Public Health Is for Patriots Too
A common refrain heard from the chorus of folks who view public health measures as an affront to their rights is, “What would the founders think?” While speculating about the hypothetical political opinions of people who died a quarter-millennia ago may be a questionable way to govern ourselves today, for those that believe the secrets of liberty lie somewhere in the past, it is worth considering that our nation was founded in the midst of an epidemic, requiring the Founders to wrestle with similarly controversial matters of public health, the successful navigation of which proved critical to our nation’s early successes.
During the American Revolution a smallpox outbreak in New England hobbled General George Washington‘s ability to wage an aggressive campaign during the Siege of Boston, dragging it on for nearly a year. Washington feared an outbreak among his own troops which had decimated the Continental Army’s failed Invasion of Quebec. Washington would at times only advance with troops immune to smallpox, and eventually ordered a lockdown during the outbreak that prohibited his soldiers from contact with residents of Boston, even their own families. Amidst rumors that British spies were intentionally introducing smallpox to the Continental Army, as was done against Native Americans during the French and Indian War, Washington was in need of a public health solution to protect his troops.
Fifty years earlier, an African-born Bostonian named Onesimus introduced a traditional African remedy for smallpox to the colonies known as inoculation, which involved the introduction of fluid from the pustule of a smallpox patient into a healthy person’s incision. The individual would contract a mild case of the disease, quarantine until they were no longer infectious, achieving permanent immunity. Prior to the introduction of the smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century, it was the best available preventative measure. Though a common practice among Black and Native American populations during the Revolutionary Period, the practice was controversial among white colonists. In addition to sometimes proving fatal, without proper quarantine procedures it led to community spread. This gave inoculation a dangerous reputation, and vigorous anti-inoculation campaigns preceded it’s outlaw in Massachusetts, with the exception of Boston. It was even punishable by death in the Continental Army.
Convinced of the seriousness of the threat of smallpox to the war effort, Washington took decisive action against its spread by reversing prohibitions against inoculation and mandating the procedure for the entire Continental Army. Officers were resistant to the order, and it took months of angry letters from Washington before it was fully implemented. Once the mass inoculation campaign began, Washington systematized social distancing measures to prevent the threat of outbreaks posed by the recently inoculated. Within a year the Continental Army was effectively immune from smallpox. The disease which had been an obsession of General Washington’s to that point, was barely mentioned in his letters that followed, allowing his battle-ready force to engage the British uninhibited by the disease that previously hindered his military campaigns. The rest is history.
Notions that today’s public health interventions pose a novel threat to our liberty or that they are somehow fundamentally un-American are no doubt rooted in passion, but not in reality. Like Washington, we must appreciate that freedom from an oppressive government is not the only freedom worth fighting for. Those who are supportive of public health interventions are fighting for freedom from a virus that needlessly kills too many of us, freedom from a moment that has made it difficult or impossible for some of us to safely work or safely send our young children to school, freedom from the callous dismissal of safety measures by those who hold power over us, freedom from the fear that we may unknowingly infect someone more susceptible than us, and freedom from our government’s failure to successfully manage the most widespread domestic crisis of our lifetimes. And like Washington in the face of opposition, those of us who continue to advocate for public health interventions are indeed patriots, fighting for our freedom against a disease that threatens our very lives and liberty.
Read more about Smallpox in Washington’s Army: Strategic Implications of the Disease during the American Revolutionary War here in an article by Ann M. Becker in the Journal of Military History.
