Order from a Major Online Bookstore
Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine
Save Your Time And Money
| AnyBook4Less.com | Order from a Major Online Bookstore |
|
| Home | Store List | FAQ | Contact Us | | ||
| Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine Save Your Time And Money |
||
 |
Title: States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 (American Political Thought) by Forrest McDonald ISBN: 0-7006-1227-0 Publisher: Univ Pr of Kansas Pub. Date: November, 2002 Format: Paperback Volumes: 1 List Price(USD): $16.95 |
Average Customer Rating: 4.29 (7 reviews)
Rating: 4
Summary: States' Rights...then and today
Comment: Among their many failings, U.S. history textbooks have often portrayed national sovereignty as a largely settled question following the revolutionary war, which was resurrected years later by southern states who wanted to hold slaves. What University of Alabama Professor Forrest McDonald shows in "States' Rights and the Union", is that states' rights infused the national debate of most issues in the first 100 years of the republic.
One of those issues on which McDonald provides a particularly interesting read is the issue of "internal improvements" (modern-day supporters call them "earmarks"; detractors "pork-barrel projects"). What has become commonplace today was once looked at as an unconstitutional extension of federal power. As part of the ongoing debate, McDonald chronicles the 1825 passage of a resolution by the South Carolina legislature which condemned "the taxing of the citizens in one state 'to make roads and canals for the citizens of another state.' Virginia adopted a similar resolution early in 1827, as did Georgia late in the year." Where would today's politicians be if they couldn't deliver for their constituents road and canals? (and bridges and buildings and museums and subsidies).
The book is filled with Supreme Court cases, which serves to reinforce McDonald's contention of the Court's centrality in the states' rights debate. Although today the Supreme Court is looked at with an almost sacred awe, it wasn't always that way. Indeed, McDonald notes in the epilogue that it was with the dismissal of 20th century southern segregationist laws that "the Supreme Court gained an enormous fund of moral capital in the rest of the country" which it used to consolidate its power. But due to the constant shuffle of Supreme Court Justices, the Court has been a sometime friend and othertime foe of states' rights.
The jackets says the book was "written in an accessible style", but demands some familiarity with U.S. History (which should disqualify about 75 percent of the American public). However, what McDonald has done is to write a consistent narrative of one of the most important and unique features of American democracy. Although the narrative ends in 1876, it is instructive background for many current debates in U.S. politics and the epilogue sets the stage for a much-needed sequel. In light of the extensive research McDonald put into the first 100 years of the states' rights debate, it would be fascinating to see him focus that same energy on the last 125, and especially the Rhenquist court.
Rating: 5
Summary: States' Rights & the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876
Comment: States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876 written by Forrest McDonald is a very illuminating work on the vexing theme of States' Rights vs Union, a theme in American history and politics that has and will continue to elicite debate.
Forrest McDonald works both sides of the debate in this book and you'll find yourself straddling the fence here, wary of federal power or states' rights, as the Constitution gave the central government expansive powers, but it also legitimated the doctrine of states' rights, resulting in dual-sovereignty or as McDonald says, Imperium in Imperio, (sovereignty within sovereignty, supreme power within supreme power), or the division of power within a single jurisdiction. This inherent tension and uncertainty was, I think, intentionally written into the constitution to keep both sides honest. This debate seems to always keep the pot hot, only occasionally boiling over into contention.
McDonald has a pleasenly elegant narrative that is easily readable giving an insightful look at the delicate balance of dual-sovereignty. Taking us from the Federalist Era through the Jeffersonians to finally the Civil War and Reconstruction all the while giving the reader insight to the various positions each serving a purpose as authority between general and local seemed to sway in one direction or another, only to be upset anew and to move back toward the opposite position, but the contention never went away. The division of sovereignty was generally regarded as impossible, but only in America where political thinking underwent a fundamental transformation, bringing unparalleled and unprecedented constitution-making, and only until Americans devised a way of doing it, did it happen.
The Constitution did give the general government broad powers within a limited sphere and thereby institutionalized a system of divided sovereignty. Reading and understanding this book you'll find that you'll side and reside yourself as the debate goes on, from the states' righters as John Taylor and John Randolph argue the definition of tyranny is the concentration of power in some remote center, but the opposite side John Quincy Adams and Nicholas Biddle ardently argue for vigorous action at the center was vital if the nation was to fulfill its promise and its destiny among the family of nations.
This is a well balanced work of enlightenment for each position making point and counter-point and is well documented. This is a worthy read for those wanting to broaden their knowledge of why things are as they are in the United States... according to their Constitution, a form of government that empowers its people above all.
Rating: 3
Summary: Useful, educational history with minor flaws
Comment: This book would be of interest if only for the fact that it serves as a lightening rod for the reader's preconceptions on the issues surrounding States' Rights. Read the reviews below and note that some of the reviewers tend to regard McDonald as an advocate for the States and some read him as an advocate for the Feds.
Readers will tend to find in this book evidence to support their own views. That should suggest that McDonald has succeeded in giving us a fairly objective history of the issue. I feel he has. Sort of.
The first part of the book does seem to meander. That is the nature of the beast. I have never read any comprehensive history of constitutional history that does not meander. Many different issues were argued during the first sixty years or so of our constitutional history using States Rights on one side or the other. I think you would be very hard pressed to name one major national figure in that time frame who did not argue both sides of the debate at different times in their lives or in regards to different issues. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Webster, Clay and Calhoun all are associated with one side or another on the issue yet all at some point in their careers argued the other side.
Individual states showed their flexibility on these issues as well. In the chapter on the period immediately preceding the Civil War, 'Dissolving the Union', McDonald notes that the North began to preach nullification while Southerners began to praise the Court.
The latter part of the book probably seems more focused because the issues were more focused and the positions of the players more dogmatic.
I suspect that most of us still find ourselves on both sides of the debate depending on which issue we are discussing. As an Oregonian, I have been annoyed recently by the Federal government trying to contravene the wishes of the people of my State in regards to the Death with Dignity Act. On many other issues, I have supported that same Federal government when it interfered with the laws of individual States, e.g., in the case of laws nationalizing voting rights. Now, before, y'all jump all over me for inconsistency, ask yourself in you are not in the same boat. And while you are at it, ask yourself if most political issues do not involve making a decision on more than one constitutional issue. And whether how much of a role that States' Rights play in our reaction to an issue depends on our feelings about the other constitutional issues involved.
Consider that the political and economic issues debated in this country have always had that type of complexity and I believe it will be clear why McDonald's history is not a nice flowing narrative.
While I think McDonald's history is useful, I find myself questioning some of his judgments. I think he has a tendency to make statements that are not supported by evidence. On p. 120 McDonald claims, 'Jackson brought such disrepute to his office that that vital function of the presidency could scarcely be performed again for the remainder of the century'. This strikes me as a wee bit of an overstatement.
I also find his handling of certain events to be questionable, e.g., the notorious caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. McDonald seems to feel that Sumner was malingering. Maybe. Maybe I would feel like malingering too if struck repeatedly on the head with a gutta-percha cane. In any case, I remain a little skeptical about McDonald as pure historian. But don't take my word for it. I am just some schmuck who reads a lot. Read one of his books and decide for yourself.
If the issue of the relative power of the States vis-a-vis the Federal government is of interest to you then this is a useful book. If you have a strong opinion you will find additional support for either side within these pages. If your opinion on these issues is unclear, this book should be of use in sorting out some of your ideas simply by the way you find yourself reacting to the various arguments.
One final note- in evaluating what happened to the South after the Civil War, it is important to also keep in mind the monumental and systematic terrorism that was unleashed on black people during this time. The reaction of Southerners to Reconstruction is probably the strongest argument for federal intervention in the political lives of the states. The protection of minorities from the majority was one of the main reasons Madison and others pushed for the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Which minority is the focus of that protection at whatever historical moment is one of the story lines of our constitutional history. It is altogether too easy to forget this when reading a book like this one. I cannot recommend highly enough Eric Foner's great book on Reconstruction as a general background to reading about the era.
 |
Title: Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution by Forrest McDonald ISBN: 0700603115 Publisher: Univ Pr of Kansas Pub. Date: November, 1986 List Price(USD): $14.95 |
 |
Title: What the Anti-Federalists Were for by Herbert J. Storing, Murray Dry ISBN: 0226775747 Publisher: University of Chicago Press Pub. Date: November, 1981 List Price(USD): $9.00 |
 |
Title: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas DiLorenzo ISBN: 0761536418 Publisher: Prima Lifestyles Pub. Date: 26 March, 2002 List Price(USD): $24.95 |
 |
Title: What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States by James F. Simon ISBN: 0684848716 Publisher: Simon & Schuster Pub. Date: 10 March, 2003 List Price(USD): $14.00 |
 |
Title: The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism by Marshall L. Derosa ISBN: 0826208126 Publisher: Univ of Missouri Pr (Txt) Pub. Date: November, 1991 List Price(USD): $19.95 |
Thank you for visiting www.AnyBook4Less.com and enjoy your savings!
Copyright� 2001-2021 Send your comments
