The French Revolution and the Limits of Liberty<\/h2>\r\nIn part, the Federalists were turning toward Britain because they feared the most radical forms of democratic thought. In the wake of Shays\u2019 Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and other internal protests, Federalists sought to preserve social stability. The course of the French Revolution seemed to justify their concerns.\r\n\r\nIn 1789, news had arrived in America that the French had revolted against their king. Most Americans imagined that liberty was spreading from America to Europe, carried there by the returning French heroes who had taken part in the American Revolution.\r\n\r\nInitially, nearly all Americans had praised the French Revolution. Towns all over the country hosted speeches and parades on July 14 to commemorate the day it began. Women had worn neoclassical dress to honor republican principles, and men had pinned revolutionary cockades to their hats. John Randolph, a Virginia planter, named two of his favorite horses Jacobin and Sans-Culotte after French revolutionary factions.1<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nIn April 1793, a new French ambassador, \u201cCitizen\u201d Edmond-Charles Gen\u00eat, arrived in the United States. During his tour of several cities, Americans greeted him with wild enthusiasm. Citizen Gen\u00eat encouraged Americans to act against Spain, a British ally, by attacking its colonies of Florida and Louisiana. When President Washington refused, Gen\u00eat threatened to appeal to the American people directly. In response, Washington demanded that France recall its diplomat. In the meantime, however, Gen\u00eat\u2019s faction had fallen from power in France. Knowing that a return home might cost him his head, he decided to remain in America.\r\nGen\u00eat\u2019s intuition was correct. A radical coalition of revolutionaries had seized power in France. They initiated a bloody purge of their enemies, the Reign of Terror. As Americans learned about Gen\u00eat\u2019s impropriety and the mounting body count in France, many began to have second thoughts about the French Revolution.<\/p>\r\nAmericans who feared that the French Revolution was spiraling out of control tended to become Federalists. Those who remained hopeful about the revolution tended to become Republicans. Not deterred by the violence, Thomas Jefferson declared that he would rather see \u201chalf the earth desolated\u201d than see the French Revolution fail. \u201cWere there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free,\u201d he wrote, \u201cit would be better than as it now is.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a> \u202fMeanwhile, the Federalists sought closer ties with Britain.\r\n\r\nDespite the political rancor, in late 1796 there came one sign of hope: the United States peacefully elected a new president. For now, as Washington stepped down and executive power changed hands, the country did not descend into the anarchy that many leaders feared.\r\nThe new president was John Adams, Washington\u2019s vice president. Adams was less beloved than the old general, and he governed a deeply divided nation. The foreign crisis also presented him with a major test.<\/p>\r\nIn response to Jay\u2019s Treaty, the French government authorized its vessels to attack American shipping. To resolve this, President Adams sent envoys to France in 1797. The French insulted these diplomats. Some officials, whom the Americans code-named X, Y, and Z in their correspondence, hinted that negotiations could begin only after the Americans offered a bribe. When the story became public, this XYZ Affair infuriated American citizens. Dozens of towns wrote addresses to President Adams, pledging him their support against France. Many people seemed eager for war. \u201cMillions for defense,\u201d toasted South Carolina representative Robert Goodloe Harper, \u201cbut not one cent for tribute.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nBy 1798, the people of Charleston watched the ocean\u2019s horizon apprehensively because they feared the arrival of the French navy at any moment. Many people now worried that the same ships that had aided Americans during the Revolutionary War might discharge an invasion force on their shores. Some southerners were sure that this force would consist of black troops from France\u2019s Caribbean colonies, who would attack the southern states and cause their slaves to revolt. Many Americans also worried that France had covert agents in the country. In the streets of Charleston, armed bands of young men searched for French disorganizers. Even the little children prepared for the looming conflict by fighting with sticks.4<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, during the crisis, New Englanders were some of the most outspoken opponents of France. In 1798, they found a new reason for Francophobia. An influential Massachusetts minister, Jedidiah Morse, announced to his congregation that the French Revolution had been hatched in a conspiracy led by a mysterious anti-Christian organization called the Illuminati. The story was a hoax, but rumors of Illuminati infiltration spread throughout New England like wildfire, adding a new dimension to the foreign threat.5<\/sup><\/a>\r\nAgainst this backdrop of fear, the French Quasi-War, as it would come to be known, was fought on the Atlantic, mostly between French naval vessels and American merchant ships. During this crisis, however, anxiety about foreign agents ran high, and members of Congress took action to prevent internal subversion. The most controversial of these steps were the Alien and Sedition Acts. These two laws, passed in 1798, were intended to prevent French agents and sympathizers from compromising America\u2019s resistance, but they also attacked Americans who criticized the president and the Federalist Party.