virginia and the alien and sedition laws

8/16/2019 Virginia and the Alien and Sedition Laws

1/7

NOTES AND SUGGESTIONS

I.

VIRGINIA

AND THE ALIEN AND SEDITION

LAWS

A

charge,

unchallengedfor

more than a century,has rested

against the state

of Virginia. Its legislaturehas

been accused

of

making provision

for armed resistance o the

enforcement f the

Alien and Sedition

Acts. The

militia was reorganized

nd made

miiore

ormidable,

dditional rms

were purchased,n armory rected,

and taxes laid,with the design, t is said, of makingwar upon the

Federal government.

This is tantamount

o a chargeof conspiracy.

When

one considers he

mpossibility

f concealing fficialction nd

the necessityfor profound secrecy,

the statement

hallenges our

credulity. Yet historians ave

accepted

t.

Thus

Albert J. Bever-

idge

in his

Life

of JohnMarshall: the Republican

piritwas

run-

ninghigh.

The Virginia egislature

rovided oran armory n Rich-

mond to resist

'encroachments' of the National

Government.

Madison and

Jefferson,sserts

Henry Adams, were privyto the

preparations

making

n

Virginia

for armed

resistance;

or if

they

were not,

t was because

they

hose to be

ignorant.2

These

assertions rest,

as far as

documentary

vidence s con-

cerned, pon

two contemporary

etters nd

upon

two

statements

ade

some time ater

by John

Randolph

nd

William

B.

Giles. Writing

o

Rufus King

in

November, 799,

Theodore

Sedgwick,

Massachusetts

Federalist, eclared hatpartyfactionhad become o bitter hatVir-

ginia

had

displayed

an

anxiety

o

render

ts

militia s formidable

s

possible,

nd to

supply

ts arsenals

&

magazines,

nd for those

pur-

poses

it

actually mposed

tax on its Citizens

.3

The other etter

s

from

Alexander

Hamilton,

ut he so

obviously

eceivedhis

informa-

tion

from

edgwick

hat t can have no value

as

evidence.4

JohnRandolph

was

naturally

morecolorful.

At one time

during

the

courseof a debate

n

January,8I7,

over a commercial

ill,Cyrus

1

Vol.

II.,

p. 406.

2

John

Randolph,

p.

27.

See

also

Hermann

von

Holst,

Constitutional

istory

of

the

United

.States,

.

I58:

It

was

a well-known

act

that at the

time

that

Washington

aw

a 'dreadiul

crisis

hastening',

a

large

establishment

or

the

mallu-

facture

f arms was

set

up

in

Richmond.

3 Life and

Correspondence

f Rufus

King,

ed.

Charles

King,

III.

I47

f.

4

Hamilton's

letter

paraphrases

Sedgwick's:

It

is stated

. . that

t;he

op-

position

party

n

Virginia

. . . have

taken

measures

to

put

their

militia

on a

more

efficient

ooting-are

preparing

onsiderable

rsenals

and

magazines,

and

. . .

have

gone so far as to lay new taxes on their citizens. The Works of Alexander

Hamilton,

d. J.

C.

Hamilton,

VI.

384.

336

This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


2/7

Davidson:

Virginia

Armamentsn

I798

337

King,

of

Massachusetts, hrew

n

the face

of

his

Virginia

opponents

a

statement

made

previously

n the floor f the House

concerningn

armory stablishedn Richmond o resist the Federal government.

John

Jackson

ose to defendhis

state,

but was

interruptedy

Ran-

dolph,

who,

recognizing

imself

s

the

author of the remarks

re-

ferred

o, wished

to

explain

what he had

actually.said.

The

state-

ment,

he

declared,

had

been made

in a debate

over

a

constitutional

amendment

bridging

he

rights

f

the

states,

nd was to the

effect

that:

By thetimelynd judicious xercise f theveryrightproposed o be

taken

way,

this Union

had

been

saved

from

ncalculablemischief

nd

misery.

That

bythrowing

.

,

her

whole

weight

nto he lectoral

cale,

the

Commonwealth

f

Virginia

had

constitutionally

ffected

change f

ministry,nd

checked he

mad

career

f ambition

nd

usurpation, hich

otherwisehe

might ave

been

compelledo

resist

t the

hazard .

.

of

a

civil

war,

fortherewas

no

longer

nycause for

concealing he

fact,

that

the

grand

armory

t

Richmondwas

built

to

enable

the State

of

Virginia

o

resist, yforce,

he

ncroachmentsf the

hen

Administration

upon

her

ndisputableights

.

.

in case they

hould

ersevere

n

these

outrageousroceedings.5

This

assertion he

then

proceeded

to

amplify and

explain.

His

charges,when

stripped f the

verbiage

forwhich

Jbe

was

famous,

amount

imply o

this:

when

running or

Congress n 1799

he

was

asked

if

he

justified he

establishment

f the

armory

o resist

the

government,nd he

replied hat

he did.

He

coulddefend

Virginia,

he said,

because

party feeling'

an

highest

n

1798-1799,and

in the

halls of CongresstheFederalistswere even suggesting hepartition

of

the

state,

forthey

thought

he had

grown so

large as to

be un-

nmanageable.With

the

knife t her

throat,

ny

measures

were usti-

fiable,

nd the

members

f

the

assembly

knew that

logic

was

no

match for

the

bayonet, and

they

provided

bayonets

. . . .

The

armory t

Richmond,

fathered

y John

Taylor

of

Caroline,he as-

serted,was

designed o

supply

hese

and

otherweapons.

Randolph's

charges

were

challenged y

two of

theVirginia

repre-

5

I

have

never

been

able to

find

he

exact

date

on

which

Randolph

firstmade

this

statement. All

indications

pointto

its

having been made

in

December,

8I6.

Between

1799

and I8I7

onlytwo

amendments

hich

could have

had

the

effect

e

intimated

roused

his

determined

pposition.

One was

proposed

n

the session

of

I8I2-I813,

the

c.ther

n

I8i6.

The

characterof

Randolph's

remarks n

the

debate

over

the

second

mentioned

mendment

s

thoroughlyn

keeping

with a

statement

like

the one

under

discussion.

See

Annals

of

Congress,

14

Cong.,

2

sess.,

pp.

322 ff.

Furthermore,

Mr.

King

was

not

a member

f

Congress n

1812,

and the

matter

was

fresh n

the

minds

of

ail

participantsn

the

dispute

in

18I7.

Jackson

does not seemto have beenpresentwhen the remarkswere firstmade, and

seenms

to

be

taking the

first

opportunity

f

correcting

hem.

The

debates

in

January,

1817,

maybe

found n

the

Annalsof

Congress,

I4

Cong., 2

sess., pp.

793-8o6.




3/7

338 Notes and

Suggestions

sentatives,

John Jackson

and

James

Pleasants,

jr.,

both

members

of the assembly

f I798. The

armorywas

built,

declaredJackson,

to insure n adequatesupplyof dependable uns,a need long feltby

the state. Until that

moment,

e had never heard a

single indi-

vidual

intimate disposition

o oppose with

arms the

constituted

authority

f the Government.B

Equally

vigorous was Pleasants's

denial.

It was a certain

act

,

he

said,

that he men

who had the

principal gency n

the establishment

f that

armory,

ad most un-

equivocally

disavowed that intention.

Mr.

Taylor,

he asserted,

never expectedthe arms to be used in civil war. He most em-

phatically

id

disclaim,

s

I

do

now,

any such

views.

William B.

Giles

affords

he finalpieceof evidence

upon

which

o

base the

charge. In

a speechbefore

the Virginia egislature

n

I825

he urged

opposition

o the tariff

n the ground hat Virginia

had al-

ways

vigorously efendedher rights.

When

threatened

n

I798,

her

leadersdid not tamely

ubmit,

e

declared:

They

.

.

determined

o arm the militia, nd

to makeprovision

o pur-

chase

5,000

stands farms.-Then t was sir, hat he foundationorthe

regular

upply f

arms to the militia

was

laid,

in the establishment

f

your

rmory.-Todefray

he

expenses

f these

measures,hey

aised he

whole axes

of

the

State

5 per

cent.

. .8

Charges

uch as these

of Sedgwick,

Randolph, nd

Giles are

much

easier

made than sustained. Were

it

not

for theirplausibility,

nd

were

t

not for he

unfortunate

act hat

we

rather ike

to believe uch

things, he

accusations

ould not stand. Sedgwick

was

a leader

of

the Federalists n Congress, nd wouldnaturally e expected o mis-

represent

he acts

of

a Republican

egislature. Randolph's

powers

of

exaggeration

re

as

well knownas

are his other

eccentricities.

The

question

sked

him

during

he

Congressional ampaign

may easily

be

discounted.9

At

such

times there

was always

much oose talk,

and

6

He also declared

that the governor

had entered

nto a contract

with James

Swan of Boston

for

the purchase

of

arms,

but these proving valueless upon

de-

livery,

t

was

necessary

for the

state

to supply

its own weapons. Randolph

an-

swered that the armory was

built,

not so much because of the badness of the

arms,

as because it was proper

for the State

of

Virginia

to keep in her

possession

the

means of arming

the

militia,

rather

than depend

for

her supply on contracts

which

the

United

States might stop

. A more

perfectrefutationof

Jackson's

argument

s simplythat the

guns were

not deliveredand found

faulty

until

two

years after the bill

for

the

erection f

the armorywas passed.

See

below,

note

I6.

7

In passing it is worth

noting that

subsequent

writersdo not

mentionthe

emphatic

denial of the charges

by participants

n

the actual events.

8

William

B.

Giles, Political

Miscellanies (Richmond,

1830),

p.

I46.

There

is also a statementn Samuel Mordecai,Richmond n By-GoneDays (Richmond.

1856),

p.

202,

but this

is

based only

upon

hearsay.

9

See

above,

P.

337.




4/7

Davidson:

VirginiaArmameints

n

I798

339

one would

xpect

he

question

nd answer

o have

beenwhat

hey

were. The

political

urpose

ehindboth

Randolph's

nd

Giles's

statementssperfectlypparent.While hese acts o not onstitute

completeisprooff

the

charge,hey

aturally

rouse

uspicions

f

its ruth.

Fortunately

isproof

f the

charge

an

be based

upon

a

surer

foundation.A

study f

the

pertinent

eatures

f

Virginia

dminis-

tration,

789-I798,

thereorganizationf the

militia,

he

purchase

of

arms,

nd

the

ncrease

ftaxes,

eads

nevitably

o the

onclusion

that

he

measures

aken

n

i798

were

not

new.

They

were

part

f

a

consistentolicy ndertakeneforeheAlien ndSedition ctswere

passed, ven

before hey

ould

reasonably ave been

expected,

nd

had

nothing

o dowith

ppositiono

them.

That

part

of

the

charge

elating o the

militia

estsupon

the

weakest

f

foundations.n

I792

Congress

nacted

general

militia

law,

which

rovided hat

ach

state hould

egulatets own

militia.

Pursuantothis

ct, he

Virginia

egislature

assed law

organizing

thestatetroops, nd in

1793

theact was amended,ut evenas

amendedt

didnot

provide or

n

efficient

ystem.10

here

was ittle

coordination

etween he

various

nits, nd

t

was found

ifficult

o

obtain

nited

ndspeedy

ction. In

I795 all

previous

ctswerere-

duced

o one,

nd n

1799

another

ttemptas

made

o

secure

reater

efficiency.

y the

ct of

thatyear

he

governor as

given

uthority

to divide r

consolidate

egiments

s the

occasion

might emand.11

It wasthis

failure

oprovide

arlier

or

entralized

ontrol

hathad

made hepreviousystemnefficient.

