The political career of John Caldwell Calhoun spanned over forty years. By the time of his death and despite never achieving his greatest ambition of holding the nation’s highest office, his achievements in the lesser offices he held throughout his life allowed Calhoun to become one of the most distinguished, respected, and admired statesmen in the history of the United States. Serving in both the House and the Senate of Congress, serving as Secretary of War and Secretary of State, serving in the South Carolina House of Representatives, serving as Vice President on two separate occasions and under two different administrations, it is clear that for John C. Calhoun, politics was the essence of his life’s work.
His life began on March 18, 1782 in Abbeville, South Carolina, and he first received a formal education from the Moses Waddel in 1795 (2). Waddel was the husband of Calhoun’s older sister, Catherine. John grew close to Waddel who actively nurtured his intellect and capacity for learning (6). Calhoun later studied at Yale College where the president of the school, Timothy Dwight, who happened to be a steadfast Federalist, saw in Calhoun great potential (28). He graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1804, but due to illness, Calhoun was unable to deliver his senior speech entitled “The Qualifications Necessary to Constitute a Perfect Statesman.” (32)
After Yale, Calhoun drifted over to Litchfield, Connecticut and undertook legal training as he attended the Tapping Reeve’s Litchfield Law School. He completed his courses in July of 1806 and thereafter pursued further legal training, first in Charleston and then in Abbeville. Then in December of 1807, he was officially admitted to the South Carolina bar. In the meantime, the youthful lawye...
... middle of paper ...
...ealth, glorious health!’ on the part of the physician, can save a patient lying dangerously ill. ...How can the Union be saved? There is but one way by which it can with any certainty; and that is, by a full and final settlement, on the principle of justice, of all the questions at issue between the two sections. ...If you who represent the stronger portion, cannot 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. If you are unwilling we should part in peace, tell us so; and we shall know what to do, when you reduce the question to submission or resistance.”
At the age of 68, Calhoun died in Washington on March 31, 1850, and only a few months later, Congress managed to pass the Compromise of 1850, which many believe dispelled secession and civil war for the next decade.
Throughout the course of American political history rarely has there ever been a rivalry as fierce and contested as that of the one between Tennessee’s Andrew Jackson, and Kentucky’s Henry Clay. During their extensive political careers the two constantly seemed to cross paths differing in terms philosophically and ideologically. Simply put, these two men profoundly shaped the American Antebellum period, specifically involving the 1820’s to the 1840’s. Their notions of what was best for the country became the basis for their respective parties and consequently their differences in methodology facilitated countless battles in the American political atmosphere. The most significant issues that centered on these types of political skirmishes involved
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.
compromise. Jefferson’s account suggests the growing divide, showing that without a mediator, the ideologies are too far divided to achieve legisla...
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
After his term ended Tyler returned to ordinary living with his second wife in Virginia. In 1861 he held a peace conference and he spoke to try and keep the peace. After this conference failed a year later he voted for the secession of Virginia from the country and was elected for the Confederate House of Representatives, but before he could join he died at seventy one on January 18, 1862 in Richmond, the capital of the confederacy.
Correspondence of John C. Calhoun. J. Franklin Jameson, ed. Annual Report of the American Historical Association 1899. II. 1900.
On December 23, 1814, Andrew Jackson rode his way into history. His victory over the British on that day made him into a national hero. Jackson used this popularity to ensure his victory over John Quincy Adams in the election of 1828. But who was the real "Old Hickory?" Was Andrew Jackson the courageous, honor bound "man of the people", or, as his opponents liked to think, was he a hot tempered, poorly educated farm boy? This essay will present both sides of the case and try to reach a conclusion.
Andrew Jackson has been described as a great hero of his time and a man who was atrocious and would destroy the Union. Andrew Jackson accomplished a great number of things during his life but some of his actions were quite questionable. Looking from the present to the past gives insight into areas where the events can be examined more objectively. However, it is vital when examining past events to keep in mind the mindsets of the past. People had a different point of view and a different perspective than the current one. This must be kept in the forward part of the mind to understand the actions of those in the past. This paper will serve as a guide into the life of Andrew Jackson, his trials and tribulations, decisions and contradictions. From the beginning of his life, he was headstrong and that would lead him straight into the history books.
. .’, concludes James Oakes’ book with the aftermath of the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination. Oakes discussed the respect Douglass gathered for Lincoln over the years and the affect his assassination had on both himself and America as a whole. Oakes even brushed over Douglass’ relationship with Andrew Johnson, the president succeeding Lincoln. Analyzing his experience with the new president, it was safe to say that Andrew Johnson had no consideration as to what Douglass and Lincoln previously fought for. Johnson did not have the same political skills as Lincoln did, and he did not retain the same view for America that Lincoln did. It was obvious that Douglass held Lincoln at a higher standard than Andrew Johnson, stating that he was a “progressive man, a humane man, an honorable man, and at heart an anti-slavery man” (p. 269). Oakes even gave his own stance on Andrew Jackson, “It was a legacy that Andrew Johnson could ever match. When all of Lincoln’s attributes were taken into consideration - his ascent from the obscurity to greatness, his congenial temperament, his moral courage - it was easy for Douglass to imagine how much better things would be ‘had Mr. Lincoln been living today’.” (p. 262). It is hard to imagine the pre-war Douglass to have said something like that as opposed to an older, much more reserved Douglass. With the abolishment of slavery, so came much discrimination. Without
An orphan and hardened veteran at the age of fifteen. Jackson drifted, he taught at a school for a little amount of time. Then he started to read into law while in north Carolina. After admission to the bar in 1787, he accepted an offer to server as a public prosecutor in the new mero district of north Carolina, west o...
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
During the 1800’s, if the states are sovereign then they have the right to secede from the Union (A...
... secretary of state. The southern states, who were Jacksonian supporters, were subsequently outraged and furious. They claimed it was unfair and classified it as “corrupt”. This drove a greater wedge between the southern states and the northern states, who had favored Adams. This political event epitomized sectionalism and discredits the notion that this time was an “Era of Good Feelings”.
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]
John C. Calhoun was an influential politician from South Carolina who opposed the Compromise of 1850 because he believed that it benefited the North more than the South, thus disturbing the equilibrium of the Union and giving more power to the North. Calhoun argued that the Compromise of 1850 added more problems to the union than it solved. The Compromise of 1850 was proposed by Henry Clay in which he suggested that California be admitted as a free state, that the government pays Texas debt, the slave trade in Washington D. C be banned and that slave fugitive laws be enforced (Liberty and Power in America, p. 401). John C. Calhoun was pro-slave so the only proposition that Calhoun agreed