Which states initially objected to the 16th Amendment and what were their arguments?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several states and prominent political actors opposed the Sixteenth Amendment during its 1909–1913 adoption campaign, with opposition concentrated in the Northeast and among “establishment” Republicans tied to industrial interests; New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes is named specifically as opposing ratification in 1910 [1] [2]. Objections ranged from constitutional and procedural arguments—that an unapportioned income tax violated the Constitution’s direct-tax rules exposed by Pollock—to political and economic objections that an income tax would harm business and property owners and redistribute wealth [3] [4] [5].
1. Northeast resistance and the politics of money
Opposition was strongest in the northeastern states, where political leaders and newspapers hostile to an unapportioned federal income tax argued that the amendment threatened business interests and property owners; historians report “violent opposition in the eastern states” and note that establishment Republicans—closely allied with wealthy industrialists—led the charge against the amendment [5] [1]. That opposition was political as well as doctrinal: some Republicans sought to preserve tariff-based revenue and protect industrial constituencies from a redistributive tax [4] [1].
2. Constitutional objections: Pollock and the “direct tax” problem
A central legal argument against the amendment traced to Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. : critics said the Constitution barred unapportioned direct taxes, and that only an amendment could remove that obstacle. Opponents argued either that the amendment was unnecessary or that it did not resolve the underlying constitutional ambiguity about what counts as a “direct” tax [3] [6]. Supporters framed the amendment instead as correcting the Pollock decision’s practical impediment to federal income taxation [7] [6].
3. High-profile objectors: Charles Evans Hughes and establishment voices
New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes publicly opposed ratification in 1910, a stance recorded in his special message to the New York legislature [2] [1]. Contemporary accounts and later histories place Hughes among the prominent northeastern voices skeptical that a permanent, unapportioned income tax was desirable or properly conceived [2] [1].
4. Procedural and technical objections raised by later critics
After ratification, a different strand of opposition emerged arguing that state ratification processes were faulty—pointing to alleged irregularities in wording, capitalization, or state legislative procedures (for example, claims about Tennessee or Ohio). Those “non‑ratification” claims have been repeatedly litigated and rejected; courts and scholarly reviews find the ratification record sufficient and dismiss the technical-variation arguments as inadequate to void the amendment [8] [9] [10]. Sources note many such claims persist among tax-protester literature, but legal authorities and the Congressional Research Service count 42 state ratifications and treat the amendment as valid [8].
5. Competing interpretations of what the amendment actually changed
Scholars disagree about how sweeping the amendment was: some stress it simply removed Pollock’s barrier so Congress could tax incomes “from whatever source derived,” while others argue it didn’t expand power so much as clarify the existing taxing power [7] [3]. Modern litigation and commentary—cited in analyses of cases like Moore—show both sides continue to contest whether “income” must be realized, and whether the amendment permits taxation of unrealized gains; recent scholarship argues original practice supports a broad federal income power [7] [11].
6. Why arguments mattered then — and why they still echo now
At the time, opposition combined constitutional theory, regional politics, and class interest: northeastern industrialists and their political allies feared a redistributive tax; western and southern supporters saw an income tax as shifting burden away from tariffs and regressive consumption taxes [4] [5]. Those underlying tensions—about who should pay and how federal power should be constrained—explain why both political resistance (e.g., Hughes, establishment Republicans) and doctrinal challenges (Pollock-based claims; later “ratification irregularity” theories) have remained part of American tax debate [1] [3] [9].
Limitations and unresolved questions
Available sources document who opposed the amendment in broad regional and political terms and identify specific critics like Hughes [2] [1]. Sources do not provide a comprehensive list of every state that initially objected floor-by-floor during the ratification campaign; detailed state-by-state legislative debate records are not included in the provided set (not found in current reporting). Where claims about procedural invalidity appeared later (the “Law That Never Was” literature), courts and mainstream historians have rejected them [9] [10] [8].