Beef with Patterson

I understand that all writings about history and government are interpretations to an extent by the author based on his views, but I was frustrated to see how blatant Thomas E. Patterson's slant is in We the People: A Concise Introduction to American Politics. And this in itself wouldn't cause me to address it, but I know there are many who would not recognize this bias because of the incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, education of American history received in our schools. Patterson writes

Fearing that northern members of Congress might move to abolish slavery, southern leaders did what others have done throughout American history: they devised a constitutional argument to fit their political desires. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina argued that the Constitution had created "a government of states . . . not a government of individuals." This line of reasoning led Calhoun to his famed "doctrine of nullification," which declared that each state had the constitutional right to nullify a national law.

Patterson implies that Calhoun created a constitutional argument that led to his doctrine of nullification. The only problem is that this doctrine was also discussed by the framers. Its climax in antebellum history is shown in response to the Sedition Act of 1798 with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The argument was made that the Constitution is a compact bewteen the states, and so if the federal government passes laws not within their powers, the states could deam them unconstitutional and, therefore, void. This is the idea of interposition. Explained by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. of Mises Institute from a legal view - the Constitution was created as a contract between the states and the formed union. If there is no neutral party to interpret a contract when under debate, it is the responsibility of both parties to interpret its meaning. It would be foolish to allow only one of the parties to interpret the contract; it would negate the power of the contract by giving complete control to that party. And so it is also the responsibility of the states to interpret the Constitution. An easy counter-argument is that there would be chaos if every state ignored any law they dissagreed with, but this of course is covered in the Constitution itself with the process of amendment. If three-fourths of the states think it constitutional, it becomes constitutional.

This argument of interposition was also used by Massechusets, Connecticut, and Rhode Island when they threatened to ignore the Embargo Act of 1807; Massechusets and Connecticut when instructed to guard the coast during the War of 1812 with their militia; and Massechusets and Connecticut again with another embargo in 1813.

The most disturbing part of Patterson's text is that he associates nullification by the states with slavery, where there is no historical support for this. The educated reader can only assume that Patterson is anti-states' rights, which is supported by his failure to mention the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in his work, even after discussing the Sedition Act in the chapter devoted to civil liberties. These resolutions were at one point so famous and consequential that they were addressed as simply the "Principles of '98". And so continues the incomplete education of American history. Thank you Dr. Patterson.

Listen to Dr. Wood's lecture on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (highly recommended and a mere hour and 27 mins.)


Patterson, Thomas E. We the People: A Concise Introduction to American Politics. 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008. 88.