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 slaverights, 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