That (sic) thing is annoying when anybody does it, but you do it when I spelled those words correctly. What is wrong with you? Is English not your native language? Are you a moron? Or are you just trying to irritate people.
Read Calhoun's whole speech. He explicitly repudiates the idea that all people are born free and with equal civil rights, attacking Jefferson and the Northwest Ordinance. It's hard to find a political actor of his era who was less in tune with the thinking of the Founders than Calhoun was.
... government has no right to control individual liberty beyond what is necessary to the safety and well-being of society.
That is vague enough to mean anything, everything, and nothing. Every tyrant claims restrictions on liberty are justified to maintain public safety and the "well-being of society" (phrases vague enough to cover anything). Heck, every government believes what it does is justified on those grounds, even when it is oppressive.
For Calhoun, slavery and restrictions on the slave population were more than justified by the demands of public safety and well-being. Forms of slavery weren't objectionable to him so long as he numbered among the free, rather than the enslaved.
That (sic) thing is annoying when anybody does it, but you do it when I spelled those words correctly. What is wrong with you? Is English not your native language? Are you a moron? Or are you just trying to irritate people.
You either cut and pasted without looking or you misspelled two words on your own. You might want to see if you are right before you start your insults.
Let's save the time of having to refer back to your post....here is your quote.....“white male sufferage(sic)” and the “Jacksonian erea (sic)”, (my sic added).
Look carefully now.
But to the issue of Calhoun's work, I have both read and studied that speech, which I do think most clearly and succinctly expresses his dissatisfaction with the political climate of the late 1840s.
But it is indeed you that misunderstands his writings. He says what you say to prove his argument by simple comparison--which seemed to stump you. Only bias or superficial thinking would cause you to arrive at a conclusion other than his.
He, AND I MIGHT ADD, VERY CLEARLY, argues the problem of protecting the rights of a minority against a persistent majority, (and in the case at hand it was the Northern and Western politicians attempting to legislate against the rights of the South) and how the problem might be solved constitutionally.
It is very clear that at that time special interests were combining to exceed the constitutional limits on powers originally intended by the Founders, while seeking benefits for themselves, and operating to infringe the rights of others.
But, since you are preoccupied with issues other than this message, I know you will want to argue this from now on. So, go ahead.