‘But notwithstanding all these difficulties, we had fondly

cherished and still indulge the hope that South America would

add a new triumph to the cause of human liberty, and that

Providence would bless her as he had her northern sister,

with the genius of some great and virtuous man, to conduct her

securely through all her trials. We had even flattered ourselves

that we beheld that genius in your excellency. But I should be

unworthy the consideration with which your excellency honors me,

and deviate from the frankness which I have ever endeavored to

practice, if I did not on this occasion state that ambitious

designs have been attributed by your enemies, to your excellency,

which have created in my mind great solicitude. They have cited

late events in Colombia as proofs of these designs. But slow

in the withdrawal of confidence which I have once given, I have

been most unwilling to credit the unfavorable accounts which

have from time to time reached me.

‘I cannot allow myself to believe that your excellency will

abandon the bright and glorious path which lies plainly before

you, for the bloody road passing over the liberties of the human

race, on which the vulgar crowd of tyrants and military despots

have so often trodden. I will not doubt that your excellency

will in due time render a satisfactory explanation to Colombia,

and to the world, of the parts of your public conduct which have

excited any distrust, and that preferring the true glory of our

immortal Washington to the ignoble fame of the destroyers of

liberty, you have formed the patriotic resolution of ultimately

placing the freedom of Colombia upon a firm and sure foundation.

That your efforts to that end may be crowned with complete

success, I most fervently pray.

‘I request that your excellency will accept assurances of my

sincere wishes for your happiness and prosperity.

‘H. CLAY.’

His magnanimity, his disinterestedness, and his philanthropy, stand

out in bold relief, in the above extract from his appeal to Bolivar.

It evinces the same spirit of kind regard for the welfare of the South

American republics which he invariably manifested towards that of his

own. Its tone, the nature of its sentiments, and its more than open

frankness, utterly preclude the belief that selfishness had any agency

in its dictation. It exhibits him, cherishing as strong a desire that

the happy institutions, immunities, and privileges of liberty should

be established and enjoyed in them, as he felt in supporting and

perpetuating those of his own. No one can rise up from its perusal and

candidly question the purity of his motives, nor charge him with an

overweening ambition. In short, no one unblinded by prejudice can fail

of beholding in it, his generous, uncalculating attitude.

During Mr. Madison’s administration, Mr. Clay was twice offered a

seat in his cabinet by him, or the mission to Russia. The president

reposed in him most unbounded confidence, and correctly appreciated his

preëminent abilities. At the breaking out of hostilities, Mr. Madison

selected him as commander-in-chief of the army. But Mr. Clay, thinking

that he could render his country more efficient service in her public

councils, declined all attempts at removing him from them, though he

well knew that he did so at the expense of his private interests. These,

however, never appear to have entered into or influenced in the least

his calculations. ‘My country first, myself afterwards,’ is legibly

written on every part of his public career.

After the accomplishment of his desires in relation to South America,

he again reverted to his favorite policy; favorite, because he saw its

intimate connection with the growth and prosperity of his country, as

calculated to develope her vast resources, and to pour into her lap the

blessings of a virtuous and free people. The formation of Mr. Clay’s

attachment to internal improvements and domestic manufactures, is

coeval with his entrance into congress; and when matters demanding

immediate attention had been disposed of, he would bring them forward,

and labor to make the conviction of their importance sink deep into the

heart of the nation. When Mr. Madison returned, with his objections,

the bill appropriating the bonus of the United States bank for purposes

of internal improvements, Mr. Clay expressed his astonishment. He had

confidently calculated on its receiving the signature of the president;

for he had particularly invited the attention of congress, in his

message, ‘to the expediency of exercising their existing powers, and

where necessary, of resorting to the prescribed mode of enlarging them,

in order to effectuate a comprehensive system of roads and canals,

such as will have the effect of drawing more closely together every

part of our country, by promoting intercourse and improvements, and

by increasing the share of every part in the common stock of national

prosperity.’ Mr. Clay had heard, through the medium of uncertain rumor,

that Mr. Madison designed to veto the bill, whereupon he sent him a

communication, requesting him, if he entertained any constitutional

scruples about signing it to let the whole matter rest and pass over

to his successor for action. The president, however, took a different

view of the subject, and on the third of March, returned the bill. On

the following day, Mr. Monroe was inducted into his office, who, it was

conjectured, prior to seeing Mr. Madison’s veto-message, had prepared

his inaugural address in such a manner as to recommend, in strong terms,

the policy of promoting internal improvements, but that, on reading

Mr. Madison’s objections to the bill, he changed his opinion. It was

thought he was led to do so partly from fear, and partly from a desire

to conform his views with those of his predecessor. Subsequently

he stated that a careful investigation had conducted him to the

conclusion, that the power of making internal improvements was not

vested in congress, and that to clothe that body with it, an amendment

of the constitution was requisite. Opposition such as this policy

had encountered, from so exalted a source as that of three chief

magistrates, (Messrs. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe,) would have

appalled a mind of ordinary strength and perseverance; but Mr. Clay was

one who never formed an opinion with precipitancy, but only when, by

the most diligent inquiry, he had established a foundation for it in

reason and philosophy. Erected upon this basis, he would adhere to it,

though confronted by the combined opposition of the world. A compromise

of principle he was a stranger to. Nothing disheartened, therefore, by

the magnitude of the obstacles opposed to his progress in advocating

his favorite measures, by those high in authority, he seemed to gather

fresh energy from every new one that he encountered. In March, 1818,

a resolution was submitted to the house, declaring that congress

had power to construct military post-roads and canals, and also to

appropriate money for that object. The opposition to this presented a

formidable array of strength, and brought forward every objection that

political ingenuity could devise. Mr. Clay did not deem it advisable

to consume the time of the house in examining in detail any except

those denominated _constitutional_. His whole aim, therefore, was to

prove that the power alleged in the resolution, was derivable from

the constitution; and this he accomplished in the most convincing

manner. In construing this instrument, he observed the same rules which

governed his action in relation to the bank bill of 1816. He maintained

that every power, which _appeared necessary and proper_, to secure

the lawful exercise of constitutional rights, _was fairly impliable_,

and that this _necessity and propriety_ must be determined by the

discretion of those who exercised it, ‘under all the responsibility of

a solemn oath,’ and the knowledge that they were the subjects of those

laws that they passed, and that they were amenable to the _people_,

who held in reserve the right to resist tyrannic usurpation. Mr. Clay

argued that the power to _establish_ post-roads, expressly specified in

the constitution, involved the power to _construct_ them. This position

he illustrated with the clearness of demonstration, by referring to

that clause which gives congress the power of making war, and employing

the resources of the country in prosecuting it. He declared that, from

the same provision, the power of transporting those means was derived

by implication; and that therefore, to secure such transportation,

congress might legally construct military roads, &c. His adversaries,

compelled to yield before his powerful reasoning, fell back, and

intrenched themselves behind the _concession_ that peculiar emergencies

might justify the exercise of the power in question. From this he drove

them, by proving that this _concession contained the admission_ that

the constitution conveyed ‘the power; and,’ said Mr. Clay, ‘we may

safely appeal to the judgment of the candid and enlightened to decide

between the wisdom of these two constructions, of which one requires

you to wait for the exercise of your power until the arrival of an

emergency, which may not allow you to exert it, and the other, without

denying the power if you can exercise it during the emergency, claims

the right of providing beforehand against the emergency.’ They finally

fortified themselves behind the position, that it was not requisite

for the general government to construct such works, because individual

enterprise would do it as soon as sectional interests should demand

their construction. Here he hemmed in and captured them. His motion

was adopted by a vote of ninety to seventy-five. It was a triumph,

and a signal one, over opposition that had been accumulating and

strengthening during two previous administrations; and which in the

then existing one, was directed against him with all the violence and

impetuosity that reserved energies could impart to it. It must have

been a moment of proud satisfaction to the indefatigable statesman, as

he beheld the last vestige of opposition disappear beneath his feet,

and himself the sole occupant of the place on which he had so happily

succeeded in founding a basis for that noble, incomparably noble system,

fraught with every good and every immunity which a virtuous people

could desire. This system has since been erected so much under his

supervision, and through his direct instrumentality, as to give him

the title of ‘its father.’

Mr. Clay advocated the policy of carrying forward the construction of

the Cumberland road, as rapidly as possible, and exerted himself from

time to time, to procure appropriations for that purpose; with what

earnestness, we may learn from his own language, declaring that ‘he had

to _beg, entreat, and supplicate_ congress, session after session, to

grant the necessary appropriations to complete the road.’ Said he, ‘I

have myself _toiled until my powers have been exhausted and prostrated_

to prevail on you to make the grant.’ A monument of stone has been

erected on the road, surmounted by the genius of liberty, and bearing

as an inscription, the name of ‘Henry Clay.’ The importance of this

road to the public may be learned from some remarks made by Mr. Clay,

on the occasion of a dinner given him by the mechanics of Wheeling,

Virginia, in which he declared the great interest that work had

awakened in his breast, and expressed his ardent desire that it might

be prosecuted to a speedy completion. He said that a few years since,

he and his family had employed the whole or greater part of a day,

in travelling the distance of about nine miles, from Uniontown to

Freeman’s on Laurel Hill, which now, since the construction of the

Cumberland road over the mountains, could be accomplished, together

with seventy more, in the same time. He considered its importance so

great to the union, that he would not consent to give it up to the

keeping of the several states through which it passed.

Mr. Clay’s latest congressional efforts in behalf of internal

improvements, were made on the sixteenth of January, 1824, when he

made a speech before the house, on a bill authorizing the president

to cause certain surveys and estimates of roads and canals to be made.

Mr. Monroe and a strong party of supporters assumed the ground, that

congress had no control over the post roads, other than to use such

as had been established by the states individually, and that their

construction and repair (and consequent alteration and closure) did not

belong to the general government. To this doctrine Mr. Clay replied,

by saying, ‘is it possible that this construction of the constitution

can be correct――a construction which allows a law of the United States,

enacted for the good of the whole, to be obstructed or defeated

in its operations by a county court in any one of the twenty-four

sovereignties? Suppose a state, no longer having occasion to use a

post-road for its own separate and peculiar purposes, withdraws all

care and attention from its preservation. Can the state be compelled

to repair it? No! Then may not the general government repair this

road, which is abandoned by the state power? And may it not protect and

defend that which it has thus repaired, and which there is no longer

an interest or inclination in the state to protect and defend? Is it

contended that a road may exist in the statute book, which the state

will not, and the general government cannot repair and improve? What

sort of an account should we render to the people of the United States,

of the execution of the high trust committed to us for their benefit,

if we were to tell them, that we had failed to execute it because a

state would not make a road for us? The same clause of the constitution

which authorizes congress to establish post roads, authorizes it also

to establish post offices. Will it be contended that congress, in the

exercise of the power to establish post offices, can do no more than

adopt or designate some preëxisting office, enacted and kept in repair

by state authority? There is none such. It may then fix, build, create

and repair offices of its own, and its power over the post roads, is

by the constitution equally extensive.’ Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, was

among the most vigorous assailants of the policy advocated by Mr. Clay.

He contended, that if it were carried out, an encroachment on the

rights of the states would be the inevitable consequence; that their

jurisdiction would be abridged. He was answered in such a manner as

to show that there was no ground of alarm to be apprehended from that

source; that all the control which the general government sought to

exercise, related simply to constructing and preserving the road, and

the maintenance of the necessary measures of its defence, and that all

illegal acts committed upon it would be left for adjudication by the

state through which it passed. Mr. Clay contended that the general

government derived the right of constructing canals, from the specified

rights of making war and regulating domestic and foreign commerce. His

reasoning was clear and conclusive, and when the final vote was taken,

the majority was much greater than the most sanguine supporters of the

measure had anticipated, showing a great increase since 1818, when he

discussed the same subject. The opposition were now prostrated, indeed

they had on this occasion brought out their whole strength, and many

were heard to say, that if defeated now, they should regard the policy

of internal improvements permanently settled. Many, therefore, who had

formerly opposed it, on witnessing Mr. Clay’s complete triumph, adopted

his views, and came over to his aid.

It has always been a prominent principle with Mr. Clay, in his

legislative career, to give a judicious direction to his exertions, so

that if they were successful, his country would be benefited, but if

unsuccessful, that she should not sustain any harm. In this one feature

of his action, is seen, as in a mirror, the purity of his patriotism.

His exertions, as directed towards the subject of internal improvements,

have been productive of incalculable benefit to the nation, and to

individuals. They have awakened, and employed, and given an impetus

to an amount of enterprise unmeasured, the salutary effects of which,

every hill and vale of our vast country has felt. And the sea has

felt them too; the sails of commerce have been multiplied by them,

and foreign shores have groaned beneath the burdens of rich freights,

which they have heaped upon them. But who, in imagination, even, can

enumerate the number and the depth of the new channels of enterprise

which they are destined yet to create, where industry may roll her

golden tide, and build by their sides the abodes of a mighty, free,

and happy people. Through the long vista of years to come, it needs

no prophetic ken to look, and read, on many a monument of adamant,

interspersed among them, in characters of imperishable fame, inscribed

the name of HENRY CLAY.

Near the commencement of 1817, efforts were made by the friends of

the free colored population in the United States, to ameliorate their

condition. For this purpose, a meeting was convened at Washington, on

the twenty-first of December, 1816, over which Mr. Clay was called to

preside. On taking the chair, he stated the object of the meeting to

be, to consider the propriety and practicability of colonizing the free

people of color of the United States, and of forming an association

relative to that object. In regard to the various schemes of

colonization which had been suggested, that appeared the most feasible,

which contemplated some portion of the coast of Africa. _There_, he

said, ample provision might be made for the colony itself, and it might

be rendered instrumental in introducing into that extensive portion

of the globe, the arts of civilization and christianity. He said there

was a peculiar and moral fitness in restoring them to the land of their

fathers. He went on to state, that he had understood it constituted no

part of the object of the meeting to touch or agitate in the ♦slightest

degree, a delicate question connected with another portion of the

colored population of our country. It was not proposed to deliberate on

or consider at all, any question of emancipation, or that was connected

with the abolition of slavery. It was upon that condition alone, he was

sure that many gentlemen from the south and west, whom he saw present,

had attended, or could be expected to coöperate. The meeting resulted

in the formation of the Colonization Society, of which Bushrod

Washington was chosen president.

In March previous, Mr. Clay expressed his views relative to holding

congressional caucuses, for the purpose of making nominations. He

thought them not compatible with the nature of the powers delegated

to them by the people, as calculated to meet their disapprobation, and

establish a precedent which might prove dangerous to their liberties.

When congress adjourned, in March, 1817, the house unanimously voted

Mr. Clay their thanks, for the ability and impartiality with which

he had presided over their deliberations, and the correctness of his

decisions on all questions referred to the chair. He replied in an

apposite and beautiful manner, saying that next to the approbation

of one’s own conscience, and one’s own country, was that of the

immediate representatives of the people. He spoke of the difficulties

of legislation; said there were three periods that might be denominated

difficult; the first was that which immediately preceded a state of war;

the second was that which existed during its continuance; and the third

was that which immediately succeeded it. The last was the one through

which they had just passed――the most difficult of the three, when every

thing pertaining to the general and state governments was unsettled,

and when disorganization to a greater or less extent prevailed; when

the task of supplying deficiences, strengthening weaknesses, and

correcting abuses, was by no means light or pleasant. He congratulated

them on the efficient manner in which they had discharged that task,

to which the records of the house bore ample testimony. He closed

by tendering them his thanks, for the flattering expression of good

feeling with which they had honored him, presuming that it was prompted

more by a spirit of kindness, than by a sense of justice to him, as he

was sure he did not merit it, and by pledging their united efforts, as

an offering to their common country, in advancing their best interests.

When he reached Lexington, its citizens gave him a dinner, and as

heretofore, showered on him their enthusiastic approbation and applause.

In January, 1817, the subject of the well known Seminole war was

brought before the house for its consideration. Several features

relating to the mode in which it had been conducted, demanded, in the

opinion of many humane members, a critical investigation. The character

which had been given to that war, by the chieftain to whose management

it was intrusted, was reflecting strongly on the honor and justice

of our country. She had sustained a grievous injury from a portion of

the Seminole Indians, who, during the last war, aided the British arms

against her, and feeling that she had just cause for seeking redress,

despatched general Andrew Jackson, at the head of a strong military

force, to obtain it. He marched into their territory, and in a short

time so reduced them, that a portion sued for peace. A treaty was

accordingly prepared, in August, 1814, but which was not signed by many

of the chiefs, except those previously friendly to our country, who

constituted only about one third of the nation. This misnomered treaty,

from its cruel and unheard-of tyrannical exactions, had found a much

more appropriate resting place by the side of the ruthless interdicts

of a Nero, or a Trajan, than in the archives of a christian nation. The

poor natives, reduced to actual starvation, their wigwams and villages

in ashes, withering in the dust beneath the feet of the conqueror, had

no alternative but to submit to death, or just such terms as he chose

to dictate. They preferred the latter, which was meted out with a hand

nerved with all the unrelenting sternness of patriotism, without any of

its mercy. The Indians obtained what they sought, but they paid dearly

for it. The instrument granted them peace, on condition that they would

cede a large portion of their territory to the United States, and yield

them important powers and privileges over the remainder, and deliver

into the hands of the conqueror the prophets of their nation. It needed

only a superficial knowledge of the Indian character, to perceive that

their proud and haughty spirit would not long brook a compliance with

terms so abjectly humiliating. Not many months elapsed before they

began to renew their depredations on our frontiers. Though acts of

cruelty, on the part of the Seminoles, were of frequent occurrence,

apparently calling loudly for vengeance, still they were greatly

palliated by a letter from ten of the Seminole towns, addressed to the

commanding officer of fort Hawkins, on the eleventh of September, 1817,

in which it was stated that not a solitary white man had been butchered

by them, except in revenge for the unprovoked murder of an Indian. ‘The

white people,’ it declared, ‘killed our people first, the Indians then

took satisfaction. There are yet _three men_ that the red people have

never taken satisfaction for.’ The governor of Georgia, accurately

acquainted with all the facts, declared his honest and sincere

conviction that they were not in fault. But supposing the whites had

_not_ been guilty of outrages on the Seminoles, subsequent to the

date of the treaty, yet its unjustly oppressive character, the paucity

of their chieftains’ signatures attached to it, and the obligations

imposed on the United States, by the ninth article of the treaty of

Ghent, towards the Indian tribes, to say nothing of the law of nature,

justified, in our humble opinion, the attempts of the Seminoles to

shake off the insupportably heavy burden which military despotism

had bound upon them. In view of these facts, in relation to general

Jackson’s treatment of the Seminoles, it is unnecessary to say, that

his second expedition against them was not marked by _one mitigating

or lenient feature_; that they were treated more like _dogs_ than men;

that their chiefs were decoyed by him into his camp, and there seized

and instantly put to death. In short, that every principle of honor,

humanity, and justice, which ought to accompany the operations of

a civilized army, was _utterly disregarded_. It is not surprising,

therefore, that the patriotically disposed, in congress, on beholding

the dark spot gathering on the escutcheon of their country’s fame, in

consequence of such high-handed proceedings, should rise up and attempt

to efface it. General Jackson’s conduct in the Florida war, was made

the subject of special investigation, during the session of 1818–19. A

series of resolutions were offered to congress, severely censuring it,

which Mr. Clay sustained in a speech of unparalleled ability. Although

on terms of personal intimacy with the general, although he accorded

to him his just meed of praise, for the distinguished service he had

rendered his country in the battle of New Orleans, still Mr. Clay

thought he had transcended the limits of both law and equity, and did

not allow his feelings of friendship for him to interpose any obstacle

to the frank and fearless avowal of his sentiments. He commented very

severely upon his treatment of _Indian prisoners, in ordering their

inhuman massacre_, after obtaining possession of them, by the artifice

of a ‘_false flag_,’ not hesitating to pronounce it wanton, barbaric,

and uncalled for. But his flagrant violations of the rights of

neutrality called forth his sharpest animadversions. During the

campaign, two Indian traders, Messrs. Arbuthnot and Ambrister, the

former a Scotchman, the latter an Englishman, had fallen into the hands

of general Jackson. Ambrister was found in the Indian camp, Arbuthnot

within the limits of Spanish jurisdiction. The Englishman was suspected

of having instigated the savages to make war upon the whites, and the

Scotchman was charged with informing the Indians of their rights, as

secured to them by the treaty of Ghent, and of having advised them to

maintain them by force of arms. These unfortunate men, he ordered the

one to be shot and the other hung, in direct opposition to the decision

of a court martial of his own choosing. The turpitude of this act,

Mr. Clay exhibited in its true colors. He contrasted the execution of

Arbuthnot with the blackest act of Napoleon, the execution of Louis

of France, and showed that for atrocity, and disregard for justice and

clemency, it cast the latter far into the back-ground. His aggression

committed upon the Spanish authorities, in seizing upon St. Marks and

Pensacola, fell under the rod of his reprobation. Mr. Clay denounced

these acts as falling little short of tyrannic usurpation, and which

could not be justified on any ground of justice or reason. His speech

on this occasion, has been compared to the polished orations of

Sheridan, in the case of Hastings, but as exhibiting a much milder

spirit, one of sincere sorrow, instead of revenge.

The resolutions were rejected by a small majority, which is not

surprising, on considering that Mr. Monroe, his cabinet, and nearly

all the house, were disinclined to arraign the conduct of general

Jackson in the Seminole war, and when we reflect that Mr. Clay did

not repeat his efforts, as he usually did. The general, who soon after

visited Washington, took umbrage at Mr. Clay’s speech, and carried

his animosity so far as to refuse to have any intercourse with him,

although he called on him directly after his arrival, thus evincing an

unabatement of friendship.

To whatever part of Mr. Clay’s congressional career we turn our eyes,

we invariably find him actively engaged in building up that magnificent

system of domestic utility, whenever circumstances admitted. This he

commenced, as we have seen, previous to the war, and his attachment

to it had been increasing ever since, until the conviction of its

indispensable importance to the country had sunk so deep into his mind,

as to cause him to toil unremittingly, in order that the beneficial

influences of that system might be diffused over it as soon as possible.

For these, the farmer at his plough and the mechanic in his shop were

stretching out their hands. These, our infant manufactories, which

sprang up to supply the demands caused by the war, demanded, and these

were requisite to make the union (what Mr. Clay never lost sight of,)

independent in _reality_, as she was in _name_, of all foreign powers.

It was obvious to both parties in congress, that in order to accomplish

an object so essential to the welfare of the nation, a _protective

tariff_ was necessary. Accordingly, on the twelfth of March, 1816,

Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, one of the committee of ways and means,

made a report relative to the policy of protection. He sustained the

policy by an able speech, and was followed by Mr. Calhoun, who also

advocated it. Mr. Clay yielded his unqualified assent and vindication,

and sought to cause the bill to be so formed as to secure efficient

protection for woollen fabrics. It was finally adopted.

In April, 1820, the subject of a protective tariff came again before

congress. The distress which the country had experienced since 1816,

was seen to have originated, in a great degree, from inadequate

protection, particularly that which had fallen upon the manufacturing

districts. To a bill revising and improving the tariff of 1816, Mr.

Clay gave his ardent support. As on former similar occasions, he urged

its adoption on the high ground of national utility. ‘I frankly own,’

said he, ‘that I feel great solicitude for the success of this bill.

The entire independence of my country of all foreign states, as it

respects a supply of our essential wants, has ever been with me a

favorite object. The war of our revolution effected our political

emancipation. The last war contributed greatly towards accomplishing

our commercial freedom. But our complete independence will only be

consummated after the policy of this bill shall be recognized and

adopted.’ The bill, though passed by the house, was defeated in the

senate.

In 1824, the distress of the country had increased to such an

enormous extent, that the most serious apprehensions began to be

entertained, lest the productive energies of the land would be

completely annihilated, unless some remedy should be devised. There was

no department which did not feel its blighting influence; navigation

and commerce, no less than agriculture and manufactures, tottered

beneath the tremendous weight of gloom, which, like a dense cloud of

ruin, overshadowed the whole nation. Our vessels were either lying

idle at their moorings, or mostly going in ballast; all encouragement

for enterprise was taken away; produce was plenty, but purchasers few;

our granaries and store houses were full to overflowing, and in many

instances, their contents were going to decay; to obtain money, except

at ruinous rates, was out of the question, consequently labor was in

little demand and poorly rewarded; the depreciation of property of all

kinds was unparalleled, and disorder and embarrassment pervaded every

rank and condition of every industrial department. It was under such

circumstances, that a farther revision and enlargement of the tariff of

1816 was proposed. In the house, the committee on manufactures reported

a bill to that effect, at the same time expressing their opinion, that

the evils which then existed, were clearly traceable to inefficient

protection of domestic industry, and of relying too much on foreign

producers, thereby allowing the specie, the life-blood of the country,

to be drained out of it. This defect the bill proposed to remedy. Mr.

Clay came forward in its support, under the most solemn impressions

of the exceedingly lamentable condition which his country was in,

and evinced, by every tone of his voice and look of his countenance,

his deep anxiety to extend to her the hand of speedy relief. ‘If

it were allowable for us at the present day,’ said he, ‘to imitate

ancient examples, I would invoke the aid of the Most High. I would

anxiously and fervently implore his divine assistance, that he would be

graciously pleased to shower on my country his richest blessings, and

that he would sustain, on this interesting occasion, the individual

who stands before him, and lend him the power, moral and physical, to

perform the solemn duties which now belong to his public station.’ He

felt that it was indeed a sad sight, to behold a free and mighty nation

sitting in sackcloth and ashes, with her hands shackled by a policy as

unwise as it was foreign to her interests, with which, had they been

free, she could have clothed herself with beautiful garments, excited

the envy and admiration of the world, and brushed like chaff every

vestige of depression and distress from her borders. He contended that

the causes of these were easily discoverable, and as easily removable;

that they were entirely within our control, and that we had but to will

it and the work was done, and it was high time, he said, to set about

it. Evils of every description had been accumulating during the last

ten years, until they had become so numerous and great as to be no

longer patible. But it was a source of satisfaction to know that they

_need not be endured_――that they were medicable――that with a change of

policy they would disappear, as certainly as darkness disappears before

light. A cultivation of her own resources, he said, would relieve the

country. If she would break away from that state of foreign vassalage,

into which she had voluntarily entered, the streams of commerce would

again fertilize her fair fields. If she would but ♦extend her hand

and pluck from her breast the thorn, which her own suicidal policy had

planted there, he avowed his belief that the rose of industry would

spring up in its place. This change of policy, he believed, would

accomplish all that would be requisite to her peace and prosperity.

In supporting the bill, however, he had to encounter much and strong

opposition, at the head of which stood Daniel Webster. The collision

of these eloquent and intellectual giants, is said to have been

inconceivably grand. Says a gentleman who witnessed it, ‘the eloquence

of Mr. Webster was the majestic roar of a strong and steady blast,

pealing through the forest; but that of Mr. Clay was the tone of a

god-like instrument, sometimes visited by an angel touch, and swept

anon by all the fury of the raging elements.’ Mr. Clay, aware that he

was contending for the very vitality of his country, had nerved himself

up to one of his mightiest efforts, one which would demolish every

opposing obstacle, and plant his foot in complete triumph on the ruins

of the strongest holds of his assailants. He turned aside every weapon

directed against his system, and entirely disarmed all opposition.

The bill passed the house on the sixteenth of April, by a vote of one

hundred and seven to one hundred and two, and shortly after became a

law, and its beneficial effects were felt throughout the country. The

operations of this system, in connection with the United States bank,

which was now rapidly correcting the derangements in the currency,

filled the land with gladness and prosperity. Enterprise came forth

from his retiracy, to which the previous embarrassment had driven

him, and shaking the dust of sloth from his garments, cast his eyes

about over the vast and beautiful field which invited his occupancy.

Encouraged by the loud and united voices of this wisely regulated

institution, and the American system, he took immediate possession.

The desert bloomed, the forest fell, the mill arose, and the wheel of

industry, which before was slumbering on its rusting axle, under the

guidance of his potent hand began again its healthful revolutions,

and soon the land was belted by her green and golden tracks. He hushed

the voice of woe, and caused the loud shout of joy to go up from

every hill and vale throughout the nation. After she had enjoyed his

life-imparting influence eight years, Mr. Clay thus describes her

appearance. ‘We have the agreeable contemplation of a people out of

debt, innumerable flocks and herds browsing on ten thousand hills and

plains covered with rich and verdant grasses, our cities expanded, and

whole villages springing up as it were by enchantment, our exports and

imports increased and increasing, our tonnage, foreign and coastwise,

fully occupied, the rivers of our interior animated by countless

steamboats, the currency sound and abundant, the public debt of

two wars nearly redeemed, and, to crown all, the public treasury

overflowing, embarrassing congress, not to find subjects of taxation,

but to select the objects which shall be relieved from the imposts. If

the term of seven years were to be selected, of the greatest prosperity

which this people have enjoyed since the establishment of their present

constitution, it would be exactly the period of seven years which

immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824.’ Who can doubt,

after an impartial survey of the whole ground, (and a superficial one

is sufficient,) who can doubt that the materials for limning the above

strong, but correct picture, were furnished by a _sound currency_, and

a _judicious tariff_. As long as the term _tariff_ shall remain in the

English vocabulary, will the memory of Henry Clay, in all the verdancy

of spring, abide in the heart of the nation.

Notwithstanding the sturdy opposition which Mr. Webster arrayed against

this system, as advocated by Mr. Clay, he became its ardent supporter

when time had tested and proved its importance. Many other public

functionaries also, who had assailed it in the most vindictive manner,

laid down their weapons, and cordially embraced, with strong protecting

arms, its salutary provisions. Even bigotry and prejudice were forced

into an unwilling acknowledgement of its utility, and were soon seen

placing themselves in a situation where its benign influences would

fall upon them.

In 1819, the most exciting question that ever agitated the councils

of the nation, came before congress for adjustment――the question of

admitting Missouri as a state into the Union. It was correctly called

a ‘_distracting question_,’ for it caused a political earthquake, whose

quaking influences were felt from one end of the land to the other;

and even now its recollection causes a sensation of terror to come over

those who were the immediate witnesses of it. Its contemplation made

the stout-hearted patriot, and the immovably good of all classes, to

turn pale with fear, who believed, that unless it could be calmed, it

would engulph in irremediable ruin the liberties of the republic. It

was not the simple question of admission which convulsed the country,

but the terms with which it was proposed to connect her reception into

the confederacy――terms involving another question, one which furnished

all the fuel which kindled the fires of the most acrimonious strife,

in every section of the nation――the _question of slavery_. The question

of admission divided the country into two great parties. A large and

respectable portion of her representatives at Washington, desired

the admission to be unconditional, while the other wished it to be

subject to certain conditions, among which was the following: that

‘all children of slaves, born within the said state after the admission

thereof into the union, shall be free, but may be held to service until

the age of twenty-five years, and the farther introduction of slavery

or involuntary servitude is prohibited, except for the punishment of

crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.’ With the

certainty of intuition, Mr. Clay foresaw and predicted the alarming

consequences which would flow from the fiery crucible of public debate,

if this combustible condition was placed in it, and rang the tocsin

peal of his voice in the ears of the nation. Although opposed to

slavery, and declaring that if he were a citizen of Missouri, he would

strenuously oppose any farther introduction of slaves into her, and

provide for the emancipation of those already within her borders,

still he believed we had no right to compel her to adopt our opinions,

especially as she was unrepresented, and preferred leaving the subject

of slavery to be settled by her alone.

The condition, however, was made the subject of the most stormy debate

in the house, and carried. The bill containing it was sent to the

senate, which returned it to the house, after rejecting the condition.

Neither house would abandon its opinion, consequently the bill for

admitting Missouri was defeated, and unfortunately the question was

laid over for the action of the next session. This gave time greatly

to augment and embitter the tempest of contention that had been raised

over this matter in congress, which soon drew within its eddying vortex,

in one fierce wrangle, the _entire people_. Their representatives, on

the adjournment of congress, carried the infection among them in every

direction, which created the most violent monomania relative to this

condition, demanding the sacrifice of ease, domestic avocations, and

even health itself. The press reeked with inflammatory appeals, and

when they reässembled at the session of 1819–20, they were almost

wafted to their seats on the wings of the furious commotion. Under

such circumstances the discussion was renewed, which was conducted in

such an angry manner as to add fresh fuel to the flame raging without.

Resolutions in favor of, and opposed to the condition, were passed by

several states, and placed on the tables in congress, which already

groaned beneath the ponderous weight of similar documents, from

associations and public meetings throughout the country. These, instead

of shortening, tended only to prolong the debate. At one time, Mr. Clay

spoke about four hours against the condition, but his speech, we regret

to say, was never reported. Those who were in favor of subjecting

her admission to the specific condition, brought forward the acts of

congress passed in connection with the admission of Ohio, Indiana, and

Illinois, into the union, which was coupled with a similar condition,

or one even more restrictive in relation to slavery, as proof that it

had a right to impose conditions on admitting a state. The principal

argument of those opposed to the condition was derived from the

constitution, which they contended bestowed on congress no power

whatever over slaves, except what had already been exercised, in

prohibiting their importation after the year 1808, that the slave

states never would have joined the confederacy, if the power now

claimed had been conferred by the constitution, that the day when

it should be usurped, would be the last of the union, that Louisiana,

Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama, had been admitted

into the union, unsubjected to any such condition, and that therefore

Missouri should also be received on the same ground.

After the smoke of the political battle had somewhat cleared up, the

vote was again taken on the question of restriction, which showed a

majority in the senate against, and in the house for it. At the same

time before congress was an application from Maine for admission to the

privileges of a state, which the senate coupled with that of Missouri,

but the house refused to sanction the union. Finally, the question was

referred to a joint committee from both houses, who attempted to decide

it by compromise. By this, Missouri was admitted without restriction,

but it was provided ‘that in all that territory ceded by France to

the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of

thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included

within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and

involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes

whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is

hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping

into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed, in any

state or territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully

reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or

service as aforesaid.’

By this act of congress the territory was authorized to frame a

constitution and state government, which should not infringe any

article of the constitution of the United States, and required to

transmit to congress ‘a true and attested copy of the same,’ when a

final resolution of congress would be requisite to its admission into

the union.

In June, 1820, the territory complied with these conditions, and

introduced into her constitution an article making it the duty of the

legislature ‘as soon as might be to pass such laws as were necessary to

prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in the

state under any pretext whatever.’ This clause called forth the most

violent censure of the friends of restriction, which caused the flames

of contention to burst out anew and with redoubled violence. Mr. Clay

found himself, in the autumn of 1820, obliged to resign his seat

as speaker, and retire from congress, to repair by the practice of

law, his fortune, which had been greatly diminished by heavy losses

sustained by his becoming security for a friend.

At the commencement of the session of 1820–21, the constitution of

Missouri was placed in the hands of a committee, who reported in favor

of her admission. The senate passed an act to that effect, but the

house rejected it. The admission of Missouri was opposed on the ground

that free people of color were citizens of the state of their residence,

and as such they possessed an undoubted right to remove to Missouri,

and that her prohibition of their removal within her limits, was a

flagrant violation of the constitution of the United States. On the

other hand it was maintained that whether bond or free, the African

race were not parties to our political institutions, that therefore

free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the

constitution of the United States, and that even if the constitution of

Missouri _were_ repugnant to that of the United States, the latter was

permanent and would overrule the conflicting provision of the former,

without the interference of congress.

Such was the question which menaced a disruption of the union. Almost

daily, in some form or other, it presented itself, wearing a more

threatening aspect at each successive appearance, engendering in the

hearts of the two contending parties, feelings of the most bitter

animosity, clogging the wheels of government, and effectually impeding,

and almost extinguishing all legislative action. Says one familiar

with this question, ♦‘popular meetings, legislative resolves, and other

demonstrations of feeling and passion were resorted to; crimination and

recrimination followed; and separation, disunion, and civil war, with

all its infinite of horrors, were the common topics of every village

and hamlet. Had a few more materials of excitement been kindled, the

work of destruction would have been instant and complete.

In this crisis, when the last fingerings of hope seemed to have

departed, that an amicable adjustment of the question would be effected,

all eyes were turned towards Mr. Clay, as the only person who could

avert the calamities which seemed suspended over the nation. He reached

Washington on the sixteenth of January 1821, and found congress in

the greatest scene of confusion imaginable. Legislation was absolutely

terminated. The most envenomed feelings of hatred rankled in the bosoms

of the two parties, who, frowning darkly on each other, bore a stronger

resemblance to two belligerent armies, with their weapons in their

hands, impatiently waiting for the word to rush into the maddening

conflict, than to companies of grave and sober legislators. He was

immediately waited on by both parties, who expressed the strongest

anxiety that the _vexed question_ might be settled and entreated him

to devise some method by which it might be consummated. He expressed

his views freely, and urged them to select some common ground on which

both parties could meet and harmonize their opinions. On the second

day of February, he made a motion to commit the question to a committee

of thirteen, to be chosen from both parties, a number suggested by the

original states of the union, which was accepted. Mr. Clay, in a report

submitted to the house on the tenth of February, by him as chairman of

the committee of thirteen, introduced a resolution for the admission of

Missouri, on the following conditions:

‘It is provided that the said state shall never pass any law preventing

any description of persons from coming to or settling in the said state,

who now are or may hereafter become citizens of any of the states of

this union, and also that the legislature of the said state by a public

act shall declare the assent of the state to this provision, and shall

transmit to the president of the United States, on or before the fourth

Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act, upon the

receipt whereof, the president by proclamation shall announce the fact,

whereupon and without any farther proceedings on the part of congress,

the admission of the said state into the union shall be considered

as complete, and it is provided further that nothing herein contained

shall be construed to take from the state of Missouri, when admitted

into the union, the exercise of any right or power which can now be

constitutionally exercised by any of the original states.’ The report

was made to include this provision with direct reference to those who

opposed the admission in consequence of the repugnance of a clause of

the constitution of Missouri to the constitution of the United States,

which, if they were sincere in their opposition, would cause them to

desist. The house took up the report on the twelfth, when Mr. Clay

entered into a minute detail of the deliberations of the committee,

the difficulties that attended them, and the causes which led to the

adoption of the resolution in the report, and concluded by beseeching

them to cherish a feeling of conciliation, and to temper their

proceedings by moderation. The report was rejected in committee of

the whole on the state of the union, but was afterwards adopted in the

house. On the third reading of the resolution, another sharp debate

ensued, which was terminated by Mr. Clay, who is represented as having

reasoned, remonstrated, and entreated, that the house would settle the

question. He is represented as having been almost the only individual

who was collected and calm. While others were covered with the foam

of fierce debate, and lashed into fury by the combined influences of

political or personal animosity, he seemed like one dwelling in the

region of perpetual serenity on some lofty mountain, and contemplating

unmoved the storm that was raging and bursting around its base. ‘Every

darker passion seemed to have died within him, and he looked down upon

the maddening and terrific scene with that calm and sublime regret,

and gave utterance to his thoughts in that high, majestic, and pathetic

eloquence, which seemed almost to designate him as a superior being

commissioned by heaven to warn our country against the sin of anarchy

and blood.’ The resolution, notwithstanding his exertions, was lost.

On the fourteenth, the two houses met for the purpose of ascertaining

the result of an election that had been held for president and vice

president, and while the ceremony was being performed, a scene of

confusion occurred, on the presentation of the votes of the electors

for Missouri. The senate withdrew, and with much difficulty Mr. Clay

finally succeeded in restoring order, when the senate, on its being

announced to them that the house was ready to complete the business

for which they were assembled, returned. On proclaiming the result,

it appeared that James Monroe had received two hundred and thirty-one

votes, including those of the electors from Missouri, and two hundred

and twenty-eight, if these were excluded. While the president of the

senate was announcing the result, two members of the house claimed

the floor to inquire what disposition had been made of the votes of

Missouri, whereupon a scene of confusion and turmoil ensued, that

beggars description, and the house was compelled to adjourn, in order

to put a period to it.

The rejection of the report of thirteen, both in and out of congress,

was regarded as a disaster. Those who had been most active in effecting

it, soon began to repent their rashness, and the blackness of despair

seemed to be settling down upon the councils of the nation. Mr. Clay

sagaciously concluded that the feelings of despondency which they began

to evince, would, if allowed to take their course, accomplish what

reason, and argument, and philosophy could not; that they would cause

the headstrong to reflect, and retrace their steps. He had driven

them to the very ‘_ultima thule_’ of argumentative debate, applying

the lash of logic at every step, until they had become insensible to

its infliction. ‘What is your plan as to Missouri,’ he would say to

them. ‘She is no longer a territory. She is a state, whether admitted

into the union or not. She is capable of self-government, and she

is governing herself. Do you mean to force her permanently from the

union? Do you mean to lose the vast public domain which lies within her

limits? Do you mean to drive her back to a territorial condition? Do

you intend to coërce her to alter her constitution? _How_ will you do

all this? Is it your design to employ the bayonet? We tell you frankly

our views. They are, to admit her absolutely if we can, and if not,

with the condition which we have offered. You are bound to disclose

your views with equal frankness. You aspire to be thought statesmen.

As sagacious and enlightened statesmen, you should look forward to the

fearful future, and let the country understand what is your remedy for

the evils which lie before us.’

Various propositions were submitted in both houses, for the purpose of

healing the breach which every day seemed to be widening, but all fell

short of accomplishing the object. Finally, on the twenty-second, Mr.

Clay presented the following resolution:

‘Resolved, that a committee be appointed on the part of the

house, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part

of the senate, to consider and report to the senate and house of

representatives respectively, whether it be expedient or not, to make

provision for the admission of Missouri into the union, on the same

footing as the original states, and for the due execution of the laws

of the United States within Missouri, and if not, whether any other,

and what provision adapted to her actual condition ought to be made a

law.’

This resolution was adopted in the house by a majority of nearly

two-thirds, and in the senate by a much larger one. The committee,

Mr. Clay proposed, should consist of twenty-three, a number answering

to all the states in the union, and so exerted his influence in their

selection, as to secure a majority favorable to the settlement of the

whole matter, in the manner and form proposed.

The joint committees met on the twenty-fifth of February, 1821, and

proceeded to consider and discuss the question of admission. Mr. Clay,

with a vigilance that did not slumber for an instant, exerted himself

to infuse into the members of the committees a portion of his own

conciliatory spirit, exhorting them to mutual concession, and declared

that it would be utterly futile to report any plan of adjustment in

which they could not unanimously concur, when it should be submitted

to the final test. So firmly convinced was he, that the effort which

they were then making, was the last feasible one that _could_ be made

for the settlement of the question on which they were deliberating, as

to cause him to address individually the members of the committees, in

order to make such thorough preparation as to preclude the possibility

of defeat. And it was found on the next day that such preparation

had been made; the resolution was adopted by a vote of eighty-seven

to eighty-one in the house, and despatched to the senate, which

unhesitatingly agreed to it, and thus the question which had convulsed

congress for three sessions, and nearly distracted the land, was

at last settled, and mainly through the influence of Mr. Clay. The

proclamation of the president was issued, and Missouri took her place

among her sisters of the confederacy. This event was greeted with the

highest demonstrations of joy, and Missouri, beautiful Missouri, from

her majestic forests and broad prairies, from her ancient mounds and

mighty rivers, pealed her loud anthems of grateful praise to her and

her country’s deliverer, hailing him as the second Washington, as one

who had plucked the brand of discord from the hands of ten millions of

enraged and exasperated people, and put in its place the olive branch

of peace. The incense of exulting hearts was lavished on Mr. Clay like

rain. His agency in settling one of the most difficult and dangerous

questions that ever has arisen since the adoption of our present

constitution, was clearly seen, deeply and gratefully felt, and thus

publicly acknowledged. No one then was so blind as not to see that it

was his hand that rent the pall of gloom, which enshrouded the whole

land. His labors and his incessant and health-destroying toils to

bring this question to a happy consummation, constituted a topic

of conversation which was in the mouth of every one. Although the

journals of the day do not record the many speeches made by him on the

occasion, yet it is reported that his exertions in speaking and acting

were almost superhuman. If a stranger arrived in Washington, whose

influence he thought could be made to bear favorably on the settlement

of the question, he instantly endeavored to enlist it. Mr. Clay himself

was heard to say, that so intense had become his excitement, and so

exhausting his efforts, his life would in all probability have been

sacrificed to them, if the admission of Missouri had been delayed a

fortnight longer. There is no doubt, that he taxed his patriotism, his

eloquence, his philanthropy, his intellect, and his every attribute of

mind and body, to the utmost, and strained the bow of life almost to

breaking, to accomplish this, and it is saying very little to observe,

that a nation’s thanks are his due, and that his signal service,

in allaying the most tremendous storm that passion, prejudice, and

sectional feeling ever raised, has imposed a debt of gratitude upon

her, which posterity alone can pay.

At the time of the greatest turbulence over the Missouri question,

when the fury of the contending parties in congress had broken down

every barrier of order and decency, and was rushing rampant over the

field of debate, certain southern gentlemen in the house, headed by Mr.

Randolph, concocted a plan for withdrawing the entire body of members

from the slaveholding states, from its deliberations, and abandon the

business to the representatives of the other states. Had this been

carried out, anarchy, civil war, and the effusion of blood would have

followed inevitably. About this time, when an amicable settlement was

nearly despaired of, and when the house was in session one evening,

Mr. Randolph approached Mr. Clay and said, ‘Mr. speaker, I wish you

would leave the house. I will follow you to Kentucky, or any where else

in the world.’ Mr. Clay, regarding him with one of his most searching

looks for an instant, replied, in an under tone, ‘_Mr. Randolph_, your

proposition is an exceedingly serious one, and demands most serious

consideration; be kind enough to call at my room to-morrow morning,

and we will deliberate over it together.’ Punctual to a minute, Mr.

Randolph was there, and closeted with Mr. Clay, discussed for some

time the then all absorbing question connected with the admission

of Missouri. Mr. Clay maintained, with all the force of his fine

colloquial powers, the _plan of compromise_, as the wisest and best

which he could suggest, and, in his opinion, that could be suggested,

declaring his sincere conviction that the slaveholding states might

adopt it, without any sacrifice of principle or interest. On the other

hand, Mr. Randolph contended that it could not and would not be adopted;

that the slave states occupied a correct position, and would maintain

it at all hazards, and would not proceed an inch towards a compromise.

They finally separated without agreeing on any thing that was

calculated to harmonize their action in congress. ‘Oh! Mr. Randolph,’

said Mr. Clay, as the former was about stepping from the house, ‘Mr.

Randolph, with your permission I will embrace the present occasion to

observe, that your language and deportment on the floor of the house,

it has occurred to me, were rather indecorous and ungentlemanly on

several occasions, and very annoying indeed to me, for, being in the

chair, I had no opportunity of replying.’ Admitting that such, perhaps,

might be the case, Mr. Randolph replied that he too had often been much

vexed at witnessing Mr. Clay’s neglect to attend to him when speaking.

Said he, ‘I have seen you often, when I have been addressing the

chair, I have seen you often turn away your head and ask for a _pinch

of snuff_.’ ‘Oh! you are certainly mistaken, Mr. Randolph, you are

mistaken if you think I do not listen to you; although I frequently

turn away my head, it is true, and ask for a pinch of snuff, still

I hear every thing you say, when seeming to hear nothing, and I will

wager, retentive as I know your memory to be, Mr. Randolph, _that I can

repeat as much of any of your recent speeches as you yourself can_.’

‘Well, I do not know but I _am_ mistaken,’ he replied, ‘and suppose we

drop the matter, shake hands, and become good friends again.’ ‘Agreed,’

said Mr. Clay, and extended his hand, which was cordially embraced

by Mr. Randolph. They never spoke to each other, however, during the

remainder of the session.

Soon after this meeting, Mr. Clay was successively, and without concert,

informed by the late governor Edwards and general C. F. Mercer, the one

a senator and the other a member of the house, that Mr. Randolph was

present at and witnessed the death scene of the gallant and lamented

commodore Decatur, that he remained gazing a long time upon his corpse,

agitated with deep emotions, and that he had been heard to express a

desire to have, and with Mr. Clay, an affair of honor similar to that

which brought Decatur to his untimely end. This information naturally

put Mr. Clay upon his guard, and ever after during the session,

whenever he met Mr. Randolph, he refrained from addressing him.

It is said that Mr. Randolph used all his influence in trying to induce

one of the gentlemen above mentioned not to agree to a settlement

of the Missouri question, as he (Mr. Randolph) feared that this, if

accomplished as it was desired, would secure Mr. Clay’s election to

the presidency.

During the same session, and some time previous to their interview,

Mr. Randolph accosted Mr. Clay with a look and manner betokening the

deepest concern, exhibiting to him a letter couched in very abusive

and insulting terms, threatening to cow-hide him, and asked Mr. Clay’s

advice as to the course he should pursue in relation to it. ‘What

caused the writer to send you such an insulting epistle, Mr. Randolph?’

said Mr. Clay. ‘Why, I suppose,’ said he, ‘it was in consequence of

what I said to him the other day.’ ‘What _did_ you say?’ ‘Why, sir,

I was standing in the vestibule of the house, when the writer came up

and introduced to me a gentleman who accompanied him, and I asked him

what right he had to introduce that man to me, and told him that the

man had just as _good a right_ to introduce _him_ to me, whereat he was

very indignant, and said I had treated him scandalously, and turning

on his heel went away. I expect that made him write the letter.’ ‘Do

you not think that he was _a little out of his head to talk in that

way_?’ replied Mr. Clay. ‘Why, I have been thinking about that,’ said

Mr. Randolph, ‘I _have_ my doubts respecting his sanity.’ ‘Well, that

being the case, would it not be the wisest course not to bring the

matter before the house? I will direct the sergeant-at-arms to keep a

sharp look out for the man, and to cause him to be arrested, should he

attempt any thing improper.’ Mr. Randolph expressed his acquiescence in

the speaker’s opinion, and nothing more was heard of the subject.

On another occasion, when the same question was before the house,

Mr. Randolph informed Mr. Clay that he had come to the conclusion to

abandon his invective and caustic irony in debate, and in future to

confine himself to pure argument; that he had come to this conclusion

in consequence of the advice of chief justice Marshall. He tried pure

argument, but was unsuccessful, not awakening any interest in those who

listened to him. He finally fell back into his old eccentric, sarcastic

track, where he was at home, and crowds flocked to hear him, as usual.

In Mr. Randolph’s hands ridicule was a powerful weapon, and one which

no member knew how to use better than he, but sound reasoning and

logical disquisition he wielded awkwardly――they were untempered weapons

when used by him, about as effective as a rush in the hands of a child.

One day he came in contact with a very able debater, Mr. Sheffey, one

of his colleagues from Virginia, who, in a playful sally, had made some

remarks which aroused the irascible temper of Mr. Randolph, who replied

to him and concluded by offering him the following _morceau_ of advice.

‘My worthy colleague possesses talents of a high order, but they are

not very versatile. They qualify him for a particular sphere only,

beyond the limits of which nature never designed him to travel. That

sphere is _logic_. In this he can do battle with the boldest, but

when he transcends it, he has less power than a pigmy. Therefore, as a

friend, I would in the spirit of kindness, advise him _never to leave

it for any other_; but especially would I caution him, as he values

his reputation and safety, never to venture within the unexplored

and unsubjugated regions of wit, for whose labyrinths and intricacies

he has neither taste nor talent. As no other motive but a tender

solicitude for the gentleman’s welfare, has prompted this advice, I

hope it will be received and appreciated accordingly.’ Mr. Sheffey, in

reply, remarked that he did not like to remain in Mr. Randolph’s debt,

and would therefore cancel the heavy demand which he owed the gentleman,

for his exceedingly valuable advice, by returning the compliment.

He accordingly advised him never to aspire after logic, as it was

an instrument of whose use his ignorance was more than sophomoric,

and that in _his_ hand it was like a _knife in the hands of a child_.

‘In my opinion, from the armory of wit the facetious member may draw

weapons every way adapted to his capacity, and I would therefore advise

him never to resort to any other.’ When he concluded, Mr. Randolph

sprang to his feet, and in his quick, off-hand way, said, ‘I will take

back all that I have said, by way of advice, to my colleague, for he

has given satisfactory evidence that he is a man both of logic and

wit.’ The incident furnished much mirth to the house. The next day,

Mr. Randolph recommenced the attack with increased bitterness, and was

called to order several times by Mr. Clay, who, after repeated trials,

succeeded in checking him. Mr. Sheffey was much excited, and was called

to order also, when Mr. Clay observed that he would be out of order in

replying, as he was, to any other member, except Mr. Randolph.

At one time, Mr. Randolph, in a strain of most scorching irony, had

indulged in some personal taunts towards Mr. Clay, commiserating his

ignorance and limited education, to whom Mr. Clay replied by saying,

‘sir, the gentleman from Virginia was pleased to say, that in one point,

at least, he coincided with me――in an humble estimate of my grammatical

and philological acquirements. I know my deficiences. I was born to

no proud patrimonial estate from my father. I inherited only infancy,

ignorance, and indigence; I feel my defects; but so far as my situation

in early life is concerned, I may without presumption say, they are

more my misfortune than my fault. But, however I deplore my inability

to furnish to the gentleman a better specimen of powers of verbal

criticism, I will venture to say my regret is not greater than the

disappointment of this committee, as to the _strength of his argument_.’

The following incident aptly illustrates Mr. Clay’s readiness at

repartee. At the time of the passage of the tariff bill, April

sixteenth, 1824, as the house was about adjourning, a friend of the

bill observed to Mr. Clay, ‘we have done pretty well to-day.’ ‘Very

well, indeed,’ rejoined Mr. Clay, instantly, ‘_very well_; we made a

good stand, considering we lost both our FEET;’ alluding to Mr. Foote,

of New York, and Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, both having opposed the bill,

who it was confidently expected but a short time previous would support

it.

