2.1: The Prominent Pre-Revolution Loyalist: Thomas Hutchinson and the Stamp Act

Now known as the prototypical Loyalist, it wasn't always this way...Thomas Hutchinson was one of the most well-known men in Boston when the French and Indian War ended.  He had a successful career as a merchant and a public servant, with a keen eye towards further advancement in the political  climate in pre-Revolutionary North America.  Yet, Hutchinson wasn't necessarily a fan of the "Acts" that Britain passed following the war...so how did he become associated with those who stood firm in their loyalty to Britain at all costs?  In the season opener of History: Beyond the Textbook, we begin the study of America's Revolution with Thomas Hutchinson's role in the Sugar and Stamp Acts, along with his path towards choosing his "side" in the coming conflict.

Key People
Thomas Hutchinson
Benjamin Franklin
Samuel Adams

Key Events
Stamp Act
Sugar Act
Boston Massacre
Albany Conference

We're back for Season Four of History: Beyond the Textbook!  This season will  focus on the stories of individuals who shaped "America's Federalist Era" in the years roughly 1789-1800.  The first six episodes will release every Tuesday from October 28-December 2, while the second six episodes will be released every Tuesday from February 17-March 24.   Catch up on Season One, "America's Colonial Era," Season Two, "America's Revolution," and Season Three, "America's Crucial Years," wherever you listen to your podcasts!

Feel free to contact us with feedback or questions by clicking the "Send Us a Text" link or email us at: hbttpodcast@gmail.com

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Here we are at the start of Season 2 of History: Beyond the Textbook.  I’m Alex Mattke and on behalf of the entire team, we’re all glad you’ve decided to return (or, for some of you, have decided to come aboard)!  In our first season, we sought to weave together stories of the colonial, and even “pre”-colonial, era in an effort to explore the foundational experiences that shaped the United States.  This season, we’ll chronologically pick up where we left off back in December: the formal end of what colonial, and modern, Americans refer to as the “French and Indian War.”  Just like our first season, we intend to use 12 episodes to explore the Revolutionary era in American history: it’s build-up, the fighting, its conclusion, and how it affected scores of Americans throughout.  The same self-imposed rules that we followed during our first season apply moving forward: no double-dipping, and no episodes featuring anyone during their time as U.S. president.  No problem with the second rule since we don’t have a formal U.S. president during this time period.  The first part, meaning that we won’t focus on any individual for more than one episode for the lifespan of the podcast, still isn’t much of an issue, although a season focusing on the American Revolution that doesn’t directly feature George Washington might seem a bit unusual.  There are plenty of interesting characters on which to base out narrative: sure, we’ve got politicians, and even a king, but we’ve also got a few fighters you may not be as familiar with, along with some familiar faces in circumstances with which they are not usually associated.  Remember, we seek to go beyond the textbook in a way that hopefully informs, educates, and leaves you wanting to learn more.  So settle in, and enjoy the start of Season 2 of History: Beyond the Textbook as we focus on America's Revolution

Act I: Colonial Endings

Before we address Thomas Hutchinson, the focus of this episode, we begin with a little context.  We left off our first season with the conclusion of the brutal French and Indian War, and more specifically, in the aftermath of what has been deemed Pontiac’s War.  England was in theoretical control of North America since, by the terms of the Treaty of Paris, they now laid claim to pretty much all of what was once New France.  They were the new “ascending” global power, a reality that was lamented by “traditional” powers such as Spain and France.  The Brits were also in debt…a lot of debt, due to their participation in this war.  We’re talking $140 million, to give one estimate, with $5 million annually going towards interest payments compared to an annual budget of only $8 million.  Granted, this war spilled over from North America onto three additional continents, but Pontiac’s War left British officials with more of a keen eye towards their North American colonies.

“Colonies” is the accepted term that we use to describe this relationship, but they were often referenced as “plants,” and even “children,” according to the British.  For several generations, England governed these “children: using a policy that became known as “salutary neglect.”  Simply put, they turned a blind eye to British North America so long as these colonies continued to provide resources to fuel imperial growth…and also pay their minimal taxes.  “Minimal” is a critical phrase because, at the conclusion of the French and Indian War, the average tax for residents of Britain was 26 shillings, compared with one shilling per person in British North America.  Remember that Britain found herself facing massive debts due to her participation in a global conflict whose origins centered on North America’s Ohio River Valley.  The Crown was also paying much more attention to this region because Pontiac’s War left them with a heightened awareness of the continued costs of maintaining said possessions.  British North Americans were benefiting from British military protection, and had certainly been flourishing economically from this relationship…so why shouldn’t they pony up just a little more for the privilege of remaining part of a mighty empire?

Well, the economic flourish was past tense.  Throughout the war, colonials grew used to dealing with hard currency due to England’s use of paper money via colonial governments.  Once the French and Indian War ended, the direct payments ended, meaning that an economic crash befell British North America.  Why does this matter?  Well, the perception will develop that England didn’t really care about this region until they realized just how prosperous it could be…but this realization only hit when times were tough and the boom was over.  Add to this the burden of maintaining the presence of military forces to ward off potential Native American threats, and you’re starting to understand why England felt that those “children” over in North America weren’t quite pulling their weight.  Keep in mind that Treasury Minister George Grenville did not expect these colonials to pay off the enormous war debt, nor pay for the entire cost of defending the land gained in war; they should just pay for some of it.  Increasing taxes on specific colonial items was viewed as a reasonable method of raising this revenue.  This is where the “Acts” come into play.

Now, smuggling, or sneaking goods into a port to avoid paying customs duties on them, ran rampant through the colonies for several decades.  “Sneaking” isn’t even the best word to describe what smuggling truly entailed given that, dating back at least to the 1730’s, it was exceptionally common for businessmen to bribe customs collectors to “look the other way” when it came to collecting these duties.  Grenville began by forcing any potential customs collectors to report to North America to fulfill their roles.  Previous collectors contracted these duties out while remaining in London, but this new provision seemingly eliminated anyone who didn’t physically move abroad…and helped to theoretically stem corruption.  The Revenue Act, entering into the lexicon (and textbooks) as the “Sugar Act” came next.  The short version is that taxes on specific imports, such as molasses and coffee, were actually lowered, so they were cheaper than before…but enforcement of these duties increased, and punishments for the previously common practice of smuggling became more stringent.  This was the start of what would come to be viewed as a significant overreach of British colonial authority regarding her North American colonies.

 Act II: Who was Hutchinson?

So, we’ve arrived at the act where we examine the origins of our central figure, who in this case, is Thomas Hutchinson.  If the last name sounds familiar, it’s because his family traced themselves back to the Puritan “Great Migration” of the 1630’s…his great-great-grandmother was Anne Hutchinson, the subject of the fifth episode of our first season.  Subsequently, the family name could have served as a hindrance to personal success, but future Hutchinsons would not be deterred.  Thomas Hutchinson was born September 9, 1711, in the city founded by Puritan John Winthrop: Boston.  He was born into a family who had been upwardly mobile for generations as his father, also named Thomas, inherited money and property upon the death of his father-in-law.  The young Thomas was, by most accounts, quite studious, entering Harvard College prior to the age of 12 (although there was an instance where he was caught cheating, much to the chagrin of the college president).  He earned his undergraduate AND Master’s Degree, and then promptly entered the family business of commerce.  He showed an eye for business when he was enrolled at Harvard, and his astuteness increased dramatically with his full-time devotion to the craft.  Upon ample inheritance of his father’s possessions when the later died in 1739, the 28-year old Thomas Hutchinson began his rise as Boston’s preeminent businessman.  

We certainly won’t focus on the minute details of Hutchinson’s financial and mercantile success, but it’s absolutely worth noting that his success increased his profile in Massachusetts.  He parlayed this into a long career as a public servant…a career which began with his election to the Boston Board of Selectmen, also known as the House of Representatives, at age 25, a position he would hold the next 12 years save for a brief interlude when he visited England.  His most significant political actions during the pre-French and Indian War years relate to his role in negotiations with Indigenous tribes on behalf of Massachusetts.  Going back to our first season, we know that relations between these tribes and established English colonial settlements were rarely harmonious, commonly tenuous, and often erupted in violence.  Prior to the French and Indian War, it was essential to remain on good terms with nations such as the Haudenosaunee to prevent defection to the French.  Plus, it was good business to keep the peace because war meant a disruption in priorities such as commerce.  He traveled to Albany on multiple occasions, as Albany still served as the crossroads between the Great Lakes and the expanding port of New York.  These experiences certainly sharpened his skills as a diplomat, skills that were also present at the Albany Congress in 1754.  This conference, meant to reaffirm an agreement Massachusetts enjoyed with the Haudenosaunee, went even further.

How much further did it go?  Well, this Congress is where the so-called “Albany Plan of Union” was proposed, and Hutchinson played a role in it, along with none other than Ben Franklin.  Admittedly, Franklin took the lead in the proposal, and was an early proponent of a type of “United Colonies.”  Three years earlier, he referenced the representative government of the Haudenosaunee when he stated, to paraphrase, “if six nations…could be capable of forming…such a union…and yet that a like union should be impractible for ten of a dozen English colonies, to whom it is more necessary.”  Franklin even created the infamous “Join or Die” cartoon in the context of this fear, publishing it one month before the Albany Conference convened.  The short version of this proposal was that each colony would retain the sovereignty to govern themselves as they saw fit with respect to local affairs, but a “General Government,” comprised of an appointed Executive and a type of elected Congress based on colonial population and wealth would handle tasks such as common defense.  Hutchinson was a prominent supporter of this plan, and even wrote up a report wholeheartedly endorsing it.  He believed that this plan made sense for primarily defensive purposes and the delegates in Albany overwhelmingly signed off on it.  Unfortunately, almost nobody else did; every colony rejected the alleged loss of local control it may bring, while Parliament lamented the alleged increase in local control it may provide.  Hindsight reveals that Hutchinson certainly does not appear as though he would play the role of an individual bent on bringing about a wholesale change in British imperial politics, but that’s what he attempted to do in Albany.  

Act III: “Act”ing Up

So how does an individual who has traditionally been saddled with the stereotype of being the preeminent pre-Revolution loyalist arrive at that status given his support of the Albany Plan of union? Well, keep in mind that this plan 100% called for the colonies to operate Within the framework of the British Empire.. no talk of Independence for nearly two decades. We are still building up to that point, and anyways, it's time to connect Thomas Hutchinson with his role in the acts. the Sugar Act, which we referenced at the end of act 1, and the stamp act, which will arouse the intense iron of Colonial Americans.

If we're being official, the French and Indian War lasted from 1754 to 1763, beginning months after the Albany conference. Hutchinson continued his Public Service during this conflict, although it was done without his wife Margaret, who died months before the Albany conference. He never remarried, which was unusual for the era, and he mourned his beloved for the rest of his life. This may help explain his copious correspondence and his dual devotions to his work and children. His stature was such that he was commissioned as lieutenant governor in 1758, considered by him to be a stepping stone to the governor's house.. logical for a man whose family valued upward mobility. with an attitude that foreshadowed how John Adams would famously bemoan the office of Vice President, Hutchinson actually lamented the ample free time that came with his new role. However, the dutiful Hutchinson understood his role, rolling out the metaphorical red carpet when the new Governor Francis Bernard, arrived in 1760. The North American Theater of the French and Indian War was about to cease operations, and Hutchinson was also given the additional role of Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme court. 

It was in this position, which he held while also serving as lieutenant governor, that issues which would cause such consternation among Colonials began to boil to the surface. Act One taught us that smuggling was fairly common, especially in New England, and Great Britain tightened a series of laws known as” writs of assistance.”   These writs of assistance gave more license for British officials to search ships that were suspected of smuggling since they were basically blank checks in the form of search warrants. the man who argued against this in 1761 was James otis, senior, and he vehemently asserted that Parliament had no right to tax Massachusetts, only the right to regulate its trade. Likening the writs to an increased authority to Levy taxes, Otis laid the groundwork for future philosophical arguments about the relationship between Parliament and her North American colonies.. and he lost, as Hutchinson's sense of Duty in following the law won the day. what's interesting is that three years later, when the so-called sugar acts became law, Hutchinson raised the question of whether this law was legal given that it was voted into law by a parliament that included zero members elected by colonials. in other words, Hutchinson was an early proponent of the concept of “no taxation without representation,” though the phrase wasn't common just yet. Although certainly not the loudest voice against the sugar act, Hutchinson's stance is interesting given his prominent status as a merchant and benefactor of British political patronage. however, most of the anger directed at England was due to economic grievances, rather than those that were political or philosophical.

