There can never be two centers of power; the buck must stop somewhere. This saying is true in the case of state right’s and the union. In order to understand this phenomenon, it is important to look back in time to the period when the union was conceived. U.S. founding fathers deliberately divided sovereignty between the states and the federal government. The vision was that the national and devolved units of government would work together harmoniously. However, this was the recipe for a subsequent power struggles in the succeeding years. The battle lines were drawn. On one side, some politicians supported strong federal government while, on the other side, some politicians wanted strong state governments. Despite attempts by the founding fathers to create “sovereignty within sovereignty,” the county never attained the harmonious relationship between states and federal government as envisioned.
After the American Revolution War, drafters of the constitution were not sure about which states would ratify the document and those who would not. To entice all the states, the drafters of the constitution decided to do something unprecedented. They decided to create Imperium in Imperio, which simply means sovereignty within sovereignty. The states would be allowed to operate independently within the broad context of the federal government. The founders hoped that ratification of the constitution would prove that governments could be products of deliberation and choice rather than accidents. However, the solution envisioned was also the source of future challenges. Friction between proponents of federalism and opponents of the same became evident right from the first administration.
When George Washington came into power, he appointed two men with different ideologies on the future political landscape of United States as his closest political advisors. The two men were Thomas Jefferson (the first secretary of state) and Alexander Hamilton (the first secretary of the treasury). Right from the beginning, the two men had different visions on the nation’s path. Hamilton believed that the future of U.S. lay in the promotion of commerce and manufacturing. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that America’s success lay in agrarian tradition. Hamilton believed that the country should adopt a national bank which would consolidate state debts and empower American manufacturers. On the contrary, Jefferson and his allies opposed the plan because it would strengthen the federal government at the expense of the states.
Jefferson argued that the Congress did not have the constitutional power to set up a national bank. Again, he did not see the need of supporting manufacturing over agriculture. Frequently, he would advise the countrymen to allow workshops to be in Europe. Two camps aligned themselves along the two ideologies: federalists and anti-federalists. By 1996, two distinct political factions became distinct: republicans and federalists. Despite President Washington’s attempts to foster unity, the differences became too deep to attain consensus. To underscore the nature of the simmering tension, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions came almost immediately.
Buoyed by the autonomy granted to them by the constitution, Kentucky and Virginia declared Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional. The resolutions were drafted by none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively. The rationale was that states should determine which powers are constitutional or not. Despite attempts to downplay the damage caused by the two resolutions, the image of the federal government suffered irredeemably. However, the need for a strong federal government would be realized almost immediately.
After Thomas Jefferson came to power, he committed himself to unite all republicans and federalists in his inaugural speech. Despite being a strong believer in state’s rights, Jefferson’s foreign policy became too much pro-strong federal government. For example, the president set his sights to acquire Louisiana and Florida when the opportunity presented itself. However, the geopolitical nature at the moment would not allow a smooth take over. In 1807, Jefferson’s administration proposed an embargo that would involve taking all the American ships off sea. This would ensure that no American ships would be captured. However, that decision would prove to be too costly for New England, which was heavily dependent on foreign shipping.
In Boston, for example, idle sailors roamed the streets as their ships docked on the shores. The problem spiraled down to merchants and bankers who were all affected by the low shipping business. In order to counter the loss of business, some merchants started moving goods up the Hudson River to Canada from where the goods could be exported beyond the control of U.S. custom officials. During all this confusion, there was a debate about whether to ignore or cancel the federal law altogether. At the same time, people in the streets of New England started to talk about seceding from the union. Consequently, an open rebellion of President Jefferson’s foreign policy ensued.
In response to New England’s opposition and outright disregard of President Jefferson’s foreign policy, some members suggested the strengthening of the customs agency to seize any suspicious cargoes. The argument was that what was happening in New England threatened the national interest of the country. The debate about national interests versus state rights would reappear years later after the break of the 1812 War. The country’s reliance on state militias and weak federal government meant that the country had little or no influence in articulating its foreign policy, especially on maritime waters. This rekindled the call for a strong federal government.
In order to promote manufacturing, the federal government enacted a national tariff policy that would strengthen trade. Many years later, this decision led to the Nullification Controversy by South Carolina in 1832. The 1832 Ordinance of Nullification sought to declare federal tariffs of 1828 and 1932 unconstitutional. Therefore, the laws were declared null and void within South Carolina boundaries. South Carolina politicians blamed the economic downturn facing their state on the national tariffs enacted (after 1812) to promote manufacturing. There was hope that Andrew Jackson’s administration would intervene and reduce the tariffs. However, after the administration did little to reduce the tariffs, the people of South Carolina had few alternatives. Nonetheless, the right of the state to nullify laws enacted by the federal government remained something controversial. However, President Andrew Jackson did something unprecedented in the following year: he ordered the closure of the second bank of the U.S.
The president used his constitutional powers to announce that the second U.S. bank was no longer needed. The second bank of the U.S. opened in 1816 five years after the expiry of the first bank’s charter. Although the president’s closed the bank for lack of congressional oversight, the political implications were much greater. It led to further debates about secession and eventually the breakout of the civil war.
In conclusion, the efforts made (by the founding fathers) to allow states to operate independently of the federal government did not yield the harmonious relationship expected. Instead, the decision to create “sovereignty within sovereignty” charted the path for vicious power struggles between states and the federal government. The simmering tensions came to the fore in the early 19th century when the civil war broke out. Therefore, the issue of Imperium in Imperio was never fully resolved.
Bibliography
McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876 . Lawrence, KS : University Press of Kansas, 2002.
