The Varied Reactions to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions

What is to be said when a state or states choose to rise up against the national government? Does one immediately cry out claims of anarchy or do they take the time to hear the argument that has been brought against the power of the state? Obviously these questions could be answered in very different ways, as many factors will fall onto which choices people will adhere themselves to. One must decide where they stand on the questioned issues and stake their claim in the battle to decide how the issues will be settled. This sense of protest against the national government and a call to sides came about in a very distinct manner with Congress passing the Alien and Sedition Laws in 1798 and the Virginia and Kentucky reactions to these laws that soon followed. The states of the Union were forced to analyze their stance’s on issues that could have easily split the nation and even led to the collapse of the Union. It is in the responses of nine states to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions that one can see how the states of the Union went about choosing their affiliation and stance as how they would interpret the Alien and Sedition Laws and also the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The nine states that would respond to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions give insight into how much of the nation dealt with an issue that could have easily divided the country.

In order to understand the positions of the states and their eventual responses to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, one must look to how these resolutions came about. Contrasting views of constitutionality occur as the Constitution could be interpreted in opposite ways. In its clause giving Congress all powers "necessary and proper" for carrying the specified powers into effect, Alexander Hamilton as secretary of the treasury found ample authorization for his financial program, including a national bank. In the Tenth Amendment, however, Thomas Jefferson as secretary of state interpreted congressional legislation of that kind giving no power to establish a bank having been delegated to Congress, that power must have been reserved to the states. As president, George Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the bills that Congress passed to enact Hamilton's plan. Eventually Jefferson withdrew from the Washington administration and, with Madison, organized an opposition to it. Thus, in the 1790s, originated the two parties, Federalist and Republican. The Federalists were willing to exploit the implied powers of the Constitution, and the Republicans were demanding a strict construction of the document.[i] [Caleb William Loring, Nullification and Secession Webster’s Argument and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Son, 1893) 13.]
        The Republicans, who were already convinced that much of the Federalist legislation was unconstitutional, were further outraged when, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act provided for the fining and imprisoning of those who uttered anything "false, scandalous, and malicious" against the government, the Congress, or the president. This act seemed to violate the First Amendment, which stated that Congress should pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press.[ii] [William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) 37-42.]
            What agency should have decided the question of constitutionality? The Constitution did not really give the Supreme Court the power to decide, and the Republicans denied that the Supreme Court could rightfully assume the power. The Republican leaders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that the state legislatures should decide. They stated their views in two sets of resolutions, one written by Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky legislature, and the other drafted by Madison and approved by the Virginia legislature.ii,[iii] [William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy. 55-57.] [K. R. Constantine Gutzman, “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Reconsidered: “An Appeal to the Real Laws of our Country,”” Journal of Southern History 66, no. 3 (2000): 473-496.]
        The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions claimed the following propositions. The federal government had been formed by a compact among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only specific delegated powers. When the government would attempt to exercise any undelegated powers, its acts were seen as void of any power. The states must have then decided for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. The state legislatures served to watch out for unconstitutional acts. The idea and act of nullification of federal law by the states was seen as the proper course whenever the federal government seemed to overstep its boundaries. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions urged all the states to join in declaring the Alien and Sedition Laws void and demanded their repeal at the next session of Congress. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions failed to garner any support from other states, and wound up looking nearly anarchical.ii,i [William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy. 55-57.] [Caleb William Loring, Nullification and Secession Webster’s Argument and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. 88-91]
            State’s rights and strict construction were usually the arguments of the Republican Party. As long as the Republicans were not in control of the government, they remained strict constructionists. Once Jefferson became president, the Republicans used their new powers in the federal government to further their own interests. They used much more than the rightful and constitutional powers, according to the Federalists, who then adopted the state rights point of view.ii,i [William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy. 55-57.] [Caleb William Loring, Nullification and Secession Webster’s Argument and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. 88-91]

The political power of the country during the time of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions was split along natural boundaries. North of the Potomac River, Federalists held the majority of the political power. With this power, they were able to secure support for the emphatic disapproval of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. In the states south of the Potomac River Republican power was just beginning to assert itself but did not yet have the power to garner any kind of major approval of the resolutions. No states south of Virginia sent any sort of reply to the resolutions.[iv] [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review 5, no. 2 (1899): 237.]

The replies to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions consisted of much of the same sort of defense and definition. Federalists primarily formulated these replies as they controlled the states north of the Potomac River. These replies generally declared the Alien and Sedition Laws to be “expedient and constitutional.” These replies also declared the rejection of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, as states did not have the right to pass on the constitutionality of laws passed by the federal government. The Federalist control of government was too strong for any of the responding states to bring any sort of agreement to the passing of the resolutions.iv [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,”]

Maryland was the first state to receive and respond to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. This was based on the state’s proximity to the other two. A committee of the House of Delegates was called to respond to the resolutions. They felt the resolutions from Kentucky were highly improper, and “contained sentiments and opinions unwarranted by the Constitution.” In reaction to the resolutions from Virginia, the delegates responded, “no state government was competent to declare acts of the federal government as unconstitutional.”[v] [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review 5, no. 1 (1899): 46.]

