HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/anarchy/essays/term/sedition.txt

Text File | 1996-04-27 | 14.6 KB | 213 lines

The Sedition Act of 1798

    For the first few years of Constitutional government, under the leadership of
George Washington, there was a unity, commonly called Federalism that even James
Madison (the future architect of the Republican Party) acknowledged in describing the
Republican form of government--  ô And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we
feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the
character of Federalists.ö  Although legislators had serious differences of opinions,
political unity was considered absolutely essential for the stability of the nation.
Political parties or factions were considered evil as  ôComplaints are everywhere
heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and
private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable,
that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are
too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party,
but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majorityàö  Public perception
of factions were related to British excesses and thought to be ôthe mortal diseases under
which popular governments have everywhere perished.ö
James Madison wrote in Federalist Papers #10, ôBy a faction, I understand a
number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are
united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the
rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.ö
He went on to explain that faction is part of human nature; ôthat the CAUSES of faction
cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its
EFFECTS.ö  The significant point Madison was to make in this essay was that the Union
was a safeguard against factions in that even if ôthe influence of factious leaders may
kindle a flame within their particular States, [they will be] unable to spread a general
conflagration through the other States.ö
What caused men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to defy tradition and
public perceptions against factions and build  an opposition party?  Did they finally agree
with Edmund BurkesÆ famous aphorism: ôWhen bad men combine, the good must
associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle?ö
Did the answer lie in their opposition with the agenda of Alexander Hamilton and the
increases of power both to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch of
government?
Hamilton pushed for The Bank of the United States, a large standing Army raised
by the President (Congress was to raise and support armies,) a Department of Navy,
funding and excise taxes, and, in foreign policy, a neutrality that was sympathetic to
British interest to the detriment of France.  Many legislators, especially those in the south,
were alarmed to the point that a separation of the Union was suggested as the only way to
deal with HamiltonÆs successes.  Many were afraid that the army would be used against
them as it had during the Whiskey Rebellion.  Southerners saw the taxes to support a new
treasury loan favoring ôpro-British merchants in the commercial cities,ö and unfairly paid
by landowners in the South.  These issues as well as neutrality issues between France,
England, and the United States were the catalyst for the forming of the Republican Party.
The French and English conflict caused many problems with AmericaÆs political
system.  The English ôOrder of Councilö and the French ôMilan Decreeö wreaked havoc
with AmericaÆs shipping and led to JayÆs Treaty of 1794.  JayÆs Treaty was advantageous
to America and helped to head off a war with Britain, but it also alienated the French.  The
French reacted by seizing American ships causing the threat of war to loom large in
American minds.  President Adams sent three commissioners to France to work out a
solution and to modify the Franco-American alliance of 1778, but the Paris government
asked for bribes and a loan from the United States before negotiations could even begin.
The American commissioners refused to pay the bribes and they were denied an audience
with accredited authorities and even treated with contempt.  Two of the commissioners
returned to the United States with Elbridge Gerry staying behind to see if he could work
something out.  This became known as the XYZ affair and was the beginning of an
undeclared naval war between France and the United States.
 The XYZ affair played right into the hands of the Federalist Party.  They immediately
renounced all treaties of 1788 with France and began their agenda of creating a large
standing army and a Navy Department to deal with the threat of an American-French war.
Fear and patriotism were fanned and a strong anti-French sentiment swept the land.  Then
a gem of a caveat was thrown into the Federalist hands when Monsieur Y boasted  that
ôthe Diplomatic skill of France and the means she possess in your country, are sufficient to
enable her, with the French party in America, to throw the blame which will attend the
rupture of the negotiations on the Federalist, as you term yourselves, but on the British
party, as France terms you.ö  This boast was to cause suspicion and wide spread
denunciation of the Republican Party and its leaders.  Senator Sedgwick, majority whip in
the Senate, after hearing of the XYZ Affair, said, ôIt will afford a glorious opportunity to
destroy faction.  Improve it.ö  Hamilton equated the publicÆs perception of the
RepublicanÆs opposition to the FederalistÆs agenda like that of the Tories in the
Revolution.  All in all, this boast began the process that became the Alien and Sedition
Acts of 1798.
 The Republicans debated against the bills for about a month, but the Federalist had the
votes.  A background of fear helped keep the public silent and perhaps somewhat
approving to the loss of some personal freedoms, as nobody wanted to be accused as a
Jacobean.  In May of 1778, President Adams declared a day of prayer and fasting.  Many
thought that the Jacobeans were going to use that day to rise up in insurrection and ôcut
the throats of honest citizens.ö  They even thought they were going to attack  President
Adams and citizens of Philadelphia came out by the hundreds to protect him. Federalist
saw this as a demonstration of support for the government.  Those who spoke against the
Sedition bill were accused of being in league with the Jacobeans.  Edward Livingston, in
opposing the bill said, ôIf we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit
to our unauthorized acts?  Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains
that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.ö  The Federalist accused
Livingston of sedition because of his implied threat of popular rebellion; a practice seen in
future debates when unlawful power was to be enforced.
 Republican newspapers were railing against the Federalist and especially against the
Sedition bill.  The Aoura was the leading Republican publication and Benjamin Bache was
its editor.  Baches ability to get the story out caused much consternation among
Federalist.  Harrison Gray Otis said that BachesÆ writing influenced even intelligent
people, ôWhat can you expect from the gaping and promiscuous crowd who delight to
