John Randolph (American History Through Literature)

Rating:
Summary: Beautifully written chop job
Review: Anyone picking up this book should know from the start that this is as about as unobjective a biography as one is bound to find. Henry Adams has multiple scores to settle, on behalf of John Adams and John Quincy Adams (his great-grandfather and grandfather, respectively), with John Randolph of Roanoke (who never had a kind word for either of the Adams presidents). The reader would be strongly advised to read both the introduction by Robert McColley, as well as the notes on the text (located at the end of the book) which deals with specific matters of interpretation in the book.

Adams uses this book to savage Randolph at every opportunity. The bulk of the book follows Randolph in his congressional career up through 1806, when he broke with the Jefferson administration over the administration's attempt to pay France two million dollars to secure Western Florida from Spain. Up until 1806, as Adams puts it, Randolph was the "spoiled child of his party and recognised mouthpiece of the administration." (p. 118) Randolph was in the thick of things up to that point, including the Louisiana Purchase, the approval of which he helped shephard through the House of Representatives. He was also given the responsibility for the February 1805 impeachment of Samuel Chase, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. At that point in history, the question of the Executive Branch's authority over the Judicial Branch was far from settled. A successful prosecution of Justice Chase might well have changed the history of Executive-Judicial relations, but Randolph botched the job thoroughly. Adams can barely contain his glee when describing how unequal to the task Randolph was.

The bungled Chase impeachment increasingly made Randolph an embarrassment to the Jefferson administration. Randolph's political prospects were damaged beyond repair after 1806, and from that point on, as he became increasingly erratic, was on the periphery of the American political scene. He quarrelled, at one point or another, with every administration from Jefferson to Andrew Jackson. Adams devotes only 70 pages to Randolph's life from 1806 until his death in 1833. It is evident at this point that Adams is more interested in directing criticism at Jefferson and his successors in the Virginia Dynasty than he is at studying the life of Randolph.

Adams does make good points in his book, especially regarding the notions of states' rights. Coventional wisdom holds that Randolph was one the early advocates of the states' rights philosophy that John C. Calhoun subsequently embraced, but Adams argues persuasively that actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the protection by the federal government of slavery (such as the Fugitive Slave Act) were in themselves encroachments on the rights of individual states and helped further the centralization of government in the United States. Far from being a traditional states' rights advocate, Adams contends, Randolph did a great deal to undermine the notion of states' rights as it existed in 1789.

Despite the rather venomous nature of the book, it is none the less a wonderful piece of literature that is worth reading. Adams' skills as a writer are evident throughout. The three stars represents a dual rating: 5 stars for the quality of the writing, 1 star for the utter lack of objectivity...although what could the reader seriously expect anyway?