He was discussing the political upheaval if his fellow representatives voted on issues while ignoring the guarantees of the constitution.
Your argument rests on the premise of stating that liberty was not universal in the states or territories, and therefore Calhoun's warnings were without merit.
He was aware, as most of the time, that inconsistencies existed and should be addressed. But he was stating that arguments on territorial limitations should not be made at the expense of liberty.
He was attempting to save the union with his speech. Unfortunately his peers would not listen.
In essence -- "Give me my way on everything and it will save the union."
Gosh, I wonder why they didn't listen.
But why are you changing the subject?
You claimed Calhoun was a champion of liberty.
I asked you:
Is denying a whole class of adults basic civil and human rights based on something other than their own wrongdoing something that advances the cause of liberty?
And you still haven't answered my question.
Are you going to blather on, forever changing the subject or are you going to answer the question?
If you deny one group of people all rights and freedoms, are you a champion of liberty?