The GeorgiaGazette and theStamp Act: A Reconsideration By S. F. Roach, Jr.* passageof theStamp Act by theBritish Parliament on March 22, 1765,ended infant journalism in Americaand beganan age wherepolitical discussion provided the mainmotif forcolonial newspapers. This tabloidreaction came about because of therevenue bill's particular provisions and timing.Depression, causedjointly by post-warfinancial failures and theenforcement of smugglingregulations by the Britishnavy, made the series of duties containedin the new legislationseem particularly galling.In addition,the StampAct employedthe principleof internaltaxation. This alloweddisgruntled colonists to raisethe questionof thebill's constitutionality. And finally,as if thiswere not enough,the Parliamentrequired that every newspaper, pamphlet,broadside, ship's clearance, college diploma, lease, li- cense,insurance policy, bond, bill of sale,and otherlegal docu- mentsbe writtenor printedon appropriatelystamped paper which wouldbe sold by Crownofficials. This last provisosaddled the most vocal and powerfulsegment of the colonialpopulation, the printers,lawyers, merchants, and clergy,with the direct burdenof payment.1 The singularnature of theStamp Act insuredthat the months followingits passagewould be pregnantwith developments for the Englishcolonies in North America.As eventsevolved, it becameextremely difficult to maintaina neutralposition toward theBritish tax. All spectatorswere encouraged to join thepatriot or the loyalistin the maturingcontroversy. "These [were] the times,"to paraphraseThomas Paine's Crisis, "which [tried] men's minds. This inquiryplaces stress on thesignificant role of theGeorgia Gazette duringthe troubledmonths surrounding the passage ♦Member of the History Department, Kennesaw Junior College, Marietta, Georgia. 472 S. F. Roach, Jr. and enactmentof the Stamp Act because thereis a definiteneed for revisionon that subject. Historians dealing with the pre- revolutionarymovement in Georgia have, up to this time,pre- sentedtwo differentinterpretations concerning the editorialpolicy and influenceof Georgia's newspaper.One side, representedby Louis Turner Griffithand John Erwin Talmadge's Georgia Journalism,1763-1950, Kenneth Coleman's The AmericanRevolu- 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 positionthe Georgia Gazette was completelyimpartial in its commentsconcerning the Stamp Act. These historiansfeel both sides of the disagree- ment were equally representedin the paper. The other school, representedby ArthurM. Schlesinger'sPrelude to Independence: The Newspaper War on Britain,1764-1776 and Philip David- son's Propagandaand the AmericanRevolution, adopts the thesis that JamesJohnston's newspaper presented a loyalistinterpreta- tion of Americandifficulties. Both theseapproaches are incorrect. The Georgia Gazette was neitherimpartial nor pro-loyalistin its stampduty comments;it was pro-patriot.An examinationof the paper itselfbrings this into clear perspective.2 The Georgia Gazette plungedinto the altercationsurrounding the Stamp Act dispute with great energy.News that a stamp duty mightbe imposedon the Americancolonies appeared early and regularlyin JamesJohnston's paper. The issue of July 7, 1763, reportedvague rumors in London concerningsuch an imposition.3A similarreport was published a year later in a briefnote fromreporters 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 Resolutionsof the Honorable House of Commonsfor imposing a STAMP DUTY in the BritishColonies and Plantationsin America."4 The Georgia Gazette's initial reaction to the tax legislation passed by the Parliamentin March of 1765 gave fair representa- tion to both sides of the quickly maturingcontroversy; the The GeorgiaGazette and the StampAct 473 patriotsand the loyalists.However, as the disagreementbetween the Mother Country and her colonies increased in bitterness, JamesJohnston's paper gave an ever-growingamount of space to the patriotside of the controversy.By the time the stamp duty went into effecton November i, 1765, the only sentiments voiced with any regularitywere those of the patriots.Let us examinethe argumentspresented favoring both contestantsand the extent of their appearance in order to acquire a precise evaluationof the Gazette'sposition.5 The earliestarguments appearing in the Georgia Gazette which favoredthe loyalistposition in the stampduty controversywere printedon May 2, 1765, along with the firstabstract of the revenue bill. An unsignednotice "To the Printer" mentioned that a number of colonial pamphletswhich pertainedto the Stamp Act and othermatters had reached London. All of these publicationswere found to be lackingin one degree or another. Those from New York, while "breathingthe spirit of true freedom,"were regretfully"set off in too ostentatiousa dress." Massachusetts'political petitions sank into the "plainness"which merelyrepresented an underlying"diffidence and want of spirit." The pamphletsfrom Rhode Island,although showing some promise and ability,were unfortunately"imperfect and incorrect."Similar commentsand criticismsattended the examinationof tractsfrom Pennsylvaniaand Connecticut.The attackwas continueda week laterin "Extractsof Lettersfrom London" whichwere reproduced frompapers in Charleston,South Carolina.These reprintslooked upon the colonial sentimentsforwarded to the Mother Country as "haughtyrepublican spirits" which would eventuallydo more harmthan good for all concerned.6 Argumentsbased on political philosophymarked the highest intellectualpoint the loyalistdiscourse reached in supportingthe Stamp Act. These ideas were based essentiallyon two concepts. The firststated the colonies enjoyed "virtualrepresentation" in Parliamentthe same as non-votingEnglishmen who lived in Leeds, Halifax, Birmingham,Sheffeld, and