"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" (Feb. 6, 1837). Marx himself didn't say it any better.
More? January 10, 1838, Calhoun repeated his defense of slavery as a "positive good": "Many in the South once believed that it was a moral and political evil; that folly and delusion are gone; we see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world." Odd, given that almost all other "free institutions in the world" had already abolished slavery or were in the process of doing so.
Oh, and not to leave out the good old class struggle elements of Marx, Calhoun again: “It is useless to disguise the fact that there is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization a conflict between labor and capital."
In fact, Calhoun completely agreed with the Virginian George Fitzhugh who called slavery the perfect example of communism because it "cared" for the "needs" of the enslaved.
Oh, gee, and how about this little Calhounian tidbit: He WROTE the "Tariff of Abominations." That's right, like Kerry, he voted for it before he voted against it.
"Here is just a sample of the Marxist Calhoun's thoughts on the labor theory of value, the ESSENCE of all communism:
'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' (Feb. 6, 1837).
"Marx himself didn't say it any better."
You apparently do not read or understand Marx. That would also be true of your thinking about Calhoun. Just to set the perspective, your quote of Calhoun in 1837 was well ahead of any Marx publications. Marx was about 20 years old at the time and still in college. There is very little that Marx could have said to impact Calhoun's thinking regarding that quote. And it did not reflect any Marxist principles
Even in Richard Hofstadter's book's chapter on Calhoun, which you seem to quote, he does not label him as a communist, although it has been widely misunderstood by some. Calhoun did often use language that would refer to the various "classes" of people, but as primarily a writer concerned with social structures, he was defining the difference between those who wished to live by the results of their own labor, and those who would live by the profits of others. He focused on the benefits of the social relationship rather than a Marx like struggle. That is the subject area that you missed.
He addressed the reality of the different classes and contributed to the understanding of the costs of labor and the benefits. He saw the struggle of the classes but not in a racial sense---moreover that of commercial and industrial classes and other interests, primarily commercial.
And here is the fallacy of your guilt by association correlation of Calhoun to Marx.
Marx tore away class analysis from classical European liberal thinking and transformed it from a libertarian view into a socialist one. He then transformed the labor/enterprise contract into his grand explanation of cultural clash:... the historically inevitable struggle between profiting capitalists and exploited workers.
Marx viewed the state as the capitalist's tool, Calhoun violently opposed the construct. Whereas Marx liked to expound on the notion that the most wealthy merchants tended to be aligned with the political class, Calhoun saw the relationship as serving the growth of the entire population.
Calhoun's various positions show that he was changing his mind, based on events. However, he never approached the characteriture that you are describing.
But in case you missed the class on tariffs, here is Calhoun's role in the matter:
In an elaborate scheme to prevent passage of still higher tariffs, while at the same time appealing to Andrew Jackson’s supporters in the North, John C. Calhoun and other southerners joined them in crafting a tariff bill that would also weigh heavily on materials imported by the New England states.
It was believed that President John Quincy Adams’s supporters in New England, the National Republicans, or as they would later be called, Whigs, would uniformly oppose the bill for this reason and that the southern legislators could then withdraw their support, killing the legislation while blaming the mercantilists.
“What that plan was, Calhoun explained very frankly nine years later, in a speech reviewing the events of 1828 and defending the course taken by himself and his southern fellow members. A high-tariff bill was to be laid before the House.
It was to contain not only a high general range of duties, but duties especially high on those raw materials on which New England wanted the duties to be low. It was to satisfy the protective demands of the Western and Middle States, and at the same time to be obnoxious to the New England members. The Jackson men of all shades, the protectionists from the North and the free-traders from the South, were to unite in preventing any amendments; that bill, and no other, was to be voted on. When the final vote came, the southern men were to turn around and vote against their own measure. The New England men, and the Adams men in general, would be unable to swallow it, and would also vote against it.
Combined, they would prevent its passage, even though the Jackson men from the North voted for it.
The result expected was that no tariff bill at all would be passed during the session, which was the object of the southern wing of the opposition. On the other hand, the obloquy of defeating it would be cast on the Adams party, which was the object of the Jacksonians of the North. The tariff bill would be defeated, and yet the Jackson men would be able to parade as the true “friends.”
From Wikipedia in case you have interest.