The Safety of the Kingdom

Government Responses to Subversive Threats

J. Michael Martinez

• Publisher: Carrel Books
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781631440335
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: North American History
• Index: History

The horrendous events of September 11, 2001, heightened awareness of terrorism unlike all but a handful of major catastrophes in American history. Like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and President Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963, 9/11 is a date forever enshrined in our national memory.But 9/11 once again raised the question: What should government do to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of a future attack? How should national leadership balance its responsibility to protect the civil liberties of U.S. citizens with its sworn duty to protect their lives?In The Safety of the Kingdom, J. Michael Martinez takes up the question of how the United States government has responded to terrorist attacks and, in the absence of an attack, the fear of foreign and subversive elements that may harm the nation. In some cases, the government "overreaction" led to a series of abuses that amplified the severity of the original threat. Rather than selecting every instance of government reaction to threats, Martinez examines representative cases, from the alien and sedition acts in the eighteenth century to the post-9/11 "war on terror."Edward Snowden's disclosure of classified information related to the NSA's surveillance program brought to the fore an important debate about government scrutiny of its citizens. As J. Michael Martinez makes clear in this book, it is a debate that has been ongoing for centuries.Skyhorse Publishing, as well as our Arcade imprint, are proud to publish a broad range of books for readers interested in history--books about World War II, the Third Reich, Hitler and his henchmen, the JFK assassination, conspiracies, the American Civil War, the American Revolution, gladiators, Vikings, ancient Rome, medieval times, the old West, and much more. While not every title we publish becomes a New York Times bestseller or a national bestseller, we are committed to books on subjects that are sometimes overlooked and to authors whose work might not otherwise find a home.

Chapter 1

THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

—THOMAS JEFFERSON,

LETTER TO DR. BENJAMIN RUSH, SEPTEMBER 23, 18001

Americans who look back through the dark pages of history often are perplexed by the behavior of forebears who championed measures clearly at odds with the prevailing myth of the republic as a proverbial shining city on a hill. Yet the 1790s, the first full decade that the United States existed under the new US Constitution, teemed with danger and intrigue. The nation was less than a generation removed from the American Revolution, and its perpetual existence was hardly assured. For citizens fearful of an avaricious European power asserting its dominance over the American landscape, measures to lessen or avoid foreign subversion appeared prudent and necessary to the national interest. Concerns over alien, corrosive elements led to the first major backlash against subversion in the country’s history: passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.2

Background

The laws were the result of a long train of events. Tensions, especially with Great Britain, reached a crisis early in the 1790s. The British still occupied forts in the Great Lakes region and continually impressed Americans into service as British sailors a decade after the Treaty of Paris had ended the war between Britain and her former colonies. By repeatedly encouraging Native American attacks against settlers in the western territories and interfering with trade in the West Indies, the English also threatened the well-being of citizens eking out a living on the frontier. The first US president, George Washington, was not a man to back away from a fight, but he recognized that a bellicose attitude toward the British could lead to disastrous consequences. Ill-prepared for war and mindful of the necessity of resolving ongoing disputes, his administration, propelled by a prominent Anglophile, Alexander Hamilton, negotiated a treaty that ensured at least a temporary rapprochement with Great Britain. Formally titled the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, the agreement, hammered out by a well-known lawyer and statesman, John Jay, solved one set of problems while triggering others.3

The nation of France, a perennial British adversary, interpreted the Jay Treaty as a threat to French interests in the New World. In response to the apparent normalization of Anglo-American relations, French officials seized American ships and confiscated the cargo. The Federalist Party, now headed by a new president, John Adams, reacted with alacrity at any perceived French threat. Had calm, deliberative reason taken hold, the dispute probably could have been resolved through normal channels of diplomatic discourse. Yet relations with France were so strained that each side attributed bad faith to the actions of the other.4

President Adams convened a special session of Congress in May 1797 to urge his brethren to prepare for war with France. His action ignited an acrimonious debate between his supporters in the Federalist Party and their rivals, the Democratic-Republicans, usually referred to as Republicans. The former believed that French forces represented a distinct threat to American interests and must be met with military preparedness. They suggested that internal subversion also was a threat because sympathetic Francophiles were known to live and work in the United States. A Massachusetts congressman, Harrison Gray Otis, warned that “an army of soldiers would not be so dangerous to the country, as an army of spies and incendiaries scattered throughout the Continent.”5

Republicans countered that the Adams administration was exaggerating the crisis to reap the political benefits of public hysteria. They cautioned that the administration’s actions would confuse dissent with treason. The notion of a loyal opposition is a crucial feature of a healthy republic. When a group fears that its members will be prosecuted for speaking the truth to power, disaffected voices fall silent. If the American system of government is constructed on a foundation of bargaining and negotiation, the regime becomes unstable when one or more parties are dissuaded from engaging in the rough-and-tumble world of political debate and compromise.6

Conscious of the turmoil he had helped to create, John Adams sought to chart a prudent course amid waves of turbulence and contention. If it came to an armed confrontation, the president was under no illusions about the nation’s vulnerability. Recalling how his predecessor had avoided war with Great Britain in 1794 by sending envoys overseas to iron out disagreements, Adams agreed to dispatch representatives to France. Unfortunately, the effort, although presumably designed to preserve the peace, exacerbated tensions.7

The crisis escalated into the notorious XYZ affair in 1797 and 1798. Led by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the president’s emissaries John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry arrived in France in October 1797 and requested a meeting with Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, the French foreign minister. Standard protocol dictated that foreign representatives present their credentials to the appropriate official, in this case Talleyrand. Typically, the exchange was a pro forma affair. In this instance, however, the foreign minister was irked about improved U.S.-British relations and suspicious of the Americans following a speech by President Adams that Talleyrand deemed overly hostile to his nation’s interests. In the flurry of back-and-forth negotiations, Talleyrand demanded a loan to the French government and a bribe for himself. Such unsavory methods were all-too-commonplace in European diplomacy at the time, but news of the affair ignited a firestorm of protest in the United States. “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute” became a rallying cry among citizens incensed by the French effrontery.8

Thus began a quasi-war, which Adams sardonically labeled “the half war with France.” Among other things, his administration established an embargo on trade with the French, formally withdrew from existing treaties, and authorized American ships on the high seas to assail French vessels. As the nation armed, talk of conspiracies circulated with frightening regularity. In addition to fears of a French war, administration officials worried that civil war might erupt between Americans who supported the British and those who allied themselves with the French.9

The Alien and Sedition Acts

It was this fear over foreign influences threatening the health of the fledgling nation that led Congress to pass, and President John Adams to sign, four laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The laws restricted naturalization procedures, authorized the detention of foreign nationals if war broke out with their respective countries, authorized the deportation of noncitizens suspected of plotting against the United States, outlawed “conspiracies” that criticized government policies, and prohibited false or malicious writing against Congress or the president.10

The statutes were written out of concern for national security, but the objectives of the Alien Acts were different from the objectives of the Sedition Act. The three Alien Acts were aimed at curbing subversive activity by foreign elements that might work toward nefarious ends behind the scenes. The first statute, known as the Naturalization Act of 1798, increased the time for immigrants to become US citizens from five to fourteen years.11 Under the Alien Enemies Act, if the nation declared war against another country, citizens from the belligerent country who were physically present in the United States could be detained, confined, or deported, as necessary, to ensure they were not engaged in subversive plots. The law passed with bipartisan support and engendered relatively little controversy.12 The Alien Friends Act, however, proved to be far more contentious. An “emergency” measure authorized the president of the United States to seize, detain, and deport any noncitizens the president determined to be dangerous to the welfare of the country. No hearing was required and the president was not obliged to seek approval or counsel from anyone before he acted. Unlike the Alien Enemies Act, the Friends Act did not include a requirement that the person seized and deported be a citizen of a country at war with the United States. Although the law was set to expire on President Adams’s last day in office, critics regarded the broad statute as a dangerous precedent and likely to enhance executive power at the expense of the other branches of government.13

President John Adams signed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts into law. Courtesy of the Library of Congress

If the Alien Acts sought to curtail subversion practiced under the cover of darkness, the Sedition Act was designed to prevent subversion undertaken in the light of day. Critics of the administration or its policies would not be permitted to engage in “seditious speech” without bearing legal consequences. The law passed along a straight party vote. Because the Federalists controlled both houses of Congress, they enacted the statute over Republican objections. In response to criticism that the law violated First Amendment freedom of speech, supporters argued that it modified common law definitions of sedition by imposing a requirement that malicious intent be an element of the crime. Truth was a recognized defense and a jury could determine whether a particular instance of speech rose to the level of sedition. In the view of one Federalist, the Sedition Act, far from being the burdensome law suggested by ardent Republicans, was “a wholesome and ameliorating interpreter of the common law.”14

Some historians have concluded that the acts were an overreaction to the French government’s hostility toward the new American republic while others have viewed the punitive measures as a convenient pretext, little more than a thinly-veiled effort by President Adams’s Federalist Party to undermine Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party. Although Adams did not use the new Alien Acts to persecute his enemies, the Sedition Act was especially worrisome to proponents of free speech because it could be wielded as a weapon, in effect nullifying the First Amendment. Anyone who criticized the government could be prosecuted for treasonous activities—a potentially potent weapon for Federalists to silence their Republican critics, to say nothing of the chilling effect even in the absence of formal prosecution. One historian characterized the measure as “perhaps the most grievous assault on free speech in the history of the United States.”15

In retrospect, the folly of such xenophobic legislation is not difficult to comprehend, but the tenor of the times suggested that enemies lurked around every corner. With new immigrants reaching the nation’s shores every day, the possibility that subversion might imperil the regime haunted many an elected official and party leader. The land was awash with Frenchmen, to say nothing of “wild Irishmen” and other suspect nationalities. Who knew what mischief strange peoples might propagate when their loyalties were divided and their motives impure?

That the Federalists would have authored the odious measures seemed anomalous, for the party was known to be friendly toward immigrants. Early in the 1790s, the Federalist Party had welcomed the tired, poor, huddled masses as potential recruits. Land speculators among the Federalist ranks especially envisioned a nation of transplanted Europeans eager to buy up land and spread the gospel of Americana. As the decade progressed, however, attitudes regressed. All sorts of revolutionary ideas and peoples flocked to the New World, and with them came a backlash against the infusion of foreign cultures and values. The orderly, hierarchical society that was supposed to flourish in the wake of a transformed citizenry was displaced by a chaotic horde of unwashed masses that reveled in distinctiveness. If the plan was to assimilate these new inhabitants into a uniquely American ethos, many immigrants, anxious to retain a separate ethnic heritage, refused to get with the program. Add to this disturbing trend of alien customs and habits the fervor of the French Revolution, attacks by British and French forces on American vessels and frontier outposts, and dark rumors circulating about conspiracies lurking on the fringes of American society, and the seeds were planted for a government overreaction.16

Fear of aliens, while perhaps overblown, can be understood as a consequence of uncertainty and feelings of powerlessness combined with steadily increasing immigration rates. Yet the desire to implement a Sedition Act requires an additional leap of faith. Apologists contended that the Federalist understanding of democratic theory was consistent with enactment of a seditious libel statute because these men of an elitist bent did not believe the legislation threatened core values. To modern sensibilities, the give-and-take among persons of different beliefs and ideologies is essential to the perpetuation of a healthy government based on the consent of the governed. The marketplace of ideas, as it was called in later days, is crowded with concepts that do not always reflect perspicacity or tasteful sentiments, but that nonetheless advance the cause of human freedom by allowing participants to present their grievances and debate efficacious public policy. Freedom of speech is a crucial component of a robust democratic government because citizens are engaged in the discussion. A law that curtails free speech is a law that undermines regime values.

The Federalists took issue with the idea that all manner of citizens should engage in public policy debates. They argued that disputes about the appropriate course of action necessarily occur among representatives chosen to present (or re-present) the views of their constituents within the formal organs of government. Because so much of the public debate among the citizenry results in cacophonous noise and ushers in civic chaos and disorder, spirited conversation among the masses not only fails to fulfill the goals of a democratic system, but may ignite violence and lead to the breakdown of harmonious relations. According to this view, stifling speech through a statute does not undermine the concept of a democratic government. It ensures that order is maintained and possibly violent communications are quashed before they can trigger violence and thereby harm the republic.

It was a curious interpretation, and not in accord with a mainstream perspective on the virtues of democratic government. Even in the early days of the American regime, a large number of citizens already subscribed to the credo that this new nation, unlike the old, stodgy governments of Europe, was a place where persons could settle and make their way free from ancient encumbrances and anti-democratic entanglements. The United States was a shining beacon by which peoples of a modest station could come and carve out an improved existence. To penalize the expression of their ideas was anathema, a decidedly undemocratic proposition. If the sea of liberty was boisterous and subject to turbulent squalls, so be it. A price must be paid to enjoy the blessings of liberty.17

The Republicans adopted this libertarian creed in their response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Never reluctant to criticize his political enemies, Thomas Jefferson was qui...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Introduction and Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1 The Alien And Sedition Acts
• Chapter 2 Lincoln And The Suspension Of Habeas Corpus
• Chapter 3 The Espionage Act Of 1917 And The Sedition Act Of 1918
• Chapter 4 The Smith Act Of 1940
• Chapter 5 Internment Of Japanese-Americans During World War Ii
• Chapter 6 The Internal Security Act Of 1950 (The Mccarran Act)
• Chapter 7 The House Un-American Activities Committee (Huac)
• Chapter 8 The Fbi And Cointelpro
• Chapter 9 The Post-9/11 War On Terror
• Chapter 10 Lessons Learned
• Notes
• References
• Index
• About the Author