States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 (American Political Thought)

Rating:
Summary: States' Rights...then and today
Review: Among their many failings, U.S. history textbooks have often portrayed national sovereignty as a largely settled question following the revolutionary war, which was resurrected years later by southern states who wanted to hold slaves. What University of Alabama Professor Forrest McDonald shows in "States' Rights and the Union", is that states' rights infused the national debate of most issues in the first 100 years of the republic.

One of those issues on which McDonald provides a particularly interesting read is the issue of "internal improvements" (modern-day supporters call them "earmarks"; detractors "pork-barrel projects"). What has become commonplace today was once looked at as an unconstitutional extension of federal power. As part of the ongoing debate, McDonald chronicles the 1825 passage of a resolution by the South Carolina legislature which condemned "the taxing of the citizens in one state 'to make roads and canals for the citizens of another state.' Virginia adopted a similar resolution early in 1827, as did Georgia late in the year." Where would today's politicians be if they couldn't deliver for their constituents road and canals? (and bridges and buildings and museums and subsidies).

The book is filled with Supreme Court cases, which serves to reinforce McDonald's contention of the Court's centrality in the states' rights debate. Although today the Supreme Court is looked at with an almost sacred awe, it wasn't always that way. Indeed, McDonald notes in the epilogue that it was with the dismissal of 20th century southern segregationist laws that "the Supreme Court gained an enormous fund of moral capital in the rest of the country" which it used to consolidate its power. But due to the constant shuffle of Supreme Court Justices, the Court has been a sometime friend and othertime foe of states' rights.

The jackets says the book was "written in an accessible style", but demands some familiarity with U.S. History (which should disqualify about 75 percent of the American public). However, what McDonald has done is to write a consistent narrative of one of the most important and unique features of American democracy. Although the narrative ends in 1876, it is instructive background for many current debates in U.S. politics and the epilogue sets the stage for a much-needed sequel. In light of the extensive research McDonald put into the first 100 years of the states' rights debate, it would be fascinating to see him focus that same energy on the last 125, and especially the Rhenquist court.

Rating:
Summary: A stimulating Read
Review: Forrest MacDonald never fails to give us a stimulating read and this book is no exception. In this book Professor Macdonald analyizes the concepts of union and states rights as they were understood by Americans from the formation of the constitution to the civil war and reconstruction periods.MacDonald takes us on a fascinating journey through the political thought of everyone from Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison to Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens, It is a trip well worth taking. The author

shows us why Lincoln's compact theory of the union,that the states were the creation of the union, simply will not survive an examination of our constitutional history. MacDonald points out that Jefferson and Madison responded to an egregious exspansion of federal power in the form of the odious alien and sedition acts by drafting the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions which asserted that states had the right to refuse to obey federal legislation they considered to be unconstitutional.

Taken from this perspective secession does not seem all that radical a response. I don''t agree with everything that MacDonald says in this book but I think everyone will find reading it a challenging intellectual feast.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful book about the states' rights debate
Review: Forrest McDonald has an encyclopedic knowledge of the United State's founding and early history, and excellent writing skills. These combine to make this book an amazing read. this book is an in depth, objective, study about how states' rights was an integral part of our founding, that the U.S. is a country made up of sovereign states, not of individual citizens, and how Lincoln, Jefferson, and many other presidents approached states' rights.

Rating:
Summary: McDonald's State V. Federal Government
Review: Forrest McDonald's study examines the conflicts that exist in America between a strong central government and the power of each state. Such a study has relevance for both students and teachers of United States History and American Government. McDonald starts by showing how the Constitution divided sovereignty between the states and the federal government. Given this division of power, the states and the federal government have disagreed repeatedly over whose sovereignty takes control in handling such issues as Native Americans, slavery, impeachment of federal judges, responsibility for improvements in infrastructure, banking, commerce, taxing, and many other political and foreign policy issues.

The conflicts over federalism and states' rights have appeared a number of times in American History. For example, the appointment of judges by the Federalist John Adams in the final weeks of his presidential administration aroused the opposition of anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson, which led to famous Supreme Court case, MARBURY V. MADISON (the court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional). The political disagreements between federalists and the supporters of states' rights led to other conflicts such as the attempted impeachment of Justice Chase and secessionist talk by New Englanders fearing the rule of the "slaveocracy." Other examples included the Supreme Court cases of McCULLOCH v. MARYLAND (confirmation of "implied powers" of congress), GIBBONS V. OGDEN (freed internal transportation from state restraints), the removal of the Cherokees from Georgia, SOUTH CAROLINA EXPOSITION AND PROTEST (a publication supporting nullification of federal laws by Southern states), and finally Jackson's refusal to recharter the Bank of the United States. Eventually, conflicts between state and federal governments led the South to believe that it had the right to secede from the Union. Even after a Civil War, the conflicts between states and federal government did not stop. During Reconstruction, the country continued to fight over federal and state issues when the government passed the Thirteen, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Enforcement Act of 1870, and the denial of voting rights for women in the 1870s.

