"liberty tree", 1765, 1766 (antedating 1776)

[victor steinbok]

Thank you. I am a bit more liberal with deleting lines, as I will try
to reply only to a couple of specific points. I must apologize for not
including the links for the material found in GB--I did not want to
pollute the text with full links and I don't have bit.ly set up on
this computer. Nonetheless, I thought the quoted material should prove
sufficient to easily track down the physical sources if necessary.

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> Comments interspersed. Â I apologize for the total length of this
> message, but I didn't want to delete anything Victor wrote.
>
...
> American colonial "liberty poles" were different from trees. Â The
> Boston Liberty Tree was a living elm. Â (I would bet the Rhode Island
> tree was also.) Â See _Liberty and Freedom_, David Hackett Fischer
> (2005), Index, "liberty poles". Â "The symbolism of the Liberty Pole
> began with an ancient image that was familiar throughout the
> English-speaking world in the eighteenth century. Political cartoons
> ... commonly represented liberty as a Roman goddess of libertas ...
> She was distinguished from other Roman goddesses by the things she
> carries: a long wand called a vindicta in one hand ..." (p. 41; see also 6).

In this particular case, any complaints about the misstatement
concerning the poles should go to the OED--I can't be responsible for
the *content* of the quotation. FWIW I completely agree with your
point--the two should not be confounded. I don't have much to add on
this subject.

>>That's a rather odd statement, in my book, especially if Liberty Tree
>>and Tree of Liberty mean the same thing.
>
> In 1765 Boston the terms were used synonymously, referring concretely
> to the elm tree in the South End.

I noticed that as I went through the materials. Thank you. I did not
go back to correct this particular point. Interestingly, most of the
material I came across--especially British accounts of the
events--through 1870 or so, referred to the Liberty Tree as poplar.
You may notice from some of the other cites that they also identify
poplar as a popular Tree of Liberty from the French Revolution as
well. I will not claim any definitive knowledge on this account (elm
sounds better to me, but it's something on which I must defer).

...
>>Fourth Volumes, by the Editor of the Two Firsts. Printed for Samuel
>>Richardson; 1842, p. 191
...
>
> I don't see the relevance of an 1842 work to the 1765 tree and phrases.

Sorry, my typo. I'll defer to Robin on the 1740 edition--the copy I
was working with was from *1742*, not *1842*.

>>This is preceded--at least, as far as GB is concerned--by The
>>Craftsman No. 436, November 9, 1737.
>>
>>The Craftsman, [by] Caleb D'Anvers of Gray's Inn, Esq
>>[A series of letters] The Dissertation upon Parties, p. 62
>> >If Liberty is that delicious and wholesome Fruit, on which the
>> British Nation hath fed for so many Ages, and to which We owe our
>> Riches, our Strength, and all the Advantages We boast of ; the
>> British Constitution is the Tree, that bears this Fruit, and will
>> continue to bear it, as long as We are careful to fence it in, and
>> trench it round against the Beasts of the Field, and the Insects of the Earth.
>
> If one is concerned with the phrase "tree of liberty" -- as I, and I
> assume the OED, are -- and not a metaphorical association of the
> fruit of liberty with its tree (surely not an elm!), then the above
> paragraph is not an antedating -- it does not contain the phrase. Â At
> best, I suppose, it (or something perhaps much earlier) might receive
> a listing in square brackets.

I was not suggesting this for antedating the phrase proper, but it is,
I believe, a significant background quotation, especially if it almost
immediately precedes Richardson. But there is one more reason to cite
this. This volume of The Craftsman also contains an index--an index
that, by all accounts, appears contemporaneous and an integral part of
the volume. More so--the 1754 edition (the eighth) /also/ contains an
index and agrees with the original on this point: on p. 329 of the
index (p. 318 in the 8th edition) the entry reads "The tree of
liberty" and it squarely points to the page just cited. In fact,
without this index entry, it would have been virtually impossible to
find this reference. I am not, however, prepared to rely on an index
entry to make this case--nor do I need to.

