Alien and Sedition Acts

» Brian Tubbs - Hey John

Long time no talk with. How have you been?

I've enjoyed your series on the founding era Presidents. Good stuff.

I wanted to comment on the Alien and Sedition Acts. Adams and the Federalists always get a bum rap for these, and deservedly so - in hindsight. But that's the key. We can certainly, and with justification, look back and conclude that the Alien and Sedition Acts were collectively a bad idea and risked setting a terrible precedent for our nation. However, I think it's unfortunate that we often forget the context of when they were passed. Perhaps most significantly, we hold the Founders to an extremely unfair standard. They were men (and women, if you throw in Abigail Adams and Dolly Madison, as I would argue, we should), not gods. They were flawed, just like we are.

The decade of the 1790s, as Joseph Ellis has demonstrated in his great book "Founding Brothers," was probably the most important decade in U.S. political history - obviously not counting the 1780s, which saw our independence established (with victory in the Revolution) and the writing of our Constitution. These guys were floundering a bit in the dark, trying to figure out how best to implement this grand new experiment. The ONLY precedent they had for a "republic" was Rome, and that didn't work too well.

Many of the Founders were genuinely concerned that the U.S. wouldn't survive. Fears ran from an all-powerful, tyrannical central government to all the states pulling in separate directions, creating a recipe for civil war or anarchy. It was IN this context that the two-party system emerged, and it did so in a highly volatile and tumultuous manner. In fact, I would argue that political elections were far uglier and nastier in the late 1790s, early 1800s than they are today.

It should be expected that some dedicated statesmen and patriots might overreact in order to preserve their vision for America - a vision they believed (usually quite sincerely) was essential to the success of the country. The stakes were much higher to them than they are today.

It's not as if the United States will teeter and collapse under George W. Bush these next four years, nor would it have done so, had John Kerry been elected. Mainstream Americans understand that the basic infrastructure of the U.S. is stable and secure. No such comfort was felt by our Founding Fathers.

So, I tend to cut Adams and the Federalist a lot of slack for the Alien and Sedition Acts. They honestly believed that a massive wave of European immigrants would dangerously undermine the nation, particularly when the U.S. was trying to establish its own identity and security. Hence, the Federalist efforts to curtail immigration. They were also fearful of vitriolic rhetoric leading to anarchy and revolution, as had been the case with the western Pennsylvania farmers and in the streets of Paris. Hence, the Sedition Act.

I know you probably agree with much of this. My comments aren't intended as a rebuttal of your excellent article. I merely wanted to register my two cents.

Great article, John.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Mugwump53 - Re: Hey John

In response to Hey John posted by BrianTubbs:

Hi, Brian. Good to hear from you!

I agree with your comments. It is easy to condemn the Federalists (which I tend to do, I admit) in hindsight.

I agree that both parties were convinced that their view was the only one that would allow the nation to survive, and both thought the other parties' views would lead the new nation to destruction.

But their is also an element of power grabbing. The Federalists (mainly the High Federalists led by Hamilton) weanted to prevent the further growth of the Democratic-Republican Party. This was the main motive behind the Alien Act (which did not prevent immigration but allowed the President to deport any alien he considered dangerous) and the Naturalization Act (which increased the residency requirement for citizenship from five to fourteen years to prevent new immigrants, who trended to join the Democratic-Republicans, from voting).

But the Sedition Act, forbidding the "bringing into disrepute" (I think the phrase went) the President or Congress (both Federalist, but not mentioning the Vice President who was a Democratic-Republican) was a simple ploy to keep Democratic-Republican newspapers from saying anything against the Federalists while leaving the Federalists free to lambast the Democratic-Republicans. They weren't trying to create a level playing field.

I agree that many had good motives (paving the road to You-Know-Where) but many did not. It was simply a power grab by the party in power. A definite use of the advantage of incumbency.

It should be remembered that we had not yet developed the traditions of democracy that we hold so dear today. Not only were our leaders worried about the future of the nation, but most of the leaders around the world did not expect the experiment in democracy to last very long either. Thatis why the election of 1800, in which the party in power was removed peacefully by election, is often referred to as the Revolution of 1800.

Thanks for you comments. I agree that the 1790's were probably the most important decade, politically speaking. It is a fascinating time in our history.

-- posted by Mugwump53

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Power Grabbing

In response to Re: Hey John posted by Mugwump53:

Ironically, the Federalists were the ones fearful of a power grab, which is why they pushed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Federalists genuinely believed, and with some justification, that the Democratic-Republican Party was far too intertwined with French interests. Where do you think Citizen Genet went when he tried to rally American support? He went to pro-Jeffersonian (i.e, Democratic-Republican or quasi-Democratic-Republican) organizations. These pro-French, pro-Jefferson (there was very little distinction) groups continued into the Adams presidency.

There were valid questions of loyalty at play during this time, with many Federalists reasonably asking whether some Democratic-Republicans were too tied to the French and too enamored with the bloody and chaotic French Revolution. Washington had these people in mind, no doubt, when he warned in his Farewell Address that the "passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils" and that America in general should be wary of the "insidious wiles of foreign influence." (You can clearly see Hamilton's pen in those words, but they were ultimately published with Washington's full consent and blessing - thus becoming his sentiments).

It is certainly true that Jefferson questioned Hamilton's love for the British, but Hamilton never planned to subordinate American interests to those of the British. On the contrary, one can easily see Hamilton USING the Britishto further his own vision of America. He recognized (wisely and correctly) that trade relations with the British were more advantageous to America's nascent economy, and that the British political model represented greater stability and therefore a better example than the anarchy, bloodsheed, and later dictatorship of the French. In short, when it came to France v. England, Hamilton (and Washington) was correct. Jefferson and his followers were wrong...very wrong.

Does all this justify the Alien and Sedition Acts? No. But it's easy to say that only in hindsight. At the time, it is very understandable that the Federalists saw the Democratic-Republicans as a genuine threat to the American Republic, given their dangerous (and I can use that word accurately) attachment to the French.

Fortunately, Thomas Jefferson, the President, proved to be more (much more) prudent and wise than Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State and Democratic-Republican founder. As a result, the U.S. chugged along just fine with Jefferson and his party at the helm. But, there was no guarantee in the late 1790s that things would turn out that way.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions