Calhoun Conservatism Raises Its Ugly Head

One of the people I spent the most time discussing in my book on the history of the American political debate, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came To Be, was a man named John C. Calhoun. I went so far as to call him the founder of modern conservatism, and the events of this year, including Joe Wilson's offensive outburst on the floor of Congress, Wednesday night, have added strong evidence to my argument.

Although discussions about the relative power of the states and the federal government had been around since the days of the Articles of Confederation in the 1780s, Calhoun was the South Carolina politician who fused a particularly extreme view of states' rights with a patriarchal and violent conservatism. Calhoun argued that states could come and go into and out of the Union, whenever they wanted to; that they could secede from the Union at any time and for any reason; and that even if they stayed in the Union they could nullify any law they wanted, again at any time and for any reason.

He was also violently opposed to the idea of democracy itself, say that they growing population of the North had no power whatsoever over slavery or any other thing the southern states chose to do, and in fact believed that the Bill or Rights only applied to what the federal government couldn't do--that the states were free to eliminate freedom of speech and religion and other civil liberties. (In fact, most southern states had done exactly that by the time of the Civil War.)

Calhoun was ready to start a Civil War in 1832, when he and Andrew Jackson disagreed over a policy that would hurt Calhoun's beloved plantation economy. He resigned as Jackson's vice president, and encouraged the state to secede and raise an army right then and there. It was a protégé of Calhoun who beat abolitionist Charles Sumner almost to death with a cane on the floor of the Senate in 1856, and protégés of Calhoun who led South Carolina to be the first state to secede from the Union in 1861 after Lincoln's election, and be the first state to fire on Union soldiers at Ft. Sumter.

Calhoun's states' rights theories were used to justify Jim Crow in the South and oppose integration after the Civil War all the way into the 1960s. Today, we are seeing Calhoun Conservatism spreading throughout the Republican party and the right wing movement. Joe Wilson's thuggishness on Wednesday night and the conservative movement's embrace of his action yesterday are just the latest examples. Some highlights from the last year:

• John McCain picks a vice presidential candidate whose husband was a seven-year member of a far right secessionist party with ties to the racist, neo-confederacy movement. Palin had gone to at least one of the party's conventions herself, and had done a warm welcoming video for their most recent convention, telling them she shared their values.

• Texas Governor Rick Perry suggested that Texas might have to consider seceding from the United States.

• One of the congressional sponsors of a right wing rally on the Capitol steps, the "9/12 movement," which will be attended by Wilson and several other Republican members of Congress, is an organization advocating secession and the violent overthrow the United States. See this remarkable clip of Rachel Maddow talking about this group:

• Just yesterday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a likely Republican presidential candidate, said he would consider asserting "state sovereignty" to keep Minnesota from participating in a health reform passed by Congress. (State sovereignty is what Calhoun used to call the right for state to nullify and generally ignore Federal laws.)

Maybe you thought the victory of the Union at Appomattox settled these kinds of issues for good. Or the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Or the defeat of Jim Crow in the South in the 1960s. Not so much. Conservative Republicans, birthers, militiamen toting their assault weapons to town halls, Congressmen screaming insults at the top their lungs during a Presidential speech--they are united in wanting to refight the battles of the Civil War all over again, perhaps literally. These people are extremist to the core, and progressives have had to defeat their crazy political theories again and again in American history. But, hey, I guess we can be thankful for some things--at least Joe Wilson didn't try to cane anybody Wednesday night.

Comments

[SewaneeLeftist]

Very good article, very good appearance on Rachel Maddow (and column after that). As someone who grew up in the South and was tired by first grade of replaying the Civil War (and that was in a illegally-­but-someho­w-still-al­lowed-segr­egated public school system where the war NEEDED to be replayed), it still astounds me the thousands of lessons Americans have NOT learned from our history. All we need to hear about the supposed right to revolution Lincoln answered in his First Inaugural Address. We definitely should have learned the lessons of the Rutherford B. Hayes election (well, the Supreme Court ideologues should have), and on and on. Thanks for some context on this extremely dangerous, possibly deadly strain of anti-American plague.

[LMPE]

Let the right wing secede. They can have their own country, Bush can be president for life, they can go for eternity with health care only for the wealthiest 1%, and have institutionalized racism.

[johnashman]

No, we'd have institutionalize individualism. But, sure, let's do it! Let the states vote whether they want to be blue or red. Then we'll see who has the best economic development.

[Plebean]

"Let the states vote whether they want to be blue or red."

So what happens if you live in a state that decides to be blue? Move?

I don't think conservatives would except anything short of victory, you would side with violents to ensure it.

[MeddlingMonk]

We've already seen it. Prior to the Civil War, one of the major areas of controversy for Southern far-right nihilists was the issue of the use of federal funds for 'internal improvements' (turnpikes, canals, railroads). The Southern position was entirely rejectionist. As a result, there were far fewer miles of advanced infrastructure in the South by the start of the Civil War than in the North (to the extent that Union soldiers were able to ride trains down through the border states and then had to walk when they reached Confederate territory because the tracks just stopped). Also, the Industrial Revolution had virtually no impact on the South as all capital was tied up in land and slaves.

[jakiew]

i want to know if you will refuse your social sec. and medicare . or fire trucks or police that come to your aid. or if you would demand clean water and sewer from your govt. or stay home and die if you did not have thousands of dollars pay a hosp. or ins. comp to save you.

[SpaghettyIrish]

As long as the humans get to keep the nukes, not the ratwingers.

[NoahVail]

Texas would be the Slovakia of Europe, the Kazikstan of Russia, or the Pete Best of the Beatles. They could join OPEC and we could fight with them over Oklahoma.

[Greg285]

Despite what these people think, the ‘South Shall Ne ver Rise Again’! At some point the intelligent Americans in this Country are going to say to these children, enough is enough, now go back to your room and be quiet! Until then, we all are going to have to be subjected to their ignorance and stupidity….

[alexa07]

I was impressed with your comments last night on Rachel's show. Hope to see again.

[dcrinaz]

Mr. Lux: I am very glad that some Americans are beginning to look at what I consider to be America's cancerous brain tumor: racist, extreme right-wing conservatism: or, I'm a white northern European protestant and because of that I am chosen by God, am better than you and the world owes me a living and complete obedience. Your research and writings are bringing to light the deep roots this mythology has in the United States and how powerfully it is believed. Your focus on Calhoun is enlightening, though I do believe we can see Calhoun as the evil fruit of a belief system that came early from England, and is perhaps rooted in certain beliefs found in Germanic cultures. One has to look at the concept of Anglo (or British) Israelism, which started in England but came to the American colonies with and which taught that Anglo Saxon protestants were descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel, that they were the heirs of the chosen people of the Tanakh (Old Testament for the uninformed). It is also based in part with England's propanganda war against Catholic (and multi-ethnic) Spanish Empire. They had to do something to justify their wars, barbarism and violations of international law and human rights in order to gain world power. A belief in their "racial" superiority was essential to justify these actions.

[MeddlingMonk]

I've been flogging Calhoun myself for months now, ever since seeing his influence in the 'tea baggers' rantings last spring. I'm not claiming any special credit here, mind. I'm just relieved to find I'm not the only one who has come to consider Calhoun the father of American far-right ideology. Maybe that means I'm not just obsessive about the smeghead, after all.

[Ishmael1]

John Trudell calls it "The Civilizing Process". Here's a link to his take, as a Native American on that and "Democracy" from 3 years ago. I found it quite prescient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRO8CjzFIh8

[Zoica]

There's something wrong with these people.

[Tena]

"He was also violently opposed to the idea of democracy itself,"

Which pretty much describes the modern conservative movement. This is a great article - you are absolutely right.

With Gov Goodhair talking secession and Pawlenty squawking about States Rights, it's pretty clear that the GOP wants to drag the country back to 1863, repeal the amendment outlawing slavery and require that you be a property owning white male to vote. If that isn't what they're after, then why the hell do they act and talk like that's what they want?

The GOP is opposed to democracy. The Republicans: Worst Losers Ever.

[johnashman]

The founders had defenses against pure democracy for very good reason. It's mob rules. The destruction of the individual. They believed in the rights of the individual. That a constitutional government with serious limitations and size was the very best way of dealing with all of the historical problems with government. This didn't require much democracy. In effect, Washington was almost a CEO president. The problem with democracy is that people are easily mislead. They're generally not sophisticated enough to see cause and effect of increased government. It all seems nice and fun when it goes their way, but when it causes them a problem, they complain. The Republicrat idea is two wrongs making a right. But it doesn't work like that. Two wrongs often make one gigantic wrong.

[Factonfact]

Yes, indeedy, bubba, and Congressman Joe Wilson has a couple of words for you.

C'mon, do you really think we just fell off a turnip truck?

Pity sakes!

[LibertyBell7]

Brevity is becoming a virtue as people become less literate. I am unclear which turnip truck to which you refer here.

Is it that what Lux writes is so obvious there was no need to write it? Or that you approve of this ever growing incitement to violence?

If it is the former: Too few people are talking about this. More should. Calhoun was a major inspiration that led the US to self-immolate over using slaves to "minimize expenses/maximize profits." Almost 1/3 of a million Americans died in that last conflict — and we have ever so much improved weaponry today.

If it is the latter, let's talk about socialistic actions of government (and remember, we, all of us, ARE the government): Your house is on fire. Your neighbors rush in to help. They help to put out the fire, using their own energy and water to do it. They risk their lives to help get your family and belongings out of your burning house. And they expect no profit from these actions. It's just the human, the humane thing to do. Right?

THAT is the public option. All of us pitching-in to help when any one of us is under threat of losing life and possessions. It's a socialistic action.

[johnashman]

Your analogy is incorrect. First, it's a local issue. Second, neighbors do it for free. Firemen are paid by a pool. Firemen get a profit. But it works because the people that pay the taxes are the direct beneficiary. They're not paying for it in another city in another state as you would have everyone do. Nothing wrong with socialist policies at the local level where it is legal.

[SEQUOIABISON]

The South shall rise again, how dare those northerners tell us who we can or cannot enslave, this is a free country and we can make slaves of people if that is what we want to do, otherwise we will secede from the union and continue to buy and sell human slaves without any interference from you yankess in the north.

Is this what you really wanted to shout out Congressman Wilson?

[FGDinVA]

Does that fit on a t-shirt or bumper sticker? Because Wilson's supporters can't handle too many words coming one right after the other and all. :D

[LibertyBell7]

Speaking of brevity, here's what I think somebody needs to make: When I see that AP photo of Wilson wildly gesturing, surrounded by Cantor texting and Boehner scowling and all the other extremist Republicans, while calling the president a liar (forget the fact he wasn't lying in what he said), I think the caption under that photo should reflect the truth:

The caption for that photo should read "Death Panel."

Maybe not a bumper sticker, but a darned good flier, right?

[johnashman]

Only northern whites get to decide who to enslave? That's what socialism is. Forced servitude.

Democrats are the new slave masters.

[ARonHenry]

I would really like to thank Mr. Lux for a terrific posting and I will be seeking out his book. And to all the other posters here thank you for keeping me engaged and entertain all day long. U. S. History is the greatest subject there is in my view. I have an absolute passion for it. And it's amazing when it is brought up in the way Mr. Lux has done here how it brings us back and forth from the past to the present. What happened in the past is real and it behooves us all to study and come to some sort of terms with it if we are to have any chance at all in understanding what is happening in the present. I'm sure Mr. Lux will appreciate that Margaret Coit and Merrill Peterson have a place on my bookshelf along with other historians who dealt with Calhoun and related topics. I have always felt that Calhoun played a villian's role. I don't think he intended to be a villian or ever saw himself in that way, but his ideas and actions ultimately made him one. His home state has tended to produce politicans of ridged ideology and bad manners. That Joe Wilson is another example of that tradition is not surprising. That's my opinion anyway, but I hope an opinion based on the results of many years of enthusiastic study.

[booksnmoreforyou]

Lincoln should have let the South go.

[ARonHenry]

Absolutely NOT! I think I know why you say that and have often felt that way myself. But it would have been the death of America and much of the rest of world history would have turned out worse than it often did. I have a great uncle buried at Antietam who gave his life so the United States might live. My great-great grandfather fought for 3 years in the Army Of The Cumberland and who was wounded in service to the preservation of this country. I cannot ignore that or their sacriface. I am very grateful to Mr. Lincoln for not letting the South go in spite of all the trouble it continues to cause us.

[FGDinVA]

A case could be made that if it weren't for slavery, the British would have supported the Confederacy far more than it did.

Thank goodness it was Lincoln who was POTUS at the time. The only other person who could have saved the country was probably Robert E. Lee. I say that seriously. He was not in favor of secession, but felt duty-bound to fight for Virginia. Would Virginia have seceded if "President Lee" had asked them not to? It is very possible that they would not have. As it is, I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for asking all Confederate soldiers to lay down their arms. I'm not sure they would have done it for anybody else.

Where is the respected Conservative in this country who will ask people to lay down their arms? Why will the elected Republicans not distance themselves from the radical right? Who is going to talk some sense into the GOP? Where is our Robert E. Lee? Would he have been a Democrat? That's a thought.

[johnashman]

That's ridiculous. Maybe America deserved to die if it strayed that far from the Constitution.

[Wendy Johnson]

That would have been an awful long border to protect. And the south was expansionist, how long would it have been before they came back looking to start trouble?

[booksnmoreforyou]

Oh, you mean like the one between the U.S. and Canada?

[Factonfact]

So, Mike, you'd like to suggest an intellectual rationale to the movement against Barack Obama. Kinda makes it seem o.k., huh? High and mighty. Understandable. Even respectable? In the American grain.

Let's climb down out of the apple tree, Mike, and talk reality. The Republican voters in the South. the rural Midwest and a couple of Western states who are making the most noise are virulent racist whites who just can't stand a black man as President of the United States. That's it; that's all there is to it. John C. Calhoun be hanged.

The truth of the matter is, John C. Calhoun or not, is that these racist white "evangelical" Republicans just can't stand the thought of any black being in control of anything. They want in their heart of hearts all-white mayors and city councils, white sheriff's (especially white sheriffs), white governors and legislatures, a white Congress and A WHITE PRESIDENT. These folks want "those people" to "know their place" and to stay in it. And, by the by, no more black employees ringing up sales at Walmart checkout counters. That's their "America"; you know, the one that they have had taken away from them and that they want given back to them.

Nice try, Mike, but no cigar.

[NeverForget911]

These comments that it's all about Obama's race are so ridiculous. I'm a white Republican and race has nothing to do with who I'd like as my president. It's about policy. If it's true that I don't want a black President, then why would I love to see as president -- to name a few -- J.C. Watts, Condoleeza Rice, at one time Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell (although he may be too old ... oops now I'm an ageist in addtion to being a racist?

Honestly, it's tiresome. BTW, it hurts the credibility of those who constantly say it.

[ARonHenry]

Well, we will let YOU off the hook here if you'll admit that there certainly are white people who do despise the President because he is a black man. Maybe not only because he's black, but certainly his race makes their offense all the more frustrating and radical. Look I know many of your friends despise Al Gore, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the Kennedy brothers too. All white. All Democrats. All, at least from your prespective, liberal. The black people that you say you might support for president, with one exception, are kind of far fetched, though I would contend that GWB was about as far fetched a candidate to come down the pike in ages. You might actually be a person of good will for all I know, and I'll take your word on face value. But don't try to tell us that Barack Obama's race doesn't drive a lot of your political friends nutty. What do you think is behind the whole "Birther" movement anyway? Oh, yeah, he's not one of "us." Just like the tough on crime, welfare queens, and Willie Horton commericals weren't racist code meant to bring and keep the formly solid Democratic white South in the Republican fold. I've been around too long now to buy your reasoning.

[mommadona]

It hurts YOUR credibility when these thugs act in your name.

[trisha08]

Bull, Bull, Bull.

Having different opinions on policy is one thing, but this is NOT about different opinions on policy.

Calling the President of the United States a N a z i, a Marxist, a Socialist, t e r r o r i s t s saying that he is building concentration camps, saying that he is destroying America, protesters are crying in the streets calling him an A-Rab, not allowing the President to address school children to encourage them to do their best and stay in school....­..........­that's all about policy? Bull.

How many American's died in Bush's war, but did any of you care? NO. But, Obama is the one they claim is destroying America, when Bush just about destroyed America by the time he was out of office (think financial crisis).

BTW, I am white.

[CyrusBeaucephus]

Well I think the GOP needs to call out the overt racism in its ranks and then I will believe that there are some people like you. Most racists deny it, but the rest of us have eyes and ears. Your party has turned into a bunch of hateful crackpots, while you sit by quietly and endorse them with your silence

[mommadona]

I own a weapon and know how to use it - I am the ultimate peacenik and have seen this coming for over 20 years. "Political Correctness" was the worst experiment the liberal side has ever come up with - U need to have fistfights so that wars do not break out.

My dear progressive friends..... Let's do this.
There are choices to be made and lines to be drawn in the sand.

I believe Mr. Wilson's bleet was the first bell toll.

Never again.

[FightingTheRight]

I have to agree.

Time to take the gloves off.

[LeftOfCenter44]

Sign this petition and help me invoke more honest politics please:
http://www.change.org/actions/view/end_the_pay_to_play_campaign_practices#

[NeverForget911]

May I suggest another way to minimize influence of lobbyists etc. on legislators and executives in the federal government is to shrink the federal government to a much smaller size? If the government isn't doing so much, there's less influence to buy.

[ARonHenry]

So how about the military-industrial complex for starters? How much blatent corruption and thievery do you think is involved in that rather large and serious federal expenditure? As my late father-in-law once told me "if you take the profit out of war there will cease to be wars." Maybe you should contact Mr. Cheney and his friends at Haliburtion, KBR, and Becktell and make your suggestion to them. Let see what happens when we try to close down a military related expenditure in your home state. What chance do you think that will have?

[FGDinVA]

That would certainly save the lobbyists money! And fewer strings to pull too.

[LibertyBell7]

The federal government isn't doing enough already. That's why multi-national corporations, who have no loyalty to this country, are able to do whatever they want to make their obscene profits. States are not big enough to fight off their pilfering of our national coffers; only the federal government is big enough to wage that war.

They are pillaging our treasury — all of ours — not just this state or that state. It is the role of the federal congress to "protect the welfare" of all citizens. That's in the Constitution (take that, Tenthers). It is exactly their job to do this and no state or smaller local government can wage war. And these huge corporations, through their mouthpieces like FreedomWorks, are declaring war on the citizens of this country.

We have no choice but to band together, through our representatives, to fight off this threat to our republic.

[kasv]

I get it. Let the corporate royalty take over.