When the British Parliament decided to strengthen its imperial control over the colonies in the early 1760s, it turned to the use of Vice-Admiralty Courts to enforce customs regulations. Colonial Americans had developed customs evasion to a fine art. Customs officials had found that it was almost impossible to gain a conviction in a colonial court because the juries would be sympathetic to the accused customs evaders. Vice-Admiralty Courts were originally an arm of the Admiralty to determine lawful prizes during war, disputes between masters and seamen, and violations of the Acts of Trade. These courts did not use juries and would therefore be immune to local pressure. From the British perspective they were the perfect tool to guarantee that customs regulations would be followed. As a part of the Sugar Act (1764) a new Vice-Admiralty Court was established in Halifax. The act also permitted the customs officials to chose the court that they wished to prosecute the case and placed the burden of proof on the accused customs offender. The British expanded the ViceAdmiralty Court system in 1768 by creating Vice-Admiralty District Courts in Halifax, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston. Believing that trial by a jury of one’s peers was the right of every Englishman, colonial Americans saw this measure as an effort to destroy their liberty.
See also resistance movement.
Further reading: Carl Ubbelohde, The Vice Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960).
And broke the compact that formed government, Madison wrote that “the states, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.”
The Kentucky state legislature passed two resolutions, each anonymously written by Thomas Jeeeerson, then vice president of the United States. Jefferson could have been charged with violating the Sedition Act, making the need for secrecy all the more compelling. The first Kentucky Resolution, passed on November 16, 1798, said that each state “has an equal right to judge for itself’ the validity of any federal activity that extended beyond the delegated powers. Echoing the rhetoric of the Revolution, Jefferson also argued that each state had the right to determine its own “measure of redress.” The Kentucky legislature passed a second resolution on December 3, 1799, further sharpening the case for nullification. The Kentucky Resolutions presented the most aggressive argument for states’ rights.
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions argued that the federal government should operate only with the consent of the individual states. The central government could not be trusted to police itself, Madison and Jefferson contended, so the states had a duty to restrict the federal government to its delegated powers. When passed along to the other states for approval, however, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were for the most part dismissed. The arguments for nullification were resurrected by southern slaveholders during the sectional crisis leading to the Civil War. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina especially leaned on the words of Madison and Jefferson to support his justification of states’ rights. Madison vigorously opposed Calhoun, claiming that his arguments were taken out of context. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were a reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts in particular, and they became an issue in the struggle between the Federalist Party and Democratic-Republicans.
World History
