Talk:John C. Calhoun

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Topic

I've kept this article relatively small, with much POVing and the like added, as I've just recently read the WP article and its talk page. Since starting the article-as-it-is, I haven't gone to the WP page save to make certain that they used a period in the middle initial and the photo; the rest of the details about Calhoun is from recent memory. I'll probably add more if others don't, at all or before I do.

Like a number of RW'ians, I was interested in getting the Andrew Jackson article going. I remember hearing the name Calhoun, but he was a vague figure. What source did I go to for info? What'd you expect. Hope I'm not helping to turn RW into a fork WP (like Wikinfo was—sort of).

By the way, in the talk page in WP article, some guy named "Jensen" was mentioned in reference to Conservapedia. He and another editor were in a spat, the latter even suspecting the former was engaging in sockpuppetry. Talk to Civic Cat 18:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't like the snark, Weaseloid? (Not as bad as your last edit.)Talk to Civic Cat 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

my December 2013 edits—revert immediately!!

1. My original edit of the caption, for it's faults, is more accurate than the current one, as good as it is. If Andrew Jackson was born in South Carolina, he'd be South Carolina's best known—not Calhoun. As we aren't sure which Carolina that Jackson was born in, and my reference was removed, I removed the Carolina reference from the caption, which renders 209.239.114.86's good edit moot, hence no caption at all save the name.
2. I replaced the later "[[The South|antebellum US]]" to my earlier "antebellum US" as the South and antebellum US aren't the same thing—+60% of the Southern states existence as US states have been in the post-antebellum time.
3. I changed the ""[[Bullshit|necessary evil]]," back to "necessary evil" as his defence was even more bullshit than that of his contemporaries.
4. I liked my "Typical of many American <s>slave-owning aristocrats and noted bigots</s> historical figures," better than "Typical of many American historical figures," but hey, you guys don't like strikeouts, who am I to argue otherwise, and that's that, so I didn't touch it. The "The Navy probably regrets that." is cute though—assuming it's true.
5. Why do I get the feeling that I'll spend more time on this article than reading the Wikipedia article?

Talk to Civic Cat 18:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any stopped clock moments?

Or redeeming elements in his career? To me he appears to be almost the definition of 19th century wingnut... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Modernized the War Department during the Monroe administration

Was considered one of the three most important congressional leaders of the 19th century, along with Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.

Was one of the only American political philosophers who developed his own political theories rather than borrowing heavily from Europe, especially Brittan and France.

Is considered one of the foremost intellectuals in 19th century America for his work on the enumeration of powers.

Was selected by a Senate committee as one of the five greatest US senators of all time...in 1957.

Helped to raise troops, to provide funds, to speed logistics, to improve the currency, and to regulate commerce to aid the 1812 war effort (you know, British troops burning the capital and all that.) despite being a "Chickenhawk".

Supported a bonus bill, public works, a national bank and protecting American industry

Also realized that these policies should not be made permanent as they would perpetuate entrenched interests. They should be there for a temporary period as a way of jump starting American prosperity

Basically created the bureau of Indian affairs. Ratified and negotiated 38 separate treaties with Indian tribes.

Basically created the 19th century political philosophy known as agrarian republicanism, a compromise between the rampant corporate welfare, modernization, shut down of state services (to be replaced with federal ones) and programs championed by the Whigs in order to expand federal power and secure unity; versus the rampant populism, nationalism, giving votes to the illiterate, growing the country far faster than was economically or politically stable, Indian hatred, manifest destiny and barn burning/hunker infighting that was the democratic party at the time.

Opposed the devastating war with Mexico, just as Lincoln did.

His Disquisition of government is considered one of the most important in American political theory.

So, you know, that kinda shit. Burkean (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So why not add that to the page since you seem to know quite bit about his political career?--Owlman (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What's the point? Some asshole on here will just fuck with it. See below. Burkean (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

He tried to whitewash the guy. It was reverted. And good riddance. 176.6.14.12 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry no name, I'm like a bad smell, can't ever get rid of me. I'm sure you understand. And by the way actually mentioning shit the guy did is not whitewashing. And he is considered one of America's most astute politicians whose political ideas merit study. Guess we better stop reading Plato since he owned slaves. May the douche be with you. Burkean (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Tried a couple of times again, a little was good after it was made into correct English, and a tantrum ensued. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Define tantrum. Oh, I see tantrum is where I don't care for you altering the original meaning of what I said and then I say something about it. Hopefully, you, Dorothy and Toto will make it back to Kansas someday. Maybe a house could fall on you too. Burkean (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sure that if you cite your info it will stay. All of the examples you have written are good enough to stand in their own section(s) and may change some hasty opiniions about them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 06:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Great idea. Only last time I checked the sandbox, the instructions had basically been replaced with some kind of a disclaimer. But that's my fault I should know how to do that by now. In any case, it seems that almost anytime someone tries to put in anything which undermines the politics of rationalwiki, something called an edit war ensues. But thanks for actually being constructive. Burkean (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Chicken hawk

To my knowledge the British fired the first shots in the war of 1812 If he’s a chicken hawk isn’t FDR? Or Wilson? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1008:b100:b75f:19fd:9c45:cc16:ae1b / talk / contribs}

Yes I agree ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.129.144.49 / talk / contribs}