The States’ Rights Tradition Nobody Knows
04. Mar, 2009 
67 Comments
by Thomas E Woods, LewRockwell.com
In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to “interpose” between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term “nullification” – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws.
These ideas became known as the “Principles of ’98.” Their subsequent impact on American history, according to the standard narrative, was pretty much confined to South Carolina’s nullification of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832. That is demonstrably false, as I shall show below. But it isn’t just that these ideas are neglected in the usual telling; as I discovered not long ago, these principles are positively despised by neoconservatives like Max Boot and the leftists at the New York Times (or do I repeat myself?). Neither one, in their reviews of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, so much as mentioned Jefferson’s name in connection with the Principles of ’98. It is hard to view such an omission as anything but deliberate. To mention Jefferson’s name is to lend legitimacy to ideas that nationalists of left and right alike detest, so they simply leave him out of the picture.
Jefferson once wrote, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” To resist this centralizing trend, the sage of Monticello was convinced, the states needed some kind of corporate defense mechanism.
Our betters have already told us that the only reason anyone might wish to vindicate the cause of states’ rights is for the purpose of defending slavery or upholding some lesser form of local oppression. What follows is the tip of the iceberg of the history that, by what I shall assume is an entirely well-meaning and innocent oversight, these great scholars of American history consistently fail to acknowledge.
The Embargo of 1807–1809
In retaliation against British and French depredations against American neutral rights on the seas, the federal government under Thomas Jefferson in late 1807 declared an embargo, according to which no American ship could depart for any foreign port anywhere in the world. (The rationale was that trade with the U.S. was a key ingredient in British and French prosperity, and thus that economic pressure might persuade them to change their policies.) The U.S. Navy was granted the power to stop and search any ship within U.S. jurisdiction if its officers had “reason to suspect” the ship was violating the embargo. Likewise, customs officials were “authorized to detain any vessel…whenever in their opinions the intention is to violate or evade any provisions of the acts laying an embargo.” Such standards fell far short of the “probable cause” requirement that generally governed the issuing of warrants for searches.
New England was especially hard hit by the embargo because so many of its people were employed either directly in foreign commerce or in proximate fields, and it was there that opposition to the policy was concentrated. In 1808 a federal district court, in the case of United States v. The William, ruled the embargo constitutional. The Massachusetts legislature begged to differ. Both houses declared the embargo acts to be “in many particulars, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional.” “While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the State government,” they said. The embargo, furthermore, was “not legally binding on the citizens of this State.”
In the midst of the crisis, a New York congressman, giving his explicit sanction to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, said, “Why should not Massachusetts take the same stand, when she thinks herself about to be destroyed?” “If any State Legislature had believed the Act to be unconstitutional,” asked a Connecticut congressman, “would it not have been their duty not to comply?” He added that the state legislatures, “whose members are sworn to support the Constitution, may refuse assistance, aid or cooperation” if they regarded an act as unconstitutional, and so could state officials.
Connecticut governor Jonathan Trumbull shared these views. “Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task – it is their right – it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.” Connecticut’s General Assembly passed a resolution that, among other things, directed all executive officials in the State not to afford “any official aid or co-operation in the execution of the act aforesaid.”
The General Assembly furthermore declared: “Resolved, that to preserve the Union, and support the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the embargo.”
Rhode Island, when the embargo was at its end, declared that her legislature possessed the duty “to interpose for the purpose of protecting [the people of Rhode Island] from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and unconstitutional power.”
Interposition – the language of the Principles of ’98.
The War of 1812
During the War of 1812, Massachusetts and Connecticut were ordered to call out their respective militias for the purpose of defending the coast. The call derived from the federal government’s authority to call the state militias into service “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.”
Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong, however, maintained that the states reserved the power to determine whether any of these three conditions held. At Strong’s request, the Massachusetts Supreme Court offered its opinion. That court agreed with the governor: “As this power is not delegated to the United States by the Federal Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, it is reserved to the states, respectively; and from the nature of the power, it must be exercised by those with whom the states have respectively entrusted the chief command of the militia.”
Connecticut followed suit:
It must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, “to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent state,” as he is “to support the constitution of the United States,” and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former.
Thus if the militia were called out for any purpose but those listed in the Constitution, it “would be not only the height of injustice to the militia…but a violation of the constitution and laws of this state, and of the United States.” The president had no authority to call upon the militia of Connecticut “to assist in carrying on an offensive war” (some New Englanders were convinced that the war was aimed primarily at the annexation of Canada). Connecticut would not comply with the federal order until New England should be threatened “by an actual invasion of any portion of our territory.”
From a political point of view, the War of 1812 would wind up essentially a draw, and the Treaty of Ghent signed in December 1814 reestablished the status quo ante bellum. From a military point of view, though, it was a British rout. As a result, Congress seriously entertained the prospect of military conscription.
Here is where Daniel Webster, so often a villain in American history, emerges as positively heroic. With his usual eloquence he spoke out against military conscription as incompatible with both the Constitution and the principles of a free society. “Where is it written in the Constitution,” he asked, “in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?” (Predictable quarters can now be expected to call Daniel Webster – than whom there was no greater or more eloquent defender of the federal Union – an unpatriotic, America-hating leftist.)
