James Madison wrote this letter to his friend and ally Thomas Jefferson
from Philadelphia on 15 January 1797:
The last mail brought me your favor of January 1
enclosing an unsealed one for Mr. Adams & submitting
to my discretion the eligibility of delivering it.
In exercising this delicate trust I have felt no small anxiety,
arising by no means however from an apprehension that
a free exercise of it could be in collision with your real
purpose, but from a want of confidence in myself,
& the importance of a wrong judgment in the case.
After the best consideration I have been able to bestow,
I have been led to suspend the delivery of the letter,
till you should have an opportunity of deciding on the
sufficiency or insufficiency of the following reasons.
1. It is certain that Mr. Adams, on his coming to this place,
expressed to different persons a respectful cordiality
towards you, & manifested a sensibility to the
candid manner in which your friends had in
general conducted the opposition to him.
And it is equally known that your sentiments
towards him personally have found their way
to him in the most conciliating form.
This being the state of things between you,
it deserves to be considered whether the idea
of bettering it is not outweighed by the
possibility of changing it for the worse.
2. There is perhaps a general air on the letter which
betrays the difficulty of your situation in writing it,
and it is uncertain what the impression might be
resulting from this appearance.
3. It is certain that Mr. Adams is fully apprised
of the trick aimed at by his pseudo-friends of New York:
and there may be danger of his suspecting in memento’s
on that subject, a wish to make his resentment
an instrument for avenging that of others.
A hint of this kind was some time ago dropped
by a judicious & sound man who lives under
the same roof with a wish that even the
Newspapers might be silent on that point.
4. May not what is said of “the sublime delights of riding in
the storm &c.” be misconstrued into a reflection on those
who have no distaste to the helm at the present crisis?
You know the temper of Mr. Adams better than I do:
but I have always conceived it to be rather a ticklish one.
5. The tenderness due to the zealous & active promoters
of your election, makes it doubtful whether, their
anxieties & exertions ought to be depreciated by
anything implying the unreasonableness of them.
I know that some individuals who have deeply committed
themselves, & probably incurred the political enmity at least
of the President elect, are already sore on this head.
6. Considering the probability that Mr. Adams’ course of
administration may force an opposition to it from the
Republican quarter, & the general uncertainty of the
posture which our affairs may take, there may be real
embarrassments from giving written possession to him,
of the degree of compliment & confidence which your
personal delicacy & friendship have suggested.
I have ventured to make these observations, because I am
sure you will equally appreciate the motive & the matter of
them; and because I do not view them as inconsistent with
the duty & policy of cultivating Mr. Adam’s favorable
dispositions and giving a fair start to his Executive career.
As you have, no doubt, retained a copy of the letter
I do not send it back as you request.
It occurs however that, if the subject should not be changed
in your view of it, by the reasons which influence mine, &
the delivery of the letter be accordingly judged expedient,
it may not be amiss to alter the date of it;
either by writing the whole over again,
or authorizing me to correct that part of it.
The special communication is still unmade.
It is I am told to be extremely voluminous.
I hope, under the sanction of the President’s reply to our
address, that it will be calculated rather to heal than
irritate the wounded friendship of the two countries.
Yet I cannot look around at the men who counsel him,
or look back at the snares into which he has hitherto been
drawn without great apprehensions on this subject.
Nothing from France subsequent to the arrival of Pinkney.
The negotiations for peace you will see are suspended.
The accession of Spain to the war enforces the probability
that its calamities are not likely yet to be terminated.
The late News from the Rhine & from Italy are
on the whole favorable to the French.
The last battle was on the 27 October in the Hunspruck,
and ended in a victory on their side.
The House of Representatives are on direct taxes,
which seem to be so much nauseated & feared by
those who have created both the necessity &
odium of them, that the project will miscarry.
Hamilton, you will recollect assured the farmers that all
the purposes of the Government could be answered
without resorting to lands, Houses or stock on farms.
This deceptive statement with other devices of his
administration, is rising up in judgment against him
& will very probably soon blast the prospects
which his ambition & intrigues have contemplated.
It is certain that he has lost ground
in New York of late; & his treachery to Adams
will open the eyes of New England.1
Madison’s term in the Congress ended on 4 March 1797.
President Adams wanted to send Madison to France as a diplomat,
and he asked Jefferson to persuade Madison who preferred to
maintain his independence with the Republican Party.
He therefore declined the position.
Madison was concerned that Adams would get into a war with France
since the French were attacking American ships.
Adams restrained the naval forces and engaged in what was called a
“Quasi-War” or a “Half-war” that was not declared and went on from 1798 to 1800.
Madison believed the Federalist President John Adams was monarchical.
He was concerned when he learned that Adams had made
an aggressive speech to Congress in November 1797.
On December 17 Madison wrote in a letter to James Monroe who had
been the ambassador to France from August 1794 to December 1796.
I have not received a line from Philadelphia on
the subject of the Speech, or indeed on any other.
To me no explanation of the phenomenon is necessary,
having been on the ground for observing the progressive
apostacy from the principles of our Revolution &
Governments, which marked the period of your absence.
If events should not be unpropitious to the Monarchical
party, you may prepare yourself for still more
wonderful indications of its spirit & views.
Those who tolerate at present the fashionable sentiments,
will soon be ready to embrace & avow them.
The Active characters who promoted Mr. Adams to his
station, knowing him to be what he is, cannot at bottom
have been much averse to his political tenets, and will
find in the spirit of party & in personal attachments &
animosities, sufficient motives to go all lengths with him.
Let us hope however that the tide of evil
is nearly at its flood, and that it will ebb
back to the true mark which it has overpassed.2
In the first two months of 1798 James Madison wrote
at least eight letters to Thomas Jefferson.
In the most interesting one on about February 18
Madison wrote this to Jefferson:
I am glad to find the public opinion to be taking
the turn you describe on the subject of arming.
For the public opinion alone can now save us from
the rash measures of our hot-headed Executive;
it being evident from some late votes of the House
of Representatives particularly in the choice of
Managers for the Impeachment, that a majority
there as well as in the Senate are ready to go as
far as the control of their Constituents will permit.
There never was perhaps a greater contrast between two
characters, than between those of the present President &
of his predecessor, although it is the boast & prop of the
latter, that he treads in the steps of the former: the one
cold, considerate & cautious, the other headlong & kindled
into flame by every spark that lights on his passions:
the one ever scrutinizing into the public opinion, and ready
to follow where he could not lead it: the other insulting it
by the most adverse sentiments & pursuits:
Washington a hero in the field, yet overweighing
every danger in the Cabinet—Adams without a single
pretension to the character of Soldier, a perfect Quixote
as a Statesman: the former chief Magistrate pursuing
peace everywhere with sincerity, though mistaking
the means: the latter taking as much pains to get
into war, as the former took to keep out of it.
The contrast might be pursued into a variety of other
particulars—the policy of the one in shunning connections
with the arrangements of Europe, of the other in holding
out the U. S. as a makeweight in its Balances of power:
the avowed exultation of Washington in the progress of
liberty everywhere, & his eulogy on the Revolution &
people of France posterior even to the bloody reign &
fate of Robespierre—the open denunciations by Adams
of the smallest disturbance of the ancient discipline,
order & tranquility of Despotism, &c &c &c.
The affair of Lyon & Griswold is bad enough every way;
but worst of all in becoming a topic of tedious &
disgraceful debates in Congress.
There certainly could be no necessity for removing it from
the decision of the parties themselves before that tribunal,
& its removal was evidently a sacrifice of the dignity
of the latter, to the party-maneuvers of ruining a
man whose popularity & activity were feared.
If the state of the House suspended its rules in general,
it was under no obligation to see any irregularity which
did not force itself into public notice—and if Griswold
be a man of the sword, he should not have permitted
the step to be taken; if not he does not deserve
to be avenged by the House.
No man ought to reproach another with cowardice,
who is not ready to give proof of his own courage.
I have taken some pains but in vain to find
out a person who will engage to carry the
Mail from Fredericksburg to Charlottesville.
When I was in the neighborhood of the latter I suggested
the propriety of an effort there for the purpose, but
do not know that it will be more successful.3
In March and April 1798 Madison wrote six letters to Jefferson.
On April 2 he wrote,
The President’s message is only a further development
to the public of the violent passions & heretical politics,
which have been long privately known to govern him.
It is to be hoped however that the House of
Representatives will not hastily echo them.
At least it may be expected that before war measures
are instituted, they will recollect the principle asserted
by 62 vs. 37 in the case of the Treaty, and insist on
a full communication of the intelligence on which
such measures are recommended.
The present is a plainer, if it be not a stronger case,
and if there has been sufficient defection to destroy the
majority which was then so great & so decided, it is the
worst symptom that has yet appeared in our Councils.
The Constitution supposes, what the History of all
Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the
branch of power most interested in war & most prone to it.
It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question
of war in the Legislature: But the Doctrines lately
advanced strike at the root of all these provisions,
and will deposit the peace of the Country in that
Department which the Constitution distrusts
as most ready without cause to renounce it.
For if the opinion of the President, not the facts & proofs
themselves, are to sway the judgment of Congress in
declaring war, and if the President in the recess of
Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, &
negotiate a War Treaty without the possibility of a check
even from the Senate, until the measures present
alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment;
if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature:
to declare war contrary to its judgment and in pursuance
of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like
moral obligation to grant the requisite supplies,
until it be formally repealed with the consent of the
President & Senate, it is evident that the people are
cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government the
safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.
I like both your suggestions in the present crisis.
Congress ought clearly to prohibit arming,
& the President ought to be brought to declare on what
ground he undertook to grant an indirect license to arm.
The first instructions were no otherwise legal than as
they were in pursuance of the law of Nations,
& consequently in execution of the law of the land.
The revocation of the instructions is a virtual change
of the law, & consequently a Usurpation by the
Executive of a legislative power.
It will not avail to say that the law of Nations
leaves this point undecided, & that every
nation is free to decide it for itself.
If this be the case, the regulation being a Legislative
not an Executive one, belongs to the former, not the latter
Authority; and comes expressly within the power to “define
the law of Nations” given to Congress by the Constitution.
I do not expect however that the Constitutional party
in the House of Representatives is strong enough
to do what ought to be done in the present instance.
Your 2nd idea that an adjournment for the purpose
of consulting the Constituents on the subject of war
is more practicable because it can be effected by that
branch alone if it pleases, & because an opposition to
such a measure will be more striking to the public eye.
The expedient is the more desirable as it will be utterly
impossible to call forth the sense of the people generally
before the season will be over, especially as the Towns &c.
where there can be most dispatch in such an operation
are on the wrong side; and it is to be feared that a partial
expression of the public voice may be misconstrued
or miscalled an evidence in favor of the war party.
On what do you ground the idea that a declaration
of war requires ⅔ of the Legislature?
The force of your remark however is not diminished by this
mistake, for it remains true that measures are taking or
may be taken by the Executive that will end in war, contrary
to the wish of the Body which alone can declare it.4
In April 1798 the Republicans in the Congress persuaded President John Adams
to turn over the papers exposing what was called the XYZ affair after Adams
labeled with those three letters his envoys who were mistreated in France.
When the French asked the three envoys for $250,000 in bribes,
the Americans considered that insulting and left.
Madison wrote in a letter to Jefferson on 13 May 1798:
The successful use of the Dispatches in kindling
a flame among the people, and of the flame in
extending taxes, armies & prerogative, are solemn
lessons which I hope will have their proper effect
when the infatuation of the moment is over.
The management of foreign relations appears to be the
most susceptible of abuse of all the trusts committed to a
Government, because they can be concealed or disclosed,
or disclosed in such parts & at such times as will best suit
particular views; and because the body of the people are
less capable of judging & are more under the influence of
prejudices, on that branch of their affairs, than of any other.
Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of
liberty at home is to be charged to provisions
against danger real or pretended from abroad.
The credit given to Mr. Adams for a spirit of conciliation
towards France is wonderful, when we advert to the
history of his irritations from the first name in the
Envoyship, down to his last answer to the addressers.
If he finds it thus easy to play on the prepossessions of
the people for their own Government against a foreign,
we ought not to be disappointed if the same game should
have equal success in the hands of the Directory.5
On May 20 Madison in another letter to Jefferson wrote,
The Alien bill proposed in the Senate is a monster
that must forever disgrace its parents.
I should not have supposed it possible that such a one could
have been engendered in either House, & still persuade
myself that it cannot possibly be fathered by both.
It is truly to be deplored that a standing army should
be let in upon us by the absence of a few sound votes.
It may however all be for the best.
These addresses to the feelings of the people
from their enemies, may have more effect in
opening their eyes than all the arguments
addressed to their understandings by their friends.
The President also seems to be co-operating
for the same purpose.
Every answer he gives to his addressers
unmasks more & more his principles & views.
His language to the young men of Philadelphia is the
most abominable & degrading that could fall from the
lips of the first magistrate of an independent people,
& particularly from a Revolutionary patriot.
It throws some light on his meaning when he remarked
to me, “that there was not a single principle the same
in the American & French Revolutions,” & on my alluding
to the contrary sentiment of his predecessor expressed
to Adet on the presentment of the Colors, added,
“that it was false let who would express it.”
The abolition of Royalty was it seems
not one of his Revolutionary principles.
Whether he always made this profession is best known
to those who knew him in the year 1776.
The turn of the elections in New York is a proof
that the late occurrences have increased the noise
only & not the number of the Tory-party.
Besides the intrinsic value of the acquisition,
it will encourage the hopes & exertions in other States.
You will see by the Newspapers the turn which
a Town Meeting took in Fredericksburg.
I forgot to acknowledge the pamphlet
containing the last Dispatch from the Envoys
received with your letter of the 10th.
It is evidently more in the forensic than Diplomatic style
and more likely in some of its reasonings to satisfy
an American Jury than the French Government.6
On 25 June 1798 President John Adams signed An Act Respecting
Alien Enemies and on July 14 the Sedition Act made it illegal to make false,
scandalous, and malicious statements about the government.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a strong protest against the unconstitutional
Alien and Sedition Acts in his Kentucky Resolutions,
and he notified Madison of the issue.
The Kentucky Resolutions were adopted on 16 November 1798.
Later that month James Madison completed the Virginia Resolutions
in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration
that Jefferson had called “null and void.”
Madison did not go that far in the Virginia Resolutions.
Virginia’s House of Delegates approved them 100 to 63 on December 21,
and three days later the Virginia Senate passed them 14 to 3.
These are Madison’s Virginia Resolutions:
Resolved, that the General Assembly of Virginia does
unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and
defend the Constitution of the United States, and the
Constitution of this state against every aggression,
either foreign or domestic, and that they will
support the government of the United States
in all measures, warranted by the former.
That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm
attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which,
it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their
duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those
principles, which constitute the only basis of that union,
because a faithful observance of them can alone
secure its existence and the public happiness.
That this Assembly does explicitly and peremptorily
declare that it views the powers of the federal government
as resulting from the compact to which the states are
parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the
instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid
than they are authorized by the grants enumerated
in that compact, and that in case of a deliberate,
palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers
not granted by the said compact, the states who are
parties there-to have the right and are in duty bound
to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil,
and for maintaining within their respective limits,
the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
That the General Assembly does also express its deep
regret that a spirit has in sundry instances been manifested
by the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced
constructions of the constitutional charter which defines
them; and that indications have appeared of a design to
expound certain general phrases (which having been copied
from the very limited grant of powers in the former articles
of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued)
so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular
enumeration, which necessarily explains and limits the
general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by
degrees into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and
inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform
the present republican system of the United States
into an absolute or at best a mixed monarchy.
That the General Assembly does particularly protest
against the palpable and alarming infractions of the
Constitution in the two late cases of the “alien and sedition
acts,” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of
which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal
government; and which by uniting legislative and judicial
powers to those of executive subverts the general
principles of free government, as well as the particular
organization and positive provisions of the federal
Constitution: and the other of which acts, exercises in like
manner a power not delegated by the Constitution, but
on the contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one
of the amendments thereto; a power which more than
any other ought to produce universal alarm, because
it is levelled against that right of freely examining public
characters and measures and of free communication
among the people thereon, which has ever been justly
deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.
That this State having by its convention which ratified
the federal Constitution, expressly declared, “that among
other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the
press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified
by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme
anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack
of sophistry or ambition, having with other states
recommended an amendment for that purpose, which
amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution,
it would mark a reproachful inconsistency and criminal
degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the
most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared
and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent
which may be fatal to the other.
That the good people of this Commonwealth having ever
felt and continuing to feel the most sincere affection for
their brethren of the other states, the truest anxiety for
establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the
most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitution which is
the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument
of mutual happiness, the General Assembly does
solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States,
in confidence that they will concur with this Commonwealth
in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts
aforesaid are unconstitutional, and that the necessary
and proper measures will be taken by each,
for cooperating with this State in maintaining
unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties,
reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
That the Governor be desired to transmit a copy
of the foregoing resolutions to the Executive authority
of each of the other States with a request that the
same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof.
And that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators
and Representatives, representing this State in the
Congress of the United States.7
In the elections of 1798 the Federalists gained three seats in the
House of Representatives that increased their majority to 60-46,
and in the Senate they maintained their 20-10 majority.
Madison on 29 December 1798 wrote this letter to Thomas Jefferson:
The President’s speech corresponds pretty much
with the idea of it which was preconceived.
It is the old song with no other variation of the tune
than the spirit of the moment was thought too exact.
It is evident also that he rises in his pitch as the Echoes
of the Senate & House of Representatives embolden him,
& particularly that he seizes with avidity that of the latter
flattering his vigilance & firmness against illusory
attempts on him, without noticing, as he was
equally invited, the allusion to his pacific professions.
The Senate as usual perform their part with alacrity
in counteracting peace by dexterous provocations
to the pride & irritability of the French Government.
It is pretty clear that their answer was cooked
in the same shop with the Speech.
The finesse of the former calculated to impose on the
public mind here, & the virulence of the latter still more
calculated to draw from France the war, which can not
be safely declared on this side, taste strongly of the
genius of that subtle partisan of England who has
contributed so much to the public misfortunes.
It is not difficult to see how Adams could be made a puppet
through the instrumentality of creatures around him,
nor how the Senate could be managed by similar artifice.
I have not seen the Result of the discussions
at Richmond on the Alien & Sedition laws.
It is to be feared their zeal may forget some
considerations which ought to temper their proceedings.
Have you ever considered thoroughly the distinction
between the power of the State & that of the Legislature
on questions relating to the federal pact.
On the supposition that the former is clearly the ultimate
Judge of infractions, it does not follow that the latter
is the legitimate organ especially as a Convention
was the organ by which the Compact was made.
This was a reason of great weight for using general
expressions that would leave to other States a choice
of all the modes possible of concurring in the substance,
and would shield the General Assembly against the
charge of Usurpation in the very act of protesting
against the usurpations of Congress.8
On 23 January 1799 Madison made this Address of the Assembly
to
the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the Sedition Act of 1798:
Fellow Citizens,—Unwilling to shrink from our
representative responsibility, conscious of the purity of
our motives, but acknowledging your right to supervise
our conduct, we invite your serious attention to the
emergency which dictated the subjoined resolutions….
It would be perfidious in those entrusted with the
guardianship of the State sovereignty, and acting under
the solemn obligation of the following oath, “I do swear
that I will support the Constitution of the United States,”
not to warn you of encroachments which, though clothed
with the pretext of necessity, or disguised by arguments
of expediency, may yet establish precedents which may
ultimately devote a generous and unsuspicious people
to all the consequences of usurped power.
Encroachments springing from a government
whose organization cannot be maintained
without the co-operation of the States, furnish the
strongest excitements upon the State Legislatures to
watchfulness, and impose upon them the strongest
obligation to preserve unimpaired the line of partition….
Exhortations to disregard domestic usurpation,
until foreign danger shall have passed, is an artifice
which may be forever used, because the possessors
of power, who are the advocates for its extension,
can ever create national embarrassments, to be
successively employed to soothe the people into sleep,
while that power is swelling silently and fatally.
Of the same character are insinuations of a
foreign influence, which seize upon a laudable
enthusiasm against danger from abroad, and
distort it by an unnatural application, so as to
blind your eyes against danger at home.
The sedition act presents a scene which was never
expected by the early friends of the Constitution.
It was then admitted that the State sovereignties were
only diminished by powers specifically enumerated,
or necessary to carry the specified powers into effect.
Now, Federal authority is deduced from implication;
and from the existence of State law, it is inferred
that Congress possess a similar power of legislation;
whence Congress will be endowed with a power of
legislation in all cases whatsoever, and the States
will be stripped of every right reserved by the
concurrent claims of a paramount Legislature.
The sedition act is the offspring of these
tremendous pretensions, which inflict a
death-wound on the sovereignty of the States.
For the honor of American understanding, we will not
believe that the people have been allured into the adoption
of the Constitution by an affectation of defining powers,
while the preamble would admit a construction which
would erect the will of Congress into a power paramount
in all cases, and therefore limited in none.
On the contrary, it is evident that the objects for which
the Constitution was formed were deemed attainable
only by a particular enumeration and specification of
each power granted to the Federal Government;
reserving all others to the people or to the States.
And yet it is in vain we search for any specified
power embracing the right of legislation against
the freedom of the press.
Had the States been despoiled of their sovereignty
by the generality of the preamble, and had the Federal
Government been endowed with whatever they should
judge to be instrumental towards union, justice,
tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and
the preservation of liberty, nothing could have been
more frivolous than an enumeration of powers.
It is vicious in the extreme to calumniate
meritorious public servants; but it is both artful
and vicious to arouse the public indignation
against calumny in order to conceal usurpation.
Calumny is forbidden by the laws,
usurpation by the Constitution.
Calumny injures individuals, usurpation States.
Calumny may be redressed by the common judicatures;
usurpation can only be controlled by the act of society.
Ought usurpation, which is most mischievous, to be
rendered less hateful by calumny, which, though
injurious, is in a degree less pernicious?
But the laws for the correction
of calumny were not defective.
Every libelous writing or expression might receive
its punishment in the State courts from juries
summoned by an officer, who does not receive his
appointment from the President, and is under no
influence to court the pleasure of Government,
whether it injured public officers or private citizens.
Nor is there any distinction in the Constitution empowering
Congress exclusively to punish calumny directed against
an officer of the General Government; so that a construction
assuming the power of protecting the reputation of a
citizen officer will extend to the case of any other citizen,
and open to Congress a right of legislation in every
conceivable case which can arise between individuals.
In answer to this, it is urged that every Government
possesses an inherent power of self-preservation, entitling
it to do whatever it shall judge necessary for that purpose.
This is a repetition of the doctrine of implication
and expediency in different language, and admits
of a similar and decisive answer, namely, that as
the powers of Congress are defined, powers inherent,
implied, or expedient are obviously the creatures
of ambition; because the care expended in defining
powers would otherwise have been superfluous.
Powers extracted from such sources will be indefinitely
multiplied by the aid of armies and patronage, which
with the impossibility of controlling them by any
demarcation would presently terminate reasoning
and ultimately swallow up the State sovereignties.
So insatiable is a love of power that it has resorted
to a distinction between the freedom and licentiousness
of the press for the purpose of converting the third
amendment of the Constitution, which was dictated
by the most lively anxiety to preserve that freedom,
into an instrument for abridging it.
Thus usurpation even justifies itself by a precaution
against usurpation; and thus an amendment universally
designed to quiet every fear is adduced as the source
of an act which has produced general terror and alarm.
The distinction between liberty and licentiousness is
still a repetition of the Protean doctrine of implication,
which is ever ready to work its ends by varying its shape.
By its help the judge as to what is licentious may escape
through any constitutional restriction.
Under it men of a particular religious opinion might be
excluded from office, because such exclusion would not
amount to an establishment of religion, and because it
might be said that their opinions are licentious.
And under it Congress might denominate a religion to be
heretical and licentious and proceed to its suppression.
Remember that precedents once established are so
much positive power; and that the nation which
reposes on the pillow of political confidence, will sooner
or later end its political existence in a deadly lethargy.
Remember, also, that it is to the press mankind are
indebted for having dispelled the clouds which long
encompassed religion, for disclosing her genuine luster,
and disseminating her salutary doctrines.
The sophistry of a distinction between the liberty and the
licentiousness of the press is so forcibly exposed in a late
memorial from our late envoys to the Minister of the French
Republic, that we here present it to you in their own words:
“The genius of the Constitution and the opinion
of the people of the United States, cannot be overruled
by those who administer the Government.
Among those principles deemed sacred in America,
among those sacred rights considered as forming the
bulwark of their liberty, which the Government
contemplates with awful reverence and would approach
only with the most cautious circumspection, there is
no one of which the importance is more deeply impressed
on the public mind than the liberty of the press.
That this liberty is often carried to excess; that it has
sometimes degenerated into licentiousness is seen and
lamented, but the remedy has not yet been discovered.
Perhaps it is an evil inseparable from the good
with which it is allied; perhaps it is a shoot which
cannot be stripped from the stalk without wounding
vitally the plant from which it is torn.
However desirable those measures might be
which might correct without enslaving the press,
they have never yet been devised in America.
No regulations exist which enable the Government
to suppress whatever calumnies or invectives any
individual may choose to offer to the public eye, or
to punish such calumnies and invectives otherwise
than by a legal prosecution in courts which are alike
open to all who consider themselves as injured.”
As if we were bound to look for security from the
personal probity of Congress amidst the frailties of man,
and not from the barriers of the Constitution,
it has been urged that the accused under the
sedition act is allowed to prove the truth of the charge.
This argument will not for a moment disguise the
unconstitutionality of the act, if it be recollected that
opinions as well as facts are made punishable, and
that the truth of an opinion is not susceptible of proof.
By subjecting the truth of opinion to the regulation,
fine, and imprisonment to be inflicted by those
who are of a different opinion, the free range
of the human mind is injuriously restrained….
The sacred obligations of religion flow from the
due exercise of opinion in the solemn discharge of which
man is accountable to his God alone; yet, under this
precedent the truth of religion itself may be ascertained,
and its pretended licentiousness punished by a jury of
a different creed from that held by the person accused.
This law, then, commits the double sacrilege of arresting
reason in her progress towards perfection and of placing
in a state of danger the free exercise of religious opinions.
But where does the Constitution allow Congress to
create crimes and inflict punishment, provided they
allow the accused to exhibit evidence in his defense?
This doctrine united with the assertion that sedition is a
common law offence, and therefore within the correcting
power of Congress opens at once the hideous volumes of
penal law and turns loose upon us the utmost invention of
insatiable malice and ambition, which in all ages have
debauched morals, depressed liberty, shackled religion,
supported despotism, and deluged the scaffold with blood.All the preceding arguments, arising from a deficiency of
constitutional power in Congress, apply to the alien act; and
this act is liable to other objections peculiar to itself.
If a suspicion that aliens are dangerous constitute the
justification of that power exercised over them by Congress,
then a similar suspicion will justify the exercise of a similar
power over natives; because there is nothing in the
Constitution distinguishing between the power of a State
to permit the residence of natives and of aliens.
It is, therefore, a right originally possessed, and never
surrendered, by the respective States, and which is
rendered dear and valuable to Virginia … because her
peculiar situation renders the easy admission of artisans
and laborers an interest of vast importance.
But this bill contains other features,
still more alarming and dangerous.
It dispenses with the trial by jury; it violates the judicial
system; it confounds the legislative, executive, and judicial
powers; it punishes without trial; and it bestows upon the
President despotic power over a numerous class of men.
Are such measures consistent
with our constitutional principles?
And will an accumulation of power so extensive in
the hands of the Executive, over aliens, secure
to natives the blessings of republican liberty?
If measures can mold governments, and if an
uncontrolled power of construction is surrendered to
those who administer them, their progress may
be easily foreseen, and their end easily foretold.
A lover of monarchy, who opens the treasures of
corruption by distributing emolument among devoted
partisans, may at the same time be approaching his object
and deluding the people with professions of republicanism.
He may confound monarchy and
republicanism by the art of definition.
He may varnish over the dexterity which ambition never
fails to display with the pliancy of language, the seduction of
expediency, or the prejudices of the times; and he may
come at length to avow that so extensive a territory as that
of the United States can only be governed by the energies
of monarchy; that it cannot be defended except by standing
armies; and that it cannot be united except by consolidation.
Measures have already been adopted
which may lead to these consequences.
They consist —
In fiscal systems and arrangements, which keep
a host of commercial and wealthy individuals embodied,
and obedient to the mandates of the treasury.
In armies and navies, which will, on the one hand,
enlist the tendency of man to pay homage to his fellow-
creature who can feed or honor him; and on the other,
employ the principle of fear by punishing imaginary
insurrections under the pretext of preventive justice.
In the extensive establishment of a volunteer militia,
rallied together by a political creed, armed and officered by
executive power, so as to deprive the States of their
constitutional right to appoint militia officers and to place
the great bulk of the people in a defenseless situation.
In swarms of officers, civil and military, who can
inculcate political tenets tending to consolidation and
monarchy both by indulgences and severities; and
can act as spies over the free exercise of human reason.
In destroying by the sedition act the responsibility of
public servants and public measures to the people, thus
retrograding towards the exploded doctrine “that the
administrators of the Government are the masters and not
the servants of the people,” and exposing America, which
acquired the honor of taking the lead among nations
towards perfecting political principles, to the disgrace of
returning first to ancient ignorance and barbarism….
In transferring to the Executive important legislative
powers; particularly the power of raising armies,
and borrowing money without limitation of interest.
In restraining the freedom of the press, and
investing the Executive with legislative, executive,
and judicial powers over a numerous body of men.
And that we may shorten the catalog
in establishing by successive precedents,
such a mode of construing the Constitution as will
rapidly remove every restraint upon Federal power.
Let history be consulted; let the man of experience reflect;
nay, let the artificers of monarchy be
asked what further materials they can
need for building up their favorite system.
These are solemn but painful truths; and yet we
recommend it to you not to forget the possibility of danger
from without, although danger threatens us from within.
Usurpation is indeed dreadful; but against foreign invasion,
if that should happen, let us rise with hearts and
hands united, and repel the attack with the zeal
of free-men who will strengthen their title to examine
and correct domestic measures, by having defended
their country against foreign aggression.
Pledged as we are, fellow citizens, to these sacred
engagements, we yet humbly and fervently implore the
Almighty Deposer of events to avert from our land war and
usurpation, the scourges of mankind; to permit our fields to
be cultivated in peace; to instill into nations the love of
friendly intercourse; to suffer our youth to be educated in
virtue, and to preserve our morality from the pollution
invariably incident to habits of war; to prevent the laborer
and husbandman from being harassed by taxes and
imposts; to remove from ambition the means of disturbing
the commonwealth; to annihilate all pretexts for power
afforded by war; to maintain the Constitution; and to bless
our nation with tranquility under whose benign influence
we may reach the summit of happiness and glory,
to which we are destined by nature and nature’s God.9
Also on 23 January 1799 Madison published this essay on “Foreign Influence”
that excoriated the British in the Aurora General Advertiser:
The public attention has been much employed for
some time on the danger of foreign influence and of
divisions between the government and the people.
The jealousy which has been awakened
on these subjects, has however, been
exclusively directed towards one foreign nation.
To be honorable to our character and adequate
to our safety it ought to be pointed to every
quarter where danger lurks, and most awake
to that from which danger is most to be feared.
The two important questions that offer themselves
to a mind in every respect American, are; first, whether
there be greater danger of the government being separated
from the people by its own ambition and by foreign
intrigues; or of the people being separated from the
government by such intrigues and by its proneness to
anarchy and sedition: Secondly, from what foreign quarter
the greatest danger of influence is to be apprehended?
The first question being rendered peculiarly delicate
by known causes is left for hands better qualified to
manage it: excepting, indeed, so far as light may be
thrown on it from an examination of the second.
On this question I have bestowed much thought,
and perhaps with as much impartiality as is felt
by those who profess the most of it.
The conclusion with me is that Great Britain above all other
nations ought to be dreaded and watched, as most likely to
gain an undue and pernicious ascendency in our country.
I think so, because her motives are stronger,
and her means greater.
Her Motives
1. The pride of regaining by address
the benefits she formerly held by authority.
That she is making at this crisis every effort
for the purpose is seen by every eye that is
not willfully shut to facts.
2. Her spirit and system of monopoly must make her
particularly dread the policy and prosperity of the
United States in the three great articles of which she is most
jealous—to wit, manufactures, commerce, navigation.
The United States are the greatest
and best market for her manufactures.
To keep out those of other nations and to
keep down those of our own is the grand object
to which her efforts have ever been directed.
It is well understood that one of our
manufactures has been strangled in its birth
by a dexterous operation from that quarter.
On the subject of commerce she has the same feelings,
the same interest, and the same system.
To be our merchant as well as manufacturer is the game
she will most certainly play in time to come as in time past,
however differently her cards may be shuffled.
The eastern states ought to know this better
than any other part of the continent.
It was known and felt both at Boston
soon after the close of the war.
The sentinels that proclaimed the alarm then,
where are they now?
With respect to navigation all the world knows
the greater part of it by severe experience,
that the most jealous lover never guarded
an inconstant mistress with a more watchful eye.
The United States in their materials for ship building and
their bulky articles for transportation possess resources
more important to her, if she can force or influence us
out of them, and presenting a more formidable rivalship
to her, if she cannot than any other nation whatever.
Hence her rigid and compulsive monopoly
while we were colonies.
Hence the obstinacy of her exertions, during the
revolutionary war, this monopoly to retain.
Hence her vigilance and activity, to regain it by her
parliamentary regulations and orders of council before
we had a general government that could counteract them.
Hence her address in seizing the moment of our humiliation,
which gave her the British treaty.
Hence the impatient and rigorous use made of that
treaty in her “countervailing act,” which cuts the
throat of the American navigation and transfuses
the vital blood of it into her own.
3. But the most powerful, perhaps,
of all her motives is her hatred and fear
of the republican example of our governments.
The others are motives of national interest only;
this is enlivened by the strong feeling also
of a governmental and personal interest.
This feeling showed itself in many
features of the revolutionary war.
It showed itself in the indignant treatment of the first
minister from the United States, and in the distance
and dislike displayed for a long period thereafter:
It showed itself by the strongest marks in the
undisguised wishes and hopes that our union would
be speedily dissolved, that our popular governments
would tumble into anarchy and convulsions; and that the
general wreck would exhibit a spectacle of misery and
horror that would forever disgrace the republican principle
and add new braces to the monarchical fabric.
The same acute and predominant feeling has showed itself
in an increased aversion to the smallest improvement of
the British government in its representative branch;
and has displayed itself with all its force in its instant alarm
at the propagation of republican principles into France
and the unparalleled rage and inveteracy of the war
pursued against them; a war in which every calculation
of national advantage was sacrificed to the monarchial
policy and passions of the government.
While the abhorrence of the British government to
republicanism in Europe is thus implacable, it must be
proportionably so to the danger of the example elsewhere.
