Nationalism and Sectionalism Midterm Flashcards
The Whig Commonwealth–National Unity
The Whigs promoted an understanding of America as a commonwealth. (NY Tribune). In the face the threats to national unity posed by excessive party spirit, State nullification, foreign expansion, slavery, and universal suffrage, the Whigs sought to identify and bolster the unity of the nation. (American Review). This prompted recognition and promotion of Americans’ unity of language, civilization, education, religion, interest, and principles of government, which include centralized government with decentralized administration via federalism. (American Review). The grounds for American unity were stated in the American Review: “Among these, we would name a common origin; sameness of education, pursuits and general taste; similarity of political institutions in the different States, all concentrating their efforts upon the inculcation of the same sentiment of rational liberty; a common religion, whose central idea is individual freedom and responsibility.”
To cultivate and bolster national unity, they favored an economic program known as the American System, which called for a protective tariff, federal subsidies for the construction of infrastructure, and support for a national bank. These measures, the Whigs argued, would bolster unity among Americans according to their interests and the satisfaction of mutual wants. (American Review).
Against the threat that slavery posed to American unity, the Whig response was to downplay the issue. As Henry Clay argued, the Compromise of 1850 should be supported—which included the Fugitive Slave Act—because it supports the union and angers the abolitionists, who don’t want peace between the states, which requires compromise, not moral denunciations.
Against the threat to unity posed by the variety of sectional interests and even a growing immigrant population, the Whigs leaned towards nativism (Morse) and sought to bolster the sense of “commonwealth” by appeal to something fundamental. Whigs like Choate sought the fundamental unity underlying America in a mytho-historical account of the Puritans and the colonial era, whereas Whigs like Morse and Barnard developed organic theories of the state where social duties take precedence over natural rights. Lincoln sought the fundamental unity underlying American life–including its government–in the basic moral principle of the Declaration, preserving the divine sanction of natural rights and their connection to natural law. (Chicago Speech).
The Whig Commonwealth–The American System
To cultivate and bolster national unity, they favored an economic program known as the American System, which called for a protective tariff, federal subsidies for the construction of infrastructure, and support for a national bank.
Webster praised the bank as means to sound and ordinary currency, which would benefit not just elites, but every working man. Without a national bank, there will be worthless paper money floating through the economy, and it will be used as a means by which the rich take advantage of the poor, paying for labor with worthless cash. The national bank has matured beyond its early years, when the spirit of speculation is most mischievious, and has instead become fixed and settled in its administration. The Bank has had a salutary effect on agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, including in the South and the West, not just in the East. Sound and ordinary currency benefits the entire nation, and the circulation of that currency has benefitted all sections of the nation.
Lincoln, in responding to the veto by Polk of an internal improvements bill and the opposition of Cass, argued that although the tendency to undue expansion is a genuine worry, it cannot prevent any action. America is a large country with a growing non-localized economy. Internal improvements will make it such that “what is made unequal in one place may be equalized in another, extravagance avoided, and the whole country put on that career of prosperity, which shall correspond with it’s extent of territory, it’s natural resources, and the intelligence and enterprise of its people.”
Carey argued that the protective tariff would help solve the problem of a lack of diversification in the economy, especially as it existed in the South. Southern plantation owners are using more and more land, and yielding less and less. The land is worn out from soil exhaustion, causing the destruction of land prices. And a large part of the productive population is laying idle during much of the year. This is all because farmers are incentivized to produce what can be shipped most cheaply in order to mitigate the “transportation tax” of traders. We need a protective tariff to help diversify the economy, because the current free trade system is just a continuation of British colonialism in the economic sphere.
Protective tariffs indirectly drives up labor costs so that ordinary people can be competitive in the marketplace and provide a decent life for themselves and families. Cheapening of labor and a massive transportation tax all benefit England at the expense of ordinary Americans.
And, of course, the tariff was the primary method of funding the national government.
The Whig Commonwealth–Morality, improvement, progress
The emphasis of the Whig’s on American internal improvements in the economic sphere extended to a concern for American internal improvement in morals. For this reason, Whigs were skeptical of aggressive foreign expansion, seeing it as in conflict with the internal practice and cultivation of virtue, as well as something that would inflame the divisive issue of slavery.
Corwin argued that the Mexican-American War would have a negative effect on American moral character, in teaching Americans that if you want something bad enough, you can take it. Further, the acquisition of territory is going to exacerbate the slavery issue, which in turn threatens the union.
Mann argued that American statesmanship—republican statesmanship—requires a deep moral concern for the whole people. Common schools will both raise the common man out of ignorance in the aid of self-government, and make all citizens more respectable to each other. Republican institutions empower men to a higher degree than any form of government, and therefore Americans must educate themselves to be up to that challenge.
Sumner argued that the improvement of society is in some way progressive—we are improving the species, because man, as a species, is capable of “indefinite improvement.” He argued that material and moral progress linked, and man himself will be subdued. This is the theme of internal improvement extended beyond the economy
Lincoln: Rejects the mud sill theory—people born in the muck shouldn’t be irrevocably stuck if their talents and virtue can lift them out of it. So slavery is bad because it prevents people from lifting themselves up or even trying to do so. (Wisconsin Agriculture). The union is fighting for the idea of a country where you’re not stuck by the accidents of your birth. (Ohio Regiment)
Jacksonian Democracy–Democracy and Aristocracy
Jacksonians understand themselves as defenders of the people against the aristocratic pretentions of the elites. The features of this defense of the people were limited government and a strong democratic party.
Leggett argued that the makeup of the parties is, on the one hand, the farmers, mechanics, laborers, and producers of middling and lower classes, and, on the other hand, the consumers, the rich, and the proud. The latter party wishes to use a broad construction of the constitution to benefit themselves. But the fundamental purpose of government is the protection of persons and property through general laws.
Anything beyond protection through general laws risks the twisting of the machinery of government by the rich to their benefit. Thus, O’Sullivan argued that the government that governs best is the one that governs least. O’Sullivan called this the “voluntary principle.” Thus, they oppose the tariff and the bank on the grounds that they were inequitable in granting or protecting special privileges of the well-connected, and also bad for the people’s character. The many rely on equal rights, the few on special privileges. Those special privileges, which the bank and the tariff generate, serve to produce a permanent class of elites. But there is no such thing as a natural ruling class, and so any policy that tends towards the creation of an elite class is unjust.
Van Buren argued that the Democratic party’s mobilization of the people along anti-elite lines is necessary because the people are less organized and more dispersed than the elites. Federalists really don’t need a party, they are always on the lookout for their special interests and can easily cooperate to accomplish their goals. So the Federalists don’t want parties at all that mobilize the people, and they slander the Democrat’s as factious. This is part of Hamilton’s influence—the skepticism of the people’s ability to rule themselves. Also can’t let moles like JQA into the Republican Party.
Jacksonian Democracy–Jacksonian political economy
Jackson on the tariff: Jackson is not doctrinaire about the tariff. On the one hand, he stated that the tariff has to be confined for raising money for specific enumerated purposes, but then also said that the tariff was useful for making America competitive with other countries and for encouraging manufactures. So Jackson ultimately settled on a tariff policy directed to objects of the national good and, to a lesser degree, to the protection of nascent American industry. (Farewell Address; First Annual Message; Second Annual Message).
Jackson on the bank: On the bank, Jackson is immovable. He advances a strict interpretation of the necessary and proper clause. He argued that Congress can’t divest itself of Constitutional authority. As such, it is Congress’ job to coin money, and it cannot be delegated or divested to a bank. He also argued that Congress’ power to grant monopolies is very limited, e.g., patents.
The bank would allow foreigners to own stock in the bank, which would be exempt from taxation, and this would sidestep state law prohibitions on foreigners owning property.
Jackson also argued that the federal government can’t own lands except for certain limited types and for certain limited objects, but by owning stock in the bank, they would skirt that limitation. And it would also override State power to tax banking business.
Bank stockholders would enjoy a monopoly privilege for their own benefit for which the people receive no equivalent. Wealth is drained from the West and South and transferred to the Northeast, where the Northeastern elites control the bank’s operations. (Veto Message)
The alternative to the bank is a Treasury system which would strictly collect, hold, and disburse federal money.
Gouge: Banking in this way is a wealth transfer. It takes wealth created by producers and transfers it to people who trade in money. This has a deleterious effect on morals by teaching that honest labor is not the best way to sustain oneself. Love of luxury also makes men miserable. And banking in this way buries men in debt. Paper money has no inherent value, just evidences of debt; produces ruinous fluctuations of prices because banks behave for their own benefit.
Van Buren: a. Paper money leads to speculation and fraud. It’s indicative of debt, not wealth.
Summary: All these critiques are trying to minimize the role of government and the ability to confer special privileges
Jacksonian Democracy–Expansion and Democracy
Whigs are focused on internal improvement, whereas Democrats are more amenable to Manifest Destiny—spreading the blessings of our way of life.
O’Sullivan: Argues that the annexation of Texas was just. They were independent and voluntarily requested incorporation, and were Americans who were prepared for American self-government. This is a model for expansionism and the creation of states. Calls it “our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions”
Democratic Review: Mexico is going to be incorporated, at least its remote parts. Gone is the worry about the size of the republic that was a matter of debate in the founding. Instead, there is strong confidence in our system of representation’s ability to effectively govern huge amounts of land, aided by modern science.
Douglas: England cannot be our friend; and America cannot be restrained. It’s our destiny to have Cuba, which would be readily incorporated into a slave state.
Douglas: Manifest destiny and popular sovereignty are the same; favors the fastest possible expansion.
Dickinson: We should conquer Mexico before the British do. It would improve their political situation and it would likely make them better, more like us. They’d become Americans, because they would soon learn to appreciate the American political system.
Sovereignty and the nature of the Union–The Nullification Crisis–The South Carolina Doctrine
The South Carolina doctrine was developed in response to the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832.
Hamilton: A state can nullify any federal law. What benefits us is free trade. If the other states disagree, we can decide whether we wish to stay in the union under this type of agreement.
McDuffie: The tariff will ultimately destroy domestic business that produces domestic articles given for tea. So South Carolina will become a tax farm for everyone else. Protective tariffs are an unjust targeting of South Carolina, threatening to make them a permanent minority. “The idea of bloodshed and civil war, in a contest of this kind, is utterly ridiculous.”
Turnbull: The Constitution is a compact between sovereign states. The U.S. government is a league between several sovereigns, a treaty, a confederation, an alliance. Asserts a doctrine of undivided state sovereignty based on the idea that the social compact does not form a people or a nation. Rather, “all inherent sovereignty is therefore in the States.” And if the states are fully sovereign, the states retain the right to determine whether the federal government have violated its trust, and there can be no common judge or umpire between the states or with regard to the states. Just like any other treaty, every party has the authority to judge for itself if the treaty has been violated and what’s the appropriate redress. Never claims its in the Constitution and never claims its an exercise of the natural right of revolution—it’s inherent in the compact and the concept of sovereignty and the nature of the union itself. It’s impossible for a state to be in a state of revolution against the federal government, because the federal government is merely an agent/trustee of the states. The tariff doesn’t treat South Carolina as an equal sovereign, but as a dependency or colony. “The idea of using force on an occasion of this kind, is utterly at variance with the genius and spirit of the American people.”
Hayne: Supports the South Carolina Doctrine with an appeal to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison’s Report, as well as Jefferson’s opinion in 1821 (though there he says you need a convention).
Summary: States have complete and undivided sovereignty. The states are the parties to a compact created by the Constitution Citizens are obligated to their states first and foremost. The Constitution is a treaty arrangement between the states. The transition from the Articles to the Constitution did not change this. The States are the final arbiters of disputes arising under the Constitution, not the federal courts. That would be to elevate the agent above the principal. Each state, acting unilaterally, can determine whether the compact has been violated and what to do about it. This is embedded in the idea of the system embodied in the Constitution, it’s not an appeal to national law or specific provisions or natural law. The tariff is unjust and goes beyond the federal government’s legitimate operations.
Sovereignty and the nature of the Union–The Nullification Crisis–Concurrent Majority
There is no such thing as the American people as a legal entity. After the Declaration, the separate colonies were made separate sovereign states, and the Constitution did not change this, as each State ratified the Constitution separately.
If the state and federal government are in conflict, citizens’ loyalty is owed to the State.
He retains concepts from the other nullifiers like undivided state sovereignty, which is higher than federal courts, and can declare an act of the federal government null and void. But distinguishes between nullification and secession. They’re different in their nature, object, and effect.
Nullification is the principal overruling its agent.
Nullification aims to constrain federal government to act in accordance with the Constitution.
Nullification therefore preserves the Constitution.
A single state can defend itself, but the amending power gives 3/4ths of the states the ability to overrule that single state. This is sort of a step back from the absolute state sovereignty position
Theory of concurrent majority distinguished between the majority of the people as a whole and the majority of a discrete group. The Constitution has given too much power in law-making to the former. And so Calhoun did not believe that debating broad versus strict constructionism would solve the crisis, because it was simply a fact that the numerical majority rules in lawmaking. Calhoun’s solution was to articulate how states can qualify that rule. This in turn involved a distinction between law-making power versus constitution-making power. The former, as the realm of the numerical majority, needs to be constrained so that it doesn’t overstep its bounds. Undivided state sovereignty is therefore crucial to preserving the constitution against an unfettered numerical majority.
Sovereignty and the Nature of the Union–The Nullification Crisis–“Liberty and Union”
1st prop: The Constitution is not a league or a treaty. The Constitution sees itself as creating a government, not a league. It was adopted by the people, and it acts directly on the individual. It provides protection to individuals. A declaration of war is legislation, but no one seriously contends that states can nullify declarations of war. Also, everyone agreed—federalists and anti-federalists—that the Constitution was a big change from the Articles. That change is reflected in the fact that it’s called a constitution, not a confederation.
2nd prop: No state can dissolve these relations. The only way out is revolution, no matter what you call it. There is no ordinary process by which an individual state can blow up the system—the only way out is revolution.
3rd prop: The Constitution is the fundamental law, and it provides that acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land. Any time you vest political power somewhere, you vest some discretion or choice. The federal government has federal power, and so the federal government has the discretion or capability to exercise choice for purposes of that power’s exercise. And if there’s a dispute, the federal government has to resolve it. To deny this would be strike at the foundation of the legislative power of Congress because if every State can interpret federal legislation on its own, then you no longer have federal “law.”
4th prop: Nullification is an attack on constitutional majorities. It would enable a minority to govern, which is oligarchy. And because nullification is a usurpation of the just powers of the general government and the equal rights of the other states, South Carolina is engaging in open rebellion. For 30 years, South Carolina admitted that the federal government could enact tariffs.
Sovereignty and the Nature of the Union–The Nullification Crisis–Divided Sovereignty
Madison
It’s not a consolidated government nor is it a league. No one state can unilaterally change the Constitution because they all agreed to form it. The federal government is sovereign in its sphere, not an agent.
Restates the fact that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. So it’s not a total consolidation. (To Webster)
The national government performs all the typical acts of sovereignty in foreign affairs. So unlimited state sovereignty is false. (To Rives).
Yes, the people of each state made the decision to join the compact, but in creating it, they acted collectively—that’s what made it operative. No state has a greater right to break off from the bargain than the other states have a right to hold them to it. (To Trist).
Regarding the Virginia Resolutions, he states that it was about the right of multiple states to cooperate politically to respond to clear federal encroachments. And even Jefferson thought there should be enforcement of state contributions of money. So the nullificationists are mistaken when looking to me for support and they are unfairly selective with regard to Jefferson.
Secession is a violation without cause of a faith solemnly pledged. If there is cause, then its under the right of revolution. (To Webster).
If the Supreme Court isn’t the ultimate judge in these disputes, we are in the realm outside the Constitution, with the consequence that there will be more and more nullifications, throwing us back into the state of nature. (To Trist; Everett).
The nullificationists are anti-republican. They either have to hope we have minority government—i.e., oligarchy or monarchy or aristocracy—or try to create perfect homogeneity—i.e., something that doesn’t exist and has never existed in civilized communities. The only remedy for the oppressed Constitutional minority is an amendment or subversion of the Constitution.
