WI: Jefferson's Treason Discovered

[QuoProQuid]

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were political statements drafted in 1798 and approved by the state legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia. In short, the Resolutions argued that each state had the authority to declare any act by the federal government unconstitutional. To many on the political stage, the acts were treason. George Washington was so appalled by them that he told Patrick Henry that if "systematically and pertinaciously pursued", they would "dissolve the union or produce coercion".

Little did anyone know, the actual author of the Kentucky Resolution was the sitting Vice President himself, Thomas Jefferson. James Madison had secretly drafted the Virginia Resolution.

What if after the Resolution's passage, Jefferson's contact in the Kentucky state legislature accidentally revealed the document's source? What would be the political fallout and would the United States witness its second impeachment trial for a federal official?

 

[Nazi Space Spy]

I would not call this "treason", thought I can see it not going over well with Washington...

 

[jpj1421]

I would not call this "treason", thought I can see it not going over well with Washington...

I would, but...there's also how Jefferson actually talked with the French to undermine Adams efforts during the Quasi War. That strikes a little closer to the mark on good old fashioned black and white treason.

 

[Nazi Space Spy]

I would, but...there's also how Jefferson actually talked with the French to undermine Adams efforts during the Quasi War. That strikes a little closer to the mark on good old fashioned black and white treason.

Undermining the President is different from giving away state secrets in order for the foreign power to actually win. Jefferson did not, in any way, commit treason.

 

[Elfwine]

At least by the US definition, which is the relevant one.

 

[Nazi Space Spy]

I know it isn't completely correct to call it treason. However, a large portion of the sitting government considered it as such and I wanted a title that would grab people's attention. Don't tell anyone.

What would he be accused of then, if not treason?

Washington would ask for his resignation. If that did not happen, they would impeach him for treason, even though I still contend that under the Constitution's definition of treason. Did he give them aid and comfort? Was war formally declared? It all his very hazy, and if he was convicted for aiding the French, history would vindicate him.

 

[Tripwire]

If they couldn't convict Aaron Burr, who had plotted on carving out a new nation from parts of Mexico and the westernmost US territories at one point, and allegedly while Vice President privately offered the British ambassador control of Louisiana territory in exchange for 2 million dollars at another point, of treason, I'm not sure what someone would have to do to be convicted of treason.

 

[QuoProQuid]

Even if we assume that Congress is unable to impeach Jefferson, it still leaves him a disgraced politician with his 1800 Presidential run aborted. The nascent Democratic-Republican Party is left without its leader and public sentiment is turned in favor of the Federalists.

These alone will have far-reaching consequences. Right?

 

[Nofix]

Even if we assume that Congress is unable to impeach Jefferson, it still leaves him a disgraced politician with his 1800 Presidential run aborted. The nascent Democratic-Republican Party is left without its leader and public sentiment is turned in favor of the Federalists.

These alone will have far-reaching consequences. Right?

True, the Federalists disintegrated without the dead Hamilton or the beaten Adams to lead them, a similar instance could happen here. Or even the (Democratic) Republicans go a different route under a new leader? Would they just be know as the Republicans here as they would go under and not be remembered like the Federalists were in OTL?

 

[Tripwire]

True, the Federalists disintegrated without the dead Hamilton or the beaten Adams to lead them, a similar instance could happen here. Or even the (Democratic) Republicans go a different route under a new leader? Would they just be know as the Republicans here as they would go under and not be remembered like the Federalists were in OTL?

What would have happened had Hamilton not been killed?

 

[Matteo]

I know it isn't completely correct to call it treason. However, a large portion of the sitting government considered it as such and I wanted a title that would grab people's attention. Don't tell anyone.

What would he be accused of then, if not treason?

Why on earth would it be treason ?

220 years ago it was perfectly legal for one state to try to change the balance of powers between the States and Washington.

That you dislike such a move from a federalist point of view is one thing. But this does not change a then perfectly legal political move into an act of treason.

Do you consider as traitors today's state governors or politicians who want to reduce the powers of Washington ?

 

[QuoProQuid]

Why on earth would it be treason ?

220 years ago it was perfectly legal for one state to try to change the balance of powers between the States and Washington.

That you dislike such a move from a federalist point of view is one thing. But this does not change a then perfectly legal political move into an act of treason.

Do you consider as traitors today's state governors or politicians who want to reduce the powers of Washington ?

Interposition was never a power meant for the states and received condemnation from ten of the thirteen state legislatures. I am of the opinion they were not treason, but there were many in the state and federal government at the time who would disagree. Also:

I know it isn't completely correct to call it treason. However, a large portion of the sitting government considered it as such and I wanted a title that would grab people's attention. Don't tell anyone.

My primary objective with the title was to get a topic people would actually read. My apologies. For once, I would like to have a thread that gets past page 1.

 

[Matteo]

To my opinion, trying to define or change the balance of powers between Washington and the States by institutional ways is not treason.

You're meaning that minority opinions are necessarily criminal while they are only ... minoritary.

Was Alexander Hamilton a traitor to the cause of freedom of the 13 States ?
Not either. He was just of à different opinion and tried to have his views prevail by legal procedures..

 

[QuoProQuid]

To my opinion, trying to define or change the balance of powers between Washington and the States by institutional ways is not treason.

