American History

Reading through the speeches of Calhoun, Seward, and Webster suggests to the reader that the very ideals of the founding fathers were already buried beneath the provincialism and lack of nationalism in the United States even before the issue of the 1850 compromise. Two things stand out from the three speeches one, that the states in the United States of America were disunited, with set goals only on the local level but not as united states as a whole and two, that the compromise produced only served as a veil covering a recalcitrant path to a greater conflict. The former manifested the immaturity of American politicians in terms of setting up national goals while the latter, though almost an offshoot of the former, was pushing the country into a bloody civil war.

Senator John C. Calhouns speech is evidence enough of the two points mentioned. First of all, his erroneous usage of labels (northern states and southern states) did not help preserve the sanctity of the Union. It is true that back then there were already nomenclatures that gave an image and impression of division there were slave states and free states but to officially label them in the halls of the senate connoted that the division was real and implied an aggressive move of one party against another. Equilibrium, as expressed by Calhoun, is defined not by the balance of idealisms, ideologies, or principles, but that of the regionalistic and provincial tendencies of the states. Pertaining to this, one cannot help but agree with Senator William Henry Seward, when he reminded the senate that the Constitution based the equilibrium of the state on the idea that the states are all equalno north and no south.

The ideas of Senator Calhoun run contrary to the idea of nation and show in some degree how the union was still immature in terms of nation-building despite its success in creating such a union. One must also remember that the territory that was later called the United States of America was a territory composed of several different peoples and not purely English. Unlike the European experience of nation-building, pioneered by the famous French Revolution of 1789, the United States of America was not based on a single nation, but was based on the equality of men. As Senator Seward accurately pointed, the United States are a political state, or organized society, whose end is government, for the security, welfare, and happiness of all who live under its protection. And in such a notion of equality, every project of conquest by the United States cannot be attributable to any single state whether south or north. Calhouns allegation that the northern states dominated the southern states despite the southern states share of the national economy must have been pure hearsay. Senator Daniel Webster was not able to comment on such an allegation for the lack of evidence, and the reader may have the impression that Calhoun was simply extreme in his provincial interpretation of the situation.

What was happening, in moving deeper into the speeches, was that it was not anymore centered on the question of compromise nor revolving around the annexation of Texas. Both were positioned to be mere effects of a greater problem that Webster so straightforwardly pointed out the problem of slavery and the possibility of secessionthe latter rooted in the former. Referring to the debate on the issue of the abolition of slavery, Webster lamented

I cannot but see what mischief their interference with the South has produced Let any gentleman who entertains doubt on this point, recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made by Mr. Jefferson Randolph, for the gradual abolition of slavery was discussed in that body.

What can be learned here is that the senator was accusing the northern states, as represented by the House in Virginia, of trying to cause trouble with the southern states, which economy and wealth was driven by and through the backs of slaves.

The reader believes that the question of slavery should have been a national issue handled by the national government, and should not have been made an arbitrary issue by arbitrary states. Meaning, the issue should have been tackled not independent of union regulation and decision because the problem of slavery was not only a problem of those states which have slaves and those states which do not like idea of slaves. One must point out that the slaves were very much integral to the economy of the union and not just to the economy of the south. Webster is pointing out that the actions of the Virginia House of Delegates may have indirectly agitated the southern slave states. If only the problem was faced as a nationas United Statesthen the entire government should have created programs to ascertain the abolition of slavery without hurting southern economy.

The action made by the House of Virginia (north) and Calhouns ideas (south) both transformed what should have been a crucial economic issue to be handled by the United States, into a framework where the north and the south modeled their different aspirations and patriotic goals. As a nation the problem of slavery should have been viewed not as a problem between north and south, but a problem of balancing out the economy and making sure the nation stood for what the Constitution stood for. Instead, differences in the views of the states regarding slavery were pushing the union into disunity as a portion of it was already crying for secession. Webster however warned that no peaceful secession was possible.

In the end, it would have been better if the politicians those days took Sewards suggestion to look at the problem as creations of God and not as passionate men troubled by petty prejudices. On the annexation of Texas, Seward argued that We are Gods stewards, and must so discharge out trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness. The same should have been said about the slaves.