| In the early 1800s, John Randolph was seen as an orator of exceptional skill even compared to Clay, Calhoun, and Webster. Randolph played an important role as majority leader in the House during Jefferson's first term. Although Randolph broke with Jefferson, he played a key part in politics until his death in 1833.;But, history has not dealt favorably with Randolph. Although some studies support his image as a skilled speaker, the dominant image is of an eccentric obstructionist. He is seen as influencing history by his states' rights stand that moved the South toward secession.;This dissertation argues that this image is more a product of ideological and sectional bias, than careful study of his oratory. This study seeks to determine if Randolph's rhetoric has been fairly evaluated.;The methodology combines a case-study approach and an experiential perspective with an emphasis on rhetorical strategies. Three major speeches served as the basis for case studies.;The first speech was in 1806 against Gregg's Resolution. It has been cited as an example of Randolph's failings. Previous speeches in Congress recorded in public and private documents provided data for the search for strategies and tactics in this speech.;The second speech was an 1824 attack on Clay and internal improvements. In the dominant view, it represents Randolph's use of states' rights to protect slaveholders.;The third speech came in the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-30. Contemporary accounts suggest it was very effective. It provides a good example of rhetorical strategies in a long campaign.;Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, understanding specific obstacles he faced is crucial to assessing his response in a particular rhetorical situation. Second, the case studies demonstrate that Randolph was capable of using a complex series of interrelated strategies and tactics to achieve his goals. Third, the case studies do not support the dominant view of the purposes, effects, and values of his rhetoric. Fourth, this study supports the minority view of his speeches as generally appropriate in organization, substance, and tone. Finally, the study concludes that the dominant view is seriously flawed and a new evaluation is needed. |
