John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773-1833 a biography based largely on new material |
| I. |
| II. |
| III. |
| IV. |
| V. |
| VI. |
| VII. |
| VIII. |
| IX. |
| X. |
| XI. |
| XII. |
| XIII. | CHAPTER XIII |
| XIV. |
 | CHAPTER XIII John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773-1833 |  |
CHAPTER XIII
Virginia Convention of 1829-30
But Randolph was still to serve for a brief season in
another deliberative body. In 1829, he was elected to the
Convention which assembled in the State Capitol at
Richmond on Monday, Oct. 5, in that year, for the purpose
of revising the existing constitution of Virginia, which
had been adopted in 1776. The Electoral District which
he was chosen, with Wm. Leigh and Richard Logan, of
Halifax County, and Richard N. Venable, of Prince
Edward County, to represent, was composed of Charlotte,
Halifax, and Prince Edward Counties. To the people at
large of Halifax County, though he had some close personal
friends in that County, he was an entire stranger;
yet such was his fame, as a statesman and orator, that he
came within 13 votes of obtaining the same number of
votes in Halifax County as Wm. Leigh, a resident of that
county, of the very highest standing as a man and a
lawyer, and, in the whole district, he received a larger
number of votes than any one of the three candidates who
were elected with him to represent it; Leigh receiving
the next highest number.[1]
Among his defeated competitors,
were James Bruce and General Edward Carrington of
Halifax County. (a)
At first, Randolph appears to have been averse to
becoming a candidate for the seat in the Convention,
despite the fact that, in his address to his constituents
he had expressed his readiness to be one of its members,
if it was called, on account of his interest in the preservation
of freehold suffrage. "I shall probably not be in the
Convention," he wrote to Dr. Brockenbrough. "I am
sick of public affairs and public men, and have no opinion
of constitutions ready-made or made to order."[2] A few
weeks later, he wrote to Dr. Brockenbrough more fully in
the same strain:
"Tom Miller," he said, "writes this morning that the
Convention Bill has passed, and that my friends expect me to
be a candidate for a seat in that body. If anyone can and will
devise a plan by which abler and better men shall be necessarily
brought into our councils, I will hail him as my Magnus
Apollo! But, as I have no faith in any such scheme, and a
thorough detestation and contempt for political metaphysics,
and for an arithmetical and geometrical constitution, I shall
wash my hands of all such business. The rest of my life, if not
passed in peace, shall not be spent in legislative wrangling. I
am determined absolutely not to expose myself to collision
where victory could offer no honor."[3]
But, in a later letter to Dr. Brockenbrough, he informed
him that one of his friends had announced at Charlotte
Court House that he had consented to serve if elected, and
that, to save the feelings of a man of as much truth and
honor as breathed, and to avoid injuring certain friends
and interests, which the withdrawal of his name would,
it seemed, occasion, he was fain even to let it stand at the
risk of incurring the imputation of fickleness.[4]
Of course, the full truth was that the appeal to his good
feeling, arising out of the incident, to which he alluded,
had been persuasively seconded by the force of habit, the
reviving relish for political excitement, and the emulous
upon the ringing plains of Windy Troy, which induce
almost every public man, after a brief interval of retirement,
to look back wistfully to the theatre of his former
achievements, even though decadent body and mind
warn him that, if he returns to it, he will soon, like "the
poor nigh-related guest," who has "outstayed his welcome,"
be telling the jest without the smile.
To a Virginian the time-stained, faded volume, which
contains the debates of the Virginia Convention of 1829-30,
is very much what some rare illuminated missal is to an
adoring nun. And, all local self-conceit aside, there can
be no doubt that these debates constitute one of the most
remarkable gifts that the political genius of the Anglo-Saxon
race has ever made to Parliamentary History. To
reach this conclusion, there is no need that the ipse dixit
of anyone, Virginian or otherwise, should be accepted.
All that the skeptic need do is to take up the volume
itself, with a mind not completely sealed to persuasion,
and to read the imperishable record of those discussions,
in which the proper basis and distribution of representation,
the reorganization of the Executive and Judicial
Departments of the State Government, and other constitutional
questions of high import were agitated with a
range of knowledge, a philosophic breadth and insight, a
strength and clearness of reasoning, an animated eloquence,
an academic gloss, and a punctilious courtesy such as has
rarely distinguished any convention, parliament, or congress
in the annals of free institutions.
If anyone doubts that the quasi-aristocratic society,
developed in Virginia by the institution of slavery, was
remarkably productive of intellectual pre-eminence and
leadership, let him but peruse the great arguments
delivered in this convention, and note what an overwhelming
majority of the extraordinary men, who delivered
them, sprang not from the Trans-Alleghany portions
scarcely felt, or from the surpassingly fertile territory
known as the Valley of Virginia, where the slave population
was not abundant, but from the thin, impoverished
fields of those eastern portions of Virginia, where the large
slave population exercised a plastic influence of controlling
power upon the mental, moral and industrial characteristics
of their people.
From quite an early era in the history of Virginia,
fundamental differences of origin, environment, and interest
had drawn a clear line of separation between the
parts of Virginia, which came to be known in the contentions
of the Convention as the West and the East
respectively. With its lack of slaves, its more democratic
conditions, and its growing sense of expanding wealth and
population, the West insisted upon free white suffrage as
the only proper basis for representation, and assailed with
unanswerable logic the anomalous provisions of the existing
Constitution, which gave to Warwick County, the
least populous county in the State, the same number of
representatives in the House of Delegates as the most populous
county in the State. On the other hand, the East,
long habituated to political dominion, instinct with the
patrician and exclusive spirit fostered by slavery, and jealous
of the waxing power of the West, insisted that the basis
of representation should be compounded partly of numbers
and partly of property. In its essence, the conflict
was merely a phase of the sectional antagonism engendered
by slavery which had flared up luridly like a blast
furnace at night in the struggle over the Missouri Compromise,
and was to manifest itself in still more baleful
forms in the future.
What the basis of representation should be was the
pivot upon which the discussions of the Convention
mainly revolved; though many other questions of great
importance were debated by its members, such as the
suffrage, making the Governor eligible by the People,
reorganizing the judicial system of the State, confirming
the power of the Legislature to proscribe duelling, and
excluding clergymen from the Legislature.
