Adams' Alien & Sedition Acts

This Ain't No
Fairness Doctrine Here!

One of the major criticisms from the historical community of David McCullough's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, John Adams is that he repeatedly downplays the significance of the Alien & Sedition Acts (for a link to these critics click here). In HBO's John Adams miniseries, the birth of the Alien & Sedition Acts are portrayed as being the idea of several cabinet members, and not from John Adams himself. And while it is true that his cabinet played an influential role in the development of the Alien & Sedition Acts, it is important to remember that both John and Abigail Adams were instrumental in creating these acts as well, and in fact were central to the creation of the Alien & Sedition Acts as opposed to being mere spectators as McCullough suggests.

First off, nobody can or should doubt the magnitude of the John Adams Presidency. As the successor of Washington, Adams faced challenges that would have toppled most leaders. The mere fact that Adams was following a living legend would have toppled almost any other successor. In addition, Adams was burdened with a mounting crisis with France over the seizure of American ships and sailors, not to mention the fact that the United States was still strapped with several economic and domestic problems at home. Needless to say, Adams' plate was full. It's no wonder why Washington [allegedly] whispered to Adams at the conclusion of his oath of office, "Ay, I am fairly out and you fairly in. Let's see which of us will be the happier."

It was because of this scrutiny that John Adams -- with the help of others -- created the Alien & Sedition Acts. Under these acts, the Federalists hoped to endow the President with the power to, "expel any non-naturalized persons of foreign birth whom the President judges to be of danger to the peace and safety of the United States without a hearing and without specifying any reason.” In addition, these laws called for the punishment of citizens who, "unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States…or to impede the operation of any law of the United States." They also stated that "any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government…or either the house of the Congress of the United States; or the President…with intent to defame" was punishable by imprisonment of up to five years"

Needless to say, the Democratic-republican reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts was extremely swift. Recalling the guaranteed protections of the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson stated that, "this bill [the Sedition Act] and the Alien bill are both so palpably in the teeth of the constitution," that it was irrational for the Federalists to, "shew they mean to pay no respect to it." Jefferson went on to label the supporters of the Alien & Sedition Acts as, “monarchists,” “Tories,” “anti-republicans,” and “monocrats.”

In response to the passage of the Alien & Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson -- along with the help of James Madison -- set out on a crusade to not only destroy the acts, but to also obliterate any chance for John Adams to win reelection. In what became known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson made the claim that:

The several States composing the US. Of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…and one of the Amendments to the constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, therefore the act of Congress…are altogether void and of no force.

As the election of 1800 drew closer, President Adams found himself in a political mess that virtually consumed him. The Dem-Republicans had labeled the President as a tyrant, and called the Alien and Sedition Acts, "the most abominable and degrading Executive act that could fall from the lips of the first magistrate of an independent people." In an effort to demonstrate just how "tyrannical" the Adams Administration had become, Jefferson called on renowned pamphleteer James Callender, a long-time enemy to the Federalists who had attacked the likes of Alexander Hamilton by exposing his affair with Maria Reynolds to the public. This time, Callender was to turn his sights on the president himself. In his popular pamphlet, The Prospect Before Us, Callender pulled out all the punches by boldly proclaiming that John Adams had become little more than a tyrant:

The reign of Mr. Adams has been one continued tempest of malignant passions. Indeed, the president has never opened his lips, or lifted his pen without threatening and scolding; the grand object of his administration has been to exasperate the rage of contending parties to culminate and destroy every man who differs from his opinions.

The Federalist response to Callender's "treason" was swift. Callender was quickly jailed in Richmond and sentenced by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase to five years imprisonment. As a result, Callender quickly became a poster boy of sorts for the Jefferson campaign. Callender's imprisonment illustrated to the common man just how far Adams had gone. In essence, Callender became Jefferson's 19th century version of "Joe the Plumber."