During Mr. Clay’s absence from congress, which, as has been before

stated, was occasioned to furnish him an opportunity to repair

pecuniary losses, he was appointed, in connection with Mr. Bibb, to

attend the Virginia legislature, for the purpose of adjusting certain

Kentuckian land claims. The land laws of Kentucky were a source of

great perplexity and litigation, subjecting those who had settled there

prior to her separation from Virginia, to great inconvenience and loss.

In his appeal to the general assembly of Virginia, Mr. Clay manifested

unusual anxiety to protect the interests of the occupants of the soil,

in the state from which he was a delegate, and succeeded in awakening

a corresponding feeling of sympathy in the hearts of those whom he

addressed. He drew a vivid picture of the privations and hardships

which the settler had to encounter, placed him before them in the

attitude of bidding adieu to the ‘tombs and temples of his fathers,’

then followed him to the wilderness, and traced his toilsome progress,

step by step, until he brought him to the period when he began to reap

the reward of his labors. He exhibited him sitting at twilight in the

door of his comfortable tenement, looking out upon his broad enclosures,

the happy partner of his cares by his side, and his dear little ones

enjoying their innocent pastimes around him, and almost made them see

the heavings of his grateful heart, and the moistening of his eye, as

he surveyed the abundance of domestic bliss, and peace, and plenty,

which his industrious hand had gathered about him. This, said Mr. Clay,

is the bright side of the picture; now let us look at the dark; and

then, in his solemn, impressive, and inimitably graphic manner, with

a quivering lip, and a hand tremulous with emotion, he pointed to

the same group, yet he painted no happy look, he caused no shout

of sportive joy to ascend, but he rendered audible the deep sigh,

the suffocating sob, and piercing groan; he made almost visible the

furrowed brow of toil-worn manhood wet with the dew of despair, a

broken-hearted wife drowned in grief, surrounded by sorrowing childhood,

all fixing a last look upon a home dear to them as their lives, as they

were about to depart to rear a new abode in the uninviting wilderness.

This is no picture of a heated imagination, said Mr. Clay, it is

suggested by scenes of almost every day occurrence, and it is to

_prevent_ their occurrence that prompts us to attempt the adjustment

of these conflicting ‘land claims.’ Equity, humanity, and benevolence,

all urge this; they all mingle their voices of mercy, and beseech that

when the settler has by his honest and industrious efforts acquired

the comforts and blessings of social and domestic life, he shall be

permitted to enjoy them, and not be in danger of being dispossessed by

a prior claim to his domain, and of which he was ignorant. In one of

his most pathetic strains, he attempted to quote the affecting lines

of sir Walter Scott:

‘Lives there a heart so cold and dead,

That never to itself hath said――

This is my own, my native land!’

He commenced, but could not finish them; some words had escaped his

memory, but without the least hesitation he pressed his hand upon his

forehead a moment, in recalling them. All believed that this momentary

hesitation was caused by the recollections of other years, which were

swelling in his heart and checking utterance, and when he withdrew his

hand from his brow and cast his tearful eyes over the assembly, and

in his impassioned manner repeated the lines, there was one general

gushing of tears, as if all hearts had been melted beneath his look and

tone.

In the course of the year, Mr. Clay, in behalf of Kentucky, and B. W.

Leigh, Esq., in behalf of Virginia, met at Ashland, and concluded a

convention, which was ratified by the legislature of Kentucky, and by

the house of delegates of Virginia, but was rejected in her senate, by

a small majority.

Mr. Clay had now, during his three years absence from congress,

realized his wishes in repairing his pecuniary losses, and at the

earnest and repeated requests of his fellow citizens, accepted a

renomination, and was again elected without opposition a member of

the house of representatives.

In consequence of intense application to his professional duties,

Mr. Clay’s health had become materially impaired; indeed his life

was despaired of. During the summer of 1823, he had visited, without

receiving much benefit, the Olympian Springs, in Kentucky, and

submitted to a thorough course of medicine, but all remedial means

failed to arrest what appeared to be a gradual decline, which was

conducting him apparently rapidly to the period of his dissolution.

He began to think seriously, as a last resort, on going south to spend

the ensuing winter, but it was requisite for him to be in Washington

in November, and his own feelings inclined him to be there at the

commencement of the session, in case it were practicable. He finally,

after consulting with his friends, abandoned the prescriptions of his

physicians, procured a light carriage and a good saddle-horse, and

riding, driving, and walking, leisurely made his way to the seat of

government. When he reached Washington, he was nearly well.

At the opening of the eighteenth congress, on the first Monday of

December, 1823, Mr. Clay was elected speaker to the house, over Mr.

Barbour, of Virginia, the late speaker, by a vote of one hundred and

thirty-nine to forty-two. Shortly after his election, the following

beautiful _jeu d’esprit_ appeared in the National Intelligencer.

“As near the Potomac’s broad stream, t’other day,

Fair _Liberty_ strolled in solicitous mood,

Deep-pondering the future, unheeding her way,

She met goddess _Nature_ beside a green wood.

‘Good mother,’ she cried, ‘deign to help me at need!

I must make for my guardians a _Speaker_ to-day;

The first in the world I would give them.’ ‘Indeed!

When I made the first speaker, I made him of _Clay_.’”

Mr. Clay accepted the appointment in a brief but pertinent speech, in

which he gave a succinct view of the duties of the chair, and presented

the house his thanks for placing him in it.

In the course of the session, the subject of the Greek revolution

came before congress. Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, on the fifth of

December, introduced it to the house, in a resolution ‘providing by law

for defraying the expenses incident to the appointment of an agent or

commissioner to Greece, whenever the president shall deem it expedient

to make such appointment.’ This he sustained by a speech of great

power. Mr. Clay brought to its support the same feelings, the same

warm sympathies, and the same strength of argument that he had arrayed

round the subject of South American independence. They both fought

hard to procure the adoption of this resolution, but it was lost. The

struggling Greek, however, Mr. Clay never lost sight of, and when he

became secretary of state, succeeded in accomplishing that for them,

in which he was defeated now.

While the question of recognition was before the house, Mr. Clay was

violently assailed by a member from New Hampshire, recently arrived. It

was thought his motive in doing this was to bring himself into notice,

by attacking the most distinguished man in the house. He received

such a rebuke from Mr. Clay, administered with mingled feelings of

indignation and pity, as almost to wither his energies during the

remainder of the session.

It will be recollected, that during this session, the great tariff

measure was passed. An incident grew out of Mr. Clay’s exertions in

its behalf, which occasioned no little amusement in Washington, at the

time, and throughout Virginia. Mr. William B. Giles, since governor

of Virginia, on the appearance of Mr. Clay’s tariff speech, published

several articles entitled ‘The Golden Casket,’ in which he introduced

Mr. Clay’s name pretty often, and in no very courteous connection. The

articles were of course perused by Mr. Clay, who, aware of the foibles

of their author, took no serious offence thereat, but set to work to

manufacture amusement from them. He sat down in a comic mood one day,

and wrote Mr. Giles a long letter, complimenting him on the vigor of

his intellect, his great mental ability, and his accurate critical

acumen, but praising him especially for those qualities of which he

was utterly destitute. When it was completed, he showed it to Mr.

Archer, of Virginia, and several other friends, all of whom enjoyed it

immoderately, and urged him to send it to Mr. Giles, and accordingly

he sent it. As had been anticipated, the old gentleman devoured it

with the greatest gusto and satisfaction. It contained just what he

most desired――praise of his weakest traits of character. He read it

repeatedly, and at each successive reading his heart relented towards

the author, to such a degree as to cause him to observe, that had

he received the communication previous to the publication of his

‘_Casket_,’ he should not have spoken of Mr. Clay as he did in that

work. Shortly after, he exhibited this letter to some of his intimate

friends, to let them see in what high estimation he was held by the

great orator and statesman, but unfortunately nearly the first one who

read it, discovered the hoax played on him, and immediately circulated

it. Curiosity to see the letter now pervaded the whole community, and

some difference of opinion prevailed as to its true character. A few of

Mr. Giles’ friends expressed their belief that it had been written in

good faith, but most that it was intended for a joke at his expense.

Quite a violent dispute grew out of it; one party instigated by angry,

and the other by mirthful feelings. At length, Mr. Archer, who resided

in the same district with Mr. Giles, returned from congress, and the

true version of the matter was soon trumpeted through the community,

which caused unusual merriment. This was too much for Mr. Giles, who

sent his son, a lad of sixteen years of age, to demand an explanation

of Mr. Clay. He received the boy very civilly, who made known to Mr.

Clay the nature of his business, saying that he was commissioned by his

father to ask if he were the author of that letter, at the same time

exhibiting to him the famous epistle, and if he were, to demand his

motives in writing it. When he had concluded his interrogations, Mr.

Clay coolly replied, ‘tell your father that I shall make no explanation

to him through his own son. If he will employ a proper messenger, I

will render him another answer.’ The lad departed, and nothing more was

heard from Mr. Giles.