What did Webster think should be done if the conscription bill should pass? In that case, he said, it would be “the solemn duty of the State Governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power.” Interposition – the language, once again, of the great resolutions of ’98.
In December 1813 a new and more obnoxious embargo than that of 1807-1809 was instituted. The Massachusetts legislature found itself inundated with petitions and statements of grievances. A special committee, headed by William Lloyd, was established to devise a response to the situation. The Massachusetts General Court approved the committee’s report early the following year. It read, in part:
A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty reserved to the states, was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim.
Need we point out yet again the language of the Principles of ’98?
Fugitive Slave Laws
At a time when the federal government was using its police powers to enforce the capture of runaway slaves, it was the state governments, expressly recalling the Principles of ’98, that determined to resist. (See Mark Thornton here [.pdf] on how the federal government socialized the costs of slaveholding.) Although the Constitution did, unfortunately, contain a clause calling for the return of runaways, some Northern states resorted to the argument that that document spelled out no particular enforcement mechanism behind that requirement.
In addition, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was especially obnoxious and repugnant. It placed all fugitive slave cases under federal jurisdiction. Fugitives were denied jury trials and the right to testify in their own defense. Special commissioners were empowered to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, and according to the terms of the act were to be paid $10 if they found the accused fugitive guilty and only $5 if they found him innocent. Still more obnoxious features included the right to force bystanders to participate in the capture of a fugitive and stiff penalties for sheltering or obstructing the capture of a fugitive.
Several Northern states simply refused to comply. Especially interesting is this 1859 statement of the Wisconsin Supreme Court – taken, in parts word for word, from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
Many more examples of the ongoing relevance of the Principles of ’98 could be cited. In the midst of a dispute with the federal government over the Second Bank of the United States, the Ohio legislature voted to affirm the Principles of ’98. In 1825, Kentucky’s governor said: “When the general government encroaches upon the rights of the State, is it a safe principle to admit that a portion of the encroaching power shall have the right to determine finally whether an encroachment has been made or not? In fact, most of the encroachments made by the general government flow through the Supreme Court itself, the very tribunal which claims to be the final arbiter of all such disputes. What chance for justice have the States when the usurpers of their rights are made their judges? Just as much as individuals when judged by their oppressors. It is therefore believed to be the right, as it may hereafter become the duty of the State governments, to protect themselves from encroachments, and their citizens from oppression, by refusing obedience to the unconstitutional mandates of the federal judges.”
These are facts. They are facts that constitute a central part of antebellum American history. Yet to say that the standard American history text does not trace the influence of the Principles of ’98 over the course of the ensuing years, as I have done all too briefly here, would be the understatement of the century. The profession at large has essentially ignored the issue; other than Bill Watkins’ excellent study, you’d be hard-pressed to find a single book-length treatment of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 over the past hundred years.
Thus when I resurrected these long-neglected ideas in chapter four of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, did this inclusion merit the praise of your average scholar? To the contrary, the general complaint was that I hadn’t spent more time on subjects people already know inside and out. As for the Principles of ’98 themselves, discussing them with left- or right-wing nationalists is like waving garlic before Dracula.
Not that raising the issue makes them clam up entirely. To the contrary, they’ll find some silly photos of you (which, I confess, exist in embarrassing abundance), or dredge up something you did or said a dozen years ago, or generally suggest you’re a bad person. (Everyone who’s ever met me knows I’m just a great big meanie.)
They may behave this way because they think doing so will make me shut up (no such luck there), but it’s also a lot easier than cracking a book on a subject they don’t seem to know the first thing about.
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] is senior fellow in American history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of nine books, including the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and, most recently, Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. Visit his new website.
Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Tom Woods, as usual, does a great job. He brings up some essential points here as well – that of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798. Many people have been talking about the current resolutions that have been introduced in states around the country as being weak, or not enough – because they’re resolutions.
If that’s the case, then Jefferson and Madison were weak as well…..
We have to realize that these resolutions are some of the most important, formative documents on the principles of state sovereignty and the overall structure of the constitution – and while resolutions are non-binding, they can have lasting effect as well.
It is beyond frustrating that any attempt to bring Jeffersonian principles into discussions of current political events is met with blank stares by those involved in the discussion. Many of the current issues were debated(with much more vision and clarity) by Jefferson and his rivals back in their time. Sadly, no one seems willling to go back and read these early debates to better inform themselves. As the author correctly states, the left and right do not want an informed citizenry as the uninformed are much more malleable. The founders idea that the House of Representatives would consist of normal citizens that would serve a term or two and go back home has been completely co-opted by modern political parties that now view the House members as career politicians. One wonders what Jefferson’s views of modern political debates would be? One thing is for sure, he would be viewed as an “extremist”, probably by both parties.
The problem I see by just invoking the 10th Amendment is it gives the federal government a get out of jail free card. The Amendment only pertains to powers not granted. It cannot be invoked to prevent the federal government from exercising a granted power. Most federal usurpations of power are based perversions of a granted power. Thus, the federal government can simply say the 10th Amendment does not apply to…fill in the blank…because the law was based on section…fill in the blank of the Constitution and that is a granted power. Thank you very much and have a nice day!
