Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:41:46.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alexander Hamilton, the Alien Law, and Seditious Libels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

James Morton Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The biographers of Alexander Hamilton have been almost unanimous in absolving him from any complicity in the enactment and enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798. Most of them deny that he supported those now discredited laws and portray him as a defender of civil liberties who stood against the whole Federalist party. One writer asserts that by passing the laws the Federalists “mutinied” against Hamilton's recommendation of moderation. In the only thorough study of the acts, John C. Miller concludes that they “were passed by Congress against the advice of Alexander Hamilton.” Praising him as one not easily “led into error by the anxiety or the excitement of stirring and perilous times,” an early biographer describes the Federalist leader's position as “sensible and moderate.” Two of Jefferson's most widely read biographers credit Hamilton with opposing the law, and Albert J. Beveridge pictures him as an earlier and stronger opponent of the bills than Jefferson.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 1954 , pp. 305 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For examples of these views, see Sumner, William Graham, Alexander Hamilton (New York, 1890), 234Google Scholar; Ford, Henry Jones, Alexander Hamilton (New York, 1931), 323–324Google Scholar; Schouler, James, History of the United States of America, Under the Constitution, I, 1783–1801 (New York, 1880), 407 and 412Google Scholar; Alexander, De Alva Stanwood, A Political History of the State of New York (New York, 1906–1923), I, 90Google Scholar; Beard, Charles A. and Beard, Mary R., The Rise of American Civilization (New York, 1930), 376–377Google Scholar; Hockett, Homer Carey, Political and Social Growth of the American People, 1492–1865 (New York, 1940), 357Google Scholar; Swisher, Carl Brent, American Constitutional Development (Boston, 1943), 91Google Scholar; Agar, Herbert, The United States, The Presidents, The Parties, and the Constitution (London, 1950), 108Google Scholar; and the works cited below. In the most recent biography, the author does not discuss Hamilton's response to these laws; see Schachner, Nathan, Alexander Hamilton (New York, 1946) 386–387.Google Scholar

2 Loth, David, Alexander Hamilton, Portrait of a Prodigy (New York 1939), 255.Google Scholar

3 Miller, , Crisis in Freedom: The Alien and Sedition Acts (Boston, 1951), 73.Google Scholar

4 Morse, John Torrey Jr., The Life of Alexander Hamilton (Boston, 1876) II, 255–257.Google Scholar

5 Bowers, Claude G., Jefferson and Hamilton, The Struggle for Democracy in America (Boston and New York, 1925), 376–377Google Scholar; and Padover, Saul K.. Jefferson (New York, 1942), 258.Google Scholar

6 Beveridge, , The Life of John Marshall (Boston and New York, 1916–1919), II, 382Google Scholar, says that “when Jefferson first heard of this proposed stupid legislation, he did not object to it, even in his intimate letters to his lieutenant Madison. Later, however, he became the most ferocious of its assailants. Hamilton, on the other hand, saw the danger in the Sedition Bill the moment a copy reached him: ‘There are provisions in this bill … highly exceptionable,’ he wrote. ‘I hope sincerely the thing may not be hurried through. Let us not establish a tyranny. Energy is a very different thing from violence.’”

In a note, Beveridge added that Jefferson's first harsh word against the bills did not come until his letter to Madison, on 06 7, 1798.Google Scholar This claim completely overlooks Jefferson, 's letter to Madison, on 04 26, 1798Google Scholar, the first letter to mention the Alien and Sedition bills. In this letter, Jefferson discussed the introduction of the naturalization and the alien bills, adding that “there is now only wanting to accomplish the whole declaration before mentioned by the Federalists, a sedition bill, which we shall certainly soon see proposed. The object of that, is the suppression of the Whig presses. Bache's [Philadelphia Aurora] has been particularly named.” See Jefferson, 's Writings (Bergh ed.), X, 31–32.Google Scholar

7 See note 6 for an example. Henry Cabot Lodge, the most recent editor of Hamilton's works and one of his leading biographers, is almost the sole exception to the general run of biographers and historians on Hamilton's attitude toward the laws. As long ago as 1885, he pointed out that “the idea … that Hamilton opposed the measures is quite erroneous since as a matter of fact, he was one of their strongest supporters.” See “Alexander Hamilton,” Studies in History, 163–164.Google Scholar

President Adams later claimed that the laws were a part of Hamilton's secret instructions to Congressional leaders and Cabinet officers; Adam's Works, IX, 290–291.Google Scholar Despite Hamilton's! support of the laws, there is no indication in his published writings that he recommended them.

8 Hamilton, to Pickering, , 06 7, 1798Google Scholar, Pickering Papers (Massachusetts Historical Society), XXII, 196.Google Scholar This text of the original varies slightly from that given in Hamilton's Works (Lodge ed.), VIII, 490.Google Scholar Edward Channing concedes that Hamilton did not oppose the bill: “When legislation against aliens was first proposed Hamilton was lukewarm in approbation, to say the least.” In quoting from Hamilton's letter, however, he omitted the line, “There are a few such.” See A History of the United States, IV, 223.Google Scholar For Channing's personal approval of the alien friends law, see ibid., 220.

9 This provision was incorporated into section 1 of the Alien Friends Law; see 1 Statutes at Large 570.Google Scholar The President was empowered to order the removal of any alien whom he judged dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or had reasonable grounds to suspect were concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government of the United States. He could condemn any alien without hearing any evidence in his behalf, and without setting forth the reasons for his finding. His order, however, was to specify the amount of time to be allowed an alien to depart.

10 This provision was later modified to allow the offender a trial. The new section also specified that if the offender was convicted he could be imprisoned “so long as, in the opinion of the president, the public safety shall require;” see 1 Statutes at Large 570, Section 2.Google Scholar

11 The usual view of Hamilton's attitude is well expressed by Schouler, , History, I, 412Google Scholar: “To this persecuting policy, in its full significance, most Federalists leaders, with the exception of their greatest, Hamilton (himself an alien-born, and of a mind too comprehensive in its grasp not to take in dangers which his friends failed to notice), now strongly committed themselves.”

12 Hamilton, to Wolcott, , 06 29, 1798Google Scholar, Hamilton's Works (Lodge ed.), VIII, 491.Google Scholar

13 The committee was composed exclusively of Federalists. The text of Senator James Lloyd's original bill is not given in the Annals, but it is printed in the Philadelphia Aurora, 06 28, 1798.Google Scholar For a summary of its provisions, see McMaster, John Bach, A History of the People of the United States, from the Revolution to the Civil War (New York, 1883–1913), II, 389–390.Google Scholar When Hamilton wrote his letter on June 29, he had no knowledge of the deletions which the Senate had made two days earlier.

14 Whereas the final Sedition Law of 1798 was directed against “false, scandalous and malicious” words spoken with bad intent, the Senate's earlier revised bill would have applied to libelous or scandalous writings, whether they were true or false. So long as the words tended to censure the motives of the President or the federal judges, or tended to induce the belief that the government passed any of its laws from motives hostile to the Constitution or the happiness of the people of the United States, they would have been punishable. See Annals of Congress, 07 2, 5C, 2S, 596Google Scholar; and ibid., July 5, 2093. For a discussion of this act, see Smith, J. N., “The Sedition Law, Free Speech, and the American Political Process,” William and Mary Quarterly, IX (3rd Ser. 10, 1952), 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Hamilton, to Dayton, , 1799Google Scholar, Hamilton's Works (Lodge ed.), VIII, 517–522.Google Scholar The only date on this letter is 1799, but it is inserted between letters dated December 27, 1798 and January 6, 1799.

16 Ibid. Dayton was a Brigadier General in the provisional army under Major General Hamilton. In this extraordinary letter, Hamilton also recommended other measures which he thought Congress should adopt in order “to surround the Constitution with more ramparts and to disconcert the schemes of its (internal) enemies.” To extend the influence and promote the popularity of the government, Congress should expand the judiciary system so as to subdivide each state into small districts, carry on a vast program of coastwise and internal improvements, and subsidize new inventions, discoveries, and improvements in agriculture and in the arts. Another means of enlarging federal power would be to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to open canals passing through two or more States, or through the territory of a State and that of the United States.

General Hamilton also told his brigadier that indirect taxes should be increased in order to augment the means and consolidate the strength of the government. The army and navy should be strengthened, and “the eventual army, should be rendered permanent” even “in the event of a settlement of differences with France.” To confirm and enlarge the legal powers of the government, the law authorizing the calling out of the militia to suppress unlawful combinations and insurrections should be made permanent. Finally, Hamilton suggested that “the subdivision of the great States is the security of the general government, and with it of the Union,” but admitted that “it would be inexpedient and even dangerous to propose, at this time, an amendment of the kind.”

17 Hamilton, to Sedgwick, , 02 2, 1799Google Scholar, ibid., 525–526. Ford, Henry Jones, Alexander Hamilton, 324Google Scholar, mistakenly cites this quotation to illustrate Hamilton's disapproval of the Sedition Act. It was directed solely against the Alien Law, however, and, as Hamilton made clear, did not indicate disapproval of the “general design of the laws.”

18 Ibid. For the House report, see the Annals, 5C, 3S, 2985–2993.Google Scholar This report was made on February 25, 1799; for an explanation of the delay in acting on Hamilton's suggestion, see Sedgwick, to Hamilton, , Philadelphia, 02 7, 1799Google Scholar, Hamilton's Works (J. C. Hamilton ed.), VI, 392–394.Google Scholar

19 “Speech in the case of Harry Croswell,” Hamilton's Works (Lodge ed.), VII, 368–369.Google Scholar In this case Hamilton defended Croswell, a Federalist editor who had been indicted in the state court for a seditious libel on President Jefferson. Hamilton deserves praise for this action, but it is noteworthy that he did not repudiate the Sedition Law or the concept of seditious libels at the state level.

20 For an example, see Miller, , Crisis in Freedom, 232.Google Scholar He declares that “had the Federalists acted on this principle in 1798, no stigma would have been cast by History upon their name.” For a criticism of this statement, see my review of Miller's book in the Cornell Law Quarterly, Spring, 1952.Google Scholar

21 Hamilton, 's brief, Hamilton's Works (Lodge ed.), VII, 333Google Scholar; also see his speech, ibid., 339 and 340. For a critical analysis of this definition, see Schofield, Henry, “Freedom of the Press in the United States,” Essays on Constitutional Law and Equity (Boston, 1921).Google Scholar

22 Ibid., 355.

23 Ibid., 343.

24 Ibid., 345.

25 The influence of the Argus was enhanced by a country edition, entitled Greenleaf's New York Journal and Patriotic Register, which condensed the week's news and circulated widely outside the metropolitan area.

26 Adams, John to Adams, Abigail, Philadelphia, 04 24, 1797Google Scholar, letter CCLXXXVIII, Adams, Charles Francis, editor, Letters of John Adams Addressed to his Wife, (Boston, 1841), 254.Google Scholar The President also mentioned the Philadelphia Aurora and the Boston Independent Chronicle.

27 Pickering, to Harison, , attorney for the United States for New York District, Department of State, Philadelphia, 08 12, 1799Google Scholar, Pickering Papers, XI, 599.Google Scholar

28 Harison, to Pickering, , 04 10, 1800Google Scholar, ibid., XXVI, 78. Mrs. Greenleaf's husband had died during the epidemic of 1798.

29 At the time of Bache's death in the yellow fever epidemic of 1798, he was under a federal sedition indictment. He was arrested over two weeks before the passage of the Sedition Law on the supposition that the federal government had criminal common law jurisdiction. See the Aurora, 06 27, 1798Google Scholar and the excellent article by Anderson, Frank Maloy on “The Enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Laws,” Annual Report of the American Historical Association (1912), 119n.Google Scholar Also see Smith, J. N., “The Aurora and the Alien and Sedition Laws: Part I. The Editorship of Benjamin Franklin Bache”, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXXVII (01, 1953), 3–23.Google Scholar

30 Callender, James T. charged Hamilton with speculation in The History of the United States for 1796: including a variety of interesting particulars relative to the federal government previous to that period, Philadelphia (1797).Google Scholar For Hamilton's reply, see his Observations on Certain Documents contained in No. V and VI of “The History of the United States for the year 1796,” in which the charge of speculation against Alexander Hamilton, Late Secretary of the Treasury is Fully Refuted (Philadelphia, 1797).Google Scholar This is commonly called the Reynolds Affair pamphlet because of Hamilton's confession to adultery with Mrs. Reynolds in order to vindicate his public honor. For his plea of relative poverty, see the pamphlet, Hamilton's Works (Lodge ed.), VI, 467.Google Scholar