>>The letters are anonymous--as is the publication of the entire set in
>>its /eighth/ edition in 1756, but, from external sources they are
>>identified with Henry St. John Bolingbroke.

Another sloppiness on my part--it's 1754, not 1756

>>Brewer blamed "the Tree of Liberty" on "American of the United States
>>... who planted poplars and other trees during the war of
>>independence" and "Jacobins". This is essentially what the OED has. No
>>word of metaphoric use, no mention that the phrase was used several
>>decades before the War of Independence.
>
> As I said above, the 1737 quote does not use the phrase "tree of liberty".

If I am not mistaken, this retort is based on the misdated Richardson
piece, which *does* use "the tree of liberty". There are /several/
editions of both works, in fact, that significantly pre-date the
Boston Liberty Tree. More importantly, the concept would have been
familiar to the well-educated colonials--note, in particular, the
language concerning the Newport tree (below).

...
> As I wrote above, the question for the OED is when the phrase "tree
> of liberty" can be found in print, not the history of the metaphor.

This is absolutely correct. However the metaphor itself *is* phrased
as "The Tree of Liberty"--my point is merely that the colonials took
it one step further and identified it with an actual tree to make a
point. They effectively /merged/ the two, which is what I see the
Carlysle quotation indicating.

>>And there can be no doubt, of course, that the infamous (and largely
>>abused) Jeffersonian expression relies on the metaphor that already
>>existed, rather than coining one based on the Boston Liberty Tree (or
>>its other colonial equivalents).
>
> I certainly can doubt it. Â The term "tree of liberty" was used as a
> literal reference to the Boston tree. Â I can suppose that Jefferson
> picked it up from there. Â And did not coin it.

Well, if you doubt it, I guess, it can be doubted. We may have to
disagree on this. I see the physical tree as a symbolic representation
of the Tree of Liberty, not vice versa. And the Tree of Liberty that
"must be refreshed" signifies Liberty proper, not any of its token
Trees--I am not familiar with any credible interpretation that
suggests otherwise. In fact, the only literal interpretation that I've
seen so far has come from posters of TEA protests last year. If you
have sources that require a literal interpretation of the Jeffersonian
quotation, I'd appreciate them--who knows, they might turn me into a
Republican.

>>Finally, the orations delivered at the dedications of the Liberty Tree
>>in Boston and Rhode Island had been published in Boston and
>>Providence, respectively, in 1766 and 1768 (assuming they are
>>distinct).
>
> I noted -- but I have not examined (no preview in Google, so no
> quotation is offered) -- the 1766 publication, since I do not have
> access to Early American Imprints from home. Â I believe there is only
> *one* "oration", and it refers to an "assembly" in Boston: Â _A
> discourse, addressed to the Sons of Liberty, at a solemn assembly,
> near Liberty-Tree, in Boston, February 14, 1766, by Sons of Liberty_
> (published in Providence).

This is interesting because the Silas Downer address is identified in
GB as "A discourse, delivered in Providence, in the colony of
Rhode-Island, upon the 25th. day of July, 1768: At the dedication of
the Tree of Liberty, from the summer house in the tree‎". Both had
been published in Providence, but I don't see how the two can be the
same. But there is no preview of /any/ of the multiple copies that are
listed for either address in GB. The Boston oration may well have been
printed in Providence, I really can't speak to that and I have no copy
to look at.

> This information is  from WorldCat, which of course is dependent on
> what the holding libraries send them. Â But I believe there is no
> other publication. Â ESTC notes "There exist three variant issues,
> with the place in title given as Providence, Boston, and Newport
> respectively. The caption title on p. [3] reads Providence in all
> three issues. Cf. Alden." Â I would not be surprised if the texts are
> identical, and the two Rhode Island placements were designed to
> arouse that colony to the fever of Massachusetts. Â But only one of
> the variants (Boston) is in EAI.. Â I suspect there is no single
> library holding both of the other two.
>
> I also had noted that there were a number of Google Books hits for
> 1768. Â They seemed less important given the closely preceding, and
> primary source, 1765/1766 instances.

