[SINCE the decease of the distinguished subject of these memoirs,
several of his letters (some of which were never intended
for the public eye) have found their way into the newspapers.
As a laudable curiosity exists to know the general style of
his correspondence, a few letters are subjoined, which will
afford a pretty correct idea of the easy and familiar manner
of his intercourse with personal friends. The unreserved manner
in which he expresses his opinions upon topics which were
commanding attention at the time, may be regarded as peculiarly
one of his prominent characteristics, and one, too, which few
individuals in political life seem anxious to emulate.――The
first three letters were addressed to Robert Walsh, Jr., Esq.,
formerly editor of the _National Gazette_, but of late years the
Paris correspondent of the New York _Journal of Commerce_, in
which paper they originally appeared.]
“WASHINGTON, 6th September, 1817.
“MY DEAR SIR: Having seen the second volume of the Register at Mr.
D. Brent’s, I was about to inquire at the book-stores for it, when a
copy was left at my house, I did not know how, until I received your
obliging favor of the 29th ulto. Although it found me engaged in an
interesting course of reading, I did not hesitate to interrupt the
progress of my studies, to peruse your introductory discourse.
“I was much gratified in perceiving that you had undertaken the
vindication of the captors of Andre, from the most indiscreet and
unfounded attack of Col. Talmage. Rarely, if ever, whilst presiding
in the H. of R., was I so much shocked as when he made it. It was
so unnecessary, so unjust, and, I thought, was so much the result of
a wish, on the part of the accuser, to announce _his_ participation
in the concern of which he spoke. I really felt so transported with
indignation, on the occasion, that I found myself, at one time,
involuntarily rising from the Speaker’s chair, in defence of those
injured men. I then wished that congress would guard against the
unfavorable inference, which the future historian might possibly draw,
from a rejection of their petition, by allowing them the solicited
augmentation of their pensions; and I still regret it was not done.
“I do not agree with all that you have said respecting the famous
Compensation Act. The form was always objectionable with me, and I
still think the per diem mode preferable. In England, formerly, the
members of the H. of Commons received _wages_, (that was the technical
term applied to the allowance to the members,) which were paid by
the boroughs, &c., that elected them. When the country had increased
in wealth, and Parliament had obtained greater political importance,
opulent men offered to serve, without pay, and then the receipt of
wages was gradually discontinued and finally abolished. In that country,
of small territorial extent, where the aristocratic feature of the
government and the consequent entails which exist on estates, will
always keep up large fortunes, there never can be any considerable
inconvenience in attending Parliament. But, you know, to attend that
body is in fact, with the mass of the members, to be present only
three or four times every session, when the great questions come up.
Generally throughout the session there are not more than from fifty
to one hundred members in attendance. But even in England, formerly so
great, occasionally, was the reluctance to submit to the inconvenience
of attending Parliament, that instances have occurred of compulsory
attendance.
“Every thing is otherwise here. We have happily no aristocracy, and no
device for keeping estates in the possession of the same family for any
length of time. The powerful operation of our statutes of distribution
scatters the accumulated wealth of industry or of avarice. Fortunes are
small, in the general, and will always continue so, whilst our present
institutions exist. Our territory is of immense extent. The consequence
is that he who happens to be a member of congress from a great distance,
has to make vast and often ruinous sacrifices. Our government is yet
in its infancy, and the novelty of the situation, the great excitement
of the times, and other causes may have prevented us heretofore
from experiencing much difficulty in getting competent members to
serve. Young, however, as we are, and short as has been my service
in the public councils, I have seen some of the most valuable members
quitting the body, from their inability to sustain the weight of those
sacrifices. And in process of time I apprehend this mischief will
be more and more felt. Even now there are few, if any instances, of
members dedicating their lives to the duties of legislation. Members
stay a year or two, curiosity is satisfied, the novelty wears off;
expensive habits are brought or are acquired; their affairs at home
are neglected; their fortunes are wasting away, and they are compelled
to retire. There are no sacrifices too great for one to make, when
necessary, for his country.
“You say that the competition would be too much if the compensation
were high. Every demagogue would aspire to the honor. Our form of
government, however, supposes a competence on the part of the electors
to discriminate and to choose. And depend upon it that, in the general,
in any such common scrambling as you suppose, talents and virtue will
prevail. To suppose that they would not, is to arraign our system.
But if there be danger arising from too much competition, the result
of high pay, is there not on the other hand, equal or greater danger
from insufficient competition, the result of inadequate pay? I
confess that I would much rather see every man in the congressional
district, aspiring to the honor of representing it, than to see such
an arrangement of the pay, that only one or two persons could face the
expense and sacrifice incident to a seat.
“Do you not press the subject of Bonaparte too far? Fallen and captive,
has he not some claim upon the magnanimity not only of his conquerors,
but, during his imprisonment, upon cotemporary authors also? England
has shown him none. All posterity will, I think, condemn her surrender
of him to the allies, and her concurrence in his exile to St. Helena.
Chatham, or Fox, or even Pitt, would have permitted him, as he
desired, to remain in England. Is it not to be apprehended that any
animadversions upon him, at the present time, will indirectly conduce
to sanction the principles of legitimacy and the conduct of the allies?
“I ought to apologize for the unintended length of my letter. I do not
often turn over the first side of the paper, and can only say that my
having offended, in this instance, has proceeded from the respect and
consideration in which you are held by
“Yours, faithfully and cordially,
“H. CLAY.
“R. WALSH, JR., ESQ.”
* * * * *
[CONFIDENTIAL.]
“WASHINGTON, 18th Feb. ’25.
“DEAR SIR: I thank you for your prompt attention to the paragraph which
I sent you, and for your friendly letter.
“You did not like my Kremer Card. I was not surprised, but hear me. I
was assailed from all quarters. The cannon of every man who would now,
or four or eight years hence, be President, (except that of Mr. A.,)
was directed against me. I heard it all, and saw every movement. I
should have disregarded it, whilst the attack assumed the ordinary form
of anonymous or even editorial commentary. But when a person was so far
designated as to be elected to be a _member_ of the H. of R. belonging
to the _Pennsylvania_ delegation, it assumed a tangible shape. A crisis
arose in my poor affairs. Silence and criminality would have been the
same. And it seemed to me that I was called upon to take a step even
of apparent rashness. I ought to have omitted the last sentence in the
Card; but as to the rest, I yet approve of it. And still the reason,
the philosophy, the religion of no man more decidedly condemns duelling
than, I hope I may say, mine does. The corrective of that pernicious
practice must be found in communities, not in individuals, at least
in such humble ones as I am. When the public shall cease to stamp with
dishonor the man who tamely submits to injurious imputations, duels
will cease. I hope the sequel of that affair was more satisfactory to
the northern public.
“I have consented to go into the department of state, after much
deliberation. They will abuse me for it. They would have abused me more
if I had declined it. I shall carry into it zeal and industry only.
The other departments which are vacant by Mr. Calhoun’s election to the
V. P., and Mr. Crawford’s retirement, remain to be filled, but I am not
at liberty to indicate their probable incumbents.
“An opposition is threatened; but there is no danger of any, unless the
course of the Administration shall furnish just occasion for it, which
we shall strive to prevent. What is now threatened, is the offspring of
chagrin and disappointment. What will they oppose? If we go right, that
will not, is it to be hoped, make them go wrong. An impartial trial
and a just verdict are all that is demanded, and that the country will
render, whatever the hopes of faction may inspire.
“I am, with great regard,
“Faithfully yours,
“H. CLAY.
“ROBERT WALSH, JR., ESQ.”
* * * * *
“WASHINGTON, 25th April, 1836.
“DEAR SIR: I duly received your favor of the 18th inst. You do me the
favor to desire an adequate notion of my services and views whilst
I was in the department of state. I regret that the bad state of my
health, and my various public duties here oblige me to be very brief.
“Besides the discharge of the current duties of the office, I
negotiated various treaties. Some of these (those for example with
Austria and Mexico) were agreed upon, but not actually signed, and were
subsequently concluded in the name of the succeeding administration.
“In the treaty with Central America was first introduced the great
principle, that the national and foreign vessels should be equally
allowed to introduce into their respective countries merchandize
without regard to its _origin_. The principle had been adopted in the
convention with England of 1815, negotiated by Messrs. Adams, Gallatin
and me, of permitting the vessels of the two countries to import the
productions of the _two countries_, on terms of entire equality; but
it was restricted to the productions of G. B. and the U. S. It did not
admit of an English vessel importing into the U. S. the produce of any
country other than G. B., nor _vice versa_. By the treaty with Central
America, which I negotiated, on the contrary, an American vessel may
carry into its ports the produce of any country of the four quarters of
the world, on the same terms as it can be imported by a national vessel,
and _vice versa_. This has been a model treaty, which has been followed
in several treaties afterwards negotiated.
“My instructions to Mr. Brown on our claims against France cost me much
labor, and were favorably thought of by others.
