Customer Reviews

John Randolph of Roanoke

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

John Randolph of Roanoke, a distant cousin of Thomas Jefferson (whose mother was a Randolph), cut one of the outstanding figures in American politics in the first third of the nineteenth century. Virtually nothing in his life was uninteresting. From leader of the Republican Party in the House in Jefferson's first term as president, Randolph went to leader of a new opposition party after his notorious break with Jefferson. Later, his famous speaking style (the speeches here are worth the volume's price and more!) and acerbic wit made him the terror of administrations of both parties. His duel with Secretary of State Henry Clay is immortal, his imbroglios with the young John C. Calhoun are mesmerizing, and the story of his death fascinates. Not included here is the controversy over his will: in the end, one of Randolph's wills was probated and the other failed, with the result that Randolph freed more than 400 slaves! He also bought them land in "free" Ohio, where the natives ran them off; I don't know what became of the land (or of the Randolph money that had bought it for them). Randolph's long-standing insistence that the Yankees were hypocrites when it came to slavery and emancipation finds some support here, to say the least.

Kirk, unfortunately, has a tendency to make every conservative he admires into a bygone Russell Kirk. Randolph, for one, was not nearly so religious as Kirk would have him, and what Christianity he had was -- as one might expect -- of an eccentric variety. Still, the text here is a nice entre' to Randolph's life, and the speeches and letters are priceless. We don't have politicians of this intellectual level, or with this grasp of the English language, anymore. Nor, alas, do we have any who are so consistently, insistently conservative.

I hadn't read much about this book before I got it. I thought it was going to be a biography. Instead, it's an analysis of Randolph's political philosophy, including his thoughts on slavery. Roughly 2/3 of the book contains Randolph's letters and speeches. They certainly are worth reading. This book, then, serves as something of a primary source.

Kirk clearly admires his subject, who was a Republican's Republican--a guy who was true to his conservative values, whether or not doing so made him popular. Randolph, for instance, was opposed to the War of 1812 because he was an isolationist. Nor did he like the federal government meddling in the economy, even though he lived in a time when the federal government was relatively small. For Randolph, he was ever fearful of the country slipping into despotism. His was the spirit of the Stamp Act opponents: they thought a small measure by the government might mean impending tyranny.

When it came to slavery, Randolph was in the gradual emancipation school. But unlike Jefferson, he freed his slaves, who then moved (per Virginia law) out of state. His servants migrated to Ohio, where they encountered hostile northerners who did not like free blacks in their neighborhood.

Randolph was an unusual man, who remained politically consistent in a way a man who had little contact with the "common man" only could. He could never have risen much higher than Congressman, because he lacked the compromising spirit that makes for great executives. His persistent defensive stance toward change, however, made him a model for American conservatism. One can see much in Randolph that Pat Buchanan would admire.

Reading this book, I couldn't help but think of Kierkegaard, a contemporary of Randolph's, though on opposite sides of "The Pond," who like Randolph had a misshapen body and a similarly conservative and puritanical view of the world. They were guys who spent too much time in their heads. Indeed, there's something very aristocratic and European about Randolph, who had great admiration for the British system and the writings of Burke, another great conservative. "I love liberty," Randolph once said, but added, "I hate equality." That's more American than it might first sound. Even though Jefferson said all men were created equal, that didn't mean it was best that they all were equal.

Randolph was a man too strange not to have new biographies written about him. That might soon change. In the meantime, enjoy this well written thought piece.

Randolph is the shining example of a long dead brand of American conservatism. These conservatives refused to build their political theory on the metaphysical rights of man, the driving force of Jefferson and the American Revolution. Instead, their opinions were shaped by the belief that the way of life embodied by the wealthy southern landowner was inherently good and should be protected. Their insistence on a weak national government, their defense of slavery and their advocacy of a limited franchise were all motivated by their belief that this way of live deserved to be preserved. They lost of course, to the benefit of thousands of people, but at the expense of the only thing that ever resembled a noble class in America. Their ideas deserve recognition and Kirk does a fine job relating the core of Randolph's thought. The lengthy and worthwhile appendix of Randolph's speeches and letters is worth even more than Kirk's fine analysis, however.

Russell Kirk is particularly adept in pointing out the value in what he calls The Permanent Things in life. He expresses the tremendous value we have in that thread which connects us to our ancestors on the one hand and our posterity on the other. John Randolph understood the value of preserving the limitations placed on government by the Founding Fathers and the perils in surrendering state sovereignty to the national government.

Russell Kirk's John Randolph: A Study in American Politics is really more a statement on the philosophy of the author. Kirk, A right wing fanatic who admires monarchy and aristocracy, loves Randolph for the same reasons. Randolph, although an eloqent and passionate defender of state's rights, was an enemy of the Jeffersonians, and an unwitting ally of his Federalist enemies. Randolph was orginally a liberal, but soon became a defender of what Murray Rothbard calls the "Old Order". The Old Order mindset is one of a monied aristocracy, powerful political leaders, dominating religious leaders, and fuedalism, all of which Randolph admired.

All of this tells much about Kirk himself, as most biographies do. Kirk is an enemy of Jeffersonian democracy and limited government, even though Randolph supported a limited federal structure. Kirk, an admirer of Burke, along with Randolph, seems to endorse the view that people need an aristocracy to run their lives. Randolph believed those ideals too. He believed in primogeniture, entail, a strongly restricted franchise, and the power of landed wealth. Primogenture, entail, disestablishment of a state religion were the linchpin of a Jeffersonian reform of Virginia. Randolph despised these changes. Kirk, seems to despise them also. It seems to me that men like Kirk and Randolph would have been Tories in the American Revolution, both admired England, it aristocracy and it's powerful government. Old John Randolph, the aristocrat and state's rights man, and Russell Kirk, the monarchist and conservative couldn't be better bedfellows. The only good point is that Kirk points out that Randolph opposed slavery but realized that simple manumission would be futile in his society. After Randolph's death he deeded a large tract of land to his slaves in Ohio and freed them. When they tried to settle the land they were run off by the white population. This should answer the moronic comments by leftists who rail at the Founding generation and continually cant that they should have just "freed" their slaves, the consequences be what they may.

Other than that Kirk shows why the modern conservative movement, of which he is credited as it's founder, is anti-liberty and pines for a return to the "Old Order".

Overall a poor study with much bias.