I agree with some of this and disagree in small part. The Providence,
1768, piece is clearly based on the dedication of the Tree of Liberty
in Providence on August 5, 1768. But you don't have to take my word
for it--I have the citation just below. The Newport Tree of Liberty,
if the passage I cited earlier (and am leaving intact below) is to be
believed literally, was also a tree that was identified on August 27,
1765, and may well have been specifically identified by that name. The
effigies of August 14 in Boston and August 27 in Newport are what set
the pattern in the rest of the colonies and Trees of Liberty sprung
up, at least, in New York city, somewhere in New Jersey, somewhere
else in what is now New York State, in Maryland (location not
specified in sources I consulted), but not, apparently, in
Philadelphia or in what later became the South. There may well have
been trees dedicated in other locations, but, unlike those in France,
they had not been planted, but merely designated as Trees of Liberty
(some with plaques). I agree that investigating these sources would be
irrelevant to antedating the phrase, in the sense that they appeared
after 1765. However, they may well be important in settling a number
of other questions around this terminology. And since we are having a
clear disagreement about whether these are literal or symbolic
designations, it seems important to get the words of people who knew
/exactly/ what it was about--not the people who laid their hands on
the tree following the dedications (sort of the pre-Revolutionary
tea-partiers, I suppose) but from the people who provided the
rhetorical foundation, the Sons of Liberty.

Here's the direct account of the event in Providence.

Oxford Magazine, Or, University Museum. Calculated for General
Instruction and Amusement, on a Plan Entirely New. Volume I, 1768, p.
157

> /Providence, (New England) Aug 5/. On the se'ennight, at five in the afternoon, the time appointed for dedicating the great Elm-Tree, at Capt. Joseph Olney's in this town, to be a Tree of Liberty, there was a great concourse of very respectable people of this and the neighbouring towns, many coming a considerable distance out of the province of the Massachusetts-Bay, to assist on the occasion. An animated discourse was delivered from the Summer-House in the Tree, by a Son of Liberty, wherein was briefly pointed out the terms of colonization fo the first Planters of these colonies, a declaration of our rights, and a particular enumeration of our grievances, together with a designation of the means of redress. After which followed the ceremony of dedication, thus: The people in the summer-house laying their hands on the tree, the gentleman who gave the discourse pronounced these words aloud : "We do in the name and behalf of all the true Sons of Liberty, in America, Great-Br!
 itain, Ireland, Corsica, or wheresoever they may be dispersed throughout the world, dedicate and solemnly devote this Tree to be a TREE OF LIBERTY. May all our counsels and deliberations, under its venerable branches, be guided by wisdom, and directed for the support and maintenance of that Liberty, which our forefathers sought out and found under trees and in the wilderness : May it long flourish, and may the Sons of Liberty often repair hither, to confirm and strengthen each other. When they look towards this sacred Elm, may they be penetrated with a sense of their duty to themselves and their prosperity ; and may they, like the House of David, grow stronger and stronger, while their enemies, like the House of Saul, shall grow weaker and weaker. Amen."
==

I would like to get a hold of the papers, if no other reason, to
confirm that these were the words of Silas Downer.

> Again, I take the use of "tree of liberty" in the Newport document
> (below) as literal, as equivalent to "liberty tree". Â The 1875
> author, George C. Mason, equates the two.

Yes, he does. And, yes, there is a physical tree involved--at no point
did I suggest otherwise. I was suggesting something entirely
different. The trees had been thus named because of a pre-existing
metaphor. It is quite clear that the trees themselves are not what
gave birth to the metaphor, since the latter appeared--in
print!--three decades prior to the former even being conceived as an
idea. And the fact that the original Boston tree (in the South End)
was not initially named the Tree of Liberty, as such, also points to
the fact that the name was coined in correspondence with the broader
idea of liberty, not because that specific tree--or the one in
Newport--somehow symbolized Liberty. That identification took place
/after/ the name was given, not before. The tree itself, on the other
hand, served as a prop for the effigy, nothing more.

>>Newport Illustrated in a Series of Pen & Pencil Sketches, by George C.
>>Mason; Newport, RI: 1875.
>>p. 102
>>
>> > At the head of Thames Street stood the venerable Liberty Tree, a
>> memorial of the early resistance of Newport to British aggression.
>> The copper plate, with names of the thirteen who joined in its
>> restoration after the departure of the enemy, is still preserved.
>> > In 1766, Wm. Read, Esq., deeded to Wm. Ellery, John Collins,
>> Robert Cooke and Samuel Fowler, the Liberty Tree lot. The
>> instrument, drawn up by Henry Marchant, Esq., is to this effect:
>> > > [[Said lot and tree thereon, were conveyed to the grantees "in
>> trust, and for ever thereafter to be known by the name of the 'Tree
>> of Liberty,' to be set apart to, and for the use of, the Sons of
>> Liberty ; and that the same stand as a monument of the spirited and
>> noble opposition to the Stamp Act, in the year 1765, by the Sons of
>> Liberty in Newport, and throughout the continent of North America,
>> and to be considered as emblematical of Public Liberty taking deep
>> root in English America, of her strength and spreading protection,
>> of her against the attempts of tyranny and oppression. And
>> furthermore, the said Tree of Liberty is destined and set apart,
>> for exposing to public ingominy and reproach, all offenders against
>> the liberties of the country, and the abettors and approvers of
>> such as would enslave her. And, in general, said tree is hereby set
>> apart, for such other purposes as they, the true born Sons of
>> Liberty, shall, from time to time, from age to age, and in all tim!
>> Â es and ages hereafter, apprehend, judge and resolve, may subserve
>> the glorious cause of Public Liberty."]]

>>As the Stamp Act was enacted on March 22,
>
> The Stamp Act was to be effective in Massachusetts on November 1.
>
>>and
>>the initial riots occurred in August--with the effigy appearing on
>>August 14--
>
> The riots that vandalized the houses of Oliver and acting governor
> Hutchinson occurred the evening of March 13, after the Oliver effigy
> had been hun overnight on the 13th. Â See Fischer, pp. 20-22; or
> Wikipedia, "Andrew Oliver".

You do mean August 13th, do you not? I did not cite my sources for the
dates as I took them to be authoritative (20th century sources, not
the early ones)--I would certainly take them over Wiki, even today. If
you want, I shall track them down so that they can be compared. It
never occurred to me that this would be in dispute as I was merely
listing the dates as background material. Either way, this is a
relatively pointless disagreement where the main topic is concerned.

>>that leaves several months before the printed references to
>>the "Liberty Tree".
>
> The commissioning of Oliver as "Stamp Master" was surely later than
> the March enactment of the act in Britain. Â _A history of Boston: the
> metropolis of Massachusetts_, by Caleb Hopkins Snow (1828 -- close to
> the time for a non-contemporary historian), p. 258, implies that it
> took place in or after July. Â The Boston tree was adorned the night
> of August 13, so clearly it would not have been called the "Liberty
> Tree" before then.

>From what I have seen so far, it was not called "Liberty Tree" even
then, but was so named later. The contemporaneous published account of
August 17 makes no mention of "Liberty Tree", as you have confirmed in
your search. In fact, no mention of "Tree of Liberty" is made in print
until September and the flip version "Liberty Tree" does not appear
until later, according to the very sources you cited.

