Remarks of Mr. Calhoun of South Carolina on the Bill to Prevent the Interference of Certain Federal Officers in Elections: Delivered in the Senate of the United States February 22, 1839

by John C. Calhoun

HardPress Classic Books Series

10 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 4, 2009

About the author

John Caldwell Calhoun (March 18, 1782 – March 31, 1850) was a leading politician and political theorist from South Carolina during the first half of the 19th century. A powerful intellect, Calhoun eloquently spoke out on every issue of his day, but often changed positions. Calhoun began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs. After 1840 he switched to states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade. He is best known for his intense and original defense of slavery as a positive good, for his inventing the theory of minority rights in a democracy, and for pointing the South toward secession from the Union.

Reviews

[Charles van Buren · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr. Calhoun on the nullification crisis and states rights

Review of free Kindle edition
A Public Domain Book
Publication date: May 12, 2012
Language: English
ASIN: B0082ZDUGG
8 pages

From the title this should be a speech delivered in the U.S. Senate by Senator Calhoun concerning a particular piece of legislation. On the face of it, this speech has nothing to do with that legislation.

In this essay American statesman, representative from South Carolina, vice president, Secretary of State and U.S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun succinctly explains nullification and the constitutional basis for that policy. He also explains states rights and obliquely warns of the dangers of setting one section of the country against another. His explanation of the acrimony of sectional differences and of the genesis of the argument which led to the nullification crisis follows:

"It was thus that, instead of relief—instead of an equal distribution of burdens and benefits of the government, on the payment of the debt, as had been fondly anticipated—the duties were so arranged as to be, in fact, bounties on one side and taxation on the other; thus placing the two great sections of the country in direct conflict in reference to its fiscal action, and thereby letting in that flood of political corruption which threatens to sweep away our Constitution and our liberty. This unequal and unjust arrangement was pronounced, both by the administration, through its proper organ, the Secretary of the Treasury, and by the opposition, to be a *permanent* adjustment;"

States rights? Clearly and logically explained, "Is this a Federal Union? a union of States, as distinct from that of individuals? Is the sovereignty in the several States, or in the American people in the aggregate? The very language which we are compelled to use when speaking of our political institutions affords proof conclusive as to its real character. The terms union, federal, united, all imply a combination of sovereignties, a confederation of States. They never apply to an association of individuals. Who ever heard of the United State of New York, of Massachusetts, or of Virginia? Who ever heard the term federal or union applied to the aggregation of individuals into one community? Nor is the other point less clear—that the sovereignty is in the several States, and that our system is a union of twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitutional compact, and not of a divided sovereignty between the States severally and the United States?"

He sums up the question which plagued the nation from the beginning. Is ultimate sovereignty to reside in a central government or with the several states? "But if the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) means to assert that the twenty-four States form but one community, with a single sovereign power as to the objects of the Union, it will be but the revival of the old question, of whether the Union is a union between States, as distinct communities, or a mere aggregate of the American people, as a mass of individuals; and in this light his opinions would lead directly to consolidation…."

Which side was right? Decide for yourself but remember Sheby Foote's statement that the most important outcome of the American Civil War was that "these United States" became "the United States."

I found an interesting tidbit in Wikipedia concerning Calhoun's strong belief in states rights:

"Biographer Margaret Coit argues that:

'every principle of secession or states' rights which Calhoun ever voiced can be traced right back to the thinking of intellectual New England ... Not the South, not slavery, but Yale College and Litchfield Law School made Calhoun a nullifier ... Dwight, Reeve, and Gould could not convince the young patriot from South Carolina as to the desirability of secession, but they left no doubts in his mind as to its legality."

[Miles Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A union of states or people?

Calhoun's speech on the force bill was one of the best encapsulations of the argument over what the nature of the American union actually is. "The people of Carolina," Calhoun's said, "believe that the Union is a union of States, and not of individuals..." With resurgent nationalism becoming common again in Western polities, Calhoun's speech begs the modern American citizenry to consider whether the continual consolidation of political power to the federal state under the auspices of an unconstitutional national ideal will continue to be politically prudent.

[Susan Molloy · Rating 5 out of 5]

🖋️ An important speech by Senator John C. Calhoun about nullification and states rights in the United States, including the role of the Constitution. It begins:

”Mr. President: At the last session of Congress, it was avowed on all sides that the public debt, as to all practical purposes, was in fact paid, the small surplus remaining being nearly covered by the money in the Treasury and the bonds for duties which had already accrued; but with the arrival of this event our last hope was doomed to be disappointed. . . .”

📙 This speech was made in the United States Senate on February 22, 1833.
🟢The e-book version can be found on Project Gutenberg.
🟣Kindle.
🔲 Excerpt of note:

🔹The very point at issue between the two parties there is, whether nullification is a peaceful and an efficient remedy against an unconstitutional act of the general government, and may be asserted, as such, through the State tribunals.

✿●▬●✿●✿●▬●✿

[Ron James Sonnier · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tax never stops but grows like a small spruce into a giant evergreen

A tax never stops but grows like a small spruce into a giant evergreen which drinks abundantly of water without truly casting any shade as you may direct. Mr. Calhoun would be welcome in my corner anytime to state the case for my state and or our union. We need Calhoun Angel today. I would claim him as my friend today. I recommend this writing to all citizens of every state - any age with adult supe free vision.

[Jessica Roberts · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good for discerning between nullification and union

You gotta give John C. credit. He can sure think the constitution into the shape of a pretzel. This is not the complete speech, but it's enough to give you a sense of what nullification was all about. It's part of history, no matter how...irritating the subject, so three stars.