The author shows that this problem, state government versus federal government, continues up to the present period. From the Civil War/Reconstruction era to the present, these conflicts have appeared in PLESSY V. FERGUSON(1896) (separate but equal facilities for African-Americans), the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, LOCHNER V. NEW YORK (1906) (a case which stopped a state from reducing working hours of laborers), FDR's New Deal Programs, BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION(1954) (the reversal of PLESSY V. FERGUSON), Johnson's Great Society and its expansion of Federal power, the swing to a States' Right view of government by Reagan followers, and the Supreme Court decisions of the late 1990s, which stressed limitations on the ability of individuals or the federal government to sue states.

This is an excellent book for students of American History and American Government. It does not take sides in the controversy, but provides information about the depth of the state government versus federal government fight, and how so many of the main political and foreign policy issues of each decade reflected the conflict. After reading this book, the causes and clashes between state and federal governments make more sense.

Rating:
Summary: States Rights and the Union
Review: States Rights and the Union illustrates the struggle between federal and national government from the foundation through reconstruction. Forrest McDonald details several decades of American history depicting various issues regarding states rights and how the different administrations, congresses, and Supreme Courts dealt with them. The book begins slow, but builds momentum as McDonald explains his theory.

McDonald's book is detailed and thorough but his approach seems to favor the federal government and limiting the power of states. When states do fulfill their destiny it is in the form of secession to the detriment of all. McDonald is also critical of Jeffersonian Republican politicians, specifically Jefferson, Madison, J.Q. Adams and Jackson. Jefferson is particularly the object of McDonald. He refers to him as "timid" and "obsessed" and his ideologies were "treasonable." (pp. 49-64). Similarly, Madison's "blunders" led to war (p. 67), while Adams committed a faux pas regarding public works (p. 93), and Jackson did not understand his own position on issues (p. 96).

The early portion of the books sees McDonald meander from one issue to the next with no apparent vision, but he makes up for it in subsequent chapters involving Union dissolution and Civil War. If the reader can bear with the author until this point, the book is mildly rewarding.

Rating:
Summary: States' Rights & the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876
Review: States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876 written by Forrest McDonald is a very illuminating work on the vexing theme of States' Rights vs Union, a theme in American history and politics that has and will continue to elicite debate.

Forrest McDonald works both sides of the debate in this book and you'll find yourself straddling the fence here, wary of federal power or states' rights, as the Constitution gave the central government expansive powers, but it also legitimated the doctrine of states' rights, resulting in dual-sovereignty or as McDonald says, Imperium in Imperio, (sovereignty within sovereignty, supreme power within supreme power), or the division of power within a single jurisdiction. This inherent tension and uncertainty was, I think, intentionally written into the constitution to keep both sides honest. This debate seems to always keep the pot hot, only occasionally boiling over into contention.

McDonald has a pleasenly elegant narrative that is easily readable giving an insightful look at the delicate balance of dual-sovereignty. Taking us from the Federalist Era through the Jeffersonians to finally the Civil War and Reconstruction all the while giving the reader insight to the various positions each serving a purpose as authority between general and local seemed to sway in one direction or another, only to be upset anew and to move back toward the opposite position, but the contention never went away. The division of sovereignty was generally regarded as impossible, but only in America where political thinking underwent a fundamental transformation, bringing unparalleled and unprecedented constitution-making, and only until Americans devised a way of doing it, did it happen.

The Constitution did give the general government broad powers within a limited sphere and thereby institutionalized a system of divided sovereignty. Reading and understanding this book you'll find that you'll side and reside yourself as the debate goes on, from the states' righters as John Taylor and John Randolph argue the definition of tyranny is the concentration of power in some remote center, but the opposite side John Quincy Adams and Nicholas Biddle ardently argue for vigorous action at the center was vital if the nation was to fulfill its promise and its destiny among the family of nations.

This is a well balanced work of enlightenment for each position making point and counter-point and is well documented. This is a worthy read for those wanting to broaden their knowledge of why things are as they are in the United States... according to their Constitution, a form of government that empowers its people above all.

