Talk:Alien and Sedition Acts

A biased reading?

Is this article about the Alien and Sedition Acts or against Jefferson? Or both?

The conclusion of the article is entirely devoted to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. It strongly intimates and almost explicitly asserts that Jefferson and Madison much more effectively threatened the American Constitution than the Al. & Sed. Acts. This may be true or may be false, but it seems to me irrelevant -- unless the aim is to present the Acts in a positive light against their critics. I have a sense that the most famous quote from the Sed. Act (the Sed. Act made a crime to "print, utter, or publish [...] any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the Government) has been omitted for the same reason.

A neutral account should surely mention the KY and VA Resolutions between the "effects" of the Acts, but it should explain what they were and how they were related to the Acts without trying to establish whether they were "actually" worse than the Acts themselves. A text along the following lines (Wikipedia's article "Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions" as on Nov. 13 2014) would do (I quote):

"The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799, in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional any acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively."

On the contrary, by producing only the quotes from Chernow and Wills, the article tends to present the KY and VA Resolutions in a way that is far too simple and partial: the article should at least hint at the complexity of the debate on this topic. Be this as it may, the question is whether a *verdict* on the KY and VA Resolutions should really be so central to our understanding of the Al. & Sed. Acts.

The final suggestion that the Civil War was the fruit of a seed planted by Jefferson is, to say the least, disputable and must be taken with extreme caution. This is a huge and very complex topic in its own right.

The site ourdocuments.gov provides a beautifully clear and unbiased introduction to the Al. & Sed. Acts, which might serve as a model for the Wiki article (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=16).

(AE)

Was AEA used on citizens, or was only EO 9066 used on citizens?

Our article (correctly) says "During World War II, it (the AEA) was used by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to issue presidential proclamations used to detain, deport and confiscate the property of Japanese, German, Italian, and other Axis nation citizens residing in the United States". The source says "the Alien Enemies Act was utilized by government officials to incarcerate Japanese Americans." The source makes no mention of 9066. It is possible that the AEA was incorrectly applied to citizens. Does anyone know if the source is in error, or if the AEA was misapplied to citizens, on top of EO 9066 being applied to citizens?

deported people of Japanese decent.

I am wondering about this statement.

(This was separate from the Japanese internment camps used to remove people of Japanese descent from the West Coast.) After the war they were deported to their home countries

As I understand it, after a visit to Manzanar, CA. in Late 1943 many of internees were allowed out of the camps if they did not return to CA, OR or WA. states. Many chose to stay in the camps as conditions improved and they wanted to return to their home towns. I have never run across the idea that After the war Japanese were deported to their home countries. I wish there was more on that and how many were deported. There was deportation of Japanese government officials and others, and families during the war, a ship was set up to ferry Japanese to japan safely through the contested sea ways. 2600:1700:E140:CCB0:B0DA:6030:9E56:4590 (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sedition Act and the Jailing of Benjamin Franklin Bache - Benjamin Franklin's Grandson

In the Introduction, I tweaked... The Sedition Act resulted in the prosecution and conviction of many Jeffersonian newspaper owners who disagreed with the Federalist dominated Congress and Pres. John Adams including Benjamin Franklin Bache - Benjamin Franklin's grandson. 2603:3020:B0A:F400:9594:67F:5A1C:D58D (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Trump's proposed "Operation Aurora"

@Manistee15, @Jjazz76 – just bringing the conversation on this topic to the talk page based on recent edits and in case anyone else comes here from the recent news story. I think keeping it to a short (and cited) mention like in the latest edit is a good solution. My initial objection was mostly just that this amounts to a presidential candidate mentioning the act in a single speech, which although uncommon isn't terribly significant. I think if this were to become something he frequently campaigns on beyond a mention in one speech, or of course if he's reelected and follows through on the promise, then it would make sense to expand on the story a bit more in this article. Rovenrat (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

All good @Rovenrat. I was sort of on the fence on it, came to the page because of Trump, but ended up not including it at first and just making some other changes instead. Re-checking the coverage, I became convinced that a quick mention is warranted for now, but might fall into the category of NEWS if nothing more happens on it in another year or two or maybe even 6 months.

I've seen this a few times in the past year of digging up old laws on the books (this, abortion) etc., and I sort of get interested in odd trends like that that may or may not materialize. Reminding me of the Simpsons prohibition episode. But no, we can't just included every time any politician quotes any law. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Alien Enemies Act—Public Law citation

This article gives a citation for the Alien Enemies Act of "Pub. L. 5–66."

Its Statutes at Large citation (1 Stat. 577) is correct. But on my own (I'm a lawyer and librarian myself), I was unable to find a table of Public Law numbers that went close to that far back. So I called the Law Library of Congress. A very nice reference librarian there told me my surmise was correct, that there's no basis for a Public Law number for the Act.

The Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration is responsible for compiling lists of public laws.

As that webpage says: "After the President signs a bill into law, it is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) where it is assigned a law number, legal statutory citation (public laws only), and prepared for publication as a slip law. Private laws receive their legal statutory citations when they are published in the United States Statutes at Large."

The listing of public laws that goes farthest back I can find is Congress.Gov's Statutes at Large and Public Laws page (which pre-populates to the current Congress). That list only goes back to the 82nd Congress (1951-1952).

The Alien Enemies Act was enacted during the 5th Congress. And the first page of the Act. 1 Stat. 577, does say it's Ch. 66. But my reading is that refers to the previous statute. In fact, the Alien Enemies Act is section 67, the number at the top of the first page where it starts at the top.

Anyway, I'm going to delete the public law reference. It's always revertable... but I think I've done my due diligence. MitchS (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Public Law numbers for the rest of the Acts

By the same token, the rest of the public law numbers are incorrect.

But as the Alien Enemies Act is the one I was interested in, and the only one that's still good law, I'm not going to change the rest right now. MitchS (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)