No more

ubstantial

vidence fthe

charge

maybe

found

n

the

matter

f

arms

for

he

militia. If it

was

to be

efficient,n

adequate

supply f

dependable

unswas

a

necessity

ndthis he

tate

idnot

have.

Ample vidence

estifies

othe ack

of

arms

nd tothe

poor

quality f such

s

were

btainable.

Even the

weaponsn the

rsenal

at

Point

f

Fork

were

badly

n

needof

repair,nd

the

upply

here

was deemednsufficient. ith his onditionnmind he egislature

in

1796

authorizedhe

governoro

procure

dditionalrms.12

n

September,

796,

the

governor's

gent eportedhat

gunscould

be

purchased

broad

hrough ames

wan of

Boston,

nd

after ome

correspondencecontract

as

agreed pon

n

May,

797. For

the

10

Statutes at

Large

of Virginia,

Hening,XIII.

340.

See

especially the

letter

of

Arthur

Campbell

to the

governor,

Calendar of

Vlirginia

tate

Papers

(W.

P.

Palmer et

at.,

eds.), VII.

27I

ff.

(Hereinafter

eferred o as

C.S.P.)

Also,

ibid.,

pp. I3 if.

11

Statutes at

Large

of Virginia,

Shepherd, .

341;

1I.

141.

12

C.S.P.,

VII.

309.

See

also

V. 6o0;

VII.

34I

f.;

VIII.

489, 497.

Shepherd,

I.

365;

II.

70.




5/7

340

Notes

and

Suggestions

storage

of these

guns-twenty

thousand, eliverable

ourthousand

year

for five

years-two

arsenals

were provided

bylegislative

ct

of

January23,

I798,

and the same bill authorized he erection f an

armory

t Richmond.13

An armory

had been suggested

s early

as

February,

1797,

and

a few

months

ater

the governor

ommissioned

John

Clarke

to select

site. He

was also

to buy arms

from

ome

of

the other

states,

which

he

failed

to do, and to

visit other

rmories.

His

report

was

presented

n December, 797,

and

a

month

ater

the

bill

forthe

erection

f

the

armory

was

passed.'4

The charge

that

the

people

of

Virginiawere

taxed

to support

probablewar withtheFederal government as no moresubstantial

foundation

han

the

others.

Taxes

were

raised,

t is perfectly

rue.

The real

dispute

over

the

purchase

of

armsand the erection

f

the

armory

oncerned

he

matter

f

expense,

and

not the purpose

for

which

theywere

to

be used.'5

The

additional

revenues,

irst

pro-

vided

n December,

797,

were to meetthe additional

urdens

f

the

armsand

the

armory;

he

purpose

of the

one

was

the purpose

of

the

other.

It

merely

emains

o show

that

there

ould

have

been

no

possible

connection

etween

he

measures

aken

by

Virginia

n

I798

and

the

Alien and

Sedition

Laws.

In

the

first

lace,

t is quite

clear

that

herewere

good

reasons

for

an efficient,

ell-armed

militia. During

thefirst

alfof

the

nineties

the danger

from

he

Indians was

real,

and the

militiawas

practically

the

only

defense

he

state

had.

After 793

the waters

f

the

Atlantic

swarmedwithFrenchand Englishprivateers,nd thecoastof Vir-

ginia

was exposed

to

attack

n the event

of

war

with

either

nation.

The

fear

of

these

privateers

was apparent;

the fact

thatno

ravaging

vessels

appeared

does

not vitiate

the

force

of

this

argument.

The

thought

was

as

powerful

s

the

fact.

Thus

in

1793

the

governor

s-

sued

instructions

o

the

militia,

utlining

heir

duties

n the event

ny

hostile

vessels

came

into Virginia

waters.16

The

danger

was no

less

real in i798, and the governorwas besiegedwithpetitions orarms.

In July

f

thatyear

Thomas

Nelson

wroterepeating

request

he

had

made

in

I794

for

arms

for his militia ompany:

The exposed

situ-

13 C.S.P.,

VIII.

388, 389,

435

f.

Also, ibid.,

419,

447.

These

guns

were

de-

livered

in

i8oo

and found

faulty.

See ibid.,

X.

87,

IoI;

and

Amer.

Hist. Assoc.,

Annual

Report,

i896,

I.

824-830.

Shepherd,

.

87.

14

See the

letter

of

James

Penn

to

the

governor,

eb.

20,

I797.

C.S.P.,

VIII.

420,

455,

466,

468.

15

The

rate

was iincreased

etween

796

and

1798

from

25

cents

on

land

and

28

on slaves to 48 and

44

respectively.Shepherd, I.

14,

73,

144.

See also The

John

Taylor

Correspondence,

he

John

P.

Branch

Historical

Papers,

II.

280.

16

C.S.P.,

VI.

671

f. See

also

ibid.,

VII.

236 f.




6/7

Davidson:

Virginia

Arwanents in

1798

341

ation

of this

part of the

country

o

depredation

nd

injury

from

piratical

marauders n

accountof

its

contiguity

nd

openness

to

the

sea, at that imewas, as itnow is,and mustbe,thecause and apology

for

this

pplication....

1

It

is

interesting

o

note

in

this

connection

ow

a

later

historian

lhas

misrepresented

he

evidence

relating

o

the

necessity

for

arms.

Henry

Adams,

in

commenting

pon

the

political

career of

William

B.

Giles,

refers

o

his

extreme

Republicanism

n

I798.

Illustrating

his

pointby

quotations

from

he

report

f

Giles's

speech

n

favor

of

the

Resolutionsof

1798,

he

makes

the

following

tatement:

8

In

languageperfectlyntelligibleo his friendshe hinted hathis party

'had

no

arms,

but

they

would

find

rms

.

What

Giles is

actually

reported

o

have

said

was

that:

The

critical

ituation

f

the

United

tates,

oo,had been

mentioned:

hat

France

nd

England

oth

hada

view

towards

s;

and

that

herefore

reat

caution

hould

e

used. .

. He

then

xpressed is

disapprobation

f the

measures

dopted

ythe

government

especting

he

army

nd

navy.

He

asked

of

what

characters

would

they

be

composed?

Of

the

idle

and

dissipatedartof thecommunity? n thecontrary, howerethepa-

triots

who

would

protect

heir

ountry?

This

very

party

mentioned

y

the

President

ould

repel

ny

invasion. It

was

true

hey

had

no

arms,

but

hey

would

find

rms.19

It

was

this

threatening

ituation-an

impending

war,

the

danger

from

privateers, nd

the

lack

of

arms-together

with

the

inability

to

purchase

armsin

the

United

States

that

created

the

demand

for

the

armory.

Even

though

he

contract

ad

been let

for a

supply

of

arms, twas notat all certain hatthesewouldbe delivered. Swan

himself

wrote

the

governor

sking

for

an

extensionof

time

on

his

contract,

nd

James

Dawvson,

ommissioned

o

buy

guns

in

America,

reported

ailure.20

In

the

econd

place,

had

there

xisted

n

the

state

real

determina-

tion

to

opposeby

force

he

Federal

administration,

uch

intent

would

surelyhave

been

brought

o

light n

the

debates

over

the

adoption

f

the

Resolutions

f

I798. But

no

definite

ccusations

f

this

nature

weremade.2' It was said,ofcourse, hat headoption ftheResolu-

IJ

Ibid.,

VIII.

S

Ii.

18

History

of

the

United

States,

1.

285.

I

appreciate

the

force

of

the words

in

language

perfectly

ntelligible

o

his

friends

by

which

Mr.

Adams

guiards

himself.

Yet

that

Giles's

friends

nterpreted

he

speech

as

does

Mr.

