Philanthropy and Reputation in the Lives of Joseph Townsend and Baltimore’s “Public Spirited Citizens”

Abstract

During the winter of 1800-1801, Baltimore’s Federal Gazette published a series of letters that nearly spelled disaster for one of the city’s most influential leaders. Beginning in November, local physician Dr. James Smith, under the pseudonym “Humanitas,” denounced prominent businessmen Joseph Townsend and Adam Fonerdan for having abused their power as members of the city’s Board of Health during the recent yellow fever epidemic. Although the Mayor and City Council had lately lauded the men’s “extraordinary exertions” in dealing with the public health threat, Smith was less willing to accept their altruism; seeking to “arouse [the public] from [its] delusive inactivity, or rather criminal stupidity,” Smith accused Townsend and Fonerdan of failing to fulfill their duties to the poor and of accepting illicit payment for their charitable services.¹ Instead of “daily visiting the poor and afflicted,” as the public and the city’s administration believed, Smith provocatively claimed that “they kept themselves at home, and out of danger... When it was supposed that they were diligent and unwearied in their disinterested labors...most of their philanthropy centered on their own persons.” Their assistance was limited to “sign[ing] orders of admission into the hospital,” yet they received generous praise from the Mayor and City Council, as well as salaries and private donations.² Smith boldly called for a reorganization of the Board of Health, believing it to be run by “men inadequate to the task.” Much as a constitution could not be written by physicians nor a bank run by mechanics, Smith explained, so too proper health laws could not be formulated by politicians; this work was best left to “men of science and humanity,” as the editor of the Baltimore American concurred.