It is sweet to die for one’s country

But the lofty action of Mr. Clay in connection with this his country’s

crisis, his prompt response to her cry for aid, his unwavering

attachment to her cause, and his ardent devotion to her interests,

present an example of patriotic love and zeal, which may be placed by

the side of similar ones on the records of those nations, without the

slightest fear of disparagement,――indeed as justifying the belief that

if she had required a similar sacrifice, the victim would not have been

wanting.

Mr. Clay advocated war, not as an experimental measure, not for the

purpose of furnishing him an opportunity of gratifying his ambitious

private projects, as his enemies desired it to be believed, but as the

_dernier resort_, as that only which could raise from her prostrate

condition his country, and restore her to that rank to which she was

entitled as an independent nation. The result proved the correctness

of his prediction, while it exposed the falsity of that pronouncing the

measure as certain to eventuate in her ruin.

When he first approached the subject, he found it surrounded by a cloud

of gloom, rendered dense and dark by the adverse circumstances of his

country, and which was made every day more murky by the unpatriotic

attitude of the disaffected, and the insidious efforts of the openly

hostile. To dispel this, all his energies were directed, and on the

re-assembling of congress, pursuant to adjournment, he was gratified

to behold some few glimmerings of light through the sombre mass. This

cheering indication, added to the reviving influence imparted to him

by his recent immediate contact with the people, fired his soul with an

irrepressible fervency, and caused the flame of his patriotic ardor to

burn so intensely as to consume all opposing materials. For this flame,

plenty of fuel was furnished by those, who evinced, by their deadly

hostility, a desire to see the unequal struggle then going on between

England and the United States, terminate in favor of the former. In

some, this hostility, breaking over all bounds of decency, vented

itself in the grossest lampoon. Their endeavors appeared more like

the spasmodic efforts of a drowning man, than the skilfully directed

attempts of enlightened opposers, as though they were determined, if

possible, to accomplish the fulfilment of their predictions, which now,

from the recent victorious feats of our arms, seemed quite dubious.

Soon after the commencement of the session, the first subject of

importance that came before the representatives of the people, was that

of increasing the army. Mr. Clay, and those whose views were coincident

with his, desired to concentrate the nation’s energies in prosecuting

the war to a glorious completion; to do which, fresh and gratifying

evidence had been given. To secure this, it was proposed to augment

the army by a recruit of twenty thousand men. The committee on military

affairs in the house reported a bill for the purpose, which was

considered in committee of the whole, and debated at length. From

the opposition, this proposition met the most violent assault, and also

those who supported it. The warmest opposers were found in the persons

of Messrs. Randolph, Pitkin and Quincy. The speech of the latter

gentleman is said to have ‘produced disgust on all sides of the house,’

and for violence and abuse stands unrivalled. Its most scurrilous

expressions have been expunged; enough, however, remains to determine

its original character. Speaking of the war, he observed, ‘there is

nothing in history like this war since the invasion of the bucaneers.

The disgrace of our armies is celestial glory compared to the disgrace

reflected on our country by this invasion;’ (the proposed invasion of

Canada;) ‘yet it is called a war for glory! Glory? Yes, such glory as

that of the tiger when he tears the bowels from the lamb, filling the

wilderness with its savage roars; the glory of Zenghis Khan, without

his greatness; the glory of Bonaparte. Far from me and mine, and far

from my country be such glory!’ He stigmatized those in favor of the

war as ‘household troops, who lounge for what they can pick up about

the government house; who come here, and with their families live

and suck upon the breast of the treasury; toad-eaters, who live on

eleemosynary, ill-purchased courtesy, upon the palace, swallow great

men’s spittle, and get judgeships, and wonder at the fine sights,

and fine rooms, and fine company, and most of all, wonder how they

themselves got there.’ The state of public feeling in Massachusetts

respecting the invasion, he stated by saying, that ‘he had conversed

upon the question with men of all ranks and conditions in Massachusetts,

with men hanging over the plough and on the spade, judicious, honest,

patriotic, sober men, who, if it were requisite, and their sense of

moral duty went along with the war, would fly to the standard of their

country at the winding of a horn, but who now hear yours with the

same indifference they would have heard a jews-harp or a banjo.’ He

was particularly severe on those in the house who advised the rigid

prosecution of the war, by calling them ‘young politicians, with the

pin-feathers yet unshed, the shell still sticking upon them; perfectly

unfledged, though they fluttered and cackled on the floor; who favored

such extravagant and ignorant opinions of a very proud nation.’ He said,

‘it would ill become a man whose family had been two centuries settled

in the state, and whose interests, connections and affections were

exclusively American, to shrink from his duty for the yelping of those

blood-hound mongrels who were kept in pay to hunt down all who opposed

the court; a pack of mangy hounds of recent importation; their backs

still sore with the stripes of European castigation, and their necks

marked with the check collar.’

Mr. Clay replied to him in a speech of most pointed yet merited rebuke,

and couched in language that stung like a scorpion. During the course

of his remarks, Mr. Quincy took occasion to travel out of his way to

attack the character of Mr. Jefferson. This uncalled for and unexpected

abuse of an aged ex-president, a patriot living in retirement, Mr. Clay

thus notices.

‘Neither his retirement from public office, his eminent services, nor

his advanced age, can exempt this patriot from the coarse assaults

of party malevolence. In 1801, he snatched from the rude hand of

usurpation the violated constitution of his country, and _that_ is his

crime. He preserved that instrument, in form, and substance, and spirit,

a precious inheritance for generations to come, and for _this_, he can

never be forgiven. How vain and impotent is party rage directed against

such a man! He is not more elevated by his lofty residence on the

summit of his own favorite mountain, than he is lifted by the serenity

of his mind, and the consciousness of a well-spent life, above the

malignant passions and bitter feelings of the day. No! his own beloved

Monticello is not less moved by the storms that beat against its sides,

than is this illustrious man by the howlings of the whole British pack

set loose from the Essex kennel.’

Speaking of the notoriety Mr. Quincy had gained by attempting to

impeach Mr. Jefferson a few years previous, he said, ‘the final vote

stood one for, and one hundred and seventeen against the proposition!’

(of impeachment.) ‘The same historic page that transmitted to posterity

the virtue and the glory of Henry the Great of France, for their

admiration and example, has preserved the infamous name of the frantic

assassin of that excellent monarch.’ Mr. Clay vindicated most ably

the character of that exalted patriot, from the foul aspersions

thus attempted to be cast upon it; after which, he alluded to the

vacillating course pursued by those opposed to the administration party,

in the following language. ‘The course of that opposition by which the

administration of the government has been unremittingly impeded for the

last twelve years, is singular, and I believe unexampled in the history

of any country. The administration has not been forgetful of its solemn

obligations. No art has been left unessayed, no experiment promising

a favorable result left untried, to maintain the peaceful relations

of the country. When some six or seven years ago, the affairs of the

nation assumed a threatening aspect, a partial non-importation was

adopted. As they grew more alarming an embargo was imposed. It would

have accomplished its purport, but it was sacrificed on the altar of

conciliation. Vain and fruitless attempt to propitiate! Then came along

the non-intercourse, and a general non-importation followed in the

train. In the mean time, any indications of a return to the public law

and the path of justice on the part of either belligerent, are seized

upon with avidity by the administration. The arrangement with Mr.

Erskine is concluded. It is first applauded, and then censured by the

opposition. No matter with what unfeigned sincerity, with what real

effort the administration cultivates peace, the opposition insist that

it alone is culpable for every breach that is made between the two

countries. Restriction after restriction has been tried. Negotiation

has been resorted to until further negotiation would have been

disgraceful. Whilst these peaceful experiments are undergoing a

trial, what is the conduct of the opposition? They are the champions

of war――the proud, the spirited, the sole repository of the nation’s

honor――the men of exclusive vigor and energy. The administration,

on the contrary, is weak, feeble, and pusillanimous――incapable of

being kicked into a war. The maxim, ‘not a cent for tribute, millions

for defence,’ is loudly proclaimed. The opposition is tired, sick,

disgusted with negotiation. They want to draw the sword and avenge the

nation’s wrongs. When, however, foreign nations, perhaps emboldened by

the very opposition here made, refuse to listen to the amicable appeals,

which have been repeated and reiterated by the administration, to

their justice and their interests――when, in fact, war with one of them

has become identified with our existence and our sovereignty, and to

abstain from it was no longer possible, behold the opposition veering

round and becoming the friends of peace and commerce. They tell you

of the calamities of war――its tragical events――the squandering away of

your resources――the waste of the public treasure, and the spilling of

innocent blood. Now we see them exhibiting the terrific forms of the

roaring king of the forest. Now the meekness and humility of the lamb.

They are for war and no restriction when the administration is for

peace. They are for peace and restrictions when the administration is

for war. You find them tacking with every gale, displaying the colors

of every party and of all nations, steady only in one unalterable

purpose, to steer if possible into the haven of power.’

