Daniel Xie 999842489 November 1, 2013

The Size and Power of Government In American History

By: Daniel Xie

With the gradual centralization of government since the War on terror amplified by the Patriot Act, the National Defence Authorization Act(NDAA), and the NSA surveillance on the American population, the question of the size and power of government has been called into debate. Many Americans view the apparent erosion of constitutional rights are an recent phenomenon, wondering how could it take Bush and Obama administration eleven years to subvert laws protecting American democracy from encroaching government power for so long. However, as history has shown, it isnt wise to see American history as the constant progression of democracy or the restraint of government to law rooted from the start, but as something whose progression or regression is always in motion, a factor seen throughout the reaction of Americans and their leaders in the pre-revolutionary period, the federalist crisis and the early years of America as a republic. Through concerns with the size and power of the government existed since Bacons Rebellion1, it truly manifested through resistance in the thirteen colonies against Britains attempts to maintain its growing Colonial Empire by increasing taxes on the colonies through laws like the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, and the Townshend Duties which raised revenue by levying taxes on imports coming into the colonies catalyzing the American Revolution. The roots behind this was because the colonists believed that these taxation laws would only give greater power to Britain in directing colonial affairs at the expense of the Colonies, which has beeen able to self-government in many aspects except regulating trade, printing money and declaring war since the Glorious revolution2. This raised the question of how US is represented in the eyes of a British Parliament, and to the Colonists, the Stamp Act represented the

Bacon, Nathaniel. Common Sense, 1776. Pamphlet. From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877 Paul Boyer, Clifford Clark, Karen Halttunen, Sandra Hawley, and Joseph Kett, The Enduring Vision, (Boston: Wadsworth, 2013), 70.

indifference of Parliament at giving them more representation. Furthermore, because many of these laws cracked down on disobedience through admiralty courts, normal legal systems were subverted by disregarding trial by jury and through the assumption of the suspected is guilty unless proven innocent, not the other way around. These grievances were addressed by the Stamp Act Congress formed to resist to the Stamp Act in October 1765, where the colonial representatives argued that that the citizens of the Colonies have the same allegiance to the crown as those in Great Britain, and thus, the taxes should be imposed upon the American People by their own consent3. Furthermore, the Stamp Act Congress argued that trial by jury was an inalienable right of the colonies, and it is their right to petition the King or Parliament as colonial subjects. Initially many of these demands did not call for independence from Great Britain, as most Americans believed that the King himself was not to blame, but rather corrupt ministers expanding British power at the expense of the colonistseven the Continental Congress did not push for independence at first, despite pushing for boycott of British exports and Imports and the creation of a Continental Army led by George Washington for defensive purposes4, but rather the creation of legislature balancing the ability to tax and govern the colony between the American Colonies an Great Britain and the restoration of trial by Jury. However, the reaction of the British to direct action taken against them, such as the Intolerable Acts created to punish Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party and strengthen Royal Authority made hopes of reconciliation impossible to the Colonists. All of this was reflected in Thomas Paines Common Sense, which argued for full independence from Britain in an upheaval not seen since the time of Noah, denouncing Britains actions not as behaviour of a parent country, but rather the cruelty of a monster guided by religion and superstition, and that the existence of America as a free
3

The Stamp Act Congress Condemns the Stamp Act, 1765. Letter. From Library of Congress, Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877 4 (Boyer et al. 2013), 113

port creates greater economic opportunities for both America and Europe5resonating with the sentiment that the parent state has become an enemy by suppressing the Colonists instead of addressing their grievances fairly. Overall, it can be seen that in many ways that the catalyst for the American Revolution was caused through resistance towards growing British control in the colonies at the expense of colonial self-governance, and the backlash towards initial attempts at resistance ultimately made reconciliation impossible, making the colonies believe that independence was needed to achieve a society with less control by government. During the post revolution period, the new nation was caught up in debates about limitations of power on government in the new republic. Initially many states experimented with their own constitutions through the articles of Confederation, which delegated sovereignty, independence and freedom to the States and gave states authority to levy taxes. However these powers delegated to the states caused many problems because Congress cannot tax on its own but had to ask for money to the states, and the lack of cooperation between Congress and the states forced Congress to print money themselves, leading to the worst inflation in US history that indebting Farmers who could not pay hard currency. This caused uprisings such as Shays Rebellion, where farmers led by Daniel Shays denounced the debts as a cruel power and launched a rebellion to fight for what they perceived was a struggle to maintain the liberties of the people against a tyranny rendering them incapable of opposing it6. This uprising led to conflicting views about how the federal government it could exert stability over the rest of the nation without exerting too much power, which manifested in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. During the Convention, some of these views, such as Madisons Virginia plan, gave

5 6

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense, 1776. Pamphlet. From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877 Daniel Shays and Followers Declare Their Intent to Protect themselves Against Tyranny, 1787, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877

congress the power to legislate and veto state laws, which contrasted other plans, like the New Jersey Plan that gave each state one vote and supported proportional representation7. In the end, the present-day Constitution of the United States ratified in the Philadelphia convention established a separation of powers between congress, the president and the judiciary, thereby creating a checks-and-balances system preventing one branch of government from overriding another onein this case congress had the power to pass taxes and manage diplomacy while the president can veto bills, a power that is controlled by two-thirds of the house to prevent it from being used out of hand. However, the ratification of the constitution in itself led to political division between federalist and antifederalist forces over the power of government. Proponents of the Constitution such as James Madison argued that America, with a large population8, should be a republic governed by the rule of law, or society falls into mob rule, a worldview opposed by anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry, who argued that the constitution will lead to a centralization of power resulting in a new monarchy making them no different from Europe9, which Hamiliton responded in The Federalist Papers by stating that unlike a heredity monarch, the President is elected by the people and does not have the power to authorize war, that being the job of Congress. Through the Constitution was ratified the debate over the size and power of government ultimately shifted into questioning the power of the central government through the concept of States Rights And that shift originated from the power of states to nullify laws passed by congress, or even secede from the Union assuming the Union does something they oppose. The roots of the conflict originates from the power struggle between the Federalists, represented by John Adams

