Episode 2: Moral Citizens

Mark Oppenheimer 

Support for Antisemitism, U.S.A. comes from the Henry Luce Foundation and the David Bruce Smith Foundation.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Jacob Henry and his wife, Esther were prosperous. Henry owned several hundred acres of land and 12 slaves. Jacob and Esther had a home near the waterfront. In 1809, Jacob Henry won reelection to the North Carolina legislature, where he represented the citizens of Carteret County. Henry was a Federalist, but it was the Republicans, the party of Thomas Jefferson and the newly inaugurated President James Madison, who had a large majority in the state legislature. After his reelection, Henry traveled to Raleigh and took his oath of office. And then, two weeks later, he got a rude shock. One of his fellow legislators filed a motion to vacate his seat. In other words, they wanted to kick Henry out. The objection was on religious grounds. Jacob Henry was a Jew.

Mark Oppenheimer 

I'm Mark Oppenheimer, and this is Antisemitism, U.S.A., a podcast about the history of antisemitism in the United States. This is episode two, Moral Citizens. In the early years of the country, only certain kinds of virtuous people were believed to be capable of self governance, and whom did Americans consider virtuous? Protestant Christians, not Catholics, not atheists, and certainly not Jews. In this episode, we'll look at how Jews were excluded from holding political office. And then we'll turn to a 19th century society that attempted to convert Jews to Christianity to make them into moral citizens. But for now, let's get back to Jacob Henry in North Carolina politics. North Carolina's state constitution of 1776 declared that "all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship." before the American Revolution, the Church of England became established as the official Church of North Carolina. But the state constitution there made it clear that no one would be forced to pay for the church or attend any place of worship that was against their own faith and judgment. So why would the legislature even consider denying Jacob Henry his seat, Henry had won the election fair and square, nobody doubted that. Here's historian David Sehat, author of The Myth of American Religious Freedom

David Sehat 

At least early on in American history, a lot of times rights were connected to your religious beliefs. various states in the early republic limited voting, for example, to either Protestants, or Christians, or theists. And that last category would include Jews, but the first two would not. There were various limitations on who could run for office. And these limitations were sometimes explicit, like we just don't allow Jews to run for office, or they were implicit in that you had to take an oath that was a Christian oath that affirmed the divinity of Jesus and the divine inspiration of the Old and the New Testaments, which would obviously exclude Jews. So really, in all the ways in which you encounter the state, if you pair a religious obligation, or a religious identity to interacting with the state, you put those who are outside that identity at disadvantage and Jews were frequently at disadvantage.

Mark Oppenheimer 

The problem Henry faced was that in North Carolina in 1809, the state constitution barred Jews from office even though it didn't mention them. The article said,

North Carolina 1809 Constitution 

that no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority, either of the Old or New Testament, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this state.

Mark Oppenheimer 

So to hold office in North Carolina, the state constitution required you to be a Protestant. It also required you to believe both the Old and New Testaments. So while a Jewish person might have been able to claim truthfully, that they believed in the Bible, they wouldn't think of the New Testament as being divine. While the United States Constitution banned this sort of religious test for federal office holding, it wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that the Supreme Court applied the federal prohibition to the states. The authors of the North Carolina constitution believed in religious liberty. They'd stopped funding their own Christian churches. The restriction in their state constitution was aimed at keeping Catholics out of office, because Protestants generally considered Catholicism to be incompatible with Liberty. In 1776, when North Carolina adopted its new constitution, there were maybe 2000 Jews living in the United States. But when Protestants thought about groups they didn't want voting or in government, they thought about Catholics as well as an additional trifecta of Jews, Mohamedans, which meant Muslims, and infidels, whom today we might call atheists.

What happened when states stopped paying churches is that many religious groups instead turned to morality as a proxy to maintain religious control. So they would write their moral ideals into law, and thereby shape the public contours of American culture and of American society. And this then gave American culture throughout the 19th century a kind of Protestant feel or vibe, because in many ways, the official public morality enforceable by the law and in government was Protestant, it came out of Protestant sensibilities, it reinforced Protestant moral ideas, and it ultimately gave Protestants control over that society to a large degree. Protestants in particular believed that once you became a Christian, there was an obligation to redeem or sanctify society and to make it more Christian which in effect meant make it more like the kind of society that we want to see in our churches, but now on a kind of national level. And so if you weren't in that group, you were in a problematic position. And Jews in particular had been a subject of persecution precisely because they were never going to be Christian.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Henry hadn't stood out in North Carolina politics, no one objected to him the first time he won a seat in the legislature. But now the second time around, someone raised the issue of his religion. On December fifth, 1809, North Carolina legislator Hugh Mills made a motion to vacate Henry seat.

Hugh Mills 

It is therefore made known that a certain Jacob Henry, a member of this house, denies the divine authority of the New Testament, and refused to take the oath prescribed by law for his qualification, in violation of the constitution of this state.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Mills had two objections. First, that Henry denied the authority of the New Testament. And second that Henry refused to take the prescribed oath. Here, things get a little murky, Mills might have meant that Henry did not swear his oath on the Christian Bible. But there were workarounds in place for Quakers and for others who refused to swear oaths. It isn't clear why Mills introduced the motion at all, was it because he was a Republican and Henry was a Federalist? It could have been as simple as an attempt to disqualify a member of the other party. But Henry seemed to get on with other Republicans, and some of them rallied to his defense. Perhaps Mills had some sort of grudge against Henry. The next day, Jacob Henry delivered a speech before the House. Here's what he said,

Jacob Henry 

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you cannot see anything in this religion, to deprive me of my seat in this house, what may be the religion of Him who made this objection against me, or whether he has any religion or not, I am unable to say. I have never considered it my duty to pry into the beliefs of other members of this house, if their actions are upright and conduct just, the rest is for their own consideration, not for mine, I do not seek to make converts to my faith, nor do I exclude anyone from my esteem or friendship, because he and I differ in that respect. The same charity therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect will be extended to myself. Because in all things that relate to the state, the duties of civil life, I am bound by the same obligation with my fellow citizen, nor does any many subscribe more sincerely than myself to the maximum. Whatever you would that men should do unto you, Do ye so even unto them for such is the law and the prophets.

Mark Oppenheimer 

You can hear Henry arguing for Judaism as a moral religion. It was important to American Jews that they presented themselves to their fellow citizens this way. And it was a pretty slick move to quote Jesus's version of the golden rule that may or may not have been Henry's idea. Rumor has it that one of his political allies wrote the speech for him. The North Carolina House of Commons discussed all sorts of questions about Henry's faith. Had anyone ever seen him in synagogue? Unlikely because North Carolina Jews hadn't built one yet. Someone claimed he'd seen Henry at Baptist and Methodist meetings. Did Henry eat pork? No one knew. In fact, no one came forward with any information about Henry's religious principles and practices. The Clerk of the House of Commons did testify that Henry wished to swear his oath on an Old Testament. Still, Jacob Henry was a Jew. So it was a pretty clear cut case. Or was it? As it turned out, the House overwhelmingly rejected Mills's motion, and Henry kept his seat.Why? Again, it's not entirely clear.

Mark Oppenheimer 

One representative argued that the restrictions on Office holding didn't apply to the legislature. Anyway, Henry finished his term, and then he apparently retired from state politics. He served in the War of 1812 and later moved to Charleston, South Carolina, which had one of the largest Jewish populations in the country.

Mark Oppenheimer 

North Carolina, however, kept the restrictions in its constitution, and Henry's defenders did not argue in favor of changing them. Nor did the legislators argue that Jews should be able to hold office in North Carolina. They seated Henry on a technicality. It wasn't until 1868 that North Carolina permitted non Christians to hold office. Today its constitution still disqualifies from office quote "anyone who shall deny the being of Almighty God," that prohibition wouldn't hold up in court, but it's still on the books. So what's the meaning of the Jacob Henry case? Is it an instance of anti Jewish bigotry? Or is it a triumph for religious liberty for the inclusion of Jews as full citizens in the New Republic? History rarely lets us tell such straightforward stories. Let's leave it at this. The status of Jews as citizens in the early American republic was murky. Jews had religious liberty but their status as citizens remained unclear. Based on the laws on the books in many states, Jews did not have a guaranteed right to full participation as citizens. But until those laws were tested, it was unclear whether anyone would enforce them. So when Jews like Henry ran for office, they forced the issue, they put their fellow citizens to the test.

