Emotional and Sectional Conflict in the Antebellum United States by Michael E. Woods

Author:Michael E. Woods [Woods]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Published: 2014-06-26T16:00:00+00:00

Indignation Meetings in Antebellum Political Culture

Collective indignation enjoyed additional political might when expressed in a so-called indignation meeting. Since the colonial era,41 indignation meetings had formalized the public expression of emotion in a ritual consistent with ideals of representative democracy and local self-government. They attracted foreign attention as quintessentially American venues for grassroots political activity. Swedish traveler Fredrika Bremer admired Americans’ eagerness to express political opinions and noted that they held “indignation meetings” whenever they wished “to express their strong disapprobation either of public men or of public transactions.” Bremer commended this habit: “It is always admirable with what readiness, with what savoir faire this people advances onward in self-government, and how determinedly and rapidly it proceeds from ‘proposed’ to ‘resolved.’”42 Of course, the goal of the indignation meeting was not only to express emotion, but also to achieve tangible results – to “devis[e] means to correct an alleged or real public abuse.”43 Antebellum indignation meetings thus served two purposes. They ritualized the articulation of politically relevant feelings, and they channeled shared emotions into practical, collective responses to diverse “public abuses.”

Newspaper records reveal that Americans held thousands of indignation meetings between 1830 and 1900.44 Their frequency and the diverse circumstances under which they convened suggest that the meetings offered an attractive means to achieve political goals. The meetings were typically called by a mayor or other prominent townsperson – they almost always met in cities or towns – and newspapers often advertised the time and location. At the appointed hour, attendees, who could number in the dozens or the thousands, gathered in a public space, often a church, town hall, theater, or town square. They normally selected a president and secretary and appointed a committee to draft resolutions. Local notables such as lawyers, clergymen, or elected officials gave speeches condemning the public outrage that had provoked the meeting. Speakers roused listeners’ ire, but also expressed their own indignation and a desire to share in the existing outrage. Rather than demagogic manipulation, this oratory reflected Americans’ propensity to “mingle” their “indignation with those of [their] fellow-citizens.”45

This sense of shared outrage intensified when meeting attendees passed resolutions introduced either by an individual (usually an officer or speaker) or a committee. Most meetings passed multiple resolutions which together served three purposes: to communicate moral censure, plan a concrete response, and publicize the gathering. Typically, the opening resolutions expressed indignation, often described as universal, alongside other emotions, such as sympathy with a victim, sorrow over the perfidy of an elected official, or astonishment at the state of public affairs. Indignant citizens in New London, Connecticut, met shortly after a sailor’s alcohol-related death to protest the sale of liquor. Their resolutions expressed sympathy with “that class of men who are exposed to all the dangers of the sea” and “abhorence [sic] and indignation” against purveyors of demon rum.46 Subsequent resolutions usually outlined plans for resolving the problem. These could include voting offending politicians out of office, writing letters to representatives, seeking redress in court, or raising money.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.