|
|
|
 ith
the advent of war in 1812, Hanson's rhetoric became more irrationally
suspicious and accusatory, enraging many loyal Democratic-Republicans
across the city. Even some Federalists found Hanson's remarks distasteful.
Regardless of what the majority of Federalists thought or felt, Hanson's
criticisms became synonymous with Federalism in the city of Baltimore.
The resulting riot lasted for three days and terrorized more than just
Hanson. Breaking with previous patterns of limited damage or focused reaction,
this riot truly represented the strains of irrationality alive in the
early national period.1
The “True” Nature of the
Public Sphere
Once again, the riot reveals the tenuous nature of Baltimore's public
sphere. It challenged the traditional ideas of utilizing the public sphere
as a means of working with the authorities as well as traditional practice
of showing deference to those such as past Revolutionary War heroes. The
rhetoric that surrounded the riot and then that followed it revealed the
breakdown of rational means of discourse in resolving and forging public
consensus.
Violence in America: The Tradition
The radical response of the masses in the riot marked a turning point
in Early American public violence. Though riots were not a new phenomenon
in America or England, the 1812 riot broke with the typical patterns of
previous riots. Paul Gilje titled earlier riot practices as part of a
long standing “Anglo-American mob tradition.” This tradition
recognized mob action as “quasi-legitimate,” stepping in where
the law failed the community. While the community took the law into their
own hands in these situations, the unspoken goal was always the “good
of the community.”2
The anger of the mob was traditionally turned on property, not people,
as a way of meeting out punishment to the offending party. A ritual emerged
between the mob and the leadership that allowed each to fulfill their
purposes without risking loss of authority for the officials or frustrating
the aggrieved community. The authority would not try to stop the crowd
if it would listen and disburse when the leadership felt the proper amount
of damage had been done. The way the elite controlled them was through
“talking the mob down.”3 Most importantly, “the Anglo-American mob
tradition thrived in small scale pre-industrial communities where contacts
between all levels of society were fluid and where social relations were
marked by deference and personal recognition.”4
Top
Violence in America: The Break with Tradition
While the first mob action against Hanson (the destruction of his printing
press) fell into this category, the second did not. The unleashed passion
that ran wild for three days creating chaos and destruction across the
city in 1812 marked a transition in urban American life—a tradition
that became too oft repeated in the antebellum period with its tensions
over slavery, state's rights, etc. While the previous use of mob action
could possibly fall within the bounds of discourse in the public sphere,
the riot of 1812 moved beyond the rational and beyond the discursive.
The Reasoning behind Understanding the 1812 Riot as a
“Breakdown”
It is easy to think of riots in modern terms with crazed crowds looting,
destroying, defying authority, and requiring large amounts of force to
calm. Many times riots are associated with labor disputes or with racial
and religious intolerance. However, Americans in the Early Republic were
just beginning to realize these issues. Riots that had historically taken
place till 1812, had reacted to a different set of tensions, had operated
within more homogenous communities, and had produced different levels
of violence.
...Aimed at Persons, Not Property
While the original action of 30-40 men taking apart the Federalist
Republican printing office was aimed at Hanson's property and
thus done in the spirit of “traditional restraint,” the anger
of the mob outside of the house on Charles Street was aimed at Hanson
and his men. While taking down the original press the mob reportedly had
said to the Mayor, “Mr. Johnson, I know you very well, no body wants
to hurt you; but the laws of the land must sleep, and the laws of nature
and reason prevail; that house is the temple of Infamy, it is supported
with English gold, and it must and shall come down to the ground!”
Here the bounds of deference were respected and thus the authority did
allow the “law to sleep.” This guided attack on property was
a symbolic calling to account of Hanson, whom they felt had gotten out
of hand and yet could or would not be stopped by the authorities.
The second riot was intent upon inflicting harm on men, not objects.
Significantly, this personal harm was done under the guise of Revolutionary
War rhetoric. Hanson and his men represented Tories and so therefore should
be killed. Such a frenzy of passion had consumed the crowd that past and
present mingled to create a horrific situation.
