Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Show
Already have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $9.00 USD. How does it work?
journal article Lighting the Fuse of Revolution in Virginia, May 1765: Rereading the “Journal of a French Traveller in the Colonies”The William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 68, No. 4 (October 2011) , pp. 657-670 (14 pages) Published By: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture https://doi.org/10.5309/willmaryquar.68.4.0657 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5309/willmaryquar.68.4.0657 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Read Online Read 100 articles/month free Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Purchase article $9.00 - Download now and later Abstract The first decisive response in Britain’s North American colonies to the Stamp Act in the spring of 1765 occurred in Virginia. Patrick Henry famously supported a series of defiant resolutions in the House of Burgesses. The romanticized Henry legend and subsequent histories that have tried to deflate it have obscured the actual events and their consequences. A close reconsideration of what has become known as the “Journal of a French Traveller”—the crucial eyewitness document—has long been overdue. Especially needed has been a critical inquiry into the actual ethnicity of the author so his text and his motivation can be better understood. Alongside that, there has been a need for matching scrutiny of the opposite role taken in the letter written to his superiors by Lieutenant Governor Francis Fauquier—in league as he was with the old-guard leadership of the Virginia burgesses that had blocked and tried to suppress the most inflammatory resolutions. Reconstructing the drama revealed in these two documents demonstrates how the artfully disseminated “Virginia Resolves” and the persona of a defiant Henry were vitally important in rousing the spirit of armed struggle across the Virginia countryside and beyond. Journal Information A leading journal in early American history and culture, the William and Mary Quarterly publishes refereed scholarship in history and related disciplines from initial Old World–New World contacts to the early nineteenth century. Its articles, sources and interpretations, and reviews of books range from British North America and the United States to Europe, West Africa, the Caribbean, and the Spanish American borderlands. Forums and special issues address topics of active interest in the field. Publisher Information The Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture supports scholars and scholarship focused on the expansive field of early American history. The OI has produced a deep bench of award-winning scholarly monographs on a variety of topics; published the leading journal in the field, the William and Mary Quarterly; and sponsored events including conferences designed to bring together scholars for robust exchange at various levels of career achievement for robust exchange. Rights & Usage This
item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
 The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were Democratic-Republican responses to the Alien and Sedition Acts passed earlier that same year by a Federalist-dominated Congress. Drafted in secret by future Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the resolutions condemned the Alien and Sedition Acts as unconstitutional and claimed that because these acts overstepped federal authority under the Constitution, they were null and void. This image is of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, penned by Thomas Jefferson. (Image via Library of Congress, public domain) The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were Democratic-Republican responses to the Alien and Sedition Acts passed earlier that same year by a Federalist-dominated Congress. Drafted in secret by future Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the resolutions condemned the Alien and Sedition Acts as unconstitutional and claimed that because these acts overstepped federal authority under the Constitution, they were null and void. The resolutions defended civil liberties and states' rightsThe resolutions have a complicated history and legacy. They were an early defense of the Constitution’s protection of civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and of the press; however, because they argued that the acts illegally usurped powers reserved for the states, they also became the founding documents in the states’ rights movement and were cited by antebellum supporters of state nullification and secession in the mid-nineteenth century and by advocates of resistance to federal school desegregation orders in the mid-twentieth century. Resolutions were written in response to Alien and Sedition ActsAs noted, the resolutions were written in response to Alien and Sedition Acts, which were four separate laws passed in the midst of an undeclared war at sea with revolutionary France. Among other things, the Alien Acts granted the president the power to seize, detain, and ultimately deport any noncitizen he deemed dangerous to the United States, regardless of whether the nation was at war. Accused aliens were given no right to a judicial hearing or to hear the specific charges against them. The Sedition Act made it a crime to write, print, publish, or utter anything false, scandalous, or malicious against the U.S. government, Congress, or the President. The Democratic-Republicans, political opponents of the Federalists, felt threatened by these laws. In fact, Jefferson and Madison kept their authorship of the resolutions secret because they feared arrest for sedition. When the Federalists gained control of all three branches of the federal government in 1798, Jefferson struck on the idea of getting sympathetic state legislatures to pass resolutions as a way to respond to the acts. He hoped that more states would respond in like-minded ways and that this would lead to more electoral victories over the