Mr. Clay’s sentiments in relation to the British system of impressment

were of the most affecting description, drawing tears from the eyes of

almost every individual present, and concluded by saying, that ‘My plan

would be to call out the ample resources of the country, give them a

judicious direction, prosecute the war with the utmost vigor, strike

wherever we can reach the enemy at sea or on land, and negotiate the

terms of a peace at Quebec or Halifax. We are told that England is a

proud and lofty nation, which, disdaining to wait for danger, meets

it half way. Haughty as she is, we once triumphed over her, and if we

do not listen to the counsels of timidity and despair, we shall again

prevail. In such a cause, with the aid of Providence, we must come

out crowned with success; but if we fail, let us fail like men――lash

ourselves to our gallant tars, and expire together in one common

struggle, fighting for free trade and seamen’s rights.’

A correct idea of the effect produced it is impossible to gather from

his reported speech, though in general accurately given. Look, tone,

gesture, and manner contributed largely to its greatness,――perhaps

as much as the ‘thoughts that breathe and words that burn,’ which in

one continuous stream fell from his eloquent lips, causing the hearts

of his hearers to thrill alternately with pleasure and pain. It is

represented as having been an exquisite specimen of grand eloquence――a

felicitous blending of the beautiful, pathetic and sublime. He seemed

to wave the enchanted wand of the fabled magician, now spreading peace

and quiet, and now causing the most stormy emotions to swell the hearts

of those who listened to him. The editor of the National Intelligencer

says that the pathetic effect produced by the appeal admits not of

description. Although the day was extremely cold, so cold that Mr. Clay,

for the only time in his life, was unable to keep himself warm by the

exercise of speaking, there were few individuals in the house who did

not bear witness by their streaming eyes to the orator’s control over

their sensibilities. Members of both political parties――men whose

patriotic souls had been sustained by his eloquence, and those who

had been writhing and agonizing under his indignation, forgot their

antipathies and wept together.

Mr. Clay had the pleasure of seeing the bill, as advocated by him,

pass the house, on the fourteenth of January, 1813, by a vote of

seventy-seven to forty-two. On the sixteenth (having passed the senate,)

it received the signature of the president; and thus was taken another

and very important step in carrying out that system of manly and bold

resistance devised and introduced by him, and which was destined to

redress all our grievances and restore our violated rights.

On the eighteenth of February, congress proceeded to ascertain the

result of an election for president and vice president, which was as

follows. For president, James Madison, one hundred and twenty-eight,

De Witt Clinton, eighty-nine. For vice president, Elbridge Gerry,

one hundred and thirty-one, Jared Ingersoll, eighty-six. Thus the

re-election of Mr. Madison furnished undoubted evidence that the

people, from whom there is no appeal, sustained the measures of war.

On the twenty-fourth of May, Mr. Clay was elected speaker to the house

again, over Mr. Pitkin, by a majority of thirty-five, and whenever an

opportunity was afforded him, he mingled in the discussions that were

almost constantly agitating the house, in reference to prosecuting the

war. At the commencement of this, the first session of the thirteenth

congress, he called the attention of the house to that portion of the

president’s message which describes the manner in which the British had

been waging war: which characterized it as ‘adding to the savage fury

of it on one frontier, a system of plunder and conflagration on the

other, equally forbidden by respect for national character, and by the

established rules of civilized warfare.’ In a few pertinent remarks,

he adverted to this description embodied by the message, censuring

somewhat severely the nation guilty of such enormities, and said,

‘if they should be found to be as public report had stated them, they

called for the indignation of all christendom, and ought to be embodied

in an authentic document which might perpetuate them on the page

of history.’ An investigation instituted on a motion of Mr. Clay,

in reference to these, developed the astounding fact that the most

barbaric outrages were committed repeatedly, on American prisoners, by

the savage allies of the British, with their approval. The indignation

of the house was aroused to a high pitch, on learning the truth of the

report, which took immediate measures for causing to be laid before

it every instance of such flagrant violation of the rules of warfare

recognized by all civilized nations.

War had now become the settled policy and regular business of

the nation; a business which though at first she performed rather

bunglingly, was now despatched in a more workmanlike manner. The plough,

the spade, and the various implements of husbandry and mechanism, had

become partially forgotten, by the familiarity which had been effected

with the musket and the sword, so that greater skill was manifested

in the use of the latter, which resulted in greater success than

accompanied the first attempts at their use. York, the capital of Upper

Canada, had fallen into our hands, and five naval victories had been

achieved. Indecision and timidity had to a great extent disappeared,

and a spirit of indomitable determination had been made to take

their place, mainly through the irresistible influence of Mr. Clay’s

eloquent appeals. These were all-powerful, agitating the whole

nation, paralyzing opposition, and organizing and arraying the

talent, influence, and means of all classes, to do battle to death,

if necessary, in defence of our precious liberties. A noble and

enthusiastic feeling was diffused throughout the country. Public

opinion was far and wide aroused in favor of the war, and its majestic

roar shook down the unconsecrated temples of treason, and bared their

secrets to the light of heaven. Patriot answered aloud to patriot――the

sentinels of freedom caught up the watchword――from town to town the

signal fires flashed free, and all things proclaimed that the spirit

of the country was up for glory.

Both the friends and foes of Mr. Clay agree that at this period the

control he had acquired was almost unlimited. In the house it was

probably equal to that which he had acquired a few years previous in

the legislature of Kentucky. This was always exercised in the spirit of

the greatest liberality, and in such a manner as to promote the public

interests. Towards the close of 1813, negotiations for peace commenced,

at the suggestion of Alexander, the emperor of Russia, who proffered

his mediation between the two belligerent nations. On the part of the

United States, his proffer was favorably received, and a willingness

manifested to accede to it, accompanied with expressions of regret that

the commercial interests of Russia should be infringed or endangered

in any way by her collision with Great Britain. This was first formally

made at Washington, by the Russian minister, M. Daschkoff, as early

as March of the same year, and eagerly embraced by the president. It

had, however, several months previous, been hinted to Mr. Adams, our

minister at St. Petersburg, by the emperor himself, who manifested

great desire that hostilities should cease. On the part of Great

Britain his pacific proposition was rejected, who alleged that

the peculiar nature of her domestic and naval regulations rendered

incompatible its acceptance, but declared her perfect willingness to

treat with the American envoys, either at London, or Paris, or indeed

at any convenient place selected by the two powers. This proposal was

accepted, and the preliminary steps taken to accomplish the object

proposed. Messrs. Albert Gallatin and James A. Bayard were selected as

two of the commissioners for the United States, and directed to repair

without delay and join Mr. J. Q. Adams, at St. Petersburg, there to

await the further action of government.

A short time after, a proposal from the English ministry to negotiate

with us at Gottingen was accepted, and Messrs. Clay and Jonathan

Russell were selected commissioners, who, in connection with the three

in Russia, were invested with full power to treat with lord Gambier,

Henry Goulborne, and William Adamos, commissioners on the part of the

British government.

Although Gottingen had been first agreed upon as the city where

to conduct the negotiation, subsequently it was determined that

Ghent should be the place. The sixth of August, 1814, found the

plenipotentiaries of both nations (except Mr. Gallatin, who joined

them soon after,) at the latter city, ready to proceed with their

legitimate business. They commenced by a mutual interchange of kind

feeling, evincing a disposition to approach the subject in the true

spirit of conciliation, and to frame their stipulations so as to

subserve the interests of the powers they represented. In consequence

of the proximity of the British ministers to their government, they

enjoyed a superior advantage over the American commissioners, of which

they availed themselves freely, for whenever they received from the

latter a note of any importance, it was directly sent to London, where

its contents were carefully scrutinized by the English ministry, who

prepared and sent back an answer containing instructions, which were to

govern their actions in relation to it. This mode of procedure adopted

by them, greatly retarded the negotiation, while the remoteness of

the American negotiators from their government, made it impossible

for them to resort to a similar method. The plan which they adopted

on receiving a communication from the former, was to consider its

contents deliberately, and with great circumspection; after which it

was committed to the care of one of their number deputed to prepare an

answer. This underwent a rigid examination, when each member considered

it in private, making such alterations as he deemed proper. Afterwards

they all assembled and subjected them to a thorough scrutiny, which

terminated in their adoption or rejection. Their proceedings in detail

were never reported, so that it is impossible to state to what extent

they were influenced by each member of the diplomacy, but it is matter

of general credence that Mr. Clay, in their joint colloquial meetings,

bore a prominent part and exercised a controlling power over the

character of the stipulations. It is understood that Mr. Gallatin drew

up more official communications than any one of his associates, that

Mr. Adams ranked next, and Mr. Clay next. The various papers prepared

by these gentlemen during the period of their negotiation, which

continued about five months, furnish some of the finest specimens

of English composition. For purity of diction, terseness of style,

happy illustration, and logical construction, they will not suffer

in comparison with the best political disquisitions in the English

language.

