Congressional Giants. J. Michael Martinez

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ to “agitation.” He had been the cause of much agitation, and he might have relieved some of the tension by supporting Clay’s compromise as a “timely and effective measure.” He continued with his assessment. “Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divided the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?”

      Relying on the metaphor of a physician examining an ill patient, Calhoun suggested that a diagnosis of the Union’s malady was necessary. “The first question, then, presented for consideration in the investigation I propose to make in order to obtain such knowledge is: What is it that has endangered the Union?” He offered his analysis.

      “To this question there can be but one answer—that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States composing the Southern section of the Union. This widely extended discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the slavery question and has been increasing ever since.” The South had been mistreated repeatedly, and eventually the region could no longer tolerate such abuses.

      Calhoun cautioned against accusing the South of overreacting or exacerbating the crisis. The problem was “the long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during the time. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafter in its proper place.”

      Calhoun lamented the loss of balance between sections that had governed the nation for decades. “The equilibrium between the two sections in the government as it stood when the Constitution was ratified and the government put in action has been destroyed,” he charged. “At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression.”

      Mason, speaking for Calhoun, laid out the argument against Clay’s compromise, namely that it was too slanted against the South. “Having now, senators, explained what it is that endangers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the question again recurs, How can the Union be saved? To this I answer, there is but one way by which it can be, and that is by adopting such measures as will satisfy the States belonging to the Southern section that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety.”

      Calhoun’s literal voice could no longer raise objections, but his pen remained booming and powerful. He set forth the principal reason that he and his southern colleagues could not agree to additional compromises:

      The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the Constitution, and no concession or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she has little left to surrender. Such a settlement would go to the root of the evil, and remove all cause of discontent, by satisfying the South that she could remain honorably and safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections which existed anterior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and for ever settle the question at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union.

      In Calhoun’s opinion, the South was weaker than the North. It had already compromised far too often in the past. It was too late to save the Union with yet another series of half measures cobbled together at the last minute. Clay harped on the desire to save the Union, but Calhoun had never believed that the Union was worth saving if the South must be humiliated to achieve that goal. Only the North could save the Union now: “At all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests on the North, and not on the South. The South can not save it by any act of hers, and the North may save it without any sacrifice whatever, unless to do justice and to perform her duties under the Constitution should be regarded by her as a sacrifice.”

      Calhoun offered no olive branch, would entertain no compromise, but he did not call for Civil War. “It is time, senators, that there should be an open and manly avowal on all sides as to what is intended to be done,” he wrote. “If the question is not now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be; and we, as the representatives of the States of this Union regarded as governments, should come to a distinct understanding as to our respective views, in order to ascertain whether the great questions at issue can be settled or not. If you who represent the stronger portion, can not agree to settle them on the broad principle of justice and duty, say so; and let the States we both represent agree to separate and part in peace.” In short, the regions could separate and that could be accomplished without bloodshed.

      He ended with a flourish:

      I have now, senators, done my duty in expressing my opinions fully, freely, and candidly on this solemn occasion. In doing so I have been governed by the motives which have governed me in all the stages of the agitation of the slavery question since its commencement. I have exerted myself during the whole period to arrest it, with the intention of saving the Union if it could be done; and if it could not, to save the section where it has pleased providence to cast my lot, and which I sincerely believe has justice and the Constitution on its side. Having faithfully done my duty to the best of my ability, both to the Union and my section, throughout this agitation, I shall have the consolation, let what will come, that I am free from all responsibility.¹²⁵

      It was his most famous speech. It was also his last. Calhoun died of tuberculosis on March 31, 1850. He did not live long enough to see the outcome of the 1850 debate. Clay’s compromise eventually passed after Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois pushed through parts of the package as individual bills during the late summer and early fall. Henry Clay, with Douglas’s able assistance, had done it again, even over Calhoun’s objections. The Union once again was preserved, at least temporarily.¹²⁶

      Figure 1.1 Henry Clay. Source: Library of Congress.

      Figure 1.2 Daniel Webster. Source: Library of Congress.

      Figure 1.3 John C. Calhoun. Source: Library of Congress.

      Following his death, Calhoun’s legacy was difficult to assess. Southerners saw him as a giant among political philosophers and statesmen. Aside from his defense of state rights and slavery, he was cognizant of the need to protect minority rights in a system constructed on majority rule. His logical arguments favoring liberty over Union especially appealed to the Fire-Eaters, those extreme southern partisans who urged the South to secede a decade after Calhoun had passed from the scene.

      For northerners—and perhaps for subsequent generations of Americans—he was too wedded to outdated notions. His preference for state rights, his tolerance of the abominable institution of slavery, and his willingness to inflame passions at a time when cooler heads were needed made him part of the problem, not the solution. Calhoun simply could not grasp the need for a living constitution to evolve as societal standards evolved. He was a relic of a bygone era.

      Whatever СКАЧАТЬ