7
8

(Boyer et al. 2013), 141-143 Madison, James, The Federalist Papers, 1787-1788, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877 9 Patrick Henry Condemns the Centralization of Government If the Constitution Is Ratified, 1788, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877

and Alexander Hamiliton, and the Republican-Democrats led by Thomas Jefferson due to Hamilitons attempts to centralize the power of governmentfirst by using opposition to his financial reforms to exert the strength of the Federal government by suppressing the Whisky Rebellion with militiamen and then, in the midst of the undeclared Quasi war with France, threatened to punish Jeffersons supporters or jail any foreigners with the Alien and Sedition Acts10. These actions were considered by many, including Jefferson and Madison, to be severely unconstitutional, leading to the Republicans declaring the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions authorizing states to nullify the power of the Alien and Sedition acts or any unconstitutional federal laws, believing that states can only delegate to the government certain powers, but reserve the right to self-governance to themselves, citing that the Constitution states that Congress cannot make laws guaranteeing freedom of religion or prohibiting free speech and that these powers belong to the state, accusing Hamilitons suppression of opposition as overzealous11. Through Hamilton was stopped by President Adams, who weakened the Federalist base by making peace with France, the concept of states rights against the size and power of government continues to be a driving force in American politics, as seen in the nullification crisis of 1832. caused when a protective tariff enacted in 1828 and 1832 that favored New England manufacturing at the expense of cotton production in South Carolina. This angered pro-States rights politicians like Daniel Webster, who argued that of that as a popular government, states have their own fair share of power within the Constitution and that the power of the federal government was thereby limited by a checks-and-balances system to impose tariffs constitutionally without violating State sovereignty12. Therefore, these states

10 11

(Boyer et al. 2013), 162-163 Jefferson, Thomas, Thomas Jefferson Advances the Power of the States, 1798, , From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877 12 Webster, Dainer, Daniel Webster Lays Out His Nationalist Vision, 1830, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877

enacted the Ordinance of Nullification, declaring the tariffs to be unconstitutional in South Carolina from then. However, this was rejected by president who, through sympathetic to States Rights himself, condemned the Rights of nullification and secession, threating the use the army on South Carolina if it tries to enforce nullification and viewing these interpretations as misinterpretations of the Soverign States compact in the Constitution through States Pride, and that the constitution forms a government, not a league of states with the power to resist any law they see fit as the influence of a father preventing his children from doing something rash13. The concept of States Rights was not only limited to whether states could nullify or challenge laws they deem unconstitutional, but also in the context of slavery creating rifts between the North and the South leading to the Civil War. Initially, through Northern States pushed for the abolition of slavery the Constitution was forced compromise by forbidding refusals to return runaway slaves and held back on banning slave imports until 1808 to prevent secession by the Southern States, which viewed slavery as part of the Bill of Rights14, urging the Federal Government to oppose emancipation laws out of fear of gradual abolition of slavery in places such as New Hampshire will end slavery to the South. In the years during, and leading up to the Civil War, those sympathetic to the South, such as Senator John Calhoun, tried to justify slavery and succession by invoking States Rights claiming that the North has absolute control of the government, controlling the House of Representatives and that the only way to save the Union is to adopt measures satisfying the South and allowing them to go about their business, or

13

Jackson, Andrew, President Andrew Jackson Condemns the Rights of Nullification, 1832, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877
14

Slaveholders in Virginia Argue Against the Abolition of Slavery, 1784-1785, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877

the equilibrium of the States will be destroyed15. Likewise, in 1860, Georgian Senator Robert Toombs, a major Confederate Leader argued that secession is in the spirit of the American Revolution that won liberty and sovereignty for the colonies and by seceding from a Union that stigmatizes the Confederacy as felons they will win liberty and independence for the South16. This sentiment was also shared by the Copperhead Democrats such as Clement Vallandigham, who denounced the Civil War as a war to suppress the spirit of liberty of the South by the North17. Overall, in order to justify the institution of slavery and their secession from the Union, the South used states rights to paint abolitionist worldviews as threatening to their constitutional freedoms, a view that, in the larger perspective ultimately proved to be ironic and hypocritical because, in making their desire for secession and the preservation of the institution of slavery on the ground of states rights, the worldview of the Confederate States raises an important questionLiberty, but for whom? Is it genuine liberty for the South, or is states rights only invokes as an excuse to achieve liberty only for the fewthat few being the ruling class of White Southern Planters and the Slave-ownersat the expense of the black slaves in the Old South? Overall, it can be seen that a major driving force in American history was the concern over the size and power of government and how leaders from the Colonial period to the Civil War addressed these problems, whether to expand, or challenge the powers of government and make it subject to the rule of law. Or as an excuse to justify wholly unjust institutions such as slavery in the face of pressure to abolish it. Therefore, in regards to the centralization of
15

Calhorn, John, C., John C. Calhoun Proposes Ways to Preserve the Union, 1850, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877

16

Toombs, Robert Robert Toombs Compares Secession with the American Revolution, 1860, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877
17

Clement Vallandigham Denounces the Union War Effort, 1863, From Major Problems in American History Volume I: To 1877

government since the War on Terror, it isnt wise to see American history as the growing restraint of government to law rooted from the start, but as something whose progression or regression is always in fluxas government is a force that can recoil in the face of sustained challenge to it, or increase in power and centralization when nothing opposes it.