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

Talk "states' rights" in today's political climate, and you're likely to be labeled a crank or a racist... or both, because so much ignorance passes for history in our government school system.

You *will* be taught in your history classes about "checks and balances" in the US Constitution, but you will be taught that those checks and balances consist largely of the division of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government. Only a moment's reflection, though, will reveal that those branches are still all part of the same government. McDonald demonstrates conclusively that the founding fathers viewed another check and balance as critical to the limitation on growth in federal power -- states' rights. The states, as distinct sovereignties, *delegated* certain powers to the federal government and retained all other powers to themselves (c.f., 10th Amendment).

This book ends its study in 1876, the end of Reconstruction, when the Second Founding became complete -- a founding destitute of any vestige of states' rights, in which federal power would be free to grow unchecked.

Outstanding summary of key issues in American constitutionalism.

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.

~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 federal 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 some powers back to the states on utilitarian grounds of efficiency rather than on constitutional grounds. 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.

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.

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.