Tea

April 19

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

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

South-Carolina Gazette and Country Journal (April 19, 1774).

“BOHEA, GREEN, and HYSON TEA.”

Not all colonizers dispensed with advertising, selling, and drinking tea as an immediate response to the Boston Tea Party, especially if the tea in question had not been subject to import duties.  In April 1774, Pott Shaw advertised “BOHEA, GREEN, and HYSON TEA, warranted of the finest Quality,” in the South-Carolina Gazette and Country Journal.  Shaw did not reveal when the tea arrived in the colony, by what means, or its origins, leaving those details to prospective customers to ask about, if they chose to do so, when they made their purchases.  Buying and selling this particular commodity occurred in the context of conversations about the politics of tea.

The April 19 edition of the South-Carolina Gazette and Country Journal carried some of the same updates about possible reactions to the Boston Tea Party that appeared in the Connecticut Courant a week earlier.  Throughout the colonies, printers reprinted news from one newspaper to another.  In this instance, both newspapers carried an “Extract of a letter from London, January 24,” that originally ran in newspapers in Philadelphia.  It briefly stated, “Three men of war are ordered to be in readiness to sail for Boston, and exact payment for the TEA,” without providing additional information, including who had written the letter.  Readers had to decide for themselves whether the report was accurate or merely rumor.  Another news item, this one having arrived via New York, reported that the “intentions of the British administration, relative to the American duty on tea, are not yet fixed.”  Readers in Charleston and Hartford read both these dispatches from London.  They also encountered advertisements for tea in the same issues that carried that news.

Readers of the South-Carolina Gazette and Country Journal also read about commemorations of events that contributed to the imperial crisis.  From Boston, they learned that “the horrid tragedy of the 5th of March,” the Boston Massacre, “was observed with the usual solemnity” on its fourth anniversary.  That article described “a portrait of that inhuman and cruel massacre” put on display and the ringing of bells throughout the city for an entire hour.  An update from New York followed, describing dinners that celebrated the “anniversary of the repeal of the STAMP-ACT.”  Abuses perpetrated by both British soldiers and Parliament received attention alongside news about tea.

For the moment, however, that did not result in merchants, shopkeepers, and others refraining from advertising and selling tea in South Carolina or Connecticut or other colonies.  The beverage was exceptionally popular, making it difficult to curtail consumption.  Eventually, colonizers did enact boycotts, but some people still devised ways to evade them, at least according to Peter Oliver’s account.  Although some entrepreneurs opted not to sell (or at least not to advertise) tea following the Boston Tea Party, it did not immediately disappear from shelves or newspaper advertisements.

April 12

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , ,

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

Connecticut Courant (April 12, 1774).

“A New Supply of TEA, Extraordinary Good.”

William Beadle was at it again.  A few months after the Boston Tea Party, he once again took to the pages of the Connecticut Courant, published in Hartford, to inform readers that he stocked “A New Supply of TEA, Extraordinary Good” at his shop in Wethersfield.  That advertisement first ran on April 12, 1774, a month after the first time he promoted “Best Bohea TEA, Such as Fishes never drink!!”  Readers could not miss the reference to the destruction of the tea in Boston Harbor, though they could have read Beadle’s comment in different ways.  In Tea: Consumption, Politics, and Revolution, 1773-1776, James R. Fichter proposes that Beadle might have sold smuggled tea that had not been subject to import duties or he might have underscored that Connecticut did not have a tea boycott in place so consumers could make their own decisions about purchasing it.  He suggests that Beadle did not experience any backlash, at least not enough to make him reconsider his marketing efforts, because “he placed generic advertisements for tea,” such as today’s featured advertisement, “throughout the spring and summer of 1774 and early 1775.”[1]

Tea was certainly a topic of discussion in Wethersfield and other towns in Connecticut.  In the same issue that first carried Beadle’s “New Supply of TEA” advertisement, updates about tea appeared in several places among the “American Intelligence.”  One “Extract of a letter from Baltimore” stated, “The intentions of the British Administration relative to the American duty on tea, are not yet fixed; the Minister has many weighty subjects to lay before the lower house, before the article will be brought into debate, and the session will be far expended ere any alteration in the revenue laws will be attended to.”  An “Extract of a Letter from London” warned that “Three Men of War are ordered to be immediately in Readiness to sail to Boston, and exact Payment for the Tea.”  News from Newport, Rhode Island, focused on the “New-Yorkers [who] are determined in their resolutions of sending back the tea ship without suffering an ounce to be landed.” That report referred to the Nancy and the trouble that was brewing in New York as the Sons of Liberty there advertised that they would hold weekly meetings “till the Arrival and Departure of the TEA SHIP.”  Tea had become such a sensitive topic that many merchants and shopkeepers ceased listing it among their inventory in their advertisements, but, especially without a nonimportation pact in place, Beadle charted his own course in promoting the popular beverage to consumers in Connecticut.

**********

[1] James R. Fichter, Tea: Consumption, Politics, and Revolution, 1773-1776 (Cornell University Press, 2023), 147.

March 20

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

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

New-York Journal (March 17, 1774).

“The SONS OF LIBERTY will meet on THURSDAY Night … till the Arrival and Departure of the TEA SHIP.”

It was a call to action.  An advertisement in the March 17, 1774, edition of the New-York Journal proclaimed, “NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the SONS OF LIBERTY will meet on THURSDAY Night, at 7 o’Clock, in every Week, at the House of Mr. JASPER DRAKE, till the Arrival and Departure of the TEA SHIP.”  That advertisement ran in the column next to an anonymous address “TO THE PUBLICK” that anticipated “the TEA-SHIP, which has been long expected, is near at hand.”  The address asserted, “Our sister colonies have gloriously defended the common cause of this country,” referring to the destruction of several shipments of tea in Boston the previous December and colonizers in Philadelphia had managed to prevent the Polly from landing its tea there.  In turn, the address called on colonizers in New York “to stand our ground, and as the day of tryal is now come, that we shall convince the whole American world that we are not slack and indolent, nor in the least degree unworthy, of being registered as a genuine sister province.”  It was a call to match the resolve and resistance already demonstrated in Boston and Philadelphia.

The “TEA SHIP” in these advertisements referred to the Nancy.  As James R. Fichter explains in Tea: Consumption, Politics, and Revolution, 1773-1776, the consignees of the tea aboard the Nancy “hoped to land and store this tea (but not sell it), which was initially acceptable to local Patriots.”[1]  But that was in November.  On December 1, 1773, even before the Boston Tea Party, the consignees “gave up their role in the tea and asked Governor Tryon to take over.”  The governor initially intended to land and store the tea, emboldened by support from British troops, but reconsidered that plan when Patriots in New York decided they could no longer endorse that plan and, especially, after the colony received word about the destruction of the tea in Boston.  That news encouraged Patriots in their position while convincing Tryon that “‘the Peace of Society’ and ‘good Order,’ trumped landing the tea, and the best he could hope for was an outcome like at Philadelphia (where the ship was turned around).”  The governor engineered a plan for the Nancy to land at Sandy Hook, outside New York City’s customs area, where it could be resupplied to return to Boston while evading any legal obligation to unload its cargo.  Yes, as Fichter notes, the governor “could not formally condone smuggling around His Majesty’s customs, even if it would maintain order.  So Tryon made no official announcement.”  Instead, he made sure that Patriots overheard conversations about this plan when they gathered at one of the coffeehouses in the city.

In the meantime, the Nancy continued making its way across the Atlantic, sheltering in Antiqua in February 1774 following a storm.  The ship made then its way to British mainland North America, arriving at Sandy Hook on April 18, a month after the Sons of Liberty advertised their weekly meetings at Drake’s house.  Conveniently, the governor was away from the city at the time.  Local Patriots observed the Nancy receiving supplies for its return to London, intervening only to prevent sailors who did not wish to continue on a ship further damaged in another storm from coming ashore.  The Nancy needed a crew to return to London without lingering in the waters near New York or inciting any sort of disorder that the carefully orchestrated plan had avoided so far.  As the Son of Liberty’s advertisement in the New-York Journal demonstrates, tea remained a flashpoint for resistance after the Boston Tea Party.  They achieved their goal of the “Arrival and Departure of the TEA SHIP.”

**********

[1] For quotations and a more extensive overview of the Nancy, see James R. Fichter, Tea: Consumption, Politics, and Revolution, 1773-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2023), 88-93.

March 8

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Connecticut Courant (March 8, 1774).

“Best Bohea TEA, Such as Fishes never drink!!”

Nearly three months after the destruction of tea now known as the Boston Tea Party, William Beadle of Wethersfield, Connecticut, published an advertisement that alluded to the event.  “Best Bohea TEA, Such as Fishes never drink!!” he proclaimed in a notice in the March 8, 1774, edition of the Connecticut Courant.  Two manicules, one at each end, directed readers to the phrase “Such as Fishes never drink!!”  The double exclamation points gave the comment even more exuberance, especially considering that exclamation points rarely appeared in eighteenth-century newspaper notices.  Beadle’s advertisement certainly differed from those placed by merchants and shopkeepers who assured prospective customers and the public that they did not stock tea and, by extension, opposed Parliament’s attempts to impose duties on the colonies.

What message did Beadle intend for readers of the Connecticut Courant?  What kind of commentary did he offer about consumer politics?  James R. Fichter examines Beadle’s advertisement in his recently published Tea: Consumption, Politics, and Revolution, 1773-1776.  Fichter indicates that Beadle’s neighbors “knew him as a man … who dabbled in dark and ambiguous humor.”  Some of that humor was on display in his previous advertisements.  Perhaps Beadle made a joke “at the expense of the Boston tea partiers or the drinkers deprived of their tea.”  After all, humor about the destruction of the tea already spread.  As Fichter recounts, Peter Oliver, a noted loyalist, reported that “some Bostonians abstained from eating local fish ‘because they had drank of the East India Tea.’”  Was Beadle taking a political position and mocking the excesses of patriots in Boston and other cities and towns who stopped selling tea?  Fichter also suggests that Beadle could have been “drawing attention to Connecticut not having a tea boycott” or he might have meant that he carried Dutch tea smuggled into the colonies.  Consumers could purchase and drink such tea with a clear conscience since it had not been subject to Parliament’s duties.  Yet Beadle may not have been making a political argument at all.  Perhaps he just wanted to publish the boldest advertisement, gain the most attention, and garner the most customers among merchants and shopkeepers who continued to advertise and sell tea in Connecticut.  According to Fichter, “Tea advertising remained common in Connecticut, and Beadle bore little burden for his cheek: he placed generic advertisements for tea throughput the spring and summer of 1774 and early 1775.”[1]

**********

[1] James R. Fichter, Tea: Consumption, Politics, and Revolution, 1773-1776 (Cornell University Press, 2023).

February 20

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

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

Massachusetts Spy (February 17, 1774).

“Pointing out the names of several persons concerned in destroying the Tea.”

Two months after what has become known as the Boston Tea Party, tea continued to occupy the minds of colonizers in that port city and beyond.  In the February 17, 1774, edition of the Massachusetts Spy, Joseph P. Palmer once again ran his advertisement for “GRANADA RUM” with a nota bene that emphatically proclaimed, “NO TEA.”  Immediately above it, Jeremiah Cronin placed a notice in which he attempted to disassociate himself from any sort of political position concerning the recent dumping of tea into the harbor, hoping to reduce unwanted and, he claimed, unwarranted attention.