Mark Oppenheimer 

One key to understanding this paradox is the larger history of emancipation in Europe and the United States. Emancipation refers to a political process in which a group of people is released from political disabilities and gets their equality under the law. In the United States, we tend to associate the word emancipation with African Americans during the Civil War, and the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. Two years later, that freedom was guaranteed to all under the 13th amendment. And as important as the end of slavery was, it was just as important that black people became full citizens. Citizenship for black people was supposed to be guaranteed by the 14th amendment, and the right to vote by the 15th Amendment. But in practice, those rights were often denied. And it took another century of struggle before Black Americans could hope for the state to safeguard their rights. In other words, full emancipation was a process, not an event. Now, Jews were never enslaved in the United States. In fact, like Jacob Henry, there were Jews who owned slaves. But Jews in the United States had not been and were not yet fully equal citizens. Here's historian David Sorkin, author of the book Jewish Emancipation.

David Sorkin 

Emancipation isn't a word, for Americans, that's usually connected to Jews, or for that matter, other religious groups. But in European history, emancipation does apply to the sphere of religion. The dominant religion in a society would have the right of public worship, meaning to say could have a church with a spire and bells and could have public processions.

David Sorkin 

A religion in an inferior position could have the right of private worship, which meant no spires, no bells and no public processions. And then the lowest form of worship was called domestic observance where the adherents of a religious group could just meet in someone's home in small groups. And Jews were slotted into that hierarchy, political status of religious groups, many cases they only had the right of domestic observance or private observance. What emancipation came to mean in Europe was the release of religious groups from a status of political inferiority. So take the case of England, for example, all Protestant dissenters, non Anglican Protestant groups, Catholics, and Jews were in a position of political inferiority until the end of the 18th. And the beginning of the 19th century. Protestant dissenters gained equality. Catholics in England only gained political equality and the right of public worship in 1829. And that was called Catholic emancipation. And that's where the term came from, that was then applied more generally to Jews. Jews only gained emancipation in England in 1858, when the first Jew was allowed to take a seat in the House of Commons and become a member of Parliament, and that sort of process appeared across Europe, of minority or dissenting religions, gaining political equality, usually Christian groups first then followed by Jews. So emancipation in Europe, was applied to religious groups and meant the attainment of political equality.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Jews in Europe were not treated as individual citizens in Livorno in Italy, or Bordeaux, France, or Hamburg, Germany, Jews were treated as members of communities, they were collectively given certain rights through charters. But both Europe and North America experienced a huge political shift brought on by the American Revolution, the French Revolution and other revolutions that swept across Europe. New states, like the United States, or North Carolina in the United States, stopped giving rights to specific communities and started thinking of rights as something that belonged to individual citizens equal under the law. Think back for a moment to all that legalese from the North Carolina constitution. Now that we understand how Jewish emancipation unfolded in Europe and the US, the Constitution should make more sense. The North Carolina constitution was in one sense modern, there was no longer an official state church in North Carolina, there was a measure of religious freedom. But the Constitution also referred to groups of people with different degrees of citizenship. Even if the language was about people who believed in God in the Bible, he was clear that Protestants as a group were meant to have full rights of citizenship, and Catholics and Jews were not. Or was it clear? Just because something is written down in the law books doesn't mean the law is actually applied. According to the plain meaning of the North Carolina constitution, Catholics weren't supposed to even be in the legislature. But there were at least two Catholics in that legislature. We know that because when Jacob Henry was denied his seat, the Catholics spoke up to support him. Henry decided that Jews should have the full rights of citizenship. So he ran for office and served his term in 1808. Then he won again in 1809. And when he was denied his seat, he argued that Jews could be good citizens.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Here's historian David Sorkin.

David Sorkin 

I can't emphasize too strongly, Jews had to mobilize whether it's individuals or collectively in order to gain political rights at the state level in the early 19th century. And I say that because conventional histories, or conventional accounts of American Jewish history, tend to discount these events, and not to see them as part of a larger struggle for emancipation, but to see them as kind of anomalies that really don't quite fit into what has come to be called American Jewish exceptionalism. This notion that Jews in the United States had equal rights from the start under the federal constitution, and unlike in Europe, never had to struggle to gain rights and equality and citizenship. And I think that simply isn't the case. It's just that historians of American Jewry have been reluctant to try and take what looks like a very mild process and compare it to its European counterparts.

Mark Oppenheimer 

The point is Henry's case was messy, and that messiness is one part of the story. But so is the way that Jews argued over and over for the rights of citizens. Let's consider what was happening in Maryland at roughly the same time. As in North Carolina, Maryland, didn't have many Jews, but there were some and the Maryland constitution didn't explicitly bar Jews from holding office, but it did include a religious test that excluded them. Maryland's Jews had to petition over and over for the right to hold office. A so called Jew bill was introduced in the legislature to allow us to hold office but it failed in 1802. And it failed again in 1804. And in 1819, and in 1822. It wasn't until 1825 that the bill was passed, and Jews could take office the next year. Or let's consider what was happening in Philadelphia.

David Sorkin 

Once again, this is about a test act, that you have to take an oath in order to have political rights. The test read as follows "I do acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration". And a group of Jews in Philadelphia protested against this thing, quote, this deprives Jews of the most eminent rights of free men. They wrote a petition which they sent to the press, but also to the legislature, in which they said that this religious test was, quote, a stigma upon their nation and religion. And then they made the same kind of argument that Jacob Henry would make later on. A legal argument that this contradicted the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, which had declared that quote, no man who acknowledges the being of a god can be justly deprived or abridged of any civil rights as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments. So what they're pointing to is a contradiction in the laws of Pennsylvania itself, between its declaration of rights and the way that those rights are being implemented. So first, they make that legal argument. And then they go on to make the argument for their worthiness for rights, that they are upstanding citizens. They say they've earned their rights by being conscientious, taxpaying property owners and merchants. Then they also appeal to their service to the revolution. And they argue that they serve the revolution in both blood and treasure they served in the Army, and they donated money. We see the same kind of argumentation. But this is actually a case of collective political action, where a group of Jews are acting together, writing a petition submitting it to the newspapers and submitting it to the legislature,

Mark Oppenheimer 

Different state but same story. Even as the United States was starting to think more and more in terms of individual rights, the older idea of thinking in terms of groups persisted. The assumption was that Protestant Christians had full rights because their Christianity made them moral, and that Jews did not have full rights because they didn't have the morality of Protestantism. But Jews individually and collectively appealed for their rights. And bit by bit, they got them. Jacob Henry understood what was at stake. Let's hear his words.

Jacob Henry 

Shall this free country try to set an example of persecution, which even the returning reason of enslaved Europe would not submit to? Will you bind the conscious in chains and fasten conviction upon the mind in spite of the conclusions of reason, and of these ties and habits which are blended with every possible of the heart? Are you prepared to plunge at once from the supply and height of moral legislation into the dark and gloomy caverns of ignorance? Will you drive from your shores and from the shelter of your constitutions, all who do not lay their obligations on the same altar, observe the same rituals, and subscribe to the same dogmas?

Mark Oppenheimer 

But at the same time that Henry was making that speech standing up for the political rights of Jews, all over the country, thousands of Americans were giving money to a group of Christians who wanted to convert Jews to make them Christians. More on that after the break.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Imagine a farm where a group of immigrant Jews are trying to live collectively and support one another. Did you imagine a kibbutz in Israel, a small farm in the Eastern European wilderness? Try imagining that farm in upstate New York and the farm is not run by Jews, but rather by Christian missionaries who want to convert them. Well, maybe not exactly convert them just meliorate or improve their condition. It's a phrase that was only slightly less awkward in the 19th century than it is today. I'm talking about the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews. That's a mouthful, so let's just call it the ASMCJ or just the society. In the early 19th century, this society was an example of the benevolence movement. At that moment in American history Americans loved to join organizations. We might call many of these organizations philanthropic, today, we might call them charitable. But in the 19th century, they were often called benevolent societies or benevolent organizations, and that word benevolence carried a very Christian connotation. Some of these groups aimed their benevolence at Jews. Take the Female Society of Boston and the Vicinity for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, founded in 1816. For 52 cents per year, or $10 for a lifetime membership, you could join with other like minded women in the hopes of converting Jews. Or you might correspond with the older and rather better funded London society for promoting Christianity among Jews. But if you were worried about the salvation of American Jews, your best bet was to send your money to the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews. To help us untangle all of this, here's Susanna Linsley author of the article Saving the Jews.

Susanna Linsley 

New York in the 1820s, was a time of a lot of interdenominational cooperation and collaboration. The American Board of Commissioners of foreign missions was founded in 1810, the American Bible Society in 1816, The New York Missionary Society was really popular and then the American Colonization Society was 1817. So this was a real milieu, a real environment of, of trying to find ways for different Christian denominations to work together, to spread the gospel, to spread the word and to find ways to come together around their own differences. And so the American Society to Meliorate the Condition Among the Jews was a way to celebrate this unique position that many American political and religious elite found themselves in at, they were in a position to usher in a new era of cooperation that had never been possible before. And they were really excited about this time, about how tolerant they were, about how accepting they were. And so many of them thought the best way to really celebrate and demonstrate just how tolerant they were, was to try to convert as many Jews as possible to Christianity.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Protestants wanted Jews to become Christians, because well, they wanted everyone to become Christian. And evangelical Christians, including those who created the society had a real activist streak, they were always forming institutions to do everything from print Bibles, to promoting temperance to end the consumption of alcohol. But there was more to it than that. It's fair to say that evangelicals can get, shall we say, a little obsessed with Jews.

Susanna Linsley 

There were several different reasons. A lot of the people involved had a real sympathy for Christian Zionism, or restorationism, where they believed that the Second Coming wasn't possible until Jews were restored to Israel. But in an American context, both Protestants and Jews were optimistic that a new Zion was possible and that New Zion was possible in the United States. And so bringing Jews into the United States, and bringing them into Christianity was a way to bring about the second coming. The Protestant conviction to evangelize the Jews was rooted in anti semitic beliefs that Judaism wasn't a legitimate faith. And in fact, that's why they saw themselves as so liberal and tolerant, right? We're so liberal and tolerant, then we're going to overlook all of the issues we have with the Jews, and acknowledge that they, in fact, can be Christian.

Mark Oppenheimer 

In other words, evangelicals and other Protestants in early America weren't like the scientific racists we'll discuss in later episodes, who believed that to be Jewish was in the blood and could never change. To the contrary, they assumed that being Jewish was a matter of religion, and so Jews could just change if they became Christian. And if you'll recall our discussion of Jacob Henry, the general assumption was that Christianity made you more moral, and being moral was a requirement for being a citizen. Had Henry just converted to Christianity, no one would have been able to suggest that he wasn't qualified to hold office on religious grounds. Being a Christian, they could trust that he was moral, that he was virtuous, that he was fit to be a legislator.

Mark Oppenheimer 

So a group of Christians based in New York formed a society to evangelize and colonize the Jews. The idea was to support Jews who had already converted to Christianity, whether in Europe or the United States, and to have a colony or farm where they could live. Their thinking was that Jews who converted to Christianity would be cast out of their own communities and need support. Some pretty heavy hitters supported the society. John Quincy Adams was an honorary vice president at the same time that he was Secretary of State of the whole country. The presidents of Princeton, Yale and Rutgers all at one time or another served on the society's board. The mere fact the society was incorporated by New York is significant. Incorporation offered legal and financial protections. And the state only gave these privileges to institutions that it thought were advancing the public good. Susanna Linsley explains.

Susanna Linsley 

When this society incorporated it became legally recognized under New York law. And the New York State legislature didn't want to legally recognize a corporation that was built around evangelizing, or at least that had it listed so specifically in its name. And because of that, the society how to find a name that would be more palatable to the New York government and in fact more legal, and so came to the name the Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews.

Mark Oppenheimer 

The Society of course continued to try to convert Jews. You could say that conversion would be a complete and total melioration. Uninterested in being converted, Jewish publications attacked the society.