<\/p>\r\nThe Alien Act allowed the federal government to deport foreign nationals, or \u201caliens,\u201d who seemed to pose a national security threat. Even more dramatically, the Sedition Act allowed the government to prosecute anyone found to be speaking or publishing \u201cfalse, scandalous, and malicious writing\u201d against the government.6<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nThese laws were not simply brought on by war hysteria. They reflected common assumptions about the nature of the American Revolution and the limits of liberty. In fact, most of the advocates for the Constitution and the First Amendment accepted that free speech simply meant a lack of prior censorship or restraint, not a guarantee against punishment. According to this logic, \u201clicentious\u201d or unruly speech made society less free, not more. James Wilson, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, argued that \u201cevery author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nIn 1798, most Federalists were inclined to agree. Under the terms of the Sedition Act, they indicted and prosecuted several Republican printers\u2014and even a Republican congressman who had criticized President Adams. Meanwhile, although the Adams administration never enforced the Alien Act, its passage was enough to convince some foreign nationals to leave the country. For the president and most other Federalists, the Alien and Sedition Acts represented a continuation of a conservative rather than radical American Revolution.\r\n\r\nHowever, the Alien and Sedition Acts caused a backlash in two ways. First, shocked opponents articulated a new and expansive vision for liberty. The New York lawyer Tunis Wortman, for example, demanded an \u201cabsolute independence\u201d of the press.8<\/sup><\/a> Likewise, the Virginia judge George Hay called for \u201cany publication whatever criminal\u201d to be exempt from legal punishment.9<\/sup><\/a> \u202fMany Americans began to argue that free speech meant the ability to say virtually anything without fear of prosecution.\r\n\r\nSecond, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson helped organize opposition from state governments. Ironically, both of them had expressed support for the principle behind the Sedition Act in previous years. Jefferson, for example, had written to Madison in 1789 that the nation should punish citizens for speaking \u201cfalse facts\u201d that injured the country.10<\/sup><\/a>\u202f Nevertheless, both men now opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts on constitutional grounds. In 1798, Jefferson made this point in a resolution adopted by the Kentucky state legislature. A short time later, the Virginia legislature adopted a similar document written by Madison.\r\n\r\nThe Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions argued that the national government\u2019s authority was limited to the powers expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. More importantly, they asserted that the states could declare federal laws unconstitutional. For the time being, these resolutions were simply gestures of defiance. Their bold claim, however, would have important effects in later decades.\r\n\r\nIn just a few years, many Americans\u2019 feelings toward France had changed dramatically. Far from rejoicing in the \u201clight of freedom,\u201d many Americans now feared the \u201ccontagion\u201d of French-style liberty. Debates over the French Revolution in the 1790s gave Americans some of their earliest opportunities to articulate what it meant to be American. Did American national character rest on a radical and universal vision of human liberty? Or was America supposed to be essentially pious and traditional, an outgrowth of Great Britain? They couldn\u2019t agree. It was on this cracked foundation that many conflicts of the nineteenth century would rest.\r\n\r\nA grand debate over political power engulfed the young United States. The Constitution ensured that there would be a strong federal government capable of taxing, waging war, and making law, but it could never resolve the young nation\u2019s many conflicting constituencies. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that the nation could stifle internal dissent but exposed a new threat to liberty. Hamilton\u2019s banking system provided the nation with credit but also constrained frontier farmers. The Constitution\u2019s guarantee of religious liberty conflicted with many popular prerogatives. Dissension only deepened, and as the 1790s progressed, Americans became bitterly divided over political parties and foreign war.\r\n\r\nDuring the ratification debates, Alexander Hamilton had written of the wonders of the Constitution. \u201cA nation, without a national government,\u201d he wrote, would be \u201can awful spectacle.\u201d But, he added, \u201cthe establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy,\u201d a miracle that should be witnessed \u201cwith trembling anxiety.\u201d11<\/sup><\/a>\u202f Anti-Federalists had grave concerns about the Constitution, but even they could celebrate the idea of national unity. By 1795, even the staunchest critics would have grudgingly agreed with Hamilton\u2019s convictions about the Constitution. Yet these same individuals could also take the cautions in Washington\u2019s 1796 farewell address to heart. \u201cThere is an opinion,\u201d Washington wrote, \u201cthat parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty.\u201d This, he conceded, was probably true, but in a republic, he said, the danger was not too little partisanship, but too much. \u201cA fire not to be quenched,\u201d Washington warned, \u201cit demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.\u201d12<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nFor every parade, thanksgiving proclamation, or grand procession honoring the unity of the nation, there was also some political controversy reminding American citizens of how fragile their union was. And as party differences and regional quarrels tested the federal government, the new nation increasingly explored the limits of its democracy.\r\nNotes<\/h4>\r\n\r\n \t- Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese, The Mind of the Master Class: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholders Worldview<\/em> (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 18.
