1773-1833 John Randolph, of Roanoke, was descended from one of the most prominent families of Virginia, being the third son of John Randolph, of Cawsons, in Chesterfield County. He was born June 2, 1773, and had the misfortune to lose his father in his infancy. He was never thoroughly educated, although he passed from the local Southern schools to Columbia College, New York. He was, however, well read in modern speculative literature, yet always considered himself an ignorant man. He always manifested an excessive earnestness in disseminating extremely unconventional views both on politics and religion, and had an equal aversion for the Constitution of the United States and the doctrines of Christianity, as generally taught in his day. Gifted with boundless self-assurance, and a considerable command of language, he early set himself forward as a champion of States' rights. In 1799 he was sent to Congress as a Democrat, and on the election of Jefferson to the presidency, in 1801 was appointed to office as chairman of the committee of ways and means. Randolph had the manners of a self-conscious aristocrat, too inconsiderate of the personal feelings or the rights of others. He was witty and quick in debate; there was considerable brilliancy in his style of eloquence, which was however sometimes overstrained. His ungovernable temper, his bitterness of language and his absurdly exaggerated ideas of the right of Virginia to protest against the exercise of national powers by the Executive at Washington, alternately provoked ridicule and indignation, and kept Randolph from reaching that station in national politics for which perhaps his influential position in Virginia and his natural abilities fitted him. He violently opposed the war with England in 1812, and was not returned to Congress in 1813. But the sober second thoughts of his constituency acknowledged him to have been in the right, and he was duly elected in 1815. Entering the Senate in 1825, he sat with that body for two years, and in 1830 he was Minister to Russia. He died of consumption at Philadelphia, in 1833, before he could take his seat in Congress to which he had been elected some months before. He seems to have been opposed to slavery all his life, although a slaveholder, and by his will he manumitted his slaves. For several years preceding the War of 1812 there was much discussion in both houses of Congress as to the attitude which the United States should take with regard to England. The famous speech which John Randolph delivered on March 5, 1806, and which was uttered in opposition to the war resolution of Mr. Gregg, is the most powerful and the most characteristic of all his utterances. Although it was not well received by his countrymen, it made many friends for him in England, and when he visited that country for his health in 1821 he was received with every expression of esteem and admiration. The principal characteristic of John Randolph was his strong individuality, and independence of judgment. That there were ragged edges to his character is quite true. No strong man struggling with the political issues of a stormy period can refrain from vehemence and denunciation on occasions. Randolph has been accused of being a pessimist, but a passionate anxiety for the welfare of his country is a fault which may be forgiven a sincere patriot, who foresees the evils that threaten her through the imminence of war. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GREAT BRITAIN Delivered in the House of Representatives, March 5, 18061 I AM extremely afraid, sir, that so far as it may depend on my acquaintance with details connected with the subject, I have very little right to address you; for, in truth, I have not yet seen the document from the Treasury, which were called for some time ago, to direct the judgment of this House in the decision of the question now before you; and indeed, after what I have this day heard, I no longer require that document, or any other document; indeed, I do not know that I ever should have required it, to vote on the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. If I had entertained any doubts, they would have been removed by the style in which the friends of the resolution have this morning discussed it. I am perfectly aware, that upon entering on this subject, we go into it manacled, handcuffed, and tongue-tied. Gentlemen know that our lips are sealed on subjects of momentous foreign relations, which are indissolubly linked with the present question, and which would serve to throw a great light on it in every respect relevant to it. I will, however, endeavor to hobble over the subject, as well as my fettered limbs and palsied tongue will enable me to do it. I am not surprised to hear this resolution discussed by its 1 Mr. Gregg offered the following resolution in the House on January 29, 1806: "Whereas Great Britain impresses citi. zens of the United States, and compels them to serve on board her ships of war, and also seizes and condemns vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States, and their cargoes, being the bona fide property of American citizens, not contraband of war, and not proceeding to places besieged or blockaded, under the pretext of their being engaged in time of war in a trade with her enemies, which was not allowed in time of peace: "And whereas the Government of the United States has repeatedly remonstrated to the British Government against these injuries, and demanded satisfaction therefor, but without effect: Therefore-Resolved, That until equitable and satisfactory arrangements on these points shall be made between the two governments, it is expedient that, from and after the- day of next, no goods, wares or merchandise, of the growth, product or manufacture of Great Britain, or any of the colonies or dependencies thereof, ought to be im ported into the United States; provided, however, that whenever arrangements deemed satisfactory by the President of the United States shall take place, it shall be lawful for him by proclamation to fix a day on which the prohibition aforesaid shall cease." Mr. Randolph's speech was made in opposition to this resolution. friends as a war measure. They say, it is true, that it is not a war measure; but they defend it on principles which would justify none but war measures, and seem pleased with the idea that it may prove the forerunner of war. If war is necessary; if we have reached this point, let us have war. But while I have life, I will never consent to these incipient war measures, which in their commencement breathe nothing but peace, though they plunge us at last into war. It has been well observed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, behind me [Mr. J. Clay], that the situation of this nation in 1793 was in every respect different from that in which it finds itself in 1806. Let me ask, too, if the situation of England is not since materially changed? Gentlemen, who, it would appear from their language, have not got beyond the horn-book of politics, talk of our ability to cope with the British navy, and tell us of the war of our revolution. What was the situation of Great Britain then? She was then contending for the empire of the British Channel, barely able to maintain a doubtful equality with her enemies, over whom she never gained the superiority until Rodney's victory of the twelfth of April. What is her present situation? The combined fleets of France, Spain, and Holland, are dissipated; they no longer exist. I am not surprised to hear men advocate these wild opinions, to see them goaded on by a spirit of mercantile avarice, straining their feeble strength to excite the nation to war, when they have reached this stage of infatuation, that we are an over-match for Great Britain on the ocean. It is mere waste of time to reason with such persons. They do not deserve anything like serious refutation. The proper arguments for such statesmen are a strait waistcoat, a dark room, water-gruel, and depletion. It has always appeared to me that there are three points to be considered, and maturely considered, before we can be prepared to vote for the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. First. Our ability to contend with Great Britain for the question in dispute. Secondly. The policy of such a contest: and thirdly. In case both these shall be settled affirmatively, the manner in which we can, with the greatest effect, react upon and annoy our adversary. Now the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Crowninshield] has settled at a single sweep, to use one of his favorite expressions, not only that we are capable of contending with Great Britain on the ocean, but that we are actually her superior. Whence does the gentleman deduce this inference? Because, truly, at that time, when Great Britain was not mistress of the ocean, when a North was her prime minister, and a Sandwich the first lord of her admiralty; when she was governed by a counting-house administration, privateers of this country trespassed on her commerce. So, too, did the cruisers of Dunkirk. At that day Suffrein held the mastery of the Indian seas. But what is the case now? Do gentlemen remember the capture of Cornwallis on land, because De Grasse maintained the dominion of the ocean? To my mind no position is more clear, than that if we go to war with Great Britain, Charleston and Boston, the Chesapeake and the Hudson, will be invested by British squadrons. Will you call on the Count de Grasse to relieve them? or shall we apply to Admiral Gravina, or Admiral Villeneuve, to raise the blockade? But you have not only a prospect of gathering glory, and, what seems to the gentleman from Massachusetts much dearer, to profit by privateering, but you will be able to make a conquest of Canada and Nova Scotia. Indeed? Then, sir, we shall catch a Tartar. I confess, however, I have no desire to see the senators and the representatives of the Canadian French, or of the tories and refugees of Nova Scotia, sitting on this floor, or that of the other House-to see them becoming members of the Union, and participating equally in our political rights. And on what other principle would the gentleman from Massachusetts be for incorporating those provinces with us? Or on what other principle could it be done under the constitution? If the gentleman has no other bounty to offer us for going to war, than the incorporation of Canada and Nova Scotia with the United States, I am for remaining at peace. What is the question in dispute? The carrying trade. What part of it? The fair, the honest, and the useful trade that is engaged in carrying our own productions to foreign markets, and bringing back their productions in exchange? No, sir; it is that carrying trade which covers enemy's property, and carries the coffee, the sugar, and other West India products, to the mother-country. No, sir; if this great agricultural nation is to be governed by Salem and Boston, New York and PhiladelVOL. I.-23 |