The War of 1812

by Donald R Hickey

  About 4:00 a.m., as Barney was mediating between the two groups, a fieldpiece was pulled down a nearby alley and brought to bear on the house. Hovering about the cannon was Thomas Wilson, the editor of the Baltimore Sun, who one witness said “appeared almost deranged.”73 Declaring that he would not give up the attack on the Federalists “until he had off all their damn’d heads,” Wilson encouraged his compatriots to fire the cannon. “We must have blood for blood,” he cried. “The civil authority shall not protect these tory murderers: We will not be satisfied till we put them to death.”74 Barney’s resolute intervention, however, prevented the cannon from being fired.

  About 6:00 a.m. the crowd swelled to 1,500 or 2,000 as waking people from other parts of the city heard of the disturbance and gathered at the scene. Mayor Johnson, General Stricker, and other officials also arrived. When one of the Federalist defenders asked Stricker where his troops were, the brigadier replied that they were in the street. City officials tried to persuade the Federalists (who numbered about two dozen) to surrender into protective custody, promising to protect their persons and property if they did. Hanson denounced this suggestion, claiming that city officials were duty-bound to disperse the mob and questioning whether they could protect the Federalists anyway.75 “We should take care what we are about,” he said; “we are negotiating with our enemies, or at all events not with our friends.”76

  General Lee was inclined to accept the official promises at face value, and most of the other defenders, weary from the long night of fighting and fearing worse if they hesitated, favored capitulation, too. Although Hanson remained skeptical, he had little choice but to go along with the majority. Stricker assembled a hollow square of militia to guard the officials and Federalists as they marched to the county jail a mile away. The mob hurled cobblestones at the formation, hitting one Federalist in the face and almost toppling another, but eventually all the defenders were lodged in the jail.77

  Assault on the County Jail

  Part of the mob lingered in Charles Street and, quickly betraying official promises, sacked or destroyed almost everything in the house. Other people prowled through the jail yard and talked of revenge. Fearing that the jail might be forced, several Federalists tried to make bail for the defendants, but city officials thought they would be safer in custody. The inmates sought permission to arm, but this request was denied. A large body of militia was called out, but only forty or fifty, mostly Federalists, showed up. Some stayed away because Stricker had reportedly ordered the use of blank cartridges, but most simply would not turn out to protect “tories.”78

  In the early afternoon the Whig appeared with an inflammatory editorial. Calling the Federalists “murderous traitors,” the paper said that the Charles Street garrison should have been leveled and those inside put to death.79 Mayor Johnson read this “with great anguish and disapprobation” and tried to ensure calm by promising that the Federalists would not be allowed to escape or go free on bail.80 Many people appeared satisfied with this pledge and headed for home. As the ranks of the crowd thinned, city officials dismissed the militia in the hope of convincing people that the trouble was over.81

  After dinner, however, the crowd at the jail grew in size and unruliness. As darkness closed in, a laborer named George Wooleslager arrived with thirty or forty toughs from Fell’s Point. Addressing his comrades, Wooleslager exclaimed: “where are those murdering scoundrels who have come . . . and slaughtered our citizens in cold blood! in that gaol my boys; we must have them out; blood cries for blood!” When the mayor tried to calm them, one of the rioters retorted: “you damn’d scoundrel don’t we feed you, and is it not your duty to head and lead us on to take vengeance for the murders committed.”82

  Pushing Johnson and other officials aside, Wooleslager led the mob in a bid to batter down the jail door, when it was opened from within, apparently by the turnkey. The mob rushed in, dismantled the inner doors, and gained access to the room housing the Federalists. As the mob poured in, the Federalists doused the lights, hoping to escape in the confusion. About half managed to lose themselves in the crowd, but the rest were captured as they were pointed out by a butcher named John Mumma, who could identify them because he had visited the jail earlier in the day.83

