Calhoun and States' Rights

There was said to be a “Great Triumvirate” of senators during the early 19th century period that I’ve been writing about this week. Earlier posts discussed two of them: Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. The third was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina.

He represented his state in the House and Senate, and also served as vice president and secretary of war and of state. Calhoun was one of the first major leaders of the Democratic Party, when it took that identity around the time of Andrew Jackson’s election to the presidency in 1828. Here is his official congressional biography.

His best-known policy position is his advocacy of nullification, the idea that a state should be able to disallow enforcement of a federal law within the state. South Carolina tried that, and then backed down under threat of federal military force. That’s perhaps the second-boldest assertion of states’ rights (the boldest being the secession of southern states in 1860-1) since the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. That ratification was the first of several steps toward a stronger federal government, and away from states’ rights.

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. was governed under the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781. That structure more closely resembled an international organization than a federal government. In fact, it could probably be argued that the European Union, an international organization which regulates much of the economic and social policy in its 27 member countries, is a stronger government than was the U.S. government under the Articles. Under the Constitution of 1787, the states delegated significant powers to the federal government, although the balance was still much more in favor of the states than would be the case as time went on.

The quelling of the South Carolina nullification attempt in 1833 was another such step.

Victory over the Confederate side in the Civil War, and the ensuing 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution continued the trend. All states were subject to the same constitutional provisions regarding the rights of their inhabitants. However, it took about another century before effective enforcement legislation was enacted.

In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program further extended the scope of the federal government. The Supreme Court found some New Deal legislation to be unconstitutional, but the Court backed down in 1938, after Roosevelt had threatened to use one of the checks on judicial power that is available to the political branches (executive and legislative), i.e., enlargement of the Supreme Court.

Image: U.S. Senate