journal article Show
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jun., 1954) , pp. 85-104 (20 pages) Published By: Oxford University Press https://doi.org/10.2307/1898151 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1898151 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Purchase article $19.00 - Download now and later Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $19.00 USD. How does it work?
Journal Information In October, 1907 seven of the leading historical societies of the Mississippi Valley were invited to Lincoln, Nebraska "for the purpose of considering plans for effecting a permanent organization for the advancement of historical research and the collection and conservation of material in these western States." The result was the formation of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association. Seven years later, the Association launched the first issue of its quarterly Mississippi Valley Historical Review as a new publication to showcase the publishing activities of the Association. The March 1964 issue completed the fiftieth volume of the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, and at that time, the Association celebrated the half-century landmark anniversary by approving a name change of the Association's journal to The Journal of American History. Publisher Information Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
 Passed by a Federalist-controlled Congress on July 14, the Sedition Act of 1798 (shown in this image) was part of a series of measures, commonly known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, ostensibly designed to deal with the threats involved in the “quasi-war” with France. The clash over the Sedition Act yielded the first sustained debate over the meaning of the First Amendment. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain) Passed by a Federalist-controlled Congress on July 14, the Sedition Act of 1798 was part of a series of measures, commonly known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, ostensibly designed to deal with the threats involved in the “quasi-war” with France. Critics viewed the act as a thinly disguised partisan effort to control political debate until the next presidential election. The clash over the Sedition Act yielded the first sustained debate over the meaning of the First Amendment. Democratic-Republicans were targets of the Alien and Sedition ActsThe three so-called Alien Acts made it difficult to become a naturalized citizen and gave the president power to deport without trial aliens he considered threatening. The sweeping language of the Sedition Act made it illegal, among other actions, to “write, print, utter or publish...any false, scandalous and malicious writing...with intent to defame the...government” or “to stir up sedition within the United States.” The acts were set to expire on March 3, 1801. Federalist judges enforced the law with vigor. There were twenty-five arrests, fifteen indictments, and ten convictions, many upon charges so flimsy as to be comical. Targets of the act tended to be the editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers who criticized the Federalist administration of President John Adams. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, painted by Charles Wilson Peale between 1791 and 1794, public domain) Federalists thought seditious libel law was part of common lawFederalists genuinely worried that the French threat, both military and ideological, might be enough to topple the infant republic. To them, a seditious libel law was part of the English common law, constitutional under the necessary and proper clause, and an obvious instrument of defense. They believed the First Amendment embodied only the common law protection of forbidding prior restraint. Leading Federalists thought that it was impossible to attack members of the government without attacking the very foundation of government itself. The Federalists argued that the Sedition Act in reality expanded civil liberties. The act allowed “the truth of the matter contained in publication” as evidence in defense and gave the jury “a right to determine the law and the fact.” This contrasted with English common law, which did not admit truth as a defense and limited the role of the jury to establishing the fact of publication. Republicans argued that regulatory speech powers were not necessary, properRepublicans countered that the Constitution expressly delegates no power to regulate speech or the press and that such powers are in no sense necessary and proper. The First Amendment, they argued, specifically prohibits the making of any law whatsoever regarding speech or the press. In some instances, the Republicans’ arguments were directed more fully in support of the case for states’ rights, as in the case of Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions. James Madison, in his Virginia Resolutions and more fully in the report he authored for the Virginia Assembly in 1800, stressed the necessity of completely free and vigorous political debate for republican governments. The common law, he argued, had evolved to meet the needs of hereditary systems, not those of an elective system that necessarily requires the continuous critical examination of public officials and policies. Madison’s argument called into question not just the constitutionality of a national seditious libel law but the need for such a law at any level of government in an elective system. Backlash to Sedition Act swept Federalists from powerThe prosecutions and subsequent convictions under the Sedition Act galvanized opposition to the Federalist administration. The prosecuted Republican printers and editors became folk heroes. In the election of 1800, the Federalists were swept from power—never to return—and Jefferson subsequently pardoned those who had been convicted under the law. Almost 170 years later, the Supreme Court wrote in the celebrated libel case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): “Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.” Today, the Sedition Act of 1798 is generally remembered as a violation of fundamental First Amendment principles. This article was originally published in 2009. Peter McNamara is a Professor in the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University. Send Feedback on this article What was the purpose of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798?Passed in preparation for an anticipated war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited speech critical of the government.
Who was the main target of the Alien and Sedition Acts?The laws were directed against Democratic-Republicans, the party typically favored by new citizens, and the only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers.
What was the purpose of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 quizlet?What were the purposes of the Alien and Sedition Acts? The Alien and Sedition acts were set to maintain federalist power as they were the majority by allowing deportation of foreigners and made defamation of the gov's officials an offense. Therefore, this restricted those who may oppose John Adam's and the federalists.
|
16) the alien and sedition acts, signed into law in 1798, were, for the most part, intended for
Urheberrechte © © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
