virginia and the alien and sedition laws
Post on 05-Jul-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/16/2019 Virginia and the Alien and Sedition Laws
1/7
NOTES AND SUGGESTIONS
I.
VIRGINIA
AND THE ALIEN AND SEDITION
LAWS
A
charge,
unchallengedfor
more than a century,has rested
against the state
of Virginia. Its legislaturehas
been accused
of
making provision
for armed resistance o the
enforcement f the
Alien and Sedition
Acts. The
militia was reorganized
nd made
miiore
ormidable,
dditional rms
were purchased,n armory rected,
and taxes laid,with the design, t is said, of makingwar upon the
Federal government.
This is tantamount
o a chargeof conspiracy.
When
one considers he
mpossibility
f concealing fficialction nd
the necessityfor profound secrecy,
the statement
hallenges our
credulity. Yet historians ave
accepted
t.
Thus
Albert J. Bever-
idge
in his
Life
of JohnMarshall: the Republican
piritwas
run-
ninghigh.
The Virginia egislature
rovided oran armory n Rich-
mond to resist
'encroachments' of the National
Government.
Madison and
Jefferson,sserts
Henry Adams, were privyto the
preparations
making
n
Virginia
for armed
resistance;
or if
they
were not,
t was because
they
hose to be
ignorant.2
These
assertions rest,
as far as
documentary
vidence s con-
cerned, pon
two contemporary
etters nd
upon
two
statements
ade
some time ater
by John
Randolph
nd
William
B.
Giles. Writing
o
Rufus King
in
November, 799,
Theodore
Sedgwick,
Massachusetts
Federalist, eclared hatpartyfactionhad become o bitter hatVir-
ginia
had
displayed
an
anxiety
o
render
ts
militia s formidable
s
possible,
nd to
supply
ts arsenals
&
magazines,
nd for those
pur-
poses
it
actually mposed
tax on its Citizens
.3
The other etter
s
from
Alexander
Hamilton,
ut he so
obviously
eceivedhis
informa-
tion
from
edgwick
hat t can have no value
as
evidence.4
JohnRandolph
was
naturally
morecolorful.
At one time
during
the
courseof a debate
n
January,8I7,
over a commercial
ill,Cyrus
1
Vol.
II.,
p. 406.
2
John
Randolph,
p.
27.
See
also
Hermann
von
Holst,
Constitutional
istory
of
the
United
.States,
.
I58:
It
was
a well-known
act
that at the
time
that
Washington
aw
a 'dreadiul
crisis
hastening',
a
large
establishment
or
the
mallu-
facture
f arms was
set
up
in
Richmond.
3 Life and
Correspondence
f Rufus
King,
ed.
Charles
King,
III.
I47
f.
4
Hamilton's
letter
paraphrases
Sedgwick's:
It
is stated
. . that
t;he
op-
position
party
n
Virginia
. . . have
taken
measures
to
put
their
militia
on a
more
efficient
ooting-are
preparing
onsiderable
rsenals
and
magazines,
and
. . .
have
gone so far as to lay new taxes on their citizens. The Works of Alexander
Hamilton,
d. J.
C.
Hamilton,
VI.
384.
336
This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Virginia and the Alien and Sedition Laws
2/7
Davidson:
Virginia
Armamentsn
I798
337
King,
of
Massachusetts, hrew
n
the face
of
his
Virginia
opponents
a
statement
made
previously
n the floor f the House
concerningn
armory stablishedn Richmond o resist the Federal government.
John
Jackson
ose to defendhis
state,
but was
interruptedy
Ran-
dolph,
who,
recognizing
imself
s
the
author of the remarks
re-
ferred
o, wished
to
explain
what he had
actually.said.
The
state-
ment,
he
declared,
had
been made
in a debate
over
a
constitutional
amendment
bridging
he
rights
f
the
states,
nd was to the
effect
that:
By thetimelynd judicious xercise f theveryrightproposed o be
taken
way,
this Union
had
been
saved
from
ncalculablemischief
nd
misery.
