Donald Trump? Not yet. I think he’d like to make it illegal to criticize him, but he hasn’t been able to pull it off yet.
We are talking about John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Here is a taste of Ronald Shafer’s piece at The Washington Post:
The thin-skinned president of the United States was furious at his critics — like the congressman who wrote that the president was “swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and selfish avarice.”
The peeved president wasn’t Donald Trump. He was America’s second commander in chief, John Adams.
Though Adams was a Founding Father of the United States’ democracy, he couldn’t abide personal scorn. In July 1798, he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts that, among other things, made it illegal to “write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings” against the president and other executive branch officials.
While the laws no longer exist today, modern presidents have also called for stricter laws to suppress criticism of their office, as President Trump did this week in the wake of journalist Bob Woodward’s new White House tell-all and an anonymous opinion piece by a senior administration official in the New York Times. Trump called for a change in libel laws and also demanded the Times turn over the anonymous author “for National Security purposes.”
Read the rest here.
Yesterday the Messiah College History Department hosted Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edward Larson for a lecture titled “The Election of 1800 and the Birth of Partisan Presidential Politics.” The lecture stemmed from Larson’s 2007 book A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign.
I will not offer a blow-by-blow account of the lecture here. Those interested should read Larson’s book. It is fast-moving and accessible.
But as Larson lectured to a room packed with undergraduates, faculty, and community members, I was once again struck by the many similarities (and differences) between the Election of 1800 and the Election of 2016.
Here is how I introduced Larson’s lecture:
Was 2016 the most contentious election in American history? It seems that every election we hear the same things: “Political polarization has never been worse.” “The rancor and divisiveness is unprecedented.” But when historians hear words like “never been worse” or “unprecedented,” our natural inclination is skepticism. As Americans we can so easily become enslaved by the narcissism of the present that we start to believe that what is happening today is the “best,” the “worst,” or the “most hard fought” of ALL TIME.
We can have an honest debate about whether the 2016 election was the most divisive election in American history. But any such debate MUST take into the consideration the Election of 1800. This was an election of cantankerous politicking. It was the first United States presidential election that saw the peaceful transition of power from one political party to another. And it had a controversial ending that makes last night’s announcement of “Best Picture” pale in comparison.
We are privileged today to have Ed Larson with us to help us sort it all out.
As Larson gave us a blow-by-blow account of this controversial election he focused his remarks around the three themes. As he sees it, the Election of 1800 was a contest over:
- National Security. Adams and the Federalists claimed that they could protect the United States from the outside interference of armed French radicals and the threat of the French navy in the Caribbean.
- Immigration. The Federalists had just passed the Alien Act which made immigration into the United States difficult. It allowed the government to turn away immigrants and refugees out of fear that some of them (radicals) might try to overthrow the republic.
- Religion. The Federalist painted Jefferson as an atheist. Jefferson painted Adams as a religious hypocrite who favored a state church.
Sound familiar? Perhaps we might even add a fourth point–freedom of the press or freedom of speech. The Sedition Act made anti-Federalist/anti-Adams rhetoric punishable by law.
As I tweeted following the lecture: