LAW 73372 — Federalism Seminar (A.J. Bellia): Other Secondary Sources

Concise and informative biographical sketches of 140 of the most influential Antifederalists are complimented by nearly 100 of their complete and excerpted speeches, pamphlets, editorials, and letters. This two-volume set provides much hard-to-find information on the background of the Antifederalists and collects their scattered and neglected writings in an accessible and useful format. It will be critical for any Revolutionary, Constitutional, or Early American history collection. They lost even their name to their opponents. But while the Antifederalists lost the battle against Constitutional ratification, they won the war by getting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution as its first ten amendments. In restraining the national government's power and guaranteeing individual liberties, the Bill of Rights has come to dominate modern U.S. politics and law. Freedoms of religious belief, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to bear arms are encoded because of Antifederalist efforts. It is to these individuals that Americans owe the hallowed prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process, the right to trial by a jury composed of one's peers, the right to privacy, and more. One can even argue that it was the Antifederalists who instituted national obsession with rights talk. The first volume features biographies of 140 prominent Antifederalists, including Samuel Adams, George Clinton, Mercy Otis Warren, and James Monroe. Entries on each Antifederalist detail: * Personal and public life * Early political career * Revolutionary activities * Friends and enemies * Basis for opposing the constitution * Subsequent historical reputation The second volume collects important speeches and writings of the Antifederalists, along with annotations to help the reader place these articles into their historical context. Primary documents include: * Major pamphlets * Broadsides * Newspaper articles * Speeches delivered in state legislatures * Speeches delivered in the Philadelphia convention * Speeches delivered in state ratification conventions Many of these documents are difficult to find, and they never have before been collected into one edition. Uniquely, this volume is organized by date of state ratification conventions, beginning with Pennsylvania from November 20, 1787 and ending with Rhode Island in 1790. This allows users to easily trace the on-going debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and to see how the Antifederalists's questions were formed, how their arguments were crafted, and why alliances were made and broken. In all this fascinating and valuable reference set covers a critical, though neglected and enduringly important, aspect of American history.

Fear of centralized authority is deeply rooted in American history. The struggle over the U.S. Constitution in 1788 pitted the Federalists, supporters of a stronger central government, against the Anti-Federalists, the champions of a more localist vision of politics. But, argues Saul Cornell, while the Federalists may have won the battle over ratification, it is the ideas of the Anti-Federalists that continue to define the soul of American politics. While no Anti-Federalist party emerged after ratification, Anti-Federalism continued to help define the limits of legitimate dissent within the American constitutional tradition for decades. Anti-Federalist ideas also exerted an important influence on Jeffersonianism and Jacksonianism. Exploring the full range of Anti-Federalist thought, Cornell illustrates its continuing relevance in the politics of the early Republic. A new look at the Anti-Federalists is particularly timely given the recent revival of interest in this once neglected group, notes Cornell. Now widely reprinted, Anti-Federalist writings are increasingly quoted by legal scholars and cited in Supreme Court decisions--clear proof that their authors are now counted among the ranks of America's founders.

The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when it was almost destroyed by the rise of political parties in the United States. As Bruce Ackerman shows, the Framers had not anticipated the two-party system, and when Republicans battled Federalists for the presidency in 1800, the rules laid down by the Constitution exacerbated the crisis. With Republican militias preparing to march on Washington, the House of Representatives deadlocked between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Based on seven years of archival research, the book describes previously unknown aspects of the electoral college crisis. Ackerman shows how Thomas Jefferson counted his Federalist rivals out of the House runoff, and how the Federalists threatened to place John Marshall in the presidential chair. Nevertheless, the Constitution managed to survive through acts of statesmanship and luck. Despite the intentions of the Framers, the presidency had become a plebiscitarian office.

The authors of this engaging book discuss whether federalism promotes or undermines rights. With emerging democracies in Europe and elsewhere currently attempting to design constitutions that combine effective government, recognition of ethnic diversity within their populations, and protection of individual rights, the importance of these questions cannot be overstated. The authors examine both the theoretical perspectives on the relationship between federalism and rights, and the historical and contemporary relationship between federalism and rights in the United States. The contributors to this volume analyze the U.S. federal system as a potential model for contemporary constitution-makers as well as explore how its system can serve as a cautionary example. Sponsored by the Center for the Study of Federalism. Contributors include: Dorthy Toth Beasley; Irwin Cotler; Talbolt D lemberte; Daniel J. Elazar; A.E. Dick Howard; Gary J. Jacobsohn; Koen Lenaerts; Jean Yarborough; Michael P. Zuckert.

These essays offer new interpretations of the origins of American federalism and the meaning of liberty in American political culture. Peter S. Onuf's introduction examines the historiography of the Constitution--the ways in which distinct schools of historians have interpreted the formation of the federal system. He explains how the essays contribute to this scholarly debate and notes that the present-day concern with "original intent" is a misleading approach to the Constitution. Rather than trying to achieve miraculous solutions to deep-seated social and political problems, the founding fathers instead agreed to compromises that sanctioned future conflict within the bounds of law. Writing on the origins of American federalism, John M. Murrin argues that the founding fathers' greatest achievement was balancing federal authority with states' rights, a "conceptual breakthrough" that allowed the founders to resolve issues that had previously led to the American revolt against Great Britain and the collapse of the Articles of Confederation. David E. Narrett analyzes Anti-Federalist opposition to the Constitution in New York State, telling why Anti-Federalist efforts to restrict the government's taxing power and to alter the system of representation in Congress failed. Thomas Jefferson was in Paris when the Constitution was being drafted. Ronald L. Hatzenbuehler writes in his revisionist essay that Jefferson's attitude toward the Constitution was not dictated by his response to events in prerevolutionary France but rather by American political developments, such as Shay's Rebellion. Michael Kammen concludes the book by probing the character and history of liberty as a constitutional concept. American society today faces complex issues unimagined two centuries ago. An understanding of the origins and development of the Constitution is necessary if we wish to preserve liberty for future generations. This volume is a contribution toward that goal.

In the early republic, constitutional debates over federal-state relations were fundamental to party battles and divergent conceptions of republicanism. Then, as now, theories about the sources and nature of federal power informed public debate, policy, and judicial decisions. For John C. Calhoun, the recognition of the equality of the states by the federal government was a precondition for preserving and strengthening republican liberty. Republicans like James Madison and Andrew Jackson felt republicanism could only flourish if state and federal authorities confined themselves to their proper spheres. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Wilson believed in a more expansive role for the federal government (based on the common law and the law of nations). Lenner examines the constitutional conflicts of the republic's first decade, discusses Virginia's three Republican Presidents, the political and constitutional thought of the National and Old Republicans, the nature of the Jacksonian movement, the doctrine of dual sovereignty, and the nullification crisis. In examining the conflicts of the revolutionary era, Lenner's work provides a ground-breaking overview of the 'culture of constitutionalism'--the clash of ideas about the nature and structure of Union--that pervaded the early republic.

Federalism is regarded as one of the signal American contributions to modern politics. Its origins are typically traced to the drafting of the Constitution, but the story began decades before the delegates met in Philadelphia.In this groundbreaking book, Alison LaCroix traces the history of American federal thought from its colonial beginnings in scattered provincial responses to British assertions of authority, to its emergence in the late eighteenth century as a normative theory of multilayered government. The core of this new federal ideology was a belief that multiple independent levels of government could legitimately exist within a single polity, and that such an arrangement was not a defect but a virtue. This belief became a foundational principle and aspiration of the American political enterprise. LaCroix thus challenges the traditional account of republican ideology as the single dominant framework for eighteenth-century American political thought. Understanding the emerging federal ideology returns constitutional thought to the central place that it occupied for the founders. Federalism was not a necessary adaptation to make an already designed system work; it was the system.Connecting the colonial, revolutionary, founding, and early national periods in one story reveals the fundamental reconfigurations of legal and political power that accompanied the formation of the United States. The emergence of American federalism should be understood as a critical ideological development of the period, and this book is essential reading for everyone interested in the American story.

Historians have emphasized the founding fathers' statesmanship and vision in the development of a more powerful union under the federal constitution. In The Origins of the Federal Republic, Peter S. Onuf clarifies the founders' achievement by demonstrating with case studies of New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia that territorial confrontations among the former colonies played a crucial role in shaping early concepts of statehood and union and provided the true basis of the American federalist system.

Lyndon Johnson heralded a new federalism, as did Ronald Reagan. It was left to the public to puzzle out what such a proclamation, coming from both ends of the political spectrum, could possibly mean. Of one thing we can be certain, theories of federalism, whatever form they take, are still shaping America. The origin of these theories - what they meant to history and how they apply today - are discussed in this book.

The European Union - a supranational system with its own institutional characteristics and autonomy - has a structure and functional logic which are more similar to those of the US than those of European nation states. Yet, by and large, the EU and the US tend to be analyzed more as potential geopolitical and economic rivals or allies than compared as institutional peers. By bringing together some of the most influential political scientists and historians to compare the European and American experiences of federalism,nbsp;Democracy and Federalism in the European Union and the United States explores the future development, and seeks a better understanding, of a post-national European Union democracy. This book consists of three core parts: how the EU has developed and the implications of the process of European federalization the features of American federalism, tracing the intellectual debate that led to the approval of the American federal constitution in 1787 the future of European Union. This is essential reading for all students of European politics, democracy and international relations.

Blackstone in America explores the creative process of transplantation - the way in which American legislators and judges refashioned the English common law inheritance to fit the republican political culture of the new nation. With current scholarship returning to focus on the transformation of Anglo-American law to 'American' law, Professor Kathryn Preyer's lifelong study of the constitutional and legal culture of the early American republic has acquired new relevance and a wider audience. The collection includes Professor Preyer's work on criminal law, the early national judiciary, and the history of the book. All nine of Professor Preyer's important and award-winning essays are easily accessible in this volume, with new introductions by three leading scholars of early American law.

Creating the Constitution presents a different interpretation of the Convention and the First Congress, derived largely from a close reading of Farrand's Records and the Annals of Congress. Among its special features are a critical perspective on the Framers, an examination of Court Whig influence on the Federalists, the identification of a third group-the state Federalists-between the nationalists and states' righters, and a view of the First Congress as distorting the aims of the Convention.

What were the intentions of the Founders? Was the American constitution designed to protect individual rights? To limit the powers of government? To curb the excesses of democracy? Or to create a robust democratic nation-state? These questions echo through today's most heated legal andpolitical debates.In this powerful new interpretation of America's origins, Max Edling argues that the Federalists were primarily concerned with building a government that could act vigorously in defense of American interests. The Constitution transferred the powers of war making and resource extraction from thestates to the national government thereby creating a nation-state invested with all the important powers of Europe's eighteenth-century "fiscal-military states." A strong centralized government, however, challenged the American people's deeply ingrained distrust of unduly concentrated authority. Tosecure the Constitution's adoption the Federalists had to accommodate the formation of a powerful national government to the strong current of anti-statism in the American political tradition. They did so by designing a government that would be powerful in times of crisis, but which would make onlylimited demands on the citizenry and have a sharply restricted presence in society. The Constitution promised the American people the benefit of government without its costs.Taking advantage of a newly published letterpress edition of the constitutional debates, A Revolution in Favor of Government recovers a neglected strand of the Federalist argument, making a persuasive case for rethinking the formation of the federal American state.

American judges and legal scholars have long misunderstood the intended meaning of the Ninth Amendment and its relationship to the Tenth. Because of misinterpretation, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have not been used to fulfill their original purposes. The limited and unlimited powers of the federal government have been shaped greatly by that error. In this book the authors clarify the actual meaning of the Ninth Amendment and its connection to the Tenth Amendment in order to provide a clear understanding of the full potential of the two amendments. Historical and contemporary details are included to provide an appreciation of the intended purpose of the amendments. Issues regarding the misinterpretation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are clearly outlined and explained in depth, including such topics as: The drafting of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments Enumerated, necessary and proper, and reserved powers of the state governments and Substantive due process. The book also includes a bibliographical essay with information on alternative sources for grasping the intended meaning of the amendments.

