The Case for Calhoun John C.Calhoun was the champion of the cause of the Southern slave states, and it was his views that gave the Confederacy justification for constitutional secession.His ideas concerning the theories of constitutional government made this major statesman a bold and original political force in the predawn years of the Civil War.He was rigidly articulate and comprehensively clear in his analysis of states
The Case for Calhoun John C. Calhoun was the champion of the cause of the Southern slave states, and it was his views that gave the Confederacy justification for constitutional secession. His ideas concerning the theories of constitutional government made this major statesman a bold and original political force in the predawn years of the Civil War. He was rigidly articulate and comprehensively clear in his analysis of states
rights,liberty,equality,and the nature of the Union.And even though he died eleven years before the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter,he was responsible for it.The honor belonged to him alone.He was the one who succeeded in convincing the southern mind that they were acting to protect their rights against northern aggression.Calhoun gave the southern people the ability to understand secession as a constitutional and legal alternative to remaining in a political partnership that sought to harm their interests and the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. In 1833,Calhoun had articulated that South Carolina had the right to nullify the protective tariff within its borders by virtue of the reserved rights of the states.19 He would use similar reasoning to defend the doctrine of secession.He defended a doctrine of states'rights that was blatantly simple in its origination and ingeniously obvious in its application,and this method convinced nearly all of those who heard him or heard of him that he could not be wrong.He advocated an argument,shaped by history,concerning the nature of the American Union that constitutionally justified southern secession. The argument that Calhoun purports to prove in support of slavery as a constitutional right is derived from the debate over slavery in the territories.Calhoun was a United States Senator from South Carolina when the doomed Wilmot Proviso was introduced onto the floor of the House of Representatives in 1846.It was this proviso that called for the prohibition of slavery in any territory acquired or purchased from Mexico as a result of the recently begun Mexican-American War.Calhoun saw this political tactic for what it was -namely,an appeal by the North to gradually abolish the institution of slavery in the South.As more and more territories were acquired by the United States in the nineteenth century,the decision regarding whether they would come into the Union as free or slave states gained increasing momentum in both the North and the South.It was the desire of the northern states to gradually decrease the power of the slave states in the US Senate.The North was not interested in uprooting slavery where it already was but instead prevailed to prevent it from spreading to where it already was not.Their determined course was to increase the numerical majority of free states in the Senate in order to eventually eliminate the southern veto of any antislavery legislation. Although the Wilmot Proviso easily passed the House,its defeat in the Senate was due to the fiery argumentation of Calhoun along with the absence of what the proviso itself had hoped to procure -namely,a majority of free states.Calhoun realized then that although the proviso would never go into effect,the South was more secure than it was before.Slavery would continue to be threatened by the North until the addition of more slave
rights, liberty, equality, and the nature of the Union. And even though he died eleven years before the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, he was responsible for it. The honor belonged to him alone. He was the one who succeeded in convincing the southern mind that they were acting to protect their rights against northern aggression. Calhoun gave the southern people the ability to understand secession as a constitutional and legal alternative to remaining in a political partnership that sought to harm their interests and the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. In 1833, Calhoun had articulated that South Carolina had the right to nullify the protective tariff within its borders by virtue of the reserved rights of the states. 19 He would use similar reasoning to defend the doctrine of secession. He defended a doctrine of states' rights that was blatantly simple in its origination and ingeniously obvious in its application, and this method convinced nearly all of those who heard him or heard of him that he could not be wrong. He advocated an argument, shaped by history, concerning the nature of the American Union that constitutionally justified southern secession. The argument that Calhoun purports to prove in support of slavery as a constitutional right is derived from the debate over slavery in the territories. Calhoun was a United States Senator from South Carolina when the doomed Wilmot Proviso was introduced onto the floor of the House of Representatives in 1846. It was this proviso that called for the prohibition of slavery in any territory acquired or purchased from Mexico as a result of the recently begun Mexican-American War. Calhoun saw this political tactic for what it was — namely, an appeal by the North to gradually abolish the institution of slavery in the South. As more and more territories were acquired by the United States in the nineteenth century, the decision regarding whether they would come into the Union as free or slave states gained increasing momentum in both the North and the South. It was the desire of the northern states to gradually decrease the power of the slave states in the US Senate. The North was not interested in uprooting slavery where it already was but instead prevailed to prevent it from spreading to where it already was not. Their determined course was to increase the numerical majority of free states in the Senate in order to eventually eliminate the southern veto of any antislavery legislation. Although the Wilmot Proviso easily passed the House, its defeat in the Senate was due to the fiery argumentation of Calhoun along with the absence of what the proviso itself had hoped to procure — namely, a majority of free states. Calhoun realized then that although the proviso would never go into effect, the South was more secure than it was before. Slavery would continue to be threatened by the North until the addition of more slave
states ensured the South the capacity to defeat all future anti-slavery legislation.The South with its sacred institution had prevailed this time against the Wilmot Proviso,but no one,not even Calhoun,was certain of what would happen the next time the North sought to attack slavery in the territories.Slavery was safe for now,but all the North needed was to possess the three-fourths majority to not only effectively pass future legislation akin to the Wilmot Proviso but,more importantly,to also amend the United States Constitution to abolish slavery completely,doing so without the consent of a single slave state.20 Therefore,the debate over slavery in the territories was far from over and would only become increasingly important to Calhoun and the rest of the country as time wore on. That slavery could be abolished without the consent of a single slave state is what Calhoun calls "democratic tyranny,where the interests of the minority are relieved of their Constitutional protection and subjugated to the interests of the majority.Calhoun confronts the tyranny of the majority in his speech,"The Admission of California and the General State of the Union"on March 4,1850.At this time,the political dominance of the North was greater than that which existed at the time of the defeat of the Wilmot Proviso due to the influx of more free states into the Union than slave states.This change in the political backdrop therefore presents a greater threat to the peaceful continuance of southern interests than had ever been known up to this time.Calhoun explains the particular nature of the composition of the federal government as well as the implications this has on the interests of the southern people who have now found themselves in the minority. A single section,governed by the will of the numerical majority,has now, in fact,the control of the Government and the entire powers of the system. What was once a constitutional federal republic,is now converted,in reality,into one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia,and as despotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever existed. As,then,the North has the absolute control over the Government,it is manifest,that on all questions between it and the South,where there is a diversity of interests,the interest of the latter will be sacrificed to the former,however oppressive the effects may be,as the South possesses no means by which it can resist through the action of the Government.21 Once the interests of the minority are no longer secure from the numerical dominance of the majority,the protection engineered by the Constitution for the sake of those interests is no longer veritable or dependable. According to the Constitutional understanding of Calhoun,the end of the veto power of the slave states brings with it the end of constitutional
states ensured the South the capacity to defeat all future anti-slavery legislation. The South with its sacred institution had prevailed this time against the Wilmot Proviso, but no one, not even Calhoun, was certain of what would happen the next time the North sought to attack slavery in the territories. Slavery was safe for now, but all the North needed was to possess the three-fourths majority to not only effectively pass future legislation akin to the Wilmot Proviso but, more importantly, to also amend the United States Constitution to abolish slavery completely, doing so without the consent of a single slave state. 20 Therefore, the debate over slavery in the territories was far from over and would only become increasingly important to Calhoun and the rest of the country as time wore on. That slavery could be abolished without the consent of a single slave state is what Calhoun calls "democratic tyranny," where the interests of the minority are relieved of their Constitutional protection and subjugated to the interests of the majority. Calhoun confronts the tyranny of the majority in his speech, "The Admission of California and the General State of the Union" on March 4, 1850. At this time, the political dominance of the North was greater than that which existed at the time of the defeat of the Wilmot Proviso due to the influx of more free states into the Union than slave states. This change in the political backdrop therefore presents a greater threat to the peaceful continuance of southern interests than had ever been known up to this time. Calhoun explains the particular nature of the composition of the federal government as well as the implications this has on the interests of the southern people who have now found themselves in the minority. A single section, governed by the will of the numerical majority, has now, in fact, the control of the Government and the entire powers of the system. What was once a constitutional federal republic, is now converted, in reality, into one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever existed. As, then, the North has the absolute control over the Government, it is manifest, that on all questions between it and the South, where there is a diversity of interests, the interest of the latter will be sacrificed to the former, however oppressive the effects may be, as the South possesses no means by which it can resist through the action of the Government. 21 Once the interests of the minority are no longer secure from the numerical dominance of the majority, the protection engineered by the Constitution for the sake of those interests is no longer veritable or dependable. According to the Constitutional understanding of Calhoun, the end of the veto power of the slave states brings with it the end of constitutional
government proper.22 Calhoun understood that in order to secure that veto power,he must of necessity defend the right of the people to bring their slaves with them when they emigrate into any territory and thereby constitutionally permit a territory to come into the Union as a slave state. Therefore,the aim or the purpose of Calhoun in defending the right of any citizen of any of the states to emigrate with their property into any of the territories is to uphold the perfect equality which belongs to the individual states as members of the Union and to direct that cause against the proposed derogation of the Union and the principle on which the country rests. If the relationship between one state and another is perfectly equal,then this status dictates that not only do they possess equal rights,but they also maintain equal claim to hold the territories of the United States as their joint and common property.Those lands that have the potential of becoming future states do not belong to the federal Union,but instead are under the authority of the states in their united character."They are the territories of all,because they are the territories of each;and not of each,because they are the territories of the whole."23 This entire argument rests upon the supposed sacredness of a state that Calhoun prescribes as correct constitutional doctrine.The territories legally belong to each and every individual state.Because the states are all equals,they all have an equal share in the territories that they collectively possess.As a consequence of this,no one state or one collection of some states may impose legal restrictions upon the territories and deny them specific constitutional rights that go directly against the dominion or sovereignty that any other state equally possesses by the Constitution.The territories do not belong to one faction of states, but to all of them as a whole.Therefore,to have one group of states prescribe unconstitutional conditions upon the territories and seek to disable them of their legal rights can never fit within the framework of the presumed sacredness of a state.The formula promulgated and propagated by the North to exclude slavery from the territories declares that some states are more sacred than others,a political tactic that is both unconstitutional and a breeder of bad government.No advantage can be given to one state or the other.This is the Calhounian stance that declares that the power to exclude slavery from the territories implies a power to subvert the Constitution itself. Calhoun's focal point is that there is no legal or constitutional restraint upon bringing slavery into the territories.It must be noted that this was the very thing that Lincoln had consistently denied.Lincoln always thought that the Constitution did not give him or the Congress authority to interfere with slavery in the states where it was already
government proper. 22 Calhoun understood that in order to secure that veto power, he must of necessity defend the right of the people to bring their slaves with them when they emigrate into any territory and thereby constitutionally permit a territory to come into the Union as a slave state. Therefore, the aim or the purpose of Calhoun in defending the right of any citizen of any of the states to emigrate with their property into any of the territories is to uphold the perfect equality which belongs to the individual states as members of the Union and to direct that cause against the proposed derogation of the Union and the principle on which the country rests. If the relationship between one state and another is perfectly equal, then this status dictates that not only do they possess equal rights, but they also maintain equal claim to hold the territories of the United States as their joint and common property. Those lands that have the potential of becoming future states do not belong to the federal Union, but instead are under the authority of the states in their united character. "They are the territories of all, because they are the territories of each; and not of each, because they are the territories of the whole." 23 This entire argument rests upon the supposed sacredness of a state that Calhoun prescribes as correct constitutional doctrine. The territories legally belong to each and every individual state. Because the states are all equals, they all have an equal share in the territories that they collectively possess. As a consequence of this, no one state or one collection of some states may impose legal restrictions upon the territories and deny them specific constitutional rights that go directly against the dominion or sovereignty that any other state equally possesses by the Constitution. The territories do not belong to one faction of states, but to all of them as a whole. Therefore, to have one group of states prescribe unconstitutional conditions upon the territories and seek to disable them of their legal rights can never fit within the framework of the presumed sacredness of a state. The formula promulgated and propagated by the North to exclude slavery from the territories declares that some states are more sacred than others, a political tactic that is both unconstitutional and a breeder of bad government. No advantage can be given to one state or the other. This is the Calhounian stance that declares that the power to exclude slavery from the territories implies a power to subvert the Constitution itself. Calhoun’s focal point is that there is no legal or constitutional restraint upon bringing slavery into the territories. It must be noted that this was the very thing that Lincoln had consistently denied. Lincoln always thought that the Constitution did not give him or the Congress authority to interfere with slavery in the states where it was already
