[PeaRidge]

You can qualify and insert (red herring) language regarding “white male sufferage(sic)” and the “Jacksonian erea (sic)”, but that in no way negates the facts that all of that existed centuries before, and if you want to limit the concept, in the colonies and states scores of years earlier than the ratification of the Constitution.

But why the effort since the relevancy is questionable?

Then you insert your paragraph on what you think Calhoun's beliefs were (you channeling him here?) and try to make your definition the foundation of his 1848 speech, is of course “strange, bizarre” because your interpretations have nothing to do with what he was saying.

I can only suggest that you read it again, because it is the most cogent description of the pending failure of the Constitutional foundations in 1848.

You say: “...in no way is Calhoun a friend of human rights or liberty as most of us understand it today.”

Do you really have any idea how wrong you are?

Of course you don't.

Here again for you to try to understand:

“...government has no right to control individual liberty beyond what is necessary to the safety and well-being of society. Such is the boundary which separates the power of government and the liberty of the citizen or subject in the political state, which, as I have shown, is that natural state of man — the only one in which his race can exist, and the one in which he is born, lives, and dies.”

I think the statement that “few people today understand the relationship of the government to the people as proposed and codified by our forefathers” is quite clear here for all to see.

[x]

You can qualify and insert (red herring) language regarding “white male sufferage(sic)” and the “Jacksonian erea (sic)”, but that in no way negates the facts that all of that existed centuries before, and if you want to limit the concept, in the colonies and states scores of years earlier than the ratification of the Constitution. But why the effort since the relevancy is questionable?

That (sic) thing is annoying when anybody does it, but you do it when I spelled those words correctly. What is wrong with you? Is English not your native language? Are you a moron? Or are you just trying to irritate people.

Read Calhoun's whole speech. He explicitly repudiates the idea that all people are born free and with equal civil rights, attacking Jefferson and the Northwest Ordinance. It's hard to find a political actor of his era who was less in tune with the thinking of the Founders than Calhoun was.

... government has no right to control individual liberty beyond what is necessary to the safety and well-being of society.

That is vague enough to mean anything, everything, and nothing. Every tyrant claims restrictions on liberty are justified to maintain public safety and the "well-being of society" (phrases vague enough to cover anything). Heck, every government believes what it does is justified on those grounds, even when it is oppressive.

For Calhoun, slavery and restrictions on the slave population were more than justified by the demands of public safety and well-being. Forms of slavery weren't objectionable to him so long as he numbered among the free, rather than the enslaved.