In the end, the Alien & Sedition Acts helped to solidify the popular message of the Democratic-republicans, which, in turn, led to the election of their beloved Thomas Jefferson. The popularity of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, combined with the "mud-slinging" efforts of James Callender, helped to ensure the demise of the Adams Administration. For the Federalists, this was a blow that caused a severe setbacks to their cause. For John Adams, the Alien & Sedition Acts became the darkest stain of his presidency, one which continues to stick with him to this day.

Though often considered to be the biggest blunder of his presidency, it is important for us to understand why John Adams embraced the Alien & Sedition Acts. To be certain, his goal was not to become a tyrant. Instead, Adams was trying to protect the presidency -- and the nation for that matter -- from what he deemed to be a serious threat to the country's security. This is in no way an excuse for the Adams Administration. The Alien & Sedition Acts were, after all, entirely unconstitutional. With that said, it is still important for us to understand the motives behind these acts.

Here is a clip from the HBO miniseries, John Adams, which presents and interesting perspective behind the passage of the Alien & Sedition Acts:



***On a side note, it's worth mentioning that upon his election to the presidency, Thomas Jefferson pardoned James Callender for his "slanderous" acts against President Adams. However, Callender was not satisfied. Upon his release, Callender petitioned the president for an appointment to the Postmaster General of Richmond. President Jefferson did not acquiesce to his demands. As a result, Callender turned his attack on Jefferson. In a series of articles, Callender accused Jefferson of committing a "gross and vile affair" with one of his female slaves...the one and only Sally Hemmings! Oh the irony of history!***

Hamilton's Economic Bailout

In light of President Obama's recent address to Congress regarding the $750 billion plus economic stimulus package, I thought it might be fun to discuss America's first "economic bailout."

As we all know, the eight-year war for American independence with Great Britain was extremely costly. At the war's conclusion, the thirteen separate states had each incurred a tremendous debt, due to the tremendous economic burden brought on by the revolution itself. According to Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first Secretary of the Treasury, the total debt of the United States was a whopping $77.1 million (or roughly $750 billion by today's standards). Of this, $11.7 million was owed to foreign governments, $40,4 million was the result of domestic debt, and $25 million the result of war expenditures of the various states (Ellis, Founding Brothers, 55). As a result, each state's credit was shot leaving them with little credibility on the international stage.

It was under these circumstances that Alexander Hamilton proposed a "bailout" of sorts. Under his plan of assumption, Hamilton suggested that the nation's legitimacy on the international market might be improved if the federal government were to assume the entire debs of the various states. Not only would his plan call for a radical new concept in terms of the federal government's scope and responsibility, but it would remove a measure of state sovereignty when it came to economics.

As could be expected, not everyone was happy with the deal. Most opponents of Hamilton's plan were furious over the fact that Hamilton proposed to pay off at face value all of the war bonds, which had not only been purchased by the masses, but had been used as a means of payment to thousands of veterans of the war. What infuriated these opponents was the fact that the war bonds, which had become virtually worthless, had been sold by the masses to greedy speculators (many who were friends of Hamilton) for a fraction of their original worth. Once Hamilton proposed to pay off the bonds at face value, these speculators stood to make a fortune off of what had once been a worthless bond.

The anger over the war bond saga was evident across the nation. In a letter to James Madison, Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote the following, which captures just how polarizing and upsetting Hamilton's plan had become:

Never have I heard more rage expressed against the Oppressors of our country during the late War than I daily hear against the men who...are to reap all the benefits of the revolution, at the expense of the greatest part of the Virtue & property that purchased it.

James Madison and his Virginian comrade, Thomas Jefferson, felt the same. The idea of subjugating the economic sovereignty of the states to the federal government seemed like a violation of everything the Revolution had stood for.

To make a long story short, Hamilton's economic plan of assumption was finally supported by Madison, Jefferson and other influential Virginians, who had originally opposed it, in exchange for the nation's capital to be built on the Potomac. In a historical compromise, Hamilton conceded the location of the federal capital to his Virginian opponents, in exchange for their support of his economic plan. Simply put, the compromise killed two birds with one stone.

