write an summary

 

Primary Sources: There will be ten (10) Primary Sources that students will read over the class. Each Primary Source will be labeled as OpV # and will require the student to understand each side of a topic, provide a 300 word summary of each side, and then answer the questions at the end of italicized Introduction. Each summary must be original and should refrain from containing any quotes. The answers to the questions should have a location (page 3, second paragraph in the first column) but will not need a direct quote. The goal is to have the students engage directly with individuals from the past and wrestle with their opinions from both sides of a historical Discussion. Each summary will be worth 20 points – 10 OpVs with two summaries per = 20 summaries total for 200 points.

Make sure you are checking your Originality Report for each assignment. This report tells me if there is a concern with parts of your submission related to other students. In other words, you do not want to have a high percentage because it will look like you plagiarized someone else’s work. If you are going to work together on these assignments, make sure that your submission is your voice. This ain’t Math class, so do not copy someone else’s work!

…

Creating a New Government

C R EAT I N G A N E W

G O V E R N M E N T

V i e w p o i n t 1 4 A
A Strong National Government Is Necessary to

Ensure the Nation ‘s Survival (1 783)
George Washingron ( 1 732-1 799)

I N T R O D U C T I O N As American independence became a
reality in 1 783, political debate turned towards the
social and political fature of the new nation, consisting

V O L . 1 : F R O M C O L O N I A L T I M E S T O R E C O N S T R U C T I O N 69

Pa1·t 2: Fo rging a New Nation (1750-1800)

of thirteen new states united by the Articl.es of Confed­
eration. In one of his last acts as commander in chief of
the Continental Army, George Washington wrote a letter
in 1 783 to the state governors in which he announced
his intention to retire to private life and described some
ofhis ideas about government and A merica ‘.r fo.ture. He
contended that the choices America ‘s citizms made now
could determine whether the new nation would be
“respectabl.e and prosperous, or contemptible and miser­
able. “A main point Washington wanted to raise was the
danger of states going their separate ways and effectively
dissolving the Union-a prospect he considered danger­
ous both to national survival and to the well-being of the
American people. The necessity for greater national unity
was a prime motivation for the Philadelphia Conven­
tion of 1 787-a meeting Washington chaired, and
which created the U.S. Constitution to replace the
Articles of Confederation.

Why might Washington want to.address state governors
in his letter? What advantages does Washington per­
ceive the new nation possessing? What four el.ements
does he deem critical?

The citizens of America, placed in the most enviable
condition as the sole lords and proprietors of a vast tract
of continent, comprehending all the various soils and cli­
mates of the world and abounding with all the necessaries
and conveniences of life, are now, by the late satisfactory
pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute
freedom and independency. They are, from this period,
to be considered as the actors on a most conspicuous the­
ater, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Provi­
dence for the display of human greatness and fel icity.
H ere they are not o nly surrounded with everyth i ng
which can contribute to the completion of private and
domestic enjoyment, but Heaven has crowned all its
other blessings by giving a fairer opportunity for political
happiness than any other nation has ever been favored
with. Nothing can illustrate these observations more forc­
ibly than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times
and circumstances under which our republic assumed its
rank among the nations.

The fo undation of our empire was not laid in the
gloomy age of ignorance and supersti tion but at an
epoch when the rights of mankind were better u nderstood
and more clearly defined than at any former period. The
researches of the human mind, after social happ iness,
have been carried to a great extent; the treasures of knowl­
edge, acquired by the labors of philosophers, sages, and
legislators through a long succession of years, are laid
open for our use; and their collected wisdo m may be
happily applied in the establishment of our forms of

From John Marshall, The Life of George Washington, etc. etc. 2 n d ed., Philadelphia,
1 848.

government. The free cultivation of letters, the unbound­
ed extension of commerce, the progressive refinement of
manners, the growing liberal i ty of sentiment, and, above
all, the pure and benign light of revelation have had a
mel iorating i n fl uence o n mankind and i n creased the
blessings of society. At this auspicious period, the United
States came into existence as a nation; and, if their citizens
should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be
entirely their own.