> A contemporary and historian, Thomas Hutchinson, uses the phrase
> "liberty tree", but he also wrote and was published in
> 1828. Â Hutchinson too uses both "liberty tree" and "tree of liberty",
> synonymously when speaking of Boston. Â (Once the "tree of liberty" is
> in Cambridge, in 1768, when Harvard students gathered under it and
> rebelled against the tutors. Â Hutchinson was, as acting governor, one
> of the Overseers.)
>
> Snow is interesting also because on pp. 264-265 he asserts that the
> name "Sons of Liberty" came from the speech by Barre: Â  "In the early
> part of December the Sons of Liberty (so those who espoused the
> popular side were called, adopting the appellation given them by Col.
> Barre on the floor of parliament) ..." Â This speech was reported in
> Boston on May 27, 1765, just 2 and 1/2 months before the Oliver
> effigies on the Boston Liberty Tree. Â See below.

Indeed, Barre was one of the few MPs who agreed to speak on defense of
the Colonies. Hutchison's post-factum account is of dubious use, given
that we insist on formal sources with verifiable dates. Hutchinson's
own house was destroyed on August 26, 1765, irrespectively of the
language he used in his memoirs. Still, I don't doubt his account--or
anyone else's--that the Boston Tree of Liberty and the Liberty Tree
are one and the same. repeating this admitted to fact does not affect
my argument in the slightest.

The other question I have now, is A. Oliver, Secretary of the House of
Representatives of Massachusetts-Bay Colonies, who signed the petition
from Massachusetts, the same A. Oliver who became the stamp agent and
whose effigy was subsequently burned? This adds an extra twist to the
affair, although it has no impact on the lexicographic details.

>>The Newport effigies were hanged and burned on
>>August 27 (Maryland had a similar event on August 29). And the
>>colonial press was /filled/ with anti-Stamp Act rhetoric from the date
>>of its enactment
>
> Not from its March enactment -- it would take at least 6 weeks, and
> probably several weeks longer, to get from enactment to the seals, to
> a suitable ship, to its sailing, to favorable winds out of the
> Channel (or a few days to a west country port), and across the
> Atlantic to Boston.

No, of course, not! I never meant to suggest otherwise--simple fact:
no telegraph ;-) But the idea of the stamp-act had been under
consideration in Parliament on-and-off for nearly two years. So it was
not a novelty. I came across an early 1766 column in an English
(domestic) publication that defended the colonists on the ground that
their petition against passing of the stamp-act was rejected by
Parliament because it had not conformed to a specific parliamentary
form for such a petition. In fact, there had been multiple
petitions--one from the New York Assembly, specifically addressing as
yet to be proposed stamp-act, dated from 18 October 1764, and one from
Massachusetts-Bay Colonies signed by "S. White, Speaker; A. Oliver,
Secretary" on 3 November 1764--I might be wrong on some of these
details, as I have no pretense to expertise in early American history,
merely reporting what I come across.

But consider this excerpt from the letter of the New York Assembly
agent reporting on his efforts in a letter dated 9 February 1765.

