Of course Calhoun wanted to protect the rights of his own group. It would be strange if he didn't.
But other minority groups that wanted protection for their own liberty would have to fight for it in the teeth of Calhoun's opposition.
The "concurrent majority" wasn't going to protect those who were already enslaved, and it would work to keep them enslaved.
You’re right - adding the (sic) is petty and annoying. I know, I’ve done it myself on occasion ;-). And you’re also correct in your original spelling. It was PeaRidge who altered your quote and then marked it.
PeaRidge, you owe X an apology.
I rechecked my posting and I was in error on spelling.
My apology sir.
We were addressing Calhoun's powerful 1848 speech that called for legislative action underpinned by the Constitution and the concept of liberty instead of the misinterpreted notions of egalitarianism.
Remember Calhoun's words: ....(The issue) Has the northern States the power which they claim, to exclude the southern from emigrating freely, with their property, into Territories belonging to the United States, and to monopolize them for their exclusive benefit?....
If he (historians studying the failure of the Constitution) should possess a philosophical turn of mind, and be disposed to look at more remote and recondite causes, he will trace it to a proposition which originated in a hypothetical truism, but which, as now expressed and now understood, is the most false and dangerous of all political error.
The proposition to which I allude has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic, and is repeated daily, from tongue to tongue, as an established and incontrovertible truth; it is, that “all men are born free and equal.” I am not afraid to attack error, however deeply it may be intrenched, or however widely extended, whenever it becomes my duty to do so, as I believe it to be on this subject and occasion.