If she has changed her course therefore towards this
country, it is not that she has changed her sentiments,
or is better reconciled to our political principles
and institutions; but that she now hopes
to attain her ends better in another way.
The truth is Great Britain as a monarchy containing a
republican ingredient of which (at all times, but in the
present state of the world more particularly)
the danger of a fermentation & expansion fills her
with distressing apprehensions, must view with a
malignant eye the United States, as the real source of the
present revolutionary state of the world, and as an example
of republicanism more likely than any other for very
obvious reasons to convey its contagion to her.
In a word, the British Monarchy must, as it assuredly does,
hate the American Republic; and this hatred must be in
proportion to its fear; and this fear must be in proportion
to the practical success of the Republican theory.
It will consequently spare no pains to defeat this success
by drawing our Republic into foreign wars, by dividing the
people among themselves, by separating the government
from the people, by establishing a faction of its own in the
country, by magnifying the importance of characters among
us known to think more highly of the British government,
than of their own, or of such as are ready to play any part
that it may dictate to them; with a systematic view,
on one hand of disgracing the Republican principle,
and on the other, of swelling and shaping our
government towards the pattern of its own.
This pursuit of the British government is highly criminal
because at variance with right principles, yet it is so
congenial with its situation and its interest that it
excites less indignation than the conduct of those
who clandestinely favor the plan or willfully shut their
own eyes and endeavor to shut the eyes of others to it.
For it is not possible that a government in which a few
are clothed with prerogatives and dignities almost divine,
while many are suppressed to a condition scarcely human;
and where a civil list, a military, and naval establishment,
and a hierarchy (passing by the frightful mass of debts
incurred by unnecessary wars) load the people with an
annual burden of more than a hundred million dollars—
and where, besides, corruption is confessedly the vital
principle that pervades the whole system; it is not possible
that such a government can see another founded on the
just rights of mankind, virtuously administered at the small
expense of a few hundred thousand dollars, and enjoying
peace, order, tranquility, and happiness without
comparisons and reflections, leading to the idea that the
example of the latter government must be dangerous to
the former, if the influence of the former cannot in
some way destroy the force of the example.
The means of this influence are
as obvious as the motives.
The British government has a more ready
and ample command of money
than any other government in the world.
Being an absolute monarchy in its executive department,
it can distribute its money for secret services
with every advantage of safety and success.
It is the long and systematic practice of effectuating its
purposes both at home and abroad by means of money.
The sum for secret services has been
vastly augmented of late years.
Great Britain expends more money annually
under that head than is appropriated to support
the government of the United States.
A British Ambassador and his suite, having the peculiar
advantage of the same language, the same usages & the
same manners with our citizens can more easily than any
other foreigners associate intimately and extensively with
them, can write with less danger of detection for our
newspapers, and can intrigue with less difficulty
with our government, if unhappily any department
should ever become susceptible of it.
Nor is it to be overlooked that there is not a state or district
in the union that does not present to them countrymen
ready to second their views, if not execute their instructions.
There are among us not less than fifty or sixty
thousand native subjects of the British Empire.
Striking out the very respectable proportion of them
who are Americans not only in allegiance,
but in principles and attachment, the number remaining
who are truly British in one or all their characteristics,
constitutes a fund of foreign influence that merits
very serious attention in the present estimate.
The influence from this class of persons is the greater,
as they are in no small degree scattered over
the whole face of the country and mingled
(in some parts of America more than in others)
in almost every neighborhood,
some of them possessed of wealth,
others of friendly dispositions and engaging manners;
but all not the less foreigners in their principles and
affections, and using all the influence of their conciliating
qualities on the side of their native country in every
question which puts her interests in competition with ours.
The universal and uniform ardor of this description of
persons for war in preference to peace with France,
stands for a thousand proofs of the fact that
they are Britons, not Americans in their hearts.
In elections the means of British influence are often no
less visible, mixing among the people without any badge
of their alienism in their language, dress, or appearance;
British foreigners are frequently among the busiest
canvassers and most successful retailers of tickets.
In other meetings of the people, the same
circumstances open the way for the same influence.
How many British subjects or natives of British
principles were there among the petitioners
of this city in favor of the British Treaty?
How many in the Chamber of Commerce of New York?
How many indeed everywhere among the
eager partisans of that ill-omened measure?
This leads us to the great flood-gate of
British influence: British Commerce.
The capital in the American trade amounts
to thirty or forty millions of dollars.
Three fourths of this is British capital;
of this proportion three fourths is in British hands.
The residue in the hands of Americans
has more effect in Anglicizing them,
than in Americanizing the influence it gives.
Individual exceptions are admitted and might be named.
But it is of equal certainty that the American merchants
generally who value on British capital and credit are
those who feel most powerfully the capitulating influence.
More than one volume would be necessary to trace
in its details this species of British influence.
The copious fountain is in Britain principally in London.
Every shipment, every consignment, every commission,
is a channel in which a portion of it flows.
It may be said to make a part of every cargo.
Our Sea-port towns are the reservoirs
into which it is collected.
From these issue a thousand streams to the inland towns
and country stores: which in aid of the influence inherent
in British trade and British credit, not unfrequently
receive from the political zeal of the importing merchants,
a stock of British ideas and sentiments
proper to be retailed to the people.
Thus it is, that our country is penetrated to its remotest
corners with a foreign poison vitiating the American
sentiment, recolonizing the American character,
and duping us into the politics of a foreign nation.
And thus it is, that the more the injuries
and insults of Britain thicken upon us,
the greater the apathy and silence respecting them.
Her arbitrary edicts against our neutral rights;
her daring perseverance in impressing our seamen,
(even from our public armed ships)
by which she levies on us a tribute of men,
and equally tramples on our national independence
and our neutrality; the intrigues of her ambassador to draw
us into a war with a friendly power at the risk perhaps of a
part of our union; the establishment under the eyes of our
government of a foreign newspaper, conducted by a British
subject, avowing his allegiance to his King, glorying in his
foreign attachments and monarchical principles, and vilifying
with the most unparalleled audacity the revolution which
obtained our Independence and the republican principles
which are the basis of our Constitution: not to repeat the
deadly blow which she has levelled at our navigation;
why has so little been heard on all these topics?
Because a spell has in this case been laid on the trumpet,
which has blown unceasing alarms against the injuries
and insults offered us from another foreign quarter.
Money in all its shapes is influence; our monied institutions
consequently form another great engine of British influence.
Our Bank is a powerful one.
Their capital belongs in great part to Britons
or to proprietors interested in British connections.
The proprietors choose the Directors.
The Directors dispense the credits and favors of the Banks.
Every dependent on these therefore is a kind of vassal,
owing homage to his pecuniary superiors
on pain of bankruptcy and ruin.
Say ye citizens of Philadelphia, have ye not all felt or seen
this influence, whenever Bank-Directors have been
canvassers for votes or subscriptions?
and has this influence ever been exerted but on the side
espoused by the agents of Britain in this country?
As a vehicle of influence, the press, though the last
to be named, must be allowed all its importance.
How deplorable that this guardian of public rights, this organ
of necessary truths should be tainted with partiality at all.
How bitter the reflection,
that it should be subject to a foreign taint.
So however is the fact.
It cannot be denied.
It hardly needs to be explained.
The inland papers it is well known copy
from the city papers; this city more particularly,
as the center of politics and news.
The city papers are supported by advertisements.
The advertisements for the most part relate to articles
of trade and are furnished by merchants and traders.
In this manner British influence steals into
our newspapers and circulates under their passport.
Every printer, whether an exception to the remark or not,
knows the fact to be as here stated.
There are presses whose original independence,
subsequent apostacies, occasional conversions,
speedy relapses, and final prostration to advertising
customers, point them out as conspicuous examples.
To conclude: Great Britain feels every motive
that a foreign power can feel to pinch our growth,
and undermine our government; and enjoys
greater means of influence for these purposes than
ever were possessed by one nation towards another.
On Great Britain then our eye at least
will be constantly fixed by every real
Enemy to Foreign Influence.10
James Madison wrote this letter to Thomas Jefferson on 5 February 1799:
I wrote you last on the 30th January
since which yours of the 25th is received.
At the date of my letter I had only heard the bill
for the eventual army read once.
I conceived it additional to the Provisional army &c.
I must correct the error.
The bill for the Provisional army (about 10,000 men) expires
this session without having been carried into execution.
The eventual army (about 30,000) is a substitute.
I say about 30,000 because some calculate the new
establishment of a regiment we are now passing to a little
over, & some a little under 1000 officers & privates.
The whole land army contemplated is the existing army
5000, the additional army 9000, the eventual army 30,000
and the volunteer army, the amount of which is not known.
But besides that it is 44,000 men,
and nobody pretends to say that there is
from any quarter the least real danger of invasion.
These may surely be set down at 500 dollars
per annum a man, though they pretend that
the existing army costs but 300.
The reason of that is that there are not actually
above 3000 of them, the 5000 being merely on paper.
The bill for continuing the suspension of intercourse
with France & her dependencies is still before the Senate
but will pass by a very great vote.
An attack is made on what is called Toussaint’s clause,
the object of which, as is charged by the one party
and admitted by the other, is to facilitate the
separation of the island from France.
The clause will pass however by about 19 to 8
or perhaps 18 to 9 Rigaud at the head of the
people of color maintains his allegiance.
But they are only 25,000 souls
against 500,000, the number of the blacks.
The treaty made with them by Maitland is
(if they are to be separated from France)
the best thing for us.
They must get their provisions from us.
It will indeed be in English bottoms,
so that we shall lose the carriage.
But the English will probably forbid them the ocean,
confine them to their island, & thus prevent
their becoming an American Algiers.
It must be admitted too that they may
play them off on us when they please.
Against this there is no remedy but timely measures
on our part to clear ourselves by degrees of the
matter on which that leaven can work.
The opposition to Livermore was not republican.
I have however seen letters from New Hampshire
from which it appears that the public sentiment
there is no longer progressive in any direction,
but that at present it is dead water.
That during the whole of their late session not a word
has been heard of Jacobinism, disorganization &c.
no reproach of any kind cast on the republicans.
That there has been a general complaint among the
members that they could hear but one side of the question,
and a great anxiety to obtain a paper or papers which
would put them in possession of both sides.
From Massachusetts & Rhode Island I have no information.
Connecticut remains rivetted in her
political & religious bigotry.
Baldwin is elected by the legislature of Georgia
a Senator for 6 years in the room of Tatnal, whose want
of firmness had produced the effect of a change of sides.
We have had no report of Yard’s being dead.
He is certainly living.
A piece published in Bache’s paper on foreign influence,
has had the greatest currency & effect.
To an extraordinary first impression, they have been
obliged to make a second, & of an extraordinary number.
It is such things as these the public wants.
They say so from all quarters, and that they wish
to hear reason instead of disgusting blackguardism.
The public sentiment being now on the creen and many
heavy circumstances about to fall into the republican scale,
we are sensible that this summer is the season
for systematic energies & sacrifices.
The engine is the press.
Every man must lay his purse & his pen under contribution.
As to the former it is possible I may be obliged
to assume something for you.
As to the latter, let me pray & beseech you
to set apart a certain portion of every post-day
to write what may be proper for the public.
Send it to me while here, & when I go away,
I will let you know to whom you may send
so that your name shall be sacredly secret.
You can render such incalculable services in this way
as to lessen the effect of our loss of your presence here.
I shall see you on the 5th or 6th of March.11
On 23 February 1799 Madison published his “Political Reflections”
that noted the difficulties of the French Republic.
There was never a time when it was more
requisite for the public to be truly acquainted
with foreign transactions than at the present;
nor one at which this information was more difficult.
With everything that regards the French Republic,
it is of peculiar importance that it should be accurately
and fully understood, because that is the
Foreign Power with which our relations have
become more interesting than with any other.
It happens at the same time that it is the very power,
concerning whose affairs more than those of any other,
it is difficult to gain the exact and authentic information
which ought to regulate the opinion and
direct the proceedings of the United States.
The French Revolution has produced such a ferment
and agitation in the world and has divided it according
to the different turns given to men’s minds by temper,
by interest, and by political principles into such violent
parties that nothing depending on opinion, nor much
even on facts is received without a strong tincture
from the channel through which it passes.
To this general consideration must be added some
powerful obstacles of a more particular nature.
The publications in France are said to be under
such influence and restraints from the Government
that little confidence can be put in them beyond
the official documents which they sometimes contain.
The publications indeed of any sort from that quarter
arrive now so sparingly in this country that they
scarcely serve the purpose of assisting truth by
those comparisons with other doubtful accounts
by which it is sometimes approached.
In the next place the mass of information relating to
France is brought to this Country chiefly from England
and Germany, and is consequently adulterated with
all the exaggerations & perversions which the
most raging hostility can infuse.
To these foreign sources of uncertainty is to be
added in the third place the opposite dispositions
under which our own presses make their extracts and
comments; whereby the imperfect lights received
from abroad are still further refracted and obscured.
Nor is any remedy to be derived in the present case,
from the correspondence of American citizens in Europe.
For besides that the letters ascribed to them are often
the most palpable forgeries dictated by the extravagant
zeal of party, it is not to be denied that such as are
genuine breathe an obvious spirit of partiality that turns
away the ear of every discerning enquirer after truth.
For these reasons it is most prudent and safe to indulge
a considerable measure of doubt as to a variety of scenes
passing in the old world, particularly in France; and to wait
for full and satisfactory information till it shall be furnished
by the course of facts and events properly authenticated.
In the meantime, however, it may be useful to reflect
on the nature of some of the allegations and reproaches
under which a country has fallen, that of late was so
interesting to us by the ties of friendship, and that is
still so by the relation of her revolution to ours, and by
her form of government; as well as by the nature of her
markets by her power and by her political views,
whether amicable or otherwise towards this country.
These allegations, if well founded, afford lessons
too instructive to be unheeded; and even if unfounded,
present an occasion for reflections well adapted
to the present posture of our affairs.
Our attention will be limited to two articles much
dwelt on in the charge against the French Republic.
The first is that the government has entirely separated
itself from the people and erected itself into a Tyranny,
actuated by its own ambitious views in opposition
to the sentiments and interests of the nation.
It is not proposed to examine in what degree
this charge is strictly true.
If on one hand there be symptoms which favor it,
it is not improbable that some mitigating pleas
at least might be urged on the other.
It may be recollected that similar imputations were
constantly thrown on the congress during our own
revolution, though well known to be without foundation.
Taking the fact however in the form in which it is stated,
it certainly offers very serious admonitions to a people
living under a representative government.
The French Republic, like ours, is founded on
the principles of representation and responsibility.
The members of its legislature are chosen by the people.
They become at short periods amenable to their
constituents by the frequent return of elections.
And as a further security, they are divided into two
branches, as checks the one on the other.
If it be true, as alleged, that under these circumstances,
a tyrannical usurpation has already taken place in that
government, is not here an example in point against the
doctrine so ardently propagated by many, that in a republic
the people ought to consider the whole of their political duty
as discharged when they have chosen their representatives;
that it is impossible in fact and ought never to be presumed,
that men chosen by the people, and having a common
interest with the people, can pursue an interest different
from that of the people; and consequently that the people
ought at all times to place an unlimited confidence in rulers
so chosen, applauding the wisdom of public measures
where they can see it and assuring themselves that it is
equally the foundation of all others, where nothing but
folly or mischief may appear on the face of them.
Nothing can be more contradictory than this reasoning,
to the alleged usurpations of the French government,
and yet, however curious it may be, many who proclaim
these usurpations with most energy are the same who
with no less energy preach an unlimited confidence
in representative government as incapable of them.
The inconsistency is not done away by pleading the
extraordinary means employed by the French Government
in their illegitimate pursuits, such as the expulsion and
banishment of part of their own body, controlling
the election of successors, &c. &c.
The observation always recurs that such means were
in fact employed in such pursuits by elective and
responsible agents; and consequently that such agents
are not incapable of violating the trust committed to them.
It must not be permitted however, either to the
friend of liberty in despair, or to its enemy in disguise,
to turn this inference against the merit and
competency of the Representative principle.
The true lesson it teaches is that in no case ought the eyes
of the people to be shut on the conduct of those entrusted
with power; nor their tongues tied from a just wholesome
censure on it, any more than from merited commendations.
If neither gratitude for the honor of the trust, nor
responsibility for the use of it, be sufficient to curb
the unruly passions of public functionaries, add
new bits to the bridle rather than to take it off altogether.
This is the precept of common sense illustrated and
enforced by experience—uncontrolled power
ever has been and ever will be administered
by the passions more than by reason.
The exceptions are too few to have the
smallest weight with sober and sensible people.
There is no possible state of things, therefore,
where a remedy against the abuses of power
ought to be sought for in a renewal of the checks on it.
The second charge against the French Republic is
that the Directory has gained an omnipotent
ascendancy over the Legislature and makes
use of its authority to sanction and disguise
all the projects of its own ambition and rapacity.
The prompt and uniform concurrence of the two
Departments said to prevail in all the public measures
is a strong indication either that both are governed
by the voice of the nation, or that one is extremely
compliant with the will of the other.
The first supposition being rejected,
the inference from appearances certainly is
that the Executive rules the Legislature,
rather than that the Legislature rules the Executive.
Taking this for the fact, what a subject
does it present for the meditation of free nations.
The French Directory, it will be recollected, is not only
an elective and responsible body, but is elected by and in
a certain degree responsible to the legislative body;
yet in the short period that has passed since that
government was established, we are told that the power
and influence of the Executive Department have rendered
it the absolute masters of its creators and constituents.