Over the course of the nation's history, the Constitution has been turned upside-down, Michael Greve argues in this provocative book. The Constitution's vision of a federalism in which local, state, and federal government compete to satisfy the preferences of individuals has given way to a cooperative, cartelized federalism that enables interest groups to leverage power at every level for their own benefit. Greve traces this inversion from the Constitution's founding through today, dispelling much received wisdom along the way. The Upside-Down Constitution shows how federalism's transformation was a response to states' demands, not an imposition on them. From the nineteenth-century judicial elaboration of a competitive federal order, to the New Deal transformation, to the contemporary Supreme Court's impoverished understanding of constitutional structure, and the "devolution" in vogue today, Greve describes a trend that will lead to more government and fiscal profligacy, not less. Taking aim at both the progressive heirs of the New Deal and the vocal originalists of our own time, The Upside-Down Constitution explains why the current fiscal crisis will soon compel a fundamental renegotiation of a new federalism grounded in constitutional principles.

The modern effort to locate American liberties, it turns out, began in the mud at the bottom of Baltimore harbor. John Barron Jr. and John Craig sued the city for damages after Baltimore's rebuilt drainage system diverted water and sediment into the harbor, preventing large ships from tying up at Barron and Craig's wharf. By the time the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1833, the issue had become whether the city's actions constituted a taking of property by the state without just compensation, a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The high court's decision in Barron v. Baltimore marked a critical step in the rapid evolution of law and constitutional rights during the first half of the nineteenth century. Diminishing the Bill of Rights examines the backstory and context of this decision as a turning point in the development of our current conception of individual rights. Since the colonial period, Americans had viewed their rights as springing from multiple sources, including the common law, natural right, and English legal tradition. Despite this rich heritage and a prohibition grounded in the Magna Carta against uncompensated state takings of property, the Court ruled against Barron's claim. The Bill of Rights, Chief Justice John Marshall declared in his opinion for the majority, restrained only the federal government, not the states. The Fifth Amendment, accordingly, did not apply to Maryland or any of the cities it chartered. In explaining how the Court came to reject a multisourced view of human liberties--a position seemingly inconsistent with its previous decisions--William Davenport Mercer helps explain why we now envision the Constitution as essential to guaranteeing our rights. Marshall's view of rights in Barron, Mercer argues, helped him navigate the Court through the precarious political currents of the time. While the chief justice may have effected a shrewd political maneuver, the decision helped hasten a reconceptualization of rights as located in documents. Its legacy, as Mercer's work makes clear, is among the Jacksonian era's significant democratic reforms and marks the emergence of a distinctly American constitutionalism.

Ames, Herman V., Editor. State Documents on Federal Relations: The States and the United States. Philadelphia: Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania, 1906. 320 pp. Reprinted available May 2005 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. ISBN 1-58477-558-0. Cloth. $85. * This work, focusing on the years 1789-1861, "comprises typical papers covering the official action of various states in different sections of the country, relative to the chief political and constitutional issues in our history. The documents have been selected especially with a view to illustrate the development of the doctrines of broad and strict construction, the prevalence of the 'compact theory' of the Constitution and the doctrine of 'State Rights,' State opposition to the Federal Judiciary, and the different phases of the slavery controversy, culminating in the secession movement.": Preface.

This work is a collection of essays on the theory, structure, and practice of federalism. The impact of the federal basis of sovereign authority on economic issues, civil liberties, and civil rights are discussed in the articles contained in the book.

The third book in the &LAW series addresses the perpetual issue of state sovereignty in the federal union"~states' rights.' From the 1770s, through the Confederate states' secession, and continuing until now, a central issue of governance is state power to object to, cancel, or be immune from federal law. The issue is fervently debated in the political arena by Tea Party efforts to limit federal intervention in education and health care; and the nullification movement efforts to prevent federal gun control and marijuana regulations. And it is a linchpin of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act. This volume provides an intelligent voice in the debate about states' rights"interposition, nullification, secession, constitutional amendment"150 years after Fort Sumter.

Federal Law and Southern Order, first published in 1987, examines the factors behind the federal government's long delay in responding to racial violence during the 1950s and 1960s. The book also reveals that it was apprehension of a militant minority of white racists that ultimately spurred acquiescent state and local officials in the South to protect blacks and others involved in civil rights activities. By tracing patterns of violent racial crimes and probing the federal government's persistent failure to punish those who committed the crimes, Michal R. Belknap tells how and why judges, presidents, members of Congress, and even Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials accepted the South's insistence that federalism precluded any national interference in southern law enforcement. Lulled into complacency by the soothing rationalization of federalism, Washington for too long remained a bystander while the Ku Klux Klan and others used violence to sabotage the civil rights movement, Belknap demonstrates. In the foreword to this paperback edition, Belknap examines how other scholars, in works published after Federal Law and Southern Order, have treated issues related to federal efforts to curb racial violence. He also explores how incidents of racial violence since the 1960s have been addressed by the state legal systems of the South and discusses the significance for the contemporary South of congressional legislation enacted during the 1960s to suppress racially motivated murders, beatings, and intimidation.

American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War challenges traditional American constitutional history, theory and jurisprudence that sees today's constitutionalism as linked by an unbroken chain to the 1787 Federal constitutional convention. American Sovereigns examines the idea that after the American Revolution, a collectivity - the people - would rule as the sovereign. Heated political controversies within the states and at the national level over what it meant that the people were the sovereign and how that collective sovereign could express its will were not resolved in 1776, in 1787, or prior to the Civil War. The idea of the people as the sovereign both unified and divided Americans in thinking about government and the basis of the Union. Today's constitutionalism is not a natural inheritance, but the product of choices Americans made between shifting understandings about themselves as a collective sovereign.

The colonies that comprised pre-revolutionary America had thirteen legal systems and governments. Given their diversity, how did they evolve into a single nation? In E Pluribus Unum, the eminent legal historian William E. Nelson explains how this diverse array of legal orders gradually converged over time, laying the groundwork for the founding of the United States. From their inception, the colonies exercised a range of approaches to the law. For instance, while New England based its legal system around the word of God, Maryland followed the common law tradition, and New York adhered to Dutch law. Over time, though, the British crown standardized legal procedure in an effort to more uniformly and efficiently exert control over the Empire. But, while the common law emerged as the dominant system across the colonies, its effects were far from what English rulers had envisioned. E Pluribus Unum highlights the political context in which the common law developed and how it influenced the United States Constitution. In practice, the triumph of the common law over competing approaches gave lawyers more authority than governing officials. By the end of the eighteenth century, many colonial legal professionals began to espouse constitutional ideology that would mature into the doctrine of judicial review. In turn, laypeople came to accept constitutional doctrine by the time of independence in 1776. Ultimately, Nelson shows that the colonies' gradual embrace of the common law was instrumental to the establishment of the United States. Not simply a masterful legal history of colonial America, Nelson's magnum opus fundamentally reshapes our understanding of the sources of both the American Revolution and the Founding.

US

The framers of the Constitution and the generations that followed built a powerful and intrusive national administrative state in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The romantic myth of an individualized, pioneering expansion across an open West obscures nationally coordinated administrative and regulatory activity in Indian affairs, land policy, trade policy, infrastructure development, and a host of other issue areas related to expansion. Stephen J. Rockwell offers a careful look at the administration of Indian affairs and its relation to other national policies managing and shaping national expansion westward. Throughout the nineteenth century, Indian affairs were at the center of concerns about national politics, the national economy, and national social issues. Rockwell describes how a vibrant and complicated national administrative state operated from the earliest days of the republic, long before the Progressive era and the New Deal.

State Power and Democracy is the first book to show that the Bush police state didn't commence when Bush was inaugurated. It proves, instead, that the seeds of an American police state can be traced all the way back to the founding of the republic.

"The most thorough examination we have of how early Americans wrestled with what types of political dissent should be permitted, even promoted, in the new republic they were forming. Martin shows the modern relevance of their debates in ways that all will find valuable--even those who dissent from his views!"--Rogers M. Smith, Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania Democracy is the rule of the people. But what exactly does it mean for a people to rule? Which practices and behaviors are legitimate, and which are democratically suspect? We generally think of democracy as government by consent; a government of, by, and for the people. This has been true from Locke through Lincoln to the present day. Yet in understandably stressing the importance--indeed, the monumental achievement--of popular consent, we commonly downplay or even denigrate the role of dissent in democratic governments. But in Government by Dissent, Robert W.T. Martin explores the idea that the people most important in a flourishing democracy are those who challenge the status quo. The American political radicals of the 1790s understood, articulated, and defended the crucial necessity of dissent to democracy. By returning to their struggles, successes, and setbacks, and analyzing their imaginative arguments, Martin recovers a more robust approach to popular politics, one centered on the ever-present need to challenge the status quo and the powerful institutions that both support it and profit from it. Dissent has rarely been the mainstream of democratic politics. But the figures explored here--forgotten farmers as well as revered framers--understood that dissent is always the essential undercurrent of democracy and is often the critical crosscurrent. Only by returning to their political insights can we hope to reinvigorate our own popular politics.

This book presents an original historical-legal analysis of the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Drawing upon James Madison's own minutes of the 1787 Convention, it focuses on Madison's crucial role in shaping a bill of rights that would both reserve the states' powers and confirm the implied powers doctrine for the federal government. This comprehensive work is indispensable for understanding the origins of the federal system of government and its impact on later developments in the United States.  

From 1789 to 1800, the Federalist and Republican parties held opposing visions for America s future. Led by Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists sought to establish a strong central government that would lead an American commercial, financial, technological, industrial, and military revolution, and thus propel the United States into the ranks of the world s great powers. Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans feared that new wealth, power, and competing interests would corrupt the classic republic they envisioned. Instead, they extolled the romantic notion of a republic of yeoman farmers, states rights, and frontiers defended by militias and gunboats, all presided over by a weak federal government. Hamilton s vision largely prevailed in battles with the Republicans over the Bank of the United States, the role and composition of the army and navy, the Whiskey Rebellion, the French Revolution, the Indian war in the Northwest Territory, British confiscations of American ships and sailors, the Jay and Pinckney treaties, and a quasi naval war with France, among other conflicts. But, ultimately, Jefferson and his Republican Party would triumph in the 1800 election and permanently eclipse the Federalists. Historians and general readers alike will be riveted by William Nester s portrayal of the struggle between Federalists and Republicans a conflict whose core issues resonate in the divisive politics of today s America.

Washington's Government shows how George Washington's administration--the subject of remarkably little previous study--was both more dynamic and more uncertain than previously thought. Rather than simply following a blueprint laid out by the Constitution, Washington and his advisors constructed over time a series of possible mechanisms for doing the nation's business. The results were successful in some cases, disastrous in others. Yet at the end of Washington's second term, there was no denying that the federal government had achieved remarkable results. As Americans debate the nature of good national governance two and a half centuries after the founding, this volume's insights appear timelier than ever. Contributors Lindsay M. Chervinsky, Iona College * Gautham Rao, American University * Kate Elizabeth Brown, Huntington University * Stephen J. Rockwell, St. Joseph's College * Andrew J. B. Fagal, Princeton University, * Daniel Hulsebosch, New York University * Rosemarie Zagarri, George Mason University

In recent years, the study of James Madison and his contributions to early American politics has enjoyed a growing audience among scholars and students of modern American politics. Not only did Madison establish the fundamental American concept of pluralism, his appreciation of the logic of institutional design as a key to successful democratic reform still influences modern theory and research. This book evaluates the legacy of James Madison as the product of a scholarly politician--a politician who thought carefully about institutions in the context of action. It brings together thoughtful responses to Madison and his theory from a broad cross-section of modern political science, and views Madison not as an icon or mouthpiece of an era, but as a "modern" political scientist who was able to implement many of his theoretical ideas in a practical forum.

In the wake of national crises and sharp shifts in the electorate, new members of Congress march off to Washington full of intense idealism and the desire for instant change--but often lacking in any sense of proportion or patience. This drive for instant political gratification concerned one of the key Founders, James Madison, who accepted the inevitability of majority rule but worried that an inflamed majority might not rule reasonably. Greg Weiner challenges longstanding suppositions that Madison harbored misgivings about majority rule, arguing instead that he viewed constitutional institutions as delaying mechanisms to postpone decisions until after public passions had cooled and reason took hold. In effect, Madison believed that one of the Constitution's primary functions is to act as a metronome, regulating the tempo of American politics. Weiner calls this implicit doctrine "temporal republicanism" to emphasize both its compatibility with and its contrast to other interpretations of the Founders' thought. Like civic republicanism, the "temporal" variety embodies a set of values--public-spiritedness, respect for the rights of others-broader than the technical device of majority rule. Exploring this fundamental idea of time-seasoned majority rule across the entire range of Madison's long career, Weiner shows that it did not substantially change over the course of his life. He presents Madison's understanding of internal constitutional checks and his famous "extended republic" argument as different and complementary mechanisms for improving majority rule by slowing it down, not blocking it. And he reveals that the changes we see in Madison's views of majority rule arise largely from his evolving beliefs about who, exactly, was behaving impulsively--whether abusive majorities in the 1780s, the Adams regime in the 1790s, the nullifiers in the 1820s. Yet there is no evidence that Madison's underlying beliefs about either majority rule or the distorting and transient nature of passions ever swayed. If patience was a fact of life in Madison's day--a time when communication and travel were slow--it surely is much harder to cultivate in the age of the Internet, 24-hour news, and politics based on instant gratification. While many of today's politicians seem to wed supreme impatience with an avowed devotion to original constitutional principles, Madison's Metronome suggests that one of our nation's great luminaries would likely view that marriage with caution.

Many scholars believe that the existence of slavery stymied the development of the American state because slaveholding Southern politicians were so at odds with a federal government they feared would abolish their peculiar institution. David Ericson argues to the contrary, showing that over a seventy-year period slavery actually contributed significantly to the development of the American state, even as a "house divided." Drawing on deep archival research that tracks federal expenditures on slavery-related items, Ericson reveals how the policies, practices, and institutions of the early national government functioned to protect slavery and thereby contributed to its own development. Here are surprising descriptions of how the federal government increased its state capacities as it implemented slavery-friendly policies, such as creating more stable slave markets by removing Native Americans, deterring slave revolts, recovering fugitive slaves, enacting a ban on slave imports, and not enacting a ban on the interstate slave trade. It also bolstered its own law-enforcement power by reinforcing navy squadrons to interdict illegal slave trading, hiring deputy marshals to capture fugitive slaves and slave rescuers, and deploying soldiers to remove Native Americans and deter slave rescues and revolts. Going beyond Don Fehrenbacher's The Slaveholding Republic, Ericson shows how the presence of slavery indirectly influenced the development of the American state in highly significant ways. Enforcement of the 1808 slave-import ban involved the federal government in border control for the first time, and participation in founding a colony in Liberia established an early model of public-private partnerships. The presence of slavery also spurred the development of the U.S. Army through its many slavery-related deployments, particularly during the Second Seminole War, and the federal government's own slave rentals influenced its labor-management practices. Ericson's study unearths a long-neglected history, connecting slavery-influenced policy areas more explicitly to early American state development and more fully accounting for the money and manpower the federal government devoted to those areas. Rich in historical detail, it marks a significant contribution to our understanding of state development and the impact of slavery on early American politics.

From the perspective of the North, the Civil War began as a war to restore the Union and ended as a war to make a more perfect Union. The Civil War not only changed the moral meaning of the Union, it changed what the Union stood for in political, economic, and transnational terms. This volume examines the transformations the Civil War brought to the American Union as a politico-constitutional, social, and economic system. It explores how the war changed the meaning of the Union with regard to the supremacy of the federal government over the states, the right of secession, the rights of citizenship, and the political balance between the union's various sections. It further considers the effect of the war on international and transnational perceptions of the United States. Finally, it considers how historical memory has shaped the legacy of the Civil War in the last 150 years.

Origins of the Civil War claims system -- Missouri's precedents and lobbyists -- Memory and claims in Kentucky -- Kansas and intergovernmental operations in the newly created state.
Origins of the Civil War claims system -- Missouri's precedents and lobbyists -- Memory and claims in Kentucky -- Kansas and intergovernmental operations in the newly created state
1. Origins of the Civil War Claims System -- 2. Missouri's Precedents and Lobbyists -- 3. Memory and Claims in Kentucky -- 4. Kansas and Intergovernmental Operations in the Newly Created State -- 5. Conclusion.

Fully examined for the first time in this engrossing book by one of America's preeminent presidential scholars, the election that pitted Woodrow Wilson against Charles Evan Hughes emerges as a clear template for the partisan differences of the modern era. The 1916 election dramatically enacted the two parties' fast-evolving philosophies about the role and reach of federal power. Lewis Gould reveals how, even more than in the celebrated election of 1912, the parties divided along class-based lines in 1916, with the Wilson campaign in many respects anticipating the New Deal while the Republicans adopted the small government, anti-union, and anti-regulation positions they have embraced ever since. The Republicans dismissed Wilson's 1912 win as a fluke, the result of Theodore Roosevelt's "Progressive" apostasy splitting the party. But in US Supreme Court Justice Hughes, whose electoral prowess had been proven in two successful runs for governor of New York, the Republicans had anointed a flawed campaigner whose missteps in California sealed his fate very late in the election. Wilson's strong performance as the head of a united Democratic government (for the first time since 1894), along with Americans' uncertainty about the outbreak of war in Europe, led to victory. Along with the ins and outs of the race itself, Gould's book explores the election's broader meaning--as, for the first time, the popular election of the Senate coincided with a presidential election, and the women's suffrage movement gathered steam. The year 1916 also marked the restoration of a two-party competition for president and, as we see in this enlightening book, the beginning of the two-party battle for the hearts and minds of Americans that continues to this day.

