“Improper meddling,” such as the barring of any anti-slave commentary, publications, or public speech so that, as he said, the south could hold its slaves “in peace?”
‘“Improper meddling,” such as the barring of any anti-slave commentary, publications, or public speech so that, as he said, the south could hold its slaves “in peace?”’
You do something very curious here, with this quote from Calhoun about “improper meddling”.
You characterize it as having to do with Calhoun arguing for banning free speech in order to shut down discussions of slavery.
Well I looked up the quote in its context; Liberty Fund offers Calhoun’s “South Carolina Exposition” in PDF here:
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/683/0007_Bk.pdf
and the “improper meddling” quote is to be found on page 335.
So, is the topic of page 335 about slavery and banning its public discussion?
No, not in the slightest. It is part of a lengthy discussion about the unfairness of the tariff to agricultural States. There is no mention of slavery at all:
“Industry cannot be forced out of its natural channel without loss; and this, with the injustice, constitutes the objection to the improper meddling of the Government with the private pursuits of individuals, who must understand their own interest better than the Government. The exact loss from such intermeddling, it may be difficult to ascertain, but it is not, therefore, the less certain. The committee will not undertake to estimate the millions, which are annually lost to our country, under the existing system; but some idea may be formed of its magnitude, by stating that it is at least equal to the difference between the profits of our manufacturers, and the duties imposed for their protection, where these are not prohibitory. The lower the profit, and the higher the duty (if not, as stated, prohibitory) - the greater the loss.”
Had I not bothered to look up this quote I likely would have taken your characterization at face value. This wouldn’t have been a wise course, because it’s clear that you misrepresented Calhoun’s writing, I suppose to ‘win’ an internet debate. An unfortunate policy for a professional historian; I would think that you would hold yourself to a higher standard even on an amateur forum like this one.