Loyalist

May 11

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer (May 11, 1775).

“Many Publications have appeared from my Press which have given great Offence to the Colonies.”

James Rivington seemed to change his tune about what he printed and sold at his printing office on Hanover Square in New York.  On April 20, the day after the battles at Lexington and Concord, the printer of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer once again advertised “several pamphlets on the Whig and Tory side” of “THE AMERICAN CONTEST.”  Word of what had occurred in Massachusetts the previous day had not yet arrived in New York, but Rivington had other news concerning the imperial crisis to report.  That included residents of New Brunswick, New Jersey, hanging “an effigy, representing the person of Mr. Rivington … merely for acting consistent with his profession as a free printer.”  A rare woodcut depicting the scene accompanied the combination article and editorial about his “OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS.”

A week later, Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer carried news of Lexington and Concord.  The printer chose not to insert his advertisement hawking pamphlets representing both Whig and Tory perspectives in that issue.  In the next issue, two weeks after the battles in Massachusetts, Rivington ran a new advertisement, one that took a different tone than his coverage of the effigy.  “AS many Publications have appeared from Press which have given great Offence to the Colonies, and particularly to many of my Fellow Citizens,” the printer declared, “I am therefore led, be a most sincere Regard for their favourable Opinion, to declare to the Public, that Nothing which I have ever done, has proceeded from any Sentiments in the least unfriendly to the Liberties of this Continent, but altogether from the Ideas I entertained of the Liberty of the Press, and of my duty as a Printer.”  That being the case, “I am led to make this free and public Declaration to my Fellow Citizens, which I hope they will consider as a sufficient Pledge of my Resolution, for the future, to conduct my Press upon such Principles as shall not give Offence to the Inhabitants of the Colonies in general, and of this City in particular, to which I am connected by the tenderest of all human Ties, and in the Welfare of which I shall consider my own as inseparably involved.”  Rivington stopped short of offering an apology or stating that he regretted printing and selling newspapers and pamphlets that advanced Tory views, but he did take a less defiant tone in his effort to explain his editorial decisions.  He suggested that he would adopt a new approach, though he did not go into detail about that.  Perhaps he hoped that critics would notice that he did not advertise the problematic pamphlets.  Even if they did not, Rivington refrained from publishing an advertisement that ran counter to the message he delivered in his notice clarifying his prior actions.

That notice appeared in three consecutive issues of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, none of which carried advertisements for political pamphlets.  The events unfolding in Massachusetts may have encouraged the printer to take greater caution, though the masthead of his newspaper continued to proclaim that he operated an “OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS.”  As far as the Sons of Liberty were concerned, however, the printer could not redeem himself.  On May 10, a week after Rivington first published his notice assuring the public that he would “conduct [his] Press upon such Principles as shall not give Offence to the Inhabitants of the Colonies,” the Sons of Liberty attacked his home and printing office.  Rivington fled to a British ship in the harbor.  Assistants maintained uninterrupted publication of the newspaper, continuing to run Rivington’s notice, while the printer petitioned the Second Continental Congress for pardon.  As Todd Andrlik documents, Rivington explained that “however wrong and mistaken he may have been in his opinions, he has always meant honestly and openly to do his duty.”  The Continental Congress forwarded the petition to the New York Provincial Congress.  Rivington received his pardon, but his reformation was not so complete as to avoid further notice from the Sons of Liberty.  In November 1775, Sons of Liberty from New Haven destroyed his press and reportedly melted down his types to make shot, bringing an end to Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer.

April 27

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

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

Norwich Packet (April 27, 1775).

“I am sorry that I have drank any Tea.”

Ebenezer Punderson had the misfortune of appearing in an advertisement placed in the Norwich Packet by the local Committee of Inspection in the issue that carried the first newspaper coverage of the battles of Lexington and Concord.  The committee accused him of drinking tea in violation of the Continental Association, disparaging the First Continental Congress, and refusing to meet with the committee to discuss his conduct.  In turn, the committee advised the public not to carry on any “Trade, Commerce, Dealings or Intercourse” with Punderson.

Perhaps Punderson would have weathered that sort of public shaming under other circumstances, but news of events at Lexington and Concord made his politics even more unpalatable and his situation more dire.  From what ran in the newspaper, it did not take him long to change his tune, meet with the committee, and publish an apology for his behavior.  In a missive dated four days after the committee’s advertisement, Punderson reiterated the charges against him and “seriously and heartily” declared the he was “sorry I have drank any Tea since the first of March” and “will drink no more until the Use thereof shall generally be approved in North-America.”  In addition, he apologized for “all and every Expression that I have at any Time uttered against the Association of the Continental Congress.”  Furthermore, Punderson pledged that he “will not at any Time do any Thing that shall be inimical to the Freedom, Liberties, and Privileges of America, and that I will ever be friendly thereto.”  He requested that his “Neighbours and fellow-Men to overlook” his transgression and “sincerely ask[ed] the Forgiveness of the Committee for the Disrespect I have treated them with.”

Norwich Packet (April 27, 1775).

Punderson apparently convinced the committee to give him another chance.  Dudley Woodbridge, the clerk, reported that Punderson “appeared before them, and of his own Accord made the above Confession” and seemed “heartily sorry for his … conduct.”  In turn, the committee voted to find Punderson’s confession “satisfactory” and recommended that he “be again restored to Favour” in the community.  The committee also determined that “the above Confession, with this Vote, be inserted in the Public Papers,” perhaps less concerned with restoring Punderson’s good name than the example his recantation set for other Tories.  When the notice appeared in the Norwich Packet, Punderson inserted an additional note that extended an offer to meet with anyone “dissatisfied with the above Confession” and asserted that he would “cheerfully submit” to any further decisions the Committee of Inspection made in response.

Yet what appeared in the Norwich Packet did not tell the whole story.  According to Steve Fithian, Punderson “attempted to flee to New York but was captured and returned to Norwich where he spent eight days in jail and only released after signing a confession admitting to his loyalist sympathies.”  He did not stay in Norwich long after that.  “Several weeks later he fled to Newport, Rhode Island and boarded a ship which took him to England where he remained for the entire Revolutionary War.”  Apparently, he convincly feigned the sincerity he expressed, well enough that the committee accepted it.  While imprisoned, Punderson wrote a letter to his wife about his ordeal.  After arriving in England, he published an account with a subtitle that summarized what he had endured: The Narrative of Mr. Ebenezer Punderson, Merchant; Who Was Drove Away by the Rebels in America from His Family and a Very Considerable Fortune in Norwich, in Connecticut.  Just as the Committee of Inspection used print to advance a version of events that privileged the patriot cause, Punderson disseminated his own rendering once he arrived in a place where he could safely do so.

**********

The Committee of Inspection’s notice appeared with the advertisements in the April 20, 1775, edition of the Norwich Packet.  Punderson’s confession, however, ran interspersed with news items in the April 27 edition.  It may or may not have been a paid notice, but it was certainly an “advertisement” in the eighteenth-century meaning of the word.  At the time, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, an advertisement was a “(written) statement calling attention to anything” and “an act of informing or notifying.”  Advertisements often delivered local news in early American newspapers.  Punderson definitely made news as the imperial crisis became a war.

April 23

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer (April 20, 1775).

“Several pamphlets on the Whig and Tory side.”

Many Patriots did not care for the editorial stance that James Rivington took in his newspaper.  They considered him a Loyalist even though he declared in the masthead that he operated an “OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS” that represented all views.  Similarly, he printed, advertised, and sold political pamphlets about “THE AMERICAN CONTEST … on the Whig and Tory side.”  Rivington aimed to keep colonizers informed and intended to generate revenue while doing so, believing that controversy could be good for business during the imperial crisis.

Late in 1774 and throughout the first months of 1775, Rivington regularly ran advertisements that listed the variety of political pamphlets available at his printing office.  He inserted an abbreviated version in the April 20, 1775, edition.  Colonizers in New York had not yet received word of the events at Lexington and Concord the previous morning.  Rivington instead published other news, including a recent instance of “some of the lower class of inhabitants, at New-Brunswick” hanging “an effigy, representing the person of Mr. Rivington … merely for acting consistent with his profession as a free printer.”  He not only covered that story but also illustrated it with a woodcut depicting the effigy hanging from a tree.

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer (April 20, 1775).

The image almost certainly attracted attention, in part because news items in eighteenth-century newspapers so rarely featured illustrations of any sort.  Elsewhere in the same issue, readers encountered only five other images.  The masthead contained the coat of arms of Great Britain, as usual, and the drop cap for a letter to the editor appeared within a smaller version of the coat of arms.  A stock image of a ship adorned an announcement that the Earl of Dunmore would soon sail for London.  Similarly, a stock image of a horse being led by a man helped promote the stud services of Lath, Match ‘Em, Pilgrim, and Bashaw.  Abraham Delanoy’s woodcut depicting lobster traps was the only other image created to match the content of an advertisement or a news item.

The scarcity of images made the scene of the effigy even more conspicuous.  Rivington wrote a sarcastic description of the event and then affirmed “that his press has been open to publications from ALL PARTIES.”  He challenged “his enemies to produce an instance to the contrary,” noting that he treated his role as printer like “a public office” and reasoned that “every man has a right to have recourse” via his press.  “But the moment he ventured to publish sentiments which were opposed to the dangerous views and designs of certain demagogues,” Rivington asserted, “he found himself held up as an enemy to his country.”  His support for “LIBERTY OF THE PRESS” made him a target for “a most cruel tyranny,” as demonstrated by “very recent transactions” that included the effigy in New Brunswick.  His description of how some Patriots comported themselves along with his insistence on continuing to sell political pamphlets “on the Whig and Tory side” did not endear Rivington to “his enemies.”  Within in a month, a mob of Sons of Liberty would attack his printing office and destroy his press.  Rivington escaped, seeking refuge on a British naval ship in the harbor.

April 6

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

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

Supplement to the New-York Journal (April 6, 1775).

“Assurance … that when the difference is settled between England and the colonies, of having my store constantly supplied.”

In the spring of 1775, the proprietor of “MINSHULL’s LOOKING-GLASS STORE” ran a newspaper advertisement to announce that he had “REMOVED” from Smith Street to a new location “opposite Mr. Goelet’s [at] the sign of the Golden Key” on Hanover Square in New York.  In addition to an “elegant assortment” of looking glasses, he stocked other items for decorating homes and offices, including brackets for displaying busts, arrangements of flowers and birds “for the top of bookcases,” and the “greatest variety of girandoles” or candleholders “ever imported to the city.”  He also devoted a separate paragraph, with its own headline, to a “pleasing variety” of mezzotint “ENGRAVINGS” and the choices for frames.

John Minshull confided that he had “assurances of my correspondent in London, that when the difference is settled between England and the Colonies, of having my store constantly supplied with the above articles, as will give a general satisfaction” to his customers.  Readers realized that he referred to the imperial crisis and the effects of the Continental Association, the nonimportation agreement devised by the First Continental Congress in response to the Coercive Acts.  Minshull did not state that he imported his inventory before that pact went into effect on December 1, 1774.  Instead, he allowed readers to make that assumption, especially when he noted that he would not receive any new merchandise from England until the colonies and Parliament reached an accord.

That did not happen.  Within weeks of Minshull placing his advertisement, the Revolutionary War began with the Battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts.  A little over a year later, the British occupied New York and remained in the city until 1783.  Yet Minshull persevered, continued operating his shop, and, according to an advertisement in the November 8, 1780, edition of the Royal Gazette, “imported in the Fleet from England, A large Assortment of LOOKING GLASSES, adapted to the present mode of Town and Country.”  He apparently managed to maintain his connections with his correspondents and suppliers in London.

Perhaps Minshull abided by the Continental Association in 1775 as a matter of political principle.  Perhaps he did so merely to stay in the good graces of his customers and the community.  The latter seems more likely since, according to Luke Beckerdite, “a ‘John Michalsal’ was included in a list of Loyalists” in 1775 and “a ‘John Minchull’ subsequently fled to Shelburne, Nova Scotia,” a haven for Loyalists during and immediately after the war.  From August 1782 through February 1783, ran an advertisement in the Royal Gazette for his “remaining Stock” that he sold “Cheap! Cheap! Cheap!”  It appears that Minshull had a going-out-of-business sale before evacuating from New York when the war ended.  Before that, he resumed business as usual when circumstances changed under the British occupation, weathering the storm and attempting to earn his livelihood during uncertain times.  When the “difference [was] settled between England and the Colonies,” he no longer sold looking glasses or anything else in New York.

February 11

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

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

Supplement to the Pennsylvania Ledger (February 11, 1775).

“POLITICAL PAMPHLETS … on Both Sides of the Question.”

As the imperial crisis intensified in late 1774 and early 1775, most American newspapers became increasingly partisan, even those that claimed that they did not take a side in the contest between Patriots and Parliament.  Printers sometimes ran advertisements for pamphlets that did not align with the principles most often espoused in their publications, but few made a point of declaring that they did so.  James Rivington, printer of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer and a noted Loyalist, took the most strident approach in a series of advertisements for “POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS … written on the Whig and the Tory Side of the Question.”  Sporting headlines like “The American Contest” and “The American Controversy,” those advertisements listed several pamphlets, many of them written in response to others also advertised.

Yet Rivington was not alone.  In the supplement that accompanied the third issue of the new Pennsylvania Ledger, James Humphreys, Jr., the printer, inserted a short notice that announced, “Most of the POLITICAL PAMPHLETS That have been published, on Both Sides of the Question, May be had of the Printer hereof.”  On the first page, he once again ran the proposals for the newspaper, stating that he established a “Free and Impartial News Paper, open to All, and Influenced by None.”  Despite that assertion, “[i]t was supposed that Humhreys’s paper would be in the British interest,” according to Isaiah Thomas in his History of Printing in America (1810).[1]  He further explained that “in times more tranquil than those in which it appeared, [Humphreys] might have succeeded in his plan” to “conduct his paper with political impartiality.”[2]

When it came to marketing strategies for political pamphlets, printers associated with supporting the Tory “Side” took the more evenhanded approach of drawing attention to their commitment to selling and disseminating work on “Both Sides of the Question.”  In Rivington’s case, doing so was a matter of generating revenue as much as operating an impartial press and bookstore.  For Humphreys, on the other hand, doing so seemed to fall in line with the commitment he made in his proposals for the Pennsylvania Ledger.  Even taking those motivations into account, both printers may have considered it necessary to profess that they sold pamphlets on “Both Sides” to justify how many titles they sold that argued from the Tory perspective.

**********

[1] Isaiah Thomas, The History of Printing in America: With a Biography of Printers and an Account of Newspapers (1810; New York: Weathervane Books, 1970), 399.

[2] Thomas, History of Printing, 439.

February 9

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer (February 9, 1774).

“Pamphlets published on both sides, in the unhappy dispute with Great-Britain.”

As the imperial crisis intensified in the winter of 1775, James Rivington continued to print a newspaper “at his OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS” in New York.  He also ran a bookstore, peddling “Pamphlets published on both sides, in the unhappy dispute with Great-Britain.”  Both Patriot and Tory printers professed to operate free presses that delivered news and editorials from various perspectives, yet the public associated most newspapers with supporting one side over the other and even actively advocating for their cause.  Tory printers invoked freedom of the press as a means of justifying their participation in public discourse rather than allowing Patriot printers to have the only say.  When it came to advertising books and pamphlets about current events, Tory printers, especially Rivington, took the more balanced approach.

For Rivington, it was a matter of generating revenue as much as political principle.  He saw money to be made from printing and selling pamphlets about “The American Controversy.”  That was the headline he used for an advertisement that listed ten pamphlets in the February 9, 1775, edition of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer.  He previously ran a similar advertisement for “POLITICAL PAMPHLETS … on the Whig and Tory Side of the Question” and another about “The American Contest” that included some of the same pamphlets as well as others.  In his “American Controversy” advertisement, Rivington once again offered some familiar titles and new ones.  He made clear that the first two represented different positions, “The Friendly Address to all reasonable Americans, on our present political Confusions” and “The ANSWER to ditto,” though he did not indicate which took which side.

The printer positioned this venture as a service that kept the public better informed of the arguments “on both sides.”  He sought to disseminate his pamphlets beyond New York to “gentlemen at a distance from this city,” promising to “immediately comply with Orders.”  In turn, customers could do their part in making the pamphlets available far and wide since Rivington made “considerable allowance” or deep discounts “to those who purchase by the dozen, to distribute amongst those who cannot afford to purchase them.”  Though he portrayed himself as a fair dealer who marketed pamphlets “on both sides,” he did not express any expectation that customers would purchase or distribute both Patriot and Tory pamphlets.  Rivington presented readers with the freedom to consume (and further disseminate) the ideas they wished, seemingly hoping the public would allow him the same freedom in printing the content that he wished.  Whether he was sincere in such idealism or sought to justify printing editorials and pamphlets that many found objectionable, Rivington increasingly ran afoul of Patriots who did not share his outlook on freedom of the press when it came to disseminating news and opinion that favored the Tory side in “the unhappy dispute with Great-Britain.”

February 7

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

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

Essex Gazette (February 7, 1775).

“He had no Intention of injuring his Country, or of defending any one unfriendly to its Cause.”

It was yet another public disavowal of an address honoring Thomas Hutchinson, the former governor of Massachusetts, that many colonizers signed when he returned to England.  This time, Richard Stacey inserted his recantation in the February 7, 1775, edition of the Essex Gazette.  Similar advertisements began appearing in that newspaper and sometimes newspapers printed in Boston as early as July 1774.  Stacey explained that he waited several months because he “just returned to the Province after long Absence” and only upon his arrival did he discover “an Address which he signed to the late Governor Hutchinson has given great Uneasiness to the Public.”  He further explained that the former governor “is generally viewed as an Enemy to America.”

That being the case, Stacey “begs Leave to assure the Publick that he had no Intention of injuring his Country, or of offending it by supporting any one unfriendly to its Cause.”  Accordingly, “he now renounces the Address in every Part, and declares his Readiness to assist in defending the Rights and Liberties of America.”  With such a proclamation, disseminated far and wide in the newspaper, Stacey desired “that he shall still continue to enjoy the wonted Esteem of his respected Friends and Countrymen.”  He considered the prospects of reconciling with friends, neighbors, and associates worth the expense of placing an advertisement in the Essex Gazette.

Was Stacey sincere?  Or did he merely seek to return to the good graces of his community and simply get along during difficult times?  That is impossible to determine from his advertisement.  It did differ from some that previously appeared in the public prints.  For instance, Stacey did not attempt to blame his error on having quickly read the address without considering its implications before signing it.  Instead, he did not comment on what had occurred at the time he signed the address but focused on the harm he had done by doing so.  Others offered lukewarm assurances that they did not truly support Hutchinson or the policies he had enforced, while Stacey proclaimed his “Readiness to assist in defending the Rights and Liberties of America.”  In addition, some signers published advertisements that clearly copied from the same script.  Stacey’s was entirely original.  That may have been the result of the time that had passed since others inserted their advertisement or the political situation deteriorating and thus requiring stronger assertions from signers of the address branded as Tories.  William Huntting Howell suggests that for some readers Stacey’s sincerity may have mattered much less than the fact that he felt compelled to express support for the “Cause” of “his Country” in print.[1]

**********

[1] William Huntting Howell, “Entering the Lists: The Politics of Ephemera in Eastern Massachusetts, 1774,” Early American Studies 9, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 191, 208-215.

February 4

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Pennsylvania Ledger (February 4, 1775).

“Numbers have promised they would subscribe that have not sent in their names.”

The second issue of the Pennsylvania Ledger began with the same notice from the printer, James Humphreys, Jr., that appeared as the first item in the first column on the first page of the inaugural issue a week earlier.  He apparently considered it worth running again, especially since the new publication had not yet achieved as wide a circulation as he hoped.  Humphreys’s message to “his kind and benevolent fellow Citizens” thus bore repeating to reach as many readers (and prospective subscribers) as possible as copies of Philadelphia’s newest newspaper found their way into coffeehouses and taverns or passed from hand to hand.

