Each of the three authors of the essay either served as congressman, legislator or senator before they took the crucial executive branch position in the United States. Daniel Webster and William Steward both served as Whig Party members whereas Calhoun served as a Republican Party member. The aim of the Whig party was mainly to President Jackson’s policies as well as those of the Democratic Party. Another point to note is that the members of the Whig party did offer their support to the Congress over the then executive branch thus securing economic protectionism program. This paper is a description of the contrast of the article written by the three executives.
To begin with, the three professionals had different and contrast views on slavery. Calhoun supported slavery; Steward, on the other hand, opposed it boldly whereas Webster appeared neutral and undecided on the matter coming up with compromises on both proslavery and antislavery arguments. Steward’s political career began in the 1830s in New York and served as a state politician in the New York City. He was a spirited, generous, impulsive, and convivial. The then dominating issue of extension slavery into the then newly acquired western was of great importance and attracted attention of various New York State territories. Steward took a step and delivered the speech that mainly talked about the slavery issue in the New York City. He was also accurate on how he put his points fearing the possibility of the public reasoning that the speech could be taken by the Northerners as an answer to Calhoun ‘s . In Webster’s document, he goes ahead condemning the two other people’s views on the issue of slavery asserting that slavery can be defined in different ways arguing that some people enslave themselves and that is not under the definition of slavery. Seward’s arguments seem to be the most compelling due to the existing evidences.