John+C+Calhoun-The+Marx+of+the+Master+Class

AMB-- (An Explication and Analysis of the quote at the beginning of the article): "It would be well for those interested to reflect whether there now exists, or ever has existed, a wealthy and civilized community in which one portion did not live on the labor of another; and whether the form in which slavery exists in the South is not but one modification of this universal condition... Let those who are interested remember that labor is the only source of wealth, and how small a portion of it, in all old and civilized countries, even the best governed, is left to those by whose labor wealth is created." --John C. Calhoun John C. Calhoun was a radical Southern senator in favor of slavery. In this quote, he began by saying that the people who were involved in the debate over slavery should have considered that every civilized society had a group of people who lived off of other people's work, and that slavery in the South was simply an example of this fact. He then claimed that "labor is the only source of wealth," meaning that no gains could be made without someone putting in some sort of work, and that some of that wealth that is created, even if it is only a tiny amount, would end up back in the hands of the workers. This quote states his pro-slavery argument in clear terms. He argued that blacks were better off as slaves than if they were free, because slave owners provided clothes, food, and housing, as well as medical care and child care for the slaves. Even though the slaves spent almost all of their time working for the house in some way, some of the wealth was returned to them through everything with which they were provided. This contrasted to the Northern free black factory workers, who worked under harsh conditions and did not have any personal connections with the factory owners. They had no rights, no protection, and nothing was provided to them. Though they were paid, they ended up owing more money to the factory because food and clothing were too expensive. Calhoun was trying to prove that not only was slavery in the South a continuation of a timeless pattern, but a benefit to the "working class" as well because they actually saw some return for their labor. This quote also illustrates the fact that the interests of slavery were economic, not racist. Calhoun spoke nothing of African Americans, or of any race in particular, but of a laboring class whose work benefits an upper class with some of the wealth returning to the workers. Though racism was a factor in Southern (and Northern) slavery, the white planters did not own black slaves not for the purpose of mistreating them, but because it was simply an easy way to get free labor to work the farms and make a profit, because in the words of Calhoun, "labor is the only source of wealth." This quote shows that Calhoun advocated slavery because in his eyes, the South needed it in order to function economically and to gain wealth through labor. written as if the reader needs to be taught (sound familiar??) -- write with the understandingn the reader has knowledge of the subject and the work to make him/her reconsider his/her preconceived idea

VB - In today’s society politicians are often critically scrutinized by their political beliefs. This same judgmental attitude is reflected in the way Calhoun’s firm stance on slavery was acknowledged by both his political adversaries and supporters. Richard Hofstadter postulates that Calhoun was a sectionalist rather than a nationalist. Calhoun was forced to adopt sectionalist attitudes as a result of his economic standing in South Carolina. Calhoun recognized that the emancipation of slaves could not occur without major economic consequences for the south. It was this conviction that encouraged Calhoun to unite the southern and western states against the industrialized east. As a nationalist, Calhoun would have worked to promote understanding between all regional states. Calhoun emphasized the need for state sovereignty as opposed to nationalism. Calhoun’s ardent beliefs structured the United States making the Civil War inevitable. Alternatively, Holley Ulbrich in //John C. Calhoun//**,** published by the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society, asserts that at the beginning of his career, Calhoun, was a staunch nationalist. This contention is best exemplified by Calhoun’s support of the War of 1812. Both Hofstadter and Ulbrich focus on a specific aspect of Calhoun’s political career. It is deduced from their strong arguments that both authors are correct. Calhoun was both a nationalist and eventually a sectionalist. One must examine his entire career, and not just one portion of his life, to recognize these political affiliations. nice ideas but reads as in this book -- in that book -- work at creating a melding of the two in which you look not at what the author says but why the subject is controversial

MDS John C. Calhoun was an utterly perplexing political character during his career. He is often characterized, as he was in the NBC video “Positive Good of Slavery” as dominated by an intense belief in sectionalism and the Southern cause, to the point where his ideas and debates became ludicrous because of his efforts to ensure that every piece supported Southern institutions. However, as Richard Hofstadten claims in “John C. Calhoun: Marx of the Master Class”, he is also seen to have been a staunch nationalist at the beginning of his career, only to be forced to become a sectionalist due to his loyalty to the Southern cause and inability to prevent separations. In this way Calhoun was truly a political enigma because despite his passionate debates supporting slavery, he personally espoused nationalist ideals. In failing to recognize the necessity of personal and party loyalty in politics, Calhoun felt free to switch between ideologies and support those most suited to his personal ambitions as well as the Southern ambitions to which he felt a certain sense of duty. It seems that Calhoun could be characterized not by his nationalist or sectionalist beliefs alone, because he somehow managed to support both sets of ideals. Instead, he can be illustrated through his method of supporting said ideals. His ultimate political strategy was an absolute duty to the causes he supported. As a master debater and logician, he sought to fully represent the feelings of the people – a nationalist belief. His sectional tendencies came into play on issues such as slavery, where he manipulated every possible aspect of the situation to the South’s advantage. However, his claims were not logical fallacies as they are often accused. They did represent the actual feelings of the South – that slavery was truly not an evil but an institution of benign consequences for the slaves themselves. As much as he was criticized for such “ridiculous” ideologies, he could not be repudiated because of the utter loyalty of his facts to the beliefs of those he supported – who that was may have depended on the particular day. you have all the basics in place but are still emphsizing what rather than why checked