The same can't be said of the ire caused by the subsequent stamp act, signed into law the following march with little debate in parliament. simply put, any piece of paper required a coat of arms to be considered “legitimate,” so everything from newspapers to playing cards required an additional tax.  Hutchinson wasn't exactly fond  of this new attempt to force Colonial Americans to defray the cost of defensive expenses, but he knew that his political positions meant that he  would be the one to enforce the law. appointed Tax Collectors would ensure that the necessary Revenue was collected, and in a pattern that had already revealed itself throughout Hutchinson's ample public life, his brother-in-law, Andrew oliver, applied for, and received, this position. There was a period when a majority of Boston's prominent political positions were held by the extended, and well connected, Hutchinson- Oliver clan, and this scenario would earn them true animosity. Hutchinson didn't endorse  the stamp act, but he also held firm to his responsibilities in ensuring that it, as well as all laws, were carried out. He seemed to hope that the fervor towards the law would go away… something that did not  happen. truthfully, the simmering hatred towards the law was a slow burn, sped up due to the behind the scenes machinations of Samuel Adams ( more on him next episode),  but on August 14th, 1765, a hanging Effigy of Oliver appeared on an elm tree planted over a century prior, and would soon be christened the “freedom tree.”  Hutchinson ordered the sheriff to remove it, but the sheriff refused, citing concern for his own life. it was eventually cut down by what would have been called “ the rabble,”  who proceeded to march to a building believed to be a stamp office, and destroyed it. They then marched to Oliver's house, where Hutchinson had already warned his extended family off. The lieutenant governor was physically in the house when it was pelted with rocks, but was unharmed when the protesters stormed inside the residence. Over 1 week later, Hutchinson was himself the victim of the mob since word began to spread that he had written to England in support  of the stamp act. On August 26th, his home was utterly destroyed. we're talking completely  obliterated. it was invaded, pillaged, hacked to pieces with axes. Hutchinson had wanted to stay to try and smooth things over, but his oldest daughter insisted  that he leave with them, so he fled minutes before the Carnage, paying a steep price for his political ambitions.

Act IV: Loyalist Legacy

Had Hutchinson really  written in support of this law, and did he deserve the verdict rendered by the court of public opinion? As to the latter, it's doubtful: the destruction of his home lasted 8 hours, and he was afterwards forced to borrow clothing and other necessities, such was the complex nature of what happened. Few deserve that kind of treatment, certainly not a man who had diligently served the public good for so long.  He did not agree with the Stamp Act’s passage, but he understood that he had a duty to enforce it.. a description of how he had been carrying himself for quite some time. A partially destroyed manuscript from July 1764 recovered from the decimation of Hutchinson's home, makes his attitude clear. and yes, this was before the Stamp Act became law, and was full of references to the sugar act, but Hutchinson's arguments predate those who would seek to claim “ no taxation without representation,”  such as the famed sons of liberty. he felt that, since the North American colonies were just that, colonies,  Parliament should indeed reign supreme from a legal  standpoint. However, some Authority was transferred from Parliament to local colonial governments due to the nature of the charters governing these colonies. he questioned the lack of direct representation that Colonials had in parliament, and acknowledged that the colonies were already paying taxes in the form of their mercantilist relationship with the mother country.  Again, these are all points that would Place him more in The Patriot camp.. but he was moderate and tone, and the actions of the mob on the night of August 26th could not be ignored. Hutchinson would even claim that he felt the mob had not intended to go as far as they did, but they had. Perception is everything, and as brother-in-law to Oliver and an alleged supporter of the stamp act, Hutchinson would remain an enemy in the eyes of Patriots continent-wide, no matter what his actual beliefs may have been.

A number of measures were taken following the unrest, both violent and otherwise, that the Stamp Act provoked. for starters,  Parliament repealed the divisive law, much to the Chagrin of British lawmakers who were worried about the precedent that such an action would set. The scene was one of Jubilation when word reached Boston on May 16th: Bells rang out, streamers swayed in the wind, and musicians blasted their most exuberant tunes. Happy as the Colonials may have been, the repeal was followed by what became known as the “ declaratory act.”   Basically, Parliament asserted that they, and they alone, Enjoyed the right to pass laws pertaining to her colonies. They reserved the right to do so, to quote, “ in all cases whatsoever,”  and nobody, especially a colonial body, could tell them otherwise. to his end, Hutchinson didn't pay it much attention, but this law meant that Parliament could pass, and potentially repeal, as many laws as they wanted.  His Focus was on compensation for his ransacked property and obliterated possessions.. but his political and personal opponents vowed to prevent this from happening.  Hutchinson's decades of gathering accolades and handing out positions of patronage caught up to him. it was also no secret that he had his eye on the governor's house, and his habit of cronyism smacked of a pseudo-royal in the making. He would be compensated in late 1766,  and he spent the rest of that year, as well as 1767, attempting to continue his traditional approach to governance fulfill his duties while not necessarily offending anyone in the process. meanwhile, parliament passed the Revenue Act, referred to as the Townsend acts after the chancellor of the Exchequer Charles townsend, in June 1767.  More new taxes, consistent with the declaratory act, a new boston-based board of inspectors to supervise customs collections, but also, the posting of the Regiment of British regulars in boston. for what purpose? their presence was requested by Governor Francis Bernard to protect his Majesty's servants in boston, but it would be viewed as an occupying Force intent on coercing the Colonials to do the bidding of a King and Parliament from which they were growing more distant by the day.

By this time, hutchinson, and some of his like-minded supporters, had been voted off the council that advised the Massachusetts governor; however, he retained his post as Lieutenant governor. As he had done nearly a decade before, he assumed the role of acting Governor when Bernard returned to England, although he admittedly hoped that the role would become permanent. However, Bostonians of all social strata were still stewing over the Townsend acts and the duties that they levied. pamphlets were written in protest of these acts, most notably letters from A farmer in Pennsylvania, penned by Future Continental congressman John dickinson. The continued presence of troops in the city also caused real friction between bostonians and the soldiers. the troops competed with residents for jobs to supplement their incomes when they were off duty, and bostonians responded in kind with taunts and jeers of “ lobsterback,”  among other unmentionables. Hutchinson would be in his role of acting governor on the night of March 5th, 1770, won the frustrations of a city turned into violence. a loan guard outside of the custom house on King Street struck a civilian, Edward GErrish,  for insulting a British officer. this was the catalyst for a gathering of bostonians that quickly outnumbered private Hugh White. His commanding officer, Captain Thomas preston, hoped the crowd would disperse but they didn't, and he and eight others rallied to the young man's aid. rocks and Ice were hurled at the soldiers, and one shot, followed by subsequent others, rang out. A bystander ran to Hutchinson's house to inform him of the situation, and the acting Governor hustled to the scene on King Street where nearly 1,000 had gathered. he did get the chance to shout at Preston about what happened, specifically whether he ordered his men to fire. Hutchinson claimed to have not heard his response amidst all the shouting. he did manage to disperse the crowd, arrest Preston and the eight additional soldiers, and begin to gather Witnesses for what he knew would be a highly charged trial... all before the sun came up the next morning. he convened his counsel the next morning and declared that he could not order the British troops to evacuate boston, as was desired, because they took their orders from their commander in new york, not from him. it took several weeks, and the goading of men like Samuel adams, but the soldiers left the city 22 days after what was now being called the Boston massacre. Hutchinson had restored order and cooled tempers on, and following, the night of March 5th, as an effective leader should.   However, his indecisiveness in taking action to prevent other such incidents only further the distrust that so many of his contemporaries had for him. here was a man who carried on the legacy of upward nobility by succeeding in Commerce and public service, eventually assuming the governor's office. however, it's the legacy of his great great grandmother and that eluded him: one of an outspoken radical willing to make their voice heard, no matter what the cost. Thomas Hutchinson was well aware of the costs of such outspokeness, and his sense of duty to his station and the Crown would not allow him to step out of line. and he had a trial to prepare for, one that the entire city of boston, as well as the colonies as a whole, would closely watch. from here on out, Hutchinson's decisions would align him with British desires and earn him the moniker of “loyalist.” 

Join us for our next episode as we remain in Boston to explore the other side of key events such as the Stamp Act and Boston Massacre, but also examine the Boston Tea Party by taking more of a “Patriot” viewpoint.  We will look at these and more through the eyes of Samuel Adams, the ultimate Patriot politician.