26 Calhoun knew what he was facing,and he was prepared to combat it with the greatest resolve.He employs the Constitution as a pro-slavery document because he sees it as an apple of gold,that very thing which is sacred to the survival of American rights.Without it,he has nothing, and with it,he has everything.Because his views are derived from the Constitution,he makes an argument that can be understood by all and accepted by most. The doctrine of Calhoun tells us that the government of the United States is composed of the separate governments of the several states which make up the Union and represents the one common government of every single person living in the United States.A state is more important than the federal Union because it came before the Union and gave rise to it, entrusting it with any powers it might possess.Calhoun does not make an argument for natural rights,and so he does not argue that the Union or a state has a philosophical cause.He maintains that each state was framed by written constitutions,and that act prescribed to the state the equal character of the people composing the state.These people acted jointly in forming their state,and it was the sovereignty of the people which gave rise to the sovereignty of the states.In other words,the authority of the people was transferred to the state,and the state,acting on that authority,represents the unification of the people.Therefore,the authority of the state comes from the authority invested in the people of the states,and to deny a right to the state is to deny a right to the people.When the US Constitution was formed,however,it was not the people of the several states which created it,but instead the several states themselves which created the Union and gave it any power it might possess. In other words,the people were necessary for the formation of the state and the states were necessary for the formation of the Union.The authority of the United States comes from the states,and this transfer of power is relational to the people forming their respective states because "the powers conferred on them are not surrendered,but delegated."27 In other words,the people did not lose their authority when creating the states and,likewise,the states did not lose their authority when creating the Union. Calhoun maintains that the government of the United States is federal because it is not a government of individuals socially united (as it is for a state),but instead is a government of states united in a political union.In other words,it is federal because it exists as a community of states instead of one single people,state,or nation. That it [the Constitution]is federal and not national,we have the high authority of the convention which framed it.General Washington,as its organ,in his letter submitting the plan to the consideration of the
26 Calhoun knew what he was facing, and he was prepared to combat it with the greatest resolve. He employs the Constitution as a pro-slavery document because he sees it as an apple of gold, that very thing which is sacred to the survival of American rights. Without it, he has nothing, and with it, he has everything. Because his views are derived from the Constitution, he makes an argument that can be understood by all and accepted by most. The doctrine of Calhoun tells us that the government of the United States is composed of the separate governments of the several states which make up the Union and represents the one common government of every single person living in the United States. A state is more important than the federal Union because it came before the Union and gave rise to it, entrusting it with any powers it might possess. Calhoun does not make an argument for natural rights, and so he does not argue that the Union or a state has a philosophical cause. He maintains that each state was framed by written constitutions, and that act prescribed to the state the equal character of the people composing the state. These people acted jointly in forming their state, and it was the sovereignty of the people which gave rise to the sovereignty of the states. In other words, the authority of the people was transferred to the state, and the state, acting on that authority, represents the unification of the people. Therefore, the authority of the state comes from the authority invested in the people of the states, and to deny a right to the state is to deny a right to the people. When the US Constitution was formed, however, it was not the people of the several states which created it, but instead the several states themselves which created the Union and gave it any power it might possess. In other words, the people were necessary for the formation of the state and the states were necessary for the formation of the Union. The authority of the United States comes from the states, and this transfer of power is relational to the people forming their respective states because "the powers conferred on them are not surrendered, but delegated." 27 In other words, the people did not lose their authority when creating the states and, likewise, the states did not lose their authority when creating the Union. Calhoun maintains that the government of the United States is federal because it is not a government of individuals socially united (as it is for a state), but instead is a government of states united in a political union. In other words, it is federal because it exists as a community of states instead of one single people, state, or nation. That it [the Constitution] is federal and not national, we have the high authority of the convention which framed it. General Washington, as its organ, in his letter submitting the plan to the consideration of the