That
bythrowing
.
,
her
whole
weight
nto he lectoral
cale,
the
Commonwealth
f
Virginia
had
constitutionally
ffected
change f
ministry,nd
checked he
mad
career
f ambition
nd
usurpation, hich
otherwisehe
might ave
been
compelledo
resist
t the
hazard .
.
of
a
civil
war,
fortherewas
no
longer
nycause for
concealing he
fact,
that
the
grand
armory
t
Richmondwas
built
to
enable
the State
of
Virginia
o
resist, yforce,
he
ncroachmentsf the
hen
Administration
upon
her
ndisputableights
.
.
in case they
hould
ersevere
n
these
outrageousroceedings.5
This
assertion he
then
proceeded
to
amplify and
explain.
His
charges,when
stripped f the
verbiage
forwhich
Jbe
was
famous,
amount
imply o
this:
when
running or
Congress n 1799
he
was
asked
if
he
justified he
establishment
f the
armory
o resist
the
government,nd he
replied hat
he did.
He
coulddefend
Virginia,
he said,
because
party feeling'
an
highest
n
1798-1799,and
in the
halls of CongresstheFederalistswere even suggesting hepartition
of
the
state,
forthey
thought
he had
grown so
large as to
be un-
nmanageable.With
the
knife t her
throat,
ny
measures
were usti-
fiable,
nd the
members
f
the
assembly
knew that
logic
was
no
match for
the
bayonet, and
they
provided
bayonets
. . . .
The
armory t
Richmond,
fathered
y John
Taylor
of
Caroline,he as-
serted,was
designed o
supply
hese
and
otherweapons.
Randolph's
charges
were
challenged y
two of
theVirginia
repre-
5
I
have
never
been
able to
find
he
exact
date
on
which
Randolph
firstmade
this
statement. All
indications
pointto
its
having been made
in
December,
8I6.
Between
1799
and I8I7
onlytwo
amendments
hich
could have
had
the
effect
e
intimated
roused
his
determined
pposition.
One was
proposed
n
the session
of
I8I2-I813,
the
c.ther
n
I8i6.
The
characterof
Randolph's
remarks n
the
debate
over
the
second
mentioned
mendment
s
thoroughlyn
keeping
with a
statement
like
the one
under
discussion.
See
Annals
of
Congress,
14
Cong.,
2
sess.,
pp.
322 ff.
Furthermore,
Mr.
King
was
not
a member
f
Congress n
1812,
and the
matter
was
fresh n
the
minds
of
ail
participantsn
the
dispute
in
18I7.
Jackson
does not seemto have beenpresentwhen the remarkswere firstmade, and
seenms
to
be
taking the
first
opportunity
f
correcting
hem.
The
debates
in
January,
1817,
maybe
found n
the
Annalsof
Congress,
I4
Cong., 2
sess., pp.
793-8o6.
This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Virginia and the Alien and Sedition Laws
3/7
338 Notes and
Suggestions
sentatives,
John Jackson
and
James
Pleasants,
jr.,
both
members
of the assembly
f I798. The
armorywas
built,
declaredJackson,
to insure n adequatesupplyof dependable uns,a need long feltby
the state. Until that
moment,
e had never heard a
single indi-
vidual
intimate disposition
o oppose with
arms the
constituted
authority
f the Government.B
Equally
vigorous was Pleasants's
denial.
It was a certain
act
,
he
said,
that he men
who had the
principal gency n
the establishment
f that
armory,
ad most un-
equivocally
disavowed that intention.
Mr.
Taylor,
he asserted,
never expectedthe arms to be used in civil war. He most em-
phatically
id
disclaim,
s
I
do
now,
any such
views.
William B.
Giles
affords
he finalpieceof evidence
upon
which
o
base the
charge. In
a speechbefore
the Virginia egislature
n
I825
he urged
opposition
o the tariff
n the ground hat Virginia
had al-
ways
vigorously efendedher rights.
When
threatened
n
I798,
her
leadersdid not tamely
ubmit,
e
declared:
They
.
.
determined
o arm the militia, nd
to makeprovision
o pur-
chase
5,000
stands farms.-Then t was sir, hat he foundationorthe
regular
upply f
arms to the militia
was
laid,
in the establishment
f
your
rmory.-Todefray
he
expenses
f these
measures,hey
aised he
whole axes
of
the
State
5 per
cent.
. .8
Charges
uch as these
of Sedgwick,
Randolph, nd
Giles are
much
easier
made than sustained. Were
it
not
for theirplausibility,
nd
were
t
not for he
unfortunate
act hat
we
rather ike
to believe uch
things, he
accusations
ould not stand. Sedgwick
was
a leader
of
the Federalists n Congress, nd wouldnaturally e expected o mis-
represent
he acts
of
a Republican
egislature. Randolph's
powers
of
exaggeration
re
as
well knownas
are his other
eccentricities.
The
question
sked
him
during
he
Congressional ampaign
may easily
be
discounted.9
At
such
times there
was always
much oose talk,
and
6
He also declared
that the governor
had entered
nto a contract
with James
Swan of Boston
for
the purchase
of
arms,
but these proving valueless upon
de-
livery,
t
was
necessary
for the
state
to supply
its own weapons. Randolph
an-
swered that the armory was
built,
not so much because of the badness of the
arms,
as because it was proper
for the State
of
Virginia
to keep in her
possession
the
means of arming
the
militia,
rather
than depend
for
her supply on contracts
which
the
United
States might stop
. A more
perfectrefutationof
Jackson's
argument
s simplythat the
guns were
not deliveredand found
faulty
until
two
years after the bill
for
the
erection f
the armorywas passed.
See
below,
note
I6.
7
In passing it is worth
noting that
subsequent
writersdo not
mentionthe
emphatic
denial of the charges
by participants
n
the actual events.
8
William
B.
Giles, Political
Miscellanies (Richmond,
1830),
p.
I46.
There
is also a statementn Samuel Mordecai,Richmond n By-GoneDays (Richmond.
1856),
p.
202,
but this
is
based only
upon
hearsay.
9
See
above,
P.
337.
This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Virginia and the Alien and Sedition Laws
4/7
Davidson:
VirginiaArmameints
n
I798
339
one would
xpect
he
question
nd answer
o have
beenwhat
hey
were. The
political
urpose
ehindboth
Randolph's
nd
Giles's
statementssperfectlypparent.While hese acts o not onstitute
completeisprooff
the
charge,hey
aturally
rouse
uspicions
f
its ruth.
Fortunately
isproof
f the
charge
an
be based
upon
a
surer
foundation.A
study f
the
pertinent
eatures
f
Virginia
dminis-
tration,
789-I798,
thereorganizationf the
militia,
he
purchase
of
arms,
nd
the
ncrease
ftaxes,
eads
nevitably
o the
onclusion
that
he
measures
aken
n
i798
were
not
new.
They
were
part
f
a
consistentolicy ndertakeneforeheAlien ndSedition ctswere
passed, ven
before hey
ould
reasonably ave been
expected,
nd
had
nothing
o dowith
ppositiono
them.
That
part
of
the
charge
elating o the
militia
estsupon
the
weakest
f
foundations.n
I792
Congress
nacted
general
militia
law,
which
rovided hat
ach
state hould
egulatets own
militia.
Pursuantothis
ct, he
Virginia
egislature
assed law
organizing
thestatetroops, nd in
1793
theact was amended,ut evenas
amendedt
didnot
provide or
n
efficient
ystem.10
here
was ittle
coordination
etween he
various
nits, nd
t
was found
ifficult
o
obtain
nited
ndspeedy
ction. In
I795 all
previous
ctswerere-
duced
o one,
nd n
1799
another
ttemptas
made
o
secure
reater
efficiency.
y the
ct of
thatyear
he
governor as
given
uthority
to divide r
consolidate
egiments
s the
occasion
might emand.11
It wasthis
failure
oprovide
arlier
or
entralized
ontrol
hathad
made hepreviousystemnefficient.
No more
ubstantial
vidence fthe
charge
maybe
found
n
the
matter
f
arms
for
he
militia. If it
was
to be
efficient,n
adequate
supply f
dependable
unswas
a
necessity
ndthis he
tate
idnot
have.
Ample vidence
estifies
othe ack
of
arms
nd tothe
poor
quality f such
s
were
btainable.
Even the
weaponsn the
rsenal
at
Point
f
Fork
were
badly
n
needof
repair,nd
the
upply
here
was deemednsufficient. ith his onditionnmind he egislature
in
1796
authorizedhe
governoro
procure
dditionalrms.12
n
September,
796,
the
governor's
gent eportedhat
gunscould
be
purchased
broad
hrough ames
wan of
Boston,
nd
after ome
correspondencecontract
as
agreed pon
n
May,
797. For
the
10
Statutes at
Large
of Virginia,
Hening,XIII.
340.
See
especially the
letter
of
Arthur
Campbell
to the
governor,
Calendar of
Vlirginia
tate
Papers
(W.
P.
Palmer et
at.,
eds.), VII.
27I
ff.
(Hereinafter
eferred o as
C.S.P.)
Also,
ibid.,
pp. I3 if.
11
Statutes at
Large
of Virginia,
Shepherd, .
341;
1I.
141.
12
C.S.P.,
VII.
309.
See
also
V. 6o0;
VII.
34I
f.;
VIII.
489, 497.
Shepherd,
I.
365;
II.
70.
This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Virginia and the Alien and Sedition Laws
5/7
340
Notes
and
Suggestions
storage
of these
guns-twenty
thousand, eliverable
ourthousand
year
for five
years-two
arsenals
were provided
bylegislative
ct
of
January23,
I798,
and the same bill authorized he erection f an
armory
t Richmond.13
An armory
had been suggested
s early
as
February,
1797,
and
a few
months
ater
the governor
ommissioned
John
Clarke
to select
site. He
was also
to buy arms
from
ome
of
the other
states,
which
he
failed
to do, and to
visit other
rmories.
His
report
was
presented
n December, 797,
and
a
month
ater
the
bill
forthe
erection
f
the
armory
was
passed.'4
The charge
that
the
people
of
Virginiawere
taxed
to support
probablewar withtheFederal government as no moresubstantial
foundation
han
the
others.
Taxes
were
raised,
t is perfectly
rue.
The real
dispute
over
the
purchase
of
armsand the erection
f
the
armory
oncerned
he
matter
f
expense,
and
not the purpose
for
which
theywere
to
be used.'5
The
additional
revenues,
irst
pro-
vided
n December,
797,
were to meetthe additional
urdens
f
the
armsand
the
armory;
he
purpose
of the
one
was
the purpose
of
the
other.
It
merely
emains
o show
that
there
ould
have
been
no
possible
connection
etween
he
measures
aken
by
Virginia
n
I798
and
the
Alien and
Sedition
Laws.
In
the
first
lace,
t is quite
clear
that
herewere
good
reasons
for
an efficient,
ell-armed
militia. During
thefirst
alfof
the
nineties
the danger
from
he
Indians was
real,
and the
militiawas
practically
the
only
defense
he
state
had.
After 793
the waters
f
the
Atlantic
swarmedwithFrenchand Englishprivateers,nd thecoastof Vir-
ginia
was exposed
to
attack
n the event
of
war
with
either
nation.
The
fear
of
these
privateers
was apparent;
the fact
thatno
ravaging
vessels
appeared
does
not vitiate
the
force
of
this
argument.
The
thought
was
as
powerful
s
the
fact.
Thus
in
1793
the
governor
s-
sued
instructions
o
the
militia,
utlining
heir
duties
n the event
ny
hostile
vessels
came
into Virginia
waters.16
The
danger
was no
less
real in i798, and the governorwas besiegedwithpetitions orarms.
