In a speech to the U.S. Senate (February 19, 1847) entitled "Speech On The Importance Of Domestic Slavery" we read the following from John C. Calhoun addressing the enactment of the Wilmot Proviso, which put restrictions on slavery:
Now, I ask, is there any remedy?
Does the Constitution afford any remedy? And if not, is there any hope? These,
Mr. President, are solemn questions- not only to us, but, let me say to
gentlemen from the non-slaveholding States: to them. Sir, the day that the
balance between the two sections of the country--the slaveholding States and
the non-slaveholding States-is destroyed, is a day that will not be far removed
from political revolution, anarchy, civil war, and widespread disaster. The
balance of this system is in the slaveholding States. They are the conservative
portion always have been the conservative portion--always will be the conservative
portion; and with a due balance on their part may, for generations to come,
uphold this glorious Union of ours. But if this scheme should be carried
out--if we are to be reduced to a handful-if we are to become a mere ball to
play the presidential game with--to count something in the Baltimore caucus--if
this is to be the result--wo! wo! I say, to this Union! Now, Sir, I put
again the solemn question--Does the constitution afford any remedy? Is there
any provision in it by which this aggressive policy (boldly avowed, as if
perfectly consistent with our institutions and the safety and prosperity of the
United States) may be confronted? Is this a policy consistent with the
Constitution? No, Mr. President, no! It is, in all its features, daringly opposed
to the constitution. What is it? Ours is a Federal Constitution. The States are
its constituents, and not the people. The twenty-eight States--the twenty-nine
States (including Iowa) --stand under this Government as twenty-nine
individuals, or as twenty-nine millions of individuals would stand to a
consolidated power! No, Sir; it was made for higher ends; it was so formed that
every State, as a constituent member of this Union of ours, should enjoy all
its advantages, natural and acquired, with greater security, and enjoy them
more perfectly. The whole system is based on justice and equality--perfect
equality between the members of this republic. Now, can that be consistent with
equality which will make this public domain a monopoly on one side--which, in
its consequences, would place the whole power in one section of the Union, to
be wielded against the other sections? Is that equality?
I bring this up as, according to one critic, J.P. Holding in his The Prophecies of Joseph
Smith: A Critical Look (itself a response to Jeff Lindsay’s Mormon Answers:
Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith) argues that Calhoun’s speech is a
more direct prediction of the then-future Civil War than what one finds in
D&C 87.
It should be noted that Latter-day Saints were not unaware of this
speech. It was reprinted as "Mr.
Calhoun's Speech on Slavery," in The Latter-day Saints' Millennial
Star 9, no. 8 (April 15, 1847): 118-21.
For more on D&C 87 specially, and Joseph Smith’s prophecies in
general, see:
