The Alien and Sedition Act has been a play in two acts.
The first incarnation--Act One--occurred in 1798. Most history kids can answer the question, "What was the Alien and Sedition Act?" with a reference to Jefferson and the animosity held between him and the scion of his old political adversary and friend, John Adams.
The second incarnation--Act Two--occurred in 1918.
Both acts, named the Alien and Sedition Act, were the creatures of our nation's legislature. But one can ask the question, whether the intent of each act was syntonous with each other? My answer is, probably. There are reasons for us to examine this intention of our national congress to outlaw certain types of behaviour as exceeding the limits of social dissent; a recent example is the case of
Jihad Jane. Because of the second Alien and Sedition Act, we tend to forget the purpose of the first. The strongest parallel I can draw for those old enough to remember, are things like the
McCarthy Hearings and the
John Birch Society. The first
Alien and Sedition Act (1798) was a response to European realities. For some reason, the idea of a bucolic and naive origin for our nation is attractive. It is in line with our thinking of our origins being aligned with writers who told us that we were living in an agrarian utopia. It's difficult to think that our modern and contemporary ambassadors to France--guys like Franklin and Jefferson--would have had first-hand experience with the flaming emotions of the revolutionary classes of that country. And that they would have repudiated the thugishness of the French revolutionary class.
We tend to forget our own history. In 1798 America was virtually at war with the French.
We are taught our wars: War of Independence; War of 1812; Mexican-American War; War Between the States: the Phony War; WWI and WWII; Korea, Viet Nam and Desert Storm.
Little, if anything, is written about our war against France. Our first ideological war.
Our War of Independence wasn't a war against things that were English. That is, I would assert, that our war against the English wasn't an ideological war. We agreed with everything that made the English english. The problem was, the English wouldn't extend to their American colonists the same rights that an English freeman could expect from his political system; fair representation prior to taxation.
The English had corrupted their system to exclude Americans subjects. They had two sets of books; one for the English and one for their colonies. As English subjects we raised hell with Britain. We fought and we won.
The war against France was different.
The war against France was both an argument of contracts and ideology. That is, it was an argument of what meaning was to be found in civil agreements of freely agreed upon principles, of action and commitment. Actions that are agreed upon, and the concomitant agreements that would either satisfy those calls for action, or require an outside force to ensure that those contracts were upheld. Contracts are simple things. They require nothing more than both parties to perform actions sufficient to satisfy the terms of their existence. And there is, therefore, a curious reluctance to examine 18th century jurisprudence because of this restriction on contracts; who were the parties, and were the parties' actions sufficient to satisfy the terms of their contracts?
The question of
Jihad Jane is an important one. Is she an enemy combatant? Or, is she an enemy of the state?
It is an important question.
My personal views are unimportant. What I look to are the views of those who helped to create the philosophical underpinnings of what would become the greatest nation in the world's experience. I turn to
John Locke. (Chapter III.)
"16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power."
Declaring by word or action.
I am not an advocate of capital punishment. But I agree with Locke.
And, I would ask you, can we tell who this man is? Who is this man who declares his intention to deny me my rights? Who is this man?
