John randolph of roanoke and the politics of doom slavery secti

University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 12-2012 John Randolph of Roanoke and the Politics of Doom: Slavery, Sectionalism, and Self-Deception, 1773-1821 Aaron Scott Crawford acrawfo9@utk.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Crawford, Aaron Scott, "John Randolph of Roanoke and the Politics of Doom: Slavery, Sectionalism, and Self-Deception, 1773-1821., University of Tennessee, 2012.edu/utk_graddiss/1519 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact trace@utk. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Aaron Scott Crawford entitled "John Randolph of Roanoke and the Politics of Doom: Slavery, Sectionalism, and Self-Deception, 1773-1821." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in History.

Daniel Feller, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Stephen Ash, Ernest Freeberg, Michael Fitzgerald Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) John Randolph of Roanoke and the Politics of Doom: Slavery, Sectionalism, and Self-Deception, 1773-1821 A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Aaron Scott Crawford December 2012 Copyright ©2012 Aaron Scott Crawford. All rights reserved. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my father, William B.

Crawford, and my advisor, Daniel Feller. iii Acknowledgments Completing this dissertation had been a lengthy and collaborative effort, and many people have assisted me. My advisor, Dr. Daniel Feller, has proven far more patient than should be expected.

His insights have been valuable and his guidance has been critical. I have, in part, dedicated this dissertation to him as an appreciative gesture for his all he has done for me in the past decade. Stephen Ash and Ernest Freeberg offered invaluable advice to me during their seminars, and their assistance with the dissertation is greatly appreciated. I had the pleasure of working with Michael Fitzgerald at the Howard H., Center for Public Policy, and I have valued his support and kindness.

Marszalek has been an important mentor, and I thank him and his wife, Jeanne, for everything they have done for me. The colleagues that have endured incessant talk of John Randolph have been innumerable, but I want to recognize three of them. Will Bolt’s knowledge of the Early American politics has been incredibly helpful. Tom Coens’ criticisms have been insightful.

John Kvach has been encouraging and thoughtful in his advice, particularly about Southern history. All three gentlemen have generously shared important sources and documents throughout the project. I also want to thank Padraig Riley for his comments on a portion of the dissertation presented at the 2010 Society for Historians of the Early American Republic meeting. Nicholas Wood shared critical Randolph documents.

Bethany Keiper, Erin Scanlon, Dr. Mike Ballard, and Dr. Cadra McDaniel all read portions of the dissertation and helped correct numerous errors. Rachel Cannady helped untangle many grammatical problems.

I also want to express my appreciation to several other people who have assisted in very important ways, particularly Dr. Fashion Bowers, Elizabeth Coggins, Dr. Travis Hardy, Dr. Paul Coker, Dr.

Aaron Purcell, Dr. Tim Jenness, Patti Rebholz, Dr. Nissa Dahlin- Brown, Carl Pierce, David Nolen, and Kim Harrison. I need to especially thank Alan Lowe for his guidance and leadership.

Bobby Holt, my oldest friend, has encouraged me for years in this work and always been there for me. Lisa Crawford’s emotional support and impeccable research skills were crucial. For years, she supported my research and listened to more Randolph stories than a person should have to. Fortunately, she still greets me in good humor and kindness.

Virginia Historical Society and Nelson Lankford offered valuable support for this project. Librarians and archivists from numerous institutions have aided in my attempt to accumulate Randolph’s letters and documents. In particular, I want to thank the archives and special collections staffs at several institutions including the University of Virginia, the Library of Virginia, the Library of Congress, Randolph College, Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the New York Public Library, the Massachusetts Historical Society. Laurel Sammonds has been the most patient and understanding partner that I could have hoped for, and I am glad that she has been there as I complete the dissertation.

Finally, I want to thank my mother, Pat Crawford, who will be glad that I am finally out of school. I dedicate this dissertation to my late father, William B. Crawford, a Virginia public servant for thirty-five years. He introduced me to the world of Thomas Jefferson, and for that I will be forever grateful.

iv Abstract In 1979, Robert Dawidoff wrote that it “was on the question of slavery that John Randolph contributed most decisively to American history.” Randolph’s stance on slavery has perplexed historians and biographers since his death in 1833. This dissertation examines the paradox of slavery in the life and career of John Randolph from the American Revolution until the Missouri Compromise. In an attempt to understand his public and private contradictions concerning slavery and the role of intense sectionalism in his politics, I have attempted to correlate his words with his actions. An examination of his letters reveal a man decidedly devoted to the belief that slavery was wrong, but a closer look of his public actions expose his commitment to preventing anyone from challenging that institution.

Randolph’s cognitive dissonance over slavery is revealed in his letters and speeches, which often display alternating strands of brutal honesty and masterful self-deception. In his life as a member of the Virginia gentry, he struggled with deep-seated feelings of regret and angst over holding slaves. In his public career, Randolph’s attitudes about slavery, slaveholding, and sectionalism cultivated countless public debates in which he participated. Randolph considered the interests of Southern slaveholders above all else during his political career.

Though in September 1815, he insisted that he wanted to be the American counterpart to British abolitionist William Wilberforce, he resisted any public effort to free American slaves. He devoted himself to the public defense of slavery, while privately planning the freedom for his own slaves. He saw himself as slavery’s severest critic while he acted as the most ardent defender of Virginia’s slave power. For Randolph, that transformation occurred primarily in the political realm and was informed by the declining fortunes of Virginia’s planter gentry.

Examining Randolph’s contradictions on slavery is a means of examining the transformation of antislavery principles in the South during the Early Republic. v Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction .1 Chapter 2: “Abilities and Exertions:” John Randolph and the Crisis of the Virginia Gentry .15 Chapter 3: The Inconsistent Education of John Randolph, 1789-1799 .51 Chapter 4: “The Interest and Feelings of the Southern States:” John Randolph and the Congressional Defense of Slavery and Slaveholders, 1799-1807 .113 Chapter 5: “Outcast of the World:” Sectionalism and Nationalism in John Randolph’s War of 1812.175 Chapter 6: “Chapter of Contradictions:” Slavery, Decay, and Salvation During the War of 1812 and its Aftermath.281 vi Chapter 1: Introduction In January 1824, the United States Congress prepared to pass The General Survey Act, which would create a system of internal improvements. Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, a staunch nationalist, had for years advocated a program to build roads and canals across the states, conquering the space of the expanding republic.

The bill would give the president and the central government unprecedented power in planning and executing public works projects. Calhoun and his fellow nationalists believed that the bill was necessary to strengthen the economy and the political Union. Stronger transportation and communication systems would connect sections, peoples, and ideas. In the House of Representatives, John Randolph of Roanoke rejected this vision of the nation’s future and warned of the bill’s true ramifications.

“I ask the attention of every gentleman who happens to stand in the same unfortunate predicament with myself—of every man who has the misfortune to be, and to have been born, a slaveholder,” Randolph said. “If Congress possesses the power to do what is proposed in this bill,” he argued, “they may emancipate every slave in the United States.”1 Though Congress passed the General Survey Act, Randolph’s warning became the clarion call that defined the struggle of slaveholders in American politics until the Civil War. Indeed, his 1824 internal improvements speech has been widely viewed as a pivotal statement that defined the antebellum proslavery effort. Cooper has argued that Randolph’s “doom-laden” prophecy emerged from “two decades of constitutional foreboding.” James Oakes claimed that the 1824 statement demonstrated the “portents of disunity in the face 1 Annals of Congress, 18:1, 1308.

1 of a rising antislavery threat.” Historians have correctly positioned Randolph as a pivotal figure in the proslavery political movement that led to the Civil War.2 During the antebellum period, rabid sectionalists promoted the image of John Randolph as the South’s first sentinel against antislavery forces. In 1860, one commentator chided fellow Southerners for ignoring “the Cassandra voice of honest John Randolph.” Beverly Tucker cast Randolph, his stepbrother, as the South’s original fire-eater. In Tucker’s writings, Randolph became the archetypal Southern gentleman defending the interest of his hamlet, a precursor to the most tragic creations of William Faulkner. A committed Southern nationalist, Tucker romanticized his kinsman as the most committed defender of the South.

In his 1836 Southern dystopian political novel, The Partisan Leader, Tucker imagined a civil war, which drove the Deep South out of the Union and led Virginia to defy the tyranny of a fictional President Martin Van Buren, then in his fourth term. As the fictional Virginians finally stepped forward to defend their rights, it seemed as “if the spirit of John Randolph had risen from the sleep of death.” Tucker believed that Randolph had handed Southerners a charge to defend slavery from Northerners and abolitionists.3 In August 1836, the same year that Tucker published his novel, William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator portrayed a very different John Randolph. After his death in 1833, the public learned that the arch-defender of slavery had granted freedom to his slaves and provided for their 2 William J. Cooper, Liberty and Slavery; Southern Politics to 1860 (New York: Knopf, 1983), 151; James Oakes, Slavery and Freedom: An Interpretation of the Old South (New York: Knopf, 1990), 128.

Quitman Moore, “The Attitude of the South,” Debow’s Review: Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial Progress and Resources (July 1860), 26; William R. Taylor, Cavalier and Yankee: The Old South and American National Character (New York: G. Braziller, 1961), 159; Nathaniel Beverley Tucker, The Partisan Leader, A Novel, And An Apocalypse of the Origin and Struggles of the Southern Confederacy (Richmond: Thomas A. 2 resettlement in free Ohio.

“I give to my slaves their freedom, to which my conscience tells me they are justly entitled,” his will declared. Furthermore, Randolph had expressed the “deepest regret” of ever inheriting them. His closest relatives, the Tucker family, insisted that he had been insane when he wrote the will and contested it in the Virginia courts. In coverage of the litigation, The Liberator and many other Northern papers offered anecdotal evidence that the South’s most ardent slavemaster had really been an antislavery man.

In one colorful anecdote, a stranger appeared at his plantation, where Randolph served him dinner. During the meal, his guest inquired about buying one of Randolph’s favorite servants. Realizing that his guest was a slavetrader, Randolph drew his pistols and chased the man out of his house. Following the stranger on horseback with guns pointed, Randolph shouted—“Off my grounds, you rascal!