humanitarianism as it was. From empire to humanity, i am play with Michael Barnetts title and trying to draw attention to the charitable conventions that people were familiar with to make the point that the revolution and that political causes were important in reshaping humanitarianism. Not just economic development. Becoming strangers was something that people had to grapple with which led them to rethink more responsibility more generally. And back here. In 18th century, medicine was not very advanced. Doctors often did more harm than good. You mentioned that there was a lot of doctors involved in this philanthropic movement. I am wondering how much of that had to do with trying to enhance the reputation of medicine. Amanda that was part of it. They were trying to build the profession. They were really committed to exchanging medical knowledge and knowledge about other areas of life which makes them so important in this network. Thank you very much for this interesting talk and questions. I want to follow up on several comments. Especially considering the limited positions of the day. I thought your depiction of Benjamin Rushs attempt to correspond with a colleague at the revolution and the response he got was not as expected. I approach this from my studies of the development of medicine in the United States. From about 1850 two the 20th century. Beginning at about 1850, the first coat of medical ethics by the American Medical Association calls for services on part of the doctor. This works right into unifying the whole question of humanitarian reform of the profession. Thank you. We had a hand that there. I am carl henry. You has mentioned that religion was influential. To what extent was not conform is an important. To what extent did the methodists and quakers still have connections that may not have been available to and was . When did Humane Society go to be about animals . Amanda they were charities in this area that use the name that were not antidrowning groups. It is just a good name for a charity. It is not exclusively used by these antidrowning groups. Yes, then they faded. They adopted the name. In terms of the issue of religion, a lot of the people were all kinds of protestants. They were able to relate to one another and collaborate. In the early 18th century, i think that is harder in the late 18th century. That is why the Doctors Network is important. Different religious communities like to quakers and some of the evangelicals did face challenges after the revolution. Religion and politics have been so intertwined in british identity that even some of the dissenting groups have to see that. They are much more expressed that i am. Sorry again area one of the things that we have been talking about here is the intellectual content. The intellectual traits of medicine. It is more than a practice, it more is more than leaving people to look at it effectively. It is very important. I would like to ask you to see if we can add to the intellectual traditions. It has to be the benevolent protestantism of the 18th and 19th century. What about utilitarianism . You mentioned italian influences. Certainly, they were reading jeremy bentham. Utilitarianism has never been in the United States. One of the reasons is because the most noted utilitarianism and utilitarian was ehrenberg. Erin for. The you discover any utilitarian currents . Anything additional that you would add to the intellectual currents that are sweeping into the 19th century . Amanda we talked about creating republican machines. In terms of the intellectual curfew, you know these were widely read men who were acquainted with the various intellectual currents. The terms of their own philanthropic activity, i dont think utilitarianism plays a role in their thinking. I just wanted to enter the conversation that my studies of the 19th century show what i think is probably a connection i am not familiar with the 18thcentury groups. The early ama in the 1840s take a part. In the fight against cholera, beginning in the 1800s. When is the first cholera epidemic . There is one in the 1830s and 1850s. Is the first one 1819 . Maybe the late 1820s. You can see connections that they made in medical schools in the schools between doctors. It survives into the civil war. Transatlantic as well, they all were reading 18thcentury solutions. If we knew more, if we could harness knowledge, we could defeat disease. That gives rise to efforts to form the american statistical association. Doctors are quite prominent in these. I dont know how numerical they are but they are a consistent presence into housing reform in the 1870s and 80s. I think if one wanted to, one could probably draw a thread from where your book and to the discovery of the germ theory. A couple of weeks ago when we were hearing from mark bradley, amanda we were wondering about why. I tend to believe it was not a fluke. Perhaps there was a reason that there cleaning preening led to human rights. To the back to a point that you made about reform. There are several means of reform. One is social reform, the other one i think is more popular and prominent during the early 18th and 19th century is individual reform. Evangelical reform of individual people. I wonder if temperance was a theme here. Also, you have not really mentioned that a lot of the philanthropic and civil and poor houses, their mission was to reform people. To get them from being dependent. To get them from being dependent to being independent. That went along with motions of citizenship. You can be a citizen if youre dependent on somebody else. I just wonder, given these ones that were religiously motivated, how did those goals play and what they were doing . Amanda those were goals. Even for the Humane Society, it was meant to foster the reflection. You saw that you had another chance of getting right with god before you die. A drowning victim is one example. The individual reform was an aspect of their goals. Amanda his death or they were drowning because they were morally and responsible. It was Prison Reform, also, certainly that was a factor. In relate institutions, there were efforts to help people reform individually. It is certainly part of philanthropist goals. They have to reform themselves. The Reform Efforts were geared toward supporters as well as individual recipients. If they may be a repeat offender, you may passing reference. I believe i had the quote right. The french revolution undermined as the politics and abilities and you lost me there. I did not know if you are talking about the reign of terror causing a breakdown in the nettleton transported this have broader impact internationally . It had huge impact internationally. The tension caused by the french and haitian revolutions let americans and britain commentators on both sides of the atlantic were led to emphasize family and local