Historians have, for the most part, praised Hamilton's economic plan as a stroke of brilliance. The plan delivered the infant United States from the brink of economic turmoil and gave the federal government more centralized control over the economic future of the nation. The economic "bailout" of the states eliminated a large amount of the economic tension between the smaller, more vulnerable states and the larger juggernaut states like Virginia, who had a virtual monopoly on American commerce. By placing the economic future of the nation in the hands of the federal government, Hamilton foreshadowed the often-repeated debate in America between a powerful, centralized union and the independent sovereignty of the states.

Alexander Hamilton's House

Alexander Hamilton is moving. Or better put, his home is moving. After roughly 200 years of residing in downtown New York city, Hamilton's beloved home -- known as the Grange -- will be relocated a block away in St. Nicholas Park. The home will also be receiving a much needed renovation -- $8.4 million dollars worth to be exact -- that should ensure the home's survival for decades to come.

David Dunlap of the The New York Times has written an excellent article regarding the home's history over the past 200 years. As the article states:

Now, in the house he left behind, Hamilton is again coming to life. To their joy, National Park Service officials have discovered that the front stairway, though much modified over time, is essentially the one built for Hamilton, complete with original risers, treads, balusters, ornamental scrollwork and support structure. It will be rebuilt in its original form.

Alexander Hamilton ran up those very treads!” said Steve Laise, chief of cultural resources of Manhattan sites for the National Park Service, which owns and runs the Grange. “It just puts you in such close proximity with the past. For those of us who really wish we were living back then anyway, it’s probably more of a stimulus to our imagination than we really ought to have.”

“Lovely exterior details are also evident for the first time in more than a century, including a triple-hung sash window. Smaller windows on either side have an alternating star-and-circle tracery. “That kind of pattern is well rooted in 18th-century Anglo-American design practice,” said Seth Joseph Weine, a fellow of the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America.

Though the project is expected to cost another couple of million dollars to complete -- worth every penny if you ask me -- Hamilton's home is expected to be completely restored to its original state. So the next time you are in New York, make sure to pay Mr. Hamilton a visit at his new abode in St. Nicholas Park!

The Diverse Minds of the Founders

As you all can tell from our blog's poll, there are some very differing opinions as to which Founding Father was the "smartest." Obviously it is impossible to measure which of the Founders possessed the highest IQ, the best ACT scores, etc. The only thing we really can do is weigh their individual achievements against one another, and then make a personal decision as to who we feel possessed the greatest intellect.

Since this recent poll has been so tight, I thought it might be interesting to briefly dive into the minds of each of these founders. By doing so, one can gain a greater appreciation for the unique contributions of each of these individuals, not to mention a greater understanding of their brilliance.

Benjamin Franklin: There can be no debate that Franklin was a man of incredible intellect. Franklin's accomplishments in printing, science and politics are second to none. With virtually no education, Franklin claimed not only the social ladder, but the academic ladder of success as well. Though often seen as a little eccentric, Franklin's intellect is often considered to be the greatest of all the Founding Fathers. Historian Gordon Wood considers Franklin to be the smartest person of his generation.

Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson is another popular choice. As the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson has been hailed as the example of civic virtue and government of the people. Jefferson's contributions as President, vice President, and Secretary of State have added to his luster. Jefferson is often considered to be one of the greatest political idealists ever to live.

James Madison: As the "Father of the Constitution," Madison has gained recognition in the historical community for being the most brilliant mind in terms of his understanding of government. Madison's observations in the Federalist Papers reveal his keen understanding of why governments succeed and fail. His contributions to the development of the Constitution cannot be overstated. As one Madison biographer put it, "Madison was, and still is, the most knowledgeable advocate for republican government in all of American history."

Alexander Hamilton: Hamilton is often overlooked in this debate (though I am glad he is having such a good showing in our poll). Historian Joseph Ellis has given Hamilton his personal endorsement as the most brilliant mind of the Revolution. The mere fact that Hamilton is even remembered at all is a miracle in itself. Having been born in obscurity on a Caribbean island, Hamilton could have been completely passed by in the records of history. The fact that he was a genius, however, propelled Hamilton to greatness. Once in America, Hamilton excelled in college, passing many students of "advanced standing" in his first year. His understanding and brilliance on the battlefield also gained Hamilton recognition with General Washington. Hamilton's contributions to the Federalist Papers also reveals his deep understanding of government. Perhaps his greatest contribution were his economic plans, which literally saved America from economic demise.

Abigail Adams: I am also glad to see that Abigail is receiving some attention in our poll. Though never a political figure, Abigail's role as the wife of John Adams cannot be downplayed. As historian David McCullough points out, Abigail had better political sense than her husband, was a better judge of people, and had just as keen of a mind. Abigail's role as helpmate to her husband helped to shape and influence his contributions to the Continental Congress and as president. It can be safely said that without Abigail, John Adams may not have been the man he became.

Hamilton, Economics, and the Capital

The most important member of George Washington’s cabinet was arguably Alexander Hamilton. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton faced the tremendous burden of tackling the nation's debt crisis. The Revolutionary War had left the states with massive debts, and many European nations were reluctant to establish credit with American merchants. To correct the problem, Hamilton proposed that the national government should assume the debts of the states, that a national bank be established, and that all holders of war bonds/securities be paid at face value. By assuming the states debts, Hamilton was essentially doing what he felt the national government had been given power to do. As Joseph Ellis points out, "the federal government was implicitly, even covertly, assuming sovereign authority over the economics of all the states."

Opponents of Hamilton's economic plan saw it as an evil scheme to wrestle power away from the people and to secure it for the national government. Some suggested that Hamilton was doing this by shifting the balance of power from the legislative branch (Congress) to the executive branch (the Presidency). Other opponents had a different take on Hamilton's economic plan. Many saw it as a carbon copy of England, which would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. Many southern leaders interpreted the plan as "the prostration of agriculture at the feet of commerce."

There were also many in the public who lamented the fact that war bonds, which had been used to pay war veterans, were being bought up by rich speculators. These speculators were paying well below face value for the bonds, and then waiting for Hamilton's plan to go into effect. These speculators knew they stood to gain huge profits once Hamilton's plan was accepted. Critics argued that many veterans were being swindled out of their money. Congressman James Jackson called the speculators, "rapacious wolves seeking whom they may devour."

Eventually, opponents of Hamilton's plan (especially the Virginia elite) would lend their support for it, in exchange for the location of the new national capital to be located on the Potomac. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison used their political influence to sway public support in favor of Hamilton's plan. In return, the new capital of the nation was established in Virginia. Many leaders within the government felt that this compromise "gave birth to combinations, parties, intrigues, jealousies...to such a degree to give serious alarm to the friends of the government." Hamilton's economic plan served as one of the first hurdles for the infant nation to learn to overcome. Whether the compromise was seen as a good or bad thing, it did prove that politicians with differing opinions could find a way to come to a compromise and get things done.

Washington Delivers First Ever State of the Union Speech

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the President of the United States is required to...

"...from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;..."

On January 8, 1790 President George Washington delivered the first ever State of the Union address. His address was highly anticipated by virtually everyone in Congress, since nobody was quite sure how the Executive branch was to work. In his speech, Washington clearly stated his administration's expected course of action. With a tremendous amount of help from Alexander Hamilton, Washington dedicated his administration to strengthening the federal government. One of Washington's primary goals was to strengthen the national defense by creating a standing army (an idea that was very unpopular at the time). Washington suggested that one of the primary goals of the federal government was to "provide for the common defense."

I have attached a copy of Washington's first State of the Union address below. It is a wonderful document, and I encourage you to take the time to read it. Enjoy!


