Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: April 12, 1865

Warm and cloudy.

Gen. Weitzel publishes an order to-day, requiring all ministers who have prayed for the President of the Confederate States to pray hereafter for the President of the United States. He will not allow them to omit the prayer.

In answer to my application for permission to take my family to the Eastern Shore of Virginia, where among their relations and friends shelter and food may be had, Brevet Brig.-Gen. Ludlow indorsed: "Disallowed-as none but loyal people, who have taken the oath, are permitted to reside on the Eastern Shore of Virginia." This paper I left at Judge Campbell's residence (he was out) for his inspection, being contrary in spirit to the terms he is represented to have said would be imposed on us.

At 1 P.M. Another 100 guns were fired in Capitol Square, in honor, I suppose, of the surrender of JOHNSTON's army. I must go and see.

Captain Warner is still in prison, and no one is allowed to visit him, I learn.

Three P.M. Saw Judge Campbell, who will lay my paper before the military authorities for reconsideration to-morrow. He thinks they have acted unwisely. I said to him that a gentleman's word was better than an enforced oath—and that if persecution and confiscation are to follow, instead of organized armies we shall have bands of assassins everywhere in the field, and the stiletto and the torch will take the place of the sword and the musket-and there can be no solid reconstruction, etc. He says he told the Confederate States authorities months ago that the cause had failed, but they would not listen. He said he had telegraphed something to Lieut.-Gen. Grant to-day.

The salute some say was in honor of Johnston's surrender—others say it was for Lee's—and others of Clay's birthday.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 475-6

John J. Crittenden’s Address on the Life and Death of Henry Clay, Delivered at Louisville, September 29, 1852

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,—I am very sensible of the difficulty and magnitude of the task which I have undertaken.

I am to address you in commemoration of the public services of HENRY CLAY, and in celebration of his obsequies. His death filled his whole country with mourning, and the loss of no citizen, save the Father of his Country, has ever produced such manifestations of the grief and homage of the public heart. His history has indeed been read "in a nation's eyes." A nation's tears proclaim, with their silent eloquence, its sense of the national loss. Kentucky has more than a common share in this national bereavement. To her it is a domestic grief,—to her belongs the sad privilege of being the chief mourner. He was her favorite son, her pride, and her glory. She mourns for him as a mother. But let her not mourn as those who have no hope or consolation. She can find the richest and the noblest solace in the memory of her son, and of his great and good actions; and his fame will come back, like a comforter, from his grave, to wipe away her tears. Even while she weeps for him, her tears shall be mingled with the proud feelings of triumph which his name will inspire; and Old Kentucky, from the depths of her affectionate and heroic heart, shall exclaim, like the Duke of Ormond, when informed that his brave son had fallen in battle, "I would not exchange my dead son for any living son in Christendom." From these same abundant sources we may hope that the widowed partner of his life, who now sits in sadness at Ashland, will derive some pleasing consolations. I presume not to offer any words of comfort of my own. Her grief is too sacred to permit me to use that privilege. You, sons and daughters of Kentucky, have assembled here to commemorate his life and death. How can I address you suitably on such a theme? I feel the oppressive consciousness that I cannot do it in terms adequate to the subject, or to your excited feelings. I am no orator, nor have I come here to attempt any idle or vainglorious display of words; I come as a plain Kentuckian, who, sympathizing in all your feelings, presents you with this address, as his poor offering, to be laid upon that altar which you are here erecting to the memory of Henry Clay. Let it not be judged according to its own value, but according to the spirit in which it is offered. It would be no difficult task to address you on this occasion in the extravagant and rhetorical language that is usual in funeral orations; but my subject deserves a different treatment—the monumental name of Henry Clay rises above all mere personal favor and flattery; it rejects them, and challenges the scrutiny and the judgment of the world. The noble uses to which his name should be applied, are to teach his country, by his example, lessons of public virtue and political wisdom; to teach patriots and statesmen how to act, how to live, and how to die. I can but glance at a subject that spreads out in such bright and boundless expanse before me.

Henry Clay lived in a most eventful period, and the history of his life for forty years has been literally that of his country. He was so identified with the government for more than two-thirds of its existence, that, during that time, hardly any act which has redounded to its honor, its prosperity, its present rank among the nations of the earth, can be spoken of without calling to mind involuntarily the lineaments of his noble person. It would be difficult to determine whether in peace or in war, in the field of legislation or of diplomacy, in the springtide of his life, or in its golden ebb, he won the highest honor. It can be no disparagement to any one of his contemporaries to say that, in all the points of practical statesmanship, he encountered no superior in any of the employments which his constituents or his country conferred upon him.

For the reason that he had been so much and so constantly in the public eye, an elaborate review of his life will not be expected of me. All that I shall attempt will be to sketch a few leading traits, which may serve to give those who have had fewer opportunities of observation than I have had something like a just idea of his public character and services. If, in doing this, I speak more at large of the earlier than of the later periods of his life, it is because, in regard to the former, though of vast consequence, intervening years have thrown them somewhat in the background.

Passing by, therefore, the prior service of Mr. Clay in the Senate for brief periods in 1806 and 1810-11, I come at once to his Speakership in the House of Representatives, and his consequent agency in the war of 1812.

To that war our country is indebted for much of the security, freedom, prosperity, and reputation which it now enjoys. It has been truly said by one of the living actors in that perilous era, that the very act of our going to war was heroic.¹ By the supremacy of the naval power of England the fleets of all Europe had been swept from the seas; the banner of the United States alone floated in solitary fearlessness. She seemed to encircle the earth with her navies, and to be the undisputed mistress of the ocean. We went out upon the deep with a sling in our hands. When, in all time, were such fearful odds seen as we had against us?

The events of the war with England, so memorable, and even wonderful, are too familiar to all to require any particular recital on this occasion. Of that war,—of its causes and consequences,—of its disasters, its bloody battles, and its glorious victories by land and sea, history and our own official records have given a faithful narrative. A just national pride has engraven that narrative upon our hearts. But even in the fiercest conflicts of that war, there was nothing more truly heroic than the declaration of it by Congress.

Of that declaration, of the incidents, personal influences, and anxious deliberations which preceded and led to it, the history is not so well or generally known. The more it is known the more it will appear how important was the part that Mr. Clay acted, and how much we are indebted to him for all the glorious and beneficial issues of the declaration of that war, which has not inappropriately been called the Second War of Independence.

The public grounds of the war were the injustice, injury, and insults inflicted on the United States by the government of Great Britain, then engaged in a war of maritime edicts with France, of which the commerce of the United States was the victim, our merchant ships being captured by British cruisers on every sea, and confiscated by her courts, in utter contempt of the rights of this nation as an independent power. Added to this, and more offensive than even those outrages, was the arrogation, by the same power, of a right to search American vessels for the purpose of impressing seamen from vessels sailing under the American flag. These aggressions upon our national rights constituted, undoubtedly, justifiable cause of war. With equal justice on our part, and on the same grounds (impressment of seamen excepted), we should have been warranted in declaring war against France also; but common sense (not to speak of policy) forbade our engaging with two nations at once, and dictated the selection, as an adversary, of the one that had power, which the other had not, to carry its arbitrary edicts into full effect. The war was really, on our part, a war for national existence.

When Congress assembled, in November, 1811, the crisis was upon us. But, as may be readily imagined, it could be no easy matter to nerve the heart of Congress, all unprepared for the dread encounter, to take the step, which there could be no retracing, of a declaration of war.

Nor could that task, in all probability, ever have been accomplished, but for the concurrence, purely accidental, of two circumstances: the one, the presence of Henry Clay in the chair of the popular branch of the national legislature; and the other, that of James Monroe, as Secretary of State, in the executive administration of the government.

Mr. Monroe had returned but a year or two before from a course of public service abroad, in which, as minister plenipotentiary, he had represented the United States at the several courts, in succession, of France, Spain, and Great Britain. From the last of these missions he had come home, thoroughly disgusted with the contemptuous manner in which the rights of the United States were treated by the belligerent powers, and especially by England. This treatment, which even extended to the personal intercourse between their ministers and the representatives of this country, he considered as indicative of a settled determination on their part, presuming upon the supposed incapacity of this government for war, to reduce to system a course of conduct calculated to debase and prostrate us in the eyes of the world. Reasoning thus, he had brought his mind to a serious and firm conviction that the rights of the United States, as a nation, would never be respected by the powers of the Old World until this government summoned up resolution to resent such usage, not by arguments and protests merely, but by an appeal to arms. Full of this sentiment, Mr. Monroe was called, upon a casual vacancy, when it was least expected by himself or the country, to the head of the Department of State. That sentiment, and the feelings which we have thus accounted for, Mr. Monroe soon communicated to his associates in the cabinet, and, in some degree it might well be supposed, to the great statesman then at the head of the government.

The tone of President Madison's first message to Congress (November 5, 1811), a few months only after Mr. Monroe's accession to the cabinet, can leave hardly a doubt in any mind of such having been the case. That message was throughout of the gravest cast, reciting the aggressions and aggravations of Great Britain, as demanding resistance, and urging upon Congress the duty of putting the country "into an armor and attitude demanded by the crisis and corresponding with the national spirit and expectations."

It was precisely at this point of time that Mr. Clay, having resigned his seat in the Senate, appeared on the floor of the House of Representatives, and was chosen, almost by acclamation, Speaker of that body. From that moment he exercised an influence, in a great degree personal, which materially affected, if it did not control, the judgment of the House. Among the very first acts which devolved upon him by virtue of his office was the appointment of the committees raised upon the President's message. Upon the select committee of nine members to which was referred "so much of the message as relates to our foreign relations," he appointed a large proportion from among the fast friends of the administration, nearly all of them being new members and younger than himself, though he was not then more than thirty-five years of age. It is impossible, at this day, to call to mind the names of which this committee was composed (Porter, Calhoun, and Grundy being the first named among them), without coming to the conclusion that the committee was constituted with a view to the event predetermined in the mind of the Speaker. There can be no question that when, quitting the Senate, he entered the representative body, he had become satisfied that, by the continued encroachments of Great Britain on our national rights, the choice of the country was narrowed down to war or submission. Between these there could be no hesitation in such a mind as that of Mr. Clay which to choose. In this emergency he acted for his country as he would in a like case for himself. Desiring and cultivating the good will of all, he never shrank from any personal responsibility, nor cowered before any danger. More than a year before his accession to the House of Representatives he had, in a debate in the Senate, taken occasion to say that "he most sincerely desired peace and amity with England; that he even preferred an adjustment of all differences with her to one with any other nation; but, if she persisted in a denial of justice to us, he trusted and hoped that all hearts would unite in a bold and vigorous vindication of our rights." It was in this brave spirit, animated to increased fervency by intervening aggressions from the same quarter, that Mr. Clay entered into the House of Representatives.

Early in the second month of the session, availing himself of the right then freely used by the Speaker to engage in discussion while the House was in committee of the whole, he dashed into the debates upon the measures of military and naval preparation recommended by the President and reported upon favorably by the committee. He avowed, without reserve, that the object of this preparation was war, and war with Great Britain.

In these debates he showed his familiarity with all the weapons of popular oratory. In a tempest of eloquence, in which he wielded alternately argument, persuasion, remonstrance, invective, ridicule, and reproach, he swept before him all opposition to the high resolve to which he exhorted Congress. To the argument (for example) against preparing for a war with England, founded upon the idea of her being engaged, in her conflict with France, in fighting the battles of the world, he replied, that such a purpose would be best achieved by a scrupulous observance of the rights of others, and by respecting that public law which she professed to vindicate. "Then," said he, "she would command the sympathies of the world. But what are we required to do by those who would engage our feelings and wishes in her behalf? To bear the actual cuffs of her arrogance, that we may escape a chimerical French subjugation. We are called upon to submit to debasement, dishonor, and disgrace; to bow the neck to royal insolence, as a course of preparation for manly resistance to Gallic invasion! What nation, what individual, was ever taught, in the schools of ignominious submission, these patriotic lessons of freedom and independence?" And to the argument that this government was unfit for any war but a war against invasion,-so signally since disproved by actual events,-he exclaimed, with characteristic vehemence, "What! is it not equivalent to invasion, if the mouths of our outlets and harbors are blocked up, and we are denied egress from our own waters? Or, when the burglar is at our door, shall we bravely sally forth and repel his felonious entrance, or meanly skulk within the cells of the castle? What! shall it be said that our amor patriæ is located at these desks? that we pusillanimously cling to our seats here, rather than vindicate the most inestimable rights of our country?" Whilst in debate upon another occasion, at nearly the same time, he showed how well he could reason upon a question which demanded argument rather than declamation. To his able support of the proposition of Mr. Cheves to add to our then small but gallant navy ten frigates, may be ascribed the success, though by a lean majority, of that proposition. Replying to the objection, urged with great zeal by certain members, that navies were dangerous to liberty, he argued that the source of this alarm was in themselves. “Gentlemen fear," said he, "that if we provide a marine it will produce collision with foreign nations, plunge us into war, and ultimately overturn the Constitution of the country. Sir, if you wish to avoid foreign collision, you had better abandon the ocean, surrender all your commerce, give up all your prosperity. It is the thing protected, not the instrument of protection, that involves you in war. Commerce engenders collision, collision war, and war, the argument supposes, leads to despotism. Would the counsels of that statesman be deemed wise who would recommend that the nation should be unarmed; that the art of war, the martial spirit, and martial exercises, should be prohibited; who should declare, in a word, that the great body of the people should be taught that national happiness was to be found in perpetual peace alone?"

While Mr. Clay, in the capitol, was, with his trumpet-tongue, rousing Congress to prepare for war, Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State, gave his powerful co-operation, and lent the Nestor-like sanction of his age and experience to the bold measures of his young and more ardent compatriot. It was chiefly through their fearless influence that Congress was gradually warmed up to a war spirit, and to the adoption of some preparatory measures. But no actual declaration of war had yet been proposed. There was a strong opposition in Congress, and the President, Mr. Madison, hesitated to recommend it, only because he doubted whether Congress was yet sufficiently determined and resolved to maintain such a declaration, and to maintain it to all the extremities of war.

The influence and counsel of Mr. Clay again prevailed. He waited upon the President, at the head of a deputation of members of Congress, and assured him of the readiness of a majority of Congress to vote the war if recommended by him. Upon this the President immediately recommended it by his message to Congress of the first Monday of June, 1812. A bill declaring war with Great Britain soon followed in Congress, and, after a discussion in secret session for a few days, became a law. Then began the war.

When the doors of the House of Representatives were opened, the debates which had taken place in secret session were spoken of and repeated, and it appeared, as must have been expected by all, that Mr. Clay had been the great defender and champion of the declaration of war.

Mr. Clay continued in the House of Representatives for some time after the commencement of the war, and having assisted in doing all that could be done for it in the way of legislation, was withdrawn from his position in Congress to share in the deliberations of the great conference of American and British Commissioners held at Ghent. His part in that convention was such as might have been expected from his course in Congress—high-toned and high-spirited, despairing of nothing.

I need not add, but for form, that acting in this spirit, Mr. Clay, and his patriotic and able associates, succeeded beyond all the hopes at that time entertained at home, in making a treaty, which, in putting a stop to the war, if it did not accomplish everything contended for, saved and secured, at all points, the honor of the United States.

Thus began and ended the war of 1812. On our part it was just and necessary, and, in its results, eminently beneficial and honorable.

The benefits have extended to all the world, for, in vindicating our own maritime rights, we established the freedom of the seas to all nations, and since then no one of them has arrogated any supremacy upon that ocean given by the Almighty as the common and equal inheritance of all.

To Henry Clay, as its chief mover and author, belongs the statesman's portion of the glory of that war; and to the same Henry Clay, as one of the makers and signers of the treaty by which it was terminated, belong the blessings of the peacemaker. His crown is made up of the jewels of peace and of war.

Prompt to take up arms to resent our wrongs and vindicate our national rights, the return of peace was yet gladly hailed by the whole country. And well it might be. Our military character, at the lowest point of degradation when we dared the fight, had been retrieved. The national honor, insulted at all the courts of Europe, had been redeemed; the freedom of the seas secured to our flag and all who sail under it; and what was most influential in inspiring confidence at home, and assuring respect abroad, was the demonstration, by the result of the late conflict, of the competency of this government for effective war, as it had before proved itself for all the duties of a season of peace.

The Congress which succeeded the war, to a seat in which Mr. Clay was elected while yet abroad, exhibited a feature of a national jubilee, in place of the gravity and almost gloom which had settled on the countenance of the same body during the latter part of the war and of the conference at Ghent. Joy shone on every face. Justly has that period been termed "the era of good feeling." Again placed in the chair of the House of Representatives, and all important questions being then considered as in committee of the whole, in which the Speaker descends to the floor of the House, Mr. Clay distinguished himself in the debates upon every question of interest that came up, and was the author, during that and following Congresses, of more important measures than it has been the fortune of any other member, either then or since, to have his name identified with.

It would exceed the proper limits of this discourse to particularize all those measures. I can do no more than refer to a very few of them, which have become landmarks in the history of our country.

First in order of these was his origination of the first proposition for the recognition of the independence of the states of South America, then struggling for liberty. This was on the 24th of March, 1818. It was on that day that he first formally presented the proposition to the House of Representatives. But neither the President nor Congress was then prepared for a measure so bold and decisive, and it was rejected by a large majority of the House, though advocated and urged by him with all the vehemence and power of his unsurpassed ability and eloquence. Undaunted by this defeat, he continued to pursue the subject with all the inflexible energy of his character. On the 3d of April, 1820, he renewed his proposition for the recognition of South American independence, and finally succeeded, against strong opposition, not only in passing it through the House of Representatives, but in inducing that body to adopt the emphatic and extraordinary course of sending it to the President by a committee especially appointed for the purpose. Of that committee Mr. Clay was the chairman, and, at its head, performed the duty assigned them. In the year 1822 Mr. Clay's noble exertions on this great subject were crowned with complete success by the President's formal recognition of South American independence, with the sanction of Congress.

It requires some little exertion, at this day, to turn our minds back and contemplate the vast importance of the revolutions then in progress in South America, as the subject was then presented, with all the uncertainties and perils that surrounded it. Those revolutions constituted a great movement in the moral and political world. By their results great interests and great principles throughout the civilized world, and especially in our own country, might, and probably would, be materially affected.

Mr. Clay comprehended the crisis. Its magnitude and its character were suited to his temper and to his great intellect.

He saw before him, throughout the vast continent of South America, the people of its various states or provinces struggling to cast off that Spanish oppression and tyranny which for three hundred years had weighed them down and seeking to reclaim and re-establish their long-lost liberty and independence.

He saw them not only struggling but succeeding, and with their naked hands breaking their chains and driving their oppressors before them. But the conflict was not yet over; Spain still continued to wage formidable and desperate hostilities against her colonies to reduce them to submission. They were still struggling and bleeding, and the result yet depended on the uncertain issues of war.

What a spectacle was there presented to the contemplation of the world! The prime object of attention and interest there to be seen was man bravely struggling for liberty. That was enough for Henry Clay. His generous soul overflowed with sympathy. But this was not all; there were graver and higher considerations that belonged to the subject, and these were all felt and appreciated by Mr. Clay.

If South America was resubjugated by Spain, she would in effect become European and relapse into the system of European policy, the system of legitimacy, monarchy, and absolutism. On the other hand, if she succeeded in establishing her independence, the principle of free institutions would be established with it, and republics, kindred to our own, would rise up to protect, extend, and defend the rights and liberties of mankind.

It was not, then, a mere struggle between Spain and her colonies. In its consequences, at least, it went much further, and, in effect, was a contest between the great antagonist principles and systems of arbitrary European governments and of free American governments. Whether the millions of people who inhabited, or were to inhabit, South America, were to become the victims and the instruments of the arbitrary principle, or the supporters of the free principle, was a question of momentous consequence now and in all time to come.

With these views, Mr. Clay, from sympathy and policy, embraced the cause of South American independence. He proposed no actual intervention in her behalf, but he wished to aid her with all the moral power and encouragement that could be given by a welcome recognition of her by the government of the United States.

To him belongs the distinguished honor of being the first among the statesmen of the world to espouse and plead the cause of South America, and to propose and urge the recognition of her independence. And his own country is indebted to him for the honor of being the first nation to offer that recognition.

When the magnitude of the subject, and the weighty interest and consequences attached to it, are considered, it seems to me that there is no more palmy day in the life of Mr. Clay than that in which, at the head of his committee, he presented to the President the resolution of the House of Representatives in favor of the recognition of South American independence.

On that occasion he appears in all the sublimity of his nature, and the statesman, invested with all the sympathies and feelings of humanity, is enlarged and elevated into the character of the friend and guardian of universal liberty.

How far South America may have been aided or influenced in her struggles by the recognition of our government, or by the noble appeals which Mr. Clay had previously addressed, in her behalf, to Congress and to the world, we cannot say; but it is known that those speeches were read at the head of her armies, and that grateful thanks were returned. It is not too much to suppose that he exercised great and, perhaps, decisive influence in her affairs and destinies.

Years after the first of Mr. Clay's noble exertions in the cause of South America, and some time after those exertions had led the government of the United States to recognize the new States of South America, they were also recognized by the government of Great Britain, and Mr. Canning, her minister, thereupon took occasion to say, in the House of Commons, "there (alluding to South America) I have called a new world into existence!" That was a vain boast. If it can be said of any man, it must be said of Henry Clay, that he called that “new world into existence.”²

Mr. Clay was the father of the policy of internal improvement by the general government. The expediency of such legislation had, indeed, been suggested, in one of his later annual messages to Congress, by President Jefferson, and that suggestion was revived by President Madison in the last of his annual messages. The late Bank of the United States having been then just established, a bill passed, in supposed conformity to Mr. Madison's recommendation, for setting aside the annual bonus, to be paid by the bank, as a fund for the purposes of internal improvement. This bill Mr. Madison very unexpectedly, on the last day of the term of his office, returned to the House of Representatives without his signature, assigning the reasons for his withholding it,―reasons which related rather to the form than the substance,—and recommending an amendment to the Constitution to confer upon Congress the necessary power to carry out that policy. The bill of course fell through for that session. Whilst this bill was on its passage, Mr. Clay had spoken in favor of it, declaring his own decided opinion in favor of the constitutionality and expediency of the measure. Mr. Monroe, immediately succeeding Mr. Madison in the Presidency, introduced into his first annual message a declaration, in advance of any proposition on the subject, of a settled conviction on his mind that Congress did not possess the right to enter upon a system of internal improvement. But for this declaration, it may be doubted that the subject would have been again agitated so soon after Mr. Madison's veto. The threat of a recurrence to that resort by the new President roused up a spirit of defiance in the popular branch of Congress, and especially in the lion heart of Mr. Clay; and by his advice and counsel a resolution was introduced declaring that Congress has power, under the Constitution, to make appropriations for the construction of military roads, post-roads, and canals. Upon this proposition, in committee of the whole House, Mr. Clay attacked, with all his powers of argument, wit, and raillery, the interdiction in the message.

He considered that the question was now one between the executive on the one hand, and the representatives of the people on the other, and that it was so understood by the country; that if, by the communication of his opinion to Congress, the President intended to prevent discussion, he had “most wofully failed;" that in having (Mr. Clay had no doubt the best motives) volunteered his opinion upon the subject, he had "inverted the order of legislation by beginning where it should end;" and, after an able and unanswerable argument on the question of the power, concluded by saying, “If we do nothing this session but pass an abstract resolution on the subject, I shall, under all circumstances, consider it a triumph for the best interest of the country, of which posterity will, if we do not, reap the benefit." And the abstract resolution did pass by a vote of 90 to 75; and a triumph it was which Mr. Clay had every right to consider as his own, and all the more grateful to his feelings because he had hardly hoped for it.

Referring on the final success, at a distance of thirty-five years, of the principle thus established, in the recent passage by Congress of the act for the improvement of certain of the ports and harbors and navigable rivers of the country, let "posterity" not forget, on this occasion, to what honored name is undoubtedly due the credit of the first legislative assertion of the power.

Mr. Clay was, perhaps, the only man since Washington, who could have said, with entire truth, as he did, "I had rather be right than be President." Honor and patriotism were his great and distinguishing traits. The first had its spring and support in his fearless spirit; the second in his peculiar Americanism of sentiment. It was those two principles which ever threw his whole soul into every contest where the public interest was deeply involved, and above all, into every question which in the least menaced the integrity of the Union. This last was, with him, the Ark of the Covenant; and he was ever as ready to peril his own life in its defense as he was to pronounce the doom of a traitor on any one who would dare to touch it with hostile hands. It was the ardor of this devotion to his country, and to the sheet-anchor of its liberty and safety, the union of the States, that rendered him so conspicuous in every conflict that threatened either the one or the other with harm. All are familiar with his more recent, indeed, his last, great struggle for his country, when the foundations of the Union trembled under the fierce sectional agitation, so happily adjusted and pacified by the wise measures of compromise which he proposed in the Senate, and which were, in the end, in substance adopted. That brilliant epoch in his history is fresh in the memory of all who hear me, and never will be forgotten by them. An equally glorious success, achieved by his patriotism, his resoluteness, and the great power of his oratory, was one which few of this assembly are old enough vividly to remember; but which, in the memory of those who witnessed the effort, and the success of that greatest triumph of his master-spirit, will ever live the most interesting in the life of the great statesman. I mean the Missouri controversy. Then, indeed, did common courage quail, and hope seemed to sink before the storm that burst upon and threatened to overwhelm the Union.

Into the history of what is familiarly known as the "Missouri Question," it is not necessary, if time would allow, that I should enter at any length. The subject of the controversy, as all my hearers know, was the disposition of the House of Representatives, manifested on more than one occasion, and by repeated votes, to require-as a condition of the admission of the Territory of Missouri into the Union as a State-the perpetual prohibition of the introduction of slavery into the Territories of the United States west of the Mississippi. During the conflict to which this proposition gave rise in 1820, the debates were from the beginning earnest, prolonged, and excited. In the early stages of them Mr. Clay exerted to the utmost his powers of argument, conciliation, and persuasion, speaking, on one occasion, it is stated, for four and a half hours without intermission. A bill finally passed both houses, authorizing the people of the Territory of Missouri to form a constitution of State government, with the prohibition of slavery restricted to the territory lying north of 36 deg. 30 min. of north latitude. This was in the first session of the Sixteenth Congress, Mr. Clay still being Speaker of the House. On the approach of the second session of this Congress, Mr. Clay, being compelled by his private affairs to remain at home, forwarded his resignation as Speaker, but retained his seat as a member, in view of the pendency of this question. Mr. Taylor, of New York, the zealous advocate of the prohibition of slavery in Missouri and elsewhere in the West, was chosen Speaker to succeed Mr. Clay. This fact, of itself, under all the circumstances, was ominous of what was to follow. Alarmed, apparently, at this aspect of things, Mr. Clay resumed his seat in the House on the 16th of January, 1821. The constitution formed by Missouri and transmitted to Congress, under the authority of the act passed in the preceding session, contained a provision (superfluous even for its own object) making it the duty of the General Assembly, as soon as might be, to pass an act to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to or settling in the State of Missouri "upon any pretext whatever." The reception of the constitution with this offensive provision in it was the signal of discord apparently irreconcilable, when, just as it had risen to its height, Mr. Clay, on the 16th of January, 1821, resumed his seat in the House of Representatives. Less than six weeks of the term of Congress then remained. The great hold which he had upon the affections, as well as the respect, of all parties induced upon his arrival a momentary lull in the tempest. He at once engaged earnestly and solicitously in counsel with all parties in this alarming controversy, and on the 2d of February moved the appointment of a committee of thirteen members to consider the subject. The report of that committee, after four days of conference, in which the feelings of all parties had clearly been consulted, notwithstanding it was most earnestly supported by Mr. Clay in a speech of such power and pathos as to draw tears from many hearers, was rejected by a vote of 83 nays to 80 yeas. No one, not a witness, can conceive the intense excitement which existed at this moment within and without the walls of Congress, aggravated as it was by the arrival of the day for counting the electoral votes for President and Vice-President, among which was tendered the vote of Missouri as a State, though not yet admitted as such. Her vote was disposed of by being counted hypothetically, that is to say, that with the vote of Missouri, the then state of the general vote would be so and so; without it, so and so. If her vote, admitted, would have changed the result, no one can pretend to say how disastrous the consequences might not have been.

On Mr. Clay alone now rested the hopes of all rational and dispassionate men for a final adjustment of this question; and one week only, with three days of grace, remained of the existence of that Congress. On the 22d of the month, Mr. Clay made a last effort, by moving the appointment of a joint committee of the two houses, to consider and report whether it was expedient or not to make provision for the admission of Missouri into the Union on the same footing of the original States; and, if not, whether any other provision, adapted to her actual condition, ought to be made by law. The motion was agreed to, and a committee of twenty-three members appointed by ballot under it. The report by that committee (a modification of the previously rejected report) was ratified by the House, but by the close vote of 87 to 81. The Senate concurred, and so this distracting question was at last settled, with an acquiescence in it by all parties, which has never been since disturbed.

I have already spoken of this as the great triumph of Mr. Clay; I might have said, the greatest civil triumph ever achieved by mortal man. It was one towards which the combination of the highest ability and the most commanding eloquence would have labored in vain. There would still have been wanting the ardor, the vehemence, the impetuousness of character of Henry Clay, under the influence of which he sometimes overleaped all barriers, and carried his point literally by storm. One incident of this kind is well remembered in connection with the Missouri question. It was in an evening sitting, whilst this question was yet in suspense. Mr. Clay had made a motion to allow one or two members to vote who had been absent when their names were called. The Speaker (Mr. Taylor), who, to a naturally equable temperament, added a most provoking calmness of manner when all around him was excitement, blandly stated, for the information of the gentleman, that the motion "was not in order." Mr. Clay then moved to suspend the rule forbidding it, so as to allow him to make the motion; but the Speaker, with imperturbable serenity, informed him that, according to the rules and orders, such a motion could not be received without the unanimous consent of the House. "Then," said Mr. Clay, exerting his voice even beyond its highest wont, “I move to suspend ALL the rules of the House! Away with them! Is it to be endured, that we shall be trammeled in our action by mere forms and technicalities at a moment like this, when the peace, and perhaps the existence, of this Union is at stake?"

Besides those to which I have alluded, Mr. Clay performed many other signal public services, which would have illustrated the character of any other American statesman. Among these we cannot refrain from mentioning his measures for the protection of American industry, and his compromise measure of 1833, by which the country was relieved from the dangers and agitations produced by the doctrine and spirit of "nullification." Indeed, his name is identified with all the great measures of government during the long period of his public life. But the occasion does not permit me to proceed further with this review of his public services. History will record them to his honor.

Henry Clay was indebted to no adventitious circumstances for the success and glory of his life. Sprung from an humble stock, “he was fashioned to much honor from his cradle;" and he achieved it by the noble use of the means which God and nature had given him. He was no scholar, and had none of the advantages of collegiate education. But there was a "divinity that stirred within him." He was a man of a genius mighty enough to supply all the defects of education. By its keen, penetrating observation, its quick apprehension, its comprehensive and clear conception, he gathered knowledge without the study of books; he could draw it from the fountain-head,— pure and undefiled; it was unborrowed; the acquisition of his own observation, reflection, and experience; and all his own. It entered into the composition of the man, forming part of his mind, and strengthening and preparing him for all those great scenes of intellectual exertion or controversy in which his life was spent. His armor was always on, and he was ever ready for the battle.

This mighty genius was accompanied, in him, by all the qualities necessary to sustain its action, and to make it most irresistible. His person was tall and commanding, and his demeanor—

"Lofty and sour to them that loved him not;

But to those men that sought him sweet as summer.”

He was direct and honest, ardent and fearless, prompt to form his opinions, always bold in their avowal, and sometimes impetuous or even rash in their vindication. In the performance of his duties he feared no responsibility. He scorned all evasion of untruth. No pale thoughts ever troubled his decisive mind.

Be just and fear not" was the sentiment of his heart and the principle of his action. It regulated his conduct in private and public life; all the ends he aimed at were his country's, his God's, and truth's.

Such was Henry Clay, and such, were his talents, qualities, and objects. Nothing but success and honor could attend such a character. We have adverted briefly to some portions of his public life. For nearly half a century he was an informing spirit, brilliant and heroic figure in our political sphere, marshaling our country in the way she ought to go. The "bright track of his fiery car" may be traced through the whole space over which in his day his country and its government have passed in the way to greatness and renown. It will still point the way to further greatness and renown.

The great objects of his public life were to preserve and strengthen the Union, to maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, to cherish industry, to protect labor, and to facilitate, by all proper national improvements, the communication between all the parts of our widely-extended country. This was his American system of policy. With inflexible patriotism he pursued and advocated it to his end. He was every inch an American. His heart and all that there was of him were devoted to his country, to its liberty, and its free institutions. He inherited the spirit of the Revolution in the midst of which he was born; and the love of liberty and the pride of freedom were in him principles of action.

A remarkable trait in the character of Mr. Clay was his inflexibility in defending the public interest against all schemes for its detriment. His exertions were, indeed, so steadily employed and so often successful in protecting the public against the injurious designs of visionary politicians or party demagogues, that he may be almost said to have been, during forty years, the guardian angel of the country. He never would compromise the public interest for anybody, or for any personal advantage to himself.

He was the advocate of liberty throughout the world, and his voice of cheering was raised in behalf of every people who struggled for freedom. Greece, awakened from a long sleep of servitude, heard his voice, and was reminded of her own Demosthenes. South America, too, in her struggle for independence, heard his brave words of encouragement, and her fainting heart was animated and her arm made strong.

Henry Clay is the fair representative of the age in which he lived, an age which forms the greatest and brightest era in the history of man,-an age teeming with new discoveries and developments, extending in all directions the limits of human knowledge, exploring the agencies and elements of the physical world and turning and subjugating them to the uses of man, unfolding and establishing practically the great principles of popular rights and free governments, and which, nothing doubting, nothing fearing, still advances in majesty, aspiring to, and demanding further improvement and further amelioration of the condition of mankind.

With the chivalrous and benignant spirit of this great era Henry Clay was thoroughly imbued. He was, indeed, moulded by it and made in its own image. That spirit, be it remembered, was not one of licentiousness, or turbulence, or blind innovation. It was a wise spirit, good and honest as it was resolute and brave; and truth and justice were its companions and guides.

These noble qualities of truth and justice were conspicuous in the whole public life of Henry Clay. On that solid foundation he stood erect and fearless; and when the storms of state beat around and threatened to overwhelm him, his exclamation was still heard, “truth is mighty and public justice certain." What a magnificent and heroic figure does Henry Clay here present to the world! We can but stand before and look upon it in silent reverence. His appeal was not in vain; the passions of party subsided; truth and justice resumed their sway, and his generous countrymen repaid him for all the wrong they had done him with gratitude, affection, and admiration in his life and tears for his death.

It has been objected to Henry Clay that he was ambitious. So he was. But in him ambition was virtue. It sought only the proper, fair objects of honorable ambition, and it sought these by honorable means only,-by so serving the country as to deserve its favors and its honors. If he sought office, it was for the purpose of enabling him by the power it would give, to serve his country more effectually and pre-eminently; and, if he expected and desired thereby to advance his own fame, who will say that was a fault? Who will say that it was a fault to seek and desire office for any of the personal gratifications it may afford, so long as those gratifications are made subordinate to the public good?

That Henry Clay's object in desiring office was to serve his country, and that he would have made all other considerations subservient, I have no doubt. I knew him well; I had full opportunity of observing him in his most unguarded moments and conversations, and I can say that I have never known a more unselfish, a more faithful or intrepid representative of the people, of the people's rights, and the people's interests, than Henry Clay. It was most fortunate for Kentucky to have such a representative, and most fortunate for him to have such a constituent as Kentucky, fortunate for him to have been thrown, in the early and susceptible period of his life, into the primitive society of her bold and free people. As one of her children, I am pleased to think that from that source he derived some of that magnanimity and energy which his after-life so signally displayed. I am pleased to think, that, mingling with all his great qualities, there was a sort of Kentuckyism (I shall not undertake to define it) which, though it may not have polished or refined, gave to them additional point and power, and free scope of action.

Mr. Clay was a man of profound judgment and strong will. He never doubted or faltered; all his qualities were positive and peremptory, and to his convictions of public duty he sacrificed every personal consideration.

With but little knowledge of the rules of logic, or of rhetoric, he was a great debater and orator. There was no art in his eloquence, no studied contrivances of language. It was the natural outpouring of a great and ardent intellect. In his speeches there were none of the trifles of mere fancy and imagination; all was to the subject in hand, and to the purpose; and they may be regarded as great actions of the mind, rather than fine displays of words. I doubt whether the eloquence of Demosthenes or Cicero ever exercised a greater influence over the minds or passions of the people of Athens and of Rome, than did Mr. Clay's over the minds and passions of the people of the United States.

You all knew Mr. Clay; your knowledge and recollection of him will present him more vividly to your minds than any picture I can draw of him. This I will add: He was, in the highest, truest sense of the term, a great man, and we ne'er shall look upon his like again. He has gone to join the mighty dead in another and better world. How little is there of such

a man that can die? His fame, the memory of his benefactions, the lessons of his wisdom, all remain with us; over these death has no power.

How few of the great of this world have been so fortunate as he? How few of them have lived to see their labors so rewarded? He lived to see the country that he loved and served advanced to great prosperity and renown, and still advancing. He lived till every prejudice which, at any period of his life had existed against him, was removed; and until he had become the object of the reverence, love, and gratitude of his whole country. His work seemed then to be completed, and fate could not have selected a happier moment to remove him from the troubles and vicissitudes of this life.

Glorious as his life was, there was nothing that became him like the leaving of it. I saw him frequently during the slow and lingering disease which terminated his life. He was conscious of his approaching end, and prepared to meet it with all the resignation and fortitude of a Christian hero. He was all patience, meekness, and gentleness; these shone round him like a mild, celestial light, breaking upon him from another world,

"And, to add greater honors to his age

Than man could give, he died fearing God."

_______________

¹ Hon. Mr. Rush.

² See Mr. Rush's letter to Mr. Clay, vol. i. Collins's Life of Henry Clay.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 39-57

Senator Charles Sumner to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, December 9, 1851

Shields is now speaking. Everybody has treated me with cordial kindness. Clay, I think, has upon him the inexorable hand. He has not been in his seat since the first day. Seward is a very remarkable man; Berrien, a very effective speaker. I have been pressed by work and care very much, and sigh for some of those sweet hours which we have had and I have lost.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 264

Senator Henry Clay to James B. Clay, January 2, 1849

WASHINGTON, January 2, 1849.

MY DEAR SON,—I received your letter of the 27th November, and I was happy to hear of the continued health of Susan and your children, and especially that she had so easy an accouchement. That was the result of her previous exercise and the climate of Lisbon.

I am sorry to hear of the bad prospect of your getting our claims satisfied. I wrote you a few days ago, giving a long account of an interview which I had with the Portuguese minister, etc., about the case of the General Armstrong. In the course of it, he told me that he thought some of our claims were just, and so did the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that they would be paid. If we are to come to any appeal to force, perhaps it will be as well that they should reject them all, those which are clearly just as well as those which are contestable. But, as it would be a feather in your cap, I should like that you would get them all owned, or as many as you can.

The minister told me that the owners of the General Armstrong demanded $250,000. That sum strikes me to be erroneous. If they agree to admit the claim, you might stipulate to have the amount fixed by some commission; or, which would be better, if the owners have an agent at Lisbon, you might get him to fix the very lowest sum which they would be willing to receive, which might not exceed one fifth of the sum demanded.

I mentioned confidentially to Sir H. Bulwer, the British minister, my apprehensions of a difficulty with Portugal, and he said he would write to Lord Palmerston, and suggest to him to interpose his good offices, etc. He told me that a brother of Lord Morpeth was the British Chargé at Portugal. If he resembles his brother, you will find him a clever fellow.

No certain developments are yet made of what Congress may do on the subject of slavery. I think there is a considerable majority in the House, and probably one in the Senate, in favor of the Wilmot proviso. I have been thinking much of proposing some comprehensive scheme of settling amicably the whole question, in all its bearings; but I have not yet positively determined to do so. Meantime some of the Hotspurs of the South are openly declaring themselves for a dissolution of the Union, if the Wilmot proviso be adopted. This sentiment of disunion is more extensive than I had hoped, but I do not regard it as yet alarming. It does not reach many of the Slave States.

You complain of not hearing from Kentucky. I have the same complaint. I have not received a letter from John for a long time. My last was from Thomas, of the 18th ult. They were then all well.

I am glad to hear that Henry is placed at school, but am sorry that his defects continue to display themselves. We must hope that he will correct them as he grows older, and in the mean time console ourselves that his faults are not worse than they are.

My love to Susan, the boys, and your children.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 582-3

Senator Henry Clay to James Harlan, January 26, 1849

NEW ORLEANS, January 26, 1849.

MY DEAR SIR,—I met with an accidental but violent fall a week ago, in carelessly descending a flight of stairs, to receive a gentleman who bore me a letter of introduction, and I got terribly bruised. I broke no bones, but it disabled me, for the present, from walking without assistance, and almost from writing.

I received yesterday your favor of the 12th, and to-day that of the 14th. I regret extremely that the use of my name, in connection with the office of Senator, should have created any division among the Whigs, or excited any dissatisfaction with any one. God knows that I have no personal desire to return to that body, nor any private or ambitious purposes to promote by resuming a seat in it. I expressed to you and to other friends, at the period of my departure from home, the exact state of my feelings, when I declared that I could not reconcile it to my feelings to become a formal or an avowed candidate; and that if the General Assembly had any other person in view, I did not wish to interfere with him. I added that, if, nevertheless, the Legislature thought proper to require my services in the Senate, deference to their will, a sense of public duty, and the hope of doing some good, would prompt me to accept the office.

These views are unchanged. According to them, it follows that I have no desire to have my name pressed upon the General Assembly, and I hope that it will not be presented, unless it is manifestly the free and voluntary wish of a majority of that body. It would be a great mortification to me to be thought to be solicitous for that office, and to be supposed to be seeking it from the reluctant grant of the Legislature. I hope that my friends will act in consonance with the state of my feelings, and not suffer my name to be used but on the conditions which I have stated.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 583-4

Senator Henry Clay to Thomas B. Stevenson, January 31, 1849

NEW ORLEANS, January 31, 1849.

MY DEAR SIR,—The breaking out of the cholera here prevented my meeting General Taylor in this city, as had been expected. I met him at Baton Rouge, but only long enough to exchange friendly salutations, without any opportunity to converse on public affairs.

About a fortnight ago I met with a terrible accidental fall, which, although fortunately I broke no bones, has for the present confined me to my lodgings, disabled me from walking, and almost from writing. To that cause is owing my not having earlier acknowledged the receipt of your friendly letter of the 25th ultimo.

I suppose that I shall be elected to the Senate by the General Assembly of Kentucky, in which case I shall hardly feel myself at liberty to decline, conferred as the office will be without any solicitation from me, without my being a candidate, and with the knowledge of a strong disinclination on my part to return to that body. Deference to the will of the General Assembly, a sense of duty, and the possibility of my being able to do some good, overcome my repugnance. If I go to Washington, it will be with an anxious desire that I shall be able to support the measures of the new Administration, in consequence of their conformity with Whig policy.

There seems to be yet some slight prospect of a settlement at Washington of the Free Soil question; but we shall see.

The cholera has nearly entirely disappeared from this city.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 584

Senator John C. Calhoun to Thomas G. Clemson, March 7, 1848

Washington 7th March 1848

MY DEAR SIR, The last Steamer brought a letter from Anna to me, the only one received by it. I am happy to learn by it, that she had entirely recovered from the attack of the Influenza, and that you and the children had escaped and were in such excellent health.

Since I wrote you last, the only occurrence, in the political world on this side, of marked importance, is the treaty with Mexico. It is now under deliberation in the Senate, and has been for the last nine days. No decisive vote has yet been taken; but I do not doubt, that the Senate will give its advise and consent to its ratification. The final vote will probably be taken tomorrow, or next day at fartherest.

Its fate will, however, be still uncertain. Some important amendments have been made, to which the Mexican Government may object, although I do not think it probable. The greatest danger is, that the Government may not hold together until the treaty is exchanged. Nothing but the countenance of our Government, and the support of capitalists interested in preserving it, can continue it in existence. It is, indeed, but the shadow of a Government.

As to the terms of the treaty, they are not such as to confer any eclat on the war, or the administration. I cannot of course speak of them in detail, but may say, the end of all our expenditure of blood and money is, to pay the full value in money for the country ceded to us, and which might have been had without a war, or for the 10th part of its cost by taking a defensive line from the first, as I advised. The desire for peace, and not the approbation of its terms, induces the Senate to yield its consent.

The presidential election is in as great uncertainty as ever. The whigs are violently devided between Clay and Taylor, and the democrats know not who to rally on. It is, indeed, a mere struggle for the spoils, and the selection of both parties will in the end be governed solely by the availability of the candidate, and not his qualifications.

I enclose two letters for Anna, which will give all the home news.

The winter has been delightful, and highly favourable for agricultural operations.

My health is good.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 745-6

Senator John C. Calhoun to Andrew Pickens Calhoun, April 16, 1848

Washington 16th April 1848

MY DEAR ANDREW, Everything here is in a state of uncertainty, in reference to the Presidential election. The parties are more distracted than ever. Clay's address¹ has done him great injury with his party. It has in particular deeply offended the Southern portion.

In the mean time, the address of the Barnburners, just come out, has weakened and distracted the Democratick party. They take strong ground against us on the Wilmot proviso, and proclaim that they must be received by the Baltimore Convention to the exclusion of the Hunker delegates from the State. That I take it will be impossible, and a permanent split, with the loss of the State will be the result. I trust, out of all this confusion, a sufficient number of both parties will be found to be independent enough to make a rally to save ourselves and our institutions. As bad, as you suppose things to be here, it is not worse than the reality.

We are waiting with impatience for farther information from Europe. I have little hope from France, but a good deal of reliance on Germany. She has the materials for a good Govt, if they should be skillfully used. But we shall soon see.

My love to Margeret and the children.

_______________

¹ Clay's speech at Lexington on the Mexican War, November 13, 1817, is probably referred to.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 751-2

Lewis E. Harvie to Lyon G. Tyler, May 15, 1885

CHULA P. O., May 15, 1885.

MY DEAR SIR: I regret that I am unable to give you the information you wish. Your honored father, my friend, and myself were on the commission to treat with Mr. Stephens, and the whole committee were unanimous, and reported in favor of uniting under one government with the other Confederate States. Who prepared the report I have forgotten. I regret that I cannot give you the information.

I esteemed your father as highly as any man I ever knew. I may say that I reverence his memory. He had the entire trust and confidence of every member of the Virginia convention, and exercised and wielded more influence and control over its deliberations and acts than any man in it. He won its confidence in a speech in reply to Mr. Summers, who made a report of the proceedings of the "Peace Congress" held in Washington, and secured the admiration and confidence of the whole convention, when he was so weak that he could speak only at intervals and the convention adjourned again and again to hear him. His influence, and, I may say, control, over the convention, during its whole term, was irresistible. It would be a labor of love to recite to you evidences of the esteem in which he was held, and the estimate placed on his patriotism and love of Virginia, by men of all parties, however conflicting and diversified and distinct their views and sentiments.

I recollect one among other occasions when he changed by the force of his eloquence and patriotism the action of the convention by a defense of General Scott and Mr. Clay, who were assailed; and how he triumphantly carried the proposition through the convention (almost by acclamation) to invite General Scott to come to the rescue of his State. It was the most masterly and triumphant appeal to which I ever listened, and left us who opposed it in a minority of sixteen, all told. General Scott and Mr. Clay were both Virginians, and, while he had differed with them both, they had reflected honor and lustre on her, their common mother, and he made an appeal to the convention of Virginia that electrified the whole body.

He was subsequently elected to the Confederate Congress, almost by acclamation, over two of the ablest and most popular men in the Richmond district, after he had been subjected to obloquy and vituperation for strangling the Bank of the United States and admitting Texas into the Union. His devotion to Virginia and her confidence in him were commensurate.

Such and so sincere was my appreciation of his character, and the estimate that I placed on his valuable and brilliant career that characterized his public conduct, that I invariably paid my respects to him as soon as he took his seat in convention.

It gives me pleasure now to recur to my past intercourse with him. I trust that his son will ascribe the prolixity of my reply to the sincerity of my esteem for one who loved and was beloved by Virginia with equal fervor.

Respectfully and truly yours,

LEWIS E. HARVIE.

Lyon G. Tyler, Esq., Richmond, Va.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 668-9

Senator Joseph R. Underwood to John J. Crittenden, June 19, 1852

WASHINGTON, June 19, 1852.

DEAR SIR,—Conversing to-day with Mr. Clay, I gave him a brief account of my observations at Baltimore. I told him that the division in the Whig Convention might result in withdrawing Mr. Fillmore, Mr. Webster, and General Scott, in which event I said, from what I had heard, it was not improbable that you would receive the nomination.

I then ventured to ask him whether a difference between him and you, of which I had heard rumors, still existed, and whether he would be reconciled to your nomination. He replied to this effect:

"Mr. Crittenden and myself are cordial friends, and if it be necessary to bring him forward as the candidate, it will meet with my hearty approbation." Supposing it may be agreeable to you to retain this evidence of Mr. Clay's good feeling and friendship, I take pleasure in placing it in your possession.

With sincere esteem, your obedient servant,

J. R. UNDERWOOD.

Hon. J. J. CRITTENDEN.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 37

Congressman Albert G. Brown: The True Issue Stated, September 15, 1851

THE OTHER SIDE OF "THE TRUE ISSUE  STATED."

A PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY THE HON. ALBERT G. BROWN UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.

Two pamphlets, of thirty-two pages each, have recently made their appearance in great numbers among the people. These publications are entitled "The True Issue Stated, by a Union Man," and they do me such gross injustice that I feel called upon to notice them. If the man in the mask, who styles himself "A Union Man," would throw off his disguise and appear in his real person, I should doubtless be spared the trouble of answering his gross perversions of truth. An exposure of his name and face would be the most conclusive proof that justice and fair dealing are not to be expected at his hands.

The author of these pamphlets introduces my name in various places and connections, and it shall be my purpose to show how grossly he has perverted, or attempted to pervert, my acts and words.

1st. Reference is made to the introduction of a bill by Mr. Preston of Virginia, to admit, as a state, into the Union, the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico (to wit, California, Utah, and New Mexico), and an attempt is made to produce the impression that I contemplated voting for this proposition. The truth is that I spoke against it, and no one can read my speech without seeing at once that I never could have voted for Mr. Preston's bill, without having it amended in its most essential features. I spoke on the 10th of February, 1849 (see page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe). In that speech I said:

"All our propositions were voted down as they were successively presented, and by that party which claims a right to undivided dominion over these territories. I never have, and never shall assent to the justice of this claim, and hereafter I will vote to maintain the rights of the South in their broadest latitude, unless I shall plainly see that by an honorable and manly surrender of a portion of these rights, peace may be secured, and the Union rescued from its present perilous condition."

It suited the purpose of "A Union Man" to leave this out. To have included it would have been to show the true temper of my speech—that I never would consent to give up the whole of the territories to the North. Then, as ever since, and before, I was ready to occupy the territories jointly with the people of the North, and if this could not be done, to divide them fairly. The North claimed the whole. "I never have, and never will, assent to the justice of this claim."

With amendments to Mr. Preston's bill, such as would effectually have insured the South justice in the territories, I would have voted for it; without these it never could have commanded my support.

"A Union Man" entirely overlooks the important fact that Preston's bill proposed to confer on the people of California, by act of Congress, the power to erect a state. I spoke against this at length, and yet the singular inference is drawn, that I ought to have voted for the admission of California, erected as she was into a state without the authority of Congress or of any other legislative body. It may be well seen how I could have voted to confer on the people of California the right to form a state government, and yet, how, without inconsistency, I should oppose her admission when she sought it on the authority alone of irresponsible and unauthorized persons. It did not suit the jaundiced eye of "A Union Man," to see the difference between the two propositions. Suppose I had even voted for Preston's proposition, to confer on the people of California the power to erect a state government, would it thence have involved me in an inconsistency to vote against the admission of a state, erected without authority, and by persons having no more right to do so than a nation of Hottentots? But the truth is, I did not vote for the one or the other of these propositions, nor did I contemplate doing so at any time.

I submit the following extracts from my speech on Preston's bill. Read them, and ask yourself what was "A Union Man's" intention in suppressing them:

"Here is a conquered people, possessing as yet, no political rights under our laws and Constitution, because not yet admitted to the rights of citizenship, and, what is worse, possessing no practical knowledge of the workings of our system of government, and knowing nothing of our institutions. The substantial question is, shall such a people give laws to our territories, and shape and mould their institutions for the present, and possibly for all time to come. * * * * The gentleman's bill gives to every white male inhabitant, over the age of twenty-one years, the right to vote, whether Spaniard, Mexican, Swede, Turk, or what not. * * * I submit to my honorable friend whether it would not be respectful, to say the least of it, towards his constituents and mine, to require these people, before they pass final judgment on our rights, to make an intimation in some form that they intend to become CITIZENS, as well as inhabitants of the United States." (See page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe, 1849.)

It will be seen from these extracts, and more clearly by reading the whole speech, what my opinion of Mr. Preston's bill was, and that without amendments, such as should have avoided my objections, and given the South a hope of justice, I never could have voted for it. I confess to have felt then, as at all times, before and since, a strong anxiety to see the question settled upon terms fair and just to all parties, and in this spirit I said in my speech on Preston's bill: "I am prepared to go to that point where conflicting interests and opinions may meet, and adjust this dangerous issue upon terms honorable to both sides, and without any undue sacrifice by either party." Preston's bill did not go to that point. I made my speech to show that it did not. If it had been so amended as to reach the point designated, then I should have voted for it. Without this, my speech shows that my vote would have been given against it.

2d. The second point made by "A Union Man," is based on what he calls the memorial of the Senators and Representatives from California. I know nothing of this memorial, and care less. My statement was made on the authority of eye-witnesses in the country at the time the so-called California constitution was formed, and upon the better authority of General Riley's published proclamation. Upon these I stated, what is true, that thousands of foreigners were authorized to vote, and that they did vote. I make no qualification to the general declaration that the constitution of California was made by unauthorized persons—that among them were foreigners not speaking our language, knowing nothing of our laws, and caring nothing for our rights.

3d. "A Union Man" next takes issue with me on my statement that "the fugitive slave bill," the same that is now the law of the land, is not, and never was, one of the "compromise bills." I repeat now, that it was not, and that it never was, a part of Mr. Clay's omnibus, or general compromise bill. "A Union Man" knows perfectly well, if he knows anything at all on the subject, that the fugitive slave bill, the one that passed, did not come from the hands of Mr. Clay, or the hands of any other compromise man. He knows that Mr. Mason of Virginia, a friend of southern rights, and a bitter opponent of the compromise, introduced this bill, and that it was supported and carried through the Senate and House of Representatives, by Southern votes, and that without the votes of Southern Rights Democrats, it never could have been passed through either House of Congress. He knows that the Fugitive Slave Bill got but thirty-three Northern votes, three in the Senate, and thirty in the House. All the rest, one hundred and forty-four in number, either voted against it, or fled from their seats to avoid the responsibility of voting. All these things "A Union Man" knows perfectly well. Why conceal the facts if he did not mean to deceive the people?

The Fugitive Slave Bill is not a gift from the North, either as a part of the Compromise or otherwise. It was introduced by an Anti-compromise Southern Rights Democrat, and it was carried through both Houses of Congress by Southern votes, and without the aid of the ENEMIES of the Compromise it never would have passed.

4th. The fourth point made against me is that I was a member of a committee in Congress that reported a bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, in 1849. It is true that I was a member of the committee, made so by the Speaker, without my consent; but it is not true that I reported the bill, or even consented to its being reported. It is not true that I voted for it after it was reported, or ever consented or promised to vote for it.

In this, as in other cases, a "A Union Man" publishes what he calls extracts from my speeches, taking care to suppress every word that does not suit his purpose. Why were paragraphs like these left out:

Mr. Brown said, "he had always believed that in his representative character, he was called upon to represent the expressed will and wishes of the people of the District of Columbia, having, at the same time, due regard to the rights of the people of the several states, and to the restrictions of the Constitution of the United States." And again, he did not believe that the strong party in Congress had a right to pass any law for the District without respect to the wishes of the people of the District, and without respect to the Constitution and the rights of the people outside of the District, but that in all this branch of their public charge they should have an eye strictly to the Constitution and to the rights of the whole people." And then again: "In acting upon a petition from the people of this District, his first object was to inquire how far he might go and still remain within the limits of the Constitution, and then how far he might go without infringing upon the deed of cession from Maryland and Virginia. These limits being ascertained, he should be prepared to go for any law desired by the people of the District, which did not require these fixed limits to be transcended."

These passages have been omitted by a "A Union Man." He could not show them, without disclosing the fact that then, as now, I insisted upon an observance of the constitutional rights of the whole people. Were these rights respected when Congress enacted that the master's slave "should become liberated and free," if he took him to the District, "for the purpose of selling him?"

I extract again from the same speech:

Mr. Brown said: "If gentlemen desire it of him, he would now tell them that he felt the necessity, on the part of the South, of standing together upon every question involving the right of property in slaves, the slave trade, and Abolition in all its forms. He knew that they must stand together for defence: therefore, as the South vote so he should vote, till the pressure from without should be withdrawn. The South acted together upon the principle of self-protection and self-preservation. They stood for protection against destruction and annihilation. He knew not the motive which prompted this outward pressure; he felt its existence, and he knew that the South acted purely on the defensive; they merely warded off the blow directed against their peace-their lives. Such were his motives for voting with the South. And he now said to all who were opposed to him or his country, Withdraw your pressure; cease to to agitate this question; let us alone; do whatsoever you think be right without endangering us, and you will find that we, too, are ready to do right."

Mr. Brown trusted he had not been misunderstood; for it was known that, to a Southern member, this was a delicate question. He had expressed his honest views—views which he desired to carry out in good faith. He did very well know, that if the South were let alone—if they were not positively ill-treated, the North might be assured they would come up and do what was right. They stood together now for their own preservation, and nothing less than unity in their councils could be expected of them in the present crisis. If individual members did not always vote exactly according to their views of right upon these questions, it was because of this known, and now universally acknowledged, necessity of unity and concert among ourselves. When a sleepless and dangerous enemy stood at our doors, we felt the necessity of acting together. Let that enemy withdraw—let us out into the open sunshine, where we could look upon the same sun that you look upon—where the air, the land, the water, everything could be seen in common, and enjoyed in common—and we should be ready to meet you as brethren, and legislate with you as brethren. But so long as you keep up this pressure, these endless, ceaseless, ruthless assaults upon us, we must stand together for defence. In this position we must regard you as our enemies, and we are yours.

These, and other kindred expressions, were meanly suppressed, because it would not do to disclose the fact, that then, as now, I stood by the South, and with the South, in the defence of Southern interests, Southern rights, and Southern honor.

This bill of 1849, which I did not introduce, did not in any way support, and for which I never would have voted, except (as stated at the time) in company with the great body of southern members, and not then, unless certain constitutional impediments had been first removed—this bill only punished the overt act of selling or offering to sell, by the fine and imprisonment of the master or owner of the slave. The bill, as passed into a law, by the Compromisers, punishes the "purpose" or intention to sell by setting the slave free. It is the act of setting the slave at LIBERTY, because his master intends to sell him, that I complain of, as the special outrage inflicted by this Compromise.

These are the material points made against me in pamphlet number ONE. The positions against me in the second number are:

1st. That I voted, on two occasions, with certain Abolitionists in Congress—first, on the Utah bill, and next on the Texas boundary bill. For both of these votes I had good and sufficient reasons, and I have so often given them to the public that I deem it useless to repeat them at length. Let a very brief statement suffice. And first, as regards the Texas boundary bill. This bill, and that to give a territorial government to New Mexico, were included in one proposition. I could not, therefore, vote for, or against the one, without voting for or against the other. The Abolitionists desired to take from Texas about 80,000 square miles of the territory south of 36° 30′, and pay her nothing; I was not willing to give up one inch of territory south of that line, or pay anything if it was taken; and hence, for very different reasons, we were brought together in voting against a proposition to take forty-four thousand square miles of territory, and pay ten millions of dollars. And then, as regards Utah. This was the last of the territorial bills that came up for consideration, and for many reasons I did not think it a matter of much consequence. If justice had been done us in the other territories, I might have voted for this bill. Utah lies entirely above 36° 30′, and if our rights had been respected south of that line, I should not have contended against giving up the territory north of it. But if our rights were not acknowledged south of the line, I would not voluntarily abandon our claim north of it. As many Free-Soilers as felt willing to risk the Mexican law abolishing slavery in the territories voted for this Utah bill. Those who insisted upon the Wilmot proviso, in terms, voted against it. But since the bill has passed they are all satisfied, and they will remain so as long as the Mexican law has the EFFECT of excluding slavery, and whenever it fails in that effect, if it ever does, they will fall back upon the Wilmot proviso. These territories, Utah and New Mexico, were organized with the distinct understanding among all northern men, and with many southern men, that slavery was already excluded by the law of Mexico. And without this understanding, it is well known that northern senators and representatives would not have voted for these bills. I could not, and would not make myself a party to such an understanding, and for this, as well as for other reasons, I voted against these territorial bills.

Why was not this Mexican law repealed? I will show the reason; and I will show, moreover, that "A Union Man" acts the hypocrite when he charges it as a FAULT against me that I voted with the Abolitionists. Is not "A Union Man" the friend of General Foote?—and, if so, how does he excuse such votes as the following? Colonel Davis introduced an amendment, as follows, the design of which was to repeal the law of Mexico—abolishing slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico. Here is Davis's amendment:

"And that all laws and usages existing in said territory, at the date of its acquisition by the United States, which deny or obstruct the right of any citizen of the United States to remove to and reside in said territory with any species of property legally held in any of the states of this Union, be and are hereby declared null and void.”

The following is the vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee—22.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Pearce, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Upham, Wales, Walker, and Whitcomb—33.

It will be seen that twenty-two senators voted for this amendment—all of them from the South, and that thirty-three voted against itamong them CHASE, HALE, HAMLIN, SEWARD, and every other Free-Soiler and Abolitionist in the Senate, and it will be further seen that GENERAL FOOTE voted in the same list with these Free-Soilers and Abolitionists.

Nor is this all. On the 28th of August, 1850, Mr. Atchison moved to lay the bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia on the table. GENERAL FOOTE voted with Hale, Chase, Baldwin, and other Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, against laying it on the table.

And again, on the 10th of September, 1850, the question being on striking out the first section of this same bill, GENERAL FOOTE again voted with Chase, Hamlin, Seward, and other Free-Soilers, against striking it out. Here is the first section of the bill:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave whatever for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other state or place to be sold as merchandise. And if any slave shall be brought into said district by its owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall, thereupon, become LIBERATED AND FREE."

The following is the vote on the motion to strike out this section:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Berrien, Butler, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood, Yulee—18.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bright, Chase, Clay, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Ewing, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop—30.

It will be seen that all the ayes are from the South, and that "A Union Man's" favorite candidate for governor voted again with the Abolitionists.

My object in presenting these votes of General Foote, is not to criticise them, but to show the hypocrisy of "A Union Man," who holds up my votes, and invokes the condemnation of my constituents upon them, whilst he carefully avoids the like votes of his own favorite candidate. If it be a sin in me to have voted with Giddings and Tuck, is it any less a sin in Foote to have voted with SEWARD and HALE?

But to proceed to point No. 2. This pamphlet contains what purports to be extracts from my speeches, and in making them up to suit his purposes, "A Union Man" has been guilty of the grossest frauds. He not only suppresses material parts of my speeches, without which, he well knows, the other parts will not be understood, but he divides paragraphs, sticks the divided parts together, drops sentences, and leaves out whatever does not suit his purposes, and all with the intention, as he well knows, of misleading the public. In all my life, I have never seen truth so grossly perverted, or falsehood and slander more impudently suggested.

The intention of this writer is to show that I am a Disunionist. To this charge I give the LIE direct, and leave this masked calumniator to his farther proof. On this point I select, at random, the following paragraphs from my speeches, and ask an indulgent public why these things have been suppressed, if the intention of "A Union Man" was not fraudulent? If it was not his purpose to impose upon the public, why did he suppress the truth? From my speech on Preston's bill, February 10th, 1850, page 120, Appendix Congressional Globe:—

"Let it (the Union) fulfil the high purposes of its creation, and the people will preserve it at any and every sacrifice of blood and treasure, and nowhere will these sacrifices be more freely made than in the South."

"The Union of these states rests on a foundation solid and sacred, the affections of the people of all the states. Be careful how you tamper with that foundation, lest you destroy it, and thus destroy the UNION itself. Let the Union dispense equal and exact justice to all-special favors to none, and not one murmur of complaint will ever come up here from the patriotic sons of the sunny South.' We despise injustice of every kind. In the emphatic words of a distinguished chieftain, 'we ask no favors and shrink from no responsibility.”

Why did "A Union Man" pass over these and other like expressions in that speech?

"A Union Man" commences one of his extracts with the words, "Have we any reason to fear a dissolution of the Union?" and then has the meanness to suppress these words, which are next after them, in the same paragraph, and in actual connection with them: "Look at the question dispassionately, and answer to yourselves the important question, can anything be expected from the fears of the southern people?" Why were these words left out? Simply, because to have shown them would have been to show that I had but warned the North not to calculate on the cowardice of the southern people.

And again, in the same paragraph, these words are left out: "We have not been slow in manifesting our devotion to the Union. In all our national conflicts we have obeyed the dictates of duty, the behests of patriotism-our money has gone freely, the lives of our people have been freely given up, their blood has washed many a blot from the national escutcheon, we have loved the Union, and we love it yet, but not for this, nor a thousand such Unions, will we suffer DISHONOR at your hands."

And again, these words are extracted, "I tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as this," and with this "A Union Man" stops. Why did he not include the very next words, "Sooner than allow our SLAVES to become our MASTERS, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears dig for ourselves honorable graves." Why were the first words taken and the next left out? Because, if all had appeared, it would have been seen that it was bondage to our own slaves that I gave warning we would not submit to. It did not suit "A Union Man" to tell the truth, and so he LIED, by suppressing the truth.

Again, "A Union Man" extracts a part of a paragraph as follows:— "Whether the people will submit to this high-handed proceeding (the admission of California), I do not know; but for myself, I am for resistance," &c. Here I charge that this writer not only garbles my speech, but by inserting the words (the admission of California), he suggests a positive falsehood. These words were not used by me, do not appear in the printed copy of my speech, and were interlined by this writer for no other purpose than to suggest a falsehood. The "highhanded proceeding" alluded to by me, had no reference to the admission of California, but referred directly to the conduct of the President of the United States, as was stated at the time, in attempting "to make a new state without the aid of Congress, and in defiance of the Constitution." This was the "high-handed proceeding" which I pledged myself to "resist," and that pledge I have redeemed to the utmost of my ability. This whole speech will be found on page 258 to 261 Cong. Globe, 1850.

In addition to the above, I beg leave to submit, from the same speech, the following extracts. Why did "A Union Man" omit them?—

"Oh! gentlemen, pause, I beseech you, in this mad career. The South cannot, will not, dare not submit to your demands. The consequences to her are terrible beyond description. To you forbearance would be a virtue-virtue adorned with love, truth, justice, patriotism. To some men I can make no appeal, * * * but to sound men, just men, patriotic men, I do make an earnest appeal, that they array themselves on the side of the Constitution, and save the Union. Let those who desire to save the Constitution and the Union, come out from among the wicked, and array themselves on the side of justice-and here in this hall, erected by our fathers, and dedicated to liberty and law, we will make new vows, enter into new covenants to stand together and fight the demon of discord, until death shall summon us to another and a better world." * * * * *

"Before the first fatal step is taken, remember that we have interests involved which we cannot relinquish, rights which it were better to die with than live without. The direct pecuniary interest involved is twenty hundred millions of dollars, and yet the loss of this is the least of the calamities you are entailing upon us. Our country is to be made desolate, we are to be driven from our homes-the homes hallowed by all the sacred associations of families and friends, we are to be sent like a people accursed of God to wander through the land, homeless, houseless and friendless, or what is ten thousand times worse than this, than these, than all, remain in a country now prosperous and happy, and see ourselves, our wives and our children, degraded to a social position with the black race. These, these are the frightful, terrible consequences you would entail upon us. I TELL YOU, SIR, SOONER THAN SUBMIT, WE WOULD DISSOLVE A THOUSAND SUCH UNIONS AS THIS-Sooner than allow our slaves to become our masters, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears, dig for ourselves honorable graves."

Is there a southern heart that does not throb a fervent response to these sentiments? and is there an honest eye that does not detect the baseness which prompted "A Union Man," when he tore from this paragraph the single sentence: "I tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as this?" Did he not know that he was perpetrating a fraud? On the same page from which this extract is taken, the following may be found. Does any one suppose it escaped the eye of "A Union Man?"

“I repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution-reverencing the Union-holding in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and illustrious ancestors, there is no ordinary ill to which we would not bow sooner than dissolve the political association of these states. If there was any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves, and desolation to our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would say at once go to that point and give us peace." And again

"I warn gentlemen if they persist in their present course of policy, that the sin of disunion is on their heads, not ours. If a man assaults me, and I strike in self-defence, I am no violator of the public peace. If one attacks me with such fury as to jeopardize my life, and I slay him in the conflict, I am no murderer. If you attempt to force upon us sectional desolation, and-what to us is infinitely worse social degradation, we will resist you, and if in the conflict of resistance the Union is dissolved, we are not responsible. If any man charges me with harboring sentiments of disunion, he is greatly mistaken. If he says that I prefer disunion to sectional and social degradation, he does me no more than justice." * * *

"Do not mistake me; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories would of itself justify disunion. I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition of the slave trade among the states, would justify it. It may be, that not one, or two, nor all of these combined, would justify disunion. These are but initiatory steps, they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take these steps."

I might show many other extracts from this same speech, but surely these may suffice. To those who would know more about it, I would say, "Look to the Congressional Globe, of January 30th, 1850, page 257, and read the whole speech. The book may be found in the office of the Probate Clerk, where I caused it to be placed for your inspection."

If more shall be desired in refutation of the slander, that I sought dissolution of the Union, allow me to present an extract from my speech of August 8, 1850, page 1550 Cong. Globe. And here let me remark that when these speeches were made, no murmur of complaint was heard against them. Then they were patriotic enough; now they are rank treason, according to my enemies.

“There is one other matter to which I must advert. It is become quite too common of late, for certain political censors, in and out of Congress, to speak of southern men who demand justice for the South, as ultras; and if we persist in our demands, and can neither be bribed or brow-beaten into acquiescence with northern wrongs, the next step is to whistle us down the wind, as traitors and disunionists. It is not because I fear the effects of charges like these on the minds of my constituents, that I now speak. They have known me for many long years. I have served them here and elsewhere, and if there is any earthly power to persuade them that I am a disunionist, or a traitor to my country, I would scorn to receive office at their hands. I allude to charges like this, that I may hold them up to public scorn and reprobation. The miserable reptiles who ating the South, while they nestle in her bosom, are the authors of these base calumnies. Sooner or later they will be spurned as the veriest spaniels who ever crouched at the footstool of power."

So I spoke on the 8th of August, 1850, and so I say now. It is by such reptiles as this "Union Man," that the South is stung; and when the South learns to plant her foot upon them and crush them, she may look for justice, and not till then.

A speech made by me at "Ellwood Springs," in November, 1850, has been the subject of extensive misrepresentation and slander. “A UnionMan" could not of course speak the truth in regard to it.

He leaves out sentences, and puts others together to suit his own false purposes. For instance, he makes me say "this justice was denied us in the adjustment bills that passed Congress." "I am for resistance; I am for that sort of resistance which shall be effective and final." These two sentences are more than two entire pages apart in the speech as delivered by me, and have no relation to each other. The words "this justice was denied us in the adjustment bills which passed Congress," are immediately followed by the words, "But we are not to infer that the fault was either in the Union or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and if not wickedly diverted from its purposes, will secure us that domestic tranquillity which is our birthright. The Constitution is our shield and our buckler, and needs only to be fairly administered to dispense equal and exact justice to all parts of this great confederacy." Why were not the words extracted as they were spoken? Why put two sentences together taken from different pages, having no relation to one another, and leave out all that was said in connection with the one and with the other? Was there ever a more impudent attempt at fraud and imposition?

