Introduction

Thanks to a few enterprising historians, the work of Catharine E. Beecher (1800-1878) has recently begun to attract scholarly attention. Once largely known as the oldest sister of such luminaries as Harriett Beecher Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher, she carved out her own distinctive niche in mid-nineteenth century America. Her activities as founder of two female schools, author and celebrated speaker on American domesticity gave her a chance to become a leading commentator on some of the issues facing white middle class Protestant women in this society. 

Beecher's Treatise on Domestic Economy, a work reprinted nearly every year for 15 years after its appearance in 1841, was probably her best-known volume. Once this book become popular, she could, in the estimate of her foremost twentieth century interpreter, “enter virtually any community in the United States and expect to be received as the heroine who had simplified and made understandable the mysterious arts of household maintenance, child rearing, gardening, cooking, cleaning, doctoring and the dozen other responsibilities middle class women assumed to keep their children and husbands alive and well.”[1] One of those “dozen other responsibilities” was covered in the chapter – “On Giving to Charity” – that is reproduced in the following pages.

Significantly enough, this chapter is sandwiched in between two other essays, “On Habits of System and Order” and “On Economy of Time and Expenses.” Both of these companion chapters focused on the imperative of clarity about principles, procedures and above all the need for discipline. They amply demonstrated the truth of Kathryn Sklar's recent summary judgment about The Treatise on Domestic Economy: “Like Dr. Benjamin Spock's Baby and Child Care of a century later, Catharine's manual provided simple rules to enable the reader to judge for herself how best to deal with an inevitably more complicated reality.”[2]  Doubtless Beecher intended that her reflections “On Giving to Charity” would likewise help her female readers arrive at clarity about their own visions of giving.

But as a matter of fact, the excerpted document made a compelling case for modesty in advancing any claims to know even the “simple rules” about giving money. From the very first sentence of the chapter, Beecher stressed the extraordinary difficulty of developing “the” Christian answer to these issues. In sounding that note of caution, she offered something refreshingly different from most other Protestant leaders of that time, including her famed father. Recall, if you will, the import of Lyman Beecher's sermon before the American Board about the cause of missions. His immersion in the movement psychology of the 1820s inhibited any lingering worries about the complexities inherent in giving money. Likewise Pharcellus Church was supremely confident about Scripture's teaching about the tithe and the imperative importance of proportionate giving. Catharine Beecher mentioned neither principle, nor did she appeal to the authority of a common mission. (It is worthy of note that she does not mention foreign missions at all in this piece.)

Perhaps her reticence in these matters reflected her efforts to reach a broad audience, some of whom might be outside the fold of any Protestant denomination. Yet she showed no hesitancy at all in using theological language throughout the chapter. My own guess is that Beecher was not comfortable with the conventional Protestant formula for inspiring people to give. In all likelihood she found these so-called Biblical rules largely irrelevant to the actual choices available to her female readers. How many women in mid-nineteenth America made the major decisions about whether their families adopted the discipline of the “tithe” or the principle of “proportionate giving?” 

The vast inequities in economic power between men and women created a considerable challenge for anyone like Catharine Beecher who wanted to say something practical to her female audience. In effect, realistic advice about giving would be somewhat different for women than it would be for men. While Lyman Beecher and Pharcellus Church could assume the abundance of wealth, she was serving an audience whose principal ventures in charity often bore the tell-tale adjective of “cent” or “mite” in their titles. The only likely opportunity for enlarging those tiny sums would come out of the domestic budget. If women were free to allocate resources for the household expenses, they could gradually reduce expenditures for “superfluities” and thereby free money for giving.

Beecher did not chafe under the restraints of these limited circumstances. Instead, she called for acceptance of the inevitable, urged systematic study of domestic expenditures and encouraged her readers to settle for whatever gains they could eke out from year to year.

The tone of her teachings about giving was so different from that of her male counterparts. In particular, the distance between Catharine and Lyman, daughter and father, was striking. Catharine's teaching lacked the intensity of his argument, his appeals to the once-and-for-all-time nature of this moment of decision, his strenuously imperative calls of action. Unlike Pharcellus Church, she did not hold out for an absolute standard against which all contributions could be measured and were usually found wanting. Indeed, she warned about the dangers of heaping blame on oneself. The single rule she advanced was stated in a low-keyed, self-consciously calm and rational manner. “To use all the means of knowledge within our reach, and then to judge with a candid and conscientious spirit, is all that God requires.”

Here, in sum, was a distinctive voice in the growing American Protestant conversation about giving.

---

Source:  Chapter XV in Catharine E. Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy (Boston: Marsh, Capen, Lyon and Webb, 1841).

