On George Washington and his support for Alien & Sedition laws

http://edsitement.neh.gov/sites/default/files/worksheets/SeditionActs.pdf
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw370024))
http://www.edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/george-washington-sedition-act#sect-activities

"But I will take the liberty of advising such as are not "thoroughly convinced" and whose minds are yet open to conviction to read the pieces and hear the arguments which have been adduced in favor of as well as those against the Constitutionality and expediency of those laws before they decide. And Consider to what lengths a Certain description of men in our Country have already driven and even resolved to further drive matters and then ask themselves if it is not time and expedient to resort to protecting Laws against aliens for Citizens you certainly know are not affected by that law) who acknowledge no allegiance to this Country, and in many instances are sent among us (as there is the best Circumstantial evidence to prove) for the express purpose of poisoning the minds of our people and to sow dissentions among them, in order to alienate their affections from the Government of their Choice, thereby endeavoring to dissolve the Union, and of Course the fair and happy prospects which were unfolding to our view from the Revolution."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw370056))

Washington denounces the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, which act to nullify the Alien & Sedition Laws.

http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/collection/post_pres_1798sep30.html
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=341

"More specific than these generalized apprehensions were his convictions
regarding the administration's defense measures of I798. During July and
August he gave blanket approval to the several statutes. To James McHenry,
Secretary of War: ". . . I highly approve of all the defensive and precau-
tionary measures . . . anid wish they had been more energetic."6" To Presi-
dent Adams: ". . . no one can more cordially approve of the wise and prudent
measures of your Administration."To Charles Carroll of Carrollton: "I
highly approve of the measures taken by Government.... I even wish they
had been more energetic." In addition to words he contributed works,
actively supporting the administration's stand by circulating Judge Alexander
Addison's pro-Administration jury charges on the subject of the Alien and
Sedition Acts,63 and he dismissed the opposing arguments as part of the usual
attempt "to disturb the public mind with their unfounded and ill favored
forebodings."64 When Alexander Spotswood expressed some doubts of the
constitutionality and expedience of the statutes, and admitted being influenced
by an opposition pamphlet, Washington composed a brief defense of the acts
himself, although he argued only the dangers from the presence of aliens
and made no direct defense of the Sedition Act."

We also have to remember the intentions of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights was created in 1789. Back in the 18th Century, there was a universal level of basic civility. Protesting at a funeral would have been unthinkable and universally condemned. The writers kept the First Amendment very broad because it was assumed that social expectations and civility would pick up the slack.

Just because we have a right to bear arms doesn't mean that we should start passing out assault rifles to everyone.

These people are attention whores who are abusing their right to free speech.

On the repression of anti-war speech:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0116-09.htm - on the infiltration of peace groups like the Quakers due to "suspicious activities"
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/05/fbi-raids-protest/?refid=0
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/09/rnc8_terrorism_charges_dropped/ - these two is on efforts to charge anti-war demonstrators with bogus "terrorism" charges and to silence groups through secretive unending grand jury witchhunts
http://www.aclu.org/ohio-residents-take-action-stop-ohio-patriot-act

http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/ohiooath.html

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/ND/NB/OHApp.htm
This last one is on a law passed in Ohio which prohibits making speech remotely supportive of groups on the so-called state dept terrorist group list. [Meaning if you even suggest the IRA, for example, might have a legitimate grievance, you can be fired or not hired]

@Putin - Just read the last one there and it isn't a "law" per see, and it only applies to public universities in Ohio. Not saying it is right (it is most definitely *not* right and abridges the freedom of speech as well as other liberties afforded to every US citizen in the Constitution) but just wanted to clarify that it has no effect on the majority of Ohio's employed (the private sector).

Anyway, I was told my view on the 1st amendment is contradictory. Let me clarify my position. The Supreme Court and many so-called 1st amendment defenders have an absolutist view when it comes to hate speech, offensive speech, pornography, money in elections, etc. The government never dares infringe upon any of these types of "speech", and defenders of 'free speech' always raise the specter of the 'slippery slope' if anyone even suggests common sense protections of public decency and civility. But ironically when it comes to real political speech from the progressive left - particularly speech which expresses solidarity with groups fighting for their independence abroad - there are no protections. So in essence, the government has an absolutist and very broad interpretation of what is protected free speech, but an entire category of political views - at least as they relate to US grand strategy in international relations - are excluded from these protections.

And I should ask, knowing your views, just how truthful you were on this questionaire? I think I understand now why you didn't want people figuring out who you were at OSU.

Except it is a law -

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2909.34
http://www.acluohio.org/issues/GovernmentSpying/TriplettACLUMeritBrief.pdf

"but just wanted to clarify that it has no effect on the majority of Ohio's employed (the private sector). "

Let it never be said that you show undue concern for the rights of public employees or minorities in general.

so washington supports the alien and sedition acts, which the rest of the country hates so much, that the wild popularity that the Federalists gain after the XYZ affair is completely squandered and no Federalist ever is elected again. Meanwhile the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Architect of the Constitution oppose them vehemently.

Yup sounds like the nation agreed that free speech limitations were as American as Apple Pie...

if you want to talk about the limiting of free speech during (modern) war time, however, thats a different issue.

"We also have to remember the intentions of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights was created in 1789. Back in the 18th Century, there was a universal level of basic civility. Protesting at a funeral would have been unthinkable and universally condemned. The writers kept the First Amendment very broad because it was assumed that social expectations and civility would pick up the slack."

Homework, pick up a newspaper from the 1800 and tell me how much civility there was. Sick of this myth

@Putin - I did agree it was wrong. In fact I said "it is most definitely *not* right and abridges the freedom of speech as well as other liberties afforded to every US citizen in the Constitution" so I do show concern. But you are correct that I do not show undue concern, because undue concern is, as stated in the phrase, undue. I show a respectable concern for public employees (of which my mother was one until she retired, remember?)

As a reminder from Webster's

un·due adj \-ˈdü, -ˈdyü\
Definition of UNDUE
1: not due : not yet payable
2: exceeding or violating propriety or fitness : excessive <undue force>

@Santa +1 - Forget newspapers, look to the "wild west" where most men (and many women) carried a firearm with them and lynchings (mob rule) and courtyard hangings were the order of the day. Civilized? I think not. Even the mid to late 18th Century (when our founding documents were crafted) had duels where one man would potentially die because another's honor was impeached over some of the simplest stuff. No, the 18th and 19th Centuries were no more civilized than the 20th and 21st.

Is the whole Burr/Hamilton situation not covered at all anymore?

Raymond Burr and George Hamilton had a duel? hehehe

J/K of course. Those two were the men whom I was thinking about when I mentioned dueling.

And don't get on my grammar for that one. I was never any good at finding smooth flowing ways to end that kind of sentence. :-).

@ Santa and Draugnar

Allow me to clarify. I am saying that no one would ever dream of hijacking a private funeral for private purposes, and anyone who did would not be able to hide behind the First Amendment.

@ Putin33

I agree with you. First Amendment absolutism is very impractical and probably harmful in the long run.

@GF - While in theory you may be correct, I suspect that more than one funeral was desecrated in the "wild west".

@ Draugnar

If that is the case, than the WBC is a big step backwards.

"Meanwhile the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Architect of the Constitution oppose them vehemently.

Yup sounds like the nation agreed that free speech limitations were as American as Apple Pie... "

Jefferson had a British common law view of free speech. In other words, free speech meant freedom from licensing requirements. But once speech is published, it could be punished. Jefferson did not hesitate to launch accusations of seditious libel (which simply meant disrespecting the government, irrespective of whether the commentary was factual) against his critics. I should also not fail to mention his impeachment efforts against federalist judge Samuel Chase. So, spare me the poems about Jefferson the great liberal free speech absolutist. This is idea of rights without responsibilities and "freedom" as license to do whatever one pleases is a wholly modern one, completely foreign to the 18th century founders that we have elevated to cult status.

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=lawfaculty&sei-redir=1#search=%22thomas+jefferson+seditious+libel%22

"that the wild popularity that the Federalists gain after the XYZ affair is completely squandered and no Federalist ever is elected again. "

The Alien & Sedition Acts passed in 1798 (5th Congress). Who had a House and Senate majority in the 6th Congress? That'd be the Federalist Party that supposedly was never elected again. The dissolution of the Federalist Party had more to do with Adams bitterly breaking with Hamilton and becoming pro-French when public feelings were anti-French than the Sedition law.

And I'd say, even though the Federalists were weakened by internal divisions, they still almost defeated Jefferson in 1800.

Alien and Sedition acts were wildly popular and were not a major issue in the election of 1800, who knew. Filing this one behind "Benjamin Franklin was not a founding father."

It takes time for an issue to gain salience in a country without CNN, The Kentucky Resolution wasn't passed until November 1798 after many elections, especially in battleground states were decided.

