Neither nullification nor nationalism: The battle for the states’ rights middle ground during prohibition

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

During and after passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, American governing officials struggled to balance the competing demands of state sovereignty and constitutional obligation. This article examines debates in Congress and three contested states (New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts) to show that participants worked to situate themselves as faithful guarantors of both enumerated powers and constitutional obligations. Those who defended national prohibition and state cooperation constantly defended this as the consequence of a specific textual amendment. By contrast, those who wanted the states to refrain from enforcement repeatedly denied that states were required to be administrative agents of a different sovereign. In short, prohibitionists denied that they were nationalists while alleging that wets were nullifiers, with antiprohibition forces reversing the claims—but nearly all progressives, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats were trying to claim the same Jacksonian middle ground of a centrist federalism and a robust states’ rights consensus.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)271-303
Number of pages33
JournalAmerican Political Thought
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

amendment
nationalism
obligation
federalism
sovereignty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Neither nullification nor nationalism : The battle for the states’ rights middle ground during prohibition. / Beienburg, Sean.

In: American Political Thought, Vol. 7, No. 2, 01.03.2018, p. 271-303.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{29c36f3250444c0f82b91fffc475fb9c,
title = "Neither nullification nor nationalism: The battle for the states’ rights middle ground during prohibition",
abstract = "During and after passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, American governing officials struggled to balance the competing demands of state sovereignty and constitutional obligation. This article examines debates in Congress and three contested states (New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts) to show that participants worked to situate themselves as faithful guarantors of both enumerated powers and constitutional obligations. Those who defended national prohibition and state cooperation constantly defended this as the consequence of a specific textual amendment. By contrast, those who wanted the states to refrain from enforcement repeatedly denied that states were required to be administrative agents of a different sovereign. In short, prohibitionists denied that they were nationalists while alleging that wets were nullifiers, with antiprohibition forces reversing the claims—but nearly all progressives, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats were trying to claim the same Jacksonian middle ground of a centrist federalism and a robust states’ rights consensus.",
author = "Sean Beienburg",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1086/697024",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "271--303",
journal = "American Political Thought",
issn = "2161-1580",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neither nullification nor nationalism

T2 - The battle for the states’ rights middle ground during prohibition

AU - Beienburg, Sean

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - During and after passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, American governing officials struggled to balance the competing demands of state sovereignty and constitutional obligation. This article examines debates in Congress and three contested states (New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts) to show that participants worked to situate themselves as faithful guarantors of both enumerated powers and constitutional obligations. Those who defended national prohibition and state cooperation constantly defended this as the consequence of a specific textual amendment. By contrast, those who wanted the states to refrain from enforcement repeatedly denied that states were required to be administrative agents of a different sovereign. In short, prohibitionists denied that they were nationalists while alleging that wets were nullifiers, with antiprohibition forces reversing the claims—but nearly all progressives, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats were trying to claim the same Jacksonian middle ground of a centrist federalism and a robust states’ rights consensus.

AB - During and after passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, American governing officials struggled to balance the competing demands of state sovereignty and constitutional obligation. This article examines debates in Congress and three contested states (New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts) to show that participants worked to situate themselves as faithful guarantors of both enumerated powers and constitutional obligations. Those who defended national prohibition and state cooperation constantly defended this as the consequence of a specific textual amendment. By contrast, those who wanted the states to refrain from enforcement repeatedly denied that states were required to be administrative agents of a different sovereign. In short, prohibitionists denied that they were nationalists while alleging that wets were nullifiers, with antiprohibition forces reversing the claims—but nearly all progressives, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats were trying to claim the same Jacksonian middle ground of a centrist federalism and a robust states’ rights consensus.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051394386&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051394386&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/697024

DO - 10.1086/697024

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85051394386

VL - 7

SP - 271

EP - 303

JO - American Political Thought

JF - American Political Thought

SN - 2161-1580

IS - 2

ER -