Cronin reported that on a morning early in February he discovered that “an Advertisement appeared posted up at the North-End of this town, signifying that I the subscriber, have been active in taking minutes, and pointing out the names of several persons concerned in destroying the Tea, and tarring and feathering.”  He likely feared the ire of patriots who believed that he undermined their cause and planned to inform on them to the authorities.  Yet, Cronin declared, he had no such intentions!  “I hereby beg leave to inform the Public,” he pleaded, “that so far from being active and busy on any such occasions, I have neither directly or indirectly concerned myself with public affairs.”  Instead, he promised, “I have always kept myself within doors when any disturbance happened in the town.”  Just as he did not want patriots looking too closely at him, Cronin aimed to avoid trouble with the authorities and the loyalists who supported them.  He ran his advertisement to declare his neutrality.  To buttress his effort to convince the public that was the case, he appended a declaration by a justice of the peace, Joseph Gardner, who affirmed that Cronin “made solemn oath to the whole of the above declaration.”

Massachusetts Spy (February 17, 1774).

The politics of tea also received attention in the upper left corner of the page that carried Cronin’s notice and Palmer’s advertisement.  The “POETS CORNER” for that issue featured “A Lady’s Adieu to her TEA-TABLE.”  Perhaps written by a woman, perhaps not, the poem said “FArewel [to] the tea board and its equipage” and the “many a joyous moment” of “Hearing the girls tattle” and “the old maids talk scandal” while drinking “hyson, congo, and best double fine” tea.  “No more shall I dish out the once lov’d liquor,” the lady asserted, considering tea “now detestable.”  Consuming tea was no longer a diversion or a treat, but instead a vice: “Its use will fasten slavish chains upon my country, / And Liberty’s the goddess I would choose / To reign triumphant in AMERICA.”  The lady’s “Adieu to her TEA-TABLE” suggested, even more forcefully than Palmer’s proclamation of “NO TEA,” that Cronin might not much longer have the luxury of taking a neutral position in “public affairs.”  When it came down to tea or liberty, when decisions about consumption had political meaning, when neighbors and acquaintances observed decisions that fellow colonizers made in the marketplace, Cronin would find it increasingly difficult to avoid taking a side in the trouble that was brewing.

January 27

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

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

Massachusetts Spy (January 27, 1774).

“NO TEA.”

More than a month after colonizers disguised as Indians dumped tea into Boston Harbor to protest the duties imposed by Parliament in the Tea Act, the subject of purchasing and consuming tea continued to animate conversations around town and in the public prints.  On January 27, 1774, the Massachusetts Spy published a letter from “DEBORAH DOUBTFUL,” who may have been a concerned woman or, in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin’s Silence Dogood, may have been a man masquerading as a woman.  The message mattered more than the messenger.  In this case, Deborah Doubtful issued a warning to anyone who sold or purchased tea.

The writer claimed that colonizers in Boston “hear and read so much of indulging the sale of undutied teas through comparatively a small number of the citizens countenance the use of any tea.”  That disparity prompted “a number of the female friends to liberty” to “agree to enquire into the number of those who still continue the use of that detestable drug.”  Terminology for tea had shifted.  Rather than a pleasure to imbibe, it became something worse than any of the patent medicines so widely advertised in early American newspapers.  Deborah Doubtful warned that unless those who still consumed tea “very speedily reform,” her committee would “resolve to take such measures with them, as will perhaps cause them to repent their love to their country runs so low in so trying a season.”  Those measure could include public shaming, but both men and women sometimes resorted to other forms of protest.

Deborah Doubtful made it clear that colonizers needed to be very careful about what they chose to sell or drink.  “Dealers in Dutch tea are informed form the same society,” she cautioned, “that a strict watch will be kept over them, and the smugglers exposed as they deserve.”  Her committee extended their purview beyond just those teas imported from Britain and subject to the Tea Act, refusing to accept smuggled tea as an alternative.  “The only sure way to avoid being imposed upon by dutied tea,” Deborah Doubtful proclaimed, “being to oppose the trade in all tea.”  That the author so obviously used a pseudonym put readers on notice that anyone, both men and women, could participate in surveillance of their friends and neighbors, report them to a committee composed of “friends of liberty,” and cause problems for them as result of the choices they made in the marketplace.