the Duchy of Lan- caster. Since this situationrepresented a categoricalimperative 474 S. F. Roach, Jr. essentialto English political stability,the American arguments denyingthe validityof virtualrepresentation had to be rejected. The second pillar of the loyalist political argumenttook the positionthat Americansshould obey parliamentarylaws because it was in theirinterest. This last point was vividlypresented in a speech which GovernorFrancis Bernard of Massachusettsmade to that colony's House of Commons.In a vast empiresuch as England's,the Governor concluded,there had to be a supreme power to whichall otherinterests were "subordinate."Americans, ratherthan tryingto violate this basic politicalprinciple, should have felt lucky that the English Parliamentwas the "sanctuary of libertyand justice"; and thatthe "princewho [presided]over it, [realized] the idea of a patriotking."7 The loyalist argumentwhich appeals most to the modern historianappeared in the Georgia Gazette on August 8, 1765, and took the formof a historicalchronology of the controversy. This article,taken froma entitled"The Claim of the " pamphlet Colonies . . . , presenteda very factualand dignifiedaccount of the question.It began with the Chancellorof the Exchequer notifyingthe colonies of the possibleimposition of a stamp tax and concluded with the refusal of Parliamentto accept the Americans'petitions against the revenuebill. The patriotposition seems extremelyweak in this analysisbecause the author em- phasizesthe colonials'refusal to take advantageof the opportunity to suggest alternativemeans of raising revenue. Rather, they respondedto the passage of the Stamp Act by issuingvindictive and aggressivepetitions which questionedthe rightof Parliament to tax the colonies.8 Reports of developmentsin the colonies which were a direct result of the Stamp Act's passage also lent strong support to those in Georgia who favoredthe actions of the English Parlia- ment. The mob which sacked and looted a numberof houses belonging to colonial officials,including Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson,in were seen in the pages of the Georgia Gazette as "misguidedand mercilessrabble." This com- ment was followed by the news of "unanimousvotes among The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 475 variousgroups in Massachusettsaimed at puttinga stopto such mob violence.Reports that severalinvolved in the misdeeds had alreadybeen broughtto justiceadded repressiveweight to the Massachusettsresolutions. The publicationof a proclamation instructingjudges to severelyprosecute offenders of laws against riotingpresumably had a similareffect.9 The pro-loyalistarguments printed by JamesJohnston's paper wereeffective propaganda. However, the comments favoring the otherside of the disagreement,the patriots',equaled and even surpassedthe pro-English sentiments in persuasiveness. This patriot propagandatook a numberof differentforms at differentstages in itsdevelopment. The earliestcomments in theGeorgia Gazette stronglyfavoring the colonialside of the stampact controversy appearedin mid-June. They were manifestedthrough extracts concerningthe speechesin Parliamentwhich surroundedthe adoptionof the revenuebill. A reprintfrom New York took offenseat false which had in Boston sharp reports" appeared" papersto the effectthat 'not a man spoke' in the parlia- debates" 'who did not declarehis thatAmerica mentary ' " opinion oughtto be taxed.. . . Rather,the comments from New York continued,the speakers who tookthe colonial side of thealterca- tion were "morenumerous," much "betterspeakers" and "su- periorin pointof argument"to theiradversaries. Colonel Isaac Barre,a memberof the House of Commonsfrom the borough of ChippingWycomb in the Countyof Bucks,represented this pro-colonialsentiment in its highestdevelopment. After an able attack the of the Act, Barreconcluded against passage Stamp " by observingthat if GreatBritain wished to remainthe 'mother " she would as a "country' possibly" guard againstappearing 'rathercruel step-dame' to Americans.10 On Augusti, 1765,an "Extractof a Letterfrom London" presentedthe classicargument against the passageof the stamp legislation.Again the stagewas the parliamentarydebates with Colonel Isaac Barrerepresenting the colonialposition. Charles of the Crown, in Townshend,representative " havingjust spoken favorof the stampbill, concluded: 'These childrenof our 476 S. F. Roach, Jr. planting,nourished by our indulgence,until they are grown to a good degree of strengthand opulence, and protectedby our arms,will to contributetheir mite to relieveus from theygrudge " the heavy load of nationalexpense which we lie under?' Barre took the floor and drove to the heart of Townshend's straight " position with an aggressivelypenetrating rebuttal: 'Children planted by your care? No! Your oppressionplanted them in America. . . . They nourished by your indulgence? They neglect.. . . They protectedby your arms?They grew by your ' "n have takenup armsin your defense.. . . The patriots'political philosophy was manifestedin the pages of Georgia's only newspaperthrough the publishedresolves of the lower houses of various colonial legislatures,instructions fromfreeholders to theirlegislative representatives and legislative addressesto colonial governors.This politicaloutlook was rooted in the basic premise that the firstAmerican settlersbrought with them and transmittedto theirsuccessors the full rightsof Englishmen.From thispoint of view,American colonials felt they were guaranteedunder the English Constitutionthe rightof no taxationwithout representation. Numerous articles in the Gazette interpretedthis to mean that only the colonial legislaturespos- sessed the rightto tax the inhabitantsof the separate colonies. All effortsto appropriatethis taxingpower to any other body were deemed "illegal, unconstitutional,and unjust." The co- lonial legislators,as a corollaryto their views concerningthe possessionof the taxing authority,denied the validity of the Englishsupported idea of virtualrepresentation. This mythover- looked the fact that rightswithout choice or consent were, in the last analysis,rights without advantage. A "Freeman,"writing the only extendedpolitical essay to appear in the Georgia paper duringthese tense months, attacked the concept of virtualrepre- sentationwith sharp vindictives:"was there ever a more mon- strousabsurdity to be foundin the practiceof the mostbarbarous nations upon earth? how is our glory fallen!" The final po- liticalthesis employed by the patriotarticles appearing in James Johnston'snewspaper bitterly opposed the new duty since Ad- The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 477 miraltyCourts, courts without juries, had beengiven jurisdiction in casesevolving out of stampact violations.To thePennsylvania Assembly,this seemed "highly dangerous to the libertiesof his American to the Magna Charta,the Majesty's subjects,contrary "12 greatcharter and foundationof Englishliberty. . . . Subtlehumor and satirehave alwaysbeen extremelyeffective weaponsfor use in politicalcombat. They were employedonly sparselyin the GeorgiaGazette to supportthe patriotsin their fightagainst the dreadedlegislation of 1765.This scattereduse, however,merely increased the effectivenessof the indirect weaponswhen theywere employed.For instance,the issueof August8, 1765,printed a ratherlengthy statement by Governor FrancisBernard of Massachusettswhich attackedthe patriots' positionconcerning their differences with the MotherCountry overthe most recent revenue bill. Immediately following Bernard's commentsappeared a briefstatement announcing the StampAct was to go intoeffect on November1, All SaintsDay. The reader was thencasually reminded that on November1, 1775 (againAll SaintsDay) therehad takenplace the "dreadfuland memorable earthquakewhich destroyedthe city of Lisbon." Providence, Rhode Island,papers provided humor in connectionwith the seriousriots in Massachusettswhich heavily damaged the house ofLieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson and other dignitaries. Duringthe fray, a "certainHon. gentleman"threatened the mob that he would call out the troopsif the difficultywere not ended immediately.Said gentlemanwas politelyinformed that themilitia "were already raised." Satirical analogy with an earthly orientationentered the pages of thecontroversy via theAmerican Chronicle.From thatBoston paper, James Johnston reprinted an amusingstory whose leading characters were widowed"Mrs. Bull," her "Daughter"(America) and the commonseducer of both,"Commerce." Mrs. Bull's jealousy of herdaughter resulted in the old woman'sdeath. She was survivedby one son who embodiedthe only hope of survivalfor the family.His name was "independence."13 The variousand extensivedemonstrations which the American 478 S. F. Roach, Jr.

Colonies employedagainst the Stamp Act found wide coverage and favorableacceptance in thepages of Georgia'sonly newspaper. The call sent out by the Massachusettslegislature for a colonial- wide congressto meet in New York (the Stamp Act Congress) was publishedwith favorablecomment. Not only this,but the nominationsin each colony of delegatesto attendthe conference were faithfullyreported. Finally, the progressof the New York meetingreceived careful attention each week. In additionto news concerning the Stamp Act Congres, James Johnstonprinted favorablearticles dealing with the developmentand success of non-importationagreements throughout the colonies.Lawyers in New Jersey,rather than purchasethe "pestilentialcommodity" (stamps), decided to quit doing business.This seemed a "noble resolution,worthy of universalemulation." Similar news involving domesticpurchases and the actions of the printingcommunity foundacceptance.14 The stamp collector representedthe most reprehensibleof humanfigures to the Americanpatriot of 1765. The pages of the Georgia Gazette pictured those officialsof the Crown in no morefavorable a light.A Pennsylvaniaextract of earlyNovember, 1765,let Adison'sCase describepatriot feelings toward those who took the officeof dutycollector: 'O Porcius!is therenot some chosen curse, Some hiddenthunder in thestores of Heaven, Red withuncommon wrath to blastthe man Who owes his greatnessto his country'sruin?' Reportsof coercivedemonstrations against stamp collectors were perhaps more effectiveas patriot propaganda than derogatory remarkswhich merely criticizedthem. 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-stampcollector displays. They vividly recorded effigy parades and hangings, tarringand featherings,threats, and the actual use of coercive overt force. Significantly,a large numberof the demonstrations met with success and resultedin the resignationof the duty The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 479 officers.15 All the politicalarguments, satire, and news aboutdemonstra- tionsagainst stamp collectors would have had littleeffect on Georgiansif therehad been no hope for repealof the hated legislation.The GeorgiaGazette refused to allowthe development of such a defeatistphilosophy. The monthsof October and Novemberof 1765,the weeks surroundingthe activationdate forthe duty legislation, saw thepaper virtually filled with reports fromall overthe colonies and England to theeffect that the non- importationagreements were forcingthe supportof the British merchantsand thatthe mostaggravating portions or all of the StampAct wereto be repealed.16 The abovediscussion would seem to makeit apparentthat the newsitems appearing in the GeorgiaGazette during 1765 