Conrad Edick Wright. The Transformation of Charity in Postrevolutionary New England. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1992. x + 330 pp. $50.00, cloth, ISBN 978-1-55553-123-2. Reviewed by John D. Saillant Published on H-Early-America (March, 1996) The theme of "philanthropy and its discon‐ teenth-century and early-nineteenth-century tents" is important for those interested in philan‐ America, philanthropy was the focus of intense thropy as well as those interested in contempo‐ discussion. Moreover, Wright argues, the develop‐ rary social thought. As Robert L. Payton notes in ment of the ideas and the institutions of philan‐ his Philanthropy: Voluntary Action for the Public thropy was bound up with the creation of a mod‐ Good, not only the usefulness but also even the ern, postrevolutionary society in the United existence of philanthropy has been challenged in States. Indeed, the word "philanthropy," little used the twentieth century. Some believe, Payton notes, by Americans before the Revolution became pop‐ that "philanthropy undercuts the will to work and ular around 1780 (120-121). Before the Revolu‐ vitiates the necessity for each person to stand on tion, Americans generally avoided "philanthropy" his or her own feet." Some believe, Payne notes in favor of such terms as "benevolence," "charity," further, that "human nature at its core makes phi‐ "compassion," and "kindness." Understood accord‐ lanthropy illusory, as Freud believed religion to ing to its etymology as referring to "love of hu‐ be; philanthropy is an example of what in Marxist mankind," "philanthropy" seemed too abstract terms is called 'false consciousness,' an ideological and ambitious to seventeenth-century and eigh‐ sleight-of-hand that tries to put a benevolent face teenth-century Americans, who preferred more on an exploitative system." [Robert L. Payton, Phi‐ homely and personal terms such as "benevo‐ lanthropy: Voluntary Action for the Public Good lence." Some of the favor of eighteenth-century (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988), thought about "benevolence" and "philanthropy" 89-101.] A recent book, The Transformation of can be drawn from the dismissal of philanthropy Charity in Postrevolutionary New England, by by Timothy Dwight, one of the leading theologians Conrad E. Wright, of the Massachusetts Historical of the early republic. In his Theology, lectures giv‐ Society, makes it clear that concern and con‐ en at Yale College in the years after the Revolu‐ tention about philanthropy are not unique to our tion, Dwight dismissed philanthropy as he defend‐ times. Wright demonstrates that in late-eigh‐ ed instead "our duty to provide for our own; espe‐ H-Net Reviews cially for those of our own households." Dwight concern. Most Calvinists, inspired by Edwards, in‐ distinguished "benevolence" from "philanthropy." sisted that only the regenerate could exercise true "Benevolence" employed "in solid and useful acts charity, while the charitable efforts of the unre‐ of kindness" is "infinitely different from the cold generate could not partake of true charity since philanthropy of modern philosophers," Dwight in‐ they were motivated not by love, but by selfish‐ sisted. "This philanthropy overlooks the objects ness. Liberal Christians, who in the late eigh‐ which are around it, and within its reach," Dwight teenth century represented the future, countered continued, "and exhausts itself in pitying sufferers Edwardsianism by linking self-love and charity as in foreign lands, and distant ages: sufferers, so simply different exercises of human affection. distant, as to be incapable of receiving relief from Thus, reasoned the liberals, anyone could be truly any supposable beneficence." [Timothy Dwight, charitable, even though the effective scope of Theology: Explained and Defended in a Series of charity was small (pp. 42-47). Sermons (New Haven: T. Dwight & Son, 1839), III, The Revolution, Wright argues, changed the 116-117.] heart of charity, at least in New England, leading Wright's useful and cogent book describes the people into new modes of thinking and organiz‐ way in which Americans left behind Dwight's sus‐ ing that would lay the foundation for modern phi‐ picion of the 1780's of philanthropy as they ad‐ lanthropy. The organization required by the Revo‐ vanced into a modern world in which the homely lution--the colonial committees, the intercolonial qualities of benevolence and charity seemed inad‐ communication, the efforts to boycott British equate to the task of improving society. Before the goods, the militia, and the unity of purpose-- Revolution, Americans generally understood served to convince Americans that effective ac‐ charity as the ideal of human association-- tion need not be limited to small-scale societies. Jonathan Edwards called it the "sum of all As Americans began to feel themselves members virtues"--but as an ideal that could be achieved of a large society, they began to believe that chari‐ only in small societies. Although charity might in ty could extend beyond familiar circles. Wright principle apply to all