Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Finally,
Calhoun was as decorated a statesman as there was in 1850: former Vice President, Secretary of War and a present-day Senator from South Carolina. His history also included fighting for the rights of southern states to maintain slaves and for fomenting the Nullification Crisis of 1832. It was equally no surprise that his speech rejected the Compromise and the grounds he offered. Essentially, Calhoun's speech was an emotional ploy to the North to understand that without slavery the south could not exist and without the admission of additional slave states, the south could not be an equal partner in the union.
Calhoun's constitutional justification for rejecting the compromise was that the representational republicanism set forth in the Constitution required a semblance of balance of representation between the two distinct sections, the South and the North. However, Calhoun was a tough and hardened war hawk and his speech was not really about frothy emotional appeals to constitutional equality. (Latimer 920). He was primarily advising that with full concession to the South as to its demands of admitting slave states, the South would secede. Then, Calhoun's only questions to the north would be- when this happens, will you be taking up arms against us.
Favoring the notion of the compromise was Daniel Webster. Webster was steeped in federalism and favored a stronger federal government. His speech is one of appeasement to the south for the sake of preserving the union. Webster cites to the constitutional...
His only real objective is to prevent secession.
For many years prior to this, Webster had become a union preservationist, though his willingness to appease the slave holders is sometimes described as a direct causative factor of the Civil War, in that Webster indicated to the South that a show of force was all that Southern states needed to do obtain what they wanted. His position in 1850 contrasts sharply with his position in 1833, when he supported the use of force to collect tariffs in the face of South Carolina's nullification ordinances (endorsed by none other than Calhoun). (Lodge).
The contributions of Calhoun, Webster and Seward to the nation's overall strength and vigor cannot be denied. In March of 1850, though they were not three men working for the same end from different points of origin. Each man had a separate agenda and each had the backing of certain segments of the population. It is not surprising therefore, that the Union could not stay united when confronted with these opposing forces pulling from all directions.
Works Cited
Lodge, Henry Cabot. Daniel Webster. 1883.
Latimer, Margaret Kinard. "South Carolina -- a Protagonist of the War of 1812," American
Historical Review 61 (1956),: 914 -- 929,
Seward, William. Works of William H. Seward Vol. I, (New York: Redfield,…
Works Cited
Lodge, Henry Cabot. Daniel Webster. 1883.
Latimer, Margaret Kinard. "South Carolina -- a Protagonist of the War of 1812," American
Historical Review 61 (1956),: 914 -- 929,
Seward, William. Works of William H. Seward Vol. I, (New York: Redfield, 1853) 417.
The main causes of the war relied in the issue of slavery as well as the right of the states to be part of a federal entity with equal rights and voices. The implications for this war were enormous as it provided a different future for the colonies and for the U.S. As a whole. The main cause of the war was, as stated, the issue of slavery. In this
The problem of fair treatment of the South was the major issue as Calhoun saw it as well. Though he died shortly after this speech was read (too ill to read it himself, Calhoun was escorted from the floor after someone read it in his place), Calhoun is still considered one of the primary instigators of the Civil War. In this speech, he cites not slavery but general under-representation of
tagged along with the burning issue of slavery in those years preceding the American Civil War, expanding American territory would redound to the best advantage of its people and further enhance its economic and political objectives and gains. The principle of manifest destiny could be invoked, whereby the people of those days had the power and duty "to overspread and to possess the whole of (the Northern American) continent, which
Compromise of 1850 Compare and contrast the arguments of the speeches. The different arguments presented by Seward, Calhoun and Webster are illustrating how divisive slavery was to the nation. William Henry Seward was an abolitionist, who felt that slavery should be outlawed in every state. Anything less than this standard, was considered to be unacceptable. This is because he felt that the practice violated the basic ideals established under theological and moral
Mexican-American War (1846-1848) The Great Territorial Loss From the perspective of the United States, the Mexican-American War, together with the Louisiana Purchase, represented important land acquisitions as part of the country's relentless expansion westward. In this regard, Kurth (1999) reports that, "There were grand achievements in this national project of continental expansion, especially the southwestern annexations, which were achieved through U.S. military victory in the Mexican-American War. In this case, the United
" Although the use of the word "aggressions" in this manner certainly suggests that Calhoun is of the opposite opinion of Seward, his treatment of the issue of slavery offers further insight into how the issue was treated in the mid-1800s. Instead of considering slavery a clear issue of right and wrong, Calhoun treats it like any other political issue, arguing that the real cause between the states' inability to