> "Upon this Judgement passed on them by Gentlemen of so great Abilities I would have rested the matter had I thought myself vested with any discretionary Powers over these Papers; I recurred therefore to further advice, and to divers members of the House of Commons' to know whether they would present the Petition to the House, as you know that is the rule that all Petitions (those from the City of London excepted.) must be presented by a Member, and here I was equally disappointed, every Gentleman desiring to be excused from so disagreeable a Task, and returning the papers with severe strictures on their extraordinary boldness, and the want of that due and accustomed respect at all times paid to the House of Commons, so that I began to doubt whether I should be able to find a member that would present your Petition.
> "In the mean time the Agents had a Meeting, who finding that the Stamp Duty would be unquestionably moved for an carried and being desirous to gain a little Time, it was proposed and agreed to, that four of them should wait on the Chancellor of the Exchaquer and propose that if he would name the Quantum intended to be levied by the Tax, and would apportion it amongst the Colonies, each Agent would recommend to his Constituents the raising the required sum in such manner as might best suit the circumstances of each Colony, but the result of this Deputation was that he questioned the authority of the Agents to make such a proposition, urged the difficulty of making the apportionment, and in fine said that he stood engaged Parliament to bring the matter before them.
> ...
> "The Chancellor of the Exchequer having given Notice that he would move the Stamp Duties on Wednesday the 6th. Instant, I had proposed that before the House should resolve itself in the Committee of Ways and Means the Petition of New York should be presented, that it might be under Consideration before the Committee had affirmed their Right to lay such duties ; so likewise Mr. Montague, Agent for Virginia had resolved, who had prepared according to his Instructions, a Petition asserting the exemption; but on that Day, the Gentleman who had your Petition, came to me in the Gallery of the House, and before Mr. Montague, and Mr. Garth, Agent for South Carolina, now member of Parliament for Devizes, returned the Petition to me, informing me that upon communicating it to Mr. Speaker, and having himself considered it with attention, he found it in many places so void of respect and decency toward the House, and so justly exceptionable, as must give great offense, and raise a gen!
 eral indignation in the House, that therefore he would not take upon him to present it, nor could Mr. Montague find a Member to present his Petition, through a very temperate one, and byt little liable to objection except that it asserted the claim of exemption; indeed as to your Petition, several even of the Agents have made no scruple of declaring their doubts that it was like to be of greater hurt, then service to the Interests of America."
===

If we add six weeks to that letter--and given that the final outcome
of the Parliamentary vote was 250-50--it was a predetermined
conclusion that the Stamp Act was going to pass and be authorized. The
only question was the date of enactment, and, assuming the average
time of travel for the day, the Colonies would have been aware of the
inevitable outcome shortly before the vote was taken. So, even though
one would not have expected the counter-propaganda to have been
/triggered/ by the enactment, it may have occurred around the same
date simply by coincidence--and a fact that the bill awaited the Royal
signature of approval for the amount of time approximately equal to
the time of travel between London and New York/Boston.

I somewhat misstated the dates earlier, following a false lead from a
source--in fact, the bill was passed by a vote of February 7, but
accepted by the King on March 22, which is, apparently, what the
source I consulted meant by "enactment".

In June of 1765, representative of the colonial Assemblies were to
meet in New York to discuss the situation /as a reaction to the
stamp-act/. Whether that event took place or not (I assume it did),
the events in Boston and Newport were the culmination of nearly five
months of activity. It was certainly not an immediate reaction to the
appointment of stamp distribution officials. So, truth be told, the
rhetoric easily could have been jacked up even as early as the date of
the bill's passage. And all the Colonies were determined to act,
although, apparently, no one was sure how. So the event in Boston were
somewhat spontaneous--in that they were probably not planned out in
detail--but, by the same token, well deliberated for a period of
months. Given access to the archives of such papers, it may be worth
the effort to analyze the publications I mentioned here for the
details leading up to the events of August.


>>... Newport
>>Mercury, Pennsylvania Journal, Boston Gazette and New York Gazette
>>were likely the most aggressive sources of anti-Stamp Act propaganda
>>from March to December of 1765.)
>
> I did not find any earlier use in newspapers of "tree of liberty"
> than the one I reported from Sept. 1756. Â Of the four papers
> mentioned above, three are contained in EAN; the Pennsylvania Gazette
> is not. Â Also, EAN does give us false negatives -- it did not give me
> the Sept. 1756 instance. Â So perhaps there is an earlier instance,
> although I think that is unlikely.

Nor did I suggest you would have. I referred to general sources on
liberty, not sources of literal expressions. And do you mean "Sept.
1765" here?

>>In any case, it is in this sense that the Sons of Liberty are related
>>to the Tree of Liberty--the Boston naming appears more accidental than
>>prescient.
>
> Not so....

I may return to the Sons of Liberty later--simply not enough time right now.

VS-)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org