...Aimed against Authorities
Further, in the Charles Street Riot there was a breakdown of social control,
as the elite could not reason with the mob. While it remains doubtful
as to the true sincerity of the authorities to even want to stop the riot
at first, when they finally began to realize the evil—designs of
the crowd, they were unable to disperse the mob.5
In fact, many of the militia were among those in the crowd and would not
respond to the calls of their officers. In a marked departure from the
narrow goals of previous mob activities, rioters and looters sacked the
Charles Street house in a disorganized and uncontrolled manner. The previous
riot had found the mob systematically taking down the printing press as
a means of stopping its content.6
Nothing reasonable or rational led the second mob forward. The social
respect and deference previously a part of this tradition totally broke
apart. “His [Mayor Johnson's] personal authority meant little
to the rioters and in a perverse sense of democracy, they viewed him as
a mere hireling, dependent upon them for his very sustenance and duty
bound to lead them in their wild depredations. This separation of personal
and political authority left the mayor helpless.”
...Aimed against Traditional Hierarchical Deference
Patterns
Still himself operating under this tradition of deference, one of the
leaders of Hanson's group, General Lingan tried to appeal to the crowd
on the basis of his deferential position. A hero from the Revolutionary
War, Lingan believed that his position would cause the crowd to stop its
heartless attack. As the Federal Republican reported, “He
reminded them that he had fought for their liberties throughout the revolutionary
war, that he was old, infirm, and that he had a large and helpless family
dependent on him for support.”7
Top
1812 as a Benchmark
As horrible as the events themselves were, Paul Gilje argues that “the
Baltimore riots of 1812 are an important benchmark in the history of American
popular disorder because they suggest the outlines of a new trend of rioting
in which the larger community was pided into warring factions of competing
sub-communities and because they presage the intense racial, ethnic, and
class conflicts of Jacksonian America.” As well, with the inability
of old social ties to work as constraints, “the mob denied all paternalistic
authority and asserted a new, purely democratic order of society.”8 This assertion of democratic values—greater
popular participation in politics—shocked the Federalists wed to
the concept of republican virtuous rule. The conversations in society
and in government thus grew more tense as competing ideas of proper governance
moved out of the gentleman's parlor, even off the printed page and
into the streets.
Irrational Rhetoric following Irrational Actions
The aftermath of the riot produced dramatic rhetoric from the Federal
Republican, as well as from other Federalist and Democratic—Republican
printers. While fixating upon liberation language, in reality the dialogues
surrounding the riot led further away from any type of discursive “liberating”
public sphere. Hanson's obvious distrust of and disdain for the opposing
faction expressed through the content of his publication only served to
further pide Baltimore and to harden the factional lines of disagreement.
Though he preached loudly about the liberty of the press, it is quite
clear that Hanson's idea of liberty was not unfettered expression,
but rather expression that supported and protected his understanding of
the republic. Hanson made special use of the riot events.
Rhetorical flourishes poured forth from his paper emphasizing the atrocity
that had been committed against him and his men. For weeks, stories were
gathered from onlookers and eyewitness accounts given from those who were
providentially spared from death. “[T]hough they never could have
anticipated being delivered over to the executioner, through the inhuman
treachery of the civil authorities,” Hanson writes, they stood their
ground as noble men defending the principles of the Declaration of Independence
and of freedom in general.9 Placing himself and his men in the role of true
defenders of freedom, Hanson only further alienated those who would, while
not condoning the riot, disagree with his political beliefs.
Top
Rituals and Paranoia
Further alienation occurred as Federalists across the country also used
the event as a rallying cry to unity and more ardent efforts at recovering
control of the government. Within Maryland and Virginia countless meetings
were held in honor of the event, from which resolutions emerged that condemned
the authorities for their inactivity and the Democrats for their ill actions.
