Wikimedia<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nIn part, the Federalists were turning toward Britain because they feared the most radical forms of democratic thought. In the wake of Shays\u2019 Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and other internal protests, Federalists sought to preserve social stability. And the course of the French Revolution seemed to justify their concerns.<\/p>\n
In 1789, news had arrived in America that the French had revolted against their king. Most Americans had imagined that the idea of liberty was spreading from America to Europe, carried there by the returning French heroes who had taken part in the American Revolution. \u201cThe light of freedom which America hath struck out,\u201d a Philadelphia newspaper had declared, \u201chas reflected to France, and kindled a blaze which lays despotism in ashes, and is illuminating the world.\u201d<\/p>\n
Initially, nearly all Americans had sung the French Revolution\u2019s praises. Towns all over the country had hosted speeches and parades on July 14 to commemorate the day it began. Women had worn neoclassical dress in honor of its republican principles, and men had pinned revolutionary cockades to their hats. John Randolph, a Virginia planter, named two of his favorite horses \u201cJacobin\u201d and \u201cSans-Culotte\u201d after French revolutionary factions.<\/p>\n
In April 1793, a new French ambassador, \u201cCitizen\u201d Edmond-Charles Gen\u00eat, had arrived in the United States. During his tour of several cities, Americans had greeted him with wild enthusiasm. Citizen Gen\u00eat had encouraged Americans to act against Spain, a British ally, by attacking its colonies of Florida and Louisiana. When President Washington had refused, Gen\u00eat had threatened to appeal to the American people directly. In response, Washington had demanded that France recall its diplomat. In the meantime, however, Gen\u00eat\u2019s faction had fallen from power in France. Knowing that a return home might cost him his head, he decided to remain in America.<\/p>\n
Gen\u00eat\u2019s intuition was correct. A radical coalition of revolutionaries had seized power in France. They had initiated a bloody purge of their enemies, the \u201cReign of Terror.\u201d As Americans learned not only about Gen\u00eat\u2019s impropriety but also the mounting body count in France, many of them began to have second thoughts about the French Revolution.<\/p>\n
Americans who feared that the French Revolution was spiraling out of control tended to become Federalists. Those who remained hopeful about the revolution tended to become Republicans. Not deterred by the violence, Thomas Jefferson declared that he would rather see \u201chalf the earth desolated\u201d than see the French Revolution fail. \u201cWere there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free,\u201d he wrote, \u201cit would be better than as it now is.\u201d Meanwhile, the Federalists sought closer ties with Britain.<\/p>\n
Despite the political rancor, in late 1796 there came one sign of hope: the United States peacefully elected a new president. For now, as Washington stepped down and executive power changed hands, the country did not descend into the anarchy that many leaders feared.<\/p>\n
The new president was John Adams, Washington\u2019s vice president. Adams was less beloved than the old general, and he governed a nation that was deeply divided. The foreign crisis also presented him with a major test.<\/p>\n
In response to Jay\u2019s Treaty, the French government authorized its vessels to attack American shipping. To resolve this, President Adams sent envoys to France in 1797. The French insulted these diplomats. Some officials, whom the Americans code-named \u201cX,\u201d \u201cY,\u201d and \u201cZ\u201d in their correspondence, hinted that negotiations could begin only after the Americans offered a bribe. When the story became public, this \u201cX.Y.Z. Affair\u201d infuriated American citizens. Dozens of towns wrote addresses to President Adams, pledging him their support against France. Many people seemed eager for war. \u201cMillions for defense,\u201d toasted South Carolina representative Robert Goodloe Harper, \u201cbut not one cent for tribute.\u201d<\/p>\n
By 1798, the people of Charleston watched the ocean\u2019s horizon apprehensively because they feared the arrival of the French navy at any moment. Many people now worried that the same ships that had aided Americans during the Revolutionary War might discharge an invasion force on their shores. Some southerners were sure that this force would consist of black troops from France\u2019s Caribbean colonies, who would attack the southern states and cause their slaves to revolt. Many Americans also worried that France had covert agents in the country. In the streets of Charleston, armed bands of young men searched for French disorganizers. Even the little children prepared for the looming conflict by fighting with sticks.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, during the crisis, New Englanders were some of the most outspoken opponents of France. In 1798, they found a new reason for Francophobia. An influential Massachusetts minister, Jedidiah Morse, announced to his congregation that the French Revolution had been hatched in a conspiracy led by a mysterious anti-Christian organization called the Illuminati. The story was a hoax, but rumors of Illuminati infiltration spread throughout New England like wildfire, adding a new dimension to the foreign threat.<\/p>\n
