History of the United States of America, Volume 2 (of 9) : $b During the first administration of Thomas JeffersonAdams, Henry
History
History of the United States of America, Volume 2 (of 9) : $b During the first administration of Thomas Jefferson
Adams, Henry
United States -- History -- 1801-1809; United States -- History -- 1809-1817
Then came Wilson Cary Nicholas. Five years before, in the Virginia
legislature, Nicholas had spoken and voted for the Resolutions moved
by his colleague, John Taylor of Caroline. He then said that if the
principle were once established that Congress had a right to use powers
not expressly delegated, “the tenure by which we hold our liberty
would be entirely subverted: instead of rights independent of human
control, we must be content to hold by the courtesy and forbearance
of those whom we have heretofore considered as the servants of the
people.” Instead of using the same language in 1803, he accepted his
colleague’s views as to the extent of the treaty-making power, and
added reasoning of his own. If the spirit of New England Calvinism
contained an element of self-deceit, Virginia metaphysics occasionally
ran into slippery evasion, as the argument of Nicholas showed.
He evaded a straightforward opinion on every point at issue. The
treaty-making power was undefined, he thought, but not unlimited; the
general limitations of the Constitution applied to it, not the special
limitations of power; and of course the treaty must be judged by its
conformity with the general meaning of the compact. He then explained
away the apparent difficulties in the case. “If the third article of
the treaty,” said he, “is an engagement to incorporate the territory
of Louisiana into the Union of the United States and to make it a
State, it cannot be considered as an unconstitutional exercise of the
treaty-making power, for it will not be asserted by any rational man
that the territory is incorporated as a State by the treaty itself.”
This incorporation was stipulated to be done “according to the
principles of the Constitution,” and the States might do it or not, at
their discretion: if it could not be done constitutionally, it might be
done by amendment.
Nothing could be more interesting than to see the discomfort with which
the champions of State-rights tossed themselves from one horn to the
other of the Federalist dilemma. The Federalists cared little on which
horn their opponents might choose to impale themselves, for both were
equally fatal. Either Louisiana must be admitted as a State, or must be
held as territory. In the first case the old Union was at an end; in
the second case the national government was an empire, with “inherent
sovereignty” derived from the war and treaty-making powers,--in either
case the Virginia theories were exploded. The Virginians felt the
embarrassment, and some of them, like Nicholas, tried to hide it in
a murmur of words and phrases; but the Republicans of Kentucky and
Tennessee were impatient of such restraint, and slight as it was,
thrust it away. The debate was closed by Senator Cocke of Tennessee,
who defied opposition. “I assert,” said he, “that the treaty-making
powers in this country are competent to the full and free exercise of
their best judgment in making treaties without limitation of power.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account