Jump to content

Talk:John C. Calhoun/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Gag rules

Calhoun tried to gag abolitionist press in the U.S. South, which became federal law in 1841 as the 21st Rule.

Calhoun could not try to gag abolitionist press and the abolitionist press became federal law in 1841? That can't be what was meant. I suspect whoever wrote this meant that a federal law of 1841 gagged the abolitionist press. If so, that's what it should say. Michael Hardy 01:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Even that's wrong. The 21st rule did not gag the abolitionist press — local authorities and mob rule saw to that — but barred the consideration of House bills relating to slavery during the period from 1836 to 1844. Calhoun, a Senator, might have had some influence in that decision, although all of the other errors in this sentence (1841? federal law?) make me doubt that as well. I'm taking it out until someone can turn it into at least a partially true statement. In addition, someone as tremendously significant as JCC deserves a slightly less perfunctory profile. —Italo Svevo 19:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Taken from "An American History" by Stephenson, published in 1913:

417. The Gag Rules. The Southern members of Congress, unfortunately for their cause, lost their heads and attempted to surpress the right of petition. So-called "gag rules" were passed. Thereupon ex-President Adams, who now sat in Congress as a representative, became the champion of the right of petition. Year after year, he fought the gag rules, warning Congress that if they did not allow complete freedom of petition, they would have the people down on them "besieging, not beseeching." At last he carried his point, and thereafter abolition discussions in Congress were frequent and bitter.

Therefore gentlemen, I see no way to exclusively pin the "gag rules" on Calhoun. - S.A. 02/06/2006

When was Calhoun in Minnesota?

Does anyone know during which time period Calhoun was employed by the federal government in Minnesota? I think he may have been a military officer then, but I'm not sure. Michael Hardy 01:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)The year 2009

Pronunciation of the surname

Do you know whether the l in Calhoun should be pronounced (kal HOON) or not (kë HOON)?

I've always pronounced the first syllable like that in California and the second to rhyme with moon. But I can claim great experience with this name only as it applies to the lake in Minneapolis that was named after this man. (I think few people in Minneapolis realize that's who it's named after, and I'd rather keep it that way, so by that standard I shouldn't even be writing this.) Michael Hardy 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's like California. kal-HOON. Archaic 02:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
agreed.--BUF4Life 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the Vice President & Senator's name is generally, perhaps universally, pronounced "Kal-hoon", but the name when detached from him is traditionally pronounced "Ka-hoon". (In these days of "speak-as-you-spell", it's probably pronounced "Kal-hoon" even by the owners of the name. Samuel Pepys's descendants reportedly pronounce their name "Peppis" instead of "Peeps".) The name Calhoun derives from the Scots name Colquhoun, which is universally pronounced "Ka-hoon". See Claude Henry Neuffer, ed., Names in South Carolina, Volumes 25-30 (1978), p. 19. The surname of John C. Calhoun's father and uncles appears variously in contemporary records as "Cohoon", "Cahoun", and "Cohoun", indicating the pronunciation at the time. See A. S. Salley, Jr., "The Calhoun Family of South Carolina" in The South Carolina Historical & Genealogical Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr. 1906), p. 81.--Jdcrutch (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dates in the 1840s

The text at the top and the charts at the bottom disagree as to the period he was secretary of state--was it 1844-1848, or 1844-1845?

Philosophy

There isn't much directly in the article about how Calhoun developed a whole abstract political philosophy which led him to interpret the U.S. Constitution in favor of the rights of the minority -- "minority" referring to a minority of states within the federal union, of course (Calhoun was completely and utterly uninterested in any other kind of minority). AnonMoos 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln

anyone want to take a stab at finding documentation linking calhoun and lincoln as relatives? WillC (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point of View in Introduction

It is biased and unencyclopedic to refer to Calhoun as a "...leading racist, traitor..." in the introductory paragraph. Both terms are subjective and based on opinion and cannot be stated as facts. Facts stated in the main body of the article will allow the reader to determine if Calhoun was a racist or a traitor. Since my removing those words may be mistaken as condoning Calhoun's attitudes (I do not), I will not change myself at this time, and just initiate discussion on it. Mal7798 (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it that naming someone who believed in the inherent superiority of whites over blacks "racist" "subjective and based on opinion"? Traitor may be a loaded term, but we make language meaningless if we cannot call things by what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.149.157 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Calhoun was certainly a racist, but calling a "white" American of the 19th C. a racist is virtually like calling him a two-legged man with a head. The only reason to call him that is to express one's own disliking of the man. Charles Sumner, Abraham Lincoln, and William Lloyd Garrison were also racists, but I imagine the author of the sentence referred to (now properly deleted) would scarcely refer to them as "leading racists". Calling Calhoun a traitor is pure prejudice and slander.

Jdcrutch (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The term was removed, and this may not be the place for this, but it totally baffles me that William Lloyd Garrison could be considered a "racist". That more than anything serves to make the term meaningless.Mal7798 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I included Garrison in that statement for shock value, of course, but not without some historical basis: Frederick Douglass fell out with Garrison because Garrison kept urging him to use more "darkie" expressions in his speeches, after Northern ("white") audiences expressed skepticism that such an eloquent speaker could possibly have been raised in slavery. I don't know much beyond that, but it suggests to me a kind of condescending, paternalistic racism that is quite well documented among abolitionists (and among plenty of later liberals as well). I can't swear that Garrison shared that kind of racism, and if anybody can steer me to contrary evidence I'll be happy to withdraw the statement with respect to him; but it is certain that many of his abolitionist comrades preferred to look on slaves rather as ideal, helpless victims of Southern brutality, in need of rescue by virtuous, white, Northern saviors, than as flesh-and-blood men and women with their own aspirations, plans, abilities, etc. That kind of racism, though full of good intentions and not as harmful as the violent, hateful attitude we tend to associate with the term "racism", is still racism, and still harmful. It should be noted, by the way, that the racism of Calhoun and most of the Southern master class--raised in the tradition of paternalism and noblesse oblige--had a great deal more in common with that kind of racism than with the racism of post-bellum lynch mobs and Segregationists. It was the petty bourgeoisie and yeoman-farmer class that most expressed the race-hatred and violent contempt that we generally think of as "racism". The racism of the planters and their descendants tended, and still tends, to be patronizing and condescending, rather than hateful.
I want to add, by the way, that contrary to Mal7798's statement (though I appreciate his or her making it), whether or not somebody is a traitor is not a matter of subjective judgment, by and large, but a matter of fact. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." It's not a matter of subjective judgment whether or not Calhoun ever levied war against the United States or adhered to their enemies. No man in history has been more loyal to the United States than John C. Calhoun, and he dedicated his life to preserving the Federal Union, both against secessionism (in New England in the 1810s, and in the South in the 1840s) and against the nationalism that ultimately destroyed it.