The favorable indications which appeared at the commencement of

the negotiation, soon gave place to those of a different character.

The tone of the British commissioners, in laying the foundation of

the treaty, soon became so dictatorial as almost to preclude the

possibility of proceeding with it. In enumerating the various subjects

which they designed to review and determine, besides the seizure of

mariners from merchantmen on the high seas, boundary line, and the

privileges heretofore enjoyed by the United States in carrying on their

fisheries within the limits of British jurisdiction, they declared as

a _sine qua non_ to the completion of the treaty, that it must embrace

provisions for rendering pacific the various Indian tribes within

our borders, for settling their boundaries by a specific treaty with

Great Britain, and that the right to purchase their lands without her

consent must be unconditionally ceded. On such grounds the American

commissioners unhesitatingly and unanimously refused to advance.

The overbearing and haughty pretensions and arbitrary demands thus

set up and insisted on at the very outset, seemed to interpose an

insurmountable barrier towards effecting an amicable and honorable

arrangement with our foe. Not only did she by prescription unadvised

with us, exhibit an intention to have it all in her own way, but

she avowed her design to obtain the control of certain islands in

Passamaquoddy Bay, over which our right of jurisdiction had not been

questioned up to that time, and to cause us to agree not to keep any

naval force on the lakes, nor garrison soldiers on their eastern shores.

The thought of submitting for a moment to such obnoxious exactions and

requisitions could not be tolerated, and the American commissioners

peremptorily informed them that negotiation under such circumstances

was entirely out of the question, and that an unqualified abandonment

of the objectionable portion of their demands must be complied with,

before their consent to proceed another step in the business could be

obtained. They saw it was requisite to be thus decided, in order to

put an early and effectual stop to such unwarrantable assumptions and

encroachments, which, if quietly submitted to, they clearly foresaw (by

their maintaining a right to ‘vary and regulate their demands,’) would

be indefinitely extended. In their first despatches to Washington,

therefore, instead of holding out any encouragement of success, they

stated that there was no ‘hope of peace.’ Immediately after their

arrival, they were spread before the people by the public journalists,

whose indignation was greatly augmented, on becoming acquainted with

treatment ostensibly given for the purpose of consummating a treaty of

peace on grounds of mutual reciprocity, but which in reality recognized

the nation with whom it was to be effected, as enslaved rather than

free. The demands of England were characterized as ‘arrogant, insulting

to the United States, meriting instantaneous rejection, and demanding

the united exertions of every citizen of these states, in the vigorous

prosecution of the war until it shall be terminated in a just and

honorable peace.’

The publication of their despatches was not anticipated by our

commissioners, and great was their astonishment on perusing them in

the newspapers at Ghent. Their fears were excited lest it should have

an unfavorable bearing on the negotiations, if it did not put an abrupt

period to them. The English negotiators maintained a guarded silence

on the subject. Mr. Clay being solicitous to ascertain their opinions

in relation thereto, addressed them, beginning with lord Gambier, whom

he accosted by saying, ‘you perceive, my lord, that our government has

published our despatches, and that now the whole world knows what we

are doing here.’ ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘I have seen it with infinite surprise,

and the proceeding is without example in the civilized world.’ ‘Why, my

lord,’ said Mr. Clay, mildly, ‘you must recollect that at the time of

the publication of those despatches, our government had every reason

to suppose, from the nature of the pretensions and demands which yours

brought forward, that our negotiation would not terminate successfully,

and that the publication would not find us here together. I am quite

sure that if our government had anticipated the present favorable

aspect of our deliberations, the publication of the despatches would

not have been ordered. Then your lordship must also recollect, that

if, as you truly asserted, the publication of despatches pending a

negotiation is not according to the custom of European diplomacy, our

government is organized on principles totally different from those

on which European governments are constituted. With us, the business

in which we are here engaged is the people’s business. We are their

servants, and they have a right to know how their business is going on.

The publication, therefore, was to give the people information of what

ultimately affected them.’

Although unable to controvert this explanation by Mr. Clay, of the

reasons for publishing the official papers relative to the negotiation,

he expressed himself not perfectly satisfied with it, and his opinion

was concurred in by his colleagues. However, the injurious consequences

apprehended from their publication were not experienced, and the

business of the treaty proceeded as if it had not been made.

Mr. Clay reciprocated an act of kindness of Mr. Goulborne, who had

sent him a British periodical containing an account of the taking of

Washington by the arms of his nation, by sending to him some American

papers which he had recently received, describing a splendid victory

won on lake Champlain or lake Erie, by the navy of _his_ country over

that of the British.

After the receipt of such unpleasant intelligence from Ghent, it was

resolved that redoubled energy should be put forth in pushing forward

the war, which caused the noble feats of our gallant navy and army

to be greatly multiplied. At Plattsburgh, Chippewa, and many other

places, victory perched upon our banner. The hearts of our hardy

sailors gathered fresh strength, whose successful attempts in annoying

the enemy by capturing his trading vessels, caused the most bitter

lamentations throughout his realm, and underwriters to advance their

rates of insurance between England and Ireland from three-fourths of

one to five per cent. The determined spirit thus evinced by us, Great

Britain correctly attributed to the arbitrarily assumptive course which

she attempted to pursue in conducting the negotiations at Ghent; a

spirit which she had the sagacity to discover would never brook the

slightest shade of vassalage, or permit the acceptance of dishonorable

terms, and also the wisdom to avert the destructive consequences which

her varied and wide-spread interests would certainly sustain from the

aggressions of those actuated by it, in speedily removing the causes

by which it was aroused. A recession was immediately made, not only

by the British ministers, who reduced their _sine qua non_ so as to

require only the effection of Indian pacification, but by the public

journalists in both England and her provinces. They spoke in more

respectful terms of the United States, and abated to a good extent

their domineering attempts. Still some of the objectionable terms

proposed at first as the basis of an arrangement, were adhered to.

The cession of such a portion of our territory as should secure a

permanent and safe communication to England between Quebec and Halifax,

was required pertinaciously. The American commissioners assumed

the responsibility, at the risk of breaking off the negotiation, of

rejecting such terms, and indeed all that did not come within the limit

of their instructions, by informing the English commissioners, that it

was perfectly fruitless, besides a waste of time, to bring forward and

attempt to connect with the treaty, subjects respecting which they were

not empowered to negotiate; subjects which were many of them foreign

to their purpose, had no natural relation to it, and which if desirable

might be definitely settled by subsequent negotiation, without being

made a party to their present proposed arrangement. They affirmed

that they had ‘no relation to the subsisting differences between the

two countries; they are inconsistent with acknowledged principles of

public law; they are founded neither on reciprocity nor on any of the

usual bases of negotiation, neither on that of the _uti possidetis_

or of _status ante bellum_; they would inflict the most vital injury

on the United States by dismembering their territory, by arresting

their natural growth and increase of population, and by leaving their

northern and western frontiers equally exposed to British invasion and

Indian aggression; they are above all dishonorable to the United States,

in demanding from them to abandon territory and a portion of their

citizens, to admit a foreign interference in their domestic concerns,

and to cease to exercise their natural rights on their own shores and

in their own waters. A treaty concluded on such terms would be but

an armistice. It cannot be supposed that America would long submit

to conditions so injurious and degrading. It is impossible, in the

natural course of events, that she should not, at the first favorable

opportunity, recur to arms for the recovery of her territory, of her

rights, and her honor. Instead of settling existing difficulties, such

a peace would only create new causes of war, sow the seeds of permanent

hatred, and lay the foundation of hostilities for an indefinite period.

It is not necessary to refer such demands to the American government

for its instruction. They will be only a fit subject of deliberation

when it becomes necessary to decide upon the expediency of an absolute

surrender of national independence.’

There was no mistaking the meaning of such language, respectful but

pungent, expressing perspicuously the true principles of diplomatic

action. Although it was self-evident that the spirit which dictated

such sentiments as that communication contained, would not allow

any truckling or swerving, still the British negotiators appeared

determined to persevere until they accomplished what from the very

commencement seemed to be to them a favorite feature in the treaty,

viz: _the exposure of our whole northern frontier to the mercy of

their nation_. She found that the Indian hordes could be advantageously

employed by her, indeed she had already employed them to such an

extent as to give, so far as she was concerned, a most truculent

aspect to the war; hence the invincible determination manifested by

her legalized commissioners, to have the treaty so framed as to secure

to her their absolute control. This disposition was regarded by the

American commissioners with feelings not only of regret, but of horror,

who protested against ‘the employment of savages, whose known rule of

warfare is the indiscriminate torture and butchery of women, children,

and prisoners,’ as constituting ‘a departure from the principles of

humanity observed between all civilized and christian nations even in

war.’ They stated that instead of endeavoring to effect _that control_,

it would be much more comportable with the dignity and grandeur of

the British nation to abandon forever the barbarous practice, and to

stipulate with America to that purpose in case of waging any future

war with her. They would not recede an inch from the ground which they

had taken, in relation to the Indians and northern frontier. After

directing their combined diplomatic artillery against them for the

space of several weeks incessantly, to drive them from it, but without

the slightest success, the British diplomatists finally abandoned

it. Soon after the American commissioners proposed to guaranty the

pacification of the Indians when the treaty should be ratified, and

expressed their unaltered determination to treat upon no subjects

respecting which they had received no instructions. To this their

opponents acceded, and the negotiation proceeded, the American

commissioners dictating nearly all the terms, and finally issued in

the production of a treaty, on the twenty-fourth of December, 1814.

Throughout the negotiation the utmost unanimity prevailed among our

ministers, and never was there a difference of opinion, except in

one instance. This related to certain fishery privileges, and the

navigation of the Mississippi river.

In a treaty of peace concluded in 1783, between Great Britain and

the United States, it was stipulated that the latter should enjoy the

liberty of taking fish of every kind on all the banks of Newfoundland,

Grand Bank, gulf of St. Lawrence, and in all other places where the

inhabitants of both countries had been accustomed to fish――that the

same should be enjoyed on all the coasts, bays and creeks of his

Britannic majesty’s dominions in America; that she should have full

permission to dry and cure fish in the unsettled bays, &c. of Nova

Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as they should remain

unsettled, but that after they were settled, such permission must be

sanctioned by their occupants; and also that the Mississippi river

should be open forever to the navigation of both nations, from its

mouth to its source. The latter stipulation was included in a treaty

negotiated by Mr. Jay, in 1794.

The United States, anticipating that the subjects of the fisheries and

navigation of the Mississippi would be brought forward by the British

government, had directed the secretary of state, Mr. Monroe, to give

her commissioners special instructions relative to them. He accordingly

authorized them, in case she should require the United States to

relinquish her fishing privileges, to treat the requisition as it

deserved. They were given to understand that these privileges must

not be brought into the discussion, and that, if insisted on, their

negotiations must terminate. He instructed them not to grant to

Great Britain the right to navigate any river within the exclusive

jurisdiction of the United States.

At an early stage of the negotiation, it had been intimated to the

American commissioners by the British, that the privilege in question

would not be renewed, unless the United States offered something to

Great Britain which should be deemed an ample equivalent. The subject

of this equivalent caused the difference of opinions to which allusion

has been made. Mr. Adams contended that no equivalent could or ought to

be demanded for the right of fishing stipulated in the treaty of 1783.

He did not believe with his colleagues, that the article in that treaty,

relating to this right, expired at the commencement of the war, but

contended that it had survived the war, and that therefore it was

absurd to treat concerning the _renewal_ of a right, of which they were

then in the legitimate possession. The great importance of preserving

this right unabridged was felt by all. Mr. Gallatin went so far as to

propose to permit Great Britain to exercise the right of navigating the

Mississippi as an equivalent for that of fishing in the waters within

her jurisdiction. After a warm debate, Messrs. Adams, Gallatin and

Bayard declared themselves in favor of doing so, and Messrs. Clay and

Russell opposed. Mr. Clay then affirmed, that his signature should not

be appended to a treaty including such a proposition, who was joined

soon after by Mr. Bayard, and consequently it was not included. A most

animated discussion ensued, in which Mr. Clay demonstrated the impolicy

of extending such a privilege to Great Britain, contended that America

ought to come out of the war in the ♦unimpaired possession of all the

rights and privileges which she enjoyed prior to its commencement, and

that the right of discussing the question of the fisheries did not come

within the purview of their instructions. In regard to the navigation

of the Mississippi, a mere glance at its unlimited connections and

dependencies, the vast advantage which an easy access to them would

confer, rendered no deliberation requisite in deciding upon granting a

right to it to Great Britain. It would be almost tantamount to placing

in her hands a tube communicating with the very vitals of the republic,

through which she could suck its life blood; it would give her

unbounded facilities for employing against us the numerous tribes of

Indians at the north west, of which she would doubtless with avidity

avail herself, and greatly to our detriment, and thus jeopard the great

and growing interests of the whole west. As it respected the right

which she imagined she possessed in virtue of the treaties of 1783

and 1794, Mr. Clay contended that the grounds upon which it was based

were supposititious, and that therefore it could not be valid; that at

the dates of those treaties, it was supposed that the law of nations

would entitle her to the right, inasmuch as it was believed that her

dominions bordered on the Upper Mississippi, and that this supposed

bordering of her territory on the river, was the principal reason

adduced in stipulating for the right of its navigation; that now since

it was certainly determined and known, that such was not the fact, she

possessed no natural grounds on which to found the right; that Spain

at the date of those treaties owned the entire western bank of the

river from its mouth to its source, and consequently possessed an

equal interest with the United States in its navigation, who could not,

therefore, convey to a third party that interest, or any portion of

it, unsanctioned by the former; that in 1803, by purchase, the United

States became possessed of the entire Spanish interest, which placed

her upon different grounds from those on which she stood in 1783 and

1794. Besides, Mr. Clay argued, what connection is there between the

fishing privilege, and the right of navigating the Mississippi? The

treaties showed none, their nature none. Why select as the equivalent

for the privilege, the Mississippi? Why not barter the Potomac, or the

Hudson for it? There was something calculated to excite suspicion in

this attempt of our powerful enemy to introduce her invincible navy to

the ‘father of rivers.’ It looked like feeling for the _purse-strings

of the nation_. He would as soon yield a portion of her blood-bought

territory, as this noblest of her streams, to become the resort of the

British lion, where he might make his permanent lair, and eventually

place his huge paw upon the crest of her eagle. Though as anxious

as his colleagues possibly could be for the preservation of their

fishing privileges, he could not consent to effect it by a purchase so

expensive as that proposed. Thus Mr. Clay remained immovably determined

to act in accordance with his convictions of duty in consulting the

interests of that nation which he represented. The value of those

interests, undoubtedly secured by the decided position which he assumed

and maintained, is of such magnitude as to be inappreciable; they

constitute a corner stone of the temple of liberty, destined to abide

as long as she shall make it her abode.

Subsequently to the British ministers’ becoming acquainted with the

conclusion of the American commissioners, respecting the exchange,

they, in a counter project of a treaty, submitted to the latter,

proposed among other articles one to renew the right of navigation

in question, without any equivalent. After much deliberation this was

rejected. Finally, it was mutually agreed by both parties to refrain

from inserting any article in the treaty, relating either to the

fisheries or the navigation of the Mississippi. Thus the pride of the

west and the glory of America was suffered to roll his majestic tide

in beauty and grandeur to the ocean, unburthened by foreign vessels and

unfettered by regal sway.

Several years afterwards, Mr. Clay became involved in an unpleasant

controversy between Messrs. Russell and Adams, which originated from

something connected with their negotiations at Ghent. On the day next

subsequent to the signing of the treaty, the commissioners drew up a

sketch of their discussions in relation to the difference of opinion

among them, concerning complying with the demands of the British

commissioners, which represented the offer of the navigation of the

Mississippi as made by a _majority_ of the American plenipotentiaries.

At the same time, Mr. Russell communicated to Mr. Monroe the fact of

his being in the minority in that offer, and declared his intention

of submitting his reasons for disagreeing with his associates, at a

future convenient period, which he subsequently carried into effect.

These papers were deposited among the documents of the nation, where

they remained till 1822, when they were placed before the house of

representatives, at its request, by the president, together with a

private communication from Mr. Russell, purporting to be a duplicate

of one found among the private papers of the president. A statement was

made by each of these letters, between which there was a discrepancy,

which caused Mr. Adams to reprimand Mr. Russell severely, through

the medium of the press. Mr. Clay addressed a letter to Mr. Russell

designed to be private, in which he signified his acquiescence in

the reprimand, and also gave a concise statement of their debates

connected with their disagreement. It appeared that Mr. Adams was

laboring under the impression that Mr. Clay coincided with him

in construing the treaties of 1783 and 1794, or that part of them

referring to the fisheries and Mississippi, from the fact of his

signature being attached to the communication of the American to the

British commissioners, embodying the views of the former in relation to

them. Mr. Clay corrected that impression by declaring that he had not

concurred with him. He stated that his object in advising the insertion

of the words ‘_a majority_,’ in the despatch to the secretary of state,

was to announce to his government the fact of a division among them,

and with the view of concealing it from the power with whom they were

treating, he appended his signature to the communication. The dispute

was maintained some time between Messrs. Russell and Mr. Adams, and

with great acrimony, but no impeachment of Mr. Clay’s conduct or

motives was attempted by either. Both awarded to him the honor of

having acted well his part, in bringing to so felicitous a consummation

the treaty of peace.

Immediately after the close of the negotiation, Mr. Clay repaired

to Paris, having resolved not to visit England until he learned

the ratification of the treaty. At the request of Mr. Crawford, our

minister at Paris, he took lodgings in his hotel, where he found an

invitation to a ball, given by Mr. Hottinguer, the American banker, in

honor of the conclusion of the treaty. There he was introduced to the

celebrated madame de Stael, and had a pleasant interview with her.

She informed him that she had recently visited England, and had openly

espoused the cause of the United States there, remarking that the

British were greatly exasperated against them, and entertained serious

intentions of despatching the duke of Wellington at the head of their

armies, for the purpose of inflicting proper, and as they thought

well merited chastisement upon them. He politely thanked her for the

interest she had manifested in behalf of his country, at the same time

expressing his regret that England had not carried out her _intentions_.

‘Why?’ said she. ‘Because, madame, if he had beaten us, we should only

have been in the condition of Europe, without disgrace. But if we had

been so fortunate as to defeat him, we should have greatly added to the

renown of our arms.’

He afterwards met her at a select coterie at her own dwelling, where

he found the marshals of France, duke of Wellington, and many other

persons of rank. On introducing Mr. Clay to the duke, madame de Stael

repeated the above anecdote. He replied promptly and gracefully, that

had he been so fortunate in the execution of such a commission as to

triumph over a foe evincing as much bravery as the Americans had, he

should regard it as a greater honor than the most brilliant victory he

had ever achieved.

Mr. Clay tarried at the French metropolis two months, during which

time news of the glorious victory at New Orleans was communicated to

him, whereupon he was heard to remark, ‘now I can go to England without

mortification.’ He expressed, however, much chagrin at the reported

flight of a body of Kentucky militia from the field of battle on that

occasion, but declared his belief, from a personal acquaintance with

their bravery, that it must be false.

Soon after, he went to England, where the treaty had been ratified

formally, a few days previous to his leaving Paris. In England

he received the most marked attention, and formed many valuable

acquaintances, which subsequently proved a source of pleasure and

profit to him. He won the esteem of lord Castlereagh, who treated

him with particular politeness, offering to present him to the

prince regent, which Mr. Clay civilly declined, in consequence of

his unwillingness to submit to the courtly formalities of such an

introduction.

Several days had elapsed, when he was informed by his host that an

individual desired to speak with him. Mr. Clay requested that he might

be admitted, who accordingly was, who proved to be a person splendidly

dressed, and, refusing to be seated at Mr. Clay’s request, announced

himself as the first waiter of my _lord Castlereagh_! ‘Indeed!’ replied

Mr. Clay, ‘what is your pleasure with me?’ ‘Why, if your excellency

pleases,’ said the man, ‘it is usual for a foreign minister when he is

presented to lord Castlereagh to make to his first waiter a present,

or pay the customary stipend;’ at the same time presenting him with a

catalogue of names of foreign ministers, with the amount that each had

paid him placed opposite his name.

Mr. Clay, believing it a vile attempt to extort money from him,

endeavored to get rid of him in the easiest way possible, by saying

that he was not the minister to England; that Mr. Adams, who was, would

probably soon arrive from Paris, who would doubtless comply with the

custom of the country in that respect. The servant, not being inclined

to release him so easily, quickly replied, that it was immaterial

whether he was a resident or special minister. Mr. Clay thought finally

that the most effectual way to release himself, was to comply with his

demand, and presented him a small sum.

While he was at London the battle of Waterloo was fought, and he

witnessed the public rejoicings on account of its favorable termination

to the British. He was one day dining at lord Castlereagh’s house in

company with many of the nobility, when the conversation turned on

the late victory, and the whereabouts of Napoleon, as it was not known

where he had gone. Some intimated that he had sailed for America. ‘If

he goes there,’ said lord Liverpool to Mr. Clay, ‘will he not give you

much trouble?’ ‘None whatever,’ instantly replied Mr. Clay, ‘we shall

be glad to receive such a distinguished, though unfortunate exile, and

we shall soon make a good democrat of him.’

During his residence in England, Mr. Clay passed his time very

agreeably, and laid the foundation for many grateful reminiscences.

By the late sir James Mackintosh he was delightfully entertained. He

embraced the opportunity of renewing his intimacy with lord Gambier,

whose amiable qualities and piety had secured Mr. Clay’s strong

attachment. With him he spent a week, visiting with him during that

time several places of interest, one of which was the residence of a

descendant of William Penn.

In September, 1815, he embarked for New York, where, on his arrival, he

and Mr. Gallatin were complimented with a public dinner.

In every transaction of a public character in which Mr. Clay had any

agency, he almost invariably rendered himself conspicuous; but in no

one did he gather greener laurels, or make a longer stride towards

immortal fame, than in that of the negotiation at Ghent. Rumor had

preceded him, trumpeting his honors――the faithful and scrupulously

jealous manner in which he had almost sleeplessly watched over the

interests of his country, and crushed with the strength of a giant the

incipient risings of a disposition to destroy or abridge her natural or

conventional rights; and when he approached her shores, she opened wide

her arms to receive him. In Kentucky, warm, noble-hearted Kentucky,

his reception was like that of a dutiful and affectionate son in the

long and passionate embrace of a beloved mother. She welcomed him

with a tenderness that would hardly allow the winds of heaven to visit

him with gentle rudeness. Enthusiastic rejoicings were enkindled, and

spontaneous outpourings of grateful feeling were lavished upon him like

rain. He had even been re-elected to congress while he was still in

Europe, and unanimously. A doubt having arisen touching the legality

of this election, a new one was commenced, which resulted as at first.

At the commencement of the next session, the house again called him

to preside over its deliberations, where he soon became engaged in

directing successfully the affairs of the nation. As a matter in course,

the _new treaty_ was brought forward at an early stage, out of which

the federalists, and the opposers of the war in general, endeavored

to obtain food for their carping, fault-finding appetites. Passing

indifferently and silently by the great advantages which it secured

to the United States, they sought, with an eagerness worthy of a

better cause, to find some defective or weak point. If in this they

were successful, although it might be so diminutive as to escape the

detection of any except their microscopic vision when thus employed,

it was ridiculously amusing to listen to their barkings, and howlings,

and wranglings over it, often for hours; and the multitude and variety

of hard names and scurrilous epithets which they would bandy about on

such occasions, rendered it necessary for one to go beyond the English

vocabulary if he desired to satisfy his curiosity respecting their

location. But Mr. Clay soon brought to bear upon them the tremendous

battery of his eloquence, which sent the whole yelping pack to their

kennels, both in and out of congress. This he did on the twenty-ninth

of January, 1816.

Said he, on that occasion, ‘I gave a vote for the declaration of

war. I exerted all the little influence and talents I could command to

make the war. The war was made. It is terminated; and I declare with

perfect sincerity, if it had been permitted to me to lift the veil of

futurity, and to have foreseen the precise series of events which has

occurred, my vote would have been unchanged. We had been insulted, and

outraged, and spoliated upon by nearly all Europe; by Great Britain, by

France, Spain, Denmark, Naples, and, to cap the climax, by the little

contemptible power of Algiers. We had submitted too long and too much.

We had become the scorn of foreign powers, and the derision of our own

citizens.’

These opposers laid no small emphasis upon the fact that no stipulation

was contained in the treaty respecting the impressment of our seamen.

He met this in a strain of lofty argument, whose pungency sank into

their hearts like a spear. Said he, ‘one of the great causes of the

war and of its continuance was the practice of impressment exercised

by Great Britain; and if this claim had been admitted by necessary

implication or express stipulation, the rights of our seamen would have

been abandoned! It is with utter astonishment that I hear it has been

contended in this country, that because our right of exemption from the

practice had not been expressly secured in the treaty, it was therefore

given up! It is impossible that such an argument can be advanced on

this floor. No member who regarded his reputation would venture to

advance such a doctrine.’

He concluded by stating the position in which the country ought to

be speedily placed; advised the preservation of her present naval

and military force; to make provision for the increase of the navy;

to fortify her most defenceless points; to multiply military roads

and canals; and to commence in earnest the great work of internal

improvement. ‘I would see a chain of turnpike roads and canals from

Passamaquoddy to New Orleans, and other similar roads intersecting the

mountains, to facilitate intercourse between all parts of the country,

and to bind and to connect us together. _I would also effectually

protect our manufactories._ I would afford them protection not so

much for the sake of the manufacturers themselves as for the general

interest.’

Mr. Clay resumed his duties in the house by evincing the same

far reaching anxiety for the welfare of his whole country, that he

manifested when he resigned his station for a foreign mission. To

his influence, in a great measure, the origin of the war was owing,

its bold prosecution, and satisfactory termination. But besides the

advantages which we reaped as the fruits of it, we realized many

detrimental consequences incidental to it. An immense debt had been

contracted; our commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests

had been partially suspended, if not totally neglected; we found

ourselves greatly in want of articles, the product of mechanical

ingenuity, to supply which it was necessary to resort to foreign

work-shops; this of course caused large exportations of specie, which

seldom returned; the bank issues amounted to upwards of one hundred

millions of dollars, while at the same time there was only about

fifteen millions of specie in the country. These institutions had of

course been obliged to suspend specie payment; distress and pressure

every where abounded, and the well disposed and patriotic began

seriously to look about them for measures of relief, and restoration

to the country. The most judicious and reflecting in the nation,

believed that the greatest source of distress was to be found in the

deranged state of the currency. Indeed it was completely vitiated. The

government paper, bearing interest at six per cent., the redemption

of which it had guarantied by pledging the faith of the nation, was

depreciated some twenty per cent., and doubt and distrust in money

matters were prominent features of the condition of the country.