In July
f
thatyear
Thomas
Nelson
wroterepeating
request
he
had
made
in
I794
for
arms
for his militia ompany:
The exposed
situ-
13 C.S.P.,
VIII.
388, 389,
435
f.
Also, ibid.,
419,
447.
These
guns
were
de-
livered
in
i8oo
and found
faulty.
See ibid.,
X.
87,
IoI;
and
Amer.
Hist. Assoc.,
Annual
Report,
i896,
I.
824-830.
Shepherd,
.
87.
14
See the
letter
of
James
Penn
to
the
governor,
eb.
20,
I797.
C.S.P.,
VIII.
420,
455,
466,
468.
15
The
rate
was iincreased
etween
796
and
1798
from
25
cents
on
land
and
28
on slaves to 48 and
44
respectively.Shepherd, I.
14,
73,
144.
See also The
John
Taylor
Correspondence,
he
John
P.
Branch
Historical
Papers,
II.
280.
16
C.S.P.,
VI.
671
f. See
also
ibid.,
VII.
236 f.
This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Virginia and the Alien and Sedition Laws
6/7
Davidson:
Virginia
Arwanents in
1798
341
ation
of this
part of the
country
o
depredation
nd
injury
from
piratical
marauders n
accountof
its
contiguity
nd
openness
to
the
sea, at that imewas, as itnow is,and mustbe,thecause and apology
for
this
pplication....
1
It
is
interesting
o
note
in
this
connection
ow
a
later
historian
lhas
misrepresented
he
evidence
relating
o
the
necessity
for
arms.
Henry
Adams,
in
commenting
pon
the
political
career of
William
B.
Giles,
refers
o
his
extreme
Republicanism
n
I798.
Illustrating
his
pointby
quotations
from
he
report
f
Giles's
speech
n
favor
of
the
Resolutionsof
1798,
he
makes
the
following
tatement:
8
In
languageperfectlyntelligibleo his friendshe hinted hathis party
'had
no
arms,
but
they
would
find
rms
.
What
Giles is
actually
reported
o
have
said
was
that:
The
critical
ituation
f
the
United
tates,
oo,had been
mentioned:
hat
France
nd
England
oth
hada
view
towards
s;
and
that
herefore
reat
caution
hould
e
used. .
. He
then
xpressed is
disapprobation
f the
measures
dopted
ythe
government
especting
he
army
nd
navy.
He
asked
of
what
characters
would
they
be
composed?
Of
the
idle
and
dissipatedartof thecommunity? n thecontrary, howerethepa-
triots
who
would
protect
heir
ountry?
This
very
party
mentioned
y
the
President
ould
repel
ny
invasion. It
was
true
hey
had
no
arms,
but
hey
would
find
rms.19
It
was
this
threatening
ituation-an
impending
war,
the
danger
from
privateers, nd
the
lack
of
arms-together
with
the
inability
to
purchase
armsin
the
United
States
that
created
the
demand
for
the
armory.
Even
though
he
contract
ad
been let
for a
supply
of
arms, twas notat all certain hatthesewouldbe delivered. Swan
himself
wrote
the
governor
sking
for
an
extensionof
time
on
his
contract,
nd
James
Dawvson,
ommissioned
o
buy
guns
in
America,
reported
ailure.20
In
the
econd
place,
had
there
xisted
n
the
state
real
determina-
tion
to
opposeby
force
he
Federal
administration,
uch
intent
would
surelyhave
been
brought
o
light n
the
debates
over
the
adoption
f
the
Resolutions
f
I798. But
no
definite
ccusations
f
this
nature
weremade.2' It was said,ofcourse, hat headoption ftheResolu-
IJ
Ibid.,
VIII.
S
Ii.
18
History
of
the
United
States,
1.
285.
I
appreciate
the
force
of
the words
in
language
perfectly
ntelligible
o
his
friends
by
which
Mr.
Adams
guiards
himself.
Yet
that
Giles's
friends
nterpreted
he
speech
as
does
Mr.