State of the Union
George Washington
January 8, 1790
Federal Hall, New York City


Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now presents itself of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent accession of the important state of north Carolina to the Constitution of the United States (of which official information has been received), the rising credit and respectability of our country, the general and increasing good will toward the government of the Union, and the concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed are circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our national prosperity.

In resuming your consultations for the general good you can not but derive encouragement from the reflection that the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory to your constituents as the novelty and difficulty of the work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their expectations and to secure the blessings which a gracious Providence has placed within our reach will in the course of the present important session call for the cool and deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and wisdom.

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is on e of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.

There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants of our southern and western frontiers from their depredations, but you will perceive from the information contained in the papers which I shall direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.

The interests of the United States require that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfill my duty in that respect in the manner which circumstances may render most conducive to the public good, and to this end that the compensation to be made to the persons who may be employed should, according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law, and a competent fund designated for defraying the expenses incident to the conduct of foreign affairs.

Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization.

Uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.

The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures by all proper means will not, I trust, need recommendation; but I can not forbear intimating to you the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home, and of facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country by a due attention to the post-office and post-roads.

Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential.

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

I saw with peculiar pleasure at the close of the last session the resolution entered into by you expressive of your opinion that an adequate provision for the support of the public credit is a matter of high importance to the national honor and prosperity. In this sentiment I entirely concur; and to a perfect confidence in your best endeavors to devise such a provision as will be truly with the end I add an equal reliance on the cheerful cooperation of the other branch of the legislature.

It would be superfluous to specify inducements to a measure in which the character and interests of the United States are so obviously so deeply concerned, and which has received so explicit a sanction from your declaration.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I have directed the proper officers to lay before you, respectively, such papers and estimates as regard the affairs particularly recommended to your consideration, and necessary to convey to you that information of the state of the Union which it is my duty to afford.

The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed, and I shall derive great satisfaction from a cooperation with you in the pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal government.

The Religion of the Founding Fathers

This posting is inspired by the comments made in the Huckabee posting below. Raven mentioned that he is opposed to the notion that the Founding Fathers were Christian men. Obviously this is a very popular and controversial topic, so I am expecting this post to be a lot of fun. I look forward to what you all have to say.


In his book The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (which I happen to believe is the best source on this issue), author David Holmes has created a religious test of sorts that I feel is very applicable. Holmes states that, "An examination of history cannot capture the inner faith of any man. But in the case of the Founding Fathers of the United States, readers can use these four indicators to locate the founders on the religious spectrum with some confidence." Holmes has devised a four-point test that I believe is very helpful in understanding the religious nature of the Funding Fathers. These four points allow us to put the faiths of the Founding Fathers into perspective. The points are:

1. Church Attendance
2. Approach to the Sacraments and Ordinances
3. Level of Church Activity and Involvement
4. The Type of Religious Language Used

Using these four criteria, Holmes states where each of the Founding Fathers ranks on the religious spectrum. First off, it is important that we recognize the role that the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening played in shaping the religious beliefs of colonial America. As Daniel Walker Howe states in his epic book What Hath God Wrought, religious ideology, especially Christian ideology, was very different during the colonial era than it is today. By looking at these four points, we can determine to what degree deism and Christianity influenced the individual.

There is of course many other factors than these simple four points, which shaped the individual beliefs of our Founding Fathers. These points, however, can help us see the impact of deism and Christianity on the individual. A deist would be more likely to attend church less frequently, would strongly oppose sacraments and ordinances, would have a low level of church involvement, and would use very neutral religious language when referring to deity. An orthodox Christian, however, would be the exact opposite. With that said, let us look at several of the Founding Fathers using the test provided by Holmes.

George Washington: Obviously Washington is the most popular of the Founding Fathers, and there is a great deal of religious myth that surrounds him. There is perhaps more written on the religious views of Washington than any other Founding Father. His legacy has been used by secularists and religious zealots alike, in order to shape their respective agendas. But what were his religious beliefs? Here is what Holmes states:


1.) Church Attendance: Washington, though not as devout as the typical orthodox of his day, did attend church with some regularity, and as Holmes states, “held organized religion in high regard, and was known to pray privately.”

