Discuss The Relationship Between Pro Slavery Advocates And Compact Theory.

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#1
In US antebellum political history Nationalism and Compact Theory were at two ends of line of thought regarding the place of States in the Constitutional Union. Nationalism minimized the sovereignty of States while Compact Theory Maximized States sovereignty.

Nationalism seems to have been favored by commercial interest because a strong federal government facilitated commerce while compact theory seems to have been favored by slave holders because of the threat that a strong federal government might outlaw slavery much like far way London and Paris outlawed French and English slavery in their colonies.

Discuss politely
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

NH Civil War Gal

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Messages
2,998
#2
My extremely short answer is: Money and South Carolina - and that was before I looked up Wikipedia. My original thoughts are based on the book, "Our Man in Charleston" by Christopher Dickey.

There was a lot going on in South Carolina because they were no longer the top port (New Orleans was now), the cotton planting was eating up the soil, hence they were very, very anxious to push westward for new land, and they started proposing that the African trade be reopened. Virginia and Maryland were against that because they both did a big business in breeding and exporting slaves from their two states to deep south cotton states. Originally Virginia and Maryland were against secession until the pot got made sweeter for them.

Deep southern planters were frantic to expand and started to focus on states rights because frankly, if slavery went away, they were bankrupt - pure and simple. It was follow the money in the 1850s and 1860s much as it was during the nullification crises.

Part of a longer answer I got from Wikipedia - and it says it much better than I could, was also very interesting.

The leading nineteenth century commentary on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), likewise rejected the compact theory, concluding that the Constitution was established directly by the people, not by the states, and that it constitutes supreme law, not a mere compact.[6]

In the years before the Civil War, the compact theory was used by southern states to argue that they had a right to nullify federal law and to secede from the union. For example, during the Nullification Crisis of 1828-1832, John C. Calhoun argued in his South Carolina Exposition and Protest that the states, as the parties to a compact, had the right to judge for themselves whether the terms of the compact were being honored. Calhoun described this "right of judging" as "an essential attribute of sovereignty," which the states retained when the Constitution was formed. Calhoun said the states had the right to nullify, or veto, any laws that were inconsistent with the compact.[7]

When the southern states seceded in 1860-61, they relied on the compact theory to justify secession. The southern states argued that the northern states had violated the compact by undermining and attacking the institution of slavery and the slaveholders' property rights in their slaves. The southern states stated that they therefore were justified in withdrawing from the compact among the states.[8]

The United States Supreme Court has rejected the idea that the Constitution is a compact among the states. Rather, the Court has stated that the Constitution was established directly by the people of the United States, not by the states.

In one of the Supreme Court's first significant decisions, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), Chief Justice John Jay stated that the Constitution was established directly by the people. Jay noted the language of the Preamble of the Constitution, which says that the Constitution was ordained and established by "We the people," and stated: "Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound."[9]

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the idea that the Constitution is a compact among the states, stating: "The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.'" The Court contrasted the earlier Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, characterizing the Articles of Confederation as a compact among states, while stating that the Constitution was established not by the states, but by the people.[10]

Likewise, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court stated that the federal Constitution proceeded directly from the people, and was not created by the states. The Court stated that the Constitution was binding on the states and could not be negated by the states. The Court again contrasted the Articles of Confederation, which was established by the states, to the Constitution, which was established by the people.[11]

After the Civil War, in Texas v. White (1869), a case discussing the legal status of the southern states that had attempted to secede, the Supreme Court stated that the union was not merely a compact among states; rather, the union was "something more than a compact."[12]
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#3
"Compact' was(and still is) an imprecise term. Madison, used the word in ref. to The Constitution, I believe. Lincoln also and many politicians then. But, they meant different things to different people.

The South, I believe, favored one definition, while Unionists would defined it differently.

As we all know, I am no scholar, and am not sure how Madison or Lincoln defined the term in comparison with Calhoun or Toombs.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#4
The definition of compact depends on context. Madison, Lincoln and nationalists use it in the same context as contract, Calhoun and Upshur saw it in the same light as a confederation.

Compact Political Theory

Compact theory in the United States
Regarding the Constitution of the United States, the compact theory holds that the country was formed through a compact agreed upon by all the states, and that the federal government is thus a creation of the states.[1] Consequently, states should be the final arbiters over whether the federal government had overstepped the limits of its authority as set forth in the compact.
Compact legal Definition.
Compact
An agreement, treaty, or contract.

The term compact is most often applied to agreements among states or between nations on matters in which they
have a common concern.​

What is COMPACT? definition of COMPACT (Black's Law Dictionary)

An agreement or contract. Usually applied to conventions between nations or sovereign states. A compact is a mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 1. The terms "compact" and "contract" are synonymous. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92, 5 L. Ed 547. COMPANAGE. All kinds of food, except bread and drink. Spelman

 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#5
A good point from another thread.
But, my, et. al. point is that long before 1860, 'the debate' had, for all intents and purposes, already been settled.

Even Calhoun, agreed, that even though the intents of the founders of the Union and framers of the Constitution, had been misinterpreted(or misapplied) it would require a changing of the Constitution to remedy the problem. Which would require the a significant majority of the states of the Union to be as dissatisfied with the operation of the Constitution and its laws and its gov't, to rectify., i.e., the debate was over, long before the CW.
Upshur says the same thing, that the current state of jurisprudence was wrong.
 

civilken

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
3,516
#6
secession and nullification in the simplest terms it would have fractured the United States and turned us into another European country. with each state fighting to get more land. instead of the United States we would have been a amalgamation of states fighting for land and,, power ready for any European country to throw one of our states a bone and support them basically another Europe .tina lot of it is
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#7
A good point from another thread.

Upshur says the same thing, that the current state of jurisprudence was wrong.


As noted by Calhoun, it was too late though. The decision(right or wrong) by the Federal Courts and legislators had, essentially, already been codified, in its laws and their interpretation.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#8
As noted by Calhoun, it was too late though. The decision(right or wrong) by the Federal Courts and legislators had, essentially, already been codified, in its laws and their interpretation.
I agree. The nationalist won, but IMHO more through the incompetence of the States than anything else. That incompetence is a common thread in the loss of State sovereignty from the AOC forward.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#9
I agree. The nationalist won, but IMHO more through the incompetence of the States than anything else. That incompetence is a common thread in the loss of State sovereignty from the AOC forward.


I like to think, that even during the Framing of the Constitution, even the supporters of Slavery, knew(or suspected) they were on the wrong side, in light of the Principles, from which the DoI and the Constitution were discerned and produced. Making it almost impossible for them(though not their heirs) to call a spade and spade.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#10
In US antebellum political history Nationalism and Compact Theory were at two ends of line of thought regarding the place of States in the Constitutional Union. Nationalism minimized the sovereignty of States while Compact Theory Maximized States sovereignty.
Nationalism seems to have been favored by commercial interest because a strong federal government facilitated commerce while compact theory seems to have been favored by slave holders because of the threat that a strong federal government might outlaw slavery much like far way London and Paris outlawed French and English slavery in their colonies.
Discuss politely



As near as I can tell, the difference boils down to the pro-slavery argument is based on the interpretation of the Compact, as some kind of Contract, that if any part of it is violated, it automatically frees all signers of the contract from all its provision,. Whereas Unionists viewed it as a contract binding on all its members to adhered to all its provisions unless released from its provisions by the other members.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,045
Location
Denver, CO
#11
Can contracts be modified by the mutual conduct of the parties?
The terms of payment, quality and type of goods, scope of services, can these subjects be changed by agreements less formal than the original contract?
My opinion is that after Thomas Jefferson formed a full fledged navy, and closed the international slave trade, together with John Marshall insisting on the dominance of the federal judiciary, the compact had been modified to become a nation state with subdivisions.
Slavery and the compact theory were similar in that they fit well with physical conditions of the colonial era.
The 19th century was based on railroads, nation building and paid labor.
After Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall and Andrew Jackson it is difficult to see how they could honestly assert that the United States was not an established nation.
 

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,409
Location
Pennsylvania
#12
The compact or states' right theory isn't linked to any particular issue.

The question is whether authority should reside primarily with the states or with the federal government. It doesn't matter if the issue of the day is social policy, environmental regulations, slavery, land use, tariffs, health insurance, or anything else.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,116
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#13
I agree. The nationalist won, but IMHO more through the incompetence of the States than anything else. That incompetence is a common thread in the loss of State sovereignty from the AOC forward.
Here is something that may be of interest that I stumbled upon while searching for info on Upshur and Compact theory. The battles certainly started early.