On Giving in Charity

It is probable that there is no point of duty, where conscientious persons differ more in opinion, or where they find it more difficult to form discriminating and decided views, than on the matter of charity. That we are bound to give some of our time, money, and efforts, to relieve the destitute, all allow. But, as to how much we are to give, and on whom our charities shall be bestowed, many a reflecting mind has been at a loss. Yet it seems very desirable, that, in reference to a duty so constantly and so strenuously urged by the Supreme Ruler, we should be able so to fix metes and bounds, as to keep a conscience void of offence, and to free the mind from disquieting fears of deficiency.

The Writer has found no other topic of investigation so beset with difficulty, so absolutely without the range of definite rules which can apply to all in all circumstances. But on this, as on a previous topic, there seem to be general principles, by the aid of which, any candid mind, sincerely desirous of obeying the commands of Christ however much self-denial may be involved, can arrive at definite conclusions as to its own individual obligations, so that, when these are fulfilled, the mind may be at peace.

But for a mind that is worldly, living mainly to seek its own pleasures, instead of living to please God, no principles can be so fixed, as not to leave a ready escape from all obligation. Such minds, either by indolence (and consequent ignorance) or by sophistry, will convince themselves that a life of engrossing self-indulgence, with perhaps the gift of a few dollars and a few hours of time, may so suffice to fulfil the requisitions of the Eternal Judge, that they can safely meet Him at the final day.

For such minds, no reasoning will avail, till the heart is so changed, that, to learn the will and follow the example of Jesus Christ, becomes the leading object of interest and effort. It is to aid those who profess to possess this temper of mind, that the following suggestions are offered.

The first consideration, which gives definiteness to this subject, is, a correct view of the object for which we are placed in this world. A great portion, even of professed Christians, seem to be acting on the supposition, that the object of life is to secure as much as possible of all the various enjoyments placed within reach. Not so teaches reason or revelation. From these, we learn, that, though the happiness of His creatures is the end for which God created and sustains them, yet that this happiness depends, not on the various modes of gratification put within our reach, but mainly on character. A man may possess all the resources for enjoyment which this world can afford, and yet feel that “all is vanity and vexation of spirit,” and that he is supremely wretched. Another may be in want of all things, and yet possess that living spring of benevolence, faith, and hope, which will make an Eden of the darkest prison.

In order to be perfectly happy, man must attain that character, which Christ exhibited; and the nearer he approaches it, the more will happiness reign in his breast.

But what was the grand peculiarity of the character of Christ? It was self-denying benevolence. He came “not to seek His own;” He “went about doing good,” and this was His “meat and drink;” that is, it was this that sustained the health and life of His mind, as food and drink sustain the health and life of the body. Now, the mind of man is so made, that it can gradually be transformed into the same likeness. A selfish being, who for a whole life has been nourishing habits of indolent self-indulgence, can, by taking Christ as his example, by communion with Him, and by daily striving to imitate His character and conduct, form such a temper of mind, that “doing good” will become the chief and highest source of enjoyment. And this heavenly principle will grow stronger and stronger, until self-denial loses the more painful part of its character, and then, living to make happiness, will be so delightful and absorbing a pursuit, that all exertions, regarded as the means to this end, will be like the joyous efforts of men when they strive for a prize or a crown with the full hope of success.

In this view of the subject, efforts and self-denial for the good of others are to be regarded, not merely as duties enjoined for the benefit of others, but as the moral training indispensable to the formation of that character, on which depends our own happiness both for time and eternity. This view exhibits the full meaning of the Saviour's declaration, “how hardly shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of Heaven!” He had before taught, that the kingdom of Heaven consisted not in such enjoyments as the worldly seek, but in the temper of self-denying benevolence like His own; and, as the rich have far greater temptations to indolent self-indulgence, they are far less likely to acquire this temper, than those, who, by limited means, are inured to some degree of self-denial.

But on this point, one important distinction needs to be made, and that is, between the self-denial which has no other aim than mere self-mortification, and that which is exercised to secure greater good to ourselves and others. The first is the foundation of monasticism, penances, and all other forms of asceticism; the latter, only, is that which Christianity requires.