Congress of the then confederacy,calls it,in one place-"the general government of the Union"-and in another-"the federal government of these States."Taken together,the plain meaning is,that the government proposed would be,if adopted,the government of the States adopting it, in their unified character as members of a common Union;and,as such, would be a federal government.28 Calhoun is referring to the letter by which Washington transmitted the Constitution to the Congress in 1787.Calhoun uses Washington to support his contention that the nature of the Union is not national,but federal. He would denounce the idea of Madison in Federalist 39 that the Constitution is "partly federal,partly national"as a complete impossibility.Because the Union is federal in nature,Calhoun would maintain that in a contest between the state and the federal government, the state,by its inherent sovereignty,and standing upon its reserved powers,would prove too powerful in a controversy,and must triumph over the federal government,sustained only by its delegated and limited authority.29 Therefore,if resistance be limited on both sides to constitutional doctrine,then the state must of necessity prevail. This basic idea represents the foundational underpinnings of Calhoun&#$146;s argument in support of slavery in the territories as well as legal and constitutional secession itself.At the core of the argument in support of secession lies Calhoun's contention that according to history as well as the Constitution,the authority of a state permits it to legally secede from the Union.A state may be a member or a part of a common federal Union,but its membership does not exclude the sovereignty it possesses as a consequence of the authority delegated to it by the people.Because it did not give up that authority upon entering the Union,it is perfectly reasonable that they should act to maintain that authority when it is being openly threatened.That perfectly reasonable action is represented by secession.In other words,the state is greater than the Union,and can therefore exist on its own,altogether separate from the Union.Therefore,if the rights of the minority are no longer protected by the power of the majority,then the state has every legal and constitutional right to leave such a detrimental partnership and secede. John C.Calhoun finishes his speech on the Oregon Bill by examining the philosophical cause. If he should possess a philosophical turn of mind,and be disposed to look to more remote and recondite causes,he will trace it to a proposition which originated in a hypothetical truism,but which,as now expressed and now understood,is the most false and dangerous of all political errors
Congress of the then confederacy, calls it, in one place—"the general government of the Union" — and in another — "the federal government of these States." Taken together, the plain meaning is, that the government proposed would be, if adopted, the government of the States adopting it, in their unified character as members of a common Union; and, as such, would be a federal government. 28 Calhoun is referring to the letter by which Washington transmitted the Constitution to the Congress in 1787. Calhoun uses Washington to support his contention that the nature of the Union is not national, but federal. He would denounce the idea of Madison in Federalist 39 that the Constitution is "partly federal, partly national" as a complete impossibility. Because the Union is federal in nature, Calhoun would maintain that in a contest between the state and the federal government, the state, by its inherent sovereignty, and standing upon its reserved powers, would prove too powerful in a controversy, and must triumph over the federal government, sustained only by its delegated and limited authority. 29 Therefore, if resistance be limited on both sides to constitutional doctrine, then the state must of necessity prevail. This basic idea represents the foundational underpinnings of Calhoun&#$146;s argument in support of slavery in the territories as well as legal and constitutional secession itself. At the core of the argument in support of secession lies Calhoun’s contention that according to history as well as the Constitution, the authority of a state permits it to legally secede from the Union. A state may be a member or a part of a common federal Union, but its membership does not exclude the sovereignty it possesses as a consequence of the authority delegated to it by the people. Because it did not give up that authority upon entering the Union, it is perfectly reasonable that they should act to maintain that authority when it is being openly threatened. That perfectly reasonable action is represented by secession. In other words, the state is greater than the Union, and can therefore exist on its own, altogether separate from the Union. Therefore, if the rights of the minority are no longer protected by the power of the majority, then the state has every legal and constitutional right to leave such a detrimental partnership and secede. John C. Calhoun finishes his speech on the Oregon Bill by examining the philosophical cause. If he should possess a philosophical turn of mind, and be disposed to look to more remote and recondite causes, he will trace it to a proposition which originated in a hypothetical truism, but which, as now expressed and now understood, is the most false and dangerous of all political errors
The proposition to which I allude,has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic,and is repeated daily from tongue to tongue,as an established and incontrovertible truth;it is, that "all men are born free and equal."30 Calhoun says this when he prophesizes what a future historian may say when explaining the cause of the failure of the American Union.Calhoun's argument represents the ultimate denial of that of which the Gettysburg Address is the ultimate affirmation.31 The phrase Calhoun uses to describe the proposition is "all men are born free and equal."This is of course directly linked to the Declaration of Independence and the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal."But Calhoun does not quote the Declaration,but instead chooses the phrasing of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights,originally adopted in 1780,four years after the signing of the Declaration.John Adams was the writer of the Massachusetts constitution,the same man who convinced Jefferson to author the sacred Declaration,despite receiving an invitation from his future rival to author it himself.It is interesting to note that although both men express the self-evident truth differently,the differences are slight and do not change the meaning which that truth unveils.Even Calhoun admits this."The form of expression [in the Declaration],though less dangerous,is not less erroneous."32 Calhoun begins his attack on the falsity of the phrase "all men are born free and equal."He breaks the proposition down and first attacks the notion that all men are born."Men are not born.Infants are born.They grow to be men."33 Calhoun attacks the phrase as being historically inaccurate and therefore succeeds in convincing the southern people that he is right.Everyone knows that it is in fact the case that infants are born and that they grow to become men.The absurd simplicity of this claim is its genius,and no one can disagree with Calhoun on this matter. Everyone knows it and the simplicity with which Calhoun attacks the proposition is not meant to be humorous.He is completely serious and expects his listeners to understand that the phrase is inaccurate on its basic level.If it is wrong on its basic level,then it is the phrase itself which should not be taken seriously,not Calhoun's argument against it. He has taken the phrase "all men are born free and equal"and proved that men are not born,but we have not yet arrived at the crux of the matter. Calhoun is just warming up when he offers an argument against the first part of that phrase,because it is the part about being"free and equal" that primarily concerns him.Deconstructing the idea that men are in a state of perfect equality and freedom to one another is the last hurdle facing Calhoun in justifying legal and constitutional secession
The proposition to which I allude, has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic, and is repeated daily from tongue to tongue, as an established and incontrovertible truth; it is, that "all men are born free and equal." 30 Calhoun says this when he prophesizes what a future historian may say when explaining the cause of the failure of the American Union. Calhoun's argument represents the ultimate denial of that of which the Gettysburg Address is the ultimate affirmation. 31 The phrase Calhoun uses to describe the proposition is "all men are born free and equal." This is of course directly linked to the Declaration of Independence and the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal." But Calhoun does not quote the Declaration, but instead chooses the phrasing of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, originally adopted in 1780, four years after the signing of the Declaration. John Adams was the writer of the Massachusetts constitution, the same man who convinced Jefferson to author the sacred Declaration, despite receiving an invitation from his future rival to author it himself. It is interesting to note that although both men express the self-evident truth differently, the differences are slight and do not change the meaning which that truth unveils. Even Calhoun admits this. "The form of expression [in the Declaration], though less dangerous, is not less erroneous." 32 Calhoun begins his attack on the falsity of the phrase "all men are born free and equal." He breaks the proposition down and first attacks the notion that all men are born. "Men are not born. Infants are born. They grow to be men." 33 Calhoun attacks the phrase as being historically inaccurate and therefore succeeds in convincing the southern people that he is right. Everyone knows that it is in fact the case that infants are born and that they grow to become men. The absurd simplicity of this claim is its genius, and no one can disagree with Calhoun on this matter. Everyone knows it and the simplicity with which Calhoun attacks the proposition is not meant to be humorous. He is completely serious and expects his listeners to understand that the phrase is inaccurate on its basic level. If it is wrong on its basic level, then it is the phrase itself which should not be taken seriously, not Calhoun's argument against it. He has taken the phrase "all men are born free and equal" and proved that men are not born, but we have not yet arrived at the crux of the matter. Calhoun is just warming up when he offers an argument against the first part of that phrase, because it is the part about being "free and equal" that primarily concerns him. Deconstructing the idea that men are in a state of perfect equality and freedom to one another is the last hurdle facing Calhoun in justifying legal and constitutional secession
Calhoun makes an argument that is reflective of his contention that it is really infants that are born and not men.Although infants are born, they have the potential to become men by growing into one.They are not men right away,but instead must earn their manhood through the passage of time.Here we understand that all infants will eventually become men, and even Calhoun admits that the Negro infant will likewise become a man, because the only requirement is growth.Every infant,black as well as white,grows,and this means that the adult slave is a man.Therefore, according to Calhoun,the adult slave cannot be denied his humanity because he is indeed a man.As we can see,Calhoun did not use the popular argument that a slave has no rights because he is not a man.Instead,he used the argument that despite his humanity,the slave cannot possess equality or freedom because of the condition in which he was born into and can never escape.Infants do not have to do anything to eventually become men.Men,on the other hand,must grow to equality and freedom through the employment of their own individual faculties,capacities,and abilities.In other words,infants do not earn manliness,but men must earn their freedom. They are not born free.While infants they are incapable of freedom,being destitute alike of the capacity of thinking and acting,without which there can be no freedom.Besides,they are necessarily born subject to their parents,and remain so among all people,savage and civilized,until the development of their intellect and physical capacity enables them to take care of themselves.They grow to all the freedom of which the condition in which they were born permits,by growing to be men.Nor is it less false that they are born "equal."34 There is nothing that a slave can do to earn equality because his condition negates even the possibility.Because he is born a slave he lacks the political fitness either to acquire or maintain these rights,and there is nothing he can do to change this fact because he cannot change who he is.His intellectual and moral condition is altogether opposed to the notion of individual liberty because it is "the noble and highest reward bestowed on mental and moral development."35 Men cannot be born free and equal,but instead they must earn it and Calhoun tells us that they are the "high prizes to be won"and "the highest reward that can be bestowed on our race,but the most difficult to be won-and when won,the most difficult to be preserved."36 Because the prize of liberty is so high, and the condition of the Negro is so low,the two can never meet on common ground given the juxtaposition of the two.The slave can never be free, and to suggest that he can represents what Calhoun called "the most dangerous of all political errors."37 The Case for Lincoln:Gettysburg
Calhoun makes an argument that is reflective of his contention that it is really infants that are born and not men. Although infants are born, they have the potential to become men by growing into one. They are not men right away, but instead must earn their manhood through the passage of time. Here we understand that all infants will eventually become men, and even Calhoun admits that the Negro infant will likewise become a man, because the only requirement is growth. Every infant, black as well as white, grows, and this means that the adult slave is a man. Therefore, according to Calhoun, the adult slave cannot be denied his humanity because he is indeed a man. As we can see, Calhoun did not use the popular argument that a slave has no rights because he is not a man. Instead, he used the argument that despite his humanity, the slave cannot possess equality or freedom because of the condition in which he was born into and can never escape. Infants do not have to do anything to eventually become men. Men, on the other hand, must grow to equality and freedom through the employment of their own individual faculties, capacities, and abilities. In other words, infants do not earn manliness, but men must earn their freedom. They are not born free. While infants they are incapable of freedom, being destitute alike of the capacity of thinking and acting, without which there can be no freedom. Besides, they are necessarily born subject to their parents, and remain so among all people, savage and civilized, until the development of their intellect and physical capacity enables them to take care of themselves. They grow to all the freedom of which the condition in which they were born permits, by growing to be men. Nor is it less false that they are born "equal." 34 There is nothing that a slave can do to earn equality because his condition negates even the possibility. Because he is born a slave he lacks the political fitness either to acquire or maintain these rights, and there is nothing he can do to change this fact because he cannot change who he is. His intellectual and moral condition is altogether opposed to the notion of individual liberty because it is "the noble and highest reward bestowed on mental and moral development." 35 Men cannot be born free and equal, but instead they must earn it and Calhoun tells us that they are the "high prizes to be won" and "the highest reward that can be bestowed on our race, but the most difficult to be won—and when won, the most difficult to be preserved." 36 Because the prize of liberty is so high, and the condition of the Negro is so low, the two can never meet on common ground given the juxtaposition of the two. The slave can never be free, and to suggest that he can represents what Calhoun called "the most dangerous of all political errors." 37 The Case for Lincoln: Gettysburg
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation,conceived in Liberty,and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. -Abraham Lincoln The first six words that Lincoln uses to begin the Gettysburg Address are an acknowledgment of time."Four score and seven years ago.He delivers this speech to dedicate the national cemetery at Gettysburg in 1863,as the Civil War is still raging around him.He is standing on "a great battle-field of that war,"a battlefield where Union men had fought and died,and Lincoln knew that nothing could be said or done to add or subtract from the meaning of that sacrifice.What he does know is that he can remind us why those men died,and what they are all fighting for. More than two years have already passed since the beginning of the war, and the timing of Gettysburg means something to Lincoln.In the middle of the war,in the middle of remembering the dead,Lincoln does not begin by doing what may have been expected of him.He does not begin his address by looking forward.He begins by looking backwards.There is evidently something in the nature of the current war that is reminiscent of another time in the country's past.There is something that we can learn from the past and apply to the present.Lincoln remembers (and forces us to remember) the War for Independence.The first war America fought needs to mean something for those living during the Civil War,because if it does not mean anything to them,then the men who died at Gettysburg died in vain. The two wars share a common bond that time is starting to break.As time passes,memories fade.At the time of the Gettysburg Address,the Revolution has faded from the memories of nearly everyone simply because they were not alive in 1776.The simple fact that they were not alive leaves them without something that their fathers had.They are far removed from the Founding,and therefore they do not see it as their ancestors did. Lincoln hopes to make them more aware,more focused,on what the Revolution meant not only for those long dead,but for them today living in the age of civil war. The meaning of the sacrifice made at Gettysburg in 1863 shares a common bond with what happened in 1776.Men fought and died in both wars.They still plow the same earth and live in the same homes.They still speak the same language and pray to the same God.This relationship is still strong between the two generations,but it is not what is most important. It is not what binds the two separate generations and makes them all Americans.What is most important,according to Lincoln,is that both generations have the same beliefs.If the beliefs of Americans have
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. —Abraham Lincoln The first six words that Lincoln uses to begin the Gettysburg Address are an acknowledgment of time. "Four score and seven years ago." He delivers this speech to dedicate the national cemetery at Gettysburg in 1863, as the Civil War is still raging around him. He is standing on "a great battle-field of that war," a battlefield where Union men had fought and died, and Lincoln knew that nothing could be said or done to add or subtract from the meaning of that sacrifice. What he does know is that he can remind us why those men died, and what they are all fighting for. More than two years have already passed since the beginning of the war, and the timing of Gettysburg means something to Lincoln. In the middle of the war, in the middle of remembering the dead, Lincoln does not begin by doing what may have been expected of him. He does not begin his address by looking forward. He begins by looking backwards. There is evidently something in the nature of the current war that is reminiscent of another time in the country's past. There is something that we can learn from the past and apply to the present. Lincoln remembers (and forces us to remember) the War for Independence. The first war America fought needs to mean something for those living during the Civil War, because if it does not mean anything to them, then the men who died at Gettysburg died in vain. The two wars share a common bond that time is starting to break. As time passes, memories fade. At the time of the Gettysburg Address, the Revolution has faded from the memories of nearly everyone simply because they were not alive in 1776. The simple fact that they were not alive leaves them without something that their fathers had. They are far removed from the Founding, and therefore they do not see it as their ancestors did. Lincoln hopes to make them more aware, more focused, on what the Revolution meant not only for those long dead, but for them today living in the age of civil war. The meaning of the sacrifice made at Gettysburg in 1863 shares a common bond with what happened in 1776. Men fought and died in both wars. They still plow the same earth and live in the same homes. They still speak the same language and pray to the same God. This relationship is still strong between the two generations, but it is not what is most important. It is not what binds the two separate generations and makes them all Americans. What is most important, according to Lincoln, is that both generations have the same beliefs. If the beliefs of Americans have