Abstract
Governmental attempts to deal with the influx of newcomers and their impact on welfare systems, oppressed people’s struggles to navigate society, and confrontations between civilians and armed forces are not issues solely limited to the twenty-first century. Rather, we find them in eighteenth-century Boston as well. Numerous historians have previously examined Bostonians’ experiences and the town’s role in early American history. Boston’s prominence in colonial America is no surprise. As the scene of formative events and the home of celebrated people, Boston has few rivals. Despite the robust scholarship on Boston, Cornelia H. Dayton, Sharon V. Salinger, Jared Ross Hardesty, and Eric Hinderaker find new ways to shed light on one of colonial North America’s most significant towns. 1 By reexamining colonial practices, institutions, and famous events through news lenses and perspectives, these scholars reinvigorate studies of Boston and its importance as an urban center. Aside from investigating the political and social life of eighteenth-century Boston, the authors also position their respective topics within a broader Atlantic context and demonstrate how their subjects were impacted by or influenced the revolutionary era.
Each of the authors illuminates the complexities, challenges, and conflicts of living and working in colonial Boston. By exploring practices such as warning, probing the experiences of slaves through the “lens of unfreedom,” and studying the tensions between British soldiers and civilians, they challenge historians’ understanding of the era (Hardesty, p. 45). These scholars vividly describe and analyze the vibrant lived experience of Americans as they navigated obstacles such as finding employment, integrating into the society of their oppressors, and dealing with military occupation. Together, these monographs impressively depict the urban space through engaging vignettes and biographies of often overlooked people. Of particular interest to scholars of urban history is how the authors immerse the reader in the town through the use of maps and thick descriptions. Boston is not only the setting of each study, but also a place full of action and life. Accomplishing more than merely filling historiographical holes, these authors reconsider critically important topics. To uncover the lived experience of their subjects, the authors delve into legal documents and court-related records and thereby offer new ways to think about strangers and slaves’ experiences. Similarly, reexamining the Boston Massacre trials allows Hinderaker to consider how those at the time crafted a narrative of that fateful evening.
Furthermore, each of the authors examines events and influences from an Atlantic context and is not merely focused on Boston. In Robert Love’s Warnings, Dayton and Salinger note both the European origins of warning as well as how it differed in Boston. Similarly, Hardesty employs a transnational methodology in Unfreedom to inquiry where slaves came from and how that experience impacted their understanding of the institution. Meanwhile, in Boston’s Massacre, Hinderaker unveils a journey through alterations in the British Empire, such as imperial management, which affected Boston.
Discussing eighteenth-century Boston without mentioning its ties to the revolutionary era is nearly impossible. Far from teleological, in both Robert Love’s Warnings and Unfreedom, the authors illuminate how their subjects relate to the period. Studying warnings provides a greater understanding of why people migrated in the years before the Revolutionary War—especially those who were negatively impacted by Great Britain’s conflicts and decisions. Conversely, Hardesty suggests that scholars reassess the use of the revolutionary era’s understanding of resistance. For the era between 1700 and 1775, he contends that historians should expand this notion beyond simply the pursuit of achieving freedom as for many slaves defiance was more focused on enhancing their situation. Hardesty highlights that it was not until the 1760s that slaves employed natural rights rhetoric to assert themselves. Most obviously, Hinderaker examines the role of the massacre on Boston’s path to revolution and how it would be remembered.
In Robert Love’s Warnings, Dayton and Salinger investigate the misunderstood and perhaps overlooked practice of warning. Although there was no official title for the position, they employ the term: warner. Appointed by the town’s selectmen, warners, such as Robert Love, were responsible for identifying strangers and informing them that they had fourteen days to depart. While the language of Love’s warning was dramatic, and perhaps intimidating, it was not intended as a literal order to leave the town. This system was neither a form of social control nor a practice to restrict strangers, but rather warning was part of an elaborate welfare system. By maintaining detailed lists of those warned, Boston officials could distinguish between those persons who had residency in the town and those who did not. If at any point during their stay in Boston a warned individual required poor relief, that cost would be paid by the province, not the town. This dual tax system was designed to prevent Boston from being overburdened with the expense of assisting destitute strangers. Instead of restricting entry or displacing the person from the community, Dayton and Salinger argue that warning actually helped enable people to migrate in search of work. Furthermore, the authors maintain that this practice permitted “a larger pool of welfare funds for Britons and non-Britons, native born and stranger, than existed elsewhere in the empire” (p. 4). Interestingly, many of those Love warned came from the New England area. His diligently kept records reveal more than that warning has been misunderstood. Commencing his charge in 1765 and remaining in this position until 1774, Love’s accounts disclose who came to Boston and why during the critical period after the Seven Years War.
