Influence of the Resolutions

  • William J. WatkinsJr.

Abstract

The Federalist party withered and died in the years after the Revolution of 1800. High Federalism was throughly discredited and the Principles of 1798 were embraced by Republicans across the nation. But the death of the party of Hamilton and Pickering did not mean an end to conflict between the states and national government. The two legislative sovereigns continued to clash over the extent of the delegated powers. In these situations, the Resolutions were often quoted and put forth as definitive authority. On other occasions, the Resolutions were not cited, but the words and actions of the states involved evinced an understanding of the concepts underlying the Resolutions.

Keywords

Sugar Clay Europe Shipping Assure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    For a comprehensive discussion of clashes between the national and state governments, see Forrest McDonald’s States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776–1876(Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas, 2000);Google Scholar
  2. James Jackson Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia (Chicago, Ill.: Henry Regnery Company, 1957).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Resolution of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, April 3, 1809, in Herman V. Ames, ed., State Documents on Federal Relations: The States and the United States (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970) pp. 46–8.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    Quoted in 2 George Lee Haskins and Herbert A. Johnson, History of the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: McMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1981) p. 330.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    TJ, Embargo Message, in 1 James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (New York: National Bureau of Literature, 1897) p. 421. For a discussion of the day to day enforcement of the embargo, see Richard Mannix, “Gallatin, Jefferson, and the Embargo of 1808,” 3 Diplomatic History 151 (1979). Jefferson’s support of the embargo and its draconian enforcement apparatus was the greatest failing of his second term. For a critique of Jefferson’s actions during the embargo, seeGoogle Scholar
  6. Leonard Levy, Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963) pp. 93–141.Google Scholar
  7. 22.
    Timothy Pickering to Edward Pennington, July 12, 1812, in Henry Adams, ed., Documents Relating to New England Federalism 1800–1815 (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, and Company, 1905) p. 388.Google Scholar
  8. 29.
    Quoted in Edward Payson Powell, Nullification and Secession in the United States: A History of the Six Attempts during the First Century of the Republic (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1897) p. 213.Google Scholar
  9. 30.
    Quoted in Robert V. Remini, Daniel Webster and His Time (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997) pp. 128–9.Google Scholar
  10. 42.
    Samuel Eliot Morison, Harrison Gray Otis: The Urbane Federalist (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969) pp. 366–7.Google Scholar
  11. 44.
    7S.C. Stat. 461 (1840). For a thorough account of this episode, see Alan F. January, The First Nullification: The Negro Seamen Acts Controversy in South Carolina, 1822–1860 (1976) (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Iowa).Google Scholar
  12. 49.
    For a detailed account of the nullification controversy, see William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816–1836 (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968). The book contains valuable factual and background information, but is severely flawed inasmuch as Freehling places an inordinate amount of emphasis on the role of slavery in the nullification controversy. Research published since Prelude to Civil War was written indicates that the slavery issue was not tied to South Carolina’s embrace of nullification. See, e.g., J.P. Ochenkowski, “The Origins of Nullification in South Carolina,” 83 South Carolina Historical Magazine 121 (1982).Google Scholar
  13. 52.
    Ibid. As his view of protection changed, Calhoun would later describe this speech as “impromptu” and “made without having duly reflected on the subject.” John C. Calhoun, Speech on the Revenue Collection [Force] Bill, in Ross M. Lence, ed., Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C Calhoun (Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Fund, 1992) p. 413.Google Scholar
  14. 60.
    Thomas Cooper, “Value of the Union” Speech, July 2, 1827, in William W. Freehling, ed., The Nullification Era: A Documentary Record (New York: Harper & Row, 1967) p. 21.Google Scholar
  15. 62.
    Dumas Malone, The Public Life of Thomas Cooper (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1961) p. 310.Google Scholar
  16. 71.
    Clyde N. Wilson, Introduction, The Essential Calhoun (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1992) p. xix.Google Scholar
  17. 109.
    Hayne’s celebrated debate with Webster in 1830 is not discussed in the text because the central concepts brought out in the debate are dealt with in other contexts. Nevertheless, this was one of the more important dramas in the nullification controversy. For the relevant documents, see Herman Beiz, ed., The Webster—Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Union (Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Fund, 2000).Google Scholar
  18. 111.
    AJ to Lewis Cass, October 29, 1832, CA 4:483. For a discussion of the nullification controversy that concentrates on the role of President Jackson, see Richard E. Ellis, The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States’ Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  19. 122.
    3 Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1984) p. 31.Google Scholar
  20. 129.
    For differing views on Madison’s adherence to the Principles of ‘98, compare Drew R. McCoy, The Last of the Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989) (arguing that Madison was better able to interpret his own words than Calhoun and the South Carolinians) with Kevin R. Gutzman, “A Troublesome Legacy: James Madison and ‘The Principles of ’98,” 15 Journal of the Early Republic 569 (1995) (arguing that Madison’s position on nullification in South Carolina is irreconcilable with his views expressed in 1798).Google Scholar
  21. 135.
    For a discussion of the crafting of Clay’s compromise tariff, see Merrill D. Peterson, Olive Branch and Sword: The Compromise of 1833 (Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1982). Of Clay’s role, a young naval officer stationed in Charleston aptly observed: “[F]ull may a Mother and daughter of Carolina has cause to bless to the name of Henry Clay. They should teach infancy to lisp it, and tell it as a nursery tale to be remembered, how the generous Kentuckyan buried the bloody hatchet in our land.” Levin M. Powell to Garrett J. Pendergast, March 10, 1833, in Howard H. Wehmann, “Noise, Novelties, and Nullifiers: A U.S. Navy Officer’s Impressions of the Nullification Controversy,” 76 South Carolina Historical Magazine 21, 22 (1975).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Independent Institute 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. WatkinsJr.

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations