Reactions to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
Communications from several states on the resolutions of the legislature of Virginia respecting the Alien and Sedition Laws …
1800
View the communications on the alien and sedition laws in the resource
This document provides an insight into the different reactions in the United States to the introduction of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, as well as the resulting political debates. It collates not only the opinions of seven states who disapproved of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, submitted in protest to the acts, but also a detailed analysis of the Virginia Resolution by the General Assembly of Virginia in light of these criticisms. The Committee of the Assembly goes through their resolutions point by point, clarifying their meaning, addressing the accusations and confirming their main principle, namely that “in the case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining […] the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them” (p.37).
Passed by Federalist President John Adams, the four laws which made up the Alien and Sedition Acts increased the requirement for American citizenship from five years’ residency to 14 years, allowed the President to imprison or deport foreigners considered dangerous to the U.S. at any time, allowed the imprisonment or deportation of male citizens of a hostile nation aged over 14 during times of war, and restricted speech critical of the government. The laws relating to foreigners were sparked by fears about the influence of the French and French-sympathising immigrants in volatile America, where some had been calling for revolution. The Sedition Law was perhaps the most controversial, introduced officially to strengthen national security but in practice to suppress the opinions of Democratic-Republicans. It is seen by many as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and the press. The negative reaction to the Sedition Law fuelled support for the Democratic-Republican Party, helping propel Thomas Jefferson to victory in the 1800 election. Although the Naturalisation Act was repealed in 1802, the other acts were allowed to expire naturally. The Democratic-Republicans made use of the Sedition Act before it expired, however, to prosecute some of their Federalist critics.
These laws about the arrival of people in the Unites States led to fierce constitutional debates. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions protested against the restriction of civil liberties in these acts, arguing that individual states had the right to protest against federal laws if they felt that the federal government was acting beyond the scope of the Constitution. According to the resolutions, the federal government had been the outcome of a compact between the states, and so all powers not specifically granted to the central authority in the Constitution were retained by the individual states or by the people. There was a slight difference between the two resolutions, as the Virginia one, drafted in secret by James Madison, called for the interposition of states: they could not declare a federal law to be void but could collectively challenge it. The Kentucky Resolution however, secretly written by Thomas Jefferson, called for nullification, arguing that each individual state had the power to declare federal laws to be unconstitutional and void, thus invalidating them. The other states were united in their rejection of these ideas. Their responses ranged from the State of Delaware’s denunciation of Virginia’s resolutions as an “unjustifiable interference with the general government and constituted authorities of the United States” (p.3), to the State of Rhode-Island’s fear that the desire for individual states to be able to challenge national laws would involve “submitting most important questions of law, to less competent tribunals” with “many evil and fatal consequences” (p.4). There were fears that the resolutions even called for secession, but these are generally considered to have been unfounded.
The long term impact of these resolutions was not merely their attack on the Alien and Sedition Laws, but the public discussion of theories on the rights of individual states versus the federal government, and the different interpretations of nullification, interposition and secession.
Passed by Federalist President John Adams, the four laws which made up the Alien and Sedition Acts increased the requirement for American citizenship from five years’ residency to 14 years, allowed the President to imprison or deport foreigners considered dangerous to the U.S. at any time, allowed the imprisonment or deportation of male citizens of a hostile nation aged over 14 during times of war, and restricted speech critical of the government. The laws relating to foreigners were sparked by fears about the influence of the French and French-sympathising immigrants in volatile America, where some had been calling for revolution. The Sedition Law was perhaps the most controversial, introduced officially to strengthen national security but in practice to suppress the opinions of Democratic-Republicans. It is seen by many as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and the press. The negative reaction to the Sedition Law fuelled support for the Democratic-Republican Party, helping propel Thomas Jefferson to victory in the 1800 election. Although the Naturalisation Act was repealed in 1802, the other acts were allowed to expire naturally. The Democratic-Republicans made use of the Sedition Act before it expired, however, to prosecute some of their Federalist critics.
These laws about the arrival of people in the Unites States led to fierce constitutional debates. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions protested against the restriction of civil liberties in these acts, arguing that individual states had the right to protest against federal laws if they felt that the federal government was acting beyond the scope of the Constitution. According to the resolutions, the federal government had been the outcome of a compact between the states, and so all powers not specifically granted to the central authority in the Constitution were retained by the individual states or by the people. There was a slight difference between the two resolutions, as the Virginia one, drafted in secret by James Madison, called for the interposition of states: they could not declare a federal law to be void but could collectively challenge it. The Kentucky Resolution however, secretly written by Thomas Jefferson, called for nullification, arguing that each individual state had the power to declare federal laws to be unconstitutional and void, thus invalidating them. The other states were united in their rejection of these ideas. Their responses ranged from the State of Delaware’s denunciation of Virginia’s resolutions as an “unjustifiable interference with the general government and constituted authorities of the United States” (p.3), to the State of Rhode-Island’s fear that the desire for individual states to be able to challenge national laws would involve “submitting most important questions of law, to less competent tribunals” with “many evil and fatal consequences” (p.4). There were fears that the resolutions even called for secession, but these are generally considered to have been unfounded.
The long term impact of these resolutions was not merely their attack on the Alien and Sedition Laws, but the public discussion of theories on the rights of individual states versus the federal government, and the different interpretations of nullification, interposition and secession.