31 This was a sarcastic dig at the Federalists who had organized a vigilante group of “associators” in Richmond to run Callender out of town. See the Virginia Argus (Richmond), 08 12, 13, 17, 1799.Google Scholar

32 Boston, Constitutional TelegrapheGoogle Scholar, reprinted in the Argus, 11 6, 1799.Google Scholar

33 Hamilton to Joseph Hoffman, attorney general, or in his absence to Colden, Cad-wallader D., assistant attorney general, 11 6, 1799Google Scholar, “Trial of David Frothingham for a Libel on General Hamilton, New York Oyer and Terminer, 1799,” in Wharton, Francis, editor, State Trials of the United States during the Administrations of Washington and Adams (Philadelphia, 1849), 649–650n.Google Scholar This letter is undated, and consequently misplaced, in both editions of Hamilton's works. Hamilton, J. C.'s edition of the Works, VI, 413–414Google Scholar, dates it only in 1799 and places it between letters of July 31 and October 21, 1799. Lodge's edition of the Works, VIII, 536–537Google Scholar, places it between letters of July 10 and October 21, 1799. The letter was originally published in the New York Gazette and General Advertiser, 11 8, 1799Google Scholar, reprinted in the Argus on 11 9Google Scholar, in the Aurora on 11 11Google Scholar, and subsequently in many other newspapers.

34 Ibid.

35 Testimony of Colden, Frothingham's Trial, Wharton, , State Trials, 648–649.Google Scholar Also see the Argus, 11 9, 1799.Google Scholar

36 Argus, 11 9, 1799.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., November 11, 1799. The author has been able to find but one prosecution against the Argus under the Sedition Law.

38 Aurora, 11 11, 1799.Google Scholar

39 Argus, 11 11, 1799.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., November 19, 1799. The Aurora asserted that Hamilton was not as sturdy a supporter of the government as he claimed. “He has lately found out that he cannot rule Mr. Adams,” it states; see Aurora, 11 13, 1799.Google Scholar Hamilton and the Cabinet had failed to prevent the sailing of the new envoys after Adams had ordered them to depart for France in October, 1799. For Hamilton's severe denunciation of this action, see his Letter from Alexander Hamilton concerning the Public Conduct of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States (New York, 1800), 23–41Google Scholar, especially 28–34 and 36. This pamphlet was so critical of Adams that one of the victims of the Sedition Law tried to have Hamilton prosecuted for seditious libel; see Malone, Dumas, “The Threatened Prosecution of Alexander Hamilton under the Sedition Act by Thomas Cooper.” American Historical Review, XXIX (10, 1923), 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Ibid., November 21, 1799 and passim after November 6, 1799. For Hamilton, 's confession to “an irregular and indelicate amour”Google Scholar in order to clear him-self of charges of “improper pecuniary speculations,” see the Pamphlet, Reynolds, Hamilton's Works (Lodge ed.), VI, 449–535.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., November 18, 1799.

43 Fox, Dixon Ryan, The Decline of the Aristocracy in the Politics of New York (New York, 1918), 15.Google Scholar In his chapter on “The Few, the Rich, and The Well Born,” Fox characterizes Varick as one who “sustained the dignity of the old Federalist directorate and added to the prestige of his class.”

44 Ibid., 14.

45 Ibid. Hoffman, Harison, and Colden had been Loyalists during the American Revolution.

46 One of these led to a challenge from a Federalist in 1798. In the duel that followed, Livingston shot and killed his opponent; see Hunt, Charles Havens, Life of Edward Livingston, with an introduction by George Bancroft (New York, 1864), 54.Google Scholar

47 Two years later Edward Livingston replaced Varick as mayor. Brockholst Livingston was elevated to the United States Supreme Court in 1806.Google Scholar

48 Indictment, Frothingham's Trial, Wharton, , State Trials, 649.Google Scholar

49 Frothingham's Trial, ibid., 650.

50 Argus, 12 9, 1799.Google Scholar This issue and that of December 13, 1799 give the most voluminous report of the trial. Wharton, , State TrialsGoogle Scholar, made no use of them in preparing his sketch.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid. Also see Wharton, , State Trials, 65 In.Google Scholar

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 The word “Republican” was printed with a capital rather than in lower case in the Argus article of 11 6, 1799Google Scholar; see note 29 above.

