states has been the subject of compromise and confrontation with the federal government, usually simplified as "States Rights" issues. This seesaw of controversy is a result of a deliberate ambiguity of construction by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Having just emerged from the unworkable Articles of Confederation, Messrs. Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson et al. understood that two definitions of community existed in the newly-independent British colonies: that of local (state) orientation and that of "American" (national) identity. Just as the federal government was structured around a loosely-defined "balance-of-power" among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, the Constitution reckoned that a similar, open-to-future-definition balance between State and Federal governments would serve the nation well.
For the first seventy years of existence, the advocates of Federal v. States Rights fought viciously to establish the preeminence of their particular domains. The Civil War was the culmination of that struggle. Issues of taxation, slavery and international commerce all revolved around the central controversy: did the state or the federal government have the ultimate right of decision?
Although the Southern states are usually thought of as the leading proponents of States Rights, it was a national trend. The federal government had yet to issue an overriding paper currency; competing regional interests deflected national consensus on the direction of development; poor transportation and communications kept north isolated from south, seacoast isolated from interior. States needed to fill many gaps in the evolving organizational needs of the growing nation. Within this context, obviously, governors held a very strong position in the political hierarchy. New York State governor Gouverneur Morris led the pack with an ambitious program of transportation projects, the Erie Canal system being the...