"At Once Judge, Jury, and Executioner": Debating "Mob Rule" and Democracy in Philadelphia, 1838

Before the creation of a police department in Philadelphia, rioting and riot-prevention were both largely the province of the people. Acknowledging this aspect of their civil society, Philadelphians who desired a more ordered public life sought resources in the posse and other private police. The people were expected to police themselves which, in a slave republic, meant in practice restricting African Americans’ access to public space. For black assembly, with other whites especially, always carried the risk that local whites would respond with “mob justice.” And the city could do little to stop riotous violence once underway. The state militia normally took a day, possibly longer, to arrive. The volunteer militia was hardly an impartial force, its ranks filled with partisan local men. Thus when white Philadelphians in 1838 burned down an abolitionist meeting place because interracial coed groups met there to discuss a subversive cause, city elites blamed unruly outsiders who had unwisely agitated local passions.

In this paper I will address the riotous destruction of Pennsylvania Hall in 1838 to track how black and white Philadelphians understood differently the law, the riot, and the police—the latter encompassing part-time constables and magistrates, as well as the desire for ordered liberty. Despite significant disagreement over who was to blame, most popular and official commentary at the time could agree on the virtues of local democratic self-rule and liberal institutions. How to secure public order was another matter. White Philadelphians opposed the public assembly of abolitionists, and on some occasions blacks, as disorderly. Black Philadelphians appealed to the supremacy of the law; but to stop the mob, like white elites they desired a more powerful state. Enter the wish for municipal police. My paper engages this surprising history of American police power and its roots in riotous political culture.