the georgia gazette and the stamp act: a reconsideration · pdf filethe georgia gazette and...

The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act: A Reconsideration

By S. F. Roach, Jr.*

passage of the Stamp Act by the British Parliament on March 22, 1765, ended infant journalism in America and

began an age where political discussion provided the main motif for colonial newspapers. This tabloid reaction came about because of the revenue bill's particular provisions and timing. Depression, caused jointly by post-war financial failures and the enforcement of smuggling regulations by the British navy, made the series of duties contained in the new legislation seem particularly galling. In addition, the Stamp Act employed the principle of internal taxation. This allowed disgruntled colonists to raise the question of the bill's constitutionality. And finally, as if this were not enough, the Parliament required that every newspaper, pamphlet, broadside, ship's clearance, college diploma, lease, li- cense, insurance policy, bond, bill of sale, and other legal documents be written or printed on appropriately stamped paper which would be sold by Crown officials. This last proviso saddled the most vocal and powerful segment of the colonial population, the printers, lawyers, merchants, and clergy, with the direct burden of payment.1

The singular nature of the Stamp Act insured that the months following its passage would be pregnant with developments for the English colonies in North America. As events evolved, it became extremely difficult to maintain a neutral position toward the British tax. All spectators were encouraged to join the patriot or the loyalist in the maturing controversy. "These [were] the times," to paraphrase Thomas Paine's Crisis, "which [tried] men's minds.

This inquiry places stress on the significant role of the Georgia Gazette during the troubled months surrounding the passage

♦Member of the History Department, Kennesaw Junior College, Marietta, Georgia.

472 S. F. Roach, Jr.

and enactment of the Stamp Act because there is a definite need for revision on that subject. Historians dealing with the pre- revolutionary movement in Georgia have, up to this time, presented two different interpretations concerning the editorial policy and influence of Georgia's newspaper. One side, represented by Louis Turner Griffith and John Erwin Talmadge's Georgia Journalism, 1763-1950, Kenneth Coleman's The American Revolu- tion in Georgia, 1763-1789 and Frank Luther Mott's American Journalism: A History of Newspapers in the United States Through 260 Years, 1690-1960, takes the position the Georgia Gazette was completely impartial in its comments concerning the Stamp Act. These historians feel both sides of the disagreement were equally represented in the paper. The other school, represented by Arthur M. Schlesinger's Prelude to Independence: The Newspaper War on Britain, 1764-1776 and Philip David- son's Propaganda and the American Revolution, adopts the thesis that James Johnston's newspaper presented a loyalist interpreta- tion of American difficulties. Both these approaches are incorrect. The Georgia Gazette was neither impartial nor pro-loyalist in its stamp duty comments; it was pro-patriot. An examination of the paper itself brings this into clear perspective.2

The Georgia Gazette plunged into the altercation surrounding the Stamp Act dispute with great energy. News that a stamp duty might be imposed on the American colonies appeared early and regularly in James Johnston's paper. The issue of July 7, 1763, reported vague rumors in London concerning such an imposition.3 A similar report was published a year later in a brief note from reporters in Charleston. The news of the Stamp Act's actual passage found voice in April of 1965 and there quickly followed, on May 2, 1765, a lengthy "Abstract of the Resolutions of the Honorable House of Commons for imposing a STAMP DUTY in the British Colonies and Plantations in America."4

The Georgia Gazette's initial reaction to the tax legislation passed by the Parliament in March of 1765 gave fair representation to both sides of the quickly maturing controversy; the

The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 473

patriots and the loyalists. However, as the disagreement between the Mother Country and her colonies increased in bitterness, James Johnston's paper gave an ever-growing amount of space to the patriot side of the controversy. By the time the stamp duty went into effect on November i, 1765, the only sentiments voiced with any regularity were those of the patriots. Let us examine the arguments presented favoring both contestants and the extent of their appearance in order to acquire a precise evaluation of the Gazette's position.5

The earliest arguments appearing in the Georgia Gazette which favored the loyalist position in the stamp duty controversy were printed on May 2, 1765, along with the first abstract of the revenue bill. An unsigned notice "To the Printer" mentioned that a number of colonial pamphlets which pertained to the Stamp Act and other matters had reached London. All of these publications were found to be lacking in one degree or another. Those from New York, while "breathing the spirit of true freedom," were regretfully "set off in too ostentatious a dress." Massachusetts' political petitions sank into the "plainness" which merely represented an underlying "diffidence and want of spirit." The pamphlets from Rhode Island, although showing some promise and ability, were unfortunately "imperfect and incorrect." Similar comments and criticisms attended the examination of tracts from Pennsylvania and Connecticut. The attack was continued a week later in "Extracts of Letters from London" which were reproduced from papers in Charleston, South Carolina. These reprints looked upon the colonial sentiments forwarded to the Mother Country as "haughty republican spirits" which would eventually do more harm than good for all concerned.6

Arguments based on political philosophy marked the highest intellectual point the loyalist discourse reached in supporting the Stamp Act. These ideas were based essentially on two concepts. The first stated the colonies enjoyed "virtual representation" in Parliament the same as non-voting Englishmen who lived in Leeds, Halifax, Birmingham, Sheffeld, and the Duchy of Lan- caster. Since this situation represented a categorical imperative


essential to English political stability, the American arguments denying the validity of virtual representation had to be rejected. The second pillar of the loyalist political argument took the position that Americans should obey parliamentary laws because it was in their interest. This last point was vividly presented in a speech which Governor Francis Bernard of Massachusetts made to that colony's House of Commons. In a vast empire such as England's, the Governor concluded, there had to be a supreme power to which all other interests were "subordinate." Americans, rather than trying to violate this basic political principle, should have felt lucky that the English Parliament was the "sanctuary of liberty and justice"; and that the "prince who [presided] over it, [realized] the idea of a patriot king."7

The loyalist argument which appeals most to the modern historian appeared in the Georgia Gazette on August 8, 1765, and took the form of a historical chronology of the controversy. This article, taken from a pamphlet entitled "The Claim of the Colonies . . . , " presented a very factual and dignified account of the question. It began with the Chancellor of the Exchequer notifying the colonies of the possible imposition of a stamp tax and concluded with the refusal of Parliament to accept the Americans' petitions against the revenue bill. The patriot position seems extremely weak in this analysis because the author em- phasizes the colonials' refusal to take advantage of the opportunity to suggest alternative means of raising revenue. Rather, they responded to the passage of the Stamp Act by issuing vindictive and aggressive petitions which questioned the right of Parliament to tax the colonies.8

Reports of developments in the colonies which were a direct result of the Stamp Act's passage also lent strong support to those in Georgia who favored the actions of the English Parlia- ment. The mob which sacked and looted a number of houses belonging to colonial officials, including Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson, in Boston were seen in the pages of the Georgia Gazette as "misguided and merciless rabble." This comment was followed by the news of "unanimous votes among


various groups in Massachusetts aimed at putting a stop to such mob violence. Reports that several involved in the misdeeds had already been brought to justice added repressive weight to the Massachusetts resolutions. The publication of a proclamation instructing judges to severely prosecute offenders of laws against rioting presumably had a similar effect.9

The pro-loyalist arguments printed by James Johnston's paper were effective propaganda. However, the comments favoring the other side of the disagreement, the patriots', equaled and even surpassed the pro-English sentiments in persuasiveness. This patriot propaganda took a number of different forms at different stages in its development. The earliest comments in the Georgia Gazette strongly favoring the colonial side of the stamp act controversy appeared in mid- June. They were manifested through extracts concerning the speeches in Parliament which surrounded the adoption of the revenue bill. A reprint from New York took sharp offense at false reports which had appeared in Boston papers to the effect that " 'not a man spoke'

" in the parliamentary debates " 'who did not declare his opinion that America ought to be taxed. . . . ' " Rather, the comments from New York continued, the speakers who took the colonial side of the altercation were "more numerous," much "better speakers" and "su- perior in point of argument" to their adversaries. Colonel Isaac Barre, a member of the House of Commons from the borough of Chipping Wycomb in the County of Bucks, represented this pro-colonial sentiment in its highest development. After an able attack against the passage of the Stamp Act, Barre concluded by observing that if Great Britain wished to remain the " 'mother country'

" she would possibly guard against appearing as a " 'rather cruel step-dame' " to Americans.10

On August i, 1765, an "Extract of a Letter from London" presented the classic argument against the passage of the stamp legislation. Again the stage was the parliamentary debates with Colonel Isaac Barre representing the colonial position. Charles Townshend, representative of the Crown, having just spoken in favor of the stamp bill, concluded: " 'These children of our


planting, nourished by our indulgence, until they are grown to a good degree of strength and opulence, and protected by our arms, will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy load of national expense which we lie under?' " Barre took the floor and drove straight to the heart of Townshend's

position with an aggressively penetrating rebuttal: " 'Children planted by your care? No! Your oppression planted them in America. . . . They nourished by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect. . . . They protected by your arms? They have taken up arms in your defense. . . . ' "n

The patriots' political philosophy was manifested in the pages of Georgia's only newspaper through the published resolves of the lower houses of various colonial legislatures, instructions from freeholders to their legislative representatives and legislative addresses to colonial governors. This political outlook was rooted in the basic premise that the first American settlers brought with them and transmitted to their successors the full rights of Englishmen. From this point of view, American colonials felt they were guaranteed under the English Constitution the right of no taxation without representation. Numerous articles in the Gazette interpreted this to mean that only the colonial legislatures possessed the right to tax the inhabitants of the separate colonies. All efforts to appropriate this taxing power to any other body were deemed "illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust." The colonial legislators, as a corollary to their views concerning the possession of the taxing authority, denied the validity of the English supported idea of virtual representation. This myth over- looked the fact that rights without choice or consent were, in the last analysis, rights without advantage. A "Freeman," writing the only extended political essay to appear in the Georgia paper during these tense months, attacked the concept of virtual representation with sharp vindictives: "was there ever a more mon- strous absurdity to be found in the practice of the most barbarous nations upon earth? how is our glory fallen!" The final political thesis employed by the patriot articles appearing in James Johnston's newspaper bitterly opposed the new duty since Ad-


miralty Courts, courts without juries, had been given jurisdiction in cases evolving out of stamp act violations. To the Pennsylvania Assembly, this seemed "highly dangerous to the liberties of his Majesty's American subjects, contrary to the Magna Charta, the great charter and foundation of English liberty. . . . "12

