States' Rights
State v. Federal Rights: Tracing the Road to Secession
States' Rights is seen as one of the major causes of The Civil War. Even though the breaking point of the States' Rights argument was the issue of slavery, the states' rights issue has been debated since the beginning of America's Independence, as debated between Hamilton and Jefferson. Even today, there are certain issues that states argue should not be the same for the entire country. Throughout American history, there have been two quite different views of how federalism should operate. One view- the states’ rights position- favors state and local action in dealing with problems. A second view- the nationalist position- favors national action in dealing with these matters.
The States’ Rights Position
The states’ rights view holds that the Constitution is a compact among the states. States’ rightists argue that the states created the national government and gave it only certain limited powers. Any doubt about whether a power belongs to the national government or is reserved to the states should be settled in favor of the states. Because the national government is an agent of the states, all of its powers should be narrowly defined. States rights supporters believe state governments are closer to the people and better reflect their wishes than the national government. They tend to see the government in DC as heavy-handed and a treat to individual liberty.
The Nationalist/Federalist Position
The nationalist position reject the idea of the Constitution as merely a compact among the states. Nationalists deny that the national government is an agent of the states. They argue that it was the people, not the states, who created both the national government and the states. Therefore, the national government is not subordinate to the sates. Nationalist believe the powers expressly delegated to the national government should be expanded as necessary to carry out the people’s will. They hold that the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution means that Congress has the right to adopt any means that are convenient and useful to carry out its delegated powers. They also claim that the reserved powers of the states should not limit how the national government can use its own powers. Nationalist believe that national government stands for al the people, while each state speaks for only part of the people. They look to the national government to take the lead in solving major social and economic problems facing the nation. (Remy, 106-107)
The first time that the issue of States' rights was brought up was when the Articles of Confederation (the first/failed government document of the U.S.),and the Constitution was written. the constitution tried to resolve the original debate over states’ rights versus federal authority. – At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, delegates wanted to crate a federal government that was stronger than the one created by the Articles of Confederation. But delegates disagreed about whether the federal government should have more power than the states. They also disagreed about whether large states should have more power than small states in the national legislature. The convention compromised- the constitution reserves certain powers for the states, delegates other powers to the federal government, divides some powers between state and federal governments, and tries to balance the differing needs of the states through two houses of Congress. (Danzer et al, 322)
Another issue which showed that the Southern states were demanding states rights, and already thinking about Secession in the 1839's was when the state of South Carolina moved to nullify, or declare void, a tariff set by Congress. When Congress passed high tariffs on imports in 1832, politicians from South Carolina, led by Calhoun tried to nullify the tariff law. Jackson threatened to enforce the law with federal troops. Congress reduced the tariff to avoid a confrontation, and Calhoun resigned the vice presidency. (Garcia et al, 381-382)
Sectionalism, our loyalty to ones’ own region, of the United States, became more intense as difference arose over national policies. The conflict over slavery for example, had always simmered beneath the surface. Most white Southerners believed in the necessity and value of slavery. Southerners stressed the importance of states’ rights. Sates’ rights are provided in the Constitution. Southerners believed they had to defend these rights against the federal government infringing on them. (Appleby et al, 323)
Perhaps, the greatest example of States' Rights is the conflict over a states’ right to secede, or withdraw from the Union, which ultimately led to Civil War. South Carolina seceded just weeks after the election of Abraham Lincoln, whom the South perceived as anti-states’ rights and anti-slavery. Lincoln took the position that states did not have the right to secede from the Union. In 1861, he ordered that provisions be sent to the federal troops stationed at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. The Unions’ victory in the Civil War ended the most serious challenge to federal authority: States did not have the right to leave the Union. (Danzer et al, 323)
“For many Southern planters, the cry of “States’ rights” meant the complete independence of Southern states from federal government control. Most white Southerners also feared than an end to their entire way of life was at hand. Many were desperate for one last chance to preserve the slave labor system and saw secession as the only way. Mississippi followed South Carolina's lead and seceded on January 9, 1861. Florida seceded the next day. Within a few weeks, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had also seceded. (Danzer et al, 330)
Southerners justified secession with the theory of states’ rights. The states, they argued, had voluntarily chosen to enter the Union. They defined the Constitution as a contract among the independent states. Now because the national government had violated that contract- by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and by denying the Southern Sates equal rights in the territories--- the states were justified in leaving the Union. (Appleby et al, 450-451)
The States’ Rights Position
The states’ rights view holds that the Constitution is a compact among the states. States’ rightists argue that the states created the national government and gave it only certain limited powers. Any doubt about whether a power belongs to the national government or is reserved to the states should be settled in favor of the states. Because the national government is an agent of the states, all of its powers should be narrowly defined. States rights supporters believe state governments are closer to the people and better reflect their wishes than the national government. They tend to see the government in DC as heavy-handed and a treat to individual liberty.
The Nationalist/Federalist Position
The nationalist position reject the idea of the Constitution as merely a compact among the states. Nationalists deny that the national government is an agent of the states. They argue that it was the people, not the states, who created both the national government and the states. Therefore, the national government is not subordinate to the sates. Nationalist believe the powers expressly delegated to the national government should be expanded as necessary to carry out the people’s will. They hold that the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution means that Congress has the right to adopt any means that are convenient and useful to carry out its delegated powers. They also claim that the reserved powers of the states should not limit how the national government can use its own powers. Nationalist believe that national government stands for al the people, while each state speaks for only part of the people. They look to the national government to take the lead in solving major social and economic problems facing the nation. (Remy, 106-107)
The first time that the issue of States' rights was brought up was when the Articles of Confederation (the first/failed government document of the U.S.),and the Constitution was written. the constitution tried to resolve the original debate over states’ rights versus federal authority. – At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, delegates wanted to crate a federal government that was stronger than the one created by the Articles of Confederation. But delegates disagreed about whether the federal government should have more power than the states. They also disagreed about whether large states should have more power than small states in the national legislature. The convention compromised- the constitution reserves certain powers for the states, delegates other powers to the federal government, divides some powers between state and federal governments, and tries to balance the differing needs of the states through two houses of Congress. (Danzer et al, 322)
Another issue which showed that the Southern states were demanding states rights, and already thinking about Secession in the 1839's was when the state of South Carolina moved to nullify, or declare void, a tariff set by Congress. When Congress passed high tariffs on imports in 1832, politicians from South Carolina, led by Calhoun tried to nullify the tariff law. Jackson threatened to enforce the law with federal troops. Congress reduced the tariff to avoid a confrontation, and Calhoun resigned the vice presidency. (Garcia et al, 381-382)
Sectionalism, our loyalty to ones’ own region, of the United States, became more intense as difference arose over national policies. The conflict over slavery for example, had always simmered beneath the surface. Most white Southerners believed in the necessity and value of slavery. Southerners stressed the importance of states’ rights. Sates’ rights are provided in the Constitution. Southerners believed they had to defend these rights against the federal government infringing on them. (Appleby et al, 323)
Perhaps, the greatest example of States' Rights is the conflict over a states’ right to secede, or withdraw from the Union, which ultimately led to Civil War. South Carolina seceded just weeks after the election of Abraham Lincoln, whom the South perceived as anti-states’ rights and anti-slavery. Lincoln took the position that states did not have the right to secede from the Union. In 1861, he ordered that provisions be sent to the federal troops stationed at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. The Unions’ victory in the Civil War ended the most serious challenge to federal authority: States did not have the right to leave the Union. (Danzer et al, 323)
“For many Southern planters, the cry of “States’ rights” meant the complete independence of Southern states from federal government control. Most white Southerners also feared than an end to their entire way of life was at hand. Many were desperate for one last chance to preserve the slave labor system and saw secession as the only way. Mississippi followed South Carolina's lead and seceded on January 9, 1861. Florida seceded the next day. Within a few weeks, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had also seceded. (Danzer et al, 330)
Southerners justified secession with the theory of states’ rights. The states, they argued, had voluntarily chosen to enter the Union. They defined the Constitution as a contract among the independent states. Now because the national government had violated that contract- by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and by denying the Southern Sates equal rights in the territories--- the states were justified in leaving the Union. (Appleby et al, 450-451)