Since the Constitution is a compact or contract between the States, as stated in Article VII, and the federal government is simply the agent created by the compact, the States need to invoke contract law and nail their agent for violating the intent and terms of the compact. Since the federal government only exists within the intent and terms of the compact, it has no power to operate outside of that compact. Thus, how could a breech be within the jurisdiction of a federal court? That would also be a political issue and federal courts, as they constantly state, have no jurisdiction over political issues.
And as an added bonus, since the Constitution can only be amended by a vote of the States, they should but that knife to the throat of their federal government and tell it to comply with the intent of the compact or suffer the consequences.
Bob, we’re not talking about “invoking the 10th Amendment” as if it were going to win any legal battles. Bottom line? It never will. The federal government, and their federal judges have no interest, whatsoever, in limits on their power as the 10th requires.
We use the 10th to explain to the people the proper role of the federal government. And then encourage them to follow the advice of the founders and peacefully resist federal laws and regulations outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.
this brilliant article here shows the long history of state governments nullifying and resisting unconstitutional federal dictats.
Bob, you are absolutely right. It is the supreme court which has granted the feds the power to wiggle into obviously forbidden territory. The use of the interstate commerce clause to assail states rights is one example. The other is this stare decisis which allows the court to build upon bad judgment based on the idea that since it was already OK for one court to have ruled in a fashion similarly once so it must be OK to construe the meaning of that ruling to further insult the constitution without reasoning any further as to the results or intent of the original meaning. It perpetuates an abrogation and increases its scope. Over time the courts and politicians have made the government just what it wasn’t supposed to be.
Michael, I have a comment and 3 questions to your post above.
I agree with you this is a great article.
You said—
“We use the 10th to explain to the people the proper role of the federal government. And then encourage them to follow the advice of the founders and peacefully resist federal laws and regulations outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.”
1-Since the federal government is using perversions of the delegated powers to make it appear as if they operating within “the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers,” how does the 10th Amendment, standing alone, “explain to the people the proper role of the federal government?”
2-Since the federal government is using perversions of the delegated powers to make it appear as if they operating within “the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers,” how does the 10th Amendment, standing alone, help the people determine what “federal laws and regulations” they are supposed to “peacefully resist?”
3-As you cite on your web-site, the 10th Amendment is a truism. The principle it mentions is the core principle of the system of limited government established by the Constitution. That principle would be in play even if the 10th Amendment had never been added to the Constitution. It would exist even if the Amendment was removed from the Constitution next Tuesday. The Amendment is a secondary restraint on the powers of the federal government. Why not invoke, however you want to use that term, the primary principle and support it with the secondary restraint enumerated in the 10th Amendment?
It appears to me a double edge sword is a more powerful weapon than a single edge sword.
Bob, you and I are definitely on the same path here. Just saying “10th amendment, 10th amendment, 10th amendment” doesn’t do anything. It doesn’t hold up in courts, federal politicians hate it too….
The bottom line – the 10th amendment is a simple principle, it’s easy to understand that everything not delegated is retained.
At the same time, we need to provide education on what those delegated powers are – and that takes people to the next level, learning the constitution.
At the same time, we need to encourage activism and a spirit of resistance to federal overreach. We believe the best way is nullification and interposition as advised by Jefferson and Madison.
Not sure if that answers all your questions as my time is limited, but all these things I’m talking about – we work for here at the Tenth Amendment Center.
Excellent article! It always nice to see articulate and educated men express these fundamental principles of freedom. I think all of us here and many people who do not know or completely understand what is going on with the State sovereignty movement would agree that the path that needs to be taken is what we are seeing.
I encourage all of you to keep up the great work in this discuss of freedom. Remember, we want the same thing. So let’s participate like it.
Boldin, thanks for your astute observations.
Excellent article! It is always nice to see articulate and educated men express these fundamental principles of freedom. I think all of us here and many people who do not know or completely understand what is going on with the State sovereignty movement would agree that the path that needs to be taken is what we are seeing.
I encourage all of you to keep up the great work in this discuss of freedom. Remember, we want the same thing. So let’s participate like it.
Boldin, thanks for your astute observations.
Michael-you said—
“Just saying ‘10th amendment, 10th amendment, 10th amendment’ doesn’t do anything.”
I could not agree more!!!
That is point I was trying to make concerning the 10th Amendment Resolutions. The States will need to do more than cite “10th amendment, 10th amendment, 10th amendment” to give their Resolutions the teeth needed to force the federal government to stop perverting the intent of the delegated powers.
Anyone who is serious about the sovereignty movement already knows very well that the tenth amendment, in and of itself, is not THE answer to the problems we face. And anyone not serious about it doesn’t count anyway, at least until such people do get serious. So, with respect, I don’t really understand the impulse of some to keep stating it. The tenth amendment resolutions are part of the strategy, they are not the goal. I’ve pointed out before that every one of them I’ve personally read contain their own provisions for carrying the ball forward, i.e., establishing committees to document abuses of power by the federal government, committees of correspondence, etc. Meanwhile, state legislators are working behind the scenes to craft legislation dealing with these abuses of power.
So, can we move forward, or are we going to have to endure this obsessiveness forever?
wonderful read, and the time is now call your state reps today all of them
Terry, with all due respect, I think you are selling many Americans short with your comment that “anyone not serious about it doesn’t count anyway, at least until such people do get serious.” There are many Americans who want to “get serious.” I know that for a fact as I have been approached by some local tea party groups to explain some of these issues because their members are interested but confused. Many Americans are craving for more information about the Constitution.
When someone looks at something like the health care bill…sees there is no authorization for it in the delegated powers…writes to their representative and makes that statement…cites the 10th Amendment…only to be told by their representative that it falls under the commerce clause so the Amendment does not apply…someone who tried to “get serious” becomes totally confused because the more than the 10th Amendment part has been missing, for the most part, from the debate and they were unaware of it.
All I am saying is the more than the 10th Amendment part of the debate needs to be placed side by side with the principle enumerated in the Amendment and placed on the table as a complete package.
I ask that you all please check out my website http://www.speakoutandshout.com and become a member. Its completely FREE. Our site gives easy access to all officials so people can have a voice. So they can be heard. The issues facing our great Country are American issues; not party specific. My website is non-partisan! Please, check it out. Thank you.
Woods associates himself with libertarians. Libertarians do not believe that states — government entities — have rights. People have rights; governments rule. Woods is no libertarian.
As Prof Woods asserts “these are facts”, however, they are not all of the facts. If one reads the entire works of Madison or Jefferson, one will discover why Jefferson is called the American Sphinx, saying and doing one thing here and the opposite over there. Madison writing in the Federalist held that there was no need for a Bill of Rights, and then later, authors it. He and Jefferson oppose the central bank of Hamiltons’ and then Madison sets up one in his administration. And there are those statements by both about interposition, both for and agisnt–I give you Madison’s letters during the South Carolina nullification crisis which state tha no sState may interpose, nullify or seceed. But all to much of these seeming contraries is the problem of the circumstances and the language used.
It is a fact that the KY VA resolutions, as an example, use certain language that can be interpreted to mean something, but exactly what? Given Madison’s opinions on his own writings, well, what was he intending?
Where was the small limited republic that Jefferson wrote of in the case of the Purchase? These too are facts. They muddy up the seemingly clear case that say, interposition is legal and Constitutional. It is all very wel to assert that say, John Taylor of Caroline is right and Justice Story wrong, but this is assertion and no argument. And the American polity, its Constitution and laws, were and are a compund of compromises of what some would call centrists and the others confederalists. It is the vexed question of whether the American polity is supposed to be a unitary govt, a federal associaltion of States which are sovereign, or a compound of these two things, constantly moving back and forth between the two extremes. All of the facts and opinions should be examined, not simply those in the Politically InCorrect Guides or in the writings of other historians or thinkers of a different tack.
It is remarkable that the blog here with its reading list omits much of what may be considered the opposite views–I would suggest the inclusion on the list the Constitutional Convention debates and the ratification debates, along with other court case and opinions that do not agree with say, Calhoun’s Disquisition or Taylor’s New Views. Then the attentive reader or scholar can question both sides, seeking the answers and perhaps noting the intractable nature of many of the political problems, their insoluable nature.
But, many of us have already been corrupted by reading first the interpretations we like, and then viewing all else through these interpretations of opinions. The reader or thinker thus shackled will not really be reciting facts, but opinions.
Of course, public opinion is what the current thing is all about, and my opinion is just as good as yours, so it is said–but is that true or is this just an easy excuse for not going beyond the teachers limited reading list?
You write “The rationale [for an embargo] was that trade with the U.S. was a key ingredient in British and French prosperity, and thus that economic pressure might persuade them to change their policies”.
There was rather more to it than that. It was appreciated at the time, and is even mentioned in Tom Paine’s work, that Britain’s naval strength relied on supplies of construction materials that could only be obtained from overseas. At the time, this was mostly obtained from the Baltic. Had Napoleon’s Continental System (which was also aimed at that) been effective, and had the US embargo cut off North American sources, Britain would ultimately been ringbarked; the embargo was not as even handed as between the European powers as it might have appeared. However, Canada allowed Britain to continue second sourcing indefinitely. Accordingly there are at least grounds for suspecting that the US aggression against Canada was in part intended to close off these sources of supply. If that was in fact something French diplomacy aimed at, it backfired; one consequence of that war was that British troops were not demobilised and disbanded in short order after the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, as was customary to cut costs, but were only just returning to Europe in 1815 and so were available to counter Napoleon in the Waterloo campaign.
“From a political point of view, the War of 1812 would wind up essentially a draw, and the Treaty of Ghent signed in December 1814 reestablished the status quo ante bellum. From a military point of view, though, it was a British rout.”
