Sic Semper Tyrannis? The American Federal-state Debate: 1815-1865

To declare a winner in the debate between supporters of states’ rights in America and those who believed in a strong federal government for the nation is no simple task, even when we limit our inquiry to the relatively short span of fifty years, from 1815 to 1865. Indeed, it is not easy even to isolate a single group or ideology that existed throughout this period in support of either side of the debate. Of course, there were prominent federal figures whose actions frequently helped to fulfill the traditional Hamiltonian vision of strong central power and industrial might, and there were states’ rights advocates whose actions often served to bolster state power and agrarian society.

Paradoxically, however, federal figures also used their power to hinder federal authority, and those who proclaimed themselves in favour of states’ rights ended up trampling on them in the rush to secure slavery. To add another layer of uncertainty to the question, it is sometimes misleading to employ, as historians often do, the Hamiltonian conception of America as a benchmark against which progress towards or away from federal supremacy may be measured; certain events increased federal power without fulfilling the specific requirements of the Hamiltonian ideal, and other events aided states’ rights while simultaneously encouraging the realization of Hamilton’s vision. Only when armed with the knowledge of these important distinctions can we assess the question of federal or state dominance in America.

This essay finds that by 1865 federal power – economic, military, and political – was markedly greater than it had been in 1815. Although during much of the antebellum period the drive towards federal power was slow at best and experienced serious setbacks, events leading up to the Civil War fueled the polarization of American politics and society, with concepts of federal power and states’ rights becoming inexorably entangled in the nation’s fate; during the war itself this fate was decided, such that by 1865 federal dominance seemed assured.

Scarcely a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the debate between proponents of federal power and advocates of states’ rights emerged in force. Historian Howard Zinn shows that by 1787 a powerful central government was needed, not only “to protect large economic interests,” but also to combat the possibility of rebellion by discontented farmers. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton responded to this situation by arguing not only for tighter federal control over finances and the military, but also for a broader vision of national unification, industrialization, and modernization. Opposition was quick to come from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and his supporters, who argued that the potential for tyranny was more dangerous than the problems a strong central government might solve. Hamiltonian designs had, in the words of Historian Irwin Unger, driven “a wedge through the nation” by 1791.