2.) Approach to the Sacraments and Ordinances: Washington was known for regularly leaving church services before any and all sacraments. Washington strictly refused to partake in any other religious ordinances.

3.) Level of Church Activity and Involvement: Washington was a vestryman in both the Anglican and Episcopal churches, but was never confirmed in any church. Washington strongly opposed any orthodox allegiance to any one church, and remained a non-ordained, non-confirmed churchgoer.

4.) Religious Language Used: Washington’s religious vernacular was mixed with Deist and Christian phrases. Though he regularly referred to deity as “Providence” and “the Grand Architect” Washington also used the words “God” and “Christ” on a regular basis as well.

So where does Holmes rank Washington? He calls him a “Christian Deist.”

Thomas Jefferson

This one is almost too easy. Jefferson attended very little church, he never participated in sacraments and ordinances, was never ordained or confirmed (in fact he believed such practices were morally reprehensible), and his religious language was VERY common for a Deist (just look at the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson uses phrases like "Providence" and "Nature's God"). Jefferson also regularly denied the divinity of Christ, but referred to him as "the greatest philosopher." In his Bible, Jefferson even removed all references to Jesus being a savior figure.

Holmes states, and I strongly agree, that Jefferson was a non-Christian Deist. This one is pretty easy.

Benjamin Franklin
Franklin is an interesting figure. He donated a large amount of money to virtually every religion in Philadelphia and even attended most of them. Franklin, however, was never confirmed, nor did he participate in sacraments and ordinances of any church. Franklin even states in his autobiography that he denies the divinity of Jesus. Holmes also calls Franklin a Deist.

So where are the Orthodox Christians? Here is just a small list:
Patrick Henry
Samuel Adams
John Jay
Martha Washington
Charles Carrol
Elias Boudinot
John Q. Adams

And Christian Deists? Here again is another small list that Holmes mentions:
George Washington
Abigail Adams
Alexander Hamilton
John Hancock

And here is Holmes's list of non-Christian Deists:
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Adams
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Paine

Ok, let the debating begin!

Burr v. Arnold: Who was the bigger traitor?

Most of us know the stories surrounding Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr. Both men have become synonymous with treason. Arnold conspired with the British during the war, while Burr conspired against the United States to steal New Orleanes after his duel with Alexander Hamilton. Prior to their treason, both men served the American cause with great zeal, contributing a tremendous amount to the American cause.

So which of these men is the bigger traitor? Does Burr win the title for his attempt to lure the southern states ay from the union and for his attempt to take control of the Mississippi by conquering New Orleanes? Or does Arnold win the title for his attempt to give the British control of the Hudson River by surrendering Westpoint?

In my opinion, Burr wins this head-to-head matchup easily. Your thoughts...

Edmond Genet and the "Plot" to Destroy the Republic

During the early years of the new American republic, scandals and conspiracies ran ramped. Division between those for a strong federal system of government (the Federalists) and those for limited centralized power (the Democratic-Republicans) grew to create a widening rift in the political arena. Issues such as the Jay Treaty had caused an uproar amongst Democratic-Republicans that only intensified with the election of John Adams. The political stance of Washington and Adams (which gave economic favor to the British) deeply angered Democratic-Republican supporters (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison being the primary leaders of that movement). Jefferson and Madison believed in giving strong support to the French cause that was rapidly moving toward revolution itself. In their minds, to deny the French would be treasonous against the very ideals of the revolution itself. As war between England and France continued to grow, America's economic preference with the British made relations with the French extremely tense. The result of such diplomatic desisions ended in a quasi-naval war between the French U.S. that greatly plagued the presidency of John Adams, and made the political feud between Federalist and Democratic-Republican impossible to resolve

The arrival of Edmond Genet as French ambassador to the United States only intensified the ongoing political battle. Federalist leaders (Alexander Hamilton leading their charge) saw the arrival of Genet as a precursor to an even deeper plot to undermine the sovereignty of the new American republic. The Democratic-Republicans, who welcomed Genet with open arms, hoped that his presence would be seen as an act of good will on the part of the French government.