Federalists. Subsequently, Kentucky’s legislature passed the resolution that Jefferson had penned with little debate or revision on November 11, 1798, and the Virginia legislature passed its more temperate resolution on Christmas Eve of the same year. Resolutions asserted the separation of powersThe resolutions assert two key propositions. First, the Union is a compact among individual states that delegates specific powers to the federal government and reserves the rest for the states to exercise themselves. Second, it is both a right and a duty of individual states to interpose themselves between their citizens and the federal government. On these bases, Virginia’s resolution, penned by Madison, declared that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and that measures should be taken by all states to retain their reserved powers. Jefferson’s more strident Kentucky Resolution took Madison’s theory of interposition a step further and concluded that because the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, they were null and void. Resolutions failed to influence other states to pass similar resolutionsThe intent of the resolutions was to induce other state legislatures to pick up the critique and pass similar resolutions, thus acting as decentralized opposition to the Federalists. Judged by this standard, they were a failure. No state responded with similar official denunciations, and the legislatures of ten states went as far as to officially repudiate the resolutions, most arguing that the federal courts, not state legislatures, were the legitimate interpreters of the federal Constitution. Nevertheless, the resolutions did help the Democratic-Republicans develop as an organized oppositional party, and two years later Jefferson would eke out a victory in the 1800 presidential elections. Madison’s Report of 1800, defending the resolutions is, moreover, an important milestone in defense of First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. The complex legacy of the resolutions stems from lingering questions as to whether they are best understood as a defense of civil liberties or of states’ rights. Rather than asserting the principles of free speech and civil protections for aliens not charged with crimes, Jefferson and Madison argued that the power to pass such acts was not properly delegated to the national government by the states. The tone and language of the resolutions are not that of a newspaper editorial meant to shape public opinion, but rather are constitutional treatises designed to elaborate on essential structures of government. From the context of the late 1790s, they are best understood as an early episode of party politics in the United States and an attempt to gain electoral advantage. However, their dominant legacy is as an exemplification of the constitutional doctrine of nullification. Resolutions seen as examples of the doctrine of nullificationDuring the nullification crisis of the early 1830s over the federal tariff, states’ rights figures such as John Calhoun and Robert Hayne explicitly cited the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as early exemplifications of their theory that a state legislature could declare federal laws null and void within its own borders. Calhoun argued in much the same manner as found in the resolutions that the states formed a compact with each other, delegating specific powers to the federal government and that, therefore, the states ultimately were the judges of the Constitution. A senior statesman at the time, Madison fought back against the appropriation of the resolutions to the cause of nullification. He argued that context was all-important and that the dangers of the Alien and Sedition Acts should not be compared to the inconveniences of a tariff. Madison also stressed the difference between a state legislature voicing an opinion and its making a self-executing decision. The resolutions were not designed to disrupt the execution of federal law in the state but rather to declare the official opinion of the state and hopefully rally support of other states. While the states collectively might repulse the federal government, Madison did not believe that a single state had the authority to nullify federal law within its own borders. Backing away from the doctrinal wording of the resolutions, Madison argued that they were designed only to ferment popular opinion against the laws and lead to an electoral victory against the Federalists. Both of these acts are cognizable within the Constitution and do not suggest an extraconstitutional right of a single state against the federal government. This article was originally published in 2009. Douglas C. Dow, Ph.D., is a professor at the University of Texas at Dallas specializing in political theory, public law, legal theory and history, and American politics. Send Feedback on this article What were the Virginia Resolves a response to?Resolutions were written in response to Alien and Sedition Acts. As noted, the resolutions were written in response to Alien and Sedition Acts, which were four separate laws passed in the midst of an undeclared war at sea with revolutionary France.
What was Virginia Governor Francis Fauquier's reaction to the Virginia Resolves?In the spring 1765 session of Virginia's assembly, Patrick Henry, a newly elected burgess from Hanover County, introduced his strongly-worded Stamp Act Resolves, five of which passed on May 30. Fauquier responded by dissolving the assembly on June 1.
What was the significance of the Virginia Resolves quizlet?Known as the Virginia Resolves, these resolutions persuaded many other colonial legislatures to adopt similar positions. A young lawyer in Boston, argued that colonists should not be taxed by Parliament because they could not vote for members of Parliament. "No taxation without colonist representation."
What did the Virginia Resolves argue in protest of the Stamp Act?In May 1765, Virginia's Patrick Henry wrote the Virginia Resolves, which made clear the “taxation without representation” argument.
|