Something must be done, it was obvious, to remove that doubt, and

restore confidence, or general stagnation would invade every industrial

department throughout the nation. At this period, the individual states

presented the singular appearance of being engaged in doing what the

constitution evidently intended should be performed by the general

government, namely, in reality regulating the currency, through the

banking institutions operating under their sanction. This they were

executing in a most unfinancial-like manner, in many instances making

their paper a legal tender, thus compelling the creditor to accept it

or yield his claim.

In this state of things, it was imperiously demanded of congress to

interpose the power vested in it by the constitution, and recover that

control over the currency which it had suffered to be usurped by the

states. The articles in that instrument granting congress the exclusive

power of coining money, and prohibiting the states from doing it, and

also from issuing bills of credit, rendered it apparent that the power

of regulating the general currency was lodged with that body. This

was the belief of the most able financiers of _that_ time, and adopted

by those of the present. Acting under the influence of this belief,

Mr. Madison had at the opening of the session of 1815–16, recommended

‘the establishment of a national bank,’ which ‘he regarded as the

best and perhaps the only adequate resource to relieve the country

and the government from the present embarrassment. Authorized to issue

notes which will be received in all payments to the United States, the

circulation of its issues will be coëxtensive with the union, and there

will exist a constant demand, leaving a just proportion to the annual

amount of the duties and taxes to be collected, independent of the

general circulation for commercial and social purposes. A national

bank will therefore possess the means and the opportunity of supplying

a circulating medium of equal use and value in every state and in every

district of every state. Established by the authority of the United

States, accredited by the government to the whole amount of its notes

in circulation, and intrusted as the depository of the government

with all the accumulations of the public treasure, the national bank,

independent of its immediate capital, will enjoy every recommendation

which can merit and secure the confidence of the public. Organized

upon principles of responsibility, but of independence, the national

bank will be retained within its legitimate sphere of action without

just apprehensions from the misconduct of its directors, or from the

encroachments of the government. Eminent in its resources, and in its

example, the national bank will conciliate and lead the state banks in

all that is necessary for the restoration of credit, public and private.

And acting upon a compound capital, partly of stock, and partly of gold

and silver, the national bank will be the ready instrument to enhance

the value of the public securities, and to restore the currency of the

national coin.’

Such were Mr. Madison’s views in relation to a national bank, which

were immediately referred to the committee on the national currency;

and on the eighth of January, 1816, the chairman of that committee,

Mr. John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, presented an able and elaborate

report in relation thereto, advocating the immediate chartering of such

a bank as the president had recommended, and detailed its prominent

features. When the bill was brought forward for the action of the house,

Mr. Clay unequivocally declared himself in favor of its provisions in a

speech of great ability and argumentative force, although well knowing

that he would thereby subject himself to the charge of inconsistency.

He was charged with it by his political enemies, who magnified his

departure from the position taken by him in 1811 in relation to the

same bank, into a monstrous blemish in his political character; which,

if correctly considered, is seen to constitute an ornament, instead.

A careful contrast of the grounds _on_ which, and the circumstances

_under_ which he then opposed that institution, with those on and under

which he now advocated it, will, to any unprejudiced mind, forever

exempt him from that charge. Such a contrast will clearly show, that

the total change of circumstances which had taken place during the

five years that had elapsed since he first examined the merits of that

bank, and that wrought in the policy of the general government in that

time, to say nothing of the experience received in prosecuting the war,

of the utility of and necessity for such an establishment, not only

disarmed and rendered invalid now, objections which then were both

valid and weighty when directed against it, but absolutely converted

them into arguments in its favor. At the time when it was proposed

to renew the charter of the old United States bank, Mr. Clay did not

think it so essential in accomplishing any of the objects definitely

specified in the constitution, as to justify its establishment, on

grounds purely constructive. It was supported, too, principally by

the federal party, and on the ground that its agency was requisite in

executing the financial concerns of government; which ground then was

falsely assumed, inasmuch as the local banks of the several states

had, in certain cases, been employed to perform that office, which they

were successfully executing. They, therefore, being known to compass

the specific object for which it was stated the charter of the bank

was to be renewed, it was justly regarded by Mr. Clay as a matter of

supererogation to renew it, and accordingly he opposed its renewal.

In 1816, Mr. Clay supported the bank mainly on the ground of its

_necessity_, to enable congress to exercise that ample and salutary

supervision over the commercial and monetary interests of the country,

which the constitution expressly gave it; and that, therefore, out of

this very necessity, was fairly deducible its constitutionality, since

it was absurd to suppose that the constitution would grant to congress

a specified right, and at the same time withhold the only means by

which it could exercise that right. A stormy and protracted discussion

arose respecting the bank charter, during which Mr. Clay came again

into collision with Mr. Randolph, causing unusual sensation in the

house, and giving rise to apprehensions that something serious might

grow out of it. Mr. Randolph animadverted somewhat harshly upon

Mr. Clay’s custom of maintaining a uniform silence in his private

intercourse respecting his change of opinion in regard to the

expediency and constitutionality of a United States bank, using

language that might admit of very offensive construction. When he

ceased, Mr. Clay, with his usual self-possession and deliberation,

rose, and in a few words declared that the offensive language needed

explanation; that he should refrain from saying what he conceived

himself bound to say, until Mr. Randolph should make it. Mr.

Randolph rose, and made the explanation, which Mr. Clay pronounced

unsatisfactory; and Mr. Randolph again explained, disavowing all

intention to offer offence. During the altercation, an almost

breathless stillness had been preserved in the house; a pin might be

heard to fall in any part of it.

The bank bill passed the house by a vote of eighty to seventy-one,

and the senate by a vote of twenty-two to twelve. On the tenth of April

it became a law, went into operation in the early part of 1817, and

more than justified the expectations of its friends, in regard to its

influence for good upon the varied interests of the country.

During this session, Mr. Clay gave his support to a bill proposing a

reduction of the direct tax laid upon the United States. He expressed

himself in favor of a moderate land tax, and regarded the existing one

as too high for a state of peace. He maintained that ‘in time of peace

we should look to foreign importations as the chief source of revenue,

and in war when they are cut off, that it was time enough to draw

deeply on our internal resources.’ His plan was to make up for a still

further decrease of the land tax, by an increase of the duties on

imports.

It was deemed desirable to increase the pay of members of congress,

which led to the framing and passage of the celebrated compensation

bill. It was generally agreed among the members that their compensation

(six dollars per day,) was not sufficient for their maintenance at

Washington, and allow them to enjoy the society of their families. The

principal question that arose respected the mode by which it should

be increased. Some were in favor of a stipulated salary, and others

of an increase of the _per diem_ pay. On the sixth of March, colonel

Richard M. Johnson, one of the committee to whom the business had been

referred, reported a bill regulating the pay of members, by a salary of

fifteen hundred dollars per session, for each member in congress, which

passed both houses. Mr. Clay voted for this bill, but at the same time

declaring his preference for the _per diem_ rate. The passage of this

bill proved particularly obnoxious to the demagogues, throughout the

country, who exerted themselves incessantly to excite the passions of

the people, evidently for the purpose of accumulating political capital.

In no section of the union did the excitement rage to such an extent

as in Kentucky. It seemed as though scarcely an individual in the

whole state was friendly to it. The ambitious and designing demagogues

and ultra federalists united in Kentucky their furious forces, with

exultations of delight at what appeared to them the certain prospect

of accomplishing the total overthrow of Mr. Clay. They had succeeded to

such a degree in kindling a flame of indignation against the measure,

that there were at least some grounds of danger. They had long been

impotently watching for this opportunity, and now from their various

places of concealment they rushed forth, bent upon accomplishing their

purpose. After some consultation as to the mode they should adopt, it

was finally determined that Mr. John Pope, an eloquent and influential

gentleman, should take the field in opposition to Mr. Clay. Accordingly,

he immediately commenced political operations in the approved style

of the country, by riding about among the inhabitants, addressing them

often, setting forth his own merits and claims, and decrying those

of his rival. It was not until after being repeatedly importuned by

his friends, that Mr. Clay would consent to take the field in person

against Mr. Pope. He finally went forth for the first time in his life,

to vindicate in person to his constituents, his public political acts.