A second consideration, which may give definiteness to this subject, is, that the formation of a perfect character involves, not the extermination of any principles of our nature, but rather the regulating of them, according to the rules of reason and religion; so that the lower propensities shall always be kept subordinate to nobler principles. Thus we are not to aim at destroying our appetites, or at needlessly denying them, but rather so to regulate them, that they shall best secure the objects for which they were implanted. We are not to annihilate the love of praise and admiration; but so to control it, that the favor of God shall be regarded more than the estimation of men.  We are not to extirpate the principle of curiosity, which leads us to acquire knowledge; but so to direct it, that all our acquisitions shall be useful and not frivolous or injurious. And thus with all the principles of the mind, God has implanted no desires in our constitution, which are evil and pernicious. On the contrary, all our constitutional propensities, either of mind or body, he designed we should gratify, whenever no evils would thence result, either to ourselves or others. Such principles as envy, ambition, pride, revenge, and hate, are to be exterminated; for they are either excesses or excresences: not created by God, but rather the result of our own neglect to form habits of benevolence and self-control.

In deciding the rules of our conduct, therefore, we are ever to bear in mind, that the developement of the nobler principles, and the subjugation of inferior propensities to them, is to be the main object of effort, both for ourselves and for others. And in conformity with this, in all our plans, we are to place religious and moral interests as first in estimation, our social and intellectual interests next, and our physical gratifications, as subordinate to all.

A third consideration, is, that, though the means for sustaining life and health are to be regarded as necessaries, without which no other duties can be performed, yet that a very large portion of the time spent by most persons in easy circumstances, for food, raiment, and dwellings, are for mere superfluities, which are right when they do not involve the sacrifice of higher interests, and wrong when they do. Life and health can be sustained in the humblest dwellings, with the plainest dress, and the simplest food, and after taking from our means what is necessary for life and health, the remainder is to be so divided, that the larger portion shall be given to supply the moral and intellectual wants of ourselves and others, and the smaller share to procure those additional gratifications, of taste and appetite, not indispensable. Mankind, as yet, have never made this apportionment of their means; but, just as fast as they have risen from a savage state, mere physical wants have been made subordinate to higher objects.

Another very important consideration, is, that in urging the duty of charity, and the prior claims of moral and religious objects, no rule of duty should be maintained, that it would not be right and wise for all to follow. And we are to test the wisdom of any general rule, by inquiring what would be the result, if all mankind should practise according to it. In view of this, we are enabled to judge of the correctness of those who maintain, that, to be consistent, men who hold to the eternal destruction of all those of our race who are not brought under the influence of the Christian system, should give up, not merely the elegances, but all the superfluities, of life, and devote the whole of their means, not indispensable to life and health, for the propagation of Christianity. But, if this is the duty of any, it is the duty of all; and we are to inquire what would be the result, if all conscientious persons gave up the use of all superfluities. Suppose that two millions of the people in the United States were conscientious persons, and relinquished the use of every thing not absolutely necessary to life and health. It would instantly throw out of employment one half of the whole community. The manufacturers, mechanics, merchants, agriculturists, and all the agencies they employ, would be beggared, and one half of the community not reduced to poverty, would be obliged to spend all their extra means in simply supplying necessaries to the other half. The use of superfluities, therefore, to a certain extent, is as indispensable to promote industry, virtue, and religion, as any direct giving of money or time: and it is owing entirely to a want of reflection, and of comprehensive views, that any man ever make so great a mistake, as is here exhibited.

Instead, then, of urging a rule of duty which is at once irrational and impracticable, there is another course, which commends itself to the understandings of all. For whatever may be the practice of intelligent men, they universally concede the principle, that our physical gratifications should always be made subordinate to social, intellectual, and moral advantages. And all that is required, for the advancement of our whole race to the most perfect state of society, is, simply, that men should act in agreement with this principle. And if only a very small portion of the most intelligent of our race should act according to this rule, under the control of Christian benevolence, the immense supplies, that would be furnished for the general good, is far beyond what any would imagine, who had never made any calculations on the subject. In this Nation, alone, suppose the one million and more of professed followers of Christ should give a larger portion of their means for the social, intellectual, and moral, wants of mankind, than for the superfluities that minister to taste, convenience, and appetite; it would be enough to furnish all the schools, colleges, Bibles, ministers, and missionaries, that the whole world could demand; or at least, it would be far more than properly qualified agents to administer it could employ.

But it may be objected, that, though this view is one, which, in the abstract, looks plausible and rational, not one in a thousand can practically adopt it. How few keep any account at all of their current expenses? How impossible it is to determine exactly what are necessaries, and what are superfluities! And in regard to women, how few have the control of an income, so as not to be bound by the wishes of a parent or a husband!

In reference to these difficulties, the first remark is, that we are never under obligations to do what is entirely out of our power, so that those persons who have no power to regulate their expenses or their charities, are under no sort of obligation to attempt it. The second remark is, that when a rule of duty is discovered, we are bound to aim at it and to fulfil it, just so far as we can. The third remark is, that no person can tell how much can be done, till a faithful attempt has been made. If a woman never did keep any accounts, nor attempt to regulate her expenditures by the right rule, nor use her influence with those that control her plans, to secure this object, she has no right to say how much she can, or cannot, do, till after a fair trial has been made.