established.But Lincoln fully believed that the federal government had the power to stop the spread of slavery into the territories.This represents the key divisive issue that fueled the debate between Lincoln and Calhoun.Nevertheless,both men possessed a proper understanding of the severity of the situation.They both knew that the future prosperity of the nation rested upon the answer to this question.Calhoun says that if the people do not agree with him,then all safety and happiness will be lost.24 And Lincoln says that if the people do not agree with him, then the Union and what the Union stands for will be lost.This is not an easy question,and both men know it.What's more,the answer we give will either threaten our peace or our meaning.Neither answer can secure both.One must be accepted at the cost of the other.And the war came. Calhoun possesses a view of "perfect equality"that fully encompasses a true doctrine of the states in relationship to each other,as well as an additional constitutional meaning that had not yet been attributed to it. It is perfectly reasonable and constitutionally sound to contend that every state,new as well as old,be in full possession of every right guaranteed to them under the Constitution.To do otherwise would represent an inherent flaw in the democratic structure of the country.Therefore, the states are in fact "equals in all respects,both in dignity and rights, as is declared by all writers on governments founded on such union,and as may be inferred from arguments deduced from their nature and character."25 All of this is true and has not changed or redefined the constitutional formula of the Republic.What then represents the additional constitutional meaning that Calhoun sustains as an attribute of "perfect equality?"It is true that no law or laws may deny any citizen of any right in any territory that also belongs equally to the citizens of a state.This understanding of Calhoun's "perfect equality"passes the constitutional test on its face,but the most important question of all is whether slavery constitutes a right under a republican government. One of Calhoun's most important and well-known addresses relating to this issue was his speech on the Oregon Bill,delivered on the Senate floor on June 27,1848.He understood the severe gravity of the slavery question, and the implications it provoked for the continuance of both the Union and its institutions.The answer was so important that Calhoun would articulate his understanding of the American Union with an analysis possessing both great merit and sufficient strength of purpose,an analysis that would use the Constitution as its foundation."I shall direct my efforts to ascertain what is constitutional,right and just, under a thorough conviction that the best and only way of putting an end to this,the most dangerous of all questions to our Union and institutions, is to adhere rigidly to the constitution and the dictates of justice
established. But Lincoln fully believed that the federal government had the power to stop the spread of slavery into the territories. This represents the key divisive issue that fueled the debate between Lincoln and Calhoun. Nevertheless, both men possessed a proper understanding of the severity of the situation. They both knew that the future prosperity of the nation rested upon the answer to this question. Calhoun says that if the people do not agree with him, then all safety and happiness will be lost. 24 And Lincoln says that if the people do not agree with him, then the Union and what the Union stands for will be lost. This is not an easy question, and both men know it. What’s more, the answer we give will either threaten our peace or our meaning. Neither answer can secure both. One must be accepted at the cost of the other. And the war came. Calhoun possesses a view of "perfect equality" that fully encompasses a true doctrine of the states in relationship to each other, as well as an additional constitutional meaning that had not yet been attributed to it. It is perfectly reasonable and constitutionally sound to contend that every state, new as well as old, be in full possession of every right guaranteed to them under the Constitution. To do otherwise would represent an inherent flaw in the democratic structure of the country. Therefore, the states are in fact "equals in all respects, both in dignity and rights, as is declared by all writers on governments founded on such union, and as may be inferred from arguments deduced from their nature and character." 25 All of this is true and has not changed or redefined the constitutional formula of the Republic. What then represents the additional constitutional meaning that Calhoun sustains as an attribute of "perfect equality?" It is true that no law or laws may deny any citizen of any right in any territory that also belongs equally to the citizens of a state. This understanding of Calhoun's "perfect equality" passes the constitutional test on its face, but the most important question of all is whether slavery constitutes a right under a republican government. One of Calhoun's most important and well-known addresses relating to this issue was his speech on the Oregon Bill, delivered on the Senate floor on June 27, 1848. He understood the severe gravity of the slavery question, and the implications it provoked for the continuance of both the Union and its institutions. The answer was so important that Calhoun would articulate his understanding of the American Union with an analysis possessing both great merit and sufficient strength of purpose, an analysis that would use the Constitution as its foundation. "I shall direct my efforts to ascertain what is constitutional, right and just, under a thorough conviction that the best and only way of putting an end to this, the most dangerous of all questions to our Union and institutions, is to adhere rigidly to the constitution and the dictates of justice