| Episodes |
Callender's Trial: Gateway to the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy
Michelle Juarez and Daniel Enny
[1] Notoriously recognized and politically detested, James Thomson Callender has easily remained one of America's most distinguished muckrakers. Nearly two and half centuries after his political fiascos, Callender has maintained his name as consummate political hit-man for his mudslinging brawls with Thomas Jefferson. Though he is most known for bringing to light Jefferson's affair with the "African Venus," Callender was no stranger to the political reprimand that accompanies slander. In fact, the Callender-Jefferson feud stemmed from a prior political conviction. In 1800 Callender published the libelous pamphlet The Prospect Before Us, wherein he emphasized the corruption under the Adams administration. What was meant to be mere political strategy turned into massive political mayhem when Callender was accused of libel and prosecuted under the 1798 Sedition Acts. Out of the twenty-six who were convicted, Callender's trial proved to be one of the most important. Callender's trial was the precursor for his animosity toward Jefferson and the gateway to the Jefferson-Hemings controversy,
[2] The Alien and Sedition Acts were a by-product of a series of political threats between the two power nations of the time: Great Britain and France. As a young and growing nation, the United States saw it in their best interest to maintain close ties with Great Britain, signing a treaty with Britain to insure security and protection and as a means of averting war and fostering trade. However, France and Britain were at terrible odds with each other at this time as well, and France saw these negotiations as an alliance between the U.S. and the enemy. As a result, the French thwarted any trade between the U.S. and Britain by seizing any American ships that carried British goods. Thenceforward, Adams took a defensive stance and ordered military precaution as well as a series of laws to quell dissention at home and secure peace with the French. Among these laws were the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Acts, which Callender was charged with violating, provided punishment for any person who should "write, print, utter or publish . . . false, scandalous and malicious writings against the government of the United States." The law, however, only exacerbated the already heated tension between Adams' party, the Federalists, and the Republicans, who declared the laws unconstitutional and correctly sensed that they were essentially created to silence and weaken Republican criticism. The rising tensions between the Republicans and Federalists at the close of Adams' presidency created the perfect setting for Jefferson and Callender to meet -- and for the real drama to begin.
[3] Callender approached Jefferson with a clear intent: he was willing to debase the Adams administration and Federalist followers for a price. Already sharing with Jefferson an enmity toward Adams and his political motives, Callender was far too willing to scourge his administration and bring Adams' career to an end. Presidential candidate Jefferson, too, was in no position to deny such a favor and ultimately supported Callender's works. In 1798, Callender began work on The Prospect Before Us in which he favored Jefferson as president and admonished Adams' administration.
[4] In Prospect Callender wastes no time in assailing Adams, quickly revealing the base motives behind his presidency. In the first line of his preface, Callender writes, "The design of this book is to exhibit the multiplied corruptions of the Federal government, and especially the misconduct of the President, Mr. Adams." He further characterizes Adams' presidency as a "tempest" of "continued malignant passions." Callender continues to attack Adams by denouncing him as "mentally deranged," comparing him to a monarchial tyrant, and branding him a war-inducing criminal who plans to "crown himself king."
[5] According to plan, says Callender, Jefferson reviewed Callender's calumnies, approved of the draft, and even went on to predict that "such papers cannot fail to produce the best effect." Essentially, according to Callender, Jefferson was more than pleased with Callender's work and expected nothing less than political success from Callender's writings. His financial help in producing the pamphlet paid off since Jefferson ultimately did win the presidential election. Amid the joy of Adams' debasement, however, came Callender's prosecution. In 1800, Callender was found guilty under the Sedition Acts for publishing and circulating his libelous pamphlet, the same libelous pamphlet that, according to Callender, Jefferson bankrolled, that Jefferson approved of, and that ultimately helped Jefferson win his presidential election.
[6] On June 3, 1800, Callender's trial got underway, presided over by Samuel Chase, who had a bad reputation and his fair share of unfair rulings. Callender was indicted on charges that certain sections of Prospect sought to defame Adams and cause the people of the United States to oppose him. While the trials were said to be conducted under a "just" judicial system in which everyone was "innocent till proven guilty," it was undeniably clear that anyone charged under the Sedition Act was in fact the contrary, guilty till proven innocent, and in all the Sedition trials no one was ever proven innocent.
[7] The prosecution charged that Callender was the author of certain libelous passages that violated the Sedition Act, the three main ones being 1) "The reign of Mr. Adams has been one continued tempest of malignant passions," 2) "the grand object of President Adams was to calumniate and destroy every man who differs from his opinions," and 3) "the object with Mr. Adams was to recommend a French war, professedly for the sake of supporting American commerce, but, in reality, for the sake of yoking us into an alliance with the British tyrant." Both sides established that Callender could only be tried for the certain sections of the pamphlet that were noted and deemed libelous. Initially, the prosecution's main goal was to prove that Callender was the author of the pamphlet, and, by calling several of Callender's publishers to the stand, they were able to do so fairly quickly. However, once the prosecution was able to prove his publication, they went for bigger charges. Instead of charging Callender for only the passages that they had noted and deemed libelous, the prosecution turned the tables and cited the entirety of The Prospect Before Us as an infraction under the entire Sedition Act, an action that would cause much controversy within the trial.
[8] The defense was quite unprepared to hear that Chase would charge Callender's pamphlet entirely, mainly because Chase's motion was essentially illegal under judicial law. Still, the defense tried to refute this motion by saying that Callender could only be tried under the sections that were deemed libelous, but Judge Chase denied this line of argument and ruled that Callender could be charged for the mere publication of his pamphlet, not just the sections that were libelous. In effect, the prosecution had altered Callender's initial charges for their own benefit; once they saw how easy it was to fulfill their first goal (that is, to prove that he was the author of the pamphlet), they decided to raise the stakes by throwing more charges at him. Now it was practically impossible to prove Callender innocent.
[9] Still, Callender and his lawyers made several attempts at defense. The defense team tried to justify his slander through two different claims. His first defense claim demonstrated that Adams was inconsiderate in his actions, that he would proceed to do as he liked with no regard for others, and would fire those who did not agree with actions. His second defense claim sought to prove Adams' tyrant-like behavior Callender had described in his pamphlet. In particular, Callender sought to prove two particular passages from his pamphlet, the first being that "the grand object of President Adams was to calumniate and destroy every man who differs from his opinions" and the second being "the object with Mr. Adams was to recommend a French war, professedly for the sake of supporting American commerce, but, in reality, for the sake of yoking us into an alliance with the British tyrant." If he could prove that these two statements were true, Callender's "libelous" claims would be libelous no more.
[10] In order to prove that Adams' "grand object" was "to calumniate and destroy every man who differs from his opinions," Callender sought William Gardner, who was a loan commissioner for the state of New Hampshire, and Tench Coxe, who was commissioner of revenue. President Adams fired both men for merely disagreeing with his actions, hence validating Callender's statement that Adams sought to destroy every and any man who disagreed with him. Callender directly states that Gardner "was turned out of the said office of Commissioner of Loans because he refused to subscribe an address circulated in the town of Portsmouth, in New Hampshire . . . in which address unequivocal approbation of the conduct of the said president, in the administration of the United States, is expressed." Similarly, Coxe lost his position when he refused to sign a public address in support of the president's preparations for war with France. Callender claims that Coxe was "ejected by the president of the United States, because he did not approve the measures of the President's administration, or the principles on which it was conducted." In effect, Callender was trying to validate the claims he was charged with and to prove, particularly, that Adams was as boorish as he made him out to be.
[11] Callender's second claim accused Adams of monarchial intentions. Callender hoped to specifically verify his claim that Adams was recommending war with France. To prove this, Callender sought the help of Thomas Pickering and William Giles, two Virginia statesmen. Pickering knew that Adams was in possession of a letter that would make concessions to the French Republic without Congress's consent -- more specifically, that "ambassadors from the United States would be received in a way satisfactory to the people and government of the United States, many weeks while congress was in session, before he communicated the same to congress." Similarly, through Giles and Stephen Thompson Mason, Callender learned that the "president of the United States, has unequivocally avowed principles utterly incompatible with the principles of the present constitution." Even more specifically, Adams had claimed that he thought "the executive department of the United States ought to be vested with power to direct and control the public will." Effectively, these two witnesses would prove that Adams made foreign concessions on his own accord without having them checked through Congress, a clear violation of the system of checks and balances and a clear demonstration of tyrannical behavior.
[12] Unfortunately for Callender, Giles was not in attendance as a witness. His evidence for Callender's claims against the President was deemed important, however, and motions for postponements were made, first for several hours, and later a motion was made to postpone the trial until November. George Hay, one of Callender's lawyers, made arguments supporting the necessity of Giles' evidence, arguing that Giles was ready to be a witness for Callender, but he had not had enough time to examine and form a statement on the evidence. Unfortunately for Callender, Giles' absence was seen more as an attempt to stall the court. Chase then decided that "if the trial had to await that gentleman's appearance, it would never take place at all."
[13] As a last resort to validate Callender's statements, the defense called a final witness, Colonel Taylor, a well-known and well-respected citizen. Taylor's testimony, which could possibly prove the assertions made in Callender's pamphlet, was the only way the defense could possibly combat the charges of libel and slander. Yet again, however, Judge Chase crippled the defense's actions and made even more changes to the trial. The next part, which was quite outrageous, was as follows, quoted from Frederick Hill's Decisive Battles of the Law: "Before he [Hay] could utter a word, however, the judge interrupted, declaring that every question put to him must first be examined and approved by the court." Chase did not allow any question to be asked of Taylor that would prove the whole section from The Prospect Before Us to be true, and so the defense was forced to prove individual statements in the whole section bit by bit. Taylor was not even allowed to testify, because Chase deemed, on the basis that his testimony could only clear Callender of part of not the entire charge, his evidence was inadmissible to the court. Thus, since Taylor would not help Callender's case, Chase dismissed him. Callender's lawyers argued that this ruling was a complete denial of justice and that Chase should reverse that ruling. Chase declined, concluded the trial, and after two hours, the jury reached a final verdict of guilty.
[14] Callender's fate was sealed by a corrupt judge in a trial laden with faulty interpretations and conducted by mendacious proceedings. Despite his attempts at a defense, Callender's claims were to no avail. Tried in a court in which all men were practically guilty until proven innocent, there was no possibility of averting conviction. Callender inevitably fell victim to the judicial hand and suffered a hefty punishment. His sentence was a fine of $200 and nine months in jail for the production and circulation of a libelous pamphlet that sought to defame the president and excite citizens to rally against him. This sentence was ultimately the longest and heftiest punishment of all those tried under the Sedition Acts. After Callender paid his dues, he came out a broken man and hoped that Jefferson's presidency would rid America of the faulty laws that put him in jail. However, Jefferson did not compensate Callender in the way that he had hoped. This resentment ultimately led to Callender publicly accusing Jefferson of having an affair with his slave, Sally Hemings.
[15] In regards to Callender's trial and sufferings, however, one question still remains: was Callender justified in his mudslinging towards Jefferson? Is paying $200 in fines and spending nine months in jail only to come back a man with no allies and seemingly no purpose, a worthy cause for revenge? Is the man who was denied any reasonable right to defend himself truly guilty? Is Callender wrong for being resentful after being tried under a corrupt judicial system? Should Jefferson, who, according to Callender, had approved his pamphlet, be deemed just as guilty? Is Callender wrong in his resentment towards Jefferson after helping him so greatly but receiving no compensation in return? Considering the nature of the trial we have just presented, was Callender really the villain history makes him out to be? Or was he a mere victim of circumstance?