  According to a report later issued by the Federalist Maryland House of Delegates, “a scene of horror and murder ensued, which for its barbarity has no parallel in the history of the American people, and no equal but in the massacres of Paris.”84 Nine of the Federalists—including Hanson and Lee—were severely beaten and deposited in a heap in front of the jail. Over the next three hours, they were repeatedly beaten. When they showed no signs of life, they were stabbed with penknives and hot candle wax was dropped into their eyes to determine if they were alive.85 Women who were present reportedly cried out, “Kill the tories,” while children exulted “at the awful scene, clapping their hands and skipping for joy.”86 One of the victims, Brigadier General James M. Lingan, pleaded for mercy, citing his Revolutionary War record, his advanced age, and the needs of his large family, but his pleas were ignored. Amid cries of “Tory,” he was stabbed in the chest and died several hours later.87

  When the mob grew weary of torturing the Federalists, one of the rioters proposed a Revolutionary War song, the chorus of which ran:

  We’ll feather and tar ev’ry d----d British tory,

  And that is the way for American glory.88

  The rioters next considered what to do with their victims, most of whom no longer showed any signs of life. Some wanted to pitch them into the jail sewer or nearby Jones Falls; others thought they should be tarred and feathered or castrated; still others suggested that their bodies be donated to science. At this point, several Republican doctors intervened and, pleading the needs of science, secured custody over the bodies. The victims were carried back into the jail, where their wounds were dressed.89 The doctors were assisted by the butcher Mumma, who remarked that the victims “had been beat enough to satisfy the devil.”90

  Meanwhile, three other Federalists taken from the jail were also beaten. Hanson’s brother-in-law, Daniel Murray, played dead, but a stick was run down his throat to revive him. He later escaped with the help of a rioter who thought “there should be fair play.”91 Another victim, John Thomson, was a big man whose size invited no such mercy. After being beaten into submission in front of the jail, he was stripped, tarred and feathered, and dumped into a cart. As the cart was pulled through town, he was beaten with clubs and stabbed with old rusty swords. One assailant tried to gouge his eyes, another to break his legs with an iron bar. When Thomson feigned unconsciousness, his coat of feathers was set on fire. There was talk of hanging him, but he was spared when he agreed to give the names of his comrades.92

  Throughout the night liquor flowed freely, and the mood of the mob was ferocious. One eyewitness said: “All I have ever read of the French [Revolution] does not equal what I saw and heard last night. Such expressions as these were current—‘We’ll root out the damn’d tories.’ ‘We’ll drink their blood.’ ‘We’ll eat their hearts.’”93 A number of Republican officials, including the mayor and sheriff, tried to stay the fury of the mob, but others refused to help. Congressman Alexander McKim was asked to use his influence, but he declined.94 Tobias E. Stansbury, a brigadier in the militia and a former speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, also refused to help, asserting that “he would not protect tories, and that he regretted that the house in Charles-street was not battered to the ground, and the persons in there buried in the ruins.”95 Stricker shirked his duty, too. At home when he heard the jail had been forced, he retired to his parlor, leaving orders that he was not to be disturbed. When roused from his bed by an angry Federalist, he said that he was tired, that his family needed his protection, and that it was “improbable . . . that any of the prisoners were alive.”96

  After the violence had subsided, friends and officials helped the victims slip out of town.97 The toll was heavy: Lingan lay dead and elev
en others were injured. Hanson had suffered internal injuries, a broken nose and finger, wounds to his head and hands, and damage to his spinal cord and collarbones. Although he remained politically active, he never recovered from his injuries, and he died in 1819 at the age of thirty-three.98 Lee never recovered either. He too had suffered extensive internal injuries as well as head and face wounds. Shortly after the riots, a friend described him “as black as a negro, his Head cut to pieces.”99 Lee’s face remained swollen for months after the riots, and it was said that he was barely recognizable and that even his speech was affected. He later sailed to the West Indies, hoping to recover his health, but remained an invalid until his death in 1818.100

  Brigadier General John Stricker (1758–1825) was head of the city’s militia during the Baltimore riots of 1812. Although no friend of mob violence, he was reluctant to get involved or to employ militia against his fellow Republicans. Two years later, when the British threatened Baltimore, Stricker distinguished himself in the Battle of North Point. (Portrait by Rembrandt Peale. Wikimedia Commons)

