Part 3

Jefferson has given a synopsis of the arguments for and against the adoption of the Declaration. It will be remembered that the hope of the colonies or new States, even after the war had continued for a considerable time, was not so much independence as to extort justice from Great Britain.

Had this been granted, the separation would have been deferred and when it came, as come it must, probably would have been peaceable. At the same time, there was a strenuous, aggressive minority who was insistent from the first for a complete severance of the ties binding us to the mother country.

The debate in congress showed that New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and South Carolina were not ready to take the irrevocable step, but it was evident that they were fast approaching that mood, and the wise leaders tarried in order to take them in their company.

In the vote of July 1, the Pennsylvania and South Carolina delegates still opposed, while those from New York did the same, contrary to their own convictions but in obedience to home instructions, which later were changed.

The signs of unanimity became unmistakable on the Second, and two days later, as every one knows, the adoption of the Declaration took place, though it was not until the Second of August that all the members, excepting John Dickinson had signed.

Five years passed before the Articles of Confederation were formally adopted by the states, by which time it had become clear that they must totally fail of their purpose, for each state decided for itself whether to respond to the demands of congress. The poison of nullification thus infused into the body politic at its birth bore baleful fruit in the years that followed.

On six separate occasions, there were overt acts on the part of the States.

The first occurred in 1798, when Virginia and Kentucky passed nullification resolutions.

The second was the attempt of New England in 1803 to form a northern confederacy, comprising five New England States, and New York and New Jersey. The third was Aaron Burr's wild scheme in the Southwest.

The fourth, the resolution of the New England States to withhold cooperation in the War of 1812.

The fifth, the nullification acts of South Carolina in 1832.

The sixth and last, the effort of eleven states to form the Southern Confederacy. This brought the burning issue to a head and settled the question for the ages to come.

It seems incredible in these times that the country submitted for a month to the intolerable Alien and Sedition acts. Should any congressman propose their reenactment to-day, he would be looked upon as a crank and be laughed out of court. They were enacted when Jefferson was Vice President and were the creation of the brilliant Alexander Hamilton, whose belief was in a monarchy rather than a republic.

The Sedition act made it a felony punishable with a fine of $5000 and five years imprisonment for persons to combine in order to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate persons from taking Federal office, or to commit or advise a riot or insurrection or unlawful assembly.

It declared further that the writing or publishing of any scandalous, malicious or false statement against the president or either house of congress should be punishable by a fine of $2000 and imprisonment for two years.

It will be noted that this law precluded all free discussion of an act of congress, or the conduct of the president.

In other words, it was meant to be the death blow to freedom of speech.

But bad as it was, the Alien act, which congress passed at the same session, 1798, was ten fold worse.

There had been much unrest caused by the intermeddling of foreigners in the States, and it was now decided that the president might drive out of the country any alien he chose thus to banish, and to do it without assigning any reason therefor. It was not necessary even to sue or to bring charges; if an alien receiving such notice from the president refused to obey, he could be imprisoned for three years.

President Adams afterward declared that he did not approve of this stern measure which was the work of Hamilton, and boasted that it was not enforced by him in a single instance.

Nevertheless, the Sedition act was enforced to a farcical degree.

When President Adams was passing through Newark, N. J., he was saluted by the firing of cannon. One of the cannoneers, who was strongly opposed to him, expressed the wish that he might be struck by some of the wadding. For this remark, he was arrested and compelled to pay a fine of one hundred dollars.

Editor Frothingham printed his belief that Hamilton wished to buy the Aurora for the purpose of suppressing it. For expressing that opinion he was fined and imprisoned. Thomas Cooper made the remark that in 1797 President Adams was "hardly in the infancy of political mistakes," and these mild words cost him $400 and kept him in prison for six months.

It is hard to believe that the following proceedings took place within the present hundred years in the United States of America, and yet they did.

In the case against Callender, Judge Chase denounced the accused to the jurors and forbade the marshals to place any one not a Federalist on the jury. The lawyers who defended Callender were threatened with corporal punishment.

In Otsego, N. Y., Judge Peck obtained signers to a petition for the repeal of the obnoxious acts. For such action he was indicted and taken to New York city for trial.

That was the sacred right of petition with a vengeance.

Matthew Lyon, while canvassing his district in Vermont for re-election to congress, charged the president in one of his speeches with "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and a selfish avarice," certainly mild expressions compared with what are heard in these times, but because of their utterance, Mr. Lyon spent four months in jail and paid a fine of $1000.