Jdcrutch (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my earlier characterization of William Lloyd Garrison as racist:

After 1830, while the exclusion and ridicule of people of color by [Northern] whites were escalating, abolitionist organizations increasingly welcomed African Americans as members; many of them in their personal lives, as well as in their public roles as activists in the cause of antislavery, met socially with people of color and advocated strenuously for their political rights. Certainly policies of inclusion and advocacy differed morally from convictions of social superiority and responses of revulsion and exclusion, and their practical effects differed even more radically. Nonetheless, many abolitionists continued to see people of color as projects or wards, and even the most progressive, Garrison among them, continued to press free people of color to reform themselves and become moral exemplars in order to overcome prejudice and "earn" full equality, even as they agreed that racial prejudice originated in slavery and prevented free blacks from making the very changes whites advocated. The logic of this position, whether articulated or not, was that the failure of most free people of color to rise was a moral defect that lay within themselves. [Fn. 13, See, for example, William Lloyd Garrison, Thoughts on African Colonization (Boston, 1832), 128-29.]

Marsh, Joanne Pope, The "Condition" Debate and Racial Discourse in the Antebellum North, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Winter 1999), pp. 651-672, at 659 (emphasis supplied).
This I think strengthens my assertion that it's a gratuitous smear to single Calhoun out as "racist"--unless, of course, one can demonstrate that his racism was somehow distinctive against the background of universal 19th C. American racism, and deserving of special notice; which I don't think the evidence will support.

Jdcrutch (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Footnote http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=6105330&id=I19299 is not working today.Kevin (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in the Indian Affairs Section

I can't put my finger on it, but something seems off about the Indian Affairs section. I'd like to suggest that someone more experienced than I in looking into these things glance over that section; the formatting seems off (somewhere there's a mention of the "XVIIIth" century, which isn't how you usually write the 18th Century), but more than that there appears to be what I'll call "creeping rhetoric": Someone appears to be trying to voice an opinion on his views without citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.87.90 (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Affairs section is horribly written, completely uncited, very POV, and filled with original research. As it is, I don't think it's salvageable; I've removed it from the article. If anyone wants to add a passable section on this topic, feel free; but the section as it stands is worse than having no section at all. --darolew 09:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Incoherent

The third and fourth paragraphs of the lead section were incoherent:

However, it is said by some historians, without stating clearly their point, that in the 1820s, the sometimes known as "Corrupt Bargain" of 1824 by Speaker of the House at the time, Henry Clay giving the Presidency, (March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829), to 6th President John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay being rewarded with the Secretary of State under Adams, rather than to 7th President Andrew Jackson, (March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837) led him to renounce nationalism in favor of states' rights of the sort Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had propounded in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

By going into senatorial duties, renouncing to the Vice Presidency, in 1832, he got more power, apparently, than keeping associated to Jackson.

I've tried to tidy this up by taking out a lot of the dependent clauses, but, as I'm not American, someone there should have a look at it to check that I have correctly interpreted the context.--DavidCane (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's an editor named Aecharri who appears to have a limited command of English and idiosyncratic ideas about relevance and formatting. He/she has made massive changes to multiple articles that greatly reduce their readability. I'm trying to fix some of that and any help I can get from others would be appreciated. --JamesAM (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV revisited

I removed the POV tag because the above sections dealt with accusations of being a traitor and a section that was removed. Perhaps in the latter case it's a sin of omission now. But I'd like any specific POV concerns voiced here if they remain, so that they can be fixed. There are of course other issues with the article, but let's tackle these first. Recognizance (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead is too long

Should be only three or four paragraphs. Goes into too much detail about too many positions.--Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The length is fine; The problem is with the paragraph breaks, which I have just solved by merging the smaller paragraphs. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

philosophical disquisitions

Should mention how he produced a labored philosophical tract in order to develop an interpretation of general political theory and the U.S. Constitution specifically which included minority protections -- but the only "minority" found to be worthy of such special protections was the minority of slave states among the states of the U.S.! The contrast between the high flights of abstruse philosophy and the final conclusions very narrowly tailored to the particular circumstances of late-1840's U.S. political disputes is apparently something of a let-down or anti-climax... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice or remember that I'd already left a similar comment above 2 and a half years ago! AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I added a new section on his poitical philosophy, as well as a more useful bibliography. Rjensen (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo Not Calhoun?

The picture associated with this article does not look to me like Calhoun. Compare:


  • Picture in the article.
    Picture in the article.
  • Photograph of Calhoun by Brady.
    Photograph of Calhoun by Brady.
  • Photograph of Calhoun ca. 1850.
    Photograph of Calhoun ca. 1850.
  • Photograph of Calhoun from Library of Congress.
    Photograph of Calhoun from Library of Congress.

