Jefferson Was Right, Webster Was Wrong

By on July 17, 2012 in Uncategorized
  • Share on Tumblr

In my exchange with Dean Clancy, I presented (in the comments section) a few of the initial problems that opponents of the compact theory of the Union (which holds that the Union was created by the sovereign peoples of the states) have to confront. The nationalist view, by contrast, holds that the Union was created by a singular “people”; from there comes the inevitable conclusion that the Union is indestructible, nullification is unthinkable, etc.

Thus I wrote:

Where is the proof of this “one people”? Where did it come from? Where is evidence of this “one people” doing anything? I see zero such evidence.

The compact theory of the Union is just about one of the most persuasive theories I have ever encountered.

Why would the states have ratified the Constitution one by one?

Why did the Declaration speak of free and independent states?

Why did the states perform actions we associate with sovereignty?

Why did Britain acknowledge the independence of individual states?

Why did the Articles of Confederation say the states “retained” their sovereignty? If they “retained” it, didn’t that mean they must have had it to begin with?

These are just a few of the difficulties the nationalists have to overcome.

About Thomas Woods

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail; visit his website], a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is the author of eleven books, most recently Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse and Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, as well as the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. He is also the editor of five other books, including the just-released Back on the Road to Serfdom.
View all posts by Thomas Woods →

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
3 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
jeff2
jeff2

The answer to that is pretty straight-forward.

 

Suppose the people formed the federal government via the states as their respective agents for that limited purpose and for that limited duration in time.   Why not?  What circumstances existed that unequivocally rule this theory out?

 

The compact theory has some short-comings, as do all theories.   One is this:   If the states consent to an Unconstitutional act, where does this leave the people?   I do not see any situation that requires the people to be wholly dependent on their states to challenge the federal government.     I think the people are entitled to do so directly.   Thus, the states can be thought of as the agents of the people for the limited purpose of ratifying the constitution.   After ratification, we have 3 participants in the structure:   the fed, the state and the person.   I think each exists in its own right.   I think each has its own claim with respect to its sphere of authority and the right to resist overreaching from the other.   In fact, we know this to be true.  States challenge the feds, the feds challenge states, people challenge the states, people challenge the feds, etc.    Clearly, it doesn't end with the states, and rightly so.   To place the state as the sole arbiter for the people is reckless, and it abandons the notion of government as servant.

 

It so happens that sometimes the states might serve the interests of the people, and sometimes they might not.   It's really not much different than the feds operate.   So, the short answer to the "compact vs. nationalist" debate is....  These ought not to be the only choices, because each is flawed.   The focus on rights should always, in the end, rest in the people.