#Alien and Sedition Act

[todaysdocument]

Indictment for Sedition

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Criminal Case FilesFile Unit: United States versus Benjamin Meyer and Conrad Fahustock, #6 October Session 1799

In the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Pennsylvania district of the Middle Circuit

The Grand Inquest of the United States of America for the Pennsylvania District upon their respective oaths and affirmations do present that Benjamin Meyer and Conrad Fahnestock late of the same district Yeoman being ill disposed persons designing and intending to vilify and defame the government of the United States and the administration of justice therein and to cause it to be believed that the Judicial Courts of the said United States was actuated by unlawful motives and not by the duty imposed on them by the Constitution of the United States aforesaid and thereby to weaken and diminish the authority of the said court and excite opposition against the same on the twenty first day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine at the County of Dauphin in the District aforesaid wickedly and maliciously did print and publish and cause to be printed and published in a certain newspaper then and there in the German language and called Unpartheyische Harrisburg Zeitung which German words signify The Impartial Harrisburg Newspaper the false scandalous contemptuous and malicious words matters and things following that is to say Capt. John Fries Die Constitution der Vereinigten Staaten sagt Hochverrath soll nur darein bestehen wenn man krieg gegen dieselben erklaret oder ihren feinden anhanget und sie [complete document and transcription at link]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ilya Somin at The UnPopulist:

Donald Trump recently announced his intention to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as a tool for mass deportation of immigrants. “I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 ... to target and dismantle every criminal network operating on American soil,” he told a crowd in Aurora, Colorado, a Denver suburb that the right has thrust into the national spotlight to whip up fears about immigration run amok. “I will rescue Aurora and every town that has been invaded and conquered,” Trump continued, never mind that Aurora officials and residents say they are in no need of rescuing.

The Alien Enemies Act is a component of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. It is the only part of that legislation that remains on the books today. Unlike the more sweeping Alien Friends Act, which gave the president broad power to deport and bar any “aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States,” and was therefore rightly denounced as unconstitutional by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and others, the Alien Enemies Act allows detention and removal of migrants only when there “is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government.” In that event, the president is given the power to detain or remove “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized.”

[...] In addition, the “invasion” or “predatory incursion” in question must be perpetrated by a “foreign nation or government.” That excludes illegal migration or drug smuggling perpetrated by private individuals and organizations, which is what is occurring at the southern border today. One can argue that use of the word “nation” in addition to “government” means the former has a different meaning from the latter. But “nation” still doesn’t include private individuals. Rather, it could apply to state-like entities that are not recognized governments. For instance, the Hamas terrorist organization that brutally attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 is not a recognized government, but did—at least until recently—have state-like control over Gaza. The same could be said for some Founding-era Indian nations (which the U.S. and European states didn’t recognize as full-fledged governments) and groups like the Barbary pirates, who were agents of Arab north African states.

[...] Despite the strong legal arguments against it, there is a chance that Trump could succeed in using the Alien Enemies Act as a tool for detention and deportation. As Ebright notes, courts might rule that the definitions of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” are “political questions” that courts are not allowed to address. Several previous court decisions have held that the definition of “invasion” in the Constitution is a political question (thereby preventing state governments from invoking broad definitions of invasion under the Invasion Clause of Article IV in order to be able to “engage in war” in war without federal authorization), though many have simultaneously held that an illegal migration does not qualify as “invasion” because an invasion requires a large-scale armed attack (see pp. 20-22 of my amicus brief).

Ebright rightly argues that even if the definition of “invasion” is usually a political question, the use of the Alien Enemies Act as a tool for mass detention and deportation of migrants from countries with which the U.S. is not at war should fall within the exception for “an obvious mistake” or “manifestly unauthorized exercise of power” laid out by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr (1962). Furthermore, the entire political question doctrine is an incoherent mess, and courts should not extend it further.

Nonetheless, there is a danger that they could apply it here and let Trump get away with a grave abuse of power that could potentially harm many thousands of people. Mass deportations of the kind envisioned by Trump would create disruption, increase prices, and cause shortages. They would also destroy more American jobs than they would create, because many U.S. citizens work in industries that depend on goods produced by undocumented workers. In addition, large-scale detention and deportation routinely sweeps in large numbers of U.S. citizens, detained by mistake because of poor-to-nonexistent due process protections. It’s also worth noting that the Alien Enemies Act applies to any migrants from the relevant countries who have not been “naturalized,” which includes legal migrants and even permanent resident green card holders. If Trump is able to use it at all, it could be deployed against legal immigrants no less than illegal ones. And he and his allies have repeatedly made clear that they want to slash legal migration as much as the illegal kind.

If Trump returns to power, it is possible that this particular plan will be stopped by the courts. But that is far from certain. Ebright rightly recommends Congress simply repeal the Alien Enemies Act, since there are plenty of other tools to deal with actual threats to national security. Alternatively, Congress could revise the Act to make it more clear that it only applies to citizens of countries with which the U.S. is at war. Congress should also revise the Act so it no longer authorizes the removal of migrants with permanent resident status (even if their home countries are indeed at war with the U.S.). But none of these measures is likely to happen anytime soon. Thus, the only surefire way to block this dangerous abuse of power is to defeat Trump in the election.

Ilya Somin wrote for The UnPopulist that the right-wing courts may not stop Donald Trump’s illicit and diabolical plans for mass deportations.

[yr-obedt-cicero]

So… like, what was up with Hamilton and immigration?

Despite being an immigrant himself, Hamilton supported the Alien act of 1798, and he wrote under the name of Lucius Crassus that when it comes to Immigrants, it is: “unlikely that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism.” (source: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0282, by the way!).

I could go all in on this topic (hell, I might on my own history blog), but I’d like to hear your perspective on it. People rarely talk about Hamilton’s later attitude towards immigration, and it’s a rather interesting topic with a lot to uncover. Most of Hamilton’s points in the Lucius Crassus papers were political in nature (naturally), but would he have really insisted on shutting the ports on families escaping desperate situations, perhaps like he had so many years ago?

One again, it’s very strangely hypocritical of Hamilton to say this, so I think that you would find this interesting to cover! Apologies for the long ask!

A common fault when viewing this is the oversimplification, historical context and context in general is super essential here. And that's what I'll cover first;

The British West Indies were called such for a reason, they were British owned land. Nevis was prioritized as the international British trade for markets like the slave trade, sugar, rum, etc. But nonetheless, it was still considered part of the British Empire, and the citizens there were equally considered British subjects. So, Hamilton was already born a British subject just like the other founders. When Hamilton came to America in 1772, America was still also under British rule, and most of the people still considered themselves as “British”. And the term “American” didn't actually arise until much later during the revolution. Which essentially means, he was basically just moving around the empire.

Although despite the generalized perspective of labeling, it did not go without bias, and actually there was a massive division between cities and states. That is why you will commonly cross historical figures labeling others as Carolinians, Virginians, etc, because to them the difference truly mattered and that was mostly rooted with the different cultures and laws surrounding each state. This also evidently plays a part in the view of Hamilton as a citizen. Because that was just differences between states, so imagine how much more drastic it was for Hamilton who came from the Islands. Which here is where I'll start to delve more into Hamilton's identity as a “immigrant” that we all insist on calling him. The truth is, Hamilton wasn't an immigrant legally or metaphorically, and it's faulty to try and fit his identity in the cookie cutter modern terminology like “immigrant” because there are too many complications with all the layers of historical context you must take into account. I'm not saying Hamilton's struggles and the prejudice that he undeniably faced were not similar to the same turmoil many immigrants today endure, but he was moreso seen as an outsider or foreigner, rather than an immigrant. And that is majorly for two reasons;

Firstly, Hamilton placed himself between a rock and a hard space by moving to the Northern colonies—as a person who came from an area known for it's slave-trade, to an area that frowned upon the practice. And there's where there is a repeating distinction between states and their culture or beliefs, because the people in the North had a strong bias against the international trade Islands. The West Indies had a bad name to them for oftentimes being used as the penal colonies for petty criminals or the morally bankrupt by their definition, so many like women who committed infidelity, sodomites, thieves or smuggler traders were sent there. Additionally, their population was largely made up of enslaved workers and free people of color. So, assumptions were drawn about Hamilton when he came from this “lowlife” society.

Secondly, political disparage. A major culprit who utilized Hamilton's heritage and parentage against him that it became such a prominent part of his identity, was John Adams. For the same reason I just mentioned about the little respect the Northern colonies harbored for the West Indians. And as so, it made the perfect weapon of xenophobic stigma against Hamilton.

-

The overall point I'm getting to, is that it's debatable if Hamilton even saw himself as equal to the “Aliens” they were enforcing laws against. And I really don't think he did, Hamilton was able to separate himself from them because he was born a British citizen, and had been in the colonies by the time the Constitution was finalized and would have met the qualifications of an American US citizen. Also altering the residency requirements from five to fourteen years wouldn't apply to him anymore. Truthfully, Hamilton was ashamed of his Carribean roots (For obvious reasons, at this point), and naturally would have been inclined to hold himself in higher respect. Furthermore, during this time he was finally placed as second in command of the army and clearly thought lowly of the new immigrants;

To see the character of the Government and the country so sported with, exposed to so indelible a blot puts my heart to the Torture. Am I then more of an American than those who drew their first breath on American Ground? Or What is it that thus torments me at a circumstance so calmly viewed by almost every body else? Am I a fool—a Romantic quixot—Or is there a constitutional defect in the American Mind? Were it not for yourself and a few others, I could adopt the reveries of De Paux as substantial truths, and would say with him that there is something in our climate which belittles every Animal human or brute.

Source — Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, [21 February 1795]

But in the end, Hamilton also knew he could never suit himself among the wealthy aristocrats and despite his shame, always knew he would forever be chained to his roots. He even refered to himself as a “Creole” (A derogatory term) and wrote to Jonathan Dayton;

But what avail laws which are not executed? Renegade Aliens conduct more than one of the most incendiary presses in the UStates—and yet in open contempt and defiance of the laws they are permitted to continue their destructive labours. Why are they not sent away? Are laws of this kind passed merely to excite odium and remain a dead letter? Vigour in the Executive is at least as necessary as in the legislative branch. If the President requires to be stimulated those who can approach him ought to do it.

Source — Alexander Hamilton to Jonathan Dayton, [Sometime after 21 December 1799]

It is my personal belief at least, that Hamilton accepted he would forever be in an in-between position in the classes of society. He saw himself as higher than most immigrants due to his citizenship and civil and military services meriting him a lot of respect, but ultimately knew he was different from most wealthy politicians and many were never going to accept him as anything but his Carribean heritage.

-

But something else that must be addressed, is what provoked the Alien and Sedition acts, more importantly the former, because there is a lot of necessary background. A large cause for the Alien acts was the French Revolution storming up. The rebellion for the French were becoming hostile, and tarnished their plausible foreign alliances after chopping off their king's head. But had still expected America - that was still in a fragile state of founding - to go to war with them and the British, when Americans had initially wished to remain neutral. So, while that hadn't worked out, that didn't stop many French citizens - who were not in support of their government, but still did not want to live under a monarchy - immigrating over to America. This may sound familiar, but many Americans believed that their country was not obligated to give refuge to these immigrants. And feared that they were dangerous, and part of the French government in a scheme. With that being said, this was rather an act against the French particularly, and the dangers they threatened the country with because of the ongoing war with Britain and France.

Take that into account, and it's also more than likely Hamilton didn't equate himself with these immigrants because they didn't even start out as British subjects. These were people all the way from Europe, and a country that at the time was hostile and pissed at them for not siding an alliance with them. The background and context could change the whole situation, and it could be that it was rather that Hamilton was merely against these immigrants under these conditions. But I do think my prior point is still worth noting, because we aren't sure what Hamilton's opinions were on immigrants in general, since in this context it is much less about innocent immigrants seeking refugee, but also the plausibility of the dangers they bring as being French. In the end, Hamilton's actions proved that jurisprudence likely took precedence over his own personal experiences or sentiments about the situation in question. But I do think it's fair criticism, but also expected? Hamilton could be an extremist in politics that it posed contradictions to his personal life, and also just sometimes he didn't live up to his own ideals. Hamilton even drafted the 1787 New York law that made adultery the only grounds for divorce, which excluded cruelty or abandonment. And, according to Chernow, he supported a bill against those who were divorced to remarry. Which is all quite questionable when you remember his own mother's situation.

[valend]

Gossiping with friends in 100°f heat, connecting dots that don’t exist, feeling like john adams

[kemetic-dreams]

As far back as Ben Franklin's time some had a very narrow view of what America should be.

Benjamin Franklin, in 1751, referring to the Swedes, French and other Europeans as insufficiently white, and expressing his growing annoyance at the German immigration boom:

[W]hy should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements and, by herding together, establish their Language and Manners, to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs any more than they can acquire our Complexion?

Which leads me to add one Remark, that the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny; Asia chiefly tawny; America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who, with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we, in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? Why increase the Sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

The much younger Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the nation’s most famous and politically influential immigrant (he was born in the Danish West Indies and came to New York as a teen), also went on to express anti-immigrant tendencies. He supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which helped consolidate power for his own political party. And in a series of pseudonymously-written essays, he warned of the dangers of absorbing and especially naturalizing too many foreigners.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2015/08/28/founding-fathers-trashing-immigrants/

[publius-library]

Why do you think Hamilton supported the Alien and Seduction acts as an immigrant himself?

This is a common discussion I see, and it becomes quite easy to understand when you take into account the current events, what prompted the Alien and Sedition Acts (which is what I will assume you meant instead of Seduction, since I think it would be pretty self explanatory why Hamilton would support Seduction acts), who John Adams was, and Hamilton's beliefs.

Firstly, the most prominent international event occurring at the time was the French Revolution. When the Revolutionary government replaced that of the Ancien Regime, it dissolved it's alliances with foreign nations, especially after they cut their king's head off. This resulted in a war and a dude you might have heard of named Napoleon, but we don't need to get into that to understand that Britain and France had major beef, even more so than before. As a result, a lot of the French people who did not approve of their government's actions, but still did not want to live under a monarchy, immigrated to the United States. Much like today's current debate over immigration, some people believed that the United States were not obligated to give refuge to these immigrants, that they would take American jobs, and posed a risk to American citizens. Hence, the Alien portion of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

As for the Sedition part, this was a personal gift from John Adams to himself. He was a very egotistical, sensitive man who could not take criticism of his policies from the newspapers. As stated by the National Archives, "The Sedition Act made it a crime for American citizens to "print, utter, or publish...any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the government."

John Adams, a Federalist, believed that in putting restrictions on citizenship and free speech, he was preventing American people from sympathizing with the French in the potential war that was brewing between America and France, since France was currently raging and ruining everything and making everything difficult for everyone.

Now, where does Hamilton come in? Hamilton was a Federalist, and while he didn't agree with Adams on almost anything, he was fiercely against any kind of violent rebellion. This is exhibited in the many times he attempted to stop a mob, the earliest one being at King's College, when he stood before a mob and lectured them, buying time for the president of the college to escape being tarred and feathered. This is repeated during the Cadaver Riots in 1788. This belief of his can be traced back to his childhood in the Caribbean, in which there was a constant fear that the overwhelming enslaved population (80% of the island's inhabitants were enslaved Africans) would revolt.

Hamilton was also a fan of Thomas Hobbes, who believed in a cynical idea of human nature, in which every individual is self-serving to their own wants and needs. Hobbes wrote in The Leviathan, "And from hence it comes to pass that, where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess, a convenient seat others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him not only of the fruit of his labor but also of his life or liberty." The key differences between the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke also resemble the distinction between Federalists and Democratic Republicans.

All this to say, Hamilton's beliefs were shared with Adams- the French immigrants were possibly dangerous, being a threat to the stable revolution that was surviving in America. Additionally, he followed the principles of Hobbes in his belief that the government was responsible for keeping the people in check, and preventing them from entering into their natural state, which made life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The goal of the Alien and Sedition Acts was to prevent individuals aiming to bring a French-style rebellion to the United States, and to discourage similar sentiments from circulating in the press.

Clearly, this didn't work. The United States never went to war with France, this violation of the right to the press was not tolerated, Adams never served another term as president, and Hamilton never convinced a mob to disperse. The Alien and Sedition Acts weren't entirely anti-immigrant, as they were mainly targeted by the French, and if you're asking me personally, I believe Hamilton was able to disregard this as the law for citizenship (changing the residency requirements from 5 to 14 years) wouldn't apply to him anymore, and he could further hide the fact that he was an immigrant. He was ashamed of his origins, as the Caribbean was used at the time as, essentially, a large prison, and he didn't have the best reputation while he was there. I do think it is ironic that Adams was responsible for the Alien and Sedition Acts, and he was the one who tormented Hamilton for this birthplace. But, you know, I wasn't in that crazy ass redhead's mind.

I know this is long, but I've thought about this before, and I love getting into the reasoning behind Hamilton's politics. He was one of those cases where you can really see how his personal life influenced his political beliefs, and I think that's really interesting. Anyway, I hope this helps, and thank you for the ask <3

[lazaefair]

This link goes to the "Criticism" section on the IHRA's working definition of antisemitism, separated into academic, legal and advocacy organization criticism - with bonus criticism from one of the original lead drafters of the working definition, Kenneth S. Stern.

He has opposed efforts to enshrine it in university policies[211] and in December 2016 wrote a letter to members of the US Congress warning that giving the definition legal status would be "unconstitutional and unwise".[212] In 2011, he co-authored an article about how the 'Working Definition' was being abused in Title VI cases, because it was being employed in an attempt to "restrict academic freedom and punish political speech." In November 2017, Stern explained to the US House of Representatives that the definition has been abused on various US university campuses. He warned that it could "restrict academic freedom and punish political speech" and questioned whether definitions created by minority groups should be legislatively enshrined, giving as one of several examples: "Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If 'Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist' is antisemitism, then shouldn't 'Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist' be anti-Palestinianism? Would they then ask administrators to police and possibly punish campus events by pro-Israel groups who oppose the two state solution, or claim the Palestinian people are a myth?"[30]

[quotesfromall]

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States, within such time as shall be expressed in such order, which order shall be served on such alien by delivering him a copy thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at large within the United States after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside therein, or having obtained such license shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States.

Jonathan Dayton, An Act Concerning Aliens

[oldblogger]

States of the United States vs. the Federal Government

States of the United States vs. the Federal Government: http://wp.me/prazu-12S

  From before the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, there has been strenuous argument, sometimes bordering on the violent, between those who wanted a strong central government and those who saw the individual states as the primary locus of governmental power—except for those 18 specific powers granted to the two houses of the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution. (Former…

[gotta-bail-my-quails]

yeah but historically US of America has not cared for free speech when it comes to protesting war. This history goes all the way back to like. the late 1700s and the Sedition Act.

[hotvintagepoll]

Please go read or listen to Paul Robeson's testimony before HUAC.

Transcript: https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6440BA

Audio reenactment by James Earl Jones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhnCrHZkgNk

My name is Paul Robeson, and anything I have to say, or stand for, I have said in public all over the world, and that is why I am here today.

...

Mr. SCHERER: Mr. Chairman, this is not a laughing matter.

Mr. ROBESON: It is a laughing matter to me, this is really complete nonsense.

...

Mr. SCHERER: The witness talks very loud when he makes a speech, but when he invokes the Fifth Amendment I cannot hear him.

Mr. ROBESON: I invoked the Fifth Amendment very loudly. You know I am an actor, and I have medals for diction.

...

Mr. ROBESON: Because my father was a slave, and my people died to build this country, and I am going to stay here, and have a part of it just like you. And no Fascist-minded people will drive me from it. Is that clear? I am for peace with the Soviet Union, and I am for peace with China, and I am not for peace or friendship with the Fascist Franco, and I am not for peace with Fascist Nazi Germans. I am for peace with decent people.

Mr. SCHERER: You are here because you are promoting the Communist cause.

Mr. ROBESON: I am here because I am opposing the neo-Fascist cause which I see arising in these committees. You are like the Alien [and] Sedition Act, and Jefferson could be sitting here, and Frederick Douglass could be sitting here, and Eugene Debs could be here.

...

THE CHAIRMAN: There was no prejudice against you. Why did you not send your son to Rutgers?

Mr. ROBESON: Just a moment. This is something that I challenge very deeply, and very sincerely: that the success of a few Negroes, including myself or Jackie Robinson can make up—and here is a study from Columbia University—for seven hundred dollars a year for thousands of Negro families in the South. My father was a slave, and I have cousins who are sharecroppers, and I do not see my success in terms of myself.

Paul Robeson vs Gregory Peck

[whencyclopedia]

XYZ Affair

The XYZ Affair was a diplomatic incident that occurred in 1797-98, involving diplomats from the United States and Revolutionary France. Amidst rising tensions between the two nations, President John Adams sent envoys to Paris to negotiate a treaty, only to find that the French would not open negotiations unless the US paid a bribe. This helped to incite the Quasi-War.

The affair came at a time when the concurrent French Revolution (1789-1799) was already creating divisions within American politics. The nationalist Federalist Party – of which President Adams was a member – was horrified by the violence of the French Revolution and wanted to move the United States away from France's sphere of influence. To do this, they sought to foster closer political and economic ties with Great Britain, which they viewed as the natural ally of the US. This caused outrage amongst the rival political faction, the Democratic-Republican Party (Jeffersonian Democrats), who believed that closer ties with Britain would only undermine republicanism in the United States. At the same time, the French Republic viewed the budding relationship between the US and Britain as an act of aggression and authorized attacks on American merchant vessels in late 1796.

In 1797, President Adams sought to resolve the issue diplomatically and sent three envoys to France. These envoys had expected to be received by the French foreign minister, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord; instead, they were met by three French intermediaries (referred to in coded dispatches as agents 'X', 'Y', and 'Z') who insisted that the United States pay a large bribe in order to meet with Talleyrand and begin negotiations. When this became public knowledge in the US, it inflamed public opinion against the French, leading to increased support for Adams and the anti-French Federalists. Rising Franco-American tensions led to a brief, undeclared naval conflict called the Quasi-War (1798-1800), as well as the passage of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts (1798).

Background

In 1778, the Kingdom of France signed a Treaty of Alliance with the fledgling United States. The American Revolutionary War had been ongoing for three years, and the Americans had time and again proven their resilience and determination in battle against the British; however, it was clear to all that the American rebellion would falter if they did not receive support from a European power. France was happy to oblige, seeing that a victory in America would humiliate and weaken its rival, Great Britain. France provided the Americans with arms, ammunition, uniforms, troops, and ships, and it turned the war into a global conflict by threatening the valuable British colonies in India and the West Indies, forcing Britain to spread its military resources thin. French soldiers and ships proved vital to the decisive American victory at the Siege of Yorktown, the engagement that solidified American independence. Certainly, the French contributed greatly to the ultimate American victory and succeeded in striking a blow to British prestige in the process.

But such a war came with a monstrous cost, and France soon found itself drowning in debt. Attempts to tackle the problem failed, and France's economic misfortunes blossomed into a revolution. News of the Storming of the Bastille in July 1789 was sweet to American ears, as was the proclamation of the First French Republic three years later. Americans were jubilant that their French brothers-in-arms were following their lead and casting off the shackles of monarchism, with Thomas Jefferson and his supporters even welcoming the new French Republic as "our younger sister" (Wood, 182). But then came the violence: the September Massacres, the trial and execution of Louis XVI, and the start of the Reign of Terror made the streets of Paris slick with blood and plunged the young French Republic deeper into chaos. Under the new Jacobin regime, hundreds of thousands of French citizen-soldiers swept into Europe, vowing to deliver liberty and equality at the point of a bayonet. The French Revolutionary Wars were soon underway as the great powers of Europe – Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain among them – took up arms against the French.

Even now, the French Revolution had support in the United States, with men like Jefferson believing that a little violence was the price to pay for liberty. They believed that the 1778 Treaty of Alliance was still in effect and urged the Washington Administration to offer support to their sister republic. However, President George Washington was reluctant to offer any such support. He knew that doing so would risk antagonizing Great Britain, with whom relations were already low, at a time when the United States was completely unprepared for war. Instead, Washington issued a Proclamation of Neutrality on 22 April 1793, in which he promised to keep the United States out of the French Revolutionary Wars. The following year, his administration negotiated a deal with Britain – the controversial Jay Treaty, ratified by Congress in 1795, created stronger economic and political ties between Britain and the United States. While this achieved the goal of the Washington Administration and the Federalist Party of avoiding another war with England, it outraged the Jeffersonian faction of Americans (Democratic-Republicans), who still wanted to support France and feared that the treaty placed the US too closely within Britain's sphere of influence.

Jay Treaty

John Jay (Public Domain)

The French Republic itself was also incensed by the Jay Treaty, which it interpreted as a British-American alliance. The French felt especially double-crossed because they believed the 1778 Treaty of Alliance was still in effect and had been expecting American support. They retaliated in 1796 when French privateers began attacking American shipping in the British West Indies. Within the next year, nearly 300 American merchant ships were captured, their crews often subjected to maltreatment; in one instance, the French tortured the American captain of the Cincinnatus with thumb screws to get him to confess that he was carrying British goods. Amidst these rising tensions, Washington, who was preparing to leave office, recalled James Monroe as ambassador to France, feeling that Monroe was too pro-French. In his place, Washington sent Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a hardline Federalist from South Carolina; but when Pinckney arrived in Paris, the French refused to even receive him. This was how matters stood when John Adams was inaugurated as the second US president on 4 March 1797 – a discontented pro-French faction on American soil, and an aggressive French Republic looking to assert its will.

Continue reading...

[papers-pamphlet]

John Adams, one of the most intellectually complex figures of America's founding generation, embodied the tension between idealism and pragmatism that defines much of the human experience. A man of intense conviction, Adams believed deeply in the principles of liberty and self-governance, yet he was also acutely aware of the frailty and fallibility of human nature. His presidency, marked by difficult decisions such as the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, reveals a leader caught between the noble aspirations of democracy and the harsh realities of statecraft. Adams understood that freedom, while a divine right, also demanded responsibility and restraint—a truth that often led him to make unpopular choices for the sake of national security.

This is what makes him such an interesting historical figure. He is morally grey, and forces us to ask the hard hitting questions like:

Was it worth violating the 1st Amendment for the safety of his people?

Does this correlate to his non-hostility of a monarchy?

Did John Adams areolas look like iHop pancakes?

These are the questions philosophers will be asking for centuries.

So tru-- WHAT

[mariacallous]

Trump just said he's bringing back the Alien and Sedition Acts. On top of the xenophobia, any MSM journalists out there still fluffing Trump, might want to look up what happened under the "Sedition" part of that.

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1844842554455621633

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Drew Sheneman, Newark Star-Ledger

* * * *

Harris continues to take her message directly to the people

October 16, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Kamala Harris continued to bring her message directly to voters by bypassing major media. She sat for an hour in an interview with Charlamagne Tha God, whose podcast, “Breakfast Club,” reaches millions daily.  The entire interview is here: We The People: An Audio Town Hall With Kamala Harris & Charlamagne Tha God. But if you don’t have sixty minutes to spare, key moments are here:

Harris responds to MAGA attack ads saying that she “won’t do anything for Black people.” Watch Harris’s answer over five minutes as she corrects the record and attacks the disinformation being peddled by Trump. She challenges Charlamagne, “Ask Donald Trump what his plan is for Black voters. I will tell you what it is. It is Project 2025, which it makes it more difficult for Black Americans to live safely in their communities with full protection of the Constitution.”

Harris responds to question of whether it “smart politics” to campaign for support directly from the Black community? Harris provides a direct, genuine answer about her desire to be the “president for everybody” while also recognizing the disparities facing Black voters.

Kamala pushes back against the false claim that she and Biden “did nothing” about immigration for the first three years of their term. If you watch nothing else, check out this answer.

Kamala answers a question from a listener about Trump's claim that he will use the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 to deport immigrants. Harris calls out Trump for choosing to run on fear of immigration.

The interview also focused on the threat posed by Donald Trump. As she did on Monday, Kamala Harris sharpened her attacks on Trump, agreeing that he posed a “fascist” threat to the United States. For a summary of Harris’s criticisms of Trump, see NYTimes, Harris Agrees Trump Is a Fascist: 5 Charlamagne Interview Takeaways (Accessible to all.)

There are other notable moments, but here is the point: Kamala Harris sat for sixty minutes and answered serious questions from listeners to a program that reaches millions in the Black community every day. Van Jones of CNN rated the performance by Harris as “an A+++.” See CNN, Video: Van Jones reacts to Harris’ radio town hall with Charlamagne tha God. (See remarks beginning at 1:55).

It is beyond quibble that in agreeing to be interviewed by Charlamagne Tha God, Kamala Harris reached millions of listeners in the Black community who might not have otherwise heard her message. It was a smart move.

Critics of Kamala Harris (read: Fox News) are attempting to dismiss the interview as “friendly” and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. Of course, Trump is imploding in “friendly” interviews by allies like Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kristy Noem.

When Trump appeared on Tuesday before a “friendly” crowd at the Chicago Economic Club, he melted down when the interviewer challenged him for not answering the questions. See HuffPo, Trump Defends Tariff Plans In Wandering Remarks In Chicago.

Here is HuffPo’s description of the off-the-rails interview:

Appearing before the Economic Club of Chicago in Illinois, the presidential candidate also said he could do a better job on interest rate policy than Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, claimed he had never criticized 81-year-old President Joe Biden over his age, and refused to say whether he had talked with Russian President Vladimir Putin since the end of Trump's 2017-2021 White House term, as journalist Bob Woodward has reported.

And when the interviewer said that experts disagreed with Trump about tariffs, Trump attacked the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and the interviewer:

“You’re wrong. You’ve been wrong, you’ve been wrong all your life on this stuff,” Trump told John Micklethwait, the editor-in-chief of business news giant Bloomberg News, when the pair disagreed about tariffs and their impact on the U.S. dollar. “What does The Wall Street Journal know? They’ve been wrong about everything,” Trump said when Micklethwait mentioned the paper’s editorial page being critical of the bigger budget deficits it says his plans would cause.

Although the Trump campaign praised the interview as the best ever by any presidential candidate, the campaign canceled an interview with the business news program on CNBC: See Forbes, Trump Cancels CNBC Interview—As He Fights With Major Networks Over Interviews With Harris.

Trump will drop all future interviews except those with hosts in his pocket. Meanwhile, an increasingly confident Kamala Harris is reportedly in talks to appear on Joe Rogan’s top-rated podcast, has agreed to a CNN townhall in Philadelphia next week, and will appear on a Fox “News” for an interview this week. See The Philadelphia Inquirer, Kamala Harris is going on Fox News in Philly. Donald Trump isn’t happy.

Does it matter that Kamala Harris is running a disciplined, professional, and confident campaign while Trump's campaign is flailing? Yes. A lot. Just imagine if Kamala Harris was running a poor campaign that stumbled and misfired every day. The media and pundits would be unforgiving, claiming that a weak and disorganized campaign was evidence of unfitness to be president.

And yet, Trump has multiple meltdowns each day and major media looks on with mild bemusement. The NYTimes dismissed Trump's 39-minute interlude of listening to music at a rally on Monday as an “improvisational detour.” Really?! If Harris had done the same thing, the Times would have described the event as “disqualifying.” Perhaps that explains why Kamala Harris would rather be interviewed by Fox News than the NYTimes.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]