In Pennsylvania, the news of the resolutions garnered more public attention. The resolutions and the actions of the state legislature were thoroughly covered by newspapers. Many of the newspaper columnists went out of their ways to criticize the resolutions. The state legislature responded to the resolutions of Kentucky with the opinion that a state legislature that declares a federal law void was taking a revolutionary stance and its measures were unwarranted. They also responded that the principles of the Virginia resolutions “are calculated to excite unwarrantable discontents, and to destroy the very existence of government.” v [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 51-52.]

The Delaware state legislature responded in similar fashion. Their General Assembly saw the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as unjustifiable interferences with the federal government. .”v [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 52.]

The New Jersey state legislature dismissed the resolutions with contempt. Their representatives saw the state of Virginia trying to make a stand against the Constitution based on the fact that smaller states had equal representation in the Senate. The legislature did, however, try to give well-reasoned replies to the resolutions, as to keep harmony between the states.v [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 54.]

Like the state of Pennsylvania, New York State had much public exposure for the resolutions through newspapers and pamphlets. The state legislature partially endorsed protest to the Alien and Sedition Laws, but was unwilling to declare that a state could make its own judgments in differences with the federal government. They felt that the resolutions threatened the Constitution and the principles of the Union.v,ii [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 54.] [William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy. 75.]

In Massachusetts, a joint committee was formed from members of both houses of the state legislature. The Federalist majority backed the Alien and Sedition Laws. The committee responded to the resolutions stating that state legislatures had no constitutional right to judge acts of the federal government. The committee refused to admit the right of state legislatures to denounce the federal government.v,ii [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 55.] [William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy. 75.]

The Rhode Island state legislature dissented from the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Unlike Pennsylvania and New York, there was very little coverage of the process dealing with the resolutions.iv [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 229.]

The newspapers of Connecticut, like those in Pennsylvania and New York, greatly covered the dealings of the resolutions. The Connecticut legislature felt the resolutions were contrary to the principles of the Constitution and calculated to introduce anarchy.iv [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 230.]

The state legislature of New Hampshire saw the Alien and Sedition Laws as constitutional. Their response to the resolutions of Kentucky and Virginia held that state legislatures were not “proper tribunals” to decide on the constitutionality of federal laws. Vermont’s legislature replied to the resolutions by stating that the people of the United States ratified the Constitution en masse, not alone as states.iv,ii [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 231-232.] [William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy. 75.]

These responses from the states all held similar viewpoints. Of course, this would be the expected result, as these state governments were all under majority rule of the Federalist Party. The responses to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions from the Republican members of those state legislatures became overshadowed. If the Republican Party had been further established at the time of the resolutions, the responses would in turn have been much more accepting of the ideas of the resolutions. A better perspective would also have been given if the states south of Virginia, like Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas, had given actual responses to the resolutions. These state legislatures, especially Georgia and Tennessee, seemed indifferent to the impact that the resolutions could have had.iv,[vi] [Frank Maloy Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review. 235-236.] [Georgia Gazette no.867, 5 June 1800. AN13.S45G42.]

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were acts of government that were way ahead of their time, as far as liberal government action is concerned. This sort of government action would eventually find its way into the national political scene but not during the era of Federalist governmental control. These resolutions had the right ideas in trying to insure protection of the Bill of Rights and offer human rights legislation before there even was such a thing. I have to agree with the direction that these resolutions started to take the course of governmental legislation. While unsuccessful at the time, these resolutions set the stage for governmental action that preserved and upheld the ideas of the Constitution.ii [William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy. 142-150.]

The responses of the states to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions may seem harsh when viewed from a more liberal standpoint today, but at the time of conservative Federalist rule, the responses fell in line with the norm. It was probably better that all of the responding states shared similar governmental ideals, as any kind of conflict that could have risen between the states would have been detrimental to the fragile nation. Had the states from the south garnered more support to back the resolutions, the Civil War may have come sixty years earlier. For the health of the nation, it was better that responding states shared similar ideas about the resolutions.

Endnotes

1. William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

2. Ethelbert Dudley Warfield, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Son, 1887).

3. Caleb William Loring, Nullification and Secession Webster’s Argument and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Son, 1893).

4. K. R. Constantine Gutzman, “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Reconsidered: “An Appeal to the Real Laws of our Country,”” Journal of Southern History 66, no. 3 (2000): 473-496.

5. Ralph L. Ketcham, ed., “Jefferson and Madison and the Doctrines of Interposition and Nullification. A Letter of John Quincy Adams,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 66, no. 2 (1958): 178-182.

6. Frank Malory Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review 5, no. 2 (1899): 225-252.

7. Frank Malory Anderson, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” The American Historical Review 5, no. 1 (1899): 45-63.

8. Georgia Gazette no.867, 5 June 1800. AN13.S45G42.

Helpful Sites to Examine

1. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/alsedact.htm