Calhoun and States’ Rights

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

In Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776-1865 (McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021), Luigi Marco Bassani discusses John C. Calhoun’s concept of States’ rights. The following summarizes that discussion.

Calhoun used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. Each State was a self-governing political community, and the people of each State were the sovereign authority — not their government. Concurrent majority and the concept that the Constitution was an agreement between the States were the core features of Calhoun’s political thoughts. Thus, he objected to the notion that a simple numerical majority should decide all political issues.

According to Calhoun, sovereignty belonged either to the States or to the Union. Because sovereignty was indivisible, it could not belong to both. He argued that sovereignty resided in the people of the individual States and not in the people of the Union as a whole.

Calhoun asserted that the Supremacy Clause invested no power in the federal government. It clearly did not establish the supremacy of the federal government. Further, he maintained that the authority of the federal government set up by the Constitution was limited to the delegated powers and that laws enacted pursuant to these delegated powers were supreme. However, the Supremacy Clause did not extend beyond these delegated powers, i.e., the supremacy of the federal government is not absolute. The States and the people of the States retained all authority not expressly delegated to the federal government.

Conflict, according to Calhoun, did not originate in society. Governmental action caused conflict by creating two opposite social classes: taxpayers and tax consumers. Moreover, suffrage led to conflict between the different interests in a community because each interest strove to obtain the power to protect itself from the others and to advance its own agenda. However, conflicting interests did not lead to a government. Politics was what caused the conflict between various interests.

Calhoun thought equalizing the fiscal appropriations of a government was impossible. Taxation and public expenditures caused two conflicting interests. While those who controlled the government benefitted from the taxes, those who did not control the government paid more in taxes than they received back in disbursements. Consequently, political power, government, is the cause of conflict in society.

For many years, Calhoun sought in the Constitution the defense against the federal government’s intrusions. He based his arguments on the individual States being contracting parties to and, therefore, the real principals of the Constitution.

The Constitution centered around the States. This centralness appeared in how Representatives and Senators were chosen. The people of the several States chose members of the House of Representatives. The legislatures of the States elected senators. (Now, the people of each State elect that State’s Senators via the seventeenth amendment.) Representatives and Senators must be inhabitants of the State from which they are elected. Moreover, Representatives were never considered a delegate of a part of the American people.

Calhoun noted that States were the source of the federal government’s political powers. Political power flowed from the States to the federal government and never vice-versa. The Constitution gave certain powers to the federal government and prohibited others. However, it never gave any powers to the States; it only prohibited certain powers. All powers that the States did not expressly delegate to the federal government, they reserved for themselves, i.e., the States retained all powers not expressly delegated. Thus, the Constitution established a federal government with highly limited powers.

For Calhoun, the States were the sole actors in the Union. Unlike Jefferson, who favored a federal-type relationship between centers of government within a State, Calhoun did not. He favored a simple administrative relationship between the State government and local authorities. However, he believed that the United States were an authentic federation.

Calhoun objected to governmental interference in the economic pursuits of individuals, who understood their own interests better than any government. Accordingly, he supported free trade and, therefore, low tariffs. Fervently, he objected to protective tariffs and the South paying disproportionately a much larger share of federal revenue than the North paid. Consequently, the North was exploiting southern producers and consumers for the benefit of the northern manufacturing industry. This redistribution of wealth was not limited to the South. It also was used against northern workers and would result in a class struggle — all courtesy of the federal government.

Furthermore, Calhoun recognized that the centralization and concentration of power in the federal government were being used for northern interest and were causing corruption that threatened the freedom of the country. Interposition by the States was the solution to this centralization of power. However, States could not interpose their authority to interfere with the powers that the Constitution expressly delegated to the federal government. Likewise, the federal government could not interfere with the powers that the States had retained for themselves.

Moreover, the Constitution was based on distinguishing between government and sovereignty. Governmental powers resided in the institutions either of the States or the federal government. Sovereignty resided in the people of each State respectively. Three-fourths of the States were the final constitutional authority.

Because the Constitution created the departments of the federal government, sovereignty did not and could not reside in any department of the federal government. Their sole purpose was to execute the provisions of the Constitution. Any act of the federal government that altered the nature of the Constitution or changed any condition of the parties to it was usurpation.

Calhoun believed that the Supreme Court might judge acts of a State whether they violated the constitutional prerogatives of the federal government. However, the Supreme Court should not and could not legitimately judge an act of the federal government whether it violated the constitutional prerogatives of a State. For the Supreme Court to do so placed it above the States that created the Constitution and vested in it the power to alter the powers of the federal government and the States. 

Calhoun recognized that the text of the Constitution could not impose practical restraints on the federal government. Reason and justice could never restrain power: Only power could restrain power. Only the States possessed sufficient power to restrain the federal government. Therefore, each State should have and did have the right to judge for itself if the federal government had violated any of its rights.

Calhoun maintained that the Constitution implicitly allowed secession because it was a contract between sovereign parties. The ratification process proved this conclusion. As distinct political entities independent from each other, the States ratified the Constitution. Moreover, no State was part of the Union under the Constitution until it ratified the Constitution. Furthermore, the Union was a union of sovereign States without a direct link between the federal government and citizens.