In attempting such a trial, the following method can be taken. Let a woman keep an account of all she spends for herself and her family, for a year, arranging the items under three general heads. Under the first, put all articles of food, raiment, rent, wages, and all conveniences. Under the second, place all sums paid in securing an education and books and all intellectual advantages. Under the third head, place all that is spent for benevolence and religion. At the end of the year, the first and largest account will show the mixed items of necessaries and superfluities, which can be arranged so as to gain some sort of idea how much has been spent for superfluities, and how much for necessaries. Then, by comparing what is spent for superfluities with what is spent for intellectual and moral advantages, data will be gained for judging of the past, and regulating the future.

Does a woman say she cannot do this? Let her inquire, whether the offer of a thousand dollars, as a reward for attempting it one year, would not make her undertake to do it; and if so, let her decide, in her own mind, which is most valuable, a clear conscience, and the approbation of God, in this effort to do His will, or one thousand dollars. And let her do it with this warning of the Saviour before her eyes, – “No man can serve two masters.”  “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.”

It is objected, how can we decide between superfluities and necessaries in this list? It is replied, we are not required to judge exactly, in all cases. Our duty is, to use the means in our power to aid us in forming a correct judgement; to seek the Divine aid in freeing our minds from indolence and selfishness; and then to judge as well as we can, in our endeavors rightly to apportion and regulate our expenses. Many persons seem to feel that they are bound to do better than they know how. But God is not so hard a Master; and after we have used all proper means to learn the right way, if we then follow it according to our ability, we do wrong to feel misgivings, or to blame ourselves, if results come out differently from what seems desirable. The results of our actions, alone, can never prove that we deserve blame. For it is often the case, that, by lack of intellect or means, men are so placed, that it is impossible for them to decide correctly. To use all the means of knowledge within our reach, and then to judge with a candid and conscientious spirit, is all that God requires; and when we have done this, and the event seems to come out wrong, we should never wish that we had decided otherwise. For it is the same as wishing that we had not followed the dictates of judgement and conscience. As this is a world designed for discipline and trial, untoward events are never to be construed as indications of the rectitude of our past decisions.

In order to act in accordance with the rule here presented, it is true, that many would be obliged to give up the idea of conforming to the notions and customs of those with whom they associate, and compelled to adopt the maxim, “be not conformed to this world.” In many cases, it would involve an entire change in the style of living. And the Writer has the happiness of knowing more cases than one, where men, who have come to similar views on this subject, have given up large and expensive establishments, disposed of their carriages, dismissed a portion of their domestics, and modified all their expenditures, that they might keep a pure conscience, and regulate their charities more according to the requirements of Christianity. And there are persons, well known in the religious world, who save themselves all labor of minute calculation, by giving so large a portion of their means to benevolent objects, that they find no difficulty in knowing that they give more for religious, benevolent, and intellectual, than for any inferior objects.

In deciding what particular objects shall receive our benefactions, there are also general principles to guide us. The first, is that presented by our Saviour, when, after urging the great law of benevolence, He was asked, “and who is my neighbor?” His reply, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, teaches us, that any human being, whose wants are brought to our knowledge, is our neighbor. The wounded man was not only a stranger, but he belonged to a foreign nation peculiarly hated; and he had no claim, except that his wants were brought to the knowledge of the wayfaring man. From this, we learn that the destitute, of all nations, become our neighbors, as soon as their wants are brought to our knowledge.

Another general principle, is this, that those who are most in need, must be relieved, in preference to those who are less destitute. On this principle, it is, that the followers of Christ should give more to supply those who are suffering for want of the bread of eternal life, than for those who are deprived of physical enjoyments. And another reason for this preference, is, the fact that many, who give in charity, have made such imperfect advances in civilization and Christianity, that the intellectual and moral wants of our race make but a feeble impression on the mind. Relate a pitiful tale of a family reduced to live for weeks on potatoes, only, and many a mind would awake to deep sympathy, and stretch forth the hand of charity.  But describe cases where the immortal mind is pining in stupidity and ignorance, or racked with the fever of baleful passions, and how small the number so elevated in sentiment, and so enlarged in their views, as to appreciate and sympathize in these far greater misfortunes! The intellectual and moral wants of our fellow-men, therefore, should claim the first place in our attention, both because they are most important, and because they are most neglected.

