 |  |
This post was originally conceived as a thread so it may come across as a bit disjointed. It begins with a question: Why is anti-statist resistance to federal support for health insurance, vaccines, voting rights, environmentalism, women’s rights, and collective bargaining so prevalent in the American South? As I argue here a major reason lies in the region’s history of slavery. For years I had known about the slavery—limited government relationship but now I wanted specific, verifiable proof in the primary sources that I could present to others. Greater attention to these texts allows for a better understanding of the political discourses of the antebellum era and their long-term effect on today’s culture. Toward the end I address the rebuttals and complexities of this issue in my own Q & A session. The textual evidence I present here comes from 10 white southern politicians in the antebellum era.
Example #1: Nathaniel Macon
Nathaniel Macon to Bartlett Yancey, March 8, 1818, in Edwin Mood Wilson, The Congressional Career of Nathaniel Macon, 48--49.
“General government” was the term that many antebellum Americans, especially southerners, used to refer to the federal or national government in Washington D.C. Here is the book from which I took Macon's quote.
Macon to Bartlett Yancey, December 8, 1825, in Wilson, The Congressional Career of Nathaniel Macon, 76-77
Example #2: Speech from Representative Charles Pinckney of South Carolina on the topic of admitting slaves into Missouri, February 1820. Warning: these words are deeply racist and therefore troubling to read.
Traditionally we learn that the founders saw slavery as a necessary evil with “positive good” arguments coming only in the 1830s. Yet not only was Pinckney a founder himself but as the historian John Majewski once told me, positive good arguments were evident in 1820 at the Missouri debates. These shocking, horrifying points from Pinckney resembled ones later invoked by George Fitzhugh in Cannibals All! and James Henry Hammond in the "mudsill" speech. Pinckney was one of 4 SC delegates to Philadelphia in 1787 who played major roles in demanding and ultimately inserting the 3 pro-slavery clauses in the original U.S. Constitution. Pierce Butler, John Rutledge, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney were the others.
Enslavers like Pinckney looked to the Constitution to protect slave property in the face of what they perceived as hostile northern majorities. Their justification was states’ rights as one of the core characteristics of limited government philosophy. It’s not hard to find examples of conservatives today defending their positions by citing the founders and the Constitution. Ben Shapiro recently gave a states’ rights argument when he said, “Let Texas be Texas.” We see the belief in limited government in Pinckney’s demand that Congress not touch the slave question. Only the individual states in his mind had the authority to address this matter. John C. Calhoun would later expand upon this theory by underscoring the 5th Amendment’s protection of private property. The right to slave property was so fundamental according to Calhoun that no legislative majority could violate it. Roger B. Taney adopted Calhoun’s view in the infamous Dred Scott decision, declaring that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the western territories. It is striking that many conservatives and libertarians today also uphold an absolutist vision of property rights when fighting environmental regulations. They ground their call for limited government in a mythologized version of what the founders intended in the original constitution.
Example #3: Robert Hayne of South Carolina, discussing the American Colonization Society in the Senate, March 1826.
Example #3: Robert Hayne of South Carolina, discussing the American Colonization Society in the Senate, March 1826.
Owning slaves was a fundamental right, not open for public discussion in Congress. It is remarkable that even several years before the nullification crisis, Hayne and his ilk were contemplating secession. 
Robert Turnbull, The Crisis, p. 64
Congress enacted tariffs, sponsored internal improvements, and established a National Bank through the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution. Turnbull and others like him feared that this clause could then be used to meddle with slavery. Petitions to Congress from the American Colonization Society were a case in point. Thus, fears over “Big government” in the South today can be traced back to antebellum era debates over Congress’s right to debate slavery. Broadly speaking, there were two wings of the Jeffersonian coalition debating the limits of the general welfare clause in the aftermath of the War of 1812: the Albert Gallatin / early Calhoun wing versus the John Randolph / Quids, strict construction, Old Guard wing. The exigencies of war and spirit of nationalism surrounding war with Britain gave the Gallatin / Calhoun wing the upper hand from 1815—1820 as some strict constructionists like Madison and Monroe put aside their scruples. But the Missouri debates, Denmark Vesey’s attempted revolt, and the American Colonization society made slavery the Big Elephant in the room. Strict constructionists like Hayne and Turnbull then seized the initiative.
Robert Turnbull, The Crisis, 96--97
In the passage above, Turnbull put forth the compact theory of the Constitution, something Chief Justice John Marshall rejected in McCulloch v. Maryland. The compact theory held that the Constitution, rather than creating a government for all of the American people, was instead an agreement among independent sovereign states that could be severed at any point. States’ righters wielding the compact theory liked to think of Philadelphia 1787 as a meeting of disparate peoples from independent nations with vastly different traditions who sacrificed their sovereignty *only* for the purposes of commerce and national defense. If you’ve studied the secession documents in 1860—61, you’ll see the compact theory in action, along with the obvious pro-slavery defenses. There was a certain convenience in white southerners adopting the compact theory. White southerners often noted how they were a numerical minority, so the anti-majoritarian, anti-democratic compact theory preserved their bargaining power. Anti-majoritarianism exists in every part of the U.S., but especially in the South. This is unsurprising when we consider the politics of South Carolina. Its small planter elite acquired disproportionate power even when most of the population lived in the upcountry. Property requirements for voting in South Carolina stayed intact long after other states had abolished them. It was one of only two states—the other being Mississippi—to have a black majority in 1860 and it’s no coincidence it was the first to secede in 1860. When I think of today’s Republicans relishing the filibuster, praising the founders uncritically and thinking it’s completely ok for California to have equal representation in the Senate with Wyoming despite a population difference of 70x, I see echoes of the antebellum era. Today we see an ostensibly neutral but radically conservative Supreme Court bending over backwards to give a free pass to Republican state legislatures in their efforts to enact abortion restrictions, voter suppression, and gerrymandering. The nostalgia undergirding originalism and the legal theory of federalism that upholds dual power-sharing between the states and Congress is similar to the nostalgia of antebellum era Americans when it came to Philadelphia and the compact theory.Turnbull put forth the compact theory of the Constitution, something Chief Justice John Marshall rejected in McCulloch v. Maryland. The compact theory held that the Constitution, rather than creating a government for all of the American people, was instead an agreement among independent sovereign states that could be severed at any point. States’ righters wielding the compact theory liked to think of Philadelphia 1787 as a meeting of disparate peoples from independent nations with vastly different traditions who sacrificed their sovereignty *only* for the purposes of commerce and national defense. If you’ve studied the secession documents in 1860—61, you’ll see the compact theory in action, along with the obvious pro-slavery defenses. There was a certain convenience in white southerners adopting the compact theory. White southerners often noted how they were a numerical minority, so the anti-majoritarian, anti-democratic compact theory preserved their bargaining power. Anti-majoritarianism exists in every part of the U.S., but especially in the South. This is unsurprising when we consider the politics of South Carolina. Its small planter elite acquired disproportionate power even when most of the population lived in the upcountry. Property requirements for voting in South Carolina stayed intact long after other states had abolished them. It was one of only two states—the other being Mississippi—to have a black majority in 1860 and it’s no coincidence it was the first to secede in 1860. When I think of today’s Republicans relishing the filibuster, praising the founders uncritically and thinking it’s completely ok for California to have equal representation in the Senate with Wyoming despite a population difference of 70x, I see echoes of the antebellum era. Today we see an ostensibly neutral but radically conservative Supreme Court bending over backwards to give a free pass to Republican state legislatures in their efforts to enact abortion restrictions, voter suppression, and gerrymandering. The nostalgia undergirding originalism and the legal theory of federalism that upholds dual power-sharing between the states and Congress is similar to the nostalgia of antebellum era Americans when it came to Philadelphia and the compact theory.
If Congress discusses slavery even indirectly, we’ll wind up poor like the West Indies. Talk about hyperbole! I’m reminded of similarly problematic slippery slope arguments like “if we don’t control spending or debt, we’ll wind up like Venezuela!” Turnbull, The Crisis, 127--128.
Turnbull, The Crisis, 129-130
One of the long-standing themes of southern history that emerges loud and clear in this passage is the fear of outside influence. Study the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s and you’ll see white southerners constantly lambasting “outside agitators.” This creation of a closed society and fear of outsiders was born out of slavery in my view. Remember, the South was relatively late in the western world in abolishing slavery – only Brazil and Cuba were later. So they were constantly defensive and sensitive to criticism. Matthew Karp discusses this in his book. And I’d add that William Seward, in his famous “Irrepressible Conflict” speech of 1858, said the slave system was one of “constant danger, distrust, suspicion, and watchfulness.” Turnbull spends a great deal of time in The Crisis talking about Hamilton, the tariff, robbery, the colonial dependency of the South, etc. And then he comes right out and says this below. No highlights from me this time. Just read this powerful stuff.
Study passages like these for long enough and you’ll see the hyperbole; the paranoia; the sensitivity; the defensiveness. They say don’t criticize us or we’ll secede. These are the emotions of a ruling class that fears its oppressed laborers will rise up and kill them. There are numerous connections between nullification and slavery. Support for nullification tended to be strongest among enslavers in the large slaveholding counties. Turnbull himself was a leading nullifier and free trader who served on the Denmark Vesey court. Check out the Wikipedia entry on Turnbull. It’s pretty awful. It mentions nullification but says almost nothing on slavery. Is there anyone who wants to fix this?
Example #6: William Preston
Example #6: William Preston
William Preston to Waddy Thompson, February 14, 1830, in Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, 205. Freehling was talking about the nullifiers' confidence in 1830.
Example #7: John C. Calhoun
John C. Calhoun to Virgil Maxcy, September 11, 1830, in Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, 257.
We should remember that politicians sometimes referred to slavery euphemistically. Calhoun’s letter is an example when he says “domestic institutions.” “Our interests,” “our property,” “our liberty,” “other persons” (the words in the original Constitution) and “servile revolt” are other common phrasings. Turnbull was direct but he was also publishing pseudonymously. There may be several incentives for avoiding a direct mention of slavery as one’s primary motive, especially if one is trying to present one’s society in the best possible light. The rare times when they mention slavery so prominently deserve extra attention in my view.
Example #8: James Hamilton, Jr., Charleston Mercury, September 29, 1830. If you click on this hyperlink to find the original newspaper, I should note that the September 28 edition is followed by the 29th (they're part of the same link).
Example #8: James Hamilton, Jr., Charleston Mercury, September 29, 1830. If you click on this hyperlink to find the original newspaper, I should note that the September 28 edition is followed by the 29th (they're part of the same link).
Example #9: The United States Telegraph, anonymous editorial reprinted from another newspaper, February 25, 1833
 |  |
The Telegraph was a state-sponsored newspaper organ edited by Duff Green, a Calhoun devotee. I discuss Green’s business practices as an editor in my book. They literally thought they might be *enslaved* if they weren’t careful. I’m reminded of Samuel Johnson’s famous quote about liberty and the “drivers of negroes.” A less critical reading would be that those who grew up in a slave society were hyper-sensitive about any sort of relationship that reeked of subjugation. They knew chattel slavery was the worst of all labor conditions and they wanted to avoid it.
Example #10: Judge William Harper, Convention Speech, March 11, 1833, from this book, pp. 49—50.
Example #10: Judge William Harper, Convention Speech, March 11, 1833, from this book, pp. 49—50.
Okay, that just about wraps it up in terms of textual evidence. I have some additional thoughts, links, and images that I address in a Twitter thread. But this entry has gotten long. If you end up reading this thread, start at #56. I go over some of the nuances and complexities regarding the relationship between slavery and limited government philosophy, including related issues, in a sort of Q & A format. If you don't have access to Twitter but still want to see my responses, you can see the way my thread was unrolled here.
RSS Feed