Daughters of Liberty

August 25

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

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

Essex Journal (August 25, 1775).

“This is to caution all persons against trusting her on my account.”

It was a familiar sight.  Advertisements about runaway wives peppered the pages of early American newspapers.  Husbands, like John Robie, took to the public prints to warn that since their wives, in this case Naomi Robie, “eloped” from them that those women no longer had access to credit.  “This is to caution all persons against trusting [Naomi] on my account,” John proclaimed, “as I am determined to pay no debt of her contracting from the date hereof.”  He presented himself as the aggrieved husband, yet his wife likely had her own version of the origins of their marital discord.  Running away may have been the best option to remove her from a bad situation.

When John placed his advertisement about Naomi in the August 25, 1775, edition of the Essex Journal, it ran immediately after a petition from “The FEMALE SUPPORTERS of LIBERTY” reprinted from the Newport Mercury.  “WHEREAS our country has long groaned under the oppression of a tyrannical ministry; and has lately been invaded by our enemies, who stained the land with the blood of our dear brethren,” the petition began, “THEREFORE we, the subscribers, are determined to defend our liberties, both civil and religious, to do the utmost that lies in our power.”  These women took a stand to defend their “liberties” in a manner considered acceptable, while Naomi had asserted her liberty in an inappropriate manner.  “We do not mean to take up arms,” the petitioners continued, “for that does not become our sex.”  They affirmed that they knew their proper place, unlike Naomi who departed from John’s household “and strolls from house to house.”  The petitions vowed to “put our hands to the plough, hoe and rake, and till the ground, for our men to go to the assistance of our distressed brethren, there to conquer our enemies or die in the attempt.”  Those women faced uncertain futures, realizing that the deaths of husbands, fathers, and brothers would be sacrifices that affected them and their families.  They also pledged to “forsake the gaieties of the world,” such as abiding by nonimportation and nonconsumption agreements, “before we will give up our country’s liberties and religion.”

The petition ended with a vow of mutual support: “Our company is to consist of as many true daughters of liberty as will undertake the noble cause.”  Furthermore, “No one to be admitted who retains any of the tory principles.”  Women (and men) recognized legitimate ways for women to participate in politics and advocate for their own interests, but only to any extent.  In this instance, advocacy extended to words and deeds that supported women (and their country) collectively, defending their “liberties and religion,” but not to condoning individual acts of resistance like Naomi Robie’s plan for self-determination when they ran counter to her husband’s wishes.  Many of the women who signed the petition may have privately sympathized with Naomi, but the press carried nothing but condemnations of her actions even as it celebrated the “FEMALE SUPPORTERS of LIBERTY” and their commitment to the American cause.

December 9

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

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

Dec 9 - 11:9:1769 Providence Gazette
Providence Gazette (November 9, 1769).

“A Nail Manufactory at the Furnace Hope.”

The proprietors of the “Nail Manufactory at the Furnace Hope” placed an employment advertisement in the December 9, 1769, edition of the Providence Gazette. They sought “experienced Nail-Makers” who wished to be “usefully and advantageously employed” at the furnace in Scituate, “about 12 Miles from Providence.” The proprietors operated the furnace and aimed to establish a nail manufactory at a time that many colonists advocated for “domestic manufactures” as an alternative to goods imported from Britain. The nail manufactory had the potential to produce an important commodity for domestic consumption while simultaneously employing “A NUMBER” of colonists. The plan resonated with popular discourse of the period.

This “WANTED” advertisement appeared immediately below “A CARD” in which an unnamed “Daughter of Liberty” expressed an even more radical vision for the colonial economy. She addressed a “laudable Plan for building a Market-House,” expressing doubts about the eventual success of the venture. She suggested a different venture, making a “Proposal for … a Manufactory, for the Encouragement of Industry, and Employment of the Indigent and Indolent of both Sexes.” Rather than hiring experienced artisans, this manufactory would create jobs for vulnerable and marginalized colonists who did not necessarily possess specialized skills. The unnamed Daughter of Liberty envisioned a manufactory that would employ “both Sexes,” thus providing opportunities and income for women as well as men.

The author of this “CARD” described such a manufactory as “an Edifice which may be thought more immediately adapted to the Times,” predicting that it “would in a great Measure tend to avert the impending Ruin that threatens us.” Colonists could have thought of the “impending Ruin” in at least two ways. Given that the author identified herself (or perhaps himself) as a Daughter of Liberty, perhaps the “impending Ruin” referred to what would happen if the colonies did not develop their own industry and produce more of the goods they needed rather than rely on imports from Britain. The colonies experienced a trade deficit, a situation further exacerbated when Parliament imposed taxes on imported paper, glass, lead, paint, and tea in the Townshend Acts. That could have gone from bad to worse if Parliament decided on further taxation and regulation of commerce in the colonies. Yet the unnamed author may have had social rather than political concerns in mind, fearing the proliferation of “Indigent and Indolent” people who consumed too many resources on their way to becoming burdens that the community could no longer support. The author may have intended for readers to reach both conclusions, giving the “CARD” a political valence as a means of dressing up the less-than-charitable aspects of the commentary about the “Indigent and Indolent” in Rhode Island.