  The Third Riot: The Post Office Threatened

  Even with his injuries, Hanson managed to publish his newspaper again in early August, and for a third time it caused rioting in Baltimore. The first issue, with its columns draped appropriately in black, was printed in Georgetown on August 3 and shipped to its Baltimore subscribers by mail. When the papers arrived at the post office, a mob gathered and threatened to pull the building down to get at them. The postmaster, Charles Burrall—a Federalist of the old school who wore his hair in a powdered queue—sent an express to Washington asking for federal protection, but his request was denied. Although President Madison conceded that the post office was “under the sanction of the U.S.,” he doubted that “any defensive measures, were within the Executive sphere.”101 Mayor Johnson tried to persuade Burrall to send the newspapers back to Georgetown, but the postmaster insisted that all subscribers were legally entitled to the newspaper and that the post office must be defended.102

  The militia was called out, but there was considerable opposition in the ranks to protecting the paper. Johnson tried to convince the troops that they had been summoned to protect the post office rather than the newspaper. When one of the soldiers protested that “our country is at war, and we will shed our blood to put down all opposition to it,” the mayor replied that the Federal Republican should never again be published in Baltimore and that he himself “would draw his sword against its re-establishment.”103 At this point, some of the troops charged the mob and easily dispersed it. For almost a week thereafter, however, the city was said to be “much disturbed,” and local officials had to place a guard at the post office and proclaim a curfew.104

  Bitter Aftermath

  Although the Baltimore riots were as savage as any that had yet occurred in American history, no one was punished for taking part. A grand jury indicted Lewis, Wilson, Wooleslager, Mumma, and others on various charges, but the state attorney general repeatedly declared that they would never be convicted. In fact, only one man was found guilty, and he escaped with a small fine.105 A member of the jury later declared “that the affray originated with them tories, and that they all ought to have been killed, and that he would rather starve than find a verdict of guilty against any of the rioters.”106 Hanson and his associates were also brought to trial, charged with manslaughter in the death of Gale. They retained the state’s top Federalist lawyers—Luther Martin, Robert Goodloe Harper, and Philip Barton Key—and secured a change of venue to Annapolis, a Federalist city. There the jury acquitted them without leaving its box.107

  The Baltimore riots left a legacy of fear among Federalists in the city—a fear that was fed by continued intolerance. Apparently unrepentant, many Republicans justified the violence or blamed it on the victims. With such a spirit afoot, some Federalists found it prudent to leave town. Those who remained no longer spoke out on the issues.108 “We were fearful of muttering our sentiments,” said one, “lest we in turn might be attacked.”109 Most no longer read the Federal Republican because they were afraid to pick it up at the post office, and postmen would not deliver it.110 Republican violence had effectively silenced Federalism in the city, winning a victory on behalf of national unity for the war effort.

  The riots left a bitter legacy in Maryland politics. All across the state the violence was condemned, and a voter backlash gave the Federalists control of the House of Delegates.111 A House committee investigated the riots and issued a report highly critical of city officials.112 In a separate report, the committee criticized Tobias Stansbury, who was a member of the House, for uttering “violent and inflammatory expressions, intended and calculated to excite the Mob to break the gaol, and to murder Mr. Hanson and his friends.” Stansbury vehemently denied these charges, claiming that “that puppy Alexander Hanson was at the bottom of the whole proceeding.”113 One of the victims of the riots moved that Stansbury be committed to jail by warrant of the speaker to be tried as an accessory to murder. Calmer heads prevailed, however, and the House defeated the motion.114