In that address, the printer “repeat[ed] the assurances he has already given” in proposals for the newspaper “that it shall be conducted with the utmost Freedom and Impartiality; and that no Pieces shall be refused a place in the Pennsylvania Ledger, that are written with decency, and void of all reflections upon particular persons, or religious societies.”  Printers often asserted that their publications would represent multiple perspectives when they addressed the public in the decade before the Revolutionary War, though many did not follow through on that promise.  Some privileged their own political views while others responded to what they perceived to be the overwhelming sense (or the most vocal voices) in the communities where they operated their printing presses.  In his subscription proposals, Humphreys promoted a “FREE and IMPARTIAL” newspaper.  In his monumental History of Printing in America (1810), Isaiah Thomas acknowledged that Humphreys purported to publish an impartial newspaper, yet “[i]t was supposed that Humphrey’s paper would be in the British interest” and the Pennsylvania Evening Post, founded by Benjamin Towne at the same time, “took the opposite ground.”[1]  In his address, Humphreys proclaimed that he considered “Liberty of the Press … one of the most valuable blessings of the government under which he lives,” though his ideas about what constituted “Liberty of the Press” may have differed from that of other colonizers.  As the imperial crisis intensified, more and more newspapers became associated with either Patriots or Loyalists.

Still, Humphreys wanted to make a go of it with the Pennsylvania Ledger.  In that second issue, he inserted the proposals immediately below his address to the public, filling the remainder of the column.  He explained in even more detail that “the general Design of this News Paper is both to amuse and instruct” so “every Article of News, and all other Matters of Importance will be faithfully inserted.”  In billing his newspaper as “Free and Impartial,” Humphreys may have intended to make a point that readers should expect to encounter pieces representing a variety of views, but, as Thomas suggested, many were suspicious of Humphreys’s intentions when it came to disseminating content from the Tory perspective.  That could have contributed to a note that the printer added to the proposals.  He claimed that he received enough “encouragement … to proceed in the Undertaking,” but “numbers have promised they would subscribe that have not sent in their names.”  As they learned more about the positions the Pennsylvania Ledger would likely take, some prospective subscribers apparently decided they did not wish to support the newspaper.

**********

[1] Isaiah Thomas, The History of Printing in America: With a Biography of Printers and an Account of Newspapers (1810; New York: Weathervane Books, 1970), 399.

January 1

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer (December 29, 1774).

“The American Contest.”

In the final issue of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer for 1774, James Rivington continued advertising pamphlets “written on the Whig and Tory Side of the Question.”  He inserted an advertisement similar to the “POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS” catalog that he ran on December 15.  Both listed nine tracts that Rivington sold to readers or to “Gentlemen living at a Distance … to distribute amongst their Friends.”  Some of the titles appeared a second time.  Rivington eliminated some, added others, and reorganized the order accordingly.

For instance, a pamphlet documenting the Continental Association, a nonimportation agreement adopted by the First Continental Congress had been first in the previous iteration, but Rivington listed it fourth in the new one.  A new entry led the catalog: “The Congress Canvassed, OR, An Examination into the Conduct of the Delegates, At the Grand Continental Congress, Addressed to the Merchants of New-York, By the FARMER, A.W.”  Rivington had previously advertised that he would soon publish that piece, having included “Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress” among the “POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS” in his earlier catalog.  That item appeared once again, paired this time with “A full Vindication of the Measures of the Continental Congress IN ANSWER TO Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the said Congress.”  Again, Rivington had previously advertised “A full Vindication” separately, but collated together “Free Thoughts” and the pamphlet that responded to it in the new catalog.  The enterprising printer aimed to help prospective customers craft a narrative when selecting among his offerings.

Rivington gave this catalog a new headline.  Instead of “POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS,” he called it “The American Contest.”  That dramatic flourish did not exaggerate the tensions in New York and other colonies as the imperial crisis intensified.  Within months, the Revolutionary War would commence with battles at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts.  As Rivington reported on current events and political debates, he often took a more balance approach than many of his fellow printers who made their support for the Patriot cause very plain.  The masthead for his newspaper proclaimed that it was “PRINTED at his OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS.”  Rivington enacted the same policy for the pamphlets he printed, marketed, and sold.  No other American printer so vigorously represented both perspectives in “The American Contest” in the advertisements in their newspapers.

**********

January 1, 1775, fell on a Sunday.  Colonial printers distributed newspapers every day except Sunday.  The Adverts 250 Project will commence examining advertisements from 1775 tomorrow.

December 18

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer (December 15, 1774).

“POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS … written on the Whig and Tory Side of the Question.”

In chronicling the momentous events of 1774, the Adverts 250 Project has frequently featured advertisements for books, pamphlets, and other items related to the imperial crisis as it intensified following the Boston Tea Party and the Coercive Acts passed by Parliament in retaliation.  Most printers increasingly privileged the Patriot’s perspective, both in terms of the news and editorials they selected for their newspapers and the works that they published, advertised, and sold.  Yet they did not uniformly do so.

James Rivington, a Loyalist, proclaimed in the masthead of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer that his newspaper was “PRINTED at his OPEN and UNINFLUENCED PRESS.”  In Revolutionary Networks: The Business and Politics of Printing the News, 1763-1789, Joseph M. Adelman notes that “Rivington’s bookselling career was about making money rather than promoting a political ideology, so much so that he wanted to capitalize on relatively popular anti-imperial political tracts.”[1]  One of his advertisements in the December 15, 1774, edition of his newspaper listed nine “POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS” that he sold.  He explained that he stocked pamphlets “written on the Whig and Tory Side of the Question.”  He demonstrated that was the case in the descriptions of some of those tracts.  For instance, he carried “A Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans; ON THE Subject of our Political Confusions: In which the necessary Consequences of violently opposing the King’s Troops, and of a General Non-Importation are fairly stated” and “The other Side of the Question; OR, A Defence of the Liberties of North America; In Answer to the above Friendly Address.”  Debates over current events extended beyond the town common and newspaper editorials into pamphlet wars during the imperial crisis.

Those nine “POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS” included “Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress,” in which “a FARMER” commented on the widely published and advertised account of the meetings held in Philadelphia in September and October.  In that pamphlet, “their Errors are exhibited, their Reasonings confuted, and the fatal tendency of their Non-Importation, Non-Exportation, and Non-Consumption Measures, are laid open to the plainest Understandings, and the only Means pointed out for preserving and securing our present happy Constitution.”  On the first page of the same issue, Rivington advertised “A full Vindication of the Measures of the Continental Congress, IN ANSWER TO Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the said Congress.”  The advertisement mocked “a FARMER” and his pamphlet, stating that in this response “his Sophistry is exposed, his Cavils confuted, his Artifices detected, and his Wit ridiculed.”  Rivington added his own note: “The Printer, with humble Deference, presumes that this answer will meet with a gracious reception at the hands of every reader who has expressed disapprobation to the Freethoughts of Farmer.”  For those who appreciated that pamphlet, however, Rivington announced that he would soon publish “THE CONGRESS CANVASSED; OR, An Examination into the Conduct of the Delegates … By the FARMER … Who wrote Free Thoughts on their Proceedings.”  Rivington believed that political controversy meant business as he published, advertised, and sold works “on the Whig and Tory Side of the Question.”  Seeking to maximize revenues, he suggested that “Gentlemen living at a Distance” submit orders for “any Quantity to distribute amongst their Friends.”

Rivington simultaneously asserted that he was “A Free PRINTER, approved such, by both PARTIES,” yet many observers did not care for his “OPEN and UNINFLUENCED” approach that undermined the Patriots’ perspective.  Adelman explains that “Patriots eventually targeted Rivington and intended to destroy his business, by force if necessary.”  In December 1774, as Rivington published these advertisements, an anonymous group of Patriots sent a letter to Stephen Ward and Stephen Hopkins in Newport.  They “urged Ward and Hopkin to obtain a general agreement in Rhode Island not to purchase his New-York Gazetteer or deal with anyone advertising in it.”[2]  Less than a year later, a contingent from the Sons of Liberty marched from New Haven to New York to capture Loyalist leaders and silence Rivington.  They seized his types, reportedly melting them down for shot, and destroyed his press.  Seeking to represent both sides (and generate revenues while doing so) came with consequences for the printer.

**********

[1] Joseph M. Adelman, Revolutionary Networks: The Business and Politics of Printing the News, 1763-1789 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019), 127.

[2] Adelman, Revolutionary Networks, 129.