The picture in the article shows a man with a full face, light-colored eyes, and eyebrows that point upwards at the outer ends. All other pictures of Calhoun that I know of show a man with hollow cheeks, dark eyes, and eyebrows that point downwards at the outer ends. I don't think the picture in the article is the same man.--Jdcrutch (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I don't think they're the same people. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes, I had asked Leonard^Bloom about the possibility of touching up the image, but on further investigation, the image was sourced to http://www.old-picture.com/daguerreotypes/pictures/Unidentified-half-length-016.jpg - which, at a minimum, warrants further investigation on OR grounds. Recognizance (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Which image is in question? The portrait appears to have been painted in his younger years, I'm pretty sure it's him, but I say we use Image:JC_Calhoun-crop.jpg. Connormah (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The image you linked is the one in question. I replaced it with the portrait because of the questions about the origin of the image. Recognizance (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
That is him aged about 60-59. I'm pretty sure it's him. Connormah (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Other than the fact that the picture looks nothing like what I would ever recognize as Calhoun, there is nothing to indicate that its not him. As for having it in the article, I would like to have his oficial VP portrait in the infobox, if one is available. I hope that the artist won't mind us using it..--Jojhutton (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
@Jojutton: The artist is dead. The images are almost certainly in public domain. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, Duh.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding what I just said, now I'm confused. The image currently in use is CC-AS. Is that an uploader error? (It happens they, the uploader, have had them both), or is the image actually still in copyright? The image certainly seems eligible for {{PD-art}}, {{PD-art-life-50}}, {{PD-art-life-70}}, or {{PD-art-US}}. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a portrait from 1845 would be in the public domain. I've seen Tilden76 replacing older images with portraits from the LoC on a few articles, but I don't think s/he is familiar with Wikimedia practices, e.g. uploading to the Commons instead of here. I'll e-mail the curator of old-picture.com about the "faux Calhoun" daguerreotype and see if they can help. As far as which image to put in the infobox, I don't really care so long as no one goes out on an overly aesthetic limb. Recognizance (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Any word back? Connormah (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing so far. Perhaps they're on holiday. Recognizance (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"In late" ??

This article says:

In late Vice President Calhoun resigned to become U.S. Senator.

What does that mean? Is there a missing year? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'principles' section in the lede

The lede contains the following sentence stating Calhoun's political principles:

Calhoun, a brilliant orator and writer, was a proponent of Republicanism, which he saw as implying slavery, states' rights, limited government, and nullification.

There are several issues with this sentence. "A proponent of Republicanism"—who was not a proponent of republicanism? Calhoun favored a republican form of government, but in this he was no different from Clay, Webster, or nearly everyone else. Perhaps the case for such a description would be stronger if Calhoun or scholars described his political principles,—distinguished from those of other American statesman,—in that manner, but I am not aware of that being the case.

As for what "he saw" republicanism "as implying", I think this is completely baseless. I highly doubt he thought republicanism implied slavery. His principle of concurrent democracy,—the theoretical basis of nullification,—he saw as vital to all forms of government, not just republican ones; e.g., he ascribed the greatness of Britain's form of government (hardly a republic) to its partial embodiment of that principle.

And so on. The sentence used to say Calhoun was "a proponent of slavery, states' rights, limited government, and nullification." While it may sound harsh to call someone a "proponent of slavery", it is an accurate description of Calhoun's position, and is better than some unreferenced, and probably fictitious, notion about Calhoun's ideas on republicanism.

I have rewritten the sentence as follows, in a manner which also encompasses his earlier nationalism:

Calhoun, a brilliant orator and writer, began his political career as a nationalist and proponent of protective tariffs; later, he was a proponent of slavery, free trade, states' rights, limited government, and nullification.

I added 'free trade' to his enumerated positions for two reasons: 1) The tariff issue was very important in Calhoun's time, and second only to slavery in the tensions between the North and South. 2) The tariff issue was the cause of the Nullification Crisis, with which Calhoun was intimately involved and is closely associated.

(If anyone doubts that Calhoun believed in the theory of free trade, see his 1845 letter to Richard Cobden and John Bright: "I regard free trade, as involving considerations far higher, than mere commercial advantages, as great as they are. It is, in my opinion, emphatically the cause of civilization and peace." From The Essential Calhoun, p. 218.) --darolew (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

historians in recent years have emphasized Calhoun's commitment to republicanism and his redefinition and expansion of the concept to include slavery and minority rights. It made his repuitation as a political philosopher, so it has to be included in the lede.Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
An important feature of Calhoun's pro-slavery argument, or at any rate of similar arguments made at the time, was that republican government was possible over the long term only in societies founded on slavery. The great slaveholding republics of Athens and Rome were cited as examples. The idea was that, slavery being an extension of the family, the slave's material interests and affections were inextricably united with those of the master; whereas in "free" society, the interests of workers and employers were bitterly and inescapably opposed. The theory further contended that slavery made possible a much higher degree of equality among free citizens than was possible in any other sort of society, and thus promoted and stabilized republican government, preventing it from degenerating into plutocracy (of the sort that in fact followed the conquest of the South).
George Fitzhugh was a notable proponent of this line of argument, though he may have taken it farther than Calhoun would have done, in that by his argument all workers ought to be slaves. Fitzhugh and many other pro-slavery theorists (possibly including Calhoun, but I don't remember off hand) drew liberally on contemporary European Socialists in condemning industrial-capitalist society for its inherent class conflict, and contended that "free" society was doomed in the long run to dictatorship, or to bloody revolution followed by dictatorship. See Mudsill Theory, although that article is quite biased and contains important inaccuracies. (I trust it goes without saying that this self-serving argument of the master class is subject to some fatal criticisms, though not necessarily the ones usually leveled against it.) At any rate, it's quite accurate to say that Calhoun's concept of Republicanism "implied" slave labor.

--Jdcrutch (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Resigning as Vice President facts missing

There is nothing stating the the facts of his resignation. Obviously, the Nullification crisis was the cause but something is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsunderman (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Little Charisma Or Charm?

I myself consider that an opinion about this mans personal image. I think this should either be changed or removed. Stickulus (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

lack of charisma -- see The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun by Merrill D. Peterson - Page 280; Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Minority rights

I know what is meant here, but to most modern readers the sentence "He is best known for his intense and original defense of slavery as a positive good, for his promotion of minority rights..." reads contradictorily, due to the current assumption that "minority rights" means "rights of a racial/ethnic minority." Any interest or ideas for clarifying this a bit, or perhaps linking to another article to ensure the intended meaning is expressed? Moncrief (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

people read history to break away from the present--the white Southerners were the ethnic minority then. Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
So why not make it clearer that was the minority whose rights he had in mind? He wasn't an advocate of all minority rights, but a specific minority. Whites were not a minority in the South then, by the way. Southern whites were a minority on a national scale, which is what I'm sure you meant. Moncrief (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
the text is clear as it stands.Rjensen (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I wonder what others think. Moncrief (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What "others think" I know not. Here is what Encyclopedia.com has to say on the matter:

"The 20th-century experience of the dangers of centralized governmental power has brought a renewed interest in Calhoun's proposals for the protection of minority rights. But although Calhoun's critical analysis was perceptive, his proposed solutions have not been regarded as serious contributions to the problem. Indeed, as critics have pointed out, although he spoke in general terms and categories, he was really interested only in defending the rights of a specific propertied minority—the slaveholding South." (my emphasis)

Here, the editors of this online encyclopedia did not feel it was "clear" as to the nature of "minority rights", and made the distinction explicit. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/John_Caldwell_Calhoun.aspx 36hourblock (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As Moncrief points out, "[Calhoun] wasn't an advocate of all minority rights, but a specific minority". Here is Richard Hofstadter on precisely this subject;(this historican was cited approvingly on the Abraham Lincoln site by Rjensen).

“Not in the slightest was [Calhoun] concerned with minority rights as they are chiefly of interest to the modern liberal mind – the rights of dissenters to express unorthodox opinions, of the individual conscience against the State, least of all of ethnic minorities. At bottom he was not interested in any minority that was not a propertied minority. The concurrent majority itself was a device without relevance to the protection of dissent, designed to protect a vested interest of considerable power…it was minority privileges rather than [minority] rights that he really proposed to protect.”

Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1948). P. 90-91 36hourblock (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Added Hofstadter to article in response to Moncrief's request for "clarifying this a bit, or perhaps linking to another article to ensure the intended meaning is expressed" and to "make it clearer...the minority whose rights [Calhoun] had in mind." I hope this helps. 36hourblock (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Instead of depending on the views of critics, perhaps it would be more appropriate to cite Calhoun's own works to explain what he meant by "minority". It seems clear to me that what Calhoun had in mind was political minorities within a community, without necessary reference to ethnicity, wealth, or any other particular criterion. In his Disquisition on Government, Calhoun speaks of "interest" as the principal element dividing a population into political majority and minority:
If the whole community had the same interests, so that the interests of each and every portion would be so affected by the action of the government, that the laws which oppressed or impoverished one portion, would necessarily oppress and impoverish all others — or the reverse — then the right of suffrage, of itself, would be all-sufficient to counteract the tendency of the government to oppression and abuse of its powers; and, of course, would form, of itself, a perfect constitutional government. The interest of all being the same, by supposition, as far as the action of the government was concerned, all would have like interests as to what laws should be made, and how they should be executed. . . .
But such is not the case. On the contrary, nothing is more difficult than to equalize the action of the government, in reference to the various and diversified interests of the community; and nothing more easy than to pervert its powers into instruments to aggrandize and enrich one or more interests by oppressing and impoverishing the others; and this too, under the operation of laws, couched in general terms — and which, on their face, appear fair and equal. Nor is this the case in some particular communities only. It is so in all; the small and the great — the poor and the rich — irrespective of pursuits, productions, or degrees of civilization — with, however, this difference, that the more extensive and populous the country, the more diversified the condition and pursuits of its population, and the richer, more luxurious, and dissimilar the people, the more difficult is it to equalize the action of the government — and the more easy for one portion of the community to pervert its powers to oppress, and plunder the other.
Such being the case, it necessarily results, that the right of suffrage, by placing the control of the government in the community must . . . lead to conflict among its different interests — each striving to obtain possession of its powers, as the means of protecting itself against the others — or of advancing its respective interests, regardless of the interests of others. For this purpose, a struggle will take place between the various interests to obtain a majority, in order to control the government. If no one interest be strong enough, of itself, to obtain it, a combination will be formed between those whose interests are most alike — each conceding something to the others, until a sufficient number is obtained to make a majority. . . . When [such a combination is] once formed, the community will be divided into two great parties — a major and minor — between which there will be incessant struggles on the one side to retain, and on the other to obtain the majority — and, thereby, the control of the government and the advantages it confers.
So deeply seated, indeed, is this tendency to conflict between the different interests or portions of the community, that it would result from the action of the government itself, even though it were possible to find a community, where the people were all of the same pursuits, placed in the same condition of life, and in every respect, so situated, as to be without inequality of condition or diversity of interests. The advantages of possessing the control of the powers of the government, and, thereby, of its honors and emoluments, are, of themselves, exclusive of all other considerations, ample to divide even such a community into two great hostile parties.
Thus, Calhoun's doctrine would apply to any minority in any community, not merely a rich or slaveholding minority. Naturally, in the context in which he was operating, the struggle between Northern and Southern States within the federal Union, Calhoun advocated for the interests of his own group (whether defined as the Southern ruling class, the South as a whole, the American ruling class as a whole, or otherwise), and did his best to portray those interests as being also, directly or indirectly, the interests of the entire community; but I'm not aware of any political man, from the foundation of the earth, who has done otherwise. I don't know the extent, if any, to which Calhoun would have been willing to subject South Carolinian society, with its majority of slaves, its big minority of non-slaveholding yeoman farmers, and its tiny but dominant minority of slaveholding planters, to rigorous analysis under these principles. I imagine he would not have recognized the slaves as constituting an "interest" distinct from that of their masters; but that hardly distinguishes him from the vast majority of his contemporaries anywhere in the United States or the Western World. It is, of course, a very pleasing irony, that essentially the same principle of minority rights used by Calhoun to protect slaveholding interests was instrumental in the winning of civil rights by black Southerners in the 20th C.; but I'm not sure an encyclopedia should deal in irony.
Hofstadter's comments don't clarify anything, except perhaps Hofstadter's opinion of Calhoun (and I'm not sure of even that, reading them out of context here). Like the anonymous excerpt from Encyclopedia.com (which probably only restates Hofstadter's criticisms), even if arguably just, they come across as hostile, tendentious, and moralistic, and are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, especially since, as quoted, they offer no supporting evidence. An assertion that any writer really doesn't mean what he writes, but in fact means something quite different, must be supported by extensive and indisputable evidence, if it's to be made at all.
In light of these considerations, I have rewritten the section on Concurrent Majority to add references to Calhoun's own works and the Virginia Resolution of 1789 on which he relied so heavily; and removed the Hofstadter quotation from the article, though the link to his essay remains in the bibliography, as it should. I also removed the citation to Nevins, because I haven't checked to see whether or not the section still reflects what Nevis wrote; but if it does, I would have no objection to restoring the reference.

Jdcrutch (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


To establish that Richard Hofstadter is “attacking” the subject of this article, John C. Calhoun, requires an explanation which includes “extensive and indisputable evidence.” No such evidence is forthcoming from the editor who removed the Hofstadter quote from the article. We are treated, instead, to an editorial tirade against a mainstream Twentieth Century historian; nothing more.

The same editor has admitted elsewhere that “provocative” banter is appropriate to these Discussion pages. On the contrary, such behavior is willful abuse of the terms on which we contribute to this website. So are reckless, unsubstantiated claims against a reputable American historian. Wikipedia is littered with unsourced and unsavory assertions of this kind; its reputation suffers.

Let’s examine this matter more closely.

First, if an editor wishes to challenge the veracity of a sourced quotation, s/he can post material in the Discussion page from published authors/historians/researchers, demonstrating that the quotation fails to meet the minimum standards of historical research.

Second, if the editor cannot garner such evidence, then s/he may balance the entry with other appropriate sources that supports a contrary interpretation of the subject.

These are the available options. To do otherwise amounts to a willful disregard for the editorial principles on this site.


“…it would be more appropriate to cite Calhoun's own works to explain what he meant by ‘minority’.”

No; this is mistaken: historical figures are not authoirzed to write their own wikipedia biographies. That is the function of the editors who collect citable sources from published researchers. These published authors may select passages from the subjects opus (perhaps Calhoun’s Disquisition on Government); Wiki editors can use these to build the article. We do not engage in original research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Editors familiar with these sites are well aware of this fact. Evaluation of the contributions to this webpage must be based on published sources, not the utterances of John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay or Danial Webster, no matter how impressed the editor may be with their rhetorical arguments and logic.


“If the whole community…[…]…great hostile parties.”

This long passage from Calhoun’s Disquisition as no bearing whatsoever on the merits or veracity of Hofstadter’s critical analysis; it amounts to original research. Original research violates the terms of this encyclopedia. As quoted, it only serves as a soporific.


“It seems clear to me… I don't know the extent…I imagine he would not have… they come across as… I'm not sure of… I haven't checked to see whether…”

These musings indicate a complete misapprehension of the process by which this online enclyclopedia is constructed. If editors wish to cite wheir own published work, they are free to do so. Otherwise, editors must base their edits, contributions and revisions on published material. The remarks quoted above are pure speculation; points-of-view are not permitted as justification for editing these articles.


“[Reading] the [Hofstadter quote] out of context...I’m not [even sure] that…Hofstadter’s comments don’t clarify anything…”

Wikipedia editors are encouraged to state their cases consisely and coherently, in addition to supplying published sources to support their contributions. Tortured logic leads to unsound conclusions. See George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language.


“[A]nonymous excerpt[s] from Encyclopedia.com…are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article.”

Anonymous? A large proportion of Wiki postings are sustained by just such “anonymous” excerpts, without eliciting protest. For an anonymous editor to lodge such a complaint is rather hypocritical, but thoroughly amusing. The only source under consideration here is historian Richard Hofstadter, and his passage on minority rights is drawn from his book The American Political Tradition, not in the least bit anonymous.


“Hoftstadter’s analyisis “comes across as hostile, tendentious, and moralistic, and are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.”

These kind of unsubstantiated “come across” accusations should be of concern to all serious-minded editors and administrators, especially when they are used to arbitarily remove sourced material. To remove sourced material that suitably addresses the subject matter requires extensive and indiputable evidence. Nothing of the kind has been provided by the editor who has accused Hofstadter of being “moralistic”.


Finally, here is the quotation from Richard Hofstadter deemed an “attack” and summarily removed from the Calhoun article:

“Not in the slightest was [Calhoun] concerned with minority rights as they are chiefly of interest to the modern liberal mind – the rights of dissenters to express unorthodox opinions, of the individual conscience against the State, least of all of ethnic minorities. At bottom he was not interested in any minority that was not a propertied minority. The concurrent majority itself was a device without relevance to the protection of dissent, designed to protect a vested interest of considerable power…it was minority privileges rather than [minority] rights that he really proposed to protect.”

This is construed as a "hostile...attack” on the subject of Calhoun and "minority rights". In fact, there’s only one attack that has been perpetrated on this site: an attack on the precepts that govern Wikipedia editors.

36hourblock (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is discussion the text cited by Jdcrutch above and it makes sdense to include it for the readers to see. Nothing is being "highjacked" in 36hourblock's unhappy phrase. These are Calhoun's words, taken from a RS, and they are discussed & quoted in may of this article uses. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen wrote:“…article is discussion the text…it makes sdense (sic)… quoted in may (sic) of this article uses”

Nothing reveals an editor’s courage, intelligence and authenticity more than a bold contempt for grammatical and syntactical correctness. This, however, is the pathetic nonsense that is offered in response to substantive remarks by 36hourblock.

By the way, the leading word “thus” appears regularly in the commentary of Rjensen: now it’s showing up in remarks from Jdcrutch – a red flag for sockpuppetry. 36hourblock (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

This article has two sections marked "slavery." 12 and 14. It should have but one! Balonkey (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Cast-iron man"

Harriet Martineau’s sketch of Calhoun is the source of the sobriquet “cast-iron man”, based on her 1835 visit with the famous South Carolinian (published in 1838).

Her profile of Calhoun is written with a touch of irony (excuse the pun) and gentle mockery. Bemused, she compares Calhoun’s compulsive political analysis at social events to “a piece of machinery” and his mind to the “vehement working of an intellectual machine.” Calhoun’s ideological rigidity – continuing her “cast-iron” metaphor – prevents him from engaging in dialogue or exchange: “His mind has long ago lost all power of communication with any other. I know of no man who lives in such utter intellectual isolation.” (Coit, Margaret L. (Editor). 1970, John C. Calhoun: Great Lives Observed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey p. 70-72)

What then is the source of the statement in the introduction: “Nicknamed the ‘cast-iron man’ for his determination to defend the causes in which he believed…”

Clearly, this is not derived from the Martineau’s memoirs, although she coined the term. Historians may have adapted the nickname, but the only source provided is “Ford” – several articles are listed for Ford. Can the contributor of this statement provide a readily available source for this assertion? Can the paragraph from the source be provided?

By the way, biographer William Lee Miller in his Arguing About Slavery. John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress. (New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 0-3945-6922-9.) reports the “famous quotation” (‘cast-iron man’) as a humorous sobriquet, and not one of esteem. (Miller p. 115-116) 36hourblock (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

the sources are many--as a glance at books.google,com demonstrates. For example one major biography is entitled: The cast-iron man: John C. Calhoun and American democracy (by Arthur Styron - 1935). Recently Lee Cheek looked at "appellations used to describe the man — from the "young Hercules" of the War of 1812 to the "cast iron man" of later life"; Cheek, Calhoun and Popular Rule (2004) p 15. Mrs. Jefferson Davis dubbed him "a moral and mental abstraction." Was it true? Historians disagree; Meigs says no. Niven (1993) says "He had indeed on occasion shown a chilly, impersonal public demeanour — 'the cast iron man,'" Russell Kirk says "That zeal which flared like Greek fire in Randolph burned in Calhoun, too; but it was contained in the Cast-iron Man as in a furnace, and Calhoun's passion glowed out only through his eyes. No man was more stately, more reserved...."; Peterson (1988) says of Martineau, "She, of course, was speaking of the Calhoun of 1835, but her observations of a man in the grip of ideological possession were just as true, even truer, a decade later. Her metaphor of “an intellectual machine” was striking, and soon repeated by others." (p 407). The characterization is very famous and should stand. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done; Rjensen is clearly familiar with the subject matter. That the sobriquet "cast-iron man” is “very famous” was, however, never in dispute; it is the interpretation of the nickname that concerns me.

Rjensen’s sources only prove my point: that Harriet Martineau’s description of Calhoun was adapted – then adopted – by Calhoun’s advocates. None of the quotes provided above support the assertion in the article that Calhoun was given the nickname because of “his determination to defend the causes in which he believed.”

But enough of this! I’ve revised the sentence to include Martineau’s original conception of the sobriquet (providing balance) while conserving the existing phrase. (with Coit and Miller as sources for Martineau). As pointed out, “historians disagree” on this matter. Can we agree on this?

The original portion of the sentence still lacks a citation; will Rjensen provide this from his/er sources? 36hourblock (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Department of “Pleasing Ironies” (Calhoun Unit)

Historian Thomas L. Krannawitter draws attention to an “irony”.

During 1860-1861, “every Southern state that acted upon Calhoun’s theory [of concurrent majority] decided for secession by a simple majority; not one seceding state would allow a dissenting (pro-Union) minority to veto the policy of secession”. Minority opposition “were ignored and trampled upon, the very thing that concurrent majority was intended to prevent”. .” (Vindicating Lincoln; Defending the Politics of our Greatest President 2008. Available online; Google Books p. 177)

As one wise bird observed: “…I'm not sure an encyclopedia should deal in irony.” Perhaps; but is it not "very pleasing"?

36hourblock (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If it weren't already clear, this entry, which inappropriately discusses the subject of the article, rather than the article itself, demonstrates that 36hourblock is using these pages as a personal soapbox from which to advocate a particular view of Calhoun, and therefore lacks the impartiality required of a Wikipedia editor. I caution 36hourblock to stop abusing Wikipedia.

Jdcrutch (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than posting veiled threats and “cautions”, I urge you to report any discussion of John C. Calhoun you find offensive to a Wikipedia Administrator. That, sir, is my advice to you.
I am providing, for your convenience, a complete list of Administrators who perform various tasks (abusefilter, checkuser, oversight, etc.) Please feel free to use it.

36hourblock (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Devoted to the Principle of Liberty

The second paragraph currently begins with this phrase. It is factually inaccurate to refer to one of the most vocal and influential defenders of chattel slavery in American history as "devoted to the principle of liberty." The whole paragraph is a mess and should simply be deleted. I previously inserted "for white men" after the objectionable phrase but someone reverted it back, so I post here rather than begin a revision war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionClemens (talk • contribs) 06:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There having been no defense of this phrase posted here, I am going to revise it again to more accurately reflect reality. OrionClemens (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Since later in the sentence it speaks of the white southern minority, is your parenthetical addition all that necessary? EricSerge (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

5-30-2013, it still began with 'devoted to liberty in principle, ...'. which is truly bad writing; the sentence 'Calhoun built his reputation' is not helped by this, it's tacked-on, and why? Calhoun's ideology is discussed in the article so this is redundant. and as per NPOV, leading the way it does is just suspect. I was so bold as to remove it. It's not 'encylopedic' writing, is it. J Civil 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan civil (talk • contribs)

Anna Maria Calhoun Merger

It has been proposed that the Anna Maria Calhoun article be merged with this page. I disagree. The AM Calhoun article certainly needs expansion; but if it were to be merged, one could just as easily argue for merging it into her husband's article as well. I suggest that we allow the editors at AM Calhoun some time to expand that article before determining its fate. I will take a look at expanding it myself as well. Tgeairn (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggested a merger as the Anna Calhoun article does not give any reason why Anna should be considered notable in her own right. According to the article, her sole claim to fame is being the daughter of a politician and the wife of a diplomat. She doesn't appear to have done anything significant (e.g. written a memoir, established an organisation). Unless Anna had achieved something of note, I suspect the article won't go further than Start class. If others feel the article has enough strengths to stand on its own, then feel free to remove the merge tag. I only suggested a merge as it seemed like the best option. ClaretAsh 09:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with ClaretAsh. It seems like everything that is mentioned is AM being involved with something her father or husband did. It mentions her being homesick but it takes her 8 years to actually get home because she is abroad with her husband. I like the idea of merging it with her husband's, though, because there does seem to be a lot of mention of them together.Cleanelephant (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this and having looked at the articles, a merger with her husband seems most apt. I love to have more article rather than fewer, but she doesnt seem particularly notable.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Russell and "Roughshod"

Robert Russell's Constitutional Doctrines with Regard to Slavery in Territories (1966) is a lively and engaging essay. He does not use the "roughshod" remark that is presumably Calhoun's. I didn't see it in the body of the work. If Russell used it in a footnote, please indicate that, and give the page number. Sources - and their handling - must conform to Wiki Rules, not those of Conservapedia.

In fact, the section lacks any context whatsoever and is wholly inadequate to conveying the material that Russell provides in his piece. At Conservapedia/Calhoun/Talk, everyone is urged to take a stroll down memory lane. "[The editor] wrote the new materials and originally posted them to Citizendium. 09:25, [name deleted] 2 November 2008. To this day, it remains a "stranded section". This may pass muster at Conservapedia or Citizendium, but it doesn't meet our standards at Wikipedia.

As a consolation, I've cited Russell at American Civil War as support for in the section on Territories and the US Constituion. 36hourblock (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki editor falsely accused ot "poor edits" by Rjensen (Conservapediot)

editor 36hourblock reverts fully sourced info on Calhoun's ideas with the strange comment that "We don't need a lecture from Professor Calhoun - it's inappropriate to dominate the section in this manner." I suggest that it is indeed appropriate for Calhoun's ideas to dominate a section on Calhoun's ideas. Many scholars are cited as well giving different views on what those words of Calhoun's mean. Then 36hourblock deletes a cite to a Calhoun's leading biographer who showed Calhoun's use of many sources, telling readers that since all writers have many sources they don't need to look into that matter. 36hourblock is new to Wikipedia and needs to appreciate better how an encyclopedia is designed to convey information in RS to readers. Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Pentulance and personal attacks - all quite predictable. Red Harvest had it right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Border_states_(American_Civil_War) 36hourblock (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

36hourblock erase one paragraph written by Calhoun that summarizes his argument. That was a very poor edit indeed people turn to the article to learn what Calhoun was thinking. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If an author - not an editor - wishes to include a lengthy quote from Calhoun in a book, that's their business. But to insert a major passage here, from the Disquisition is overweening, to say the least. Secondary sources take precedence, and these must be edited to accommodate this encyclopedia.

Rather than clutter up the body of the section with a large quote, I've provided, in my generosity as a Wikipedian, a block quote for those who wish to provide excerpts from Calhoun's opus. This seems quite reasonable. If not, the editor in question is free to return to Calhoun/Conservapedia and get creative at that site. 36hourblock (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Calhoun doctrine

editor 36hourblock says "Russell is the only author I've read who used "Calhoun Doc" - others use "states rights/state sovereignty". That is perhaps because 36hourblock has not read other scholars who use "Calhoun doctrine" such as Guy Story Brown - 2000; Jon Meacham - 2009; Michael Perman - 2009; David F. Ericson - 1993; Neal Riemer - 1996; Merrill D. Peterson - 1988; Richard Current - 1963; Margaret L. Coit; or Donald Fehrenbacher (1981) (who won the Pulizer Prize for his book). Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As usual, no page numbers are provided for these claims. The invocation of the "Pulizer" Prize is impressive, however.

36hourblock (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

clearifying religion,

I hope you all on here don't mind, I was reading John C. Calhoun: American Portrait, and am very well-researched in the subject and it appears his religion was pretty unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salveevery1 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Beginning Paragraph info

Having accessed this article on Dec 6, 2013 I found the article recently edited that day and something must have happened in the formatting as all the information is jumbled in with commands. It is indecipherable. Please fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.93.154.107 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Article restored. EricSerge (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John C. Calhoun/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs general expansion. Good lead and good pictures at least. More inline citations wouldn't hurt either.--Wizardman 06:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes to "State Sovereignty and the 'Calhoun Doctrine'"

I have modified RalphEllison's recent addition to the section by removing the qualifier "radical" and the final sentence, concerning the Dred Scott decision,

That decision legitimized the proslavery interpretation of the Constitution and emboldened southerners in the years leading into Lincoln's election.

Calhoun's position certainly differed radically from the position of the Free Soilers, but in Calhoun's day it was hardly radical, as that term is generally understood in a political context. If I remember right, a version of the same doctrine was part of the Democratic party's official platform for many years. Perhaps RalphEllison meant something more like categorical or absolute? Radical can have that meaning in a philosophical context, but generally isn't understood that way when applied to political views.

The comment about the Dred Scott decision, apart from being unsourced and vague ("emboldened southerners"?), adds nothing to our knowledge or understanding of Calhoun, who was dead by the time that execrable decision was rendered. Calhoun was significant for the decision, so I agree that his influence on it should be mentioned; but the decision is not significant for Calhoun, so there is no need to go on with comments about the decision's effects.

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course Calhoun was radical; he proposed a novel doctrine, opposed to all Democrats save his small faction. And this is not limited to Dred; it was the Calhounite demand for the enforcement of slavery in Nebraska that defeated Douglas and then destroyed the Union. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

25 June 2015 "Memorials"

I have reverted a good-faith edit by @The rakish fellow: because I consider it premature. It asserted that the massacre at Charleston had been committed by Dylann Roof, which has not been proved in court or admitted by Roof. The presumption of innocence should be respected on Wikipedia, regardless of what common sense may tell us, and despite the judgment of the news media. It also concerned demands that Confederate emblems be removed from the South Carolina Statehouse. Calhoun's statue is not a Confederate emblem; nor are demands that it be removed from the statehouse new or noteworthy. In light of the killings in Charleston, those demands have taken on a new urgency, and if the statue is removed, that will be noteworthy; but the mere fact that existing demands have been renewed is not. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV in the introduction

Can we remove the last two sentences in the last paragraph of the introduction? This is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine.