Adams

is

surely only

a

matter

of

opinion.

19

The

Virginia

Rcport

of

1799-I800

.

. .

The

Debate

and

Proceedings hereon

in

the

House of

Delegates of

Vlirginia

.

. .

(Richmond,

850),

pp.

145

ff.

20

C.S.P.,

VIII.

485.

See

also

ibid.,

386-388,

468.

21

Pleasants stated in x817 that General Lee had chargedJohnTaylor witlh

stuch

ntent.

This

does

not

appear

in

the

recorded

debates,

but

as

the

report

s

not

verbatim,

he

question

can

not be

determined.




7/7

342

Notes

and

Suggestions

tions

would

inflame

he

public

mind,

and might ead

to open

re-

sistance.

George

K. Taylor,

the

most ble opponent

f the

program,

felt

that

by

it

the

people

were encouraged

most openly

to

make

resistance ,22

and GeneralLee declaredthattheResolutions truck

him

as

recommending

esistance.

They declared

he aws

null

and

void.

Our

citizens

thus thinking,

would

disobey

the laws.

This

disobedience

would

be patronised

y

the

state,

nd

could

not

be

sub-

mitted

o

by the

United

States.

Insurrection

would

be

the

conse-

quence

.23

These

are

all general

charges

against

the theory

f

the

Resolutions,

nd

of the

danger

of

arousing

public

entiment;

hey

re

not

charges

that preparations

or

war were

being planned.

It

is

perfectly atural hattheFederalists houldhavemadesuchcharges.

What

is

unnatural

s that

hey

hould

have

overlooked

he

tremendous

possibilities

f

an attack

on

the

Republicans

on

the

score

of

the

armory

nd

the

militia,

f

there

had

been

eventhe slightest

oubt

as

to

the

purpose

for

which

they

wereto

be

used.

Attacks

o

general

as

thoseof

the

Federalists

were

easily

met. The

Republicans

united

withJohn

Mercer

n declaring

hat

here

was

nothing

more

behind

he

Resolutions han n appealtopublicopinion: Forcewas notthought

of

by

any

one.

The

preservation

f

the federal Constitution,

he

cement

f

the Union

with

ts original

powers,

was

the object

of

the

resolutions.

4

And

finally,

here ould

have

been

no possible

connection

etween

theacts

under

discussion

nd the

Alien and

Sedition

Laws,

because

the

acts

of

the Virginia

legislature

had

been

under

discussion

for

someyears

before

798,

and were

actually

passed

several

months

e-

fore heAlienand SeditionActs. The AlienActwas firstntroduced

in the Senate

on April

25,

I798,

and

passed

bothHouses

on June

2.

The

Sedition

Act

did not

come up in

the

Senate

until

June

26,

and

was

not

passed

until

July

IO, I798.25

The

reorganization

f

the

militia

was

a

problem

n

I793,

the

purchase

f armswas

taken

up

in

I796,

and plans

for

the armory

were

made

in

I797.

When

the

acts

concerning

he

arms

and

the

armory

were before

he

Virginia

egisla-

ture, n Decemberand January,

i797-1798,

the Alien and Sedition

Acts

were

not

before

eitherHouse

of

Congress,

nd could

not

have

been

foreseen

t

so

early

date.

In view

of

these

facts,

t can

not be

maintainied

hat

he

militia

was

reorganized,

rms

purchased,

n

armory

stablished,

nd taxes

laid,

to

support

war

against

he Federal

government.

Agnes

Scott

College.

PHILIP

G.

DAVIDSON.

22

The Virginia

Report

of

1799-1800,

p.

30.

23

Ibid., p.

Io8.

24

Ibid.',

P.

42.

25

Annals

of

Congress,

5

Cong.,

2

sess.,

pp.

548,

575,

586,

589

f., 599,

6og,

2028, 2093,

2I71.

This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll bj t t JSTOR T d C diti

virginia and the alien and sedition laws

Documents