Beginning with Love’s biography and the European origins of warning, Dayton and Salinger turn to the process itself, those he warned, and their experiences. Perhaps surprising given the reason behind warning, Love refrained from only targeting those who appeared indigent. In fact, many of those individuals who Love warned came from the middling sort. Dayton and Salinger paint a vibrant picture of Love’s travels seeking out information and strangers. Although there are no firsthand accounts from those he warned, Love’s thorough records allow the authors to piece together details of their backgrounds. On occasions, Love included snippets about the individuals’ occupation, where they came from, and perhaps where they stayed. Pragmatic and effective, Love successfully located newcomers on the streets, at residences that commonly rented rooms, the workhouse, or the almshouse. Boston’s struggling economy notwithstanding, strangers still traveled to the port town for a variety of reasons.
The majority of those warned originated “from middling households or the respectable lower sort” (p. 116). For these people, their stay in Boston was often temporary and they frequently had prepared plans prior to arrival. Many individuals came because Boston offered more opportunities for work or marriage than the smaller towns in the region. Others sought to reconnect with families or fled to the town in hopes of escaping abuse. Why did Love warn these people? The reality of eighteenth-century life was that hardship could surprise any person, placing all people in potential need for assistance. Interestingly, Dayton and Salinger uncover that the same travel motivations cut across race. Unfortunately, Native Americans and African Americans encountered fewer opportunities and more prejudice.
Perhaps ironically, strangers identified as “begging, sick, destitute, drunk, dressed in rags, physically disabled, mentally disturbed, old, idling, strolling, thieving, lodging out of doors, or lacking a place of abode” comprised only around 20 percent of those warned (p. 134). These people, many of whom were single men who did not come from nearby towns, chose Boston for a variety of reasons. Desperate and needing of relief, many had faced hardships. Sick or homeless strangers entered Boston seeking opportunities to beg or gain admittance to the almshouse. Others, despite their disabilities, journeyed to procure gainful employment. Aside from the industrious, Love also encountered strangers whose poor behavior included drunkenness, idleness, or transient nature. Transient women also faced suspicion of prostitution or lax morals.
Dayton and Salinger’s excellent study also unveils the harsh impacts of political tensions following the Seven Years War as the Revolution approached. Although not overtly political, Love’s records reveal the often-unnoticed existence of strangers harmed by the political climate: injured veterans, Acadians seeking to migrate back to their homeland, and the families of British troops. Desperate or hurt, many veterans struggled after the war. Lacking funds, they found it difficult to return to Great Britain. In a similarly unenviable situation, Love’s records reveal how Acadians sustained themselves by creating networks and even Anglicizing their names. For some wives and children of soldiers who were left behind, their existence too was a struggle. Given the increased tension between the colony and crown, it is unsurprising that the British military did little to assist these women when solicited by the town’s leaders. The plight of these people builds upon the existing scholarship of the negative effects of wars in Boston on a human level. 2 The authors note that Love’s records are some of the only ones to illuminate these people and their experiences. If possible, scholars studying other colonies might wish to compare how migration was impacted by these political issues.
While Dayton and Salinger’s study addresses the overlooked practice of warning, in Unfreedom, Jared Ross Hardesty takes a nuanced approach to the familiar topic of slavery. Urging scholars to eschew “the traditional dichotomous conception of slavery and freedom,” Hardesty reconceptualizes eighteenth-century bondage “as part of a continuum of unfreedom” (p. 2). He surveys the lived experience of slaves who navigated colonial society and created a place for themselves in the hierarchal world of Boston. Exploring the period from 1700 to 1775, Hardesty challenges scholars to refrain from prioritizing emancipation as the sole motivating factor of slaves’ resistance. By complicating historians’ understanding of resistance, he stresses that slaves’ defiance came in many forms and was largely calculated to improve their situation or the nature of their servitude. Hardesty argues that slaves gained additional “autonomy through workplace arrangements, the formation of communities and families, the articulation and defense of rights and privileges, and religious affiliation” (pp. 6-7).
Hardesty also studies how practices and experiences in the Caribbean and Africa impacted slaves in Boston. Beginning his study with the origins of Boston’s involvement with slaves, Hardesty highlights that Africans came from a society where the enslaved possessed customary rights. Upon entering the hierarchal Boston society, based on dependent relationships, slaves cunningly used their knowledge and experience to their advantage. Their goal, Hardesty argues, was not always to obtain freedom, but to insert themselves into society so that they could then gain additional rights within the system. What types of privileges did they seek? In a “world of deference and dependence,” slaves considered that they possessed “the right to marry and have a family, live where they pleased, and labor on their own terms, while also being protected from abuse” (p. 66). Even though masters might have actively strived to prevent slaves from making these claims, enslaved people persisted in their struggle to protect what they understood was theirs. For example, resentful of their harsh master and denied the right to live with their families, angry slaves resorted to arson so that they would be sold. When this tactic failed, they murdered their master. Hardesty contends that the slaves admitted that they committed the crimes, not to achieve their freedom, but because they sought a new owner.
Critical to Hardesty’s argument is his assertion that slaves did not operate solely in a racially segregated community. Instead, he urges scholars to employ the term “social world,” which cuts across race and class (p. 72). As a result, slaves created relationships with unfree white servants, at times defying their masters. Outside the master’s household, slaves also interacted with people across racial boundaries. Hardesty stresses that historians should expand the notion of resistance to include creating a community beyond their masters’ control. For example, activities such as stealing, breaking curfew, and visiting unlicensed taverns defied authorities and thereby created a place for slaves in society as they interacted with other unfree or impoverished people.
Faced with a dearth of labor, Boston relied on slaves. Performing a vital role in the economy, especially if skilled, slaves used this situation to their advantage. Some resisted their dehumanizing situation by claiming ownership of their skills or feeling satisfaction. Others enjoyed the enhanced mobility offered by their labor opportunities. Again, stressing that many slaves’ motivation was not necessarily to achieve freedom, Hardesty posits that some might have fled from disagreeable situations perhaps to labor under perceived better conditions. For example, Titus, a slave, pretended to be ailing when informed he would be sold into an undesirable situation. Unfortunately, the ability to use one’s labor to enhance their lives was primarily reserved to skilled male slaves who generally had more opportunities away from their masters.
Aside from using their labor to improve their conditions, slaves also employed colonial establishments, such as Protestant churches and the law, to their benefit. Immersing themselves in colonial society, slaves obtained reading and writing skills as well as limited knowledge of the legal system. Before the 1760s, however, slaves’ involvement in both churches and the legal system was less about freedom and more about fostering a better existence. For example, by examining the proceedings of a justice of the peace, Hardesty argues that some slaves understood that they could obtain assistance from the law in cases of abuse. Before slaves turned to the law to request their freedom, they used the legal system to claim rights such as back wages. Similarly, slaves discovered spiritual as well as physical benefits from conversion. Religion provided slaves with the ability to marry and also served as a pathway into colonial society. Churches also offered literacy skills as well as an understanding of Christianity, both of which assisted slaves in asserting themselves. Learning to read opened new, and perhaps more desirable, labor prospects. During the revolutionary era, slaves shifted their focus and used contemporary rhetoric to force the issue of freedom. Hardesty recognizes Boston’s uniqueness, but historians should apply his lens and methodology to other regions. How do the experiences of slaves in other urban centers, the southern colonies, or rural areas compare?
In Boston’s Massacre, rather than only focus on the circumstances on March 5, 1770, Eric Hinderaker also investigates the incidents and political climate leading up to the shooting, the conflicting perspectives and their impacts, and the memory of the tragedy itself. Given Boston’s vital role in the Revolution’s progression, Hinderaker argues that it is critical to recognize the significance of British military occupation in 1768 and the ensuing anxiety and pressure. In that regard, the Boston Massacre propelled the town on a new trajectory while also disrupting the connection between Great Britain and its colonies. Hinderaker convincingly argues that the Boston Massacre “was the sine qua non of the American Revolution as we know it” (p. 4). Containing detailed maps of Boston, exhaustive research, and masterfully written descriptions of the events, Hinderaker’s engaging narrative places the reader at the heart of a town boiling over from tension. Facing drastically differing descriptions of the fateful night’s events, Hinderaker reminds scholars that producing a conclusive report of what transpired is nearly impossible.
Instead, Hinderaker highlights alterations within the British Empire during the eighteenth-century such as developing a larger military and transforming into “a more centralized and authoritarian power”—both of which impacted Boston (p. 5). Boston’s democratic leanings, recent economic hardships, and friction between some of its leading citizens and Thomas Hutchinson also contributed to the situation. The formation of political groups and their relationship with crowds positioned Boston to oppose the British while also enhancing the potential for turmoil. Foregrounding the events, anxieties, and discussions leading up to the occupation of Boston such as crowd activities and housing troops, Hinderaker reveals the critical background for the tragedy. Even before the massacre, warfare and the addition of new lands altered how the British would maintain its holdings. Amidst political strife, troops arrived in Boston in 1768. Hinderaker importantly notes, British commander Thomas Gage saw their presence “as a military operation, not a peacekeeping” mission (p. 106). Housing the soldiers and their inconvenient presence became points of contestation between local leaders and imperial representatives. Furthermore, placing troops and civilians in close contact without an end to the situation in sight was nearly unheard of in the empire. Differing perspectives about the appropriate use of troops intensified an already heightened state. Despite their presence, British troops failed to respond when violence occurred due to the fact that local leaders needed to call upon them for any action to be taken. Therefore, rather than assist in maintaining the peace, soldiers “became another target of local leaders and Boston crowds who sought new ways to dramatize their frustration with parliamentary policy” (p. 152).
In the aftermath of the March 1770 shooting, conflicting descriptions of the night’s events dominated public discourse as controversy abounded. Considering the difficulty of discerning exactly what happened that night, Hinderaker argues that “the trials were as much a struggle to construct a dominant, consensus narrative as they were an attempt to attain justice for the accused” (p. 188). Meticulously examining trial records, he illuminates the overwhelming and conflicting accounts as well as the prosecutors and defense’s strategies. For example, the defense attempted to separate the identity of the unruly crowd from Boston’s upstanding citizens. This tactic was especially used against Crispus Attucks, the son of a slave and Native American. By doing so, John Adams indicated that the unjust decision to place troops in Boston ignited the crowd’s actions. In the end, Hinderaker contends that everyone involved in the incident had a reason to push their interests; some probably lied.
By Spring 1771, townspeople began “cementing the event in public memory and ensuring that its larger significance would not be forgotten” (p. 225). According to Hinderaker, the Boston Massacre stood out from previous confrontations between the mother country and its colonies. Building upon emotions, images, and publications, Bostonians held public ceremonies on the anniversary of the tragedy. As time progressed, the date became increasingly important as “the centerpiece of Boston’s corporate identity” in which its citizens grieved, but also condemned British occupation and its disregard to local rule (p. 236). Passionate speeches electrified listeners and created unity. When occupied again in 1775, Boston’s commemorations became even more pertinent. That year, Joseph Warren’s speech highlighted the importance of resistance. The annual remembrance played a critical role throughout the war years, but when the conflict concluded, surprisingly, so too did the ceremony. Recognizing its importance during the conflict, but also believing other events should be prioritized, Boston leaders suggested the annual remembrance be terminated. Hinderaker contends that the commemoration helped to guide Bostonians during the tumultuous years of the Revolution when the cause was most fragile.
The memory of the Boston Massacre was never extinguished. Rather, the event was later resurrected by abolitionists who emphasized Attucks’s role. Hinderaker argues that such measures ensured that the memory of the event would be tied to “Attucks as a symbol of African American citizenship” (p. 264). Attucks continued to be the center of debates after emancipation—cast as either a participant of an unruly mob or a symbol of patriotism. The contested legacy of the massacre resurfaced again when similar controversial tragedies occurred at Kent State University and Jackson State College in 1970. Hinderaker notes that current debates about “the fear of militarized police forces,” especially in regard to racial issues, have revived Attucks (p. 282). Future scholars might wish to continue to build on the already impressive studies on how we remember the Revolution by examining other events in more detail. 3 Since observances of the Boston Massacre were fairly regional, it would be enlightening to see how other areas remembered iconic events.
There is no shortage of studies on eighteenth-century Boston, a familiar and significant topic in early American history. However, these historians have breathed life into this colonial urban space. By shedding new light on defining institutions and formative events as well as presenting innovative approaches and methodologies, all three works are must reads for early Americanists. Non-specialists, especially those focusing on urban history, will also find these timeless themes such as the treatment of strangers, unfree people’s struggles, and the relationship between civilians and armed forces, engaging and pertinent.