Subtle humor and satire have always been extremely effective weapons for use in political combat. They were employed only sparsely in the Georgia Gazette to support the patriots in their fight against the dreaded legislation of 1765. This scattered use, however, merely increased the effectiveness of the indirect weapons when they were employed. For instance, the issue of August 8, 1765, printed a rather lengthy statement by Governor Francis Bernard of Massachusetts which attacked the patriots' position concerning their differences with the Mother Country over the most recent revenue bill. Immediately following Bernard's comments appeared a brief statement announcing the Stamp Act was to go into effect on November 1, All Saints Day. The reader was then casually reminded that on November 1, 1775 (again All Saints Day) there had taken place the "dreadful and memorable earthquake which destroyed the city of Lisbon." Providence, Rhode Island, papers provided humor in connection with the serious riots in Massachusetts which heavily damaged the house of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson and other dignitaries. During the fray, a "certain Hon. gentleman" threatened the mob that he would call out the troops if the difficulty were not ended immediately. Said gentleman was politely informed that the militia "were already raised." Satirical analogy with an earthly orientation entered the pages of the controversy via the American Chronicle. From that Boston paper, James Johnston reprinted an amusing story whose leading characters were widowed "Mrs. Bull," her "Daughter" (America) and the common seducer of both, "Commerce." Mrs. Bull's jealousy of her daughter resulted in the old woman's death. She was survived by one son who embodied the only hope of survival for the family. His name was "independence."13

The various and extensive demonstrations which the American


Colonies employed against the Stamp Act found wide coverage and favorable acceptance in the pages of Georgia's only newspaper. The call sent out by the Massachusetts legislature for a colonial- wide congress to meet in New York (the Stamp Act Congress) was published with favorable comment. Not only this, but the nominations in each colony of delegates to attend the conference were faithfully reported. Finally, the progress of the New York meeting received careful attention each week. In addition to news concerning the Stamp Act Congres, James Johnston printed favorable articles dealing with the development and success of non-importation agreements throughout the colonies. Lawyers in New Jersey, rather than purchase the "pestilential commodity" (stamps), decided to quit doing business. This seemed a "noble resolution, worthy of universal emulation." Similar news involving domestic purchases and the actions of the printing community found acceptance.14

The stamp collector represented the most reprehensible of human figures to the American patriot of 1765. The pages of the Georgia Gazette pictured those officials of the Crown in no more favorable a light. A Pennsylvania extract of early November, 1765, let Adison's Case describe patriot feelings toward those who took the office of duty collector:

'O Porcius! is there not some chosen curse, Some hidden thunder in the stores of Heaven, Red with uncommon wrath to blast the man Who owes his greatness to his country's ruin?'

Reports of coercive demonstrations against stamp collectors were perhaps more effective as patriot propaganda than derogatory remarks which merely criticized them. Numerous stories from all over the colonies, from Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, South Carolina, Dela- ware, and Georgia, described various types of anti-stamp collector displays. They vividly recorded effigy parades and hangings, tarring and featherings, threats, and the actual use of coercive overt force. Significantly, a large number of the demonstrations met with success and resulted in the resignation of the duty


officers.15 All the political arguments, satire, and news about demonstra-

tions against stamp collectors would have had little effect on Georgians if there had been no hope for repeal of the hated legislation. The Georgia Gazette refused to allow the development of such a defeatist philosophy. The months of October and November of 1765, the weeks surrounding the activation date for the duty legislation, saw the paper virtually filled with reports from all over the colonies and England to the effect that the non- importation agreements were forcing the support of the British merchants and that the most aggravating portions or all of the Stamp Act were to be repealed.16

The above discussion would seem to make it apparent that the news items appearing in the Georgia Gazette during 1765 which favored the patriots in the stamp act controversy were more effective as propaganda than those sentiments supporting the loyalist side of the disagreement. A brief statistical examination will bring this trend into clearer perspective. In the months before the repeal of the Stamp Act, James Johnston's paper printed thirteen separate articles favoring the loyalist side of the difficulty. These pro-English comments employed 4,345 words. In sharp contrast to these figures, the Georgia Gazette printed seventy-six separate articles utilizing 30,611 words in support of the patriot position. Thus, for every separate entry supporting the Stamp Act there were five and eleven-thirteenths items opposing that piece of legislation. And for every word employed on the English side of the argument, there were over seven which adopted the patriot position. This evidence can only lead to the conclusion that the paper's effect upon the people of Georgia during the stamp act controversy encouraged them to support the patriot actions. The Georgia Gazette was, as far as the effect it had on the general population of Georgia during the crisis, a patriot organ.17

The question logically arises at this juncture: "What caused so many scholars to misevaluate the position of the Georgia Gazette during the Stamp Act discussions?" The answer seems to be that these historians have based their evaluations of Georgia's


lone newspaper upon the political predispositions and public actions of its editor, James Johnston, rather than by examining the pages of the paper itself. It was easy to make this mis- evaluation. All the evidence available concerning the life of James Johnston shows him to have held relatively strong loyalist sympathies. The patriots' reaction to him, his own personal actions and beliefs, family ties, and even loyalist political evaluations fall into the same category. A brief examination of this material will bring Johnston's political affiliations into clear perspective.

On January 16, 1776, the Council of Safety, a patriot organization, showed its doubts concerning the loyalty of James Johnston by establishing a committee to examine the printer's office, to see "whether there was not something to be published this week, that might endanger the public safety." What the investigating committee found is not known, however it does seem significant that the first Georgia Gazette ceased publication a mere three weeks later on February 7. More definite evidence concerning the Georgia editor's political beliefs are provided by the Revolu- tionary Legislature of Georgia. On March 1, 1778, that body passed "An Act for attaining such persons as are therein mentioned for high Treason, and for confiscating their Estates." James Johnston, along with one hundred and sixteen other citizens, was named by this legislation. The attained persons were banished and had their property confiscated and sold by county boards. On May 4, 1782, the General Assembly passed a second act of attainer which increased the original list of one hundred and seventeen prescribed persons to two hundred and seventy-nine. James Johnston's name appeared again. Under the new law, those named were banished from the state forever. If found in the state within sixty days after the bill's passage, the designated persons were to be jailed and then shipped to British colonies anywhere in the world. After the sixty-day warning period, their presence in the state made them guilty of a felony pun- ishable by death without benefit of clergy. These bills of attainer proved not to be empty threats for Georgia's printer. The published records of the proceedings of the Georgia Commis-


sioners on Confiscating Estates, although fragmentary, reveal that on June 13, 1782, John Waudin purchased "a house and lot in Savannah late James Johnstons." On July 22, 1782, by order of the Executive Council of the General Assembly, the Sheriff of Chatham County was "directed to take into his possession the press & Types in the Printing Office, late James Johnstons, and to keep them in charge until further notice."18

The personal actions and beliefs of James Johnston, just as much as the action taken against him by the patriots, designated the printer as a loyalist supporter during the pre-revolutionary years of crisis. Johnston's reaction to the Stamp Act points this out clearly. Between November 21, 1765 and May 21, 1766, the Georgia Gazette ceased publication. This must, in the light of general newspaper reaction throughout the colonies, be considered a loyalist move. Patriot organizations encouraged and coerced printers to continue issuing their papers without stamps and in open violation of the law. Almost all colonial printers adopted this form of disobedience. Few imitated Johnston's action and suspended publication for any extended length of time. Actually, the Georgia printer's loyalist affiliation became clear long before the Stamp Act crisis. Upon arriving in Georgia, he was employed by the Crown as public printer. This tie with Britain proved more than business during 1776. In that tumultuous year, Governor James Wright was forced to leave Georgia. James Johnston reacted to the crisis by ceasing publication of his newspaper. He then retreated with his family to the safety provided by the country. The new patriot regime evidently had trouble finding a printer, for they contacted Johnston and offered him the job. The insurgents promised to overlook all past differences and guaranteed the printer and his family protection if they would return to Savannah. Johnston answered the offer with a positively negative reply. The printer's actions during the British reoccupa- tion of Savannah merely reinforced the trend shown in 1765- 1766. Between August 2, 1779 and June 6, 1782, Johnston printed the Royal Gazette. This newspaper was purely and simply a loyalist propaganda sheet. The paper closed and Johnston left

482 S. P. Roach, Jr.

Georgia in 1782 when the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown made the position of loyalist supporters in the colonies untenable.19

The few statements concerning the struggle between the colonies and the Mother Country which can be attributed to Johnston merely substantiate information offered by patriot moves and his own actions; the printer was pro-British. In late 1775 or early 1776, the Georgian told loyalist John Graham he in- tended to close down his newspaper rather than let patriots impose their editorial policy upon the Georgia Gazette. The year 1775 also saw the printer affix his signature to a memorial which assured George III of the signées' loyalty and expressed their antagonism to the unlawful patriot actions in Georgia. Fin- ally, as did many loyalists, Johnston's "Will" justified his support of the Crown during the American Revolution in terms of "attachment to the Government under which I was brought up."20

Family affiliations and impressions upon contemporary loyalist leaders complete the evidence pointing to the pro-English political affiliations of Georgia's only printer. His brother, Dr. Lewis Johnston, served in the House of Assembly for ten years- three of which he served as speaker-and was appointed in 1764 to the prominent position of serving on His Majesty's Council in Georgia. This family connection to the Crown administration acquires added significance when it is pointed out that brother Lewis Johnston, according to Governor Wright, was "particularly active in support of Government" throughout the Stamp Act crisis. In addition, the printer's own sympathies were pronounced enough for Georgia loyalists, to accept him as one of their staunchest supporters. John Graham, writing to William Knox in March of 1779, felt that Johnston, from the outset of troubles with England, had avoided printing as much as possible of "the Seditious publications then circulating." Chief Justice Anthony Stokes commended Johnston personally on his loyalty to the Crown: "I do not think there is in this Province a Gentleman, more firmly attached to His Majesty's Government than you are."21


Two glaring incongruities arise at this point and must stand examination. If, as this analysis claims, James Johnston was a loyalist, why did his newspaper take a patriot stand during the Stamp Act difficulties? And also, why did this type of incendiary information go unopposed by the Royal Governor? The evidence seems to offer several possible answers to these anomalies. Let us examine each one individually.

