“There are no Barracks in the Town”

Thursday, 22 Sept 1768, was not only the first day of the extralegal Massachusetts Convention of Towns. It was also the anniversary of the coronation of George III.

That royal holiday was accordingly observed in Boston, as the Boston Evening-Post described:

by the firing of the Cannon at Castle William and at the Batteries in this Town, and three Vollies by the Regiment of Militia, which, with the Train of Artillery, were mustered on the Occasion.——

At the Invitation of his Excellency the Governor, his Majesty’s Health was drank at the Council-Chamber at Noon.

So much for ceremonial harmony. At that same meeting in the Old State House, Gov. Francis Bernard and the Council were in a major dispute.

Three days before, the governor had formally told the Council the news that he’d leaked earlier—that British army regiments were on the way to Boston. Under the Quartering Act, the local authorities were required to provide housing and firewood for them. As John G. McCurdy argued at a Colonial Society of Massachusetts session last February, we can think of the Quartering Act as one of Parliament’s taxes on the colonies, requiring resources from local communities without their vote.

Gov. Bernard wanted the Council to start arranging to house four regiments, two on their way from Halifax and two more to arrive later from Ireland. But the Council was determined not to cooperate. In a report to London, Bernard claimed James Otis, Jr., had laid out this strategy for the Whigs:

There are no Barracks in the Town; and therefore by Act of parliament they [the soldiers] must be quartered in the public houses. But no one will keep a public house upon such terms, & there will be no public houses. Then the Governor and Council must hire Barnes Outhouses &c for them; but no body is obliged to let them; no body will let them; no body will dare to let them.

The Troops are forbid to quarter themselves in Any other manner than according to the Act of parliament, under severe penalties. But they can’t quarter themselves according to the Act: and therefore they must leave the Town or seize on quarters contrary to the Act. When they do this, when they invade property contrary to an Act of parliament We may resist them with the Law on our side.

Bernard was anxious to head off such trouble. He wrote:

I answered, that they must be sensible that this Act of parliament (which seemed to be made only with a View to marching troops) could not be carried into execution in this Case. For if these troops were to be quartered in public houses & thereby mixt with the people their intercourse would be a perpetual Source of affrays and bloodsheds; and I was sure that no Commanding officer would consent to having his troops separated into small parties in a town where there was so public & professed a disaffection to his Majesty’s British Government.

And as to hiring barnes outhouses &c it was mere trifling to apply that clause to Winter quarters in this Country; where the Men could not live but in buildings with tight walls & plenty of fireplaces. Therefore the only thing to be done was to provide barracks; and to say that there were none was only true, that there was no building built for that purpose; but there were many public buildings that might be fitted up for that purpose with no great inconvenience.

Bernard proposed that the province make the Manufactory House available for the troops. This building had been put up in 1753 to house spinners and weavers. The province had loaned money to build it, expecting to be paid back from the profits of the cloth-manufacturing enterprise. The scheme never made money, the businessmen behind it defaulted on the loan, and Massachusetts was left with ownership of this big building near the center of town.

The Council formed a committee led by James Bowdoin to consult with Boston’s selectmen about the troops. On 22 September, the day of the toasts to the king, that committee reported that the selectmen “gave it for their Opinion that it would be most for the peace of the Town that the two regiments expected from Halifax should be quartered at the Castle.”

That was a new strategy, avoiding confrontations with the soldiers by housing them in the barracks on Castle William—which was on an island in the harbor. Of course, that meant those troops couldn’t patrol Boston and protect Customs officers, which was the whole point of sending them into town. Bernard wrote, “I observed that they confounded the Words Town & Township; that the Castle was indeed in the Township of Boston but was so far from being in the Town that it was distant from it by water 3 miles & by land 7.”

The governor reproached his Council: “I did not see how they could clear themselves from being charged with a design to embarras the quartering the Kings troops.” Bernard thus hinted that the body was being disloyal to the king—and on the anniversary of his coronation! “I spoke this so forcibly,” he wrote, “that some of them were stagger’d, & desired further time to consider of it.” But one member warned the governor not to expect any progress, “pleasantly” adding, “what can you expect from a Council who are more affraid of the people than they are of the King?”

On 23 September, 250 years ago today, a smaller committee, also led by Bowdoin, was ready to present a formal report on the matter to Gov. Bernard.

Who was now at his country house out in Jamaica Plain. This of course kept him distant from the Convention going on in Faneuil Hall. Province secretary Andrew Oliver told the Council “that the Weather being so stormy the Governor will not be in Town to-day, and desires they will meet him at the Province-House to-morrow ten o’Clock, A.M.”

The next morning was stormy, too. Bernard finally came into town that Saturday afternoon to hear what the Council had to say. Which was the same thing as before, except longer: the only place for the troops was out at Castle William. After cleaning up some errors in their report, the Council had it published in the newspapers on 26 September, making the dispute a public matter.

COMING UP: Meanwhile, back in Faneuil Hall.

Opening Day for the Massachusetts Convention of 1768

On Thursday, 22 Sept 1768, 250 years ago today, the Massachusetts Convention met for the first time in Faneuil Hall. Participants were dubbed to be “committees” from their respective towns.

Gov. Francis Bernard sent a strongly worded message from his official home, the Province House (shown here):

As I have lately received from his Majesty [i.e., the Crown government in London] strict Orders to support his constitutional authority within this Government [i.e., in the province of Massachusetts], I cannot sit still and see so notorious a violation of it, as the calling an Assembly of the people by private persons only. For a meeting of the Deputies of the Towns is an Assembly of the Representatives of the people to all intents and purposes; and it is not the calling it a Convention what will alter the nature of the thing. . . .

It is therefore my duty to interpose at this instant, before it is too late. I do therefore earnestly admonish you that instantly and before you do any business, you break up this Assembly and separate yourselves. I speak to you now as a friend to the Province, and a well-wisher to the individuals of it.

Andrew Oliver, the royal secretary of Massachusetts, delivered that message to Thomas Cushing, the Convention chairman (usually speaker of the Massachusetts house). The Convention records noted that the letter was:

said to be by Order of the Governor, but not being signed, it was by a Vote of the Committees returned to the Secretary, with Assurance to him that they should be always ready to pay all due Respect to any Messages which they might be assured should come to them from the Governor of the Province.

The Convention then approved a petition to Gov. Bernard asking him to convene the Massachusetts General Court. Back in June, the governor had ended a legislative session because the lower house refused to rescind its Circular Letter to other colonies. Bernard had explicit orders from the ministry in London to take that action.

The governor therefore declined to receive the petition from the small committee that brought it, sending a note in reply:

Gentlemen,

You must excuse me from receiving a Message from that Assembly which is called a Committee of Convention; for that would be to admit it to be a legal Assembly; which I can by no Means allow.

The Convention responded that this letter wasn’t signed, either. But the three delegates who had been to the Province House “declared in Writing under their Hands that his Excellency delivered the same to them.”

The Convention and the governor having each refused to recognize the other, the first day of the momentous gathering came to a close.

TOMORROW: Meanwhile, in the Council Chamber…

Coming Soon: “Fashioning the New England Family”

The Massachusetts Historical Society and Prof. Kimberly Alexander have spent two years preparing an exhibit based on garments, cloth samples, accoutrements, and manuscripts in the society’s collection.

“Fashioning the New England Family” will be mounted later this year. This month the M.H.S. is sharing samples day by day on a special webpage. For instance, on 1 February it featured the very embroidered waistcoat that magistrate Andrew Oliver, Jr., wore in his portrait by Joseph Blackburn.

The society has also announced a Kickstarter campaign to raise money for a full-color book based on the exhibit showing how “the multiple meanings of fashion and fashionable goods are reflected in patterns of consumption and refashioning, recycling, and retaining favorite family pieces.”

The crowdfunding page explains:

Many of the items that will be featured in the project have been out of sight, having never been exhibited for the public or seen in living memory. The publication and exhibition will give scholars, students, and professionals in fields such as fashion, material culture, and history the chance to see these items for the first time; encourage research; and, provide the possibility for new discoveries.

For the public, it is an opportunity to view in detail painstaking craftsmanship, discover how examples of material culture relate to significant moments in our history, and learn how garments were used as political statements, projecting an individual’s religion, loyalties, and social status. It may allow some to recognize and appreciate family keepsakes but it will certainly help us all to better understand the messages we may have previously missed in American art and literature.

In early America it was common for books to be pre-sold by subscription like this. Back here I discussed how Phillis Wheatley offered her poems for sale that way in 1772. But that effort failed, as did Wheatley’s post-war attempt to fund a second collection. Her first book was instead published in England with the help of an aristocratic patron; the manuscript of her second disappeared.

In the same way, the Fashioning the New England Family book depends on advance orders from people interested in historical clothing. As in the eighteenth century, there will be a list of especially generous supporters inside the book. And at the top levels of the crowdfunding campaign, donors can have a special tour of the exhibit.

Charles Paxton, Customs Commissioner

Charles Paxton (1708-1788, shown here in a portrait at the American Antiquarian Society) was a major figure in Boston’s 1767 Pope Night procession.

Not as a member of the North End or South End Gangs, to be sure. Paxton was the target of those processions, which became a protest against the Townshend duties and the new Commissioners of His Majesty’s Customs. (The daytime protest will be part of the “Devil and the Crown” reenactment this Saturday.)

Paxton was one of those five Commissioners, having risen in the Customs service in Massachusetts. He had tried to join that agency as early as 1734, proposing a new office at Plymouth with himself in charge. He got a post in Marblehead and Salem in the early 1740s.

Paxton also became marshal of Boston’s vice-admiralty court, which helped to enforce the Customs laws. So he made money from seizures of smuggled goods in all sorts of ways. Some said he played favorites with whose goods he seized, though it’s possible they just meant he should be as lenient as other Customs officers.

Naturally, Paxton’s work made him unpopular with the maritime community in Essex County. In 1752 he gained the post of Surveyor of Customs in Boston, allowing him to become just as unpopular with an even larger maritime community.

When Boston’s merchants sued to overturn writs of assistance in 1761, Paxton was the nominal defendant. He won that case, and others, in the Massachusetts courts. The fact that Chief Justice Thomas Hutchinson was one of Paxton’s oldest friends didn’t mollify their opponents.

During the first Stamp Act riot on 14 Aug 1765, Paxton reportedly offered shelter to the stamp agent, Andrew Oliver. So during the second Stamp Act riot on 26 August, a mob went to Paxton’s home and threatened to pull it apart.

Paxton’s landlord, Thomas Palmer, came out and convinced the crowd not to harm his property. He bought them a barrel of punch at a nearby tavern. So instead those people headed to the North End and ripped apart Hutchinson’s house, among others.

In July 1766 Paxton sailed for London, nominally for his health. He happened to be in the capital when Chancellor of the Exchequer Charles Townshend proposed new tariffs and a new board to enforce them. Bostonians blamed Paxton for suggesting those measures, but there’s no evidence for that. He no doubt did lobby to be named as one of the Commissioners, and succeeded.

Thus, when Paxton arrived back in Boston on 5 Nov 1767, he had made himself into the most unpopular royal appointee in the colony. In 1768 Samuel Adams would look back on Paxton’s trip in a newspaper essay published under the name of “Candidus”:

Happy for America’s sons had mother Ocean taken him into her bosom (father Abra’m surely never will)

happy I say had it been for America, nay thrice happy for the mother country had he never reached Albion’s shore: less treasure had been expended by her; less animosity had taken place between the mother and her children; less villainy had been perpetrated here, had he never returned.

When your neighbors publicly wish you had drowned at sea for the good of the nation, you are not popular.

Another thing made Paxton a target of Boston’s crowds: he was queer.

TOMORROW: Poor Charles the Bachelor.

The Mystery of Poem XXIX

Yesterday I described the 1761 collection of poems titled Pietas et Gratulatio, designed to show off the learning of Harvard College in praise to King George III.

Although the college announced a competition for students and recent graduates, surviving copies of the book with handwritten notes indicate that many of the poems came from men well past their undergraduate days. That list included grammar-school master John Lovell, merchant and scholar James Bowdoin, the Rev. Samuel Cooper, and Dr. Benjamin Church. To be fair, those men all had received Harvard educations.

Several of the poems, particularly those in Latin and Greek, came from Stephen Sewall (1734-1804), who was a recent Harvard graduate. He was also on his way to becoming the college’s professor of Hebrew and other languages.

In 1809 the Monthly Anthology magazine of Boston used Prof. Sewall’s own copy of Pietas et Gratulatio to attribute the poem numbered XXIX to “Thomas Oliver, afterwards judge and lieutenant governour.” Thomas Oliver (1734-1815) would have qualified as a recent Harvard graduate, and he did become the last royal lieutenant governor.

However, Oliver was never a judge. In fact, no one matches that magazine’s description. The other candidates are:

• Andrew Oliver, lieutenant governor but not judge.
• His brother Peter Oliver, judge but not lieutenant governor (shown above).
• Their brother-in-law Thomas Hutchinson, judge and lieutenant governor—and more prominent as governor.

I’ve seen different authors identify all four of those men as the author of poem XXIX.

But there’s more. Soon after publishing that article, the Monthly Anthology received letters from two people in Maine disputing and filling out its attributions. One was the Rev. Dr. Samuel Deane of Portland, the last surviving contributor to Pietas et Gratulatio. The other, left unnamed, said he (or she) had a copy of the book with poem XXIX attributed to Prof. Sewall.

The magazine’s editors accepted what that letter said, even though that reattribution created another question: If Sewall had composed that English poem, why didn’t his own copy of the book say so? Why did it evidently name some other man as author?

In an 1879 issue of the Harvard Library Bulletin, Justin Winsor tallied up the evidence from all the copies of and reports on Pietas et Gratulatio he could find. He wrote that copies owned by the Rev. Jeremy Belknap, Samuel A. Eliot, the Rev. John Lowell of Newbury, college president Edward Holyoke, and Prof. John Winthrop all named the author of poem XXIX as Stephen Sewall. However, five other copies named either Peter or Thomas Oliver.

Sewall definitely wrote poetry, though he was best known for work in Greek and Latin, not English. Peter Oliver wrote newspaper essays and a delightfully sarcastic account of the coming of the Revolution. In contrast, I’ve never come across Thomas Oliver writing anything but justifications for his actions on 2 Sept 1774 (the topic of my talk at Longfellow House–Washington’s Headquarters tonight).

Therefore, though I’m still unsure about who wrote that poem, Thomas Oliver is one of the least likely of the named candidates.

TOMORROW: Poem XXIX at last.

The Stamp Act Meets the Bottom Line

On 18 March 1766, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act for its American colonies. That was one week short of the law’s first anniversary.

Of course, the Stamp Act had already failed. How badly? Alvin Rabushka’s Taxation in Colonial America has a couple of tables that sum up the situation.

The British government shipped £102,050.8s.11d. (plus one more half-pence) worth of paper to the thirteen colonies that would form the U.S. of A. In those colonies the empire’s stamp agents collected a total of:

£45

All in Georgia.

From all of North America and the Caribbean, which included twenty-six British colonies, the Crown collected £3,292. Most of that came from Jamaica, the only colony where the law was really in force for any time at all.

The government also lost a lot of the paper it had bought and had stamped. About £61,000 worth was returned while £41,000 worth was lost or destroyed. Only South Carolina returned its consignment intact. Nearly all of New York’s paper was destroyed, as was most of New Hampshire’s and Rhode Island’s. In Massachusetts, where riots intimidated Andrew Oliver into resigning as stamp agent more than two months before the law was to take effect, about two-thirds of the paper was preserved. But the law had clearly ended up costing the government money, even without accounting for the riots.

At the same time as the repeal, Parliament approved the Declaratory Act, reaffirming its role as the sovereign authority in the British Empire. That law said the legislature “had hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America…in all cases whatsoever.”

King George III granted official assent to the Declaratory Act immediately but didn’t approve the Stamp Act repeal for another four days. That timing didn’t really matter, but it showed his personal commitment to the idea of Parliamentary rule, even when the government no longer consisted of his favorites.

How the Boston Gazette Spun a Riot

Just as the Boston News-Letter was already a reliable supporter of the royal government in Massachusetts in 1765, as discussed yesterday, Benjamin Edes and John Gill’s Boston Gazette was already the voice of the Boston’s government, merchants, and Whigs.

After the riot that destroyed Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson’s house, the 2 September Gazette did its best to portray Boston in a positive light. Its report started, “Such horrid Scenes of Villainy as were perpetrated last Monday Night it is certain were never seen before in this Town, and it is hop’d never will again.”

Having swiftly described the destruction, the Gazette insisted:

The true Causes of this notorious Riot are not known, possibly they may be explored hereafter.——Most People seem dispos’d to differentiate between the Assembly on the 14th of the Month, and their Transactions, and the unbridled Licentiousness of this Mob; Judging them to proceed from very different Motives, and their Conduct was most evidently different

No matter that the crowd on 14 August damaged stamp agent Andrew Oliver’s house almost as thoroughly as the mob on 26 August damaged Hutchinson’s. The paper moved swiftly on to how Boston and its respectable citizens had reacted to the disorder:

[“]The Town having an utter Detestation of the extraordinary and violent Proceedings of a Number of Persons unknown, against some of the Inhabitants of the same the last Night;

VOTED UNANIMOUSLY That the Selectmen and Magistrates of the Town be desired to use their utmost Endeavours, agreeable to Law, to suppress the like Disorders for the future, and that the Freeholders and other Inhabitants will do every Thing in their Power to assist them therein.”

Altho’ not above two Hours Notice was given, there was as full a Meeting at Faneuil Hall as has been ever known.

In Consequence of the above Resolve the Selectmen Magistrates, and other Gentlemen of the Town, together with the Cadet Company several Companies of the Militia, and the Company of the Train of Artillery, have kept Night Watch, to prevent any such further Proceedings.

It is hoped that the Goldsmiths, and other Persons to whom Plate may be offered for Sale, will be at this Time exceeding careful of whom they purchase.

Likewise, the Gazette offered a different take on the day when Boston’s Whigs named Liberty Tree.

TOMORROW: A respectful ceremony honoring a respectable riot.

Jared Ingersoll’s Non-Resignation as Stamp Master

Jared Ingersoll had an unusual relationship with the anti-Stamp Act movement in 1765 America. As the year began, he was an agent for the colony of Connecticut in London, and he lobbied officials there not to proceed with the plan.

Ingersoll’s 11 February letter describing the debate over the law in Parliament is our sole source for Isaac Barré’s speech celebrating American colonists as “Sons of Liberty.” That phrase (already established in British political rhetoric) inspired activists all along the North American coast.

But once the imperial government enacted the Stamp Act, Ingersoll lobbied to be named the collector for Connecticut, which would grant him an income and authority. He’d done his level best to stop the law, he reasoned; now he might as well make the most of the new situation.

But then came the events of late August. Ingersoll was reportedly hooted out of Boston. While he traveled home to New Haven, he might have heard similar grumblings in his own colony. On 22 August towns began burning Ingersoll in effigy, just as Bostonians had done to signal their disapproval of Massachusetts stamp master Andrew Oliver (before proceeding to ruin his house).

Ingersoll therefore penned a public letter on 24 August, printed in the colony’s newspapers over the following week:

To the Good People of Connecticut.

When I undertook the Office of Distributor of Stamps for this Colony, I meant a Service to you, and really thought you would have viewed it in that Light when you come to understand the Nature of the Stamp Act and that of the Office; but since it gives you so much Uneasiness, you may be assured, if I find (after the Act takes Place, which is the first of November) that you shall not incline to purchase or make use of any stampt Paper, I shall not force it upon you, nor think it worth my While to trouble you or my Self with any Exercise of my Office; but if, by that Time I shall find you generally in much Need of the stampt Paper and very anxious to obtain it, I shall hope you will be willing to receive it of me, (if I shall happen to have any) at least until another Person more agreeable to you can be appointed in my room.

I cannot but wish you would think more how to get rid of the Stamp Act than of the Officers who are to supply you with the Paper, and that you had learnt more of the Nature of my Office before you had undertaken to be so very angry at it.

There’s been a lot written in recent years about “non-apology apologies.” Ingersoll’s letter seems to be one, as well as a non-resignation resignation. He promised not to do the job of stamp master if people still didn’t want him to while chiding those same people for not already learning “more of the Nature of my Office before you had undertaken to be so very angry at it.”

Two days later, Oliver wrote to Ingersoll from Boston with the text of his own resignation, which was much more definite—and still wouldn’t prove to be enough to satisfy his neighbors. Nor did Ingersoll’s public letter win over many critics.

TOMORROW: Other Connecticut men who wanted to distribute the stamps.

Norwich’s Protest Against the Stamp Act

In order to discuss the anti-Stamp Act demonstration and riots in Newport in time for its reenactment last Saturday, I completely skipped over developments in Connecticut. Which had, in fact, come earlier in August 1765. So let’s catch up!

As I quoted back here, one letter describing Boston’s 14 August protest against the new law, with stamp-tax collector Andrew Oliver hung in effigy, included this passage:

It was Observd that a Connecticut Man very attentively viewd the Image and at length took off the Lines on which some one asked him what he was about. He replied, that as he was going home he was only taking a Sample of the Fruit of that Tree, it would be seen more; for he was satisfied that some their Trees would bear the like.

The 23 Aug 1765 New-London Gazette showed that Connecticut Whigs had indeed adopted the Boston method of protest:

NORWICH, August 22.

The noble patriotic Fire which has lighted up in one Place and another, and of late shone so conspicuous at Boston, blazed here, with all the vehemence and splendor of a Comet, guided by the dictates of Prudence and Decorum.

’Twas last Night [i.e., 21 August] our reputable STAMP-MASTER, in Effigie, made his public Appearance in this Town, clad in a Suit of White, trim’d with Black, the Gift of his Native Country, both as an Emblem of his Purity and Innocence, and his sorrow and tender Concern for this unhappy People: On his right Hand stood the restless Father of Mischief [i.e., the Devil] with the Stamp Act in his Hand, giving Credentials to his all attentive Pupil; the malignity of his Heart was lively portray’d by the expressive Cardinal Knave at Cards on his Breast, accompanied with a cautious Memento to all Place Men, that

“When Vice prevails & impious Men bear Sway,
“The Post of Honour is a private Station.”

Their Appearance was Becoming, and Procession Glorious, attended by such Invectives, Huzza’s, & disdainful Music as are the pure emanations of injured Freedom: After passing thro’ Town, our Hero with his Companion, was conducted “In all the Majesty of Greece” to the height of a loft Hill, perhaps the highest Summit he will e’er ascend, and there in Complaisance to his Fellow, committed to the Flames; and a few loyal and constitutional Healths crown’d the Night.

I'm not sure why Norwich was the first Connecticut town to host such a demonstration. That colony’s designated stamp master, Jared Ingersoll, had received several letters from men hoping to be his deputies for particular towns. Dr. Daniel Lathrop (1712-1782) appears to have been the sole hopeful from Norwich, but there’s no sign that his neighbors knew of his offer to help collect the tax. If he was smart, he kept quiet.

TOMORROW: Protests spread.

Andrew Oliver’s August Resignation

The anti-Stamp Act protest in Boston on 14 Aug 1765, followed that evening by the destruction of Andrew Oliver’s new building and other property, had a quick result: Oliver resigned as stamp agent for Massachusetts.

Oliver told his Connecticut counterpart Jared Ingersoll, who had visited Boston just a few days before, that he’d “stood the attack for 36 hours—a single man against a whole People, the Government not being able to afford me any help during that whole time.”

I’m not sure Oliver’s resistance quite totals to “36 hours.” That would have been from dawn on 14 August, when his effigy on Liberty Tree became apparent, to the evening of the 15th. Oliver resigned, according to his own writing, on that afternoon.

In the third, posthumously published volume of his history of Massachusetts, Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson described his friend’s decision:

Several of the council gave it as their opinion, Mr. Oliver being present, that the people, not only of the town of Boston, but of the country in general, would never submit to the execution of the stamp act, let the consequence of an opposition to it be what it would. It was also reported, that the people of Connecticut had threatened to hang their distributor [Ingersoll] on the first tree after he entered the colony; and that, to avoid it, he had turned aside to Rhode Island.

Despairing of protection, and finding his family in terror and great distress, Mr. Oliver came to a sudden resolution to resign his office before another night, and immediately signified, by a writing under his hand, to one of his friends, that he would send letters, by a ship then ready to sail for London, which should contain such resignation; and he desired that the town might be made acquainted with it, and with the strong assurances he had given, that be would never act in that capacity.

Oliver’s decision took Hutchinson by surprise, suggesting it came after he left the Council meeting. On 20 Aug 1765 the lieutenant governor wrote, “This resolution he took without my knowing any thing of it & yet I was charged with advising him against it.”

Gov. Francis Bernard told the story differently on 16 August:

In the Afternoon of Yesterday, sevral Gentlemen applied to Mr. Oliver, to advise him to make a publick declaration, that he would resign the Office, & never act in it; without which they said, his House would be immediately destroyed, & his Life in continual Danger. Upon which he was obliged to authorise some Gentlemen to declare in public, that he would immediately apply for leave to resign, & would not act in the Office, (as indeed it was impossible for him to do) until he received further Orders. This satisfied the Leaders; but the lower Part of the Mob were not so easily pacified. 

However, Bernard appears to have skipped town before any of that happened (it’s not in the part of the letter he composed on the evening of 15 August), so he was reporting hearsay.

Oliver addressed his official resignation to the Treasury Office in London, which oversaw the collection of the stamp duty. He also released the news to “one of his friends,” and then copied out those “terms of Capitulation” for Ingersoll:

Mr. Oliver acquaints Mr. Waterhouse that he has wrote to the Lds. of the Treasury, to desire to be excused from executing the Office of Distributor of the Stamps: and that when they arrive he shall only take proper care to secure them for the Crown, but will take no one Step for distributing the same at the time appointed by the Act. And he may inform his friends accordingly.

Thursday Afternoon, 15th. August.

Why did Oliver make Samuel Waterhouse the recipient of this letter? Waterhouse was only a private merchant (he joined the Customs office in 1772). Oliver might have chosen him for two reasons:

• Waterhouse wrote a lot of newspaper essays supporting the royal government, so he knew how to get news into the press. (Indeed, the resignation was reported in the papers on 19 August.)
• Oliver was giving Waterhouse a heads-up that the office of stamp agent was soon to be vacant in case he wanted to apply for it himself.

The Whigs in town considered the second possibility serious enough that the following February Oliver had to publicly declare that he hadn’t meant that at all. By then he’d had to resign again—but I’ll get to that in December.

TOMORROW: The mob turns out again.

Another Account of the Stamp Act Protests

About a century ago, there was a trend in American publishing to issue the works of famous authors in multi-volume sets. Those were “limited and numbered editions,” but that often meant the publisher would print only a few hundred copies with the title page The Works of Alexandre Dumas, another few hundred copies as Alexandre Dumas’s Works, another few hundred as Dumas: The Complete Works, and so on.

As an added inducement to collectors, the publishers sometimes included actual manuscript pages with these sets. For example, as the Harvard Gazette recently reported, in 1906 Houghton Mifflin published a twenty-volume collection of Henry David Thoreau’s works with a page from Thoreau himself—a handwritten manuscript—bound into the first volume of each set.

Of course, this commercial transaction split that part of Throreau’s papers into 600 separate pieces. It was, Harvard curator Leslie Morris says, “a nightmare for people who want to actually work with the manuscripts.” Morris and his colleagues recently put a lot of effort into regaining one part of that trove, Thoreau’s account of looking for Margaret Fuller’s body and effects after she drowned in a shipwreck off Fire Island, New York.

Likewise, in 1876 the city of Boston published a special edition of the program for its Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the Evacuation of Boston by the British Army bound with “engravings, broadsides, newspapers, and manuscripts” from the Revolutionary period. Decades later that volume came to the Massachusetts Historical Society, and researchers realized one of those manuscripts was a previously unknown account of the 14 Aug 1765 Stamp Act protests. The society published that text in its Proceedings volume for 1966.

This manuscript is undated, unsigned, unaddressed, and probably unfinished. It appears to be a draft of a letter written on 15 Aug 1765. No one has identified the handwriting. The writer revealed no inside knowledge of the protest organizers. He (or she) wasn’t terribly sympathetic with those men or with the populace, but he (or she) didn’t write favorably about the royal officials, either.