  The effects of the riots were felt far beyond Maryland. In their town and county meetings and in their newspapers as well, Federalists everywhere denounced the violence, comparing it to the worst excesses of the French Revolution. The Newport Mercury called Baltimore the “Paris of America,” and the Pittsburgh Gazette said that “the cruelty and barbarity” displayed by the mob was “unexampled in the annals of any civilized country, France excepted.”115 A Boston town meeting expressed fear that the rioting was “a prelude to the dissolution of all free government, and the establishment of a reign of terror.”116 The Hartford Courant claimed that the violence revealed the true purpose of the war. “We now see, written in bloody characters, by what means disaffection must cease. The war, pretendedly for the freedom of the seas, is valiantly waged against the freedom of the press.”117

  The Courant exaggerated, but not by much. Republican mobs drove the Savannah American Patriot out of business and assaulted the editor of the Norristown (Pennsylvania) Herald. Federalist editors in other towns in the middle and southern states complained that they were warned to change their tune or risk a similar fate.118 In a number of states, Republican postmasters held up Federalist newspapers, and in New Jersey, there was violence against Federalists at the polls.119 In Buffalo, a Federalist hotel was demolished, and in Savannah a ship that had traded with Spanish Florida was burned.120 An opponent of the war was dragged from his house and beaten in New Hampshire, and in Virginia one Federalist was tarred and feathered because he “had offended the militia,” and another was threatened with the same fate because he “had exerted himself to suppress the mob.”121

  Republican leaders found this violence embarrassing and accused Federalists of misrepresenting the facts, particularly in connection with the Baltimore riots. Niles’ Register claimed that Federalists had hired people to travel through Maryland to spread “horrible falsehoods,” and Joseph Story insisted that Federalists in New England were circulating “false and exaggerated rumors” to inflame sectional animosity and pave the way for secession.122 A Republican meeting in Maryland accused Federalists of seeking “to convert the Baltimore atrocities into an electioneering engine,” and a Pennsylvania Republican reported that “ten thousand copies of a narrative of the late disturbances in Baltimore . . . will be distributed thro this State & Jersey.”123 To counter Federalist propaganda, the Baltimore City Council issued a report on the riots that discreetly avoided using the word mob and exonerated city officials. President Madison welcomed this report, calling it “a seasonable antidote to the misrepresentations” of those who blamed the violence “on the friends of true liberty.”124

  Republicans also tried to counter the bad publicity by blaming the violence on the Federalists. Those who expressed opinions obnoxious to the people, said the Maryland Republican, “must abide by the consequences.” By arming themselves instead of seeking civil protection, said the New York Columbian,
the Federalists in Baltimore were “guilty of a murderous intent, and [of] wilfully exciting the popular vengeance.” “The truth is,” added another Republican, “there would have been no disturbance if those men had not armed themselves, without the least cause.”125

  Republican newspapers also tried to show that Federalists in New England were equally guilty of violence. Various examples were presented—the roughing up of a Republican congressman in Massachusetts, the destruction of privateers in New Haven and Providence, the closing down of a Massachusetts court, and the mobbing of an army recruiting party in Connecticut.126 One Republican paper claimed that “more than two thirds of the mobs and riots that have taken place in our country, since the Constitution has been adopted, have proceeded from the federal or tory party,” and another insisted that “in principle” Federalist violence was no different from the Baltimore riots.127 Although there was some merit in these claims, the Baltimore violence was so vicious and brutal and had such a chilling effect on freedom of speech that it was in a class by itself.

  The Price of Suppressing Dissent

  The violence in 1812 showed that, like the Federalists in 1798, the Republicans were reluctant to tolerate opposition to their war policy. In 1798 the Federalists had resorted to a sedition law to silence their foes, and some Republicans in 1812 wanted to revive this policy. Judge Joseph Story and Attorney General William Pinkney both urged the adoption of a sedition law, and other Republicans joined in the cry.128 “Offenders, conspirators, and traitors are enabled to carry on their purposes almost without check,” complained Story. Congress must “give the Judicial Courts of the United States power to punish all crimes and offences against the Government, as at common law.”129 Madison, however, demurred. Unlike most wartime presidents, he had a healthy respect for the civil rights of his domestic foes. Republican mobs, on the other hand, had their own way of suppressing dissent, and the result was a chilling message for all who opposed the war.130