DEBATE BETWEEN MR. CLAY AND MR. CALHOUN, PERSONAL AND POLITICAL,
AND LEADING TO EXPOSITIONS AND VINDICATIONS OF PUBLIC CONDUCT
WHICH BELONG TO HISTORY.
For seven years past Mr. Calhoun, while disclaiming connection
with any party, had acted on leading measures with the opposition,
headed by Messrs. Clay and Webster. Still disclaiming any such
connection, he was found at the extra session co-operating with
the administration. His co-operation with the opposition had given
it the victory in many eventful contests in that long period;
his co-operation with the Van Buren administration might turn
the tide of victory. The loss or gain of a chief who in a nearly
balanced state of parties, could carry victory to the side which
he espoused, was an event not to be viewed without vexation by
the party which he left. Resentment was as natural on one side as
gratification was on the other. The democratic party had made no
reproaches--(I speak of the debates in Congress)--when Mr. Calhoun
left them; they debated questions with him as if there had been no
cause for personal complaint. Not so with the opposition now when
the course of his transit was reversed, and the same event occurred
to themselves. They took deeply to heart this withdrawal of one of
their leaders, and his appearance on the other side. It created
a feeling of personal resentment against Mr. Calhoun which had
manifested itself in several small side-blows at the extra session;
and it broke out into systematic attack at the regular one. Some
sharp passages took place between himself and Mr. Webster, but not
of a kind to lead to any thing historical. He (Mr. Webster) was
but slightly inclined towards that kind of speaking which mingles
personality with argument, and lessens the weight of the adversary
argument by reducing the weight of the speaker's character. Mr.
Clay had a turn that way; and, certainly, a great ability for it.
Invective, mingled with sarcasm, was one of the phases of his
oratory. He was supreme at a _philippic_ (taken in the sense of
Demosthenes and Cicero), where the political attack on a public
man's measure was to be enforced and heightened by a personal attack
on his conduct. He owed much of his fascinating power over his
hearers to the exercise of this talent--always so captivating in a
popular assembly, and in the galleries of the Senate; not so much
so in the Senate itself; and to him it naturally fell to become the
organ of the feelings of his party towards Mr. Calhoun. And very
cordially, and carefully, and amply, did he make preparation for it.
The storm had been gathering since September: it burst in February.
It had been evidently waiting for an occasion: and found it in the
first speech of Mr. Calhoun, of that session, in favor of Mr. Van
Buren's recommendation for an independent treasury and a federal
hard-money currency. This speech was delivered the 15th of February,
and was strictly argumentative and parliamentary, and wholly
confined to its subject. Four days thereafter Mr. Clay answered it;
and although ready at an extemporaneous speech, he had the merit,
when time permitted, of considering well both the matter and the
words of what he intended to deliver. On this occasion he had had
ample time; for the speech of Mr. Calhoun could not be essentially
different from the one he delivered on the same subject at the
extra session; and the personal act which excited his resentment
was of the same date. There had been six months for preparation;
and fully had preparation been made. The whole speech bore the
impress of careful elaboration and especially the last part; for
it consisted of two distinct parts--the first, argumentative, and
addressed to the measure before the Senate: and was in fact, as
well as in name, a reply. The second part was an attack, under the
name of a reply, and was addressed to the personal conduct of Mr.
Calhoun, reproaching him with his desertion (as it was called),
and taunting him with the company he had got into--taking care to
remind him of his own former sad account of that company: and then,
launching into a wider field, he threw up to him all the imputed
political delinquencies of his life for near twenty years--skipping
none from 1816 down to the extra session;--although he himself had
been in close political friendship with this alleged delinquent
during the greater part of that long time. Mr. Calhoun saw at once
the advantage which this general and sweeping assault put into his
hands. Had the attack been confined to the mere circumstance of
quitting one side and joining the other, it might have been treated
as a mere personality; and, either left unnoticed, or the account
settled at once with some ready words of retort and justification.
But in going beyond the act which gave the offence--beyond the
cause of resentment, which was recent, and arraigning a member on
the events of almost a quarter of a century of public life, he
went beyond the limits of the occasion, and gave Mr. Calhoun the
opportunity of explaining, or justifying, or excusing all that
had ever been objected to him; and that with the sympathy in the
audience with which attack for ever invests the rights of defence.
He saw his advantage, and availed himself of it. Though prompt at a
reply, he chose to make none in a hurry. A pause ensued Mr. Clay's
conclusion, every one deferring to Mr. Calhoun's right of reply. He
took the floor, but it was only to say that he would reply at his
leisure to the senator from Kentucky.
He did reply, and at his own good time, which was at the end of
twenty days; and in a way to show that he had "smelt the lamp," not
of Demades, but of Demosthenes, during that time. It was profoundly
meditated and elaborately composed: the matter solid and condensed;
the style chaste, terse and vigorous; the narrative clear; the
logic close; the sarcasm cutting: and every word bearing upon the
object in view. It was a masterly oration, and like Mr. Clay's
speech, divided into two parts; but the second part only seemed
to occupy his feelings, and bring forth words from the heart as
well as from the head. And well it might! He was speaking, not
for life, but for character! and defending public character, in
the conduct which makes it, and on high points of policy, which
belonged to history--defending it before posterity and the present
age, impersonated in the American Senate, before which he stood,
and to whom he appealed as judges while invoking as witnesses.
He had a high occasion, and he felt it; a high tribunal to plead
before, and he rejoiced in it; a high accuser, and he defied him;
a high stake to contend for, his own reputation: and manfully,
earnestly, and powerfully did he defend it. He had a high example
both in oratory, and in the analogies of the occasion, before him;
and well had he looked into that example. I happened to know that
in this time he refreshed his reading of the Oration on the Crown;
and, as the delivery of his speech showed, not without profit.
Besides its general cast, which was a good imitation, there were
passages of a vigor and terseness--of a power and simplicity--which
would recall the recollection of that masterpiece of the oratory
of the world. There were points of analogy in the cases as well
as in the speeches, each case being that of one eminent statesman
accusing another, and before a national tribunal, and upon the
events of a public life. More happy than the Athenian orator, the
American statesman had no foul imputations to repel. Different from
Æschines and Demosthenes, both himself and Mr. Clay stood above
the imputation of corrupt action or motive. If they had faults,
and what public man is without them? they were the faults of lofty
natures--not of sordid souls; and they looked to the honors of their
country--not its plunder--for their fair reward.
When Mr. Calhoun finished, Mr. Clay instantly arose, and
rejoined--his rejoinder almost entirely directed to the personal
part of the discussion, which from its beginning had been the
absorbing part. Much stung by Mr. Calhoun's reply, who used the
sword as well as the buckler, and with a keen edge upon it, he was
more animated and sarcastic in the rejoinder than in the first
attack. Mr. Calhoun also rejoined instantly. A succession of brief
and rapid rejoinders took place between them (chiefly omitted in
this work), which seemed running to infinity, when Mr. Calhoun,
satisfied with what he had done, pleasantly put an end to it by
saying, he saw the senator from Kentucky was determined to have
the last word; and he would yield it to him. Mr. Clay, in the same
spirit, disclaimed that desire; and said no more. And thus the
exciting debate terminated with more courtesy than that with which
it had been conducted.
In all contests of this kind there is a feeling of violated decorum
which makes each party solicitous to appear on the defensive, and
for that purpose to throw the blame of commencing on the opposite
side. Even the one that palpably throws the first stone is yet
anxious to show that it was a defensive throw; or at least provoked
by previous wrong. Mr. Clay had this feeling upon him, and knew that
the _onus_ of making out a defensive case fell upon him; and he
lost no time in endeavoring to establish it. He placed his defence
in the forepart of the attack. At the very outset of the personal
part of his speech he attended to this essential preliminary, and
found the justification, as he believed, in some expressions of Mr.
Calhoun in his sub-treasury speech; and in a couple of passages
in a letter he had written on a public occasion, after his return
from the extra session--commonly called the Edgefield letter. In
the speech he believed he found a reproach upon the patriotism of
himself and friends in not following his (Mr. Calhoun's) "_lead_"
in support of the administration financial and currency measures;
and in the letter, an impeachment of the integrity and patriotism
of himself and friends if they got into power; and also an avowal
that his change of sides was for selfish considerations. The first
reproach, that of lack of patriotism in not following Mr. Calhoun's
lead, he found it hard to locate in any definite part of the
speech; and had to rest it upon general expressions. The others,
those founded upon passages in the letter, were definitely quoted;
and were in these terms: "_I could not back and sustain those in
such opposition in whose wisdom, firmness and patriotism I had no
reason to confide."--"It was clear, with our joint forces (whigs
and nullifiers) we could utterly overthrow and demolish them; but
it was not less clear that the victory would enure, not to us, but
exclusively to the benefit of our allies, and their cause._" These
passages were much commented upon, especially in the rejoinders; and
the whole letter produced by Mr. Calhoun, and the meaning claimed
for them fully stated by him.
In the speeches for and against the crown we see Demosthenes
answering what has not been found in the speech of Eschines: the
same anomaly took place in this earnest debate, as reported between
Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun. The latter answers much which is not found
in the published speech to which he is replying. It gave rise to
some remark between the speakers during the rejoinders. Mr. Calhoun
said he was replying to the speech as spoken. Mr. Clay said it was
printed under his supervision--as much as to say he sanctioned the
omissions. The fact is, that with a commendable feeling, he had
softened some parts, and omitted others; for that which is severe
enough in speaking, becomes more so in writing; and its omission
or softening is a tacit retraction, and honorable to the cool
reflection which condemns what passion, or heat, had prompted. But
Mr. Calhoun did not accept the favor: and, neither party desiring
quarter, the one answered what had been dropt, and the other
re-produced it, with interest. In his rejoinders, Mr. Clay supplied
all that had been omitted--and made additions to it.
This contest between two eminent men, on a theatre so elevated, in
which the stake to each was so great, and in which each did his
best, conscious that the eye of the age and of posterity was upon
him, was an event in itself, and in their lives. It abounded with
exemplifications of all the different sorts of oratory of which
each was master: on one side--declamation, impassioned eloquence,
vehement invective, taunting sarcasm: on the other--close reasoning,
chaste narrative, clear statement, keen retort. Two accessories
of such contests (disruptions of friendships), were missing,
and well--the pathetic and the virulent. There was no crying, or
blackguarding in it--nothing like the weeping scene between Fox and
Burke, when the heart overflowed with tenderness at the recollection
of former love, now gone forever; nor like the virulent one when the
gall, overflowing with bitterness, warned an ancient friend never to
return as a spy to the camp which he had left as a deserter.
There were in the speeches of each some remarkable passages, such
only as actors in the scenes could furnish, and which history will
claim. Thus: Mr. Clay gave some inside views of the concoction
of the famous compromise act of 1833; which, so far as they go,
correspond with the secret history of the same concoction as given
in one of the chapters on that subject in the first volume of this
work. Mr. Clay's speech is also remarkable for the declaration
that the protective system, which he so long advocated, was never
intended to be permanent: that its only design was to give temporary
encouragement to infant manufactures: and that it had fulfilled its
mission. Mr. Calhoun's speech was also remarkable for admitting
the power, and the expediency of incidental protection, as it was
called; and on this ground he justified his support of the tariff
of 1816--so much objected against him. He also gave his history
of the compromise of 1833, attributing it to the efficacy of
nullification and of the military attitude of South Carolina: which
brought upon him the relentless sarcasm of Mr. Clay; and occasioned
his explanation of his support of a national bank in 1816. He was
chairman of the committee which reported the charter for that bank,
and gave it the support which carried it through; with which he
was reproached after he became opposed to the bank. He explained
the circumstances under which he gave that support--such as I had
often heard him state in conversation; and which always appeared
to me to be sufficient to exempt him from reproach. At the same
time (and what is but little known), he had the merit of opposing,
and probably of defeating, a far more dangerous bank--one of fifty
millions (equivalent to one hundred and twenty millions now),
and founded almost wholly upon United States stocks--imposingly
recommended to Congress by the then secretary of the Treasury, Mr.
Alexander J. Dallas. The analytical mind of Mr. Calhoun, then one
of the youngest members, immediately solved this monster proposition
into its constituent elements; and his power of generalization
and condensation, enabled him to express its character in two
words--_lending our credit to the bank for nothing, and borrowing
it back at six per cent. interest_. As an alternative, and not
as a choice, he supported the national bank that was chartered,
after twice defeating the monster bank of fifty millions founded
on paper; for that monster was twice presented to Congress, and
twice repulsed. The last time it came as a currency measure--as a
bank to create a national currency; and as such was referred to a
select committee on national currency, of which Mr. Calhoun was
chairman. He opposed it, and fell into the support of the bank
which was chartered. Strange that in this search for a national
bank, the currency of the constitution seemed to enter no one's
head. The revival of the gold currency was never suggested; and in
that oblivion of gold, and still hunting a substitute in paper, the
men who put down the first national bank did their work much less
effectually that those who put down the second one.
The speech of each of these senators, so far as they constitute
the personal part of the debate, will be given in a chapter of its
own: the rejoinders being brief, prompt, and responsive each to
the other, will be put together in another chapter. The speeches
of each, having been carefully prepared and elaborated, may be
considered as fair specimens of their speaking powers--the style
of each different, but each a first class speaker in the branch of
oratory to which he belonged. They may be read with profit by those
who would wish to form an idea of the style and power of these
eminent orators. Manner, and all that is comprehended under the head
of delivery, is a different attribute; and there Mr. Clay had an
advantage, which is lost in transferring the speech to paper. Some
of Mr. Calhoun's characteristics of manner may be seen in these
speeches. He eschewed the studied exordiums and perorations, once
so much in vogue, and which the rhetorician's rules teach how to
make. A few simple words to announce the beginning, and the same to
show the ending of his speech, was about as much as he did in that
way; and in that departure from custom he conformed to what was
becoming in a business speech, as his generally were; and also to
what was suitable to his own intellectual style of speaking. He also
eschewed the trite, familiar, and unparliamentary mode (which of
late has got into vogue) of referring to a senator as, "my friend,"
or, "the distinguished," or, "the eloquent," or, "the honorable,"
&c. He followed the written rule of parliamentary law; which is
also the clear rule of propriety, and referred to the member by his
sitting-place in the Senate, and the State from which he came. Thus:
"the senator from Kentucky who sits farthest from me;" which was a
sufficient designation to those present, while for the absent, and
for posterity the name (Mr. Clay) would be put in brackets. He also
addressed the body by the simple collective phrase, "senators;"
and this was, not accident, or fancy, but system, resulting from
convictions of propriety; and he would allow no reporter to alter it.
Mr. Calhoun laid great stress upon his speech in this debate, as
being the vindication of his public life; and declared, in one of
his replies to Mr. Clay, that he rested his public character upon
it, and desired it to be read by those who would do him justice. In
justice to him, and as being a vindication of several measures of
his mentioned in this work, not approvingly, a place is here given
to it.
This discussion between two eminent men, growing out of support
and opposition to the leading measures of Mr. Van Buren's
administration, indissolubly connects itself with the passage of
those measures; and gives additional emphasis and distinction to the
era of the crowning policy which separated bank and state--made the
government the keeper of its own money--repulsed paper money from
the federal treasury--filled the treasury to bursting with solid
gold; and did more for the prosperity of the country than any set of
measures from the foundation of the government.