The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 56, July 1952 - April, 1953 Page: 160

Southwestern Historical Quarterly

and laity alike. No less than seventeen schools and colleges came
into being between the years of 1837 and 1844. Two Episcopal
ministers, Ives and Gillette, along with Baylor and the Methodist
Chauncey Richardson, called a convention of interested persons
to study ways and means of furthering education in Texas, and
the resultant organization, says our author, "constituted the most
vital force in creating public sentiment for school legislation and
in the early period of statehood bore fruit in getting passed the
early school laws of Texas."
L. U. SPELLMAN
Randolph of Roanoke. By Russell Kirk. Chicago (The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press), 1952. Pp. viii+187. $3.00.
This is one of the most thought-provoking books of recent
times because it is a challenge to many of the trends of American
life. It is not a life of John Randolph of Roanoke, undoubtedly
the most unique character in American politics, past and present,
but a clear analysis of his political philosophy which came to be
the philosophy of John C. Calhoun and the Old South and is
still not without its exponents in some respects.
Randolph was the leader of the Jeffersonians in Congress for
twenty years and was a strong supporter of Thomas Jefferson
until they violently disagreed over the Yazoo land frauds. After
Georgia ceded her claim to these lands to the United States in
1802, Jefferson offered to compensate the purchasers and Ran-
dolph accused him of attempting to compromise with fraud for
political reasons. It happened that Randolph as a youngster was
in Georgia when the Yazoo affair was a bitter issue in state
politics. He never ceased to think it the greatest scandal in Amer-
ican history and was able to prevent a settlement of the matter
as long as he was in Congress. He became the leader of the
Quids-an anti-Jeffersonian faction. He was known as honest
John Randolph and was a model in this respect for American
statesmen then as well as now.
He was opposed to change, especially by formal processes. He
did not believe that change necessarily meant reform or progress.
He thought that changing constitutions every few years before
they had become adapted to the life of the people was vicious.

160