He was born in 1782 and died in 1852. On March 7, in 1850 he gave his in support to the compromise law of 1850. Based on his speech, he needed federal officials to return the concept of slaves. From his opinion, there was a need of South and North been in slavery in that their bonds were to create biblical perceptive which states that, “Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back.” (Titus 2:9). The result would bring liberty thus making the country to be in peace with one other (Webster, 1850).
John Calhoun was a political theorist and politician of South Carolina in 19th century. He built his reputation in redefining republicanism that included approval of slavery along with minority rights. Although he wrote the speech, he never read it since he was too ill to deliver it. His speech was against the bill of clay’s bill, in which he believed that the issue of slavery would affect the country welfare thus leading to disunion. From his opinion, the union would only be acquired by having accurate knowledge and the cause by which union is endangered. According to him, the immediate cause of all states within southern section was commenced with slavery questions, which increased rapidly within any state. The people in south were divided on the effect political ties that united them in respective parties. In his speech, he said that when constitution was ratified, among the thirteen states, twelve of them were slave states, which he viewed as having no equilibrium. On the contrary, there was no single territory in progress.
- Missouri Compromise research papers on the legislative response to disagreements between pro-slavery and anti-slavery sections in the United States.
To modern eyes, the most stunning and disturbing constitutional compromise by the delegates was over the issue of slavery. Some delegates considered slavery an evil institution and of Virginia even suggested that the trans-Atlantic slave trade be made illegal by the new national rules. Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia where slavery was expanding rapidly in the late-18th century angrily opposed this limitation. If any limitations to slavery were proposed in the national framework, then they would leave the convention and oppose its proposed new plan for a stronger central government. Their fierce opposition allowed no room for compromise and as a result the issue of slavery was treated as a narrowly political, rather than a moral, question.
The delegates agreed that a strengthened union of the states was more important than the Revolutionary ideal of equality. This was a pragmatic, as well as a tragic, constitutional compromise, since it may have been possible (as suggested by George Mason's comments) for the slave state of Virginia to accept some limitations on slavery at this point.
Other major issues still needed to be resolved, however, and, once again, compromise was required on all sides. One of the major issues concerned elections themselves. Who would be allowed to vote? The different state constitutions had created different rules about how much property was required for white men to vote. The delegates needed to figure out a solution that could satisfy people with many different ideas about who could have the franchise (that is, who could be a voter).
By coming up with a mixed solution that balanced state sovereignty and popular sovereignty tied to actual population, the Constitution was forged through what is known as the . In many respects this compromise reflected a victory for small states, but compared with their dominance in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation it is clear that negotiation produced something that both small and large states wanted.
That was his basic credo and one that he stuck to consistently during his long period of service to the public—not public service in the sense of government service. Whatever the pressure, he stuck to his guns, refusing to compromise his principles. That was why he was so effective in keeping alive, in the early days, and then spreading the basic idea that human freedom required private property, free competition, and severely limited government.
The Compromise of 1850 was a complicated package of five bills, which was passed in 1850 defusing a four-year confrontation between slave states of the south together with Free states of the north that arose in Mexican American War in 1846-1848 and drafted by Whig Henry. It became possible after sudden death of President Zachary Taylor who tried to implement northern policy of eliminating slavery from Southwest. Different politicians committed themselves in speeches to their view finality on compromise section issues.
The proposed constitution actually strengthened the power of slave states in several important respects. Through the "," for example, governments of free states were required to help recapture runaway slaves who had escaped their masters' states. Equally disturbing was the "" established for determining representation in the lower house of the legislature. Slave states wanted to have additional political power based on the number of human beings that they held as slaves. Delegates from free states wouldn't allow such a blatant manipulation of political principles, but the inhumane compromise that resulted meant counting enslaved persons as three-fifths of a free person for the sake of calculating the number of people a state could elect to the House of Representatives.
After hot summer months of difficult debate in Philadelphia from May to September 1787, the delegates had fashioned new rules for a stronger central government that extended national power well beyond the scope of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution created a national legislature that could pass the supreme law of the land, could raise taxes, and with greater control over commerce. The proposed rules also would restrict state actions, especially in regard to passing . At the end of the long process of creating the new plan, thirty-eight of the remaining forty-one delegates showed their support by signing the proposed Constitution. This small group of national superstars had created a major new framework through hard work and compromise.
Seward speech was called “Freedom in new territories”. The freshman spent a month preparing his statement in realizing that it could be taken as North respond to Calhoun. The speech hastened on the principle that, if congress was to exclude slavery from any part of new domain, then it was just to set off a portion of domain which would be regarded to free from slavery. From his speech, he stated that equality of state are proved equal if all men are treated equally by use of law of nation as well as of nature. The constitution never expressed anything on slavery in that it only consisted of two false impressions to slaves. These included ratio representation of taxation and provision linked to fugitives from labor. In these two cases, it tends to mention slaves but less on an individual welfare (Seward, 1853).