User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Compact Theory

  1. #1
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Compact Theory

    @Newpublius introduced me to Compact Theory yesterday. I believe I;ve argued it without haveing a name for it.

    Compact theory is the theory that the federal government gets its power from the states.

    James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 expressed this theory.

    Madison: "the powers of the Federal government . . . result[] from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact." And "in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil."

    Jefferson was stronger: "the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party." "[T]he government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of its powers." And "as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

    It was the heart of nullification and secession. "South Carolinians justified decisions to declare federal tariffs, particularly the so-called Tariff of Abominations of 1828, unconstitutional and then leave the union on the ground that the Constitution is a compact between the states, which vests each state with the power to determine whether the national government or other states have violated that constitutional bargain."

    In Federalist 22, Hamilton calls the idea that "a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact" a heresy.

    The Constitution was ratified by the states. Compact theory says the states can deratify.

    Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 19 U.S. 316, 403 (1819): The Constitution "was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States. . . . [W]hen they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments."

    Daniel Webster advocated thay view in his debate with Robert Hayne in the Senate in 1830: "[I]t cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it, declares that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States."

    Lincoln in his first inaugural address maintained, "The Union is much older than the Constitution, it was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774."

    The South Carolina Declaration of Causes (1860) and the Mississippi Resolutions (1861) developed Jefferson’s premises to justify Southern states's secession from the Union.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995): "The ultimate source of the Constitution’s authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole."


    Sources:

    Compact Theory of the U.S. Constitution
    Jefferson’s Views on the Union as a Compact Among the States
    Compact theory
    Last edited by Chris; 07-05-2020 at 10:45 AM.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (07-05-2020)

  3. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496582
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,592x in 94,421 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That was the problem with the 16th Amendment. It was counter to the Compact Theeory.

    Although I wouldn't call it a theory. That is how the Constitution was intended and made.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Chris (07-05-2020)

  5. #3
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    @Newpublius introduced me to Compact Theory yesterday. I believe I;ve argued it without haveing a name for it.

    Compact theory is the theory that the federal government gets its power from the states.

    James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 expressed this theory.

    Madison: "the powers of the Federal government . . . result[] from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact." And "in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil."

    Jefferson was stronger: "the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party." "[T]he government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of its powers." And "as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

    It was the heart of nullification and secession. "South Carolinians justified decisions to declare federal tariffs, particularly the so-called Tariff of Abominations of 1828, unconstitutional and then leave the union on the ground that the Constitution is a compact between the states, which vests each state with the power to determine whether the national government or other states have violated that constitutional bargain."

    In Federalist 22, Hamilton calls the idea that "a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact" a heresy.

    The Constitution was ratified by the states. Compact theory says the states can deratify.

    Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 19 U.S. 316, 403 (1819): The Constitution "was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States. . . . [W]hen they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments."

    Daniel Webster advocated thay view in his debate with Robert Hayne in the Senate in 1830: "[I]t cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it, declares that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States."

    Lincoln in his first inaugural address maintained, "The Union is much older than the Constitution, it was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774."

    The South Carolina Declaration of Causes (1860) and the Mississippi Resolutions (1861) developed Jefferson’s premises to justify Southern states's secession from the Union.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995): "The ultimate source of the Constitution’s authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole."


    Sources:

    Compact Theory of the U.S. Constitution
    Jefferson’s Views on the Union as a Compact Among the States
    Compact theory
    This reads like you're justifying the south's secession, or you're saying that the sates today can reject any federal law that they believe violates the constitution...

  6. #4
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    This reads like you're justifying the south's secession, or you're saying that the sates today can reject any federal law that they believe violates the constitution...
    Yes, I would agree with Jefferson.

    My intent was to lay out the theory and its advocates and detractors.

    The South justified secession by it.
    Last edited by Chris; 07-05-2020 at 12:07 PM.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    nathanbforrest45 (07-05-2020)

  8. #5
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Yes, I would agree with Jefferson.

    My intent was to lay out the theory and its advocates and detractors.

    The South justified secession by it.
    Okay, that's sounds reasonable. The question remains however, if the south was justified then why didn't Lincoln honor the theory? It's easy enough to declare that the north violated compact theory and exercised absolutism, however since the south hung everything really on slavery, why then didn't the south exercise their right to secede under Jefferson's writings?

  9. #6
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Okay, that's sounds reasonable. The question remains however, if the south was justified then why didn't Lincoln honor the theory? It's easy enough to declare that the north violated compact theory and exercised absolutism, however since the south hung everything really on slavery, why then didn't the south exercise their right to secede under Jefferson's writings?
    Lincoln disagreed with compact theory.

    Read the ordinances of secession. They justified secession according to Jefferson's view of compact theory.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    nathanbforrest45 (07-05-2020)

  11. #7
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It was always understood that the "union" was a voluntary compact among equals. The States never would have entered into it otherwise. A "perpetual union" is a pure fiction invented by Lincoln and his unionist predecessors. The entire American revolution was based on the natural right to declare one's political independence. The idea of a "perpetual union" is fundamentally at odds with the basic premise of the American revolution.
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  12. #8
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    It was always understood that the "union" was a voluntary compact among equals. The States never would have entered into it otherwise. A "perpetual union" is a pure fiction invented by Lincoln and his unionist predecessors. The entire American revolution was based on the natural right to declare one's political independence. The idea of a "perpetual union" is fundamentally at odds with the basic premise of the American revolution.
    The question here, though, I think, is are the equals the states or the people? Jefferson would say the states each of whom represent their respective people.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  13. #9
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Lincoln disagreed with compact theory.

    Read the ordinances of secession. They justified secession according to Jefferson's view of compact theory.
    Yeah that would have been John Calhoun who presented it and Lincoln did agree with his version of it I suppose. I wonder though if it'd worked had slavery really been the thing that the south pushed so hard. I guess that the anger had been seething pretty much since the antifederalists time, but if they'd thought more about exactly the constitutional violations really were and make a stronger case for THOSE, compact theory might have been have been more palatable...

  14. #10
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah that would have been John Calhoun who presented it and Lincoln did agree with his version of it I suppose. I wonder though if it'd worked had slavery really been the thing that the south pushed so hard. I guess that the anger had been seething pretty much since the antifederalists time, but if they'd thought more about exactly the constitutional violations really were and make a stronger case for THOSE, compact theory might have been have been more palatable...
    Calhoun accepted a weaker version of compact theory that justified in his mind nullification but not secession. As the first linkin the OP says:

    Compact theory was at the heart of nullification and secession. Though inspired by John C. Calhoun, who opposed secession, South Carolinians justified decisions to declare federal tariffs, particularly the so-called Tariff of Abominations of 1828, unconstitutional and then leave the union on the ground that the Constitution is a compact between the states, which vests each state with the power to determine whether the national government or other states have violated that constitutional bargain. Calhoun’s defense of nullification in 1828 quoted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions at length in support of the proposition that “the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party.” The South Carolina government’s 1860 Ordinance of Secession echoed Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions when declaring, “in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.” The Constitution of the Confederate States begins with a commitment to compact theory. The preamble to that text declares, “We the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character.”
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts