DISQUS

Robert S. Porter · 1 year ago

I'm not debating your point–you're absolutely correct. It is completely and totally morally backwards. I'm not a big fan of central banking but it has absolutely nothing on slavery.

However, your second "1000 words" can be debated. I recently heard a very interesting talk by a historian of the Atlantic World and the slave trade (especially along the Gold Coast), Ty M. Reese, who argued that tight-packing, as the cross section above attempts to show is shrouded in mythology and a product of abolitionist propaganda. This of course is not an attempt to minimize slavery whatsoever. Rather, it is to say that even issues such as this can be mired in errors that undermine ones point.

Micha Ghertner · 1 year ago

We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both.

And from Calhoun's Disquisition on Government,

Liberty when forced upon a people unfit for it, would instead of a blessing, be a curse; as it would in its reaction, lead directly to Anarchy,- the greatest of all curses. No people indeed, can long enjoy more liberty than that which their situation and advanced intelligence and morals fairly entitle them.

One of the greatest libertarian philosophers of his time, indeed, Mr. DiLorenzo.

Even putting aside the elephant of slavery, it's still absurd for DiLorenzo and other Rockwellites (Rockwellians?) to consider Calhoun a champion of liberty. Calhoun was a politician first and foremost, desperate to become President, and was willing to engage in all manner of logical inconsistencies to get there. Calhoun only stuck to principle when the principle supported his side of the issue, which in turn supported his rise to power. Otherwise, he was a political pragmatist, willing to violate any principle if doing so was in his self-interest.

Consider:

Far from being a consistent advocate of free trade, "the first protective tariff in American history (1816) was introduced by Calhoun." Only when tariffs hurt the interests of the slave-labor economy of the South did Calhoun suddenly become an advocate of free trade.

Also, we learn from the Mises Institute's own archives,

The pragmatic requirements on the part of Calhoun to defend slavery called upon him to advocate the suppression of abolitionist literature through the U.S. Mails, as well as the refusal of congress to receive abolitionist petitions, even though the Constitution stipulates that the people have a right to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Also from the same article, and in direct opposition to DiLorenzo's claim that Calhoun was a consistent, principled defender of "state's rights",

When Calhoun sought to nullify laws detrimental to his state, he used a state's rights doctrine to justify it, but when Northern States applied the same kind of nullification doctrine to the return of fugitive slaves, he invoked the Constitution in much the same manner as those advocating a high tariff interpreted the Constitution to allow them to do so.

William · 1 year ago

Will - Before issuing a generalized condemnation of the entire volume of Calhoun's political philosophy for the fault of its particulars, it might be wise for you to heed the advice of Dr. Niskanen. As with many who have taken this road before, you have missed a forest of truly original constitutional insight for the tree of slavery. You are in the fortunate position of having familiar relations with Cato's better minds though. There is much that they could teach you:

"The doctrines of nullification and interposition have been criticized or dismissed by later political theorists, primarily because they were used to defend slavery and the continued denial of civil rights to blacks. Americans have an unfortunate habit, however, of evaluating a legal concept by the motivations of its advocates. Most contemporary Americans probably regard the Alien and Sedition laws, discriminatory tariffs, and slavery as repugnant.
The doctrine of nullification, however, should not be evaluated by the fact that it was first used to attack bad law and later used to defend other bad law, but rather whether it would, in general, promote law that reflects the broad consensus of the population." - William A. Niskanen, "On the Constitution of a Compound Republic." Constitutional Political Economy, 10, 167–175 (1999).

William · 1 year ago

Or, if you prefer, to quote the late Peter Aranson, noted libertarian economist and frequent Cato contributer:

"It seems reasonable to believe, in retrospect, that no government could have withstood the challenges of Calhoun's age, without the inevitable catastrophe of war. But the cost of that catastrophe, to the present day, has been the substitution of representation for governance, of rent-provision for statesmanship, and of expropriation for welfare-regarding laws. We may, indeed must, deny Calhoun's legacy of defending the right to own slaves, but we deny at our peril his understanding of the centrality of the process of consent."

Micha Ghertner · 1 year ago

William,

I'm more than willing to deny Calhoun's "understanding of the centrality of the process of consent." Clearly, a man who believes slavery to be a positive good does not understand the centrality of the process of consent.

William · 1 year ago

Well Micha, then it is evident that you have missed the points of Aranson and Niskanen entirely.

The validity of Calhoun's political theory is not altered by attacks on his person - even when those attacks are deserved for other reasons. That is called argumentum ad hominem. Look it up if you don't understand it, as appears to be the case.

Micha Ghertner · 1 year ago

I am not attacking his person; I am attacking his political theory. His political theory does not in any reasonable sense give centrality to the process of consent, and glaringly so.

That's not to say that we might nevertheless be able to selectively extract parts of his writings that have some value if completely detached from other parts of his writings. But his "political theory," if taken as an organic whole, is without value.

William · 1 year ago

Micha - If you were attacking his political theory, you would be stating the problems that you perceive with nullification and concurrent majoritarian federalism. You would then offer arguments to support your rejection of said theories and refute any responses as appropriate.

Yet in reading your posts here, I see no attempt at any of that.

I see nothing even remotely resembling a refutation of the basic tenets his political theory. In fact, I see precious little that even attests to your familiarity with the basic tenets of his political theory.

In its place you only argue that Calhoun supported slavery, therefore his political theory must be wrong.

But that is not an argument. That is a non-sequitur.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Rather it only attacks Calhoun, the person, ad hominem for supporting slavery. Thus your argument fails you on every logical assessment.