JOHN MARSHALL, MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND, AND THE SOUTHERN STATES' RIGHTS TRADITION

R. KENT NEWMYER*
INTRODUCTION

The Chief Justice was returning home to Richmond after completing the 1819 term when he first heard that the Richmond Junto, the nerve center of the reigning Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans of Virginia, was mounting a major assault on his opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.! He expressed his chagrin and his fears to Joseph Story, his colleague and chief ally on the Court: "A deep design to convert our government into a meer [sic] league of States has taken strong hold of a powerful & violent party in Virginia...." Marshall continued:

The attack upon the judiciary is in fact an attack upon the union. The judicial department is well understood to be that through which the government may be attacked most successfully, because it is without patronage, & of course without power, and it is equally well understood that every subtraction from its jurisdiction is a vital wound to the government itself. The attack upon it therefore is a marked battery aimed at the government itself. The whole attack, if not originating with Mr. Jefferson, is obviously approved & guided by him. It is therefore formidable in other states as well as in this; & it behooves the friends of the union to be more on the alert than they have been.2

Marshall's fears were well-founded. The main assault began on March 30, with two essays by Judge William Brockenbrough in the Richmond Enquirer (the mouthpiece of the Richmond Junto). On June 11, the next wave began with four essays by Spencer Roane, leading judge on the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and (adding to his states' rights credentials) the son-in-law of Patrick Henry. The Virginia legislature soon chimed in with a resolution condemning the decision and instructing Virginia's congressional delegation to mount a campaign to curb the Court.
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=law_papers
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#14
Here is something that may be of interest that I stumbled upon while searching for info on Upshur and Compact theory. The battles certainly started early.

JOHN MARSHALL, MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND, AND THE SOUTHERN STATES' RIGHTS TRADITION

R. KENT NEWMYER*
INTRODUCTION

The Chief Justice was returning home to Richmond after completing the 1819 term when he first heard that the Richmond Junto, the nerve center of the reigning Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans of Virginia, was mounting a major assault on his opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.! He expressed his chagrin and his fears to Joseph Story, his colleague and chief ally on the Court: "A deep design to convert our government into a meer [sic] league of States has taken strong hold of a powerful & violent party in Virginia...." Marshall continued:

The attack upon the judiciary is in fact an attack upon the union. The judicial department is well understood to be that through which the government may be attacked most successfully, because it is without patronage, & of course without power, and it is equally well understood that every subtraction from its jurisdiction is a vital wound to the government itself. The attack upon it therefore is a marked battery aimed at the government itself. The whole attack, if not originating with Mr. Jefferson, is obviously approved & guided by him. It is therefore formidable in other states as well as in this; & it behooves the friends of the union to be more on the alert than they have been.2

Marshall's fears were well-founded. The main assault began on March 30, with two essays by Judge William Brockenbrough in the Richmond Enquirer (the mouthpiece of the Richmond Junto). On June 11, the next wave began with four essays by Spencer Roane, leading judge on the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and (adding to his states' rights credentials) the son-in-law of Patrick Henry. The Virginia legislature soon chimed in with a resolution condemning the decision and instructing Virginia's congressional delegation to mount a campaign to curb the Court.
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=law_papers
P878
(at least until the appearance of Bruce Ackerman's revisionist scholarship).1​

11. Ackerman challenges the traditional Court-centered narrative of
American constitutional history. See generally BRUCE A. ACKERMAN, WE THE
PEOPLE (1991)
Part of an intramural scrimmage of Constitutional scholars. Also just in case someone thinks that accusing someone of being a historical revisionist is limited to the Civil War. Ackerman and Akhil Amar are the main protagonists.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,116
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#15
P878
(at least until the appearance of Bruce Ackerman's revisionist scholarship).1​

11. Ackerman challenges the traditional Court-centered narrative of
American constitutional history. See generally BRUCE A. ACKERMAN, WE THE
PEOPLE (1991)
Part of an intramural scrimmage of Constitutional scholars. Also just in case someone thinks that accusing someone of being a historical revisionist is limited to the Civil War. Ackerman and Akhil Amar are the main protagonists.
History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it sure does rhyme. :smile:
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,921
Location
South Carolina
#16
It's interesting to me how the New England secessionists of the early 1800s sound just like the Southern secessionists of 1861.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2...WAhUDSiYKHQmHBlcQ6AEIQDAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

Orleans (what we know today as the State of Louisiana) was the first territorial authorization that was entirely on land that had never been part of the colonial-era United States - as had been Vermont, and Kentucky, and Tennessee, and Ohio (Ohio being part of the Northwest Territory, which had been a colonial possession). It was the first territorial authorization for a people that were predominantly not Anglo - the people were predominantly French. And on January 14, 1811, Massachusetts congressman Josiah Quincy stood up on the floor of the House and announced that it was unconstitutional, it was outside the power of the federal House and Senate and President, to authorize the creation of any state outside the lands of the original colonies. Representative Quincy said that if the House and Senate did it anyway, it would change the status and power of the original states in a fundamental way. Representative Quincy also said that because this change would diminish the stature of the states so greatly that the people of the states would find it so unacceptable that they would withdraw from the federal government.

We find Rep. Quincy's words at pages 327 to 334 of the January 1811 abridgement of the Debates of Congress, on google books in the 1858 reprint compilation, volume IV, published by Appleton:

The friends of this bill [to enable the people of Orleans Territory to form a state government) seem to consider it as the exercise of a common power; as an ordinary affair; a mere municipal regulation which they expect to see pass without other questions than those concerning details. But, sir, the principle of this bill materially affects the liberties and rights of the whole people of the United States. To me, it appears that it would justify a revolution in this country; and that, in no great length of time, may produce it. ...

(I)f this bill passes, the bonds of Union are virtually dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that, as it will be the 1ight of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely for a separation - amicably if they can, violently if they must ...

It is to preserve, to guard the constitution of my country, that I denounce this attempt ...

The bill, which is now proposed to be passed, has assumed this principle for its basis - that the three branches of this National Government, without recurrence to the conventions of the people in the States, or to the legislatures of the States, are authorized to admit new partners to a share of the political power, in countries out of the original limits of the United States. Now, this assumed principle I maintain to be altogether without any sanction in the constitution. I declare it to be a manifest and atrocious usurpation of power; of a nature, dissolving, according to undeniable principles of moral law, the obligations of our national compact ....

[T)he introduction of a new associate in political power implies, necessarily, a new division of power, and consequent diminution of the relative proportion of the former proprietors of it ...

Sir, the question concerns the proportion of power, reserved by this constitution, to every State in the Union. Have the three branches of this Government a right, at will, to weaken and outweigh the influence, respectively secured to each State, in this compact, by introducing, at pleasure, new partners, situate beyond the old limits of the United States? The question has not relation merely to New Orleans.
It's all there: state's rights, the power of the states versus the power of the federal government, an action breaking the compact and dissolving the Union justifying a withdrawal from the Federal government, peaceful or violent separation.... it's fascinating reading, and something I plan to look into further.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#17
It's interesting to me how the New England secessionists of the early 1800s sound just like the Southern secessionists of 1861.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2...WAhUDSiYKHQmHBlcQ6AEIQDAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

Orleans (what we know today as the State of Louisiana) was the first territorial authorization that was entirely on land that had never been part of the colonial-era United States - as had been Vermont, and Kentucky, and Tennessee, and Ohio (Ohio being part of the Northwest Territory, which had been a colonial possession). It was the first territorial authorization for a people that were predominantly not Anglo - the people were predominantly French. And on January 14, 1811, Massachusetts congressman Josiah Quincy stood up on the floor of the House and announced that it was unconstitutional, it was outside the power of the federal House and Senate and President, to authorize the creation of any state outside the lands of the original colonies. Representative Quincy said that if the House and Senate did it anyway, it would change the status and power of the original states in a fundamental way. Representative Quincy also said that because this change would diminish the stature of the states so greatly that the people of the states would find it so unacceptable that they would withdraw from the federal government.

We find Rep. Quincy's words at pages 327 to 334 of the January 1811 abridgement of the Debates of Congress, on google books in the 1858 reprint compilation, volume IV, published by Appleton:

The friends of this bill [to enable the people of Orleans Territory to form a state government) seem to consider it as the exercise of a common power; as an ordinary affair; a mere municipal regulation which they expect to see pass without other questions than those concerning details. But, sir, the principle of this bill materially affects the liberties and rights of the whole people of the United States. To me, it appears that it would justify a revolution in this country; and that, in no great length of time, may produce it. ...

(I)f this bill passes, the bonds of Union are virtually dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that, as it will be the 1ight of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely for a separation - amicably if they can, violently if they must ...

It is to preserve, to guard the constitution of my country, that I denounce this attempt ...

The bill, which is now proposed to be passed, has assumed this principle for its basis - that the three branches of this National Government, without recurrence to the conventions of the people in the States, or to the legislatures of the States, are authorized to admit new partners to a share of the political power, in countries out of the original limits of the United States. Now, this assumed principle I maintain to be altogether without any sanction in the constitution. I declare it to be a manifest and atrocious usurpation of power; of a nature, dissolving, according to undeniable principles of moral law, the obligations of our national compact ....

[T)he introduction of a new associate in political power implies, necessarily, a new division of power, and consequent diminution of the relative proportion of the former proprietors of it ...

Sir, the question concerns the proportion of power, reserved by this constitution, to every State in the Union. Have the three branches of this Government a right, at will, to weaken and outweigh the influence, respectively secured to each State, in this compact, by introducing, at pleasure, new partners, situate beyond the old limits of the United States? The question has not relation merely to New Orleans.
It's all there: state's rights, the power of the states versus the power of the federal government, an action breaking the compact and dissolving the Union justifying a withdrawal from the Federal government, peaceful or violent separation.... it's fascinating reading, and something I plan to look into further.
Good point but as been pointed out several times by @cash, the New England secessionists were just talk without a coherent ideology at the level of Abel P. Upshur and John C. Calhoun. Good luck in your searching. I'd recommend States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 as a good read on those lines. The Wisconsin Ableman v Booth nullification attempt is a far better example of Yankee States Rights IMHO than digging around in the debris of the Hartford Convention. Notice that it was a Southern dominated court that brought the curtain down on it just like a Southern President brought the SC nullification to a close.
 
Last edited:

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,116
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#18
We find Rep. Quincy's words at pages 327 to 334 of the January 1811 abridgement of the Debates of Congress, on google books in the 1858 reprint compilation, volume IV, published by Appleton:
Rep. Quincy seems to have been an interesting fellow with an apparent dislike for Jefferson as well as the Louisiana Purchase:

Quincy had an interesting background; he had single-handedly attempted to impeach President Jefferson but lost that bid by a vote of 117-1. One has to wonder who seconded his original motion. Nevertheless, this firebrand took to the floor in strong opposition to Louisiana’s entrance into the Union: “I address you, Mr. Speaker, with an anxiety and distress of mind with me wholly unprecedented. To me it appears that this measure would justify a revolution in this country. I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved.” He further stated: “The constitution is a political compact from which the original parties would be released if the assumed principle of this bill became law.”
A clear headed and rational Mississippian stood up and called out Quincy's bombast for what it was.

This threat to the Union angered Rep. Poindexter of Mississippi. He accused Quincy of treason for even suggesting secession from the Union. The Chair sustained Poindexter, but then the House voted 56-53 for Quincy.
In the end support for Quincy waned as seen in the final vote. Quincy's secession threat was an isolated one overall.

On March 20, 1812, the House passed the bill by a vote of 79 “aye” to 23 “nay,” and on April 1, 1812, the Senate passed the same bill without further amendments, being satisfied that the issue of white- only voting had been established. The conference committee composed of members of both houses passed an identical bill on April 6, 1812, and soon after, President Madison signed the bill into law. Louisiana had become the 18th state to join the American Union.

Thus we have the long and tortured process whereby Louisiana became the 18th state to join the Union. Many arguments arose in opposition. Some related directly to the history, culture, laws and racial characteristics of the Territory of Orleans. Others focused on the questionable boundaries of this newly proposed state.

But a significant portion of the opposition grew out of deep constitutional concerns over just how large the United States could become. Did the Constitution allow the acquisition of lands beyond those established by the Treaty of Paris of 1783? Could states be carved out of the lands gained by the Louisiana Purchase? Was there a limit to the number of states that could be admitted to the Union? What impact would a growing nation have on the power of the founding states?

http://www.myneworleans.com/Louisiana-Life/March-April-2012/How-Louisiana-Became-A-State/



 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,921
Location
South Carolina
#19
Good point but as been pointed out several times by @cash, the New England secessionists were just talk without a coherent ideology at the level of Abel P. Upshur and John C. Calhoun. Good luck in your searching. I'd recommend States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 as a good read on those lines. The Wisconsin Ableman v Booth nullification attempt is a far better example of Yankee States Rights IMHO than digging around in the debris of the Hartford Convention. Notice that it was a Southern dominated court that brought the curtain down on it just like a Southern President brought the SC nullification to a close.
And to be fair, all you're going to find apart from the South is raw ideology, because no one else ever actually tried it. But there are parallels that I find very interesting, suggesting that the South inherited a lot of the reasoning they employed in secession. I'm interested in digging further, and I appreciate the reading recommendation.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,901
Location
Chicagoland
#20
I'd like to post a slight diversion here on the wisdom of our founders and their followers who I'll label as Federalists for ending (if it ever really existed) state sovereignty. Throughout our history the several states have demonstrated continuous, unending ineptitude. In the system of government we've inherited, responsibilities for issues that affect all the states or a significant number of states, are left to the Federal government. The primary responsibilities of the states can be defined as internal public safety (police and fire), public education and public works. Without delving into modern politics, in general, what do we think of the job the states have done? What is the current state of our policing, our infrastructure and our public schools?
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top