Martha Pennock

August 10

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

Who was the subject of an advertisement in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Pennsylvania Gazette (August 10, 1774).

“SAMUEL PENNOCK … has thought fit … to publish me in the Pennsylvania Gazette.”

Martha Pennock was not having it.  Her husband, Samuel, a hatter, ran a newspaper advertisement that claimed she was not legally his wife because she had previously been married to John Morton of the Royal American Regiment.  Her first husband was still alive for several years after Samuel married Martha, making her a bigamist and invalidating her marriage to the hatter.  That being the case, Samuel advised the public “not to trust her on my account, for I will not pay any debts of her contracting.”  It was quite a twist on the usual “runaway wife” advertisements that appeared so frequently in colonial newspapers.

In another twist, Martha responded in the public prints.  Most women did not have the resources to counter the claims made by their husbands, especially after being cut off from their credit.  That meant that the public had access to only one account, the one from the husband’s perspective, in newspapers, though conversations and gossip likely circulated alternate versions of what occurred.  Martha not only published her rejoinder but did so very quickly.  Samuel inserted his advertisement in the August 3, 1774, edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette.  Martha’s notice ran in the next issue on August 10.  If she became aware of what Samuel had done quickly enough, she could have responded in Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet on August 8, but waiting two more days meant that she presented her side of the story to readers in the same publication that carried her husband’s diatribe against her.

Martha’s narrative was quite different.  She blamed the discord on “the instigation of his malicious friends,” asserting that Samuel and his friends “have used me extremely ill, at sundry times.”  She denied “with a safe conscience” that she had another living husband, stating that she had been married to Samuel for eight years and “always behaved as a prudent wife to him.  If necessary, she could provide “a sufficient testimonial of my lawful marriage to the said Pennock” as well as “an authentic power of attorney, under hand and seal, to collect his debts, and enjoy all that is or may be belonging to him hereafter.”  Martha aimed to invalidate any claims that Samuel made, whether about having a first husband or about her rights as Samuel’s “lawful” wife.  In doing so, she joined the ranks of relatively few women who responded in print to husbands who used advertisements to disavow their wives and blame them for discord within their households.

August 3

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

Who was the subject of an advertisement in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Pennsylvania Gazette (August 3, 1774).

“MARTHA MORTON … is not my lawful wife.”

Notices advising merchants, shopkeepers, and others not to extend credit to wives of aggrieved husbands regularly appeared in colonial newspapers.  Termed “runaway wife advertisements” by historians, such notices often followed a familiar format and deployed standardized language.  For instance, consider James Paulhill’s advertisement in the August 3, 1774, edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette: “WHEREAS my wife MARY hath eloped from me, I therefore warn all persons not to trust her on my account, as I will pay no debts of her contracting from the date hereof.”  Many offered more detail, but each established that a wife absconded from her husband and, in turn, he would no longer cover her expenses.  These advertisements revealed marital discord to the community, as well as husbands’ inability to exert masculine authority over their households.

At the same time that Paulhill published his advertisement, Samuel Pennock inserted a much more elaborate notice in which he disavowed his wife, Martha, and accused her of bigamy.  According to Pennock, she was actually Martha Morton, wife of John Morton, who “did live in this city,” Philadelphia, “for several years, and in or about the year 1767 he was listed by Captain George Etherington, in the Royal American Regiment.”  For her part, she “would willingly be called Martha Pennock,” but Samuel adamantly declared that “she is not my wife” because “her husband, John Morton, was alive” for several years after Samuel married her, not realizing that she already had a husband.  Samuel sought to sever his relationship with Martha.  That included making a public announcement that he “will not pay any debts of her contracting” so others should not “trust her on [Samuel’s] account.”  Furthermore, he “forewarn[ed] all persons not to pay her any money that is due to me, or that may become due to me hereafter.”  Samuel aimed to eliminate Martha’s access to any of his financial resources.

As was the case with every runaway wife advertisement, this notice relayed only the perspective of the husband.  Cut off from their sources of support, most wives did not have the means to publish responses to defend themselves and tell their side of the story.  Husbands almost always wielded the power of the press to their advantage.  In this instance, however, Martha inserted a response in the next issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette.  The Adverts 250 Project will feature it next week on the 250th anniversary of its publication.