Mr. O’Brien
PreAP/CP
U.S. History
Consequences of The Sedition Act
Supporters of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed the Sedition Act was designed to repress political
opposition. The way the act was applied supports that contention. In all, 25 people were prosecuted under the Sedition
Act. Eventually, 10 were convicted—all were newspaper editors who supported Thomas Jefferson, a rival of
President John Adams.
Matthew Lyon, the member of the House involved in the fracas described in a previous packet, was the first
person convicted under the Sedition Act. His crime? Declaring that President Adams acted more like King John
and should be sent "to a mad house." In court, Lyon would have had to defend himself by proving his remarks
about President Adams to be true and therefore not libelous, false, and so damaging to President Adams that
Lyons deserved punishment.
How was the Sedition Act used to prosecute speech?
The Trial of Thomas Cooper
Excerpted from “The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions: Guideposts of Limited Government,”
by William J. Watkins, Jr. [http://www.constitution.org/lrev/kentvirg_watkins.txt], on the website of the Constitution Society.
In the period following the ratification of the Constitution, the government of the United States was under
Federalist control, first with George Washington and then under the presidency of John Adams. John Adams (17971801) and the Federalists, fearful of internal dissent while embroiled in international conflict with France, sought
to reduce opposition through the enactment of a series of laws by Congress known as the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Thomas Cooper, a lawyer and newspaper editor in Sunbury, Pennsylvania, was indicted, prosecuted, and
convicted of violating the Sedition Act after he published an editorial that was sharply critical of President Adams.
Cooper was arrested on 9 April 1800 and his trial attracted national attention. The secretaries of war, state, and the
navy all attended the trial. Congressman Robert Goodloe Harper was also there to observe the application of section 2 of
the Sedition Act, which he had drafted. Timothy Pickering went so far as to sit on the bench with the two judges, Justice
Samuel Chase and District Judge Richard Peters.
Attorney General William Rawle, ...handled the case for the government. Cooper was indicted for “being a
person of wicked and turbulent disposition, designing and intending to defame the President ... and to bring him
(Adams) into contempt and disrepute, and excite against him (Adams) the hatred of the good people of the United
States” (Cooper 1800, 7).
Cooper’s questioned writings included various complaints against the government. Those stressed by Rawle
were the assertions that (1) the country had been saddled with the expense of a permanent navy and a standing
army; (2) that the government had foolishly borrowed money at 8 percent in time of peace; (3) that Adams’s
statements about the French “might justly have provoked war”; (4) and that Adams had interfered with the
proceedings of a court of law. Cooper described the last point as “a stretch of authority which the Monarch of
Great Britain would have shrunk from” (1800, 7).
Cooper pleaded not guilty and used the truth as a defense. As he mounted his defense it was clear he was not
speaking merely to the court. Cooper’s defense was even more an indictment of Adams and a message to the people to
support the Jeffersonians in the election that was only months away.
1
Cooper questioned how the people could rationally use their freedoms if “perfect freedom of discussion of
public characters be not allowed” [1800, 19]. He said he knew the king of England could do no wrong, “but I did not
know till now that the President of the United States was the same” [1800, 20]. At remarks such as these, vexation
(annoyance) surely showed on the faces of the Federalists in the courtroom.
In his charge (instructions) to the jury, Justice Chase acted like a prosecutor rather than a judge. He even pointed
out to the jury several things that Attorney General Rawle had left out of the prosecution’s case. Chase then declared that
Cooper’s “conduct showed that he intended to dare and defy the government, and to provoke them, and his
conduct satisfies in my mind, that such was his intention” (Cooper 1800, 46). Chase regarded Cooper’s publication as
the boldest attempt he had seen to poison the minds of the people.
1. What examples of partisanship, if any, are there in the reading you reviewed? (List at least 1 for the Federalists, and 1
for the Democrat-Republicans).
2. What “security concerns” with regard to the government did the court express about Cooper?
3. What were the comments written by Cooper that caused him to get arrested? (5 of them)
4. Explain Coopers response as to why the Alien and Sedition Acts are unconstitutional.
5. Regarding the judge’s verdict - Do you think the charge was genuine (meaning that Cooper was a real threat to the
government), or was there other motivation behind his conviction? If there were other motivations, what might they
have been?
2
USA Patriot Act of 2001
After the terrorist attacks in 2001, Congress passed the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (10/25/01), commonly referred to as the Patriot
Act. This law significantly increases the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies. It also
permits indefinite detention of immigrants and other non-citizens. Immigrants who have an immigration status violation
could face indefinite detention if their country refuses to accept them. As of this writing, the government does not need
judge approval to eavesdrop on verbal or written communication (i.e. mail, email, phone, etc.). Congress reauthorized the
Patriot Act in early 2006, after an attempt at Patriot Act II (2003) was unsuccessful. Among the expansion of
eavesdropping capabilities, the government wanted the right to remove U.S. citizenship from anyone suspected of
terrorism, “disappear” suspects, allows foreign governments to request eavesdropping.
Since the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, the government has eavesdropped more than any other
administration, and was caught eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. Critics claim that the lack of a requirement to get a
judge’s approval not only permits, but encourages the invasion of privacy of people before they are suspected of
wrongdoing.
Use to following webpage to answer the questions. http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html
1. How does Section 215 grant the government the power “to spy on ordinary people living in the United States,
including United States citizens and permanent residents?”
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Provide a synopsis of the ACLU’s response to “Doesn’t the government need these powers?”
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Using http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/12483leg20011023.html, how does section 412 of the Patriot Act
create a similarity to the Alien and Sedition Acts?
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
4. How does the Patriot Act affect high school students?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
3