Approaching the event with all sobriety, rituals emerged to commemorate
the event and further remind the citizens of this wavering nation of the
necessity for vigilance. In Montgomery County the Federalists “Resolved,
That we recommend to the citizens of Montgomery county to wear crape on
the left arm for the space of thirty days.”10
Meetings in Georgetown (where Hanson moved the Federal Republican)
issued stinging condemnations of the authorities of Baltimore as “too
timid or unwilling to punish.” Casting doubt upon the legitimacy
of Baltimore officials they “consider[ed] the freedom of speech,
and of the press (at once the peculiar privilege of freemen, and the best
support of freedom) as dreadfully endangered by the lawless violence of
a Mob, as by the force of a despotic power.”11
Loudoun County, Virginia, Anne Arundel in Maryland (home of Hanson), Somerset,
and others also held meetings whose minutes were printed in the Federalist.
Hanson saw to it that the horrors of the riot remained before the public's
mind as long as possible.
Press and Paranoia
Often printing responses from others Hanson noted, “The multiplied
subscriptions which flow upon us at the present time, serve to demonstrate
the general interest felt in the support of our paper and decided approbation
of its principles. Many of them avow this in terms of elegance and animation,
which deserves to be recorded.”12 The rhetoric which had sparked
the riot, thus contributed to keeping it alive before the public's
mind reminding them of the failings of the Democratic-Republicans and
the necessity of returning to the true guardians of the Republic, the
Federalists. Hanson's rhetoric thus juxtaposed the “rational”
language of liberty while encouraging paranoia of opposition that led
to spontaneous acts of irrational violence.
Top
Eulogies and Paranoia
This dual theme of rationality and paranoia also emerged at Lingan's
funeral and in the liturgies read in his honor. In Federalist eyes, this
event marked the true barbarity of democracy. It also confirmed their
declarations that the Democratic authorities were not the true defenders
of the Constitution, for what legitimate authority could allow such horror
to go unchecked for three whole days?
In making such assertions, the Federalist's continually referred
back to the “glory days” of the Founding. “By what standard
of patriotism shall we try our Lingan? Shall we try him by the standard
of modern patriots; mushrooms of yesterday, who have grown up from the
soil, first fattened by the blood of heroes: or rather, shall we try him
by the illustrious standard of seventy-six?”13
The standard of seventy-six, thus became the ideal that only Federalists
could restore to political life. “I well remember the good old federal
times,” opined a eulogist at Lingan's funeral, “when the
father of his country, blest with his virtues our rising empire. Then
was the majesty of the laws supreme; then was the liberty of the press
inviolate; and sure, if ever there was a time, when its licentiousness
required a curb, it was when its slanders were aimed at the reputation
of the First of Men!”14 The rhetoric of the rational
defenders of liberty served to further increased tensions by accusing
the rioters of representing Democratic-Republican politics.
Politics and Paranoia
While many rallied behind Hanson, even electing him to the House of Representatives
the next season, the government was not so hasty to clear him of any wrongdoing.
Further, other newspapers and democratic organs questioned the integrity
of Hanson. Hanson quickly published a list of questions for his readers
with his justification for his defense on 45 Charles Street. Excerpts
from a Boston newspaper were also printed in the Federalist Republican,
which detailed the existence of others who expressed animosity against
those who voiced concern at the riot. “While no mention was made
of this late horrible massacre... a severe commentary was issued in that
paper against the spirited address of a republican magistrate of New-York,
because he expressed his abhorrence of mobs.”15 Any statements
against the Federal Republican were immediately deemed as supporting
the mob. The public sphere, meant to be a sphere of discourse where society
could gather to form public opinion and influence government hung in shambles
after the riot. The rhetoric that argued in favor of the liberty of the
press, translated into aggravating challenges that further widened the
distrust between factions.
Top
Connections: The Revolution, the Riot, and
the Rest
The Baltiumore Riot positioned as it was during the War of 1812 offers
historians a unique opportunity to analyze the nature of the public sphere
during the transitional period of the Early Republic. The British attack
on American supremacy returned American rhetoric to founding discourses
complete with deifications of heroes and total distrust of dissenters.
While many legacies from the Revolution dominated wartime rhetoric, at
the same time new patterns of communication and political relationships
were emerging. Baltimore' s growing urbanization, increasing immigration,
economics tensions over jobs and shipping problems due to impressments
and the war created an environment of intense distrust and suspicion.
Further, the clashing of attitudes and ideas about the structure
of society and the nature of government contributed to a breakdown of
traditional patterns of deference and paternalism. The insistence of the
urban population to become more involved in political life unsettled hierarchically
minded leaders. While dissent and opposing views were pouring forth from
those pided into the Federalist and the Democratic—Republican camps,
any acceptance of dissent as legitimate or acceptable were beyond the
grasp of the majority of those involved in politics. Deemed as eventually
leading towards treason and anarchy, all factions were viewed as harmful.
Thus, in the issues facing Baltimore, rhetoric could not accommodate
two sides as legitimately representative of genuine political views. For
each, the other represented foreign influence and dangerous subversive
elements. In the minds of some, a Constitutional crises was occurring—the
Republic was on the edge of collapsing. While this appears outlandish
to modern ears, those living during such turbulent times truly doubted
the success of the United States. And when the British came walking into
Washington D.C., those who had resisted the war all along, truly believed
their worst fears had materialized. Tensions increased as neither faction
was “comfortable with the idea of permanent opposition as a part
of government.” At the same time, “neither could...
successfully engineer majoritarian reprisals against the opposition.”16 Such a standoff
taxed and exhausted the rational tools within the public sphere and eventually
passion ruled in the form of the Baltimore mob.
Top
In Conclusion: Rationality?
Many have a tendency to view the Early Republic as a period characterized
by “rational discourse” as gentlemen argued over the proper
relationship of government and liberty. Even rituals of dissent—such
as parades, or July 4th celebrations—contained an inherent logic
that pushed for further liberties to be extended to common American citizens.
However, moving from this period to the turbulence of Antebellum America
can appear confusing as all of a sudden peaceful homogeneity in cities
and towns breaks apart on issues from slavery to renter' s rights
to Indian removal. Known for being an era of inflamed passions and pided
interests, the Antebellum years witnessed a rise in mob action, peaking
in 1834—5 as riot after riot swept through the states. As tensions
increased in urbanizing cities, as racial issues became more important,
and as government appeared to become more captive to deadlock, groups
asserted their feelings extra-legally. The Baltimore Riot is significant
because of its ability to reveal the nature of the public sphere and then
to connect the sphere' s strains of violence in the Early Republic
with that during the antebellum period.
A Pattern Emerges
The tendency is to categorize the Baltimore Riot as a strange blip. However,
far from a blip, the Baltimore Riot of 1812 represents a current of American
irrationality which responds to stress and change by sudden passionate
outbreaks. Seeing the Baltimore Riot as part of a trend locates Antebellum
violence within a tradition of active citizen rebellion. The close connection
between the print culture and the riots also reveals the real limitations
of “rational discourse” in the growing public sphere.
...In Print
The press in the early nineteenth century held an important place in the
public sphere. Part of that reverenced code of freedoms the liberty of
the press was a celebrated part of American Nationalism. The press
furthered conversations of the nature of America' s past, present,
and future. Alexander C. Hanson's Federal Republican entered
the burgeoning city of Baltimore as mouthpiece aimed at wining this democratic
stronghold. However, rather than seeing the press as part of a larger
market place of ideas being rationally debated by a community, early America
viewed the press as responsible to protect society through virtuous enlightenment.
These ideas crashed in Baltimore, and rather than protecting men contributed
to their downfall. In asserting that the riot of 1812 reveals the real
limits to rational discourse, intolerance of dissent, and depths of animosity
existing between factions within the Early republic, this paper argues
that life in the Early Republic was no where near calm or secure.
...In Life
The period of the early nineteenth century was tremendously chaotic and
contradictory in political terms. Riots, boycotts, plot of secession,
and secret treaties with Britain, all created a very disorganized country.
Rather than seeing the Early Republic as a period of rational discourse
disrupted in the 1820s by issues such as slavery, farmer's rights,
and anti-renter protests, it is crucial to observe the elements of irrationality
already existent in America. When one sees the press as more of
a rhetorical tool rather than a medium of rational discourse, the increasing
eruptions during the antebellum period become more clearly understood.
The strong censorship therefore, that emerged further into the nineteenth
century, represents patterns of societal violence rather than strange
and isolated incidents. America's foray into democracy meant uncertainty
about methods of controlling discourse.
...In Breakdowns of Tolerance
With the breakdown of a deferential society and the assertion of increased
popular political participation, the role of law, authority, and communal
interactions were blurred. The nineteenth century's attempt to find
a new balance led many times to extremes—such as the abolitionist
printer Elijah Lovejoy's death. The censorship of mail, such as occurred
in Charlotte, South Carolina with abolitionist papers, harkens back to
the censorship exercised over Hanson's paper. While a public sphere
existed in American public life, its function in producing consensus or
of impacting politics remains contested and complex. Far from being an
era governed by pure rationality, the public sphere of the Early Republic
was marked by complexity. The fury of the riot on that summer day in July
of 1812 represents the nature of the public sphere as filled with competing
passions, paranoia's, and irrationalities that strenuously challenged
reliance.
Top
1 Though
beyond the scope of this paper, there is a very interesting array of sources
relating to the interpretation of riots and this riot in particular. My
research falls within the historiography that sees this riot as breaking
with the Anglo-American mob tradition as explained by Paul Gilije in his
works, “The Baltimore Riot of 1812 and the Breakdown of the Anglo-American
Mob Tradition,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 13.4 (1980):
547-64. While I would disagree with Gilje argument for the rationality
of mob movements in American history in his work, Rioting in America,
his argument for the transitional nature of the Baltimore riot is important.
Norman Rosenburg's Protecting the Best Men and John C. Nerone's
Violence against the Press: Policing the Public Sphere in U.S. History
favor the argument that the 1812 riot was an extension of the Revolutionary
riots that used collective action to police the community. For
an overview of the riots that followed 1812 Michael Feldberg's Turbulent
Era: Riot and Disorder in Jacksonian America, contains a good analysis
of the nature of rioting in the nineteenth century.
2 Gilje, “The
Baltimore Riot of 1812 and the Breakdown of the Anglo-American Mob Tradition,”
Maryland Historical Magazine 13.4 (1980): 547.
3 Gilje, “The Baltimore Riot of 1812 and
the Breakdown of the Anglo-American Mob Tradition,” 548.
4 Gilje, “The Baltimore Riot of 1812 and
the Breakdown of the Anglo-American Mob Tradition,” 547.
5 There is a whole detailed storyline that could
be traced which reveals the continual desire of the authorities to ignore
the problem at first and then to deal with it as little as possible when
it became beyond ignoring. One example would be the fact that while the
militia was called out, they were told to march to the riot site with
unloaded muskets.
6 Gilje, “The
Baltimore Riot of 1812 and the Breakdown of the Anglo-American Mob Tradition,”
548-99.
7 “An exact and
authentic narrative,” from: American
Memory: The Capital and the Bay: Narratives of Washington and the Chesapeake
Bay Region, ca. 1600-1925,
Washington D.C., 28-9.
8 Gilje, “The Baltimore Riot of 1812 and
the Breakdown of the Aglo-American Mob Tradition,” 556-557.
9 “An exact and authentic narrative,”
63.
10 ìA portrait of the evils of democracy submitted
to the consideration of the people of Maryland,î American
Memory,American
Memory: The Capital and the Bay: Narratives of Washington and the Chesapeake
Bay Region, ca. 1600-1925, Washington D.C., 72.
11
“An exact and authentic narrative,” American Memory,
65-66.
12 Federal Republican, Vol. VI, Sept.
2 1812, No. 860.
13 “A portrait of the evils of democracy,”
American Memory, 95.
14
“A portrait of the evils of democracy,”
American Memory, 99.
15 “A portrait
of the evils of democracy,” American Memory, 64.
16 John C. Nerone, Violence against the
Press: Policing the Public Sphere in U.S. History. New York : Oxford
University Press, 1994. 71.
Top |
|