swallow calumny..?ö   The Federalist needed the Sedition bill to shut down the Republican
presses and Bache played right into their hands with his publication of TallyrandÆs
conciliatory letter to the American envoys before the President had even seen it.
Republicans insisted that this was a journalistic scoop that would lead to peace because
France was willing to negotiate with Edmund Gerry.  The Federalist wanted Bache to
explain how he had received a letter that the President hadnÆt even seen yet.  They began
to accuse him of being in league with France, an agent of Tallyrand and an enemy of the
people of the United States.  The administration was so incensed with Bache that they
didnÆt wait for passage of the Sedition bill, but had him arrested for treason on June 27,
1778.
 From the very beginning Republican leaders recognized that the Sedition bill was
primarily directed toward the destruction of any opposition to the Federalist Party and its
agenda.  Albert Gallatin said the Sedition Act was a weapon ôto perpetuate their authority
and preserve their present places.ö  Proof that this bill was politically motivated became
obvious when the House voted to extend the act from the original one year proposed to
the expiration of John Adams term, March 3, 1801.
 The States response to the passing of the Sedition Act was mixed.  Kentucky and
Virginia each responded with acts basically nullifying the Congressional act, but other
states accepted the Congress taking authority from what had been a state function.  The
public response initially appeared mixed.  British common law seemed to have
preconditioned many to accept a limitation of their personal freedoms.  The victory of the
Republicans, who ran on a platform of anti-sedition, in the election of 1800 showed that
Americans were much more interested in personal freedom than the aristocratic Federalist
thought.
 What would happen if Congress submitted a Sedition Bill today as they did in 1778?
With our established two-party system (in marked contrast to their conceptions of
factions), the freedom of press as a well developed principle, and freedom of speech the
cornerstone in AmericanÆs sense of liberty; it seems that there would be a major revolt.
Are there any instances in 20th century history that compares to the Sedition ActÆs flagrant
disregard of the First Amendment?  No government actions seem so blatantly
unconstitutional as the Sedition Act of 1798; but, there are many actions since then that
have caused much more personal pain than the twenty-seven persons convicted under the
Sedition Act.
 In times of war it is understood that many personal liberties may be curtailed,
especially for enemy aliens living in the United States.  The War Relocation Authority
signed by President Roosevelt caused thousands of enemy aliens as well as Japanese-
American citizens to lose everything as they were interned in concentration camps
throughout the West.  These Americans were told that if they were true patriotic citizens
they would go without complaining. If they were to complain then that was prima facie
evidence that they were not loyal citizens.
 In June of 1940, AmericaÆs fear of German aggression led to the enactment of the
Smith Act.  Much like the Alien and Sedition Act it required all aliens to be registered and
fingerprinted.  It also made it a crime to advocate or teach the violent overthrow of the
United States, or to even belong to a group that participated in these actions.  The United
States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in the case of eleven
communist (Dennis v United States.)  This decision was later modified in 1957 (Yates v
United States.)  The Court limited conviction to direct action being taken against
government, ruling that teaching communism or the violent overthrow of government did
not in itself constitute grounds for conviction.
 Another instance of governmental infringement of the liberties of American citizens is
the well known Senate Sub-committee on un-American Activities headed by Joseph
McCarthy.  Thousands of people lost their livelihood and personal reputations were
shattered by innuendo, finger pointing, and outright lies.  As in earlier instances of
uncontrolled excesses by people in government, guilt was assumed and protestations of
innocence were evidence that ôsomethingö was being hidden.
 In 1993, rumblings were heard from the Democratic controlled Congress that there
needed to be fairness in broadcasting.  If one viewpoint was shared, they felt the opposing
viewpoint must be given fair time to respond.  This was facetiously called the ôRush Actö
in response to the phenomenal success of conservative radio talk show host, Rush
Limbaugh.  As in the 1790Æs when Republicans formed newspapers to counteract the
Federalist control of the press; many conservatives felt that the few conservative
broadcasters and programs had a long way to go before they balanced the liberal press.
Fortunately, as in the 1800 election, Republicans gained control of Congress in 1992 and
the ôRush Actö died a natural death.
 Recently many Americans have become concerned with domestic terrorism.  Waco,
the Oklahoma Federal Building, and now the Freemen in Montana have caused citizens
and legislators alike to want something done.  The House of  Representatives just
approved HR2768.  This bill will curtail many liberties for American citizens as well as
Aliens.  The following are eight points made by the ACLU concerning this bill:
1.   Broad terrorism definition risks selective prosecution
2.   More illegal wiretaps and less judicial control will threaten privacy
3.  Expansion of counterintelligence and terrorism investigations threatens privacy
4.  The Executive would decide which foreign organizations Americans could support
5.  Secret evidence would be used in deportation proceedings
6.  Foreign dissidents would be barred from the United States
7.  Federal courts would virtually lose the power to correct unconstitutional Incarceration
8.  Aliens are equated with terrorists
This bill has many points in common with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Smith
Act of 1950, the McCarren Act of 1950, and the Executive Order of Feb.19, 1942 that led
to War Relocation Authority. Each one of these actions were taken when fear controlled
the public and an agenda controlled the people in authority.  Thankfully, the American
people have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to bring them back from the edge, and
to force those in positions of responsibility to accountability.
    The responsibility of government lies with the governed.  If the American people
react to trying situations and events in fear, then a general malaise and sense of
helplessness will permeate the collective American consciousness.  The abdication of
personal responsibility erodes liberty, creating an atmosphere of dependency, that leads to
bigger government and its pseudo security.  Edward LivingstonÆs statement, ôIf we are
ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts?  Sir,
they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for
them, if they did not resist,ö serves as a timely warning to Americans today.

















9


9


9


9