Susanna Linsley 

Solomon Henry Jackson was a notable Jewish printer. He was interesting because he married outside the faith, he married a woman who was Presbyterian, but he raised his five children in the Jewish faith. The he started a newspaper in direct response to the ASMCJ's paper, Israel's Advocate and his paper he called The Jew: Being a Defense of Judaism Against all Adversaries, and Particularly Against the Insidious Attacks of Israel's Advocate. And Jackson was outraged by the society's conviction that its mission represented a new era of cooperation. And he called their bluff that they treated Jews with respect. He called them out he said that society still marked Jews as he said, they marked them as stricken, smitten and afflicted by God. Jackson reminded this society, our persecutions, exiles and massacres always began in the very manner and plan that you're pursuing now, by bribing them with land by giving resources to support conversion. And he was saying this society is doing nothing new. This is using the same tricks that Christians have used for centuries to violently strip Jews of their faith. And he was a real firebrand he was really angry about this.

Mark Oppenheimer 

So what effect did the society have in the world? If its goals were to convert Jews to Christianity, the results were pretty dismal.

Susanna Linsley 

It's success to evangelize and colonize Jews was very small. There were seven converts. The organization was never able to establish a colony. A lot of the society's problems were due to squabbling within its leadership. Their lead missionary, Joseph Samuel Christian Frederick Frey, was accused of financial impropriety not to mention general ineffectiveness, this society puttered along for a few decades before closing shop. Jewish newspapers might have laughed at how much money the ASMCJ raised to convert a few Jews to Christianity. But in another sense, the Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews was a smashing success because it raised a lot of money.

Mark Oppenheimer 

And how did it do that?

Susanna Linsley 

The organization itself did have some significant success. It was founded in 1820. And men and women from every major Protestant denomination joined auxilary societies and made donations for the project. Between March and April of 1824, there were auxilary societies started within Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalists, and Lutheran congregations. In Charleston, South Carolina in 1824, they collected $626 for the mission. In 1823, the society had assembled 46 auxiliary societies in 12 states. And by 1825, the number had ballooned to 231. And by the end of the society in 1827, Frey had reported organizing over 400 local branches.

Mark Oppenheimer 

So the society may not have succeeded in converting many Jews. But then Christians had been failing to convert Jews for 1800 years by this point. Where they did succeed was in convincing thousands and thousands of people spread across 400 local branches to give money to convert Jews. And those people gave money because they thought Jews would be damned to hell if they didn't convert to Christianity. But they also gave money because they believe that Christianity and not Judaism had to be the basis of the American Republic. So yes, it's true that only one legislator tried to stand in the way of Jacob Henry holding office in North Carolina. But for every legislator like that, there were many, many more people willing to donate money to try to turn Jews like Jacob Henry into Christian citizens. And the reason Henry kept his legislative seat, and one of the reasons that the society managed to convert only seven Jews was that American Jews stood up for their rights. They claimed that Jews should have the full rights of citizens at a time when they were excluded as a class from political office and other civil rights. And when their fellow citizens tried to make them Christians for the good of the nation, as well as to save their eternal souls, Jews pointed out that their own religion was perfectly good, and making them moral citizens.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Thank you for listening to Antisemitism, U.S.A. it's a production of R2 Studios part of the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. Visit R2studios.org for a complete transcript of today's episode and for suggestions for further reading. I'm your host Mark Oppenheimer. Antisemitism U.S.A. is written by John Turner and Lincoln Mullen. Britt Tevis is our lead scholar Jim Ambuske is our producer, Jeanette Patrick is our executive producer. We'd like to thank Zev Eleff for being our lead advisor and we'd like to thank our advisory board members Laura Shaw Frank, Riv-Ellen Prell, and Jonathan Sarno. Our graduate assistants are Rachel Birch, Alexandra Miller, and Amber Pelham. Our thanks to David Sehat, David Sorkin, and Susannah Linsley for sharing their expertise with us in this episode. We're able to bring you this show through the generosity of the Henry Luce Foundation, the David Bruce Smith Foundation, and many individual donors like you. Thank you for listening, and we hope you'll join us for the next episode.