“ In 1957, a Senate Committee selected Calhoun as one of the five greatest U.S. Senators of all time.[6] Calhoun "was a public intellectual of the highest order...and a uniquely gifted American politician,"[7] and "probably the last American statesman to do any primary political thinking."[8]

Or perhaps to frame this differently, if we are going to have superlative-laden praise quotes, shouldn't we also have quotes of scathing criticism regarding his views on slavery and African Americans?

Personally, I'd rather have neither and just state the facts about his career without any pundit commentary. Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Notable comments and characterizations from weighty sources, whether favorable or unfavorable, may be appropriate in an encyclopedia article. If there is scathing criticism of Calhoun from important authorities, it may be appropriate to include it in the article. It is important, however, to avoid moralism in treating of historical figures, and to appreciate men and women of the past within the context of their respective times and places.
Calhoun's views on race and slavery would be shockingly deviant in a modern American; but his racism was well within the main stream of American opinion in his day, and even his view of slavery as a positive good, though not shared by a majority of Americans (or even, probably, of white Southerners), was not a radical departure from the norms of his society. In other words, those views per se did not distinguish him from the common run of Americans in the first half of the Nineteenth Century. By contrast, his intellectual and political gifts did distinguish him, and they entitle him to the characterizations to which Repliedthemockturtle objects.
The article should, and I believe does, point out that Calhoun used those gifts in the defense of racial slavery, which is significant for a full appreciation of the man within the context of his place and time; but that does not disqualify him for praise of his genuine virtues, or demand an arbitrary counterweight of criticism from the standpoint of modern morality. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I just don't see the place for rankings ("one of the five greatest U.S. Senators") and superlatives ("a public intellectual of the highest order") in an encyclopedia. It's childish and non-scientific. State what the person accomplished and let the reader decide on the rest. That's my opinion. I respect your opinion, and I will leave the sentences as such. Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the quotes and replaced them with a more neutral sentence.Display name 99 (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Whereas" and attempts at love poetry

The anecdote about Calhoun's inability to write a love poem—because, when he tried, every line began with "Whereas"—has appeared in many places and in many forms. The article quotes a rather flat-footed version from Perkins's book on the War of 1812. The anecdote is telling and funny, and definitely should be recounted here; but surely there's a better version? It should be possible to find the origin of the story. I seem to remember reading something that suggested Calhoun had told it on himself, which, if true, would be a notable insight into the man's character; but I don't remember where I got that idea. At any rate, I'd be grateful if somebody with more time than I have would track down the story's origin and cite it here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, while I was not the one who put the anecdote in the article, I did a quick Google search and came up with plenty of mentions of it, although not all the sources recanted it in the same way. On a Google Books version of Life in the Swamp: A Study in the Literature and Society of the Old South, it is referred to as an "oft-repeated joke in Charleston." I might look more deeply into it later. Display name 99 (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

his views shifted ?? too vague --it's much more useful to report he reversed positions

A "shift" in views can be large or small and is too vague to help any reader. (All politicians "shifted" at least a little bit.) Calhoun reversed his views--by 1830 he vigorously opposed the main positions he strongly advocated in 1820. McPherson: "in the 1820s he reversed his views, fearful that all such growth would benefit only the North, leaving his beloved South vulnerable to the Yankee Colossus. Increasingly dour and sour, Calvin devoted himself to the long camp pain to thwart Northern aggressions." James M. McPherson (1997). Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War. p. 41. Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

more cites: 1) " In time, Webster and Calhoun would both reverse their positions on the tariff." [Nelson Klose, Robert F. Jones - 1994]; 2) " The reversal of positions by Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun reflected economic changes in their sections of the nation." [Robert D. Geise - 1992]; 3) "Calhoun would appear to have made a complete reversal of his position during his lifetime." [Joseph F. X. McCarthy - 1974]; 4) "In this most remarkable reversal of political opinion, here the future father of nullification, interposition, and secession, the leading mind who would later fuel the fires of disunion in protest against tariffs and internal improvements..." [Thomas L. Krannawitter - 2008]; 5) ". But by the time he wrotethe Exposition and Protest,Calhoun had abandoned all these earlier positions." [Jeffrey Hummel - 2013 ]; 6) "Public amazement over Calhoun's change of position" [Charles Grier Sellers - 2015]; 7) " Vice- President John C. Calhoun abandoned his prior nationalistic position." [Melvin I. Urofsky - 1988]; 5) Calhoun "had undergone a dramatic transformation and abandoned the nationalist philosophy he once so ardently advocated." [Daniel Leab - 2014]. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Better portrait for Info box

Suggestion - replace current photo with George Healy portrait? Hoppyh (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a question of personal preference. I don't think that the Healy portrait is of quite as good quality. It says in the description that it was taken with a hand-held camera at a museum. The quality isn't terrible, but I think that the current picture looks fine. Display name 99 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Hoppyh (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit items

In Early life, where did Calhoun go when the Georgia academy closed (sounds like he didn't go home until later when his father died?) Hoppyh (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources I've examined for this are rather vague as to this question. It seems as though he just sat around in Georgia reading books. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks-we may want to put something in to that effect to fill the gap. I would anticipate the question on a FA review. Hoppyh (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In War of 1812, what was the "step further" in the Calhoun committee report for which he took credit? Hoppyh (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

HE Escalated the rhetoric by attacking Britain's "lust for power," "unbounded tyranny," and "mad ambition." This made Honor a bigger factor & I added details & cite. Rjensen (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Please pardon me if I insert an inappropriate synonym (e.g. abhor for oppose) - just trying to tweak the prose to avoid repitious wording - for potential FA review. Feel free to revert if necessary. Hoppyh (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_C._Calhoun/Archive_1&oldid=1088832382"