Joseph P. Palmer did not need to read Deborah Doubtful’s letter to reach that conclusion.  He already arrived there when he submitted his advertisement for “GRENADA RUM” and various groceries to the printing office.  It concluded with a list of “Cheese, Coffee, Chocolate, &c. as usual,” but something was missing.  In a nota bene, centered and in a larger font to make it all the more visible, Palmer declared “NO TEA.”  Merchants, shopkeepers, grocers, and other who carried coffee and chocolate usually stocked tea as well, but given the climate in Boston at the time, including Deborah Doubtful’s letter and other items about tea in that issue of the Massachusetts Spy, Palmer stayed away from the problematic commodity.  He may have done so as a matter of his own political principles, but that might not have been his only motivation.  At that moment, conducting business and remaining in the good graces of the community meant going along with prohibitions on selling and drinking tea.

December 28

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Essex Gazette (December 28, 1773).

“At private Sale, Choice Bohea Tea.”

Tea, tea, tea.  Everyone was talking about tea after Parliament passed the Tea Act in 1773.  That legislation allowed the East India Company to sell tea directly in colonies without paying export taxes in London.  This reduced the cost of tea for American consumers, but many colonizers resisted because this arrangement included paying duties when the tea was unloaded from the vessels once they arrived in American ports.  If they paid those duties, colonizers would implicitly recognize Parliament’s right to tax them.  They had rejected such assertions when they protested the Townshend Acts and, as a matter of principle, rejected them once again, even when presented with the prospect of buying tea at lower prices.  Many also worried about greater enforcement to prevent smuggling, realizing that they illicit trade also yielded bargain prices.

The talk about tea continued as colonizers anticipated the arrival of ships carrying tea belonging to the East India Company.  The talk about tea continued when three of ships arrived in Boston and residents prevented them from unloading their cargo.  The talk about tea continued after the destruction of that tea during a protest now known as the Boston Tea Party.  The December 28, 1773, edition of the Essex Gazette, for instance, featured plenty of talk about tea.  Two of the three columns on the first page covered the “Proceedings of the PEOPLE, previous to the Destruction of the Tea at Boston.”  The final column followed up with “the following Particulars respecting that HAPPY EVENT, the Destruction of the East-India Company’s ministerial Tea,” reprinted from the December 23 edition of the Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter.  At the bottom of that column, a short item with a dateline from “NEWPORT, December 13,” reported that “[b]y a letter from Boston, it seems as though our brethren there had some fears that we should receive the India Company’s detestable Tea; but we think it may be safely affirmed, that it will not be suffered to be sold here.”  Furthermore, there would be consequences “if landed, which is scare possible.”  The article proclaimed that such tea “will be reshipped on board the LIBERTY, and sent to GASPEE, the first favourable wind or weather,” invoking memories of another significant protest, the burning of the Gaspee in June 1772.  Elsewhere in that issue, news articles of varying lengths summarized talk about tea in New York, Philadelphia, and Portsmouth.

Among all that talk about tea, W.P. Bartlett, an auctioneer, advertised “Choice Bohea Tea” available “At private Sale.”  In Salem as in Boston, advertising, selling, buying, and drinking tea did not cease immediately as a rection to the Boston Tea Party.  Tea remained on the market as colonizers continue to debate what to do about tea and how to continue protesting against the Tea Act.

December 27

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

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

Boston Evening-Post (December 27, 1773).

“The above Teas were imported before any of the East-India Company’s Tea arrive, or it was known they would send any on their own Account.”

Cyrus Baldwin advertised “Choice Bohea and Souchong Tea” in the December 20, 1773, edition of the Boston Evening-Post, the first issue published following the protest now known as the Boston Tea Party.  In an effort to convince both prospective customers and the general public that he traded in good faith, he appended a nota bene to assert that his teas “were imported before any of the East-India Company’s Tea arrive, or it was known they would send any on their own Account.”  Three days later, he ran a similar advertisement in the Massachusetts Spy.  That notice included new merchandise, but it still listed “CHOICE Bohea and Souchong Teas” and concluded with the same nota bene.  As the politics of tea became a main topic of discussion, in town meetings, in the press, in everyday conversation, did not decide to discontinue his advertisements presenting tea for sale at his shop in Boston.

Boston-Gazette (December 27, 1773).

