Defense of Character

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.

July 17

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

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

New-York Gazette and Weekly Mercury (July 17, 1775).

“I have not at any time, directly or indirectly, held any correspondence with General Gage.”

Stephen Case of New Marlborough, Massachusetts, needed to set the record straight.  To do so, he placed a notice “To the PUBLIC” in the July 17, 1775, edition of the New-York Gazette and Weekly Mercury.  The stakes were too high to let unsubstantiated rumors go unanswered.

“As no person can secure himself from the slander of malicious tongues, and as inasmuch I am not without my enemies, who have spread a number of falsehoods in order to injure me in my character, and property,” Case asserted, “I have therefore thought it expedient, with the advice of good friends, to undeceive the public.”  Even readers who had never heard of case likely found this introduction intriguing and wanted to learn more.  “It has been reported as a truth,” Case continued, “that I have refused to sign the General Association,” the nonimportation agreement devised by the First Continental Congress in response to the Coercive Acts.  Even worse, gossip spread that Case “held secret correspondence with General Gage, in order to supply the army with flour.”  Gage simultaneously served as governor of Massachusetts and commander of the British regulars involved in the battles at Lexington and Concord, the siege of Boston, and the Battle of Bunker Hill.  Such allegations against Case made him an enemy to the American cause and no doubt unpopular among many of his neighbors and associates.

Case strenuously objected.  He denied the “scandalous falshoods” and was “ready at any time to make oath” about them.  As far as the nonimportation agreement was concerned, he had “long since signed the Association, and [did so] on the first sight thereof, without asking” or prompting from others, “and also have as one of the Committee of Observation advised others to do it.”  When it came to the other accusations, Case proclaimed, “I have not at any time, directly or indirectly, held any correspondence with General Gage, nor none of his agents relating to buying flour, or any provisions whatever.”

To deliver this message “To the PUBLIC,” Case purchased advertising space in a newspaper that circulated in western Massachusetts.  The printer served as editor when it came to news items, letters, and other content, yet provided a forum for advertisers to publish their own news about current events.  Case attempted to take advantage of such access to the public prints to repair the damage to his reputation, but perhaps too much damage had been done.  Four months later he placed another advertisement in the New-York Gazette and Weekly Mercury (and the New-York Journal and Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer) that offered his farm in New Marlborough for sale or exchange “for a House in New-York.”  Case may have remained at odds with other residents of his town, despite the assertions he made in his first advertisement, and decided that he would be better off starting over somewhere else.  If so, it was the damage cause by rumors rather than the danger and destruction of battles that displaced him from his farm during the Revolutionary War.