A TEST FOR AMERICANS

Such is our situation, and such are our prospects; but not­
withstanding the cup of blessing is thus reached out to us;
notwithstanding happiness is ours, if we have a disposi­
tion to seize the occasion and make it our own ; yet it
appears to me there is an option still left to the United
States of America, that it is in their choice, and depends
upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and
prosperous, or contemptible and miserable, as a nation.
This is the time of their political probation; this is the
moment when the eyes of the whole world are turned
upon them; this is the moment to establish or ruin
their natio nal character forever; this is the favo rable
moment to give such a tone to our federal government
as will enable it to answer the ends of its institution; or
this may be the ill-fated moment for relaxing the powers
of the Union, annihilating the cement of the Confedera­
tion, and exposing us to become the sport of European
politics, which may play one state against another, to pre­
vent the i r growing imp ortance and to serve thei r own
interested purposes. For, according to the system of pol­
icy the states shall adopt at this moment, they will stand
or fall; and by their confirmation or lapse, it is yet to be
decided whether the Revolution must ultimately be con­
sidered as a blessing or a curse-a blessing or a curse not
to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny
of unborn millions be i nvolved . . . .

FOUR NECESSARY ELEMENTS

There are four things which, I h u mbly conceive, are
essential to the well-being, I may even venture to say to
the existence, o f the United States as an i ndependen t
power.

First, an indissoluble union of the states under one
federal head.

Second, a sacred regard to public justice.
Third, the adoption of a proper peace establishment;

and,
Fo urth, the prevalence of that pacific and friendly

disposition among the people o f the United States
which will induce them to forget their local prejudices
and pol icies; to make those mutual concessions which
are requisite to the general prosperity; and, in some

O P P O S I N G V I E W P O I N T S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the
interest of the community.

These are the pillars on which the glorious fabric of
our independency and national character must be sup­
ported. Liberty is the basis; and whoever would dare to
sap the fo undation, o r overturn the structure, under
whatever specious pretext he may attempt it, will merit
the bitterest execration and the severest p unishment
which can be i nflicted by his injured country.

On the three first articles I will make a few observa­
tions, leaving the last to the good sense and serious con­
sideration of those immediately concerned.

Under the first head, although it may not be neces­
sary or proper for me, in this place, to enter into a partic­
ular disquisition on the pri nciples of the Union, and to
take up the great question which has been frequently agi­
tated-whether it be expedient and requisite for the states
to delegate a larger proportion of power to Congress o r
not-yet it will be a part of m y duty, a n d that of every
true patriot, ro assert without reserve, and to i nsist
upon, the following positions: That, unless the states
will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives they
are undoubtedly invested with by the constitution, every­
thing must very rapidly tend to anarchy and confusion.
That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual
states that there should be lodged somewhere a supreme
power to regulate and govern the general concerns of
the confederated republic, without which the Union can­
not be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and
pointed compliance, on the part of every state, with the
late p roposals and demands of Congress, o r the most
fatal consequences will ensue. That whatever measures
have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to
violate or lessen the sovereign authority, ought to be con­
sidered as hostile to the liberty and indepe ndency of
America, and the authors of them treated accordingly.
And lastly, that unless we can be enabled, by the concur­
rence of the states, to participate of the fruits of the Rev­
olurion and enjoy the essential benefits of civil society,
under a fo rm of government so free and u n corrupted,
so happily guarded against the danger of oppression as
has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confed­
eration, it will be a subject of regret that so much blood
and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so
many sufferings have been encountered without a com­
pensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made
111 vam.

Many other considerations might here be adduced
to prove that, without an entire conformity to the spirit
of the Union, we cannot exist as an independent power.
It will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one
o r two which seem to me of the greatest importance.

It is only in our united character, as an empire, that
our independence is acknowledged, that our power can be

Creating a New Government

regarded, or our credit supported, among foreign nations.
The treaties of the European powers with the United
States of America will have no validity on a dissolution
of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of nature;
or we may find, by our own unhappy experience, that
there is a natural and necessary progression from the
extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny, and that
arbi trary power is most easily established on the ruins
of liberty abused to licentiousness.

FOR FURTHER REA D I N G

B ruce Chadwick, George Washington ‘s War: The Forging of a
Revolutionary Leader and the American Presidency. Naperville,
IL: Sourcebooks, 2005.

Joseph J . E l l i s , His Excellency: George Washington. N e w York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

Thomas J . Fleming, Liberty! The American Revolution. New York:
Viking, 1 997.

V i e w p o i n t l 4 B
Strong State Governments Are Maintaining

Freedom and Prosperity (1787)
James Winthrop ( 1 752- 1 82 1 )

I N T R O D U C T I O N The Artic/.es of Confederation, ratified by
the former colonies in 1 781, formed the basis of the
national government of the United States for several
years. Under the Articl.es Congress had the power to
declare war and enter into foreign alliances, but it
had little power to raise taxes, make laws, or create
a national economic or trade policy. Political leaders
met in Philadelphia in 1 787 and came up with a new
blueprint for national government-the Constitution­
which then had to be ratified by the states. The
following viewpoint is taken from a 1 787 newspaper
article arguing that such a new Constitution was not
needed and that the new nation was indeed prospering
under its current weak central government. The autho1;
“Agrippa, ” is believed by most historians to be James
Winthrop, a librarian and teacher at Harvard
University.

What argument does Winthrop make about the gov­
ernments of large states. What objections does he have to
the proposed Constitution and its “consolidation ” of the
states?

Having considered some of the principal advantages
of the happy form of government under which it is our .
peculiar good fo rtune to live, we find by experience,
that it is the best calculated of any form hitherto i nvented,

Massachusetts Gazette (Bosrnn), December 3, 1 787, reprinted in American History
Told by Contemporaries, Alben B. Hart, ed., New York: Macmillan, 1 90 1 .

V O L . 1 : F R O M C O L O N I A L T l l\! E S T O R E C O N S T R U C T I O N 70 7 1

http:Articl.es

http:Artic/.es

http:Articl.es

Pai·t 2: Forging a New Nation (1750-1800)

to secure to us the rights of our persons and of our prop­
erty, and that the general circumstances of the people
shew an advanced state o f improvement never before
known. We have found the shock given by the war in a
great measure obliterated, and the publick debt con­
tracted at that time to be considerably reduced i n the
nominal sum. The Co ngress lands are fully adequate to
the redemption of the principal of their debt, and are sell­
ing and populating very fast. The lands of this state, at the
west, are, at the moderate price of eighteen pence an acre
worth near half a million pounds in o u r money. They
ought, therefore, to be sold as quick as possible. An appli­
cation was made lately for a large tract at that price, and
co ntinual applications are made fo r other lands in the
eastern part of the state. Our resources are daily augmenting.

We find, then, that after the experience of near two
centuries o u r separate governments are i n full vigour.
They discover, for all the purposes of internal regulation,
every symptom of strength, and none of decay. The new
system is, therefore, fo r such purposes, useless and
burdensome.

It is impossible for one code of laws to suit
Georgia and Massachusetts.

Let us now consider how far it is practicable consis­
tent with the happiness of the people and their freedom.
It is the opinion of the ablest writers on the subject, that
no extensive empire can be governed upon republican
principles, and that such a government will degenerate
to a despotism, unless it be made up of a confederacy
of smaller states, each having the full powers of internal
regulation. This is precisely the principle which has hith­
erto preserved our freedom. No instance can be found of
any free government of considerable extent which has
been supported upon any other plan. Large and consoli­
dated empires may indeed dazzle the eyes of a distant
spectator with their splendour, but i f examined m o re
nearly are always found to be full of misery. The reason
is obvious. In large states the same principles of legislation
will not apply to all the parts. The inhabitants of warmer
climates are more dissolute in their manners, and less in­
dustrious, than in colder countries. A degree of severity is,
therefore, necessary with o ne which would cramp the
spirit of the o ther. We accordingly fi nd that the very
great empires have always been despotick. They have
indeed tried to remedy the inconveniences to which the
people were exposed by local regulations; but these con­
trivances have never answered the end. The laws not
being made by the people, who felt the inconveniences,
did not suit their circumstances. It is under such tyranny

that the Spanish provinces languish, and such would be
our misfortune and degradation, if we should submit to
have the concerns of the whole empire managed by one
legislature. To promote the happiness of the people it is
necessary that there should be local laws; and it is neces­
sary that those laws should be made by the representatives
of those who are immediately subject to the want of
them. By endeavouring to suit both extremes, both are
injured.

AGAINST CONSOLIDATION

It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and
Massachusetts. They must, therefore, legislate fo r them­
selves. Yet there is, I believe, not one point of legislation
that is not surrendered in the proposed plan. Questions of
every kind respecting property are determinable in a con­
tinental court, and so are all kinds of criminal causes. The
continental legislature has, therefore, a right to make rules
in a!L cases by which their j udicial courts shall proceed and
decide causes. No rights are reserved to the citizens. The
laws of Congress are in all cases to be the supreme law of
the land, and paramount to the constitutions of the indi­
vidual states. The Congress may institute what modes of
trial they please, and no plea drawn from the constitution
of any state can avail. This new system is, therefore, a
consolidation of all the states into one large mass, how­
ever diverse the parts may be of which it is to be com­
posed. The idea of an uncompounded republick, on an
average, one thousand miles in length, and eight hundred
in breadth, and containing six millions of white inhabi­
tants all reduced to the same standard of morals, of hab­
its, and of laws, is in itself an absurdity, and contrary to
the whole experience of mankind. The attempt made
by G reat-Britain to introduce such a system, struck us
with horrour, and when it was proposed by some theorists
that we should be represented in parliament, we uni­
formly declared that one legislature could not represent
so many different interests fo r the purposes of legislation
and taxation. This was the leading principle of the revo­
lution, and makes an essential article in our creed. All that
part, therefore, of the new system, which relates to the inter­
nal government of the states, ought at once to be rejected.

FOR FURTHER READ I N G

Keith L. Dougherty, Collective Action under the Articles of
Confederation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 200 1 .

Chrisropher M . Duncan, The Anti-Federalists and Early American
Political Thought. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press,
1 99 5 .

David C. Hendrickson, Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American
Founding. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003.

Robert W. Hoffert, A Politics of Tensions: The Articles of
Confederation and American Political Ideas. Niwot: University
Press of Colorado, 1 99 2 .

O P P O S I N G V I E W P O I N T S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y 72

Part 2: Fo 1·ging a New Nation (1750-1800)

V i e w p o i n t 1 8 A
The Sedition Act Violates the Bill of Rights (1799)

George Hay ( 1 765-1 830)

I NT R O D U C T I O N In 1 798 the United States again stood
on the brink of war with a major European powe1 only
this time with France rather than Great Britain. In
preparation for this anticipated war, Congress passed
the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act pro­
scribed “any false, scandalous and malicious ” speech and
writing against the government and its officials. A nyone
speaking, writing, or publishing “with intent to
defame . . . or bring into contempt or disrepute” the
president or other government official was subject to
fines and jail. The fears of some that the law would be
used to stifle political criticism of the pro-British Fed­
eralist Party appeared to be realized after several
prominent opposition party newspaper editors and
leaders were jailed.

Sedition Act critics argued that the law violated the
first amendment of the Bill of Rights, which stated that
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press. ” Those who defended the law
aig;ued that as long as Congress did not create a “prior
restraint” on what newspapers could publish, it could
still punish and hold accountable newspaper publishers
for seditious or otherwise harmfal discourse after pub­
lication. A less narrow interpretation of the First
Amendment is found in the following viewpoint, taken
from a 1 799 pamphlet by George Hay (using the
pseudonym “Horensius ”). Hay, a member of the

Virginia House of Delegates and a political opponent of
the Federalist Party, contends that the Sedition Act does
indeed violate the First Amendment, which he argues
should be defined broadly.

How does Hay define freedom? What did the authors of
the First Amendment intend, according to Hay? How
does he respond to the argument that the First
Amendment prohibits only the “prior restraint” of
newspapers?

It is the object of the succeeding letters, to demon­
strate, that so much of the Ss:d ition B ill, as relates to
printed libels, is expressly forbidden by the constitution
of the United S tates . . . .

The words o f the co nsti tutio n , which contain the
express prohibition here relied on, are, “Congress shall
make no law abridging the freedom of speech o r of the
press. ” . . .

The words, “freedom of the press,” like most other
words, have a meani ng, a clear, precise, and defi n i te
meaning, which the times require, should be unequivo­
cally ascertained. That this has not been done before, is
a wonderful and melancholy evidence of the imbecility
of the human mind, and of the slow progress which i t
makes, i n acquiring knowledge even o n subj ects the
most useful and interesting.

It will, I presume, be admitted, that the words in
question have a meani ng, and that the framers of the
amendment conta i n i ng these words, meant something
when they declared, that the freedom of the p ress should
not be abridged.

To ascertain what the ” freedom of the press” is, we
have only to ascertain what freedom itself is. For, surely,
it will be conceded, that freedom applied to one subject,
means the same, as freedom applied to another subject.

TWO KINDS OF FREEDOM

Now freedom is of two kinds, and of two kinds only: one
is, that absolute freedom which belongs to man, previous
to any social institution; and the other, that qualified o r
abridged freedom, which h e is content t o enjoy, for the
sake of government and society. I believe there is no
other sort of freedom i n which man is concerned.

The absolute freedom then, o r what is the same
thing, the freedom, belonging to man before any social
compact, is the power unco n trouled by law, of doing
what he pleases, provided he does no injury to any other
individual. If this defi n i tion of freedom be applied to
the press, as surely it ought to be, the press, if I may per­
sonify it, may do whatever it pleases to do, uncontrouled
by any law, taking care however to do no injury to any indi­
vidual This i njury can only be by slander o r defamation,

From A11 Essay 011 the liberty of the Pms by George Hay (Philadelphia, 1 799).

O P P O S I N G V I E W P O I N T S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

Creating a New Government

and reparation should be made for it in a state of nature I t is obvious in itself and i t is admi tted by all men,
as well as i n society. that freedom of speech means the power uncontrouled

But freedom in spciety, or what is called civil liberty, by law, of speaking either truth or falsehood at the discre­
is defined to be, natural liberty, so far, restrained by law tion of each individual, provided no other individual be
as the public good requires, and no farther. This is the def­ injured. This power is, asyet, in its full extent in the United
inition given by a writer, particularly distinguished for the States. A man may say every thing which his passion can
accuracy of his definitions, and which, perhaps, cannot suggest; he may employ all his time, and all his talents,
be mended. Now let freedom, under this definition, if he is wicked enough to do so, in speaking against the
be applied to the press, and what will the freedom of government matters that are false, scandalous, and mali­
the press amount to? I t will amount precisely to the priv­ cious; but he is admired by the majority of Congress to
ilege of publishing, as far as the legislative power shall say, be sheltered by the article in question, which forbids a
the public good requires: that is to say, the freedom of the law abridgi n g the freedom of speech. If then freedom
p ress will be regulated by law. If the word freedom was of speech means, i n the construction of the Constitution,
used in this sense, by the framers of the amendment, the privilege of speaking any thing without controul, the
they meant to say, Congress shall make no law abridging words freedom o f the press, which form a part of the
the freedom of the press, which freedom, however, is to be same sentence, mean the privilege of printing any thing
regulated by law. Folly i tself does not speak such language. without controul.

It has been admitted by the reader, who has advanced
FREEDOM OF SPEECH thus far, that the framers of the amendment meant some­
AND RELIGION thing. They knew, no doubt, that the power granted to

Congress, did not authorise any controul over the p ress, Happily for mankind, the word “freedom” begins now to
b u t they knew that i ts freedom could not be too cau­ be applied to religion also. I n the Uni ted S tates i t is ap­
tiously guarded from invasion. The amendment i n ques­ plied i n its fullest force, and religious freedom is com­
tion was therefore i ntroduced. Now if they used the word pletely understood to mean the power unco n trouled by
” freedom” under the fi rst defi n ition, they did mean law of professing and publishing any opinion on religious
something, and something of infinite importance i n all topics, which any individual may choose to profess or
free countries, the total exem ption of the press from publish, and of supporting these opinions by any state­
any kind of legislative controul. B u t if they used the ments he may think proper to make. The fool may not
word freedom under the second definition they meant only say i n his heart, there is no God, but he may
no thing; for if they supposed that the freedom of the anno unce i f he pleases his atheism to the world. H e ·
press, was absolute freedom, so far restrained by law as may endeavor t o corrupt mankind, not only by opinions
the public good required, and no farther, the amendment that are erroneous, but by facts which are false. Still how­
left the legislative power of the government on this sub­ ever he will be safe, because he lives in a country where
ject, precisely where i t was before. But i t has been already religious freedom is established. If then freedom of reli­
admired that the amendment had a meaning: the con ­ gion, will not permit a man to be pun ished, for publish­
struction therefore which allows i t no meaning is absurd ing any opinions on religious topics and supporting those
and must be rej ected. opinions by false facts, surely freedom of the press, which

is the medium of all publications, will not permit a man
THE MEANING OF FREEDOM to be punished, for publishing any opinion on any sub­

ject, and supporting it by any statement whatever. . . . This argument may be summed up in a few words. The
word “freedom” has meaning. It is either absolute, that is I contend therefore, that if the words freedom of the
exempt from all law, or it is qualified, that is, regulated by press, have any meaning at all they mean a total exemp­
law. If it be exempt from the controul of law, the Sedition tion from any law making any publication whatever crim­
Bill which controuls the “freedom of the press” is uncon­ inal. Whether the unequivocal avowal of this doctrine in
stitutional. But if i t is to be regulated by law, the amend­ the United S tates would produce mischief o r not, is a
ment which declares that Congress shall make no law to question which perhaps I may have leisure to discuss. I
abridge the freedom of the press, which freedom however must be content here to observe, that the m ischief i f
may be regulated by law, is the grossest absurdity that ever any, which might arise fr o m this doctrine could not b e
was conceived by the human mind. remedied o r prevented, but b y means of a power fatal

to the liberty of the people . . . . That by the words “freedom of the press,” is meant a
total exemption of the press from legislative controul, will

PRIOR RESTRAINT further appear from the following cases, in which it is
manifest, that the word freedom is used with this signifi­ But, it has been said, that the freedom of the p ress, con­
cation and no other. sists not in the privilege of p ri n ti n g truth; b u t in a n

V O L . 1 : F R O M C O L O N I A L T I M E S T O R E C O N S T R U C T I O N 8 5
84

–

Part 2: Forging a New Nation (1750-1800)

exemption from previous restraint, and as the Sedition
Bill imposes n o previous restraint, it does not abridge
the freedom of the press. This profo u nd remark is bor­
rowed from [William] Blackstone and ( Jean Louis] De
Lolme, and is gravely repeated, by those who are weak
enough to take opinions upon trust.

If these writers meant to state what the law was
understood to be in England, they are correct. But this
defi n i tion does not deserve to be transplanted i n to
America. In Britain, a legislative controul over the
press, is, perhaps essential to the p reservation of the “pres­
ent order of things;” but it does not follow, that such con­
ttoul is essential here. In Britain, a vast standing army is
necessary to keep the people in peace, and the monarch
on his throne; but it does not follow that the tranquillity
of America, or the personal safety of the President, would
be promoted by a similar institution.

The freedom of the press . . . means the total
exemption of the press from any kind of

Legislative control.

A s i ngle remark will be s ufficient to expose the
extreme fallacy of the idea, when applied to the Constitu­
tion of the United States. If the freedom of the press con­
sists i n an exemption from previous restraint, Congress
may, without injury to the freedom of the press, punish
with death, any thing actually published, which a political
inquisition may choose to condemn.

But on what ground is this British doctrine respect­
ing the freedom of the press i ntroduced here? In Britain,
the parliament is acknowledged to be omnipotent . . . . In
Britain there is no constitution, no limitation of legisla­
tive power; but in America, there is a constitution, the
power of the legislature i s l i m i ted, and the object of
one limitation is to secure the freedom of the press . . . .

The freedom of the press, therefore, means the total
exemption of the press from any kind of legislative con­
troul, and consequently the Sedition B i l l , which is an
act of legislative controul, is an abridgment of its l iberty,
and expressly forbidden by the constitution. Which was
to be demonstrated.

V i e w p o i n t l 8 B
The Sedition Act Does Not Violate

the Bill of Rights (I 799)
5th Congress Majority Report

I N T R O D U C T I O N The Sedition Act of 1 798 made it a
crime to “print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scan­
dalous, and malicious writing” against the government.

Enforcement of the la w seemed to indicate that political
criticism of the ruling Federalist Party and its support of
war with France comtituted “malicious writing. ”
Under the law several prominent newspaper editors who
had questioned Federalist policies were jailed, as was
Congressman Matthew Lyon, who spent four months in
prison for publishing a sharp attack on President john
Adams. Critics of the law argued that it violated free
speech and press rights found in the First Amendment of
the Bill of Rights.

In 1 799 the House of Repmenlatives, with Federalist
members still in the majority, debated the constitu­
tionality of the Sedition Act. Members of the opposing
Federalist Party and Democratic-Republican Party did
not agree, resulting in two reports; the following
viewpoint is excerpted from the Majority Report. The
report defends the Sedition Act, arguing that while the
Constitution forbids Congress from censoring speeches
and newspaper writings, it has the power to pass laws
punishing false and seditious writing. The primary
author of the majority report was Chauncey Goodrich,
a Federalist congressman from Connecticut.

Why was it necessary for Congress to pass the Sedition
Act, according to the report? Do the authors of the
report have similar or different conceptions of freedom
than George Hay, author of the opposing viewpoint?

The “Act in addition to an act entitled an act for the
punishment of certain crimes against the United States,”
commonly called the sedition act, contains provisions of a
twofold nature: first, against seditious acts, and, second,
against l i bellous and seditious writings . The first have
never been complained of, nor has any obj ection been
made to its val idity. The objection applies solely to the
second; and o n the ground, i n the first place, that Con­
gress have no power by the Constitution to pass any act
for punishing libels, no such power being expressly
given, and all powers not given to Congress, being
reserved to the S tates respectively, or the people thereof.

To this objection it is answered, that a law to punish
false, scandalous, and malicious writings against the Gov­
ernment, with intent to stir up sedition, is a l aw necessary
for carrying into effect the power vested by the Constitu­
tion i n the Government of the United States, and i n the
departments and officers thereof, and, consequently, such
a law as Congress may pass; because the direct tendency
of such writings is to obstruct the acts of the Government
by exciting opposition to them, to endanger its existence
by rendering it odious and contemptible in the eyes of the
people, and to produce seditious combi nations against
the laws, the power to punish which has never been ques­
tioned; because it would be manifestly absurd to suppose

From the Majority and M inority Reports on the Repeal of the Sedition Act, A1111nls
of Congress, 5th Cong., 3rd sess. (February 25, 1799).

O P P O S I N G V I E W P O I N T S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

that a Govern ment migh t punish sedi tion, and yet be
void o f power to p revent i t by p unishing those acts
which plai nly and necessarily lead to it; and, because,
under the general power to make all laws proper and nec­
essary for carrying i n to effect the powers vested by the
Constitution in the Government of the United S tates,
Congress has passed many laws for which no express pro­
vision can be found in the Constitution, and the consti­
tutionality of which has never been questioned . . . .

The Liberty of the press consists not in
a License for every man to publish what he
pleases without being Liable to punishment.