On December 27, Baldwin once again advertised in the Boston Evening-Post, replacing his advertisement from the previous issue with the one from the Massachusetts Spy.  In addition, that advertisement, complete with the nota bene, also ran in the Boston-Gazette on December 27.  Over the course of several days, Baldwin inserted it in three of the five newspapers published in Boston at the time.  Notably, neither Isaiah Thomas, the printer of the Massachusetts Spy, nor Benjamin Edes and John Gill, the printers of the Boston-Gazette, rejected the advertisement, though they had earned reputations as the printers who most vociferously advocated for the patriot cause and critiqued Parliament and colonial officials.  Did their willingness to publish the advertisement serve as tacit endorsement of the rationale Baldwin offered to justify selling his tea?  Maybe not.  The printers may have been too busy participating in events as they unfolded after the Boston Tea Party and gathering news from near and far that they did not scrutinize the contents of all the advertisements submitted to their printing offices.  After all, other merchants and shopkeepers continued to advertise tea in the Boston-Gazette and the Massachusetts Spy.  The printers may not have examined each advertisement closely to spot tea among the lists of merchandise.  They might have also been satisfied, at least for the moment, because they knew any tea sold by Baldwin and others had not been acquired via the problematic shipments that ended up in the harbor rather than in shops and stores.

As colonizers, including “Venders of Tea,” debated what to do next following the Boston Tea Party, they did not immediately cease advertising, buying, selling, and drinking tea.  Following strategies that they adopted in response to the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts, they eventually devised nonimportation and consumption agreements.  Loyalists like Peter Oliver accused patriots, especially women, of cheating on those agreements.  Such indiscretions would have been a continuation of the flexibility toward tea exhibited in newspaper advertisements published in the days immediately after the Boston Tea Party.

December 26

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

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

Massachusetts Spy (December 23, 1773).

“The above teas were imported before the East India Company’s teas arrived, or it was known that they would send any here on their own account.”

A week after colonizers in Boston dumped tea into the harbor in an event now known as the Boston Tea Party, Cyrus Baldwin continued to advertise “CHOICE Bohea and Souchong Teas, best Hyson ditto.”  His advertisement on the December 23, 1773, edition of the Massachusetts Spy, like his advertisement that ran in the Boston Evening-Post three days earlier, concluded with a nota bene declaring that the “teas were imported before the East India Company’s teas arrived, or it was known that they would send any here on their own account.”  That previous advertisement ran below a “NOTIFICATION” that called on “all the Dealers in, and Venders of Teas” to attend a meeting on December 21 for the purpose of “determining on suitable Measures to be adopted, and to cooperate with a great number of respectable Inhabitants of this Province, express’d by a Vote of their late Assembly to suppress the Use of that detested Article.”  Those who attended did not reach any final decisions.  Instead, a notice dated December appeared in the Massachusetts Spy, advising the “Traders in TEA … that their meeting stands Adjourned to THIS Evening at 5 o’clock, at the Royal-Exchange Tavern.”

In addition to that brief notice, the December 23 edition of the Massachusetts Spy, the first published since the Boston Tea Party, included several articles and editorials about tea.  Among the local news in the first column on the first page, readers learned that East India Company’s tea commissioners remained at Castle William on an island in the harbor.  Mixing news and editorial, this update stated, “Their obstinacy has rendered them infinitely more obnoxious to their countrymen than even the Stamp-Masters were.”

Elsewhere on the first page, a letter to the printer, Isaiah Thomas, signed by “A WOMAN,” objected to the recitation “a great number of arguments used to persuade the ladies to leave off the use of [tea].”  The correspondent inquired, “If Tea has been really known to be a baneful weed, a poisonous draught, &c. why were not these arguments used against the use of it in former times, before it was thought a political evil?”  She also noted that “gentlemen as well as ladies” enjoyed drinking tea and derived benefits to their health from doing so.  However, she did not make these arguments to justify continuing to consume the beverage.  Instead, she wished to be presented with a rationale for boycotting tea “such as will convince persons who are capable of using their reason,” whether male or female.  To that end, she recommended that “the gentlemen who are fully acquainted with all the political reasons for discarding the use of Tea … to publish a full and plain narrative of fact, so that we might see how it comes to pass that the use of Tea is a political evil in this country.”  If men were to instruct women “in all they know” about the political implications of drinking tea “it would be a much more probable method to make us leave off the use of it than the calling it hard names, and telling us scare-crow stories about it.”  Women participated in politics through their decisions in the marketplace.  When treated as capable of understanding rational arguments, the correspondent suggested, women would join with men in more effective and powerful resistance to Parliament’s abuses.