humankind, the charitable links this new belief to the beginning of "the insti‐ individual found himself or herself with only a tutionalization of charity": a fourfold increase in small circle of effective action. "The Christian who the number of "mutual benefit societies," such as really lived his faith," Wright explains, "had no the Freemasons, in the twenty years after 1787 shortage of ways to live his charity as well, only (pp. 52-53). Mutual benefit societies usually al‐ powers that were limited.... He could aspire to do lowed each member to know every other member great things, yet do none but small ones, and still personally, but as Americans became more confi‐ live in charity. The gap between aspirations and dent about social reach of organized charity they achievements seemed the narrowest, and charity came to endorse organized philanthropy. Old seemed to fourish the best, in the most intimate reservations about the small scope of charity situations, among relatives, friends, and neigh‐ were forgotten as Americans examined the possi‐ bors" (p. 29). Such thinking about charity reflected bility of improving a new society. Wright quotes the small-scale societies characteristic of colonial some Americans who convinced their compatriots America, in which people found their social con‐ of the feasibility and importance of organized phi‐ text in a network of kin, co-religionists, patrons, lanthropy. "Much has been effected by the exer‐ servants, masters, and slaves. No stranger to ques‐ tions of benevolent and enterprising individuals," tions about the nature of "true" charity, Ameri‐ wrote a Massachusetts lawyer in 1805, "but the cans also wondered whether charity must be ut‐ exertions of individuals are unequal to the accom‐ terly selfless or might allow some degree of self- plishment of designs, which require great diversi‐ 2 H-Net Reviews ty of powers, or abundance of resources; which "check the vices, refine the manners, and amend demand the combined energies of wealth, of sci‐ the hearts, of men." [Dwight, A Discourse, in Two ence, and of labor." Philanthropic organizations Parts, Delivered July 23, 1812, on the Public Fast, are necessary, argued a theologian in 1812, since in the Chapel at Yale College (New Haven: Howe solitary individuals "have not the leisure nor the and Defrost, 1812), 27.] In discussing the needy opportunities to search out the circumstances of children in New Haven, Dwight wrote, "The wants the poor" (p. 117). New Englanders came to under‐ and sufferings of families are incomparably bet‐ stand that philanthropic organizations required ter understood, and more perfectly comprehend‐ neither that the philanthropic personally know all ed, by women, than by men." [Dwight, The Chari‐ the members of the "society," nor that the philan‐ table Blessed: A Sermon, Preached in the First thropic personally know the needy who received Church in New-Haven, August 8, 1810 (New their aid. Haven: Sidney's Press, 1810), 17.] Thus, the early Convinced of the efficacy of organized philan‐ republic saw a boom in Female Charitable Soci‐ thropy, New Englanders formed organizations for eties, Ladies' Friendly Societies, and Women's the relief of the poor, the care of orphans, the con‐ Benevolent Organizations, which concerned version of Indians, the education of young men themselves with the relief and religious education for the ministry, the spread of the Gospel, the of poor women and children as well as sometimes comfort of the imprisoned, and other worthy the practical and spiritual needs of black families. causes. These new organizations of the early re‐ These Female Societies made their mark on histo‐ public made a profound impression upon Ameri‐ ry not only by defining a "women's sphere" in can society in two ways. They served as models which women could advance into public life in for the benevolent crusades of the antebellum roles supposedly uniquely suited for their gender, years and they established the modern "eleemosy‐ but also in building the foundation for later cru‐ nary" corporation in America (pp. 140-142), the sades, such as the abolitionist and the temperance forerunner of twentieth-century philanthropic or‐ movements, in which women played major roles. ganizations. Furthermore, the philanthropic orga‐ [An excellent study showing modern historio‐ nizations of the early republic were much in‐ graphical approaches to women and philanthropy volved with changes in women's roles. Unlike is Lori D. Ginzberg, Women and the Work of charity, which was understood as ideally a con‐ Benevolence: Morality, Politics, and Class in the stant guideline in each one's life, philanthropy Nineteenth-Century United States (New Haven: was secured in organizations--a difference that Yale University Press, 1990).] raised the question of whether some people might Wright ends his book with invaluable refer‐ be more suitable for philanthropic "work" than ence and bibliographical material. An appendix were others. Americans of the early republic an‐ on "Charitable Motivations and Historical Writ‐ swered the question by reasoning that women ing" (pp.