Abraham Lincoln's Understanding of the Nature of the Union: Secession,Slavery and the Philosophical Cause Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2007 Charles E.Parton Award by Jason Stevens Introduction Lincoln entered the historical stage as he took the oath of office on March 4th,1861,faced with a task "greater than that which rested upon Washington."1 All American minds were engaged with that task,but some Southern hearts had already turned away. By the time Lincoln took office,seven states had already seceded and six of them had formed the Confederacy.More would soon follow.As he delivers his Farewell Address at Springfield,Illinois,Lincoln is fully aware that "a disruption of the Federal Union is now formidably attempted."2 A Republican president had been elected by a constitutional majority,and an expressed minority had resolved to secede rather than stay.3 Never before had this happened in the history of the young American republic. Secession had been threatened before,but this menacing force had subsided through the relaxation of passion,through the progression of time,and through the reconciling effect of compromise.During Andrew Jackson's presidency in 1832,South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union after Congress passed the protective tariff.What followed became known as the Nullification Crisis,testing whether a state can refuse to recognize or to enforce a federal law.Although a compromise was struck, and South Carolina did not secede,the question concerning whether or not a state can legally secede from the Union was never answered. Fifteen different men had come to occupy the office of president before Lincoln took office,and each of them had "in succession,administered the executive branch of government..through many perils;and,generally, with great success."4 Now it was Lincoln's turn,and his duty on the stage of history would be equal to the cause of free government,as the fate of the Union rested in his hands. Lincoln's coming has significance because of the stage that was set for his entrance and because of his own resolute political beliefs.The
Abraham Lincoln's Understanding of the Nature of the Union: Secession, Slavery and the Philosophical Cause Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2007 Charles E. Parton Award by Jason Stevens Introduction Lincoln entered the historical stage as he took the oath of office on March 4th, 1861, faced with a task "greater than that which rested upon Washington." 1 All American minds were engaged with that task, but some Southern hearts had already turned away. By the time Lincoln took office, seven states had already seceded and six of them had formed the Confederacy. More would soon follow. As he delivers his Farewell Address at Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln is fully aware that "a disruption of the Federal Union is now formidably attempted." 2 A Republican president had been elected by a constitutional majority, and an expressed minority had resolved to secede rather than stay. 3 Never before had this happened in the history of the young American republic. Secession had been threatened before, but this menacing force had subsided through the relaxation of passion, through the progression of time, and through the reconciling effect of compromise. During Andrew Jackson’s presidency in 1832, South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union after Congress passed the protective tariff. What followed became known as the Nullification Crisis, testing whether a state can refuse to recognize or to enforce a federal law. Although a compromise was struck, and South Carolina did not secede, the question concerning whether or not a state can legally secede from the Union was never answered. Fifteen different men had come to occupy the office of president before Lincoln took office, and each of them had "in succession, administered the executive branch of government…through many perils; and, generally, with great success." 4 Now it was Lincoln’s turn, and his duty on the stage of history would be equal to the cause of free government, as the fate of the Union rested in his hands. Lincoln’s coming has significance because of the stage that was set for his entrance and because of his own resolute political beliefs. The
election of 1860 had elected Lincoln president of the United States. Lincoln was constitutionally,and thereby legally,elected to the executive office.There was no squabble as to what the Constitution meant, and,likewise,there was no perversion of where the public mind rested. In other words,no one denied that Lincoln was the next American president. What was denied was the rightness of his rule.What was challenged was the principle of majority rule.And in a republic,where majority rule is denied,there will also be found a denial of popular government."The right of the people to act by means of such a majority was itself grounded in the principle of all popular government."5 When the secessionists rejected Lincoln,they consequentially and unequivocally rejected the principle of popular government itself. But this was no accident on the part of the secessionists.They understood this notion just as Lincoln understood it.Immediately following the 1860 election,two opposing banners would have stood on the political battlefield.The Northern banner would read,"Majority rule."The Southern banner would read,"Consent of the governed."What is interesting to any student of politics is that both axioms are correct.Both represent a vital component to the American experiment.What is even more interesting is that they are both an expression of the same principle, yet it is the understanding of that principle which makes them different. In other words,the Northerners and the Southerners had a different understanding of good government.They both claimed to be lovers and defenders of liberty,but both did not mean the same thing.Thomas Jefferson,in his First Inaugural Address,said,"[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."6 But certainly some differences of opinion are differences of principle.In April,1864,as the Civil War was in its third year,Lincoln spoke at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on the consequences of a difference of opinion becoming a difference of principle: The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty,and the American people,just now,are much in want of one.We all declare for liberty;but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself,and the product of his labor;while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men,and the product of other men's labor.Here are two,not only different,but incompatable [sic]things,called by the same name-liberty.And it follows that each of the things is,by the respective parties,called by two different and incompatable [sic]names-liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat,for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator,while the wolf denounces him for the
election of 1860 had elected Lincoln president of the United States. Lincoln was constitutionally, and thereby legally, elected to the executive office. There was no squabble as to what the Constitution meant, and, likewise, there was no perversion of where the public mind rested. In other words, no one denied that Lincoln was the next American president. What was denied was the rightness of his rule. What was challenged was the principle of majority rule. And in a republic, where majority rule is denied, there will also be found a denial of popular government. "The right of the people to act by means of such a majority was itself grounded in the principle of all popular government." 5 When the secessionists rejected Lincoln, they consequentially and unequivocally rejected the principle of popular government itself. But this was no accident on the part of the secessionists. They understood this notion just as Lincoln understood it. Immediately following the 1860 election, two opposing banners would have stood on the political battlefield. The Northern banner would read, "Majority rule." The Southern banner would read, "Consent of the governed." What is interesting to any student of politics is that both axioms are correct. Both represent a vital component to the American experiment. What is even more interesting is that they are both an expression of the same principle, yet it is the understanding of that principle which makes them different. In other words, the Northerners and the Southerners had a different understanding of good government. They both claimed to be lovers and defenders of liberty, but both did not mean the same thing. Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said, "[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle." 6 But certainly some differences of opinion are differences of principle. In April, 1864, as the Civil War was in its third year, Lincoln spoke at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on the consequences of a difference of opinion becoming a difference of principle: The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable [sic] things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable [sic] names—liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the
same act as the destroyer of liberty,especially as the sheep was a black one.Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty;and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures&133;and all professing to love liberty.7 North as well as South understood that the consent of the majority is necessary for rule in a Republic,and neither could see good government apart from majority rule.We see that both anti-slavery Southerners like Robert E.Lee and anti-secessionists like Alexander Stephens went along with their respective states when the decision to secede had been made by a majority of the people living in those states.8 Lee,Stephens,and countless others may not have agreed with the reason for leaving or the actual leaving itself;nonetheless,they accepted the rule of the majority and consented to the rule of their state.Therefore,it is apparent that the Southerners accepted majority rule when their state seceded,but they rejected it when it elected Lincoln president. The central contention between North and South after the 1860 election was the purpose of majority rule.In the Southern mind,the purpose of a Lincoln presidency would be the eventual death of the institution of slavery.Even though a constitutional majority of the Union had elected Lincoln president,the interests of the few would thereafter be threatened. The South has an interest in slavery and cannot give it up.It is a useful institution for them,one which grants them both wealth and leisure. Slavery has always been a part of their history and Lincoln notes,"They are just what we would be in their situation."9 But at the time of Lincoln's election,slavery is no longer merely in the interest of the Southerners.It has become something much more valuable and precious: slavery has become a right.It now possesses a role greater than that of interest and has transcended the bounds of that which can be reasonably given up by the ballot.Because they believed the election of 1860 threatens their rights,the rule of the majority loses its authority and justification.Therefore,the South abandons the rule of the majority because they understand,as Lincoln did,that if the majority votes to deprive a minority of any of its essential rights,it would morally justify revolution.10 But secession is not the same as revolution,and the Southern people never claimed that their "leaving the Union"was an act of Revolution.And Lincoln certainly understood the theory of Revolution,but his argument was that the federal government had no intention of depriving any minority of any of its essential rights.Therefore,according to Lincoln,the right to revolution was guaranteed,but because no one had been harmed in his rights or his property,the people of the South could not appeal to revolution,as the Declaration says,"[W]henever any Form of Government
same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures&133; and all professing to love liberty. 7 North as well as South understood that the consent of the majority is necessary for rule in a Republic, and neither could see good government apart from majority rule. We see that both anti-slavery Southerners like Robert E. Lee and anti-secessionists like Alexander Stephens went along with their respective states when the decision to secede had been made by a majority of the people living in those states. 8 Lee, Stephens, and countless others may not have agreed with the reason for leaving or the actual leaving itself; nonetheless, they accepted the rule of the majority and consented to the rule of their state. Therefore, it is apparent that the Southerners accepted majority rule when their state seceded, but they rejected it when it elected Lincoln president. The central contention between North and South after the 1860 election was the purpose of majority rule. In the Southern mind, the purpose of a Lincoln presidency would be the eventual death of the institution of slavery. Even though a constitutional majority of the Union had elected Lincoln president, the interests of the few would thereafter be threatened. The South has an interest in slavery and cannot give it up. It is a useful institution for them, one which grants them both wealth and leisure. Slavery has always been a part of their history and Lincoln notes, "They are just what we would be in their situation." 9 But at the time of Lincoln’s election, slavery is no longer merely in the interest of the Southerners. It has become something much more valuable and precious: slavery has become a right. It now possesses a role greater than that of interest and has transcended the bounds of that which can be reasonably given up by the ballot. Because they believed the election of 1860 threatens their rights, the rule of the majority loses its authority and justification. Therefore, the South abandons the rule of the majority because they understand, as Lincoln did, that if the majority votes to deprive a minority of any of its essential rights, it would morally justify revolution. 10 But secession is not the same as revolution, and the Southern people never claimed that their "leaving the Union" was an act of Revolution. And Lincoln certainly understood the theory of Revolution, but his argument was that the federal government had no intention of depriving any minority of any of its essential rights. Therefore, according to Lincoln, the right to revolution was guaranteed, but because no one had been harmed in his rights or his property, the people of the South could not appeal to revolution, as the Declaration says, "[W]henever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends,it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,and to institute new Government."11 And the South never did appeal to the right of revolution,but instead their appeal was to something else -namely,a right to secession that the people had by virtue of the status of the individual states within the Union.In the minds of the Southern people,the legitimacy of secession rested upon the Southern argument for state rights.12 Lincoln denies that his election will deprive any citizen of his rights, and he even ensures that ample evidence exists to the contrary.He points to his previous speeches for this evidence,reiterating in his First Inaugural Address in March 1861,"I have no purpose,directly or indirectly,to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so."13 Lincoln points out that he has no intention of harming slavery where it already exists,because the Constitution does not grant the federal government the legal authority to do so.Where slavery exists now,so shall it remain untouched by Congress.That does not mean,however,that the federal government lacks the power to stop the spread of slavery to those areas where it is not already in place. In fact,Lincoln readily admits that he will do everything he constitutionally can to keep slavery out of those places.Everyone who voted in the election of 1860 was fully aware of this stance,and yet the Southern people still saw danger in Lincoln's election because they correctly understood that the survival of slavery was wholly dependent upon its growth.If slavery did not spread to the territories,the slave states would soon be outnumbered in Congress as the free-state representation continued to grow.Without the necessary number of pro-slavery votes,the North was assured the passage of any and all anti-slavery legislation that the Constitution would allow,including a Constitutional Amendment.Congress could theoretically abolish slavery if the slave states were unable to prevent the passage of an amendment. Therefore,in the minds of Southerners,the very survival of slavery was at stake,and this was the immediate threat the South witnessed with the election of Lincoln to the presidency. Because the purpose of majority rule is to protect and secure the rights of the people,the South rejected the results of the 1860 election when they viewed that their supposed right to own slaves was being threatened. In other words,they understood the election as an exploitation of the minority.Therefore,they felt fully justified in rejecting majority rule, but they did not think at any point that they were rejecting the principle of that rule.The 1860 election was a perversion of majority rule because it did not fulfill its purpose.Therefore,it was just and good for the
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." 11 And the South never did appeal to the right of revolution, but instead their appeal was to something else — namely, a right to secession that the people had by virtue of the status of the individual states within the Union. In the minds of the Southern people, the legitimacy of secession rested upon the Southern argument for state rights. 12 Lincoln denies that his election will deprive any citizen of his rights, and he even ensures that ample evidence exists to the contrary. He points to his previous speeches for this evidence, reiterating in his First Inaugural Address in March 1861, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so." 13 Lincoln points out that he has no intention of harming slavery where it already exists, because the Constitution does not grant the federal government the legal authority to do so. Where slavery exists now, so shall it remain untouched by Congress. That does not mean, however, that the federal government lacks the power to stop the spread of slavery to those areas where it is not already in place. In fact, Lincoln readily admits that he will do everything he constitutionally can to keep slavery out of those places. Everyone who voted in the election of 1860 was fully aware of this stance, and yet the Southern people still saw danger in Lincoln's election because they correctly understood that the survival of slavery was wholly dependent upon its growth. If slavery did not spread to the territories, the slave states would soon be outnumbered in Congress as the free-state representation continued to grow. Without the necessary number of pro-slavery votes, the North was assured the passage of any and all anti-slavery legislation that the Constitution would allow, including a Constitutional Amendment. Congress could theoretically abolish slavery if the slave states were unable to prevent the passage of an amendment. Therefore, in the minds of Southerners, the very survival of slavery was at stake, and this was the immediate threat the South witnessed with the election of Lincoln to the presidency. Because the purpose of majority rule is to protect and secure the rights of the people, the South rejected the results of the 1860 election when they viewed that their supposed right to own slaves was being threatened. In other words, they understood the election as an exploitation of the minority. Therefore, they felt fully justified in rejecting majority rule, but they did not think at any point that they were rejecting the principle of that rule. The 1860 election was a perversion of majority rule because it did not fulfill its purpose. Therefore, it was just and good for the
Southern people to reject it.When the states announced their intention to secede,that single act represented,in the Southern mind,the removal of the perverted concept of majority rule and the reinstatement of its true purpose. The secessionists went obediently with their states out of the Union because they held that majority rule "applied to them only as citizens of their respective states,and not of the United States."14 The justification for this application rested wholly upon the idea of the sovereignty of the state.Ironically,we find that the principle of equality is the central idea behind state sovereignty.The citizens of a state are not equal to each other because of their sovereignty as human beings,but because of the constitutional equality which exists between the states.15 The states are perfectly equal to one another because each of them is sovereign.However,not only are they equal to every state in the Union,they are also equal to every state outside the Union.16 Virginia is equal to Ohio as it is equal to England.Nothing connects the citizens of a state to the Union.They are just as much connected to the Union as they are connected to France or Spain.They are held in obedience to the state only,and any obedience they may claim to the Union is cancelled if the state goes the other way.17 And secession is the ultimate exemplification of a state quot;going the other way"as opposed to the direction of the Union.That is why the Southerners went with their states when they seceded but did not go with the Union when it elected Lincoln president.Therefore,the Southern mind understood majority rule as applying only in the state.It was a state principle that could not dictate or guide the Union and could never justify the election of Lincoln. Lincoln,a man who "never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence,"18 possessed an understanding of the nature of the Union that was derived from his understanding of those principles in that document.Those who saw the Union apart from those principles were reliant upon the doctrine of states'rights as a fundamental justification for legal secession. Chief among the architects of this understanding was John C.Calhoun,a man far better known and respected for his political thinking in 1860 than Lincoln,even though he had been dead for more than ten years.Part Two of this work will be an attempt to reconstruct Calhoun's argument, sparing nothing in the search for the highest rational and persuasive ground from which to survey the Southern view of the nature of the Union. Parts Three and Four will be Lincoln's argument in response.In this account,we will present his views in the clearest light possible,in an attempt to illustrate his understanding of the nature of the Union and the principles for which it stands
Southern people to reject it. When the states announced their intention to secede, that single act represented, in the Southern mind, the removal of the perverted concept of majority rule and the reinstatement of its true purpose. The secessionists went obediently with their states out of the Union because they held that majority rule "applied to them only as citizens of their respective states, and not of the United States." 14 The justification for this application rested wholly upon the idea of the sovereignty of the state. Ironically, we find that the principle of equality is the central idea behind state sovereignty. The citizens of a state are not equal to each other because of their sovereignty as human beings, but because of the constitutional equality which exists between the states. 15 The states are perfectly equal to one another because each of them is sovereign. However, not only are they equal to every state in the Union, they are also equal to every state outside the Union. 16 Virginia is equal to Ohio as it is equal to England. Nothing connects the citizens of a state to the Union. They are just as much connected to the Union as they are connected to France or Spain. They are held in obedience to the state only, and any obedience they may claim to the Union is cancelled if the state goes the other way. 17 And secession is the ultimate exemplification of a state :quot;going the other way" as opposed to the direction of the Union. That is why the Southerners went with their states when they seceded but did not go with the Union when it elected Lincoln president. Therefore, the Southern mind understood majority rule as applying only in the state. It was a state principle that could not dictate or guide the Union and could never justify the election of Lincoln. Lincoln, a man who "never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence," 18 possessed an understanding of the nature of the Union that was derived from his understanding of those principles in that document. Those who saw the Union apart from those principles were reliant upon the doctrine of states' rights as a fundamental justification for legal secession. Chief among the architects of this understanding was John C. Calhoun, a man far better known and respected for his political thinking in 1860 than Lincoln, even though he had been dead for more than ten years. Part Two of this work will be an attempt to reconstruct Calhoun’s argument, sparing nothing in the search for the highest rational and persuasive ground from which to survey the Southern view of the nature of the Union. Parts Three and Four will be Lincoln’s argument in response. In this account, we will present his views in the clearest light possible, in an attempt to illustrate his understanding of the nature of the Union and the principles for which it stands
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
