Historical uses of states' rights

[Gfactor]

From Lies My Teacher Told Me

The safeguarding of states’ rights, often mentioned as a motive for
the establishment of the Confederacy, was for the most part merely an
accompanying rationale. Historically, whatever faction has been out of
power in America has pushed for states’ rights. Slaveowners were
delighted when Supreme Court Justice Taney decided in 1857 that
thoughout the nation, irrespective of the wishes of state or
territorial governments, blacks had no rights that whites must
respect. Slaveowners pushed President Buchanan to use federal power to
legitimize slaveholding in Kansas the next year. Only after they lost
control of the executive branch in 1860 election did they advocate
limiting federal power.

(Emphasis added.)

A footnote continues:

Early in the century, Jefferson had supported states’ rights partly to
ensure that no federal power could ever disturb slavery where it
existed. In 1831 South Carolina threatened nullification even though a
Southerner, Andrew Jackson, was president. During the next three
decades, however, most slaveowners showed no misgiving about using
federal power to usurp state or territorial power on behalf of slavery.

This certainly rings true today. My question: Can the history buffs among us cite other examples of the weaker faction pushing for states’ rights? Perhaps some non-slavery related examples?

[RealityChuck]

State’s rights was the main justification for retaining segregation laws in the South. Not actually a slavery issue, but a hangover from it.

[Spoke]

John C. Calhoun used the states’ rights argument to try to nullify federal tariffs within the borders of South Carolina.

[Spoke]

The state of Georgia used the doctrine of states’ rights to try to exercise control over Cherokee territory within its borders:

The Cherokee situation was further complicated by the issue of states’ rights and a prolonged dispute between Georgia and the federal government. In 1802, Georgia was the last of the original colonies to cede its western lands to the federal government. In doing so, Georgia expected all titles to land held by Indians to be extinguished. However, that did not happen, and the Principal People continued to occupy their ancestral homelands, which had been guaranteed to them by treaty.

Georgia residents resented the Cherokees’ success in holding onto their tribal lands and governing themselves. Settlers continued to encroach on Cherokee lands, as well as those belonging to the neighboring Muscogee (Creek) Indians. In 1828, Georgia passed a law pronouncing all laws of the Cherokee Nation to be null and void after June 1, 1830, forcing the issue of states’ rights with the federal government. Because the state no longer recognized the rights of the Cherokees, tribal meetings had to be held just across the state line at Red Clay, Tennessee.

[aahala]

Marriage. It’s a state matter in regard to race(or gender) and it’s a fed matter in
regard to gender(or race). A lot of the folks on either side of the fence on one jump
across the fence on the other.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

Slaveowners were delighted when Supreme Court Justice Taney decided in 1857 that throughout the nation, irrespective of the wishes of state or territorial governments, blacks had no rights that whites must respect.

This has little to do with the larger issue, but it happens to be a gross mis-statement of the Dred Scott decision. The primary finding in the Scott case was that Congress had no power to ban slavery in a territory–that is, a restriction on federal power. Taney did extend his ruling to territorial governments in a dictum not relevant to the Scott case itself, but only because territorial governments were agencies of the federal government. The case had no impact whatsoever on what rights a state government could or must confer on African Americans.

I mention this primarily because an author writing a book with the pretentious subtitle “Everything Your American HIstory Textbook Got Wrong” ought to be a little more careful.

With respect to the larger issue, a statement that “whatever faction has been out of power has pushed for states rights” is too simplistic. Even when they were (in general) “in power” in the decades before the Civil War, most Southerners supported limited federal activity in areas unrelated to slavery, such as the tariff, the national bank, and internal improvements. As an agrarian society, the South had little use for such innovations.

Of course, no person or faction is ever consistent on this issue. This isn’t surprising; few of us would argue the states should have either all power or no power, so any of us would support “states rights” on some issues but not on others. Thomas Jefferson’s best known defense of states rights came in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts while John Adams was President, but after he took office Jefferson signed the equally draconian Embargo Act into law. During the 1980’s, even while in power, Republicans in Congress and the Reagan administration devolved many federal programs back to the states, even while supporting draconian federal drug laws, a strong national defense, and an aggressive foreign policy. Such is the nature of life.

[cainxinth]

What makes you think this rings true today? The Republican party is the champion of state’s rights presently and they hold the presidency and the majority in both houses.

[Little_Nemo]

This has little to do with the larger issue, but it happens to be a gross mis-statement of the Dred Scott decision. The primary finding in the Scott case was that Congress had no power to ban slavery in a territory–that is, a restriction on federal power. Taney did extend his ruling to territorial governments in a dictum not relevant to the Scott case itself, but only because territorial governments were agencies of the federal government. The case had no impact whatsoever on what rights a state government could or must confer on African Americans.

Taney wrote the the deciding factor of the case was whether Scott had any rights as a citizen. His finding was that no state could give a black man rights as the federal government prohibited black men from being citizens. So Dred Scott was a ruling against states rights.

What makes you think this rings true today? The Republican party is the champion of state’s rights presently and they hold the presidency and the majority in both houses.

Consider the gay marriage issue as an example. Conservative Republicans are seeking a federal prohibition against gay marriages in order to prevent individual states from legalizing them.

[OldGuy]

@cainxinth

What makes you think this rings true today? The Republican party is the champion of state’s rights presently and they hold the presidency and the majority in both houses.

The Repulican Party is pushing for legislation banning gay marriages. They just pushed through Congress a law trying to get around the Florida courts’ decisions in the right-to-die case that started all this discussion. They’ve tried to limit stem cell research (albeit by controlling purse strings in that case and not directly trying to control what a state may or may not do). For years they’ve pushed to limit the right to abortions and to a lesser extent birth control in general.

In all these cases a stronger or weaker argument could be made that they are trying to take away state’s rights.

[Gfactor]

@cainxinth

What makes you think this rings true today? The Republican party is the champion of state’s rights presently and they hold the presidency and the majority in both houses.

1. Federal class action bill
2. Federal tort reform bill
3. Federal law seeking to permit a single case to be heard in federal court because they disagreed with the results reached by the state court system.

What recent examples of them championing states’ rights can you give?

[Spoke]

@Gfactor

1. Federal class action bill
2. Federal tort reform bill
3. Federal law seeking to permit a single case to be heard in federal court because they disagreed with the results reached by the state court system.

What recent examples of them championing states’ rights can you give?

4. Bush v. Gore decision undermining Florida’s attempt to administer its own election laws.
5. Federal attempts to undercut state medicinal marijuana laws.
6. Federal abortion laws.
7. Federal attempts to quash state-level assisted suicide laws.

More here. And here.

Some Republicans (not all) only supported the concept of “states’ rights” when it suited their political agenda. (For example, when they were trying to fight federal affirmative action programs, federal civil rights laws, or federal environmental mandates.)