It is objected to this act, in the second place, that it is
expressly contrary to that part of the Constitution which
declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, or abridging the liberty of the press.” The act i n
question is said t o b e a n “abridgment of the liberty of the
press,” and therefore unconstitutional.

WHAT TRUE LIBERTY CONSISTS OF

To this it is answered, i n the first place, that the liberty of
the press consists not i n a license for every man to publish
what he pleases without being liable to punishment, if he
should abuse this license to the injury of others, but in a
permission to publish, without previous restraint, what­
ever he may think proper, being answerable to the public
and individuals, for any abuse of this permission to their
prejudice. In like manner, as the liberty of speech does
not authorize a man to speak malicious slanders against
his neighbor, nor the l i b erty of action j ustify h i m i n
go ing, b y violence, i nto another man’s house, o r i n
assaulting any person whom h e may meet i n the streets.
In the several S tates the l i berty of the press has always
been understood in this manner, and no other; and the
Constitution of every S tate which has been framed and
adopted since the Declaration of Independence, asserts
” the l i berty of the press ; ” wh i l e in several, if not all,
their laws provide for the punishment of libellous publi­
cations, which would be a manifest absurdity and contra­
diction, if the liberty of the press meant to publish any
and everything, without being amenable to the laws for
the abuse of this license. According to this j ust, legal,
and universally admi tted defi n i tion of ” the l i berty of
the press,” a law to restrain its licentiousness, in publish­
i ng false, scandalous, and malicious l i bels against the
Government, cannot be considered as “an abridgment”
of its “liberty.”

Creating a New Government

It is answered, i n the second place, that the liberty of
the press did never extend, according to the laws of any
S tate, o r o f the Uni ted S tates, o r of England, from
whence our laws are derived, to the publication of false,
scandalous, and malicious writings against the Govern­
ment, written o r published with i n tent to do mischief;
such publications being unlawful, and punishable i n
every State; from whence i t follows, undeniably, that a
law to p u n ish seditious and malicious publ ications, i s
not an abridgment of t h e l i berty of t h e press, fo r i t
would be a manifest absurdity t o say, that a man’s liberty
was abridged by punishing him for doing that which he
never had a liberty to do . . . .

And, lastly, i t is answered, that had the Constitution
intended to prohibit Co ngress from legislating at all on
the subject of the press, which is the construction where­
on the objections to this law are founded, it would have
used the same expressions as in that part of the clause
which relates to religi o n and religious texts; whereas,
the words are wholly different: “Co ngress,” says the Con­
stitution, (amendment 3d.) “shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exer­
cise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech of the
press.” Here it is manifest that the Constitution intended
to prohibit Congress from legislating at all on the subject
of religious establishments, and the prohibition is made
in the most express terms. Had the same intention pre­
vailed respecting the press, the same expressions would
have been used, and Congress wo uld have been ” p ro­
h i b i ted from passing any law respecting the press . ”
They are not, however, ” p rohibited” from legislating
at all on the subject, but merely from abridging the l iberty
of the press. It is evident they may legislate respecting
the press, may pass laws for its regulation, and to punish
those who pervert it i n to an engine of mischief, pro­
vided those l aws do n o t abri dge i ts l i berty. I ts l iberty,
according to the well known and universally admitted
definition, consists in permission to publish, without pre­
vious restraint upon the p ress, but subject to punishment
afterwards for improper publications. A law, therefore, to
impose previous restraint upon the press, and not one to
inflict punishment on wicked and malicious publications,
would be a law to abridge the liberty of the press, and, as
such, unconstitutional.

FOR FURTHER READ I N G

James E. Leehy, The First Amendment, 1791-1991. Jefferson,
NC: McFarland and Company, 1 99 1 .

Leonard Levy, Legacy ofSupression: Freedom of Speech and Press in
Early American History. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 1 960.

Geoffrey R. Stone, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from
The Sedition Act of 1798 to The War on Terrorism. New York:
W.W. Norton, 2004

V O L . 1 : F R O M C O L O N I A L T I M E S TO R E C O N S T R U C T I O N 86 87