Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T06:28:00.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calhoun's Idea of “Concurrent Majority” and the Constitutional Theory of Hegel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Gunnar Heckscher
Gunnar Heckscher
Affiliation:
University of Uppsala
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a well-known fact that the writings of John C. Calhoun were read and admired by German political theorists in the latter part of the nineteenth century. When the problems of federalism became predominant in the German Empire, it was found natural to turn to American experience and to study the works of the leaders of contending factions in the United States before the Civil War.

There may, however, be another reason why Calhoun, in particular, proved such a valuable source for the German authors. His theory of the concurrent majority, in many parts, presents a striking resemblance to the arguments advanced on the continent of Europe in defense of legislatures built on representation, not of individuals, but of groups, interests, or estates. It can be assumed that Calhoun, when speaking of the safeguards necessary against the despotism of the numerical majority, was thinking primarily of the federal system and states' rights. On the other hand, he can hardly have regarded this arrangement as the only possible solution to his problem. He defines the government of the concurrent majority as one “where the organism is perfect, excludes the possibility of oppression, by giving to each interest, or portion, or order,—where there are established classes,—the means of protecting itself, by its negative, against all measures calculated to advance the peculiar interests of others at its expense.” Especially in view of the expression “where there are established classes,” it seems safe to say that Calhoun probably knew of the existence of representation by estates of the realm in European countries, and regarded such systems with favor.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , August 1939 , pp. 585 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Merriam, , History of the Theory of Sovereignty Since Rousseau (New York, 1900), pp. 202 ff.Google Scholar

2 Calhoun, , A Disquisition on Government, in Works, I (Columbia, 1851), p. 38Google Scholar.

3 Cf. Jenkins, , Pro-Slavery Thought in the Old South (Chapel Hill, 1935), pp. 126, 135, 137 note 85, 290 note 9Google Scholar.

4 While there is no direct evidence of German influence on Calhoun, it is equally impossible to prove, definitely, that no such influence existed. Calhoun's correspondence gives some interesting data. In 1844, F. von Raumer, a German historian who at the time was preparing a work on the United States, was introduced to Calhoun in a letter from the Prussian diplomatist F. L. Roenne, and presumably visited him. In another letter, Roenne speaks of Calhoun's “interest … in … affairs of my country.” There was, also, a certain amount of intercourse between Calhoun and Fr. Lieber. Calhoun's Correspondence, ed. by J. Franklin Jameson, Annual Report of Amer. Hist. Assoc., 1899, Vol. 2, (Washington, 1900), pp. 931 ff.Google Scholar, 964, 1155 ff.

5 Calhoun, , Disquisition, pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar

6 Dyde, , Hegel's Philosophy of Right (London, 1896), p. 257Google Scholar; Hegel, , Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, ed. Gans, Werke, VIII (Berlin, 1833), pp. 331 ff.Google Scholar

7 Calhoun, , Disquisition, p. 23Google Scholar.

8 Stahl, , Parlamentarische Reden (Berlin, 1862), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar

9 Calhoun, , Disquisition, p. 23Google Scholar.

10 Dyde, pp. 275 ff.; Hegel, pp. 352 ff.

11 Dyde, pp. 317, 320; Hegel, pp. 401, 405.

12 Stahl, , Philosophie des Rechts, II: 2 (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1878), pp. 320 ff.Google Scholar

13 Calhoun, , Disquisition, pp. 28, 45Google Scholar; Jenkins, p. 59. Cf. Stahl, , Reden, pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar

14 Calhoun, , Correspondence, p. 305Google Scholar.

15 Calhoun, , Disquisition, p. 38Google Scholar; Hegel, p. 331. The translation from the German is my own. On this point, Dyde's translation is obviously inaccurate, to say the least: “Although the parts of an organism do not constitute an identity, yet it is of such a nature that, if one of its parts makes itself independent, all must be harmed.” Op. cit., p. 257.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.