Urban historian Jon C. Teaford explores the development of state government in the United States from the end of the 19th century to the so-called renaissance of states at the end of the 20th. Arguing that state governments were not lethargic backwaters that suddenly stirred to life in the 1980s, Teaford shows instead how state governments were continually adapting and expanding throughout the past century. While previous historical scholarship focused on the states, if at all, as retrograde relics of simpler times, Teaford describes how states actively assumed new responsibilities, developed new sources of revenue, and created new institutions.

In this original study of six notable reformers, Alison Parker skillfully illuminates the connections between the gradual transformation of reform strategies over the course of the nineteenth century and the political ideas of the reformers themselves. Parker argues that American women's political thought evolved from an emphasis on reform through moral suasion and local control into an endorsement of expanded federal power and a strong central state. This book reveals Fanny Wright, Sarah Grimké, Angelina Grimké Weld, Frances Watkins Harper, Frances Willard, and Mary Church Terrell to be political thinkers who were engaged in re-conceptualizing the relationship between the state and its citizens. Collectively and individually, black women made a significant contribution to the shift toward an activist central state by strongly supporting a federal government with expanded authority to protect and enforce civil rights. Offering profiles of two black reformers, Parker explores the complex role that race played in the political thought and strategies in both black and white women reformers. Paying particular attention to the ways in which women's ideas about the state and citizenship factored into their struggles for racial and sexual equality, Parker illuminates the wide-ranging and creative ways in which they engaged in politics. For scholars interested in nineteenth-century women, race, or reform in American history, this significant study offers a fresh take on these vital topics.

This challenging book explores the debates over the scope of the enumerated powers of Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment that accompanied the expansion of federal authority during the period between the beginning of the Civil War and the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Rise of the Federal Colossus: The Growth of Federal Power from Lincoln to F.D.R. offers readers a front-row seat for the critical phases of a debate that is at the very center of American history, exploring such controversial issues as what powers are bestowed on the federal government, what its role should be, and how the Constitution should be interpreted. The book argues that the critical period in the growth of federal power was not the New Deal and the three decades that followed, but the preceding 72 years when important precedents establishing the national government's authority to aid citizens in distress, regulate labor, and take steps to foster economic growth were established. The author explores newspaper and magazine articles, as well as congressional debates and court opinions, to determine how Americans perceived the growing authority of their national government and examine arguments over whether novel federal activities had any constitutional basis. Responses of government to the enormous changes that took place during this period are also surveyed. Numerous citations of the Congressional Record and federal court opinions Scores of articles from magazines, newspapers, and scholarly journals of the period that reveal how Americans of all walks of life perceived the evolution of federal authority A select bibliography listing a wide variety of secondary works ranging from biographies to legal treatises that will aid the reader in further exploring the evolution of American federalism A helpful index that provides access to roles and views of critical figures in the evolution of federal authority during the middle period

One of America's leading conservative commentators on constitutional law provides an illuminating history of states' rights, and the vital importance of reviving them today. Liberals believe that the argument for "states' rights" is a smokescreen for racist repression. But historically, the doctrine of states' rights has been an honorable tradition--a necessary component of constitutional government and a protector of American freedoms. Our Constitution is largely devoted to restraining the federal government and protecting state sovereignty. Yet for decades, Adam Freedman contends, the federal government has usurped rights that belong to the states in a veritable coup. In A Less Perfect Union, Freedman provides a detailed and lively history of the development and creation of states' rights, from the constitutional convention through the Civil War and the New Deal to today. Surveying the latest developments in Congress and the state capitals, he finds a growing sympathy for states' rights on both sides of the aisle. Freedman makes the case for a return to states' rights as the only way to protect America, to serve as a check against the tyranny of federal overreach, take power out of the hands of the special interests and crony capitalists in Washington, and realize the Founders' vision of libertarian freedom--a nation in which states are free to address the health, safety, and economic well-being of their citizens without federal coercion and crippling bureaucratic red tape.

American governance is burdened by a paradox. On the one hand, Americans don't want "big government" meddling in their lives; on the other hand, they have repeatedly enlisted governmental help to impose their views regarding marriage, abortion, religion, and schooling on their neighbors. These contradictory stances on the role of public power have paralyzed policymaking and generated rancorous disputes about government's legitimate scope. How did we reach this political impasse? Historian Gary Gerstle, looking at two hundred years of U.S. history, argues that the roots of the current crisis lie in two contrasting theories of power that the Framers inscribed in the Constitution. One theory shaped the federal government, setting limits on its power in order to protect personal liberty. Another theory molded the states, authorizing them to go to extraordinary lengths, even to the point of violating individual rights, to advance the "good and welfare of the commonwealth." The Framers believed these theories could coexist comfortably, but conflict between the two has largely defined American history. Gerstle shows how national political leaders improvised brilliantly to stretch the power of the federal government beyond where it was meant to go--but at the cost of giving private interests and state governments too much sway over public policy. The states could be innovative, too. More impressive was their staying power. Only in the 1960s did the federal government, impelled by the Cold War and civil rights movement, definitively assert its primacy. But as the power of the central state expanded, its constitutional authority did not keep pace. Conservatives rebelled, making the battle over government's proper dominion the defining issue of our time. From the Revolution to the Tea Party, and the Bill of Rights to the national security state, Liberty and Coercion is a revelatory account of the making and unmaking of government in America.

Why federalism is pulling America apart--and how the system can be reformed Federalism was James Madison's great invention. An innovative system of power sharing that balanced national and state interests, federalism was the pragmatic compromise that brought the colonies together to form the United States. Yet, even beyond the question of slavery, inequality was built into the system because federalism by its very nature meant that many aspects of an American's life depended on where they lived. Over time, these inequalities have created vast divisions between the states and made federalism fundamentally unstable. In The Divided States of America, Donald Kettl chronicles the history of a political system that once united the nation--and now threatens to break it apart. Exploring the full sweep of federalism from the founding to today, Kettl focuses on pivotal moments when power has shifted between state and national governments--from the violent rebalancing of the Civil War, when the nation almost split in two, to the era of civil rights a century later, when there was apparent agreement that inequality was a threat to liberty and the federal government should set policies for states to enact. Despite this consensus, inequality between states has only deepened since that moment. From health care and infrastructure to education and the environment, the quality of public services is ever more uneven. Having revealed the shortcomings of Madison's marvel, Kettl points to possible solutions in the writings of another founder: Alexander Hamilton. Making an urgent case for reforming federalism, The Divided States of America shows why we must--and how we can--address the crisis of American inequality.

The checks and balances built into the U.S. Constitution are designed to decentralize and thus limit the powers of government. This system works both horizontally--among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches--and vertically--between the federal government and state governments. That vertical separation, known as federalism, is intended to restrain the powers of the federal government, yet many political observers today believe that the federal government routinely oversteps its bounds at the expense of states. In Safeguarding Federalism, John D. Nugent argues that contrary to common perception, federalism is alive and well--if in a form different from what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. According to Nugent, state officials have numerous options for affecting the development and implementation of federal policy and can soften, slow down, or even halt federal efforts they perceive as harming their interests. Nugent describes the general approaches states use to safeguard their interests, such as influencing the federal policy, contributing to policy formulation, encouraging or discouraging policy enactment, participating in policy implementation, and providing necessary feedback on policy success or failure. Demonstrating the workings of these safeguards through detailed analysis of recent federal initiatives, including the 1996 welfare reform law, the Clean Air Act, moratoriums on state taxation of Internet commerce, and the highly controversial No Child Left Behind Act, Nugent shows how states' promotion of their own interests preserves the Founders' system of constitutional federalism today.

The chapters of this book have diverse origins. They were written over the period 1954-1984. Several (i.e., three, four, seven, and ten) were originally published in scholarly journals. Several (i.e., one, eight, nine, and eleven) are excerpts from my previous books: Soldiers of the States and Federalism: Origin, Operation and Significance. And several (i.e., two, five, and six) were written for conferences and are now published here for the first time. Despite the fact that this history suggests they are quite unrelated, these chapters do indeed center on one theme: the continuity of American federalism. In order to emphasize that theme, I have written an introduction and an initial commentary for each chapter. These commen­ taries, taken together, with the introduction, constitute the exposition of the theme. Some of these chapters (four, six, and ten) were written with my students, Ronald Schaps, John Lemco, and William Bast. They did much of the research and analysis so the credit for these chapters belongs to them as much as to me. Chapter five is based quite closely on William Paul Alexander's dissertation for the Ph. D. degree at the University of Rochester, 1973.

The debate over states' rights versus federalism in America is one that has raged since our country's founding. Arguments over the interpretation of the Constitution and the meaning of power and its distribution among the states' governments echoes in governmental chambers even today. Students can trace the history and development of issues surrounding this debate, as well as the reactions to them, through this unique and comprehensive collection of over 65 primary documents. Court cases, opinion pieces, speeches and many other documents bring to life the controversies surrounding the debate. Explanatory introductions to documents aid users in understanding the various arguments put forth in deliberations over different governmental matters, while illuminating the significance of each document. Drake and Nelson trace the origins and changes in the nature of states' rights and American federalism using carefully chosen documents to reflect the fact that the tension and interaction between the states' governments and the national government define the ideals and provide the means for realistic achievement of these ideals. Documents can be easily accessed through five different sections, each section exploring a specific period in history and contributing to the understanding of the debate. The introductory and explanatory text help readers understand the nature of the conflicts, the issues being contested, the social and cultural pressures that shaped each debate, and the manner in which the passions of individual government officials, justices, and our presidents affected the development of policies concerning states' rights and federalism.

Rather than focusing on why the states did not contribute to the national government under the Articles of Confederation, Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation asks why they, in fact, did - even when they should not have been expected to contribute. Why did states pay large portions of their requisitions to the federal government when problems of collective action and the lack of governmental incentives suggest that they should not have? Using original data on Continental troop movements and federal debt holdings within each state, in this 2001 book, Dougherty shows that states contributed to the national government when doing so produced local gains. Such a theory stands in stark contrast to the standard argument that patriotism and civic duty encouraged state cooperation. Material incentives and local interests bound the union together and explained the push for constitutional reform more than the common pursuit of mutual goals.

The book reveals the local ramifications of federal policy andalso offers a unique insight into a transformational period when the federal government broke down barriers and opened doors to the engagement of African Americans and Mexican Americans in community planning processes and social policy.

As American politics has become increasingly polarized, gridlock at the federal level has led to a greater reliance on state governments to get things done. But this arrangement depends a great deal on state cooperation, and not all state officials have chosen to cooperate. Some have opted for conflict with the federal government. Conservative Innovators traces the activity of far-right conservatives in Kansas who have in the past decade used the powers of state-level offices to fight federal regulation on a range of topics from gun control to voting processes to Medicaid. Telling their story, Ben Merriman then expands the scope of the book to look at the tactics used by conservative state governments across the country to resist federal regulations, including coordinated lawsuits by state attorneys general, refusals to accept federal funds and spending mandates, and the creation of programs designed to restrict voting rights. Through this combination of state-initiated lawsuits and new administrative practices, these state officials weakened or halted major parts of the Obama Administration's healthcare, environmental protection, and immigration agendas and eroded federal voting rights protections. Conservative Innovators argues that American federalism is entering a new, conflict-ridden era that will make state governments more important in American life than they have been at any time in the past century.

"Boundaries of the State in US History contains cutting edge work on the nature of the American state. It explains how the United States managed to accomplish complex goals, such as distributing its western lands, without an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus. The contributors to this widely ranging book force us to rethink our fundamental notions of the American state, such as its weakness in comparison with European and other states. This collection will become indispensable to political scientists and historians alike." -- Edward Berkowitz, George Washington University "This resonant collection explores the varieties and powers of the US national state by taking its boundaries and limits seriously. Generating striking insights across a range of fundamental subjects, its thoughtful overviews and absorbing essays offer readers fresh understanding of deep-seated connections between political authority and both domestic society and basic global patterns." -- Ira I. Katznelson, Columbia University "This outstanding collection captures the full breadth of exciting new work on the American state. The essays challenge us to think in novel and creative ways about the binaries--state and society, republic and empire, public and private, federal and local--that have profoundly shaped historical writing on this institution. They powerfully advance our ability to comprehend the possibilities and perils of democratic statecraft across the entire span of US history.A major achievement." -- Gary Gerstle, University of Cambridge "The authors of these essays seek to add their explanation of the meaning of the US state to the studies produced in sociology, political science, history, anthropology, and other social sciences in recent years. Their purpose is to clarify the studyby explaining how the state operates and where power is generated. The essayists wrestle with the complication of disintegrated power evident in the US system of government. . . . As in all essay collections, some authors reach the goal of the project more clearly than others, but all of them offer perspectives on the subject that deserve consideration. Recommended." -- Choice

In the 1790s, the Jeffersonian Republicans were the party of "no." They opposed attempts to expand the government's role in society, criticized the Washington administration's national bank, railed against a standing army, and bemoaned the spirit of the Federalist regime, which, they claimed, favored elite over ordinary Americans. Accordingly, Thomas Jefferson asserted that his election as President in 1801 was a "revolution": with Jeffersonians in power, the government could be stripped down in size and strength. But there was a paradox at the heart of this image. Maintaining the security, stability, and prosperity of the republic required aggressive statecraft, and as a result, Jeffersonians deployed state power to reduce taxes and the debt, enforce a shipping embargo, go to war, and ultimately to support a national bank during Madison's administration. This book explores the logic and logistics of Jeffersonian statesmanship. Focusing on Jeffersonian Republican statecraft in action, Jeffersonians in Power maps the meeting place of ideology and policy as Jeffersonians shifted from being an oppositional party to exercising power as the ruling coalition. Contributors: Andrew Burstein, Louisiana State University * Benjamin L. Carp, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York * Christa Dierksheide, University of Missouri * Kevin R. C. Gutzman, Western Connecticut State University * James E. Lewis Jr., Kalamazoo College * Martin Öhman, Gothenburg University * Robert G. Parkinson, Binghamton University * John A. Ragosta, Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello * Leonard J. Sadosky III * Richard Samuelson, California State University, San Bernardino * Brian Schoen, Ohio University * Mark Smith, John Burroughs School, St. Louis * Andrew Trees, Roosevelt University

Colorado's legalization of marijuana spurred intense debate about the extent to which the Constitution preempts state-enacted laws and statutes. Colorado's legal cannabis program generated a strange scenario in which many politicians, including many who freely invoke the Tenth Amendment, seemed to be attacking the progressive state for asserting states' rights. Unusual as this may seem, this has happened before--in the early part of the twentieth century, as America concluded a decades-long struggle over the suppression of alcohol during Prohibition. Sean Beienburg recovers a largely forgotten constitutional debate, revealing how Prohibition became a battlefield on which skirmishes of American political development, including the debate over federalism and states' rights, were fought. Beienburg focuses on the massive extension of federal authority involved in Prohibition and the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, describing the roles and reactions of not just Congress, the presidents, and the Supreme Court but political actors throughout the states, who jockeyed with one another to claim fidelity to the Tenth Amendment while reviling nationalism and nullification alike. The most comprehensive treatment of the constitutional debate over Prohibition to date, the book concludes with a discussion of the parallels and differences between Prohibition in the 1920s and debates about the legalization of marijuana today.

"Virginians dominated the early history of the United States. While historians have written scores of books about Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Patrick Henry, George Mason, George Wythe, and John Marshall, they have given Spencer Roane (1762-1822) comparatively scant attention. The lack of interest in Roane is remarkable since he was the philosophical leader of the Jeffersonians, architect of states' rights doctrine, legislator, essayist, and, for twenty-seven years, justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. He was the son-in-law of Patrick Henry, a confidant of Jefferson, founder of the Richmond Enquirer, and head of the "Richmond Junto." His opinions established judicial review of legislative acts ten years before Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall did the same in Marbury v. Madison, opened a narrow path for the emancipation of slaves, and brought down Virginia's state-sponsored church. Roane's descent into historical twilight is all the more curious given his fierce criticism - both from the bench and in the newspaper - of John Marshall's nationalistic decisions. Indeed, the debate between these two judges is perhaps the most comprehensive discussion of federalism outside of the arguments that raged over ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In "Irreconcilable Founders," David Johnson uses Roane's long-lasting conflict with John Marshall as ballast for the first-ever biography of this highly influential but forgotten justice and political theorist. According to him, Roane appears as an annoying gadfly in most studies of federalism during the early days of the republic mainly because his legal opinions gave way to those of Marshall. Equally to blame is the comparative inaccessibility of Roane's life: no single archive houses his papers and correspondence, no scholars have systematically reviewed his legal opinions, and no one has examined his essays as a whole. Bringing these and other disparate sources together for the first time, Johnson precisely limns Roane's career, personality, and philosophy. He also synthesizes the judge's wide-ranging jurisprudence and analyzes his predictions about the dangers of unchecked federal power and an activist Supreme Court. Many of Roane's views are echoed today with increasing frequency by conservative politicians and commentators, making an examination of his life and appraisal of the wisdom of his disregarded opinions all the more essential"

The Port Folio magazine, America's first major journal of literary and political opinion, was edited by Dennie from 1801 to 1811. This study argues that the magazine's defence of classical republican values against the burgeoning Jeffersonian ideology formed a new tradition of American writing.

Reading These United States explores the relationship between early American literature and federalism in the early decades of the republic. As a federal republic, the United States constituted an unusual model of national unity, defined by the representation of its variety rather than its similarities. Taking the federal structure of the nation as a foundational point, Keri Holt examines how popular print--including almanacs, magazines, satires, novels, and captivity narratives--encouraged citizens to recognize and accept the United States as a union of differences. Challenging the prevailing view that early American print culture drew citizens together by establishing common bonds of language, sentiment, and experience, she argues that early American literature helped define the nation, paradoxically, by drawing citizens apart--foregrounding, rather than transcending, the regional, social, and political differences that have long been assumed to separate them. The book offers a new approach for studying print nationalism that transforms existing arguments about the political and cultural function of print in the early United States, while also offering a provocative model for revising the concept of the nation itself. Holt also breaks new ground by incorporating an analysis of literature into studies of federalism and connects the literary politics of the early republic with antebellum literary politics--a bridge scholars often struggle to cross.