Jeffrey Alhassan
Mr. Vandegrift
4th period I&D Block
28 April 2014
John C Calhoun
As “The Champion of the South”, John C Calhoun often threatened the unity of the nation.
John C Calhoun was a War hawk who had a desire to go to war with Great Britain. He developed the Nullification theory, a theory that changed Southern government. He defended the idea of slavery, calling it “a positive good”. His ideas and theories had a great impact on the South’s secession and also his desire to annex Texas led to a war with Mexico.
John Caldwell Calhoun was born on March 18, 1782, in Abbeville, South Carolina. He grew up in the age of king cotton. Calhoun began as a subsistence farmer; the cotton gin helped him become wealthy. He also owned a plantation and about 30 slaves who were mostly used as labor in the cotton fields. Calhoun graduated from Yale University, and then went to law school. He served in the South Carolina legislature and was elected to go to Congress. Calhoun served as Secretary of War under James Monroe. In the Election of 1824 Calhoun was elected Vice President under John Quincy Adams. Calhoun ran for president in the election of 1828 along with John Q Adams, Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and William Crawford. He lost the election to Andrew Jackson, but he became the Vice President.
Calhoun protected the Southern interests. As a Southerner and a politician, he defended the idea of slavery. Calhoun believed slavery was a good thing. During this time period the United States was deeply divided by slavery. On February 6, 1837, Calhoun delivered a speech insisting that slavery was a “positive good” (John C. Calhoun: quote on slavery). According to Calhoun slavery was a system that was “well balanced, well managed and...
... middle of paper ...
... nation. South Carolina had once tried to secede from U.S but was stopped by Andrew Jackson. John C Calhoun as the champion of the South developed the nullification theory and secession by defending Southern interest and laws; this had heavily influenced secession in the South which later led to the Civil War. This man repeatedly threatened the unity of the nation. I personally disagree with all what John C Calhoun stood for. I do not think slavery was or is a good thing, I also do not believe that a state should separate from its country, just because it disagrees with a law or policy. Additionally acquiring land wrongly is not right. In conclusion I believe all men are born equal, I believe a nation is stronger if all its States and people work together to solve its problems, finally I believe in helping my neighbors because it brings unity, trust and development.
John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) was an American politician and political theorist. He was secretary of war, secretary of state and soon resigned to become a senate. Calhoun was the Vice president under both John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) and Andrew Jackson (1829-1832). He was born in South Carolina and graduated from Yale with a law degree. John Calhoun was a very active politician which helps develop the relationship between Jackson and Calhoun.
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
At the time, the South depended on slavery to support their way of life. In fact, “to protect slavery the Confederate States of America would challenge the peaceful, lawful, orderly means of changing governments in the United States, even by resorting to war.” (635) Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong and realized that slavery was bitterly dividing the country. Not only was slavery dividing the nation, but slavery was also endangering the Union, hurting both black and white people and threatening the processes of government. At first, Lincoln’s goal was to save the Union in which “he would free none, some, or all the slaves to save that Union.” (634) However, Lincoln realized that “freeing the slaves and saving the Union were linked as one goal, not two optional goals.” (634) Therefore, Lincoln’s primary goal was to save the Union and in order to save the Union, Lincoln had to free the slaves. However, Paludan states that, “slave states understood this; that is why the seceded and why the Union needed saving.” (634) Lincoln’s presidential victory was the final sign to many Southerners that their position in the Union was
In addition to a crumbling national identity, the necessities of war diminished morale among citizens of the Confederacy. Early on, the South believed that Europe would a...
Marmor, Theodore R. The Career of John C. Calhoun: Politician, Social Critic, Political Philosopher. New York: Garland, 1988.
In spite of its deterioration, the aftermath of the revolt had extensive consequences. Robertson particularized them with references to John Calhoun fortifying South Carolina before the civil war occurred. It also left a scare in the people’s minds, and was another small step towards the abolishment of slavery. Robertson analyzed the aftermath in a variety of aspects, including the effects on the public, and the government.
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
Abraham Lincoln was an intricate yet prosperous person, shown through his movement from poverty to politics. Lincoln was born to poverty in Kentucky in 1809 and settled in Illinois at the age fifteen. He was captain of the militia in Illinois during the Black Hawk War of 1832 and served four terms as a Whig in the state legislature and in Congress, from 1847 to 1849. Lincoln strayed away from politics for a little while to return to law but his interest rekindled as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act .
The fact that he never wanted the South to break away from the United States as it would a decade after his death, his words and life's work made him the father of secession. In a very real way, he started the American Civil War. Slavery was the foundation of the antebellum South. More than any other characteristic, it defined Southern social, political, and cultural life. It also unified the South as a section distinct from the rest of the nation. John C. Calhoun, the South's recognized intellectual and political leader from the 1820s until his death in 1850, devoted much of his remarkable intellectual energy to defending slavery. He developed a two-point defense. One was a political theory that the rights of a minority section in particular, the South needed special protecting in the federal union. The second was an argument that presented slavery as an institution that benefited all involved. John C. Calhoun's commitment to those two points and his efforts to develop them to the fullest would assign him a unique role in American history as the moral, political, and spiritual voice of Southern separatism.
Henry Steele Commager’s essay “The Defeat of the Confederacy: An Overview” is more summary than argument. Commager is more concerned with highlighting the complex causality of the war’s end rather than attempting to give a definitive answer. Commager briefly muses over both the South’s strengths
Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery was the belief that the expansion of it to Free states and new territories should be ceased and that it eventually be abolished completely throughout the country. He believed simply that slavery was morally wrong, along with socially and politically wrong in the eyes of a Republican. Lincoln felt that this was a very important issue during the time period because there was starting to be much controversy between the Republicans and the Democrats regarding this issue. There was also a separation between the north and the south in the union, the north harboring the Free states and the south harboring the slave states. Lincoln refers many times to the Constitution and its relations to slavery. He was convinced that when our founding fathers wrote the Constitution their intentions were to be quite vague surrounding the topic of slavery and African-Americans, for the reason that he believes was because the fathers intended for slavery to come to an end in the distant future, in which Lincoln refers to the "ultimate extinction" of slavery. He also states that the men who wrote the constitution were wiser men, but obviously did not have the experience or technological advances that the men of his day did, hence the reasons of the measures taken by our founding fathers.
Tensions between the North and South had grown steadily since the anti slavery movement in 1830. Several compromises between the North and South regarding slavery had been passed such as the Nebraska-Kansas and the Missouri act; but this did little to relieve the strain. The election of President Lincoln in 1861 proved to be the boiling point for the South, and secession followed. This eventually sparked the civil war; which was viewed differently by the North and the South. The Northern goal was to keep the Union intact while the Southern goal was to separate from the Union. Southern leaders gave convincing arguments to justify secession. Exploring documents from South Carolina’s secession ordinance and a speech from the Georgia assembly speech will explain how the Southern leaders justify the secession from the United States.
Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2]
Abraham Lincoln (12 Feb. 1809-15 Apr. 1865) the 16th president (civilwar.org) of the United States of America was one of the main public persons that influence the civil war in many aspects. Even though the civil war may have been the last resource the nation had, it could be argue that Lincoln’s governments try its best to find a different solution. The civil war was a conflict that destroyed the nation; it perhaps could have been avoided if the second party had work for a solution. But it is true that maybe both parts could have looked out for the benefits of the people as a whole instead of their personal benefits. Lincoln principal positive effect on the civil war was actually before and during the war when Lincoln’s government had many attempts to prevent the confrontation, and when this one began he took the right decisions to win the war. One of the biggest effects on the civil war was the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which gave the slaves their liberty. Many would agree is that Abraham’s Lincoln effect on the civil war was positive but Lincoln made many mistakes or misjudgments during the war as well. Perhaps the biggest mistake Lincoln did was underestimating the South what caused many unnecessary deaths. He also did had misjudgments that cause many causalities. Since the beginning of time humanity has fought for what they thought was right. In April 12 of 1861(civilwar.org) The US would begin a fight for civic and moral rights, a civil war that perhaps was the last option for a country to reunite its values. Abraham Lincoln was the president of the time and the person the influence the most the course the war took. I strongly believe that Lincoln’s decisions influence or had more positive effects on the country. Being the president at times like the civil war is without doubt it is one of the toughest jobs, and one way or another there is going to be correct and incorrect decisions but I can agree president Lincoln did what he thought it was the best at that moment.
The southern states that seceded from the nation formed the Confederate States of America led by President Jefferson Davis. Their essential purpose was to defend “the ...