Here are some extracts from that document:

Our Stamp Officer [Andrew Oliver] hung on one of the greatet Trees by Deac. [John] Eliots at the south End, resembling him as near in size Form and Dress as such a piece of Pagentry Would admit of with Diverse Libels hung on and a peic of Low Poetry descriptive of the Minds of the People. Near by was Boot with a Little Devil peeping out and thrusting the Stamp officer with a Horrid Fork. . . .

It was Observd that a Connecticut Man very attentively viewd the Image and at length took off the Lines on which some one asked him what he was about. He replied, that as he was going home he was only taking a Sample of the Fruit of that Tree, it would be seen more; for he was satisfied that some their Trees would bear the like. . . .

As Nightsun went down in an Instant a Crowd of People to the amount of a Thousand Suddenly appeard, but from whence they came none say—and with great Solemnity took down the Image put in a Coffin and carried it thro the main Street stop at the Governors [Province House, shown above] went up his Yard gave 3 Huzzas, on which all the People ran out in great surprise.

The letter described how the crowd visited the Town House and destroyed Oliver’s building, but I’ll discuss those passages later.

Some of the Mob went to the Secretarys [i.e., Oliver’s] House. The Lieut Governor [Thomas Hutchinson] who it is said followed them there with the High Sheriff [Stephen Greenleaf] drew their Swords and threatned them further that they got one or Two of them into a Room and shut the Doors in order to secure them, upon which the Mob was enragd and upon an Alarm given Crowds poured down from Fort Hill entered the House and the two great officers of State fled (the Secretary had already securd himself in Charles Paxtons house).

They took Possession went from Top to Bottom satisfied themselves with good Cheer broke all his Glass Windows &c. and Three very valuable Looking Glasses and then returned to fort Hill Where they were entertained with a good Bon Fire and Wine in flowing Bowls and at Eleven Clock dispersed.

And there the manuscript breaks off.

TOMORROW: The conspiracy theory of the Stamp Act protest.

“It was rumord about my turn would be next”

Yesterday I quoted Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson’s account of the anti-Stamp demonstration and riot on 14 Aug 1765. The next day, Andrew Oliver (Hutchinson’s brother-in-law) put out word that he was resigning as stamp master, though he made no public statement himself.

But that didn’t quiet the mob, as Hutchinson found out:

Towards the evening of the same day it was rumord about my turn would be next. Several of my friends were in pain & advised me to quit my house [shown here]. I sent my daughters [Sally (1744-1780) and Peggy (1754-1777)] & young son [Billy (1752-1780)] to lodge abroad & secured my doors & windows in the best manner I could.

About 9 sevral 100 came to the back part of my house & finding all fast the leader asked whether they should begin with the coach house or stables, but first attempting the gates they soon forced them & came up to the doors which finding well secured they moved round the body of them to the front of the house in another street & with furious knocks at the door demand entrance promising to do no damage they only wanted to speak to me or if I would come & declare to them I had never wrote to Engd. in favor of the stamp act they would not hurt a hair of my head. They could obtain no answer & some began to break the windows.

My neighbours were in distress for me one of them called out of his window & declared he knew I was not in town, at length one grave elderly tradesman went into the midst of them & seeing one of the mob lay hold of the pales asked what he was going to do

he replied to pull down the fence

he asked whether I had ever injured him & then begged them to be silent & being a noted speaker in town meetings he soon engaged their attention; he challenged every one of them to say I had ever done them the least wrong charged them with ingratitude in insulting a gentleman who had been serving his country all his days.

Their speaker acknowledged they had a regard for me in my private character but it was said I was in favor of the stamp act they knew I would not lye & if they could know from my own mouth that I was not they would be easy.

He replied he would answer for me. I was in favor of no act that would hurt the country but yet it was unreasonable in them to expect, if I was at home that I should be accountable to them & went on with his harangue until he brought them to give the word to move.

I was not a little pleased at the raising the siege which lasted near an hour for if I had been obliged to answer their questions I must either have enraged them or else given them a handle to justify their extravagant behaviour.

The next day Hutchinson took his children out to his country house in Milton.

In another letter written on 20 August, after he returned to Boston, Hutchinson gave a shorter version of the same event and said:

I live in the midst of neighbours who are friendly & some of them ventured into the midst of the mob & expostulated with them so that I escaped with the loss of a little glass. They had a notion that I had wrote to England in favor of the Stamp act; if I would declare I had not they would believe me but I did not like to be accountable to them.

Events might have turned out quite differently if the lieutenant governor had deigned to tell the crowd that he’d told his contacts in London that the Stamp Act was a bad idea. After all, he had. But he couldn’t bring himself to answer to popular demands like that. And the next time a crowd came to his house, they wouldn’t be dissuaded.

Thomas Hutchinson and the First Stamp Act Mob

Boston 1775 now returns to exploring the sestercentennial of the movement against the Stamp Act, and specifically the experiences of Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson.

Hutchinson wrote his own long description of the Stamp Act disturbances in a letter to London, recently published in the Colonial Society of Massachusetts’s Papers of Thomas Hutchinson. Unlike Gov. Francis Bernard, who remained in the Town House during all the action until he left town entirely, Hutchinson actually thrust himself into the action to the point of personal danger.

There were a couple of reasons for Hutchinson’s behavior:

• He had a personal connection to stamp master Andrew Oliver: the two were brothers-in-law.
• He was courageous and confident and certain that he knew better than anyone else.

Even before the governor got involved, Hutchinson told Sheriff Stephen Greenleaf “that it was his duty to take some of his officers & go & cut it down & bring it away.” (All the sources agree that Greenleaf never risked confronting the crowd himself; he sent some of his underlings, who came back and said they couldn’t do the job safely.)

Likewise, when the Council told the governor that the disturbance should end at sunset, Hutchinson insisted, “I thought very differently.” And he was right:

Just at dark an amazing mob brought the image thro the court house [Town House] the council then sitting above & carried it to a small building which Mr. O had just erected & which was suppozed to be designed for the stamp office. In a few minutes the building was level with the ground.

The heads of the mob then gave directions to carry the image to forth. being near Mr. O. & then burn it but to do no damage to his dwelling house. I supposed the house in danger but my relation to Mr O would alone have obliged me not to desert him. I went up & found his family in terror and advised them immediately to quit the house which they did he himself intending to tarry. As soon as the bonfire was made the attack upon the house began by breaking the windows. I sent for the Sheriff & Mr [Charles] Paxton who lives near came in & we determined to keep possession of the house but obliged the owner to quit it supposing he would be in danger if they entred.

The breaking the windows continued 1/2 an hour or more until the glass & frames of the lower story were entirely gone on one side the house. At length some of the stones made their way thro the pannels of the shutters & a breach being made they were soon broke to pieces & we obliged to retire into another room. After a little deliberation they entred the house & we tho’t it time to withdraw.

I went immediately down to the Col of the Regiment [Joseph Jackson] & told him I thought it necessary to make an alarm the town being in the hands of the mob & while he was preparing I would procure the gov order for that purpose. The gov. readily gave me the order to make use of at my discretion.

