Calhoun proposed a concurrent-majority system requiring unanimous consent of all interests to act

Evidence

In this “concurrent government,” each “interest or portion of the community” would have an equal say in approving the actions of the state. Full agreement would be necessary to “put the government in motion.” This was the only way, Calhoun argued, that the “different interests, orders, classes, or portions, into which the community may be divided, can be protected.” — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 637

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines Calhoun’s ‘concurrent government’ concept precisely — a veto model where each interest bloc gets equal say over state action.
• XREF: Plugs into the reader’s origin-story-as-infrastructure frame: Calhoun’s alternative origin story (concurrent majority as the true founding vision) is exactly the reframing-versus-contested-claim contrast. — connects to: Unanimous consent is practically impossible, so majority rule is a practical necessity. — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 116