Toussaint vs. Calhoun

There are a few specific similarities and differences between Johnson’s Calhoun and James’s Toussaint. Both men are ex-slaves who received the benefits of education. They both find themselves mediating between conflicting forces and worlds and in positions of leadership. However, I would suggest that Calhoun falls into this position through a series of accidents and because he cannot trust anyone on the Republic. It is a matter of personal survival. He treats with the Almusseri and the white men on the slave ship in order to stay alive. Toussaint, on the other hand, seems to have made a more deliberate decision to step into the role of leader and consequently took up the task of moderating between the numerous factions of San Domingo. He is also portrayed as unselfish, seeing his role as a sacrifice to a greater good for his people and his island.
Of the two authors, I believe that James is more sympathetic to his character, though perhaps sympathetic is the wrong word. Despite any flaws that Toussaint might have, James tends to portray him as a well-intentioned, powerful and deeply-caring leader. I think there might be some reverence on the part of James for Toussaint. While Toussaint comes to an inglorious end historically, had James been writing fiction, I think perhaps that he would have ended the story differently. On the other hand, Johnson has no reverence for Calhoun and instead of sympathy might only spare him a little pity. Calhoun is not nicely portrayed by his author and the only saving part of the character is a stubborn spark of humanity under all the filth and hurt and shame that Calhoun carries around. The author does drag him out of the sea at the end but only as a broken man.
In regard to whether or not the individual characters are capable or reconciling the dialectical situation they find themselves in, I would suggest that Toussaint is incapable of such a feat based on the sheer difference and number of factions he is dealing with, while Calhoun is partially capable of reconciling the situation for himself. As leader, Toussaint had to balance the fears and desires of the ex-slave class, the mulattoes, the small whites, the big whites, France, Britain and Spain. It was impossible for one man to reconcile all of these factions with one another and so he was forced to play politics and to do his best to further what he considered the good of the island through the support or repression of the various groups. He would not succeed in creating a lasting peace between these factions. Calhoun on the other hand had fewer groups to reconcile. He played all sides of the situation in order to further his own end, namely, getting himself back to New Orleans. I suppose that one could see the take over of the Almusseri as a type of reconciliation but the whites on the boat did not stop plotting and eventually the sea became the great decider of fates. While neither of these characters lacked the ability and skill to treat with many parties, I believe the situation was simply too complicated for either of them to work out through their own power.