It has been said that Mr. Clay was the first Kentuckian who preserved

dignity and independence of character on an electioneering tour. It was

customary at that day in Kentucky, for any one who solicited an office

in the gift of the people, to clothe himself in tattered garments, and

in the attitude and with the tone of a menial, to go around among them

and thus ask it at their hands. Mr. Clay’s exalted sense of dignity

and honor would not permit him to conform to this degrading custom, and

he visited his constituents attired just as he would go to his seat in

congress. He appealed to the people, expressing his entire willingness

to be governed by their will, as he was in duty bound, and that he

would vote for the repeal of the offensive law, if they instructed him

to do so. He corrected their erroneous impressions, and occasionally

made those happy and effective appeals to their hearts, which he

knew so well how to direct, and he soon found himself almost entirely

reinstated in their affections. Mr. Pope, perceiving that he was fast

losing ground, made a desperate effort at regaining it, by challenging

his rival to meet him on a designated day and discuss their respective

claims to the suffrage of the people. It was unhesitatingly accepted.

They met according to appointment, and in the presence of an immense

assemblage, fought their battle of argument, which resulted in the

signal defeat of Mr. Pope. Mr. Clay was re-elected by a large majority.

The compensation bill was among the first subjects considered by

congress after it convened again, which was repealed. The _per diem_

allowance was finally increased to eight dollars per day.

During the canvass, Mr. Clay met an old hunter who had previously

been his devoted friend, but now opposed him on the ground of the

compensation bill. ‘Have you a good rifle, my friend?’ asked Mr. Clay.

‘Yes.’ ‘Does it ever flash?’ ‘Once only.’ ‘What did you do with it,

throw it away?’ ‘No, I picked the flint, tried it again, and brought

down the game.’ ‘Have I ever flashed but on the compensation bill?’

‘No.’ ‘Will you throw me away?’ ‘No! no!’ quickly replied the hunter,

nearly overwhelmed by his enthusiastic feelings, ‘_I will pick the

flint and try you again!_’ Ever afterwards he was the unwavering friend

of Mr. Clay.

An Irish barber residing at Lexington, had always given Mr. Clay

his vote, and on all occasions when he was a candidate for office,

electioneered warmly for him. His ardent temperament and unrestrained

passions frequently involved him in scrapes and difficulties, out of

which Mr. Clay had generally succeeded in extricating him. While the

canvass was progressing, after the compensation bill, the barber did

not evince his usual zeal and animation, on the contrary seemed to be

indifferent as to the result of the election. To all inquiries for whom

he designed to vote he answered evasively. He was accosted a few days

previous to the election, by a gentleman for whom he entertained the

most profound regard, with the question, ‘for whom, _Jerry_, do you

mean to vote?’ Regarding his interrogator with an earnest, shrewd

look, he replied, ‘Faix, an’ sure, docthur, I mane to vote for the man

who can’t put more nor one hand into the _threasury_.’ Mr. Pope, the

opponent of Mr. Clay, had the misfortune to lose an arm in early life,

and this circumstance, while it gave pertinence to the Irishman’s reply,

indicated for whom he intended to vote. A few days ♦subsequent to the

election, the barber met Mr. Clay in Lexington, and approaching him,

burst into tears, saying that he had wronged him, and manifested bitter

regret for his ingratitude. ‘My poor dear wife,’ said he, ‘got round

me, blubbering, and was after vexing herself and me too. She tould me

that I was _too bad, too bad_, to desart like a base spalpleen, me ould

frind. “Niver’s the time, Jerry, dear, when you got in jail or any bad

fixin’, _niver’s the time_ he didn’t come to you an’ hilp you out. Och!

bad luck to you, for not giving him your vote.”’ The barber was ever

after true to Mr. Clay.

In all matters of public importance brought before the house,

whenever it was compatible with his station, Mr. Clay interested

himself, concerning which his manifestation of regard for the welfare

of his country was characterized by unusual uniformity. There was

nothing fitful or erratic about his zeal; it burned with a steady,

certain light, revealing the secrets of his very soul, in relation

to his public intentions and desires. Defeat could not diminish,

nor opposition extinguish it; always irrepressible, conflicting

circumstances only rendered it more intense. No measures passed through

his hands without bearing its impress, and so deep as to appear a part

of the same. But there were periods of extraordinary interest, when

it blazed with more than meteoric brilliancy――when it constituted the

aurora borealis of the political horizon, seen and admired by the whole

universe. One of these periods we now approach――a period which reflects

the highest honor on his character, for philanthropy and benevolence,

and which caused his memory to be enshrined in the hearts of millions

remote from the field of his fame――the period of the struggles of the

Spanish colonies in South America, to become independent of the mother

country. These he contemplated with as much anxiety and solicitude for

their result, as though he had been an actual participator in them.

Happily for America, the allotment of Providence introduced Mr. Clay

to the stage of public action at one of the most critical times in her

history, when just such influence as he could exert was imperiously

demanded. The din of the revolution had hardly died away, and the

blood with which it was achieved scarcely dried up, when he first

came forward in the defence of his country’s rights. The spirit of

‘seventy-six’ had indeed felled the tall trees of tyranny, and plucked

up the rank weeds of oppression, and planted the germ of liberty. But

the little band of men inhaling that spirit, who had arrayed around

the place of the precious deposit a rampart of iron hearts, after

irrigating and enriching it with their blood, had either sunk down to

an enviable rest in the sacred soil, or with diminished energy, and

flagging zeal still maintained their posts. Their pristine strength,

however, the storm of war had swept away, and though they still

stretched out their scar-covered arms to shield it from invasion,

their feeble efforts were hardly sufficient to the task. Dangers were

numerous, boding disaster in case the vigilance of that veteran band

should slumber. The enemies of freedom, though beaten back, had retired

with their weapons in their hands, and from their secret lurking places

looked forth, ready to avail themselves of the first favorable moment

to sally forth and nip it in the bud. Such were the circumstances,

when Mr. Clay joined that weak and diminished company of watchers. He

found the tree of liberty a strong and vigorous plant, unfolding its

beautiful leaves, but needing great care and culture. There was much

foreign rubbish to be removed which retarded its growth. A glance at

its situation determined his course. Nothing within the compass of

his ability necessary to hasten on its progress towards maturity,

was wanting. Morning, noon and night found him pouring the dew of his

diligence upon it in copious effusions. Under its genial influences the

trunk shot upward stately and strong, and the wide-spreading branches

soon bent beneath large clusters of delicious fruit. The taste of that

fruit caused the heart of the nation to bound with gladness, and her

good and great men to desire that the inhabitants of the _whole world_

might partake of it. Not a few of them gave utterance to that desire

in words that burned with benevolence, but none spoke louder or with

more effect than Mr. Clay. His voice infused courage into the hearts of

those who were toiling to plant a similar tree on the fertile pampas of

South America. Its thunder-tones reverberated among the lofty heights

of the Andes, and rang through the halls of the incas. The hunter heard

them, and departed for the battle-field to seek a nobler quarry. The

gauchios left his lasso on the plain and buckled on his armor. From

rank to rank of their embattled hosts they pealed, and nerved their

arms to deal the liberating blows.

The first public expression of Mr. Clay’s feelings in relation to

South American independence, was made in connection with a proposition

to reduce the direct taxes of the United States, which he thought too

high for a state of peace. The aspect of our foreign relations at that

time was peculiarly amicable, although, from a report that the Spanish

minister had made an informal demand for a portion of Florida, seemed

to indicate that a rupture with Spain was by no means improbable,

and he expressed himself in favor of husbanding our means as much as

practicable, in anticipation of such an event. At the same time, he

hinted the propriety of assisting her colonial dependents in their

endeavors to establish a free government. His remarks caused Mr.

Randolph to express his sentiments concerning the same subject, which

among other things charged Mr. Clay with entertaining a desire for

conquest, indeed as being influenced by unworthy motives. He said he

was not ‘going a tilting for the liberties of South America.’ She came

not to our aid; let us mind our own business, and not tax our people

for the liberties of the people of Spanish America. He declared that

her inhabitants were incapable of appreciating or enjoying liberty. He

thought Mr. Clay had imbibed the war-spirit of Europe. ‘The honorable

gentleman has been sent on a late occasion to Europe; he had been near

the field of Waterloo, and he was apprehensive had snuffed the carnage

and caught the infection.’ He intimated that Mr. Clay advocated an

increase of the army for the purpose of marching them to the scene

of action. ‘What! increase our standing army in time of peace on the

suggestion that we are to go on a crusade to South America?’ Mr. Clay

denied having made the most remote suggestions to that effect,――that

his remarks were incapable of being so construed. ‘Do I not understand

the gentleman?’――‘I am sorry I do not. I labor under two great

misfortunes――I can never understand the honorable speaker, and he can

never understand me.’ Such being the case, Mr. Randolph remarked, he

should be under the necessity of abandoning the argument with him,

since it would be impossible to proceed.

Mr. Clay again alluded to the same subject a few days after, in a most

feeling manner. A bill was brought forward to prohibit ‘our citizens

from selling vessels of war to subjects of a foreign power,’ which he

vigorously opposed because of its evident bearing upon the belligerent

state of South America. He said it was impossible to conceal the true

character of that bill. ‘Bestow upon it what denomination you will,

disguise it as you may, it will be understood by the world as a law

to discountenance any aid being given to the South American patriots,

now in a state of revolution against the parent country. With respect

to the nature of that struggle, I have not now for the first time

to express my opinion and wishes. I wish them independence. It is

the first step towards improving their condition. Let them have a

free government, if they are capable of enjoying it. At any rate let

them have independence. _Yes, from the inmost recesses of my soul I

wish them independence._ In this I may be accused of imprudence in

the utterance of my feelings on this occasion. I care not, when the

independence, the happiness, the liberty of a whole people is at stake,

and that people our neighbors, our brethren occupying a portion of the

same continent, imitating our example, and participating of the same

sympathies with ourselves.’

During the following month an attempt was made to appropriate and

pledge the bonus paid by the United States bank into the public

treasury, as a permanent fund to be employed in constructing works

of internal improvement. Mr. Clay gave his hearty concurrence to this

measure, declaring his belief that ‘there were no two subjects which

could engage the attention of the national legislature, more worthy of

its deliberate consideration, than those of internal improvements and

domestic manufactures.’ A bill was passed constituting such fund, but

the president vetoed it on alleged constitutional grounds.

Mr. Clay’s remarks caused great interest to be felt in behalf of

South American liberty, and during the summer following, the president

appointed three commissioners, Messrs. Rodney, Graham, and Bland, to

proceed to South America, and examine her political, civil and social

condition as preliminary to rendering them any assistance. Mr. Clay

regarded the appointment as impolitic, and when a bill came before the

house in March 1818, providing for the support of government, objected

to having it embrace a clause appropriating thirty thousand dollars

for their compensation, for constitutional reasons. For it he proposed

to substitute an amendment, appropriating eighteen thousand dollars as

the outfit and one year’s salary of a minister from the United States

to the Independent Provinces of the river La Plata in South America.

He accompanied the presentation of the amendment with a speech of

great power, evincing great geographical and historical knowledge,

and setting forth clearly the condition of the people. The amendment,

however, was not adopted.

Many members of prominence differed with Mr. Clay, for whose opinions

he expressed his respect, and regretted that his own convictions of

expediency and duty led him to take a different view of the subject.

He directly avowed that considerations of liberty and humanity had

no little weight with him in advocating their cause, but at the same

time his belief, that the adoption of the measure under consideration,

while it would add to the renown of the republic, would render material

assistance to those who were greatly in need of it. He vindicated

himself from the charge which had been made, that he was desirous of

fomenting a war between the states and Spain. He indulged in animating

anticipations of the number and importance of the governments which

might be formed in those vast, fertile, and beautiful provinces. To

attempts at proving the movements of the colonists as rebellious,

opposing the lawful government of Spain, he replied by clearly showing

that if that power had possessed a legal claim to their allegiance, she

had forfeited it by withholding that protection requisite to entitle

her to it, and that consequently the people of Spanish America were

contending for nothing more than their legal and natural rights. ‘But’

said Mr. Clay, ‘I take a broader, bolder position. I maintain that an

oppressed people are authorized, whenever they can, to rise and break

their fetters. This was the great principle of the English revolution.

It was the great principle of our own. We must therefore pass sentence

of condemnation upon the founders of our liberty, say that they were

rebels and traitors, and that we are at this moment legislating without

competent powers, before we can condemn the course of Spanish America.’

He contended that if we were justified in our attempts at independence,

much more was she, who had writhed beneath the scourge of oppression so

long, so much longer than we; that if they were worthy of success, if

they were entitled to succeed from the justness of their cause, then

surely we ought to wish it, especially when we consider the barbarous

character of the war. He maintained that we were deeply interested,

in recognizing their independence. Even then our commerce with those

provinces was considerable, and would greatly increase after they

should become permanently settled as free and independent nations. The

act would attach them to us, nay, it would bind them to us by relations

as intimate as those of kindred; they would become our powerful allies.

Mr. Clay said he took this ground, not because he desired to force

our principles where they were not wished, but simply from feelings

of sympathy. We knew by experience how sweet it was to receive that

when we were in circumstances that tried men’s souls. There could

be no danger, nor objection to stretch out towards their people the

hand of friendly sympathy, to present to those abused and oppressed

communities an expression of our good will, to make them a tender

of those great principles which we have adopted as the basis of our

institutions. Their ignorance and inability had been brought forward,

by those opposing the measure, as completely incapacitating them for

self-government. These, he contended, had been greatly magnified, but

admitting them to be as unqualifying as they had been represented to

be, the fact ought rather to increase our pity for them, and to urge us

to seek the more earnestly, by all reasonable and just means within our

reach, their liberation from that detestable system which chained them

to such a servile state. He ridiculed the idea that recognition could

be made a just pretext for war. ‘Recognition’ said he, ‘without aid is

no just cause of war; with aid, it is not because of the recognition,

but because of the aid, as aid without recognition is cause of war.’

Mr. Clay’s efforts were not successful at this time; no minister was

despatched to South America; the friendly mission was deferred until

1821, when he submitted, on the tenth of February, a resolution to

the house, ‘declaring that the house of representatives participated

with the people of the United States in the deep interest which they

felt for the success of the Spanish provinces of South America, which

were struggling to establish their liberty and independence, and

that it would give its constitutional support to the president of the

United States, whenever he might deem it expedient to recognize the

sovereignty and independence of those provinces.’

On this resolution, a warm and protracted debate ensued, which was

finally adopted, by a vote of eighty-seven to sixty-eight, and Mr. Clay

was appointed chairman of a committee to communicate to the president

the action of the house.

On the eighth day of March, 1822, the president transmitted to the

house of representatives a message recommending the recognition, which

Mr. Clay had so long struggled for. On the twenty-eighth the vote

of recognition was taken, when it appeared that there was but one

dissenting voice.

Thus at last were the noble and generous efforts of the patriot

statesman crowned with success as complete as they had been persevering.

Years had elapsed between their commencement and glorious consummation;

years of toil, anxiety, and hope, but now the harvest time had come.

The president and congress, from vehemently opposing his views in

relation to their independence, by his persuasive arguments were

brought over to them, who officially stretched out the hand of the

nation, to clasp with friendly pressure those of the infant republics

of the south. As a matter of course, the act was denounced as one of

folly and fraught with danger, by the personal and political enemies

of Mr. Clay, but the truly philanthropic, throughout the land, regarded

it with approbation, and described it as just what the greatest free

nation on the globe should do towards those who were worthy of it. It

was applauded throughout the world, but particularly by those towards

whom it was directed, with enthusiastic expressions of gratitude. The

supreme congress of Mexico voted him the thanks of the nation, for his

zeal and efficient labors in their behalf.

During the struggle, his speeches were frequently read at the head

of the patriot army, and the effect was always to increase their

intrepidity and valor. The name of Clay became associated with every

thing dear and valuable in freedom, and was pronounced by both officer

and soldier with reverence; and many were the epistolary notices which

he received, of the high estimation in which his services were held, by

that suffering, but successfully struggling people. The following is a

specimen.

BOGOTA, _21st November, 1827_.

SIR,――I cannot omit availing myself of the opportunity afforded

me by the departure of colonel Watts, _chargé d’affaires_ of the

United States, of taking the liberty to address your excellency.

This desire has long been entertained by me, for the purpose of

expressing my admiration of your excellency’s brilliant talents

and ardent love of liberty. All America, Colombia, and myself,

owe your excellency our purest gratitude, for the incomparable

services you have rendered to us, by sustaining our course with

a sublime enthusiasm. Accept, therefore, this sincere and

cordial testimony, which I hasten to offer to your excellency

and to the government of the United States, who have so greatly

contributed to the emancipation of your southern brethren.

‘I have the honor to offer to your excellency my distinguished

consideration.

‘Your excellency’s obedient servant,

‘BOLIVAR.’

To the above, Mr. Clay replied, of which the following is an extract.

WASHINGTON, _27th October, 1828_.

‘SIR,――It is very gratifying to me to be assured directly

by your excellency, that the course which the government of

the United States took on this memorable occasion, and my

humble efforts, have excited the gratitude and commanded the

approbation of your excellency. I am persuaded that I do not

misinterpret the feelings of the people of the United States,

as I certainly express my own, in saying that the interest which

was inspired in this country by the arduous struggles of South

America, arose principally from the hope that along with its

independence would be established free institutions, insuring

all the blessings of civil liberty. To the accomplishing of

that object we still anxiously look. We are aware that great

difficulties oppose it, among which not the least is that which

arises out of the existence of a large military force, raised

for the purpose of resisting the power of Spain. Standing armies,

organized with the most patriotic intentions, are dangerous

instruments. They devour the substance, debauch the morals, and

too often destroy the liberties of a people. Nothing can be more

perilous or unwise, than to retain them after the necessity has

ceased which led to their formation, especially if their numbers

are disproportioned to the revenues of the state.