which favoredthe patriots in the stampact controversywere more ef- fectiveas propagandathan those sentiments supporting the loyalist sideof thedisagreement. A brief statistical examination will bring this trendinto clearerperspective. In the monthsbefore the repealof theStamp Act, James Johnston's paper printed thirteen separatearticles favoring the loyalist side of thedifficulty. These pro-Englishcomments employed 4,345 words.In sharpcontrast to thesefigures, the GeorgiaGazette printed seventy-six separate articlesutilizing 30,611 words in supportof the patriotposition. Thus, forevery separate entry supporting the StampAct there were five and eleven-thirteenthsitems opposing that piece of legislation.And for everyword employedon the Englishside of theargument, there were over seven which adopted the patriot position.This evidencecan onlylead to the conclusionthat the paper'seffect upon the people of Georgia duringthe stamp act controversyencouraged them to supportthe patriotactions. The GeorgiaGazette was, as faras theeffect it hadon thegeneral populationof Georgiaduring the crisis,a patriotorgan.17 The questionlogically arises at thisjuncture: "What caused so many scholarsto misevaluatethe positionof the Georgia Gazetteduring the StampAct discussions?"The answerseems to be thatthese historians have based their evaluations of Georgia's 480 S. F. Roach, Jr. lone newspaperupon the politicalpredispositions and public actionsof its editor,James Johnston, rather than by examining the pages of the paper itself.It was easy to make this mis- evaluation.All theevidence available concerning the life of James Johnstonshows him to have heldrelatively strong loyalist sym- pathies.The patriots'reaction to him,his own personalactions and beliefs,family ties, and even loyalistpolitical evaluations fallinto the same category. A briefexamination of thismaterial willbring Johnston's political affiliations into clear perspective. On January16, 1776,the Council of Safety,a patriotorganiza- tion,showed its doubts concerning the loyalty of JamesJohnston by establishinga committee to examinethe printer's office, to see "whetherthere was not somethingto be publishedthis week, thatmight endanger the publicsafety." What the investigating committeefound is notknown, however it does seemsignificant thatthe firstGeorgia Gazette ceased publicationa merethree weekslater on February7. More definiteevidence concerning theGeorgia editor's political beliefs are providedby theRevolu- tionaryLegislature of Georgia.On March 1, 1778,that body passed"An Act for attainingsuch personsas are thereinmen- tionedfor high Treason,and for confiscatingtheir Estates." JamesJohnston, along with one hundred and sixteen other citizens, was namedby thislegislation. The attainedpersons were banished and had theirproperty confiscated and sold by countyboards. On May 4, 1782,the GeneralAssembly passed a secondact of attainerwhich increased the originallist of one hundredand seventeenprescribed persons to two hundredand seventy-nine. JamesJohnston's name appearedagain. Under the new law, thosenamed were banished from the state forever. If foundin the statewithin sixty days afterthe bill's passage,the designated personswere to be jailed and thenshipped to Britishcolonies anywherein the world. Afterthe sixty-daywarning period, theirpresence in the statemade themguilty of a felonypun- ishableby deathwithout benefit of clergy.These billsof attainer proved not to be emptythreats for Georgia'sprinter. The publishedrecords of the proceedingsof the GeorgiaCommis- The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 481 sionerson ConfiscatingEstates, although fragmentary, reveal that on June 13, 1782,John Waudin purchased"a house and lot in Savannahlate JamesJohnstons." On July22, 1782,by order of the ExecutiveCouncil of the GeneralAssembly, the Sheriff of ChathamCounty was "directedto take into his possession the press& Types in the PrintingOffice, late JamesJohnstons, and to keepthem in chargeuntil further notice."18 The personalactions and beliefs of James Johnston, just as much as the actiontaken against him by the patriots,designated the printeras a loyalistsupporter during the pre-revolutionaryyears of crisis.Johnston's reaction to the StampAct pointsthis out clearly.Between November 21, 1765 and May 21, 1766, the GeorgiaGazette ceased publication. This must,in the lightof generalnewspaper reaction throughout the colonies, be considered a loyalistmove. Patriotorganizations encouraged and coerced printersto continueissuing their papers without stamps and in open violationof the law. Almostall colonialprinters adopted thisform of disobedience.Few imitatedJohnston's action and suspendedpublication for any extendedlength of time.Actually, theGeorgia printer's loyalist affiliation became clear long before the StampAct crisis.Upon arrivingin Georgia,he was em- ployedby the Crown as public printer.This tie with Britain provedmore than business during 1776. In thattumultuous year, GovernorJames Wright was forcedto leave Georgia.James Johnstonreacted to thecrisis by ceasingpublication of hisnews- paper.He thenretreated with his familyto the safetyprovided by the country.The new patriotregime evidently had trouble findinga printer,for they contacted Johnston and offeredhim thejob. The insurgentspromised to overlookall pastdifferences andguaranteed the printer and his family protection if they would returnto Savannah.Johnston answered the offer with a positively negativereply. The printer'sactions during the British reoccupa- tion of Savannahmerely reinforced the trendshown in 1765- 1766.Between August 2, 1779and June 6, 1782,Johnston printed the Royal Gazette.This newspaperwas purelyand simplya loyalistpropaganda sheet. The paper closed and Johnstonleft 482 S. P. Roach, Jr.

Georgiain 1782 when the defeatof Cornwallisat Yorktown madethe position of loyalist supporters in thecolonies untenable.19 The few statementsconcerning the strugglebetween the coloniesand the MotherCountry which can be attributedto Johnstonmerely substantiate information offered by patriotmoves and his own actions;the printerwas pro-British.In late 1775 or early 1776,the Georgiantold loyalistJohn Graham he in- tendedto close down his newspaperrather than let patriots imposetheir editorial policy upon the Georgia Gazette.The year 1775also saw the printeraffix his signatureto a memorial whichassured George III of the signées'loyalty and expressed theirantagonism to theunlawful patriot actions in Georgia.Fin- ally,as did manyloyalists, Johnston's "Will" justifiedhis support of the Crown duringthe AmericanRevolution in termsof "attachmentto the Governmentunder which I was brought up."20 Familyaffiliations and impressionsupon contemporaryloyalist leaderscomplete the evidencepointing to the pro-Englishpo- liticalaffiliations of Georgia'sonly printer.His brother,Dr. LewisJohnston, served in theHouse of Assemblyfor ten years- threeof whichhe servedas speaker-andwas appointedin 1764 to the prominentposition of servingon His Majesty'sCouncil in Georgia.This familyconnection to the Crownadministration acquiresadded significancewhen it is pointedout thatbrother LewisJohnston, according to GovernorWright, was "particularly activein supportof Government"throughout the StampAct crisis.In addition,the printer's own sympathieswere pronounced enoughfor Georgia loyalists,to accept him as one of their staunchestsupporters. John Graham, writing to WilliamKnox in Marchof 1779,felt that Johnston, from the outset of troubles withEngland, had avoidedprinting as muchas possibleof "the Seditiouspublications then circulating." Chief Justice Anthony Stokes commendedJohnston personally on his loyaltyto the Crown: "I do not thinkthere is in thisProvince a Gentleman, more firmlyattached to His Majesty'sGovernment than you are."21 The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 483

Two glaringincongruities arise at thispoint and muststand examination.If, as this analysisclaims, James Johnston was a loyalist,why did his newspapertake a patriotstand during the StampAct difficulties?And also,why did this type of incendiary informationgo unopposedby theRoyal Governor? The evidence seemsto offerseveral possible answers to theseanomalies. Let us examineeach one individually. The primaryreason for loyalistJames Johnston's Georgia Gazettetaking a patriotposition during the crisisof 1765-1766 seemsto have been economic.Johnston's official job as printer forthe Colony of Georgiarequired that he printand distributeall laws and proclamations"both singularly and in the publicnews- papers."This job carriedwith it the unwrittenunderstanding that the holderwould providethe colony with a newspaper by publishingand editingit himself.The key pointconcerning thenewspaper is thatthis endeavor was Johnston'sown financial venture.He was an entrepreneurwho used the publicationof a newspaperas one meansof makinga living.Unfortunately the printer'snumerous business interests, which included a bookstore in additionto the newspaperand job as public printer,were basicallyunsuccessful. He continuallypetitioned the Legislature duringthe earlyand middle1760's for additional funds to keep the public press operating.Part of the publisher'seconomic difficultywas evidentlybrought about because a numberof his newspaper'ssubscribers and advertisersfailed to meettheir fi- nancialobligations- a commonoccurrence in colonialAmerica. Findinghimself in such monetarydifficulty, Johnston could notafford, regardless of hisown politicalpredispositions, to take a side in the StampAct discoursewhich might have alienated manyof the subscribersto the strugglingGeorgia Gazette. In 1765,the population,especially the readingpopulation, of the provinceof Georgiawas centeredin Savannah.If Johnstonhad takena strongloyalist stand in his paper duringthe crisisof 1765, a reactioncould have easily set in which would have completelyruined his newspaper and otherbusiness efforts.22 The economicpressure which forcedthe Georgia Gazette 484 S. F. Roach, Jr. to supportthe patriot position in 1765-1766resembled a doubled- edged knife.One side of the blade, as mentionedabove, was representedby the possibledomestic repercussions which might have developedif the paper'sprinter had adopteda loyalist position.The othercutting edge was formedby the stipulations of the StampAct itself.The newspapersection of that law imposeda half-pennyduty for each copy of a two-pagepaper and one pennyfor four-page publications. There was also a two- schillingtax on eachadvertisement. This amountedto a combined newspapertax that must be consideredas high.For somepapers, it representeda full fifty per centof thepurchase price. Burden- someas it was, the weightinessof the legislationfailed to stop withmere duties. The finesfor violation of theregulations were equallyrestrictive. A penaltyof fromforty schillings to ten poundswas providedfor any person who participatedin printing or sellingunstamped matter which was subjectto the tax. If an unstampednewspaper or pamphletfailed to presentthe name and addressof the publisher,the sellerfound himself liable for a furtherpenalty of twentypounds for each infraction.All such caseswere to be triedin AdmiraltyCourts where there was no trialby jury.These dutiesand penaltieswere so restrictivethat theyeventually helped force Johnston to ceasepublication of his GeorgiaGazette for six monthsuntil the StampAct was re- pealed.It was onlynatural that the printer opposed the legislation. A substantialportion of his economiclivelihood depended on it beingvoided in one way or another.23 A numberof indefinitesecondary factors, aside from economic