The primary reason for loyalist James Johnston's Georgia Gazette taking a patriot position during the crisis of 1765- 1766 seems to have been economic. Johnston's official job as printer for the Colony of Georgia required that he print and distribute all laws and proclamations "both singularly and in the public newspapers." This job carried with it the unwritten understanding that the holder would provide the colony with a newspaper by publishing and editing it himself. The key point concerning the newspaper is that this endeavor was Johnston's own financial venture. He was an entrepreneur who used the publication of a newspaper as one means of making a living. Unfortunately the printer's numerous business interests, which included a book store in addition to the newspaper and job as public printer, were basically unsuccessful. He continually petitioned the Legislature during the early and middle 1760's for additional funds to keep the public press operating. Part of the publisher's economic difficulty was evidently brought about because a number of his newspaper's subscribers and advertisers failed to meet their financial obligations- a common occurrence in colonial America. Finding himself in such monetary difficulty, Johnston could not afford, regardless of his own political predispositions, to take a side in the Stamp Act discourse which might have alienated many of the subscribers to the struggling Georgia Gazette. In 1765, the population, especially the reading population, of the province of Georgia was centered in Savannah. If Johnston had taken a strong loyalist stand in his paper during the crisis of 1765, a reaction could have easily set in which would have completely ruined his newspaper and other business efforts.22

The economic pressure which forced the Georgia Gazette


to support the patriot position in 1765-1766 resembled a doubled- edged knife. One side of the blade, as mentioned above, was represented by the possible domestic repercussions which might have developed if the paper's printer had adopted a loyalist position. The other cutting edge was formed by the stipulations of the Stamp Act itself. The newspaper section of that law imposed a half-penny duty for each copy of a two-page paper and one penny for four-page publications. There was also a two- schilling tax on each advertisement. This amounted to a combined newspaper tax that must be considered as high. For some papers, it represented a full fifty per cent of the purchase price. Burden- some as it was, the weightiness of the legislation failed to stop with mere duties. The fines for violation of the regulations were equally restrictive. A penalty of from forty schillings to ten pounds was provided for any person who participated in printing or selling unstamped matter which was subject to the tax. If an unstamped newspaper or pamphlet failed to present the name and address of the publisher, the seller found himself liable for a further penalty of twenty pounds for each infraction. All such cases were to be tried in Admiralty Courts where there was no trial by jury. These duties and penalties were so restrictive that they eventually helped force Johnston to cease publication of his Georgia Gazette for six months until the Stamp Act was repealed. It was only natural that the printer opposed the legislation. A substantial portion of his economic livelihood depended on it being voided in one way or another.23

A number of indefinite secondary factors, aside from economic pressures, also help to explain the reason for Johnston's opposition to the stamp legislation. The importance of time perspective is of value in realizing the significance of these conditions. For instance, there is the possibility that the Georgia editor, like most loyalists in 1765, did not realize the power and influence of his paper until after the repeal of the stamp duty. It should be remembered, in connection with this point, that colonial tabloids did not wield wide public influence and power until the Stamp Act experience. Secondly, the struggle between Americans and


the Mother Country during 1765 was not a definite fight for survival for either contestant. Since this was the situation, it is probable that loyalist Johnston really saw no need, taking his financial situation and other conditions into consideration, to adopt a strongly pro-Britain position on the matter. This disagreement may not have seemed that important to him. Finally, there is the possibility that Johnston, in trying to remain unbiased through presenting both positions in the crisis, actually adopted more of a patriot argument than even he realized. There were, as stated previously in this analysis, a number of loyalist articles in the Georgia Gazette during the disturbances. These may have been so convincing to loyalist Johnston that he simply did not see the strength of the patriot argument presented in his press. A letter from Johnston to Anthony Stokes of December, 1775, supports this line of thinking: "I have endeavoured to conduct myself in the Publication of my Paper, as impartially as I cod."24

If the factors and conditions mentioned above are taken into consideration, it is possible to understand how the loyalist- controlled Georgia Gazette supported the patriots in the stamp crisis. It is harder to explain why the Colonial Governor of Georgia, James Wright, did not put a quick stop to the dis- semination of patriot propaganda in the southern colony's only newspaper. Direct proof remains lacking in the matter; however, the explanation evidently lies in the colonial administration's lack of physical power. Governors throughout the American colonies faced the problem of outspoken patriot newspapers. Several tried to employ court action in an effort to curb the growing boldness of tabloid attacks against England. Their success was minimal because grand juries proved extremely hesitant to indict printers for such violations. The Governors, and evidently Wright among them, feared proceeding in a more direct manner due to the almost certain and violent opposition such steps would bring from the general population. Lieutenant Governor Colden of New York gave voice to this sentiment in 1765: "I agree with the Gentlemen of the Council that considering the present temper of the people this is not a proper time to prosecute the printers and Publishers


of the Seditious Papers." Experience from the Mother Country evidently reinforced this sentiment. Bandit publishers in England, the most famous being John Wilkes (Junius), had operated for a number of years to such an extent that Lord North burst out in Parliament during 1770: "Can any man recollect a period when the press groan'd with such a variety of desperate libels? Such is their number, that one would imagine there is not a single pen made, a single standish used, or a single scrap of paper bought, but in order to manufacture a libel." Efforts by the government to coerce the undercover press in England had only made those publications more popular. Colonial Governors in America did not wish to make the same mistake.25