Another consideration to be borne in mind, is, that, in this Country, there is much less real need of charity in supplying physical necessities, than is generally supposed by those who have not learned the more excellent way. This Land is so abundant in supplies, and labor is in such demand, that every healthy person can earn a comfortable support. And if all the poor were instantly made virtuous, it is probable that there would be no physical wants which could not readily be supplied by the immediate friends of each sufferer. The sick, the aged, and the orphan, would be the only objects of charity. In this view of the case, the primary effort in relieving the poor should be, to furnish them the means of earning their own support, and to supply them with those moral influences which are most effectual in securing virtue and industry.

Another point to be attended to, is, the importance of maintaining a system of associated charities. There is no point, in which the economy of charity has more improved, than in the present mode of combining many small contributions for sustaining enlarged and systematic plans of charity. If all the half-dollars, which are now contributed to aid in organized systems of charity, were returned to the donors, to be applied by the agency and discretion of each, thousands and thousands of the treasures, now employed to promote the moral and intellectual wants of mankind, would become entirely useless. In a democracy, like ours, where few are very rich, and the majority are in comfortable circumstances, this collecting and dispensing of drops and rills is the mode by which, in imitation of Nature, the dews and showers are to distil on parched and desert lands. And every person, while earning a pittance to unite with many more, may be cheered with the consciousness of sustaining a grand system of operations, which must have the most decided influence in raising all mankind to that perfect state of society, which Christianity is designed to secure.

Another consideration relates to the indiscriminate bestowal of charity.  Persons who have taken pains to inform themselves, and who devote their whole time to dispensing charities, unite in declaring, that this is one of the most fruitful sources of indolence, vice, and poverty. From several of these, the Writer has learned, that, by their own personal investigations, they have ascertained, that there are large establishments of idle and wicked persons in most of our cities, who associate together to support themselves by every species of imposition. They hire large houses, and live in constant rioting on the means thus obtained. Among them, are women who have, or who hire the use of, infant children; others, who are blind, or maimed, or deformed, or who can adroitly feign such infirmities, and by these means of exciting pity, and by artful tales of woe, they collect alms, both in city and country, to spend in all manner of gross and guilty indulgences. Meantime, many persons, finding themselves often duped by imposters, refuse to give at all; and thus many benefactions are withdrawn, which a wise economy in charity would have secured. For this, and other reasons, it is wise and merciful, to adopt the general rule, never to give alms, till some knowledge is gained, of knowing how they will be spent. There are exceptions to this, as to every general rule, which a person of discretion can determine. But the practice, so common among benevolent persons, of giving at least a trifle to all who ask, lest, perchance, they may turn away some who are really sufferers, is one which causes more sin and misery than it cures.

The Writer has never known any system for dispensing charity, so successful, as the one which, in many places, has been adopted in connection with the distribution of tracts. By this method, a town or city is divided into districts; and each district is committed to the care of two ladies, who duty it is to call on each family and leave a tract, and make that the occasion for entering into conversation, and learning the situation of all residents in the district. By this method, the ignorant, the vicious, and the poor, are discovered, and their physical, intellectual, and moral, wants, are investigated. In some places, where the Writer has resided or visited, each lady retained the same district, year after year, so that every poor family in the place was under the watch and care of some intelligent and benevolent lady, who used all her influence to secure a proper education for the children, to furnish them with suitable reading, to encourage habits of industry and economy, and to secure regular attendance on public religious instruction. Thus, the rich and the poor were brought in contact, in a way advantageous to both parties; and if such a system could be universally adopted, more would be done for the prevention of poverty and vice, than all the wealth of the Nation could avail for their relief. In one of these places, the Writer heard a resident reply to some remarks about the danger of having her fruit stolen, "No; the boys never steal fruit here. The people never take any pains to protect it, and have it in great abundance; but it is seldom if ever taken without leave." This was in a city of twenty thousand inhabitants, where the plan above described had been in efficient operation for several years. But this plan cannot be successfully carried out, in this manner, unless there is a large proportion of intelligent, benevolent, and self-denying, persons; and the mere distribution of tracts, without the other parts of the plan, is of very little avail.

But there is one species of charity, which needs especial consideration. It is that, which leads a person to refrain from judging of the means and the relative charities of other persons. There have been such indistinct notions, and so many different standards of duty, on this subject, that it is rare for two persons to think exactly alike, in regard to the measure of duty. Each person is bound to inquire and judge for himself, as to his own duty or deficiencies; but as both the resources, and the amount of actual charities of other men are beyond our ken, it is as indecorous, as it is uncharitable, to set in judgement on their decisions.

[1]  Kathryn Kish Sklar, Catharine Beecher: A Study in American Domesticity  (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973), p. 152.

[2]Sklar, p. 154.