Seward, Calhoun, and Webster on slavery and sectional conflict before the Civil War

American History

In their considerations of the slavery issue before the Civil War, William Henry Seward, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster contribute a variety of viewpoints. Each author uses a sequence of main ideas upon which to base the progression of their thoughts. A consideration of the slavery issue in general is followed by the roles of the North and the South, after which each author provides his views on how the issue can, should, or is likely to be resolved.

Slavery

Seward states in no uncertain terms his belief that slavery is not only unconstitutional, but also morally wrong, and he spends the majority of the document upon emphasizing his views. He counters the argument that slavery is a lawful institution in the South with the fact that not all persons living in the South are indeed slaves, but that freedom is as much an institution as slavery. According to Seward, freedom is much more constitutional than slavery, and should therefore take precedence in arguments about the nature of the Constitution. He also uses in his argument the fact that the slave population is by far not as numerous as the free population, and that the institution is therefore a violation of the natural state of affairs. Seward furthermore holds that slavery cannot be condoned in terms of humanity; slaves are human beings and therefore their freedom should be constitutionally guaranteed.

In contrast to Seward, Calhoun only briefly states that slavery has been an institution before the inception of the American states. Instead, the majority of his argument focuses upon the stormy relationship between the North and the South at the time.

Like Calhoun, Daniel Webster also spends only a brief time upon the general slavery issue. In contrast to the former, however, he holds that slavery was universally condemned to some degree in all states. The institution however became a necessity due to economic and export developments in the South.

Resolution

William Henry Seward believes that the abolishment of slavery is inevitable as the economy and humanitarian institutions grow. According to this author, the institution is simply an "accidental" institution that came into being as a result of a combination of certain factors at a certain time. As times are changing, Seward appears to believe that the institution will become obsolete to make ways for new and more humane institutions. He however also sees the possibility of violent conflict in the attempt to either hasten or slow this development. Interestingly, he projects that attempting to perpetuate slavery is more likely to lead to violence than hastening its abolition.

Calhoun also suggests that a resolution is the responsibility of the North. He however bases this view not upon the moral right of the North or indeed the fact that slavery should be abolished. Instead, the resolution should focus upon resorting the relations between the North and the South. Being much stronger, the former should then focus upon a more inclusive Constitution that offers a compromise between the slave states and the free states, so that the latter has an equal right to property, revenue, and all the privileges the North enjoys. Like Seward, Calhoun also believes that his suggestion for resolution can occur in a peaceful manner.

Like both the others, Webster also believes in a peaceful resolution, simply because he does not believe the enmity existing at the time as worthy of the Constitution. He speaks most strongly against secession, and does not believe that such action on the part of the South could possibly be peaceful. Indeed, he echoes Calhoun's sentiment that, to expect the south to simply abolish their institutions for the sake of those of the North would be even worse than perpetuating slavery. Indeed, it appears that both Calhoun and Webster promote a resolution that would repair the relations between North and South, with a compromise that would continue to allow slavery. Seward's solution contrasts strongly with this; the only possible peaceful resolution in his view is that slavery dies a natural and peaceful death. For Seward, the slavery issue itself is at the center of conflict, whereas the other authors give more subtle reasons and therefore different paradigms of resolution.