Alien and Sedition Acts,1798, four laws enacted by the Federalist-controlled U.S. Congress, allegedly in response to the hostile actions of the French Revolutionary government on the seas and in the councils of diplomacy (seeXYZ Affair), but actually designed to destroy Thomas Jefferson's Republican party, which had openly expressed its sympathies for the French Revolutionaries. Depending on recent arrivals from Europe for much of their voting strength, the Republicans were adversely affected by the Naturalization Act, which postponed citizenship, and thus voting privileges, until the completion of 14 (rather than 5) years of residence, and by the Alien Act and the Alien Enemies Act, which gave the President the power to imprison or deport aliens suspected of activities posing a threat to the national government. President John Adams made no use of the alien acts. Most controversial, however, was the Sedition Act, devised to silence Republican criticism of the Federalists. Its broad proscription of spoken or written criticism of the government, the Congress, or the President virtually nullified the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press. Prominent Jeffersonians, most of them journalists, such as John Daly Burk, James T. Callender, ThomasCooper, WilliamDuane(1760–1835), and MatthewLyonwere tried, and some were convicted, in sedition proceedings. The Alien and Sedition Acts provoked theKentucky and Virginia Resolutionsand did much to unify the Republican party and to foster Republican victory in the election of 1800. The Republican-controlled Congress repealed the Naturalization Act in 1802; the others were allowed to expire (1800–1801).
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions,in U.S. history, resolutions passed in opposition to theAlien and Sedition Acts, which were enacted by the Federalists in 1798. The Jeffersonian Republicans first replied in the Kentucky Resolutions, adopted by the Kentucky legislature in Nov., 1798. Written by Thomas Jefferson himself, they were a severe attack on the Federalists' broad interpretation of the Constitution, which would have extended the powers of the national government over the states. The resolutions declared that the Constitution merely established a compact between the states and that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it under the terms of the compact; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be unauthoritative and therefore void. It was the right of the states and not the federal government to decide as to the constitutionality of such acts. A further resolution, adopted in Feb., 1799, provided a means by which the states could enforce their decisions by formal nullification of the objectionable laws. A similar set of resolutions was adopted in Virginia in Dec., 1798, but these Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison, were a somewhat milder expression of the strict construction of the Constitution and the compact theory of the Union. The resolutions were submitted to the other states for approval with no real result; their chief importance lies in the fact that they were later considered to be the first notable statements of thestates' rightstheory of government, a theory that opened the way for thenullificationcontroversy and ultimately forsecession.
Summarize the two acts
Did they expand or constrict States’ Rights?
Secession Crisis
The Hartford Convention "New England Considers Secession" December 15, 1814- January 5, 1815
Concern for states' rights and thoughts of secession were not exclusive to the South. As early as December 1814, a gathering of New England Federalists met at Hartford, Conn., to call for states' rights. The Constitutional amendments proposed there reflected the delegates' hostility toward the South and West. The War of 1812 was very unpopular in commercial New England.
Of the 26 delegates, 12 were from Massachusetts, 7 from Connecticut, 4 from Rhode Island, 2 from New Hampshire, and 1 from Vermont. (Maine was still a district within Massachusetts.) The delegates drafted proposals for constitutional amendments that would challenge what they saw as President James Madison's military despotism and force him to resign. Political cartoons of the day depicted England's King George III trying to lure Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island back into the British fold.
The delegates loathed the Jeffersonian Republicanism they saw in the nation's capitol. Their recommendations would likely have been more separatist if the Essex Junto, a group of extremist Federalists, had not been restrained by the moderation of delegate Harrison Gray Otis. A member of the Essex Junto, former U.S. Senator from Massachusetts George Cabot, presided at the convention.
By the time the Hartford delegation arrived in Washington to make their recommendations, the War of 1812 was over. The Treaty of Ghent had already been signed by President Madison and news of Gen. Andrew Jackson's victory at New Orleans had reached the excited capital. "Their position," according to a French diplomat, "was awkward, embarrassing, and lent itself to cruel ridicule," and they swiftly withdrew their recommendations.
Fascinating Fact: The Federalist party, which had been discredited during the War of 1812 for such secessionist sympathies as those illustrated by the Hartford Convention, fared so poorly in the 1816 election that it did not run a national candidate against the Democratic Republicans in 1820.
Webster-Hayne Debate, 1830
One of the most momentous debates in Senate history began over a plan to curtail western land sales. Senators from western states viewed this proposal by a Connecticut senator as a cynical scheme to preserve for northeastern manufacturing interests a cheap labor supply that might otherwise be lured away by the beckoning opportunities of plentiful western lands. Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina saw in this developing Northeast-West dispute an opportunity to build a political alliance between the South and the West. Hayne shared the view of southern planters that an agricultural system built on slavery could only survive with an unlimited supply of cheap western lands.
Hayne began the debate in this chamber on January 19, 1830. He contended that states, not the federal government, should control their lands and that states should have the right to set aside certain federal laws if they wished. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, the Senate's leading orator, responded by challenging the South's apparent willingness to subvert the Union for regional economic gain. In doing so, he broadened the debate beyond land, tariffs, and slavery to a consideration of the very nature of the federal republic.
Maintaining that the North had always been the West's ally, Webster successfully shifted the debate to one of states' rights versus national power. When Hayne again argued that a state had the right to openly defy an act of Congress, Webster returned on January 26 and 27 with his classic "Second Reply to Hayne."
The chamber was jammed beyond reasonable capacity as Webster, using his organ-like voice to great effect, thundered that the nation was not a mere association of sovereign states, but a "popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be." Overnight, the Massachusetts senator became a major national figure, respected by his many friends and enemies alike. The Senate shelved the land sales resolution, and chances of an alliance between the South and West evaporated.
