Accusation

October 26

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a revolutionary American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer (October 26, 1775).

“We think proper to notify the public, that the charge against us is wholly and totally false.”

Rumors and misrepresentations spread in conversation and in print when the imperial crisis intensified and hostilities between the colonies and Britain commenced.  Upon finding themselves the subjects of gossip that damaged their reputations, Abraham Hatfield and William Lounsbery published a newspaper advertisement to set the record straight.  It started with an entry in the October 5, 1775, edition of the New-York Journal.  Among the news received from correspondents in the city,  John Holt, the printer, inserted this report: “We understand from North Castle, that on last Saturday night, Abraham Hatfield, Esq; of the White Plains, and Lieutenant William Lownsburry, of Mamaroneck, were discovered in the very act of endeavouring to cut down a Liberty Pole, which was so well fortified with iron that it occasioned their being found out, and for that time disappointed in their loyal attempt.”

Whether or not they held Tory sentiments, Hatfield and Lounsbery vigorously denied that they had acted on them by attempting to cut down the liberty pole.  In the next issue of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, published on October 12, they inserted an advertisement that identified the allegations and dismissed them as fabrications.  “WE the subscribers” (or undersigned) “having understood that Mr. Holt has inserted in his last week’s paper, a piece charging us with being concerned, and of even being detected in the fact of attempting to cut down a Liberty-pole – we think proper to notify the public, that the charge against us is wholly and totally false.”  It ran twice more, on October 19 and 26.  Hatfield and Lounsbery disseminated their denial that they had anything to do with the incident multiple times in their effort to combat an accusation made in the public prints just once.

Why didn’t they submit a correction to Holt or place a similar advertisement in the New-York Journal since that newspaper carried the piece that spread what they claimed was misinformation?  Perhaps they did, but Holt, a Patriot printer, felt confident enough in the source of the report that he declined to publish anything submitted by Hatfield and Lounsbery.  Alternately, they may have been so upset with Holt that they did not wish to give him the satisfaction of acknowledging the allegations in his newspapers (or contributing to his advertising revenue) that they instead opted for another newspaper, one with a circulation that rivaled or exceeded the New-York Journal.  Whatever the case, they did not allow the accusation that they were Loyalists who had attempted to cut down a liberty pole go unanswered.

The same issue of the New-York Journal that featured the report that identified Hatfield and Lounsbery as the culprits involved in the liberty tree incident in New Castle also carried letters addressed to Holt concerning rumors that colonizers had scalped a British soldier and cut off his ears after the battles at Lexington and Concord.  The correspondents believed that Holt could “serve the cause of truth and liberty” by publishing their accounts of the actual events, stating that they “buried the dead bodies of the king’s troops that were killed at the north bridge in Concord, on the 19th day of April, 1775,” and none of them “were scalped, not their ears cut off, as has been represented” by those who sought to “dishonour the Massachusetts people, and to make them appear to be savage and barbarous.”  In articles, letters, and advertisements, accusations and rebuttals about the misbehavior and even depravity of Patriots and Loyalists circulated in the public prints during the Revolutionary War.

January 20

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Pennsylvania Journal (January 20, 1773).

“I accused her wrongfully, and beg her pardon for the same.”

Newspaper advertisements delivered many kinds of information in eighteenth-century America.  Some described consumer goods and services offered by merchants, shopkeepers, and artisans.  Legal notices and estate notices supplemented news articles about local events.  Advertisements about enslaved people who liberated themselves by running away from their enslavers and indentured servants who ran away before their contracts ended provided descriptions and promised rewards for their capture and return.  Notices about wives who “eloped” from their husbands and, as a result, no longer had access to credit kept readers informed about some of the gossip in their community.

Other advertisements carried other kinds of gossip.  In the January 20, 1773, edition of the Pennsylvania Journal, for instance, Mary Doyle inserted a notice in which she confessed that she mistakenly accused an acquaintance of stealing her pocketbook, realized her error, and asked for forgiveness.  “I MARY DOYLE,” she stated, “having mislaid my Pocket-Book, and missing it in the Market place, most injustly charged Mrs. Mary M’Clean, (wife of Hugh M’Clean, Stone-cutter,) with taking the same.”  Doyle apparently found her missing pocketbook and realized her error, prompting her to published the advertisement.  “I therefore think myself bound to inform the public,” she continued, “that I accused her wrongfully, and beg ger pardon for the same.”

Like most advertisements about recalcitrant wives who vexed their husbands, this advertisement did not include all the juicy details about what happened at the market.  Readers could imagine the scene that unfolded.  Some may have already been aware of what transpired, having witnessed it themselves.  Others may have already heard gossip about an altercation between the two women.  Those learning about the confrontation for the first time may have wanted to learn more and decided to ask their friends and acquaintances about what occurred.  Rather than quiet the gossip about Doyle’s missing pocketbook and the accusations she made against McClean, the advertisement may have helped in inciting more gossip.  New chatter, however, had a conclusion in which Doyle set the record straight by restoring McClean’s reputation.  She shifted the story away from a possible theft to her own mistake in making an erroneous accusation.  Doyle sought to repair her relationship with McClean, though publishing a newspaper advertisement also facilitated gossip about a recent argument in the market.