Secession had nothing to do with the federal government. It was an act of a State withdrawing from a partnership with the other States. Although secession was extreme, it was not foreign to the constitutional system. However, according to Calhoun, secession did not derive from the contractual nature of the Constitution; it derived from its political nature.

Calhoun rejected the notion of the will of the majority being the will of the people. For him, the “will of the majority” meant a particular interest or coalition of interests that prevailed over others. Like most people of his era, he believed that a government based on a numerical majority was tyrannical by nature. To overcome the tyranny of an absolute numerical majority, he advocated a concurrent majority on all important issues.

For Calhoun, the term “United States” was geographical and not political. However, he conceived of the United States as more than a league of States. Yet, the States should never become a centralized democracy where an absolute majority ruled. Such a rule would result in abandoning constitutional guarantees. Consequently, States should and did have the right to judge as the last resort the limits that the Constitution placed on the federal government. This right should be defended at all costs. Otherwise, the United States would become a dictatorship of the executive branch.

Both Jefferson and Calhoun considered a State to be the people of the State and not the governmental power. However, Jefferson believed that the United States were for a special purpose only while Calhoun believed them to be an assemblage of nations.

For Calhoun, nullification was peaceful in nature and did not damage the prerogatives of the federal government. When a conflict between a State and the other States could not be resolved, the State had to choose either secession or submission. As a political sovereign and partner with the other States in establishing the Union, each State acting individually and independently had the right to secede peacefully.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

In Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776-1865 (McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021), Luigi Marco Bassani discusses Thomas Jefferson’s concept of States’ rights. The following summarizes that discussion.

Jefferson used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. He advocated localism over nationalism; localism is more closely tied to liberty than is nationalism. Therefore, local interest should be superior to the national interest. Further, he supported self-government and elected officials being directly responsible and linked closely to the voters. Thus, he endorsed natural rights, limited government, and popular sovereignty.

Moreover, the government should be restricted to protecting life, liberty, and property and have a laissez-faire approach in economic matters. Consequently, he opposed the concentration and consolidation of power in a single center and, therefore, fervently opposed a strong federal government that decided the limits of its power.

States’ rights were the best and surest way to prevent the consolidation of power in the federal government. After all, the States had created the federal government as their agent to manage their common affairs, such as foreign relations. They did not create it to rule over them and to manage their internal affairs.

For Jefferson, tyranny rose from the concentration of power. States’ rights were the mechanism by which such tyranny could be prevented. Only by strictly construing the Constitution could the States be saved from being subservient to the federal government. Only when a State acting individually and independently could decide if a federal act exceeded the authority delegated to the federal government and could nullify such unconstitutional act within its territorial limits would the liberties and rights of the people be protected.

Jefferson favored a constitution that united the States concerning foreign affairs but kept the States separate and distinct in domestic concerns. Thus, the States were independent in everything within themselves but were united in everything respecting foreign countries. However, he opposed becoming entangled with other countries; therefore, he favored allowing merchants the freedom to manage their trade with foreign countries.

The Kentucky Resolutions, which Jefferson wrote, expressed the core of his concept of federalism, States’ rights, and constitutional doctrine. According to the Kentucky Resolutions, each State had the right to nullify within its own territory any federal act that if found exceeding the powers delegated to the federal government without the need of other States joining it. Thus, the Kentucky Resolutions expounded the political and judicial philosophy of Jefferson’s States’ rights.

Jefferson believed that the States were much better defenders of individual liberties than were federal courts. Consequently, he replaced the doctrine of natural rights as expounded by federal courts with the doctrine of States’ rights, which were more powerful and effective at protecting the liberties of individuals. Therefore, the States should be responsible for guarding the constitutional balance against the consolidation of power in the federal government.

As sovereign powers, the States entered into a compact to create a federal government as their agent, subordinate to the States, to carry out well-defined, limited functions. Since the States were sovereign parties that entered into the constitutional compact, the federal government, their agent, had no authority to expand its power without the agreement of the contracting parties, the States.

Consequently, Jefferson maintained that each State acting individually and independently could decide if an act of the federal government was contrary to the Constitution. If it found such an act unconstitutional, it could nullify that act within its territory.

Although Jefferson adored the Union, he valued the right of local self-government even more. Thus, he insisted that freedom and self-government could not be subordinated to the Union. Like many people before 1861, he contended that the Union was an experiment in liberty and not an end in itself. Moreover, he thought that local self-government and not the Union was the guarantor of the safety and happiness of the people.

Also, Jefferson objected to the notion that the Constitution gave the federal government implied powers as Alexander Hamilton had argued. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution did not give the federal government absolute supremacy over the States. Not all federal laws are the supreme law of the land. Only those laws enacted pursuant to one of the delegated powers are supreme. Otherwise, State laws are supreme.

To Jefferson, the Union was a true federation with the federal government having a few delegated functions and powers as set out in the Constitution. Only with the consent of the States through the amendment process could it expand its power. He considered federalism as an end in itself with self-governing States being supreme over the federal government. Moreover, he rejected the notion that the Bill of Rights applied to the States and asserted that it only applied to the federal government.

Jefferson also rejected the notion that a federal common law existed. Each State had its own common law system that applied solely within its borders. However, no American common law existed.

He feared that if the federal legal system incorporate common law, Congress could expand its power by revising and integrating the principles of common law. If this were to happen, constitutional limitations on the federal government would vanish. Congress could legislate in all cases whatsoever. If common law were to limit federal legislative activity, then the judiciary would acquire legislative power. If common law became a body of law, the Constitution would cease limiting the powers of the federal government. In any event, the incorporation of American common law into the federal legal system would be disastrous for the liberties of the people and States’ rights. The Constitution and federal common law could not coexist in the American system of government.

Jefferson rejected the notion of the Supreme Court, which was part of the federal government, being the final arbitrator between a State and the federal government. If the Supreme Court were the final arbitrator, then Congress and the President, which were also part of the federal government, were being adjudicated by another part of the federal government, the Supreme Court, and not by the Constitution. If the federal government could force the States to comply with all federal laws whatsoever, whether according to the Constitution or in flagrant violation of it, then federalism would cease to exist except in name only. Consequently, the States were and ought to be the final judges of the constitutionality of federal acts. (Being part of the federal government, federal courts has no incentive to prevent the consolidation of power in the federal government. History has shown that not only do federal courts place little constraint against such consolidation, but they have often led in such consolation.)

Thus, Jefferson maintained that the authority of the Supreme Court to decide in the last resort did not extend to the rights of the States, which were parties to the constitutional compact. The States gave federal judges their delegated trusts. As original parties to the constitutional compact, each individual State was the ultimate judge of whether an act of the federal government was compatible with the Constitution. As a creation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not be the ultimate judge.

Since the defeat of the Confederacy, the federal government has been suppressing States’ rights and has almost extinguished them. As a result, liberty has faded and the tyranny that Jefferson feared has happened.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

Thomas Allen

I have read several books and articles whose authors hated the Jim Crow Era and loved the Civil Rights Era. Only slavery was worse for Blacks than the Jim Crow Era. The Civil Rights Era is the greatest thing that ever happened to Blacks. Reading their works, one is perplexed about how they arrived at this conclusion. They present information that shows that in many respects, life for Blacks was superior during the Jim Crow Era than during the Civil Rights Era.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class based on merit and, thus, self-respect. Because of this growing Black middle class, Stalin sent agents to destroy it by creating a Black revolution. Contrariwise, during the Civil Rights Era, the growing Black middle class is based on affirmative action and, therefore, doubt. In the Civil Rights Era, the Black middle class has been based on special privileges, those who grant the privileges can quickly bring the Black middle class down by removing the privileges. Consequently, Blacks had more independence during the Jim Crow Era than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Further, during the Jim Crow Era, most Black families had fathers. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, most Black families have no fathers. Thus, the family unit was much stronger during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, Blacks married at a higher rate than Whites. During the Civil Rights Era, Black marriages have plummeted. A much lower percentage of Black children were born out of wedlock in the Jim Crow Era. Now, the Civil Rights Era has resulted in a large percentage of Black children being born out of wedlock. Moreover, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics then than now.

Also, during the Jim Crow Era, criminal activity by Blacks was lower than during the Civil Rights Era. During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Moreover, fewer Blacks were welfare recipients and, therefore, much more self-reliant. During the Civil Rights Era, many Blacks have become enslaved to the welfare state and are dependent on their masters in Washington. Thus, they have traded segregation for slavery.

In the time of Jim Crow, only a few Blacks expressed a desire to genocide their race, the American Negro, via miscegenation. As a result of the Civil Rights Era, an ever-growing number of Blacks seem compelled to genocide the American Negro via miscegenation.

Apparently, the benefits of the Civil Rights Era have more than offset the deterioration of the Black family, the rising Black crime rate, the enslavement of Blacks in the welfare state, and the genocide of the Black race. (Not only is the American Negro being genocided via miscegenation, but also the culture and society of the American Negro are being destroyed through integration, which too is genocide. This genocide of the American Negro may account for the deterioration of Black behavior.) At least the Civil Rights Era has reduced the number of restrooms and water fountains by amalgamating the races. With integrated schools, it has reduced the quality of education for all through indoctrination-propaganda curricula, but at least both Blacks and Whites now receive the same low-quality education. Anyway, Blacks can now eat in the same restaurants as Whites, can sit beside Whites on public transportation and at public entertainment events, and stay at the same motels — although integration ended many Black businesses. Moreover, during the Civil Rights Era, Blacks have received preferential treatment in employment via affirmative action and quotas. Nevertheless, most people believe that the benefits of the Civil Rights Era for Blacks far outweigh its costs for Blacks and especially for Whites.

As shown above, Blacks were much more independent and self-reliant during the Jim Crow Era. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, they are dependent on their masters in Washington and the statehouses. Thus, many have reverted back to slavery without the self-respect that a slave had knowing that he more than earned his keep. Today’s slaves are nothing more than parasites living off others and giving nothing in return but their votes and services as protestors and rioters. Contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race along with Black society, culture, and race.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.