Premium
“A More Perfect Union”: Ableman v. Booth and the Culmination of Federal Sovereignty
Author(s) -
Taylor Michael J. C.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of supreme court history
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1540-5818
pISSN - 1059-4329
DOI - 10.1111/1540-5818.00058
Subject(s) - law , supreme court , sovereignty , politics , culmination , state (computer science) , premise , federal jurisdiction , jurisdiction , political science , sociology , philosophy , linguistics , physics , algorithm , astronomy , computer science
The discourse over federal versus state jurisdiction was ingrained into American politics at the nation's inception. It has been the premise of our most historically significant rivalries—between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne. Though this debate remains a contentious topic in contemporary political discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the legal controversy on the eve of America's bloodiest conflagration. Unanimously, the Court ruled that the federal union was of greater importance than the authority of the individual states. The 1859 Ableman v. Booth 1 decision was wrought from moral controversy, legal precedent, and political necessity, coupled with the full force of law, and has endured as a compelling pronouncement on the need for continuity and stability in uncertain times.