[BroJoeK]

LS: " “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?” "

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:

From Wiki

"John Caldwell Calhoun (pronounced /kælˈhuːn/; March 18, 1782 – March 31, 1850) was a leading politician and political theorist from South Carolina during the first half of the 19th century.
Calhoun eloquently spoke out on every issue of his day, but often changed positions.

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:

• By 1815 tariffs were reduced from 10% to 6.5% and revenues rose from $9 million to $16 million = a growth rate of 68% over five years.

• After 1815 tariffs rose steadily to 35% in 1830 and the growth in Federal receipts was reduced by 80% -- from 68% over five years to 14%.

• In 1835 tariffs were again reduced, to 14% and Federal receipts jumped again, by 44%.

• By 1835 tariffs were back up to 24% and revenues were still 15% below 1825 levels.

• Tariffs then fell steadily, to 15% by 1860, while Federal receipts nearly tripled over 1840 levels.

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.

[PeaRidge]

Your posting of the tariff tables from Wiki (see your post 164) is data copied from “The Historical Statistics of the United States.”

It is accurate but your assertions are incorrect.

Your error was in quoting what you believed to be tariff income from column 3 which is clearly marked Federal Receipts.

Column 3 or total federal receipts from that year, was the sum total of tariff collections, income from the sale of public lands, and other sources of income for the government.

The tariff revenue by year is in column 1, and is, as you can see, less than the total revenue.

Unfortunately that makes all of your assertions and conclusions invalid.