Rating:
Summary: Best read after bios of Washington through JQA
Review: The other reviews have fairly well covered the ground, save for the notion that the more background you bring to this book, the more sense it makes. I had just finished bios of Washington and JQA when I undertook this, thank heavens. The "meandering" criticism is, I think, misplaced. The author is simply trying to ball up the strings of attitudes, attitudes which shifted as quickly as regional economic interests.

The reviewer who asserts the book is a lightening rod for one's own opinions has a point. The past few generations have grown up with the notion that the federal government is "She who must be obeyed" (with apologies to Rumpole). But it ain't necessarily so, were it not for the fact that the feds have the guns and tanks and, as Nixon and Bush 43 have demonstrated, the willingness to use them on our own people. (Don't get edgy about Bush43 -- absolutely not in the same league with Kent State. B43 has merely run roughshod over the civil rights of all Americans in the name of protecting me from terrorism).

It had been unimaginable to me that the states would ever consider they need not obey federal law. Nor did my American History classes cause me to realize that various state factions have seriously courted secession many times. Once again, "A little learning is a dangerous thing," A. Pope. Are we about to swing back towards greater states' rights? I don't know. Certainly the current administration prefers an Imperial Presidency, but the SCt may, indeed, move towards a more balanced situation.

As the reviewers have implied, McDonald leaves one with the notion that the founding fathers had no consensus about how much power belonged where. I do not subscribe to the view that constitutional tensions were left present because our forebearers were prescient. Rather, their generation, like ours, had a wide diversity of viewpoints. As has happened many times with many laws, ambiguity has allowed for agreement, after which legislators could move on to something else.

There are no simple solutions, nor have there ever been. Politicians, from revolutionary to the current batch, pushing simplistic solutions have, when successful, succeeded in driving a wedge between regions. After reading this book, I am astonished that the US has not torn itself asunder. Little wonder the 18th century Brits did not expect the US to survive as a nation.

Rating:
Summary: Useful, educational history with minor flaws
Review: This book would be of interest if only for the fact that it serves as a lightening rod for the reader's preconceptions on the issues surrounding States' Rights. Read the reviews below and note that some of the reviewers tend to regard McDonald as an advocate for the States and some read him as an advocate for the Feds.
Readers will tend to find in this book evidence to support their own views. That should suggest that McDonald has succeeded in giving us a fairly objective history of the issue. I feel he has. Sort of.
The first part of the book does seem to meander. That is the nature of the beast. I have never read any comprehensive history of constitutional history that does not meander. Many different issues were argued during the first sixty years or so of our constitutional history using States Rights on one side or the other. I think you would be very hard pressed to name one major national figure in that time frame who did not argue both sides of the debate at different times in their lives or in regards to different issues. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Webster, Clay and Calhoun all are associated with one side or another on the issue yet all at some point in their careers argued the other side.
Individual states showed their flexibility on these issues as well. In the chapter on the period immediately preceding the Civil War, 'Dissolving the Union', McDonald notes that the North began to preach nullification while Southerners began to praise the Court.
The latter part of the book probably seems more focused because the issues were more focused and the positions of the players more dogmatic.
I suspect that most of us still find ourselves on both sides of the debate depending on which issue we are discussing. As an Oregonian, I have been annoyed recently by the Federal government trying to contravene the wishes of the people of my State in regards to the Death with Dignity Act. On many other issues, I have supported that same Federal government when it interfered with the laws of individual States, e.g., in the case of laws nationalizing voting rights. Now, before, y'all jump all over me for inconsistency, ask yourself in you are not in the same boat. And while you are at it, ask yourself if most political issues do not involve making a decision on more than one constitutional issue. And whether how much of a role that States' Rights play in our reaction to an issue depends on our feelings about the other constitutional issues involved.
Consider that the political and economic issues debated in this country have always had that type of complexity and I believe it will be clear why McDonald's history is not a nice flowing narrative.
While I think McDonald's history is useful, I find myself questioning some of his judgments. I think he has a tendency to make statements that are not supported by evidence. On p. 120 McDonald claims, 'Jackson brought such disrepute to his office that that vital function of the presidency could scarcely be performed again for the remainder of the century'. This strikes me as a wee bit of an overstatement.
I also find his handling of certain events to be questionable, e.g., the notorious caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. McDonald seems to feel that Sumner was malingering. Maybe. Maybe I would feel like malingering too if struck repeatedly on the head with a gutta-percha cane. In any case, I remain a little skeptical about McDonald as pure historian. But don't take my word for it. I am just some schmuck who reads a lot. Read one of his books and decide for yourself.
If the issue of the relative power of the States vis-a-vis the Federal government is of interest to you then this is a useful book. If you have a strong opinion you will find additional support for either side within these pages. If your opinion on these issues is unclear, this book should be of use in sorting out some of your ideas simply by the way you find yourself reacting to the various arguments.
One final note- in evaluating what happened to the South after the Civil War, it is important to also keep in mind the monumental and systematic terrorism that was unleashed on black people during this time. The reaction of Southerners to Reconstruction is probably the strongest argument for federal intervention in the political lives of the states. The protection of minorities from the majority was one of the main reasons Madison and others pushed for the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Which minority is the focus of that protection at whatever historical moment is one of the story lines of our constitutional history. It is altogether too easy to forget this when reading a book like this one. I cannot recommend highly enough Eric Foner's great book on Reconstruction as a general background to reading about the era.

Rating:
Summary: Did States Rights' die with Antebellum America?
Review: ~States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876~ is perhaps one of the best new contributions to the study of American constitutional history in recent years. Most history books portray the nature of sovereignty within the American body politic as being well-settled after 1787. In their mind, it was settled that the U.S. was to have a strong central government. This is reductionism at its best and history at its worst. The essence of a true federal regime has always been a diffusion of powers and a dual sovereignty, not a centralized unitary polity like France or the United Kingdom. The framers of the Constitution deliberatedly contemplated a general government with expressly enumerated powers. The contest over States Rights and the Union was almost inevitable, as the American polity was framed with an ingrained contradiction of dual sovereignty that was anathema to European conceptions of sovereignty. McDonald's book is fittingly subtitled Imperium in Imperio, which literally delineates supreme sovereignty within supreme sovereignty. Likewise, the Calvinist notion of man's innate depravity was more readily acceptable to framers who were weary and mistrustful of concentrated power. It was the springboard for fortifying Anglo-American traditions of bicameral legislatures, common law protections for the individual and adding more checks and balances. The framers rejected whimsical views about man's good nature espoused by Rousseau. "Free government is founded in jealousy," avowed Thomas Jefferson, "and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power..." Much to the chagrin of modern liberals, the crux of the American polity was the nature of its dual sovereignty coupled with its corporate liberty (i.e. institutions jealously guarding their prerogatives,) not its popular representation.

Forrest McDonald chronicles the political and constitutional history of the American polity in its first century from the time of the Constitutional Convention where the states in convention assented to the formation of the Union. All of the pivotal debates about the nature of the Union are addressed. McDonald pays special attention to contests that reached a groundswell during the administrations of Jefferson and Monroe over federal appropriations for internal improvements. The ensuing Congressional fights over the Bank of the United States, internal improvements, and tariffs would deepen the vexing question over the nature of sovereignty. James Madison brilliantly asserted that the Constitution gives the general government explicit "enumerated objects" of power, and Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to finance "post roads," though no mention is made for subsidies to railroads or building canals. The original secessionist movement was lead by New England Federalists ironically, and McDonald chronicles the saga of the Hartford Convention. The High Federalists opposed the Louisiana Purchase, because it expanded the states and they argued that while the territory could be expanded that no new states should be added. Jefferson had serious reservations about the legality of the purchase in the absence of Constitutional Amendment, but found the deal too good to pass up. The controversies leading up to the War Between the States and southern secession are discussed. Moreover, the actions of the Supreme Court in shaping the debate over States' Rights and the Union are the subject of constant discussion for McDonald. Ultimately, the Clay-Webster-Lincoln conception of the Union would work to steadily supplant the conservative Madison-Calhoun-Hayne conception of the Union. The dictatorial Lincoln regime and Reconstruction regime could only serve to set the precedent for the New Deal exploits of FDR.

States' Rights is considered an archaic concept now and is often demeaned as a mere buzzword for segregationists. Nonetheless states' rights remains a monumental pillar of the American Republic that needs to be rediscovered and not forgotten. Madison's point is simple, the national government has expressed powers and limitations, and if there are no limitations on what that government may do than the Tenth Amendment is turned on its nose and a relic of the horse and buggy era. Modern neoconservatives seem only to argue for a renewed commitment to federalism by shifting power back to the states on utilitarian grounds of efficiency rather than on constitutional grounds. (Utilitarian logic can just as easily defend centralization and efficiency never was the crux of federalism.) If you like McDonald, I think books such as _Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom_ and _The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War_ are also worth considering. McDonald is more of a constitutional storyteller who withholds judgment; those books previously, however, tell it like it is.