|
|
|
Book Review
| William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Pp. 237. $39.95 (ISBN 1-4039-6303-7).
|
| William J. Watkins, Jr.'s book on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions fills a glaring lacuna in the historiography of the Early Republic. The twentieth century did not produce a single title devoted exclusively to the classic statements of the view of the Constitution that dominated American politics in the first half of the nineteenth century, and Watkins does a fine job exploring the topic's history and possible contemporary applications. |
1
|
|
In his first chapter, "Monocrats and Jacobins," Watkins describes the very contentious political environment of the 1790s, which has come to be a popular topic among historians in the past two decades. For the most part, it is an apt account: the Hamiltonian policies of the Washington Administration in the areas of finance and foreign policy are described accurately, and the bases of Republican opposition are laid out plainly. Watkins thinks it clear that the Federalists' view of the Constitution was simply incorrect, however, and that the Republicans' objections were all laudable. One wishes he had consulted Andrew Lenner's fine volume on federalism and John Taylor of Caroline's pamphlet on the carriage tax before coming to this judgment, because things are seldom so simple: the Federalists had a colorable argument for the constitutionality of their measures, and Taylor made clear that one reason southerners should fear the vector of Federalist policy was that it threatened the future of slavery. |
2
|
|
In chapter 2, "Legislation and Persecution," Watkins describes the Federalists' panoply of measures to clamp down on domestic dissent at the end of the 1790s. Attention is given to the Alien and Sedition Acts, of course, along with the immigration reforms and other measures the Federalists adopted in the midst of the Quasi-War with France. |
3
|
|
The meat of the book is chapter three, "The Principles of 1798." Here, Watkins clearly explains the content of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (as they were always called at the time in light of Virginia's preeminent place in the Union; Watkins's decision to reverse the order of the states in his title and throughout his text remains unexplained) of 1798 and 1799 and the Virginia Report of 1800. |
4
|
|
When it comes to context, Watkins does a good job of combing the most obvious sources: The Federalist, the papers of Jefferson and Madison, etc. One wishes, however, that he had devoted more attention to the specifically Virginian tradition of federalism I described in a 2000 article on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in the Journal of Southern History. If he had, he would have learned, among other things, that James Madison's understanding of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 was not the same as that of the General Assembly that adopted them. For that General Assembly, their resolutions were fully as strident as Kentucky's. |
5
|
|
The book's two concluding chapters are entitled "Consolidation" and "Lessons for Today." A product of the generally libertarian Independent Institute, this book has an intended audience of educated laymen with an interest in contemporary policy disputes, and perhaps also of undergraduates. Thus, President Lincoln's numerous measures to concentrate authority in his own hands during the Civil War come in for criticism by Watkins as simply unconstitutional and, even if one considers abolition a great enough achievement to justify distortion of the Constitution, probably unnecessary. These assumptions and contentions likely will provoke vigorous debate in any class to which this book is assigned. |
6
|
|
In his chapter on contemporary applications of "the Virginia Doctrine" (as Andrew Jackson called it), Watkins is at pains to demonstrate that a decentralized, truly federal government along the model of the antebellum United States would be preferable to the current United States in myriad ways. Self-government, he says, means local control, and the Revolution should be understood as having been about the same principles as were asserted by the Republicans of 1798. Most Americans, he thinks, would be more contented with the political system if their local communities reflected their local values and concerns more closely. Thus, for example, Watkins asks why California and Nevada should be prevented by the federal government from legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana, when Watkins's understanding of the original design of the Constitution is that power to decide such questions was reserved to the states. That is a good question. It bears note, however, that Watkins's hope to reinvigorate the federal principle likely is a forlorn one. |
7
|
| Kevin R. C. Gutzman
|
| Western Connecticut State University |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|