![\"image\"](\"http:\/\/media.ccconline.org\/ccco\/2019Master\/HIS121\/eText\/Sections\/Section3\/..\/..\/Images\/redirect.png#fixme\")
<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t- From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 3 January 1793,\u201d Founders Online, National Archives<\/em>, http:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Jefferson\/01-25-02-0016, last modified June 29, 2015; The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 25, 1 January\u201310 May 1793, ed. John Catanzariti (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 14\u201317. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- Robert Goodloe Harper, June 18, 1798, quoted in American Daily Advertiser<\/em> (Philadelphia), June 20, 1798. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- Robert J. Alderson Jr., This Bright Era of Happy Revolutions: French Consul Michel-Ange-Bernard Mangourit and International Republicanism in Charleston, 1792\u20131794<\/em> (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2008). <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- Rachel Hope Cleves, The Reign of Terror in America: Visions of Violence from Anti-Jacobinism to Antislavery<\/em> (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 47. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- Alien Act, July 6, 1798, and An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled \u201cAn Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States,\u201d July 14, 1798; Fifth Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives<\/em>. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- James Wilson, Congressional Debate, December 1, 1787, in Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787<\/em>, Vol. 2 (New York: s.n., 1888) 448\u2013450. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- Tunis Wortman, A Treatise Concerning Political Enquiry, and the Liberty of the Press<\/em> (New York: Forman, 1800), 181. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- George Hay, An Essay on the Liberty of the Press <\/em>(Philadelphia: s.n., 1799), 43. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, August 28, 1789, from The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volume<\/em>s, Federal Edition, ed. Paul Leicester Ford. http:\/\/www.loc.gov\/resource\/mtj1.011_0853_0861. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers<\/em> (New York: Signet Classics, 2003), no. 85. <\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
- George Washington, Farewell Address, Annals of Congress<\/em>, 4th Congress, 2869\u20132870. <\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
![\"Engraving](\"http:\/\/media.ccconline.org\/ccco\/2019Master\/HIS121\/eText\/Sections\/Section3\/..\/..\/Images\/ExecutionofLouisXVI.jpg#fixme\")
The mounting body count of the French Revolution included that of the queen and king, who were beheaded in a public ceremony in early 1793, as depicted in the engraving. While Americans disdained the concept of monarchy, the execution of King Louis XVI was regarded by many Americans as an abomination, an indication of the chaos and savagery reigning in France at the time. Charles Monnet (artist), Antoine-Jean Duclos and Isidore-Stanislas Helman (engravers), Day of 21 January 1793 the death of Louis Capet on the Place de la R\u00e9volution, 1794. \u202fWikimedia<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\nThe French Revolution and the Limits of Liberty<\/h2>\n
In part, the Federalists were turning toward Britain because they feared the most radical forms of democratic thought. In the wake of Shays\u2019 Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and other internal protests, Federalists sought to preserve social stability. The course of the French Revolution seemed to justify their concerns.<\/p>\n
In 1789, news had arrived in America that the French had revolted against their king. Most Americans imagined that liberty was spreading from America to Europe, carried there by the returning French heroes who had taken part in the American Revolution.<\/p>\n
Initially, nearly all Americans had praised the French Revolution. Towns all over the country hosted speeches and parades on July 14 to commemorate the day it began. Women had worn neoclassical dress to honor republican principles, and men had pinned revolutionary cockades to their hats. John Randolph, a Virginia planter, named two of his favorite horses Jacobin and Sans-Culotte after French revolutionary factions.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn April 1793, a new French ambassador, \u201cCitizen\u201d Edmond-Charles Gen\u00eat, arrived in the United States. During his tour of several cities, Americans greeted him with wild enthusiasm. Citizen Gen\u00eat encouraged Americans to act against Spain, a British ally, by attacking its colonies of Florida and Louisiana. When President Washington refused, Gen\u00eat threatened to appeal to the American people directly. In response, Washington demanded that France recall its diplomat. In the meantime, however, Gen\u00eat\u2019s faction had fallen from power in France. Knowing that a return home might cost him his head, he decided to remain in America.<\/p>\n
Gen\u00eat\u2019s intuition was correct. A radical coalition of revolutionaries had seized power in France. They initiated a bloody purge of their enemies, the Reign of Terror. As Americans learned about Gen\u00eat\u2019s impropriety and the mounting body count in France, many began to have second thoughts about the French Revolution.<\/p>\n
Americans who feared that the French Revolution was spiraling out of control tended to become Federalists. Those who remained hopeful about the revolution tended to become Republicans. Not deterred by the violence, Thomas Jefferson declared that he would rather see \u201chalf the earth desolated\u201d than see the French Revolution fail. \u201cWere there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free,\u201d he wrote, \u201cit would be better than as it now is.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a> \u202fMeanwhile, the Federalists sought closer ties with Britain.<\/p>\nDespite the political rancor, in late 1796 there came one sign of hope: the United States peacefully elected a new president. For now, as Washington stepped down and executive power changed hands, the country did not descend into the anarchy that many leaders feared.<\/p>\n
The new president was John Adams, Washington\u2019s vice president. Adams was less beloved than the old general, and he governed a deeply divided nation. The foreign crisis also presented him with a major test.<\/p>\n
In response to Jay\u2019s Treaty, the French government authorized its vessels to attack American shipping. To resolve this, President Adams sent envoys to France in 1797. The French insulted these diplomats. Some officials, whom the Americans code-named X, Y, and Z in their correspondence, hinted that negotiations could begin only after the Americans offered a bribe. When the story became public, this XYZ Affair infuriated American citizens. Dozens of towns wrote addresses to President Adams, pledging him their support against France. Many people seemed eager for war. \u201cMillions for defense,\u201d toasted South Carolina representative Robert Goodloe Harper, \u201cbut not one cent for tribute.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nBy 1798, the people of Charleston watched the ocean\u2019s horizon apprehensively because they feared the arrival of the French navy at any moment. Many people now worried that the same ships that had aided Americans during the Revolutionary War might discharge an invasion force on their shores. Some southerners were sure that this force would consist of black troops from France\u2019s Caribbean colonies, who would attack the southern states and cause their slaves to revolt. Many Americans also worried that France had covert agents in the country. In the streets of Charleston, armed bands of young men searched for French disorganizers. Even the little children prepared for the looming conflict by fighting with sticks.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nMeanwhile, during the crisis, New Englanders were some of the most outspoken opponents of France. In 1798, they found a new reason for Francophobia. An influential Massachusetts minister, Jedidiah Morse, announced to his congregation that the French Revolution had been hatched in a conspiracy led by a mysterious anti-Christian organization called the Illuminati. The story was a hoax, but rumors of Illuminati infiltration spread throughout New England like wildfire, adding a new dimension to the foreign threat.5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nAgainst this backdrop of fear, the French Quasi-War, as it would come to be known, was fought on the Atlantic, mostly between French naval vessels and American merchant ships. During this crisis, however, anxiety about foreign agents ran high, and members of Congress took action to prevent internal subversion. The most controversial of these steps were the Alien and Sedition Acts. These two laws, passed in 1798, were intended to prevent French agents and sympathizers from compromising America\u2019s resistance, but they also attacked Americans who criticized the president and the Federalist Party.<\/p>\n
The Alien Act allowed the federal government to deport foreign nationals, or \u201caliens,\u201d who seemed to pose a national security threat. Even more dramatically, the Sedition Act allowed the government to prosecute anyone found to be speaking or publishing \u201cfalse, scandalous, and malicious writing\u201d against the government.6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nThese laws were not simply brought on by war hysteria. They reflected common assumptions about the nature of the American Revolution and the limits of liberty. In fact, most of the advocates for the Constitution and the First Amendment accepted that free speech simply meant a lack of prior censorship or restraint, not a guarantee against punishment. According to this logic, \u201clicentious\u201d or unruly speech made society less free, not more. James Wilson, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, argued that \u201cevery author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nIn 1798, most Federalists were inclined to agree. Under the terms of the Sedition Act, they indicted and prosecuted several Republican printers\u2014and even a Republican congressman who had criticized President Adams. Meanwhile, although the Adams administration never enforced the Alien Act, its passage was enough to convince some foreign nationals to leave the country. For the president and most other Federalists, the Alien and Sedition Acts represented a continuation of a conservative rather than radical American Revolution.<\/p>\n
However, the Alien and Sedition Acts caused a backlash in two ways. First, shocked opponents articulated a new and expansive vision for liberty. The New York lawyer Tunis Wortman, for example, demanded an \u201cabsolute independence\u201d of the press.8<\/sup><\/a> Likewise, the Virginia judge George Hay called for \u201cany publication whatever criminal\u201d to be exempt from legal punishment.9<\/sup><\/a> \u202fMany Americans began to argue that free speech meant the ability to say virtually anything without fear of prosecution.<\/p>\nSecond, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson helped organize opposition from state governments. Ironically, both of them had expressed support for the principle behind the Sedition Act in previous years. Jefferson, for example, had written to Madison in 1789 that the nation should punish citizens for speaking \u201cfalse facts\u201d that injured the country.10<\/sup><\/a>\u202f Nevertheless, both men now opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts on constitutional grounds. In 1798, Jefferson made this point in a resolution adopted by the Kentucky state legislature. A short time later, the Virginia legislature adopted a similar document written by Madison.<\/p>\nThe Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions argued that the national government\u2019s authority was limited to the powers expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. More importantly, they asserted that the states could declare federal laws unconstitutional. For the time being, these resolutions were simply gestures of defiance. Their bold claim, however, would have important effects in later decades.<\/p>\n
In just a few years, many Americans\u2019 feelings toward France had changed dramatically. Far from rejoicing in the \u201clight of freedom,\u201d many Americans now feared the \u201ccontagion\u201d of French-style liberty. Debates over the French Revolution in the 1790s gave Americans some of their earliest opportunities to articulate what it meant to be American. Did American national character rest on a radical and universal vision of human liberty? Or was America supposed to be essentially pious and traditional, an outgrowth of Great Britain? They couldn\u2019t agree. It was on this cracked foundation that many conflicts of the nineteenth century would rest.<\/p>\n
A grand debate over political power engulfed the young United States. The Constitution ensured that there would be a strong federal government capable of taxing, waging war, and making law, but it could never resolve the young nation\u2019s many conflicting constituencies. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that the nation could stifle internal dissent but exposed a new threat to liberty. Hamilton\u2019s banking system provided the nation with credit but also constrained frontier farmers. The Constitution\u2019s guarantee of religious liberty conflicted with many popular prerogatives. Dissension only deepened, and as the 1790s progressed, Americans became bitterly divided over political parties and foreign war.<\/p>\n
During the ratification debates, Alexander Hamilton had written of the wonders of the Constitution. \u201cA nation, without a national government,\u201d he wrote, would be \u201can awful spectacle.\u201d But, he added, \u201cthe establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy,\u201d a miracle that should be witnessed \u201cwith trembling anxiety.\u201d11<\/sup><\/a>\u202f Anti-Federalists had grave concerns about the Constitution, but even they could celebrate the idea of national unity. By 1795, even the staunchest critics would have grudgingly agreed with Hamilton\u2019s convictions about the Constitution. Yet these same individuals could also take the cautions in Washington\u2019s 1796 farewell address to heart. \u201cThere is an opinion,\u201d Washington wrote, \u201cthat parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty.\u201d This, he conceded, was probably true, but in a republic, he said, the danger was not too little partisanship, but too much. \u201cA fire not to be quenched,\u201d Washington warned, \u201cit demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.\u201d12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\nFor every parade, thanksgiving proclamation, or grand procession honoring the unity of the nation, there was also some political controversy reminding American citizens of how fragile their union was. And as party differences and regional quarrels tested the federal government, the new nation increasingly explored the limits of its democracy.<\/p>\n
Notes<\/h4>\n\n- Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese, The Mind of the Master Class: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholders Worldview<\/em> (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 18.<\/a><\/li>\n
- From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 3 January 1793,\u201d Founders Online, National Archives<\/em>, http:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Jefferson\/01-25-02-0016, last modified June 29, 2015; The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 25, 1 January\u201310 May 1793, ed. John Catanzariti (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 14\u201317. <\/a><\/li>\n
- Robert Goodloe Harper, June 18, 1798, quoted in American Daily Advertiser<\/em> (Philadelphia), June 20, 1798. <\/a><\/li>\n
- Robert J. Alderson Jr., This Bright Era of Happy Revolutions: French Consul Michel-Ange-Bernard Mangourit and International Republicanism in Charleston, 1792\u20131794<\/em> (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2008). <\/a><\/li>\n
- Rachel Hope Cleves, The Reign of Terror in America: Visions of Violence from Anti-Jacobinism to Antislavery<\/em> (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 47. <\/a><\/li>\n
- Alien Act, July 6, 1798, and An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled \u201cAn Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States,\u201d July 14, 1798; Fifth Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives<\/em>. <\/a><\/li>\n
- James Wilson, Congressional Debate, December 1, 1787, in Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787<\/em>, Vol. 2 (New York: s.n., 1888) 448\u2013450. <\/a><\/li>\n
- Tunis Wortman, A Treatise Concerning Political Enquiry, and the Liberty of the Press<\/em> (New York: Forman, 1800), 181. <\/a><\/li>\n
- George Hay, An Essay on the Liberty of the Press <\/em>(Philadelphia: s.n., 1799), 43. <\/a><\/li>\n
- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, August 28, 1789, from The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volume<\/em>s, Federal Edition, ed. Paul Leicester Ford. http:\/\/www.loc.gov\/resource\/mtj1.011_0853_0861. <\/a><\/li>\n
- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers<\/em> (New York: Signet Classics, 2003), no. 85. <\/a><\/li>\n
- George Washington, Farewell Address, Annals of Congress<\/em>, 4th Congress, 2869\u20132870. <\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"menu_order":20,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-83","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":228,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/83","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/83\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":688,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/83\/revisions\/688"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/228"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/83\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=83"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=83"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=83"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The new president was John Adams, Washington\u2019s vice president. Adams was less beloved than the old general, and he governed a deeply divided nation. The foreign crisis also presented him with a major test.<\/p>\r\nIn response to Jay\u2019s Treaty, the French government authorized its vessels to attack American shipping. To resolve this, President Adams sent envoys to France in 1797. The French insulted these diplomats. Some officials, whom the Americans code-named X, Y, and Z in their correspondence, hinted that negotiations could begin only after the Americans offered a bribe. When the story became public, this XYZ Affair infuriated American citizens. Dozens of towns wrote addresses to President Adams, pledging him their support against France. Many people seemed eager for war. \u201cMillions for defense,\u201d toasted South Carolina representative Robert Goodloe Harper, \u201cbut not one cent for tribute.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nBy 1798, the people of Charleston watched the ocean\u2019s horizon apprehensively because they feared the arrival of the French navy at any moment. Many people now worried that the same ships that had aided Americans during the Revolutionary War might discharge an invasion force on their shores. Some southerners were sure that this force would consist of black troops from France\u2019s Caribbean colonies, who would attack the southern states and cause their slaves to revolt. Many Americans also worried that France had covert agents in the country. In the streets of Charleston, armed bands of young men searched for French disorganizers. Even the little children prepared for the looming conflict by fighting with sticks.4<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, during the crisis, New Englanders were some of the most outspoken opponents of France. In 1798, they found a new reason for Francophobia. An influential Massachusetts minister, Jedidiah Morse, announced to his congregation that the French Revolution had been hatched in a conspiracy led by a mysterious anti-Christian organization called the Illuminati. The story was a hoax, but rumors of Illuminati infiltration spread throughout New England like wildfire, adding a new dimension to the foreign threat.5<\/sup><\/a>\r\n Against this backdrop of fear, the French Quasi-War, as it would come to be known, was fought on the Atlantic, mostly between French naval vessels and American merchant ships. During this crisis, however, anxiety about foreign agents ran high, and members of Congress took action to prevent internal subversion. The most controversial of these steps were the Alien and Sedition Acts. These two laws, passed in 1798, were intended to prevent French agents and sympathizers from compromising America\u2019s resistance, but they also attacked Americans who criticized the president and the Federalist Party.<\/p>\r\nThe Alien Act allowed the federal government to deport foreign nationals, or \u201caliens,\u201d who seemed to pose a national security threat. Even more dramatically, the Sedition Act allowed the government to prosecute anyone found to be speaking or publishing \u201cfalse, scandalous, and malicious writing\u201d against the government.6<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nThese laws were not simply brought on by war hysteria. They reflected common assumptions about the nature of the American Revolution and the limits of liberty. In fact, most of the advocates for the Constitution and the First Amendment accepted that free speech simply meant a lack of prior censorship or restraint, not a guarantee against punishment. According to this logic, \u201clicentious\u201d or unruly speech made society less free, not more. James Wilson, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, argued that \u201cevery author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nIn 1798, most Federalists were inclined to agree. Under the terms of the Sedition Act, they indicted and prosecuted several Republican printers\u2014and even a Republican congressman who had criticized President Adams. Meanwhile, although the Adams administration never enforced the Alien Act, its passage was enough to convince some foreign nationals to leave the country. For the president and most other Federalists, the Alien and Sedition Acts represented a continuation of a conservative rather than radical American Revolution.\r\n\r\nHowever, the Alien and Sedition Acts caused a backlash in two ways. First, shocked opponents articulated a new and expansive vision for liberty. The New York lawyer Tunis Wortman, for example, demanded an \u201cabsolute independence\u201d of the press.8<\/sup><\/a> Likewise, the Virginia judge George Hay called for \u201cany publication whatever criminal\u201d to be exempt from legal punishment.9<\/sup><\/a> \u202fMany Americans began to argue that free speech meant the ability to say virtually anything without fear of prosecution.\r\n\r\nSecond, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson helped organize opposition from state governments. Ironically, both of them had expressed support for the principle behind the Sedition Act in previous years. Jefferson, for example, had written to Madison in 1789 that the nation should punish citizens for speaking \u201cfalse facts\u201d that injured the country.10<\/sup><\/a>\u202f Nevertheless, both men now opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts on constitutional grounds. In 1798, Jefferson made this point in a resolution adopted by the Kentucky state legislature. A short time later, the Virginia legislature adopted a similar document written by Madison.\r\n\r\nThe Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions argued that the national government\u2019s authority was limited to the powers expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. More importantly, they asserted that the states could declare federal laws unconstitutional. For the time being, these resolutions were simply gestures of defiance. Their bold claim, however, would have important effects in later decades.\r\n\r\nIn just a few years, many Americans\u2019 feelings toward France had changed dramatically. Far from rejoicing in the \u201clight of freedom,\u201d many Americans now feared the \u201ccontagion\u201d of French-style liberty. Debates over the French Revolution in the 1790s gave Americans some of their earliest opportunities to articulate what it meant to be American. Did American national character rest on a radical and universal vision of human liberty? Or was America supposed to be essentially pious and traditional, an outgrowth of Great Britain? They couldn\u2019t agree. It was on this cracked foundation that many conflicts of the nineteenth century would rest.\r\n\r\nA grand debate over political power engulfed the young United States. The Constitution ensured that there would be a strong federal government capable of taxing, waging war, and making law, but it could never resolve the young nation\u2019s many conflicting constituencies. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that the nation could stifle internal dissent but exposed a new threat to liberty. Hamilton\u2019s banking system provided the nation with credit but also constrained frontier farmers. The Constitution\u2019s guarantee of religious liberty conflicted with many popular prerogatives. Dissension only deepened, and as the 1790s progressed, Americans became bitterly divided over political parties and foreign war.\r\n\r\nDuring the ratification debates, Alexander Hamilton had written of the wonders of the Constitution. \u201cA nation, without a national government,\u201d he wrote, would be \u201can awful spectacle.\u201d But, he added, \u201cthe establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy,\u201d a miracle that should be witnessed \u201cwith trembling anxiety.\u201d11<\/sup><\/a>\u202f Anti-Federalists had grave concerns about the Constitution, but even they could celebrate the idea of national unity. By 1795, even the staunchest critics would have grudgingly agreed with Hamilton\u2019s convictions about the Constitution. Yet these same individuals could also take the cautions in Washington\u2019s 1796 farewell address to heart. \u201cThere is an opinion,\u201d Washington wrote, \u201cthat parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty.\u201d This, he conceded, was probably true, but in a republic, he said, the danger was not too little partisanship, but too much. \u201cA fire not to be quenched,\u201d Washington warned, \u201cit demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.\u201d12<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nFor every parade, thanksgiving proclamation, or grand procession honoring the unity of the nation, there was also some political controversy reminding American citizens of how fragile their union was. And as party differences and regional quarrels tested the federal government, the new nation increasingly explored the limits of its democracy.\r\n In part, the Federalists were turning toward Britain because they feared the most radical forms of democratic thought. In the wake of Shays\u2019 Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and other internal protests, Federalists sought to preserve social stability. The course of the French Revolution seemed to justify their concerns.<\/p>\n In 1789, news had arrived in America that the French had revolted against their king. Most Americans imagined that liberty was spreading from America to Europe, carried there by the returning French heroes who had taken part in the American Revolution.<\/p>\n Initially, nearly all Americans had praised the French Revolution. Towns all over the country hosted speeches and parades on July 14 to commemorate the day it began. Women had worn neoclassical dress to honor republican principles, and men had pinned revolutionary cockades to their hats. John Randolph, a Virginia planter, named two of his favorite horses Jacobin and Sans-Culotte after French revolutionary factions.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In April 1793, a new French ambassador, \u201cCitizen\u201d Edmond-Charles Gen\u00eat, arrived in the United States. During his tour of several cities, Americans greeted him with wild enthusiasm. Citizen Gen\u00eat encouraged Americans to act against Spain, a British ally, by attacking its colonies of Florida and Louisiana. When President Washington refused, Gen\u00eat threatened to appeal to the American people directly. In response, Washington demanded that France recall its diplomat. In the meantime, however, Gen\u00eat\u2019s faction had fallen from power in France. Knowing that a return home might cost him his head, he decided to remain in America.<\/p>\n Gen\u00eat\u2019s intuition was correct. A radical coalition of revolutionaries had seized power in France. They initiated a bloody purge of their enemies, the Reign of Terror. As Americans learned about Gen\u00eat\u2019s impropriety and the mounting body count in France, many began to have second thoughts about the French Revolution.<\/p>\n Americans who feared that the French Revolution was spiraling out of control tended to become Federalists. Those who remained hopeful about the revolution tended to become Republicans. Not deterred by the violence, Thomas Jefferson declared that he would rather see \u201chalf the earth desolated\u201d than see the French Revolution fail. \u201cWere there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free,\u201d he wrote, \u201cit would be better than as it now is.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a> \u202fMeanwhile, the Federalists sought closer ties with Britain.<\/p>\n Despite the political rancor, in late 1796 there came one sign of hope: the United States peacefully elected a new president. For now, as Washington stepped down and executive power changed hands, the country did not descend into the anarchy that many leaders feared.<\/p>\n The new president was John Adams, Washington\u2019s vice president. Adams was less beloved than the old general, and he governed a deeply divided nation. The foreign crisis also presented him with a major test.<\/p>\n In response to Jay\u2019s Treaty, the French government authorized its vessels to attack American shipping. To resolve this, President Adams sent envoys to France in 1797. The French insulted these diplomats. Some officials, whom the Americans code-named X, Y, and Z in their correspondence, hinted that negotiations could begin only after the Americans offered a bribe. When the story became public, this XYZ Affair infuriated American citizens. Dozens of towns wrote addresses to President Adams, pledging him their support against France. Many people seemed eager for war. \u201cMillions for defense,\u201d toasted South Carolina representative Robert Goodloe Harper, \u201cbut not one cent for tribute.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n By 1798, the people of Charleston watched the ocean\u2019s horizon apprehensively because they feared the arrival of the French navy at any moment. Many people now worried that the same ships that had aided Americans during the Revolutionary War might discharge an invasion force on their shores. Some southerners were sure that this force would consist of black troops from France\u2019s Caribbean colonies, who would attack the southern states and cause their slaves to revolt. Many Americans also worried that France had covert agents in the country. In the streets of Charleston, armed bands of young men searched for French disorganizers. Even the little children prepared for the looming conflict by fighting with sticks.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Meanwhile, during the crisis, New Englanders were some of the most outspoken opponents of France. In 1798, they found a new reason for Francophobia. An influential Massachusetts minister, Jedidiah Morse, announced to his congregation that the French Revolution had been hatched in a conspiracy led by a mysterious anti-Christian organization called the Illuminati. The story was a hoax, but rumors of Illuminati infiltration spread throughout New England like wildfire, adding a new dimension to the foreign threat.5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Against this backdrop of fear, the French Quasi-War, as it would come to be known, was fought on the Atlantic, mostly between French naval vessels and American merchant ships. During this crisis, however, anxiety about foreign agents ran high, and members of Congress took action to prevent internal subversion. The most controversial of these steps were the Alien and Sedition Acts. These two laws, passed in 1798, were intended to prevent French agents and sympathizers from compromising America\u2019s resistance, but they also attacked Americans who criticized the president and the Federalist Party.<\/p>\n The Alien Act allowed the federal government to deport foreign nationals, or \u201caliens,\u201d who seemed to pose a national security threat. Even more dramatically, the Sedition Act allowed the government to prosecute anyone found to be speaking or publishing \u201cfalse, scandalous, and malicious writing\u201d against the government.6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n These laws were not simply brought on by war hysteria. They reflected common assumptions about the nature of the American Revolution and the limits of liberty. In fact, most of the advocates for the Constitution and the First Amendment accepted that free speech simply meant a lack of prior censorship or restraint, not a guarantee against punishment. According to this logic, \u201clicentious\u201d or unruly speech made society less free, not more. James Wilson, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, argued that \u201cevery author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In 1798, most Federalists were inclined to agree. Under the terms of the Sedition Act, they indicted and prosecuted several Republican printers\u2014and even a Republican congressman who had criticized President Adams. Meanwhile, although the Adams administration never enforced the Alien Act, its passage was enough to convince some foreign nationals to leave the country. For the president and most other Federalists, the Alien and Sedition Acts represented a continuation of a conservative rather than radical American Revolution.<\/p>\n However, the Alien and Sedition Acts caused a backlash in two ways. First, shocked opponents articulated a new and expansive vision for liberty. The New York lawyer Tunis Wortman, for example, demanded an \u201cabsolute independence\u201d of the press.8<\/sup><\/a> Likewise, the Virginia judge George Hay called for \u201cany publication whatever criminal\u201d to be exempt from legal punishment.9<\/sup><\/a> \u202fMany Americans began to argue that free speech meant the ability to say virtually anything without fear of prosecution.<\/p>\n Second, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson helped organize opposition from state governments. Ironically, both of them had expressed support for the principle behind the Sedition Act in previous years. Jefferson, for example, had written to Madison in 1789 that the nation should punish citizens for speaking \u201cfalse facts\u201d that injured the country.10<\/sup><\/a>\u202f Nevertheless, both men now opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts on constitutional grounds. In 1798, Jefferson made this point in a resolution adopted by the Kentucky state legislature. A short time later, the Virginia legislature adopted a similar document written by Madison.<\/p>\n The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions argued that the national government\u2019s authority was limited to the powers expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. More importantly, they asserted that the states could declare federal laws unconstitutional. For the time being, these resolutions were simply gestures of defiance. Their bold claim, however, would have important effects in later decades.<\/p>\n In just a few years, many Americans\u2019 feelings toward France had changed dramatically. Far from rejoicing in the \u201clight of freedom,\u201d many Americans now feared the \u201ccontagion\u201d of French-style liberty. Debates over the French Revolution in the 1790s gave Americans some of their earliest opportunities to articulate what it meant to be American. Did American national character rest on a radical and universal vision of human liberty? Or was America supposed to be essentially pious and traditional, an outgrowth of Great Britain? They couldn\u2019t agree. It was on this cracked foundation that many conflicts of the nineteenth century would rest.<\/p>\n A grand debate over political power engulfed the young United States. The Constitution ensured that there would be a strong federal government capable of taxing, waging war, and making law, but it could never resolve the young nation\u2019s many conflicting constituencies. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that the nation could stifle internal dissent but exposed a new threat to liberty. Hamilton\u2019s banking system provided the nation with credit but also constrained frontier farmers. The Constitution\u2019s guarantee of religious liberty conflicted with many popular prerogatives. Dissension only deepened, and as the 1790s progressed, Americans became bitterly divided over political parties and foreign war.<\/p>\n During the ratification debates, Alexander Hamilton had written of the wonders of the Constitution. \u201cA nation, without a national government,\u201d he wrote, would be \u201can awful spectacle.\u201d But, he added, \u201cthe establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy,\u201d a miracle that should be witnessed \u201cwith trembling anxiety.\u201d11<\/sup><\/a>\u202f Anti-Federalists had grave concerns about the Constitution, but even they could celebrate the idea of national unity. By 1795, even the staunchest critics would have grudgingly agreed with Hamilton\u2019s convictions about the Constitution. Yet these same individuals could also take the cautions in Washington\u2019s 1796 farewell address to heart. \u201cThere is an opinion,\u201d Washington wrote, \u201cthat parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty.\u201d This, he conceded, was probably true, but in a republic, he said, the danger was not too little partisanship, but too much. \u201cA fire not to be quenched,\u201d Washington warned, \u201cit demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.\u201d12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n For every parade, thanksgiving proclamation, or grand procession honoring the unity of the nation, there was also some political controversy reminding American citizens of how fragile their union was. And as party differences and regional quarrels tested the federal government, the new nation increasingly explored the limits of its democracy.<\/p>\nNotes<\/h4>\r\n
\r\n \t
![\"image\"](\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Execution_of_Louis_XVI#\/media\/File:Execution_of_Louis_XVI.jpg\")
<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"The French Revolution and the Limits of Liberty<\/h2>\n
Notes<\/h4>\n
\n
<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"menu_order":20,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-83","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":228,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/83","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/83\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":688,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/83\/revisions\/688"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/228"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/83\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=83"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=83"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1210\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=83"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}