Having no correspondence to communicate, it is my duty to fill up the vacant columns of the week as well as I am able; and as this is the last opportunity I shall have to intrude on the patience of the public in the capacity of Editor, I shall dedicate the space that is left to a subject of some importance.
There is a party in this country accused of an indiscriminate opposition to the measures of government; who in their turn insinuate an indiscriminate support of every measure calculated to increase the power of the Executive at the expence of the interest of the country. Like all other party accusations, these are doubtless too violent on both sides; but I cannot help thinking that of late years, measures have been adopted and opinions sanctioned in this country, which have an evident tendency to stretch to the utmost the constitutional authority of our Executive, and to introduce the political evils of those European governments whose principles we have rejected. I do not feel myself in any degree authorized to reflect on the motives or undervalue the judgment of the gentlemen, whose conduct and opinions I disapprove. With superior talents, and more ample means of information, they may well be in the right: But these do not confer infallibility; and therefore the tendency of the measures pursued, however praise worthy the motives which have led to them, is a fair object of decent and temperate discussion.
I can best illustrate my meaning by supposing a case. Let me place myself in the President’s chair, at the head of a party in this country, aiming to extend the influence of the governing powers at the expence of the governed; to increase the authority and prerogative of the Executive, and to reduce by degrees to a mere name, the influences of the people. How should I set about it? What system should I pursue?
1st. As the rights reserved by the State Governments and the bounds and limits set by the Constitution of the Union, are the declared barriers against the encroachments of entrusted power, my first business would be to undermine that Constitution, and render it useless, by claiming authority which, though not given by the express words of it, might be edged in under the cover of general expressions or implied powers — by stretching the meaning of the words used to their utmost latitude, — by taking advantage of every ambiguity — and by quibbling upon distinctions to explain away the plain and obvious meaning. It would be my business to extend the powers of the Federal Courts and of Federal Officers — to encroach upon the State jurisdictions — to throw obloquy on the State Governments as clogs upon the wheel of the General Government — for that purpose to promote a spirit of party among them, and subject to accusations of disaffection those who were opposed to the measures I would pursue. In addition to this I would now and then exercise trifling acts of authority not granted by the Constitution, under some undefined notion of prerogative. If by such means one encroachment should be made good, it would be a precedent for another, until the public by degrees would become accustomed and callous to them.
2. My next object would be to restrict by every means in my power the liberty of the press. For the free discussion of public characters is too dangerous for despotism to tolerate. Hence I would multiply laws against libel and sedition, and fence round the characters of the officers of government by well contrived legal obstacles. Whatever should tend to bring them into contempt should be sedition, however contemptible or reprehensible they might be. Hence too, I would impress the idea that all who were opposed to my measures were enemies of the government, that is (in my construction) of their country. It should be the business of my partizans to inculcate this, and cry down all such persons as dangerous and seditious, as disturbers of the peace of society, and desirous of overturning the Constitution. The obloquy induced by these charges, dwelt upon in the public prints under my controul, and vociferously urged by the dependants of office in private conversation, would make opposition to my measures obnoxious and dangerous, and suppress all political conversation.
For the rest of the address, please click here, and go to page 3.
Related Posts (on one page):
- On the Propriety and Expediency of Unlimited Enquiry (Continued):
- On the Propriety and Expediency of Unlimited Enquiry:
- Address to the Readers of the Sunbury and Northumberland Gazette, June 29, 1799:
- Reply to "Observations on the Fast Day":
- Observations on the Fast Day:
- Elizabeth Ryland Priestley:
- Thomas Cooper:
- Thomas Cooper & Elizabeth Ryland Priestley, Guest-Blogging:
Interesting article given it came during the Adams administration and after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
For every circumstance you can produce of someone from the Bush administration attacking a critic I can easilly produce two from Obama's, and that's with just barely eight months under the belt.
We've barely moved at all down the road of stifling dissent (as evidenced by the mountains of print dedicated to how very stifled they were - if they were actually being stifled, they sure wouldn't be saying so publicly, idiots!), especially in comparison to the rest of the western world, but we are FAR FAR FAR down the road of stretching the Constitution to uselessness.
Admittedly, this has not been an entirely partisan effort, as the Right has supported it at times when it was for something that benefitted them in the short term (idiots).
the coincidence of these measures and opinions with what a
leader inclined to despotism might wish, will naturally excite a jealousy
of their tendency. I hope they will be steadily opposed, but
opposed in the only justifiable way of opposition under a free government,
by discussion in the first instance, and a change of persons
by constitutional election, if no other method will succeed.
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking"
the cynical appeal to religion
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death"
and the use of vague amorphous threats
"I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"
This guy makes Nostradamus look like a blind man.
Someone who could foresee all these "penumbras" and "emanations" and how those greedy for power would quickly undermine the actual meaning of the Constitution, only 12 years after it was adopted - amazing. No wonder the left loves Critical Legal Studies theory - without it they would have to follow the principles intended by a group of very, very smart men, who understood the temptations of lust for power, and how they could inexorably and implaccably destroy those principles.
But after all, the Constitution is "just words".
Wha...?
Methinks he was not so prescient.
But in myopia, he's in good company, because Cooper wasn't too bright himself. Cooper seems to want a class struggle against merchants who deal with the outside world. To screw over that class, he's willing to forgo a navy. Even in 1799 it should have been clear that world population and military technology offshore should one day become a threat. I recall that Britain was able to project itself into America as early as 1812, for instance. Sorry, mate; no country can do without a navy or at least alliance to a power which was one.
(Yes, Washington was wrong on "foreign entanglements" too.)
Also, reducing the power of merchants would result in the US stagnating in poverty and ignorance, excepting perhaps plantation owners and their toadies. Wherefore the Northeast, which can't survive without the skim from trade and industry? I expect they'd have seceded into Canada at the first opportunity.
But points to Cooper for predicting: loopholes in the Constitution; objections to free speech; insults to the States; appeals to majoritarian piety; and (by accident) mucking about with immigration law to produce voters (which he's actually FOR, if they vote his way, the hypocrite).
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.