It was understood that the document was imperfect, as are all documents devised by men, and required occasional revision, but men who looked upon it as antiquated, flexible and or avoidable were themselves looked upon as fools.

As a Congressman  (1811-1817), President Monroe’s secretary of war (1817-1825), and vice president to John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) Calhoun was not in favor of states’ rights.  In fact he was a strong nationalist, wishing to amend the constitution in order to give more power to the central government.

With time, however, he grew to understand that pure nationalism spawned tyranny and he realized the importance of the constitution’s establishment of state sovereignty - the federal government acting only as their joint agent.  He came to believe that a state should be free to nullify any act passed by the federal government if the state deemed it an infraction of the compact between the states’ and central government and if the act was not ratified as an amendment by three-fourths of the states.  Why?  Because the constitution said so.

In his, DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT, he writes, “And hence, the powers vested in them [federal government] to prevent injustice and oppression on the part of others, will, if left unguarded, be by them converted into instruments to oppress the rest of the community.  That by which this is prevented, is what is meant by CONSTITUTION, . . .”

In his later years, when Calhoun had grown in wisdom and discarded his emotion based blind loyalty to and trust in the federal government, he came to understand that large, unregulated central government is prone to oppression of the very citizens who created it.  He did not discard his love for his country or his government.  He merely came to the realization that a government that did not oppress the people was more loveable than one that did, and he wanted to keep it that way.

He would never have considered abolishing the federal government.  Government, he understood, was a necessity to society, ordained by God to keep that society orderly. But, though commissioned by God, earthly government is ruled by men.  Human nature being what it is, it is necessary to set limits on government so that men do not abuse their God given authority.  Those limits are found in a constitution.

“…and, as the end for which society is ordained, would be defeated without government, so that for which government is ordained would, in a great measure, be defeated without constitution.”

First hand, John Calhoun had experienced the power that was readily attainable in a governing body.  He saw the undeniable and irresistible tendency to use power to abuse and oppress the citizens who created that governing body in order to acquire vast personal wealth.  Unlike the  majority of our representatives today, Calhoun’s acquired wisdom taught him that a slight abuse of power one day to enhance, just a little, one’s own position, would inevitably lead to other abuses in the future.  Eventually, all of these tiny infractions would become monumental wrong that would affect, adversely, the lives of children, children’s children and beyond.  The affect would be named tyranny.  He was shocked into the awareness of the importance of the document crafted by the founders of our nation - the United States Constitution.  He understood that it must be adhered to in order to combat the inevitable attacks on the sovereignty of the states.  The states being the peoples’ only defense against tyranny by big federal government.

“There is but one way in which this can possibly be done; and that is, by such an organism [constitution] as will furnish the ruled with the means of resisting successfully this tendency on the part of the rulers to oppression and abuse.  Power can only be resisted by power, - and tendency by tendency.  Those who exercise power and those subject to its exercise, - the rulers and the ruled, - stand in antagonistic relations to each other.  The same constitution of our nature which leads rulers to oppress the ruled, - regardless of the object for which government is ordained, - will, with equal strength, lead the ruled to resist, when possessed of the means of making peaceable and effective resistance.  Such an organism, then, as will furnish the means by which resistance may be systematically and peaceably made on the part of the ruled, to oppression and abuse of power on the part of the rulers, is the first and indispensable step towards forming a constitutional government.”

Two key phrases in Calhoun’s statement need be studied.  He said that it is, “…our nature which leads rulers to oppress the ruled, - regardless of the object for which government is ordained….”  And he says that this same nature will, “…lead the ruled to resist, when possessed of the means of making peaceable and effective resistance.”

This means that even though our nation was founded on personal freedom, the tendency of the rulers will nevertheless be toward oppression.  It’ll just take a little longer to get there than if it were born to oppression.  But, so long as the ruled have a means of peaceable and effective resistance (their constitution), they will use it to check inevitable subjugation.

I think many of us can see that we have run into a problem.  That being that we are quickly running out of that organism that affords us the means by which we can effectively put the brakes on tyranny.  The tendency of rulers to oppress regardless of the reason why a government is created has led our leaders to, ignorantly yet systematically  disassemble the one document that gives us recourse so that they can pursue their natural tendency.  There need not be any great conspiracy to do so.  It comes as naturally as breathing.  Surely all of us would be as guilty of it under circumstances that played to our weaknesses. Those of us aware of the wisdom of the constitution may suppress such tendencies with self-imposed restrictions.  Those of us unaware or unable to impose our own restrictions would need to depend on the firm hand of others.  Having these tendencies does not make us unusually bad.  It makes us human.  Wise men welcome such restrictions.  Foolish men find them a hindrance.  The foolish are usually career politicians who enter the arena in order to make their fortunes.

A common complaint heard over and over throughout our country is that little progress is being made by our government in permanently fixing the many problems that arise naturally from progress.  Calhoun addressed this complaint one hundred fifty years ago when he said, “For, without a constitution, - something to counteract the strong tendency of government to disorder and abuse, and to give stability to political institutions, - there can be little progress or permanent improvement.”

New innovations produce new ideas that produce new complexities that produce new dilemmas.  This is the natural order of things in an evolving society.  Big government, however, is not the answer.  Our founders knew that.  That’s why they created a document that effectively kept government small and out of the everyday business of the people.  They knew that new problems created by a progressive, free society were best solved by the people themselves.  We the people know that too.  The catch is that we are being hamstrung by impressive yet ignorant leaders intent on furthering their power and not our progression.  What are they ignorant of?  The fundamentals of human nature.  Our leaders are human.  Therefore, they are subject to the same fundamentals.  They are also ignorant of the indispensable instruction laid down in our constitution.  Their quest for power has diverted them from the quest for wisdom that would afford them understanding.

Calhoun experienced much before he came to this realization.  He came to it because he was wise, inquisitive and honest.  Let’s hope others in public office can do the same.  If they don’t it will indicate to us that these men are neither wise, nor inquisitive, nor honest.

Calhoun’s belief that a constitution is fundamentally necessary to a free society is evident.  He further explains, however, that a constitution without the right of suffrage is a useless document.  “So.”  You say,   “We have a constitution and the right to vote.  Why, then, is this discussion necessary?”  Bear with me for an explanation.

There is another important component that must be present if liberty is to prevail.  It’s not tangible like a written document or an “X” on a ballot.  Calhoun, explains it as there being,  “…two different modes in which the sense of the community may be taken;…”  One he calls the numerical, or absolute majority; the other the concurrent, or constitutional majority.

In the former mode there is a belief that the majority, being the greater number of the whole of society, is entitled to impose its beliefs on all of society.  The latter mode has the sense that, even though they are in a majority, they do not represent all of society.  Calhoun calls the latter the constitutional majority because this is the one that is, “…an essential element in every constitutional government,…”

He believed that if the party in power (in the majority) took the stand of the numerical majority, tyranny would prevail.  “For they who fall into these errors regard the restrictions which organism [constitution] imposes on the numerical majority as restrictions on the will of the people, and, therefore, as not only useless, but wrongful and mischievous.  And hence they endeavor to destroy organism [constitution], under the delusive hope of making government more democratic. …Being the party in possession of the government, they will,…be in favor of the powers granted by the constitution, and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them.  As the major and dominant party, they will have no need of these restrictions for their protection.  The ballot-box, of itself, would be ample protection to them.  Needing no other, they would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints; - and endeavor to elude them, with the view of increasing their power and influence.”

There’s a lot of that going around.  In other words, when one party is in the majority long enough, and it has the sense of the numerical, or absolute majority, it will pervert the constitution to fit its needs.  “The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution, either by the undermining process of construction, - where its meaning would admit of possible doubt, - or by substituting in practice what is called party-usage, in place of its provisions; - or, finally, when no other contrivance would subserve the purpose, by openly and boldly setting them aside.  By the one or the other, the restrictions would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.”

What John Calhoun is trying to convey is the very real possibility of absolute government if the people, for which and by which the government was conceived, do not take an active part in their governing.

There are those who feel that our government is so far on its way to tyranny that force may be the only way to regain our sovereignty.  Maybe so, but I don’t believe it.  Our constitution is still pretty much in tact.  Those parts which have been ignored or circumvented can be restored to afford us peaceable means of reigning in out-of-control government.  To do it we must take action.  Hound your representatives!

Don’t trust in force.  Forcibly regaining our government probably won’t bring us any bed of roses.  I’ll let Calhoun explain and finish this. “Even when the oppression of the government comes to be too great to be borne, and force is resorted to in order to overthrow it, the result is rarely ever followed by the establishment of liberty.  The force sufficient to overthrow an oppressive government is usually sufficient to establish one equally, or more, oppressive in its place.  And hence, in no governments, except those that rest on the principle of the concurrent or constitutional majority, can the people guard their liberty against power; and hence, also, when lost, the great difficulty and uncertainty of regaining it by force.” (more…)