When explosive chaos and malignant disaster strike a people, the outerwear of their society crumples only to reveal their fleshy underbelly. Community weaknesses and vulnerabilities are often exposed in the form of anxiety and panic. In late 18th century America, yellow fever caused a fear among citizens, a reflection of an outwardly religious and holy population, fearful of God's wrath. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The fatal grip of yellow fever in 1793 appeared in the form of a mosquito-borne viral disease. The humid summer climate of Philadelphia's swampy summer attracted these blood-sucking insects native to areas of Africa and South America, resulting in approximately five thousand deaths. Yellow fever, or “American fever,” got its name from the yellowing of the eyes and skin, or jaundice, it caused in those affected. Contraction of the disease also caused hemorrhages, internal bleeding, black stools, vomiting and high fevers (Bauer 1896). Within weeks of the disease's first victim, Philadelphia residents abandoned their homes in an attempt to preserve their lives. In particular, the founding fathers and members of congress took part in this exodus. A xenophobic mentality gripped society, and foreigners were barred from entering Philadelphia for fear they would spread the disease. However, yellow fever still spread with the intensity of a wildfire and killed one-sixth of Philadelphia's population. With such a contagious epidemic spreading so suddenly in the city, hospitals simply couldn't care for all the sick, and the death toll per day skyrocketed between August and October. Congress was forced to evacuate, and the city's local government collapsed under the tumultuousness and pressure of the epidemic. The Philadelphians' flight to safety is described in an account by Mulford Stough in Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies. A dense and suffocating cloud of desperation weighs on the society of the sick, forcing around 17,000 citizens to abandon their homes. After hordes of carriages filled with furniture and families fled the city, the desolate, empty streets were all that remained. Eventually hearses and doctors' carriages took their place. Business collapsed, newspapers stopped production, and friends shunned each other as the “city of brotherly love” lost its livelihood and identity. Stough's account so clearly paints a picture of Philadelphians' brutal rejection of their city's name; fear of others dominated Yellow Fever society as individuals turned inward. This rejection of the commandment “love thy neighbor as thyself” led in part to moral and religious interpretations of the disease's grip on Americans. Because of such a troubling plague, victims and residents began to view the disease from a moral point of view. Their anxiety stemmed from their understanding of the Bible. Instead of a flood destroying humanity there was yellow fever, and instead of Noah's people it was the Philadelphians who faced the wrath of God. They began to reflect on their moral history and their actions as a society; What could justify the loss of so many lives? In a 1793 sermon, John Mason calls the time of the plague “proof that this is a day of rebuke and wrath of the Lord” (Mason 1793). Invite the faithful to implore the Lord's mercy in such a difficult time, but remind them that their sins and iniquities brought them to that yearcursed and plagued. Faced with the saint, it is easy to imagine his emotionally enriched pleas and chastisements as he speaks of diseases and states: “a host of destructive infected, displaying the paltry efforts of human effort, crossed the country and mowed down, in their march , the staff of life” (Mason 1793). A similar judgment is prevalent in “An Address with Christian Love” to the People of Philadelphia by Thaddeus Brown. In this writing, Brown compares the people of Philadelphia to the Egyptians cursed with plagues as punishment from God in the Old Testament. However, rather than taking an entirely negative approach, Brown also talks about a plague that helped save David's army in battle. Yellow fever was a direct punishment from God, so only God could put an end to this crippling disease. Brown goes on to say, “Is not this city contaminated by its inhabitants? why have they transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant? And so, has not the curse devoured the city, and its inhabitants are desolate, and few men are left… and its borders stricken with destruction?” (Brown 1798)This sentiment shared by two religious figures speaks to the fears of the American people affected by yellow fever. Instead of immediately asking what physical entity had caused the plague, the general population instead concluded that such death was punishment for society's grave sins. It was deemed necessary for the inhabitants of Philadelphia to fall to their knees, already weakened, and beg for Jehovah's mercy. Their anxiety manifested itself in having to accept the sins they had committed causing such a destructive black mark on their community. This idea was not only present in the writings of religious figures, but also of ordinary citizens. A poem titled “The Fever” published in 1799 talks about the shortcomings of society and the fact that it paves the way for punishment. The anonymous poet speaks of a time when his city was animated by water and was home to happiness, joy and beauty. “Every heart full of pleasures, ah, how vain! And he ran into the fatal road of madness” (Il Cittadino 1799). Happiness is described as the result of naivety and foolishness; therefore, it requires an eventual reckoning. The citizen's poetry then takes on an increasingly humble and holy tone as he turns to God; “Come down, oh shower: let the breeze blow stronger and fill our hearts with the usual joy.” Described as an elegiac poem, this haunting tale emotionally details the pain of the plague and the desire for mercy for its victims. The idea of ​​God's wrath as the source of yellow fever is clearly accepted not by one, but by many. However, a doctor named Benjamin Rush rejected this explanation for the fever and instead devoted himself to the practice of medicine. Such a conclusion on his part was not easily accepted by his neighbors, as his personal account of the illness shows. “After having labored nearly six years in vain to persuade the citizens of Philadelphia that yellow fever is of domestic origin, I had concluded to desist from all further attempts to produce conviction on this subject” (Rush 1799). Rush described the origin of yellow fever with a simile, comparing the stale city air to gunpowder, the atmosphere to sparks of fire, and the heat and cold to a hand, all mixed inside the bodies of citizens for an explosive effect. He concluded that yellow fever is not contagious but comes directly from dirt in the atmosphere. In his methods for preventing illness, Rush does not directly mention prayer, but instead turns to more physical means such as cleaning the city and changing one's diet. Instead of fleeing the city when the disease became more and more.