community. American and british commentators say things like how wretched our weight if youre paying attention to a stranger far away and asking before you help somebody in your local community. Is there somebody further away who i should be helping . You are then paying attention to the local sufferers. It has an anonymous impact. Enourmous impact. You are saying that there was less interest in this. From the same perspective of being benevolent, i am thinking in china. That is all later. I dont know what it is or how much the connection is between his earlier thinking and some of the later ideas . I do know the 19th and 20th century as well as that in terms of dr. s rolls. Their network is not every going to be the same as it was in this. It is for shorter periods of time. They feel a coolness from their british counterparts. There were a lot of them that were in china for instance. Predecessors to the rockefeller foundation. They founded medical schools and stayed there as faculty. It was a totally different connection. It was hardly angloamerican. What i dont. You are doing is miniscule. What i know about the period you are doing is miniscule. Any other questions . You didnt talk much about the strategy of collecting funds for charity. I was just wondering, in relation to the most current two models, like the clinton foundation, theyre way of collecting funds. What kind of strategies were being used . I dont know the people that you showed, what kind of wealth they came with when they to do charity. You have to first but appear on money before you can attract other people to join you. Yet the put up your own money. Then there are two tragedies strategies. In the case of the clinton foundation, they get it through their social connection. They give us 20 or 50 million because i am influential and with nothing to do for you. They were typically organized as voluntary associations on the model of joint stock companies. Many subscribers would subscribe to all amounts. Typically, these organizations might have had a few generous donators. It was nothing like the scale that we have of giving today. Wealthy people did not there wasnt huge giving. It was more broadly based giving. Charities had people who subscribe annually. You may donate to a particular charity annually and then instead of getting a tote bag and an umbrella or something, you got the right to name a certain number of recipients at a given time who would be getting it from the charity. They also had fundraisers, this all caps offs, they might have a musical performance are a speech or a sermon. Other kinds of benefits. Benefit dinners. Different kinds of ways of raising funds. There are reports printed in forms that would show you how you should write which in your will if you want to leave a legacy to the charity. There was very skilled and the skin fundraisers. On that note, we will draw this session to a close. Let me say that you can purchase books outside of the store in a few moments. Please join for the reception and next week, some of these issues will be carried over when the history ofon abolition. Thank you to our participants. Thank you to amanda. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] interested in American History tv . Visit our website and see our Upcoming Schedule or watch a recent program. American artifacts, lectures on history and more at history. N. Org each week we bring you archival films that provide context for todays Public Affairs issues. Friendship seven awaits its pilot. In the pilot has waited three years for this day. Three long, arduous years of waiting, training, of and now he is ready. His name is john glenn. Asked her not john glenn up new concord, ohio, you lieutenant colonel, United States marine corps. Mary, father of two teenage children. Been a pilot over half of his 40 years and has flown into pilotnd as a veteran test who five years earlier and established a transcontinental flight record is the first man to average supersonic speeds across america. He volunteered for spaceflight. He is selected for project directed by the National Aeronautics and space administration. Roger, backup clock is started. Oxygen 78. Belongshn glenn, now and awesome panorama. The world curving beneath him just as it did in film of an earlier capsule. It was beautiful. Home is the voyager. Behind, a journey of 81,000 miles, through three days and three nights in just four hours and 56 minutes. 3 04 p. M. , it comes to rest uss destroyer know up, and john glenn returns the people of earth. A change of clothes, a breath of cool error, a short debriefing, then he leaves the noah, heading for the Aircraft Carrier randolph under the golden banner of his fourth sunset of the day. Abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching in a private school. Hairstylinghowers love of pink created a fashion sensation. To women clip on banks eager to replicate her style. Jacqueline kenny was responsible for the creation of the White House Historical association, and nancy reagan as the young actress tsarnaev mistakenly on the blacklist of suspected communist sympathizers in the 1940s. She appealed his screen actor skill president Ronald Reagan for help. She later became his wife. These stories featured in the book first ladies. The book makes a great gift for the holidays, giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in American History. Stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. Share the stories of americas first lady for the holidays. Worse ladies in paperback, published by Public Affairs, is now available at your favorite bookseller and also as an ebook. Monday night on the communicators, verizons executive Vice President of Public Policy talks about recent changes including the purchase of aol and the proposed acquisition of yahoo . He discusses the need for massive fiber buildout which could be part of the infrastructure program. We are building the fiber deeper and deeper into the network so the wireless signals travel is shorter distance. That means increasingly talk about Wireless Networks and 90 of that is actually fiber. You look at what cities are trying to do, you need massive fiber infrastructure to do all that. Ont watch the communicators cspan2 on monday night. Next, historian george nash talks about herbert hoovers humanitarian efforts during world war i and world war ii. He was known as the great humanitarian for his work on International Relief effort. The world war i museum and memorial posted this one hour and 10 minutes event. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I am the ceo of the world war i museum and memorial. We are delighted to welcome you. Since one of the many Public Programs that we have and we are so pleased that you have taken time out on this warm summer day and evening to engage in what is going to be i think a forthright and a deeply engaging