anson's goals with his newspaper could easily be summarized, as “attack the administration in any and every way; show that the Jeffersonians had sold out to France and were supporting Napoleon that the last hope of civilization, law, and order was old Mother England.”1 No claims to objectivity or a balanced perspective existed in Hanson's paper (or any other for that matter). Deeply resentful of Democratic-Republican political victories and popular support, Hanson's paper interpreted every sign in the political, social, and economic arenas as proving the treasonous nature of the party in power. Hanson, as a Federalist, believed that he “took a realistic view of human nature; and seeing men as they were... had no illusions that the millennium was at hand or that democracy would work.”2 Fearful of man's nature, Hanson distrusted the crowds of voters as well as the Democratic-Republicans they voted into office. Far from existing as a rational media, these fears placed his newspaper on the edge of irrationality and hysteria.

The Federal Republican: Basics
As a traditional political newspaper, the Federal Republican covered political events around the country, often reporting congressional speeches and debates verbatim. Satire, poetry, and patriotic speeches all joined together to express total faith in the Federalist cause. “As a party,” he proudly printed, “we stand upon the most elevated ground. Beside justice, honor, and everything else that can recommend a cause, Providence seems to be on our side.”3 While some have claimed that his paper remained the most influential of Federalists papers during the duration of its publication, it certainly can be debated how influential it really was in changing democratic opinions or attracting citizens to the Federalist side.4

Audience
While his paper was meant to rival Duane's Aurora, Hanson's erudition and disdain for the common man, interacted to produce an educated paper appealing only to Federalists of similar disposition. Significantly, Hanson's inability to write for the common man reveals the breakdown of the public sphere. Rather than discussing issues in hopes of achieving some form of public opinion, Federalists—as well as Democratic-Republicans—became more dedicated to their agenda. The result was a maelstrom of propaganda rather than useful dialogue.

Supported, whom?
Hanson's contribution to the maelstrom of print materials in the Early Republic came through positive affirmations of certain views as well as negative diatribes against others. On the positive end and revealing the radical nature of his sympathies, Hanson published extensively from the Hartford Convention. He further cheered their efforts by providing a celebratory narrative extolling the wisdom and dignity of the president of the convention, Daniel Webster and those who had assembled themselves. “Those who were so ignorant of the character of the good and venerable President of the Convention, and of the Delegates generally, as to expect rash and intemperate counsels to proceed from them, will find themselves disappointed. They have done nothing, we rejoice to see, impairing, in the slightest degree, the confidence of good men in the wisdom and discretion of their New England brethren.”5

Top

Attacked, whom?
In continuing to exalt the Federalist ideology, Hanson printed a list comparing Democratic Baltimore to Federalist Boston. Boston represented the city of freedom for expression, for legitimate rule while Baltimore represented a place where “the authority and laws give place to patriotic mobs.”6 He also continued to print a list of men who voted in favor of going to war. Called “A Spitting Register,” it was meant to draw attention to those who Hanson believed were contributing to the downfall of the U.S.7 Thus, paper and personality blended together not only making the public sphere one of passion, but also taxing its limits of peaceable restraint.

...The French
On the negative end, one of the first “paranoid themes” that jumps from the pages of the Federal Republican is Hanson's distrust, if not hated, for the French. Believing them to be secretly at work to overthrow the United States, every pro-French politician and statement was seen as traitorous.

Another report cited in his paper, noted that at the “County of Rockingham, at Brentwood, [a] meeting [was] held where a speech was given that 'traced our present calamities to their true cause, an hideous, dangerous and dreadful French Influence, winding itself into out councils and destroying our National Felicity.”8 In detailed retellings and republishing's of the events of the Baltimore Riot, accusations of French complicity were never far from the surface. “Such are the particulars of this atrocious and bloody affair... and a parallel to which is scarcely to be found in the annals of revolutionary France.”9 Embracing the increasingly popular medium of print, Hanson sought to employ every rhetorical method possible to either woo or worry inpiduals into the Federalist camp.

...Jefferson and Madison
Hanson's attitude towards Jefferson and Madison proved another subject which provoked hostility. Believing them to be pawns of the French, he accused them of following a course of “democracy” that would end in sure ruin. In his eyes, Madison had shown himself to be a “dupe, or perhaps worse, a supporter of Napoleon. What else... would explain Madison's willingness to war with Britain while he did nothing about the French who also had violated the rights of American commerce on the high sea?”10 Haranguing about the war effort directed by President Madison, Hanson argued “The destruction of liberty of the Press, which with our rulers appears to be, from the express avowal of some of them, a far less important enjoyment than the liberty of the seas, promised by Bonaparte, never was before made the general aim of the populace.”11 Hanson printed this even though Madison never prosecuted a printer during his presidencyóeven at the height of the war. Attempts to show deference or respect towards those in government or to analyze the situation “objectively,” were impossible for Hanson. His rhetoric thus piled accusation on accusation, encouraging not only his own distrust to accelerate to hysteria, but also unsettling those reading his paper.

...Madison, in particular
Hanson's derogatory attitude highlighted his distrust of the character of men leading during the Early Republic. “There is scarcely an act of tyranny and oppression complained of against George the Third which has not been committed by Jefferson and his political pimp... whiffling Jemmy.”12 He went further and in describing Madison's return to the White House after a brief reprieve at Montpellier, wrote, “His Pegmean Highness has arrived at the Palace from Montpelier. Last evening a Cabinet Council was held. This morning the court press issued the hand-bill below. The unwillingness of his Democratic Majesty, and his people, to give up his Imperial Ally is extreme.”13 Such a distrustful view of Madison encouraged him to use his paper to continually question Madison's authority as president. Hanson even printed an article that stated that a number of Maryland citizens wanted Madison to resign for his ill handling of the government. “We understand conditions are to be set on foot immediately in some of the counties of Maryland respectfully soliciting Mr. Madison to abdicate the chair of State. This is no hoax. Many of the people of Maryland, we believe a large majority, consider Mr. Madison as the mere tool of Bonaparte, and as completely identified with him.”14 Such was the level of distrust that the print medium lost its traditional reliance upon rational discourse.

Top

Disdain for "Masses"
One reason Hanson so strongly wanted to publish his newspaper in Baltimore was because of his disdain for the growing immigrant class overwhelming much of the city's industry and communities. Known for their xenophobia, Hanson adopted this Federalist trait. He viewed the Baltimore Democrat-Republicans as “mostly European rabble out to pervert the true principles of the Constitution.”15 Assuming a basic presupposition that many in the Early Republic held, Hanson believed European immigrants fleeing countries with totalitarian rulers would not understand the republican principles of the Constitution and thus would undermine its authority. In reporting on the treasury, the Federal Republican opined, “it is some consolation to the natives, amidst all their distress, dishonor and bankruptcy, the treasury has been beggared by foreigners. It is by foreign renegradoes that our elections are decided. It was for the protection of foreign fugitives and deserters that war is said to have been declared. And it is by raising foreign adventurers to the head of the treasury, that the money has all disappeared and the credit of the government has sunk too low to be raised again.” In summary, he asks his readers, “When our elections are decided by foreigners, and the government is managed by foreigners, is it at all surprising that we have no national character?”16 Paranoid Federalists warned that the current support for war against Britain came from Irish immigrants who had escaped the English rule in their homeland and now wanted to continue to fight from American soil.17

When discussing the Baltimore mob that mounted the attack in July of 1812, Hanson openly revealed his disdain. “Well grounded suspicion, however, has both been slow in designating the monster in Baltimore, whose corruption, profligacy, and jabonical hearts, were well suited to place such orders from his superiors, in a train of execution... ”18 Xenophobia and disdain for the lower classes, led Hanson to believe that Baltimore's immigrant population was actively seeking to undermine the Constitution and use the United States merely as a bunker from which to attack Britain or as informants inviting a French invasion. He believed that only rule by an educated elite would be the only sure method of keeping the U.S. a virtuous republic. Hanson's already passionate nature became even more infused with ardor to protect the republic. 

Another expression of distrust: The Washington Benevolent Society
Another mark of the distrust between the factions within the Early Republic, which produced a lack of rational discourse and a tendency to subvert the “dangerous” faction, was the Federalist establishment of the Washington Benevolent Society. The Maryland chapter of this national political club was quite influential, and as usual Hanson inserted himself in the middle, becoming Baltimore chapter president. The institution existed publicly as a humanitarian organization to educate underprivileged young boys. In reality, led by prominent Federalists in Baltimore, it provided money and pamphlets to organize Federalists across the state (and across the nation). While fraternal organizations had first began under the Jeffersonians, with the most popular and effective being the Tammany Society, in 1800 a group of Federalists in Alexandria started the society known as the Washington Society of Alexandria.19 From this organization the Washington Benevolent Society was born, an organization that eventually spread across Maryland and the states. An early experiment in party organization, its main weakness lay in its secretiveness, which bespoke the tremendous distrust and paranoia gripping the public sphere.20

Feverish Wooing of the “Disdained” Masses
Along with the establishment of these clubs, Federalists slowly began adopting tactics associated with Jeffersonian electioneering techniques. Public meetings, barbecues, and political holidays began to assume more importance. As well, they began emphasizing the need for supporters to get out and vote. “In Maryland a Federalist newspaper wrote, 'Federalists of Maryland, remember your duty! Don't you stay at home folding your arms, and yawing, with a segar in your hands, in sloth and lethargy, while the jacobins are cutting up your stage and casting it piece-meal to be devoured by the blood-hounds of their faction! No! Exert yourselves, each, as if you had your plantation and negroes at stake.'”21

Part of this push caused them to provide horses and carriages for the public. “They deliberately tried to create popular oriented vote-seeking political organizations which might defeat Jefferson with his own weapons. The younger Federalists successfully established these party organizations in at least ten states. They sponsored partisan newspapers and secret political societies on an unprecedented scale, and borrowed Jeffersonian electioneering techniques, rhetoric, and issues for their own elitist purposes.”22

Top

In Sum: Distrust on all sides
The most important thing to note with these increased activities was the distrust that the Federalists and Democrats held for one another and their growing box of tricks used to try and elect the “true” protectors of the Constitution. The fact that the Washington Benevolent Society often met in secret to decide and plan “public” meetings, created and strong hierarchy within the Federalist camp and once again reinforced intolerance of others views and political rights.23 The public sphere rather than being that arena of dialogue which produced a consensus of public opinion, represented a stage whereby previously determined acts aimed at producing the desirable previously determined end.

Significance
Hanson's paper not only marked Federalist entrance into the newspaper realm, but the virulence of partisan thought during the early nineteenth century. David Hackett Fischer noted that “never, not even in the heyday of Pulitzer and Hearst, were American papers as scurrilous and irresponsible as in the young republic.”24 Rather than engaging in rational discourse or symbolic resistance, the rhetoric flying between partisan groups within Baltimore created more tensions. Any type of interaction occurring within the public sphere was not within the classical rational tradition.

In fact, as the Federalists became more active in Baltimore they experienced more aggression against them, and some started carrying weapons. “The armaments, the growing record of political violence, and the high passions of both Federalists and Republicans created an extremely dangerous situation, one that could explode at any moment.”25  Baltimore democrats did not respond well to such tensions. While it is important to note Hanson's violent rhetoric which in many ways brought upon himself and his party much deserved wrath, at the same time, the response of the city reveals that neither sidewas really operating within a rational medium of communication concerned to protect universal rights, forge public opinion, or encourage the existence of legitimate dissent.

Top

2 John C. Miller, Crisis in Freedom: The Alien and Seditions Act (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1952), 15.

3 Schauinger, “Alexander Contee Hanson,” 361.

4 Before the riot, Hanson was not the most popular Federalist, even among Federalists. Many thought him bombastic and cranky and a poor reflection on the face-lift many were trying to give to the Federalists. After the riot, however, most personality issues were laid aside in an effort to utilize the atrocity for political gain.

5 Alexander Contee Hanson, ed., Federal Republican and Daily Gazette, Vol. 6, No 849, August 3, 1812-December 30, 1814. Early American Newspapers, American Antiquarian Society, Micro Film 514, Reel 1. Vol. IX, January 25, 1815, No. 1191.

6 Federal Republican, Vol. IX, January 13, 1815, No. 1188.

7 Federal Republican, Vol. VI, August 10, 1812, No. 850.

8 Federal Republican, January 7, No. 1181, Vol. IX.

9 Federal Republican, Vol. VIII, June 10, 1814, No. 1128.

10 Federal Republican, Vol. VI, August 28 1812, No. 858.

11 “An exact and authentic narrative, of the events which took place in Baltimore, on the 27th and 28th of July last. Carefully collected from some of the sufferers and eyewitnesses. To which is added a narrative of Mr. John Thomson, one of the unfortunate sufferers, ...” from: American Memory: The Capital and the Bay: Narratives of Washington and the Chesapeake Bay Region, ca. 1600-1925, Washington D.C.

12 Frank A. Cassell, “The Great Baltimore Riot of 1812,” Maryland Historical Magazine 70.3 (1975): 244.

13 Federal Republican, Vol. 6, No 849.

14 Schauinger, “Alexander Contee Hanson,” 355.

15 Federal Republican, Vol. VIII June 3, 1814, No. 1126.

16 Federal Republican, Vol. VIII  June 14, 1814, No. 1129.

17 Federal Republican, January 20, 1815, Vol. IX, No. 1190

18 Cassell, “The Great Baltimore Riot of 1812,” 247.

19 Federal Republican, January 6, Vol. IX, No 1180

20 Cassell, “The Great Baltimore Riot of 1812,” 244.

21 Federal Republican and Daily Gazette, August 3, 1812-December 30, 1814.

22 David Hackett Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservativism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jacksonian Democracy (New York: Harper and Row Publishers: 1965), 111-114.

23 Cassell, “The Great Baltimore Riot of 1812,” 243.

24 Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservativism, 108.

25 Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservativism, xviii-ix.

26A good example of the attitude of this society, comes from this speech excerpt given at a meeting of the Washington Benevolent Society in Massachusetts: An Oration delivered before the Washington Benevolent Society of Massachusetts, on the 30th day of April 1813 being the anniversary of the first Inauguration of President Washington, by, Josiah Quincy. “Assembled in the name of Washington, we enquire of his spirit concerning our duties. In his life and writings, by precept and by example his spirit responds: 'Sons of Washington! Be faithful to your country!' We held to the venerated influence and devote this hour, to what is true and what is useful to be known, concerning the condition and prospects of our country. Over these heavy clouds hang. It is a solemn scene; and not time to collect flowers of fancy or to indulge in sports of the intellect—May the spirit of Washington rest upon us! May it invigorate our thought.” Alexander C. Hanson, Federal Republican, Vol. VII  May 13, 1813, No. 970.

27 Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservativism, 148.

28 Cassell, “The Baltimore Riot of 1812,” 243.

Top