Against this backdrop of fear, the French \u201cQuasi-War,\u201d as it would come to be known, was fought on the Atlantic, mostly between French naval vessels and American merchant ships. During this crisis, however, anxiety about foreign agents ran high, and members of Congress took action to prevent internal subversion. The most controversial of these steps were the Alien and Sedition Acts. These two laws, passed in 1798, were intended to prevent French agents and sympathizers from compromising America\u2019s resistance, but they also attacked Americans who criticized the President and the Federalist Party.<\/p>\n
The Alien Act allowed the federal government to deport foreign nationals, or \u201caliens,\u201d who seemed to pose a national security threat. Even more dramatically, the Sedition Act allowed the government to prosecute anyone found to be speaking or publishing \u201cfalse, scandalous, and malicious writing\u201d against the government.<\/p>\n
These laws were not simply brought on by war hysteria. They reflected common assumptions about the nature of the American Revolution and the limits of liberty. In fact, most of the advocates for the Constitution and First Amendment accepted that free speech simply meant a lack of prior censorship or restraint\u2014not a guarantee against punishment. According to this logic, \u201clicentious\u201d or unruly speech made society less free, not more. James Wilson, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, argued that \u201cevery author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government.\u201d<\/p>\n
In 1798, most Federalists were inclined to agree. Under the terms of the Sedition Act, they indicted and prosecuted several Republican printers\u2014and even a Republican congressman who had criticized President Adams. Meanwhile, although the Adams administration never enforced the Alien Act, its passage was enough to convince some foreign nationals to leave the country. For the president and most other Federalists, the Alien and Sedition Acts represented a continuation of a conservative rather than radical American Revolution.<\/p>\n
However, the Alien and Sedition Acts caused a backlash, in two ways. First, shocked opponents articulated a new and expansive vision for liberty. The New York lawyer Tunis Wortman, for example, demanded an \u201cabsolute independence\u201d of the press. Likewise, the Virginia judge George Hay called for \u201cany publication whatever criminal\u201d to be exempt from legal punishment. Many Americans began to argue that free speech meant the ability to say virtually anything without fear of prosecution.<\/p>\n
Second, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson helped organize opposition from state governments. Ironically, both of them had expressed support for the principle behind the Sedition Act in previous years. Jefferson, for example, had written to Madison in 1789 that the nation should punish citizens for speaking \u201cfalse facts\u201d that injured the country. Nevertheless, both men now opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts on constitutional grounds. In 1798, Jefferson made this point in a resolution that the Kentucky state legislature adopted. A short time later, the Virginia legislature adopted a similar document that Madison wrote.<\/p>\n
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions argued that the national government\u2019s authority was limited to the powers expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. More importantly, they asserted that the states could declare federal laws unconstitutional. For the time being, these resolutions were simply gestures of defiance. Their bold claim, however, would have important effects in later decades.<\/p>\n
In just a few years, many Americans\u2019 feelings towards France had changed dramatically. Far from rejoicing in the \u201clight of freedom,\u201d many Americans now feared the \u201ccontagion\u201d of French-style liberty. Debates over the French Revolution in the 1790s gave Americans some of their earliest opportunities to articulate what it meant to be American. Did American national character rest on a radical and universal vision of human liberty? Or was America supposed to be essentially pious and traditional, an outgrowth of Great Britain? They couldn\u2019t agree. It was upon this cracked foundation that many of conflicts of the nineteenth century would rest.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t
![\"A](\"http:\/\/www.americanyawp.com\/text\/wp-content\/uploads\/Execution_of_Louis_XVI.jpg\")
<\/a> The mounting body count of the French Revolution included that of the Queen and King, who were beheaded in a public ceremony in early 1793, as depicted in the engraving. While Americans disdained the concept of monarchy, the execution of King Louis XVI was regarded by many Americans as an abomination, an indication of the chaos and savagery reigning in France at the time. Charles Monnet (artist), Antoine-Jean Duclos and Isidore-Stanislas Helman (engravers), \"Day of 21 January 1793 the death of Louis Capet on the Place de la R\u00e9volution,\u201d 1794. ![\"A](\"http:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Execution_of_Louis_XVI.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n