He knew exactly what he was doing. He was a Hamiltonian, at heart; and they are quick to avenge, and even shed blood, if they don't get their patronage. This is Calhoun on an attempt by the protectionists to repeal the 1833 tariff compromise of the 1828 tariff of abominations:
"The Senator from New-York must excuse me. I feel it my duty to speak plainly, where the interest of my constituents and the whole country is so deeply concerned. I must tell him I lack confidence in him. I see in his bill a design, under the show of reduction, to revive the tariff controversy, by which he and his party have so much profited at the expense of the country. It is an artful and bold stroke of party policy, calculated to distract and divide the opposition, and place almost unlimited control over the capital and labor of the country in the hands of those in power. It affords the means of appealing to the hopes and fears of every section and interest, while the distraction and division which must follow, would prevent the possibility of united efforts to arrest the abuses and encroachments of power. Experience has taught us to understand the game, and to be on our guard against those who are playing it. We cannot close our eyes to the fact, that the party which is now so intent to disturb the compromise, is the very party that was the author of the tariff of 1828, and which, after using every effort to render it permanent, was ready to shed our blood rather than surrender the act. Their devotion to a measure, of which they are the authors, and to which they owe their present elevation, prepared us to expect that deep hostility to that act which gave their favorite a mortal blow, and opened the way for an united, and we trust, ere long, a successful resistance to power acquired by deception, and retained by delusion and corruption. The entire South may well apply to the Senator, as the author of the tariff of 1828, the reply which a distinguished Senator (Mr. Tazewell of Virginia) gave, after its passage, to one who now occupies a higher station than he then did, and who undertook to explain to him his vote on the occasion; "Sir, you have deceived me once that was your fault; but if you deceive me again, the fault will be mine." Alas for Virginia! that once proud and patriotic State! She has dismissed her honest and enlightened son, who served her with so much fidelity, and has elevated to the highest office him who betrayed her and trampled her interest in the dust."
[On the Bill introduced by Mr. Wright, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, to repeal and reduce certain Duties therein mentioned, delivered in the Senate, February 23d, 1837, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III: Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, pp.58-59]
********************
>>jeffersondem wrote: "And today - on this site - students of Lincoln will tell you right quick: "There is no natural right of independence!" By this they mean no right for the colonies and no right for the southern states. And perhaps no right for anyone, anywhere in the world to seek independence. Of course, Lincoln and Lincolnites reject the plain meaning of the original United States Constitution as well."
Perhaps they are still blinded by the "Great Rhetorician." This is Mencken on the clever deception in the Gettysburg Address:
"The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.
"But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege."
[Abraham Lincoln as one of Five Men at Random, in H. L. Mencken, "Prejudices - Third Series." Alfred A. Knopf, 1922, pp.174-175]
********************
>>jeffersondem wrote: "That is where we stand today but thankfully we have the one million page Federal Registry to regulate our conduct. Or is it two million pages now that the size of scaffold toe board gaps is a federal matter?"
Don't forget the Hallowed Halls of the "legal" system that are bursting at the seams with Case Law. . . 🙂
Mr. Kalamata
"But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege."
Excellent. I was not previously familiar with this quote, but I had long ago noted the dichotomy of Lincoln talking about "government of the people" and invoking the Declaration of Independence while commemorating a battle to stop people from having Independence and a government of the people.
Thanks for making me aware of it. H.L. Mencken had a talent for writing things in a way that clarifies.