On the day of the first session of the Convention, James
Monroe was nominated by James Madison as its President,
and, being elected nem. con., was conducted to the
chair by Madison and Chief Justice Marshall.[5]
When the Committees, among which the business of the
convention was distributed, were appointed, John Randolph
was made one of the members of "The Committee
to Consider the Legislative Department of the Government,"
which consisted of 24 members in all, including
James Madison, its chairman, John Tyler, Littleton
Waller Tazewell, Benjamin Watkins Leigh, and Chapman
Johnson.[6]
By Garland we are told that in the Senate Chamber of
the Capitol, which was the room used by this committee,
before the sessions of the Convention were shifted to the
African Baptist Church on Broad Street, to make room
for the assembling of the Legislature, Randolph was
accustomed to sit, not at the long table, along which the
other members of the committee ranged themselves
below Madison, who sat at its head, but at some distance
away in a corner of the room from which he observed
everything that went on with the vigilance of a watchful
cat; breaking in occasionally, however, upon the discussions
of the Committee with his startling intonations.[7]
In the hall, where the Convention sat, his deportment was
equally peculiar.
"He declares," said a newspaper correspondent of the time,
his determination to take no part in the proceedings of the
President's chair entirely out of the range of the speakers;
unable, however, to contain himself entirely, he is every now
and then heard in a shrill undertone either prompting and
encouraging his friends or criticising his opponents. He is
annoyed by the numberless visitors of both sexes that crowd
the lobby, the gallery and the vacant seats of the hall, and no
little merriment was excited the other day when his voice was
heard amid the crowd at the door exclaiming: `Mr. Sergeant,
I will thank you to put me into the Convention!' "[8]
Nineteen days after the Convention assembled, the
Legislative Committee reported a series of resolutions; one
of which declared that, in the apportionment of representation
in the House of Delegates, regard should be
had to the white population exclusively; another that
the number of the members of the Senate should neither
be increased nor diminished; nor their classification
changed; and another that the right of suffrage should
continue to be exercised by all who enjoyed it under the
existing Constitution, and should be extended to certain
male freeholders and leaseholders who did not then enjoy
it, and to housekeepers and heads of families who paid
taxes.[9]
The first of these three resolutions signified a sweeping
practical triumph for the West in the Committee Room;
for it rejected the suggestion that property should be an
ingredient in the basis of representation and gave to the
thriving white communities of the West an opportunity to
acquire a preponderance of political power in the most
numerous branch of the State Legislature. The second
signified a practical triumph for the East because the cast-iron
uniformity of county representation, which it prescribed
for the less numerous branch of the Legislature,
was a lock-chain which the older and more numerous
Lower House whenever it suited their pleasure to do so.
The third did not signify such an important triumph for the
West as the first; for the extensions of the suffrage, which
it approved, were to operate uniformly in the East as well
as the West; but it was the harbinger of future practical
triumphs for the Democratic West in that it was a step in
the direction of universal white suffrage.
The conflict in the committee room over the proper
basis of representation for the House and the Senate had
been a desperately close one. The partisans of the West
thought that representation in both houses should be based
upon white population exclusively; the partisans of the
East that it should be based partly upon property too. The
resolution favoring white population as the sole basis of
representation for the House of Delegates was adopted by a
vote of 13 to 11; Madison voting with the West and Randolph
with the East; and the resolution favoring white
population as the sole basis of representation for the Senate
also was defeated by a tie vote of 12 to 12; Madison
this time voting with the East.[10]
On Oct. 26, 1829, the Convention, on the motion of
Philip Doddridge, of Brooke County, proceeded to consider
the report of the Committee,[11]
and when the resolution was
read, which declared that, in the apportionment of representation
in the House of Delegates, regard should be had
to the white population exclusively, John W. Green, of
Culpeper County, moved an amendment, striking out the
word "exclusively," and adding in lieu of it the words "and
taxation combined."[12]
With this proposition, was set in
motion a debate, which, in one controversial form or
another, went on day after day; eliciting as it went a display
of knowledge and power of statement, reasoning, and
eloquence worthy of the highest degree of admiration,
between the East and West had been offered by
John R. Cooke, of Frederick County, Abel P. Upshur, of
Northampton County, John Marshall, of the City of
Richmond, and Benjamin Watkins Leigh, of Chesterfield
County, respectively, ending in the adoption of a resolution
offered by Wm. Fitzhugh Gordon, of Albemarle County,
which, when embodied in the instrument finally adopted by
the Convention and ratified by the People, simply provided
that the House of Delegates should consist of 134 members,
to be annually chosen in certain fixed numbers respectively
by the 26 counties, lying West of the Alleghany Mountains,
the 14 counties, lying between the Alleghany and Blue
Ridge Mountains, the 29 counties, lying east of the Blue
Ridge Mountains, and above tidewater, and the counties,
cities, towns, and boroughs lying upon tidewater; and that
the Senate should consist of 32 members, to be chosen in
accordance with a system of classification and rotation
which we need not detail; of whom 13 were to be elected by
the counties, lying west of the Blue Ridge Mountains,
and 19 by the counties, cities, towns, and boroughs, lying
east of those mountains.[13]
Whatever may be the countervailing merits of universal
suffrage in the long reckoning, and, in our opinion, they
are decisive, it may well be doubted whether such a body of
men as that which constituted this Convention could have
been brought together for their task, even at a time when
the counties of Virginia had a much higher degree of
intellectual and social prestige than they have today, as
compared with urban centers, except by the system of
freehold suffrage which had prevailed in Virginia since the
establishment of the Commonwealth, and which vested the
power of selecting delegates to this Convention in the hands
of a comparatively small number of intelligent, propertied,
and responsible electors, who, as a rule, were better educated
stake involved in all the operations of the government
to which they were amenable, and, under the sway
of the self-respecting impulses nurtured by the extraordinary
privilege that they enjoyed, took a genuine pride
in selecting, as their public representatives, truly worthy
and able men.
In calling the Convention of 1829-30, the one thought
of the Virginia freeholders was to collect at the State
Capitol, for the purpose of revising the organic law of
the State, the very best agents, which they could find for
that great and delicate duty, without regard to any of
those secondary considerations, founded upon mere wealth
or fugitive elements of personal popularity or unpopularity,
which are so potent in conciliating the favor or arousing
the dislike of pure democracies. (a) In some instances,
delegates to the Convention were elected from counties in
which they did not reside at all. The result was a convention
in which were, to begin with, two men—James
Madison and James Monroe—who had filled the office of
President of the United States; a man—John Tyler—who
was afterwards to fill it; John Marshall, the Chief Justice of
the United States, and 4 Governors of Virginia, 7 United
States Senators, 11 judges, and 15 members of the House
of Representatives, past, present, or future.[14]
In running
over the list of the members of the Convention, it is
surprising to find how few of them had not acquired, or
were not soon to acquire, a conspicuous national reputation,
or as great a reputation as any man can ever hope
to acquire in public life who has never occupied some important
post under the National Government. Even
where members of the Convention had won neither National
nor State fame, they were, in almost every instance,
we believe, elected from the districts which they represented
because the freeholders, who elected them,
of their interests and feelings upon whom their
confidence could be bestowed.
Among the members of the Convention, other than
James Madison, James Monroe, John Tyler, Chief Justice
Marshall, and John Randolph himself, were: Littleton
Waller Tazewell, who, besides being one of the great
lawyers of his day, was, in the course of his career, Governor
of Virginia and a distinguished Senator from Virginia,
and who would have been still more distinguished, if he
had not repelled celebrity as assiduously as celebrity
courted him; Abel P. Upshur, the successor, during the
Tyler administration, of Daniel Webster, as Secretary of
State, whose splendid powers were extinguished by the
explosion on the Princeton, just as they were finding a
sufficiently spacious field for their exercise; Wm. B. Giles,
who had been a Senator from Virginia, and was then
Governor of Virginia, and who was deemed by both
Jefferson and Randolph the most accomplished debater
in Congress of his time; (a) Philip P. Barbour, who was
elected to preside over the Convention, when Monroe
found himself physically unequal to its duties, and who
was, in the course of his career, Speaker of the House of
Representatives and an Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States; Benjamin Watkins Leigh, also
one of the great lawyers of his day, and a Senator from
Virginia for too short a time to secure the full measure of
national reputation, to which his learning and shining
gifts as a speaker entitled him, but long enough to deliver
a speech, in the course of the discussion of the resolution,
whereby Thomas H. Benton sought to expunge the censure,
with which Andrew Jackson had been visited at the hands
of the United States Senate, that Henry A. Wise, in his
Seven Decades of the Union, thinks was superior to any
other delivered upon the same subject; James Pleasants,
who was, in the course of his career, a member of the
Mason, who was, in the course of his career, Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives,
Secretary of the Navy under the Tyler
administration, Attorney General of the United States
under the Polk administration, Minister to France from
the United States, an United States District Judge, and
also the President of the Virginia Constitutional Convention
of 1850; Alexander Campbell, the celebrated
Baptist divine, and John Wickham, Chapman Johnson,
Robert Stanard, and Robert Barraud Taylor, (a) four
great lawyers whose speeches in the convention show that
they were not only great lawyers but men of rare general
endowments besides. Other notable members of the
convention, who, in one way or another, were individuals of
real distinction in their time, were: Wm. Fitzhugh Gordon,
of Albemarle County, the author of the compromise
reached by the convention in the discussion over the basis
of representation, and, afterwards, the first promoter in
the House of Representatives of the Federal Sub-treasury
System; Philip Doddridge, of Brooke County, one of the
ablest champions of the West; John R. Cooke, of Frederick
County, a native of Bermuda and a gifted lawyer, whose
scholarly tastes were transmitted to his sons Philip
Pendleton Cooke, the author of the exquisite lyric beginning,
"I have loved thee long and dearly, Florence Vane,"
and John Esten Cooke, the author of Surry of Eagle's
Nest; Alfred H. Powell, of Frederick County; Wm. H.
Brodnax, of Dinwiddie County; George C. Dromgoole, of
Brunswick County; Mark Alexander, of Mecklenburg
County; Wm. O. Goode, of Mecklenburg County; Briscoe
G. Baldwin, of Augusta County; Charles F. Mercer, of
Loudon County; Wm. H. Fitzhugh, of Fairfax County;
Richard Morris, of Hanover County; Lewis Summers, of
Kanawha County; John S. Barbour, of Culpeper County;
John W. Green, of Culpeper County; John Scott, of Fauquier
Thomas R. Joynes, of Accomac County, and Wm. Leigh,
of Halifax County, who was considered by some of his
contemporaries the mental peer, in more than one respect,
of his more brilliant brother, Benjamin Watkins
Leigh.
But neither James Madison, the sole survivor of the
Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1776, the sole survivor,
with two exceptions, of the Convention, which
adopted the Federal Constitution, in which he had been
such a great figure, and the sole survivor, with four
exceptions, of the Virginia Convention of 1788, that
ratified the Federal Constitution; nor James Monroe,
whose conspicuous career is such a good illustration of the
old adage that it is better to be born lucky than rich; nor
the great Chief Justice; nor such masters of logic or
rhetoric as Abel P. Upshur, Benjamin Watkins Leigh,
Chapman Johnson, John Wickham, Littleton Waller Tazewell,
Wm. B. Giles, Robert Barraud Taylor, John R. Cooke,
Robert Stanard, Richard Morris, Philip Doddridge, and
John Scott excited any such degree of public interest as did
John Randolph of Roanoke, whose unique face and figure,
salient idiosyncracies of intellect, character, and temper,
stormy and dramatic career, and social and plantation relief,
to say nothing of his reputation for eloquence and wit,
made him, even in that assembly, as Baldwin has said, the
cynosure of all eyes. And it is impossible to think of Randolph
in the Convention without recalling how closely he had
been associated, for good or for evil, with many of the
most prominent of the individuals who sat about him. Presiding
over it during the earlier stages of its sessions, was the
man—James Monroe—at whom he had hissed "Judas"
in his Diary. Presiding over it, during the later stages of
its sessions, was the man—Philip P. Barbour—whom he
had grouped with "Tray, Blanche, and Sweetheart," when
he turned upon the angry pack that was yelping and
Bill. At the head of the Legislative Committee, was the
man—James Madison—whom he had unavailingly
endeavored, at the expense of every consideration of
political prudence, to shut out from the Presidency.
Seated in the same hall with him, too, was Wm. B. Giles,
who had drained the cup of humiliation to the very dregs
in atonement for his effort to deprive him of his seat in the
House of Representatives. Robert Barraud Taylor still
bore about with him the bullet which Randolph had lodged
in his body at William and Mary. Five members of the
Convention—Littleton Waller Tazewell, James M. Garnett,
of Essex County, Wm. Leigh, of Halifax County, and
Mark Alexander, of Mecklenburg County, and John
Wickham, of Richmond—had been five of Randolph's most intimate friends. Chief Justice Marshall had
known him from the beginning of his career, had admired
him as the placid moon might admire the fiery dog star,
had sat beside his bed when both his body and mind
seemed hopelessly distempered, and, though an unbending
Federalist, had in return received from him a measure of
affectionate veneration which not only termed him a
"great and good man," as he truly was, but, to the amusement
of the cultivated and elegant Mrs. Dr. Brockenbrough,
as "one of the best bred men alive."[15] Two other
members of the Convention—John R. Cooke and Chapman
Johnson—were soon to be engaged in the long
wrangle which was to take place over Randolph's wills.
Look where Randolph might in the convention, his eye
met some eye in which his boundless capacity for both
hatred and love had been reflected at one time or another.
"The great matters in agitation here," wrote a newspaper
correspondent, while the convention was in session, "make me
forget the talent and eloquence displayed in the arena. They
of the other States, people are daily flocking here in vast
multitudes; men and women crowd the hall and gallery of the
Convention as at some vast show or theatre. All feel a deep
interest in the matters of debate; and the discussions are not
only in the Convention, but in the boarding-houses, taverns,
shops, public streets and market places."[16]
And Randolph, there can be no doubt, was the man whom
these multitudes were most desirous of seeing and hearing.
This is what Hugh R. Pleasants, a Richmond editor, who
followed the proceedings of the Convention, has to say
upon that point:
"But the man who commanded most interest of all—who
was literally the hero of the convention—to whom every eye
was turned, and whose slightest motion was watched with
intense anxiety, was John Randolph. His reputation was
probably more widely spread than that of any other in the
convention, with the exception of the two ex-Presidents and
the Chief Justice—he was known to be an unrivalled orator—
but as yet he had been heard by comparatively few Virginians.
His career had been national, and he had never been in the
State Legislature. The anxiety to hear him among all classes
of persons, strangers as well as citizens, amounted almost to
frenzy. Many persons, greatly to their own inconvenience,
remained in town days longer than they would otherwise have
been induced to do. It was supposed that he would answer
Chapman Johnson's first great speech, and a crowd thronged to
the capitol, such as we never saw there before, and never
expect to see again. Ladies were absolutely packed into
the galleries and the spare seats in the hall. There was no
room even to breathe, much less to turn around. From some
unaccountable caprice, upon that day, he condescended not to
speak, and the crowd retired as much disappointed as though
they had been to see a man hung, and had been cheated of the
spectacle by the ill-timed clemency of the Governor. Another
At last—when nobody was expecting it—when the lobby and
the galleries were almost deserted—when some long-winded
speaker had just concluded a tedious harangue, he rose slowly
from his seat and pronounced the words, `Mr. President.'
Never have we seen two words produce the same effect. We
had entered the hall but a few minutes before, and had met
scarcely a man in our way. We do not believe there were a
dozen persons visible in the streets from the windows of the
Capitol. Where the crowd came from, or how they got
intelligence that Randolph had the floor, we could never learn,
but it poured in like the waters of the ocean when the dyke
gives away. Persons who were on the street afterwards
informed us that they saw persons running from all quarters,
and, not being able to find where they were running to, fell in
with, and assisted to form, the multitude that streamed to the
Capitol. Notwithstanding the immense crowd, the audience
was as still as death, save when it indulged itself in shouts of
laughter. The clear, distinct enunciation of the speaker enabled
everyone to hear every word he uttered, while his
admirable acting changed his most airy nothings into golden
precepts. Never before did we so clearly comprehend the
force of the Demosthenian `action! action!' The unaccountable
brilliancy of Mr. Randolph's eyes—their petrifying effect
upon those [upon] whom he chose to fix them in anger or disdain—the
melody of his inimitable voice—his tall, unearthly-looking
figure and the shake of his bony finger have been often
described, but no man, who never heard him, and saw him,
speak, can form the slightest conception of what he was. A
person, who was deeply prejudiced against him, said to us,
when he sat down that day: `Good God! What an orator!'
And another declared that he believed Randolph was
inspired."[17]
The laughter, mentioned by Pleasants, was doubtless
excited by the satire of which Randolph made Chapman
Johnson the victim. Johnson was a native of Louisa
County, which was in the East, but had taken up his residence
residing there, had represented in the State Senate the
district of which Augusta County was a part. During
this time, though at first favorable to the call of the
Convention, he had subsequently become opposed to it
because of the passage of a bill rearranging the senatorial
districts of the State, which he thought gratified all the
reasonable demands of the West at that time in the matter
of representation. Afterwards, he had sided with the
East in its efforts to stave off the Convention, and had
actively supported a substitute, which his friend, Benjamin
Watkins Leigh, had proposed at a public meeting
in Richmond for certain resolutions favoring a convention,
which had been offered at the meeting, and were finally
adopted by it. When delegates were elected to the
Convention, he had removed from Augusta County to
Richmond, but such was the confidence of his old friends
and neighbors in his wisdom and fairness that he was
elected by the freeholders of the convention district,
composed of Augusta, Rockbridge, and Pendleton Counties,
to represent them. Naturally enough, under the
circumstances, it was expected by the East that, if he did
not fully champion its cause, he would at least be more or
less neutral in the conflict between the two sections of the
State. But, greatly to the disappointment of the East, he
became one of the most effective mouthpieces of the West
in the Convention, and, when Randolph arose to make his
first speech in it, Johnson had delivered a lucid and cogent
but very lengthy argument in behalf of the white basis of
representation, in the beginning of which he had been so
imprudent as to say that the conflict between the East
and West came down simply to a contest which involved
the great and agitating question as to whether the sceptre
should pass away from Judah or a lawgiver from between
her feet.[18] No better mark, of course, could have offered
Randolph was such a merciless master. "The Gentleman
from Augusta told us yesterday, I believe, or the day
before, or the day
before that; I really do not remember
which," is one variation of the uncertain terms as to the
time consumed by Johnson in which Randolph repeatedly,
in the course of his speech, in reply to points made by
Johnson, ridiculed the extent to which the latter had
invoked the attention of his fellow-members. Finally, he
is reported as saying:
"The gentleman told us the day before yesterday that in
15 minutes of the succeeding day he would conclude all he had
to say; and he then kept us two hours, not by the Shrewsbury
clock, but by as good a watch as can be made in the City of
London (drawing out and opening his watch). As 15 minutes
are to 2 hours—in the proportion of 1 to 8—such is the approximation
to truth in the gentleman's calculations."[19]
This was dramatic and amusing enough, but it probably
did not provoke so much laughter as this polished raillery:
"The gentleman from Augusta, who occupies so large a space
both in the time and in the eye of the House, has told us that
he fought gallantly by the side of his noble friend from Chesterfield
(Leigh), so long as victory was possible, and it was not
until he was conquered that he grounded his arms. The
gentleman farther told us that, finding his native country and
his early friends on this side of the mountain, on whose behalf
he had waged that gallant war, he found he hesitated what
part to take now until his constituents, aye, Sir, and more than
that, his property on the other side—and he has taken his
course accordingly. Well, Sir, and will he not allow on our
part that some consideration is due to our constituents,
although they happen to be our neighbors; or to our property,
although we reside upon it. Are either or both less dear on
that account? But, Sir, I put it to the Committee whether
victory is indeed won? Everyone, to be sure, is the best judge
whether he is beaten or not, but I put it to the gentleman
himself whether, if he were now fighting alongside of his noble
friend from Chesterfield, the scale might not possibly turn the
other way? No man, however, is compelled to fight after he
feels himself vanquished.
Sir, I mean no ill-timed pleasantry, either as it regards the
place, where it is uttered, the person to whom it refers, and
least of all as it respects him by whom the remark is made,
when I say that, in this prudent resolution of the gentleman
from Augusta, he could not have been exceeded in caution and
forecast by a certain renowned Captain Dugald Dalgetty himself.
Sir, the war being ended, he takes service on the other
side; the sceptre having passed from Judah, the gentleman
stretches out his arm from Richmond to Rock Fish Gap to
intercept and clutch it in its passage."[20]
On one occasion, John Randolph called the Convention
"The slaughter house of reputations";[21]
but his was one
that passed safely through its shambles. He came to the
Convention in a decidedly improved state of health, and,
during its deliberations, his mind was free from all unnatural
excitement. Comparing his manner in the Convention
with what he had observed about him in the
United States Senate, George Wythe Munford says of him:
"It was calm, collected, dignified, and commanding, and
his gesticulation was that of a master actor."[22]
Randolph had several tart colloquies with his associates,
during the course of the Convention, but, on the whole,
his deportment was severely decorous. The human
instinct for just reciprocity makes it agreeable to us to
record the fact that, on one occasion, he was decidedly
worsted in an encounter with Chapman Johnson, who had
had said that Chief Justice Marshall had put an argument
on a ground which could no more be impugned by an
attack made on it by Johnson than the fortress of Gibraltar
could be affected by attacking it with a pocket-pistol.
Replying, Johnson disclaimed any intention of holding
himself out as the equal of the Chief Justice. "It needed
no ghost (bowing towards Randolph) to inform the Committee
of their inequality." Randolph rejoined that he
had not distinctly heard the gentleman's words, but that,
if they contained any ghostly advice, he was thankful for
it as coming from so reverend a quarter. His hostility
towards that gentleman, he said, was political only, but
he must be permitted to add that there had been nothing
in the gentleman's career during the present Convention
to induce any man, however humble his condition, to
regard him as an object of envy.
"Mr. Johnson," the reporter of the debate records, "said in
reply that he had never been, he believed, an object of envy to
anyone, most certainly not to the gentleman from Charlotte;
for, said Mr. Johnson, we cannot envy anything while we
think there is nothing superior to us."[23]
On another occasion, Alexander Campbell, too, gave a
neat turn to an expression employed by Randolph.
Replying to him, he said:
"I heard that same gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with pleasure
too, refer to a saying of the immortal Bacon. Twice he
alluded to it; twice he spoke of the great innovator, Time. I
did wish to hear him quote the whole sentence and apply it.
Lord Bacon said (I think I give it in his own words),—`Maximus
innovator tempus; quidni igitur tempus imitemur?' Why
then, says he, can we not imitate Time, the greatest of all
innovators?"[24]
Ab ovo usque ad malum (as Randolph might have said),
the opposition of Randolph to any substantial changes in
the existing Constitution of Virginia was obstinately, inch
by inch, maintained, and, when we remember the several
groups of eminent Virginia statesmen and orators, who
made the history of Virginia, between the passage of the
Stamp Act and the assembling of the Convention of 182930,
an important leaf in the Book of Human Destiny, the
high position, held by Virginia during this period, in the
estimation of the rest of the United States and of the
world, which led Randolph, on one occasion, to refer to her
as "that envied commonwealth,"[25]
and the grave and
harassing problems imposed upon Virginia, first by the
adoption of universal white suffrage, and then by the
enfranchisement of the negro, who can say that, in opposing
all radical amendments of the Virginia Constitution of
1776, Randolph was not something more than a mere
purblind, unreasoning laudator temporis acti?
Randolph's general attitude towards changes in the
existing Constitution of Virginia was admirably presented,
during his first speech in the Convention, in these words:
"As long as I have had any fixed opinions, I have been in
the habit of considering the Constitution of Virginia, under
which I have lived for more than half a century, with all its
faults and failings, and with all the objections which practical
men—not theorists and visionary speculators—have urged or
can urge against it, as the very best Constitution; not for
Japan; not for China; not for New England; or for Old England;
but for this, our ancient Commonwealth of Virginia.
"But I am not such a bigot as to be unwilling, under any
circumstances, however imperious, to change the Constitution
under which I was born; I may say certainly, under which I
was brought up, and under which I had hoped to be carried
to my grave. My principles on that subject are these: the
grievance must first be clearly specified, and fully proved; it
must be such as will justify prudent and reasonable men in
taking the always delicate, often dangerous, step of making
innovations in their fundamental law; and the remedy proposed
must be reasonable and adequate to the end in view.
When the grievance shall have been thus made out, I hold
him to be not a loyal subject, but a political bigot, who would
refuse to apply the suitable remedy.
"But I will not submit my case to a political physician; come
his diploma from whence it may, who would at once prescribe
all the medicines in the Pharmacopœia, not only for the disease
I now have, but for all the diseases of every possible kind I
ever might have in the future. These are my principles, and
I am willing to carry them out; for I will not hold any principles
which I may not fairly carry out in practice.
"Judge, then, with what surprise and pain, I found that
not one Department of this Government—no, not one—Legislative,
Executive, or Judicial—nor one branch of either—was left
untouched by the spirit of innovation (for I cannot call it
reform.) When even the Senate, yes, Sir, the Senate, which
had so lately been swept by the besom of innovation—even
the Senate had not gone untouched or unscathed. Many
innovations are proposed to be made, without any one
practical grievance having been even suggested, much less
shown."[26]
Later on, in the same speech, he said: "Mr. Chairman,
the wisest thing this body could do would be to return to
the people from whom they came re infecta."[27]
In a subsequent speech, Randolph's prejudice against
excessive legislation was expressed with equal force. His
remarks are thus reported:
"Mr. Randolph said he should vote against the amendment,
and that, on a principle, which he had learned before he came
into public life; and by which he had been governed during
the whole course of that life, that it was always unwise—yes—
great cardinal principle that should govern all wise statesmen
—never without the strongest necessity to disturb that which
was at rest. He should vote against the amendment on
another and an inferior consideration. Whatever opinion
might have been expressed as to a multitude of counsellors,
there was but one among considerate men as to a multiplicity
of laws. The objection, urged by the gentleman from
Richmond over the way (Mr. Nicholas) to the existing clause,
was precisely one of the strongest motives with him
for preferring the amendment. I am much opposed, said Mr.
Randolph, except in a great emergency—and then the Legislative
machine is always sure to work with sufficient rapidity—
the steam is then up—I am much opposed to this `dispatch of
business.' The principles of free Government in this country,
(and if they fail—if they should be cast away—here—they are
lost forever, I fear, to the world) have more to fear from over
legislation than from any other cause. Yes, Sir—they have
more to fear from armies of Legislators and armies of Judges
than from any other, or from all other, causes. Besides the
great manufactory at Washington, we have twenty-four
laboratories more at work; all making laws. In Virginia, we
have now two in operation, one engaged in ordinary legislation,
and another hammering at the fundamental law. Among all
these lawyers, Judges, and Legislators, there is a great oppression
on the people, who are neither lawyers, Judges, nor
Legislators, nor ever expect to be—an oppression barely more
tolerable than any which is felt under the European Governments.
Sir, I never can forget that, in the great and good
book, to which I look for all truth and all wisdom, the book of
Kings succeeds the book of Judges."[28] (a)
But at no time, during the course of the Convention,
was Randolph's hostility to radical amendments of the
existing Constitution of Virginia more eloquently voiced
than in these words, which were drawn from him by a
proposition to insert in the new Constitution provisions
for its future amendment:
"I shall vote against this resolution; and I will state as
succinctly as I can my reasons for doing so. I believe that
they will, in substance, be found in a very old book, and
conveyed in these words, `Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof.' Sir, I have remarked since the commencement of
our deliberations—and with no small surprise—a very great
anxiety to provide for futurity. Gentlemen, for example, are
not content with any present discussion of the Constitution,
unless we will consent to prescribe for all time hereafter. I
had always thought him the most skilful physician, who, when
called to a patient, relieved him of the existing malady, without
undertaking to prescribe for such as he might by possibility
endure thereafter.
"Sir, what is the amount of this provision? It is either
mischievous, or it is nugatory. I do not know a greater
calamity that can happen to any nation than having the
foundations of its Government unsettled.
"Dr. Franklin, who, in shrewdness, especially in all that
related to domestic life, was never excelled, used to say that
two movings were equal to one fire. So to any people two
Constitutions are worse than a fire. And gentlemen, as if
they were afraid that this besetting sin of Republican Governments,
this rerum novarum lubido (to use a very homely phrase,
but one that comes pat to the purpose) this maggot of innovation,
would cease to bite, are here gravely making provision
that this Constitution, which we should consider as a remedy
for all the ills of the body politic, may itself be amended or
modified at any future time. Sir, I am against any such
provision. I should as soon think of introducing into a marriage
contract a provision for divorce; and thus poisoning the
greatest blessing of mankind at its very source—at its fountain
head. He has seen little and has reflected less who does not
know that `necessity' is the great, powerful, governing principle
of affairs here. Sir, I am not going into that question
which puzzled Pandemonium, the question of liberty and
necessity.
"Free will, fix'd fate, foreknowledge absolute'; but I do
contend that necessity is one principal instrument of all the
good that man enjoys.
"The happiness of the connubial union itself depends greatly
on necessity; and, when you touch this, you touch the arch,
the keystone of the arch, on which the happiness and wellbeing
of society is founded.
"Look at the relation of master and slave (that opprobrium
in the opinion of some gentlemen to all civilized society and
all free Government). Sir, there are few situations in life
where friendships so strong and so lasting are formed as in that
very relation. The slave knows that he is bound indissolubly
to his master, and must from necessity remain always under his
control. The master knows that he is bound to maintain and
provide for his slave so long as he retains him in his possession.
And each party accommodates himself to his situation. I
have seen the dissolution of many friendships, such, at least,
as were so called; but I have seen that of master and slave
endure so long as there remained a drop of the blood of the
master to which the slave could cleave. Where is the necessity
of this provision in the Constitution? Where is the use of it?
Sir, what are we about? Have we not been undoing what the
wiser heads—I must be permitted to say so—yes, Sir, what the
wiser heads of our ancestors did more than half a century ago?
Can anyone believe that we, by any amendments of ours—by
any of our scribbling on that parchment—by any amulet—any
legerdemain—charm—abracadabra—of ours, can prevent our
sons from doing the same thing? that is from doing as they
please, just as we are doing as we please? It is impossible.
Who can bind posterity? When I hear gentlemen talk of
making a Constitution `for all time,' and introducing provisions
into it `for all time,' and yet see men here that are older than
the Constitution we are about to destroy (I am older myself
than the present Constitution; it was established when I was
a boy), it reminds me of the truces and the peaces in Europe.
They always begin: `In the name of the most Holy and Undivided
Trinity,' and go on to declare, `There shall be perfect
and perpetual peace and unity between the subjects of such
and such potentates, for all time to come,' and, in less than
seven years, they are at war again.
"Sir, I am not a prophet or a seer; but I will venture to predict
that your new Constitution, if it shall be adopted, does not last
were a proper subject for betting, and I was a sporting character,
I believe I would take ten against it.
"It would seem as if we were endeavouring (God forbid that I
should insinuate that such was the intention of any here)—
as if we were endeavouring to corrupt the people at the
fountain-head. Sir, the great opprobrium of popular Government
is its instability. It was this which made the people of
our Anglo-Saxon stock cling with such pertinacity to an
independent Judiciary, as the only means they could find to
resist this vice of popular Governments. By such a provision
as this, we are now inviting, and in a manner prompting, the
people to be dissatisfied with their Government. Sir, there is
no need of this. Dissatisfaction will come soon enough.
I foretell now, and with a confidence surpassed by none I
ever felt on any occasion, that those, who have been the most
anxious to destroy the Constitution of Virginia, and to substitute
in its place this thing, will be so dissatisfied now
with the result of our labours that this new Constitution will
very shortly be opposed by all the People of the State. I speak
not at random. I have high authority for what I say now in
my eye. Though it was said that the people called for a new
state of things, yet the gentlemen from Brooke himself (Mr.
Doddridge) who came into the Legislative Committee, armed
with an axe to lay at the root of the tree, told the Convention
that he would sooner go home, and live under the old Constitution
than adopt some of the provisions which have received
the sanction of this body. But I am wandering from the point.
"Sir, I see no wisdom in making this provision for future
changes. You must give Governments time to operate on the
people, and give the people time to become gradually assimilated
to their institutions. Almost any thing is better than
this state of perpetual uncertainty. A people may have the
best form of Government that the wit of man ever devised;
and yet, from its uncertainty alone, may, in effect, live under
the worst Government in the world. Sir, how often must I
repeat that change is not reform. I am willing that this new
Constitution shall stand as long as it is possible for it to stand,
and that, believe me, is a very short time. Sir, it is vain to
Constitution—the defect is not there. It is not in the form of
the old edifice, neither in the design nor the elevation: it is
in the material—it is in the People of Virginia. To my
knowledge, that people are changed from what they have been.
The four hundred men who went out to David were in debt.
The partizans of Cæsar were in debt. The fellow-labourers of
Cataline were in debt. And I defy you to shew me a desperately
indebted people anywhere who can bear a regular, sober
Government. I throw the challenge to all who hear me. I
say that the character of the good old Virginia planter—the
man who owned from five to twenty slaves, or less, who lived
by hard work, and who paid his debts—is passed away. A
new order of things is come. The period has arrived of living
by one's wits, of living by contracting debts that one cannot
pay, and, above all, of living by office-hunting. Sir, what do
we see? Bankrupts—branded bankrupts—giving great dinners—sending
their children to the most expensive schools—
giving grand parties—and just as well received as anybody
else in society. I say that in such a state of things the old
Constitution was too good for them; they could not bear it.
No, Sir, they could not bear a freehold suffrage, and a property
representation. I have always endeavoured to do the people
justice; but I will not flatter them; I will not pander to their
appetite for change. I will do nothing to provide for change.
I will not agree to any rule of future apportionment, or to any
provision for future changes, called amendments to the Constitution.
They who love change, who delight in public confusion,
who wish to feed the cauldron and make it bubble, may
vote, if they please, for future changes. But by what spell, by
what formula are you going to bind the people to all future
time? Quis custodiet custodes? The days of Lycurgus are
gone by, when he could swear the people not to alter the
Constitution until he should return—animo non revertendi.
You may make what entries upon parchment you please.
Give me a Constitution that will last for half a century; that
is all I wish for. No Constitution that you can make will last
the one-half of half a century. Sir, I will stake anything short
of my salvation that those, who are malcontent now, will be
I have no favour for this Constitution. I shall vote against
its adoption, and I shall advise all the people of my district to
set their faces—aye—and their shoulders against it. But, if
we are to have it, let us not have it with its death warrant in its
very face; with the facies hypocratica—the sardonic grin of
death—upon its countenance."[29]
In the Debates of the Convention can be found, too, a
good example of the contagious pleasantry with which
Randolph could tell an apt story.
"Sir," he said, "our discussions here have brought to my
recollection that beautiful apologue, or fable, of Addison's,
where he represents the whole human race as summoned by
Jupiter into one assembly. The God listens to their various
complaints, and then gives permission to each to lay down his
own grievance, and take up any that he chose to select among
those deposited by his neighbours. A very handsome, well-made
man lays down a disease under which he labours, and
takes up the deformity which a hump-backed man had thrown
off; a mother brings her undutiful son; a wife her bad husband.
A husband comes with his shrew of a wife, and selects another
partner, who, as he believes, will suit him better. All were
anxious to make the change; for it is human nature, Sir, to
view all the miseries of others as very easy to be endured; yes,
Sir, nothing is so easy as to endure other people's evils unless
it be to spend other people's money. The assembly broke up
well-pleased, and each returned to his home to try his altered
situation. But, Sir, what was the issue? In a little time, they
all came back again. The once handsome man came to be set
free from his hump; the diseased man to take it back again.
The lady brought her new husband, and the man, who had
before brought his shrew of a wife, came back to seek her
again: declaring that long habit and intimacy had so cemented
their union that the old woman was the best companion after
all.
(Here loud laughter was heard in the gallery, and the Chair
a subject: but what I mean is this; that there is not now a
malcontent in the Commonwealth, who, after this new Constitution
shall have been adopted, will not in six months more
be just as much dissatisfied and more than he is now."[30]
Mrs. William Winston Seaton tells us that, on one
occasion, when a throng of women were assembled in the
hall of the House of Representatives to hear a debate,
Randolph, addressing the Speaker, exclaimed impatiently:
"Sir, they had much better be at home attending to
their knitting."[31]
The same old-fashioned sense of fitness
impelled him to make some remarks in the convention on a
proviso, which excluded clergymen from the Legislature,
that must have rendered his associate, the Rev. Alexander
Campbell, decidedly uncomfortable. They were these:
"To me this is a most unlooked-for proposition. There is
not one single article of my political creed, about which I have
not a greater disposition to doubt, than the propriety of excluding
a class of men, dedicated to the office of religion, from the
possession of political power. A gentleman told us that but
for the insertion of that proviso in the Constitution he should
be for excluding them from the Legislature. I would much
rather vote to strike out the whole, and to leave the Constitution
as it now stands; and for this plain reason: I am, and have
been, and ever shall be, a practical man; and, when I meet
with legislative provisions of this kind, I rather smile at the
fears which dictated them than applaud the caution they exhibit.
The Constitution is just as safe without, as with, them.
The Legislature of Virginia cannot, and, if it could, it dare not,
attempt such legislation as is forbidden in the body of this
resolution. I feel myself perfectly safe. I find somewhere
else a provision that we shall have no orders of nobility in this
country. Who dreams that we ever can? Sir, when the time
of Church and State, or for orders of nobility either, they will
have them in spite of all the moth-eaten parchment in your
archives. I fearlessly pronounce that the admission of
gentlemen of the cloth into your Legislative Halls is ipso facto the union of Church and State. Sir, are there no other
considerations which weigh with us in altering or in keeping
the Constitution as it is? They are now excluded. Are there
no other considerations? None that every well-regulated
mind belonging to the clerical profession ought of itself to
suggest? I have had the pleasure (I was about to say I have
had the honor, but the term would be misplaced) to be acquainted
with many of them: with men of the most unaffected
piety, of high attainments and great talents; and who, moreover,
were clothed with that humility which is the Alpha and
Omega of the Christian character, yes, Sir, its all in all; and I
never knew one of them who dared to trust himself in such a
situation. Not one, who, if such an offer had been made him,
might not justly have said, `Lead us not into temptation.'
Sir, what are the offices of the clerical body? Do they not
mingle with all classes of society? and, above all, in the domestic
circle? Is not their influence there paramount to that of
all others? Is it not their duty to serve a master whose
kingdom is not of this world? As well to reprove as to console?
"Figure to yourself, Sir, a minister of the gospel of peace
about to reprove for his sins a man of wealth and influence in
his county; having, at the same time, a desire himself to
represent that county? Sir, this is no exclusion on account of
the profession of any opinions. It is an exclusion of an
occupation; of an occupation incompatible with the discharge
of the duties of a member of either branch of the Legislature.
The task of legislation is at war with the duties of the pastor.
The two are utterly incompatible. Sir, no man can busy
himself in electioneering (and in these times who can be
elected without it?), no man can mingle in Legislative cabals; I
say no man can touch that pitch without being defiled. No
man can so employ himself without being disqualified for those
sacred duties which every minister of the gospel takes upon
himself; and for which he is accountable, not to his constituents
to a much more rigorous account than that he renders to his
parishioners.
"Sir, there is an indecency in this thing. We have heard
much about exclusion of the ladies; but there is not greater
indecency and incompatibility in a woman's thrusting herself
into a political assembly and all its cabals than in a clergyman's
undertaking the same thing. One of the greatest masters
of the human heart, and of political philosophy too, declares
that, while the French are in their manners more
deferential to woman than any other people, they have less
real esteem for woman than any other nation on earth.
"Let me illustrate this. The Turk shews that he values
his wife by locking her up; it is to be sure a mistaken mode:
but he shews that he estimates the value of the treasure by
putting it under lock and key. The Frenchman permits his
wife to mingle in political affairs; and, if Madame Roland had
not been engaged in such affairs, Madame Roland would never
have ascended the scaffold. If women will unsex themselves,
and, if priests—what shall I say?—will degrade themselves
by mingling in scenes and in affairs for which their function
renders them improper and unfit, they must take the consequences.
If ladies will plunge into the affairs of men, they will
lose the deference they now enjoy; they will be treated roughly
like men. Just so it is with priests. They lose all the deference
which belongs, and which is paid, to their office (whether they
merit it or no).
"Sir, rely upon it, if you permit priests to be made members
of the Legislature, they will soon constitute a large portion of all
your assemblies. And it has been truly said that no countries
are so ill-governed as those which are ruled by the counsels of
women except such as have been governed by the counsels of
priests."[32]
The Convention came to an end on Jan. 15, 1830.
Before it was adjourned sine die, Randolph was put forward
to acknowledge on its behalf its sense of obligation to
Philip P. Barbour for the manner in which he had presided
occasions of this kind, Randolph was always peculiarly
happy, and on this particular one his knack did not fail
him. He said:
"Mr. Chairman,—For the last time, I throw myself upon
the indulgence and courtesy of this body. I have a
proposition to submit, which I flatter myself, which I trust,
I believe, will be received not only with greater unanimity than
any other which has been offered in the course of our past
discussions but with perfect unanimity. You will perceive,
Sir, that I allude to your eminent colleague who has presided
over our deliberations. When I shall have heard him pronounce
from that Chair the words, `This Convention stands
adjourned sine die,' I shall be ready to sing my political nunc
dimittis; for it will have put a period to three months, the most
anxious and painful of a political life, neither short nor uneventful.
Having said thus much, I hope I may be permitted
to add that, notwithstanding any occasional heat excited by
the collision of debate, I part from every member here with the
most hearty good will towards all. But I cannot consent that
we shall separate without offering the tribute of my approbation
and inviting the House to add theirs, infinitely more
valuable, to the conduct of the Presiding officer of this
Assembly. If this were a suitable occasion, I might embrace
within the scope of my motion and of my remarks his public
conduct and character elsewhere, with which I have been long
and intimately acquainted; but this, as it would be misplaced,
so would it be fulsome. I shall, therefore, restrict myself to
the following motion:
" `Resolved, that the impartiality and dignity, with which
Philip P. Barbour, Esq., hath presided over the deliberations
of this House, and the distinguished ability, whereby he hath
facilitated the dispatch of business, receive the best thanks of
the Convention.' "[33]
There can be no doubt that, if the East had a paramount
leader in the Convention, that leader was Randolph; and
knowledge and glowing declamation which Benjamin
Watkins Leigh lavished upon the discussions of the
Convention and the splendid contributions made by other
champions of the East to them.
"No man," Hugh R. Pleasants tells us, "who watched the
proceedings of that Convention could fail to observe the very
extraordinary influence which Mr. Randolph exercised over
all its members, friends as well as foes, though in very opposite
directions. The greatest men in the whole State, men whose
names were spread as widely as the limits of the Union, men
who would have been distinguished in any assembly of the
world, were members of that Convention. To say that Mr.
Randolph controlled a large majority of those, who composed
his own party, as absolutely as the moon regulates the motions
of the tide, were to use a figure scarcely too bold for the
occasion. The boldest and most impassioned speakers in the
loftiest flights of their oratory turned their eyes to watch his
approving nod, and seemed to catch inspiration from his
recognition. He was like the musical director in the midst of
an immense orchestra; the players and the instruments seemed
to obey the slightest motion of his hand."[34]
When Richard Morris, of Hanover County, a tertium quid,
who, had he lived longer, might have left a truly illustrious
name in the history of Virginia behind him, concluded his
striking speech on the basis of representation, Randolph
gracefully observed: "I see that the wise men still come
from the East."[35]
And when Abel P. Upshur and Thomas
R. Joynes, of Accomac County, had delivered their
speeches on the basis of representation, one a masterpiece
of stately and luminous oratory, and the other of the turn
of mind, which is said to distill the refined spirit of instruction
from figures, Randolph referred to them respectively
Indeed, in some respects, Randolph never appeared to
greater advantage than he did in the Convention. In
reply to one of the many letters of congratulation which he
received after its adjournment, he said:
"How I have succeeded in gaining upon the good opinion of
the public, as you and others of my friends tell me I have
done, I cannot tell. I made no effort for it; nor did it enter
into my imagination to court any man or party in or out of
the Convention. It is most gratifying nevertheless to be told
by yourself and others, in whose sincerity and truth I place the
most unbounded reliance, that I have, by the part I took in the
Convention, advanced myself in the estimation of my country.
With politics I am now done; and it is well to be able to quit
winner."[37]
| CHAPTER XIII John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773-1833 | |