While I am continually amazed at Tufts’ ability to escape detection or punishment, I soon realized that he uses many recurring devices to flee confinement or potential harm. One of these “tools” that Tufts regularly employs is alcohol. Just as earlier he had used rum to obtain Molly Occut’s medical secrets, Tufts also frequently provides his captors with alcohol in order to trick them out of their aim to catch him. For example, when apprehended by Captain Joseph Thomas and Robert Bryant, Tufts supplies them with a great quantity of liquor to numb their punitive intentions: “Riding a few miles we called in at Ray’s tavern in Gilmanton, where I treated my keepers so profusely with spirits, that both became excessively mellow” (139). Because liquor seems so available to Tufts, even during situations when we would not expect him to have access to alcohol, I became curious on the nature of alcoholic availability during the Revolutionary era. Among the different things I found, one of the more interesting facts in terms of our Johnson reading is that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson all brewed or distilled their own alcoholic beverages. The leaders of the country valued alcohol, and Tufts recognizes the various benefits to be had from creating a communal atmosphere of drinking fellows. Drinking alcohol, in this sense, is patriotic. Because political leaders, soldiers, and even many religious men frequently drank alcohol, Tufts’ ability to use this tool shows us how adaptive to various circumstances Tufts really is. Tufts can quickly use almost anything for his own purposes, regardless of the seeming futility or hilarity of his project. Thus, when needing a shirt, and coming across some women’s garments, Tufts undertakes to create his own shirts out of the material. Though he is caught, Tufts original intention is singular because he is able to use whatever he finds and manipulate it to his own gain. Thus, alcohol becomes another mechanism for Tufts’ advances—it was readily available and carried certain patriotic associations. In fact, there were many taverns during the American colonial and revolutionary periods. Almost every town had at least one. Thus, when Tufts claims that he frequently stopped by various taverns all across early America, we can actually trust that he is telling the truth for once! In light of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Native American’s growing dependence on alcohol, Tufts’ narrative gives us a close account of the status of drinking alcohol during the 18th century. Moreover, his use of alcohol as a tool indicates that for a conman, everything is a potential resource for furthering criminal intents.
Besides stealing for basic physical need, Tufts harbors another motive for theft, which he subtlety mentions in passing: “[…] we devoured as much of the honey as we could well gorge down, sweeter on account of the stealth” (153). The honey, superfluous as it is, represents for Tufts something of an addiction—he steals merely for the daring adrenaline of getting away with something illicit. For Tufts, while he does rob others in order to survive, the primary motive is love of the game; he steals because everything is sweeter if taken without much labor. In fact, Tufts strongly expresses disdain at physical toil, much as Burroughs was fain to become a common laborer. Thus, Tufts’ crimes become an outright profession. Instead of stealing occasionally, Tufts even creates chains of accomplices and stows away tools for enacting his crimes at a later date: “A number of the articles […] I confided to the keeping of confidential friends, of whom I had now a connected string, reaching from Newyork [sic], to the District of Maine; and from thence through Vermont to Canada line” (196). His forethought and planning in this manner illustrates that for him, stealing has become something more than a side interest—as a conman his entire life is now consumed with carrying out successful thefts. As such, Tufts creates an intricate chain of associates and tools, just like any successful business professional would do.
Of course, there is so much to talk about with Tufts. I just want to raise one question, though I know that there is no readily available answer to it: Who is to blame for Tufts’ crimes? Obviously, Tufts is himself complicit, but what about the people who let themselves be deceived? Who are his other accomplices he mentions? Do they have a role in Tufts’ culpability? Can we blame any of the American leaders for allowing their country to create a character like Tufts? In a criminal narrative, blame becomes difficult to assign—especially when the criminal is the “hero” of his own story. Perhaps we are partially to blame as well; we allow Tufts to occupy the role of hero in our imaginations and many times (at least in my case) fall victim to believing his assertions and applauding his ingenuity.
No comments:
Post a Comment