United States History Student Edition

Constitution specifically gave Congress power to issue money, borrow money, and collect taxes. Congress could also, he reasoned, do whatever was “necessary and proper” to carry out those powers. The Missouri Compromise In 1819, the Missouri Territory asked Congress for admission as a state. Most Missouri settlers came from states that allowed slavery, and they believed slavery ought to be legal in Missouri. monopoly a market that has only one provider of a good or service interstate commerce economic activity taking place between two or more states ANALYZING SUPREME COURT CASES Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Gibbons v. Ogden was an important Supreme Court ruling during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall. The case involved a steamship operator named Robert Fulton who ran ships between New York and New Jersey. The state of New York had granted a monopoly (muh•NAH•puh•lee)—sole control of an industry—to Fulton and his business partner. When another operator named Thomas Gibbons began running the same route, Aaron Ogden (who had bought Fulton’s company) sued Gibbons, claiming Gibbons was violating New York’s law. THE DECISION OF THE COURT The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Gibbons. The Court said that only Congress had the power to make laws governing interstate commerce , or trade between states. The Gibbons ruling expanded the power of the federal government at the expense of the states. Gibbons had another important effect. Removing the monopoly on transportation allowed for greater competition and entrepreneurship, which paved the way for further settlement in western areas. Identifying Cause and Effect What was the significance of the Gibbons decision?

Henry Clay had a long career in Congress. His ability to resolve arguments earned him the nickname “The Great Compromiser.”

Calhoun of South Carolina spoke for Southern interests. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts protected the interests of New England. Each leader, although nationalist, remained concerned with protecting the interests of his own section of the country. Nationalism and the Supreme Court In several decisions in the early 1800s, the Supreme Court backed the powers of the national government over the states. During this time, Chief Justice John Marshall provided the Court with strong leadership. In the case of Fletcher v. Peck in 1810, the Court ruled that courts could declare acts of a state government void if they violated provisions of the Constitution. That ruling also established the sanctity of contracts in the United States. Then, in 1819, the Court decided the case of McCulloch v. Maryland . It said that the state of Maryland could not tax the local office of the Bank of the United States because it was the property of the national government. Allowing such a tax, the Court said, would give states too much power over the national government. The Court also ruled that the national bank was constitutional. Marshall observed that the

PicturesNow/Universal Images Group North America LLC/Alamy Stock Photo

The Early Republic 285