Talk:John C. Calhoun

Was he a conservative
It's not the job of editors to decide what conservatism should be, it's our job to report what the RS say. They are clear enough: 1) https://books.google.com/books?isbn=144380276X Brian Farmer - 2008 - ‎"Perhaps no figure better exemplifies the attitudes of Southern conservatism in the antebellum period than John C. Calhoun of South Carolina." 2) Russell Kirk devoted chapter 5 to Randolph & Calhoun. 3) American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1497651573 ed Bruce Frohnen, ‎(2014): "Calhoun addressed these problems forthrightly (often at the expense of popularity) and in so doing did his best to promote the public welfare and preserve the republic." nullification he adopted from Jefferson and Madison. 4) https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1438432348 Robert C. Smith - 2010 - ‎"Calhoun remains a highly revered figure in the conservative tradition in America—“the Moses of states rights conservatism”—highly regarded for his arguments about the limited powers of the federal government, states rights,...." 5) Conservatism Revisited: The Revolt Against Ideology By Peter Viereck says re Calhoun's Disquisition: "this more extreme, very regional  Calhoun conservatism still dominates much of the American South in the 1970s" Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a little ridiculous to try to connect him to the modern conservative movement. Those roots have nothing to do with anything going on in the 19th century. (Including communism and a government that regularly spends more than 20% of its GDP.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Calhoun's treatment of slaves
This edit:

The "kind superintending care" with which Calhoun treated his own slaves is shown by an incident in 1831, when his slave Alick ran away when threatened with a severe whipping. Calhoun wrote to the captor:

was reverted without explanation. Is there one? Kablammo (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There's actually less to this than meets the eye: if you look at edit history, I was trying to revert some petty vandalism and your addition got caught in the middle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ian. I did not see that. Kablammo (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I altered the intro to the incident to something a bit more NPOV. (Which is a policy here.) Starting out with "Calhoun's "superintending care" of his own slaves includes an incident in 1831..." is sarcastically implying this was par for the course in how he treated his slaves. Without a credible source saying it was, the statement goes against WP:NPOV.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * These are Calhoun's own words. And there is no sarcasm, and certainly no humor, in the juxtaposition of and contrast between his own words and actions. He proclaimed a paternelistic solicitude for the welfare of human beings he considered to be his property, yet subjected them to brutal punishment which he rationalized as "correction". Kablammo (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a appropriate intro and not NPOV. Even in a section that detailed routine mistreatment of his slaves.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is nothing but a recitation of Calhoun's point of view, in his own words. Kablammo (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more than that....it's how it's set up in the article. It's not NPOV. Anyone's words can be twisted around.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and how are these explicit and clear words of his "twisted around"? Kablammo (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We're going in circles here. I've already explained that. ""Calhoun's "superintending care" of his own slaves includes an incident in 1831...."? Come on. That's loading the dice. It's a veiled way of calling him a hypocrite (which he may very well could have been) and doesn't even take into account the context of the times: Were slaves normally given bouquets of flowers for running away by their owners? Of course not. A more useful reference might be comparing him to other owners.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what you object to is the contrast between his words and his actions. Nor do I accept that the proper comparision is between one slaveowner and another.  That is moral relativism.  Kablammo (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum. Adhering to NPOV is not optional. It's what we do. The picture of his words vs. his actions on this subject is incomplete (as of now). A source summarizing his treatment would be best. And even that should be introduced better than what was proposed. This is my last word on this point until a 3rd person joins or new info is presented.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires us to present facts, not sanitize or ignore them. Kablammo (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I like the use of "superintending care" better than "treatment". Pointing out that a hypocrite is a hypocrite, or a liar is a liar, isn't a violation of NPOV if it's accurately reporting what RSes say. I recently encountered a similar issue at Alexandros Schinas, where "forced to undergo examinations" is used to describe torture. In that case, almost all of the RSes that described Schinas' torture, even after 100 years, used the quote "forced to undergo examinations" (which originated in a 1913 newspaper article), so we used it in our article, too. Every time the RSes use it, they're clearly pointing out that it's a euphemism for torture, and so our article does the same. But it's not a Wikipedia editor's invention, it's following the RSes. My question in this case is: do any RSes quote Calhoun's "superintending care" to point out the hypocrisy? If they do, we should; if they don't, I don't think we can. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole problem with the "superintending care" bit (aside from the NPOV issues) is: it's entirely nebulous. Ultimately you are forced to compare him to contemporary slave owners (whether anyone like moral relativism or not) to gauge his treatment. If the standard is: he owned slaves, ergo he is a hypocrite for even uttering "superintending care"....well, then it's over before it starts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

____

[Sic] edit
Hello. I recently added "[sic]" to a quote in the article because it read "a Indian tribe" rather than the grammatically correct "an Indian tribe." Another editor recently changed it to "an." I reverted, and I thought that adding sic would deter other editors from doing the same thing in the future. This seems like a reasonable justification to me to keeping that in. Display name 99 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * lots of readers get confused with "sic" -- in this case I got confused by what you meant. We can leave it out of trivial grammar issues and save it for serious problems. Rjensen (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE issues in Historical Reputation section
The issue of "historical reputation" really over-represents the "Lost Cause" view of Calhoun as though it is still a respected and common view of history. Most modern historians consider the "Lost Cause of the South" to be pseudohistory that was invented during the early 20th century to serve as justification for segregation. (In fact, it's even listed as an example on Wikipedia's page on pseudohistory, alongside the Shakespeare authorship and Christ myth theories that are also widely discredited.) The section also heavily overrepresents the views of Clyde N. Wilson in particular. While he certainly has done quite a bit of research on Calhoun, Wilson is a founding member of the white supremacist organization League of the South and is hardly representative of the current historiographical consensus on Calhoun or the pre-Civil-War South in general. While I understand the need for Wikipedia to reflect different perspectives, we need to consider issues of undue weight: historical perspectives that are fringe should be given less time than people who are closer to the research consensus, but the section is currently weighted in the opposite direction. I think that what Lost Causers think should be included, but properly contextualized the way any outdated theory would be, lest someone using the site to research be given the impression that it's still the mainstream. Anyway, I saw my edit that cut the extended (and unnecessary anyway imo) Wilson quote and added some qualifications to the "Lost Cause" section was reverted, and I was told to take it to the talk page. So here I am. I was also thanked for the edit by another editor, so I figure there are some here who agree with me and there's room for discussion. At the very least, not including Wilson's white supremacist ties in an article citing him about a pro-slavery historical figure seems like a major omission. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also decided for the time being to slap a WP:NPOV tag on that specific section. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * With regards to this, I don't see much of an issue with the section as it is. I think both contemporary and non-contemporary historical views should be included. If anything, I would like to see more non-contemporary sources. As it is, we have a Senate committee and Andrew Jackson's disdain noted. In addition to this point, I think the reference to the Charleston church shooting should be removed. The shooter has never mentioned Calhoun and the discussion on confederate monuments has been around for a while. Not sure any vandalism should be mentioned either.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've removed Clyde N. Wilson's block-quote from the end of the article. If Wilson's views are so significant that a neutral encyclopedia article gives him a lengthy, flattering quote, as the last word, there should be an indication from reliable, independent sources this is representative. That Wilson is "an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South" strongly suggests this is Lost Cause pseudo-history. At a bare minimum, readers should be aware of how WP:FRINGE this historian's position is, and fringe content should be summarized with reliable sources, not primary cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't endorse the lost cause myth, but I'm not sure that this attempt to defend him is at all successful. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So then, at best, it's filler which has been misrepresented as legitimate scholarship. It's just a person's opinion, and that person's encyclopedic significance is being misrepresented. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to catalog all published opinions, so this quote doesn't belong, regardless of whether or not we think it's successful. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Checking back in on this as I'd forgotten but was reminded by recent events (which hopefully have made it clearer how important it is not to give undue weight to pro-slavery pseudohistory!) I think the current version of the section is great, with the Wilson quote removed and the mention of Lost Cause historians properly contextualized. I'm making a minor edit to the latter paragraph to remove an extra comma, but that's it. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ETA: Looking back over the section, the one suggestion I'd make is to beef up the section on his defense of "minority rights" clarifying how it is being used here (in opposition to majoritarianism) especially when the Wikipedia article on minority rights uses the term differently. I seem to remember the explanation being more robust at some point? But that is, perhaps a different discussion, since it's not a NPOV issue. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The first use of the word "minorities" to identify Blacks occurred in 1919
, I have deleted the sentence: "He did not extend his concept of minority rights to racial minorities".

The statement is made from a modern point-of-view assumption concerning Calhoun's politics about slavery. It is a logical fallacy. In addition, it uses the term "minorities" in a way that was unknown in the Antebellum South.

I have read the referenced paper (actually it is a four-page review of the academic paper "Majority Rule versus Consensus: The Political Thought of John C. Calhoun"). Nowhere in the review was I able to find support for the assertation that Calhoun held the concept of "racial minorities" (i.e. Blacks as minorities). Calhoun's concept of "minority rights" was limited to the idea that "small states" were in the minority; specifically, he was concerned with "minority states rights" in politics, particularly as the rights of the "minority" Southern states. He did not confer upon slaves any status as "minorities" who had "rights". Those words were not in his vocabulary.

The use of the word "minority" as related to Blacks was not used in the Antebellum Slave Plantation era. The original use of the word "minority" meaning "group of people separated from the rest of a community by race, religion, language, etc." occurred in 1919. It was in an Eastern European context.

Osomite hablemos  20:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes--we should say that not until the 20th century was the concept of minority extended to race. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No, we should not say, "A century after his death the concept of minority rights was expanded to apply to racial minorities." The referenced book/academic paper review does not support this assertion. It seems your sentence is the conclusion of "original research" which is not acceptable within Wikipedia.


 * Fundamentally, the article is about Calhoun. It is not about a 20th Century concept retroactively applied to Calhoun's philosophy of "minority states rights" and slavery. What you have wordsmithed about your opinion of Calhoun's hypothetical view is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I have undone your edit.


 * From a larger point of view, your sentence, if it is placed in the lead implies that elsewhere in the article it will be discussed and explained. Of course, it is not mentioned again. I suggest if this concept is meaningful to you, create a new section in the article to explain how this hypothetical view of Calhoun's political was arrived at. Then with a section that presents that thesis, the concept can be appropriately included in the lead. Adding this information will require more effort than simply inserting a single sentence.


 * , it would be useful, as well as appropriate according to Wikipedia guidelines, for you to explain your motivation and logic on this Talk Page. Your edit comments have been cryptic and disingenuous.


 * Osomite hablemos  05:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur with Osomite. The article should reflect Calhoun's political philosophy and not later developments and connotations that would have been alien to the society in which he lived. Display name 99 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Was he a Democrat?
I was unable to find his political party. Does anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.61.44 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

New Image
Hello all, I was hoping to change the image of John C. Calhoun to this.

we should probably do it because Wikipedia prefers actual images of people, to get a more realistic sense of what they looked like.

Thanks,

- Tom TomVenam2021 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)