With all due respect, the British won completely at a military level, repelling all US advances into Canada, maintaining a presence in Maine, and supporting incursions into the USA at will everywhere that ships could reach. Only the Battle of New Orleans was lost – after the peace was settled. In no sense was there a defeat of the British, let alone a rout. To suggest otherwise is revisionism on a par with that you are condemning. Or did you mean a rout by the British?
Bravo to Tom Woods for highlighting this crucial issue of State vs federal power.
Are our states a ‘Confederated Republic’ or are they a ‘Consolidated (centalized) Union’ ? What did the founders say ? More importantly, what did they do when these Principleds collided ?
May I recommend a course on the Constitution that explores these themes & more, the worldview of the Founding Fathers, in their historical context ?
Taught by John Eidsmoe one of America’s leading Constitutional scholars -see it at http://www.IOTConline.com.
It’s available on video to use in home or study groups – also can be taken online, with DSL.
Titled: “Institute on the Constitution” – This is one practical way to fight Constitutional illiteracy. Perhaps once the laymen – all of us here who take the time to read & study on our own – are more educated we can show information like this article here & study courses like this to our State reps, so they can articulate these Principles in our counties & State Houses.
What say you ?
For a confederated Republic, under God,
David Alan
The real problem here is getting those old goats who work in our state legislature to not only enact the 10th Amendment but actually follow it through to it’s conclusion and not cave-in at the slightest pressure.
Mr. Woods wrote an excellent article. I enjoyed it for what it was worth.
However, let us state the bloody, bleeding obvious: the Constitution, which of course includes the 10th Amendment, is essentially a dead letter. It has been that way since Lee surrendered his sword at Appomattox.
The idea of limited central government was a noble experiment that failed spectacularly. In fact, that is why the South seceded.
Our present central government is hopelessly corrupt. It has been drunk with unlimited power for nearly 150 years. Because of this, it simply cannot, and will never, reform itself.
If the American people are ever again to enjoy real liberty, real prosperity and real property rights, then the federal government must cease to exist.
Can that be accomplished peacefully? Knowing what a gang of liars, thieves and cutthroats that currently comprise America’s ruling establishment, I rather doubt it.
Americans, through their state legislatures, can craft all the 10th Amendment resolutions they want but I predict that they will not limit the power of the federal government one iota.
It is far too late in the political game to dream of rolling back the unlimited power of our despots in Washington by peaceful protest. Only serious seccession movements, backed by the threat of force, have any chance of successfully restoring real liberty to all Americans.
Serious men know that there comes a time when talk, peaceful protest, and formal resolutions must come to an end and that everything they hold dear – including there very lives – must be put at risk in order to gain their god-given liberties as free men. Patrick Henry understood this principle very well when he said; “give me liberty or give me death!”
I believe that the present economic and political centers in America cannot hold together much longer. A category-five storm is approaching rapidly. I urge my fellow Americans to plan their lives accordingly.
This is an excellent article. But I want to counter a popular myth regarding the War of 1812.
The War of 1812, from an economic perspective, was the best thing to ever happen to the United States. After the war, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes, the Atlantic ocean, and the West Indies, were once and for all opened to free trade for US shippers, and never again did the world’s bully (Great Britain) try to stop us.
Check out the Treaty of 1818 and the Monroe Doctrine.
Regarding the military aspect of the war, it proved once and for all that the US could not be conquered and could stand up to the British.
Key American Victories in the War of 1812:
Battle of York
Date 27 April, 1813
Location Present day Toronto, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York
Battle of Sacket’s Harbor
Date 28 May – 29 May, 1813
Location Sackett’s Harbor, New York
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_…ett%27s_Harbor
Battle of Lake Erie
Date 10 September, 1813
Location Lake Erie, near Put-in-Bay, Ohio
Result Decisive American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Erie
Battle of the Thames
Date October 5, 1813
Location Near Moravian of the Thames First Nation in present day Chatham-Kent, Ontario
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Thames
Battle of Horseshoe Bend (1814)
Date March 27, 1814
Location near Dadeville, Alabama
Result Decisive U.S. – Indian victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_…hoe_Bend_(1814)
Battle of Chippawa
Date July 5, 1814
Location Chippawa, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chippawa
Battle of Plattsburgh
Date September 6 – September 11, 1814
Location Plattsburgh, New York
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh
Battle of Baltimore
Date September 12 – September 15, 1814
Location Baltimore, Maryland
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltimore
Battle of New Orleans
Date December 23 – January 8, 1815
Location About five miles (8 km) south of New Orleans on the grounds of Chalmette Plantation
Result American victory; British troops and fleet withdraw from Louisiana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans
USS Constitution vs HMS Guerriere
Date 19 August 1812
Location Atlantic Ocean
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution_vs_HMS_Guerriere
Capture of HMS Frolic
USS Wasp captures the HMS FrolicThe capture of HMS Frolic was a naval action fought in the Atlantic of the coast of Virginia on October 18, 1812, between sloops-of-war USS Wasp, commanded by Jacob Jones, and HMS Frolic. The result was an American victory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Frolic
USS United States vs HMS Macedonian
Date 25 October 1812
Location Atlantic Ocean
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_United_States_vs_HMS_Macedonian
Sinking of HMS Peacock
The sinking of HMS Peacock was a naval action fought in the Atlantic off the mouth of the Demerara River, Guiana on February 24, 1813, between the brigs USS Hornet and HMS Peacock. After an exchange of broadsides during which the British vessel’s commander was killed, the Peacock attempted to disengage but was pursued by the Hornet and succumbed to raking fire, sinking swiftly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_HMS_Peacock
Capture of HMS Boxer
Date 5 September 1813
Location off Pemaquid Point, near Bristol, Maine
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Boxer
Capture of HMS Epervier
The capture of HMS Epervier was a naval action fought off Cape Canaveral, Florida on April 29, 1814 between the sloop-of-war USS Peacock and the brig HMS Epervier in which the Epervier was captured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Epervier
Capture of Cyane
HMS Cyane was a British warship captured by the USS Constitution on 20 February 1815 during the War of 1812. Cyane was sailing in company with HMS Levant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Cyane
Capture of HMS Penguin
On March 23, 1815 USS Hornet captured HMS Penguin in a short battle off Tristan da Cunha. This was one of several naval engagements which took place after the War of 1812 had ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Penguin
Battle of Tippecanoe
Part of Tecumseh’s War/War of 1812
Date November 7, 1811
Location near modern Battle Ground, Indiana
Result United States victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tippecanoe
Battle of Fort Harrison
Date September 4 – September 15, 1812
Location Terre Haute, Indiana
Result United States victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Harrison
Siege of Fort Wayne
Date September 5 – September 12, 1812
Location Fort Wayne, Indiana
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Wayne
Raid on Gananoque
September 21, 1812
Gananoque, Ontario
the Americans seized the stores and burned the government depot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Gananoque
Raid on Elizabethtown
Date February 7, 1813
Location Elizabethtown
Result Successful American Raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Elizabethtown
Siege of Fort Meigs
Date 28 April – 9 May, 1813
Location present-day Perrysburg, Ohio
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Meigs
Battle of Fort George
Date May 25 – May 27, 1813
Location Present day Niagara on the Lake, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_George
Battle of Craney Island
Date June 22, 1813
Location Portsmouth, Virginia
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Craney_Island
Battle of Talladega
Date November 9, 1813
Location Mississippi Territory
Result U.S. victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talladega
Battle of Tallushatchee
Date November 3, 1813
Location Mississippi Territory
Result U.S. victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tallushatchee
Battle of Longwoods
Date 4 March, 1814
Location near Wardsville in present day Southwest Middlesex, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longwoods
Battle of Big Sandy Creek
Date May 29 – May 30, 1814
Location Sandy Creek (town), New York
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Big_Sandy_Creek
Battle of Fort Stephenson
Date August 2, 1813
Location Sandusky County, Ohio
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Stephenson
Battle of St. Michaels
Date August 10, 1813
Location St. Michaels, Maryland
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Michaels
Raid on Port Dover
Date 14 May – 16 May, 1814
Location Port Dover, Norfolk County, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Port_Dover
Capture of Fort Erie
Date July 3, 1814
Location Fort Erie, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Erie
Siege of Fort Erie
Date 4 August – 21 September, 1814
Location Fort Erie, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Erie
Battle of Caulk’s Field
Date August 31, 1814
Location near Fairlee, Maryland
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caulk%27s_Field
Battle of North Point
Date September 12, 1814
Location North Point, Maryland
Result Strategic American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_North_Point
The First Battle of Fort Bowyer
September 1814
Location Fort Bowyer, Alabama
The defeat at Fort Bowyer led the British to decide to attack New Orleans instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bowyer
Battle of Malcolm’s Mills
Date November 6, 1814
Location Oakland, Brant County, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Malcolm%27s_Mills
Battle of Pensacola
Date November 7 – November 9, 1814
Location Pensacola, Florida
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pensacola_(1814)
Don’t believe the LIE that James Madison was an incompetent president!
Here we have 39 American victories in a short war against a major world power, count ‘em!
The reality is we did a lot better in the War of 1812 than in the American Revolution.
James Madison did this without violating the Bill-of-Rights, with no central bank, no standing army, virtually no navy, no income tax, no martial law (except Jackson at the very end), no internment camps, no arrests of newspaper publishers, no violation of habeas corpus, and no war propaganda.
And Madison got a declaration of war from congress and was facing a real external threat.
Don’t believe the lie the mass media wants you to believe that the war of 1812 sucked. This is propaganda! They want you to think the Constitution must be discarded for even petty wars like Panama or Iraq.
This is a fascinating account as far as it goes. However, what about the 14th Amendment? As a legal matter, the 14th Amendment was meant to change the relationship of the state to the federal government in respect to the supremacy of federal law over state laws that would violate individual rights to life, liberty and property. Perhaps the amendment was not properly ratified, and I would like to learn more about such a claim, but otherwise I think it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to agree with the strong state sovereignty concept subject to the caveat that the principles of rightful liberty guaranteed by 14th Amendment supersede contrary state law. And, frankly, I think that 14th Amendment was a good modification of the federalism concept and not overly centralizing, not least because, combined with the 13th and 15th Amendments, it helped free slaves. Most significantly, in my view, the 14th Amendment completes the limited government framework of our Nation of 50 constitutional republics by ensuring the Constitution not only limits the power of the federal government to restrict individual rights through the 9th and 10th Amendments, it also limits the power of the state government to restrict individual rights through the 14th Amendment. Limiting the powers of state government in this way cannot possibly strike at the heart of the federalism concept in the Constitution in view of the contracts clause; moreover, it was a construct of 19th century legal positivism, egged on by the need to rationalize the outrage of slavery, that states came to be seen as vested with the power to violate individual rights in the first place. In my judgment there is no great loss to the competing governments scheme of federalism by a law that further restrains state government by principles of rightful liberty–if, of course, one agrees that federalism is not an end in itself, but a means to an end (rightful liberty).
Nick,
At the time the slaves were ‘freed’, there had been legislation protecting hunters who returned escaped slaves. All that was needed was the repeal of legislation which protected the slave trade, just as was seen when slavery ended in Brazil. Federal power grabs such as those amendments concerning slavery have been granted by the people in the name of ‘freeing’ or ‘protecting’, despite the fact that laws were what allowed the abuse in the first place.
Rolf Lindgren wrote “After the [British-American]war… never again did the world’s bully (Great Britain) try to stop us… Regarding the military aspect of the war, it proved once and for all that the US could not be conquered and could stand up to the British.”
That’s basically nonsense. Britain was hardly the world’s bully, but rather resisting the world’s bully at the time – Napoleon. And, far from proving the war “that the US could not be conquered and could stand up to the British”, it amply demonstrated the opposite, although it would clearly not have been cost-effective (as the Duke of Wellington advised). None of the US victories listed were “key”; all but the Battle of New Orleans (which was after the peace treaty, and so was not followed up) were either inconclusive or rapidly reversed in their effects by further British action. “Decisive” means that they decided something; those weren’t and didn’t.
“Here we have 39 American victories in a short war against a major world power, count ‘em!” is highly misleading, if you don’t count British successes.
“The reality is we did a lot better in the War of 1812 than in the American Revolution” is nonsense. The USA came into existence from the latter, but gained absolutely nothing from its aggression in the former. Even the few gains from the peace treaty were due to the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the clearing up of US non-compliance with previous treaties.
I had an email correspondence on this area with Thomas Woods, which may be worth quoting from:-
I can see how the phrase could appear ambiguous, now that you mention it, but I’m fairly sure an American audience would grasp the meaning immediately. This is actually an old piece that’s just been reprinted, and I’ve never had a complaint about it before, so I think that’s what we’re dealing with.
Tom
–
http://www.TomWoods.com
Check out my latest book, a New York Times bestseller — Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.
Free chapter: http://www.MeltdownTheBook.com
- Hide quoted text -
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote:
On 17/08/2009, Thomas Woods wrote:
> Dear P.M. Lawrence:
>
> Thanks for the embargo clarification, though it’s not really central to an
> article about states’ rights. As for the War of 1812, the phrase “a
> British
> rout” of course means the British routed the Americans. You may safely
> assume that someone with three advanced degrees in history knows the course
> of the War of 1812.
Well, yes – which is why I added that last sentence. But in ordinary
usage here and heretofore, by which I mean in Australia (where I am
now) or Britain (where I’m from) the phrase “a British rout” would
signify a rout of the British, so I felt compelled to write as I did.
Is it really that inverted in US usage, that you can specify who did
it but not who got it? PML.
We seem to be talking over and around each other. It is well to refer to past giants of America, and I honor them as well, but this keeps us mired in the past and references are to what was, not what could be. We can achieve that level of liberty hoped for by Hume, Locke, Burke, and lately by Kirk, by grafting old ideas to the new reality. We need a party of ideas, not a party of republicans, democrats, libertarians, and others. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution rose out of ideas, not party–our revered founders detested parties as divisive, exclusionary, and antithetical to individual freedom. Let us set up a 10th Amendment Foundation with the avowed purpose to elect those to state office who believe in the freedoms set forth in the Constitution and the limiting power of the 10th Amendment. All great movements are founded on simple principles that can be understood by all and that appeal to that yearning to be free in a free country. Shall we act? Now?
In 1807, the British engaged in an unprovoked naval attack against the Chesapeake, killing three Americans and wounding 18 more.
Then, from 1807 until 1812, the British seized about 400 more American vessels, and kidnapped about 8000 American sailors. Negotiation by Jefferson and Madison was fruitless, as the British knew that had naval superiority.
The War of 1812 was legal and Constitutional act of self-defense, and was really a continuation of the Revolutionary war, as issues from that war had never been settled.
After the War of 1812, the British stopped kidnapping our sailors and seizing our vessels. That is gain enough. But we also had free trade for the first time in the Great Lakes, the Atlantic ocean, the Mississippi river, and the West Indies. We proved we could fight the British to a draw at worst, as the 39 victories above prove, and the British realized it was best for them to share in the same free trade as well.
The are huge, gigantic gains that brought great wealth to the American people.
Also, it is a myth that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the war was over. Wars are over when peace treaties are ratified, not when they are signed by ambassadors. The Treaty of Ghent had not been ratified before the Battle of New Orleans.
As to who was the world’s bully at the time, this book proves that Great Britain, not France, was the world’s bully:
WARS AGAINST NAPOLEON, THE: Debunking the Myth of the Napoleonic Wars
by General Michel Franceschi and Ben Weider
http://www.amazon.com/WARS-AGAINST-NAPOLEON-Debunking-Napoleonic/dp/1932714375
Anyone remember the Battle of Trafagar?
“So even though the war [of 1812] settled nothing, it actually settled everything.”
From Dr. Gordon Wood and Liberty Fund Books:
Is There a “James Madison Problem”?
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1727&chapter=81746&layout=html&Itemid=27
….But probably the most convincing evidence of Madison’s being an idealistic republican seeking to avoid a strong federal government and the state-building processes characteristic of the modern European monarchies was the way he and the other Republicans prepared for and fought the War of 1812. “Prepared for” is hardly the term to use. The Republicans in the Congress talked about war, but at the same time proposed abolishing the army. They cut back the War Department and defeated efforts to build up the Navy. They abolished the Bank of the United States on the eve of hostilities, and in March 1812 they very reluctantly agreed to raise taxes, which were to go into effect, however, only if an actual war broke out.
Historians often harshly criticize Madison and the Republicans for the inept way they prepared for and conducted the war. But this criticism misses the point of what Madison and the Republicans were most frightened.
As Jefferson said in 1806, “Our constitution is a peace establishment—it is not calculated for war.” War, the Republicans realized, would lead to a Hamiltonian monarchical-type government—with increased taxes, an overblown bureaucracy, heavy debts, standing armies, and enhanced executive power.
Since war was a threat to republican principles, the Republican Party and administration would have to wage the war that began in 1812 in a manner different from the way monarchies waged war. As Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin pointed out at the outset, the Republicans’ dilemma was to wage a war without promoting “the evils inseparable from it . . . debt, perpetual taxation, military establishments, and other corrupting or anti-republican habits or institutions.”
Madison remained remarkably sanguine during the disastrous events of the war. Better to allow the country to be invaded and the capital to be burned than to build up state power in a European monarchical manner. Even during the war he continued to call for embargoes as the best means for fighting the war. He knew that a republican leader could not become a Napoleon or even a Hamilton. He knowingly accepted the administrative confusion and inefficiencies and the military failures, calm in the conviction that, in a republic, strong executive leadership could only endanger the principles for which the war was fought.
So even though the war settled nothing, it actually settled everything. It vindicated the grand revolutionary experiment in limited republican government. As the City of Washington declared in a formal tribute to the president, the sword of war had usually been wielded at the expense of “civil or political liberty.” But this was not the case with President Madison in the war against Britain. Not only had the president restrained the sword “within its proper limits” but he also had directed “an armed force of fifty thousand men aided by an annual disbursement of many millions, without infringing a political, civil, or religious right.” As one admirer noted, Madison had withstood both a powerful foreign enemy and widespread domestic opposition “without one trial for treason, or even one prosecution for libel.”
Historians living in a world dominated by theories of preemptive war, a vast federal bureaucracy, a sprawling Pentagon, an enormous CIA, huge public debts, taxes beyond any the Founders could have imagined, and well over a million men and women under arms may not appreciate Madison’s achievement, but contemporaries did. “Notwithstand[ing] a thousand Faults and blunders,” John Adams told Jefferson in 1817, Madison’s administration had “acquired more glory, and established more Union than all his three Predecessors, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, put together.”
We historians have gotten so used to praising Madison the author of the Tenth Federalist and denigrating Madison the president that we assume they must be two different Madisons. But there is no “Madison Problem” except the one that we have concocted.
Maybe we ought to spend less time investigating Madison the author of the Tenth Federalist and more time investigating Madison the president. His conception of war and the world, whether we agree with it or not, might give us a better perspective on the confusing times in which we live.
I agree with Henry Clemens. The principles founded in the tenth amendment were dissolved with the Civil War, and the only potential for seeing them restored would be a repeat of the first, with different results. Having said that, I am mindful of the sentiment expressed by many of our founding fathers which decalred that our consitutional form of government would only survive among a moral people as illustrated in the Judeo-Christian tradition. America has long since passed beyond this description, and were the tenth amendment to be legally reinstated through the reconstruction of a constitutional government, it would never survive.
Steve Tate, I agree. Most politicians have no moral basis for their decisions and violate the spirit of the Constitution with their voting records. Half-yes-men, half-showbiz hosts with contempt for the American people. The pervasive degrading and dumbing-down effects on the People through media and useless pursuits leaves no check on the corrupt federal powers, or support for champions (viz-a-viz Ron Paul). The oligarchical, transnational aspect of the American elite leaves no room for Judeo-Christian values in the American TV programming that substitutes for communal events and family time. UNLESS THE STATES STAND UP, all is lost.