The Federalists disagreed. For the Democratic-Republicans to welcome an "enemy" was equivalent to seeking the destruction of the new federalist government. For men like Hamilton, Genet was only a foreshadowing of the guillotine, which would sever not only the heads of Federalist leaders, but would destroy everything the revolution had created. From this Federalist perspective, it is no wonder that President Adams would take action to suppress such an uprising. The Alien & Sedition Acts, which would come a few years later, are evidence of the hysteria that captivated and drove the Federalists to assume that their demise was just around the corner.

For the modern reader, such actions may sound completely irrational. Why would the presence of one French diplomat cause such uproar? The fact is that the politics surrounding the early American republic were not only supercharged, but were deeply rooted in decades of struggle. The American Revolution (which is much more than a simple war) had turned social structures completely upside down. It would only be natural for contemporaries of this time to carry a sense of dread and worry. These were uncertain times, and hindsight was not an option. Events such as the arrival of Genet, the Alien & Sedition Acts, and others would polarize the new nation, creating an atmosphere ripe for ambitious politicians to capitalize on.

Revolutionary Sex Scandals

If there is one thing Americans cannot do without it is scandals. Americans seem to love them. Thanks in large part to magazines like "The National Enquirer" and "Star," Americans have a seemingly endless supply of scandals of the rich and famous.This fad, however, is nothing new in the American experiment. As part of his regular publications, Benjamin Franklin regularly included stories of scandal, sex and violence. He understood that shock value stories could sell. Just as sex scandals shock Americans today (one need not look further than Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, etc), the generation of the American Revolution was also mortified by stories of sexual deviance involving the nation's early leaders.

Take for example Alexander Hamilton. Not only did his political opponents expose his sexual liaisons with another woman, but they made sure his wife, Elizabeth, was one of the first to know about it. Hamilton was forced to own up to his misdeeds, essentially becoming America's first politician to have a sex scandal.

Benjamin Franklin is another one. During his early years, Franklin openly admitted (in his autobiography of all things) that he had frequently succumbed to the "temptations of the flesh" and had sex with, "women of lowly character." (aka prostitutes). Franklin was also less than faithful during his marriage. He was constantly implicated is sexual scandals while in England.

Of course we all know the story of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. Though Jefferson never publicly admitted involvement with Hemmings, recent DNA from the Hemmings descendants has shown ample Jeffersonian blood, which serves as proof of guilt.

To a lesser degree, even our nation's first president, the untouchable George Washington, has been questioned regarding his private life with women. In his youth, the lovely Sally Fairfax had attracted the eye of America's first action hero. In some surviving letters, Washington expresses a longing for Sally. Later in his marriage to Martha, Washington proclaimed that some of his happiest moments were in his youth with Sally. He also lamented that fact that his marriage with Martha had resulted in, "not much fire between our sheets." I must note that there is zero conclusive proof of Washington participating in sexual affairs in his youth or during his marriage. Several historians have even commented that Washington's marriage to Martha was one of bliss. I just wanted to add the other side of the argument.

John and Abigail Adams also have their "skeletons in the closet" Though they were completely loyal to one another, and shared arguably the best marriage of any Founding Father, they both came under fire when their first child was born 8 1/2 months after their marriage. Some speculated that the couple had succored to the temptations of engagement a little too early.

You may be asking "why talk about this?" In no way do I want to portray our Founders as evil men. I believe that when one learns about their "humanity" and all the faults that come with it, the more noble their story becomes. These were not "supermen" but human beings with faults and temptations, yet they still pulled off an incredible accomplishment.

Founding Fathers in the 21st Century

All of us have heard the polular cliche: "What would our Founding Fathers do or think if they could see us today?" As nostalgic as this statement may be, it also carries a lot of weight simply because we revere our founders as "holy." They mean so much to us because we are their political offspring. We long for their legacy because it helps us define who we are as "Americans" and "patriots."

Even today, the legacy of the Founding Fathers is deeply rooted in the modern American culture. George Washington's image is still found on the dollar and quarter, Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill, Amexander Hamilton of the $10. Samuel Adams is the name of a popular alcoholic beverage (which I happen to be quite fond of). It is impossible to go anywhere in our nation without seeing their legacy. In fact, I live on Jefferson Avenue!!!

My question is this: can anyone think of any other nation or people where its founders mean so much? While it is true that England, France, Spain, Russia, China, etc have longer and richer histories than does the United States, none of those nations revere their founders as much as we do. This may be due to the fact that our founders are relatively modern in world history. One would have to go a long way back to uncover the history of England or France's founders, and even then, the nations of Europe have so many different eras where a "founding" occurred.

In America this is not the case. We know exactly when our nation's founding took place. Though we may argue specifics, nobody can argue the overall theme 0f when and how our nation was founded. It is for this very reason that our Founding Fathers have become so endeared and important to us. They are special not only for leading the most important and successful revolution in world history, but also because they are so near to us. They are so very accessable. A stoll down Washington D.C. or Boston is sufficient evidence of this fact.

Dueling: A Sport of "Honor"

If you were to ask any average American about what terms such as "honor" or "gentleman" meant, chances are they would give you a definition that is far different from the revolutionary era. Our 21st century social structures are incapable of recreating the world of America's conception. For the founding generation, words like "gentleman" and "honor" were deeply woven into the social fabric of that era. When we think about the practice known as dueling, most of us in the modern world shutter at the apparent stupidity and insanity that would be required to participate in such a practice. For colonial America, however, opinions were quite different.

To understand dueling, we must understand what the revolutionary generation (not that dueling was limited exclusively to this time period) understood about its society. First off, to be a "gentleman" meant much more than good manners. It was the social standing of an inherently "superior" individual. Gentlemen were educated, sophisticated, and brave. They worked tirelessly at cultivating the highest of social graces. Being a gentleman was almost like being a colonial version of a knight of the medieval ages. It was an obsession that infected the entire upper class in colonial society. As Gordon Wood put it, to be a gentleman meant “having leisure in an era of labor, being educated in a time of semi-illiteracy, and above all else, defending one’s honor.” Defending one's honor was at the core of dueling. For example, the most famous duel (that of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton) was due to the fact that Hamilton had undermined Burr's campaign to become Governor of New York, while Burr attempted to brand Hamilton as a wannabe British noble. The feud lasted for months. At the conclusion, Burr was defeated in his political bid for New York, while much of Hamilton's reputation had been damaged. To settle their grievances, both men agreed to a duel

In reality, the overwhelming majority of duels ended without incident. First off, the weapons of the era were terribly inaccurate. It was almost impossible to get an accurate shot off. The most important reason why duels rarely ended in tragedy was because most participants purposely missed or never fired. This was because honor, not death, was at stake. The mere attendance of both participants at a duel served to demonstrate how "honorable" the individual truly was. In essence, by proving brave enough to appear at one's duel was sufficient evidence of the person's "gentleman" qualities. This was often enough to end the feud between parties.

This does not mean that dueling never ended in death. As we all know, America's first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, lost his life for participating in a duel with Aaron Burr. Hamilton's oldest son was also killed in a duel five years prior to his father's death. Usually those responsible for killing another in a duel had their reputations tarnished. They were rarely seen as "gentleman" of "honor." Just look at Aaron Burr. Killing Hamilton was the worst thing he could have ever done for his reputation. In fact, he lamented it for the rest of his life.

In conclusion, let us not forget the social aspects that went into dueling. Instead of seeing it as a barbarous practice we must recognize its influence on a society that was literally obsessed with honor.