Adams
is
surely only
a
matter
of
opinion.
19
The
Virginia
Rcport
of
1799-I800
.
. .
The
Debate
and
Proceedings hereon
in
the
House of
Delegates of
Vlirginia
.
. .
(Richmond,
850),
pp.
145
ff.
20
C.S.P.,
VIII.
485.
See
also
ibid.,
386-388,
468.
21
Pleasants stated in x817 that General Lee had chargedJohnTaylor witlh
stuch
ntent.
This
does
not
appear
in
the
recorded
debates,
but
as
the
report
s
not
verbatim,
he
question
can
not be
determined.
This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Virginia and the Alien and Sedition Laws
7/7
342
Notes
and
Suggestions
tions
would
inflame
he
public
mind,
and might ead
to open
re-
sistance.
George
K. Taylor,
the
most ble opponent
f the
program,
felt
that
by
it
the
people
were encouraged
most openly
to
make
resistance ,22
and GeneralLee declaredthattheResolutions truck
him
as
recommending
esistance.
They declared
he aws
null
and
void.
Our
citizens
thus thinking,
would
disobey
the laws.
This
disobedience
would
be patronised
y
the
state,
nd
could
not
be
sub-
mitted
o
by the
United
States.
Insurrection
would
be
the
conse-
quence
.23
These
are
all general
charges
against
the theory
f
the
Resolutions,
nd
of the
danger
of
arousing
public
entiment;
hey
re
not
charges
that preparations
or
war were
being planned.
It
is
perfectly atural hattheFederalists houldhavemadesuchcharges.
What
is
unnatural
s that
hey
hould
have
overlooked
he
tremendous
possibilities
f
an attack
on
the
Republicans
on
the
score
of
the
armory
nd
the
militia,
f
there
had
been
eventhe slightest
oubt
as
to
the
purpose
for
which
they
wereto
be
used.
Attacks
o
general
as
thoseof
the
Federalists
were
easily
met. The
Republicans
united
withJohn
Mercer
n declaring
hat
here
was
nothing
more
behind
he
Resolutions han n appealtopublicopinion: Forcewas notthought
of
by
any
one.
The
preservation
f
the federal Constitution,
he
cement
f
the Union
with
ts original
powers,
was
the object
of
the
resolutions.
4
And
finally,
here ould
have
been
no possible
connection
etween
theacts
under
discussion
nd the
Alien and
Sedition
Laws,
because
the
acts
of
the Virginia
legislature
had
been
under
discussion
for
someyears
before
798,
and were
actually
passed
several
months
e-
fore heAlienand SeditionActs. The AlienActwas firstntroduced
in the Senate
on April
25,
I798,
and
passed
bothHouses
on June
2.
The
Sedition
Act
did not
come up in
the
Senate
until
June
26,
and
was
not
passed
until
July
IO, I798.25
The
reorganization
f
the
militia
was
a
problem
n
I793,
the
purchase
f armswas
taken
up
in
I796,
and plans
for
the armory
were
made
in
I797.
When
the
acts
concerning
he
arms
and
the
armory
were before
he
Virginia
egisla-
ture, n Decemberand January,
i797-1798,
the Alien and Sedition
Acts
were
not
before
eitherHouse
of
Congress,
nd could
not
have
been
foreseen
t
so
early
date.
In view
of
these
facts,
t can
not be
maintainied
hat
he
militia
was
reorganized,
rms
purchased,
n
armory
stablished,
nd taxes
laid,
to
support
war
against
he Federal
government.
Agnes
Scott
College.
PHILIP
G.
DAVIDSON.
22
The Virginia
Report
of
1799-1800,
p.
30.
23
Ibid., p.
Io8.
24
Ibid.',
P.
42.
25
Annals
of
Congress,
5
Cong.,
2
sess.,
pp.
548,
575,
586,
589
f., 599,
6og,
2028, 2093,
2I71.
This content downloaded from 137.28.1.125 on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:16:24 UTCAll bj t t JSTOR T d C diti
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
top related