1828 John Quincy Adams - Nullification and the Oedipus Prophesy

After the Tariff Act of 1828 was enacted, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina declared that the state had veto power over any act of the federal government. He argued that any state could declare a law unconstitutional and enact laws to resist it.  Calhoun's declaration that states had the power to nullify a law, rested on the fact that nothing in the U.S. Constitution or laws since, had disallowed it.  President John Quincy Adams could not have been more clear in his opposition to this, when he argued that nullification was so outrageous, that no written law was needed to forbid it.  As an example he pointed to parricide, or the killing of ones own father, something that no doubt brings to mind the act of Greek tragic hero Oedipus.  Adams, a lover of the Greek classics could not have ignored in his own mind, the implications of these words.

During John Quincy Adam's final year as president in 1828, the route to the 'nullification crisis' was just beginning. There were already law makers in South Carolina declaring the tariff of 1828 as being unconstitutional setting up a conflict between the federal government and the states.  This was four years before President Andrew Jackson would formally confront South Carolina on this issue.   In 1828, the debate on nullification was just beginning when they held  two caucuses where South Carolina delegates were unable to coordinate a cohesive Southern response.   As part of their efforts, the South Carolina legislature reached out to John C. Calhoun to prepare a report on the tariff situation.  Calhoun worked quickly and within a few weeks, he completed a 35,000 word document that would later become known as his "Exposition and Protest".  In this exposition, Calhoun argued that the tariff was unconstitutional because it favored Northern manufacturing over Southern commerce and agriculture.  It was Calhoun who defined the veto power of a state over any act of the federal government what became the core of the doctrine of nullification.

John Quincy Adams did not take lightly this presupposition that the states had the veto power over any act of the federal government.  He agreed that a state has the right to challenge a law as being unconstitutional with the supreme court making the final judgement, but not the right to outwardly defy federal law.  Adams argued that while each state is "sovereign within its own province", it is expected that the distribution of power between the federal government and the sates would "move in harmony with each other".  Both the members of the State and the Federal governments "are all under oath to support both".  Since they both owe allegiance to one another, it is only natural that outright defiance would be prohibited.  Yet, there was no provision for such conflict written into our laws, nor did Adams think it should be required.  Adams, believed that some acts are so outrageous or so heinous that they go against natural laws and do not need to be codified.   For example, he pointed to the crime of parricide, or the killing of one's own biological father.  In Adams's final State of the Union Address he compared our lack of laws against  nullification to the lack of  "law for the punishment of parricide" in a "virtuous nation of ancient times [that] existed more than five centuries".  Adams did not mention the virtuous nation by name, but in, ancient Greece this crime was seen as being so heinous and unnatural, that no written law was needed.  In Greek mythology, Oedipus accidentally fulfills a prophecy that he would end up killing his father and marrying his mother and bring disaster to his city and family.  In the play, Oedipus unwittingly kills his father and marries his mother Jocasta.   Years later , when Oedipus finds that Jocasta later commits suicide, he gouges his own eyes out.  Shown in the picture above, is an illustration of blind Oedipus commending his children to the gods.  Adams was quite the fan of the Greek classics, and would have been very familiar with this story. I believe that by using these words, he intended to conjure up the notion, that like killing one's own father, nullification is something so unnatural that even without written laws it is illegal.

"The United States of America and the people of every State of which they are composed are each of them sovereign powers. The legislative authority of the whole is exercised by Congress under authority granted them in the common Constitution. The legislative power of each State is exercised by assemblies deriving their authority from the constitution of the State. Each is sovereign within its own province. The distribution of power between them presupposes that these authorities will move in harmony with each other. The members of the State and General Governments are all under oath to support both, and allegiance is due to the one and to the other. The case of a conflict between these two powers has not been supposed, nor has any provision been made for it in our institutions; as a virtuous nation of ancient times existed more than five centuries without a law for the punishment of parricide."

There is no doubt that Adams was familiar with Calhoun's declaration that South Carolina could veto or nullify any act of the federal government, and he wanted to snuff it out before the concept took hold.  Adams was very clear that no one state has the power to pronounce an act of Congress to be unconstitutional.  Throughout the first 50 years of our nation, there had been a few instances where a state legislature made allegations of a law being unconstitutional.  During these instances, some state law makers had made rash decisions to propose laws which delegated to themselves the power to resist those laws they believed to be unconstitutional, but no one state had ever followed through.  In fact, Adams writes that for any one state to follow through with nullification, they would have to turn a blind eye to both patriotism and philanthropy (caring for the welfare of the people) as their own fellow citizens would become the victims. In other words, if a state were to follow through on nullification, they would end up like Oedipus, who brought disaster to both his city and family.  Here, Adams is giving his own prophesy like that of Oedipus.  If a state is able to nullify a federal law, then they would be unwittingly killing the union, and bringing death and destruction to themselves.  It was a prophesy in Greek Mythology that came true for Oedipus, and sadly in American history just 35 years later would come true for the United States during the civil war.

"More than once, however, in the progress of our history have the people and the legislatures of one or more States, in moments of excitement, been instigated to this conflict; and the means of effecting this impulse have been allegations that the acts of Congress to be resisted were unconstitutional. The people of no one State have ever delegated to their legislature the power of pronouncing an act of Congress unconstitutional, but they have delegated to them powers by the exercise of which the execution of the laws of Congress within the State may be resisted. If we suppose the case of such conflicting legislation sustained by the corresponding executive and judicial authorities, patriotism and philanthropy turn their eyes from the condition in which the parties would be placed, and from that of the people of both, which must be its victims."

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). John Quincy Adams: Fourth Annual Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29470 [Accessed 29 Jul. 2018].

En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Nullification Crisis. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis [Accessed 5 Aug. 2018].

En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Oedipus. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus [Accessed 5 Aug. 2018].

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/B%C3%A9nigne_Gagneraux%2C_The_Blind_Oedipus_Commending_his_Children_to_the_Gods.jpg