Further, in contextualizing Baltimore's rise within the nineteenth century one historian noted, “for 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.” Indeed, Hanson's country estate upbringing placed his sympathies squarely within the Potomac mindset—a mindset that believed in an American republic led by a “speaking aristocracy in the face of a silent democracy.”1

Dry Wood and Matches: Transformations
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 Hanson's paranoia and Baltimore's passionate response.  

City Politics
Within the government itself a major shift occurred as the older generation of Revolutionary leaders retired and the first “American” 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.

Political Actors
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. “I was right in saying I am neither federalist nor antifederalist; that I am of neither party, nor yet a trimmer between parties.”2 Though acknowledging the existence of factions as part of human nature, Madison also worried about their harmful influence upon government. Historically, republic's had been short lived and overthrown by conspiracies. Understanding dissent to be conspiratorial by nature, they distrusted any and all forms of it—especially 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.

Top

The Press
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 abuse. To this end, they argued that “the liberty of the press... should... be totally at the devotion of the... friends of the people.”3 Therefore, if the press did not uphold this noble task and instead attacked government leaders, Federalist leaders believed they had the duty to censor it.

Press Figures
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 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 “the 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.”5 Their increasingly volatile editorializing contributed to the passion of the public sphere.

Hanson's Press
Particularly, the vitriolic rhetoric pouring forth from Hanson's Federal Republican and the violent public response underscores the real limits to the public sphere's 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.

1 Frank A. Cassell, “The Great Baltimore Riot of 1812,” 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 Jeffrey L. Pasley, The Tyranny of Printers: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 176.

5 Pasley, The Tyranny of Printers, 13.