Talk:John C. Calhoun/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some comments

This Longacre engraving might be useful.

I've been asked to look at the article with the possibility of FA. I don't think it's that far off. I will have some specific comments this week. But let me lead off with:

• The lede. It is a very dry recitation of Calhoun's career. This is your chance to get the reader to read your article. I think it needs to have more energy, focus, show him as the larger than life figure in his own time that he was (and remained, at least for a century after his death)

I have a rather dry writing style when going over historical facts. I'll see what can be done here. Display name 99 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• That's true of several places in the article. Why Calhoun did what he did is often unexplained. I don't ask for that everywhere, but certainly in the major decisions that shaped his career. Why did he run for VP in 1824, for example?

I'll look at that later. Display name 99 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Was he truly Jackson's "running mate" in 1828 or was it more an alliance of convenience?

More the latter. I'll see if that can be made more clearDisplay name 99 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think the lead image shows the man as he ought to be pictured by the world. While I understand photos are preferred, I don't see this as an absolute rule.

Hoppyh raised this concern too. I will consider changing it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The Brady photo shows Calhoun in the last year of his life, as he was dying of tuberculosis, not as the vibrant, charismatic man who nearly became president of the United States, and was twice elected vice-president. I think some editors prefer it because it looks "cast-iron" and sorts better with their preconceptions of the man. Paintings and drawings are often better than photographs at portraying the character of their subject. On the other hand, photographs can be staged and manipulated. Brady himself once dragged a soldier's corpse several yards to set up a battlefield photo. The preference for photographs as "more accurate" (which I've encountered before in this connection) is a mere prejudice, and does not reflect reality. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• If anyone would like a copy of the American National Biography article on Calhoun, please send me an email. Do any of the authors have access to JSTOR?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe editors can get access to JSTOR via the Wikipedia Library. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• The footnotes need some work - see above; their review is proceeding. Hoppyh (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt for your comments. I hope to have addressed all these within several days. Display name 99 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Hoppyh, the lead image has been changed. I moved the previous one to the "Second term in Senate" section. Display name 99 (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I like it...the layout for wife's image was helped also. Hoppyh (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I like it too. I see several JSTOR articles are used, I was asking in case you didn't . You might want that ANB article though, it contains useful information. I would be happy to email it if you send me an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll defer to Display name – I'm still in the middle of a c/e. Hoppyh (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt (pinging Hoppyh), I have attempted to address your concerns. I have made some edits to the lead which I think make it seem more interesting. The fact that he chose to run for vice president in 1824 instead of president is explained in the article by the fact that he failed to gain the endorsement of the South Carolina legislature. I added information about how, in 1828, Calhoun supported Jackson's run only because he wanted reprieve from Adams's big government policies, and that he did not fully trust him. The lead photo was changed. Hoppyh has done significant work on the footnotes, and this task may have been taken care of. Are there any other specific concerns that you wish to see addressed? Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help. See the dozen or so footnote fixes needed above. Hoppyh (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference fixes needed

Footnote #4 Ford needs page nos. Hoppyh (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #6 Colt needs page nos. Hoppyh (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #12 (Wilson, p. 254) has no corresponding source. Hoppyh (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

See the second work listed under "Primary Sources". Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #24 Wilts needs page nos. Hoppyh (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #41 Bailey has no corresponding source. Hoppyh (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #42 Bartlett is lacking page nos. Hoppyh (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about this one. I have no print copy and I can't find it on Google Books. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #51 Marszalek may need page nos. Hoppyh (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #53 Marszalek - ditto. Hoppyh (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #54 (2) Phillips has no corresponding source. Hoppyh (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

See the 4th to last work listed under "Biographies". Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #68 Cheek needs p. nos. Hoppyh (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote #105 von Holst needs the name of the publisher. Hoppyh (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hoppyh, please see my comments above. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Great. Sorry for the head-fakes. Hoppyh (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem Hoppyh. I think I'll nominate it today if you see no further issues. Display name 99 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. I hope you get votes of support or at least comments for improvements and I'll be glad to help make the fixes I can. Hoppyh (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"Openly" or "explicitly" advocating a right of secession

The article previously said, "Calhoun differed from Jefferson and Madison in explicitly arguing for a state's right to secede from the Union, . . . ." Display name 99 changed "explicitly" to "openly". I changed it back, saying, "'openly' implies J & M argued for secession covertly, rather than implicitly;" and Display name 99 re-reverted it, saying, "Jefferson drafted a threat for Kentucky or Virginia to secede, but did not publish it." I objected to this violation of WP:BRD on Dn99's talk page, and invited Dn99 to justify her or his revision on the article's Talk page. Dn99 responded, in pertinent part, as follows:

The original reason for a change, as recommended in the FA review, was to remove use of the word "explicitly" in two consecutive sentences. I chose to replace it with "openly". Jefferson included a secession threat in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, thereby seeming to accept it as a last resort. However, he eventually took it out, meaning that, while he did technically support nullification, he did not loudly and freely support total withdrawal from the Union in the way that Calhoun did. As a source example, please see an article here.

I am transferring the discussion to this page, so that others interested in the article can contribute if they like.

As I said when I first reverted Dn99's revision, to say that "Calhoun differed from Jefferson and Madison in openly arguing for a state's right to secede from the Union, . . . " is to imply that both Jefferson and Madison covertly or privately argued for such a right. Dn99 suggests (citing a journalist's blog, which I do not regard as a reliable source) that Jefferson did so argue. If Jefferson asserted such a right in a draft resolution, submitted to the legislature of Kentucky, I'd argue that he thereby argued openly and explicitly (albeit anonymously at the time). As far as I'm aware, Madison never advocated a right of secession, whether openly or, as Dn99's version suggests, covertly. The sentence, therefore, as Dn99 has it, appears to be incorrect, as to both Jefferson and Madison.

On the other hand, it is arguable, and indeed has often been argued, that both men's arguments imply a right of secession, regardless of what either may have said privately (or even publicly) on the subject.

The appearance of the word explicitly twice in as many sentences can surely be avoided without the introduction of an untrue implication.

Incidentally, I have also to take issue with Dn99's assertion that Calhoun "loudly and freely support[ed] total withdrawal from the Union". Calhoun emphatically maintained the States' right to withdraw from the Union, but he never supported such withdrawal. In fact, no man in history labored harder to prevent that calamity. That is a vital fact about Calhoun, which anybody who undertakes to edit this article ought to appreciate. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The article that I cited, whether reliable or not, states that Jefferson removed mention of secession from the draft before submitting it, which I think indicates that, while he privately believed in it, he was not ready to make his views known. You have also cited an issue with my characterization of Madison. Truly, it is important for you to know that the article does not specifically say anything about what Jefferson and Madison argued for, only that they did not openly support secession. You should also read the next sentence, where it says that Madison openly rebuked supporters of nullification, although this may be referring to his later years, when he was more in favor of a powerful central government. I'll see if I can make this more clear later, when I have time.

Finally, while Calhoun preferred to have South Carolina remain in the Union, and desired mainly to use secession as a threat simply to get what he wanted, I do not believe that the main point has been obscured, that Calhoun was loudly in favor of a right to state secession while Jefferson was not. The article contains the word "right" within it, it's merely the version on my talk page that you have an issue with. Also, your statement that "no man in history labored harder to prevent" secession isn't quite true either. Calhoun, knowingly or not, led the South on the road to disunion by his refusal to compromise and insistence that the South should always have its way no matter what. Display name 99 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the place to discuss Calhoun, so I shouldn't have responded to Dn99's assertion about him. Nevertheless, the sentence as it stands implies that both Jefferson and Madison privately or covertly argued for a State's right of secession, which is incorrect, as far as I know, and Dn99 has produced no reliable source to support his or her alteration of the text. It should therefore be reverted to its previous state. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, I removed any mention of Jefferson or Madison from the sentence with this edit. I hope you find it agreeable. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: That suits me, thanks, although I do think the distinction between Calhoun's arguments and those of Jefferson and Madison is worth mentioning. It occurs to me now (finally!) to suggest that another alternative might be to leave Jefferson & Madison in the sentence, and to replace "openly" with expressly, which avoids both the echo problem with "explicitly" and any misleading implication concerning Jefferson & Madison. Either solution would be fine with me. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Minority rights" and "Western Canada"

"Minority rights", in the sense of the current usage of the phrase, is not what is intended here. I think this needs to be made clear right from the opening paragraph of the lead and not left until later on. Also, it's stated later in the article that the US "seized control of western Canada", but the Battle of the Thames and other such events did not take place in Western Canada as it is today defined; they took place in what is today Southern Ontario. — Diannaa (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Minority rights" all stem from Calhoun who originated the concept. see Fred McBride, "Strange Bedfellows: The Political Thought of John C. Calhoun and Lani Guinier." Endarch: Journal of Black Political Research 1997. Canada grew a lot after 1812 --but in 1813 the battle was fought in its far west. Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I find the lead confusing, because today "minority rights" means something completely different from what Calhoun meant. I think an explanation should be added to the first usage of the term in the lead. Also, as the area that today is Western Canada was essentially empty in 1812, the Americans would have no reason to invade and there would be nothing to sieze control of, outside of a few forts, a small indigenous population and scattered herds of buffalo. So you need to be more specific as to what they actually seized please. — Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, please see the "Minority rights (again, apparently)" thread on this talk page not too far above this one. I also don't really see how what is in Western Canada matters. What is significant is that the U.S. took control of it. We don't need an in-depth analysis of the War of 1812 for this article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

On Canada-- in 1813 at the battle of the Thames the Americans not only killed Tecumseh, but broke up his coalition and cut off the Indian allies to the west from British supplies area for the first time, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and lower Michigan were safe from Indian attacks. The Americans thus achieved one of their main goals of the war: Eliminating the threat of the Western Indians to the Americans settling in the Northwest Territory. Rjensen (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Display name 99 recently (in an edit summary) expressed some reservations about citing the official Senate biography of Calhoun so much. I haven't done more than skim the Senate biography, but it appears to be reliable (it's available in a PDF version, with end-notes). It does, however, rely fairly heavily (though not exclusively, and maybe not even principally) on secondary sources, and so is arguably a tertiary source, and not the best authority. (See WP:PSTS.) On-line sources are attractive, both because they are easy for readers to check, and because they don't require editors to get up from the computer; but those are not reasons for preferring them over printed sources. Wiltse, though perhaps a bit dated by now, remains the leading secondary source on Calhoun, and, unless later scholarship has found him to be in error (something I'm not aware of in any case, but which may have happened), ought to be our chief source. (I will gratuitously note here that I regard Capers's book as a hatchet job, not to be relied on for anything, except as an example of the hostility that has tainted much writing on Calhoun.) In short, I would encourage Dn99 to continue making judicious use of the Senate biography, but not to feel any obligation to use it in preference to printed sources.

I again express my appreciation, despite some disagreements, for all the work Dn99 has put into the improvement of this article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

the Senate history is a highly reliable source, in my opinion. It was written from the best primary & secondary by two outstanding experts, Richard A. Baker, and Donald A. Ritchie. The way Congress works, the staff authors do not get the credit they deserve. I recall Senator Robert Byrd read it aloud on the floor and took full credit. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes: I didn't mean to suggest that the Senate biography was not reliable—only that it may be considered a tertiary source, and therefore not the best source for Wikipedia. (As I understand it, tertiary sources are slightly disfavored because they are tertiary—i.e., summary—and not because of any suggestion that they're unreliable per se.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

i see no evidence it's a tertiary source. the authors are experts at using primary sources. They had to write the essays in the form of speeches that Sen Byrd delivered on the floor, hence no footnotes were possible. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my first posting, there is a PDF version that does offer end-notes. (See link above.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Life mask of Calhoun

The Princeton Library's web site offers an image of a life mask of Calhoun. I once posted it on this Talk page (in a discussion now archived), but it was deleted because I couldn't prove that it wasn't subject to copyright. A different picture of Calhoun's life mask was published in 1894, in Laurence Hutton, Portraits in Plaster: From the Collection of Laurence Hutton (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1894), at p. 259. I have extracted that photograph, which is old enough to be free of copyright restrictions, and uploaded it to the commons. The quality of the image unfortunately isn't especially good, but it's there if anybody wants to include it in the article.

I am not at all sure that both photographs depict the same mask, though both purport to represent a life mask of Calhoun, taken by Clark Mills, and in Laurence Hutton's collection; and both, in my opinion, look like Calhoun. The apparent differences may result merely from differences in angle and lighting. (One can scarcely imagine anybody's submitting twice to the onerous process of taking a whole-head life mask.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the date given in Hutton's book for the mask pictured here is 1844 (see p. 254), in which year, if memory serves, Calhoun almost ran for president. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Correction to "Nullification" quotation

In the section, "Nullification", Calhoun was quoted as referring to "the Federal Government, sustained by its delegated and unlimited authority". Because Calhoun consistently argued that the authority of the federal government was limited, I suspected an error. The source given for the quotation, a transcription of the speech on the web site of the University of Missouri at St. Louis, does indeed give "unlimited authority", but it is in error. Compare John C. Calhoun, Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, ed. Ross M. Lence (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992), p. 429. ; and John C. Calhoun, Speeches of John C. Calhoun: Delivered in the Congress of the United States from 1811 to the Present Time (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1843), p. 81.

I have written to the address given on the UMSL site, calling the proprietors' attention to the error, and I have corrected it here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I have also replaced the citation to the UMSL site with the two given above. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Minority rights (again, apparently)

It looks like this was brought up before, but the phrase "minority rights", which is in the first sentence following "...his strong defense of slavery...", seems like a big, big source of potential confusion. The phrase has multiple established meanings, and a look at the minority rights article should demonstrate that the specific meaning is far from obvious to a reader who isn't already familiar with the topic. Clarifying that Calhoun was discussing a political minority would go a long way to correcting this. As a tentative suggestion, how about replacing the phrase with 'rights of political minorities', at least in the first use in the lead? Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, I added "in politics" to the end of the sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's definitely an improvement. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I question recent reverts made by Display name 99 which included deleting missing citations. The phrase "minority rights" continues to be a source of confusion. In Calhoun's own words in his memorable final Senate speech on March 4, 1850, he clearly describes the history behind the state of disequilibrium between the North and the South that he deplored, with the Southern slave-states outnumbered and overpowered by the slave-free Northern states. He pleads with the North to protect the institution of slavery as pivotal to Southern industry and economy - an institution that even the first president protected. He is so eloquent and the words so powerful as he speaks of the "agitators" (the abolitionists) that caused dissension even between the religious denominations that had previously found points of agreement. The current phrase in the article - "who is best remembered for..."advancing the concept of minority rights in politics, which he did in the context of defending Southern values from perceived Northern threats" is vague and misleading. Calhoun was never vague. He was proud of his role as slave owner and planter and firm in his beliefs that the institution of slavery was beneficial to all.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Oceanflynn, with respect, it does not seem vague to me at all. The truth is that, in the process of developing his defense of the Southern way of life, he articulated a whole theory on protection for minorities in government. This can be, of course, something that leads to confusion. However, the very next phrase, "which he did in the context of defending southern values from perceived Northern threats", should make it clear exactly what Calhoun was speaking of. He supported nullification and the concurrent majority as a means to ensure that the supposed freedoms of the South were protected from "majority" (Northern) tyranny, whether in the form of tariffs or abolitionism.

I also have a major problem with this: "known for having devoted his career fighting for federal support for the institution of slavery". Well, of course Calhoun was a major slavery proponent. I am in no way questioning that. However, the words "devoted his career" make it seem as though he did little else during his long career in public office than promote slavery. That is untrue and misleading. For most of Calhoun's time in public office, slavery was not even a major national issue. The biggest contributions that he had to defending slavery all came within the last 15 years of his 69-year life, and the largest of all, in his speech against the Compromise of 1850, less than a month before he died. The rest of his time in public office was devoted to other issues. Slavery is definitely what usually stands out the most in Calhoun's career, but I think the man deserves to be known for more than just that. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cherry Picking

The "Texas" section is based almost entirely on 1000 word, non-sourced, "Profiles of the Presidents". Calhoun, to my knowledge, was never a US president.

How is it that this skimpy section appears on an article that just received a "good" designation?

Most troubling, the material in the section are not supported by the "online" summary. It's more than just cherry picking sentences.

This article is supposed to be a product based on secondary research, using mainstream sources and historians.

This is deplorable.

--36hourblock (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

good point. i fixed it using RS. Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Quotes by Historian Hofstadter

I noticed that Richard Hofstadter is quoted and referenced a number of times in this article (a telling reflection on the anonymous author's influences) and I just wanted to ask if it would be right and pertinent to emphasize the fact that Hofstadter was all his life a radical left-winger and a member of the Communist Youth and 'American' Communist party? To quote 'Historian' (an appeal to authority) without any reference to the very extreme views this 'historian' projected upon his work I find to be rather misleading, especially when he authoritatively states or supposes Calhoun's views and the motivations behind these - A fundamental aspect of marxist philosophy is that economic causes are the root for absolutely everything, he imposes this belief of his own upon Calhoun in various ways, for example the marxist trope and depiction of all Southern antebellum life as a three-tiered society with the ignorant and immoral ignobles (Southern poor whites ['Poor' seems to be a broad and vague description here]), the noble victims (Black slaves) and the Capitalist Aristocratic Fatcats (Southern Plantation owners) I find to be absolute revisionism and by no means necessarily present in what writings and details we have recorded contemporaneously.

My point being that the revisionist and activist northern historians of the 40s-present should not be quoted and treated as unbiased and impartial actors in these articles, especially where they are writing about Southern antebellum life, Civil War topics, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Segregation etc., all of which are favorite topics of theirs.

- Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Advocate of "Minority Rights"?

This concept is repeated in the article and creates an unintended black humor. Calhoun certainly did not advocate minority rights, except when the minority was a white minority (as a geographical group). All those statements need redrafting. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

American history is the story of how the concept of "minority" has expanded to include rights for more and more groups. Calhoun started it all and gets the credit, whether or not a 2016 viewpoint agrees with his selection of a minority. Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

@@Jdcrutch: - I changed the lead photo mostly in concurrence with @Lx 121:'s comments at Talk:Andrew Jackson re:portrait vs. daguerreotype. This is the most accurate representation we have as Calhoun as it is an actual photo of the man himself... it shows us exactly what he looked like, not someone's artistic representation of him. More comments here welcome. Connormah (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

comment: in biography articles (among others), photographs of the subject take precedence over non-photographic artworks; as per historical accurate & NPOV. the article is about the person not the painting.

there are several photographs of this person to choose from; personally i think the brady portrait is rather good...

Lx 121 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Further comment: It's quite a notable daguerreotype of Calhoun - see [1] for some background. Connormah (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The notion that photographs are not artistic interpretations of their subjects has long been debunked. I don't have a reference at hand, but it's well known that Brady composed his photographs and created appearances no less than any painter. (He even dragged a soldier's dead body some distance to compose a battlefield scene.) So I don't buy the NPOV argument, which Lx 121 seems to suggest is Wikipedia policy ("photographs of the subject take precedence over non-photographic artworks") but doesn't support with any reference to Wikipedia documents.

The picture in question isn't in the lede per se: it's in an infobox whose heading is "7th Vice President of the United States". It is most appropriate, therefore, that the image used be his vice-presidential portrait, painted while he was Vice President, and showing him as he appeared when he held that office.

I have no objection to the use of the Brady photograph in the article, but it should be placed in conjunction with the account of Calhoun's last years, during which it was taken. The infobox image should represent Calhoun at the time of his most notable achievement, the vice-presidency of the United States. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

you are engaging in sophistry in your arguments; here is a breakdown of what is wrong with them:

1. a photographic image is inherently more accurate than a painting or drawing.

that has not been "debunked".

2. your arguement that "The picture in question isn't in the lede per se" is BULLSHIT

it is the leading image on the article.

if you are arguing that the infobox should be moved down, so that we can have a "real" lede image, you need to take that one up with wp:style & co.

3. it is irrelevant WHEN the photo was taken, so long as it is an ACCURATE LIKENESS OF THE PERSON.

we also have at least one other, earlier photo to choose from, if you prefer?

4. it is not our job to "capture the spirit of the man".

that is NNPOV.

it is our job to show what the subject, the person, REALLY LOOKED LIKE.

ALL OF THIS falls under wp:accuracy & wp:npov

5. the man was an active politician & UNITED STATES SENATOR when the brady photo was taken; so even if i agreed with your hypothesis, which i do not, i think that would still qualify as "during his career".

& actually

6. we do use pictures of people taken after they leave office, or after "the height of their achievements".

if you want examples, just ask for them; it will be a VERY long list...

Lx 121 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

btw: if you look in the commonscat for him, we have a bunch of photos to choose from. assuming they are all correctly identified.

it also looks very much like the dating-chronology of the photos needs correcting/checking on some of them; in that the subject's apparent & relative age is inconsistent with the dates given, across the range of images.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

FAC Renomination

Wehwalt, Hoppyh, Maunus, Rjensen, Jdcrutch, and Lingzhi:

Greetings. I wish to renominate John C. Calhoun as an FAC. I have pinged each of you because you were major contributors to the article and were involved in the unsuccessful attempt to get it promoted when it was first nominated as an FAC in 2016. I have continued editing and monitoring the article over the last several months, and believe it's time we gave this another try. Please do not feel obligated to involve yourselves this time. I am pinging each of you because I believe you deserve notification or in case you would like to participate, and especially if there are any potential issues that you wish to identify before I nominate the article.

Probably the biggest issue in gaining consensus last time was the citations. We ended the review with a total of 6 citations without page numbers. We are now down to just two. There are no more direct quotes without page citations.

Since the last review, some expansion of various sections has taken place. Most notably, the section "Secretary of State" has been expanded significantly. The author of most of that expanded text-a user by the name of 36hourblock, has a citation style that involves the heavy use of quotes. I have removed those which I consider to be excessive. Mainly, the ones that I have taken out are quotes about things that have little to do with Calhoun or instead merely repeat or rephrase the text while adding no new perspectives or information-just more words and clutter. I have left many quotations in the article, however, which I believe offer important perspectives or details. One potential problem that I see is that it leads to inconsistency in the citation style. Please note that 36hourblock has recently been involved in a major dispute with me and Rjensen. Therefore I would not recommend pinging him or her. If 36hourblock wants to participate productively in this process, that's okay. But I wouldn't make an invitation. Also, I think it's a possibility that the text that has been added to that section could be seen as a bit too wordy, or confusing in syntax.

I thank you for your help on the last review. If anyone is interested in helping with this one, I would be grateful. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have done the deed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Calhoun at Yale

The article needs to be updated based on the renaming of Calhoun College (see [2]). I think the unnaming should have the same amount of space as the current mention, but since there appears to be an active interest in promoting this article I'll leave it to those editors to make the necessary adjustments. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Jackson and Calhoun

Below is a full quote from the source cited:

President Andrew Jackson always declared that Calhoun was a traitor and should have been treated as one. To the clergyman who received him into the Presbyterian Church before his death, who asked him what he would have done with Calhoun and the other nullifiers if they had kept on, he replied : "Hung them, sir, as high as Haman. They should have been a terror to traitors to all time, and posterity would have pronounced it the best act of my life.”

"As he said these words he half rose in bed, and all the old fire glowed in his old eyes again." In his last sickness he again declared that, in reflecting upon his administration, he chiefly regretted that he had not had John C. Calhoun executed for treason. “My country,' said the general, “would have sustained me in the act, and his fate would have been a warning to traitors in all time to come." Source: https://archive.org/stream/trueandrewjacks02bradgoog/trueandrewjacks02bradgoog_djvu.txt DOR (HK) (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Abbeville Institute Quote

The quote from the Abbeville Institute that ends the Historical Reputation section seems biased and, more importantly, without substance. It's bad enough that there is no mention of the context—that the Abbeville Institute was founded by secession defender Donald Livingston with the express purpose of defending the Confederate South—but there is no explanation of *why* "No American public figure after the generation of the Founding Fathers has more to say to later times than Calhoun." If the text of the article is to end with a defense of Calhoun, it should at least be a substantive one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151F:FB:FD6A:F219:A8C1:4431 (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John C. Calhoun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040206200950/http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/000000b2.htm to http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/000000b2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040206225617/http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/000000b3.htm to http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/000000b3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040206225216/http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/000000b1.htm to http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/000000b1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John C. Calhoun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817072639/http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/family/rachel/ to http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/family/rachel/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun

Hi Tom, can you explain your change to the John C. Calhoun page? John C. Calhoun was a major advocate of the Southern states' rights movement, and he did lead the South to secede from the Civil War, so if you'd like to make an edit that separates these causes and effects, that'd be great, but I don't think a full rollback is necessary. Feel free to comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff18 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

(above moved from my talk page) Your edit was redundant. The sentence right before you added your material continues to say, "By the late 1820s, his views reversed and he became a leading proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification, and opposition to high tariffs—he saw Northern acceptance of these policies as the only way to keep the South in the Union." You need to explain why you need to say the same thing twice in two consecutive sentences. Also "heavily influenced" secession is much more accurate than your addition of "directly influenced" secession "and the start of the Civil War" There was a lot of water under the bridge between Calhoun's death and the start of the Civil War.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

A coat of arms has been placed here without explanation. Who awarded it to him? CsikosLo (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:George Peter Alexander Healy - John C. Calhoun - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:George Peter Alexander Healy - John C. Calhoun - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 18, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-03-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

John C. Calhoun (1782–1850) was an American statesman and political theorist from South Carolina, and the seventh vice president of the United States from 1825 to 1832. He is remembered for strongly defending slavery and for advancing the concept of minority rights in politics, which he did in the context of defending white Southern interests from perceived Northern threats. He began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs. By the late 1820s, his views reversed and he became a leading proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification, and opposition to high tariffs. His beliefs and warnings heavily influenced the South's secession from the Union in 1860–1861.Painting: George Peter Alexander Healy

Calhoun Speaks: a burlesque

We detect a solitary flute playing the dulcet tones of “The Bonnie Blue Flag” from deep below. A scarlet halo begins to glow, and with it rises “the cast iron man” – John Caldwell Calhoun – “his own self!”

Eternal Greetings, defenders of the Lost Cause, and salutations to my distinguished Yankee biographers.

To wit: It has come to our attention that my tenure as Secretary of State in President John Tyler’s administration has been sadly misapprehended in your online encyclopedia.

[Aside: Mr. President, would kindly freshen up my iced lemonade? Thank you, John.] Strange; none of our former servants have yet arrived in this place...

To wit: I have authorized a highly regarded and sympathetic member of your editorial staff – the honorable 36hourblock – to correct the cynical falsifications I’ve discerned in the “Texas” section and bring it into line with historical truth. I have personally found the revised and expanded version to be satisfactory.

Now, you’ll excuse my hasty departure. I have an engagement with my dear friend Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. He drops in from time to time to for a game of whist. (They tell me that Heaven bores him!). My mess mates, Senators Webster and Douglas, will join us to complete the foursome.

I bid you good day, gentlemen.

We hear a band take up the syncopated strains of “Dixie” as the former master of Fort Hill plantation descends slowly into the smoky abyss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36hourblock (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Birthplace

According to https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/artifact/Painting_32_00009.htm Calhoun was born "near Calhoun Mills, Abbeville District (now Mount Carmel, McCormick County), South Carolina" any reason why I should not update the article with this statement (and reference) ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Tense change

"By the late 1820s, his views changed radically and he became a leading proponent" should be "By the late 1820s, his views had changed radically and he had become a leading proponent." Thank you. 39.9.232.28 (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

OP here. Can someone please change this? I understand the need to lock vandalism-prone pages, but it seems nobody is monitoring this talk page to help non-registered users fix errors they spot. Thanks. 27.242.231.93 (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Offices in infobox should be in chronological order

The way it is makes it seem like being Vice President was the pinnacle of his career, and it wasn’t. deisenbe (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

Change "He is remembered for strongly defending slavery and for advancing the concept of minority rights in politics, which he did in the context of defending white Southern interests from perceived Northern threats." to "He is remembered for strongly defending slavery and advocating white supremacy." The statement as it is suggests that whites were a political minority in the south, when white Americans were considered the only actual citizens of the United States, as Black Americans (free or enslaved) and Native Americans were not recognized as American citizens during his lifetime. Murkydismalisupset (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

While I am setting the template to "answered", I agree that the current phrasing is too confusing. As I said a couple years ago, and several people have said before and since, this is jarring and peculiar to a general reader coming from a modern context. Explaining things to modern, general readers is the purpose of Wikipedia, so this still seems like a problem. He was advocating for white southerner's rights as a political minority, and this is entirely consistent with white supremacy even by conservative definitions of the term. The article is confusing as it could be easily misread as suggesting that he advocated for slave's rights, which is not meaningfully true. Yes, a cautious reader will understand that he was defending white people's legal right to keep black slaves, among other things, but surely we can figure out a way to explain this more clearly. This phrasing makes sense in some limited contexts, but it also seems euphemistic. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Death and burial - moving grave

This section seems to be a bit ambiguous. This should be repaired. A great many people would like to know where, exactly, this person is buried for the purpose of "paying our respects". I personally would like to know exactly where he is buried in order to pay my personal respects. lol 98.194.39.86 (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"St. Philip's Church yard in Charleston" seems pretty unambiguous to me. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)