Suffice to say every scholar of American history understands that the Alien and Sedition Acts were a major issue in the election of 1800, and whether or not they were an issue in 1798 I am not certain, but given that in war time the Federalists only gained 3 seats, they might have.

And viewing the presidential election as the indicator of popular feeling is folly. In many states the presidential electors were decided by state legislatures. You should look at the effect on the House of Representatives which experienced a 20 vote swing in favor of republicans.

"Allow me to clarify. I am saying that no one would ever dream of hijacking a private funeral for private purposes, and anyone who did would not be able to hide behind the First Amendment."

Are you serious? Have you heard Washington funeral addresses that served widely as Federalist Rallies?

and if there were no picketting of funerals as there are today, it was probably less so because of increased civility and moreso because of decreased stigma of the use of violence.

Also note that the 14th amendment was not in existence so states and localities cold abridge free speech unless state constitutions forbade them to.

"Alien and Sedition acts were wildly popular and were not a major issue in the election of 1800, who knew"

You seem to have a congenital disease that forces you to distort what I say. I responded to your asinine claim that they single handedly led to the dissolution of the Federalist Party and that not a single Federalist was elected after they were passed. It's not my fault you are incapable of being precise in the points you are making. I also enjoy the fact that you completely ducked the point about Jefferson and the other founders who you claim so loved "free speech" as you interpret it. Even if the Alien and Seditions Acts were the only issue that mattered in 1800 (people in the West and South also disliked Federalist taxes, but hey who cares about details), it still doesn't mean that the founders in either party were liberal on free speech. And will you argue that Adams and Hamilton having a pissing match helped or hurt the Federalists? No, of course internal divisions wouldn't have anything to do with losing an election.

"It takes time for an issue to gain salience in a country without CNN, The Kentucky Resolution wasn't passed until November 1798 after many elections, especially in battleground states were decided."

Some elections for that Congress didn't occur until well into 1799. If you're going to say it's hard to gauge public opinion because state electors were chosen by state legislatures, then you have to find that it's difficult to gauge public opinion when House elections are spread out over the course of a year.

And just because an act was passed by one party in congress (Before Judicial Review btw), only to give rise to a controversy of historic proportions by the Election of 1800 doesn't mean that there was an understanding that freedom of speech was limited in regards to politics. I believe the First Amendment Bill of Rights is the proper precedent to cite in the early republic, not the Alien and Sedition acts, at best a short lived aberration in the period. If you want to say that later during the civil war and wwi the meaning of free speech was changed, thats a completely different argument with considerable merit.

I never said Jefferson and the founders invariably "loved free speech" how did you put it again "You seem to have a congenital disease that forces you to distort what I say." I said the Architect of the constitution and the writer of the declaration of independence opposed the Alien and sedition act, what does that have to do with Samuel Chase? And Samuel Chase wasn't impeached due to a law abridging free speech, if I recall it was due to bad behavior for something political he said. Bad behavior is subject to considerable interpretation, and at that early date there was no precedent stating that "Bad Behavior" couldnt mean a judge running his mouth. Overall Jefferson overreached in his attempts to attack the Federalist judiciary, and suffered a humiliating defeat as a result (with Chase being acquitted by members of Jeffersons own party).

Good book on all these topics BTW is "The Failure of the Founding Fathers" by Bruce Ackerman, one of my favorites (even though hes a Political Scientist).

"Some elections for that Congress didn't occur until well into 1799. If you're going to say it's hard to gauge public opinion because state electors were chosen by state legislatures, then you have to find that it's difficult to gauge public opinion when House elections are spread out over the course of a year."

No idea what you are getting at here. Im talking about the election of 1800, you implied (sorry if I read to far, but I do believe this was implied) that the alien and sedition acts couldnt have had much success because Jefferson barely won, I responded to look at the House of Reps rather than the presidential election because they were decided by popular vote.

to be fair re reading my original post i did bring up the presidency as a barometer for public sentiment, which was lazy, but not completely wrong. The Alien and Sedition Acts were the primary issue of the election and led to the change of governments Federalist squabbles nonwithstanding

@Putin - I'm hurt. I responded to you retort and you don't even have the courtesy tobrespond back with either an apology admitting your error or one of your infamous retorts personally insulting the respondent. :-(

What error? You speak in riddles half the time. You simultaneously claim I am wrong but yet correct. You incorrectly said it wasn't a "law" and implied that it wasn't a big deal because it didn't affect the majority of the workforce, although you admitted it was a violation of free speech rights. I responded that it was a law and that you don't show excessive concern with the fate of public employees or political minorities. You agreed you don't show excessive concern and got out your webster's dictionary to show you know what undue means, oblivious to my sarcasm. I don't get why you want a response from me. The only reason you made the comment that it *only applies to public universities* and mistakenly said it "wasn't a law" was to pooh-pooh it and downplay it's severity.