56 Argus, 12 9, 1799.Google Scholar

57 Porcupine's Gazette, edited by William Cobbett, was the most conspicuous example. Liston offered to make Cobbett a stipendiary of the British government while he edited this paper but the editor refused: see Cole, G. D. H., editor, Letters from William Cobbett to Edward Thornton written in the years 1797 to 1800 (London, 1937), xxiv, xxxvii.Google Scholar Cole calls Cobbett “an unpaid agent, or rather one who lived by his writings without any sort of subsidy.”

58 Argus, 12 9, 1799.Google Scholar

59 Frothingham's Trial, Wharton, , State Trials, 651.Google Scholar Also see the New York Gazette and General Advertiser, 11 25, 1799.Google Scholar

60 Ibid.

61 New York Spectator, 11 23, 1799.Google Scholar

62 Aurora, 11 25, 1799.Google Scholar Also see ibid., December 6, 1799 and the Argus, 12 4, 1799.Google Scholar

63 Letter to the editor, dated New York, November 22, 1799, Aurora, 11 25, 1799.Google Scholar

64 Sworn affidavit of Frothingham, David, Greenleaf's New York Journal and Patriotic Register, 12 14, 1799.Google Scholar

65 Ibid.

66 New York Gazette and General Advertiser, 12 5, 1799.Google Scholar

67 Ibid. Also see Greenleafs New York Journal, 12 14, 1799Google Scholar and Wharton, , State Trials, 651.Google Scholar Wharton incorrectly gives the amount of the fine as $500.

68 Gazette of the United States, 12 23, 1799.Google Scholar

69 Argus, 12 4, 1799Google Scholar; Aurora, 12 6, 1799.Google Scholar

70 Ibid., December 13, 1799.

71 Ibid., December 18, 1799.

72 Harison, to Pickering, , 04 10, 1800Google Scholar, Pickering Papers, XXVI, 77.Google Scholar The author has been unable to locate the passage which led to Mrs. Greenleaf's indictment. Harison admitted, however, that it “was not of a very heinous Nature.” The indictment was dismissed after Mrs. Greenleaf sold her paper. See Adams, to Pickering, , Philadelphia, 04 21, 1800Google Scholar, General Records of the Department of State, Miscellaneous Letters, January-December, 1800, Records Group 59Google Scholar, National Archives, Washington, D. C. Also see Pickering, to Harison, , Department of State, Philadelphia, 04 22, 1800Google Scholar, Pickering Papers, XIII, 406.Google Scholar

73 Brigham, Clarence, History and Bibliography of American Newspapers, 1690–1820 (Worcester, 1947), I, 610.Google Scholar David Denniston bought the papers on March 8, 1800 and immediately established the American Citizen as the Republican successor to the Argus; the Republican Watchtower replaced the Patriotic Register. For Federalist alarm at the circulation of Greenleaf's papers, especially among the “ignorant” rural voters, see the New York Commercial Advertiser, 07 14 and August 11, 1798Google Scholar; the Albany, Centinel, 08 10, 1798Google Scholar; and the New York General Advertiser, 05 16, 1799.Google Scholar For a discussion of the combined use of the Alien and Sedition Laws in 1798 to suppress another Jeffersonian journal in New York City, see Smith, J. N., “The Case of John Daly Burk and His New York ‘Time Piece,’” Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1953, 23–36.Google Scholar

74 Channing, , A History of the United States, IV (1789–1815), 236.Google Scholar

75 For an analysis of the election in New York, see Beard, Charles A., Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy (New York, 1915), 366–372, 382–387.Google Scholar

79 Hamilton, to Jay, , 05 7, 1800Google Scholar, Hamilton's Works (Lodge ed.), VIII, 549–551.Google Scholar

77 Ibid. The Pennsylvania legislature was deadlocked over the method of choosing Presidential electors. The Senate, controlled by the Federalists, favored choosing them by districts; the Republicans, who controlled the House, advocated their choice by general election. At the time Hamilton wrote, Pennsylvania had not chosen its new legislature as had New York. For a discussion of this situation and its solution, see Tinkcom, Harry Marlin, The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania, 1790–1801. A Study in National Stimulus and Local Response (Harrisburg, 1950), 243–256.Google Scholar

78 Ibid. Lodge censures this proposal as “one entirely unworthy of Hamilton. It was due to his anger and disgust at the result of the election in New York;” ibid., 551n.