‘“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.
John C. Calhoun to Percy Walker, October 23, 1847, in Robert L. Meriwether, et.al., ed., The Papers of John C. Calhoun, 25 vols. (Columbia: USC Press, 1959), 24:617. During the debate over the Wilmot Proviso, Calhoun said "I go farther [than merely insisting on national protection of slave property] and hold that if we have a right to hold our slaves, we have the right to hold them in peace and quiet and that the toleration in the non-slaveholding States of the establishment of societies and presses, and the delivery of lectures, with the express intention of calling into question our right to our slaves [and enticing runaways and abolition are] not only a violation of [my interjection here: AHEM!] international laws but also the Federal compact."
Now, for a moment, just consider this breath-taking order of events---that the great Calhoun, defender of the Constitution, Neo-Confederates would have him be, appeals FIRST to international law, then to the "federal compact"!!! Second, there is no wiggle room in this statement. Calhoun makes it absolutely and totally clear that not only is slavery to be protected in its practice, but it must be shielded from any and all public criticism or utterance, including newspapers and speeches. Here is that great defender of "liberty," which of course we really know means the liberty of a white man to hold a black man as property, insisting that to protect slavery requires enslaving whites to his speech codes. Sounds like communism and liberalism to me.
Moreover, if you would but substitute "homosexual marriage" for "slavery," I think you would see clearly what Calhoun had in mind: the public ban on any criticism of an institution that some (many? most?) find utterly immoral and deplorable.
Finally, while I don't expect you to take my word for anything, I'd advise that you stop running to Wikipedia or online Liberty Fund (which I have spoken to and written for many times) sources but do some real historical research. If you had bothered to consult any of the sources sources I've posted here throughout this debate---which apparently few have done (and I'll refresh your memories: Loewenberg's "Freedom's Despots," my own "Brothers in Chains" article, James Huston's "Calculating the Value of the Union,") you'd find a non-Hofstadterian interpretation of Calhoun and Fitzhugh that is internally consistent.
Pelham: "It is part of a lengthy discussion about the unfairness of the tariff to agricultural States.
There is no mention of slavery at all:"
donmeaker (from post #160): "The tariff amounts paid by the south were not exorbitant."
In fact, Calhoun's views, especially regarding slavery are well known.
"Improper meddling" would be Calhoun's response to any Federal actions against slavery.
For those not 100% familiar with Calhoun, here are the basics:
Calhoun began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs.
After 1840 he switched to states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade.
He is best known for his intense and original defense of slavery as something positive, for his inventing the theory of minority rights in a democracy, and for pointing the South toward secession from the Union.
Devoted to the principle of liberty (though not for slaves) and fearful of corruption, Calhoun built his reputation as a political theorist by his redefinition of republicanism to include approval of slavery and minority rights—with the white South the minority in question.
To protect minority rights against majority rule he called for a "concurrent majority" whereby the minority could sometimes block offensive proposals.
Increasingly distrustful of democracy, he minimized the role of the Second Party System in South Carolina.
Calhoun's defense of slavery became defunct, but his concept of concurrent majority, whereby a minority has the right to object to or even veto hostile legislation directed against it, has been incorporated into the American value system.[1]
Calhoun asserted that Southern whites, outnumbered in the United States by voters of the more densely-populated Northern states were one such "minority" deserving special protection in the legislature."
On Tariffs:
The key points to remember are that tariff's were the Federal government's major income source, and rates went up and down over the years.
The following comes from this link:
For examples:
So the take-away here is that a lot of political philosophising over the "injustice" of high tariffs did not correspond to the actual tariffs then in effect.