On the fifteenth of August, 1824, general Lafayette, the nation’s

guest, arrived at New York, and on the tenth of December following,

was introduced to the house of representatives by a select committee

appointed for the purpose, and was received by Mr. Clay, in an apposite

and beautiful address, of which the following is an extract. ‘The

vain wish has been sometimes indulged, that providence would allow the

patriot after death, to return to his country, and to contemplate the

intermediate change that had taken place, to view the forests felled,

the cities built, the mountains levelled, the canals cut, the highways

constructed, the progress of the arts, the advancement of learning, and

the increase of population. General, your present visit to the United

States, is a realization of the consoling object of that wish. You are

in the midst of posterity. Every where you must have been struck with

the great changes, physical and moral, which have occurred since you

left us. Even this city, bearing a venerated name, alike endeared to

you and to us, has since emerged from the forest which then covered

its site. In one respect you find us unaltered, and that is, in the

sentiment of continued devotion to liberty, and of ardent affection and

profound gratitude to your departed friend, the father of his country,

and to you, and to your illustrious associates in the field and the

cabinet, for the multiplied blessings which surround us, and for the

very privilege of addressing you, which I now exercise. This sentiment,

now fondly cherished by more than ten millions of people, will be

transmitted with unabated vigor, down the tide of time, through the

countless millions who are destined to inhabit this continent, to the

latest posterity.’

To this address, the general replied in a manner which evinced that

he had been most deeply affected by it; indeed, it was calculated to

thrill his heart with proud joy, conveying to him as it did a rich

tribute of gratitude from a mighty nation, expressed in the full,

silvery voice of sincerity and affection, whose every tone sank into

his soul with the power of a warm welcome. He contracted a strong

attachment for Mr. Clay, which existed to the day of his death.

At this period, Mr. Clay’s influence had reached a commanding

height. His control over the legislation of the United States,

was unquestionably greater than that of any other individual, not

even excepting the executive himself. Although Mr. Clay disagreed

with president Monroe on the great measures of national policy,

internal improvements, and the tariff, and also respecting the

mode of recognizing South American independence, still, the latter,

entertaining the most profound regard for his ability, and appreciating

the value of his services to his country, repeatedly offered him a seat

in his cabinet, and the choice of all the foreign missions. Justice

to Mr. Clay’s disinterested patriotism demands it to be recorded, that

his honest conviction, that he could be more serviceable to his country

by remaining in her popular assembly, than in representing her abroad,

was one of the most weighty motives which prevented him from planting

his foot upon one of the many stepping-stones, to place and power,

which the hand of executive favor had, unsolicited, laid before him.

The differences of opinion existing between him and Mr. Monroe, never

interrupted for a moment, the amicable relations of social intercourse

which they mutually maintained.

Towards the close of his second term, which expired in 1825, the

question of the next presidency was generally agitated. As candidates

for this office, Messrs. J. Q. Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay,

and William H. Crawford, had been brought forward by their respective

friends. As early as November, 1822, in a meeting of the members of the

legislature of Kentucky, Mr. Clay had been nominated to it, and a short

time after, he was nominated also in meetings of the members of the

legislatures of Missouri, Ohio, and Louisiana. Enthusiastic expressions,

approbating this nomination, issued from large assemblies throughout

the land, and as the period for the election approached, there were

many cheering indications that it would be carried in his favor. But

efforts were resorted to, not the most creditable to those who employed

them, for the purpose of defeating his election. About the commencement

of the canvass, reports were industriously circulated, calculated to

diminish his support. Among them was one announcing his withdrawal

from the contest, for which the unscrupulous exertions of many of his

opponents gained extensive credence, notwithstanding our late lamented

chief magistrate, and many other friends of Mr. Clay in Ohio, published

a counter report, declaring that he ‘_would not_ be withdrawn from the

contest but by the fiat of his Maker.’ The probabilities, however, of

his success, continued to increase, until the time of the choice of

electors in Louisiana, by the legislature of that state. In that body,

Mr. Clay’s popularity was such as to secure him the vote of the state;

this was evident from the fact of his nomination by it. The members of

the legislature friendly towards the other candidates, endeavored to

effect a compromise with those who supported Mr. Clay; but the latter,

aware of their strength, rejected it. The compromise proposed to give

him four of the five electoral votes to which the state was entitled,

which would have carried him into the house of representatives, to

the exclusion of Mr. Crawford, as one of the highest three candidates,

from which, according to the constitution, it would be obliged to

make a selection. Unfortunately, about the time when the state of

Louisiana made choice of her electors, three of Mr. Clay’s friends

became so seriously indisposed, as to preclude their attendance on the

legislature. This event furnished the friends of Mr. Adams and general

Jackson an opportunity to form a coälescence, which they eagerly

embraced, and divided the five votes so as to give the former three

and the latter two. This consequently excluded Mr. Clay from the

house, into which, had he gone, there is no doubt that his unbounded

popularity in that body would have secured his election to the office.

When, however, it became apparent, that no election of president would

be made by the people, with a nobleness and a nice sense of honor, so

characteristic of him, he resolved not to go into the house, but to

withdraw his name, and at a time too when the prospect was of his being

one of the highest three candidates. With great magnanimity, therefore,

he put into execution his resolution, assigning to several of his

intimate friends his reasons, among which was the belief, that by

his doing so, the choice would be more readily and pacifically made.

Such generous and self-sacrificing conduct, while it illustrates the

purity and strength of his patriotism, is worthy of all admiration and

commendation.

Near the close of December, 1824, the result of the canvass was

ascertained, by which it appeared that the three candidates returned to

the house, were Andrew Jackson, John Q. Adams, and W. H. Crawford, by

votes of ninety-nine, eighty-four, and forty-one.

Mr. Clay’s position now was exceedingly delicate as well as important.

He had it in his power, by placing himself at the head of the party

who went with him in the house, to control its choice of the three

candidates returned to it. This he well knew, as also their friends,

who beset him continually and in every possible manner, to secure his

influence in behalf of their favorite candidates. His predilection was

well known to his personal friends, but he sedulously refrained from

making it the basis of any caucusses or intrigues, which, knowing

the unhealthy excitement always generated by them, he desired to

avoid. During the several weeks immediately pending the election, the

warm partisans of the parties supporting Messrs. Jackson and Adams,

approached him in the most obsequious manner, expressing the deepest

regret that he had not been returned to the house, and lavished on him

the most fulsome flatteries and mawkish caresses. After trying these

for some time ineffectually, finding the more than Roman firmness of

the statesman unmoved by them, they attempted to _coërce_ him into

a compliance with their wishes, and the most unprincipled attempts

were made to accomplish this. He was attacked through the medium

of anonymous letters incessantly, filled with abusive and menacing

language. These arrived almost hourly, from every part of the country;

indeed, the enginery of compulsion discharged their missiles at him

from every fortress of his political opponents, in the hope of making

him espouse their cause. Vain hope! A foolish waste of power, as they

might have known. It were easier for the infant of a day with his puny

hand to bow the oak of a thousand years, than for the combined efforts

of his enemies to cause him to yield an inch of the high ground he had

taken. In writing to a friend, he thus alludes to the blandishments and

brow-beatings which he received at this time. Of the former, he said,

‘I am enjoying whilst alive, the posthumous honors which are usually

awarded to the illustrious dead;’ and of the latter, he remarked. ‘I

bore them, I trust, as _your representative_ ought to have borne them,

and as became me.’ But the _basest_ attempts which they made, one which

capped the climax of their depraved assaults, and which was intended

to fix the foul stigma of disgrace indelibly upon their victim, was

embraced by a letter published in a Philadelphia newspaper, called the

‘Columbian Observer.’ Without any preamble, this charged Mr. Clay with

the deliberate intention of _selling his vote to the highest bidder_.

This letter purported to have been written by a member of congress

from Pennsylvania, and declared that the terms of a contract had been

settled, which gave Mr. Clay the secretaryship, for which he was to

bring his influence to bear in electing Mr. Adams. This allegation,

the former lost no time in denying, in a communication published in the

National Intelligencer, over his own signature, in which he pronounces

the author of the letter ‘a base and infamous calumniator,’ and called

upon him, whoever he might be, to come out boldly, avow and sustain

the charge. This was answered a few days after, by a member of congress

from Pennsylvania, Mr. George Kremer, who admitted himself the author,

and also his readiness to substantiate his assertions in relation to

the character of Mr. Clay. Subsequent developements have made it more

than probable that Kremer did _not_ write the epistle in question, his

declaration to the contrary notwithstanding, but that it was written by

the individual who sustained the ‘Columbian Observer,’ John H. Eaton,

and the latter did not deny the authorship, although Mr. Clay directly

charged him with it. The evidence elicited was such as to show Mr.

Kremer’s entire passivity in the whole matter――a mere machine, moved

by the hands of the vile plotters behind the scene, made to speak and

act as they directed, and caused to father the villainous slander,

which was generated amid the slime of their hearts, as destitute

of honor and patriotism as the icebergs of Greenland of verdure.

This supple tool had the frankness (to his credit be it spoken,) to

acknowledge afterwards to Mr. Crowninshield, a member of congress from

Massachusetts, that he _was not_ the originator or author of it.