Summarize the debate
Did the result of the debate expand or constrict States’ Rights?
SOUTH CAROLINA ORDINANCE OF NULLIFICATION (1832)
South Carolinians' objections to the expansion of federal authority focused on protective tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. They were most concerned, however, about potential external threats to the security of slavery, including threats fromthe federalgovernment. Inspired by constitutional theories ofJOHN C. CALHOUN, the South Carolina legislature called a convention to nullify the tariff.
On November 24, 1832, the convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared that Congress lacked power to adopt a protective tariff. The tariff measures were therefore "null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens." The ordinance voided all contracts and judicial proceedings designed to collect the tariff, prohibited state officials from enforcing it, required the state legislature to enact legislation that would "prevent the enforcement and arrest the operation" of the tariffs, prohibited appeals of tariff-related cases to the Supreme Court, required all public officials and jurors to take an oath to support the ordinance and supportive legislation, and warned that any coercive federal act would trigger the state'sSECESSION. South Carolina also subsequently nullified the federal FORCE ACTthat empowered PresidentANDREW JACKSONto collect the tariff. Though the Nullification Ordinance produced a major constitutional crisis in 1832, it was a short-term failure. President Jackson and all the Southern states denounced it, and South Carolina never found occasion to put its requirements to the test. But the Ordinance was a major step in implementing the theory of NULLIFICATIONand, as such, pointed to secession.
Summarize the article
Did it expand or constrict States’ Rights?
Nullification crisis
Another notable crisis during Jackson's period of office was the "Nullification Crisis", or "secession crisis," of 1828– 1832, which merged issues of sectional strife with disagreements over tariffs. Critics alleged that high tariffs (the "Tariff of Abominations") on imports of common manufactured goods made in Europe made those goods more expensive than ones from the northern U.S., raising the prices paid by planters in the South. Southern politicians argued that tariffs benefited northern industrialists at the expense of southern farmers.
The issue came to a head when Vice President Calhoun, in theSouth Carolina Exposition and Protestof 1828, supported the claim of his home state,South Carolina, that it had the right to "nullify"—declare void—the tariff legislation of 1828, and more generally the right of a state to nullify any Federal laws that went against its interests. Although Jackson sympathized with the South in the tariff debate, he was also a strong supporter of a strong union, with effective powers for the central government. Jackson attempted to face down Calhoun over the issue, which developed into a bitter rivalry between the two men.
Particularly notable was an incident at the April 13, 1830, Jefferson Day dinner, involving after-dinner toasts.Robert Haynebegan by toasting to "The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States." Jackson then rose, and in a booming voice added "Our federal Union: It must be preserved!"– a clear challenge to Calhoun. Calhoun clarified his position by responding "The Union: Next to our Liberty, the most dear!"[35]
The next year, Calhoun and Jackson broke apart politically from one another. Around this time, the Petticoat affaircaused further resignations from Jackson's cabinet, leading to its reorganization as the "Kitchen Cabinet".Martin Van Buren, despite resigning as Secretary of State, played a leading role in the new unofficial cabinet.[36]At thefirst Democratic National Convention, privately engineered by members of the Kitchen Cabinet, Van Buren replaced Calhoun as Jackson's running mate. In December 1832, Calhoun resigned as Vice President to become a U.S. Senator for South Carolina.
In response to South Carolina's nullification claim, Jackson vowed to send troops toSouth Carolinato enforce the laws. In December 1832, he issued a resounding proclamation against the "nullifiers," stating that he considered "the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Jackson also denied the right of secession: "The Constitution... forms agovernmentnot a league... To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."
Jackson asked Congress to pass a "Force Bill" explicitly authorizing the use of military force to enforce the tariff, but its passage was delayed untilprotectionistsled by Clay agreed to a reduced Compromise Tariff. The Force Bill and Compromise Tariff passed on March 1, 1833, and Jackson signed both. The South Carolina Convention then met and rescinded its nullification ordinance. The Force Bill became moot because it was no longer needed.
How did President Jackson respond to the Nullification crisis?
Did this situation expand or restrict States’ Rights?
Should Utah gun laws trump federal regulations?
Last updated
Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 10:19pm
SALT LAKE CITY -- Pragmatism versus patriotism -- that was part of the argument for some Top of Utah lawmakers Wednesday as the Legislature prepares to send one of the leading message bills in this session to the governor for his signature.
The heart of the message is about states' rights, and the vehicle is gun control.
"Our responsibility is to uphold the Constitution as we see fit," said Rep. Ryan Wilcox, R-Ogden, about the reasoning behind Senate Bill 11.
Wilcox joined with others in a lengthy and sometimes passionate floor debate on the bill, its final hearing before House lawmakers passed it 56-17.
Firearms made and kept in Utah would be exempt from federal regulations under the measure, which an independent legislative analyst said was "highly likely" to be held unconstitutional and forced into court.
The proposal replicates one Montana enacted into law last year that's intended to trigger a federal court battle.
The measures would allow guns made in the respective states to be exempt from federal gun registration rules such as background checks for those who purchase the guns.
The goal is to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, the legal basis for most gun regulation in the U.S.
But some legislators worried about potentially racking up legal bills during lean financial times.
"What cost would this be?" asked Rep. Neil Hansen, D-Ogden, questioning the wisdom of the legislation and the aggressive stand it represents.
Sen. Margaret Dayton, an Orem Republican, initially introduced her bill as part of a broader effort to send a message to Congress that the federal government is overstepping its bounds.
The bill must be signed by the Senate president, who has indicated he will do so before sending it off to the governor.