A mythic interpretive framework can explain how the use of an uncontested term--a word which "seems to invite a contest, but which apparently is not so regarded in its own context"--is legitimated and perpetuated. By examining John C. Calhoun's nullification rhetoric as a case study of political myth (specifically his "Disquisition on Government" and Senate speeches opposing the Force Bill), this persuasive character of myth comes more clearly into focus. Arguing for the nullification of the Federal Government, Calhoun's rhetoric evoked the mythic elements of absolute good and evil, conspiracy, and heroes and redemption. Political myths such as these channel audiences' actions, particularly through the use of uncontested terms, and can therefore become grounds for action as well as belief. Critical judgments of rhetorical dynamics should be based as much on mythically and narratively generated insight as on historical hindsight. (Thirty references are appended.) (MM)