Well, the article was written by a librarian (no offense to librarians here), but I think the facts cited are sound.
Thank you, we won’t take it personal.
To quote ‘1776’ the musical, Adams was ‘obnoxious and disliked’. He was no demi-god, but, who is.
He also was a man of honor, and loved his wife deeply.
One of those people who I would like to meet.
I'm not disputing the facts: I'm disputing their tendentious interpretation.
The author as much as says that people were prosecuted simply for being Democrat-Republicans - seeing as how 60% of the electorate were D-Rs and there were only 10 individuals put on trial there were clearly other factors at play besides mere party affiliation.
Again, the law was a bad law because it attempted to apply the laws of libel for the benefit of public institutions on the same basis as for private individuals. But it was not a law against criticism of the government.
It was the difference between printing: "The Attorney General of the United States is incompetent in the discharge of his office" and printing: "The Attorney General of the United States is a spy in the pay of the British."