Calhoun’s Answer to the Abolition Petitions

In the 1830s, John C. Calhoun proposed that the Senate refuse to receive abolition petitions. The petitions called for an end to slavery in the District of Columbia. Calhoun argued the Constitution did not grant Congress that power. His reasoning rested on a compact theory of the document. The states, he said, had never surrendered their sovereignty over slavery. Each state retained its own definition of property and liberty. When citizens of one state petitioned against slavery in a federal district, they asked the national government to impose one state's moral code on another's legal arrangements.

Abolitionists saw the Constitution differently. They pointed to the preamble. "We the People" implied a national duty to promote liberty. Congress had plenary power over the District of Columbia, they said. Slavery was not a local property right. It was a national moral failure. The federal government could legislate as it saw fit.

Calhoun's answer was procedural. He wanted the Senate to refuse the petitions outright. That would prevent the federal government from even entertaining the question. The House of Representatives, led by former President John Quincy Adams, pushed back. Adams argued the right to petition was fundamental. Congress could not silence dissent by refusing to hear it. The House eventually passed a gag rule. It tabled all abolition petitions without debate. The compromise satisfied no one.