lexander Contee Hanson, the Federal Republican, and the Baltimore Riot prove particularly apt sources for analyzing the nature of the public sphere during the Early Republic. The juxtaposition of traditional ìenemiesîósuch as Federalists with their reliance upon traditions of deferential political elections and Democratic-Republicans with their reliance upon new political methods, such as the pressónot only makes this story particularly colorful, but also a natural point for synthesizing pergent streams of history. The Federal Republican marks the entrance of the Federalists into the newly burgeoning realm where rhetoric began to court popular support. Further, in contextualizing Baltimoreís rise within the nineteenth century one historian noted, ìfor decades the Potomac region and Baltimore, two distinct civilizations within the boundaries of Maryland, had struggled figuratively for dominance. That struggle was not to become more literal. The battle of Charles Street and its aftermath was much more than a conflict between two political factions: it was a confrontation between two cultures, between two ideologies, and between two styles of social organization.î Indeed, Hansonís country estate upbringing placed his sympathies squarely within the Potomac mindsetóa mindset that believed in an American republic led by a ìspeaking aristocracy in the face of a silent democracy.î1

Yet, politics in Baltimore was experiencing a transformation that emphasized popular representation and participation. A strong Democratic-Republican stronghold, while it was not impossible for Federalists to win elections, it proved far from the norm. Hanson reacted to the increasing Democratic dominance by establishing the Federal Republican. Thus confrontation of two cultures met at 45 Charles Street. Understanding the political, economic, and social contexts within Baltimore explain Hansonís paranoia and Baltimoreís passionate response. Within the government itself a major shift occurred as the older generation of Revolutionary leaders retired and the first ìAmericanî generation began assuming responsibility for the success of the Republic. Significantly during this period, older politicians viewed factions and parties with extreme distrust. Envisioning parties as the hotbeds of revolutionaries and the environs of the treasonous, very few from the old political world supported their existence. Yet, the political arena was far from faction-free. This inability to accept dissent as legitimate created a culture of crisis. Each group claimed it was the true representation of republicanism and the real heirs of the Revolution. Jefferson like Washington before him claimed to above parties. ìI was right in saying I am neither federalist nor antifederalist; that I am of neither party, nor yet a trimmer between parties.î2 Though acknowledging the existence of factions as part of human nature, Madison also worried about their harmful influence upon government. Historically, republicís had been short lived and overthrown by conspiracies. Understanding dissent to be conspiratorial by nature, they distrusted any and all forms of itóespecially those disseminated through print. Further, believing the world to be watching and waiting for their downfall, they felt special concern to try and prove them wrong.

This distrust of factions encouraged a censorious attitude towards the press. Federalists believed the press to be the guardian of liberty. Educating the people to their Constitutional rights, it provided a means of unifying the nation against all forms of abuse. To this end, they argued that ìthe liberty of the pressÖshouldÖ.be totally at the devotion of the Öfriends of the people.î3 Therefore, if the press did not uphold this noble task and instead attacked government leaders, Federalist leaders believed they had the duty to censor the press. Slowly, from the 1790s to the 1820s the traditional print culture began to be challenged by such editors as Benjamin Franklin Bache and William Duane in the Aurora, who introduced a new type of volatile newspaper politics. William Duane, editor of the Aurora in Philadelphia transformed both politics and political culture through his paper. He challenged the Federalist gentlemanly ideal by using his name to publish and to address issues.

He challenged every type of character assassination and embarrassment that the Federalists tried to bring against him. He became popular, well known, and an important person in politics and publishing.4 Jeffrey Pasley has argued that ìthe central role of the newspaper in nineteenth century politics made newspaper editors the most pivotal and characteristic political figures of the era, if not necessarily the most respected or best remembered today.î5

heir increasingly volatile editorializing contributed to the passion of the public sphere. Particularly, the vitriolic rhetoric pouring forth from Hansonís Federal Republican and the violent public response underscores the real limits to the public sphereís ability to sustain rational discourse between oppositions. The depths of distrust and animosity expressed through newspapers reveals that the print world was not a rational medium, nor one that always encouraged rational discourse or the emergence of public opinion.

Socially and culturally Baltimore was expanding. With an influx of immigrants from those of Scotch-Irish origin to French came new competition over jobs and city expansion. The population expanded widely, doubling in the period 1800 to 1820.6 The number of free blacks jumped radically, from just 3,771 in 1800 to 10, 047 in 1820.7 Religious differences abounded as city records note the existence of Episcopalians, Catholics, Presbyterians, First German Reformed, Quaker, and Methodist.8 Further, the hostilities between France, England, and the United States continued to create unrest as embargos and impressments stifled the maritime industry of the port city. As well, in the public sphere, where information was exchanged and debated, transitions from an oral culture dependent upon spoken rhetoric to a more print centered culture began to occur.9 Newspapers, such as the Federal Republican or the democratically led, Whig, began emerging and the debates that previously had been restricted to those few men of letters, now engulfed the crowds in the taverns and city square. The consensus and homogeneity previously enjoyed by the inhabitants of Baltimore was crumbling and the tensions that emerged erupted against Hanson. One historian noted about the period, ìbut there is no period in American history in which fundamental change proceeded with greater power, speed, and effect than in this most obscure of periods.î10 Rising tensions meant that the public sphere was even less equipped to forge consensus, restrain passion and resolve disputes. While Baltimoreís growing urbanization and political unrest contextualize its eruption into chaos, analyzing Hanson and his Federal Republican contributes to our understanding of the existence of streams of paranoia and passion in the public sphere. Analyzing Hansonís paper, his involvement in the Washington Benevolent Society, and the 1812 riot underscores the heated nature of politics during the war of 1812 and the very limited nature of rhetoric within the public sphere.

1 Frank A. Cassell, ìThe Great Baltimore Riot of 1812,î Maryland Magazine of History (70.3: 1975 ), 247.

2 Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (Berkley: University of California Press, 1969), 123.

3 Bernard Bailyn and John B. Hench, The Press and the American Revolution (Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1980), 75.

4 Pasley, The Tyranny of Printers,176.

5 Jeffrey Pasley, The Tyranny of Printers: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001), 13.

6 Baltimore Cityís population in 1800 was 20,900. In 1820 it numbered 47, 602. From: Whitman H. Ridgway, Community Leadership in Maryland, 1790-1840: A Comparative Analysis of Power in Society (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 210.

7 Ridgway, Community Leadership in Maryland, 211.

8 Ridgway, Community Leadership in Maryland, 234-35.

9 Patricia Crain, The Story of A, 4.

10 David Hackett Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservatives.