NYHIST-L Archives

September 2002

NYHIST-L@LISTSERV.NYSED.GOV

Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State history." <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version:
1.0
Date:
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:32:08 -0400
Reply-To:
"A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State history." <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject:
From:
Sandy Moffett <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
I missed the innoculation question so am not sure what was being asked, but
I do know that Salem Massachusetts also had numerous votes to allow it and
finally opened several "hospitals" for just that in 1790's(?).  This is
discussed in Dr. Bentley's diaries (Pete Smith, 1963) where he records the
names and which hospital the people stayed after innoculation and the health
of the individuals.  He also compared the results to a later outbreak of the
real small pox in town.  Judith Sargent Murray also was innoculated (not
sure of date) and she wrote about it in letters (see Bonnie Hurd Smith's
book "From Gloucester to Philadelphia in 1790").

Hope this helps.

Sandy Moffett Parks



> David,
> I know nothing about "Dr Barker," but I have read in the Town Records
> of
> Hanover, NH repeated votes during the 1780s forbidding innoculation for
> small
> pox and providing fines for anyone who did it.
> There was strong opposition to the concept of innoculation and one
> needs to
> know what Col Trumbull's feelings were on this.
> Since there is always some danger with innoculation (something of
> concern to
> us today), it might be that the troops, as a whole, were better off as a
> result of
> the innoculation efforts.
>
> Regards,
> Homer

ATOM RSS1 RSS2