Grove argumes that Calhoun's political theory can be meaningfully parsed to distinguish between its philosphical and constitutional theories from his positions on race and slavery:
Calhoun was an unrepentant slaveholder, and he is often described as a figure who fundamentally changed public attitudes by developing a new theory of slavery. The first of these descriptions is undoubtedly true. The second is mostly false. ...The book to which Grove refers there is John C. Calhoun’s Theory of Republicanism (2016), where he argues the case at greater length.
Calhoun’s rhetoric reflected ideas that, by the 1830s, had become commonplace in the South: He claimed that slavery was humane and improved the condition of the slave; he contrasted it favorably with the excess of Northern and European free labor; he claimed the plantation was a community which constructively blended the interests of the slave and master alike; but he never expanded much on these ideas. Such arguments rarely came up unprompted and there is little evidence of his having exerted significant intellectual effort in developing anything resembling a theory of slavery—economic or pseudo-scientific. It is not mentioned at all in the Disquisition, and only comes up briefly in the Discourse and there only as an explanation for the cause of recent tensions between the states. The infamous “positive good” phrase - which ... Calhoun immediately insisted was misinterpreted as an abstract label - was nestled in his remarks amongst all the common, paternalistic bromides which pervaded the South.
Calhoun’s views on race and slavery were unquestionably odious. But they were not terribly new or innovative. And as I explore in detail in my book, not only are they severable from his political and constitutional theory, several of them actually stand in stark contrast to the more developed, intellectually-rigorous arguments about constitutional liberty found in his theory. The most obvious of these is the contradiction between chattel slavery and the presumption that unchecked power over others can never be reliably benevolent.
Calhoun was a major political figure, a pivotal one in Amrican history, actually. And unfortunately. His theories have also been influential on generations of American conservatives. So I wouldn't want to just dismiss them as frivolous.
But this argument of Grove's, for instance, really strikes me as untenable: "It is essential to treat Calhoun’s rejection of abolitionism separately from his moral defense of Southern slavery." This has a close kinship to the Lost Cause argument that the Civil War occurred over the abstract issues of States Rights, and not because of slavery. Even though the only State Rights issue the seceeding states were so concerned about that the mounted a treasonous rebellion, Grove argues that Calhoun's rejection of the movement to abolish slavery had nothing to do with defending the slavery they wanted to abolish.
Let's just say it's a strained argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment