Update: The term "Miller Excitement" had another meaning too, i.e., the Second Coming of Christ, prophesied for 1840. One has to assume that the citizens of Stamford had a certain sense of humor.
Collecting information about the Grand Union Hotel that was located on Main Street, I came across this hilarious story in Picturesque Stamford, 1892 (Historical Sketch, Chapter X.)
[...] A profound and singular excitement – originating from an apparently inadequate cause – marked the closing months of 1842 and the early part of 1843 – indeed, its disturbing effects upon the social and even political life of the village did not disappear for two or three years. It is known in the recollection of many of our older citizens of to-day as the “Miller Excitement.” It appears that one Charles F. Miller and Martha E. Blackwell were married in Yonkers, N.Y., in 1834. In 1842 the young wife, then 25 years of age, came to seek, as she alleged, release from a husband who, if we are to trust the contemporary expressions of the Advocate, was “as brutal and unfeeling wretch as ever bore the name of man,” and “as vile a monster as ever trod the path of crime.” The lady was young and handsome, and had awakened so much interest and so much warm sympathy among the young gentlemen of the town, that when her husband appeared in pursuit of her, engaging fleet of horses and flourishing a six-barreled pistol, he found insurmountable difficulty in carrying off the fair one. He goes off, yet only to return later with a coach and four and several companions, but the reluctant wife is secluded in New Canaan. She is not to be found, and he again retires baffled. At last, on the 25th January, 1843, he appears once more with coach and companions. Catching a glimpse of his wife in a window of the Stage House, he rushes up to her room and, seizing her in his arms, bears her off into the carriage, before anyone can interrupt him, and aided by one John Hamilton as driver, starts off at full speed towards New York. It is in evidence that she was carried screaming through the village without hood or cloak, and with disheveled hair, vainly appealing for the help which nobody could render her while she was carried along at break-neck speed. The villagers had by this time been divided into two distinct parties, Miller and anti-Miller. The former held that the husband had a right to his wife – that she was no better than she ought to be, etc. The anti-Millerites threw themselves body and soul into the fight, and no political campaign had ever so bitterly divided the sentiment of the community. The episode of January 25 naturally excited these contending feelings to the highest pitch. Curses both loud and deep were heard at every street corner, and the question was acrimoniously debated at almost every breakfast table in the village. It affected, more or less, the proceedings of of almost every lodge meeting, every social assembly, every political caucus, and even the churches were not wholly undisturbed by its influence. The Millerites attacked Albert Seely, who had been a conspicuous anti-Miller champion, by organizing a joint stock company to build a new and finer hotel opposite the Stage House. This was the origin of the present Grand Union Hotel.
by 1892 named Grand Union Hotel
The project took shape during the year, being obviously stimulated by the broadsides of sarcasm and ridicule poured into it in every issue of the Advocate by editor Holly. May 15 he says: “Now, by the powers, the work goes bravely on – we mean the new hotel – three shares sold last week, one to Philander Daskam to be paid for in root beer, one in oysters, and one in clams for a bake at the first annual meeting of the stockholders.” The raising of the big building was a time of excitement in the village. Much partisan curiosity was felt to see if Thomas P. Dixon, the master builder, would put in an appearance, as it was known that Albert Seely was after him with a warrant. When the time came, Dixon was seen in almost inaccessible places giving his directions to the workmen through a big tin trumpet. Thus he managed to elude capture, and the work went on. The “dedication dinner” occurred in the house May 17, 1844, on which occasion all the leading Millerites, who were also for the most part Locofoco1 leaders, enjoyed their hour of triumph with a big banquet. The divorce case was in the legislature in the spring of 1843, and was the subject of high debate, ending in a vote of 135 to 31 granting the divorce. Mrs. Ann S. Stevens, the well known novel writer, wrote articles in in favor of Miller. Editor Holly says: “Mrs. S. did not gain many laurels in lending her pen to foister up Miller’s scandalous conduct towards an innocent and greatly injured female.” Finally, June 15, ’43, he says: “We dismiss the subject from our columns hoping she (Mrs. Miller) may be permitted to repose unmolested by the spirit of persecution and malevolence to which she has for a long time been subjected, and that the excitement created among us may settle down into quiet harmony, and the former general good feeling that existed before the embers were fanned into a flame by a paltry interloper into our society for base political effect.” Approaching the 4th of July celebration of that year, the editor congratulates his readers that “the demon which has of late engendered unhappy contention and divisions in society is for the time being securely chained, and with all the subtlety and strength he will not get loose again until we have quietly passed over commemorating the event that secured to us the right of thought, liberty of speech and the freedom of the press." After the celebration, however, he seems to be surprised that “nothing occurred during the day to disturb the most sensitive feeling on the subject of politics, religion, temperance, etc. – everything passed off in accordance with the example set by our patriotic forefathers on the annual return of the day when was sent forth the fiat to the Lion of Europe – Liberty or Death!”
However, he need not have feared:
[...] The year of 1844 was in a variety of ways a marked one in the village calendar. Following hard on the “Miller Excitement,” and partly stimulated and intensified by that particular episode, and the political ebullition of the Clay-Polk campaign, which here as elsewhere was fought out with a bitterness and determination on both sides perhaps unparalleled in the history of Presidential elections before or since.
As to the Millerites and anti-Millerites, the competition seems to have continued: the Seely block was built, two adjoining stores with a third floor covering both,
[...] which was pronounced to be the most splendid ballroom in the county, and a hint thrown out that even New York would find it hard to match it [...] It was a notable building for the times [...] Put up by a noted anti-Millerite, it seemed to balance affairs on that side of the house in view of the imposing Union House, with its east and west towers, in whose completion, on the opposite side of the village street, the Millerite party was then rejoicing.
[...] The awakened spirit of progress continued active in village affairs during the following year (1845) [...] In March of that year, the village sage and editor congratulating records that the town “seems destined to go ahead even though a man has been Polk’d into the presidential chair by fraudulent votes.”
Nonetheless:
Recent Comments
Artist's Impression of Christmas Eve on Atlantic Street
Artist's View of Stamford Yacht Club from Pier
Stamford Urban Renewal, 1960s
Stamford Urban Renewal, 1960s