4-5 page; double-spaced; Be sure to refer specifically to the evidence- John C. Calhoun, Slavery a Positive Good (1837)& “The ‘Mudsill’ Theory,” by James Henry Hammond Cite sources using footnotes.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

John C. Calhoun, Slavery a Positive Good (1837)
John Caldwell Calhoun (March 18, 1782 – March 31, 1850) was a leading American politician and political
theorist during the first half of the 19th century. Hailing from South Carolina, Calhoun began his political
career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs.
After 1830, his views evolved and he became a greater proponent of states’ rights, limited government,
nullification and free trade; as he saw these means as the only way to preserve the Union. He is best known
for his intense and original defense of slavery as something positive, his distrust of majoritarianism, and for
pointing the South toward secession from the Union. …
Calhoun died eleven years before the start of the American Civil War, but he was an inspiration to the
secessionists of 1860–61. Nicknamed the “cast-iron man” for his ideological rigidity [2][3] as well as for
his determination to defend the causes he believed in,[4] Calhoun supported states’ rights and nullification,
under which states could declare null and void federal laws which they viewed as unconstitutional. He was
an outspoken proponent of the institution of slavery, which he defended as a “positive good” rather than as
a “necessary evil”.[5] His rhetorical defense of slavery was partially responsible for escalating Southern
threats of secession in the face of mounting abolitionist sentiment in the
North. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun)
Delivered February 6, 1837
I do not belong, said Mr. C., to the school which holds that aggression is to be met by concession. Mine is
the opposite creed, which teaches that encroachments must be met at the beginning, and that those who act
on the opposite principle are prepared to become slaves. In this case, in particular I hold concession or
compromise to be fatal. If we concede an inch, concession would follow concession—compromise would
follow compromise, until our ranks would be so broken that effectual resistance would be impossible. We
must meet the enemy on the frontier, with a fixed determination of maintaining our position at every
hazard. Consent to receive these insulting petitions, and the next demand will be that they be referred to a
committee in order that they may be deliberated and acted upon. At the last session we were modestly
asked to receive them, simply to lay them on the table, without any view to ulterior action. . . . I then said,
that the next step would be to refer the petition to a committee, and I already see indications that such is
now the intention. If we yield, that will be followed by another, and we will thus proceed, step by step, to
the final consummation of the object of these petitions. We are now told that the most effectual mode of
arresting the progress of abolition is, to reason it down; and with this view it is urged that the petitions
ought to be referred to a committee. That is the very ground which was taken at the last session in the other
House, but instead of arresting its progress it has since advanced more rapidly than ever. The most
unquestionable right may be rendered doubtful, if once admitted to be a subject of controversy, and that
would be the case in the present instance. The subject is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress – they have no
right to touch it in any shape or form, or to make it the subject of deliberation or discussion. . . .
As widely as this incendiary spirit has spread, it has not yet infected this body, or the great mass of the
intelligent and business portion of the North; but unless it be speedily stopped, it will spread and work
upwards till it brings the two great sections of the Union into deadly conflict. This is not a new impression
with me. Several years since, in a discussion with one of the Senators from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster),
before this fell spirit had showed itself, I then predicted that the doctrine of the proclamation and the Force
Bill—that this Government had a right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of its own powers, and
enforce its decision at the point of the bayonet, which was so warmly maintained by that Senator, would at
no distant day arouse the dormant spirit of abolitionism. I told him that the doctrine was tantamount to the
assumption of unlimited power on the part of the Government, and that such would be the impression on
the public mind in a large portion of the Union. The consequence would be inevitable. A large portion of
the Northern States believed slavery to be a sin, and would consider it as an obligation of conscience to
abolish it if they should feel themselves in any degree responsible for its continuance, and that this doctrine
would necessarily lead to the belief of such responsibility. I then predicted that it would commence as it has
with this fanatical portion of society, and that they would begin their operations on the ignorant, the weak,
the young, and the thoughtless —and gradually extend upwards till they would become strong enough to
obtain political control, when he and others holding the highest stations in society, would, however
reluctant, be compelled to yield to their doctrines, or be driven into obscurity. But four years have since
elapsed, and all this is already in a course of regular fulfilment.
Standing at the point of time at which we have now arrived, it will not be more difficult to trace the course
of future events now than it was then. They who imagine that the spirit now abroad in the North, will die
away of itself without a shock or convulsion, have formed a very inadequate conception of its real
character; it will continue to rise and spread, unless prompt and efficient measures to stay its progress be
adopted. Already it has taken possession of the pulpit, of the schools, and, to a considerable extent, of the
press; those great instruments by which the mind of the rising generation will be formed.
However sound the great body of the non—slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years
they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly onehalf of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another. It is
easy to see the end. By the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become, finally, two
people. It is impossible under the deadly hatred which must spring up between the two great nations, if the
present causes are permitted to operate unchecked, that we should continue under the same political system.
The conflicting elements would burst the Union asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it together.
Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union I openly proclaim it—and the sooner it
is known the better. The former may now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of
man to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain
the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the
peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country or the other of the races.
. . . But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the
two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:—far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far
proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I
appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present
day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.
In the meantime, the white or European race, has not degenerated. It has kept pace with its brethren in other
sections of the Union where slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison; but I appeal to all sides
whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high
qualities which adorn our nature.
But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin,
and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the
relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive
good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and interests of those I
represent are involved. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which
one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is
this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be
difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally
divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was
produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes. The devices are almost innumerable,
from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of
modern. I might well challenge a comparison between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal
mode by which the labor of the African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say with
truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or
where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with
the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and
infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his
master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse.
But I will not dwell on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political; and here I fearlessly assert that the
existing relation between the two races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war,
forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions. It is
useless to disguise the fact. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a
conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and
dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the
slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North. . . . Surrounded as the
slaveholding States are with such imminent perils, I rejoice to think that our means of defense are ample, if
we shall prove to have the intelligence and spirit to see and apply them before it is too late. All we want is
concert, to lay aside all party differences and unite with zeal and energy in repelling approaching dangers.
Let there be concert of action, and we shall find ample means of security without resorting to secession or
disunion. I speak with full knowledge and a thorough examination of the subject, and for one see my way
clearly. . . . I dare not hope that anything I can say will arouse the South to a due sense of danger; I fear it is
beyond the power of mortal voice to awaken it in time from the fatal security into which it has fallen.

Purchase answer to see full