You're meaning that minority opinions are necessarily criminal while they are only ... minoritary.

Was Alexander Hamilton a traitor to the cause of freedom of the 13 States ?
Not either. He was just of a different opinion and tried to have his views prevail by legal procedures..

I think you are misunderstanding me. We can debate the specifics of Jefferson's actions in a modern context all day. However, I am infinitely more interested in the responses of Jefferson's contemporaries and the ramifications thereof. I am not of the opinion that the Resolutions were treason, however for the Federalists they were.

For the sitting US government the Resolutions were seen as dangerous if not outright deadly. Newspapers throughout New England thought they were foreshadowing to a civil war and Congress debated whether to send an army to Virginia to quell any insurrection. The Resolutions breathed new life into the ideals of the Articles of the Confederacy.

EDIT: I apologize for the thread title. It wasn't my intent to derail my own thread. I just wanted a topic people would actually read.

 

[zoomar]

Regarding the issue of state's rights, it can reasonably be argued that in 1798 many basic questions about the respective powers of the federal and state governments still existed, despite the ratification of the US Constitution. The state resolutions supported by Jefferson were obviosuly wrong, since I don't believe the constitution gave states that authority. Adams would have had every right to call for Jefferson's removal for advocating resolutions that were clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. As noted they were extremely dangerous and cause for a strong reaction because they undermined federal authority as defined in the new constitution. I can certainly understand the polemical use of the word "treason" but but political disagreements in the early days of the US were couched in far more vicious terms than today.

Now the deal with France? If Jefferson expressed views that might have had the effect of undermining the US Navy's operations againt the French, that comes a lot closer to treason.

 

[QuoProQuid]

Who do you suppose takes Jefferson's place as John Adams' main opponent in 1800? Unless Adams severely cocks up Jefferson's resignation/ impeachment the Federalists should be barely popular enough to win re-election.

It would be interesting to see both political parties become massively unpopular. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any actors available to play the part of the incorruptible outsider. No Washingtons to be found.

 

[QuoProQuid]

Bump?

I'm guessing Madison would take Jefferson's place in the 1800 Election. Burr doesn't yet have enough national approval yet. He'll stay on as a vice presidential candidate.

What are the chances of a third party forming if both major ones are disgraced?

 

[Matteo]

I think you are misunderstanding me. We can debate the specifics of Jefferson's actions in a modern context all day. However, I am infinitely more interested in the responses of Jefferson's contemporaries and the ramifications thereof. I am not of the opinion that the Resolutions were treason, however for the Federalists they were.

For the sitting US government the Resolutions were seen as dangerous if not outright deadly. Newspapers throughout New England thought they were foreshadowing to a civil war and Congress debated whether to send an army to Virginia to quell any insurrection. The Resolutions breathed new life into the ideals of the Articles of the Confederacy.

EDIT: I apologize for the thread title. It wasn't my intent to derail my own thread. I just wanted a topic people would actually read.

Sorry, but I think you are reasoning as an american of the early 21st century rather than as an american of the late 18th century.

In this past time, the US was a whole new country and the nature of the Union was still in question. It was perfectly legitimate to debate its nature and the way the Union and the 13 states should work together.

Understand me. I absolutely don't deny that words used in the political debate could be quite violent.
But ... so what ? Some people (let's say the federalists to simplify) could accuse some other people (let's say the partisans of minimum federal government and of the rights of the states) to be traitors to the interests of the union. But these other people could accuse the federalists to be aspiring to some kind ot tyranny and to be enemies of the liberty of the states.

Could there have been any legal base for suing Jefferson for treason ?
My answer is no.

Could there have been any constitutional or legal base for impeaching him ?
Neither, to my opinion.

The fact that he inspired or helped other write those resolutions is just about freedom of opinion.

This was young America, not revolutionary France where political enemies were tried in a mockery of Justice and sent to the guillotine.

 

[QuoProQuid]

Please don't confuse my political leanings with the topic of this thread. As much disdain as I hold for Jefferson, him being implicated or being forced to resign would be absolute poison for the Union. Any attempt to impeach him, moreso. The Alien and Sedition Acts may be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed in the United States. Furthermore, I hold there is no reason not to discuss the nature of federalism.



My response is that the Resolutions are not merely political statements. They are pieces of legislation approved by the state governments of Virginia and Kentucky declaring acts by Congress unconstitutional. There is a reason Jefferson hid his identity. It would have severely damaged his reputation among the northern states and invited threats from the national government. According to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which is what the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were drafted in reaction to, Jefferson is guilty of sedition. He is acting "with intent to oppose [a] measure or measures of the government of the United States... to impede the operation of any law of the United States".

After further research, it seems extremely unlikely anyone would have pursued such a case against him. I may have been too ambitious in that regard. However, the threat of action (and John Adams wrath) might be enough to force him from the Vice Presidency. This PoD still has consequences. For example, I doubt Jefferson would win New York, whose legislature issued a scathing response to Jefferson's document.

My apologies if I seem like I am beating a dead horse. (Could a moderator, assuming one is reading this, change the title to something less... stupid?)

EDIT: Actually, have I been really repugnant in this thread? I really hope I'm not coming off wrong. Am I making a stupid mistake somewhere? If so, let me know and have this thread die.

 

[Plumber]

Adams is reelected over Aaron Burr.