By 1865 federal power, economic, military, and political, was markedly greater than it had been in 1815. Although during much of the antebellum period the drive towards federal power was slow at best and experienced serious setbacks, events leading up to the Civil War fueled the polarization of American politics and society, with concepts of federal power and states’ rights becoming inexorably entangled in the nation’s fate.
To declare a winner in the debate between supporters of states' rights in America and those who believed in a strong federal government for the nation is no simple task, even when we limit our inquiry to the relatively short span of fifty years, from 1815 to 1865. Indeed, it is not easy even to isolate a single group or ideology that existed throughout this period in support of either side of the debate. Of course, there were prominent federal figures whose actions frequently helped to fulfill the traditional Hamiltonian vision of strong central power and industrial might, and there were states' rights advocates whose actions often served to bolster state power and agrarian society.
Paradoxically, however, federal figures also used their power to hinder federal authority, and those who proclaimed themselves in favour of states' rights ended up trampling on them in the rush to secure slavery. To add another layer of uncertainty to the question, it is sometimes misleading to employ, as historians often do, the Hamiltonian conception of America as a benchmark against which progress towards or away from federal supremacy may be measured; certain events increased federal power without fulfilling the specific requirements of the Hamiltonian ideal, and other events aided states' rights while simultaneously encouraging the realization of Hamilton's vision. Only when armed with the knowledge of these important distinctions can we assess the question of federal or state dominance in America.
This essay finds that by 1865 federal power - economic, military, and political - was markedly greater than it had been in 1815. Although during much of the antebellum period the drive towards federal power was slow at best and experienced serious setbacks, events leading up to the Civil War fueled the polarization of American politics and society, with concepts of federal power and states' rights becoming inexorably entangled in the nation's fate; during the war itself this fate was decided, such that by 1865 federal dominance seemed assured.
Scarcely a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the debate between proponents of federal power and advocates of states' rights emerged in force. Historian Howard Zinn shows that by 1787 a powerful central government was needed, not only “to protect large economic interests,” but also to combat the possibility of rebellion by discontented farmers. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton responded to this situation by arguing not only for tighter federal control over finances and the military, but also for a broader vision of national unification, industrialization, and modernization. Opposition was quick to come from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and his supporters, who argued that the potential for tyranny was more dangerous than the problems a strong central government might solve. Hamiltonian designs had, in the words of Historian Irwin Unger, driven “a wedge through the nation” by 1791.
After the War of 1812 this division remained prominent in the American political sphere. Though the Federalist Party, which had supported the Hamiltonian vision, was no longer a viable force, many of its principles survived in the post-war era. Many Democratic-Republicans who had originally opposed Federalist Party policies were convinced by the recent war with British North America that national roads, national banks, and national self-sufficiency were indispensable if America were to survive in the modern age. Spurred in part by federal revenue, America's urban environment expanded steadily in the half-century following the war.
The country exploited natural resources to a degree never before seen, the factory system rose to convert these raw materials into goods, and the 700-mile-long National Road was completed by 1850. It seemed that the Hamiltonian vision was well on its way to being fulfilled.
However, modernization and industrialization were not purely federal trends; states not only helped to fund these movements, but also benefited from them handsomely. The factories, mines, canals, roads, and railways so vital to the Hamiltonian vision could not have been built without state funding and support. State banking systems experienced as much important growth as their federal equivalents. Modernization also benefited many states' military power. For example, Virginia became, in the words of historian Henry Tragle, an “armed and garrisoned state” with all the components of a modern military force. The fact that industrialization and economic growth seemed to benefit state and federal levels alike throws into question the Hamiltonian framework's applicability in assessing federal or state dominance.
Instead of directly appealing to the potentially misleading Hamiltonian framework, we may instead examine specific instances in which federal authority was tested and use the results to determine how powerful it truly was. In many cases, it seems that this federal authority was indeed supreme. In the legal sphere, Chief Justice John Marshall was frequently able to reinforce the precedent he had set in 1810 of striking down state laws as unconstitutional, successfully opposing states' rights when he saw them becoming too powerful well into the 1820s.