I returned to a house near the scene of action where I found several gentlemen who had been at Mr O.’s & spoke to some of the villains & supposed they had spent their rage & did not doubt if I would take the Sheriff & go to the house I should have [wei]ght enough to disperse them. I was in doubt but how ever went, but upon my entring the cry was [Goddam]n their blood heres the Sheriff with the gov. stand by my boys let no man give way. The cry was suc[ceed]ed by a volley of stones & bricks.

I turned into a little room where a young gentleman cried out for gods sake [Sir pu]t out the lights or youll be dead in a moment & then ran & blew out the candles & fled. I considered [a momen]t whether to take my chance there or run thro the mob & chose the latter & escaped with [a sligh]t stroke in my arm & another in my leg & soon after it appeared by the hallooing they were [dispers]ing.

In The British Empire Before the American Revolution (1961), Lawrence Henry Gipson reported that the copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives has a corner torn away, but George Bancroft’s transcription of it from the mid-1800s includes the missing words in brackets above. Gipson therefore inferred that some late Victorian had torn off that corner to obliterate even the hint of “Goddamn.”

But back to 1765. As I quoted yesterday, on the evening of 15 August, Gov. Bernard saw a bonfire burning on a Boston hill and concluded that the mob was out again. Indeed it was, and it was headed for Hutchinson’s house.

TOMORROW: The mob at Hutchinson‘s door.

Gov. Francis Bernard’s View of the Stamp Act Riots

Royal governor Francis Bernard had, not surprisingly, a different view of the Stamp Act protests of 14 Aug 1765 from those men I quoted yesterday.

Bernard’s view came mainly from the Council chamber of the Town House (now Old State House), where he met with the Massachusetts gentlemen who were supposed to be his natural advisors and supporters.

Here’s the governor’s report to the Board of Trade in London, written on 15 August. This text comes from the Papers of Governor Francis Bernard, edited by Colin Nicolson and published by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. (A similar text, apparently based on Bernard’s concurrent letter to the Earl of Halifax, appears here.)

Many Gentlemen, especially some of the Council, treated it as a boyish sport, that did not deserve the Notice of the Governor & Council. But I did not think so: however I contented myself with the Lt. Govr. [Thomas Hutchinson], as chief Justice, directing the Sheriff [Stephen Greenleaf] to order his Officers to take down the Effigy: & I appointed a Council to meet in the Afternoon to consider what should be done, if the Sheriff’s Officers were obstructed in removing the Effigy.

Before the Council met, the Sheriff reported, that his Officers had endeavoured to take down the Effigy; but could not do it without imminent danger of their Lives. The Council met: I represented this Transaction to them as the beginning, in my Opinion, of much greater Commotions; & desired their Advice what I should do upon this Occasion. A Majority of the Council spoke in form against doing anything, but upon very different Principles. Some said, that it was trifling Business, which, if let alone, would subside of itself; but if taken notice of, would become a serious Affair. Others said, that it was a serious Affair allready; that it was a prearranged Business in which the greatest Part of the Town was engaged; that we had no force to oppose to it; & making an Opposition to it without a power to support the Opposition would only inflame the People, & be a means of extending the mischief to persons not at present the Objects of it.

Tho’ the Council were allmost unanimous in advising that nothing should be done, they were averse to having such advice entered upon the Council Book. But I insisted upon their giving me an Answer to my Question, & that it should be entered in the Book: when after a long altercation, it was avoided by their advising me to order the Sheriff to assemble the Peace Officers, & preserve the Peace: which I immediately ordered, being a matter of form rather than of real Significance.

It now grew dark; the Mob which had been gathering all the Afternoon, came down to the Town House, bringing the Effigy with them; & knowing that we were sitting in the Council Chamber, they gave three huzza’s by way of defiance, & passed on.

From thence they went to a new Building, lately erected by Mr. [Andrew] Oliver to let out for Shops, & not quite finished: this they called the Stamp Office, & pulled it down to the Ground in five minutes. From thence they went to Mr. Oliver’s House, before which they beheaded the Effigy, & broke all the Windows next the Street; then they carried the Effigy to Fort Hill near Mr. Olivers House, where they burnt the Effigy in a Bonfire made of the Timber they had pulled down from the Building.

Mr. Oliver had removed his family from his House, & remained himself with a few friends; when the Mob returned to attack the House. Mr. Oliver was prevailed upon to retire, & his friends kept Possession of the House. The Mob finding the Doors barricaded, broke down the whole fence of the Garden towards fort hill, & coming on beat in all the doors & windows of the Garden front, & entered the House, the Gentlemen there retiring. As soon as they had got possession, they searched about for Mr. Oliver, declaring they would kill him: finding that he had left the House, a Party set out to search two neighbouring Houses, in one of which Mr. Oliver was; but happily they were diverted from this Pursuit by a Gentleman telling them, that Mr. Oliver was gone with the Governor to the Castle. Otherwise he would certainly have been murdered.

After 11 o’clock, the Mob seeming to grow quiet, The (Lt. Governor) Chief Justice & the Sheriff ventured to go to Mr. Olivers House to endeavour to perswade them to disperse. As soon as they began to speak, a Ring leader cried out “The Governor & the Sheriff! to your Arms my boys.” Presently after a volley of Stones followed; & the two Gentlemen narrowly escaped thro’ favour of the Night, not without some bruises.

I should have mentioned before, that I sent a written order to the Colonel of the Regiment of Militia [Joseph Jackson (1707-1790), also a selectman and justice of the peace], to beat an Alarm; he answered that it would signify nothing, for as soon as the drum was heard, the drummer would be knocked down, & the drum broke; he added, that probably all the drummers of the Regiment were in the Mob. Nothing more being to be done, The Mob were left to disperse at their own Time, which they did about 12 o’clock.

The next day, Bernard assembled his Council again, including “all the Members within 10 Miles of Boston.” They were no more helpful than before, repeating that the militia would be useless. The governor did all they advised, issuing a proclamation againt the rioters with an ineffectual £100 reward for their capture. Then he summoned all of Boston’s magistrates and selectmen to the Council Chamber to urge them to keep the peace.

Gov. Bernard was so confident that would work that at sunset he hastened off to Castle William, where no mob could reach him. Before bedtime that night he composed the long report above, concluding:

Whilst I am writing, looking towards Boston, I saw a Bonfire burning on Fort hill: by which I understand that the Mob is up, & probably doing mischief.

COMING UP: The lieutenant governor in the midst of the action.

“They stampd the Image & timber & made a great bonfire”

Yesterday I started quoting John Avery’s 19 Aug 1765 letter describing Boston’s first public anti-Stamp protest five days before. He continued this way:

About Day [i.e., the end of the day] the Mob to about three thousand assembled & cut the sd. Gentleman [effigy of Andrew Oliver], the Devil & Jack Boot down & naild them to a Board which was supported by Four, and carryed thro’ the Town.

When they came by the New Stamp Office they made a Halt, and in about a Quarter of an Hour levell’d it with the Ground. They made another Halt opposite his house where they sawed of his Head and then Proceeded to Fort Hill to burn him, after which they attacked his House, broke his Windows, his Fences were torn down & a fine flower Garden almost destroyed and damag’d his furniture.

The next Day he wisely resigned his office; however notwithstanding his Resignation the Minds of the Populace were so amazingly inflamed that the next Night the Mob assembled again with a Determination to level his House but with great difficulty was Pacyfied.

What will be the Consequence I know not neither do I care but hope that all the Provinces will follow this laudible Example & I pray God that New England assert their Rights & Priviledges and may maintain them & die like Freemen rather than live like Slaves. There are a great many other Impositions that desire as much Notice of in their Order.

Another eyewitness to those events, less involved in planning or trying to manage them, was the young businessman Cyrus Baldwin. The Massachusetts Historical Society has digitized his letter to his brother Loammi dated 15 August. Baldwin described the same events this way:

after sun sett the North gave up & the South keept not back the mob Increased every moment. and they took the Image down, after the performance of some Cerimonies it was brought by the Mob through the main street to the Townhous, carried it through and proceeded to the supposd Stap Office near Olivers Dock and in less than half an hour laid it even with the ground then took the timbers of the house and caryd ’em up on Fort Hill where they stampd the Image & timber & made a great bonfire.

at length the fuel faild they Immediately fell upon the stamp Masters Garden fence took it up stampd it and burnt it, if any piece happen’d to be cast upon the the fire before it was stampd it was puld of and the Ceremony pasd upon it and put on again. not contented with this they proceeded to his Coach house took off the doars stampd ’em & burnt ’em while they was doing this the Sheriff [Stephen Greenleaf] began to read the proclamation for the mob to withdraw which Insenc’d the Mob so much that they fell upon the Stamp Masters dweling house broke glass Casements & all; also broke open the doars enterd the house & bespoil’d good part of the house & furniture, braking the looking glasses which some said was a pitty, the answer was that if they would not bare staming they was good for nothing. the Coach & booby-hutt were drag’d up the Hill & would have been stamp’d & burnt had not some Gentlemen Oppos’d it & with much difficulty they prevented it.

they continued their fire till about 11 oClock then Retired. I beleve people never was more Univassally [illegible] pleasd not so much as one could I hear say he was sorry, but a smile sat on almost every ones countinance. It is reported that Mr. Olver the said Stamp Master wrote to the Governor [Francis Bernard] & Counsel that it was not worth while for him or any body else to accept the office of a Stamp Master in this place. . . . Tis hopd that Mr. Oliver has Suffer'd will be Sufficient warning to others not to take Offices that Encroach upon American liberty.

And indeed there weren’t any volunteers stepping forward to take Andrew Oliver’s place. What had seemed like a profitable appointment was turning quite costly, to both property and popularity.

TOMORROW: The view from the top.

“A Stampman hanging on a Tree”

This is the 250th anniversary of Boston’s first public demonstration against the Stamp Act, which set off a wave of similar protests in the other ports of British North America.

One of the best sources on that event is a letter from Boston merchant John Avery (1739-1806) to his brother-in-law John Collins (1717-1795) of Newport, Rhode Island. A copy of that letter survived and was published in the papers of the Rev. Dr. Ezra Stiles of Newport, suggesting that Rhode Islanders passed it around as news.

Boston Aug. 19, 1765.

Brother,

The last Week A[ndrew]. O[liver]. Stamp man was seasonably taken out of this troublesome World by an ignominious Death, he was found early in the Morning of the 14th. Instant hanging on the Trees South End with this Inscription on his Breast in Capital letters, Viz.

Fair Freedoms glorious Cause I meanly Quitted,
Betrayed my Country for the Sake of Pelf,
But ah! at length the Devil hath me outwitted,
Instead of stamping others have hanged my Self.

Upon his right Arm A O at large; on his left these lines, viz.

What greater Joy did ever New England see
Than a Stampman hanging on a Tree

Behind him was a Boot [a reference to Earl Bute] with a Devil peeping his Head out; and there they Hung to the View of the Joyous Multitude, the whole Day or to the Ridicule of all Collours proclaiming Liberty Property & No Stamp, down with all Placemen &c. you would have laughed to have seen two or three hundred little Boys with a Flagg marching in Procession on which was King, Pitt & Liberty for ever, it ought to have been Pitt, Wilks & Liberty. The Governor [Francis Bernard] & Council sent several Times in order to have it cut down by the Common Hangman, alias the Sheriff [Stephen Greenleaf]. But he could get no Body that dar’d to attempt it.

Avery did not state that he was a leading member of the Loyall Nine, the small group of young businessmen who organized that demonstration.

The 19 August Boston Gazette added this detail:

The Diversion it occasioned among a Multitude of Spectators, who continually assembled the whole Day, is surprising; not a Peasant was suffered to pass down to the Market, let him have what he would for Sale, ’till he had stop’d and got his Articles stamp’d by the Effigy.

That action drove home the message that the Stamp Act affected every transaction (even though it didn’t) and every American. Benjamin Edes, co-publisher of the Boston Gazette, was another member of the Loyall Nine.

TOMORROW: The action after nightfall.

[The picture above, engraved by Paul Revere at the end of 1765, actually shows a later effigy-hanging at Liberty Tree. But it’s the only visual depiction of this spectacle by someone who probably saw it himself.]

The Flight of the Stampmen in the Boston Gazette

In preparation for the next two days of Stamp Act sestercentennial events in Boston, I looked up the issue of the Boston Gazette for Monday, 12 Aug 1765.

That was the last issue published before effigies appeared on the big South End elm. It’s easily read on the Massachusetts Historical Society’s online collection of the newspapers of Harbottle Dorr.

On page 3, the local news included these items:

Early on Monday Morning last departed this Town, after a short Stay, for his native Place the Colony of Connecticut, the most reputable STAMPMAN [Jared Ingersoll], attended by his Brother Functioner of this Province [Andrew Oliver, shown above], amidst the Exclamations of the People—And we hear they were bewildered and lost their Way in going thro’ Roxbury; but by the Help of Sambo an innocent Negro Man, they were convey’d through Sheep-Alley into the great Road again, leading to Watertown.

We hear from Providence, in the Colony of Rhode Island, that the Freemen of that Town being lately called, to confer on such Measures as should appear to them necessary relative to the STAMP ACT,* whereby the Liberties, the darling Boast of the English North American Subject, which was once deem’d indefeasible, must be greatly abridg’d, if not totally annihilated; they according met for the aforesaid Purpose, and unanimously appointed a Committee to prepare Instructions suitable to be given their Representatives for their Conduct in the next general Assembly, on this truly alarming Occasion; and that they are to be laid before that Town for their Approbation To-Morrow; at which Time those Sons of Liberty are to convene again for the noblest of all Causes, their Country’s Good.—A Proceeding this, that conveys the most lively Idea of Principles nobly patriotic, and which will, it is to be wish’d, serve as an Example to other Towns, to exert themselves at this Crisis, and to remind them that they are entitled to all the Privileges of British Subjects, as long as they are denominated such, and to bear in utter Abhorrence the Name without the Substance.

Ironically, Jared Ingersoll, the Connecticut stamp agent who left Boston under a cloud, was also the man responsible for popularizing “Sons of Liberty” as the name of Stamp Act opponents.

As for that asterisk, it led readers to these lines of poetry:

———— Instead of voted Aid,
Free, cordial, large, a never failing Source,
The cumb’rous Imposition follow’d harsh.

THOM. Lib.

That was a quotation from Liberty by James Thomson (1700-1748). Specifically, it was from a passage about the tyranny of Charles I. You know, the king who was overthrown and executed by the Puritans.

Tyler on the Hutchinson House at Old North, 26 Aug.

As I described yesterday, on the night of 26 Aug 1765, Bostonians ripped apart the North End house of Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson (shown here at a happier moment).

This action was connected to the town’s ongoing protests against the Stamp Act. Hutchinson had in fact joined Massachusetts’s official argument against the new law when the government in London asked the colonies for their opinions, and his private letters also warned his British correspondents against enacting such a tax.

However, the lieutenant governor had long been a voice for less populist policies locally and more deference to the imperial authorities in London. He was politically allied with and related by marriage to Andrew Oliver, the stamp agent. So Hutchinson’s big family mansion in one of Boston’s poorer districts made a fat target for locals riled up about Parliament’s new tax.

On 26 August, the sestercentennial of that violent event, Old North Church will host an illustrated lecture by John Tyler titled “‘Such ruins were never seen in America’: The Looting of Thomas Hutchinson’s House at the Time of the Stamp Act Riots.” Tyler, co-editor of the Hutchinson Papers now being published by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, will use the lieutenant governor’s inventory of what he lost to the mob to discuss the colonial elite’s furniture, clothing, and general lifestyle.

Tyler’s lecture is scheduled to last from 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. that Wednesday night. There will be a reception afterward. Old North Church, a member of the Revolution 250 coalition, asks attendees to reserve seats in advance.

Reenacting a Riot along Washington Street, 15 Aug.

As I wrote yesterday, on 14 August the Revolution 250 coalition will host a ceremony illuminating and hanging lanterns in Liberty Tree Plaza, at the intersection of Washington and Boylston Streets, to commemorate the sestercentennial of Boston’s first public protest against the Stamp Act.

Among the organizations in Revolution 250 is the Bostonian Society, and its historian Nathaniel Sheidley will be a speaker at that ceremony. But the protest under the big elm wasn’t the end of the protests in August 1765, and the Bostonian Society and its volunteers will present another side of the story the next day.

After night fell on 14 Aug 1765, the crowd made their anger toward stamp agent Andrew Oliver clearer. One might think that hanging him in effigy during the daytime would be clear enough, but that evening they also demolished the small building he was expected to use as his stamp office, tore down his fence, and tried to steal his carriage before gentlemen intervened. They burned all the wood they took away in a bonfire. Twelve days later, a crowd attacked the mansion of Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson in the North End, demolishing (or stealing) his windows, furniture, clothing, and papers.

On Saturday, 15 August, at 4:00 P.M., the Bostonian Society and Revolution 250 are sponsoring a “Reenactment of the Stamp Act Riot.” No actual mansions will be harmed in this event, but reenactors in period costume are invited to march raucously from the corner of Washington and Winter Street (near the Downtown Crossing T Station) to the Old State House, calling for Oliver’s resignation.

To me these twin events on Friday and Saturday, the lantern ceremony and the march, represent the two sides of the town’s August 1765 anti-Stamp disturbances. Back then town fathers recoiled from the violent destruction of Hutchinson’s house and started to emphasize civil protest and steely unity; likewise, the Friday lantern ceremony promotes community and liberty over political or personal conflict. Yet Boston’s attacks on the property of Stamp Act officials and their supporters, repeated in other American towns, were probably just as important in keeping the new law from going into effect.

Ironically, our civic ceremony will take place at night (the better to see the lantern illumination), and our riot reenactment will take place in the day.

Peter Oliver Explains the “Black Regiment”

Peter Oliver was the last Chief Justice of Massachusetts under royal rule. His brother was Lt. Gov. Andrew Oliver, and their family was connected by marriage to Gov. Thomas Hutchinson.

Massachusetts Whigs saw the Hutchinson-Oliver faction as apologists for the London government, far too quick to excuse encroachments on the colony’s traditional freedoms in exchange for lucrative appointments. Later the Whigs accused those men as having actually encouraged the ministry in its policies through recommendations and lies.

For his part, after the siege of Boston Oliver went into exile in England and spent the war writing an account of the political conflict in Massachusetts that he titled “The Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion.” It was finally published in 1961, and I don’t think it’s been out of print since. It’s a delightfully nasty, sarcastic, gossipy, and ad hominem narration of the years from 1760 to 1775.

Oliver and Hutchinson dated the start of their troubles from James Otis, Jr.’s break with the royal patronage system, and they blamed him for fomenting the unrest against them. Among other things, Oliver accused Otis of politicizing much of the Massachusetts clergy, as he laid out in a section titled “The Black Regiment”:

It may now be amiss, now, to reconnoitre Mr. Otis’s Black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a Part in the Rebellion. The congregational perswasion of Religion might be properly termed the established Religion of the Massachusetts, as well as of some other of the New England Colonies; as the Laws were peculiarly adapted to secure ye Rights of this Sect; although all other Religions were tolerated, except the Romish.

This Sect inherited from the Ancestors an Aversion to Episcopacy; & I much question, had it not been for the Supremacy of the British Government over them, which they dared not openly deny, whether Episcopacy itself would have been tolerated; at least it would have been more discountenanced than it was & here I cannot but remark a great Mistake of the Governors of the Church of England, in proposing to the Colonies to have their consent to a Bishop residing among them for ye purpose of Ordination. It was the direct Step to a Refusal for all such Proposals from the Parent State, whether of a civil or a Religious Nature, were construed into Timidity by the Colonists & were sure of meeting with a Repulse.

The Clergy of this Province were, in general, a Set of very weak Men; & it could not be expected that they should be otherwise as many of them were just relieved, some from the Burthen of the Satchel; & others from hard Labor; & by a Transition from Occupations to mounting a Desk, from whence they could look the principal Part of the Congregations, they, by that acquired a supreme Self Importance; which was too apparent in their Manners. Some of them were Men of Sense, and would have done Honor to a Country which shone in Literature; but there were few of these; & among these, but very few who were not strongly tinctured with Republicanism.

The Town of Boston being a Metropolis, it was also the Metropolis of Sedition; and hence it was that their Clergy being dependent on the People for their daily Bread; by having frequent Intercourse with the People, imbibed their Principles. In this Town was an annual Convention of Clergy of the Province, the Day after the Election of his Majestys Charter Council; and at those Meetings were settled the religious Affairs of the Province; & as the Boston Clergy were esteemed the others an Order of Deities, so they were greatly influenced by them.

There was also another annual Meeting of the Clergy at Cambridge, on the Commencement for graduating the Scholars of Harvard College; at these two Conventions, if much Good was effectuated, so there was much Evil. And some of the Boston Clergy, as they were capable of the Latter, so they missed no Opportunities of accomplishing their Purposes.

Oliver proceeded to name some ministers who he thought had been particularly useful to Otis and his allies: “Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, Dr. Charles Chauncy & Dr. Samuel Cooper.”

The Olivers and Hutchinson weren’t members of those men’s meetings, but they were Congregationalists from families who came to Massachusetts in the early Puritan migration. They ended up finding disproportionate support from Massachusetts Anglicans whose families had arrived after the 1600s. However, the Congregationalist minister Mather Byles, Sr., was another Loyalist. In short, religion was a political dividing-line among the clergy, but not a neat one.

Oliver had some more to say about the “black Regiment,” which I’ll quote and analyze after catching up with events. [Finally, the discussion continues here.]