This surely is another example that does not favor the
fashionable doctrine of the present day, that elective and
responsible rulers ought never to be deemed capable of
abusing their trust, much less does it favor the still more
fashionable doctrine, that executive influence in a
representative government is a mere phantom created
by the imaginations of the credulous, or the arts of the
hypocritical friends of liberty; and that all true patriots will
ever unite their efforts in strengthening the executive force
by stifling every jealousy of its hostile misapplication.
But in order to comprehend this subject fully and
to draw from it all the instruction which it offers,
the question must be asked,
under what circumstances and by what means
this Executive omnipotence has been brought about?
The answer to this question, one of the most
important that could invite the public attention,
will be best given by a simple view of facts.
The French Republic has been and still is in a state of war
and danger, and this state of war and danger have given
to the Executive an immense army to command,
innumerable offices to bestow, a mighty mass of
money to deal out a control over the freedom of
speech and of the press; together with all the use
that can be made of foreign relations and internal alarms,
for leading the counsels of the legislature for crying
down the opponents of its measures, and for
imposing silence, if not satisfaction on the people.
An army such as that of France, which does not bear a
less proportion to the whole nation than fifty thousand men
would do to the people of the United States, must be
formidable at home as well as abroad; while a revenue
and laws, &c. corresponding with the proportion of
twenty or thirty millions of dollars to the United States,
to be distributed in emoluments to officers and
dependents beyond number of every kind, and of
every grade must add an influence equal to the
power of the military establishment itself.
What other resources would a Walpole or a Mazarine
desire for drawing all the corruption and all the
weakness in the society into their views, and for
building up a gigantic Executive on the ruins
of every collateral department of power.
Or if other resources were desired, might they not
be found in an unbounded license to applaud without
the privilege of censuring their movements; and in that
fund of influence enjoyed by the prerogative that
superintends all foreign dangers and designs, and that
can exhibit and vary the pictures of them at its pleasure.
Under circumstances like these the Directory
are models of virtue, if ambition has not somewhat
yielded to the means of gratifying it;
the legislative body more pure than is probable,
if the avarice of many of its members has not
overpowered their duty; and the people more
firm and enlightened than ought to be expected,
if they are not in some measure awed or duped
into a tacit acquiescence under oppression.
The usurped sway ascribed to the Directory
with the causes which must have led to it,
cannot then be too much pondered and contemplated
by Americans who love their country and
are sensible of the blessings of its free Constitution.
They ought most generously to reflect on the evils
of a state of war, not only as it destroys the lives of
the people, wastes their treasure, and corrupts their morals;
but on the other, evils which lurk under its dreadful
tendency to destroy the equilibrium of the departments
of power by throwing improper weights into the
Executive scale, and to betray the people into
the snares which ambition may lay for their liberties.
When a state of war becomes absolutely and clearly
necessary, all good citizens will submit with alacrity
to the calamities inseparable from it.
But wars are so often the result of causes which prudence
and a love of peace might obviate, that it is equally the duty
and the characteristic of good citizens to keep a watchful,
though not censorious eye, over that branch of the
government which derives the greatest accession of power
and importance from the armies, offices, and expenses,
which compose the equipage of war.
In spite of all the claims and examples of patriotism,
which ought by no means to be undervalued, the testimony
of all ages forces us to admit that war is among the most
dangerous of all enemies to liberty; and that the executive
is the most favored by it of all the branches of power.
The charge brought against the French Directory adds
a new fact to the evidence which will be allowed by all
to have very great weight and to meet
the particular attention of the United States.
It deserves to be well considered also,
that actual war is not the only state
which may supply the means of usurpation.
The real or pretended apprehensions of it are
sometimes of equal avail to the projects of ambition.
Hence the propagation and management
of alarms has grown into a kind of system.
Its origin however is not of recent or even moderate date.
The Roman Senate and Athenian demagogues understood it
as well as Mr. Pitt or any of the mimics of his policy.
Nor ought it to be doubted that the stratagem will readily
occur to every government that can with impunity and
without animadversion indulge that “unlimited passion,”
which the frankness of our President has declared
to be an attribute of human nature.
An alarm is proclaimed—Troops are raised—
Taxes are imposed—Officers military and civil are created.
The danger is repelled or disappears.
But in the army remains a real force, in the taxes pecuniary
measures, and in the offices a political influence,
all at hand for the internal enterprises of ambition.
But should no other pretext present itself, one may
possibly be found in the jealousies, discontents, and
murmurs excited by the very danger which threatens.
The whole field of political sciences rich as it is
in momentous truths contains none that are better
established or that ought to be more deeply engraved
on the American mind than the two following:
First. That the fetters imposed on liberty at home have
ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense
against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
Secondly, That there never was a people
whose liberties long survived a standing army.
The case under consideration leads to another reflection
highly interesting to the United States.
Although a protracted and complicated war, and the
multiplied alarms from without and within, might account
for a rapid growth of the Executive Branch in the
French Government, it may have been not a little facilitated
by the consolidation of France into one simple republic.
In this particular the United States have
an advantage that cannot be too much prized.
Our state governments by dividing the power with the
Federal Government, and forming so many bodies of
observation on it, must always be a powerful barrier against
dangerous encroachments; unless indeed their members,
particularly their leading members, like those of the British
House of Commons, or the Tribunes of ancient Rome,
should sacrifice the character and duties incident to their
political station to superior allurements from another
quarter, a danger not to be too much disregarded,
but which it may be hoped, will be controlled by the
vigilance of the people and the frequency of elections.
In the French Republic all power being collected into one
government the people cannot act by any intermediate,
local authorities in checking its excesses; and the public
affairs being of vast extent and complexity, a proportional
latitude of direction in managing them is almost of necessity
transferred to the standing magistracy of the Executive;
while the great source of influence in the distribution and
superintendence of lucrative offices is enlarged by the
addition of those of every description, which on the federal
plan, would make a part of the subordinate governments.
As a conclusion to our subject, it may be remarked that
there are three different uses to which the events
of the French Revolution and the conduct of
the French Government are applied
by three different classes of politicians.
The endeavor of one class is so to caricature the scene.
as to cast an odium on all Republican government.
That of another class is (a strange endeavor to be sure)
to infer from the vices and usurpations charged on the
French government, the propriety of a blind and unqualified
reliance on the infallibility of our own: and that of the third,
to trace and ascertain the true causes of the abuses
in France, as so many rocks to be shunned by an
administration that wishes to maintain the character
of Republican Government in general,
and the principles of its own in particular.
The public will decide which of these classes are
best entitled to the name of friends to their country.
A Citizen of the United States.12
On 14 April 1799 Madison met with his political allies at the farm
of Major William Moore in Orange County, and they convened again
at the courthouse on the 24th.
Patrick Henry died on June 6.
He had declined to join the Constitutional Convention in 1787
and became an Anti-federalist.
Yet he had been reconciled with President Washington in 1794.
Madison met with James Monroe and Jefferson at Monticello
in early September, and they discussed what needed to be done.
On November 26 Jefferson in a letter to Madison mentioned
what his goals would be if he would be elected President:
I suppose it is thought time that the republicans
should know that offices are to be given exclusively
to their opponents by their friends no longer.
It is advantage enough to the Feds to possess
the exclusive patronage of the administration;
and so long as they go on the exclusive principle,
we should do the same.
I mentioned that new circumstances would
require consideration as to the line of conduct
they would require from us.
Our objects, according to my ideas, should be these:
1. Peace even with Great Britain.
2. A sincere cultivation of the Union.
3. The disbanding of the army on
principles of economy and safety.
4. Protestations against violations of the true principles
of our Constitution, merely to save them, & prevent
precedent & acquiescence from being pleaded against them;
but nothing to be said or done which shall look or lead
to force, and give any pretext for keeping up the army.
If we find the Monarchical party really split into
pure Monocrats & Anglo-monocrats, we should
leave to them alone to manage all those points of
difference which they may choose to take between
themselves, only arbitrating between them by our
votes, but doing nothing which may hoop them together.13
Madison joined the Virginia House of Delegates at Richmond on December 1.
On 29 December 1799 Madison wrote in a letter to Jefferson:
My promise to write to you before your leaving
Albemarle was defeated by a dysenteric attack
which laid me up for about a week, and which
left me in a State of debility not yet thoroughly removed.
My recovery has been much retarded by the job
of preparing a vindication of the Resolutions of last
Session against the replies of the other States,
and the sophistries from other quarters.
The Committee made their report a few days ago,
which is now in the press and stands the order
of the day for Thursday next.
A set of Resolutions proposed by Mr. Giles, instructing
the Senators to urge the repeal of the unconstitutional
acts, the disbanding of the army, and a proper
arrangement of the Militia, are also in the press and
stand the order of the same day for the same Committee.
It is supposed that both these papers,
the latter perhaps with some modifications,
will go through the House of Delegates.
The Senate, owing to inattention & casualties, is so
composed as to render the event there not a little uncertain.
If an election to fill the vacancy of Mr. H. Nelson who
lately resigned, should send Mr. Andrews in preference
to his competitor Mr. Saunders, I am told that the parties
will be precisely in equilibrio; excepting only one or two,
whom circumstances now & then on particular questions,
transfer from the wrong to the right side.
It is hoped that this contingent fund of votes
will be applicable to the Vindication.
On other important questions there is
much less expectation from it.
There is a report here that the Legislature of
North Carolina now in Session have voted the
Resolutions of Virginia under their table.
The report is highly improbable, and I do not believe it.
But it is impossible to calculate the progress of delusion,
especially in a State where it is said to be under
systematic management, and where there is so
little either of system or exertion opposed to it.
We had a narrow escape yesterday from an increase of
pay to the members, which would have been particularly
unseasonable & injurious both within & without the State.
It was rejected on the third reading by a small majority;
and was so much a favorite with the distant
members particularly that I fear it has left
them in rather an ill humor.
The late course of foreign events has probably
made the same impression everywhere.
If it should not render France less anxious to meet
our advances, its good effects will be felt every way.
If our Executive & their Envoys be sincere in their
pacific objects, it will perhaps supply by their increased
anxiety what may be lost on the other side.
But there can be little confidence after what has been seen,
that the negotiation would be influenced by this temper
of the Envoys, instead of that which perverted it
in the hands of their predecessors.
This possibility of failure in the diplomatic experiment,
will present the most specious obstacle to an
immediate discharge of the army.
It would be useful for the Assembly to know
how this matter is viewed where you are.
Mr. Dawson will be good enough to write me on the subject.
I intended to have written to him by this mail;
but my time has been taken from me
till the closing of the mail is approaching.14
James Madison completed his long 55-page
“Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts” on 7 January 1800,
and four days later it was adopted in Virginia.
John Dickinson of Pennsylvania in a letter to Thomas Jefferson called
Madison’s report “an estimable contribution to the cause of liberty.”15
The report begins with two paragraphs here and then goes on to quote
the Virginia Resolutions and explain them.
Following that may be found here highlights of the report.
Whatever room might be found in the proceedings
of some of the states, who have disapproved of the
resolutions of the General Assembly of this commonwealth,
passed on the 21st day of December 1798, for painful
remarks on the spirit and manner of those proceedings,
it appears to the committee, most consistent with the duty,
as well as dignity of the General Assembly, to hasten
an oblivion of every circumstance, which might be
construed into a diminution of mutual respect, confidence
and affection among the members of the union.
The committee have deemed it a more useful task to
revise with a critical eye the resolutions which have
met with this disapprobation; to examine fully the several
objections and arguments have appeared against them; and
to enquire whether there be any errors of fact, of principle,
or of reasoning, which the candor of the General Assembly
ought to acknowledge and correct….
The subject divides itself into first, “The Alien Act,”
secondly, “The Sedition Act.”
Of the “Alien Act,” it is affirmed by the resolution,
1st that it exercises a power nowhere
delegated to the federal government.
2nd that it unites the legislative and judicial
powers to those of the executive.
3rd that this union of power subverts
the general principles of free government.
4th that it subverts the particular organization
and positive provisions of the federal Constitution….
As the Constitution has given to the states no power to
remove aliens during the period of the limitation under
consideration in the meantime on the construction assumed,
there would be no authority in the country, empowered to
send away dangerous aliens which cannot be admitted….
It is next affirmed of the alien act that it
unites legislative, judicial and executive powers
in the hands of the President….
It is affirmed that this union of powers
subverts the general principles of free government.
It has become an axiom in the science of
government that a separation of the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments is necessary
to the preservation of public liberty.
Nowhere has this axiom been better
understood in theory, or more carefully
pursued in practice than in the United States.
It is affirmed that such a union of power
subverts the particular organization and positive
provisions of the federal Constitution….
Let the question be asked then whether the power
over the press exercised in the “sedition act,” be found
among the powers expressly vested in the Congress?
This is not pretended….
For if the power to suppress insurrections includes a power
to punish libels, or if the power to punish includes a power
to prevent, by all means that may have that tendency;
such is the relation and influence among the most remote
subjects of legislation, that a power over a very few would
carry with it a power to prevent, by all means that may
have tendency; such is the relation and influence among
the most remote subjects of legislation, that a power
over a very few would carry a power over all.
And it must be wholly immaterial whether unlimited
powers be exercised under the name of unlimited powers,
or be exercised under the name of unlimited means
of carrying into execution limited powers….
The next point which the resolution requires
to be proved is that the power over the press
exercised by the sedition act is positively forbidden
by one of the amendments to the Constitution.
The amendment stands in these words—
“Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances….
“The Conventions of a number of the states having at the
time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
in order to prevent misconstructions or abuses of its
powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses
should be added; and as extending the ground of public
confidence in the government, will best ensure the
beneficent ends of its institution.”…
“And be it further enacted, that if any person shall write,
print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be
written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly
and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or
publishing any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or
writings against the government of the United States, or
either house of the Congress of the United States, or the
President of the United States with an intent to defame
the said government, or either house of the said Congress,
or the President, or to bring them or either of them into
contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either,
or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United
States, &c. then such person being thereof convicted before
any court of the United States, having jurisdiction thereof,
shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand
dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.”…
As the act was passed on July 14, 1798, and is to be in
force until March 3, 1801, it was of course, that during its
continuance, two elections of the entire House of
Representatives, an election of a part of the Senate,
and an election of a President, were to take place.
That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the
Federal Constitution expressly declared, that among other
essential rights, “the liberty of conscience and of the press
cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by
any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme
anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack
of sophistry and ambition, having with other states,
recommended an amendment for that purpose, which
amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution;
it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal
degeneracy, if an indifference were not shown to the most
palpable violation of one of the rights, thus declared and
secured; and so the establishment of a precedent,
which may be fatal to the other.
To place this resolution in its just light, it will
be necessary to recur to the act of ratification
by Virginia which stands in the ensuing form.
We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly
elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the
General Assembly, and now met in Convention,
having fully and freely investigated and discussed the
proceedings of the federal convention, and being well
prepared as well as the most mature deliberation have
enabled us to decide thereon; DO, in the name and in
behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known,
that the powers granted under the Constitution, being
derived from the people of the United States, may be
resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted
to their injury or oppression; and that every power not
granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will.
That therefore, no right of any denomination can be
cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress,
by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any
capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of
the United States, except in those instances in which power
is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that
among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and
of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, or restrained
or modified by any authority of the United States….
The extensive view of the subject thus taken by the
committee has led them to report to the house,
as the result of the whole, the following resolution:
Resolved, That the General Assembly, having carefully
and respectfully attended to the proceedings of a number
of the states in answer to their resolutions of December 21,
1798, and having accurately and fully re-examined and
re-considered the latter, find it to be their indispensable
duty to adhere to the same, as founded in truth,
as consonant with the Constitution, and as conducive
to its preservation; and more especially to be their
duty to renew, as they do hereby renew, their protest
against “the alien and sedition acts,” as palpable and
alarming infractions of the Constitution.16
John Marshal was elected to the House of Representatives, and he helped
unify the Republicans in Virginia by forming a general ticket of electors.
Madison became chairman of the subcommittee in Orange County.
Aaron Burr gained control of the Republicans in the state of New York.
In November 1800 the United States Congress moved
to the new Federal City by the Potomac River.
In the presidential election the Republicans won in Virginia,
Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina.
Jefferson noted that he was leading with 58 electoral votes to 53 for John Adams.
Madison realized that they would win in December, and he intended
not to vote for Burr so that he would not be tied with Jefferson.
Yet he was persuaded to vote for Burr as well as Jefferson to show party unity.
Jefferson and Burr became tied with 73 electoral votes each,
and the election was thrown into the House of Representatives.
The Republicans had a large majority there and
despite Burr’s efforts to become President.
Alexander Hamilton, who did not like Burr, and some other Federalists
abstained in a House vote on the 37th ballot so that the Republicans
could elect Jefferson President on 17 February 1801.
Notes
1. Writings by James Madison, p. 582-584.
2. James Madison: A Biography in His Own Words ed. Merrill D. Peterson, 218.
3. Writings by James Madison, p. 584-585.
4. Ibid., p. 586-587.
5. Ibid., p. 588.
6. James Madison: A Biography in His Own Words, p. 221-223.
7. Writings by James Madison, p. 589-591.
8. Ibid., p. 591-592.
9. James Madison, Address of the General Assembly to the People of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (Online) and James Madison: A Biography in His
Own Words, p. 226-229.
10. Ibid., p. 592-599.
11. To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 5 February 1799 (Online).
12. Writings by James Madison, p. 599-607.
13. To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 26 November 1799 (Online).
14. From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 29 December 1799 (Online).
15. James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Ketcham, p. 403.
16. Writings by James Madison, p. 608, 621, 628-629, 631, 642-644, 649,
651-652, 655-656, 662.