Three other letters to the printer expressed outrage over tea, while a news article offered an overview of the town meetings that occurred in the days before colonizers disguised as Indians boarded three ships and destroyed the tea they carried.  Another article described that event: “A number of brave and resolute men, determined to do all in their power to save their country from the ruin which their enemies had plotted, emptied every chest of tea on board the three ships … without the least damage done to the ships or any other property.”  According to this article, “The masters and owners are well pleased that their ships are thus cleared; and the people are almost universally congratulating each other on this happy event.”

Among the advertisements, Baldwin was not the only shopkeeper who promoted tea in the December 23 edition of the Massachusetts Spy, though he alone inserted an explanation about when he acquired the tea in hopes of convincing the community that he could sell it in good conscious and prospective customers that they could purchase and drink it in good conscious.  Even as many colonizers in Boston and other towns called for a boycott of tea, many retailers and consumers did not immediately cease buying and selling the popular beverage.

December 23

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

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

New-York Journal (December 23, 1773).

“John Hancock, Esq; has neither directly, or indirectly, imported any tea from Great Britain.”

As news of the Boston Tea Party reached New York and appeared in the December 23, 1773, edition of the New-York Journal, an advertisement in that newspaper took on new significance.  Starting on December 9 and continuing for four weeks, William Palfrey inserted an advertisement that addressed a “report [that] has been industriously and maliciously propagated in this City, that the Hon. John Hancock, Esq. has imported Tea from England, into Boston, and paid the Revenue Duty chargeable on such tea.”  Such rumors had the potential to tarnish the reputation of one of the merchants who had been most vocal in opposition to the provisions of the Tea Act, decrying Parliament’s attempts to meddle in affairs that he believed rightly belonged to colonial legislatures.

Palfrey, one Hancock’s clerks, took to the public prints to “undeceive the public, and to frustrate the evil design of so scandalous a report.”  He noted that he had “been conversant in that gentleman’s affairs” for “several years past” and, as a result, could vouch for Hancock.  In late 1773, many readers of the New-York Journal may not have been as familiar with the merchant as residents of Boston, though Hancock regularly appeared in articles reprinted from newspapers published in Massachusetts.  Five months before Palfrey’s advertisement appeared, the New-York Journal printed one of Governor Thomas Hutchinson’s letters from June 1768 that described the seizure of the Liberty, “a sloop belonging to Mr. Hancock, a wealthy merchant, of great influence over the populace,” for “a very notorious breach of the acts of trade.”  (The July 8, 1773, edition of the New-York Journal carried the entire letter and other private correspondence by the governor.)  Contrary to abiding by Parliament’s attempts to regulate colonial commerce and tax imported goods, Hancock had a history of smuggling tea and other items to avoid paying duties.  According to Palfrey, neither Hancock’s public position nor his private actions had changed.  The clerk declared “upon his word of honour” (and expressed his willingness to “ratify the dame, by his oath”) that Hancock had “neither directly, or indirectly, imported any tea from Great Britain, since the passing the act imposing a duty on said article” and most certainly had not paid import duties on tea.  As Jordan E. Taylor has recently demonstrated in Misinformation Nation: Foreign News and the Politics of Truth in Revolutionary America (2022), Patriots and Loyalists vied to establish narratives that fit their politics and their purposes, whether in newspapers, other printed materials, letters, or conversation.  That contest over the truth extended to advertisements, including Palfrey’s notice in the New-York Journal.