This writer says, I demanded justice for every state and for all sections, and that I added, "If the Union cannot yield to the demand, I am against the Union. If the Constitution does not secure it, I am against the Constitution." And he would, from his manner of stating what I said, leave the inference that I was against the Union and the Constitution, because they had not secured us justice. I said, in this precise connection, "We are not to infer that the fault is in the Union, or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and the Constitution is our shield and our buckler." But it did not suit the purposes of "A Union Man" to quote these words. He could not have seen the words that he did quote without seeing these also; they were, therefore, intentionally omitted.

It is asserted that I made certain demands of the federal government, and took the ground if these demands were not complied with, "all connection with the Northern States ought to be dissolved." The demands are not set forth, and the reader is left to infer that there was something monstrous and unreasonable in these demands. The truth is, that

I have demanded nothing, have proposed nothing, but what the southern friends of the compromise say we now have. All I ask is that they will join us in procuring from their northern friends, an acknowledg ment that their interpretation of the compromise is right. Here are the demands; is there anything unreasonable or unjust in them?—

"We should demand a restoration of the laws of Texas, in hæc verba, over the country which has been taken from her and added to New Mexico. In other words, we should demand the clear and undisputed right to carry our slave property to that country, and have it protected and secured to us after we get it there; and we should demand a continuation of this right and of this security and protection.

“We should demand the same right to go into all the territories with our slave property, that citizens of the free states have to go with any species of property, and we should demand for our property the same protection that is given to the property of our northern brethren. No more, nor less.

“We should demand that Congress abstain from all interference with slavery in territories, in the District of Columbia, in the states, on the high seas, or anywhere else, except to give it protection, and this protection should be the same that is given to other property.

“We should demand a continuation of the present fugitive slave law, or some other law which should be effective in carrying out the mandate of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves.

"We should demand that no state be denied admission into the Union, because her constitution tolerated slavery."

Is there anything asked for in all this which the friends of the compromise are not constantly insisting we now have? And yet the writer of this pamphlet falsely asserts that I have demanded a repeal of the compromise, and the substitution of other legislation in its place. No such thing is true. I have only asked that the friends of the compromise at the North should execute it as its southern friends say they understand it; and why shall southern men shrink from this demand if they are sincere in their declarations? They know perfectly well that their interpretation is repudiated by their northern allies, and therefore it is that they shrink from the test of making the demand.

Mississippi has declined making any demands, and of course my proposition falls to the ground. No one could suspect me of the extreme folly of urging these or any other demands, after the state had decided that she would do nothing.

I present these extracts from the Ellwood Springs speech:

"I have great confidence that the government may be brought back to its original purity. I have great confidence that the government will again be administered in subordination to the Constitution; that we shall be restored to our equal position in the confederacy, and that our rights will again be respected as they were from 1787 to 1819. This being done, I shall be satisfied-nothing short of this will satisfy me. I can never consent to take a subordinate position. By no act or word of mine shall the South ever be reduced to a state of dependence on the North. I will cling to the Union, and utter its praise with my last breath, but it must be a Union of equals; it must be a Union in which my state and my section is equal in rights to any other section or state. I will not consent that the South shall become the Ireland of this country. Better, far, that we dissolve our political connection with the North than live connected with her as her slaves or vassals. The fathers of the republic counselled us to live together in peace and concord, but those venerable sages and patriots never counselled us to surrender our equal position in the Union.

Let me say to you, in all sincerity, fellow-citizens, that I am no disunionist. If I know my own heart, I am more concerned about the means of preserving the Union, than I am about the means of destroying it. The danger is not that we shall dissolve the Union, by a bold and manly vindication of our rights; but rather that we shall, in abandoning our rights, abandon the Union also. So help me God, I believe the submissionists are the very worst enemies of the Union."

Why was all this passed over in silence?

I might show how, in many other instances, I have been treated with the same gross injustice which has marked those that I have now pointed out; but to pursue the subject farther would be tedious and unprofitable.

"There are my speeches, and there my votes, I stand by and defend them. You say for these my country will repudiate me. I demand a trial of the issue." This was my language in the first speech made by me after my return from Washington. I repeat it now. I said then, as I say now, that the charge laid against me that I was, or ever had been, for disunion or secession, was and is FALSE and SLANDEROUS.

I stand by my votes as they were given, and by my speeches as they were made. I am not responsible for speeches made for me by others; nor will I consent to be tried on the motives which my enemies charge to have influenced my votes. It is easy to publish garbled extracts

from any man's speeches, and it is quite as easy to attribute to any man bad motives for his votes. I am not to be tried, thanks to a free government, in a STAR CHAMBER, before perjured judges, but at the ballot box, by a free people.

I am not surprised to find myself assailed with malignity, and least of all does it surprise me that these assaults come from Natchez. I was never a favorite with certain men in that city, and if it should ever fall out that they speak well of me, I shall indeed wonder what great sin I have committed against republican institutions.

When I heard that a large sum of money had been subscribed by my enemies, and that my defeat was one of the great ends to be obtained by it, I conjectured that the old Federalists were on their walk, and that a plentiful shower of slander and defamation might be expected. I have not been disappointed. These attacks will, no doubt, be kept up until after the election, and many of them will, necessarily, go unanswered. I cannot be everywhere in person, and I have not the means of publishing and circulating documents against this regular combination, controlling, as it does, its thousands and its tens of thousands of dollars.

It ought to be borne in mind how easy it is to misconstrue and misrepresent the acts and speeches of a public man. Taking into account the length of time that I have been in the public service, it is rather a matter of surprise with me that my enemies have found so little to carp at. The circumstances under which I have spoken or acted are, of course, very conveniently forgotten, and nothing is remembered but such words or acts as may be turned to my disadvantage. These are eagerly seized upon by my enemies, and held up to public gaze; and if the public indignation fails to rise, they then torture my words, and give them forced constructions, so as to make me say what, indeed, I never thought of saying. No man ever yet spoke so explicitly as to escape the misconceptions of the weak, or the misconstructions of the corrupt and designing. Not even the inspired writers have escaped this common fate. The Atheist proves, to his own satisfaction at least, that there is no God, and, taking the Bible for his text, he undertakes to prove that the Bible is a fiction. Volney, Voltaire, and Tom Paine, have each made his assault upon the divinity of the Saviour; each has had his proselytes; and each based his argument upon the words of inspired writers. These things being true, what folly it is for an ordinary man to hope for escape from false interpretations, misconstructions and misrepresentations! I know my own meaning better than any other man, and after sixteen years of public service, during all of which time I never practised a fraud or deception upon the public, I confront my enemies, and tell them they SLANDER me, when they charge that I am now, or ever have been, the SECRET or OPEN advocate of disunion or secession.

I am no more a secessionist, because I think a state has a right to secede, than are my enemies revolutionists, because they maintain the right of revolution.

In days gone by, I denounced the United States Bank, the protective tariff, and other acts of the general government, without incurring the charge of being a disunionist. I opposed and denounced the compromise, but I did not thereby make myself a disunionist. I thought, in the beginning, that it inflicted a positive injury upon the South, and I think so now. This opinion is well settled, and is not likely to undergo any material change. I gave my advice freely, but never obtrusively, as to the course which I thought our state should pursue. That advice has not been taken. Mississippi has decided that submission to, or acquiescence in, the compromise measures, is her true policy. As a citizen, I bow to the judgment of my state. I wish her judgment had been otherwise; but from her decision I ask no appeal. Neither as a citizen nor as a representative, would I disturb or agitate this or any other question after it had been settled by the deliberate judgment of the people.

I never have, and I never will introduce the subject of slavery into Congress. When it has been introduced by others, I have defended the rights of my constituents, and, if re-elected, I will do so again.

In the approaching election, I ask the judgment of my constituents on my past course. I claim no exemption from the frailties common to all mankind. That I have erred is possible, but that the interests of my constituents have suffered from my neglect, or that I have intentionally done any act or said anything to dishonor them in the eyes of the world, or to bring discredit upon our common country, is not true. In all that I have said or done, my aim has been for the honor, the happiness, and the true glory of my state.

I opposed the compromise with all the power I possessed. I opposed the admission of California, the division of Texas, the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and I voted against the Utah bill. I need scarcely say that I voted for the Fugitive Slave bill, and aided, as far as I could, in its passage. I opposed the compromise.

I thought, with Mr. Clay, that "it gave almost everything to the North, and to the South nothing but her honor.'

I thought, with Mr. Webster, that the “South got what the North lost-and that was nothing at all.’

I thought, with Mr. Brooks, that the "North carried everything before her."

I thought, with Mr. Clemens, that "there was no equity to redeem the outrage.”

I thought, with Mr. Downs, that "it was no compromise at all." I thought, with Mr. Freeman, that "the North got the oyster and we got the shell."

I thought, at the last, what General Foote thought, at the first, that "it contained none of the features of a genuine compromise."

And finally, and lastly, I voted against it, and spoke against it, BECAUSE it unsettled the balance of power between the two sections of the Union, inflicted an injury upon the South, and struck a blow at that political equality of the states and of the people, on which the Union is founded, and without a maintenance of which the Union cannot be preserved.

I spoke against it, and voted against it, in all its forms. I was against it as an Omnibus, and I was against it in its details. I fought it through from Alpha to Omega, and I would do so again. I denounced it before the people, and down to the last hour I continued to oppose it. The people have decided that the state shall acquiesce, and with me that decision is final. I struggled for what I thought was the true interest and honor of my constituents, and if for this they think me

worthy of condemnation, I am ready for the sacrifice. For opposing the compromise, I have no apologies or excuses to offer; I did that which my conscience told me was right, and the only regret I feel is that my opposition was not more availing.

A. G. BROWN.

GALLATIN, September 15, 1851.

NOTE.—As the district will, no doubt, be flooded with all manner of publications, and traversed by all sorts of speakers, I must again remind my friends that the Congressional Globe, containing a perfect record of all my votes, speeches, motions and resolutions, may be found in the clerk's offices of each county. It was placed there by me for inspection, and by it, as the official record, I am willing to be tried. When my enemies are found peddling newspapers and pamphlets, without names, giving accounts of my actings and sayings, I hope my friends will appeal to this record, and insist that I shall be tried by that, and not by the statements of my enemies.  A. G. B.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 233-46