The reaction of Georgia's newspaper to the Stamp Act and the reasons for that action are now clear. However, the significance of the Georgia Gazette's stand only becomes apparent when viewed from the perspective of that southern colony's entrance into the American Revolution. Georgia, unlike many of the other colonies, possessed no continuing patriot organization during the pre-revolutionary years, 1763-1775. Nor was there the accumula- tion, due to the various controversies with the Mother Country, of enough anti-British sentiment to threaten explosion and revolution. Each crisis, the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Duty Acts, was individual and unique. Each time different persons were involved for varying reasons. By 1775, enough persons had been involved through separate and distinct ex- periences to form a substantial patriot faction in the colony. In this context, the events and causative forces involved in the

Stamp Act misunderstanding, the first real collision between Georgians and the Mother Country, take on added significance.26

The famous English historian of the late ninetenth century, William Edward Hartpole Lecky, felt Georgians did not react

strongly against the Stamp Act because of their fear of Negro and Indian uprisings. This view could not be further from the truth. The reaction of Georgians to the stamp duty closely resembled that of any other colony. Late October, 1765, saw three leading citizens of the community, Simon Munro, George


Baillie, and Thomas Moodie, receive aggressively threatening statements signed, "The Townsman." These letters accused Munro of being the appointed stamp collector and Baillie and Moodie of helping to store the dutied paper. All were required to prove the accusations false or suffer the consequences. A few days later, on the night of October 31, 1765, a large group of people transported an effigy of a stamp officer through the streets, hanged and burned it. Less than a week after these events, on November 5, a large crowd again paraded an effigy of a stamp master through the streets and this time left it hanging in front of Machenry's Tavern. The following day the Sons of Liberty gathered at the lynching site and unanimously agreed to force the stamp master's resignation as soon as he arrived in the colony. Increased action from patriot organizations and the General Assembly's vote to support the journal, petitions, and memorials of the Stamp Act Congress followed this meeting. Such legislative developments evidently encouraged the general population to bolder performances. On January 2, 1766, a large group of citizens marched on the governor's house and questioned him in an antagonistic manner concerning his position on the hated tax. Not long after this distasteful experience the governor received news a large group of patriots were planning to break into the royal storehouse and destroy the stamps deposited there. Acting quickly, he removed the endangered stamps to the rangers' guardhouse and placed them under armed protection. At this juncture, normality seemed to gain control. Stamp distributor George Angus was forced to leave Savannah "to avoid the resent- ment of the people" and the general population refused to buy stamps, but the danger of widespread violence subsided for the moment. It reappeared a few weeks later when the Liberty Boys again threatened the stamps. Governor Wright, having decided his position to be untenable, placed the dutied paper on the H MS Speedwell. Stamp distributor Angus was once again chased out of town. This ended the Stamp Act demonstrations in Georgia. The stamps were gone, few had been sold, and the distributor was forced to leave. What else, short of insurrection, could have been


accomplished?27 Throughout the colonies, the Stamp Act trouble had proven

a watershed development for American journalism. Colonial newspapers entered the fray with intense energy and aggressiveness. The result saw them transformed, almost overnight, from "mere disseminators of information" into "makers and molders of public opinion."

" 'Had it not been for the continual informations from the press,'" stated "A Countryman" in A Providence Gazette Extraordinary of March 12, 1766,"

" 'a junction of all the people of this northern continent . . . would have been scarcely con- ceivable.' " Developments in Georgia merely mirrored the national trend in journalism. Throughout the pre-revolutionary period, Georgians always acted later than the other twelve colonies and were strongly influenced by developments among their neighbors in America. The tense fall of 1765 proved no exception to this rule. The role played by the Georgia Gazette during the stamp act altercations was instrumental in guiding the southernmost colony's reaction against the Mother Country. Georgians opposed the stamp duty because they felt themselves an intricate part of the continental experience. This would have been impossible had not the Georgia Gazette spread news throughout the colony of occurrences and patriot thought in other areas of America.28

Notes iKenneth Coleman, The American Revolution in Georgia, 1768-1789 (Athens,

1958), 18; Frank Luther Mott, American Journalism: A History of News- papers in the united States Through 260 Years, 1690-1960 (3Td. Revised Edition. New York, 1962), 63; Arthur M. Schlesinger, "The Colonial News- papers and the Stamp Act," in New England Quarterly, VIII (March, 1935), 63-65.

2Louis Turner Griffith and John Erwin Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 1768-1950, with an introduction by John Eldridge Drewry (Athens, 1951), 1, 3, 5-6, 18-20; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence: The News- paper War on Britain, 1764-1776 (New York, 1958), 188, 259, 285; Philip Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution, 1768-1788 (Chapel Hill, 1941), 233, 304, 307; Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia, 14, 74; Mott, American Journalism, 94. It should be noted that Schlesinger (p. 285) and Davidson (p. 233) are a bit contradictory concerning their inter- pretation of the Georgia Gazette's position on the Stamp Act. Nevertheless, their basic thesis is as stated above. Alexander A. Lawrence has correctly evaluated the pro-patriot position of the Georgia Gazette in the Stamp Act controversy. Unfortunately, his work generally suffers from faulty documen-


tation. This weakness is acute in the examination of the Georgia Gazette. Lawrence simply does not prove or document what is essentially a correct evaluation of the subject. Alexander A. Lawrence, James Johnston: Georgia's First Printer (Savannah. 1956). 8.

^Georgia Gazette (Savannah), July 7, 1763. James Johnston, editor of the Georgia Gazette, was a Scotsman recently arrived from England and his paper represented the first and only colonial tabloid that existed in the southernmost colony. Griffith and Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 1. It should be noted that Griffith and Talmadge's Georgia Journalism, while possessing much valuable information, suffers greviously from a total lack of footnote documentation.

^Georgia Gazette, July 12, 1764; April 25, May 2, 1765. The reader, when examining the Georgia Gazette, encounters only one reading difficulty. This is represented by the printer's tendency to use his small case "f" for both "f" and "s."

ßlt should be noted at this point that most colonial papers possessed no editorial pages per se nor did their editors contribute much at all to the organ's composition. Rather, due to necessity, colonial tabloids were made up of foreign and local news which was generally reprinted from other public organs or private correspondence. Thus, when evaluating the predispositions of such a cut and paste publication, pure editorial opinion does not possess the importance it usually receives when dealing with modern newspapers. Moses Coit Tyler, The Literary History of the American Revo¿ lution, 1163-1188 (New York, 1897), I, 18-19; Griffith and Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 2-3, 18-20; Mott, American Journalism, 47, 52-5; Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 60-1.

^Georgia Gazette, May 2, 9, 1765. TThid. Mnv 9 Jutip 13 August 1. S 17fiK sibid.. Auerust 8. 1765. Qlbid., October 10, November 14, 1765. loibid., June 13, 1765. uibid.. Ausrust 1. October 24. 1765. mUd., August 1, 8, 15, September 5, 19, 26, October 3, 10, 17, 24, November

7, 21, 1765. It should be noted that, mixed in with the arguments stated above, were references to the economic depression in the colonies which made the payment of a stamp tax seem so difficult. Ibid., passim.

isibid., August 8, October 10, 31, 1765. uibid., June 13, August 15, 22, September 5, 12, October 10, 17, 24,

November 14, 21, 1765. Kenneth Coleman brings the reason for Georgia's lack of representation at the Stamp Act Congress into clear perspective: "Governor Wright opposed sending delegates to the congress and refussed to call the assembly into session to consider the matter. The assembly members wrote to the Massachusetts House of Representatives [who had sent a circular inviting representation] that no delegates would be sent to the Congress because of Wright's objection but gave assurance that Georgia was concerned with the common welfare of all the colonies and would back whatever action the congress took." Allen D. Candler, ed., Colonial Records of the State of Georgia (Compiled under authority of the Legislature, revised and published by Lucian Lamar Knight, edited in part by Wm. J. Northern, editor of Vol. XXII L. L. Knight, Atlanta, 1904-) XIV, 270- 73, cited in Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia, 18-19.

^Georgia Gazette, November 7, 14, 21, October 3, 10, 24, 31, 1765. iGIbid.. October 10. 17. 24. November 14, 1765. i7The numerical figures relating to the number of words in the above

analysis were obtained by allowing eleven words per line. This base figure proved an approximate and constant average in a number of different articles appearing at various times. It should also be noted that the Georgia Gazette, due to the stamp tax, was forced to cease publication on November 21, 1765.


Business was resumed on May 21, 1766 upon the repeal of the Stamp Act. Douglas C. McMurtrie, "Pioneer Printing in Georgia," in Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVI, No. 2 (June, 1932), 83; Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia, 23; Lawrence, James Johnston, 9. There is more than casual evidence to support the suspicion that the pro-patriot predisposition of the Georgia Gazette continued throughout the colonial years. During the late 1760's, for instance, the Gazette published John Dickinson's Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer and the daily chronicle of garrisoned Boston; "Journal of Occurrences." Lawrence, James Johnston, 9-10; Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia, 28-30, 230; Schlesinger, Prelude to Inde- pendence, 312-13.

i8Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia, 230. Coleman points out that the paper was issued from 1783 to October 23, 1788 under the title Gazette of the State of Georgia. On the later date, it was renamed the Georgia Gazette. Ibid. Griffith and Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 6-7. Allen D. Candler, ed., Revolutionary Records of the State of Georgia (Compiled and published under the authority of the Legislature, Atlanta, 1908), I, 326 ff, 373-97, 416, II, 344, all cited in McMurtrie, "Pioneer Printing in Georgia," in Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVI (June, 1932), 92-3; 95-6, 102-103.

lôLawrence, James Johnston, 11, 18; McMurtrie, "Pioneer Printing in Georgia," in Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVI (June, 1932), 95, 102; Griffith and Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 7-8 ; Schlesinger Prelude to Independence, 76-80; Schlesinger, "The Colonial Newspaper and the Stamp Act," in New England Quarterly, VIII (March, 1935), 68-9; Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution, 170-71. In addition, it should be noted, as pointed out later in this analysis, that economic pressures evidently added another factor which led to the closing down of the Georgia Gazette during 1765-66.

20Lawrence, James Johnston, 10-11, 16-17. siMcMurtrie, "Pioneer Printing in Georgia," in Georgia Historical Quarter-

ly., XVI (June, 1932), 91. James Wright to Earl of Hillsborough, March 10, 1766 in Colonial Records of Georgia (Ms) XXXVII, 118; Anthony Stokes to James Johnston, December 16, 1775, ibid., XXXVIII, Part 2, 48, all cited in Lawrence. James Johnston. 9. 15: ibid.. 4. 10-11.

22Daniel J. Boorstin, The Americans: The Colonial Experience (New York, 1964), 325; Mott, American Journalism, 47; Coleman, American Revo- lution in Georgia, 5, 10, 12, 14-15; Griffith and Talmadge, Georgia Journa-% lism, 1-6; McMurtrie, "Pioneer Printing in Georgia," in Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVI (June, 1932), 77, 80-83, 89-90; "Journal of the House of Assembly," in Candler, Colonial Records of Georgia, XIV, 406-07, 416, cited ibid., 89-90. Concerning the idea that printers usually established newspapers, Frank Luther Mott points out: "With but four exceptions, all the American newspapers of this period (as indeed virtually all those of the eighteenth century) were edited and published by printers." The four exceptions were: "The single number of Publick Occurrences, the early Boston Newsletter (edited by a postmaster and carried on by him after his removal), the early Boston Gazette (also edited by postmasters), and the Weekly Rehearsal of Boston (edited by a lawyer)." Mott, American Journalism, 47.

23Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 68; Schlesinger, "The Colonial Newspaper and the Stamp Act," in New England Quarterly, VIII (March, 1935), 65-6, 74; Mott, American Journalism, 71; Griffith and Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 5; Georgia- Gazette, September 12, October 31, November 14, 21, 1765. Talmadge and Griffith cite October 14th. instead of November 14th. Schlesinger points out that the Stamp Act weakened the printers' economic position in a number of other ways: "As if these provisions were not sufficiently drastic, duties of from 2d. to £6 were assesed on almanacs, liquor licenses, and other sources of the printer's revenue such as legal forms, commercial blanks and certain kinds of public documents. . . . Finally, the act struck a blow at that training school of the craft, the apprenticeship


system, by taxing indentures at the rate of sixpence on every twenty shillings involved and at a double rate when the total amount exceeded £50." Schlesinger, "The Colonial Newspaper and the Stamp Act," in New England Quarterly, VIII (March, 1935), 65-6.

24Schlesinger, "The Colonial Newspaper and the stamp Act," in New England Quarterly, VIII (March, 1935), 83; James Johnston to Anthony Stokes, Savannah, December 15, 1775 in Colonial Records of Georgia, XXXVIII, Part 2, 47, cited in Lawrence, James Johnston, 11. Savannah, December 15, 1775 in Colonial Records of Georgia XXXVIII, Part "2, 47, cited in Lawrence, James Johnston, 11.

25Mott, American Journalism, 103-104; Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 309-311, Schlesinger, "The Colonial Newspaper and the Stamp Act," in New England Quarterly, VIII (March, 1935), 80-81.

26Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia, 16, 277. Coleman tends to contradict himself on this matter: "The number of the Sons of Liberty always available to oppose Wright's actions makes it obvious that there was some good organization in Georgia and contact with other colonies, but it is impossible to know who the leaders were." Ibid., 24.

27William Edward Hartpole Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, New Edition, London, 1892), IV, 113-14, cited in Tyler, Literary History, I, 232; Georgia Gazette, October 31, November 7, 14, 1765; Candler, ed., Colonial Records of Georgia, IX, 439-40, 453-58, 460; ibid., XIV, 300-301 304-306, 315; Wright to Con way, January 31, 1766, February 7, 1766 in Charles C. Jones, A History of Georgia (Boston, 1883), II, 61-2, 64-5; South Carolina Gazette, October 31, December 17, 1765, January 21, February 25, April 29, 1766; extract of a letter from Georgia, January 6, 1766 all cited in Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia, 18-23. The misunderstanding concerning the extent of Georgia's reaction to the Stamp Act was possibly caused because Lecky depended for evidence upon the moderate official communica- tions sent from the colony to England, Ibid. 17-18.

28Mott, American Journalism, 107-108; Schlesinger, "The Colonial News- paper and the Stamp Act," in New England Quarterly, VIII (March, 1935), 81; Griffith and Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 5; Lawrence, James Johnston, 14-15, 35-6; Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia, 23-4, 277-78. There is a natural tendency to dismiss the influence of the press in colonial America, and especially in a small and backward colony like Georgia, due to the small circulation enjoyed by tfiifTãbloids. Frank Luther Mott does much to correct this misconception: "This taste for reading [among American colonials] was fed largely by journalism. Newspapers probably went to less than 40,000 homes at the outbreak of the Revolution, but each copy was passed from hand to hand, they were read aloud in the coffee-houses and inns, and their articles were discussed and thoroughly digested. Ambrose Serle, temporarily in charge of the Royalist press in New York in 1776, wrote home to Lord Dartmouth: 'One is astonished to see with what avidity they [the colonial newspapers] are sought after, and how implicitly they are believed, by the great Bulk of the People .... Government may find it expedient, in the Sum of things, to employ this popular Engine.'" Mott, American Journalism, 107-108. Also see Schlesinger, "The Colonial News- paper and the Stamp Act," in New England Quarterly, VIII (March, 1935) * 83; Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution, 235 which ef- fectively refutes Tyler, Literary History, I, 17-19.

the georgia gazette and the stamp act: a reconsideration · pdf filethe georgia gazette and...

Documents