“But my great work was the preparation of the instructions intended
for our commissioners who were to meet first at Panama and afterwards
at Tacubaya. If you could take the trouble to read them, you would
obtain a better conception of my views than any I can now give you,
as to the liberal basis on which the commerce of the world should be
placed. I there argue and endeavor to have established the principle
that _private_ property on the ocean shall enjoy the same safety and
protection to which it is entitled on land. And all the maritime
principles in favor of free trade, against spurious blockades, &c.,
for which we had so long and so earnestly contended, are sought to be
established at the proposed congress.
“These instructions are almost exclusively my sole work. Without
consulting any body particularly, I engaged in their preparation, and
afterwards submitted the draft of them to the President and his Cabinet.
They run into about eighty pages of manuscript, and I do not think
that the alterations which, on the scrutiny of these gentlemen, they
underwent, amounted altogether to one page; and these related chiefly
to the projected connexion between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. I
was disposed to go a little farther than my colleagues.
“The relations in which I stood to the Diplomatic Corps, during the
whole of Mr. Adams’s administration, and to every member of it, were
of the most cordial and friendly character. It was impossible, I think,
that business could have been transacted more satisfactorily to all
parties. I have reason to believe, that up to this moment, the members
of that corps who were associated with me, retain lively recollections
of our amicable feelings and intercourse.
“I will not dwell on this subject: but must refer you, for any
deficiencies, to my public acts and the transactions of the day.
“I will add that I introduced into the Department, as vacancies
from time to time occurred, (I created none) some most accomplished
assistants, several of whom were found to be so necessary that they
escaped the general proscription.
“I think it very probable that your feelings towards me have been
sometimes misunderstood and misrepresented. Certainly, in our personal
intercourse, I never discovered any evidence of hostility or prejudice.
Candor obliges me to say that I have sometimes seen in your paper
what I thought bore testimony of an inimical spirit; but your frank
assurance now convinces me that I was mistaken. We have been in
the midst, during these late years, of the most exciting scenes in
our public affairs. I do not much underrate the power which I was
opposing――certainly not its disastrous tendency. I felt that I was
struggling for the country, for its civil liberty, its institutions,
its prosperity, its value. I felt that I had a good title to the
support of all honorable and intelligent men. Perhaps I have been
sometimes too sensitive, when I thought that support was not yielded,
and have censured too hastily when I supposed a measure of zeal in the
public cause was not displayed by others equal to my own. With best
wishes for your health and prosperity, I am
“Your friend and obedient servant,
“H. CLAY.
“R. WALSH, ESQ.”
* * * * *
[The following private letter was written to several political
friends in the state of New York, who wrote to Mr. Clay in 1844
on the subject of emancipating his slaves. They expressed their
high admiration of his character, their pleasure on learning
that he had given freedom to his man Charles, and their desire
that he would extend the same boon to all those who still
remained on his hands. He replied as follows:]
ASHLAND, 8 Jan., 1845.
_Gentlemen_,――I have perused your friendly letter in the spirit in
which it was written. I am glad that the emancipation of my servant
Charles, meets your approbation. A degree of publicity has been given
to the fact, which I neither expected nor desired. I am not in the
habit of making any parade of my domestic transactions, but since
you have adverted to one of them, I will say that I had previously
emancipated Charles’ mother and sister, and acquiesced in his father’s
voluntary abandonment of my service, who lives with his wife near me.
Charles continues to reside with me, and the effect of his freedom is
no other than that of substituting fixed wages, which I now pay to him,
for the occasional allowances and gratuities which I gave him.
You express a wish that I would emancipate the residue of my slaves.
Of these more than half are utterly incapable of supporting themselves,
from infancy, old age, or helplessness. They are in families. What
would they do if I were to send them forth on the world? Such a measure
would be extremely cruel instead of humane. Our law does not admit of
emancipation, without security being given that the freed slave shall
not be a public charge.
In truth, gentlemen, the question of my emancipating the slaves yet
remaining with me, evolves many considerations of duty, relation and
locality, of which, without meaning any disrespect to you, I think
you are hardly competent to judge. At all events, I, who alone am
responsible to the world, to God, and to my conscience, must reserve
to myself the exclusive judgment.
I firmly believe that the cause of the extinction of negro slavery, far
from being advanced, has been retarded by the agitation of the subject
at the North. This remark is not intended for those who, like you, are
moved by benevolent impulses, and do not seek to gratify personal or
political ambition.
I am, with great respect,
Your friend and obedient servant,
H. CLAY.
Footnotes.
1 – In one of the many speeches which he made during his
journey, he thus alludes to the tenderness with which he
was treated. ‘I was taken into custody, made captive of,
but placed withal in such _delightful bondage_, that I
could find no strength and no desire to break away from
it.’