|
|
John C. Calhoun: He Started the Civil WarCivil War Times | Single Page | 21 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
Jackson was no fan of the high tariff, either. But he was furious with Calhoun and considered his behavior treasonous. He loudly threatened to march down to South Carolina and personally hang Calhoun and his fellow nullifiers. Congress responded to the nullification by drafting the Force Bill, which authorized the president to use military power to compel South Carolina to comply with the tariff. The bill became the target of Calhoun's first speech upon returning to the Senate. He expressed outrage at the thought of 'this government, the creature of the States, making war against the power to which it owes its existence.' A major crisis seemed imminent until Senator Henry Clay fashioned the Compromise Tariff of 1833. The act gradually lowered the offending tariff, but it confirmed Congress's authority to enact such protective tariffs. South Carolina responded by repealing its nullification of the tariff, but in a final act of defiance, it nullified the Force Bill. For Calhoun the tariff controversy had two important results. The first was his emergence as the leading political and intellectual defender of the South. The second was his development of a political philosophy to limit the federal government's power and thus protect the minority agrarian South and its institution of slavery. Though it was the tariff controversy that brought Calhoun to the forefront as the leading spokesman for Southern interests, slavery was the most important issue to the South. 'I consider the tariff act as the occasion rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things,' he confided to an associate early in the Nullification Crisis. 'The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given her industry, has placed them…in opposite relation to the majority of the Union….' There were some pockets in the South that supported a high tariff, but all the slave states were unified on the slavery issue. So it made political sense for Calhoun to devote himself to the cause of slavery. From 1833 to 1850 — as a member of the U.S. Senate, a private citizen, and during a stint as President John Tyler's secretary of state in 1844-1845 — he worked to insulate the institution from any sort of attack, ranging from abolitionist rhetoric to perceived overextensions of federal power. At stake for him was nothing less that the survival of the South. 'I have ever had but one opinion on the subject,' Calhoun wrote. 'Our fate as a people is bound up in the question.' Calhoun's political thinking had taken a complete turnabout from the federalism of his early years. Now, his goal was to insure the power of the local agrarian elite by limiting the power of the federal government. 'My aim is fixed,' he proclaimed. 'It is no less than to turn back the Government to where it commenced its operations in 1789…on the State Rights Republican tack.' He felt that keeping governmental power as decentralized as possible would allow the planters to maintain power and protect the labor system that made their great wealth and status possible. To do this, Calhoun developed two major ideas that are perhaps his greatest legacy: the concepts of state interposition and concurrent majority. State interposition was first presented in the 1798 Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to protest the anti-Republican Alien and Sedition Acts. In these documents Jefferson and Madison applied the social contract theory formulated by 17-century English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke to the U.S. Constitution. They argued that because representatives of the states had written the Constitution, the power of constitutional interpretation rested with the states. So if a state believed the federal government was violating the terms of the national charter, it had the right to interpose itself between its people and the federal government to provide protection from tyranny. The Fort Hill Address of July 1831 was the first time Calhoun openly and unambiguously identified himself with the nullification cause. In that speech, he proclaimed that the right of state interposition was 'the fundamental principle of our system' and that the federal government must accept that right in order to keep the Constitution and the Union secure. 'The Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party,' he argued. Since, in his view, 'the States…formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities…, the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions.' By embracing state interposition, Calhoun dismissed the 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison, a ruling that claimed the power of constitutional interpretation exclusively for the judicial branch. He also contradicted his own earlier distaste for those who dabbled in constitutional interpretation. 'The Constitution…was not intended as a thesis for the logician to exercise his ingenuity on,' he proclaimed in 1817. Now, in defending the South's unique economy and society, Calhoun was exercising away. Calhoun's exercise went beyond mere theorizing. He helped develop a procedure for states to use their power of interposition. He suggested a state should first call a convention to consider any federal action in question. If the convention determined that the action violated its understanding of the Constitution, then it could declare the action 'null and void,' denying the federal government the power to execute the law within that state. The federal government would then have to either amend the Constitution to legitimize its action or repeal the measure. And if the Constitution was amended in a way the state considered unacceptable, the state had the right to leave the Union. In developing the concept of nullification, Calhoun did not intend to encourage states to secede. He sought only to give them a way to ensure a strict interpretation of the Constitution and lead the nation away from 'the dangerous and despotic doctrine of consolidation' and back to 'its true confederative character.' This was especially important for the minority South. 'The major and dominant party will have no need of these restrictions for their protection,' Calhoun wrote. The minority, however, required 'a construction [of the Constitution] which would confine these powers to the narrowest limits.' The role of nullification in any future debate over slavery was clear: with the ability to define the terms of their membership in the Union, states would be able to deny the federal government any regulatory power over slavery. Subscribe Today
Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: 19th Century, American Civil War, Civil War Times, Historical Conflicts, Historical Figures, Politics
 |
SPONSORED SITES
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2010 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
21 Comments to “John C. Calhoun: He Started the Civil War”
Abraham Lincoln in his speech in Congress in 1846 said when asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" Lincoln replied: "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"
In 1860, the averaged tariff-rate was 18.84%; the Republicans spread the word that they were shooting for 40%–which could bankrupt many Southerners and would make life much harder for most of them.
The South had to pay twice; first to export their cotton and then to import the goods purchased abroad from the profits made from the cotton sales.
The Civil War transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order.
But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through high prices and public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South's trading relations with other parts of the world.
In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North's early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty years later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it become impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.
By Al Barrs on Jul 5, 2008 at 12:05 pm
John C. Calhoun was not nearly as responsible for the start of the War Between the States as was the radical abolitionist movement in the North. These people financed John Brown's attempt at a slave rebellion and the murder of whites in the South. John C. Calhoun was a right and honorable man.
By Dave on Nov 29, 2008 at 12:47 am
good job!
By tiana on Dec 2, 2008 at 10:07 am
THIS IS WRONG!! SORRY HE DID NOT START THE CIVIL WAR BYE!!!!!!!!!
By MR. Gus on Mar 9, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I think you must be very cofussed or a ratical white hater . Everyone knows slavery was an easy smokescreen for the industrialist to publish as the cause of the war. They needed the souths product and money to accomplish there agenda and to avoid there own failure.
By rod on Mar 28, 2009 at 11:07 pm
great website
By no one on Apr 26, 2009 at 12:23 am
Even though John C. Calhoun defended slavery and states rights was his philosophy & ardent belief, he sincerely wished the Union be preserved. Read his final address to the Senate read before them three weeks before his death in March of 1850. This had to do with the admission of California into the Union as a free state. He never wanted the Union to be dissolved and he did not believe the Union should be held together by "force". In reading his papers and examining his thinking through his speeches, it seems like he thought of the Federal government as a sort of caretaker working for the states and that true soverignty resides with the states. I see a parallel in this thinking to Ronald Reagens ideas of too much big government being the problem. For what its worth.
By Dane Volyn on Jul 6, 2009 at 10:39 am
If someone is to be blamed for "starting" the Civil War, one could argue that it was the founding fathers themselves who are responsible. They allowed slavery to continue since many of the planters would not have even signed the declaration of independence if the authors attempted to abolish slavery in 1776. All men are created equal but slavery was allowed to continue. It was abolished in England just before Queen Victoria ascended the throne but it kept on here wher supposedly all men were created equal. John C. Calhoun did not believe that all men were created equal, neither did Andrew Jackson by the way!
By Dane Volyn on Jul 15, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Anyone who believes that one race is superior to another is a certified racist. All races originated with adam and eve. If all men were converted to christ's teachings then racial prejudice and hate would not exist. The civil war started because many white americans were racist. They believed that they were intellectually superior to other races. But some white americans believed that the institution of slavery was unchristian and fought a civil war to eventually abolish slavery. The election of President Obama proves that not all white americans are racist. John C. Calhoun was a racist. His thinking was not like Ronald Reagan's. Calhoun was more like Adolph Hitler (i.e. the superior race argument)
By rufus on Jul 29, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I agree with you Rufus up to a point. Adolph Hitler tried to erradicate a race of people by genocide where Calhoun perpetuated the institution of keeping a race in bondage. There is a world of difference. The tragedy of slavery is apparent, it has taken one hundred fifty years for a man like Obama to come along and give creedence to Martin Luther Kings dream of a man being judged by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin. But racists are still out there. A man like Calhoun was dangerous in that he was such an intellect in his time. Arguably one of the brightest men in government during the 19th century.
He was impeccable in his personal life, never a scandal and he was beloved by his family and the political base of South Carolina but I always keep in the back of my head about him what Andrew Jackson said in 1837 as he was leaving office, "I have two regrets upon leaving the Presidency, the first is that I have not shot Henry Clay nor hanged John C. Calhoun".
By Dane Volyn on Aug 12, 2009 at 10:40 am
I must clarify the final comment of my last post by saying Jackson was referring to the nullification crisis relating to the 1832 tariff. That could have been civil war right there if Calhoun had not backed down and acquiest to Jackson when he threatened to send troops to South Carolina to enforce the tariff. Nullification was the precursor to secession but the actual catalyst which caused secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860. The south did not want to give up slavery due to its economic dependence on it, the planters of the south knew no other way and could not or did not wish to come up with an alternative nor would they consider a system in which the slaves could ever be free. Lincoln did not want the Union to dissolve this way and thus by in April 1861 the first shots of the Civil war were fired.
By Dane Volyn on Aug 12, 2009 at 10:56 am
I find I must correct myself once again. I went back and re-read the 1850 speeches and the commentary on them just to be certain of my facts and discovered that the Hon. Senator John C. Calhoun DID set forth the discourse that secession is a choice open should the North fail to "come to some form of understanding" with South. The Union which once was paramount now took a back seat to the states as regards the slavery question. I was thinking of Calhoun (pre nullification) not post Jackson.
By Dane Volyn on Aug 18, 2009 at 10:55 am
The South existed on the notion of civil rights for some and not human rights for all. Unless you have both for all, you have no argument that will endure. Those who supported slavery will never be able to rationalize such an inhuman practice.
By Earl on Sep 11, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The current day Republican Party does not resemble the party of Abraham Lincoln. Today's Republican Party is dominated by white males who are anti-Obama, anti-minorities and, in my view, anti-equality for all. When you hear prominent Republican politicians advocating secession from the union, states rights and
calling the President of The United States (in a joint session of congress) a liar, then I say the south (the racist spirit that consumed John C. Calhoun – southern politician) has not changed. Richard Steele, the current head of the Republican National Committee (RNC), was voted into that position as a counter to the election of Mr. Obama. His appointment, as the head of the RNC, was a political move designed to counter any charges that racist control the party.
Since George Bush's departure, the Republican Party has become dominated by closet racist. The spirit of John C. Calhoun is alive and well in the Republican Party. Elements in the Republican Party (mostly southern politicians) are seeking to divide this country along racial and economic lines under the guise of limiting federal authority over the states. They have become the party of "no." Racial slavery has been replaced by economic slavery. They believe that tax breaks for the rich (Landowners/Businesses) will trickle down to the poor (economic slaves). The federal government has no right, in their opinion,
the interfere with a capitalist system (Supply Side Economics). They scream that Obama is a socialist and a threat to their profit line (the extreme profits from economic slavery). He must be stopped at all cost. Sounds familiar? I agree with Earl concerning his description of the Old South. But I would argue that the Republican Party exist today on the notion of economic rights for some and not basic human rights /equal rights for all. The Republican Party has become the party of John C. Calhoun.
Elements within the Republican Party are hoping for another american Civil War (Race War). They are hoping that Obama's election (like Lincoln's) will be the catalyst.
By Rufus on Sep 11, 2009 at 10:52 pm
God I hope you are wrong Rufus but you speak the truth and I agree with what you have written 100%. When that congressman from South Carolina shouted liar, I realized that deep in their hearts nothing has changed. They( Republicans ) will not even attempt to work with Obama in solving the nations problems. The divisions that existed in Calhouns time are just almost as strong today. The people suffer.
By Dane Volyn on Oct 26, 2009 at 3:21 pm
how did the civl war end
By quentin pittman on Nov 18, 2009 at 3:16 pm
With much suffering as we know all too well…
By Dane Volyn on Dec 10, 2009 at 1:24 pm
"The Republican Party has become the party of John C. Calhoun." – Rufus
That's the single most idiotic comment I've ever seen posted anywhere… (which is saying alot considering what else Rufus wrote).
By LOL on Dec 31, 2009 at 1:20 am
John C. Calhoun cannot be judged by the laws of the 21st century since his life spanned the years 1782 – 1850. He was not the only man in high office tp perpetuate slavery. Lets run down the list, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler and Gen. Zachary Taylor were all Presidents of the US who owned slaves throughout their lifetime. Calhoun was a contemporary who voiced the views of his constituency. The people he represented. He was a good and decent man. As were the aforementioned Presidents. Sen. Calhoun was instrumental in resolving the Oregon question and the annexation of Texas under the time of President Polk.
By Dane Volyn on Feb 1, 2010 at 11:56 am
I wish some of our present Senators had the good sense to actually represent and voice the needs of the people they say they represent. Calhoun had many good points, so did Webster & Clay. Government officials should take a lesson from all three great men.
By Dane Volyn on Feb 1, 2010 at 11:59 am
I must have really upset – LOL. I still maintain that the Republican Party is dominated by the views and attitude of John C. Calhoun. I am not judging Calhoun by "21 century law." Mr. Calhoun was a racist. Anyone, regardless of whether they are President of the United States or an ordinary citizen, who support or "perpetuates'" slavery, is a racist. Racism is wrong, regardless of the time period in which it occurs. L0L did not provide any arguments or facts to dispute my statements. His response mirrors those of other conservatives who are exposed as closet racist. L0L should support his emotional comments with facts. I am so happy that the majority of American citizens are decent color blind individuals. President Obama's election indicates that Martin Luther dream is becoming a reality.
By Rufus on Mar 1, 2010 at 2:01 pm