One can comprehend what Calhoun meant when he spoke of the threat coming from the Southern States after looking at the cards. No one seriously doubts that the South’s substantial economic interest in slave labor was a significant factor in the internecine disagreements that broke out in the mid-nineteenth century. The maps show that these regions had a core feature that differentiated them from the North: an agrarian economy based on slavery. In the 11 states that eventually became Confederation, four out of ten individuals were enslaved people in 1860, accounting for more than half of the agricultural labor in those areas. In the cotton districts, the importance of slave labor was even more significant.
The overall worth of all the farms and outbuildings in the South was equivalent to the capital invested in enslaved individuals. Although the mass of enslaved people fluctuated from year to year, there was no extended period during which the value of enslaved people owned in the United States did not increase markedly. Looking at the maps, it is not surprising that southern slaveholders in 1860 were optimistic about the economic future of their region (Powell, 2021). After all, they witnessed an extraordinary surge in the value of their slave resources. This distinctively makes it evident that Calhoun was not right in his speech.
According to Calhoun, joining the Union for the South was a danger to its economy. In his opinion, this must necessarily follow that certain parts of society must pay taxes more than it receives back in the form of payments. The other person gets more in payments than he does in taxes at the same time. Thus, the necessary result of unequal government budgetary action is the division of society into two elementary classes. One shall consist of individuals who pay taxes and bear the sole burden of maintaining the government (Browning & Silver, 2020). (Browning & Silver, 2020). On the other hand, the other comes from people who are financially supported by the government and receive their income through payments. Simply put, divide it into tax-paying citizens and ratepayers.
According to Calhoun, some members of society must pay more taxes than they do in payments. In addition, the other party receives more in payments than he does in taxes. Thus, separating society into two significant classes is a necessary consequence of unequal government fiscal action. One comprises people who pay taxes and are solely responsible for keeping the government in operation (Browning & Silver, 2020). The other, however, comes from people who receive government assistance and receive their income through payments. Divide it into taxpayers and taxpayers, to put it simply.
Lincoln is suggesting that there can be no compromise. People have to be on one side or the other. Essentially, he claims that he is on the side of freedom, while Douglas is on the side of slavery. A house divided upon itself could stand. Lincoln believed that this half-slave and partial government could not last long. He did not expect the Union to be disintegrated, nor did he expect the house to fall. However, he thought he would stop being split so everything would have become one or the other.
Lincoln stated that there could be no compromise. A person must support one side or the other. He says, but he is on the side of freedom, and Douglas is on the side of slavery. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Lincoln recognized that this half-slave and half-free government could not continue long. He did not expect the Union to be broken, and he did not expect the house to fall. However, he expected that he would stop to be divided and that everything would become either one or the other. He argued that all this slavery agitation was tearing the Union apart, so the North should deal with it and let the South do its thing. Slavery, he calls it, is vital for the southern part of the United States.
In his words, he refers to the relations between the two races in the southern part, which constitute a vital part of its social organization. The most oppositional and hostile consider it a sin and consider themselves the most sacred duty to make every effort to destroy this conflict. On the contrary, the southern part considers relations such that they cannot be destroyed without exposing the two races to the most significant disaster.
According to Calhoun, some individuals will be exposed to poverty, desolation, and degradation. Accordingly, they feel obliged to protect him for all reasons of interest and security. Calhoun, in his speech, was an antagonist of Lincoln, who was striving to bring the people of America together (Powell, 2021). (Powell, 2021). On the other hand, Calhoun justified its division and was on the side of maintaining the status quo (Powell, 2021). (Powell, 2021). However, as later practice of the secession of the states during the civil war will demonstrate, Calhoun was wrong. It was not moral principles and traditions that made the states rebel or loyal to the republic. Lincoln was referring to the nation’s economy, military might, individual interests, and the outward chaos caused by a rift in the family. Thus, Calhoun was wrong in his ideas regarding the division of the United States.
References
Browning, J., & Silver, T. (2020). An Environmental History of the Civil War (Civil War America). The University of North Carolina Press.
Conlin, M. F. (2019). The Constitutional Origins of the American Civil War (Cambridge Historical Studies in American Law and Society). Cambridge University Press.
Foote, L., & Hess, E. J. (2021). The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War (Oxford Handbooks). Oxford University Press.
Powell, J. (2021). Losing the Thread: Cotton, Liverpool and the American Civil War. Liverpool University Press.