Again, where is my error and why do you want a response from me?

"And just because an act was passed by one party in congress (Before Judicial Review btw), only to give rise to a controversy of historic proportions by the Election of 1800 doesn't mean that there was an understanding that freedom of speech was limited in regards to politics. I believe the First Amendment Bill of Rights is the proper precedent to cite in the early republic, not the Alien and Sedition acts, at best a short lived aberration in the period. If you want to say that later during the civil war and wwi the meaning of free speech was changed, thats a completely different argument with considerable merit."

I only brought up the Alien and Sedition Acts to point out that this notion that the founders, not the public - the founders - were free speech absolutists is historically inaccurate. Washington and Adams were two of the most important founders. Your retort was that Jefferson and Madison opposed it, and that the public threw the Federalists out because they didn't like the law. I replied by saying that Jefferson was happy to stifle the political speech of his opponents with seditious libel cases - so even if Jefferson opposed a law which targeted specifically his party (gee why wouldn't he?) he was happy to target his opponents, so it was opportunistic - not principled. We also disagree as to whether the Alien & Sedition Acts single handedly destroyed the Federalist Party, but that point is not even very relevant to the main argument. I could care less what the masses felt about that law as it doesn't have any bearing on what the founders felt or whether or not other forms of restrictions were accepted as a matter of law. The point is that it's a historical myth that the founders were committed to unrestricted political speech.

The Alien & Sedition Acts is not an aberration if you consider the fact that the founders had, as I said, a British common law view of free speech as articulated in the Blackstone Commentaries. It was a source of consternation mainly because it targeted the Jeffersonians, not because it restricted speech.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yisAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA141-IA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

"nd Samuel Chase wasn't impeached due to a law abridging free speech, if I recall it was due to bad behavior for something political he said."

So, what's the source of confusion here? You don't see the relevance of the Chase impeachment, even though you just outlined it a case of prosecuting a judge for political speech?

"(even though hes a Political Scientist). "

Cute dig. I thought you'd be above the Fulham-type broad-based attacks on particular academic disciplines. Especially a field that is largely allied with history. If you're being facetious, then whatever, but somehow I doubt you are.

"No idea what you are getting at here. Im talking about the election of 1800, you implied (sorry if I read to far, but I do believe this was implied) that the alien and sedition acts couldnt have had much success because Jefferson barely won, I responded to look at the House of Reps rather than the presidential election because they were decided by popular vote."

You said the Kentucky Resolutions happened late in 1798, so therefore 1798 is not a good barometer of public opinion, even though you only allow for House elections as barometers of public opinion. I responded by saying that many of the House elections happened well into 1799, even into the term of the next Congress.

My last point wasn't a very good one, but I was trying to say that if the fact that some state legislatures picked electors invalidates Presidential elections as barometers of public opinion, I'm wondering why House elections that span across a year are satisfactory. A better point would have been that the affects of state legislatures taking back control over electors in certain states was a wash, since it cost both parties roughly equally in terms of electors going to their opponent that otherwise wouldn't have (in other words, this mechanism was not responsible for making the election close).
Six states chose electors by popular vote in that election: Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia and Tennessee. Rhode Island went to Adams, Maryland was split in half, North Carolina was split 8/4 for Jefferson, Virginia went entirely to Jefferson (winner-take-all), and Tennessee went entirely for Jefferson.

Political Scientists often completely brutalize history, I have no problem with political science in its own element. I studied it in College and feel it is important for what it does, but usually when a Poly Sci writer ventures into history the results are presentist, lacking context, and surprisingly whimsical. Ackerman's book, although I liked it in the end, is the same, 10 page digressions about who wrote an anonymous letter that could be discussed in a footnote, breaking the 4th wall in a scholarly work, all things that are generally not done. I will admit in the action of studying history I am a history chauvinist, I think historians rather than the rest of the humanities and social scientits do it right. But then again ive been trained to think so.

And about the states, it was the New England States (Massachusetts Still suffering from the original Gerrymander I believe) largely that went with having state legs chose during the election to stifle Repub popular vote. I believe many southern states actually went Popular vote in order to benefit the Repub candidate. Its a messy situation.