pressures,also help to explainthe reason for Johnston's opposition to the stamplegislation. The importanceof timeperspective is of value in realizingthe significanceof theseconditions. For instance,there is thepossibility that the Georgia editor, like most loyalistsin 1765,did not realizethe powerand influenceof his paper untilafter the repealof the stampduty. It shouldbe remembered,in connectionwith this point, that colonial tabloids did not wieldwide publicinfluence and poweruntil the Stamp Act experience.Secondly, the strugglebetween Americans and The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 485 the MotherCountry during 1765 was not a definitefight for survivalfor eithercontestant. Since thiswas the situation,it is probablethat loyalist Johnston really saw no need, takinghis financialsituation and otherconditions into consideration,to adopta stronglypro-Britain position on thematter. This disagree- mentmay not haveseemed that important to him.Finally, there is the possibilitythat Johnston,in tryingto remainunbiased throughpresenting both positions in the crisis,actually adopted moreof a patriotargument than even he realized.There were, as statedpreviously in thisanalysis, a numberof loyalistarticles in the GeorgiaGazette during the disturbances.These may have been so convincingto loyalistJohnston that he simplydid not see the strengthof the patriotargument presented in his press. A letterfrom Johnston to AnthonyStokes of December,1775, supportsthis line of thinking:"I have endeavouredto conduct myselfin thePublication of myPaper, as impartiallyas I cod."24 If the factorsand conditionsmentioned above are taken intoconsideration, it is possibleto understandhow the loyalist- controlledGeorgia Gazette supported the patriotsin the stamp crisis.It is harderto explainwhy the Colonial Governorof Georgia,James Wright, did not put a quick stop to the dis- seminationof patriotpropaganda in the southerncolony's only newspaper.Direct proof remains lacking in thematter; however, theexplanation evidently lies in thecolonial administration's lack of physicalpower. Governors throughout the Americancolonies facedthe problem of outspokenpatriot newspapers. Several tried to employcourt action in an effortto curbthe growing boldness of tabloidattacks against England. Their successwas minimal becausegrand juries proved extremely hesitant to indictprinters forsuch violations. The Governors,and evidentlyWright among them,feared proceeding in a moredirect manner due to thealmost certainand violentopposition such stepswould bringfrom the generalpopulation. Lieutenant Governor Colden of New York gavevoice to thissentiment in 1765:"I agreewith the Gentlemen of theCouncil that considering the present temper of thepeople thisis not a propertime to prosecutethe printers and Publishers 486 S. F. Roach, Jr. of the SeditiousPapers." Experience fromthe Mother Country evidentlyreinforced this sentiment. Bandit publishers in England, the mostfamous being JohnWilkes (Junius),had operatedfor a numberof yearsto such an extentthat Lord North burstout in Parliamentduring 1770: "Can any man recollecta period when the press groan'd with such a varietyof desperatelibels? Such is their number,that one would imagine there is not a single pen made,a singlestandish used, or a singlescrap of paper bought, but in orderto manufacturea libel." Effortsby the government to coerce the undercoverpress in England had only made those publicationsmore popular. Colonial Governorsin America did not wish to make the same mistake.25 The reactionof Georgia's newspaperto the Stamp Act and the reasonsfor that action are now clear. However, the signifi- cance of the Georgia Gazette'sstand only becomesapparent when viewed fromthe perspectiveof that southerncolony's entrance into the AmericanRevolution. Georgia, unlike many of the other colonies,possessed no continuingpatriot organization during the pre-revolutionaryyears, 1763-1775. Nor was therethe accumula- tion,due to the variouscontroversies with the Mother Country, of enoughanti-British sentiment to threatenexplosion and revolu- tion. Each crisis,the , 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- periencesto forma substantialpatriot faction in the colony. In this context,the events and causative forces involved in the Stamp Act misunderstanding,the first real collision between Georgiansand the MotherCountry, take on added significance.26 The famous English historianof the late ninetenthcentury, William Edward Hartpole Lecky, felt Georgians did not react stronglyagainst the Stamp Act because of their fear of Negro and Indian uprisings.This view could not be furtherfrom the truth. The reaction of Georgians to the stamp duty closely resembledthat of any other colony. Late October, 1765, saw threeleading citizensof the community,Simon Munro, George The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 487

Baillie,and Thomas Moodie, receive aggressively threatening state- mentssigned, "The Townsman."These lettersaccused Munro of beingthe appointed stamp collector and Baillieand Moodieof helpingto storethe dutiedpaper. All were requiredto prove the accusationsfalse or sufferthe consequences.A few days later,on thenight of October31, 1765,a largegroup of people transportedan effigyof a stampofficer through the streets, hangedand burnedit. Less thana week afterthese events, on November5, a largecrowd again paraded an effigyof a stamp masterthrough the streetsand thistime left it hangingin front of Machenry'sTavern. The followingday the gatheredat the lynchingsite and unanimouslyagreed to force the stampmaster's resignation as soon as he arrivedin the colony. Increasedaction from patriotorganizations and the GeneralAssembly's vote to supportthe journal,petitions, and memorialsof the Stamp Act Congressfollowed this meeting. Such legislativedevelopments evidently encouraged the general populationto bolderperformances. On January2, 1766,a large groupof citizensmarched on thegovernor's house and questioned himin an antagonisticmanner concerning his positionon the hatedtax. Not longafter this distasteful experience the governor receivednews a largegroup of patriotswere planningto break intothe royal storehouse and destroythe stampsdeposited there. Actingquickly, he removedthe endangered stamps to therangers' guardhouseand placed themunder armed protection. At this juncture,normality seemed to gain control.Stamp distributor GeorgeAngus was forcedto leaveSavannah "to avoidthe resent- mentof the people"and the generalpopulation refused to buy stamps,but the dangerof widespreadviolence subsided for the moment.It reappeareda fewweeks later when the Liberty Boys againthreatened the stamps.Governor Wright, having decided his positionto be untenable,placed the dutiedpaper on the H MS Speedwell.Stamp distributor Angus was once againchased outof town. This ended the Stamp Act demonstrationsin Georgia. The stampswere gone, few had been sold, and the distributor was forcedto leave.What else,short of insurrection,could have been 488 S. F. Roach, Jr. accomplished?27 Throughoutthe colonies,the StampAct troublehad proven a watersheddevelopment for American journalism. Colonial news- papersentered the fraywith intense energy and aggressiveness. The resultsaw themtransformed, almost overnight, from "mere disseminatorsof information" into "makers and moldersof " public opinion." 'Had it notbeen for the continual informations from the stated"A in A ProvidenceGazette press,'" Countryman"" Extraordinaryof March12, 1766," 'a junctionof all thepeople of thisnorthern continent . . . would have been con- " scarcely ceivable.' Developmentsin Georgiamerely mirrored the na- tional trendin journalism.Throughout the pre- period,Georgians always acted later than the other twelve coloniesand were stronglyinfluenced by developmentsamong theirneighbors in America.The tensefall of 1765 provedno exceptionto thisrule. The role playedby the GeorgiaGazette duringthe stamp act altercationswas instrumentalin guiding the southernmostcolony's reactionagainst the Mother Country. Georgiansopposed the stampduty because they felt themselves an intricatepart of the continentalexperience. This would have beenimpossible had not the Georgia Gazette spread news through- out thecolony of occurrencesand patriotthought in otherareas of America.28 Notes iKennethColeman, The AmericanRevolution 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; ArthurM. Schlesinger,"The Colonial News- papers and the Stamp Act," in New England Quarterly,VIII (March, 1935), 63-65. 2Louis Turner Griffithand John Erwin Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 1768-1950,with an introductionby John Eldridge Drewry (Athens, 1951), 1, 3, 5-6,18-20; ArthurM. Schlesinger,Prelude to Independence: The News- paper War on Britain, 1764-1776(New York, 1958), 188, 259, 285; Philip Davidson, Propaganda and the , 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 contradictoryconcerning their inter- pretationof 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-patriotposition of the Georgia Gazette in the Stamp Act controversy.Unfortunately, his work generallysuffers from faulty documen- The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 489 tation. This weakness is acute in the examination of the Georgia Gazette. Lawrence simply does not prove or documentwhat is essentially a correct evaluation of the subject. AlexanderA. 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 representedthe first and only colonial tabloid that existed in the southernmostcolony. Griffithand Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 1. It should be noted that Griffithand Talmadge's Georgia Journalism,while possessing much valuable information,suffers greviously from a total lack of footnotedocumentation. ^Georgia Gazette, July 12, 1764; April 25, May 2, 1765. The reader, when examiningthe Georgia Gazette,encounters only one reading difficulty.This is representedby the printer's tendencyto 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 contributemuch 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 pre- dispositionsof such a cut and paste publication,pure editorial opinion does not possess the importanceit 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; Griffithand 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.. Auerust8. 1765. Qlbid., October10, November14, 1765. loibid., June 13, 1765. uibid.. Ausrust1. October24. 1765. mUd., August 1, 8, 15, September5, 19, 26, October3, 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 paymentof a stamp tax seem so difficult.Ibid., passim. isibid., August 8, October10, 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 representationat the Stamp Act Congress into clear perspective: "GovernorWright opposed sending delegates to the congress and refussed to call the assembly into session to consider the matter. The assembly memberswrote to the Massachusetts House of Representatives [who had sent a circular invitingrepresentation] that no delegates would be sent to the Congress because of Wright'sobjection but gave assurance that Georgia was concernedwith the commonwelfare of all the colonies and would back whateveraction the congress took." Allen D. Candler, ed., Colonial Records of the State of Georgia (Compiled under authorityof the Legislature, re- vised 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. November14, 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 provedan approximateand constantaverage in a numberof differentarticles appearing at various times. It should also be noted that the Georgia Gazette, due to the stamp tax, was forcedto cease publication on November21, 1765. 490 S. F. Roach, Jr.

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-patriotpredisposition of the Georgia Gazette continued throughoutthe 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. Griffithand Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 6-7. Allen D. Candler, ed., RevolutionaryRecords 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 Printingin 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 GeorgiaHistorical Quarterly,XVI (June, 1932), 95, 102; Griffith and Talmadge, GeorgiaJournalism, 7-8 ; SchlesingerPrelude 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 factorwhich led to the closing down of the Georgia Gazette during 1765-66. 20Lawrence,James Johnston,10-11, 16-17. siMcMurtrie,"Pioneer Printingin Georgia,"in Georgia Historical Quarter- ly., XVI (June, 1932), 91. James Wrightto Earl of Hillsborough,March 10, 1766 in Colonial Records of Georgia (Ms) XXXVII, 118; AnthonyStokes 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; Griffithand 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 printersusually establishednewspapers, 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 exceptionswere: "The single number of Publick Occurrences,the early Boston Newsletter (edited by a postmasterand carried on by him after his removal), the early (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; Griffithand Talmadge, Georgia Journalism,5; Georgia-Gazette, September 12, October31, November 14, 21, 1765. Talmadge and Griffithcite October 14th. instead of November 14th. Schlesinger points out that the Stamp Act weakened the printers' economicposition in a numberof other ways: "As if these provisions were not sufficientlydrastic, duties of from2d. 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 strucka blow at that trainingschool of the craft,the apprenticeship The Georgia Gazette and the Stamp Act 491 system,by taxing indentures at therate of sixpence on everytwenty shillings involvedand at a double rate when the total amount exceeded £50." Schlesinger,"The ColonialNewspaper and the StampAct," in New England Quarterly,VIII (March,1935), 65-6. 24Schlesinger,"The Colonial Newspaperand the stamp Act," in New England Quarterly,VIII (March,1935), 83; James Johnstonto Anthony Stokes, Savannah, December15, 1775 in Colonial Records of Georgia, XXXVIII, Part 2, 47, citedin Lawrence,James Johnston, 11. Savannah,December 15, 1775 in Colonial Records of GeorgiaXXXVIII, Part"2, 47, cited in Lawrence,James Johnston, 11. 25Mott,American Journalism, 103-104; Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 309-311,Schlesinger, "The ColonialNewspaper and the StampAct," in New EnglandQuarterly, VIII (March,1935), 80-81. 26Coleman,American Revolution in Georgia,16, 277. Colemantends to contradicthimself on this matter:"The numberof the Sons of Libertyal- waysavailable to opposeWright's actions makes it obviousthat therewas somegood organizationin Georgiaand contactwith othercolonies, but it is impossibleto knowwho the leaderswere." Ibid., 24. 27WilliamEdward Hartpole Lecky, A Historyof England in theEighteenth Century,New Edition,London, 1892), IV, 113-14,cited in Tyler,Literary History,I, 232; GeorgiaGazette, October 31, November7, 14, 1765; Candler, ed., ColonialRecords of Georgia,IX, 439-40,453-58, 460; ibid.,XIV, 300-301 304-306,315; Wrightto Conway, January 31, 1766, February 7, 1766in Charles C. Jones,A Historyof Georgia(Boston, 1883), II, 61-2,64-5; South Carolina Gazette,October 31, December17, 1765,January 21, February25, April29, 1766; extractof a letterfrom Georgia, January 6, 1766all citedin Coleman, AmericanRevolution in Georgia,18-23. The misunderstandingconcerning the extentof Georgia'sreaction to the StampAct was possiblycaused be- cause Leckydepended for evidenceupon the moderateofficial communica- tionssent from the colonyto England,Ibid. 17-18. 28Mott,American Journalism, 107-108; Schlesinger, "The ColonialNews- paperand the StampAct," in New EnglandQuarterly, VIII (March,1935), 81; Griffithand Talmadge,Georgia Journalism, 5; Lawrence,James Johnston, 14-15,35-6; Coleman, American Revolution in Georgia,23-4, 277-78. There is a naturaltendency to dismissthe influenceof thepress in colonialAmerica, and especiallyin a small and backwardcolony like Georgia,due to the small circulationenjoyed by tfiifTãbloids.Frank Luther Mott does muchto correctthis misconception:"This taste for reading [among American colonials]was fed largelyby journalism.Newspapers probably went to less than 40,000homes at the outbreakof the Revolution,but each copy was passed fromhand to hand,they were read aloud in the coffee-housesand inns,and theirarticles were discussedand thoroughlydigested. Ambrose Serle,temporarily in chargeof the Royalistpress in New York in 1776, wrotehome to Lord Dartmouth:'One is astonishedto see withwhat avidity they [the colonialnewspapers] are soughtafter, and how implicitlythey are believed,by the greatBulk of the People .... Governmentmay find it expedient,in the Sum of things,to employthis popularEngine.'" Mott, AmericanJournalism, 107-108. Also see Schlesinger,"The Colonial News- paperand the StampAct," in New EnglandQuarterly, VIII (March,1935) * 83; Davidson,Propaganda and the AmericanRevolution, 235 which ef- fectivelyrefutes Tyler, Literary History, I, 17-19.