|
History, Slavery & State Rights "I see...with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights preserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers...It is but too evident that the three ruling branches [of the federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to W.B. Giles, 1825
"The idea that the people of these States were, while colonists, and consequently, are now, 'one people,' in some sense which has never been explained, and to some extent which has never been defined, is constantly inculcated by those who are anxious to consolidate all the powers of the States in the Federal Government...The continued repetition of this idea and the boldness with which it is advanced have given it an undue credit with the public. Few men, far too few, inquire narrowly into the subject, and even those who do are not in general skeptical enough to doubt what is so often and so peremptorily asserted..." -- Abel Upshur, A Brief Enquiry Into The True Nature And Character Of Our Federal Government (1840)
The last sentence of the Upshur passage is superbly expressed, and had he said "into their own history" rather than "into the subject," we'd have an aphorism worthy of the most enduring adulation. There are few souls in whom the desire to get at the truth is unflagging. The best among us settle for shards of insight and understanding. The notion that common men should suffer for years, poring ceaselessly over records and documents, articles, pamphlets and books, declarations and counter-declarations just to know something about their own past is of course alien today. Conversations about history usually if not inevitably devolve into a contemptible game of word association -- the ability to attach a phrase to a single name or date, to recapitulate some momentous event in three or four sentences being considered the mark of an educated mind. Thus, Abraham Lincoln ("Our greatest president. Freed the slaves. Saved the Union."). States' Rights ("Battle cry of a sorry bunch of Confederates. The banner behind which racists and segregationists hide."). Union ("United we stand, divided we fall. Unity is good, division bad.") Slavery ("What the South did to the blacks"). In addition to correcting our own ignorance, working harder to understand our own history, we might devise antidotes to the puerile associations above. Here is perhaps a decent step in that direction: ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Wasn't an abolitionist; indeed, he was denounced by abolitionists like Wendell Phillips, who decried him as a "first-rate second-rate man." He was loath to denounce the Fugitive Slave Law and gave few clues in public that he believed the black and white races were equal. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 declared slaves free only in the territories fighting the Union, not in any of the Union states themselves. In his Senate campaign in 1858, Lincoln said the following: "...I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people..." (NB: If Trent Lott gave this speech seven years before his death, would anyone forget it?) In his first Inaugural Address in March 1861, Lincoln said he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Compare his speeches to those of John Brown or Frederick Douglass or Sojourner Truth. Think of Lincoln as Al Gore, and the abolitionists as Ralph Nader lampooning him from the left. Remember the distinction between a pragmatic stand and a principled one: a pragmatist could say of the Vietnam War that it was not in "America's interest" to continue it; a man of principle could say unabashedly that it was immoral. CIVIL WAR. Usually understood as war between segments or factions of the same country. The problem here is that America was never a country in the same way Canada was a country or France was a country. Individual states predated the formation of the federal American union; their consent to the new constitution made the union possible, and they relinquished none of their rights and sovereignty in the process. The citizens of America are as much citizens of their respective states as they are of the United States. It is their individual state, not the federal government, which issues them birth certificates, drivers' licenses, marriage licenses, passports. The roots of each citizen's identity are firmly planted in an individual state (today we unthinkingly say that we are "New Yorkers" or "Texans" or "Californians"). So what exactly would "civil war" mean in America in the 1860s? New Yorkers doing battle with fellow New Yorkers? The citizens of New York warring against the citizens of South Carolina? An older version of the Columbia Encyclopedia offers these alternatives: the War of Rebellion, the War of Secession, the War of Southern Independence, the War Between The Sections, the War Between North And South. Another possibility still: the Second Revolution, since the Constitution of 1787 did not spell out whether individual states retained the right of secession. SLAVERY. In the New World the institution of slavery began in the West Indies in the 1500s with the subjugation of tribesmen by conquistadors. During the colonial period, northern ships delivered slaves from Africa to the southern states and returned with molasses to make rum in New England. Whenever "slavery" is uttered the mind makes a natural association to the plight of the black man in the American South in the 19th century. But how many forms of slavery are not countenanced and rightly condemned? Can Third World children making shoes for the Nike Corporation be described as slaves -- children toiling long hours for pennies a week with no benefits to speak of? Is sweatshop labor in places like Indonesia slavery? Is the average American a slave to money and things, to quick fixes and pills? STATE RIGHTS. This is how the phrase was originally expressed. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and who was among the most progressive of the Founding Fathers was an ardent state rights man (it was he, too, at the end of his life who described slavery as an "outrageous abomination"). The doctrine holds that the federal constitution was not established to diminish the sovereignty and rights of the several states (cf. the 10th Amendment to the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."). Consider James Madison's 39th article in the Federalist Papers: "...the proposed government [i.e., federal government] cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects." (emphasis in original) The SR doctrine is usually equated with a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, and today it seems that only reactionaries pay lip service to it, but in fact, acceptance of the doctrine does not presuppose a given ideology. To see why this is so, see the entry under "Union" below. Remember, too, that the earliest understanding of state rights did not encompass the doctrine of nullification. Nor was it conflated with a pro-slavery mentality. UNION. A tricky word, conjuring up images of "one big happy family" and of fraternity. Experiment a little with synonymous phrases such as "strong central government," and ask what it really means. Could the national security state, the "military industrial complex" ever arise under a confederation? Could the Corporation appear ex nihilo with powers hitherto unimagined -- powers such as deciding and rigging elections, bribing legislators, winning regulatory and tax concessions, owning the print and broadcast media, exacting favors from lawmakers, and influencing decisions to go to war? Could some variant of the Federal Reserve ever emerge under the Articles of Confederation? Is it not a truism that democracy flourishes locally, as say in the old New England town halls, and slowly perishes as decision-making becomes more and more remote? Sound farfetched? Remember that women could vote in Wyoming 41 years before the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. It was Wisconsinites, not the federal government, who enacted the first laws to regulate utility rates and the first to implement direct primary elections of candidates. Wisconsinites were also the first to create state unemployment benefits, the first to have a kindergarten, the first to impose a state income tax. When the Reagan Administration wanted to use state guards in Central America for training exercises, it was the state of Massachusetts (then under the direction of Michael Dukakis) that said no. When was the last time Congress seriously mulled a single payer healthcare system? But the states of Maine and Oregon have done just that, each putting the question to a ballot initiative.
For Further Consideration: Columbia Encyclopedia: States' Rights. Treaty of Paris, 1783. See Article 1: King George acknowledges the several states to be "free, sovereign, and independent." Virginia And Kentucky Resolutions. Jefferson's and Madison's affirmation of the state rights doctrine. Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation. A respected scholar disputes the imperishable claim that the A of C was weak and needed to be reformed. Forrest McDonald, States' Rights And The Union: Imperium In Imperio, 1776-1876. www.constitution.org. Contains an impressive library of original documents.
|
