"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality"

John Randolph’s declaration, “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality,” encapsulates the complex tensions at play in the political philosophies of the early nineteenth century, especially among members of the American elite. By identifying as an aristocrat, Randolph aligns himself with a tradition that values birthright, hierarchy, and the privileges afforded to a select few. Such a stance stands in contrast to the ideals of widespread democratic equality that were gaining traction in the period.

When he professes a love for liberty, Randolph emphasizes an individualistic sense of freedom—one tied to property, personal autonomy, and the right to self-governance. However, his simultaneous rejection of equality reveals that his notion of liberty is not extended universally, but rather preserved for those of his own class or standing. In this way, liberty is not defined as emancipation for all, but as the protection of privilege and established social order. The concept of “liberty” becomes selective, guarding the rights of the few at the expense of the many.

Randolph’s antipathy toward equality further suggests a fear that leveling social distinctions or promoting egalitarian reforms would erode natural distinctions he deemed essential to the fabric of society. For Randolph and likeminded aristocrats, equality threatened the hierarchies—both economic and social—that underpinned their world. To them, egalitarianism carried the specter of disorder, mediocrity, or the rise of “unqualified” individuals to positions of influence. The disdain for equality, then, is not a denial of liberty in the abstract, but rather a defense of a particular social order where some are inherently “more free” than others.

Ultimately, Randolph’s words expose the paradox at the heart of certain arguments for liberty in early American society: liberty could be revered even as equality was scorned, revealing how freedom, in some historical contexts, has been preserved for the few by denying it to the many.